III

To a brief consideration of certain other important changes that took place during the period, a classic passage written by William Radcliffe forms a useful introduction: “From the year 1770 to 1788 a complete change had gradually been effected in the spinning of yarns. That of wool had disappeared altogether, and that of linen was also nearly gone; cotton, cotton, cotton was become the almost universal material for employment. The hand wheels, with the exception of one establishment, were all thrown into lumber-rooms, the yarn was all spun on common jennies, the carding for all numbers up to 40 hanks in the pound was done on carding-engines; but the finer numbers of 60 to 80 were still carded by hand, it being a general opinion at that time that machine-carding would never answer for fine numbers. In weaving no great alteration had taken place during these eighteen years save the introduction of the fly-shuttle, a change in the woollen looms to fustians and calico, and the linen nearly gone, except the few fine fabrics in which there was a mixture of cotton. To the best of my recollection there was no increase of looms during this period—but rather a decrease.... But the mule-twist now coming into vogue, for the warp, as well as weft, added to the water-twist and common jenny yarns, with an increasing demand for every fabric the loom could produce, put all hands in request of every age and description. The fabrics made from wool or linen vanished, while the old loom-shops being insufficient, every lumber room, even old barns, cart-houses, and outbuildings of any description were repaired, windows broke through old blank walls and all fitted up for loom-shops. This source of making room being at length exhausted, new weavers’ cottages with loom-shops rose up in every direction; all immediately filled, and when in full work the weekly circulation of money, as the price of labour only, rose to five times the amount ever before experienced in this subdivision, every family bringing home weekly 40, 60, 80, 100, or even 120 shillings per week!!!”[414]

In this passage the transition from the use of the hand-wheel in spinning, and the manufacture of woollen, linen, and mixed goods, to the use of the inventions, and the manufacture of all kinds of cotton goods is vividly described. There is abundant evidence, in addition to that given by Radcliffe, of the prosperity of the weavers as a consequence of the changes,[415] but this is a matter which must be considered along with another, especially as much turns upon them in estimating the social consequences of the transition.

Reference has already been made to the view that in the Lancashire textile industry, prior to this transition, the operations were performed by more or less independent producers and some evidence was presented to the contrary. But in addition to this view there is another—indeed, between the two there is a close connection—that these producers were at least part-time agriculturalists engaged in cultivating small farms.[416] Mainly this view has been based upon another passage by Radcliffe, and it has also been influenced, no doubt, by Defoe’s picturesque account of a number of small clothiers in Yorkshire.[417]

Just as there is nothing in the petitions presented to Parliament from Lancashire in the eighteenth century to support the independent-producer view, but much that suggests the contrary, so as regards the small-farmer view: it is difficult to imagine independent producers and small farmers striving to form themselves into trade unions. At the same time Radcliffe’s statement cannot be dismissed as baseless. It is rather a question as to how far his description of the township of Mellor is to be regarded as of general application, and as to how much should be deduced from it regarding the extent to which industrial and agricultural occupations were associated. Evidence to show that such association did exist may be found in the fairly frequent advertisements in The Manchester Mercury of small farms, with loom-houses, suitable for weavers. Aikin, whose book was published in 1795, refers to the size of farms in the parish of Middleton as “from twenty to thirty acres, which are occupied mostly by weavers, who alternately engage themselves in the pursuits of husbandry and the more lucrative one of the shuttle,” and again, in the neighbouring parish of Rochdale, “The farms, being generally occupied by manufacturers, are small, seldom exceeding 70l. per annum.”[418] In Lancashire, he states, “the more general size of farms is from 50 down to 20 acres, or even as much only as will keep a horse or a cow,” and further, “The yeomanry, formerly numerous and respectable, have generally diminished of late, many of them having entered into trade: but in their stead, a number of small proprietors have been introduced, whose chief subsistence depends upon manufactures, but who have purchased land round their houses, which they cultivate by way of convenience and variety.”[419]

Evidence regarding the association of industrial and agricultural occupations continues until beyond the first quarter of the nineteenth century. At that time it could be stated that “in Lancashire there appears to be among the hand-loom weavers two classes almost wholly distinct from each other; the one, who though they take in work in their own houses or cellars, are congregated in the large manufacturing towns; and the other, scattered in small hamlets, or single houses, in various districts throughout the manufacturing county.... It appears that persons of this description, for many years past, have been occupiers of small farms of a few acres, which they have held at high rents; and combining the business of a hand-loom weaver, with that of a working farmer, have assisted to raise the rent of their land from the profits of their loom.”[420]

In view of this mass of evidence, statements which imply that, in the eighteenth century, the Lancashire textile industry was carried on by part-time industrialists would seem to have solid foundation. Nevertheless, even more cautious statements require considerable qualification. In the first place, for obvious reasons, we must rule out the great majority of those engaged in the industry who lived in Manchester and its immediate neighbourhood, and also those in the other centres of congregated population.[421] These were evidently in a similar position to the first class mentioned in the above quotation. In the eighteenth century, as in the early nineteenth, those who were associated with both agriculture and industry have to be sought in country districts such as that to which Radcliffe refers.

But a careful reading of what Radcliffe says will show that, even in Mellor, a distinction has to be drawn between the small farmers who “got their rent partly in some branch of trade, such as weaving woollen, linen, or cotton,” and the cottagers who “were employed entirely in this manner, except for a few weeks in the harvest.” Evidently the members of the latter class could not be regarded as agriculturalists in any reasonable sense, although, apparently, they had small gardens attached to their cottages. What proportion the cottagers bore to the small farmers it is impossible to say with certainty, but it seems extremely probable that they were in a considerable majority.

In 1795 Aikin described Mellor as having “a chapel of the Church of England round which are a few straggling houses,”[422] but probably this description referred only to the centre of the township. When the 1801 census was taken the following particulars were collected:—the township consisted of 270 houses of which 19 were uninhabited, and the remainder contained 301 families. It had a population of 1670 (805 males and 865 females), of whom 68 were employed chiefly in agriculture and 945 chiefly in trade, manufactures or handicraft, leaving 657 not included in these two classes.[423] Between 1770 (the date mentioned by Radcliffe) and 1801 population generally had increased, though it is hardly likely that it would have increased much in a place like Mellor; indeed, the fact that, at the latter date, there were 19 houses uninhabited strongly suggests that within a considerable time it had neither increased nor decreased to any extent. If it can be assumed that the number of families was the same in 1770 as in 1801, then allowing 55 of these to have been farmer families (Radcliffe’s fifty or sixty), 246 families would be left as otherwise occupied: roughly a proportion of 9 to 2. Even allowing for a considerable increase in the number of families by 1801, it appears that in 1770 the farmer families must have been greatly outnumbered by the others.

Though the description of the parish of Middleton by Aikin is not so picturesque as the description of the township of Mellor by Radcliffe, it is not improbable, without any great distortion of facts, that one might be used for the other, and no doubt for other places as well. In some cases (as in the six or seven mentioned by Radcliffe in Mellor) it appears that of the two occupations the agricultural may have been the more prominent, and that in others they were more equal. If French’s statement relating to Bolton in 1753 may be accepted as correct, this was evidently the case in the country districts in the neighbourhood of that town at that time.[424] Even in cases where industrial activities were of least importance, taking into account the size of farms and other evidence, there can be little doubt that a spinning-wheel was to be found in the farm-houses.[425] Starting from these, we appear to get a gradation with industrial activities becoming more and more important, until we reach the cottagers mentioned by Radcliffe, who can hardly be regarded as engaged in agricultural activities at all. In the country districts it was these cottagers, and the small farmers of the type to which he refers, who constituted the main supply of manufacturing labour.

This view is substantiated in the writings of Dr. Gaskell, which are of particular importance in regard to the question under consideration, as expressing the views of a man who intensely disliked the factory system, and who naturally was inclined to present the system which it displaced in as favourable a light as possible.[426]

He distinguished between three classes in the country districts who were affected by the transition in industry: the yeomen or small freeholders who apparently were entirely engaged in agriculture; a superior class of artisans, primarily engaged in manufacturing, but who commonly rented some land as an accessory; a secondary or inferior class of artisans entirely dependent upon manufacturing.[427]

Clearly, the members of this second class correspond to Radcliffe’s small farmers, and the members of the third to his cottagers. According to Gaskell, the yeomen were anything but an enterprising class; they cultivated their land as had their forefathers and regarded innovation as rank heresy, with the result that, in the agricultural changes of the eighteenth century which accompanied the industrial changes, they failed to keep pace with the march of events.[428] The farming of the second class was slovenly and definitely subordinate to their industrial activities; its importance in Gaskell’s view was that it gave to the members of the class opportunity for a healthy employment and raised them above the rank of mere labourers, and, as generally the weavers had much spare time on their hands owing to irregularity of work, it is evident that it would be useful in providing a subsidiary occupation.[429] The members of the third class, who merely had a garden, were especially prone to suffer from the scarcity of yarn and irregularity of work, and on occasion they underwent severe privation, the uncertainty of their livelihood engendering lack of forethought, improvidence, and carelessness in expenditure.[430]

With the coming of the jenny and the mule the circumstances of the two latter classes were changed, as without extra outlay of capital more cloth could be produced by their looms, and consequently they derived great benefit from the inventions. Indeed, Gaskell asserts that a material improvement had been gradually taking place in their position during the half-century preceding the application of steam-power to weaving,[431] not so much because of increased payment for their labour, as because of a constantly increasing supply of yarn, which enabled them to turn out a greater and more regular quantity of cloth.[432]

One of the first effects of the improvement was to cause the superior class of artisans to abandon their agricultural activities, owing to the fact that their labour with the loom had become so much more profitable. Gaskell fully recognised this material advance, but considered that it was gained at the expense of a lowered status; previously the members of this class had been on a level with the yeoman; by the change they had become labourers.[433] The effect upon the inferior class of artisans was that they were at once elevated to a position of equality with the superior class, and though Gaskell recognised that the amalgamation raised their general character as a body, and gave them community of interest and feeling, the change did not favourably impress him.[434] Whatever else Gaskell may have been, he was certainly not a strong believer in the elimination of class distinctions.

But the effects of these developments in industry extended to the yeomen. Previously, although the members of this class had not been noted for their efficiency in farming, they had been able to maintain their position owing to the still less efficiency of the farmer-manufacturers who had served them as a bulwark, and, as the latter disappeared from agriculture, and as new methods and a new type of cultivator appeared, the yeomen lost the markets they had previously supplied.

At this stage many of the yeomen turned their attention to the new machines which were being introduced into industry and purchased them, in five-sevenths of the cases having to borrow money, generally on mortgage. But as a result, for a time, a large quantity of yarn was produced in old farm-houses. Difficulties soon arose, owing, on the one hand, to the erection of factories where the machinery was driven by water-power, and, on the other, to the rapid improvements in machinery.[435] In competition with the factories, the profits of those who had embarked on spinning in the farm-houses decreased, and through the other cause, the latest jenny bought in one year could hardly produce enough yarn in the following year to repay the outlay. Consequently, they were compelled to dispose of the machine or to arrange an exchange with a maker on disadvantageous terms. In Gaskell’s opinion the number of machines thus thrown back into the market facilitated the growth of factories. Although a machine was obsolete before a domestic spinner had time to cover the first cost, yet, worked along with others and driven by water-power, such a machine was a profitable investment. Thus many of the members of the yeomen class lost their position in agriculture, and later became incapable of maintaining their position in industry. But it was not the case with all of them. A few, Gaskell states, shook off their slothful habits of body and mind and were successful in their new sphere of activity, several of the most eminently successful of the steam manufacturers springing from this class.[436]

This account of one aspect of the transition in industry, coming from a man whose writings were a vigorous attack upon the system that emerged, and corroborated as it is by much independent evidence, may, in general outline, be accepted as undoubtedly trustworthy. But its chief importance for our purpose is the indication it gives of the extent to which those engaged in the textile industries in the country districts in the eighteenth century were connected with agriculture, and also in its giving at least part of the explanation of the break-down of the connection during the transition period. Apparently the principal link was constituted by those whom Gaskell regarded as a superior class of artisans, and whom Radcliffe called small-farmers. Of the two it is fairly evident that Gaskell’s designation was the more appropriate. Whether this class was absolutely a large number it is impossible to say: possibly what has been suggested regarding Mellor may give some indication of its relative number in the country districts. But when we take into account the total number engaged in the Lancashire textile industry in the towns and in the country districts, the conclusion that the relative number of part-time agriculturalists was small would seem to have abundant justification. They can hardly be regarded as the typical workpeople.

But there is another question: To what extent were those in the country districts independent producers, and thus different from those in the towns, whose position in this respect has already been considered? That there may have been some independent producers is probably true,[437] but there is little reason to think that the number was large. Gaskell states that “the yarn ... which was wanted by the weaver was received or delivered by agents who travelled for wholesale houses or depôts were established in particular neighbourhoods where he could call weekly.”[438] This is clearly the “putting-out” system which has been described, and under this system, although the workpeople worked in their own houses they could not be regarded as independent producers.

The agents mentioned by Gaskell were evidently employees of the manufacturers, but, as frequent advertisements show, there were also men in the country districts who described themselves as “putters-out,” and others, who apparently differed very little from them, who were ready to undertake work on commission. Then there were the country fustian manufacturers, some of whom, indeed, probably occupied a position little different from the others, as they too sometimes declared themselves ready to make goods on commission.[439] The relation of these men to the workpeople is indicated in the statement of one of them that he had “a quantity of approved weavers at command.”[440] In the country districts of Lancashire in the eighteenth century there is ample reason for saying that the great majority of workpeople in the textile industry were employed by these various types of men. Generally their position was little, if any, different from the position of the workpeople in the towns—indeed, as we have seen, the smallware weavers’ combination in 1758 extended to country districts such as Ashton and Royton.

In view of the evidence, it can safely be said that among the first effects of the developments in the Lancashire textile industry in the eighteenth century was an improvement in the position of the workpeople, especially of the weavers, and that, after the cancellation of Arkwright’s patent, and the fuller utilisation of the mule, there was a great burst of prosperity. As is well known, this period of prosperity was not of long duration; soon the weavers were plunged into a longer period of distress. Weavers formerly engaged in other branches of trade turned to cotton.[441] Great numbers of agricultural labourers became weavers, with the effect of raising wages in their former occupation.[442] But in addition, and far more important, was the war, as a consequence of which the natural expansion of markets was impeded and the course of trade marked by violent fluctuations and crises. During this period even the mule-spinners, whose career as the “aristocracy” of labour in the cotton trade had now commenced, had to undergo severe privation, but their higher skill and superior organisation prevented them from sinking into the depths of distress which was the lot of the weavers.[443]

The transition in the cotton industry is, of course, only part of that general transition in industry and agriculture in England which is now concisely known as the Industrial Revolution, and sometimes the last decades of the eighteenth and the early decades of the nineteenth centuries are taken to cover the period of the transition. That the movement was proceeding apace in these years there can be no doubt, but it would be erroneous to regard what happened then as more than an acceleration of what had been taking place before. At any rate, so far as the cotton industry is concerned, from the moment that we can take hold of anything that may be called a cotton industry a continuous development can be traced in all directions. Even the inventions of the jenny and the water-frame, when viewed in their right relations, are seen as the outcome of efforts extending over more than thirty years preceding their appearance, and come as something expected, rather than as something sudden and unique.

