The Factory-Owners, Landed Gentry and Middle Classes – Strategic Objectives

The early mining and manufacturing industries of Derbyshire generated a distinctive social structure in response principally to the financial risks associated with development. Lead mining was a particularly risky business, with serious welfare issues,¹ in which large fortunes were won and lost.² The essential capital investments of drainage soughs and steam pumping engines were hugely expensive, with soughs costing as much as £30,000 to £50,000 according to John Farey’s authoritative Agriculture of Derbyshire.³ This must be compared with a financial investment of just £3,000 to £5,000 for the early Arkwright-type cotton mills.⁴ Significant risks, high costs and a lack of investment banks compelled the gentry to work closely together in networks of interlocking partnerships, supported by a host of smaller investors of all social classes.⁵ These social structures have never been mapped and further research into these networks could add significantly to our understanding of the social framework that underpinned industrialisation. The main problem is locating appropriate source material, including letters, diaries, stakeholder lists and masonic records, such as those relating to the Derby Tyrian Lodge, established in 1785.⁶ Family pedigrees,⁷ showing capitalists interlocked by marriage connections, can provide an introduction but need fleshing out with much more information. Unfortunately, few family archives have yet entered the public domain or been adequately listed, thus limiting at present the scope of research.

Capital costs and risks were lower in the textile era, from around 1770, and profits in the pioneer years up to c.1800 were much more certain; in consequence, cotton mill entrepreneurs with few connections sprang up throughout Britain. Many failed, but a few prospered sufficiently to form new dynasties; in the Derwent Valley, the Arkwright, Strutt and Evans families are the best known names.^8,9 There are more records available for this era, but insufficient are currently available for researchers to write with easy assurance on social structure. Ironically, the best-documented Derwent Valley entrepreneur, John Smedley, abandoned all connections with local industrialists, parsons and lawyers! Evidently this is not an area of research for beginners or the faint-hearted, at least until more accurate documentation becomes available. It is recommended, therefore, that the emphasis be placed at present upon the location, classification and assessment of documentary records such as those preserved in the factory of John Smedley Ltd at Lea Bridge, near Cromford.¹⁰

Stanley Chapman

Fig.4.30 Terrace housing at Lea Bridge, comprising three cottages built in 1783 for workers at Peter Nightingale’s cotton mill and a later extension (far end of terrace). This mill was acquired in 1818 by the Smedley family, whose factory preserves an unrivalled archive for study of the Valley’s hosiery and knitwear industry. The business records, which have significant potential for study of the family’s commercial interactions, are currently being catalogued by Jane Middleton-Smith in collaboration with the author (photograph: David Knight; Ó TPA)¹¹

References

¹ Raistrick, A 1938 Two Centuries of Industrial Welfare: The London (Quaker) Lead Company 1692–1905, 1 edn. London: Friends’ Historical Society

² Burt, R 1984 The British Lead Mining Industry. Redruth: Dyllansow Truran

³ Farey, J 1811–1817 Agriculture of Derbyshire, 3 volumes. London: Macmillan

⁴ Chapman S D 1967 The Early Factory Masters, 1 edn. Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 125–44

⁵ Hunter J 1894 Familae Minorium Gentium I. London: Harleian Society

⁶ Riden, P (ed) 2006 Derbyshire Directories: 1781–1824. Chesterfield: Derbyshire Record Society 33; Library and Museum of Freemasonry. London WC2

⁷ Ince, T N 1860 Pedigree of Families in and about Wirksworth. Derby Local Studies Library manuscript (not always accurate)

⁸ Chapman 1967, 230–7

⁹ DVMP 2011 The Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities. Matlock: DVMP, 101–4

^10,11 Chapman, S D and Middleton-Smith, J 2015 ‘John Smedley: The establishment of a tradition in fine knitwear, c.1750–1874’. Textile History 46 (1), 70–98

The pioneer industrialists of the 18th century comprised a relatively small group of individuals who were connected with each other on many levels. These connections were important for the development of their business ventures,¹ as discussed by Stanley Chapman above,² but also extended into the social arena. Business relationships commonly developed into friendships and ultimately into family connections by marriage: as illustrated by the close links that developed between members of the Evans, Strutt, Hurt and Arkwright families.³ Thomas Evans, for instance, was a partner in the Evans Crompton Bank, which supported the Arkwright and Strutt business partnership, and seeing the commercial potential of the cotton industry he opened the mills at Darley Abbey in 1783.⁴ Both his son Walter and his daughter Barbara married children of Jedediah Strutt, while the Hurts and the Arkwrights became linked by the marriage of Sir Richard Arkwright’s daughter Susannah to Charles Hurt. Most of the social and family connections of the 18th century mill owners were between the families of other businessmen, industrialists or smaller landowners rather than the aristocracy, and in the case of William Strutt, for example, extended to such key Enlightenment figures as Joseph Wright and Erasmus Darwin.⁵ Many of these social connections resulted not only in further business ventures but also in collaboration on a broad range of philanthropic and other initiatives – such as the establishment by William Strutt and Lunar Society member Erasmus Darwin of the Derby Philosophical Society.⁶ There is significant scope for investigating further the wider interactions of the mill owners and the social consequences of these relationships which, from the examples cited above, can be shown to have extended beyond the economic and social arenas into the fields of philosophy and religion.

Business, marital and other connections continued into the 19th century and beyond, and it would be of particular interest to investigate the impact of the early factory owners’ successes upon later entrepreneurs and the social relationships between established and upcoming industrialists. Middling landowners and industrialists like Peter Nightingale,⁷ and farmers such as Ellis Needham and Thomas Frith at Litton Mill in the neighbouring Wye Valley,⁸ invested in cotton spinning in attempts to emulate the successes of Arkwright and other early entrepreneurs. There is scope to re-examine the historical record and to evaluate how the new mill owners and their families were received by the established élite and how they negotiated and influenced a world of economic and social change.

Jonathan Wallis

Fig.4.31 Joseph Wright’s portrait of Francis Hurt (1722–1783): a wealthy landowner and industrialist whose connections with the lead industry are symbolised by the fragment of galena on the table. The marriage of his son Charles to Arkwright’s 

References

¹ Fitton, R S and Wadsworth, A P 1958 The Strutts and the Arkwrights, 1758–1830. Manchester: MUP, 60–80

² Strategic Objective 6A

³ DVMP 2011The Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities. Matlock: DVMP, 101–24

⁴ Lindsay, J 1960 ‘An early industrial community: The Evans’ cotton mill at Darley Abbey, 1783–1810’. Business History Review 34, 277–301

⁵ DVMP 2011The Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities. Matlock: DVMP, 104

⁶ Elliott, P A 2009 The Derby Philosophers: Science and Culture in British Urban Society, 1700–1850. Manchester: MUP

⁷ Chapman, S D 2013 ‘Peter Nightingale, Richard Arkwright and the Derwent Valley cotton mills, 1771–1818’. DAJ 133, 166–88

⁸ Cooper, B 1991 Transformation of a Valley: The Derbyshire Derwent. Cromford: Scarthin Books, 222–3

Marriage links between the mill owners’ families were clearly important in cementing business relationships in the closely knit industrial communities that developed in the Derwent Valley during the 18th and 19th centuries, as demonstrated by the complex ties that linked members of the Strutt, Arkwright, Evans and Hurt families.¹ It would be interesting to know more about the motivations behind these marriages. How far, for example, did they benefit the social position of the mill owners? Sir Richard Arkwright, whose social pretensions are well known, became High Sheriff of Derbyshire not long after the wedding of his daughter Susannah to Charles Hurt: an important Derbyshire landowner and rising industrialist, with interests in lead mining and iron founding.² Similarly, Thomas Evans’ role as lord of the Derbyshire manor of Alsop-en-le-Dale, as well as builder of the Darley Abbey mills, may have enhanced further for Jedediah Strutt the attractions of the marriage alliances that were formed by the marriage of his children to Thomas Evans’ son and daughter, Walter and Barbara.³

