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.

© —- J x b f 3 d 8, 9) 1] in = he he wt 30) - of THE SHEARMEN AND THE FRAMEWORK KNITTERS 661 firmly established that there was no need to strengthen it by AD Sie legislative sanctions®. ’ 255. Parliament was also called upon to decide on the policy which should be pursued in regard to the use of machinery for dressing and finishing the cloth. A statute of The use of Edward VI had prohibited the use of gig-mills, and about an 1802, when a machine which bore the same name was intro- DY vas duced into Wiltshire, it gave rise to a good deal of rioting ; permitted, though, as it appears, similar machinery had been in use for some time in Gloucestershire? It was not quite clear whether the new machines were identical with those which had been prohibited in Tudor times®; but the attention of the parlia- mentary Committee on the subject was chiefly directed to the quality of the work dome. When the members were once convinced that machine work did not injure the fabric and wrought as well or better than the hand, they were entirely since they . @ . x . did the disinclined to support the workmen in their demand for the work wel: enforcement of the old prohibition of gig-mills, or to recom- mend that action should be taken. This Committee of 1806 felt bound to allude at some length to the troubles which had arisen in Yorkshire, in con- but Je . . . . . new nection with the introduction of shearing frames. These Sai were undoubtedly a new invention, and as such lay outside fremar? the precise sphere of the Committee's enquiries. Mr Gott had introduced them at Leeds*, and the employers, who adopted them, could dispense with some of their men. In this, as in other departments of the woollen trade, there could be no hope that manufacture would expand, so that more i Parl. Debates, xxvi1. 564. ) Reports (Woollen Clothiers’ Petition), 1802-8, v. 254: 1806, mt. p. 8. 3 Reports (Woollen Clothiers’ Petition), 1802-8, v. 251. The subject is dis- cussed by J. Anstie, in his very interesting Observations on the necessity of introducing improved machinery into the woollen manufacture in the counties of Wilts, Gloucester, and Somerset (1803), 68. See above, p. 297 n. 4. The London Clothworkers complained of the use of gig-mills in the time of Charles I. S. P. D.C. I. ccLvu. 1. 4. + Bischoff, op. cit. 1. 315. Mr William Hirst of Leeds claimed that the cloth manufactured in Yorkshire before 1813 would not bear gig-finishing, as the West of England cloth did, and that he was the first {o manufacture a cloth on which she frames could be used with advantage (Hirst, History of the Woollen Trade during the last Sixty Years (1844), 17. He also claims that he was the first to ntrodnce spinning mules into the woollen manufacture, p. 89. The public recognition which he received shows that he rendered considerable services to the Yorkshire trade.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: The Industrial Revolution

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation