I am grateful to the editors of this JOURNAL, to Donald Coleman, and to members of seminars at the Universities of Auckland, Lancaster, and the Institute of Historical Research, London, for their helpful comments and advice.Google Scholar

¹ Jenkins, D. T., “The Validity of the Factory Returns, 1833–1850,” Textile History. 4 (10 1973), pp.43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² The pin industry, used by many as the basis for generalizations about the factory system, made extensive use of outworkers. It was not until the introduction of the automatic pin-making machine in the 1830s and 1840s that outwork was abandoned.Google Scholar

³ Fang, H. T., The Triumph of the Factory System in England (Philadelphia, 1978), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁴ Thus accounts by Unwin, Clapham, and Mantoux discuss the development and spread of the factory system largely in terms of technical advances in cotton and woolen textiles. Unwin, G., “The Transition to the Factory System,” English Historical Review, 37 (04 1922), pp. 213–14;Google ScholarClapham, J. H., An Economic History of Modern Britain: The Early Railway Age 1820–1850 (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 143–47, 192–97;Google ScholarMantoux, P., The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1961), p. 195 ff.Google Scholar For a more modern approach, see Ashton, T. S., The Industrial Revolution (London, 1962), pp. 33, 70–76;Google ScholarLandes, David S., The Unbound Prometheus (Cambridge, 1969), p. 81;Google ScholarMathias, Peter, The First Industrial Nation (London, 1969), pp. 108, 128–33.Google Scholar

⁵ Marglin, Stephen A., “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Function of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 6 (Summer 1974), p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ The neoclassical argument that labor can avoid exploitation simply by hiring capital is criticized by Marglin. The social relations of production, he argues, preclude such an arrangement. (“What Do Bosses Do?” p. 66).Google Scholar

⁷ Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Herbert, Schooling in Capitalist America (New York, 1976), P. 77.Google Scholar

⁸ Williamson, Oliver E., “The Evolution of Hierarchy: An Essay on the Organization of Work,” Fels Discussion Paper, No. 91, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (07 1976);Google Scholar see also, “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1 (No. 1, 1980), pp. 5–38.Google Scholar

⁹ North, Douglass C., Structure and Change in Economic History (New York, 1981), Pp. 168–69.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See, for example, the report of R.D. Grainger on pin manufacturing in Birmingham. Royal Commission on Children's Employment, British Parliamentary Papers [hereafter B.P.P.], vol. 14, 1843, F.23.Google Scholar

¹¹ For an analysis of the relative advantages of the putting-out and factory systems, see Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Charles Babbage's work, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures (1835), is a general eulogium to modernity and progress. Not surprisingly, the putting-out system does not elicit favorable comment.Google Scholar

¹³ “The term Factory, in technology, designates the combined operation of many orders of work-people, adult and young, in tending with assiduous skill a system of productive machines continuously impelled by a central power.” Ure, A., The Philosophy of Manufactures (London, 1835), p. 13.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See, for example. Fang, Triumph of the Factory System, p. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cooke-Taylor, W., Factories and the Factory System (London, 1891), p. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Sir Ambrose Crowley's ironworks in County Durham were atypical both in size and organizational form. The two slitting mills each employed 250 workers, while the Winlaton factory, which produced ironmongery, employed as many as 300. Water power was used to drive the slitting mills, but the Winlaton factory, quite the largest in England, relied on traditional hand techniques. Flinn, M. W., Men of Iron (Edinburgh, 1962), pp. 75, 184.Google Scholar

¹⁷ A three-story silk mill had been built on the same site by Thomas Cotchett in 1701 but had failed. Chaloner, W. H., People and Industries (London, 1963), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Defoe, Daniel, Tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain (1726).Google Scholar Quoted by Chaloner, ibid., p. 13.

¹⁹ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 14–15. The rest of this account draws heavily on Chaloner's excellent essay on the life of Thomas Lombe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ The silk industry was still organized on a craft workshop or putting-out basis at this time. The silk-throwing section was relatively insignificant, mainly because of foreign competition. Organzine was a particularly strong form of silk thread used principally for warps. It was produced by throwing several single threads together and then doubling them. Coleman, D.C., Courtaulds, An Economic and Social History (Oxford, 1969), vol. 1, pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

²¹ Chaloner, People and Industries, p. 10.Google Scholar

²² Patent No. 422, Woodcroft, B., An Alphabetical Index of Patentees of Invention 1617–1852 (London, 1969 edn.).Google Scholar

²³ Chaloner, People and Industries, p. 13.Google Scholar

²⁴ John Lombe, the mechanically more able of the two brothers, died in 1722, allegedly poisoned by infuriated Italians. Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp., p. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Unwin, G., Samuel Oldknow and the Arkwrights (Manchester, 1924), p. 26.Google Scholar

²⁶ Journal of the House of Commons, 30, 1765, p. 219.Google Scholar

²⁷ Warner, F., The Silk Industry of the United Kingdom: Its Origin and Development (London, 1921), pp. 131, 147, 298, 324–39.Google Scholar

²⁸ Select Committee [hereafter S.C.] on the Silk Trade, B.P.P., vol. 19, 1831/1832, pp. 195–96, 280.Google Scholar

²⁹ Even Marglin, who cites the failure of the Wyatt-Paul enterprise, is willing to concede that early factory management was a far from routine exercise. “What Do Bosses Do?”, p. 86.Google Scholar

³⁰ Report of the Committee on Silk Ribbon Weavers Petitions, B.P.P., vol. 9, 1818.Google Scholar

³¹ “…the wages for silk weavers were to be fixed in London by the Lord Mayor, Recorder and alderman … in Middlesex and Westminster by magistrates …” , J. L. and Hammond, Barbara, The Skilled Labourer, 1760–1832 (London, 1936), p. 209. Wages were fixed in regional centers according to local books of prices agreed to by masters and men. They were almost invariably less than the Spitalfields rates, which were sometimes used as a benchmark.Google Scholar

³² Committee on Silk Ribbon Weavers, pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

³³ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ The cost savings from cheaper labor were estimated at 10 percent. S.C. on Silk Trade, p. 113.Google Scholar

³⁵ Committee on Silk Ribbon Weavers, pp. 16–17, 156.Google Scholar

³⁶ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ S.C. on Silk Trade, p. 203.Google Scholar

³⁹ Warner, The Silk Industry, p. 286.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ The changes in duties are summarized in Assistant Commissioner Fletcher's report, Commission on Handloom Weavers, B.P.P., vol. 24, 1840, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴² On rich figured gauzes the labor costs amounted to almost 60 percent of the cost of manufacturing. S.C. on Silk Trade, p. 153.Google Scholar

⁴³ S.C. on Silk Trade, pp. 479–81, 690, 724–25, 750, 791; Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ S.C. on Silk Trade, pp. 345, 380, 419, 841.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 479, 488, 652–53, 690, 724–25, 776–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The very highest classes of goods, such as exhibition work and fancy ribbons, were beyond the scope of the Jacquard loom because of the number of threads involved. It was eminently suited for most figured work, however, enabling complicated patterns to be produced on a regular basis. Prest, J. R., The Industrial Revolution in Coventry (London, 1960). pp. 47–48.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The engine loom, or Dutch loom, was not in any way mechanical but was simply a hand loom capable of weaving a number of ribbons at the same time.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Of the 4,000 engine looms in Coventry at the end of 1831, almost 700 had Jacquard attachments. Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, P. 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ S.C. on Silk Trade, p. 522.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The factories were fairly equally distributed between Derby, Manchester, and East Anglia.Google Scholar

⁵¹ S.C. on Silk Trade, pp. 796–97.Google Scholar

⁵² Coleman, Courtaulds, vol. 1, p. 86.Google Scholar

⁵³ S.C. on Silk Trade. p. 377.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 636, p. 694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Coleman, Courtaulds, vol. 1, p. 60–64.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The Factory Inspectors Returns record 1,714 power looms in use in 1835. B.P.P., vol. 45, 1836, pp. 152–53. The returns note that a further 22 power looms are about to commence in Warwickshire but omit mention of Wiltshire, in which a ribbon-weaving factory had been operating since 1834. On the deficiencies of the Factory Returns, see Jenkins, “The validity of the Factory Returns,” pp. 26–46.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The quality of silk thread had deteriorated as throwsters, in an attempt to meet foreign competition, had speeded up their machines without increasing the number of machine minders. The knots and blemishes in the thread added to weaving times and led to imperfections in final product. S.C. on Silk Trade, pp. 194, 205, 767, 790.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Fixed costs were effectively transformed into sunk costs by the severe depreciation of capital values following the removal of protection. One Somerset throwster complained that his mill, which had cost between £20,000 and £30,000, was now virtually useless. S.C. on Silk Trade, p. 205. It therefore paid to remain in the industry as long as operations yielded some contribution to fixed costs.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Coleman, Courgaulds, vol. I, pp. 72, 87.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The tariff was further reduced in 1829 and changed from a specific to an and valorem duty, largely because of the success of domestic manufacturers in reducing costs following the initial tariff reduction in 1826. It was the aim of the government to limit protective duties to around 30 percent ad valorem. Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁶² Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 12;CrossRefGoogle ScholarS.C. on Silk Trade, p. 479;Google ScholarDavies, C.S., A History of Macclesfield, (Manchester, 1961), p. 134.Google Scholar

⁶³ Mitchell, B. R. and Deane, Phyllis, Abstract of British Historical Statistics, (Cambridge, 1962), p. 207.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Of the 10,500 or so looms in London in 1838, 97 percent belonged to families owning five looms or less. Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, p. 227.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982) p. 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ S.C. on Silk Trade, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, PP. 226–34. The figure-engine list, which had always been more difficult to sustain on account of the greater fluctuations in demand and heterogeneity of the product, was largely abandoned in the mid-1830s.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Prest, Industrial Revolution, p. 88.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ By 1838 the bulk of the half-pay apprentices in Coventry were working in factories. Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, P. 43.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), PP. 46–49, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² This factory employed both power and hand looms. Weavers were employed at a weekly wage that was greater than they might normally receive if working by the piece, but only on condition that they produced a minimum length of ribbon well in excess of the weekly norm. Their mode of working did, however, vary from that of other weavers in that they were given assistants to help them tend and clean the threads of the warp. Fletcher concluded that this system concealed the fact that the factory master was actually paying a lower price per piece than the agreed list. Not surprisingly, weavers disliked the system even though they were paid more, and the factory concerned was subject to strikes and other disturbances. Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 46–50, 226, 231–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 282–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁴ The lack of factory discipline was not confined to the silk industry. See Pollard, S., The Genesis of Modern Management (Harmondsworth, 1968), chap. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 24, 1840, p. 46.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ By 1850 all weaving factories possessed at least some power looms. Factory Returns, B.P.P., vol. 62, 1850.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 23, 1840, p. 398.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Courtaulds had installed 178 power looms by 1838, while Grout, Baylis & Co. probably possessed around 200. Coleman, Courtaulds, vol. 1, p. 87.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 23, 1840, pp. 378–79.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Coleman, Courraulds, vol. 1, p. 107.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 23, 1840, pp. 384–85.Google Scholar

⁸² Coleman, Courraulds, vol. 1, p. 142.Google Scholar

⁸³ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), pp. 128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁴ Forty percent of the power looms used in the silk industry in 1857 were located in Lancashire. Factory Returns, B.P.P., vol. 14, 1857, Session 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Prest, Industrial Revolution, p. 95.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁷ This account of cottage factories relies heavily on Prest, Industrial Revolution, chaps. 5–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The cottage factory did not affect the organizational structure of the trade. Weavers still worked on materials and patterns supplied by merchants and manufacturers according to outdoor list prices.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Factory Inspector Baker, an enthusiastic advocate of cottage factories, went so far as to suggest that they were displacing the larger silk factories. Reports of Factory Inspectors, B.P.P., 34, April 1860 Report, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Prest, Industrial Revolution, p. 102.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Although the broad silk trade in Spitalfields also suffered greatly. Warner, The Silk Industry, chap. 8.Google Scholar

⁹² Some of the manufacturers and the free trade Birmingham Post were inclined to attribute the depression to “the change in fashions which has almost abolished ribands.” Reports of Factory Inspectors, B.P.P., vol. 22, Oct. 1861 Report, pp. 38–39. The subsequent growth in the importation of French goods suggests that they were not entirely correct in their view.Google Scholar

⁹³ Prest, Industrial Revolution, p. 123.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Andrews, William, Papers Relating to the Ribbon Trade, (1878), quoted by Prest,Google ScholarJones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁶ Reports of Factory Inspectors, B.P.P., vol. 22, April 1861 Report, p. 35.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Prest, Industrial Revolution, p. 132.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Reports of Factory Inspectors, B.P.P., vol. 22, April 1861 Report, p. 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Reports of Factory Inspectors, B.P.P., vol. 24, October 1866 Report, pp. 62–66.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰¹ Warner, The Silk Industry, p. 458; Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 23, 1840, pp. 226–27.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Commission on Handloom Weavers, vol. 23, 1840, pp. 226–27.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Warner, The Silk Industry, p. 89.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Returns, Factory, B.P.P., vol. 42, 1850; vol. 14, 1857.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Warner, The Silk Industry, p. 84.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Jones, S.R.H., “The Organization of Work,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (No. 2, 1982), p. 127, p. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Booth, Charles, ed. Life and Labour of the People in London (London, 1893), vol. 4, p. 252.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Warner, The Silk Industry, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Jordan, W. H., “The Silk Industry in London, 1760–1830” (M.A. thesis, London University, 1931), p. 34.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ “[T]he rational and methodological management of labour was the central management problem in the industrial revolution, requiring the fiercest wrench from the past,” Pollard, Genesis, p. 189.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ There is a parallel here between the situation in Macclesfield and the Gloucestershire woolen industry, where from around 1828 manufacturers installed looms in large weaving shops in an attempt to break the power of weavers' combinations. Commission on Handloom Weavers, 1840, p. 457.Google Scholar