Beneath the Loom
Veronica C. Bennett
Social Studies Department
Nathaniel Narbone High School
Harbor City, CA
NEH Seminar 2006
Richard Arkwright: 18th Century Entrepreneur, Inventor.
Arkwright perfects and speeds up the spinning of fiber with the
“water frame,” a spinning machine powered by a water wheel.
John Kay: 18th Century Inventor. Kay invents the flying
shuttle, a handy device that substitutes a mechanical arm for that
of two human's, to snap the shuttle on a weaver's loom from side to
side quickly, thus automating the process of weaving cloth.
James Hargreaves: 18th Century Inventor: Hargreaves is
credited with the invention of the “spinning jenny, a revolutionary
device that allowed one person to spin on eight wheels instead of
one.
James Watt: 18th Century Inventor. Watt invents the steam
engine that increases the speed, productivity, and distribution of
manufacturing, including textiles.
2
Mary Richards: 18th Century Labourer.... Who?
Meet Mary Richards. At the time of her accident she was just ten
years of age. By all accounts, Mary was a handsome child. She
worked as a scavenger at the Lowdham textile mill in
Nottinghamshire. The job description for scavengers was
relatively straightforward: Mary and her co-workers would crawl
beneath the spinning mules and looms to collect the errant puffs of
cotton fiber which had escaped the whirls of the spindles and had
accumulated on the underside of the fast-moving equipment, on the
floor, and in the corners of the tightly packed room. What added
to the danger was the fact that Mary was expected to carry out her
duties while the machine was spinning at a full throttle.
In 18th Century England, children such as Mary Richards and her co-workers were perfect
for the job as scavenger beneath the mule spinners and looms, as they were small, petite and agile.
Adults and adolescents were too large. The fibers collected by Mary and so many other children
were lost profits and lost productivity if left for so much dust and dirt on the floor. For all
intentions, Mary and her cohorts were vital, albeit simple, units of production; but they were as
important to the success of the Industrial Revolution as were Arkwright, Kay, Hargreaves, and
Watt. Communities expected these children to pay their way, families depended on their wages,
as meagerly as their earnings were, to augment the family income, and those manufacturers would
adapt and design their processes to accommodate these diminutive workers.
The Industrial Revolution happened in England because of several historical events,
however, one fact emerges from this reflection on child labor in 18th and 19th century England:
children were important, value-added components for textile manufacturing, and in turn, were
critical factors for its success.
This fact makes it difficult to consider an alternative perspective.
How revolutionary this era would have been had the children been prohibited from engaging in
the labor process? It will not be until the 19th century when reformers call for reform of child
labor hours and conditions. It will not be until the 20th century that reformers call out for the
3
elimination of the exploitation of children.
Background
Two historical trends set the stage for this discussion. The first trend was England's
emerging trade advantage over her competition on the Continent. By 1572, during the reign of
Elizabeth I, there were marked improvements in hygiene and the preservation of food. As a
result, people generally lived longer and there was a relative decline in infant mortality rates.
Historians attribute this overall improvement to two primary historical events. The first is
credited to Queen Elizabeth's profitable trade with Antwerp and Bruges, territories controlled by
Spain's Philip II, and the ultimate disintegration thereof, due to his religious intolerance and the
subsequent, unsuccessful attempt to attack and capture England. As a result, “one third of
Antwerp's merchants are said to have settled in London, bringing with them their expert
knowledge of commerce. Two things are notable: England was becoming the home of the
refugee; and, as the export trade of Flanders died away, London became the greatest market in the
world.”i
The second trend that contributed to the English citizens' longer life spans and thus paved
the way to England's Industrial Revolution was the advent of the Enclosure Acts of the 18th
century. Up until this time, the prime industry was agriculture. Small farmers shared and
cultivated the available land and livestock openly grazed. It was a lifestyle of subsistence. The
farmers who worked the land followed the practices that had been in effect for hundreds of years
prior. The Enclosure Acts resulted in both positive and negative effects. Firstly, enclosure
increased crop yields through the use of crop rotation and the introduction of cultivation methods
such as Jethro Tull's seed planting drill. Crop rotation meant that a field would be planted with
one crop one season, a different crop the following season, and the third season would be left to
fallow.
4
The Enclosure movement allowed the large landowners to maximize crop yields on the
available acreage and as a result, agriculture turned into a lucrative, economic profit center.
However, for the smaller farms, the enclosure movement proved to be a major disadvantage.
Without the political
clout and influence to hang onto their small and scattered tracts of land, thousands of farmers and
their families were forced to yield to the larger land owners and migrate to villages, towns, and
cities to make new beginnings. As J.L. and Barbara Hammond described this transition, “The
Industrial Revolution produced a new powerful, rich class, the class of the capitalist
manufacturer. The great mass of people collected in Lancashire, Cheshire, and the western
borders of Yorkshire were working in 1830 not
for a multitude of small masters, but for a
comparatively small number of large masters.”ii
Those who were able to scrape together some
money, some capital, and add the willingness to
work really hard,
wages were to be
Population Increase by County 1700-1750
4 00 ,00 0
made. As a result
3 50 ,00 0
of increased
3 00 ,00 0
commerce and
2 50 ,00 0
sophisticated
2 00 ,00 0
farming methods,
1 50 ,00 0
1 00 ,00 0
England's
5 0,0 00
population
0
La nc a shir e
Wa rwic ks hire
We st R iding
1700
Yor k. D urha m
Sta ffor dshir e
Gloust er shire
seemed to grow
1750
exponentially. As
a result,
municipalities
were being overrun with people who needed work, including children. In his discussion of the
Industrial Revolutions during a series of lectures in 1884, Arnold Toynbee discusses the sudden
5
expansion of population, especially in the counties with the emerging manufactures. Figure 1
illustrates what was a 78% increase in population in Lancashire between the years, 1700 and
1750. The population of West Riding increased more than fifty percent. During this same time
period, according to Toynbee, estimates indicated a rise in the population in the whole of England
at 17 to 18%. It was in these counties where much of the economic and technological growth
occurred, especially along the rivers and waterways.
Families
The premise of children as labor was not new as the age of industry dawned. Children had
worked on the farms and inside the home for the centuries, which preceded the 18th century. Each
had his or her own chores. Not unlike modern family-run farms, there were livestock to feed,
cows to milk, sheep to shear, crops to harvest, and wool that needed carding, combing, spinning
and dyeing.
Children were integral contributors to the Domestic System of cloth production. Families
worked at home upon receipt of raw materials delivered by cloth merchants. The women in the
family, including the girls, would clean, card, and spin the wool or cotton. The men were usually
delegated as weavers. The looms were large and cumbersome; its operation required the strength
and use of both hands and feet. The merchant who delivered the raw materials would return and
purchase the finished materials to be sold at
the local market.
During 1776 and 1777, Richard
Arkwright, the local mill owner, built a series
of houses along North Street in Cromford,
Derbyshire. These houses were designed to
accommodate this domestic system of
“putting out.” Living quarters occupied the
first two levels. At the top, on the third level,
the room was devoted to work. To maximize
North Street, Cromford
Bennett
Source: V.C.
6
the time spent for working, a span of windows allowed maximum light throughout the day.
Given that summer nights were long in England, work often spanned well into the evenings. The
advantages of this system of “putting out” included direct supervision of the children by the
parents, family members worked at their own pace, and they worked at home.
While the conditions of labor were acceptable for family units under the Domestic
System, for many, several inevitable social trends severely disrupted the family unit and as a
result, many children were separated from their nuclear family and birth parents. Among those
social trends was the spike in population, the
sudden migration from farms to towns and
villages, and the absence of skilled labor.
For many, this overall rise in the cost of
living was more than many families could
afford. At one time the domestic system of
putting out was sufficient to sustain a family
at a basic level. However, the process was
too slow to compete with the new and
burgeoning mills that were popping up
alongside rivers and ponds. By the middle of
