| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Spinning

Page history last edited by Ellen Ford 6 years ago

 

SPINNING

 

OED Definition:

Spin, v. –

  1. To draw out and twist the fibres of some suitable material, such as wool or flax, so as to form a continuous thread; to be engaged in or to follow this occupation.
  2. To draw out (wool, flax, man-made fibre, or other material) and convert into threads either by the hand or by machinery.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Image of a female spinner in Edward Baines' History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain. (p. 118)

 


 

A Brief Introduction

 

Despite its often decentralized nature, industrial spinning dominated the ever-advancing field of eighteenth-century manufacturing. Serving as both a source of entertainment and industry, the spinning wheel occupied a fundamental position within the working-class household, enabling the seamless conflation of domestic and commercial activity. Self-provisioning was – of course – the initial purpose of the spinning enterprise, yet the gradual intensification of mercantilist trade eventually forced the expansion of this small-scale system. While this process was heavily contested, spawning what can perhaps be described as early-luddite resistance, patrons of the domestic system were unable to dispute the efficiency of these newly implemented procedures. Pre-industrial textile production was indeed problematic in many ways. Not only was it extremely constrained by the duration of the spinning process, but also by its low-productivity: two factors which would eventually make it the prime target of the industrial project. Literature of this period thus offers the reader a panorama of eighteenth-century industrial development, capturing the decline of the cottage industry as it gave way to the monopolising force of factory-based manufacturing. Spinning, as a crucial part of Britain’s growing economy, is interwoven throughout the eighteenth-century narrative, and – in this sense – embodies the concerns of a public disoriented by the maelstrom of the Industrial Revolution.

 

Indivisible from its origins in "remote antiquity" (Gray 5), the spinning wheel - quite understandably - cannot be claimed as an eighteenth-century invention. What can be suggested, however, is that within this period of industrial innovation this 'machine' began to adopt a social significance which thrust it beyond its purely mechanical function. During this century, the spinning wheel was placed at the forefront of Britain’s technological revolution and, as such, embodied the prospect of industrial change; a paradoxical notion considering its centrality would ultimately lead to its obsolescence. Yet contemporary texts very rarely focus on the benefits of this new system. Eighteenth-century writers, instead, choose to highlight the distressing impacts of industrial spinning and its perilous replication in other sectors of manufacturing. As a home-run practice, spinning is – at first – latently embedded within the realist 'novels' that began to gain favour during the epoch. In later texts, specifically those published during the Industrial Revolution, spinning takes centre stage as it becomes the subject of profound political critique. No longer a source of livelihood, this industrialized practice – it is suggested – produces unemployment, leads to population displacement and increases economic parity between the rich and the poor.

 


 

Cultural Associations: Home-spinning and the Working Woman

 

As an alternative to agricultural labour, hand-spinning provided a reliable source of income within provincial, and often isolated, areas. In general, it was an occupation carried out almost exclusively by women, not only as a means of subsistence, but as a way to equip the household. Depending on its quality and admixture of cotton, most homespun material would be sold on through the aptly named 'putting-out system' which allowed rural producers to earn a consistent and substantial living.

 

It is of note, however, that this trading system was primarily adopted by 'wealthy' families who, though living in these rustic conditions, could afford to make and sell surplus cloth. The stressed "poverty" (Richardson 27) of the Andrews household in Samuel Richardson’s Pamela is therefore reinforced by an almost structural division of labour which relies on the "poor Mother’s spinning" (37) as a key source of livelihood. Oddly the act of spinning was not, in itself, any indication of rurality or low social status; in fact, many upper-class women viewed spinning as a perfectly acceptable diversion (see Fig. 2). Instead, it was the output of this practice - and its prospective usage - which served to gauge wealth. Since it seems that the material produced by the Andrews family is reserved for domestic consumption, it can safely be assumed that, though Pamela is at times melodramatic, her description of familial poverty is not exaggerated. 

 

 

 

Figure 2: George Romney and Thomas Cheesman. Portrait of Emma, Lady Hamilton. 1780-1805. 

 

 

Indeed, constant references to Pamela's "homespun Cloths" (45) serve only to bolster the connection between penury and humility. By swapping her posh garb for a handmade "Gown and Petticoat" (55), Richardson's protagonist makes an extreme statement about clothing and its association with class identity. In doing this, however, she fails to acknowledge the quaint, and rather romantic, properties of her own country apparel. While Pamela views these homespun garments as a manifestation of modesty and virtue, Mr. B. instead considers them a seductive disguise. Only after reading her letters does he seem to understand the moral significance of her raiment:

pray be only dress'd as you are ... because they will perceive you owe nothing to Dress and make much better Figure with your own native Stock of Loveliness, than the greatest Ladies do in the most splendid Attire. (272)

 

Though a little presumptive, Mr. B's misreading of Pamela's costume is not entirely misguided. Spinning and its material output were often imbued with an odd type of sensuality throughout the long eighteenth century. Lisa Fiander, for instance, comments on the sexual connotations implicit in Sleeping Beauty's 'accident' with the spindle (92). The princess's loss of blood, she notes, is both symbolic of physical maturation and sexual awakening; two processes which, according to the author, are seemingly inevitable (92).

