Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Horrell & Humphries 1992 Old Questions New Data
Horrell & Humphries 1992 Old Questions New Data
Horrell & Humphries 1992 Old Questions New Data
849
850 Horrell and Humphries
stature, wages adjusted for the disutility of urban living, and consump-
tion per capita. 2 These have not always confirmed the optimists'
conclusions. Our article, too, brings a new perspective and alternative
evidence to bear on the debate, and in the process addresses major
weaknesses of the real-wage approach: first, its preoccupation with the
wages of adult males, and second, its conflation of wage rates and
earnings.3
In the conventional approach welfare is indexed by the real wages of
adult males. 4 But the standard of living is determined by the household's
access to all resources—including the contributions of other family
members and welfare subsidies. Changes in the real wages of men may
have been offset by opposing trends in the contributions of women and
children.5 Even if the wages of other family members moved in line with
men's, participation rates may have varied inversely. If industrialization
eliminated women's and children's economic options and increased
their dependence on men, as some authors have argued, growth in male
earnings would overestimate growth in family incomes and hence
overstate welfare gains.6 Alternatively, if industrialization created new
2
Floud, Wachter, and Gregory, Height, Health and History; Brown, "The Condition of
England," and Moykr, "Is There Still Life."
3
Humphries, "Lurking in the Wings," pp. 37-39; Neale, Writing Marxist History, chap. 6;
Pollard, "Sheffield and Sweet Auburn"; Mathias, The First Industrial Nation, pp. 191-202; and
Crafts, "English Workers' Real Wages."
4
Lindert and Williamson did recognize the potential distortions implicit in focusing solely on
adult male purchasing power; they tried to include women by looking at the ratios of female to male
weekly earnings and at hourly wage rates from several sources covering a variety of locations and
time periods. Although it was a useful starting point, this work's conclusions are rather ambiguous.
See Lindert and Williamson, "English Workers' Living Standards," p. 17.
5
Uncertainty about trends in the wages and participation rates of women and children—
especially in the precensus era—has not stopped authors from building assumptions about other
family members' economic contributions into their discussions of the standard of living. See
Thomas, "Women and Capitalism," for an exposition of the prematurity of these discussions,
given the paucity of empirical evidence. Most authors agree that during the first half of the
nineteenth century child employment dechned considerably—though to a level still high by later
standards. The decline was due to a combination of the transition from domestic industry (which
was compatible with the employment of children at young ages) to factory production and
protective labor legislation. See Hunt, British Labour History, pp. 9-17. But the trend is based on
less firm empirical foundations for earlier years. It remains possible that child labor increased in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries but declined thereafter. The possibility has
influenced the work of those authors who believe other family members' earnings increased during
industrialization, compounding the real-wage gains of adult males.
There is even less hard evidence to show whether women's employment was expanding or
contracting before 1850 and whether it was more or less than it had been in preindustrial Britain.
Recent careful attention to the nineteenth-century censuses confirms the suggestion of a declining
trend, but can do little to inform us about events at the turn of the century. See Jordan, "The
Exclusion of Women." As in the case of child employment, the empirical evidence is weakest for
the crucible of industrialization (1780 to 1820). Here, too, the possibility of a period when women's
contributions were driving family incomes in advance of male earnings remains viable. For details
on the contributions of women and children to family incomes in the context of our household
accounts, see Horrell and Humphries, " 'Neither Welcome nor Understood.' "
6
For the argument that industrialization reduced women's and children's opportunities, see
Richards, "Women in the British Economy," and Jordan, "The Exclusion of Women." On
Families' Living Standards, 1787-1865 851
opportunities for women and children, as yet other authors have argued,
growth in male earnings would lag behind growth in family incomes.7
The real-wage approach also neglects nonwage sources of family
income—such as poor relief and self-provisioning—that may have
varied so as to offset changes in male earnings.8 Thus empirical
evidence showing trends in family earnings and nonwage sources of
family income constitutes a timely contribution to the debate.
The question of family earnings during industrialization is crucial also
to claims about trends in inequality. It has been argued that there was
declining inequality during the French wars, followed by widening
inequality from Waterloo to 1850.9 These claims are again based on
trends in male wages: in this case, trends in differentials between
occupations. If the wages or participation rates of other family members
varied inversely with male wages across occupations, inequality across
families may not have followed those trends.
The real-wage approach requires making assumptions about working
time to translate from weekly and even hourly wage rates to annual
earnings. Williamson argued that the choice of weeks worked mattered
little to the question of whether incomes rose or fell unless the number
of weeks "lost" varied greatly over time due to movements in involun-
tary unemployment.10 The issue is then subsumed into rather unsatis-
factory attempts to estimate unemployment in the years before unem-
ployment insurance. The probability that unemployment was uneven
over time and across occupations highlights the utility of direct attempts
to chart its impact.11
We explore the implications of industrialization on family incomes by
using a data set of household budgets that detail household composition,
sources of income (in kind or in cash), and the earnings of different
family members as well as expenditures for the years 1787 to 1865.12
The data set has been compiled from 59 sources that include contem-
porary social commentators, Parliamentary Papers, local archives,
provincial record offices, and village autobiographies.13 Some of the
sources are well known and widely quoted, others unpublished and
unused. Neither type has been systematically analyzed to reveal pat-
terns in the composition of household income across sectors and over
time during industrialization. (The data set is described in detail in
Appendix 1.)
These household accounts facilitate the investigation of the relative
growth of male earnings and total receipts. In addition, our sources
often give indications of the regularity of work, and many explicitly
account for periodic illness and unemployment.14 When such informa-
tion was available we used it in the estimates: weekly income would
then be the average received during the year. From this point of view
our estimates provide a more accurate indication of what families
actually received than do estimates based on market wage rates
aggregated up to "full-time earnings," assuming a constant number of
weeks were worked each year.
Given our focus on family incomes, we selected only households
containing a man and wife.15 This gave us a sample of 1,350 households
distributed (though not randomly, of course) over time, place, and
occupation. Unfortunately, as with wage series, continuous data were
not available, and some years have only one or two observations.
Averaging over several years mitigates this problem but smooths out the
variation over time. Moreover, the occupational distribution is neither
stable nor representative, and the fact that different occupations had
different earnings and income experience makes overall sample aver-
and children's earnings, in contrast, constituted around 20 percent. See Horrell and Humphries,
" 'Neither Welcome nor Understood.' "
13
On the whole we included budgets whose documentation of income was accompanied by some
evidence on expenditures. The amount of detail provided on the expenditure side varied according
to the original motivation behind the budget's preservation. Some expenditure accounts are very
detailed but many are incomplete—for example, providing only a brief allocation between food and
rent. Our records of expenditures not only constitute the basis for a future analysis of the cost of
living using endogenous and shifting weights, but also provide an internal check on the consistency
and credibility of the income side of the accounts.
14
All families recording no employment for the household head were excluded from our
analysis. Thus long-term unemployment is not considered here, though short-term unemployment
or irregular or variable employment is captured by our data. Excluding those classified as without
work (often through sickness or disability) confines our discussion to known occupational groups
but imparts an upward bias to our aggregate income and earnings estimates.
13
Early nineteenth-century nuptiality rates of over 90 percent and lower life expectancy meant
that single persons living alone were much less common then than now. Most people spent a large
part of their lives in a husband-wife family, though this could be shattered by the death or desertion
of either adult. Restricting consideration to husband-wife households imparts an optimist bias,
because such households were likely to be better off than elderly people living alone or families
dependent on a single earner—particularly if the breadwinner were female. Old age and single
parenthood exposed families to poverty in the past as in the present.
Families' Living Standards, 1787—1865 853
FAMILY COMPOSITION
MALE EARNINGS
TABLE 1
AVERAGE EARNINGS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BY OCCUPATION
(£ per annum)
High-wage Low-wage
Years Agriculture Agriculture Mining Factory Outwork Trades Casual
1787-1790 18.37 16.38 28.50
(20) (81) (3)
1791-1795 24.91 20.84 27.73 25.56 16.41 32.79 32.40
(20) (17) (4) (4) (3) (7) (1)
1796-1800 28.95 18.20 — 24.70 36.40 —
(2) (1) (4) (1)
1806-1810 86.58 36.40 — —
(2) (1)
1811-1815 — — 57.51 62.92 36.68 — —
(1) (10) (14)
1816-1820 28.33 — 34.61 45.21 23.38 34.28 15.17
(38) (54) (24) (198) (30) (3)
1821-1825 — — 52.00 — 24.08 — —
(1) (6)
1826-1830 — 31.20 — — 25.36 — —
(1) (30)
1831-1835 32.24 17.89 35.10 37.46 17.22 19.55 11.02
(5) (62) (1) (11) (15) (3) (5)
1836-1840 28.95 20.78 66.04 43.21 24.61 41.72 17.95
(40) (73) (4) (17) (43) (5) (7)
1841-1845 30.95 21.96 42.73 49.40 17.40 39.00 23.40
(5) (9) (32) (2) (44) (1) (1)
1846-1850 — 23.40 70.61 48.88 — 61.75 —
(2) (1) (5) (4)
1851-1855 — 53.30 —
(33)
1860-1865 34.31 27.50 — 28.97 — —
(46) (79) (55)
Notes: The total sample was 1,161; sample sizes are given in parentheses.
Source: See the text.
Agricultural Occupations
Years High-wage Low-wage
less apparent, the thirties saw nominal earnings fall back to the levels of
the 1780s, and the forties were not much better. Only by the 1860s were
their nominal earnings significantly higher than in 1791/95.
Thus like other series, our data show the wartime inflation, at least
partly reflected in nominal earnings, and the fall back from those
levels. 30 But in addition, our data emphasize the substantial interrup-
tions to any upward trends that even the more fortunate groups
experienced, the exacerbation that recessions afforded the deteriorating
situation of the outworkers, and the stagnation in nominal terms of the
earnings of (particularly low-wage) agricultural laborers: in these senses
our story is pessimistic. Our data also warn against reliance on overall
growth rates calculated for the period as a whole that imply steady
progress from one date to another. Whereas nominal figures for the end
years exhibit significant growth compared with 1791/95, progress was
far from continuous, with the important implication that conclusions
about welfare are critically dependent on the pace and timing of price
changes.
Does the evidence on family incomes suggest similar or divergent
patterns?
FAMILY INCOME
TABLE 3
FAMILY INCOME BY OCCUPATION
(£ per annum)
High-wage Low-wage
Years Agriculture Agriculture Mining Factory Outwork Trades Casual
1787-1790 21.44 22.10 53.40
(20) (81) (3)
1791-1795 27.97 27.07 39.79 44.06 35.18 42.58 39.40
(22) (17) (4) (4) (3) (7) (1)
1796-1800 34.48 26.03 — — 41.44 56.80 —
(2) (1) (4) (1)
1806-1810 — — — L13.10 63.44 — —
(2) (1)
1811-1815 — — 67.70 85.80 68.44 — —
(1) (10) (15)
1816-1820 41.21 55.79 63.74 42.42 46.82 22.10
(38) (59) (27) (232) (31) (3)
1821-1825 — — 52.00 — 57.61 — —
(1) (6)
1826-1830 — 39.26 38.45
(1) (42)
1831-1835 55.00 31.24 35.10 87.34 44.53 40.30 29.79
(5) (62) (1) (11) (15) (3) (5)
1836-1840 33.07 32.28 109.08 77.95 48.89 52.10 31.21
(61) (73) (4) (41) (55) (5) (7)
1841-1845 34.74 31.29 61.98 78.21 31.33 41.03 23.97
(5) (9) (35) (20) (44) (1) (1)
1846-1850 — 23.40 78.66 93.60 — 61.75 —
(2) (1) (5) (4)
1851-1855 — 78.21
(3)
1860-1865 41.86 37.33 — 54.09 42.20 — —
(46) (80) (35) (72)
Notes: The total sample was 1,350; sample sizes are given in parentheses.
Source: See the text.
compensate for the decline in male earnings but seemed to suffer more,
so that family incomes fell by a larger percentage. By the 1840s the
employment of women and children in mining was much reduced—and
with it the ability to respond to falling male earnings by increasing family
participation. Outworkers' families, too, by this point may have for-
feited some of the resources that had provided a basis for a flexible
response to industrial downturn. Poor relief may have been less
available to cover short-term declines in industrial incomes after the
New Poor Law of 1834. Artisans' family incomes also fell more than did
the earnings of adult males; and factory workers' family incomes were
stagnant.
Nominal male earnings and family incomes for nonagricultural fami-
lies did not march in step throughout industrialization. Family incomes
lagged behind male earnings in the Napoleonic wars, suggesting that
860 Horrell and Humphries
calculations that have shown male earnings keeping pace with price
inflation have underestimated the pressures that some families experi-
enced. Family incomes fared better than male earnings throughout the
postwar slump, so judgments about welfare based on the latter may be
too harsh. In the twenties and thirties however, male earnings' growth
for several fortunate groups overestimates the gains for their families, as
many miners' and tradesmens' families became more dependent on
their male head. That pattern left them vulnerable to privation when the
industrial crisis in the forties carried male earnings down. On the other
hand, in the twenties and thirties factory textile workers' and outwork-
ers' family income growth ran ahead of male earnings—only to experi-
ence stagnation or sharp decline in the "hungry forties." The pattern of
family incomes lagging behind as male earnings expanded is repeated
again at the end of the era for miners and artisans, but factory workers'
family incomes increased more than their male earnings did. These
differences in experience mean that any "average" view depends on the
occupational weights used to combine the individual series.
In the early and later periods high-wage agricultural family incomes
moved in step with male earnings. But in between, income growth
appears to have hinged on the industrial employment of other family
members. Rapid growth in income from 1791/95 to 1831/35 gave way to
adverse industrial conditions in the forties. In the low-wage counties,
family incomes increased more than did male earnings from 1787/90 to
1796/1800, perhaps as a result of poor relief to families whose heads'
earnings increased by only 8 percent in nominal terms despite rapid
wartime inflation. Again, from 1796/1800 to the 1830s, male earnings
declined in nominal terms while family incomes increased by about 20
percent. Evidence of widespread southern rural unemployment of
women and children suggests that this increase in family income was
most likely a consequence of the operation of the Old Poor Law: a
hypothesis that gains some support from a closer look at sources of
income.32 Note that with the New Poor Law, male earnings increased
more than did family incomes (from 1831/35 to 1836/40), suggesting that
the withdrawal of poor law subsidies created upward pressure on male
earnings. The higher growth of family incomes compared with male
earnings at the end of the period in the low-wage counties suggests an
increased employment of laborers' wives and children, which some
authors have argued was the eventual result of the New Poor Law. 33
Over the whole period, both high- and low-wage agricultural laborers'
nominal male earnings increased less than their family incomes did.
Low-wage agricultural families, in particular, faced stagnating male
32
See Horrell a n d H u m p h r i e s , " 'Neither Welcome nor Understood' " a n d " M a l e Earnings
Estimates from Household Accounts."
33
See Burnett, Plenty and Want, p. 28.
Families' Living Standards, 1787-1865 861
increased throughout the period for mine workers and artisans. Again,
only in the case of factory workers does including the number of
workers change the pattern of variation of family income over time—
and this is, as before, because of sample selection rather than the
inclusion of the number of workers per household in the equation. Again
comparisons of turning points estimated from regressions that include
the number of workers per household and those that exclude this
variable can be used to infer changes in family composition.36
Thus, though the dependency ratio and the number of workers per
family changed over time in some occupations, and though their impact
is discernible in the comparisons of turning points in the curves
estimated without the demographic variables and those estimated with
them as a dependent variables, the time trends themselves are not
products of variation in family composition.
INEQUALITY
Cross-sectional patterns of male earnings by occupation are predict-
able: artisans, miners, and factory operatives head the ranking; out-
workers and agricultural laborers lag behind. Cross-sectional patterns in
family incomes, in general, follow those found in male earnings.
Moreover, as is immediately apparent in Tables 1 to 3, the occupations
that were better paid in the 1790s by and large enjoyed higher growth
rates in their earnings to the midcentury, which is consistent with the
increasing skill premia that Williamson has argued underpinned widen-
ing inequality.37
The coefficient of variation summarizes the evidence on the occupa-
tional dispersions of earnings and incomes for quinquennia in which a
range of occupations was represented (see Table 5). Although we found
no sign of declining inequality during the French wars, the evidence for
male earnings is consistent with Williamson's claim that there was
increasing inequality from Waterloo to the 1840s. The household
distributions of male earnings, summarized by the Gini coefficients,
exhibit the same pattern. The occupational dispersion of family incomes
also increased until the slump of the forties. The Gini coefficients
summarizing the household distributions of incomes also suggest in-
creasing inequality, at least until 1841/45.
But this is not the whole story, for although in general differentials
widened, changes in the rank order of different occupations and in the
relationships between family income and men's earnings within occu-
36
Given t h e positive correlation between t h e number of workers a n d family income, if t h e
number of workers w a s increasing (decreasing) through time it would have t h e efFect of raising
(lowering) the time trend. Including the variable in the equation would then reduce (raise) the time
trend. Consequently t h e effect of including t h e number of workers o n t h e slope of the earnings
curve can be used t o make inferences about parallel trends in the number of workers per family.
37
Williamson, British Capitalism, chap. 4.
864 Horrell and Humphries
TABLE 5
VARIATIONS IN EARNINGS AND INCOME BY OCCUPATION AND
INEQUALITY OF INCOME
Coefficient of Variation Gini Coefficient
Male Family Male Family
Years Earnings Income Earnings Income
1791-1795 21.2 17.2 0.12 0.11
1816-1820 31.0" 27.9" 0.13a 0.18"
1831-1835 39.4 40.3
1836-1840 45.0 48.9 0.24 0.25
1841-1845 34.3 42.0 0.19 0.21
a
Low-wage agricultural earnings were estimated at high-wage agriculture divided by 1.2 (from
Hunt, "Industrialization and Regional Inequality," pp. 965-56).
b
Low-wage agricultural income was estimated at high-wage agriculture divided by 1.1 (from ratios
in Table 3).
Note: The occupational weights used for calculation of the Gini coefficients are given in note 40.
Sources: See Tables 1 and 3 and note 40.
1791-1795
Male earnings 5 6 3 4 7 1 2
Family income 6 7 3 1 . 5 2 4
1841-1845
Male earnings 4 6 2 1 7 3 5
Family income 4 6 2 1 5 3 7
Families' Living Standards, 1787—1865 865
Given the variety of income experience, trends in our series for all
households and all working households are unlikely to be representa-
tive, as they are based on the sample and not on population occupational
distribution. What really happened to average household income obvi-
39
For supporting evidence see Lyons, "Family Response."
866 Horrell and Humphries
00
Oi
CO
870 Horrell and Humphries
TABLE 7
INDEX OF REAL EARNINGS AND INCOME
(1791-1795 = 100)
Male Real Earnings Deflated by Family Real Income Deflated by
Lindert & Williamson's Crafts's Smith Lindert & Williamson's Crafts's Smith
Revised "Best Guess" Food Weights Revised "Best Guess" Food Weights
Years Index Index Index Index
1791-1795 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0
1796-1800 83.8 91.8 90.1 99.5
1816-1820 90.1 91.3 100.4 101.6
1831-1835 109.7 95.1 144.6 125.3
1836-1840 143.0 135.5 163.6 155.0
1841-1845 146.1 129.6 146.1 129.5
1846-1850 195.4 184.2 172.2 162.2
Notes: The price indices used are five-year averages from Lindert and Williamson's revised "best
guess" cost-of-living index and Crafts's index, which is only given at decade intervals, interpolated
to midquinquennium.
Sources: For nominal average earnings and incomes, see Table 6; Lindert and Williamson,
"English Workers' Real Wages," p. 148; and Crafts, "English Workers' Real Wages," p. 142.
TABLE 8
COMPARISONS O F GROWTH IN REAL MALE EARNINGS AND FAMILY INCOMES
(percentage per annum)
the Crafts index, which suggests substantial wage gains compared with
consumption growth in the first subperiod (Table 8). Because of the
changing importance of income from other sources to family living
standards, real gains in household incomes should be closer to per
capita consumption increases than gains in male earnings. As deflated
by the CR index, real family incomes grew at .88 percent from the 1790s
to 1850, which is close to Crafts's estimate of per capita consumption
growth for 1780 to 1851. It is particularly troublesome for the Crafts
real-wage index that consumption growth in the first subperiod is so
much less than growth in male earnings, because it seems unlikely that
working-class income gains were not spent. Our relatively low estimates
of family income growth up to the end of the French wars cast light on
this: if earnings and income growth were interrupted by a period of
under- and unemployment, this may help to explain an otherwise
puzzling pattern. For the second subperiod our family income growth is
as close or closer to the growth of consumption than is either index of
real wages. So, although questions about the correspondence between
consumption trends and trends in income and earnings remain, evidence
of the variation in family incomes may prove important in reconciling
apparently disparate developments.47
CONCLUSION
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: DATA SOURCES
The household and earnings information used in this article come from a larger data
set, in which details on household composition, expenditure, and income for 1,781
observations are recorded. We found 198 budgets for 1787/99, 586 for 1810/19, 20 for
1820/29, 474 for 1830/39, 157 for 1840/49, 11 for 1850/59, 328 for 1860/69, and 7 for the
1870s. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the budgets by county and decade. The broad
occupational breakdown for heads of household is as follows: agriculture, 571; mining
and metalworkers, 110; textile factory workers, 251; outworkers (including handloom
weavers, glove and stocking makers, silk weavers, framework knitters, winders,
sewers, combers, shoemakers, tailors, and nailers), 612; trades (compositors, cutlers,
carpenters, glaziers, masons, blacksmiths, millers, sawyers, coopers, carters, ostlers,
spectacle framers, clerks, and teachers), 58; casual and laboring jobs (railroad and road
builders, dockyard workers, and travelers), 42. In all, 72 were not working, generally
because of sickness, and 65 did not have their occupation classified.
Some detail on the budgets obtained from each source is given in the listings below.
The notation used in parentheses is as follows: the original source, if applicable; number
of budgets; year of budgets; county; occupation of head of household (most represen-
tative where a number of occupations are covered in the same source); and information
given (abbreviated as M = matched for same household for two years, I = ideal budget
with either suggested expenditure matched to earnings or detailing earnings necessary to
cover a reasonable level of expenditure for family size, C = composition of household
detailed, X = expenditure detailed, RX = work expenses detailed with remainder left
for food, SX = some expenditure detailed, IE = earnings of each individual given,
874 Horrell and Humphries
1787 - 1799
I D 1810 - 1 8 1 9
I 5 0 \ A 1820 - 1 8 2 9
7 Q / 1 1 V\ o 1830 •1839
SD 2A A 1840 - 1 6 4 9
4 O / y\ iNonhumberlandX • 1850 - 1 8 5 9
2A •-decs / -—-A A 1860 - 1 8 6 9
Scotland ^12Cl\ « 1870
4 A \
/ Cumberland /~^ 2 A \ 3 Number of budgets
1 O Durham V/~"^^
1 A
( r^f^
% A
Ireland
\\ }/Westmorland/) 1*
^ \
^y
1 D
7A
\ C \ n Cl Yorkshire V _ ^
North Riding . — - ^ 7
2O
Unspecified J7581Q 6Q\ / 15 A f
rf lOi ' D \ \ Yorkshire \
P 144 O \ 14 O I / Easing \
io A VI ^ > \
^ > 35
1m IB M ^ ^ ^—\ ^
/
/ 82
•
A
Yorkshire f~^ ^~
West Riding /
Vlancashirej
( jiy-^^tre J
\ 2 4 ^JNottinghanv >/
r
/ (^ Chester ^ — - S—
Q/Derby\ ^ ^ { 2Q
S U ^'-shire \ / \ , o 9 O
\ Nort,Wales \ f ? • {/~^~^ >1 A > 2A
V ^ i2 O \ - 1» 5-^Leicestershirecftutianrt ^-^/ \
s\~^
4 •
/> /
f .'r
1 A / Y \ 2Q X > \ / Norfolk
\ 43A ^ ^ {^C^
V - ^ ) Shropshire A v
. 5A \3 A / ^ /HunT\\ 3 O1 '
)12A, >orthamp«.n/"'gdon 2 *
\
;
6 A
/ / ^TT^Worcester 1•
/ I \ 2 A L^iJ;o? 7 ^ / imbrids
v
2 A
Suffolk
1
c
/ 5 A \
4 O [ Hereford I ^ ~ ^ -
s .
15
*
South Wales J \ f
K
J J (Oxford
y7tR
l 2 A C ^ H e r t s
\ ' Q \ Gloucestershire) -^l " \ B u c k s \ i o T
2 A
Essex
£ ^ MonmoumU /=\7ia^7
\ 1 O \ J VWO47A~^-^
V , \i D , i —
/©•
^ _ X ^ A 3O ^Jer^Mid.esex• c
5 J Ken
1 2
^
5»
^\- ^Somersel
4 ,S 17 A ;
w ^ , 1eAA >^ ( e ^ L 2
-v /
6 O
V-v 1 • _ / " __.
% I ^ Solon / Sussex 2A > - /
3O ^ - - . / l i Q 3 A '
12 A V ^ " ^ 1 *
/ \ A. ^v. ~_
JI Devon ^ ^ D o r s e l 7 A <
/ JSv^i/> ^—^-
/
2 I1
/"I?3?
FIGURE 1
TE = total earnings of household given, and ETE = total earnings taken from elsewhere
in the same source).
Published Sources
Alison, W. P., "Further Illustrations of the Practical Operation of the Scottish System
of Management of the Poor," Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 4 (Jan.
1842), pp. 288-319. (2; 1842; Scotland; agriculture; C, X)
Families' Living Standards, 1787-1865 875
Ashworth, H., "Depression of Trade at Bolton," Journal of the Statistical Society of
London, 5 (Apr. 1842), pp. 74-81. (4; 1842; Lancashire; unknown; C, X, TE)
Barnsby, G. J., "The Standard of Living in the Black Country During the Nineteenth
Century," Economic History Review, 2nd series 24 (1971), pp. 220-39. (1; 1850;
Midlands; unknown; I, C, X)
Bosanquet, S. R., The Rights of the Poor and Christian Alms Giving Vindicated (1841).
(12; 1839/40; London; unknown; C, X, IE)
Bullen, D., 'Statistics of an Improved Rural District (the Parish of Kilmurray) in the
County of Cork," Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 6 (Dec. 1843), pp.
352-54. (1; 1841; Ireland; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Burnett, J., Plenty and Want: A Social History of Food in England from 1815 to the
Present Day (London, 1989). (Mrs. Rundell; 3; 1824; unknown; unknown and
gentlemen; I, C, X, IE); (Family Oracle of Health; 1; 1824; unknown; gentleman; I,
C, X, IE); (Laing; 1; 1844; Northumberland; miner; C, X, IE)
Caird, J., English Agriculture in 1850-1 (London, 1852). (2; 1840/50; Suffolk; agricul-
ture; M, C, X, IE)
Campbell, A. B., The Lanarkshire Miners: A Social History of Their Trade Unions
1775-1974 (Edinburgh, 1979). (7; 1812/17/18/36; Scotland; mining; C, X, IE)
Chadwick, D., "On the Rate of Wages in Manchester and Salford and the Manufactur-
ing Districts of Lancashire 1839-59," Journal of the Statistical Society of London,
23 (1860), pp. 1-36. (3; 1839/49/59; Lancashire; unknown; M, C, X, TE)
Charlton, W. H., "Statistical Account of the Parish of Bellingham in the County of
Northumberland," Journal ofthe Statistical Society of London, 1 (Nov. 1839), pp.
420-26. (2; 1838; Northumberland; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Collier, F. (R. S. Fitton, ed.), The Family Economy of the Working Classes in the
Cotton Industry 1784-1833 (Manchester, 1964). (49; 1810/19; Lancashire; textiles
and handloom weavers; IE); (Styal wage books; 29; 1790/1831/38; Chester; textiles
factory; IE); (Parliamentary Papers 1833; Select Committee on Manufactures,
Commerce, and Shipping; 20; 1814/33; Lancashire; handloom weavers; C, SX, TE)
Copperthwaite, W. C , "Statistics of Old and New Malton," Journal of the Statistical
Society of London, 8 (Mar. 1845), pp. 66-68. (1; 1845; Yorkshire; unknown; C, X,
TE)
Davies, D., The Case of Labourers in Husbandry (London, 1795). (135; 1787/93; various
England, Wales, and Scotland; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Eden, Sir F. M. (A. G. L. Rogers, ed.), The State of the Poor: A History of the
Labouring Classes in England, with Parochial Reports (London, 1928); (42; 1795;
various England and Wales; various; C, X, IE)
Hammond, J. L., and B. Hammond, The Town Labourer (Harlow, Essex, 1978). (2;
1825; Northumberland; miner; C, X, IE)
Heath, F. G., The English Peasantry (London, 1874). (2; 1872; Warwick, Somerset;
agriculture; C, X/RX, IE)
Heath, R. (K. Dockray, ed.), The Victorian Peasant (Gloucester, 1989). (2; 1863/72;
Wiltshire, Kent; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Hindmarsh, L., "On the State of Agriculture and of Agricultural Labourers in
Northumberland," Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1 (Nov. 1838), pp.
397-409. (1; 1838; Northumberland; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Howe, E., The London Compositor 1785-1900 (Oxford, 1947). (1; 1810; London;
compositor; I, C, X, ETE)
Kay, J. P., "Earnings of Agricultural Labourers in Norfolk and Suffolk," Journal of the
Statistical Society of London, 1 (July 1838), pp. 179-83. (9; 1836; Norfolk;
agriculture; C, IE)
Le Play, F., Les Ouvriers Europeens, vol. 3 (Paris, 1877). (4; 1850/54; London, S.
Yorks., Derbyshire; cutler, carpenter, foundry worker; C, X, IE)
876 Horrell and Humphries
Neild, W., "Comparative Statement of the Income and Expenditure of Certain Families
of the Working Classes in Manchester and Dukinfield, in the Years 1836 and 1841,"
Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 5 (1842), pp. 320-34. (38; 1836/41;
Lancashire; textiles factory; M, C, X, TE)
Purdy, F., "On the Earnings of Agricultural Labourers in England and Wales, 1860,"
Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 24 (Sept. 1861), pp. 328-73. (19;
1835/46; various in England; agriculture; C, X, ETE)
Somerville, A., The Whistler at the Plough (Manchester, 1852). (3; 1843/45; Dorset,
Soton, Wiltshire; agriculture; C, SX, IE)
Springall, L. M., Labouring Life in Norfolk Villages 1834-1914 (London, 1936). (4;
1873/75/91; Norfolk; agriculture; C, X)
Young, A., Annals of Agriculture, vol. 15 (1796). (1; 1794; Shropshire; agriculture; C,
SX, IE)
Young, A., A General View of the Agriculture of the County of Norfolk (London, 1804;
reprinted 1969). (2; 1792/99; Norfolk; agriculture; C, X, IE/ETE)
Official Publications
Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery (P.P. 1824, V). (1;
1824; Cheshire; handloom weaver; C, IE)
Second Report from the Select Committee on Emigration from the United Kingdom,
Minutes of Evidence (P.P. 1826/27, V). (3; 1815/26; unknown; handloom weavers;
C, SX, IE)
Minutes of Evidence before the Select Committee on Manufacturers, Commerce and
Shipping (P.P. 1833, VI). (5; 1814/33; Lancashire; handloom weavers; M, C, X, IE)
Report from Select Committee on Handloom Weavers' Petitions with the Minutes of
Evidence (P.P. 1834, X). (4; 1834; Lancashire, Scotland; handloom weavers; C, X,
IE)
Report from the Commissioners on the Poor Law, Reports of Assistant Commissioners,
Appendix A (P.P. 1834, XXVIII). (6; 1831/34; Northumberland, Gloucester, Sus-
sex, Berkshire; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Families' Living Standards, 1787—1865 877
Report from the Select Committee on Handloqm Weavers' Petitions with the Minutes of
Evidence (P.P. 1835, XIII). (1; 1835; Ireland; handloom weaver; I, C, X, IE)
First Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales, Appendix
B (P.P. 1835, XXXV). (17; 1834/35; Lancashire, Buckinghamshire, Bedford, Derby;
agriculture, textiles factory, washing; C, IE)
Report from the Select Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act and Appendix
(P.P. 1837/38, XVIII). (163; 1834/37; Bedfordshire; railroad, jobbing, agriculture;
M, C, RX, IE)
Reports from the Assistant Commissioners on Handloom Weavers (P.P. 1840, XXIII).
