In the 1960's academic attention became increasingly focused, in many cases of necessity, on the forms taken by student protest and, possibly in conjunction with this, there appeared almost simultaneously a corresponding upsurge of interest in the history of organized international youth movements, many of them with their origins in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Such a development in historiography would seem to contradict the statement once made by an English youth leader, Leslie Paul, that “because the apologetics of youth movements are callow, their arguments crude, and their practices puerile, they are dismissed or ignored by scholars.”

On May 1, 1906, the Confédération Générate du Travail (CGT), the national organization of French revolutionary syndicalism, demanded that the French government reduce the legal work day for industrial workers to eight hours. The CGT would back this request with force, and it called upon all workers to strike by May 2. The response was overwhelming; work-stoppage was widespread, and it appeared that government and industry would have to yield. By May 2, over 200,000 workers had walked off the job. The number of establishments affected was impressive. 295 strikes which called specifically for a work-day reduction involved 12,585 firms, a high figure compared to previous years. (Strikes for a ten-, nine-, or eight-hour work day were a part of the CGT's eight hour day movement.) For instance, only 14% of the strikes in 1904 and 16% in 1905 aimed primarily at a work-day reduction compared to 64% in 1906. Also, in 1905, there were only a total of 830 strikes affecting 177,666 workers and 5,302 establishments, while in 1904, 271,097 workers participated in 1,026 strikes involving 17,250 establishments. By comparison, the total number of firms struck in 1906 was 19,637 and involved 438,466 workers in 1,309 strikes. The Ministry of Labor conceded that the increased number had resulted from the CGT's eight-hour day movement.

An examination of the history of profit-sharing and co-partnership in England in the nineteenth century serves two purposes. One is to add to the growing body of evidence which contradicts the generalization that in the third quarter of the nineteenth century trade unionists were beginning to espouse the capitalist ethic; the other aim of this paper is to draw attention to one of three innovations in the history of labour relations in this period. Of these, both arbitration and conciliation, and cooperation have received considerable attention from historians, but profit-sharing and labour co-partnership schemes, which were forcefully canvassed by such prominent contemporary figures as G. J. Holyoake, respected veteran chartist, and George Potter, the influential labour leader, have not attracted the attention they deserve. The Royal Commission on Trade Unions in 1868 was chiefly concerned with the legal status of trade unions, yet in addition to their discussion of arbitration and conciliation the commissioners took evidence on the progress and achievements of profit-sharing and co-partnership. This reflected the existence of considerable interest in this subject at that time, which in turn provides evidence of the search by contemporaries for a solution to the growing problem of conflict between capital and labour, a matter which generated an extensive literature in the 1860s. The historical failure of profit-sharing, in terms of its limited growth and its lack of success as a method of improving labour relations, even compared with the progress of arbitration and conciliation, does not excuse the historian from neglecting a subject about which a number of influential contemporaries evidently felt strongly – though as it subsequently proved with excessive optimism. This article sets out to describe briefly the origins of the profit-sharing movement of the nineteenth century, proceeds to analyse the course of development, and finally examines its significance within the context of labour relations in England in the period 1850 to 1914.

The topic of this paper might at first glance appear to lack interest. In fact, however, it is for many reasons of real significance. The men who brought about the set of achievements, to be discussed, and its migration, respectively, played roles on the stages of history, science, and business; and a whole bundle of social and economic problems was solved by a concatenation of measures. Last but not least, we can study here almost step by step a case of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century institutional migration.

In the decade since the publication of Chartist Studies there have been published a considerable number of studies of Chartism in different towns and regions of the country. These have been of great use in the correction of generalization in our knowledge of the subject; in assessing the type of support for Chartism and the regional strength of that support; in showing the local factors which caused people to join the movement and assessing the relative importance of economic and political motives; and many other aspects which have deepened our knowledge. In this flow of studies the north east has been neglected, situated as it is between the importance of Chartism in Lancashire and Yorkshire (in Chartist literature invariably referred to as the north) and the equally interesting moderation of Scottish Chartism. As a result there has been only one article on Chartism in the region, by W. H. Maehl, which, although it contains much useful information on 1839, tends to exaggerate the significance of Chartism in the area and the extent to which the pitmen were active in the movement. This article is an attempt to look at further evidence in order to draw some new conclusions with regard to Chartism in the area.

Though in recent years there has been a growth of interest in the subject of riot and disorder in eighteenth century England, little attention has been paid to anti-recruiting riots. These were, however, one of the most common forms of riot and disturbance in some areas; and in this study of the London riots of 1794 I hope to illustrate some of their features, particularly in the London context.