The early English cotton industry

by George W. Daniels

I

To combine in a superior spinning-machine, the most important principles of those with which the names of James Hargreaves and Richard Arkwright are associated, is the task accomplished by Samuel Crompton. This machine was the “mule,” and whatever doubt there may be as to the real inventor of the jenny and the rollers, no serious doubt has ever been cast upon the title of Crompton as the inventor of the mule. In the letters printed in the following pages he informs us how, where, why, and when he invented the machine, and some indication is given of its effects upon the development of a new cotton manufacture. In addition, we have a vivid account of his efforts, and of the measures taken, to obtain adequate recompense for his ingenuity as inventor. The letters are so complete in themselves that, in many respects, little needs to be added to them. But after a lapse of one hundred and forty years from the date when Crompton began to invent his machine, it should be possible to place it more adequately in its relations than it was when the letters were written.

To give a detailed account of Crompton’s life and labours is not required, as that task has been excellently performed by his fellow-townsman, Gilbert J. French, and also by his staunch friend, John Kennedy.[355] But, in association with these letters, to give some of the outstanding facts of his career will be considered excusable and even necessary.

When Crompton was born, on the 3rd of December 1753, his parents lived at Firwood Fold, a hamlet in the township of Tonge, in the parish of Bolton, but about a mile outside the town. Soon after his birth they removed to another cottage in the same township, and, when he was about five years old, they took up their residence in a portion of a large picturesque dwelling near by, which Lancashire folk call Hall-i’-th’-Wood.[356] It was here where, according to his own account, as early as 1772, he began his endeavours to discover a method of producing a better quality of yarn than that which he as a weaver had to use.[357] This was two years after Hargreaves had taken out his belated patent for the jenny, and three years after Arkwright had obtained his patent for the rollers. Two or three years before 1772, Crompton is stated to have spun upon a jenny,[358] and, if the statement is correct, it substantiates the view already expressed, that before Hargreaves took out his patent the jenny was in common use.

From “The Hall i’ th’ Wood,” Bolton
A Portfolio of Measured Drawings issued by the Manchester School of Architecture

It was not until 1778, however, that Crompton began to construct the machine, which, known at first by the names of the “Hall-i’-th’ Wood Wheel” and the “Muslin Wheel,” later became known as the “Mule.” The machine was completed in 1779, and until the beginning of 1780 he spun upon it both warp and weft yarn for his own use as a weaver.[359] At this time he devoted himself entirely to spinning, as well he might, seeing that he obtained as much as 14s. per lb. for 40’s yarn, and as much as 25s. for 60’s.[360] These prices indicate the intense demand for yarn of the quality spun by his method. They also explain why during 1780 he “was beset on every side by people of various descriptions from the distance of 60 miles and upwards as well as by my neighbours” anxious to learn his secret.[361] Before the end of the year, convinced that he could not retain it, he consented to make his machine public, on the promise of a liberal subscription, “and received by subscription only so much as built me a new one with 4 spindles more than my first,”[362] which had 48.[363]

The obvious question which suggests itself is, why did not Crompton patent his machine? Some light may be thrown upon this question by considering what was its relation to the jenny on the one hand, and to Arkwright’s machinery on the other, for which, it must be remembered, Arkwright was in possession of full patent rights until 1781. Even the verdict of that year did not legally terminate the rights conferred by his first patent, which continued until 1783. The two bases of Crompton’s “mule” were undoubtedly the principle of the jenny and the principle of the rollers, hence the name. If proof were required that neither the jenny nor Arkwright’s machine produced a completely satisfactory thread for fine work, the demand for Crompton’s yarn in 1780 would supply it. But there was the further consideration that the jenny produced a soft thread which was only really suitable for wefts, while the characteristic feature of the thread spun by Arkwright’s machinery was that it was hard and suitable for warps.

One of the defects of Arkwright’s yarn was that it tended to be uneven, and with the rollers there was no satisfactory method of correcting it, though Arkwright attempted to do so by passing the rovings through several machines before they reached the final stage. But the yarn lacked the “stretch” which was given to it by means of the movable carriage which, as we have seen, was an essential feature of the mechanism of the jenny. Crompton’s method was to pass the roving between rollers and then, by availing himself of the movable carriage, to get the “stretch.” Thus he obtained the advantages of both methods, and the result was a thread of much better quality and finer than that produced previously, and it was not only suitable for wefts, but also for warps, particularly for those required in the manufacture of fine cotton fabrics.[364]

But the mule was more than a combination of the jenny and the rollers; although this in itself was an important development in spinning. As just mentioned, with the mule method of spinning, the roving was first passed between rollers and so partly attenuated. When the required length had passed between them, they stopped, and thus acted like the clasp arrangement on the movable carriage of the jenny. But whereas, in the jenny, the spindles were fixed in the frame, in the mule they were fixed in the movable carriage, which receded from the rollers as the partly attenuated roving was given out, and continued to recede when the rollers stopped, thus attenuating it still more, while at the same time the spindles were revolved to give the required twist to the thread. Then, as in the jenny, the carriage was moved back to its first position, and the spindles were again revolved to wind the spun thread on to them. The important thing about the “stretch” in the machine invented by Crompton was that he “made the spindles recede from the rollers in such a way that the yarn was subjected to the least possible strain until it had been strengthened by twisting or spinning. As a result the yarn produced by the ‘mule’ was more even and smooth, and could be spun thinner or of higher ‘counts’ than had been possible on any earlier machines.”[365]

If ever the labours of anyone have deserved the grant of a patent, surely it was so in the case of Crompton. Even though his machine was based upon the jenny and the rollers, it marked an immense advance in the development of spinning machinery. Usually it is surmised that he did not obtain a patent owing to lack of funds. Probably it was much more due to his lack of the business qualities which Arkwright possessed in abundance, coupled with difficulties connected with the character of the machine, and with the views regarding patents prevalent at the time.

French refers to the fact that, before the machine was made public, Crompton had shown it in confidence to Mr. John Pilkington, a merchant and manufacturer of Bolton, who gave evidence on his behalf before the Committee in 1812, and finds it difficult to explain why he did not advise Crompton to secure a patent and assist him in doing so.[366] As regards Mr. Pilkington, it is almost certain that his action is to be explained on the ground of the prevalent dislike to patents. Apparently, what he advised Crompton to do, was to make his machine public on the understanding that a subscription should be raised to reward him for its invention.[367] In giving this advice, he was acting quite in accordance with the method of reward which then generally commended itself, and, there is reason to think, commended itself to Mr. Pilkington. Reference has already been made to the Committee of Trade in Manchester, which came into existence in 1781,[368] on the dissolution of the committee which had existed since 1774. Whether Mr. Pilkington was a member of the Committee before 1781 it is impossible to say, but he was certainly a member of the Committee appointed in that year, and it was this Committee which was so prominent in opposition to Arkwright’s patent, and which, as we have seen, when it was most actively engaged in this direction, raised a subscription to reward an inventor.[369]

As regards that part of the explanation connected with the character of the mule, it has to be borne in mind that its use involved the use of the rollers, for which Arkwright already held a patent. Only by some arrangement with him could the mule have been openly brought into use, and it is hard to believe that this fact was not recognised, and, seeing that such an arrangement would probably have been in Arkwright’s interest, that it did not influence Mr. Pilkington’s advice.

In 1807 a writer insisted upon the relation between the mule and the rollers and claimed that, at first, the mule was not used publicly without Arkwright’s permission.[370] Evidence that such permission was given in any case is difficult to discover, but apart from it, the statement of Ure that had not Arkwright’s patent been annulled, the mule, as embodying the system of rollers, must have remained in abeyance until the end of its term, seems justified.[371] Unless the view is taken that the verdict in the 1781 trial annulled the patent of 1769 (which was never claimed), this means that the mule could not be freely used until 1783, notwithstanding that verdict, and, as the 1775 patent contained the system of rollers, it would come under legal restriction again during the short period that intervened between the second and third trials in 1785.

But this suggests another point: is it not probable that the appearance of the mule does much to explain the infringements of Arkwright’s patent against which he instituted the actions in 1781? Similarly, does it not do much to explain the energy with which the actions were defended, particularly in view of the fact that Peel’s firm was included among those that subscribed £1, 1s. in order that Crompton would give publicity to his machine? Unless some arrangement had been made, Arkwright would have every inducement to prevent the mule coming into use; on the other side, an opportunity was presented of outwitting Arkwright, and of securing the free use of a machine even superior to that for which he held a patent. Here, it appears, we get the elements of the trouble which culminated in the trial of 1781.

Whatever justification there may have been for the opposition to Arkwright’s patent, the action of those engaged in the cotton industry in regard to Crompton in 1780 was despicable. An inhabitant of Bolton writing in 1799 stated that “the inventor received from the subscription of individuals 100l. for making his invention public; the sum of 200l. he says was promised him, which promise was never fulfilled.”[372] It may have been that Crompton did give his consent on the promise of such a sum: a similar sum was given to Highs in 1771 and suggested for the man Milne in 1782, and may have been regarded as customary.[373] Be this as it may, Crompton did not obtain it in 1780, and his treatment at that time must always remain as a reproach to those concerned.

By nature Crompton was probably a man of rather gloomy temperament. He would probably have been as happy as was possible to him, with a modest competence, living his life in a corner, but there can be little doubt that this incident accentuated what nature had endowed him with, and he brooded over the injustice to the end of his life. Moreover, it is probable that it checked the exercise of his inventive genius. Four or five years later he was experimenting with a carding-machine,[374] which, French tells us, he ultimately destroyed in the belief that it would be purloined.[375] In view of the date of the experiment one cannot help wondering whether it was carried on during the short period in 1785, when Arkwright’s patent rights were temporarily restored, and had as its object the displacement of his carding machinery.

By the time these patent rights were finally annulled considerable improvements had been effected in the mule, and from about that date there followed a great extension of its use. Up to 1783 Mr. Kennedy did not think that Crompton’s machine was in use to the extent of a thousand spindles,[376] and it must be recognised that it was in a crude state of construction when it left his hands. Crompton was not a practical mechanic and his work was performed with the simplest tools. He was acquainted with the jenny, but he informed Mr. Kennedy that, when he constructed his machine, he was unacquainted with Arkwright’s rollers.[377] This may have meant, not that he had not heard of them, but that he had not seen them at work, which is not improbable, seeing that, at that time, they were only in use by Arkwright himself, and by those who had purchased the right to use them. If Crompton had neither heard of them nor seen them, it appears that he would have to be regarded as another discoverer of the roller method. The evidence is too slight, however, to allow a confident assertion on this point. Mr. Kennedy’s statement that Crompton at first used a single pair of rollers, expecting to attenuate the roving by pressure, and on the failure of this method was led to adopt a second pair, one pair revolving at a higher speed than the other, certainly suggests that he had no previous close acquaintance with the roller method.[378] Indeed, one having heard of it, but not having seen it, might well have proceeded on these lines.