Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:46:43.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peculiar Perquisites and Pernicious Practices

Embezzlement in the West of England Woollen Industry, c. 1750–1840*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Adrian J. Randall
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper examines the character and significance of embezzlement in the woollen industry of the West of England in the years from c. 1750 to 1840 in the light of the recent debate which sees the period as witnessing major developments in the eradication of perquisites and in the formulation of the wage. It examines the dimensions of embezzlement, its correlation with economic fluctuations and its importance for the economy of both the clothier and the embezzling worker. It shows that tighter legislative sanctions failed to check the illicit trade in embezzled wool, which by the early nineteenth century constituted a well-organised black market, and it considers the effect of this trade in “slinge” upon economic and social relations in the industry.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 1990 , pp. 193 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1990

References

1 Linebaugh, P., Summary of paper, Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, 25 (1972), p. 13.Google Scholar

2 Linebaugh, , Bulletin of Labour History, pp. 11–15Google Scholar; Rule, J., The Experience of Labour in Eighteenth-Century Industry (New York, 1981), pp. 124–146Google Scholar, and Styles, J., “Embezzlement, industry and the law in England, 1500–1800”, in Berg, M., Hudson, P. and Sonenscher, M. (eds), Manufacture in Town and Country Before the Factory (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Emsley, C., Crime and Society in England, 1750–1900 (London, 1987)Google Scholar, ch. 5, for a useful overview. See also abstracts of papers at a conference held at Birmingham University in 1986, chaired by DrSchwarz, L. D., published in Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, 52 (1987), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar

3 Styles, , “Embezzlement”, p. 205.Google Scholar

4 Tucker, J., Instructions for Travellers (1757), pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

5 Defoe, D., A Tour through England and Wales (1724–1726; Everyman edn. 1928), Vol. I, p. 281.Google Scholar

6 For an excellent introduction to this debate see Berg, Hudson and Sonencher, Manufacture in Town and Country, ch. 1. For discussion of the consequences of the different industrial structures of the West of England and the West Riding for their economic development and the relevance of proto-industrialisation theory, see Randall, A. J., “Work, culture and resistance to machinery in the West of England woollen industry” in Hudson, P. (ed.), Regions and Industries: A Perspective on the Industrial Revolution in Britain (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Crump, W. B., The Leeds Woollen Industry, 1780–1820 (Thoresby Society, Leeds, 1931), pp. 48–56.Google Scholar

8 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, Reports from the Assistant Handloom Weavers' Commissioners, Part V (Gloucestershire), p. 473.

9 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 7, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Woollen Clothiers' Petition, p. 320.

10 Journal of the House of Commons, Vol. 34 (1772–1774), p. 414.Google Scholar

11 Gloucester Journal, 18 January and 10 October 1768; 21 January, 18 March, and 29 July 1771.

12 Commons Journal, Vol. 34, p. 574.Google Scholar

13 Commons Journal, Vol. 36 (1776–1778), pp. 85, 113.Google Scholar

14 A similar accusation was made in 1784. “The poor spoil our yarn by dirtyness, bad spinning, damping and other frauds”. Gloucester Journal, 9 02 1784.Google Scholar

15 Commons Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 451–452.Google Scholar

16 Styles, , “Embezzlement”, pp. 207–208.Google Scholar

17 For costs of wool and cloth see Mann, J. de L., The Cloth Industry in the West of England from 1640–1880 (Oxford, 1971), ch. IX and Appendix III.Google Scholar

18 Commons Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 451–452.Google Scholar

19 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 7, pp. 28–32, 98.

20 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, Report from the Assistant Handloom Weavers' Commissioners, Part II (Southwest of England), p. 466; B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, pp. 473–475.

21 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 5, Report from the Select Committee on the Woollen Clothiers' Petition, pp. 14–16; B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 7, pp. 334, 338; Mann, , Cloth Industry, p. 321.Google Scholar

22 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, p. 466.

23 B.P.P., 1841, Vol. 10, Report of the Commissioners inquiring into the Condition of the Unemployed Handloom Weavers, pp. 89–90. See also B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, Part III (West Riding of Yorkshire), pp. 546–547.

24 14 Geo III, c.25, An Act for the more effectual preventing of Frauds and Embezzlement by Persons in the Woollen Manufactory.

25 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 5, pp. 15, 16.

26 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 474.

27 For example Tann, J., Gloucestershire Woollen Mills (Newton Abbot, 1967), p. 56Google Scholar; Rule, J., The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England, 1780–1850 (London, 1986), pp. 116–117Google Scholar hints at this, and B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, p. 466. For the problem of living standards in the eighteenth century, see Schwarz, L. D., “The standard of living in the long run: London, 1700–1860”, Economic History Review, XXXVIII (1985), pp. 24–41.Google Scholar

28 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, p. 466.

29 Randall, A. J., “The Gloucestershire food riots of 1766”, Midland History, X (1985), pp. 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Bath Chronicle, 2 March 1769; Gloucester Journal, 27 02, 6 03 and 13 03 1769.Google Scholar

31 As for example when the chance arrest of a Nymphsfield weaver, Thomas Rudder, led to the capture of an organised gang of wool thieves. Gloucester Journal, 22 11 1773.Google Scholar

32 Styles, , “Embezzlement”, pp. 181, 207.Google Scholar

33 It is notoriously difficult to compute the earnings of out-workers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The most authoritative source for the West of England woollen industry is Mann, , Cloth Industry, in particular Appendix IV, pp. 322–327.Google Scholar

Weavers: Employers and weavers giving evidence in 1803 advanced a variety of figures for average weekly earnings but broadloom weavers probably rarely exceeded an average of 10s per week net of deductions. As a piece of broadcloth frequently took three weeks to produce, the value of any yarn which might be embezzled from the materials must be divided by three to assess its relative contribution to weekly income. If the weaver could embezzle 11b of Spanish wool per cloth, this might be worth 5s but the slinger would pay at the most 2s 6d for it. This would thus be worth around 10d per week or 8.3% over and above clear net earnings from the loom.

Spinners: Spinning by hand was a slow process and spinners worked at very variable rates of production. In addition, rates paid for yarn varied considerably, depending both upon the quality of the fibre and upon the quality of the work done. At a rate of production of 2.51b per week, a maximum rarely achieved, a spinner would have taken some 24 weeks to complete the 601b of yarn necessary for a broadcloth. Few worked so quickly. Even if we take Pettat's exaggerated figures of a loss of 1 lb in 12, the spinner might only embezzle 51b of wool, worth in 1774 around 3s per lb or at most 1s 6d from a slinger. This would generate only the equivalent of 3.75d per week. Rates for spinning Spanish wool fluctuated from as little as 4d per lb to over 1s. At 8d per lb, the spinner completing the work in 24 weeks would earn 20d per week. Thus the value of embezzlement, even on Pettat's figures, would have been only 19% over and above clear earnings. It seems unlikely that the domestic spinner could purloin even half that amount and avoid detection.

Family economy: Adding together the values of wool purloined from a loom and a spinning wheel (at half that claimed by Pettat) would produce an income a little below 1s per week on a notional earning of 11s 8d or an 8.5% supplement.

34 In fact the only labouring group which could easily utilise embezzled wool for their own production were the rug weavers. Handloom weavers probably could likewise have used thrums to make loop pile rugs.

35 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

36 Gloucester Journal, 10 10 1768.Google Scholar

37 Gloucester Journal, 20 06 1796.Google Scholar

38 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

39 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

40 Fisher, P. H., Notes and Recollections of Stroud, Glos. (Stroud, 1871), p. 182.Google Scholar

41 Bath Chronicle, 10 April 1800, and Wiltshire Record Office, A2/4/368; A2/8/Depositions, Marlborough Sessions, 1828.

42 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

43 Gloucester Journal, 28 04 1783Google Scholar; Wiltshire Assize and Sessions Calendars, Summer Assize, July 1818; Simpsons Salisbury Gazette, 23 July 1818.

44 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, pp. 473–474; Gloucester Journal, 8 10 1781.Google Scholar Female domestic spinners were frequently accused of embezzlement before machinery displaced them in the 1790s. But women continued to be charged with embezzlement into the nineteenth century. Thus of the fifty successful prosecutions for embezzlement reported by the Gloucester Journal between 1800 and 1830, sixteen were of women. Many women took up the loom but they also were found guilty of purloining wool from factories and workshops. Most were convicted of stealing small quantities but four were convicted as receivers. For Wiltshire, where coverage is less good, women constituted six out of twenty-five successful prosecutions.

45 Gloucestershire Record Office, GCL JF 11.27 (65); Gloucester Journal, 1 07 1822.Google Scholar

46 Commons Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 451, 452.Google Scholar

47 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

48 Simpsons Salisbury Gazette, 23 July 1818.

49 Gloucester Journal, 17 01 1829.Google Scholar

50 Gloucester Journal, 8 10 1781Google Scholar; 29 July 1782; 13 October 1783.

51 Gloucester Journal, 10 10 1785.Google Scholar

52 Gloucester Journal, 13 10 1783Google Scholar; 3 April, 29 May and 17 July 1786.

53 Gloucester Journal, 7 04 1788Google Scholar; 20 June and 25 July 1796; 26 October 1801.

54 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 475. 17 Geo III, c. 56 amended and consolidated earlier legislation against “Frauds and Abuses by Persons employed in the Manufacture of Hats, and in the Woollen, Linen […] Manufactures”, toughening sanctions and extending rights to stop and search.

55 Gloucester Journal, 20 06 and 25 07 1796; 26 10 1801.Google Scholar

56 Devizes Gazette, 14 July 1825; 15 January 1829.

57 Gloucester Journal, 20 05 and 24 06 1816.Google Scholar

58 Gloucester Journal, 26 01 1818Google Scholar; Fisher, , Note and Recollections, pp. 181–182.Google Scholar

59 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

60 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, pp. 473, 474.

61 Gloucester Journal, 20 06 1796.Google Scholar

62 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 23, p. 466.

63 Bamford, S., Homely Rhymes, Poems and Reminiscences (London, 1864), p. 7.Google Scholar

64 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 474.

65 Cloth thefts and major thefts of wool were more intermittent but involved very costly losses. The Gloucester Journal carried reports of over 200 cloth thefts in the years from 1760–1830. In Wiltshire, where newspaper coverage is less reliable, there were reports of 66 robberies of cloth between 1811 and 1835. Many cloths were stolen from the tenter grounds where fulled cloths were stretched prior to finishing or after dyeing. The tenter grounds presented a pretty sight to travellers but they were also an easy target for thieves. Few clothiers in the West of England chose, as did Benjamin Gott at Bean Ing, to enclose their extensive tenter grounds behind high walls for security (see Warner, R., Excursions from Bath (Bath, 1801), p. 322Google Scholar, and Crump, , Leeds Woollen Industry, p. 263).Google Scholar Much stolen cloth was sold at Bristol, but, cut up into smaller pieces, they were also sold much nearer to where they had been stolen. Large-scale thefts of wool were harder to trace but again Bristol provided a significant bulk outlet, the wool thence being “recycled” around the woollen-making districts.

66 Wilts. R.O., A2/8/Devizes Sessions, January 1829.

67 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 474.

68 Rule, , The Experience of Labour, pp. 126–127.Google Scholar

69 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 5, pp. 14, 15; B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 7, p. 264.

70 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, pp. 474, 475.

71 Wilts. R.O., A2/4/362; Wiltshire Assizes and Sessions Calendars, Devizes Sessions, January 1818; Gloucester Journal, 9 06 1823Google Scholar; 15 March 1828; Wilts. R.O., A2/4/373; A2/8/Marlborough Sessions, October 1829.

72 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

73 Temple, W., The Case as it now Stands between the Clothiers, Weavers and other Manufacturers with regard to the late Riot in the County of Wilts. (1739), p. 32.Google Scholar See also Temple, , A Vindication of Commerce and the Arts (1758).Google Scholar

74 For example, shearmen notionally worked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. but custom allowed at least five meal breaks. See Randall, A. J., “The Shearmen and the Wiltshire Outrages of 1802: Trade Unionism and Industrial Violence”, Social History, 7 (1982), pp. 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Commons Journal, Vol. 34, p. 452.Google Scholar

76 H.O. 41/7, Hobhouse to Sainsbury, 6 July 1823; Wiltshire Assize and Sessions Calendars, Lent Assizes, March 1826; Devizes Gazette, 9 March 1826.

77 As, for example, Temple's tirade against the lax morality of the woollen workers in 1738 in the dispute between the Wiltshire clothiers and their weavers over wages (Temple, , The Case as it now Stands, pp. 7, 32)Google Scholar; see also the pamphlet defending the clothiers published during the long dispute between the clothiers and weavers of Gloucestershire over the issue of wage rating in the years around 1756 (A State of the Case and a Narrative of the Facts relating to the late Commotions and Risings of the Weavers (1757), pp. iv, 2–4)Google Scholar; see also the way in which both the West of England clothiers and their counsel continued to raise the issue of embezzlement before the Select Committee investigating their petition to repeal the old regulatory legislation in 1803 even though there was no dispute about the continued enforcement of anti-embezzlement legislation (B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 5, pp. 16–17).

78 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 473.

79 For discussion of the failure of the West of England after 1826 see Mann, , Cloth Industry, pp. 157–193.Google Scholar

80 Randall, A. J., “The Industrial Moral Economy of the Gloucestershire Weavers in the Eighteenth Century”, in Rule, J. (ed.), British Trade Unionism 1750–1850: The Formative Years (London, 1988), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar

81 Rule, J., “Social Crime in the Rural South in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, Southern History, 1 (1979), pp. 135–153.Google Scholar

82 B.P.P., 1802/3, Vol. 5, pp. 15, 16, 17; B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 413.

83 B.P.P., 1840, Vol. 24, p. 474.

84 As, for example, the case of William Niblett, referred to above. Niblett, a notorious slinger, was convicted and sentenced to death for forgery but had his sentence commuted to transportation by giving the magistrates a long list of names of slingers and details of his illegal trade. See Fisher, , Notes and Recollections, p. 182.Google Scholar

85 For an interesting discussion of this, see Schwarz, L. D., “The Formation of the Wage: Some Problems”, in Scholliers, P. (ed.), Real Wages in Historical Perspective (Oxford, 1989), pp. 21–39.Google Scholar

86 Styles, , “Embezzlement”, pp. 193–194.Google Scholar

87 Wiltshire Assize and Sessions Calendars, Devizes Sessions, January 1818; Lent Assizes, March 1818.