The Industrial Revolution

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027928145

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-159926

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Cunningham, William http://d-nb.info/gnd/128907487

Title:: The Industrial Revolution

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: The University Press

Year of publication:: 1922

Scope:: xxii S., S. 404-886

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

COTTON-SPINNING ap as a barber, and does not appear to have had either the AD Lee technical acquaintance with the cotton trade, or the mechani- cal skill, which might be expected in a great inventor. Still he possessed such business ability as to inspire the confidence through the of wealthy patrons, who supplied him with the necessary which funds’, “By adopting various inventors’ ideas he completed Li righ a series of machines for carding and roving. He was enabled successful. 50 do this the more easily by having the command of a large capital. The inventors of the improvements had not the means of carrying them into effect on an extensive scale; shey found the game, but from want of capital were unable to secure it, whilst Mr Arkwright by availing himself of their inventions and by inducing ‘men of property to engage with him to a large amount’ reaped all the advantages and obtained all the rewards?” ; and he succeeded in rendering the ideas of other men a practical success. Roller-spinning had been patented by Lewis Paul in 1738, but his rights 1ad expired. The same principle was applied by Thomas Highs in the waterframe*, which was the basis on which Arkwright worked. He set up a spinning-mill with horse- power® at Nottingham in 1771, and afterwards made use of water power in his mill at Cromford, in Derbyshire. In 1775 he obtained a patent, which embraced the inventions of Lewis Paul and others. Arkwright's exclusive claims were though he ignored by other manufacturers, and he had recourse to the Jailed to. sourts to enforce them; but finally, in the action which he 2s linge brought against Colonel Mordaunt, Arkwright failed to main- sain his alleged rights®; and his appeal to the public, entitled The Case of Mr Richard Arkwright, did not create the t He had expended £12,000 on the enterprise before he began to make any profit. 2 R. Guest, History of the Cotton Manufacture, 27. 8 B. Woodcroft, Brief Biographies, p. 8. This machine was apparently smployed for spinning fine wool as well as cotton. Dyer, The Fleece, bk. mr. in Anderson Poets, Vol. x. p. 569, 571. 4 Guest, Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture, 18. A model of ‘his machine was made by John Kay the watchmaker and was exhibited by Arkwright in asking for assistance to prosecute his enterprise. Woodcroft, ap. cit. 10. ¥ Baines, Cotton Manufacture, 186. 3 The evidence is discussed at some length by Guest, British Cotton Manu- factures, a reply to an article in the Edinburgh Review (1828), 17. 621

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: The Industrial Revolution

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation