Tewkesbury’s Stockingers, Part I

by Cliff Burd, 2005

Introduction: a History of Knitting

William Lee
William Lee

Stocking[1] Frame Knitting was a major industry in the 18th-19th centuries in Tewkesbury. The inventor of the machine was a clergyman, Rev. William Lee, and it remained the same design from the late 16th until the late 19th century. The date of the frame’s arrival in Tewkesbury is somewhat uncertain; Henson, the standard author, states that 1714 is the date of the removal of 50 frames from London to Tewkesbury, but this appears to be too early.[2] However some knitting was in operation at an early date, as the first hosier was admitted as a Freeman of the Borough by Apprenticeship in 1641.[3]

An article in the Tewkesbury Historical Society’s Bulletin on Tokens[4] indicates that several hosiers issued tokens in the mid-sixteenth century.  In 1718, a London hosier named Joseph Palmer, apprenticed his son Samuel to a Tewkesbury hosier, named Thomas Ashmead.

There was a tradition of several families continuing the trade of hosiers during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Prior family had Stocking Frames in the reign of Queen Anne, the last of the family dying in France in 1839. The name of Kingsbury is well known in the stocking industry; in 1775 John Kingsbury apprenticed his son to a fellow hosier, while his grandson James lived to become one of the most prosperous hosiers during the second half of the 19th century.

Section 1: from Wool to Cotton

Frame Knitted cotton stockings were first produced in Nottingham in 1730, from cooler cotton imported from India. This material was finely-spun and required four strands for the leg and five for a hardwearing heel. They were much whiter and, therefore, were considered superior to wool, which had been the standard product. [5]

In order to compete with this product, the local knitters, used to knitting with the fine, short staple wool, turned their skills to the raw cotton, producing a yarn coarser than the imported Indian yarn, but still workable in the frames.[6]

By 1712, there were almost 2,500 frames in London, whilst Nottingham had about 400, Leicester 500-700 and a new industry in Northampton had 150 frames.  At this time, Tewkesbury had only 50-70 working frames.  Wages in Nottingham were such that a man working four days could earn about 10/6d, an average wage for working in worsted around this time.[7]

Indian spun cotton came into England about 1730, from some of the Indian merchants; one innovative hosier made it into stockings. The London workmen, however, refused to use it, as it was more difficult to work than silk. As a result it was sent to Nottingham, to a hosier named Draper.  He made it into stockings on a 20 gauge silk frame.  The material was so fine that he doubled four threads for the leg and five for the heel. This was the first pair, made in 1730, from this material.  They were considered more valuable than silk, as when they were bleached they were much whiter.  Thus, started a new branch of the industry.[8]

Section 2: Tewkesbury versus Nottingham

Nottingham began to dominate the industry shortly after this but, by 1760, Tewkesbury began to take advantage of the Gloucestershire woollen trade. The local spinners, used to producing yarn from the short staple wool, began to use raw cotton.  Although not as fine as Indian fibre, it could still be used on the basic frame.  Although any record has been difficult to find, Wells states that some spinning of cotton took place in the town, thus giving the local knitters a lead in the manufacture.[9]   This, coupled with the fact that the Tewkesbury knitters used only a double twist of the local wool yarn, could make a stocking similar in appearance to the Nottingham product. It used four and five threads, which was an inferior stocking, but it proved difficult to spot. (There was no Trades Descriptions Act then!)  In this way, Tewkesbury was able to undercut the Nottingham prices by up to 25%.

The Nottingham hosiers were not to take this challenge lying down; they decided to petition Parliament for a bill to protect their trade against the ‘Tewkesbury Frauds’.  This was done quietly, as even the Nottingham workmen were unaware of the move. 

Slowly, the use of two threads became more widespread, such that a witness to Parliament had bought a pair of ‘Tewkesbury Stockings’, whilst on his way to London to meet the Parliamentary Committee. At the same time, a London hosier complained that the Tewkesbury stockings were marked as if they were three or four threads. [10]

The Tewkesbury stockingers, being closely linked physically, did not have use for the bag hosiers, who would collect and deliver the raw materials as well as the finished articles, for a small fee, to and from a warehouse, and therefore were able to avoid their charges, thereby reducing their costs.  The period 1760-1770 appears to have been a prosperous one in Tewkesbury, with wages of 10/- to 11/- after expenses.[11]   The ‘Tewkesbury Frauds’ were certainly an advantage to the town.

Section 3: Tewkesbury’s “starving condition”

By 1778, the Nottingham Association had become a powerful and influential force, and with their voting power could influence parliamentary elections to a large extent. In this year, the hosiers employed a lawyer, Samuel Turner, to oppose the evidence given by the framework knitters, which would compel them to pay certain wages and not allow them to increase frame rents. Two master stocking makers were obtained to attend as witnesses, hopeful of obtaining more work from the masters. The committee of the house, however, resolved to dispense with this evidence and, on 25 February 1778, the Bill was defeated and the framework knitters foiled. [12]

Not to be deterred, the frameworkers petitioned yet again in 1779, and were encouraged when another committee was formed to hear evidence.  A Tewkesbury knitter, John Long, was sent to represent the town: there could be no doubt that his evidence would have been telling.  There were 700-800 knitters living in squalid conditions in the alleys and courts, together with apprentices, framesmiths and needlemakers, as well as other ancillary workers.

In his evidence, John Long stated that the Tewkesbury hosiers had reduced the price of work by 2/- (10p) per dozen since 1763. A good workman, such as himself, could only earn 1/7d. (8p) per day, from which he would pay 3d. (1p) daily for frame rent, and 3d. per week for needles, candles etc. Although conditions were similar in other parts of the country, the yarn was given to the knitters free of charge; however, in Tewkesbury, the knitters had to buy the cotton from the hosiers and then have it spun at a further charge.  Considering that the hosiers paid 1/6d. (7p) and sold it for 2/4d. (12p), this was a major burden on the knitters. The hosiers also specified the style and quantity of stockings on a weekly basis, but were not obliged to take them after completion: an amazing state of affairs!

Further evidence from John Long indicated that the Tewkesbury Knitters were in “a starving condition and had to submit to the hosiers for terms”.  Conditions were further aggravated by the fact that the cost of provisions had risen in price by a third in the previous nineteen years.  John Long was still employed in Tewkesbury in 1798, when he was committed to the Quarter Sessions for failure to support his family.  An indication, perhaps, that matters had not much improved.

After this evidence, there was the inevitable response from the Masters.  However, they need not have bothered as the original Bill was ordered to “lie on the table”; in fact it was a rejection.

The last two decades of the 18th century saw some recovery in trade across the country, but the conditions of apprentices in the town was not so good. Quarter Sessions’ reports show that magistrates were active in pursuing some knitters in the town for ill-treating and abusing their apprentices.[13]

Part of this short -lived prosperity was attributed to an improvement in the frame, especially in the northern towns.  The width for the average frame in Tewkesbury was 12-16 inches. Nottingham suddenly developed what became known as the ‘Wide Frame’, which doubled the frame width.  This brought about the ‘cut-up’ stocking. On the old frame, ‘casting off’ and seaming formed the shape of the leg.  Now, the wider web was cut to shape and sewn together to form the shape. Not much difference but, if the seam opened, then the whole stocking would unravel.[14]

