Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-dz7l6 Total loading time: 0.489 Render date: 2021-09-28T14:50:58.840Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The importance of ideology: the shift to factory production and its effect on women's employment opportunities in the English textile industries, 1760–1850

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2013

Centre for Economic and Social Development (Myanmar).


This article uses data from the 1833 Factory Inquiry to assess male and female occupations and earnings in factory textile production. These data are contrasted with evidence drawn from various sources on male and female employment in domestic industry. The period from 1760 to 1850 was a time of dramatic change in the nature and location of textile production, with important consequences for women's work. Whilst economic factors explain many of the changes we see, gender ideology had a powerful effect on how the labour market operated, and this was increasingly the case over this period as the organisation of work became more formalised and hierarchical.

L'importance de l'idéologie: le passage à la production en usine et son effet sur les possibilités d'emploi pour les femmes dans l'industrie textile anglaise, 1760–1850

Cet article s'appuie sur les données de l'enquête anglaise de 1833 sur les usines, pour évaluer la part des emplois masculins face aux emplois féminins, et leurs salaires respectifs dans la production industrielle en secteur textile. On compare ces informations avec les données provenant d'autres sources qui distinguent clairement emploi masculin et emploi féminin dans la production textile effectuée, cette fois, dans de petits ateliers familiaux. Entre 1760 et 1850, la nature de la production textile et sa localisation changèrent radicalement, entraînant des répercussions importantes sur le travail des femmes. Alors que les facteurs économiques expliquent nombre des changements que nous observons, l'idéologie du genre eu un puissant effet sur la façon dont fonctionna le marché du travail, et ce fut de plus en plus le cas au cours de cette période à mesure que l'organisation du travail devenait plus formelle et aussi plus hiérarchisée.

Die bedeutung der ideologie: der übergang zur fabrikproduktion und seine auswirkungen auf die erwerbschancen von frauen in der englischen textilindustrie, 1760–1850

Dieser Beitrag verwendet Daten der Fabrikinspektion von 1833, um Berufe und Verdienste von Männern und Frauen in den Fabriken der Textilindustrie zu veranschlagen. Gleichzeitig kontrastiert er das Bild mit den aus verschiedenen Quellen gewonnenen Befunden zur Beschäftigung von Männern und Frauen im Heimgewerbe. Im Zeitraum von 1760 bis 1850 veränderten sich sowohl der Charakter als auch die Standorte der Textilproduktion in dramatischer Weise, was nachhaltige Auswirkungen auf die Frauenarbeit hatte. Während sich einige der Veränderungen durch ökonomische Faktoren erklären lassen, wirkte sich die Ideologie der Geschlechter besonders deutlich und in zunehmendem Maße auf die Funktionsweise des Arbeitsmarktes aus, zumal im gesamten Untersuchungszeitraum die Arbeitsorganisation stärker formalisiert und hierarchisiert wurde.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)


1 Angus Bethune Reach, Fabrics, filth and fairy tents: the Yorkshire textile districts in 1849, Chris Aspin ed. (Hebden Bridge, 2007), 6, 35.

2 Ure, Andrew, The philosophy of manufactures, 2nd edn. (London, 1835), 475Google Scholar; Engels, Friedrich, The condition of the working-class in England in 1844 (London, 1892), 142–3, 144, 160–1Google Scholar.

3 Rose, Sonya O., Limited livelihoods: gender and class in nineteenth-century England (Berkeley, 1992), 23Google Scholar.

4 Valenze, Deborah, The first industrial woman (New York, 1995), 89Google Scholar.

5 Joyce Burnette, Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain (Cambridge, 2008), especially 12, 138–53, 172–85.

6 Ibid., 5–7, 13–14.


7 Busfield, Deirdre, ‘Job definitions and inequality: the un-skilled women workers of the West Riding textile industry, 1850–1914’, Textile History 19, 1 (1988), 6182CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 63; Honeyman, Katrina, Gender and work in the European economy – 1600–1914 (Leeds, 1991)Google Scholar; Honeyman, Katrina, ‘Gender divisions and industrial divide: the case of the Leeds clothing trade, 1850–1970’, Textile History 28, 1 (1997), 47–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilly, Louise A. and Scott, Joan W., Women, work and the family (New York, 1978), 230Google Scholar.

8 British Parliamentary Papers (hereafter BPP) 1834, XIX–XX.

9 This is made explicit in the Report when wages in the cotton and silk industries are reported according to occupation. Since the tables that present this information are derived from the same data as the age-earnings profiles, it can confidently be concluded that the age-earnings profiles also represent net wages. See BPP 1834, XIX, 427–35, 448–50.

10 Paul Minoletti, ‘The importance of gender ideology and identity: the shift to factory production and its effect on work and wages in the English textile industries, 1760–1850’ (unpublished D. Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2011), chapters 3–5.

11 Boot, H. M. and Maindonald, J. H., ‘New estimates of age- and sex-specific earnings and the male–female earnings gap in the British cotton industry, 1833–1906’, Economic History Review 61, 2 (2008), 380408CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 381–2.

12 Minoletti, ‘The importance of gender ideology’, 65, 172.

13 Jenkins, D. T., ‘The validity of the factory returns, 1833–50’, Textile History 4 (1973), 2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 27.

14 William Cooke-Taylor, Notes of a tour in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire, in a series of letters to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, 2nd edn. (London, 1842), 117. See, also, Angus Bethune Reach, A cotton-fibre halo: Manchester and the textile districts in 1849, Chris Aspin ed. (Hebden Bridge, 2007), 123.

15 See, for example, Sydney J. Chapman, The Lancashire cotton industry: a study in economic development (Manchester, 1904), 86–7; R. S. Fitton and Alfred P. Wadsworth, The Strutts and the Arkwrights, 1758–1830: a study of the early factory system (Manchester, 1958), 193; Lee, C. H., A cotton enterprise, 1795–1840: a history of M'Connel & Kennedy, fine cotton spinners (Manchester, 1972), 128Google Scholar.

16 For trade unions having more influence at large firms, see Lloyd-Jones, R. and LeRoux, A. A., ‘Marshall and the birth and death of firms: the growth in size distribution of firms in the early nineteenth-century cotton industry’, Business History 24, 2 (1982), 141–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 143–4.

17 BPP 1833, XX, 82.

18 BPP 1834, XIX, 277.

19 It seems safe to assume that any genuine errors were randomly distributed.

20 BPP 1834, XIX, 277.

21 Frankel, Oz, ‘Blue books and the Victorian reader’, Victorian Studies 46, 2 (2004), 308–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 309.

22 Peter Kirby, Child labour in Britain, 1750–1870 (Basingstoke, 2003), 104.

23 Blaug, Mark, ‘The myth of the old poor law and the making of the new’, Journal of Economic History 23, 2 (1963), 151–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., 177; BPP 1834, XXVII–XXXIX, Royal Commission of Inquiry into Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws.


25 Blaug, ‘The myth of the old poor law’, 177.

26 BPP 1833, XX, 79.

27 Cowell was one of the assistant commissioners and the individual responsible for compiling and presenting the data from cotton and silk mills in the 1834 Report.

28 BPP 1834, XIX, 399.

29 Huberman, Michael, Escape from the market: negotiating work in Lancashire (Cambridge, 1996), 22, 140Google Scholar; Pollard, Sidney, The genesis of modern management: a study of the industrial revolution in Great Britain (London, 1965), 185Google Scholar.

30 Boot, H. M., ‘How skilled were Lancashire cotton factory workers in 1833?’, Economic History Review 48, 2 (1995), 283303Google Scholar, here 296.

31 BPP 1834, XIX, 281–9.

32 Although trade unions did not become legal until 1824, proto-trade unions, officially designated as ‘trade societies’ or ‘sick clubs’, had operated well before this date. In this paper ‘trade union’ is used to refer to both legal trade unions and any prior organisations that shared their key characteristics.

33 Pinchbeck, Ivy, Women workers and the industrial revolution, 2nd edn. (London, 1969), 178Google Scholar.

34 BPP 1802–03, VII, Minutes of evidence taken before the committee, to whom the bill, respecting the laws relating to the woollen trade, is committed); BPP 1806, III, Report and minutes of evidence, on the state of the woollen manufacture of England.

35 Paul Johnson, ‘Age, gender and the wage in Britain, 1830–1930’, in Peter Scholliers and Leonard Schwarz eds., Experiencing wages: social and cultural aspects of wage forms in Europe since 1500 (London, 2003), 230.

36 Kirby and Musson do not define ‘lads’ but it can be expected that they were referring to males aged between approximately 13 and 20 years. The age at which people were seen as adults (i.e. males no longer being ‘lads’) seems to be variable at this time, ranging between 18 and 21 years or higher. For further discussion of the age at which people were deemed to be adults, see Minoletti, ‘The importance of gender ideology’, 41–2.

37 Kirby, R. G. and Musson, A. E., The voice of the people: John Doherty, 1798–1854, trade unionist, radical and factory reformer (Manchester, 1975), 142Google Scholar.

38 Freifeld, Mary, ‘Technological change and the “self-acting” mule: a study of skill and the sexual division of labour’, Social History 11 (1986), 319–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 334. Her references are: Edward Baines Jr. History of the cotton manufacture in Great Britain (London, 1835), 438–9; W. H. Fraser, ‘The Glasgow cotton spinners, 1837’, in John Butt and J. T. Ward eds., Scottish themes (Edinburgh, 1976), 84–5; Kirby and Musson, Voice of the people, 76, 78, 109–10, 142.

39 Huberman, Michael, ‘How did labour markets work in Lancashire? More evidence on prices and quantities in cotton spinning, 1822–52’, Explorations in Economic History 28, 1 (1991), 87120CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 102 footnote.

40 Fitton and Wadsworth, Strutts and the Arkwrights, 104.

41 Busfield, ‘Job definitions and inequality’, 63–4.

42 Minoletti, ‘The importance of gender ideology’, 108–11.

43 The eight sub-regions are: ‘Manchester’; ‘Stockport and Heaton Norris’; ‘Duckenfield and Stayley Bridge’; ‘Brinnington, Hyde, &c.’; ‘Tintwistle, Glossop, &c.’; ‘Oldham’; ‘Bolton’; and ‘Warrington’. Men and boys are listed as throstle-spinners in ‘Bolton’, ‘Brinnington, Hyde, &c.’ and ‘Tintwistle, Glossop, &c.’. BPP 1834, XIX, 428–35.

44 Unfortunately the type of age-earnings data from which Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been extracted is not provided for the silk industry in this region anywhere in the 1834 Report.

45 The three sub-regions are: ‘Manchester’; ‘Stockport’; and ‘Congleton’. BPP 1834, XIX, 448–50.

46 BPP 1833, XX–XXI; BPP 1834, XIX–XX.

47 BPP 1833, XX, 408.

48 John Rylands University Library, Samuel Oldknow Papers (dates examined: 1790, 1792); Manchester Central Library, Greg Papers (1790, 1834), Arkwright Papers (1786, 1794, 1810); West Yorkshire Archive Service, Bentley Silk Mills Records (1848–1852); Essex Record Office, Courtauld Papers (1825–1860); Devon Record Office, Heathcoat Records (1816–1828); Brotherton Library, Benjamin Gott and Son Papers (1830); Business Records of William Ackroyd Ltd (1846, 1850, 1854, 1858, 1861); Business Records of Robert Clough Ltd (1829–1833, 1844–1848); Business Records of John Foster and Son (1838, 1840, 1842, 1844, 1846, 1850, 1854, 1858, 1862).

49 Judy Lown, Women and industrialisation: gender at work in nineteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1990), 53–4, 57–8.

50 Essex Record Office, Courtauld Papers, DF/3/3/27.

51 D. C. Coleman, Courtaulds: an economic and social history, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1969), 43.

52 Burnette, Gender, work and wages, 86–7.

53 However, it should be noted that those employed in occupations employing large numbers of child workers did tend to work slightly shorter hours.

54 Frances Collier, The family economy of the working classes in the cotton industry, 1784–1833 (Manchester, 1964), 16–17.

55 Duncan Bythell, The handloom weavers, a study in the English cotton industry during the industrial revolution (Cambridge, 1969), 60.

56 Extracted from Arthur Young, A six months tour through the north of England: containing, an account of the present state of agriculture, manufactures and population, in several counties of this kingdom, vol. 4, 2nd edn. (London, 1770), 322.

57 Janet Greenlees, Female labour power: women workers' influence on business practices in the British and American cotton industries, 1780–1860 (Aldershot, 2007), 80–3.

58 Figures extracted from BPP 1834, XIX, 279.

59 For females having inferior access to nutrition, see Humphries, Jane, ‘“Bread and a penny-worth of treacle”: differential female mortality in England in the 1840s’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 15, 4 (1991), 451–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 It is worth noting that the self-acting mule was not universally adopted in mule-spinning until well into the 1860s, and this was especially the case for fine counts, the branch of mule-spinning most dominated by males. See Gatrell, V. A. C., ‘Labour, power, and the size of firms in Lancashire cotton in the second quarter of the nineteenth century’, Economic History Review 30, 1 (1977), 95139Google Scholar, here 112.

61 ‘Doubling-up’ involved stacking one mule on top of another to double the spindlage under the control of one spinner.

62 Lazonick, William, ‘Industrial relations and technical change: the case of the self-acting mule’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 3 (1979), 231–62Google Scholar, here 236.

63 For example, see Burnette, Gender, work and wages, 265; Freifeld, ‘Technological change’, 335, 337; Lazonick, ‘Industrial relations and technical change’, 235–6, 239.

64 Huberman, Escape from the market, 35.

65 Lazonick, ‘Industrial relations and technical change’, 235.

66 Huberman, Escape from the market, 35.

67 Ibid., 28–9; Lazonick, ‘Industrial relations and technical change’, 236.


68 BPP 1833, XX, 688.

69 For piecers being hired by the day or the week and being easily replaceable, see Huberman, Michael, ‘Industrial relations and the industrial revolution: evidence from M'Connel and Kennedy, 1810–1840’, Business History Review 65, 2 (1991), 345–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 361.

70 BPP 1833, XX, 688–9.

71 Huberman, Escape from the market, 28.

72 Jane Humphries, Childhood and child labour in the British industrial revolution (Cambridge, 2010), 359–63.

73 Anna Clark, The struggle for the breaches: gender and the making of the British working class (London, 1995), 134.

74 There was considerable regional variation in when these lists were adopted. They were in place in Bolton from 1813, and Manchester from the 1830s, but only came to cover most of Lancashire post-1850. See Huberman, Escape from the market, 133–6.

75 Lazonick, ‘Industrial relations and technical change’, 236.

76 John Mason, ‘Mule spinner societies and the early federations’, in Alan Fowler and Terry Wyke eds., The barefoot aristocrats: a history of the amalgamated association of operative cotton spinners (Littleborough, 1987), 17.

77 Birley's Mill did not allow their male mule-spinners to supervise their own assistants; however, this was highly unusual and even here it was abandoned from the early 1840s. See Lazonick, ‘Industrial relations and technical change’, 245.

78 Huberman, Escape from the market, 28–9.

79 Ibid., 28, 50–1.


80 Turner, H. A., Trade union growth structure and policy: a comparative study of the cotton unions (London, 1962), 153, 157Google Scholar.

81 BPP 1833, XX, especially 131.

82 Burnette, Gender, work and wages, 115–20. Human capital can be defined here as the skills, knowledge and experience possessed by an individual that is valued by the labour market that they are employed in. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain human capital could be acquired through means such as formal and informal apprenticeships, on-the-job learning and formal education.

83 BPP 1833, XX, 230.

84 Benjamin Gott and Son Papers, vol. 203. Also employed in the burling chambers were three ‘numberers’, who received an average wage of 8 s. per week, and a ‘cook’, who received 6 s. 9 d. per week. All of these workers were women.

85 Tilly and Scott, Women, work and the family, 87.

86 See BPP 1834, XIX, 448.

87 Lown, Women and industrialisation, 53–4, 57–8

88 For most processes in factory flax production being performed exclusively by children and/or women, see Reach, Fabrics, filth and fairy tents, 61–4.

89 Jutta Schwarzkopf, Unpicking gender: the social construction of gender in the Lancashire cotton weaving industry, 1880–1914 (Aldershot, 2004), especially 69–72, 183–90.

90 See Jordan, Ellen, ‘The exclusion of women from industry in nineteenth-century Britain’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 31, 2 (1989), 273–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 276.

91 Clark, The struggle for the breaches, 121–3.

92 For an analysis of white workers under black supervision demanding higher wages, having lower morale, having lower productivity, and/or being of lower quality, see Kenneth Arrow, ‘Models of job discrimination’, in Anthony H. Pascal ed., Racial discrimination in economic life (London, 1972), 87–8. As Arrow makes clear, this analysis does not only apply to racial differences; here women take the place of black supervisors and men the place of white workers.

93 Muldrew, Craig, ‘“Th’ ancient distaff” and “whirling spindle”; measuring the contribution of spinning to household earnings and the national economy in England, 1550–1770’, Economic History Review 65, 2 (2012), 498526CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The importance of ideology: the shift to factory production and its effect on women's employment opportunities in the English textile industries, 1760–1850
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The importance of ideology: the shift to factory production and its effect on women's employment opportunities in the English textile industries, 1760–1850
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The importance of ideology: the shift to factory production and its effect on women's employment opportunities in the English textile industries, 1760–1850
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *