Overview
This transcript traces the rise of factory production during the Industrial Revolution and the social conflict it generated, focusing on the Luddites’ opposition to mechanization in the textile industry. It weaves together key persons, technological innovations, economic pressures, and state responses.
Central characters and developments: Richard Arkwright’s Cromford mill as a model factory; Edmund Cartwright’s power loom; wage reductions and the push for a minimum wage; the emergence of the Luddites and their wave of machine-breaking from 1811–1812; parliamentary and military crackdowns including the Frame Breaking Act and large troop deployments.
The narrative links technological change (power looms, steam-powered looms) with labor displacement, declining handloom wages, and social unrest. It also includes contemporary reactions, such as Byron’s warnings in the House of Lords and later historical interpretations (e.g., A. L. Morton) about state power and class struggle.
The material includes a wealth of primary-source references (newspaper reports, speeches, and later historical analyses) and ends with a reflection on co-operatives and alternative responses to industrial change.
Arkwright’s Cromford Factory and the Factory System
1771: Richard Arkwright opened a large factory by the River Derwent in Cromford, Derbyshire. Reported motivation: Cromford offered "a remarkable fine stream of water… in an area very full of inhabitants".1771
Adam Hart-Davis’s assessment: Arkwright’s mill was essentially the first factory of its kind in the world; it introduced regimented work, fixed hours, and a standardized task system. Description of Arkwright’s mills: stone buildings approximately 30 feet wide and 100 feet long (or longer), five to seven floors high.
Local impact: Arkwright’s factory caused a sharp decline in the incomes of local handloom weavers.
October 1779: The Derby Mercury reported handloom weavers considering destroying Arkwright’s machine, with militia-like readiness to defend the works because many families depended on the mills for livelihoods. Quote highlights the scale of labor mobilization (5,000–6,000 men) and the social stakes for workers’ families.1779
The Emergence of Power Looms and the Factory Model
1785: Edmund Cartwright, younger brother of Major John Cartwright, invented a weaving machine operable by horses or a waterwheel. He began using power looms in a mill he partly owned in Manchester.
Efficiency gap: An unskilled boy could weave three and a half pieces on a power loom in the time a skilled handloom weaver produced one piece by traditional methods.
Consequences: The introduction of power looms reduced the demand for cloth produced by handloom weavers, pushing wages down for those still employed.
1807: Over 130{,}000 sign a petition in favor of a minimum wage. The average wage of a weaver fell from 21 ext{ shillings} in 1802 to 14 ext{ shillings} in 1809.
Wage Suppression, Debates, and Early Industrial Disputes
The idea of a minimum wage faced defeat in the House of Commons.
May 1808: A meeting in St. George’s Fields, Manchester, with about 15{,}000 weavers supporting minimum wage; magistrates responded with military force. One weaver was killed and several seriously injured. 1808
Luddism: Origins, Myth, and the Early Campaigns (1811–1812)
Early 1811: Threatening letters from General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers began arriving at employers in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of unapprenticed workers, began nocturnal factory break-ins to destroy new machines. In a three-week period, over two hundred stocking frames were destroyed. By March, 1811, attacks became almost nightly, leading Nottingham authorities to deploy four hundred special constables. The Prince Regent offered £50 for information on those breaking the frames. These organizers and actions gave rise to the label “Luddites.”
1811–1812: Luddite activity spread to other regions, including Lancashire cotton mills with power looms.
20 March 1812: The warehouse of William Radcliffe (an early power-loom user) was attacked in Stockport by Luddites. The Manchester Gazette described an intense assault: large crowds (not less than 2,000) attacked the building; pistols, stones, smashed windows, and at least three deaths with about ten wounded. A musket was fired in an attempt to deter the rioters.
Wheat prices and desperation heightened tensions in 1812; workers faced famine-like pressures, prompting broader violence. On 20 April, several thousand men attacked Burton’s Mill at Middleton; Emanuel Burton had armed guards due to policy shifts toward power looms and the disruption of handloom weavers. Three people were killed by musket-fire; the next day, Burton’s house was burned; military arrived and another seven people were killed. The Leeds Mercury described the Middleton riot and the presence of a “General Ludd” standard-bearer with a red flag.
23–26 April 1812: Wray & Duncroff’s Mill at Westhoughton burned; High Sheriff William Hulton arrested twelve suspects; four accused (Abraham Charlston, Job Fletcher, Thomas Kerfoot, James Smith) were executed; Abraham Charlston was reportedly twelve years old, though not reprieved. Local journalist John Edward Taylor later suggested spies—employed by magistrate Colonel Fletcher—may have contributed to the violence.
Rawfolds Mill (Yorkshire): Led by a cropper, George Mellor, the attack on 11 April 1812 failed to gain entry; two croppers were mortally wounded. Seven days later, William Horsfall, a mill-owner, was killed. Authorities rounded up over a hundred suspects; sixty-four indicted; three men executed for Horsfall’s murder and fourteen hanged for the Rawfolds attack.
By the summer of 1812, eight men in Lancashire were sentenced to death and thirteen transported for attacks on mills.
June 1812: John Knight and thirty-seven handloom weavers arrested in Manchester; Knight was charged with administering oaths to weavers to destroy steam looms; all thirty-eight acquitted. Archibald Prentice criticized the prosecution’s impact on social tensions between workers and employers.
1813: Court actions included 28 convictions in Chester (eight death sentences, thirteen transportation); fifteen Luddites executed at York. The judge asserted the gravity of the crimes and called for no mercy.
1815–1817: Handloom weavers struggled to find work as power looms dominated production; average handloom earnings fell from 21 ext{ s}. in 1802 to below 9 ext{ s}. in 1817. The movement largely ceased by 1817, though distress persisted among weavers.
Notable Narratives, Personal Accounts, and Public Debates
A weaver from Bury lamented the social stigma and economic precarity: “A weaver is no longer able to provide for the wants to a family. We are shunned by the remainder of society and branded as rogues because we are unable to pay our way.”
Archival accounts highlight the complexity of the crisis: some factory owners pursued modernization aggressively; others faced backlash from workers who believed machines displaced livelihoods.
Public discourse included Byron’s February 1812 speech in the House of Lords arguing against making machine-breaking a capital offense, suggesting the need for fair consideration of grievances and a measured response to unrest. He warned that heavy-handed measures could provoke further conflict rather than resolve underlying problems. 27^{ ext{th}} ext{ February } 1812
Byron’s critique of capital punishment: frame-breaking law would “pluck [the sword] from the sheath” if earlier meetings and grievances had been handled properly. He urged reconciliation and debate to restore workmen to their livelihoods.
A. L. Morton’s interpretation (A People’s History of England, 1938) framed the government’s heavy-handed response as reinforcing class oppression and state power in the hands of the ruling class.
Key People, Places, and Artifacts
Richard Arkwright: factory pioneer at Cromford; his model factory shaped the early factory system.
Edmund Cartwright: inventor of the power loom; his innovations increased efficiency and reduced demand for handloom weaving.
Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers: progenitors of the Luddite movement; symbolized organized resistance to mechanization.
William Radcliffe: one of the first to use the power loom; his warehouse was attacked in Stockport (20 March 1812).
Emanuel Burton: mill owner who used power-looms; his actions contributed to tensions with handloom weavers; his mill and house were attacked/burned in 1812.
George Mellor: leader of the Rawfolds Mill attack; a Huddersfield cropper.
William Horsfall: mill-owner murdered at Rawfolds Mill (April 1812).
Colonel Fletcher: magistrate associated with alleged spying that fed unrest; suspected of employing spies to incite violence.
Archibald Prentice: journalist and author who documented Manchester disturbances (Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, 1851).
Lord Byron: his House of Lords speech (27 February 1812) argued against extreme penalties for machine-breaking.
The Crown and Parliament: Frame-Breaking Act (capital punishment for machine-breaking); deployment of 12,000 troops to affected areas to suppress the Luddites.
Primary Sources and Contemporary Accounts cited in the transcript
The Derby Mercury (22nd October, 1779): fear of mob attack on Cromford; defense arrangements; large labor force capable of rapid mobilization.
The Manchester Gazette (2nd May, 1812): detailed report of the Stockport attack; 2,000 attackers; deaths and injuries.
The Leeds Mercury (April, 1812): Middleton attack reportage and the General Ludd figure.
Lords’ Byron speech (27th February, 1812): Byron’s assessment of unrest and call for measured responses.
The Charter and legal proceedings: Frame-Breaking Act; 12,000 troops deployed.
Archibald Prentice’s Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester (1851): analysis of outbreaks and spurious spies; Dean Moor meeting (9th April, 1812).
The Co-operator (January 1829): John King’s perspective on worker cooperatives as a remedy to mechanization’s threat.
The Manchester Observer (August, 1818 letter from a Bury weaver): critique of social prejudice and economic marginalization of handloom workers.
Secondary historical works: E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963); J. F. C. Harrison, The Common People (1984); A. L. Morton, A People’s History of England (1938).
Chronology of Major Dates (selected)
1771: Arkwright’s Cromford factory founded.
1779: Derby Mercury reports growing labor tensions and potential mob action at Cromford.
1785: Cartwright develops power loom; Manchester mill operations begin.