Section 4: 1800-1860 Stocking Frame Knitting grows in importance to Tewkesbury

Workshop Stocking Frames<br><sub>(Wigston Framework Knitters Museum Leicester)</sub>
Workshop Stocking Frames
(Wigston Framework Knitters Museum Leicester)
From 1803 to 1815, the number of hosiers increased in Tewkesbury: there being upwards of forty people speculating in frame renting, evidently attracted by the income from rents as opposed to the sale of stockings. There was, therefore, a downward trend in the number of apprentices employed, only three were listed in 1800, 1811, and 1817.  One of these was apprenticed to his father, another, the son of a hosier, was put with J. Terrett, one of the biggest hosiers in the town.[15] ‘Colting’ obviously had an effect on these numbers, as did the ill treatment of trainees.  An apprenticeship did not automatically mean entry into the roll of Freemen. Joseph Hartland, an apprentice of J. Terrett, was refused entry in 1818, due, it was said, to some irregularity in his indentures![16]

In 1800 Tewkesbury had upwards of 750 frames, which, with all the ancillary workers, would give employment to 800-900 people. Ten years later there was small increase in the number of frames, with perhaps 1,000 employed in the trade.[17]

However, the peak period for the town had just about passed; the practice of the Nottingham knitters, of cutting and shaping, began to affect adversely local trade.  As early as 1803, there was a sale of frames held at the Anchor Inn[18]  This was due to a bankruptcy, while another sale in 1804 was due to debt. One strange auction took place in 1811, when the widow of a hosier named Jones sold his effects, which included several frames.  A dozen of these were set aside and put up for sale separately.  The condition was that the sale “was subject to the payment of 10/- (50p) per week to the widow, for the rest of her life”.  There is no record of the lady’s age, but the frames only fetched £10! [19]

Comparing the price of frames is difficult, just as prices of cars today would be hard to compare: there was the difference in size and condition and the gauge. Prices during the 18th century had remained high but, by 1815, prices had fallen and, at some sales, frames remained unsold.  A frame of ‘24 gauge’ in 1803 would fetch £12.5s.0d. (£12.25p) but, by 1815, the same frame was only worth £3.7s.8d. (£3.38p). A larger ‘30 gauge’ frame, made by William Skeavington, went for 17 guineas (£17.85p) in 1806. [20]

At this time the knitters were making a range of products: full cotton stockings, some silk, and stockings with cotton legs and woollen feet.  James Bennett reported that the knitters were averaging 12/- (60p) per week in 1810, this at a time when the Nottingham workers were undergoing wage cuts and earnings were only 7/- (35p).  There were some individual knitters, who would rent a second frame and put a young person to it. 

These youngsters were under-paid and ill-treated.  Conditions of work, hours and treatment of these youngsters were dreadful but, even so, only the very worst cases were reported to the authorities.  In 1812, Richard Akerill, described as “a person of barbarous and inhuman disposition”, was charged with assaulting an apprentice, Hannah Freeman, “a child of tender years”.  She had fallen behind in her work and was severely beaten with rods, while being forced to work and labour beyond her strength.  She was then starved of food until she had finished her work. It was reported that this routine went on for some days. Akerill was gaoled for two months!  Some two months after this, James Hooper and his wife Modesty, were charged with unlawfully beating an apprentice, Elizabeth Lewis.  No details were given, except to say that “they did to her other enormous things”.  After these cases, five girls were released from their apprenticeships with local hosiers.[21] Perhaps not surprisingly, there was general unrest; not only locally but nationally too. Luddism and political agitation took place, especially in the north, where knitters were subject to ‘truck’ payments. In 1811, up to 1,000 machines were broken or destroyed. After this the Government passed a bill, making frame breaking a capital felony.[22] This brought about the expected response from the hosiers: a substitute bill to prevent frauds and abuses in the industry, with Tewkesbury supporting the move.

The Napoleonic wars had affected trade too and this, coupled with the sharp practices of the hosiers and the change in the fashions of the day, led to wage cuts and idle frames.

The auction of frames in Tewkesbury led to the new owners changing at will; those to whom they rented frames, the prices paid for products, and sometimes the removal of frames from established knitters. Happily, there is no record of ‘truck’ payments.

Section 5: Tewkesbury’s Grievances over “Cut-ups”

One of the major grievances of the knitters was that the masters, when ordering goods, did not differentiate between the different gauges of mesh.  As the higher the mesh, the more intricate was the work, this should have paid more; but the masters refused, and the price could be cut without notice. However, in Tewkesbury, the masters were feeling the pinch from the ‘cut-ups’ of the northern knitters, as well as the general decline in the country.  Between 1811-14, 130 frames were put to auction.  Thomas Bayless of Church Street was one of the bigger masters to go bankrupt.  His house on the corner of St. Mary’s Lane was sold together with several other cottages.  Most of the frames were sold. However, in 1813 at the Wheatsheaf, 22 frames were put up at auction: not one bid was received.[23]

During the first decade of the 19th century, however, the condition of the knitters in Tewkesbury seemed to be better than other areas in the country, with no frame breaking and reasonably stable prices. There was some unrest, however, with the Nottingham Association of FrameWork Knitters writing to the two Tewkesbury Deputies, James McDonald and William Whitehead, seeking support for the restriction of apprentices by bringing a legal action against the masters.[24]

This letter was sent to the King’s Head (Inn) in February, where they met; however, the local magistrates led by James Kingsbury, himself a master hosier, intercepted and opened the letter; it was delivered to the two men in this condition.  When they attempted to call a meeting, the Town Crier was stopped from ‘crying’ by the magistrates, an astonishing state of affairs.  However, 281 males in the town signed a subscription list in support of a petition, submitted by the Nottingham knitters to Parliament.  In March, the two Deputies were able to write to the northern movers that their ideas had been well received in Tewkesbury and that all future letters should be sent to Richard Haynes of Mill Bank.

One of the co-ordinators of this petition wrote a warning letter to the “Mayor of Tukesbury (sic), “know you not sir, that the act commonly called the ‘gagging act’, is long since dead of its own natural death, and you should be aware that people may be driven to the commission of crime, for the purpose of exercising their ‘Vengeance’ when they cannot exercise their rights”.   Strong stuff to a Mayor![25] Eventually, by May of 1812, even the hosiers had come round to supporting the petition, writing to Mr. Tracy, the local MP asking for support.  In a letter by one of the Nottingham petitioners, Thomas Chetham, he writes: “have received an answer from Mr. Tracy promising his support in the most gentlemanly manner”.  When the bill went through, however, it was in a much-altered form, dealing only with ‘Truck.  In the same letter the writer commented that “they [the Masters] may dock, cut up, cheat, rob, pilfer and oppress now to their hearts content”.[26]

To add to the misfortunes of the Tewkesbury knitters, another blow descended when Mr. McDonald, one of their Deputies, was taken ill and the business of the local Committee was entrusted to Thomas Chetham.  He diligently collected all the subscriptions due – and immediately absconded with them.  He had also collected and stolen those of the hosiers as well!

Whilst those in the north reacted with violence, there is no record of local reaction, although James Kingsbury had reduced the wages of his knitters by 1814. An anonymous letter was sent to him, threatening his life, if there was no change for the better in the wages. Local magistrates offered a reward of fifty guineas (£52.50p) for information leading to the identity on the writer. Even the knitters, perhaps aware that this would be fruitless, added a further ten guineas (£10.50p) to the reward.  Needless to say, there were no takers![27]

Section 6: Tewkesbury strikers – “incorrect, ungrateful and insolent”

The market continued to deteriorate, with lower demand and greater capacity in general.  By 1819, trade was severely depressed, The Yearly Register, gave an accurate number of the frames as 559, a reduction of over 200 in the previous six years.  Possibly this was the start of the movement to Nottingham of the frames.

During 1816, 121 stocking-makers were to apply for parish relief, together with 36 frame-smiths and seamers.  With these out of work and more on only part time, the Directors of the Poor, at a special meeting, themselves bought a quantity of cotton, which was made up by these unfortunate unemployed workers to relieve the poverty.[28]

At Nottingham in 1819, there was a strike of some 14,000 knitters, because of the poor pay.  Tewkesbury, however, did not strike, despite the fact that their wages were reduced and unemployment was high. Typically for the town, there was a great deal of sickness, such that another special parish meeting was called; a committee was raised to find some kind of relief for the poor.  Fourteen of the fifty-one stockingers, who were unemployed, were found work on local farms or as casual labour, such as stone breaking for the roads.  A rate of 2/6 (12.5p) per family was given to the remainder, in total some 95 people.  The stocking makers committee had started a fund, which also provided a further 2/8d. (13p) to each household affected.  Men, who were actually in work, were only averaging 4/9d. (23p) per week, and the relief committee commented that this sum was “much below what is necessary for a comfortable subsistence”.[29]This local committee was aware of the trouble in Nottingham and, as the Chairman Rev. White said, “This was reasonable and orderly conduct, when compared to other areas”.  One writer stated that “by 16 hours to 18 hours per day labour they can only gain 4/-[20p] to 7/- [35p] per week, and that for the previous eighteen months had not been free of the pangs of hunger”.

1825, however, brought about a new development in the town’s industry. Here the general grievances of the knitters erupted in strike action.

The strike was accompanied by marches through the town by the knitters, but again was reported to be orderly.  They did, however, bring about another special meeting of the Borough Magistrates at the Town Hall, which arranged an investigation into the causes.  It was realised that some of the grievances were properly held and that some of the knitters would have accepted an offer, previously made by the masters. They were prevented from doing so by pressure from the rest of their colleagues and, as a result, the magistrates – not surprisingly – supported the masters, condemning the strikers for their actions as “in the highest degree, incorrect, ungrateful and insolent”. After two weeks, the knitters were forced back to work, without any obvious benefit in terms of pay. The magistrates affirmed that the figure which had been offered to the knitters was sufficient “to secure a comfortable and sufficient subsistence”, a partial conclusion to say the least. However, by the end of 1825, a new, purpose-built factory was built, thus starting a new type of hosiery – for Tewkesbury.

Section 7: The Factory Era for the “gaunt stockinger” of Tewkesbury

A factory was built in the Oldbury by Mr. George Freeman, he having been in business in both Nottingham and, later, in Warwick. 

Freeman came to Tewkesbury as early as 1817, perhaps in temporary premises but, in 1825, the factory was erected, whose building that has recently undergone substantial change and is now part of a series of flats.[31] Here he installed 37 lace-making machines, and was paying top wages of £1 per week in 1834.  By this time about 150 people were working here, and this was probably the maximum, as new inventions and fashion changes brought about a recession in the lace making industry.

Freeman, however, was no slouch; he put in steam power and devised new varieties of lace for his workers, in order to stay ahead of the game.  He remained in business until his retirement in 1853.  During this time he served on the council as a Liberal, from 1835 to 1846.

Between 1800 and 1831 the population of Tewkesbury increased by almost 1,000, with a consequent increase in the numbers in the stocking trade.  James Bennett recorded that there were 700-800 frames, whilst the census indicated almost a quarter of the town was working at the trade. In Nottingham, there was a rise in the rates of pay for the knitters, which was communicated to the town.  As a result, on 1 November 1830, the knitters assembled at the Cross “in great numbers and went round to their masters with certain demands, which were readily complied with, and the men dispersed in an orderly manner, apparently well satisfied. On the following morning, however, they re-assembled and increased their demands to such an extent that the hosiers considered they could not comply with them”.[32]  There seemed to be every possibility of a riot, with serious threats against one of the principal hosiers. The Magistrates met at three o’clock and sent for a troop of the 14th Light Dragoons who arrived at eight o’clock. In the meantime, the Magistrates had persuaded the knitters to depute a committee to present their case in writing to try to reach some compromise with the hosiers.[33]

A week later there was still some excitement amongst “the lower orders”; so a petition was sent requesting the Dragoons be permanent. This was refused; as a result, a volunteer police force was set up in order to keep the knitters in order, and would seem to have been successful in defeating their aims.

That the industry appeared static is borne out by a government commission of 1833, which showed the average wage was about 7/- (35p) per week.  Twenty years later, in 1854, this average was still at the same level.[34]

Eliza Kempton
Eliza KemptonClick Image
 to Expand

Photo: Eliza Kempton, who worked on Leicestershire mechanical frames until 80  (Wigston Framework Knitters Museum Leicester)

Worse was to come: in 1832, cholera struck the town and, with the dense alley habitation and non-existent sanitation, it took its toll of the knitters.  On 1 August, seven days after the outbreak started, Samuel Hawkins, a stocking maker living in Crooked Alley, died of the disease.[35]  At the end of the epidemic, 27 knitters or their family, had died, 30% of all the deaths in the town.[36]

The Chartist Movement made its appearance in the town, towards the end of the 1830s. The old committee of the knitters seems to have disappeared; it is likely that they became part of the movement, as a Tewkesbury stocking maker became Secretary and Treasurer. They claimed to have some 180 members, but Bennett disputes this and puts the figure closer to 90, still a goodly membership. Ill fortune struck, however and the funds of the movement disappeared with the Treasurer! Sometime after this the Chartists disappeared too, probably cursing their bad fortune in the town.[37]

During the period 1840-1841, the trade was depressed, again nationally as well as locally.  Bennett’s ‘Yearly Register’ records the distressed state of the working classes; meaning the stocking trade and, by the following year, this depression had deepened, giving widespread unemployment in the town.  There were 220 frames unemployed for a six week period. Even when work became available, the wages were dropped once more.  In Tewkesbury, of the 930 frames available, only 380 were working, an indication of the level of unemployment and suffering. In 1844, a parliamentary committee was again set up and evidence taken of the plight of the frame workers.

Regarding the state of the individual knitters, a description of the time by a visiting correspondent in 1844, reported that “at this seat of full fashioned excellent cotton hose fabrication, more than half the frames are standing idle.  Distress amongst the frame work knitters of this town is greater than was supposed, such scenes of wretchedness as those I have witnessed this day, I never saw before and hope never to see again”.  

In Nottingham, a local physician described the stockinger:  you could always tell them, as “there is a paleness and a certain degree if emaciation and thinness about them”.  Bennett, himself, referred to the “gaunt stockinger” of Tewkesbury. 

A steady movement of both frames and people closely followed the depression from Tewkesbury to the Nottingham area.  Slater’s Directory of 1852 stated that there were only four hosiers left in the town, whilst there was a big reduction in the number of people working at the trade; only 225 from a population of 5,878.

Two sons of James Blount Lewis, a major hosier, also emigrated to Nottingham to set up in business there in 1846, although it was some years before they set a full factory.  It is interesting to note that, as late as 1965, the sales director of Meridian Limited was A. J. Lewis, a great grandson of the founder J. B. Lewis.

The trade continued to fall away; and the town was subjected once more in 1849, to another helping of cholera. This time the knitters represented 18% of the deaths. The workers, however, remained constant to each other when, in 1853, they were advised of the new rates of pay in Nottingham.  On 5 September, the Monthly Record reports that a meeting was held in the Oldbury, to try for an increase.  A spokesman later advised the meeting that the hosiers were prepared to pay the same rates of pay as was being paid in Nottingham; and the meeting ended amicably.

Reports of the time indicate that ill-treatment was still experienced by the knitters.  A court case involving Matilda Dobbins was reported in the Tewkesbury Record.  She was charged that she neglected to produce the required quota according to the agreement.  She was let a frame and supplied with cotton to make up the shortfall.  Unfortunately, she fell ill before the work was completed and left. The magistrates, perhaps understanding the plight of the workers, dismissed the case with costs.[39]

Looking back at the first half of the 19th century, would the knitters have felt happy, did they feel that they had been badly treated?  Would they be looking forward to a more prosperous period in the next fifty years?


  1. A stocking was a covering for woman’s leg: either of a pair of tightly fitting leg coverings for women, made of silk, nylon, or wool (often used in the plural).Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. In the 18th century, however, men wore them beneath their breeches.
  2. G Henson A Political and Mechanical and Political History of Framework Knitters (1831)
  3. County Record Office (GRO): Tewkesbury Council Minutes, Vol. 2.
  4. Bill Camp, THS Bulletin, No. 4, p 26.
  5. Henson, p165.
  6. as above, p358.
  7. Henson p130-1; 53p - worth about £37.91p in modern values (Editor).
  8. Henson p165.
  9. F. A. Wells, British Hosiery Trade, (Allen & Unwin 1935), p27
  10. Henson, pp360-361.
  11. 50-55p; worth about £29.60p in modern values.
  12. Henson pp384/5 & 387.
  13. Tewkesbury Quarter Sessions, Vol. II; 1787 & 1788; GRO Ref: QT/J
  14. Wells, pp 93 & 95/6.
  15. GRO: Tewkesbury Apprentices Roll. 
  16. GRO: Tewkesbury Borough Council Minutes, June 1818.
  17. J. Bennett, Yearly Register & Magazine, Vol. I, (1830-1839) p200.
  18. GRO Ref: D2080/145
  19. as above /108.  In 1811 50p and £10 were worth about £14.31 & £286.12p in modern values.
  20. £12.25p in 1803 was worth £457.19p in modern values whilst £3.38p in 1815 was worth £109.
  21. GRO: Tewkesbury Quarter Sessions, 1811-12; 
  22. E. P. Thompson The Making of the English Working Class, p585.  King Ludd was a mythical figure, whose favoured tactic was machine-breaking. Many were hanged or transported. The ‘truck system’ was a method of forcing employees to accept tokens for pay which could only be exchanged at the factory shop, for allegedly poor quality goods. (Editor)
  23. GRO Ref. D/2080/145.
  24. as above,   /33.
  25. J. Adcock Research Doc., 1971(C. Burd Collection)
  26. Thompson, above, Chapter 14, p590.
  27. Worth about £1,528 and £306 respectively in modern values.
  28. J. Bennett, Tewkesbury Yearly Register and Magazine, Vol. I (1840) for 1830 pp202 & 317
  29. 13p & 23p were worth about £4.13p and £7.31p respectively in modern values.
  30. N. B. Felkin, An Account of the Machine Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufacture, (1867) pp43-50.
  31. Freeman’s factory was replaced in 1860 by a steam powered factory and it is this complex in East Street, which is now known as Osborne House and North East Terrace (locally as ‘Chimney Pot Row’).
  32. GRO: Tewkesbury Borough Council Records, B1, Parcel 8-10; 
  33. Bennett Vol. II, pp202 & 317.
  34. Tewkesbury Monthly Record, 6 September 1854.  In modern values, 35p of 1833 was worth £15.02p but the same amount in 1854 was worth £13.97p.
  35. also known as Alexander Court, Barton Street.
  36. Bennett Vol. II, pp 45 & 203.
  37. as above, p426. Chartism was a movement which by means of a ‘Six Point Charter’ sought, amongst other things, to obtain the vote for all men. We must remember that Bennett did not approve of Chartism, as the propertied classes considered it ‘revolutionary’. (Editor)
  38. Felkin Reporting to the Parliamentary Inquiry, 1844
  39. Record, 7 July 1855.  It was viewed as sympathetic to the ‘Liberal/Reformer’ point of view, unlike the ‘Conservative/Tory’ Register. (Editor)

Print Version


Your display name

Email address - required for confirmation
(it will not be displayed here)

Your comment or question

Please keep your comments relevant to this article.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment.