Working conditions for the Bag Hosier and the Framework Knitter explained their lifestyles. Framework Knitters received very little pay whilst the Bag Hosiers retailed the Framework Knitter’s work and received much more. Framework Knitters were paid in piecework, which meant they were paid for how much work they did not how long. This had both good points and bad to it; the good point being you can do more work to receive more pay, however if they’re off sick that wouldn’t mean sick pay it would mean nothing, so they would still have to work. There was also a way of pay called the Truck System, this would mean the Framework Knitter would be paid in tokens, or in our terms, something other than money; such as food like a pig, however most Framework Knitters preferred normal pay as the tokens they received may not have been useful to them. Also, the bag hosier controlled how much he paid the Framework Knitter and therefore could use it to his advantage, as he would know the Framework Knitter is desperate, the Framework Knitter couldn’t complain for fear of being stinted (when no work is given to them). The Bag Hosier could also have no work however, if he is not being sold the cotton by the Merchant Hosier he cannot sell it to the Framework Knitter, and therefore receive the goods made. This was because they both have bosses, and it can sometimes be hard for the Bag Hosier as well as the Framework Knitter. Framework Knitters worked very long hours compared to the relaxed bag hosier, this was considered acceptable. Framework Knitters had to work in very confined spaces because of the amount of frames, and in badly ventilated rooms, whilst bag hosiers did the easy part. A Framework Knitter’s children were ill fed and badly clothed, often having to help their father by as early an age as 5, the boys winding and the girls seaming. However a Bag Hosier’s children were busy with education, they had reading and writing equipment at home that they could use. Also, in their spare time they could play with toys and the piano. It is believed you could tell a Framework Knitter because of his physical health, his skin would normally be emaciated and they were considered the poorest of the community. However, a Bag Hosier would not stand out in a crowd, although he can afford certain luxuries he wouldn’t be regarded as a noticeably wealthy man.
Most of all I believe the Framework Knitter and the Bag Hosier to be undeniably different, yet certain similarities must be taken into account; such as the way they obtain their water, and although it doesn’t have a major effect, and it could be considered as insignificant, the fact that they both used recycled rugs makes you realise that the Bag Hosier wasn’t incredibly wealthy and helps you to understand. However I cannot undermine the contrast between their lives, the most obvious reason for this has to be the wages they receive, as no matter what the circumstances, it all seems to point back to that very thing.
Now I shall introduce the different ways and for what reasons the bag hosier’s cottage has changed since the 19th century. I will go through the living room, in order to give you a basic idea of how many inaccuracies could be found in one room, and finally I shall describe the important changes.
The bag hosier’s cottage has changed since used in the 19th century. Many things may have been lost or damaged over time, or in some cases possibly sold. Many inaccurate additions have been made, despite these I still feel the museum recreated the scene very well, and many were for a good purpose.
Firstly, the living room; a noticeable ornament upon entry is the ornate, tall grandfather clock, it was suggested that this might have actually been too fancy for a Bag Hosier, and/or it would have been far from the similar time, the reason for this addition to the room is that it could have been a donation, also it does have an authentic feel to it, yet it still doesn’t suit the room.
The fireplace is what could be called the centrepiece of the living room, yet its beauty has been spoiled by a black, metal guard which surrounds it, this has been added to prevent visitors from putting their hands inside, this is quite necessary as it can be quite dangerous; especially if small children do so.
There was a cast iron plant on a wooden surface to the right of the room, this would have been the only possible house plant in those times, yet although they’ve added it in to make the home look comfortable it is not definite that it would have been a decoration in most Bag Hosier’s homes, the idea of introducing a cast iron plant however shows knowledge of what could have been in a cottage.
The Bag Hosier had 3 sets of fine quality china, this would have definitely not been accurate, he could have had one- a nice luxury, but three must have been because of donations, as three is too extortionate. Donations may sound negative, but they help a great deal to the museum and the cottages it holds, as the money made can’t always be used to buy new things. The living room also wields some delightful pictures, supposedly of the Bag Hosier’s relatives, yet these pictures, realistic they may seem, are Lithographs- a printed picture. If pictures were included in the household of a Bag Hosier they would most definitely be painted.
Many safety changes that have been compulsory due to safety regulations, health reasons and government legislations, really clash with the antiques of the 19th century. However, being so accustomed to seeing these objects in our everyday lives we may look at them and not realise there is anything wrong with what we are seeing, this could lead some people to the wrong conclusion of what technology was used at those times.
For example, burglar alarms are situated in the top corners of the rooms and are easy to notice; these ruin the feel of the room, however they are definitely needed in this day and age. There is an under stairs cupboard, however when you enter, the item which catches your eye the most has to be the electric plugs, which are not very well disguised and are gathered in there.
Another change, which I wasn’t very happy with, was the installation of the radiator in the living room, it is for the comfort and warmth of the customers- especially when it is the winter, on the other hand I can’t help but think that this is not beneficial at all to the customer’s experience at the museum. Because of the obvious fact that radiators weren’t used then, but also, the radiator is reasonably large in comparison to a burglar alarm, electric light or a fire extinguisher and the room is compact anyway, yet there is no endeavour at disguising it, which I would think is an overt thing to do to make the perception more true to life.
Another evident change to the cottage is in the bedroom, the original bed must have been lost or sold over time, as you can tell from the marks on the floor beneath the current bed, which is much larger than the outline that the previous left; this difference in bed size will be because you cannot buy beds that small a size anymore as people, in general, are taller.
The changes made have always had the public in mind; oil lamps couldn’t be used as they are harmful to their health, signs which read “mind your head” or “emergency exit”, visitor audio system which can act as a virtual tour guide- mainly because they can’t afford to have real ones- and other safety regulations that I have mentioned. These are all there to help benefit the customers’ stay, however they seem to both benefit the customer and put them at a disadvantage. You can look at the debate from either side and see a genuine point of view. All the while they have done well at seeking a true encounter of a 19th Century cottage for visitors, but there are just certain points that let them down.
“The Ruddington Museum gives visitors an accurate view of life and work in the Framework Knitting industry in the 19th century”. I am going to explain to what extent I agree with this statement, by looking at both sides of the argument.
It is plain to see that the Ruddington Framework Knitting Museum recreates a reliable view of the living and working conditions in the 19th century, however in numerous places this has not been conceivable due to various reasons.
In the courtyard there were flower gardens, however there would have normally been vegetable gardens in their places, it is easy to see that having vegetable gardens would consume too much time and money, and therefore it is nice to see they have made a slight effort by planting flowers in a bid to recreate the same aura. The brick flooring in the courtyard shows and accurate reflection of what would have been used, but the criss-cross lines that are engraved into them spoil it, and it is little changes like this that can make all the difference sometimes in a historian’s view. When looking at the cottage from the outside the shop signpost strikes you first, which you don’t want to happen, when you’re hoping for a realistic account, but the sign is needed for you to know where the shop is. Also, the benches may be a comfortable place to sit down on but they are not an accurate addition to the courtyard, however they are definitely need as a place for visitors to sit and admire the views of the cottages. There is an old water pump which helps the atmosphere, however it doesn’t work- which was a real let down.
As for working conditions, the workshops are a very accurate reflection in general. There’s single glazed windows jus like there would have been and there is still bolt marks where the frames would have been attached to the walls; the museum have tried to position the frames as best they could and it recreates what the workshop would have looked like quite well, however there are frames missing, they have removed them so that there is more space for the visitors but I feel it would have been better to leave the workshop with a cramped nature like what would have been; to create a more realistic view. One inaccuracy of the workshop was some of the machines, a certain type; called the Grizwold machine, would never have been there, however it contains more than one of them. We don’t get a good understanding of what it would have been like to work there as we only saw one of the original frames working, this kept the workshop quite quiet and so we didn’t feel physically what it would have been like. It would be incredibly difficult to recreate this sort of atmosphere as it would cost far too much and there are not enough people who know how to work the machines, many of which would need repairing. The washroom, for instance, is very accurate, however it is crowded with lots of washing equipment that are donations and it ruins the reality the accuracy creates, one of them- the mangle- still works today. There are the original old toilets, and keeping them normal and not adding anything really helps to recreate the scene. There are also modern toilets, these ruin the atmosphere the courtyard creates, however they are definitely needed, but maybe they could have been added somewhere else.
The chapel has been refurbished into an educational gathering point for school visits to the museum, there is a large TV on which a video is watched, made by the museum itself. Upstairs there are many objects from the past and descriptions about them in little captions, wheelchair access has been added. This is all very beneficial, but is it worth replacing the original with a description of it? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, then surely actually being in the picture would be more educational.
Another part of the museum where the reliability and precision of the display should be questioned is the cottages. Overall they do portray a good image, but not an excellent one. As more and more donations are added it loses its touch, such as the 3 sets of china and the grandfather clock. Certain necessaries like the signs reading “Emerency Exit”, electric lighting, burglar alarms and fire extinguishers all lose the feel of the cottage but are definitely needed, so you ask, why can’t they have jus simply disguised them? Upstairs they have transformed the Framework Knitter’s bedroom into an educational room where photos and information are on the walls, in one respect I see it as a good idea, but mostly I believe it doesn’t enhance the experience because if you are wanting to learn about the cottages and life in them, it is better to relive them and understand from a first hand experience. Little details however make the cottage a good representation, such as the prayers on the wall- because it was known that the Victorians were very religious people, also, small items like hairbrushes, chamber pots and clothing hung on doors really help to win you over, although your eyes aren’t drawn to them straight away, without them you would be able to tell the cottage is missing something. Also, everyday lifestyle objects are used, in the living room a pipe and old-fashioned coats are included which demonstrate a good understanding of what was used in the 19th century. Understanding the limitations the museum has is very important. Overall I think the cottages represent a 19th century cottage quite well, it is mainly donations and customer needs which have taken their toll on making the cottages a definite recreation.
Overall I can’t agree or disagree with the statement; there are many factors that need to be taken into account when debating this topic. Every inaccuracy has to be there for a reason, and all reasons are for benefiting the visitors’ experience, however some choices I could disagree on. It is a very difficult job to undertake; informing the public about the past, and, although it may seem obvious, quite simply because u weren’t there. You have to improvise in many different ways, such as being courteous about donations when given something not needed, finding the right objects to go in the right objects to make the scene fit the outline- a lot of the time you have to settle. A lot of work goes into educating the public, different members of public prefer different learning methods, whether it’s listening, reading or looking around. The Ruddington Framework Knitting Museum has included all of these with the public’s comforts and education first in their list of priorities. It does portray an accurate view of life and work in the Framework Knitting industry in their good parts, however they make small mistakes by doing things that in most cases must be done. Overall I would say I mostly agree with the statement given.
