Page images
PDF
EPUB

to apply mechanical power successfully in textile manufacture. Arkwright's first regular factory (at Nottingham) was driven by horse-power; and the idea of the machinery employed there was borrowed (or purloined) from Highs. It was not until 1770 that he occupied a small water mill (at Wirksworth, in Derbyshire), nor until the year after that he formed. his celebrated partnership with Need and Strutt of Derby, which resulted in the building of the well-known Cromford works. Now, fully half a century before this time, a textile factory, answering in every respect to even the most modern definition of that term, had been in full operation in England. Further, it was not in connection with any of those staples (wool, flax, or cotton) upon which the inventors of spinning machinery had hitherto exercised their ingenuity that it had its origin, but with quite another fibre. It was a silk mill; begun in Derby in 1715, and at work there shortly afterwards. The story of its establishment forms one of the strangest and most romantic episodes of industrial history, rich as that history has ever been in such.

It is known that the process of "throwing" silk (a process analogous to, but not the same as spinning) was practised in England as early as 1562, when the throwsters of London were united into a fellowship, to be afterwards incorporated by Charter in 1629. Half a century later we learn that "the said Company of silk throwsters employs above forty thousand men, women and children" (13 & 14 Chas. II., c. 15); and this astonishing prosperity seems to have continued till towards the end of the seventeenth century, at which time unusually large quantities of thrown silk (or "organzine") began to make their appearance on the English market, sent from abroad, and offered at prices much below what this commodity could be produced for here. The supply, it

2

was noticed, came mostly from Italy; and it was soon rumoured that "something like in appearance to the machinery of a great water-mill (ie. water-driven corn mill) was used to perform the delicate operation of unwinding the cocoons, and that, thus assisted, it was possible for human labour to produce almost any required quantity of organzine."1 A practical silk throwster, one John Lombe, who had been in business in London, determined to personally investigate the truth of these reports; he went over to Italy in disguise, and managed to get engaged at one of the factories supplying the mysterious filament. His adventures there were of a truly astonishing kind. He not only found that the above report was true, but managed to obtain drawings of all parts of the machinery, to transmit them home in safety, and eventually to follow them himself. With these in his possession, and in conjunction with his brother, afterwards Sir Thomas Lombe, a factory similar to the Italian one was erected on the banks of the Derwent, which presently produced organzine equal in quantity and quality to all needs. "This amazingly grand structure,” as Anderson (History of Commerce; vol. iii., p. 91) calls it, "was propelled by mills which work three capital engines," and contained "twentysix thousand, five hundred and eighty-six wheels, and ninetyseven thousand, seven hundred and forty-six movements, which work seventy-three thousand, seven hundred and twenty-six yards of organzine silk thread every time the water wheel goes round, being thrice in one minute, and three hundred and eighteen millions, five hundred and four

1 Introduction to a History of the Factory System; p. 358.

2 The story is told very graphically in Knight's Old England, Book vii.; chap. 2; where also a picture of Lombe's factory may be seen.

thousand, nine hundred and sixty yards in one day and night. One water wheel gives motion to all the other movements, of which any one may be stopped separately without obstructing the rest;" and "one fire engine conveys warm air to every individual part of this vast machine, containing in all its buildings half a quarter of a mile in length." Other details, from a little work of not much pretension All about Derby, by Mr. Edward Bradbury (Simpkin and Marshall, 1884), may with advantage be compared with these.

This edifice was almost without doubt the first English factory in the modern sense. It was the first, that is, where the motive power was supplied from outside, where operations of manufacture hitherto performed by human hands, were performed by inanimate machinery thus set in motion, and where independent workpeople, congregated in one building, were occupied in production about this machinery. It was something very different, for instance, from the great textile factories that had preceded it, either here or in more ancient times. Congregated and divided labour was employed in them also, but the operations of manufacture were not performed by machinery, nor was the motive power supplied from outside. The motive power and machinery alike were for the most part embodied in sentient human creatures. It was different again from the early English iron works, in Sussex and elsewhere, to which allusion has been made; and still more different from the great metal factories and potteries of the period of the Roman occupation. In the former of these water-power was sometimes used also; to move the great tilt hammers, and for other purposes; but such establishments were wide open spaces, where the

workers were much scattered, never collected altogether in a single building. Water-power may have been employed about the latter likewise,1 but we have seen from the instance of the Fabrica at Bath how different was the organization of labour. In those old times the worker was tied to his work; by the unequivocal compulsion of law or usage; as he was, or is, or may be to this day in countries where political despotism prevails, or trades are divided into castes, or occupations are hereditary. But under the modern factory system in this country the contrary of all that was from the first the case. The workers under this system were personally free; they were bound neither by law nor custom to any particular factory nor kind of manufacture, but at liberty to transfer their labour wheresoever, to whomsover, and as often as they would; whereby quite different relations were established between them and their employers; involving quite different considerations, and, at length, formal regulations; the regulations namely which came to be, and are continuing to be, embodied in our ever-expanding Factory Acts.

1 Water-driven corn mills were introduced into Britain by the Romans, and there are some symptoms that they were also used about mines.

CHAPTER II.

THE FACTORY CONTROVERSY.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE FACTORY

SYSTEM-PHILOSOPHY OF

FACTORY LEGISLATION-THE FIRST REFORMERS-PARISH APPRENTICES-THE FACTORY AGITATION : ROBERT

AND ROBERT OWEN-RICHARD

PEEL

OASTLER--LORD ASHLEY

OTHER LEADERS PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY

SUMMARY.

PHILOSOPHY OF THE FACTORY SYSTEM.-At the conclusion of the last chapter an attempt was made to indicate certain characteristics of the modern Factory System distinguishing it from others which have preceded, or may have preceded it in more or less ancient times. That attempt leads naturally to the question what actually is this System ?-a more difficult one to answer than might appear at first sight. The Factory System-says Dr. Ure1 -"designates the combined operation of many orders of workpeople, adult and young, in tending with assiduous skill a series of productive machines, continually impelled by a central power." But this definition fails in two directions. On the one hand it fails by including machinery and a central motive power among necessary characteristics of the Factory System, whereas they are only characteristic of the modern form of it; and, on the other hand, it fails to in

1 Philosophy of Manufactures; pp. 13, 14.

« EelmineJätka »