Landscape of labour
The 18th and 19th centuries were a time of rapid political, economic and social change in Britain.
Traditionally, textile manufacture had been a domestic industry, organised under the ‘putting out system’. Families relying on agriculture supplemented their income by spinning and weaving in the home. Middlemen supplied them with raw cotton, children would help with carding, women spun the cotton into yarn and men wove it into cloth on handlooms. Cloth was then taken by merchants or agents to be finished and sold on.
The inconsistency of output and a lack of quality control were inherent problems of this system and in the mid-18th century changes were happening that changed this structure. Inventors began to develop more sophisticated machines that could produce larger quantities of yarn or cloth and more quickly. They were also simpler to use and more repetitive leading to lower wages and less demand for domestic textile production. Changes in agriculture and the organisation of land forced people to find employment in the new industrial towns and many were pushed into poverty finding themselves relying on parish poorhouses.
Employers, such as Richard Arkwright wanted more control and supervision during the manufacturing stage and taking advantage of new technologies started to build large factories or workshops where hundreds of machines could be accommodated and powered by water thereby increasing production. Early mills relied on waterpower and were in the countryside, so mill owners had to import labour and turned to the poorhouses for this where there was an increasingly steady supply of workers.
Samuel Greg joined his uncles’ business, Hyde & Company, in 1778 and acquired the training and capital needed to set up his own firm when he inherited the business in 1782. With a capital of almost £37,000, contacts within the Unitarian network, the lifting of Arkwright’s patents and the end of the American War of Independence meant Samuel was in a perfect position to set up his own mill. He built Quarry Bank in 1783 as a spinning mill to supply yarn to hand-loom weavers in Eyam, Derbyshire. Eventually he abandoned the business in Eyam and concentrated solely on Quarry Bank and its expansion.
New machinery required small nimble fingers and women and children were most in demand. They were also cheaper to employ. Women had always worked, but within the home. Children were also expected to work from an early age, but the Industrial Revolution changed the nature of their work. They worked longer hours, often away from home and in dangerous and unhealthy conditions. By the early 19th century two-thirds of mills workers were children and there were no laws in place to protect them.
There was a growing movement for workers’ rights and representation with demands for higher wages and better working conditions. The earliest piece of legislation directed at the new Factory System was passed in 1802 and concerned the apprentices. Public concern over the rumours of mistreatment and overwork forced the government to act, limiting the working day of children, prohibiting night work and required that they receive some education. Subsequent acts prevented children being transported more than 40 miles from their home and gradually raised the minimum working age, reduced working hours and made school education compulsory.
One of the most important changes was introduced in the 1833 Factory Act with the establishment of factory inspectors who could issue fines to mill owners if they were found to be in breach of the law. The Greg’s opposed this Act for a number of reasons and between November 1835 and October 1836 they were fined 12 times for breaking the law on working hours. During the factory commission Samuel explained their position as a water-powered mill:
‘Not avoidable where the moving power is uncertain, as is water, and if watermills are to maintain a competition with other mills, provision must be made, allowing the time lost from floods, occasional deficiency of water, and repairs to be made up. Any legislations bearing hard on water mills, will entirely ruin an immense property. These mills, being generally situated in country places, merit peculiar protection, in consequence of the superior health, comfort, and good manners of people.’