Before and During the Coming of Factories
If you think a new shop in your street opened and every old shop shut the next day, you are wrong. Old and new ways usually run side by side for a long time. Industrialisation was like that.
Proto-industrialisation is the early phase of industry in Europe when merchants gave money to peasants and artisans in the countryside to produce goods at home for a world market, before factories. The first English factories came up by the 1730s, and cotton, helped by Richard Arkwright's cotton mill, led the first phase. Yet change was slow: in 1800 only 321 steam engines worked in all England.
In the figure : From the first factories to booming cotton imports in 1787.
Rule 1 : Merchants moved work to the countryside — Town guilds controlled production and kept new people out, so merchants gave advances to peasant households, who needed extra income because common land was being enclosed.
- Easy : Guilds trained craftsmen, controlled prices and restricted entry into trades.
- Medium : Cottagers and poor peasants lost common lands and needed work from merchants.
- Exam-type : A London finishing stage came last before cloth went to the world market.
Rule 2 : Factories came, but change was slow — The cotton mill brought all processes under one roof and one manager. But new technology was costly, broke down and spread slowly, and most workers in the mid-nineteenth century were still craftspeople and labourers.
- Easy : Britain's raw cotton imports rose from 2.5 million pounds (1760) to 22 million pounds (1787).
- Medium : Cotton led up to the 1840s; then iron and steel led, with railways.
- Exam-type : Even at the end of the nineteenth century less than 20 per cent of workers were in technologically advanced sectors.
Industrialisation did not start with factories alone, and factories did not replace older ways quickly.
Thinking the typical mid-nineteenth-century worker was a machine operator. It was the traditional craftsperson and labourer.
Memory clue : Proto = first — proto-industry came first, in homes, before factories.
What happened before? (James Watt's steam engine) Newcomen had already produced a steam engine. James Watt improved it and patented his new engine in 1781, and his industrialist friend Matthew Boulton manufactured the new model.
What happened next? (James Watt's steam engine) For years Boulton found no buyers. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were no more than 321 steam engines in all England: 80 in cotton, nine in wool, the rest in mining, canals and iron works.
Spot the difference
| Stage | Where work was done | Who controlled it |
|---|---|---|
| Guild system | Town workshops | Guilds |
| Proto-industry | Village homes | Merchants |
| Factory | Mill under one roof | Owner and manager |
Practice questions
- 1What is proto-industrialisation?
- 2When did the earliest factories come up in England?
- 3Who created the cotton mill?
- 4Why could merchants not expand production in towns?
- 5Why did peasant households accept work from merchants?
- 6What advantages did a mill give over village production?
- 7Why did industrialists adopt the new steam engine so slowly?
- 8Give cause and result: Boulton's engine in the 1780s.
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1Early large-scale production for a world market, done in homes in the countryside and controlled by merchants, before factories.
- 2By the 1730s.
- 3Richard Arkwright.
- 4Powerful guilds controlled production and restricted new entrants.
- 5Common lands were enclosed and their small plots could not give enough income.
- 6Close supervision, quality control and regulation of labour.
- 7It was costly, machines broke down and repairs were expensive, and they were less effective than claimed.
- 8Cause: industrialists were cautious about costly technology. Result: for years there were no buyers and only 321 engines in England by 1800.
Hand Labour, Machines and the Workers
If a shop has ten helpers who work cheaply, the owner will not buy an expensive machine. In Victorian Britain labour was cheap, so owners often preferred human hands.
In Britain there was no shortage of labour, so wages stayed low and industrialists did not want costly machines that replaced workers. Demand was often seasonal and for fine, varied goods that only hand skill could make. The Spinning Jenny, devised by James Hargreaves in 1764, let one wheel turn many spindles, so workers who feared losing work attacked it.
In the figure : From the Jenny to the building boom after the 1840s.
Rule 1 : Why hand labour was often preferred — Where labour was plentiful and cheap, and demand changed with seasons or tastes, hand work was cheaper and more flexible than machines.
- Easy : Gas works, breweries, printers and shipyards were busy only in some seasons, so they hired hand labour for the season.
- Medium : Britain made 500 kinds of hammers and 45 kinds of axes, needing human skill.
- Exam-type : The upper classes saw handmade goods as refined; machine-made goods went to the colonies.
Rule 2 : Life of workers — Too many people chased too few jobs. Work depended on friends and relatives, seasons ended in unemployment, and workers feared machines.
- Easy : Job-seekers often slept under bridges or in night refuges and casual wards.
- Medium : In slumps like the 1830s, unemployment rose to between 35 and 75 per cent in different regions.
- Exam-type : After the 1840s roads, railways, tunnels and sewers created jobs; transport workers doubled in the 1840s.
Cheap labour made owners cautious about machines; costly machines made workers fear job loss.
Thinking machines always replaced hand labour quickly. In Britain, hand skills stayed in demand for many goods.
Memory clue : Cheap hands, costly machines — when hands are cheap, machines wait.
What happened before? (Workers and the Spinning Jenny) Many women in the woollen industry lived by hand spinning. In 1764 James Hargreaves devised the Spinning Jenny, with which a worker turning one wheel could spin several threads at once, and so reduce the demand for labour.
What happened next? (Workers and the Spinning Jenny) When the Jenny was introduced in the woollen industry, women who lived by hand spinning began attacking the new machines. A magistrate reported such an incident in 1790, and the conflict went on for a long time.
Spot the difference
| Reason | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Plentiful labour | Migrants from villages | Low wages, few machines |
| Seasonal demand | Gas works, printers | Seasonal hand labour |
| Taste of elites | Handmade goods | Hand skill stayed in demand |
Practice questions
- 1What is a Spinning Jenny?
- 2Who devised the Spinning Jenny and when?
- 3Name two seasonal industries.
- 4Why did British industrialists not rush to buy machines?
- 5Why was handmade cloth valued by the upper classes?
- 6How did workers find jobs in Victorian cities?
- 7Why did women hand-spinners attack the Jenny?
- 8Give cause and result: building activity after the 1840s.
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1A machine in which one wheel turns several spindles at once.
- 2James Hargreaves, in 1764.
- 3Gas works and breweries (also printing, shipyards).
- 4Labour was plentiful and cheap, so machines needing large capital were unnecessary.
- 5It was individually produced, better finished and symbolised refinement and class.
- 6Mostly through friends and relatives in factories; others waited weeks.
- 7They feared the machine would cut the demand for hand labour and take away their livelihood.
- 8Cause: expansion of railways, roads, tunnels and sewers in cities. Result: more jobs; transport workers doubled in the 1840s and again in the next 30 years.
Indian Weavers: From Fine Cloth to Manchester Imports
If a big shop gets the only supplier of a town to work only for it, the supplier loses the freedom to sell elsewhere. The East India Company did this to weavers.
Before machine industry, fine Indian silk and cotton dominated world markets, traded through ports like Surat. After the Company gained political power it used the gomastha (a paid supervisor) and advances to control weavers. Then British factory cloth, Manchester goods, flooded India, and piece-goods fell from 33 per cent of India's exports (1811-12) to 3 per cent (1850-51).
In the figure : The decline of Indian textile exports.
Rule 1 : Control over weavers — Once it held political power, the Company removed competing traders, put gomasthas over weavers and tied them with advances, so weavers lost the right to bargain.
- Easy : Surat's trade fell from Rs 16 million in the late 1600s to Rs 3 million by the 1740s.
- Medium : Gomasthas were outsiders who often punished weavers for delays.
- Exam-type : Weavers deserted villages, revolted or turned to farm labour.
Rule 2 : Manchester comes to India — Britain taxed imported cloth to protect Manchester while pushing British cloth into India. Indian weavers lost both export and home markets, and in the 1860s even raw cotton became scarce and dear.
- Easy : Cotton piece-goods were over 31 per cent of India's imports by 1850 and over 50 per cent by the 1870s.
- Medium : Machine-made cloth was cheaper, so weavers could not compete.
- Exam-type : When the American Civil War cut cotton supplies, Britain turned to India and raw cotton prices shot up.
Colonial control and cheap machine cloth together hit Indian weavers from two sides.
Thinking Indian textile exports fell as soon as the Company gained power. They fell mainly from the early nineteenth century.
Memory clue : Gomastha, Goods, Glut — first control by agent, then a glut of Manchester goods.
What happened before? (The Company and the weavers) Before it held political power in Bengal and Carnatic (1760s-1770s), the Company found it hard to get regular supplies. French, Dutch, Portuguese and local traders competed for cloth, so weavers and supply merchants could bargain and sell to the best buyer.
What happened next? (The Company and the weavers) With power, the Company claimed a monopoly, appointed gomasthas and gave advances that bound weavers to hand over cloth only to it. Prices fell, weavers were beaten and flogged for delays, and many deserted villages, revolted or gave up weaving for farm labour.
Spot the difference
| Period | Situation of weavers | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Before 1760s | Could bargain and sell widely | Many competing buyers |
| After the 1760s | Bound to the Company | Gomasthas and advances |
| After 1800 | Markets shrank | Manchester imports, tariffs |
Practice questions
- 1Name two old Indian ports of textile trade.
- 2Who was a gomastha?
- 3Which two ports grew as Surat and Hoogly declined?
- 4What happened to weavers who took advances?
- 5Why did British industrialists want import duties on cotton textiles?
- 6Why were Indian weavers short of raw cotton in the 1860s?
- 7Explain how Indian weavers faced two problems at the same time.
- 8Give cause and result: Company monopoly after the 1760s.
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1Surat and Hoogly (also Masulipatam).
- 2A paid servant of the Company who supervised weavers and checked cloth.
- 3Bombay and Calcutta.
- 4They had to hand over their cloth only to the gomastha, not to any other trader.
- 5To let Manchester goods sell in Britain without outside competition.
- 6American supplies were cut by the Civil War, so Britain bought Indian cotton and prices rose.
- 7Their export market collapsed and the home market shrank, flooded with cheaper Manchester imports.
- 8Cause: political power let the Company control supplies. Result: weavers lost bargaining power, received low prices and many left weaving.
Indian Factories, Entrepreneurs and Small Industry
When a big foreign supplier stops sending goods, local shopkeepers suddenly get all the customers. The First World War did that for Indian mills.
The first cotton mill in Bombay came up in 1854 and jute mills in Bengal in 1855. Entrepreneurs such as Dwarkanath Tagore, Dinshaw Petit, J.N. Tata and Seth Hukumchand had often earned money in the China trade. European Managing Agencies controlled much industry, and jobbers recruited workers. Industry grew fast during the First World War, yet small-scale production still dominated.
In the figure : From the first Indian mills to the handloom revival.
Rule 1 : Who built industry and who worked in it — Indian merchants who had earned from the China trade or moneylending built mills, but colonial rules limited them and European agencies led. Workers were mostly peasants from nearby districts, recruited through jobbers.
- Easy : Indian merchants were barred from trading manufactured goods with Europe and edged out of shipping.
- Medium : In 1911 over 50 per cent of Bombay's cotton workers came from nearby Ratnagiri district.
- Exam-type : Jobbers got people jobs but demanded money and gifts and controlled workers' lives.
Rule 2 : War, swadeshi and small industry — Swadeshi boycott and tariff pressure helped Indian mills; the First World War cut Manchester imports and gave them a home market. Even so, only a small share worked in registered factories, and handlooms expanded with the fly shuttle.
- Easy : Cotton piece-goods production in India doubled between 1900 and 1912.
- Medium : Registered factories employed only 5 per cent of industrial workers in 1911 and 10 per cent in 1931.
- Exam-type : Handloom cloth production almost trebled between 1900 and 1940.
Even in the age of factories, small workshops and handlooms employed most industrial workers.
Thinking factories wiped out handlooms in India. Handloom output actually grew in the twentieth century.
Memory clue : War gave Indian mills a market — less Manchester, more Indian mills.
What happened before? (The First World War and Indian industry) Until the First World War industrial growth in India was slow, and Manchester cloth dominated the Indian market. Indian mills mainly made coarse yarn, and the swadeshi movement and tariff demands had begun to help them.
What happened next? (The First World War and Indian industry) British mills were busy with war production, so Manchester imports into India declined and Indian mills suddenly had a vast home market. They supplied jute bags, army cloth, tents, boots and saddles, ran multiple shifts and production boomed. After the war Manchester never regained its old position.
Spot the difference
| Person / group | Source of wealth | Industry |
|---|---|---|
| Dwarkanath Tagore | China trade | Joint-stock companies in the 1830s-40s |
| Parsis (Petit, Tata) | China trade, cotton shipping | Cotton mills, steel (1912) |
| European Managing Agencies | European capital and control | Tea, coffee, mining, jute |
Practice questions
- 1When did the first cotton mill in Bombay come up?
- 2Who set up the first iron and steel works in India?
- 3Who was a jobber?
- 4Name two Managing Agencies.
- 5Why did early Indian mills make coarse yarn and not cloth?
- 6Why did mill workers return to their villages?
- 7How did the fly shuttle help handloom weavers survive?
- 8Link cause and result: the First World War and Manchester's position in India.
Show answers (try them yourself first)
- 1In 1854 (production from 1856).
- 2J.N. Tata, at Jamshedpur in 1912.
- 3An old trusted worker who recruited people from his village for the mill.
- 4Any two of Bird Heiglers & Co., Andrew Yule, Jardine Skinner & Co.
- 5They avoided competing with Manchester cloth in the Indian market.
- 6They kept village ties and went home for harvests and festivals.
- 7It raised output per worker and speeded up production without raising costs much, helping them compete with mills.
- 8Cause: British mills turned to war production, so imports fell. Result: Indian mills gained the home market and Manchester could never recover its old position.
Indian Factories, Entrepreneurs and Small Industry
In the app you can move this figure with your finger.
Open in the app