Singer in Britain: The Diffusion of Sewing Machine Technology and its Impact on the Clothing Industry in the United Kingdom, 1860-1905

Textile History

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 59-76

  Godley, Andrew ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRITISH; CLOTHING INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC DATA (BRITAIN); GARMENT MANUFACTURE; SEWING MACHINES; TEXTILE HISTORY;

EID: 0029676855     PISSN: 00404969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/tex.1996.27.1.59     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. See W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The British Cotton Industry and International Competitive Advantage: The State of the Debates', Business History 32 (1990), and references there. J. H. Clapham, The Economic History of Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1930), vol. 2, p. 92.
2. See W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The British Cotton Industry and International Competitive Advantage: The State of the Debates', Business History 32 (1990), and references there. J. H. Clapham, The Economic History of Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1930), vol. 2, p. 92.
3. D. Landes, Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 294-95. In 1911 well over one million people were employed in the clothing industry, see A. Godley, 'The Development of the UK Clothing Industry, 1850-1950' Business History 37 (1995), October, appendix, for England and Wales, and references in note 23 below.
4. D. Landes, Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 294-95. In 1911 well over one million people were employed in the clothing industry, see A. Godley, 'The Development of the UK Clothing Industry, 1850-1950' Business History 37 (1995), October, appendix, for England and Wales, and references in note 23 below.
5. Godley, 'Development', esp. Table 5.
6. D. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 (Baltimore, 1984), pp. 67-68; R. B. Davies, Peacefully Working to Conquer the World: Singer Sewing Machines in Foreign Markets, 1854-1920 (New York, 1976), esp. pp. 5-12.
7. D. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 (Baltimore, 1984), pp. 67-68; R. B. Davies, Peacefully Working to Conquer the World: Singer Sewing Machines in Foreign Markets, 1854-1920 (New York, 1976), esp. pp. 5-12.
8. Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123; Economist 26 June, 1851, cited in Clapham, Economic History, vol. 2, p. 92.
9. Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123; Economist 26 June, 1851, cited in Clapham, Economic History, vol. 2, p. 92.
10. Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123; Economist 26 June, 1851, cited in Clapham, Economic History, vol. 2, p. 92.
11. D. Ryott, John Barran's of Leeds 1851-1951 (Leeds, 1951). For other examples see A. Kershen, Uniting the Tailors: Trade Unionism Amongst the Tailors of London and Leeds (1995), pp. 26 and 32. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 21-22 gives a number of indications of the time savings in stitching given by the early machines.
12. D. Ryott, John Barran's of Leeds 1851-1951 (Leeds, 1951). For other examples see A. Kershen, Uniting the Tailors: Trade Unionism Amongst the Tailors of London and Leeds (1995), pp. 26 and 32. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 21-22 gives a number of indications of the time savings in stitching given by the early machines.
13. D. Ryott, John Barran's of Leeds 1851-1951 (Leeds, 1951). For other examples see A. Kershen, Uniting the Tailors: Trade Unionism Amongst the Tailors of London and Leeds (1995), pp. 26 and 32. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 21-22 gives a number of indications of the time savings in stitching given by the early machines.
14. D. Munby, Industry and Planning in Stepney (1951), pp. 39, 54-56; Kershen, Uniting., pp. 13-15; R. Thomson, The Path to Mechanized Shoe Production in the United States (Chapel Hill, 1989), pp. 49-62, 73-9, 83-90, and especially pp. 93-117.
15. D. Munby, Industry and Planning in Stepney (1951), pp. 39, 54-56; Kershen, Uniting., pp. 13-15; R. Thomson, The Path to Mechanized Shoe Production in the United States (Chapel Hill, 1989), pp. 49-62, 73-9, 83-90, and especially pp. 93-117.
16. D. Munby, Industry and Planning in Stepney (1951), pp. 39, 54-56; Kershen, Uniting., pp. 13-15; R. Thomson, The Path to Mechanized Shoe Production in the United States (Chapel Hill, 1989), pp. 49-62, 73-9, 83-90, and especially pp. 93-117.
17. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production;, p. 114.
18. Davies, Peacefully Working, chapter I; and Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123 on the developments in sewing machine production technology to the early 1880s and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pp. 70 and 89) on early sales. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production on increasing sales and falling prices, pp. 101-04 in the 1850s and 1860s. F. V. Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets (Chapel Hill, 1984), claims the later machines led to 70-90 per cent saving in labour, p. 5.
19. Davies, Peacefully Working, chapter I; and Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123 on the developments in sewing machine production technology to the early 1880s and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pp. 70 and 89) on early sales. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production on increasing sales and falling prices, pp. 101-04 in the 1850s and 1860s. F. V. Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets (Chapel Hill, 1984), claims the later machines led to 70-90 per cent saving in labour, p. 5.
20. Davies, Peacefully Working, chapter I; and Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123 on the developments in sewing machine production technology to the early 1880s and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pp. 70 and 89) on early sales. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production on increasing sales and falling prices, pp. 101-04 in the 1850s and 1860s. F. V. Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets (Chapel Hill, 1984), claims the later machines led to 70-90 per cent saving in labour, p. 5.
21. Davies, Peacefully Working, chapter I; and Hounshell, American System, pp. 67-123 on the developments in sewing machine production technology to the early 1880s and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (pp. 70 and 89) on early sales. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production on increasing sales and falling prices, pp. 101-04 in the 1850s and 1860s. F. V. Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets (Chapel Hill, 1984), claims the later machines led to 70-90 per cent saving in labour, p. 5.
22. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production, p. 102-03; Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 20-21.
23. Thomson, Mechanized Shoe Production, p. 102-03; Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 20-21.
24. Davies, Peacefully Working, p. 18; Hounshell, American System, pp. 89-90, 93 and the Singer company advert, p. 87.
25. Davies, Peacefully Working, p. 18; Hounshell, American System, pp. 89-90, 93 and the Singer company advert, p. 87.
26. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 18. Davies cites a Singer Company agent remarking in 1882 that 'until 1865 "there was scarcely a man of recognized sound business judgement who ever believed that the sewing machine would arrive at a commercial success'". Peacefully Working, p. 5. Hounshell, American System, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that Singer became the leading producer in 1867, overtaking Wheeler and Wilson.
27. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 18. Davies cites a Singer Company agent remarking in 1882 that 'until 1865 "there was scarcely a man of recognized sound business judgement who ever believed that the sewing machine would arrive at a commercial success'". Peacefully Working, p. 5. Hounshell, American System, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that Singer became the leading producer in 1867, overtaking Wheeler and Wilson.
28. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 18. Davies cites a Singer Company agent remarking in 1882 that 'until 1865 "there was scarcely a man of recognized sound business judgement who ever believed that the sewing machine would arrive at a commercial success'". Peacefully Working, p. 5. Hounshell, American System, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that Singer became the leading producer in 1867, overtaking Wheeler and Wilson.
29. Carstensen, American Enterprise, pp. 17-24; M. Wilkins, The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from the Colonial Era to 1914 (Harvard, 1970), pp. 37-47. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 56-57 on comparative prices.
30. Carstensen, American Enterprise, pp. 17-24; M. Wilkins, The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from the Colonial Era to 1914 (Harvard, 1970), pp. 37-47. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 56-57 on comparative prices.
31. Carstensen, American Enterprise, pp. 17-24; M. Wilkins, The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from the Colonial Era to 1914 (Harvard, 1970), pp. 37-47. Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 56-57 on comparative prices.
32. Singer company advertising c. 1881, "Three quarters of all the sewing machines sold throughout the world in 1880 were Singer machines', Singer records, Box 108, Folder 3. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 23 for 1890 claim.
33. A. Chandler, The Visible Hand (Harvard, 1977) is the most succinct version of the thesis, pp. 302-05 and 402-14 (although almost totally dependent upon Davies, Peacefully Working). See also A. Jack, 'The Channels of Distribution for an Innovation: The Sewing-Machine Industry in America, 1860-1865', Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, Series A, vol. 9 (1957).
34. A. Chandler, The Visible Hand (Harvard, 1977) is the most succinct version of the thesis, pp. 302-05 and 402-14 (although almost totally dependent upon Davies, Peacefully Working). See also A. Jack, 'The Channels of Distribution for an Innovation: The Sewing-Machine Industry in America, 1860-1865', Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, Series A, vol. 9 (1957).
35. A. Chandler, The Visible Hand (Harvard, 1977) is the most succinct version of the thesis, pp. 302-05 and 402-14 (although almost totally dependent upon Davies, Peacefully Working). See also A. Jack, 'The Channels of Distribution for an Innovation: The Sewing-Machine Industry in America, 1860-1865', Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, Series A, vol. 9 (1957).
36. Examples from Singer. Company advertising: Box 108, folder 3, c. 1898 lists the following features: 'new vibrating shuttle', 'bobbin winder', 'self-threading shuttle', and 'stitch-regulator'; US advertising material dated 1889 lists: 'oscillating shuttle', and 'vibrating shuttle'. Box 94, folder 1 includes a cutting of Singer Company advert from Oldham Chronicle, undated but c. 1880-01 gives comparisons of stitch speeds of Willcox and Gibbs chainstitch machine (2,600 stitches per minute), Bradbury's lockstitch machine (1,200 per minute), and Singer's 'New lockstitch sewing machine' (2,100 per minute). Also see Hounshell, American System, p. 109.
37. Hounshell, American System, pp. 109-20.
38. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
39. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
40. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
41. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
42. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
43. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
44. UK imports in Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136. Estimates of US producers' output vary quite considerably but Hounshell, American System, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that Wheeler and Wilson sold over 30,000 p.a. between 1862-64 (p. 70), Singer sold less than 24,000 p.a. (p. 89), and Willcox and Gibbs around 8,000 p.a. (note 30, p. 353). Grover and Baker, despite being technological pioneers and initiating the patent pool, were falling behind. By 1872 they had sales of 52,000 which was comparable to Willcox and Gibbs. They probably sold 10-15,000 in the early 1860s. There were other, lesser manufacturers as well of course. Before 1862 Singer's exports, mostly to the UK, barely reached three figures (127 p.a.), Wilkins, Emergence, p. 39. By 1864 they represented 40 per cent of Singer total output, Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 67. Also see Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 6, 14-15. Davies cites a Scientific American enquiry which suggested that the total output of the largest three companies in 1862 was just short of 200,000 machines, which must be an exaggeration, p. 21. Hounshell, American System, pp. 93-96 on the early Glasgow factories; also Wilkins, Emergence, pp. 40-45.
45. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
46. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
47. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
48. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
49. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
50. American competitors muted taste for foreign competition is picked up in Davies, Peacefully Working, 158-63. By the early 1880s only Wheeler and Wilson provided any competition for Singer, even in the domestic US market, p. 58. German firms insignificance is referred to in Singer records. Box 94, folder 1, letter from G. McKenzie to E. Clark, 31.5.1881. Their later international presence is confirmed by Carstensen, American Enterprise, ch. 2, and Davies, Peacefully Working, ch. 9. Bradbury's output cited by S. Saul, 'The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914', Economic History Review 2nd Ser., XX (1967), where he claims they employed 600 people and produced 500 machines a week in the early 1890s at their Oldham base, p. 124. By the late 1890s they were diversifying into bicycles, p. 129, n. 2. Bradbury's are also occasionally referred to in Singer internal correspondence. See, for example, Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester region'. Both Bradbury's and Willcox and Gibb's received (unflattering) comparisons in Singer Company advertising, for example in 1881; Box 94, folder I. Bradbury's were the only other sewing machine referred to by name by tailoresses and outworkers in London's East End when interviewed by George Arkell in the late 1880s under the auspices of Charles Booth's investigation into the London labour market, see A. Godley, 'Enterprise and Culture: Jewish Immigrants in London and New York, 1880-1914', unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London (LSE) 1993, Chapter 5.
51. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 25; Hounshell, American System, p. 95; and Davies, Peacefully Working, p. 197.
52. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 25; Hounshell, American System, p. 95; and Davies, Peacefully Working, p. 197.
53. Carstensen, American Enterprise, p. 25; Hounshell, American System, p. 95; and Davies, Peacefully Working, p. 197.
54. See S. Bowden and A. Offer, 'Household appliances and the use of time: the United States and Britain since the 1920s', Economic History Review, XLVII (1994) for a recent example of the application of the product life cycle model, esp. pp. 725-32. Logistic curves, sometimes called Pearl-Williams curves, are covered in most textbooks covering intermediate level statistics. For the original and still compellingly lucid explanation see R. Pearl, The Biology of Population Growth (1926), pp. 1-19.
55. See S. Bowden and A. Offer, 'Household appliances and the use of time: the United States and Britain since the 1920s', Economic History Review, XLVII (1994) for a recent example of the application of the product life cycle model, esp. pp. 725-32. Logistic curves, sometimes called Pearl-Williams curves, are covered in most textbooks covering intermediate level statistics. For the original and still compellingly lucid explanation see R. Pearl, The Biology of Population Growth (1926), pp. 1-19.
56. Employment figures for England and Wales see Godley, 'Development', Appendix. For the rest of the UK see B. Mitchell, British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 103-08, with a rough estimate for footwear workers deducted.
57. Employment figures for England and Wales see Godley, 'Development', Appendix. For the rest of the UK see B. Mitchell, British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 103-08, with a rough estimate for footwear workers deducted.
58. Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, gives examples of the impact of Boer War demand in London and Leeds, pp. 32-33.
59. See, for example, the reproduction in Hounshell, American System, Fig. 2.11, p. 87.
60. Carstensen, American Enterprise, pp. 17-24. I am grateful to Professor Carstensen for clarifying these issues in personal correspondence dated 14 and 25 February, 1995.
61. Jack, 'Channels', n. 2, p. 136.
62. On the early developments see S. D. Chapman, 'The Innovating Entrepreneurs in the British Ready-Made Clothing Industry', Textile History 24 (1993); Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, chapters 1 and 2; and Godley, 'Development'. On British exports of ready-mades see Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain from the Industrial Revolution to World War I (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 188-90; and P. Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1994) on the French demand for British ready-mades.
63. On the early developments see S. D. Chapman, 'The Innovating Entrepreneurs in the British Ready-Made Clothing Industry', Textile History 24 (1993); Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, chapters 1 and 2; and Godley, 'Development'. On British exports of ready-mades see Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain from the Industrial Revolution to World War I (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 188-90; and P. Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1994) on the French demand for British ready-mades.
64. On the early developments see S. D. Chapman, 'The Innovating Entrepreneurs in the British Ready-Made Clothing Industry', Textile History 24 (1993); Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, chapters 1 and 2; and Godley, 'Development'. On British exports of ready-mades see Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain from the Industrial Revolution to World War I (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 188-90; and P. Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1994) on the French demand for British ready-mades.
65. On the early developments see S. D. Chapman, 'The Innovating Entrepreneurs in the British Ready-Made Clothing Industry', Textile History 24 (1993); Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, chapters 1 and 2; and Godley, 'Development'. On British exports of ready-mades see Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain from the Industrial Revolution to World War I (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 188-90; and P. Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1994) on the French demand for British ready-mades.
66. On the early developments see S. D. Chapman, 'The Innovating Entrepreneurs in the British Ready-Made Clothing Industry', Textile History 24 (1993); Kershen, Uniting the Tailors, chapters 1 and 2; and Godley, 'Development'. On British exports of ready-mades see Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain from the Industrial Revolution to World War I (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 188-90; and P. Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1994) on the French demand for British ready-mades.
67. Chapman, 'Innovating Entrepreneurs', esp. pp. 14-22 on E. Moses and son. More generally see J. Jefferys, Retail Trading in Britain 1850-1950 (Cambridge, 1954). By 1907 the practice of buying piece-goods and either getting the draper to assemble them or self-assembling was unimportant, representing only 3.5 per cent of the gross output of the industry, Final Report from the First Census of Production (1907) (Cd. 6320, 1912), p. 391.
68. Chapman, 'Innovating Entrepreneurs', esp. pp. 14-22 on E. Moses and son. More generally see J. Jefferys, Retail Trading in Britain 1850-1950 (Cambridge, 1954). By 1907 the practice of buying piece-goods and either getting the draper to assemble them or self-assembling was unimportant, representing only 3.5 per cent of the gross output of the industry, Final Report from the First Census of Production (1907) (Cd. 6320, 1912), p. 391.
69. Chapman, 'Innovating Entrepreneurs', esp. pp. 14-22 on E. Moses and son. More generally see J. Jefferys, Retail Trading in Britain 1850-1950 (Cambridge, 1954). By 1907 the practice of buying piece-goods and either getting the draper to assemble them or self-assembling was unimportant, representing only 3.5 per cent of the gross output of the industry, Final Report from the First Census of Production (1907) (Cd. 6320, 1912), p. 391.
70. Company UK advertising, 1898, Box 108, folder 3.
71. For Singer internal accounts see the references to Company records in Table 2, below. The British prices are given in Box 95, Folder 4, 'Retail Prices in England and Foreign Offices, 31/12/84' the IF model retailed at £7. 7s., the IM at £8. 19s. For the Company's general lack of discrimination between the industry and consumer markets, see Hounshell, American System, p. 109; and confirmed by Carstensen in correspondence with the author, 14 February 1995 and 25 February 1995.
72. For Singer internal accounts see the references to Company records in Table 2, below. The British prices are given in Box 95, Folder 4, 'Retail Prices in England and Foreign Offices, 31/12/84' the IF model retailed at £7. 7s., the IM at £8. 19s. For the Company's general lack of discrimination between the industry and consumer markets, see Hounshell, American System, p. 109; and confirmed by Carstensen in correspondence with the author, 14 February 1995 and 25 February 1995.
73. Box 95, Folder 8, 'Sales of Improved Button hole Machines, 1885' shows that these more expensive machines (£15-20) went to the rapidly growing number of clothing factories, especially in Manchester, London and Leeds. Box 93, Folder 2, 'Belt Machines, 16th January 1900', shows that the prices of these machines to manufacturers went up to £125. 12s. Box 96, folder 3, Whitie to Bourne, 22 February 1888 p. 4, on the competition of 'English makers' in heavy machines. The vast majority of machines even in factories were the standard sewing machines though.
74. Box 95, Folder 8, 'Sales of Improved Button hole Machines, 1885' shows that these more expensive machines (£15-20) went to the rapidly growing number of clothing factories, especially in Manchester, London and Leeds. Box 93, Folder 2, 'Belt Machines, 16th January 1900', shows that the prices of these machines to manufacturers went up to £125. 12s. Box 96, folder 3, Whitie to Bourne, 22 February 1888 p. 4, on the competition of 'English makers' in heavy machines. The vast majority of machines even in factories were the standard sewing machines though.
75. Box 94, folder 1, McKenzie to Clark, 10 May 1881, where McKenzie is critical of the Leeds office agent for having 'occupied most of his time in the wholesale trade to the detriment of the retail business'. Also see Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester Office, by G. B. Dobson, May, 1892' which gives details of the difference in retail and wholesale trade for various sub-offices in the Manchester region, pp. 13-14.
76. Box 94, Folder 1, Advertisement cutting from Oldham Chronicle n.d. but c. 1880-81. Also see Box 97, folder 1 and Box 95, folder 2 for examples of working tailors prosecuted by the Company for stealing machines while out on the hire-purchase system in 1889 and 1884.
77. Box 94, folder 4, 'Memo to all sub-offices in the UK, 25.9.1882', 'with respect to Improved Family and Improved Manufacturing machines . . . These machines are peculiarly adapted for Stay work, Shirt and Collar work and other manufacturers .. .'. Box 95, folder 5, 'Memo from McKenzie to all UK agents, 21.9.1885', 'with special reference to the [new] Oscillating Shuttle Machines .. .'. Also Box 96, folder 3, Whitie to Bourne 22 February 1888. Prospects would be much improved 'if we can have the improved shuttles in IF & IM m/-s .. . and such other novelties to meet the demands of certain manufacturing centres'.
78. Box 93, folder 10, 'Robertson to McKenzie, 13.11.1880'. The literature on the sweated outworkers is immense but see J. Schmiechen, Sweated Industries and Sweated Labour, the London Clothing Trades, 1860-1914 (1984); and J. Morris, 'The Characteristics of Sweating: The Late Nineteenth Century London and Leeds Tailoring Trade', in Angela John (ed.), Unequal Opportunities: Women's Employment in England, 1800-1918 (Oxford, 1986).
79. Box 93, folder 10, 'Robertson to McKenzie, 13.11.1880'. The literature on the sweated outworkers is immense but see J. Schmiechen, Sweated Industries and Sweated Labour, the London Clothing Trades, 1860-1914 (1984); and J. Morris, 'The Characteristics of Sweating: The Late Nineteenth Century London and Leeds Tailoring Trade', in Angela John (ed.), Unequal Opportunities: Women's Employment in England, 1800-1918 (Oxford, 1986).
80. Box 95, folder 5, 'McKenzie memo to all UK agents, 21.9.1885'.
81. Box 98, folder 3, 'Audit of Manchester office, by G.B. Dobson, May 1892'. He goes on to say, 'The trade is very varied using S[ewing] machines for many purposes e.g. Stays, Corsets, Pinafores, Handkerchiefs, (linen and silk), Underclothing & Other White Work, Clothing and Belting, etc., etc.' p. 19.
82. Godley, 'Development', for an overview of the industry.
83. The aggregate output of clothing factories was a small fraction of industry output, even by 1907. See Godley, 'Development'. After 1892 surviving Singer Company records for UK activities become sparse, thus, it becomes increasingly difficult to make any judgements concerning the composition of the UK market from company records from that date. See Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 121-28 on the initiation of accounting changes by the new incoming President, Frederick Bourne, in 1892.
84. The aggregate output of clothing factories was a small fraction of industry output, even by 1907. See Godley, 'Development'. After 1892 surviving Singer Company records for UK activities become sparse, thus, it becomes increasingly difficult to make any judgements concerning the composition of the UK market from company records from that date. See Davies, Peacefully Working, pp. 121-28 on the initiation of accounting changes by the new incoming President, Frederick Bourne, in 1892.
85. Liverpool was a very big region in the early 1880s, with sub-offices as far away as Barrow, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury reporting to it. Box 103, folder 5, list of offices 1885; and Box 93, folder 10, 'Audit of Liverpool district office by Henry Raper', 20.1.1880. Also see sources in Table 4.
86. Box 103, folder 5, list of offices for 1885. Also Box 98, folder 3, Audited Manchester office, by G. B. Dobson, May 1892.
87. Calculated from Table 5 Appendix.
88. Box 103, folder 5, List of sub-offices, 1885; lists distribution of sub-office sales in constituent circuits, including London.
89. See sources to Table 5 for the years 1898-1902.