¹ Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective”, in the Progress of Under-developed Areas, edited by Hoselitz, Bert F. (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar

² For example, see the classic statement by Cole, G. D. H., “Industrialism–, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. VIII, particularly p. 20.Google Scholar See also, Pollard, S., “Investment, Consumption and the Industrial Revolution”, The Economic History Review, 2 Series, Vol. XI, No. 2, 1958, pp. 220–222.Google Scholar

³ For example, Ashton, T. S., “The Standard of Life of the Workers in England, 1790–1850”, Journal of Economic History, Supplement, Vol. IX, 1949, pp. 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of the doctrinal implications of the debate on the standard of life, see Woodruff, W., “Capitalism and the Historians: A Contribution to the Discussion on the Industrial Revolution in England”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. XVI, No. 1, 03 1956, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^3a The lack of research on this range of topics has been commented on by Ashton, T. S., An Economic History of England: The 18th Century (London: Methune and Co., 1955), p. 122Google Scholar, and Beales, H. L., The Industrial Revolution 1750–1850 (Revised edition, London: Frank Cass and Co., 1958), pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

⁴ Edwardes, S. M., The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, etc., Vol. I (Bombay: The Times Press, 1909), pp. 158–163.Google Scholar

⁵ The fact that Indian merchants played an extremely important role in the economic growth of Bombay raises an interesting problem of comparative analysis that is outside the scope of this essay. Why is it that while indigenous enterprise was so crucial in 19th century Bombay it became so insignificant in Calcutta during the same period?

⁶ Rutnagur, S. M., Bombay Industries: The Cotton Mitts (Bombay: Indian Textile Journal, 1927), pp. 9–37.Google Scholar “Report on Bombay Mills by Mr. John Robertson of Glasgow”, Bombay Millowners Association Report for 1875 and 1875–76, p. 74.

⁷ Rutnagur, op. cit., p. 32.

⁸ Mehta, S. D., The Cotton Mills of India 1854–1954 (Bombay: The Textile Association, 1954), p. 116.Google Scholar

⁹ David Morris, Morris, “Some Comments on the Supply of Labour to the Bombay Cotton Textile Industry, 1854–1951”, The Indian Economic Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, 10 1953, pp. 138–152.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For example, Patel, S. J., Agricultural Labourers in Modern India and Pakistan (Bombay: Current Book House, 1952), Chapter IV.Google Scholar

¹¹ Gadgil, D. R., The Industrial Evolution of India in Recent Times (4th ed., London: Oxford University Press, 1942), Chapter III.Google Scholar

¹² Sovani, N. V., “British Impact on India Before 1850–57”, Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale, Vol. I, No. 4, 04 1954, p. 868Google Scholar; Sovani, , “British Impact on India After 1850–57”, CHM, Vol. II, No. 1, 07 1954, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar

¹³ Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. X: “Ratnagiri and Savantwadi” (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1880), pp. 105–106Google Scholar; Choksey, R. D., Economic Life in the Bombay Deccan (1818–1939) (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1955), pp. 18, 20–21, 28–29.Google Scholar

¹⁴ As has been suggested, the economic history of nineteenth century India has been grossly neglected and monographic literature of quality is completely lacking. The voluminous literature that is available is overwhelmingly polemic in tone and desperately weak in statistical adequacy. It is therefore virtually impossible to come to form conclusions at this time. Much of the traditional analysis depends for its accuracy upon the assumption of a pre-British rural harmony and population stability that is entirely out of accord with the evidence. For example, Choksey, op. cit., p. 24, contains an excellent example of the “paradise lost” theme: “In such a paradise of contentment, as only those who know no ambition can enjoy, there crept in forces, from an inconceivable distance, brought to his simple home by his new mastersthe upheaval wrought by the Industrial Revolution.” However, for a detailed analysis of the problems of labor recruitment to the Bombay cotton textile industry, cf, David Morris, Morris, –A History of the Creation of a Disciplined Labor Force in the Cotton Textile Industry of Bombay City, 1851–1951–, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Berkeley: University of California, 1954).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Rich, E. E., “The Population of Elizabethan England”, Economic History Review, 2nd S., Vol. II, No. 3, 1950, pp. 252 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Wadsworth, A. P. and Mann, J. de L., The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire, 1600–1780 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931), p. 68.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ashton, , An Economic History of England, pp. 129, 203 and 234.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the traditional stress on the rural location of the early cotton mills, Knowles, L. C. A., The Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain during the Nineteenth Century (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1921), p. 92Google Scholar, and Mantoux, Paul, The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (London: Jonathan Cape, 1928), p. 253.Google Scholar

