LONG-DISTANCE MIGRANT WORKERS IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN: A CASE STUDY OF ST. HEEENS' GEASSMAKERS

J.T.Jackson, B.A., Ph.D.

AVENSTEIN, drawing mainly from the published R census of 1881, defined long-journey migrants in the British Isles as people who had migrated beyond both their county of birth and the bordering counties' and suggested that they probably accounted for less than 25 per cent of all migrants in the British Isles. 2 At the same time Ravenstein indicated that most long-journey migrants would 'generally go by preference to one of the great cities of commerce and industry'. 3 Such generalisations still remain to be fully tested by later authors. Taken together, they suggest that most county towns and probably all the smaller market towns would have less than 25 per cent of total population coming from beyond their immediate county and surrounding counties' borders, while all major cities would receive more than 25 per cent of their migrant population from non- adjacent counties. This is borne out for 1851 by census data for that year (see Table 1, column 4). Of the mainland urban centres, only Cambridge, Chester and Gloucester of the county towns exceed the 25 per cent figure for long-journey migrants and only Sheffield of the major cities comes close to falling below it. Even if Irish-born are excluded, seven of the ten major cities still had 25 per cent or more of their migrant population classified as long-journey migrants (Figure 1, column 5). 4 Such resultsare not too surprising and perhaps more interesting is the more variable concentration of long- journey migrants in the intermediate-sized industrial towns. By excluding the Irish again, two sub-groups emerge: the northern textile towns (Preston, Bolton, Huddersfield) with relatively few long-journey migrants and the Midlands and South Wales metal-working towns (Wolverhampton, Derby, Merthyr Tydfil and Swansea) all with over 25 per cent. This 114 J.T.Jackson suggests a possible linkage between industrial structure and/ or stage of industrial development with long-journey migration. This idea forms the subject of the following discussion.

LONG-JOURNEY MIGRANT LABOUR IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN Grigg's recent review article on migration in nineteenth-century Britain highlights the lack of research on long-journey migrants: while 50 references are given to short- journey migration, only four refer to long-journey movers.5 But, as Grigg points out, the great majority of migrants to any one of Britain's growing urban centres came from the surrounding areas. 6 As early as 1858 it was noted that mid- century Lancashire, a major centre of industry and immigration, drew very few migrants from beyond its neighbouring counties, 7 the friction of distance, particularly in the pre-railway era, being probably the dominant control on movement. Nevertheless Lancashire, like London, did attract more long-journey migrants than other, smaller industrial centres, so indicating some interplay between the constraints of distance and the size of the attracting town or area, implicit in Ravenstein's statements. This limited ability to attract long-journey migrants also might have depended on an industrial area's rate of growth: the more rapid its expansion, the larger the hinterland from which immigrants would be drawn. In general this does not appear to be the case as a drawing area of 80 kilometres (50 miles) was rarely exceeded even by the more prosperous industrial regions, at least up to 1861. 9 Of the industrial towns mentioned in the introduction, only Merthyr Tydfil had an upturn in its growth rate between 1831 and 1851, so perhaps explaining its high percentage of long-journey migrants. 10 An explanation of long-journey industrial migration may lie more with the degree of occupational specialisation in a town. It might be expected that when faced with hardship due to lack of local work, specialised industrial workers would be more willing than less skilled workers to move to a specific but distant workplace with its promise of securer employment prospects and/or high wages. Redford points out, however, that the large textile factories of the early nineteenth century in Lancashire and West Yorkshire attracted very few cotton spinners from the declining areas of Scotland and wool workers from East Anglia and the West country." He maintains that they and most other skilled workers stayed put in the hope of better times or moved with their families to St Helens' Glassmakers 115 the nearest growing town where the unspecialised labour of the children was readily absorbed. 12 Of Redford's examples, only the iron workers broke this general pattern of short-distance migration, with their movement to Furness from Cheshire, Ireland, South Wales and Yorkshire, and from the West Midlands to South Wales. 13 Unlike the long-established textile districts of Lancashire and West Yorkshire there was no existing pool of skilled labour to call upon in South Wales and Furness, while local semi-skilled female or child labour was no adequate substitute for the male labour required in the foundries. Such long-distance movements within the iron trade continued into the middle decades of the nineteenth century, particularly from the West Midlands to the North East of England,' 4 and after 1861, to the new iron-making town of Middlesbrough. 15 This further suggests some restriction of long-journey worker migration from established to new and booming 'frontier' industrial areas, an idea given added con­ firmation by Thomas' work on the coalfields of Glamorgan between 1861 and 1911. 16 This was an area developed largely after 1861 to which long-journey migrants (colliers from Gloucestershire and Somerset) moved only when wage rates were high. Likewise, long-journey migration to Middlesbrough dropped off after the boom decade of 1861 to 1871. 17 Many of these migrants were young and unmarried men but a surprising number of the migrant iron workers to Middlesbrough were family men who had moved several times between iron-making centres in the course of their families' life cycles. This is evident in the work of Gwynne and Sill 18 who like other recent authors, 19 use unpublished census returns which record parents' and children's birth-places to trace the migrational history of individual families. These returns also confirm that most such migrants were of a high skill grade. 20 It might also be expected that during the late nineteenth century long-journey migrants would be able to travel more easily (and more cheaply) on the growing railway network. This seems to be the case, for example, amongst the many railway engine drivers and related workers from the North East who lived in York, a major railway town. 21 But such a trend would be difficult to establish22 and whatever the railways' effect on long-journey migration, the number of short-journey migrants would also certainly increase in the last decades of the century: the importance of a particular inter-regional migration stream on a town's total population 116 J. T. Jackson mix was still limited even in a new and specialised manufacturing town like Middlesbrough. 23 Evidence to date therefore suggests that long-journey migrants seeking industrial employment were never a large group in the sum total of all migrants in nineteenth-century Britain. They took on numerical significance only when boom conditions and high wages prevailed in new industrial areas with specific labour needs. But because their skills were still often scarce and in demand by growth industries, long- journey migrants employed in industry may have had a dis­ proportionate influence on the regional growth pattern of emergent industries such as the iron and related engineering trades; and because they were usually skilled and well-paid and moving to new, expanding towns, they may have had a similarly strong impact on the internal social geography of their adopted towns. With these existing findings and assertions as a background some tentative generalisations about the characteristics of long-journey worker migrants and migration streams and their effect on their host towns during the nineteenth century are made and tested against a case study of migrant glass-makers to the new industrial town of St Helens, Lancashire. First, following Ravenstein, 24 long-distance migrants who worked in industry tended to be either young single adults or those in an early stage in the married life cycle. 25 Second, they were usually skilled manual workers who tended to be of comparatively high social status. 26 Third, migrants in a particular trade perhaps had prior knowledge of specialist job opportunities in other places before moving: 27 this fostered the development of migration links between regions of related industrial structures with migration most likely to be directed towards the region of expanding industry. 28 Fourth, long-distance migrants from the same area often congregated in specific parts of the receiving town, 29 usually, in the case of the industrial worker, close to his place of work. 30 Fifth, such migrants often moved on again, particularly in times of economic distress31 but again to towns with similar industrial structures. For those who remained, much depended on their occupational groups' internal social cohesion, their economic and housing opportunities, and the attitude of the host community in determining whether they continued to form spatially discrete groups or whether they dispersed and became assimilated into the broader urban society. 32 This last theme is one normally taken up with regard to national or ethnic St Helens' Glassmakers 117 groups and it will be interesting to see if a similar initial group cohesion existed amongst migrant glass-workers or whether their differing birthplace origins proved more important in their residential adjustment.

GLASSMAKERS AS LONG-DISTANCE MIGRANTS The condition of the glass industry in mid-nineteenth century Britain makes glassworkers an eminently suitable group for a migration study of this kind. They were traditionally a mobile occupational group who were prepared to move long distances: for example, many French and Flemish glass blowers worked in England from the seventeenth century onwards. 33 Scott, in her study of bottle glassworkers in Carmaux, South West France, suggests that in times of stable glass production too many youths were trained to occupy senior positions and the surplus skilled labour had to migrate in search of work. In times of expanding production, as in the nineteenth century, both ex­ perienced workers and those who had recently completed their apprenticeships were willing to move long distances to seek better employment conditions. 34 Of the 297 glassworkers married in Carmaux between 1866 and 1895, 177 (60per cent) were born outside the department of Tarn and its adjoining departments. 35 Similar long-distance movement occurred amongst British glassmakers during the early nineteenth century36 (see below, page 124). Glassmakers were also a very insular and so easiK identifiable occupational group. In particular, British crown glassmakers were able to protect their interests through their trade associations which ruled that only the sons of glassmakers could be apprenticed to the craft. 37 As such, they enjoyed a certain degree of social coheson and, because of the outlying position of most glass houses, they formed separate communities, usually at the edge of a town.38 By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, many technical changes had overtaken the industry and several types of window glass were being made. 39 The popularity of crown glass, achieved during the early decades of the century, was now threatened. Plate glass had made commercial inroads into the quality window glass market from about 1800 onwards and because only limited manual skills were needed in its production, 'outside' workers had freely entered this branch of the industry. Later, sheet glass, a more direct rival to crown glass as a standard window glass, was introduced to Britain. This required an equally 118 J.T.Jackson high level (but different type) of skill in its manufacture, and together with the rapid rise in demand for window glass after the abolition of excise duty in 1845,40 its introduction helped loosen the control of crown glassworkers' associations on those trained as skilled workers. At the same time a major reorganisation of the size, number and location of glassmaking centres was occurring. Many old centres of glass manufacture closed down during the 1840s and 1850s, and in several localities, security of employment particularly of crown glassworkers was no longer assured. A move or alt­ ernative employment in the local area had to be seriously considered.

GLASSMAKING IN ST. HELENS St. Helens, the chief growth point in the British glass industry during the nineteenth century, had become, by 1901, the focus of the country's glassmaking industry.41 Its early development though, was uncertain. Only with the founding of the British Plate Glass Company works at nearby Ravenhead in 1773 did the St. Helens area become an important glassmaking location. Why a company with a massive initial joint-stock value of £40,000 chose to come to St. Helens is not certain as many well-established glassmaking centres elsewhere had better access to the important London market and it was not until the 1790s, with new management, that output began to match shareholders' expectations. Meanwhile, in 1792, St. Helens' first crown glassworks was opened as a joint venture between men previously engaged in local plate and bottle glass manu­ facture. Similarly, entrepreneurs connected with a nearby flint (cut) glassworks were involved in the foundation in 1826 of St. Helens' second and more famous crown glassworks: the other partners included the doctor and wine merchant, William Pilkington, and the banker and brewer, Peter Greenall. Greenall's banking connections ensured that this new venture survived early financial troubles, and it further benefited from the early failure of its local rival. By 1832 Greenall and Pilkington was the ninth largest glass manufacturer in the country in terms of excise duty paid. Despite this, St. Helens (within Merseyside) was a secondary glassmaking centre in national terms (see Figure 1). The premier production area, Tyneside, had held its position since the end of the seventeenth century. The other major area of production, the West Midlands, had the largest crown glassworks in Britain (Chance and Hartley at Spon St Helens' Glassmakers 119

Figure 1. Comparative si/e of Glassmaking Centres. 1832 (as measured by e«ise duty payments)

(Duty poid)

IOO 2OO 300 400 Km

Source 3* Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Excise Establishment(Gloss) 1835 1151 XXXI, 74-5 120 J.T.Jackson Lane, Smethwick). In 1832 St. Helens was still better classified with other smaller but important crown glass manufacturers to be found at Dumbarton on Clydeside, Stourbridge in Worcestershire and Nailsea in Somerset. Far-reaching changes though were already beginning to take effect in the glassmaking industry with sheet glass manufactured for the first time in Britain by Chance at Spon Lane in 1832. 42 By 1840, with technical improvements in polishing, it was also manufactured by Chance's former partner, Hartley, at Sunderland, Cookson at Newcastle and Pilkington at St. Helens. 43 These four concerns were the guiding lights of the Crown Glass Association initially set up in 1827 to control prices and, in times of recession, to control the 'make' of each member firm.44 Their influence is evident in their ability to limit sheet glass manufacture to themselves45 though Cookson gave up his quota of sheet glass under production agreements to Chance in return for a part quota of Chance's crown glass in 1842.46 This proved to be an unwise decision on Cookson's part. By the 1850s sheet glass was making rapid inroads into traditional crown glass markets and despite the abolition of excise duty on crown and other glass in 1845, most Tyneside firms, including Cookson, had collapsed by the late 1840s. The ageing and retirement of senior management, financial and marketing ineptitude besides the lack of technical foresight were possible reasons for this47 but more certain was the effect of the vigorous competition from Chance, Pilkington and Hartley, all trying to increase their proportionate share of a growing market. By 1863 no window glass, crown or sheet, was being made on Tyneside, while on neighbouring Wearside, the relatively new and technically more sophisticated works of James Hartley continued to prosper. A similar collapse occurred at Dumbarton. In the 1820s Dumbarton produced equivalent to nearly one-third of English output in terms of duty paid but by 1850 the works had closed. Closer to St. Helens, crown glassworks at Warrington and Old Swan, West Derby, closed in the 1840s. The Old Swan Works were in fact bought by Pilkingtons and Chances in 1855 in order to make sure no glass was produced there again. Indeed throughout the 1850s and 1860s the commercially aggressive firms Pilkingtons, Chances' and Hartley's often acted in concert to buy up and close down other window glassmaking firms. A newly-promoted works at Newton-le-Willows, close to St. Helens was soon bought up St Helens' Glassmakers 121 and closed at the same time as the Old Swan Works: in 1860 the Hunslet Works near Leeds were closed down to be followed in 1867 by Stourbridge and then by Nailsea. Nevertheless rivalry between these three firms was intense particularly for relatively scarce skilled glassworkers. In 1836 the Crown Glass Association enforced rules whereby member firms were forbidden to take on workers bound by contract to another member firm48 but 'poaching' remained rife, particularly of sheet glassworkers: The main difficulty was to find (sheet glass) workmen. The services of the small reserve of competent men were eagerly competed for. Several men were suborned from Spon Lane though not without reprisal. 49 It was even necessary to tempt European glassmakers to Britain by high wages: . . .the demand for workmen in that branch (sheet glass) is such, that men are making from £4 to £8 a week. . . about 200 of their (Belgian) best workmen have been abstracted by the temptation of extravagant wages here. The best crown glassmakers are now making 38s. to 40s. a week; Frenchmen £5. 50 This situation prevailed immediately after the abolition of excise duty in 1845 when demand for all types of glass had become 'excessive' so that orders could not be supplied for lack of labour. According to surviving Pilkington wage sheets for 1849, wage levels for top continental sheet glass blowers in St. Helens had eased slightly to £3 to £4 a week, for native- born glass blowers to a little over £2 and for native-born crown glass blowers to 32s. 51 These wage differentials were obviously a cause of friction to local glassworkers and it was in the financial interest of manufacturers to train local people to replace foreign workers. But this was a slow process and despite the introduction of youths from non-glassmaking families, there was still a shortage of skilled labour during the 1850s at Smethwick (Chances) and St. Helens.

MIGRANT GLASSWORKERS IN ST. HELENS IN 1851 Based on the changing spatial pattern of the glass industry it would be expected that many Scottish and Tyneside crown glassmakers would move to St. Helens together with men from local concerns in Warrington and Old Swan, Liverpool. Smaller-scale movement from Stourbridge, Nailsea and Hunslet, towns in which crown glassworks were soon to close, could also be expected while there might be some interchange of workers between the expanding works at Sunderland (Hartley's) Smethwick (Chances') and St. 122 J.T.Jackson TABLE 1 Migrant population of selected urban centres, 1851 (each group ranked in order oj population size) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Native Short-journey Long-journey (3) as a % As (4) but bom* migrants* migrants* of (2+3) excluding Irish-bom Major Cities 62 1! 28 72 68 Manchester 45 29 26 47 31 Liverpool 42 16 42 72 55 Glasgow 44 23 33 59 38 Birmingham 59 23 18 44 37 Edinburgh 50 20 30 60 54 Leeds 69 21 10 32 19 Bristol 51 29 20 41 37 Sheffield 64 28 9 25 15 Newcastle 46 38' 17' 31 19 Industrial Towns Dundee +6 _ 27 27 50 23 Wigan 92 9 West Bromwich 91 9 Preston 48 42 11 21 7 Merthyr Tydfil 43 35 22 39 33 Sunderland 60 26 14 35 24 Bolton 59 30 11 27 12 Leicester 55 37 9 20 17 Nottingham 54 35 11 24 19 St. Helens 94 6 Wolverhampton 55 28 17 38 26 Derbv 63 23 14 38 32 Dudley 65 27 8 23 17 Swansea 57 19 24 56 50 Huddersfield 53 38 10 21 12 County Towns York 46 41 13 24 Exeter 49 41 10 20 Cambridge 49 35 16 31 Chester 50 33 17 34 Perth 59 _ , 28 13 22 Huntingdon 92 8 Shrewsbury 50 38 12 24 Canterbury 55 36 10 22 Gloucester 30 51 19 27 Lincoln 47 43 10 19 Lancaster 46 48 6 11 Bury St. Edmunds 53 40 8 17 Inverness 49 41 10 20 Market Towns2 Honiton Malton Abingdon Ashbourne Evesham Rye Farnham Southam Marlborough Percentage of total population Scottish-born migrants treated as short-journey migrants Only the principal cities and towns have native-born inhabitants listed; market towns and some of the newer industrial towns have their inhabitants distinguished only by county of birth. St Helens' Glassmakers 123

TABLE 2 Birthplace origins of St. Helens' glass workers

Total Population Glass Workers Specific Region (10% sample) of Origin St. Helens 40.1 31.8 63 Tyneside Within 12 miles 23.1 22.3 44 Warrington Lanes, and Cheshire 4.0 42 Ireland England and Wales 8.2 25.2 41 Scotland Scotland 3.0 6.8 20 W. Midlands Ireland 16.6 6.9 18 Overseas Overseas 0.6 3.0 13 Nailsea Total (actual number) 643 606 London TABLE 3 Glass workers' skill level and birthplace origins, 1851

Skilled Semi-Skilled Unskilled St. Helens 27% 53% 47% Within 12 kilometres 17%* 24% 33% Outside Lancashire and Cheshire 54% 19% 13% *Excluding Warrington-born, only 7%.

TABLE 4 Skilled glassworkers with specific job title and birthplace origins 1851

Crown Sheet Plate Flint Bottle St. Helens + 12 kilometre radius/elsewhere 14/46 3/6 79/6 17/11 11/5

TABLE 5 Birthplace origins of glass workers children (exluding St. Helens)

Total Population (10% sample) 1. Ireland *2. Liverpool *3. Prescot *4. Ashton *5. Warrington 6. Scotland *7. Newton *8. West Derby *9. Burtonwood 10. London 124 J.T.Jackson Helens (Pilkingtons'). Such movement would be most likely amongst sheet glassworkers for whom there was fierce competition. It would also be expected that by 1851 native-born youth from non-glassmaking families would have been trained as skilled glassworkers. In contrast few migrant workers would be expected amongst the plate glassmakers of the British Plate Glass Company at Ravenhead, as plate glass production was still concentrated in St. Helens area. Tables 2 to 4, based on birthplace origins given in 1851 census returns, bear out many of these expectations. Table 2 shows that 25 per cent of all St. Helens glassworkers were born in England and Wales outside Lancashire and Cheshire as compared with 8 per cent of the working adult male population of the whole town. A disproportionately high proportion of glasss-workers were born overseas (France, Italy, Belgium) with declining centres such as Tyneside with 63 and Scotland (Dumbarton) 52 with 41, also strongly represented. Areas such as the West Midlands, nearer St. Helens, are poorly represented. The apparently weak migratory link between Smethwick (West Midlands) and St. Helens is confirmed from the birthplaces of glassworkers living close to the Spon Lane factory in 1851: only two had been born in St. Helens as compared with 13 from Nailsea, 9 from Dumbarton and 10 from Tyneside. 53 From the Pilkington wage sheets for 1849 it is possible to isolate at least six men who were born or who had lived in West Bromwich and Smethwick close to the Chance glassworks: all were highly skilled sheet glassmakers and were earning about £2 or more a week. It is likely they were attracted (suborned) to St. Helens largely because of high wages and ordinarily they might have been satisfied to stay and work at Chances' crown and sheet glassworks; for most glassworkers there was little obvious economic incentive to leave a comparatively prosperous location such as Smethwick. As might be expected, Table 3 shows a movement of mainly skilled glassworkers to St. Helens from outside Lancashire and Cheshire while 77 per cent of the semi-skilled and 80 per cent of the unskilled labour was born in or within 12 kilometres (8 miles) of St. Helens. Nevertheless some 152 (44 per cent) skilled workers were also locally born, but of skilled crown glassworkers whose exact job description was given in the census returns (as opposed to 'glassmaker'), only 14 were locally born. Higher skill grades in crown glass manufacture appear to be still largely the reserve of migrant glassmakers. By contrast only six of the 85 plate glassworkers St Helens' Glassmakers 125 were born over 12 kilometres from St. Helens (see Table 4). The birthplace of a family head is not the only indicator of an individual's migratory history: a fuller but still incomplete account can be gained from a study of the birthplace origins and ages of all the family members. This evidence first suggests that many of the migrant crown glassworkers came to St. Helens as married men with children: both the wife and first child of 55 (61 per cent) were born outside St. Helens as compared with 25 (23 per cent) who were married to local girls. 54 Secondly, the average age of this former group on arrival in St. Helens has been estimated at 35 years55 and that 42 (64 per cent) probably arrived after 1846. These figures substantiate earlier conclusions that the late 1840s was a period of great upheaval within the crown glass industry causing not only single men but family groups often with several children to move long distances. It would be wrong though, to conclude that there was relatively large-scale direct movement from declining centres such as Tyneside and Dumbarton to such newly-emergent centres as St. Helens, Smethwick and Sunderland. The birthplace origins of children of a crown glassworker often indicate that he has moved in several stages implying step- wise migration. For glassmaking families Table 5 indicates an invariable movement between known glassmaking centres. Indeed on the evidence of children's birthplaces movement is sometimes circulatory as a migrant returned to a previous place of residence: several migrant crown glassworkers who had married St. Helens girls and had their first child in St. Helens had moved out to nearby Newton, Warrington or Old Swan before returning to St. Helens. While it is difficult to estimate the length of stay in each centre, inspection of those families where there are several children suggests a stay of at least five years was usual. This ties in with customary contractual arrangements made between employer and employee that a crown glassmaker would be bound for six or seven years to one master (in return for a guaranteed minimum wage).56 However, on the limited census evidence available it would seem that in the late 1830s and early 1840s these contracts were not often renewed and the crown glassmaker moved on in search of better conditions, a search governed sometimes by direct experience of other glassmaking centres or, perhaps more often, by information gained from fellow migrant glassworkers or by contacts gained through glassmakers' associations (see page 117). Finally, it would also be expected that the rate of inter- 126 J.T.Jackson urban mobility would decline through the 1850s as many old production centres had by then closed while the newer ones were steadily increasing their outputs. But before testing this, the areas in which St. Helens crown and sheet glassworkers lived in the 1850s are worth examination. In particular a comparison is made between the housing of these migrant glassworkers and that of the native-born plate glass workers.

GLASSWORKERS' HOUSING, 1851 Because of the limited amount of privately-rented property in and around the new and rapidly-growing town, St. Helens industrialists built cottages to house their workers. 57 The British Plate Glass Company, in fact, not only provided workers with housing but grew most of the food needed; schools and domestic gas were also provided. With production expansion of plate glass in the 1840s more company houses were erected and, of the 200 families employed in 1851, many were housed in the 106 houses contiguous to the works and others on nearby Company land. Situated half a mile outside St. Helens in Ravenhead this community was socially as well as physically distinct. For example, in the oldest row of houses, Factory Row, only one of 33 household heads was born more than 12 kilometres (8 miles) from St. Helens. 59 Of their children, none were born outside St. Helens and neighbouring Prescot, the vast majority in Sutton township (Ravenhead being a part), suggesting that once a household head found employment, with the British Plate Glass Company, he stayed. Between 1851 and 1861 nineteen (60 per cent) of the 33 household heads remained on the Row or within 200 metres of it, while a further two had moved to new privately-rented houses within 400 metres, where five of seven now independent sons also located were traced (Figure 2). 60 Of the remaining individuals, four were traced to houses close to the Sutton Oak Plate Glassworks, just outside St. Helens. The remaining four were found in the better quality working-class housing recently built just north-west of the town centre (see below, page 128, for further details of this housing). This amounts to a household head trace rate of 27 (84 per cent) within St Helens: the remaining six heads had, quite likely, died. Tied housing and the availability of a limited amount of new private housing close to the British Plate Glass Company works would obviously hold many people to this 'occupational area' but the question as to why so few had St Helens' Glassmakers 127

Fijire ! lain-irkm ims kj Plitt iri Grin Glwuhrs. St. Hctin. 1851 ti 1861.

Movtt from Pilkinqtofii Row from Foctory Row directional movem«n<

ioirct: lidiiital nms itlins for Ikt Unships tf liidle Sittm. EctteUi ui tin (ligtlhtr lit) win th Si. Htkir irbii ami 1851 It 1161 moved to St. Helens' new residential areas is still relevant. Unlike the Irish chemical workers and the native-born colliers there was neither the ethnic nor overt occupational slur attached to plate glass workers, so as to limit their movement. Comparatively low wage rates (20s. 25s. a week) and journey-to-work considerations were not insurmountable obstacles to taking a modest house in the new residential areas. 6 ' It may well be that the social cohesion of people who had grown up together in a settled industrial community encouraged them to stay in either the back-to-back houses of Factory Row or in houses just down the road. Indeed in the case of the crown glassworkers it could be argued that despite the traditional high level of occupational cohesion, the fact that they originated from so many different parts of Britain meant they might be freer of these ties of common origin and thus would be both more willing to move and more willing to seek a house and district reflecting their economic and social status. This proved to be only partly correct. The Pilkington crown glassworks were nearer to the continuously built-up area of St. Helens than the British Plate Glass Company works (Figure 1). Company housing, however, was provided. Across the road from the works, Pilkington's Row, a run of 47 back-to-back houses, accommodated in 1845 at least 128 J.T.Jackson two-thirds of Pilkington's directly-employed crown glass workforce. 62 But with production expansion, only 150 of the company's 700 workers were housed there in 1851: "the others are dispersed all over town". 63 Pilkingtons' policy was no longer to build houses but to provide a living-out allowance of £10 a year to skilled men. St. Helens was now a rapidly growing industrial town with, in 1851, a population of 22,000," double its 1831 total and one doubled again by 1871. Other industrialists besides Pilkingtons felt there was no longer any need to build company housing to attract migrant labour and, with an unbroken period of industrial prosperity from the late 1840s to the early 1870s,65 private house builders financed by numerous local building societies were able to build row upon row of terraced houses on large areas of land, away from the factory areas, restricted through leasehold clauses to residential use. Many such houses were occupied by Pilkington workers. Twenty (46per cent) household heads and ten now independent sons were traced within St.Helens in 1861 from those living on Pilkington Row in 1851. While eight household heads remained on Pilkington Row, the other 22 individuals moved to the area of new houses on the other, northwestern, side of the town centre (Figure 2). In a moderately-sized town such as St. Helens this was a relatively long distance to move when compared to the other main occupational groups the Irish chemical workers, the colliers and the plate glass workers and it would seem that the old 'occupational area' of crown glassworkers based largely on tied housing had effectively broken up. However to infer that crown (and now sheet) glassworkers, highly paid and of occupational status, were free to choose a house and area reflecting something of their social status in a mid-Victorian society increasingly conscious of social status divisions, is less certain. A degree of residential clustering remained: while glassmakers no longer lived next door to each other, they tended to be the most common occupational group in certain enumeration districts. 66 It is doubtful though, if this was significantly related to birthplace origins as glassmakers from Dumbarton (Scotland), South Shields (County Durham) and Nailsea (Somerset) were freely intermixed in the same general area but it may reflect a lingering sense of occupational community, reinforced by journey-to-work considerations: glass blowers and their assistants had to be on ready call when the molten glass was ready for working. 67 In a more negative sense this loose clustering may reflect general St Helens' Glassmakers 129 society's condemnation of many migrant glassmakers' life styles: they were still well-known for their taste for beer68 and many continued for some time yet to prefer to have their sons working early rather than improving their reading and writing skills at school. 69 Such behaviour was at odds with the emergence of 'respectable' society with its emphasis on temperance and self-improvement, values associated with St. Helens' better residential areas but within the price range of most skilled glassmakers. Finally it is noticeable that most glassworkers living in the new residential areas of the 1850s were on land leased from the Greenall family, Pilkington's partners until 1849; very few were found living in almost identical houses on the neighbouring Morris estate. 70 While there is no extant evidence, this suggests that living-out allowances were only granted if glassmakers were prepared to rent leasehold houses on 'company land': from Pilkington's and Greenall's point of view this would be sound estate management; from the independent glassmakers' standpoint, an improvement on living in a 'company house'.

INTER-URBAN MIGRATION. 1851-1861 It is highly likely that the rate of inter-urban migration fell away during the 1850s: of a sample of 138 men who worked in skilled capacities at Pilkington's works in 1851, 71 63 (46per cent) were traced within St. Helens in 1861, very few moving into non-glass making occupations, as compared to a trace of 52% for St. Helens' population as a whole. 72 As might be expected it was the younger glassmakers who could not be traced and also those who, in the census, were described only as 'glassmaker' suggesting a less specialised and skilled grade of work than those who were described, for example, as 'glass stainer' or 'glass blower'. At the same time, there were very few foreign (high skill) glass makers left in St. Helens and the percentage of native-born glassmakers had increased from 44 per cent (1851) to 63 per cent (1861). Significantly many of these were sheet glass workers from non-glassmaking families, indicating that the occupational dominance of migrant glassmakers and their families was being broken. Through the 1850s Pilkingtons' production of sheet glass grew rapidly while that of crown glass production remained steady. 7 Rival firms continued to close and by 1865 only six firms remained in the newly-entitled "Crown, Sheet and Rolled Plate Manufacturers' Association" 74 with Pilkingtons, Chances and Hartley controlling 75 per cent of British window glass production. 75 Given a certain degree of job 130 J.T.Jackson security in St. Helens and the limited choice of job openings elsewhere there was neither the need nor the incentive for glassmakers to move, as existed in the 1840s. Of the 75 skilled glassmakers not traced within St. Helens between 1851 and 1861, only ten, together with seven sons of men identified in the 1851 sample, were traced to the other five glassmaking centres involved in the manufacturers' association: 6 this despite a double check on all census enumeration districts within a half mile of the relevant glassworks. Of those traced only one glassmaker was at a new crown glassworks at West Leigh, just ten miles from St. Helens; eight were traced to Chances' works at Smethwick and five to Hartley's at Sunderland: a few other St. Helens' born glassworkers, not in the sample, were also identified in these two towns. The remaining three were found in Nailsea; there were none in Stourbridge. Five of those traced had returned to the area in which they were born, four being 45 or older in 1851; three of these four had also apparently taken up non-glassmaking occupations two as labourers, one as a painter. Despite the smallness of the sample, there is some slight evidence of return migration back to the place of origin and perhaps to friends and extended family (two returned migrants were widowers, one living as a lodger, one with his unmarried children in a shared house) at the end of the most economically productive time of the life cycle. Given the age structure of the original sample of 138, it is likely that at least 25 glassmakers77 but probably more78 died between 1851 and 1861: this leaves up to 40 skilled glassmakers unaccounted for and, assuming that the census returns were complete and that the double check on these returns was thorough, it seems possible that the degree of occupational change was greater than anticipated but, as noted earlier, it was men who described themselves only as 'glassmaker' who tended not to be traced while many of the older glassmakers may have turned to a less arduous occupation in non-glassmaking towns in their final working years.

