You are on page 1of 4

Luddite Movement

Power spinning. i.e. Spinning mechanically

06/02/2012 04:17:00

Unpopular due to the way in which the majority of women were active in some form of spinning. o One of the characteristics of mechanically spun thread was a little lumpy Removed a large amount of income from women in urban and rural England o Replaced by spinning jennies and spinning mules Spinning Mules employed a large number of children This was another reason why the Luddites were opposed to this form of mechanisation o It broke up the family unit, which had before been based on entire household manufacturing units. Weaving also under threat Flying shuttles now able to operate with machine spun yarn o Increased production but also made weaving physically move stressful than it had been previously Yorkshire Wool Lancashire Cotton In 19th century there is the practice of textile workers taking factory owners to court, the courts rarely sided with them Moved on to petitioning parliament but instead parliament simply abolished all the legislation concerning when and where machines were allowed to be used. Croppers and Shearmen Wool for this was imported from Spain o The wool from Spain was shorter and finer Preferably for this you need sheep who have not eaten much but have walked a lot. The sheep in England were not so good for fine woollen cloth Shearmen were specifically skilled and need specific tools as well. o They increased the value from somewhere to to a 1/3rd. Placed them in a position of labour aristocracy

i.e. they were disproportionately highliy paid

compared to other textile workers. Introduction of machines to do this job meant that you could employ someone of little training to do this technical job

Gigmill Had been banned under Edward VI because it was believed they damaged the cloth Designed to do the job of the shearmen

Small manufacturers tend to side with the revolters against the government i.e. if all cloth makers have to have the machines to be competitive, then a whole number of the cloth makers will go out of the business o it costs too much capital to buy machinery for most small manufacturer o also if there is a downturn in trade you are not left with a huge empty factory if you dont have loads of machines to look after etc. It was very expensive to keep large numbers of troops for the government to put down these rebellions People were selective about which property they attacked, but not what the property itself was. Employers could effectively not pay their workers if they had a dispute with them n

Dinwiddy

06/02/2012 04:17:00

Actively petitioned parliament but were unsuccessful. Felt their interests were not being protected Used collective bargaining, wrote to parliament Main focus was to get rid of the machines and return to their incomes More and more people were brought into weaving, wages started to decrease etc. After machines became more cost-effective workers started losing their jobs However, most of the sources that the Luddism movement was particularly revolutionary came from exaggerated criminal sources It could have been revolutionary but there was a lack of communication and any real goal beyond simple wage increases. Because some were revolutionary and republican it tends to give the impression that the mass of the Luddites were, this was not the case There were some laws which stopped the use of some machines but this was mainly concerned with trying to keep the quality.

Adrian Randall
Wiltshire Outrages

06/02/2012 04:17:00

Given that they did not work at home, woollen workers had a basic trade union set up as they did not work from home Had a superior financial state than some other woollen workers No legislation concerning shearing frame whereas there was for the gig mill The orthodox view that normal people result to rioting before they have the trade unions and that after these unions exist they pursue legal means Randall argues this pattern doesnt fit the Wiltshire Outrages nor the Luddite movement ten years later.

You might also like