16.1. Wages in Non-Agricultural Occupations

We now present the average earnings in shillings in each non-agricultural occupation, following the tables and graphs in previous sections. 

The earnings per occupation are then weighted by numbers of employees, to give an average for the country in each year.

	Cotton	Labourer	Boot	Seamst	Miners	Builders	Tailors	Woollens
			shoe		Coal
1770	8.0	7.0	10.0	6.0	7.0	13.0	21.0	12.0
1775	9.6	7.0	10.0	6.0	7.0	13.0	21.0	13.0
1780	11.3	7.3	10.0	6.0	7.0	14.0	21.0	14.0
1785	13.8	7.6	10.0	7.0	7.0	14.0	21.0	16.0
1790	18.3	8.1	12.0	7.0	7.0	14.0	21.0	18.0
1795	29.4	9.2	12.0	8.0	7.5	17.0	25.0	15.0
1800	24.4	10.9	12.0	8.0	8.0	18.0	25.0	13.0
1805	22.0	12.1	12.0	10.0	10.0	20.0	27.0	15.6
1810	16.7	13.9	12.0	10.0	10.0	25.0	33.0	17.6
1815	16.2	14.1	13.0	10.0	11.5	25.0	30.0	18.8
1820	11.6	12.4	13.0	10.0	12.5	25.0	25.0	16.0
1825	12.4	12.4	13.0	10.0	12.5	24.0	25.0	16.2
1830	10.8	12.2	13.0	9.0	12.0	27.0	20.0	16.2
1835	12.6	12.0	13.0	9.0	11.0	27.0	20.0	16.4
1840	15.5	12.2	13.0	8.0	11.5	27.0	15.0	15.2
1845	20.4	12.4	12.5	8.0	11.5	27.0	15.0	16.7
1850	19.7	12.6	13.5	7.0	12.5	28.0	15.0	16.1
1855	25.7	13.1	14.5	7.0	17.5	30.4	15.0	18.4
1860	32.9	13.7	16.0	7.0	18.4	32.8	15.0	20.4
1770-1815	2.02	2.01	1.30	1.67	1.64	1.92	1.43	1.56
1815-1860	2.04	0.97	1.23	0.70	1.60	1.31	0.50	1.09
1770-1850	4.14	1.95	1.60	1.17	2.62	2.53	0.71	1.70

 

	Silk	Worsted	Iron	Cutlery	Hosiery	Lace	Rail		Average
			Manuf
1770	8.0	10.0	20.0	20.0	10.0	6.0			10.1
1775	9.0	10.0	20.0	20.0	10.0	6.0			10.4
1780	9.0	10.5	20.0	20.0	10.0	7.0			11.0
1785	10.0	11.0	20.0	20.0	10.0	7.0			11.5
1790	11.0	11.0	20.0	20.0	10.0	7.0			12.5
1795	11.0	10.5	20.0	20.0	13.0	8.0			15.1
1800	15.0	10.5	25.0	25.0	13.0	8.0			15.4
1805	15.0	16.0	25.0	25.0	13.0	8.0			16.0
1810	15.0	21.0	25.0	30.0	13.0	8.0			16.0
1815	15.0	25.5	25.0	30.0	7.0	8.0			16.5
1820	15.0	21.0	30.0	30.0	7.0	8.0			15.5
1825	15.0	21.0	30.0	30.0	7.0	8.0			15.7
1830	12.0	20.0	30.0	35.0	7.0	8.0	24.0		15.7
1835	12.0	15.8	30.0	30.0	7.0	8.0	24.0		16.0
1840	11.0	16.0	30.0	30.0	7.0	8.0	22.5		16.0
1845	11.0	13.5	31.0	31.0	7.0	8.0	22.5		16.3
1850	10.0	12.0	33.0	33.0	10.0	9.0	24.5		16.7
1855	11.0	12.5	34.0	34.0	12.0	9.5	24.5		18.4
1860	11.0	12.5	36.0	33.0	14.0	10.0	23.0		19.2
1770- 1815	1.88	2.55	1.25	1.50	0.70	1.33			1.63
1815- 1860	0.73	0.49	1.44	1.10	2.00	1.25			1.16
1770- 1850	1.38	1.25	1.80	1.65	1.40	1.67			1.90

Numbers employed in each occupation (thousands, estimated):

	Cotton	Labourer	Boot shoe	Seamstr	Miners  Coal	Builders	Tailors	Woollens
1770	150	140	90	45	40	118	50	100
1775	150	145	93	45	42	122	51	100
1780	150	150	96	50	45	127	53	100
1785	150	157	100	50	50	132	55	80
1790	168	165	105	50	53	140	58	60
1795	200	172	110	55	56	146	60	50
1800	247	180	115	58	61	153	63	52
1805	274	193	125	60	73	164	67	66
1810	300	206	132	65	85	180	72	70
1815	334	223	147	75	84	200	78	72
1820	366	240	153	80	89	220	85	76
1825	413	259	165	80	95	240	91	81
1830	425	278	177	95	102	260	98	86
1835	408	306	197	100	114	300	107	91
1840	385	380	210	150	127	350	117	96
1845	333	360	240	250	150	400	124	106
1850	374	340	275	340	183	440	132	116
1855	398	320	300	350	210	440	134	126
1860	437	309	330	360	240	450	136	137

	Silk	Worsted	Iron	Cutlery	Hosiery	Lace	Railways		Total
			Manuf
1770	46	20	30	10	30	90	–		959
1775	46	20	30	11	30	100	–		985
1780	48	20	30	12	30	110	–		1,021
1785	48	20	35	12	40	120	–		1,048
1790	50	20	50	13	40	130	–		1,102
1795	50	20	55	13	45	140	–		1,172
1800	52	20	60	14	50	150	–		1,275
1805	52	20	65	15	55	150	–		1,379
1810	55	20	70	16	60	150	–		1,481
1815	55	22	75	18	60	150	–		1,593
1820	60	24	80	22	62	140	–		1,697
1825	60	26	85	28	64	120	–		1,807
1830	65	28	90	33	64	110	10		1,921
1835	70	30	95	38	70	110	20		2,056
1840	80	40	100	41	80	90	30		2,276
1845	90	50	120	41	100	90	40		2,494
1850	111	75	150	51	130	80	55		2,852
1855	105	100	180	51	140	80	80		3,014
1860	101	125	190	51	150	75	100		3,191

These numbers are taken from the individual sources per industry. The figures for 1840, 1850, 1860, have been revised against the Census data. In the less documented cases, the numbers from 1840 are projected back to the earlier years.  

Combining the average earnings of agricultural labourers (other chapter) and non-agriculture workers, using the number employed as the weighting, we have:

	Shillings week	Shillings week	Shillings week
	Agr Lab	Non Agr	All Occupations
1770	6.5	9.6	8.3
1775	6.6	10.0	8.5
1780	7.0	10.5	9.0
1785	7.0	11.1	9.4
1790	7.4	12.2	10.2
1795	8.9	14.7	12.4
1800	9.3	14.8	12.7
1805	10.6	15.1	13.5
1810	11.3	15.8	14.3
1815	12.1	15.7	14.5
1820	11.7	14.7	13.7
1825	10.9	14.7	13.5
1830	10.4	14.7	13.3
1835	10.2	14.9	13.4
1840	11.0	14.8	13.7
1845	9.5	15.1	13.5
1850	9.5	15.5	13.9
1855	10.9	16.9	15.4
1860	11.0	18.0	16.3
1770-1815	1.86	1.64	1.76
1815-1860	0.91	1.14	1.12
1770-1860	1.69	1.87	1.97

It is counter-intuitive, but arithmetically correct, that the increase 1770-1860 in the average of “agricultural” and “non-agricultural” is greater than the increases in the constituent parts. The explanation is that in 1770, 65 % of the workers in our sample were agricultural, and in 1860, only 35 %. Thus the curve of the average “gravitates” towards the “non-agricultural” curve.

As a final input for the movements of wages, we convert to pounds per year for the sum of agricultural and non-agricultural, and reduce by 10 % to take probable lost working days into account. This is then compared with the data of Feinstein from his work of 1998.