CONCLUSIONS Of the generalisations relating to long-distance migrants, the labour linkage between widely-separated glassmaking areas has been clearly demonstrated but that between different regions of expansion was, at best, tenuous: only highly-skilled sheet glassmakers seemed to have moved between St. Helens and Smethwick and then only after heavy St Helens' Glassmakers 131 financial inducement. The overall movement pattern between about 1830 and 1851 was very much a one-way flow of glassmakers of all ages from declining to new, expanding regions of glassmaking: so-called established, stable areas of production did not exist to provide a surplus pool of skilled unmarried men who might move in search of better job op­ portunities, as appears to be the case in the iron-making and coal industries. Underlying these changes of regional fortune was the battle between a new generation of technically-aware and aggressive entrepreneurs, generally working in new industrial locations peripheral to major cities, and established family companies seemingly content to follow old marketing and production methods. It was a battle won with amazing speed and completeness by the newcomers. This helps explain why so many crown glassmakers had to move as married men with growing children. 79 There was little purpose in waiting for the extinguished window glass trades of Dumbarton and Newcastle to revive. Equally evident was the crucial role such migrants played in the takeoff stage of the new industrial site's (and sometimes region's) economic development: for a short time, old technologies (crown glass- making) were needed to complement the new (sheet glassmaking). While foreign sheet glassblowers were recruited at great expense to train local labour, once achieved then to be quickly discarded, 80 migrant crown glassmakers were still needed to produce the more familiar dimple window glass. In the 1840s, the crown glassmaker was thus able to maintain a degree of independence from the new class of manufacturer and there is evidence of the more traditional periodical movement of glassmakers' families between lassworks generally within the local region, in this case fouth-West Lancashire. As to whether these long-distance migrants had knowledge of specialist job opportunities in other towns and regions before moving is a more open question. On the indirect evidence of census returns, people with the same surnames and the same places of origin can be identified in different glassmaking regions: the names of Phillips (Nailsea), Pemberton (Dumbarton), Lackland (South Shields) and Rigby (St Helens), for example, appear in two or more other regional centres. This suggests the likelihood of some extended family circles across the country beyond possible formal trade association contacts and the likely assurance of bed and board whether work was readily available or not. Such detailed record linkage though is beyond the scope of the present article. 132 J.T.Jackson After arriving in St. Helens most crown glassmakers and their families quickly moved to new residential areas away from the factory area and so distinguished themselves from most other manual workers who continued to move within a well-defined framework of occupational areas centred on places of work. 81 Such seemingly purposeful and directed movements have been explained elsewhere in terms of the changing socio-economic relationships of mid-nineteenth century industrial Britain, in particular in terms of the emergent 'labour aristocracy', working men who considered themselves socially distinct from 'the lower orders' and who wished to confirm their social distance in spatial terms. 82 But by traditionally reserving their skills for their own sons and by often living in self-imposed isolation the crown lassmakers had always been socially and spatially distinct. fVhat is more their residential adjustment in St. Helens was one initiated and perhaps partly controlled by Pilkingtons. Indeed it could be argued that Company policy considerations rather than those of social status were a root cause behind the emergence of respectable residential areas in St. Helens. Well-paid glassmakers in relatively secure employment supported by Company living-out allowances provided a ready market for private, better-quality housing built in new residential areas across the town from the glassworks. Such houses were built there partly because of problems of coal-mining subsidence in the factory areas83 and partly, if suspicions are well-founded, because of the availability of company-associated land across town. Greenalls, the owners of this land, had brewer)- interests besides those in glass, and to avoid competition they stipulated in their leasehold contracts that besides noxious industries and trade, no public houses were to be built on their land. 84 The glassmaker would have to take his drink elsewhere. Coupled with the general prosperity felt in other local industries and the related influx of population and the investment opportunities offered to the many small shareholders with the local building societies, some of whom built for owner-occupation, the Greenall estate was, by 1851, built over with 'moderate cottages'. 85 Respectable or not, Company policy, economic and demographic factors ensured that such physical housing environments were created. 86 This is not to deny the influence of social forces on the social tone of an area St. Thomas' church built in 183987 provided a core piece for later houses on the Greenall estate but it does appear that this built environment helped set the St Helens' Glassmakers 133 context within which the social geography of St. Helens respectable and non-respectable areas developed over the next decades. The migrant glassmaker was an unwitting cause of this change and probably felt incongruous in such an environment (admittedly the more respectable artisan and white-collar worker left the area during the 1850s and 1860s for the better-drained and more exclusive suburbs further out) but he had nowhere else to move. He was a victim of industrial change. It is perhaps at this stage of the research that a new series of questions, more familiar to the social historian, emerge, in particular questions relating to the origins of the new entrepreneurs in the glass industry; their changing industrial relationships with the crown glassmaker; the social, as opposed to spatial integration of the crown glassmakers in St. Helens; the final, less productive days of the ageing glassmaker. These require either a more theoretical or more source-sensitive approach but it is hoped that empirical research such as this, using largely quantitative source material, puts such questions in a suitable form for further enquiry.

NOTES

1 E.G. Ravenstein, "The Laws of Migration", Journal of the Statistical Society, 48 (1885), 181-184. "Long-journey migrant" is Ravenstein's term and is followed in the opening sections for comparative purposes. The more familiar "Long-distance migrant" is used in the case study description: see note 24. 2 Ibid., 183. 3 Ibid., 199. 4 Certain difficulties exist in interpreting migration statistics from the 1851 and later censuses. First, the large numbers of destitute Irish coming to the mainland in the 1840s dramatically inflates the number of long-journey migrants to certain towns, particularly those in Lancashire. As their reasons for moving may have been very different from many other long-journey migrants, interpretation of figures including Irish-born is difficult. Second, the si/.e of counties in Great Britain varied enormously: thus long-journey migrants to Leeds and Sheffield, both with apparently few such migrants, had to travel much further than those to, say, the small county Huntingdonshire to qualify as long-journey migrants. Third, the Newcastle figure is probably another underestimation as Scottish migrants to English cities are only by country, not county of birth. 5 D.G. Grigg, "Ravenstein and the 'laws of migration'", Journal of Historical Geography, 3 (1977), 41-54. 134 J.T.Jackson 6 Ibid., 44-47. 7 J.T. Danson and T.A. Welton, "On the Population of Lancashire and Cheshire and its local distribution during the Fifty years 1801-51, Part y\T.H.S.L.C. 11-12 (1858-60). 41. 8 H.C. Darby, "The Movement of Population to and from Cambridgeshire between 1851 and 1861", The Geographical Journal, 101 (1943), 124. 9 C.T. Smith, "The Movement of Population in England and Wales in 1851 and 1861", The Geographical Journal, 117 (1951), 210. 10 Census of Great Britain, 1851, Population Tables, Number of Inhabitants 1801 51, Vols. 1 and 2. 1852-53 (1361) Vol.LXXXV and 1852-53 (16.32) Vol.LXXXVI 11 A. Redford, Labour Migration in England 1800 1850 (Manchester 1926), 32-43. 12 Ibid., 160. 13 Ibid., 52. 14 R. Lawton. "Population Movements in the West Midlands 1841-61," Geography, 43 (1958), 172-174. 15 Redford, 163. 16 B. Thomas, "The Migration of Labour into the Glamorganshire Coalfield (1861-1911);' Economica. 10 (1930), 282-285. 17 Ravenstein, 216. 18 T. Gwynne and M. Sill, "Census Enumeration Books: a study of mid- nineteenth century immigration," The Local Historian, 12 (1976). 74 79. 19 L'npublished census returns lor Great Britain, were taken each decade and survive from 1841 onwards but are not available for public scrutiny after 1871. They were first used by R. Lawton in his "The population of Liverpool in the mid-nineteenth century," Transactions oj the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 107 (1955), 89-120; and subsequent reviews include M.W. Beresford, "The unprinted census returns of 1841, 1851, 1861 for England and Wales," The Amateur Historian, 4 (1963), 260-266; E.A. Wrigley (ed.), Nineteenth-century society: essays in the use oj quantitative methods for the study of social data (1972); R, Lawton (ed.), The census and social structure (1978). 20 Gwynne and Sill, 77. 21 W.A. Armstrong, Stability and change in an English county town: a social study oj York 1801-51 (1974), 98'. 22 Grigg, 48. 23 Redford, 189; Ravenstein, 215-216. 24 Ravenstein's "long-journey migrant" is dropped and the more familiar term, "the long-distance migrant" is now used as the following analysis is not based on his definitions of migrants. This is because of St. Helens' proximity to the Cheshire border (12 km. or 8 miles) which makes the distinction between native-born and those born in neighbouring counties almost meaningless. A distinction made partly on distance travelled is adopted: see Table 2. 25 Grigg, 49-50; R.J. Dennis, 'Intercensal mobility in a Victorian City," Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 2 (1977), 355-358. 26 Grigg, 48; Armstrong, 91-94. 27 Redford, 35 61; EJ. Hobsbawn, "The Tramping Artisan," in EJ. Hobsbawn, Labouring men: studies in the history of labour (1964), 34-63. 28 Lawton, 164-177; Thomas, 257-294. 29 Gwynne and Sill, 74 79; C.G. Pooley, "The residential segregation of migrant communities in mid-Victorian Liverpool," Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 1 (1977), 364-382; D. Ward, Cities and St Helens' Glassmakers 135 Immigrants: a geography of change in nineteenth-century America (New York. 1971). 30 J.E. Vance jr., "Housing the worker: determinative and contingent ties in nineteenth-century Birmingham," Economic Geography 43 (1976), 93 127; A.M. \\arnes. "Early separation of homes from workplace and the urban structure of Chorley 1780-1854." T.H.S.L.C. 122 (1970), 105-135. 31 M. Anderson, Family structure in nineteenth-century Lancashire (1971), 38- 39. 32 J.E Vance jr., 96-97; A.M. VVarnes, 186-187; C.G. Poolev, 367-368. 33 VV. Smith (ed.), A scientific survey oj Merseyside (1953), 234. 34 J.VV. Scott. The glassworkers of Carmaux: French craftsmen and political action in a nineteenth-century city (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974), 47- 48. 35 Ibid., 204. 36 Pilkingtons' own archives in St. Helens have an early nineteenth-century diary of an itinerant glassmaker which records his journey from Dumbarton, Scotland to Tyneside where he searched for work among the various glass houses. 37 T.C. Barker. Pilkington Brothers and the glass industry (1960), 102. 38 J.W. Scott, 9; T.C. Barker and J.R. Harris, A Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution: St. Helens 1750-1900 (1959), map opposite page 14. 39 Plate glass, first produced in Great Britain by the British Plate Glass Company at Ravenhead (St. Helens) in 1773, was run out in a molten state onto a flat table, rolled out, allowed to cool and then ground and polished. Thicker and more expensive than other window glass, it was used largely in only better-quality work. Other, more popular window glasses included broad glass, a dull, opaque and low-quality glass, but one largely replaced by crown glass during the early decades of the century. Crown glass was formed by spinning and thinning out a ball of molten glass into a flat circle; no contact was made with any surface so the glass retained its lustre. By contrast sheet glass, first developed on the Continent, was made from molten glass blown into a cylinder, cut and then flattened out on a surface, so losing some of its lustre. However, relatively pure ingredients were used soda, lime and sand and with new methods of polishing introduced in the late 1830s, sheet glass' lustrous qualities improved. Sheet glass now threatened crown glass' supremacy in the British window glass market, a challenge encouraged for a time by its lower rate of excise duty (see note 40). 40 Excise duty doubled the manufacturers' price of glass; with its abolition demand surprised even the manufacturers. It is also interesting to note that duty was levied by weight of metal (molten glass) in the pot, that is no account was taken of wastage when the glass was blown and cut. This proved favourable to sheet glass makers during the 1830s and early 1840s as crown glass was blown and spun into circular pieces, cutting to shape involving heavy wastage. 41 For a full description of the history of St. Helens' (and the British) glass industry, see Barker. 42 J.F Chance, A History oj the Firm oj Chance Brothers and Company (1919), 56. 43 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Crown Glass Manufacturers' Association, August 25 1841, Resolution 5. These minutes are partly preserved (1827. 1835-1845. 1865) in Pilkingtons' Archives, St. Helens. 136 J.T.Jackson 44 Barken 71. 45 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Crown Glass Manufacturers' Association, August 25 1841, Resolution 14. 46 Ibid., April 6 1842, Resolution 6. 47 Barker, 120. The rest of this and the next paragraph is based on Chapter 8 of Barker's book. 48 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Crown Glass Manufacturers' Association, September 1 1838, Resolution 38. 49 Chance, 36. 50 Extracts from letters received from Glass Manufacturers in various parts of England, on the present state of the Glass Trade, British Parliamentary Papers 1846 (109) XLIV, 17. 51 Pilkington's wage sheets, May 1846. Reprinted in Barker, 219-228. 52 Scotland, not Dumbarton, is the usual birthplace description in the 1851 census returns for St. Helens. But for Smethwick, 1851 and St. Helens, 1861, Dumbarton is shown to be by far the most common birthplace origin of Scottish glassmakers. 53 For Sunderland, the other major growth centre, there was only one glassmaker born in either St. Helens or Smethwick but nine from the declining centres of Dumbarton and Nailsea. 54 For all married glassworkers born outside St. Helens the figures were 111 (54%) and 43 (21%). 55 This is derived by deducting half the age of the youngest child born outside St. Helens from the age of the household head given in the census; if there was a younger child born in St. Helens, its age and that of the elder migrant child were added and divided by two so as to estimate the necessary age deduction. By a similar calculation estimates of their time of arrival in St. Helens were made. 56 Barker, 106. 5/ J.C. Barker and J.R. Harris, A Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution St. Helens 1750-1900 (1959), 49, 82, 140, 170. 58 Minutes of the Select Committee on the St Helens' Improvement Bill, June 2 1851 (Second Bill). House of Lords Record Office. 59 Unpublished census returns for Factory Row, Ravenhead, Sutton Township, Lancashire, 1851. 60 Name, age and birthplace of man and wife were all used when checking the identity of an individual. 61 Many crown glassworkers walked over half a mile to work, the distance of the British Plate Glass Company Works to the town centre; numerous smaller houses on side streets in the new residential areas rented for 3/6 a week. 62 Minutes of the Select Committee on the St, Helens' Improvement Bill, May 23 1845 (First Bill), House of Lords Record Office. The term 'directly employed' is used because many youths were not employed by the company but paid by the glassmaker to do his carrying and labouring chores. 63 Minutes of the Select Committee on the St. Helens' Improvement Bill, June 2 1851 (Second Bill), House of Lords Record Office. 64 Barker, 111. 65 Barker and Harris, 412. 66 In one enumeration district for 1851, newly built over, 65 (20%) out of 314 household heads were skilled glassmakers, 48 being long-journey migrants. This covered a large part of the Greenall estate: see footnote 70. 67 Barker, 109. St Helens' Glassmakers 137 68 Ibid.. 113. 69 Apprentices records of Pilkingtons' glassmakers from the 1870s onwards and held by Pilkingtons' archives show that many apprentices could not sign their name. 70 Only 21 (8%) of the 254 household heads on the Morris estate in 1851 were skilled glassmakers, 10 being long-distance migrants: compare with note 66. 71 The sample included all skilled men listed on the 1849 Pilkingtons" wage sheets (i.e. earning over £1 10s. a week) together with other crown and sheet glassmakers included in the 1851 returns. 72 Derived from an original sample of 308 households. 73 Barker, 128 and 14 f. 74 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Association of Crown, Sheet and Rolled Plate Glass Manufacturers, December 13, 1865. 75 Barker, 124. 76 Name, age and birthplace of man and wife were again (note 60) all used when checking the identity of an individual. 77 The calculation was based on the Registrar General's age-specific mortality rates for males, 1851 to 1861, given in B.R. Mitchell and P. Deane, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (1962), 38. 78 Scott suggests a higher than average death rate amongst glassmakers: Scott, 42-44. 79 Contrast with Ravenstein in Grigg, 49. 80 "Discarded" may be too strong a word as many foreign glassmakers would have amassed a tidy fortune while in Britain. This enabled them to buy land and property when they returned home. 81 Compare with VVarnes; D. Ward, "Victorian cities: how modern?" Journal oj Historical Geography 1 (1975), 45. 82 R.Q. Gray, The Labour Aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh ( 1976), 97; R.M. Pritchard, Housing and the Spatial Structure oj the City: Residential Mobility and the Housing Market (1976), 49; G. Crossick, An Artisan Elite in Victorian Society, Kentish London 1840-1880 (1978), 146-149. 83 Minutes of the Select Committee on the St. Helens' Improvement Bill, June 2 1851 (Second Bill). House of Lords Record Office. 84 All title deeds of houses purchased for demolition by Local Authorities under Compulsory Purchase legislation are kept by the Authorities. From such deeds it is possible to determine the original leasehold conditions placed by the ground landlord on each house for each estate. 85 Minutes of the Select Committee on the St. Helens' Improvement Bill, May 23 1845 (First Bill). House of Lords Record Office. 86 See Gray's comments on the interplay of social and economic forces in the formation of respectable residential suburbs in nineteenth-century Edinburgh: Gray, 97. 87 Barker and Harris, 296.