Too late for me to avail myself of the information they contain, I find that Mr. Loudon has published a series of articles in The Royal Exchange Assurance Magazine, entitled “Manchester Memoirs.” In writing these articles Mr. Loudon has made use of such records of the Corporation as were not destroyed when the Royal Exchange was burned down in January, 1838. Sufficient remain, however, to indicate their value in the elucidation of the social and economic history of the Manchester district in the eighteenth century, and the part that was played by the Corporation in its development. Records are still in existence of policies taken out by prominent Manchester business men at that time, including one by Richard Arkwright, in 1785, when he insured his Manchester factory for £5000.
In addition to the persons already mentioned, I am indebted to Mr. Thomas Midgley, Curator of Chadwick Museum, Bolton, for valuable information and for the photograph of Crompton’s statue; to Mr. J. Wadsworth, of the staff of The Manchester Guardian, for important references; to Mr. H. L. Beales, of the University of Sheffield, for compiling the index; and to Professor D. H. Macgregor for reading my proofs. To Mr. H. M. M‘Kechnie, the Secretary of the University Press, I am deeply grateful, as he has advised my every step while the book has been passing through the press, and has helped me in many other ways.
But my greatest debt is to Professor George Unwin. Whatever taste for social and economic history I now possess, or may acquire, I owe to him. He has contributed far more to this volume than the introductory chapter. But my deepest obligation is for his companionship, which for many years has been to me a constant source of encouragement and inspiration.
G. W. D.
The University, Manchester,
June, 1920.
CONTENTS
| PAGE | |
| [INTRODUCTION] | xix.-xxxi. |
|---|---|
| [I].—The stimulus given to research in economic historyby the discovery of Messrs. M‘Connel’s records andof Crompton’s letters; central position in economichistory occupied by commerce and industry oftextiles; Lancashire cotton industry a graft onthis old stock. | |
| [II].—Beginning of cotton manufacture in Europe;mediæval gilds in textile trades; rise of an organisedjourneyman class in fourteenth century; butin the sixteenth century the centre of the labourproblem was the small master, whose well-beingwas dependent on free flow of capital and credit. | |
| [III].—Industrial conditions in seventeenth-centuryLancashire resembled those in mediæval Florenceand Douai, but differed vitally by the absenceof a monopoly of capital; such a monopoly wasdeveloping in the Merchant Adventurers and othercompanies in Elizabeth’s reign; and led to a crisisin the textile industries in 1586-1587; the expansionof the northern textile industries due to its exceptionalfreedom. | |
| [IV].—The removal of restrictions on the free flow ofcapital a main factor in the Industrial Revolution;illustrations of this from the careers of WilliamRadcliffe, David Dale, and Nathan Meyer Rothschild. | |
| CHAPTER I | |
| [THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 1-29 |
| [I].—The development of the English cotton industrythe classic example of the Industrial Revolutionmovement; its importance as an indication of whatthe transition from the domestic to the factorysystem of organisation involved, 1-2; cotton andcotton-cloth common articles of import before thesixteenth century; “cottons” a prominentLancashire manufacture in the early sixteenthcentury; unsuccessful attempts to regulate the manufacture,2-6; necessity for caution in accepting theview that cotton was not used in the manufactureof Lancashire cloths in the sixteenth century, 7-8. | |
| [II].—Authentic evidence of a considerable manufacture | |
| [III].—Countries from which cotton-wool imported in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries; cotton-yarnand fine cotton-fabrics imported by EastIndia Company, 16; John Barkstead’s schemes(1691) for manufacture of calicoes and muslins andtheir failure, 16-19; opposition of silk and woollentrades to import of dyed or printed calicoes; resultingAct (1700) followed by import of plain calicoeswhich were printed and dyed in England; Act(1721) prohibits their wear or use; opposition toAct from manufacturers of cotton in Dorset, 19-21;increasing prominence of fustians rouses opposition;petitions from Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshireresult in “Manchester Act” (1736); use orwear of printed goods made of linen-warp andcotton-wool declared lawful; progress of cottonmanufacture, 1730-1764, 22-24. | |
| [IV].—Development of Manchester trade, 1650-1750;distinction between smallware, check, and fustianbranches; fustian especially regarded as the cottonmanufacture; some goods made entirely of cottonin first half of eighteenth century but majorityprobably of mixed character; worsted and silkutilised and linen largely manufactured, 25-29. | |
