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 Decr 1802.
Gentlemen,
According to your request [I] have Applied to Several Gentn 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 meeting493 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 Gentn 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 Gentn that are at hand will give you their names by Letter and also every other Suport in their power.
I Remain Gentn
Your Most Obedient Humble Servant
Saml. Crompton.
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.
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 Servt
Saml. Crompton.
Bolton, 22nd April 1811.
Certificate presented to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in 1812, signed by Commercial Firms
and Manufacturers:—494
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.
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
Swan, Lad Lane, London.
23d Jany. 1812.
Messrs. M‘Connell & Kennedy.
Gentn,
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’s496 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 Gentn.
your Most
Obdt. Sert,
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.
February 14, 1812 (postmark).
Mr. John Kennedy, Manchr.
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 Manchr and the gentn 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 Manchr Gentn 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 William497 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Gentn,
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 Gentn
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.
Notes
1 Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, pp. 38-43.
2 A. Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets, pp. 159-160.
3 F. Bourquelot, Etudes sur les foires de Champagne, i. 273.
4 E. Nübling, Ulms Baumwolleveberei im Mittelaltes in Schmollers Forschunsen, Bd. IX.
5 Ashley, Economic History, vol. i., pt. i., ch. 3. Unwin, Gilds and Companies of London, pp. 42-46.
6 Unwin, Industrial Organisation, pp. 30-31; A. H. Johnson, History of Drapers Company, i. G. des Marez, Organisation du Travail à Bruxelles.
7 Keutgen, Der Grosshandel im Mittelalter in Hansische Geschichtsblätter, 1901, p. 67.
8 Unwin, Industrial Organisation, pp. 32-36.
9 W. J. Ashley, James and Philip van Artevelde, pp. 162-163.
10 A. Doren, Die Florentiner Wollentuchindustrie, pp. 124-242.
11 G. des Marez, Organisation du Travail à Bruxelles, pp. 118-119, and Le Compagnannage des Chapelier Bruxellois, pp. 17-19.
12 Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van de Leidsche textielnijverheid, I. xxi. Ed. N. W. Posthumus.
13 Unwin, Industrial Organisation in the 16th and 17th Centuries, pp. 52-61, 126. Commerce and Coinage in Shakespeare’s England, i., p. 330.
14 G. Espinas, Jehan Boine Broke, Bourgeois et drapier-Douasien in Vierteljahrschrift für Social und Wirthschaftsgeschichte, vol. ii., pp. 53-70.
15 A. Doren, Die Florentiner Wollentuchindustrie, chap. v.
16 J. M. Lappenberg, Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofes zu London, p. 175.
17 Acts of the Privy Council for 1550, p. 19.
18 R. Ehrenberg, Hamburg und England, chap. iv.
19 W. Harrison, Description of England, Book III., chap. iv.
20 W. R. Scott, Joint Stock Companies, 1720, i., p. 88.
21 Eliz., State Papers Domestic, cci.
22 W. R. Scott, op. cit., i., chap. v.
23 Memoirs of Sir T. F. Buxton, ed. by his son, 288-289.
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)).
25 Published in 1835, p. 96.
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.
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.).
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.
29 Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture, p. 96.
30 The Itinerary of John Leland, edited by Thomas Hearne (1711), vii., p. 41.
31 5 and 6 Edw. VI., c. 6.
32 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 11.
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.
34 8 Eliz., c. 12.
35 Vict. County Hist., Lancs., ii., p. 296.
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.
37 39 Eliz., c. 20.
38 S.P.D. Eliz., vol. cclxix. 45.
39 43 Eliz., c. 10.
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).
41 4 Jas. I., c. 2.
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).
43 11 and 12 Wm. III., c. 20.
44 S.P.D. Eliz., vol. ccliii. 122.
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).
46 In the eighteenth century a writer well acquainted with Manchester manufactures still referred to cotton as wool (Infra, pp. 37-38).
47 The Treasure of Traffike (London, 1641), pp. 32-34.
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.”
49 See note infra, pp. 195-196.
50 See infra, p. 197.
51 P. 22.
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).
53 Pp. 33-34.
54 Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, ii. pp. 82-83.
55 Smiles, The Huguenots (1870), p. 56.
56 Ibid., p. 83.
57 Baines, ibid., p. 99.
58 Scott, Joint Stock Companies to 1720 (1912), i., p. 253.
59 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, lxvi., Feb. 1, 9.