Frequently, and with much justification, the view is taken of this transition period, particularly of the last decade of the eighteenth and the first decades of the nineteenth centuries, that it was a time of great distress and of social retrogression for a large part of the population, and considerable stress is laid upon the economic movement as a cause. A priori the idea that an economic movement such as we have been considering, which was characterised on the one hand by a greater power of production, and on the other by an expanding economic unity could, of itself, be a cause of widespread distress and of social retrogression is a hard one to accept. Moreover, when the previous position in Lancashire and the effects the economic movement was having upon it are taken into account, there seems no good reason why it should be accepted for this period. The movement, in its early stages, was undoubtedly much more constructive than destructive. An explanation of what transpired later has to be sought in causes which distorted the economic movement, and, especially during that portion of the period mentioned, such causes are not far to seek.

Attention has been drawn to the unrest that prevailed in the country during the period from the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War to beyond the conclusion of the American War, and from what has obtained in similar circumstances, both before and since, that the fundamental cause was to be found in the wars can hardly be doubted. Indeed, as we have seen, notwithstanding much confused thinking, the fact was occasionally recognised at the time.

In 1793, when the war commenced which was destined to continue almost without intermission for nearly a quarter of a century, a similar cause at once began to operate, but with greater intensity, owing to the economic changes which had already taken place, and which were revealing their most striking results at that time. In considering this stage of the Industrial Revolution it must be borne in mind that, as a result of the war, the economic changes were probably intensified and concentrated in this country to an extent they would not have been in time of peace; on the other hand, movements which were making for social development were checked by the exercise of political power. It is here where we get the connection between the economic movement and the social retrogression and evils of the time. In the circumstances created by the war, anything which appeared to obstruct the working of the economic or political machinery was not to be tolerated, and legislation was invoked to clear away possible impediments. In the nature of the case, the legislation was an expression of the views of those in whose hands lay political power—class legislation of which the Combination Acts and the General Enclosure Act are prominent examples.[444]

The Napoleonic War thus becomes the dominant factor in the social and economic history of the later Industrial Revolution period. Owing to its occurrence, the economic movement in this country was distorted, and the increased power of production, instead of improving the material welfare of the community, had to be devoted to the prosecution of the war; social development was thwarted and thrown back; and the relationships between employers and workpeople, with which the latter, in the middle of the eighteenth century, in Lancashire, had shown their dissatisfaction and were striving through combination to modify, were continued and solidified, and left as a heritage to the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.

In view of the growth and activity of trade unions during the eighteenth century, is it too much to say that, had not the war broken out, and had they been allowed to develop as they certainly were developing, problems of industrial relationships which have yet to be solved would have been faced a century ago, and possibly solutions found which would have meant that the present system would have been a considerable modification on that which now exists? However this may be, it may be said that the social retrogression and evils which mark the Industrial Revolution period are only in a very secondary sense to be attributed to the economic movement: the primary cause is to be found in the war in which the country was engaged.

CHAPTER VI
CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON

It now remains to follow the fortunes of Samuel Crompton to the time when he wrote the following letters. Some time before 1785 he left Hall-i’-th’-Wood and went to live at Oldhams, in the township of Sharples, about three miles north of Bolton, where he combined the business of a small farmer with that of a spinner.[445]

During his residence at this place, Robert Peel is said to have visited him with the object of persuading him to enter his employment, or even to become a partner with him. French suggests that the main reason for Crompton’s refusal was a dislike of Peel, which was maintained to the end of his life. This may have been the case, of course, but his references to Sir Robert (as he then was) in the following letters do not betray any animosity, and Peel certainly appears to have exerted himself on his behalf.[446] In the last year of his residence at Oldhams, Crompton occupied the office of overseer of the poor for the township of Sharples, a fact in which there is nothing surprising. Crompton can only be regarded as a working man, but that he had fully utilised his limited opportunities of education, his letters and other attainments show.[447]

In 1791 he removed to a house in King Street, Bolton, where in the attics, and in those of the two adjoining houses, he carried on his spinning business, in which he was assisted by two of his sons. One of the strongest proofs that Crompton was not a man of business is that, at this time, he did not establish himself as a successful spinner, as did others with whom he was acquainted. It can hardly have been lack of capital which prevented him, for he must have possessed as much as his friend John Kennedy, who, in this very year, began in business with James M‘Connel, and it is known that between them they only raised £250.[448]

The next interesting event in Crompton’s career, so far as the following letters are concerned, occurred in 1802-1803, and, as regards this event, French stands in need of considerable correction. He informs us that “In 1800 some gentlemen of Manchester, sensible that Mr. Crompton had been ill used and neglected, agreed without his previous knowledge to promote a subscription on such a scale as would result in a substantial reward for his labours, a provision for his family, and a sufficient security for his comfort during life. The principal promoters of this scheme were Mr. George Lee and Mr. Kennedy.”[449]

As a matter of fact, this subscription was only in its initial stages at the very end of 1802, and, as Crompton states, must have just got under way[450] when the war broke out again in May, 1803, after a short pause of little more than eighteen months. Further, if French’s suggestion is that Crompton did not know of the subscription until after it was launched, the necessary correction is supplied in one of the letters, in which we see that Crompton himself was active in striving to make it a success.[451]

As a consequence of French’s imperfect knowledge of the exact time of the subscription, the explanation which he offers of the comparatively small sum raised is clearly wide of the mark: “But this hopeful scheme, generous and noble in its intention, followed the usual course of Crompton’s evil fortune. Before it could be carried out the country was suffering from a failure in the crops and consequent high price of food, a lamentable war broke out, the horrors of the French Revolution approached their crisis, trade was all but extinguished—and the result was a sum quite inadequate to the proposed purpose or to his deserts.”[452]

It is true that the year 1800 was a terrible year, with high food prices, as was the greater part of the next year, but before the end food prices had fallen considerably, and the cotton trade was entering upon somewhat of a boom, the spinning branch was increasing, and in the following summer a large number of new factories were erected in Manchester.[453] Thus the time could not have been more propitious for the promotion of the subscription, and it is more than probable that a far larger sum than the £300 to £400 which Crompton mentions would have been raised had not, as he says, the war broken out again.

Although French’s explanation of the comparative failure of the subscription is incorrect, his comment on the ill fortune which dogged Crompton’s footsteps may be agreed with. At the same time, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the amount of the subscription would have reached the £5000 which he obtained by Parliamentary grant in 1812. If anything like that amount had been raised, one fears that the application to Parliament nine years later might not have been so well supported, and a perusal of the letters may also suggest the fear that, even if such had been the case, it might have fallen upon deaf ears so far as Parliament was concerned.

Shortly after Crompton received the proceeds of the subscription, he used a portion to extend his business of spinning and weaving, renting the top floor of a factory, where he employed three men, one woman and six children.[454] One sore complaint that he had to make was the difficulty he experienced in keeping his workpeople, owing to inducements to leave him offered by those who expected to learn something from them. In later years he actually attributed his lack of success in the spinning business to this fact, and stated that on account of it he was obliged for years to give up spinning.[455] French goes so far as to say that one of Crompton’s sons was unable to resist inducements of this character and in consequence left his father’s service.[456] There is nothing intrinsically improbable in the statement, for one thing of which there does appear to be ample evidence is that whatever troubles Crompton had to contend with from outsiders during his career, he did not receive much support from his own kindred in bearing them. In view of Crompton’s character, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the somewhat persistent efforts to obtain recompense adequate to his services were due more to them than to himself.

In 1807, he wrote to Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, with the object of interesting him in his case, and suggested that it might be brought before the King and his ministers.[457] Owing probably to the letter having been wrongly addressed, it reached the Society of Arts, and was considered by the committee, when the secretary was instructed to send a reply, but for some reason no reply reached Crompton, which led him to believe that he had been slighted. It appears that, in some way, this fact must have become known, and the matter was reconsidered in March, 1811, when an answer was sent, which drew from Crompton a tart rejoinder, in reply to which he was informed that the Society of Arts was unable to do anything, as it did not possess funds to give large rewards, although, actually, Crompton had not applied to the Society for a reward. The whole incident was unfortunate, and undoubtedly did much further to embitter him, convinced as he already was that the world was against him.[458]

At this time Crompton, although by no means wealthy, according to his standard of living, was in fairly easy circumstances, and “had even lent a few hundred pounds,” but French suggests that he was anxious about the future position of his family.[459] However this may have been, it is clear that, shortly after the incident with the Society of Arts had terminated, a move was made which, in the next year, resulted in the application to Parliament for financial recognition of his services as inventor. Of the negotiations in London immediately preceding the grant eventually made to him a clear account is given in the following letters.

With a view to the application, he collected information of the extent to which the mule was used and of its effects upon the cotton industry in England, Scotland and Ireland, and on the basis of this information a petition was prepared for presentation to Parliament.[460] To ensure its being influentially signed, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lee again exerted themselves whole-heartedly, and several references to the matter appear in the correspondence of M‘Connel & Kennedy with their agent and customers in Scotland in the last days of 1811 and the first days of 1812.

When the 1803 subscription was launched the conditions were favourable, but the same cannot be said of this time. From the recommencement of the war in the spring of 1803, trade, at the best, had run an unsteady course. During the intervening period the Napoleonic decrees and the British Orders in Council had come into operation, and had created friction between this country and the United States, which, constantly growing more intense, led to retaliatory measures on the other side of the Atlantic, and in 1812 to war with England. Only in 1809 and in the early part of 1810 was there an active trade during the period, and this burst of activity followed upon a terrible period of distress in 1808, when, with the district in a state of insurrection, a petition signed by 50,000 persons was presented from Manchester, and another from Bolton signed by 30,000, praying that peace negotiations might be opened.

The succeeding trade boom is partly to be explained by a frenzy of speculative shipments to South America, and when it came to an end it was followed by a hurricane of bankruptcies which swept over England and Scotland, reached Ireland, and caused anxious concern in the United States. The situation, bad though it was in 1808, was even worse in the latter part of 1810 and in 1811 and during the greater part of 1812. In 1811, the Luddite risings began in the hosiery districts of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, and early in 1812 extended to Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire. In April of the latter year Manchester was in a state of rebellion. In one riot an attack was made upon the Exchange; in another, a few days later, upon the Shudehill market; and, on both occasions, it was considered necessary to call out the military to deal with the rioters. In the Shudehill riot, however, force was supplemented by the fixing of a maximum price for potatoes, which had to be sold in small quantities.[461]

It was in such circumstances, not to mention the drain of a war which had continued almost uninterruptedly for nearly twenty years, that Crompton’s petition was prepared and presented, and a grant of £5000 made to him. In view of the sums granted to others who had conferred benefits on the nation by their ingenuity, this amount was certainly paltry, but perhaps it should be placed to the credit of those concerned that his appeal received the attention it did.

The parliamentary proceedings extended from 5th March to 25th June. French states that Crompton proceeded to London in February, but, as his letters show, he was already there in the previous month.[462] It was not until 5th March that the matter came before the House of Commons, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by command of the Prince Regent, acquainted the House that His Royal Highness, having been informed of the contents of Crompton’s petition, recommended it to the consideration of the House.

On this occasion no debate took place, nor evidently on any other until 24th June, when the grant was moved. On the first occasion the petition was referred to a Committee with power to send for persons, papers and records.[463] The next occasion was on 18th March, when the Committee was instructed to submit to the House minutes of evidence concerning the case, and any observations upon it. A striking comment upon the conditions of the time is that on the very same page of the Journals on which this record appears,[464] there is also a petition from Bolton—Crompton’s home—pointing out that the people in that neighbourhood were “so nearly to actual starvation that they think it would be highly imprudent any longer to delay communicating their situation to the House”; that the manufacturers had been reduced to the necessity of working for one-fourth of what they obtained before the commencement of the war with France; and that the necessaries of life had nearly doubled in price. Convinced that the war was the immediate cause of their distress, they asked for parliamentary reform on the ground that “if the house consisted of representatives of the people only, it would not for any doubtful prospect of benefit to our allies consent to expose the people of this country to the certain misery, ruin, and starvation which the continuance of the war must bring upon them.”

Certainly the Committee did not delay carrying out the order of the House in the matter of Crompton’s petition, as the evidence was taken on the same day as the order was given.[465] Evidently some little “engineering” had taken place as a comparison of the evidence with the series of questions and answers prepared beforehand will show.[466] If the record of the proceedings is a correct account of what took place at the meeting, it is difficult to believe that the chairman and at least one witness had not the evidence already before them. On 24th March the Committee presented its report, when it was ordered to be printed and to lie on the table. Again, during the preceding four days, petitions had been presented from Blackburn and Preston, drawing attention to the parlous state of public affairs, and insisting that the lower classes had difficulty in obtaining a bare subsistence; that the middle classes were rapidly sinking to the position of the lower; and suggesting similar remedies to those of their fellow-petitioners at Bolton.[467]

So far as Parliament was concerned, Crompton’s petition now lay in abeyance for three months, and his activity in keeping alive interest in it is described in his letter of 15th April,[468] at which time a state of insurrection prevailed in Manchester and in other places for miles around the town. On 11th May Mr. Perceval was assassinated, and shortly afterwards the Ministry, of which he had been the head, resigned, and it was not easy to form a new one. Crompton’s case must have had influential support, otherwise it could hardly have been kept to the front in the confusion of these days. French evidently believed that the death of Mr. Perceval prevented Crompton obtaining a larger amount than that which was granted. This may have been so, but a perusal of Mr. Lee’s letter does not give much ground for the belief.[469]

On 24th June the matter again came before the House of Commons, when Lord Stanley, who had been chairman of the Committee charged with the case, brought it forward, and in his speech repeated the arguments of the petition,[470] and ended by moving “That a sum not exceeding £5000 be granted to Mr. Crompton as a remuneration for his invention,” which was formally seconded by Mr. Blackburne, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself satisfied that this remuneration was deserved. The only other member who appears to have addressed the House on this occasion was Mr. D. Giddy, who, so far as his speech is recorded, expressed no definite opinion as to the adequacy of the grant, but suggested that, as he considered the case of a “transcendent” character, it should be made without fee or deduction. The resolution was then agreed to, and the following day was formally ratified.[471]

Throughout the proceedings Crompton had studiously refrained from expressing any opinion as to the sum to which he thought himself entitled, trusting rather to “British generosity” and “to the dignity of the giver and the merit of the receiver,” but it is clear that he was bitterly disappointed with the amount of the grant.[472] It can hardly have come as a surprise to his friends, although it is equally clear that they thought that he ought to have received at least double the amount. The statement of Mr. Lee that “Crompton’s plain appearance has been in his favour by inducing the members to suppose that he would be satisfied with a small grant and therefore they were willing to assist him” is significant both as regards gaining their support of a grant, and its amount, although it is hard to believe that the £10,000 which Mr. Lee thought reasonable would have roused much opposition.[473] Moreover, although the suggestion of Mr. Giddy that the £5000 should be paid without any fee or deduction was included in the final resolution, it appears that it was not strictly carried out, and that the sum Crompton actually received was considerably reduced by expenses.[474]

After the grant had been made, anxious to provide for his sons, Crompton embarked upon the bleaching business, with two of them as partners, at Over Darwen, four miles from Bolton. He also entered into a partnership with another son and with a Mr. Wylde, as cotton merchants and spinners, while with two other sons he continued his old business of spinning and manufacturing at Bolton.[475] As regards the bleaching concern, “the unfavourable state of the times, the inexperience and mismanagement of his sons, a bad situation, and a tedious lawsuit, conspired in a very short time to put an end to this establishment.”[476] The business into which he had entered with his son and Mr. Wylde appears to have succeeded little better. After a considerable loss the partnership was dissolved, and Crompton’s son, taking £1500 as his share of capital, set up in business on his own account at Oldham, which again was a failure. Even in the concern at Bolton there was disharmony, and ultimately the sons left it and Crompton carried it on alone.[477]

By 1824, having then reached the age of seventy years, he was reduced to poverty. The end of his career is recorded by John Kennedy, and surely no one could have left a record based upon more intimate and sympathetic knowledge of Crompton’s trials and achievements: “Messrs. Hicks & Rothwell, of Bolton, myself and some others, in that neighbourhood and in Manchester, had in 1824 recourse to a second subscription, to purchase a life annuity for him, which produced £63 per annum. The amount raised for this purpose was collected in small sums, from one to ten pounds, some of which were contributed by the Swiss and French spinners, who acknowledged his merits and pitied his misfortunes. At the same time his portrait was engraved for his benefit, and a few impressions were disposed of: he enjoyed this small annuity only two years. He died June 26th, 1827.”[478]

In the year following that in which the annuity was purchased a movement, in which a Mr. J. Brown, of Bolton, was the prominent figure, was set on foot to bring Crompton’s case again before Parliament, with a view to a second grant. The pamphlet, to which references have already been made, was written by Mr. Brown and published with extracts from Crompton’s correspondence; a memorial was drawn up, which, according to French, was extensively signed by inhabitants of Bolton, the application for signatures being confined to that town, and in 1826 a petition was presented to Parliament.[479]

From French’s account of the effort, it may be gathered that it aroused no widespread interest, and it is significant that when John Kennedy wrote his Brief Memoir of Samuel Crompton in 1830 he made no mention of it. Probably he thought, as one cannot help thinking at the present day, that it was unfortunate that the effort was made. It must have been apparent at that time, with Crompton well over seventy years of age, that a grant of a large sum of money would be of little use to him even had there been any possibility of an application being successful. Its only virtue was that it gave Parliament an opportunity of increasing the inadequate grant made in 1812. But, even as regards that grant, one is compelled to recognise that, had it been larger, it is unlikely, taking into account the peculiar difficulties with which Crompton had to contend, that his position in 1824 would have been very different from what it was. Instead of making a grant of a lump sum in 1812, the more suitable method of reward in Crompton’s case and, as a general rule, in all such cases, would have been that of his friends twelve years later: to have granted him a suitable pension.

As already mentioned, Crompton died in the sixth month of 1827. When French published the first edition of his book in 1859, Crompton’s memory was in danger of neglect, but, mainly owing to the interest thus aroused, the danger was averted, and when he published his third edition in 1862, a monument had been erected over Crompton’s grave in the churchyard of his native parish,[480] and a statue was in course of preparation, the cost of both being defrayed by voluntary public subscription.

The statue which stands in Nelson Square, Bolton, was unveiled on 24th September 1862, when an address was given by Mr. Henry Ashworth, cotton spinner,[481] in which he spoke of the effect of the inventions of Crompton and others upon the development of the cotton trade and upon the people of Bolton and Lancashire. On the same occasion “Mr. Rickson, pointing to Mr. John Crompton, the son of the inventor, who was seated by the side of the statue, expressed hope that they would not forget him, but would raise a subscription to place him above indigence for the remainder of his days.”[482] Apparently something was done in this direction, as in the next month Lord Palmerston directed that a gratuity of £50 should be made to him, and it is a remarkable fact, in view of the conditions that prevailed when his father received his grant in 1812, that again, at this time, owing to the civil war in America, the distress in Bolton was so great that a public meeting had to be called to consider the situation, when a sum of £4000 was subscribed for relief.[483]

Another memorial of Crompton which the town of Bolton now possesses is Hall-i’-th’-Wood, where the idea of the mule took rise in the inventor’s mind, and in 1779 assumed material form.[484] The Hall is outside the town and overlooks it, but at the present day, although the surrounding country has undergone such changes, it is not difficult to realise what it must have been one hundred and fifty years ago. The town was then known as Bolton-le-Moors, and in 1773 with Little Bolton and the Manor of Bolton contained 5339 inhabitants.[485] From the centre of a sparsely populated country district, it has been transformed into the centre of the fine cotton spinning industry of England, and of the world. The town is now the county borough of Bolton, with a population approaching 200,000, and with the district, according to a recent return, contains one hundred and twelve firms engaged in the cotton industry, working nearly seven and a half million spindles, and over twenty-four thousand looms.[486] In its commercial organisation the town stands as a witness to the world economy which has come into existence; in its industrial organisation, as a witness to the existence of the factory system. It is these facts, with all that they imply, which form the most striking memorial to Crompton, who, as one among other outstanding figures of his day, played no small part in the development of which they are the expression.

Sufficient has been said in the previous chapter to indicate the place which Crompton’s invention occupied in the development of the cotton industry during the latter years of the eighteenth and the early years of the nineteenth centuries. A striking thing was the rapid increase in the size of the machine, particularly after 1790. The first mule constructed by Crompton contained only 48 spindles; in 1795 the smallest mule made by M‘Connel & Kennedy appears to have had 144 spindles. In February of that year a correspondent was informed “in respect to what number of spindles may be most profitable, it is difficult to fix, as what was thought best only two years ago is now thought too small.... We are now making from 180 to 288 spindles.” Three months later, in reply to another correspondent, it was stated that most of the mules were then made to go by steam or water, and in the next year we find them supplying mules to work in pairs, the two containing 372 spindles. In 1799 they were making single mules with 300 spindles, and in the same year Dobson & Rothwell were making them with 408 spindles.[487] When Ure published his Cotton Manufacture in 1836 the largest mules then in use apparently contained somewhat over 500 spindles. At the present day they are made to three times the size, a pair of mules containing 2000 to 2500 spindles being common.

But in addition to enlargement the mule as invented by Crompton has, of course, undergone vast improvements. As we have seen, movements originally performed by hand soon came to be performed by mechanical means, the culmination of this kind of improvement being reached in the invention of the “self-actor” mule.[488] Yet, notwithstanding these and other improvements, it can still be said that the fundamental motions of the mule remain the same as in Crompton’s original machine.

For a time in the early part of the nineteenth century the mule came into use to such an extent that it appeared that it would entirely displace the water-frame. With the appearance of the “Throstle,” which was really an important improvement in the water-frame, the tendency was somewhat checked, and later in the century with other improvements the supremacy of the mule was again challenged. Consequently the great rival of the mule at the present day in the world’s cotton industry is the “Ring Spinning Frame,” which may be regarded as standing in much the same relation to the original water-frame, as does the self-actor mule to the original mule. The following figures show the position in recent years:—

COTTON-SPINNING SPINDLES. SPINNERS’ RETURNS,
31ST AUGUST IN EACH YEAR[489]

Great Britain All Countries including Great Britain
Mule Spindles in
work as per
Returns		 Ring Spindles in
work as per
Returns		 Mule Spindles in
work as per
Returns		 Ring Spindles in
work as per
Returns
1910 40,101,083 7,987,430 65,051,239 54,421,786
1911 39,977,255 8,050,925 65,231,044 56,046,153
1912 39,848,727 8,885,218 65,311,070 61,426,062
1913 40,493,532 9,312,236 64,325,243 65,570,408

From these figures it will be seen that in Great Britain the mule still vastly predominates, and that in other countries the opposite is the case.[490] It is unnecessary to enumerate here the particular economic advantages of one machine compared with the other,[491] but in explanation of the international position it has to be borne in mind that, for spinning the higher qualities of yarn, the mule is superior to the ring-frame, also, that it is a much more complicated machine, and requires more highly skilled labour for its construction and operation.[492] As regards such labour, this country has been highly favoured compared with most of the other countries where the cotton industry is carried on. Even so, it appears that in British cotton mills ring-spindles are increasing at a greater rate than mule-spindles, and in the mills of other countries the fact is more pronounced. Whether the above figures represent a permanent tendency a longer period will be required to show, but, in any case, it is certain that the development of the cotton industry during the past century and a half, particularly in the United Kingdom, cannot be fully understood apart from the service which has been rendered by the invention of Samuel Crompton.

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 meeting[493] 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.

To the Merchants, Manufacturers, Cotton Spinners,
Bleachers, Printers, &c., of these United Kingdoms.

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.

Reduced Facsimile of Crompton’s Handwriting ([see p. 168])

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’s[496] 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 William[497] 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

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.