>From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! Gordon

London, 1829/30, a police constable's pay was £1/1s. from which he had to pay 2s. a week for his uniform, finance his home and family, despite a general antipathy towards him degenerating into violence from time to time. Clearly he was paid much less than your Carlisle weaver but he had to risk his life and limb and that of his family. Have you looked at the price of bread as paid by the workhouse, or other poor relief, at the same period? It does sometimes help to put things into context. I think that, at this time, when weaving was being mechanised, handloom weavers who had been the aristocrats of the cotton manufacturing trade were losing their livelihoods or having them absorbed into the new weaving sheds of the cotton mills. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:16 AM Subject: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > >From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! > > Gordon > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

In message <005501c4179a$01f9d850$a9f0a1cd@preferred>, Gordon Barlow <barlow@candw.ky> writes >>From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay >etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of >gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing >etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! Cor what riches! Those textile workers didn't know they were born. An agricultural labourer was earning about 6 to 7s a week, IF he was in work (and that was a big if. There is an interesting comment by a local magistrate in 1830, sentencing a man who snared a rabbit on his farmer master's land, with no objection from the farmer. However, a local gent had leased the shooting rights over the farm for fun shooting and wanted the lot. Richard said his mother and the younger children were hungry, and he only earned 6s a week. The magistrate piped up 'Six shillings? Why I spend more than that on feeding my dog. But then, so I should, for HE is a valuable animal'. Richard got a fortnight in gaol. And Mum and the kids presumably had to do without even the 6s. > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Don't you also have to look at any possible fringe benefits available to them at the time, also employment opportunities for their wives and children. Surely income into a household is a better indicator than one man's wage and opportunities to grow food and keep animals, as well as the outgoings in the form of rent, food and clothing. My policeman had his work clothes provided, i.e. his uniform, for 2/- a week. Even when, in 1841, his pay rose to £1/2/6 as a sergeant and he had his wife and six children to care for with a whole house to rent, the family income was far greater than his wage after reductions. His wife and one of his daughters were laundresses, three of his other daughters were also working (probably from home and not earning a great deal as bonnet trimmers and the like) and his son worked as a dock messenger. There was just one child who was described as a scholar in 1851. Poplar, in 1891, a family consisting of a widow, two sons and two grandchildren had a combined income of 11s., earned by one of the sons. The other son brought in what he could from odd jobs, having had his hand crushed in an industrial accident. The children were not apparently earning and nor was the widow. Their rent was 4 shillings a week. On the worst weeks, their combined income, after rent, must have been just 7shillings for everything else for all five of them. These were poor but not by any means the poorest of those living around them. Consider the plight of their related daughter in law, deserted with four children at the time of her death. Her income came from work in a shirt factory, whatever that amounted to, and if she didn't work, she wasn't paid and the family starved. Occasionally her estranged husband gave them some money but they were all starving when she died as a result of child birth complications. The workhouse was the last place of call for all of them, after which they went their separate ways. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > In message <005501c4179a$01f9d850$a9f0a1cd@preferred>, Gordon Barlow > <barlow@candw.ky> writes > >>From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > >etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > >gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > >etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! > > Cor what riches! Those textile workers didn't know they were born. An > agricultural labourer was earning about 6 to 7s a week, IF he was in > work (and that was a big if. There is an interesting comment by a local > magistrate in 1830, sentencing a man who snared a rabbit on his farmer > master's land, with no objection from the farmer. However, a local gent > had leased the shooting rights over the farm for fun shooting and wanted > the lot. Richard said his mother and the younger children were hungry, > and he only earned 6s a week. The magistrate piped up 'Six shillings? > Why I spend more than that on feeding my dog. But then, so I should, for > HE is a valuable animal'. Richard got a fortnight in gaol. And Mum and > the kids presumably had to do without even the 6s. > > > > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Dear Everyone I realise that, once again, I've written a load of nonsense. Of course I meant to write that the Carlisle weaver was paid much less than my Metropolitan police constable, NOT the other way round. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:16 AM Subject: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > >From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! > > Gordon > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >