¹ Foster, J., Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution (London, 1974), 217–18Google Scholar; Joyce, P., Work, Society and Politics (London, 1980), 289–90Google Scholar; Crossick, G.J., An Artisan Elite in Kentish London (London, 1979), 65.Google Scholar For a study of how friendly societies enabled the cultural assimilation of Highlanders into Glasgow see Withers, C.W.J., ‘Class, culture and migrant identity’, in Kearns, G. and Withers, C.W.J., Urbanising Britain (Cambridge, 1991).Google Scholar

² Gosden, P.H.J.H., Self-Help; Voluntary Associations in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1973), esp. 42–3Google Scholar; Gosden, P.H.J.H., Friendly Societies in England, 1815–1875 (Manchester, 1961), esp. 208Google Scholar; Jones, D., ‘Did friendly societies matter?’, Welsh Historical Review, XXII (1984–1985), 345Google Scholar; for a brief review of the range of alternatives to poor relief in Nottingham see Smith, R., ‘The relief of urban poverty outside the Poor Law, 1800–1850: a study of Nottingham’, Midland History, II, 4 (1987), 215–24.Google Scholar

³ Jones, D., ‘Self help in nineteenth century Wales: the rise and fall of the female friendly society’, Llafur, 4, 1 (1984), 14–16.Google Scholar

⁴ Gosden, , Self–Help, 28–9Google Scholar; Purvis, M., ‘Popular institutions’, in Langten, J. and Morris, R.J., Atlas of Industrialising Britain, 1780–1914 (London, 1986), 195–7.Google Scholar

⁵ Gosden, , Self–Help, 48–50, 54Google Scholar; Neave, D.R.J., ‘Friendly societies in the rural East Riding, 1830–1912’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, 1985), 56–60.Google Scholar

⁶ Royal Commission on Friendly & Benevolent Building Societies, Parliamentary Papers, XXIIII, 1874, Pt 1, 25, 34, 38.Google Scholar

⁷ Gooderson, P.J., ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster 1780–1914’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster, 1976), 31Google Scholar; Walton, J.K., Lancashire. A Social History 1558–1939 (Manchester, 1987).Google Scholar

⁸ Savage, M., The Dynamics of Working Class Politics: The Labour Movement in Preston 1880–1940 (Cambridge, 1987), 66.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., 67.

¹⁰ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 31.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., 26, 37–41.

¹² Eden, P.M., The State of the Poor, vol. II (London, 1966), 310, 368.Google Scholar

¹³ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 129.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Preston Chronicle, 16 06 1821.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 131.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Lancashire Record Office/ QDS/1 /2/10, Notice of Removal, 25 February 1834.

¹⁹ Preston Chronicle, 10 09 1831.Google Scholar

²⁰ Preston Chronicle, 28 05 1836.Google Scholar

²¹ Gosden, , Self–Help, 29 and 43Google Scholar; see also his Friendly Societies in England.

²² Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 333–4Google Scholar; see also Gosden, Friendly Societies in England, 208.Google Scholar

²³ Preston Chronicle, 23 07 1886.Google Scholar

²⁴ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 23Google Scholar; Preston Chronicle, 1821, 1831, 1836, 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1876, 1881Google Scholar; Preston Guardian, 1841, 1846, 1851, 1866, 1886, 1891.Google Scholar

²⁵ Royal Commission on Friendly & Benevolent Building Societies, 97.Google Scholar

²⁶ Preston Guardian, 23 07 1886.Google Scholar

²⁷ The growth of the affiliated orders in both towns can be seen in the figures; the first lodge of the Independent Order of Oddfellows was established in Lancaster in 1827 and other lodges were founded in 1831, 1834 and 1845. In Preston, the oddfellows opened their first lodge in 1828 and three more were opened by 1834. These were followed by 17 more between 1835 and 1841. Other affiliated orders in Preston included: Independent Mechanics (seven lodges by 1836), Free Mechanics (seven lodges by 1836), Grand Ancient Oddfellows (six lodges by 1836), and one lodge each of Free Gardeners, Foresters and Druids by 1836 (Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 333Google Scholar; Preston Chronicle, 28 05 1836.Google Scholar

²⁸ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 557.Google Scholar

²⁹ Preston Guardian, 23 07 1886.Google Scholar

³⁰ Neave, , ‘Friendly societies in the rural East Riding’, ch. 4, 373–4.Google Scholar

³¹ The sources used for the quantitative analysis in this paper are held in the Lancashire Record Office. They are: The King William IV Lodge Enrolment Book (Ref: DDX/69/1); The King William IV Lodge Register (DDX/69/2); The Pleasant Retreat Lodge Proposition Book (DDX/433/20); The Pleasant Retreat Register to 1851 (DDX/433/3s) and the Pleasant Retreat Register to 1875 (DDX/433/4a).

