Image: Richard Godson, QC, MP. Godson was a prominent barrister in early 19^th England. He came to local prominence after the Great Strike of 1828. Later in the year eleven carpet weavers were charged with several offences, including assault, riot and tumultuous assembly. Godson acted as their defence barrister, securing the acquittal of most of the defendants. His success gave him heroic status amongst the carpet weavers, but he condemned any violent action and called for reconciliation between masters and men. He was approached to stand as an MP for Kidderminster following the elections to the reformed Parliament of 1832 and was elected as a Radical. Godson’s political opinions moved away from radicalism towards the modernising conservatism of Sir Robert Peel, the new leader of the Conservative Party, factory owner and MP for the Borough of Tamworth in Staffordshire. In January 1835 Godson lost his seat in the general election.

Image from: Bewdley Museum

The 1828 Strike was a disaster for the weavers and almost completely ruined the carpet industry in Kidderminster, as much trade was diverted elsewhere, in some cases permanently. Furthermore it soured labour relations even more between the two sides, certainly for the foreseeable future.

Tension remained even in August 1830, when a dispute at William Cooper’s factory resulted in mob violence against several of the manufacturers involved in the 1828 strike. The industry was even slower to recover after a further downturn in trade, resulting in several manufacturers going bankrupt, including John Broom, owner of the vermilion painted front door. It was only in 1835 that the industry managed to stabilise, with six companies owning more than 100 looms apiece. As late as 1839, however, an Assistant Hand Loom Commissioner claimed that the strike was still a dominant influence in the town.

The moral condition of the weavers has been gradually deteriorating ever since this struggle. Rents in the town have become lower, and the effects of the strike are severely felt”

Image: Brussels Street Cottages, Kidderminster. These terraced houses show examples of the type of homes occupied by weavers in the early 18^th century.

Image from: Bewdley Museum

As early as 1789, the Kidderminster weavers, already noted for their independent nature, went on strike against a wage reduction proposed by the masters. An even more ill tempered dispute in 1817 resulted in the use of troops to keep order, called out on the request of the then Town Clerk, George Hallen. This strike was the first time that broadside poetry was used as propaganda, showing the true intentions of the weavers quite clearly.

See our masters how they bind us

In the midst of slavery;

See the tyrants how they drive us,

To death or liberty.

Then rise like men in bravery,

To gain the cause or die;

We will be free from slavery

And have our liberty

In 1825 the weavers association sent financial support to striking weavers in both Bradford and Wilton, demonstrating their high organisational ability and political radicalism.

On 15^th March 1828, the masters published their intention to reduce the payment for one yard of Brussels from one shilling to 10d (old pence). The weavers promptly called a crisis meeting in order to declare a strike. The resulting dispute lasted five months, featured highly in the national press and almost ruined the carpet industry in Kidderminster.

Both sides pursued a vigorous propaganda campaign either in the press or by means of broadsheet verses. One of the first of these, The Carpet Weavers true tale, was inflammatory even at the outset of the dispute and complained of the masters’ opulence compared to the poverty of the weavers.

Potatoes, oatmeal, you must eat,

No dare to think of butchers’ meat;

While they to noblemen aspire,

In equipage and rich attire.

Of nineteen broadsides published during the strike, all but two were on the side of the weavers. Indeed, many of them compared the poverty of the weavers with the wealth of the masters.

Some of our masters then you’ll see;

Were weavers then as well as we;

But now they’re rich, and we are poor,

Scarcely can we approach their door.

Their horses, gigs and chariots too,

Countryseats and farms also;

But yet with all they’re not content,

But on more mischief still are bent

Some of these poems became increasingly strident in tone, such as The Carpet Weavers Determination.

Then rise like men in slavery,

To gain the cause or die,

Stand to your colours, keep your ground,

And gain the victory

The first verse to put the masters’ case claimed to be from a moderate weaver, one Luke Cranbourne, although it is doubtful whether he actually existed.

Why to ourselves should we be blind,

And call our masters so unkind?

The times have chang’d, we plainly see,

Profits have chang’d- and so must we

This caused a sensation in Kidderminster and resulted in a further flurry of more broadsides from the weavers’ side, not all of them strident in tone but some even slightly humorous or wistful.

To ridicule I’ve no pretence

I wish, poor Luke, you had more sense,

And look to Him who rules us all,

And never thy poor mind enthrall

The propaganda became more embittered when the Rev. Humphrey Price got involved on behalf of the weavers. Born in Kidderminster, he was parson at Christchurch, Barton-under-Needwood, near Lichfield. Although undoubtedly well intentioned, his verses only exacerbated the situation and served to prolong the dispute. He was to pay a heavy price for his involvement, eventually serving one year in gaol, and his mental state was later called into question. The second of his numerous verses was penned in the guise of a carpet weaver’s wife.

Hush thee, my babe! thou wilt not see

Thy mother sink in misery;

Thy father too- all gone his bloom,

And his heart’s blood upon the loom

His third poem, A Kidderminster Weaver’s Wife’s Dream, resulted in a charge of libel against Price by John Broom, descendant of the owner of the first carpet factory,  was widely thought to be the owner of the house mentioned in the following verse.

Because he said- now I will build

Myself a spacious house, and gild

It for my daughter, wife or son,

And paint it with vermilion?

By July the carpet manufacturers were advertising for workers outside the area, which caused great resentment among the striking weavers. Carpet factories were set up in other towns such as Bridgnorth and Stourport. The strike eventually ended in August when the weavers were forced, through starvation, to accept the masters’ terms for a return to work. Their attempts to mobilise the whole country behind them had ended in ignominious defeat when the dispute did not receive the expected amount of support from other workers around the country. In order to make up for lost production, the hated twelve to twelve shifts were promptly introduced by the masters, at reduced rates.

Image: Dobcross Kidderminster Loom at Naylor’s Pike Mills, Kidderminster (early 20^th century). These looms were manufactured by the Hutchinson, Hollingsworth Company, Dobcross, Oldham Lancaster. The photograph shows the multi-shuttle box, the Jacquard cards and the cordage of harness from the Jacquard. The image also belt drive which connects the loom with the power source.

Image from: Bewdley Museum

By 1825, the Jacquard punched card system, a French invention, improved the process of carpet weaving. The punched cards were used to select the coloured warp ends and could be reused. However, this system did have some limitations, especially for the smaller loom shops, which were unable to accommodate the extra mechanism. The Jacquard eventually replaced the mounture, the original mechanism of the Brussels loom, and made the lives of the apprentices, especially draw-boys and girls, much easier.

Image: Brussels Carpet Loom. This machine was too large to be used by weavers in their homes. The Useful Arts and Manufacturers of Great Britain of Great Britain Vol. II (London, SPCK, 1846?)

Image from: Science, Technology and Management, Birmingham Central Library

The Brussels loom, which replaced the Scotch loom, was described in 1828 as “the greatest piece of machinery he had ever seen” by John Gast, the London trade unionist. Although he undoubtedly had his own reasons for exaggerating at this time, there is no doubting the complexity of the machine and the dexterity and skill required to operate it. The most concise description of the process comes from somebody who was probably a former weaver.

“The box of bowls was fixed on the top of the loom framing; the tail went from the box horizontally some distance over the right hand of the loom; the neck and harness descended immediately from the box of bowls and the simple cords were attached to the tail cords, just outside the right of the loom, and fastened to the ground at the bottom end. There were 1300 of these simple cords, and it was by grasping with the hand and drawing down selections of them that the desired colours were raised by the neck and harness for producing the pattern”.

Image: Kidderminster or Scotch Carpet Loom.  The Useful Arts and Manufacturers of Great Britain of Great Britain Vol. 2  (London, SPCK, 1846?)

Image from: Science, Technology and Management, Birmingham Central Library

Improvements were constantly being made to the hand loom throughout the hundred years or so prior to the 1830s. The first loom to be introduced was known as the Scotch loom and was relatively simple in design compared to later developments. It consisted mainly of four pieces- two long planks of wood and two thick rollers or beams. The latter were suspended across upright planks, one at the top and one at the bottom. Grooves in the ends of the warp, which were divided into parcels of ten threads, were used to keep the threads perpendicular. The whole process was later simplified by a barrel attachment. Carpets woven on this type of loom were actually two-ply patterned cloths joined together in the weaving process. The pattern appeared on both sides and so the carpet was reversible.

Image: River Stour, Kidderminster. Remains of brackets for a platform which was used by dyehousemen to wash wool looking towards Green Street, Kidderminster.

Image from: Bewdley Museum (photograph by F Johnson, 1979)

Weavers were completely responsible for the whole weaving process from bobbin to completed carpet, with the help of their half-weaver apprentices and draw-boys or girls. The completed carpet was always delivered to the factory counting house on set days of the week, known as Fall Days, which were usually Thursdays and Saturdays. The weavers, who were paid by the yard, were always males who had served their apprenticeships and often fiercely independent. In turn they were responsible for paying the workers under them and their own fuel and lighting. Although the factory owners usually owned the actual looms, it seems that the weavers did not have to pay any rental for these.

Image: Carpet Dyehousemen washing skeins of woollen yarn after dyeing in the water of the River Stour, Kidderminster.  J Knox Ferguson, <i>Old Kidderminster</i> (n.d.).

Image from: Bewdley Museum

Each of the larger factories had its own warehouse and dye-house, often with direct access to the river Stour for washing the dyed yarn. The process was potentially hazardous for the dyehousemen. One observer watched them “standing on little platforms over the river balancing gaily coloured skeins of yarn in the water on long poles to cleanse them loose from dye with the skill of acrobats”. The yarn was then dried and wound onto bobbins by female bobbin winders, before being collected by the independent weavers.

Image: Remains of Kidderminster’s first carpet factory at Mount Skipet.

Image from: Bewdley Museum (photograph taken in 1981)

As carpets became larger and more ornate, it eventually became necessary for larger or more looms to be used, and it was no longer possible for them to be housed in individual weavers’ homes. Some carpet factories were sometimes converted from other textile factories. In 1832, the carpet firm of John Broom, a descendant of the first John Broom, went bankrupt. The auction catalogue of the sale of his effects demonstrates very clearly both the wide variety in sizes of loom-shops and the numerous types of loom used at this time. Looms were generally manually operated with the occasional aid of water power.