 

Of course, one may assume that mechanization put an end to this rather lewd conception of femininity. Yet the ‘erotic spinner’ was an archetype which, despite the changes that occurred during the Industrial Revolution, was perpetuated long into the nineteenth century. The Brothers Grimm, for example, adapted Perrault’s Sleeping Beauty, adding it to their own collection titled Children’s and Household Tales (1812). Accompanied by three other spinning-related stories (Rumpelstiltskin, The Three Spinners, and The Lazy Spinner), the French classic came to immortalize traditional ideals of womanhood, fetishizing the working-class maiden whilst - at the same time - condemning her to a life of eternal domesticity.

 

For many, however, "the arduous burden of [domestic] spinning" (Teverson 20) was not an entirely detestable affliction. In fact, an Old Bailey case from 1744 even goes as far as to reinforce the indispensability of such a profession. On trail for theft, the offender – Sarah English – is said to have pawned a number of mundane items (3 aprons, 2 handkerchiefs and cloak) with the simple “view of getting a spinning-wheel” (Old Bailey 4 April 1744). Since it would have been impossible for a household to sustain itself on material possession alone, the motive behind this transaction is arguably quite logical. By selling the stolen wares and investing in this piece of machinery, the presumed intention would have been to set up a cottage industry of one’s own, thus allowing the 'larcenist' to earn a sustainable income and provide for her "young child" (Old Bailey 4 April 1744).

 


 

Minding, Mule-spinning and Mechanization

 

Spinning was, rather surprisingly, the "first task to be mechanized and brought into the factory" (Steinbach 26-27). Until the mid-eighteenth century, technological changes within this field had been small and largely ineffective. An ongoing struggle to meet textile demand, however, redirected public interest towards yarn manufacturing and its associated methods of production. The simple spinning wheel no longer sufficed for “the growing wants of the new markets” (Marx 36), and so these antiquated ‘machines’ found themselves quickly replaced by sleeker, more industrial modes of manufacture.

 

 

The Common One-handed Spinning Wheel: 

 

Though “turning from morning till night in thousands of cottages” (Baines 117) across the country, the one-thread wheel (Fig. 4) nonetheless failed to produce an adequate supply of high-quality yarn. Hand spinners often struggled to keep pace with their counterparts in the weaving industry and, since these processes were generally carried out under the same roof, intrafamilial tensions inevitably began to rise. If “the weaver’s own family could not supply him with a sufficient quantity of weft” (Baines 115), he was forced to collect it from neighbouring labourers and thus bear the additional costs.

 

Richard Guest, in A Compendious History of the Cotton-manufacture (1823), explains that

[i]t was no uncommon thing for a weaver to walk three or four miles in a morning, and call on five or six spinners, before he could collect weft to serve him for the remainder of the day; and when he wished to weave a piece in a shorter time than usual, a new ribbon, or gown, was necessary to quicken the exertions of the spinner. (12).

This was not only an expensive business, but an extraordinary waste of time. General productivity, of course, suffered and the weaver - bound by his dependence on this 'borrowed' yarn - was seldom able to make a profit. Earning, on average, 36 shillings per twelve pounds of eight-penny weft, over half of this was owed to the spinner in return for their goods and labour (10). 

 

James Ogden accordingly claims that it was not until the invention of the Spinning Jenny that hand loom weavers were "delivered ... out of bondage" (87) and rescued from their, rather questionable, "oppression" (87). Described as contemptuous and "insolent" (88), Ogden's characterization of the eighteenth-century spinner is certainly not a flattering one. Still, he does concede that such behaviour was perhaps necessary in order to keep up with the aggregate "demands of trade" (87).

 

Figure 3: Plan, profile and section of the common spinning wheel in Andrew Gray's A Treatise on Spinning Machinery: Illustrated with Plans of Different Machines Made Use of in That Art (p. 34)

 

 

William Hogarth’s The Fellow ‘Prentices at their Looms (Fig. 5) perfectly exemplifies the dissonance between the spinning and weaving industries. The first plate of the Industry and Idleness series depicts two apprentices at their master’s looms; one engaged in work, the other noticeably less occupied. The industrious youth on the right, Francis Goodchild, can be seen with a shuttle in his hand as he diligently fulfils the day’s quota. Thomas Idle, the figure on the left, instead leans against his unused loom in an apparent state of deep sleep. Above him hangs the bawdy ballad of Moll Flanders (a universally acknowledged symbol of immorality), whilst the instructional ‘Prentices’ Guide lies in ruin at his feet. Oblivious to his master’s presence in the doorway, Idle continues to while away the hours in a sedated sopor; the overseer watching on in complete dismay. 

 

 

 

Figure 4: William Hogarth, The Fellow 'Prentices at their Looms. 1747. 

 

 

Despite the clear didacticism of Thomas' eponymic 'idleness', Baines suggests that scenes like these would not have been uncommon in the early eighteenth century (116). A lack of yarn, caused by delays in the spinning process, often prevented weavers from carrying out their work. Moreover, mechanical improvements to the hand loom - throughout the 1730s - further widened the gap between the two trades. John Kay’s creation of the flying shuttle, for example, meant that the weaving process was far more advanced than any other in the manufacturing system. In fact, before the invention of the Jenny or the Mule, Berg points out that “three or four spinners were necessary to keep one weaver in constant employment” (100).

