West Riding – Western Rhineprovince, 1790-1840: Diverse Paths to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

West Riding – West of the Rhineland, 1780-1840 36 Alfred Reckendrees, University of Cologne reckendrees@wiso.uni-koeln.de Table 9: Woollen cloth manufacturing establishments and workers, district of Aix-la- Chapelle (Regierungsbezirk) and Prussia, 1846-1858 Prussia 1846 1849 1852 1855 1858 1861 workers, yarn producing 15.927 15.052 16.141 15.365 14.487 14.074 workers, cloth producing 30.206 29.888 26.078 total of workers 46.133 44.940 40.152 District of Aix-la-Chapelle Spinning establishments 71 64 70 71 94 107 spindles 92.718 94.909 120.744 113.755 156.768 workers 3.100 3.182 3.496 3.137 3.474 3.285 cloth factories 135 133 127 118 119 103 workers 18.733 17.910 17.454 10.930 12.514 12.533 power looms 33 28 136 207 380 hand looms 5.075 5.394 5.360 4.015 4.741 total of wool manufacturing workers 21.833 21.092 20.950 14.067 15.988 note: most spinning factories belong to a cloth factory account of the workers in factory establishments 13.921* 16.004 15.008 16.784 based on "factory lists" *not completed * factory establishments: establishments > 10 employees; 1858 > 50 employees Sources: Gewerbe-Tabelle der Fabrikations-Anstalten und Fabrik-Unternehmungen aller Art des Regierungs-Bezirks Aachen für das Jahr 1846 [1849, 1852, 1855, 1858], in: DSTA BR 2116-48, BR 2116-49, BR 2116-54, BR 2116-55; Anhänge zu den Gewerbe-Tabellen der Kreise des Regierungs-Bezirks Aachen pro 1846 enthaltend Dampfmaschinen, Maschinenspinnereien und Fabrikanstalten, in: DSTA BR 2116-47; Anhänge zur Gewerbetabelle des Landkreises Aachen pro 1846, in: DSTA BR 2116-47; Nachweisung derjenigen Fabrikationszweige, welche zusammen eine Anstalt bilden, in der Gewerbe-Tabelle […] für das Jahr 1849 [1852, 1855], aber in verschiedenen Kolumnen vertheilt sind, in: DSTA BR 2116-49, BR 2116-50, BR 2116-54; Verzeichnis derjenigen Fabriken, welche außer dem Hauptorte der Fabrik auch an anderen Orten Arbeiter beschäftigen [1852], in: DSTA BR 2116-54; Nachweisung derjenigen Fabriken von Gewerben, welche am Wohnsitz des Inhabers und ausserhalb desselben Arbeiter und Webstühle beschäftigen [undatiert für 1855], in: DSTA BR 2116-54; Spezielle Nachweisung der in der Gewerbe-Tabelle der Fabrikations-Anstalten und Fabrik-Unternehmungen aller Art des [Regierungs-Bezirks Aachen] für das Jahr 1858 angegebenen Fabriken und Anstalten, welche jede mehr als 50 Arbeiter beschäftigt, in: DSTA BR 2116-53; Tabellen und amtliche Nachrichten über den Preussischen Staat für das Jahr 1849, Bd. VI (Tabelle der Fabrikations-Anstalten und Fabrik-Unternehmungen aller Art für 1849 und 1852), Statistisches Bureau zu Berlin, Berlin 1855, 886pp., 1225pp.; Ergebnisse der Volkszählung und Volksbeschreibung nach den Aufnahmen vom 3. Dezember 1861 (1864) The Prussian statistics at this time collected two types of data, (1.) data on the total employment of the woollen manufacture (“table of manufacturers”), and (2.) appendixes to the “table of manufacturers”, which provide detailed information on single firms regarding spinning machines, looms, power and water engines, workmen etc. (in the following “factory lists”). These appendixes are, unfortunately, far from being complete. And the use of both types of data is not unproblematic, because they are either based on the knowledge of the burgomaster (mayor) and the chief of police, who were responsible to collect data on the local level, or they are based on entrepreneurial information. The main problem of data collecting was, that the administration had no authorisation to enter the factory establishments and that it depended on voluntarily information. However, some entrepreneur gave e.g. the actual number of workmen, others gave the number of “ordinarily employed persons”. The high volatility of employment hampered data collecting as the lists were not based on an effective day but the number of employees changed from month to month and even from day to day. But they main problem was, that many entrepreneurs were not willing to offer the necessary information as they were afraid of a higher taxation as a consequence. For instance, in 1852 the disappointed President of the local in-
