How far was the Luddites of the Midlands 1811-1812 a Political Movement?

The Luddite movement of the Northern in 1811 and 1812 was a sustained campaign of machine breaking springing from concerns of the impact of modern, industrial methods in the textiles industry containing both political and apolitical elements. Given the widespread nature of the Luddite movement I will focus primarily on the Midlands counties of Lancashire and Nottinghamshire in an attempt to isolate Luddite motivations and actions. Through this I will seek to understand the extent to which Luddism was a political movement. By this I mean a movement with a shared political aim and ideology. Historiographical thought is divisive here, with authors such as Thompson arguing that Luddism is shared common features with other underground movements of the period such as the Jacobins with issues of counter-capitalism and class reformation.1 Similarly, Hobsbawm argues that there was a political basis to the movement whilst others such as Thomis maintain that Luddism lacked the complex thought process necessary for a true political movement. In order to fully investigate this it is necessary to first understand the context from which the Luddite movement sprang. Many Luddites argued for a legal right to machine breaking due to their 17th century constitutional charter. Likewise, the historical precedent for revolt as well as the contextual differences of the
1

E. P. Thompson, The Making of the Working Class, Penguin Books, 1991, p 595

separate areas of action allow for a clearer understanding of Luddite motivations. Alongside this, the character of the organisation of the Luddites can give an important insight into the nature of the movement and its aims. Finally, the use of illegal oaths, petitioning, machine-breaking and the targeting of particular mills allows us to comprehend the extent to which political thought influence the actions of the Luddites.

Firstly, understanding the historical context of the Luddite movement is key to recognizing the motivations that underpinned it. Prior to the start of the Luddite agitation there had been poor harvests in Britain in 1809, 1810 and 1811. Alongside this British exports in 1811 fell to just 20% of the level of 1810.2 The resulting reduction of demand for employment can be seen in the introduction of the three-day week in Lancashire.3 Accordingly, this had a negative affect on the standard of living, particularly in the textile industry. What one must take from this is that alongside the large-scale introduction of machines into the weaving sector, there was considerable strain on the skilled artisan in Britain to maintain their trade and provide for the family unit. As such there already existed a proclivity towards the active defense of their livelihoods. However, whilst this may have laid the foundations for the politicization of the Luddite movement, the nature of struggle here
2

Kevin Binfield, ed. Kevin Binfield, Writings of the Luddites, John Hopkins University Press, 2004, p 19 3 Michael Huberman, Invisible Handshakes in Lancashire: Cotton Spinning in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, in The Journal of Economic History, Vol 46. No 4 (Dec 1986), p996

was of necessity, not of political struggle.

Secondly, the specific concerns of the Luddites can serve to inform on the nature of their agitation. Reasons for machine breaking ranged from the operation of frames by un-apprenticed workers, owners imposing abatements upon the men and the creation of cut-up hosiery.4 It seems clear therefore that the Luddites actively worked against machines that produced an inferior product. Indeed, a Luddite letter in Nottingham discharges all from working on the Single Preess, or the two Coarse ole.5 These types of knitting produced an inferior article, often unraveling or losing its shape. The use of such a technique would have reduced the value of the British trade in its entirety or at least in this area of quality. Moreover, concern for the wellbeing of children and young labourers hints at a moral nature to the movement. Examples from letters from the time describe the new cotton mills as centres of exploitation, monstrous prisons in which children were confined, centres of immorality and of industrial conflict6 The implication of this is that the Luddite movement was mostly concerned with the standardization, regulation and wellbeing of the trade. Thompson argues here that we must see the croppers opposition to particular machines as more than a particular group of skilled workers defending their own livelihood.7 This would seem to
4

M. I. Thomis, The Luddites: Machine-Breaking in Regency England, Gregg Revivals, 1993 p76 5 Kevin Binfield, p 21 6 E. P. Thompson, p 599 7 E. P. Thompson, p 601

point towards a clear goal of improving standards overall rather than a simple reaction to an economic climate.

The Luddite movement was not without political basis, they looked towards Framework Knitters Company, issued by Charles II, as proof of their legal rights. Through this the Luddites proclaimed the right to machine breaking in order to defend their industry. Thompson supports this, arguing the journeymen and artisans felt themselves to be robbed of a constitutional right.8 Despite this charter being part of one specific trade community, it must be seen to extend its communication throughout many parts of the textile industry as a whole for two distinct reasons. Firstly, the charter stood for a bonding together of tradesmen in an era where English politics forbade it - the Combinations act of 1799 and 1800, fearful of revolutionary ideals from France, made it illegal for workers to join in trade unions and actively petition the government. Alongside this, particularly in Nottinghamshire, the charter was viewed as an English nationalistic document, joining the populace together based on ideals of patriotism.9 Binfield notes that for some Luddite writers concept of the power granted by the charter to be so greatthat the framework knitters empowered by the charter can nullify even an Act of Parliament.10 Indeed, in more practical terms there was general confusion as to why the government did not support their cause
8 9

E. P. Thompson, p 598 Kevin Binfield, p 22 10 Kevin Binfield, p 25

they had regulated the price of corn and the size of bread, why could they not interfere in a similar way on the cloth industry?11 Whilst the actual legitimacy of the charter to do this is questionable, it is this contravention of the 1799 and 1800 acts that places the Luddites agitation as a clear political statement against the government of the day.