There has never been, to my knowledge, a complete analysis of the locations of eighteenth and early 19th century mills. However, a survey of the evidence suggests that a surprising number were placed in the economically more vigorous, and thus more densely populated, districts. Sources of water power had not been so completely preempted as to make this impossible. Moreover, certain marketing considerations tended to encourage this phenomenon Apart from the matter of raw material supply, the yarn produced by the mills had to be sold to the handicraft weavers.

¹⁹ Bowden, Witt, Industrial Society in England Towards the End of the Eighteenth Century (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1925), p. 263.Google ScholarRedford, Arthur, Labour Migration in England, 1800–50 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1926), p. 18Google Scholar, recognizes that “in considerable towns, such as Stockport and Manchester, the nucleus of a labor supply was, n o doubt, already available….”

It is important to note that this essay is concerned with the mobilization of raw, unskilled labor. The problem of obtaining and stabilizing skilled labor was a much more difficult task, partly because it had to be trained to the new requirements and partly because of the tendency of new entrepreneurs to pirate skilled employees from one another. Cf., French, Gilbert J., The Life and Times of Samuel Crompton (London, 1859), p. 105Google Scholar, and Guest, Richard, A Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture (Manchester, 1823), p. 23.Google Scholar

A careful reading of the literature suggests that it was the problem of skill rather than of raw labor supply that was crucial. The confusion of these two different problems largely accounts, it seems, for the exaggeration of the problem of raw labor supply in the early stages.

²⁰ One should not err in assuming that all rural areas where waterpower was available were lacking in available labor. For example, a Manchester paper of 1787 carried an advertisement “To cotton and other manufacturers: To be let for not more than 21 years, a large and commodious building formerly a water corn mill… 200 yards from Ruthin in Denbigh. The millstream is supplied out of the principal river. Situation …will admit of erecting works…. The manufacturer may be supplied with plenty of hands at low wages as there are a great number of grown women boys and girls in the town of Ruthin that are out of employ, no manufactory whatever being carried on there at present, and the wages paid to women at hay-harvest does not exceed eightpence a day upon their own meat.” Quoted in Unwin, George, Samuel Oldknow and the Arkwrights (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1924), p. 118.Google Scholar

²¹ Fitton, R. S. and Wadsworth, A. P., The Strutts andthe Arkwrights, 1758–1830 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958), p. 65.Google Scholar

²² Quoted ibid.

²³ Crabtree, J. H., Richard Arkwright (London, 1923), p. 37.Google Scholar

²⁴ Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit. p. 71. That labor supply was not one of Arkwright's difficulties seems also to be suggested in a letter from him. ibid., 66–67.

²⁵ ibid., pp. 224–225.

²⁶ Chambers, J. D., “The Vale of Trent 1670–1800”, Economic History Review Supplements, No. 3, p. 37.Google Scholar

²⁷ Unwin, op. cit., Ch. XI; Collier, Frances, “An Early Factory Community”, Economic History (A Supplement of The Economic Journal), Vol. II, No. 5, 01 1930, pp. 117–124.Google Scholar

²⁸ For a statement of the difficulty of recruiting labor, cf., Mantoux, op. cit., p. 478. Mantoux, loc. cit., also gives the population of New Lanark for 1792. Speaking generally of the very rapid growth of the Scottish cotton textile industry, Bremner, David, The Industries of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1869), pp. 282–283Google Scholar, wrote: “The rapid extension of the cotton trade in Scotland was owing, among other things, to the facility with which workpeople could be obtained.” He points out ibid., p. 279,1 that between 1778 and 1787 nineteen waterpower mills were established. On the 1816 employment, Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., p. 193.

It is interesting that Robert Owen in his autobiography, describing his activities at Mr. Drinkwater's mill in Manchester, at Northwich, at his own mills at Chorlton and New Lanark, at no point ever indicates that labor supply was a critical issue. The problem was solely a matter of discipline. However, Mantoux, op. cit., p. 478, quotes another of Owen's essays to the effect that the original recruitment of labor “was no light task, for all the regularly trained Scotch peasantry disdained the idea of working early and late, day after day, within cotton mills. Two modes then only remained of obtaining these laborers, the one, to procure children from the various charities of the country, and the other, to induce families to settle around the works.”

For the moment it is sufficient to indicate that the effort to recruit labor was successful. For the moment it is sufficient to indicate that the effort to recruit labor was successful. Moreover, Owen also reports that in Sutherland George Macintosh had “induced Mr. Dale,… to join him” in this cotton mill in Scotland — called the “Spring Dale Cotton Mill”, with a view of introducing this new machinery into the North Highlands, and to give employment to the people.” Owen, Robert, The Life of Robert Owen by Himself (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1920), pp. 101. 103Google Scholar.

²⁹ Redford, op. cit., p. 19.

³⁰ From House of Commons investigation of cotton mill apprentices, 1819, quoted by Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., p. 194.

³¹ Redford, op. cit., p. 20, On the impact of cotton yarn supply, cf., Chapman, S. J., The Lancashire Cotton Industry (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1904), pp. 37–39Google Scholar; Gaskell, P., Artisans and Machinery (London, 1836), pp. 33–34Google Scholar; Wm. Radcliffe's description quoted in Bowden, op. cit., pp. 109–112.

³² For a standard statement on the refusal of handloom weavers to enter the mills, cf., J. L., and Hammond, Barbara, The Town Labourer (New ed., London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1925), pp. 11–12, 21Google Scholar. However, the same evidence cited by the Hammonds also states that “very few weavers at that time left their employ to learn to spin, but as the weavers could put their children into mills at an earlier age than they could put them to looms, they threw them into mills as soon as possible ” ibid., pp. 12,156–157. On the failure of handloom weavers to obtain mill employment, cf, Gaskell, op. cit., pp. 36–37.

³³ Redford, op. cit., p. 20.

³⁴ Unwin, op. cit., pp. 162–164.

³⁵ Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., p. 240.

³⁶ Ashton, op. cit., p. 117; Redford, op. cit., pp. 18–22.

³⁷ Aiken, J., A Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles Round Manchester (London: 1795), pp. 168,219Google Scholar; Crabtree, op. cit., pp. 38–39; the statement by W. Kelly regarding the invention of the selfacting mule in 1792, quoted in Baines, Edward, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (London, 1835), p. 206Google Scholar; Ogden, James, Manchester a Hundred Years Ago (edited by Axon, W. E. A., London, 1887), p. 90Google Scholar.

³⁸ Wadsworth and Mann, op. cit., pp. 405–508; Furniss, Edgar S., The Position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism (Boston: Houghton Miflin Co., 1920)Google Scholar. Warner, Wellman J., The Wesley an Movement in the Industrial Revolution, pp. 150–151Google Scholar.

³⁹ “The early spinning machinery… needed water power for its working: hence the first mills were placed on streams, and the necessary labor was provided by the importation of cartloads of pauper children from the workhouses in the big towns.” J. L. and B. Hammond, op. cit., p. 144.

⁴⁰ Alfred, [Samuel Kyd], The History of the Factory Movement, Vol. I (London, 1857), pp. 16–18Google Scholar; Langford, John Alfred, A Century of Birmingham Life, Vol. II (Birmingham, 1871), pp. 57–58Google Scholar; Wadsworth and Mann, op. cit., p. 349.

An example of the eagerness of parish officers to rid themselves of their poor can be found in Oldknow's experience. The overseer of a parish in Kent, having heard of Oldknow's negotiations with another parish, wrote offering apprentices: “and as they [the rate payers] will not be very willing to part with much money, wish you'd let me know your lowest terms and whether the children so put out will gain a settlement by such Apprenticeship.” Oldknow responded that he would require two guineas, clothes and two shirts to take the boys. Cf., Unwin, op. cit., pp. 171–172.

⁴¹ Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., pp. 103–104; Unwin, op. cit., pp. 166–167.

⁴² For Oldknow's experience, cf., Unwin, op. cit., pp. 166ff. For t he Strutt mill at Belper, cf., Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., pp. 103–104. Cf., also, Chambers, op. cit., p. 62.

