COTTON MANUFACTURING.

SINGLE-ACTION JACQUARD LOOM. Frontispiece.

COTTON
MANUFACTURING.

BY

C. P. BROOKS,

Examiner to the City and Guilds of London Institute; Sen. Honours Medallist, Cotton Manufacturing, 1887; Late Lecturer on Cotton Spinning, Weaving, and Designing, at the Blackburn Technical Institutions.

WITH OVER EIGHTY ILLUSTRATIONS.

Third Edition.

BLACKBURN: C. P. BROOKS, THE MOUNT.
LONDON: E. & F. N. SPON, 125 STRAND,
AND
NEW YORK: 12 CORTLANDT STREET.
1892.

[All rights reserved.]

Cloth, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Second Edition.
WEAVING CALCULATIONS.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

A Handbook on all Calculations required in
Weaving and the Preparatory Processes, including
Standard Wage Lists. For further
particulars see the end pages of this book.

PREFACE.

The lack of books relating to the weaving of cotton goods is the motive which has led to the production of this work. Although several admirable books are extant on special branches of textile industry, few, if any, works claim to treat practically of the whole range of processes popularly known as Cotton Manufacturing as at present conducted, and which, at the same time, are within reach of the artisan’s pocket.

This class of work is all the more requisite in consequence of the admirable system of trade education introduced by the City and Guilds of London Institute, whose syllabuses for the subjects of Cotton Manufacturing and Weaving and Pattern Designing are included in this work. It is hoped that the student in either of these subjects may find a handy book of reference in this volume, which goes into explanatory details to as great an extent as space allows.

However, as the author has found, and doubtless many others actively engaged in the industry have discovered, it is becoming a requisite in the mill that those employed there be possessed of something more than “rule of thumb” systems of working—that careful and intelligent research and investigation is necessary to success in every department. The writer trusts that this volume, based on practical experience and on the application of theoretical principles in the industry, may prove of assistance to such.

In addition to chapters on Weaving, in which reference is made to most of the plain and figured fabrics woven in cotton, space is devoted to the preparatory processes, especially to the important one of Sizing; a chapter on Mill Calculations is added, as well as a Glossary of Technical Terms—necessitated by the nomenclature of different districts.

Acknowledgment is made of the assistance rendered by many correspondents, whose suggestions have been, and will be, welcomed. The thanks of the author, and it may be added those of the reader, are due to the many firms who have lent blocks to illustrate and simplify the letterpress. Amongst these may be mentioned Messrs. David Sowden & Sons, Shipley; Butterworth & Dickinson, Burnley; J. H. Stott, Rochdale; Devoge & Co., Manchester; Willan & Mills; Ward Bros.; and W. Dickinson & Sons, Blackburn; whilst especial mention should be made of Messrs. Howard & Bullough, of Accrington, whose sizing machinery has been selected for description; and of Messrs. Hy. Livesey, Limited, Blackburn, whose well-known weaving and preparatory machinery is engraved.

C. P. B.

The Mount, Blackburn,
January, 1888.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In this edition some necessary additions and alterations have been made, especially in the statistical portion of the work; and as the City and Guilds of London Institute have altered the Syllabus of the textile subjects during the few months that have elapsed since the publication of the First Edition, the old Syllabus has been replaced by the new one. Apart from these alterations the book retains its original form, and the author hopes that this issue will obtain from those interested in cotton manufacturing the same kindly appreciation as the former edition.

C. P. B.

April, 1889.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
CHAPTER I.—Introductory.
History, Statistics, Cotton and Cotton Spinning, Cotton Manufacturing[1]
CHAPTER II.—Winding and Warping.
Warp Yarn, Winding, Beaming, Sectional Warping, Ball Warping[21]
CHAPTER III.—Sizing.
Materials, Mixing, Machinery[32]
CHAPTER IV.—Weaving.
Plain Loom, Movements of Loom, Modifications of Loom, Splits[52]
CHAPTER V.—Cotton Cloth.
Varieties, Dimensions, Standard Makes[80]
CHAPTER VI.—Fancy Weaving.
Fancy Weaving by Tappets and Dobby, Analysis of Cloth, Tappets, Dobby, Gauze, Handkerchief Motion[89]
CHAPTER VII.—Jacquard.
Jacquard Cloth, Woven Pile Cloths[118]
CHAPTER VIII.—Drop Boxes.
Drop-Box Looms, Stripes, Checks, Spotting[133]
CHAPTER IX.—Calculations.
Mill Calculations, Yarn Counts, Reeds, Healds, Cost of Cloth, Warping and Sizing Lengths, Wages, Speeds, Engines, Miscellaneous[143]
Syllabus of Technological Subjects[161]
Glossary of Technical Terms[165]
Index[169]

COTTON MANUFACTURING.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY, HISTORY, STATISTICS, COTTON AND COTTON SPINNING, MANUFACTURING.

In the general acceptance of the term, manufacturing is understood to refer to the whole range of processes which convert a raw material into the finished article, but whatever that word may usually signify, in the Cotton Trade it is technical for that department only, which comprises the conversion of cotton yarn into woven fabric, and as such is understood in the ensuing pages.

This department is frequently worked apart from spinning, and the gradual and marked severance of the cotton industry into the two great departments of spinning and manufacturing is a striking feature of this great trade, although the reason of cotton spinning finding so fertile a soil in South Lancashire is no more apparent than the cause of North Lancashire being so favourable to the prosperity of cotton weaving. Probably accidental causes in the early days of the trade had much to do with its future division—the fixing upon a South Lancashire town for the establishment of the first spinning machinist’s works, the fact that the factory system was firmly established in the spinning department before the working of looms in one building was possible, or at any rate advisable, and the existence of large warehouses in North Lancashire for distributing to the hand-loom weavers their materials for use, were probably some of these causes.

The fact of the trade being carried on in two divisions, each in different districts, has its disadvantages, the greatest being that of additional carriage—an extra cost of no inconsiderable amount. To remove this and other disadvantages, many attempts have been made to introduce the lacking department both in the North and South of Lancashire, but such attempts have generally failed to a greater or less extent, mainly in consequence of the incompetence of the hands, or rather the insufficient number of competent ones. Where the majority may excel in weaving, the number of good spinners is generally very small, and vice versâ. Another objection is the disadvantage at which the one party is placed should the production of one part of the industry exceed that of the other, the margin which might serve to provide remunerative occupation for both being at present often unequally distributed, the over-producer taking the lower position. On the contrary, there is no doubt that the skill of the operative is more greatly developed where one district takes up a specific branch of the sub-divided labour, and conducts it in a more fully equipped style, than would be the case were it to be attempted on a small scale.

The known pre-eminence of Manchester as the market town is attributed in part to the necessity for some common centre where a meeting of the representatives of each of these industries could take place to transact the business of the trade. The Exchange of Cottonopolis is that centre. Here, every day of the week, but more especially on the Tuesday and Friday market days from all parts where the cotton trade is conducted, the spinner goes to meet the manufacturer, the manufacturer to meet the merchant, who in turn represents all countries to which our manufactures are exported; and thus the Exchange has become, as it were, the heart of the trade, for on it depends the prosperity of the whole industry, and a stoppage or diminution of the business there paralyses the trade.

The movement of the cotton trade, like that of civilisation, has ever been westward. India is recognised as having been from time immemorial its home, and although there cotton has probably been in use for ages as clothing, there is no evidence to show that the substance was even known in Europe till the tenth, or that its manufacture was commenced in England till the end of the sixteenth, century. At that time the weavers used yarn made from “cotton wool,” as it was called, but which yarn was furnished by the Levant and only used for weft, linen forming the warp. However, the invention of simple hand-spinning apparatus rendered it possible for the ever-increasing demand for cotton yarn to be adequately supplied for a time by English spinsters, and it is chronicled that, in 1701, 1,900,000lb. of raw cotton were imported, although it is improbable that the whole of it was required for conversion into cloth. At the beginning of the eighteenth century such inventions as that of Kay’s fly shuttle so increased the output of the hand loom as to cause for some years a dearth of yarn. This had a good effect in inducing the great era of invention in cotton-spinning machinery, from 1760 to 1780; during which time Hargreaves, Arkwright, Crompton, and many lesser lights brought before the world the results of their labour. These inventions, the importance of which it is not necessary to refer to—their details and the story of their invention having been so frequently dilated upon—these created the cotton manufacture.

The cause which influenced the development of spinning machinery was antithetical to that which now caused an extension of the weaving, which was an excess of the supply of yarn, and for which the only consumers were the loomshops attached to scattered houses on the country side, containing one or two ponderous hand-looms.

It is rather more than a century since the Rev. E. Cartwright, a Kentish minister, first gave his attention to the invention of a power loom, and although his first patent in 1785 was not satisfactory, yet it is to this clergyman’s efforts that the world is indebted for the first power loom. In 1787, he patented such a machine, fitted with spring motion, batten or slay, temples, etc., with the addition of a protector and weft stop motion in an imperfect form. Nine years afterwards Robert Millar, of Glasgow, applied to it the means of picking by plates and shedding by tappets or wipers.

Here all the principles of the modern loom were present, although in very different form, and it is only in details that the loom of a century later presents a different aspect. In 1834 the weft stop motion was patented by Messrs. Ramsbottom and Holt, which was perfected seven years later and patented in its present form by Messrs. J. Bullough and Kenworthy, of Blackburn. To these gentlemen is due the invention of an improved dressing machine called a “tape,” the forerunner of slashing; also the take-up motion for cloth. They, too, patented the loose reed loom and the roller temple; but from records of the time and tales told by the older section of the community in Blackburn to-day, apparently, it is to John Osbaldeston "that the honour is due of breaking the concussion of the loom and inventing an improved temple. He also originated many of those inventive appliances so essential to adapt the power loom for weaving fancy goods, but was not successful in securing any pecuniary advantage to himself, thus illustrating the fact that not every benefactor of his species meets with the reward due to his merits."[1] The creative spirit which carried cotton-spinning machinery to so high a degree of perfection, was directed also to the improvement of the preparatory machinery of the weaving department.

In the hand-loom days each weaver stiffened or dressed his own warp whilst it was in the loom, applying the size with a flat brush. A length of about two yards was sized in this manner, and dried by means of hot irons being passed over the surface of the warp, paper being first laid over the damp twist, or by means of a fan; grease afterwards being applied. In the face of our modern systems this old-fashioned method hardly appears credible. The paste used was a mixture of flour and water, boiled over the fire, and stored in a stone vessel not unlike a swine trough. Probably from this reason the term “sow box,” indicating in our modern “slashers” the size vessel, arose; and etymologists may find some connection between it and the word "sowlin’"—a common expression in Lancashire for a mixture of the nature referred to—of its intended use or application. The necessity for this was removed by the invention of the dressing machine by William Ratcliffe and Thomas Johnston, his assistant, of Stockport, in the year 1803, by which warps were sized before putting them in the loom. This dressing machine consisted of little more than a frame with rollers to carry the warp from two back beams, one at each end, to the centre where the weaver’s beam was fixed, whilst between were arranged brushes traversing to and fro by means of rods actuated from a crank in the so-called crank dressing machine, to apply the “sow” or size. In addition there was a wooden fan to dry the warp, which passed through the healds and reed also.

Dressing was in vogue until 1830 without any competitive system, but soon after this the tape frame, producing five times more work than the dressing machine, was invented, and continued in use until in an improved form—delivering the yarn direct to the weaver’s beam, and with still further capacity for large turnout of work—it under the name of the “slasher” takes the lead among all sizing systems now current, which important position is attributable to a great extent to the speed and to the good quality of the turn off.

To James Bullough, a native of Westhoughton (though from early life a resident of Blackburn), may be credited this last invention, which brought in its train the beam-warping frame, and found increased employment for the winding frame invented early in the century by the senior Robert Railton.

The factory system was deeply rooted in the spinning department before we hear of any attempt at gathering a large number of looms under one roof. Arkwright had a spinning mill as early as 1771, but the first successful weaving shed was built in Glasgow in 1801 by Mr. Monteith, and contained 200 looms; previously, in 1790, Messrs. Grimshaw partially erected one at Knot Mills, near Manchester, which was burnt to the ground by a mob of hand-loom weavers. In 1813, we learn of 2400 power looms being in use in the United Kingdom. Since then the number of factories has rapidly increased, and excepting for the effects of occasional deterrent influences, such as war and famine, the cotton manufacture has steadily prospered and extended. 250,000 hand-loom weavers, and 30,000 power-loom weavers were engaged in all weaving trades of all materials in 1833. Now, in 1887, 250,000 power-loom weavers are engaged in the cotton industry alone; while in most districts a hand loom is a curiosity as a relic of the past. The contrast is great, more especially so when it is remembered that during the same period the trade has been established in many foreign countries where nothing but handicraft skill was available at the early part of the period, but where now the number of mules and looms has grown, and is growing, so rapidly as to create out of former consumers important competitors in the export trade.

The recent history of cotton manufacturing has been marked by little which has caused extensive alterations in its methods.

The extensive and well-organised association of the operatives for the protection of their position in relation to the masters, has become a power, as shown by the great strike of 1878, when the operatives were able to resist the masters for a period of nine weeks, and by the increasing influence of the employés in all trade questions. The more important Parliamentary proceedings relating to the cotton trade during the time of its being conducted on the factory system are, of course, the Factory Acts. The first important legislative enactment was the Factory Act of 1833. By this no young person under 18 was allowed to work before 5.30 a.m. or later than 8.30 p.m., nor more than 12 hours per day, although 3 hours extra might be worked per week to make up for lost time. Children had to be 9 years old, and had not to work more than 48 hours per week till 11 years of age, having 2 hours’ schooling per day to be provided by the employer. In 1844, females over 18 were granted the same privileges as young persons, and children were allowed to work 6-1/2 hours per day if only 8 years old. Work had to cease at 4.30 on Saturday. In 1846, the hours of labour were reduced to 11 per day, and 63 per week for children, young persons, and females. Only minor alterations were made till 1874, when the Ten Hours’ Bill was passed, limiting work to 10 hours per day, and 6-1/2 on Saturday. In 1878, all the previous Acts were repealed and a new one made which is still in force, and requires that for young persons and females the hours be limited to 10 per day, and 56-1/2 per week; that no child be employed at all under 10 years of age, or under the Second Educational Standard; and only half-time below 13 unless the Fourth Standard of Elementary Education shall have been passed, failing which the limit is 14 years of age. Males and females under 18 are deemed young persons, and all young persons and females possess certain advantages over the male workers, which rights are protected by Government inspectors. The Bill was a lengthy one, and contains many restrictions as to holidays, painting and cleaning, reports of accidents, fencing machinery, and school attendance, for the benefit of the employé.

The Limited Liability Act of 1862 gave great facilities for conducting business by companies of more than seven members, whose liability in case of a collapse does not exceed the amount promised on formation—a scheme inaugurated for the benefit of the working classes, but which has been misapplied in many instances.

The Employers’ Liability Act of 1880 gives facilities for recompense to the workmen for accident or injury sustained by the negligence of the employer or his deputies, such liability being incurred under certain conditions only, and being restricted to the amount of three years’ salary.

The Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 has caused a reaction in the tendency towards short lengths and false description, by making it a penal offence to falsely mark goods either in respect to dimension, quality, counts, or place of manufacture.

In addition to these, the variation of tariff charges, notably the reduction of Indian tariffs, the returns and reports to Parliament of statistical information, the Inquiry Commissions, and some few small enactments, all have their influence in a greater or lesser degree on the industry.

The cotton goods of a standard make at the commencement of this century comprised printer, muslins, corduroys, fustians, sheetings, shirtings, twills, ginghams. In 1830, records give madapollams, tanjibs, domestics, jacconets, gauze leno, figured muslin, splits, and velveteens. Later, in 1846, there are chronicled lawns, books, nainsooks, figured counterpanes; and, in 1864, brilliante, chambrey, blue mottle, satin checks, in addition to previously mentioned goods, from which list the absence of dhooties, Turkey reds, Turkish towels, and cloths of later origin will be noted.

A comparison of the position of the cotton trade to-day with what it was some thirty years ago shows a decided change in one respect—i.e., in the firms conducting the business. Many of the old private firms have disappeared and their places been taken by companies, while, for many years back, the tendency has appeared to be in favour of carrying on the trade by the co-operation of small capitalists. Some of these companies are not limited, being formed by a few speculative operatives who invest the savings of a frugal lifetime in the mill concern, to which they also devote their labour, being satisfied at the year’s end if they have drawn an ordinary wage, week by week, while the capital has been added to, and increased. Manufacturing, in consequence of the comparatively smaller amount of capital required, is generally selected for the above system.

To these establishments many of the wealthy manufacturers of North Lancashire can trace the beginning of their prosperity. By far the greater number of these companies, however, especially in spinning, are on the limited liability principle, and their increasing number shows how valued, as an investment, such companies are; so much so that it appears not unlikely, what with the narrowing margins and increased competition, that the trade will, at no very distant period, cease to be a means of making the wealthy cotton lord, and, as the trade falls into the hands of gigantic companies, become merely a bank, with a small rate of interest, in which the wealth of the smaller Lancashire capitalists will be locked up.

This carries our thoughts to another branch of the subject—the importance of the trade with regard to the capital invested in it, a sum which cannot fall short of seventy-five million pounds even in Great Britain alone, without taking the allied industries of machine-making, dyeing, calico printing, lace and hosiery manufacturing into account. By dipping into calculation, taking the spindles at the figure of 17s. 6d. each, and the looms at £16, the amount invested in plant will touch £45,000,000, and adding to this a floating capital of £30,000,000, fully which will be necessary to the trade in importing the raw material, converting it into fabric and distributing the same to the world, a total sum is obtained which indicates what is at stake in this mighty industry.