path: root/70140-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 70140 ***




  PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

  HISTORICAL SERIES

  No. XXXVI

  THE EARLY
  ENGLISH COTTON INDUSTRY


  Published by the University of Manchester at

  THE UNIVERSITY PRESS (H. M. MCKECHNIE, Secretary)

  12 LIME GROVE, OXFORD ROAD, MANCHESTER

  LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.

  LONDON: 39 Paternoster Row

  NEW YORK: 443-449 Fourth Avenue and Thirtieth Street

  CHICAGO: Prairie Avenue and Twenty-fifth Street

  BOMBAY: 8 Hornby Road

  CALCUTTA: 6 Old Court House Street

  MADRAS: 167 Mount Road


  [Illustration: STATUE OF SAMUEL CROMPTON
    NELSON SQUARE, BOLTON

  _On the base there is a representation of Hall-i’-th’-Wood which can
  just be distinguished in the photograph_]




  THE EARLY
  ENGLISH COTTON INDUSTRY

  WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS OF
  SAMUEL CROMPTON

  BY

  GEORGE W. DANIELS, M.A.

  SENIOR LECTURER IN ECONOMICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

  INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER BY

  GEORGE UNWIN, M.A.

  PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

  MANCHESTER: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

  12 LIME GROVE, OXFORD ROAD

  LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.

  LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, ETC.
  1920




  PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

  No. CXXXIII




PREFACE


In view of what is said by Professor Unwin in his introductory chapter
concerning the business material of the firm of M‘Connel & Kennedy,
the reason why this small volume has been written requires little
explanation. From the time this material was kindly placed at our
disposal by Mr. J. W. M‘Connel, grandson of one of the founders of the
firm, my interest has been centred mainly in the development of the
English cotton industry from its beginning to about the end of the
third decade of the nineteenth century.

Fortunately this investigation fitted in well with work on which I was
already engaged. For some time previously the preparation of lectures
for students of the Tutorial classes, conducted by the University of
Manchester in conjunction with the Workers’ Educational Association,
had caused me to turn my attention to the sources of the social and
economic history of the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth
centuries, with the object of enabling me to speak with a little more
confidence than I could gain from easily accessible books.

Last summer when I began that which has developed into the following
chapters my intention was to write a few pages of introduction to
the succeeding letters of Samuel Crompton, and later to publish a
volume dealing with the English cotton industry throughout the period
mentioned. Much of what appears in this volume was intended to form
the first part of that work, but the second part has been left for a
separate volume. There are, therefore, many gaps and deficiencies in
the present volume. Some of these gaps, I trust, may be filled and
deficiencies supplied at a later date.

My obligations are very numerous and in some cases extend to much more
than appears in this volume. To the late Humphrey Chetham I am indebted
for providing in Manchester the library which bears his name, in the
reading-room of which I have spent so many delightful hours.

Mr. H. Crossley, the present librarian, has rendered me untiring
assistance in searching out the authorities that I have used, as have
the librarians of the Manchester Reference Library and the Christie
Library. Miss F. Collier has assisted me in many ways, but particularly
in the tedious task of wading page by page through the _Journals of
the House of Commons_ and the files of _The Manchester Mercury_ and
making extracts therefrom. Miss P. Heap has sketched the map from
the one published in 1795 with Aikin’s _Thirty to Forty Miles Round
Manchester_. The Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance, through
its Manchester manager, Mr. J. Loudon, has granted me permission to
reproduce the photograph of the model of Manchester in the seventeenth
and early eighteenth centuries. The model has been constructed by
Mr. H. Yates of Moss Side, Manchester, and is a remarkable piece of
work. It is based upon “A Plan of Manchester and Salford, taken about
1650” (referred to on p. 25) and must have involved an enormous amount
of research, as by far the greater part of its detail is based upon
contemporary documents and prints. It is to be hoped that before long
the model may find a permanent resting-place in some Manchester public
institution.

Too late for me to avail myself of the information they contain,
I find that Mr. Loudon has published a series of articles in _The
Royal Exchange Assurance Magazine_, entitled “Manchester Memoirs.” In
writing these articles Mr. Loudon has made use of such records of the
Corporation as were not destroyed when the Royal Exchange was burned
down in January, 1838. Sufficient remain, however, to indicate their
value in the elucidation of the social and economic history of the
Manchester district in the eighteenth century, and the part that was
played by the Corporation in its development. Records are still in
existence of policies taken out by prominent Manchester business men at
that time, including one by Richard Arkwright, in 1785, when he insured
his Manchester factory for £5000.

In addition to the persons already mentioned, I am indebted to Mr.
Thomas Midgley, Curator of Chadwick Museum, Bolton, for valuable
information and for the photograph of Crompton’s statue; to Mr. J.
Wadsworth, of the staff of _The Manchester Guardian_, for important
references; to Mr. H. L. Beales, of the University of Sheffield, for
compiling the index; and to Professor D. H. Macgregor for reading my
proofs. To Mr. H. M. M‘Kechnie, the Secretary of the University Press,
I am deeply grateful, as he has advised my every step while the book
has been passing through the press, and has helped me in many other
ways.

But my greatest debt is to Professor George Unwin. Whatever taste for
social and economic history I now possess, or may acquire, I owe to
him. He has contributed far more to this volume than the introductory
chapter. But my deepest obligation is for his companionship, which
for many years has been to me a constant source of encouragement and
inspiration.

                                                              G. W. D.

  THE UNIVERSITY, MANCHESTER,
      _June, 1920_.




  CONTENTS


                                                                  PAGE

  INTRODUCTION                                               xix.-xxxi.

  I.--The stimulus given to research in economic history
  by the discovery of Messrs. M‘Connel’s records and
  of Crompton’s letters; central position in economic
  history occupied by commerce and industry of
  textiles; Lancashire cotton industry a graft on
  this old stock.

  II.--Beginning of cotton manufacture in Europe;
  mediæval gilds in textile trades; rise of an organised
  journeyman class in fourteenth century; but
  in the sixteenth century the centre of the labour
  problem was the small master, whose well-being
  was dependent on free flow of capital and credit.

  III.--Industrial conditions in seventeenth-century
  Lancashire resembled those in mediæval Florence
  and Douai, but differed vitally by the absence
  of a monopoly of capital; such a monopoly was
  developing in the Merchant Adventurers and other
  companies in Elizabeth’s reign; and led to a crisis
  in the textile industries in 1586-1587; the expansion
  of the northern textile industries due to its exceptional
  freedom.

  IV.--The removal of restrictions on the free flow of
  capital a main factor in the Industrial Revolution;
  illustrations of this from the careers of William
  Radcliffe, David Dale, and Nathan Meyer Rothschild.


      CHAPTER I

  THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COTTON MANUFACTURE                         1-29

  I.--The development of the English cotton industry
  the classic example of the Industrial Revolution
  movement; its importance as an indication of what
  the transition from the domestic to the factory
  system of organisation involved, 1-2; cotton and
  cotton-cloth common articles of import before the
  sixteenth century; “cottons” a prominent
  Lancashire manufacture in the early sixteenth
  century; unsuccessful attempts to regulate the manufacture,
  2-6; necessity for caution in accepting the
  view that cotton was not used in the manufacture
  of Lancashire cloths in the sixteenth century, 7-8.

  II.--Authentic evidence of a considerable manufacture
  of cotton in Lancashire; petition of London
  merchants (1621); testimony of Lewis Roberts
  (1641); fustian manufacture probably introduced
  in second half of the sixteenth century, 8-12;
  extent of the manufacture indicated in petitions
  from Lancashire (1654); possible effect of Thirty
  Years’ War; Fuller’s account of Lancashire fustian
  manufacture (1662); Bolton the staple place for
  fustians in the seventeenth century, 13-16.

  III.--Countries from which cotton-wool imported in the
  seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; cotton-yarn
  and fine cotton-fabrics imported by East
  India Company, 16; John Barkstead’s schemes
  (1691) for manufacture of calicoes and muslins and
  their failure, 16-19; opposition of silk and woollen
  trades to import of dyed or printed calicoes; resulting
  Act (1700) followed by import of plain calicoes
  which were printed and dyed in England; Act
  (1721) prohibits their wear or use; opposition to
  Act from manufacturers of cotton in Dorset, 19-21;
  increasing prominence of fustians rouses opposition;
  petitions from Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire
  result in “Manchester Act” (1736); use or
  wear of printed goods made of linen-warp and
  cotton-wool declared lawful; progress of cotton
  manufacture, 1730-1764, 22-24.

  IV.--Development of Manchester trade, 1650-1750;
  distinction between smallware, check, and fustian
  branches; fustian especially regarded as the cotton
  manufacture; some goods made entirely of cotton
  in first half of eighteenth century but majority
  probably of mixed character; worsted and silk
  utilised and linen largely manufactured, 25-29.


      CHAPTER II

  THE ORGANISATION OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE                     30-71

  I.--Clothiers in the Northern cloth district; Martin
  Byrom of Manchester (1520); statute (1543) refers
  to Irish merchants and others who sell linen-yarn
  and wool on credit in Manchester; petition of
  Lancashire clothiers against restrictions on middlemen
  (1577), 30-31; wealthy men engaged in
  Lancashire cloth trade--_e.g._ the Tippings, Mosleys,
  Chethams; their charitable bequests; extent of
  their concerns, 32-34; Humphrey Chetham bought
  goods for London market; employed workpeople
  in spinning yarn and in weaving and finishing cloth;
  typical clothier of the domestic system, 35-36;
  small independent producers not typical workpeople
  in Manchester district in early eighteenth
  century; evidence of statutes; changes in
  organisation of fustian manufacture; testimony
  of Ogden and Guest, 36-39.

  II.--Organisation of smallware trade; manufacturers,
  undertakers, journeymen, apprentices; changes
  in first half of eighteenth century; combination of
  workpeople; articles (1747-1753) aim at enforcing
  apprenticeship and limiting number of apprentices,
  40-42; increasing price of food and consequent
  disturbances; smallware weavers attempt to
  raise wages; prosecution and submission at
  Lancaster Assizes (1760), 42-45; Lord Mansfield’s
  charge on combinations in Lancashire (1758);
  combination of check-weavers; dispute with
  employers and strike in Manchester area; the
  “document”; demand regulation of trade under
  statute 5 Eliz.; proposals for settlement of dispute
  by weavers and Mr. Percival; submission and
  prosecution at Lancaster Assizes (1759); Lord
  Mansfield’s comments on Statute of Apprentices;
  later history of smallware weavers’ combination;
  economic and social significance of the combinations;
  their relation to earlier associations and to
  modern trade unions, 45-55.

  III.--Distribution of manufacturers and workpeople in
  Manchester area in first half of eighteenth century;
  connections maintained by “putting out” system,
  56; trade in raw materials; cotton imported
  through London, Liverpool, Whitehaven, Lancaster;
  wool reached manufacturers through inland traders;
  linen yarn spun in England and Scotland, but
  Ireland and the Continent most important sources
  of supply; qualities of yarn, and goods in which
  used; cotton merchants and yarn merchants in
  Manchester; foreign trading-connections; Manchester
  goods exported to West Indies, Africa, Italy,
  Germany, North America, Russia, Asiatic Turkey,
  57-60; inland trade carried on by travelling merchants
  with pack-horses; partly displaced from early
  eighteenth century by “riders-out” who solicited
  orders; goods forwarded by carriers; development
  of communications; importance of petty-chapmen;
  links between manufacturing centres
  and country districts; organisation of their trade
  and capital involved; economic development
  during century preceding great inventions in
  cotton industry, 60-66; tables relating to manufacturers,
  merchants, crofters, and carriers in
  Manchester area (1772), 67-71.


      CHAPTER III

  THE COMING OF MACHINERY: KAY TO ARKWRIGHT                      72-91

  I.--Modern cotton industry dates from great inventions;
  inventions relate especially to spinning
  and preparatory processes, but earliest successful
  efforts in weaving; “Dutch” loom introduced into
  Manchester district in early eighteenth century;
  John Kay invents “flying-shuttle” (1733); first
  used in woollen industry; other inventions of Kay;
  Robert Kay effects improvement in hand-loom
  (1760); more complicated loom introduced for
  figured goods; discrepancy between spinning and
  weaving, 72-74; types of spinning-wheel in use--“Jersey”
  wheel, “Brunswick” wheel; methods
  of cleaning and carding cotton; Lewis Paul’s
  patent for roller-spinning (1738); and for carding
  (1748); lack of success; carding-machine introduced
  into Lancashire (1760), 75-78; need for
  improved spinning-machine; Society of Arts
  offers reward for invention (1761); inventions of
  the “spinning-jenny” (patented 1770) and the
  “water-frame” (patented 1769); description of
  spinning process by the spinning-wheel, the jenny,
  and the water-frame; Arkwright erects factory at
  Cromford (1771) and takes out “carding” patent
  (1775), 79-81; attacks upon new machinery by
  workpeople; not fully explained by effects of its
  introduction, 82-83.

  II.--Outbreak of Seven Years’ War ushers in century
  of unrest in England due mainly to political causes;
  unrest frequently broke out in riots; conditions in
  sixties and seventies of eighteenth century; efforts
  of Parliament to cope with rising food prices;
  agitation against trading middlemen; attack
  made upon jenny during period of industrial
  depression and high prices at close of Seven Years’
  War; and upon Arkwright’s machinery when
  American War of Independence dominated the
  situation; workpeople state their case against
  machinery to Parliament; counter-petition by
  manufacturers; decision of Parliamentary Committee,
  83-91.


      CHAPTER IV

  THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS                                 92-112

  Failure of attempts to obstruct use of Arkwright’s
  machinery; Act (1774) reduces duty and removes
  prohibition on printed calicoes, 92-93; patents
  of Hargreaves and Arkwright challenged by manufacturers;
  Hargreaves’ failure to uphold his
  patent; his claim to invention of jenny questioned
  by Guest; his later career, 92-97; Arkwright’s
  characteristics; his association with Jedediah
  Strutt; development of his concerns, 97-100;
  infringements of his patents; fails to secure verdict
  in law-suit (1781); Arkwright’s _Case_; requests
  Parliament to consolidate his patents and continue
  them until 1789; opposition of Manchester Committee
  of Trade; secures verdict in second law-suit
  (February, 1785); agitation in Manchester;
  application for new trial; Thomas Highs’ claim to
  invention of roller-spinning; Arkwright loses
  verdict in third trial (June, 1785); application for
  new trial refused (November, 1785); Arkwright’s
  achievements, 100-112.


      CHAPTER V

  THE MULE AND THE RISE OF A NEW COTTON MANUFACTURE            113-148

  I.--The work of Samuel Crompton; begins efforts to
  produce improved yarn at Hall-i’-th’-Wood (1772);
  invents “mule” (1779); prices obtained for his
  yarn; consents to make machine public, 113-116;
  character of the mule and its method of spinning;
  probable reasons why patent not applied for;
  treatment of Crompton in 1780 and its effects;
  asserts unacquaintance with Arkwright’s rollers,
  117-122.

  II.--Mule at first worked by hand in cottages; improvements
  in the mule; the “Billy”; mule
  supersedes jenny in cotton spinning; and water-frame
  in finer counts, 122-124; application of
  water-power; attempts to invent “self-actor”
  mule; increase in size and appearance in town
  factories, 124-126; early fine cotton-spinners;
  immigration of Scotsmen; fine spinning and
  machine making combined; rise of specialised
  firms, 126-128; fine cotton fabrics made from
  mule-spun yarn; effect upon Eastern cotton
  industry; testimony of John Kennedy; markets
  for fine yarn in late eighteenth and early nineteenth
  centuries; transition in the English cotton-industry;
  import of cotton from United States,
  126-132.

  III.--Social effects of the transition; William Radcliffe’s
  account; examination of the view that combined
  agricultural and industrial occupations prevailed
  in country districts of Lancashire before the coming
  of factories; evidence from _Manchester Mercury_,
  Aikin, Parliamentary reports; Radcliffe’s account
  of the township of Mellor; 1801 census returns
  relating to Mellor; Gaskell’s account of the classes
  in country districts affected by the transition;
  yeomen and artisans; improvement in material
  position of artisans and elevation of lower class;
  many yeomen turned to industry and some achieved
  success as manufacturers; number engaged
  in Lancashire textile industry who combined
  agricultural and industrial occupations relatively
  small; similar conclusion regarding number of
  small independent producers, 132-144; improved
  position of weavers reacted upon other trades and
  attracted labour; the Napoleonic War; mid-eighteenth
  century conditions repeated and intensified;
  effects upon social and economic
  development; and upon the problem of industrial
  relationships, 144-148.


      CHAPTER VI

  CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON                    149-165

  Crompton takes up residence at Oldhams; begins
  spinning business at Bolton (1791); subscription
  (1802-1803) partial failure owing to outbreak of
  war; extends his business; difficulties of his
  position; attempts to arouse interest in his case,
  149-153; application to Parliament decided upon;
  collects information concerning effect of the mule
  in England, Scotland, and Ireland (1811-1812);
  petition presented to Parliament and referred to
  Committee; period of distress and riots; delay
  in proceedings; grant of £5000; Crompton’s disappointment,
  153-158; failure of business
  concerns; subscription raised for annuity (1824);
  second petition to Parliament; Crompton’s death
  (1827); memorials of Crompton; improvements
  in the mule; its position in the world’s cotton
  industry, 158-165.


      CHAPTER VII

  LETTERS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON                                   166-194

  ADDITIONAL NOTES                                             195-197

  INDEX                                                        199-214




  ERRATA


  Page 12, footnote 1, _for_ “_ibid_” _read_ “_Growth of
                         English Industry and Commerce_, ii.”

   ”   19,    ”     1, _for_ “_S.P.D._, Petition Entry
                         Book” _read_ “_ibid._”

   ”  144,    ”     1, _after_ “_Petitions_” _read_ “(1803).”

   ”  149,   line  13, _for_ “reference” _read_ “references.”

   ”  159,    ”    19, _for_ “1825” _read_ “1827.”




  ILLUSTRATIONS


  STATUE OF SAMUEL CROMPTON          _Frontispiece_

  MANCHESTER IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND
  EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES         _To face p._   25

  MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF
  MANUFACTURERS AND CROFTERS IN
  THE MANCHESTER AREA IN 1772             ”         70

  THE HALL-I’-TH’-WOOD                    ”        115

  REDUCED FACSIMILE OF CROMPTON’S
  HANDWRITING                        _Page_        171




INTRODUCTION


I

In the year 1906 one of the oldest and largest firms in the cotton
industry, that of Messrs. M‘Connel & Co. Ltd., published, under the
title of _A Century of Fine Cotton Spinning_, a brief history of
their business, including some deeply interesting extracts from their
earliest letter-books. The use of this material in 1913, when a second
edition had been issued, by a research student of the University, Mr.
W. Bradburn, M.A., prompted inquiries about the original sources and
led to the discovery of what is probably a unique set of economic
documents--the entire record of a great industrial and commercial
enterprise during the forty years of its most rapid expansion. In an
upper storey of one of Messrs. M‘Connel’s mills in Ancoats, Mr. Daniels
and myself found not only a great array of day-books, cash-books,
ledgers and letter-books for the period 1795-1835, but also the whole
correspondence, invoices, receipts, etc., of the firm neatly endorsed
and carefully packed year by year into tin boxes, each box having the
date duly painted upon it. It almost seemed as if the firm had from
the first foreseen the lively interest which their achievements would
excite in the economic historian of the future, and the fact that one
of its early members, Mr. John Kennedy, made a number of valuable
contributions to the history of the cotton industry in the Transactions
of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society and elsewhere
lends reasonableness to this supposition.

These records were generously placed at the disposal of the University
for the purposes of research. They have already enabled Mr. Daniels to
cast much new light on the vicissitudes of the cotton trade during the
revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, and he hopes in time to illustrate
by their aid many aspects of the cotton industry during the most
important period of its development. In the meantime a new stimulus
has been given to the investigation of origins. These had never been
exhaustively studied, and the discovery amongst Messrs. M‘Connel’s
business correspondence of a series of original letters of Samuel
Crompton which, though written in the year 1812, are concerned with
his invention of the mule, more than thirty years before, furnished an
additional reason for the reconsideration of the earliest history of
the industry which has been attempted in this volume.

From the earliest recorded times down to the period of the Industrial
Revolution, the textile crafts and the commerce based upon them had in
more than one important sense occupied a central position in economic
history. The weaving of home-spun fabrics had always furnished the
main transitional link between the world of the self-subsisting
agriculturalist and the world of specialised industry. Moreover, this
almost universally diffused domestic manufacture, organised for the
supply of distant markets, represents a phase of industrial development
historically intermediate between the “handcraft system” of the
mediæval city and the factory system of the nineteenth century; and
the fabrics thus produced, the silks of China, Italy and France, the
cottons of India and Central Asia, the fine woollens of Flanders and
Florence, the kerseys and broadcloths of England, the linens of Holland
and Silesia, the fustians of Barcelona and Bavaria, have been in turn
during twenty centuries amongst the chief commodities of international
and intercontinental trade.

For these reasons the story of the textile crafts affords better
illustrations than could be obtained from any other source of three
of the main aspects of economic history--_i.e._ (1) that of social
differentiation and the formation of classes; (2) that of the
development of industrial and commercial organisation, and (3) that
of the development of the industrial and commercial policies of
modern states. That the Lancashire cotton industry possesses this
representative character is a commonplace. In no other modern industry
can the emergence and separate organisation of a wage-earning class,
the development of the factory system and the world market, the story
of industrial legislation and of British commercial policy in the
nineteenth century be so adequately studied.

But the cotton industry is, as Mr. Daniels has shown, a new graft on
an old stock. Long before it passed under the factory system it was
organised on a capitalist basis, derived in all probability from the
fustian manufacture which it had displaced. The account of the disputes
of the smallware and check weavers with their employers in 1758-1759,
and of their formation and enforced repudiation of box clubs, shows
clearly that whilst, as regards their economic dependence on their
employers, their status differed little from that of the hand-loom
weaver in the early nineteenth century; their methods of combined
action were essentially the same as those that prevailed amongst
the textile crafts in the fifteenth century. A brief consideration,
therefore, of the earlier phases in the organisation of labour and
capital in the textile industries as a whole may serve to place the
modern cotton industry on the right historical perspective and help to
account for the unique rapidity of its expansion.


II

It is in the first half of the twelfth century that we get the first
evidence of the production of cotton fabrics in the Christian countries
of Europe. Edward Baines, who in his excellent and scholarly account[1]
of the origins of the cotton industry dated its European beginnings
from the reign of Abderahman the Great (A.D. 912-961) in Moorish Spain,
and showed that it had become well established in Barcelona by the
thirteenth century, could not find any trace of it in Italy before the
beginning of the fourteenth century. Recent research[2] has, however,
proved that by the middle of the twelfth century there already existed
a flourishing export trade from Genoa to the Levant of the fustians
of Northern Italy and Tuscany and of the light cottons (pignolato) of
Piacenza; so that the fustians which are found on sale at the Champagne
fairs[3] at that period were probably from Italy as well as from Spain.
The frequent mention of cotton wool and yarn as articles of commerce
makes it probable that fabrics containing cotton were produced in
Flanders during the fourteenth century. At the same time a fustian
manufacture began to grow up around Ulm and Augsburg, deriving its
cotton supplies through Venice, which acquired a European reputation in
the sixteenth century.[4]

[Footnote 1: Baines, _History of Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 38-43.]

[Footnote 2: A. Schaube, _Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des
Mittelmeergebiets_, pp. 159-160.]

[Footnote 3: F. Bourquelot, _Etudes sur les foires de Champagne_, i.
273.]

[Footnote 4: E. Nübling, _Ulms Baumwolleveberei im Mittelaltes_ in
_Schmollers Forschunsen_, Bd. IX.]

Of the great range of new social classes engaged in, or concerned
with, the textile industries that were built up during the Middle Ages
by the creative energy of free fellowship, it is impossible here to
attempt any account. There were gilds of weavers which secured in the
twelfth century chartered right of marketing and autonomy before the
rise of municipal self-government[5]; gilds of importers and exporters
of cloth formed amongst the wealthy class that administered the first
forms of civic independence[6]; gilds of tailors or cloth-cutters
(Gewand-schneider) that attempted to monopolise the right to retail
trade[7]; gilds of small masters in the auxiliary crafts--of fullers,
dyers and shearmen seeking to maintain an independent contact with the
market[8]; and finally, gilds of wage-earning journeymen who never
secured full recognition of their right to a separate organisation. The
conflict between these class interests was a main factor in municipal
politics during the fourteenth century and culminated not infrequently
in revolution.

[Footnote 5: Ashley, _Economic History_, vol. i., pt. i., ch. 3. Unwin,
_Gilds and Companies of London_, pp. 42-46.]

[Footnote 6: Unwin, _Industrial Organisation_, pp. 30-31; A. H.
Johnson, _History of Drapers Company_, i. G. des Marez, _Organisation
du Travail à Bruxelles_.]

[Footnote 7: Keutgen, _Der Grosshandel im Mittelalter_ in _Hansische
Geschichtsblätter_, 1901, p. 67.]

[Footnote 8: Unwin, _Industrial Organisation_, pp. 32-36.]

In 1345 a dispute at Ghent between the fullers and their employers,
the weavers and clothmakers about a piece-work rate led to a pitched
battle in which hundreds were slain.[9] For a few months during the
Ciompi rising of 1378 the nine thousand textile wage-earners of
Florence maintained themselves by a temporary transformation of the
gild constitution on an equal footing with the wealthier classes of the
city, but were then obliged to fall back on that Friendly Society form
of organisation out of which the Lancashire weavers in the eighteenth
century constructed their later trade unions.[10] Elsewhere in many
places the struggle of the town wage-earners for recognition was
carried on with varying success during the fifteenth century. In 1453
the journeymen fullers of Brussels formed part of an international
federation comprising forty-two towns and cities whose objects were to
limit the supply of labour and to exclude all workers from towns in
their black list.[11] The journeymen weavers followed the example of
the fullers and their black list included the whole of England as well
as the cities of Malines and Ypres. The records of the last successful
strike of the fullers of Leyden in 1478 show that their fraternity,
though it included small masters, was mainly representative of the
journeyman class.[12]

[Footnote 9: W. J. Ashley, _James and Philip van Artevelde_, pp.
162-163.]

[Footnote 10: A. Doren, _Die Florentiner Wollentuchindustrie_, pp.
124-242.]

[Footnote 11: G. des Marez, _Organisation du Travail à Bruxelles_, pp.
118-119, and _Le Compagnannage des Chapelier Bruxellois_, pp. 17-19.]

[Footnote 12: _Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van de Leidsche
textielnijverheid_, I. xxi. Ed. N. W. Posthumus.]

From that time till the end of the seventeenth century we hear little
of the activities of the journeymen. In all cases where they expanded,
the textile industries outgrew the limits of the town economy and drew
supplies both of capital and labour from sources outside the corporate
boroughs and the gilds. The textile workers became in every country a
much larger and more important section of the community than before,
but their centre of gravity shifted from the journeyman wage-earner to
the working master who was essentially a small capitalist and receiver
of credit, and whose economic well-being depended primarily upon a free
flow of capital and credit.[13] It remains to consider briefly how this
was affected by the mercantilist policy of the state.

[Footnote 13: Unwin, _Industrial Organisation in the 16th and 17th
Centuries_, pp. 52-61, 126. _Commerce and Coinage in Shakespeare’s
England_, i., p. 330.]


III

Capitalist employers and even, to some extent, our wage-earning
proletariat were to be found as early as the close of the thirteenth
century in the chief urban centres of the textile industries in
Flanders and Italy; and at first sight there seems little to
distinguish the industrial conditions and the class relations
prevailing in those centres from those described as existing in
Lancashire between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries. The
patrician draper of Douai in the last quarter of the thirteenth
century[14] ran his business on lines which we find still maintained by
the Chethams and the Mosleys of seventeenth-century Manchester. In both
cases the capitalist was primarily a merchant with agents or partners
in other cities, who bought his raw material from abroad and helped to
put his goods on a distant market. At the industrial centre he had a
warehouse and also a workshop where he employed a few workers chiefly
in finishing the cloth or in preparing the material for manufacture.
But his relation with most of those who were in effect his workpeople
was ostensibly that of a trader. He sold them the materials of their
craft and bought the finished products, allowing them credit for the
interval.

[Footnote 14: G. Espinas, _Jehan Boine Broke, Bourgeois
et drapier-Douasien in Vierteljahrschrift für Social und
Wirthschaftsgeschichte_, vol. ii., pp. 53-70.]

The other form of industrial organisation found in eighteenth-century
Manchester, in which the materials were delivered through putters-out
to the cottage workers of the surrounding country, had been already
fully developed by the Wool Gild of fourteenth-century Florence.[15]

[Footnote 15: A. Doren, _Die Florentiner Wollentuchindustrie_, chap. v.]

What constitutes the vital difference between the conditions at Douai
and Florence on the one hand, and those in Lancashire on the other
hand, was the virtual monopoly of the employing function and of the
supply of capital or credit which the civic constitution of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries gave to the patrician merchant or
to the members of the wool gild, and which was entirely absent from
the Manchester fustian or cotton industry. The weaver who obtained
his materials from the Chethams or Mosleys might, if their terms
were better, have got credit from the Irish yarn dealers or other
“foreigners” who visited the Manchester market, and he was free to
set up as an independent manufacturer as soon as he had acquired the
necessary capital or credit. Such freedom, however, was by no means
universal or even normal in the textile industries of sixteenth-century
England. A monopoly of the employing function had grown up in the
corporate burghs which were the older centres of the industry and the
effect of the industrial and commercial policy of the sixteenth century
was to give a national sanction to this monopoly, and to put a ban upon
expansion or improvement.

One of the main instruments of that policy was the company of
Merchant Adventurers. This was a _cartel_ of English merchants,
mainly Londoners, which had gradually gained a control of the export
trade of cloth to Antwerp--the chief Continental market. Throughout
the sixteenth century it sought to prevent the English clothier from
exporting his own cloth and the foreign merchant from coming to buy
it in England. At the same time it restricted the number of its
own members and limited the amount of trade done by each. So far,
therefore, from having been, as is commonly supposed, the main organ
for the expansion of English trade, it constituted, in fact, the main
hindrance to that expansion. In 1551-1552 the government of Edward VI.,
in order to raise from the Adventurers a desperately needed loan, gave
an official sanction to their monopoly. It stopped the trade of the
Hanseatic merchants who had recently been exporting over one-third of
the rapidly increasing output of English cloth,[16] and it authorised
the Adventurers to exclude other native merchants from the trade.
As the Adventurers could not find a market for the whole national
output, they complained of over-production.[17] The corporate boroughs
which were the older privileged centres of the industry naturally
supported this complaint, and a series of enactments from 1552 to 1563
(including the Statute of Weavers and the Statute of Apprentices) which
endeavoured to restrict the expansion of the textile manufactures in
the country districts were largely due to the combined influence of
these two vested interests and to the fiscal needs of the Government.

[Footnote 16: J. M. Lappenberg, _Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen
Stahlhofes zu London_, p. 175.]

[Footnote 17: _Acts of the Privy Council for 1550_, p. 19.]

The Hanseatic trade was restored under Philip and Mary, and during the
first half of Elizabeth’s reign the German merchants continued to find
a market for a considerable quantity of English cloth.

This additional channel through which capital and credit could flow in
and out of the country was rendered more indispensable by the gradual
stoppage of trade with Central Europe through the Netherlands. But in
the second decade of Elizabeth fresh hostilities arose between the
Merchant Adventurers who had settled at Hamburg and the Hanseatic
League with the result that the German merchants were in 1576 excluded
from trading in Blackwell Hall, and later in 1580 deprived of all
their remaining privileges in England, whilst the Adventurers lost
their foothold in Hamburg.[18] At the very moment when the foreign
channels for the export trade were thus being closed the native
channels were being seriously narrowed through the action of the
same vested interests. The monopoly of the Merchant Adventurers
extended only to the Low Countries and Germany. The trade with Spain
and the Baltic, with Venice and the Levant and Morocco had been free
to all Englishmen and had been opened up by enterprising merchants,
frequently from the lesser parts, who more truly deserved the title
of Adventurers than the corporate monopolists of the markets nearer
home. But between 1575 and 1588 each of these branches of foreign
commerce was monopolised by a chartered syndicate formed after the
model of the Merchant Adventurers and controlled largely by the same
group of Londoners. Prices went up by leaps and bounds. “When every
nation,” said Harrison, “was permitted to bring in her own commodities
... we had sugar for fourpence the pound that now ... is well worth
half-a-crown, raisins and currants for a penny that now are bidden at
sixpence. I do not deny that the navy of the land is in part maintained
by their traffic, but so is the price of wares kept up now that they
have gotten the only sale of things upon pretence of better futherance
of the common wealth into their own hands.”[19]

[Footnote 18: R. Ehrenberg, _Hamburg und England_, chap. iv.]

[Footnote 19: W. Harrison, _Description of England_, Book III., chap.
iv.]

Far more serious, however, was the monopoly of the export trade in
cloth. In 1586 the Privy Council was receiving alarming reports of
the discontent in Somerset. The poorer sort, who were wont to live by
spinning, carding and working of wool, were starving for lack of work
and on the point of rebellion. An accidental fire at Bath was taken
for a beacon lighted to proclaim a general rising. “This great matter
of the lack of work,” writes Burleigh to Hatton, “not only of cloths,
which presently is the greatest, but of all other commodities which
are restrained from Spain, Portugal, Barbary, France, Flanders, Hamburg
and the States, cannot but, in process of time, work a great change and
dangerous issue to the people of the Realm, who heretofore in time of
outward peace lived thereby, and without it must either perish for want
or fall into violence to feed and fill their lewd appetites with open
spoil of others, which is the root of rebellion.”

The remedy proposed by Burleigh was to undo at one stroke the whole
effect of the restrictions that had been accumulating since 1564. To
have more sales there must be more buyers and more ships. The Hanseatic
trade must be restored. Other alien merchants must receive the same
liberty and be encouraged to use it by lower export duties.[20]
Blackwell Hall must be opened again to German buyers, and if the
Londoners refused, a cloth hall must be set up at Westminster. Finally,
the exportation of cloth must be free to all English merchants whether
members of the Adventurers’ Company or not.[21] But the application
of these sound remedies was frustrated by the war with Spain and the
reign of Elizabeth closed with a period of intensified monopoly and of
commercial depression.[22]

[Footnote 20: W. R. Scott, _Joint Stock Companies_, 1720, i., p. 88.]

[Footnote 21: Eliz., _State Papers Domestic_, cci.]

[Footnote 22: W. R. Scott, _op. cit._, i., chap. v.]

The expansion of the textile industries of England, which there is no
reason to doubt was taking place at this period, is clearly not to be
placed to the credit of Elizabethan statesmanship. It took place almost
entirely in the district exempted from the Weavers Acts. Foremost
amongst those districts were Lancashire and the West Riding, which thus
enjoyed the advantages of comparative _laissez faire_ at a time when
restrictions on the creation and the free flow of capital were part of
the accepted national policy.


IV

The importance for the expansion of British industry of the subsequent
removal of those restrictions can be best understood if we compare
the conditions under which English woollen industry was developing at
the close of the sixteenth century with those that prevailed in the
cotton industry at the close of the eighteenth century. In the earlier
period, of course, there was nothing to correspond to the jenny, the
mule, and the steam-engine. But certain conditions quite as essential
to the development of the industry are common to both cases--above all,
a rapid accumulation of new capital and a simultaneous expansion of
organising ability. It was a vital factor in both these developments
that the capital and ability accumulating in one field should be free
to flow over into and fertilise other fields.

This is clearly shown in the instructive case of William Radcliffe,
whose account of the transition of the cotton industry to the factory
system has been critically discussed and set in a new light by Mr.
Daniels. William Radcliffe commenced working life as a hand-loom
weaver at Mellor. Any young man, he tells us, of moderate ability
and self-confidence could have got on at that time. The capital
accumulating in his hands enabled him to give out work, exactly as a
sixteenth-century clothier would have done, to all the villages round.
Within about fifteen years he was finding employment for one thousand
hand-looms; he had £11,000 invested in the business; a bank gave him
credit for £5000. Most of this capital and credit was employed, not
in the manufacture itself, but in trade. It was represented by large
quantities of piece goods on their way to the consumer, but still
unsold. The new captain of industry could not extend his enterprise
unless he used his capital to find a new market. For this purpose
Radcliffe took as his partner a young Scot with more education than
himself, who brought another Scot into the business, and who regularly
visited Frankfort and Leipzig to open a market for the firm’s muslins.
Or let us take the case of David Dale, the father-in-law of Robert
Owen and the founder of the New Lanark Mills. He commenced life, like
Radcliffe, as a hand-loom weaver, but soon became clerk to a mercer
who very likely found work for weavers. Then we find him importing
foreign yarns to set weavers at work on his own account and taking in
a partner to help him. With the capital thus acquired he started a
whole series of spinning mills--the first in Scotland--and the need
of finding an outlet for his yarns led him to extend his operations
to weaving and dyeing. Finally, as he was getting on in years, he
disposed of his manufacturing interests to younger and more energetic
men like his son-in-law, and withdrew his own capital and organising
ability into the less speculative field of banking. In the cases of
Dale and Radcliffe we see capital accumulated in industry flowing over
into commerce and banking. But all were not so successful as Dale.
Even Radcliffe came to grief in his later years and was dependent on
the capital of others. And in many cases capital and credit are to be
observed flowing in the opposite direction. The merchant who imported
cotton enabled the young manufacturer to set up for himself by giving
him three months’ credit, whilst the exporting merchant rendered
similar assistance by paying for the manufacturer’s output week by
week. It was in this way, by a flow of capital inwards from commerce,
that most of the early industrial enterprises of Lancashire got
started and the immense expansion of the cotton industry was rendered
possible. One other example will serve to complete the account and to
show the international significance of the development at the moment
when Radcliffe was sending out his partner to Germany. Nathan Meyer
Rothschild was buying Manchester goods at Frankfort for transmission
to more easterly markets. Some quarrel with a Manchester merchant
led him to think that he could make better use of his capital by
settling in Manchester himself. His father supplied him with £20,000,
and he arrived to take part in an almost feverish expansion of the
industry. He found there were three separate profits to be made in the
manufacture: one upon the supply of the raw material, one upon the
manufacturing, and one upon the dyeing and spinning. His capital and
organising ability enabled him to combine all three. In half-a-dozen
years he had turned his £20,000 to £60,000, and then, obeying the
instinct of his race and following the signs of the times, he withdrew
his capital to banking and became one of the leading figures in the
London money market.[23]

[Footnote 23: _Memoirs of Sir T. F. Buxton_, ed. by his son, 288-289.]

Enough has been written--perhaps too much--by way of introduction to
the new and valuable chapters which the researches of Mr. Daniels have
added to the history of the Lancashire cotton industry--enough if I
have succeeded in indicating the historical background of the industry
and the world-wide character of the development--too much if I have
anticipated here and there some of the more important conclusions that
Mr. Daniels has drawn from his investigations.

                                                           G. UNWIN.




THE EARLY ENGLISH COTTON INDUSTRY




CHAPTER I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COTTON MANUFACTURE


I

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.

[Footnote 24: Outside the area mentioned, Glasgow and neighbourhood is
the only centre in the United Kingdom where the industry is carried
on to a considerable extent (_Report of Committee on Textile Trades_
(1918), pp. 45, 49. (Cd. 9070)).]

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.

[Footnote 25: Published in 1835, p. 96.]

[Footnote 26: Gras, _The Early English Customs System_ (1918), pp. 119,
161, 167, 193, 222, 271, 452, 503, 554-555, 635, 647, 696. In 1507
there is an entry of cotton wolle “spowne.”

In a _Chronological History of Bolton to 1873_, compiled for _The
Bolton Chronicle_, it is stated that cotton yarns were spun at Horwich
in 1510.]

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]

[Footnote 27: Fustians were imported into Lynn at the end of the
fourteenth century, and there are many references to the import of
cotton-russet in 1509 (Gras, _ibid._, pp. 436, 581 _et seq._). In the
inventory of the goods of Alexander Staney (1477) “12 yards of white
osborner fustian” are mentioned (_Lancashire and Cheshire Wills_,
Chetham Society, vol. iii., N.S.).]

[Footnote 28: 6 Hen. VIII., c. 9; 27 Hen. VIII., c. 12. In view of
what will be said later, it may be noticed that, in the first of these
statutes, regulations were laid down regarding the delivery of wool, by
clothiers, for breaking, combing, carding and spinning, and the amounts
of wool or yarn to be redelivered by workpeople.]

[Footnote 29: Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 96.]

[Footnote 30: _The Itinerary of John Leland_, edited by Thomas Hearne
(1711), vii., p. 41.]

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.

[Footnote 31: 5 and 6 Edw. VI., c. 6.]

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.

[Footnote 32: 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 11.]

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]

[Footnote 33: 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, c. 5. Ashley, _Economic History_
(1909), vol. i., pp. 233-235. Unwin, _Industrial Organisation in
the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries_ (1904), pp. 92-93. In 1558-1559 and
1575-1576 other places were exempted, and in 1623-1624 the Act was
finally repealed.]

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.

[Footnote 34: 8 Eliz., c. 12.]

[Footnote 35: _Vict. County Hist., Lancs._, ii., p. 296.]

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]

[Footnote 36: _State Papers Domestic, Eliz._, vol. iii., 38. _Economic
Journal_, x., p. 24. According to the 1551 statute, a piece of cottons
had to be 22 goads in length, 3/4 yard in breadth and 30 lbs. in
weight. In 1566 the length had to be 21 goads or 20 goads at least, the
same breadth as before, but only 21 lbs. in weight. In 1551 a piece of
frieze had to be 36 yards in length, 3/4 yard in breadth and 48 lbs.
in weight. In 1566 the length was 35 to 36 yards, the same breadth as
before, but only 44 lbs. in weight.]

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]

[Footnote 37: 39 Eliz., c. 20.]

[Footnote 38: _S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. cclxix. 45.]

[Footnote 39: 43 Eliz., c. 10.]

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]

[Footnote 40: These facts are borne out in the writings of the
apologists for regulation. _Cf._ John May, _A Declaration of the Estate
of Clothing now used within this Realme of England_ (1613).]

[Footnote 41: 4 Jas. I., c. 2.]

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]

[Footnote 42: At the end of the sixteenth century Camden referred to
Manchester as “eminent for its woollen cloth or Manchester cottons”
(_Britannia_, Gibson’s edition (1772), ii., p. 143).]

[Footnote 43: 11 and 12 Wm. III., c. 20.]

[Footnote 44: _S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. ccliii. 122.]

[Footnote 45: _Ibid._, vol. cclv. 56. In 1580 the merchants and
citizens of Chester petitioned that Chester might be made the only port
for Manchester cottons, which petition was ultimately granted (_Ibid._
_Add._, vol. xxvi., 90. _Ibid._, vol. clviii. 2). In 1605 it was stated
that “the most part of English cloth transported for France is made
up of the coarsest wools as kerseys, cottons, and bays, serving for
linings” (_Ibid._ _Add._, vol. xxxvii. 60).]

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.

[Footnote 46: In the eighteenth century a writer well acquainted with
Manchester manufactures still referred to cotton as wool (_Infra_, pp.
37-38).]


II

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]

[Footnote 47: _The Treasure of Traffike_ (London, 1641), pp. 32-34.]

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.”

[Footnote 48: W. H. Price, “On the Beginning of the Cotton Industry
in England,” _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, vol. xx., pp. 608-613.
He quotes from London Guildhall Library, vol. Beta, _Petition and
Parliamentary Matters_, 1620-1621, No. 16 (old No. 25). My attention
was drawn to this reference by its being quoted by S. J. Chapman
in _V.C.H. Lancs._, ii., p. 380. Mr. Price also gives a reference
(_State Papers Domestic_, lix. 5) of the presumed date, 1610, where a
petitioner asks the Earl of Salisbury for confirmation of a grant made
to him for reformation of frauds daily committed in the manufacture of
“bombazine cotton such as groweth in the land of Persia being no kind
of wool.”]

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]

[Footnote 49: See note _infra_, pp. 195-196.]

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]

[Footnote 50: See _infra_, p. 197.]

[Footnote 51: P. 22.]

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]

[Footnote 52: The fact that the writer of the pamphlet makes no mention
of cotton in connection with fustians raises a speculation as to
the character of the following species of new drapery. He certainly
implies that it was something distinct from the “cottons” mentioned so
frequently in the sixteenth century: “A sort of cloth is made called
Manchester or Lancashire plaines to make cottons, which containe about
a yard in breadth; these are often bought by merchants and others,
which cut them to length according to a kersie, and hath them dressed
and dyed in forme to a kersie, the which are not onely vented in
foreign parts, but many of them vented in the Realme; which cloth
proves very unprofitable in wearing” (p. 32).]

[Footnote 53: Pp. 33-34.]

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.

[Footnote 54: Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce._,
pp. 82-83.]

[Footnote 55: Smiles, _The Huguenots_ (1870), p. 56.]

[Footnote 56: _Ibid._, p. 83.]

[Footnote 57: Baines, _ibid._, p. 99.]

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]

[Footnote 58: Scott, _Joint Stock Companies to 1720_ (1912), i., p.
253.]

[Footnote 59: _Calendar of State Papers Domestic_, lxvi., Feb. 1, 9.]

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]

[Footnote 60: _Ibid._, lxix. 7.]

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]

[Footnote 61: Dehn, _The German Cotton Industry_ (1913), pp. 1-2.]

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]

[Footnote 62: _Worthies of England_ (1662), ii., pp. 106-107.]

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]

[Footnote 63: _Infra_, pp. 25, 27, 29.]

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.


III

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]

[Footnote 64: Baines, _ibid._, p. 346. Scott, _ibid._, ii., p. 11.]

[Footnote 65: Scott, _ibid._, pp. 323, 326, 335.]

[Footnote 66: _Records of Fort St George, Despatches from England_,
1670-1677, pp. 4, 27 _et seq._ Ure, _Cotton Manufacture_, i., p. 355,
1861 edition.]

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]

[Footnote 67: _S.P.D._, Petition Entry Book, i., p. 96. _S.P.D._,
Warrant Book, xxxv., p. 434.]

[Footnote 68: _Ibid._, H.O. Warrant Book, vi., p. 335.]

[Footnote 69: _Ibid._, p. 115.]

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]

[Footnote 70: _Ibid._, Petition Entry Book, i., p. 154.]

[Footnote 71: _Ibid._, H.O. Warrant Book, vi., p. 125.]

[Footnote 72: _Ibid._, Petition Entry Book, i., p. 178.]

[Footnote 73: _Ibid._, H.O. Warrant Book, vi., p. 164. For a reference
to this patent see French, _Life and Times of Samuel Crompton_ (1859),
pp. 233-234.]

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]

[Footnote 74: _S.P.D._, Petition Entry Book, i., p. 198. It is apparent
that it was much the same set of men who were interested in all
Barkstead’s schemes. Another assistant in the silk-winding company
appeared with Barkstead as assistant in the copper mines company. I
have been unable to find any trace of the cotton company, and Professor
W. R. Scott informs me that he does not think the company was actually
floated even if a charter was granted. By those acquainted with the
exhaustive character of Professor Scott’s work his statement will be
regarded as conclusive.]

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.

[Footnote 75: Scott, _ibid._, ii., p. 152.]

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.

[Footnote 76: Scott, ibid., iii., pp. 450-452.]

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.

[Footnote 77: 11 and 12 Wm. III., c. 10.]

[Footnote 78: _Journals of the House of Commons_, xiv., pp. 280, 283,
284.]

[Footnote 79: _Ibid._, xix., p. 182 _et seq._]

[Footnote 80: 7 Geo. I., c. 7.]

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]

[Footnote 81: Espinasse, _Lancashire Worthies_ (1874), pp. 297-298.]

[Footnote 82: _J.H.C._, xix. 208.]

[Footnote 83: _Ibid._]

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]

[Footnote 84: _J.H.C._, xix. 295.]

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]

[Footnote 85: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 86: _Ibid._, xxii. 566.]

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.

[Footnote 87: “I proceed to another visible increase of trade, which
spreads daily among us, and affects not England only, but Scotland and
Ireland also, though the consumption depends wholly upon England, and
that is, the printing or painting of linen. The late Acts prohibiting
the use and weaving of painted callicoes either in clothes, equipages,
or house furniture, were without question aimed at improving the
consumption of our woollen manufacture, and in part it had an effect
that way. But the humour of the people running another way, and
being used to and pleased with the light, easie, and gay dress of
the callicoes, the callicoe printers fell to work to imitate those
callicoes by making the same stamps and impressions, and with the same
beauty of colours, upon linen, and thus they fell upon the two branches
of linen called Scots cloth and Irish linen. So that this is an article
wholly new in trade, and indeed the printing itself is wholly new; for
it is but a few years ago since no such thing as painting or printing
of linen or callicoe was known in England; all being supplied so cheap
and performed so very fine in India, that nothing but a prohibition of
the foreign printed callicoes could raise it up to a manufacture at
home; whereas now it is so increased, that the parliament has thought
it of magnitude sufficient to levy a tax upon it, and a considerable
revenue is raised by it” (_A Plan of the English Commerce_ (1728), p.
296, quoted in Baines’ _Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 260-261). A good brief
account of the early development of calico printing in this country is
given in two lectures by Edmund Potter, of Manchester, vol. iii., _The
Monthly Literary and Scientific Lecturer_, 1852. The trade began in the
neighbourhood of London in the last years of the seventeenth century
and was first established in Lancashire in 1764. Shortly afterwards the
first Robert Peel became interested in it and carried it on with great
vigour. “Peel was to calico printing what Arkwright was to spinning.”
See also _Report of Committee on Manufactures, Commerce, and Shipping_
(1833), p. 237.]

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.

[Footnote 88: _J.H.C._, xxii., p. 551.]

[Footnote 89: _Ibid._, pp. 566-567.]

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]

[Footnote 90: 9 Geo. II., c. 4.]

[Footnote 91: _J.H.C._, xxii., pp. 589, 605. The weavers claimed to be
manufacturers of worsted stuffs and stuffs made of silk and cotton.]

[Footnote 92: _Ibid._, xxii., pp. 593-595.]

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.

[Footnote 93: Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 346-347.]


IV

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]

[Footnote 94: Quoted from Aikin’s _A Description of the Country from
Thirty to Forty Miles round Manchester_ (1795), p. 154. The description
originally appeared with “A Plan of Manchester and Salford taken
about 1650.” This plan was inserted in the sheet of another “Plan of
the towns of Manchester and Salford,” first published in 1741, and
republished with small alterations in 1746 and 1751. The 1751 plan
has been reissued with Procter’s _Memorials of Bygone Manchester_
(1880). These plans are important for our purpose as the letterpress
accompanying them contains a description of Manchester and Salford
from which the second quotation in the text is taken. The whole of the
letterpress is given by Procter, _ibid._, pp. 350-356.]

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.”

[Illustration:

  _By permission of the Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance,
  A.D. 1720_

MANCHESTER IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES]

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.

[Footnote 95: See tables _infra_, pp. 67-68. In 1603, and in 1613,
the Town Jury of Manchester dealt with complaints of the keeping
of a Friday market in the open street for the sale of “Sackclothe,
Incle-points, Garteringe, Threede, Buttons, and other Smallwares” to
the prejudice of the Saturday market (_Manchester Court Leet Records_,
vol. ii., pp. 189, 287).]

[Footnote 96: Republished in 1887 under the title of _Manchester a
Hundred Years Ago_, and edited with an introduction by William E. A.
Axon. A comparison of the portion of Aikin’s _Manchester_ dealing with
the trade of the town will show that this is the “printed account” from
which his information was obtained. The references in the above text
are to the 1887 reprint.]

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]

[Footnote 97: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 73.]

[Footnote 98: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 78-79.]

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]

[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, p. 81.]

[Footnote 100: _Ibid._, p. 82.]

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]

[Footnote 101: _Ibid._, p. 74.]

[Footnote 102: _Infra_, p. 67.]

[Footnote 103: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 82.]

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]

[Footnote 104: _Infra_, p. 67.]

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.

[Footnote 105: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 75.]

[Footnote 106: _Ibid._, pp. 75, 77.]

[Footnote 107: _J.H.C._, pp. 76-78, 1737. In his evidence on a petition
relating to linens, threads, tapes, etc., John Marriot, threadmaker,
Manchester, stated that the thread manufacture in Lancashire had more
than doubled during the preceding twenty-four years.]

[Footnote 108: Warrington was especially noted for this manufacture.
In March, 1749 (_J.H.C._), it was stated in evidence from Warrington
that 5000 people were thus employed. In the evidence given on this
occasion instances were mentioned of one manufacturer at Reading having
500 families, comprehending 2000 persons, on his books as employees.
Another at Deptford had 46 looms employed and 500 poor families.
See also _J.H.C._, xxvi., p. 781, 1754. Three principal hosiers at
Nottingham had 100 frames each. For evidence as to manufacture of
sail-cloth at Warrington, see also Aikin, _Manchester_, p. 302;
Pococke, _Travels Through England_, i., p. 9.]

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]

[Footnote 109: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 74.]

[Footnote 110: By Ure and Espinasse definitely, by Baines more
cautiously. Ure, _Cotton Manufacture_, i., p. 223. Espinasse,
_Lancashire Worthies_, p. 415. Baines, _ibid._, pp. 101, 322.]

[Footnote 111: Ogden, _ibid._, pp. 78-79. After referring to various
goods produced in Manchester, certainly before 1770, he proceeds: “To
these succeeded washing hollands all cotton in the warp which were a
good article with the housewives, till yarn was mixed with the warp and
ruined their character.” He also refers to the manufacture of cotton
goods for the African trade. The statements of the other writers are,
of course, based upon the fact that it was difficult to spin a cotton
thread suitable for warp with the existing appliances. Even so, cotton
goods were made in other countries, and cotton yarn was imported.
As regards the use of the word “yarn” in the eighteenth century in
England, it was not often used with reference to cotton, but usually
to linen yarn. _Cf._ Ogden, _ibid._, p. 92: “If cotton comes down to
a reasonable price, the warps made of this twist would be as cheap as
those made of yarn, and keep the money here which was sent abroad for
that article, there being no comparison between yarn and cotton warps
for goodness.”]

[Footnote 112: _J.H.C._, xvii., p. 377.]

[Footnote 113: _Ibid._, xvi., pp. 311-324, 509-511.]




CHAPTER II

THE ORGANISATION OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE


I

“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]

[Footnote 114: Hollingworth, _Mancuniensis_, Willis’s Edition (1839),
p. 28. In the introduction to this edition the following facts are
given of the author:--Richard Hollingworth was a Fellow of Christ
College, Manchester, and died on 11th November 1656, in Manchester,
after being imprisoned and deprived of the income arising from his
fellowship in consequence of the breaking up of the collegiate body by
Colonel Thomas Birch of Birch Hall, near Manchester, acting under the
command of the Committee of Sequestration. In the Chetham Library there
are two manuscript copies, and in both the date is given as 1120, but
in one it is corrected “a mistake for 1520 about 12 H. 8,” a correction
which is obviously justified.]

[Footnote 115: 33 Henry VIII., c. xv., quoted by Baines, _ibid._, pp.
92-93.]

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]

[Footnote 116: 5 and 6 Edward VI., c. 7.]

[Footnote 117: _S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. cxvii. 38, quoted _Economic
Journal_, x., p. 23.]

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.

[Footnote 118: In 1578 the will of James Rillston, of Manchester,
“cotton man,” was proved at Chester. Evidently he was in partnership
with his cousin, who resided in London, to whom he used to send “packs”
of cottons, worth £11, 11s. each. He owned “houses, shoppes, chambers,
and warehouses” in Deansgate. One of his sons became a citizen and
grocer of London, and married the eldest daughter of Richard Tipping,
Linen Draper of Manchester. In the will of Edward Hanson, mercer and
grocer of Manchester (1584), the statement appears that “Wm Napton,
Wm Woodcocke, and Thos Sawell citizens and grocers of London oweth me
for six packs of cottons at 10l. xvs. a pack the sum of 64l. 10s.” Mr.
Hanson was Boroughreeve of Manchester in 1569 (_Manchester Court Leet
Records_, vol. i., pp. 203-204, 245).]

[Footnote 119: _Lancashire and Cheshire Wills_, Chetham Society, New
Series, vol. iii.]

[Footnote 120: _Lancashire and Cheshire Wills_, _ibid._, N.S., vol.
xxviii., pp. 15 _et seq._ If the sum mentioned were not raised the
£500 had to be put out at eight per cent. interest for ten years, and
of the annual £40 thus raised, £5 had to be used for repairing the
Parish church of Manchester, £5 to be devoted to the support of poor
scholars of the free schools in Manchester, Middleton or Rochdale going
to either university, £10 to the maintenance of bridges and highways
in the Parish of Manchester, £10 to fuel and apparel for the poor of
Manchester and Salford, £5 to the poor of Rochdale, and £5 to poor
folks next of kin to the testator and to his wife. At the end of the
ten years the £500 had to go to his children.]

[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, p. 35.]

[Footnote 122: _Lancashire and Cheshire Wills_, _ibid._, p. 24.]

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.

[Footnote 123: _Ibid._, p. 15 _et seq._

                          CLOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD

                        £  _s._ _d._                        £  _s._ _d._
70 pieces of broad                   At Robt. Bowker’s:
  Whites ready dressed                 46 broad Whites at
  at 45s. a piece      157  10   0       46s. 8d. a piece  107   6   8
38 Graies at 30s. a                    34 Graies at 30s. a
  piece                 57   0   0       piece.             51   0   0
13 Cottons at 32s. a                 At Roger Nayden’s
  piece                 20  16   0     Mylne:
1 Black Cotton           1  10   0     30 Graies at 30s. a
12 pieces Rett (?)                       piece.             45   0   0
  canvas                10  10   0   At Wm. Wardleworth’s
                                         Mylne:
                                       6 Cottons and one
                                         Graie.             10  10   0
                                     At Jno. Heywood’s
                                         Mylne:
                                       7 Graies at 30s. a
                                         piece.             10  10   0
                      ------------                        ------------
                      £247   6   0                        £224   6   8
]

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]

[Footnote 124: Raines and Sutton, _Life of Humphrey Chetham_, Chetham
Society, N.S., vol. xlix.]

[Footnote 125: _Ibid._, pp. 8-11.]

[Footnote 126: _Ibid._, p. 11.]

[Footnote 127: _Ibid._, pp. 12, 21-22.]

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]

[Footnote 128: _Ibid._, p. 7. This system of having a branch in
Manchester and one in London was apparently customary at the time. It
seems to have obtained in the case of William Mosier, mentioned above.
_Cf. ante_, p. 32, note.]

[Footnote 129: _Ibid._, pp. 14-15.]

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]

[Footnote 130: Raines and Sutton, _Life of Humphrey Chetham_, pp. 8-15,
123-124. Chetham employed people in Manchester, Ashton, Hollinwood,
Eccles and other places.]

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

  Money lent in various sums (the highest
      being £200 and the lowest £1, 10s.      £785  9  4
  To Wool sold to a great many persons (the
      regular price being £21 for 1 pack of
      Cypress wool 12xx (score weight))        124 18  8
  For Irish yeorne (yarn)                       89 13  4
  For (dossen) dozen yeorne                      1 14  6
  Wooll sould by retale                         18  8  0
          Ditto                                210 13  0
                                              ----------
                                 In all      £1230 16 10

[Footnote 131: _Ibid._, p. 30.]

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]

[Footnote 132: _Cf._ Unwin, _Industrial Organisation in the XVIth and
XVIIth Centuries_, pp. 235-236, where a classification of clothiers is
given from a State document, 1615.]

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.

[Footnote 133: _J.H.C._, xiv., p. 67.]

[Footnote 134: 1 Anne, c. 18.]

[Footnote 135: 9 Anne, c. 32.]

[Footnote 136: 13 Geo. II., c. 8.]

[Footnote 137: 22 Geo. II., c. 27. Professor Ashley has drawn attention
to the significance of these Acts (_Economic Organisation of England_
(1914), p. 145). _Cf._ _J.H.C._, xvi., p. 311, 1709: “Petition of
divers principal traders and dealers in linen manufactures on behalf of
themselves and several thousand workmen employed by them in the said
trade in Manchester and adjacent parts.”]

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]

[Footnote 138: Ogden, _ibid._, pp. 74-88.]

[Footnote 139: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 74. It will be noticed that the
statement regarding wool being given to the weavers means cotton-wool
ready spun--weft--as is made clear in the next quotation.]

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.

[Footnote 140: _Ibid._, p. 88.]

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]

[Footnote 141: Guest, _Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture_
(1823), p. 9.]

[Footnote 142: _Ibid._, p. 11.]

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.

[Footnote 143: _Infra_, pp. 67-69.]


II

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.

[Footnote 144: Manchester Reference Library, No. 28266.]

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.

[Footnote 145: _Cf._ Ogden, _ibid._, p. 82, also Chapman, _Lancashire
Cotton Industry_, pp. 19-22, where the loom is described.]

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.

[Footnote 146: Smollett, _History of England_ (1818 edition), iv., p.
177.]

[Footnote 147: The prices of cereals in Manchester are given weekly in
_The Manchester Mercury_ until 1766 and spasmodically afterwards.]

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]

[Footnote 148: In _The Manchester Mercury_.]

[Footnote 149: _Ibid._, 21st June 1757.]

[Footnote 150: _Ibid._, 11th November, 28th December 1756.]

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]

[Footnote 151: _Ibid._, 14th and 21st June 1757. Rioting took place in
Stockport in September. _Ibid._, 30th September.]

[Footnote 152: _Ibid._, 14th December 1756.]

[Footnote 153: _Ibid._, 8th November 1757.]

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.

[Footnote 154: _Smallware Weavers’ Apology_, p. 9. There is no reason
to think the word “shop” referred to a workshop in the ordinary sense.
Possibly the place where work was given out and taken in was called a
shop.]

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.”

[Footnote 155: 9th January.]

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]

[Footnote 156: _Manchester Mercury_, 25th March 1760.]

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]

[Footnote 157: _Manchester Mercury_, 5th September 1758. _Gentleman’s
Magazine_, 12th August 1758. Smollett, _ibid._, v. 439-440.]

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.

[Footnote 158: Mr. Thomas Percival (1719-1762) must not be confused
with Dr. Thomas Percival who, later in the century, became prominent
in his endeavours to improve the conditions in the cotton factories
particularly as regards children. The Thomas Percival referred to in
the text lived at Royton, near Oldham. The check manufacturers spoke
of him as “a landed proprietor” and as one who was “known to be an
enemy of oppression of all kinds.” He was a Justice of Peace, a Whig
in politics, and wrote in opposition to the High Church clergy and
the non-jurors in Manchester. In his day he was well known as an
antiquarian and was elected F.R.S. in 1756 and F.S.A. in 1760 (_Dict.
of Nat. Biog._, xliv., p. 383).]

[Footnote 159: _Letter to a Friend_, p. 5.]

[Footnote 160: _Ibid._, App. I.]

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]

[Footnote 161: _Ibid._, p. 10.]

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]

[Footnote 162: 25th April 1758.]

[Footnote 163: _Letter to a Friend_, p. 12.]

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]

[Footnote 164: _Letter to a Friend_, App. I. The Act referred to is the
Statute of Apprentices, 1563, and it is evident that the check-weavers
were giving to it, as did other workpeople during the eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries, an interpretation which was not in the
minds of its originators. The two clauses of the Act upon which they
invariably fixed were those relating to the assessment of wages and to
apprentices. The original Act, among other things, authorised Justices
of the Peace to assess wages, taking into account “the plenty or
scarcity of the time.” The wages thus assessed were maxima not minima,
and penalties were provided for those who paid or received more than
the maxima. In 1603 the statute was re-enacted, and, at this time, so
far as the workers in the woollen industry were concerned, the rates
fixed were to be minima, but it appears that few assessments were made
on this basis--they were made on the “not more” basis, not on the “not
less.” In the industrial changes of the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries workpeople desired the latter, and frequently requested
the enforcement of the Act with this object in view, and it figured
prominently in the demands of the rising organisations. The clause
relating to apprenticeship laid down that after the passing of the Act
no one should exercise “any art, mistery, or manual occupation” without
first serving a seven years’ apprenticeship, and why the workpeople
in the eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries desired the
enforcement of this clause is clearly explained by the same reasons
as underlay their desire for the assessment of wages. The Statute
of Apprentices cannot be fully understood unless it is read as a
whole, with a background given by the conditions in the middle of the
sixteenth century. When this is done the statute becomes important not
as a great constructive piece of statesmanship, but as indicating the
outlook of statesmen on the social and industrial problems of their
day, and as a futile attempt to check the operation of forces which
for long had been irresistibly making for change. The wages clause was
finally repealed in 1813 and the apprenticeship clause in the following
year, but long before they had become practically obsolete (Unwin,
_Industrial Organisation_, pp. 137-141, 252; Tawney, _The Assessment
of Wages in England by Justices of the Peace_; Cunningham, _Growth of
English Industry and Commerce_, pp. 25-44; S. and B. Webb, _History of
Trade Unionism_, chap. i.).]

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]

[Footnote 165: _Letter to a Friend_, p. 48.]

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]

[Footnote 166: _Ibid._, p. 13.]

[Footnote 167: _Ibid._, App. II.]

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]

[Footnote 168: _Letter to a Friend_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 169: _Ibid._, App. III.]

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]

[Footnote 170: _Ibid._, p. 8. As another example of the number of
people employed by one concern in the early eighteenth century, it may
be noticed that one check-maker stated that he would employ 500 weavers
if he had not to turn off unfair men.]

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]

[Footnote 171: 25th June 1758.]

[Footnote 172: _Ibid._, 17th October 1758.]

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]

[Footnote 173: _Letter to a Friend_, App. VIII.]

[Footnote 174: _Manchester Mercury_, 3rd April 1759.]

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.

[Footnote 175: _History of Trade Unionism_ (1911), p. 44.]

[Footnote 176: _Ibid._, p. 28. The first instances given by Mr. and
Mrs. Webb from _The Journals of the House of Commons_ of combinations
in this district are in 1717. Earlier instances appear in 1706 from
Taunton and Bristol. In the Taunton petition it is stated “that within
4 or 5 years” weavers in most towns where woollen manufactures are made
have formed themselves into clubs (_J.H.C._, xv., p. 312).]

[Footnote 177: _Industrial Organisation in the XVIth and the XVIIth
Centuries_, pp. 51, 58-61, 123, 135, 198-199, 208-210, 229-234.]

[Footnote 178: _Manchester Mercury_, 7th August 1781.]

[Footnote 179: _Ibid._, 11th September 1781.]

[Footnote 180: _Manchester Mercury_, 2nd October 1781. In addition
to the smallware weavers there is evidence of organisation in the
following trades before 1790: silk weavers, hatters, calico and fustian
printers, cotton-spinners, and paper-makers. The hatters were presented
with the “document” as early as 11th February 1777 (_Manchester
Mercury_).]

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.


III

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]

[Footnote 181: For “putting-out” system, see Radcliffe, _Origin of
Power Loom Weaving_ (1828), pp. 13, 16, 68. Gaskell, _The Manufacturing
Population of England Anterior to the Application of Steam_ (1833), p.
17.]

[Footnote 182: In Mr. Percival’s _Letter to a Friend_ the following
passage appears which is none the less informative because it is
satirical: “Another objection against me in common with other
gentlemen, is, that we envy these check-makers; really, sir, I wonder
what any country gentleman can be supposed to envy them for! Is it
their houses? What country gentleman has reason to envy the possessor
of a house of four, five, or six rooms of a floor with warehouses under
and warping rooms over?... Is it their furniture? See one room drest
out like a baby house.... Is it their equipages? Surely no, when one
sees their chariots or post-chaises, with a pair of callender tits, and
the callender lad for coachman, it must set any spectator a-laughing at
the grotesque, did not the honest horses by hanging down their heads
shew that they were ashamed of their employment. Is it their cookery?
Here indeed I am almost at a stand to find a reason, which a Manchester
check-maker will allow for a good one, why the country gentlemen do not
envy their cookery; but on recollection I have one; they must allow it
as a maxim, _that the heart grieves not at what the eye sees not_; and
no country gentleman that I have ever heard of, could ever yet certify
what was for dinner in the house of a Manchester check-maker. The
reason their good wives believe we envy them their cookery, is, that
when they move into the country for some weeks in the summer, the cook
is too covetous to move his shop after them, and, as they know not how
to get in their own families, anything more than plain boiled or roast,
they are wise enough to believe nobody knows more, and because they are
half starved whilst they are out of the town of Manchester, imagine
there is no good livelihood anywhere else. Is it their fine clothes?
Upon my honour I know many country gentlemen better dressed. Is it
their handsome perriwigs? to comfort us country folks, I know few with
worse heads ...” (pp. 9-10).]

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]

[Footnote 183: _Infra_, p. 61.]

[Footnote 184: _Treasure of Traffike_, p. 32. Ellison, _Cotton Trade of
Great Britain_, p. 170.]

[Footnote 185: _J.H.C._, xxii., pp. 566-567. Slack, _Remarks on Cotton_
(early nineteenth-century pamphlet). Aikin, _England Delineated_
(1790), pp. 39, 83. Aikin, _England Described_ (1818), pp. 26, 87.]

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]

[Footnote 186: _Ante_, pp. 30-31. In 1639 the Town Jury of Manchester
ordered “that Anne Thorp, widow, shall have the keepinge of the scales
and waights usuall for wayinge of Ireish yarne” (_Court Leet Records_,
iii., p. 321). It was stated in evidence before a Committee of the
House of Commons in 1736 by one witness that he bought linen-yarn, from
a person in Northumberland, in one transaction, to the value of £1000
(_J.H.C._, xxii., pp. 566-567).]

[Footnote 187: _Life and Correspondence of Samuel Hibbert Ware_ (1882),
pp. 96-98.]

[Footnote 188: _Ibid._, p. 98.]

[Footnote 189: _Ibid._, pp. 97-98.]

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]

[Footnote 190: _Infra_, p. 68.]

[Footnote 191: Ware, _ibid._, pp. 17-18. In these pages some memoranda
of a commercial traveller for a Dantzig house preserved among Dr.
Ware’s papers are given. _Manchester Mercury_, 3rd March 1772, contains
a notice of the funeral of Daniel Kahl, eminent yarn merchant, partner
of Delius & Kahl, Bremen.]

[Footnote 192: In every issue of _The Manchester Mercury_.]

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]

[Footnote 193: While there apparently was a distinction between
merchants and manufacturers it should not be drawn too rigidly.
_Cf._ Radcliffe, _ibid._, p. 131: “All those great merchants were
manufacturers with scarcely an exception.”]

[Footnote 194: Raines and Sutton, _Life of Humphrey Chetham_, pp. 13,
127.]

[Footnote 195: _J.H.C._, xiv., p. 498; xvi., p. 311; xviii., p. 543;
xxiii., pp. 76-78.]

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]

[Footnote 196: Aikin, _Manchester_, pp. 182-184. Radcliffe, _ibid._, p.
93.]

[Footnote 197: _Manchester Mercury_, 29th November 1769; 6th February
1770.]

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]

[Footnote 198: _Ante_, p. 29, note. Guest, _Compendious History of the
Cotton Manufacture_, p. 12. About this time Manchester traders figure
in the petitions against the African and the Hudson Bay Companies.]

[Footnote 199: Radcliffe, _ibid._, pp. 131-133.]

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]

[Footnote 200: _J.H.C._, xiv., pp. 498, 504.]

[Footnote 201: Aikin, _ibid._, pp. 183-184.]

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]

[Footnote 202: Smiles, _Lives of the Engineers_ (1862), i., pp.
178-181. Westerfield, _Middlemen in English Business_ (1915), pp.
313-314.]

[Footnote 203: Defoe, _A Tour through Great Britain_ (1769 edition),
iii., p. 126.]

[Footnote 204: Westerfield, _ibid._, pp. 362-363.]

[Footnote 205: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 184.]

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]

[Footnote 206: Baines, _Lancashire and Cheshire_, iii., pp. 84-85.]

[Footnote 207: _Manchester Mercury_, 1752 onwards. Smiles, _ibid._,
p. 206. Between 1760 and 1774 452 Acts were passed for making and
repairing highways.]

[Footnote 208: _Infra_, p. 71.]

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.

[Footnote 209: National Debt, 1756, £72,000,000. End of Seven Years’
War, 1763, £136,600,000. End of American War, 1783, £238,000,000
(Bastable, _Public Finance_, pp. 632-633).]

[Footnote 210: _Life and Correspondence of Samuel Hibbert Ware_, pp.
99-101. The Bill was introduced in August, 1784, and was quickly
passed. It was resolved to repeal it in June, 1785. For the agitation,
see _Manchester Mercury_ and pamphlets published during these months.
Details of the tax are given by Baines, _ibid._, p. 328.]

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.

[Footnote 211: _J.H.C._, xl., p. 1001; xli., p. 283; xliv., p. 295.]

[Footnote 212: _Ibid._, xliv., pp. 276, 422.]

[Footnote 213: _Ibid._, xl., pp. 1107, 1109.]

[Footnote 214: _Ibid._, p. 1039.]

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.

[Footnote 215: _J.H.C._, xl., p. 1026.]

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.

[Footnote 216: _Ibid._, pp. 1017-1018.]

[Footnote 217: _Ibid._, p. 1020.]

[Footnote 218: The hawkers and pedlars of London and Westminster stated
that they composed part of a body which numbered 1400 in England alone
(_ibid._, p. 1007).]

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]

[Footnote 219: The year 1623 marks an important date in this
connection. Unwin, _ibid._, p. 190, also _The Gilds and Companies of
London_, ch. xvii. Professor W. R. Scott’s _Joint-Stock Companies to
1720_, is a storehouse of fundamental facts relating to the economic
history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.]

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_


  --------------+---
     Fustian    |No.
  --------------+---
  Manufacturers | 55
  Cutters       | 23
  Callenderers  | 14
  Dyers[220]    |  9
  Dressers      |  2
  Shearers      |  3
  --------------+---
      Total     |106
  --------------+---

  --------------------------------+---
               Check              |No.
  --------------------------------+---
  Manufacturers[221]              | 45
  Callenderers                    |  7
  Check and Fustian Manufacturers | 12
  --------------------------------+---
               Total              | 64
  --------------------------------+---

  -----------------------------------+---
              Smallware              |No.
  -----------------------------------+---
  Manufacturers                      | 37
  Weaver                             |  1
  Callenderers                       |  3
  Smallware and Fustian Manufacturers|  5
  Smallware and Thread Manufacturer  |  1
  Smallware Manufacturer and Hatter  |  1
  Smallware Manufacturer and Hosier  |  1
  -----------------------------------+---
                Total                | 49
  -----------------------------------+---

  ------------------------------------------+---
               Silk and Linen               |No.
  ------------------------------------------+---
   Silk and Linen Manufacturers[222]        |  7
   Silk Manufacturers and Silk Weavers[223] | 10
   Silk Mercers                             |  4
   Silk Dyers                               |  4
   Thread Makers                            |  3
   Linen Drapers[224]                       | 12
   Linen Dyers[225]                         |  7
   Linen and Cotton Printers                |  3
  ------------------------------------------+---
                   Total                    | 50
  ------------------------------------------+---

[Footnote 220: One described as dyer and printer.]

[Footnote 221: One described as manufacturer and printer.]

[Footnote 222: Two described as fustian silk and linen manufacturers.]

[Footnote 223: One described as silk and smallware manufacturer, two as
silk throwsters, and one as throwster and dyer.]

[Footnote 224: One described as linen merchant.]

[Footnote 225: Two described as linen and fustian dyers.]

  ----------------------------------+---
               Woollen              |No.
  ----------------------------------+---
  Manufacturers[226]                |  9
  Drapers[227]                      |  8
  Dyers                             |  4
  Woolcombers                       |  2
  Woollen and Fustian Manufacturers |  3
  ----------------------------------+---
                Total               | 26
  ----------------------------------+---

  ----------------------------------------+---
                 Merchants                |No.
  ----------------------------------------+---
   Yarn Merchants                         | 14
   Cotton Merchants[228]                  |  5
   Yarn and Cotton Merchants              |  3
   Yarn Merchants and Check Manufacturers |  3
   Yarn Merchant and Thread Manufacturer  |  1
  ----------------------------------------+---
                   Total                  | 26
  ----------------------------------------+---

  ---------------------+---
      Miscellaneous    |No.
  ---------------------+---
   Hatters[229]        | 15
   Reed Makers         |  9
   Loom Makers         |  8
   Comb Maker          |  1
   Drum Maker          |  1
   Callender Maker     |  1
   Pattern Book Maker  |  1
   Fringe Makers       |  2
   Kendal Stuff Makers |  2
   Velvet Dressers     |  4
   Cloth Dressers[230] |  4
   Callenderers        |  2
   Twister             |  1
   Dyers[231]          |  9
  ---------------------+---
          Total        | 60
  ---------------------+---

[Footnote 226: One described as frieze-maker, one as woollen
manufacturer and paper-maker, and one as worsted weaver.]

[Footnote 227: One described as woollen draper and cloth-worker, and
one as woollen draper and check manufacturer.]

[Footnote 228: One described as dealer in cotton weft.]

[Footnote 229: One described as hatter and hosier, and one as
hat-lining cutter.]

[Footnote 230: One described as dresser and cutter, and one as presser.]

[Footnote 231: One described as twister and dyer, and one as dyer
printer and manufacturer.]

  In the fustian list there are 22 partnerships, in the check list
  20, in the smallware list 11, in the silk and linen list 9, in the
  woollen list 2, and in the merchants’ list 2.




  COUNTRY TRADESMEN WITH WAREHOUSES IN MANCHESTER IN 1772


  ---------------------------
  Fustian Manufacturers
  -----------------------+---
      Locality           |No.
  -----------------------+---
  Bolton                 | 21
  Little Bolton          |  3
  Cocky Moor (Nr. Bolton)|  3
  Horwich                |  1
  Little Lever           |  1
  Over Hulton            |  2
  Leigh                  |  8
  Bedford (Leigh)        |  1
  Chowbent               |  6
  Lowton                 |  4
  Astley                 |  2
  West Houghton          |  2
  Oldham                 |  5
  Lees                   |  3
  Clarkfield             |  1
  Austerlands            |  1
  Loeside                |  1
  Saddleworth            |  1
  Heywood                |  3
  Bury                   |  1
  Audenshaw              |  1
  Ashton                 |  1
  Worsley                |  1
  Haigh (Wigan)          |  1
  Unidentified           |  3
  -----------------------+---
        Total            | 77
  -----------------------+---

  ---------------------------
   Check Manufacturers
  -----------------------+---
      Locality           |No.
  -----------------------+---
   Gorton                |  4
   Prestwich             |  3
   Levenshulme           |  2
   Rusholme              |  1
   Fallowfield           |  1
   Moston                |  2
   Newton (Manchester)   |  1
   Collyhurst            |  1
   Cheetham              |  1
   Pendleton             |  1
   Flixton               |  1
   Middleton             |  1
   Audenshaw             |  1
   Failsworth            |  3
   Werneth Low           |  1
   Unidentified          |  2
  -----------------------+---
        Total            | 26
  -----------------------+---

  --------------------------------------------
             Miscellaneous
  ------------+---------------------------+---
    Locality  |   Description             |No.
  ------------+---------------------------+---
   Ardwick    | Yarn Merch’t Chapmen      |  2
   Collyhurst | Woollen Manufacturers     |  2
   Cheetham   | Yarn Merch’t Chapmen      |  2
   Burnage    | Yarn Merch’t              |  1
   Crumpsall  | Linen and Cotton Merchant |  1
   Blackley   | Frieze Maker              |  1
   Audenshaw  | Woollen Manufacturer      |  1
   Patricroft | Yarn Merch’t              |  1
   Wigan      | Cotton Merchant           |  1
  ------------+---------------------------+---
              |      Total                | 12
  ------------+---------------------------+---


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

  ------------------------+---
         Locality         |No.
  ------------------------+---
  Newton (Manchester)     | 12
  Droylsden               |  4
  Gorton                  |  4
  Openshaw                |  2
  Audenshaw               |  1
  Levenshulme             |  6
  Kirkmanshulme           |  2
  Burnage                 |  2
  Heaton Norris           |  1
  Reddish                 |  1
  Blackley                |  8
  Moston                  |  1
  Harpurhey               |  2
  Failsworth              |  1
  Cheetham                |  1
  Kersal                  |  1
  Prestwich               |  4
  Radcliffe               |  2
  Bolton                  |  2
  Little Bolton           |  2
  Harwood (Bolton)        |  2
  Halliwell (Bolton)      |  2
  Oldfield Lane (Salford) |  3
  Pendleton               | 10
  Worsley                 |  2
  ------------------------+---
  Total                   | 78
  ------------------------+---

[Footnote 232: In this list there are three partnerships.]


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

  Fustian Manufacturers red figures
  Check         ”       blue   ”
  Smallware     ”       yellow ”
  Crofters      ”       green  ”

  The figures correspond with those in the preceding tables
  e. g. Manchester, 55 Fustian Manufacturers.]


  REGULAR CARRIERS FROM MANCHESTER IN 1772

  ------------------+---+------------------
     Destination    |No.| Days of Departure
  ------------------+---+------------------
  London            |  6| 5, Wed. Sat. 1, Tu.
  Birmingham        |  1| Fri.
  Bolton            |  2| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Bristol           |  1| Wed.
  Burnley           |  2| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Bury              |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Cambridge         |  1| Th.
  Chester           |  2| 1, Tu. Th. Sat. 1, Th.
  Chorley           |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Chowbent          |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Colne             |  1| Fri.
  Derby             |  1| Th.
  Doncaster         |  1| Sat.
  Halifax           |  2| 1, Tu. Th. Sat. 1, Mon. Th.
  Huddersfield      |  1| Mon. Th. Sat.
  Lancaster         |  1| Mon. Fri.
  Leeds             |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Liverpool         |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Macclesfield      |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Newcastle-on-Tyne |  1| Th.
  Northwich         |  2| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Nottingham        |  2| 1, Th. 1, Sat.
  Pontefract        |  1| Sat.
  Preston           |  1| Mon. Fri.
  Rochdale          |  2| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Salop             |  1| Sat.
  Sheffield         |  2| 1, Th. 1, Fri.
  Stockport         |  2| Every day
  Wakefield         |  1| Tu. Th. Sat.
  Wigan             |  2| Tu. Th. Sat.
  York              |  1| Sat.
  ------------------+---+------------------

  One stage-coach ran to London, and one to Liverpool, each on three
  days of the week.

  On the Old Navigation between Manchester and Liverpool 21 vessels
  were engaged. On the New Navigation between Manchester and Warrington
  9 vessels were engaged, also a number of open vessels called Tuns,
  and between Warrington and Liverpool 11 vessels were engaged. A 40
  Tun Boat sailed between Manchester and Altrincham three days a week,
  and coal boats arrived in Manchester from Worsley every day.




CHAPTER III

THE COMING OF MACHINERY: KAY TO ARKWRIGHT


I

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]

[Footnote 233: _Ante_, p. 40.]

[Footnote 234: Chapman, _ibid._, p. 21.]

[Footnote 235: John Kay was born near Bury in 1704, but lived at
Colchester at the time of the invention. He returned to Bury some time
after 1745, and lived there apparently until about 1753 (Espinasse,
_Lancashire Worthies_ (1874), pp. 310-318).]

[Footnote 236: Ogden, _ibid._ (1783), p. 89, states that “the fly
shuttle” is “in such estimation here (in Manchester) as to be used
generally even on narrow goods.”]

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]

[Footnote 237: Guest, _ibid._, p. 9. Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 313.]

[Footnote 238: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 310-318.]

[Footnote 239: Guest, _ibid._, p. 9.]

[Footnote 240: Espinasse, _ibid._]

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]

[Footnote 241: Ogden, _ibid._, pp. 76-77. This loom was the predecessor
of the Jacquard loom. Chapman, _ibid._, pp. 22-23.]

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]

[Footnote 242: _Ante_, p. 23. Ogden, _ibid._, p. 87. Guest, _ibid._,
pp. 11-12.]

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]

[Footnote 243: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton_, Manchester
Literary and Philosophical Society, vol. v., Second Series (1831), p.
324. _Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton_, 10th July 1913, pp. 12, 13.
The sections on cotton-spinning, and on early cotton machinery, were
written by Mr. Thomas Midgley, Curator of Chadwick Museum, Bolton, and
contain a clear exposition of the spinning processes. In the museum
there is an excellent collection of the early machinery of Hargreaves,
Arkwright, and Crompton, as well as of more ancient machinery.]

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]

[Footnote 244: Dobson, _Evolution of the Spinning Machine_ (1911), p.
28.]

[Footnote 245: _Ibid._, pp. 33-35. Kennedy, _Rise and Progress of
the Cotton Trade_, Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society,
vol. iii., Second Series (1815), pp. 118-119. Mr. Kennedy states that
before the coming of the great inventions the endeavours to find better
methods filled the cottages with little improvements, and that the
multiplication of instruments was forcing the work out of cottages.
“Here,” he says “commences the factory system” (p. 118).]

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]

[Footnote 246: Cole, _Some Account of Lewis Paul_. Paper read at the
meeting of the British Association, 1858. Reproduced by French, _Life
and Times of Samuel Crompton_ (1859), App. III. The references are to
the pages in French’s book.]

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.

[Footnote 247: For the contrary view, Ure, _Cotton Manufacture_, i.,
pp. 237 _et seq._ The proximity of the date of the patent to that of
Kay’s patent and the “Manchester Act” is a fact again worthy of notice.]

[Footnote 248: French, _ibid._, pp. 269-270. Espinasse, _ibid._, p.
341.]

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]

[Footnote 249: _Ibid._, pp. 256, 268.]

[Footnote 250: Baines, _ibid._, p. 134. Espinasse, _ibid._, pp.
349-350.]

[Footnote 251: French, _ibid._, p. 266. Espinasse asserts that it was
introduced into at least one Yorkshire workhouse (_ibid._, p. 355).]

[Footnote 252: French, _ibid._, p. 269.]

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]

[Footnote 253: _Ibid._, p. 252.]

[Footnote 254: _Ibid._, p. 266. It appears, however, that he may have
invented this machine as early as 1740 (_ibid._, 256).]

[Footnote 255: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 365.]

[Footnote 256: Dobson, _ibid._, 36-37.]

[Footnote 257: Dobson, _ibid._, p. 37.]

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]

[Footnote 258: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton_, p. 326.]

[Footnote 259: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 177-179.]

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]

[Footnote 260: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 320.]

[Footnote 261: Brown, _The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims_
(reprint, Manchester, 1868), p. 28.]

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.

[Footnote 262: Baines, _ibid._, p. 156.]

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]

[Footnote 263: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 322, 327.]

[Footnote 264: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 87.]

[Footnote 265: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_ (1828), p. 147.
Ogden states that the larger jennies were used for making warps until
they were superseded by the water-frame (_ibid._, p. 91).]

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]

[Footnote 266: _Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton_, pp. 16-17.]

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]

[Footnote 267: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 400.]

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]

[Footnote 268: Smiles, _Boulton and Watt_ (1904), p. 111.]

[Footnote 269: Ure, _ibid._, i., p. 286.]

[Footnote 270: Ogden, _ibid._, p. 16.]

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]

[Footnote 271: Josiah Wedgwood was an eye-witness of this rising. His
account of it is quoted by Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 424-426.]

[Footnote 272: _Manchester Mercury_, 12th October 1779.]

[Footnote 273: _J.H.C._, xxxvii., p. 926.]

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.


II

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.

[Footnote 274: It will be borne in mind that the trouble with America
began immediately the Seven Years’ War concluded, with the attempt to
impose, with increased energy, “the colonial policy” which at once was
met by commercial reprisals that greatly dislocated trade and called
forth loud protests from British merchants. Macpherson, _Annals of
Commerce_ (1805), see under years 1763-1790. Smith, _Wars Between
England and America_ (1914).]

[Footnote 275: Meredith, _Economic History of England_. See Chart B
for variations in the amount of wheat which could be purchased with
the daily wage of a carpenter and an agricultural labourer. Tooke,
_History of Prices_; Martineau, _History of the Peace_; Wilks, _The
Half Century_ (1852); J. L. and B. Hammond, _The Village Labourer_;
_The Town Labourer_; _The Skilled Labourer_.]

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]

[Footnote 276: _Manchester Mercury_, 9th January 1762.]

[Footnote 277: _Ibid._, 1st September 1762.]

[Footnote 278: Macpherson, _ibid._, pp. 391, 406-407.]

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]

[Footnote 279: Macpherson, _ibid._, pp 438, 452.]

[Footnote 280: Regarding this Assize the following notice, based upon
31 Geo. II., c. 29., was issued in _The Manchester Mercury_, 18th Nov.
1766:--“In every Assize of Bread respect shall he had to the Market
Price of Grain and Meal and Flour making reasonable allowance to the
Baker for his Labour and Profit. In order to know the Price of Meal and
Flour in proportion to the Price of Wheat, the Magistrates and Justices
of Peace are to take notice that the Peck loaf of each sort of Bread
is to weigh, when well baken, 17 lbs. 6 ozs. avoirdupois, and the rest
in proportion; and that every sack of Meal or Flour is to weigh 2 cwt.
2 qrs. (not 280 lbs.) and that from every sack of Meal or Flour there
ought to be produced 20 such Peck loaves of Bread.”

“By this rule from every Manchester load of flour weighing 240 lbs.
there ought to be produced 297 lbs. 13 oz. 12 drs., of Bread of each
sort well baken. The price of 296 lbs. 7 oz. 8 drs. of Wheaten Bread
consisting of 1d. 2d. 6d. 12d. 18d. loaves according to the above
Assize is 44s. The Price of a load of Flour is 30s., allowance to
Baker is 14s. The Price of 297 lbs. 10 ozs. 15 drs. of Household Bread
consisting of such loaves is 32s. 10d. Price of a load of Flour is 27s.
6d. Allowance to Baker is 5s. 4d.”


  ASSIZE OF BREAD FOR MANCHESTER AND SALFORD 10TH NOVEMBER 1766[A]

                                 _lbs._ _ozs._ _drs._
  1d. loaf Wheaten to weigh                8      7
  Ditto Household   ”   ”                 11      2
  2d. loaf Wheaten  ”   ”           1      0     14
  Ditto Household   ”   ”           1      6      4
  6d. loaf Wheaten  ”   ”           3      2      9
  Ditto Household   ”   ”           4      2     12
  12d. loaf Wheaten ”   ”           6      5      2
  Ditto Household   ”   ”           8      5      8
  18d. loaf Wheaten ”   ”           9      7     11
  Ditto Household   ”   ”          12      8      3

  [Footnote A: _Manchester Mercury_, 11th November 1766.]
]

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]

[Footnote 281: _Manchester Mercury_, 10th February, 14th April, 28th
July.]

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]

[Footnote 282: _Ibid._, 1st September 1767. The rules and orders of the
Society of Agriculture at Manchester are given, 21st June 1774.]

[Footnote 283: _Ibid._, in various issues.]

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]

[Footnote 284: _Manchester Mercury_, 6th September 1763.]

[Footnote 285: Macpherson, _ibid._, pp. 372-373.]

[Footnote 286: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 287: _Manchester Mercury_, 13th September 1763.]

[Footnote 288: Macpherson, _ibid._, iii., pp. 406-407.]

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]

[Footnote 289: _Ibid._, pp. 396-397. “This trade united all the
advantages which the wisest and most philanthropic philosopher, or the
most enlightened legislator, could wish to derive from commerce. It
gave bread to the industrious in North America by carrying off their
lumber, which must otherwise rot on their hands, and their fish, great
part of which without it would be absolutely unsaleable, together
with their spare produce and stock of every kind; it furnished the
West India planters with those articles without which the operations
of their plantations must be at a stand; and it produced a fund for
employing a great number of industrious manufacturers in Great Britain;
thus taking off the superfluities, providing for the necessities,
and promoting the happiness of all concerned.” _Cf._ Bryan Edwards,
_History of the West Indies_, Book IV., ch. iv. (1801 edition). Pitman,
_The Development of the British West Indies_ (1917), pp. 212, 256-257,
271-273, 320, 360, also the charts (pp. 244, 264), showing the balance
of trade between the West Indies and England.]

[Footnote 290: Macpherson, _ibid._, p. 589.]

[Footnote 291: _Ibid._, pp. 442-443.]

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.

[Footnote 292: _J.H.C._, xxxvii., pp. 804, 925-926.]

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]

[Footnote 293: _J.H.C._, xxxvii., p. 882.]

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.

[Footnote 294: A fustian-weaver was said to be able to earn 1s. to 2s.
a day. Fustian-weavers appear always to have been a poorly paid class.
Cf. _Report on State of Children Employed in Manufactories_ (1816),
p. 99, Evidence of Mr. George Gould: “In the fustian trade I think
there never was a period when a good hand could get above thirteen or
fourteen shillings.”]

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.

[Footnote 295: An attack was made on the first Robert Peel’s machinery
when he lived at Peel Fold near Blackburn. “Mr. Peel was accustomed to
say that the destruction of his machinery by the populace was a very
fortunate occurrence for him, inasmuch as he was forced thereby to
adopt Arkwright’s machinery, which otherwise he never should have done,
he having a strong and not unnatural affection for his own inventions”
(Wheeler, _History of Manchester_ (1824), p. 519).]

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]

[Footnote 296: Arkwright’s _Case_, p. 99. The _Case_ is quoted in
Arkwright’s _Patent Trial_, 25th June 1785.]

[Footnote 297: 14 Geo. III., c. 72; also _infra_, p. 197.]

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.”

[Footnote 298: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 325.]

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]

[Footnote 299: Baines, _ibid._, p. 162.]

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]

[Footnote 300: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 301: _Manchester Mercury_, 18th June 1771.]

[Footnote 302: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 94, 198.]

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]

[Footnote 303: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 203.]

[Footnote 304: _Ibid._, p. 203. It will be noticed that in this
reference, as in others of the time, the name of the inventor is given
as Hayes. I have used the name Highs in the text as he has become best
known to posterity by that name. Guest states that it is written Highs
in the parish register (_ibid._, p. 18).]

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.

[Footnote 305: According to Ogden, who, it will be remembered,
published his _Description of Manchester_ in 1783, the aim of Highs’
machine was to produce a yarn suitable for warps. After referring to
the introduction of the jenny and the risings against it, which called
forth an address from Dorning Rasbotham, a magistrate who lived near
Bolton, in which he urged that it would be to the interest of the
workpeople to encourage jennies, Ogden proceeds: “This seasonable
address produced a general acquiescence in the use of these engines, to
a certain number of spindles, but they were soon multiplied to three or
four times the quantity; nor did the invention of ingenious mechanics
rest here, for the demand for twist for warps was greater as weft grew
plenty, therefore engines were soon constructed for this purpose: one
in particular was purchased at a price which was a considerable reward
for the contriver’s ingenuity, and exposed at the Exchange, where
he spun on it, and all that were disposed to see the operation were
admitted gratis” (pp. 90-91).]

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.

[Footnote 306: Guest, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 13-14,
53-54. also _British Cotton Manufacture_.]

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.”

[Footnote 307: “Ce que Hargreaves trouva, beaucoup d’autres l’avaient
cherché en même temps que lui.... C’est ainsi que Hargreaves put être
accusé de n’être pas le premier ou le seul auteur de son invention”
(Mantoux, _La Révolution au XVIII^e Siècle_, p. 210).]

[Footnote 308: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 195.]

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.

[Footnote 309: _Ibid._, p. 211.]

[Footnote 310: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 162-163. Abram, _History of
Blackburn_, 205-206. Baines mentions that Hargreaves’ widow received
£400 as her husband’s share in his business. Abram adds the information
that Hargreaves left property of the estimated value of £4000, but
states that about the middle of the nineteenth century two of his
daughters were living in poverty in Manchester and that a subscription
was raised with difficulty on their behalf.]

[Footnote 311: Wylie and Briscoe, _History of Nottingham_, p. 101.]

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]

[Footnote 312: Baines, _ibid._, p. 151.]

[Footnote 313: Felkin, _History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace
Manufactures_ (1867), p. 90.]

[Footnote 314: _Ibid._]

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]

[Footnote 315: Smiles, _Industry and Invention_ (1884), ch. iv., “John
Lombe: Introducer of the Silk Industry into England.”

The number of workpeople employed by one concern in the silk industry,
many years before the appearance of the factory in the cotton industry,
is, perhaps, not always realised. In the sixties of the eighteenth
century, the silk manufacturers in various parts of the country
petitioned the House of Commons regarding the decline of their trade,
and in the evidence on the petition some interesting figures were
given. One silk-throwster asserted that he had employed as many as
1500 workpeople at a time: 500 in London, 200 in Gloucester, 400 in
Dorset, and 400 in Cheshire. Of this number about 1400 were women and
children, and 100 men. A Spitalfields throwster asserted that, in 1760,
he employed 400 workpeople, but the most striking figures were given in
two sets of tables relating to certain firms in London and Macclesfield:


STATE OF SEVERAL SILK-THROWSTERS IN LONDON AND MACCLESFIELD IN THE
YEARS 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764

LONDON

  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
    Men, women and children  | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
          employed by        |      |      |      |      |
  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
  Spragg, Hopkins, and White |      |  800 |  700 |  300 |
  John Graham                |  500 |  350 |  240 |  120 |
  John Powell                |      |  400 |  300 |  170 |
  Triquett and Bunney        |  300 |  300 |  200 |  130 |
  Sam Nicolls                |  300 |  300 |  200 |  150 |
  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+

MACCLESFIELD

  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
    Men, women and children  | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
          employed by        |      |      |      |      |
  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
  Philip Clows               |  720 |  690 |  540 |  370 |
  Glover and Co.             |  400 |  400 |  300 |  180 |
  Bradock and Hall           |  360 |  360 |  260 |   20 |
  Langford, Robinson and Co. |  350 |  350 |  280 |  180 |
  Bradburn and Gosling       |  271 |  200 |  110 |   30 |
  Swain and Gosling          |  229 |  190 |  123 |   35 |
  W. Hall                    |  140 |  120 |   90 |   70 |
  ---------------------------+------+------+------+------+

As regards Macclesfield, it was stated that, in addition to the above,
there were not less than twelve silk-mills of inferior note in the town
which in 1761-1762 employed 1000 hands or thereabouts. The machines
used were called “mills” and the numbers employed by each of the
above Macclesfield concerns were given--_e.g._ Philip Clows had 20,
19, 16, and 10 pairs employed in the years 1761, 1762, 1763, and 1764
(_J.H.C._, xxx., pp. 208-219). See _infra_, p. 197.]

[Footnote 316: Mantoux, _ibid._, pp. 217-221. Espinasse, _ibid._, pp.
392, 413, 420.]

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.

[Footnote 317: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, pp. 99, 102.]

[Footnote 318: _Ibid._, p. 99.]

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]

[Footnote 319: _Manchester Mercury_, 8th March 1774; 17th July 1781.
This second committee consisted of sixteen members, ten for cotton and
linen, and three each for silk and smallware. A cotton manufactures
company also came into existence in Manchester about October, 1774,
which finally closed its accounts in November, 1778. This company
apparently existed for the purpose of buying cotton in large quantities
and then disposing of it to those who would sign an agreement to
purchase from the company for six months. It seems to have arisen out
of an agitation against the cotton dealers in Manchester (_ibid._ 20th
September, 4th October, 22nd November, 1774; 10th November 1778, and
many other dates. _Cf._ the Feltmakers’ Project in the seventeenth
century described by Unwin, _Industrial Organisation in the XVIth and
XVIIth Centuries_, pp. 156-164).]

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.

[Footnote 320: _Ibid._, 21st May, 24th September 1776.]

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]

[Footnote 321: _Ibid._, 27th February.]

[Footnote 322: _Manchester Mercury_, 20th March.]

[Footnote 323: Wheeler, _History of Manchester_ (1842), p. 521.]

[Footnote 324: _Ibid._, pp. 521-522, where the names of the firms are
given.]

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.

[Footnote 325: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 428-431.]

[Footnote 326: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, p. 100.]

[Footnote 327: _Ibid._, p. 102. _J.H.C._, xxxviii., p. 687.]

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.

[Footnote 328: _Manchester Mercury_, 12th February 1782. _J.H.C._,
xxxviii., p. 865.]

[Footnote 329: _Manchester Mercury_, 16th April 1782.]

[Footnote 330: _Ibid._, 11th February 1783.]

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]

[Footnote 331: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 431.]

[Footnote 332: Arkwright _versus_ Nightingale. Espinasse, _ibid._, pp.
435-437.]

[Footnote 333: _Ante_, p. 63.]

[Footnote 334: _Manchester Mercury_, 22nd March 1785.]

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]

[Footnote 335: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 429.]

[Footnote 336: It appears that Watt had a personal interest in the
matter. Writing to Matthew Boulton after Arkwright had been non-suited
in 1781, he stated: “Though I do not love Arkwright, I don’t like the
precedent of setting aside patents through default of specification.
I fear for our own.... I begin to have little faith in patents; for
according to the enterprising genius of the present age, no man can
have a profitable patent but it will be pecked at.” And a few days
later: “I am tired of making improvements which by some quirk or
wresting of the law may be taken from us as I think has been done in
the case of Arkwright, who has been condemned merely because he did
not specify quite clearly. This was injustice, because it is plain
that he has given this trade a being--has brought his invention into
use and made it of great public utility. Wherefore he deserved all
the money he has got. In my opinion his patent should not have been
invalidated without it had clearly appeared that he did not invent the
things in question. I fear we shall be served with the same sauce _for
the good of the public_! and in that case I shall certainly do what he
threatens. This you may be assured of, that we are as much envied here
as he is in Manchester, and all the bells in Cornwall would be rung at
our overthrow” (Letters dated 30th July and 13th August 1781. Smiles,
_Boulton and Watt_ (1904 Edition), p. 274).]

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]

[Footnote 337: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 436.]

[Footnote 338: Was it _generally_ known in Manchester that an action
was pending or were the manufacturers over-confident? So far as
newspaper notices were concerned, the activity which preceded the first
and the third trials was absent. Two days before the action was tried
_The Manchester Mercury_, which could not be accused of favour to
Arkwright, contained the following paragraph: “Rd. Arkwright, Esq., has
established a Sunday school at Cromford, in Derbyshire, which already
consists of two hundred children. Pleasing it is to the friends of
humanity, when power like his is so happily united with the will to do
good!” (15th February 1785).]

[Footnote 339: _Manchester Mercury_, 1st March 1785.]

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]

[Footnote 340: _Ibid._ Espinasse, _ibid._, 449 _et seq._ Robert Owen,
_Autobiography_, i., p. 56.]

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]

[Footnote 341: _Trial_, 25th June 1785. Evidence of Elizabeth
Hargreaves, George Hargreaves, and others regarding the crank and
comb. On other points John Lees, Henry Marsland, Thomas Hall, and the
partners Pilkington and Wood.]

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]

[Footnote 342: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 447.]

[Footnote 343: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 177-179.]

[Footnote 344: Actually the leading counsel against Arkwright in the
third trial asserted that the crank and comb device so impressed the
jury in the second trial as to gain Arkwright the verdict on that
occasion (_Trial_, 25th June 1785, p. 19).]

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.

[Footnote 345: Guest, _History of Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 13, 53. The
question of the jenny was not dealt with at the trial, of course.]

[Footnote 346: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Highs’ evidence.]

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]

[Footnote 347: _Ibid._, Kay’s evidence.]

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.

[Footnote 348: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Highs’ evidence. Evidently
Arkwright made a gesture of impatience, and suggested that even if
Highs had any claim to the invention, he had not gone forward with it,
and, in such a case, another man had the right to do so.]

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]

[Footnote 349: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 447-448.]

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]

[Footnote 350: 5th July 1785.]

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]

[Footnote 351: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 122-123.]

[Footnote 352: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Kay’s evidence.]

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.

[Footnote 353: In addition to his relation to the machines mentioned
in the text Guest asserts that Highs effected some improvement in the
carding-machine (_British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 204).]

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.

[Footnote 354: _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 196.]




CHAPTER V

THE MULE AND THE RISE OF A NEW COTTON MANUFACTURE


I

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.

[Footnote 355: French, _The Life and Times of Samuel Crompton_, first
edition, 1859. The references which follow are to this edition.
Kennedy, _A Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton_, Manchester Literary and
Philosophical Society, vol. v., second series, 1831.]

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.

[Footnote 356: French, _ibid._, pp. 2, 26-27.]

[Footnote 357: _Infra_, p. 167.]

[Footnote 358: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 319.]

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]

[Footnote 359: _Infra_, p. 167.]

[Footnote 360: French, _ibid._, p. 76.]

[Footnote 361: _Infra_, p. 168. Accepting a view held by Crompton’s
descendants that Arkwright paid a surreptitious visit to Crompton
intent upon discovering his secret, French (_ibid._, pp. 79-80),
referring to a passage similar to the above in one of Crompton’s
letters, suggests that in it there is a hidden reference to Arkwright
as “Cromford, where Arkwright then resided, is about sixty miles from
Bolton.” May not the proverb, “Give a dog a bad name ...” do something
to explain some of the statements made regarding this man?]

[Footnote 362: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 363: Letter addressed to Sir Joseph Banks, 30th October 1807.
Brown, _The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims_, p. 24. In the
agreement on which the machine was made public fifty-five individuals
and firms promised to subscribe £1, 1s. each, twenty-seven 10s. 6d.,
one 7s. 6d. and one 5s. The agreement concluded with a statement that
“a contribution is desired from every well-wisher of the trade.” It is
said that some of those included in the list did not subscribe, and,
according to Mr. Kennedy’s account, Crompton, at this time, received
only about £50. In the evidence before the Committee on Crompton’s
petition in 1812, the amount was stated as £106. Brown, _ibid._, pp.
24, 31. French, _ibid._, pp. 84, 271, 272. _Infra_, p. 187.]

  [Illustration: From “The Hall i’ th’ Wood,” Bolton

  A Portfolio of Measured Drawings issued by the Manchester School of
  Architecture]

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]

[Footnote 364: _Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton_, pp. 20-21. Baines,
_ibid._, p. 197-199.]

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]

[Footnote 365: _Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton_, p. 21.]

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]

[Footnote 366: French, _ibid._, p. 83.]

[Footnote 367: Evidence of Mr. Pilkington in 1812, _infra_, pp.
186-187.]

[Footnote 368: _Manchester Mercury_, 17th July 1781. Mr. Pilkington was
a member of the cotton and linen section.]

[Footnote 369: _Ante_, p. 103. The case of Highs in 1771 must be borne
in mind and also another one later, referred to _infra_, p. 123.]

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.

[Footnote 370: _Manchester Athenæum_, No. 9, 1st September 1807.]

[Footnote 371: Ure, _ibid._, i., p. 277.]

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.

[Footnote 372: _Monthly Magazine_, vol. viii., p. 776.]

[Footnote 373: _Ante_, p. 103. This is not to suggest that if Crompton
had received £200 he would have been adequately recompensed. What sum
would have been adequate recompense? No one, in 1780, could have fully
realised the importance of invention as only the future could reveal
it. Had the subscription been considerably larger Crompton’s grievance
might have been lessened though not averted.]

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.

[Footnote 374: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 321.]

[Footnote 375: French, _ibid._, p. 67.]

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.

[Footnote 376: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 330. In 1788 the writer of a
pamphlet estimated that there were at work 550 mule machines of ninety
spindles each, and 20,070 hand-jennies of eighty spindles. Aikin,
_Manchester_, p. 179.]

[Footnote 377: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 326.]

[Footnote 378: Kennedy, _ibid._, 325. Arkwright claimed that he got his
first hint of the use of rollers for spinning by seeing a red-hot iron
bar elongated by them. Ure, _ibid._, i., p. 271.]


II

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]

[Footnote 379: Kennedy, _Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade_,
Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, vol. iii., second series
(1815), p. 127.]

[Footnote 380: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir_, p. 335.]

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]

[Footnote 381: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir_, pp. 335-336.]

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]

[Footnote 382: _Ibid._, pp. 332-333.]

[Footnote 383: _Ibid._, 333-334.]

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.

[Footnote 384: _Ibid._, p. 331.]

[Footnote 385: Kennedy, _ibid._, pp. 331-332.]

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]

[Footnote 386: _Ibid._, p. 330. According to Guest, at the time he
wrote (1828) the jenny was used in the woollen industry even more
extensively than ever it had been in the cotton industry (_British
Cotton Manufacture_, p. 147).]

[Footnote 387: Baines, _ibid._, p. 198. Evidence of Mr. G. A. Lee
before the Committee on Crompton’s petition. _Infra_, p. 188.]

[Footnote 388: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 336.

_Autobiography of Robert Owen_, i., pp. 25-26: “My three spinners were
spinning the cotton yarn on my three mules from _rovings_. I had no
machinery to make rovings, and was obliged to purchase them,--they were
the half-made materials to be spun into thread. I had become acquainted
with two industrious Scotchmen, of the names of M‘Connel and Kennedy,
who had also commenced about the same time as myself to make cotton
machinery upon a small scale, and they had now proceeded so far as
to make some of the machinery for preparing the cotton for the mule
spinning machinery so far as to enable them to make the rovings, which
they sold in that state to the spinners at a good profit.... This was
in the year 1790.... _They_ could then only make the _rovings_, without
finishing the thread; and I could only _finish_ the thread, without
being competent to make the _rovings_.”]

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]

[Footnote 389: _Ibid._, pp. 53-59. Baines, _ibid._, p. 205.]

[Footnote 390: Kennedy, _ibid._, pp. 337-338.]

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.

[Footnote 391: William Fairbairn in Baines’ _Lancashire and Cheshire_,
VI. clxxii. Roberts is an interesting case of a man being the owner of
nearly a hundred patents and yet dying in poverty.]

[Footnote 392: John Kennedy “was the first to introduce the double
speed or twisting motion to Crompton’s mule, and he may be considered
as the immediate successor of Arkwright and Crompton” (Fairbairn,
_ibid._, cxcvii.).]

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]

[Footnote 393: Kennedy, _Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade_,
pp. 121-122, 126-129. _Report on State of Children employed in
Manufactories_ (1816), p. 344.]

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]

[Footnote 394: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 16.]

[Footnote 395: _Autobiography_, p. 22.]

[Footnote 396: _Economic Journal_, June, 1915.]

[Footnote 397: Banks, _The Manchester Man_, ch. xxxii. The author was
misinformed as to the Christian name of Mr. M‘Connel.]

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.

[Footnote 398: Kennedy, _Early Recollections_ (1849), pp. 9-10.]

[Footnote 399: _Report on State of Children employed in Manufactories_,
pp. 234, 244.]

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.

[Footnote 400: Kennedy, _Early Recollections_ (1849), pp. 9-10. This
man evidently gathered round himself a small colony of Scotsmen as
there are others mentioned.]

[Footnote 401: Clarke, _The New Lancashire Gazetteer_, pp. 33-34.]

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.

[Footnote 402: Dobson, _Evolution of the Spinning Machine_, pp. 108 _et
seq._]

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.

[Footnote 403: Clarke, _Lancashire Gazetteer_, p. 4. In the paragraph
in which the above information is contained it is stated that in 1782,
“after Sir Richard Arkwright’s improvements had furnished an abundant
supply of that article (yarn), the manufacture was renewed here by Mr.
Oldknow, who realised a large fortune in the production of Balasore
handkerchiefs, and jaconet, and japanned muslins.” Cf. _Autobiography
of Robert Owen_, i., p. 25: “The first British muslins were made when
I was an apprentice with Mr. M‘Guffog (1781-1784), by a Mr. Oldknow at
Stockport ... who must have commenced this branch in 1780, 1781, or
1782.... When I first went to Mr. M‘Guffog, there were no other muslins
for sale except those made in the East Indies, and known as East India
Muslins; but while I was with him, Mr. Oldknow began to manufacture a
fabric which he called, by way of distinction, British Mull Muslin.”
_Cf._ also quotation from Mr. Kennedy on pp. 130-131. Both Owen and
Kennedy speak of Oldknow carrying on his manufacture at Stockport. If
the information given in the _Gazetteer_ is correct, it appears that he
commenced elsewhere. The reference in the _Gazetteer_ to Arkwright’s
machinery ought to be, perhaps, to Crompton’s mule. If not, it would
appear that Oldknow first began to experiment with yarn produced by the
water-frame, and later utilised that produced by the mule.]

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]

[Footnote 404: _Infra_, p. 190.]

[Footnote 405: “The manufacture of cotton cloth was at its best in
India until very recent times, and the fine Indian muslins were in
great demand and commanded high prices, both in the Roman Empire and
in Mediæval Europe. The industry was one of the main factors in the
wealth of ancient India, and the transfer of that industry to England
and the United States, and the cheapening of the process by mechanical
ginning, spinning and weaving, is perhaps the greatest single factor
in the economic history of our own time” (Schoff, _The Periplus of the
Erythrean Sea_ (1912), p. 71).]

[Footnote 406: In 1815 a small amount of British yarn was sent to
India; six years later it had become a regular export, and in 1829
amounted to 3,185,639 lbs. In 1815, 800,000 yards of British cloth were
sent, and in 1830, 45,000,000 yards (Ure, _ibid._, i., p. 118). In 1831
the manufacturers and dealers in Bengal presented a petition regarding
the import of British cotton goods (Baines, _ibid._, pp. 81-82).]

[Footnote 407: Before the outbreak of the European War it was estimated
that nearly 80 per cent. of the total value of piece goods produced in
the United Kingdom were exported. In 1913, British India took 36 per
cent. and China 12 per cent. of the piece goods exported (_Report of
Committee on Textile Trades_ (1918), p. 60).]

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]

[Footnote 408: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton_, pp. 339,
344-345.

Heathcote’s machine was patented about 1809 and soon afterwards he is
said to have obtained five guineas a yard for lace which in 1844 could
be equalled at eighteenpence a yard (Dodd, _Textile Manufactures of
Great Britain_ (1844), pp. 210-211).]

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]

[Footnote 409: Ure, _ibid._, p. 295.]

[Footnote 410: _Economic Journal_, June, 1915.]

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]

[Footnote 411: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 346-347.]

[Footnote 412: Kennedy, _ibid._, 347.]

[Footnote 413: Hammond, _The Cotton Industry_ (1897), p. 16. _Ibid._,
App. I.]


III

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]

[Footnote 414: _The Origin of Power-Loom Weaving_ (1828), pp. 61-62.]

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.

[Footnote 415: French, _ibid._, pp. 115-116. Many lists of wages are
given in the reports of various parliamentary committees--_e.g._
_Report on Commerce, Manufactures and Shipping_ (1833), p. 699. The
following are the prices paid for weaving (on the hand-loom) a 6-4ths,
60 reed cambric, 120 picks in one inch. They were taken in June in each
year. In 1795-1796 the length was 20 yards and afterwards 24 yards.
A weaver working one piece a week was said to be in full employment.
The prices are interesting, not only as showing the decline during the
period they cover, but also as the fluctuations indicate the state of
trade with remarkable accuracy:

  +------+-----------+
  | Year |   Price   |
  +------+-----------+
  |      |_s._  _d._ |
  | 1795 |  33    3  |
  | 1796 |  33    3  |
  | 1797 |  29    0  |
  | 1798 |  30    0  |
  | 1799 |  25    0  |
  | 1800 |  25    0  |
  | 1801 |  25    0  |
  | 1802 |  29    0  |
  | 1803 |  24    0  |
  | 1804 |  20    0  |
  | 1805 |  25    0  |
  | 1806 |  22    0  |
  | 1807 |  18    0  |
  | 1808 |  14    0  |
  | 1809 |  16    0  |
  | 1810 |  19    6  |
  | 1811 |  14    0  |
  | 1812 |  14    0  |
  | 1813 |  15    0  |
  | 1814 |  24    0  |
  | 1815 |  14    0  |
  | 1816 |  12    0  |
  | 1817 |   9    0  |
  | 1818 |   9    0  |
  | 1819 |   9    6  |
  | 1820 |   9    0  |
  | 1821 |   8    6  |
  | 1822 |   8    6  |
  | 1823 |   8    6  |
  | 1824 |   8    6  |
  | 1825 |   8    6  |
  | 1826 |   7    6  |
  | 1827 |   6    0  |
  | 1828 |   6    0  |
  | 1829 |   5    6  |
  | 1830 |   5    6  |
  | 1831 |   5    6  |
  | 1832 |   5    6  |
  | 1833 |   5    6  |
  +------+-----------+
]

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]

[Footnote 416: Cf. Warner, _Landmarks in English Industrial History_
(1905), pp. 292-294.]

[Footnote 417: Defoe, _A Tour Through Great Britain_ (1769 edition),
iii., pp. 144-145. The passage by Radcliffe runs as follows:--“In the
year 1770, the land in our township (Mellor) was occupied by between
fifty and sixty farmers; rents, to the best of my recollection, did
not exceed 10s per statute acre, and out of these fifty or sixty
farmers, there were only six or seven who raised their rents directly
from the produce of their farms; all the rest got their rent partly in
some branch of trade, such as spinning and weaving woollen, linen, or
cotton. The cottagers were employed entirely in this manner, except
for a few weeks in the harvest. Being one of those cottagers, and
intimately acquainted with all the rest, as well as with every farmer,
I am the better able to relate particularly how the change from the old
system of hand-labour to the new one of machinery operated in raising
the price of land in the subdivision I am speaking of. Cottage rents at
that time, with convenient loom-shop and a small garden attached, were
from one and a half to two guineas per annum. The father of a family
would earn from eight shillings to half-a-guinea at his loom, and his
sons, if he had one, two, or three, alongside of him, six or eight
shillings each per week; but the great sheet-anchor of all cottages
and small farms was the labour attached to the hand-wheel, and when it
is considered that it required six to eight hands to prepare and spin
yarn, of any of the three materials I have mentioned, sufficient for
the consumption of one weaver--this shows clearly the inexhaustible
source there was for labour for every person from the age of seven to
eighty years (who retained their sight and could move their hands) to
earn their bread, say one to three shillings per week, without going to
the parish” (pp. 59-60).]

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]

[Footnote 418: Aikin, _Manchester_, p. 244-246.]

[Footnote 419: _Ibid._, p. 23.]

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]

[Footnote 420: Reports, etc., 1826-1827, v., p. 5. Quoted by Chapman,
_Lancashire Cotton Industry_, p. 11. Other references are given in the
same page.]

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.

[Footnote 421: “The domestic manufacturers resided generally in the
outskirts of large towns or at still more remote distances” (Gaskell,
_The Manufacturing Population of England_ (1833), p. 17).]

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.

[Footnote 422: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 482.]

[Footnote 423: _Abstract of Population_, Act 41, Geo. III., 1800, p.
59.]

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.

[Footnote 424: French, _ibid._, p. 9.]

[Footnote 425: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 47: “On the dairy farms (in Cheshire)
one woman servant is kept to every ten cows, who is employed in winter
in spinning and other household business, but in milking is assisted by
all the other servants of the farm.”]

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]

[Footnote 426: Dr. Gaskell’s views are contained in _The Manufacturing
Population of England_ (1833) and _Artisans and Machinery_ (1836), the
latter being a reprint of the former with additions.]

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]

[Footnote 427: “The great body of hand-loom weavers had at all times
been divided by a well-defined line of demarcation into two very
distinct classes. This distinction arose from the circumstance of their
being landholders or being entirely dependent upon weaving for their
support.” (_Manufacturing Population_, p. 36).]

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]

[Footnote 428: _Manufacturing Population_, p. 41.]

[Footnote 429: _Ibid._, pp. 16, 34.]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid._, p. 37.]

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]

[Footnote 431: He gives 1806 as the date of the introduction of power
looms. It was about this time that, through the efforts of Horrocks,
Johnson and Radcliffe, they became practicable. In February, 1807,
Robert Owen wrote to M‘Connel and Kennedy inquiring about “the
improvements presently in progress in weaving by power.”]

[Footnote 432: _Ibid._, pp. 34, 38.]

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.

[Footnote 433: _Manufacturing Population_, pp. 35, 39.]

[Footnote 434: _Ibid._, pp. 37-38.]

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]

[Footnote 435: _Ibid._, pp. 41-42.]

[Footnote 436: _Manufacturing Population_, pp. 43-45. In _Artisans and
Machinery_, p. 33, he mentions Peel, Strutt and others. _Cf._ Aikin,
_ante_, p. 136.]

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.

[Footnote 437: In the parish of Oldham “there were a considerable
number of weavers who worked on their own account and held at the same
time small pieces of land” (Butterworth, _History of Oldham_, p. 101.
Quoted by Chapman, _ibid._, p. 11).]

[Footnote 438: Gaskell, _ibid._, p. 17.]

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.

[Footnote 439: See _infra_, p. 197.]

[Footnote 440: _Manchester Mercury_, 5th October 1779.]

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]

[Footnote 441: Gaskell, _ibid._, p. 46-47. _Report of Committee on
Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions (1803)._, p. 16.]

[Footnote 442: _Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’ Petitions_
(1808), p. 24.]

[Footnote 443: Some information regarding the state of trade is given
in two papers by the present writer on “The Cotton Trade during the
Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars” (_Transactions of the Manchester
Statistical Society_, 1916, 1917). The mule-spinners were combined
in the early nineties of the eighteenth century, and although they
claimed, in answer to the assertion that their combination was illegal,
that it existed only to relieve their fellow-labourers in distress,
they managed to conduct wages disputes in an efficient manner. The
combination continued to exist after the Combination Acts were passed.
In 1803 the master spinners in the town and neighbourhood of Manchester
resolved to form themselves into an Association and raise a fund of
£20,000 by each member contributing in proportion to the number of
spindles he employed in order to defeat “this dangerous and unjust
combination” (Circular dated 7th October 1803).]

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]

[Footnote 444: There is a striking resemblance between the situation
during the Napoleonic War and that during the recent European War. In
this country there was the same fear about the food supply and similar
efforts were made to conserve and increase it. In 1795 the members
of the Houses of Parliament agreed by resolution to restrict the
consumption of wheaten bread in their families, and their example was
followed by various bodies throughout the country. In _The Manchester
Mercury_ numerous recipes appeared for making bread out of ingredients
other than wheat. The Board of Agriculture experimented in making bread
with substitutes for wheat and publicly exhibited no fewer than eighty
different sorts (Curtler, _A Short History of English Agriculture_
(1909), p. 230). The General Enclosure Act avowedly had as its aim an
increase in the food supply and was passed during a terrible time of
distress. Except that allotments were not regarded with much favour,
the agricultural legislation was closely analogous to that of the
recent war period. In the political and the industrial spheres the
Combination Act took the place of sections of the Munitions Acts
and the Defence of the Realm Acts. “Under the shadow of the French
Revolution the English governing classes regarded all associations
of the common people with the utmost alarm. In this general terror
lest insubordination should develop into rebellion were merged both
the capitalist’s objection to high wages and the politician’s dislike
of Democratic institutions” (Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, p.
64). Necessarily the vast proportion of the national expenditure
(including loans to Allies) went to provide war materials of British
manufacture, and war services, and there were the same complaints of
the agricultural, the merchant, and the tradesmen, classes becoming
rich out of war profits. Also, generally speaking, there was a great
increase of employment, particularly in connection with the army,
the navy, and Government offices. In the industrial sphere periods
of intense pressure alternated with periods of great depression when
distress was rampant. The great distinction between the two periods
is evidently to be attributed to the social and political development
which had taken place during the intervening century whereby flagrant
class legislation had become impossible. Much information of a reliable
character concerning conditions during the Napoleonic War is given by
Lowe, in _The Present State of England_ (1822). In the correspondence
of M‘Connel and Kennedy to and from their customers in England,
Scotland, Ireland and on the Continent, the industrial situation is
indicated day by day from 1795 until beyond the conclusion of the war.]

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]

[Footnote 445: French, _ibid._, p. 90.]

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]

[Footnote 446: _Infra_, pp. 175, 176, 184, 193.]

[Footnote 447: He was something of a musician, building himself an
organ and composing several hymn tunes. French, _ibid._, pp. 133
_et seq._ The organ and some of the MSS. of his music are now in
Hall-i’-th’-Wood.]

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]

[Footnote 448: _Economic Journal_, June, 1915.]

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]

[Footnote 449: French, _ibid._, p. 123. Mr. Lee was manager for Mr.
Drinkwater prior to Robert Owen occupying that position. He left to
become partner in 1791 in a firm which attained a prominent position in
Manchester under the name of Phillips & Lee (_Autobiography of Robert
Owen_, pp. 26-29).]

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]

[Footnote 450: _Infra_, p. 169.]

[Footnote 451: _Infra_, p. 167.]

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]

[Footnote 452: French, _ibid._, p. 124.]

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.

[Footnote 453: Transactions, _Manchester Statistical Society_, Feb.,
1916.]

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.

[Footnote 454: French, p. 125. “In 1803 he supplied the fourth part of
a sum raised to build a place of worship for the religious body with
which he had connected himself in Bury Street, Little Bolton” (_ibid._,
p. 132).]

[Footnote 455: “And though I pushed on, intending to have a good share
in the spinning line, yet I found there was an evil which I had not
foreseen, and of much greater magnitude than giving up the machine,
viz., that I must be always teaching green hands, employ none, or quit
the country; it being believed that if I taught them, they knew their
business well. So that for years I had no choice left but to give up
spinning, or quit my native land.... But to this day, though it is
more than thirty years since my first machine was shown to the public,
I am hunted and watched with as much never-ceasing care as if I was
the most notorious villain that ever disgraced the human form; and do
affirm, that if I were to go to a smithy to get a common nail made,
if opportunity offered to the bystanders, they would examine it most
minutely to see if it was anything but a nail” (Letter quoted by Brown,
_The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims_, p. 30).]

[Footnote 456: French, _ibid._, pp. 125-126.]

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]

[Footnote 457: Brown, _ibid._, pp. 23-25.]

[Footnote 458: The whole matter is discussed at length by French,
_ibid._, ch. xii.]

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.

[Footnote 459: French, _ibid._, p. 158.]

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.

[Footnote 460: Kennedy, _Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton_, p. 322.]

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]

[Footnote 461: _Transactions, Manchester Statistical Society_, 1917.]

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.

[Footnote 462: French, _ibid._, p. 166. _Infra_, p. 174.]

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.”

[Footnote 463: _Journals of the House of Commons_, lxvii., p. 175.
Hansard, xxi., p. 1174.]

[Footnote 464: _J.H.C._, lxvii., p. 207.]

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]

[Footnote 465: _J.H.C._, lxvii., pp. 838-839.]

[Footnote 466: _Infra_, pp. 179-182, 189-191.]

[Footnote 467: Hansard, xxii. 94.]

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]

[Footnote 468: _Infra_, pp. 192-194. Also in letters quoted by Brown,
_ibid._, pp. 35-38.]

[Footnote 469: French, _ibid._, p. 189. _Infra_, p. 192.]

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]

[Footnote 470: _Infra_, p. 172.]

[Footnote 471: _J.H.C._, lxvii., pp. 468, 476. Hansard, xxiii.,
747-748.]

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]

[Footnote 472: French, _ibid._, pp. 188-189. _Infra_, pp. 176, 182.]

[Footnote 473: _Infra_, p. 192.]

[Footnote 474: French, _ibid._, pp. 187-188.]

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]

[Footnote 475: French, _ibid._, pp. 196-198.]

[Footnote 476: Kennedy, _ibid._, p. 323.]

[Footnote 477: French, _ibid._, pp. 199-200.]

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]

[Footnote 478: Kennedy, _ibid._, pp. 323-324. Messrs. Hicks &
Rothwell along with men like Isaac and Benjamin Dobson, of the famous
engineering firm, used to meet at “The Sign of the Black Horse” in
Bolton, where they had formed a “prosecution” club in 1801. Crompton
belonged to this club, his name appearing in 1810, and as a member
of the Committee in 1819. The scheme of an annuity appears to have
originated and have been carried through by this group of men along
with Mr. Kennedy and others. The minutes of the club are preserved
in the Chadwick Museum, Bolton. In Manchester also there was a
“prosecution” society known by the name of “The Society for the
Prosecution of Felons.” In both cases the society appears to have come
into existence to check the small thefts and the pilfering of materials
used in the businesses of the members. _Cf._ Dobson, _Evolution of the
Spinning Machine_, p. 115.]

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]

[Footnote 479: French, _ibid._, pp. 218-222.]

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.

[Footnote 480: On 24th January 1861 (_A Chronological History of Bolton
to 1875_).]

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]

[Footnote 481: Author of _The Cotton Trade of Lancashire_ (1870) and
other similar publications.]

[Footnote 482: Account of the ceremony at Hall-i’-th’-Wood.]

[Footnote 483: _Chronological History of Bolton_, 6th October 1862. See
infra, p. 197.]

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.

[Footnote 484: The place was purchased in 1899 by Mr. W. H. Lever
(now Lord Leverhulme) and presented by him, with a sum of money for
its restoration, to the Corporation of Bolton. It is now open to the
public as a museum, and contains, among other interesting things, many
Crompton relics.]

[Footnote 485: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 261.]

[Footnote 486: Bigwood, _Cotton_ (1918), p. 185. The figures refer to
1916.]

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.

[Footnote 487: Dobson, _ibid._, p. 112.]

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.

[Footnote 488: It was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth
century that the self-actor mule entirely displaced the hand-mule
(Chapman, _ibid._, pp. 69-70).]

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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Great Britain         All Countries including Great Britain
----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
    |Mule Spindles in|Ring Spindles in|Mule Spindles in|Ring Spindles in
    |  work as per   |  work as per   |  work as per   |  work as per
    |    Returns     |    Returns     |    Returns     |    Returns
----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
1910|   40,101,083   |   7,987,430    |   65,051,239   |   54,421,786
1911|   39,977,255   |   8,050,925    |   65,231,044   |   56,046,153
1912|   39,848,727   |   8,885,218    |   65,311,070   |   61,426,062
1913|   40,493,532   |   9,312,236    |   64,325,243   |   65,570,408
----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------

[Footnote 489: _Report of the Tenth International Cotton Congress_, pp.
591, 600, 610, 717.]

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.

[Footnote 490: In this connection, of course, Great Britain really
means the United Kingdom.]

[Footnote 491: They are discussed in Ellison, _Cotton Trade of Great
Britain_, pp. 33-35.]

[Footnote 492: _Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton_, pp. 27-28.]




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.

                                                 KING STREET, BOLTON.
                                                  _30 Dec^r 1802._

  GENTLEMEN,

  According to your request [I] have Applied to Several Gent^n in this
  neighbourhood who were personally concerned in, & Subscribers to the
  machine or Spinning wheele which I had made. I then lived at a place
  called Hall-oth-Wood & they went by that name here--with you they
  have the name of Mule.

  About the year 1772 I Began to Endeavour to find out if possible a
  better Method of making Cotton Yarn than was then in Generall Use,
  being Grieved at the bad yarn I had to Weave. But, to be short, it
  took me Six years, that is till the year 1778, before I could make up
  my mind what plan to Adopt that would be equal to the task I hoped it
  would perform. It took from 1778 to 1779 to finish it. From 1779 to
  the beginning [of] 1780 I spun upon it for my own use both warp and
  weft. In the beginning of the year 1780 I Began to Spin only & left
  off Weaving.

  In the end of 1780 it was made public & if any more particulars
  should be wanting I shall give them if necessary. [I] have applied to
  Messrs. Peter Ainsworth and Son, Mr. Jno. Pilkington, Mr. Fogg, Mr.
  Jas Carlile was not at home when I called.

  Mr. Richd Ainsworth sugested, if you should agree, to alow a little
  more time before you published your Circular Letter, that is to
  apoint a meeting[493] next Tuesday but one, & he & others who are
  sincere friends to the cause would attend it, & in the meign time
  he would write to Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Jno. Horrocks, Mr. Wm Yates
  of Bury, Mr. Thos Ainsworth, who is now in London,--all of whom he
  is confident will be happy in the opertunity of joining you in the
  business. If you should Aprove of this Idea of Apointing a Meeting
  next Tuesday but one, you’l please to Write by return of post so that
  there may be time to acquaint those Gent^n of your kind purpose &
  also you’l please to name the time and place of the Meeting, but if
  not you’l please to write me, and those Gent^n that are at hand will
  give you their names by Letter and also every other Suport in their
  power.

                             I Remain Gent^n
                           Your Most Obedient Humble Servant
                                                SAML. CROMPTON.

[Footnote 493: ... suggested, if you should agree, that a little more
time should be allowed, before you published your circular letter, in
order to call a meeting....]

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.

  _To the_ MERCHANTS, MANUFACTURERS, COTTON SPINNERS, BLEACHERS,
    PRINTERS, &C., OF THESE UNITED KINGDOMS.

  GENTLEMEN,

  The Machine for Spining cotton so well known by the name of the
  Hall-oth-wood wheele, to which name succeded that of the Mule, is
  well known in this country to be my Invention, to complet which to
  my satisfaction cost me years of study and personall labour, and at
  the expence of every Shilling I had in the world, unaided by any one
  and unknown to all. At first I only spun on it occasionally (being a
  weaver), but I had not used it constantly more than Six Months before
  I was beset on every side by people of various descriptions from the
  distance of 60 Miles and upwards as well as my neighbours. So that in
  a few Months I saw that certain ruin was before me if I continued to
  work it, there were so many persons desirous to see the Machine. To
  prevent them I could not keep to my work, whose Curiosoty was excited
  by the superior quality and fineness of the yarn I spun hitherto
  unknown and which at that time the trade was much in want of. To
  destroy what had cost me so much labour and expence I could not think
  of, what to do I knew not. The principall men then in the trade made
  proposals to me that if I would let the machine be shown to the
  public they would make a liberall Subscription to which I assented
  in preference to destroying it, and received by subscription only so
  much as built me a new one with 4 Spindles more than my first, as the
  book of subscription which I have by me will prove. At that time 1780
  the cotton trade was in its infancy, and I dare affirm that its rapid
  Increase was owing under Divine Providence to this Invention. If I
  had destroyed, rather than give it up I do not hessitate to say this
  country would have lost that piece of Mechanism that has produced
  and increased one of the first Manufactories in Europe viz. the fine
  Muslin and cambric, and also the extention of many Sorts of cotton
  goods that were made in an inferior manner before, all of which would
  now have been lost to us without this Machine. In the year 1802 and
  3 a number of liberall minded gentlemen at Manchester proposed for
  my aprobation to begin a subscription which was meant to extend not
  only to England but to Scotland and Ireland but the war breaking
  out at the time it was just begun at Manchester and its vicinity,
  and the difficulties consequent thereon prevented its progress and
  thitherto it has been dropt the promoters of which sent me what had
  been received viz betwixt 3 and 400 pounds it being part of what
  had been subscribed and for whose unsolicited generosity I shall
  ever feel thankfull, which sum I was requested to accept not [as] a
  remuneration but as an acknowledgment of the validity of my claim to
  the invention, So that I have yet to receive that recompence I have
  many thousand times been told within the last 30 years was my due. I
  am now geting into years and if ever I am to receive any compensation
  it cannot be much longer deferred. On a Moderate calculation the
  Invention has given employment for many years to thousands of Machine
  makers and Spinners, and perhaps to 50,000 Weavers and in the
  agregate reconing from the raw material not less than 300,000 Men,
  Women & Children, its extencive use has caused the increased growth
  and import of cotton to an immence extent to the great advantage of
  landowners, merchants, and planters. In short it has been the cause
  of our cotton Manufactories being envied by, and unrivaled in the
  world. After appealing thus openly to the public which I now for
  the first time find myself disposed to do, and the present state
  of trade being such as to discourage any appeal or application to
  individuals I am desirous to prefer my claims to parliment which
  has been liberall on other occasions and which no doubt will give
  them due consideration, having the sanction of the principal people
  concerned in the trade who are proper whitnesses and judges of my
  right thereto. I therefore solicit such gentlemen who approve of my
  Intention and who think me entitled to a compensation to sign their
  names to this paper and they will have the gratefull acknowledgment
  of their

                                          Humble Serv^t
                                                SAML. CROMPTON.

  BOLTON, _22nd April 1811_.


  CERTIFICATE PRESENTED TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER IN 1812,
  SIGNED BY COMMERCIAL FIRMS AND MANUFACTURERS:--[494]

  [Footnote 494: Brown, _The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims_,
  pp. 32-33.]

  We, the undersigned, being interested in the cotton manufacture,
  certify that we are perfectly satisfied with the correctness of the
  memorials prefixed, and are convinced of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s just
  claim to public remuneration for the originality, utility, and extent
  of his improvement in cotton-spinning.

  John Pilkington
  Thomas Ridgway and Sons
  Thomas Ainsworth and Co.
  Peter Ainsworth and Son
  Samuel Oldknow
  M‘Connel and Kennedy
  Phillips and Lee
  Greg and Ewart
  Henry and John Barton and Co.
  Arthur Clegg
  William Douglas and Co.
  William Jones
  Nathaniel Gould
  H. and W. Fielden
  Richard Birley
  Peter Marsland
  James Robinson
  A. and Geo. Murray
  Birley and Hornby
  James Kennedy
  James Bateman
  Robert Peel, Jun.
  Peel, Yates and Co.
  J. T. and G. Touchet and Co.
  Thos. and John Drinkwater
  The New Lanark Company
  James and John M’Hewham
  Henry Houldsworth
  James Dunlop
  R. Thompson and Sons
  William Yates
  William Fox
  John Simpson
  Horrocks and Co.
  John Gladstone
  John Forster
  Ewart, Rutson and Co.
  George Case
  Thomas Earle
  William Roscoe
  James Finlay and Co.
  William Stirling and Sons
  Todd, Shorbridge and Co.
  William and John Orr
  _For the Linwood Company_, Andrew Brown.

[Illustration: Reduced Facsimile of Crompton’s Handwriting (see p. 168)]


  PETITION PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 5th March 1812.

  A Petition of Samuel Crompton of Bolton-en-le-Moors, in the County of
  Lancaster, Cotton Spinner, being offered to be presented;

  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, by command of His Royal Highness The
  Prince Regent, acquainted the House, that His Royal Highness, having
  been informed of the contents of the said Petition, recommends it to
  the consideration of the House.

  Then the said Petition was brought up, and read; setting forth, 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 that the above Machine, although excellent for the
  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; and that, to remedy this defect, the Petitioner, in the year
  1779, completed the discovery of a Machine, now called a Mule, but
  which for several years bore the name of the Hall of the Wood Wheel,
  from the name of the then place of residence of the Petitioner; and
  that the Petitioner’s Machine not only removed the pre-existing
  defects in the art of spinning, by being capable of producing every
  then known description of weft as well as twist of a very superior
  quality, but gave birth to a new manufacture in this country of fine
  Cambrics and Muslins, by producing yarns of treble the fineness,
  and of a much more soft and pleasant texture, than any which had
  ever before been spun in Great Britain; and that the merit of the
  Petitioner’s Machine soon brought it into general use, and has been
  the means of extending the Cotton manufacture to more than double
  the amount to which it was before carried on, whereby all persons
  employed in the Cotton manufactory, and the Public in general, have
  been greatly benefited; and that, notwithstanding the very great and
  numerous advantages derived by this country from the Petitioner’s
  labours, the Petitioner has hitherto received no adequate reward for
  his discovery, the Petitioner having, in the first instance, been
  induced to give up his discovery to the Public by the solicitations
  of a great number of very respectable merchants and Manufacturers;
  and that the Petitioner stated his case to the Officers of His
  Majesty’s Government, and was not able to obtain their determination
  thereon until the time limited by the House for receiving Petitions
  for Private Bills had elapsed: And praying, That leave may be given
  to present a Petition for such remuneration for his said discovery,
  and giving up the use thereof for the benefit of the Public, as may
  be deemed meet.

  Ordered, That leave be given to present a Petition, as desired.

  Then a Petition of the said Samuel Crompton was presented, and read;
  containing the like allegations as the last preceding Petition:
  And praying the House to grant him such remuneration for his said
  discovery, and giving up the use thereof for the benefit of the
  Public, as may be deemed meet.

  Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to a Committee:--And it
  is referred to the Lord Stanley, Mr. Blackburne, &c., And they are to
  meet To-morrow, in the Speaker’s Chamber; and have Power to send for
  persons papers and records.[495]

[Footnote 495: _J.H.C._, lxvii., p. 175.]


                                            SWAN, LAD LANE, LONDON.
                                                _23d Jany. 1812._

  MESSRS. M’CONNELL & KENNEDY.
  GENT^N,

  I take the Liberty of writing you and all enquiring friends that I
  yesterday left the memorial and Sketch of the petition as drawn up at
  Manchester and a letter from Lord Stanley at Mr. Sp. Percival’s[496]
  Downing St, and also my address [but] have heard nothing since. Lord
  Stanley is attending for Collonel Stanley on the county business, he
  is very active in my case and neglects no opertunity of [approaching]
  the chancellor of the exchequer. He has wrote to him twice and twice
  [approached] him going into the house, but as there is only Lord and
  Collonel Stanley from the whole County of Lancaster that I know of in
  town I do not expect much to be done. Sir Robert Peel is not here and
  finding that his opinion is looked to by [the] government have wrote
  Wm. Yates Esqr. on the subject and expect an answer to morrow. I have
  to thank Mr. Ewart for his letter to Mr. Rennie who introduced me
  to one of the members his friend the only one yet in town, Collonel
  Stanley is confined to his Bed. He was a little Better yesterday
  and hopes he will soon be able to move about. I have nothing more
  particular except to Mr. Lee to inform him that I have not availed
  myself of Mr. Duckworth’s Letter to Mr. Jones as I found Coll.
  Stanley aproved a Mr. White who he said did for him all the County
  Business and who has appeared hitherto desirous that my buisness
  should not be subject to much expence. He is a very inteligent man
  and understands my buisness well, but like the Manchester people he
  says I must get hold of Sir Robert Peel. When he comes I shall not
  fail to try what can be done. [I] have call’d at his house twice and
  have been told he was expected tomorrow. If any thing further occurs
  I will not fail to write some of my friends and you will please shew
  this to any one you may think proper.

                           I am Gent^n.
                                 your Most
                                     Obdt. Ser^t,
                                          SAML. CROMPTON.

  _P.S._ My son George will probably be in Manchester on Saturday, you
  will find him in Whites Court, M’Donalds Lane, the firm is Wright &
  Crompton. If you shew him this it will much oblidge. I have not heard
  from any one since I left home but hope they are all well.

[Footnote 496: Crompton always spelled Mr. Perceval’s name as in this
letter.]

                                   _February 14, 1812_ (_postmark_).

  MR. JOHN KENNEDY, MANCH^R.
  SIR,

  Yours of the 11th I have just now received [but] will defer all
  thanks and acknowledgments till I see you. I am just now returned
  from Mr. Percival’s Downing St. Mr. Blackburn went with me & we met
  there by appointment at twelve o’clock Sir Robt Peel, Lord Stanley,
  Mr. Horrocks, & Mr. Houston, and had an audience of more than an
  hour. I can only say that all present that went on my acct. used
  every argument in their power to induce Mr. P. to think favourably
  on the subject. He said he had perused the Memorial and the petition
  with particular attention before we were admitted and did not appear
  hostile to it. I can only add that he promised Mr. Blackburn to give
  him an answer on Monday next. Whatever is the result you may rely
  uppon it I shall be satisfied, and must say that if the Memorial
  Sanctioned as [it] was & the petition in the state I brought with me
  from Manch^r and the gent^n that went with me is not sufficient to
  engage the attention of [the] Government I know not what is, and must
  also say that it is of no use to pursue it any further. In regard to
  what sum to ask I beg you will set your mind at rest, you may depend
  uppon it I never shall ask any sum, what I ask for is a candid and
  full statement of my case, and an apeal to Brittish generosoty, I
  remain,

                                    Dear sir, Yours most
                                        Respectfully
                                            SAML. CROMPTON.

  My best respects to all friends and will write some of them when any
  thing occurs worth your notice. I hope they are all well.

                                                LONDON, LAD LANE,
                                                _21 Feby. 1812._

  DEAR CHILDREN,

  Yours of the 15th I duly recd and am very happy to hear that George
  is recovered and that you are all well, and I find myself much
  better than I was at first. I intend this day to call on Mr. Lever
  to repeat what I aplied for before. A week to day since I wrote
  Messrs. M‘Connell & Kennedy perhaps they have shewn it you. On Monday
  last Mr. Blackburn applied to Mr. Percival for his answer promised,
  which had been forgot on Tuesday [and] he got his consent for the
  petition to be brought in. On Wednesday Mr. B. got it back from Mr.
  Percival’s office and on Thursday Lord Stanley wrote Mr. Percival
  and has this day got a written answer from Mr. Percival. I yesterday
  morning waited on Sir R. Peel whose kindness I must ever remember in
  reviewing the petition, before I went to Lord Stanley by appointment
  made the night before at the House of Commons. I was with him two
  hours. I this day have been with [him] an hour, he is determined
  to bring it in. As he had to Introduce it to the Minister, you see
  what progress I am making and if but slow I now think I shall get a
  hearing and if the letters I have written to my numerous friends are
  preserved I perhaps might remember many things which otherwise I may
  forget. I am very happy to find Mr. T. Ainsworth is here I supt with
  him last night. If I had Duncan’s Art of Weaving it would be of some
  service. I lent it Mr. T. Ainsworth some time back. I believe it is
  not returned but you [can] easyly get it, and if you send [it] by
  some friend that may be coming you know how to direct it. You will
  shew this on Tuesday to some of my Manchester friends and give my
  best respects to them and all enquiring friends. Mr. Haire is here
  and [I] will send by him Mr. Davy’s catalogue which Jas. Rushton
  wanted. You also may inform J. Seddon I have seen Mrs. Cook. She now
  lives at Clapham Common, Surry. She informs me that all the accts.
  were sent to her sister at Liverpool. You will not shew this to any
  but the Manch^r Gent^n and either them or you shall hear from me when
  I have any thing to write. In hopes that this will find them and you
  all well I still remain

                               Your Affectionate father,
                                                   SAML. CROMPTON.


                                                    SWAN, LAD LANE,
                                                    _28 Feby. 1812_.

  DEAR CHILDREN,

  I last night recd the book and a letter from William[497] per favour
  of Mr. Morris who slept here last night. We sat up till late. I am
  happy to hear you are all well. I, the night before yesterday, recd
  the petition from Mr. White as it is intended to be presented and
  reading it at home I signed it and as directed I took it Lord Stanley
  yesterday who said he would see me at the house, where I waited till
  after 7 o’clock and he not appearing, I went home. Yesterday Mr. T.
  Ainsworth and I paid a visit to Lord Stanley & Collonell Stanley
  who is yet confined, they both recd our visit very kindly. I this
  Morning called on Mr. T. A. who is coming down to night by the Mail,
  and offered to carry me a letter or render me any service he could.
  I am now 3 o’clock returned from Mr. White’s office Westminster Hall
  where I went by appointment made last night. My intent was to give
  him a good drilling as I expect to have to depend on him greatly, and
  will say I think him a most excellent schollar. You will shew this my
  friends at Manchester and as I mean to write some of them in a few
  days concerning evidence & any thing else which may occur, I remain
  always remembering you with sincere respect,

                                                    SAML. CROMPTON.

[Footnote 497: Crompton’s son.]

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.

  [MR. JOHN KENNEDY.]

  SIR,

  You I trust will have heard that Mr. S. Horrocks, and T. Ainsworth
  are both gone down to Lancashire, and both expect to be here again
  about the middle of next month. There are a great many members
  not yet arived that we could wish to see before the buisness is
  brought forward. The petition is lying with Lord Stanley who has
  Mr. Percival’s written consent to receive the petition, and in its
  present form the claim must be made out by evidence. I prevailed on
  Mr. Ainsworth while he was here to write out a number of questions
  with their answers according to his own view of the subject, which
  I will subjoin if my paper will contain them, and as I must have
  evidence, I also must be prepared where to find [it] at an appointed
  time of which I can have any Sufficent notice [for] Mr. T. Ainsworth
  from Bolton, one or two from Manchester and one from Glasgow and also
  one [from] Ireland if any such could be found. I presume the whole
  of the evidence would be gone through in one day or two and if my
  Manchester friends can find me one or two on whom I can rely on at
  the time appointed, it would add greatly to the number of obligations
  that have been received from them by their Humble Servant

                                                 SAML. CROMPTON.


           _Coppy of T. A.’s Questions and Answers_

How long have you been conversant in the Cotton Trade of the County of
Lancaster? Near 40 years.

Can you speak as to the extent of the cotton trade 30 years ago
comparatively to what it is at present? In proportion of 20 for 1.

To what do you in a great measure impute this rapid increase of this
trade? To the invention of Machinery and most particularly that used in
Spinning.

To what invention in Spinning Machinery do you most particularly
allude? First to Mr. Arkwright’s for which he obtained a patent
and made an immence fortune, next to his, Mr. Crompton’s which may
be called an invention though it had the aid of some parts of Mr.
Arkwright’s.

Can you describe the principals of Mr. Ark’s Machine and the effects it
is calculated to produce? The thread in Mr. A’s was made in the rollers
only, and the twist from the spindle [was] given by a bobbin and fly
which compelled a hard thread fit only for warp.

Wherein does Mr. Crompton’s Machine differ? The fineness of the thread
may either all, or in part, be made in the Rollers the twist is given
from the Spindle without the use of bobbin and fly, it may be made
hard for warp superior to any thing that can be produced by Mr. A’s
Machine, or it may be made soft for weft which Mr. A’s cannot at all
produce.

Had Mr. C’s Machine been introduced before Mr. A’s would it alone have
answered the demands of the trade? I think we could at this moment
entirely do without Mr. A’s machine having Mr. Crompton’s.

Had the trade been without Mr. C’s machine could the Manufactory have
gone on to the extent it is? If at this moment Mr. C’s machine could
be taken from the trade one half of the Trade would be lost with it.
What proportion of the trade do you suppose the invention of Mr. C.
has given rise unto? I think more than one half I believe 2/3ds of the
piece goods Manufactory.

What branch of the piece goods Manufactory? Particularly every branch
but almost intirely Muslins, Cambrics and all fine fabrics. To the
Scotch fancy Manufactory which is the most valuable in the Kingdom
intirely.

How do you make out the Scotch Manufy. to be valuable beyond the other
parts of the cotton trade? Because the raw material imported of which
the fabric consists is not more than 5 p. ct. of its value when sent
again abroad, as I may state that the raw material costing 20s. is by
the labour of this country made of the value of 20£.

And do you impute this branch of trade to the merrits of Mr. C’s
Invention? I so far impute it to this cause that I cannot conceive how
it could ever have been carried on without it.

Would not Mr. Arkwright’s Machine have supplied this trade? In no sort
of proportion perhaps not as one to six.

Was not this fancy trade in Scotland supplied before the invention of
fine spinning with linnen yarn? I believe it was from the continent,
perhaps the linnen imported might cost 10£ and by the Scotch
manufactory be made worth 20£ but even this Trade bore no proportion
in extent, and at this moment would have been nearly lost for want of
Material.

Is there no other Machine calculated for fine yarns? Is there not one
called a Jenny? The Jenny is the oldest of all the Machines after
one spindle but any merrit it possesses is mostly borrowed from Mr.
Crompton’s and in that improved state it is not calculated but for low
good waste, etc.[498]

[Footnote 498: In the margin opposite this answer the words “The Billy”
are written. _Ante_, p. 123.]

Have you any certain Knowledge that what is now called the mule is the
same in principal as the Hall-oth-Wood Machine and that it was the sole
invention of S. Crompton? Yes no other person ever laid claim to it, it
was so admitted at the time, and a small subscription raised. It has
the sanction of the whole trade and there is not a shadow of a doubt
entertained.

How many people does this Machine now employ? In spinning only,
perhaps 70,000, in weaving and all that follows, 150,000 but the work
it produces if it was possible for single hand wheeles to produce the
article as in the East Indies it would take 3 or 4 millions to spin
only.

If the trade of Lancashire has received such advantages from it should
not the individuals in the trade made the remuneration?

The county of Lancashire and other counties have got a deal of employ
through it, but the country in generall has had the real benefit. It
has brought Millions into the exchequer, it has increased the trade of
Merchants immensely, it has increased the value of the landed property,
of course, and I think it fit and right where it has given Wealth there
is the most proper place to apply for remuneration. If Mr. Crompton had
only a Bankers commision upon what (in my humble opinion) has gone into
the exchequer, created as it were by his invention, he would be a very
rich man.

What is your opinion as to remuneration? My opinion is that a great
nation should act in its own character and not do a little thing in
reward for great services nor measure its bounty either by the wants
or expectations of the recipient, but weigh it solely by the dignity
of the giver and the Merrit of the receiver.

_P.S._ You will see that the above is the spontaneous production of
the Moment, and the person or persons if you can find any that will
volunteer on this occasion ([with] every part of which I flatter
myself you are acquainted) with volunteer evidence, will be much
stronger than any forced one, and in my opinion every [witness]
should be provided with a set of questions which he feels himself
best able to answer, and indeed with any other which some other
[witness] may be better calculated to answer than himself, which
would be our case to select and propose them before the Committe.[499]

                                                           S. C.

[Footnote 499: A comparison of these questions and answers with the
evidence given by Mr. Ainsworth before the Committee, which sat some
time later, will show that one is largely a repetition of the other.]


                                                        LAD LANE,
                                                    _6 March, 1812_.

  DEAR CHILDREN,

  I last night wrote Mr. T. Ainsworth of which he can inform you. I
  have also this day writen to Mr. Lee, who I have informed that I
  would write you and request that you on receipt of this will go
  to Mr. T. Ainsworth and request him to say when he can come up as
  the Petition is presented and a Committe appointed, who will sit
  where we are prepared to meet them. Mr. Blackburn is very desirous
  that the report may be made before the Easter Holliday. You will
  then immediatly let Mr. Lee know who will I trust be able to write
  me so that I may give notice to the committe of the time we are
  prepared to meet them. I should feel very happy if Rich. Ainsworth,
  Esq, would volunteer to give evidence as a Bleacher. You will leave
  the proposing of it to T. Ainsworth if he thinks it proper. I have
  nothing further at present to add but that I hope you are all well
  and that you will immediatly attend to the above and lose no time in
  order that we may if possible go into the committe on Thursday next.

                            I am as ever yours Most Affectiony,
                                                    SAML. CROMPTON.

  _P.S._ I should be glad to hear from you and also that you will
  inform me as I have not the means here that you have of informing
  me of the name of the gentleman and the sum he obtained from the
  Government of this Country who first introduced the Machine from
  abroad for the Silk Throwing Machine in the Silk Manufacture and
  the amount of the Support he received from the government of this
  Country. If I remember right you will find it either in England
  Described, or Guthrie’s Geography and that the Machine was first
  erected either at Derby or Nottingham.

                                                           S. C.

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

  SIR,

  We have this day waited on Mr. Thos. Ainsworth who cannot possibly go
  to London this week but he has wrote to his son in London who will
  inform my father when T. A. will be in town. Mr. Rich. Ainsworth is
  confined with the gout and could not possibly go but at the hazard
  of his Life. We will one of us come over to Manchester on Monday and
  call on you if possible.

                            I remain for Self & Brother
                                               Your Obdt. St.
                                                      GEO. CROMPTON.

  BOLTON, _March 8th, 1812_.


                                                       LAD LANE,
                                                     _7 March 1812_.

  DEAR CHILDREN,

  I wrote you yesterday which I hope you duly recd. and that you
  understand what I meant and hope you have immediately attended to
  it. I first this morning attended on Richd. Ainsworth who was then
  reading a letter from his father who expected to be here in course
  of next week. T. Ainsworth knows and I trust my Manchester friends
  do also, that Committes sit neither on Saterday nor Sundays of
  course. I flatter myself the evidence will be got through in two
  sittings so that if it should be found that we cannot give timely
  notice to the committe for Thursday next I hope we shall be able to
  say Monday next. I then went to J. Blackburn, Esqr, who said he was
  fully satisfied with every step I had taken. You will show this to
  Mr. Thos. Ainsworth and act according as he advices. Since writing
  the above I have been with Sir Robt Peel. I have shewn him Mr. Lee’s
  letter [and] he seems to think the buisness of the committe will be
  got through very soon. I think that notice should be given to the
  committe at least two days before the time. But of this T. Ainsworth
  can speak to. I subjoin a list of the committe

  Lord Stanley.
  Collonel Stanley.
  J. Blackburn.
  Sir Robt. Peel.
  Richd. Sharp.
  A. Houston.
  D. Giddy.
  Rt. Honble. Sp. Percival.
  Rt. Honble. Geo. Rose.
  J. Hodson.
  Saml. Horrocks.
  Peter Patten.
  W. Wilberforce.
  Lord Milton.
  D. Davenport.
  Wilbraham Bootle.
  Genl. Gascoigne.
  Sir Jas. Graham.
  Gen. Tarleton.
  Lord A. Hamilton.
  A. Spir.

  I will only add that if those that come could furnish themselves with
  a few samples of spinning (as those I have with me are much defaced
  having carried them so long) to shew to those of the committe that
  are as yet unacquainted with the case in hand it might be of some
  service. But [I] will leave all this to their better judgment, the
  samples I have are 1, 3, 210 and 310. I hope you will lose no time
  in attending to what T. A. advises, as I am not aware there will be
  much more need of anything further but what must be done here after
  the evidence is given so as the report can be made.

  Hoping you are all well and each attending to his post, I remain,
  your Most respectfully.

                                                SAML. CROMPTON.

  _P.S._ It would perhaps be of some use if some Acct. could be
  given how much the Machine is used in and has improved the woollen
  Manufacture, though it may not be essentiall.


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_.

[Footnote 500: _J.H.C._, lxvii., pp. 838-839.]

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.


                                             LONDON, _21 March 1812_.

  DEAR SIRS,

  We compleated our Evidence on Thursday--the Committee were very
  favourably disposed--but Sir R. Peel & Mr. Houston intimated to me
  that there was an implied Condition with Mr. Percival that the Sum
  should be very moderate before he would listen to them. I ask’d him
  how much & he said two thousand pounds at which I expressed great
  Surprize & Disappointment and as soon as the Evidence was completed
  so that they could not soften it down, as they had the Petition, by
  expunging the most material points, viz. the actual Benefit & Amount
  of Machinery, Wages, Cotton & Duty, I told Sir Robert everybody in
  Lancashire would think such a Sum inadequate; he then asked me if
  I had the public Purse what I would give. I answered not less than
  Ten thousand & double that if he had not stated so many discouraging
  Circumstances.

  The fact is Crompton’s plain appearance has been in his favour by
  inducing the Members to suppose he would be satisfied with a small
  sum & therefore they were willing to assist him. His Claim to
  national Honour & Interest must now be pressed upon them as they
  cannot recede & there is no Risque I believe of the Bill [not]
  passing and it must obtain better terms.

  I thought a few hurried Lines would be acceptable from

                                                Yrs sincerely,
                                                        G. A. LEE.


                                         KENSINGTON, _15 Apl. 1812_.

  MESSRS. M’CONNELL & KENNEDY.

  GENT^{n},

  I once more take the liberty to write you and though I have not yet
  any thing finally conclusive, yet I can inform you what state the
  buisness which brought me here stands in. During the hollidays there
  was nothing done and last week Lord Stanley, Sir Rt Peel and many
  others were out of town so that nothing was done. Sir Rt P. came on
  Saterday and he sent a servant to acquaint me. I had wrote him at
  Tamworth last week. I also wrote the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Blackburn on seeing it insisted on sealing it and that I should
  Immediately carry it to the office. On Monday Morning I determined to
  try to Move on. I first went to Sir Rt Peel and found [him] at home
  and took his advice. I then went to Lord Stanley’s but too early. I
  then went to Mr. Blackburn’s then back to Lord Stanley’s from there to
  Mr. Horrocks’s & then to Lad Lane & Sir R.’s warehouse, from there
  to Westminster, stopt 3 hours there and spoke to many members and
  then came here after that. This is one day’s ramble and I only relate
  it that you form some little Idea what it is if ever you undertake
  a piece of business the means of executing which may lay scattered
  over this over grown place. Since I came here I have recovered my
  health for which I feel very thankfull. Lord Stanley, Sir Rt Peel,
  T. Blackburn, Mr. Percival, Mr. D. Giddy, & many others say they are
  very desirous to bring it to issue very soon and the only point now
  is in what form to bring it before the House. Mr. Percival finds some
  Difficulty in putting it in what is called the apropriation act,
  there having been complaints made against that plan of proceeding
  though it is done without expence. They have all promised it shall
  not sleep untill it is in train to be finished. If it is by bill Sir
  Robt. says it will be necessary to have the same evidence to appear
  before the House of Lords as has been to the Commons. I believe their
  intention is to device some plan to do without bill if possible, both
  to save time and expence, but as this is a part I cannot act in, it
  being gone out of my reach, yet I can talk about it and the moment
  I know any thing certain I will write some of my friends who I hope
  are all well and please to give my best respects to all inquiring
  friends. I yesterday had a ramble about the same as Monday and came
  from the house with Mr. Blackburn who was going to Lord Derby’s to
  meet a party some of which interest themselves much in my case.
  Whether opertunity would he had to bring it before the company he
  could not say but he would not neglect if opertunity offered. I am as
  ever Gent^n

                                       Your Much oblidged
                                             Humble Servant,
                                                SAML. CROMPTON.

  _P.S._ You will please shew this Mr. Lee, Mr. Ewart, and any other
  you may think proper.




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_, 97_n._

  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, 5_n._, 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, 4_n._;
    1557--modifies Weavers’ Act, 4;
    1563--Statute of Apprentices, scope of, 48_n._;
      appealed to by check-weavers (1758), 48 and _n._;
      repeal advocated, 51;
      repealed, 1813-1814, 49_n._;
    1566--appoints deputy-aulnagers for Lancashire towns, 4, 5_n._;
    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, 197_n._

  Agriculture, many labourers from, become weavers, 144

  Aikin, _Description of Country round Manchester_, 25, 26, 28, 59, 60,
         62, 121_n._, 136_n._, 138, 139_n._, 161_n._;
    _England Delineated_, 58_n._;
    _England Described_, 58_n._

  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, 122_n._, 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, 116_n._;
    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, 92_n._, 100_n._, 102_n._, 107_n._, 108_n._,
      109_n._, 111_n._

  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_, 4_n._;
    _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., 2_n._, 3_n._, 12,
      16_n._, 22_n._, 24_n._, 29_n._, 31_n._, 63_n._, 77_n._, 78_n._,
      93-94, 97, 98_n._, 107, 110, 111_n._, 112, 117_n._, 124_n._,
      125_n._, 130_n._, 132_n._;
    _Lancashire and Cheshire_, 125_n._

  Baker, improved and enlarged mule, 123

  Banks, _Manchester Man_, 127

  Barkstead, J., connected with silk and copper industries, 16-17,
      18_n._;
    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_, 63_n._

  Bateman, J., 172

  Bays, 6, 7_n._

  Belfast, numbers employed in 1800 in cotton industry at, 131

  Belper, Arkwright’s factory at, 100

  Bigwood, _Cotton_, 162_n._

  Billy, combination of mule and jenny for making rovings, 123-124,
      181_n._;
    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_, 78_n._, 116_n._, 152_n._,
      153_n._, 157_n._, 159_n._, 172_n._

  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, 22_n._

  Camden, _Britannia_, 7_n._

  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_, 40_n._, 72_n._,
      137_n._, 143_n._, 163_n._;
    _Victoria County History of Lancashire_, 5_n._, 8_n._

  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, 139_n._;
    Luddite risings, 154-155

  Chester, petitioned to be sole port for Manchester cottons, 7_n._;
    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_, 128_n._, 129_n._

  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, 54_n._;
    in west of England textile industry, 52 and _n._;
    in check and smallware trades, 40-45;
    extended to country districts, 144;
    among mule-spinners, 144_n._

  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,
      76_n._;
    progressive expansion due to inventions, 145, 179, 189;
    expansion after 1770, 1, 72, 91, 132;
    organised on factory system after 1770, 1, 75_n._, 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, 137_n._;
    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, 29_n._;
    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, 159_n._;
    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, 197_n._

  Cumberland exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4

  Cunningham, W., _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, 12, 49_n._

  Curtler, _Short History of Agriculture_, 147_n._


  D

  Dale, D., connected with Arkwright and New Lanark Mills, xxx., 106

  Defoe, D., _Tour through Great Britain_, 61-62, 135_n._, 197_n._

  Dehn, _German Cotton Industry_, 14_n._

  Deptford, industries in eighteenth century and numbers employed,
      28_n._

  Derbyshire, miners fix food prices (1764), 84;
    food riots in 1767, 85;
    Luddite risings, 154-155

  _Dictionary of National Biography_, 47_n._

  Dimities, made from cotton-wool from Cyprus, 8

  Distress in 1756-1757, 43;
    Parliamentary measures to relieve, 84-85

  Dobson, _Evolution of Spinning Machine_, 75_n._, 77_n._, 78_n._,
      128_n._, 159_n._, 162_n._

  Dobson & Rothwell, makers of textile machinery, 128;
    size of mules made by, in 1799, 162

  Dodd, _Textile Manufacturers of Great Britain_, 131_n._

  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_, 5_n._, 31_n._, 126_n._, 132_n._, 150_n._

  Edwards, _History of West Indies_, 88_n._

  Ellison, _Cotton Trade of Great Britain_, 57_n._, 164_n._

  Embezzlement of materials by workpeople, 36.
    See Acts (1702)

  Enclosure Acts, expression of views of dominant political class,
      146-147

  Espinasse, _Lancashire Worthies_, 20, 29_n._, 73_n._, 74_n._, 76_n._,
      77_n._, 78_n._, 80, 81, 82_n._, 93_n._, 100_n._, 102_n._, 103_n._,
      104_n._, 105_n._, 106_n._, 107_n._, 110_n._

  Ewart, Rutson & Co., 172


  F

  Factory system, beginning of, 75_n._
    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_, 17_n._, 76_n._, 77_n._,
      113, 114, 116_n._, 118, 121, 134_n._, 138_n._, 149, 150, 151,
      152_n._, 153_n._, 155, 157, 158_n._, 159_n._, 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, 91_n._;
    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, 2_n._, 196;
    exported, 9, 60;
    fustian tax, agitation against and repeal, 63 and _n._, 103-104


  G

  Gaskell, _Artisans and Machinery_, 139_n._;
    _Manufacturing Population of England_, 56_n._, 137_n._, 139-144;
    dislike of factory system, 139

  _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 46_n._

  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_, 2_n._

  Greg & Ewart, 170

  Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, 43, 80_n._, 94, 95_n._, 96_n._,
      97_n._, 111_n._, 124_n._;
    _Compendious History of Cotton Manufacture_, 38, 39, 60, 73_n._,
      74_n._, 96, 108


  H

  Hakluyt, 3

  Halifax, hawkers and pedlars, 64-65

  Hammond, _Cotton Industry_, 132_n._

  Hammond, J. L. and B., 83_n._

  Hand-loom. See Loom

  Hansard, 155_n._, 156_n._, 157_n._

  Hanseatic League, xxvi.-xxvii.

  Hanson, E., Boroughreeve of Manchester, 32_n._

  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, 97_n._;
    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, 111_n._

  Hollingworth, _Mancuniensis_, 30

  Hollingworth, R., 30_n._

  Horrocks & Co., 172

  Horrocks, J., manufacturer of fine cotton fabrics, 130-131;
    helped to make power-loom practicable, 140_n._;
    supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167

  Horwich, cotton yarns reported to be spun at, in 1510, 2_n._

  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, 121_n._;
    used for waste, 181;
    used in woollen industry more than in cotton, 124_n._;
    superseded hand-wheel, 124;
    superseded by mule, 97, 124;
    conditions when introduced, 88

  Johnson, helped to make power-loom practicable, 140_n._

  Jones, W., 170

  _Journal of House of Commons_, 20_n._, 23_n._, 24_n._, 29_n._, 36_n._,
      37_n._, 52, 58_n._, 59_n._, 64, 65_n._, 82_n._, 89_n._, 90_n._,
      99_n._, 102_n._, 155_n._, 156_n._, 157_n._, 174_n._


  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_, 75_n._, 78_n._, 113, 114, 116_n._,
      121, 122_n._, 123_n._, 124_n._, 125_n._, 130-131, 132_n._,
      154_n._, 158_n._, 159;
    _Early Recollections_, 127_n._;
    _Rise and Progress of Cotton Trade_, 75_n._, 76_n._, 122_n._,
      126_n._

  Kersies, 6, 7_n._

  Kirkcudbright, migration of young men from, to Lancashire, 127


  L

  Lace, demand for fine cotton yarn for manufacture of, 131

  _Lancashire and Cheshire Wills_, 2_n._, 32_n._, 33_n._

  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, 150_n._;
    partner in firm of Phillips & Lee, 150_n._;
    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, 197_n._

  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, 65_n._;
    silk industry and silk-throwsters, 98_n._

  Loom, hand, 72-73;
    predecessor of Jacquard loom for weaving draw-boys, 74 and _n._

  Lowe, _Present State of England_, 147_n._

  Luddite risings in 1811-1812, 154-155


  M

  Macclesfield silk-throwsters, 98_n._

  Machine-breaking in 1767 and 1779, 82, 92;
    causes of, 82-83, 88-90, 95_n._

  Macpherson, _Annals of Commerce_, 83_n._, 84_n._, 85_n._, 87, 88_n._

  _Manchester Athenæum_, 119;
    _Court Leet Records_, 26_n._, 32_n._, 58_n._;
    Directory, 26;
    analysis of trades from (1772), 67-68;
    _Mercury_, 42_n._, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53_n._, 54_n._, 59_n._,
      60_n._, 62, 63_n._, 82_n._, 84_n._, 85_n._, 87_n._, 93, 94_n._,
      95, 101_n._, 102_n._, 103_n._, 104_n._, 105_n._, 106_n._, 110,
      119, 136, 143_n._, 147_n._;
    _Statistical Society, Transactions of_, 144_n._, 151_n._, 155_n._

  Manchester, see Acts (1736), Petitions;
    eminent for woollen cloths or Manchester cottons, 7_n._;
    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, 28_n._;
    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, 101_n._;
    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, 159_n._

  Mansfield, Lord, charge to jury regarding combinations, 45-46, 51;
    advocated repeal of Statute of Apprentices, 51

  Mantoux, P., _La Révolution Industrielle_, 96_n._, 97, 100_n._

  Marsland, P., 172

  Marriott, J., threadmaker, 28_n._

  Martineau, H., _History of the Peace_, 83_n._

  May, J., _Declaration of the Estate of Clothing_, 6_n._, 10, 11_n._;
    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, 124_n._, 128;
    size of mules made by, 162;
    supplied Belfast and Glasgow with fine cotton yarns, 132;
    correspondence of, reveals industrial situation, 147_n._
    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_, 83_n._

  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_, 22_n._;
    _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, 129_n._


  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, 74_n._,
      80_n._, 94_n._, 95_n._

  Oldham, a centre of fustian manufacture, 56

  Oldknow, S., made fine fabrics, muslins, etc., 129_n._, 130-131, 172

  Orr, W. and J., 172

  Owen, Robert, apprenticeship, 129_n._;
    connection with New Lanark Mills, 106;
    began to manufacture mules, 126, 127;
    spinner of thread from rovings, 124_n._;
    _Autobiography_, 106_n._, 124_n._, 125_n._, 126_n._, 129_n._,
      150_n._


  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, 92_n._;
    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, 56_n._, 57_n._

  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, 98_n._;
    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_, 88_n._

  Pococke, _Travels Through England_, 28_n._

  Pollard, J., 127

  Power-loom, 125, 140

  Price, W. H., “On Beginning of Cotton Industry in England,” 8_n._,
      9_n._, 195_n._, 197_n._

  Proctor, _Memorials of Bygone Manchester_, 25_n._

  Putting-out system, 56, 143


  Q

  _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, 8_n._


  R

  Radcliffe, _Origin of Power-Loom Weaving_, xxix., 56_n._, 59_n._, 60,
      133, 135, 136, 142;
    helped to make power-loom practicable, 140_n._

  Raines and Sutton, _Life of Humphrey Chetham_, 34, 35, 59_n._

  Reading, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century, 28_n._

  _Records of Fort St George_, 16_n._

  Regulation of industry and commerce, see Acts of Parliament;
    broke down in seventeenth century, 65-66

  _Report on Commerce, Manufacturers and Shipping_ (1833), 22_n._,
      134_n._;
    _Report of Committee on Textile Trades_, 1_n._, 130_n._;
    _Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions_, 144_n._;
    _Report of Committee on Emigration, etc._ (1826-1827), 136-137;
    _Report of Committee on State of Children Employed in
      Manufactories_, 91_n._, 126_n._, 127_n._;
    _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, 57_n._

  Roberts, Richard, invented satisfactory self-actor mule, 125;
    perfected power-loom, 125;
    owned nearly a hundred patents, 125_n._

  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_, 129_n._

  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., 18_n._;
    _Joint Stock Companies_, 12_n._, 16_n._, 18_n._, 19_n._, 66_n._

  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, 98_n._
    See London, Macclesfield

  Simpson, J., 172

  Slack, _Remarks on Cotton_, 58_n._

  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_, 12_n._;
    _Industry and Invention_, 98_n._;
    _Lives of Engineers_, 61_n._, 81_n._, 104_n._

  Smith, _Wars Between England and America_, 83_n._

  Smollett, _History of England_, 42_n._, 46_n._

  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_, 5_n._, 6, 7, 8_n._, 13_n._, 17_n._, 18_n._,
      19_n._, 31, 66, 195, 196

  Stirling, W., & Sons, 172

  Stockport, food riots in 1757, 43_n._;
    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_, 49_n._

  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_, 83_n._

  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_, 4_n._, 36_n._, 49_n._, 53 and _n._, 66_n._, 101_n._;
    _Gilds and Companies of London_, 66_n._

  Ure, _Cotton Manufacture_, 16_n._, 29_n._, 76_n._, 81_n._, 119,
      122_n._, 131_n._, 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, 134_n._

  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_, 58_n._, 63_n._

  Warrington, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century,
    28_n._

  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_, 49_n._, 52, 147_n._

  Westerfield, _Middlemen in English Business_, 61, 62

  Westmorland, excluded from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4

  Weymouth, cotton manufacturers’ petition, 21

  Wheeler, _History of Manchester_, 92_n._, 102_n._

  Whitehaven, traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24;
    port of entry for cotton, 57-58

  Whitsters. See Crofters

  Wilks, _The Half Century_, 83_n._

  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_, 97_n._


  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




  TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

    1. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
    2. The listed errata have been corrected in the text.



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 70140 ***