 

 

The Spinning Jenny:

 

Built in the year 1764, and patented in 1770, James Hargreaves' Spinning Jenny (Fig. 6) completely altered the technological trajectory of textile manufacturing. According to industrial apocrypha, the idea was first conceived when the inventor noticed that the spindle of an overturned wheel continued to revolve, despite its unconventional vertical position. Ever the opportunist, Hargreaves adapted this concept and contrived a wooden reeling frame which, ingeniously, allowed a single wheel to turn eight different spindles en masse.

 

Figure 5: Illustration of Hargreaves' Spinning Jenny in Edward Baines' History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (p. 158) 

 

 

A hand loom weaver himself, Hargreaves was enormously conscious of the imbalance between the spinning and weaving sectors. But this, of course, was not just a domestic issue. Such was the desperation of the industrial workforce that in 1761 the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) issued the following advertisement:

For the best invention of a machine that will spin six threads of wool, flax, hemp, or cotton, at one time, and that will require but one person to work and attend it: (cheapness and simplicity in the construction will be considered as part of its merit) for the best, Fifty pounds; for the second best, Twenty-five pounds. (Bailey 195)

Premiums offered a seemingly natural solution to the yarn deficit. However, despite various contributions from the public, not a single machine “answered the purpose intended” (Bailey 195). By 1783 the society had distributed approximately £544. 12s. in inducement prizes, with very little progress to be veritably seen (Baines 154).

 

Shunning the traditional patent system, the RSA was perhaps not the first port of call for eighteenth-century inventors. Intellectual property rights were rarely guaranteed and many tradesmen were understandably unwilling to hand over their designs. Yet for Jonathan Swift, in his chef-d'oeuvre Gulliver's Travels (1726), this idea of self-protection seems to be far outweighed by the promise of public betterment. Notoriously critical of Enlightenment thought - and its openly resolute proponents - Swift fashions Book 3 as a complete satire on the supposed utility of 'new science'. The following passage, a diatribe against the 'original' Royal Societybrazenly exposes the inefficiency and pure fatuity of Britain's independent institutions:

To this End they procured a Royal Patent for erecting an Academy of PROJECTORS in Lagado ... In these Colleges, the Professors contrive new Rules and Methods of Agriculture and Building, and new Instruments and Tools for all Trades and Manufactures, whereby, as they undertake, one Man shall do the Work of Ten; a Palace may be built in a Week, of Materials so durable as to last for ever without repairing ... The only Inconvenience is, that none of these Projects are yet brought to Perfection; and in the mean time, the whole Country lies miserably waste, the Houses in Ruins, and the People without Food or Cloaths. (Swift 164-165)

 

Whether "the art of spinning" (Royal Society of Arts vii) really did take "its rise from the Premiums offered by [the] Society" (vii) is debatable, but - as Swift points out - the speculative endeavours of Britain's engineers very rarely found favour with the public. Many believed that these 'projectors' (and their inventions) were a hindrance to society, draining communal resources and offering little assistance to the poor. However, not all ventures were sponsored or subsidized by societies such as these.

 

In fact, Richard Arkwright's obituary (Fig. 7) - published in the Star and Evening Advertiser - suggests that mechanical engineering was not a lucrative profession until the success of the Water Frame ("News" 19/08/1792). Later developments in spinning technology were evidently well received; Hargreaves' Jenny, on the other hand, barely gained recognition. Selling his machine out of "mere necessity", it seems clear that proto-industrial spinning did not arouse immediate interest.

 

 

Figure 6: Arkwright's obituary in the Star and Evening Advertiser. 19 August 1792. Issue 1328.

 

 

The Spinning Frame/ The Water Frame:

 

The Spinning Frame (Fig. 8), invented in 1768 by Richard Arkwright and John Kay, was perhaps the most pivotal piece of eighteenth-century industrial machinery. Unlike its predecessor, this appliance was capable of producing thread which was suitable for warp; a feat which had previously proved impossible due to the delicacy of Jenny-spun yarn. Adopting Lewis Paul's system of roller-spinning, Arkwright's machine functioned by drawing out fibrous rovings which were then twisted using a small rotating flyer. With each set of rollers moving at different surface speeds, the yarn was slowly attenuated until it was thin enough to be wound onto the spindle. This was a long and laborious process, made worse by the sheer impracticality of the frame's size. Unable to be operated by hand, Kay and Arkwright were forced to look elsewhere for power. And in 1769, after settling on the water wheel, the machine was renamed. 

 

 

 

Figure 7: Hand sketch of Arkwright's Spinning Frame in Edward Baines' History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (p.152)

 

 

Mills were erected in order to "supply the requisite quantity of yarn" (Baines 183), and the 'modern' factory system emerged therefrom. Since "the spinning wheel ... required no larger apartment than that of a cottage" (184), textile manufacturing had hitherto taken place almost entirely within the home. With the invention of the Water Frame, however, the spinning process became increasingly more demanding. Larger machines signified a need for more space, and - rather surprisingly - more hands. 

 

Indeed, Chapman explains that “while the water-frame was a substitute for human skill” (53), it did not reduce the demand for human labour. Technological displacement was arguably not an issue (at this point) because Arkwright's invention did not do away with handwork, it simply “summoned into the industry a lower class of labour” (53). 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Passage from Erasmus Darwin's The Botanic Garden (pp. 60-62) 

 

 

Aided by the topographical knowledge of Jedediah Strutt, Arkwright quickly engrossed the cotton spinning market. Establishing factories in Cromford and Matlock Bath, the Derwent Valley Mills became almost infamous within trading circles. Yet merchants were not the only citizens to show interest. In 1791, Erasmus Darwin published The Botanic Garden; a two-part poem which combined artifice and ecology in an attempt to subvert the traditional conception of Romantic poetry. 

 

As an ode to Derwent, Darwin paints an impressively intricate portrait of the Derbyshire landscape, with references to Arkwright's mills embedded throughout. In Canto II of The Loves of the Plants (Fig. 9), Neptune - the God of the sea - takes over the nymph's spinning duties, possibly hinting at the 'masculinization' of the trade. Oddly, however, the scene itself is completely devoid of human presence. Perhaps this can be said to illustrate the increasingly autonomous nature of industrial machinery, or perhaps it simply reflects the incompetence of the human workforce. In his notes Darwin tellingly admits that:

Since Richard Arkwright's ingenious machine has not only greatly abbreviated and simplified the labour and art of carding and spinning the Cotton-wool, but performs these circumstances better than can be done by hand, it is probable, that the clothing of this small seed will become the principal clothing of mankind. (61)

 

 

The Spinning Mule:

 

The Spinning Mule (Fig. 10), a hybrid of Hargreaves' Jenny and Arkwright's Water Frame, was the first device to provide yarn strong and fine enough for both warp and weft. Invented in 1779 by weaver Samuel Crompton, this machine not only reduced the incidence of thread breakage, but dramatically condensed the length of the spinning process. So effective was the Mule that it could produce "1 lb of 60's [count] yarn" (Catling 37) in only twelve hours, increasing cotton textile output by 800%, and almost quadrupling production levels.

 

This essentially meant that for the very first time, the bottleneck in the textile industry was not the spinner, but instead the weaver. Indeed, it was not until the advent of the Power Loom that the relationship between the two again began to fluctuate.

 

 

 

Figure 9: Illustration of Crompton's Spinning Mule in Edward Baines' History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (p. 206) 

 

 


 

A Gendered Profession: Devaluation and Displacement of Female Labour

 

Long considered a quintessentially female task, spinning was - to a certain extent - responsible for the naturalization of gender roles in the late eighteenth century. Believed to be more dexterous, and often more astute, than their male counterparts, women made up an incredibly high proportion of the industrial workforce, with female participation rates reaching a staggering 90% throughout the Midlands and the North West (Steinbach 26-27).

 

Yet, as modern machinery began to infiltrate the textile industry, sex discrimination unfortunately experienced a sharp rise. Since it was assumed that women lacked the physical strength to operate this new equipment, female spinners were increasingly edged out of employment, often finding themselves relegated to subsidiary, or even preparatory, tasks. In due course, spinning became an almost entirely male discipline and the working woman - deemed unfit for the trade - was forced to content herself with jobs (such as tenting or carding) which required less skill and offered less pay.

 

 

Figure 10: B., A. Observations on the Detriment That It Is Supposed Must Arise to the Family of Every Cottager throughout the Kingdom from the Loss of Woollen Spinning by the Introduction of Machines for That Work(pp. 4-5)

 

 

Indeed, mechanization had rendered it possible for many aspects of industry to be supplanted by cheap, unskilled labour. But for many, this was not just confined to the factory. The gradual development of textile machinery meant that those still in cottage employment also felt the effects of industrialization, which had - in some cases - wiped out whole sectors of production. A short text, published by a semi-anonymous writer in 1794 (Fig. 11), criticizes these machines for depriving women of labour, extending blame to the local "Wool-man" (B. 3) who - lacking interest in the domestic system - appears to have withdrawn his trade.

 

 

 

Figure 11: Defoe, Daniel. The Female Manufacturers Complaint: Being the Humble Petition of Dorothy Distaff, Abigail Spinning-Wheel, Eleanor Reel, &c. Spinsters, to the Lady Rebecca Woollpack. (p. 9)

 

 

Perhaps the most fascinating text to come out of this debate was Daniel Defoe's The Female Manufacturers Complaint (1720), a satirical pamphlet lamenting the substitution of "the good, honest, home-spun Manufactures of England" (11) for the mass-produced, and often foreign, wares favoured by the rich. Penned by three fictional, female spinners - Dorothy Distaff, Abigail Spinning-Wheel and Eleanor Reel - this petition (Fig. 12) gave a certain degree of tangibility to the nation's poor, encouraging all sections of society to feel compassion for the economically downtrodden. 

 

 

Figure 12: Excerpt from Robert Sadler's The Discarded Spinster; Or, A Plea for the Poor on the Impolicy of Spinning Jennies: A Poem. (p. 2)

 

 

Not to be outdone, in 1792 poet Robert Sadler published his own response to the usurpation of female labour: The Discarded Spinster (Fig. 13). Chastising those involved in the mechanization of the spinning industry, Sadler (as he himself attests) writes with the intention of "giv[ing] language" (ii) to the sorrows of the poor, to this end procuring them "some mode of relief" (i). The poem begins by evoking images of an idyllic past, with a "happy mother" (4) sat teaching her children the "merry movements" (4) of the art. Naturally, such a scene begins to fade and the spinner - who finds herself "jennied out of every means to live" (2) - must begin to look for other employment. The verbification of Hargreaves' machine makes the author's intended target clear; the Jenny is the cause of their distress.

 

 

Figure 13: Extract from Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village (p. 14)

 

 

Yet, nowhere is the deprivation of female labour more apparent than in Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village (1770). Reduced to abject poverty, the spinner is forced to leave "her wheel and robes of country brown" (14) - there is now nothing left for her in Auburn. 

 


 

Industrial Resistance: Leading the Luddites

 

Whilst the historiography of Luddism generally focuses on the years between 1811 and 1816, it would be entirely erroneous to suggest that industrial resistance had not reared its head until this point. The advent, and subsequent development, of textile machinery in the latter half of the eighteenth century was, rather indisputably, met with great hostility. 

 

Fearful for their income and their livelihoods, manufacturing communities in both the North and South took to rioting in an attempt to impede mechanical proliferation. Of course, violence was not the most effective method of negotiation, but it certainly did have great effect. Machine-breaking not only forced the hand of rural clothiers, it paralyzed textile production lines - ever so slowly chipping away at the merchant hierarchy.

 

Initially, direct action occurred as a form of collective bargaining. Indeed, many believed that physical protest was the only means to achieve better working conditions or, if extremely lucky, higher wages. Over time, however, crowd angst became so great that employers were often afraid to introduce new machinery. And, if they did, it was only a matter of time before these appliances were destroyed.

 

As early as 1757, Josiah Tucker - the Dean of Gloucester - remarks upon the increasing disdain that workers felt towards 'modern' machinery. Despite the title, his Instructions for Travellers reads more like a treatise on commerce than it does any type of guidebook. Advising readers to glean the economic health of an area solely through the appearance of its landscape, Tucker's text is perhaps not the most reliable (or the most logical). Yet it does offer a wealth of information surrounding contemporary attitudes towards mechanization:

As to Machines in the Woollen, and Stuff Way, nothing very considerable hath been of late attempted; owing in a great Measure to the mistaken Notions of the infatuated Populace, who, not being able to see farther than the first Link of the Chain, consider all such Inventions, as taking the Bread out of their Mouths; and therefore never fail to break out into Riots, and Insurrections, whenever such Things are proposed. (21)

 

 

Figure 14: Extract from the Morning Chronicle. 13 July 1776. Issue 2230.

 

 

In the latter decades of the century, machine-breaking became not only more frequent, but increasingly more violent. The "fatal consequences" of such acts can be observed in contemporary periodicals, which often took pleasure in disclosing the rioters' guileful plans and then reporting the chaos that invariably ensued ("News" 13/07/1776). One particular case (Fig. 15), from July 1776, seems to appear in a number of newspapers throughout the period. Considering its sensational style, and strange tone of excitement, it is not unlikely that many felt encouraged to join the furor. The event did take place, but perhaps not with the expected results. A later article reports that, in the midst of the mayhem, one man was killed and another six were injured.

 

 

 

Figure 15: Extract from the Felix Farley's Bristol Journal. 15 December 1787. Issue 2042.

 

 

Similar protests did arise in response to Arkwright's Water Frame (Fig. 15), but - in general - the Spinning Jenny bore the brunt of the public's wrath. Machine-breaking, in fact, became so persistent that by the end of the century Hargreaves himself was forced relocate to Nottingham; both to protect his invention and to avoid personal injury.

 


 

Spinning Mills and Industrial Health

 

At the turn of the nineteenth century, public concern surrounding the so-called ‘factory system’ had naturally reached its peak. The gruesome reality of industrial employment began to spill out of the mill, eventually catching the attention of medical ethics enthusiasts, like Thomas Percival, who pledged to improve the working conditions of the poor. Until this point, able-bodied indigents had been forced into employment under the 1601 Poor Relief Act. Legislative measures throughout the eighteenth century, however, sought to relax and – to some extent – ‘correct’ occupational laws concerning the working-class.

 

Whilst these seventeenth-century ‘Poor Laws’ could not – in themselves – be blamed for the substandard conditions found within the mills, their contempt for idleness clearly impelled many people to turn to factory work. Records indicate that secondary sector employment grew tremendously throughout the eighteenth century, with North-Western counties showing the greatest degree of occupational change.

 

Unfortunately, and rather unsurprisingly, the sudden saturation of the secondary sector was accompanied by a nationwide health crisis. Not only were diseases such as typhoid, typhus and smallpox rife among factory labourers, those involved in the textile industry were also prone to fatal respiratory disorders. In fact, one affliction – known informally as ‘brown lung’ – became so prevalent that by the end of the eighteenth century over 50% of the workforce displayed symptoms. Bernardino Ramazzini, the father of occupational medicine, first makes reference to this malady in 1705. Yet it was not until 1877 that ‘byssinosis’ gained its official name: 

[t]hose who hatchel the Flax and Hemp to prepare it for being Spun and Wove, afford frequent Instances of the Unwholesomeness of their Trade; for there flies out of this Matter a foul mischievous Powder, that entering the Lungs by the Mouth and Throat, causes continual Coughs, and gradually makes way for Asthma … But at the long run if they find their Affliction grows upon them, they must lookout for another Trade; for ‘tis a sordid Profit that's accompany’d with the Destruction of Health. (Ramazzini 175-177)

 

In The Medico-Chirurgical Review, James Johnson – physician extraordinary to William IV – also details the various respiratory ailments suffered by tradesmen of the period. Since the term ‘byssinosis’ had not yet entered common usage, this pulmonary issue was often alluded to in several different ways. Kay’s article in the journal, for example, refers to the disease as ‘spinner’s phthisis’ – an illness which he likens to “chronic and subacute bronchitis” (Johnson 19: 478). Earlier descriptions make use of the terms ‘stripper’s asthma’, ‘mill fever’, ‘Monday dyspnoea’ and, in some cases, ‘cotton pneumonia’. All denominations, however, can be traced back to the same causational root: textile fibre inhalation.

 

While great progress was evidently being made in this field, respiratory disease was not the only cause for concern. Cotton textile workers also faced the threat of scrotal squamous cell carcinoma; a type of epithelioma caused by frequent contact with certain polyaromatic hydrocarbons. As shale oil was used to lubricate the spindles of the Spinning Mule, it is perhaps unsurprising that the highest incidence of scrotal cancer was found within this trade. Giving renewed impetus to the study of oncology, in 1887 this malady adopted the name of its instigator, becoming known thereafter as 'mule spinners' cancer'.

 

Yet even with the discovery of illnesses and ailments such as these, literature of the eighteenth-century still seems to be framed by a strong sense of denial. Joseph Farington's diary, for example, attests to the sparkling health of Arkwright's employees, despite there being strong evidence to prove otherwise. Passing through the famous Derwent Valley, he notes: 

In the evening I walked to Cromford & saw the Children coming from their work out of one of Mr Arkwrights Manufacturies. I was glad to see them in general look very healthy and many with fine, rosy complexions. These children had been at work from 6 or 7 oclock this morning, and it was now near or abt. 7 in the evening. The time allowed them for resting is at 12 oclock 40 minutes during which time they dine. One of them, a Boy of 10 or 11 years of age, told me His wages were 3s 6d a week, a little girl said Her wages were 2s 3d a week. (Farington 314)

 

Child labour being a regular feature of any textile mill, this is not the most shocking aspect of Farington's account. Instead, it is the "fine, rosy complexions" of the poor which - given their incompatibility with the profession - serve to sow doubt. Not until the implementation of Robert Peel's Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in 1802 did health within the mills begin to improve, and even then it was a long time before modern-day factory conditions were reached. 

 

Swapping poverty for slavery, the plight of the spinner - throughout the eighteenth century - arguably never eased.

 


Annotated Bibliography:

 

 

Primary sources:

 

B., A. Observations on the Detriment That It Is Supposed Must Arise to the Family of Every Cottager throughout the Kingdom from the Loss of Woollen Spinning by the Introduction of Machines for That Work. N.p.: n.p., 1794. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.

Although ‘observations’ would suggest a certain degree of objectivity, this text patently criticizes those involved in the mechanization of the textile industry. The postulations of the author may not be entirely accurate, but they did reveal a great deal about the reception of this new machinery.

 

Bailey, William. The Advancement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce; Or, Descriptions of the Useful Machines and Models Contained in the Repository of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. London: Printed by W. Adlard, 1772. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 10 Mar. 2018. 

Since early publications by the Royal Society of Arts are notoriously difficult to find, Bailey’s text was useful in that it provided a compendious account of the organization’s dealings. The number of failed inventions held in the society’s repository was also fascinating because it highlighted the desperation of the eighteenth-century engineer: did they really wish to improve the spinning process or were they simply after the premium?

 

Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe: A Description of the Great Mechanical Inventions Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain: And a View of the Present State of the Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher and P. Jackson, 1835. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

A retrospective study of the cotton industry, detailing the various circumstances which led to Britain becoming one of the largest cotton consumers in the world. This was an invaluable source of information and provided me with a number of useful illustrations.

 

Darwin, Erasmus. The Botanic Garden. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1791. Historical Texts. Web. 22 Mar. 2018.

As a close friend of Richard Arkwright, Darwin’s description of the Derwent Valley Mills is so significant because it is a distinctly personal account. Giving poetic grace to the otherwise bleak and mechanical landscape, The Botanic Garden is perhaps the only eighteenth-century text to consider the textile industry in such a positive light.

 

Defoe, Daniel. The Female Manufacturers Complaint: Being the Humble Petition of Dorothy Distaff, Abigail Spinning-Wheel, Eleanor Reel, &c. Spinsters, to the Lady Rebecca Woollpack. London: n.p., 1720. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 14 Nov. 2017. 

A short pamphlet which underlined the grief caused by mechanization and the rise of foreign imports. Despite the hyperbolized suggestion that the spinners "must starve" (9) if they lose labour, Defoe does make a good case and the complaint would have no doubt gained widespread sympathy.

 

Farington, Joseph. The Farington Diary. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1923. Print. 

On a visit to Cromford, Farington comes across of one Arkwright's mills. This text is interesting because it proves that even the rural townsfolk were blinded by the promise of industrialization.

 

Goldsmith, Oliver. The Deserted Village. Philadelphia: Printed for William Prichard, 1782. Evans Digital Edition. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

Goldsmith’s poem paints a clear picture of the desolation left behind by the industrializing process. Even the rural spinner has ‘left her wheel’ in order to seek better employment.

 

Guest, Richard. A Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture: With a Disproval of the Claim of Sir Richard Arkwright to the Invention of Its Ingenious Machinery. Manchester: Printed by J. Pratt, 1823. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 17 Feb. 2018. 

An indispensable text which provided great insight into the inner workings of the textile trade. It not only covered the improvements made to the spinning wheel, but also detailed the events which led up to this point.

 

Gray, Andrew. A Treatise on Spinning Machinery: Illustrated with Plans of Different Machines Made Use of in That Art ... and a Postscript including an Interesting Account of the Mode of Spinning Yarn in Ireland. Edinburgh: n.p., 1819. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 23 Nov. 2017. 

Perhaps the most comprehensive and informative text regarding mechanical invention in the eighteenth century. Much like works of Baines and Guest, it offered a complete overview of industrial progression, yet this time with a specific focus on the spinning industry.

 

Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm. The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975. Print. 

This collection of fairy tales proved invaluable when looking at the interplay between spinning and domesticity. Published in 1812, it suggested that – despite the perils of mechanization – the romantic appeal of the one-thread wheel had not yet been lost.

 

Johnson, James. The Medico-chirurgical Review and Journal of Practical Medicine. Vol. 15. New York: S. Highley, 1831. Print. 

It was incredibly difficult to find contemporary sources which provided adequate information about lung disease; fortunately, Johnson’s journal came closest to the desired time frame. My discovery of ‘spinners’ phthisis’ allowed me to significantly narrow my intended field of study.

 

"News." Felix Farley's Bristol Journal [London] 15 December 1787. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 25 Mar. 2018. 

Newspapers of the period are saturated with articles regarding the destruction of the Spinning Jenny. This was the only report that seemed to suggest the Spinning Frame suffered the same fate.

 

"News." Morning Chronicle [London] 13 July 1776. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 2 Dec. 2017. 

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this article is its word-for-word replication in many other contemporary newspapers. The riot in Shepton Mallet was obviously a spectacle that any reader would be foolish to miss.

 

“News.” Star and Evening Advertiser [London] 19 August 1792. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 05 Mar. 2018. 

Arkwright’s obituary was interesting because it suggested that the profitability of mechanical engineering had greatly increased between the invention of the Jenny and that of the Water Frame. Hargreaves is forced to sell his machine out of ‘mere necessity’, while Arkwright prospers and leaves behind a hefty fortune.

 

Ogden, James. A Description of Manchester: Giving an Historical Account of Those Limits in Which the Town Was Formerly Included, Some Observations upon Its Public Edifices ... By a Native of the Town. Manchester: Printed by C. Wheeler, 1783. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 15 Mar. 2018. 

Whilst not an inherently humorous text, the dramatization of the weaver’s plight (at times) made for a chucklesome read. Ogden seems to invert popular opinion by suggesting that it was the weaver, not the spinner, who suffered after the invention of Kay’s Shuttle.

 

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.2, 03 March 2018), April 1744, trial of Sarah English (t17440404-4). 

Many eighteenth-century sources paint spinning as an undesirable profession. This case, however, proves just the opposite. For those who could not even afford a wheel, there was almost no hope.

 

Perrault, Charles. "Sleeping Beauty." The Complete Fairy Tales. Trans. Christopher Betts. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. ProQuest. Web. 6 Mar. 2018.

Sleeping Beauty was a useful source because it allowed me to explore the sexualization of the female spinner. This tale paved the way for other folklorists who would continue to use the spinning wheel as symbol of femininity.

 

Ramazzini, Bernardino. A Treatise of the Diseases of Tradesmen. London: Printed for Andrew Bell, 1705. Historical Texts. Web. 26 Feb. 2018. 

Bernardino’s treatise is the first to document the association between textile dust inhalation and the occurrence of lung disease. It gave me a solid base to further discuss the incidence of byssinosis within the spinning trade.

 

Richardson, Samuel. Pamela. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print. 

Though Richardson only makes a few passing references to the spinning profession, it is nonetheless crucial to Pamela’s narrative. Allowing the reader to ascertain the economic standing of the household, it gives a good indication of Pamela’s reported poverty.

 

Sadler, Robert. The Discarded Spinster; Or, A Plea for the Poor on the Impolicy of Spinning Jennies: A Poem. London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by R.V. Brooke, 1791. Historical Texts. Web. 02 Mar. 2018. 

Sadler’s poem criticizes the invention of the Jenny as being detrimental to the livelihood of the poor. It not only highlights the distresses of the unemployed female labourer, but also acts as an appeal to both the clothier and public alike.

 

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

The selected passage from Gulliver’s Travels offered a biting, yet fitting, critique of the Royal Society. It allowed me to understand how the society functioned and why it often received so much backlash.

 

Tucker, Josiah. Instructions for Travellers. N.p.: n.p., 1757. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 5 Mar. 2018. 

Tucker’s text, although not strictly related to the textile industry, offered a small snippet about resistance to machinery in the West of England. Given that Luddism generally dominates discussions of machine-breaking, I was glad to have found this piece which placed the described acts of protest firmly within the eighteenth century.

 

 

Secondary sources: 

 

Berg, Maxine. "What Difference Did Women's Work Make to the Industrial Revolution?" The European Women's History Reader. Ed. Fiona Montgomery and Christine Collette. London: Routledge, 2002. 100-106. Print.

  • This source  provided me with great insight into the role of women within the Industrial Revolution. Berg suggests that, throughout this period, female spinners essentially controlled the flow of textile production.

 

Catling, Harold. The Spinning Mule. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1970. Print.

  • Catling's book offered an abundance of information about the Spinning Mule and its creator. Perhaps the most useful aspect of this text was that it provided specific figures regarding the machine's efficiency; information which was lacking online.

 

Chapman, Sydney J. The Lancashire Cotton Industry: A Study in Economic Development. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1904. Print.

Focussing on the internal development of the cotton industry, this text provides a compendious account of both its benefits and shortcomings. A short history of the so-called ‘spinning revolution’ also offers a solid base for further study of this occupation.

 

Fiander, Lisa M. Fairy Tales and the Fiction of Iris Murdoch, Margaret Drabble, and A.S. Byatt. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Print.

  • Fiander's text is where I first came into contact with the notion of the 'eroticized spinner'. Further investigation led me to the Grimm Brother's who, again, did not disappoint with their confused ideas of femininity and sexuality.

 

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Verso, 2012. Print.

A rather surprising source of information. The first chapter explains the transition from feudalism into industrial capitalism, citing the growth of manufacturing as the main agent. This was especially useful when considering the reasons behind the transformation of the textile industry.

 

Steinbach, Susie. Women in England 1760-1914: A Social History. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004. Print.

Steinbach’s text offers a fascinating portrait of the working-class woman in the eighteenth century.  The section titled ‘Factory work’ explains how the Industrial Revolution radically altered female labour force participation, especially within the spinning and weaving industries.

 

Teverson, Andrew. Fairy Tale. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. Print.

  • Teverson's book provided an analysis of many different spinning-related fairy tales. It was this source that encouraged me to go off and investigate the cultural associations tied to the art of spinning. 

 

 

Images:

 

Figure 1: Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe: A Description of the Great Mechanical Inventions Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain: And a View of the Present State of the Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher and P. Jackson, 1835. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

 

Figure 2: Romney, George, and Thomas Cheesman. Portrait of Emma, Lady Hamilton. 1780-1805. Paper. The British Museum, Not on Display (British XVIIIc Mounted Roy). The British Museum. Web. 07 Dec. 2017.

 

Figure 3: Gray, Andrew. A Treatise on Spinning Machinery: Illustrated with Plans of Different Machines Made Use of in That Art. Edinburgh: Printed for A. Constable and, 1819. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

 

Figure 4: Hogarth, William. The Fellow 'Prentices at Their Looms. 1747. Etching on paper. Industry and Idleness, Not on Display (British XVIIIc Unmounted Roy). The British Museum. Web. 17 Feb. 2018.

 

Figure 5: Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe: A Description of the Great Mechanical Inventions Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain: And a View of the Present State of the Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher and P. Jackson, 1835. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

 

Figure 6: “News.” Star and Evening Advertiser [London] 19 August 1792. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 05 Mar. 2018.

 

Figure 7: Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe: A Description of the Great Mechanical Inventions Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain: And a View of the Present State of the Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher and P. Jackson, 1835. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

 

Figure 8: Darwin, Erasmus. The Botanic Garden. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1791. Historical Texts. Web. 22 Mar. 2018.

 

Figure 9: Baines, Edward. History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe: A Description of the Great Mechanical Inventions Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain: And a View of the Present State of the Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments. London: H. Fisher, R. Fisher and P. Jackson, 1835. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

 

Figure 10: B., A. Observations on the Detriment That It Is Supposed Must Arise to the Family of Every Cottager throughout the Kingdom from the Loss of Woollen Spinning by the Introduction of Machines for That Work. N.p.: n.p., 1794. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.

 

Figure 11: Defoe, Daniel. The Female Manufacturers Complaint: Being the Humble Petition of Dorothy Distaff, Abigail Spinning-Wheel, Eleanor Reel, &c. Spinsters, to the Lady Rebecca Woollpack. With a Respectful Epistle to Sir R---- St----l ... By Monsieur De Brocade of Paris. London: n.p., 1720. The Making of the Modern World [Gale]. Web. 14 Nov. 2017.

 

Figure 12: Sadler, Robert. The Discarded Spinster; Or, A Plea for the Poor on the Impolicy of Spinning Jennies: A Poem. London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by R.V. Brooke, 1791. Historical Texts. Web. 02 Mar. 2018.

 

Figure 13: Goldsmith, Oliver. The Deserted Village. Philadelphia: Printed for William Prichard, 1782. Evans Digital Edition. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

 

Figure 14: "News." Morning Chronicle [London] 13 July 1776. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 2 Dec. 2017.

 

Figure 15: "News." Felix Farley's Bristol Journal [London] 15 December 1787. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection. Web. 25 Mar. 2018.

 

 

 

Dictionary entries:

 

"spin, v." OED Online. Oxford University Press, January 2018. Web. 4 March 2018.

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.