Whilst there was general dissent within the textile industry, the extent of Luddite politicization was dependent on the area itself. For example, the East Midlands had a long tradition of frame breaking in the hosiery trade; attacks on cloth finishing machinery in Yorkshire had disturbed the woollen industry in West Riding in the 1790s. In Lancashire cotton-spinning technologies had met with resistance in 1768 and 1779. Weavers battle for wage increases led to widespread violence in 1808.12 However, the context for these attacks differed from area to area. For example, Lancashire possesses a history of industrial action to secure parliamentary attempts to impose minimum wages and industry regulation. Comparatively, in Nottinghamshire machine breaking was utilized to hold specific employers to particular prices. These political differences are down to not only the culture in the cities but also the size. Smaller towns tended to promote violence because activity was much more centralized within the region. In support of this John Foster points out
11

Lancashire Weavers Committee, 1811, in. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the Working Class, Penguin Books, 1991, p 597 12 Adrian Randall, ed. Kevin Binfield, Writings of the Luddites, John Hopkins University Press, 2004, p xiii

that places such as Oldham had family units providing a continuity of language and direction.13 In contrast larger towns such as Manchester lacked this continuity owing to a less centralized demographic of weavers.14 Due to this, Mancunian agitation tended to go hand in hand with food riots, highlighting perhaps a lack of specific activism in this area.15 These contextual differences between Luddite activism arguably points towards a general rise in domestic militancy in the Midlands, not specifically to an increase in widespread political involvement.

Just as the context of machine breaking differed geographically, so too did organization of the Luddite movement. Kevin Binfield summarises this succinctly in his observation that There was no monolithic Luddite movement but a series of overlapping protests.16 However, he does later goes on to argue that the language of Midlands Luddism was grounded on a tradition of collective activity.17 Despite this, it must be seen that the Luddite movement in the Midlands fragmented into different natures. For example the majority of Luddite activity was not violent until a delegate from Stockport brought forth an oath in a secret meeting

13

John Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974, p31 14 Kevin Binfield, p 3 15 Kevin Binfield, p 33 16 Kevin Binfield, p 33 17 Kevin Binfield, p 32

involving delegates from Bolton and Manchester.18 Whilst these organisations were clearly somewhat disparate, what looked to combine them together was the use of a single symbol across the movement. Key to our understanding here is whether the idea of Ned Ludd (later promoted to General) led to an idea of commonality of political intent or whether he simply stood as a beacon to imitate by others looking to fulfill industrial aims. Firstly, the very name of the Luddites was original. Before this industrial antagonisers had been referred to as the disaffected or depradators.19 Now they had a general image of focus, that of Ned Ludd. This gives the movement a more political feel than the distinctly apolitical aspects of the earlier disturbances, such as the aforementioned West Riding incident.

On the other hand, based on letters from the Luddite camp addressing issues of the moral economy and the ruining of the cotton-lace trade that much of the Luddite activity can be seen as reactionary. Luddites were making an informed calculation of the impact on their trade of the advancement in technology, not simply fighting against an immoral laissez faire economic attitude. Thompson supports this in his argument that the Ludditesmade the most realistic assessment of the short-term effects20 Indeed, the

18

John Dinwiddy, Luddism and Politics in the Northern Counties, in Social History, Vol. 4, No. 1, (Jan 1979) p 42 19 Adrian Randall, p xiv 20 E. P. Thompson, p 601

change that the Luddites espoused was not that of the political ideals of examples such as the Jacobins the Luddites present much more of a knee-jerk reaction to economic isntances. Moreover, issues over money led to the Luddite groups in the northern counties splintering. They moved their aims closer to the initial petitioning due to cheaper cost of this.21 If this was a truly political movement looking for revolution it seems unlikely that fees would play such a destructive role in the movement.

The extent of the Luddite movements political nature can also be revealed through their targets themselves. Whilst Kenneth Brown notes there are no recordsof Luddites turning against overt political targets22, many argue that the Luddites represented a threat of a potentially insurrectionist ideal. This can be seen in Thomis example of Radcliffes correspondent who believed that the dispute over machinery would probably terminate in civil war.23 Alongside this, a death threat to Home Office secretary Richard Ryder following the assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval in 1812 would seem to suggest otherwise also - Prepaire to go to the Divel to Bee Secraterry for Mr Perceval theire.24 Moreover, Randall cites reports that certain Luddite groups had been infiltrated by insurrectionist