³² Dennis, R., English Industrial Cities in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1984), 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Briggs, A., Victorian Cities (Harmondsworth, 1968)Google Scholar; Cannadine, D., ‘Victorian cities: how different?’, Social History, 2 (1977), 457–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Walton, , Lancashire, ch. 10Google Scholar; Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics, ch. 5Google Scholar; Kirk, N., The Growth of Working Class Reformism in Mid-Victorian England (London, 1985), ch. 2.Google Scholar

³⁴ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 192.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 193.

³⁶ Ibid., ch. 2.

³⁷ Anderson, M., Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971), 24.Google Scholar

³⁸ Gosden, , Self–Help, 46Google Scholar; Royal Commission Report, 1874, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Royal Commission Report, 1874, 35.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 30.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., 155–9.

⁴² Compare Ibid., 22, with Kirk, , Growth of Working Class Reformism, 198.Google Scholar

⁴³ The occupations of 50 leading activists in the lodge were identified. These included 12 who were stonemasons and a further 10 who were involved in the building trades.

⁴⁴ Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, 20–3, 46–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For example, Jones, , ‘Did friendly societies matter?’.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Walton, , Lancashire, 161–5Google Scholar; Southall, H., ‘Unionization’Google Scholar, in Langton, and Morris, , Atlas, 189–93.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics1, 80Google Scholar; Kirk, , Growth of Working Class Reformism, 145, 160.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Gooderson, , ‘The social and economic history of Lancaster’, 556.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., 333.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 334.

⁵¹ Ibid., 557.

⁵² Dutton, H.I. and King, J.E., Ten Per Cent and No Surrender. The Preston Strike 1853–1854 (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar; Preston Chronicle, 19 01 1861Google Scholar; DDX/322/2, Pleasant Retreat Minutes 1856–76, February 1858. In October 1858 the lodge supported Hardwick in a dispute with another member (entries of 4 and 19 October 1858).

⁵³ Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, 103, 103–12.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Kirk, , Growth of Working Class Reformism, ch. 5Google Scholar; Yeo, S., ‘State and anti state: reflections on social forms and struggles from 1850’, in Corrigan, P. (ed.), Capitalism, State Formation and Marxist Theory (London, 1980), 113–14, 122–36.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics, 92–3Google Scholar; Newby, H., ‘The deferential dialectic’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17, 2 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Garrard, J., Leadership and Power in Victorian Industrial Towns, 1830–80 (Manchester, 1983)Google Scholar; Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Women were not immune from the ritual and secrecy of the affiliated orders, but there was comparatively little opportunity for them: see, for example, Gosden, , Self–Help, 26.Google Scholar Dot Jones argues that the coming of the affiliated orders in Wales tended to exclude women from the friendly society movement and women's local societies had been far more numerous: Jones, , 'self help in nineteenth century Wales’, 14–16Google Scholar; nevertheless in Lancashire, 37 women's societies existed in the early 1870s having 3,383 members, including female divisions of affiliated orders. These societies were chiefly vehicles for sociability, in general providing only funeral benefits; Royal Commission on Friendly and Benevolent Building Societies, 142–6.

⁵⁸ For the beginning of the nineteenth century see, for example, Place, F., Autobiography of Francis Place, 1771–1854 (Cambridge, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Kirk, , Growth of Working Class Reformism, 216–20.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Perkin, J., Women and Marriage in Nineteenth Century England (London, 1989), 120–2Google Scholar; Ross, E., ‘Survival networks: women's neighbourhood sharing in London before World War I’, History Workshop journal (1983), 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Lown, J., Gender and Industrialization: Gender at Work in Nineteenth Century England (Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar

⁶² Anderson, , Family Structure, 112–15Google Scholar; Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics, ch. 2, 111–13.Google Scholar

⁶³ Dutton, and King, , Ten Per Cent, 92.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Smiles, S., Thrift, ch. X ‘Little things’Google Scholar; ch. XV ‘Healthy home’ ch. XVI ‘The art of living’, 359: ‘The husband who has been working all day, expects to have something as a compensation for his toil. The least a wife can do for him is to make his house snug, clean and tidy, against his home coming at eve‘.

⁶⁵ McClelland, K., ‘Some thoughts on respectability and the “representative artisan” in Britain 1850–1880’, Gender and History, I (1989), 174–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Because the membership listings are not dated, it is not always possible to decide whether the younger men had as yet joined the lodge in 1851. Consequently analysis of age and occupational profiles contain a small amount of error.

⁶⁷ Gosden, , Self-Help, 26–7Google Scholar; Henderson, W.O., The Lancashire Cotton Famine 1861–1865 (Manchester, 1934)Google Scholar; Longmate, N., The Hungry Mills (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Arnold, R.A., The History of the Cotton Famine (London, 1864).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Anderson, , Family Structure, 43–50.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Compare Anderson, , Family Structure.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Roberts, E., Women' Work 1840–1940 (London, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roberts, E.A., A Woman's Place: An Oral History of Working Class Women 1890–1940 (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; John, A. (ed.), Unequal Opportunities (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar; Gittins, D., The Fair Sex (London, 1982), ch. 4Google Scholar; D'Cruze, S. ‘Care, diligence and “usfull pride”: gender, industrialisation and the domestic economy c1770–c1840’, Women's History Review, 33 (1994). 315–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Anderson, , Family Structure, 71–6.Google Scholar

⁷² Informal payments to widows, see for example Lancaster, DDX, 69.1, 13 January 1847, 27 March 1847, 24 April 1847, includes a mangle bought for Wid. Smith; money and clothes for Wid. Jennings and her children, 26 December 1841, 26 December 1842. Also 10s each to Widows Rawes and Jennings out of the funds of the lodge, DDX 69/1, 4 December 1840. Balls begin in 1845 in Lancaster and in the late 1830s in Preston: DDX 69/1, 6 January 1945; Preston Chronicle, 30 01 1841Google Scholar; Preston Guardian, 18 01 1851Google Scholar; Lancaster Guardian, 5 01 1850, 4 January 1851Google Scholar; for a similar ball in Morecambe, Lancaster Guardian, 4 01 1845.Google Scholar For administration of contribution funds see: DDX 69/1, 31 January 1848:19 oddfellows from King William IV are recorded in the minutes joining the fund that year. In Preston, Preston Guardian and Preston Pilot, both 4 January 1851, record a meeting exhorting members to register details of their wives, a 2s 6d fine to be imposed if details not registered within six months of marriage.

⁷³ Gosden, , Self-Help, 54.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ DDX/69/1, 19 October 1841.

⁷⁵ DDX/69/1, 28 October 1844.

⁷⁶ Preston Guardian, 6 10 1866.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ DDX/69/1, 5 November 1861.

⁷⁸ DDX/96/1, 25 November 1856.

⁷⁹ DDX/433/2,5 October 1857.

⁸⁰ Lancaster Guardian, 5 01 1850.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Neave, , ‘Friendly societies in the rural East Riding’.Google Scholar

⁸² Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, 56–8 and 113–14Google Scholar; , E. and Yeo, S., ‘On the uses of “community”: from Owenism to the present’, in Yeo, S. (ed.), New Views on Co–operation (London, 1988), 229–58.Google Scholar

⁸³ For a discussion of these issues see Dennis, English Industrial Cities, esp. 1–10, 248, 274–85.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Roberts, E.A., A Woman's PlaceGoogle Scholar; Ross, , 'survival networks’, 4–27.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ross, , 'survival networks’, 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Perkin, , Women and Marriage, 122.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ross, , 'survival networks’, 10, 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Roberts, , A Woman's PlaceGoogle Scholar; Ross, , ‘Survival networks’, 18–19.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Crooks, R., ‘Tidy women: women in the Rhondda between the wars’, Oral History, 10, 2 (1982), 40–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Anderson, , Family Structure, 33, 34, 41–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid., 58–62.

⁹² DDX/69/2, 25 November 1856.

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Boulton, A.G., ‘Lancaster 1801–1881: a geographic study of a town in transition’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Liverpool, 1976), chs 4 and 5.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid.

⁹⁶ Dennis, , English Industrial Cities, 274–5Google Scholar; Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, 113–14.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Bristow, B.R., ‘Residential differentiation in mid-nineteenth century Preston’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster, 1982), 189.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid.

⁹⁹ Warner, , The Private City (Philadelphia, 1968)Google Scholar, quoted in Dennis, , English Industrial Cities, 278.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Dennis, , English Industrial Cities, 278.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Crossick, , An Artisan Elite in Kentish LondonGoogle Scholar; Kirk, , Growth of Working Class ReformismGoogle Scholar; Gray, R.Q., The Aristocracy of Labour in Nineteenth Century Britain C1850–1914 (London, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰² Bailey, P., ‘Will the real Bill Banks please stand up?’, Journal of Social History (1979), 336–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ Lown, , Women and IndustrialisationGoogle Scholar; Lambertz, J., ‘Sexual harassment in the nineteenth century English cotton industry’, History Workshop journal (1985), 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar