J. R. M'Culloch in an
Edinburgh Review article from June 1827, "Rise, Progress, Present State and Prospects of the British Cotton Manufacture:
On their first introduction, Sir Richard Arkwright's machines were reckoned by the lower classes as even more adverse to their interests than those of Hargraves; and reiterated attacks were made on the factories built for them.* But how extraordinary soever it may appear, it was amongst the manufacturers that the greatest animosity existed against Sir Richard Arkwright; and it required all that prudence and sagacity for which he was so remarkable, to enable him to triumph over the powerful combination that was formed against him. After the Lancashire manufacturers had failed in their attempts to get his patent set aside in 1772, they unanimously refused to purchase his yarn; and when his partners, Messrs Strutt and Need, had commenced a manufacture of calicoes, the manufacturers strenuously opposed a bill to exempt calicoes from a discriminating duty of 3d. a yard laid on them, over and above the ordinary duty of 3d,, by an old act of Parliament. Luckily, however, the manufacturers failed of their object; and in 1774, an act of Parliament was obtained (14. Geo. III. cap. 72.) for the encouragement of the cotton manufacture, in which fabrics made of cotton are declared to have been lately introduced, and are allowed to be used as "a lawful and laudable manufacture," the duty of 6d. the square yard on such cottons as are printed or stained being at the same time reduced to 3d. But this disgraceful spirit of animosity, which must, had it been successful, have proved as injurious to the interests of the manufacturers as to those of Sir Richard Arkwright, did not content itself with actions in the courts of law, or a factious opposition to useful measures in Parliament, but displayed itself in a still more striking and unjustifiable manner. For it is a fact, that a large factory, erected by Sir Richard Arkwright at Birkacre, near Chorley in Lancashire, was destroyed by a mob, collected from the adjacent country, in the presence of a powerful body of police and military, without any one of the civil authorities requiring them to interfere to prevent so scandalous an outrage!
* Dorning Rasbotham, Esq., a magistrate near Bolton, printed some time about the period referred to, a sensible address to the weavers and spinners, in which he endeavoured to convince them that it was for their interest to encourage inventions for abridging labour. The result has shown the soundness of Mr Rasbotham's opinion. It is doubtful whether 30,000 persons were employed in all the branches of the cotton manufacture in 1767; whereas, in consequence of those very inventions which the workmen endeavoured to destroy, there are now nearly 1,000,000 engaged in its different departments! There is, in fact, no idea so groundless and absurd, as that which supposes that an increased facility of production can under any circumstances be injurious to the labourers.
Edward Baines Jr.,
The History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain, (1835). Much of this material had been included in a chapter in an earlier book on Lancashire history by Edward Baines Sr. that was reviewed by M'Culloch in the above cited
Edinburgh Review article. There is thus a bit of circular reference, with the odd orphan fact of the "powerful force" of police and military not being called upon to "prevent the outrage." That seems a bit at odds with contemporary accounts by
Wedgwood and the
Annual Register of a very large crowd overwhelming a small contingent of troops.
A desperate effort was, however, made in 1779 probably in a period of temporary distress to put down the machine. A mob rose, and scoured the country for several miles round Blackburn, demolishing the jennies, and with them all the carding engines, water-frames, and every machine turned by water or horses. It is said that the rioters spared the jennies which had only twenty spindles, as these were by this time admitted to be useful; but those with a greater number, being considered mischievous, were destroyed, or cut down to the prescribed dimensions. It may seem strange, that not merely the working classes, but even the middle and upper classes, entertained a great dread of machinery. Not perceiving the tendency of any invention which improved and cheapened the manufacture, to cause an extended demand for its pro- ducts, and thereby to give employment to more hands than it superseded, those classes were alarmed lest the poor-rates should be burdened with workmen thrown idle. They therefore connived at, and even actually joined in, the opposition to machinery, and did all in their power to screen the rioters from punishment.* This devastating outrage left effects more permanent than have usually resulted from such commotions. Spinners, 1 and other capitalists, were driven from the neighbourhood of Blackburn to Manchester and other places, and it was many years before cotton-spinning was resumed at Blackburn. Mr. Peel, the grandfather of the present Sir Robert Peel, a skilful and enterprising spinner and calico printer, having had his machinery at Altham thrown into the river, and been in personal danger from the fury of the mob, retired in disgust to Burton, in Staffordshire, where he built a cotton-mill on the banks of the Trent, and remained there some years. A large mill, built by Arkwright, at Birkacre, near Chorley, was destroyed by a mob in the presence of a powerful body of police and military, without any of the civil authorities requiring their interference to prevent the outrage.
* An honourable exception to this folly was found in the conduct of Dorning Rasbotham, Esq., a magistrate near Bolton, who published a sensible address to the weavers and spinners, in which he endeavoured to convince them that it was for their interest to encourage inventions for abridging labour.
0 comments:
Post a Comment