The archaeology of industrialisation and the textile industry: the example of and the south-western pennine uplands during the 18th century (part 1) Nevell, MD http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174581908X285110

Title The archaeology of industrialisation and the textile industry: the example of Manchester and the south-western pennine uplands during the 18th century (part 1) Authors Nevell, MD Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/11295/ Published Date 2008

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of . Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008

The Archaeology of Industrialisation and the Textile Industry: the Example of Manchester and the South-western Pennine Uplands During the 18th Century (Part 1) M N

Between the early 18th century and the mid-19th century the north-west of was turned from a relatively impoverished backwater to one of the major industrialisation zones in the world. This is thus a key region for understanding the archaeology of the early stages of industrialisation. The area around Manchester was at the heart of this process, which was driven in this region by the mechanisation of the textile industry. The archaeological remains of this industrial transition are not only very extensive but also comparatively early when considered against the classic period of the ; the decades either side of 1800. This paper discusses this early evidence and the results of a wide-ranging regional survey looking at the archaeology of industrialisation within the textile industry and the role of local tenant farmers in promoting industry in and around Manchester during the 18th century. It highlights a number of key sources of evidence for this period and suggests some future directions for archaeological research into the early industrialisa- tion of this important region.1 The second part will be published in Industrial Archaeology Review XXX.2.

I in south-east was the introduction of cotton in the fi rst half of the 17th century, The topography of the Manchester area is which by the later 17th century was being characterised by uplands to the south-east, woven as a weft with a fl ax warp to make east and north. In these uplands areas are fustian, a hard-wearing cloth designed for the the streams that feed the major rivers of the market rather than the home.2 Mersey Basin; the Etherow, Goyt, Irwell, This signifi cant change in the domestic Mersey, Medlock, and Roch (Figure 1). These work pattern is refl ected in the probate evi- streams and their valleys give the uplands dence of the 17th and early 18th centuries. around Manchester a characteristic undulat- From 1640 such evidence from upland ing feel, with steeply-sided valleys surrounded parishes such as Ashton-under-Lyne and by tall but rounded hills running mainly Mottram-in- includes increasing north-east to south-west. In the 18th century numbers of items related to textile production and fi rst half of the 19th century these valleys such as cotton, fl ax, and wool yarn; raw wool were some of the most dynamic and indus- and linen cloth; kersey pieces and blankets; trialised landscapes in Britain, being fi lled spinning wheels, woollen wheels, looms, with hundreds of vernacular workshops and gears, and cards; tenter bars and boards, water-powered cotton and woollen mills shears and shearboards, presses, and papers. leased and built by the capital-rich and inde- Joyce Powell’s study of the wills and inven- pendently-minded tenantry of the region. tories of Mottram in the period 1570 to 1680, In north-west England these valleys were, for instance, shows that 67 inventories, which literally and metaphorically, the headwaters is 29% of the total number of inventories of the Industrial Revolution. surviving from this period in the parish, contained ‘some item of textile equipment, T R  D T varying from the single pair of cards in a M A M carpenter’s inventory of 1647, to two woollen looms, tenters and wheels of a clothworker, During the 16th and 17th centuries the scat- priced, with some joinery tools, at £6 13s 4d’. tered, rural population of the uplands around Most of these references occur after 1660, Manchester lived in isolated family farms. with 24 of the 35 instances of spinning wheels The economy was largely pastoral with sheep, coming from the period 1660–1680.3 cattle, and oats reared and grown mostly for John Stobart’s important study of the the immediate domestic needs of the family. probate evidence for and that part However, from the early 17th century of Lancashire south of the Ribble between onwards this subsistence farming was increas- 1700 and 1760 indicates that during this peri- ingly supplemented by the domestic spinning od textiles were the most important element and weaving of fl ax and wool. A key change of the local economy in both many of the © The Association for Industrial Archaeology 2008 DOI: 10.1179/174581908X285110 34 N: A  I   T I

Figure 1. upland valley communities and in the local Saddleworth area more than 21 two-storey Map of the Greater urban market centres of south-east Lan- workshops are known from the 18th century, Manchester area cashire.4 This expanding industry had distinct some of which, like the two-storey house and (after Williams with regions specialising in the home-based pro- workshop at Oakdene Cottage, Deanhead, Farnie, 1992). duction of textiles such as fustians (, Saddleworth, can be accurately dated by the Bury, and ), smallwares (Manches- documentary evidence.6 However, from this ter), silks ( and Macclesfi eld) and period a separate and dedicated three-storey woollens (, , , textile workshop began to be built in the val- , and ). leys around Manchester, and it was this type of The archaeological visibility of this growth domestic workshop which predominated in the textile trade and its industrialisation across much of . One of around Manchester does not become obvious the earliest examples to survive in the region until the 18th century when the capital gener- can be found on School Lane in Cheadle, ated by this domestic-based industry began to Stockport (SJ 854 872). Now known as South be used to build two new types of manufac- View, but originally called The Croft, it is a turing site; the vernacular workshop and the three-storey, double-depth cottage built in textile mill. brick. It was sold by the Tatton estate for £23 10s., along with the plot of land it stood on, T V W in 1721 to a local farmer, Samuel Smith, who appears to have had the property built a few The earliest of these new monument types was years earlier.7 Its original function is unclear, the vernacular workshop, or weaver’s cottage, although it seems highly likely it was built for as they are more commonly known in this renting out to textile spinners and weavers. It region (Figure 2). The wills and inventories of had all the elements that came to typify the parishes such as Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, weavers’ cottages of south-east Lancashire Bury, Mottram-in-Longdendale, Rochdale, and north-east Cheshire; a two-room deep, and Saddleworth5 often refer to ‘shops’, mean- three-storey, in this case brick structure with ing workshops, being used for metal, shoe, a central staircase and doorway, and textile, or some other form of domestic indus- originally ten multi-light arched windows to try by tenant farmers from in the late 17th cen- each fl oor at both the front and back, and a tury. By the fi rst half of the 18th century many taking-in door in the gable on the top fl oor. farm houses had either a dedicated room for Such workshops, along with the one- and domestic textile manufacture or an additional two-storey farmhouse workshop additions, one- or two-storey workshop range. In the were a physical expression of the growth of INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 35

the textile industry during the 18th century. survive, in south-east Lancashire and north- Figure 2. They refl ect two different ways of organising east Cheshire from the 18th and early 19th Back Turner Street in production. First, artisan production which centuries. Of these 110 examples are now Manchester showing was the domestic manufacture of textiles listed buildings, with notable concentrations vernacular workshops. by independent, skilled, craftsmen. In these in Atherton, Bolton, Eccles, , Little- households a signifi cant proportion of the borough, Manchester, Marple, , total family income was derived from the , and Saddleworth. The largest manufacture or processing of such goods concentrations can found in the centre of for sale.8 Such artisan production was very Manchester, with 29 listed workshops, and in common in the woollen producing areas of the rural upland district of Saddleworth with West and in the uplands of south- 43 listed workshops, although the numbers east Lancashire around Rochdale, Littlebor- that survive in these areas are much higher; in ough, and Oldham. Secondly, merchant Manchester’s case around 50 such buildings capital production, whereby the preparation, are known.10 This high level of survival in manufacture, and fi nishing as well as the both urban and rural locations indicates marketing of textiles was organised by a few that domestic production was not confi ned clothiers but carried out by many workers to the upland valleys around Manchester on a commission or order basis.9 Within the and therefore models which suggest a clear Lancashire cotton industry this was usually split between rural textile production and done on the ‘putting-out’ system, where the urban market centres are likely to be entrepreneur clothier raised the capital to buy over-simplistic. the raw material and then organised pro- One of the best studied areas of weavers’ duction by putting-out parts of it to spinners, cottages is the area, east of weavers, and fi nishers working at home. In Manchester. Here in the foothills of the west other words this was dispersed production can be found at least 77 extant under a central control. vernacular workshops (Figure 3), although Several hundred of these three-storey only 13 are listed buildings, with notable vernacular workshops were built, and still concentrations in the Longdendale valley 36 N: A  I   T I

Figure 3. Tameside weavers’ cottages. INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 37

(, Hyde, and Mottram) and the equally well studied district of Saddleworth in middle reaches of the Tame valley ( Oldham, it is possible to suggest a very broad and Staley). Those examples with datestones correlation between rows of workshop dwell- range from a pair of double-depth cottages ings which appear to have been sponsored by built at Wednesough Green in Hollingworth merchant capital production, and those work- in 1772 to a row of four, double-depth, three- shops (both the one-, two- and three-storey storey cottages on Staley Road in Mossley varieties) associated with farmsteads which dated to 1802, though the date range is appear to refl ect artisan production. undoubtedly wider than this.11 Amongst the At Wrigley Fold in , near Mottram, pairs and rows of weavers’ cottages was a dis- a three-storey, two-room deep, vernacular tinctive group of three-storey, often single- workshop was built during the late 18th depth, textile workshops built as additions to century by the Wrigley family, whose probate farmhouses and which appear to have been an evidence indicates were both tenant farmers integral part of these farmsteads. In Tameside and cotton weavers involved in artisan pro- at least a dozen examples are known in the duction from the early 18th century to the Pennine foothills, at for instance Moorgate early 19th century. The workshop was added at the north-eastern end of the 17th-century Farm in Staley, The Fold in the farmhouse and was accessed from that farm- Valley, and at Wrigley Fold in Matley. These house internally on the ground fl oor. Exter- examples were all built by tenant farmers in the 12 nally, the workshop had the characteristic 18th century. long rows of multi-light windows on each It is diffi cult from the physical evidence fl oor in the north-western and south-eastern or these workshops alone to identify archaeo- elevations. logically which form of production was A good example of the merchant capital taking place in any particular part of the type of vernacular workshop built in Tameside uplands around Manchester during the 18th is provided by Summerbottom in Broadbot- century; not just whether these workshops tom (Figure 4). These workshops were built contained cotton, fustian, linen or wool by the textile manufacturer and tenant John production, but also whether they were Swindells, who was spinning cotton in the associated with artisan of merchant capital adjacent Hodge Mill on the . production. However, by comparing the Summerbottom is a terrace of six cottages documentary evidence for the vernacular erected in 1790, with later additions of the mid- workshop with the physical evidence for these 19th century at one end.13 The terrace, which is buildings in an area such as Tameside, or the built into the valley side, is of three storeys.

Figure 4a. Summerbottom. 38 N: A  I   T I

Figure 4b. Summerbottom rear taking-in door.

The ground- and fi rst-fl oor levels consisted of T M T    C two-storey cottages, a single room wide and possibly originally only a single room deep, Whether the weaver’s cottage was a single heated by a fi replace in the side wall. The pair, a farmstead workshop associated with second fl oor comprised a loomshop that was artisan production, or a row associated with divided into three intercommunicating rooms. merchant capital production, they all repre- The front of the terrace is south facing and at sented an intermediate stage in the industri- second-fl oor level contains several multi-light alisation of textiles (cotton, fustian, linen and mullioned windows. Access into the loomshop wool) in the uplands around Manchester. was provided not from the cottages but via The rest of this paper is concerned with three entrances at the rear of the terrace. the archaeological remains of the next stage in Because of the slope in the hillside, these are the mechanisation of the textile industry virtually at ground-fl oor level. One is now (primarily for cotton and wool) and the approached by steps, another by a stone bridge, second type of new monument built around and a bridge may also have provided access to Manchester in this period; the textile mill. the third. Such a large workshop, completely Early upland water-powered textile mills separated from the domestic quarters below, form an important but under-studied part of allowed the textile manufacturer direct per- the textile industry of north-west England. sonal control of the quality and quantity of the Though less numerous than the better known fi nished product, with his handloom weavers and better studied steam-powered textile mill also being his sub-tenants. of the 19th century, the impact of the hun- Thus, of the 77 extant three-storey, vernacu- dreds of cotton and woollen water-powered lar workshops built in Tameside during the factories established in the upland valleys of 18th and early 19th centuries, there are 28 examples of row workshops, many of which the region, particularly to the north and east can by documentary evidence be associated of Manchester during the 18th and early 19th with merchant capital production and 16 farm- centuries, was no less dramatic. Streams were based workshops all of which can be associat- dammed, reservoirs and weirs built, leats were ed with artisan textile production by local cut or dug, and multi-storey factories erected tenant farmers.14 The remaining vernacular in wild and remote country that in many cases workshops in Tameside belong to either single had not seen any industry before the 18th cen- or pairs of isolated weavers’ cottages, the tury, and often had not witnessed such inten- social context of which is more ambiguous, sive human activity since the hunter-gathers but for which artisan production might be of the Mesolithic roamed the Pennine uplands suspected. 6,000 years earlier. INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 39

Particularly after 1769 much capital was and refl ect the growing archaeological and spent by the emerging textile tenantry in a historical research in this area in recent fl urry of factory-building that is refl ected in years.18 the archaeological record today. Tracing the Consequently, there is now a suffi ciently location and development of these mill sites is large database to characterise the physical not straight forward.15 Often these mills are remains of the fi rst generation of textile mills dominated by the standing remains relating in the valleys around Manchester. The 387 to the fi nal phases of the textile site’s activity, 18th-century textile sites identifi ed in south- as at the Caplrina Print Works, which com- east Lancashire and north-east Cheshire (now pletely mask the earliest industrial phases of known as Greater Manchester) can be divided such sites. Sometimes archaeological inves- into fi ve types of mill structure (wool fulling, tigation of the standing remains of a mill, such wool scribbling, silk, cotton spinning, and as Albion Mill in Hollingworth and Dry Mill fi nishing). in Mottram, or excavation of a long demo- lished site as at Carr Mill at Carrbrook or Moss Mill in can reveal the true Fulling Mills 18th-century origins of such textile sites. Since The earliest water-powered textile mills in 1992, when the book on the cotton spinning the Manchester region were for the fulling of 16 mills of Greater Manchester was published, woollen cloth. Woollen production was of there has been an upsurge in the number of particular importance in the Oldham, Roch- archaeological surveys of mill buildings, 54 dale, Saddleworth, and Tameside areas. By by the end of 2006, and in the excavation of the 16th century Lancashire already had a mill sites, 24 by the end of 2006, in Greater well established textile industry whose two Manchester, a signifi cant number of which, main staples were linens and woollens. In the 20 sites, have now been shown to have an later 17th century these older branches were 18th-century origin. largely replaced by the introduction and Such fi eldwork is labour-intensive and spread of cotton, at this period in the form of time-consuming and often documentary evi- fustians. By 1700 woollen production was dence in the form of land tax returns, estate almost entirely confi ned to the eastern border rentals, insurance records, newspaper adverts, and more rarely deeds, combined with map of the county and in the Rochdale and evidence and landscape analysis, can be Saddleworth districts woollen manufacturers retained a monopoly as late as the early 19th used to show an 18th-century water-powered 19 origin for what at fi rst may appear to be an century. early 20th-century steam-powered mill site. Fulling was the fi rst process within the In the past, attempts to quantify the textile industry to which water power was numbers of textile mills built in the market applied. It had two purposes; to remove centres and uplands of south-east Lancashire natural oil and grease from woven cloth, a and north-east Cheshire have been confi ned necessary step before dyeing could be carried to the identifi cation of the Arkwright mill out, and to tighten and thicken the fabric. In type-site both as a water-powered cotton the fulling mill this was achieved by pounding spinning mill from 1771 and as a water- the cloth with water-powered hammers, or powered wool spinning mill from 1785 stocks, while soaking it in water mixed with a onwards. Analysis by John Chapman of a cleaning agent (for which fuller’s earth and contemporary census of Arkwright patented stale urine were used). Before the application mills from 1788 suggested 44 textile mill sites of water power to the process, fulling was for Lancashire and 15 for Cheshire of which carried out by treading, or walking, the cloth, 17 were located in the Greater Manchester which led to fulling mills also being known as area,17 whilst a recently published study of walk mills. Arkwright-type mills in the North-West, Of the 36 fulling mills recorded in Greater which also included an analysis of other Manchester during the 18th century, 31 were contemporary documentary material such built between 1750 and 1800, mostly after as newspaper adverts and deeds, suggested 1780. These new fulling mills were con- 36 such mills were built in and around Man- centrated in Littleborough, Rochdale, and chester. However, when this documentary Saddleworth, though the Mossley area of approach is extended to all textile mill sites Tameside had three such mills by 1800. The built in the 18th century the numbers rise con- upsurge in the construction of fulling mills in siderably. Through such analysis at least 387 the later 18th century probably refl ects the water- and steam-powered textile mills have increasing demand for all forms of textiles been identifi ed as operating in Greater Man- during this period. Few of these 18th-century chester (the old areas of south-east Lancashire fulling mills survive and none is complete, one and north-east Cheshire) between 1700 and of the best examples being the fi ve-storey, 1800. These fi gures are themselves a substan- stone-built, Crimble Mill at Bamford in tial increase from the fi gure of 154 textile sites Rochdale. This was built as a fulling mill in for Greater Manchester published in 2003 1761, but rebuilt as a cotton spinning mill 40 N: A  I   T I

around 1829 and further altered in 1886, by Silk Mills which date it had returned to wool produc- tion although it was spinning wool rather Silk mills formed a small but signifi cant part than fulling. Such a pattern of site develo- of the new factory-based textile industry pment and change of use was common for during the 18th century, especially in eastern many 18th-century mills around Manchester Cheshire. The fi rst successful silk factory in and is one of the reasons why so little standing Britain was Lombe’s silk mill in Derby. Built fabric from 18th-century textile mills in 1721 it was a fi ve-storeyed building 33.5m survives. long by 12m wide and 17m high, containing Italian-style silk throwing machinery copied by Lombe in Italy, and was driven by an Woollen Scribbling Mills undershot water wheel 7m in diameter.23 After fulling, the next stage of woollen manu- Lombe’s silk machinery was covered by a facture to be powered was scribbling, the patent that did not expire until 1732. Of the equivalent of carding in the cotton industry. seven silk mills erected in England between Scribbling was the preparation of wool for 1732 and 1769 and housing Italian-style spinning by separating the tangled mass of the throwing machinery of the Lombe type four fi bres of the raw wool and then brushing them were in Cheshire; Logwood Mill in Stockport parallel. This was done between the wire combs built in 1732, Button Mill in Macclesfi eld in of card cloth that removed short fi bres, seeds, 1744, Old Mill in Congleton built in 1753, and and seed cases, and brought the majority of an unknown Macclesfi eld mill, probably fi bres more or less parallel with each other to Townley Street, which was erected by 1769.24 form a loose, untwisted wool shank known as By the end of the century there were nine a sliver. Originally done by hand using thistles silk mills in Stockport and one in Manchester. on boards, the fi rst carding machine was pat- Unfortunately no extant examples survive in ented in 1748 by Daniel Bourne, but this was the Manchester area, although there are a a somewhat ineffi cient hand-powered affair. number of 18th-century silk mills still stand- Once spinning machines had been invented, ing in Macclesfi eld, Cheshire. Whilst the scribbling and carding became a serious bot- silk mill was the least common textile mill tleneck in the production of yarn, a problem building type in the North-West during which was only solved when Richard Ark- the 18th century, it was a vital step in the wright patented a water-powered rotary card- development of the industrial factory since it ing machine in 1775. This fed the raw cotton or had the essential elements characteristic of wool between a series of cloth-covered card all such later buildings: a well-lit, uncluttered rollers spaced around a large drum also cov- 20 fl oor area large enough for the effi cient ered in card cloth. Consequently, scribbling accommodation of processes, and adequate or carding mills dedicated to this single process accommodation for ancillary processes and became very common in the last quarter of the storage.25 18th century. In Lancashire such factories were known as scribbling mills, even though it was a term usually used only in the woollen indus- Cotton Spinning Mills try. This makes the differentiation between cotton and woollen carding mills diffi cult in The water-powered cotton spinning mill was the region.21 the most common of all the mill building types Between 1775 and 1800 53 mills containing erected during the 18th century. These housed carding machines or ‘engines’ were estab- the fi rst part of the cotton manufacturing lished in Oldham, Rochdale, Saddleworth, process to be mechanised. and Tameside. One of the few surviving The earliest practical machine for cotton examples is Shaw Mill in Delph (SD 986 spinning (that is, the drawing out and twisting 079).22 Erected in 1782, this is a hammer- of fi bres to form a long thread) was invented dressed stone-built three-storey structure with by James Hargreaves in 1764 and was known a centrally placed undershot waterwheel. as the spinning jenny. This was a multi-spindle The exterior elevations are very distinctive machine that drafted and twisted the cotton with a row of 12-light windows on the fi rst in one stage and wound it onto a spindle in a and second fl oors at the front. The rear eleva- second stage. The whole process was hand- tion retains a blocked arched opening for the driven via a wheel on a machine that initially head race, three- and four-light ground-fl oor had eight spindles, but in its most developed windows, two fi ve-light windows on the fi rst form in the early 19th century had as many as fl oor, and on the second fl oor a long 12-light 120.26 The yarn produced was soft and thick, window. Internally, each fl oor comprised a rather than having a consistently hard twist, single room with the ceilings supported by but for the cotton industry was ideal for use as single-span beams. Externally and internally weft, which is probably why the hand-powered this arrangement was very reminiscent of the jenny remained in popular use as late as the vernacular workshop, or weavers’ cottages, of patenting of the self-acting mule in 1830.27 the area. Two other types of cotton spinning machinery INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 41 were developed in the late 18th century. The mill architecture changed. Archaeological and most infl uential was Richard Arkwright’s documentary evidence records at least 219 water-frame that he initially patented in 1769. cotton spinning mills of various types built His 1769 prototype engine, which was horse- in and around Manchester between 1769 and driven, could spin four threads at once using 1800. drafting rollers to stretch the loose roving and Most of the fi rst generation 18th-century a fl yer to twist the drawn-out roving into a textile factories were built on a small scale. thread that was then wound onto a bobbin.28 Jennies could be housed in existing buildings However, it was not until 1771 that he fi rst such as a barn, whilst corn mills could be applied water-power to the frame at his new adapted to take carding engines, water frames, mill in Cromford. A second patent in 1775 or mules. This allowed many local tenant farm- encompassed a variety of preparatory mach- ers to enter the cotton manufacturing business. ines to serve the water frame and included A detailed survey of the textile mills of the a continuous carding engine for producing Tameside area revealed that of the 274 textile slivers; a draw frame where four slivers were mills established within the borough between combined and stretched to form a single 1763 and 1907, 67 were built before 1800. One largely even roving; and a lantern frame that of the fi rst textile buildings in the Tameside converted the sliver into roving, a lightly area reused the old corn mill on the River twisted rope of fi bres strong enough to be used Tame at Ashton that was converted in 1773 on the water frame, which by this date could to a print works and then in 1784 into a water- accommodate 96 spindles. The resultant wiry powered cotton carding mill.32 The water- yarn was ideal for use as both warp and weft. powered cotton spinning factory known as By 1784 the water frame had been adapted to Old Street Mill in Stalybridge was also estab- spin wool into worsted yarn.29 lished in an old corn mill on the River Tame, Arkwright’s second patent of 1775 allowed around 1790. Stalybridge’s fi rst mill was the him to market a complete manufacturing ‘Soot Poke’ Mill which was established around system, including the mill building and the 1776, possibly in an existing building next to water-power system, as well as the preparation a small stream running off Ridge Hill. Neddy and spinning machinery, rather than just a Hall, the owner, appears to have been a local single spinning machine. As a result Arkwright tenant farmer. His mill housed both a water- has been called the father of the factory system powered carding engine and hand-powered and of the industrial society which emerged in jennies.33 Another early that prob- the following century. ably housed jennies was a barn converted for The last of the mechanical cotton spinning such use in Mottram. Wagstaffe’s Factory, as machines to be invented in the 18th century it was known, was converted around 1786 by was Samuel Crompton’s spinning mule in John Wagstaffe, a local tenant farmer, and 1779. This was a combination of the jenny and probably housed horse-driven jennies. James the water frame that used the bare spindle Odgen’s Mill on Crickets Lane in Ashton may spinning of the former and the drafting rollers also have been established in an old barn some of the latter to produce a very fi ne, hard- years before 1800.34 The conversion of existing twisted, yarn suitable for warps and able to buildings for hand-powered mule spinning match the fi ne muslin fabrics of India.30 Origi- machines became common after 1785 when nally hand-powered with just 48 spindles, the certain patent claims by Arkwright were mule was rapidly developed by mill owners rejected. According to the 19th-century local (it was not patented by Crompton, much to historian Edwin Butterworth in 1794 Ashton his disadvantage) so that by 1790 mules with contained around 10 spinning rooms or small 150 spindles were common, and by 1800 a factories of this type, some supplemented by semi-automatic version held 400 spindles. This horse-driven carding machines35 but each version of the mule was designed to be par- employing no more than 10 or 20 people. tially power-driven so that the movement These are, however, practically impossible to of the carriage and the twisting, stretching, locate archaeologically, although documen- and drawing out of the yarn could be water- tary evidence has indicated the location of one or steam-driven, although backing-off and ruinous example. This is a building known as winding still had to be done by hand.31 Wagstaffe’s Factory (SJ 9929 9556) which a The new cotton mills of the post-1769 era, local Mottram tenant farmer, John Wagstaffe, which housed these spinning machines, were had converted from a barn into a horse- essentially functional buildings, whose form powered or hand-powered jenny mill in was dictated primarily by the processes they 1786.36 were intended to contain. As the machines Whilst the number of converted rooms and changed in size (from the spinning jenny to the barns used for textile production is unknown, water frame and then to the spinning mule) documentary and archaeological evidence and as newly mechanised processes were added indicates that at least 200 purpose-built cotton to the industry (such as the scrutcher, lap factories were erected in the hills to the north, former, drawing frame, and lantern frame) so east and south-east of Manchester between 42 N: A  I   T I

