[1] See the extract from the books of Bolton Abbey, given by Baines
(p. 96) and dated 1298.
[2] Vol. ii. p. 206; Baines, pp. 96-97.
[3] Baines, pp. 93 and 94.
[4] Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, vol. ii.
[5] _State Papers, Domestic_, lix. 5. See W. H. Price, _Quar. Jour.
Econ._, vol. xx.
[6] London Guildhall Library, vol. Beta, _Petitions and Parliamentary
Matters_ (1620-1621), No. 16 (old No. 25).
[7] The act referred to is 33 Henry VIII. c. xv., already mentioned.
[8] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_ (1903),
vol. ii. p. 623.
[9] Original edition, pp. 32, 33.
[10] Aikin's _Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles
round Manchester_, p. 154.
[11] _Tour_, vol. iii. p. 219.
[12] For instance Radcliffe p. 61. Ogden (author of _A Description of
Manchester_, &c., published in 1783), if Aikin's "accurate and
well-informed enquirer" by Ogden, says that the period of rapid
extension of the cotton industry began about 1770. See also
Butterworth's _History of Oldham_ and the passage quoted below in the
text.
[13] Account of Society for Promotion of Industry in Lindsey (1789),
Brit. Mus. 103, L. 56. Quoted from Cunningham's _English Industry and
Commerce_, vol. ii. p. 452, n. ed., 1892.
[14] In 1838 the only other county with more than 1000 was Gloucester
with 1500. 217,000 of the 219,100 operatives in England and Wales
were employed in the counties enumerated. Of the 2000 operatives
whose location is not given, about 1000 worked in Flintshire.
[15] W. Radcliffe's _Origin of the New System of Manufacturing_, p. 59.
[16] The term "fustian" had originally been used to designate certain
woollen or worsted goods made at Norwich and in Scotland. A reference
to Norwich fustians of as early a date as the 14th century is quoted
by Baines.
[17] E. Butterworth's _History of Oldham_, p. 101.
[18] _Parliamentary Reports, &c._ (1826-1827), v. p. 5. See for even
later examples Gardner's evidence to the committee on hand-loom
weavers in 1835.
[19] This is illustrated in one of the plates to Guest's _History of
the Cotton Manufacture_.
[20] Chapman's _Lancashire Cotton Industry_, pp. 15 and 16.
[21] Page 167.
[22] Mrs Crompton, wife of Samuel Crompton, we are told, used to
employ her son George shortly after he could walk, as a "dolly-peg"
to tread the cotton in the soapy water in which it was placed for
washing. See French's _Life of Crompton_, pp. 58-59 (3rd ed.).
Rowbotham in his diary gives two accounts of fires which were caused
by carelessness in drying cotton.
[23] On the difference between the two machines see Baines's
_History_, p. 138 et seq.
[24] Baines p. 183.
[25] Baines's _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 86 n.
[26] These figures are quoted from a pamphlet published in 1788
entitled "An Important Crisis in the Calico and Muslin Manufactory in
Great Britain explained." Many of the estimates given in this
pamphlet are worthless, but there seems no reason why the figures
quoted here should not be at least approximately correct.
[27] See article on COTTON-SPINNING MACHINERY.
[28] Hargreaves' claim to this invention has been disputed, but no
satisfactory evidence has been brought forward to disprove his claim.
Hargreaves was a carpenter and weaver of Stand-hill near Blackburn,
and died in 1778.
[29] See Chapman's _Lancashire Cotton Industry_, pp. 59 et seq.
[30] See Baines p. 207.
[31] "Counts" are determined by the number of hanks to the lb. A hank
is 840 yds. The origin of the hank of 840 yds. is probably that
spinners used a winding-reel of 1-1/2 yds. in circumference, so that 80
threads (one "lea" or "rap" according to old phraseology) would
contain 120 yds., and seven leas (i.e. a hank) would contain 840 yds.
A hank of seven leas was the common measure in the woollen industry,
in which the reels were 1 yd. or 2 yds. in circumference. For details
see an article on the subject in the _Textile World Record_, vol.
xxxi. No. 1.
[32] The author of the memoir of Crompton (see bibliography).
[33] Specification 257.
[34] For further analysis of the arguments current see Chapman's
_Lancashire Cotton Industry_, pp. 66 et seq.
[35] Also in the 17th century a John Barkstead was granted a patent
for a method of manufacturing cotton goods, but the method is not
described. 1691, Specification 276.
[36] In the parliamentary reports (1840), xxiv. p. 611, the invention
of the swivel-loom is claimed for a "Van Anson." It is a plausible
supposition that by "Van Anson" is meant Vaucanson, as he appears to
have improved the swivel-loom. But he could not have been the
original inventor, since in 1724 (that is, when Vaucanson was at the
most fifteen years of age) they were being employed in Manchester.
[37] Aikin, pp. 175-176, and Guest, p. 44. An explanation of the
mechanism of the swivel-loom will be found in the _Encyclopedie
methodique, manufactures, arts et metiers_, pt. i. vol. ii. pp. 202,
208, and _Recueil de planches_, vol. vi. (1786), pp. 72-78.
[38] Figures for the years above up to 1838 will be found in
parliamentary reports (1840), xxiv. p. 611.
[39] This is the manuscript diary of a weaver of Oldham roughly
covering the period 1787 to 1830. It is now in the Oldham public
library. Mr S. Andrew edited extracts from it in a series of articles
in the _Standard_ (an Oldham paper), under the title _Annals of
Oldham_, beginning January 1, 1887.
[40] Printed in _British Industries_. Edited by W. J. Ashley.
[41] This is explained in the article COTTON: _Marketing and Supply_.
[42] See chapter on cotton in Bowley's _Wages in the United Kingdom_
and table there given.
[43] A detailed analysis of the whole labour question in the cotton
industry will be found in Chapman's _Lancashire Cotton Industry_.
[44] There are other permissible arrangements, namely from 7 to 7 and
from 8 to 8, but they are not used in the textile trades of
Lancashire.
[45] The figures for looms are based upon a number of returns and
estimates. Those for spindles are taken from the highly authoritative
estimates of the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners.
[46] _Journal of Board of Trade_, April 28th, 1904.
[47] The early history of the industry in the United States is
summarized in one of the official bulletins of the state of
Massachusetts, dated 1798. See W. R. Bagnall, _Textile Industries of
the U. S._ (1893).
[48] See also the official report of J. P. Harris-Gastrell in 1873.
[49] Quoted by Schulze-Gaevernitz.
[50] _Memorandum_ on British and foreign trade and industrial
conditions.
[51] The method of calculating these percentages is discussed in the
blue-book mentioned.
[52] Upon the above see Uttley's report.
[53] The figures are those quoted by Mr T. M. Young and relate to the
year 1902.
[54] See e.g. some passages upon this point in Uttley's report.
[55] For an account of the numerous types of automatic looms see the
article on WEAVING: S Machinery.
[56] Of which special mention may be made of Uttley's report as a
Gartside scholar of the university of Manchester, already referred
to, and Pidgin's report for the Massachusetts Bureau of Labour
Statistics.
[57] _Textile Recorder_, August 15th, 1905.
[58] Young's _American Cotton Industry_, p. 13.
[59] Uttley's report, p. 4.
[60] Similar formulae have been used above, where a fuller
explanation is given.
[61] Deutschland als Industriestaat.
COTTON-SPINNING MACHINERY. The earliest inventors of spinning machinery
(see SPINNING) directed their energies chiefly to the improvement of the
final stage of the operation, but no sooner were these machines put to
practical use than it became apparent that success depended upon
mechanically conducting the operations preliminary to spinning. Later
inventors were, therefore, called upon not only to improve the
inventions of their predecessors, but to devise machinery for preparing
the fibres to be spun. Arkwright quickly perceived the importance of
this aspect of the problem, and he devoted even more energy to it than
to the invention with which his name is more intimately associated. But,
given a complete series of machines for preparing and spinning, the
cotton industry (see COTTON MANUFACTURE) must have remained
unprogressive without the co-operation of cotton growers, for by the
then existing methods of separating cotton lint from seed it would have
been impossible to provide an adequate supply of raw material. By
inventing the saw gin, Eli Whitney, an American, in the year 1792, did
for cotton planters what Paul, Arkwright, Crompton, Cartwright, Watt and
others did for textile manufacturers, for he provided them with the
means for increasing their output almost indefinitely.