owner of Arkwight’s cotton mill , he obviously did not see fit to grant the
knitters their demands at the loss of his own interests.
Riots against Need lasted almost 2 weeks with attacks made on his mill, the
destruction of “...some fifty stocking frames...and the burning of the house of
the master Hosier” . The dispute ended with troops being deployed, however
agreements were made between the master hosiers and the framework knitters
on wages which lasted for over 20 years, also those arrested for the vandalism
were given “light sentences” .
The knitters then actually succeeded in achieving their demands, and those
convicted of crimes against property were given fairly mild sentences
considering their actions. I feel this dispute was extremely influential and sent
out a message to the textile workers (esp. 30 years later the Luddites) that the
use of violent protest in obtaining their demands actually worked, especially
when trying to protect working rights by use of the legal parliamentary method,
proved pointless.
Between 1793 and 1801, Priminister Pitt introduced a serious of repressive
legislations aimed at crushing revolutionary and potentially threatening intent
within Britain. Of those the 1795 Treasonable Practices and Seditious meetings
acts, and also the Combination acts of 1799 and 1800 had a great impact on the
increasingly troubled working classes. The combination acts essentially banned
trade union activity therefore turning all hopes of worker initiatives into
clandestine secret groups whom had to express their anger at their employees
not only secretly but also illegally.
However despite this new oppressive combination act, there is little evidence to
support that it was actually used very much, John Rule flags up case in point
where a Shearmen’s (also known as Croppers) union headquarters in Leeds, was
reported to have been known about by the Home Secretary. However the Home
Secretary was advised not to intervene as so not to “...afford them ground of
complaint against the Constitution that we should not drive them into the
service of the true Jacobin” Caution was shown against the Shearmen’s union
as it was perceived that no inconvenience was being caused, that they were
being just in their meetings, and that no revolutionary activity would become of
it. I feel this should be addressed as many are quick to see Pitt’s legislation as
extreme, and carried out mercilessly upon the afflicted workers, however there
is a lot of evidence to support the fact that the authorities were aware that
being too oppressive would in fact fuel a revolutionary fire.
The Luddite disturbances started within Nottingham in 1811, they initially
arose out of wage disputes , and underpaying Hosiers were attempting to lower
production costs by heavier use of machinery. Framework Knitters objected to
the increasing use of machinery in their trade. Originally the Knitters worked
from home or in small shops upon rented frames, the new machines and factory
system of employment completely went against this traditional method of
Hosiery production. This new method meant that wages were cut, the
employment of ‘Colts’ and that the finished product was inferior. This debasing
of their trade caused great distress to the skilled workers, this new cheaper and
quicker method of Hosiery production went against old statutes granted to the
trade under Charles II, which prohibited all engines that fabricated articles in a
‘deceitful manner.
Workers clung to this statute, yet this paternalist provision was considered
obsolete in this new Industrial age, the government turned its back on the
renters/workers, handing over more control to the frame/factory owners in the
move to a more Laissez-faire based economy. The Luddite reactions were
because of this, these new economic and moral values, which essentially
abandoned them in the crisis of food shortage. Their skilled work was being
undermined at a very difficult time, and there was nothing they could about this
gradual but overbearing wave of industrial change.
The ‘solicitor to General Ludd’ wrote a letter to Joseph Radcliffe, the magistrate
of Huddersfield, informing him that since cloth-dressers of that area had spent
£7000 petitioning the government to uphold legislation against shearing
frames and gig mills, and all to no purpose, then they were trying another
‘method’ This exact sentiment was expressed to the Home Secretary by workers
in Bolton, and again all to avail. The workers had no choice, but to resist using
violent force, “luddism was a last resort when other techniques had been tried
and proved useless”
Malcolm I. Thomis has written that he believes had there been agreements
between workers and employers then there would of been “no need to resort to
physical violence and illegal enterprises of Luddism” . I agree with this
statement, these men were not undisciplined and unruly, they were not against
capitalism per se’, (capitalism had ruled their trade for over a century) it was the
that they were not being heard in an extremely distressing time of food
shortage, wage cuts and poor foreign trade.
In the north food prices were never higher in the period 1792-1829 .
In May 1812 General Maitland in Manchester found “considerable degrees of
distress” had afflicted the people by way of the price of potatoes trebling and
the rate of wages falling “by almost the same degree as prices had risen” . Not
surprisingly we can see a clear parallel between this and the actions of the
Luddites, proof again of just how desperate the period of the Luddites was.
The Framework Knitters in Nottingham constituted half of the Nottingham
electorate , yet this power that they held was relatively useless in gaining what
they desired from their work. The power that could be obviously and
immediately wielded by the worker was the “...power to damage or destroy the
property of his employer. ”
Again we see the ‘last resort’ mentality that was employed by the workers to
make their grievances known.
By 1812 machine breaking was at its peak, new activities in Cheshire and
southeast Lancashire with its cotton workers who were using machine breaking
as their weapon against wage cuts, rising food prices. Rioting was widespread
throughout April, however there were also many food riots happening at the
same time, these were perceived by government as the same problem and dealt
with the riots by use of the military. A good example of the scale of the rioting
of April 1812 can be seen in this passage from Charlesworth, Gilbert and
Randall:
“Led by General Ludd, riots broke out at Bredbury, Gee cross and Stalybride.
Colliers and Weavers from Ashton, Hollinwood and Saddleworth joined with
Oldham workers and rioted over food, proceeding thence to Middleton to attack
a steam loom factory.”
This great wave of rioting lasted for 3 days and ended with one of the biggest
attacks on textile machinery. The Westhoughton Steam loom factory was
burned to the ground after several attempts during these few days. This attack
on Westhoughton is seen as the beginning of the end of Luddite disturbances.
After this, authorities used armed protection on the bigger factories. One can
see by the passage quoted that Luddites became a symbol of the unrest at the
time, what once began as clandestine small scale attacks on factory property
quickly became the general feeling of northern England’s workforce. Now we
see a more “mobbish” side to the unrest, with food rioters joining forces with
the Luddites each group sympathising with the next and demanding an end to
starvation level food prices and wages. We also see very destructive and violent
protest aimed at people and even their houses as opposed to machines.
The effects of the Luddites were quite broad, they destroyed something over
£100,000 worth of property in just 14 months, the government spent at least
£500,000 in salaries alone for its military force . In terms of actually securing
better wages results were mixed, with also some manufacturers not implementing
more machinery for fear of attacks. More importantly though is the political
effects of the Luddites, the failure of direct and violent action channelled workers'
grievances into conventional reformist actions, leading to a revival of pressure for
trade unions and workplace improvement on the one hand, and for parliamentary
reform on the other. Also we have the eventual rise of chartists, who campaign for
better industrial rights and reform.
The Industrial revolution brought with it a completely new basis of work
practice and displaced thousands from their working routines, causing huge
distress and confusion and casualties. A move from the wealthier employers to
the introduction of more machinery into the textile industry meant cloth could
be made far quicker and cheaper, without the use of as many men. Textile
workers were of an extremely broad range, from the extremely skilled
framework knitters in Nottingham to the lesser skilled cotton spinners in
Manchester, yet each was proud of his or her skill, having spent the majority of
his/her life perfecting and honing their craft and reaping the wage that they
worked for. The industrial revolution was not rejected by the textiles workers, it
was the uncertainty that machines such as the newer shearing frames and
power looms brought, these new machines drove down their wages in a time of
immensely increased food prices brought on by bad harvests. Any means of
trying to protect their trade by appealing to Parliament to uphold statutes that
prevented the use of machines producing goods in a ‘deceitful manner’ proved
useless, thousands of pounds were spent on petitioning Westminster, but all
was futile. ‘Laissez-Faire’ was favoured by parliament in this burgeoning
industrial age, these skilled workers were now somewhat expendable, their
security in skilled work now somewhat lessened. Machine breaking and strike
action were not characteristic of ‘Unruly and Unskilled workers’, they were the
last resort they were the last resort by skilled workers desperate to hold onto
their livelihood when other methods of protest had failed.
Words: 2078
Leslie Clarkson “British Trade Union And Labour History: A Compendium”(Macmillan, London 1990)
Andrew Charlesworth, David Gilbert, Adrian Randall et al, “An Atlas Of Industrial Protest in Britain 1750 - 1990”
(Macmillan, London 1996) pg 19
Ibid pg20
Ibid pg 20
John Rule “British Trade Unionism 1750-1850 (Longman House, England 1988) pg 86
Malcolm I. Thomis “The Luddites” (David and Charles ltd Great Britain, 1970) Pg 48
Colts were workers who had not completed their 7-year apprenticeship required by law.
Adrian Randall et al, “An Atlas Of Industrial Protest in Britain 1750 - 1990” Pg 32
Malcolm I. Thomis “The Luddites” pg 67
Ibid pg 67
Ibid pg 67
Ibid pg 45
Ibid pg 44
Ibid pg67
Malcolm I. Thomis “The Luddites” pg 68
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Luddite-History.htm