21 22

E. P. Thompson, p 601 Kenneth D. Brown, The English Labour Movement, 1700-1951, St Martins Press, 1982, p 82 23 M. I. Thomis, p79 24 Kevin Binfield, p 1

radicals.25 However, this one letter does by no means cement the idea that Luddite movement was flush with insurrectionists plotting the downfall of the government. Thomis casts doubt on this also with his claim that acting politically meant for them striking a few blows, not organizing a political campaign, let alone a revolution.26 Actual Luddite action seems to corroborate this: although Ned Ludd was the symbolic head of the movement, there was no single body organizing movements. As such attacks such as those on Rawfolds mill of William Cartwright were an abject failure, resulting in the death of two Luddites. The nature of the Luddite violence can help inform upon the extent to which this was a domestic issue or whether it was in fact a large scale politically motivated insurrectionist movement. Examining letters from the Yorkshire movement one could argue the revolutionary style of the Yorkshire proclamation is clear through both its content and its phrasing. Crush the Government & establish a new one and Generous Countrymen.all Croppers, Weavers.27 In Manchester too it would seem that following the failure of petitioning a culture of militancy towards the government of the day developed.
28

However, it may be useful here to look at this violence through the

understanding of Bohstedts theory of riot; Bohstedt argues that the

25

Adrian Randall, Engines of Mischief: The Luddite Disturbances of 1811-1812 in, Riotous Assemblies: Popular Protest in Hanoverian England, Oxford University Press, 2007, p289 26 M. I. Thomis, p79 27 Kevin Binfield, p 23 (Y4) 28 John Dinwiddy, Luddism and Politics in the Northern Counties, in Social History, Vol. 4, No. 1, (Jan 1979), p40

riot is originally created from a context of community politics.29 Thompson supports this in his argument that throughout the Luddite outrages the machine breakers had the backing of public opinion in the Midlands and the West Riding30 Indeed, Similar activities occurred in the mining industry in Northumberland and Durham where miners wrecked machinery31 to gain pay increases or to maintain standard of living. Similar activities occurred in the mining industry in Northumberland and Durham where miners wrecked machinery to gain pay increases or to maintain standard of living. 32 This idea of community politics perhaps suggests that although the Luddite violence was somewhat disparate and lacked a thorough connective tissue in the form of a single leader, the context surrounding it, according to Bostedts theory, was one of a political movement. Conversely, the power loom riots in Lancashire in 1826 were not only more destructive than the Luddites,33 but also managed to mobilise entire communities across a region, something that Luddism arguably failed to achieve.34

As such, the Luddite movement centered in the Midlands during 1811 and 1812 contained both political and non-political elements. First and foremost, the pressure that the textile industry faced due to a
29

John Bohstedt, Riots and Community Politics in England and Wales 17901810. Harvard University Press, 1983, p 68 30 E. P. Thompson, p 598 31 Eric Hobsbawm, The Machine Breakers, in Labouring Men. Studies in the History of Labour, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964, p59 32 Eric Hobsbawm, p59 33 Adrian Randall, p xiii 34 Adrian Randall, p xiii

series of poor harvests alongside a fall in British exports must be seen to lead many to industrial action who would not have done so before. Secondly contextual elements present in the English counties added towards their proclivity to rebel. Moreover, the Luddites had a common goal in seeking to defend their industry from the impact of machines on both the quality and the nature of their work. However, despite distinct political aspects to the Luddite movement, such as targeted petitioning to parliament and threats to politicians and figures of authority, the Luddite movement was by no means a single insurrectionary movement. The differences in the general objectives in the English counties precluded the Luddites from ever becoming a mass movement. Yes, they enjoyed support from public opinion in the Midlands and West Riding, 35 but this should not be mistaken for confirmation of political action. Moreover, a lack of general organisation beyond a simple community level and the occasional inter-sect meeting cannot form the basis for a nation-wide political movement. Ultimately, comparisons to other political movements such as the Jacobins and even the United Irishmen and Englishmen highlights the distinctly industrial, not political, motives of the Luddites. As such, the Luddites battle, whilst no less important, must be seen as one of necessity concerning livelihood rather than political motivation.

35

E. P. Thompson, p 598

1) E. P. Thompson, The Making of the Working Class, Penguin Books, 1991 2) Kevin Binfield, ed. Kevin Binfield, Writings of the Luddites, John Hopkins University Press, 2004 3) Michael Huberman, Invisible Handshakes in Lancashire: Cotton Spinning in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, in The Journal of Economic History, Vol 46. No 4 (Dec 1986) 4) M. I. Thomis, The Luddites: Machine-Breaking in Regency England, Gregg Revivals, 1993 5) Lancashire Weavers Committee, 1811, in. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the Working Class, Penguin Books, 1991 6) Adrian Randall, ed. Kevin Binfield, Writings of the Luddites, John Hopkins University Press, 2004 7) John Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974 8) John Dinwiddy, Luddism and Politics in the Northern Counties, in Social History, Vol. 4, No. 1, (Jan 1979) 9) Kenneth D. Brown, The English Labour Movement, 1700-1951, St Martins Press, 1982 10) Adrian Randall, Engines of Mischief: The Luddite Disturbances of 1811-1812 in, Riotous Assemblies: Popular

Protest in Hanoverian England, Oxford University Press, 2007 11) John Bohstedt, Riots and Community Politics in England and Wales 17901810. Harvard University Press, 1983 12) Eric Hobsbawm, The Machine Breakers, in Labouring Men. Studies in the History of Labour, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964