¹ For a perceptive, stimulating, and lucid analysis of the social and economic mechanisms controlling the American acquisition and modification of European technology see Rosenberg, Nathan, Technology and American Economic Growth (New York, 1972), 25–86.Google Scholar

The whole question of technology transfer was the subject of an international conference organized by ICOHTEC (International Cooperation in History of Technology Committee) under the title “The Acquisition of Technology by Non-Initiating Countries,” held at Pont-à-Mousson, Nancy, France on June 29-July 4, 1970. For this see Technology and Culture, XII (1971), 217–227.Google Scholar

² For the general mercantilist background to protection see Heckscher, Eli F., Mercantilism (2 vols., London, 1955), II, 112–172.Google Scholar

The ten major laws passed between 1695 and 1799 against the emigration of artisans and the export of machinery specifically covered the metal, clock, glass, pottery, harness, mining, and certain machine-making trades as well as textiles. The 1749 act, however, made the enticement to emigrate of “any other Manufacturer, Workman or Artificer of or in any other of the Manufactures of Great Britain or Ireland, of what Nature or Kind soever,” a criminal act.

³ Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, edited by Cannan, Edwin (New York, 1937), 624.Google Scholar

⁴ 5 Geo. 1, c. 27 (1718). Danby Pickering's edition has been used for the text of British statutes, and dates are taken from Great Britain, Chronological Table of the Statutes Covering the Period from 1235 to the End of 1969 (London, 1970).Google Scholar

⁵ 23 Geo. 2, c. 13 (1749).

⁶ 22 Geo. 3, c. 60 (1782).

⁷ 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 20 (1695). The background to the 1695 act is briefly noticed in Felkin, William, A History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures (Cambridge, 1867), 71Google Scholar, and Wells, Frederick A., The British Hosiery Trade: Its History and Organization (London, 1935), 35–39.Google Scholar

⁸ 23 Geo. 2, c. 13 (1749); 14 Geo. 3, c. 71 (1774).

⁹ 21 Geo. 3, c. 37 (1781). To reduce unemployment, the export of wool or stock cards and spinners' cards was specifically excluded from these laws by two statutes, 15 Geo. 3, c. 5 (1775) and 26 Geo. 3, c. 76 (1786).

¹⁰ 22 Geo. 3, c. 60 (1782).

¹¹ Ireland, 25 Geo. 3, c. 17 (1785), which prescribed a £500 fine and twelve months' imprisonment for seducing workers in linen, wool, cotton, silk, or mohair to emigrate, and a £200 fine with forfeiture of equipment for exporting linen, woolen, or silk manufacturing tools.

¹² Many sections of the prohibitory acts were repealed by 5 Geo. 4, c. 97 (1824) and 6 Geo. 4, c. 105 (1825), but the export of machinery was still controlled under the Customs Regulations Acts of 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 107) and 1833 (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 52), which were not repealed until 1843 (6 & 7 Viet., c. 84). For these see Clapham, John, An Economic History of Modern Britain (3 vols., Cambridge, 1926–1938), I, 485–86.Google Scholar

¹³ Musson, A. E. and Robinson, Eric, Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1969), 216–230.Google Scholar Other recent works touching this subject are Henderson, W. O., Britain and Industrial Europe, 1750–1870: Studies in British Influence on the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe (Leicester, 1965)Google Scholar; La Force, J. Clayburn, “Technological Diffusion in the 18th Century: the Spanish Textile Industry,” Technology and Culture, V (1964), 322–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hémardinquer, J. J., “Une Dynastie de Mecaniciens Anglais en France: James, John et Juliana Collier (1791–1847),” Revue d'Histoire des Sciences, XVIII (1964), 193–208.Google Scholar

Witnesses before the Hume Committee on Artisans and Machinery in 1824 told of French manufacturers or their agents crossing to England, visiting workshops or factories, probably at meal or closing times, and enticing away workers with offers of high wages. Once in France, immigrants were bound by contracts, indebtedness, and a passport system operated by employers and police. Yet some workers were sent back to England by their French employers to obtain the latest machines and to recruit more artisans. See Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (House of Commons), 1824 (51), V, “Six Reports from the Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery,” 23, 36, 107–108, 278, 554, 579.

¹⁴ Bagnall, William R., The Textile Industries of the United States, 1639–1810 (Cambridge, Mass., 1893), 63–72Google Scholar gives the best account of the United Company.

¹⁵ Intermittent spinning, performed with the spindle, required that twisting and drafting be carried out separately from winding, the third component of the spinning operation. Thus when the fibers in the spinning zone were formed into yarn, the twisting and drafting was stopped for the yarn to be wound onto the spindle. Naturally this was more time-consuming than continuous spinning (for which see note 21 below). However it had two distinct advantages over continuous spinning. Spindle drafting allowed yarn evenness to be improved at the spinning stage. Further, intermittent spinning, by imposing less strain on the yarn during its formation, allowed the spinning of finer yarns, more fragile cardings, and less “spinnable” fibers like wool. For this reason, intermittent spinning was the only mechanical method by which woolen (as opposed to worsted) yarns could be spun at all before the twentieth century. Prior to 1850 the most important intermittent spinning machines were the jenny, jack, and mule. For comment on the principles of spinning see Morton, W. E. and Wray, G. R., An Introduction to the Study of Spinning (London, 1962), 133–175.Google Scholar I am grateful to Dr. John A. Iredale of the School of Textiles, Bradford University, England, for a discussion on some of these points.

¹⁶ Pennsylvania Archives 8th series (Harrisburg, Pa.), VIII, 7215–16, 7220, 7325–26, 7366, 7390–91, 7504, 7532, 7588Google Scholar; The Pennsylvania Magazine: or American Monthly Museum, I (1775), 157–58.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Bagnall, Textile Industries, 77–79 and Bishop, J. Leander, A History of American Manufactures from 1608 to 1860 (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1864), I, 404–409Google Scholar for the Pennsylvania Society's history; also The American Museum, or Universal Magazine, II (1787), 167–69Google Scholar for the Society's “Plan.”

Except where otherwise specified, information on the activities of the manufacturing committee comes from “Minutes of the Manufacturing Committee of the Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Manufactures and the Useful Arts,” vol. I (September 11, 1787-November 3, 1788)Google Scholar and vol. II (January 21, 1789-June 3, 1789), MS A M 302, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. I am indebted to the Historical Society for permission to use these minute books.

¹⁸ American Museum, II (1787), 248–255Google Scholar for Coxe's address; this quotation is from p. 253.

¹⁹ Whether John Hague was the same man as Joseph Hague (who built the first known jenny in Philadelphia in 1774–1775 and who failed to assemble a spinning mule imported there in 1783) is not clear. Perhaps erring on the side of caution, I have assumed that they were two different persons.

²⁰ Bell, Whitfield J. Jr, (ed.), Francis Hopkinson's Account of the Grand Federal Procession, Philadelphia, 1788 (Boston, 1962), 12.Google Scholar

²¹ In continuous spinning, performed with the bobbin and flyer or some variation of it, winding occurred simultaneously with twisting and drafting. This method was faster than intermittent spinning (see note 15 above) and was particularly suitable for coarse and medium yarns. The major continuous spinning machines before 1850 were the waterframe, throstle, cap frame, and ring frame.

²² Bishop, , History of American Manufactures, I, 407–408.Google Scholar

²³ This was the calico printer John Hewson (d. 1822), active in Philadelphia between 1773 and 1810. See Montgomery, Florence M., Printed Textiles: English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700–1850 (New York, 1970), 92–98.Google Scholar

²⁴ Rezneck, Samuel, “The Rise and Early Development of Industrial Consciousness in the United States, 1760–1830,” Journal of Economic and Business History, IV (1932), 795.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., 784–811.

²⁶ Coxe, Tench, A View of the United States of America (Philadelphia, 1794), 165–66.Google Scholar

²⁷ Pennsylvania Archives 8th series, VIII, 7418–19, 7428, 7463, 7532; Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania (1787–1788), as Taken in Short-Hand by Thomas Lloyd (4 vols., Philadelphia, 1787–1788), III, 130, 142, 143, 168, 171, 193, 194, 204, 213, 217, 226, 231Google Scholar; Pennsylvania, The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (16 vols., Harrisburg, 1896–1911), XIII, 138–39Google Scholar (act of October 3, 1788 awarding £100 to John Hague).

The two jenny builders were Joseph Hague and Christopher Tully; the thread-maker was John Marshall; and the calico printers were Robert Taylor and John Hewson.

²⁸ Ibid., 239–240 (act of March 26, 1789).

²⁹ Ibid., 58–62 (act of March 29, 1788); Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania 1787–1788, III, 200–203. The Jeffersonian legislator was George Logan (1753–1821) and the merchant was Thomas Fitzsimons (1741–1811). Wool and cotton cards were exempt from the 1788 act (which had a statute life of two years) because in Philadelphia they were “made in sufficient quantities to serve all the continent” and so formed a major export item, according to Fitzsimons.

³⁰ Samuel Slater, for example, after reading a newspaper report of the state premium to Hague and state support for the Pennsylvania Society, determined to leave Derbyshire for America. He disembarked at New York from whence, ironically, he moved north to Rhode Island, not south to Philadelphia. See White, George S., Memoir of Samuel Slater (Philadelphia, 1836), 37Google Scholar; Thompson, Mack, Moses Brown, Reluctant Reformer (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962), 220–233.Google Scholar

³¹ Bagnall, Textile Industries, 75. This sounds quite uncharacteristic of Jefferson; unfortunately the only letter from Coxe to Jefferson around this date (received by Jefferson on December 13, 1787) has not been found. See Boyd, Julian P. and others (eds.), The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, 1950–), XII, 93.Google Scholar

³² Petition of William Pollard to the Patent Board, June 29, 1790, Restored Patents, Specifications, I, 2–3, Record Group 241, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Though I did not see Pollard's original reconstructed patent drawing in the National Archives, a printed black-and-white copy of it exists in the Patent Office. The design, as Pollard claimed, was based on the Arkwright waterframe of 1769. But whereas Arkwright's machine had four pairs of drafting rollers, Pollard's appears to have had only two pairs. This arrangement would seriously limit its drafting capacity. On the other hand, Pollard's frame apparently incorporated two subsequent English improvements: a bobbin lifter rail (patented by Coniah Wood in 1772) and its controlling mechanism, a heart-shaped cam. Together, these devices greatly accelerated the winding operation. In the original waterframe, the yarn had to be shifted manually from hook to hook on the flyer as each level of the bobbin was filled; in frames with the lifter motion, the yarn was distributed up and down the bobbin mechanically.

³³ Pursell, Carroll W. Jr., “Thomas Digges and William Pearce: an Example of the Transit of Technology,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XXI (1964), 551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lynn H. Parsons, “The Mysterious Mr. Digges,” ibid., XXII (1965), 486–492; Syrett, Harold C. and others (eds.), The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1961–), IX, 85–87Google Scholar; X, 345–47; XI, 241–49, 505–506, 566–67; XII, 78, 135–36, 140–42, 298–99, 516–17.

³⁴ Brooke Hindle, “The Transfer of Power and Metallurgical Technologies to the United States, 1800–1880: Processes of Transfer, with Special Reference to the Role of Mechanics,” prepared for the ICOHTEC Conference on “The Acquisition of Technology by Non-Initiating Countries,” 1970, typescript, 2.

³⁵ Emigration Returns for England and Wales, 1773–1776, Great Britain, Public Record Office, T. 47/9–11; these have been generally analyzed by Campbell, Mildred, “English Emigration on the Eve of the American Revolution,” American Historical Review, LXI (1955–1956), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar United States, Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens, War of 1812 Papers, Record Groups 45 and 59, National Archives; this source has been broadly surveyed by Heaton, Herbert, “The Industrial Immigrant in the United States, 1783–1812,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, XCV (1951), 519–527.Google Scholar Textile workers in these returns are presently being analyzed by this author for a larger study the transmission of textile skill and technology between Britain and the United States, 1770–1840.

³⁶ Hindle, “Transfer of Power and Metallurgical Technologies,” 2.

³⁷ Hummel, Charles F., With Hammer in Hand; the Dominy Craftsmen of East Hampton, New York (Charlottesville, Va., 1968)Google Scholar records in detail the equipment and business of a Long Island clock and cabinet making firm which, operating between the 1760's and 1840, occasionally turned to the production of household implements like spinning wheels.

For a valuable critical bibliography of other works covering the pre-industrial and early industrial machine making crafts in America see Hindle, Brooke, Technology in Early America: Needs and Opportunities for Study (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1966), 67–73.Google Scholar

³⁸ That an informed mechanic was an essential adjunct to the hardware of the new technology at the introductory stage of its transfer, is a point illustrated by the fate of the spinning mule sent from England to Philadelphia in 1783 (see text below). Once a new technological system had been adopted and adapted, it was of course possible to transmit fresh modifications to the receptor economy through any of the inanimate media.

Evidently the transition into the second stage had begun by the 1820's. Presenting evidence before two Parliamentary committees, Britain's leading engineers and manufacturers disputed over the means by which the new textile technology could be replicated abroad, particularly in France (but surely too in America). The London engineers led by Henry Maudslay thought that the French needed only drawings from encyclopaedias in order to copy the improved machines. The manufacturers of Manchester, Glasgow, and Norfolk, such as Peter Ewart, John Kennedy, Henry Houldsworth, Sr., and John Harvey, strongly dissented. In their judgement, even the possession of models was inadequate to permit perfect copies; only a full size example, a “pattern machine,” would suffice. Taking a less extreme position, the Manchester millwright, William Fairbairn, believed that though the French had obtained English machines “they have failed in setting them to work.”

The divergence in opinion probably reflected two different machine-building experiences. No London engineer at this time had built much textile machinery to speak of, and handicraft work was more prevalent around Manchester. Maudslay spoke from the perspective of his own pioneering achievements, thus probably overestimating the abilities of foreign rivals — until they too acquired the precision tools for metal cutting which he had developed. See Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1824 (51), V, 160, 161, 251, 255, 300, 343, 346, 380, 546, 548, 567, 570, 572; Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (House of Commons), 1825 (504), V, “Report from the Select Committee on the Laws Relating to the Export of Tools and Machinery,” 11, 33–34; Musson and Robinson, Science and Technology, 427–509; Rolt, L. T. C., Tools for the Job: a Short History of Machine Tools (London, 1965), 83–91.Google Scholar

³⁹ Jackson, Benjamin D., An Attempt to Ascertain the Actual Dates of Publication of the Various Parts of Rees's Cyclopaedia (London, 1895), 6–7Google Scholar; Shaw, Ralph H. and Shoemaker, Richard (eds.), American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1810 (New York, 1961), 65–66Google Scholar; Ferguson, Eugene S., Bibliography of the History of Technology (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Montgomery, James, The Carding and Spinning Master's Assistant; or the Theory and Practice of Cotton Spinning (Glasgow, 1832), v.Google Scholar

⁴¹ As did the Brandywine manufacturer, Joshua Gilpin, with far-reaching consequences for the American paper industry but none for its textile technology. See Wilkinson, Norman B., “Brandywine Borrowings from European Technology,” Technology and Culture, IV (1963), 10–12Google Scholar; Gibson, George H., “Fullers, Carders, and Manufacturers of Woolen Goods in Delaware,” Delaware History, XII (1966), 35.Google Scholar

Shrewd and ambitious Yankees undertook some of the most effective industrial espionage in Britain's early textile mills. Abel Buell recruited workers and secured machine designs in 1789; Francis Cabot Lowell obtained the power loom design in 1810–1811; and Zachariah Allen procured gig mill and steam dresser plans in 1825. See Jeremy, David J. (ed.), Henry Wansey and His American Journal, 1794 (Philadelphia, 1970), 73Google Scholar; Gibb, George S., The Saco-Lowell Shops: Textile Machinery Building in New England, 1813–1949 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allen, Zachariah, The Practical Tourist, or Sketches of the State of the Useful Arts, and of Society, Scenery, &c. &c. in Great-Britain, France and Holland (2 vols., Providence and Boston, 1832), I, 198–200Google Scholar and Allen's diary of observations on early European industrial technology, his “Journal of European Trip, 1825,” in the Zachariah Allen Papers, Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.

⁴² Allusions to the secretive practices of early manufacturers are scattered through their surviving papers. Eric Robinson has nicely marshalled the evidence of Boulton and Watt's covert, protective practices. One contemporary engineer, however, thought that Boulton and Watt “have always displayed an uncommon degree of mystery.” Whatever the truth of this comment, many millowners closed their doors to strangers. Rare must have been the optimistic naivety of the Norfolk manufacturer who opened his factory to foreigners “with caution,” believing that “when machinery is peculiarly complicated, you may show it with good effect, I think, because it makes the difficulty of imitation appear greater.” Artisans, too, resisted pressure towards “learning foreigners,” knowing that sharing their skills would eventually lower their own wages.

The early attitudes of suspicion and secrecy were frequently built into the architecture of the nineteenth century British mill, which often was reminiscent of a medieval castle, surrounded by high walls and entered through a gatehouse. This sort of defensive layout American traveller Zachariah Allen found in Benjamin Gott's woolen null at Leeds in 1825 and considered it “like those of most other similar establishments.” See Musson, and Robinson, , Science and Technology, 216–230Google Scholar; , G. B., Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1824 (51), V, 20, 159, 277Google Scholar; Allen, , Practical Tourist, I, 195.Google Scholar

⁴³ The point is well demonstrated in the experiments of Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, for which see Hills, Richard L., Power in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1970), 38–40, 44–52.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For a good treatment of this episode see Neel, Joanne L., Phineas Bond: a Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1786–1812 (Philadelphia, 1968), 55–61 and 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 13. Though Dr. Neel misses the identification, the “Hallwood” must have been a spinning mule. Named after the early home of its inventor, Samuel Crompton, the mule was first known as the “Hall-i'-th'-Wood Wheel.” For this see Daniels, George W., The Early English Cotton Industry (Manchester, 1920), 114.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ G.B., P.R.O., T. 47/9, 145, entries for May 17–24, 1774 for Hague's embarkation from Liverpool aboard the packet Boston; Pennsylvania Archives 8th series, VIII, 7215–16 for the text of his petition of March 11, 1775.

⁴⁶ See note 33 above for sources.

⁴⁷ Wilkinson, “Brandywine Borrowings” 3; U.S., Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens: Delaware, War of 1812 Papers, Record Group 45, National Archives.

⁴⁸ War of 1812 Papers quoted in note 34 above; Iwanicki, Edwin, “The Village of Falls of Schuylkill,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCI (1967), 339Google Scholar; Samuel H. Needles, “The Governor's Mill, and the Globe Mills, Philadelphia,” ibid., VIII (1884), 378.

⁴⁹ Sources quoted in note 47 above; quotation of ca. February-March, 1813 and contract of March 22, 1813 between the Hodgson brothers (George, Thomas, Isaac, Henry, and Richard, in sequence of age) and Duplanty, McCall & Co., Longwood MSS, Group 6, Box 2, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Greenville, Delaware; Ledger 195, f. 144, Duplanty, McCall & Co. Papers, Accession 500, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library; Leigh, Evan, The Science of Modern Cotton Spinning (2 vols., Manchester, 1873), I, 104–106Google Scholar; Roy M. Boatman, “The Brandywine Cotton Industry, 1795–1865” (Hagley Research Report, 1957; copy in Eleutherian Mills Historical Library), 95–96; Gibson, George H., “The Delaware Woolen Industry,” Delaware History, XII (1966), 103.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Rees, Abraham (ed.), The Cyclopaedia; or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature (45 vols., London, 1819–1820)Google Scholar, s.v. “Manufacture of Cotton,” and Hills, Power in the Industrial Revolution, 73–81 for the carding engine; for its introduction to Philadelphia see sources in notes 17, 20, and 44 above.

⁵¹ For the jenny see Rees (ed.), Cyclopaedia, s.v. “Manufacture of Cotton” and “Woollen Manufacture;” also Aspin, Christopher and Chapman, Stanley D., James Hargreaves and the Spinning Jenny (Helmshore, Lanes., 1964).Google Scholar For its introduction to Philadelphia see sources in note 16 above.

The illustration and specification of Tully's, jenny in the Pennsylvania Magazine, I (April, 1775), 157–58Google Scholar show a number of improvements over that patented by James Hargreaves on June 12, 1770 (G.B. Patent 962). These include a horizontally axled driving wheel; power transmission to the spindles via a layshaft (a long tin or wooden roller) vastly increasing the potential number of spindles; wheels and an opening mechanism on the carriage-clasp; activation of the faller wire from the carriage-clasp; friction-reducing glass bases under the spindles; tensioning devices for both the driving wheel and the tin roller; and a movable roving box. Some six feet in depth, Tully's machine gave a draw of up to fifty-four inches approximately and a maximum drafting ratio of about 1:7. Apart from modifications to the carriage-clasp and roving box mechanisms and the addition of a clock to record the number of draws (and hence length and fineness of yarn spun), the 1775 Philadelphia jenny came close in design to the most sophisticated jennies found in nineteenth century England.

⁵³ I have assumed that a slubber was not the same as a slubbing billy. If it was, the slubbing billy reached Philadelphia in 1787, a year after its appearance in England. See above, p. 30.

See Rees (ed.), Cyclopaedia, s.v. “Woollen Manufacture” and Mann, Julia de L., The Cloth Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 (Oxford, 1971), 288Google Scholar for the billy; and Syrett and others (eds.), Papers of Hamilton, IX, 86, n. 2 for its transmission via Pearce.

⁵³ For the mule see Rees (ed.), Cyclopaedia, s.v. “Manufacture of Cotton;” Catling, Harold, The Spinning Mule (Newton Abbot, 1970)Google Scholar; and Hills, Power in the Industrial Revolution, 116–133. For its introduction to America see source in note 44 above; Syrett, and others (eds.), Papers of Hamilton, IX, 86, n. 2Google Scholar; and Bagnall, Textile Industries, 222–24.

⁵⁴ See Turnbull, Geoffrey, A History of the Calico Printing Industry of Great Britain (Altrincham, 1951), 50–98Google Scholar for the early history of roller printing. For the Thorps see Scharf, J. Thomas and Westcott, Thompson, History of Philadelphia, 1609–1884 (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1884), III, 2316–17Google Scholar; U.S. Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens: Pennsylvania, War of 1812 Papers, Record Group 59, National Archives; United States, Records of the 1820 Census of Manufactures, Schedules for Pennsylvania (Eastern District), Record Group 29, National Archives.

Wooden rollers for crude surface printing appear to have been used by the Irish calico printer Archibald Hamilton Rowan on the Brandywine in the 1790's; see Montgomery, Printed Textiles, 98–103.

⁵⁵ Mann, Cloth Industry, 141–42; Archives of Useful Knowledge, III (1813), 343–14.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Admittedly, the cotton manufacturer of coarse or medium yarns would choose waterframes or throstles instead of billies and jennies; the woolen manufacturer would prefer mules to jennies if he could afford them and if he could find mule spinners.

⁵⁷ Montgomery, Printed Textiles, 83–103.

⁵⁸ Mann, Cloth Industry, 141–42.

⁵⁹ In the West of England fine cloth might receive as many as twenty-nine courses or treatments with the teasels. In America raising was a less elaborate operation and the early finishing handbooks gave it a correspondingly cursory treatment. Bemiss, for instance, prescribed only “three good nappings” or courses for a superfine cloth. See ibid., 300; Wily, John, A Treatise on the Propagation of Sheep, the Manufacture of Wool, and the Cultivation and Manufacture of Flax (Williamsburg, Va., 1765), 26Google Scholar; Ellis, Asa Jr, The Country Dyer's Assistant (Brookfield, Mass., 1798), 107, 110–11Google Scholar; Bemiss, Elijah, The Dyer's Companion (New York, 1815), 274.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Barnes Riznik, “New England Wool-Carding and Finishing Mills, 1790–1840” (Old Sturbridge Village Research Report, 1964), 42.

⁶¹ See Rees (ed.), Cyclopaedia, s.v. “Manufacture of Cotton” for the waterframe which, when modified with the addition of a long, horizontal tin roller to drive the spindles, was known as a throstle. For its transmission to Philadelphia see source in note 32 above; Pursell, “Thomas Digges and William Pearce,” 558; Boatman, “Brandywine Cotton Industry,” 11; Bagnall, Textile Industries, 222, 224.

⁶² For the early history of the power loom see Mann, Julia de L., “The Textile Industry: Machinery for Cotton, Flax, Wool, 1760–1850,” in Singer, C. and others (eds.), A History of Technology (5 vols., 1954–1958), IV, 299–304Google Scholar; English, Walter, The Textile Industry: an Account of the Early Inventions of Spinning, Weaving, and Knitting Machines (London, 1969), 89–97Google Scholar; Bythell, Duncan, The Handloom Weavers: a Study in the English Cotton Industry during the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 1969), 66–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

When the Brandywine cotton spinning firm of Duplanty, McCall & Co. came to look for power looms in spring 1814 they learned that three were available in Philadelphia, belonging to Walter Jarvis, Robert Miller, and Thomas Siddall. Siddall's, which he patented that July, had the essential warp protector motion which stopped the beater or batten when the shuttle got jammed in the warp shed. An English engineer then in Philadelphia, Daniel Large, identified it as the motion patented by the Scotsman Robert Miller in 1796. Siddall, if not English himself, was much involved with English cousins and with the Thorps, Wagstaffs, and Hodgsons, local immigrant families from Lancashire. He claimed that his loom wove at the rate of two or three yards an hour. See Archibald McCall to Raphael Duplanty, February 17, 23, April 13, 19, 26, May 7, 20, 1814, Duplanty, McCall & Co. Papers, Accession 500, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library; United States, Patent Office, A List of Patents Granted by the United States from April 10, 1790, to December 31, 1836 (Washington, D.C., 1872), 140Google Scholar (July 9, 1814); The Emporium of Arts and Sciences, V (1813), 459Google Scholar; G.B. Patent 2122 (June 28, 1796) awarded to Robert Miller; Teckla Anne Siddall, Siddalls in America (the Phineas Line) (privately printed, n.p., 1962), copy in the Eleutherian Mills Historical Library; U.S., Census of Manufactures, 1820, Schedules for Pennsylvania and Delaware, Record Group 29, National Archives for power looms in 1820—three more were narrow or ribbon (Dutch) looms.

⁶³ See Jeremy, David J., “Innovation in American Textile Technology during the Early 19th Century,” forthcoming in Technology and Culture, XIV (1973)Google Scholar, for some elaboration of these points in the New England context.

⁶⁴ Flinn, Michael W., Origins of the Industrial Revolution (London, 1966), 91–104.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ U.S., Census of Manufactures, 1820, Schedules for Pennsylvania and Delaware, Record Group 29, National Archives.

⁶⁶ One such was Moses Hey (1792–1866), who emigrated about 1816. In one of his obituaries it was observed that “tempted by a protective tariff, he here [Philadelphia] commenced the broad cloth manufacture, but this, in so new a country, has always been attended with difficulties, which, together with ever changing circumstances, more than neutralized that protection, and, to the present day, has only proved a lure to Destruction.” Newspaper clippings, Moses Hey Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. See Robson, Charles, The Manufactories and Manufacturers of Pennsylvania in the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1875), 447–48Google Scholar for Hey; and Cole, Arthur H., The American Wool Manufacture (2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1926), I, 195–207Google Scholar for this problem.

A good comparative study of early American cloth types, prices, and categories of producers is badly needed to establish the effects of market forces on early manufacturing. In this context the cessation of imports of coarse cottons from India and China by 1816 also requires close investigation. See Ware, Caroline F., The Early New England Cotton Manufacture (Boston, 1931), 71–72.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Oil cloth was first made, apparently, by Nathan Taylor of Knightsbridge, London, in 1754. See Knight, Edward H., Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary (3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1876), I, 888Google Scholar; Scharf, and Westcott, , History of Philadelphia, III, 2231–32Google Scholar; U.S., Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens: Pennsylvania, War of 1812 Papers, Record Group 59, National Archives; Journal of the Franklin Institute, II (1826), 266Google Scholar; VI (1828), 405; VIII (1831), 325.

⁶⁸ Sources in note 65 above.

⁶⁹ Ibid. Of the region's 28,000 spindles in 1820, only 5,728 can be surely identified from the Census. Of these, 3,580 were on intermittent spinning machines (2,760 jenny and only 820 mule spindles) and 2,148 on continuous spinning machines (480 waterframe and 1,668 throstle spindles). When a machine's spindleage was not given, I credited a jenny with sixty spindles and the other three types with 120 spindles each.

⁷⁰ These were the spindle maker, roller maker, turner or bobbin maker, founder, tin-man, and flyer maker. See G.B., Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1824 (51), V, 545.

⁷¹ James Wagstaff. See Ledger 195, f. 144, Duplanty, McCall & Co. Papers, Accession 500, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library; U.S., Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens: Delaware, War of 1812 Papers, Record Group 45, National Archives.

⁷² Until the sciences of ergonomics and industrial psychology have been applied to early machinery and techniques, or until someone marshals all the evidence on operative learning problems, we shall remain ignorant of one of the vital aspects of non-verbal technology transfer. I am grateful to Professor Eugene S. Ferguson of the University of Delaware for bibliographic comments in my first effort to explore this area.

⁷³ Montgomery, Carding and Spinning Master's Assistant, i.

⁷⁴ Crozer, John P., Biographical Sketch of John P. Crozer Written by Himself (Philadelphia, 1861), 54.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Gibson, “Fullers, Carders, and Manufacturers of Woolen Goods in Delaware,” 36–41; U.S., Marshals' Returns of Enemy Aliens: Delaware, War of 1812 Papers, Record Group 45, National Archives.

⁷⁶ Vol. 37, Journal 1810–1815, 80, du Pont, Bauduy & Co. Papers, Accession 500, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library. Partridge's income may be compared to that of Duplanty, McCall & Co.'s cardingmaster, in charge of half a spinning mill, who earned nearly $500 per annum in 1815. See Wage Sheet for November 1815, Duplanty, McCall & Co. Papers, ibid.

⁷⁷ G.B., Parliamentary Papers (Commons), 1824 (51), V, 566. For Jenks, see Roe, Joseph W., English and American Tool Builders (New Haven, Conn., 1916), 123, 246–47.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Sources in notes 17 and 44 above; also Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (House of Commons), 1806 (268), III, “Minutes of Evidence Taken before the Committee on the Woollen Manufacture of England,” 423–431. When the machinist, John Douglas, returned to England, success continued to elude him. He therefore emigrated to France in 1802 and set himself up as a machine maker near Paris.