| CHAPTER II | |
| [THE ORGANISATION OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 30-71 |
| [I].—Clothiers in the Northern cloth district; MartinByrom of Manchester (1520); statute (1543) refersto Irish merchants and others who sell linen-yarnand wool on credit in Manchester; petition ofLancashire clothiers against restrictions on middlemen(1577), 30-31; wealthy men engaged inLancashire cloth trade—e.g. the Tippings, Mosleys,Chethams; their charitable bequests; extent oftheir concerns, 32-34; Humphrey Chetham boughtgoods for London market; employed workpeoplein spinning yarn and in weaving and finishing cloth;typical clothier of the domestic system, 35-36;small independent producers not typical workpeoplein Manchester district in early eighteenthcentury; evidence of statutes; changes inorganisation of fustian manufacture; testimonyof Ogden and Guest, 36-39. | |
| [II].—Organisation of smallware trade; manufacturers,undertakers, journeymen, apprentices; changesin first half of eighteenth century; combination ofworkpeople; articles (1747-1753) aim at enforcingapprenticeship and limiting number of apprentices,40-42; increasing price of food and consequentdisturbances; smallware weavers attempt toraise wages; prosecution and submission atLancaster Assizes (1760), 42-45; Lord Mansfield’scharge on combinations in Lancashire (1758);combination of check-weavers; dispute withemployers and strike in Manchester area; the“document”; demand regulation of trade understatute 5 Eliz.; proposals for settlement of disputeby weavers and Mr. Percival; submission andprosecution at Lancaster Assizes (1759); LordMansfield’s comments on Statute of Apprentices;later history of smallware weavers’ combination;economic and social significance of the combinations;their relation to earlier associations and tomodern trade unions, 45-55. | |
| [III].—Distribution of manufacturers and workpeople inManchester area in first half of eighteenth century;connections maintained by “putting out” system,56; trade in raw materials; cotton importedthrough London, Liverpool, Whitehaven, Lancaster;wool reached manufacturers through inland traders;linen yarn spun in England and Scotland, butIreland and the Continent most important sourcesof supply; qualities of yarn, and goods in whichused; cotton merchants and yarn merchants inManchester; foreign trading-connections; Manchestergoods exported to West Indies, Africa, Italy,Germany, North America, Russia, Asiatic Turkey,57-60; inland trade carried on by travelling merchantswith pack-horses; partly displaced from earlyeighteenth century by “riders-out” who solicitedorders; goods forwarded by carriers; developmentof communications; importance of petty-chapmen;links between manufacturing centresand country districts; organisation of their tradeand capital involved; economic developmentduring century preceding great inventions incotton industry, 60-66; tables relating to manufacturers,merchants, crofters, and carriers inManchester area (1772), 67-71. | |
| CHAPTER III | |
| [THE COMING OF MACHINERY: KAY TO ARKWRIGHT] | 72-91 |
| [I].—Modern cotton industry dates from great inventions;inventions relate especially to spinningand preparatory processes, but earliest successfulefforts in weaving; “Dutch” loom introduced intoManchester district in early eighteenth century;John Kay invents “flying-shuttle” (1733); firstused in woollen industry; other inventions of Kay;Robert Kay effects improvement in hand-loom(1760); more complicated loom introduced forfigured goods; discrepancy between spinning andweaving, 72-74; types of spinning-wheel in use—“Jersey”wheel, “Brunswick” wheel; methodsof cleaning and carding cotton; Lewis Paul’spatent for roller-spinning (1738); and for carding(1748); lack of success; carding-machine introducedinto Lancashire (1760), 75-78; need forimproved spinning-machine; Society of Artsoffers reward for invention (1761); inventions ofthe “spinning-jenny” (patented 1770) and the“water-frame” (patented 1769); description ofspinning process by the spinning-wheel, the jenny,and the water-frame; Arkwright erects factory atCromford (1771) and takes out “carding” patent(1775), 79-81; attacks upon new machinery byworkpeople; not fully explained by effects of itsintroduction, 82-83. | |
| [II].—Outbreak of Seven Years’ War ushers in centuryof unrest in England due mainly to political causes;unrest frequently broke out in riots; conditions insixties and seventies of eighteenth century; effortsof Parliament to cope with rising food prices;agitation against trading middlemen; attackmade upon jenny during period of industrialdepression and high prices at close of Seven Years’War; and upon Arkwright’s machinery whenAmerican War of Independence dominated thesituation; workpeople state their case againstmachinery to Parliament; counter-petition bymanufacturers; decision of Parliamentary Committee,83-91. | |
| CHAPTER IV | |
| [THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS] | 92-112 |
| Failure of attempts to obstruct use of Arkwright’smachinery; Act (1774) reduces duty and removesprohibition on printed calicoes, 92-93; patentsof Hargreaves and Arkwright challenged by manufacturers;Hargreaves’ failure to uphold hispatent; his claim to invention of jenny questionedby Guest; his later career, 92-97; Arkwright’scharacteristics; his association with JedediahStrutt; development of his concerns, 97-100;infringements of his patents; fails to secure verdictin law-suit (1781); Arkwright’s Case; requestsParliament to consolidate his patents and continuethem until 1789; opposition of Manchester Committeeof Trade; secures verdict in second law-suit(February, 1785); agitation in Manchester;application for new trial; Thomas Highs’ claim toinvention of roller-spinning; Arkwright losesverdict in third trial (June, 1785); application fornew trial refused (November, 1785); Arkwright’sachievements, 100-112. | |
| CHAPTER V | |
| [THE MULE AND THE RISE OF A NEW COTTON MANUFACTURE] | 113-148 |
| [I].—The work of Samuel Crompton; begins efforts toproduce improved yarn at Hall-i’-th’-Wood (1772);invents “mule” (1779); prices obtained for hisyarn; consents to make machine public, 113-116;character of the mule and its method of spinning;probable reasons why patent not applied for;treatment of Crompton in 1780 and its effects;asserts unacquaintance with Arkwright’s rollers,117-122. | |
| [II].—Mule at first worked by hand in cottages; improvementsin the mule; the “Billy”; mulesupersedes jenny in cotton spinning; and water-framein finer counts, 122-124; application ofwater-power; attempts to invent “self-actor”mule; increase in size and appearance in townfactories, 124-126; early fine cotton-spinners;immigration of Scotsmen; fine spinning andmachine making combined; rise of specialisedfirms, 126-128; fine cotton fabrics made frommule-spun yarn; effect upon Eastern cottonindustry; testimony of John Kennedy; marketsfor fine yarn in late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies; transition in the English cotton-industry;import of cotton from United States,126-132. | |
| [III].—Social effects of the transition; William Radcliffe’saccount; examination of the view that combinedagricultural and industrial occupations prevailedin country districts of Lancashire before the comingof factories; evidence from Manchester Mercury,Aikin, Parliamentary reports; Radcliffe’s accountof the township of Mellor; 1801 census returnsrelating to Mellor; Gaskell’s account of the classesin country districts affected by the transition;yeomen and artisans; improvement in materialposition of artisans and elevation of lower class;many yeomen turned to industry and some achievedsuccess as manufacturers; number engagedin Lancashire textile industry who combinedagricultural and industrial occupations relativelysmall; similar conclusion regarding number ofsmall independent producers, 132-144; improvedposition of weavers reacted upon other trades andattracted labour; the Napoleonic War; mid-eighteenthcentury conditions repeated and intensified;effects upon social and economicdevelopment; and upon the problem of industrialrelationships, 144-148. | |
| CHAPTER VI | |
| [CONCERNING THE AFFAIRS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON] | 149-165 |
| Crompton takes up residence at Oldhams; beginsspinning business at Bolton (1791); subscription(1802-1803) partial failure owing to outbreak ofwar; extends his business; difficulties of hisposition; attempts to arouse interest in his case,149-153; application to Parliament decided upon;collects information concerning effect of the mulein England, Scotland, and Ireland (1811-1812);petition presented to Parliament and referred toCommittee; period of distress and riots; delayin proceedings; grant of £5000; Crompton’s disappointment,153-158; failure of businessconcerns; subscription raised for annuity (1824);second petition to Parliament; Crompton’s death(1827); memorials of Crompton; improvementsin the mule; its position in the world’s cottonindustry, 158-165. | |
| CHAPTER VII | |
| [LETTERS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON] | 166-194 |
| [ADDITIONAL NOTES] | 195-197 |
| [INDEX] | 199-214 |
ERRATA
| Page | [12,] | footnote | [1,] | for “ibid” read “Growth of English Industry and Commerce, ii.” |
| ” | [19,] | ” | [1,] | for “S.P.D., Petition Entry Book” read “ibid.” |
| ” | [144,] | ” | [1,] | after “Petitions” read “(1803).” |
| ” | [149,] | line | 13, | for “reference” read “references.” |
| ” | [159,] | ” | 19, | for “1825” read “1827.” |