THE BATTLE OF THE BREEKS
The Tailor and Cutting Academy
At JOHN WILLIAMSON CO. LTD. 42, GERRARD STREET, LONDON, W
Background:
In 1888 (or thereabouts) John Williamson Company published a book “The Great National Work On Trouser Cutting, Or Defects In Trousers, And Their Cure. Containing Also A System And Its Adaptations. Being The First prize Essay In A Competition Open To All Members Of The National Federation Of Foremen Tailors.”
The following quote is from the 28 Sep 1893 edition of the Tailor & Cutter in an article titled “The Federation Trousers”
“…The First Prize of £10 offered by the Federation for the best Essay on defects and remedies in trousers cutting was awarded to our Mr. Vincent, his Essay having the nom de plume ” Oxonian.”. The Essay embraced a system with all the adaptations for different kinds of figures together with remedies for every known defect, and has frequently been pronounced the best work on trousers cutting published. This Essay was written before Mr. Vincent became teacher at our Academy. The system as now taught is based on this, and to the success of which in practice all our students would willing testify.”
“GREAT NATIONAL Work on Trouser Cutting THEIR DEFECTS AND CURE. This work is thoroughly practical, and deals with every phase of Trouser Cutting, together with a reliable system, with its adaptations to all requirements and all styles, as well as giving the cause and cure of 47 defects in trousers, hints on making, &c., illustrated by 70 diagrams. Bound in Cloth 9/-, Paper Covers, 7/8. Post free 9/3 and 7/9.”
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a copy of this available anywhere online, although an original copy was found to be available at an online bookshop for £225 (plus shipping) – far beyond this authors budget and somewhat greater than the original price of 7 shillings and sixpence (37p)!
Now we move forward to 1909, WDF is now the editor of the Tailor and Cutter and an important person at the school. He was tee-total and keen to ensure that students on the courses at the Tailor and Cutter School were provided with evening diversions to keep them away from going out and drinking. Courses could run from one-week to 12 or more, so keeping the students occupied must have taken some effort from the academy staff.
On the basis of his success in the trouser essay, it is a good assumption that Mr Vincent could be considered as THE authority on Trousers at the Tailor and Cutter at that time. You should perhaps bear this in mind when reading the following:
from the Tailor & Cutter – Thursday 11 March 1909 pp.183 to P189
THE TAILOR AND CUTTER.
GERRARD STREET PARLIAMENT.
THE BATTLE OF THE BREEKS.
News of the fact that the debate which was originally intended for the interest and instruction of our students in session was also open to the trade, brought a large muster of interested parties from all quarters to the “Tailor and Cutter” Office, on Friday evening, February 27th. Representatives were present from the West-End and the City, the Provinces and the Colonies, so that the company was a thoroughly representative one, and the hall was consequently crowded.
Mr J. Bancroft made an excellent speaker, and conducted the meeting with admirable tact.
The House being duly constituted, a number of questions were asked of an educational character, calculated to open up the subject, and so clear the way for the reading of the Bill.
The answering of these questions was entrusted to various members, who discharged these duties well. Of these questions we give the two following examples:
Seeing that the word “men” has been held in law to be a term which includes the female sex, is it intended to enforce this Act to the members of one sex only, or to both?
It is not intended in this measure where the “men” is used that it shall mean men as embracing the female sex.
Will the Sartorial Secretary of State for Scotland give us some information on the economic aspect of the kilt?
To this Mr. Chisholm had prepared the following reply. which was read by Mr. H. E. Norris, of the Royal Army Cutting School:
The kilt is considered one of the most economical of garments, and one of a good quality has been known to serve several generations of the same clan, and afterwards to be made into several juvenile sizes. The kilt has never been known to bag at the knees or been too tight in the fork, and the seat never needs patching nor the knees mending. It is healthy in the highest degree, and allows a free circulation around the body. Formerly it was worn by the whole of the Highland clansmen, but at present is confined to Highland regiments, to Royalty and others who visit Scotland, and Highland gentlemen who stalk the red deer and hunt the wild haggis. The last named animal, when killed and properly cooked, is one of the national dishes. The head is preserved to adorn the sporran, worn in front of the kilt; the skin is retained – to be an essential part of the bag-pipes; while the other part of the animal is consumed at their national feasts.
The questions having been disposed of, the Speaker rose and said:
Gentlemen.—Although we have formed ourselves into a “House,” the Parliamentary mode of procedure will not be rigorously followed. The object of the debate which is now to be opened is to interest you in the history, the philosophy, the utility and the artistic qualities relatively of Trousers v. Breeches, Knickers and Kilts; and I have good reason to believe the debate will be both pleasant and profitable.
I have now much pleasure in calling on the Sartorial Secretary of State to introduce the Bill for the Abolition of Trousers.
Mr. Vincent, on rising, was received with applause. He was dressed in unofficial Court dress of black velvet, with knee breeches, silk stockings, and buckle shoes.
He said :
Mr. Speaker.—Sir, it is my pleasing duty to invite the attention of the honourable members of this House to the terms of the following Bill, which has for its object the abolition of trousers, and is as follows:
ABOLITION OF TROUSERS ACT, 9, ED. 7; Ch. 000.
WHEREAS Trousers have become inartistic, unhygienic, uncomfortable, and in divers ways unsuitable as a garment to be worn by men, they should be abolished.
BE IT ENACTED, by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Whoever shall wear, or knowingly have in his possession, or make or manufacture Trousers, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with, or without hard labour.
2. Adult males shall wear, instead of Trousers, Knee Breeches, Knickerbockers, Kilts, or some other form of dress, to be approved of by the Sartorial Secretary of State and whoever shall wear, or knowingly have in his possession, or make or manufacture, any garment to be worn by men as an outer covering for their legs, other than those set out is this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to .be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour.
For the purpose of this Bill, Trousers shall be understood to mean a garment extending from the waist to the ankles, covering each leg separately, and fitting loosely.
Breeches, as a garment extending from the waist to just below the knee, and fitting the knee closely.
3. The Act shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1909.
4. This Act may be known as the Abolition of Trousers Act, 1909.
Sir as you are aware there are already Acts of this House in operation for the regulation of dress, and in the 14th and 15th centuries there were many more in operation, so that I have ample precedent for introducing this Bill for the abolition of a form of dress which has long since proved itself detrimental to the highest interests of the community
The national history of trousers is a very instructive one, for it shows us that those races which have adopted this style of leg covering have always been either the ruder barbarians, or those classes which have been in subjection, such as the slaves, and the women of the east
The carving on the stone monuments in the British Museum and elsewhere revealed Persian cupbearers of 1000 B.C. attired in garments almost identical with modern trousers. In the Museum of Pompeii there is a figure, found midst the ruins, encased in similar garments
Planche1, the great historian of costumes, tells us: “The nations of the ancient world might fairly be divided into two great groups or classes – the trousered and the untrousered. Amongst the latter were the Greeks and Romans, who derived their origin from the bare legged Egyptians; while two great branches of the Scythic, or Northern Asiatic family, which had overrun and colonised the South of Britain long previous to the Roman invasion, wore the distinguishing trousers.”
Of the Belgic Gauls, Diodorus says “they wore trousers.” In short there is abundant proof existing to show that trousers have been worn by certain classes as far back as any kind of history carries us; but my point is that in every case there have been worn by the ruder and rougher types of people.
The old Romans, to whom we owe so many of our laws, spurned the wearing of trousers for were they not the garb of the slave?
The Greeks, whose arts and culture have never been surpassed, abhored coverings which hid the beauty of the nether limb, and impeded the progress of the wearer; even the ancient Egyptians shunned them as being garments quite unfitted for men; and, sir, I hold that the past judgement of these most clever and most cultural races is worthy of our most careful consideration, especially when it is backed by 18 out of 19 centuries of the Christian era.
It is not however, merely or mainly on the judgement and practise of the sages of the past that I wish to base my arguments for the passing of this Bill, but rather on their unhygienic qualities, their total destruction of all beauty of outlines is the lower limbs, and their inability to impart comfort to the wearer, and their general failing to supply the requirements of men in all walks of life
From the standpoint of health I wish to point out how readily trouser legs collect the moisture in wet weather, when they cling round the legs like a wet rag; whilst, if they are turned up after the manner in which is so common today, they offer a haven of refuge all kinds of filth, so that a single pair of trousers has been known to conceal in the folds of the bottom millions of malignant microbes of doubtful design.
The trailing skirts of ladies have long been denounced, but, as bad as they are, they cannot be compared with the cup-like trouser bottoms which gather and hide the filth and refuse of street and alley to an unlimited extent. So that there is not only a grave danger of rheumatism from the damp, but of tetanus or lockjaw should the microbe of this disease, which lives in the earth find its way into the blood by the agency of the trouser bottom. Further, the trouser leg is drafty and cold, and at the same time drags itself into hideous contortions with every movement of the leg.
As practical cutters you know that when the body is bent there is an increase of 5 inches in the length of the leg over the seat, and when the knee is bent there is an increase of 2 inches over the knee. Now there is nothing in trousers to provide for this, and it is a case of drag, drag, drag, the bottoms rising and falling with each step. Now this is inherent in the trouser, whereas the kilt is delightfully free from it, and breeches, by fitting closely at the small, lodges the necessary room just where it is required, thus greatly facilitating the ability for athletic exercise.
This leads me up to my second point, vis., the excessive ugliness the lower portion of the legs of trousers as seen on the average wearer; and for this purpose I will not ask you to look at your own garments, for that might, perhaps, be too painful; but let us take a few examples which I have gathered from recent portraits of eminent men.
First of all I ask you to contrast the elephantine proportions of the trousers shown on His Majesty the King’s legs, and the graceful outline of his lower limbs as they are displayed in Highland dress. Now, if the First Gentleman in Europe shows to such disadvantage in trousers, how will it fare with these those who are less favoured? Let us therefore continue our study of the nether garments of celebrities, and we find distinctions suggestive of concertinas, corkscrews, buckled tubes and twists that defy description. Gentlemen these garments are not [text here is unreadable]; they rather represent the class of trouserdom, and show how incapable this garment is of doing this tailor’s skill justice.
We must not imagine that our customers do not realise how essentially ugly these garments are, for where can you find a modern man willing to hand down to posterity the picture of his nether limbs attired in trousers in a full-length portrait. No! sir, the trouser has killed the full-length portrait and artists have a just cause for complaint.
My next point is the non-utilitarian nature of trousers as proved in the arena sports and conflict.
From this point of view trousers have no chance. What great achievement in the field of sport, may I ask, has ever been accomplished in trousers? Your Marathon runners discard them; your cyclist will have none of them; your jockeys and polo players pronounce emphaticly in favour of breeches. Golf players and pedestrians, fishermen and sportsmen, all don the shorter garment; and whilst it is true they are worn for cricket and tennis, yet even there they are not a success for in the former case the batsman has to protect his legs with shin-guards and tennis is acknowledged to be most effeminate of English sports. The fact is, trousers are best at home in an invalid’s brougham or bath-chair. They require more namby-pamby attention than all the other garments put together; what with trouser pressers and trousers stretchers vieing with bed mattresses for doubtful privilege of creasing them. The are afflicted with an irremediable disease, known as “baggy knees” whilst there are also liable to horseshoe folds, twisted seams, and many other defects which I have no doubt you know too well, and are too numerous to mention.
Sir, we want to develop a race of sturdy Englishman, a race worthy of being expressed examples heroism and intellect in the past; and this is impossible when the men of the present are constantly trying to hide the most awful monstrosities at their lower termination, or when they are fussing with their trousers to coddle them into shape.
Let us, then, declare in favour of kilts, knickerbockers and breeches for the British. We shall then find men ready for deeds of valour and inspired with the intellect.
IN THE ARMY
Whenever, an army has been put in the field in modern times it has being found necessary to abolish trousers. The familiar breeches and parties of the Transvaal War will be still fresh in your memory. The heroism of the wearers, of the kilts at Waterloo, when the last charge was made which gained the victory on that fateful day, will be known to you all.
The inferiority of trousers was shown at the heights of Inkerman, and Balaclava, and the terrible disasters of the Indian Mutiny were only relieved by the coming of the Campbells in their well-known Scottish Uniform.
The fact is, gentlemen, trousers have been proved wanting both in the field and on the march, and are only retained to-day for the parade ground, because they flatter the present fashion in men’s attire.
IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE
When we think of the great discoveries of science, such as Franklin and Watts, the men who harnessed the lightning and enslaved the steam giant, and made it to carry us as on a magic carpet, wherever we wished to go, we have to acknowledge they were men who wore breeches. When we think of the marvellous discoveries of the laws of gravitation, which enables us to weigh the sun and the stars in a balance, we have to include men such as Sir Isaac Newton amongst breeches wearers. When we ask who was the discoverer of the power loom and the steam engine, with all they have meant to humanity, we again have to admit they were wearers of breeches. The discoverers of the circulation of the blood, and of the practical application of coal gas for lighting, were both breeches wearers. In short, there is scarcely an invention or discovery, from the modern steamboat to wireless telegraphy, that we own and utilise to-day, but what it owes its inception to those that wore breeches.
If we go to the world of literature we find the greatest geniuses of England have worn breeches. Where shall we look, may I ask, for the equal of Milton’s poetry? Where can be found writings to compare with those of William Shakespeare? Bacon’s philosophical essays are universally acknowledged as the works of a master mind; whilst these and many others, such as Ben Johnson, Sir Thomas More, Edmund Spenser, and Sir Phillip Sydney, all crowd the ranks of breeches wearers.
In the world of art the old masters stand out as the finest exponents of the brush; and what they practised the modern exponents advocate. Artists as a body have invariably shown their contempt for trousers, and in their own wear, as well as on their pictures, they have ever tried to illustrate the superior claims of breeches and kilts; and has not Ruskin told us that “beauty in portrait painting is only possible when the dress of the period lends itself to such productions”?
THE NAVY
It is true, the Navy of to-day wear trousers, but they are of such special shape that they can be turned up round the legs, so as to transform them into breeches or knickers; and it has to be borne in minds that all the great naval achievements of England of which, we may be proud, were accomplished in breeches. At the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson and his officers were all wearing breeches. The Spanish Armada were defeated by Drake, Hawkins and Frobisher, who wore breeches. The discoveries of Raleigh, Cook, and Columbus were made by the wearers of breeches; and, it was not till the 19th century that trousers were substituted for breeches in the Navy, since when its most remarkable achievements have been ramming our own ships or bombarding helpless towns or forts2.
Now whilst I do not assert this is cause and effect yet we all know how difficult it is to think how difficult problems under irritating conditions such as for instance the wearing of trousers and so there may be more in this than appears at first glance in the Church of dignitaries never appear in trousers, Bishops and deans, archdeacons and archbishops alike wear breeches; and I have even read of Nonconformists in the past who have looked upon the wearing of trousers a deadly sin.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish to call attention to the influence of these garments on character.
Happily we have abundant evidence that the present revival of trousers is due to the sansculottic movement which was started at the French Revolution 3, when the rule of the rabble became paramount. As you know, sir, ”sans culotte” is the French term for without breeches and when the French National Assembly decided to inaugurate a trousers era under the title of canscullottism they were but doing their best to deprive the aristocrats of the privilege they had exclusively enjoyed for centuries and giving them to the revolutionaries who had for so many centuries been oppressed. In this way the French nation was levelled down to the trouser level of what we should now call the “hunger marchers”.
Sir, I think the world has seen enough of the levelling-down process. Is it not time we proceeded to level up! To-day the proletariat enjoys many privileges; why, then, should they not don the garment of rule?
For centuries the britches wearers have been the rulers of the world, and if the country is no longer to be ruled by the Upper House let democracy don the garments which hitherto have been the garb of the few and so enter into the privileges they enjoy.
Sir and Gentlemen, I now ask you to consider this bill in the highest interests of this great nation; and as I have shown you not only that trousers are unhealthy, ugly uncomfortable, but that breeches and kilts combine in the highest degree both the practical and the artistic, the philosophic and the political elements of success, you will call this measure your most hearty support.
Mr Vincent then resumed his seat amidst prolonged applause.
[PICTURE: The Gerrard Street Parliament in Session. Mr Vincent contrasts the baggy knees of Trousers with Kilts and Pantaloons(NOT INCLUDED HERE AS COPY JUST SHOWS BLACK)]
THE CASE FOR TROUSERS
Mr G. C. Boroughs, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said he could not hope either to emulate or initiate the impassioned periods of his Right Hon. Friend; but he had hesitation, and he felt no diffidence in rising to propose the throwing out of such a preposterous measure. Trousers had been described as having become “inartistic, unhygienic, uncomfortable, and in divers ways unsuitable to be worn by men.” They were dirty, draughty microbe traps, and a horrible vision was conjured up of myriads of bacteria being harboured in the inch or so, which it is the fashion of the present day to turn upwards over the boot-top. That would seem to give an added value to trouser bottoms. An effective microbe trap is one of the things wanted, and if these mischievous organisms can be caught by the million in such a way, well, so much the better for trousers. Besides a clothes brush is not such a very expensive article. But to deal with trousers from the health point of view, it was only necessary to point out that the last century—which was admittedly the trousered century—was the one in which greater strides had been made in the reduction of disease, and the actual decrease of the death rate than any previous period. It has, indeed, been the proud boast of the trousered century that disease and death have been fought more successfully than ever before. (Cheers.)
INSPIRATION.
Then we are told, the speaker continued, that the trouser is the garment of the slave, the garb of inferiority. That the dominating classes have never been the trousered classes. I deny that in toto. When Julius Cesar invaded Britain and tried to conquer it, he described the Britons as a trousered race. His soldiers wore kilts—of a kind. What has become of the once mighty Roman Empire? How does it stand to-day as compared with the Empire of the trousered Britons?
But a further claim is made. That is, that all the illustrious men of the past, wore breeches. Shakespeare wrote his plays, and Bobbie Burns4 composed his poems in breeches. That may be true to an extent; but I am not prepared to admit even this as a charge against trousers. Anyhow, if Bobby Burns did his best work in breeches it must not be forgotten that he sang
“A man’s a man for a’ that.”
And there have been a few eminent men whose fame has been, in a sense, associated with their trousers. Byron we know, loved them because they hid his club foot, and a photographic reproduction of those worn by Mr Bernard Shaw will be found amongst the examples placed before the House to-night. But, surely, sir, this contention that all the great men of past wore breeches is, on the face of it, ludicrous. Is it to be contended that these illustrious gentlemen derived their inspiration from their breeches? That would seem, to be the claim of the mover of this measure, and it reminds one of the old story of the man who went to Stratford-on-Avon, and sat for a second in Shakespeare’s chair because he wanted to become a great poet. (laughter.)
We are told, further, that breeches or knickers, or some similar form of leg-wear is the mark of distinction in the Court, the camp, and the arena; and my Right Hon. friend wound up his oration by an eloquent apostrophe to Lord Nelson’s statue, emphasizing the fact that the hero of Trafalgar is a graven image illustrating the artistic beauty, the comfort and utilitarianism of breeches.
THE DRESS OF DISTINCTION.
Breeches, it may be admitted, are a special form of dress adopted for certain special ceremonial functions. The King, it is true, wears breeches on some occasions, and sometimes he wears kilts; but like other people who have to so attire themselves, he takes the earliest opportunity of donning trousers, which, after all, are the leg covering of the English gentleman. Court dress is merely a uniform—a kind of livery which certain people for certain functions are bound to put on. They are wise in their generation. They don’t wear it any longer than they have to.
As to the camp, I don’t think there is any necessity for me to labour the point that at least 75 per cent. of our soldiers of the past hundred years have worn trousers—and as to the sailors—well, our Jack Tars have “hoisted their slacks” during a longer period still. Fancy asking “Jack” to “hoist his slacks” if they were fastened with a band or three or four buttons round the knee. Trousers in warfare! why I believe it is on record that the beginning of the popularity of trousers arose from the conquering march of Napoleon’s trousered legions through the Continental countries a hundred years ago. Nelson wore breeches! Yes, but most of the men to whom he gave his famous signal, were trousered, as also were most, of Wellington’s heroic troops at Waterloo, while as for Wellington himself, was he not the very pioneer of the modern trousers movement.
Nelson sir, is usually depicted with an empty sleeve. He lost an eye and an arm in the achievement of his great victories. Suppose he had lost a leg as well, and were stuck up there on the top of that column, with not even the half of a pair of trousers to conceal the loss of his lower limb. (Laughter.)
That, sir, brings me back to the artistic question. We cannot all be Apollos with symmetrical calves, and shapely shins. Some of us, unfortunately, have legs of the knock-kneed type—suggesting the letter X. Some of us may be bandy, gouty, or spindle-shanked. Some of us may even be short of a leg, except for the artificial substitute which modern surgery supplies.
I maintain, sir, that trousers conceal, or, at any rate, minimise these defects in our physical fitness, whereas without trousers – well, what would the majority look like?
TROUSERS AND SPORT.
And then, sir, if trousers are draughty, what about kilts. Fancy Wilbur Wright aeroplaning in kilts. They are certainly not suitable for sky-wear, nor I venture to think, for general wear. For boys, girls, and soldiers, the Highland style of dress is certainly picturesque, but the cap, the shawl and the doublet have more to do with it than the kilt, which is, after all, nothing more than a quilted (for quilted and kilted are synonymous words) petticoat, and is consequently a stamp of effeminacy. Kilts may be ruled out for the purposes of this debate, and it is between breeches and trousers that the battle has to be fought out. As to breeches being the legwear of the arena, I join issue again. For sport, who can possibly from any point of view, compare the garb of the football player with the dress of the cricketer, the badminton or tennis player, or the yachtsman. “-The flannelled fool at the wicket” is certainly a more artistic and better clad figure than the “muddied oaf at the goal,” and it is the leg covering, the trousers, that give him the superiority. Cricket and tennis, we are told, are effeminate. I wonder what W. G. Grace, or Eustace Miles will think of that allegation. I wonder, also, what the champion footballers, what other athletes such as Shrubb and Dorando will think if this edict goes forth, and they are compelled to pass their lives in the vaunted costume of the arena. (Cheers).
But let us take the wider view. It is claimed that breeches give distinction to the wearer. They have been worn by many great men—yes, and by many lackeys, and also by many convicts. The broad arrow pattern may make them picturesque; but I don’t think there is any hankering after that class of attire. (Laughter). As to picturesqueness, there need be no difficulty on that score. If English gentlemen desire to wear trousers on the lines of those of the North American Indian, the Mexican cowboy, or the Hungarian bandsman, I have no doubt the English tailor will be equal to the occasion. Indeed, it is a serious impeachment, if not an actual libel upon the tailors’ ability, to hold him responsible for the ugliness of slovenly worn trousers. Trousers, sir, can be, and are made artistically, as every good tailor knows. But above all things they are the garb of peace and progress. They have, moreover, characterised a levelling up; for when the men of wealth and distinction wore breeches, the ragged rabble—the sans culottes—had to go bare legged. As regards comfort, why it was a desire for comfort in the days of the Regency, that led to their adoption. Breeches are all right for special forms of pomp and circumstance; but we don’t all want to be Lord Mayor’s footmen, or even taxi-cab chauffeurs.
TROUSERS AND TAILORING
Looking at the subject from a trade point of view, a serious problem is before this tailors’ Parliament. The introduction of the Bill seems to me to be part of a great conspiracy to wreck a cherished institution, to take away the trade of a great industry. For some time past there has been evidence of an attempt to do away with clothing. The attack was made first of all upon the feet. Bare feet–Dorothy Baird5 feet of the variety was the first step in the Everybody must wear sandals was the cry for a time. Then the other extremity was attacked, and we had the hatless brigade. We see a few members around now, even in this weather, going about bare-headed; but wearing a hat in the hand, or carrying it slung over the handle-bar of a bicycle. This may quite possibly be the next development of the trouser question, and men, apparently in their right minds, though by no means rightly clothed, may be seen carrying their trousers over their shoulders. Consider what this would mean to the tailoring trade. A man can now order both breeches and trousers, and kilts as well, if he likes. But under the proposed regulation he is confined to one class or kind of leg-wear. This must not be permitted. Trades are being ruined, business is going down in all directions; the tailoring trade must be preserved. At all costs, sir, trousers must be kept up (Loud laughter).
Mr. Harry Hall, Oxford Street, rose to second the Bill. He said that despite all that the last speaker had advanced against breeches, they were growing rapidly in popularity. Last year at his two establishments, they made no less seven thousand pairs, and so far, the orders this year were on the increase. He could speak from personal experience of the comfort and ease of these garments and he certainly held they were more attractive and healthy. No matter what the weather was, a man attired in breeches and gaiters was equipped for the worst and he should have pleasure in supporting the Bill.
Mr. Hunter, Stoke Newington, opposed the Bill. Many gentlemen had tried to introduce them on the stage, but their efforts had only met with scant success, and he doubted if any better fate awaited the Bill introduced by the Sartorial Secretary of State.
Mr. J. Hawkesford, , Pimlico, opposed the Bill. As a Service man, he contended that some of the best work done by the British Army, had been done in trousers. It was a regiment of tailors clad in trousers which held the little farmstead of Hugomont, on that fateful 18th of June; when the battle of Waterloo was fought, and however gallant the Highland regiments were in the field, this band of tailors be awarded the first place for their pluck and heroism.
Mr. Rines, Battersea, rose to support the Bill; only he contended it did not go far enough. He thought trousers should not only be abolished, but a Committee appointed to instruct people how to wear their clothes, for there was a great deal more in that phase of the subject than was generally acknowledged.
Mr. Bosnian was of opinion that this was a matter that should be left to man’s individual calves. (Laughter). Doubtless, those who had good calves would delight in showing off beauty nature had endowed them with; but those had nothing to boast of in that direction would be glad to leave them.
Mr. Perkins expressed the idea that as most of the gentlemen present were attired in trousers, they would vote accordingly. It was quite possible, however, they had not tried the other kinds of garments and if they had, they would then be desirous of supporting the Bill. He felt sure the subject was well worthy of careful thought outside the sphere of our own habits.
The speaker then put the question to the vote, when 13 voted for the passing of the Bill, most of whom were attired in breeches, knickers, or kilts, and 23 against, all of whom appeared in trousers.
This closed one of the most humourous, interesting, and instructive debates arranged by the Gerrard Street Parliament.
—————————————————————————
115 years later.
Oh, for better quality pictures from this article. If anyone can get me better copies from the original that would be great!
But here is (I believe) the court dress as worn by WDF Vincent.
And here is proof that breeches are still popular over 100 years after the debate
I wonder what Mr Vincent, Mr Boroughs and the other members of the Gerrard Street Parliament would have made of today’s fashion? denim jeans? leggings? Shorts? Are trousers still relevant in the 2020s?
Reference:
- Planche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Planch%C3%A9
- Does this refer to incidents such as the Sinking of HMS Victoria in 1893 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_HMS_Victoria and the battle of Copenhagen in 1807 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
- Sansculottic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-culottes
- Robbie Burns https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/mans-man-0/
- Dorothea Baid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Baird