Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:15:14.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invisible Handshakes in Lancashire: Cotton Spinning in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Michael Huberman
Michael Huberman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Economics, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario K9J7B8, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Lancashire cotton spinning in the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism the labor market did not operate as an auction market. Evidence on piece-rate flexibility, length of tenure, and seniority is consistent with Okun's contract approach. Both workers and firms incurred initial set-up costs. Workers wanted to protect their initial investments in training, and firms, faced with a labor supply that varied in reliability and regularity, had a desire to cover initial hiring and tryout costs. The need to maintain long-term attachments had implications for wage and employment adjustment and the age structure of the labor force.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 987 - 998
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Williamson, Jeffrey G., Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? (Boston, 1985), p. 205.Google Scholar

2 Ashton, T. S., The Industrial Revolution, 1760–1830 (London, 1976), p. 87.Google Scholar

3 Solow, Robert M., “On Theories of Unemployment,” American Economic Review, 70 (03 1980), p. 10.Google Scholar

4 Okun, Arthur M., Prices and Quantities: A Macroeconomic Analysis (Washington, D.C., 1981).Google Scholar

5 Deane, Phyllis, The First Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 1967), p. 97.Google Scholar

6 Webb Trade Union Collection, vol. 34, p. 60, Library of London School of Economics. Throughout the 1820s and 1830s the coupling and extension of mules increased the ratio of piecers to spinners.Google ScholarLazonick, William H., “Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case of the Self-Acting Mule,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3 (09 1979), p. 9.Google Scholar

7 Parliamentary Paper [hereafter P.P.], Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, 1842 (31) 12, p. 361.Google Scholar

8 Manchester Guardian [hereafter M.G.], 16 Oct. 1824, 13 Nov. 1824, 9 Dec. 1826, 23 May 1829; Stockport Advertiser, 18 Mar. 1825; Bolton Chronicle, 18 Apr. 1835.Google Scholar

9 Lee, C. H., A Cotton Enterprise 1795–1840: A History of McConnel and Kennedy, Fine Cotton Spinners (Manchester, 1972), p. 114.Google Scholar The firm's hiring practices are accepted as representative of all urban firms in Nardinelli, Clark, “Child Labor and the Factory Acts,” this JOURNAL, 40 (12 1980), p. 744. For similar statements on labor supply,Google Scholar see Hammond, J. L. and Hammond, B., The Town Labourer, 1760–1832 (London, 1917), p. 11;Google ScholarFitton, R. W. and Wadsworth, A. P., The Strutts and the Arkwrights, 1758–1830; A Study in the Early Factory System (Manchester, 1958), p. 230.Google Scholar

10 N = 3,770 male operatives. P.P., Report on the Employment of Children in Factories, 1834 (167) 19, p. 279.Google Scholar Mitchell's findings were echoed by a Bolton mill owner. Questioned as to “what age is it that lsqb;cotton textile operatives] seem to be most equal to do the work of spinners?] he responded that spinners are at their strongest from “twenty to thirty years”. Lords Sessional Papers, Commission on Factory Conditions, 1819 (24), 110, p. 11. Similarly, it was observed that in “the Manchester area” operatives over forty years “lacked the keen eyesight and the steadiness of hand needed for the newer mechanized operations”. P.P., Report from the Commissioners on the Poor Laws, 1834 (44) 27, p. 53.Google Scholar

11 One employer observed that a spinner between forty and fifty years would not find employment unless “he is a man of steady character”. P.P., 1834 (167) 19, Dl, p. 471. The tradeoff between reliability and productivity receives attention in Pollard, Sidney, Genesis of Modern Management (London, 1965), p. 181.Google Scholar

12 McConnel and Kennedy [hereafter M.K.] Letter Books, 26 Aug.-5 Sept. 1829, John Rylands Library, Manchester.Google Scholar

13 , P.P., Report on the Employment of Children in Factories, 1833 (450) 20, p. E8.Google Scholar

14 Butterworth Diaries, 3 Mar. 1834, Oldham Local Interest Center.Google Scholar

15 Rowbottom Diaries, 21 Oct. 1829, Oldham Local Interest Center. A complete list of references is found in Huberman, , “Auction or Contract? The Cotton-Spinning Labour Market in Lancashire, 1822–1852” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1984), pp. 42–44.Google Scholar

16 Okun, Prices and Quantities, p. 62.Google Scholar

17 Phelps, Edmund S., “Okun's Micro-Macro System: A Review Article”, Journal of Economic Literature, 19 (09 1981), pp. 1065–74.Google Scholar

18 M.K. Letter Books, 28 Oct. 1830.Google Scholar

19 M.K. Deeds and Documents and Yarn Output Books, 1834–1863.Google Scholar

20 M.K. Deeds and Documents; , P.P., Report on the State of Children Employed in the Manufactories, 1816 (397) 3, p. 479;Google Scholar, P.P., Second Report of the Commissioners as to Employment of Children, 1833 (519) 21, pp. 191, 193; Butterworth, 10 Feb. 1834; Bolton Chronicle, 12 June 1841.Google Scholar

21 M.K. Letter Books, 26 August 1829; M.G., 26 June 1830; Butterworth, 27 Feb. 1834, 6 June 1835.Google Scholar

22 A piecer observed that factories which pay “low and infrequent wages” have a “bad character” and this reputation “clings” to them. P.P., 1833 (450) 20, DI, p. 20.Google Scholar

23 M.G., 4 Dec. 1824, 11 Dec. 1841; Manchester Chamber of Commerce Annual Reports, 1823–26, Manchester Central Library, Manchester;Google Scholar, P.P., Committee on the Combination of Workmen, 1837–1838 (488) 8, p. 271.Google Scholar

24 Ure, Andrew, The Philosophy of Manufacturers (London, 1835), p. 366.Google Scholar

25 This account is from the Economist, 4 Mar. 1848, p. 257.Google Scholar

26 , P.P., Committee on Manufacturers, Commerce and Shipping, 1833 (690) 6, p. 315.Google Scholar

27 The crisis of the 1840s came to an end in November 1848, but as of 1850 Homer reported that many mills remained on short-time. , P.P., Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, 1850 (1140) 23.Google Scholar It was not until 1853 that Homer observed “a scarcity of hands.” Ibid., 1852–1853 (461) 40, p. 551.

28 The sampling method is based on Schofield, R. S., “Sampling in Historical Research,” in Wrigley, E. A. ed., Nineteenth Century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative Methods for the Study of Social Data (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 147–84. A full description of the sample is in Huberman, “Auction or Contract?” pp. 161–70.Google Scholar

29 Some estimates of the number of spinners in Manchester: 1829–2,400 (M.G., 20 June 1829); 1836–2,000 (Dodd, G., The Textile Manufacturer of Great Britain [London, 1844], p. 113); 1837–1,660Google Scholar (Kirby, R. G. and Musson, A. E., The Voice of the People: John Doherty [Manchester, 1975], p. 101).Google Scholar Bolton: 1833–792 (Scholes, James C., History of Bolton [Bolton, 1842], p. 521).Google ScholarAnderson, Michael used a sample of 10 percent in Family Structure in Nineteenth-Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

30 Tillot, P. M., “Sources of Inaccuracy in the 1851 and 1861 Censuses,” in Nineteenth Century Society, pp. 105–7.Google Scholar

31 N = 837 fine spinners. Shuttleworth, John, “Vital Statistics of Piecers and Spinners,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 5 (1842), pp. 268–73. The period between 1833 and 1841 did not witness any major employment changes, with the exception of short-hour working in 1837–1839. There is no significant difference between the average ages in Shuttleworth's survey (32.70) and the averages of the samples for Manchester and Bolton (fine spinning towns).Google Scholar

32 Joyce, Patrick, Work, Society and Politics: The Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian England (Brighton, Sussex, 1980), pp. 68, 118, 161.Google Scholar

33 Lazonick, “Industrial Relations,” p. 15.Google Scholar

34 Pollard, Sidney, “Sheffield and Sweet Auburn: Amenities and Living Standards in the British Industrial Revolution,” this JOURNAL, 41 (12 1981), pp. 902–4.Google Scholar