West Riding – West of the Rhineland, 1780-1840 37 Alfred Reckendrees, University of Cologne reckendrees@wiso.uni-koeln.de dustrial curt (“Gewerbegericht”), had to state that that ‘the inspection of the factories had proved to be inexcutable’ 136 because the information was unsatisfactory and because of the continous flow of workforce. The disaffected district administrator and chief police director Haßlacher, who than had to collect the data himself, wrote in May 1853, he ‘often received unsatisfactory or even no information’ from the entrepreneurs. And he calculated the missing data on workforce by his own. These figures he regarded as much more reliable than the information he had ‘wrung from the entrepreneurs’, though there was a striking difference of more than 30%. 137 But even if the administration had possessed the authorisation to enter the factories, it had been difficult to collect the complete information (e.g. data on weavers who outworked at home either with own looms or with looms possessed by the entrepreneur). The resulting figures are, unfortunately, not only uncoplete but they are rather only analogue to some degree. For other purposes I constructed a set of data from the more detailed “factory lists” that was reduced to establishments with more than 10 employees (to more than 50 employees for 1858). The total number of the factory workforce thus obtained is shown in table 9 (account of the workers in factory establishments). However, the number of employees provided by the “factory lists” should be lower than the figures of the “tables of manufacturers”. This is surprisingly not the case for 1855 and 1858. There are possible explanations, e.g the inclusion or exclusion of domestic workers and sideline occupations, yet, the necessary information regarding the direction of the bias is not available and the difference cannot be eliminated. However, the reason for this “excursus” is not complaining about missing data but rather qualifying the arguments based on factory employment. In general, the published information on the West Riding is volumerous and it seems that it is, though not without contradictions, more or less reliable. But employing the data for comparative purposes needs sometimes further information, especially the definitions of what exactly was counted. The literature is not always clear if “mills” (or “factories”) or firms were counted and as one or the other firm did probably own more than one mill the number of mills should generally be larger than the number of firms. 138 The differences within table 8 (above) with figures provided by Jenkins 139 and Hudson 140 are striking. Jenkins concedes that his list is biased bias towards larger mills, 141 on the other hand Hudsons 136 President of the industrial curt (Strom) to district administrator and chief police director Haßlacher, 22.11.1852, DSTA BR 2116-50, F.497. 137 District administrator and chief police director Haßlacher, 23.5.1853, DSTA BR 2116-50, F.495p. Factory of Nellessen: Nellessens information: 1146 workmen, 353 looms, 7000 spindles Haßlachers estimate: 1689 workmen, 393 looms Factory of Kuetgens Kuetgens information: 385 workmen, 78 looms, 2100 spindles Haßlachers estimate 618 workmen, 160 looms. 138 Gregory, Transformation (1982), 63, suggests that the factory returns for Yorkshire 1838 counted ‘probably firms rather than mills’ but his figures do not support this assumption. 139 Jenkins, West Riding (1975), 69, Table 8. 140 Hudson, Genesis (1986), 41, Table 2.2. 141 Jenkins, West Riding (1975), 68p.
Page 1 and 2: Diverse Paths to Factory Production
Page 3 and 4: West Riding - West of the Rhineland
Page 35: West Riding - West of the Rhineland
Page 45 and 46: Table 16: Sales of the cloth indust

West Riding – Western Rhineprovince, 1790-1840: Diverse Paths to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?