Piece by Piece.

Most resources about 19 ^th  century English dress often focus on one aspect: the fashionable trends that changed over time. However, clothing is more than just a visual record of what people liked and when. Examining clothing can provide new ways of looking at societies of the past, as clothing reflects everything from worldviews to social contexts to new technology.

Piece by Piece explores the materials that the English dressed themselves in alongside examples of intact garments that have survived the passage of time. It aims to answer two questions:

1. Where did materials for 19 ^th  century English dress come from?
2. What else was happening alongside sourcing these materials?

This project seeks to connect garments to the history of the materials that comprise them, not separate the parts from the final product. We encourage you to pause at each picture and remember this.

Clothing has never been created in a vacuum, it has always been a product of its environment. Feathers, whalebone, cotton, silk, and velvet had relationships with animal rights movements, slavery, industrialization, working conditions, technology changes, and English customs. These connections are revealed when the clothes of England's 19th century are examined piece by piece.

Prior to the 19 ^th  century, textiles were made in small workshops or homes. Raw material was spun into yarn, then yarn woven into cloth, then cloth cut into fashion, all by hand. The introduction of steam and water power brought key changes to textile production. Mechanized looms, spinners, knitting machines, and even harvesters for raw material sped up the process of making textiles while allowing the cost to decrease.

England’s ability to both produce and consume goods had increased in scale and decreased in time.

Novelty was a key driving factor behind both production and consumption of textiles in the 19 ^th  century. Novel was new, and new was associated with improvement and progress marching forward. To be new was to be best. This attitude is reflected in the constant change of fashionable trends in England, not just in the design of outfits, but also in the way fabrics were created and patterned. Inspiration often came from foreign designs.

A predictable cycle emerged in textile production: a desired pattern or fabric was imitated by someone else, who usually used an efficient method or tool that reduced the cost, forcing the original creators of said product to adjust their own methods or change livelihoods. This pattern of imitation could turn into competition that displaced original methods and crafts people. An example of this dynamic is the Paisley shawl. While named after a Scottish weaving center, the decorative patterns used were a European imitation of the Indian boteh pattern. Scottish Paisley imitation shawls eventually saturated the market in England, nearly replacing the originals.

“Feathers and plumes still wave from edifaces which women wear on their heads, and it really seems as though it were time a crusade were organized against the lavish use of feathers, for some of the rarest and most valuable species…will soon be exterminated if the present craze continues.” - Harper's Bazar, 1896, quoted in Doughty, p. 22-23.

Hats were growing larger by the 1820s, and so were appetites for feathers to ornament them. The popularity of ornamental plumage made a comeback after a brief dip in the wake of the French Revolution.

Ostrich, peacock, egret, heron, pheasant, owl, and magpie feathers were used to accessorize hats, trims, and fans. Entire bird wings and even whole, stuffed birds were used, as well.

Feathers were popular. Because of this they were subject to the typical experience of 19 ^th  century English fashion: they became more affordable as time went on, and the trends constantly changed. More and more women were following the trends outlined in magazines like Godey’s Lady’s Book and Harper’s Bazar.

More and more feathers were needed.

The reality of collecting feathers for fashion meant killing the bird to pluck it. Widespread circulation of popular trends and an increasing ability for the middle class to afford plumage meant that bird populations fell across the globe during the 19 ^th  century. Only ostrich feathers could be taken from a live bird.

Imports from France alone (the center of feather processing in Europe) were around 250,000 pounds of feathers annually in the 1880s, which grew to 360,000 pounds annually by the 1890s. Conservative estimates show that millions upon millions of birds were killed globally to support the ornamental feather trends of 19 ^th  century England.

Wearing feathers was nothing new, as Europe had been using them since the Crusades. What was new about 19 ^th  century feathers was the shift in the public’s conscience.

Anti-plumage movements like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Plumage Group, and their affiliates in Ireland, India, Australia, and western Europe brought ethics to the public’s attention across multiple levels of society. By the 1850s, middle class women, scientists, nature enthusiasts, and even Queen Victoria made their sentiments publicly known: they did not condone the slaughter of birds for the sake of accessorizing. Such widespread and organized opposition to ornamental plumage had never been seen before.

By the 1880s calls were being made for changes to the industry, even for the abolition of ornamental plumage in dress. Attitudes were shifting to view birds as a source of education and wonder, not a resource to be exploited.

The fight to spare birds did not end with the close of the 19 ^th  century, but the shifts of the 1880s were the roots of later movements in the early 20 ^th  century.

“No amount of legislation can save wildlife if it can be exploited for commercial purposes.” - Officials from the Division of Enforcement of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, quoted in Doughty, p. 155.

Whalebone is not technically bone, but whale baleen made of keratin. For more information on baleen, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation website has a short blog post  here . When the term whalebone is used for dress, it’s referring to individual pieces of whale baleen used in clothes.

Whale baleen is thin, durable, flexible, and was used to help things keep their shape. Found in corsets, cage crinolines, integrated into bodices, and even umbrellas, whalebone became an invisible staple of 19 ^th  century dress.

What makes one animal the focus of preservation efforts and another ignored completely?

Whalebone, like feathers, was taken from animals killed to provide for the trends of the century. Unlike feathers, whales were hunted for their oil, blubber, and meat as well, making their bodies multi-purpose. Their by-products were essential for more than fashion, which may explain why they never became the focus of animal rights groups like birds did. Whales were also incredibly remote animals whose products remained hidden within fashion as opposed to displayed on the surface for ornamentation.

The most sought-after whale was the Right Whale, found near Greenland. Its baleen was the highest quality, black and very elastic, and by the mid-1850s the Right Whale was hunted to near extinction. Whalebone was in short supply, prices nearly doubled for the material, and whalers turned to other species to meet demands. Rorqual whales of southern oceans had inferior baleen, but proved a sufficient replacement, nonetheless.

The same decade bird preservation movements started to take shape was the same decade whalers expanded their hunting grounds.

"By 1860, U.S. slavery accounted for nearly 75% of U.S. domestic exports, with much of these exports destined for Britain." - Zach Sell, Trouble of the World, p. 3.

Prior to the 19 ^th  century, England sourced its cotton in small quantities of raw material from around the world, or, more often, as fabric imported from India.

India was the center of cotton production throughout the 18th century. By the mid-19 ^th  century, however, England had replaced the Indian cotton market. Raw materials were now mostly grown in the Americas, harvested by slave labour, transported to Britain, then spun and woven in cotton factories on British soil. The cotton industry of the previous century was no more. Indian cotton had been entirely replaced by a British, industrial process.

How did England, whose cotton production was largely nonexistent before 1820, come to replace India as the center of cotton production by the 1850s? The answer lies in two overlapping factors: slavery and industrialization.

Slavery’s connection to cotton is no secret. What this section will focus on is a bit of the history of this connection so we can better understand why slavery transformed cotton. Slavery was an intentional choice, not an accidental by-product. To fully understand why slavery became integral to Britain’s cotton industry, we must look a bit earlier than the 19 ^th  century.

Until 1780, India was the center of cotton production. Indian cotton was popular, which was incentive for European powers to try and create their own cotton. The goal was to replace Indian imports. England focused on cotton for its domestic salability and because cotton was integral to paying for slaves from Africa. The little-known connection between cotton and slavery is that cotton fabric from India was used to pay for slaves. Slaves who were then forced across the Atlantic to work plantations that benefited England. From the early 1800s, those plantations were largely cotton fields.

The other factor in England’s cotton industry was the timing of industrialization.

Technology has always been used by imperialist nations to further their own cause. The gun is an easy example. The tools of the 19 ^th  century were primarily industrially and economically focused.

The introduction of mechanical tools, water powered looms, factories with wage workers, even steam powered boats, all contributed to priming England to overturn the cotton industry. The cotton gin meant harvesting cotton could be faster. By 1828, rotary printing machines could print three colours at once, helping Britain dominate the printed cotton market. Powered looms meant spinning and weaving raw cotton into finished products was quicker. Factories implemented 10 to 14 hour work days to maximize production. Improved boats reduced the cost and time of transporting materials. Mechanical tools of production aligned with British interests in creating their own cotton industry.  

These cost saving technologies compounded with the unpaid labour of slavery. Cotton is a notoriously labour-intensive resource. Paying people to harvest and process cotton increases the price of the finished product. The cost of labour was intentionally avoided with the decision to utilize the established slave trade and plantations of the Americas. By 1857, the unpaid, forced labour of millions of people supplied 68% of England’s raw cotton. Three years later, by 1860, slave labour supplied over 88%.

The cheapness of British cotton eradicated the competition, including production in India. Two-thirds of the world’s cotton spindles were in England. The place that had once been the center of cotton production now purchased British cotton fabrics in place of making their own.

Cheapness came with a cost. Millions of people slaved under violent enforcement across the ocean. Factory workers, many of whom were women and children, spun and wove cotton for 10 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, for low wages in loud, hazardous environments. Cotton was affordable but less durable, arguably becoming one of the first products of the industrial age with a built-in expiry date.

“No man would like to work a power loom, there is such a clattering and noise it would almost make some men mad.” - Select committee on hand loom weavers’ petitions, 1834, quoted in Adams et al, p. 15.

Silk had long been considered a luxury textile in Europe. While it never entirely lost its status of prestige, it did become more available and affordable in England during the 19 ^th  century. Technological advances allowed England to produce mass quantities of silk products at a reduced cost, supplying the demand for silk a growing middle class could now afford.

England sourced its raw silk mainly from Italy, with imports from Bengal and China comprising a much smaller portion of the supplies.

From the 15 ^th  to 18 ^th  centuries, France was the center of European silk production. In 1685 the Edict of Nantes was revoked, forcing Huguenot refugees to flee to Protestant friendly areas. Some of these refugees were silk weavers from France’s large industry, and some of these weavers went to England.

One of these Huguenot families were the Courtaulds, whose descendant would establish the most successful silk firm of 19 ^th  century England.

Samuel Courtauld’s silk factory was opened in 1825 in Halstead, Essex. By 1827, steam power was introduced. By the 1850s, Courtauld’s was the most successful English silk firm, thanks to their black silk mourning crêpe. Courtald's mechanical finishing process mimicked a traditional form of crimped silk from Bologna, the source of the best crimped silk since the 17th century. This black, crimped silk was in high demand as lengthy mourning periods didn’t excuse families from dressing in fashionable styles.

Dresses, reticules, veils, hats, gloves, cravats, and nearly every other aspect of fashion had to be made in black to properly be in mourning. This demand for material to furnish entire wardrobes is why annual profits for Courtauld’s increased from £3,000 in 1835 to £110,000 in 1885.

Who made the silk inside the successful Courtauld factory? In the 1830s, approximately 95% of Courtauld’s workers were women. By the 1870s, more workers had been employed at the factories, but women still comprised 75% of them. According to the authors of Under Control: Life in a nineteenth-century silk factory, Courtauld’s reflects what English textile factories looked like: three-quarters of workers were women.

Despite the fact that most workers were women, men held most of the power and received the highest wages. Men were always in office or overseer positions while women were the ones making the silk.

Women were more harshly punished than men, not only based on gender, but likely because this gender bias put women in positions that were more likely to create mistakes. Weaving was a woman’s job in the factory, a job that was by no means easy.

Factories were loud, shifts were 10 to 14 hours long, and in addition to weaving six days a week, women were still expected to maintain the home and raise the children. In addition to power and labour imbalances, there were vast pay discrepancies. Men typically made double the wage of a woman.

“In almost every ten-year period throughout the [19 ^th ] century, large additional groups of people were able to expand their standards of living beyond bare subsistence levels…” – Economics of Fashion, 1928, quoted by Doughty, p. 14.

Before the 19 ^th  century, velvet was an expensive silk fabric that only royalty and the Church could afford to purchase. Velvet, like many commodities in the 19 ^th  century, became widely available and affordable through mechanization. For the first time, velvet could be afforded by a growing middle class.

To understand why velvet was expensive, and therefore why it’s notable that it became affordable, we must understand what velvet is. The term “velvet” no longer strictly applies to a type of material, even though velvets were traditionally made with silk. During the 19 ^th  century, velvet was becoming a type of weave, one that could be made with silk or other materials. Raw silk, as we've seen, mostly came from Italy. The center for velvet production was generally in the Rochdale, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, and Oldham areas of Northwest England.

Typical fabric weaving uses a vertical warp thread and a horizontal weft thread which are interwoven to make a flat sheet of cloth. In velvet weaving, however, an additional warp thread is used to create small loops that give velvet its characteristic texture, known as the “pile.” This extra warp thread increases both materials and time needed to weave velvet.

Prior to mechanized looms, it would take days of weaving to make velvet fabric. Even after the introduction of powered looms, it would take 16 hours and 40 minutes to weave 10 yards of velvet. It only took two hours to weave 10 yards of standard cloth.

How did velvet become affordable? As mentioned, the time needed to make it decreased significantly. This was because of the Jacquard head (now known as the Jacquard loom), which was a loom attachment introduced in the early 19 ^th  century in France. English spies brought the technology home by 1820 and it revolutionized the making of patterned textiles. The Jacquard loom automates thread selection, allowing for complex, yet easy to make, patterns.

Another potential factor in decreasing the cost of velvets could be the introduction of cotton. Velvets could theoretically be made from any type of thread, including the versatile and machine-workable cotton.

As we’ve seen, England’s cotton was sourced from the Americas for criminally low costs, meaning the cost of cotton velvets would be significantly less than silk velvets.

The images of clothes in this section do not specify if they are cotton or silk, but the use of cotton may be part of how velvet weaves became more affordable.

While mechanization made velvets available to the middle classes, one step of the process wasn’t easily adapted to machine. Velvet is made by creating tiny loops of thread, and usually, those loops must be cut to create a plush, soft surface.

Throughout most of the 19 ^th  century, this cutting had to be done by hand, which usually occurred in the Cheshire area in Northwest England. Certain types of velvet had to be manually cut until the 1950s, and artisan studios still  practice hand-made, hand-cut techniques today . It wasn’t until after the 1880s that automatic cutting machines were introduced with any success. This would have been nearly 80 years after the Jacquard loom was invented.

The 19th century is often thought of only in terms of its industrialization and mechanization, but not every aspect of craft was easily or immediately adapted.

“As they circulate through our lives, we look through objects…to see what they disclose about history, society, nature, or culture – above all, what they disclose about us.” – Bill Brown, Thing Theory¸ p. 4.

       Clothing is not a neutral entity. That means it isn't created separate from what is happening around us. Each article of clothing exhibited in Piece by Piece is made up of individual materials that have history, history that makes the clothing. Examining clothing is just a different way of looking at the past (and present) to see what was happening, who was doing what, and how.

Two questions were asked in the introduction of this project. To answer them, we've looked at how clothing of England's 19th century was made of materials that came from around the world. These materials are connected to everything from how people expressed grief with black silk, to how people were bought and sold for a bolt of cotton fabric.

The dresses, hats, and fans that this project has displayed are constructed from the history of their materials. History that's revealed when you examine the clothes piece by piece.