1802
ightarrow 1809: Wages for handloom weavers decline from 21s to 14s.1807: Petition for a minimum wage signed by >130{,}000 workers.
1808: May Day/Manchester riot; 15,000 weavers protest; military intervention.
1811
ightarrow 1812: Luddites destroy hundreds of frames; Nottingham, then Lancashire and beyond; the “Luddite” label solidifies; widespread attacks and arrests begin.20 ext{ March } 1812: Stockport warehouse attack; casualties reported: 3 dead, ~10 wounded.
20 ext{ April } 1812: Middleton attack; Burton’s mill; house burned; 3 killed that day; subsequent attack results in more deaths.
11 ext{ April } 1812: Rawfolds Mill attack; two croppers mortally wounded; Horsfall later murdered (April 1812).
April 1812: Westhoughton mill attack; legal repercussions follow; multiple executions and transportation.
June 1812: Knight case; mass arrest and subsequent acquittal of 38 individuals.
1813: Chester and York trials; 28 convictions (8 death, 13 transportation); 15 Luddites executed at York.
1815
ightarrow 1817: Handloom weavers’ livelihoods continue to suffer; Luddite movement largely ends by 1817.1818: Manchester Observer letter about economic exclusion of handloom workers.
Ethical, Philosophical, and Real-World Implications
The events illustrate the conflict between technological progress and labor displacement, raising questions about how to balance innovation with workers’ livelihoods and dignity.
The state’s response (Frame-Breaking Act, large troop deployments) demonstrates the lengths to which government and capitalists went to preserve industrial productivity, often at the expense of civil liberties and due process.
Debates around minimum wage reveal early tensions between economic necessity, price signals, and social protection in a transitioning economy.
The eventual turn toward cooperative organizing (e.g., John King’s suggestion in The Co-operator) signals an alternative ethical framework: worker ownership and control of the means of production as a hedge against mechanization’s social costs.
Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance
Economic transformation and productivity: The shift from handloom to power looms is a classic case of tech-driven productivity gains accompanied by disruption in labor markets.
Labor history and class formation: The Luddites symbolize a response to structural unemployment, wage suppression, and the precariousness of craftsmen in the Industrial Revolution.
Policy and governance: The episode highlights early examples of industrial policy, state surveillance, and punitive measures versus social protection (debates over wages, and later calls for worker co-operatives).
Modern relevance: Contemporary automation debates echo Luddites’ concerns about job displacement, wage erosion, and the distribution of gains from technology.
Mathematical and Statistical References (formatted in LaTeX)
Wages and labor figures: 21 ext{ s}
ightarrow 14 ext{ s} (handloom weavers, 1802 to 1809).Signatures on minimum wage petition: 130{,}000.
Population-scale labor mobilizations and attacks: 2{,}000+ in Stockport; 5{,}000 ext{–} 6{,}000 in earlier Derby Mercury report.
Troop deployments: 12{,}000 troops in affected areas.
Casualties in Stockport: 3 dead, 10 wounded.
Executions and transports: multiple figures such as 8 death sentences, 13 transportation sentences (1813 Chester), and 15 Luddites executed at York.
Time spans: active Ludditism roughly from 1811 to 1817.
References (Primary and Secondary)
(1) The Derby Mercury (22nd October, 1779)
(2) Adam Hart-Davis, Richard Arkwright, Cotton King (10th October 1995)
(3) The Derby Mercury (22nd October, 1779) – as above
(4) Edward Baines, The History of the Cotton Manufacture (1835)
(5) George Henry Wood, History of Wages in the Cotton Trade (1910)
(6) E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963)
(7) J. F. C. Harrison, The Common People (1984)
(8) The Manchester Gazette (2nd May, 1812)
(9) The Leeds Mercury (April, 1812)
(10) Lord Byron, speech in the House of Lords (27th February, 1812)
(11) A. L. Morton, A People’s History of England (1938)
(12) The Manchester Gazette (2nd May, 1812)
(13) The Leeds Mercury (April, 1812)
(14) E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963)
(15) J. F. C. Harrison, The Common People (1984)
(16) E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963)
(17) Archibald Prentice, Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester (1851)
(18) J. F. C. Harrison, The Common People (1984)
(19) George Henry Wood, History of Wages in the Cotton Trade (1910)
(20) A letter from a weaver in Bury, published in the Manchester Observer (22nd August, 1818)
Source: https://spartacus-educational.com/PRluddites.htm
The provided text traces the rise of factory production during the Industrial Revolution, focusing on the social conflict and Luddite opposition to mechanization in the textile industry. It details key innovations like Arkwright’s factory and Cartwright’s power loom, the resulting wage reductions and worker unrest, and the severe state response to machine-breaking.