It is difficult at present to establish how far the wives of the early mill owners were able to influence decisions about business affairs, but it should not be assumed that they performed passive roles in the running of the family concerns. Jedediah Strutt’s wife Elizabeth, for instance, appears to have played a significant business role to judge from her letters to her husband^4, and, as noted by Fitton and Wadsworth, ‘this very capable woman…perhaps supplied the drive that her introspective, self-centred husband had hitherto lacked’.⁵ There is also compelling evidence for positive engagement of the mill owners’ wives with the wider community, notably in the religious and philanthropic arenas. John Smedley’s wife Caroline, for example, wrote eloquently on the subject of religion and hydropathy, as well as working closely with her husband on his business ventures.⁶ In addition, Elizabeth Evans, the wife of Wirksworth mill manager Samuel Evans and aunt of George Eliot, has been identified as an inspiration for the Methodist preacher Dinah Morris in Eliot’s first full-length novel, Adam Bede.⁷ Study of the family papers and other documents contained in the archives of Derbyshire and beyond would be valuable as a means of bringing together this evidence and exploring further the range of educational, social, charitable and other activities in which the female members of the mill owners’ families might have been involved. David Seker’s authoritative study of Hannah Greg of Quarry Bank Mill in Cheshire⁸ provides a model for the kind of study that could be attempted where comprehensive documentary archives such as those relating to the Smedley family have survived.

Marilyn Palmer

Fig.4.32 A rare family portrait of the mill owners: this picture by Joseph Wright, painted in 1790, shows Richard Arkwright Junior (1755–1843) with his wife Mary and daughter Anne (oil on canvas; © Derby Museums Trust)

References

¹ Fitton, R S and Wadsworth, A P 1958, The Strutts and the Arkwrights, 1758–1830. Manchester: MUP

² Wain, D 2002 The Hurts of Derbyshire. Ashbourne: Landmark, 28

³ Lindsay, J 1960 ‘An early industrial community: The Evans’ cotton mill at Darley Abbey, Derbyshire, 1783–1810’. Business History Review 34, 278–9

⁴ Fitton and Wadsworth 1958, Chapter 2

⁵ Fitton and Wadsworth 1958, 23

The success of British industry in the 18th century lay in the development, improvement and diffusion of ideas and processes, not least through the utilisation of the skills and technical competence of a great variety of artisans and mechanics.¹ In this respect, considering the importance of builders and millwrights in the development of the Arkwright cotton mill system, it is surprising how little interest researchers have shown in them. In truth, there is little to report at present. However, recent study of the manuscript collections relating to Sir Richard Arkwright’s architect and builder, William Stretton, and his wheelwright, Thomas Lowe,² has highlighted the potential of the surviving records for elucidating the developing relationships between the factory owners and mill builders.³ The relationship between Arkwright and his model makers and draughtsmen was also crucial when defending his patents.⁴ Additional research, aimed at identifying and scrutinising manuscript sources that might shed further light upon the relationships between mill owners, builders and wheelwrights, is identified as a priority for advancing this comparatively neglected area of study.

The engineers of the Industrial Revolution have fared rather better in terms of research interest, due in large part to the enthusiasm of transport historians. Particular attention may be drawn to the substantial biographies of the canal engineers William Jessop⁵ and Benjamin Outram,⁶ whose outstanding achievement within the World Heritage Site is the 10.5km length of canal that linked Cromford Canal Wharf and Ambergate via the spectacular Wigwell Aqueduct.⁷ The topic that has attracted most academic interest, however, is the supposed connection between science and industry in the 18th and 19th centuries. This has been championed by a number of writers, most notably Musson and Robinson in their study of science and technology during the Industrial Revolution.⁸ Sceptics, however, emphasise the strong empirical tradition in British industry, particularly in textile production: a manufacturing tradition with which Derwent Valley industrialists have been most concerned. Here, therefore, is a hot topic to debate, and it is recommended that future research efforts be focused particularly upon study of the practical impact on the mill owners of new scientific thinking.⁹

Stanley Chapman

Fig.4.33 The Wigwell Aqueduct, visible in the distance, was built in the early 1790s by William Jessop with the assistance of Benjamin Outram and carried the Cromford Canal for almost 200m across the Derwent. The adjacent Leawood Pumphouse, constructed in 1849, housed a steam pumping engine to increase the supply of water from the river to the canal (photograph: David Knight; Ó Trent & Peak Archaeology)

References

¹ Mokyr, J 1990 The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford: OUP, 81–112, 239

² Tann, J 1970 The Development of the Factory. London: Cornmarket Press (for Thomas Lowe)

³ Chapman, S D 2015 ‘The Strettons and the Lowes: Sir Richard Arkwright’s builders and millwrights’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire 119, 151–67

⁴ Fox, C 2009 The Arts of Industry in the Age of Enlightenment. Newhaven and London: YUP, 339–44

⁵ Hadfield, C and Skempton, A W 1979 William Jessop, Engineer. Newton Abbot: David and Charles

⁶ Schofield, R B 2000 Benjamin Outram 1764–1805: An Engineering Biography. Cardiff: Merton Priory Press

⁷ DVMP 2011 The Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities. Matlock: DVMP, 42–6; Buxton, D and Charlton, C 2013 Cromford Revisited. Matlock: DVMWHS Educational Trust, 144–7; Potter, H and Riden, P (eds) 2015 Minutes of the Meetings of the Cromford Canal Company, 1789–1799. Chesterfield: Derbyshire Record Society

⁸ Musson, A E and Robinson, E 1969 Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution. Manchester: MUP

⁹ Elliott, P A 2009 The Derby Philosophers. Manchester: MUP

The idea that religious developments in 18th century Britain helped to prevent social unrest was first suggested by Elie Halévy in an essay of 1906 on the birth of Methodism in England¹ and was developed in his History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, published from 1913 onwards.² In his first volume, he tried to explain why England, which had undergone vast social, economic and religious changes in the 18th century, had, unlike most countries in Europe, managed to avoid violent social change or political revolution. He suggested that it was due to the growth of Methodism: an argument which was stringently criticised by the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.³ Nevertheless, there was a strong tradition of Nonconformism amongst the mill owners of the Derwent Valley,⁴ and it is interesting to consider how far the beliefs and practices of Nonconformists such as the Strutts, with their strong Unitarian philosophy, or indeed Anglicans such as the Arkwrights, might have reduced levels of social tension (see also Objective 7E).

Previous biographers have argued that the religious beliefs of the Derwent Valley mill owners were demonstrated in their paternalism, notably in their provision of housing within the mill communities.⁵ This thesis has been questioned since, notably in recent work by Suzanne Lilley, who argued that pragmatism was probably a stronger influence on housing provision than paternalism.⁶ Further work might help to shed more light upon motivations for the construction of places of worship or social and educational facilities within the mill communities. It would also be useful to see a breakdown of stated religious affiliations, perhaps by a more detailed analysis of parish registers, Nonconformist records or the Religious Census of 1851.⁷ Such work could address a variety of issues, including, for example, the role of members of the mills’ workforce in the organisation of their congregations and the level of engagement with the mill owners’ religion. There is also scope for further investigation of the evidence for civil strife. Some signs of tension are to be found in the mill architecture. William Strutt, for instance, was sufficiently concerned about the Luddites that he placed gun embrasures in the covered walkway linking two of his mills in Belper, whilst the defended entrance to Cromford Mill suggests similar anxieties.⁸ Events such as the Pentrich Revolution of 1817,⁹ the Derby Silk Trades Lockout of 1833–4¹⁰ and the unsuccessful 1911–12 strike at Lea Mills¹¹ are also part of the story of changing labour relations, along with studies of the involvement of mill workers in trade union activity, and all would benefit from further study.

Marilyn Plamer

Fig.4.34 The Strutt family’s concerns about social unrest, and in particular the security of their West Mill counting house, are demonstrated by the addition of gun embrasures either side of this arched footbridge, built c.1795 to link Belper’s West Mill (left) with other factory buildings. Another embrasure was positioned above the arch on the other side of the footbridge (photograph: Adrian Farmer; ©DVMP)

References

¹ Walsh, J D 1975 ‘Elie Halévy and the Birth of Methodism’. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 25, 1–20

² Halévy, E 1941 History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century (translated by E I Watkin). London: Ernest Benn Ltd

³ Hobsbawm, E 1957 ‘Methodism and the threat of Revolution in Britain’ History Today 7.2, 115–24

⁴ Chapman, S D 1967 The Early Factory Masters. Newton Abbot: David and Charles

⁵ Fitton, R and Wadsworth, A P 1958 The Strutts and the Arkwrights, 1758–1830. Manchester: MUP

⁶ Lilley, S 2015 ‘”Cottoning on” to workers’ housing: A historical archaeology of industrial accommodation in the Derwent Valley, 1776–1821’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York

⁷ Tranter, M (ed) 1995 The Derbyshire Returns to the 1851 Religious Census. Chesterfield: Derbyshire Record Society

⁸ DVMP 2011. The Derwent Valley Mills and their Communities. Matlock: DVMP, 30, 50

⁹ Cooper, B 1991 Transformation of a Valley: The Derbyshire Derwent. Cromford: Scarthin, 272–86

¹⁰ Whitehead, B 2001 The Derby Lock-out of 1833–34 and the Origins of the Labour Movement. Derby: Unison

¹¹ Buxton, D and Charlton, C 2013 Cromford Revisited. Matlock: DVMWHS Educational Trust, 159–64

The notion of ideology, whether it be a Marxist interpretation relating to power or a broader understanding of the term relating to the belief systems that mould normative behaviour, has been recognised increasingly by historians as having a direct impact on the behaviour of communities. The ideology of the landed classes, with their focus on tradition and the improvement of their estates, has been seen as shaping their responses to new commercial opportunities. James Ackerman, for instance, has stressed how the ideology of retreat was central to the aristocratic focus on the country house and the development of large private estates within rural areas, where a clear distinction existed between leisure grounds and working land.¹ In addition, recent work by Eric Jones has argued that this element of gentry culture, along with the commitment to artisan-made rather than mass-produced commodities, was pivotal in the stifling of industrial growth in southern England during the late 18th century.² Within Derbyshire, however, there is plentiful evidence for the engagement of members of the social élite in the establishment of new industries.³ The Dukes of Devonshire, for example, exploited extensively the lead, copper, iron and coal reserves of their estates,⁴ while the prominent Derbyshire landowner, Charles Hurt, had significant interests in both the lead-mining and iron industries.⁵ The Derwent Valley provides, therefore, an excellent case study for exploration of why the landed gentry, able to live comfortably on income from property or investments, either encouraged or failed to prevent the growth of industrialisation within the East Midlands.

Ideology could also influence the ways that factories were managed and designed or how the industrial settlements that were constructed by the mill owners to house the factory workers were planned.^6,7 The most famous example in the Derwent Valley of an ideologically driven mill design is William Strutt’s panopticon Round Mill at Belper, which was inspired by Jeremy Bentham’s innovative architectural designs.⁸ Ideology could also shape significantly the daily lives of those living in the local communities, bearing in mind that the choice of parliamentary representative, clerical incumbent, school teacher and even whether there was a community public house was usually under the control of a select few. The degree to which Enlightenment ideologies, which were especially influential amongst the middle classes, shaped the lives of employees, villagers and farmers in this area, warrants particular attention, and should be pursued as a priority in future documentary research.

Ruth Larsen

Fig 4.35 William Strutt’s unique Round Mill at Belper, photographed by A.N. Smith in 1959 shortly before its demolition in the 1960s. The panopticon Round Mill, built between 1803 and 1813, was designed according to the architectural principles developed by Jeremy Bentham. It was divided into eight segments, with an ‘overlooker at the centre, like the spider at the heart of his web, [who] could see everything that happened in them’⁹ (photograph © Derbyshire Record Office: Local Studies Library photographs)

References

¹ Ackerman, J S 1990 The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses. London: Thames and Hudson

² Jones, E L 2013 ‘Gentry culture and the stifling of industry’ The Journal of Socio-Economics 47, 185–92

³ Beckett J V 1986 The Aristocracy in England 1660–1914. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 206–37

⁴ Barnatt, J and Williamson, T 2005 Chatsworth: A Landscape History. Macclesfield: Windgather,105,154–6

⁵ Wain, D 2002 The Hurts of Derbyshire. Ashbourne: Landmark, 28

⁶ Markus, T A 1993 Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. London: Routledge, 279–81

⁷ Chapman, S D1976 ‘Workers’ housing in the cotton factory colonies, 1770–1850’. Textile History 7, 112–39; see Strategic Objective 9B

⁸ Bentham, J 1787 Panopticon; or, The Inspection-House: Containing the Idea of a New Principle of Construction Applicable to Any Sort of Establishment, in which Persons of Any Description are to be Kept under Inspection (in Bozovic, M [ed] 1995 The Panopticon Writings. London: Verso, 29–95)

⁹ Fitton, R S and Wadsworth, A P 1958 The Strutts and the Arkwrights. Manchester: MUP, 221