Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:17:49.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invention and Innovation in the British Pin Industry, 1790–1850*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

H.I. Dutton  and
S.R.H. Jones
H.I. Dutton
Affiliation:
Draper's Fellow in Economics, University of Auckland
S.R.H. Jones
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the six decades that extended from 1790 to 1850, British pin manufacturers were often slow to adopt new technology. Unfavorable economic conditions, particulary those spawned by the Napoleonic wars, were partly responsible for the lag between the invention and utilization of new techniques, but at other times, the shortcomings of inventors as salesmen of their inventions also contributed to the slow introduction of new technology. In this article Professors Dutton and Jones illustrate that the diffusion of new technology was (and is) anything but a costless and frictionless process, and they ultimately conclude that “this arcadian world of neo-classical simplicity would seem to be far removed from historical reality.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 57 , Issue 2: British Business History , Summer 1983 , pp. 175 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a fuller discussion of the structure of the industry, see. Jones, S.R.H., “Price Association and Competition in the British Pin Industry, 1814–1840,” Economic History Review, Second Series, 26 (May 1973), 237–53.Google Scholar

2 Ashton, T.S., “The Records of a Pin Manufactory, 1814–1821,” Economica, Old Series, 5 (November 1925), 287.Google Scholar

3 Commissioners of Patents Abridgements of Specifications Relating to Needles and Pins, (London, 1871), 2 (hereinafter Patent Abridgements — Needles & Pins).

4 Between 1796 and 1830 Bundy took out ten patents. Woodcroft, B., An Alphabetical index of Patentees of Inventions, (London, 1969), 81.Google Scholar

5 Select Committee on the Employment of Children, British Parliamentary Papers, 1843, XV, 543.

6 Durnfords refused to give details of the machinery to the editors of an encyclopaedia. Rees Encyclopaedia, Vol. 27 (1818).

7 Bradbury took out six patents between 1807 and 1824, three of which were for spinning fibres and two for engraving. Woodcroft, Alphabetical Index, 62.

8 Docket Book 22668/176, Chancery Proceedings, Public Record Office, London.

9 Patent Abridgements—Needles and Pins, 3.

10 Morse's machine was reputed to manufacture pins from wire at one operation. It was also said to have shown “much mechanical genius, and was used to some extent, but being too intricate or delicate, and remaining unimproved in otherhands. ‘Hunt’ it fell into disuse or was superseded by other machines.” Bishop, J.L., A History of American Manufactures, (Philadelphia, 1868) Vol. 2, 209.Google Scholar

11 Hunt to Stubs Wood, February 3, 1817, Stubs Wood Deposit, Manchester Central Library (hereafter MCL).

12 Stubs Wood to Hunt, February 23, 1817, Stubs Wood Deposit, MCL.

13 It was subsequently alleged that Wright pirated certain of Hunt's ideas, this defence being advanced by Cowcher, Kirby & Company when brought to court on a charge of infringement by Marling, an assignee of Wright's patent, in the late 1830s. Newtons London Journal, Vol. 19, Conjoined Series, 56 & 140.

14 James Hall to John English, October 14, 1821; March 1, 1822; June 26, 1822, Gutch Deposit, Redditch Public Library (hereafter Gutch Deposit, RPL).

15 Hall to English, June 11, 1822, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

16 Hall to English, June 26, 1822, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

17 Hall to English, July 10, 1822, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

18 Wright took out twenty patents over a period of twenty-nine years. Woodcroft, Alphabetical Index, 640.

19 Joseph Wood to Stubs Wood, July 25, 1823, Stubs Wood Deposit, MCL.

20 Gutch to English, May 6, 1826, Gutch Deposit, Worcester County Record Office (hereafter Gutch Deposit, WCRO).

21 T. Webster, Patent Cases, Vol. 1, pt. 2, 562.

22 Jones, S.R.H., “Hall, English & Co., 1813–1841: A Study of Entrepreneurial Response in the Gloucester Pin Industry,” Business History, (No. 1, 1976), 46–47.Google Scholar

23 Hall to English, March 16, 1832, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

24 Hall to English, February 16, 1832; September 23, 1834, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

25 Hall and Gutch to English, various letters, 1832–1834, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

26 Newtons London Journal, 20.

27 English to Gutch, October 7, 1842, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

28 The rest of this account draws heavily on Bishop, A History of American Manufactures.

29 Thomas Barnett to English, September 29, 1842, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

30 English to Jenkins, June 25, 1842, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

31 Memoranda Book and English to Jenkins, November 6, 1840; May 5, 1841, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

32 English to Jenkins, May 8, 1841, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

33 English to Jenkins, June 21, 1841; July 23, 1841; September 2, 1841, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

34 English to Jenkins, September 2, 1841, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

35 English to Jenkins, November 16, 1841, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

36 Patent No. 9054, Gutch, WCRO and English to Jenkins, various letters, 1842, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

37 English to Jenkins, June 25, 1842, Gutch Deposit, RPL.

38 English to Gutch, March 24, 1843, and English to Jenkins, September 22, 1843, Gutch Depost, RPL.

39 Twentieth century innovators appear to have been equally tardy in adopting worthwhile inventions. A study by John L. Enos of 35 important innovations revealed an average lag between invention and innovation of 13.6 years. Cited by Rosenberg, N., “Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Technology,” Explorations in Economic History, 10 (No. 1, 1973), 9.Google Scholar

40 Not all writers find such assumptions helpful. Thus in 1973 Rosenberg stressed the gradual nature of technological diffusion and the difficulties inherent in the adoption of new technology. In an earlier work with Edward Ames, Rosenberg warned that in certain cases the use of simplifying theory might result in the essential features of a phenomenon being either disregarded or dismissed. Ames, E. & Rosenberg, N., “The Enfield Arsenal in Theory and History,” Economic Journal, 78 (December 1968) 840–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A plea not to disregard the particularity in history would seem to be particularly germane in the context of the sale of inventions!

For a general survey of the literature concerned with innovation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, see Uselding, Paul, “Studies of Technology in Economic History” in Gallman, R.E., ed. Recent Developments in the Study of Business and Economic History: Essays in Memory of Herman E. Krooss (Greenwich, 1977) 159–219.Google Scholar

41 For a discussion of the effect of expectations on the adoption of new technology, see Rosenberg, N., “On Technological Expectations” Economic Journal, 86 (September 1976) 523–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar