CONTENTS
| PAGE | |
| [INTRODUCTION] | xix.-xxxi. |
|---|---|
| [I].—The stimulus given to research in economic historyby the discovery of Messrs. M‘Connel’s records andof Crompton’s letters; central position in economichistory occupied by commerce and industry oftextiles; Lancashire cotton industry a graft onthis old stock. | |
| [II].—Beginning of cotton manufacture in Europe;mediæval gilds in textile trades; rise of an organisedjourneyman class in fourteenth century; butin the sixteenth century the centre of the labourproblem was the small master, whose well-beingwas dependent on free flow of capital and credit. | |
| [III].—Industrial conditions in seventeenth-centuryLancashire resembled those in mediæval Florenceand Douai, but differed vitally by the absenceof a monopoly of capital; such a monopoly wasdeveloping in the Merchant Adventurers and othercompanies in Elizabeth’s reign; and led to a crisisin the textile industries in 1586-1587; the expansionof the northern textile industries due to its exceptionalfreedom. | |
| [IV].—The removal of restrictions on the free flow ofcapital a main factor in the Industrial Revolution;illustrations of this from the careers of WilliamRadcliffe, David Dale, and Nathan Meyer Rothschild. | |
| CHAPTER I | |
| [THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 1-29 |
| [I].—The development of the English cotton industrythe classic example of the Industrial Revolutionmovement; its importance as an indication of whatthe transition from the domestic to the factorysystem of organisation involved, 1-2; cotton andcotton-cloth common articles of import before thesixteenth century; “cottons” a prominentLancashire manufacture in the early sixteenthcentury; unsuccessful attempts to regulate the manufacture,2-6; necessity for caution in accepting theview that cotton was not used in the manufactureof Lancashire cloths in the sixteenth century, 7-8. | |
| [II].—Authentic evidence of a considerable manufacture | |
| [III].—Countries from which cotton-wool imported in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries; cotton-yarnand fine cotton-fabrics imported by EastIndia Company, 16; John Barkstead’s schemes(1691) for manufacture of calicoes and muslins andtheir failure, 16-19; opposition of silk and woollentrades to import of dyed or printed calicoes; resultingAct (1700) followed by import of plain calicoeswhich were printed and dyed in England; Act(1721) prohibits their wear or use; opposition toAct from manufacturers of cotton in Dorset, 19-21;increasing prominence of fustians rouses opposition;petitions from Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshireresult in “Manchester Act” (1736); use orwear of printed goods made of linen-warp andcotton-wool declared lawful; progress of cottonmanufacture, 1730-1764, 22-24. | |
| [IV].—Development of Manchester trade, 1650-1750;distinction between smallware, check, and fustianbranches; fustian especially regarded as the cottonmanufacture; some goods made entirely of cottonin first half of eighteenth century but majorityprobably of mixed character; worsted and silkutilised and linen largely manufactured, 25-29. | |
| CHAPTER II | |
| [THE ORGANISATION OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 30-71 |
| [I].—Clothiers in the Northern cloth district; MartinByrom of Manchester (1520); statute (1543) refersto Irish merchants and others who sell linen-yarnand wool on credit in Manchester; petition ofLancashire clothiers against restrictions on middlemen(1577), 30-31; wealthy men engaged inLancashire cloth trade—e.g. the Tippings, Mosleys,Chethams; their charitable bequests; extent oftheir concerns, 32-34; Humphrey Chetham boughtgoods for London market; employed workpeoplein spinning yarn and in weaving and finishing cloth;typical clothier of the domestic system, 35-36;small independent producers not typical workpeoplein Manchester district in early eighteenthcentury; evidence of statutes; changes inorganisation of fustian manufacture; testimonyof Ogden and Guest, 36-39. | |
| [II].—Organisation of smallware trade; manufacturers,undertakers, journeymen, apprentices; changesin first half of eighteenth century; combination ofworkpeople; articles (1747-1753) aim at enforcingapprenticeship and limiting number of apprentices,40-42; increasing price of food and consequentdisturbances; smallware weavers attempt toraise wages; prosecution and submission atLancaster Assizes (1760), 42-45; Lord Mansfield’scharge on combinations in Lancashire (1758);combination of check-weavers; dispute withemployers and strike in Manchester area; the“document”; demand regulation of trade understatute 5 Eliz.; proposals for settlement of disputeby weavers and Mr. Percival; submission andprosecution at Lancaster Assizes (1759); LordMansfield’s comments on Statute of Apprentices;later history of smallware weavers’ combination;economic and social significance of the combinations;their relation to earlier associations and tomodern trade unions, 45-55. | |
| [III].—Distribution of manufacturers and workpeople inManchester area in first half of eighteenth century;connections maintained by “putting out” system,56; trade in raw materials; cotton importedthrough London, Liverpool, Whitehaven, Lancaster;wool reached manufacturers through inland traders;linen yarn spun in England and Scotland, butIreland and the Continent most important sourcesof supply; qualities of yarn, and goods in whichused; cotton merchants and yarn merchants inManchester; foreign trading-connections; Manchestergoods exported to West Indies, Africa, Italy,Germany, North America, Russia, Asiatic Turkey,57-60; inland trade carried on by travelling merchantswith pack-horses; partly displaced from earlyeighteenth century by “riders-out” who solicitedorders; goods forwarded by carriers; developmentof communications; importance of petty-chapmen;links between manufacturing centresand country districts; organisation of their tradeand capital involved; economic developmentduring century preceding great inventions incotton industry, 60-66; tables relating to manufacturers,merchants, crofters, and carriers inManchester area (1772), 67-71. | |
| CHAPTER III | |
| [THE COMING OF MACHINERY: KAY TO ARKWRIGHT] | 72-91 |
| [I].—Modern cotton industry dates from great inventions;inventions relate especially to spinningand preparatory processes, but earliest successfulefforts in weaving; “Dutch” loom introduced intoManchester district in early eighteenth century;John Kay invents “flying-shuttle” (1733); firstused in woollen industry; other inventions of Kay;Robert Kay effects improvement in hand-loom(1760); more complicated loom introduced forfigured goods; discrepancy between spinning andweaving, 72-74; types of spinning-wheel in use—“Jersey”wheel, “Brunswick” wheel; methodsof cleaning and carding cotton; Lewis Paul’spatent for roller-spinning (1738); and for carding(1748); lack of success; carding-machine introducedinto Lancashire (1760), 75-78; need forimproved spinning-machine; Society of Artsoffers reward for invention (1761); inventions ofthe “spinning-jenny” (patented 1770) and the“water-frame” (patented 1769); description ofspinning process by the spinning-wheel, the jenny,and the water-frame; Arkwright erects factory atCromford (1771) and takes out “carding” patent(1775), 79-81; attacks upon new machinery byworkpeople; not fully explained by effects of itsintroduction, 82-83. | |
| [II].—Outbreak of Seven Years’ War ushers in centuryof unrest in England due mainly to political causes;unrest frequently broke out in riots; conditions insixties and seventies of eighteenth century; effortsof Parliament to cope with rising food prices;agitation against trading middlemen; attackmade upon jenny during period of industrialdepression and high prices at close of Seven Years’War; and upon Arkwright’s machinery whenAmerican War of Independence dominated thesituation; workpeople state their case againstmachinery to Parliament; counter-petition bymanufacturers; decision of Parliamentary Committee,83-91. | |
| CHAPTER IV | |
| [THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS] | 92-112 |
| Failure of attempts to obstruct use of Arkwright’smachinery; Act (1774) reduces duty and removesprohibition on printed calicoes, 92-93; patentsof Hargreaves and Arkwright challenged by manufacturers;Hargreaves’ failure to uphold hispatent; his claim to invention of jenny questionedby Guest; his later career, 92-97; Arkwright’scharacteristics; his association with JedediahStrutt; development of his concerns, 97-100;infringements of his patents; fails to secure verdictin law-suit (1781); Arkwright’s Case; requestsParliament to consolidate his patents and continuethem until 1789; opposition of Manchester Committeeof Trade; secures verdict in second law-suit(February, 1785); agitation in Manchester;application for new trial; Thomas Highs’ claim toinvention of roller-spinning; Arkwright losesverdict in third trial (June, 1785); application fornew trial refused (November, 1785); Arkwright’sachievements, 100-112. | |
| CHAPTER V | |
| [THE MULE AND THE RISE OF A NEW COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 113-148 |
| [I].—The work of Samuel Crompton; begins efforts toproduce improved yarn at Hall-i’-th’-Wood (1772);invents “mule” (1779); prices obtained for hisyarn; consents to make machine public, 113-116;character of the mule and its method of spinning;probable reasons why patent not applied for;treatment of Crompton in 1780 and its effects;asserts unacquaintance with Arkwright’s rollers,117-122. | |
| [II].—Mule at first worked by hand in cottages; improvementsin the mule; the “Billy”; mulesupersedes jenny in cotton spinning; and water-framein finer counts, 122-124; application ofwater-power; attempts to invent “self-actor”mule; increase in size and appearance in townfactories, 124-126; early fine cotton-spinners;immigration of Scotsmen; fine spinning andmachine making combined; rise of specialisedfirms, 126-128; fine cotton fabrics made frommule-spun yarn; effect upon Eastern cottonindustry; testimony of John Kennedy; marketsfor fine yarn in late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies; transition in the English cotton-industry;import of cotton from United States,126-132. | |
| [III].—Social effects of the transition; William Radcliffe’saccount; examination of the view that combinedagricultural and industrial occupations prevailedin country districts of Lancashire before the comingof factories; evidence from Manchester Mercury,Aikin, Parliamentary reports; Radcliffe’s accountof the township of Mellor; 1801 census returnsrelating to Mellor; Gaskell’s account of the classesin country districts affected by the transition;yeomen and artisans; improvement in materialposition of artisans and elevation of lower class;many yeomen turned to industry and some achievedsuccess as manufacturers; number engagedin Lancashire textile industry who combinedagricultural and industrial occupations relativelysmall; similar conclusion regarding number ofsmall independent producers, 132-144; improvedposition of weavers reacted upon other trades andattracted labour; the Napoleonic War; mid-eighteenthcentury conditions repeated and intensified;effects upon social and economicdevelopment; and upon the problem of industrialrelationships, 144-148. | |
| CHAPTER VI | |
| [CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON] | 149-165 |
| Crompton takes up residence at Oldhams; beginsspinning business at Bolton (1791); subscription(1802-1803) partial failure owing to outbreak ofwar; extends his business; difficulties of hisposition; attempts to arouse interest in his case,149-153; application to Parliament decided upon;collects information concerning effect of the mulein England, Scotland, and Ireland (1811-1812);petition presented to Parliament and referred toCommittee; period of distress and riots; delayin proceedings; grant of £5000; Crompton’s disappointment,153-158; failure of businessconcerns; subscription raised for annuity (1824);second petition to Parliament; Crompton’s death(1827); memorials of Crompton; improvementsin the mule; its position in the world’s cottonindustry, 158-165. | |
| CHAPTER VII | |
| [LETTERS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON] | 166-194 |
| [ADDITIONAL NOTES] | 195-197 |
| [INDEX] | 199-214 |