the cloth and drawing forward of the warp, so that the loom had not to
be stopped for the cloth to be moved on and the warp brought within play
of the shuttle to be sized. Looms fitted with the latter of these
devices were known as "dandy" looms. The looms that followed need not be
described here, nor need we concern ourselves with the degree in which
some were imitations of others. It is of interest to note, however, in
view of recent developments, that one of Cartwright's patents included a
warp-stop motion, though it was never tried practically so far as the
writer is aware. Looms with warp-stop motions are now common in the
United States, as are also automatic looms, but both are still the
exception in Lancashire for reasons that will be sketched later.

Power-looms won their way only very gradually. Cartwright and others
lost fortunes in trying to make them pay, but the former was compensated
by a grant of L10,000 from government. In 1813 there were 2400 only in
the whole of the United Kingdom; in 1820 there were 14,000, beside some
240,000 hand-looms; in 1829, 55,500; in 1833, 100,000; and in 1870,
440,700.[38] To-day there are about 700,000 in the cotton industry. The
beginning, and the final consequences, of the competitive pressure of
the power-looms may be read in the reports of official inquiries and in
Rowbotham's diary.[39] It was upon the fine work that the hand-loom
weavers retained their last hold. In 1829 John Kennedy wrote in his
paper to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society on "The Rise
and Progress of the Cotton Trade," "It is found ... that one person
cannot attend upon more than two power-looms, and it is still
problematical [even in 1829, observe] whether the saving of labour
counterbalances the expense of power and machinery and the disadvantage
of being obliged to keep an establishment of power-looms constantly at
work." It was not easy to obtain a sufficiency of good hands for the
power-looms, because the operatives, who had acquired their habits under
the domestic system, hated factory life. This, in conjunction with the
ease with which the art of coarse weaving could be acquired and the
cheapness of rough looms, helps to explain the wretched straits into
which the hand-loom weavers were driven.

[Sidenote: Growth.]

Improvements in machinery, which ultimately affected every process from
cleaning the cotton to finishing the fabric, and the application of
water and steam-power,