the 18th century, inspired by Enlightenment
Southwell Workhouse
Photo: V.C. Bennett
ideals, and the increase in world trade, a new
generation of entrepreneurs, including Richard Arkwright and Samuel Crompton, introduced truly
revolutionary machines that radicalized the way cloth was spun and business was transacted.
Huge mills containing hundreds of spinning machines and looms sprang up along major rivers
that not only supplied a source of power, but served as transportation routes to move these new
goods to markets, near and far.
These new innovations sparked the English economy. It was clear for most families that
working out of the home would not be enough to sustain a living wage. Family members who
were unable to sustain their own costs by earning the requisite income were often sent to other
families or groups to help that group and sustain themselves. In many instances those individuals
7
who were sent off were unable to sustain themselves by working elsewhere, as a result, many
were relegated to workhouses, or worse, the street. As a result, children would have to seek
active employment outside the home. The Hammond's make reference to this in The Town
Labourer, “ . . . under the early factory system the employment of children was the foundation of
industry.”iii In their discussion, the Hammond's refer to two classes of children: apprentice
children and free-labor children.
Poor Laws, Workhouses, and Children
In 1572, Parliament passed the first of the hundreds of Poor Laws. In essence, these laws
made mayors, magistrates, and county officials responsible for the care of their local poor and
“for the enforcement of stern measures against vagabonds.”iv Thirty years later, the Poor Laws
crystallized in the passing of an Act for the Relief of the Poor of 1601. Specific to children, the
Act proscribed the following: “And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said
Churchwardens and Overseers, or the greater Part of them, by the Assent of any two Justices of
the Peace aforesaid, to bind any such Children as aforesaid to be Apprentices, where they shall
see convenient, till such Man-child shall come to the Age of four and twenty Years, and such
Woman-child to the Age of one and twenty Years, or the Time of her Marriage; the same to be as
effectual to all Purposes as if such Child were of full Age, and by Indenture of Covenant bound
him or her self.” v
The following excerpt from Peter Higginbotham, the author of Children in the Workhouse,
explains the several ways children became occupants of a workhouse. “If an able-bodied man
was admitted to (or departed from) the workhouse, his whole family had to accompany him. Once
inside, the family was split up, with each going to their own section. A child under seven could, if
deemed 'expedient', be accommodated with its mother in the female section of the workhouse and
even share her bed. She was supposed to have access to the child 'at all reasonable times'. Parents
were allowed a daily 'interview' with a child living in the same workhouse, or an 'occasional'
interview if the child was in a different workhouse or school. Much of this depended on the
discretion of the Guardians...”vi
Of the accounts of inmates who lived in workhouses, the children were routinely separated
8
from their parents. As a result, the children were at the mercy (or not) of the guardians at the
workhouse. It was customary for children to be sent off to work in mills and mines within the
proximity of the parish. However, it was also a routine for teams of men from the mills in the
North to come to London, recruiting new “hands.” In a word, the children from the workhouses
were expendable and cheap.
Meet Sam Davy. Sam was seven years old when, in 1805, he
was dispatched from his London workhouse in Southwark, to
Preston, in Lancashire, to work for a Mr. Watson at his mill at
Penny Dam near Preston in Lancashire 221 miles north. Sam's
brother was sent to Penny Dam at a later time. Sam's parents were
not apprised of their son's whereabouts and as a result, his mother
was said to have died in a state of madness, so distraught was she.
The Textile Mills
Factory owners and
manufacturers found “apprentice
children” to be the most desirable for
several reasons. Apprentice children
were usually orphans or the neglected
offspring of those who were unable
or unwilling to care for their own
children. Under the Poor Laws,
hundreds of these unsupervised
children fell under the auspices and
authority of the local Parish workhouses, and the guardians therein were more than willing to
unload these extra mouths to feed to those who could use the children's labors elsewhere. In
addition to being inexpensive units of labor, the younger the children, the easier they were to
discipline and control. Compared to adults, children would not rebel or complain about the hours
9
of work, the dangers, or the inadequacies of the food or living quarters. They would work for
less money as well. The children were small and agile; they had small fingers that could re-tie
broken threads and undo the kinks as the fibers were being created from cotton or wool. Seven
year olds were small which meant that they could successfully crawl underneath the equipment to
clean and clear the dust and lint from beneath the equipment, all while the equipment was
moving.
The dangers increased exponentially, when, in the early 19th century, mills switched power
sources from water-driven to steam-driven belts. The equipment moved at a much faster rate and
there was more machinery crammed onto the factory floor. For example, a spinning mule had as
many as 132 spindles spinning. The fiber on those spindles connected to 132 bobbins. All are
spinning simultaneously as the mule rolls the bobbins out from the spindle assembly so as the set
the twist on the thread, making it stronger. Children were expected to move beneath the spinning
mule to remove dirt and lint from beneath the machine. They would also tie the broken threads
from the tensioned fibers moving between spindles and bobbins. Looking at Figure 2, it doesn't
take much imagination to envision the danger of severed fingers, hands, mangled arms or worse.
Furthermore, the workers, or “hands”, were not allowed to take breaks except for one half
hour for breakfast as 7:00am and another half hour break at 12:00pm for dinner. The rest of the
time the children were on their feet. There were no stools or benches on the work floor; if the
children fell asleep on the floor they were severely beaten. Accidents were unavoidable and there
were many.
Meet John Allett. John was in his twenties when he testified
before Sadler's Committee and the House of Commons in 1832. He
was born in 1805. Two years after John's birth, his father died,
leaving his mother to care for him and his sister, Sarah. Three
years later, John and Sarah's mother also died leaving the two as
orphans. As such, the two were sent to Bethnal Green workhouse in
South London. According to John, Bethnal Green was a
satisfactory place to live. They were provided decent food and even
10
able to attend school lessons. However, he recounted how he was
coerced into going north by stories of good wages. Twenty lads
were shipped up to Buxton and settled in the Apprentice House at
the Litton Mill. The promises of tasty meals quickly gave way to
Derbyshire oak cakes that “tasted as sour as vinegar.”
John remembered the screams. The screaming boy could
not have been older than six or seven. The boys were not allowed
to sit during the course of their 16 hour work day so many literally
fell asleep while standing. Tired and drowsy, as he prepped the
wool, he fell into the equipment and was caught by the strap that
quickly ripped apart his limbs and sucked his torso into the
machinery, shredding him to bits.
Long hours and dangerous equipment were not the only dangers for these children; there
was another killer amongst them and that was disease. The Hammond's describe this as “putrid
fever.”vii Workhouse child labor shared beds, three or four to the bed. The beds were simply
straw covered in woven muslin. The straw bedding was not changed on a regular basis, nor the
muslin covers washed with any great regularity; months would go by without a change. There
were no proper toilet facilities for them and when it was necessary, the children simply defecated
or urinated in the bucket, located in the corner of the room and covered the contents with hay. The
children would return to the workhouse and simply drop into bed. And yet, those who did not die
from illness, neglect, or the dangerous work were still expected to arise at their appointed hour
and be at their workstation by 5:00am. For those who survived their time in the mills there were
always the respiratory diseases to endure. After years of aspirating cotton fibers and flue, the
children developed chronic bronchitis, asthma, lung disease and deadly tuberculosis that, in turn,
swept through the workhouses. Cholera became widespread as well.
Reforms
By the early 19th century there was a growing demonstration of concern for the welfare and
benefits of these children and the conditions to which they were subjected in the mills. An early
11
reformer was Robert Peel, Senior. It was not a coincidence that Peel was
intimately familiar with the work conditions in the textile factories; his
factory employed over 15,000 hands and he had initially supported the
use of children in the mills. In 1802, Parliament passed The Factory and
Morals Act, legislation, which would improve work conditions for in the
factories. This legislation included that:

Factory owners must observe the law

Factory work spaces would be lime-washed and ventilated daily

Each apprentice would be given two suits of clothing

The workday be limited to 12 hours

The children receive academic instruction for the first four hours of the workday

There be separate sleeping accommodations for the boys and girls and that there be no
more than two to a bed

Sundays be days of religious instructionviii
Michael Sadler
Any of these reforms would have certainly improved conditions; however, they were largely
ignored because the law failed to build in any method of enforcement. In 1819, further reforms
were legislated to restrict employment for children younger than 9 years of age and to limit the
workday to twelve hours per day for children, ages 9 to 16. Again, the legislation was largely
ignored. By the 1820's a number of groups commenced to speak out about the deplorable
conditions in the factories, including the hours of work, the young age of the workers, their
illnesses and their disabling injuries.
One cannot discuss the plight of children during the Industrial Revolution without crediting
Michael Sadler, a 19th century Parliamentary reformer. By the early part of the 19th century,
reformers started to clamor for change. The initial arguments for reform focused on the length of
the workday. Sadler, who worked with his brother importing Irish linen, joined the House of
Commons in 1829. He quickly developed a reputation as a respected parliamentary speaker and
used that gift to draw attention to the work conditions in the textile mills. In October 1831, Sadler
initially campaigned for plight of agricultural laborers including:
12

The erection of suitable cottages by the parish authorities

The provision of allotments large enough to feed a cow

The provision of gardens to encourage horticulture among the labourers

The provision of parish land for unemployed labourersix
These requirements speak to the deplorable conditions endured in the agricultural sector as late as
the 1820's. One need only imagine what the conditions were like for the working-class poor who
inhabited the crowded towns and cities, trying to support themselves as well as their families by
this period of time.
1n 1832, Sadler introduced legislation that would limit the hours of a workday to ten for
employees less than 18 years of age.x After much debate, Parliament failed to pass the legislation.
It was clear that corporate interests had more influence than the advocates for the children.
Undaunted by the setback, Sadler came back to Parliament a month later, and called for a
Committee to hear testimony from those who were direct eyewitnesses to the conditions. The
Committee heard the testimony of 89 persons. Of those who came forward, nine factory workers
were victimized and their employment terminated by their employers for giving testimony to
Sadler's committee. The Committee also heard from the proponents of child labor, including
medical doctors who claimed that the children were healthy and happy and the factory owners
who claimed they were being paid a fair wage for work performed.
Meet Dr. Henry Hardie. Dr. Hardie was a medical doctor who worked in
Manchester, one of the cities on which the Industrial Revolution
was built. He was asked by the mill owners to visit seven factories
to check on the health and welfare of the employees. The following
transcript comes from Dr. Hardie's testimony before the Sadler
Committee on May 26th, 1832.
Question:
Have you carried out a survey lately, with reference to pinningfactories in Manchester?
Hardie:
I carried out a survey in seven factories.
13
Question:
Did that arise from any particular applications to yourself?
Hardie:
I had an application made to myself by the chairman of the committee of cottonspinners.
Question:
What observation did you make with regard to the state of health of the adults and
children employed in those seven factories.
Hardie:
That it was generally good.
Question:
What was the state of ventilation of the several factories you visited?
Hardie :
It was good.
Question:
Have you found that persons who have grown up in the business of cotton-spinners
are generally less healthy than those who have followed other occupations?
Hardie:
No, I have not found them worse looking.
Question:
Have you found that the infirmities of age came on sooner than with persons in
general?
Hardie:
No; I have not.
Question:
Is a daily employment of thirteen and fourteen hours a day, in an erect position, and
in a temperature of 80, consistent with safety to the constitutions of children from
six to sixteen?
Hardie :
I cannot answer that question.
Question:
Are you aware that the flue they inhale might be injurious to health?
Hardie:
I am not.
Question:
Did you, on examining the several cases of distortion, perceive anything which led
you to conclude that distortion was caused by the employment in the cotton-works?
Hardie:
No, I did not.
Question:
Who determined as to the seven which were to be visited out of the forty-seven
factories?
Hardie
The proprietors.xi
It does not take much imagination to understand why Dr. Hardie testified as he did. Would he run
the risk of ire of Manchester's wealthy and powerful factory owners? He was not alone.
14
Journalists also contributed to the debate. In his tome, The History of Cotton Manufacture,
Edward Baines wrote, “The noise and whirl of the machinery, which are unpleasant and
confusing to a spectator unaccustomed to the scene, produce not the slightest effect on the
operatives habituated to it. The only thing that makes factory labour trying is that they are
confined for long hours, and deprived of fresh air: this makes them pale, and reduces their vigour,
but it rarely brings on disease. The minute fibres of cotton which float in the rooms are admitted,
even by medical men, not to be injurious to young persons.”xii
Concluding Thoughts
Twenty-first century historians and economists still argue to the degree that children
suffered during the Industrial Revolution. Some cite that the Parliamentary hearings were flawed
and that those who testified were in pursuit of personal agendas driven by political motives. For
many, that was most definitely the case. Many historians take their evidence from the primary
sources that were the Parliamentary Hearings held throughout the 19th century. Some argue that
working conditions were bad, but some of the witnesses overstated how bad the conditions
actually were. While the reforms were steps in the right direction, progress was painfully slow.
Efforts to alleviate the conditions, the dangers, or the 19th century mind-sets that refused to
change fell on deaf ears; to actually change would cut into so much profitability and productivity.
Eventually, the changes were implemented in concert with the growing educational system
developed during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Thinking about the conditions and the eventual reforms that emerged from this dynamic
period in world history, one must ponder another question. The question for the 21st century is
this: has history taught us the important lessons about the dangers and evils of employing children
at such young and vulnerable ages? If we look to China, Pakistan, Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Mali,
Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Sudan, we might be compelled to answer no. Child
labor laws in these nations are non-existent or lax, at best. Even today we are dependent upon
children as so many factors of production. In these places, the children, especially those children
of the poor, are exploited as surely as were the workhouse children. Consumers in the United
States, the United Kingdom, and so many other developed nations seemingly turn a blind eye to
these realities, as they are unwilling to pay the price for goods manufactured by adults who are
15
regulated by fair and lawful labor standards and practices. Those sneakers would be far too
expensive and that laptop would cost thousands.
Sadly and in so many ways, the current consumer economy is still dependent on the cheap
and exploited labor of children. However, if they are not our children and it can be justified that
they are contributing to trade and commerce and benefit themselves as well, then it must be ok.
The names have changed and the locations of the work are in faraway places; however, we are
still dependent on Mary, Davy, Sam, John, and so many others.
i.
Harbin Craig, ed.., The Complete Works of Shakespeare, (Chicago: Scott, Foresman &
Co., 1961), 3.
ii.
J.L. and Barbara Hammond, The Town Labourer: The New Civilization 1760-1832,
(Garden City: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., 1968), 6.
iii.
Ibid., 126.
iv.
Craig, Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4.
v.
An Acte for the Reliefe of the Poore, 1601. (43 Eliz. I c. 2)
vi.
Peter Higginbotham, Children in the Workhouse, www.workhouses.org.uk, 2006.
vii.
Hammond, The Town Labourer, 130.
viii. Http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
ix.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRsadler.htm
x.
Ibid.
xi.
Ibid.
xii.
Edward Baines, The History of Cotton Manufacture, (New York: A.M. Kelley, 1966).