60 Ibid., lxix. 7.
61 Dehn, The German Cotton Industry (1913), pp. 1-2.
62 Worthies of England (1662), ii., pp. 106-107.
63 Infra, pp. 25, 27, 29.
64 Baines, ibid., p. 346. Scott, ibid., ii., p. 11.
65 Scott, ibid., pp. 323, 326, 335.
66 Records of Fort St George, Despatches from England, 1670-1677, pp. 4, 27 et seq. Ure, Cotton Manufacture, i., p. 355, 1861 edition.
67 S.P.D., Petition Entry Book, i., p. 96. S.P.D., Warrant Book, xxxv., p. 434.
68 Ibid., H.O. Warrant Book, vi., p. 335.
69 Ibid., p. 115.
70 Ibid., Petition Entry Book, i., p. 154.
71 Ibid., H.O. Warrant Book, vi., p. 125.
72 Ibid., Petition Entry Book, i., p. 178.
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.
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.
76 Scott, ibid., iii., pp. 450-452.
75 Scott, ibid., ii., p. 152.
77 11 and 12 Wm. III., c. 10.
78 Journals of the House of Commons, xiv., pp. 280, 283, 284.
79 Ibid., xix., p. 182 et seq.
80 7 Geo. I., c. 7.
81 Espinasse, Lancashire Worthies (1874), pp. 297-298.
82 J.H.C., xix. 208.
83 Ibid.
84 J.H.C., xix. 295.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid., xxii. 566.
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.
88 J.H.C., xxii., p. 551.
89 Ibid., pp. 566-567.
90 9 Geo. II., c. 4.
91 J.H.C., xxii., pp. 589, 605. The weavers claimed to be manufacturers of worsted stuffs and stuffs made of silk and cotton.
92 Ibid., xxii., pp. 593-595.
93 Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture, pp. 346-347.
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.
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).
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.
97 Ogden, ibid., p. 73.
98 Ogden, ibid., p. 78-79.
99 Ibid., p. 81.
100 Ibid., p. 82.
101 Ibid., p. 74.
102 Infra, p. 67.
103 Ogden, ibid., p. 82.
104 Infra, p. 67.
105 Ogden, ibid., p. 75.
106 Ibid., pp. 75, 77.
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.
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.
109 Ogden, ibid., p. 74.
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.
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.”
112 J.H.C., xvii., p. 377.
113 Ibid., xvi., pp. 311-324, 509-511.
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.
115 33 Henry VIII., c. xv., quoted by Baines, ibid., pp. 92-93.
116 5 and 6 Edward VI., c. 7.
117 S.P.D. Eliz., vol. cxvii. 38, quoted Economic Journal, x., p. 23.
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).
119 Lancashire and Cheshire Wills, Chetham Society, New Series, vol. iii.
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.
121 Ibid., p. 35.
122 Lancashire and Cheshire Wills, ibid., p. 24.
123 Ibid., p. 15 et seq.
Cloth at Home and Abroad
| £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | |||
| 70 pieces of broad Whites ready dressed at 45s. a piece | 157 | 10 | 0 | At Robt. Bowker’s: 46 broad Whites at 46s. 8d. a piece | 107 | 6 | 8 | |
| 38 Graies at 30s. a piece | 57 | 0 | 0 | 34 Graies at 30s. a piece | 51 | 0 | 0 | |
| 13 Cottons at 32s. a piece | 20 | 16 | 0 | At Roger Nayden’s Mylne: | ||||
| 1 Black Cotton | 1 | 10 | 0 | 30 Graies at 30s. a piece | 45 | 0 | 0 | |
| 12 pieces Rett (?) 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 |
124 Raines and Sutton, Life of Humphrey Chetham, Chetham Society, N.S., vol. xlix.
125 Ibid., pp. 8-11.
126 Ibid., p. 11.
127 Ibid., pp. 12, 21-22.
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.
129 Ibid., pp. 14-15.
130 Raines and Sutton, Life of Humphrey Chetham, pp. 8-15, 123-124. Chetham employed people in Manchester, Ashton, Hollinwood, Eccles and other places.
131 Ibid., p. 30.
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.
133 J.H.C., xiv., p. 67.
134 1 Anne, c. 18.
135 9 Anne, c. 32.
136 13 Geo. II., c. 8.
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.”
138 Ogden, ibid., pp. 74-88.
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.
140 Ibid., p. 88.
141 Guest, Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture (1823), p. 9.
142 Ibid., p. 11.
143 Infra, pp. 67-69.
144 Manchester Reference Library, No. 28266.
145 Cf. Ogden, ibid., p. 82, also Chapman, Lancashire Cotton Industry, pp. 19-22, where the loom is described.
146 Smollett, History of England (1818 edition), iv., p. 177.
147 The prices of cereals in Manchester are given weekly in The Manchester Mercury until 1766 and spasmodically afterwards.
148 In The Manchester Mercury.
149 Ibid., 21st June 1757.
150 Ibid., 11th November, 28th December 1756.
151 Ibid., 14th and 21st June 1757. Rioting took place in Stockport in September. Ibid., 30th September.
152 Ibid., 14th December 1756.
153 Ibid., 8th November 1757.
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.
155 9th January.
156 Manchester Mercury, 25th March 1760.
157 Manchester Mercury, 5th September 1758. Gentleman’s Magazine, 12th August 1758. Smollett, ibid., v. 439-440.
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).
159 Letter to a Friend, p. 5.
160 Ibid., App. I.
161 Ibid., p. 10.
162 25th April 1758.
163 Letter to a Friend, p. 12.
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.).
165 Letter to a Friend, p. 48.
166 Ibid., p. 13.
167 Ibid., App. II.
168 Letter to a Friend, p. 14.
169 Ibid., App. III.
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.
171 25th June 1758.
172 Ibid., 17th October 1758.
173 Letter to a Friend, App. VIII.
174 Manchester Mercury, 3rd April 1759.
175 History of Trade Unionism (1911), p. 44.
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).
177 Industrial Organisation in the XVIth and the XVIIth Centuries, pp. 51, 58-61, 123, 135, 198-199, 208-210, 229-234.
178 Manchester Mercury, 7th August 1781.
179 Ibid., 11th September 1781.
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).
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.
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).
183 Infra, p. 61.
184 Treasure of Traffike, p. 32. Ellison, Cotton Trade of Great Britain, p. 170.
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.
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).
187 Life and Correspondence of Samuel Hibbert Ware (1882), pp. 96-98.
188 Ibid., p. 98.
189 Ibid., pp. 97-98.
190 Infra, p. 68.
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.
192 In every issue of The Manchester Mercury.
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.”
194 Raines and Sutton, Life of Humphrey Chetham, pp. 13, 127.
195 J.H.C., xiv., p. 498; xvi., p. 311; xviii., p. 543; xxiii., pp. 76-78.
196 Aikin, Manchester, pp. 182-184. Radcliffe, ibid., p. 93.
197 Manchester Mercury, 29th November 1769; 6th February 1770.
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.
199 Radcliffe, ibid., pp. 131-133.
200 J.H.C., xiv., pp. 498, 504.
201 Aikin, ibid., pp. 183-184.
202 Smiles, Lives of the Engineers (1862), i., pp. 178-181. Westerfield, Middlemen in English Business (1915), pp. 313-314.
203 Defoe, A Tour through Great Britain (1769 edition), iii., p. 126.
204 Westerfield, ibid., pp. 362-363.
205 Aikin, ibid., p. 184.
206 Baines, Lancashire and Cheshire, iii., pp. 84-85.
207 Manchester Mercury, 1752 onwards. Smiles, ibid., p. 206. Between 1760 and 1774 452 Acts were passed for making and repairing highways.
208 Infra, p. 71.
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).
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.
211 J.H.C., xl., p. 1001; xli., p. 283; xliv., p. 295.
212 Ibid., xliv., pp. 276, 422.
213 Ibid., xl., pp. 1107, 1109.
214 Ibid., p. 1039.
215 J.H.C., xl., p. 1026.
216 Ibid., pp. 1017-1018.
217 Ibid., p. 1020.
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).
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.
220 One described as dyer and printer.
221 One described as manufacturer and printer.
222 Two described as fustian silk and linen manufacturers.
223 One described as silk and smallware manufacturer, two as silk throwsters, and one as throwster and dyer.
224 One described as linen merchant.
225 Two described as linen and fustian dyers.
226 One described as frieze-maker, one as woollen manufacturer and paper-maker, and one as worsted weaver.
227 One described as woollen draper and cloth-worker, and one as woollen draper and check manufacturer.
228 One described as dealer in cotton weft.
229 One described as hatter and hosier, and one as hat-lining cutter.
230 One described as dresser and cutter, and one as presser.
231 One described as twister and dyer, and one as dyer printer and manufacturer.
232 In this list there are three partnerships.
233 Ante, p. 40.
234 Chapman, ibid., p. 21.
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).
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.”
237 Guest, ibid., p. 9. Espinasse, ibid., p. 313.
238 Espinasse, ibid., pp. 310-318.
239 Guest, ibid., p. 9.
240 Espinasse, ibid.
241 Ogden, ibid., pp. 76-77. This loom was the predecessor of the Jacquard loom. Chapman, ibid., pp. 22-23.
242 Ante, p. 23. Ogden, ibid., p. 87. Guest, ibid., pp. 11-12.
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.
244 Dobson, Evolution of the Spinning Machine (1911), p. 28.
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).
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.
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.
248 French, ibid., pp. 269-270. Espinasse, ibid., p. 341.
249 Ibid., pp. 256, 268.
250 Baines, ibid., p. 134. Espinasse, ibid., pp. 349-350.
251 French, ibid., p. 266. Espinasse asserts that it was introduced into at least one Yorkshire workhouse (ibid., p. 355).
252 French, ibid., p. 269.
253 Ibid., p. 252.
254 Ibid., p. 266. It appears, however, that he may have invented this machine as early as 1740 (ibid., 256).
255 Espinasse, ibid., p. 365.
256 Dobson, ibid., 36-37.
257 Dobson, ibid., p. 37.
258 Kennedy, Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton, p. 326.
259 Baines, ibid., pp. 177-179.
260 Espinasse, ibid., p. 320.
261 Brown, The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims (reprint, Manchester, 1868), p. 28.
262 Baines, ibid., p. 156.
263 Espinasse, ibid., pp. 322, 327.
264 Ogden, ibid., p. 87.
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).
266 Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton, pp. 16-17.
267 Espinasse, ibid., p. 400.
268 Smiles, Boulton and Watt (1904), p. 111.
269 Ure, ibid., i., p. 286.
270 Ogden, ibid., p. 16.
271 Josiah Wedgwood was an eye-witness of this rising. His account of it is quoted by Espinasse, ibid., pp. 424-426.
272 Manchester Mercury, 12th October 1779.
273 J.H.C., xxxvii., p. 926.
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).
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.
276 Manchester Mercury, 9th January 1762.
277 Ibid., 1st September 1762.
278 Macpherson, ibid., pp. 391, 406-407.
279 Macpherson, ibid., pp 438, 452.
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 1766A
| 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 |
A Manchester Mercury, 11th November 1766.
281 Manchester Mercury, 10th February, 14th April, 28th July.
282 Ibid., 1st September 1767. The rules and orders of the Society of Agriculture at Manchester are given, 21st June 1774.
283 Ibid., in various issues.
284 Manchester Mercury, 6th September 1763.
285 Macpherson, ibid., pp. 372-373.
286 Ibid.
287 Manchester Mercury, 13th September 1763.
288 Macpherson, ibid., iii., pp. 406-407.
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.
290 Macpherson, ibid., p. 589.
291 Ibid., pp. 442-443.
292 J.H.C., xxxvii., pp. 804, 925-926.
293 J.H.C., xxxvii., p. 882.
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.”
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).
296 Arkwright’s Case, p. 99. The Case is quoted in Arkwright’s Patent Trial, 25th June 1785.
297 14 Geo. III., c. 72; also infra, p. 197.
298 Espinasse, ibid., p. 325.
299 Baines, ibid., p. 162.
300 Ibid.
301 Manchester Mercury, 18th June 1771.
302 Guest, British Cotton Manufacture, pp. 94, 198.
303 Guest, British Cotton Manufacture, p. 203.
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).
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).
306 Guest, History of the Cotton Manufacture, pp. 13-14, 53-54. also British Cotton Manufacture.
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 XVIIIe Siècle, p. 210).
308 Guest, British Cotton Manufacture, p. 195.
309 Ibid., p. 211.
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.
