In the hand-loom days each weaver stiffened or dressed his own warp whilst it was in the loom, applying the size with a flat brush. A length of about two yards was sized in this manner, and dried by means of hot irons being passed over the surface of the warp, paper being first laid over the damp twist, or by means of a fan; grease afterwards being applied. In the face of our modern systems this old-fashioned method hardly appears credible. The paste used was a mixture of flour and water, boiled over the fire, and stored in a stone vessel not unlike a swine trough. Probably from this reason the term “sow box,” indicating in our modern “slashers” the size vessel, arose; and etymologists may find some connection between it and the word "sowlin’"—a common expression in Lancashire for a mixture of the nature referred to—of its intended use or application. The necessity for this was removed by the invention of the dressing machine by William Ratcliffe and Thomas Johnston, his assistant, of Stockport, in the year 1803, by which warps were sized before putting them in the loom. This dressing machine consisted of little more than a frame with rollers to carry the warp from two back beams, one at each end, to the centre where the weaver’s beam was fixed, whilst between were arranged brushes traversing to and fro by means of rods actuated from a crank in the so-called crank dressing machine, to apply the “sow” or size. In addition there was a wooden fan to dry the warp, which passed through the healds and reed also.
Dressing was in vogue until 1830 without any competitive system, but soon after this the tape frame, producing five times more work than the dressing machine, was invented, and continued in use until in an improved form—delivering the yarn direct to the weaver’s beam, and with still further capacity for large turnout of work—it under the name of the “slasher” takes the lead among all sizing systems now current, which important position is attributable to a great extent to the speed and to the good quality of the turn off.
To James Bullough, a native of Westhoughton (though from early life a resident of Blackburn), may be credited this last invention, which brought in its train the beam-warping frame, and found increased employment for the winding frame invented early in the century by the senior Robert Railton.
The factory system was deeply rooted in the spinning department before we hear of any attempt at gathering a large number of looms under one roof. Arkwright had a spinning mill as early as 1771, but the first successful weaving shed was built in Glasgow in 1801 by Mr. Monteith, and contained 200 looms; previously, in 1790, Messrs. Grimshaw partially erected one at Knot Mills, near Manchester, which was burnt to the ground by a mob of hand-loom weavers. In 1813, we learn of 2400 power looms being in use in the United Kingdom. Since then the number of factories has rapidly increased, and excepting for the effects of occasional deterrent influences, such as war and famine, the cotton manufacture has steadily prospered and extended. 250,000 hand-loom weavers, and 30,000 power-loom weavers were engaged in all weaving trades of all materials in 1833. Now, in 1887, 250,000 power-loom weavers are engaged in the cotton industry alone; while in most districts a hand loom is a curiosity as a relic of the past. The contrast is great, more especially so when it is remembered that during the same period the trade has been established in many foreign countries where nothing but handicraft skill was available at the early part of the period, but where now the number of mules and looms has grown, and is growing, so rapidly as to create out of former consumers important competitors in the export trade.
The recent history of cotton manufacturing has been marked by little which has caused extensive alterations in its methods.
The extensive and well-organised association of the operatives for the protection of their position in relation to the masters, has become a power, as shown by the great strike of 1878, when the operatives were able to resist the masters for a period of nine weeks, and by the increasing influence of the employés in all trade questions. The more important Parliamentary proceedings relating to the cotton trade during the time of its being conducted on the factory system are, of course, the Factory Acts. The first important legislative enactment was the Factory Act of 1833. By this no young person under 18 was allowed to work before 5.30 a.m. or later than 8.30 p.m., nor more than 12 hours per day, although 3 hours extra might be worked per week to make up for lost time. Children had to be 9 years old, and had not to work more than 48 hours per week till 11 years of age, having 2 hours’ schooling per day to be provided by the employer. In 1844, females over 18 were granted the same privileges as young persons, and children were allowed to work 6-1/2 hours per day if only 8 years old. Work had to cease at 4.30 on Saturday. In 1846, the hours of labour were reduced to 11 per day, and 63 per week for children, young persons, and females. Only minor alterations were made till 1874, when the Ten Hours’ Bill was passed, limiting work to 10 hours per day, and 6-1/2 on Saturday. In 1878, all the previous Acts were repealed and a new one made which is still in force, and requires that for young persons and females the hours be limited to 10 per day, and 56-1/2 per week; that no child be employed at all under 10 years of age, or under the Second Educational Standard; and only half-time below 13 unless the Fourth Standard of Elementary Education shall have been passed, failing which the limit is 14 years of age. Males and females under 18 are deemed young persons, and all young persons and females possess certain advantages over the male workers, which rights are protected by Government inspectors. The Bill was a lengthy one, and contains many restrictions as to holidays, painting and cleaning, reports of accidents, fencing machinery, and school attendance, for the benefit of the employé.
The Limited Liability Act of 1862 gave great facilities for conducting business by companies of more than seven members, whose liability in case of a collapse does not exceed the amount promised on formation—a scheme inaugurated for the benefit of the working classes, but which has been misapplied in many instances.
The Employers’ Liability Act of 1880 gives facilities for recompense to the workmen for accident or injury sustained by the negligence of the employer or his deputies, such liability being incurred under certain conditions only, and being restricted to the amount of three years’ salary.
The Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 has caused a reaction in the tendency towards short lengths and false description, by making it a penal offence to falsely mark goods either in respect to dimension, quality, counts, or place of manufacture.