Mrs Davis was a shirt maker operating in Houndsditch on the edge of the City of London. She lived in Gun Square and made shirts for a shopkeeper (Mr Cook) who had a premises on the corner of St Paul’s Churchyard close by Wren’s masterpiece. Mrs Davis took delivery of materials from Mr Cook’s warehouse and gave him back ‘fine shirts’ for which she was usually paid half a crown (2s 6d) each.
In order to make the number of shirts Mr Cook required Mrs Davis farmed out some of the work to others, including Elizabeth Harding a girl of 19. She paid Elizabeth 6d for an evening’s work which she thought was enough time to make one shirt. So she was pocketing 2s for herself for each item Elizabeth made for her, not a great deal for the younger woman.
In November 1843 Mrs Davis discovered that Elizabeth had completed one of the eight shirts she’d given her but had pawned; the others were so incomplete that she had to pay someone else 3s to finish them. When she took the seven shirts to the warehouse the foreman refused to take them as he was expecting the contracted eight. Not only that but he then demanded she pay him 16s for the raw materials that Mr Cook had supplied.
Mrs Davis was out of pocket and extremely angry with Elizabeth, so took her before the magistrate at Guildhall to complain. Elizabeth Harding was charged with the theft of a shirt (the one she had pawned) and Alderman Farebrother was told the whole sorry story.
He wasn’t particularly sympathetic to Mrs Davis. He could see why a girl who was paid just sixpence a day was ‘sometimes tempted to do wrong’. His wider point is still relevant today when we look around the world at the sweatshops that produce fashion for British highstreet for a fraction of the amount that the shops charge the customer. Mr Farebrother declared that:
‘he wished that those that who were fond of buying those very cheap articles were obliged to make them at the price’.
Mrs Davis listened to the fine gentleman’s words with a stony expression on her face. She retorted that
‘she fared no better than her assistants, for she was a widow, with children dependent on her. She had sometimes to make shirts at 3d each, and even at 2d.’
It was not unknown for the price to fall even lower than that, she added.
In the end the alderman referred the case to the Lord Mayor (the City’s chief magistrate) and remanded her so that questions could be asked at the pawnbrokers where she allegedly took the missing shirt. That was an offence and if she was found guilty she might expect a term of imprisonment.
[from The Morning Post, Monday, November 06, 1843]