(54; 1838; W. Yorks., Somerset; handloom weavers, powerloom weavers, textiles
factory; C, RX, X, IE/TE)
Poor Law Amendment Act: Return to an Address of the Honourable The House of
Commons (No. 694, Session 1837/38). (50; 1838; Leicester, Lincoln, Cambridge;
agriculture; C, X, TE)
Children's Employment Commission (Mines), Appendix to the First Report of Commis-
sioners (P.P. 1842, XVI). (11; 1842; Warwick, Leicester, Durham, Cornwall;
mainly mining; C, X, IE)
Children's Employment Commission (Mines), Appendix to the First Report of Commis-
sioners (P.P. 1842, XVII). (36; 1841; W. Yorks., Lancashire, S. Wales, Durham;
mining, metalworkers, textiles, agriculture; C, X/RX, IE)
Reports of Special Assistant of Poor Law Commissioners on the Employment of Women
and Children in Agriculture (P.P. 1843, XII). (7; 1843; Wiltshire, Suffolk; agricul-
ture; C, SX, IE)
First Report of the Midland Mining Commission (P.P. 1843, XIII). (4; 1842; Warwick-
shire, Staffordshire; mining; C, X, IE)
Children's Employment Commission (Trades and Manufactures), Appendix to the
Second Report of Commissioners (P.P. 1843, XIV). (12; 1836/41; Lancashire,
Nottingham, London, Leicester; textiles; C, X, IE/TE)
Report of the Commissioner Appointed to Inquire into the Condition of the Frame-work
Knitters, with Appendices (P.P. 1845, XV). (41; 1843/44; Leicester; framework
knitters; C, X/RX, IE)
Fifth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, Appendix 5 (P.P. 1862, XXV).
(82; 1862; Lancashire; textiles; M, C, X, TE)
Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, Appendix 6 (P.P. 1863,
XXVIII). (239; 1863; various England; silk weavers, shoe, stocking, and glove
makers, needlewomen, agriculture; C, X, TE)
Commission on the Employment of Children, Young Persons and Women in Agricul-
ture, First Report of Commissioners, with Appendix (P.P. 1867/68, XVII). (5;
1862/67; Hants., Lincoln, Cambridge; agriculture; C, X, IE)
Unpublished Sources
Oldknow Archive, Rylands Library, Manchester. (8; 1793; Lancashire; factory spinners;
SX, IE)
A Census of the Poor of Ashton and Haydock, 1816, Warrington Library, Cheshire
County Council. (330; 1816; Lancashire; nailers, weavers, miners, agriculture,
various trades; C, I)
Survey of the Poor of Bedford Township, 1836, Bedford Town Book, Wigan Record
Office. (60; 1835/36; Lancashire; weavers, miners, agriculture, various trades; C, I)
Tottington, Lancashire—A Survey of the Poor, 1817, Manchester Public Library. (191;
1817; Lancashire; handloom weavers, agriculture, mining; C, IE)
878 Horrell and Humphries
APPENDIX TABLE 1
SAMPLE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, BY OCCUPATION
High-wage Low-wage
Years Agriculture Agriculture Mining Factory Outwork Trades Casual
1787/90 6.1 5.8
1791/95 6.3 6.2 7.5 3.0 6.0 6.4 5.0
1796/1800 6.5 2.0 6.8 7.0
1806/10 6.0 6.0
1811/15 — 5.0 6.0 6.0
1816/20 6.5 — 7.1 6.4 6.7 6.5 5.0
1821/25 — — 5.0 6.0
1826/30 4.0 5.5
1831/35 6.6 5.2 8.0 9.0 7.1 6.3 6.0
1836/40 6.3 5.7 8.5 5.6 6.8 6.4 5.7
1841/45 7.5 6.9 5.7 6.2 6.0 9.0 5.0
1846/50 — 4.5 6.0 3.3
1851/55 — — 5.3 —
1860/65 5.1 6.3 — 6.6 5.7 — —
Note: The total sample size was 1,324.
Source: Household budget data set; see the text.
APPENDIX TABLE 2
NUMBER OF WORKERS PER HOUSEHOLD, BY OCCUPATION
High-wage Low-wage
Years Agriculture Agriculture Mining Factory Outwork Trades Casual
1787/90 2.3 2.6 3.7
1791/95 2.0 2.8 1.8 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.0
1796/1800 2.5 2.0 4.0 4.0
1806/10 3.0 3.0
1811/15 — 1.0 3.0 2.9
1816/20 2.3 — 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.0
1821/25 — — 1.0 — 3.2
1826/30 — 2.0 — — 1.6 — —
1831/35 4.7 2.5 1.0 5.5 3.3 2.0 2.2
1836/40 2.5 3.0 3.3 2.8 3.2 2.3 3.1
1841/45 2.5 2.8 2.2 5.5 3.5 1.0
1846/50 1.0 1.0 4.4 1.0
1851/55 — 2.0
1860/65 1.0 1.1 — — 1.6 — —
Note: The total sample size was 1,014.
Source: Household budget data set; see the text.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M., Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).
Anderson, M., Approaches to the History of the Western Family (London, 1980).
Benson, J., British Coalminers in the Nineteenth Century: A Social History (Harlow,
Essex, 1980).
Families' Living Standards, 1787-1865 879
Bowley, A. L., "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom During the Last
Hundred Years: I. Agricultural Wages," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
61 (1898), pp. 702-22.
Bowley, A. L., "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom in the Last Hundred
Years: IV. Agricultural Wages—Concluded. Earnings and General Averages,"
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Sept. 1899), pp. 555-70.
Bowley, A. L., "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom in the Last Hundred
Years: IX. Wages in the Worsted and Woollen Trades of the West Riding of
Yorkshire," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Mar. 1902), pp. 102-26.
Bowley, A. L., and G. H. Wood, "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom in the
Last Hundred Years: V. Printers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Dec.
1899), pp. 708-15.
Boyer, G., An Economic History of the English Poor Law: 1750-1850 (Cambridge,
1990).
Brown, J. C , "The Condition of England and the Standard of Living: Cotton Textiles
in the Northwest, 1806-1850," this JOURNAL, 50 (Sept. 1990), pp. 591-614.
Burnett, J., Plenty and Want: A Social History of Diet in England from 1815 to the
Present Day (London, 1979).
Church, R., The History of the British Coal Industry: Vol. 3, 1830-1913 (Oxford, 1986).
Crafts, N. F. R., "English Workers' Real Wages During the Industrial Revolution:
Some Remaining Problems," this JOURNAL, 45 (Mar. 1985), pp. 139—44.
Crafts, N. F. R., British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution (Oxford,
1985).
Cunningham, H., "The Employment and Unemployment of Children in England, c.
1680-1851," Past and Present, 126 (1990), pp. 115-50.
Deane, P., and W. Cole, British Economic Growth, 1688-1959 (Cambridge, 1962).
Flinn, M. W., The History of the British Coal Industry: Vol. 2, 1700-1830 (Oxford,
1984).
Floud, R., K. Wachter, and A. Gregory, Height, Health and History: Nutritional Status
in the United Kingdom 1750-1980 (Cambridge, 1990).
Foster, J., Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early English Capitalism in
Three English Towns (London, 1974).
Horrell, S., and J. Humphries, " 'Neither Welcome nor Understood': The,Transition to
the Male Breadwinner Family in British Industrialization" (Photocopy, Depart-
ment of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 1992).
Horrell, S., and J. Humphries, "Male Earnings Estimates from Household Accounts"
(Photocopy, Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 1992).
Horrell, S., and J. Humphries, "Demographic Characteristics of Husband-Wife House-
holds" (Photocopy, Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 1992).
Humphries, J., " 'Lurking in the wings . . . ': Women in the Historiography of the
Industrial Revolution," Business and Economic History, 20 (1991), pp. 32-44.
Hunt, E. H., British Labour History 1815-1914 (London, 1981).
Hunt, E. H., "Industrialization and Regional Inequality: Wages in Britain 1760-1914,"
this JOURNAL, 46 (Dec. 1986), pp. 935-66.
Hunt, E. H., and F. W. Botham, "Wages in Britain During the Industrial Revolution,"
Economic History Review, 40 (1987), pp. 380-99.
Jordan, E., "The Exclusion of Women from Industry in Nineteenth-Century Britain,"
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31 (1989), pp. 309-26.
Laslett, P., Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations (Cambridge, 1977).
Laslett, P., and R. Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972).
Lee, C. H., British Regional Employment Statistics, 1814-1971 (Cambridge, 1979).
Levine, D., Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism (San Diego, 1977).
880 Horrell and Humphries
Lindert, P., "English Occupations, 1670-1811," this JOURNAL, 40 (Dec. 1980), pp.
685-712.
Lindert, P., and J. G. Williamson, "English Workers' Living Standards During the
Industrial Revolution: A New Look," Economic History Review, 36 (May 1983),
pp. 1-25.
Lindert, P., and J. G. Williamson, "English Workers' Real Wages: A Reply to Crafts,"
this JOURNAL, 45 (Mar. 1985), pp. 145-53.
Lyons, J., "Family Response to Economic Decline: Handloom Weavers in Early
Nineteenth-Century Lancashire," Research in Economic History, 12 (1989), pp.
45-91.
McKendrick, N., "Home Demand and Economic Growth: A New View of the Role of
Women and Children in the Industrial Revolution," in N. McKendrick, ed.,
Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honour ofJ. H.
Plumb (London, 1974), pp. 152-210.
Mathias, P., The First Industrial Nation: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1914
(London and New York, 1983).
Mitchell, B., and P. Deane, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962).
Moykr, J., "Is There Still Life in the Pessimist Case? Consumption During the
Industrial Revolution 1790-1850," this JOURNAL, 48 (Mar. 1988), pp. 69-92.
Neale, R. S., Writing Marxist History (Oxford, 1985).
Phelps Brown, E. H., The Growth of British Industrial Relations (London, 1959).
Phelps Brown, E. H., and S. V. Hopkins, "Seven Centuries of Building Wages,"
Economica, 22 (1955), pp. 195-206.
Pollard, S., "Sheffield and Sweet Auburn: Amenities and Living Standards in the British
Industrial Revolution," this JOURNAL, 41 (1981), pp. 902-4.
Richards, E., "Women in the British Economy Since About 1700: An Interpretation,"
History, 59 (1974), pp. 337-47.
Thomas, J., "Women and Capitalism: Oppression or Emancipation?" Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 30 (1988), pp. 534-49.
Williamson, J. G., Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? (Winchester, MA, 1985).
Wood, G. H., "The Course of Average Wages Between 1790 and 1860," Economic
Journal, 9 (1899), pp. 588-92.
Wood, G. H., "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom During the Nineteenth
Century: XVI. The Cotton Industry. Section II," Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society (Feb. 1910), pp. 128-63.
Wood, G. H., "The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom During the Nineteenth
Century: XVIII. The Cotton Industry. Section IV," Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society (Apr. 1910), pp. 411-34.