The American industrial revolution started in the Slater Mill at Pawtucket, Rhode Island in 1790. This view may seem rather dated, but it is still the standard interpretation in textbooks, and Samuel Slater, who constructed the first waterpowered machinery in America, is usually called the father of American manufacturing. It is, however, well-known that Slater's factory produced only cotton yarn, and that weaving had to be done by handloom weavers. Moreover, the workers at the mill were children employed on a family basis. Compared with full-fledged factories of the Waltham type, the mill at Pawtucket was characterized by a mixture of new technology and old methods. The Slater Mill thus embodies the continuity and discontinuity of the industrial revolution. It is the purpose of this paper to consider this change and continuity, through an exaunination of the account books of Almy and Brown, who employed Slater. One would think that almost all the important facts about the Slater Mill had already been unearthed by generations of scholars, and that every aspect of the development of the cotton industry had been examined. The Almy and Brown Papers, held by the Rhode Island Historical Society, are the major source materials concerning Slater and his Pawtucket mill. As might be expected, these rocords have been scruitinized by scores of researchers. Although I was given an opportunity to examine these papers, it was hardly to be expected that I would find anything new. While scanning these records to reascertain the familiar facts, it however occurred to me that it would be possible to make a new approach to the old Slater Mill through the examination of the ways in which the accounts were kept. They provide another testimony of the cont inuity and discontinuity of the industial revolution. Although frequented by researchers and tourists alike, the Slater Mill is worth revisiting.

View full abstract

The British Linen Company was the biggcest enterprise in the Scottish linen industry in the 18th century. Established in 1746 for the promotion of Scottish linen manufacturing, in the earlier decades of its existence it made great achievements in the export of Scottish linen goods to England and to plantations in America. Despite this, however, from the latter part of the 1760s it gradually switched from the linen industry to banking. The purpose of this article is to consider the causes of this transition, with special reference to the relationship between the actual business activities of the firm and its management structure in the earlier period (from 1746 to the l760s). As a joint-stock company, the British Linen Company had abundant financial resources to carry on its linen business. Besides the capital stock paid in, it also had the right to raise funds through the issue of promissory notes or bonds. The promissory notes, which later became the bank notes of the British Linen Company, played an important role in the development of the banking business. It was due to the issue of promissory notes and their functioning as bank notes that the business of lending and discounting to linen manufacturers or merchants owned its gradual development. And then in the early l77Os banking replaced linen as the main field of the company's activities. On the other hand, it was due to its abundant financial resources, that the company was able to engage in the whole process of linen manufacture, from the purchasing of hemp to the production and sale of linen goods. The work of managing of this great range of business activity depended on two managers - E. McCulloch and W. Tod. They worked together in a complementary way : Tod was sent to London to handle the marketing of linen goods, while McCulloch remained at the headquarters in Edinburgh to control production there and sales at Glasgow. However, the division of regional and business responsibilities between them led to serious, and ultimately irreconcilable, differencccs of opinion over manufacturing and marketing strategies, Tod therefore resigned in 1759, while McCulloch gave up his new post as sole manager in 1763. The conflict between the two managers was also one of the reasons behind the company's gradual withdrawal from the linen business in the l760s.

View full abstract

This article is an attempt to reinterpret Southampton Apprenticeship Registers and use them to describe one form of sex-sepecific division of labour. Southampton Apprenticeship Registers, which date from the 17th century, are the contract and registration records of parish and general apprentices in Southampton. The original manuscripts were transcribed by MERSON, and published by Southampton Univensity. A pioneering study by SNELL, based on the transcription of the parish apprentice registers, indicated that in the households of masters classified as among the "middle and meaner sorts of people", both sexes gave and received vocational training, SNELL, therefore, found no evidence of gender-specific divison of labour. MERTON'S otherwise excellent work is marred by his indifference to sex-specific divisions. He did not always transcribe the expression "to be instructed in the trade of ・・・", which indicated the duty of vocational training. However, judging from the absence or presence of this expression, it is clear that almost all the boy parish apprentices were obliged to take vocational training while most girl parish apprentices were not. In other words, a form of sex-specific division of labour was in existence. The same division can be applied to parish masters and mistresses because masters and apprentices made contracts according to their gender. That is, masters gave their boy apprentices vocational training, while mistresses gave girl apprentices the training in other areas. Moreover, this division applies to the households of general apprentice masters, who were classified as among "middle and better sorts of people". Almost all the general apprentices were obliged to take vocational training by the same expression as the boy parish apprentices. General apprentices were all boys and contracted to receive training from their male masters, whereas girls and mistresse were once again excluded from vocational training Consequently, as far as vocational training was concerned, both the "middle and meaner" and "middle and better" sorts of people had the same gender-specific division of labour. In other words, gender differences were more important than class differences in deciding access to econorntc opportunity.

View full abstract