,3\.Z
Kg  -61




INTRODUCTION
AND
EARLY PROG1RESS
OF THE
COTTON MANUFACTURE
IN THE
UNITED STATES.
"How strange it is that so few attempts have been made to trace the rise and
progress of this great branch of industry, the Cotton Manufacture; to mark the
successive steps of its. advancement, the solidity of the foundations on which
it rests, and the influence which it has already had, and must continue to have,
on the number and condition of the people." - MCCuLLOCEI, EdinbiurgL Revieew.
BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY,
1863.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED  BY  H. O. HOUGHTON.




PREFACE.
The Cotton Manufacture has attained such
importance in the United States, as to excite
an interest as to its early history. Many circumstances, apparently of little consequence at
the time, depend at present on personal recollection, and unless placed upon record now,
will, a few years hence, only be recognised in
the uncertainty of tradition.
I propose therefore to bring together such
particulars as I have collected from  time to
time to gratify my own curiosity, and to add
such as can still be obtained from any reliable authorities, in relation to the introduction and progress of the Cotton Manufacture
in this country; and some sketches of the
state of the business in other countries,- particularly in Great Britain, at the time when
their cotton machinery was introduced here.
In pursuing my inquiries, besides the information received from many others, I have




i-v               PREFACE.
to acknowledge my particular obligations to
Mr. Zachariah Allen of Providence, Mr. Edward
E. Manton of the Manufacturers' Mutual Insurance Company, Boston, and to Col. Joshua
Herrick, who at the age of about' eighty years,
is still actively engaged in the employment of
the government, and able to communicate personally his recollections of the first Cotton
Factory built in  this country, at Beverly,
Massachusetts.
It has been very difficult to obtain such information as I wished respecting matters of
which there is no record, and in which no one
has hitherto felt sufficient interest to transmit,
in any available form, the facts within their
knowledge; so that the following pages should
only be considered an imperfect attempt to
preserve such fragments as may be useful to
some one, who may in fiuture be able to treat
the subject more satisfactorily.
SAMUEL BATCHELDER.
Cambridge, October, 1863.




COTTON MANUFACTURE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
WHEN our attention is called to the history
of the Cotton Manufacture, we cannot fail to
be struck with the change that has taken
place, both in this country and in Europe,
during the life of a single generation. Nor
is this change confined to those actually employed in the business, but extends to the
habits, occupation, and condition of a great
proportion of the population.
It was only by reason of a fortunate concurrence of several improvements in laborsaving machinery that such an extension of
the cultivation and manufacture of cotton
was rendered possible.
Without the application of rollers to the
drawing of the thread, and the consequent
use of water-power in spinning, the whole
population of Great Britain, exclusive of
those employed in agriculture, would not be
able to produce the quantity of yarn now




2       ADVANTAGE OF MACHINERY.
spun in that country; and without the application of steam-power, all the waterfalls in
the island would be insufficient to drive the
machinery.
Without the invention of Whitney's cotton-gin it would have been impossible for
this country to have supplied the raw material for the increasing wants of the manufacturer;- and when by these means the'production of cotton yarn had exceeded the
ability of the hand-loom weaver, to convert
it into cloth, the invention of the power-loom
not only supplied the deficiency, but gave a
new impulse to all the preliminary branches
of the manufacture.
It is thus that mutual wants concur to
stimulate improvements; and the introduction
of cotton machinery-which in England was
opposed by mobs and violence on account of
an apprehension that laborers would be thrown
out of employment, and in this country was
regarded with little favor, from the fear that
the female part of the population, by the
disuse of the distaff, should become idlehas resulted in the profitable employment of
a much larger number than could have been
supported by the business in the former laborious process, without the aid of machinery,
and, besides, has reduced the cost of cotton




HAND-WEAVING.             3
clothing to a degree which adds much to the
comfort and probably also to the average
duration of human life.
In speaking of the cotton manufacture, I
wish ~to be understood as indicating such
operations as are carried on by the use of
machinery driven by water or steam  power,
or by other means than the direct application
of human labor.  The introduction of such
machinery marks a great era in the world's
history, not simply in relation to those directly
employed in the business, but also by the
market afforded, and the encouragement given
for raising such quantities of the raw material
as the whole population of the world would
scarcely be able to spin and weave, by the
use of the single spindle and the hand-shuttle.
Until about forty years previous to the
commencement of our Revolutionary War, all
the fabrics made of cotton were woven on
the common loom, in which the shuttle was
thrown through the web with one hand, and
caught with the other, and this operation
repeated for every thread of the woof. The
yarn was spun upon a wheel with a single
spindle, and the cotton was prepared for spinning by the laborious operation of carding
with a pair of hand-cards.
Stock cards were substituted for hand cards




4            SPINNING JENNY.
at a date which cannot be well ascertained,
and in 1748, August 30th, a patent was
granted to Lewis Paul, in which he describes
the use of a card cylinder operating upon
cards placed beneath. Further improvements
in carding were said to have been made by
Lees and Hargraves, but there is no record
of any patent to either.
About this time many attempts were made
to apply machinery to the spinning of cotton.
Among the first which went into operation
with any success was the Spinning Jenny,
which was little else than uniting a number
of spindles in the same machine, but operating by extending and twisting the thread
in the same manner as on the one-thread
wheel by hand.
During the period from  1768 to 1775,
Arkwright obtained his patents for spinning
by means of rollers, and for machinery for
the carding and preparation of the cotton in
a manner adapted to that mode of spinning.
These were the great. points in the establishment of manufacturing by machinery.  The
other branches of the business had in the
mean time become so far perfected, that, in
1774, an Act of Parliament was passed to
prevent the exportation of cotton machinery,
with the intention of confining those iam



CONSUMPTION OF COTTON.             5
provements to Great Britain, and thus securing
a monopoly of this branch of manufacturing.
During our Revolutionary War, Arkwright
was improving and extending the manufacture
of cotton.  His patents were contested, and
sometimes his machinery was broken by mobs;
and in 1781, by a failure in one of his suits
in the Court of King's Bench, the use of his
machinery became public, and his patents were
finally declared void in 1785.
In 1782 Watt took his patent for the steamengine; and in 1785  cylinder printing  was
invented by Bell. So that the close of our
Revolutionary War found England in possession
of all the elements of her great manufacturing  prosperity, and prepared to extend the
business as fast as a supply of raw material
could be furnished.
At this time, 1784, the quantity of cotton
used in England annually was supposed to
be only about 11,000,000 pounds.?
In the correspondence of the Earl of Chatham, Vol. II. p. 420, it is stated in a note
that, v"in 1766, cotton, as an article of commerce, was scarcely known in Great Britain.
The entire value of cotton goods manufac* In The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, by Mann, pp. 93, 94,
the quantity of cotton consumed in 1781 is stated at 5,101,990
pounds, and in 1859 at 976,600,000 pounds.




6                CALICO.
tured at the accession of George the Third
being estimated to amount to only ~200,000
sterling a year; and in 1782 the whole produce of the cotton manufacture did not exceed ~2,000,000." In 1859 the exports alone
were above ~48,000,000.
Pepys, in his Diary, under date of Feb.
27, 1664, says: "Sir Martin Noel told us,
the dispute between him, as farmer of the
additional duty, and the East India Company,
whether calico be linen or no, which he says
it is, having been ever returned so. They
say it is made of cotton wool and grows tcpon
trees."
The printed calicoes made in Great Britain
before the time of Arkwright's inventions were
always made with linen warp, the cotton
spun by hand not being strong enough for
that purpose.
When by means of Arkwright's machinery
cotton yarn was made suitable for warps, the
prejudice against new inventions was such
that the manufacturers could not be prevailed upon to weave it into calicoes. Mr.
Strutt was at length successful in weaving a
considerable quantity, when it was discovered
that they were subject to double the duty
of those manufactured with linen warp, and,
when printed, were prohibited. He had there



WHITNEY'S COTTON GIN.         7
fore to petition Parliament for relief, which
was obtained, after much opposition from the
Lancashire manufacturers.
About this time, 1781, the English began
to import some cotton from  Brazil, and ten
years later from the United States; but the
quantity proved altogether inadequate to supply the demands of the increasing manufactures of England, on account of the difficulty
of separating the cotton from the seed, either
by the- hand or any machinery then in use,
particularly of the kind  which  was best
adapted to cultivation in our soil and climate. At this time, 1793, the invention of
the saw-gin by Eli Whitney removed the difculty.
Thus step by step, in Great Britain and
this country, within little more than half a
century, improvements have been made in
the manufacture and production of cotton,
which have given it great importance in
finance and political economy, and no small
influence in international affairs.
The attention of Hamilton was drawn at a
very early period to the importance of the
cultivation and manufacture of cotton. The
following extracts are from two pamphlets
published by him in 1774 and 1775, in vindication of the measures of Congress.




8         OPINIONS OF HAMILTON.
"With respect to cotton, you do not pretend to deny that a sufficient quantity may
be produced. Several of the Southern colonies are so favorable to it that, with due
cultivation, in a couple of years they would
afford enough to clothe the whole continent.
As to the expense of bringing it by land,
the best way will be to manufacture it where
it grows, and afterwards transport it to the
other colonies. Upon this plan I apprehend
the expense would not be greater than to
build and equip large ships to import the
manufactures of Great Britain from  thence.
If we were to turn our attention from external to internal commerce, we would give
greater facility and more lasting prosperity
to our country than she can possibly have
otherwise........ If by the necessity of the
thing manufactures should once be established
and take root among us, they will pave the
way still more to the future grandeur and
glory of America." -Life of HanZilton, by his
son, Vol. I. pp. 29-35.
The foregoing extracts show a remarkable
anticipation  and  foreshadowing  of coming
events in regard both to the cultivation and
manufacture of cotton, at a time when there
was little promise or anticipation of either,
and indicate a wonderful maturity of judgment in a youth of eighteen.




KAY'S FLY-SHUTTLE.           9
The first attempt at manufacturing cotton
by machinery in England, of which we have
any  account, was the  invention, by John
Wyatt, of Litchfield, of machinery for spinning, for which a patent was taken in 1738
in the name of Lewis Paul.*
A mill was built at Birmingham in 1741
or 1742, which was turned by two asses
walking round an axis; and ten girls were
employed in attending the work. This establishment was unsuccessful, and the machinery
was sold in 1743.
A work upon a larger scale upon a stream
of water was established at Northampton, with
250 spindles, and employed fifty hands; but
the work did not prosper, and in 1764 passed
into other hands, as appears from  the letter
of Charles Wyatt, the son of the inventor,
published in Baines's History of the Cotton
Manufacture, p. 135.
In 1733, John Kay of Colchester invented
the fly-shuttle, which was used by the woollen
weavers, whose cloth was usually so wide as
to require one person on each side of the
loom to throw the shuttle; but it was used
very little by weavers of cotton until 1760,
when his son, Robert Kay, invented the dropbox, by means of which the weaver can use
* See note A. at end of volume.




10               SPINNING-JENNY.
any one of three shuttles, with weft of different colors, at pleasure.*
About 1740, manufacturing was commenced
at Manchester. The merchants supplied the
weavers with warps, which were of linen yarn
imported from Germany, and with raw cotton
for the weft, which the weavers employed
their own families, or other parties, to card
and spin.
At this time the carding was done by handcards,-the spinning on the common onethread wheel, and  the weaving on the handloom.
To facilitate the supply of weft for the
weavers, which it was difficult to procure in
sufficient quantity, the spinning-jenny was
invented by  Thomas Highs, about 1764.  He
also  claims  the  invention  of  spinning  by
rollers, having made some experiments with
rollers before  they were used by Arkwright.
About this time various improvements were
made in the carding machinery to supersede
the hand-cards then in use, which resulted in
the introduction of a cylinder card, from which
the cotton was taken by- hand.
* In the patent of John Kay, May 26, 1833, the specification
in describing the operation of the fly-shuttle says: "The
weaver sits in the middle of the loom and pulls a small cord,
which casts the shuttle from side to side at pleasure. The cloth
is more even than it is where the layer (lay) is pulled by two
men, one at each end of the loom."




.ARKWRIGHT'S MACHINERY.       11
In 1772, John Lees invented the feeder, and
James Hargreaves, who had made important
improvements  in  the  spinning-jenny, was
said to have invented the crank and comb
for taking the cotton from the card; and
Thomas Wood, in 1774, obtained what was
called a perpetual or endless carding, by nailing the cards on the cylinder spirally instead
of longitudinally,- for which hee obtained a
patent in 1776. All of these improvements
were combined in Arkwright's machinery; for
which he took his second patent in 1775; and
the parties above named claimed one or
another of these inventions; and Guest, in his.'History of the Cotton Manufacture,"  seems
to admit all these claims in his anxiety to
limit the merit of Arkwright, and says he
used a revolving can for twisting the rovings,
or perpetual carding, which had been used
for that. purpose by Butler as early as 1.759,
which was before any machinery for producing such- roving or perpetual carding was
invented.
It is not always easy to decide to whom
we ought to award the merit of many inventions, which may have been the study of
various ingenious mechanics for years without success; and it happens in relationi to
cotton machinery, as in other mechanical in



12       ARKWRIGHT'S MACHINERY.
ventions, that there are conflicting claims to
all the most important improvements, after
they are put in operation. Many may have
been engaged for a long time in unsuccessful
attempts to accomplish the object, and among
them  some who have been partially successful, but not so far as to make their schemes
of any practical utility. At length some one
with better advantages, or better workmanship, or by the application of the same principles with more skill and better judgment,
builds a machine which goes into successful operation.  In such a case all the unsuccessful schemers rise up and say, "L I tried
that principle," or "I put that wheel in operation years' ago"; and thus all those, who
condemn themselves by having made the attempt without success, come before the public and contend for the merit of the more
fortunate or more skilful mechanic who has
brought the plan to perfection.
Something of this kind probably occurred
in relation to the invention of Arkwright's
spinning machinery.  According to the evidence on the trial in relation to his patent
in 1785, it would appear that Highs, who
invented the spinning-jenny in 1763 or 1764,
afterward made some experiments or attempts at spinning with rollers, but without




SPINNIING MACHINERY.         1 3
succeeding so far as to make it of any practical use. It seems probable that Arkwright
became acquainted with the experiments of
Highs, and was able, by combination with his
own plans, to mature the invention, and put
it in successful operation. This, as well as
most other important improvements, is the
result of successive experiments and failures,
-until some one who becomes acquainted
with the unsuccessful schemes, and has the
skill and good judgment to remedy the defects, succeeds in perfecting the invention.
In  1780 there were twenty water-frame
factories, the property of Mr. Arkwright, or
of parties who had paid him for permission
to use his machinery; and after his patent
was made public in 1785, the number increased so rapidly'that in 1790 there were
one hundred and fifty cotton factories in England and Wales.
Soon after the renewal of intercourse, which
took place between this country and Great
Britain in consequence of the peace of 1783,
we obtained some knowledge that during the
war and the contest with us for the few
years preceding, she had commenced a new
branch of business, which she was pursuing
and extending with wonderful success; but
in consequence of their laws, passed in 1774,




14       REPORT OF TENCH COXE.
against the exportation of machinery and the
emigration of mechanics and manufacturers,
our information on the subject was for a
long time confined to vague and uncertain
rumor.
Tench Coxe says, in his Report in 1810:
"In 1786 I became acquainted with the fact
that labor-saving spinning machinery was considerable in Great Britain. It was understood
that it was applicable at that time only to
the carding and spinning of cotton, which we
then constantly imported from  foreign countries, apparently to the amount of our whole
consumption. In the course of the following
autumn and winter, repeated examinations
and considerations of the subject occasioned
very high expectations from a few well authenticated facts in relation to the production
of the cotton raw material in gardens and
other small pieces of land as far north as
38~ 45',-the County of Talbot, Maryland,
and in some other places on the rivers of
the Chesapeake Bay. It was inferred, that, as
the shrub or  the tree grew in that central
degree of our country, all the extensive region south of 390 was capable of producing
cotton, which is found in climates not only
hotter than those of North America, but in
the torrid zone. It was therefore confidently




COTTON IN THE MIDDLE STATES.   15
presumed that the cotton-spinning mill might
be brought into very beneficial use in the
United States. The production of cotton in
the old settlements of Virginia was carefully
examined as a test of this opinion, and opportunities offered to make it in a manner
commanding entire confidence.
"After the more exact information of the
existence and operation of the labor-saving
machinery in Europe had led to due reflection
on the incalculable importance of the vast
capacity of this country to produce the proper
raw  material, the effectual measures were
actively pursued to excite the attention of
the whole community, and particularly of the
planters of the five original Southern States.
But, though our capacity to produce the cotton
was so great, as at this time we know it to
have always been,- though labor-saving machinery was effecting a gainful revolution in
manufactures in Great Britain, — though cotton
was ithen worth in the United States fortyfour cents per pound, owing to foreign tradelaws,- and though it was at high prices in
many parts of Europe, - several years had
elapsed before sufficient attention to the culture could be excited, even by the numerous
publications which were incessantly made."
In addition to the foregoing from Tench




16,.COTTON, IN THE MIDDLE STATES.
Coxe, I make the following extract from a
pamphlet by Dr. G. Emerson of Philadelphia,
entitled "Cotton in the Middle States," published last year (1862):"Long before the Southern States took up
its regular culture, cotton was raised on the
eastern shore of Maryland, lower counties of
Delaware, and other places in  the Middle
States. As early as 1736, and for some time
after, it was chiefly regarded as an ornamental
plant, and confined to gardens; but it soon
became appreciated for its useful qualities,
and was brought under regular cultivation.
This culture, though comparatively limited in
those places, has never been entirely abandoned up to the present day. I have myself
seen many families who came from  Sussex:
County, Delaware, to reside in the adjoining
County of Kent, wearing clothes made of
cotton of their own raising, spinning, and
weaving.
CThe culture of cotton in this section of
our country gradually diminished in consequence- of the vast area over which the plant
was extended in more southern States. In
competition with these, our more northern
farmers found they possessed superior advantages for raising other field-crops, from which
they derived greater profits.




OPINION OF MADISON.           17
"Limited as has been: the culture of cotton
on the peninsula between the Delaware and
Chesapeake Bays, it has furnished a demonstration  of the  highest importance' to  our
country. In' proof of this it may be stated,
that, at the close of the Revolution, a convention was held at Annapolis, in 1786, to consider what means could be best resorted to
for the purpose of remedying the embarrassment of the country, then so much exhausted
in its finances. -The late President Madison,
a member of this convention, from  Virginia,
there expressed it as his opinion, that, fromn the
results of cotton raising in Talbot Uozntyn Marylancl,
and ntumerotus other proofs furnished in Virginia,
There was no reason to doubt  that the Usited Statles
wouldc  one clacy beco7me a great cotton-proditieng
country!'
"It would hence appear that the first culture of' cotton in the United States, worthy
of notice, was made on the peninsula between
the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Bays, from
whence it crossed into Western Maryland and
Virginia, and so went southwards."
Dr. Emerson further reports that cotton has
heretofore been raised in the lower portion
of the peninsula between the Delaware and
Chesapeake Bays, so as to form an important
item  in home  industry.  A  colored family
2




18       CULTIVATION OF COTTON.
came last year from Sussex County- to live in
Camden, Delaware, bringing: with them  the
seed of cotton, which they had continued to
cultivate, and spin and weave for clothing.
The cotton in this new  situation perfected
itself well, as appears from a boll in my possession; and Dr. Emerson proposes to plant
several acres with this seed, which had become acclimated, so that, according to the
experience of the last season, the cotton
matured much more perfectly in that location
from  seed that had been raised there than
from seed procured at distant places.
In relation to the first cultivation of cotton
in Carolina and Georgia, the following are
extracts from a letter given by Tench Coxe
from Richard Teake, dated Savannah, Dec. 11,
1788: "I have been this year an adventurer,
and the first that has attempted on a large
scale in the article of cotton. Several here,
as well as in Carolina, have followed me, and
tried the experiment..... I shall raise about
five thousand pounds in the seed from about
eight acres of land, and next year I expect
to plant from fifty to one hundred acres.
The lands in the southern part of
this State are admirably adapted to the raising of this commodity. The climate is so
mild so far to the South, scarce any winter




SEA ISLAND COTTON.          19
is felt, and - another grand advantage -whiles
cas  be eemployed.  The labor is not severe
attending it, not more than raising Indian
corn."
In relation to the origin of Sea Island cotton, he gives, as communicated by Dr. Mease,
a letter from Patrick Walsh, from which the
following is extracted: "It is pleasing  to
view the rising prosperity of the land you
live in, and particularly so, too, when I reflect that one of the present sources of her
riches was, in a very great measure, derived
from myself. In the year 1785 I settled in
Kingston, Jamaica, where, finding my friend
Frank Leavet, with his family and all his
negroes, in a distressed situation, he applied
to me for advice as to what steps he should
take, having no employment for his, slaves.
l advised him  to go to Georgia and settle
on some of the islands, and plant provisions
until something better turned up.        At
length he resolved to go to the place I recommended.  Early in the year 1786 I sent
him  a large quantity of various seeds of
Jamaica; and Mr. Moss and Colonel Brown
requested me to get some of the Pernambuco cotton seed, of which I sent him  three
large sacks, of which he made no use but
by accident. In a letter to me in 1789 he




20      CULTIVATION OF COTTON.
said: Being in want of the sacks for gathering in my provisions, I shook their contents
on the dung-hill, and it happening to be a
very wet season, in the spring multitudes of
plants covered the place. These I drew out
and transplanted them  into two acres of
ground, and was highly gratified to find an
abundant crop. This encouraged me to plant
more. I used all my strength in cleaning
and planting, and have succeeded beyond my
most sanguine expectations."'
In 1789, South Carolina and Georgia were
at a very low ebb. Their great staples, rice
and indigo, had declined in price, and they
had not as yet entered on the cultivation of
cotton. IEdanus Burke, in a debate on the
tariff, on the 16th of April, 1789, to induce
the House to lay a considerable duty on
hemp and cotton, gave a melancholy picture
of the situation of those States. "The staple products of South Carolina and Georgia,"
he observed,'were hardly worth cultivation
on account of their fall in price. The lands
were certainly well adapted to the growth
of hemp, and he had no doubt but its culture would be practised with attention. Cotton was likewise in contemplation among
them, and if good seed could be procured,
he hoped might succeed."




ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFACTURES. 21
Considering that among' the complaints
against Great Britain before the Revolution
some of the principal were the restrictions
upon trade and intercourse between the colonies, and the discouragement, and prohibition in many cases, of manufacturing for
themselves, it is not surprising to find that,
at the close of the war, we very soon turned
our attention to the introduction of such
branches of manufacture as promised any advantage; and the recent improvements that
had been made in the application of machinery to the manufacture of cotton in Great
Britain could not fail to make this a prominent object.  Accordingly we find, that, as
early as 1786, before the adoption of the
Constitution of the United States, the Legislature of Massachusetts was offering an encouragement for the introduction of machinery for carding and spinning cotton.
On the 25th of October, 1786, Richard
Cranch of the Senate, and Mr. Clarke and
Mr. Bowdoin of the House, were appointed"'to view any new  invented machines that
are making within this Commonwealth for
the purpose of manufacturing sheep's and
cotton wool, and report what measures are
proper for the Legislature to take to encourage the same." This committee reported that




22       AID FROM LEGISLATURE.
"they had examined those very curious and
useful machines made by Robert and Alexander Barr for the purpose of carding and
spinning cotton."  And, in accordance with
the further report of the committee, a resolve was passed on the 16th of November,
1786, granting the sum of ~200, "to enable
them to complete the said three machines,
and also a roping machine, and to construct
such other machines as are necessary for the
purpose of carding, roping, and spinning of
sheep's wool, as well as of cotton wool."
On the 8th of March, 1787, "Richard
Cranch was appointed by the Senate, with
such as the House should join, to examine
the machines, which are now nearly completed,"-and to examine and allow the account of Robert and Alexander Barr; "and
also to report to the next General Court
what gratuity in their opinion the said Robert
and Alexander justly deserve, as a reward for
their ingenuity in forming those machines, and
as an encouragement for their public spirit in
making them known to this Commonwealth."
The committee allow their account to the
amount of ~189 12s., in which is contained an
item  for "expense in transporting the machines to and from Boston,"-from which we
may infer that they were exhibited to the
Legislature.




HUGH ORR.-             23
On May 2, 1787, a resolve was passed discharging them from the ~200, and granting
them six tickets in the land lottery;  and providing further, that said machines should be
left under the care of Hugh Orr, Esq., who is
"requested to explain to such citizens as may
apply for the same the principles on which
said machines are constructed and the advantages arising from  their use, both by verbal
explanations, and bv letting them see the machinery at work."
According to Judge Mitchell's "History of
Bridgewater," Colonel Hugh Orr of that place
was instrumental in the first introduction of
cotton machinery into this country.  Hugh
Orr was born at Lochwinnock in Scotland, January 2, 1715, and came to America June 17,
1740, and settled at Bridgewater, where he
died December 6, 1798.  He was engaged
there before the Revolution in the manufacture
of fire-arms, and at the commencement of that
war made the first cannon that were made in
this country by boring from the solid casting.
He is staid to have invited Robert and Alexander Barr, brothers, from Scotland, in order
to construct at his works in East Bridgewater
machinery for carding, roving, and spinning
cotton.
Thomas Somers, another Scotchmnan, under




24           THOMAS SOMERS.
the direction of Mr. Orr, constructed other
machinery for the same purpose; and on the
eighth of March, 1787, the General Court placed
in the hands of Mr. Orr twenty pounds for the
encouragement of the artist.   Mr. Orr also,
about the same time, employed another foreigner, by the name of McClure, to weave I'eans
and corduroys by hand with the fly-shuttle.
In- March, 1787, a petition was before the
Legislature of Massachusetts, from  Thomas
Somers, said to have been a, midshipman in
the English navy, representing, "that, in the
fall of the year 1785, the tradesmen and manufacturers of Baltimore, having formed themselves into an association in order to apply to
the Legislature in behalf of American manufactures, being stimulated thereto by a circular
letter received from a committee of the tradesmen and manufacturers of the town of Boston.
Your petitioner, then residing in Baltimore
(having been formerly brought up to the cotton manufactory, and willing to contribute
what lay in his power to introduce said mnanufacture in America), did, at his own risk and
expense, go to England in order to prepare
the machines for carding and spinning cotton.
That, after much difficulty, your petitioner
found that he could only take descriptions and
models of said engines; with which he returned




MODELS OF MACHINES.          25
to Baltimore last summer.  Soon after his arrival he found they were very dilatory \about
encouraging the matter, and with the advice of
some friends he resolved to try what might
be done in Boston."
On this petition, -"with a view to encourage the aforesaid manufacture, and to give the
said Somers an opportunity to give specimens
of his abilities to perfect the manufactures set
forth in his said petition,- Resolved, that there
be paid out of the public treasury, by warrant
from the governor and council, twenty pounds,
lawful money, to be applied to the purposes
aforesaid, which sum shall be deposited in the
hands of Hugh Orr, Esq., of Bridgewater, who
shall be a committee to superintend the application of the same."
Passed March 8, 1787.
By these proceedings it appears, that, in 1786
and 1787, the Legislature of Massachusetts were
taking active measures to encourage the introduction of cotton machinery, and that they
had succeeded in obtaining machines and models, probably including the roller-spinning and
other improvements of Arkwright, which had
then been but partially introduced in England,
after the failure of his suit for establishing his
rights against Colonel Mordaunt in 1781.Another action, having been tried in 1785, re



26      BEVERLY COTTON FACTORY.
suited in his favor; but that decision was soon
reversed, so that his machinery was freely used
within a few years of that time.
It does not appear that the machinery at
East Bridgewater was used to any extent for
manufacturing purposes, but rather for models
and to diffuse information upon the subject; and
the Legislature had provided in their resolve,
--  that public notice be given for three weeks
successively in Adam's and Nurse's newspaper,
that said machines may be seen and examined
at the house of the Hon. Hugh Orr in Bridgewater, and that the manner of working themn
will be explained."
There is no doubt that the machinery at
Bridgewater was the first built or introduced
into this country for the manufacture of cotton,
which included Arkwright's roller-spinning and
other patent improvements.
A factory was commenced at Beverly, in
1787, expressly for the manufacture of cotton
goods, with such machinery as could then be
procured; and finding the construction of the
machinery very difficult and expensive, and the
prospects very discouraging, they made application to the Legislature for aid, which in February, 1789, passed the following
"Resolve for encouraging the Cotton Manufactory at Beverly,- Feb. 17, 1789.




BEVERLY COTTON FACTORY.       27
"Whereas it is essential to the true interests,
of this Commonwealth to encourage within the
same the introduction and establishment of
such manufactures as will give the most extensive and profitable employment to its citizens,
and thereby, instead of those emigrations which
are ruinous to the State, increase the number
of manufacturers, who by consuming the productions of the soil will add to the value of it;
and Whereas, John Cabot and others, who have
been incorporated by the name of'The Proprietors of the Beverly Cotton Manufactory,'
have set forth to this Court the difficulties and
extraordinary expenses that attend the introduction of the Cotton Manufactory to be such
as require the assistance of Government: For
the support and encouragement of said manufactory; Be it Resolved, - That there be granted, and there hereby is granted accordingly,
and conveyed to John Cabot, Joshua Fisher,
Henry Higginson, Moses Brown, George Cabot,
Andrew Cabot, Israel Thorndike, Isaac Chapman, and Deborah Cabot, they being members
of the said corporation, the value of Five hundred pounds, lawful money in specie, to be paid
in the Eastern lands, the property of this Commonwealth;- the said lands to be valued, ascertained and conveyed by the Committee for
the sale thereof;  to have and to hold the




28      BEVERLY COTTON FACTORY.
same, with the appurtenances, to them and
their heirs and assigns forever, for their use as
tenants in common in the proportion following,
to wit: to the said John Cabot ten fortieth
parts; to the said Joshua Fisher nine fortieth
parts; to the said Henry Higginson four fortieth parts; to the said Moses Brown four
fortieth parts; to the said George Cabot four
fortieth parts; to the said Andrew Cabot two
fortieth parts; to the said Israel Thorndike
four fortieth parts; to the said Isaac Chapman
one fortieth part; and to the said Deborah
Cabot two fortieth parts. Provided, however,
that this resolve and the grant aforesaid shall
be void, and the said land shall again revert to
this Commonwealth, unless the said corporation
or the said grantees, their heirs or assigns, shall
manufacture, within seven years from the passage of this Resolve, a quantity of cotton and
linen piece-goods, of a quality usually imported
into this Cornmonwealth, not less than fifty
thousand of yards; and shall keep in a book
a full and true account of the several kinds and
the quantity of each kind, and the value of the
same, which account shall be verified by the
testimony of at least two of the proprietors, on
oath, and a fair copy thereof be lodged in the
Secretary's office; —or unless the said corporation or the said grantees, their heirs or assigns,




BEVERLY COTTON FACTORY.        29
shall pay to the treasurer of this Commonwealth
five hundred pounds in gold or silver, within
eight years after the passing of this Resolve."
At the same session of the Legislature an
Act was passed to incorporate the "Beverly
Manufacturing Company," authorized to hold
personal property to the amount of ~80,000,
and real estate' to the amount of ~10,000, the
same parties being named in the Act of incorporation as in the Resolve above quoted, and
also including the name of Thomas Somers, who
had petitioned the Legislature in 1787 for aid
in building cotton machinery from the designs
he had brought from England.
Besides the usual provisions in Acts of incorporation, that for incorporating the Beverly
Cotton Manufactory contained the following:
" That all goods, which may be manufactured
by said corporation, shall have a label of lead
affixed to one end thereof, which shall have
the same impression with the seal of the said
corporation; and that if any person shall
knowingly use a like seal or label, with that
used by said corporation, by annexing the
same to any cotton, or cotton and linen goods
not manufactured by said corporation, with a
view of vending or disposing thereof as the
proper manufactures of the said corporation,
every person so offending shall forfeit and pay




30      BEVERLY COTTON FACTORY.
treble the value of' such goods, to be sued for
and recovered for the use of said corporation
by action of debt in any court of record proper
to try the same."
It appears that the proprietors had not
found the grant of land, before recited, available for their purpose, and that in June, 1790,
a petition was presented to the Legislature in
their behalf, signed by John Cabot and Joshua
Fisher, managers. They represent -
"That they had expended about four thousand pounds, and that the present value of
their stock was not equal to two thousand,
and that a farther very considerable advancement is absolutely necessary; that the intended
aid by a grant of land made by a former legislature has not, in any degree, answered the
purpose of it, and pray that in lieu of that
grant some real and ready assistance may be
afforded them."
The petitioners state, as one of the public
advantages to be derived from the manufacture of cotton, that the raw material is procured (from  the West Indies) in exchange
for' fish, "the most valuable export in possession of the State." They mention the extraordinary cost of machines, intricate and difficult
in their construction, without any model in
the country, and instance a carding-machine
that cost eleven hundred dollars.




WASHINGTON'S DIARY.
The petition was referred to a committee,
of which Nathaniel Gorham was chairman,
who reported, "that the petitioners have a
grant of one thousand pounds, to be raised in
a lottery, on condition that they give, bonds
that the money be actually appropriated.in
such a way as will most effectually promote
the manufacturing of cotton  piece-godcls in
this Con.monwealth."
This factory at Beverly was in operation at
the time of Washington's visit to the North in
1789, as appears by the following extract from
his Diary: "Friday, 30th October. -A little
after eight o'clock I set out (from Salem) for
Newburyport, and in less than two miles
crossed the bridge between Salem and Beverly, which makes a handsome appearance,
and is upon the same plan of those over
Charles and Mystic rivers, excepting that it
has not footways, as that of the former has.
The length of the bridge is 1530 feet, and was
built for about ~4500 lawful money, -a price
inconceivably low in my estimation, as there is
eighteen feet water in the deepest parts of the
river, over which it is erected.  The bridge
is longer than that at Charlestown, but shorter
by -- feet than the other over Mystic. All
of them have drawbridges by which vessels
pass.  After passing Beverly two miles, we




32         WASHINGTON'S DIARY.
come to a cotton manufactory, which seems
to be carrying on with spirit by the Cabots
(principally). In this manufactory they have
the new invented Carding and Spinning machines. One of the first supplies the work,
and four of the latter, one of which spins 84
threads at a time by one person. The cotton
is prepared for these machines by being first
(lightly) drawn to a thread, on the common
wheel.  There is also another machine for
doubling and twisting the threads for particular cloths; this also does many at a time. For
winding the cotton from the spindles and preparing it for the warp, there is at reel, which
expedites the work greatly.  A  number of
lootns (15 or 16) were at work with spring
shuttles, which do more than double work.
In short, the whole seemed perfect, and the
cotton stuffs which they turn out excellent of
their kind; -warp and filling both cotton."
Extract from Washington's Diary, -an edlition of which was privately printed, 1856, for
Winm. J. Davis, New York.
This factory was built of brick, and was continued in operation to some extent for several
years. It was driven by horse-power; and a
gentleman is still living, who was, a few years
ago, a member of Congress, and is yet an
active octogenarian in government employ,




SAMUEL WITHERILL            33
and who remembers, when a boy, occasionally
driving a pair of large bay horses to give motion to the wheels.
I have been thus particular in regard to the
mill at Beverly, because it was the earliest
enterprise undertaken and carried into execution in this country for manufacturing cotton,
and was certainly in operation some time before 1789, though Governor Woodbury, who
was of a Beverly family, says, in his famous
report upon Cotton, - the first cotton factory built
in the UTited States wvas at Providence in 1790.
Mr. Samuel Witherill of Philadelphia was
engaged at a very early period in commencing various manufacturing operations. An
address was delivered by Tench Coxe to an
assembly of the friends of American manufactures, convened for the purpose of establishing
a Sociely for the Encouragemewnt of the Useful Arts,
August 9, 1787.  The extent and success of
the operations of this society for the first year
may be seen by the report of the managers in
August, 1788, signed by Samuel Witherill,
Jr., Chairman, -in which it is stated that the
amount of cash received from the contributors
on the 23d of August was ~1327 10s. 6d.;
that they had purchased a quantity of flax,
and employed between two and three hundred
women in spinning linen yarn, and also en3




34          MILL AT NORWICH.
gaged workmen to make a carding-engine,
and four jennies, of forty, forty-four, sixty, and
eighty spindles, for spinning cotton; that, as
soon as the season would permit the house to
be fitted up, they were set to work, but, owing
to various delays and obstructions thrown in
their way by foreign agenls, it was the 12th of
April, 1788, before they began to weave, and
on the 23d of August, 1788, they had made
11,367 yards of various kinds of linen and cotton goods.
In 1790 a person, who had been employed in
the Beverly factory, was~ engaged to go to
Norwich, Connecticut, to put in operation some
cotton machinery, which was understood to
be similar to that used at Beverly. This machinery was not built in this country, but was
supposed to have been imported, by some
means, from England.  The parties engaged
in the business at Norwich were Mr. Huntington, Dr. Lathrop, and others. This Dr. Lathrop
was the same in whose druggist's shop Benedict Arnold is said to have been employed,
before the Revolutionary War. -See Sparks's
American Biography, Vol. III.
Another cotton mill in Connecticut was built
in the west part of New Haven, in 1794, by
John R. Livingston and David Dickson, of New
York. Previous to this time they had a small




SPINNING IN PHILADELPHIA.     35
mill not far from Hurlgate, on the New York
side; — the machinery was moved to New
Haven, and was in full operation in 1795. In
1807 this was converted into a woollen-mill,
and since into a paper-mill.
In 1806 General Humphrey built his mill
at Derby (since Humphreysville), both for
cotton and woollen.
William Pollard of Philadelphia obtained a
patent for cotton-spinning, Dec. 30, 1791,
which was the first water-frame put in motion
in Pennsylvania. Whether he obtained his
patterns direct from England, or by the way
of Providence, is not certain, or whether the
machinery was capable of being put in successful operation may be doubtful, for the business
failed at a time when the machinery of Slater
was producing great profits. It was, however,
an early attempt at the introduction of water-'spinning in that part of the country, and its
want of success probably retarded the progress of cotton-spinning in Philadelphia. Some
accounts say the mill was burned.
In 1808 the Globe factory, with a capital
of $80,000, was established under Dr. Redman
Coxe, of Philadelphia.
The Arkwright machinery was introduced
very early, at Copp's Creek, Delaware, by
Goodfellow; also at Kirkmill, near Wilminagton.




36           MILLS AT PATERSON.
A magnificent scheme was projected for a
manufacturing establishment at Paterson, New
Jersey, and a charter was obtained through
the interest of Alexander Hamilton, granting,
it is said, besides the usual powers of a manufacturing corporation, banking privileges, and
the corporate powers of a city. A number of
individuals from New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania had associated and raised a capital of about two hundred thousand dollars,
and obtained extensive rights in the Great
Falls of the Passaic. They were incorporated
by the Legislature of New Jersey, November
22, 1791, by the name of " The Society for
the Establishment of Useful Manufactures," and
the Company was organized at New Brunswick
during the same month. In May, 1792, they
selected the site for their operations, and on
the fourth of July made appropriations for
building factories, machine shops, and printworks, and for the extensive use of waterpower from the Passaic falls.
The construction of their canals was confided
to Major L'Enfant,* a French engineer, whose
gigantic schemes were far beyond the pecu* The same who was originally employed by Gen. Washington to survey and lay out the City of Washington, but who had
some difficulty with the Commissioners before the business was
finished. - Sparks's Life of Washington, Vol. X. p. 204.




SPINNING AT PROVI1)ENCE.      37
niary means of the Company, so that in 1793
the business was put under the charge of Peter
Colt, then Comptroller of the State of Connecticut, who completed the watercourses, and
built a factory, in which they commenced
spinning cotton yarn in 1794.
In the life of Samuel Slater a very particular account is given, by William Anthony,
of the first attempts to introduce cotton machinery at Providence. He says: "About the
year 1788 Daniel Anthony, Andrew Dexter,
and Lewis Peck, all of Providence, entered into
an agreement to make what was then called
homesputz clolh. The idea at first was to spin
by hand, and make jeans with linen warp and
cotton filling; but hearing that Mr. Orr of
Bridgewater, Mass., had imported some models
of machinery from England for the purpose
of spinning cotton, it was agreed that Daniel
Anthony should go to Bridgewater and get a
draft of the model of said machine. He, in
company with John Reynolds of East Greenwich, who had been doing something in the
manufacturing of wool, went to Bridgewater
and found the model of the machine spoken
of in possession of Mr. Orr, but not in operation. It was not the intention of Mr. Orr to
operate it, but he only kept it for the inspection of those who might have an inclination
to take drafts."




38                 THOMAIS SOMERS.
This model of the  machine was very imperfect, and was said to be taken from one of the
first built in England. A draft of this machine
was accordingly taken, and laid aside for a
while. They then proceeded to build a machine of a different construction, called a jenny.
I understood that a model of this machine was
brought from England into Beverly, Massachusetts, by a man by the name of* Summers.
This jenny  had  twenty-eight spindles,.
was finished  in  1787. t   It was first set up in
a private house, and afterwards removed to
the market-house chamber in Providence, and
operated there.
Joshua Lindly of Providence was then engaged to build a carding-machine for carding
the cotton, agreeably to the draft presented,
obtained  also  from   Beverly.    This  machine
* We here trace to Beverly the Thomas Somers who went to
England from Baltimore, in- 1785, for the purpose of procuring
the English machinery, and to whom the grant of.20 was made
by the Legislature of Massachusetts, March 8, 1787, to be expended under the direction of Mr. Orr.
t There must be a mistake in the year, as he says above that
Dexter and others, for whom this machinery was built, entered
into their agreement about 1788. This should be, in all probability, 1789, for the time when the jenny was finished. A further
confirmation of this date is that Somers received from the Legislature of Massachusetts, March 8, 1787, a grant to enable him
to complete his models; and it must have been after this time'that he built the machines at Beverly from which those at Providence were designed.




SPINNING FRAMES.          39
was something similar to the one now used
for carding wool, the cotton being taken off
the machine in rolls, and roped by hand. After
some delay this machine was finished. They
then proceeded to build a spinning-frame after
the draft obtained at Bridgewater. This machine was something similar to the water-frame
now in use, but very imperfect. It consisted
of eight heads of four spindles each, —being
thirty-two spindles in all, - and was operated
by a crank turned by hand...... The spinning-frame, after being tried some time in
Providence, was carried to Pawtucket and
attached to a wheel propelled by water. The
work of turning the machine was too laborious
to be done by hand, and the machine was too
imperfect to be turned by water. Soon after
this the machine was sold to- Mr. Moses Brown
of Providence; but as all the carding and
roping was done by hand, it was very imperfect, and but little could be done.
This was the situation of cotton manufacturing in Rhode Island when Mr. Samuel
Slater arrived in this country; - then all
this imperfect machinery was thrown aside,
and machinery more perfect built under his
direction.
The spinning machinery described as building at Philadelphia was stated to be foul




40           SPINNING FRAMES.
spinning-jennies of forty, forty-four, sixty, and
eighty spindles. That at Beverly is supposed
to be of the same character, and that also
which was put in operation at the markethouse in Providence, which is described as a
jenny with twenty-eight spindles, built after
the model of that at Beverly, and which Mr.
Anthony states to be on a different construction from the one at Bridgewater. So that in
all these cases it is very evident that spinning
by the jenny alone was attempted. But the
spinning-machine built after the model of that
in the possession of Mr. Orr, and built by Barr,
appears to have been an attempt to introduce
the Arkwright machinery. Mr. Anthony describes it as similar to the water-frame now
in use; says it consisted of eight heads, of four
spindles each; that it was operated by a
crank, in neither of which particulars would
it agree with the jenny, or any other spinningmachine known to have been in use; but the
description, as far as it goes, would apply to
the Arkwright spinning-frame, though he omits
the great feature of Arkwright's spinning, the
drawing or extension of the thread by means
of rollers.
It is possible that Robert and Alexander
Barr may have obtained such a knowledge of
Arkwright's machinery after the failure of his




SAMUEL SLATER.             41
suit in 1781, that they thought themselves
able to construct his water-frame.
Samuel Slater at the age of twenty-one
sailed from London on the 13th of September,
1789, and arrived at New York in November.
He seems to have had a design of coming to
America for some time, and what finally determined him was his observing in a Philadelphia
paper a reward offered by a society for a machine to make coltton rollers. * We see here, I
suppose, the effect of an advertisement of the
1s Pennsylvania Society for promoting the useful
Arts," mentioned above.
Soon after his arrival in New York, he wrote
to Moses Brown as follows: -
"' NEW YORK, December 2, 1789.
S' SIR: A few, days ago I was informed that
you wanted a manager of cotton spinning, in
which business I flatter myself that I can give
the greatest satisfaction in making machinery,
making as good yarn, either for stockings or
twist, as any that is made in England, as I
have had opportunity and an oversight of Sir
Richard Arkwright's works, and in Mr. Strutt's
mill upwards of eight years. If you are not
provided for, should be glad to serve you;
* Ptrobably this was intended to indicate a machine for rollerspinnzily.




42          ALMY ANI) BROWN.
though I am in the New York manufactory,
and have been for three weeks, since I arrived
from England. But we have only one card,
two machines, two spinning-jennies, which I
think are not worth using. My encouragement is pretty good, but should much rather
have the care of perpetual carding and spinning.
My intention is to erect a perpetual card and
spinning (meaning the Arkwright patents). If
you please to drop a line respecting the amount
of encouragement you wish to give, by favor
of Captain Brown, you will much oblige, sir,
"Your most obedient humble servant,
"SAMUEL SLATER.
" Please direct to me at No. 37 Golden Hill."
The reply of Mr. Brown is given as follows: —
" PROVIDENCE, 10 — 12th Month, 1781.
"FRIEND: I received thine of the 2d, and
observe its contents. I, or rather Almy and
Brown, who have the business in the cotton
line,.... want the assistance of a person
skilled in the frame- or water-spinning. An experiment has been made, which has failed, no
person being acquainted with the business, and
the frames imperfect. Thy being already engaged in a factory with many able proprietors,
we can hardly expect we can give thee encouragement adequate to leaving thy present




MOSES BROWN.             43
employ. As the frame we have is the first
attempt of the kind that has been made in
America, it is too imperfect to afford much
encouragement. We hardly know what to say
to thee, but if thou thought thou could'st perfect and conduct them to profit, if thou wilt
come and do it, thou shalt have all the profits
made'of them, over and above the interest of
the money they cost and the wear and tear of
them. We will find stock and be repaid in
yarn, as we may agree for six months, and this
we do for the information thou canst give if
fully acquainted with the business...... If
thy present situation does not come up to
what thou wishest, and from thy knowledge
can be ascertained of the advantages of the
mills so as to induce thee to come and work
ours and have the credit as well as the advantage of perfecting the first water-mill in America, we should be glad to engage thy care, so
long as they can be made profitable to both,
and we can agree.
"I am, for myself and Almy & Brown,
"Thy friend,
C MOSES BROWN."
The following appears as an extract from a
letter to Slater under the same date, which
gives some particulars of the cottdn machinery




44           SAMUEL SLATER.
at Providence before the arrival of Slater.
"We have two machines of this kind, one of
thirty-two spindles, and one of twenty-four.
They have been worked, and spun about one
hundred and fifty skeins of cotton yarn, from
five to eight skeins (of fifteen lays round a reel
of two yards) to the pound. But the person
we let the mill to being unacquainted with the
business, and the mill probably not perfected,
he could not make wages in attending them,
and therefore they are at present still.  We
then wrought hand-roping, as the carding machine was not in order. We have since got a
jenny, and are putting on fine cards to the machine. These, with one eighty-four and a sixty
spinning-jenny, and a doubling and twisting
jenny, compose the principal machinery about
our factory."
In consequence of this correspondence, Slater soon left New York and came to Providence. A letter from Smith Wilkinson, "Life
of Slater," p. 76, gives an account of his first
visit to Pawtucket, and some particulars of the
manufacturing business.  He says: "Samuel
Slater came to Pawtucket early in January
1790, in company with Moses Brown, William
Almy, Obadiah Brown, and Smith  Brown,
who did a small business in Providence at
mnanufacturiAg on billies and jennies driven




SPINNING IN PROVIDENCE.      45
by men, as were also the carding-machines....
There was a spinning-frame in the building,
which used to stand on the southwest abutment of Pawtucket bridge, which was started
for trial (after it was built for Andrew Dexter
and Lewis Peck) by Joseph and Richard Anthony, but the machine was very imperfect and
made very uneven yarn. The cotton for this
experiment was carded by hand, and roped on
a woollen wheel by a female."
"Mr. Slater entered into a contract with
William Almy and Smith Brown, and commenced building a water-frame of twenty-four
spindles, two carding-machines, and the drawing and roping frames necessary to prepare for
the spinning, and soon after added a frame of
forty-eight spindles.  He commenced [spinning?  some time in the fall of 1790, or early
in 1791. I was then in my tenth year, and
went to work for him, and began at tending
the breaker. The mode of laying the cotton
was by the hand, taking up a handful and pulling it apart with both hands, and shifting it all
into the right hand, to get the staple of the
cotton straight, and fix the handful so as to
hold it firm, and then applying it to the surface
of the breaker, moving the hand horizontally
across the card to and fro, until the cotton -was
fully prepared."




46          DUTY  ON COTTON  GOODS.
The description of this operation shows the
rude state of the Arkwright machinery as introduced by Slater at that time.
A  letter from  Moses Brown of the 19th of
April, 1791, addressed to Moses Brown of Beverly, " To be communicated to the proprietors
of the Beverly factory," says: "I have for some
time thought of addressing the Beverly manufacturers on the subject of an application to
Congress for some encouragement to the cotton manufacture by an additional duty on the
cotton goods imported, and the applying such
duty as a bounty, partly for raising and saving
cotton in the Soizheern SItates, of a quality and cleanness sutitable to be wrought by machines,* and partly
as a bounty on cotton goods of the kind manufactured in the United States;.... and it is
the desire of those concerned this Way, that
you, being the first and largest, would take the
lead, and devise such plan as may be most eligible to effect the purpose. Almy and Brown,
who conduct the business of the cotton manufactory, with an English workman from Ark* When Slater first began to spin, he used Cayenne and Surinam cotton, but after a few years he began to mix about one third
of Southern cotton; and this yarn was designated as second quality
and sold at a price accordingly.
Hamilton, in his report on manufactures, says: " The extensive
cultivation of cotton can perhaps hardly be expected, but from the
previous establishment of domestic manufactories of the article."




MACHINERY IN'RHODE ISLAND.    47
wright's works, have completed the water spinning machines to the perfection to make the
enclosed yarn, —the former mills, which I had
purchased, made from the States model at
Bridgewater, proving not to answer."
Another letter from Moses Brown, of October
15, 1791, addressed to John Dexter, gives an
account of the early proceedings in Rhode
Island in manufacturing, as follows: " In the
spring of 1789, some persons in Providence
had procured to be made a carding-machine, a
jenny, and a spinning-frame to work by hand,
after the manner of Arkwright's invention,
taken principally from  models belonging to
the State of Massachusetts, which were made
at their expense by two persons from Scotland,
who took their ideas from observation and not
from experience in the business.  These machines, made here, not answering the purpose
and expectation of the proprietors, and I being
desirous of perfecting them, if possible, and the
business of the cotton manufacture, so as to be
useful to the country, I purchased them, and
by great alterations the carding-machine and
jenny were made to answer. The frames, with
one other, on nearly the same construction,
made from the same model, and tried without
success at East Greenwich, which I also purchas.ed, I attempted to set to work by water,




48    FIRST ARKWIRIGHT MACHINERY.
and made a little yarn, so as to answer for
warps; but being so imperfect, both as to quality and quantity of the yarn, their use was
suspended until I could procure a person who
had wrought or seen them wrought in Europe.
"Late in the fall I received a letter from a
young man, then lately arrived at New York,
from Arkwright's works in England, informing
me of his situation, that he could hear of no
perpetual spinning mills on the continent but
mine, and proposed to come and work them.
I wrote him, and he came accordingly; but on
viewing the mills, he declined doing anything
with them, and proposed making a new one,
using such parts of the old as would answer.'..
He proceeds to say that they contracted
with him "to direct and make a mill in his
own way, which he did."
From the foregoing it appears very evident
that all the first cotton machinery introduced
at Beverly, Providence, Paterson, and Philadelphia, was confined to the spinning-jenny, and
such improvements as had been introduced before the invention of Arkwright, and that the
first Arkwright machinery was that built by
Barr at Bridgewater, which was probably too
imperfect to be put to any profitable use, so
that to Slater justly belongs the credit of the
successful introduction of the Arkwright ma



SECOND MILL BY SLATER.        4z
chinery, and the establishment of the cotton
manufacture in this country.
The second cotton mill built by Mr. Slater,
called the "White Mill,"  was within the limits
of Massachusetts, on the east side of Pawtucket
Rivelr, in what was then the town of Rehoboth.
At the session of the Massachusetts Legislature
in June 1799, —C"on the petition of Samuel
Slater, stating his intention to establish a cotton mill in Rehoboth," - an Act was passed,
providing "that all buildings that may be
erected in said town for the purpose of a cotton mill, together with the materials and stock
employed in the manufacture of cotton, be, and
the same are hereby exempted from taxes of
every kind, during the term of seven years
from  the first day of April next."  (Passed
June 22, 1799.) This was the first mill on the
Arkwright system erected in Massachusetts,
and must be the same referred to in the Life
of Slater, where it is stated that in 1798 he
entered into partnership with Oziel Wilkinson,
Timothy Green, and William  Wilkinson, and
built a second mill on the east side of Pawtucket River;- and though the Act was passed
in 1799, the building may have been in progress in 1798.
Until this time the business had been confined to Mr. Slater and his associates, but soon
4




50    FIRST MILL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
after this, it is stated that several of his men,
who had become acquainted with the construction of his machinery, left his employment and
commenced the erection of mills for themselves
or other parties. Mr. Benj. S. Wolcott was employed by Mr. Slater in the construction of his
first mill. After acquiring sufficient knowledge
of the business, he united with Rufus and Elisha
Waterman, for the purpose of erecting a cotton
factory in Cumberland, about 1801. The machinery was afterwards removed to Celitral
Falls, a short distance above Pawtucket, and a
new company formed, with the addition of Mr.
Stephen Jenks.
Another of his workmen by the name of
Robbins commenced a mill in New Ipswich,
which was put in operation in 1804, being the
first cotton mill built in New Halmpshire.
The 1"History of Rehoboth," which should
be the best authority on the subject, says:
"The first cotton factory that was erected
upon the east side of the river in the village
of Pawtucket was the   Yellow Mill,' built in
1805."  The first cotton mill on the east side
of the river, and in Massachusetts, was that
before mentioned in 1798, or 1799, —and the
second mill was built there in 1805; for I find
an Act passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, June 14, 1805, providing 1"that all the




MR. GALLATIN'S REPORT.         51
buildings that are or may be erected in the
town of Rehoboth by Eliphalet Slack, Oliver
Starkweather, Eleaser Tyler, 2d, Elijah Ingraham, and'others, for the purpose of establishing
a cotton manufactory in said town, and all the
materials and stock to be employed in the
manufacture of cotton, be, and the same are
hereby exempted from all taxes of every kind
for and during the term of five years, from and
after the passing of this Act."
In one of these early mills at Pawtucket, B.
S. Wolcott, Jr. was employed, who with the assistance of his father, in 1807 or 1808, built
the first cotton mill in Oneida County, Nlew
York, four miles west of Utica.  Some years
later, Mr. Wolcott, associated with Benj. and
Joseph Marshall, formerly English merchants in
New York, erected the " New York Mills."  Mr.
Gallatin, in his report on manufactures, April 17,
1810, is probably mistaken in saying "after the
first cotton mill was erected in Rhode Island in
1791, another in the same State was built in
1795, and two more in the State of Massachusetts in 1803 and 1804."  He may be more
correct in what follows: "During the three
succeeding years, ten were erected or commenced in Rhode Island, and one in Connecticut, making altogether fifteen mills erected
before the year 1808, working at that time




52       COTTON MILL AT BEVERLY.
8,000 spindles. Returns have been received of
87 mills, which were erected at the end of the
year 1809, sixty-two of which were in operation, and worked 31,000 spindles, and the other
twenty-five will be in operation in the course
of the year 1810."
The first cotton mill in the vicinity of Boston, and the first in Massachusetts after that
built by Slater at Rehoboth, was a small establishment on Bass River in Beverly, which was
in operation in the fall of 1801, or early in
1802, with six water frames, of seventy-two
spindles each.  The machinery was built at
Paterson, New Jersey, by a man of the name of
Clark, who came to Beverly to put it in operation.  The business was unsuccessful on account of the insufficiency of the water-power
and other causes, and the mill continued in
operation but two or three years. Thus it appears that Beverly, though never engaged in
the cotton manufacture very extensively or
with much profit, was the pioneer in the business, not only in building the first factory in
1787, but the first after Slater in extending the
use, of the Arkwright machinery in Massachusetts.
In 1806 John Slater, the brother of Samuel,
had arrived from England, and united with
Samuel and others in building, at Smithfield,




FACTORIES IN RHODE ISLAND.         53
the establishment now called Slatersville.  He
removed to this place in June 1806, and took
charge of the concern; and in the spring of 1807
the works were sufficiently advanced to commence spinning.
In 1807, Mr. Zachariah Allen estimated the
whole number of spindles in operation in the
United States at about four thousand.
By this time the manufacturing of cotton
was extending itself, and factories were built in
many of the towns near Providence, both in
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so that in
1809, according to Benedict's "History of Rhode
Island," there were seventeen cotton mills in
operation within the town of Providence and its
vicinity, working 14,296 spindles, and at the
commencement of the war with Great Britain,
in 1812, there were said to be, within thirty
miles of Providence in the State of
Rhode Island, 33 factories,  30,660 spindles,
Massachusetts, 20   "  17,370   "
making  53; with 48,030   "
The statistics of Tench Coxe, from the census
of 1810, give for the State of Rhode IslandCotton factories, 28; spindles, 21,178.
According to an account taken by John H.
Pitman, of Providence, there were in the State
of Rhode Island in 1810 thirty-nine factories,




54          WALTHAM COMPANY.
in which were more tilan thirty thousand spindles.
Soon after 1806 a number of factories were
built in various parts of Massachusetts.
February 27, 1807, an exemption from taxes
for five years was granted by Act of the Legislature for a cotton mill, erected at Watertown
by Seth Bemis and Jeduthan Fuller.
June 20, 1807, a factory was incorporated at
Fitchburg.
March 12, 1808, the Norfolk Cotton Mlanufactory at Dedhamn was incorporated.
An association was formed January 1, 1811,
for building a mill at Dorchester with two thousand spindles, and incorporated June 13, 1811,
with a capital of $60,000.
February 23, 1813, an Act was passed to incorporate the Boston Manufacturing Company,
better known as the Waltham Company, for
the " purpose of manufacturing cotton, woollen, or linen goods." Instead of the customary
designation of their place of business in the
Act of incorporation, it authorizes them to conduct their business at Boston in the County of
Suffolk, or within fifteen miles thereof, or at
any other place or places, not exceeding four.
Capital, $400,000.
The business was commenced in New Hampshire, as before stated, at New Ipswich in 1804.




MILLS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.         55
The original proprietors of the first mill were
Ephraim  Hartwell, Charles Barrett, and Benjamin Champney.
In 1807 another mill was commenced upon
flthe same stream, the Souhegan, by Seth Nason,
Jesse Holton, and Samuel Batchelder, and put
in operation in 1808. These were the first cotton mills built in the State of New Hampshire,
and contained about five hundred spindles
each. In 1805 tile Legislature granted to the
proprietors of the first mill an exemption from
taxes for five years, and in 1808 the same exemption to the proprietors of the second imill.*'
In December 1808, the Legislature of New
Hamphire, by a general law, granted the same
encouragement to those who should erect works
for the manufacture of cotton, wool, salt, or
glass. At the same session Acts were passed
for the incorporation of the Peterborough Cotton Manufactory, and for the Exeter Cotton
Manufactory.  In 1809 were incorporated the
second Peterborough Cotton Factory, and another in Chesterfield.
In 1810, one was incorporated in Milford,
one in Swanzey, one in Cornish, one in Pembroke, and one at Amoskeag Falls.
In 1811, one at Walpole, one at Hillsborough, one at Meredith, and also a third at
History of New Ipswich, pp. 224, 225.




56      MILLS IN THE UNITED  STATES.
Peterborough. Most of these mills went into
operation within about a year from the time of
their incorporation, so that at the commenceiment of the war with Great Britain, in 1812,
there were, probably fifteen  cotton  mills in
operation  in New  Hampshire, averaging  not
more than 500 spindles in each, or not more
than six or seven thousand in all.
The first cotton mill in the State of Maine,
then comprised in Massachusetts, was built at
Brunswick in 1809, and soon after, another was
erected at Gardiner.
Tench Coxe, in his report of the census of
1810, gives the number of cotton factories in
New Hampshire at twelve, of which eight were
in the County of Hillsborough.
The number given in other States was as
follows: -
Massachusetts,  fifty-four.  Pennsylvania,  sixty-four.
Vermont,      one.          Delaware,     three.
Rhode Island,  twenty-eight.   Maryland,  eleven.
Connecticut,   fourteen.    Ohio,        two.
New York,    twenty-six.    Kentucky,    fifteen.
New Jersey,   four.         Tennessee,    four.
None in any other State.
All the factories built before the war of 1812
were built after the plan first introduced by
Slater, with very little modification.  His spinning was what was usually denominated  the
w-acter-frame, built in separate sections of eight




INCREASE OF MANUFACTURES.        57
spindles each; but before 1808, when the second
mill was built in New Hampshire, the spinningframe, denominated the lhroslle, had been introduced and was adopted in this mill.
By this time the business had been commenced'in a small way in several parts of New
England, and the population were beginning to
acquire some skill in the various operations of
building machinery and its use. About 1807
and 1808, the embarrassments of commerce,
the restrictions upon the importation of goods,
and the consequent advance in prices, gave an
impulse to the production of all such articles
as could be manufactured here, to take the
place of imported goods, particularly of cotton;
and in 1812 there were said to be nearly forty
cotton mills in Rhode Island, with about 30,000
spindles, and about thirty mills in Massachusetts within thirty miles of Providence, with
about 18,000 spindles, amounting in the whole
to 48,000 spindles.
The war with Great Britain in 1812 raised
the price of goods to such extravagant rates,
that articles of cotton, such as had been previously imported from England at seventeen to
twenty cents per yard, were sold by the package at seventy-five cents.
This state of things stimulated the building
of cotton factories to such a degree, that a list




5 8       MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS.
of the mills in and near Providence, including
a number in Massachusetts at the close of the
war, makes the number of mills 96, and of spindles 65,264, being an average of 680 spindles
to a mill, eighteen of the whole number having
less than 300 spindles each, and the largest,
that of Almy, Brown, & Slater, 5,170 spindles.
A memorial to Congress, from the manufacturers of Providence in 1815, estimates  the
number of mills within thirty miles of that
town at 140, and the number of spindles at
130,000.  But the most reliable statement' of
the extent of the business at that time is a list
of the cotton mills in Rhode Island, and the
adjoining parts of Massachusetts and Connecticut, lately communicated to the "Rhode Island
Society efor the Encouragement of Domestic
Industry," by Samuel Green, Esq., of Woonsocket.  It was compiled by a committee of
manufacturers in 1815, for the purpose of making an assessment on each mill, to pay the expenses of sending an agent to Washington, to
attend to the interests of the manufacturers at
the approaching session of Congress, and bears
the signature of John H. Clark, Secretary,
James Burrill, Chairman, and Amasa Mason,
~ This estimate is said to have been made under the direction
of Mr. Burrill, a member of the Senate.




MANUFACTURES IN  1815.                   59
Philip  Allen, and  Samuel W. Green, Assessors.
The number of mills and spindles given in
Rhode Island are: mills, 99; spindles, 68,142.
Massachusetts,     "   52;   "    39,468.
Connecticut,       "   14;   "    11,700.
Making in the whole, "  165;       119,310.
A  report of the Committee on Manufactures
to Congress, in 1815, gives the following particulars of the  cotton manufacture in the United
States.
Capital,                                  $40,000,000
Males employed of the age of 17 and upwards,   10,000
Boys under seventeen,                          241000
Women and female children,                     66,000
Wages of 100,000, averaging $1.50 per week, $15,000,000
Cotton manufactured, 90,000 bales,  -       27,000,000 lbs.
Number of yards,                            81,000,000
Cost, averaging 30 cents per yard,        $24,300,000.
When  the importation of goods was recommenced  at the  close of the  war, the  sudden
reduction of prices was destructive to all manufacturing operations.  The business, that had
been carried  on during  the war without much
skill or economy, was prostrated, andcl the establishments that had been built up at an extravagant expense became worthless.
For the purpose of protecting this interest,
which was supposed to have some claim upon
the country on account of the aid afforded dur



60               TARIFF.
ing the war, the tariff of 1816 was passed by
Congress.
This measure was supported and advocated
by Southern politicians, on the ground of encouraging the manufacture of our own cotton,
instead of importing cotton goods from India,
or those made from foreign cotton.  On the
contrary, it met with decided opposition from
the people of the North, where navigation and
commerce had been the favorite pursuits; and
resuming their usual occupations and course of
business, at the close of the war, they were disposed to look with an unfavorable eye upon the
growth of a branch of business which it was supposed would interrupt the operations of foreign
trade, and they were, of course, opposed to the
tariff for the encouragement of manufactures;but so much capital had been embarked in mills
and machinery, and so many parties had become interested in their operation, that with
the encouragement of the tariff great efforts
were made to continue the business. Until this
time the operation of cotton factories had been
confined to the production of yarn, which was
woven upon the hand-loom.
The power-loom had come into use to some
extent in England previous to the commencement of the war of 1812.
The first attempt to weave by machinery was




POWER LOOMS.              61
made by M. De Gennes. His loom is described
in the "Philosophical Transactions" in the year
1700.  About 1765 a weaving factory driven
by water, was built by Mr. Garside of Manchester. It was furnished with swivel looms,
probably those invented by M. Vaucanson and
described in the c; Eicyelopedie Jietlhoclice."  It
was worked for a considerable time, but with
no advantage, one man being required for each
loom. (Guest, Hist. p. 44.)
Experiments had been made with various
success, for several years, principally in Scotland, for the purpose of weaving by power.
The power-loom, patented by Cartwright in
1785, was put in operation at Doncaster, but
was unsuccessful. Another mill, with five hundred looms upon the same plan, was built at'Manchester by Mr. Grimshaw in 1790, but was
destroyed by a mob.
In Rees's Cyclopedia, article Weaving, is a very
elaborate account of a loom invented by Mr.
Austin of Glasgow, in 1789, and so far perfected in 1798, that it was put in operation at
Mr. Monteith's mill, near Glasgow,- with what
success does not appear.
A patent for a power-loom was taken by
Miller in 1796, and another by Mr. Toad of
Boulton in 1803. William Horrocks of Stockport took patents for a, power-loom in 1803,




62         DRESSING MACHINES.
and 1805, and for further improvements in
1813.  This has now come into general use
as the crank, or Scotch loom, and seems to
have been the first that was put in operation
with any success.
After the power-loom was so far perfected as
to be capable of weaving, there was great delay in putting it in operation, for want of suitable machinery for dressing and preparing the
warps.  The great obstacle was, that it was
necessary to stop the loom frequently, in order
to dress the warp, as it unrolled from the beam,
which operation required a man to be employed for each loom, so that there was no
saving of expense.
To remedy this difficulty, Radcliff and Ross
took patents, in 1804, for a dressing-machine,
which to some extent supplied the deficiency.
Horrocks and Radcliff, sharing the common
destiny of inventors, failed.  This with other
causes retarded the adoption of these machines,
so that it is supposed that in 1813 there were
not more than 100 dressers, and 2400 powerlooms in use, in England and Scotland.  Yet
this was enough to alarm the hand-loom weavers, who, attributing to machinery the distress
caused by the Orders in Council and the American war, made riotous opposition to all new
machines, and broke'the power-looms set up at




POWER LOOMS.              63
West Houghton, Middleton, and other places.
(Baines, p. 235.)
From the time that the manufacture of cotton yarn began to be extended in this country,
many attempts were made to construct machinery to weave by power. As early as 1806,
a loom was built at Exeter, New Hampshire, by
T. M. Mussey, which, as an experiment, would
perform all the operations of weaving? but
could not be called a labor-saving machine.
Experiments were continued with great perseverance upon this loom until 1809, but I am
not aware that the web, or the machine, was
ever completed.
About the same time an attempt was also
made at Dorchester. In this loom, the warp,
instead of a horizontal, was in a perpendicular
position, - in this respect resembling that patented by Johnson of Preston, England, in 1805,
and that invented by Cartwright in 1785.  I
saw another in operation at Dedham in 1809,
which was capable of weaving about twenty
yards of coarse cloth per day, but none of these,
thQugh very ingenious experiments, were capabl1 of being put in operation with such economy as to supersede the old process of handweaving.
During the few years of restriction upon
importations, in 1809-10 and 11, and the war




64         TWALTHAM LOOMS.
of 1812, such was the increased demand for any
manufactures of cotton that could be produced
by hand-looms, or by all the machinery then in
operation for spinning, that little was thought
of improvements or new inventions. This state
of things continued in this country until the
enterprise of Mr. Francis C. Lowell, Mr. Nathan
Appleton, and their associates resulted in the
succesMsfill establishment of the power-loomn
weaving at Waltham in 1814, of which such
an interesting account has been given by Mr.
Appleton in his Introduction of the Power
Loom, and Origin of Lowell," and also in the
Memoir of Mr. Appleton, prepared for the Massachusetts Historical Society by Hon. Robert
C. Winthrop.
The fact of the employment of the powerloom, successfully and extensively, in Great
Britain was known in this country, but it was
very difficult to obtain any accurate information upon the subject, and impossible to get
any reliable knowledge of the construction of
the loom on account of the restrictions upon
the exportation of machinery, and the jealousy
of communicating the plans of any of thiir
manufacturing operations.
According to Mr. Appleton, (Introduction of
the Power Loom,) the attention of Mr. Francis
C. Lowell and himself was directed to this sub



POWER-LOOMS IN SCOTLAND.        65
ject when they met in Edinburgh, in 1811, and
Mr. Lowell determined, in accordance with Mr.
Appleton's advice, to visit Manclhester before
his return to America, for the purpose of obtaining all possible information on the subject,
with a view to the introduction of the ilnproved manufacture in the United States. Mr.
Lowell returned in 1813, bringing, without
doubt, a better knowledge of the manufacturing operations of Great Britain than was possessed by any other person in this country,
and which enabled him and his associates to
establish the improved manufacturing system at
Walthaml the incidents connected with which
are detailed in the interesting pamphlet mentioned above.
Before 1810 it is supposed that power-looms
were in successful operation in Scotland, as Mr.
Lowell and Mr. Appleton mention them in their
visit to Edinburgh in 1811, but in England it
would seem they were more dilatory in adopting these improvements.  An article in the
"London Quarterly Review," published in 1825,
says, with reference to the rapid increase of the
town of Manchester, "At this moment there are
upwards of thirty thousand looms worked by
steam-engines. At the close of the year 1814
there was not one in use."
But the author of that article was under a
5




66       LOOMS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
great mistake.  "A factory for steam-looms
was built at Manchester in 1806.  Soon afterwards two others were erected at Stockport;
and, about 1809, a fourth was completed at
West Houghton.  In 1818 there were at Manchester and the vicinity fourteen factories, containing about two thousand looms; and in 1821
thirty-two factories containing 5732 looms; and
the number has been still further increased, so
that there are at present (1823) not less than
10,000 steam-looms at work in Great Britain."
(Ilstory of the Cotton Jlafic tyfacltre, by ]liclhard
Gtlest.) According to all the above statements,
power-loom weaving had made but little progress in Great Britain before it was commenced
in this country at Waltham.
Mr. Appleton's " Introduction of the PowerLoom" contains many interesting particulars of
the steps taken in perfecting the machinery
and organizing the various departments of the
business.  He relates the anecdote of a visit
to Taunton to purchase the bobbin-winder, in
substance the same as Mr. Moody related it to
me. In the comlnencement of the business at
Waltham, the filling, instead of being spun by
the mule, as in England, was spun upon the
warp-frame, and of course had to be wound
upon a different bobbin to fit it for the shuttle.
This, at first, was done by a machine invented




INVENTION OF FILLING-FRAME.    67
by Stowell of Worcester; but Shepherd of Taunton had taken a patent for a machine for the
purpose, which Mr. Moody thought preferable
to the one they had in use; and he went with
Mr. Lowell to Taunton to see if they could
make an agreement for the use of their patentat a reasonable price. They found Mr. Shepherd disinclined to make any abatement, telling
them that " they must of necessity come to his
terms." Mr. Moody replied that, rather than
give that price, he would invent a machine to
spin the filling'on a bobbin suitable for the shuttle. Mr. Lowell, who at once perceived the
practicability of doing this, dropped the subject,
and after some further conversation, took leave.
After starting on their return, Mr. Lowell told
Mr. Moody that he had suggested the plan of
spinning the filling on the bobbin, and now he
must accomplish it. Mr. Moody had made the
observation only by way of chaffering for a
bargain, but under these circumstances turned
his attention to the subject, and the result was
the invention of the filling-frame, which was
patented and has continued in use ever since.
Mr. Moody also stated to me another incident
respecting the construction and completing of
the dressing-frame. At first they had used wooden rollers where the threads of the warp were
submitted to the action of the size, but being




6 8         DRESSING-ROLLERS.
constantly wet, the wood swelled and warped,
so that the rolls would not fit accurately. They
then tried covering the rollers with metal, by
casting a coat of pewter on the outside; but
after various methods of casting, sometimes in
sand, and sometimes in a mould made of iron,
for the purpose, they were still found to be imn
perfect. He at length thought of making a
mould of' soap-stone in which to cast them.
Meeting his brother in Boston, who had been
aware of the trouble he had experienced on
the subject, he said to him, "I tibtin/  I sltall get
over lhe dificzultyl abotz lthe rollers I inlenzd lo try
soap-stoze," meaning for a mould to cast them
in. His brother replied, inisapprehending him,
C; Well, I shLould thi/kc soap-stone would  acake a
very good roller."  Mr. Moody made no reply,
but took the hint, and made his rollers of soapstone, which has come into general use for the
purpose.
In the power-looms that were first put in
operation both at Waltham and Lowell, the
motion of the lay, which beats up the weft, was
given by weights. After a time, many objections were found to the use of weights, and it
was thought expedient to give the motion directly from the revolving shaft by a cam. The
mathematical calculations to give this cam such
a form as would produce the accelerated veloc



LOWELL.                69
ity of a falling body, and thus to give the same
motion as the weights, was a problem for Mr.
Warren Colburn, whose skill in this and many
other instances was made available in the application of mathematical science to practical
mechanics.
After the interesting account given by Mr.
Nathan Appleton, of the 1' Origin of Lowell," it
is unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject.
I recollect, however, a conversation in 1824,
with Mr. Patrick Jackson, with reference to his
expectations of the future prospects of the
growth of Lowell, which at the time appeared
to be extravagant and almost visionary. He
stated that the purchases of real estate, at what
was then East Chelmsford, on account of the
manufacturing company, comprised about the
same number of acres as the original peninsula
of the City of Boston, before it began to be
extended by filling up the flats, and said, - s If
our business succeeds, as we have reason to
expect, we shall have as large a population in
the place in twenty years from this time, as
there was in Boston twenty years ago."  As
extravagant as this prediction appeared at the
time, when only two of the Merrimack mills
were erected, and the population was less than
2000 it was more than realized.
Immediately after the power-loom was put




70          WILLIAM GILMORE.
in operation at Waltham  in 1814, measures
were in progress for its introduction into Rhode
Island, from a different source, and of a different construction.
William Gilmore emigrated to the British
Provinces and came to Boston in September
1815. He had been acquainted with the powerloom and dressing-machine before he left Scotland. He brought to Boston certain small articles of Scotch manufacture, which in the state of
trade at that time met a profitable market. Here
he was met by Mr. Robert Rogerson, who was
told that Gilmore had been employed in powerloom weaving, and understood the construction
of the power-looms and dressing-machinery.
Mr. Rogerson took him to Uxbridge and Smithfield, and made him  known to John Slater.
He proposed to Mr. Slater to build the machinery for power-loom weaving, - to have nothing
for his labor unless he succeeded in putting the
looms in operation. But the prospects of business at that time were so discouraging, that
parties were not willing to enter into engageme-nts, and he went to work as a machinist at
Smithfield, where he commenced paying rent
October 21, 1815.
Previous to this time a machinist by the
name of Blydensburg had been employed at
the Lyman Mills, in North Providence, in at



CRANK-LOOM.               71
tempting to build a power-loom, but without
success. Gilmore was employed, in the early
part of 1816, to build twelve looms, and also
machinery for warping and dressing, from the
plans and drawings he had brought with him,
which he accomplished to the satisfaction of
his employer; and they were put in operation
early in 1817. For the compensation of ten
dollars he allowed Messrs. David Wilkinson &
Co. the use of his patterns for building twelve
other looms; and they got their twelve looms in
operation nearly as soon as those built by Gilmore. This was the first introduction of the
crank-loom  in this country; and, to manifest
their gratitude for the services rendered by Mr.
Gilmore, the manufacturers subscribed to raise a
fund of fifteen hundred dollars; and one of the
subscribers to this fund refers to his receipt for
payment of his subscription, which he has preservedl bearing date May 31, 1817, -thus showing the time when the crank-loom was put in
operation in this country. The family of Gilmore, after his death, removed to Baltimore;
and it ought not to be forgotten that one of his
sons distinguished himself at the commencement of the present rebellion, by coming forward boldly among a disloyal people to supply,
at his own expense, refreshments to one of the
first regiments of soldiers from Rhode Island,




72        WALTHAM MACHINERY.
which passed through that city soon after the
assault upon the regiment from Massachusetts.
Gilmore's looms were built in a very substantial manner, so that some of them, after thirty
or forty years use, still continue capable of doing
very good work, after supplying some of the
improvements since introduced, but without
any important alteration in the mechanical construction of the loom. His warper and dressingframe were such as were adopted in Scotland
at an early period, but were much less perfect
than those that had been invented at Waltham,
and put in use there two or three years earlier.
Mule-spinning having been introduced in
Rhode Island, the building of the power-loom,
by Gilmore, completed the manufacturing system of that State within about three years
from the time when the power-loom was put in
operation at Waltham.
The inventions and improvements in the
machinery at Waltham having been patented,
including the loom, the double speeder, warper,
dressing-frame, and filling-frame, and the right
to the use of these patents being held at a
high price, most of the mills already built in
Rhode Island adopted the crank-loom, and introduced various plans in the process of making the roving, instead of using the patented
speeder, among which was the tube-speeder, in



SYSTEMS OF MACHINERY.          73
vented by Danforth, which was afterwards introduced to a considerable extent in Great Britain.
On the other hand, many of the mills, which
had already been erected for spinning, in Massachusetts and New  Hampshire, adopted the
Waltham loom, and most of the large establishments, which were built from time to time
in those States, followed the Waltham plan in
regard to other machinery, as well as the loom.
There was thus established two different systems or s'c/ools of manufacturing, one of which
might be denominated the _Rhocle Islancld, and the
other the Wa14lltam system.
One uses the live spindle, the other the dead
spindle; one, for filling, use the mule, the other
the filling-frame; one the Scotch dresser, the
other the Waltlham  dresser; one the crankloom, the other the cam-loom. Both parties
adhere pretty strongly to their own preferences,
and mlanufacturers are still undecided which is
the best in some particulars. It was not until
ten years after the crank-loom had been in use
in Rhode Island, that it was adopted at Waltham, or Lowell, and in neither place, nor in
any of the mills that followed their system, was
mule-spinning introduced until after 1830.
Tihe machinery first constructed at Waltham
was to a great extent the invention of ingenious machinists, who had no practical knowledge




74        RHODE ISLAND SYSTEM.
of manufacturing operations, and sometimes the
facility of constructing the machine was more
regarded than its adaptation to the use for
which it was designed. The machinery introduced at Rhode Island, on the contrary, was
adapted to its purpose by the skill acquired by
practical experience in the English factories
before the emigration of Slater.
But there was a difference in the general
management of the business in the two systems,
as well as in the machinery, and the establishment at Waltham  formed a new  era in the
manufacturing business.
Mr. Slater had proceeded upon the English
plan of employing families in the mill, often including children at an age when it would have
been more proper for them to be at school.
The consequence was the bringing together,
in a factory village, a collection of families dependent entirely upon their labor, and often of
parents who were disposed to live upon the
labor of their children rather than upon their
own, and exposed to suffering, as the operatives
have been in England, whenever there was any
interruption in the business. It was also the
custom, instead of making payments in money,
to establish what was called a Factory Store,
from which the families were furnished with
provisions and other articles, in payment for




WALTHAM SYSTEM.            75
their labor, which resulted in a sort of dependence upon their employers.
At Waltham, they at once commenced the
practice of the payment of wages in money,
every week or fortnight, and also provided
boarding-houses to accommodate all in their
employ.  This precluded the employment of
children: as about half the usual wages of
females would be required for the payment
of board, the Company could not afford to pay
board and wages to those who were not capable
of doing full work. The result was that only
those of mature age could find employment;
and such usually having a home to which they
could return in case of any interruption in the
business, they were not subject to be left dependent or exposed to suffering.
From  the time of the introduction of the
power-loom, and the extension of its use, the
cotton manufacture became established as an
important element in American industry, particularly in New England. Under much discouragement at times by reason of the changing policy of the government as to the tariff of duties
on imported goods, the number of spindles
continued to increase. But we are not able to
determine from the census reports the rate of
increase with any certainty, as there was not,
until the census of 1840, any specific statement
of the number of spindles in the several States,




76      SPINDLES IN UNITED STATES.
or of the aggregate number in the United
States.
In the Report of the census of 1840 the total
number is stated at 2,285,337, of which 1,598,198 were in New England. But in the census
of 1850, neither the so Abstract" printed in 1853,
nor the "c Compendium'" printed in 1854, or in
the quarto Report, do we find any statement of
the number of spindles, though there have been
some statistics published that seem to imply
that the returns of the marshals contained an
enumeration of the spindles; but in the statements published by authority, the information
as to the cotton manufacture is confined to the
"c Number of establishments,"   Amount of capital,"" Bales of cotton," " Tons of coal," "Value
of materials," "Value of products," c" Number of
hands employed," and " Rate of wages," neither
of which particulars afford so good an index of
the extent of the business as the number of spindles; and the returns received, respecting most
of these details, would only be an approximate
estimate much less reliable than the number of
spindles, which could be accurately counted.
The number of spindles in New England in
1850 was estimated upon reliable authority at
2,751,078; —the population of New England
according to the census of 1850 was 2,728,106,
making an average of 1008 spindles to 1000
inhabitants, which seems a very remarkable co



SPINDLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.       77
incidence, and still more so when we find nearly
the samne proportion between the population
and number of spindles in Great Britain at the
same time as follows: -
In England, Scotland, and Wales, the population in 1850 was 2(),793,552, and according to
Ellison's Hand-Book the number of spindles
was 20,857,062, equal to 1003 spindles to 1000
inhabitants; so that at that time we had become as much a manufacturing people in New
England as they were in Great Britain. From
1850 to 1860 the population in New England
had increased to 3,135,283. The number of
spindles was reported at 3,959,297; looms,
103,204, being an average of about thirtyeight spindles to the loom.
By the preceding statements it would appear
that the number of spindles from 1850 to 1860
had increased much faster than the population,
so that in 1860 the number of spindles in New
England would average 1265 to the thousand
inhabitants.
The population of Great Britain, taken for
April 8, 1861, was as follows:England and Wales,...    20,205,504
Scotland,...     3,061,251
Making for Great Britain, 23,266,755
We have no reliable estimate of spindles in
Great Britain at the above date; but at the
same rate of increase per annum  as between




78       INCREASE  OF COTTON  SPINNING.
1850 and 1856,- according to Ellison's Hand
Book, — there is reason to suppose the number of spindles in 1'861 could not be short of
33,000,000, which would be equal to  an  average of 1418 spindles to 1000 inhabitants. So
that the spindles in  Great Britain, as well as
in New  England, were  increasing faster than
the population.
In a lecture, delivered at Blackburn in 1857,
by Alderman  John  Baynes, he says: —
"In  1846 there  was no authentic or official
statement of the number of spindles at work,
and  Messrs. DuFay  &  Co. of  Manchester, at
considerable expense, obtained much valuable
information on this subject;" and the returns
of  the'Factory   Commissioners'  show   the
number  in  1850  and  1856, so  that the account stands as follows:DuFay S- Co.,  Factory Commissioners.
1846.        1850.      1856.
England and Wales,  15,554,619    19,173,969  25,818,576
Scotland,            1,729,878     1,683,093   2,041,139
Ireland,               215,503       119,955     150,502
17,500,000    20,977,017  28,010,217
The estimate of
Baynes for the rest
of Europe and the
United States is as
follows: -            1846.                     1856.
Europe,               7,585,000               14,650,000
United States,        2,500,000                3,950,000
Total,            27,585,000                46,610,217




SPINDLES IN EUROPE.               79
Ile says further: "LI have not been able to
obtain any accurate  data as to  the  number
of spindles at present in operation in Europe
or the United States, excepting one furnished
by  Mons. Bruno  Henneberg, of Vienna, in
reference to the extent of the cotton trade in
Austria, viz: -
Lower Austria,.  569,979
Upper Austria,....               83,590
Styria,....    25,464
Krain Gorr,.....   30,300
Tyrol,.                   214,094
Bohemia,.  449,906
Lombardy,                        129,046
Venice,.....                28,464
Hungary,.....                     2,400
Total spindles,..  1,533,243."
According to Gov. Woodberry's Report upon
Cotton, the first cotton machinery introduced
in France was in 1787, being about the same
time with the first in operation in the United
States.   The first in Switzerland is stated on
the same  authority under date of 1798, and
the first in Saxony in 1799.
In the statistics of Massachusetts, we have
the most reliable  account of the progress of
the  cotton  manufacture  in  that State since
1837, made up from very careful returns from
every town in the State: —




80    ~MACHINERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.
Number of cotton mills. Number of spindles.
1837...  282..  565,031
1845...  302..   817,483
1855...   294..   1,519,527
1860...  301..   1,688,471
By  such  data as we can  obtain  from  the
United  States census, the whole number of
spindles in the country, in 1840, was 2,285,337;
1860, 5,035,798.
The machinery for spinning cotton having
been originally brought into use in England,
was introduced into this country and France at
about the samue time, and at a later period into
other countries of Europe.  It was then quite
imperfect, compared with what it is at present.
Improvements have continued to be made both
in this country and Europe; and many American
inventions have been of sufficient importance to
be adopted in Great Britain; and we have also
availed  ourselves of the improvements that
have been made there, so that our best mills
are not inferior, so far as machinery is concerned, to those of other countries.  The rate
of wages being higher here, we have had the
greatest inducement to render our labor-saving
machinery as perfect as possible.
Among  the improvements in  cotton  mnachinery that have originated in this country,
one of the most important is the combination
of the train of three bevel wheels, to regulate




ARNOLD'S ROVING FRAME.         81
tlhe variable velocity requisite fbr Winding the
slender filaments of cotton on the bobbin of
the roving frame, which was originally applied
by a native of Rhode Island, Mr. Aza Arnold.
This invention was successfully put in operation in 1822, and Mr. Arnold's patent was
issued January 21, 1823. Previous to the use
of this simple but admirably scientific adaptation of wheel-work to the roving frame, a very
difficult arrangement of racks and pinions was
used for the purpose, which had been introduced by Messrs. Cocker & Higgins of Manchester, wliich, though very ingenious, was
attended with great cost for every alteration
of the size of the roving for finer or coarser
work. The roving frame, or double speeder,
introduced at Waltham and Lowell, was subject to the same objection, which was the
reason that most of the cotton mills in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, built after the
Waltham plan, were generally adapted to the
manufacture of a single article of sheeting
or drilling, of the same number of yarn,
without any means of changing from one
fabric to another, according to the wants of
the market.
The invention of Mr. Arnold, after having
been used in the United States two years, was
considered worthy of being introduced in Eng6




82            EQUATION BOX.
land; and a model was taken to Manchester
by an American in 1825; and in January, 1826,
letters patent were obtained, for the same
combination for the same purpose, by Henry
Houldsworth, Jr.,- known as his cl(fbereznictl or
eqtzalionz box. Ure, in his article on the cotton
manufacture, after describing the apparatus for
giving a uniform motion to the surface of the
bobbins, while the circumference is gradually
enlarged by the successive layers of the roving wound around it, and referring to the
improvements patented by Houldsworth, says:
4-It may be considered the most ingeniously
combined apparatus in the whole range of
prodnctive industry."  It having been patented
in England, Dr. Ure was not aware that it
was an American invention, and gives the
whole credit of it to his countryman, who also
derived great profit from his patent, - while
Mr. Arnold was hardly known by the public
in his own country as the inventor, and, besides, spent most of the profits he had realized
from the early sale of his patents in a protracted litigation to establish his rights, so that
after the final judgment of the courts but
little time remained for him to derive any
income from  his invention, and he acquired
neither fame nor wealth by an improvement
which has been of immense advantage to




CAP SPINNER.                    83
manufacturers, both  at home and abroad.*   It
was  not brought  into  use  at  Wfaltham   or
Lowell until two or three years after it was
patented  in England.t
Another American invention is the Danforth
or cap spinner, which was invented in 1828 by
Charles Danforth  of Paterson, New  Jersey, by
whom - it was patented in this country September 2, 1828.  A  patent was afterwards taken,
in the name of John  Hutchinson  of Liverpool,
in- 1830, when it went into extensive use, in
England  and other European  States, for spinning  the weft or filling, particularly before the
late improvements in the self-acting mule.
George Danforth, of Massachusetts, was the
inventor of the tube frame, otherwise known
as the Taunton  speeder, from  its having been
first built and brought into use in that place.
This machine has likewise been used to a considerable extent in England, being a much less
* This differential or equation box, thus applied to cotton machinery, is probably the same said to have been first invented in
France by Pecqueux in 1813, and constructed by Perrelet in
1823, to regulate the movements of an orrery. - See "Bulletin
de la Societe' pour l'encouragement de l'industrie nationale,"
1823.
t For the particulars in relation to this improvement, I am indebted to a communication from Mr. Zachariah Allen, being an,
extract from a manuscript work he is preparing respecting the
cotton manufacture, and which it is hoped he will not further
delay giving to the public.




84     ECLIPSE AND PLATE SPEEDER.
expensive machine than *what is called the
double speeder or fly frame, and answering
very well for the purpose in the manufacture
of coarse yarn. It was patented in England,
by Mr. Dyer of Manchester, in 1825, having
been in use in this country, and patented
September 2, 1824.
A very cheap machine for making roving,
called the eclipse speeder, and capable of very
rapid operation, was invented by Gilbert Brewster of Pouglhkeepsie, New York, and patented
April 18, 1829. It was used for a time to a
considerable extent on account of the cheapness of the machine and the great quantity
of work produced.  It was introduced into
Manchester in 1835, and built by Sharp,
Roberts &  Co., and known as the eclipse
roving-frame.
The plate speeder was likewise brought into
use in Manchester in  1835, by Mr. Neil
Snodgrass, who imported one from America.
What is called the stop-motion on the drawing frame was designed and brought into use at
Saco, Maine, by the writer, in the year 1832.
Before this invention, the slender fleeces of
cotton from the card, not having received any
twist to give them strength, and with hardly
tenacity enough to support their own weight
in the operations of the drawing-frame, where




DRAWING STOP-MOTION.         85
four strands or more were combined into one,
required constant watching, lest the deficiency
of one strand, by breaking or any other cause,
should render the work imperfect; and, with
the greatest care, it was impossible to prevent
many accidental imperfections. By the introduction of this improvement, not only was
much loss of time prevented in stopping the
machine to correct mistakes, but the speed
might be increased with safety, and with the
assurance that the work was correctly clone.
No patent was taken for it in this country,
the importance of it not having been duly
appreciated by the inventor until it had been
put in use by other parties; but a patent was
afterwards taken by H. Houldsworth in England, from  which the inventor derived some
profit; and no machinery is now built without
adopting this improvement, either in England
or this country.
Mr. Montgomery, in his work on the 1' Cotton
Manufacture of Great Britain and America,"
considers the application of the stop-motion on
the warper, which was first used at Waltham, an
important improvement over the warper used
in Great Britain, which requires the utmost
attention to notice instantly when a thread
breaks; and when this happens, the end of a
broken thread may wind around the beam so




86         DRESSING MACHINES.
far as to require some minutes to find it and
put the machine in motion again; — but this
cannot happen with the American wa.rper,
which stops instantly when a single thread
breaks. This application of the drop-wire to
stop them nachine is said to have been suggested
by Jacob Perkins, well known for many ingenious inventions.
Of the dressing machine invented at Waltham, Mr. Montgomery says: It is much more
sihrple, mnore easily attended and kept in order,
besides requiring less power and oil, than any
he has seen, either in England or Scotland,
and can be made for about half the cost of
those used in Manchester and Glasgow. He
says that those which, instead of the measuring roller, are mounted with steam-drying cylinders, invented  and  patented  by Samuel
Batchelder in  1835, produce the greatest
quantity of work.
A  spinning-frame called the ring-spinner
was invented by John Sharp, of Providence,
about 1831, and, with some later improvements, has come into extensive use in this
country, and is supposed by many to produce
yarn cheaper than any other machine, but its
use in England to any great extent has probably been prevented by the great improvements in the self-acting mule.




SELF-ACTING TEMPLES.           87
For a long time after the power loom went
into operation in Great Britain, the use of the
old hanid-temples was continued for keeping
the cloth extended to the width of the warp
in the reed; and the changing of these temples,
as the weaving proceeded, required the watchful care of the weaver, and was often neglected.
The use of the self-acting temples, invented
by Ira Draper, of Weston, Mass., and patented
January 7, 1816, was introduced at Waltham
about 1825, and, it is believed, long before anything of the kind was used in England.
A  correspondent says he never saw a selfacting temple in use in Scotland, his last visit
there having been in 1855.  In 1850 one was
pointed out to him in England as a novelty,
so that it must have been many years after
the general use of this important invention
in this country before it was adopted in Great
Britain.  Mr. Montgomery says, of the weaving by power in America, the self-acting temples, besides saving a great deal of labor on the
part of the attendant, make a very superior and
uniform  selvedge, and expresses his surprise
that they have not been more generally adopted
in Great Britain.*
*  What renders this still more surprising is, that, as early as
1805, in an English patent to Thomas Johnson and James Kay,




88             DYNAMOMETER.
Many other American improvements of mninor importance might be enumerated.
The use of leather belts instead of iron gearing for transmitting motion to the main shafting
of a mill, was introduced by Mr. Paul Moody, at
Lowell, in 1828. Though not to be called an
invention, this proved to be a very important
iimprovement, and was entirely original in its
application to the transmission of fifty or an
hundred horse-power by a single belt, and has
been very generally adopted in the mills in
New England.
Of similar character was a Dynamometer, not
specifically applied to the cotton manufacture,
Dut affording better means of ascertaining the
power for driving machinery, either by water
or steam  than any instrument which had been
used for the purpose.  This was designed and
built at Saco by the writer, and exhibited at
the Fair of the Mechanics' Institute in Boston
in 1839, when a medal was awarded for the invention.
It was made known in Europe by a description in a work of J. Montgomery on the Cotton
Manufacture, published at Glasgow in 1840; and
in a German periodical* is a long article upon
among other improvements in the loom is included a revolving
temple.
* Dingler's Polytechnic Journal, Vol. 84, p. 7.




ENGLISH MANUFACTURERS.          89
the various dynamometers in use, in which this
is included as taken from the "1 Proceedings of
the Society for the Promotion of Industry in
Prussia," and is distinguished in the engraving
as G Batclhelder's dynamometer," and described
as simple and preferable to any known apparatus for ascertaining the power actually used in
driving machinery.
In regard to manufacturing skill, so far as
relates to  carding and  spinning, in which
they have had in Great Britain the experience
of one generation before we began, they must
be farther advanced than we are, particularly
as they serve a regular apprenticeship to the
business, and  follow  the same  employment
through life; while with us, so far as regards
the female operatives, and to a certain extent
as to others, it is only an employment for a
few years, until an establishment or the cares
of a family require their attention; and boys
or men seldom follow the business long enough
to acquire any skill, before they return to some
agricultural employment; so that the greater
part of those at work in our mills are only a
succession of learners, who leave the business
as soon as they begin to acquire some skill and
experience; and therefore, in relation to carding and spinning, the English manufacturers
are far in advance of us. In regard to weav



90           COST OF WEAVING.
ing, the power-loom having been in use here
nearly as long as in Great Britain, their imanufacturers have not so much the advantage of
us, as a large proportion of our weavers have
had some experience in hand-loom weaving before >cornmencing in the factory.  But there is
a difference in our management in regard to
weaving, which has an effect. With us a weaver generally attends four looms, sometimes
more, and the looms operate at such a moderate
speed, and are so organized with self-acting temples and otherwise, as to enable the weaver to
do this with ease. In England there is a prejudice, and perhaps a stronger influence, against
attending more than two looms, and it is attempted to make up for this by extraordinary
speed.
Four looms, at a speed of 120, would weave
480 threads per minute; two looms, at an
increased speed of fifty per cent., would weave
only 360 threads, so that a weaver would produce only three quarters as much cloth. In
an establishment in England of 630 looms, of
which I have had an opportunity to examine
all the particulars, and compare them  with a
mill here, weaving a similar article, I find no
weaver, out of the whole number of 346, attending more than two looms, and, comparing
the price paid for weaving, I find the cost to




WATER AND STEAM POWER.          91
be at least fifteen per cent. more than in this
country; and the wages even at this rate were
such as induced the weavers to strike for additional pay.
Tile advantage of manufacturing in England,
on account of wages, is much less than we have
generally supposed.. The business is, no doubt,
conducted there more economically in many
particulars than with us. The cost of machinery is less, and the interest on capital less, and
fine articles, or such as require experience and
skill, can undoubtedly be produced cheaper
there than here; but it is questionable Mwhether
heavy goods, such as drilling and sheeting,
which make up a very large proportion of the
consumption of this country, can be produced
cheaper than in the United States.
One of the countervailing advantages in this
country, compared with the expense of manufacturing in Great Britain, is the abundance
and cheapness of water-power.  There Was,
some time ago, an attempt, by interested parties, to prove that steam-power was cheaper
than water-power.  Facts afford a practical
refutation of this theory. In England, where
coal and steam-power is much cheaper than
in most of the manufacturing districts of this
country, there are many instances where waterwheels, and all the necessary arrangements




92          WATER AND STEAM POWER.
for the use of water-power, are provided at
great expense, where water-power can  be used
used for only half the year.*
In  this  country, at  Manayunk, where  the
canal for the supply of coal to the city of Philadelphia passes by the  walls of the  mlills, and
where  steam-power  can  be  produced  at less
cost than  in  any other manufacturing  section
of the  country, the mills are  driven  by waterpower at an annual rent equal to sixty dollars
per horse-power, or about four times the cost of
water-power at Lowell or  Lawrence, on  the
Merrimack River, where  the  rent and interest
at six per cent., payable on the cost of waterpower and  land for a mill, will average a fraction over fifteen dollars per horse-power per
annulI  l.
Mr. Montgomery, in his comparison of cc Cotton  Manufacture  in  Great  Britain  and  the
United  States,"   estimates  the  cost of steam* Mr. Zachariah Allen says: "'Notwithstanding the abundance of coal in England, and the very general use of the steamengine, water-power is highly valued in all the manufacturing
districts, and mills are erected on streanls, which in many instances are sufficient to turn the water-wheels, and operate the
machinery (luring only a part of the year."  And in his visit
to Stanley Mills, he mentions " five large cast-iron water-wheels,"
and says, " My surprise was greatly excited on being informed,
that, with all these water-wheels, a deficiency of water rendered
it necessary to keep a steam-engine in operation three or four
months of the year."




STEAM-ENGINES.            93
power in Massachusetts at about ninety dollars
a year per horse-power, which he says is about
double the cost of the same power in Glasgow.
There is much uncertainty in all estimates of
the cost of steam-power, arising in part from
the want of accuracy in the admeasurement
of the power of steam-engines, and an overestimate of their power, as well as from other
causes.
The cost of' steam-power has been much
reduced by improvements in the steam-engine
within a few years, both here and in Great
Britain; but if we reduce the above estimates
by one half, it would leave the cost of steampower at $22.50 in Scotland, which would be
fifty per cent. above the cost of water-power
on the Merrimack.
If we take the improvements in the Corliss
engine, which is said to have reduced the average consumption of coal to two and a half
pounds to the horse-power per hour, the cost
of fuel only, with coal at $6 per ton, would be
$27.90 per annum, or nearly double the cost
of water-power on the Merrimack,-besides the
wages of engineer and fireman, and also subject
to fluctuations in the price of coal according to
the market, which at present would be fifty
per cent. above the estimate.
This estimate of water-power, at $15 per




94       SPINDLES IN OPERATION.
horse-power per annum, also includes the cost
of land suitable for mill-sites at Lowell and
Lawrence, the two principal manufacturing
cities in the country; but such is the superabundance of water-power in New England, and other parts of the country, that
it could be obtained, in situations favorable
for manufacturing,  for half the cost above
stated.
According to present appearances, the history
of the ilrocluction of the cotton manufacture
may almost be considered a history compleleled.
There are at this time probably not much more
than one third the number of spindles in operation that there were in 1860.
In the Report of the Boston Board of Trade,
for the year 1863, Mr. Edward Atkinson states
that he made a list of the principal mills in the
New England States and New York, to ascertain how many of the spindles were stopped
in June, 1862, and found the number to be
2,327,000; and again, November 1st, made a
similar estimate, and found the number to be
2,169,650. According to the census of 1860,
the number of spindles in those States was
4,288,113, so that in June and November, 1862,
there were only about one half of the spindles
in operation, and since that time the number
has been considerably reduced; and Mr. Atkin



SUPPLY OP COTTON.            95
son estimates that the total number in operation, December 31st, was about 1,700,000,
which would be about two fifths of the number
in those States.
We have no means of estimating, with any
accuracy, the diminished operations in Great
Britain, but, from the complaints of distress for
want of employment, there is reason to suppose
the interruption of the business there, has not
been less than in this country. A confirmation
of this opinion may be found in the Report of
the  "Cotton Supply Association," of April 1,
1863, according to which the total importation
of cotton into Great Britain in 1862 was only
4,678,180 cwts., while the total importation for
the year 1859-60, before any interruption to
the business, was, according to Mann's "Cotton
Trade of Great Britain," 10,946,331 cwts.; so
that the supply for 1862 was but little more
than four tenths of the former importation. Of
this reduced supply, instead of the usual proportion of 85 per cent. of American cotton, the
proportion is reduced to 4{ per cent. of American, including all that has been received from
the West India islands and other places concerned in running cotton from the blockaded
ports.
While the supply from America has been
thus diminished, an increase has taken place
from other countries as follows:



96           PRODUCTION OF COTTON.
1861.     1862.    Increase.
cLts.     cwts.       cwts.
Greece,...           415      1,865       1,450
Turkish dominions,.         633     41,212      40,579
Egypt,                     365,108    526,897    16'1,789
Western coast of' Afiica,    1,389      3,380       1,991
Mauritius,...          7,288     1 7,688    10,400
Madras,...        175,682    335,432    159,750
Bengal,...           462     92,292      91,830
New Grenada,.              1,383     10,342      8,959
Brazil,...       154,378    208,384      54,006
China,...                    14,695      14,695
706,733    1,252,187   --
Total increase,                            545,449
The  stimulus  of high  prices  has probably
occasioned  a still further increase  of production in those countries for the present year;
and  this; together with  the  cultivation  of cotton  in  other climates. favorable  to its production, with  the  advantage  of the  employment
of free  labor, will probably  have  the  effect,
within  a few  years, to  supply  the world  with
cotton of an improved quality, without dependence upon slavery, or any monopoly of the
Southern States.
As to the production of cotton in this country for the year or two past, we have no means
of forming an estimate, except by conjecture.
However, when  we  consider  the  diminished
number of slaves employed  in the  South, and
the interruption to the cultivation of cotton
from other causes, and the increased proportion




PRICE OF COTTON.                97:
of labor necessarily diverted to the production
of grain and provisions, we may be satisfied
that the power of King Cotton has suffered as
much in the field as, in the factory.
The events of the last two years have produced such an entire change in the cultivation
of cotton, and its manufacture, both in this
country and abroad, that it is difficult to form
any opinion as to the future, and yet it would
be intensely interesting to be able to look forward a few  years in  anticipation  of coming
events. Much will depend upon the supply
and price of cotton. The cost to New England
manufacturers for each month from  January
1861 to September 1863, taking the average of
the  market from  the  highest to  the  lowest
price of the month, has been as follows: —
1861.    1862.     1863.
January.          123       34l       73
February..        12~       231       89
March..       12-E   26-          72
April...       13        28:       64
May..            13        281       61
June...       15       -301       521
July..       154       41        63,August...       17       481-      661
September..       20        541       73
October..       23        58
November..       231-      631
December..       311       68
The proprietors of those mills, which have
been in operation for the year past, have found
7




98          SUPPLY OF COTTON.
their purchases of middling cotton to average rather above than below sixty cents per
pound, which is about five times the price for
the few years preceding. At this rate the
quantity of goods that could be manufactured
and sold at a moderate profit, has kept in operation about one third of the spindles in the.
Northern States.
It is evident that the wants of the community will continue to require a considerable
supply of cotton manufactures, notwithstanding
the high price of the raw material, and if there
should be such an increase in the supply as to
produce a decline in price, the demand for consumption would increase, but such an increase
in the supply must be very slow and uncertain.
The imports of cotton into Great Britain in
1862, above the quantity imported in 1861
from all those countries from which there had
been any increase, was about seventy-seven per
cent. upon the quantity imported from the
same countries in the former year, or nearly
five per cent. on the whole imports, - and
though the stimulus of high prices may produce a still further increase from many foreign sources, the supply from such sources must
be quite limited, when we consider that only
one sixth part of the cotton manufactured in
England has been derived from all other coun



SUPPLY OF GOODS.            99
tries than the United States, - and where the
increase depends upon new planting, it will
require a long time to make it available; so
that the principal reliance must be' on resuming the cultivation in this country under more
favorable circumstances than the present.
With reference to the operations of our cotton mills, we shall undoubtedly import less and
manufacture more of our textile fabrics than
we have been accustomed to do, and whenever
business shall resume its ordinary course, it will
require a large quantity of goods, not only to
supply the consumption, but to fill up the
deficient stock in all the channels of trade,goods may therefore be expected to maintain
their price according to the cost of the raw
material.
But all these calculations as to results can
only be considered as probabilities, subject to be
interfered with in the present unsettled state
of affairs, by so many contingencies from political as well as other causes, that the changes
and chances for a few years to come may be as
strange and unexpected as have been those of
the few years past.




100            COTTON MANUFACTURES.
SOME PARTICULARS IN RELATION TO COTTON AND
COTTON MANUFACTURES,
CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED.
The earliest patent granted in Great Britain for any
important improvement in manufacturing, was that to John
Kay, for the invention of the Fly-shuttle, May 26,.....  1733
The first machinery for spinning, of which we have any
satisfactory account, was that invented by John Wyatt, soon
after 1730, and which was patented in the name of Lewis
Paul, June 24,.....................................   1738
A  patent for carding machinery, in which is described
the cylinder card, as first used by hand, was granted to
Lewis Paul, August 30,.............................  1748
A second patent for spinning machinery was granted to
Lewis Paul, June 29,...............................   1758
The invention of the drop-box by Robert Kay, by means
of which filling of different colors could be used with the
fly-shuttle,.......................................    1760
According to Guest, the spinning-jenny was invented by
Thomas Highs,....................................   1764
The invention is also claimed by James Hargraves, who
took a patent for it, June 12,........................  1770
Arkwright's first patent for spinning machinery, July 3,  1769
Act of Parliament to prohibit the exportation of machinery,..........................................  1 774
Second patent to Arkwright, including Carding, Drawing, and Spinning, was granted December 16,..........   1775
Patent to Robert Peele, for carding, roving, and spinning, February 18,..................................  1779
Mlule-spinning  invented  by  Samuel Crompton  (not
patented).........................................   1779
James Watt took his first patents for improvements in
steam-engine, March 12,............................  1782
Subsequent patents in 1784 and 1785.




COTTON MANUFACTURES.                         10
Power-loom invented by Edmund Cartwright, first patent, April 4,......................................   1 785
Subsequent patents 1786, 1787, 1788.
Arkwright's patents declared void,..................   1785
Cylinder printing was patented by Thomas Bell, July
1 7, 1783, and introduced in Lancashire................  1785
Bleaching by oxymuriatic acid was discovered in France
by Berthollet,......................................  1785
And introduced at Manchester practically,*..........  1788
Legislature of Massachusetts made a grant to Robert
and Alexander Barr, to aid them  in building machinery
for spinning cotton,.................................   1786
First machinery for spinning cotton put in operation in
France...........................................    1787
Grant to Thomas Somers by the Legislature of Massachusetts, to aid him in completing machines for spinning,   1787
First cotton factory built in the United States at Beverly, Massachusetts,................................  1787
Some spinning-jennies were put in-operation in Philadelphia and Providence,.............................   1788
Commencement of the cultivation of Sea Island cotton
in Georgia, from Pernambuco seed,.............  1789
Samuel Slater came to this country, and was employed
at New York, where he said they. had in operation one
carding engine and two spinning-jennies, at the close of
the year..........................................  1789
Slater came to Providence, Rhode Island, and began
building a cotton factory,....~........................  1790
In which they commenced spinning early in..........  1791
Cotton gin in\-ented by Eli Whitney in 1793, and patented March 14,.................................  1794
Cotton mill built by Slater and others at Pawtucket,
Massachusetts,.....................................  1798
First cotton mill and machinery in Switzerland,.......   1798
First spinning machinery in Saxony,................   1799
Water-mill at Beverly, Massachusetts, with Arkwright
machinery,........................................   1802
* See Note C.
7 *




102           COTTON MANUFACTURES.
* First cotton mill in New Hampshire commenced at
New Ipswich in 1803, and went into operation.-.     1804
Second mill at Pawtucket, Massachusetts,............  1805
Mill at Pomfret, Connecticut,.....................   1806
After the patents for a power-loom to Edmund Cartwright, several other patents were taken by other parties,
some of which went into partial operation, but none with
any success, until the invention of the dressing-frame by
Radcliff and Ross, with the assistance of Thomas Johnson.
Guest gives the date of this invention 1803; Baines in
1804. One of the patents to Thomas Johnson was issued
February 28, 1803, and another June 2, 1804; and a mill
for weaving was built at Manchester in 1806, which may
be considered the date of the successful commencement of
power-loom weaving,............................  1806
Mill built at Smithfield, Rhode Island, by John Slater,  1807
Mill built at Watertown, Massachusetts,..............   1807
Second cotton mill in New Hampshire at New Ipswich,   1808
Norfolk cotton factory at Dedham, incorporated,......   1808
First cotton mill in Maine, at Brunswick,............  1809
Mill at Dorchester, Massachusetts, incorporated,. * * - * -  1811
Incorporation of Boston Manufacturing Company, known
as ITValtham Company,...............................    1813
Power-looms in operation at Waltham, being the first in
the United States,..................................  1814
William Gilmore emigrated to this country,........  1815
And put the crank-loom in operation in Rhode Island,..  1817
First cotton factory built,t Lowell,.................  1822
Self-acting mule patented by Richard Roberts, March 29, 1825`First cotton mill at Lawrence, Massachusetts,.........  1849
There is so much uncertainty and inaccuracy as to the dates
of many improvements and inventions in cotton machinery in the
accounts given by Guest, Kennedy, Baines, and others, who seem
to have copied one another's errors, instead of correcting them,
that I have referred for the dates of all patented improvements to
the collection of " Specifications of Inventions from 1Viarch 2,1617,
to October 1, 1852," in Great Britain, contained in one hundred
and sixty volumes of text, and three hundred and ten volumes of
plates, a copy of which may be found in the Boston Library.
* See Note D.




NO TE S.
NOTE A.
This early patent for spinning by machinery deserves particular attention for various reasons. In the first place, for the accuracy with which it describes the process of roller spinning; and
secondly, because it did not go into successful operation for thirty
years, when Arkwright took his first patent; and- thirdly, because
the existence of this patent was entirely unknown at the time of
the trials on the validity of Arkwright's patents, in 1781 and 1785,
when the attempt was made to show that Arkwright was not the
original inventor; and even afterwards, in 1828, at the time of'
the controversy between Guest and the " Edinburgh Review," in
which the experiments of Thomas Highs, about the year 1764,
were attempted to be set up as the original of the Arkwright machinery.
This invention was made soon after 1730, by John Wyatt, and
was patented in the name of Lewis Paul, June 24, 1738. The process, in substance, is thus described in the specification.  The
wool or cotton being prepared, one end of the roping is put between a pair of' rollers, which being turned round, by their motion
draw in the cotton to be spun, and a succession of other rollers,
moving proportionally faster than the first, draw the roving into
any degree of fineness which may be required.
A second process is then described that is quite unintelligible
without drawings. - The specification then proceeds to describe a
third process as follows: " In some other cases only the first pair
of rollers is used, and then the bobbins on which the yarn is spun,
are so contrived as to draw faster than the rollers give, and in
such proportion as the first sliver is proposed to be diminished."
Though the first process described in Paul's patent coincides




104                     iNOTES.
exactly with Arlkwright's roller spinning, it does not appear to
have been put in operation even by the inventor. The third
process only was used, as appears by the letter of Charles Wyatt,
who says, - " the wool had been carded in the common way, and
was passed between two cylinders, friom whence the bobbins drew
it by means of the twist," -and also by the patent taken for an
improvement twenty years after the first, June 29, 1758, which,
after describing the preparation of the rove, says, -" which being put between a pair of rollers, is by their turning round, delivered to the nose of a spindle, in such proportion to the thread
made as is proper for the particular occasion."  The spindle is so
contrived as to (Iraw faster than the rollers give, in proportion to
the length of yarn, into which the matter to be spun is proposed
to be drawn.
From this it plainly appears that the extension of the roving to
produce the yarn did not take place by the different motion of
successive pairs of rollers, but by the stretch between the rollers
and the spindle, somewhat similar to the drawing of the roving
while receiving the twist, as on the spinning jenny or the one
thread wheel.
There are no drawings in existence to explain the processes in
this first patent, but the specification and engravings (published
in Baines' History of the Cctton Manufacture, p. 139) of the
second patent to Paul in 1758, for improvements in the machinery
then in use, show plainly that they relate only to the third process
of the first patent, and would be very imperfect compared with
the process of roller spinning, if that had then been brought into
use.
Mr. Kennedy (Baines, p. 125,) from an examination of specimens of yarn furnished by Mr. Wyatt's son, pronounced " that
it could not be said by competent judges that it was spun by a
similar machine to that of Arkwright."
It may seem very strange that so many years elapsed after the
invention by Wyatt of the true process of roller spinning, before
it was put in operation by Arkwright in 1769, notwithstanding
the intervening attempt to construct machinery for the purpose
by Highs, and perhaps by others; for the means of supplying yarn
for the weavers, seems to have been an object which engaged
attention very extensively. The reason, however, that none of




NOTES.                        105
these plans for spinning went into successful operation probably
was the defect in the preliminary processes.
We see no mention of drawing, or any operation between the
card asd  the spinning. A manufacturer will appreciate the im-.
portance of this operation, and others also, when they are told
that in some of our mills for fine spinning, (that at Portsmouth
for instance,) the drawing and doubling is carried to the extent
that the sliver as it comes from the card is doubled more than two
thousand times, so that each thread as it is spun consists of so
many ends of carding extended and drawn down to the size of
the yarn.
These operations tend to straighten the fibres of the cotton and
lay them parallel, so as to give strength in the operation of spinning, and also to the yarn after it is spun, and it may be doubtful
now, whether the most perfect Arkwright spinning machinery
would operate successfully with roving produced without this preliminary process, or made according to the specification in the
second patent to Paul in 1758, which says, the cotton to be spun
"' must first be carded upon a card made up of a number of parallel cards with intervening spaces between each, and the matter
so carded must be taken off' each card separately.  The several
roves or filliamnents so taken off must be connected into one entire roll, which being put between a pair of rollers," etc.
It was not until the first patent by Arkwright that any patent
was granted for drawing machinery, or that the process of drawing received due attention, and this in all probability was what
insured his success.
Baines, p. 182, says, " The drawing and roving frames depend
on exactly the same principles as the spinning frame, for which
Arkwright took out his patent of 1769; - they were modifications
of that machine, but the new processes, which they were made to
perform were indispensable to the perfecting of the yarn. He
was the first to introduce the drawing process and to apply the
spinning rollers to the purpose of roving.
In the yarn examined by Mr. Kennedy, the difference in the
position of the fibres in that spun on Wyatt's machine from the
parallelism of those in the yarn spun by Arkwright, was probably
what enabled him to pronounce that the former had been spun
by a different process.




106                      NOTES.
NOTE B.
The first patent to Edmund Cartwright for a power-loom was
granted April 14, 1785, and he also took further patents for improvements in 1786-87 and 88, which seem to comprise all the
necessary movements'for weaving by power, including the stopmotion for the shuttle, and self-acting temples. He built a mill
for weaving at Doncaster, which was unsuccessful.
About 1790, Mr. Grimshaw of Manchester, under a license firom
Mr. Cartwright, erected a weaving factory, operated by steam,
which after various difficulties was burnt, and Guest says, " for
many years no further attempts were made in Lancashire to
weave by steam."
Guest says Mr. Austen of Glasgow invented a loom in 1789,
which was further improved in 1798, and a building for two hundred looms was erected by Mr. Monteith in 1800. No patent is
recorded for such a loom to Mr. Austen. Baines says Mr. Monteith built such a mill in 1801 for two hundred looms, invented by
Robert Miller, whose patent was granted June 28, 1796.
In 1803, April 14, a patent was taken by John Todd for a
loom in which the lay was operated by a crank, and with a shuttle
stop-motion.
In 1803, April 20, a patent was granted to William Horrocks,
and another, May 14, 1805, but both relate to the motion of the
shuttle, and neither comprise the essential requisites for a powerloom. Baines says Horrock's loom is the one that has now come
into general use. This must of course refer to his loom, as improved, by the patent granted to him July 31, 1813,in which the
lay is driven by a crank.
In 1805, August 9, a patent was granted to Thomas Johnson
and John Kay, for a loom with revolving temples, and such a
let-off motion as is still in use; and in 1806, August 1, to Peter
Marsland, for a loom which operated with a crank.
Several of these looms seem to have been complete in all that
was necessary for power-loom weaving; but though some of them
actually went into operation, none of them were capable of superseding the old process of weaving by hand. This was probably
not so much, from any defect in the machinery, as for want of the




NOTES.                       107
suitable preparation of the web, and it was not until the invention
of the dressing-frame by Thomas Johnson, one of whose patents
bears date February 28, 1803,'and the other June 2, 1804, that
power-loom  weaving could be considered as successfully established. In this case, as in relation to the spinning machinery, it
was a long time after the true principles were discovered, and the
machinery invented, before the practical skill was acquired to put
it in operation.
Guest says a factory for steam-looms was built at Manchester in
1806, and soon afterwards two others at Stockport, and about
1809 a fourth was completed at West Houghton.
It does not appear which among the foregoing patent looms was
first put in use, but according to Baines, we may conclude that
the loom of Horrocks, after his improvements in 1813 was adopted, so that it would appear that power-looms were not completed
and in successful operation for any considerable time before their
introduction at Waltham in 1814, and it should be recollected that
as late as 1813, mobs were breaking the power-looms in the
neighborhood of Manchester, and among others, those above mentioned at West Houghton.
NOTE C.
According to Baines, it occurred to Berthollet that cloth might
be bleached by chlorine, formerly termed oxymuriatic acid, and in
1785, having tested it by experiment, he made known the discovery. James Watt learned this from Berthollet at Paris, and
on his return to England, late in 1786, he introduced the practice
at the bleach-field of his father-in-law, Macgregor, near Glasgow.
After this, without any knowledge of Watt's experiments, but
acting upon the suggestion of Berthollet's papers, Thomas Henry
of Manchester, who was delivering lectures on dyeing, printing,
and bleaching, pursued his experiments on the subject and made
known the result to the Manchester bleachers, in 1788, by a public
exhibition of the bleaching of half a yard of calico.




108                      NOTES,
NOTE D.
In a periodical published at Manchester a few years ago, a
claim was set up that the first cotton mill in  New Hampshire was
built at Amoskeag Falls in 1804. This claim was supported by
the testimony of Jonas Harvey, the owner of a saw-mill, who says
he leased the privilege to Benjamin Prichard in the fall of 1804,
when the cotton mill was built. This seemed to make a very
strong case. But it was within my knowledge that the first acquaintance of Prichard with the cotton business was by means of
his employment in the first factory which went into operation in
New Ipswich in 1804, and also that he was employed in building
the second factory in New Ipswich, which was commenced in
1807, and of' course there must have been a mistake in the date
when he built the mill at Manchester.  Accordingly, I find on
referring to the records of New Ipswich, that he did not leave
that place until 1807, and continued to pay a poll tax there until
that date. Besides, I was a petitioner to the legislature of New
Hampshire in 1808, for exemption from taxes for the second mill
in New Ipswich, and during the progress of the act for that purpose through both branches of the legislature there was no suggestion of there being any other cotton mill in the State at that
time, except the two at New Ipswich. The large manufacturing
establishments at Amoskeag Falls in Manchester were commenced in 1831.