CHAPTER VII. Letters of Samuel Crompton

LETTERS OF SAMUEL CROMPTON

In view of what has been said in the last two chapters, the following letters explain themselves. The first has reference to the 1803 subscription, and the others to the parliamentary grant in 1812. As will be seen, four of the letters were sent in the first place to Crompton’s family, and then, apparently, handed to Mr. Kennedy. The others, including the one from Mr. Lee, were addressed either to Mr. Kennedy or to the firm of M‘Connel & Kennedy. The letters form a consecutive narrative, but in order to present a full account of the matter to which they refer, the petition to the House of Commons, and the evidence before the Committee appointed in connection with it, have been introduced in their appropriate places.

As Crompton did not pay much attention to punctuation, and was prone to abbreviate, a few stops have been introduced, and some abbreviated words printed in full; also a few words [in brackets] have been added. Otherwise the letters are printed as Crompton wrote them.

KING STREET, BOLTON. 30 Dec^r 1802.

GENTLEMEN,

According to your request have Applied to Several Gent^n in this neighbourhood who were personally concerned in, & Subscribers to the machine or Spinning wheele which I had made. I then lived at a place called Hall-oth-Wood & they went by that name here--with you they have the name of Mule.

About the year 1772 I Began to Endeavour to find out if possible a better Method of making Cotton Yarn than was then in Generall Use, being Grieved at the bad yarn I had to Weave. But, to be short, it took me Six years, that is till the year 1778, before I could make up my mind what plan to Adopt that would be equal to the task I hoped it would perform. It took from 1778 to 1779 to finish it. From 1779 to the beginning 1780 I spun upon it for my own use both warp and weft. In the beginning of the year 1780 I Began to Spin only & left off Weaving.

In the end of 1780 it was made public & if any more particulars should be wanting I shall give them if necessary. have applied to Messrs. Peter Ainsworth and Son, Mr. Jno. Pilkington, Mr. Fogg, Mr. Jas Carlile was not at home when I called.

Mr. Richd Ainsworth sugested, if you should agree, to alow a little more time before you published your Circular Letter, that is to apoint a meeting next Tuesday but one, & he & others who are sincere friends to the cause would attend it, & in the meign time he would write to Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Jno. Horrocks, Mr. Wm Yates of Bury, Mr. Thos Ainsworth, who is now in London,--all of whom he is confident will be happy in the opertunity of joining you in the business. If you should Aprove of this Idea of Apointing a Meeting next Tuesday but one, you’l please to Write by return of post so that there may be time to acquaint those Gent^n of your kind purpose & also you’l please to name the time and place of the Meeting, but if not you’l please to write me, and those Gent^n that are at hand will give you their names by Letter and also every other Suport in their power.

I Remain Gent^n Your Most Obedient Humble Servant SAML. CROMPTON.

On the blank sheet of the above letter there is a rough draft of one from Mr. Kennedy to Crompton, in which he advises him to get Mr. Pilkington and Mr. Ainsworth and any other neighbours he thinks proper to add their names to those of the persons who had already signed the circular letter “which is to show that you are the inventor.” Afterwards, Mr. Kennedy explained, the circular letter would be printed, and sent to those who were likely to be friends to the cause, and those who had already promised their support would make their subscriptions, and call upon others to do the same.

To the MERCHANTS, MANUFACTURERS, COTTON SPINNERS, BLEACHERS, PRINTERS, &C., OF THESE UNITED KINGDOMS.

GENTLEMEN,

The Machine for Spining cotton so well known by the name of the Hall-oth-wood wheele, to which name succeded that of the Mule, is well known in this country to be my Invention, to complet which to my satisfaction cost me years of study and personall labour, and at the expence of every Shilling I had in the world, unaided by any one and unknown to all. At first I only spun on it occasionally (being a weaver), but I had not used it constantly more than Six Months before I was beset on every side by people of various descriptions from the distance of 60 Miles and upwards as well as my neighbours. So that in a few Months I saw that certain ruin was before me if I continued to work it, there were so many persons desirous to see the Machine. To prevent them I could not keep to my work, whose Curiosoty was excited by the superior quality and fineness of the yarn I spun hitherto unknown and which at that time the trade was much in want of. To destroy what had cost me so much labour and expence I could not think of, what to do I knew not. The principall men then in the trade made proposals to me that if I would let the machine be shown to the public they would make a liberall Subscription to which I assented in preference to destroying it, and received by subscription only so much as built me a new one with 4 Spindles more than my first, as the book of subscription which I have by me will prove. At that time 1780 the cotton trade was in its infancy, and I dare affirm that its rapid Increase was owing under Divine Providence to this Invention. If I had destroyed, rather than give it up I do not hessitate to say this country would have lost that piece of Mechanism that has produced and increased one of the first Manufactories in Europe viz. the fine Muslin and cambric, and also the extention of many Sorts of cotton goods that were made in an inferior manner before, all of which would now have been lost to us without this Machine. In the year 1802 and 3 a number of liberall minded gentlemen at Manchester proposed for my aprobation to begin a subscription which was meant to extend not only to England but to Scotland and Ireland but the war breaking out at the time it was just begun at Manchester and its vicinity, and the difficulties consequent thereon prevented its progress and thitherto it has been dropt the promoters of which sent me what had been received viz betwixt 3 and 400 pounds it being part of what had been subscribed and for whose unsolicited generosity I shall ever feel thankfull, which sum I was requested to accept not a remuneration but as an acknowledgment of the validity of my claim to the invention, So that I have yet to receive that recompence I have many thousand times been told within the last 30 years was my due. I am now geting into years and if ever I am to receive any compensation it cannot be much longer deferred. On a Moderate calculation the Invention has given employment for many years to thousands of Machine makers and Spinners, and perhaps to 50,000 Weavers and in the agregate reconing from the raw material not less than 300,000 Men, Women & Children, its extencive use has caused the increased growth and import of cotton to an immence extent to the great advantage of landowners, merchants, and planters. In short it has been the cause of our cotton Manufactories being envied by, and unrivaled in the world. After appealing thus openly to the public which I now for the first time find myself disposed to do, and the present state of trade being such as to discourage any appeal or application to individuals I am desirous to prefer my claims to parliment which has been liberall on other occasions and which no doubt will give them due consideration, having the sanction of the principal people concerned in the trade who are proper whitnesses and judges of my right thereto. I therefore solicit such gentlemen who approve of my Intention and who think me entitled to a compensation to sign their names to this paper and they will have the gratefull acknowledgment of their

Humble Serv^t SAML. CROMPTON.

BOLTON, 22nd April 1811.

CERTIFICATE PRESENTED TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER IN 1812, SIGNED BY COMMERCIAL FIRMS AND MANUFACTURERS:--

We, the undersigned, being interested in the cotton manufacture, certify that we are perfectly satisfied with the correctness of the memorials prefixed, and are convinced of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s just claim to public remuneration for the originality, utility, and extent of his improvement in cotton-spinning.

John Pilkington Thomas Ridgway and Sons Thomas Ainsworth and Co. Peter Ainsworth and Son Samuel Oldknow M‘Connel and Kennedy Phillips and Lee Greg and Ewart Henry and John Barton and Co. Arthur Clegg William Douglas and Co. William Jones Nathaniel Gould H. and W. Fielden Richard Birley Peter Marsland James Robinson A. and Geo. Murray Birley and Hornby James Kennedy James Bateman Robert Peel, Jun. Peel, Yates and Co. J. T. and G. Touchet and Co. Thos. and John Drinkwater The New Lanark Company James and John M’Hewham Henry Houldsworth James Dunlop R. Thompson and Sons William Yates William Fox John Simpson Horrocks and Co. John Gladstone John Forster Ewart, Rutson and Co. George Case Thomas Earle William Roscoe James Finlay and Co. William Stirling and Sons Todd, Shorbridge and Co. William and John Orr For the Linwood Company, Andrew Brown.

PETITION PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 5th March 1812.

A Petition of Samuel Crompton of Bolton-en-le-Moors, in the County of Lancaster, Cotton Spinner, being offered to be presented;

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, by command of His Royal Highness The Prince Regent, acquainted the House, that His Royal Highness, having been informed of the contents of the said Petition, recommends it to the consideration of the House.

Then the said Petition was brought up, and read; setting forth, That, in the year 1769, Sir Richard Arkwright obtained a Patent for the use of a Machine by him invented for spinning Cotton, commonly called a Water Frame, the benefit of which invention he exclusively enjoyed during the full period of fourteen years, and derived great advantage therefrom; and that the above Machine, although excellent for the purposes to which it could be applied, was exceedingly limited in its application, it being, from its construction, utterly incapable of spinning weft of any kind, or of producing twist of very fine texture; and that, to remedy this defect, the Petitioner, in the year 1779, completed the discovery of a Machine, now called a Mule, but which for several years bore the name of the Hall of the Wood Wheel, from the name of the then place of residence of the Petitioner; and that the Petitioner’s Machine not only removed the pre-existing defects in the art of spinning, by being capable of producing every then known description of weft as well as twist of a very superior quality, but gave birth to a new manufacture in this country of fine Cambrics and Muslins, by producing yarns of treble the fineness, and of a much more soft and pleasant texture, than any which had ever before been spun in Great Britain; and that the merit of the Petitioner’s Machine soon brought it into general use, and has been the means of extending the Cotton manufacture to more than double the amount to which it was before carried on, whereby all persons employed in the Cotton manufactory, and the Public in general, have been greatly benefited; and that, notwithstanding the very great and numerous advantages derived by this country from the Petitioner’s labours, the Petitioner has hitherto received no adequate reward for his discovery, the Petitioner having, in the first instance, been induced to give up his discovery to the Public by the solicitations of a great number of very respectable merchants and Manufacturers; and that the Petitioner stated his case to the Officers of His Majesty’s Government, and was not able to obtain their determination thereon until the time limited by the House for receiving Petitions for Private Bills had elapsed: And praying, That leave may be given to present a Petition for such remuneration for his said discovery, and giving up the use thereof for the benefit of the Public, as may be deemed meet.

Ordered, That leave be given to present a Petition, as desired.

Then a Petition of the said Samuel Crompton was presented, and read; containing the like allegations as the last preceding Petition: And praying the House to grant him such remuneration for his said discovery, and giving up the use thereof for the benefit of the Public, as may be deemed meet.

Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to a Committee:--And it is referred to the Lord Stanley, Mr. Blackburne, &c., And they are to meet To-morrow, in the Speaker’s Chamber; and have Power to send for persons papers and records.

SWAN, LAD LANE, LONDON. 23d Jany. 1812.

