User:ClemRutter/Sandbox/Mill
Havelock Mills[edit]
| Great Bridgewater Street Mills | |
  Location within Greater Manchester | |
| CottonSilk | |
|---|---|
| Silk throwing Cotton spinning | |
| Structural system | Fairbairn cast iron frame |
| Serving canal | Rochdale Canal |
| Coordinates | 53°30′N 2°15′W / 53.5°N 2.25°W |
| Construction | |
| Built | 1820, 1840 |
| Demolished | 1994 |
| Floor count | 7 |
| Power | |
| Transmission type | Vertical shaft |
Havelock Mills is in Central Manchester. They were built between 1820 and 1840. The silk mill was probably the largest surviving one in the north-west region in the 1970s; it was unique combination of silk and cotton mills on one site. It was a landmark on this section of Rochdale Canal, overlooking Tib Lock one of the Rochdale Nine. [1]
Location[edit]
They had a canal side location on Great Bridgewater Street. The Manchester and Salford Junction Canal was to the east, and Tib Lock (Lock 89) of the Rochdale Canal was to the south. This central position gave easy access to the Bridgewater Canal at Castlefield.
History[edit]
This was a very large silk mill in Manchester, and an early spinning mill with Grade 2 listed status that was demolished in 1992, and replaced by the Evershed Building.[2]
Havelock Mill was a Grade II Listed Building. It was demolished after much protesting and following a public inquiry. Before demolition of the building the developer agreed to a programme of insitu structural tests on the building frame. These were sponsored by English Heritage and the then Department of Trade and Industry. The designer of the frame is anonymous, but it is very much in the style of the famous Manchester engineer William Fairbairn.
After the demolition Joe Marsh and Swaile of UMIST arranged for part of the iron frame to be re-erected on the UMIST campus. Assembly on campus was by Percival Brothers of Stockport. Another part of the frame was shipped to Paris and formed the 'gateway' piece to an exhibition at the Pompidou Centre 'The Art of the Structural Engineer'. [a]
Architecture[edit]
Havelock Mills were two interlinked L-shaped multi-storey mills on the banks of the Rochdale Canal. They were notable in that the one built in 1820 was a silk-mill; and the one built in 1840 was a fire-proof cotton mill.
The 7 storey silk mill had 18 bays facing Great Bridgewater Street (Nos 72 and 74), that is 6 storeys over a basement. The windows had raised sills and wedge lintels. Three bays were blind. The doorways were round-headed with rusticated long-and-short surrounds. The 20-bay west range had segmental-headed windows with raised sills, and loading doors on most floors, the octagonal chimney was south-west corner. The rear of the main range has a garderobe turret (privy tower) to the right and a semi-octagonal turret in the centre.
The cotton mill is a basement and 6 storey, 10 bay mill at right angles to the street. It is 4 bays wide, then attached by a small 2 bay link to the silk mill over the waggon entrance to the court-yard. The cotton mill is of fire-proof construction with 2 rows of cast-iron columns, and parabolic cast-iron beams carrying brick vaulting. and attached to south wall a full-height vertical drive-shaft. The parabolic cast-iron beams are of interest as they are Hodgkinson beams, of the same type that William Fairbairn had devised after intensive stress analysis tests carried out at the Ancoats foundry three years earlier.
The cotton mill has a fire-proofed basement boiler-house with massive cast-iron girders and stone flag floors. It has a cast-iron spiral staircase contained in semicircular turret at the south-west corner.
Power[edit]
The detached engine house contained a beam engine. [3][4]
Notable events/media[edit]
The demolition of this Grade II listed building was contraversial. It was demolished after much protesting and following a public inquiry.[3]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
Notes[edit]
Bibiography[edit]
- Swailes, Tom (1998). Structural Appraisal of Iron-framed Textile Mills. Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain), University of Manchester. Historic Structures Group,. Thomas Telford Publishing. ISBN 9780727727138.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
External Links[edit]
COTTON MANUFACTURE 1911 Enc.Brit.[edit]
The antiquity of the cotton industry has hitherto proved unfathomable, as can readily be understood from the difficulty of proving a universal negative, especially from such scanty material as we possess of remote ages. That in the 5th century B.C. cotton fabrics were unknown or quite uncommon in Europe may be inferred from Herodotus' mention of the cotton clothing of the Indians. Ultimately the cotton industry was imported into Europe, and by the middle of the 13th century we find it flourishing in Spain. In the New World it would seem to have originated spontaneously, since on the discovery of America the wearing apparel in use included cotton fabrics. After the collapse of Spanish prosperity before the Moors in the 14th century the Netherlands assumed a leadership in this branch of the textile industries as they did also in other branches. It has been surmised that the cotton manufacture was carried from the Netherlands to England by refugees during the Spanish persecution of the second half of the 16th century; but no absolute proof of this statement has been forthcoming, and although workers in cotton may have been among the Flemish weavers who fled to England about that time, and some of whom are said to have settled in and about Manchester, it is quite conceivable that cotton fabrics were made on an insignificant scale in England years before, and there is some evidence to show that the industry was not noticeable till many years later. If England did derive her cotton manufacture from the Netherlands she was unwillingly compelled to repay the loan with interest more than two hundred years later when the machine industry was conveyed to the continent through the ingenuity of Lievin Bauwens, despite the precautions taken to preserve it for the British Isles. About the same time English colonists transported it to the United States. Since, as transformed in England, the cotton industry, particularly spinning, has spread throughout the civilized and semi-civilized world, though its most important seat still remains the land of its greatest development.
Early history in England[edit]
As early as the 13th century cotton-wool was used in England for candle-wicks.[1] The importation of the cotton from the Levant in the 16th century is mentioned by Hakluyt,[2] and according to Macpherson it was brought over from Antwerp in 1560. Reference to the manufacture of cottons in England long before the second half of the 16th century are numerous, but the "cottons" spoken of were not cottons proper as Defoe would seem to have mistakenly imagined. Thus, for example, there is a passage by William Camden (writing in 1590) quoted below, in which Manchester cottons are specifically described as woollens, and there is a notice in the act of 33 Henry VIII. (c. xv.) of the Manchester linen and woollen industries, and of cottons--which are clearly woollens since their "dressyng and frisyng" is noted, and the latter process, which consists in raising and curling the nap, was not applicable to cotton textiles. John Leland, after his visit to Manchester about 1538, used these words--"Bolton-upon-Moore market standeth most by cottons; divers villages in the Moores about Bolton do make cottons." Leland, it is true, might conceivably be referring to manufactures from the vegetable fibre, but it is exceedingly unlikely, since the term "cottons" would seem to have been current with a perfectly definite meaning. The goods were probably an English imitation in wool of continental cotton fustians--which would explain the name. Again we may quote from the act of 5 and 6 Edward VI., "all the cottons called _Manchester_, Lancashire and Cheshire _cottons_, full wrought to the sale, shall be in length twenty-two yards and contain in breadth three-quarters of a yard in the water and shall weigh thirty pounds in the piece at least"; and from the act 8 Elizabeth c. xi., "every of the said cottons being sufficiently milled or thicked, clean scoured, well-wrought and full-dried, shall weigh 21 lb. at the least."[3] These are evidently the weights of woollen goods: further, it may be observed that milling is not applicable to cotton goods. The earliest reference to a cotton manufacture in England which may reasonably be regarded as pointing to the fabrication of textiles from cotton proper, is in the will of James Billston (a not un-English name), who is described as a "cotton manufacturer," proved at Chester in 1578.[4] It may plausibly be contended that James Billston was a worker in the vegetable fibre, since otherwise "manufacturer of cottons" would have been a more natural designation. But the proof of the will of one cotton manufacturer establishes very little.
The next earliest known reference to the cotton industry proper occurs in a petition to the earl of Salisbury, made presumably in 1610, asking for the continuance of a grant for reforming frauds committed in the manufacture of "bambazine cotton such as groweth in the land of Persia being no kind of wool."[5] But a far more valuable piece of evidence, discovered by W. H. Price, is a petition of "Merchants and citizens of London that use buying and selling of fustians made in England, as of the makers of the same fustians."[6] Its probable date is 1621, and it contains the following important passages:--
"About twenty years past, divers people in this kingdom, but chiefly in the county of Lancaster, have found out the trade of making of other fustians, made of a kind of bombast or down, being a fruit of the earth growing upon little shrubs or bushes, brought into this kingdom by the Turkey merchants, from Smyrna, Cyprus, Acra and Sydon, but commonly called cotton wool; and also of linen yarn most part brought out of Scotland, and othersome made in England, and no part of the same fustians of any wool at all, for which said bombast and yarn imported, his majesty has a great yearly sum of money for the custom and subsidy thereof.
"There is at the least 40 thousand pieces of fustian of this kind yearly made in England, the subsidy to his majesty of the materials for making of every piece coming to between 8d. and 10d. the piece; and thousands of poor people set on working of these fustians.
"The right honourable duke of Lennox in 11 of Jacobus 1613 procured a patent from his majesty, of alnager of new draperies for 60 years, upon pretence that wool was converted into other sorts of commodities to the loss of customs and subsidies for wool transported beyond seas; and therein is inserted into his patent, searching and sealing; and subsidy for 80 several stuffs; and among the rest these fustians or other stuffs of this kind of cotton wool, and subsidy and a fee for the same, and forfeiture of 20s. for putting any to sale unsealed, the moiety of the same forfeiture to the said duke, and power thereby given to the duke or his deputies, to enter any man's house to search for any such stuffs, and seize them till the forfeiture be paid; and if any resist such search, to forfeit L10 and power thereby given to the lord treasurer or chancellor of the exchequer, to make new ordinances or grant commissions for the aid of the duke and his officers in execution of their office."
Here the date of the appearance of the cotton industry on an appreciable scale--it is questionable whether any importance should be attached to the expression "found out"--is given by those who would be speaking of facts within the memory of themselves or their friends as "about twenty years past" from 1621, and the annual output of the industry in 1621 is mentioned. Moreover, it is established by this document that for a time at least the cotton manufacture was "regulated" like the other textile trades. The date assigned by the petitioners for the first attraction of attention by the English cotton industry may be supported on negative grounds.
Baines assures us that William Camden, who wrote in 1590, devoted not a sentence to the cotton industry, though Manchester figures among his descriptions: "This town," he says, "excels the towns immediately around it in handsomeness, populousness, woollen manufacture, market place, church and college; but did much more excel them in the last age, as well by the glory of its woollen cloths (_laneorum pannorum honore_), which they call Manchester cottons, as by the privilege of sanctuary, which the authority of parliament under Henry VIII. transferred to Chester."[7] It is significant too that in the Elizabethan poor law of 1601 (43 Elizabeth), neither cotton-wool nor yarn is included among the fabrics to be provided by the overseers to set the poor to work upon; though, of course, it might be argued that so short-stapled a fibre needed for its working, when machinery was rough, a skill in the operative which would be above that of the average person unable to find employment. However, a proposal was made in 1626 to employ the poor in the spinning of cotton and weaving wool.[8]
Prior to Mr Price's discovery of the petition mentioned above, the earliest known notice of the existence in England of a cotton industry of any magnitude was the oft-quoted passage from Lewes Roberts's _Treasure of Traffic_ (1641), which runs: "The town of Manchester, in Lancashire, must be also herein remembered, and worthily for their encouragement commended, who buy the yarne of the Irish in great quantity, and weaving it, return the same again into Ireland to sell: Neither doth their industry rest here, for they buy cotton-wool in London that comes first from Cyprus and Smyrna, and at home work the same, and perfect it into fustians, vermillions, dimities and other such stuffs, and then return it to London, where the same is vented and sold, and not seldom sent into foreign parts."[9]
Despite Lewes Roberts's flattering reference, the trade of Manchester about that time consisted chiefly in woollen frizes, fustians, sackcloths, mingled stuffs, caps, inkles, tapes, points, &c., according to "A Description of the Towns of Manchester and Salford," 1650,[10] and woollens for a long time held the first place. But before another century had run its course cottons proper had pushed into the first rank, though the woollen industry continued to be of unquestionable importance. In 1727 Daniel Defoe could write, "the grand manufacture which has so much raised this town is that of cotton in all its varieties,"[11] and he did not mean the woollen "cottons," as he made plain by other references to the industry in the same connexion; but it was not until some fifty years later that the ousting of the woollen industry from what is now peculiarly the cotton district became unmistakable.[12] As a rule the woollen weavers were driven farther and farther east--Bury lay just outside the cotton area when Defoe wrote--and finally many of them settled in the West Riding. Edwin Butterworth even tells of woollen weavers who migrated from Oldham to the distant town of Bradford in Wiltshire because of the decline of their trade before the victorious cotton industry. Much the same fate was being shared by the linen industry in Lancashire, which was forced out of the county westwards and northwards. The explanation of the three centralizations, namely of the woollen industry, the cotton industry and the linen industry, is not far to seek. The popularity of the fabrics produced by the rising cotton industry enabled it to pay high wages, which, indeed, were essential to bring about its expansion. This a priori diagnosis is supported by contemporary analysis: thus "the rapid progress of that business (cotton spinning) and the higher wages which it afford, have so far distressed the makers of worsted goods in that county (Lancashire), that they have found themselves obliged to offer their few remaining spinners larger premiums than the state of their trade would allow."[13] The best operatives of Lancashire were attracted sooner or later to assist the triumphs of art over the vegetable wool. At the same time the scattered woollen and linen workers of Lancashire were suffering from the competition of rivals enjoying elsewhere the economies of some centralization, and the demand for woollen and linen warps in the cotton industry ceased after the introduction of Arkwright's water-twist. When the factory became common the economies of centralization (which arise from the wide range of specialism laid open to a large local industry) increased; moreover they were reinforced by the diminution of social friction and the intensification of business sensitiveness which marked the development of the 19th century. Once begun, the centralizing movement proceeded naturally with accelerating speed. The contrast beneath is an instructive statistical comment:--
Distribution of Cotton Operatives in 1838 and 1898-1899 (from Returns of Factory Inspectors).[edit]
| 1838. | 1898-1899. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheshire | 36,400 | 34,300 | |
| Cumberland | 2,000 | 700 | |
| Derbyshire | 10,500 | 10,500 | |
| Lancashire | 152,200 | 398,100 | |
| Nottinghamshire | 1,500 | 1,600 | |
| Staffordshire | 2,000 | 2,300 | |
| Yorkshire | 12,400 | 35,200 | |
| England and Wales[14] | 219,100 | 496,200 | |
| Scotland | 35,600 | 29,000 | |
| Ireland | 4,600 | 800 | |
| United Kingdom | 259,300 | 526,000 |
The distribution of the industry has varied greatly in the two periods. If it had remained constant Lancashire would only have contained 300,000 operatives in 1899, instead of the actual 400,000. Scotland, on the other hand, only contained 30,000 instead of 70,000, and in Ireland the numbers were one-tenth of what they should have been. The percentage of operatives in Lancashire in 1838 was 58.5, but this increased to 75.7 in 1898.
Lancashire advantages[edit]
Why, we may naturally inquire, did not the cotton industry localize in the West Riding or Cheshire and the woollen industry maintain its position in Lancashire? Accident no doubt partly explains why the cotton industry is carried on where it is in the various parts of the globe, but apart from accident, as regards Lancashire, it is sufficient answer to point to the peculiarly suitable congeries of conditions to be found there. There is firstly the climate, which for the purpose of cotton spinning is unsurpassed elsewhere, and which became of the first order of importance when fine spinning was developed. In the Lancashire atmosphere in certain districts just about the right humidity is contained on a great number of days for spinning to be done with the least degree of difficulty. Some dampness is essential to make the fibres cling, but excessive moisture is a disadvantage. Over the county of Lancashire the prevailing west wind carries comparatively continuous currents of humidified air. These currents vary in temperature according to their elevation. Hot and cold layers mix when they reach the hills, and the mixture of the two is nearer to the saturation point than either of its components. The degree of moisture is measured by the ratio of the actual amount of moisture to the moisture of the saturation point for that particular temperature. Owing to the sudden elevation the air is rarefied, its temperature being thereby lowered, and in consequence condensation tends to be produced. In several places in England and abroad, where there is a scarcity of moisture, artificial humidifiers have been tried, but no cheap and satisfactory one has hitherto been discovered. To the advantages of the Lancashire climate for cotton spinning must be added--especially as regards the early days of the cotton industry--its disadvantages for other callings. The unpleasantness of the weather renders an indoor occupation desirable, and the scanty sunshine, combined with the unfruitful nature of much of the soil, prevents the absorption of the population in agricultural pursuits. In later years the port of Liverpool and the presence of coal supplemented the attractions which were holding the cotton industry in Lancashire. All the raw material must come from abroad, and an enormous proportion of English cotton products figures as exports. The proximity of Liverpool has aided materially in making the cotton industry a great exporting industry.
Early system of manufacture and organisation[edit]
Before the localization of the separate parts of the industry can be treated the differentiation of the industry must be described. We pass then, at this stage, to consider the manufacture in its earliest form and the lines of its development. First, and somewhat incidentally, we notice the early connexion between the conduct of the cotton manufacture, when it was a domestic industry in its primitive form, and the performance of agricultural operations. A few short extracts will place before us all the evidence that it is here needful to adduce. First Radcliffe, an eye-witness, writing of the period about 1770, says "the land in our township (Mellor) was occupied by between fifty and sixty farmers ... and out of these fifty or sixty farmers there were only six or seven who raised their rents directly from the produce of their farms, all the rest got their rent partly in some branch of trade, such as spinning and weaving woollen, linen or cotton. The cottagers were employed entirely in this matter, except for a few weeks in the harvest."[15] Next we may cite Edwin Butterworth who, though not an eyewitness (he was not born till 1812), proved himself by his researches to be a careful and trustworthy investigator. In the parish of Oldham, he recorded, there were "a number of master (cotton-linen fustian)[16] manufacturers, as well as many weavers who worked for manufacturers, and at the same time were holders of land or farmers.... The number of fustian farmers who were cottagers working for manufacturers, without holding land, were few; but there were a considerable number of weavers who worked on their own account, and held at the same time small pieces of land."[17] Other passages might be quoted, but these two will suffice. Weaving was not exactly a by-employment of farm labourers, but many weavers made agriculture a by-employment to some extent, (a) by working small parcels of land, which varied from the size of allotments to farms of a very few acres, and (b) by lending aid in gathering in the harvest when their other work enabled them to do so. The association of manufacturing and weaving survived beyond the first quarter of the 19th century. Of the weavers in many districts and "more especially in Lancashire" we read in the report of the committee on emigration, "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 the hand-loom weaver with that of a working farmer have assisted to raise the rent of their land from the profits of their loom."[18] One of the first lines of specialism to appear was the severing of the connexion described above, and the concentration of the weavers in hamlets and towns. Finer fabrics and more complicated fabrics were introduced, and the weaver soon learnt that such rough work as farming unfitted his hands for the delicate tasks required of them. Again, really to prosper a weaver found it necessary to perfect himself by close application. The days of the rough fabrics that anybody could make with moderate success were closing in. As a consequence the dispersion of the weavers becomes less and less. They no longer wanted allotments or farms; and their looms having become more complicated, the mechanic proved himself a convenient neighbour. Finding spinners too was an easier task in the hamlet or town than in the remote country parts. But there is no reason to suppose that agriculture and the processes of the domestic cotton manufacturer had ever been universally twin callings. There never was a time, probably, when weavers who did nothing but weave were not a significant proportion, if not the major part, of the class of weavers. All again were not independent and all were not employees. Some were simply journeymen in small domestic workshops; others were engaged by fustian masters or Manchester merchants and paid by the piece for what they made out of material supplied them; others again bought their warps and cotton and sold to the merchants their fabrics, which were their own property. The last class was swept away soon after the industry became large, when by the organization of men of capital consumers and producers were more and more kept in touch. In early days most weavers owned their looms, the great part of which they had frequently constructed themselves: later, however, a large number hired looms, and it was as usual in certain quarters for lodgings to be let with a loom as it is to-day for them to be provided with a piano. When it became customary for weavers to undertake a variety of work, the masters usually provided reeds (which had to vary in fineness with the fineness of the warp), healds, and other changeable parts, and sometimes they employed the gaiters to fit the new work in the looms.
Until the success of the water-frame, cotton could not be spun economically of sufficient strength and fineness for warps, and the warps were therefore invariably made of either linen or wool. Some were manufactured locally, others were imported from Germany, Ireland and Scotland. The weaver prepared them for his loom by the system of peg-warping,[19] but after the introduction of the warping-mill he received them as a rule all ready for insertion into the loom from the Manchester merchant or local fustian master.
"It did not pay the individual weaver to keep a warping-mill for occasional use only, and frequently the contracted space of his workroom precluded even the possibility of his doing so. The invention of the warping-mill necessitated specialism in warping, and it was essential that warping should be done to order, since at that time, the state of the industrial world being what it was, no person could ordinarily have been found to adventure capital in producing warps ready made in anticipation of demand for the great variety of fabrics which was even then produced. Moreover, had the weaver himself placed the orders for his warps, any occasional delay in the execution of his commissions might have stopped his work entirely until the warps were ready; for warps cannot be delivered partially, like weft, in quantities sufficient for each day's work. To ensure continuous working in the industry, therefore, it was almost inevitable that the merchant should himself prepare the warps for such fabrics as he required, or possibly have them prepared. To the system of the merchant delegating the preparation of warps there was less objection than to the system of the weaver doing so, since the merchant, dealing in large quantities, was more likely to get pressing orders completed to time. Further, the merchant knew first what kind of warps would be needed. The first solution, however, that of the merchant undertaking the warping himself, was the surer, and there was no doubt as to its being the one destined for selection in a period when a tendency to centralize organization, responsibility and all that could be easily centralized, was steadily gaining in strength."[20]
Guest says the system by which the weaver was supplied with warps and other material was substituted for the purchase of warps and cotton-wool by the weaver about 1740. No doubt the change was very gradual, especially as Aikin mentions the use of warping-mills in the 17th century. The weaver as a rule received his weft material in the form of cotton-wool and was required to arrange himself for its cleaning and spinning. According to Aikin,[21] dealers tried the experiment of giving out weft instead of cotton-wool, but "the custom grew into disuse as there was no detecting the knavery of the spinners till a piece came in woven." As it was impossible to unwrap the yarn and test it throughout its length, defects were hidden until it came to be used, and the complaints of weavers were not conclusive as to the inferiority of the yarn, since their own bad workmanship might have had something to do with its having proved unsatisfactory. It was therefore found best to saddle the weaver with full responsibility for both the spinning and weaving. Women and children cleaned, carded and spun the cotton-wool in their homes. The cotton had to be more thoroughly cleaned after its arrival in this country. The ordinary process of cleaning was known as "willowing," because the cotton was beaten with willow switches after it had been laid out on a tight hammock of cords. The cotton used for fine spinning was also carefully washed; and even when it was not washed it was soaked with water and partially dried so that the fibres might be made to cling together.[22] Most of the weaving was done by men, and until the invention of the fly-shuttle they cast the shuttle from hand to hand in the manner of their remotest ancestors. For the making of the broader fabrics two weavers were required when the width was greater than the easy stretch of a man's arms. Sometimes cloths were woven wide and then split into two or more: hence the term "splits." This became a common practice when the hand-loom workers were groaning under the pressure of competition from the power-loom. [7]
The invention of machinery[edit]
We now reach the era of the great inventions. In order to ensure clearness it will be desirable to consider separately the branches of spinning and weaving: to pass from the one to the other, and follow the chronological order, might cause confusion. First emphasis must be laid upon the point that it was not mechanical change alone which constituted the industrial revolution. No doubt small hand-looms factories would have become the rule, and more and more control over production would have devolved upon the factory master, and the work to be done would have been increasingly assigned by merchants, had the steam-engine remained but the dream of Watt, and semi-automatic machinery not been invented. The spirit of the times was centralizing management before any mechanical changes of a revolutionizing character had been devised. Loom-shops, in which several journeymen were employed, were not uncommon: thus "in the latter part of the last (18th) and the beginning of the present (19th) century," says Butterworth, describing the state of affairs in Oldham and the neighbourhood, "a large number of weavers ... possessed spacious loom-shops, where they not only employed many journeymen weavers, but a considerable proportion of apprentice children." It is true that both the fly-shuttle and drop-box had been invented by that time, but the loom was still worked by human power. Specialism, however, was on the increase, the capitalist was assuming more control, and the operative was being transformed more and more into the mere executive agent. Further, as creative of enterprise, an atmosphere of freedom and a general economic restlessness, consequent upon the reaction against mercantilism, were noticeable. Great changes, no doubt, would soon have swept over Lancashire had a new source of power and big factories not been rendered essential by inventions in spinning.
Spinning and preparatory machinery[edit]
The chief inventors were Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, James Hargreaves and Samuel Crompton. The two first originated the principle of spinning by rollers. Their patent was taken out in 1738, but no good came of it immediately, though many trials were made and moderately large sums of money were lost. Ultimately Richard Arkwright brought forward the same plan improved:[23] his first patent was dated 1769. Over the real authorship of the fundamental idea there has been much controversy, and it has not been absolutely proved that the second inventor, whether Thomas Highs, Arkwright or John Kay (a clockmaker of Warrington who assisted Arkwright to construct his machine and is said by some to have told him of an invention by Highs), did not hit upon the device afresh in ignorance of the work already done. Even as between Paul and Wyatt it is not easy to award due measure of praise. Probably the invention, as a working machine, resulted from real collaboration, each having an appreciable share in it. Robert Cole, in his paper to the British Association in 1858 (reprinted as an appendix to the 1st ed. of French's _Life of Crompton_), championed the claims of Paul, but Mantoux, in his _La Revolution industrielle au XVIII^e siecle_, after studying the Wyatt MSS., inclines to attribute to Wyatt a far more important position, though he dissents from the view of Baines, who ascribes little or nothing to Paul.
