Labour and the Popular WelfareMallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
General
Labour and the Popular Welfare
Mallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
Labor; Labor movement; Socialism; Working class
From the year 1795 to the year 1800, the amount of cotton manufactured
in this country was on the average about _thirty-seven million pounds_
weight annually: ten years before it was only _ten million pounds_;
ten years before that, only _four million pounds_; and during the
previous fifty years it had been less than _two and a half million
pounds_. The amount manufactured, up to the end of this last-named
period, was limited by the fact that spinning was a much slower
process than weaving. It was performed by means of an apparatus known
as “the one-thread wheel.” No other spinning-machine existed; and it
was the opinion of experts, about the year 1770, that it would hardly
be possible in the course of the next thirty years, by collecting and
training to the spinning trade every hand that could be secured for
such a purpose, to raise the annual total to so much as _five million
pounds_. As a matter of fact, however, _five million pounds_ were spun
in the year 1776. In six years’ time, the original product had been
doubled. In ten years, it had been more than quadrupled; in twenty
years, it had increased nearly elevenfold; and in five and twenty
years, it had increased fifteenfold.[27]
[Sidenote ◆1 For every pound of cotton spun by labour, Arkwright’s
machinery spun fourteen pounds.]
◆¹ To what, then, was this extraordinary increase due? It was due to
the invention and introduction of new spinning machinery—especially to
the machines invented by Hargreaves and Arkwright, and the successive
application of horse-power, water-power, and lastly of steam-power, to
driving them. Previous to the year 1770, such a thing as a cotton-mill
was unknown. During the ten following years, about forty were erected
in Great Britain; in the six years following there were erected a
hundred more; and from that time forward their number increased
rapidly, till they first absorbed, and then more than absorbed, the
whole population that had previously conducted the industry in their
own homes. As we follow the history of the manufacture into the present
century, a large part of the increasing gross produce is to be set down
to the increase in the employed population; but during the twenty-five
years with which we have just been dealing, the number of hands
employed in spinning had not more than doubled,[28] whilst the amount
of cotton manufactured had increased by fifteen hundred per cent. It
is therefore evident that the increase during this period is due almost
entirely, not to human exertion, but to machinery.[29]
[Sidenote ◆1 The manufacture of iron offers a similar example.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account