The Age of Machinery: Engineering the Industrial Revolution, 1770-1850 (People, Markets, Goods: Economies and Societies in History Book 12)

Product Information

There are also specific training requirements made in the ACOPs relating to woodworking machinery Publication and power presses Publication. What you should know

Archer, Social Unrest and Popular Protest, 86; C. R. Dobson, Masters and Journeymen: A Pre-history of Industrial Relations 1717–1800 (London 1980), appendix; Moher, “From Suppression to Containment,” 74, 87–8, 90; and Rudé, The Crowd in History, 218. use fencing, such as pig netting topped with two strands of barbed wire, to an overall height of at least 1.3 m.

See also

Georges Lefebvre, The Great Fear of 1789: Rural Panic in Revolutionary France, trans. Joan White (New York 1973 [1932]), 48; Charles Ballot, L’Introduction du machinisme dans l’industrie française (Geneva 1978 [1923]), 20; Jules Joseph Vernier, Cahiers de doléances des bailliages de Troyes et de Bar-sur-Seine, 3 vols. (Troyes 1909–11), I: 192–93; Guy Lemarchand and Claude Mazauric, “Le concept de la liberté d’entreprise dans une région de haut développement économique : la Haute-Normandie 1787–1800,” in Gérard Gayot and Jean-Pierre Hirsch, eds., La Révolution française et le développement du capitalisme (Lille 1989), 142–5. See also Roger Picard, Les cahiers de 1789 et les classes ouvrières (Paris 1910); and William Reddy, The Rise of Market Culture: The Textile Trade & French Society, 1750–1900 (Cambridge, UK, and Paris 1984), 58. you provide seating and secured it the trailer. Well-made bales, if properly secured, may be adequate; The clue is in the title. This is an excellent book that explores the place of textile machines—primarily woolen and cotton—and the “engineers” who built them during the period associated with the British Industrial Revolution. The result is one of the best expositions, in recent times, of the nitty gritty detail and context that guided this development. Gillian Cookson does not shy from the mundane that predominantly informed such technological development. Indeed, rather than coining haughty terms to describe British ingenuity she emphasizes the local context, the series of micro-innovations, the small workshops and artisanal centrality to the expansion of machinery. Unlike recent historians, she underlines the importance of early, pre-factory textile engineering. This is primarily, although not exclusively, a history of the now-forgotten north Englishmen who lie at the heart of engineering the Industrial Revolution. The development of these machines was slower than the textile industry as it continued to draw from traditional methods to find new ways to make and do things. Yes, you get the history of Richard Arkwright's water-powered factory, James Hargreaves's spinning jenny, and Samuel Crompton's mule, but the real emphasis is upon the vital role of other, less remembered, men. Unfortunately, they were covered in grease and lived rough lives and just are not proper guests at the table of World-Historical Change. Although contemporary to English Luddism, in its French incarnation, machine-breaking in the 19th century serves mostly to highlight the importance of what came earlier. Anglocentrism must not blind us to the importance of the wave of machine-breaking that took place in 1789–91. French machine-breaking was intertwined with growing popular militancy and the emergence of revolutionary politics, giving a decidedly different twist to labour relations in France that proved extraordinarily significant to the course of French industrial development. The “machinery question” investigated by Berg for the post-1815 period in Great Britain had, in large measure, been resolved a generation earlier in France.[76]

Rule, “Trade Unions, the Government and the French Revolution, 1789–1802,” 112–38, esp. 118–22; and Leonard Rosenband, “Comparing Combination Acts: French and English Papermaking in the Age of Revolution,” Journal of Social History, 29, 2 (May 2004), 165–85. Joel Mokyr, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress (Oxford 1990), 255; and Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, 123.

Competence and competent people who examine work equipment

Dobson, Masters and Journeymen, appendix; Hobsbawm, “The Machine Breakers,” 11–4; Steven L. Kaplan, “Réflexions sur la police du monde du travail, 1700–1815,” Revue historique, 251 (December 1979), 35, 69–70; Frank E. Manuel, “The Luddite Movement in France,” Journal of Modern History, 10 (June 1938), 180–3; Allan Potofsky, “The Builders of Modern Paris: The Organization of Labor from Turgot to Napoleon,” PhD thesis, Columbia University, 1993; Rudé, The Crowd in History, 125 and Paris and London, 69; Michael Sonenscher, “Journeymen, the Courts and the French Trades 1781–1791,” Past and Present, 114 (1987), 77, 81. Ballot, L’Introduction du machinisme, 21–2; Manuel, “The Luddite Movement,” 180–3; Alain Belmont, Des ateliers au village: les artisans ruraux en Dauphiné sous l’Ancien régime (Grenoble 1998); Anne-Françoise Garçon, Mine et métal 1780–1880: les non-ferreux et l’industrialisation (Rennes 1998); Pierre-Claude Reynaud, Histoires de papier: la papeterie auvergnate et ses historiens (Clermont-Ferrand 2001); and Louis Bergeron, “The Businessman,” in Michel Vovelle, ed., Enlightenment Portraits, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago 1997 [1992]), 122–41; and, by the absence of machine-breaking, Jacques Marseille and Dominique Margairaz, eds., 1789, au jour le jour: avec en supplément, l’almanach gourmand, l’almanach mondain, le regard de l’étranger (Paris 1988). Cookson is particularly on guard against anachronisms and building the future into the past. Here she is particularly critical of economic history texts that, she concludes, tell us very little of how technology really evolved. Instead, it was a wide community-based endeavor characterized by casual work and subcontracting. Textile machines did not suddenly appear and radically change production. Instead they fed into existing systems and integrated with traditional social labor. Each process in the production, say, of yarn invited different solutions. For example, the development of slubbing—preparing the fiber for spinning—was, arguably, more important than was the actual mechanization of spinning the fiber. The process worked differently for cotton, wool, and flax. This is a complicated history that took place over a long period of time and was driven by specific locations and distinct community contexts. To tell this history, Cookson has scoured every fragment of available sources to gain a glimpse into this crucial, but all-too-often forgotten, world. It was, as she shows, these relatively uneducated gritty men of limited capital who spearheaded engineering achievements during this period. This was a revolution driven not by an “Industrial Enlightenment” and the new sciences, but by traditional skills and practices. The notion of an Industrial Enlightenment is not only ahistorical, but it dismisses the very people who birthed the machinery of industrialization. See Lefebvre, The Great Fear of 1789; and Émile Chaudron, La Grande peur en Champagne méridionale (Paris 1923).

Adrian Randall, “The Industrial Moral Economy of the Gloucestershire Weavers in the Eighteenth Century,” in Rule, ed., British Trade Unionism, 29–51; Maxine Berg, The Age of Manufactures 1700–1820: Industry, Innovation and Work in Britain, 2nd ed. (London 1994), 185–6; M.J. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain 1700–1850 (Oxford 1995), 486–95; John Rule, “Trade Unions, The Government and the French Revolution, 1789–1802,” in John Rule and Robert Malcolmson, eds., Protest and Survival: the Historical Experience — Essays for E.P. Thompson (London 1993), 112–38. The late Sidney Pollard provided some clues as to how such a reassessment might be conceptualized. “Management and Labor in Britain During the Period of Industrialization,” reprinted in Labour History and the Labour Movement in Britain (Aldershot 1999). See also Nuvolari, “The `Machine Breakers’ and the Industrial Revolution,” 407–26. A stimulating legal history of these issues is John V. Orth, Combination and Conspiracy: A Legal History of Trade Unionism, 1721–1906 (Oxford 1991). See also Moher, “From Suppression to Containment.” However, all English studies of the use of criminal law as a means of disciplining the working classes follow in the footsteps of Douglas Hay, “Property, Authority and the Criminal Law,” in Douglas Hay, ed., Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (London 1975). All those providing training on the use of any work equipment should be sufficiently skilled and competent. The degree of skill, knowledge and competence to do so will depend on many factors, including the nature of the work equipment and the risks it poses. On this point, see “Foreign Policy as Industrial Policy: the Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1786,” in Jeff Horn, The Path Not Taken: French Industrial Policy in the Age of Revolution 1750–1830 (forthcoming).Big engineering attracts most attention, but the promise of resolving larger questions about industrialization lies in the smaller-scale. Pre-factory engineering, particularly in subcontracting, innovation-chasing, cash-limited, resource-constrained textile engineering, holds all the interest. Without it, how could industrialization have happened at all? Machines were fundamental to industrial change in the eighteenth century. What we call the industrial revolution is not to be understood without appreciating how they came to be imagined and built. Yet across a variety of trades in diverse regions, this situation began to change on the eve of the French Revolution. Perhaps the most notable outbreak of resistance to the machine before 1789 took place in Saint-Étienne, southwest of Lyon. Beginning in 1785, labour agitation in the region exploded; the issue was the defence of customary practice when faced with innovations involving mechanization, the division of labour, and manufacturing techniques brought from abroad. Motivated partly by a kind of xenophobia of industrial custom, the agitation began in the metallurgical trades when two workers from Liège brought new methods to forge musket barrels using trip hammers that would eliminate one step — and thus one job — from local production routine, while simultaneously increasing the productivity of others. The metal workers responded by driving the Belgians from the city. The municipality supported the workers and explicitly defended local manufacturing custom. Between 1785 and the spring of 1789, metal workers, silk ribbon-makers, and coal miners intervened publicly on at least seven occasions to prevent the introduction of advanced machinery and to cast out Swiss, Belgian, and German workers who had brought new industrial techniques. While the ancien régime lasted, the violent tactics of the workers of Saint-Étienne enjoyed substantial if temporary success in conserving their customs.[39] Training and the techniques used can vary and may include (as appropriate to the risk, complexity of the task, equipment and existing competence of staff):