RONGE AND WHITE IRON

[Stanley]

Ronge and White Iron.

One of the great virtues of the study of local history is that it allows very close focus on matters which the general historian recognises but hasn’t the time or the resources to look at in detail. This implies no criticism of their work, indeed it falls to them to make the connection between local developments and the wider picture. A good example is the suggestion of a link between rising population in our district in the 16th and 17th centuries against the national trend. This was because the availability of an income from textiles enabled young people to gain earlier independence and marry younger when they were more fertile. This in turn forced the early enclosures of the waste and a general increase in economic activity which eventually resulted in a burst of industrial evolution that shaped the world we live in today.

One of the fundamental aspects of textile history is the importance of the domestic textile industry in this story. This was the system whereby householders and farmers subsisted or augmented their income by taking in yarn from a clothier or manufacturer and produced cloth for which they were paid by the piece. There were many factors which combined to drive this activity but I believe that the roots can be traced back much further than is generally acknowledged.

I’m convinced that the shortage of labour caused by the Black Death half way through the 14th century gave the mass of poor people in England their first glimpse of independence. For the first time in history they held the whip hand for a while until the Establishment reacted and asserted control again. The key word here is control, independence allowed some small freedom of action. 200 years later this was reinforced by nonconformity and a change in mind-set which allowed the belief that humans could control their own destiny, indeed, that success in this venture was a sign of grace.

There were many routes to this independence but in West Craven the major opportunity was textiles. Almost every small yeoman inventory includes the tools of the trade, cards, spinning wheels and looms. Some also include a stock of yarn and cloth and these are almost certainly the higher class of weaver who was buying his raw materials and selling his cloth independently. Once these men started putting yarn out to other weavers they were on the first rung of the long ladder which led to being a manufacturer.

One such manufacturing family was the Bracewells of Coates. By 1800 they had amassed enough money to virtually have a monopoly of the putting out trade in the Barnoldswick/Earby area and had built their own water powered mill for processing cotton into yarn. Notice that I don’t assume they were spinning. There is no evidence of spinning by water power in Barnoldswick until much later. What they were most likely doing was carding cotton and producing roving for the hand spinners in the cottage industry.

This domestic or cottage industry was profitable but from the very beginning, the manufacturers who ‘put-out’ materials and paid for cloth by the piece had difficulties in controlling their out-workers. Independence and an adequate living encouraged free-thinking and freedom of action. If the weaver had a small agricultural holding the textile trade became secondary in times of harvest or other essential field operations. There was no pressure to consume, people tended to work for subsistence and perhaps modest savings for a rainy day or family expenses such as marriage or funerals. Once they had reached their preferred level of weekly income, the weavers tended to take the slack up by leisure. The long weekend had arrived, ‘St Monday’, the practice of taking weekdays off, became the norm. What made it worse was that this was most likely to happen when demand for cloth was high and so piece rates were good. Production tended to fall just when the manufacturer needed it most.

The manufacturers had no sanctions against this as they were being held to ransom by their outworkers. An early attempt at control was the ‘dandy shops’ where a manufacturer installed a number of improved hand looms and employed weavers to come and work on his own premises. It wasn’t until the advent of a complete spinning and weaving system driven by water power spawned the factory system that this problem was solved.

There was another major flaw in the system which explains the strange title of this article. This was embezzlement of yarn by the outworkers and was a serious problem. There were various names for this practice, Atkinson, in his history, ‘Old Barlick’ talks about ‘Ronge’ and David Whitehead of Rawtenstall in his autobiography refers to the stolen yarn as ‘White Iron’.

When a manufacturer contracted with his outworker to produce a certain amount of cloth he had to estimate how much cotton fibre or yarn he had to allocate to his outworker in order to make it. A certain percentage had to be added to what the finished weight of the cloth would be to cover wastage in the process. The better the out-worker the less the wastage and no doubt this was taken into account when making this estimate. Legally, this fibre or yarn was the property of the manufacturer and on completion of the cloth the excess over what had actually been used had to be accounted for. I have never seen any firm evidence for how this practice worked as these transactions were not recorded in writing. However, there is reason to suppose that to a certain extent the excess yarn, whilst nominally the property of the master, was regarded by many out-workers as a perk of the trade. Indeed, the more skilled the worker, the more excess there was.

Atkinson is quite specific about the evils of this practice, he states that the accepted practice was that the excess should have been returned to the master but that dishonest weavers kept the ‘Ronge’ back and concealed it. He mentions that there were ‘Ronge dealers’ who came round and would buy the stolen yarn. This allows for the fact that there were manufacturers who would quite happily buy the stolen yarn from the Ronge dealers and recycle it in their business because being stolen it was cheap. He even suggests that the introduction of the power loom was seen by honest weavers as a punishment on those who had indulged in the practice as it deprived them of their freedom.

David Whitehead describes how, when travelling in the Pendle Forest area as a packman selling drapery he was often offered what he describes as ‘White Iron’ in payment for his goods. He was also approached by local shopkeepers who had a stock of White Iron taken in as payment for necessities.

So, despite the paucity of firm evidence, we can be fairly certain that the practice of embezzling yarn was widespread and structured with miscreants, middle men and dishonest manufacturers who would buy the stolen goods. The really pernicious thing about it all was that the honest workers and good crafts persons suffered the most by the practice. It was almost as though their was a penalty on good honest work and there is little wonder that men like Atkinson and Whitehead regarded it with such abhorrence.

I am not suggesting that this was the sole reason for the introduction of the factory system but there is no doubt that it was seen as a positive factor in favour of it. It is perhaps ironic that with the introduction of set working hours and factory discipline the vagaries of the market could be better controlled at the expense of the workers so piece rates were set at a level which ensured a profit for the factory owner even in times of low cloth prices and the only benefit to the workers of a strong market was increased working hours.

The end result for the workers was a loss of independence and control over their lives and income which led to terrible conditions both at work and in the home. However, it’s interesting to speculate that though repressed, the yearnings for independence and control never faded away. The long process of struggling for control started with the loss of independence and eventually led to combination and the trades union movement and improved rights. As to how big a part was played in this by the sprit of nonconformity which we noted earlier, I’ll leave you to decide. This is another story and one well worth pursuing.

SCG/16 July 2004

[rossylass]

That is fascinating! My interest lies in trying to establish why my gg grandfather & his two brothers took off to lead itinerant and rather unorthodox, lifestyles. At first I thought they may have been driven by sheer poverty, which may have been an influence, but did not explain their independent streak. I was beginning to think that non conformism may have accounted for this. The fact that they were Baptists, coupled with their father being a handloom weaver, given what I have just read in your article, may go some way to explaining their ingenuity & independence. All three married actresses who seemed to play an equal part in the running of the theatres. This too would support your argument, as If I am right, non conformism was quite egalitarian. I would be interested to learn your views.

[Stanley]

