Part 11 (1/2)
This machine was so arranged that by means of two grooved wheels of different diameters, but both driven by the large wheel similar to the one in the Jersey wheel, and which was operated by the spinner, two speeds were obtained. The bobbin was attached to the smaller, and the spindle, to which was fastened the flyer or ”Twister,” was driven by the larger of two wheels.
In this form of spinning machine, then, there were the following operations performed:--
By the spindle and flyer both revolving at the same velocity, the thread was attenuated and twisted as it was carried to the bobbin. This latter was, as already named, driven by the smaller of the two wheels and had a motion all its own, though much quicker than that of the spindle. In this way a bobbin of yarn was built up, and the Saxony wheel no doubt gave many fruitful ideas to the inventors who appeared later on, and who, by reason of their research and experiment, evolved the fly frames of to-day; this was notably so in the case of Arkwright.
There had been very great opposition to the introduction of cotton goods into England by manufacturers and others interested in the wool and fustian trade, and matters even got so bad that the British Parliament was foolish enough to actually pa.s.s an Act in 1720, prohibiting ”the use or wear in Great Britain, in any garment or apparel whatsoever, of any printed, painted, stained, or dyed _calico_, under the penalty of forfeiting to the informer the sum of 5.”
Just as though this was not sufficiently severe, it was also enacted that persons using printed or dyed calico ”in or about any bed, chair, cus.h.i.+on, window-curtain, or any other sort of household stuff or furniture,” would be fined 20, and a like amount was to be paid by those who sold the stuff.
There can be no doubt whatever, that this Act was designed to strike a death-blow at the cotton industry, which at this time was beginning to make itself felt in the commerce of the country. A curious exception should be mentioned here. Calico, which was all blue, was exempted from the provisions of this Act, as were also muslins, fustians and neck-ties. However, in 1736 this iniquitous piece of legislation was somewhat relaxed, and Parliament was good enough to decree in the year just named that it would be lawful for anyone to wear ”any sort of stuff made of linen yarn and cotton wool manufactured and printed or painted with any colour or colours within the kingdom of Great Britain, provided that the warp thereof be entirely linen yarn.”
Now as half a loaf is better than none, the cotton manufacturers received a direct impulse by the partial removal of the obnoxious restriction, and very soon the supply was far ahead of the demand.
Manufacturers were crying out constantly for more weight and better stuff, but how by the mechanical means at the disposal of the spinners were they to get it? Lancas.h.i.+re historians say that it was no uncommon thing for weavers to travel miles in search of weft, and then many of them returned to their looms with only a quarter of the amount they required.
Another cause which acted in the direction of increasing the demand for yarns and weft was the invention of the _flying shuttle_ by John Kay about 1738. Previous to his time, the heavy shuttles containing the wefts were sent across the looms by two persons. Now, by his new shuttle he dispensed with the services of one of these artisans, and by means of his arrangement for quickly sending the shuttle along the lathe of the loom, much more cloth was produced. Poor Kay suffered much by the cruel persecution of his countrymen, who ignorantly supposed that in bringing his new shuttle to such perfection, they would be deprived _permanently_ of their occupations, with nothing but starvation looking them in the face. Of course, nothing could be wider of the truth than this, but Kay had to flee his country, and died in poverty and obscurity in a foreign land. Still the shuttle continued to be used, for the makers of cloth had learned that increased production meant more work, and possibly greater profit, and though Kay disappeared, his works remained behind.
The demand for weft grew more and more. It has been said that it is the occasion which makes the man, and not man the occasion. It was so in this case, for here was a cry for some mechanical means to be discovered for satisfying the ever-increasing demand for cotton weft. Hitherto single threads only had been dealt with on the spinning machines, but the same year witnessed the introduction of an invention which in a few years completely revolutionized the spinning industry, and which enabled one worker to spin hundreds of threads at once.
The year 1738, which witnessed the birth of Kay's invention, also saw that of Lewis Paul, an artisan of Birmingham. This was a new method of spinning by means of _Rollers_. It should be remembered that this was thirty years before Arkwright attempted to obtain letters patent for his system of spinning by rollers.
Most of the readers of this little book will have seen what is known in _domestic parlance_ as a clothes-wringer. Here the wooden or rubber rollers, by means of weights or screws, are made to squeeze out most of the moisture which remains after the garment has left the was.h.i.+ng-tub.
Now if two sets of such rollers could be put together, so that in section the four centres would coincide with the four angular points of a square, and the back pair could be made to have a greater surface velocity than the front pair, this arrangement would give something like the idea which Paul had in his mind at that time. Why make the back pair revolve at a greater rate? For this reason, that as the cotton was supplied to the front pair, and pa.s.sed on to the second, remembering that these are going at a greater rate, it follows that the cotton _would be drawn out_ in pa.s.sing from the first to the second pair. Had the rollers been both going at the same speeds, the cotton would pa.s.s out as it went in, unaffected. Now it was this idea which Paul practically set out in his machine. From some reason or other, Paul's right to this patent has been often called into question, and up to 1858 it was popularly supposed to have been the sole invention of John Wyatt of Birmingham. In the year named, Mr. Cole, in a paper read before the British a.s.sociation, proved that Paul was the real patentee, and established the validity of his claim without doubt.
The two distinguis.h.i.+ng features of Paul's Spinning Machine were: (1) by means of the rollers and flyers he performed the operations of drawing-out and twisting, which had hitherto been done by the fingers and thumbs of the spinners; and (2) he changed the position of the spindle itself from the horizontal to the vertical.
A glance at the Transactions of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, shows that this period (1760-1770) was most prolific of inventions specially relating to the various sections of the cotton industry. There were ”improved spinning wheels,” ”a horizontal spinning wheel,” and three other forms of ”spinning machines”
submitted to the above society between 1761 and 1767, in the hope of obtaining money grants in the shape of premiums, which had been offered to the best inventions for improving spinning machinery in general.
The above list does not however contain any reference to one improvement by James Hargreaves of Blackburn, Lancas.h.i.+re, to which in this story special mention must be made.
It appears that in 1764 or 1765 this individual had completed a machine for spinning eleven threads _simultaneously_; and five years later he had developed the machine to so perfect a state that he took out a patent for it, from which time it became known to the industrial world as a _Spinning Jenny_. His right to the patent has over and over again been challenged, and it has been alleged that Thomas Highs of Leigh, also in Lancas.h.i.+re, was the real inventor. Baines, in his ”History of the Cotton Manufacture,” is inclined to the view that Hargreaves was the first to perfect the machine known as the ”Jenny” (see Fig. 21).
From whatever point of view Hargreaves' machine is looked at, it must be acknowledged to be a decided step forward in the direction of spinning machinery improvement.
The jenny was so unlike Arkwright's frame or Paul's, and preceded that of the former by some years, that its claim to originality can not be questioned. How the inventor came to produce his machine can not be stated, but it is reported that on one occasion he saw a single thread spinning wheel which had been accidentally knocked over, lying with the wheel and spindle free and both revolving.
If the reader will think for a minute it will be apparent that the horizontal position of the spindle would be changed to a vertical one, and Hargreaves argued if one spindle could revolve in that way, why should not eight or any number of spindles be made to work at the same time. How far he successfully worked out that idea will be seen if reference be made to the ill.u.s.tration of the jenny which is shown in Fig. 21.
After what has been said under the head of Carding, Drawing, and Roving, it will easily be understood when it is said that, unlike Arkwright's Machine, Hargreaves' Jenny could only deal with the cotton when in the state of _roving_, and it was the roving which this machine attenuated and twisted or spun into yarn.
If the reader will imagine he or she is standing in front of the jenny, the following description will be made much clearer:--
Image: FIG. 21.--Hargreaves' spinning jenny (after Baines).
The rovings, which have previously been prepared, are each pa.s.sed from the bobbins seen on the lower creel, through a number of grooves on one of the bars which run across the frame, as seen in the ill.u.s.tration.
These rovings are next pa.s.sed on to the spindles standing at the back of the frame and secured to them. A second bar in front of the one over which the rovings pa.s.s, acts as a brake and prevents, when in its proper position, any more roving being delivered, thus securing all between the spindles and the said bar. The wheel which is seen on the right of the jenny communicates with a cylinder by means of a strap or rope, and this cylinder in turning gives circular motion to the spindles which are connected with the cylinder by endless bands. On the spindle is the wharf, specially formed to allow the band to run without slipping.