Chapter V: The Mule and the Rise of a New Cotton Manufacture (2)

In 1795 Aikin described Mellor as having “a chapel of the Church of England round which are a few straggling houses,”[422] but probably this description referred only to the centre of the township. When the 1801 census was taken the following particulars were collected:--the township consisted of 270 houses of which 19 were uninhabited, and the remainder contained 301 families. It had a population of 1670 (805 males and 865 females), of whom 68 were employed chiefly in agriculture and 945 chiefly in trade, manufactures or handicraft, leaving 657 not included in these two classes.[423] Between 1770 (the date mentioned by Radcliffe) and 1801 population generally had increased, though it is hardly likely that it would have increased much in a place like Mellor; indeed, the fact that, at the latter date, there were 19 houses uninhabited strongly suggests that within a considerable time it had neither increased nor decreased to any extent. If it can be assumed that the number of families was the same in 1770 as in 1801, then allowing 55 of these to have been farmer families (Radcliffe’s fifty or sixty), 246 families would be left as otherwise occupied: roughly a proportion of 9 to 2. Even allowing for a considerable increase in the number of families by 1801, it appears that in 1770 the farmer families must have been greatly outnumbered by the others.

[Footnote 422: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 482.]

[Footnote 423: _Abstract of Population_, Act 41, Geo. III., 1800, p. 59.]

Though the description of the parish of Middleton by Aikin is not so picturesque as the description of the township of Mellor by Radcliffe, it is not improbable, without any great distortion of facts, that one might be used for the other, and no doubt for other places as well. In some cases (as in the six or seven mentioned by Radcliffe in Mellor) it appears that of the two occupations the agricultural may have been the more prominent, and that in others they were more equal. If French’s statement relating to Bolton in 1753 may be accepted as correct, this was evidently the case in the country districts in the neighbourhood of that town at that time.[424] Even in cases where industrial activities were of least importance, taking into account the size of farms and other evidence, there can be little doubt that a spinning-wheel was to be found in the farm-houses.[425] Starting from these, we appear to get a gradation with industrial activities becoming more and more important, until we reach the cottagers mentioned by Radcliffe, who can hardly be regarded as engaged in agricultural activities at all. In the country districts it was these cottagers, and the small farmers of the type to which he refers, who constituted the main supply of manufacturing labour.

[Footnote 424: French, _ibid._, p. 9.]

[Footnote 425: Aikin, _ibid._, p. 47: “On the dairy farms (in Cheshire) one woman servant is kept to every ten cows, who is employed in winter in spinning and other household business, but in milking is assisted by all the other servants of the farm.”]

This view is substantiated in the writings of Dr. Gaskell, which are of particular importance in regard to the question under consideration, as expressing the views of a man who intensely disliked the factory system, and who naturally was inclined to present the system which it displaced in as favourable a light as possible.[426]

[Footnote 426: Dr. Gaskell’s views are contained in _The Manufacturing Population of England_ (1833) and _Artisans and Machinery_ (1836), the latter being a reprint of the former with additions.]

He distinguished between three classes in the country districts who were affected by the transition in industry: the yeomen or small freeholders who apparently were entirely engaged in agriculture; a superior class of artisans, primarily engaged in manufacturing, but who commonly rented some land as an accessory; a secondary or inferior class of artisans entirely dependent upon manufacturing.[427]

[Footnote 427: “The great body of hand-loom weavers had at all times been divided by a well-defined line of demarcation into two very distinct classes. This distinction arose from the circumstance of their being landholders or being entirely dependent upon weaving for their support.” (_Manufacturing Population_, p. 36).]

Clearly, the members of this second class correspond to Radcliffe’s small farmers, and the members of the third to his cottagers. According to Gaskell, the yeomen were anything but an enterprising class; they cultivated their land as had their forefathers and regarded innovation as rank heresy, with the result that, in the agricultural changes of the eighteenth century which accompanied the industrial changes, they failed to keep pace with the march of events.[428] The farming of the second class was slovenly and definitely subordinate to their industrial activities; its importance in Gaskell’s view was that it gave to the members of the class opportunity for a healthy employment and raised them above the rank of mere labourers, and, as generally the weavers had much spare time on their hands owing to irregularity of work, it is evident that it would be useful in providing a subsidiary occupation.[429] The members of the third class, who merely had a garden, were especially prone to suffer from the scarcity of yarn and irregularity of work, and on occasion they underwent severe privation, the uncertainty of their livelihood engendering lack of forethought, improvidence, and carelessness in expenditure.[430]

[Footnote 428: _Manufacturing Population_, p. 41.]

[Footnote 429: _Ibid._, pp. 16, 34.]

[Footnote 430: _Ibid._, p. 37.]

With the coming of the jenny and the mule the circumstances of the two latter classes were changed, as without extra outlay of capital more cloth could be produced by their looms, and consequently they derived great benefit from the inventions. Indeed, Gaskell asserts that a material improvement had been gradually taking place in their position during the half-century preceding the application of steam-power to weaving,[431] not so much because of increased payment for their labour, as because of a constantly increasing supply of yarn, which enabled them to turn out a greater and more regular quantity of cloth.[432]

[Footnote 431: He gives 1806 as the date of the introduction of power looms. It was about this time that, through the efforts of Horrocks, Johnson and Radcliffe, they became practicable. In February, 1807, Robert Owen wrote to M‘Connel and Kennedy inquiring about “the improvements presently in progress in weaving by power.”]

[Footnote 432: _Ibid._, pp. 34, 38.]

One of the first effects of the improvement was to cause the superior class of artisans to abandon their agricultural activities, owing to the fact that their labour with the loom had become so much more profitable. Gaskell fully recognised this material advance, but considered that it was gained at the expense of a lowered status; previously the members of this class had been on a level with the yeoman; by the change they had become labourers.[433] The effect upon the inferior class of artisans was that they were at once elevated to a position of equality with the superior class, and though Gaskell recognised that the amalgamation raised their general character as a body, and gave them community of interest and feeling, the change did not favourably impress him.[434] Whatever else Gaskell may have been, he was certainly not a strong believer in the elimination of class distinctions.

[Footnote 433: _Manufacturing Population_, pp. 35, 39.]

[Footnote 434: _Ibid._, pp. 37-38.]

But the effects of these developments in industry extended to the yeomen. Previously, although the members of this class had not been noted for their efficiency in farming, they had been able to maintain their position owing to the still less efficiency of the farmer-manufacturers who had served them as a bulwark, and, as the latter disappeared from agriculture, and as new methods and a new type of cultivator appeared, the yeomen lost the markets they had previously supplied.

At this stage many of the yeomen turned their attention to the new machines which were being introduced into industry and purchased them, in five-sevenths of the cases having to borrow money, generally on mortgage. But as a result, for a time, a large quantity of yarn was produced in old farm-houses. Difficulties soon arose, owing, on the one hand, to the erection of factories where the machinery was driven by water-power, and, on the other, to the rapid improvements in machinery.[435] In competition with the factories, the profits of those who had embarked on spinning in the farm-houses decreased, and through the other cause, the latest jenny bought in one year could hardly produce enough yarn in the following year to repay the outlay. Consequently, they were compelled to dispose of the machine or to arrange an exchange with a maker on disadvantageous terms. In Gaskell’s opinion the number of machines thus thrown back into the market facilitated the growth of factories. Although a machine was obsolete before a domestic spinner had time to cover the first cost, yet, worked along with others and driven by water-power, such a machine was a profitable investment. Thus many of the members of the yeomen class lost their position in agriculture, and later became incapable of maintaining their position in industry. But it was not the case with all of them. A few, Gaskell states, shook off their slothful habits of body and mind and were successful in their new sphere of activity, several of the most eminently successful of the steam manufacturers springing from this class.[436]

[Footnote 435: _Ibid._, pp. 41-42.]

[Footnote 436: _Manufacturing Population_, pp. 43-45. In _Artisans and Machinery_, p. 33, he mentions Peel, Strutt and others. _Cf._ Aikin, _ante_, p. 136.]

This account of one aspect of the transition in industry, coming from a man whose writings were a vigorous attack upon the system that emerged, and corroborated as it is by much independent evidence, may, in general outline, be accepted as undoubtedly trustworthy. But its chief importance for our purpose is the indication it gives of the extent to which those engaged in the textile industries in the country districts in the eighteenth century were connected with agriculture, and also in its giving at least part of the explanation of the break-down of the connection during the transition period. Apparently the principal link was constituted by those whom Gaskell regarded as a superior class of artisans, and whom Radcliffe called small-farmers. Of the two it is fairly evident that Gaskell’s designation was the more appropriate. Whether this class was absolutely a large number it is impossible to say: possibly what has been suggested regarding Mellor may give some indication of its relative number in the country districts. But when we take into account the total number engaged in the Lancashire textile industry in the towns and in the country districts, the conclusion that the relative number of part-time agriculturalists was small would seem to have abundant justification. They can hardly be regarded as the typical workpeople.

But there is another question: To what extent were those in the country districts independent producers, and thus different from those in the towns, whose position in this respect has already been considered? That there may have been some independent producers is probably true,[437] but there is little reason to think that the number was large. Gaskell states that “the yarn ... which was wanted by the weaver was received or delivered by agents who travelled for wholesale houses or depôts were established in particular neighbourhoods where he could call weekly.”[438] This is clearly the “putting-out” system which has been described, and under this system, although the workpeople worked in their own houses they could not be regarded as independent producers.

[Footnote 437: In the parish of Oldham “there were a considerable number of weavers who worked on their own account and held at the same time small pieces of land” (Butterworth, _History of Oldham_, p. 101. Quoted by Chapman, _ibid._, p. 11).]

[Footnote 438: Gaskell, _ibid._, p. 17.]

The agents mentioned by Gaskell were evidently employees of the manufacturers, but, as frequent advertisements show, there were also men in the country districts who described themselves as “putters-out,” and others, who apparently differed very little from them, who were ready to undertake work on commission. Then there were the country fustian manufacturers, some of whom, indeed, probably occupied a position little different from the others, as they too sometimes declared themselves ready to make goods on commission.[439] The relation of these men to the workpeople is indicated in the statement of one of them that he had “a quantity of approved weavers at command.”[440] In the country districts of Lancashire in the eighteenth century there is ample reason for saying that the great majority of workpeople in the textile industry were employed by these various types of men. Generally their position was little, if any, different from the position of the workpeople in the towns--indeed, as we have seen, the smallware weavers’ combination in 1758 extended to country districts such as Ashton and Royton.

[Footnote 439: See _infra_, p. 197.]

[Footnote 440: _Manchester Mercury_, 5th October 1779.]

In view of the evidence, it can safely be said that among the first effects of the developments in the Lancashire textile industry in the eighteenth century was an improvement in the position of the workpeople, especially of the weavers, and that, after the cancellation of Arkwright’s patent, and the fuller utilisation of the mule, there was a great burst of prosperity. As is well known, this period of prosperity was not of long duration; soon the weavers were plunged into a longer period of distress. Weavers formerly engaged in other branches of trade turned to cotton.[441] Great numbers of agricultural labourers became weavers, with the effect of raising wages in their former occupation.[442] But in addition, and far more important, was the war, as a consequence of which the natural expansion of markets was impeded and the course of trade marked by violent fluctuations and crises. During this period even the mule-spinners, whose career as the “aristocracy” of labour in the cotton trade had now commenced, had to undergo severe privation, but their higher skill and superior organisation prevented them from sinking into the depths of distress which was the lot of the weavers.[443]

[Footnote 441: Gaskell, _ibid._, p. 46-47. _Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’, etc., Petitions (1803)._, p. 16.]

[Footnote 442: _Report of Committee on Cotton Weavers’ Petitions_ (1808), p. 24.]

[Footnote 443: Some information regarding the state of trade is given in two papers by the present writer on “The Cotton Trade during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars” (_Transactions of the Manchester Statistical Society_, 1916, 1917). The mule-spinners were combined in the early nineties of the eighteenth century, and although they claimed, in answer to the assertion that their combination was illegal, that it existed only to relieve their fellow-labourers in distress, they managed to conduct wages disputes in an efficient manner. The combination continued to exist after the Combination Acts were passed. In 1803 the master spinners in the town and neighbourhood of Manchester resolved to form themselves into an Association and raise a fund of £20,000 by each member contributing in proportion to the number of spindles he employed in order to defeat “this dangerous and unjust combination” (Circular dated 7th October 1803).]

The transition in the cotton industry is, of course, only part of that general transition in industry and agriculture in England which is now concisely known as the Industrial Revolution, and sometimes the last decades of the eighteenth and the early decades of the nineteenth centuries are taken to cover the period of the transition. That the movement was proceeding apace in these years there can be no doubt, but it would be erroneous to regard what happened then as more than an acceleration of what had been taking place before. At any rate, so far as the cotton industry is concerned, from the moment that we can take hold of anything that may be called a cotton industry a continuous development can be traced in all directions. Even the inventions of the jenny and the water-frame, when viewed in their right relations, are seen as the outcome of efforts extending over more than thirty years preceding their appearance, and come as something expected, rather than as something sudden and unique.

Frequently, and with much justification, the view is taken of this transition period, particularly of the last decade of the eighteenth and the first decades of the nineteenth centuries, that it was a time of great distress and of social retrogression for a large part of the population, and considerable stress is laid upon the economic movement as a cause. _A priori_ the idea that an economic movement such as we have been considering, which was characterised on the one hand by a greater power of production, and on the other by an expanding economic unity could, of itself, be a cause of widespread distress and of social retrogression is a hard one to accept. Moreover, when the previous position in Lancashire and the effects the economic movement was having upon it are taken into account, there seems no good reason why it should be accepted for this period. The movement, in its early stages, was undoubtedly much more constructive than destructive. An explanation of what transpired later has to be sought in causes which distorted the economic movement, and, especially during that portion of the period mentioned, such causes are not far to seek.

Attention has been drawn to the unrest that prevailed in the country during the period from the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War to beyond the conclusion of the American War, and from what has obtained in similar circumstances, both before and since, that the fundamental cause was to be found in the wars can hardly be doubted. Indeed, as we have seen, notwithstanding much confused thinking, the fact was occasionally recognised at the time.

In 1793, when the war commenced which was destined to continue almost without intermission for nearly a quarter of a century, a similar cause at once began to operate, but with greater intensity, owing to the economic changes which had already taken place, and which were revealing their most striking results at that time. In considering this stage of the Industrial Revolution it must be borne in mind that, as a result of the war, the economic changes were probably intensified and concentrated in this country to an extent they would not have been in time of peace; on the other hand, movements which were making for social development were checked by the exercise of political power. It is here where we get the connection between the economic movement and the social retrogression and evils of the time. In the circumstances created by the war, anything which appeared to obstruct the working of the economic or political machinery was not to be tolerated, and legislation was invoked to clear away possible impediments. In the nature of the case, the legislation was an expression of the views of those in whose hands lay political power--class legislation of which the Combination Acts and the General Enclosure Act are prominent examples.[444]

[Footnote 444: There is a striking resemblance between the situation during the Napoleonic War and that during the recent European War. In this country there was the same fear about the food supply and similar efforts were made to conserve and increase it. In 1795 the members of the Houses of Parliament agreed by resolution to restrict the consumption of wheaten bread in their families, and their example was followed by various bodies throughout the country. In _The Manchester Mercury_ numerous recipes appeared for making bread out of ingredients other than wheat. The Board of Agriculture experimented in making bread with substitutes for wheat and publicly exhibited no fewer than eighty different sorts (Curtler, _A Short History of English Agriculture_ (1909), p. 230). The General Enclosure Act avowedly had as its aim an increase in the food supply and was passed during a terrible time of distress. Except that allotments were not regarded with much favour, the agricultural legislation was closely analogous to that of the recent war period. In the political and the industrial spheres the Combination Act took the place of sections of the Munitions Acts and the Defence of the Realm Acts. “Under the shadow of the French Revolution the English governing classes regarded all associations of the common people with the utmost alarm. In this general terror lest insubordination should develop into rebellion were merged both the capitalist’s objection to high wages and the politician’s dislike of Democratic institutions” (Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, p. 64). Necessarily the vast proportion of the national expenditure (including loans to Allies) went to provide war materials of British manufacture, and war services, and there were the same complaints of the agricultural, the merchant, and the tradesmen, classes becoming rich out of war profits. Also, generally speaking, there was a great increase of employment, particularly in connection with the army, the navy, and Government offices. In the industrial sphere periods of intense pressure alternated with periods of great depression when distress was rampant. The great distinction between the two periods is evidently to be attributed to the social and political development which had taken place during the intervening century whereby flagrant class legislation had become impossible. Much information of a reliable character concerning conditions during the Napoleonic War is given by Lowe, in _The Present State of England_ (1822). In the correspondence of M‘Connel and Kennedy to and from their customers in England, Scotland, Ireland and on the Continent, the industrial situation is indicated day by day from 1795 until beyond the conclusion of the war.]

The Napoleonic War thus becomes the dominant factor in the social and economic history of the later Industrial Revolution period. Owing to its occurrence, the economic movement in this country was distorted, and the increased power of production, instead of improving the material welfare of the community, had to be devoted to the prosecution of the war; social development was thwarted and thrown back; and the relationships between employers and workpeople, with which the latter, in the middle of the eighteenth century, in Lancashire, had shown their dissatisfaction and were striving through combination to modify, were continued and solidified, and left as a heritage to the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.

In view of the growth and activity of trade unions during the eighteenth century, is it too much to say that, had not the war broken out, and had they been allowed to develop as they certainly were developing, problems of industrial relationships which have yet to be solved would have been faced a century ago, and possibly solutions found which would have meant that the present system would have been a considerable modification on that which now exists? However this may be, it may be said that the social retrogression and evils which mark the Industrial Revolution period are only in a very secondary sense to be attributed to the economic movement: the primary cause is to be found in the war in which the country was engaged.