42
elrinery, in two ways. One was a larger production of the singlespindle attained by a greater speed. At the same time the lossof time by ends breaking, etc., was lessened by improvements inthe spinning-machine itself, and by improved carding and pre-paration, in spite of the greater speed.
According to Ure and Kennedy, the capability of the spindlewas tremendously raised in the very years with which we are atpresent concerned—with 40’s yarn from 2 hanks daily in 1820 to2f up to 3 hanks in 1830 (17). As early as 1834 the daily pro-duction of the spindle was 3f to 4^ hanks, of course with themost improved, but at that time still little-known machinery (18).This latter increase was in consequence of the introduction of theSelf-actor, invented by lloberts in 1830. Since thereturn traverse of the mule-carriage was achieved
mechanically, the winding-on of the yarn spun tookplace concurrently, with less danger of breakages and in a shortertime. Besides this, mechanical power, by its regularity and free-dom from fatigue, being superior to human power, built the copsfirmer and better suited for the weaver. Only when the
weaver received weft yarn spun on self-actors could an increasebe considered in the hitherto low speed of the loom. By theintroduction of the self-actor the last demand on muscular strengthdisappeared, but certainly not, as was then thought, the adultspinner, because the minding of the more and more complicatedmachines was not to be achieved with youthful helpers alone.
If by the introduction of the self-actor the production persingle spindle was increased by 15 to 20 per cent., so also wasthe number of spindles per spinning frame increased. In 1779the operatives smashed jennies containing more than 20 spindles.The water frames with which Arkwright founded the factorysystem do not show more than 8 spindles, in the illustrationsgiven by Ure. The happy combination of both machines byCrompton—the mule—had also 1 not more than 20 to 30 spin-dles (19). At the period when Baines and Ure wrote, 400 to 600spindles were the common length, whilst both, so early, describedmachines of 1,000 to 1,100 spindles (20). Side by side -with theraising of the number of spindles occurred, not an increase, butrather a decrease of labour power.
17. Ellison : “ Cotton Trade,” p. Go.
18. lire : Cotton Manufacture,” II., pp. 194-203.
19. Compare Baines, p. 201. Ure : “ Cotton Manufacture,” 1.. pp. 259-GO.
20. Ure, II., p. 154. Baines, p. 202. Further, Ure: “ Philosophy ofManufactures,” p. 323