COLUMN
Sewing strips
of plaited straw together by
machine to form hats – Luton, England (1878)
Luton
Strawopolis of Europe
by Clair Hughes
Straw hats have always been part of the working wardrobe of the countryside, but they have also always been fashion items. Tuscany traditionally dominated the European straw hat market, but at the end of the 19th century it was overtaken by Luton, then an unremarkable English Midland town. 18th-century Luton was dismissed as “a long dirty market town”, and in the 19th century as a collection of “ill-ventilated houses”. But by 1880, 60% of French straw hats came from the UK and by 1890 it seemed the whole world was wearing straw boaters – probably made in Luton. Why Luton? Luton’s importance is often
Clair Hughes is an independent scholar. She previously held the position of Professor of English and American Literature at the International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan. She is the author of Hats (2017), Dressed in Fiction (2005) and Henry James and the Art of Dress (2001)
explained by its location in wheat- producing country, close to London. But communications were actually poor, and Luton’s wheat straw insufficient. Its fortunes stemmed from the availability of land, for there were no property- hungry upper classes in its region of Bedfordshire, and no building controls. During the agricultural depression of 1800, workers moved to Luton, where land could be bought cheaply, to set up home-based businesses making plait. Men blocked the hats; women and children plaited and sewed. Straw plait, whole or part hats were then sold on to manufacturers or retailers. Imported Tuscan straw supplemented local product and when the Napoleonic Wars cut off supplies, Luton benefited from French braiders in local prisoner-of-war camps to refine their skills. Production improved and when imports resumed after 1815, business boomed. Most businesses were family-
based, and Luton’s homes doubled as workshops. Only rear extensions (now garden sheds) betrayed a building’s other life. The town by 1850 was characterised by a few medium-sized manufacturers and a messy collection of small, independent units – “a complete nest of freeholders”, said The Bedfordshire Times.
22 | the hat magazine #93
Individualism also typified Luton’s workforce. Young women crowded into Luton in the hat-making months to earn as much and as quickly as possible. They were mainly bonnet sewers who, with a short season, ignored protective legislation which stipulated shorter hours: they refused to start early but insisted on working late. Factory inspectors concluded that “the habits of the people are peculiar”, and gave up. When mechanisation arrived, these spirited women became well-paid machinists, even factory owners. Luton, they said, was “a town where the women kept the men”. Still unpretentious, late 19th-century
Luton embodied the values of a profit-bent petite bourgeoisie, resistant to outside authority. Culturally and politically non- conformist, Luton had no guilds or unions. However, with the boater’s meteoric rise onto the international fashion scene, a Chamber of Commerce was created and Luton became a recognised centre of hat making. With mechanisation factories grew, but because machines were cheaply hired or shared, independent units still flourished. Boaters and plain straws were sent home and abroad, packed closely in boxes. When millinery ornament became important, design schools were considered but then rejected: a ribbon and bow was thought quite sufficient; more required costly packaging. Fashion can be an agent of democratic
revolution and Luton’s hats expressed its libertarian, non-conformist spirit. The jaunty boater was worn by all ages, sexes, classes and nations, and sold at all prices. Luton’s hats were worn by bank clerks, bishops, Princess Alexandra, feminists, schoolboys and holidaymakers. It destroyed an age-old symbol of social rank, but it was also chic: a hat historian of 1941 spoke of Luton in the same breath as Paris and New York. Luton’s hat-heyday may be over now, but its time as Europe’s ‘Strawopolis’ should not be forgotten.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
