The Early English Cotton Industry

[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.

[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 XVIII^e 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.

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

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

State of Several Silk-Throwsters in London and
Macclesfield in the Years 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764

LONDON

Men, women and children 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?

[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).