POUNDS PER YEAR, PRESENT STUDY, 

REDUCED BY 10 % FOR LOST WORKING DAYS

	Average wage	Average wage
	Pounds pa	Pounds p a
	Present study	Feinstein 1866 42
1770	19.3	18.0
1775	19.9	18.2
1780	21.1	19.4
1785	22.0	19.5
1790	24.0	21.1
1795	29.0	25.7
1800	29.8	31.4
1805	31.7	35.0
1810	33.3	37.3
1815	33.9	36.0
1820	32.1	33.0
1825	31.5	31.1
1830	31.1	30.1
1835	31.3	30.1
1840	32.0	32.6
1845	31.7	32.4
1850	32.6	32.4
1855	36.0	37.7
1860	38.1	38.2
1866		42.0
1770-1815	1.76	2.00
1815-1860	1.12	1.06
1770-1860	1.97	2.13

a

The figures correspond fairly closely to the Feinstein values, and to those of some of his sources, which means that we are both reporting the same real economic conditions of 1770-1860:

(Feinstein, 1998, Wage-earnings in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution, p. 199)

The only difference which has importance for our conclusions is that for the years 1770-1795. This study is more optimistic about the earnings, and has a value of 8.3 shillings for 1770 (6.5 for agricultural, 9.6   for non-agricultural), while Feinstein has 7.6 shillings average. Arthur Young has 9.5 shillings for manufacturing in the North, 8.5 for manufacturing in West/East/South, and 7.0 for agricultural labourers in West/East/South. This study is closer to Arthur Young. This may well be due to a different selection of “typical occupations”. 

But more importantly for our general conclusions, the movements for Feinstein’s figures for 1770 to 1795 are not consistent with the real happenings of the day. He has an increase from 7.6 to 11.0 shillings, which is + 45 %; this did not happen in any of the industries, and was much above the food inflation. Thus his figure of increase in nominal earnings from 1770 to 1860 may well be too high.

The increase of 45 % from 1795 to 1810 according to Feinstein is also not very probable, as not one of the constituent industries showed this movement. The figure of 1855, which gives a difference against 1850 of 16 % is exaggerated, but the datum for 1860, of 18 % against 1850, may well be true. 

Before we comment the figures which result from this calculation, we should revise the level of probability of the base numbers. It is important to note that as the data come from different sources for each occupation, and in general are copied from one series of yearly (or 5-yearly) data from one source, it is very unlikely that there would be any systematic error; from the theory of statistics we have that the probable error in the weighted total should be considerably less than the errors in the individual lines. 

The figures for “agricultural labourers” and for “cotton” – which together make 30 % of the weighting – are as exact as they can be made. The “agricultural labourers” data come from a large number of sources, including Arthur Young, parliamentary commissions, “The Farmers Magazine”, and Mr. Purdy, director of the statistical department of the Poor Law Administration, and are totally consistent with another. The series for “cotton” comes from Mr. George Wood in his book on the History of Wages in the Cotton Industry, where he presents an average calculation per year, based on the total content of his book. The main cause of doubt in the table above would be in the calculations for boot and shoe makers and the tailors, where we do not have good data for the division into “professional” and “price-competing” workers, and their respective average incomes.      

The average trend of nominal non-agricultural wages from 1800 to 1850 was to remain constant. This is easily explained, as the living costs did not increase, and thus the workers did not have much arguments when they wanted to negotiate an increase with the owners. In individual industries, there were other factors which had an effect on the wages, for example, “combinations”, unions, and “houses of call” of the workmen, introduction of machines with high capacity and ease of use, transfer of work to women and children, and division of labour and greater specialization. 

Additional to the figures evaluated above, there are two special cases. Firstly, in the cotton industry, there were general increases (net of increase in food costs) of 50 % or more, when the men and women changed to factory work, that is from 1780 to 1810.  Secondly, in the period 1840 to 1860, there came into being a number of new well-paid occupations, especially for skilled mechanics and administrators, which are not included in the table above (only “railways”).

The increase in earnings for 1855 and 1860 is not what it seems. There was also a considerable increase of the living costs during the decade of the 1850’s.

As an additional check to the figures, we should revise the situation calculated for the whole country at 1860 (number of persons, and total of weekly income, for each occupation), against some contemporary source from 1860. What we actually have is a detailed report written in 1867, with number of persons and income levels for 1867. This is a book written by Leone Levi, Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes; with some facts illustrative of their economic condition, drawn from authentic and official sources. 

Mr. Levi was a jurist and statistician, with a doctorate in Political Science from the University of Tübingen, and he researched and wrote the book at the request of M. T. Bass, who was a liberal Member of Parliament, and owner of Bass Breweries. He says that he collected the data from a number of publicly available sources, but in many cases by direct request to the employers and the employed. The book has about 120 pages of detailed information, classified by occupation.     

See the pages reproduced two pages below, with the totals over the country; two pages are exhibited showing the totals of weekly incomes per occupation, and the book also has two more pages showing the number of persons per occupation. The numbers given by Mr. Levi include Ireland, so that an adjustment – based on the detailed text – was made in the table calculated by this author, to show only England + Wales + Scotland.

The following two tables are: a) the wages in each industry/occupation, corresponding to this investigation for the date of 1860, b) Mr. Levi’s data for 1867, reduced by the quantities referring to Ireland. 

Occupation	Number of Persons 1860	Av. Income (sh./week) 1860	Total Income (million sh./week)	Per cent of 16 occups.
Agricultural labourer (*)	1,026,000	11	11.3	23.5 %
Cotton, calico, manufacture, printing	437,000	11	4.8	6.5 %
Labourer	309,000	14	4.3	5.8 %
Boot and shoe maker	330,000	16	4.9	6.9 %
Milliner, dressmaker, seamstress	360,000	7	2.5	3.1 %
Coal miner	240,000	18	4.3	5.8 %
Carpenter, joiner, mason, bricklayer	450,000	33	14.8	20.1 %
Tailor	136,000	15	2.0	2.7 %
Woollen cloth manufacture	137,000	20	2.7	3.6 %
Silk manufacture	101,000	11	1.1	1.5 %
Worsted manufacture	125,000	12	1.6	2.2 %
Iron manufacture, moulder, founder	190,000	36	6.8	9.2 %
Cutlery	51,000	33	1.7	2.3 %
Hose (stocking) manufacturer	150,000	14	2.1	2.8 %
Lace manufacture	75,000	10	0.7	0.9 %
Railways	100,000	23	2.3	3.1 %
Total	4,217,000	16.3	67.9	100.0 %

Occupation	Number of Persons 1867	Av. Income (sh./week) 1867	Total Income (million sh./week)	Per cent of 16 occups.
Agricultural labourers (*)	1,060,000	12	12.7	21.6 %
Cotton	558,000	12	6.7	8.3 %
Builders	480,000	27	13.0	16.1 %
Tailoresses and Dressmakers	451,000	9	4.1	5.1 %
Boot and Shoe Makers	352,000	17	6.0	7.4 %
Coal Mining	288,000	17	4.9	6.1 %
Woollen Manufacture	249,000	14	3.5	4.3 %
Hosiery and Lace	230,000	11	2.5	3.1 %
Hardware	216,000	21	4.5	5.6 %
Railways	200,000	23	4.6	5.7 %
Iron	149,000	25	3.7	4.6 %
Silk Manufacture	122,000	8	1.0	1.2 %
Machines and Tools	121,000	21	2.5	3.1 %
Tailors	120,000	19	2.3	2.8 %
Mining other	100,000	18	1.8	2.2 %
Linen	78,000	12	2.3	2.8 %
Total	4,774,000	15.9	76.1	100.0 %

(*) only adult male labourers, working outdoors; does not include farmers and cottagers, with their wives and children; does not include indoor farm servants

We note that the numbers of persons are a little higher in this study than according to Mr. Levi. This is because he includes all the people working even in small auxiliary tasks, and thus including men, women, and young persons; the present investigation refers to adults working in the principal tasks. Mr. Levi’s table includes “hardware”, “machines and tools”, and “mining” (other than coal), which had become more important from by 1867.

The average wage over these 16 occupations differs by only 16.3 shillings per week (42.3 pounds per year) against 15.9 shillings (41.3 pounds). This small difference is actually the net position of four general concepts:

• Increase in wage levels from 1860 to 1867 of about 10 %;
• Replacement by new industries with higher general wage levels, than those cancelled;
• Mr. Levi does not include data for general labourers, which would decrease the average;
• Mr. Levi’s average figures include the auxiliary work by women and young persons.

(Levi, 1867, pp. 16-17)

In general, the data in this study are very close to the numbers collected by Mr. Levi.

A revision of these figures of wages per industry, against some tables in books or reports which give a number of wages at a given date, gives a general agreement

Sources:  Arthur Young, “Travels in …” Frederick Eden, “State of the Poor” Richard Philips, “Book of Trades” Jelinger Symonds, “Arts and Artisans at Home and Abroad” Statistical Committee of the Town Council, Leeds, “Report on the Condition of the Town of Leeds and of its Inhabitants, October 1839” David Chadwick, “On the Rate of Wages in Manchester and Salford, and the Manufacturing Districts of Lancashire, 1839-59”

There is also a list of wages at about 1850 for some 200 actividades from “Labour and the Poor in England and Wales 1849-1851, Letters to the Morning Chronicle …”, Appendices 1 and 2.