311 Wylie and Briscoe, History of Nottingham, p. 101.
312 Baines, ibid., p. 151.
313 Felkin, History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures (1867), p. 90.
314 Ibid.
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
| Men, women and children employed by | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 employed by | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
316 Mantoux, ibid., pp. 217-221. Espinasse, ibid., pp. 392, 413, 420.
317 Trial, 25th June 1785, pp. 99, 102.
318 Ibid., p. 99.
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).
320 Ibid., 21st May, 24th September 1776.
321 Ibid., 27th February.
322 Manchester Mercury, 20th March.
323 Wheeler, History of Manchester (1842), p. 521.
324 Ibid., pp. 521-522, where the names of the firms are given.
325 Espinasse, ibid., pp. 428-431.
326 Trial, 25th June 1785, p. 100.
327 Ibid., p. 102. J.H.C., xxxviii., p. 687.
328 Manchester Mercury, 12th February 1782. J.H.C., xxxviii., p. 865.
329 Manchester Mercury, 16th April 1782.
330 Ibid., 11th February 1783.
331 Espinasse, ibid., p. 431.
332 Arkwright versus Nightingale. Espinasse, ibid., pp. 435-437.
333 Ante, p. 63.
334 Manchester Mercury, 22nd March 1785.
335 Espinasse, ibid., p. 429.
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).
337 Espinasse, ibid., p. 436.
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).
339 Manchester Mercury, 1st March 1785.
340 Ibid. Espinasse, ibid., 449 et seq. Robert Owen, Autobiography, i., p. 56.
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.
342 Espinasse, ibid., p. 447.
343 Baines, ibid., pp. 177-179.
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).
345 Guest, History of Cotton Manufacture, pp. 13, 53. The question of the jenny was not dealt with at the trial, of course.
346 Trial, 25th June 1785, Highs’ evidence.
347 Ibid., Kay’s evidence.
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.
349 Espinasse, ibid., pp. 447-448.
350 5th July 1785.
351 Baines, ibid., pp. 122-123.
352 Trial, 25th June 1785, Kay’s evidence.
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).
354 History of the Cotton Manufacture, p. 196.
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.
356 French, ibid., pp. 2, 26-27.
357 Infra, p. 167.
358 Kennedy, ibid., p. 319.
359 Infra, p. 167.
360 French, ibid., p. 76.
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?
362 Ibid.
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.
364 Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton, pp. 20-21. Baines, ibid., p. 197-199.
365 Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton, p. 21.
366 French, ibid., p. 83.
367 Evidence of Mr. Pilkington in 1812, infra, pp. 186-187.
368 Manchester Mercury, 17th July 1781. Mr. Pilkington was a member of the cotton and linen section.
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.
370 Manchester Athenæum, No. 9, 1st September 1807.
371 Ure, ibid., i., p. 277.
372 Monthly Magazine, vol. viii., p. 776.
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.
374 Kennedy, ibid., p. 321.
375 French, ibid., p. 67.
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.
377 Kennedy, ibid., p. 326.
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.
379 Kennedy, Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade, Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, vol. iii., second series (1815), p. 127.
380 Kennedy, Brief Memoir, p. 335.
381 Kennedy, Brief Memoir, pp. 335-336.
382 Ibid., pp. 332-333.
383 Ibid., 333-334.
384 Ibid., p. 331.
385 Kennedy, ibid., pp. 331-332.
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).
387 Baines, ibid., p. 198. Evidence of Mr. G. A. Lee before the Committee on Crompton’s petition. Infra, p. 188.
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.”
389 Ibid., pp. 53-59. Baines, ibid., p. 205.
390 Kennedy, ibid., pp. 337-338.
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.
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.).
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.
394 Kennedy, ibid., p. 16.
395 Autobiography, p. 22.
396 Economic Journal, June, 1915.
397 Banks, The Manchester Man, ch. xxxii. The author was misinformed as to the Christian name of Mr. M‘Connel.
398 Kennedy, Early Recollections (1849), pp. 9-10.
399 Report on State of Children employed in Manufactories, pp. 234, 244.
400 Kennedy, Early Recollections (1849), pp. 9-10. This man evidently gathered round himself a small colony of Scotsmen as there are others mentioned.
401 Clarke, The New Lancashire Gazetteer, pp. 33-34.
402 Dobson, Evolution of the Spinning Machine, pp. 108 et seq.
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.
404 Infra, p. 190.
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).
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).
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).
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).
409 Ure, ibid., p. 295.
410 Economic Journal, June, 1915.
411 Baines, ibid., pp. 346-347.
412 Kennedy, ibid., 347.
413 Hammond, The Cotton Industry (1897), p. 16. Ibid., App. I.
414 The Origin of Power-Loom Weaving (1828), pp. 61-62.
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 |
416 Cf. Warner, Landmarks in English Industrial History (1905), pp. 292-294.
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).
418 Aikin, Manchester, p. 244-246.
419 Ibid., p. 23.
420 Reports, etc., 1826-1827, v., p. 5. Quoted by Chapman, Lancashire Cotton Industry, p. 11. Other references are given in the same page.
[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).
422 Aikin, ibid., p. 482.
423 Abstract of Population, Act 41, Geo. III., 1800, p. 59.
424 French, ibid., p. 9.
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.”
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.
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).
428 Manufacturing Population, p. 41.
429 Ibid., pp. 16, 34.
430 Ibid., p. 37.
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.”
432 Ibid., pp. 34, 38.
433 Manufacturing Population, pp. 35, 39.
434 Ibid., pp. 37-38.
435 Ibid., pp. 41-42.
436 Manufacturing Population, pp. 43-45. In Artisans and Machinery, p. 33, he mentions Peel, Strutt and others. Cf. Aikin, ante, p. 136.
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).
438 Gaskell, ibid., p. 17.
439 See infra, p. 197.
440 Manchester Mercury, 5th October 1779.
441 Gaskell, ibid., p. 46-47. Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions (1803)., p. 16.
442 Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’ Petitions (1808), p. 24.
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).
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.
445 French, ibid., p. 90.
446 Infra, pp. 175, 176, 184, 193.
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.
448 Economic Journal, June, 1915.
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).
450 Infra, p. 169.
451 Infra, p. 167.
452 French, ibid., p. 124.
453 Transactions, Manchester Statistical Society, Feb., 1916.
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).
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).
456 French, ibid., pp. 125-126.
457 Brown, ibid., pp. 23-25.
458 The whole matter is discussed at length by French, ibid., ch. xii.
459 French, ibid., p. 158.
460 Kennedy, Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton, p. 322.
461 Transactions, Manchester Statistical Society, 1917.
462 French, ibid., p. 166. Infra, p. 174.
463 Journals of the House of Commons, lxvii., p. 175. Hansard, xxi., p. 1174.
464 J.H.C., lxvii., p. 207.
465 J.H.C., lxvii., pp. 838-839.
466 Infra, pp. 179-182, 189-191.
467 Hansard, xxii. 94.
468 Infra, pp. 192-194. Also in letters quoted by Brown, ibid., pp. 35-38.
469 French, ibid., p. 189. Infra, p. 192.
470 Infra, p. 172.
471 J.H.C., lxvii., pp. 468, 476. Hansard, xxiii., 747-748.
472 French, ibid., pp. 188-189. Infra, pp. 176, 182.
473 Infra, p. 192.
474 French, ibid., pp. 187-188.
475 French, ibid., pp. 196-198.
476 Kennedy, ibid., p. 323.
477 French, ibid., pp. 199-200.
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.
479 French, ibid., pp. 218-222.
480 On 24th January 1861 (A Chronological History of Bolton to 1875).
481 Author of The Cotton Trade of Lancashire (1870) and other similar publications.
482 Account of the ceremony at Hall-i’-th’-Wood.
483 Chronological History of Bolton, 6th October 1862. See infra, p. 197.
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.
485 Aikin, ibid., p. 261.
486 Bigwood, Cotton (1918), p. 185. The figures refer to 1916.
487 Dobson, ibid., p. 112.
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).
489 Report of the Tenth International Cotton Congress, pp. 591, 600, 610, 717.
490 In this connection, of course, Great Britain really means the United Kingdom.
491 They are discussed in Ellison, Cotton Trade of Great Britain, pp. 33-35.
492 Souvenir of Royal Visit to Bolton, pp. 27-28.
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....
494 Brown, The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims, pp. 32-33.
495 J.H.C., lxvii., p. 175.
496 Crompton always spelled Mr. Perceval’s name as in this letter.
497 Crompton’s son.
498 In the margin opposite this answer the words “The Billy” are written. Ante, p. 123.
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.
500 J.H.C., lxvii., pp. 838-839.