The integration of machinery, primarily driven by water wheels and subsequently steam engines, resulted in numerous skilled textile laborers losing their jobs, which instigated protest movements such as those led by the Luddites. Even though new, less skilled positions emerged, the dismal working circumstances in the textile factories contributed to the formation of the trade union movement and propelled governments to enact legislation for the protection of workers who ensured the continuous operation of machines.
The Progression of the Textile Sector
Historically, yarn and fabric were procured from spinners and weavers operating within their residences or small workshops. It was customary for families to share the labor, with children washing and carding the wool, women utilizing manual spinning wheels to produce yarn, and men employing hand-operated looms to weave the fabric.
Fabrication was significantly accelerated in 1733 when John Kay created the flying shuttle, designed to horizontally pull thread (weft) across vertical threads (warp) on a weaving structure. The shuttle, propelled across the material by a hammer, also allowed the production of broader textiles. The challenge that arose was how to generate more yarn to match the pace of the enhanced weaving process. The conventional spinning wheel, albeit efficient, could only spin a single thread at any given time. As a result, inventors endeavored to develop machines capable of spinning multiple threads at the same moment. This advancement would enable one operator to effectively replace several individuals. Additionally, consolidating multiple machines into a single location—such as a factory or mill—further decreased production costs. As seen in numerous other facets of the Industrial Revolution, the promise of greater profits propelled the transition from hand labor to mechanized methods.
Numerous inventors and devices shaped the textile industry during the Industrial Revolution; however, the key contributors included:
- The Spinning Jenny by James Hargreaves (1764)
- The Water Frame by Richard Arkwright (1769)
- The Spinning Mule by Samuel Crompton (1779)
- The Power Loom by Edmund Cartwright (1785)
- The Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney (1793)
- The Roberts’ Loom by Richard Roberts (1822)
- The Self-Acting Mule by Richard Roberts (1825)
- Howe Sewing Machine by Elias Howe (1844)
Hargreaves’ Spinning Jenny
James Hargreaves (1720-1778) crafted the spinning jenny (device) in Lancashire in 1764 (patented in 1770). This apparatus—comprised of a spinning frame with several spindles—could twist eight threads of cotton simultaneously, thus attracting factory owners eager to significantly enhance production and reduce labor expenses. Hargreaves quickly improved his jenny, enabling a single device to spin 120 threads concurrently. This innovation far outweighed the increased expense of a jenny in comparison to a conventional spinning wheel (70 shillings versus one shilling). By 1788, over 20,000 spinning jennies were operational in factories throughout Britain. The previous cottage industry of isolated laborers in their homes became obsolete, particularly as many of the machines depended on substantial water wheels for power.
Conventional textile laborers immediately recognized the danger posed by Hargreaves’ jenny and destroyed any machines they encountered; in some instances, they resorted to setting factories ablaze. Concurrently, jennies were introduced to France directly
“`cotton in a single hour, significantly enhancing production efficiency. Whitney’s innovation had a transformative impact on the cotton industry, streamlining the process and allowing for higher outputs in textile manufacturing.
Arkwright’s Water Frame
Richard Arkwright (1732-1792), a wigmaker from Lancashire, developed the inaugural water frame, a device that was patented in 1769. He received key assistance from his associate John Kay, a clockmaker (not the inventor of the flying shuttle) who helped him refine the appropriate materials and gears for optimal operation over a span of five years, thus replacing the clumsy system of levers and belts. As economic historian R. C. Allen remarks, “without watch-makers, the water frame could not have been designed” (204). Britain was leading in watchmaking technology, which elucidates why it was in this country, rather than elsewhere, that early textile machinery was first introduced. Not coincidentally, perhaps, the epicenter of the British clock industry was in Lancashire, precisely where the mechanized textile sector flourished.
Arkwright’s water frame served as a cotton-spinning apparatus where rollers executed the tasks once performed by fingers and thumbs. It represented an advancement over the spinning jenny, as it yielded much finer and stronger yarn. An initial iteration was driven by a single horse and could spin 96 spindles simultaneously. In Arkwright’s fully developed factory at Cromford, situated on the River Derwent (far from any textile workers for both his safety and the preservation of his machines), the machine was powered by a water wheel, enabling it to operate continuously and more smoothly than manually powered machines.
The 1771 model of Arkwright’s water frame featured 129 spindles and was managed by women since skilled male textile laborers were no longer necessary. The Cromford factory model, with its machinery, layout, optimized production processes, provision of power over multiple levels, and continuous operations, was replicated in factories throughout the north of England. Arkwright amassed considerable wealth by requiring buyers to place orders of no less than 1,000 of his machines at a time (or more accurately, the rights to produce them). The Cromford design was also emulated in the United States and Germany. Arkwright further substantially increased his fortune by inventing a carding machine (patented in 1775), which provided superior quality raw material for the spinning machines. The carding machine cut labor expenses significantly more than the water frame did.
Crompton’s Spinning Mule
Samuel Crompton introduced the spinning mule in 1779, an improved synthesis of Hargreaves’ jenny and Arkwright’s water frame that produced finer and more consistent yarn. The machine could extend to 46 meters (150 ft) in length and greatly increased the number of available spindles. A single machine could accommodate 1,320 spindles but was intricate and required three operators for its functionality. The invention achieved overwhelming success, and by the 1790s, they were steam-driven. A single factory might house 60 of these machines, and shortly thereafter over 50 million mule spindles were operational in Lancashire.
Cartwright’s Power Loom
The subsequent advancement was the power loom weaving apparatus, invented by Edmund Cartwright (1743-1823) in 1785. A former clergyman, Cartwright was motivated to design the water- and then steam-powered loom after visiting a factory in Derbyshire. The fully automated machine required just one operator to change the full spindles approximately every seven minutes. While Cartwright’s machine doubled the cloth production speed, it lacked efficiency; later inventors addressed these issues with success. Nevertheless, Cartwright’s theoretical concepts were solid, and he consistently sought to refine his creation. The power loom was first effectively utilized in factories owned by Richard Arkwright. Soon afterward, textile factories nationwide outfitted themselves with hundreds of power looms. In recognition of the substantial impact the power loom had on British industry, the British government awarded Cartwright £10,000 in 1809. By 1821, Cartwright was honored as a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Whitney’s Cotton Gin
As the techniques of the spinners needed to match the pace of the weavers, those who provided the raw cotton also had to escalate their production to satisfy the soaring demand. Eli Whitney (1765-1825) from Massachusetts, USA, relocated to a cotton plantation in Georgia, where he developed a method to efficiently separate the sticky seeds from cotton fibers. Whitney’s Cotton Gin (‘gin’ signifying ‘machine’) was invented in 1793 and was powered by horses or water wheels. It drew raw cotton through a comb mesh, where a combination of rotating metal teeth and hooks separated it and eliminated the troublesome seeds. One cotton gin could handle up to 25 kg (55 lbs) of cotton in a single hour, dramatically improving production efficiency. Whitney’s invention had a revolutionary effect on the cotton sector, streamlining the process and enabling greater outputs in textile manufacturing.
cotton daily. Similar to Crompton and Cartwright, Whitney’s creation fell prey to its own triumph and was replicated so extensively that he earned minimal profit from it himself, despite having it registered at the patent office. As cotton output soared, an increasing number of slaves were deployed on the cotton plantations to gather the cotton bolls that fueled the insatiable gins. Cotton was traded extensively. In Britain in 1790, cotton represented 2.3% of total imports; by 1830, this percentage surged to 55%. British textile factories processed the raw material and exported it again so successfully that cotton textiles constituted half of Britain’s total exports in 1830.
At this point, all three sectors of the textile industry – raw material production, spinning, and weaving – could be entirely mechanized; however, the quest for greater efficiency and profits continued to drive inventors. Textile manufacturing had evolved into a significant enterprise, notwithstanding the substantial investment needed to establish a machine factory, approximately £15,000 in 1793 (over $2 million today). As Allen observes, “Cotton was the wonder industry of the Industrial Revolution” (182).
Roberts’ Loom
The first steam-powered cast-iron loom was designed by Richard Roberts (1789-1864) in 1822. Utilizing iron instead of wood (as in Cartwright’s loom) ensured that the machine remained stable, maintaining constant tension on the yarns. There were now significantly fewer occurrences of yarns breaking or becoming loose and tangled in the machinery. This advancement resulted in woven fabric being produced faster than ever before.
The inventors persisted in enhancing the machines, both in Britain and abroad. Starting in the 1790s, the British government banned the export of machinery to protect its competitive edge; however, machines were still clandestinely transported and established in mills across France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. These machines became increasingly efficient, making them profitable even in regions with significantly lower labor costs than in Britain.
A significant advancement in a textile factory’s inventory was the calico (inexpensive cotton fabric) printing machine from circa 1780, which enabled the creation of patterned textiles using pre-punched cards. The French inventor Joseph-Marie Jacquard (1752-1834) developed a machine around 1800 capable of producing patterned silk fabric, also utilizing pre-cut cards. The Jacquard loom gained acceptance almost universally wherever textiles were produced.
Roberts’ Self-Acting Mule
Richard Roberts continued to innovate with mechanized looms, introducing a new device in 1825. His inventive drive was perhaps fueled by personal interest, as weaving had advanced significantly thanks to his loom while spinning struggled to keep pace in supplying the necessary yarns. This constrained the sales of the Roberts Loom. In response, Roberts designed a spinning machine that could operate with minimal human intervention, enabling it to function continuously. The device utilized gears, cranks, and a guiding mechanism to ensure yarn was always accurately placed and spindles rotated at different speeds based on their fullness (hence the machine’s ‘self-acting’ designation). The combination of Roberts’ loom and mule afforded mill owners precisely what they desired: a factory space with as few workers as possible.
By 1835, approximately 75% of cotton mills were utilizing steam power, and there were more than 50,000 power looms in operation in Britain. A steam-driven factory did not have to be situated near a water supply, allowing for the selection of improved locations near natural resources such as coal. With increasingly versatile, affordable, efficient, and dependable machines, the textile industry had transformed into an almost fully automated system, to the degree that machine operators no longer required textile expertise. Skilled workers lost employment to semi-skilled laborers, yet there were more of the latter than the former due to the textile industry’s expansion.
The British mechanized textile sector could now surpass its primary competitor, India, in production, leading to a surge in exports. Labor costs were lower in India, but British machinery operated at a faster pace, accomplishing in 2,000 hours what an Indian ‘factory’ required 50,000 hours to produce. In essence, the British “cotton mill of 1836 was so efficient that it could out-compete hand spinning anywhere in the world” (Allen, 187).
Howe’s Sewing Machine
Elias Howe (1819-1867) created a novel type of sewing machine in Cambridge in the United States in 1844 (patent granted in 1846). It was the pioneer machine to employ the lockstitch (where two threads are inserted into the fabric, one from beneath and one from above). The lockstitch significantly enhanced the strength of textiles since, even if the thread broke, the entire line of stitches remained intact. The machine operated at a considerably faster rate than a person sewing manually – 640 stitches per minute versus an average of 23 by hand. As a result, “a calico dress required approximately six and a half hours to create by hand but just under an hour using the machine. The clothing industry was utterly transformed” (Forty, 149). Soon, there were copycat companies, especially one led by Isaac Merritt Singer, who was required to pay royalties to Howe and grant him an interest in I. M. Singer and Co., a firm that went on to become a leading sewing machine manufacturer, selling around half a million machines annually by 1870. Howe continued to refine his concept, developing smaller machines and incorporating a power source via a foot pedal, which brought the textile industry full circle, once again allowing individuals to produce clothing and other textiles within their own homes.
Repercussions: The Luddites
Machines enabled textile goods to become more affordable for the masses, leading to a thriving supply sector, particularly in cotton plantations and coal mines. The rise in the number of factories led to the creation of numerous new positions, although these were primarily unskilled roles. The populations of cities and towns such as Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and Halifax surged tenfold during the 19th century as individuals from rural areas migrated to overcrowded and unsanitary urban locales in search of employment.
The introduction of machines resulted in the displacement of numerous skilled textile workers, inciting fierce protests against their job loss and wage reductions. Between 1811 and 1816, a new activist group emerged in the prominent manufacturing areas of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Nottinghamshire, known as the Luddites, named after their legendary figure Ned Ludd, or King Ludd. The Luddites infiltrated factories and obliterated the machines that replaced their employment. The authorities retaliated, offering substantial cash rewards for information leading to the arrest of Luddites, and deployed the military to safeguard factories and their proprietors. Captured protestors faced severe consequences, including execution or transportation to Australia.
Labor Conditions and Trade Unions
Laborers in textile mills endured harsh conditions. The machines not only produced significant noise but were also occasionally hazardous when malfunctioning (with heavy components falling and shuttles ejecting like projectiles with worrying frequency). To maintain the elasticity and strength of the cotton thread, the atmosphere in the factories was intentionally kept warm and humid. These conditions resulted in many workers developing health issues, particularly respiratory problems.
A typical factory workday was lengthy, often spanning 12 hours, and included night shifts as factories operated continuously. Many employers favored hiring women and children over men due to lower wage demands. Children were utilized as they could maneuver beneath the machines to collect cotton waste and prevent entangled threads from jamming the machinery, often a perilous job. As profit and efficiency became obsessions for numerous mill owners, workers faced increasing pressure to accelerate their pace and avoid production delays. There were penalties for workers with soiled hands or those who took excessive time on restroom breaks.
These adverse conditions ultimately compelled workers to unite for their protection. Trade unions were established to combat the heightened abuses by unscrupulous employers. Unions gathered resources to support those who were ill or injured, rendering them unable to work or earn wages. Owners opposed these restrictions on their profits, leading to the prohibition of trade unions between 1799 and 1824; however, the movement to safeguard workers could not be permanently curtailed.
Several legislative measures were enacted from 1833 to attempt, not without challenges, to limit employers’ exploitation of their workforce and establish minimum standards. New regulations included minimum working age for children, shift durations, a ban on night shifts for women and children, the requirement for owners to install protective barriers for the more hazardous machinery, and the designation of government inspectors. Textile factories provided needed employment, yet they remained noisy, perilous, and unhealthy environments for spending the majority of one’s waking hours. The poet William Blake’s 1808 characterization of factories as “dark satanic mills” (Horn, 52) regrettably continued to hold true long after the Industrial Revolution concluded.
Image Source: seeshooteatrepeat / Shutterstock
