Chapter 8 EARLY ATTEMPTS AT SPINNING, AND EARLY INVENTORS.

There can be no better illustration of the truth of the old saying, that "Necessity is the mother of invention," than to read the early history of the cotton manufacture, and the difficulties under which the pioneers of England's greatest industry laboured.

The middle years of the eighteenth century act as the watershed between the old and the new in cotton manufacture, for up to 1760 the same type of machinery was found in England which had existed in India for centuries. But a change was coming, and as a greater demand arose for cotton goods, it became absolutely necessary to discover some better way of manipulating cotton, in order to get off a greater production.

"When inventors fail in their projects, no one pities them; when they succeed, persecution, envy, and jealousy are their reward." So says Baines, and it would appear, from reference to the history of the cotton industry, to be only too true. Certain it is, that the early inventors of the machinery for improving cotton spinning did not reap the advantages which their labours and inventions entitled them to. They ploughed and sowed, but others reaped.

Among the most celebrated of the early inventors, the following stand out in great prominence-John Kay, Lewis Paul, John Wyatt, Richard Arkwright, Thomas Highs, James Hargreaves, and Samuel Crompton.

When and how spinning originated no one can say, though it can be traced back through many, many centuries. Several nations claim to have been the first to discover the art, but when asked for proof the initial stages are greatly obscured by impenetrable clouds of mystery.

For example, the Egyptians credit the goddess Isis with the discovery, the Greeks Minerva, the Chinese the Emperor Yao. It is related of Hercules, that, when in love with Omphale, he debased himself by taking the spindle and spinning a thread at her feet. This form of work was considered to belong only to women, and by spinning for her in this position he was thought to have greatly humiliated himself.

If Hercules were back again, and could stand between two modern mules and see the men and boys engaged in spinning hundreds of threads at once, no doubt he would wonder, just as we do to-day at his fabled feats.

It is not difficult to imagine that very early on in the world's history the twisting together of strands of wool and cotton would force itself upon the attention of the ancients. If the reader will take a little cotton wool in the left hand and by means of the first finger and thumb of the right take a few cotton fibres and gently twist them together and at the same time draw the thread formed outwards, it will be seen how very easy it is (from the nature of the cotton) to form a continuous thread.

What would very soon suggest itself would be something to which the thread, when twisted, could be fastened and, according to Mr. Marsden (who supposes the first spinner to have been a shepherd boy), a twig which was close at hand would be the very thing to which he could attach his twisted fibres. He also supposes that, having spun a short length, the twig by accident was allowed to dangle and immediately to untwist by spinning round in the reverse way, and ultimately fall to the ground.

He further adds, the boy would argue to himself "that if this revolving twig could take the twist out by a reversion of its movements, it could be made to put it in." This would be the first spinning spindle. The explanation is probably not very far wide of the mark.

A weighted twig or spindle would next be used, and as each length of spun thread was finished, it would be wound on to the spindle and fastened.

As it would be extremely awkward to work the fibre up without a proper supply, a bundle of this was fastened to the end of a stick and carried most probably under the left arm, leaving the right hand free, or in the belt, much in the same way as is done in some country districts in the North of Europe to-day.

The modern name for this stick is Distaff, a word which is derived from the Low German-diesse, the bunch of flax on a distaff, and staff. Originally it would be the staff on which the tow or flax was fastened, and from which the thread was drawn. The modern representative of the spindle with the twisted thread wound on it is the "cop," and the intermittent actions of first putting twist in the thread and then winding on the spindle, have their exact counterparts on the latest of the self-acting mules of to-day.

Fig. 19.-Twist put in cotton by the hand.

It may be interesting to note that St. Distaff's Day is January 7th, the day after the Epiphany, a church festival celebrated in commemoration of the visit of the Wise Men of the East to Bethlehem. As this marks the end of the Christmas festival, work with the distaff was commenced, hence the name, St. Distaff's Day.

It is also called "Rock Day," rock being another name for distaff. "Rocking Day" in Scotland was a feasting day when friends and neighbours met together in the early days of the New Year, to celebrate the end of the Christmastide festival.

The reign of Henry VII. is said to have witnessed the introduction into England of the spindle and distaff.

In process of time, the suspended spindle was superseded by one which was driven by mechanical means. Over and over again, the spindle, as it lay upon the floor, must have suggested that it could be made to work in that position, viz., horizontal. And so comes now a contrivance for holding the spindle in this position.

Mr. Baines, in his history of the cotton manufacture, gives a figure of an old Hindoo spinning wheel, and it is extremely likely that this very form of machine was the forerunner of the type which later on found its way into Europe. At the beginning of the sixteenth century what was known as the Jersey wheel came into common use. This machine is shown in Fig. 20.

Lying to the left hand of the woman in the illustration is a hand card. This consisted of square board with a handle, and was covered by fine wire driven in, so as to make what was really a wire brush. By means of this, the spinner was enabled to prepare her cotton, and she did with it (though not nearly so well) what is done by the Carding Engine of to-day, viz., fully opened out the fibres of cotton ready for spinning. Having taken the cotton from the hand cards, she produced at first a very thick thread which was called a roving. This she wound on a spindle, which was afterwards treated again on the wheel a second time, and drawn out still more, and then having the twist put in, it was made much thinner into so-called yarn. Only one thread could by this method be dealt with at a time by one person, but the main operations carried out on the old spinning wheel have their exact reproductions on the mule of to-day, viz.:-Drawing, Twisting and Winding.

Fig. 20.-Jersey spinning wheel (after Baines).

But still the process of evolution went on, and following quickly on the heels of the Jersey wheel is the Saxony or Leipsic wheel. Here for the first time is seen the combination of spindle, flyer and bobbin.

This machine was so arranged that by means of two grooved wheels of different diameters, but both driven by the large wheel similar to the one in the Jersey wheel, and which was operated by the spinner, two speeds were obtained. The bobbin was attached to the smaller, and the spindle, to which was fastened the flyer or "Twister," was driven by the larger of two wheels.

In this form of spinning machine, then, there were the following operations performed:-

By the spindle and flyer both revolving at the same velocity, the thread was attenuated and twisted as it was carried to the bobbin. This latter was, as already named, driven by the smaller of the two wheels and had a motion all its own, though much quicker than that of the spindle. In this way a bobbin of yarn was built up, and the Saxony wheel no doubt gave many fruitful ideas to the inventors who appeared later on, and who, by reason of their research and experiment, evolved the fly frames of to-day; this was notably so in the case of Arkwright.

There had been very great opposition to the introduction of cotton goods into England by manufacturers and others interested in the wool and fustian trade, and matters even got so bad that the British Parliament was foolish enough to actually pass an Act in 1720, prohibiting "the use or wear in Great Britain, in any garment or apparel whatsoever, of any printed, painted, stained, or dyed calico, under the penalty of forfeiting to the informer the sum of ￡5."

Just as though this was not sufficiently severe, it was also enacted that persons using printed or dyed calico "in or about any bed, chair, cushion, window-curtain, or any other sort of household stuff or furniture," would be fined ￡20, and a like amount was to be paid by those who sold the stuff.

There can be no doubt whatever, that this Act was designed to strike a death-blow at the cotton industry, which at this time was beginning to make itself felt in the commerce of the country. A curious exception should be mentioned here. Calico, which was all blue, was exempted from the provisions of this Act, as were also muslins, fustians and neck-ties. However, in 1736 this iniquitous piece of legislation was somewhat relaxed, and Parliament was good enough to decree in the year just named that it would be lawful for anyone to wear "any sort of stuff made of linen yarn and cotton wool manufactured and printed or painted with any colour or colours within the kingdom of Great Britain, provided that the warp thereof be entirely linen yarn."

Now as half a loaf is better than none, the cotton manufacturers received a direct impulse by the partial removal of the obnoxious restriction, and very soon the supply was far ahead of the demand.

Manufacturers were crying out constantly for more weight and better stuff, but how by the mechanical means at the disposal of the spinners were they to get it? Lancashire historians say that it was no uncommon thing for weavers to travel miles in search of weft, and then many of them returned to their looms with only a quarter of the amount they required.

Another cause which acted in the direction of increasing the demand for yarns and weft was the invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay about 1738. Previous to his time, the heavy shuttles containing the wefts were sent across the looms by two persons. Now, by his new shuttle he dispensed with the services of one of these artisans, and by means of his arrangement for quickly sending the shuttle along the lathe of the loom, much more cloth was produced. Poor Kay suffered much by the cruel persecution of his countrymen, who ignorantly supposed that in bringing his new shuttle to such perfection, they would be deprived permanently of their occupations, with nothing but starvation looking them in the face. Of course, nothing could be wider of the truth than this, but Kay had to flee his country, and died in poverty and obscurity in a foreign land. Still the shuttle continued to be used, for the makers of cloth had learned that increased production meant more work, and possibly greater profit, and though Kay disappeared, his works remained behind. The demand for weft grew more and more. It has been said that it is the occasion which makes the man, and not man the occasion. It was so in this case, for here was a cry for some mechanical means to be discovered for satisfying the ever-increasing demand for cotton weft. Hitherto single threads only had been dealt with on the spinning machines, but the same year witnessed the introduction of an invention which in a few years completely revolutionized the spinning industry, and which enabled one worker to spin hundreds of threads at once.

The year 1738, which witnessed the birth of Kay's invention, also saw that of Lewis Paul, an artisan of Birmingham. This was a new method of spinning by means of Rollers. It should be remembered that this was thirty years before Arkwright attempted to obtain letters patent for his system of spinning by rollers.

Most of the readers of this little book will have seen what is known in domestic parlance as a clothes-wringer. Here the wooden or rubber rollers, by means of weights or screws, are made to squeeze out most of the moisture which remains after the garment has left the washing-tub. Now if two sets of such rollers could be put together, so that in section the four centres would coincide with the four angular points of a square, and the back pair could be made to have a greater surface velocity than the front pair, this arrangement would give something like the idea which Paul had in his mind at that time. Why make the back pair revolve at a greater rate? For this reason, that as the cotton was supplied to the front pair, and passed on to the second, remembering that these are going at a greater rate, it follows that the cotton would be drawn out in passing from the first to the second pair. Had the rollers been both going at the same speeds, the cotton would pass out as it went in, unaffected. Now it was this idea which Paul practically set out in his machine. From some reason or other, Paul's right to this patent has been often called into question, and up to 1858 it was popularly supposed to have been the sole invention of John Wyatt of Birmingham. In the year named, Mr. Cole, in a paper read before the British Association, proved that Paul was the real patentee, and established the validity of his claim without doubt.

The two distinguishing features of Paul's Spinning Machine were: (1) by means of the rollers and flyers he performed the operations of drawing-out and twisting, which had hitherto been done by the fingers and thumbs of the spinners; and (2) he changed the position of the spindle itself from the horizontal to the vertical.

A glance at the Transactions of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, shows that this period (1760-1770) was most prolific of inventions specially relating to the various sections of the cotton industry. There were "improved spinning wheels," "a horizontal spinning wheel," and three other forms of "spinning machines" submitted to the above society between 1761 and 1767, in the hope of obtaining money grants in the shape of premiums, which had been offered to the best inventions for improving spinning machinery in general.

The above list does not however contain any reference to one improvement by James Hargreaves of Blackburn, Lancashire, to which in this story special mention must be made.

It appears that in 1764 or 1765 this individual had completed a machine for spinning eleven threads simultaneously; and five years later he had developed the machine to so perfect a state that he took out a patent for it, from which time it became known to the industrial world as a Spinning Jenny. His right to the patent has over and over again been challenged, and it has been alleged that Thomas Highs of Leigh, also in Lancashire, was the real inventor. Baines, in his "History of the Cotton Manufacture," is inclined to the view that Hargreaves was the first to perfect the machine known as the "Jenny" (see Fig. 21).

From whatever point of view Hargreaves' machine is looked at, it must be acknowledged to be a decided step forward in the direction of spinning machinery improvement.

The jenny was so unlike Arkwright's frame or Paul's, and preceded that of the former by some years, that its claim to originality can not be questioned. How the inventor came to produce his machine can not be stated, but it is reported that on one occasion he saw a single thread spinning wheel which had been accidentally knocked over, lying with the wheel and spindle free and both revolving.

If the reader will think for a minute it will be apparent that the horizontal position of the spindle would be changed to a vertical one, and Hargreaves argued if one spindle could revolve in that way, why should not eight or any number of spindles be made to work at the same time. How far he successfully worked out that idea will be seen if reference be made to the illustration of the jenny which is shown in Fig. 21.

After what has been said under the head of Carding, Drawing, and Roving, it will easily be understood when it is said that, unlike Arkwright's Machine, Hargreaves' Jenny could only deal with the cotton when in the state of roving, and it was the roving which this machine attenuated and twisted or spun into yarn.

If the reader will imagine he or she is standing in front of the jenny, the following description will be made much clearer:-

Fig. 21.-Hargreaves' spinning jenny (after Baines).

The rovings, which have previously been prepared, are each passed from the bobbins seen on the lower creel, through a number of grooves on one of the bars which run across the frame, as seen in the illustration. These rovings are next passed on to the spindles standing at the back of the frame and secured to them. A second bar in front of the one over which the rovings pass, acts as a brake and prevents, when in its proper position, any more roving being delivered, thus securing all between the spindles and the said bar. The wheel which is seen on the right of the jenny communicates with a cylinder by means of a strap or rope, and this cylinder in turning gives circular motion to the spindles which are connected with the cylinder by endless bands. On the spindle is the wharf, specially formed to allow the band to run without slipping.

The operations for a complete spinning of one delivery is described by Baines as follows:-

"A certain portion of roving being extended from the spindles to the wooden clasp, the clasp was closed, and was then drawn along the horizontal frame to a considerable distance from the spindles, by which the threads were lengthened out, and reduced to the proper tenuity; this was done with the spinner's left hand, and his right hand at the same time turned a wheel which caused the spindles to revolve rapidly, and thus the roving was spun into yarn. By returning the clasp to its first situation, and letting down a presser wire, the yarn was wound on the spindle."

Hatred and jealousy were immediately born when Hargreaves' splendid improvement became known, and, like poor Kay before him, he had to leave his native soil and get to some more secluded spot. He ultimately arrived in Nottingham, set at once to accommodate himself to his new environment, and soon entered into partnership with a Mr. James, and in 1770 took out a patent for his Jenny. In conjunction with his new partner, a mill was built, said to be one of the first, if not the first, spinning mill so called in this country.

Though it is stated by Arkwright that Hargreaves died in comparative obscurity and poverty, others say that this is not so; though he was not wealthy the evidence is sufficiently good to believe that he died in moderate circumstances.

The register of St. Mary's Parish, Nottingham, contains the following entry:-"1778, April 22, James Hargraves."

* * *