wright's mind," says Mr Bannatyne, "was perhaps marked by nothing more strongly than the judgment with which, although new to business, he conducted the great concerns his discovery gave rise to, and the systematic order and arrangement which he introduced into every department of his extensive works. His plans of management, which must have been entirely his own, as no establishment of a similar nature then existed, were universally adopted by others; and after long experience, they have not yet, in any material point, been altered or improved."*

The mule jenny, so called from its being a compound of the jenny and the spinning frame, was invented by Mr Samuel Crompton of Bolton-le-Moors, in 1775. It did not, however, come into general use until the dissolution of Sir Richard Arkwright's second patent, ten years afterwards. The yarn produced by the spinning frame, though well fitted for warp, was of too firm and hard a texture to render it suitable for weft, which was in consequence generally spun upon Hargraves' jenny. But the introduction of the mule almost entirely superseded Hargraves' invention, and forms an important era in the history of the cotton manufacture. All sorts of wefts, from the lowest to the highest numbers, are now spun by means of this machine; and as a specimen of the perfection to which spinning, by its means, was speedily carried, we may mention that Mr John Pollard of Manchester spun in 1792, on the mule, no fewer than 278 hanks of yarn, forming a thread of 233,520 yards, or upwards of 132 miles in length, from a single pound of raw cotton!

Mr Crompton did not take out any patent for his invention, which indeed he only perfected by slow degrees. In 1812, however, he was advised to apply to Parliament for a reward. His claim being entertained, a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the matter, before whom evidence was brought to prove that there were upwards of four millions of spindles employed on Mr Crompton's principle; that two-thirds of the steam engines for spinning cotton turned mules; and that the value of the buildings, machinery, &c. employed on the same principle, amounted to from three to four millions sterling. In consequence of this report, the House of Commons, as a mark of the national gratitude to an individual whose inventions had so powerfully contributed to extend what had now become the principal manufacture of the country, voted Mr Crompton a reward of-£5000! To make any lengthened commentary on such a proceeding would be

* Supplement to Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. iii. p. 395.

superfluous. Had the House of Commons refused to recognise Mr Crompton's claim for remuneration, they would, whatever might otherwise have been thought of the proceeding, have at least acted consistently. But to admit the principle of the claim, to enter upon an elaborate investigation with respect to the merit and extensive application of the invention, and then to vote so contemptible a pittance to the inventor, are proceedings which evince the most extraordinary inconsistency, as well as the most inconceivable niggardliness, on the part of those who have never been particularly celebrated for their parsimonious disposition, towards individuals whose genius and inventions have alone enabled Parliament to meet the immense expenses the country has had to sustain.

The mule was originally wrought by the hand; but in 1792 Mr William Kelly of Glasgow discovered a mode of working it by machinery, for which he took out a patent.-But this patent was almost immediately invaded; and, though the undisputed inventor of the machine, Mr Kelly chose rather to submit to the invasion of his rights than to involve himself in the litigation that would have been necessary to secure them. Previously to Mr Kelly's invention, the mule contained only 144 spindles, but, with the assistance of the mechanism now in use, one individual is enabled to work at the same moment two mules containing each from 300 to 400 spindles!

pa

From the period when Sir Richard Arkwright's second tent was cancelled, the progress of the cotton manufacture has been rapid beyond all precedent. The improvements made on the steam-engine by the genius of Watt, relieved the spinners from the necessity under which they had, in the first instance, been placed, of building factories in inconvenient situations merely for the sake of a waterfall; and enabled them to raise them in the centre of an industrious population, where all the processes necessary in the manufacture might be brought together and carried on, as it were, almost in the same workshop.

The power-loom, invented by the Rev. Mr Cartwright, a clergyman of Kent, is one of the most ingenious, efficient, and, we will add, supereminently useful machines that has ever been constructed. Mr Cartwright states, in a very interesting letter addressed by him to Mr Bannatyne of Glasgow, that the idea of constructing a power-loom was excited in his mind by being in company with some Manchester gentlemen at Matlock in 1784, who remarked that so many cotton-mills would be erected, and so much yarn spun, that it would be impossible to procure hands to weave it. Mr Cartwright replied that Mr

Arkwright must, in that case, set his wits to work to invent a weaving-mill. The Manchester gentlemen all declared that that was impracticable; but Mr C. denied that there could be any greater difficulty in inventing a machine to weave cotton than to spin it; and meditating afterwards on the subject of this conversation, he succeeded in constructing a loom, all the movements of which were performed by means of machinery! Mr C. took out a patent for his invention in 1787.

The progress of power-loom weaving was not at first so rapid as might have been expected. This arose partly from the imperfections that originally attached to the machine, but chiefly from the circumstance of its being necessary to dress the webs from time to time after they were put into the looms, which made it impossible for one person to do more than attend to one loom. But a beautiful machine, invented by Mr Thomas Johnson of Bradbury, for warping and dressing the yarn used as warps, has completely obviated this difficulty;* and, at this moment, a boy or girl, of from twelve to fourteen years of age, can with ease attend to two power-looms-and can, by their means, produce three times as much well-woven cloth as could be produced by the best hand-weaver! During the last ten years, the number of power-looms has increased with astonishing rapidity. According to Mr Baines, there were, in 1818, in Manchester, Stockport, and the immediate vicinity, about 2,000 power-looms; in 1821 they had increased to 5,732; and in July 1825, in the parish of Manchester alone, they amounted to upwards of 20,000!+ There are now, probably, about 45,000 power-looms in Great Britain, employed in the weaving of cotton only, exclusive of those that are employed in the weaving of wool; and of these there are supposed to be about 8,000 in Scotland. We have not, indeed, the slightest doubt, that weaving by machinery is destined, and at no distant period, entirely to supersede weaving by the hand. There are no limits to the powers and resources of genius: the various processes carried on in the weaving mills will be constantly receiving new improvements; and the race of weavers-a race that has always been proverbial for poverty and want of forethoughtwill be changed to machine-makers, a business which requires

This machine is now known by the name of Ratcliffe's Dressing Machine, from the exertions made by Mr Ratcliffe of Stockport to have it made effective.-But Mr R. has no claim to the invention. + Baines's History, Gazetteer, &c. of Lancashire, vol. ii. p. 134. VOL. XLVI. NO. 91.

B

In 1817, Mr Kennedy, in his paper to which we have already referred, estimated the number of persons employed in the spinning of cotton in Great Britain at 110,763; the aid they derived from steam-engines as equal to the power of 20,768 horses; and the number of spindles in motion at 6,645,833. Mr Kennedy farther estimated the number of hanks of yarn annually produced at 3,987,500,000; and the quantity of coal consumed in their production at 500,479 tons. We subjoin Mr Kennedy's Statement for the year 1817:—

Raw Cotton converted into yarn

in the United Kingdom, Loss in spinning estimated at 1oz. per lb..

Quantity of yarn produced,

110,000,000lbs.

10,312,500

Number of hanks, taking the average at 40 per lb. Number of spindles employed, each spindle being supposed to produce two hanks per day, at 300 working days in the year,

99,687,500lbs. 3,987,500,000lbs.

6,645,833

110,763

20,768

Number of persons employed in spinning, suppo sing each to produce 120 hanks per day, Horse-power employed, equal in number to Four ounces and a-half of coal estimated to produce one hank of No. 40; and 180lbs. of coal per day, equal to one horse power.

But the cotton manufacture has increased since 1817, as evinced by the increased importation of the raw material, in the proportion of from 20 to 25 per cent. Mr Huskisson stated, in his place in the House of Commons, in March 1824, that he believed the total value of the cotton goods annually manufactured in Great Britain amounted to the prodigious sum of about thirty-three and a-half millions; and we shall certainly be within the mark if we estimate their present value at thirty-six millions!

The average annual quantity of cotton-wool imported, after deducting the exports, may be taken at about 140 millions of pounds weight. It is supposed, that of this quantity about ten millions of pounds are used in a raw or unmanufactured state, leaving a balance of 130 millions for the purposes of manufacturing, the cost of which may be taken, on an average, at 1s. 44d. per lb. Deducting, therefore, from the total value of the manufactured goods, or 36 millions, the value of the raw material amounting to nine millions, there remains 27 millions; which, of course, forms the fund whence the wages of the persons employed in the various departments of the manufacture, the profits of the capitalists, the sums required to repair the wear and tear of buildings, machinery, &c., the expense of coals, &c. &c., must all be derived. If, then, we had any means of ascertain

ing how this fund is distributed, we should be able, by averaging wages and profits, to form a pretty accurate estimate of the number of labourers, and the quantity of capital employed. But here, unfortunately, we have only probabilities and analogies to guide us. It may, however, be confidently assumed, in the first place, that in consequence of the extensive employment of highly-valuable machinery in all the departments of the cotton manufacture, the proportion which the profits of capital, and the sum to be set aside to replace its wear and tear, bears to the whole value of the manufacture, must be much larger than in any other department of industry. We have heard this proportion variously estimated, at from a fourth to a half of the total value of the manufactured goods, exclusive of the raw material; and as the weight of authority seems to be pretty much divided on the subject, we shall take an intermediate proportion. Assuming, therefore, that the profits of the capital employed in the cotton manufacture, the wages of superintendence, &c., the sum required to replace the wear and tear of machinery, buildings, &c., and to furnish coals, &c., amount together to twelve twenty-sevenths of the value of the manufactured goods, exclusive of the raw material, or to twelve millions; a sum of fifteen millions will remain as the wages of the spinners, weavers, bleachers, &c., &c., engaged in the manufacture; and taking, inasmuch as a large proportion of children under sixteen years of age are employed, the average rate of wages at only L.20 a-year, we shall have (dividing 15 millions by 20) 705,000 as the total number of persons directly employed in the different departments of the manufacture.

We should mistake, however, if we supposed that this number, great as it certainly is, comprised the whole number of persons to whom the cotton manufacture furnishes subsistence, exclusive of the capitalists. Of the sum of twelve millions set apart as the profit of the capitalists, and the sum required to furnish coals, and to replace the wear and tear of machinery, &c., a large proportion must annually be laid out in paying the wages of engineers, machine-makers, iron-founders, smiths, joiners, masons, bricklayers, &c. It is not easy to say what this proportion may amount to; but taking it at a third, or four millions, and supposing the rate of wages of each individual to average L.30 a-year, the total number employed in the various capacities alluded to will be (four millions divided by 30) 133,000; and a sum of eight millions sterling will remain to cover the profits of the capital employed in the various branches of the manufacture, the expense of purchasing materials to repair the different parts of the machinery and buildings as they wear out, coal, &c. The account will, therefore, star

der: