IIIMECHANICAL INVENTIONS
A distinction should be made between the factory and the factory system. The latter was not new to England, having been employed during the Roman occupation; and with the introduction of the woolen industry under Edward III, we again find the factory system established on an extensive scale.
John Winchcombe, commonly called Jack of Newbury, who died about the year 1520, made use of the factory system on a very extensive scale. In Fuller’sWorthiesyou may read how he “was the most considerable clothier without fancy or fiction England ever beheld,” and how “his looms were his lands, whereof he kept one hundred inhis house, each managed by a man and a boy.” Jack of Newbury was celebrated in a metrical romance, and the following lines taken from it contain an interesting description of his famous industrial establishment.
“Within one room, being large and long,There stood two hundred looms full strong:Two hundred men the truth is so,Wrought in these looms all in a row;By every one a pretty boySat making quills with mickle joy.And in another place hard byA hundred women merilyWere carding hard with joyful cheerWho, singing sat with voices clear;And in a chamber close besideTwo hundred maidens did abide,These pretty maids did never linBut in their place all day did spin:Then to another room came theyWhere children were in poor array,And every one sat picking wool,The finest from the coarse to cull:The number was seven score and tenThe children of poor silly men,Within another place likewiseFull fifty proper men he spied,And these were sheer men every one,Whose skill and cunning there was shown:A dyehouse likewise he had thenWherein he kept full forty men:And also in his fulling mill,Full twenty persons kept he still.”
“Within one room, being large and long,There stood two hundred looms full strong:Two hundred men the truth is so,Wrought in these looms all in a row;By every one a pretty boySat making quills with mickle joy.And in another place hard byA hundred women merilyWere carding hard with joyful cheerWho, singing sat with voices clear;And in a chamber close besideTwo hundred maidens did abide,These pretty maids did never linBut in their place all day did spin:Then to another room came theyWhere children were in poor array,And every one sat picking wool,The finest from the coarse to cull:The number was seven score and tenThe children of poor silly men,Within another place likewiseFull fifty proper men he spied,And these were sheer men every one,Whose skill and cunning there was shown:A dyehouse likewise he had thenWherein he kept full forty men:And also in his fulling mill,Full twenty persons kept he still.”
“Within one room, being large and long,There stood two hundred looms full strong:Two hundred men the truth is so,Wrought in these looms all in a row;By every one a pretty boySat making quills with mickle joy.And in another place hard byA hundred women merilyWere carding hard with joyful cheerWho, singing sat with voices clear;And in a chamber close besideTwo hundred maidens did abide,
“Within one room, being large and long,
There stood two hundred looms full strong:
Two hundred men the truth is so,
Wrought in these looms all in a row;
By every one a pretty boy
Sat making quills with mickle joy.
And in another place hard by
A hundred women merily
Were carding hard with joyful cheer
Who, singing sat with voices clear;
And in a chamber close beside
Two hundred maidens did abide,
These pretty maids did never linBut in their place all day did spin:
These pretty maids did never lin
But in their place all day did spin:
Then to another room came theyWhere children were in poor array,And every one sat picking wool,The finest from the coarse to cull:The number was seven score and tenThe children of poor silly men,Within another place likewiseFull fifty proper men he spied,And these were sheer men every one,Whose skill and cunning there was shown:
Then to another room came they
Where children were in poor array,
And every one sat picking wool,
The finest from the coarse to cull:
The number was seven score and ten
The children of poor silly men,
Within another place likewise
Full fifty proper men he spied,
And these were sheer men every one,
Whose skill and cunning there was shown:
A dyehouse likewise he had thenWherein he kept full forty men:And also in his fulling mill,Full twenty persons kept he still.”
A dyehouse likewise he had then
Wherein he kept full forty men:
And also in his fulling mill,
Full twenty persons kept he still.”
Here, indeed, we have the factory system—in which the division of labor is a conspicuous feature—employed with all its modern details; but not the steam-driven factory, building great cities and changing the whole social life of the kingdom.
The original mode of converting cotton into yarn was by the use of distaff and spindle, a method still employed in the remote parts of India. The distaff is a wooden rod to which a bundle of cotton is tied loosely at one end, and which the spinner holds between the left arm and the body while withhis right hand he draws out and twists the cotton into a thread. This simple process is the basis of all the complicated spinning machinery in use at the present time.
In a modern cotton factory there are three departments of labor, carding, spinning, and weaving; and we have now to consider briefly these three processes. The purpose of carding is to clean the cotton and lay the fibres in a uniform direction. This was at first accomplished by hand, the implement employed being little different from an ordinary comb; later an improved device was used consisting of a pair of large wire brushes. This, we must observe, was a primitive operation, and the amount of cotton which one person could thus prepare for spinning was very small.
We have already seen that the invention of the fly-shuttle so increased the demand for yarn that ingenious men were induced to make mechanical experiments for the purpose of supplying this demand—experimentswhich, in the end, led to the invention of the spinning-frame. The spinning-frame, in turn, increased the demand for carded cotton and skillful mechanics again set about to meet this new requirement, and the result was the building of the carding-engine. This invention was not made at once, nor by any particular individual; but was the result of a number of improvements made at different times and by different persons. One of these men was Thomas High, the inventor of the spinning-jenny; another was James Hargreaves who so improved the jenny that he is commonly called the inventor of it; and finally, Richard Arkwright himself took the crude machine devised by these men and perfected it. Thus it came about that the modern carding-engine as well as the spinning-frame, was made of practical value by this much-enduring, much-inventing barber.
The invention of the fly-shuttle, as we have seen, led to an increased demand foryarn, and this demand was further augmented about the year 1760 when the Manchester merchants began to export cotton goods in considerable quantities to Italy, Germany, and the North American colonies. It was then no uncommon thing for a weaver to walk three or four miles in the morning, and call on five or six spinners, before he could collect yarn enough to serve him for the remainder of the day.
Ingenious mechanics set about the task of producing more yarn. The first of these was Thomas High, a reed maker, residing in the town of Leigh, who engaged one Kay, a clock-maker, and this is the same Kay who was afterwards employed by Arkwright to make the wheels and other apparatus for a spinning-machine. This machine was set up in the garret of High’s house. Now, Thomas High had a daughter who watched with keen interest the progress of his experiments—her name was Jane—and in honor of her he called the machinethe spinning-jenny. It is commonly stated—even in so authoritative a history as Baines’s we find the error—that the credit for the original invention of the spinning-jenny is due to Hargreaves, he having made the first machine in 1767. But Guest has shown quite conclusively by the sworn statement of one Thomas Leather, a neighbor of High, that the latter completed a similar machine in 1764.
However this may be, James Hargreaves, a weaver of Stand-Hill, near Blackburn, perfected the original jenny and made it a practical working machine so that history has quite justly named him the author. From the first Hargreaves was aware of the value of his invention, but not having the ambition to obtain a patent he kept the machine as secret as possible, using it only to spin yarn for his own weaving. An unprotected invention of such importance, however, could not remain long the private property of a single weaver, and soona knowledge of his achievement spread throughout the neighborhood; but instead of gaining admiration and gratitude for Hargreaves, the spinners raised the cry that the invention would throw multitudes out of employment and a mob broke into his house and destroyed his jenny.
After this, Hargreaves moved to Nottingham, where, with a Mr. Thomas James, he raised sufficient capital to erect a small mill; here he took out a patent in 1770,—one year after Arkwright had patented the water-frame. Before leaving Lancashire, Hargreaves made and sold to other weavers a number of jennies; and in spite of all opposition the importance of the invention led to its general use.
A desperate effort was made in 1779, during a period of distress, to put down the machine. A mob scoured the country for miles around Blackburn demolishing jennies and with them all carding-engines, water-frames, and other machinery; butthe rioters spared the jennies which had only twenty spindles, as these were by this time admitted to be useful to the craftsmen. Not only the working classes, but the middle and even the upper classes entertained at this time a profound dread of machinery. The result of these riots was to drive spinners and other capitalists from the neighborhood of Blackburn to Manchester, increasing the importance of that rapidly growing town which was destined to become the world centre of the cotton industry.
The story of this early opposition to the introduction of machinery deserves attention not only as an interesting episode in the history of the factory, but because even to-day a similar opposition comes to the surface with each new improvement in the method of manufacture. It is also an interesting fact that Lord Byron made his maiden speech in the House of Lords in opposition to the Nottingham Riot Bills, introduced into Parliament for the protectionof owners of machinery. There were two of these bills, one “for the more exemplary punishment of persons destroying or injurying any stocking- or lace-frames, or other machines or engines used in the frame-work knitting manufactory, or any articles or goods in such frames or machines”; the other “for the more effectual preservation of the peace within the county of Nottingham.”
These two bills were the result of rioting among the lacemakers of this county and their object was to increase the penalty for breaking machinery, from transportation to death, to permit the appointment of special constables in times of disturbance, and to establish watch and ward throughout the disturbed parts. These bills and the debates upon them throw a strong light upon the extent of the disturbances, and indicate the attitude of the government, at that time, toward the laboring poor.
The important inventions in carding and spinning led to a rapid advance in cotton manufacture; the new machines not only turned off a greater quantity of yarn than had been produced by hand, but the yarn was also of a superior quality. The water-frame spun a hard, firm yarn, well adapted for warps, while the jenny produced a soft yarn suitable for spinning weft; but the yarn produced on neither of these machines could be advantageously used for making the finer qualities of goods.
This defect in the spinning-machinery was remedied by still another device called the mule jenny, but now termed simply the mule, so named because it combined the principles of both Arkwright’s water-frame and Hargreaves’ jenny. The mule was invented by Samuel Crompton, a weaver living at Hall-in-the-Wood near Bolton. He commenced his experiments in 1774, but it was five years before he completed the machine. Crompton tookout no patent and only regretted that public curiosity would not allow him to keep his little invention for himself. The mule was first known as the Hall-in-the-Wood wheel, then as the muslin wheel because it made yarn sufficiently fine for weaving that fabric, and finally by its present name.
As the inventor made no effort to secure a patent, the mule became public property, and was generally adopted by manufacturers, but Crompton himself received no other reward than a grant of five thousand pounds voted him by Parliament in 1812. Although his means were small, he was always in easy circumstances, until the latter part of his life, when, being no longer able to work, he was reduced to poverty. Certain manufacturers who had profited by his invention then subscribed for the purchase of a life annuity, to which fund foreign as well as English spinners contributed. Crompton died on January 26, 1827.
Having considered the inventions in the art of spinning, we now turn to the power loom built in 1785 by the Reverend Edmund Cartwright, of Hollander House, Kent. A loom moved by water power had been contrived as early as the seventeenth century by one De Gennes, and described as “a new engine to make linen cloth without the help of an artificer.” But the machine never came into general use; and in about the middle of the eighteenth century there is record of another power loom, also a French invention, which suffered a similar fate. Describing his own loom Cartwright says that in the summer of 1784 he fell in company with some gentlemen of Manchester who were discussing Arkwright’s spinning-machinery. One of the company observed that, as soon as Arkwright’s patents expired, so many mills would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands could not be found to weave it.
To this observation the ingenious clergyman replied that Arkwright should set his wits to work to invent a weaving-mill. But the Manchester gentlemen unanimously agreed that the thing was impractical. Cartwright argued, however, that, having seen exhibited in London an automaton figure which played at chess, he did not believe it more difficult to construct a machine which would weave. He kept this conversation in mind and later employed a carpenter and a blacksmith to carry his ideas into effect. Thus he built a loom which, to his own delight, produced a piece of cloth. The machine, however, required two powerful men to work it, but Cartwright, who was entirely unfamiliar with the art of weaving, believed that he had accomplished all that was required, and on the 4th of April, 1785, he secured a patent. It was only then that he commenced to study the method by which the craftsmen wove cloth, and hewas astonished when he compared the easy working of the hand loom with his own ponderous engine. Profiting by his study, however, he produced a loom which in its general principles is precisely the same as the looms used to-day.
Thus was invented the machinery of the cotton mill; but there remains to be considered the one other contrivance without which the vast extension of manufactures would have been impossible and the manufacturing towns, which we are about to consider, would never have attained the size and importance which enabled them to become factors in the political life of England. I refer to the steam engine.
In 1763, James Watt was employed in repairing a model of Newcomen’s steam engine, and, noting certain basic defects, undertook to remedy them. He perceived the vast possibilities of a properly constructed engine and, after years of patientlabor he gave to the world the mighty power of steam. Previous to this time, and indeed until the year 1782, the steam engine had been used almost exclusively to pump water out of mines, but with Watt’s improvements it became possible for the engine to give rotary motion to machinery.
The first cotton mill to install a steam engine made by Boulton and Watt was the one owned by the Messrs. Robinson in Nottinghamshire—this was about the year 1785. Two years earlier, Arkwright had made use of an atmospheric engine in his Manchester factory, but it was not until 1789 that an improved steam engine was set up in that city and it was a year later when Arkwright adopted the device.
The invention of spinning-machinery created the cotton manufacture of England, but the industry would never have reached the proportions which it presently did except for the genius of Watt.