The Early English Cotton Industry

CHAPTER I THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COTTON MANUFACTURE — I — II — III — IV

At the present time the British cotton industry, which is almost entirely localised in Lancashire and in the adjoining parts of Cheshire and Yorkshire, is the largest of the world’s textile industries.[24] The year 1770, immediately after Arkwright obtained his first patent, marks a well-defined division in its history. From this date expansion became conspicuous and the industry became definitely organised on the lines of the factory system. Previously expansion had been comparatively slow, and the domestic system of organisation had prevailed. The expansion of the cotton industry, therefore, is an outstanding example of the transition which is now known as the Industrial Revolution—a movement which, it is not too much to say, found its centre within the area in which the cotton industry is now concentrated, and from thence has spread to all the economically advanced countries of the world. In the following pages we shall be mainly concerned with the earlier period and with some aspects of the transition, and it is hoped that some light will be thrown upon the question as to what the transition involved, particularly as regards the organisation of the cotton industry, and the economic relationships of the classes engaged therein.

At what date cotton was first used in the manufacture of cloth in England is somewhat obscure. When Baines wrote his History of the Cotton Manufacture he had found only two references to the import of cotton-wool from the end of the thirteenth to the beginning of the sixteenth centuries,[25] and it has generally been assumed that, during this period, it was imported only in small quantities, and used for minor purposes, such as candle-wicks. It has recently been shown, however, that, throughout the intervening centuries, cotton was a common article of import, figuring in the customs at many English ports,[26] and while as yet there is little evidence as to its uses, the knowledge of its regular import suggests that it may have been put to more important uses than that just mentioned.

Cotton cloth, or cloth partly made of cotton, had been imported long before the sixteenth century, and, in the early years of that century, there is ample evidence of its import, as well as an increasing amount of evidence of the import of the raw material.[27] About the same time the word “cottons” as the name of a cloth manufactured in Lancashire becomes conspicuous. In 1514, in a statute regulating the manufacture of cloth, cottons are mentioned, but are excluded from its provisions, as they are from the provisions of a similar statute twenty years later.[28] Also Hakluyt records the fact that, between the years 1511 and 1534, cottons were included among the cloth exports of the country,[29] and about the year 1538 we get Leland’s reference: “Bolton upon Moore Market stondith most by cottons and cowrse yarne. Divers villages in the Mores about Bolton do make cottons.”[30]

Until the middle of the century it appears that the manufacture of cottons was unregulated, but in 1551 a comprehensive statute was passed relating to the manufacture of cloth throughout the country, and “all and everie cottonnes called Manchester Lancashire and Cheshire Cottonnes” and “all cloths called Manchester Rugges otherwise named Friezes” were included within its scope.[31] By the regulations of this statute, the lengths, breadths and weights of these cloths were fixed, and also the amount of stretching to which they could be subjected. After this time the regulations were continued and modified in numerous statutes enacted during the remainder of the sixteenth century and in the early seventeenth century.

The next important statute affecting the Lancashire cloth industry, however, was the Weavers’ Act of 1555.[32] The main purpose of this Act was to prevent the increase of clothiers outside corporate towns, and, to secure this end, country clothiers were forbidden to have more than one loom each in their possession, while country weavers were limited to two looms, and also to two apprentices. Every weaver had to serve a seven years’ apprenticeship, and no person not already engaged in weaving or in causing to be woven any kind of broad white woollen cloth was allowed to begin, except in towns or in places where such cloth had been commonly made for the last ten years.

When the Act was passed, York, Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmorland were exempted from its provisions, but Lancashire was included. At this time the county was still largely a country district with a cloth industry that had not yet become famous, though there is much evidence that it was expanding. Consequently, had the Act remained unmodified, the development of the county and the expansion of its industry might have been seriously checked. Two years after its enactment, however, several additional counties were exempted from its provisions, except as regards apprenticeship, and Lancashire and Cheshire were included among them.[33]

From the beginning, considerable difficulty was experienced in regulating the manufacture of cloth in Lancashire. In the 1551 Act, the breadth allowed for Manchester cottons and friezes was narrower than for ordinary cloths, and when the Weavers’ Act was modified a provision was introduced which allowed them to be made in half-pieces. By 1566 more serious difficulties had been revealed. In an Act passed in that year,[34] it was stated that clothiers “inordinately seeking their own singular gains” were accustomed to carry away divers cottons, friezes, and rugs, and sell them before the Aulnager had fixed the Queen’s seal on them, and in some instances they had even counterfeited the seal. To meet these difficulties it was enacted that deputy Aulnagers should be appointed, to be situated at Manchester, Rochdale, Bolton, Blackburn and Bury. In view of the fact that, about this time, in addition to these places, the cloths were mentioned in connection with Salford, Leigh and Radcliffe,[35] it is probable that their manufacture was so extensive that, even if the clothiers had been more willing to conform to the regulations, the task of the Aulnager was too large to be efficiently performed.

But there were other difficulties. The clothiers protested that it was impossible for them to conform to the lengths, breadths, and weights laid down in the statutes without the undoing of great numbers of poor people commonly engaged in making the cloths, and further alterations had to be made. The alterations were mainly in the direction of allowing the cloths to be made considerably lighter, but ten years later a writer condemned all kinds of northern cloths for false dyeing, for shortness of weight and for stretching.[36]

By the last years of the sixteenth century the problem of regulation was still unsolved, and apparently it was decided that even more vigorous measures should be adopted. In 1597 an Act[37] was passed “against the deceitful stretching and tentering of Northern cloth,” and, in the preamble, it was stated that notwithstanding the many good and wholesome laws enacted hitherto, the cloths had grown worse and worse, were more stretched and strained, and were made lighter than ever before. The remedy adopted was to prohibit all tenters or engines for stretching cloth in the northern counties, and the Justices of Peace had to appoint overseers to enforce the regulations as to length and weight. In the year following the enactment of this statute a report was sent to the Council,[38] in which it was stated that, although sundry letters had been written to the Justices of Peace in Lancashire and Yorkshire, pointing out their duty in enforcing the statute, the regulations which it contained had not been observed. Consequently a recommendation was made that two honest men be appointed to inspect the making of kersies, northern dozens and cottons, with power to enforce the regulations. In the last year of Elizabeth’s reign it was found necessary to pass another similar statute with application to the whole country.[39]

The mere record of the futile attempts to enforce these statutes is sufficient proof that they were inappropriate to the situation. During the sixteenth century considerable changes were taking place in the English cloth industry. It was the period when the “New Drapery” was being introduced and attempts were being made to regulate it on the lines of the “Old Drapery.” The regulations never corresponded with the facts of the case and their effective enforcement was impossible.[40] It was not only the length, breadth, and weight of the cloths that caused difficulty. What were regarded as inferior materials were being introduced into them, something which the statute of 1551 attempted to cope with. This was not a new grievance at that time, but in the sixteenth century it may have had a new significance. In 1606 an attempt was made to distinguish between cloths made of perfect wool and those into which Flocks, Thrums, and Lambs’ Wool entered, by insisting that the latter should have a black yarn on the one edge and only a selvedge on the other. Afterwards, no person had to put any Hair, Flocks, Thrums, or any yarn made of Lambs’ Wool or other deceivable thing or things, in or upon any Woollen Cloth, Half-Cloth, Frieze, Dozen, Bays, Penistone, Cotton, Taunton Cloth, Bridgewater, Dunster Cotton, or any other cloth, upon pain of forfeiting such cloth.[41]

At this point this reference is important for our purpose in the evidence it offers that, at this time, cottons were regarded as a species of woollen cloth. All the references in the sixteenth century have the same implication,[42] and even as late as 1700, when all duties, subsidies, etc., imposed by previous Acts were swept away, cottons were still enumerated among “manufactures of wool.”[43] Moreover, the processes mentioned in connection with the making of cottons were those applicable to woollen goods. It appears, therefore, that cottons were not cotton fabrics in the modern sense. The cottons of the sixteenth century were an important manufacture not peculiar to Lancashire alone: they were made in other manufacturing districts. In an account of woollen goods exported between Michaelmas 1594 and Michaelmas 1595 the following figures were given:—baize, 10,976 pieces; cottons, 168,065 pieces; woollen stockings, 34,085 pairs; sayes, 4256 pieces; English Norwich, 339[44]; and, about the same time, Manchester cottons were enumerated among the principal exports of the country.[45]

But, while it can be definitely stated that cottons were regarded as woollen goods in the sixteenth century, it is hard to resist a suspicion that the vegetable fibre, cotton, may have been used in the manufacture of Lancashire cloths. The fact that they were regarded as woollens is not, of itself, conclusive, as, at that time, cotton was usually called cotton-wool.[46] Further, there is the circumstance of their comparatively light weight, and also the difficulty of their makers complying with the regulations laid down for them. Possibly these facts may be explained by the use of the materials mentioned in the statutes, and certainly similar difficulties appear to have been experienced over a wide range of fabrics. On the whole, the commonly accepted view, that Manchester cottons and other goods usually mentioned along with them were really woollen goods, appears to have justification, although, perhaps, it should not be stated without a caution.

Until recently there was no authentic evidence before 1641 that anything which might be called a cotton manufacture had become established in Lancashire. In that year, in the oft-quoted passage of Lewis Roberts, it was stated that “the towne of Manchester in Lancashire must be also herein remembered, and worthily for their incouragement commended, who buy yarne of the Irish in great quantity, and weaving it returne the same againe in Linen into Ireland to sell; neither doth the industry rest here, for they buy cotton woole in London that comes first from Cyprus and Smyrna, and at home worke the same, and perfit it into Fustians, Vermilions, Dymities, and other such stuffes; and then returne it to London, where the same is vented and sold, and not seldome sent into forrain parts, who have means at far easier termes, to provide themselves of the said first materials.” The same writer also informs us that “the Levant or Turkey Company ... brings ... great quantity of cotton and of cotton yarne ... into England.”[47]

We are now indebted to an American investigator[48] for the discovery of an earlier piece of evidence, in the form of a petition “as well of divers merchants and citizens of London that use buying and selling of fustians made in England as of makers of the same fustians” which is so important and not yet so well known that the relevant passages must be quoted: “About 20 years past divers people in this kingdom, but chiefly in the county of Lancaster, have found out the trade of making of the fustians, made of a kind of bombast or down, being a fruit of the earth growing upon little shrubs or bushes, brought into this kingdom by the Turkey Merchants, from Smyrna, Cyprus, Acra, and Sydon, but commonly called cotton-wool; and also of linen-yarn most part brought out of Scotland, and other some made in England, and no part of the same fustians of any wool at all, for which said bombast and yarn imported, his Majesty hath a great yearly sum of money for the custom and subsidy thereof. There is at least 40 thousand pieces of fustian of this kind yearly made in England, the subsidy to his Majesty of the materials for making of every piece coming to between 8d. and 10d. the piece; and thousands of poor people set on working of these fustians. The right honourable Duke of Lennox in 11 of Jacobus, 1613, procured a patent from his Majesty of alnager of new draperies for 60 years, upon pretence that wool was converted into other sorts of commodities to the loss of customs and subsidies for wool transported beyond seas; and therein is inserted into his patent, searching and sealing, and subsidy for 80 several stuffs; and amongst the rest these fustians or other stuffs of this kind of cotton-wool and subsidy and a fee for the same, and forfeiture of 20s. for putting any to sale unsealed, the moiety of the same forfeiture to the said duke, and power thereby given to the duke or to his deputies, to enter any man’s house, to search for any such stuffs and seize them till the forfeiture be paid; and if any resist such search to forfeit 10l. and power thereby given to the lord treasurer or chancellor of the Exchequer, to make new ordinances or grant commissions for the aid of the duke and his officers in execution of their office.”

The probable date of this petition is 1621, and its importance in relation to the beginning of the English cotton industry is evident. Although the “thousands” mentioned as employed in the making of fustians at the time is a stereotyped number in petitions, and may perhaps be somewhat discounted, the facts that a cotton manufacture had become established in England and that it had attained a considerable magnitude are placed beyond doubt.[49]

A little more light appears to be thrown upon the petition in a pamphlet which was published in 1613, the year in which the patent of the Duke of Lennox was extended[50] to include “80 several stuffs; and amongst the rest these fustians or other stuffs of this kind of cotton wool.” The pamphlet was written by John May, a “deputie alneger” who at the time was out of office, under the title, A Declaration of the Estate of Clothing now used within this Realme of England. With an Apologie for the Alneger showing the necessarie use of his Office, and was dedicated in obsequious terms “to the Duke of Lenox ... Alneger generall for the Realme of England and the Dominion of Wales.” The writer was concerned with the deceits that had crept into the clothing trade generally, owing to lack of supervision, but he was particularly anxious about the “many sorts of cloth or stuffs lately invented which have got new godfathers to name them in fantasticall fashion that they which weare them, know not how to name them, which are generally called newe draperie.”[51]

It is not without significance that in no part of his pamphlet does he give any inkling that he knew that any of the new goods were other than woollen goods, rather he implies the contrary.

Seeing that the Duke of Lennox secured the extension of his patent in the year this pamphlet was published, and that the writer was, at least potentially, an interested party, the connection between the two seems fairly clear. Moreover, his apparent lack of knowledge that some of the new cloths were not made of wool may help to explain the complaint in the petition, that fustians had been brought under regulation as though they were woollen fabrics.[52] At any rate, the pamphleteer specifically mentions fustians, among the new drapery, as requiring the attention of the Aulnager: “There is also a late commodite in greate use of making within the Kingdom which setteth many people on worke, called Fustians, which for want of government are so decayed by falsehood, keeping neither order in goodnesse nor assize, insomuch that the makers thereof, in this short time of use are wearie of their trades, and it is thought will returne again to the place whence it came, who doe still observe their sorts and goodnesse, in such true manner as by their seales they are sould, keeping up the credit of that which they make: what a shame is this to our nation, to be so void of reason and government, that a good trade should bee suppressed for want of good order amongst themselves, and have so good a president from others.”[53]

Whether or not the writer of the pamphlet knew of what materials fustians were made, in this passage he supplies further evidence that in 1613 their manufacture in this country was regarded as recent, and he also indicates that the manufacture had been introduced from some other country. According to Dr. Cunningham, the beginning of the new drapery “can be traced to the immigration of 406 persons who were driven out of Flanders in 1561 ... where the cotton manufacture had been a flourishing industry,”[54] and the immigration continued later in the century.[55] Dr. Cunningham surmised,[56] as did Baines when he wrote his book in 1835,[57] that the cotton manufacture was introduced into England by the immigrants, and that it commenced, therefore, in the second half of the sixteenth century. It would appear that their views have justification. Beginning at that time, a sufficient period would have elapsed by 1620 to allow the manufacture to grow to the stage indicated in the petition. Whether, in view of the considerations already adduced, cotton had been used in the manufacture of cloth before the immigrations must be left a doubtful question.

After the reference of Lewis Roberts in 1641 to the manufacture of fustians in Lancashire, there is no lack of evidence to the same effect. The first piece of evidence which may be noticed is of particular importance, in that it gives another indication of the extent of the industry, and suggests a fact which may have had a bearing upon its growth in this country.

At the beginning of 1654 trade in Lancashire, in common with the rest of the country, was in a state of depression owing to the restrictions on foreign intercourse consequent upon the Dutch War.[58] During the early months of the year petitions were presented to the Council by “traders for cotton wool, and fustians, and poor weavers in Lancashire on behalf of themselves and several thousands” to allow the import of cotton-wool “to prevent the ruin of the great manufacture of fustians and the makers and weavers.”[59]

In April, the following reasons were presented to the Council on behalf of the poor of Lancashire for liberty to bring in cotton-wool from France, Holland, etc. “The dearth of wool is worse to them than that of bread 3 years since, and now there are not 5 bags of wool in all the merchants’ hands in Lancashire for 20,000 poor in Lancashire who are employed in the manufacture of fustians. Mr. Seed and Mr. Winstanley, who reported 150 or 200 sacks of prize-wool, that they might gain time to sell their own wool, now confess that it proved 20 or 30 bags and the sale was prohibited. Unless cotton-wool be brought much lower, the manufacture will revert to Hamburg, whence our cheaper making gained it, for they can buy wool at 6d. or 7d., and we have to pay 18d. or 20d. Whilst we can have no supply but from the Straits, and that through the Turkey merchants, we cannot be supplied at such rates as will preserve our manufacture from ruin, as we cannot raise the price of our fustians on account of the lower price at Hamburg viz. 16s. a piece which we cannot afford under 20s., though they used to be 12s. or 13s. We beg therefore a dispensation as regards wool from the Act which enriches strangers and destroys the people of this nation. Such laws were better buried in oblivion than to bury alive the poor.”[60]

From these petitions it is evident that in 1654 there was a definitely established industry in Lancashire dependent for its prosperity upon regular supplies of cotton-wool. But, also, when what is known of the position in Germany in the first part of the seventeenth century is taken into account, the petition just quoted may have a further significance.

Whatever may have been the case in England prior to the sixteenth century regarding the use of cotton in the manufacture of cloth, at that time it had been so used in Germany for more than two centuries. In the fourteenth century a cloth called “barchent,” which like the English fustian consisted of a linen warp and cotton weft, was woven, and at that time found a widespread market. The early seats of the industry were Ulm and Augsburg, where the famous Fugger family rose to fame on the basis of barchent-weaving. Later the industry spread to other parts of Germany, to Alsace and to the towns along the northern trade-route. Before the end of the sixteenth century Nürnberg, Hof, Zwickau, Leipzig and Chemnitz were all engaged in cotton spinning and weaving, with the result that, at that time, Germany was far ahead of all other European countries in cotton manufacture. Before the end of the first quarter of the seventeenth century the country began to suffer one of the greatest devastations known to history through the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, and its cotton manufacture almost disappeared.[61]

In addition, therefore, to the immigration of Flemings and to the destruction of industry in their country, it seems reasonable, particularly in view of the statement in the above petition that the manufacture in which cotton-wool was used had been gained from Hamburg, to look to the decay of the German industry as part of the explanation of the rise into prominence of the English fustian manufacture in the first half of the seventeenth century.

When Fuller came to write of Lancashire in 1662 it was the fustian manufacture that especially attracted his attention. After referring to the various kinds of foreign fustians (including Augsburg fustians) which had long been imported into the country, he states that “These retain their old names to this day, though these several sorts are made in this county, whose Inhabitants buying the cotton-wool or yarne, coming from beyond the sea, make it here into fustians, to the good employment of the Poor and great improvement of the Rich therein, serving many people for their outsides, and their betters for the Lineings of their garments. Bolton is the staple-place for this commodity, being brought thither from all parts of the county. As for Manchester, the Cottons thereof carry away the credit in our nation, and so they did an hundred and fifty years agoe. For when learned Leland on the cost of King Henry the Eighth, with his Guide, travailed Lancashire he called Manchester the fairest and quickest Town in this county and sure I am, it hath lost neither spruceness nor spirits since that time.” He also mentions other products for which Manchester was noted to which reference will be made later.[62]

One point that should be noticed is that Fuller refers to Bolton as the centre of the fustian manufacture, while he mentions cottons, as a distinct fabric, especially in connection with Manchester. Though the manufacture of cotton had certainly made progress by this time, there is no substantial reason for thinking that the cottons referred to by him were different from the cottons of the sixteenth century. The fact is that the development of the cotton manufacture is definitely associated with the manufacture of fustians. In the middle of the eighteenth century, although other fabrics were then produced which had a stronger claim to be called cotton fabrics than had fustians, the words cotton manufacture still meant pre-eminently the manufacture of fustians.[63]

Further, the association of fustians in the seventeenth century with Bolton rather than with Manchester was probably justified. As we shall see, in its early stages the fustian manufacture was mainly, if not altogether, carried on in the outside districts. So far as Manchester was concerned, the manufacture of fustians appears, at first, to have been added to another branch of manufacture at a later date than when Fuller wrote. Before dealing with other branches of manufacture, however, it will be advisable to continue the history of the fustian manufacture into the thirties of the eighteenth century, which years mark an important stage in its development.

At the close of the seventeenth century, the annual import of cotton-wool amounted to nearly 2,000,000 lbs., and was still brought mainly from the Levant and the islands of the Mediterranean, though in the previous century some was imported from Africa.[64] In the seventeenth century, excellent witness is borne to the importance it had attained, by those interested in floating companies for colonisation putting forward prospects of its growth as an inducement to subscribers to their schemes.[65] Before the end of the century, cotton from the British plantations had assumed a prominent place, and from this time the European West Indian colonies, with South America, became the most important sources of supply until the end of the eighteenth century, when they in turn were displaced by the United States. Also, during these two centuries, cotton-yarn and fine cotton fabrics were imported by the East India Company from the ancient home of the cotton industry in the East.[66]

Apparently it was this import of fine cotton fabrics which in 1691 attracted the attention of John Barkstead, merchant, of London, and threatened to bring the developing cotton industry into the hands of a patentee. Mr. Barkstead was evidently an enterprising individual who was interested not only in the cotton industry, but also in the silk industry, and in copper mining.

We get the first glimpse of him in October, 1690, when he presented a petition, in which he pointed out that the workmanship of the fine thrown silk imported amounted to one quarter of its value, the benefits of which would be enjoyed by the poor if it were performed at home. As he had found out an engine which would achieve the desired end, he requested the grant of a patent for fourteen years to enable him to introduce it. In the same month a warrant for the patent was issued, but there is no clear indication that the claim stated in the petition materialised.[67] In May, 1692, however, in a warrant issued to prepare a Bill for incorporating a company for winding silk, he appeared as the first governor[68]; and in July of the preceding year as an assistant in a company which had as its object the purchase of lands where copper was expected to be found.[69]

It was in this month that he presented a petition, in which he claimed that, by his industry and at great expense, he had “procured cotton wool from the West Indies, to be spun so extraordinarily fine, as to be fit to make such cloths commonly called callicoes ... as well as in the East Indies,” and prayed for a patent for his invention.[70] A few days later a warrant was issued to prepare a Bill to grant this prayer.[71] Whether in the meantime his idea had developed, or he had evolved a new one, it is difficult to say, but in the following month his name as petitioner again appeared, this time in connection with an invention for “making calicoes, muslins, and other fine cloths of that sort (out of the cotton wool of the growth and produce of the Plantations in the West Indies) to as great perfection as those which are brought over and imported hither from Calicut and other places in the East Indies.”[72] Again a warrant was issued to prepare a Bill for the grant of a patent which he evidently secured.[73]

The next step was the customary one of applying for a charter of incorporation in order to exploit the invention. Consequently two months later (October, 1691) we find Mr. Barkstead and five other London merchants, including one of the assistants in the silk-winding company, pointing out that the “said Barkstead has found out an invention for making calicoes and muslins, etc., out of Cotton wool for which he has a patent for 14 years, but that the undertaking requiring at least £100,000 stock to carry on and manage the said invention, the petitioners humbly pray to be incorporated with the Earl of Nottingham as their first governor.” The petition was referred to the Attorney or Solicitor-General, but fortunately the scheme does not appear to have come to anything.[74]

As a matter of fact, although this incident is interesting, like the majority of schemes of a similar character relating to other industries, it cannot be regarded as of any importance in the development of the cotton industry in this country. The idea of supplanting the fine cotton fabrics of the East by home productions was, no doubt, an attractive one—doubly so because in 1691 the existing East India Company was being vigorously opposed by a rival syndicate. In the same month as the above charter was applied for, a petition was presented to the House of Commons, in the name of the London merchants, attacking the existing company, and less than five months later an address was presented to the King praying that he would dissolve it and incorporate a new one.[75] It may well have been that Mr. Barkstead’s scheme was a part of, or at any rate a symptom of, the opposition then prevailing, and had very little substantial foundation. His application for a patent stands altogether on a different footing from those of the next century, when the machinery to which they referred did actually attain the end which he claimed to have in view. In the seventeenth century this was impossible: at that time, it is questionable whether any fabrics consisting entirely of cotton were produced in the country at all. In any case it is certain that the chief products of the English cotton manufacture were the hybrid fustians consisting of a linen warp and cotton weft.

After the collapse of Mr. Barkstead’s scheme the English cotton industry does not appear to have had much attraction for men with grandiose aims, until the South Sea period arrived, when two companies were proposed, each with a capital of £2,000,000, one “for making calico in Great Britain and encouraging the growth of cotton in the plantations,” and the other “for the cotton manufacture in Lancashire,” while there was also “A proposal by several ladies and others to make, print and paint and stain callicoes in England and also fine linen as fine as any Holland to be made of British flax.” Subscribers to the latter scheme had to be women dressed in calico.[76] How this scheme fits into its historical environment will at once become apparent.

Before the end of the seventeenth century the import of fabrics from the East had created considerable agitation among those engaged in the silk and woollen trades, and demands were made for legislative interference. In 1700 an Act was passed,[77] by which the import of printed or dyed calicoes was prohibited, and their sale or use either for apparel or furniture made subject to a penalty. The prohibition was speedily followed by an import of plain calicoes which were printed or dyed in this country, and as early as 1703, petitions for further restrictions were again being presented to Parliament.[78] For some years little notice was taken of them, but from 1719 the petitions became a flood,[79] with the result that, in 1721, another Act[80] was passed which prohibited the use or wear of printed or dyed calicoes, whether the printing or dyeing had been performed in England or elsewhere.

It has been stated that one of the reasons for the failure of the Act of 1700 was that “Lancashire men set to work to produce cloth of linen warp and cotton weft which was sent to London to be printed and dyed in imitation of the prohibited Oriental fabrics.”[81] It appears, however, that there is little or no justification for this view. At a time when petitions to Parliament were regarded almost as a positive obligation on the part of anyone who had a real or imaginary grievance, it is exceedingly improbable, had such been the case, that the Lancashire men would have failed to make their voices heard. Apparently, not a single petition was presented from the county in opposition to the proposed legislation by those engaged in making cloth of the character mentioned, while there was at least one in favour of it.[82] Moreover, it is significant that no mention of such a cloth is to be found in the petitions praying for restriction. The opposition to the Bill came mainly from the towns of Scotland engaged in the linen industry, where it was feared that linens would be included, and this opposition was successful, as British linens were specifically excluded from the Act.[83]

Singularly enough, the opposition on behalf of a cotton manufacture came, not from Lancashire, but from Dorset in the following petition, which is of sufficient interest in the early history of the English cotton industry to be quoted in full:

A “Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, Bailiffs, Capital Burgesses and principal inhabitants of the Borough of Weymouth and Melcomb Regis in the County of Dorset, together with the Merchants, Masters of Ships, Master workmen, Weavers and Spinners of Cotton Wool imported from the British Plantations and manufactured in the town aforesaid, in behalf of themselves and many hundred of poor Cotton spinners in that neighbourhood was presented to the House and read, setting forth, that for many years past a manufacture had been carried on in the said town for making Cotton Wool imported from the British Plantations into cloth of divers kinds, more particularly into such fabrics as imitate calicoes; which having, of late years, been printed and dyed, have afforded the manufacturers opportunity to support the Poor in that town and neighbourhood thereof. That the petitioners are apprehensive that the manufacture of cotton cloth in that town may, under the name of calicoes, be interdicted the weaving, by which means many hundred families of poor cotton spinners will be reduced to want, and the Manufacture of that town entirely lost: and praying that the Cotton cloth manufactured in that town, both checqued, printed, and dyed, may be permitted to be worn in the same manner and liable to the same duties as the Manufacture of British and Irish Linens are permitted.”[84]

The apprehension of the petitioners was justified, as a motion to refer their petition to the Committee of the whole House, then concerned with the Bill for more stringent restrictions on the use and wear of printed or dyed calicoes, was passed in the negative by 190 votes to 68.[85] In the Act of 1721 the prohibition included any printed stuff made of cotton or mixed therewith, but from its scope muslins, neckcloths, and fustians were excluded.[86]

The above petition is distinctly interesting, not only as evidence that cotton was manufactured in Dorset, but also in that there is no suggestion that the cloths were not composed solely of cotton, and this at a time when it is improbable that such cloths were manufactured to any extent in Lancashire.

The fustian manufacture had been in existence in the country for more than a century, and, by 1720, must have been of considerable importance, but apparently a stage had not been reached when printed fustians were seriously competitive with other kinds of printed cloth.

The prohibition of the use of printed calicoes had its effect, however, in stimulating the printing of other fabrics,[87] and after the passing of the Act of 1721 it is clear that printed fustians began to occupy a prominent place in the cloth trade of the country, which again called forth opposition from those engaged in the woollen trades which came to a head in 1735.

This time the opposition, which centred in Norwich, took the form of instituting prosecutions under the 1721 Act, of inserting notices in newspapers and distributing them, informing the public that the wearing or using of printed fustians was illegal. As printed fustians had been excluded from the scope of the Act, there was no illegality, but the opposition was sufficient to call forth a petition from the fustian manufacturers in Manchester and other parts of Lancashire, and in the counties of Cheshire and Derbyshire, appealing for the Act to be explained so that the question would be placed beyond doubt.[88] In the evidence on the petition[89] a strong case was presented on behalf of merchants engaged in foreign trade—particularly in the import of cotton—and of fustian manufacturers, it being stated that several thousand persons from five to seventy years of age were employed in the manufacture. One witness asserted that he and his brother employed upwards of 600 looms in the weaving of fustians, and as one weaver required four spinners to supply him with yarn, he computed that upwards of 3000 persons were dependent upon them for employment—a striking case of large-scale production, in the sense of numbers employed, nearly forty years before the appearance of the factory in the cotton industry.

In little over a month after the petition was presented the “Manchester Act”[90] was passed, which explained the 1721 Act, so as definitely to exclude from its scope printed goods made of linen yarn and cotton-wool, manufactured in Great Britain. It will be noticed that even this Act did not remove the prohibition on the use of printed goods made entirely of cotton. The justification given in the Act for allowing the use of printed goods, when made of linen-yarn and cotton-wool, was that they were “a branch of the ancient fustian manufacture of this kingdom.” So far as petitions were concerned, the only opposition to the “Manchester Act” came from the Company of Weavers in London, on the ground that fustians could only with great difficulty be distinguished from Indian calicoes, and that the use of the latter would be made easy; and from the Gentlemen, Landowners, Occupiers of Land, Wool-staplers, Wool-combers, and Weavers of the City of Peterborough, who desired the Bill which preceded the Act to be explained for the general good of the wool and silk manufactures.[91] On the other hand, the traders of Wakefield supported the Bill with the argument that a restriction on the import of cotton-wool, which the prohibition of printed fustians would involve, would prejudice their export of woollens, and the woollen manufacturers of Burnley adopted a similar attitude; also, the Bill was whole-heartedly supported by the merchants engaged in foreign trade at Glasgow, Whitehaven and Lancaster.[92]

From the thirties of the eighteenth century until the coming of the great inventions the cotton industry made slow but steady progress. The import of cotton-wool which in 1730 amounted to 1,545,472 lbs. reached 3,870,392 lbs. in 1764, but it was not until the eighties that a startling increase was seen; the average import in the last two years of that decade amounted to 32,000,000 lbs.[93] At that time the organisation of the industry, the methods of manufacture, and the character of its products, were undergoing the changes which mark the early stages of the industry in its present form.

In considering the development which took place from the middle of the seventeenth century to the last quarter of the eighteenth as regards other textile commodities produced in the Manchester district, a useful starting-point is given by a writer about 1650, who described the trade of the town as “not inferior to that of many cities in the kingdom, chiefly consisting in woollen frizes, fustians, sack-cloths, mingled stuffs, caps, inkles, tapes, points, etc., whereby not only the better sort of men are employed, but also the very children by their own labour can maintain themselves.”[94]

The enumeration of commodities in this account, which is very similar to that given by Fuller in 1662, may be compared with another contained in an account of Manchester and its trade in 1751, which may be regarded as holding good in the main for a considerable time later: “Ye present Inhabitants ... are in particular known to be an Industrious people; the Reason of their being so numerous is y^e flourishing trade follow’d here for a long time known by y^e name of Manchester Trade w^ch not only makes y^e town but y^e Country round about for several miles populous, industrious & wealthy. The trade consists chiefly of three general branches, viz. The Fustian or Cotton Manufacturs, y^e Check Trade & Small Wares. The Fustian Manufacture call’d Manchester Cottons, has been long in y^e place & neighbourhood, & is of late much improv’d by several modern Inventions in dying and printing. The Check Trade includes several Articles, as Stuffs for Aprons, Gowns, Shirts, Ticking, Bolstering, &c. But y^e Small Ware Business comprehends most as Inckle, Lace of many sorts, Tapes, Filleting, &c. All these Trades employ both a great number & almost all sorts of Hands not only of Men both Rich & Poor but of Women & Children, even of 5 or 6 years old, who by Spinning, Winding, or Weaving, may earn more here than in any other part of y^e Kingdom.... There is not any Town in y^e nation excepting our Sea Ports y^t may be compared to it in Trade as appears from y^e number of Packs of Goods w^ch go weekly out of y^e Town, w^ch amount in a moderate Computation to 500.”

It will be noticed that a distinction is made between three general branches of trade, a distinction which an analysis of the first Manchester Directory, compiled twenty years later, shows to have had a sound basis.[95] At this point, however, we are concerned with the development which had taken place during the century which intervened between the two quotations, a development which can be traced in Ogden’s Description of Manchester, published in 1783.[96] Unfortunately he gives no definite dates as to the changes to which he refers, but the development of the three general branches of trade carried on in the town is fairly clearly indicated.

In addition to the manufacture of such commodities as those mentioned in the 1651 reference, he informs us that bolsters, bed-ticks, linen-girth web, and boot-straps were among the early manufactures, but that the trade in ticks and webs was soon lost to the West of England. This led to those concerned in making them turning to the manufacture of coarse checks, striped hollands, hooping and canvas.[97] As time went on “the manufacturers of check made great advances in trade and introduced new articles.” What they appear to have done was to progress in the direction of making goods consisting entirely of cotton and mainly of cotton.[98]

But there was another line of development pursued by those engaged in the manufacture of laces, inkles, tapes, and filleting. At an early stage these men added “divers kinds of bindings and worsted smallwares,”[99] and later when “it was found that the Dutch enjoyed the manufacture of fine Holland tapes unrivalled: plans were therefore procured, and ingenious mechanics invited over to construct swivel engines, at great expense, but adapted to light work for which they were first intended, on so true a principle, that they have been employed in most branches of smallwares with success.”[100]

As regards the fustian manufacture, Ogden implies that, at first, it was not carried on in Manchester to any extent, and in this respect his statement is supported by that of Fuller in 1662. Referring to an early date, Ogden states that “Fustians were made about Bolton, Leigh, and the places adjacent, but Bolton was the principal market for them, where they were bought in the grey by Manchester chapmen, who finished and sold them in the country.”[101] When we get to 1772, however, it is evident that there were a large number of fustian manufacturers in the town,[102] and in the petition which resulted in the 1736 “Manchester Act” “manufacturers of fustians in the town of Manchester” were certainly prominent. Ogden’s account of the matter is that the smallware “manufactory has not been sufficient to employ large capitals without the aid of some other branch. The fustian trade has been added to it, first as an auxiliary, and then embraced as a principal, where there was capital to support it.”[103]

Probably the development which took place was, that as fustians came to be printed, and their manufacture extended, some smallware manufacturers turned part of their capital into that trade, and later adopted it altogether, while others no doubt began in business as manufacturers of fustians. Thus by the middle of the eighteenth century, and particularly by 1772, the three branches of trade in Manchester could be fairly clearly distinguished from one another, although at that date some manufacturers were engaged in more than one of the three trades.[104]

The term fustian, it may be noticed, comprehended a large range of goods of which herring-bones, pillows for pockets and outside wear, strong cotton ribs and baragons, broad-raced linen thicksets and tufts, dyed, with white diapers, striped dimities, and lining jeans, are mentioned by Ogden.[105] Cotton thicksets and cotton velvets were also attempted, but in neither of these was much success attained until the later years of the eighteenth century owing to lack of better methods of dressing, bleaching, dyeing and finishing.[106] If thread[107] and sail-cloth[108] are added to the commodities which have been mentioned, also woollens, which were mainly produced in the districts directly north and north-east of Manchester, probably the principal textile goods manufactured in Lancashire until the seventies of the eighteenth century have been included in the list.

At the present day, it is difficult to discover the exact materials of which some of the goods mentioned were made, but as the smallware weavers were always known as worsted smallware weavers, it may be assumed that worsted entered largely into their products. With checks, and fustians, linen was a more prominent material, but into these cotton certainly entered, as it probably did into the majority of goods to some extent, and silk was also utilised.[109] Frequently it has been stated[110] that no goods were made entirely of cotton in England until Arkwright began to spin by rollers, but the statement is inaccurate. Maybe they were not produced to a large extent compared with mixed goods, but that they were made in the Manchester district before that time is distinctly stated by Ogden.[111] What is certain is that linen was largely manufactured. In a petition presented to the House of Commons in 1713 it was stated that in Lancashire 60,000 persons were engaged in its manufacture,[112] and this and other petitions show that they were situated in almost every part of the county.[113]

CHAPTER II THE ORGANISATION OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE — I — II — III

“One writeth that about Anno 1520 there were three famous clothiers living in the North Countrey viz. Cuthbert of Kendal, Hodgkins of Halifax, and Martin Brian, some say Byrom of Manchester. Every one of these kept a greate number of servants at worke, Spinners, Carders, Fullers, Dyers, Shearemen, &c., to the greate admiration of all that came to beehould them.”[114] This reference, and another in a statute of 1543, contain all the information we possess of the organisation of the Lancashire cloth industry, either on its industrial or commercial side, in the first half of the sixteenth century. From the reference in the statute, it appears that Manchester, in the middle of the sixteenth century, was not particularly noted for its wealth, though it was noted for the “good order strayte and true dealing of the inhabitantes.” Consequently “many strangers, as wel of Ireland as of other places within this realme, haue resorted to the saide towne with lynnen yarne, woolles, and other necessary wares for makinge of clothes, to be sold there, and haue used to credit & truste the poor inhabitantes of the same towne, which were not able and had not redy money to paye in hande for the saide yarnes woolles and wares vnto such time the saide credites with their industry labour and peynes myght make clothes of the said wolles yarns and other necessary wares, and solde the same, to contente and paye their creditours, wherein hath consisted much of the common wealth of the saide towne, and many poore folkes had lyunge, and children and seruants there vertuously brought up in honest and true labour, out of all ydlenes.”[115]

In 1577 some clothiers of Lancashire presented a petition praying that a statute passed in the reign of Edward VI.,[116] which imposed restrictions on middlemen buying and selling wool, should not be enforced. Under the terms of the statute, wool-growers were only allowed to sell their product either to a merchant of the staple or to persons actually engaged in its manufacture. This arrangement was unsuitable to the petitioners as they were “poore cotegers whose habylitye wyll not stretche neyther to buye any substance of woolles to mayntayne worke and labor, nor yet to fetche the same (the growyth of wolles being foure or fyve score myles at the leaste distant)” and they feared that if the statute were enforced “the trade will be driven into a fewe riche men’s hands, so that the poore shall not be paid for their worke, but as it pleaseth the riche.”[117]

Judging from this reference, it would appear that the conditions described as existing in Manchester more than thirty years before were still typical of Lancashire. Possibly this may have been the case in some parts of the county, but it is clear that, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, and in the early years of the next century, there were many men of means resident in the Manchester district engaged in the cloth industry.

Especially prominent at this time were the Tippings, the Mosleys and the Chethams, and there were also others.[118] These men were variously described as clothiers, linen drapers, chapmen, silk weavers, mercers and glovers.[119] In 1607 Anthony Mosley of Manchester, clothier, third son of Edward Mosley, Gentleman, and younger son of Sir Nicholas Mosley, Lord of the Manor of Manchester, left a considerable fortune, and out of it bequeathed £500 for the building of an alms-house in the town, and for the purchasing of lands to belong to it, for the maintenance of the aged and the impotent, on condition that £1500 more were raised within a year.[120] At least two of this man’s sons became clothiers, one of them who died in 1628 leaving £5 to be distributed to the poor of Manchester at his funeral.[121] The bequeathing of money for charitable purposes was a frequent occurrence with the men engaged in the cloth industry in Manchester at this time. In 1621 William Mosier, chapman, left £10 to the churchwardens in trust for the use, maintenance and relief of the aged and impotent poor in the town,[122] and these benefactions reached their culmination in the monumental bequest of Humphrey Chetham, founder of Chetham’s Hospital and Library.

Some idea of the extent to which Anthony Mosley was engaged in the cloth trade may be gathered from the facts that at home he had cloth to the value of £247, and abroad (evidently in the hands of traders and finishers) to the value of £224.[123] He had debts owing to him to the extent of nearly £1300, of which sum £850 had been put into stock “with Francis Locker by indentures.” To what extent the other portion was owing for cloth is not clear, but the fact that a debt was owing by a mercer suggests that some of it was.

It is in connection with the Chethams, however, and particularly with Humphrey Chetham, whose life covered the period from 1580 to 1653,[124] that we get the most valuable information concerning the organisation of the cloth industry in the Manchester district in the seventeenth century. Besides Humphrey, three of his brothers were engaged in “Manchester trade.”[125] In 1597 he was apprenticed to Mr. Samuel Tipping, a Manchester linendraper, to whom his eldest brother, James, was also apprenticed, while another brother, George, was apprenticed to Mr. George Tipping, the younger brother of Samuel, who again was a “grosser and linen draper.”[126] About 1605 George and Humphrey Chetham entered into a partnership which was renewed and continued until the death of the former at the end of 1626, though after 1619, rather than to extend their mercantile business, they invested their capital in land.[127]

Their concern consisted of two branches, one in Manchester and the other in London, where George was a citizen and a member of the Merchant Taylors’ Company.[128] In 1619, when a new deed of partnership was drawn up, Humphrey was described as a “chapman” and his brother as a “grocer,” and their business was said to consist “in the trade of buying and selling fustians and other wares and merchandises.” George had to manage “the factory and business of the joint-trade in and about the city of London,” and Humphrey had to do the same in and about Manchester, and in any other parts of England. At this time they had a joint stock of about £10,000.[129]

When Fuller wrote his account of Humphrey Chetham he stated that three brothers of the family were engaged in the Manchester trade, and that they dealt chiefly in fustians purchased in the Bolton market, which they sent to London, and from this account it has been generally deduced that they were simply dealers in fustians. With the publication of an authentic life of Humphrey Chetham it has become apparent that he was more than this. In the Manchester district he bought “friezes, fustians, coattons, and haberdasherye,” which he not only sent in large quantities to the London market, but sold them by retail in Manchester. He was a general merchant who purchased a large variety of goods in all parts of the Manchester district. In addition he was a “manufacturer” employing people over an extensive area in spinning yarn, and in weaving and finishing cloth, and other members of the family were similarly engaged.[130]

In 1626 his accounts reveal several significant facts[131]:

From these accounts it is evident that Chetham dealt in cotton (Cypress wool) and also in linen yarn (Irish yarn), the two principal materials for the manufacture of fustians. The next fact has reference to the economic relationships which existed between him and those who worked the materials. A popular view is that in Lancashire up to the coming of the factory, in the latter years of the eighteenth century, the majority of the workpeople were more or less independent producers who usually bought their materials, and after working them into cloth sold it to traders such as Chetham. That this was not generally the case in the first half of the eighteenth century is certain, and that it obtained as a general rule in the previous century is seriously open to question. As already mentioned, Chetham employed spinners and weavers, and the above accounts suggest that when he sold cotton and yarn, much of it was sold in small quantities, and also that it was sold on credit. This means that Chetham, if he did not employ the buyers in the ordinary sense, financed them to the extent of the cost of their raw materials, and if so to this extent they were economically dependent upon him, as they probably were for the disposal of the product. The probability is that, in his day, Chetham’s position in the economic organisation was little different, if any, from that of the typical capitalist “clothier” of the domestic system who gave out work to workpeople, and paid them for their labour when its product was returned to him.[132]

This does not necessarily mean that, at this time, there were no small semi-independent producers in the rising cotton industry. Probably there were, and for a long time afterwards, but it is extremely doubtful whether they should be regarded as the typical workpeople. Rather, the evidence points to the contrary. In 1702 a petition was presented from the West Country clothing district complaining of the master weavers paying their workpeople in truck, instead of in money, and the allegations of the petition were found to be true,[133] with the result that a Bill was ordered to deal with the matter, which in the same year became an Act.[134] In the Act provision was made to restrain workpeople from embezzling materials delivered to them by clothiers and others, and within the scope of the Act those engaged in the cotton and fustian manufactures were included. At first the Act was a temporary measure, and referred only to the woollen, fustian, cotton, and iron manufactures of the kingdom. In 1710 it was made perpetual,[135] and in 1740 the leather manufacture was included.[136] In 1749 the scope of the Act was extended to the fur, hemp, flax, mohair and silk manufactures, and a provision was inserted for preventing unlawful combinations of all persons employed in all the trades mentioned.[137] None of the petitions presented from Lancashire in the first part of the eighteenth century gives the slightest reason for thinking that the system of organisation implied in the provisions of the 1702 Act did not generally obtain in the county during the first half of the eighteenth century. In the check and smallware branches of Manchester trade it certainly did, and it is extremely probable that long before 1770 the same can be said of the fustian branch.

In considering the position in this branch, it must be borne in mind that, at first, it was probably not carried on in and immediately about Manchester to the same extent as the other two. Taking Ogden as our authority he speaks of Manchester chapmen going to Bolton and other markets to buy fustian pieces from the weavers, “every weaver then procuring yarn or cotton as they could” as the original system.[138] When this original system was general he does not state, but the general impression he gives is that it was not later than the early years of the eighteenth century. In any case, the system was not sufficient to meet the demands of the traders, and “To remedy this inconvenience, some of them furnished warps and wool to the weavers and employed persons to put warps out to weaving by commission; and encouraged many weavers to fetch them from Manchester, endeavouring to secure the honesty and care of their workmen, upon bringing in the piece, by the force of good usage and prompt payment; but reserving to themselves a power of abatement, for deficiency in the spinning and workmanship.”[139]

The next quotation carries us to the sixties, when the jenny was introduced for spinning. “From the time that the original system was changed in the fustian branch, of buying pieces in the grey from the weavers, by delivering them out work, the custom of giving them out weft in the cops, which obtained for a while grew into disuse, as there was no detecting the knavery of spinners till a piece came in woven; so that the practice was changed, and wool given with warps, the weaver answering for the spinning; and the weavers, in a scarcity of spinning, have been paid less for the weft than they gave the spinner, but durst not complain, much less abate the spinner lest their looms should stand unemployed: but when jennies were introduced, and children could work on them, the case was altered, and many who had been insolent before, were glad to be employed in carding and slubbing for these engines.”[140] It will be noticed that the change mentioned in this quotation did not mean a reversion to the original system—the giving out of work continued—but the weaver was made responsible for the spinning as well as for the weaving. This change is easily understood and may well have taken place owing to the friction that would arise through abatements for bad work.

But during the period covered by the two quotations, another change had taken place which is referred to by Guest. He informs us that it was in 1740 that “the Manchester merchants began to give out warps and raw cotton to the weavers, receiving them back in cloth and paying for the carding, roving, spinning and weaving”[141] and that about 1750 there arose, chiefly in the country districts, a class of “second-rate merchants called fustian-masters,” who “gave out a warp and raw cotton to the weaver, paying the weaver for the weaving and spinning.”[142]

In view of the legislation just referred to, it is evident that the first date mentioned by Guest cannot be taken as marking the beginning of the system of giving out work in the fustian trade, and perhaps the second date relating to the appearance of country fustian masters should not be strictly regarded. With these reservations, however, there is much evidence that Guest’s statements were based upon facts which belong to the first part of the eighteenth century. The increased prominence of printed fustians and the proceedings which led to the Act of 1736 indicate that the fustian trade was expanding. About the same time, changes were taking place in commercial organisation, and it is exceedingly probable that the number of fustian manufacturers was increasing with accompanying changes in industrial organisation. In 1772, when we get definite evidence, it is certain that a large number of fustian manufacturers existed in the country districts, and altogether their number was far greater than either check or smallware manufacturers.[143] The conclusion that may be drawn from the statements of both Ogden and Guest, and from other evidence, is that even if it be true that before the first part of the eighteenth century the greater proportion of fustian weavers were semi-independent producers, who themselves bought their raw materials, and sold their product to traders, by the middle of the century they were certainly the workpeople of capitalist employers, as probably many of them were long before that time.

Fortunately, there is ample evidence of the organisation of the check and smallware trades in the fifties of the eighteenth century, and this evidence is important in that it shows clearly the relations which existed between the employers and the workpeople engaged in these trades at that time. In both trades the relations were exceedingly strained, and in both the workpeople attempted, through combination, to maintain and advance their economic position. As a matter of fact, the worsted smallware weavers had had some form of combination for some years. In 1756 their articles contained regulations concerning their trade which dated back to 1747. The articles show that there were two main classes engaged in the trade: first, the manufacturers, who were the real employers; second, the undertakers, journeymen, and apprentices. Their aim was to protect the interests of the latter class, particularly of the undertakers. The difficulties they were intended to meet are revealed in The Worsted Smallware Weavers’ Apology issued in 1756,[144] and the Apology also throws light on the development of the trade during the preceding thirty years.

Before that time the work had been performed in a single loom, but, about that time, this loom was displaced by a Dutch loom,[145] which, instead of weaving one piece at a time wove twelve or fourteen, and also improvement took place in the character of the product. In 1756, the weavers asserted, there were three times as many Dutch looms in use in Manchester as there ever had been single looms. As a consequence of the improvements, the scope of employment had widened and many of the poorer sort of people had entered the trade, while the generality of manufacturers had acquired such large fortunes as enabled them to vie with some of the best gentlemen in the county. With the weavers the case was different, owing, they asserted, to their own conduct in taking too many apprentices on any terms, and for any length of time, and also, for a small sum of money, taking persons into the trade who were immediately recognised as journeymen. As a result, the trade had become overcrowded with labour, and many who had entered it had gone back to their old occupations, while others had turned to day labouring in the summer and returned to the loom only in the winter, when they were content to work on any terms, which soon became the general rule. Moreover, men who had served only a year or two lowered the standard of workmanship, as in such a short time they were unable to learn the theory of the trade.

The first article, dated 1747, laid down that no undertaker should take apprentices for less than seven years, unless they were fifteen years of age, when they might be taken for six years. Masters taking apprentices had to enter them in the weavers’ register-book, twopence to be paid on entry, and, when an apprentice had served his time, a blank had to be taken out for which fourpence had to be paid. Afterwards the apprentice was free to work either as a journeyman or as an undertaker. In a later article it was agreed that if any member went to work, or undertook work, for any master that had never made goods before 1st January 1753, “the same shall not be accounted one of us.” Later in the year, it was agreed that no undertaker should take more than three apprentices, and, in the next year, it was further agreed that every undertaker should demand a blank from any journeymen or journeywomen when they came to work with him, and if an undertaker failed to comply with this regulation he must forfeit five shillings to the box. In the last article, dated 11th August 1753, it was agreed that any undertaker bringing up his sons or daughters to the trade should enter them in the register at twenty years of age, when they should receive a blank which would enable them to work as journeymen or undertakers for any master in the trade.

There are several points of interest in these articles. In the first place, it is evident that the master manufacturers as well as the weavers took apprentices, and that the weavers wished to bring them under their control. In the second place, it appears that women were recognised in the trade as subject to the same conditions as men. Thirdly, the increasing stringency of the articles suggests either that the combination was developing, or that the articles were not attaining the end in view. Probably both suggestions are correct.

In 1756 the problem of remuneration had become acute, and the organisation was evidently on the point of taking an active interest in the matter. This increased activity was the beginning of trouble which culminated at the Lancaster Lent Assizes in 1760. To understand the position during these years it will be advisable to glance at the general situation in the country.

As early as 1753 there had been serious disturbances consequent upon a rise in the price of food. At Bristol it had been necessary to call out the military to prevent the plundering of corn vessels in the harbour, and similar measures had been adopted to maintain the peace at Manchester and Leeds, which was only accomplished with loss of life.[146] At the beginning of the year the price of wheat in Manchester ranged from 18s. to 20s. per load—20 Winchester pecks—and other cereals in proportion. Then there began a rise which in August had brought the average price of wheat to 25s. to 26s., which continued throughout 1754.[147] Early in 1755 the prices had come down, and remained almost without change at 21s. to 22s. for more than twelve months. From about May, 1756, prices began to rise again. In June they stood at 27s. to 28s., in December at 34s. to 36s., in February, 1757, at 39s. to 40s., and in July at 43s. to 45s. Then they began to fall, reaching 30s. to 31s. in December, and in October, 1758, the old price of 21s. to 22s. had been regained.

Reports of rioting in every part of the country began in the autumn of 1756, and were constantly repeated until the end of the following year,[148] and the distress extended to Scotland and Ireland, the King subscribing £20,000 for relief in the latter country.[149] At Liverpool in November, 1756, it was decided to buy several thousand pounds’ worth of grain, at the expense of the town, to be retailed to the poor at cost price, and a subscription list was opened at Manchester in the following month for a similar purpose, when between £700 and £800 were immediately subscribed.[150]

In the view of the populace the evil was due to the action of trading middlemen engrossing and holding back supplies, and in Manchester, as in other places, when a riot broke out, in which a number of colliers from Clifton took part, the object of attack was certain corn dealers, who vainly protested that, instead of engrossing, they had imported corn from remote parts of the kingdom and thus lowered prices.[151] A proclamation of the King against the forestalling, regrating and engrossing of corn was issued in Manchester,[152] and apparently in every other town in the country, while threats of prosecution, of which the gentlemen of the town were prepared to bear the expense, were issued against the guilty persons, could they be discovered.[153]

It was in these circumstances that the worsted smallware weavers of Manchester began to show a greater activity than hitherto, and issued their Apology. They complained of the rise in the prices of provisions and asserted that, eighteen or twenty years before, undertakers could have kept five apprentices for what it now cost to keep three. In 1756 they had commenced to hold meetings once a month. The hands employed by each manufacturer were regarded as a “shop.” Each shop appointed a person to represent the whole shop, and when the representatives met once a month they formed the trade society.[154] Already the manufacturers suspected that the proceedings were to their detriment, and the weavers were aware that they were likely to meet with a great deal of censure and scornful sneers, but they consoled themselves with the thought that they were as the Nazarenes, and those who held them in contempt were as the Jews.

The next evidence of the existence of the society appears in January, 1759, when the following notice was issued in The Manchester Mercury[155]:—“Whereas all combinations and meetings among Weavers or other handicraft workmen or servants to consult how to raise wages, or make other rules or orders among themselves that have a tendency to ruin and destroy the trade in which they are employed is contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom. And whereas there is at this time in and about this town an unlawful combination among the Worsted smallware weavers, under the name of being members or being connected with or payers to a Box. This is to give notice that all persons who are in any ways concerned in those unlawful combinations, or are in any ways aiding or assisting thereto, will be prosecuted to the utmost rigour of the law; and that no weavers will be taken to work that are in any ways concerned in those unlawful combinations.”

The next important act in the life of this association was performed at Lancaster Assizes in the following year, when a number of worsted smallware weavers answered to an indictment for a combination to raise wages. The prosecution was not proceeded with as the defendants handed in the following submission, which was read in the open court, and afterwards signed by them. “We do hereby, each for himself, and as far as we can for the other weavers of the same Trade agree to work for the prices already agreed upon with our respective masters, or such other wages as the circumstances of the Trade make reasonable for the time being. We hereby promise and engage, each for himself that we will never enter into, or promote, or encourage any Combination whatsoever, for the raising wages, or any other unlawful purpose whatsoever. And we declare against, and will oppose, any agreement or Combination ... or that any money shall be applied ... to the support of any person, or persons, who shall refuse to work for reasonable, or the usual wages, being able and requested so to do, or in any wise whatsoever towards the forming or supporting any combination to raise wages or other unlawful purpose whatsoever. That the Box or contribution may be permitted till the debt already incurred be discharged and the defendants promise to produce the Box and show their accounts therein, to any of the Masters in any part of Manchester upon a reasonable notice for that purpose, and that when the Debt is discharged, the contribution shall cease and the Box be destroyed, and in the meantime, the Indentures shall be delivered to the Parties thereto if they desire it.”[156]

The combination of the worsted smallware weavers was not the only one in the Manchester district in the late fifties of the eighteenth century. As already mentioned, the check-weavers had also combined. So acute had the position become that at the Autumn Assizes held at Lancaster in 1758 Lord Mansfield “had been informed of great disturbances in Lancashire, occasioned by several thousands having left their work and entered into combinations for raising their wages, and appointed meetings at stated times, formed themselves into a committee at such meetings, and established Boxes and fixed stewards in every Township for collecting money for supporting such weavers as should by their Committee be ordered to leave their masters, and made other dangerous and illegal regulations; that they had insulted and abused several weavers who had refused to join in their schemes and continued to work; and had dropt incendiary letters, with threats to masters that had opposed their designs; his Lordship sensible of the pernicious consequences of such illegal proceedings as being not only destructive of Trade and Manufactures, but of the Peace of the Public adapted his charge to the occasion, and strongly urged to the Jury the necessity of suppressing all such combinations and conspiracies on any pretence whatsoever; gave them an account of all the attempts of the like nature that had been made at different times and in different parts of the kingdom, and told them that an active and vigilant execution of the Laws in being, had always been sufficient to suppress such attempts, and, if properly executed, would have the same effect upon the present that it had always met with on similar occasions.” As the judge had spoken without notes, he could not oblige the Grand Jury with this charge in writing, as they requested, but he issued a warrant for the apprehension of nineteen stewards concerned in the combination, and prosecutions were recommended against others as being equally culpable.[157]

The judge’s charge was intended, no doubt, to be of general application, but it appears that it had particular reference to the check-weavers. The story of their combination can be gathered from the pages of The Manchester Mercury, supplemented by A Letter to a Friend: occasioned by the late Disputes betwixt the Check-makers of Manchester and their Weavers, written by Thomas Percival[158] in 1759. Mr. Percival had been mentioned to the judge as one who had assisted the weavers in their efforts to combine,[159] and his letter was a pungent reply to the charges. It appears that originally there were two main points of dispute between the check manufacturers and the weavers: first, the question of a standard length of cloth for weaving, and second, the question of “unfair weavers.”[160] Ultimately these questions led to a combination and a turn-out of several weeks in which the weavers in Manchester and for many miles around were involved.

According to Mr. Percival’s account, he was approached by some of his neighbours, check-weavers, about a year before he wrote his letter, when they informed him that they had been solicited to enter a Box to oppose the unlawful practices of their masters. At the time he advised them not to do so, but some of them became members and later the dispute became an open breach.[161]

In April, 1758, a notice was issued in The Manchester Mercury drawing attention to the fact that “Weavers employed in manufactures carried on in Manchester and neighbouring towns, had formed themselves into unlawful clubs and societies, and had entered into combinations and subscriptions,” and that anyone who would not enter, or would withdraw, would be protected and employed.[162] This notice had not the desired effect, and it seems probable that the turn-out began in May or at the beginning of June. Early in July the situation had become acute and the weavers of Ashton sent to ask Mr. Percival whether they were doing right, to which he replied that “if they were doing what the world said, they were doing excessive wrong.”[163]

About this time the weavers met at Manchester, and put forward a set of proposals for a settlement of the dispute, which was followed by two other sets, one drawn up at Ashton, and the other by Mr. Percival himself.

In the first, the weavers proposed that a statute length of eighty yards should be fixed for check, and of sixty yards for cotton hollands, cotton linen and similar articles, and that, if the length was different, the price paid for weaving should vary in proportion. Also, that the masters should not employ unfair weavers, so called because they would not subscribe to the charity stock to assist poor weavers and to prosecute offenders. The weavers insisted that they had no other object in view but to support and maintain their trade with experienced and honest workmen, and to bring it under the statute 5 Eliz.[164]

It appears that, about this time, a suggestion was made that the dispute should be referred to the country gentlemen for settlement, or to Mr. Percival alone, and also that he saw the above proposals, and that he disapproved of them.[165]

In any case, a second set of proposals was addressed to him from Ashton by the weavers, with the request that, if he thought proper, he would put them into form and make such alterations as he might find necessary for bringing about an accommodation between the parties.[166] In these proposals, it was suggested that seven men should be appointed by each side, including one or two magistrates, and that the magistrates should choose (presumably from among those who had been thus appointed) four persons who had been in the trade, but who had no present connection with it, to settle the differences. Cases of spoiled work, which the master and weaver concerned could not settle, were to be referred to two persons chosen by them, both parties to submit to their decision. The masters were to allow the weavers to keep a charity box, and the weavers were to have liberty to take two or more apprentices, but not for a shorter period than seven years, and no person was to be acknowledged as a weaver unless he or she had served that time, although all weavers then engaged in the trade were to be recognised. The weavers still asked that a standard length of eighty yards should be fixed for certain kinds of goods, but the length of other kinds was to be fixed by the committee, and wages were to be agreeable to the times as heretofore.[167]

Evidently Mr. Percival did not consider that these proposals would effect a settlement, and proceeded to draw up a set of his own. Generally, his proposals did not differ from the proposals from Ashton, except in the vital point of the “box.” He proposed that a box should be kept up for the relief of poor weavers, and for the prosecution of offenders, but that the funds should not be used to the detriment of the masters. To disarm the suspicion of the masters, he proposed that they should become contributors to the box, and that no money should be taken out of it (except for the relief of the poor) without the knowledge of at least two of them, which arrangement the weavers thought very hard, and Mr. Percival himself was afraid that they would not agree to it, but they did so.[168] A further proposal made by him was that an Act of Parliament should be moved for, on the joint-petition and at the joint-expense of the masters and weavers, to fix the lengths and breadths of cloth, and to enforce a seven years’ apprenticeship in the trade.[169]

Mr. Percival’s proposal as regards the box, and also the proposals from Ashton, will be best understood by noticing the masters’ case as it was stated in a letter addressed to him by one of them. In this letter it was claimed that it was impossible with justice to fix a standard length of cloth as the weavers proposed, but that the masters were willing to agree upon a length “as near as possible.” Further, it was insisted that the weavers must give up their combination, and sign a paper to that effect, and that the masters must not be obliged to turn off unfair weavers. Apparently, the master who wrote this letter was an extremist, as Mr. Percival expressly excepts from his indictment some masters who did not take up this attitude concerning the combination.[170]

The paper which the weavers were required to sign appeared in The Manchester Mercury on the same date as the letter sent to Mr. Percival, and ran as follows:—

“We whose names are hereunto subscribed being members of the Weavers Society, and contributed or promised to contribute to their Box, do hereby engage that we will quit the said Box; and neither by ourselves or (sic) any person for us, pay towards supporting it, nor have any further concern therein.”[171] In the following month the charge already referred to was delivered by Lord Mansfield, and in October a notice was published setting forth that “The Manufacturers in the Check Trade having found on Enquiry that the principal Boxes are destroyed, and the collections or contributions ceased, Work will now be delivered throughout the Town, and the Weavers may apply where they choose as usual.”[172]

In the meantime, however, it appears that the threatened apprehensions had been effected, and at the Lancaster Spring Assizes in 1759 thirteen check-weavers from Manchester, two from Pendleton, two from Salford, and one from Rusholme, were charged with “having unlawfully met and assembled together and illegally and unjustly combined and confederated that they would not work at less than 2s. the piece above the usual wage or price of eighty yards check.”[173] At the trial a plea for lenity was put in, and, as the weavers conducted themselves in a correct manner, the only penalty imposed was a fine of 1s. each. In his address to them, Lord Mansfield suggested that they had been drawn into the combination by designing men, and pointed out the danger of combinations in raising wages above what had been customary and what the trade would bear, thus driving capital away. His remarks on the apprenticeship clauses of the Elizabethan Act deserve notice, seeing that they were made more than half-a-century before the clauses were repealed: “If none must employ, or be employed, in any branch of trade, but who have served a limited number of years to that branch, the particular trade will be lodged in few hands, to the danger of the public, and the liberty of setting up trades, and the foundations of the present flourishing condition of Manchester will be destroyed. In the infancy of trade, the Act of Queen Elizabeth might be well calculated for public weal, but now when it is grown to that perfection we see it, it might perhaps be of utility to have those laws repealed, as tending to cramp and tie down that knowledge it was first necessary to obtain by rule.” In conclusion, the Judge admonished the check-weavers to “Go home and sin no more lest a worse thing happen unto you.”[174]

This account of these two combinations in Manchester and district in the fifties of the eighteenth century is of considerable interest in several respects. Mr. and Mrs. Webb have drawn attention to the fact that, in these years, we get the final breakdown of the mediæval authoritative system of regulation of industrial relationships, and the above account supports their view.[175] Also they have shown that from the early years of the century combinations of wage-earners were coming into existence in various trades. Such combinations were especially prominent among the West of England textile workers[176]: it is evident that the textile workers in Lancashire were proceeding on similar lines. But even more interesting is the link which these Manchester combinations provide between the older forms of association on the one hand and the modern trade union on the other. The proposals put forward by Mr. Percival, which the check-weavers reluctantly accepted, would have involved almost exactly the same arrangements as those described by Professor Unwin as existing between the members of the Yeomanry Organisations and the members of the Livery Companies.[177] As the arm of the law intervened, it is not likely the proposals came to anything, but this does not necessarily mean that the law quashed the combinations. Judging from the later history of the smallware weavers, it appears that they gained in strength. The next glimpse we get of their combination is in 1781, when a dispute was in existence which certainly continued for more than two months. The first evidence of it is a notice which the weavers delivered to their employers, in which it was stated that the whole trade had unanimously resolved that if they did not set their men to work, agreeable to a list of prices accompanying the notice, no smallware weaver in Lancashire would ever work for them again.[178] On their side, the masters asserted that they were willing to adjust wages, but insisted that the real difficulty was that the weavers had adopted the “extraordinary” step of “swearing two masters out of the trade,”[179] which, they claimed, was contrary to all law and equity. Ultimately the masters delivered the following proposals to the weavers, which are interesting not only as an indication of the respectful way in which the weavers had to be dealt with, but also as the reference to the “shop” suggests that even if there had been a break in the life of their combination, re-establishment had taken place on the same basis of organisation as that of twenty-five years before: “It is hereby mutually agreed between the smallware manufacturers and their weavers (the masters and one of each shop having subscribed the same) that all differences are settled and adjusted, and that all the said weavers look upon and esteem all their said employers as fair and upon an equal footing in the Trade, notwithstanding whatever may have been inconsiderately said or done during our late difference or dispute; and we the said weavers on behalf of the whole trade consider every workman at full liberty to take work for any of the said employers without exception.” Apparently these proposals were not altogether satisfactory to the weavers, who replied that it had been unanimously determined by the whole trade that no other notice except one that they transmitted should be published: “By mutual agreement betwixt the Smallware Manufacturers and their Weavers the differences respecting prices subsisting between them are amicably settled to the satisfaction of both parties.”[180] The masters seem to have been equally reluctant to accept this notice, but as no others appear we may assume that the dispute was near its end.

Sometimes it is implied, particularly in popular writings, that the transition from the domestic system, as it existed in the early eighteenth century, to the factory system involved a great change in economic relationships, almost that it marked the emergence of capitalist employers. If disproof of this view were required, this account of the disputes in the smallware and the check trades in Manchester, a generation before factories definitely appeared in the district, would do something to supply it. The fact is, of course, that the domestic system was a system of capitalist employers, and the typical workpeople were in every essential respect related to these employers in the same way as after the factory made its appearance. In the domestic system the employer’s capital was mainly embodied in the materials that were given out to workpeople, and they received a wage remuneration from him for the operations they performed upon them. Between the journeymen and apprentices, and the employer, there frequently intervened persons such as the “undertakers” mentioned in connection with the smallware trade, but these men were essentially employees, even though in many cases, no doubt, they might own three or four looms. In the factory, the workpeople, who previously had been scattered over a more or less wide area, were drawn together under one roof, and their operations supervised by foremen and managers; the capital of the employers was now embodied in materials, buildings, plant and machinery; the least change was seen in the economic relationships between employers and workpeople. If it is true that labour became more dependent upon capital, it is equally true that capital became more dependent upon labour—on both sides the dependence involved was one of a greater co-operation in the processes of production.

But there was an important social change, closely connected with the decay of authoritative regulations which had been proceeding from the seventeenth century. As these regulations disappeared, the way was opened for the workpeople to begin to organise themselves as a new social class. Along with the development of the system of organisation which became dominant from the eighteenth century, the modern trade union movement was born, and through the greater part of the century it was also developing. Unfortunately, before the end of the century, under the stress of conditions consequent upon the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, its natural growth was checked, and it did not begin to thrive again until these conditions had passed away.

To complete this brief account of the organisation of the Lancashire textile industry before the coming of the factory and the rise of the new cotton manufacture, it is necessary to say something of the ways in which the manufacturers were connected with their workpeople, and also of their connections with the markets for raw materials and for finished products.

As regards the first point, it must be borne in mind that, while Manchester was the centre where the greater number of manufacturers were situated, a large number, particularly in the fustian branch, lived in the surrounding smaller towns and country districts. A glance at the following tables and the accompanying map will show that the country fustian manufacturers formed an outer semicircle of Manchester, with three outstanding points at Leigh, Bolton and Oldham. The country check-makers formed an inner circle, while the crofters (bleachers) were distributed in another circle, with a tendency to concentrate in the neighbourhood of the town.

Owing to this distribution of manufacturers, it is evident that most of the workpeople would be within easy reach of an employer, and probably the most usual thing was for them to fetch their materials from his house, or warehouse, and after working upon them, to return the product. The smaller manufacturers no doubt performed the “putting-out” function themselves, but the larger manufacturers employed men for this purpose, as the frequent advertisements for “putters-out” show. Also we can gather from the same source that in some cases “putters-out” for the town manufacturers lived in the country, and that country manufacturers sometimes worked on commission for men in the towns.[181] That some of the manufacturers were men of considerable wealth may be surmised from the frequent mention of their marriages into prominent families, and to ladies possessing “genteel fortunes.” In this way it is not unlikely that much capital found its way into the Lancashire textile industry, and proved useful in enabling the manufacturers to extend their concerns.[182]

In the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries, as at the present day, little of the raw material used in the Lancashire textile industry was produced in the county; one way in which wool reached the worsted manufacturers is given in a quotation below.[183] But more important than wool were linen-yarn and cotton. Until the West Indian colonies and South America became important sources of the supply of cotton, it was chiefly imported through London, indeed it was not until cotton-growing had developed in the United States that London lost its position to Liverpool as the chief port of entry.[184] Early in the eighteenth century, however, much was imported by Liverpool merchants, and it was also imported through Whitehaven and Lancaster, both these ports having an important trade with the West Indies in the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth.[185]

Of the linen-yarn used, some was spun in this country, and Scotland also contributed to the supply, and, as already noticed, in the reign of Henry VIII., merchants from Ireland carried on a trade in linen-yarn with Manchester, which they sold to the inhabitants on credit.[186] In the eighteenth century, that country with the Continental towns of Hamburg, Bremen, Dantzig, and Königsberg had become the important sources of supply, so far as the Manchester district was concerned, where English and Scotch yarn were little used.[187] The finest quality was Irish web-yarn, which was used in the Blackburn manufacture, Drogheda yarn and Sligo yarn occupying the second and third places, with Hamburg and Bremen yarn as substitutes; fine Sligo yarn was also used as weft for African goods and for handkerchiefs.[188] The yarn from Dantzig and Königsberg (known as Ermland yarn from the bishopric of Ermland) was used in the manufacture of sheeting, and this yarn and Derry tow yarn were also made into checks and other goods for exportation.[189]

Both cotton and yarn reached the manufacturers through cotton merchants and yarn merchants, of whom there were many in Manchester.[190] Trading connections with Germany were maintained through travellers who sought orders from Manchester merchants and manufacturers, and German houses had branches in the town; also, Manchester tradesmen went to Germany themselves.[191] In addition, both cotton and yarn were sold by Manchester shopkeepers, who advertised these commodities along with such incongruous articles of merchandise as Dr. Daffey’s elixir, Anderson’s pills, tea, toys, jewellery, fiddle-strings, etc.[192]

As the raw materials reached the manufacturers through Manchester merchants, so did the finished products reach their markets.[193] In the case of the Chethams at the beginning of the seventeenth century, as we have seen, one part of their establishment was in Manchester and the other in London, and the same system was in vogue with firms in the eighteenth century. The Chethams appear to have confined themselves to home trade, mainly to that with the London market, although they had dealings with Irish manufacturers and sent goods to the Irish markets.[194] In the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, however, Manchester goods were exported to foreign countries, and during the first part of the next century considerable progress appears to have been made particularly in trade to the British Plantations.[195]

The statement of Aikin that in the first decades of the eighteenth century the trade was carried on through wholesale dealers at London, Bristol, and other ports, is probably correct, and there is also evidence of the accuracy of his later statement that, during the twenty or thirty years before he wrote (1795), “the increase of foreign trade has caused many of the Manchester manufacturers to travel abroad, and agents and partners to be fixed for a considerable time on the continent, as well as foreigners to reside in Manchester.”[196] The fact that, in 1770, a group of Manchester merchants were sufficiently interested in the effects of a destructive fire at Antigua Island to open a subscription for the relief of the sufferers, suggests important trading connections with the West Indies, and in considering how these connections were maintained, an announcement in the previous year of the death of a Manchester merchant at Jamaica is significant.[197]

As already noticed, cotton goods were manufactured for the African trade about the middle of the eighteenth century, and Guest informs us that about that time fustians began to be exported in considerable quantities to Italy, Germany and North America.[198] Writing of the time prior to the great changes in the cotton industry, Radcliffe states that the Manchester manufacturing merchants either themselves, or through merchants at London, Bristol, or Hull, carried on a large trade with the Levant, sending goods as “adventures” to the fairs of Asiatic Turkey which afterwards reached the markets in the interior of Asia. But, according to Radcliffe, the most important trade, particularly in fustians, “the old staple, by which these manufacturing merchants were raised to their princely rank,” was that with the North of China, carried on through Russia, a portion being “sent up the Black Sea, or overland from Smyrna by the Turkey Company,” and “another portion found its way, in modern times, through Leipsic to Moscow, and down the Volga to the Caspian Sea.”[199]

An indication of how Manchester goods were distributed about the country at the beginning of the eighteenth century is given in two petitions presented to the House of Commons from some of the inhabitants of Manchester and Stockport in 1704.[200] The petitioners protested against their being regarded as hawkers and pedlars under an Act passed a few years previously, whereas in reality they were wholesale dealers who distributed goods to many parts of the kingdom by means of horse carriage. Aikin’s account of the position at this time supplements their statement: “When the Manchester trade began to extend, the chapmen used to keep gangs of pack-horses, and accompany them to the principal towns with goods in packs, which they opened and sold to shopkeepers, lodging what was unsold in small stores at the inns. The pack-horses brought back sheep’s wool which was bought on the journey and sold to the makers of worsted yarn at Manchester, or to the clothiers at Rochdale, Saddleworth, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.”[201]

The pack-horse method of carriage was not peculiar to Manchester trade, but obtained generally. The system of travelling merchants was, however, especially characteristic of the Lancashire and Yorkshire cloth area, and these merchants were known as “Manchester men.”[202] In view of the fact that they were frequently men of considerable wealth, it is easy to understand why they disliked being regarded as hawkers and pedlars subject to duties on account of their particular kind of trade. From Leeds these “‘Manchester men’ used to go with Droves of Pack-horses loaden with ... goods to all the fairs and Market-towns almost all over the Island, not to sell by Retale, but to the shops by Wholesale, giving large credit. It was ordinary for one of these men to carry a thousand pounds worth of Cloth with him at a Time; and, having sold that, to send his Horses back for as much more; and this very often in a Summer.”[203] In all probability the description is generally true of Manchester in the early eighteenth century. But, at this time, the public carrier was beginning to displace the pack-horse,[204] and consequent upon his emergence, the particular class of merchants referred to ceased to travel with their goods, instead, they carried patterns and solicited orders, and afterwards dispatched the goods by the carriers. Thus there arose a class of men known as “riders-out,” and after the middle of the century advertisements for them become very frequent in The Manchester Mercury. “It was during the forty years from 1730 to 1770 that (Manchester) trade was greatly pushed by sending these riders all over the kingdom.”[205]

But this system could not develop fully until improvements in communications had been effected. So far as Lancashire was concerned, a start was made in 1720 with the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Act, though the contemplated scheme for a navigable waterway between Manchester and Liverpool was not completed until nearly twenty years later.[206] In the early fifties, road improvements were attracting much attention in Manchester, and the next twenty years witnessed a great advance in this direction in all parts of the country.[207] This development in road communication was accompanied by further development in water communication, the Act for the construction of the canal from Worsley to Manchester in 1759 marking a new starting-point. In 1762 the Act was passed for the canal from Manchester to Runcorn, where it joined the Mersey to Liverpool, and when it was completed the two towns were doubly linked by the old and the new navigations. The extent to which Manchester was connected with the rest of the country by road in 1772 may be seen from the number and the destination of the regular carriers in the town at that time.[208]

With these developments the system of travelling about the country with goods, although it had changed its character somewhat, had not lost its importance, nor did it lose it for a long time. It was carried on by “petty chapmen,” and it was to such men that the terms hawkers and pedlars now applied. In the eighties of the eighteenth century a controversy arose, or rather one that had been simmering through the century reached the boiling point, which shows that men, thus designated, were still of great importance in inland trade.

As a result of the Seven Years’ War, and the American War of Independence,[209] the country was faced with a financial crisis out of which the egregious “Sinking Fund” emerged, and many new taxes were levied to raise the required revenue. None raised such opposition in Manchester as the “fustian-tax” and the successful efforts to obtain its repeal were celebrated by an annual dinner for many years afterwards.[210] But the agitation against this tax was local, compared with that which arose in 1785 in connection with a tax on shops, and a proposal to repeal the licences of hawkers and pedlars, which was intended to make the shop-tax palatable. The proposal was carried into effect to the extent that additional duties were levied on hawkers and pedlars and their trade was regulated.

Before the proposal had taken the form of a Bill the manufacturers of Manchester entered a vigorous protest against it, as they did on other occasions after the Bill had become an Act.[211] For four years petitions and counter-petitions rained upon the House of Commons from all parts of the country, occupying a considerable portion of its Journals until 1789, when the shop-tax was repealed, and the Act relating to hawkers and pedlars amended.[212] The chief arguments of the shopkeepers against the itinerant tradesmen do not require recapitulation as they are still vigorously maintained. The minor arguments, that they dealt in smuggled and stolen goods and that they corrupted the minds and morals of the younger part of the community, may be attributed to the shopkeepers’ zeal in controversy.[213] What the hawkers and pedlars—or petty chapmen—did, in fact, was to perform the useful function of linking up the country districts with the manufacturing and trading centres. In the first Manchester petition the chapmen were described as carrying goods from house to house in the country villages and districts remote from towns. It also referred to their great number in Lancashire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Cheshire, and stated that their purchases were more considerable than had been apprehended, which no doubt was true. The manufacturers of Glasgow attributed to the chapmen no small part in the extension of manufactures in England and Scotland, through their introducing goods into places where otherwise they would not have been sent.[214] The best witness to their importance at this time is the multitude of petitions presented in their favour from the manufacturers and traders in every considerable town.

From these petitions the organisation of the trade can be clearly visualised. The custom was for the chapmen to obtain their goods from manufacturers and traders on credit, and then to sell them on credit. In this way a considerable amount of capital was used in the trade. The hawkers and pedlars of Halifax and neighbourhood asserted that they had outstanding debts to the amount of £40,000, and that they again were indebted for large sums to merchants and manufacturers in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, Carlisle, etc.[215] But there were also capitalist traders in some parts of the country who, apparently, were solely engaged in supplying the chapmen with goods on credit.

This appears to have been the case with a member of “The Society of Travelling Scotchmen of Bridgnorth” who claimed to have £5000 employed in the trade.[216] His method was to buy goods from manufacturers in different parts of Great Britain and Ireland, and to supply them to the chapmen on credit, and, at the time, he had £3000 owing to him, while they had £1500 owing to them. Two members of a similar society at Shrewsbury, who pursued the same method, claimed to have £20,000 in the trade, with outstanding debts to the amount of £16,000, while the chapmen whom they supplied were in a similar position to the amount of £10,000.[217] Even allowing for some exaggeration in the petitions, there can be little doubt of the importance of the trade thus carried on at this time.[218] Possibly it was of more importance than some branches of trade of a more spectacular character, which, for that reason, often attract more attention.

In the preceding chapter it has been shown that a textile manufacture, which could be called a cotton manufacture, had become established in Lancashire certainly by the beginning of the seventeenth century. From what has been said so far, it will be apparent that the manufacture was by no means in a state of stagnation during the century and a half before 1770. Economically and politically, the period was a favourable one for development. The turmoil of the seventeenth century had an economic as well as a political significance. It marks the time when the opportunist regulations of industry and commerce, which are sometimes regarded as constituting part of a positive policy to further the welfare of the national community, definitely failed, notwithstanding much futile effort which continued into the next century.[219]

Consequently, the cotton manufacture was comparatively unhampered by such regulations, and it is not surprising that, particularly from the early years of the eighteenth century, development was taking place in all directions. Quite apart from the remarkable inventions of machinery and the discovery of a new source of power, it is more than probable that the latter years of the century would have witnessed considerable changes. Before these events, the developments in industrial and commercial organisation, and in communications, pointed to the fact that a wider economy was emerging. It was in such conditions that a new cotton manufacture made its appearance in Lancashire.

ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN TRADES IN MANCHESTER IN 1772

All the following tables have been compiled from the first Manchester Directory

COUNTRY TRADESMEN WITH WAREHOUSES IN
MANCHESTER IN 1772

Fustian Manufacturers

Check Manufacturers

Miscellaneous

CROFTERS OR WHITSTERS IN THE MANCHESTER
AREA IN 1772[232]

Map showing the location of Manufacturers and Crofters in the Manchester area in 1772

REGULAR CARRIERS FROM MANCHESTER IN 1772

CHAPTER III THE COMING OF MACHINERY: KAY TO ARKWRIGHT — I — II

The statement made at the close of the last chapter, that a new cotton manufacture arose in Lancashire in the latter years of the eighteenth century is justified, notwithstanding the fact that goods made entirely of cotton had undoubtedly been manufactured in the county before, possibly to a larger extent than there is positive evidence to show. From 1770 the cotton industry, as it is now known, began its growth, and this event must always be attributed in large measure to the inventions associated with the names of James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, and Samuel Crompton. Their inventions represent a culmination of a series of endeavours to improve the processes of cotton manufacture which reach back to the thirties of the eighteenth century—the time, it may be noticed, when the “Manchester Act” was secured. Generally these endeavours had reference to spinning and the processes preparatory to it, but it was in weaving that the first invention appeared which attained much success.

At this time, in the Manchester district, there were two types of loom in use, the “Dutch” loom and the ordinary hand-loom. The first was introduced, apparently about the beginning of the century, for narrow fabrics of which it could weave several at once.[233] In this loom the shuttle was sent through the warp by the action of cog-wheels, which was a slow and cumbrous process, and unsuitable for the weaving of wider fabrics.[234] In the ordinary hand-loom, the shuttle was sent to and fro through the warp by hand. The invention referred to was that of the “flying shuttle” by Kay, of Bury, for which he took out a patent in 1733.[235] This invention, which was for use in the ordinary hand-loom, consisted mainly of a “picking-peg” contrivance, by means of which the weaver could jerk the shuttle through the warp, using only one hand.[236]

Although exceedingly simple, the invention, when combined with other improvements, was of great importance, as it enabled the weaver to work more quickly, with a less expenditure of effort, and weave a width of cloth which had required two weavers before. For some reason, the invention does not appear to have been used much in the cotton industry for about thirty years after its appearance, although it was used in the Yorkshire woollen industry, regardless of the claims of the inventor.[237] Besides his invention of the “flying shuttle,” Kay effected a considerable improvement in the reeds for looms, and in 1745 took out a patent for a power-loom, and also applied his ingenuity to carding and spinning, but in these latter efforts he apparently attained little success.[238] In 1760 his son Robert effected another improvement in the loom by his invention of the “drop-box,” which enabled the weaver “to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and replacing them in the lathe.”[239] In 1764 the elder Kay made an appeal to the Society of Arts for recognition of his work, and claimed to have many more inventions that he had not put forward, owing, as he said, to the treatment he had received from those engaged in the cotton and woollen industries, and from Parliament. The story of his difficulties, of his emigration to France, and of his death there, is so well known as not to require repetition.[240]

The inventions of the flying shuttle and the drop-box, with the introduction of Dutch looms, were the most important developments in weaving in the first part of the eighteenth century. But there was another development which should be noticed, referred to by Ogden, which, he states, gave rise to a new and important branch of trade in the Manchester district. Owing to the greater variety of patterns attempted in figured goods, a more complicated loom became necessary, as well as the employment of a boy to manipulate the treadles for the raising and lowering of the warps which was required in the weaving of such goods. The goods produced were consequently known by the name of “draw-boys.” But the complicated loom was also more expensive, and it is significant that, at this time, weavers were having “looms mounted for them at great expense which the employers advanced.”[241]

With this progress in weaving, and with an expanding market, it was inevitable that efforts would be made to effect improvements in the methods of preparing the raw material, and in spinning. In 1736, before the Committee of the House of Commons which reported in favour of the petition to allow printed fustians to be freely manufactured, the statement was made that four spinners were required to supply one weaver with material, and all the authorities substantiate the statement and emphasise the difficulties which existed owing to the discrepancy.[242]

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, in this country, the only thing that could be called a machine used in the operations necessary in transforming raw cotton into yarn was the spinning-wheel. One or other of two wheels was commonly used for cotton-spinning: the “Jersey” wheel or the “Brunswick” wheel, the latter differing from the former mainly in the fact that it had a treadle, so that it could be worked by the foot. On these wheels only one thread was spun, and the spinning was intermittent with the winding of the spun thread. The “Saxony” wheel was an improvement upon these, but was most commonly used for flax and wool spinning. With this wheel there was a contrivance known as a “Flier” which enabled the processes of spinning and winding to proceed simultaneously, and sometimes two spindles were attached to it, the spinner thus forming a thread with each hand. The “Saxony” wheel, however, was not so suitable for cotton-spinning as the others.[243]

The cotton, before spinning, was cleaned by hand or, at most, by lightly beating it with a cane, while the carding operation was performed by means of hand-cards.[244] These cards were little more than two brushes with wire bristles, the cotton being placed on one brush, and by the other being drawn over it, the fibres were straightened out ready for the next process. Some progress was made in carding by increasing the surface of the cards, making one a fixture, and hanging the other round a pulley with a weight to balance it. Thus the workman was left with the task of moving this card to and fro over the cotton on the fixed card as required. These cards were known as stock-cards as distinguished from the hand-cards.[245]

It was particularly to carding and to spinning that the inventors gave their attention, and during more than thirty years before Arkwright took out his first patent numerous efforts were made to discover improved mechanical means of performing the operations. Apart from the invention of the “spinning-jenny,” which, though not patented until the year following Arkwright’s patent, was in use some years before, the most notable efforts were those of Lewis Paul, whose title to fame is enhanced by his friendship with Dr. Samuel Johnson.[246]

It is now generally accepted that, in the patent taken out by Paul in 1738, the idea of attenuating cotton by rollers was embodied, so that question need not be discussed.[247] Evidently Paul was born in London and died there, but during part of his life he lived in Birmingham, and it appears that the invention was carried through at this place, with the assistance of John Wyatt as workman.[248] Whatever the merits of the invention may have been, it is clear that in the hands of Paul and his friends it did not attain much success. None of them appears to have possessed the push and business instinct of Richard Arkwright, and it may have been to this lack, as much as to lack of inventive genius, that the non-success was due.

Certainly there was faith in the invention, and Paul himself claimed that, in the course of twenty years, he made more than £20,000 out of it as patentee.[249] It was used in at least one factory at London, in one at Birmingham, and in one at Northampton. The machinery at Birmingham was turned by animal-power, and at Northampton by water-power, and at the latter place fifty hands were employed in the factory.[250] It seems evident, however, that, whatever the reason, when the term of the patent expired in 1752 faith in the invention had also largely expired, and Paul attempted to get it introduced into a Foundling Hospital in London.[251] During the next six years he made improvements in the machine, and in 1758 obtained another patent for it, but shortly afterwards he died, and the honour of carrying the use of rollers in spinning to a successful issue was left to others.[252]

But it is not only in connection with spinning that Paul’s name has to be remembered. Whatever failings he may have had, he was certainly a man of an inventive turn of mind. It is recorded that in 1742 he granted a licence in consideration of £200, for the right to use a “pinking” machine he had invented.[253] But more important in relation to the cotton industry was his invention of a carding-machine, for which he secured a patent in 1748.[254] Earlier in the same year a man named Daniel Bourne had also taken out a patent for a carding-machine,[255] and after a time the principal processes of the two machines were combined in one machine, though it is to Paul’s invention that the most important method of carding the finer qualities of cotton at the present day is traced.[256] Both these machines, however, were lacking in that they had no “doffing” arrangement, which prevented continuous working, but the deficiency in this respect was afterwards removed by Arkwright with his crank and comb device, while others improved the imperfect feeding arrangement.[257]

Paul’s carding-machine did not find its way into Lancashire until about 1760, when it was introduced by a man named Morris, who lived in the neighbourhood of Wigan.[258] Soon afterwards it was adopted, or one based upon it made, by the founder of the famous Peel family at Blackburn, who, in carrying on his experiments, employed James Hargreaves, best known in connection with the “spinning-jenny.” For a long time it was supposed that the credit for the crank and comb was due to Hargreaves, but later it was recognised that it more properly belonged to Arkwright.[259]

By 1760 the need for improvements in spinning had become more than pressing, and this decade marks a period of great activity and great achievements, though, as already suggested, it was not so much a period of new achievements as one in which efforts extending over more than a generation attained success. In 1754 a patent for a spinning-machine had been taken out by a man named Taylor, but it does not appear to have come to anything.[260] In 1761 the Society of Arts issued an advertisement offering rewards “for the best invention of a machine that will spin six threads of wool, flax, hemp, or cotton at one time, and that will require but one person to work and attend it,” and several were forthcoming, but apparently none was completely satisfactory. One six-thread machine, however, was examined by the Committee of Manufacturers in 1763 and a reward granted to the person who had presented it.[261]

In the year following the grant of this reward, James Hargreaves is supposed to have conceived the invention of the “spinning-jenny,”[262] though it did not become prominent before 1767 and was not patented until 1770. In the meantime, Arkwright had brought the method of spinning by rollers to a stage at which he could apply for a patent, which he obtained in 1769. When the two methods of spinning are compared, it may be seen that spinning by rollers was the greater departure from the customary method of spinning cotton.

When cotton has been carded, its transformation into yarn consists in gradually attenuating the cotton and twisting it into a thread. In the eighteenth century, the whole process could be definitely divided into two stages. In the first, the carded cotton was made into a continuous but comparatively thick cord called roving; in the second, the roving was attenuated and spun into yarn. The spinning operation was therefore a continuation of the roving operation, and with the ordinary spinning-wheel both were performed in essentially the same way. In spinning, the roving was attached to the spindle, and the spinner with one hand extended the roving, and with the other turned the wheel, which caused the spindle to revolve, and thus gave the necessary twist to the attenuated roving. When this operation had been performed, the spinner, with one hand, again turned the wheel, the spindle again revolving, this time to wind the yarn upon it, while the other hand was engaged in giving in the yarn for the winding. Clearly this system admitted of only one thread being spun at a time.

In the invention of the “jenny” the action of that hand of the spinner which attenuated the roving and gave in the yarn for winding was mechanically reproduced, but instead of the spinner being able to operate only one spindle, as many could be operated as could be conveniently introduced. The bobbins round which the rovings were coiled, and the spindles, were fixed in a frame. The ends of the rovings were attached to the spindles, passing between a clasp arrangement which formed part of a movable carriage. While the clasp was open, the carriage was first drawn out from the spindles until the required length of rovings for spinning had passed through. Then the clasp was closed, and the rovings, thus gripped, were attenuated by the carriage being drawn further out. Simultaneously, the wheel, which caused the spindles to revolve, was turned to give the required twist to the thread. Then, as the carriage was moved back to its first position, the wheel was again slowly turned, this time to wind the spun thread on the spindles. Thus the action of one hand of the spinner remained the same, but the other was now used in opening and closing the clasp and in moving the carriage to and fro.

From the beginning, the effect of this invention was to multiply many times the amount of yarn that could be spun by a spinner, and the size of the jenny was soon increased. In 1767 it was said to contain eight spindles; when Hargreaves took out his patent in 1770 the specification mentioned sixteen or more; in 1784 the number had increased to eighty; and ultimately as many as one hundred and twenty are said to have been introduced.[263] Although the jenny did not make the rovings, and its movements depended upon hand power, it represented a great advance in spinning, and its mechanism was so simple that it could be worked by children.[264] The thread it produced, however, was not completely satisfactory for the warp in cotton goods, as it was not “capable of giving that hardness of twist and fineness which was necessary to form the threads of the warp.”[265]

This defect was supplied by the invention of spinning by rollers patented by Arkwright—the water-frame as it came to be called—as the characteristic feature of the yarn thus spun was its suitability for the warp. The jenny and the water-frame, therefore, were complementary rather than substitutional machines. When the patent for spinning by rollers was taken out in 1769, as with the jenny, it was still intended that the rovings should be made on the spinning-wheel. But with Arkwright’s method, instead of the rovings being attenuated by a long stretch, the operation was performed by their passing between rollers moving at different velocities, which had the same effect. For the twisting and the winding of the thread the “Flier” spindle mentioned in connection with the “Saxony” wheel was utilised. Consequently, the spinning and winding operations proceeded simultaneously, whereas with the jenny they were intermittent.[266]

Before Arkwright obtained his second patent in 1775, sometimes called the “carding” patent, the roller method had been extended to the rovings, and as he and others had effected the improvements, already mentioned, in the carding machine, the whole of the operations required in transforming the raw cotton into yarn could be performed by machinery.[267]

In the 1769 patent Arkwright provided for the machinery to be driven by horse-power. Two years later he erected his factory at Cromford, where water-power was available. But at this time another power to drive it was in preparation, Watt having taken out his patent for his steam-engine in the same year as Arkwright obtained his first patent.[268] It was not, however, until the last decade of the eighteenth century that Watt’s steam-engine was much used in the cotton industry, its first application in this direction being made at Papplewick in Nottinghamshire in 1785, and it was not introduced into Manchester until 1789.[269] There had been earlier efforts to utilise steam, as in 1783 Ogden could state that in Manchester a factory had been erected in which “Mr. Arkwright’s machines are setting to work by a steam-engine, for carding and spinning of cotton.”[270]

The new spinning machinery was not introduced into use without opposition, but the opposition to its use was small, compared with the opposition to the patents granted in connection with it. Before the patents were taken out, both Hargreaves and Arkwright had left Lancashire for Nottingham. As already mentioned, Hargreaves did not obtain his patent until 1770, and his removal to Nottingham followed upon a machine-breaking episode in 1767, when the jenny was the object of attention. Arkwright removed in the following year, and his machinery appears to have been immune from attack until 1779—ten years after he had obtained his first patent.

In that year a rising took place in north-west Lancashire, when an attack was made upon the factories in the neighbourhood of Chorley, particularly upon one at Birkacre, owned by Arkwright and his partners, and the machinery destroyed. Afterwards the mob intended to proceed to Bolton, Manchester, and Stockport, and finally to reach Cromford, breaking the machinery as they went along.[271] Consequently, it is hardly surprising that the inhabitants of Manchester were alarmed, and called a meeting of magistrates, merchants, and gentlemen, when it was resolved “to embody and arm a sufficient number of soldiers and proper persons to defend the town and neighbourhood.”[272] Fortunately their services were not required, as the rising terminated at Bolton. In the next year, one of Arkwright’s partners petitioned the House of Commons for redress for the destruction of the factory at Birkacre, claiming that he had suffered loss to the extent of £4400, owing, as he insisted, to lack of protection from the civil and military authorities.[273]

In the references to the risings which took place in Lancashire against machinery, there is usually an implication that they were largely due to the effects of its introduction upon the position of the operatives. Neither in 1767, nor in 1779, nor on other occasions when such risings occurred, is this implication strongly justified. Invariably, a satisfactory explanation requires attention to be paid to conditions prevailing at the time, due to entirely other causes, and at this point a slight digression may be permitted for a glance at the general situation.

It is not too much to say that the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War in 1756 marks the beginning of a century of unrest in England, in which economic causes have to be regarded as the effects of political causes. No sooner had the Seven Years’ War concluded than the conflict with the American colonies began, and was a constantly disturbing factor until long after peace was signed in 1783.[274] Scarcely was there time to recuperate from this conflict, when the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars commenced, which left a dreadful aftermath the gathering of which required more than a quarter of a century after the battle of Waterloo. The position attained by the average workman in 1750 was not reached again until the end of this period. The price of food suffered great fluctuations, and at times rose to an enormous height, while remuneration lagged behind, and employment was uncertain.[275] At various times the unrest broke out into open riots, and in these riots resentment against economic changes was an incident.

Mention has been made earlier of the conditions in the late fifties. These conditions were matched in the sixties, and in the seventies. At the beginning of 1759 the price of wheat had fallen to the neighbourhood of 20s. a load in Manchester, at which it remained until the spring of 1762, when it began to rise again, reaching an average of 25s. 6d. in 1763. In 1764 there was a further increase to more than 30s., which continued through 1765 and into the following year.

With the rise of prices the agitation against forestallers and engrossers revived, and at least one preacher in the Manchester district took as the text of his sermon: “He that withholdeth corn the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it,”[276] but more than admonition was considered necessary. In 1762 a riot took place in Manchester in which people from Oldham, Saddleworth, Ashton, etc., joined, which was regarded as so serious that the King offered his pardon to any two persons who would turn informers.[277] Early in 1764 Parliament instituted an inquiry regarding the high price of provisions, when the conclusion was arrived at, that the evil was due to forestallers and engrossers. Apparently, however, it was not easy to find a remedy, as a few months later the King, by the advice of the Privy Council, offered a reward of £100 for the discovery of any unlawful combination to raise prices, and in Derbyshire, the miners, finding wheat at 8s. 4d. a bushel, decided to take matters into their own hands, and fixed a price of 5s., at which they cleared the market.[278]

At the beginning of 1766 Parliament again took action by allowing the import of prohibited cereals, and prohibiting the export of others. In September, in answer to the numerous petitions which had been presented, three proclamations were issued: one, which enforced the sixteenth-century laws against forestallers and engrossers; another, which laid an embargo on all vessels loaded with wheat and flour in any port of Great Britain and prohibited distillation from wheat; while another prolonged the embargo and extended it to vessels having on board barley or malt.[279] In November of the same year, an Assize of Bread began to be issued in Manchester, and was continued weekly for some months.[280]

In February, 1767, riots were again reported from Derbyshire, and two months later the Mayor and Corporation of Chester were threatened with murder if they did not prevent forestalling. In July, a statement appeared that, although provisions had been imported into the country, food was no cheaper, and with pathetic insistence the cause was still sought in the trading activities of “harpies who prey on the vitals of the public.”[281]

During this year an agricultural society came into existence for the Hundred of Salford, and another in Manchester whose activities extended over a radius of twenty miles from the town.[282] Both these societies were exceedingly active for a long period in encouraging improvements by the offer of premiums, and articles on various aspects of agriculture became a common feature in The Manchester Mercury. That the distress during these years was widespread is shown by similar accounts to those mentioned, from all parts of England, from Ireland and Scotland, and from the Continent as well.[283]

The rise in the price of food was no doubt an important factor in the distress of this time, but as a fundamental cause it had no more relation to the distress than the manipulations of traders had to the rise. The fundamental cause was to be found in the conditions created by the Seven Years’ War and the succeeding trouble with the American colonies and the consequent dislocation of trade. The conclusion of the Seven Years’ War was followed by a crisis in which a large number of commercial houses in Amsterdam, Hamburg, and other German towns, came to the ground.[284] “The failures were by some ascribed to the large sums owing by the British and French armies, and by others to the vast quantity of base money issued by the German princes during the war, for which the merchants expected to receive the value, or at least a considerable part of the value it was issued for. It is reasonable to believe that both these causes operated, and that even the peace, by suddenly drawing off the trade enjoyed by those neutral places during the war might be instrumental in producing a derangement in the affairs of those concerned in it.”[285] Owing to the action of the authorities in issuing something of the nature of a “moratorium” in favour of the merchants, and to the assistance of the “Lombard houses,” in Amsterdam and Hamburg, the acute period of the crisis does not appear to have been of long duration. To assist the recovery, British merchants were obliged to extend their credits to their correspondents, and to send them remittances, and in turn they were supported by the Bank of England.[286] In these circumstances it is not surprising that on account of the failures trade on the Continent was said to be at a stand.[287] The conditions in England are sufficiently indicated by what has been said, and by the petitions presented to the House of Commons complaining of high food prices and of the decay of trade.[288]

With the passing of the crisis, conditions might have improved but for the trouble with the American colonies, which hampered trade more than almost anything else could have done. This was inevitable owing to the character of the trade with these colonies. The northern colonies imported much from Great Britain, but exported little directly to this country. The imports were paid for by the colonies exporting to the West Indies and to the Continent, and by their carrying trade. Thus a check to American trade dislocated the circle of commerce and imposed a check all round.[289] The trade was so important that during a considerable part of the period over which the trouble extended it was carried on regardless of prohibitions, which, rather than lessening the volume of the trade, checked its expansion, and increased its uncertainty.[290] When the position was more serious, as in the months intervening between the passing of the Stamp Act in 1765 and its repeal in the following year, Parliament was belaboured with petitions from the trading and manufacturing towns, in which attention was drawn to the character of the trade, to the derangement caused by its stoppage, and to the effect upon the working population already in a state of rebellion owing to the high cost of living.[291]

Such were the general conditions when the jenny was introduced into the cotton manufacture, and, in the circumstances, the attack made upon it is not difficult to understand. A riotous and destructive spirit was abroad, engendered by the conditions of the time. To smash a machine, which apparently would reduce the demand for labour, must have appeared to a disinterested spectator almost as a praiseworthy act.

When the attack was made upon Arkwright’s machines in 1779, the conflict with America and its consequences still dominated the situation. In a petition of cotton spinners in and adjoining the county of Lancaster, presented to the House of Commons in April, 1780, and in the evidence given before a Committee of the House two months later, the position was described in detail.[292] In the petition it was stated that before the beginning of the dispute with the American colonies the cotton manufacture in Lancashire had employed thousands of men, women and children, but of late years it had much decreased, and the workpeople were destitute of employment and in extreme distress. When Spain entered the war, exports to that country and to its dependencies had been prohibited; trade to the West Indies and Africa had been checked; and British ships had been excluded from the Mediterranean ports.

In addition to the stoppage of trade from these causes, an evil of great magnitude had arisen in the cotton industry through the introduction of patent machines and engines, which, with the other events, threatened the workpeople with total loss of employment, and had reduced them to despair. It was owing to these facts that, in the preceding September, several thousands had assembled and demolished one of the largest patent machines and a number of smaller ones, and in order to appease them, the magistrates, inhabitants, and manufacturers of Wigan had held a public meeting, and had engaged to lay their grievances before Parliament. In the meantime the use of the machines and engines worked by water and horses for the carding, roving, and spinning of cotton had been suspended. Still further, it was claimed that the goods thus produced were inferior to those produced by hand, and this, it was feared, would diminish trade still more, as the reduction of price was not equal to the difference of quality. Moreover, the machines were a monopoly for the advantage of patentees and proprietors, to the loss and detriment of the public, and Parliament therefore was asked to grant relief.

Evidently this petition was an ex parte statement, in which the antagonism to Arkwright’s patent of others besides workpeople engaged in the cotton trade found expression. Shortly afterwards a counter-petition was presented by the agent for cotton manufacturers in the town and neighbourhood of Manchester, in which it was insisted that, if the previous petition received favourable consideration, evil consequences would follow, as the patent machines and engines would be used in the cotton manufacture abroad.[293]

At this juncture, the questions at issue were considered by the above-mentioned Committee of the House, and in the evidence the assertions of the first petition were repeated, with additions. Referring to the stock hand-cards which had been in use before the patent machines were introduced, it was claimed that they not only performed better work, but that they found more employment, as it required nine persons working by hand to do as much as one with a patent machine. From the evidence, it appears that by 1780, although the larger jennies were still regarded with disfavour, the jennies containing twenty-four spindles had come into favour, and were set against the patent machines to show that they were not required, particularly as there were many looms unemployed, and as people were generally out of work in winter. Possibly the reason for the partiality shown to the smaller jennies was contained in the assertion that they were in the hands of the poor. As regards remuneration, it was stated that sixteen years before, a woman with a single spindle could earn 10d. to 15d. a day, but then only 3d. to 5d.; those on jennies of twenty-four spindles could earn 8s. to 9s. a week, but then, only 4s. to 6s.

As may be expected, this evidence was not accepted without question by witnesses on the other side, although some of it was not altogether controverted. It has to be recognised that the first effect of the introduction of the new spinning machinery was not to improve the position of the spinners so much as that of the weavers, and just as one side stressed the case of the spinners, the other stressed the case of the weavers. It was, therefore, admitted that the earnings of spinners had varied of late years, and that in the preceding year a spinner with a single spindle could earn only about 3d. or 4d. a day, but it was claimed that by working on the jenny, at the time the evidence was given, 2s. to 2s. 6d. a day could be earned. Further, the argument of the opposing witnesses that the Poor Rates had increased was admitted, but this increase, it was asserted, was due to various causes unconnected with machinery.

More positively, it was stated that during the preceding ten years the cotton manufacture had doubled, that the number of looms had trebled, that the wages of weavers had increased, and that if more looms existed they could be employed.[294] Owing to the introduction of the patent machines by which cotton warps could be produced at a lower price, a calico manufacture had been established and the manufacture of quiltings improved, and without the machines it would be impossible to meet the demand for these warps. The complaint regarding quality was altogether repudiated; on the contrary, the opposite was strongly affirmed, and a great expansion was anticipated, as the patent cotton warp had been found to answer as well as linen warp for many goods other than those for which it was then used.

The evidence in favour of the patent machines so impressed the Committee that the gist of it was embodied in a series of resolutions, and agreed to by the House without opposition—indeed there was no other reasonable course. The evils complained of in the first petition were due to the use of the patent machines only in a small degree; they were much more the social consequence of the conflict proceeding at the time.

CHAPTER IV THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS

The episodes of 1767 and 1779 were the two most important direct attempts to obstruct the use of the new spinning machinery, and there is no reason to think that they were in any degree effective.[295] As already mentioned, more important opposition was directed against the patents granted to Hargreaves and Arkwright, and this came from those who wished to use the machinery without complying with the rights the patents conferred. Any opposition of this class to its use was secondary to their opposition to the patents, and as the patent of Hargreaves was never upheld, the machine to which it referred was always freely used.

As regards Arkwright’s machinery, the nearest approach to obstruction of its use took the form, first, of refusing to use the yarn made by it, which led Arkwright and his partners to utilise it themselves in making cotton calicoes, thus giving rise to a new branch of manufacture; and secondly, when it was found that this manufacture was hampered by the Acts passed in 1714 and 1721, by opposing their efforts in 1774 to secure modification of the Acts.[296] By the 1714 Act, calicoes had been made subject to an additional excise duty of 3d., making 6d. in all, and by the 1721 Act the wear or use of printed calicoes had been prohibited. The 1736 Act, it will be remembered, had modified the 1721 Act only in so far as goods made with a linen warp were concerned. The modifications requested by Arkwright and his partners were the removal of the additional duty, and of the prohibition, and as their efforts were successful, goods made wholly of cotton, even though printed, were henceforth on the same footing as mixed goods.[297]

The patent granted to Hargreaves was opposed immediately it was obtained. Arkwright was more fortunate in his patents, although they were certainly infringed. It was not until 1781, however—twelve years after the grant of his first patent, and six years after the grant of his second—that he began a series of actions for infringements.

Hargreaves’ patent “for the more expeditious spinning, drawing, and twisting cotton” was dated 12th July 1770.[298] On 17th July 1770, and for some weeks following, a notice appeared in The Manchester Mercury from James Hargravs (sic.) & Co., informing the public of the fact, and offering a reward of ten guineas for information as to “Persons who shall make, use, or vend, or in any ways imitate the said machines or engines.” On 25th September another notice appeared, drawing attention to the one from Hargreaves, and pointing out that “there are several and various sorts of wheel-machines or engines made and used in and about the Town of Manchester for the more expeditious spinning, drawing, and twisting of cotton” and inviting manufacturers and others concerned in these operations to a meeting at the Bull’s Head Inn, on 2nd October, “to consider of several matters relating to, and concerning the advertisement and the machines above mentioned.”

What happened at this meeting it is impossible definitely to say. Baines’ account of the matter is that Hargreaves “Finding that several of the Lancashire manufacturers were using the jenny ... gave notice of actions against them: the manufacturers met, and sent a delegate to Nottingham, who offered Hargreaves £3000 for permission to use the machine; but he at first demanded £7000, and at last stood out for £4000. The negotiations being broken off, the actions proceeded; but before they came to trial, Hargreaves’ attorney (Mr. Evans) was informed that his client, before leaving Lancashire, had sold some jennies to obtain clothing for his children (of whom he had six or seven); and in consequence of this, which was true, the attorney gave up the actions in despair of obtaining a verdict.”[299]

This account was based upon information obtained in Nottingham nearly seventy years after the event, the informant, apparently, being the son of Hargreaves’ partner, then in his eighty-third year.[300] The account may be correct, and it is impossible definitely to disprove it, but, from the tone of the notice calling the meeting in Manchester on 2nd October, it seems hardly credible that an offer of the kind mentioned would be made at that time, neither is it likely from the general attitude of the manufacturers to patentees that it would be made at any other time. Some months later, however, another notice appeared calling a meeting of manufacturers of cotton, again at the Bull’s Head Inn, to consider “special affairs” relating to their trade.[301] But, at this meeting, it is extremely probable that the “special affairs” had reference not to Hargreaves but to the famous Thomas Highs, who at this time had left Leigh for Manchester, and who, according to Guest, was the original inventor both of the spinning-jenny and of the method of spinning by rollers patented by Arkwright.[302]

In a well-known passage Guest states that in addition to his other achievements Highs “constructed what may be termed a double jenny,” which “was publicly worked in Manchester Exchange in 1772 ... and the manufacturers on that occasion subscribed 200 guineas, and presented them to Highs as a reward for his ingenuity.”[303] As a matter of fact, the exhibition took place in 1771 and was advertised in The Manchester Mercury in the following terms:—“Mr. Hayes’s new invented machine for Spinning Cotton is now fix’d up in the Exchange where all persons concerned in the Manufacturing of Cotton will have an opportunity of viewing it.”[304]

This notice appeared on 2nd July, two weeks after the notice calling the meeting just referred to, and the connection between the two notices seems fairly clear. It is a reasonable assumption that the “special affairs” discussed at the meeting were the question of purchasing the machine of Highs, which may well have been, as Guest suggests, an extension of the principle of the jenny then in use, for there can be little doubt that the jenny was widely in use at this time.[305] Evidently something was known of it before Hargreaves left Lancashire, and if it is true that he had also mounted and sold some jennies, it is probable that by 1770 it was well known, and that it was included among the “machines and engines made and used about the town of Manchester” mentioned in the notice calling the meeting shortly after he obtained his patent. If such was the case, the opposition to the patent and Hargreaves’ failure to uphold it can be easily understood.

But, as already mentioned, Guest claims that the original machine was not the invention of Hargreaves, but the invention of Thomas Highs, and that Hargreaves’ relation to it was that he added a considerable improvement. The evidence put forward by Guest on behalf of Highs rests mainly on statements made by old men sixty years after the event, and considerable suspicion of such evidence is excusable particularly when it has been elicited by an ardent man out to establish a case.[306] Moreover, it is a remarkable fact that no one—not even Highs himself—appears openly to have put forward the claim until Guest published his first book in 1823, although the controversy over Arkwright’s patents, in which Highs figured so prominently, afforded many opportunities.

Yet, notwithstanding these difficulties, it is not easy to put aside as baseless all the evidence adduced by Guest in support of his case. That Highs was a man with an extraordinary aptitude for invention is undoubted, and it is not improbable, in the activity to discover improved methods of spinning in the sixties of the eighteenth century, that he did experiment with a machine at least similar to the jenny. At the same time, it is scarcely less probable that others did likewise.[307] As already pointed out, the jenny reproduced mechanically the hand operations necessary in spinning with the wheel, and a machine of the character of the jenny was the obvious line of advance. Although Highs was a man in whose mind the idea of the jenny was likely to originate, it is impossible, on the evidence, to say that it did so. What does seem clear is, that it was in association with Hargreaves that the jenny became a practicable machine, although when it left his hands it was not a perfect machine and quickly underwent improvements.[308] Nevertheless, it had made possible the spinning of weft with a facility before unknown, and it maintained its position in the cotton industry for a long period, when it was largely superseded by the “mule.”

Probably, as M. Mantoux suggests,[309] Hargreaves did not at first realise the importance of what had been achieved, which would explain his tardy application for a patent. Doubtless the application in 1770 was induced by the increasing use of the jenny, and by the fact that Arkwright had been sufficiently enterprising to obtain a patent for his machinery in the preceding year. That Hargreaves was unfortunate in his patent need not be questioned, but it is some satisfaction to know, on the authority of Baines and others,[310] that in his business at Nottingham, where he and his partner, Thomas James, are claimed to have established the first cotton-mill in the world,[311] he was at least moderately successful.

Whatever Hargreaves’ success may have been, there can be no question of the success attained by Richard Arkwright. That Arkwright was a great inventor may be disputed, but that he was a great man of business it is impossible to deny. It may be stated with some confidence that, had his name not been associated with the invention of machinery, he would have gained a prominent place in the early stages of modern industry. All that is known of his career supports the view. It was pre-eminently this characteristic which distinguished him from his less fortunate contemporaries. Whether the idea of spinning by rollers was his own or not, it is clear that when he left Preston for Nottingham in 1768, he realised that he had in his possession an invention which, with the aid of capital, would bring him material success, and he was able to convince others of the fact. His association with Samuel Need and Jedediah Strutt[312]—particularly with the latter—was the tactical point in his career in the cotton industry. Strutt, by previous inventions, had already shown his ability as a mechanician[313]; he was also an established business man and a capitalist, able to realise the possibilities of Arkwright’s machinery. In every respect he was an ideal partner for Arkwright, and there can be little doubt that, if all the facts were known, much of the improvement of the machinery would have to be ascribed to him: the recorded instance of his rubbing the spinning rollers with chalk to prevent the cotton sticking to them is significant.[314]

With Arkwright thus established, with his machinery with its potentialities, in the very district where silk-mills—the precursors of cotton-mills—had begun to arise more than a generation before,[315] the modern cotton industry organised on the lines of the factory system was inevitably born. It should be borne in mind that in the twelve years during which the privileges of the patents were enjoyed Arkwright and his partners did not merely hold the patents and draw premiums from them. In 1771 they erected their factory at Cromford in which, eight years later, three hundred workpeople were said to be employed. This was followed in 1773 by another at Derby, erected for the specific purpose of carrying on the new manufacture of calico. In 1776 another factory was erected at Belper; about the same time the one at Birkacre was established; and in 1780 the one at Manchester was erected, which was said to have cost £4000, and to be sufficiently large to contain six hundred workpeople.[316]

In 1782 it was estimated by Arkwright and his partners that they had £30,000 embodied in factories, while licences for the use of the patent machinery had been issued to “adventurers” in the counties of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Worcester, Stafford, York, Hertford and Lancaster, in connection with which these men had invested at least £60,000. Altogether, at this time, it was claimed, the cotton industry thus organised employed “upwards of five thousand persons, and a capital on the whole of not less than £200,000.”[317] According to Arkwright’s statement, “it was not till upwards of five years had elapsed after obtaining his first patent, and more than £12,000 had been expended in machinery and buildings, that any profit accrued to himself and partners.”[318] This date would roughly coincide with the Act they obtained relating to the manufacture and sale of calicoes, and with the grant of the second patent.

Witness to the progress that was being made after this date is borne by the infringements of the patents, which led to the institution of nine actions by Arkwright, only one of which came to trial in 1781. It is quite certain that privileges such as Arkwright enjoyed were not viewed with favour in Manchester. Since February, 1774, a Committee for the Protection of Trade had existed in the town, and continued to exist until July, 1781, when it was succeeded by another, representative of the Cotton and Linen, the Silk, and the Smallware Manufacturers of Manchester and District.[319]

Judging from the frequent notices published in the newspapers by the first committee, its activities seem to have largely consisted in keeping the inhabitants of the town on tenterhooks regarding the presence of foreigners, who had come for the purpose of carrying away trade secrets, and who, apparently, adopted the most dramatic methods to discover them. However, the committee was interested in other matters, among which was the question of patents. In 1776 a notice appeared warning the public against infringing a patent which had been granted to a man named Wolstenholme, for the manufacture of cotton velveteen. Before very long the committee also issued a notice expressing the opinion that the invention to which the patent referred was not new, and that any person might safely manufacture the cloth without being liable to damages.[320] There can be little doubt as to the side on which the sympathies of Manchester manufacturers lay when Arkwright instituted his actions in 1781.

In February of that year a notice appeared[321] drawing attention to the fact that Arkwright had served several persons in Manchester and neighbourhood with writs for infringing one or both of his patents, and inviting those concerned to attend a meeting. In the following month[322] another meeting was called of merchants, manufacturers, and others, interested in the cotton trade of the town and neighbourhood, to consider the most effectual means of obtaining free and general use of the engines and inventions for the manufacturing of cotton, and for opposing attempts to obtain a monopoly. The leader in this movement was Mr. Robert Peel, later Sir Robert Peel, the father of the statesman, who, at the time, was building up even a greater concern than Arkwright’s, and to whom a revocation of the patents meant much.[323] To meet the expense of the ensuing legal proceedings a subscription was raised, twenty-two firms subscribing at the rate of 1s. a spindle employed by them.[324]

The action tried in 1781, in which a Colonel Morduant was the defendant, had reference to the infringement of the 1775 patent—the carding patent. The defence put forward was that the specification relating to it was insufficient, and on this ground the verdict went against Arkwright.[325] In the following year he drew up his Case, in which he admitted the obscurity of the specification, but claimed that his object was to prevent the introduction of his machines into other countries.[326] The main point of the Case, however, was the request it contained. Arkwright’s second patent had been declared invalid, and normally the term of the first patent would expire in July, 1783. He now requested Parliament, as a reward for the services he had rendered to the country, to consolidate the two patents, and to allow them to run for the remainder of the normal term of the second patent—until the end of 1789.[327] This request, if granted, would have preserved to him the second patent for its normal term, and have extended the life of his first patent for six and a half years.

Immediately the Committee of Trade in Manchester summoned the manufacturers to oppose the request, and a petition against it was presented to Parliament.[328] It is evident that there was a determination that neither Arkwright nor anyone else should have a patent if it could be prevented, for about the same time we find the Committee deciding to raise £200 for a man named Milne, who had invented a machine to expedite cotton roving, with a proviso that, if more than that sum were raised, the surplus should be devoted to opposing Arkwright’s application.[329] It is not unlikely that Arkwright pressed his case upon Parliament in the months immediately preceding the expiration of his first patent in 1783, for at this time the Committee of Trade called another meeting in order to oppose him.[330] With this continued opposition from the centre most interested, and with foreign affairs absorbing so much of the attention of ministers, it is hardly surprising that Parliament took no action.

For a period of two years the matter lay in abeyance, except that Arkwright, whose partnership with the Strutts had now been dissolved,[331] collected evidence to prove that the specification of his 1775 patent was sufficient for the construction of his machinery. On the strength of this evidence he then instituted another action for its infringement, which came to trial in February, 1785.[332] Certainly the action could not have been instituted at a more appropriate time for catching the Manchester manufacturers with their hands full of other things. In August, 1784, the Bill had been introduced levying the “fustian tax,” which roused a tremendous agitation in the town that continued until the Bill for its repeal was introduced eight months later.[333] Also, just before the trial, the Irish commercial propositions had passed the Irish Parliament, and to these the Manchester manufacturers were vehemently opposed, and none more so than Robert Peel, who, in his evidence before the Committee considering the question, claimed at the time to employ 6800 workpeople, and to pay an annual excise of £20,000. If the propositions were accepted, he asserted, it would pay him to transfer his operations to Ireland, where from the cheapness of labour, and exemption from taxes, he would retain a superiority of thirteen per cent.[334]

The fact that Arkwright caught the Manchester manufacturers at a busy moment may have had a bearing upon the result of the trial, which, it is probable, was different from what they anticipated. The question at issue was the sufficiency of the specification of the 1775 patent, and they do not appear to have been prepared to offer evidence regarding the originality of Arkwright as the inventor, as they apparently were at the first trial,[335] and as they decidedly were at the third. Arkwright put forward witnesses, including James Watt, to prove that machines could be made, and that they actually had been made, from his specification, and so gained the verdict.[336]

If the assertion ever was made that there was collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant to secure a verdict for the former,[337] it was probably made in Manchester.[338] In any case, there can be no doubt of the sensation the result of the trial created in the town. Notwithstanding the anxiety about other matters, a vigorous campaign was at once commenced to reverse it. Complaint was made of Arkwright’s claim having been allowed to lie dormant for so long. Relying on the validity of the verdict in the first trial, a great number of works had been completed, and others were nearing completion, which would employ thousands of poor, and which represented a capital outlay of more than £200,000. Unless relief were obtained, a great number of individuals who had embarked their all would be ruined, and would depart to other countries. Moreover, it was insisted, it was not only those using Arkwright’s spinning machinery who were involved, but also those using the jenny, for they would be deprived of the use of the carding machinery. By the verdict, “this great manufactory, the envy of Europe, will in great degree lie at the mercy of one man, who has already received by far, greater emoluments than any other individual, or united body of discoverers ever did.”[339]

The greatest fear was expressed that the cotton industry would move to Ireland and Scotland, where, it was asserted, Arkwright’s machinery was working without restriction. In so far as Arkwright had power to prevent it, this was extremely unlikely, but apparently there was something in the statement that in conjunction with “several eminent merchants” he was preparing to establish large works in Scotland. It was about this time that he came into contact with David Dale, and played some part in the erection of the famous New Lanark Mills, where, fifteen years later, the famous Manchester cotton-spinner, Robert Owen, “entered upon the government.”[340]

There can be no doubt that the reversal of the verdict of the 1781 trial had created a difficult situation, and a writ was at once applied for, to test the validity of the 1775 patent, and the trial took place in June, 1785, little more than four months after the second trial. This time the attack was made not merely on the ground of the insufficiency of the specification, but also on the ground that the roving operation patented in 1775 was simply a repetition of the spinning operation patented in 1769, for which the patent had expired. But, in addition, the claim of Arkwright to be the inventor of the spinning machinery for which he had enjoyed a patent for its full term was disputed, and the same as regards the carding machinery included in the 1775 patent.

The second point may be dismissed without discussion. Undoubtedly the spinning and the roving operations were essentially the same; the application of the rollers to carded cotton to produce roving was a repetition of their application to roving to produce yarn. Moreover, the question whether the new application was sufficient to justify an extension of the patent was secondary to the question whether Arkwright could be regarded as the inventor of the rollers. As regards the carding machinery part of the patent, damaging evidence was given by the widow and son of Hargreaves, and by a workman formerly employed by him, who stated emphatically that Hargreaves was the inventor of the crank and comb device, which was an immensely important part of the carding machinery, while others claimed either to have invented or used this, and other parts of the carding machinery, before Arkwright obtained his patent.[341]

At the trial Arkwright was unable to produce much evidence to rebut that given against him, though he claimed to be able to do so shortly afterwards, particularly as regards his invention of the crank and comb,[342] and apparently in this matter he had a strong case. Before Baines finished his History of the Cotton Manufacture he was quite convinced, by information obtained from the son of Hargreaves’ partner at Nottingham, that, though Hargreaves’ relatives might have spoken in good faith at the trial, instead of the crank and comb having reached Arkwright from Hargreaves, as was implied, the case was exactly the opposite.[343] Assuming that the information obtained by Baines was correct, it must be recognised that Arkwright was unfortunate, as there can be little doubt that the evidence given regarding the crank and comb must have influenced the view taken of his claim to have been the inventor of the spinning rollers.[344]

In the effort to refute the claim of Arkwright as the inventor, the important witnesses were Thomas Highs and John Kay. The story has been often told and need not be repeated at length. Briefly stated, Highs was put forward as the real inventor, and Kay as the person from whom Arkwright obtained information of the invention, which he patented in 1769. For some years before 1766 Highs and Kay had lived at Leigh as neighbours, and, according to Guest, in 1763 or 1764 the latter assisted the former in his efforts, already referred to, to construct the spinning-jenny.[345] About 1766 apparently, Highs conceived the idea of spinning by rollers, at any rate, in his evidence, he claimed to have made them in the following year. Kay, by this time, had gone to live at Warrington, where he followed the trade of clockmaking, and Highs employed him to make the wheels necessary to give different velocities to the rollers, and also a model.[346] Another remarkable claim of Highs was that, at this time, he used the rollers not only to spin but to rove as well, which Arkwright did not publicly claim to do until 1775. According to his own statement, however, he did not proceed with the rollers beyond the experimental stage, owing, as he said, to his inability through poverty, nor did he mention the invention for fear of losing it.

In the meantime, Arkwright, who lived at Bolton, is supposed to have heard of Highs’ experiments and to have sought out Kay with the object of obtaining knowledge of them. In his evidence, Kay stated that Arkwright visited him at Warrington in 1767, and that he made two models of Highs’ method of rollers for Arkwright, who took them away. Shortly afterwards he accompanied Arkwright to Preston (where the machinery was brought to a practicable stage), then to Nottingham, remaining in Arkwright’s employment some four or five years. At the end of this time trouble arose between them and they parted more or less as enemies.[347]

Apart from a statement of Highs that Kay’s wife told him of what had passed between her husband and Arkwright, there is only Kay’s testimony, which was not always convincing, to go upon, and clearly under the circumstances he was not likely to err in Arkwright’s favour. On the other hand, it is incredible that the two could have been associated as they were without Highs’ experiments having been mentioned, assuming that he had carried on any experiments. In view of the statements of Highs, this can hardly be doubted: there is nothing to suggest that he was deliberately untruthful. At the same time, this does not prove that Arkwright had not conceived the idea of spinning by rollers before his contact with Kay at Warrington. The difficult point to explain is why Arkwright sought out Kay at all, coupled with the fact that, from this time, he devoted his whole activity to the construction of the spinning-machine. The statement that previously he had been experimenting in mechanics, and that he sought out Kay for some purpose thus connected, does nothing but leave the difficulty unsolved.

The only other scrap of evidence regarding the question as to whether Arkwright did obtain Highs’ invention, was contained in a reference of Highs to a conversation he had with Arkwright at Manchester, when he charged him with having obtained it. Arkwright’s attitude, on this occasion, as described by Highs, was, however, as appropriate to a man with a clear conscience, who had no desire to enter into an unpleasant argument, as to a man who was guilty and wished to evade a charge.[348] One point that may be noticed is that as this conversation was said to have taken place about the time when Highs’ machine was exhibited in the Exchange, the date of the exhibition, as revealed by its advertisement, fixes the conversation one year nearer to the time when Arkwright took out his first patent than has always been supposed. On the side of Highs, the great difficulty is to explain why his claim was allowed to lie so long in abeyance, seeing that he was not without friends in Manchester, men, moreover, who, it may be assumed, would not have been slow to attack Arkwright’s patent had the slightest opportunity been offered.

On the evidence given at the third trial, not only as regards the invention of the rollers, but as regards the other questions at issue, no other decision was possible than one that involved the annulment of Arkwright’s patent, and it was arrived at without hesitation. It does not necessarily follow that the evidence was complete, and on one point, as already noticed, it probably was not. In an application for a new trial, made shortly afterwards, evidence regarding the crank and comb, similar to that obtained by Baines, and from the same source, was mentioned, and also evidence to rebut that given by Kay and Highs. The judges, however, were convinced that there was not sufficient ground for the application and in November, 1785, the patent was cancelled.[349]

After the trial, The Manchester Mercury, in a comment on the evidence, stated that it appeared from it, that the most material engines in Arkwright’s patent for preparing cotton were the cylinder carding-engine and the roving-engine. The first was so old that its origin could not be traced, and improvements had been added to it by Hargreaves, Whittaker, Wood and others, long before Arkwright claimed it. The roving-engine and the spinning-engine were one and the same thing, and the evidence proved that it was invented by Mr. Hayes of Leigh, although Arkwright had enjoyed a monopoly of it for fourteen years, while the real inventor was prevented by poverty from seeking redress.[350]

There is some truth in this view, but certainly not the whole truth. It must be recognised that neither Highs nor Arkwright was the first to conceive the principle of attenuating cotton by the roller-method. That honour undoubtedly belongs to Lewis Paul, and the principle was crudely stated in the specification[351] of the patent he obtained, and embodied in the machinery he constructed, thirty years before either of them had begun to experiment. But how far were these men or either of them indebted to Paul for knowledge of the method? Taking into account the lives and the characters of the two men, Arkwright was more likely to have been acquainted with it than Highs. In his peregrinations about the country he had the opportunity, and with his unbounded push and curiosity it is fairly certain that, if anything could be known of it, Arkwright was the man to know it. Indeed, if Kay’s account of the conversation he had with Arkwright at Warrington may be trusted, he went far to avow the fact.[352]

It cannot be said, of course, that Highs had not heard of the method, but in his case it was less likely and, as mentioned in connection with the jenny, he was just the type of man in whose mind ideas were likely to originate anew.[353] About Arkwright there was not the same suggestion of originality. He was just the type of man, however, who, having got an inkling of Paul’s method, and then gaining a knowledge of Highs’ experiments through Kay, would carry the roller method to a practicable issue. Whether the idea was his own, or whether he was carrying the work of Paul, or Highs, or both, it is certain that it was with Arkwright that the method of spinning by rollers came into use, and of the carding machinery, for which again, as we have seen, some credit was due to Paul, the same may be said.

In certain respects Arkwright was undoubtedly a great man. He became prominent when ideas of invention were fermenting in men’s minds, and even if all that was affirmed at the third trial of the obligations he owed to others were true, somehow, in his hands, their achievements were carried a long step towards perfection, and were collated into a successful system. From the early cotton industry, against great odds, he gained wealth; perhaps that was his supreme aim; even so, what he gained was a trifle compared with the pecuniary value of his achievements. On the whole, perhaps it was just as well that Arkwright’s career as patentee concluded when it did. As we have seen, by 1780 he had several concerns under his control; also, in 1785, he had great schemes on hand in Scotland. Baines informs us that “he contemplated entering into the most extensive mercantile transactions, and buying up all the cotton in the world, in order to make an enormous profit by the monopoly.”[354] Had Arkwright maintained his position for a little longer, his name might have been handed down to posterity, not only in connection with the invention of spinning by rollers, and with the early factory system, but also as the earliest of the great modern Trust magnates.

CHAPTER V THE MULE AND THE RISE OF A NEW COTTON MANUFACTURE — I — II — III

To combine in a superior spinning-machine, the most important principles of those with which the names of James Hargreaves and Richard Arkwright are associated, is the task accomplished by Samuel Crompton. This machine was the “mule,” and whatever doubt there may be as to the real inventor of the jenny and the rollers, no serious doubt has ever been cast upon the title of Crompton as the inventor of the mule. In the letters printed in the following pages he informs us how, where, why, and when he invented the machine, and some indication is given of its effects upon the development of a new cotton manufacture. In addition, we have a vivid account of his efforts, and of the measures taken, to obtain adequate recompense for his ingenuity as inventor. The letters are so complete in themselves that, in many respects, little needs to be added to them. But after a lapse of one hundred and forty years from the date when Crompton began to invent his machine, it should be possible to place it more adequately in its relations than it was when the letters were written.

To give a detailed account of Crompton’s life and labours is not required, as that task has been excellently performed by his fellow-townsman, Gilbert J. French, and also by his staunch friend, John Kennedy.[355] But, in association with these letters, to give some of the outstanding facts of his career will be considered excusable and even necessary.

When Crompton was born, on the 3rd of December 1753, his parents lived at Firwood Fold, a hamlet in the township of Tonge, in the parish of Bolton, but about a mile outside the town. Soon after his birth they removed to another cottage in the same township, and, when he was about five years old, they took up their residence in a portion of a large picturesque dwelling near by, which Lancashire folk call Hall-i’-th’-Wood.[356] It was here where, according to his own account, as early as 1772, he began his endeavours to discover a method of producing a better quality of yarn than that which he as a weaver had to use.[357] This was two years after Hargreaves had taken out his belated patent for the jenny, and three years after Arkwright had obtained his patent for the rollers. Two or three years before 1772, Crompton is stated to have spun upon a jenny,[358] and, if the statement is correct, it substantiates the view already expressed, that before Hargreaves took out his patent the jenny was in common use.

It was not until 1778, however, that Crompton began to construct the machine, which, known at first by the names of the “Hall-i’-th’ Wood Wheel” and the “Muslin Wheel,” later became known as the “Mule.” The machine was completed in 1779, and until the beginning of 1780 he spun upon it both warp and weft yarn for his own use as a weaver.[359] At this time he devoted himself entirely to spinning, as well he might, seeing that he obtained as much as 14s. per lb. for 40’s yarn, and as much as 25s. for 60’s.[360] These prices indicate the intense demand for yarn of the quality spun by his method. They also explain why during 1780 he “was beset on every side by people of various descriptions from the distance of 60 miles and upwards as well as by my neighbours” anxious to learn his secret.[361] Before the end of the year, convinced that he could not retain it, he consented to make his machine public, on the promise of a liberal subscription, “and received by subscription only so much as built me a new one with 4 spindles more than my first,”[362] which had 48.[363]

The obvious question which suggests itself is, why did not Crompton patent his machine? Some light may be thrown upon this question by considering what was its relation to the jenny on the one hand, and to Arkwright’s machinery on the other, for which, it must be remembered, Arkwright was in possession of full patent rights until 1781. Even the verdict of that year did not legally terminate the rights conferred by his first patent, which continued until 1783. The two bases of Crompton’s “mule” were undoubtedly the principle of the jenny and the principle of the rollers, hence the name. If proof were required that neither the jenny nor Arkwright’s machine produced a completely satisfactory thread for fine work, the demand for Crompton’s yarn in 1780 would supply it. But there was the further consideration that the jenny produced a soft thread which was only really suitable for wefts, while the characteristic feature of the thread spun by Arkwright’s machinery was that it was hard and suitable for warps.

One of the defects of Arkwright’s yarn was that it tended to be uneven, and with the rollers there was no satisfactory method of correcting it, though Arkwright attempted to do so by passing the rovings through several machines before they reached the final stage. But the yarn lacked the “stretch” which was given to it by means of the movable carriage which, as we have seen, was an essential feature of the mechanism of the jenny. Crompton’s method was to pass the roving between rollers and then, by availing himself of the movable carriage, to get the “stretch.” Thus he obtained the advantages of both methods, and the result was a thread of much better quality and finer than that produced previously, and it was not only suitable for wefts, but also for warps, particularly for those required in the manufacture of fine cotton fabrics.[364]

But the mule was more than a combination of the jenny and the rollers; although this in itself was an important development in spinning. As just mentioned, with the mule method of spinning, the roving was first passed between rollers and so partly attenuated. When the required length had passed between them, they stopped, and thus acted like the clasp arrangement on the movable carriage of the jenny. But whereas, in the jenny, the spindles were fixed in the frame, in the mule they were fixed in the movable carriage, which receded from the rollers as the partly attenuated roving was given out, and continued to recede when the rollers stopped, thus attenuating it still more, while at the same time the spindles were revolved to give the required twist to the thread. Then, as in the jenny, the carriage was moved back to its first position, and the spindles were again revolved to wind the spun thread on to them. The important thing about the “stretch” in the machine invented by Crompton was that he “made the spindles recede from the rollers in such a way that the yarn was subjected to the least possible strain until it had been strengthened by twisting or spinning. As a result the yarn produced by the ‘mule’ was more even and smooth, and could be spun thinner or of higher ‘counts’ than had been possible on any earlier machines.”[365]

If ever the labours of anyone have deserved the grant of a patent, surely it was so in the case of Crompton. Even though his machine was based upon the jenny and the rollers, it marked an immense advance in the development of spinning machinery. Usually it is surmised that he did not obtain a patent owing to lack of funds. Probably it was much more due to his lack of the business qualities which Arkwright possessed in abundance, coupled with difficulties connected with the character of the machine, and with the views regarding patents prevalent at the time.

French refers to the fact that, before the machine was made public, Crompton had shown it in confidence to Mr. John Pilkington, a merchant and manufacturer of Bolton, who gave evidence on his behalf before the Committee in 1812, and finds it difficult to explain why he did not advise Crompton to secure a patent and assist him in doing so.[366] As regards Mr. Pilkington, it is almost certain that his action is to be explained on the ground of the prevalent dislike to patents. Apparently, what he advised Crompton to do, was to make his machine public on the understanding that a subscription should be raised to reward him for its invention.[367] In giving this advice, he was acting quite in accordance with the method of reward which then generally commended itself, and, there is reason to think, commended itself to Mr. Pilkington. Reference has already been made to the Committee of Trade in Manchester, which came into existence in 1781,[368] on the dissolution of the committee which had existed since 1774. Whether Mr. Pilkington was a member of the Committee before 1781 it is impossible to say, but he was certainly a member of the Committee appointed in that year, and it was this Committee which was so prominent in opposition to Arkwright’s patent, and which, as we have seen, when it was most actively engaged in this direction, raised a subscription to reward an inventor.[369]

As regards that part of the explanation connected with the character of the mule, it has to be borne in mind that its use involved the use of the rollers, for which Arkwright already held a patent. Only by some arrangement with him could the mule have been openly brought into use, and it is hard to believe that this fact was not recognised, and, seeing that such an arrangement would probably have been in Arkwright’s interest, that it did not influence Mr. Pilkington’s advice.

In 1807 a writer insisted upon the relation between the mule and the rollers and claimed that, at first, the mule was not used publicly without Arkwright’s permission.[370] Evidence that such permission was given in any case is difficult to discover, but apart from it, the statement of Ure that had not Arkwright’s patent been annulled, the mule, as embodying the system of rollers, must have remained in abeyance until the end of its term, seems justified.[371] Unless the view is taken that the verdict in the 1781 trial annulled the patent of 1769 (which was never claimed), this means that the mule could not be freely used until 1783, notwithstanding that verdict, and, as the 1775 patent contained the system of rollers, it would come under legal restriction again during the short period that intervened between the second and third trials in 1785.

But this suggests another point: is it not probable that the appearance of the mule does much to explain the infringements of Arkwright’s patent against which he instituted the actions in 1781? Similarly, does it not do much to explain the energy with which the actions were defended, particularly in view of the fact that Peel’s firm was included among those that subscribed £1, 1s. in order that Crompton would give publicity to his machine? Unless some arrangement had been made, Arkwright would have every inducement to prevent the mule coming into use; on the other side, an opportunity was presented of outwitting Arkwright, and of securing the free use of a machine even superior to that for which he held a patent. Here, it appears, we get the elements of the trouble which culminated in the trial of 1781.

Whatever justification there may have been for the opposition to Arkwright’s patent, the action of those engaged in the cotton industry in regard to Crompton in 1780 was despicable. An inhabitant of Bolton writing in 1799 stated that “the inventor received from the subscription of individuals 100l. for making his invention public; the sum of 200l. he says was promised him, which promise was never fulfilled.”[372] It may have been that Crompton did give his consent on the promise of such a sum: a similar sum was given to Highs in 1771 and suggested for the man Milne in 1782, and may have been regarded as customary.[373] Be this as it may, Crompton did not obtain it in 1780, and his treatment at that time must always remain as a reproach to those concerned.

By nature Crompton was probably a man of rather gloomy temperament. He would probably have been as happy as was possible to him, with a modest competence, living his life in a corner, but there can be little doubt that this incident accentuated what nature had endowed him with, and he brooded over the injustice to the end of his life. Moreover, it is probable that it checked the exercise of his inventive genius. Four or five years later he was experimenting with a carding-machine,[374] which, French tells us, he ultimately destroyed in the belief that it would be purloined.[375] In view of the date of the experiment one cannot help wondering whether it was carried on during the short period in 1785, when Arkwright’s patent rights were temporarily restored, and had as its object the displacement of his carding machinery.

By the time these patent rights were finally annulled considerable improvements had been effected in the mule, and from about that date there followed a great extension of its use. Up to 1783 Mr. Kennedy did not think that Crompton’s machine was in use to the extent of a thousand spindles,[376] and it must be recognised that it was in a crude state of construction when it left his hands. Crompton was not a practical mechanic and his work was performed with the simplest tools. He was acquainted with the jenny, but he informed Mr. Kennedy that, when he constructed his machine, he was unacquainted with Arkwright’s rollers.[377] This may have meant, not that he had not heard of them, but that he had not seen them at work, which is not improbable, seeing that, at that time, they were only in use by Arkwright himself, and by those who had purchased the right to use them. If Crompton had neither heard of them nor seen them, it appears that he would have to be regarded as another discoverer of the roller method. The evidence is too slight, however, to allow a confident assertion on this point. Mr. Kennedy’s statement that Crompton at first used a single pair of rollers, expecting to attenuate the roving by pressure, and on the failure of this method was led to adopt a second pair, one pair revolving at a higher speed than the other, certainly suggests that he had no previous close acquaintance with the roller method.[378] Indeed, one having heard of it, but not having seen it, might well have proceeded on these lines.

Like the jenny and unlike the water-frame, the mule in its early stages was entirely worked by hand, and was chiefly used in the cottages in country districts.[379] The method of spinning by it soon became well known “from the circumstance of the high wages that could be obtained by those working on it, above the ordinary wages of other artisans, such as shoemakers, joiners, hat-makers, &c. who on that account left their previous employment.... By their industry, skill, and economy, these men first becoming proprietors of perhaps a single mule, and persevering in habits so intimately connected with success, were afterwards the most extensive spinners in the trade.”[380]

It was also by such men that many minor improvements were effected in the mule: “For in the course of their working the machine if there was any little thing out of gear, each workman endeavoured to fill up the deficiency with some expedient suggested by his former trade; the smith suggested a piece of iron, the shoemaker a welt of leather, &c., all of which had a good effect in improving the machine. Each put what he thought best to the experiment, and that which was good was retained.... It would be vain to enumerate all the little additions to Crompton’s original machine; also as they arose so much out of one another, it is impossible to give to every claimant, what is exactly his due for improvements.”[381]

But there were more conspicuous improvements effected in the mule during the first six or seven years after it was made public, and among them were those of Henry Stones of Horwich, who, it is believed, was the first maker of mules after Crompton, either for his own use or for the use of others. His improvements consisted in the introduction of metal rollers, in place of wooden ones, and of a self-acting contrivance to stop them when they had given out the required length of roving, while various devices came into use for measuring the number of revolutions necessary for this purpose. One effect of the improvements of Stones was to allow the mule to be enlarged to 100 or 130 spindles.[382] Soon afterwards a man named Baker of Bury introduced other improvements which enabled the whole machine to be further enlarged, and another man, Hargreaves of Toddington (Tottington near Bury?), contrived a method for bringing out the carriage.[383]

But, in addition to improvements, there was also a development in connection with the mule in these early years. This was the invention of a machine called the “Billy” by a man at Stockport who, it may be noticed, again received a premium as a reward for his ingenuity.[384] Up to this time the mule had been used solely for the spinning of yarn. The rovings for spinning had to be made either on the spinning-wheel, or by Arkwright’s machinery. The “Billy” was a modification of the mule, or rather a combination of the mule and the jenny; but, instead of spinning rovings into yarn, it made the carded cotton into rovings. With this machine rovings could be made for the use of the mule, the jenny, or even the water-frame, to any required degree of fineness, and at a greatly reduced cost.[385] This modification of the mule, therefore, extended its own use, but it was not so with the jenny, although it was the jenny-spinners who subscribed the premium for the inventor.

At this time the jenny had superseded the hand-wheel and was in use over a wide area, including such centres as Blackburn, Bury, Oldham, Ashton, and Stockport, but the stage had been reached when in turn, so far as cotton-spinning was concerned, the jenny was to be superseded by the mule.[386] To a lesser extent the same may be said of the mule in relation to the water-frame. The mule, however, was pre-eminently a machine for spinning the finer counts of yarn; it was owing to this fact that it gave rise to new branches of trade; in spinning warp yarn and the coarser counts generally there was still scope for Arkwright’s spinning-machine. The mule and the jenny were rivals in a way, and to an extent that the mule and the water-frame were not.[387] Even this rivalry was absent as between the mule and Arkwright’s machinery for the processes preparatory to spinning, and with the cancellation of his patent roving-making for a time became a distinct business. This was exceedingly important to the small spinners, to whom the rovings were chiefly sold, as they now got the advantage of methods of preparation previously confined to mill-owners who had adopted the patent machinery.[388]

In 1790 William Kelly, manager of New Lanark Mills before Robert Owen came into possession, first applied water-power to the mule, and this at once led to its further enlargement.[389] Taking advantage of the greater driving power available, a Manchester machine-maker named Wright constructed a double mule, which gradually superseded the single mule. With this new construction, which contained about 400 spindles, “the spinner could superintend and operate upon four times the quantity of spindles compared with the former method.”[390]

The application of water-power did not mean, of course, that afterwards all the operations of the mule were mechanically performed, but, in 1792, Kelly took out a patent for a “self-actor” mule, which he expected young people would be able to operate. In later years the reason he put forward for its not coming permanently into use was that, owing to the introduction of the double mule and the rapid increase in the number of spindles, mule-minding continued to be the task of a man. Apparently there were other reasons, as, notwithstanding numerous efforts, a satisfactory “self-actor” mule was not invented until 1825, when a patent was taken out by Richard Roberts, the famous Manchester machine-maker, who also gave the finishing touches to the power-loom.[391] In the meantime, various other improvements had been effected in the mule, one of which was due to John Kennedy,[392] to whose writings we are indebted for so much of the information we possess of the development of the cotton industry in the later years of the eighteenth and the early years of the nineteenth centuries.

We have just seen that one consequence of the application of artificial power to the driving of the mule was an increase in its size. Another consequence, closely associated with the one mentioned, was the appearance of the mule in factories, as contrasted with the garrets of cottages, where it had been previously employed. So long as artificial power meant water-power, factories were necessarily erected by the side of streams, mainly in the country districts. When steam-power became available they could just as well be erected in the towns, and with the increasing complexity of machinery the presence there of skilful mechanics, who were lacking in the country districts, was an item of importance.[393]

This transition became conspicuous about 1790,[394] and at this time several men who later became noted cotton-spinners were entering the industry. It was now that Robert Owen heard “about great and extraordinary discoveries that were beginning to be introduced into Manchester for spinning cotton by new and curious machinery” and was induced to leave Satterfield’s to become a maker of mules.[395] Also John Kennedy and his partner James M‘Connel were on the point of founding the firm, among whose business material the following letters of Samuel Crompton have been discovered.[396] Enough has been said to indicate the eminence of John Kennedy in the cotton industry, and a novelist of a later day, taking as her hero a Manchester Blue-Coat apprentice in the early years of the nineteenth century, could indicate in no better way the exalted stage he had reached in his career than by allowing her readers to see him in conversation, almost as an equal, with the Manchester cotton-spinner, James M‘Connel.[397]

Both these men were members of a group of Scottish youths that migrated into Lancashire from a country district in Kirkcudbrightshire in the early eighties of the eighteenth century,[398] and they were not the only members of the group to gain prominent positions in Manchester. The brothers Adam and George Murray were equally prominent as cotton-spinners; James Kennedy, brother of John Kennedy, was scarcely less prominent as the head of another cotton-spinning concern; while a brother of James M‘Connel became manager of M‘Connel & Kennedy’s factory. If, to this group, we add Jonathan Pollard, and the Houldsworths, of whom Thomas and John were spinners in Manchester, while Henry left Manchester for Glasgow in 1799, and established a concern there, we have comprehended the principal spinners of fine yarn in the British cotton industry in the early years of the nineteenth century.[399] All these men commenced in business within a few years of each other, those of whom we have definite information having little capital, and, like Robert Owen, most of them commenced not so much as spinners as makers of cotton machinery.

When James M‘Connel, John Kennedy, and Adam Murray left Scotland they became apprenticed to a man named Cannan, an uncle of James M‘Connel, who himself had migrated from the same district some time before.[400] This man was a machine-maker, and had established himself at Chowbent, a village about twelve miles from Manchester, which a gazetteer published in 1830 still noted for the excellent quality of cotton machinery made there.[401] Thus, so far as these men were concerned, there was nothing surprising in the fact that when they began business in Manchester it was primarily as machine-makers.

But there were other reasons which have to be taken into account. At this time the making of cotton machinery had not become a specialised branch of industry, and there was a lack of experienced workmen. The firm of Dobson & Rothwell, of Bolton (now the famous firm of Dobson & Barlow), only commenced in 1790, while the birth of other textile machinery firms lay far in the future.[402] Machine-making, indeed, was the business of workers in wood rather than of workers in metal. It was almost impossible for anyone to begin spinning on any considerable scale with the new machinery without first making it. As the spinning firm of M‘Connel & Kennedy expanded, it continued to make machinery for its own use long after it had ceased to accept orders from outsiders.

It was such men as these who became prominent when Crompton’s mule was being introduced into town factories. Their businesses in their early stages were a mixture of machine-making and fine cotton-spinning, and in either branch they could prosper. But, as regards many of them, the intense demand for the fine yarns produced by the mule, turned the balance in favour of spinning, and, as soon as convenient, they left the making of machinery to specialised firms.

Although every branch of the cotton manufacture was affected in greater or lesser degree by Crompton’s invention, it was to the finer branches that it was supremely important. The previous inventions had made possible the manufacture of cotton calicoes, and had improved the manufacture of other goods, but they were not adequate to produce the quality of material required for the finest fabrics. For these, consumers in this country were still dependent upon the long-established cotton industry in the East. Five years before the date of Arkwright’s first patent Joseph Shaw, of Bolton, had attempted to make British muslins at a place called Anderton, near Chorley, but with little success, owing to the lack of suitable yarn.[403] It was this deficiency which Crompton’s machine supplied.

In the evidence given in 1812 before the Committee on Crompton’s petition it was claimed that the manufacture of the fine fabrics, the cambrics, and the muslins, which then existed was to be attributed almost entirely to the fine yarns produced by the mule.[404] Thus in the invention of the mule may be found one of the chief causes of the transference of the seat of an industry to the Western from the Eastern world, where it had been situated from time immemorial.[405] Even as the Committee was sitting, the cotton manufacturers of the United Kingdom were turning their eyes towards the East, not as a market from which cotton fabrics were imported, but as an extensive market for goods that they produced.[406] A century later, of their immense exports nearly one half was disposed of in that part of the world.[407]

Regarding this development of the manufacture of fine cotton goods in this country, a witness has left us such a succinct account that it cannot be omitted: “About 1790, the muslin trade received a stimulus at Stockport, from the efforts of the late Samuel Oldknow, whose spirit of enterprise extended to this branch of our manufacture. He took new ground by copying some of the fabrics imported from India, which at that time supplied this kingdom with all the finer fabrics, and which the mule-spun yarn alone could imitate. He was very successful in carrying on the ingenious processes which he had devised; but the French Revolution creating a panic and general stagnation for a time, he abandoned this branch of the trade, and betook himself to his large water-mill at Mellor, which was built in the year 1790. On his retiring from the manufacturing of fine muslin, Messrs. Horrocks, who had just established themselves at Preston as mule-spinners, took up what he had laid down. They became extensive manufacturers of cloth similar to that made by Oldknow, and supplied the same market, London. This gave a new stimulus in that district, and immediately upon the subsiding of the panic caused by the French Revolution, a market sprang up on the Continent for yarns of all kinds, but principally for muslin yarns, up to the highest numbers that could be pronounced.... The Scotch in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, being long in the habit of weaving fine cambric from flax yarn, and silk friezes, had also turned their hands to the manufacture of fine cotton fabrics principally from the fine yarns produced by Hargreaves’ and other subsequent machines. The Lancashire manufacturers followed them in the thicker and firmer fabrics, and about 1805 or 1806 the Nottingham lace trade sprang up. Mr. Heathcote (formerly a whitesmith) invented a machine by which he could make lace similar to that of Brussels and Buckingham, which was worked by hand; and he principally if not wholly, at first, used fine flax yarns. Twofold fine cotton twisted together was found to answer very well as a substitute; and as it required the finest yarns, a great impulse was given towards perfecting the production of fine cotton yarn. It bore a high price, as the lace manufacturer had only to compete with hand-spun thread, and hand-made lace.”[408]

In this account Mr. Kennedy implies the existence of markets for fine yarns in Lancashire, at Nottingham, Glasgow, and on the Continent. To these must be added the market at Belfast, where, in 1800, in the town and within a circuit of ten miles 37,000 people were said to be employed in the cotton manufacture.[409] Glasgow was the most important market that the firm of M‘Connel & Kennedy supplied with fine yarns during Mr. Kennedy’s connection with it, which terminated in 1826, but from 1795 until that date merchants and manufacturers in Belfast and neighbourhood were among its most important customers.[410]

From what has been said it will be apparent, so far as the development of the cotton industry is concerned, that the period from the introduction of the jenny and Arkwright’s machinery to the first years of the nineteenth century may be divided into two parts, with a date about 1790 marking the division. During the first part the problem of providing adequate supplies of yarn for all kinds of cotton cloth was definitely solved, and a new cotton manufacture and a new system of organisation were born. In the second part that which had been achieved during the preceding twenty years was developed and consolidated, and the cotton industry, in its spinning branch, assumed its modern form. The average import of cotton from 1776 to 1780 amounted to 6-3/4 million pounds; from 1786 to 1790 the amount reached 25-1/2 million pounds; from 1796 to 1800 it increased to 37-1/2 million pounds; and during the next five years to nearly 58-1/2 million pounds; afterwards it increased very little until the conclusion of the war.[411] During the last decades of the eighteenth century cotton, particularly of the finer kinds, had assumed a new importance, and as a direct consequence of the developments in England, the problem of its adequate supply was already being solved by our kinsmen across the Atlantic.[412] In 1790 the United States had only just commenced to send small quantities of cotton into Great Britain; fifteen years later the import was no less than 32-1/2 million pounds.[413]

To a brief consideration of certain other important changes that took place during the period, a classic passage written by William Radcliffe forms a useful introduction: “From the year 1770 to 1788 a complete change had gradually been effected in the spinning of yarns. That of wool had disappeared altogether, and that of linen was also nearly gone; cotton, cotton, cotton was become the almost universal material for employment. The hand wheels, with the exception of one establishment, were all thrown into lumber-rooms, the yarn was all spun on common jennies, the carding for all numbers up to 40 hanks in the pound was done on carding-engines; but the finer numbers of 60 to 80 were still carded by hand, it being a general opinion at that time that machine-carding would never answer for fine numbers. In weaving no great alteration had taken place during these eighteen years save the introduction of the fly-shuttle, a change in the woollen looms to fustians and calico, and the linen nearly gone, except the few fine fabrics in which there was a mixture of cotton. To the best of my recollection there was no increase of looms during this period—but rather a decrease.... But the mule-twist now coming into vogue, for the warp, as well as weft, added to the water-twist and common jenny yarns, with an increasing demand for every fabric the loom could produce, put all hands in request of every age and description. The fabrics made from wool or linen vanished, while the old loom-shops being insufficient, every lumber room, even old barns, cart-houses, and outbuildings of any description were repaired, windows broke through old blank walls and all fitted up for loom-shops. This source of making room being at length exhausted, new weavers’ cottages with loom-shops rose up in every direction; all immediately filled, and when in full work the weekly circulation of money, as the price of labour only, rose to five times the amount ever before experienced in this subdivision, every family bringing home weekly 40, 60, 80, 100, or even 120 shillings per week!!!”[414]

In this passage the transition from the use of the hand-wheel in spinning, and the manufacture of woollen, linen, and mixed goods, to the use of the inventions, and the manufacture of all kinds of cotton goods is vividly described. There is abundant evidence, in addition to that given by Radcliffe, of the prosperity of the weavers as a consequence of the changes,[415] but this is a matter which must be considered along with another, especially as much turns upon them in estimating the social consequences of the transition.

Reference has already been made to the view that in the Lancashire textile industry, prior to this transition, the operations were performed by more or less independent producers and some evidence was presented to the contrary. But in addition to this view there is another—indeed, between the two there is a close connection—that these producers were at least part-time agriculturalists engaged in cultivating small farms.[416] Mainly this view has been based upon another passage by Radcliffe, and it has also been influenced, no doubt, by Defoe’s picturesque account of a number of small clothiers in Yorkshire.[417]

Just as there is nothing in the petitions presented to Parliament from Lancashire in the eighteenth century to support the independent-producer view, but much that suggests the contrary, so as regards the small-farmer view: it is difficult to imagine independent producers and small farmers striving to form themselves into trade unions. At the same time Radcliffe’s statement cannot be dismissed as baseless. It is rather a question as to how far his description of the township of Mellor is to be regarded as of general application, and as to how much should be deduced from it regarding the extent to which industrial and agricultural occupations were associated. Evidence to show that such association did exist may be found in the fairly frequent advertisements in The Manchester Mercury of small farms, with loom-houses, suitable for weavers. Aikin, whose book was published in 1795, refers to the size of farms in the parish of Middleton as “from twenty to thirty acres, which are occupied mostly by weavers, who alternately engage themselves in the pursuits of husbandry and the more lucrative one of the shuttle,” and again, in the neighbouring parish of Rochdale, “The farms, being generally occupied by manufacturers, are small, seldom exceeding 70l. per annum.”[418] In Lancashire, he states, “the more general size of farms is from 50 down to 20 acres, or even as much only as will keep a horse or a cow,” and further, “The yeomanry, formerly numerous and respectable, have generally diminished of late, many of them having entered into trade: but in their stead, a number of small proprietors have been introduced, whose chief subsistence depends upon manufactures, but who have purchased land round their houses, which they cultivate by way of convenience and variety.”[419]

Evidence regarding the association of industrial and agricultural occupations continues until beyond the first quarter of the nineteenth century. At that time it could be stated that “in Lancashire there appears to be among the hand-loom weavers two classes almost wholly distinct from each other; the one, who though they take in work in their own houses or cellars, are congregated in the large manufacturing towns; and the other, scattered in small hamlets, or single houses, in various districts throughout the manufacturing county.... It appears that persons of this description, for many years past, have been occupiers of small farms of a few acres, which they have held at high rents; and combining the business of a hand-loom weaver, with that of a working farmer, have assisted to raise the rent of their land from the profits of their loom.”[420]

In view of this mass of evidence, statements which imply that, in the eighteenth century, the Lancashire textile industry was carried on by part-time industrialists would seem to have solid foundation. Nevertheless, even more cautious statements require considerable qualification. In the first place, for obvious reasons, we must rule out the great majority of those engaged in the industry who lived in Manchester and its immediate neighbourhood, and also those in the other centres of congregated population.[421] These were evidently in a similar position to the first class mentioned in the above quotation. In the eighteenth century, as in the early nineteenth, those who were associated with both agriculture and industry have to be sought in country districts such as that to which Radcliffe refers.

But a careful reading of what Radcliffe says will show that, even in Mellor, a distinction has to be drawn between the small farmers who “got their rent partly in some branch of trade, such as weaving woollen, linen, or cotton,” and the cottagers who “were employed entirely in this manner, except for a few weeks in the harvest.” Evidently the members of the latter class could not be regarded as agriculturalists in any reasonable sense, although, apparently, they had small gardens attached to their cottages. What proportion the cottagers bore to the small farmers it is impossible to say with certainty, but it seems extremely probable that they were in a considerable majority.

In 1795 Aikin described Mellor as having “a chapel of the Church of England round which are a few straggling houses,”[422] but probably this description referred only to the centre of the township. When the 1801 census was taken the following particulars were collected:—the township consisted of 270 houses of which 19 were uninhabited, and the remainder contained 301 families. It had a population of 1670 (805 males and 865 females), of whom 68 were employed chiefly in agriculture and 945 chiefly in trade, manufactures or handicraft, leaving 657 not included in these two classes.[423] Between 1770 (the date mentioned by Radcliffe) and 1801 population generally had increased, though it is hardly likely that it would have increased much in a place like Mellor; indeed, the fact that, at the latter date, there were 19 houses uninhabited strongly suggests that within a considerable time it had neither increased nor decreased to any extent. If it can be assumed that the number of families was the same in 1770 as in 1801, then allowing 55 of these to have been farmer families (Radcliffe’s fifty or sixty), 246 families would be left as otherwise occupied: roughly a proportion of 9 to 2. Even allowing for a considerable increase in the number of families by 1801, it appears that in 1770 the farmer families must have been greatly outnumbered by the others.

Though the description of the parish of Middleton by Aikin is not so picturesque as the description of the township of Mellor by Radcliffe, it is not improbable, without any great distortion of facts, that one might be used for the other, and no doubt for other places as well. In some cases (as in the six or seven mentioned by Radcliffe in Mellor) it appears that of the two occupations the agricultural may have been the more prominent, and that in others they were more equal. If French’s statement relating to Bolton in 1753 may be accepted as correct, this was evidently the case in the country districts in the neighbourhood of that town at that time.[424] Even in cases where industrial activities were of least importance, taking into account the size of farms and other evidence, there can be little doubt that a spinning-wheel was to be found in the farm-houses.[425] Starting from these, we appear to get a gradation with industrial activities becoming more and more important, until we reach the cottagers mentioned by Radcliffe, who can hardly be regarded as engaged in agricultural activities at all. In the country districts it was these cottagers, and the small farmers of the type to which he refers, who constituted the main supply of manufacturing labour.

This view is substantiated in the writings of Dr. Gaskell, which are of particular importance in regard to the question under consideration, as expressing the views of a man who intensely disliked the factory system, and who naturally was inclined to present the system which it displaced in as favourable a light as possible.[426]

He distinguished between three classes in the country districts who were affected by the transition in industry: the yeomen or small freeholders who apparently were entirely engaged in agriculture; a superior class of artisans, primarily engaged in manufacturing, but who commonly rented some land as an accessory; a secondary or inferior class of artisans entirely dependent upon manufacturing.[427]

Clearly, the members of this second class correspond to Radcliffe’s small farmers, and the members of the third to his cottagers. According to Gaskell, the yeomen were anything but an enterprising class; they cultivated their land as had their forefathers and regarded innovation as rank heresy, with the result that, in the agricultural changes of the eighteenth century which accompanied the industrial changes, they failed to keep pace with the march of events.[428] The farming of the second class was slovenly and definitely subordinate to their industrial activities; its importance in Gaskell’s view was that it gave to the members of the class opportunity for a healthy employment and raised them above the rank of mere labourers, and, as generally the weavers had much spare time on their hands owing to irregularity of work, it is evident that it would be useful in providing a subsidiary occupation.[429] The members of the third class, who merely had a garden, were especially prone to suffer from the scarcity of yarn and irregularity of work, and on occasion they underwent severe privation, the uncertainty of their livelihood engendering lack of forethought, improvidence, and carelessness in expenditure.[430]

With the coming of the jenny and the mule the circumstances of the two latter classes were changed, as without extra outlay of capital more cloth could be produced by their looms, and consequently they derived great benefit from the inventions. Indeed, Gaskell asserts that a material improvement had been gradually taking place in their position during the half-century preceding the application of steam-power to weaving,[431] not so much because of increased payment for their labour, as because of a constantly increasing supply of yarn, which enabled them to turn out a greater and more regular quantity of cloth.[432]

One of the first effects of the improvement was to cause the superior class of artisans to abandon their agricultural activities, owing to the fact that their labour with the loom had become so much more profitable. Gaskell fully recognised this material advance, but considered that it was gained at the expense of a lowered status; previously the members of this class had been on a level with the yeoman; by the change they had become labourers.[433] The effect upon the inferior class of artisans was that they were at once elevated to a position of equality with the superior class, and though Gaskell recognised that the amalgamation raised their general character as a body, and gave them community of interest and feeling, the change did not favourably impress him.[434] Whatever else Gaskell may have been, he was certainly not a strong believer in the elimination of class distinctions.

But the effects of these developments in industry extended to the yeomen. Previously, although the members of this class had not been noted for their efficiency in farming, they had been able to maintain their position owing to the still less efficiency of the farmer-manufacturers who had served them as a bulwark, and, as the latter disappeared from agriculture, and as new methods and a new type of cultivator appeared, the yeomen lost the markets they had previously supplied.

At this stage many of the yeomen turned their attention to the new machines which were being introduced into industry and purchased them, in five-sevenths of the cases having to borrow money, generally on mortgage. But as a result, for a time, a large quantity of yarn was produced in old farm-houses. Difficulties soon arose, owing, on the one hand, to the erection of factories where the machinery was driven by water-power, and, on the other, to the rapid improvements in machinery.[435] In competition with the factories, the profits of those who had embarked on spinning in the farm-houses decreased, and through the other cause, the latest jenny bought in one year could hardly produce enough yarn in the following year to repay the outlay. Consequently, they were compelled to dispose of the machine or to arrange an exchange with a maker on disadvantageous terms. In Gaskell’s opinion the number of machines thus thrown back into the market facilitated the growth of factories. Although a machine was obsolete before a domestic spinner had time to cover the first cost, yet, worked along with others and driven by water-power, such a machine was a profitable investment. Thus many of the members of the yeomen class lost their position in agriculture, and later became incapable of maintaining their position in industry. But it was not the case with all of them. A few, Gaskell states, shook off their slothful habits of body and mind and were successful in their new sphere of activity, several of the most eminently successful of the steam manufacturers springing from this class.[436]

This account of one aspect of the transition in industry, coming from a man whose writings were a vigorous attack upon the system that emerged, and corroborated as it is by much independent evidence, may, in general outline, be accepted as undoubtedly trustworthy. But its chief importance for our purpose is the indication it gives of the extent to which those engaged in the textile industries in the country districts in the eighteenth century were connected with agriculture, and also in its giving at least part of the explanation of the break-down of the connection during the transition period. Apparently the principal link was constituted by those whom Gaskell regarded as a superior class of artisans, and whom Radcliffe called small-farmers. Of the two it is fairly evident that Gaskell’s designation was the more appropriate. Whether this class was absolutely a large number it is impossible to say: possibly what has been suggested regarding Mellor may give some indication of its relative number in the country districts. But when we take into account the total number engaged in the Lancashire textile industry in the towns and in the country districts, the conclusion that the relative number of part-time agriculturalists was small would seem to have abundant justification. They can hardly be regarded as the typical workpeople.

But there is another question: To what extent were those in the country districts independent producers, and thus different from those in the towns, whose position in this respect has already been considered? That there may have been some independent producers is probably true,[437] but there is little reason to think that the number was large. Gaskell states that “the yarn ... which was wanted by the weaver was received or delivered by agents who travelled for wholesale houses or depôts were established in particular neighbourhoods where he could call weekly.”[438] This is clearly the “putting-out” system which has been described, and under this system, although the workpeople worked in their own houses they could not be regarded as independent producers.

The agents mentioned by Gaskell were evidently employees of the manufacturers, but, as frequent advertisements show, there were also men in the country districts who described themselves as “putters-out,” and others, who apparently differed very little from them, who were ready to undertake work on commission. Then there were the country fustian manufacturers, some of whom, indeed, probably occupied a position little different from the others, as they too sometimes declared themselves ready to make goods on commission.[439] The relation of these men to the workpeople is indicated in the statement of one of them that he had “a quantity of approved weavers at command.”[440] In the country districts of Lancashire in the eighteenth century there is ample reason for saying that the great majority of workpeople in the textile industry were employed by these various types of men. Generally their position was little, if any, different from the position of the workpeople in the towns—indeed, as we have seen, the smallware weavers’ combination in 1758 extended to country districts such as Ashton and Royton.

In view of the evidence, it can safely be said that among the first effects of the developments in the Lancashire textile industry in the eighteenth century was an improvement in the position of the workpeople, especially of the weavers, and that, after the cancellation of Arkwright’s patent, and the fuller utilisation of the mule, there was a great burst of prosperity. As is well known, this period of prosperity was not of long duration; soon the weavers were plunged into a longer period of distress. Weavers formerly engaged in other branches of trade turned to cotton.[441] Great numbers of agricultural labourers became weavers, with the effect of raising wages in their former occupation.[442] But in addition, and far more important, was the war, as a consequence of which the natural expansion of markets was impeded and the course of trade marked by violent fluctuations and crises. During this period even the mule-spinners, whose career as the “aristocracy” of labour in the cotton trade had now commenced, had to undergo severe privation, but their higher skill and superior organisation prevented them from sinking into the depths of distress which was the lot of the weavers.[443]

The transition in the cotton industry is, of course, only part of that general transition in industry and agriculture in England which is now concisely known as the Industrial Revolution, and sometimes the last decades of the eighteenth and the early decades of the nineteenth centuries are taken to cover the period of the transition. That the movement was proceeding apace in these years there can be no doubt, but it would be erroneous to regard what happened then as more than an acceleration of what had been taking place before. At any rate, so far as the cotton industry is concerned, from the moment that we can take hold of anything that may be called a cotton industry a continuous development can be traced in all directions. Even the inventions of the jenny and the water-frame, when viewed in their right relations, are seen as the outcome of efforts extending over more than thirty years preceding their appearance, and come as something expected, rather than as something sudden and unique.

Frequently, and with much justification, the view is taken of this transition period, particularly of the last decade of the eighteenth and the first decades of the nineteenth centuries, that it was a time of great distress and of social retrogression for a large part of the population, and considerable stress is laid upon the economic movement as a cause. A priori the idea that an economic movement such as we have been considering, which was characterised on the one hand by a greater power of production, and on the other by an expanding economic unity could, of itself, be a cause of widespread distress and of social retrogression is a hard one to accept. Moreover, when the previous position in Lancashire and the effects the economic movement was having upon it are taken into account, there seems no good reason why it should be accepted for this period. The movement, in its early stages, was undoubtedly much more constructive than destructive. An explanation of what transpired later has to be sought in causes which distorted the economic movement, and, especially during that portion of the period mentioned, such causes are not far to seek.

Attention has been drawn to the unrest that prevailed in the country during the period from the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War to beyond the conclusion of the American War, and from what has obtained in similar circumstances, both before and since, that the fundamental cause was to be found in the wars can hardly be doubted. Indeed, as we have seen, notwithstanding much confused thinking, the fact was occasionally recognised at the time.

In 1793, when the war commenced which was destined to continue almost without intermission for nearly a quarter of a century, a similar cause at once began to operate, but with greater intensity, owing to the economic changes which had already taken place, and which were revealing their most striking results at that time. In considering this stage of the Industrial Revolution it must be borne in mind that, as a result of the war, the economic changes were probably intensified and concentrated in this country to an extent they would not have been in time of peace; on the other hand, movements which were making for social development were checked by the exercise of political power. It is here where we get the connection between the economic movement and the social retrogression and evils of the time. In the circumstances created by the war, anything which appeared to obstruct the working of the economic or political machinery was not to be tolerated, and legislation was invoked to clear away possible impediments. In the nature of the case, the legislation was an expression of the views of those in whose hands lay political power—class legislation of which the Combination Acts and the General Enclosure Act are prominent examples.[444]

The Napoleonic War thus becomes the dominant factor in the social and economic history of the later Industrial Revolution period. Owing to its occurrence, the economic movement in this country was distorted, and the increased power of production, instead of improving the material welfare of the community, had to be devoted to the prosecution of the war; social development was thwarted and thrown back; and the relationships between employers and workpeople, with which the latter, in the middle of the eighteenth century, in Lancashire, had shown their dissatisfaction and were striving through combination to modify, were continued and solidified, and left as a heritage to the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.

In view of the growth and activity of trade unions during the eighteenth century, is it too much to say that, had not the war broken out, and had they been allowed to develop as they certainly were developing, problems of industrial relationships which have yet to be solved would have been faced a century ago, and possibly solutions found which would have meant that the present system would have been a considerable modification on that which now exists? However this may be, it may be said that the social retrogression and evils which mark the Industrial Revolution period are only in a very secondary sense to be attributed to the economic movement: the primary cause is to be found in the war in which the country was engaged.

CHAPTER VI CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON

It now remains to follow the fortunes of Samuel Crompton to the time when he wrote the following letters. Some time before 1785 he left Hall-i’-th’-Wood and went to live at Oldhams, in the township of Sharples, about three miles north of Bolton, where he combined the business of a small farmer with that of a spinner.[445]

During his residence at this place, Robert Peel is said to have visited him with the object of persuading him to enter his employment, or even to become a partner with him. French suggests that the main reason for Crompton’s refusal was a dislike of Peel, which was maintained to the end of his life. This may have been the case, of course, but his references to Sir Robert (as he then was) in the following letters do not betray any animosity, and Peel certainly appears to have exerted himself on his behalf.[446] In the last year of his residence at Oldhams, Crompton occupied the office of overseer of the poor for the township of Sharples, a fact in which there is nothing surprising. Crompton can only be regarded as a working man, but that he had fully utilised his limited opportunities of education, his letters and other attainments show.[447]

In 1791 he removed to a house in King Street, Bolton, where in the attics, and in those of the two adjoining houses, he carried on his spinning business, in which he was assisted by two of his sons. One of the strongest proofs that Crompton was not a man of business is that, at this time, he did not establish himself as a successful spinner, as did others with whom he was acquainted. It can hardly have been lack of capital which prevented him, for he must have possessed as much as his friend John Kennedy, who, in this very year, began in business with James M‘Connel, and it is known that between them they only raised £250.[448]

The next interesting event in Crompton’s career, so far as the following letters are concerned, occurred in 1802-1803, and, as regards this event, French stands in need of considerable correction. He informs us that “In 1800 some gentlemen of Manchester, sensible that Mr. Crompton had been ill used and neglected, agreed without his previous knowledge to promote a subscription on such a scale as would result in a substantial reward for his labours, a provision for his family, and a sufficient security for his comfort during life. The principal promoters of this scheme were Mr. George Lee and Mr. Kennedy.”[449]

As a matter of fact, this subscription was only in its initial stages at the very end of 1802, and, as Crompton states, must have just got under way[450] when the war broke out again in May, 1803, after a short pause of little more than eighteen months. Further, if French’s suggestion is that Crompton did not know of the subscription until after it was launched, the necessary correction is supplied in one of the letters, in which we see that Crompton himself was active in striving to make it a success.[451]

As a consequence of French’s imperfect knowledge of the exact time of the subscription, the explanation which he offers of the comparatively small sum raised is clearly wide of the mark: “But this hopeful scheme, generous and noble in its intention, followed the usual course of Crompton’s evil fortune. Before it could be carried out the country was suffering from a failure in the crops and consequent high price of food, a lamentable war broke out, the horrors of the French Revolution approached their crisis, trade was all but extinguished—and the result was a sum quite inadequate to the proposed purpose or to his deserts.”[452]

It is true that the year 1800 was a terrible year, with high food prices, as was the greater part of the next year, but before the end food prices had fallen considerably, and the cotton trade was entering upon somewhat of a boom, the spinning branch was increasing, and in the following summer a large number of new factories were erected in Manchester.[453] Thus the time could not have been more propitious for the promotion of the subscription, and it is more than probable that a far larger sum than the £300 to £400 which Crompton mentions would have been raised had not, as he says, the war broken out again.

Although French’s explanation of the comparative failure of the subscription is incorrect, his comment on the ill fortune which dogged Crompton’s footsteps may be agreed with. At the same time, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the amount of the subscription would have reached the £5000 which he obtained by Parliamentary grant in 1812. If anything like that amount had been raised, one fears that the application to Parliament nine years later might not have been so well supported, and a perusal of the letters may also suggest the fear that, even if such had been the case, it might have fallen upon deaf ears so far as Parliament was concerned.

Shortly after Crompton received the proceeds of the subscription, he used a portion to extend his business of spinning and weaving, renting the top floor of a factory, where he employed three men, one woman and six children.[454] One sore complaint that he had to make was the difficulty he experienced in keeping his workpeople, owing to inducements to leave him offered by those who expected to learn something from them. In later years he actually attributed his lack of success in the spinning business to this fact, and stated that on account of it he was obliged for years to give up spinning.[455] French goes so far as to say that one of Crompton’s sons was unable to resist inducements of this character and in consequence left his father’s service.[456] There is nothing intrinsically improbable in the statement, for one thing of which there does appear to be ample evidence is that whatever troubles Crompton had to contend with from outsiders during his career, he did not receive much support from his own kindred in bearing them. In view of Crompton’s character, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the somewhat persistent efforts to obtain recompense adequate to his services were due more to them than to himself.

In 1807, he wrote to Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, with the object of interesting him in his case, and suggested that it might be brought before the King and his ministers.[457] Owing probably to the letter having been wrongly addressed, it reached the Society of Arts, and was considered by the committee, when the secretary was instructed to send a reply, but for some reason no reply reached Crompton, which led him to believe that he had been slighted. It appears that, in some way, this fact must have become known, and the matter was reconsidered in March, 1811, when an answer was sent, which drew from Crompton a tart rejoinder, in reply to which he was informed that the Society of Arts was unable to do anything, as it did not possess funds to give large rewards, although, actually, Crompton had not applied to the Society for a reward. The whole incident was unfortunate, and undoubtedly did much further to embitter him, convinced as he already was that the world was against him.[458]

At this time Crompton, although by no means wealthy, according to his standard of living, was in fairly easy circumstances, and “had even lent a few hundred pounds,” but French suggests that he was anxious about the future position of his family.[459] However this may have been, it is clear that, shortly after the incident with the Society of Arts had terminated, a move was made which, in the next year, resulted in the application to Parliament for financial recognition of his services as inventor. Of the negotiations in London immediately preceding the grant eventually made to him a clear account is given in the following letters.

With a view to the application, he collected information of the extent to which the mule was used and of its effects upon the cotton industry in England, Scotland and Ireland, and on the basis of this information a petition was prepared for presentation to Parliament.[460] To ensure its being influentially signed, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lee again exerted themselves whole-heartedly, and several references to the matter appear in the correspondence of M‘Connel & Kennedy with their agent and customers in Scotland in the last days of 1811 and the first days of 1812.

When the 1803 subscription was launched the conditions were favourable, but the same cannot be said of this time. From the recommencement of the war in the spring of 1803, trade, at the best, had run an unsteady course. During the intervening period the Napoleonic decrees and the British Orders in Council had come into operation, and had created friction between this country and the United States, which, constantly growing more intense, led to retaliatory measures on the other side of the Atlantic, and in 1812 to war with England. Only in 1809 and in the early part of 1810 was there an active trade during the period, and this burst of activity followed upon a terrible period of distress in 1808, when, with the district in a state of insurrection, a petition signed by 50,000 persons was presented from Manchester, and another from Bolton signed by 30,000, praying that peace negotiations might be opened.

The succeeding trade boom is partly to be explained by a frenzy of speculative shipments to South America, and when it came to an end it was followed by a hurricane of bankruptcies which swept over England and Scotland, reached Ireland, and caused anxious concern in the United States. The situation, bad though it was in 1808, was even worse in the latter part of 1810 and in 1811 and during the greater part of 1812. In 1811, the Luddite risings began in the hosiery districts of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, and early in 1812 extended to Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire. In April of the latter year Manchester was in a state of rebellion. In one riot an attack was made upon the Exchange; in another, a few days later, upon the Shudehill market; and, on both occasions, it was considered necessary to call out the military to deal with the rioters. In the Shudehill riot, however, force was supplemented by the fixing of a maximum price for potatoes, which had to be sold in small quantities.[461]

It was in such circumstances, not to mention the drain of a war which had continued almost uninterruptedly for nearly twenty years, that Crompton’s petition was prepared and presented, and a grant of £5000 made to him. In view of the sums granted to others who had conferred benefits on the nation by their ingenuity, this amount was certainly paltry, but perhaps it should be placed to the credit of those concerned that his appeal received the attention it did.

The parliamentary proceedings extended from 5th March to 25th June. French states that Crompton proceeded to London in February, but, as his letters show, he was already there in the previous month.[462] It was not until 5th March that the matter came before the House of Commons, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by command of the Prince Regent, acquainted the House that His Royal Highness, having been informed of the contents of Crompton’s petition, recommended it to the consideration of the House.

On this occasion no debate took place, nor evidently on any other until 24th June, when the grant was moved. On the first occasion the petition was referred to a Committee with power to send for persons, papers and records.[463] The next occasion was on 18th March, when the Committee was instructed to submit to the House minutes of evidence concerning the case, and any observations upon it. A striking comment upon the conditions of the time is that on the very same page of the Journals on which this record appears,[464] there is also a petition from Bolton—Crompton’s home—pointing out that the people in that neighbourhood were “so nearly to actual starvation that they think it would be highly imprudent any longer to delay communicating their situation to the House”; that the manufacturers had been reduced to the necessity of working for one-fourth of what they obtained before the commencement of the war with France; and that the necessaries of life had nearly doubled in price. Convinced that the war was the immediate cause of their distress, they asked for parliamentary reform on the ground that “if the house consisted of representatives of the people only, it would not for any doubtful prospect of benefit to our allies consent to expose the people of this country to the certain misery, ruin, and starvation which the continuance of the war must bring upon them.”

Certainly the Committee did not delay carrying out the order of the House in the matter of Crompton’s petition, as the evidence was taken on the same day as the order was given.[465] Evidently some little “engineering” had taken place as a comparison of the evidence with the series of questions and answers prepared beforehand will show.[466] If the record of the proceedings is a correct account of what took place at the meeting, it is difficult to believe that the chairman and at least one witness had not the evidence already before them. On 24th March the Committee presented its report, when it was ordered to be printed and to lie on the table. Again, during the preceding four days, petitions had been presented from Blackburn and Preston, drawing attention to the parlous state of public affairs, and insisting that the lower classes had difficulty in obtaining a bare subsistence; that the middle classes were rapidly sinking to the position of the lower; and suggesting similar remedies to those of their fellow-petitioners at Bolton.[467]

So far as Parliament was concerned, Crompton’s petition now lay in abeyance for three months, and his activity in keeping alive interest in it is described in his letter of 15th April,[468] at which time a state of insurrection prevailed in Manchester and in other places for miles around the town. On 11th May Mr. Perceval was assassinated, and shortly afterwards the Ministry, of which he had been the head, resigned, and it was not easy to form a new one. Crompton’s case must have had influential support, otherwise it could hardly have been kept to the front in the confusion of these days. French evidently believed that the death of Mr. Perceval prevented Crompton obtaining a larger amount than that which was granted. This may have been so, but a perusal of Mr. Lee’s letter does not give much ground for the belief.[469]

On 24th June the matter again came before the House of Commons, when Lord Stanley, who had been chairman of the Committee charged with the case, brought it forward, and in his speech repeated the arguments of the petition,[470] and ended by moving “That a sum not exceeding £5000 be granted to Mr. Crompton as a remuneration for his invention,” which was formally seconded by Mr. Blackburne, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself satisfied that this remuneration was deserved. The only other member who appears to have addressed the House on this occasion was Mr. D. Giddy, who, so far as his speech is recorded, expressed no definite opinion as to the adequacy of the grant, but suggested that, as he considered the case of a “transcendent” character, it should be made without fee or deduction. The resolution was then agreed to, and the following day was formally ratified.[471]

Throughout the proceedings Crompton had studiously refrained from expressing any opinion as to the sum to which he thought himself entitled, trusting rather to “British generosity” and “to the dignity of the giver and the merit of the receiver,” but it is clear that he was bitterly disappointed with the amount of the grant.[472] It can hardly have come as a surprise to his friends, although it is equally clear that they thought that he ought to have received at least double the amount. The statement of Mr. Lee that “Crompton’s plain appearance has been in his favour by inducing the members to suppose that he would be satisfied with a small grant and therefore they were willing to assist him” is significant both as regards gaining their support of a grant, and its amount, although it is hard to believe that the £10,000 which Mr. Lee thought reasonable would have roused much opposition.[473] Moreover, although the suggestion of Mr. Giddy that the £5000 should be paid without any fee or deduction was included in the final resolution, it appears that it was not strictly carried out, and that the sum Crompton actually received was considerably reduced by expenses.[474]

After the grant had been made, anxious to provide for his sons, Crompton embarked upon the bleaching business, with two of them as partners, at Over Darwen, four miles from Bolton. He also entered into a partnership with another son and with a Mr. Wylde, as cotton merchants and spinners, while with two other sons he continued his old business of spinning and manufacturing at Bolton.[475] As regards the bleaching concern, “the unfavourable state of the times, the inexperience and mismanagement of his sons, a bad situation, and a tedious lawsuit, conspired in a very short time to put an end to this establishment.”[476] The business into which he had entered with his son and Mr. Wylde appears to have succeeded little better. After a considerable loss the partnership was dissolved, and Crompton’s son, taking £1500 as his share of capital, set up in business on his own account at Oldham, which again was a failure. Even in the concern at Bolton there was disharmony, and ultimately the sons left it and Crompton carried it on alone.[477]

By 1824, having then reached the age of seventy years, he was reduced to poverty. The end of his career is recorded by John Kennedy, and surely no one could have left a record based upon more intimate and sympathetic knowledge of Crompton’s trials and achievements: “Messrs. Hicks & Rothwell, of Bolton, myself and some others, in that neighbourhood and in Manchester, had in 1824 recourse to a second subscription, to purchase a life annuity for him, which produced £63 per annum. The amount raised for this purpose was collected in small sums, from one to ten pounds, some of which were contributed by the Swiss and French spinners, who acknowledged his merits and pitied his misfortunes. At the same time his portrait was engraved for his benefit, and a few impressions were disposed of: he enjoyed this small annuity only two years. He died June 26th, 1827.”[478]

In the year following that in which the annuity was purchased a movement, in which a Mr. J. Brown, of Bolton, was the prominent figure, was set on foot to bring Crompton’s case again before Parliament, with a view to a second grant. The pamphlet, to which references have already been made, was written by Mr. Brown and published with extracts from Crompton’s correspondence; a memorial was drawn up, which, according to French, was extensively signed by inhabitants of Bolton, the application for signatures being confined to that town, and in 1826 a petition was presented to Parliament.[479]

From French’s account of the effort, it may be gathered that it aroused no widespread interest, and it is significant that when John Kennedy wrote his Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton in 1830 he made no mention of it. Probably he thought, as one cannot help thinking at the present day, that it was unfortunate that the effort was made. It must have been apparent at that time, with Crompton well over seventy years of age, that a grant of a large sum of money would be of little use to him even had there been any possibility of an application being successful. Its only virtue was that it gave Parliament an opportunity of increasing the inadequate grant made in 1812. But, even as regards that grant, one is compelled to recognise that, had it been larger, it is unlikely, taking into account the peculiar difficulties with which Crompton had to contend, that his position in 1824 would have been very different from what it was. Instead of making a grant of a lump sum in 1812, the more suitable method of reward in Crompton’s case and, as a general rule, in all such cases, would have been that of his friends twelve years later: to have granted him a suitable pension.

As already mentioned, Crompton died in the sixth month of 1827. When French published the first edition of his book in 1859, Crompton’s memory was in danger of neglect, but, mainly owing to the interest thus aroused, the danger was averted, and when he published his third edition in 1862, a monument had been erected over Crompton’s grave in the churchyard of his native parish,[480] and a statue was in course of preparation, the cost of both being defrayed by voluntary public subscription.

The statue which stands in Nelson Square, Bolton, was unveiled on 24th September 1862, when an address was given by Mr. Henry Ashworth, cotton spinner,[481] in which he spoke of the effect of the inventions of Crompton and others upon the development of the cotton trade and upon the people of Bolton and Lancashire. On the same occasion “Mr. Rickson, pointing to Mr. John Crompton, the son of the inventor, who was seated by the side of the statue, expressed hope that they would not forget him, but would raise a subscription to place him above indigence for the remainder of his days.”[482] Apparently something was done in this direction, as in the next month Lord Palmerston directed that a gratuity of £50 should be made to him, and it is a remarkable fact, in view of the conditions that prevailed when his father received his grant in 1812, that again, at this time, owing to the civil war in America, the distress in Bolton was so great that a public meeting had to be called to consider the situation, when a sum of £4000 was subscribed for relief.[483]

Another memorial of Crompton which the town of Bolton now possesses is Hall-i’-th’-Wood, where the idea of the mule took rise in the inventor’s mind, and in 1779 assumed material form.[484] The Hall is outside the town and overlooks it, but at the present day, although the surrounding country has undergone such changes, it is not difficult to realise what it must have been one hundred and fifty years ago. The town was then known as Bolton-le-Moors, and in 1773 with Little Bolton and the Manor of Bolton contained 5339 inhabitants.[485] From the centre of a sparsely populated country district, it has been transformed into the centre of the fine cotton spinning industry of England, and of the world. The town is now the county borough of Bolton, with a population approaching 200,000, and with the district, according to a recent return, contains one hundred and twelve firms engaged in the cotton industry, working nearly seven and a half million spindles, and over twenty-four thousand looms.[486] In its commercial organisation the town stands as a witness to the world economy which has come into existence; in its industrial organisation, as a witness to the existence of the factory system. It is these facts, with all that they imply, which form the most striking memorial to Crompton, who, as one among other outstanding figures of his day, played no small part in the development of which they are the expression.

Sufficient has been said in the previous chapter to indicate the place which Crompton’s invention occupied in the development of the cotton industry during the latter years of the eighteenth and the early years of the nineteenth centuries. A striking thing was the rapid increase in the size of the machine, particularly after 1790. The first mule constructed by Crompton contained only 48 spindles; in 1795 the smallest mule made by M‘Connel & Kennedy appears to have had 144 spindles. In February of that year a correspondent was informed “in respect to what number of spindles may be most profitable, it is difficult to fix, as what was thought best only two years ago is now thought too small.... We are now making from 180 to 288 spindles.” Three months later, in reply to another correspondent, it was stated that most of the mules were then made to go by steam or water, and in the next year we find them supplying mules to work in pairs, the two containing 372 spindles. In 1799 they were making single mules with 300 spindles, and in the same year Dobson & Rothwell were making them with 408 spindles.[487] When Ure published his Cotton Manufacture in 1836 the largest mules then in use apparently contained somewhat over 500 spindles. At the present day they are made to three times the size, a pair of mules containing 2000 to 2500 spindles being common.

But in addition to enlargement the mule as invented by Crompton has, of course, undergone vast improvements. As we have seen, movements originally performed by hand soon came to be performed by mechanical means, the culmination of this kind of improvement being reached in the invention of the “self-actor” mule.[488] Yet, notwithstanding these and other improvements, it can still be said that the fundamental motions of the mule remain the same as in Crompton’s original machine.

For a time in the early part of the nineteenth century the mule came into use to such an extent that it appeared that it would entirely displace the water-frame. With the appearance of the “Throstle,” which was really an important improvement in the water-frame, the tendency was somewhat checked, and later in the century with other improvements the supremacy of the mule was again challenged. Consequently the great rival of the mule at the present day in the world’s cotton industry is the “Ring Spinning Frame,” which may be regarded as standing in much the same relation to the original water-frame, as does the self-actor mule to the original mule. The following figures show the position in recent years:—

COTTON-SPINNING SPINDLES. SPINNERS’ RETURNS,
31ST AUGUST IN EACH YEAR[489]

From these figures it will be seen that in Great Britain the mule still vastly predominates, and that in other countries the opposite is the case.[490] It is unnecessary to enumerate here the particular economic advantages of one machine compared with the other,[491] but in explanation of the international position it has to be borne in mind that, for spinning the higher qualities of yarn, the mule is superior to the ring-frame, also, that it is a much more complicated machine, and requires more highly skilled labour for its construction and operation.[492] As regards such labour, this country has been highly favoured compared with most of the other countries where the cotton industry is carried on. Even so, it appears that in British cotton mills ring-spindles are increasing at a greater rate than mule-spindles, and in the mills of other countries the fact is more pronounced. Whether the above figures represent a permanent tendency a longer period will be required to show, but, in any case, it is certain that the development of the cotton industry during the past century and a half, particularly in the United Kingdom, cannot be fully understood apart from the service which has been rendered by the invention of Samuel Crompton.

CHAPTER VII LETTERS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON

In view of what has been said in the last two chapters, the following letters explain themselves. The first has reference to the 1803 subscription, and the others to the parliamentary grant in 1812. As will be seen, four of the letters were sent in the first place to Crompton’s family, and then, apparently, handed to Mr. Kennedy. The others, including the one from Mr. Lee, were addressed either to Mr. Kennedy or to the firm of M‘Connel & Kennedy. The letters form a consecutive narrative, but in order to present a full account of the matter to which they refer, the petition to the House of Commons, and the evidence before the Committee appointed in connection with it, have been introduced in their appropriate places.

As Crompton did not pay much attention to punctuation, and was prone to abbreviate, a few stops have been introduced, and some abbreviated words printed in full; also a few words [in brackets] have been added. Otherwise the letters are printed as Crompton wrote them.

On the blank sheet of the above letter there is a rough draft of one from Mr. Kennedy to Crompton, in which he advises him to get Mr. Pilkington and Mr. Ainsworth and any other neighbours he thinks proper to add their names to those of the persons who had already signed the circular letter “which is to show that you are the inventor.” Afterwards, Mr. Kennedy explained, the circular letter would be printed, and sent to those who were likely to be friends to the cause, and those who had already promised their support would make their subscriptions, and call upon others to do the same.

The following letter is undated, and as it was sent by a Mr. Willoughby, it contains no postmark. It is evident from its contents, however, that it is here given in its correct chronological order.

The above letter was evidently handed to Mr. Kennedy with the following note added by Crompton’s son:—

Report from the Committee on the Petition of
Samuel Crompton of Bolton-en-le-Moors, in
the County of Lancaster, Cotton Spinner.

The Committee to whom the Petition of Samuel Crompton, of Bolton-en-le-Moors in the county of Lancaster, Cotton Spinner, was referred: and who were empowered to report their Observations thereupon to the House, and also the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them;—Have, pursuant to the Order of the House, examined the matter of the said Petition; and have agreed upon the following Report:

Your Committee have called before them several Witnesses, whose Evidence they have hereunto subjoined, and beg leave to state, that from the Evidence so adduced before them, it appears to Your Committee the Petitioner has fully proved his Claim as to the discovery of the machine called “The Mule,” described in the said Petition; and that it also appeared from the said Evidence that the Public have for a long course of years derived great and extensive benefit from the use of the said Machine, but that the Petitioner had derived little or no advantage therefrom; in consequence of which Your Committee beg leave to observe, that the Petitioner appears to them to be highly deserving of a National Reward.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

COMMITTEE on the petition of Mr. Samuel Crompton.[500]

Mercurii, 18º; die Martij, 1812,

The Lord Stanley in the Chair.

Sir Robert Peel a Member of the Committee, stated,

That in the year 1769, Sir Richard Arkwright obtained a Patent for the use of a Machine by him invented, for spinning cotton, commonly called a Water Frame, the benefit of which invention he exclusively enjoyed during the full period of fourteen years, and derived great advantage therefrom; and the above Machine, although excellent for purposes to which it could be applied, was exceedingly limited in its application, it being, from its construction, utterly incapable of spinning weft of any kind, or of producing twist of very fine texture.

Mr. John Pilkington, Merchant and Manufacturer at
Bolton; called in, and Examined.

At what period were you first acquainted with Mr. Crompton’s Machine?—I did not see it till the year 1780, when the yarn produced by Mr. Crompton from his Machine drew the attention of the Cotton Manufacturers. At that time I went to Mr. Crompton’s house, and I saw his Machine: soon after which I drew up a paper with a view to obtain for Mr. Crompton a reward for making public his invention, by a subscription amongst the Manufacturers; but the amount of which subscription proved very inadequate to my expectations and my opinion of his deserts.

Has Mr. Crompton’s invention produced any material improvement and extension in the cotton manufacture?—Previous to the invention of Mr. Crompton’s Machine, the muslin manufacture had been attempted, but without success; since that period it has been progressively advancing, and at present I believe the major part of the cotton cloth manufactured in this kingdom is spun upon the Machine invented by Mr. Crompton.

In consequence of drawing up that paper, and your commencing a subscription for Mr. Crompton, upon the faith of that subscription being adequate to its merits and his expectation, did he permit his invention to be made public?—It was I think in expectation of a much larger reward than he obtained, that Mr. Crompton permitted myself and some others to see his Machine; but I saw it in confidence before the subscription was entered into.

Did Mr. Crompton allow his invention to be made public in consequence of that subscription?—Yes, but which subscription he did not know the amount of, at the time he allowed his invention to be made public; and that subscription, it afterwards appeared, fell infinitely short of his and my expectations.

Do you recollect the amount of that subscription?—About £106.

Do you think the sum of money Mr. Crompton has received at different times, in any degree adequate to the utility of the invention, or to the expectations entertained?—Certainly not.

Mr. George Lee, Cotton Spinner, of the House of Phillips
and Lee, of Manchester; called in, and Examined.

Does the Machine invented by Mr. Crompton produce yarn superior in fineness and quality to any other machine?—It does.

Could yarns adapted to cotton, cambrics, and muslins, be spun equal in quality or cheapness by any other machine?—They could not.

Is Mr. Crompton’s Machine in general use?—In very extensive and general use.

To what extent is Mr. Crompton’s Machine used?—From the most exact calculation which I have been able to obtain, there are four millions of spindles upon Mr. Crompton’s principle.

How many persons are employed directly in working machinery upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?—There cannot be less than seventy thousand directly.

What quantity of cotton wool is spun by Mules annually?—About forty millions of pounds.

What would be the amount of duty paid to Government upon the same materials spun by Mules?—About three hundred and fifty thousand pounds annually.

What is the amount of wages paid for spinning by Mules, compared with all other machinery for that purpose?—Double the amount in wages is paid for spinning by Mr. Crompton’s Machine to that by all other machines for cotton spinning.

Do you mean that two-thirds of the cotton spinning is upon the principle of Mr. Crompton’s invention?—I do.

Has the cost of yarns, and consequently of cotton cloth, been materially diminished by Mr. Crompton’s invention?—Very materially indeed.

Are you aware of the circumstances relative to a subscription that was entered into?—Yes, in the year 1800 or 1801, a number of gentlemen, thinking Mr. Crompton had been neglected, agreed to solicit subscriptions, for the purpose of making him a liberal remuneration: I attended with those gentlemen, and applied amongst others to Mr. Arkwright; Mr. Arkwright’s answer was, that he would contribute to it cheerfully, candidly acknowledging the merit of the invention, and at the same time observing that Mr. Crompton had been his most bitter rival, for that he had superseded the Machine of his father’s invention, in the finer yarns; and he subscribed thirty guineas. We collected only about £400; we expected to have got a much greater sum; but in consequence of the distresses from the war breaking out, we found the result of our applications very inadequate to our expectations and his deserts. From the difficulty of collecting even what had been subscribed, and still more of obtaining any addition to it, we discontinued our applications. The money which was collected was paid to Mr. Crompton, not amounting in the whole to £500, I believe.

Was that subscription commenced in consequence of any solicitation from Mr. Crompton?—No, it was spontaneous on our part, entirely from a sense of his just claim upon the public.

Mr. James Watt, of the House of Boulton, Watt & Company,
of Birmingham; called in, and Examined.

Have you erected many Steam Engines for turning machinery upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?—A considerable number; I conceive about two-thirds of the power of steam engines we have erected for spinning cotton, has been applied to turning spindles upon Mr. Crompton’s construction.

Mr. Thomas Ainsworth, of the House of Ainsworth &
Company, of Bolton; called in, and Examined.

How long have you been conversant with the cotton trade in the county of Lancaster?—About thirty-seven years.

Can you speak as to the extent of the cotton trade thirty years ago, compared with what it is at present?—I think it is increased in proportion as twenty to one.

To what do you, in a great measure, attribute this rapid increase of the trade?—To the invention of machinery, and most particularly that used in spinning.

To what invention in spinning-machinery do you most particularly allude?—The first kind of machine beyond the one-spindle wheel was what was called a Jenny; the next was Mr. Arkwright’s, for which he obtained a patent; and the next was Mr. Crompton’s.

To which of those do you most particularly allude, as imputing to it the rapid increase of the trade; or do you impute it to them altogether?—There was a progressive increase; first by the Jenny, and then by Mr. Arkwright’s invention; but the great increase, and that which accomplished the main object, was Mr. Crompton’s.

Can you describe the principle of Mr. Arkwright’s Machine, and the effect it is calculated to produce?—The thread of Mr. Arkwright’s Machine is made through rollers only, and twisted up to the rollers, which compels a hard thread and fit only for warps.

Wherein does Mr. Crompton’s Machine differ?—Mr. Crompton’s Machine consists of rollers, in which the thread is drawn; but after the rollers have done delivering the thread, he can accommodate it either to warp or woof.

What proportion of the present trade do you suppose the invention of Mr. Crompton has given rise to?—Full one half; I think two-thirds.

To what branch of the piece-goods manufactured, particularly?—To the fine fabrics, cambricks and muslins, particularly the Scotch manufactory.

How do you make out its value, as applied to the Scotch manufacture, beyond the other parts of the cotton trade?—By being of so very fine a fabric, such fine yarns being wanted for that manufacture beyond what would be wanted for the heavy cloth we manufacture in Lancashire. I do not know how the Scotch manufacture would ever have been carried on without the yarn Mr. Crompton’s Machine produces, particularly book muslins.

You impute that branch of trade to the merit of Mr. Crompton’s invention?—In a great measure; I think the Scotch trade is in a great measure beholden to Mr. Crompton’s invention.

Would not Mr. Arkwright’s Machine have supplied that trade?—In a very limited and a very inferior way indeed, and only for the coarser fabrics; the quality of the yarn that composes a great part of the Scotch manufacture could not have been produced without Mr. Crompton’s invention.

Have you any certain knowledge that what is now called the Mule is the same in principle as the Hall of the Wood Machine, and that it was the sole invention of Mr. Crompton? It was generally admitted so to be at the time, and a subscription was entered into to reward him for it. The principle is the same, certainly.

How many people does this Machine now employ?—I believe, by calculation, about 70,000, and it is supposed about 150,000 weavers.

Do you conceive Mr. Crompton to have received an adequate recompense from the public for this invention?—No, I think it falls far short indeed.

You have said, that the Mule spins a finer kind of yarn than the other machinery, and enables the manufacturer to make a finer species of goods than could have been otherwise made?—Yes.

Is there a greater number of Weavers employed in consequence of that, than would otherwise have been employed?—A very considerable number.

Mr. Joseph Ridgeway, of the House of Thomas Ridgeway
& Son, near Bolton; called in, and Examined.

Have the cotton cloths bleached by you, and spun by Mules, been increasing in quality during the last twenty years?—Very much.

What proportion do they constitute of the whole quantity sent to you to be bleached?—At least four fifths.

Jovis, 19º; die Martij, 1812.

The Lord Stanley in the Chair.

Mr. George Lee again called in, and Examined.

What do you suppose is the value of the machinery, buildings, and power engaged in spinning, upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?—Between three and four millions sterling.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Page 10, note 1.—In connection with the petition quoted by Mr. Price the question arises as to how nearly it fixes the exact date of the beginning of the fustian manufacture in England. The most definite statement on the question the petition contains is the “20 years past” since the trade was “found out” which, as Mr. Price mentions, would fix the date about the opening year of the seventeenth century. Moreover, this date seems to be a reliable one, owing to the fact that the petitioners mention a patent granted in 1594 for sealing “all sorts of new draperies” in which they imply that fustians made partly of cotton were not included. According to their statement it would appear that such fustians were not brought within the scope of a patent until 1613.

From the following quotation, however, it appears that fustians were included in a patent granted in 1594: “Patent to the Alnagers for sealing cloth from Midsummer 1594, to search and seal and exact duties on all the new draperies as French serges, worsteds, fustians, blankets, etc., made in England chiefly by strangers, which have hitherto been exported free, no officers being appointed to search them, and to seal such as are good and merchantable ware, and cut the ends of those that are not; also settling the subsidies to be paid thereon, which are granted to the patentees on payment of £66, 13s. 4d., yearly giving them the right of search, also a writ of assistance therein” (S.P.D. Eliz., vol. ccxlix. 20). Assuming that the fustians here mentioned were similar to those referred to in the petition, it would appear that goods made partly of cotton were manufactured in England in 1594, and that they had gained sufficient prominence to be brought under supervision.

Support for this view may be found in some observations made in 1606, upon an Act for the alnage of narrow draperies (S.P.D. Add., vol. xxxviii. 104). These observations are interesting not only as regards fustians but also in the indication given of the application of the old type of regulations to new kinds of goods. In justification of the Act the following among other reasons were set forth: That it was based on the statutes for woollen manufactures, the reasons moving it and the offences committed being of the same nature. Also upon necessity because since the trades of making stuffs began, vices had crept in which were causing the trades to decay. Also upon the interest of the Crown and upon the right of His Majesty to take fees, “for as he is by statutes interested in the alnage and subsidy of woollen goods—there being at the time of making the same statutes no other stuffs made in England—he should take like alnage and subsidy of things made within this realm as his predecessors.” That the increased price per piece would not be more than 3d. at the most; and that fustian weavers for themselves had been petitioners to Her late Majesty for reformation of abuses committed amongst them.

The reference to the fustian-weavers certainly suggests that fustians would be included among the stuffs other than woollens, and if so there can be little doubt that they were of the same character as those to which the petition quoted by Mr. Price refers. Moreover, if the fustian-weavers had reached a stage in the reign of Elizabeth—even in the last year of her reign—when they could petition for reformation of abuses, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a fustian-manufacture would have commenced in 1594, and that the fabrics produced were included in the patent granted to the Alnagers in that year.

Even this does not fix the date when the manufacture began, but earlier dependable evidence is difficult to find. Before the end of the sixteenth century two statutes had been passed relating to fustians, but in the first, which appeared in 1495-1496 (11 Hen. VII., e. 27), it was definitely stated that they were imported, although they were sheared in this country. The statute also makes clear that the fustians were at least composed partly of cotton. The second appeared in 1597-1598 (39 Eliz., c. 11) and was a continuance of the first. In this statute no mention was made of the fustians being imported, nor was it stated that they were manufactured in this country, but the weaving of fustians was said to have “lately grown to more use than ever it was before time.” This statement, and the fact that it was thought advisable to re-enact the statute, may reasonably be taken to support the view that, in the nineties of the sixteenth century, a manufacture of fustians had commenced in England.

One other fact worth notice is that when a fustian manufacture had certainly become established in the Manchester district much of the linen-yarn used was imported from Ireland. This trade, however, was carried on as early as 1543 (ante, p. 30), and a conjecture is raised as to whether fustians may not have been made in the Manchester district at that time, but under another name. In the Victoria County History of Lancashire, ii., p. 296, it is stated that “the manufacture of ‘fustians’ a mixture of wool and linen, and subsequently styled ‘cottons’” was in existence in the neighbourhood of Manchester at the close of the fifteenth century. The identification of fustians with cottons at this early date is tempting, and would explain much, but it does not seem to be warranted by available evidence. As far as such evidence goes, it appears that the beginning of the fustian-manufacture has to be sought in the industrial changes of the second half of the sixteenth century, and that, in England, fustians made partly of cotton were a species of the “new drapery.”

Page 10, note 2.—A patent was granted in connection with new draperies in 1594 and was transferred to the Duke of Lennox after the accession of James I. (Price, ibid.).

Page 93, continuation of note.—23 Geo. III., c. 21, gave bounties on the export of British printed cottons ranging from 1/2d. to 1-1/2d. per yard and allowed drawback of the excise duty.

Page 99, continuation of note.—Defoe (Tour through Great Britain (1769 edition), iii., pp. 73-74, 104) has references to silk mills at Derby, Stockport and Sheffield.

Page 142, note 3.—It is not likely that the table (ante, p. 69) includes all in the country districts who called themselves fustian manufacturers. In the Directory those given in the table were described as having a warehouse in Manchester.

Page 161, continuation of note.—It is stated that in 1842 Crompton’s children received £200 from the Royal Bounty Fund in consideration of their father’s invention (Bolton: Its Trade and Commerce (1919), p. 80).

INDEX

• A
• Abram, History of Blackburn, 97n.
• Acts of Parliament, 1495-1496—indicates import of fustians, 196;
• 1514—regulates making of cloth, 2, 3 and n.;
• 1535—regulates making of cloth, 3;
• 1543—gives information of Lancashire cloth industry, 30-31;
• 1551—regulates cloth making and fixes standards, 3, 5n., 6;
• 1552-1553—imposes restrictions on middlemen in wool trade, 31;
• 1555—Weavers’ Act, main aim and provisions, 3-4;
• counties excluded from operation, 4 and n.;
• repeal of, 4n.;
• 1557—modifies Weavers’ Act, 4;
• 1563—Statute of Apprentices, scope of, 48n.;
• appealed to by check-weavers (1758), 48 and n.;
• repeal advocated, 51;
• repealed, 1813-1814, 49n.;
• 1566—appoints deputy-aulnagers for Lancashire towns, 4, 5n.;
• 1577—restrictive character and effects, 31;
• 1597—prohibits use of tenters and enforces regulations of size and weight of cloth, 5;
• indicates English manufacture of fustians, 196;
• 1606—distinguishes between cloths made of perfect wool and cloths in which flocks, etc., entered, 6-7;
• ordains alnage of narrow draperies, 195-196;
• 1700—abolishes previous duties, 7;
• prohibits import and sale of printed or dyed calicoes from East, 19;
• failure of, 20;
• 1702—against payment in truck and embezzlement of materials, 36;
• made permanent in 1710, 37;
• extended to other industries, 37;
• included provisions against combinations, 37;
• indicates organisation of cotton industry, 37;
• 1714—calicoes subjected to additional duty, 92-93;
• 1721—prohibits use of printed or dyed calicoes, 20-22;
• cloths exempted from operation of, 21;
• stimulates printing of other fabrics than calico, 22;
• explained by Manchester Act (1736), 23;
• 1736—Manchester Act, scope of, 23;
• support and opposition to, 24;
• indicates expansion of fustian industry, 39;
• modified Act of 1721 respecting goods made with linen warp, 93;
• 1749—Act of 1702 against unlawful combinations extended, 37;
• 1774—repealed additional duty on calicoes (1714) and prohibition of printed calicoes (1736), 93;
• 1783—gave bounties on export of printed cottons, 197n.
• Agriculture, many labourers from, become weavers, 144
• Aikin, Description of Country round Manchester, 25, 26, 28, 59, 60, 62, 121n., 136n., 138, 139n., 161n.;
• England Delineated, 58n.;
• England Described, 58n.
• Ainsworth, P., & Son, 170
• Ainsworth, R., bleacher, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 182
• Ainsworth, T., supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 177, 178;
• evidence in support of Crompton’s appeal, 178, 179-182, 183, 184, 189-191
• Ainsworth, T., & Co., 170
• America. See Wars, Cotton
• Antwerp, cloth market, xxv.
• Arkwright, Richard, first patent (1769) for roller-spinning, 1, 29, 76, 79, 80, 97, 100, 114, 122n., 172, 179, 186;
• improved upon earlier carding-machines, 77-78;
• inventor of crank and comb device, 78, 107;
• second patent (1775) for carding-machine, 81, 100, 106-107;
• brought roller-spinning and machine-carding into use, 111-112;
• his machines produced hard thread suitable for warps, 117, 124;
• his indebtedness to previous inventors, 107, 108-111;
• not inventor of roller-spinning or roving-machine, 110;
• application of steam-power to his machines, 81;
• his profits from patent machinery, 100, 172, 179, 186;
• erected factory at Cromford, 81, 100;
• other factories, 100, 112;
• capital invested in his and partners’ factories, 100;
• concerned in erection of New Lanark Mills, 106, 112;
• alleged to have aimed at cotton monopoly, 112;
• alleged intention of discovering Crompton’s secret, 116n.;
• secured modification of Acts of 1714 and 1721, 43, 93, 100;
• left Lancashire, 82, 98;
• his machinery destroyed, 82-88;
• antagonism to, 89, 92, 93, 100, 101, 102, 103, 119, 120;
• began actions for infringements of patents, 93, 100, 101, 102, 120;
• first trial and unfavourable verdict, 1781, 102, 119;
• second patent cancelled, 102, 110, 119, 121, 124, 144;
• successful action of 1785, 103-105, 119, 121;
• agitation to reverse verdict of second trial (1785), 105;
• third trial (1785) of validity of second patent, 106-109, 119;
• discussion of his machinery in third trial, 106-110;
• character of, 111, 118;
• as successful man of business, 97-98, 112, 118;
• Case of (1782), 102;
• Patent Trial of, 92n., 100n., 102n., 107n., 108n., 109n., 111n.
• Arkwright, son of Richard A., subscribed to public subscription for Crompton, 185
• Artisans, superior, called small farmers by Radcliffe, 142;
• superior, rent land as accessory to industry, 139-140, 142;
• abandon agriculture for work at loom, 141;
• benefit from inventions, 140;
• inferior, entirely dependent on industry, 139-140;
• raised in social status by new industry, 140-141
• Arts, Society of, inability to assist Crompton, 153
• Ashley, W. J., Sir, Economic History, 4n.;
• Economic Organisation of England, 37
• Ashton, smallware weavers’ combine at, 144
• Ashworth, H., cotton-spinner and author, 161
• Augsburg, fustians of, xxii.
• Aulnager, seal of counterfeited, 4;
• deputy-aulnagers appointed, 4. See Lennox
• Axon, W. E. A., Manchester a Hundred Years Ago, 26
• B
• Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, xxi., 2n., 3n., 12, 16n., 22n., 24n., 29n., 31n., 63n., 77n., 78n., 93-94, 97, 98n., 107, 110, 111n., 112, 117n., 124n., 125n., 130n., 132n.;
• Lancashire and Cheshire, 125n.
• Baker, improved and enlarged mule, 123
• Banks, Manchester Man, 127
• Barkstead, J., connected with silk and copper industries, 16-17, 18n.;
• applied for patent, for silk manufacture and calicoes, 17, 18;
• had no influence on development of cotton industry, 18, 19
• Barton, H. and J., & Co., 170
• Bastable, Public Finance, 63n.
• Bateman, J., 172
• Bays, 6, 7n.
• Belfast, numbers employed in 1800 in cotton industry at, 131
• Belper, Arkwright’s factory at, 100
• Bigwood, Cotton, 162n.
• Billy, combination of mule and jenny for making rovings, 123-124, 181n.;
• premium to inventor of, 123-124
• Birkacre, Arkwright’s factory at, 100;
• factories attacked, 82, 92
• Birley, R., 170
• Blackburn. See Petitions
• Bolton, see Cottons, Fustians, Petitions, Crompton;
• market, 3, 27, 37;
• sixteenth-century manufacture of cottons and coarse yarns, 3;
• prosecution club, 159 and n.;
• public subscription to relieve distress, 1862, 161;
• population in 1773, 161;
• centre of fine cotton spinning, 162;
• centre of fustian manufacture, 15, 27, 56
• Bourne, D., patented carding-machine, 77
• Bridgewater cloth, 6
• Bridgnorth, Society of Travelling Scotchmen of, 65
• Bristol, food riots in, 42
• Brown, J., took lead in second petition on Crompton’s behalf, 159;
• Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims, 78n., 116n., 152n., 153n., 157n., 159n., 172n.
• Brussels, gilds of journeymen at, xxiii.
• Burleigh, Lord, xxvii.-xxviii.
• Burnley, woollen manufacturers support Manchester Act (1736), 24
• C
• Calicoes, see Acts of Parliament;
• plain imported, 19;
• manufacture established by new machinery, 91-92, 128;
• made in Arkwright’s factory at Derby, 100
• Calico-printing, early development in London and Lancashire, 22n.
• Camden, Britannia, 7n.
• Canals, 62, 71
• Cannan, see M‘Connel;
• emigrated from Kirkcudbright and became cotton-machine maker, 127-128
• Carding, see Arkwright, Bourne, Paul;
• mechanical improvements in, 76-77, 110;
• cylinder carding-engine, 110
• Carriers displace pack-horses, 62. See Manchester
• Case, G., 172
• Champagne fairs, xxii.
• Chapman, S. J., Sir, Lancashire Cotton Industry, 40n., 72n., 137n., 143n., 163n.;
• Victoria County History of Lancashire, 5n., 8n.
• Chapmen, see Travelling Merchants, 60, 61, 63-65
• Checks, organisation of manufacture, 40-41;
• articles included in, 25;
• localisation of manufacture, 56;
• check-weavers’ turn-out and submission, 46-52
• Checks and smallware, Act of 1702 indicates organisation of manufacture, 37;
• makers of, less numerous than fustian-makers, 39;
• organisation in middle of eighteenth century, 40. See Combinations
• Cheshire v. Lancashire. Spinning on Cheshire farms, 139n.;
• Luddite risings, 154-155
• Chester, petitioned to be sole port for Manchester cottons, 7n.;
• food riots at, 86
• Chetham, George, apprenticed to G. Tipping, 34;
• member of Merchant Tailors’ Company, 34;
• partnership with brother Humphrey, 34
• Chetham, Humphrey, apprenticed to S. Tipping, 34;
• general merchant and manufacturer, 35;
• accounts of, 35;
• dealer in cotton and linen yarn, 35;
• employed spinners and weavers, 35-36;
• a capitalist clothier, 36;
• sold cotton and yarn in small quantities on credit, 36
• Chetham, H. and G., business and capital of, xxiv.-xxv., 34;
• branches in Manchester and London, 34, 59;
• traded with Ireland, 59;
• not merely fustian dealers, 35;
• mainly engaged in home trade, 59;
• invest capital in land, 34
• Chetham, James, 34
• Chethams, engaged in cloth industry, 32-34, 39
• Children, labour of, in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Manchester, 25-26
• Chorley, factories attacked, 82, 92
• Chowbent, 127-128
• Clarke, New Lancashire Gazetteer, 128n., 129n.
• Clegg, A., 170
• Clothiers, northern, of early sixteenth century, 30-32
• Cloths, exports of, in 1594 and 1595, 7
• Cole, Some Account of Lewis Paul, 76
• Combination Acts expressed views of dominant political class, 146-147
• Combinations, see Acts (1702, 1749), Mansfield (Lord);
• coming into existence in early eighteenth century, 52;
• link between earlier associations and trade unions, 52;
• various trades organised before 1790, 54n.;
• in west of England textile industry, 52 and n.;
• in check and smallware trades, 40-45;
• extended to country districts, 144;
• among mule-spinners, 144n.
• Communications, road and river, 62, 71
• Companies formed in South Sea period to promote cotton manufacture, 19
• Cotton, called cotton-wool, 8;
• import of, early, 2, 16;
• at end of seventeenth century, 16;
• in eighteenth century, 24;
• up to 1815, 132;
• import of, from East, 8, 9, 13, 16;
• from Africa, 16;
• from America and West Indies, 16, 57, 132;
• imported through London, 57;
• previous sources displaced by United States, 16;
• customs on imported cotton, 9;
• early use of, for candle-wicks, 2;
• first used in making cloth, 2;
• made into fustians, vermilions, dymities, 8;
• regular supply necessary to Lancashire in 1654, 13;
• perhaps used in Lancashire for cloth-making in sixteenth century, 7;
• cleaning and carding, early methods of, 75;
• used as substitute for flax in lace-making, 131;
• quantity spun by mules in 1812, 188
• Cotton cloth, see Petitions;
• imported before sixteenth century, 2 and n.;
• pure, when manufactured, 29;
• put on same footing as mixed goods, 93
• Cottons, see Acts (1514, 1535, 1551), Manchester;
• made in Lancashire in early sixteenth century, 2;
• in Bolton district, 3;
• and outside Lancashire, 7;
• exported in sixteenth century, 3, 7;
• manufacture regulated, 3-8;
• faults in making of, 5;
• regarded as species of woollen cloth, 7, 8;
• manufacture introduced by immigrants, 12;
• duties on, abolished, 7
• Cotton industry, see Fustian, Germany, Lancashire, Manchester, Weymouth;
• originated in second half of sixteenth century, 12;
• established by 1621, 10;
• difficulties during commonwealth, 13;
• associated with fustian manufacture, 15;
• comparatively unhampered by regulations, 66;
• development of spinning and preparatory processes after 1736, 72, 76n.;
• progressive expansion due to inventions, 145, 179, 189;
• expansion after 1770, 1, 72, 91, 132;
• organised on factory system after 1770, 1, 75n., 98-99, 100;
• factories transferred from country to towns, 126;
• description of, between 1770 and 1778, 133-134;
• statistics of mule and ring spindles, 164;
• organisation and methods changing in 1780, 24;
• expansion by 1812, 179, 189-190;
• assumed modern form in spinning branch, 132;
• employment and capital in 1782, 100;
• fear of removal to Ireland and Scotland, 106;
• manufacture of fine fabrics transferred from East to West, 129 and n.;
• development of fine cotton goods manufacture, 130-131;
• finds extending market in East, 130 and n.;
• use of steam-power in, 81-82;
• domestic system in, 137n.;
• association of industry with agriculture, 135-137;
• labour supplied mainly from cottagers and small farmers, 139;
• distinction and proportion between small farmers and cottagers engaged in, 137-139;
• semi-independent producers in, 35-36, 134-135, 143 and n.;
• but not typical workpeople, 36-37, 143;
• part-time industrialists in country districts only, 137, 143 and n.;
• classes affected by industrial changes, 139-143;
• wages in, 90-91 and n., 133-134
• Cotton yarn, imported from East, 8, 9, 16;
• imported from other countries, 29n.;
• imported from Continent for Scotch manufactory, 180
• Crank and comb device. See Arkwright
• Crofters in Manchester district, 70
• Cromford, Arkwright’s factory at, 81, 100
• Crompton, Samuel, birth and early life, 114;
• character, 120-121;
• lacked business qualities, 118, 150;
• death in 1827, 159, 160;
• inventor of mule, 113;
• endeavoured to improve quality of yarn, 114, 167;
• began to construct mule, 114, 167, 168-170;
• completed and used mule, 114, 161, 167, 173;
• gave up weaving and kept to spinning, 167;
• made mule public, 116, 167, 168, 173;
• reasons for not obtaining patent, 118;
• agreed to subscription (1780) as reward for invention, 116 and n., 118, 120, 168-169, 181, 187;
• received only £100 as reward in 1780, 120, 169, 187;
• public subscription for, in 1802, 150, 166-167;
• its poor result, 151, 169, 188;
• Appeal to Parliament in 1812, 151, 153, 154, 155, 170;
• his petition, 172-174;
• memorial and signatures presented to Chancellor of Exchequer, 168-172;
• committee on his petition, 129, 184-185;
• minutes of evidence, 186-191;
• proceedings in reference to his appeal, 155-157, 172-174;
• his petition recommended by Prince Regent, 155, 172;
• presented to Parliament, 172-173;
• award of £5000 in 1812, 151, 155, 158;
• reduced to poverty by 1824, 159;
• annuity raised by friends in 1824, 159;
• further petition in 1826, 159-160;
• gratuity of £50 given to his son, 161;
• combined business of small farmer with that of spinner, 149;
• refused to join Peel’s business, 149;
• difficulty of retaining his workers, 152 and n.;
• embarked without success on bleaching business, 158;
• continued business of spinning and manufacturing at Bolton, 158;
• unsuccessful partnership as spinner and cotton merchant, 158;
• his part in development of mule, 162, 165, 179;
• his account of value of mule to cotton industry, 169-170, 173, 180;
• effects of his work, 162;
• unacquainted with Arkwright’s rollers, 121-122;
• destroyed carding-machine on which he was experimenting, 121;
• relations with members of his family, 152;
• overseer of poor, 149;
• member of Bolton prosecution club, 159n.;
• monument and statue, 160;
• Hall-i’-th’-Wood museum and memorial, 161 and n.;
• correspondence of, to M‘Connel & Kennedy respecting subscription of 1803, 166-167;
• to M‘Connel & Kennedy respecting proceedings in London, 174-175;
• to M‘Connel & Kennedy, respecting proceedings after sittings of Committee, 192-194;
• to Kennedy respecting petition proceedings, 175-176;
• to family respecting petition proceedings, 176-178;
• to Kennedy respecting evidence for appeal to Parliament, 178-179;
• grant to family from Royal Bounty Fund, 197n.
• Cumberland exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4
• Cunningham, W., Growth of English Industry and Commerce, 12, 49n.
• Curtler, Short History of Agriculture, 147n.
• D
• Dale, D., connected with Arkwright and New Lanark Mills, xxx., 106
• Defoe, D., Tour through Great Britain, 61-62, 135n., 197n.
• Dehn, German Cotton Industry, 14n.
• Deptford, industries in eighteenth century and numbers employed, 28n.
• Derbyshire, miners fix food prices (1764), 84;
• food riots in 1767, 85;
• Luddite risings, 154-155
• Dictionary of National Biography, 47n.
• Dimities, made from cotton-wool from Cyprus, 8
• Distress in 1756-1757, 43;
• Parliamentary measures to relieve, 84-85
• Dobson, Evolution of Spinning Machine, 75n., 77n., 78n., 128n., 159n., 162n.
• Dobson & Rothwell, makers of textile machinery, 128;
• size of mules made by, in 1799, 162
• Dodd, Textile Manufacturers of Great Britain, 131n.
• Domestic system, a system of capitalist employers, 54-55.
• See Cotton Industry
• Douai, textile industry of, xxiv.-xxv.
• Double jenny, 94-95
• Douglas, W., & Co., 170
• Dozens, northern, 6
• Drapery, new, manufacture of, introduced by Flemings in 1561, 12;
• character of, 11 and n.;
• regulation of, 6
• Draw-boys, 74
• Drinkwater, T. and J., 172
• Dunlop, J., 172
• Dunster cotton, 7
• Dutch loom, superseded single loom, 40;
• widened scope of employment, 40;
• for narrow fabrics, 72, 74;
• disadvantages of, 72
• E
• Earle, T., 172
• East India Co., imported cotton yarn and fine cotton fabrics in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 16, 18;
• rivals of, 18
• Economic Journal, 5n., 31n., 126n., 132n., 150n.
• Edwards, History of West Indies, 88n.
• Ellison, Cotton Trade of Great Britain, 57n., 164n.
• Embezzlement of materials by workpeople, 36.
• See Acts (1702)
• Enclosure Acts, expression of views of dominant political class, 146-147
• Espinasse, Lancashire Worthies, 20, 29n., 73n., 74n., 76n., 77n., 78n., 80, 81, 82n., 93n., 100n., 102n., 103n., 104n., 105n., 106n., 107n., 110n.
• Ewart, Rutson & Co., 172
• F
• Factory system, beginning of, 75n.
• See Cotton Industry, Silk
• Felkin, History of Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures, 98
• Fielden, H. and W., 170
• Findlay, J., & Co., 172
• Flanders, textile industries of, xxiv.-xxv.
• Flier, used with Saxony wheel, 75, 81
• Florence, textile industries of, xxiii., xxv.
• Flying shuttle, invention and importance of, 73, 74;
• see Kay;
• slow adoption in cotton industry, 73
• Food riots in 1753 and 1754, 42
• Forster, J., 172
• Fox, W., 172
• French, Life and Times of Samuel Crompton, 17n., 76n., 77n., 113, 114, 116n., 118, 121, 134n., 138n., 149, 150, 151, 152n., 153n., 155, 157, 158n., 159n., 160
• Fuller, Worthies of England, 15, 25, 34
• Fustians, see Acts, Bolton, Combinations, Cotton Industry, London;
• manufacture introduced into Europe, xxi.-xxii.;
• into England, 12;
• stimulated by decline of German cotton industry;
• date of origin of fustian manufacture discussed, 12, 195-196;
• development of fustian manufacture, 12, 15, 23, 39;
• organisation of manufacture, 37-39;
• combined with smallware manufacture, 27-28;
• early large-scale production, 23;
• numbers employed in 1654, 13;
• and in 1735, 23;
• commission system in fustian industry, 37-38;
• country fustian masters, 39;
• centres of manufacture, 9-10, 15, 27, 37, 56;
• regulation of manufacture, 11, 195;
• wages in fustian trade, 91n.;
• materials used in manufacture, 29, 35;
• regarded as woollens, 11;
• not made of pure cottons in seventeenth century, 19, 22, 196;
• a species of new drapery, 196;
• range of goods comprised by, 28;
• imported, 2n., 196;
• exported, 9, 60;
• fustian tax, agitation against and repeal, 63 and n., 103-104
• G
• Gaskell, Artisans and Machinery, 139n.;
• Manufacturing Population of England, 56n., 137n., 139-144;
• dislike of factory system, 139
• Gentleman’s Magazine, 46n.
• Germany, cotton industry in fourteenth century, 13-14;
• effects of Thirty Years’ War on, 14;
• effects of decline in English fustian industry, 13-14
• Ghent, textile workers of, xxiii.
• Gilds, textile, xxii.-xxiii.
• Gladstone, J., 172
• Glasgow merchants support Manchester Act (1736), 24
• Gras, Early English Customs System, 2n.
• Greg & Ewart, 170
• Guest, British Cotton Manufacture, 43, 80n., 94, 95n., 96n., 97n., 111n., 124n.;
• Compendious History of Cotton Manufacture, 38, 39, 60, 73n., 74n., 96, 108
• H
• Hakluyt, 3
• Halifax, hawkers and pedlars, 64-65
• Hammond, Cotton Industry, 132n.
• Hammond, J. L. and B., 83n.
• Hand-loom. See Loom
• Hansard, 155n., 156n., 157n.
• Hanseatic League, xxvi.-xxvii.
• Hanson, E., Boroughreeve of Manchester, 32n.
• Hargreaves, of Toddington, improved mule, 123
• Hargreaves, James, experimented on carding-machines, 78;
• invented and patented spinning-jenny, 78, 80, 97, 112, 114;
• left Lancashire through opposition, 82, 92-95;
• took action for infringement of patent, 93-94;
• patent not upheld, 92, 96;
• made spinning-jenny practicable, 97;
• cotton-mill at Nottingham, 97 and n.;
• estate of, 97n.;
• evidence of widow and son against Arkwright, 107;
• alleged inventor of crank and comb device, 78, 107
• Hawkers and pedlars, duties on, 63-64
• Hayes, inventor of roving-engine, 110
• Heathcote, invented lace-making machine, 131 and n.
• Highs, Thomas, reputed inventor of jenny and roller-spinning, 94-97, 108, 110, 111;
• invented double-jenny, 94-95;
• aptitude for invention, 96;
• witness against Arkwright, 95;
• associated with Kay in making roller-spinning machines, 108-110;
• alleged to have improved carding-machine, 111n.
• Hollingworth, Mancuniensis, 30
• Hollingworth, R., 30n.
• Horrocks & Co., 172
• Horrocks, J., manufacturer of fine cotton fabrics, 130-131;
• helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.;
• supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167
• Horwich, cotton yarns reported to be spun at, in 1510, 2n.
• Houldsworth, H., fine cotton spinner, 127
• Houldsworth, T. and J., fine cotton spinner, 127
• I
• India, import of cotton fabrics from, 130;
• export of cotton fabrics to, 130 and n.
• Industrial Revolution, a general transition in industry and agriculture, xxix., 1, 145-146;
• an acceleration of previous developments, 145;
• popular view of, inaccurate, 54;
• Napoleonic War a dominant factor in, 147-148;
• social evils of, due to Napoleonic War, 146-148
• Inventions, effect of, 66, 72, 91;
• opposition to, 82
• Ireland, linen-yarn from, used in fustian manufacture, 9, 58;
• Irish Parliament passed commercial propositions, 104;
• important source of supply of linen-yarn, 8, 58;
• different qualities of Irish linen-yarn, 58
• Italy, early cotton industry of, xxii.
• J
• James, T., partner of Hargreaves’, 97
• Jenny, see Double-Jenny, Hargreaves, Highs;
• introduction of, 38, 95, 114;
• was outcome of previous efforts, 145;
• invention of, 76;
• controversy as to inventor, 96 and n.;
• description of, 79-80, 96;
• greatly facilitated spinning of weft, 97;
• produced soft thread only suitable for wefts, 116-117;
• defects of, 80-81;
• growing use of, 90, 95, 97, 124;
• number of spindles increased, 80;
• number at work in 1788 estimated, 121n.;
• used for waste, 181;
• used in woollen industry more than in cotton, 124n.;
• superseded hand-wheel, 124;
• superseded by mule, 97, 124;
• conditions when introduced, 88
• Johnson, helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.
• Jones, W., 170
• Journal of House of Commons, 20n., 23n., 24n., 29n., 36n., 37n., 52, 58n., 59n., 64, 65n., 82n., 89n., 90n., 99n., 102n., 155n., 156n., 157n., 174n.
• K
• Kay, John, invented and patented flying-shuttle, 73 and n.;
• other inventions of, 73;
• appealed for recognition of his inventions, 73;
• connection with Arkwright and Thomas Highs, 108;
• witness against Arkwright in third trial, 108, 111;
• death in France, 74
• Kay, Robert, inventor of drop-box, 73
• Kelly, Wm., manager of New Lanark Mills, applied water-power to mules, and patented self-actor mule, 125
• Kennedy, James, brother of John, cotton-spinner, 127, 172;
• came to Lancashire from Kirkcudbright, 127.
• See Crompton, M‘Connel and Kennedy
• Kennedy, John, eminence in cotton industry, 126;
• improved mule, 126 and n.;
• apprenticeship, 127;
• connection with M‘Connel & Kennedy terminated, 1826, 132;
• promoted public subscription on behalf of Crompton, 150;
• assisted Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 154, 166-168;
• raised subscription to purchase annuity for Crompton, 159 and n.;
• Brief Memoir of S. Crompton, 75n., 78n., 113, 114, 116n., 121, 122n., 123n., 124n., 125n., 130-131, 132n., 154n., 158n., 159;
• Early Recollections, 127n.;
• Rise and Progress of Cotton Trade, 75n., 76n., 122n., 126n.
• Kersies, 6, 7n.
• Kirkcudbright, migration of young men from, to Lancashire, 127
• L
• Lace, demand for fine cotton yarn for manufacture of, 131
• Lancashire and Cheshire Wills, 2n., 32n., 33n.
• Lancashire, exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, xxv.-xxviii., 4;
• fustian manufacture, 9, 10;
• not opposed to restrictive legislation, 20;
• textile industry, 28, 29;
• number employed in linen industry, 29;
• organisation of cloth industry in sixteenth century, 30, 31;
• workers’ combinations and disturbances, 45;
• cotton manufacture established by beginning of seventeenth century, 65;
• cotton manufacture progressive before 1770, 65;
• new cotton manufacture arose at end of eighteenth century, 66, 72;
• fine fabrics manufacture, 131;
• small proprietors engaged in industry, 136;
• contrast between town and country weavers, 136-137;
• workers benefit from development, 144;
• Luddite risings, 154-155.
• See Cotton Industry, Combinations, Petitions
• Lancaster traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24;
• Assizes (1758), 45-46;
• light punishment of check-weavers, 1759, 51;
• port of entry for cotton, 57-58
• Lee, G., promoter of subscription on Crompton’s behalf, 150, 170, 174, 182;
• predecessor of Robert Owen, 150n.;
• partner in firm of Phillips & Lee, 150n.;
• assisted Crompton in appeal to Parliament, 154, 157;
• evidence before Committee on Crompton’s petition, 187-189, 191;
• letter relative to amount of award to Crompton, 192
• Leeds, food riots in 1753, 42
• Leicester, Luddite risings, 154-155
• Leigh, a centre of fustian manufacture, 56
• Leland, Itinerary, 3 and n.
• Lennox, Duke of, alnager of new drapery, 9, 10, 11, 197n.
• Leyden, journeymen fullers of, xxiii.
• Linen industry, numbers employed in, 29;
• excluded from operations of restrictive legislation. See Lancashire, Manchester, Ireland
• Linen-yarn, used in fustian manufacture, 9, 29, 58;
• German used as substitute for Irish, 58
• Linwood Company, 172
• Liverpool purchased grain in 1756 to relieve distress, 43;
• superseded London as chief entry port for cotton, 57-58
• London Weavers Company oppose Manchester Act (1736), 24;
• hawkers’ and pedlars’ society, 65n.;
• silk industry and silk-throwsters, 98n.
• Loom, hand, 72-73;
• predecessor of Jacquard loom for weaving draw-boys, 74 and n.
• Lowe, Present State of England, 147n.
• Luddite risings in 1811-1812, 154-155
• M
• Macclesfield silk-throwsters, 98n.
• Machine-breaking in 1767 and 1779, 82, 92;
• causes of, 82-83, 88-90, 95n.
• Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, 83n., 84n., 85n., 87, 88n.
• Manchester Athenæum, 119;
• Court Leet Records, 26n., 32n., 58n.;
• Directory, 26;
• analysis of trades from (1772), 67-68;
• Mercury, 42n., 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53n., 54n., 59n., 60n., 62, 63n., 82n., 84n., 85n., 87n., 93, 94n., 95, 101n., 102n., 103n., 104n., 105n., 106n., 110, 119, 136, 143n., 147n.;
• Statistical Society, Transactions of, 144n., 151n., 155n.
• Manchester, see Acts (1736), Petitions;
• eminent for woollen cloths or Manchester cottons, 7n.;
• Fuller’s account of Manchester cottons, 15;
• sixteenth-century cloth industry, 30-31;
• manufactures in 1650 and 1751, 25-26;
• linen weaving in seventeenth century, 8;
• lost making of webs and ticks to west of England, 26;
• made pure cotton goods, 27, 29 and n.;
• fustian manufacture, 15, 27, 56;
• growth of thread manufacture, 28n.;
• Dutch machines and mechanics introduced, 27;
• packs leaving in 1751, 26;
• reputation in 1543, 30-31;
• wheat prices, 1753-1758, 42-43;
• 1759-1765, 84;
• food riots, 1753 and 1756, 42-44;
• in 1762, 84;
• check-weavers turned out in 1758, 47;
• and tried in 1759, 51;
• flourishing in 1759, 52;
• yarn merchants, 58;
• Manchester goods exported in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 59;
• trade of, 58-60;
• carriers, 63, 71;
• warehouses of country traders in, 69;
• crofters in Manchester district, 70;
• first steam cotton factory, 81;
• precautions against machine-breaking, 82;
• Society of Agriculture, 86;
• Assize of Bread in 1766, 85 and n.;
• Arkwright’s factory, 100;
• cotton manufacturers’ company, 1774-1778, 101n.;
• Committees for Protection of Trade, 100-101, 103, 118-119;
• manufacturers oppose Irish commercial propositions, 104;
• riots in 1812, 154-155, 157;
• Society for Prosecution of Felons, 159n.
• Mansfield, Lord, charge to jury regarding combinations, 45-46, 51;
• advocated repeal of Statute of Apprentices, 51
• Mantoux, P., La Révolution Industrielle, 96n., 97, 100n.
• Marsland, P., 172
• Marriott, J., threadmaker, 28n.
• Martineau, H., History of the Peace, 83n.
• May, J., Declaration of the Estate of Clothing, 6n., 10, 11n.;
• deputy alnager, 10
• M‘Connel, James, eminence in cotton industry, 127;
• left Kirkcudbright and was apprenticed to Cannan, 127
• M‘Connel & Kennedy, began business (1791) with capital of £250, 150;
• made machinery and rovings, 124n., 128;
• size of mules made by, 162;
• supplied Belfast and Glasgow with fine cotton yarns, 132;
• correspondence of, reveals industrial situation, 147n.
• See Crompton
• M‘Hewham, J. and J., 172
• Mellor, description of, 136-138;
• census (1801), details of, 138
• Merchant Adventurers’ Company, xxv.-xxvii.
• Meredith, H. O., Economic History of England, 83n.
• Middleton, size of farms in, 136;
• farms held by weavers, 316
• Midgley, T., curator of Chadwick Museum, Bolton. See Bolton, Souvenir of Royal Visit to
• Milne, invented cotton-roving machine, 103;
• subscription on behalf of, 103, 119, 120
• Monthly Literary and Scientific Lecturer, 22n.;
• Monthly Magazine, 120
• Mordaunt, Col., defendant in trial for infringement of Arkwright’s patent, 102
• Morris, introduced Paul’s carding-machine into Lancashire, 78
• Mosier, W., chapman, 33, 34
• Mosley, A., clothier, business and accounts of, xxv., 33;
• will of, 32 and n.;
• Sir N., Lord of Manor of Manchester, 32
• Mule, see Billy, Jenny, Crompton;
• called Hall-o’-th’-Wood wheel, 166, 168, 173, 190-191;
• description of, 117-118, 162;
• value to cotton industry, 169-170, 173, 180;
• corrected defects of Arkwright’s machinery, 117, 179-180;
• relation to jenny and Arkwright’s machinery, 116, 117, 119, 172-173, 179, 180;
• produced satisfactory thread for fine work, 116, 118, 124, 128-129, 173, 179-180, 191;
• produced thread suitable for warps and wefts, 117, 167, 173;
• produced fine muslin and cambric manufactures, 129, 169, 173, 180, 186-187, 190;
• partly superseded water-frame, 124, 163, 189;
• superior to ring-frame for higher qualities of yarn, 164;
• increasing use, 121 and n., 187;
• increase in size and improvement, 121-123, 125, 126 and n., 162-163;
• present-day mules, 163-164;
• value of machines, buildings and power in 1812, 191;
• employment resulting from, 169, 181, 188, 191
• Mule, double, superseded single, 125 and n.;
• mule, self-actor, not at first satisfactory, 125;
• improvements of mule culminated in, 163
• Mule-spinners, high wages, 122;
• privations and organisation of, 144 and n.
• Murray, Adam, apprenticed to Cannan on leaving Kirkcudbright, 127
• Murray, A. and G., 127, 172.
• See Mule, Oldknow, Shaw
• Muslins, Eastern manufacture of, 129;
• Continental demand for muslin yarns, 131;
• British manufacture of, 129n.
• N
• Need, S., in partnership with Arkwright, 98, 103
• New Lanark cotton mills erected, xxx., 106, 172.
• See Owen, Arkwright
• Northumberland excluded from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4
• Norwich, opposition of woollen manufacturers to printed fustians, 23;
• export of English, 7
• Nottingham, Earl of, 18;
• lace industry, 131;
• Luddite risings, 154-155
• O
• Ogden, Description of Manchester, 26-29, 37-39, 40, 73, 74n., 80n., 94n., 95n.
• Oldham, a centre of fustian manufacture, 56
• Oldknow, S., made fine fabrics, muslins, etc., 129n., 130-131, 172
• Orr, W. and J., 172
• Owen, Robert, apprenticeship, 129n.;
• connection with New Lanark Mills, 106;
• began to manufacture mules, 126, 127;
• spinner of thread from rovings, 124n.;
• Autobiography, 106n., 124n., 125n., 126n., 129n., 150n.
• P
• Papplewick, first steam cotton-mill at, 81
• Patents, general dislike of, prevalent, 118
• Paul, Lewis, first patent embodying idea of spinning by rollers, 76, 111;
• but not very successful, 76-77;
• second patent (1758), 77;
• invented pinking-machine, 77;
• carding-machine of, 77-78, 111
• Peel, Robert, of yeoman class, 142;
• experimented with carding-machines, 78;
• his machinery destroyed, 92n.;
• opposition to Arkwright’s patents, 102-120;
• opposed Irish commercial propositions, 104;
• number of employees (1784), 104;
• failed to persuade Crompton to join his business, 149;
• exerted himself on Crompton’s behalf, 149, 167, 175, 176, 184, 192, 193;
• evidence to Committee on Crompton’s petition, 186;
• his opinion valued by Government, 174
• Peel, Robert, junior, 172
• Peel, Yates & Co., 172
• Penistone cloth, 6
• Perceval, Spencer, his part in Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-176, 178;
• assassination of, 157
• Percival, T., accused of assisting check-weavers’ combination, 47;
• proposals for settlement, 48-52;
• Letter to a Friend, 46-51, 56n., 57n.
• Peterborough, opposition to Manchester Act (1736), 24
• Petitions, for import of cotton wool (1654), 12-13;
• against import of cotton fabrics, 20;
• of fustian manufacturers, 23;
• of Lancashire clothiers, 31;
• against truck payments, 36;
• from travelling merchants against being classed as hawkers, 61;
• on account of distress (1780), 88-89;
• of silk manufacturers regarding decline of trade, 98n.;
• for and against Arkwright’s patents, 102-103;
• from Weymouth against prohibition of calicoes, etc., 21;
• from Manchester and Bolton (1808) for peace, 154-155;
• from Blackburn and Preston (1812) against continuance of war, 156
• Piacenza, light cottons of, xxii.
• Pitman, Development of British West Indies, 88n.
• Pococke, Travels Through England, 28n.
• Pollard, J., 127
• Power-loom, 125, 140
• Price, W. H., “On Beginning of Cotton Industry in England,” 8n., 9n., 195n., 197n.
• Proctor, Memorials of Bygone Manchester, 25n.
• Putting-out system, 56, 143
• Q
• Quarterly Journal of Economics, 8n.
• R
• Radcliffe, Origin of Power-Loom Weaving, xxix., 56n., 59n., 60, 133, 135, 136, 142;
• helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.
• Raines and Sutton, Life of Humphrey Chetham, 34, 35, 59n.
• Reading, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century, 28n.
• Records of Fort St George, 16n.
• Regulation of industry and commerce, see Acts of Parliament;
• broke down in seventeenth century, 65-66
• Report on Commerce, Manufacturers and Shipping (1833), 22n., 134n.;
• Report of Committee on Textile Trades, 1n., 130n.;
• Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions, 144n.;
• Report of Committee on Emigration, etc. (1826-1827), 136-137;
• Report of Committee on State of Children Employed in Manufactories, 91n., 126n., 127n.;
• Report of Tenth International Cotton Congress, 164
• Riders-out, 62
• Ridgway, J., evidence before Committee on Crompton’s Petition, 191
• Ridgway, T., & Sons, 172
• Ring-spinning frame, modern rival of mule, 163;
• predominates outside U.K., 164;
• statistics of, 164
• Roberts, Lewis, Treasure of Traffike, 8, 12, 57n.
• Roberts, Richard, invented satisfactory self-actor mule, 125;
• perfected power-loom, 125;
• owned nearly a hundred patents, 125n.
• Robinson, J., 172
• Rochdale, small farms held by manufacturers, 136
• Roller-spinning. See Arkwright, Paul
• Roscoe, W., 172
• Rothschild, Nathan Meyer, xxx.-xxxi.
• Roving, methods of, 79;
• making of rovings became a distinct business, 124
• Royton, 144
• S
• Salford, Society of Agriculture, 86
• Schoff, Periplus of Erythrean Sea, 129n.
• Scotland: Scotch linen yarn imported for fustian manufacture, 9, 58;
• fancy manufacture, 131, 180;
• effects of mule on, 180, 188, 190
• Scott, Prof. W. R., 18n.;
• Joint Stock Companies, 12n., 16n., 18n., 19n., 66n.
• Shaw, J., attempted to manufacture muslins, 125
• Shop-tax, 63-64
• Shrewsbury, chapmen’s society, 65
• Silk industry, factory system developed earlier than in cotton industry, 98 and n.;
• organisation in eighteenth century, 98n.
• See London, Macclesfield
• Simpson, J., 172
• Slack, Remarks on Cotton, 58n.
• Smallware, see Checks, Worsted;
• articles included in, 25;
• worsted entered into smallware manufacture, 29;
• weavers’ combination and attack on, 44-45;
• further dispute in 1781, 53-54
• Smiles, S., Huguenots, 12n.;
• Industry and Invention, 98n.;
• Lives of Engineers, 61n., 81n., 104n.
• Smith, Wars Between England and America, 83n.
• Smollett, History of England, 42n., 46n.
• Spinning, backwardness in 1735, 74;
• reward offered for invention of machinery, 78;
• improvement after 1760, 78.
• See Roller-spinning
• Spinning-jenny. See Jenny
• Spinning-wheel, method of spinning by, 75;
• Jersey and Brunswick, 75;
• Saxony, used mainly for flax and wool, 75
• Stanley, Colonel, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-175, 178;
• Lord, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-178, 192, 193;
• Chairman of Committee on Crompton’s petition, 186, 191
• State Papers Domestic, 5n., 6, 7, 8n., 13n., 17n., 18n., 19n., 31, 66, 195, 196
• Stirling, W., & Sons, 172
• Stockport, food riots in 1757, 43n.;
• muslin manufacture, see Oldknow
• Stones, H., first made mules after Crompton, 123;
• improved mule, 123
• Strutt, J., in partnership with Arkwright, 98, 103;
• of yeoman class, 142
• T
• Taunton Cloth, 6
• Tawney, R. H., Assessment of Wages by Justices of Peace, 49n.
• Taylor, patented a spinning machine, 78
• Tenters, use of, prohibited, 5
• Thompson, R., & Sons, 172
• Throstle, an improvement of water-frame, 163
• Tipping, S. and G., linen drapers, of Manchester, 32 and n., 34.
• See Chetham, H. and G.
• Todd, Shorbridge & Co., 172
• Tooke, History of Prices, 83n.
• Touchet, J. T. and G., & Co., 172
• Travelling merchants, or Manchester men, method and scale of business, 61-62
• Trade unions, see Combinations;
• development checked by Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 55, 148
• Truck payments. See Acts (1702)
• U
• Ulm, fustian industry of, xxii.
• Unwin, Prof. G., Industrial Organisation in XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, 4n., 36n., 49n., 53 and n., 66n., 101n.;
• Gilds and Companies of London, 66n.
• Ure, Cotton Manufacture, 16n., 29n., 76n., 81n., 119, 122n., 131n., 162
• V
• Venice, cotton imports of, xxii.
• Vermilions, manufactured from cotton-wool from Cyprus and Smyrna, 8
• W
• Wages, effects of new machinery on, 90-91;
• of hand-loom weavers, 1795-1807, 134n.
• Wakefield traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24
• Water-frame, see Arkwright, Throstle; was outcome of previous efforts, 145;
• complementary to jenny, 80;
• spinning and winding simultaneous with, 81;
• horse-power employed with, 81;
• useful for coarser counts and warp yarn, 124;
• incapable of spinning weft or producing thread of fine texture, 172-173, 179, 180, 186, 190;
• influence on expansion of cotton industry, 179
• Ware, Life and Correspondence of S. Hibbert, 58n., 63n.
• Warrington, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century, 28n.
• Wars:
• Seven Years’ War and War of American Independence, cause heavy taxation, 63;
• and dislocation of trade and distress, 46, 86-89;
• French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, economic effects of, 83, 130, 144;
• intensified effects of economic change, 146;
• checked movement for social development, 146-148;
• Napoleonic War, social retrogression due to, 146-148;
• repression and class legislation due to, 146-147;
• situation created by, compared with European War, 147;
• dominant factor in social and economic history, 147-148;
• left disturbed industrial relationships, 148;
• caused fluctuation of trade and distress, 154;
• crisis of 1810, 154;
• with America in 1812, 154
• Watt, J., patents steam-engine, 81;
• supports Arkwright in second trial, 104;
• evidence before Committee on Crompton’s petition, 189
• Weavers’ Act (1555). See Acts
• Webb, S. and B., History of Trade Unionism, 49n., 52, 147n.
• Westerfield, Middlemen in English Business, 61, 62
• Westmorland, excluded from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4
• Weymouth, cotton manufacturers’ petition, 21
• Wheeler, History of Manchester, 92n., 102n.
• Whitehaven, traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24;
• port of entry for cotton, 57-58
• Whitsters. See Crofters
• Wilks, The Half Century, 83n.
• Wolstenholme, patent for manufacture of cotton velveteen, 101
• Worsted smallware, see Combinations, Checks;
• four classes engaged in making, 40;
• fortunes of manufacturers, 40-41;
• apprenticeship regulations, 41;
• undertakers, 40, 41;
• weavers wish to control employment conditions, 42-44;
• wages problem in 1756, 42-43
• Weavers’ Apology, 40, 44
• Wright constructed double-mule, 125
• Wylde, partner of S. Crompton, 158
• Wylie and Briscoe, History of Nottingham, 97n.
• Y
• Yarn, see Cotton, Linen;
• fine, small capital of leading early spinners, 127;
• fine, demand for, 131;
• distribution of, among country weavers, 143
• Yates, W., supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 170, 174
• Yeomen, affected by industrial changes, 139-140;
• turned attention to industry, 141;
• obtained machines and produced yarn in farm-houses, 141;
• unable to compete with factories, 141-142;
• lost agricultural status, 141-142;
• a few successful as steam manufacturers, 142
• Yorkshire exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, xxviii., 4;
• Luddite risings, 154-155

THE RIVERSIDE PRESS LIMITED, EDINBURGH