MESSRS. M’CONNELL & KENNEDY. GENT^N,

I take the Liberty of writing you and all enquiring friends that I yesterday left the memorial and Sketch of the petition as drawn up at Manchester and a letter from Lord Stanley at Mr. Sp. Percival’s Downing St, and also my address have heard nothing since. Lord Stanley is attending for Collonel Stanley on the county business, he is very active in my case and neglects no opertunity of [approaching] the chancellor of the exchequer. He has wrote to him twice and twice [approached] him going into the house, but as there is only Lord and Collonel Stanley from the whole County of Lancaster that I know of in town I do not expect much to be done. Sir Robert Peel is not here and finding that his opinion is looked to by government have wrote Wm. Yates Esqr. on the subject and expect an answer to morrow. I have to thank Mr. Ewart for his letter to Mr. Rennie who introduced me to one of the members his friend the only one yet in town, Collonel Stanley is confined to his Bed. He was a little Better yesterday and hopes he will soon be able to move about. I have nothing more particular except to Mr. Lee to inform him that I have not availed myself of Mr. Duckworth’s Letter to Mr. Jones as I found Coll. Stanley aproved a Mr. White who he said did for him all the County Business and who has appeared hitherto desirous that my buisness should not be subject to much expence. He is a very inteligent man and understands my buisness well, but like the Manchester people he says I must get hold of Sir Robert Peel. When he comes I shall not fail to try what can be done. have call’d at his house twice and have been told he was expected tomorrow. If any thing further occurs I will not fail to write some of my friends and you will please shew this to any one you may think proper.

I am Gent^n. your Most Obdt. Ser^t, SAML. CROMPTON.

P.S. My son George will probably be in Manchester on Saturday, you will find him in Whites Court, M’Donalds Lane, the firm is Wright & Crompton. If you shew him this it will much oblidge. I have not heard from any one since I left home but hope they are all well.

February 14, 1812 (postmark).

MR. JOHN KENNEDY, MANCH^R. SIR,

Yours of the 11th I have just now received will defer all thanks and acknowledgments till I see you. I am just now returned from Mr. Percival’s Downing St. Mr. Blackburn went with me & we met there by appointment at twelve o’clock Sir Robt Peel, Lord Stanley, Mr. Horrocks, & Mr. Houston, and had an audience of more than an hour. I can only say that all present that went on my acct. used every argument in their power to induce Mr. P. to think favourably on the subject. He said he had perused the Memorial and the petition with particular attention before we were admitted and did not appear hostile to it. I can only add that he promised Mr. Blackburn to give him an answer on Monday next. Whatever is the result you may rely uppon it I shall be satisfied, and must say that if the Memorial Sanctioned as was & the petition in the state I brought with me from Manch^r and the gent^n that went with me is not sufficient to engage the attention of Government I know not what is, and must also say that it is of no use to pursue it any further. In regard to what sum to ask I beg you will set your mind at rest, you may depend uppon it I never shall ask any sum, what I ask for is a candid and full statement of my case, and an apeal to Brittish generosoty, I remain,

Dear sir, Yours most Respectfully SAML. CROMPTON.

My best respects to all friends and will write some of them when any thing occurs worth your notice. I hope they are all well.

LONDON, LAD LANE, 21 Feby. 1812.

DEAR CHILDREN,

Yours of the 15th I duly recd and am very happy to hear that George is recovered and that you are all well, and I find myself much better than I was at first. I intend this day to call on Mr. Lever to repeat what I aplied for before. A week to day since I wrote Messrs. M‘Connell & Kennedy perhaps they have shewn it you. On Monday last Mr. Blackburn applied to Mr. Percival for his answer promised, which had been forgot on Tuesday he got his consent for the petition to be brought in. On Wednesday Mr. B. got it back from Mr. Percival’s office and on Thursday Lord Stanley wrote Mr. Percival and has this day got a written answer from Mr. Percival. I yesterday morning waited on Sir R. Peel whose kindness I must ever remember in reviewing the petition, before I went to Lord Stanley by appointment made the night before at the House of Commons. I was with him two hours. I this day have been with an hour, he is determined to bring it in. As he had to Introduce it to the Minister, you see what progress I am making and if but slow I now think I shall get a hearing and if the letters I have written to my numerous friends are preserved I perhaps might remember many things which otherwise I may forget. I am very happy to find Mr. T. Ainsworth is here I supt with him last night. If I had Duncan’s Art of Weaving it would be of some service. I lent it Mr. T. Ainsworth some time back. I believe it is not returned but you easyly get it, and if you send by some friend that may be coming you know how to direct it. You will shew this on Tuesday to some of my Manchester friends and give my best respects to them and all enquiring friends. Mr. Haire is here and will send by him Mr. Davy’s catalogue which Jas. Rushton wanted. You also may inform J. Seddon I have seen Mrs. Cook. She now lives at Clapham Common, Surry. She informs me that all the accts. were sent to her sister at Liverpool. You will not shew this to any but the Manch^r Gent^n and either them or you shall hear from me when I have any thing to write. In hopes that this will find them and you all well I still remain

Your Affectionate father, SAML. CROMPTON.

SWAN, LAD LANE, 28 Feby. 1812.

DEAR CHILDREN,

I last night recd the book and a letter from William per favour of Mr. Morris who slept here last night. We sat up till late. I am happy to hear you are all well. I, the night before yesterday, recd the petition from Mr. White as it is intended to be presented and reading it at home I signed it and as directed I took it Lord Stanley yesterday who said he would see me at the house, where I waited till after 7 o’clock and he not appearing, I went home. Yesterday Mr. T. Ainsworth and I paid a visit to Lord Stanley & Collonell Stanley who is yet confined, they both recd our visit very kindly. I this Morning called on Mr. T. A. who is coming down to night by the Mail, and offered to carry me a letter or render me any service he could. I am now 3 o’clock returned from Mr. White’s office Westminster Hall where I went by appointment made last night. My intent was to give him a good drilling as I expect to have to depend on him greatly, and will say I think him a most excellent schollar. You will shew this my friends at Manchester and as I mean to write some of them in a few days concerning evidence & any thing else which may occur, I remain always remembering you with sincere respect,

SAML. CROMPTON.

The following letter is undated, and as it was sent by a Mr. Willoughby, it contains no postmark. It is evident from its contents, however, that it is here given in its correct chronological order.

SIR,

You I trust will have heard that Mr. S. Horrocks, and T. Ainsworth are both gone down to Lancashire, and both expect to be here again about the middle of next month. There are a great many members not yet arived that we could wish to see before the buisness is brought forward. The petition is lying with Lord Stanley who has Mr. Percival’s written consent to receive the petition, and in its present form the claim must be made out by evidence. I prevailed on Mr. Ainsworth while he was here to write out a number of questions with their answers according to his own view of the subject, which I will subjoin if my paper will contain them, and as I must have evidence, I also must be prepared where to find at an appointed time of which I can have any Sufficent notice Mr. T. Ainsworth from Bolton, one or two from Manchester and one from Glasgow and also one Ireland if any such could be found. I presume the whole of the evidence would be gone through in one day or two and if my Manchester friends can find me one or two on whom I can rely on at the time appointed, it would add greatly to the number of obligations that have been received from them by their Humble Servant

SAML. CROMPTON.

Coppy of T. A.’s Questions and Answers

How long have you been conversant in the Cotton Trade of the County of Lancaster? Near 40 years.

Can you speak as to the extent of the cotton trade 30 years ago comparatively to what it is at present? In proportion of 20 for 1.

To what do you in a great measure impute this rapid increase of this trade? To the invention of Machinery and most particularly that used in Spinning.

To what invention in Spinning Machinery do you most particularly allude? First to Mr. Arkwright’s for which he obtained a patent and made an immence fortune, next to his, Mr. Crompton’s which may be called an invention though it had the aid of some parts of Mr. Arkwright’s.

Can you describe the principals of Mr. Ark’s Machine and the effects it is calculated to produce? The thread in Mr. A’s was made in the rollers only, and the twist from the spindle given by a bobbin and fly which compelled a hard thread fit only for warp.

Wherein does Mr. Crompton’s Machine differ? The fineness of the thread may either all, or in part, be made in the Rollers the twist is given from the Spindle without the use of bobbin and fly, it may be made hard for warp superior to any thing that can be produced by Mr. A’s Machine, or it may be made soft for weft which Mr. A’s cannot at all produce.

Had Mr. C’s Machine been introduced before Mr. A’s would it alone have answered the demands of the trade? I think we could at this moment entirely do without Mr. A’s machine having Mr. Crompton’s.

Had the trade been without Mr. C’s machine could the Manufactory have gone on to the extent it is? If at this moment Mr. C’s machine could be taken from the trade one half of the Trade would be lost with it. What proportion of the trade do you suppose the invention of Mr. C. has given rise unto? I think more than one half I believe 2/3ds of the piece goods Manufactory.

What branch of the piece goods Manufactory? Particularly every branch but almost intirely Muslins, Cambrics and all fine fabrics. To the Scotch fancy Manufactory which is the most valuable in the Kingdom intirely.

How do you make out the Scotch Manufy. to be valuable beyond the other parts of the cotton trade? Because the raw material imported of which the fabric consists is not more than 5 p. ct. of its value when sent again abroad, as I may state that the raw material costing 20s. is by the labour of this country made of the value of 20£.

And do you impute this branch of trade to the merrits of Mr. C’s Invention? I so far impute it to this cause that I cannot conceive how it could ever have been carried on without it.

Would not Mr. Arkwright’s Machine have supplied this trade? In no sort of proportion perhaps not as one to six.

Was not this fancy trade in Scotland supplied before the invention of fine spinning with linnen yarn? I believe it was from the continent, perhaps the linnen imported might cost 10£ and by the Scotch manufactory be made worth 20£ but even this Trade bore no proportion in extent, and at this moment would have been nearly lost for want of Material.

Is there no other Machine calculated for fine yarns? Is there not one called a Jenny? The Jenny is the oldest of all the Machines after one spindle but any merrit it possesses is mostly borrowed from Mr. Crompton’s and in that improved state it is not calculated but for low good waste, etc.

Have you any certain Knowledge that what is now called the mule is the same in principal as the Hall-oth-Wood Machine and that it was the sole invention of S. Crompton? Yes no other person ever laid claim to it, it was so admitted at the time, and a small subscription raised. It has the sanction of the whole trade and there is not a shadow of a doubt entertained.

How many people does this Machine now employ? In spinning only, perhaps 70,000, in weaving and all that follows, 150,000 but the work it produces if it was possible for single hand wheeles to produce the article as in the East Indies it would take 3 or 4 millions to spin only.

If the trade of Lancashire has received such advantages from it should not the individuals in the trade made the remuneration?

The county of Lancashire and other counties have got a deal of employ through it, but the country in generall has had the real benefit. It has brought Millions into the exchequer, it has increased the trade of Merchants immensely, it has increased the value of the landed property, of course, and I think it fit and right where it has given Wealth there is the most proper place to apply for remuneration. If Mr. Crompton had only a Bankers commision upon what (in my humble opinion) has gone into the exchequer, created as it were by his invention, he would be a very rich man.

What is your opinion as to remuneration? My opinion is that a great nation should act in its own character and not do a little thing in reward for great services nor measure its bounty either by the wants or expectations of the recipient, but weigh it solely by the dignity of the giver and the Merrit of the receiver.

P.S. You will see that the above is the spontaneous production of the Moment, and the person or persons if you can find any that will volunteer on this occasion ( every part of which I flatter myself you are acquainted) with volunteer evidence, will be much stronger than any forced one, and in my opinion every [witness] should be provided with a set of questions which he feels himself best able to answer, and indeed with any other which some other [witness] may be better calculated to answer than himself, which would be our case to select and propose them before the Committe.

S. C.

LAD LANE, 6 March, 1812.

DEAR CHILDREN,

I last night wrote Mr. T. Ainsworth of which he can inform you. I have also this day writen to Mr. Lee, who I have informed that I would write you and request that you on receipt of this will go to Mr. T. Ainsworth and request him to say when he can come up as the Petition is presented and a Committe appointed, who will sit where we are prepared to meet them. Mr. Blackburn is very desirous that the report may be made before the Easter Holliday. You will then immediatly let Mr. Lee know who will I trust be able to write me so that I may give notice to the committe of the time we are prepared to meet them. I should feel very happy if Rich. Ainsworth, Esq, would volunteer to give evidence as a Bleacher. You will leave the proposing of it to T. Ainsworth if he thinks it proper. I have nothing further at present to add but that I hope you are all well and that you will immediatly attend to the above and lose no time in order that we may if possible go into the committe on Thursday next.

I am as ever yours Most Affectiony, SAML. CROMPTON.

P.S. I should be glad to hear from you and also that you will inform me as I have not the means here that you have of informing me of the name of the gentleman and the sum he obtained from the Government of this Country who first introduced the Machine from abroad for the Silk Throwing Machine in the Silk Manufacture and the amount of the Support he received from the government of this Country. If I remember right you will find it either in England Described, or Guthrie’s Geography and that the Machine was first erected either at Derby or Nottingham.

S. C.

The above letter was evidently handed to Mr. Kennedy with the following note added by Crompton’s son:--

SIR,

We have this day waited on Mr. Thos. Ainsworth who cannot possibly go to London this week but he has wrote to his son in London who will inform my father when T. A. will be in town. Mr. Rich. Ainsworth is confined with the gout and could not possibly go but at the hazard of his Life. We will one of us come over to Manchester on Monday and call on you if possible.

I remain for Self & Brother Your Obdt. St. GEO. CROMPTON.

BOLTON, March 8th, 1812.

LAD LANE, 7 March 1812.

DEAR CHILDREN,

I wrote you yesterday which I hope you duly recd. and that you understand what I meant and hope you have immediately attended to it. I first this morning attended on Richd. Ainsworth who was then reading a letter from his father who expected to be here in course of next week. T. Ainsworth knows and I trust my Manchester friends do also, that Committes sit neither on Saterday nor Sundays of course. I flatter myself the evidence will be got through in two sittings so that if it should be found that we cannot give timely notice to the committe for Thursday next I hope we shall be able to say Monday next. I then went to J. Blackburn, Esqr, who said he was fully satisfied with every step I had taken. You will show this to Mr. Thos. Ainsworth and act according as he advices. Since writing the above I have been with Sir Robt Peel. I have shewn him Mr. Lee’s letter he seems to think the buisness of the committe will be got through very soon. I think that notice should be given to the committe at least two days before the time. But of this T. Ainsworth can speak to. I subjoin a list of the committe

Lord Stanley. Collonel Stanley. J. Blackburn. Sir Robt. Peel. Richd. Sharp. A. Houston. D. Giddy. Rt. Honble. Sp. Percival. Rt. Honble. Geo. Rose. J. Hodson. Saml. Horrocks. Peter Patten. W. Wilberforce. Lord Milton. D. Davenport. Wilbraham Bootle. Genl. Gascoigne. Sir Jas. Graham. Gen. Tarleton. Lord A. Hamilton. A. Spir.

I will only add that if those that come could furnish themselves with a few samples of spinning (as those I have with me are much defaced having carried them so long) to shew to those of the committe that are as yet unacquainted with the case in hand it might be of some service. But will leave all this to their better judgment, the samples I have are 1, 3, 210 and 310. I hope you will lose no time in attending to what T. A. advises, as I am not aware there will be much more need of anything further but what must be done here after the evidence is given so as the report can be made.

Hoping you are all well and each attending to his post, I remain, your Most respectfully.

SAML. CROMPTON.

P.S. It would perhaps be of some use if some Acct. could be given how much the Machine is used in and has improved the woollen Manufacture, though it may not be essentiall.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL CROMPTON OF BOLTON-EN-LE-MOORS, IN THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER, COTTON SPINNER.

The COMMITTEE to whom the Petition of Samuel Crompton, of Bolton-en-le-Moors in the county of Lancaster, Cotton Spinner, was referred: and who were empowered to report their Observations thereupon to the House, and also the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them;--Have, pursuant to the Order of the House, examined the matter of the said Petition; and have agreed upon the following REPORT:

YOUR Committee have called before them several Witnesses, whose Evidence they have hereunto subjoined, and beg leave to state, that from the Evidence so adduced before them, it appears to Your Committee the Petitioner has fully proved his Claim as to the discovery of the machine called “The Mule,” described in the said Petition; and that it also appeared from the said Evidence that the Public have for a long course of years derived great and extensive benefit from the use of the said Machine, but that the Petitioner had derived little or no advantage therefrom; in consequence of which Your Committee beg leave to observe, that the Petitioner appears to them to be highly deserving of a National Reward.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE COMMITTEE on the petition of MR. SAMUEL CROMPTON.

Mercurii, 18º die Martij, 1812, THE LORD STANLEY in the Chair.

SIR ROBERT PEEL a Member of the Committee, stated,

That in the year 1769, Sir Richard Arkwright obtained a Patent for the use of a Machine by him invented, for spinning cotton, commonly called a Water Frame, the benefit of which invention he exclusively enjoyed during the full period of fourteen years, and derived great advantage therefrom; and the above Machine, although excellent for purposes to which it could be applied, was exceedingly limited in its application, it being, from its construction, utterly incapable of spinning weft of any kind, or of producing twist of very fine texture.

MR. JOHN PILKINGTON, Merchant and Manufacturer at Bolton; called in, and Examined.

At what period were you first acquainted with Mr. Crompton’s Machine?--I did not see it till the year 1780, when the yarn produced by Mr. Crompton from his Machine drew the attention of the Cotton Manufacturers. At that time I went to Mr. Crompton’s house, and I saw his Machine: soon after which I drew up a paper with a view to obtain for Mr. Crompton a reward for making public his invention, by a subscription amongst the Manufacturers; but the amount of which subscription proved very inadequate to my expectations and my opinion of his deserts.

Has Mr. Crompton’s invention produced any material improvement and extension in the cotton manufacture?--Previous to the invention of Mr. Crompton’s Machine, the muslin manufacture had been attempted, but without success; since that period it has been progressively advancing, and at present I believe the major part of the cotton cloth manufactured in this kingdom is spun upon the Machine invented by Mr. Crompton.

In consequence of drawing up that paper, and your commencing a subscription for Mr. Crompton, upon the faith of that subscription being adequate to its merits and his expectation, did he permit his invention to be made public?--It was I think in expectation of a much larger reward than he obtained, that Mr. Crompton permitted myself and some others to see his Machine; but I saw it in confidence before the subscription was entered into.

Did Mr. Crompton allow his invention to be made public in consequence of that subscription?--Yes, but which subscription he did not know the amount of, at the time he allowed his invention to be made public; and that subscription, it afterwards appeared, fell infinitely short of his and my expectations.

Do you recollect the amount of that subscription?--About £106.

Do you think the sum of money Mr. Crompton has received at different times, in any degree adequate to the utility of the invention, or to the expectations entertained?--Certainly not.

MR. GEORGE LEE, Cotton Spinner, of the House of Phillips and Lee, of Manchester; called in, and Examined.

Does the Machine invented by Mr. Crompton produce yarn superior in fineness and quality to any other machine?--It does.

Could yarns adapted to cotton, cambrics, and muslins, be spun equal in quality or cheapness by any other machine?--They could not.

Is Mr. Crompton’s Machine in general use?--In very extensive and general use.

To what extent is Mr. Crompton’s Machine used?--From the most exact calculation which I have been able to obtain, there are four millions of spindles upon Mr. Crompton’s principle.

How many persons are employed directly in working machinery upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?--There cannot be less than seventy thousand directly.

What quantity of cotton wool is spun by Mules annually?--About forty millions of pounds.

What would be the amount of duty paid to Government upon the same materials spun by Mules?--About three hundred and fifty thousand pounds annually.

What is the amount of wages paid for spinning by Mules, compared with all other machinery for that purpose?--Double the amount in wages is paid for spinning by Mr. Crompton’s Machine to that by all other machines for cotton spinning.

Do you mean that two-thirds of the cotton spinning is upon the principle of Mr. Crompton’s invention?--I do.

Has the cost of yarns, and consequently of cotton cloth, been materially diminished by Mr. Crompton’s invention?--Very materially indeed.

Are you aware of the circumstances relative to a subscription that was entered into?--Yes, in the year 1800 or 1801, a number of gentlemen, thinking Mr. Crompton had been neglected, agreed to solicit subscriptions, for the purpose of making him a liberal remuneration: I attended with those gentlemen, and applied amongst others to Mr. Arkwright; Mr. Arkwright’s answer was, that he would contribute to it cheerfully, candidly acknowledging the merit of the invention, and at the same time observing that Mr. Crompton had been his most bitter rival, for that he had superseded the Machine of his father’s invention, in the finer yarns; and he subscribed thirty guineas. We collected only about £400; we expected to have got a much greater sum; but in consequence of the distresses from the war breaking out, we found the result of our applications very inadequate to our expectations and his deserts. From the difficulty of collecting even what had been subscribed, and still more of obtaining any addition to it, we discontinued our applications. The money which was collected was paid to Mr. Crompton, not amounting in the whole to £500, I believe.

Was that subscription commenced in consequence of any solicitation from Mr. Crompton?--No, it was spontaneous on our part, entirely from a sense of his just claim upon the public.

MR. JAMES WATT, of the House of Boulton, Watt & Company, of Birmingham; called in, and Examined.

Have you erected many Steam Engines for turning machinery upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?--A considerable number; I conceive about two-thirds of the power of steam engines we have erected for spinning cotton, has been applied to turning spindles upon Mr. Crompton’s construction.

MR. THOMAS AINSWORTH, of the House of Ainsworth & Company, of Bolton; called in, and Examined.

How long have you been conversant with the cotton trade in the county of Lancaster?--About thirty-seven years.

Can you speak as to the extent of the cotton trade thirty years ago, compared with what it is at present?--I think it is increased in proportion as twenty to one.

To what do you, in a great measure, attribute this rapid increase of the trade?--To the invention of machinery, and most particularly that used in spinning.

To what invention in spinning-machinery do you most particularly allude?--The first kind of machine beyond the one-spindle wheel was what was called a Jenny; the next was Mr. Arkwright’s, for which he obtained a patent; and the next was Mr. Crompton’s.

To which of those do you most particularly allude, as imputing to it the rapid increase of the trade; or do you impute it to them altogether?--There was a progressive increase; first by the Jenny, and then by Mr. Arkwright’s invention; but the great increase, and that which accomplished the main object, was Mr. Crompton’s.

Can you describe the principle of Mr. Arkwright’s Machine, and the effect it is calculated to produce?--The thread of Mr. Arkwright’s Machine is made through rollers only, and twisted up to the rollers, which compels a hard thread and fit only for warps.

Wherein does Mr. Crompton’s Machine differ?--Mr. Crompton’s Machine consists of rollers, in which the thread is drawn; but after the rollers have done delivering the thread, he can accommodate it either to warp or woof.

What proportion of the present trade do you suppose the invention of Mr. Crompton has given rise to?--Full one half; I think two-thirds.

To what branch of the piece-goods manufactured, particularly?--To the fine fabrics, cambricks and muslins, particularly the Scotch manufactory.

How do you make out its value, as applied to the Scotch manufacture, beyond the other parts of the cotton trade?--By being of so very fine a fabric, such fine yarns being wanted for that manufacture beyond what would be wanted for the heavy cloth we manufacture in Lancashire. I do not know how the Scotch manufacture would ever have been carried on without the yarn Mr. Crompton’s Machine produces, particularly book muslins.

You impute that branch of trade to the merit of Mr. Crompton’s invention?--In a great measure; I think the Scotch trade is in a great measure beholden to Mr. Crompton’s invention.

Would not Mr. Arkwright’s Machine have supplied that trade?--In a very limited and a very inferior way indeed, and only for the coarser fabrics; the quality of the yarn that composes a great part of the Scotch manufacture could not have been produced without Mr. Crompton’s invention.

Have you any certain knowledge that what is now called the Mule is the same in principle as the Hall of the Wood Machine, and that it was the sole invention of Mr. Crompton? It was generally admitted so to be at the time, and a subscription was entered into to reward him for it. The principle is the same, certainly.

How many people does this Machine now employ?--I believe, by calculation, about 70,000, and it is supposed about 150,000 weavers.

Do you conceive Mr. Crompton to have received an adequate recompense from the public for this invention?--No, I think it falls far short indeed.

You have said, that the Mule spins a finer kind of yarn than the other machinery, and enables the manufacturer to make a finer species of goods than could have been otherwise made?--Yes.

Is there a greater number of Weavers employed in consequence of that, than would otherwise have been employed?--A very considerable number.

MR. JOSEPH RIDGEWAY, of the House of Thomas Ridgeway & Son, near Bolton; called in, and Examined.

Have the cotton cloths bleached by you, and spun by Mules, been increasing in quality during the last twenty years?--Very much.

What proportion do they constitute of the whole quantity sent to you to be bleached?--At least four fifths.

Jovis, 19º die Martij, 1812.

THE LORD STANLEY in the chair.

MR. GEORGE LEE again called in, and Examined.

What do you suppose is the value of the machinery, buildings, and power engaged in spinning, upon Mr. Crompton’s principle?--Between three and four millions sterling.

LONDON, 21 March 1812.

DEAR SIRS,

We compleated our Evidence on Thursday--the Committee were very favourably disposed--but Sir R. Peel & Mr. Houston intimated to me that there was an implied Condition with Mr. Percival that the Sum should be very moderate before he would listen to them. I ask’d him how much & he said two thousand pounds at which I expressed great Surprize & Disappointment and as soon as the Evidence was completed so that they could not soften it down, as they had the Petition, by expunging the most material points, viz. the actual Benefit & Amount of Machinery, Wages, Cotton & Duty, I told Sir Robert everybody in Lancashire would think such a Sum inadequate; he then asked me if I had the public Purse what I would give. I answered not less than Ten thousand & double that if he had not stated so many discouraging Circumstances.

The fact is Crompton’s plain appearance has been in his favour by inducing the Members to suppose he would be satisfied with a small sum & therefore they were willing to assist him. His Claim to national Honour & Interest must now be pressed upon them as they cannot recede & there is no Risque I believe of the Bill passing and it must obtain better terms.

I thought a few hurried Lines would be acceptable from

Yrs sincerely, G. A. LEE.

KENSINGTON, 15 Apl. 1812.

MESSRS. M’CONNELL & KENNEDY.

GENT^{n},

I once more take the liberty to write you and though I have not yet any thing finally conclusive, yet I can inform you what state the buisness which brought me here stands in. During the hollidays there was nothing done and last week Lord Stanley, Sir Rt Peel and many others were out of town so that nothing was done. Sir Rt P. came on Saterday and he sent a servant to acquaint me. I had wrote him at Tamworth last week. I also wrote the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Blackburn on seeing it insisted on sealing it and that I should Immediately carry it to the office. On Monday Morning I determined to try to Move on. I first went to Sir Rt Peel and found at home and took his advice. I then went to Lord Stanley’s but too early. I then went to Mr. Blackburn’s then back to Lord Stanley’s from there to Mr. Horrocks’s & then to Lad Lane & Sir R.’s warehouse, from there to Westminster, stopt 3 hours there and spoke to many members and then came here after that. This is one day’s ramble and I only relate it that you form some little Idea what it is if ever you undertake a piece of business the means of executing which may lay scattered over this over grown place. Since I came here I have recovered my health for which I feel very thankfull. Lord Stanley, Sir Rt Peel, T. Blackburn, Mr. Percival, Mr. D. Giddy, & many others say they are very desirous to bring it to issue very soon and the only point now is in what form to bring it before the House. Mr. Percival finds some Difficulty in putting it in what is called the apropriation act, there having been complaints made against that plan of proceeding though it is done without expence. They have all promised it shall not sleep untill it is in train to be finished. If it is by bill Sir Robt. says it will be necessary to have the same evidence to appear before the House of Lords as has been to the Commons. I believe their intention is to device some plan to do without bill if possible, both to save time and expence, but as this is a part I cannot act in, it being gone out of my reach, yet I can talk about it and the moment I know any thing certain I will write some of my friends who I hope are all well and please to give my best respects to all inquiring friends. I yesterday had a ramble about the same as Monday and came from the house with Mr. Blackburn who was going to Lord Derby’s to meet a party some of which interest themselves much in my case. Whether opertunity would he had to bring it before the company he could not say but he would not neglect if opertunity offered. I am as ever Gent^n

Your Much oblidged Humble Servant, SAML. CROMPTON.

P.S. You will please shew this Mr. Lee, Mr. Ewart, and any other you may think proper.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Page 10, note 1.--In connection with the petition quoted by Mr. Price the question arises as to how nearly it fixes the exact date of the beginning of the fustian manufacture in England. The most definite statement on the question the petition contains is the “20 years past” since the trade was “found out” which, as Mr. Price mentions, would fix the date about the opening year of the seventeenth century. Moreover, this date seems to be a reliable one, owing to the fact that the petitioners mention a patent granted in 1594 for sealing “all sorts of new draperies” in which they imply that fustians made partly of cotton were not included. According to their statement it would appear that such fustians were not brought within the scope of a patent until 1613.

From the following quotation, however, it appears that fustians were included in a patent granted in 1594: “Patent to the Alnagers for sealing cloth from Midsummer 1594, to search and seal and exact duties on all the new draperies as French serges, worsteds, fustians, blankets, etc., made in England chiefly by strangers, which have hitherto been exported free, no officers being appointed to search them, and to seal such as are good and merchantable ware, and cut the ends of those that are not; also settling the subsidies to be paid thereon, which are granted to the patentees on payment of £66, 13s. 4d., yearly giving them the right of search, also a writ of assistance therein” (S.P.D. Eliz., vol. ccxlix. 20). Assuming that the fustians here mentioned were similar to those referred to in the petition, it would appear that goods made partly of cotton were manufactured in England in 1594, and that they had gained sufficient prominence to be brought under supervision.

Support for this view may be found in some observations made in 1606, upon an Act for the alnage of narrow draperies (S.P.D. Add., vol. xxxviii. 104). These observations are interesting not only as regards fustians but also in the indication given of the application of the old type of regulations to new kinds of goods. In justification of the Act the following among other reasons were set forth: That it was based on the statutes for woollen manufactures, the reasons moving it and the offences committed being of the same nature. Also upon necessity because since the trades of making stuffs began, vices had crept in which were causing the trades to decay. Also upon the interest of the Crown and upon the right of His Majesty to take fees, “for as he is by statutes interested in the alnage and subsidy of woollen goods--there being at the time of making the same statutes no other stuffs made in England--he should take like alnage and subsidy of things made within this realm as his predecessors.” That the increased price per piece would not be more than 3d. at the most; and that fustian weavers for themselves had been petitioners to Her late Majesty for reformation of abuses committed amongst them.

The reference to the fustian-weavers certainly suggests that fustians would be included among the stuffs other than woollens, and if so there can be little doubt that they were of the same character as those to which the petition quoted by Mr. Price refers. Moreover, if the fustian-weavers had reached a stage in the reign of Elizabeth--even in the last year of her reign--when they could petition for reformation of abuses, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a fustian-manufacture would have commenced in 1594, and that the fabrics produced were included in the patent granted to the Alnagers in that year.

Even this does not fix the date when the manufacture began, but earlier dependable evidence is difficult to find. Before the end of the sixteenth century two statutes had been passed relating to fustians, but in the first, which appeared in 1495-1496 (11 Hen. VII., e. 27), it was definitely stated that they were imported, although they were sheared in this country. The statute also makes clear that the fustians were at least composed partly of cotton. The second appeared in 1597-1598 (39 Eliz., c. 11) and was a continuance of the first. In this statute no mention was made of the fustians being imported, nor was it stated that they were manufactured in this country, but the weaving of fustians was said to have “lately grown to more use than ever it was before time.” This statement, and the fact that it was thought advisable to re-enact the statute, may reasonably be taken to support the view that, in the nineties of the sixteenth century, a manufacture of fustians had commenced in England.

One other fact worth notice is that when a fustian manufacture had certainly become established in the Manchester district much of the linen-yarn used was imported from Ireland. This trade, however, was carried on as early as 1543 (ante, p. 30), and a conjecture is raised as to whether fustians may not have been made in the Manchester district at that time, but under another name. In the Victoria County History of Lancashire, ii., p. 296, it is stated that “the manufacture of ‘fustians’ a mixture of wool and linen, and subsequently styled ‘cottons’” was in existence in the neighbourhood of Manchester at the close of the fifteenth century. The identification of fustians with cottons at this early date is tempting, and would explain much, but it does not seem to be warranted by available evidence. As far as such evidence goes, it appears that the beginning of the fustian-manufacture has to be sought in the industrial changes of the second half of the sixteenth century, and that, in England, fustians made partly of cotton were a species of the “new drapery.”

Page 10, note 2.--A patent was granted in connection with new draperies in 1594 and was transferred to the Duke of Lennox after the accession of James I. (Price, ibid.).

Page 93, continuation of note.--23 Geo. III., c. 21, gave bounties on the export of British printed cottons ranging from 1/2d. to 1-1/2d. per yard and allowed drawback of the excise duty.

Page 99, continuation of note.--Defoe (Tour through Great Britain (1769 edition), iii., pp. 73-74, 104) has references to silk mills at Derby, Stockport and Sheffield.

Page 142, note 3.--It is not likely that the table (ante, p. 69) includes all in the country districts who called themselves fustian manufacturers. In the Directory those given in the table were described as having a warehouse in Manchester.

Page 161, continuation of note.--It is stated that in 1842 Crompton’s children received £200 from the Royal Bounty Fund in consideration of their father’s invention (Bolton: Its Trade and Commerce (1919), p. 80).

INDEX

Abram, History of Blackburn, 97n.

Acts of Parliament, 1495-1496--indicates import of fustians, 196; 1514--regulates making of cloth, 2, 3 and n.; 1535--regulates making of cloth, 3; 1543--gives information of Lancashire cloth industry, 30-31; 1551--regulates cloth making and fixes standards, 3, 5n., 6; 1552-1553--imposes restrictions on middlemen in wool trade, 31; 1555--Weavers’ Act, main aim and provisions, 3-4; counties excluded from operation, 4 and n.; repeal of, 4n.; 1557--modifies Weavers’ Act, 4; 1563--Statute of Apprentices, scope of, 48n.; appealed to by check-weavers (1758), 48 and n.; repeal advocated, 51; repealed, 1813-1814, 49n.; 1566--appoints deputy-aulnagers for Lancashire towns, 4, 5n.; 1577--restrictive character and effects, 31; 1597--prohibits use of tenters and enforces regulations of size and weight of cloth, 5; indicates English manufacture of fustians, 196; 1606--distinguishes between cloths made of perfect wool and cloths in which flocks, etc., entered, 6-7; ordains alnage of narrow draperies, 195-196; 1700--abolishes previous duties, 7; prohibits import and sale of printed or dyed calicoes from East, 19; failure of, 20; 1702--against payment in truck and embezzlement of materials, 36; made permanent in 1710, 37; extended to other industries, 37; included provisions against combinations, 37; indicates organisation of cotton industry, 37; 1714--calicoes subjected to additional duty, 92-93; 1721--prohibits use of printed or dyed calicoes, 20-22; cloths exempted from operation of, 21; stimulates printing of other fabrics than calico, 22; explained by Manchester Act (1736), 23; 1736--Manchester Act, scope of, 23; support and opposition to, 24; indicates expansion of fustian industry, 39; modified Act of 1721 respecting goods made with linen warp, 93; 1749--Act of 1702 against unlawful combinations extended, 37; 1774--repealed additional duty on calicoes (1714) and prohibition of printed calicoes (1736), 93; 1783--gave bounties on export of printed cottons, 197n.

Agriculture, many labourers from, become weavers, 144

Aikin, Description of Country round Manchester, 25, 26, 28, 59, 60, 62, 121n., 136n., 138, 139n., 161n.; England Delineated, 58n.; England Described, 58n.

Ainsworth, P., & Son, 170

Ainsworth, R., bleacher, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 182

Ainsworth, T., supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 177, 178; evidence in support of Crompton’s appeal, 178, 179-182, 183, 184, 189-191

Ainsworth, T., & Co., 170

America. See Wars, Cotton

Antwerp, cloth market, xxv.

Arkwright, Richard, first patent (1769) for roller-spinning, 1, 29, 76, 79, 80, 97, 100, 114, 122n., 172, 179, 186; improved upon earlier carding-machines, 77-78; inventor of crank and comb device, 78, 107; second patent (1775) for carding-machine, 81, 100, 106-107; brought roller-spinning and machine-carding into use, 111-112; his machines produced hard thread suitable for warps, 117, 124; his indebtedness to previous inventors, 107, 108-111; not inventor of roller-spinning or roving-machine, 110; application of steam-power to his machines, 81; his profits from patent machinery, 100, 172, 179, 186; erected factory at Cromford, 81, 100; other factories, 100, 112; capital invested in his and partners’ factories, 100; concerned in erection of New Lanark Mills, 106, 112; alleged to have aimed at cotton monopoly, 112; alleged intention of discovering Crompton’s secret, 116n.; secured modification of Acts of 1714 and 1721, 43, 93, 100; left Lancashire, 82, 98; his machinery destroyed, 82-88; antagonism to, 89, 92, 93, 100, 101, 102, 103, 119, 120; began actions for infringements of patents, 93, 100, 101, 102, 120; first trial and unfavourable verdict, 1781, 102, 119; second patent cancelled, 102, 110, 119, 121, 124, 144; successful action of 1785, 103-105, 119, 121; agitation to reverse verdict of second trial (1785), 105; third trial (1785) of validity of second patent, 106-109, 119; discussion of his machinery in third trial, 106-110; character of, 111, 118; as successful man of business, 97-98, 112, 118; Case of (1782), 102; Patent Trial of, 92n., 100n., 102n., 107n., 108n., 109n., 111n.

Arkwright, son of Richard A., subscribed to public subscription for Crompton, 185

Artisans, superior, called small farmers by Radcliffe, 142; superior, rent land as accessory to industry, 139-140, 142; abandon agriculture for work at loom, 141; benefit from inventions, 140; inferior, entirely dependent on industry, 139-140; raised in social status by new industry, 140-141

Arts, Society of, inability to assist Crompton, 153

Ashley, W. J., Sir, Economic History, 4n.; Economic Organisation of England, 37

Ashton, smallware weavers’ combine at, 144

Ashworth, H., cotton-spinner and author, 161

Augsburg, fustians of, xxii.

Aulnager, seal of counterfeited, 4; deputy-aulnagers appointed, 4. See Lennox

Axon, W. E. A., Manchester a Hundred Years Ago, 26

Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, xxi., 2n., 3n., 12, 16n., 22n., 24n., 29n., 31n., 63n., 77n., 78n., 93-94, 97, 98n., 107, 110, 111n., 112, 117n., 124n., 125n., 130n., 132n.; Lancashire and Cheshire, 125n.

Baker, improved and enlarged mule, 123

Banks, Manchester Man, 127

Barkstead, J., connected with silk and copper industries, 16-17, 18n.; applied for patent, for silk manufacture and calicoes, 17, 18; had no influence on development of cotton industry, 18, 19

Barton, H. and J., & Co., 170

Bastable, Public Finance, 63n.

Bateman, J., 172

Bays, 6, 7n.

Belfast, numbers employed in 1800 in cotton industry at, 131

Belper, Arkwright’s factory at, 100

Bigwood, Cotton, 162n.

Billy, combination of mule and jenny for making rovings, 123-124, 181n.; premium to inventor of, 123-124

Birkacre, Arkwright’s factory at, 100; factories attacked, 82, 92

Birley, R., 170

Blackburn. See Petitions

Bolton, see Cottons, Fustians, Petitions, Crompton; market, 3, 27, 37; sixteenth-century manufacture of cottons and coarse yarns, 3; prosecution club, 159 and n.; public subscription to relieve distress, 1862, 161; population in 1773, 161; centre of fine cotton spinning, 162; centre of fustian manufacture, 15, 27, 56

Bourne, D., patented carding-machine, 77

Bridgewater cloth, 6

Bridgnorth, Society of Travelling Scotchmen of, 65

Bristol, food riots in, 42

Brown, J., took lead in second petition on Crompton’s behalf, 159; Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims, 78n., 116n., 152n., 153n., 157n., 159n., 172n.

Brussels, gilds of journeymen at, xxiii.

Burleigh, Lord, xxvii.-xxviii.

Burnley, woollen manufacturers support Manchester Act (1736), 24

Calicoes, see Acts of Parliament; plain imported, 19; manufacture established by new machinery, 91-92, 128; made in Arkwright’s factory at Derby, 100

Calico-printing, early development in London and Lancashire, 22n.

Camden, Britannia, 7n.

Canals, 62, 71

Cannan, see M‘Connel; emigrated from Kirkcudbright and became cotton-machine maker, 127-128

Carding, see Arkwright, Bourne, Paul; mechanical improvements in, 76-77, 110; cylinder carding-engine, 110

Carriers displace pack-horses, 62. See Manchester

Case, G., 172

Champagne fairs, xxii.

Chapman, S. J., Sir, Lancashire Cotton Industry, 40n., 72n., 137n., 143n., 163n.; Victoria County History of Lancashire, 5n., 8n.

Chapmen, see Travelling Merchants, 60, 61, 63-65

Checks, organisation of manufacture, 40-41; articles included in, 25; localisation of manufacture, 56; check-weavers’ turn-out and submission, 46-52

Checks and smallware, Act of 1702 indicates organisation of manufacture, 37; makers of, less numerous than fustian-makers, 39; organisation in middle of eighteenth century, 40. See Combinations

Cheshire v. Lancashire. Spinning on Cheshire farms, 139n.; Luddite risings, 154-155

Chester, petitioned to be sole port for Manchester cottons, 7n.; food riots at, 86

Chetham, George, apprenticed to G. Tipping, 34; member of Merchant Tailors’ Company, 34; partnership with brother Humphrey, 34

Chetham, Humphrey, apprenticed to S. Tipping, 34; general merchant and manufacturer, 35; accounts of, 35; dealer in cotton and linen yarn, 35; employed spinners and weavers, 35-36; a capitalist clothier, 36; sold cotton and yarn in small quantities on credit, 36

Chetham, H. and G., business and capital of, xxiv.-xxv., 34; branches in Manchester and London, 34, 59; traded with Ireland, 59; not merely fustian dealers, 35; mainly engaged in home trade, 59; invest capital in land, 34

Chetham, James, 34

Chethams, engaged in cloth industry, 32-34, 39

Children, labour of, in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Manchester, 25-26

Chorley, factories attacked, 82, 92

Chowbent, 127-128

Clarke, New Lancashire Gazetteer, 128n., 129n.

Clegg, A., 170

Clothiers, northern, of early sixteenth century, 30-32

Cloths, exports of, in 1594 and 1595, 7

Cole, Some Account of Lewis Paul, 76

Combination Acts expressed views of dominant political class, 146-147

Combinations, see Acts (1702, 1749), Mansfield (Lord); coming into existence in early eighteenth century, 52; link between earlier associations and trade unions, 52; various trades organised before 1790, 54n.; in west of England textile industry, 52 and n.; in check and smallware trades, 40-45; extended to country districts, 144; among mule-spinners, 144n.

Communications, road and river, 62, 71

Companies formed in South Sea period to promote cotton manufacture, 19

Cotton, called cotton-wool, 8; import of, early, 2, 16; at end of seventeenth century, 16; in eighteenth century, 24; up to 1815, 132; import of, from East, 8, 9, 13, 16; from Africa, 16; from America and West Indies, 16, 57, 132; imported through London, 57; previous sources displaced by United States, 16; customs on imported cotton, 9; early use of, for candle-wicks, 2; first used in making cloth, 2; made into fustians, vermilions, dymities, 8; regular supply necessary to Lancashire in 1654, 13; perhaps used in Lancashire for cloth-making in sixteenth century, 7; cleaning and carding, early methods of, 75; used as substitute for flax in lace-making, 131; quantity spun by mules in 1812, 188

Cotton cloth, see Petitions; imported before sixteenth century, 2 and n.; pure, when manufactured, 29; put on same footing as mixed goods, 93

Cottons, see Acts (1514, 1535, 1551), Manchester; made in Lancashire in early sixteenth century, 2; in Bolton district, 3; and outside Lancashire, 7; exported in sixteenth century, 3, 7; manufacture regulated, 3-8; faults in making of, 5; regarded as species of woollen cloth, 7, 8; manufacture introduced by immigrants, 12; duties on, abolished, 7

Cotton industry, see Fustian, Germany, Lancashire, Manchester, Weymouth; originated in second half of sixteenth century, 12; established by 1621, 10; difficulties during commonwealth, 13; associated with fustian manufacture, 15; comparatively unhampered by regulations, 66; development of spinning and preparatory processes after 1736, 72, 76n.; progressive expansion due to inventions, 145, 179, 189; expansion after 1770, 1, 72, 91, 132; organised on factory system after 1770, 1, 75n., 98-99, 100; factories transferred from country to towns, 126; description of, between 1770 and 1778, 133-134; statistics of mule and ring spindles, 164; organisation and methods changing in 1780, 24; expansion by 1812, 179, 189-190; assumed modern form in spinning branch, 132; employment and capital in 1782, 100; fear of removal to Ireland and Scotland, 106; manufacture of fine fabrics transferred from East to West, 129 and n.; development of fine cotton goods manufacture, 130-131; finds extending market in East, 130 and n.; use of steam-power in, 81-82; domestic system in, 137n.; association of industry with agriculture, 135-137; labour supplied mainly from cottagers and small farmers, 139; distinction and proportion between small farmers and cottagers engaged in, 137-139; semi-independent producers in, 35-36, 134-135, 143 and n.; but not typical workpeople, 36-37, 143; part-time industrialists in country districts only, 137, 143 and n.; classes affected by industrial changes, 139-143; wages in, 90-91 and n., 133-134

Cotton yarn, imported from East, 8, 9, 16; imported from other countries, 29n.; imported from Continent for Scotch manufactory, 180

Crank and comb device. See Arkwright

Crofters in Manchester district, 70

Cromford, Arkwright’s factory at, 81, 100

Crompton, Samuel, birth and early life, 114; character, 120-121; lacked business qualities, 118, 150; death in 1827, 159, 160; inventor of mule, 113; endeavoured to improve quality of yarn, 114, 167; began to construct mule, 114, 167, 168-170; completed and used mule, 114, 161, 167, 173; gave up weaving and kept to spinning, 167; made mule public, 116, 167, 168, 173; reasons for not obtaining patent, 118; agreed to subscription (1780) as reward for invention, 116 and n., 118, 120, 168-169, 181, 187; received only £100 as reward in 1780, 120, 169, 187; public subscription for, in 1802, 150, 166-167; its poor result, 151, 169, 188; Appeal to Parliament in 1812, 151, 153, 154, 155, 170; his petition, 172-174; memorial and signatures presented to Chancellor of Exchequer, 168-172; committee on his petition, 129, 184-185; minutes of evidence, 186-191; proceedings in reference to his appeal, 155-157, 172-174; his petition recommended by Prince Regent, 155, 172; presented to Parliament, 172-173; award of £5000 in 1812, 151, 155, 158; reduced to poverty by 1824, 159; annuity raised by friends in 1824, 159; further petition in 1826, 159-160; gratuity of £50 given to his son, 161; combined business of small farmer with that of spinner, 149; refused to join Peel’s business, 149; difficulty of retaining his workers, 152 and n.; embarked without success on bleaching business, 158; continued business of spinning and manufacturing at Bolton, 158; unsuccessful partnership as spinner and cotton merchant, 158; his part in development of mule, 162, 165, 179; his account of value of mule to cotton industry, 169-170, 173, 180; effects of his work, 162; unacquainted with Arkwright’s rollers, 121-122; destroyed carding-machine on which he was experimenting, 121; relations with members of his family, 152; overseer of poor, 149; member of Bolton prosecution club, 159n.; monument and statue, 160; Hall-i’-th’-Wood museum and memorial, 161 and n.; correspondence of, to M‘Connel & Kennedy respecting subscription of 1803, 166-167; to M‘Connel & Kennedy respecting proceedings in London, 174-175; to M‘Connel & Kennedy, respecting proceedings after sittings of Committee, 192-194; to Kennedy respecting petition proceedings, 175-176; to family respecting petition proceedings, 176-178; to Kennedy respecting evidence for appeal to Parliament, 178-179; grant to family from Royal Bounty Fund, 197n.

Cumberland exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4

Cunningham, W., Growth of English Industry and Commerce, 12, 49n.

Curtler, Short History of Agriculture, 147n.

Dale, D., connected with Arkwright and New Lanark Mills, xxx., 106

Defoe, D., Tour through Great Britain, 61-62, 135n., 197n.

Dehn, German Cotton Industry, 14n.

Deptford, industries in eighteenth century and numbers employed, 28n.

Derbyshire, miners fix food prices (1764), 84; food riots in 1767, 85; Luddite risings, 154-155

Dictionary of National Biography, 47n.

Dimities, made from cotton-wool from Cyprus, 8

Distress in 1756-1757, 43; Parliamentary measures to relieve, 84-85

Dobson, Evolution of Spinning Machine, 75n., 77n., 78n., 128n., 159n., 162n.

Dobson & Rothwell, makers of textile machinery, 128; size of mules made by, in 1799, 162

Dodd, Textile Manufacturers of Great Britain, 131n.

Domestic system, a system of capitalist employers, 54-55. See Cotton Industry

Douai, textile industry of, xxiv.-xxv.

Double jenny, 94-95

Douglas, W., & Co., 170

Dozens, northern, 6

Drapery, new, manufacture of, introduced by Flemings in 1561, 12; character of, 11 and n.; regulation of, 6

Draw-boys, 74

Drinkwater, T. and J., 172

Dunlop, J., 172

Dunster cotton, 7

Dutch loom, superseded single loom, 40; widened scope of employment, 40; for narrow fabrics, 72, 74; disadvantages of, 72

Earle, T., 172

East India Co., imported cotton yarn and fine cotton fabrics in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 16, 18; rivals of, 18

Economic Journal, 5n., 31n., 126n., 132n., 150n.

Edwards, History of West Indies, 88n.

Ellison, Cotton Trade of Great Britain, 57n., 164n.

Embezzlement of materials by workpeople, 36. See Acts (1702)

Enclosure Acts, expression of views of dominant political class, 146-147

Espinasse, Lancashire Worthies, 20, 29n., 73n., 74n., 76n., 77n., 78n., 80, 81, 82n., 93n., 100n., 102n., 103n., 104n., 105n., 106n., 107n., 110n.

Ewart, Rutson & Co., 172

Factory system, beginning of, 75n. See Cotton Industry, Silk

Felkin, History of Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures, 98

Fielden, H. and W., 170

Findlay, J., & Co., 172

Flanders, textile industries of, xxiv.-xxv.

Flier, used with Saxony wheel, 75, 81

Florence, textile industries of, xxiii., xxv.

Flying shuttle, invention and importance of, 73, 74; see Kay; slow adoption in cotton industry, 73

Food riots in 1753 and 1754, 42

Forster, J., 172

Fox, W., 172

French, Life and Times of Samuel Crompton, 17n., 76n., 77n., 113, 114, 116n., 118, 121, 134n., 138n., 149, 150, 151, 152n., 153n., 155, 157, 158n., 159n., 160

Fuller, Worthies of England, 15, 25, 34

Fustians, see Acts, Bolton, Combinations, Cotton Industry, London; manufacture introduced into Europe, xxi.-xxii.; into England, 12; stimulated by decline of German cotton industry; date of origin of fustian manufacture discussed, 12, 195-196; development of fustian manufacture, 12, 15, 23, 39; organisation of manufacture, 37-39; combined with smallware manufacture, 27-28; early large-scale production, 23; numbers employed in 1654, 13; and in 1735, 23; commission system in fustian industry, 37-38; country fustian masters, 39; centres of manufacture, 9-10, 15, 27, 37, 56; regulation of manufacture, 11, 195; wages in fustian trade, 91n.; materials used in manufacture, 29, 35; regarded as woollens, 11; not made of pure cottons in seventeenth century, 19, 22, 196; a species of new drapery, 196; range of goods comprised by, 28; imported, 2n., 196; exported, 9, 60; fustian tax, agitation against and repeal, 63 and n., 103-104

Gaskell, Artisans and Machinery, 139n.; Manufacturing Population of England, 56n., 137n., 139-144; dislike of factory system, 139

Gentleman’s Magazine, 46n.

Germany, cotton industry in fourteenth century, 13-14; effects of Thirty Years’ War on, 14; effects of decline in English fustian industry, 13-14

Ghent, textile workers of, xxiii.

Gilds, textile, xxii.-xxiii.

Gladstone, J., 172

Glasgow merchants support Manchester Act (1736), 24

Gras, Early English Customs System, 2n.

Greg & Ewart, 170

Guest, British Cotton Manufacture, 43, 80n., 94, 95n., 96n., 97n., 111n., 124n.; Compendious History of Cotton Manufacture, 38, 39, 60, 73n., 74n., 96, 108

Hakluyt, 3

Halifax, hawkers and pedlars, 64-65

Hammond, Cotton Industry, 132n.

Hammond, J. L. and B., 83n.

Hand-loom. See Loom

Hansard, 155n., 156n., 157n.

Hanseatic League, xxvi.-xxvii.

Hanson, E., Boroughreeve of Manchester, 32n.

Hargreaves, of Toddington, improved mule, 123

Hargreaves, James, experimented on carding-machines, 78; invented and patented spinning-jenny, 78, 80, 97, 112, 114; left Lancashire through opposition, 82, 92-95; took action for infringement of patent, 93-94; patent not upheld, 92, 96; made spinning-jenny practicable, 97; cotton-mill at Nottingham, 97 and n.; estate of, 97n.; evidence of widow and son against Arkwright, 107; alleged inventor of crank and comb device, 78, 107

Hawkers and pedlars, duties on, 63-64

Hayes, inventor of roving-engine, 110

Heathcote, invented lace-making machine, 131 and n.

Highs, Thomas, reputed inventor of jenny and roller-spinning, 94-97, 108, 110, 111; invented double-jenny, 94-95; aptitude for invention, 96; witness against Arkwright, 95; associated with Kay in making roller-spinning machines, 108-110; alleged to have improved carding-machine, 111n.

Hollingworth, Mancuniensis, 30

Hollingworth, R., 30n.

Horrocks & Co., 172

Horrocks, J., manufacturer of fine cotton fabrics, 130-131; helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.; supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167

Horwich, cotton yarns reported to be spun at, in 1510, 2n.

Houldsworth, H., fine cotton spinner, 127

Houldsworth, T. and J., fine cotton spinner, 127

India, import of cotton fabrics from, 130; export of cotton fabrics to, 130 and n.

Industrial Revolution, a general transition in industry and agriculture, xxix., 1, 145-146; an acceleration of previous developments, 145; popular view of, inaccurate, 54; Napoleonic War a dominant factor in, 147-148; social evils of, due to Napoleonic War, 146-148

Inventions, effect of, 66, 72, 91; opposition to, 82

Ireland, linen-yarn from, used in fustian manufacture, 9, 58; Irish Parliament passed commercial propositions, 104; important source of supply of linen-yarn, 8, 58; different qualities of Irish linen-yarn, 58

Italy, early cotton industry of, xxii.

James, T., partner of Hargreaves’, 97

Jenny, see Double-Jenny, Hargreaves, Highs; introduction of, 38, 95, 114; was outcome of previous efforts, 145; invention of, 76; controversy as to inventor, 96 and n.; description of, 79-80, 96; greatly facilitated spinning of weft, 97; produced soft thread only suitable for wefts, 116-117; defects of, 80-81; growing use of, 90, 95, 97, 124; number of spindles increased, 80; number at work in 1788 estimated, 121n.; used for waste, 181; used in woollen industry more than in cotton, 124n.; superseded hand-wheel, 124; superseded by mule, 97, 124; conditions when introduced, 88

Johnson, helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.

Jones, W., 170

Journal of House of Commons, 20n., 23n., 24n., 29n., 36n., 37n., 52, 58n., 59n., 64, 65n., 82n., 89n., 90n., 99n., 102n., 155n., 156n., 157n., 174n.

Kay, John, invented and patented flying-shuttle, 73 and n.; other inventions of, 73; appealed for recognition of his inventions, 73; connection with Arkwright and Thomas Highs, 108; witness against Arkwright in third trial, 108, 111; death in France, 74

Kay, Robert, inventor of drop-box, 73

Kelly, Wm., manager of New Lanark Mills, applied water-power to mules, and patented self-actor mule, 125

Kennedy, James, brother of John, cotton-spinner, 127, 172; came to Lancashire from Kirkcudbright, 127. See Crompton, M‘Connel and Kennedy

Kennedy, John, eminence in cotton industry, 126; improved mule, 126 and n.; apprenticeship, 127; connection with M‘Connel & Kennedy terminated, 1826, 132; promoted public subscription on behalf of Crompton, 150; assisted Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 154, 166-168; raised subscription to purchase annuity for Crompton, 159 and n.; Brief Memoir of S. Crompton, 75n., 78n., 113, 114, 116n., 121, 122n., 123n., 124n., 125n., 130-131, 132n., 154n., 158n., 159; Early Recollections, 127n.; Rise and Progress of Cotton Trade, 75n., 76n., 122n., 126n.

Kersies, 6, 7n.

Kirkcudbright, migration of young men from, to Lancashire, 127

Lace, demand for fine cotton yarn for manufacture of, 131

Lancashire and Cheshire Wills, 2n., 32n., 33n.

Lancashire, exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, xxv.-xxviii., 4; fustian manufacture, 9, 10; not opposed to restrictive legislation, 20; textile industry, 28, 29; number employed in linen industry, 29; organisation of cloth industry in sixteenth century, 30, 31; workers’ combinations and disturbances, 45; cotton manufacture established by beginning of seventeenth century, 65; cotton manufacture progressive before 1770, 65; new cotton manufacture arose at end of eighteenth century, 66, 72; fine fabrics manufacture, 131; small proprietors engaged in industry, 136; contrast between town and country weavers, 136-137; workers benefit from development, 144; Luddite risings, 154-155. See Cotton Industry, Combinations, Petitions

Lancaster traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24; Assizes (1758), 45-46; light punishment of check-weavers, 1759, 51; port of entry for cotton, 57-58

Lee, G., promoter of subscription on Crompton’s behalf, 150, 170, 174, 182; predecessor of Robert Owen, 150n.; partner in firm of Phillips & Lee, 150n.; assisted Crompton in appeal to Parliament, 154, 157; evidence before Committee on Crompton’s petition, 187-189, 191; letter relative to amount of award to Crompton, 192

Leeds, food riots in 1753, 42

Leicester, Luddite risings, 154-155

Leigh, a centre of fustian manufacture, 56

Leland, Itinerary, 3 and n.

Lennox, Duke of, alnager of new drapery, 9, 10, 11, 197n.

Leyden, journeymen fullers of, xxiii.

Linen industry, numbers employed in, 29; excluded from operations of restrictive legislation. See Lancashire, Manchester, Ireland

Linen-yarn, used in fustian manufacture, 9, 29, 58; German used as substitute for Irish, 58

Linwood Company, 172

Liverpool purchased grain in 1756 to relieve distress, 43; superseded London as chief entry port for cotton, 57-58

London Weavers Company oppose Manchester Act (1736), 24; hawkers’ and pedlars’ society, 65n.; silk industry and silk-throwsters, 98n.

Loom, hand, 72-73; predecessor of Jacquard loom for weaving draw-boys, 74 and n.

Lowe, Present State of England, 147n.

Luddite risings in 1811-1812, 154-155

Macclesfield silk-throwsters, 98n.

Machine-breaking in 1767 and 1779, 82, 92; causes of, 82-83, 88-90, 95n.

Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, 83n., 84n., 85n., 87, 88n.

Manchester Athenæum, 119; Court Leet Records, 26n., 32n., 58n.; Directory, 26; analysis of trades from (1772), 67-68; Mercury, 42n., 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53n., 54n., 59n., 60n., 62, 63n., 82n., 84n., 85n., 87n., 93, 94n., 95, 101n., 102n., 103n., 104n., 105n., 106n., 110, 119, 136, 143n., 147n.; Statistical Society, Transactions of, 144n., 151n., 155n.

Manchester, see Acts (1736), Petitions; eminent for woollen cloths or Manchester cottons, 7n.; Fuller’s account of Manchester cottons, 15; sixteenth-century cloth industry, 30-31; manufactures in 1650 and 1751, 25-26; linen weaving in seventeenth century, 8; lost making of webs and ticks to west of England, 26; made pure cotton goods, 27, 29 and n.; fustian manufacture, 15, 27, 56; growth of thread manufacture, 28n.; Dutch machines and mechanics introduced, 27; packs leaving in 1751, 26; reputation in 1543, 30-31; wheat prices, 1753-1758, 42-43; 1759-1765, 84; food riots, 1753 and 1756, 42-44; in 1762, 84; check-weavers turned out in 1758, 47; and tried in 1759, 51; flourishing in 1759, 52; yarn merchants, 58; Manchester goods exported in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 59; trade of, 58-60; carriers, 63, 71; warehouses of country traders in, 69; crofters in Manchester district, 70; first steam cotton factory, 81; precautions against machine-breaking, 82; Society of Agriculture, 86; Assize of Bread in 1766, 85 and n.; Arkwright’s factory, 100; cotton manufacturers’ company, 1774-1778, 101n.; Committees for Protection of Trade, 100-101, 103, 118-119; manufacturers oppose Irish commercial propositions, 104; riots in 1812, 154-155, 157; Society for Prosecution of Felons, 159n.

Mansfield, Lord, charge to jury regarding combinations, 45-46, 51; advocated repeal of Statute of Apprentices, 51

Mantoux, P., La Révolution Industrielle, 96n., 97, 100n.

Marsland, P., 172

Marriott, J., threadmaker, 28n.

Martineau, H., History of the Peace, 83n.

May, J., Declaration of the Estate of Clothing, 6n., 10, 11n.; deputy alnager, 10

M‘Connel, James, eminence in cotton industry, 127; left Kirkcudbright and was apprenticed to Cannan, 127

M‘Connel & Kennedy, began business (1791) with capital of £250, 150; made machinery and rovings, 124n., 128; size of mules made by, 162; supplied Belfast and Glasgow with fine cotton yarns, 132; correspondence of, reveals industrial situation, 147n. See Crompton

M‘Hewham, J. and J., 172

Mellor, description of, 136-138; census (1801), details of, 138

Merchant Adventurers’ Company, xxv.-xxvii.

Meredith, H. O., Economic History of England, 83n.

Middleton, size of farms in, 136; farms held by weavers, 316

Midgley, T., curator of Chadwick Museum, Bolton. See Bolton, Souvenir of Royal Visit to

Milne, invented cotton-roving machine, 103; subscription on behalf of, 103, 119, 120

Monthly Literary and Scientific Lecturer, 22n.; Monthly Magazine, 120

Mordaunt, Col., defendant in trial for infringement of Arkwright’s patent, 102

Morris, introduced Paul’s carding-machine into Lancashire, 78

Mosier, W., chapman, 33, 34

Mosley, A., clothier, business and accounts of, xxv., 33; will of, 32 and n.; Sir N., Lord of Manor of Manchester, 32

Mule, see Billy, Jenny, Crompton; called Hall-o’-th’-Wood wheel, 166, 168, 173, 190-191; description of, 117-118, 162; value to cotton industry, 169-170, 173, 180; corrected defects of Arkwright’s machinery, 117, 179-180; relation to jenny and Arkwright’s machinery, 116, 117, 119, 172-173, 179, 180; produced satisfactory thread for fine work, 116, 118, 124, 128-129, 173, 179-180, 191; produced thread suitable for warps and wefts, 117, 167, 173; produced fine muslin and cambric manufactures, 129, 169, 173, 180, 186-187, 190; partly superseded water-frame, 124, 163, 189; superior to ring-frame for higher qualities of yarn, 164; increasing use, 121 and n., 187; increase in size and improvement, 121-123, 125, 126 and n., 162-163; present-day mules, 163-164; value of machines, buildings and power in 1812, 191; employment resulting from, 169, 181, 188, 191

Mule, double, superseded single, 125 and n.; mule, self-actor, not at first satisfactory, 125; improvements of mule culminated in, 163

Mule-spinners, high wages, 122; privations and organisation of, 144 and n.

Murray, Adam, apprenticed to Cannan on leaving Kirkcudbright, 127

Murray, A. and G., 127, 172. See Mule, Oldknow, Shaw

Muslins, Eastern manufacture of, 129; Continental demand for muslin yarns, 131; British manufacture of, 129n.

Need, S., in partnership with Arkwright, 98, 103

New Lanark cotton mills erected, xxx., 106, 172. See Owen, Arkwright

Northumberland excluded from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4

Norwich, opposition of woollen manufacturers to printed fustians, 23; export of English, 7

Nottingham, Earl of, 18; lace industry, 131; Luddite risings, 154-155

Ogden, Description of Manchester, 26-29, 37-39, 40, 73, 74n., 80n., 94n., 95n.

Oldham, a centre of fustian manufacture, 56

Oldknow, S., made fine fabrics, muslins, etc., 129n., 130-131, 172

Orr, W. and J., 172

Owen, Robert, apprenticeship, 129n.; connection with New Lanark Mills, 106; began to manufacture mules, 126, 127; spinner of thread from rovings, 124n.; Autobiography, 106n., 124n., 125n., 126n., 129n., 150n.

Papplewick, first steam cotton-mill at, 81

Patents, general dislike of, prevalent, 118

Paul, Lewis, first patent embodying idea of spinning by rollers, 76, 111; but not very successful, 76-77; second patent (1758), 77; invented pinking-machine, 77; carding-machine of, 77-78, 111

Peel, Robert, of yeoman class, 142; experimented with carding-machines, 78; his machinery destroyed, 92n.; opposition to Arkwright’s patents, 102-120; opposed Irish commercial propositions, 104; number of employees (1784), 104; failed to persuade Crompton to join his business, 149; exerted himself on Crompton’s behalf, 149, 167, 175, 176, 184, 192, 193; evidence to Committee on Crompton’s petition, 186; his opinion valued by Government, 174

Peel, Robert, junior, 172

Peel, Yates & Co., 172

Penistone cloth, 6

Perceval, Spencer, his part in Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-176, 178; assassination of, 157

Percival, T., accused of assisting check-weavers’ combination, 47; proposals for settlement, 48-52; Letter to a Friend, 46-51, 56n., 57n.

Peterborough, opposition to Manchester Act (1736), 24

Petitions, for import of cotton wool (1654), 12-13; against import of cotton fabrics, 20; of fustian manufacturers, 23; of Lancashire clothiers, 31; against truck payments, 36; from travelling merchants against being classed as hawkers, 61; on account of distress (1780), 88-89; of silk manufacturers regarding decline of trade, 98n.; for and against Arkwright’s patents, 102-103; from Weymouth against prohibition of calicoes, etc., 21; from Manchester and Bolton (1808) for peace, 154-155; from Blackburn and Preston (1812) against continuance of war, 156

Piacenza, light cottons of, xxii.

Pitman, Development of British West Indies, 88n.

Pococke, Travels Through England, 28n.

Pollard, J., 127

Power-loom, 125, 140

Price, W. H., “On Beginning of Cotton Industry in England,” 8n., 9n., 195n., 197n.

Proctor, Memorials of Bygone Manchester, 25n.

Putting-out system, 56, 143

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 8n.

Radcliffe, Origin of Power-Loom Weaving, xxix., 56n., 59n., 60, 133, 135, 136, 142; helped to make power-loom practicable, 140n.

Raines and Sutton, Life of Humphrey Chetham, 34, 35, 59n.

Reading, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century, 28n.

Records of Fort St George, 16n.

Regulation of industry and commerce, see Acts of Parliament; broke down in seventeenth century, 65-66

Report on Commerce, Manufacturers and Shipping (1833), 22n., 134n.; Report of Committee on Textile Trades, 1n., 130n.; Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions, 144n.; Report of Committee on Emigration, etc. (1826-1827), 136-137; Report of Committee on State of Children Employed in Manufactories, 91n., 126n., 127n.; Report of Tenth International Cotton Congress, 164

Riders-out, 62

Ridgway, J., evidence before Committee on Crompton’s Petition, 191

Ridgway, T., & Sons, 172

Ring-spinning frame, modern rival of mule, 163; predominates outside U.K., 164; statistics of, 164

Roberts, Lewis, Treasure of Traffike, 8, 12, 57n.

Roberts, Richard, invented satisfactory self-actor mule, 125; perfected power-loom, 125; owned nearly a hundred patents, 125n.

Robinson, J., 172

Rochdale, small farms held by manufacturers, 136

Roller-spinning. See Arkwright, Paul

Roscoe, W., 172

Rothschild, Nathan Meyer, xxx.-xxxi.

Roving, methods of, 79; making of rovings became a distinct business, 124

Royton, 144

Salford, Society of Agriculture, 86

Schoff, Periplus of Erythrean Sea, 129n.

Scotland: Scotch linen yarn imported for fustian manufacture, 9, 58; fancy manufacture, 131, 180; effects of mule on, 180, 188, 190

Scott, Prof. W. R., 18n.; Joint Stock Companies, 12n., 16n., 18n., 19n., 66n.

Shaw, J., attempted to manufacture muslins, 125

Shop-tax, 63-64

Shrewsbury, chapmen’s society, 65

Silk industry, factory system developed earlier than in cotton industry, 98 and n.; organisation in eighteenth century, 98n. See London, Macclesfield

Simpson, J., 172

Slack, Remarks on Cotton, 58n.

Smallware, see Checks, Worsted; articles included in, 25; worsted entered into smallware manufacture, 29; weavers’ combination and attack on, 44-45; further dispute in 1781, 53-54

Smiles, S., Huguenots, 12n.; Industry and Invention, 98n.; Lives of Engineers, 61n., 81n., 104n.

Smith, Wars Between England and America, 83n.

Smollett, History of England, 42n., 46n.

Spinning, backwardness in 1735, 74; reward offered for invention of machinery, 78; improvement after 1760, 78. See Roller-spinning

Spinning-jenny. See Jenny

Spinning-wheel, method of spinning by, 75; Jersey and Brunswick, 75; Saxony, used mainly for flax and wool, 75

Stanley, Colonel, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-175, 178; Lord, supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 174-178, 192, 193; Chairman of Committee on Crompton’s petition, 186, 191

State Papers Domestic, 5n., 6, 7, 8n., 13n., 17n., 18n., 19n., 31, 66, 195, 196

Stirling, W., & Sons, 172

Stockport, food riots in 1757, 43n.; muslin manufacture, see Oldknow

Stones, H., first made mules after Crompton, 123; improved mule, 123

Strutt, J., in partnership with Arkwright, 98, 103; of yeoman class, 142

Taunton Cloth, 6

Tawney, R. H., Assessment of Wages by Justices of Peace, 49n.

Taylor, patented a spinning machine, 78

Tenters, use of, prohibited, 5

Thompson, R., & Sons, 172

Throstle, an improvement of water-frame, 163

Tipping, S. and G., linen drapers, of Manchester, 32 and n., 34. See Chetham, H. and G.

Todd, Shorbridge & Co., 172

Tooke, History of Prices, 83n.

Touchet, J. T. and G., & Co., 172

Travelling merchants, or Manchester men, method and scale of business, 61-62

Trade unions, see Combinations; development checked by Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 55, 148

Truck payments. See Acts (1702)

Ulm, fustian industry of, xxii.

Unwin, Prof. G., Industrial Organisation in XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, 4n., 36n., 49n., 53 and n., 66n., 101n.; Gilds and Companies of London, 66n.

Ure, Cotton Manufacture, 16n., 29n., 76n., 81n., 119, 122n., 131n., 162

Venice, cotton imports of, xxii.

Vermilions, manufactured from cotton-wool from Cyprus and Smyrna, 8

Wages, effects of new machinery on, 90-91; of hand-loom weavers, 1795-1807, 134n.

Wakefield traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24

Water-frame, see Arkwright, Throstle; was outcome of previous efforts, 145; complementary to jenny, 80; spinning and winding simultaneous with, 81; horse-power employed with, 81; useful for coarser counts and warp yarn, 124; incapable of spinning weft or producing thread of fine texture, 172-173, 179, 180, 186, 190; influence on expansion of cotton industry, 179

Ware, Life and Correspondence of S. Hibbert, 58n., 63n.

Warrington, industries and numbers employed in eighteenth century, 28n.

Wars: Seven Years’ War and War of American Independence, cause heavy taxation, 63; and dislocation of trade and distress, 46, 86-89; French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, economic effects of, 83, 130, 144; intensified effects of economic change, 146; checked movement for social development, 146-148; Napoleonic War, social retrogression due to, 146-148; repression and class legislation due to, 146-147; situation created by, compared with European War, 147; dominant factor in social and economic history, 147-148; left disturbed industrial relationships, 148; caused fluctuation of trade and distress, 154; crisis of 1810, 154; with America in 1812, 154

Watt, J., patents steam-engine, 81; supports Arkwright in second trial, 104; evidence before Committee on Crompton’s petition, 189

Weavers’ Act (1555). See Acts

Webb, S. and B., History of Trade Unionism, 49n., 52, 147n.

Westerfield, Middlemen in English Business, 61, 62

Westmorland, excluded from provisions of Weavers’ Act, 4

Weymouth, cotton manufacturers’ petition, 21

Wheeler, History of Manchester, 92n., 102n.

Whitehaven, traders support Manchester Act (1736), 24; port of entry for cotton, 57-58

Whitsters. See Crofters

Wilks, The Half Century, 83n.

Wolstenholme, patent for manufacture of cotton velveteen, 101

Worsted smallware, see Combinations, Checks; four classes engaged in making, 40; fortunes of manufacturers, 40-41; apprenticeship regulations, 41; undertakers, 40, 41; weavers wish to control employment conditions, 42-44; wages problem in 1756, 42-43

Weavers’ Apology, 40, 44

Wright constructed double-mule, 125

Wylde, partner of S. Crompton, 158

Wylie and Briscoe, History of Nottingham, 97n.

Yarn, see Cotton, Linen; fine, small capital of leading early spinners, 127; fine, demand for, 131; distribution of, among country weavers, 143

Yates, W., supported Crompton’s appeal to Parliament, 167, 170, 174

Yeomen, affected by industrial changes, 139-140; turned attention to industry, 141; obtained machines and produced yarn in farm-houses, 141; unable to compete with factories, 141-142; lost agricultural status, 141-142; a few successful as steam manufacturers, 142

Yorkshire exempted from provisions of Weavers’ Act, xxviii., 4; Luddite risings, 154-155

THE RIVERSIDE PRESS LIMITED, EDINBURGH

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

1. Enclosed italics font in underscores. 2. The listed errata have been corrected in the text.