Jambusters

by Julie Summers

  The Craft Guild developed and during the twenties and thirties exhibitions of fine handicrafts were held at local, county and national levels. There was a focus on knitting, embroidery, sewing, basket-weaving, and slipper- and glove-making. It was popular and the standard of the work produced was very high. Edith Jones was a fine seamstress and entered competitions both locally and at county level with her sewing as well as her baking. On one occasion she was awarded third place for a calico patch she had made: ‘My men folk were pleased when I told them. They would have been grateful too if they had seem some of the samples there showing very little sewing intelligence. A “dem” (demo) on plain sewing would evidently be useful.’ However that night they had had a talk on poultry diseases, which was of equal interest to her.

  Mrs Katharine Woods wrote a short history of Headington WI in 1974 to celebrate their 50th birthday and she was full of praise for the quality of their craftwork. She wrote: ‘to have raised the status of home crafts to a useful and worth-while occupation to be enjoyed both in the doing and in the use, is no mean achievement when we remember the miserable conditions in which many “home industries” have been carried on in the past.’ The main areas of expertise in Oxfordshire were glove-making and basket-making. Mrs Mannering from Evesham introduced WIs in the county to rush work, an ancient local craft that had all but died out. Rush work had been used predominantly to make horses’ nosebags and she found a retired, highly skilled basket worker to share his lifetime’s expertise with her WI. From this little beginning they began to develop the skill to make shopping bags and mats in the manner of osier basketry and floor mats in the East Anglian tradition using plaited rush sewn together with string. This industry continued during the war and proceeds from sales were used to bolster institute funds. Another WI member from the county, Barbara Cullum, had grown up in Wheatley and knew just when the rushes were in season and thus pliable enough for weaving. ‘She is also an expert maker and a beautiful player on bamboo pipes – another ancient craft revived and developed and spread over many counties.’7

  Glove-making was a highly skilled occupation. Leather from deer in Blenheim Palace park was made into gloves in the neighbouring little town of Woodstock. As late as the 1920s the leather dresser would cut out gloves and take them round to be sewn by hand in many local homes. The WI was keen on this fine work and continued to hand-stitch Woodstock gloves until the 1950s. ‘The stitching demands much care and skill, and the WIs, with careful instruction through the guild of learners, have helped to raise the status of the craft to a fine art.’8 A most exquisite pair of hand-made gloves was worn by the Duke of Wellington at the Queen’s Coronation in 1953. The gloves were made by Mrs Andow of Netley Marsh WI in Hampshire and show the very highest quality of workmanship. Hampshire was just as proud of its handicraft skills as Oxfordshire and listed sixteen, including embroidery, smocking, tatting, spinning, upholstery and jewellery. At Burton and Puddington in Cheshire, a talk by Miss Clayton of Willaston on glove-making resulted in a series of classes for members. Willaston still possesses a lovely pair of leather gloves made by Miss Clayton in 1942. The minute book records that she donated her four guineas fee from teaching the classes to her own WI’s handicraft section for the purchase of books.

  It was not until 1941 that the government introduced rationing for clothes, dress material and shoes. Churchill had been against clothes rationing as he had been against food rationing. He told the President of the Board of Trade, Oliver Lyttelton, that he did not wish to see the public in rags and tatters. Lyttelton replied that he believed the man on the street wanted rationing, which produced an outburst of rage in the prime minister: ‘Who are you to tell me what the public want? Why, I only picked you up out of some bucket shop in the City a few weeks ago!’ Nevertheless it was obvious to the government that by introducing such a scheme they could save on 200,000 tons of cotton and wool per year and several hundred thousand workers who would have been required to provide civilian clothing could be released for other forms of war-related work. The argument was compelling and clothes rationing was introduced on Sunday, 1 June 1941. ‘The great surprise of this Whit Sunday morning’s news is that clothes are to be rationed. It has been a well-kept secret, and the rationing has begun!’ wrote Mrs Milburn.9 Churchill was later to apologise to Lyttelton and admitted that he had been right to insist on it.

  Lyttelton made a radio broadcast in which he appealed to people in a new and unusual way. He wished them to consider it patriotic to be badly dressed. ‘In war the term “battle stained” is an honourable one. We must learn as civilians to be seen in clothes that are not so smart . . . When you feel tired of your clothes remember that by making them do you are contributing some part of an aeroplane, a gun or a tank.’

  Norman Longmate, in his book How We Lived Then, explained that clothes were put on coupons ‘not because supplies were scarce but because they were too plentiful. The chief aim of rationing was to save factory space, and by closing down small firms to release 450,000 workers for the munitions industry’.10

  Wealthier women with large wardrobes were affected far less by the clothes rationing scheme than less-well-off women who had fewer clothes and often of a poorer quality, so that it had an impact on them more quickly. There was more grumbling about clothes rationing than there had been about the food scheme and the government, aware that this would be the case, made a valiant attempt to mitigate the situation by commissioning top designers to design utility clothing. The Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers, led by Norman Hartnell and Hardy Amies, created thirty-four smart Utility Clothing designs. The dresses were officially approved by the Board of Trade and a selection mass-produced to save labour; they were exempt from purchase tax. The designs followed the square-shouldered and short-skirted fashions of the war era whilst sticking to the regulations for minimal cloth usage. Buttons were limited to three and turn-back cuffs and trouser turn-ups were dispensed with. Skirts were still below the knee. In the event, utility clothing accounted for well over three quarters of all the clothes produced during the war, but not everyone liked it. Some people complained of poor quality and lack of durability, though others were still wearing dresses bought during the 1940s many years later.

  Utility stockings came in for particular criticism. Silk stockings had ceased to be made, as the silk was needed for parachute production. Home & Country ran a series of advertisements and articles about how to mend stockings but they remained a sorely missed item until the end of the war, unless women were lucky enough to be made gifts of nylons by American GIs who apparently had limitless supplies of these glorious new stockings.

  Clothing was rationed on a points system with coupons. The points could be used for buying wool, cotton and household textiles as well as individual items such as coats or dresses. No points were required for second-hand clothing or fur coats, but their prices were fixed and the supply of second-hand clothes was limited, though jumble sales run by WIs to raise money for wool and other purposes did yield odd articles of clothing that could be reused or reworked. In the first year of clothes rationing each adult was allotted sixty-six coupons. To give an indication of what this would buy, five coupons could be used toward a blouse, five for a pair of boots, seven for a dress, and fourteen for a coat. These four items alone represent half a year’s clothing allowance for one person. Initially the allowance was designed to provide each adult with approximately one new outfit per year. However, this proved too extravagant and the number of coupons per person was reduced to forty-eight in 1942, to thirty-six in 1943 and finally, in 1945, to twenty-four, so that by the end of the war almost an entire year’s clothing allowance would be used up buying just one coat. And of course coupons did not guarantee availability, nor could they be used as payment. In 1942 an even more unpopular ration, for bath towels, was introduced, described by many women as ‘the last word’.

  Children got ten extra coupons over the flat rate in acknowledgement that they were smaller and therefo
re their clothes needed less material but also that they were growing and therefore had a need for more changes of clothes during the year. A major problem for parents with young children was the shortage of shoes. Leather became scarce and it was more difficult to mend shoes, especially ones that had been worn out by energetic youngsters, than clothes. Collections of shoes and wellington boots for evacuee children were a recurring theme in minute books, as was making clothes for them.

  Norman Longmate was critical of schools who, despite clothes rationing, insisted on school uniform. He wrote of the difficulties faced by parents who had to sacrifice a year’s worth of clothing coupons just to equip their son or daughter to go to grammar school. However, it was his own school for which he reserved the sternest criticism:

  . . . which dressed its 800 boys in a ridiculous, uncomfortable and unhygienic Tudor ensemble of ankle-length gown, knee breeches, long, thick, yellow stockings and vast but shapeless shirts without collar or cuffs. A less practical and more wasteful outfit it would have been hard to devise, but though the school did allow new boys to dress normally for their first year or two, the rest of us continued to look as if we were expecting the Spanish Armada rather than the German Army and almost all our coupons were simply appropriated to maintain this fatuous tradition.11

  Non-rationed items included boiler suits, workmen’s overalls, hats and caps, sewing thread, boot- and shoelaces, ribbons and other fabrics less than three inches in width, elastic, lace, sanitary towels, braces, suspenders, garters, clogs and blackout dyed cloth. However these were never in plentiful supply and as the war progressed some things became impossible to find. Headgear, other than that made from scarves or ‘incorporating handkerchiefs’, was also exempt. Regulations governing the number of pleats in a skirt, the width of sleeves and collars, the number of buttons (3), the height of heels (2 inches), the size of pockets and the length of men’s socks were introduced along with a raft of items that were either restricted or forbidden. Production of non-essential items such as jewellery was prohibited altogether. ‘From 1941 onwards production of hollowware – pans, kettles, buckets etc – was permitted under licences which were only granted for essential items made to approved specifications. In 1942 this policy was extended to a wide range of consumer goods. Manufacture of pottery and pencils was controlled and many items such as floor coverings, domestic electric appliances, lighters and umbrellas could be produced under licence only, with output frequently being standardized.’12 Fripperies such as jewellery, metal toys, ornamental glassware and fancy goods were abolished. It is little wonder that people looked and felt drab, grey and tired by the end of the war.

  The issue of men’s socks became a hot topic and reached the highest levels. In April 1943 Mr Colman MP asked the President of the Board of Trade in a House of Commons debate whether he planned to relax the restrictions on the length of men’s socks, as he feared traders would have difficulty in disposing of short socks and other ‘style-controlled garments’ after the war.

  Mr Hugh Dalton replied: ‘No, Sir. The reduction of the leg length of socks to nine inches saves a great deal of wool and the manufacture of longer socks for the civilian market cannot be permitted. I am glad to have this opportunity to give an assurance that effective steps will be taken at the right time to assist traders to overcome any such difficulty as my Hon. Friend has in mind.’13 The reason that men’s socks had been restricted to just nine inches was to provide more wool for infants’ clothes and nightwear.

  ‘Beating the Clothes Coupon’ was a very popular talk that was given in various forms up and down the country. The land girls, who had less experience of mending clothes and less time to do so, were sometimes invited to this talk, which they found useful. Welford in Northamptonshire had regular visits from their young farm workers who liked to learn about how to use old clothes, or how to rope-sole slippers or make shirts from flour bags, while Welsh Frankton in Shropshire taught them how to make use of old mackintoshes. It was not just the land girls who wanted to know how to economise and save their clothing coupons: mothers were anxious to make as much clothing as they could for their growing children and evacuee visitors. Lamplugh held a competition for the best article of clothing for a child made from a flourbag. It was won by a woman who had made a boy’s shirt which, the judge wrote, ‘would have been no disgrace to the smartest tennis party’.14

  The government’s hope was that people would reuse and repair old garments rather than insisting on buying new outfits. The WI offered advice on how to give old clothes a new lease of life including rubbing hot bran into tweed skirts and jackets, cleaning white materials with ground rice and using powdered magnesia to clean delicate fabrics such as lace, embroideries, white kid and suede gloves. Oil of eucalyptus would revivify jaded silk and faded crêpe de chine while potato pulp could be employed to clean cloth gaiters and leggings. Grandmother’s recipes for cleaning clothes were proposed but sounded very expensive: ‘For cleaning silk . . . mix well together three ounces of strained honey, two ounces of castile soap and half a pint of gin.’ As knitting patterns published by the WI were popular during the war, so were clothes patterns, though the problem was that it was difficult to get material. From 1941 onwards only 20 per cent of the amount of cotton and 40 per cent of the rayon that had been available prior to rationing was available. It was time for Make Do and Mend.

  Make Do and Mend is one of the most famous catchphrases of the Second World War. The Board of Trade had consulted women’s groups about introducing the campaign, designed to encourage people to save buying something new by reusing old clothes. The object of the campaign was to persuade householders that clothes-carelessness was effectively sabotage and should be discouraged as vigorously as food waste, since the same argument about merchant shipping applied to clothes as it did to food – every bit saved could spare the life of a sailor and help another ship to land with materials for the war. The government used all media at its disposal to get over its urgent message. There were advertisements in newspapers, women’s magazines and on the radio. Exhibitions, leaflets, advice centres and 12,000 formal classes were held to bring the message home to Britain’s housewives. There were even films screened in cinemas. The Board of Trade organised an exhibition with Harrods to show housewives how to turn something old into some useful and new. In a propaganda broadcast several garments were shown, made from old coats, patchwork material and even a dressing gown fashioned out of an old dust sheet. The pièce de résistance was a two-piece black costume made by a woman from her husband’s old dress suit. The commentator on the film summed up Make Do and Mend assuring women that ‘all garments made in Make Do and Mend are entirely exclusive’ and warning the men to ‘lock up your favourite old clothes before you leave home in the morning’. The film ended on the shot of a middle-aged businessman in bowler hat carrying an umbrella walking down the street in long-johns and a shirt.

  Women in village institutes tackled making do and mending in most inventive ways and the record books are of course full of competitions and demonstrations for garments, slippers, gloves and accessories made from salvaged material. Rural women had been used to reusing their clothes and mending things, so that the campaign simply endorsed their habits. The WI differentiated between Make Do and Mend and thrift. Thrift was prominent from the outbreak of the war and included different examples of how to make things, including meals and utensils, as cheaply as possible. When it came to thrift the WI was remarkably energetic and infinitely imaginative and were always keen to share their discoveries with other institutes. Holton-le-Moor WI in Lincolnshire had a roll call on soap saving and one member came up with a recipe for wartime soap. A member of Thornton Curtis WI, just down the road, made a pair of economy slippers from a home-cured lamb skin and brought them to a meeting to show other members. Burrough on the Hill’s WI in Leicestershire had a competition to see who could make a child’s dress for 1s 6d while at Harby WI in Nottinghamshire a thrift event produced examples of mittens made from stock
ings, coal gloves from old winter hats, a jumper made from scraps of wool, a sprinkler made from an old bottle with a carefully pierced lid. Members of Taplow WI in Buckinghamshire made babies’ sleeping bags out of men’s flannel trousers and bottle covers from boys’ trousers.

  A thrift exhibition in 1943 showed just how inventive some people could be when it came to reusing materials.

  The exhibition shows really handsome gloves made from chamois leathers, and the odd pieces left over from these washleather gloves have been joined together to make a leather for the shining of silver or the washing of windows. Women have made embroidered handkerchiefs from pieces of flour bags and one beautiful little garment with three rows of hem stitching has the blue lettering of the original left on the back to convince those who would not otherwise believe that the material really came from flour bags.15

  Also on display were a shawl made from unpicked wool from a land girl’s stockings, sandals made from odd strips of leather, a plaid frock made from thirty-two travellers’ samples and handkerchiefs made from surplus linen.

  Members of Preston Patrick and Preston Richard WI in Cumbria were evidently highly skilled at working with their hands, as demand for their knitted garments came in regularly from 1939 onwards, with letters of thanks flowing in equal measure. Betty Prickett, their honorary secretary, found references in their record books to a great variety of different activities. In addition to knitting, sewing and making bandages they were also asked to supply walking sticks for wounded servicemen, though it is not clear from the old minutes whether these were to be made from wood gathered locally or if these were unwanted or spare sticks. Sometimes only seven women were able to attend meetings, most likely because of haytime or harvesting, Betty suggested, but they still managed to produce large quantities of knitted goods and bandages, parcels for servicemen and raise money for the Red Cross, the local hospital and the WI ambulance appeal.