Chapter VII: Letters of Samuel Crompton (1)

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 [I] 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 [of] 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. [I] 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[493] 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.

[Footnote 493: ... suggested, if you should agree, that a little more time should be allowed, before you published your circular letter, in order to call a meeting....]

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 [as] 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:--[494]

[Footnote 494: Brown, _The Basis of Mr. Samuel Crompton’s Claims_,
pp. 32-33.]

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.[495]

[Footnote 495: _J.H.C._, lxvii., p. 175.]

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[496]
Downing St, and also my address [but] 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 [the] 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. [I] 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.

[Footnote 496: Crompton always spelled Mr. Perceval’s name as in this letter.]

_February 14, 1812_ (_postmark_).

MR. JOHN KENNEDY, MANCH^R.
SIR,

Yours of the 11th I have just now received [but] 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 [it] 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 [the] 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 [and] 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 [him] 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 [can] easyly get it, and if you send [it] 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 [I] 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[497] 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.

[Footnote 497: Crompton’s son.]

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.

[MR. JOHN KENNEDY.]

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 [it] at an appointed
time of which I can have any Sufficent notice [for] Mr. T. Ainsworth
from Bolton, one or two from Manchester and one from Glasgow and also
one [from] 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 [was] 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.[498]

[Footnote 498: In the margin opposite this answer the words “The Billy” are written. _Ante_, p. 123.]

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 ([with] 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.[499]

S. C.

[Footnote 499: A comparison of these questions and answers with the evidence given by Mr. Ainsworth before the Committee, which sat some time later, will show that one is largely a repetition of the other.]

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 [and] 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 [I] 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.[500]

_Mercurii, 18º die Martij, 1812_,
THE LORD STANLEY _in the Chair_.

[Footnote 500: _J.H.C._, lxvii., pp. 838-839.]

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 [not]
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 [him] 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.