Rossy, you're looking at a big subject. In a nutshell, 2,000 years ago, the lowest strata of society, though theoretically serfs, had a great degree of freedom. They had the common lands and could hunt and forage at will. Even under all their constraints this led to the rise of independent yeoman farmers and skilled artisans. In our area one of the best routes to throwing off the yoke of servitude and reliance on parents dying to get economic independence was domestic textiles. There is evidence that this lead to earlier marriage and a rise in the birth rate. Notions of the acquisition and holding of wealth started under Saxon rule as the holders of manors managed them to reduce the freedom of the peasants and maximise their wealth. The Norman invasion greatly increased this control and repression of the peasants. The Dissolution of the Monasteries in the mid 16th C completely altered the pattern of landholdings and many smaller magnates got in on the act of extracting as much profit as possible out of the lowest members of society. Look at the 'Chain of Being' as a concept, encouraged by the landowners it produced the ideas you can find even in hymns, remember "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate. God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate." All things Bright and Beautiful indeed but remember your station in life.
Here you have the genesis of independent thought which started during the 14c Black Death when the peasants suddenly realised that if this was a punishment of sins, the clergy were dying at the same rate so it followed they were as sinful as anyone else so where did this leave the Chain of Being? Many historians trace the rise of Dissent to this shock and from then on the story is of independent minded folk dragging themselves up by their own efforts. Follow this through to the mid 17th century and note that with the advent of factory working the workers were once more being enslaved by loss of independence. Take note of the fact that at this point the role of women was changed and they lost much of their previous independence. Follow this through the rise of the unions and the repressive Combination Acts. Take note of the rise of the Friendly Societies and you get to the Chartist Movement, agitation for universal suffrage and eventually the formation of the Labour Party.
This is garbled and over simplistic but gives you some clues. It is a story of independent people struggling to get on despite the attacks of the owners of capital and is a story which is still unfolding. Look at present day Britain and the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor. The pendulum is swinging again and we are losing hard fought for privileges. This even applies to the Benefit Cuts and attacks on the NHS. As I said, it's a big subject! Think what your ancestors would have made of the actions of the present government! Not a lot of doubt as to which side of the barricades they would be on. Go to it Rossy!

[rossylass]

I am preparing Molotoff Cocktails at this very minute Stanley!

[Tizer]

A very interesting discussion, my gg grandfather and his family, relatives and ancestors who lived in the Mellor area were handloom weavers in their own homes until about 1870 when they realised the days of hand weaving were gone and they had to find something else soon or go into the mill. They didn't want to work in the mill and started keeping hens and selling the eggs on Blackburn market, and his sons grew this small business as chicken became an important and popular item of the British diet, with the result that one side of the family were the main supplier of chicken for the whole of northern England during WW2. But one of the sons went into Blackburn and trained as a draper - he probably couldn't stand chickens! His daughter and one of his sons worked in the mill as weavers while another became a master shuttlemaker (and my grandfather). They were all still trying to escape the mill and the weaver son ended up with a smallholding and breeding dogs (the daughter died young). Grandfather, as a master shuttlemaker was independent and took his trade where he wished. My father was the first one to spend his life (post-WW2 service) working for one company. I broke back into the old style, moving between several companies and then starting my own business to get back my freedom!

[rossylass]

I've been thinking about Stanley's post.

My son, who is a graphic designer, lives in London & works for a very well known fashion photographer, is an absolute workslave. He rarely gets home before 9.00pm and often has to go in to the studio at week ends. When I think about it I want to go and crown his employer (who shall remain nameless). This bloke is a real jetsetter and could afford to employ more staff, but doesn't. People who have a job are now enslaved by the fear of unemployment & working conditions, whilst not quite Victorian, are getting worse. The unions no longer have any teeth and I despair of the political parties!

Lord help the people who don't have jobs!

Enough of the rant! It seems that independence is a very complex matter.

Hats off to our ancestors who managed to escape the dreadful factory system by keeping hens or being musicians, or proprietors of theatres. I don't know whether mine would have held political views, but they certainly cocked a snook at society. Ironically they sometimes fell foul of the Methodists, who considered the performances rather lewd and the audiences of low character.

[Stanley]

"whilst not quite Victorian," Not too sure about that Rossy. For 'Victorian' narrow it down to laisser faire attitudes to how industry manages the labour. Look up Tonypandy and the Taff Vale railway, consider the case of the basic industries in the 19th C, think about the General strike. Then consider the platinum mine in South Africa and the far right proposals for 'freeing up the labour market', ie. making it easier to sack workers. I've been reading the history for years, no wonder I am an inveterate socialist! The basic problem behind all these problems and the reason why your ancestors were so independent was that they were trying to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth, getting their fair share of the cake. It's as simple as that! If you want to complicate it even further consider the role of Government, Capital and Religion in asserting control over the labour force. I told you it was a big subject!