¹ Jeremy, David J., Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies Between Britain and America, 1790–1830s (Cambridge, MA, 1981), pp. 62–67.Google Scholar

² Von Tunzelmann, G. N., Steam Power and British Industrialization to 1860 (Oxford, 1978), chap. 7;Google ScholarFarnie, Douglas A., The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, 1815–1896 (Oxford, 1979);Google ScholarLyons, John S., “Powerloom Profitability and Steam Power Costs: Britain in the 1830s,” Explorations in Economic History, 24 (10 1987), pp. 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Farnie, the English Cotton Industry, p. 281; Von Tunzelmann, Steam Power, pp. 200–1. (All of the quality added in the finishing and dyeing stages is ignored as well.)Google Scholar

⁴ Cowell, John W., “Explanatory Preface to the Tables Relative to Cotton and Silk Mills in the Lancashire District,” Parliamentary Papers, vol. 22 (1834), p. 377ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Ure, Andrew, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britian (London, 1836), vol. 1, pp. 334–42;Google ScholarStanway, S., “Tables Extracted from the Returns to the Lancashire Forms,” Parliamentary Papers, vol. 19 (1834), p. 415ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Gatrell, V. A. C., “Labour, Power, and the Size of Firms in Lancashire Cotton in the Second Quarter of the Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review, 30 (02 1977), p. 99ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ This is an unweighted average of counts spun by firms. If firms are weighted by employment, then the average count rises to 69.Google Scholar

⁸ Jeremy, Transatlantic Industrial Revolution, pp. 99–101.Google Scholar

⁹ Appleton, Nathan, “Introduction of the Power Loom and Origin of Lowell,” Kress Collection, Harvard Business School (Lowell, MA, 1858).Google ScholarThe number of the yarn is its count, which is defined to be the number of banks of yarn (840 yards) in a pound. Number 40 yarn therefore is twice as fine (weighs half as much) as number 20yarn. Picks are the number of wefts, and the weight is reported inversely as yards per pound in the fashion of the cotton industry.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bagnall, William R., Sketches of Manufacturing Establishments in New York City and of the textile Establishments in the Eastern States, Baker Library manuscript collection, Harvard Business School (vol. 3, typescript, ca. 1890), pp. 2219–22.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 2236–37.

¹² Ibid., pp. 2278, 2287.

¹³ Montgomery, James, The Cotton Manufacture of the United States Contrasted and Compared with that of Great Britain (Glascow, 1840), pp. 69–82.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ware, Caroline F., The Early New England Cotton Manufacture (Boston, 1931), p. 86;Google ScholarJeremy, Transtlantic Industrial Revolution, p. 205.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Appleton, “Introduction of the Power Loom and Origin of lowell,” p. 12. This is the reason, most likely, for the 37-inch width of the Waltha, output.Google Scholar

¹⁶ One estimate places the rate on Indian imports as 83.5 percent, implying that their price without the tariff was 7.5 cents a yard. (Josephson, Hannah, The Golden Threads: New England Mill Girls and Magnates [New York, 1949], p. 30.) This is probably an exaggeration; it makes the price with the tariff to be 14 cents, still less than the 25cent price of Waltham cloth.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The memorial was anonymous to be sure. The context and Appleton's description of Lowell's argument permit the identification.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Frieds of Domestic Industry, Reports of the Committees of the Friends of Domestic Industry, assembled at New York, 10 1831 (1831).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ware, The Early New England Cotton Manufacture, pp. 86, 315;Google ScholarJeremy, David J., “Cotton Mills in Developing Regions, 1820–1840,” in Chase, Jeanne, ed., Géographie du capital marchandaux Amériques, 1760–1860 (Paris, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁰ Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, MA, 1977), p. 59.Google Scholar

²¹ Saxonhouse, Gary R. and Wright, Gavin, “Stubborn Mules and Vertical Integration: The Disappearing Constraint?” Economic History Review, 40 (02. 1987), pp. 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Bils, Mark, “Tariff Protection and Production in the Early U. S. Cotton Textile Industry,” this Journal, 44 (12. 1984), pp. 1033–46.Google Scholar

²³ The major steps in making cotton are spinning, weaving, and finishing, each of which is composed of several operations. See Sandberg, Lars G., Lancashire in Decline: A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology, and International Trade (Columbus, 1974), pp. 15–18.Google Scholar

²⁴ Perry, Martin K., “Vertical Integration: Determinants and Effects,” Handbook of Industrial Organization, Schmalensee, Richard and Willig, Robert, eds. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

²⁵ Tucker, Barbara M., Samuel Slater and the Origins of the American Textile Industry, 1790–1860 (Ithaca, 1984), pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

²⁶ Josephson, The Golden Threads, p. 68.Google Scholar

²⁷ Tucker, Samuel Slater, esp. chaps. 3, 6, 9.Google Scholar

²⁸ Goldin, Claudia and Sokoloff, Kenneth, “Women, Children, and Industrialization in the Early Republic: Evidence from the Manufacturing Census,” this Journal, 42 (12. 1982), pp. 741–74.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ware, The Early New England Cotton Manufacture, p. 203;Google ScholarDublin, Thomas, Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826–1860 (New York, 1979), p. 77.Google Scholar

³⁰ This analysis resembles that in Williamson, Oliver E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (New York, 1985), pp. 35–38.Google ScholarWilliamson, however, keys his analysis to the inaccessibility of the site and the skills of the workers; the issue here is morality. When immigrants replaced Yankeemaidens in the 1840s, the Locks and Canals Company leased land to private boarding houses which housed over half the workers by mid-century (see Dublin, Women at Work, p. 143).Google Scholar

³¹ Davis, Lance E. and Stettler, H. Louis III, “The New England Textile Industry, 1825–60: Trends and Fluctuations,” Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States After 1800 (New York, 1966), pp. 213–38.Google Scholar

³² Scranton, Philip, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture at Philadelphia, 1800–1885 (Cambridge, 1983).Google Scholar

³³ United States, Department of the Treasury, Documents Relative to the Manufactures in the United States (collected by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Louis McLane), House ExecutiveDocument 308, 22nd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, 1833), II, pp. 48–59.Google Scholar

³⁴ Taylor, A. J., “Concentration and Specialization in the Lancashire Cotton Industry,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 1 (1949), pp. 114–22;Google ScholarFarnie, The English Cotton Industry, pp. 313–18.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lyons, John S., “Vertical Integration in the British Cotton Industry, 1825–1850: A Revision,” this Journal, 45 (06 1985), pp. 419–26, table I;Google ScholarBaines, Edward, History, Directory andGazetteer of the County Palatine of Lancaster (Liverpool, 1824–1825).Google Scholar

³⁶ Mohanty, G. F., “Experimentation in Textile Technology, 1788–90, and Its Impact on Handloom Weaving and Weavers in Rhode Island,” Technology and Culture, 29 (01. 1988), pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Farnie, Douglas A., “An Index of Commercial Activity: The Membership of the Manchester Royal Exchange, 1809–1948,” Business History, 21 (01. 1979), pp. 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Honeyman, Katrina, The Origins of Enterprise: Business Leadership in the Industrial Revolution (New York, 1983), chaps. 5–6.Google Scholar

³⁹ This is not an appeal to capital market failure. The typical cotton mill was a small, family-operated business. Smaller and less well-known firms represented higher risks to lenders and would have had to pay a higher interest rate as a result.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ I classified a firm as integrated when the number of weavers was equal to or greater than 10 to exclude spinning firms with two or three weavers attached. These weavers most probably were only weaving samples, and the results are essentially unchanged if firms are considered integrated whenever there were any weavers at all. The chi-square equals 24.9. Comparison of the chi-square for other divisions between coarse and fine spinning suggests that the most likely boundary between coarse firms who had the option of combining spinning and power weaving and fine firms who did not is at a count of 50.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Crouzet, Francois, The First Industrialists: The Problem of Origins (Cambridge, 1985), p. 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Lyons, “Vertical Integration,” table 2.Google Scholar

⁴³ For a given variance, a lower mean would have brought a greater proportion of the yarn below the threshold for profitable use of power looms.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In a regression of SPINNERS on COUNT, the t-statistic for the coefficient of COUNT is 5.1, while the R ² is 0.13.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Prince, Carl E. and Taylor, Seth, “Daniel Webster, The Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815–1830,” Essays from the Lowell Conference on Industrial History, 1980 and 1981, Weible, Robert, Ford, Oliver, and Marion, Paul, eds. (Lowell, MA, 1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Jeremy, Transatlantic Industrial Revolution, chap. 10.Google Scholar