Arkwright's prospects of financial success were much greater than those of his predecessors, because, first, there was more need in his time of mechanical aids, and secondly, he was highly talented as a business man. In 1775 he followed up his patent of 1769 with another relating to machinery for carding, drawing and roving. The latter patent was widely infringed, and Arkwright was compelled to institute nine actions in 1781 to defend his rights. An association of Lancashire spinners was formed to defend them, and by the one that came to trial the patent was set aside on the ground of obscurity in the specifications. Arkwright again attempted to recover his patent rights in 1785, after the first patent had been in abeyance for two years. Before making this further trial of the courts he had thought of proceeding by petition to parliament, and had actually drawn up his "case," which he was ultimately dissuaded from presenting. In it he prayed not only that the decision of 1781 should be set aside, but that both patents should be continued to him for the unexpired period of the second patent, i.e. until 1789. In his "case" (i.e. the petition mentioned above) Arkwright stated that he had sold to numbers of adventurers residing in the different counties of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Worcester, Stafford, York, Hertford and Lancaster, many of his patent machines, and continued: "Upon a moderate computation, the money expended in consequence of such grants (before 1782) amounted to at least L60,000. Mr Arkwright and his partners also expended in large buildings in Derbyshire and elsewhere upwards of L30,000, and Mr Arkwright also erected a very large and extensive building in Manchester at the expense of upwards of L4000. Thus a business had been formed which already (he calculated) employed upwards of five thousand persons, and a capital on the whole of not less than L200,000."[24] It is impossible to discover exactly the rights of the matter. Certainly Arkwright had been intentionally obscure in his specifications, as he admitted, and for his defence, namely that it was to preserve the secret for his countrymen, there was only his word. He may have hoped to keep the secret for himself; and as to the originality of both inventions there were grave doubts. But Arkwright has received little sympathy, because his claims were regarded as grasping in view of the large fortune which he had already won. He began work with his first partners at Nottingham (when power was derived from horses) and started at Cromford in 1771 (where the force of water was used). Soon he was involved in numerous undertakings, and he remained active till his death in 1792. He had met throughout with a good deal of opposition, which possibly to a man of his temperament was stimulating. Even in the matter of getting protective legislation reframed to give scope to the application of the water-frame, a powerful section of Lancashire employers worked against him. This protective legislation must here be shortly reviewed.
In 1700 an act had been passed (11 & 12 William III. c. 10) prohibiting the importation of the printed calicoes of India, Persia and China. In 1721 the act 7 George I. c. 7 prohibited the use of any "printed, painted, stained or dyed calico," excepting only calicoes dyed all blue and muslins, neckcloths and fustians. This act was modified by the act 9 George II. c. 4 (allowing British calicoes with linen warps). Thus the matter stood as regards prints when Arkwright had demonstrated that stout cotton warps could be spun in England, and at the same time the officers of excise insisted upon exacting a tax of 6d. from the plain all-cottons instead of the 3d. paid by the cotton-linens, on the ground that the former were calicoes. Arkwright's plea, however, was admitted, and by the act 14 George II. c. 72 the still operative part of the act of 1721 was set aside, and the manufacture, use, and wear of cottons printed and stained, &c., was permitted subject to the payment of a duty of 3d. per sq. yd. (the same as the excise on cotton-linens) provided they were stamped "British manufactory." The duty was varied from time to time until its repeal in 1832.
Some more powerful force than that of man or horse was soon needed to work the heavy water-frames. Hence Arkwright placed his second mill on a water-course, fitting it with a water-wheel, and until the steam-engine became economical most of the new twist mills were built on water-courses. On rare occasions the old fire-engines seem to have been tried.
The following passage quoted from a note in Barnes's _History_ illustrates the pressing need of the early mills: "On the river Irwell, from the first mill near Bacup, to Prestolee, near Bolton, there is about 900 ft. of fall available from mills, 800 of which is occupied. On this river and its branches it is computed that there are no less than three hundred mills. A project is in course of execution to increase the water-power of the district, already so great and so much concentrated, and to equalize the force of the stream by forming eighteen reservoirs on the hills, to be filled in times of flood, and to yield their supplies in the drought of summer. These reservoirs, according to the plan, would cover 270 acres of ground, and contain 241,300,000 cub. ft. of water, which would give a power equal to 6600 horses. The cost is estimated at L59,000. One reservoir has been completed, another is in course of formation, and it is probable that the whole design will be carried into effect."[25]
As early as 1788 there were 143 water-mills in the cotton industry of the United Kingdom, which were distributed as follows among the counties which had more than one.[26]
Lancashire 41 Flintshire 3 Derbyshire 22 Berkshire 2 Nottinghamshire 17 Lanarkshire 4 Yorkshire 11 Renfrewshire 4 Cheshire 8 Perthshire 3 Staffordshire 7 Midlothian 2 Westmorland 5 Isle of Man 1
The need of water to drive Arkwright's machinery, and its value for working other machinery, caused a strong decentralizing tendency to show itself in the cotton industry at this time, but more particularly in the twist-spinning branch. Ultimately the steam-engine (first used in the cotton industry in 1785) drew all branches of the industry into the towns, where the advantages of their juxtaposition--i.e. the external economies of centralization--could be enjoyed. Out of the crowding of the mills in one locality sprang the business specialism which has continued up to the present day. Here it will not be out of place to notice the appearance of the new power, electricity, in the cotton industry, the extension of which may involve striking economic changes. The first electric-driven spinning-mill in Lancashire, that of the "Acme" Spinning Company at Pendlebury, the work of which is confined to the ring-frame, was opened in 1905. Power is obtained from the stations of the Lancashire Power Company at Outwood near Radcliffe, some 5 m. distant.
The chief principle of the water-frame was the drawing out of the yarn to the required degree of tenuity by sets of gripping rollers revolving
at different speeds. This principle is still applied universally. Twist was given by a "flyer" revolving round the bobbin upon which the yarn was being wound; the spinning so effected was known as throstle-spinning. The plan is still common in the subsidiary processes of the cotton industry, but for spinning itself the ring-frame, which appears to have been invented simultaneously in England and the United States (the first American patent is dated 1828), is rapidly supplanting the throstle-frame,[27] though the "ooziness" of mule yarn has not yet been successfully imitated by ring-frame yarn. The great invention relating to weft-spinning was the jenny, introduced by James Hargreaves probably about 1764, and first tried in a factory four years later.[28] Hargreaves unfortunately was unable to maintain his patent, because he had sold jennies before applying for protection. Crompton's mule, which combined the principles of the rollers and the jenny, was perfected about 1779. Both jennies and mules were known as "wheels," because they were worked in part by the turning of a wheel. As they could be set in motion without using much power, being light when of moderate size, for a long time they were worked entirely by hand or partially with the aid of horses or water. The first jenny- and mule-factories were small for this reason, and also because skill in the operative was a matter of fundamental importance,[29] as it was not in twist-spinning on the water-frame. The size of the typical weft-spinning mill suddenly increased after the scope for the application of power was enlarged by the use of the self-actor mule, invented in 1825 by Richard Roberts, of the firm of Sharp, Roberts & Co., machinists, of Manchester. In 1830 Roberts improved his invention and brought out the complete self-actor. Self-actors had been put forward by others besides Roberts--for instance by William Strutt, F.R.S. (son of Arkwright's partner), before 1790; William Kelly, formerly of Lanark mills, in 1792; William Eaton of Wiln in Derbyshire; Peter Ewart of Manchester; de Jongh of Warrington; Buchanan, of Catrine works, Scotland; Knowles of Manchester; and Dr Brewster of America[30]--but none had succeeded. And Roberts's machines did not immediately win popularity. For a long time the winding done by them was defective, and they suffered from other imperfections. Broadly speaking, until the American Civil War the number of hand-mules in use remained high. It was for the fine "counts" in particular that many employers preferred them.[31] About the end of the 'sixties, however, and in the early 'seventies, great improvements were effected in machinery, partly under the stimulus of a desire to elevate its fitness for dealing with short-staple cotton, and it became evident that hand-mules were doomed. Here we may suitably refer to the scutching machine for opening and cleaning cotton, invented by Mr Snodgrass of Glasgow in 1797, and introduced by Kennedy[32] to Manchester in 1808 or 1809; the cylinder carder invented by Lewis Paul and improved by Arkwright; and the lap-machine first constructed by Arkwright's son.
Weaving machinery[edit]
We now transfer our attention to that accumulation of improvements in manufacturing (as weaving is technically termed) which, taken in conjunction with the inventions already described, presaged the large factory system which covers Lancashire to-day.
Gradually, for many years, the loom had been gathering complexities, though no fundamental alteration was introduced into its structure until 1738, when John Kay of Bury excited the wrath of his fellow-weavers by designing and employing the device of the fly-shuttle. For some unfathomable reason--for the opposition of the weavers hardly explains it, though they expressed their views forcibly and acted upon them violently--this invention was not much applied in the cotton industry until about a quarter of a century after its appearance. The plan was merely to substitute for human hands hammers at the ends of a lengthened lathe along which the shuttle ran, the hammers being set in motion by the jerking of a stick (the picking peg) to which they were attached by strings. The output of a weaver was enormously increased in consequence. In 1760 John Kay's son Robert added the drop-box, by the use of which many different kinds of weft could be worked into the same fabric without difficulty. It was in fact a partitioned lift, any partition of which could be brought to a level with the lathe and made for the time continuous with it. The drop-box usefully supplemented the "draw-boy," or "draught-boy," which provided for the raising of warps in groups, and thereby enabled figured goods to be produced. The "draw-boy" had been well known in the industry for a long time; in 1687 a Joseph Mason patented an invention for avoiding the expense of an assistant to work it,[33] but there is no evidence to show that his invention was of practical value. Looms with "draw-boys" affixed, which could sometimes be worked by the weavers themselves, later became common under the name of harness-looms, which have since been supplanted by Jacquard looms, wherein the pattern is picked out mechanically.
The principle of the fly-shuttle was a first step towards the complete mechanizing of the action required for working a loom. The second step was the power-loom, the initial effort to design which was created by the tardiness of weaving as contrasted with the rapidity of spinning by power. After the general adoption of the jenny, supplies of yarn outran the productive powers of the agencies that existed for converting them into fabrics, and as a consequence, it would seem, some yarn was directed into exports which might have been utilized for the manufacture of cloth for export had the loom been more productive. The agitation for the export tax on yarn at the end of the 18th, and in the first years of the 19th century, is therefore comprehensible, but there was no foundation for some of the allegations by which it was supported. For a large proportion of the exported yarn, fabrics could not have been substituted, since the former was required to feed the hand-looms in continental homes and domestic workshops, against much of the product of which there was no chance of competing. The hand-loom was securely linked to the home of the peasant, and though he would buy yarn to feed his loom he would not buy cloth and break it up.[34]
Cartwright's loom was not the first design adapted for weaving by power. A highly rudimentary and perfectly futile self-actor weaving machine, which would have been adapted for power-working had it been capable of working at all, had been invented by a M. de Gennes: a description of it, extracted from the _Journal de scavans_, appeared in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for July and August [12]
1678, and again in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ in 1751 (vol. xxi. pp. 391-392). It consisted of mechanical hands, as it were, that shot in and out of the warp and exchanged the shuttle.[35] Another idea, which however proved fruitful, was that of grinding the shuttle through the warps by the agency of cog-wheels working at each end upon teeth affixed to the upper side of the shuttle. Though shuttles could not in this fashion be set in rapid movement, the machine turned out to be economical for the production of ribbons and tapes, because many pieces could be woven by it at once. These contrivances were known as swivel-looms, and in 1724 Stukeley in his _Itinerarium curiosum_ wrote that the people of Manchester have "looms that work twenty-four laces at a time, which was stolen from the Dutch." Ogden says also that they were set up in imitation of Dutch machines by Dutch mechanics invited over for the purpose. Another interesting passage relating to the swivel-looms will be found in the rules of the Manchester small-ware weavers dated 1756, where the complaint is made that the masters have acquired by the employment of "engine or Dutch looms such large and opulent fortunes as hath enabled them to vie with some of the best gentlemen of the country," and it is alleged that these machines, which wove twelve or fourteen pieces at once, "were in use in Manchester thirty years ago."[36] One power-factory at least was devoted to them as early as 1760, namely that of a Mr Gartside at Manchester, where water-power was applied, but the enterprise failed.[37] Cartwright's invention was probably perfected in its first form about 1787, but many corrections, improvements and additions had to be effected before it became an unqualified success. Cartwright's original idea was elaborated by numerous followers, and supplementary ideas were needed to make the system complete. Of the latter the most important were those due to William Radcliffe, and an ingenious mechanic who worked with him, Thomas Johnson, which were patented in 1803 and 1804. They related to the dressing of the warp before it was placed in the loom, and for the mechanical taking up of the cloth and drawing forward of the warp, so that the loom had not to be stopped for the cloth to be moved on and the warp brought within play of the shuttle to be sized. Looms fitted with the latter of these devices were known as "dandy" looms. The looms that followed need not be described here, nor need we concern ourselves with the degree in which some were imitations of others. It is of interest to note, however, in view of recent developments, that one of Cartwright's patents included a warp-stop motion, though it was never tried practically so far as the writer is aware. Looms with warp-stop motions are now common in the United States, as are also automatic looms, but both are still the exception in Lancashire for reasons that will be sketched later.
Power-looms won their way only very gradually. Cartwright and others lost fortunes in trying to make them pay, but the former was compensated by a grant of L10,000 from government. In 1813 there were 2400 only in the whole of the United Kingdom; in 1820 there were 14,000, beside some 240,000 hand-looms; in 1829, 55,500; in 1833, 100,000; and in 1870, 440,700.[38] To-day there are about 700,000 in the cotton industry. The beginning, and the final consequences, of the competitive pressure of the power-looms may be read in the reports of official inquiries and in Rowbotham's diary.[39] It was upon the fine work that the hand-loom weavers retained their last hold. In 1829 John Kennedy wrote in his paper to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society on "The Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade," "It is found ... that one person cannot attend upon more than two power-looms, and it is still problematical [even in 1829, observe] whether the saving of labour counterbalances the expense of power and machinery and the disadvantage of being obliged to keep an establishment of power-looms constantly at work." It was not easy to obtain a sufficiency of good hands for the power-looms, because the operatives, who had acquired their habits under the domestic system, hated factory life. This, in conjunction with the ease with which the art of coarse weaving could be acquired and the cheapness of rough looms, helps to explain the wretched straits into which the hand-loom weavers were driven.
Differentiation and Integration[edit]
Nothing is more interesting in the cotton industry
than the processes of differentiation and integration that have taken place from time to time. Weaving and spinning had been to a large extent united in the industry in its earliest form, in that both were frequently conducted beneath the same roof. With mechanical improvements in spinning, that branch of the industry became a separate business, and a substantial section of it was brought under the factory regime. Weaving continued to be performed in cottages or in hand-loom sheds where no spinning at all was attempted. Cartwright's invention carried weaving back to spinning, because both operations then needed power, and the trouble of marketing yarn was largely spared by the reunion. Mr W. R. Grey stated in 1833 to the committee of the House of Commons on manufactures, commerce and shipping, that he knew of no single person then building a spinning mill who was not attaching to it a power-loom factory. Some years later the weaving-shed split away from spinning, partly no doubt because of the economies of industrial specialism, partly because of commercial developments, to be described later, which rendered dissociation less hazardous than it had been, and partly because, in consequence of these developments, much manufacturing (as weaving is termed) was constituted a business strikingly dissimilar from spinning. The manufacturer runs more risks in laying by stocks than the spinner, because of the greater variety of his product and the more frequent changes that it undergoes. The former, therefore, must devote more time than the latter to keeping his order book and the productive power of his shed in close correspondence. The minute care of this kind that must be exercised in some classes of businesses explains why the small manufacturer still holds his own while the small spinner has been crushed out. It also explains to some extent the prevalence of joint-stock companies in spinning, and their comparative rarity in manufacturing. Here we should notice, perhaps, that the only combination of importance in the cotton industry proper (apart from calico-printing, bleaching, &c., and the manufacture of sewing-cotton) is the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association, founded in 1898, which is practically coextensive with fine spinning and doubling.
Localization of branches of the industry[edit]
The specialism of the two main branches of the industry has been followed by the specialism of sub-branches and by the localization of specialized parts. Of the localization of certain sections of the cotton industry the late Mr Elijah Helm, who spoke with the authority of great local knowledge, has written as follows:--
"Spinning is largely concentrated in south Lancashire and in the adjoining borderland of north Cheshire. But even within this area there is further allocation. The finer and the very finest yarns are spun in the neighbourhood of Bolton, and in or near Manchester, much of this being used for the manufacture of sewing-thread; whilst other descriptions, employed almost entirely for weaving, are produced in Oldham and other towns. The weaving branches of the industry are chiefly conducted in the northern half of Lancashire--most of it in very large boroughs, as Blackburn, Burnley and Preston. Here, again, there is a differentiation. Preston and Chorley produce the finer and lighter fabrics; Blackburn, Darwen and Accrington, shirtings, dhooties and other goods extensively shipped to India; whilst Nelson and Colne make cloths woven from dyed yarn, and Bolton is distinguished for fine quiltings and fancy cotton dress goods. These demarcations are not absolutely observed, but they are sufficiently clear to give to each town in the area covered by the cotton industry a distinctive place in its general organization."[40]
The present local distribution of the cotton industry, as far as it is displayed statistically, is revealed in the table beneath, based upon the figures of spindles and looms given by Worrall and those of operatives in the census returns of 1901.
Distribution of Cotton Operatives in Lancashire and the Vicinity according to the Census Returns of 1901, together with the Number of Spindles and Looms according to Worrall.[edit]
| No. of | No. | No. of | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operatives. | Spindles (in | Looms. | |
| Thousands). | |||
| Blackburn | 41,400 | 1,325 | 75,300 |
| Bolton | 29,800 | 5,035 | 20,100 |
| Oldham | 29,500 | 11,603 | 18,500 |
| Burnley | 27,900 | 687 | 79,300 |
| Manchester and Salford | 27,200 | 2,666 | 24,200* |
| Preston | 25,000 | 2,036 | 57,900 |
| Rochdale | 14,800 | 2,168 | 25,100 |
| Darwen | 12,500 | 336 | 28,700 |
| Nelson | 12,400 | 23 | 39,000 |
| Glossop** | 968 | 15,400 | |
| Bury | 10,700 | 818 | 22,200 |
| Stockport | 9,700 | 1,803 | 8,700 |
| Ashton-under-Lyne | 8,600 | 1,839 | 11,500 |
| Accrington | 8,300 | 417 | 36,400 |
| Colne | 7,300 | 140*** | 20,500 |
| Heywood | 7,300 | 869 | 6,400 |
| Stalybridge | 7,100 | 1,106 | 7,100 |
| Todmorden | 6,900 | 261 | 15,800 |
| Rawtenstall | 6,600 | 356 | 8,800 |
| Hyde | 6,500 | 553 | 7,900 |
| Chadderton | 6,400 | .. | .. |
| Haslingden | 6,100 | 148 | 12,000 |
| Bacup | 5,900 | 315 | 9,300 |
| Chorley | 5,900 | 547 | 17,900 |
| Farnworth, near Bolton | 5,700 | 738 | 10,600 |
| Leigh | 5,000 | 1,667 | 5,900 |
| Great Harwood | 4,900 | 72 | 12,400 |
| Middleton | 4,900 | 511 | 2,500 |
| Radcliffe | 4,800 | 157 | 8,900 |
-* Manchester only. ** The number of operatives in places in Derbyshire is not separately specified. *** Includes Foulridge with Colne.
Local markets have steadily lost in importance, partly owing to railway development, and it is now almost entirely in Manchester, on the Exchange, that dealing in yarns and fabrics takes place, and arrangements are made for export. The old Manchester Exchange, built in 1729, was taken down in 1792. A new Exchange, reared on a contiguous site, was opened in 1809, the first stone having been laid in 1806. The present building was erected in 1869. The great bulk of the exports of cotton goods proceeds from Liverpool, though London used to be the leading port, and Liverpool is still the chief English market for raw cotton, though now from one-sixth to one-eighth of English cotton supplies come up the Manchester Ship Canal.
Modern organization[edit]
To understand the present organization of the cotton industry the reader must begin by mentally separating the commercial from the industrial functions. By the industrial functions are meant the arrangements of factors in production--choosing the most suitable machinery and hands, combining them in the most economical system, adapting the material used to this system, and keeping its working at the highest attainable level. The commercial functions consist in business which is not industrial. Analysis will show that there are, broadly speaking, two classes of commercial functions, namely (1) arranging for purchases and sales, and (2) the bearing of risks. The character of the former is apparent; it consists, as regards yarn, in discovering for each manufacturer which spinner makes the yarn which is best adapted to his requirements at the lowest cost, and in finding the most suitable customers for spinners. Risk-bearing is a commercial function of another kind. Every business that involves anticipation involves commercial risks. Thus the spinner who sells "forward" yarn, trusting that the price of cotton will not rise, is taking commercial risks, and so is the spinner who produces for stock, trusting that the class of yarn that he is making will continue in demand. These two instances will suffice to indicate what is meant by the carrying of commercial risks. To make the rest of our argument clear it will be well to write down formulae. Let A and B represent respectively the industrial operations of spinning and manufacturing. Let a and [alpha] represent respectively the commercial operations implied by the separate existence of A, that is, the buying of cotton and the selling of yarn; and let b and [Greek: beta] stand for the commercial operations associated with manufacturing, that is, the buying of yarn on the one hand, and the finding of customers and arranging for their purchases on the other hand. Then, A and B being distinct businesses, it is obvious that a range of schemes is possible of which the extremes may be roughly represented as follows:--
1. (aA[alpha]), (bB[beta]) 2. (a), (A), ([alpha]b), (B), ([beta]),
where the brackets signify independent businesses. In case 1 each spinning business would be engaged with three problems, namely, (i.) buying material at the most favourable time, (ii.) producing at the lowest cost, and (iii.) finding buyers and selling at the highest price, including the arranging for the performance of the most remunerative work. But in case 2 the spinner would confine his attention to purely industrial matters, while the problem of finding cotton and arranging for the bearing of the risks as to future prices would rest with other persons, and the business of bringing spinner and manufacturer together and taking such risks as may be involved in ordering or disposing of yarn would be the function of yet others. In case 2 the commercial functions may be said to have differentiated completely from the main body of the industry. We need hardly give illustrations of the intermediate arrangements that formally lie between cases 1 and 2. A may retain commercial risks but find customers through intermediaries; in such an event there would be only partial differentiation of the commercial functions. The reader must be reminded also that for the sake of simplicity in the formulae we have overlooked different classes of A and of B, omitted bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing, and drawn no distinction between the various classes of commercial work covered by one letter, for instance, selling in the home market and selling abroad.
It may help the reader to appreciate the organic growth of the cotton industry if we now run over the main lines of its evolution. Originally the industrial units were held together in one homogeneous commercial setting. The Manchester merchants bought cotton and warps, put them out to the weavers, and arranged for the finishing of the cloth and then for its sale, so far as they had not been acting on orders already received. There were variations of this system--for instance, in early years weavers sometimes bought their own yarns and cotton and sold their cloth--but just before the industrial revolution the arrangement sketched above was the most usual. Adverting to our formula, the Manchester merchants, we observe, performed functions a (in conjunction with importers), b (as regarded warps), and [beta]. Weft the weaver had to get spun by his family or outsiders. So, broadly speaking, there was one single commercial setting. After the appearance of the factory, the commercial work as between the water-twist mills, the mule-spinning businesses and the manufacturers, so far as the businesses were distinct, appears to have been done by the several producing firms concerned. It was not at once that ([alpha]b) began to differentiate, [beta] was already a separate business in the hands of Manchester merchants and the foreign houses who had established themselves in Manchester to direct the export trade. At the present time an advanced stage of commercial specialism has been reached. From the risks connected with the buying of cotton the spinner may if he please escape entirely.[41] Selling work is now done usually through intermediaries, but there is no one uniform rule as to the carrying of the commercial risks involved. This appears to be now to some extent a matter of arrangement between the persons concerned, but ultimately no doubt the risks will have to be borne by those most qualified by experience to bear them, namely, the commercial specialists. In no other trade in England, and in no other cotton industry abroad, has commercial specialism been carried so far as in the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is partly in consequence of the difference in this respect between the cotton industry in Lancashire and abroad that the separation of spinning from weaving is far more common in England than elsewhere. Elsewhere producers are deterred from specializing processes further in distinct businesses by the fear of the worries of buying and selling as between them.
The explanation of differences in respect of the degree of commercial specialism in different places and industries can be formulated only very generally. Time is required for the differentiation and localization to take place. The English cotton trade had not advanced very far in the "'thirties," if we are to judge from the evidence given to commissions and parliamentary committees. The general conditions under which commercial specialism evolves may be taken to be a moderately limited range of products which do not present many varieties, and the qualities of which can be judged generally on inspection. In such circumstances private markets need not be built up, as they must be, for instance, for a new brand of soap which claims some subtle superiority to all others. Soaps under present conditions must be marketed by their producers. Broadly stated, if there be little competition as to substitutes, though there may be much as to price in relation to quality, commercial functions may specialize. On the whole this is the case in the cotton industry; in so far as it is not and firms produce specialities, they undertake much of the marketing work themselves.
The advantages of commercial specialism are numerous. Firstly it allows of differentiation of industrial processes, and this, of necessity, is accompanied by increasing returns. When weaving dissociates from spinning, both the number of looms in each business and the number of spindles in each business tend to increase; more division of labour is therefore secured, and lower costs of production are reached, and there is a further gain because producers concentrate their attention upon a smaller range of work. Again when producers are freed entirely, or to some extent, from commercial worries, they can attain a higher level of efficiency at the industrial task of mill organization, and a more perfect accommodation of capacity to function will be brought about. If the business unit is (aA[alpha]), a particular person may retain his place in the market by reason of his excellence at the work a or [alpha], though as works organizer (i.e. at the performances of function A) he may be incompetent. The heads of businesses will succeed according to their average capacities at the three tasks a, A and [alpha], and there is no guarantee, therefore, that any one of these tasks will be performed with the highest attainable efficiency in our present somewhat immobile economic system. But if the three functions are separated there is more certainty of a person's success in the performance of each determining his continued discharge of it. The problems that arise when specialized markets become very highly developed are dealt with in the article COTTON: MARKETING AND SUPPLY.
Operatives in various processes[edit]
The distribution of cotton operatives among the chief centres has already been shown, but their distribution between processes has yet to be considered, and the proportions of different ages and sexes from time to time, together with the total. With such statistical material as is available relating to supplies of labour we may set forth also the official returns made of the quantity of machinery at work from time to time. It hardly need be pointed out that the ratio of machinery to operatives roughly measures the efficiency of labour, other things being equal.
Machinery in the United Kingdom (in Thousands)[edit]
| Years. | Spinning | Doubling | Power- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spindles. | Spindles. | Looms. | |
| 1874 | 37,516 | 4366 | 463 |
| 1878 | 39,528 | 4679 | 515 |
| 1885 | 40,120 | 4228 | 561 |
| 1890 | 40,512 | 3993 | 616 |
| 1903 | 43,905 | 3952 | 684 |
| Country | Imports |
|---|---|
| America | 1 115 890 608 |
| East Indies | 204 141 168 |
| West Indies | 1 630 784 |
| Brazil | 17 286 864 |
| Other | 52 569 328 |
Operatives employed in the Cotton Industry (in Thousands). (From the Census Returns.*)[edit]
_ (The figures in italics relate to Married and Widowed Women.)
| 1901. | 1891. | 1881. | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England | England | England | ||||||||||
| Lancashire | and Wales | Lancashire. | and Wales | Lancashire. | and Wales | |||||||
| M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F. | |
| Cotton, card and blowing-room processes | 11.4 | 28.7 | 13.8 | 34.0 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| 10.1 | 12.2 | |||||||||||
| Cotton spinning processes | 49.5 | 19.6 | 64.1 | 28.6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| 4.3 | 6.0 | |||||||||||
| Cotton weaving, warping, &c. | 57.6 | 113.5 | 66.1 | 130.8 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| 13.0 | 15.8 | |||||||||||
| Cotton winding, warping, &c. | 14.8 | 38.6 | 18.3 | 48.9 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| 38.1 | 44.4 | |||||||||||
| Total | 133.3 | 265.9 | 162.3 | 320.7 | 178.2 | 281.8 | 213.2 | 332.8 | 150.7 | 249.8 | 185.4 | 302.4 |
| Cotton workers in other processes or | 29.0 | 6.7 | 34.5 | 9.4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| undefined | 1.8 | 2.3 | ||||||||||
| Tape, manufacturer dealer | .. | .. | .. | .. | .47 | .25 | .9 | 1.5 | .4 | .24 | .7 | 1.2 |
| Thread, manufacturer dealer | .. | .. | .. | .. | .2 | .9 | .6 | 2.1 | .1 | .9 | .5 | 1.7 |
| Fustian, manufacturer dealer | .6 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 5.0 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 5.2 |
| .55 | 1.0 | |||||||||||
| Cotton, calico, warehouseman, dealer | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 2.5 | .3 | 3.2 | .38 |
- Census classifications have been altered twice in the period covered by this table.
In Scotland there are less than 15,000 cotton operatives distributed as follows:--
In Thousands.
Card and blowing-room processes .4 Spinning-room processes 2.1 Winding, warping, &c. 2.7 Weaving, warping, &c. 6.8 Workers in other processes or undefined 2.8 ---- Total 14.8
Operatives employed in Cotton Factories in the United Kingdom and Percentages of each Class[edit]
(From Returns of Factory Inspectors.)_
| 1835. | 1838. | 1847. | 1850. | 1856. | 1862. | 1867. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male and Female under | ||||||||
| 13, or half-timers. | 13.2 | 45.7 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 10.4 | |
| Male, 13 to 18 | 12.5 | 16.6 | 11.8 | 11.2 | 10.3 | 9.1 | 8.6 | |
| Male, over 18 | 26.4 | 24.9 | 27.1 | 28.7 | 27.4 | 26.4 | 26.0 | |
| Female, over 13 | 47.9 | 53.8 | 55.3 | 55.5 | 55.8 | 55.7 | 55.0 | |
| Total number of | ||||||||
| Cotton Operatives | 218,000 | 259,500 | 316,400 | 331,000 | 379,300 | 451,600 | 401,100 | |
| 1870. | 1874. | 1878. | 1885. | 1890. | 1895. | 1901. | ||
| Male and Female under | ||||||||
| 13, or half-timers. | 9.6 | 14.0 | 12.8 | 9.9 | 9.1 | 5.8 | 4.1 | |
| Male, 13 to 18 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 7.9 | 8.2 | 7.9 | 7.0 | |
| Male, over 18 | 26.0 | 24.1 | 25.3 | 26.4 | 26.9 | 27.6 | 27.8 | |
| Female, over 13 | 55.9 | 53.9 | 54.7 | 55.8 | 55.8 | 58.7 | 61.1 | |
| Total /number of | ||||||||
| Cotton Operatives | 450,100 | 479,600 | 483,000 | 504,100 | 528,800 | 538,900 | 513,000 |
Number of Operatives (in Thousands) engaged in Spinning, Manufacturing and Subsidiary Processes[edit]
(excluding Lace-making, but including the Fustian Manufacture). (From Census Returns.)_
| Males. | Females. | Males and Females. | ||||||||||||
| Under | Over | All | Under | Over | All | Under | Over | All | ||||||
| 15. | 15-20. | 20. | Ages. | 15. | 15-20. | 20. | Ages. | 15. | 15-20. | 20. | Ages. | |||
| 1881 | 29 | 39 | 121 | 189 | 40 | 81 | 189 | 310 | 69 | 120 | 310 | 500 | ||
| 1891 | 36 | 45 | 137 | 218 | 50 | 94 | 197 | 341 | 86 | 139 | 334 | 560 | ||
| 1901 | 24 | 36 | 139 | 199 | 36 | 92 | 207 | 335 | 60 | 128 | 346 | 535 |
The fact that the branches of work covered by the figures are not identical explains discrepancies between this and the previous table.
Number of Operatives engaged in the Cotton Industry[edit]
(Processes being distinguished and Ages and Sex). (From Special Returns made by Factory Inspectors.)_
| Males in Thousands. | Females in Thousands. | Total in Thousands | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Half- | Under | 18 and | Half- | Under | 18 and | ||
| timers. | 18. | over. | timers. | 18. | over. | ||
| Spinning and Preparatory Processes | |||||||
| 1896 | 5.58 | 22.24 | 71.44 | 4.40 | 30.12 | 78.96 | 212 |
| 1898-1899* | 5.42 | 21.57 | 71.37 | 3.86 | 30.44 | 77.64 | 210 |
| 1901 | 4.98 | 21.10 | 68.98 | 3.10 | 30.98 | 81.68 | 211 |
| Weaving and Preparatory Processes | |||||||
| 1896 | 7.54 | 18.79 | 75.81 | 11.87 | 49.19 | 151.34 | 315 |
| 1898-1899* | 6.21 | 17.29 | 72.74 | 10.38 | 48.38 | 150.99 | 306 |
| 1901 | 4.72 | 14.86 | 73.81 | 8.0 | 45.66 | 155.03 | 302 |
- Average for 1898 and 1899.
The figures in this table are not quite complete except for 1901; the relations between the changes shown for each class should nevertheless be accurately represented.
Index Numbers of Money, Wages and Prices.[edit]
| 1840. | 1855. | 1860. | 1866. | 1870. | 1874. | 1877. | 1880. | 1883. | 1886. | 1891. | 1902. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotton operatives. | 50 | 54 | 64 | 74 | 74 | 90 | 90 | 85 | 90 | 93 | 100 | 105 |
| Average wages for eight trades | 61 | 61 | 73 | 81 | 83 | 97 | 94 | 89 | 92 | 90 | 100 | 108.7* |
| Sauerbeck's index number | 103 | 73 | 99 | 102 | 96 | 102 | 94 | 88 | 82 | 69 | 72 | 69 |
| Average price of wheat per quarter | 66/4 | 40/3 | 53/3 | 49/11 | 46/11 | 55/9 | 56/9 | 44/4 | 41/7 | 31/- | 37/- | 28/1 |
- Average for a slightly different group.
Weekly Wages in the Manchester and District Cotton Trade.[edit]
| 1834. | 1836. | 1839. | 1841. | 1849. | 1850. | 1859. | 1860. | 1870. | 1877. | 1882. | 1883. | 1886. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | |
| Spinners' average | 23 4 | 23 11 | 22 1 | 22 0 | 21 7 | 20 5 | 24 1 | 23 2 | 27 8 | 34 4 | 31 6 | 32 4 | 35 7 |
| Big piecers' average | 11 0 | 9 3 | 8 6 | 8 8 | 8 6 | 13 0 | 10 0 | 10 0 | 11 0 | 12 4 | 16 0 | 16 0 | 13 7 |
| Weavers' average | 11 0 | 10 2 | 9 6 | 9 6 | 10 6 | 10 3 | 11 2 | 10 8 | 12 2 | 15 1 | 15 6 | 15 0 | 13 3 |
The most noticeable features of these tables are the decrease in the proportion of children employed and the steady increase in the number of operatives as a whole until recent years. The contraction of the body of operatives of late years seems to have occurred primarily among children and young persons (where the first check would naturally be looked for), and secondarily among adult males. If allowance be made for the smaller value of children as compared with adults, and the census results be taken, it is not evident that there has been any diminution in the amount of labour-power; and if the factory inspectors' returns be accepted, the falling off in the number of operatives cannot be proved to have taken place in either of the chief branches of the industry at so rapid a rate as to have occasioned the enforced dismissal of any hands. An industry which was not recruited at all would have dwindled at a greater rate. At least it may be inferred from these figures, when taken in conjunction with the large increase in spindles and looms, that the output per head has considerably advanced in spite of the rise in the average quality of both yarns and fabrics produced. This rise in the value per unit of the output accounts to some extent for the fact that wages have not been adversely affected of late.
Wages and piece-rate lists[edit]
Mr A. L. Bowley has calculated index numbers of wages for the leading trades, including the manufacture of cotton. Those for the cotton industry are given below, together with averages for cotton and wool workers, the building trades, mining, workers in iron, sailors, compositors and agriculturists (England), the numbers in each class being allowed for in the average. Side by side with these figures, Sauerbeck's index numbers of general wholesale prices are given, together with the average prices of wheat per quarter.
It must be remembered that the figures given above for cotton workers and average wages for eight trades do not measure the differences between each, but only the differences between the movements of each. Actual average money wages in the cotton industry have probably been approximately those stated in the second table beneath, but as these figures are culled from various sources they must not be taken to indicate fluctuations.[42]
The wage of fine spinners exceeds the average wage of spinners by percentages varying from about 25 to 35. In the above figures the earnings of three classes of spinners are averaged.
The highest wages are earned by mule-spinners (who are all males); their assistants, known as piecers, are badly paid. Persons can easily be found, however, to work as piecers, because they hope ultimately to become "minders," i.e. mule-spinners in charge of mules. The division of the total wage paid on a pair of mules between the minder and the piecers is largely the result of the policy of the spinners' trade union. Almost without exception in Lancashire one minder takes charge of a pair of mules with two or three assistants according to the amount of work to be done. Among the weavers there is no rule as to the number of assistants to full weavers (who are both male and female), or as to the number of looms managed by a weaver, but the proportion of assistants is much less than in the spinning branches, perhaps because of the inferior strength of the weavers' unions. [23]
For the calculation of wages piece-rate lists are universally employed as regards the payment of full weavers and spinners; some piecers get a definite share of the total wage thus assigned to a pair of mules, while others are paid a fixed weekly amount. Many ring-spinners are now paid also by piece-rate lists, and all other operatives are almost universally so paid, except, as a rule, the hands in the blowing-room and on the carding-machines. Spinning and weaving lists are most complicated; allowances are made in them for most incidents beyond the operatives' control, by which the amount of the wage might be affected. Still, however, they could not cover all circumstances, and much is left to the manner of their application and private arrangement. They should be regarded as giving the basis, rather than as actually settling, the wage in all cases. The history of lists stretches back to the first quarter of the 19th century as regards spinners, and to about the middle of the century generally as regards weavers, though a weaving list agreed to by eleven masters was drawn up as early as 1834. There are still many different district lists in use, but the favourite spinning lists are those of Oldham and Bolton, and the weaving list most generally employed is that known as the "Uniform List," which is a compromise between the lists of Blackburn, Preston and Burnley.
Under the "Particulars Clause," first included in a Factory Act in 1891 and given extended application in 1895, the particulars required for the calculation of wages must be rendered by the employer. As in spinning there used to be doubts about the quantity of work done, the "indicator," which measures the length of yarn spun, is coming into general use under pressure from the operatives. We ought to observe here that the Oldham Spinning list differs from all others in that its basis is an agreed normal time-wage for different kinds of work on which piece-rates are reckoned. But in effect understandings as to the level of normal time-wages are the real basis everywhere. If the average wages in a particular mill are lower than elsewhere for reasons not connected with the quality of labour (e.g. because of antiquated machinery or the low quality of the cotton used), the men demand "allowances" to raise their wages to the normal level. Advances and reductions are made on the lists, and under the Brooklands Agreement, entered into by masters and men in the cotton spinning industry in 1893, advances and reductions in future must not exceed 5% or succeed one another by a shorter period than twelve months. The changes as a rule now are 5% or 2-1/2%. In all branches of the cotton industry it is usual for a conference to take place between the interested parties before a strike breaks out, on the demand of one or other for an advance or reduction.
Trade Unions[edit]
Organization among the workers in the cotton industry is remarkably thorough. Almost
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 7, Slice 5 "Cosway" to "Coucy"
For instance among the spinners
all spinners are members of trade unions, and though the weavers are not so strongly united, the bulk of them are organized. The piecers are admitted as members of piecers' associations, connected with the spinners' associations and controlled by them. Attempts to form independent piecers' unions have failed. Weavers' assistants are included in the weavers' unions, which may be joined in different classes, the benefits connected with which vary with the amounts paid. One subscription only, however, is imposed by each branch spinners' association, but in all branches it is not the same, though every branch pays the same per member to the amalgamation. All the trade unions of the chief workers in the cotton industry are federated in the four societies: (1) the Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners (created in 1853 and reformed in 1870), (2) the Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers (founded 1884), (3) the Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing-room Operatives (established 1886), and (4) the Amalgamated Association of Power-loom Overlookers (founded 1884). These were not, however, the first attempts at federation, and the term "federation" must not be taken in any strict sense. The distribution of power between the central authority and the local Societies varies, but in some cases, for instance among the spinners, the local societies approximate as closely to the status of mere branches, as to that of independent units federated for limited objects. We ought also to mention the societies of warp-dressers and warpers, tape-sizers and cloth-workers and warehousemen. There is no one federation of all cotton-workers, but the United Textile Factory Workers has been periodically called into being to press the matter of factory legislation, and international textile congresses are occasionally held by the operatives of different countries.
As to employers, four extensive associations include almost all the organization among them, two concerned chiefly with spinning and two with weaving. The former two are the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations with local associations and including 21,000,000 spindles, and the Bolton Master Cotton Spinners' Association with 7,000,000 spindles; the latter two are the North and North-East Lancashire Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association, covering about 3,000,000 spindles in addition to a large section of the looms of Lancashire, and the United Cotton Manufacturers' Association.[43]
Factory Acts[edit]
Factory legislation began in the cotton industry, and in no industry is it now more developed. The first acts were those of 1802 and 1819, both of which applied only to cotton-mills, and the former of which related only to parish apprentices. The first really important measure was that of 1833, which curtailed the abuse of child-labour, enforced some education and provided for factory inspectors, of whom there were at first only four. The next act of importance, that of 1844, was chiefly remarkable for its inclusion of all women among young persons. The proportion of women, young persons and children engaged in the cotton industry is so high, that most regulations affecting them, e.g. those relating to the hours of labour, must practically be extended to all cotton operatives. This act killed night work for "young persons," and children were not allowed to work at night. [25]
The year 1847 saw the introduction of what was known as the Ten Hours Act--after the 1st of May 1848 the hours of young persons (women included) and children were not to exceed ten a day and fifty-eight a week. A further limitation of hours to 56-1/2 a week was secured in 1874, and this was cut down by another hour (the concession of the 12 o'clock Saturday) in 1901. "Young persons" now includes all who are not half-timers and have not attained the age of eighteen, and all women. The rules as regards the employment of children, which have steadily improved, are at present as follows. No child under twelve may be employed. On attaining the age of thirteen the child may become a full-timer if he has obtained the prescribed educational certificate (i.e. fifth standard attainment or three hundred attendances each year for five consecutive years). Failing this he must wait till he is fourteen before he can be employed full time. Half-timers may be employed either (a) on alternate days, which must not be the same days in two successive weeks, or (b) in morning and afternoon sets. In the case of arrangement (a), the child when at work may be employed during the same period as a young person or woman, which in Lancashire is almost universally from 6 to 6 with two hours for meals.[44] In the case of arrangement (b), which is the system generally adopted in Lancashire, a half-timer in the morning set works from 6 to 12.30, with half an hour for breakfast, and in the afternoon from 1.30 to 6 except on Saturdays, when the hours are from 6 till 11.30 for a manufacturing operative, or till 12 for other work, for instance, cleaning. The child must not work two consecutive weeks in the same set (that is, in mornings or afternoons), nor on two successive Saturdays, nor on Saturday at all if during any other day of the same week the period of employment has exceeded 5-1/2 hours (i.e. a child in the morning set does not work on the Saturday). Other important features of factory legislation relate to the fencing of dangerous machinery and its cleaning when in motion (the regulations being strictest in the case of children and most lax in the case of male adults), and conditions of health, including the amount of steaming allowed, which was first regulated by the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889. [26]
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 81.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 82.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 83.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 84.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 85.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 86.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 87.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 88.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 89.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 90.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 91.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 92.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 93.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 94.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 95.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 96.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 97.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 98.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Arnold 1864 37was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 99.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 100.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 101.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 102.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 103.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 104.
- ^ Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, p. 105.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).