1769 and 1800. Most of these housed the new as a four-storey brick-built mill and substan- spinning machines; the jenny, the mule, and tially expanded in 1859, and Gerrards Wood the water frame. The small scale of some of the Mill near Gee Cross, built around 1795 as a earliest purpose-built factories is shown by the three-storey brick mill.41 surviving example of Dry Mill in Mottram (SJ Mills containing water- and steam-powered 9930 9556) which was built around 1796–1797 mule spinning machines became common in by John Wagstaffe as a cotton spinning mill of the 1790s. The mules were arranged in pairs two storeys, 10m × 20m. Its name arose from lengthwise along the mill fl oor facing each the fact that it was not water-powered, and other, the drive shaft running between, so that although the precise motive power is unclear, one spinner (with his female and child assis- it was almost certainly horse-driven and prob- tants) could supervise both machines.42 Such ably contained jennies.37 The largest and most an arrangement required a slightly wider mill technically sophisticated 18th-century cotton building than the Arkwright-type, as can be spinning mill was the Arkwright-type factory seen at the earliest surviving mule-spinning which housed the water frame. The size of the mill in the Manchester area. This is the ori- water frame determined the width of the mill, ginally eight-storey, steam-powered Old Mill since pairs of water frames were placed across and Decker Mill at Murray’s Mill; these the mill with the drive shaft running length- two spinning blocks were built by the textile ways through their centres. With the addition entrepreneurs A. and G. Murray in Ancoats, of a gangway at the end of the frames such Manchester, during the years 1798–1802, and mills were usually 30ft (9m) in width and have a combined length of 196ft (60m) and usually ranged in length between 70 and 120ft are 44ft (13.3m) wide. By the 1790s and 1800s (22m-36m), although there were shorter and most of the new cotton mills being erected were longer examples. Most of these mills had three for mule-spinning since these could be more or four storeys, though examples as tall as readily adapted for steam-power. For instance, seven fl oors are known, as at New Lanark in the earliest surviving mule-spinning mill in southern Scotland. Waterwheels were posi- Tameside was probably the steam-powered tioned either in the middle or at the gable end Castle Street Mill in Stalybridge, which was of these mills and the large amount of water erected in 1805 by George Cheetham, a tenant needed to turn the wheel meant that extensive farmer from Newton-in-Longdendale.43 With leats and reservoirs were built. Precisely how so many new textile sites being established in many Arkwright-type mills were built in the the 1780s and 1790s John Aikin’s comment in North-West is unclear. A census of the mills 1795 that ‘within the space of ten miles from published in 1788 records 39 in Lancashire Ashton there are near 100 mills upon this and seven in Cheshire, but these fi gures were stream [the Tame] and its tributary branches’44 revised to 44 in Lancashire and 15 in Cheshire comes as no surprise, and may even have been in 1982. The Lancashire fi gure was further an under-estimate. revised in 2003 to 101 Arkwright-type mills.38 The current study has recorded 219 cotton Textile Finishing Sites spinning mills built in Greater Manchester during the 18th century, but less than a quarter The fi fth, and fi nal, type of mill structure that of these were Arkwright-type mills. emerged in the 18th century was the textile Such mills required a substantial amount of fi nishing site. The fi nishing of yarn and cloth capital to build, with £3,000 in the early 1780s through bleaching, dyeing, and printing was needed for a 1,000 spindle mill with a 10hp common throughout the medieval and post- waterwheel, which appears to have been the medieval periods, but the growing output of smallest type, employing 100–200 operatives.39 mechanized textile production led to a bottle- An advertisement in the Manchester Mercury neck at the fi nishing stage of production until records an Arkwright-type mill in two technological changes emerged to speed up for auction that was built by a local tenant up the process. The fi rst was the introduction farmer called Ned Holt around 1788. It was of chemical bleaching and the second the 69ft by 18ft and three storeys high and appears application of steam power to the bleaching, to have cost £1,000 to build, bankrupting the dyeing, and printing processes which resulted tenant farmer in the process.40 The location of in at least 67 fi nishing sites being established this mill has been subsequently lost. There are in and around Manchester during the 18th a few late 18th-century Arkwright-type mills century. surviving in Greater Manchester. In Bolton Chlorine bleaching was fi rst perfected in the four-storey, stone-built, St Helena Mill 1785 by the French chemist Berthollet, who was erected around 1780–1782 as a water- demonstrated that a solution made by passing frame mill, although it was substantially chlorine through potash had a very strong rebuilt around 1827 as a steam-powered mule bleaching action, reducing the time taken to spinning site, whilst two late examples are bleach cloth from four or fi ve months to days known from Tameside; Albion Mill on Wedne- and allowed the process to be moved under sough Green in Hollingworth built in 1794 cover. In 1788 a Manchester chemist, Thomas INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 43

Henry, exhibited a yard of cloth bleached in new, extensive, industrialised landscapes were the ‘new way’ to a meeting of textile fi nishers dominated by reservoirs and leat systems. and merchants in Manchester, already the regional centre of the textile fi nishing trade. T M B This helped to popularise the process in the area, and further encouragement for its use Most of the fi nance for the building of these was given in 1799 when Tennant introduced 387 18th-century mills appears to have come chlorine-based bleaching powder. Tradition- from the tenant farms and merchants respon- ally the cloth was treated in bundles by hand, sible for running the mills. They drew upon but in 1828 David Bentley invented a washing their own assets and those of their families machine that used lengths of cloth pieced or and friends, the documentary evidence show- sewn together to form a near continuous 45 ing that few mill builders mortgaged lands process. However, it was not until 1845 that and property other than those upon which the John Brooks, of the Sunnyside Print Works mill was built.50 The evidence for this can be in Crawshawbooth, fi rst used steam power to found in three main sources for the North- carry the ropes of cloth through all the stages West: insurance records from com panies such of the bleaching process. This continuous pro- as the Sun Insurance Company; land tax cess used a pulley system, and the cloth ropes were pulled through the walls separating the records for the townships in the region; and various bleaching and dyeing rooms via glazed contemporary advertisements in journals bricks with large holes in them, known as pot such as the Manchester Mercury. In addition eyes. occasionally deeds provide evidence for This newly industrialised process required the mortgage transactions which sometimes large amounts of housing and storage. Con- fi nanced the construction of these mills. sequently it led to a switch in the late 18th Of the 387 mills identifi ed as being built or century from open-air bleaching grounds to run during the 18th century in south-east an enclosed bleachworks with bleaching and Lancashire and north-east Cheshire, 260, or dying crofts housed in long narrow one- or approximately two-thirds, have known build- two-storey buildings. In Tameside the ruinous ers. Of these, the documentary evidence shows examples of late 18th-century industrial stone that 30 mill sites, or less than 12% of those bleaching and dyeing tanks can still be seen at with known owners/occupiers, were built by the Hodge Print works near Broadbottom in landowners. However, the work of Barnes the Etherow Valley and in Bury at the Lee Hill in the early 1980s51 indicates that the latter Bleachworks near Shuttleworth in Ramsbot- fi gure is likely to be an under-estimate since tom.46 Later on kiers, or large free-standing insurance records seldom mention who owned vats, were used for the bleaching process, the land on which a mill was built. Likewise being housed in tall single-storey buildings, newspaper advertisements usually did not which still characterise many bleaching and mention the land-owner. Many of these 30 dyeing sites today. individuals appear to have purchased this The introduction of new power systems at land with the expressed intention of building the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th a mill on it and securing the water rights to centuries (fi rst through the waterwheel and that mill. Nevertheless, it is clear that the great later through the steam engine) had a big majority of the Greater Manchester mills impact on the processes. Water and steam built in the 18th century were erected on land power were used to drive the singers, kiers, rented from local landowners by merchants washing machines and drying machines that and tenant farmers. were needed to cope with the increased throughput of yarn and cloth.47 It was these The way in which a tenant farming steam-powered processes that enabled the family might become involved in the capital Buckton Vale Bleaching and Print Works, intensive business of textile mill building can established in 1825, to become the largest be illustrated with two families’ histories from bleaching, dyeing and calico printing works 18th-century Tameside. in the North-West by the end of the 19th The Wagstaffes fi rst appear as farmers century.48 in Mottram township in 1692. In that year One consequence of this development was Nicholas Wagstaffe and his wife Martha built the growth from the 1780s onwards of large what is now known as Post Offi ce Farm. It is clusters of bleaching, dyeing, and printing a two-storey stone building with mullioned works in many of the river valleys of the windows, coped gables and a two-storey porch region. The main areas for textile fi nishing in the style common in the southern Pennines were in the around at the time, on the western side of Market and Blackburn in central Lancashire, in the Street. This building was one of many new valleys of the Irwell, Irk, Kirklees, and Med- farmhouses created during the 17th and 18th lock around Manchester, and along the tri- centuries in the lordships of Ashton and Long- butaries of the Mersey (the Goyt, Tame and dendale. The new farm holding was carved out Etherow) in north-eastern Cheshire.49 These of the neighbouring Angel Inn and Pack Horse 44 N: A  I   T I

Inn farms. The size of this holding was large by been built in 1796–1797 as a replacement for the standards of the time at over 30 acres. It Wagstaffe’s factory, though it is possible that was a compact parcel of land lying to the east the earlier site was included in other lands of Market Street, in the area known as the owned by Wagstaffe in Mottram. Pitses. In 1727 their son John, who also The factory did not last very long and was described himself as a tenant farmer, held the soon converted to cottages. This had probably tenancy, which was still around 30 acres. He occurred by 1813, for the Mottram rental of had two sons, John born in 1752 and James that year has no mention of the cotton factory born in 1758. By 1799 the family had added by name, though it could have occurred as to this holding by renting a large portion, early as the remortgage in 1805.59 In this roughly 10 acres, of the former Ashworth regard it is worth noting that James Wagstaffe, tenancy, which lay immediately south of the who is described as a shopkeeper from Post Offi ce Farm land, making it one of the Mottram in three leases from the period 1792– largest tenancies within Mottram during this 1794,60 was called a cotton spinner in a lease period.52 and re-lease dated 16 September 1806, perhaps Although principally tenant farmers, they suggesting that he had taken over Dry Mill were involved in the domestic spinning of from John Wagstaffe.61 The second family textiles during the century. During the boom history that shows the transition from tenant of the 1780s and 1790s many of the farmers in farming into textile production is that of the the Mottram area took to building housing for Heap family of Moorgate Farm on the eastern handloom weavers.53 They and also set about edge of the township of Staley. Moorgate converting barns or erecting new buildings to Farm was rented from the Stamford Estate house the hand-powered spinning jennies, and is an area of west-facing rough pasture water-frames or mule spinning machines. In over 180m above sea level. 1786 John Wagstaffe decided to convert a barn A Thomas Heape occurs in a will and inven- on his land into a horse or hand powered spin- tory of 1623–1624, worth £469 6s. 3d., describ- ning jenny mill. This was on the western side ing himself as a tenant farmer.62 The inventory of Back Lane immediately south of Old Post of his goods was modest, totalling only £68 1s. Offi ce farm and was known as Wagstaffe’s 8d. However, he had very large sums of money factory.54 Later in the 1790s the land tax owing to him, amounting to £401 4s. 7d. From returns indicate that he had a second cotton the list of the debts owing to Thomas it is factory opposite the fi rst, this one being known apparent that the family’s main income in the as Dry Mill,55 though whether he ran both early 17th century arose from money lending together is unclear. Dry Mill was erected on to the other farmers in Mottram parish and land opposite Wagstaffe’s fi rst factory, for a the neighbouring parishes of Ashton, lease of 1804, mortgaging the site to Robert and Stockport. For instance, he had 19 kine, Newton of Heaton Norris, describes the fac- or cows, of which 16 were ‘in keeping of’, that tory as a ‘new building and workshop lately is, rented to, 13 other farmers, mostly in erected’.56 It is a stone-built two-storey build- Staley, but including individuals in Arnfi eld, ing, three bays by two, with a ridge slate roof Hartshead, Mottram, Mossley, and Saddle- and chimneys. The west elevation has a door worth. Other debts owed to him came from with a small single light to its right on the farmers in Dukinfi eld, Hadfi eld, Heyrod, ground fl oor and a modern window. The fi rst Highstone, Hollingworth, Luzley, Matley, fl oor has a four-light fl at-faced stone mullion Micklehurst, Ridge Hill, and Tunstead. window. The eastern elevation has three The fi rst member of the family who can be windows all with stone sills and lintels. associated with Moorgate Farm in Staley is The precise construction date of Dry Mill Robert Heap. His will of 1678 states that is unclear. A lease of 1799 to John Ashton of Robert acquired Moorgate from a William Hollingworth indirectly mentions the mill, Gaskell. Under the terms of Robert’s will the when it describes a plot of land for building a family holdings were split in two, his eldest son house on boarded on the northern side by the Robert and his grandson, also called Robert. cotton factory of John Wagstaffe, on the east- Each received half of Moorgate farm. A Stam- ern side by Mottram (Market) Street, on the ford rental of 1702 records a Robert Heap western side by Back Lane and on the southern tenant and a Robert Heap ‘cloathmaker’, side by land belonging to Thomas Cardwell.57 possibly Robert’s son, as jointly renting 17 Although the land tax returns do not mention customary acres of land at 13s. per annum.63 the site by name until 1799, the plot of land The character of the farm in the late 17th cen- concerned, valued at 3s. 4½d. can be traced in tury is indicated by the inventory of Robert entries for 1798 and 1797.58 In 1796 the Land Heap. This was worth £135 19s. and included Tax Returns record John Wagstaffe as owning ‘horses, kine, sheepe, and hog’ valued at £51 a cotton mill in Mottram, assessed at the 16s., ‘corne and Hay’ worth £10, and ‘ploughes higher rate of 3s. 9d., but it is possible that this and harrows and Husbandry Geares’ worth £1 referred to Wagstaffe’s factory established in 16s.64 It is not clear from the inventory what if 1786. This suggests that Dry Mill may have any crops were grown, though comparison INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 45 with other Mottram parish inventories would have set up a thriving business as a clothier and suggest that the ploughs and harrows were by his death in 1790 his estate was worth £90.72 used in the production of fodder crops for the Furthermore another of his younger brothers, farm’s livestock. Robert also had debts owing William, took a 99-year lease on a plot of land to him worth £47 10s., which suggests that the on 1 January 1793 in the Carrbrook Valley. family was continuing to lend to the local This was to become the fi rst cotton spinning farmers of the parish. Joyce Powell has noted mill in Carrbrook, Castle Mill. It contained that Staley township contained the most mon- seven 204-spindle mule spinning machines and eylenders in the parish of Mottram whereas one with 192 spindles, four carding machines the highest number of borrowers lived in and other preparatory machinery. However, it Godley.65 Robert had three other sons, but was not mentioned in the land tax returns until none of these seem to have received much from 1797, suggesting that it took a few years to his will. The fate of such landless younger sib- build. Like many of these early ventures it was lings who were forced to make their own way not initially successful, and William had to sell is indicated by the inventory of one of the sons, the mill and its machinery in 1799.73 Both the Daniel Heap, proved in 1694 when his estate Wagstaffe and Heap families were unable to was valued at only £22 19s.66 Amongst Daniel sustain themselves for long in the new era of Heap’s goods and chattels were ‘Cloath, yarn mechanised textile production, though other et wool’ valued at £8 9s., ‘Looms, warping families did. One of the features of the upsurge wools and Creeles’ worth £1 5s., and ‘Comms in new mill building in the late 18th century is and wilskits, whiles, cards and other metterals the recurrence of particular family names belonging to the trade’, that is of a clothier, within certain townships. In Mossley the most worth 14s. 6d. It seems that Daniel had relied important textile families in the late 18th heavily on textile working to compensate for and early 19th centuries were the Andrew, the shortcomings of his small tenancy. Daniel’s Buckley, Mallalieu, and Mellor families. Else- brother Joshua’s goods were somewhat more where in Tameside dominant families were: when he died in 1708, at £38 10s.67 in Ashton the Buckleys, Chadwicks, and The success of this family is refl ected in the Heginbottom; in Hyde the Ashtons, Hibberts, surviving farm complex, much of which dates Sidebothams, and Turners; the Longdendale from the 18th century. The oldest element of Valley by the Sidebottoms; and Stalybridge by the complex is formed by a central farmhouse, the Cheethams, Harrisons, and Leeches. Most now No. 3, dating to the 17th century. It is two of these families would go on to dominate storeys in watershot stone and squared rubble, the economic and social history of these town- with mullion windows to both fl oors. The ships throughout the 19th century, a pattern 18th-century additions include at the western which can be repeated in the valleys and end a range of two two-storey cottages again townships around Manchester from Bolton to with mullion windows, which suggest that the Saddleworth. top fl oor may have been used for spinning. At the eastern end there is a shippon and a barn T C -C M V with an arched entrance. Robert’s will of 173368 left Moorgate to his The impact of the 387 new mills built and two sons, William and Daniel, though it indi- operated during this century was most keenly cates that he was no more than a poor tenant felt in the upland valleys around Manchester. farmer at his death with an estate worth just The fi ve modern boroughs of Bury, Oldham, £3. Why the family fortunes had collapsed Rochdale, Stockport, and Tameside contain is unclear. Daniel’s will survives from 1774, by 288 early textile sites. That is 74% of all the which time the family fortunes had recovered, mills built and operated in the period 1700 to and although no inventory has survived inter- 1800 within the modern county. Consequen- nal evidence from his will suggests that the tly, the upland valleys in these areas became Heap family estate was worth more than £68.69 intensively industrialised with six or more Daniel had four sons and two daughters, and water-powered textile mills to be found his will indicates some of the provisions along each of the valleys of the Carrbrook, frequently made for the safeguarding of such a Castleshaw Brook, Cheesden Brook, Kirklees large family. The three youngest sons received Brook, Mellor Brook, Micklehurst Brook, Daniel’s own house in which they could live Naden Brook, the River Spadden, and Strine until the lease expired, whilst the eldest Dale at the head of the Medlock. son, also called Daniel, received the rest of Some of these valleys were dominated by the Moorgate property, on condition that he one type of textile activity, such as textile distributed £68 amongst his relatives.70 The fi nishing in the Kirklees Valley, wool fulling textile element of this family’s economy and carding along Castleshaw Brook, and appears to have become the dominant eco- cotton spinning along Mellor Brook, but the nomic force. Despite inheriting the majority of other valleys (Carrbrook, Cheesden, Mickele- the farm Daniel Heap described himself as a hurst, Naden, Spadden and Strine Dane) saw woollen clothier in his will of 1806.71 One of mills from a number of branches of the textile Daniel’s younger brothers, Robert, appears to industry erected. 46 N: A  I   T I

The Kirklees Valley is unique in the region Sometimes, this was combined with a shift to in being exclusively dominated by the fi nish- another branch of textile manufacture. From ing trades throughout its industrial life. By the 1850s the industrial story of the Carrbrook the early 19th century there were 12 textile Valley was one that was to be dominated fi nishing sites along a 4km stretch of valley by the fi nishing trade as represented by the (including a small tributary), of which six Buckton Vale Print Works, the largest textile were founded in the late 18th century. The fi nishing site in north-west England. fi rst of these sites established was the Wood- hill Bleach and Dye Works opened in 1786, N  R whilst the last working site was the Kirklees Bleach Works which closed in the 1960s. Most 1 This research was funded by Tameside Metropoli- of these sites specialised in the bleaching tan Borough Council, one of the 10 local authorities within the county of Greater Manchester, as part of and dyeing of cotton yarn and cloth, although the Tameside Archaeological Survey. there were also three print works in the 2 For the economy of the region in this period valley. see Nevell, M.D., A History and Archaeology of The Castleshaw Brook (also known as Hull Tameside, Volume 2: Tameside 1066–1700 (Tameside Council with the Greater Brook) was dominated by the woollen trade. Manchester Archaeological Unit, 1991), and A There were eight textile sites in the valley History and Archaeology of Tameside, Volume 3: established between 1758 (Castleshaw Mill) Tameside 1700–1930 (Tameside Metropolitan and 1795 (Moorcroft Wood Mill), although Borough Council with the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit, 1993); Nevell, M.D. and J.S.F. all bar the earliest site were established in the Walker, A History and Archaeology of Tameside, 74 1780s and 1790s. Seven of these sites were Volume 6: Lands and Lordship in Tameside. Tameside woollen mills, two fulling mills and fi ve scrib- in Transition, 1348–1642 (Tameside Metropolitan bling mills, with a single cotton spinning mill Borough Council with the Archaeological Unit, 1998), and A History and at Hull Mill established on the brook in 1787. Archaeology of Tameside, Volume 7: Transition in Three of the woollen mills were in the hands Tameside. The Archaeology of the Industrial Revo- of owner-occupier textile manufacturers, lution in Two North-West Lordships, 1642–1870 which was one of the distinctive features of (Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council with the the 18th-century woollen industry in the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit, 1999), and Phillips, C.B. and J.H. Smith 1993, Lancashire southern Pennines. This intense textile acti- and Cheshire from AD 1540 (Longman, 1993). For vity in the valley was short-lived and by the early linen manufacture around Manchester, see Win- mid-19th century all of the water-powered terbottom, D., ‘“Sackclothes and fustyans and such mills had been abandoned. like com’odyties”. Early Linen Manufacture in the Manchester Region’, in Roberts, E. (ed.), A History Of those valleys with a mixture of cotton, of Linen in the North West (Centre for North West woollen, and fi nishing sites the most inten- Regional Studies, University of Lancaster, 1998). sively industrialised was the Cheesden Valley 3 Powell, J., ‘The Parish of Mottram-in- and the associated Naden Brook.75 By the Longdendale, 1570–1680’ (unpublished Local History Certifi cate dissertation, University of Manchester second quarter of the 19th century, 14 of the Dept of Extra Mural Studies, 1976), 27 — copy in the 15 textile sites in the Cheesden Valley could be Tameside Local Studies Library. Other notable works found along a 5km stretch of the brook, whilst transcribing the 17th-century wills and inventories its tributary the Naden Valley had eight mills from the parishes around Manchester include Petford, A.J. and P.M. Buckley, Saddleworth Wills along a 3.5km stretch. The earliest mill to be and Inventories 1649–1679 (Saddleworth: WEA, established in these two valleys was Kershaw 2003); King, D., A Study of the Probate Records for Bridge Mill, a dye and print works built in the Parishioners of Ashton-under-Lyne 1660–1680 1780, and water-powered textile fi nishing (Manchester: University of Manchester Extra-Mural Department, 1987); Phillips, C.B. and J.H. Smith continued in the valley until the end of the (eds), Stockport Probate Records 1578–1619 (Record 19th century. The valley has the distinction of Society of Lancashire and Cheshire CXXIV, 1985), having the highest mill in terms of altitude and Stockport Probate Records 1620–1650 (Record anywhere in the Pennines. This was Four Acre Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, CXXXI, 1992). Groves, J., Piggins Husslements and Desperate Debts. Mill, a cotton spinning mill built around 1800, A Social History of North-east Cheshire through Wills which sat at 315m above sea level. Because of and Probate Inventories, 1600–1760 (Northern Writ- the remote location of the valley it also con- ers Advisory Service, 1994) also contains much useful tains some of the earliest surviving remains of information and a good deal of the primary data used in this study has since been published in detail. cotton mills (Cheesden Lumb Higher Mill) Wadsworth and Mann’s 1931 classic study of the and bleaching works anywhere in the region. early cotton industry in the North-West also contains The success of the upland textile valley was much information regarding references to the early short-lived and once steam power became use of cotton in probate evidence around Manchester; Wadsworth, A.P. and J. Mann, The Cotton Trade commonly available in the 1820s the geo- and Industrial Lancashire (Manchester: University of graphical advantage of a reliable water supply Manchester, 1931). became redundant, along with many of these 4 Stobart, J., The First Industrial Region. North-west upland mills. Those valleys that survived as England, c.1700–60 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 42–6. industrial centres did so because the millown- 5 Nevell, M., ‘Bury, The Archaeology of Pennine ers were able to adapt their water-powered Valley’ (unpublished report by UMAU, 1999); textile sites to the new motive power of steam. Powell, ref. 3. INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXX: 1, 2008 47

6 This cottage was built as a dual house and woollen Commission on the Historical Monuments of workshop around 1742 and extended around 1800. England, 1993); Nevell, M., ‘From Linen Weaver to John Smith, W., Saddleworth Buildings. A Guide to the Cotton Manufacturer: Manchester During the 17th Vernacular Architecture of the Parish of Saddleworth and 18th Centuries and the Social Archaeology of in the Pennines (Saddleworth: Saddleworth Historical Industrialisation’, in Nevell, M. (ed.), From Farmer to Society in association with the Saddleworth Festival Factory Owner. Models, Methodology and Industriali- of Arts, 1987), 88–9. sation. The Archaeology of the Industrial Revolution in 7 UMAU, ‘South View, Cheadle. Interim Report (Council for British Archaeology on the study of the development of an 18th and 19th North West Archaeology North-West Volume 16, century range of vernacular buildings’ (unpublished 2003), 41. client report, UMAU, 1999). 19 Wadsworth, A., ‘The History of the Rochdale 8 Palmer, M., ‘The Workshop: Type of Building or Woollen Trade’, Transactions of the Rochdale Method of Work?’ in Barnwell, P.S., M. Palmer and Literary and Scientifi c Society, 15 (1923–1925), 90– M. Airs (eds), The Vernacular Workshop: from Craft 110. to Industry, 1400–1900 (Council for British Archaeo- 20 Jones, W., Dictionary of Industrial Archaeology logy Research Report Series 140, York, 2005), 2. (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1996), 326–7. Wadsworth and Mann described these artisans as 21 Ibid., 57. ‘country manufacturers’ (Wadsworth and Mann, ref. 22 Aspin, C., The Cotton Industry (Princes Ris- 3, 78–96). borough: Shire Album No. 63, Shire Publications 9 Palmer, ref. 8, 7. Wadsworth and Mann described Ltd, 1981), 5–6; Benson, A.P., Textile Machines these merchant capitalists as the ‘Manchester (Princes Risborough: Shire Album No 103, Shire merchants’, since Manchester was usually their Publications Ltd, 1983), 10. operational base. 23 McNeil, R. and M. Nevell, A Guide to the Indus- 10 Several of these Manchester properties were sur- trial Archaeology of Greater Manchester (Association veyed in detail by the Manchester Early Dwellings for Industrial Archaeology, 2000), 31; Smith, W.J., Research Group in the 1980s and more recently by the Saddleworth Buildings. A Guide to the Vernacular University of Manchester Archaeology Unit with the Architecture of the Parish of Saddleworth in the Pen- Manchester region Industrial Archaeology Society nines (Saddleworth: Saddleworth Historical Society, (Nevell 2003, 36–7). The standard works on Lanca- 1987), 129. shire’s weavers’ cottages remain Geoff Timmins’ two 24 Calladine and Fricker, ref. 18, 24–5. classic surveys of examples from the Ribble Valley, 25 Ibid., 22–5, 29–30; Arrowsmith, P., Stockport, A where the two-storey weaver’s domestic workshop History (Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council was the norm; Timmins, G., Handloom Weavers’ with the University of Manchester Archaeological Cottages in Central Lancashire (Lancaster: University Unit, 1997), 97–101. of Lancaster, 1977), and ‘Handloom Weavers’ 26 Benson, ref. 22, 12. Cottages in Central Lancashire: Some Problems of 27 Jones, ref. 20, 249–50. Recognition’, Post-Medieval Archaeology (1979), 28 Benson, ref. 22, 15. 251–72. 29 11 Aspin, ref. 22, 12; Benson, ref. 22, 13–14. Nevell and Walker, ref. 2, 84, recorded 63 extant 30 Benson, ref. 22, 15. examples but continued survey work by the Tameside 31 Jones, ref. 20, 249. Archaeological Survey, run by UMAU on behalf 32 Haynes, I., Cotton in Ashton (Tameside: Libraries of Tameside MBC, has raised this number to 77 and Arts Committee, Tameside Metropolitan examples. 12 Borough, 1987), 10; Nevell, M.D., A History and Nevell and Walker, ref. 2, 1999, 68–70; in the 18th Archaeology of Tameside, Volume 4: The People Who and early 19th centuries the Heap family lived at Made Tameside (Tameside: Tameside Metropolitan Moorgate Farm, the Wrigley family at Wrigley Fold Borough Council with the University of Manchester and the Shaw family at The Fold. All were involved Archaeological Unit, 1994), 172; Nevell and Walker, in domestic textile production as an adjunct to their ref. 2, 1999, 52–3. farming income. See for instance Chester and Chesh- 33 ire Record Offi ce (CRO) Wills and Inventories; Haynes, I., Stalybridge Cotton Mills (Manchester: Daniel Heap of Moorgate, Staley, clothier, 1806; Neil Richardson publications, 1990), 16–18. 34 Haynes, ref. 32, 17; Nevell, ref. 2, 1993, 60–1. Joshua Wrigley of Matley, Clothier, 1814. Wrigley 35 Fold has two datestones which read ‘IWA 1738’ and Butterworth, E., An Historical Account of ‘IWA 1707’ and probably refer to a Joshua Wrigley the Towns of Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge and Dukinfi eld (Ashton-under-Lyne, 1842), 82. (Joshua being a preferred name in the family). 36 13 Burke, T. and M. Nevell, A History and Archaeo- CRO, DTW 2477/B/10; Nevell, ref. 2, 1993, 60–1. logy of Tameside, Volume 5: Buildings of Tameside 37 (Tameside Metropolitan Borough with the University CRO, DTW 2477/F/12; Nevell, ref. 2, 1993, of Manchester Archaeological Unit, 1996), 56–8; 60–1. 38 Aspin, ref. 18, 8, 26–7. CRO, DTW 2477/F12. 39 14 CRO, Land Tax Returns for Dukinfi eld (QDV2/ Chapman, ref. 17, 10, 16. 40 Manchester Mercury, 26 August 1788. 148), Godley (QDV2/174), Hattersley (QDV2/204) 41 Hollingworth (QDV2/217), Hyde (QDV2/231), Aspin, ref. 18, 452; Nevell and Walker, ref. 2, Matley (QDV2/285), Newton (QDV2/313), Stayley 1999, 14. 42 (QDV2/393, (Micklehurst division QDV2/ Jones, ref. 20, 250. 43 427), and Werneth (QDV2/499), 1780 to 1831. Haynes, ref. 33, 27; Nevell and Walker, ref. 2, 15 Palmer, M. and P. Neaverson, Industrial Archae- 1999, 46. 44 ology. Principles and Practices (Routledge, 1998), Aikin, J., A Description of the Country from Thirty 79–81. to Forty Miles Round Manchester (John Stockdale, 16 Williams, M. with D. Farnie, Cotton Mills in 1795), 227. Greater Manchester (Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing 45 Aspin, ref. 22, 25. Ltd, 1992). 46 McNeil and Nevell, ref. 23, 56; Ashmore, O., 17 Chapman, S.D., ‘The Arkwright Mill — The Industrial Archaeology of North-West England Colquhoun’s Census of 1788 and Archaeology Evi- (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), dence’, Industrial Archaeology Review VI.1 (1982), 220. 19–22. 47 Ashmore, ref. 46, 5. 18 Aspin, C., The Water Spinners (Helmshore: 48 Nevell, M. with B. Grimsditch and C. King, Helmshore Local History Society, 2003); Calladine, The Archaeology of Tameside Volume 6: Carrbrook. A. and J. Fricker, East Cheshire Textile Mills (Royal A Textile Village and its Valley. A Study in the 48 N: A  I   T I

Industrialisation of the Pennine Uplands (Tameside: 60 CRO, D 3553/19–21. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council with the 61 CRO, D 3553/24. University of Manchester Archaeological Unit, 2006), 62 CRO, WS Heap 1623–4. 53. 63 John Rylands Library, Dunham Massey MSS, 49 Ashmore, ref. 46, McNeil and Nevell, ref. 23. Accession 8/5/92 Box 4/1. 50 Aspin, ref. 18; Barnes, B., ‘Early Woollen Mills in 64 CRO, WS Heap 1678. a Pennine Parish: Saddleworth and the Upper Tame 65 Powell, ref. 3, 15–16, 24–5. Valley’, Saddleworth Historical Society Bulletin, 13.2 66 CRO, WI Heap 1694. (1983), 31. 67 CRO, WS Heap 1708. 51 Barnes, ref. 50, 31–3. 68 CRO, WI Heap 1733. 52 CRO, DTW 2477/B/10. 69 CRO, WS Heap 1774. 53 Nevell and Walker, ref. 2, 1998, 70–6. 70 CRO, WS Heap 1774. 54 CRO, DTW 2477/B/10. 71 CRO, QDV2/393; CRO WS. 55 CRO, QDV2/299. 72 CRO, WS Heap 1790. 56 CRO, EDT 281. 73 Haynes, I., Mossley Textile Mills (Manchester: 57 CRO, DTW 2477 F/12. N. Richardson, 1996), 6–7, 36. 58 CRO, QDV2/299. 74 Redhead 2003, 69–71. 59 CRO, DTW 2477/B/12. 75 Ashmore, ref. 46, 1969.

Dr Michael Nevell is Director of the University of Manchester Archaeology Unit. Address for correspondence: School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. He delivered the Rolt lecture in 2005.