Austerity restrictions in full: part 2 (men’s and boys’ clothing)

I’ve posted the austerity restrictions for men’s wear:

• Men’s and boys’ wear: jackets, blazers and trousers

Despite the fact that the wartime restrictions on women’s clothing were, at first glance, far more numerous and detailed than men’s, it was the men who complained the loudest. The Board of Trade stated in a July 1943 submission to the Select Committee on National Expenditure:

The main criticisms of these restrictions have come from the men’s side (which is natural enough, since in women’s garments they cause little or no difference from the conventional point of view — which is what seems to matter most with the public). The men’s tailors in particular have complained that they are constantly pressed by their customers to evade the restrictions…

It’s hardly surprising that bespoke tailors, many of whom no doubt catered to the sort of man who wafts through life in the cheerful conviction that rules were not meant to apply to him, came under pressure to make suits in pre-austerity styles. The restrictions instantly dropped an axe through a range of male garments that had been popular for decades, especially among the upper classes — the Norfolk jacket, Oxford bags and waistcoats adorned by watch chains, to name a few.

The total ban on trouser turn-ups (US=cuffs), though, provoked public ire that transcended class. There were earnest debates in Parliament, huffy Letters to the Editor and plaintive appeals to reason. But Hugh Dalton, head of the Board of Trade, refused to yield, saying, “There can be no equality of sacrifice in this war. Some must lose lives and limbs; others only the turn-ups on their trousers.” Nevertheless, the restrictions were so unpopular that the Board of Trade had to crack down on tailors found to be profiting from a willingness to “accidentally” make trouser legs a few inches too long, necessitating the coveted turn-ups.

Warning to Tailors

Offences against the Making of Civilian Clothing (Restrictions) Orders are so rife that the Board of Trade has decided that offenders will be summoned… In the present case [a Soho tailor named King had been prosecuted] the number of pockets in the jacket and waistcoat had been exceeded and the trousers had turn-ups and the width of the bottom exceeded 19 in. King, in a statement to a Board of Trade inspector, had said:– “I admit I have made about 45 to 50 suits in a non-austerity style during the past 10 months, but if I had not done so my business would have ended. I only made these suits to oblige my customers.”

– The Times, 1943

The wartime austerity restrictions on clothing may have been unpopular, but they did the job. The Board of Trade continued:

The aim [of the clothing restrictions] is to eliminate extra pockets, pleats, trouser turn-ups, embroidery and other details which were not necessary for the general convenience of wearers and which involve unnecessary use of labour and/or materials. They also in many instances limit the number of styles that any individual manufacturer may make, in order to encourage long runs of production which save labour. As much flexibility as possible was left however: for example, while a man’s coat must not have more than three pockets, these pockets may be placed wherever the customer or clothier desires. The restrictions on women’s clothes still leave the possibility of an almost infinite variety of style and design…

The saving of labour and materials by these restrictions on manufactured clothing is very substantial indeed. In respect of men’s, youths’ and boys’ outer clothing the total yearly saving at the present rate of production is about 1.5 million sq. yds of woollen cloth and 1.25 million sq. yds of pocketing material. The restriction on the length of men’s socks [no more than 9 inches] save over 2 million lbs a year of wool. In addition… there is a substantial saving in the use of buttons, buckles, hooks and bars, most of which are made from very scarce raw material. The restrictions have substantially increased production per man-hour; the saving of labour on men’s, youths’ and boys’ clothing is estimated at between 5% and 10%… In all, these restrictions may have saved labour represented by the time of 10,000 workers.