⁴³ Quoted by Chambers, op. cit., p. 62. Cf., also, Gaskell, op. cit., p. 136, and Fitton and Wads worth, op. cit., pp. 229–230. However, this treatment of children was not universal. The Greg mill at Styal seems to have kept a number of its apprentices when they became adults. F. Collier, op. cit. So did the Oldknow mill. Unwin, op. cit., p. 173.

⁴⁴ Redford, op. cit, p. 25.

⁴⁵ Redford, op.cit., p. 23; Gaskell, op. cit., pp. 136–138. There is no evidence that either Arkwright or Strutt took parish apprentices. Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., p. 104.

⁴⁶ Bidwell, P.W., “Rural Economy in New England at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century”, Transactions, Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 20, 04 1916, p. 248Google Scholar. As Fuller has written, by 1820 “any considerable increase of population… in the future must be based o na change in the occupation of her inhabitants…. The result of all the household manufacture that was carried on was a huge fund of mechanical skill and aptitude ready and anxious to turn to any pursuit which would make it easier to earn a living.” Fuller, G. P., “An Introduction to the History of Connecticut as a Manufacturing State”, Smith College Studies in History, Vol. I, No. 1, 10 1915, p. 27Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Although the population of New England expanded between 1790 and 1820, its rate of growth was slow by contrast with other areas of the country, much of the natural increase being offset by emigration mainly to the West. Bidwell, op. cit., Appendix B, pp. 383 ff.

⁴⁸ Appleton, Nathan, Introduction of the Power Loom and Origin of Lowell (Lowell: 1858), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Shlakman, Vera, “Economic History of a Factory Town”, Smith College Studies in History, Vol. XX, Nos. 1–4, 10. 1934, July 1935, pp. 12, 50Google Scholar. Bidwell, P. W., “Population Growth in Southern New England, 1810–1860”, Quarterly Publications, American Statistical Association, Vol. XV, N. S. No. 120, 10. 1917, pp. 813–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Bidwell, , “Population Growth”, op. cit., pp. 815–816, 833Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Gallatin, Albert, “Manufacture”, American State Papers, Vol. IV (Finance), Report No. 325, 17 04 1810, p. 433Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Cox, Tench, “Digest of Manufactures”, American State Papers, Vol. IV (Finance), Report No. 407, 5 01 1814, p. 690Google Scholar; Ware, Caroline F., The Early New England Cotton Manufacture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931), p. 56Google Scholar.

⁵² Ware, op. cit., p. 38; Copeland, M. T., The Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1912), pp. 6–8Google Scholar.

⁵³ Scholars always speak of “the competition of western lands” as affecting the supply of labor available to American industry. Without involving myself in the controversy over Turner's “Frontier Thesis”, let me point out that lurking behind much of this discussion seems to be the unspoken assumption that the human animal has an inherent psychological lust for the land. However, it must be recognized that much of the migration to western land, certainly in New England before 1820, was a function of the absence of significant alternative opportunities. When the alternatives began to appear, one commentator bemoaned: “The effect of the high price of labor is to induce men and women to abandon their laudable occupations at home, to the detriment of their farms and households, and of that which is still more valuable, their morals… The price which the manufacturer affords being so much greater than the farmer can possibly pay, that young men consider themselves destitute of enterprise if they are content to drive the ox or follow the plow”. Statement of Henry Stark in McLane, Louis, Documents Relative to The Manufactures in the United States, House Executive Documents, 22nd Congress, 1st Session, Doc. No. 308, Vol. I (Washington, 1833), pp.684–685Google Scholar; cf., also Shlakman, op. cit., p. 150.

⁵⁴ In 1817 the company paid 12–1/2 per cent dividends and by 1822 had paid dividends totalling more than the entire capital invested. Ware, op. cit., p. 66. It is no wonder that the Boston associates and their friends who financed the Waltham venture engaged in a veritable frenzy of company flotations, mill building and expansion in the years that followed. For a brief summary of the expansion of this group of enterprises, cf., Shlakman, op. cit., pp. 36–42.

⁵⁵ Appleton, op. cit., p. 17.

⁵⁶ Ware, op. cit., pp. 80–81.

⁵⁷ In 1826 there were a thousand millhands housed in tenements. In 1837 the operatives constituted 47.6 per cent of the population; in 1845 they were 36.7 per cent. Parker, M. T., Lowell, A Study of Industrial Development (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1940), pp. 63–64, 67–69Google Scholar; and Bidwell, , “Population Growth in Southern New England”, op. cit., p. 835Google Scholar.

The pace of mill expansion was rapid elsewhere too. At Chicopee the first mill was completed in 1825, work was started on the second the same year, and the third was erected in 1826, the fourth in 1831. Other mills followed at short intervals. Shlakman, op. cit., pp. 25–28.

⁵⁸ On the difference in size of units between the Slater and Lowell systems, cf., Ware, op. cit., pp. 27–28, 60, 123.

⁵⁹ Ware, op. cit., 227, and Appendix B, p. 304.

⁶⁰ ibid., p. 227. Moreover, this was the period when power looms were new and the company was attempting t o recruit already skilled employees. ibid., p. 209.

⁶¹ ibid., p. 201.

⁶² ibid., p. 227–228; Abott, Edith, “Harriet Martineau and the Employment of Women in 1836”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. XIV, 12 1906, p. 626Google Scholar. Shlakman, op. cit., pp. 147–149. However, even in the Chicopee case the pioblem seems to have been more a problem of turnover and discipline than of absolute scarcity. Actually, during 1857 and 1858 the Chicopee mills had laid off many workers and were operating at half time and much of the problem seems to have been a result of a series of strikes that stemmed from wage cuts. Ware, Norman, The Industrial Worker 1840–1860 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924), p. 118Google Scholar.

⁶³ C. Ware, op. cit., pp. 211–213.

⁶⁴ ibid., pp. 213–220.

⁶⁵ Wage data are treacherous to work with, especially when one is concerned with trends over time. One is bedeviled with problems of wage rates and earnings, with changing job content and a host of other issues. However, all authorities are agreed on the pattern so that for the purpose of this essay it is not neccessary to invoke a complex analysis. A brief summary will do.

⁶⁶ Shlakman, op. cit., p. 140. This pattern existed also in Bombay and Great Britain.

⁶⁷ C. Ware, op. cit., p. 112.

⁶⁸ Hammond, M. B., “Who Uses Business Manuscripts”, Bull., Business History Society, Vol. V, No. 5, 10 1931, p. 14Google Scholar. Not only did wage rates decline, but whereas the cotton textile industry had, at least for women and children, offered higher wages than any alternative opportunities at the beginning of the nineteenth century, by 1860 earnings had declined relative to those obtainable in other activities. C. Ware., op. cit., p. 236 and all of Chapter IX.

⁶⁹ For a comparison of British and Bombay labor deployment patterns and costs, cf., “Report on Bombay Mills by Mr. John Robertson of Glasgow”, Bombay Millowners Association, Reports of the Bombay Millowners Association for the Years 1875 and 1875–76 (Bombay 1876), pp. 74–78Google Scholar. For similar comparisons of British and New England mills, cf., Montgomery, James, The Cotton Manufacture of the United States Contrasted and Compared with that of Great Britain (Glasgow, 1840)Google Scholar and Batchelder, Samuel, Introduction and Early Progress of the Cotton Manufacture in the United States (Boston, 1863), pp. 80 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ On Indian social structure, cf., O'Mally, L.S.S. (editor), Modern India and the West (London: Oxford University Press, 1941)Google Scholar, and Blunt, Edward (editor), Social Service in India (London: His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1939)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vols, I–XXXVI (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1877–1904)Google Scholar is a mine of information on this subject. Cf., especially, Vol. II, pp. 57–58; Vol. m, p. 40; Vol. V, pp. 102–103, 367–368; Vol. X, pp. 104–106, 122–123, 130, 143.

⁷² The data can be found in the various census reports for Bombay city. Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 136Google Scholar, refers to the fact that Indian towns are generally heavily masculine and “probably have the most distorted sex ratios of any large group of cities in the world.” On the other hand, Ravenstein, E. G., “The Laws of Migration”, Journal of the Statistical Society, Vol. XLVIII, Part II, 06 1885, pp. 196–197Google Scholar, bluntly stated that British data showed that “Woman is a greater migrant than man…. A migration of females has taken place into the towns in excess of that of males.” Cf., also, Worthington, A. W., “On the Unequal Proportion between the Male and Female Population of some Manufacturing and other Towns”, Jnl, Stat. Soc, Vol. XXX, Part 1, 03 1867, pp. 68–79Google Scholar. For the evidence from New England textile towns, cf., United States, Sixth Census, 1840: Compendium of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants and Statistics of the United States (Washington, 1841)Google Scholar.

