Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T09:06:29.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Look at the Early Factory Labor Force

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Herman Freudenberger ,
Frances J. Mather  and
Clark Nardinelli
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 1085 - 1090
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1984

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.)

References

1 See Raymond G. Cowherd, The Humanitarians and the Ten Hour Movement in England (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1956), p. 5.

2 Part of the minutes of evidence are reprinted in Wing, Charles, Evils of the Factory System (New York, 1967 [1837]), pp. cxxvii–clxv.Google Scholar

3 The percentage for children in 1833 was calculated from data in the Supplementary Report of the Factories Inquiry Commission (P.P., 1834), Part I, pp. 19–37. The percentage in 1835 is from data in the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, 31 October 1835.Google Scholar

4 Smelser, Neil J., Social Change in the Industrial Revolution (Chicago, 1959).Google Scholar

5 Edwards, M. M. and Lloyd-Jones, R., “N. J. Smelser and the Cotton Factory: A Reassessment,” Textile History and Economic History, ed. Harte, N. B. and Ponting, K. G. (Manchester, 1973), pp. 304–19.Google Scholar

6 The correlation coefficient between mean weeks lost and the percentage of workers in the mill listed as unhealthy is 0.84.Google Scholar

7 The average counts spun in Stockport and Manchester were calculated from a table on pp. 119–23 of the Supplementary Report of the Factories Inquiry Commission, Part I (P.P., 1834, XIX).Google Scholar

8 Highly skilled workers had significantly higher incomes than less skilled workers. In 1818–1819, the average weekly income of fine spinners was 42s. 3d.; the average weekly income of coarse spinners was 33s. 3d. See Collier, Frances, The Family Economy of the Working Classes in the Cotton Industry, 1784–1833 (Manchester, 1964), p. 64. The income differentials existed for other workers as well, though the differences were not as large as for spinners.Google Scholar

9 The relationship between health and productivity is also being explored as part of a major research project based on geneological data. See Fogel, Robert W. and Engerman, Stanley L., eds., Secular Trends in Nutrition, Labor Welfare, and Labor Productivüy, special issue of Social Science History, 6 (Fall 1982).Google Scholar