References
- The author is grateful for the comments of Barry Supple, John Singleton, Peter Payne and David Jeremy on various parts of this paper. Part of the research upon which this article is based was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
- L. A. Sandberg, ‘American Rings and English Mules: The Role of Economic Rationality’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, lxxxiii (1969), pp. 28–43; L. A. Sandberg, ‘The Remembrance of Things Past: Rings and Mules Revisited’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, xcix (1984), pp. 387–92; G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘New Evidence on the Stubborn English Mule and the Cotton Industry, 1878–1920’, Economic History Review, xxxvn (1984), pp. 507–19; G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules and Vertical Integration: The Disappearing Constraint?’, Economic History Review, XL (1987), pp. 87–94; W. A. Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning in Britain prior to World War One’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, xcvi (1984), pp. 89–108; W. A. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organisation and Technological Change’, Business History Review, 57 (1983 ), pp. 196–236; W. A. Lazonick, ‘The Cotton Industry’, in B. Elbaum and W. A. Lazonick, The Decline of the British Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 18–50; W. Mass and W. A. Lazonick, ‘The British Cotton Industry and International Competitive Advantage: The State of the Debates’, Business History, xxxn (1990), pp. 9–65.
- On average, for the period 1931 –35, UK exports of cotton piece goods (by volume) and exports of cotton twist and yarn (be weight) were only 31 per cent and 63 per cent respectively of their average levels for the period 1910–13. Calculated from B. R. Mitchell andP. Deane, Abstract of British Historical S tatistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), pp. 182–83. Of particular importance was the loss of the Indian market because of indigenous textile production and Japanese competition. For example, from averaging 95 per cent of Indian imports of three types of cotton piece goods in 1913, by 1930 Britain only accounted for 58 per cent of these imports. From A. R. Burnett-Hurst, ‘Lancashire and the Indian Market’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 95 (1932), p. 398.
- Official title: Economic Advisory Council: Committee of the Cotton Industry Report, Cmnd 3615, July 1930.
- Ibid., pp. 26–27.
- Political and Economic Planning, Report on the British Cotton Industry, p. 54.
- Ibid.
- Official title: Report of the Cotton Textile Mission to the United States of AmericaiMarch-April 1944, Ministry of Production, 1944. For a biography of the author of this report see, J. H. Bamberg, ‘Platt, Sir Frank’, DBB, vol. 4, pp. 716–21. Platt’s entire working life was involved with the Lancashire textile industry. He became a mill manager when he was 24, and by his early thirties he was a director of many spinning companies in the Oldham and Rochdale regions. Platt was appointed managing director of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation in 1933 (vice-chairman in 1945, chairman in 1954), and apart from a spell as Cotton Controller, he was instrumental in improving the fortunes of this company throughout the 1930s-1955. Platt died in 1955.
- Ibid., p. vii.
- Ibid.
- Official title: Working Party Reports: Cotton, Board of Trade, 1946.
- Ibid., p. 61.
- J. Singleton, Lancashire on the Scrapheap (Oxford University Press, 1991 ), p. 61.
- Traditionally the ring has been regarded as being at least 1.5 times more productive than the mule.
- For some of the major contemporary views on the weaknesses in the structure of the Lancashire textile industry see H. Clay, Report on the Position of the English Cotton Industry, Confidential Report for Securities Management Trust, Ltd, 20 October 1931, pp. 66–85. A copy of this publication can be found in the local studies library in Oldham; Report of the Cotton Textile Mission to the United States of America, pp. 22–23; p. 32; pp. 40–41; Board of Trade, Working Party Reports, Cotton, pp. 175–80; pp. 187–89; Anglo- American Council on Productivity, Productivity Team Report: Cotton Weaving (London, 1952), pp. 12–16. Some contemporaries, however, doubted whether increased integration was necessary to improve Lancashire’s competitiveness. See, for example, ‘Note by Professor Jewkes’, in Board of Trade, Working Party Reports, Cotton, pp. 242–47; G. C. Allen, British Industries and their Organisation, 5th ed., (London: Longmans, 1959), pp. 240–42.
- See, for example, W. A. Lazonick, ‘Industrial Organisation and Technological Change’, pp. 205–207; W. A. Lazonick, ‘The Cotton Industry’, p. 23. For a different interpretation of the role of transport costs see, G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘New Evidence on the Stubborn English Mule and the Cotton Industry, 1878 –1920’, Economic History Review, xxxvn (1984), pp. 507–19; G. Saxonhouse and G. Wright, ‘Stubborn Mules and Vertical Integration: The Disappearing Constraint?’, Economic History Review, XL (1987), pp. 87–94.
- Platt Report, p. 26.
- The fineness of cotton yarn was traditionally determined by the number of hanks of 840 yards which were needed to make one pound (weight) of yarn. In this case, 20s means that only 20 of these hanks were needed to make one pound. Clearly, the finer (lighter) the yarn, the greater would be the number of hanks needed to make one pound.
- Ibid., p. 10.
- Ibid., p. 22, p. 42.
- Ibid., p. 41.
- Ibid., p. 41. It should be noted, however, that Platt believed the industry had reached the limit of its capabilities with existing equipment and that what was required was not additional means to improve equipment but a fresh basis of modernisation which would allow the fullest use to be made of modern plant. Platt Report, p. 31.
- W. Mass and W. Lazonick, ‘The British Cotton Industry and International Competitive Advantage’, PP. 52–53.
- Official title: Report of a Commission Set up to Review the Wages, Arrangements and Methods of Organisation of Work, and to Make Recommendations, Ministry of Labour and National Service, 1945.
- Ibid., p. 14, pp. 31–32.
- Greater Manchester County Record Office (GMCRO) FMCSA, General Committee Minutes, 3 May 1946.
- ‘Note by Messrs H. S. Butterworth and J. Lindley’ in Evershed Report, p. 44.
- Report of a Commission Set up to Review the Wages, Arrangements and Methods of Organisation of Work, and to Make Recommendations. Supplement: Mule Spinners Wages, Ministry of Labour and National Service, 1946.
- Ibid.
- Calculated from the Cotton Board Quarterly Statistical Review, (CBQSR), various issues.
- The Utility Cloth Scheme was introduced in 1941 in order to economise on materials and skilled labour by encouraging the production of cloths of simpler styles and plainer finishes. Only goods designated as utility goods were exempt from purchase tax.
- Official title: Report of the Purchase Tax/Utility Committee. Cmnd 8452, 1952.
- Ibid., p. 18.
- Crosses & Heatons was formed in 1920 as Crosses & Winkworths, and comprised 12 fine spinning firms. Following the amalgamation with William Heaton & Sons, the combine became Crosses & Heatons. Statement by the Chairman, in Textile Weekly, lv, no. 1422 (17 June 1955).
- R. Lloyd-Jones, ‘Harwood, Harold Marsh’, DBB, vol. 3, pp. 99–104. Harwood began working life as a doctor in London in the late 1890 s. He was called back to the family business of R. Harwood & Sons (fine spinners in Bolton), in 1900. This business was acquired by Fine Spinners & Doublers in 1917. Harwood was made an ordinary director of Fine Spinners in 1920, became chairman in 1940, and retired in 1950. Harwood died in 1959.
- Fine Spinners & Doublers was formed in 1898 and consisted of the amalgamation of 31 fine spinning and doubling firms. This company was acquired by Courtaulds in 1964. Statement by the Chairman, 56th Annual General Meeting, 1953, p. 2.
- For a full discussion of the reluctance of textile labour to return to the industry after 1945, see J. Singleton, Lancashire on the Scrapheap, ch. 3.
- Referring to the uncertainty caused by substituting rings for mules, the President of the OMCSA, Mr Harry Butterworth noted, ‘it was appreciated that the men who might be displaced in the course of a year or two would be very anxious about it, and that it would seriously interfere with recruiting in that department if it was going to be a “blind alley” occupation’. GMCRO, FMCSA General Committee Minutes, 9 June 1948.
- Annual Report, Bolton Master Cotton Spinners Association, 1950, pp. 63–65.
- Annual Report, OMCSA, 1953, p. 5.
- The Lancashire Cotton Corporation was formed as an amalgamation of 70 firms in 1929, to which a further 26 firms were added in 1930. The LCC was primarily engaged in the production of coarse-medium yarns using American raw cotton. The LCC was acquired by Courtaulds in 1964.
- Lancashire Cotton Corporation, Board Minutes, 17 January 1952. The records of this company are kept by Courtaulds Northern Spinning Division, 1 Portland Street, Manchester.
- John Rylands Library, University of Manchester (hereafter, Rylands Collection), Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners and Twiners, Annual Report, (Bolton Branch), year ending 1951, p. 30.
- Ibid., Annual Report, year ending 1953, p. 27.
- Such a trend was observed in the Plan for Cotton (Ashton: United Factory Textile Workers Association, 1957 ), PP-14–15.
- For a discussion of such investment behaviour see, W. G. Salter, Productivity and Technical Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966 ), pp. 80–82.
- Calculated from CBQSR (various issues).
- W. A. Lazonick, ‘Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning in Britain prior to World War 1’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, lxxxxvi (1981 ), p. 106.
- Anglo-American Council on Productivity: Productivity Team Report, Cotton Weaving (London, 1952 ), p. 15.
- Ibid., p. 16.
- For a critique of the Lazonick argument as it applies to the post-1945 decline of the Lancashire textile industry see, D. M. Higgins, ‘Rings, Mules and Structural Constraints: The Lancashire Textile Industry, c. 1945-c. 1965’, Economic History Review, xlvi (1993), pp. 342–362.
- Anglo-American Council on Productivity, Producitvity Team Report, Cotton Spinning (London, 1952 ), p. 59.
- Ibid., p. 60.
- Ibid., p. 60, fig. 19.
- GMCRO, FMCSA Annual Report, 1948, p. 16.
- Not surprisingly, the argument that only the mule could impart the elasticity necessary for certain cloths was presented most forcefully by the AAOCST. See, for example, Rylands Collection AAOCST (Bolton branch), Annual Report 1946, p. 8.
- Plan for Cotton, p. 15.
- OMCSA Annual Report, 1949, pp. 10–11.
- Rylands Collection, AAOCST (Bolton branch), Annual Report, for the year ending 1950, p. 40, p. 64.
- Ibid., Annual Report, for the year ending 1954, p. 4.
- Combined Egyptian Mills (CEM) was formed in 1929 as an amalgamation of 15 fine spinning firms which used Egyptian raw cotton. CEM was acquired by Viyella International in 1964.
- Combined English Mills Ltd, Shareholders Minute Book, 26th Annual General Meeting 1955, p. 8. The records of this company are held by Coats Viyella pic, Bank House, Charlotte Street, Manchester.
- GMCRO, Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association (CSMA) Meeting of the Special Sub Committee on the Platt Report, 2 February 1945, p. 5.
- Ibid., p. 6.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Special Sub Committee on the Platt Report, 16 February 1945, p. 3.
- Ibid., 9 February 1945, p. 2.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Special Sub Committee on the Platt Report, 2 February 1945, p. 5.
- G. H. Jolly, ‘VerticalThinking in the Textile Industry’, CottonBoardConference, 1963, pp. 19–26. Copies of this document are held by the Oldham Textile Employers Association, 115 Windsor Road, Oldham.
- Ibid., p. 23.
- Combined English Mills Ltd, Shareholders Minute Book, 23rd Annual General Meeting, 1952, p. 8.
- Ibid., 24th Annual General Meeting, 1953, p. 73.
- Ibid., 33rd Annual General Meeting, 1962, p. 14.
- ‘Vertical Thinking in the Textile Industry’, p. 24.
- LCC Board Minutes, 9 July 1945, p. 3.
- Lancashire County Record Office (LCRO), Horrockses Collection. Additional evidence of the ways by which specialised spinning firms could benefit from contracts with integrated firms is provided in D. M. Higgins, ‘Structural Constraints and Financial Performance in the Lancashire Textile Industry, c. 1945 - c. 1965’, Sheffield University Management School Discussion Paper 92.51.
- See, for example, A. D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962 ); The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977); Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1990).
- A. D. Chandler, The Visible Hand, p. 47.
- Chandler himself has stated the development of high-throughput technology was limited until well into the twentieth century. A. D. Chandler, The Visible Hand, p. 248. More recently Chandler has suggested that it is differences in technology between industries which determines how substantial economies of scale and scope will be. Referring to the textile industry Chandler noted that improvements in technology and plant brought only very limited economies, and that the large mills rarely had striking cost advantages over small mills. Following on from this, if the technology generated limited scale economies it would also have generated limited scope economies. A. D. Chandler, Scale and Scope, pp. 22–25, p. 45. We agree with Lazonick that control of marketing was vital if the adoption of capital intensive technology was to be successful. However, in a period of contracting markets, the adoption of more capital intensive technology was a very risky strategy because there could be no guarantee that capacity would be fully utilised.
- Anglo-American Council on Productivity: Productivity Team Report, The British Cotton Industry (London, 1952 ), p. 26.
- This refers to the practice of selling goods at a price which is below cost in an attempt to secure business during a recession. Attempts had been made in the inter-war years to restrict weak selling, but these were largely unsuccessful. For a further discussion see J. Singleton, Lancashire on the Scrapheap, pp. 14–19.
- Similar views have been expressed with respect to firms in the textile finishing industry. See A. F. Ewing, Planning and Policies in the Textile Finishing Industry (Bradford: Bradford University Press, 1972 ), p. 49. A fuller discussion of the operation of the Yarn Spinners Agreement is contained in J. Singleton, Lancashire on the Scrapheap, ch. 9.
- Annual Report, Chairman’s statement 50th Annual General Meeting, 1947.
- Annual Report, Chairman’s statement (with the accounts) 31 October 1952.
- GMCRO, FMCSA, ‘Report of Meeting of the Executive Committee with Representatives of the Co-ordinating Committee of the Yarn Spinners Association and the Doublers Association’, 12 December 1945, P. 3–85 A. Sutherland, ‘The Restrictive Practises Court and Cotton Spinning \ Journal of Industrial Economics, vm (1959), p. 62.
- GMCRO, CSMA, ‘Note on Minimum Prices’, April 1949, p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 5.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Central Committee, 7 October 1949.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Central Committee, 12 October 1949.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Central Committee, 16 November 1954.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Central Committee, 27 May 1949, p. 2.
- Ibid., p. 3.
- Ibid., Meeting of the Central Committee, 4 May 1956, p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 5.