⁷³ My own research suggests rather strongly that it is the factors associated with availability of housing and stable employment that account for the persistence of rural links among the Indian work force. In those situations where adequate housing and stable employment have been available, a completely urban workforce has been created. It should also be pointed out that the high degree of labor turnover in the Bombay textile industry seems to have been a phenomenon less the outcome of worker psychology than the result of employer policies. On these points, cf., Morris David Morris, “Commitment of the Industrial Labor Force in India: Some Characteristics and Consequences”, which will be a chapter in a forthcoming publication of the Social Science Research Council on the problem of commitment of industrial labor in newly developing areas.

⁷⁴ For a detailed discussion of the utilization of women and child labor in Bombay, cf., Morris, , “History of the Creation of a Disciplined Labor Force in the Cotton Textile Industry of Bombay City”, pp. 126–133Google Scholar. In the United Kingdom in 1839 the same age-groups (all persons under fourteen) constituted slightly over 14 per cent of the total labor force in the industry. Porter, G. R., The Progress of the Nation (London, 1851), p. 193Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Collier, op. cit., p. 121; Unwin, op. cit., p. 305.

⁷⁶ For some data collected in 1833, cf., Baines, op. cit., pp. 369–380.

⁷⁷ “H. N. Slater's Reminiscences of Saml. Slater, his Father”, in Weeden, W. B., Economic and Social History of New England, 1620–1789, Vol. II, (Boston, 1890), pp. 912–913Google Scholar; Batchelder, op. cit., pp. 74–75; C. Ware, op. cit., pp. 13,29–30, Ch. VIII, pp. 254,260–261; M. B. Hammond, op. cit., p. 13.

⁷⁸ Sanford, Charles L., “The Intellectual Origins and New-Worldliness of American Industry”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, 03 1958, pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides an excellent summary of the moral origins of the Lowell system.

⁷⁹ Appleton, op. cit., pp. 15–16; C. Ware, pp. 64–65 and Ch. VTH. One of the features of the industry's development that has been typically ignored but which significantly affects any estimate of the problems associated with labor recruitment and disciplining was the volatility of market demand for textiles and the frequency of periods of reduced employment.

⁸⁰ C. Ware, op. cit., p. 64.

⁸¹ Batchelder, op. cit., p. 75. Actually, children were employed as operatives. Two of the Lowell girls eventually wrote their autobiographies and one, Lucy Larcom, reports that she went into a mill at the age of eleven; another, Harriet Robinson, went to work at the age of ten and writes that there were others of the same age. Larcom, Lucy, A New England Girlhood (Boston, 1890), p. 153Google Scholar; and Robinson, Harriet H., Loom and Spindle, pp. 17 and 30Google Scholar. However, in these two cases the young girls were permanent residents of Lowell.

⁸² C. Ware, op. cit., pp. 210–211.

⁸³ Batchelder, op. cit., p. 73.

⁸⁴ C. Ware, op. cit., pp. 228–230; Redford, op. cit., passim.

⁸⁵ Morris, , “A History of the Creation of Disciplined Labor Force”, op.cit., pp. 55–57Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ ibid., Ch.VIII,

⁸⁷ Gokhale, R. G., The Bombay Cotton Mill Worker (Bombay: The Millowners’ Association, 1957)Google Scholar, Cf., also, M. D. Morris, “Caste and the Evolution of the Industrial Workforce in India”, t o be published shortly in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

⁸⁸ Fitton and Wadsworth, op. cit., pp. 104–105; Collier, op. cit., p. 122.

⁸⁹ C. Ware, op. cit., pp. 203–209.

⁹⁰ Rutnagar, op. cit., p. 291.

⁹¹ ibid., pp. 288–294; Mehta, op. cit., Ch. VIII; Morris, , “A History of the Creation of a Disciplined Labor Force”, op. cit., pp. 51–55Google Scholar.

⁹² Moore, Wilbert E., Industrialization and Labor Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1951, Part IGoogle Scholar.