![](/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Horrockses_display.jpg/220px-Horrockses_display.jpg)
Preston in Lancashire, England has been associated with cotton since John Horrocks built his first spinning mill, the Yellow factory, in 1791. This was powered by a Bateman & Sherratt engine. Preston mills tended to have their own reservoirs. They spun cotton using hand mules and self-actors but normally also operated power looms in weaving sheds. Local firms such as Ainscow & Tomlinson and Grundy made mules for the mills. There were 60 mills operating in Preston in 1927.[1]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/1Views:3 184 693
-
Coal, Steam, and The Industrial Revolution: Crash Course World History #32
Transcription
Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the industrial revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions— between, say, 1750 and 1850— the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep changing. [that's a twofer: awesome + ominous] But in all that time, nothing much changed about the way we disposed of waste [g'luck with toilet teching, Bill Gates!] or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived on or very close to the land that provided their food. [like above an Eata Pita?] Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege not a right. In all those millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial revolution. Blueberries in February? Industrial revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial revolution. You drive a car? Industrial revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education? [peep the creepy teacher in the back] Industrial revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics, your toilet, your contraception, your tap water, your every waking and sleeping second: [mongol-tage footage!] Industrial revolution. [Intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] Here’s one simple statistic that sums it up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States, less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The industrial revolution was an increase in production brought about by the use of machines [get ready to man-suit up, Skynet] and characterized by the use of new energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today, industrialization is NOT capitalism— although, as we will see next week, it is connected to modern capitalism. And, the industrial revolution began around 1750 and it occurred across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened? Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry: The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and the waterframe. [& later, Princess Leia bun sock hats] Soon these processes were mechanized using water power, until the steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen [is that Dutch?] to clear water out of mines. And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I Got a Unit of Power and a University Named After Me” Watt, [Farnsworth's raw deal tops, even still] whose engine made possible not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more efficient cotton mills. [the touch, the feel… of technology] And, for the first time, chemicals other than stale urine, [you must be kidding] I wish I was kidding, were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore— the first of which was sulfuric acid, [sounds super chafey] which was created in large quantities only thanks to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. [no exceptions!&$%# ] [ha] Available now at DFTBA.com. Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts available now at DFTBA.com. [TeamCrashCourse: lousy with subtlty] So, the problem here is that with industrialization being so deeply interconnected, it’s really difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. [somebody explain Mr. Bean then] Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from— unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter? [it's not the yellow chair he's rolling over to so I just can't bear to look.] An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a Tardis. [you're welcome, Whovians] Truly the apex of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy? You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel, probably runs on a steam engine. [Eye of Harmony > steam engine, ftr] Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green So, you may have heard any of those rationales for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of them, is that each time you think you’re at the root cause it turns out there’s a cause of the root cause. [not unlike the show LOST] To quote Leonardo diCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators, “We have to go deeper.” ["Context is everything." -John Green] But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric why answers, is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China, India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket statement that China was economically inferior to Europe, since they invented paper money and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the biggest population in the world. [were my flowers just assaulted by educational exuberance?] I guess that answers the question of whether they’re digital. [better be in stock at thinkgeek.com, mr. green. just saying...] It’s also difficult to say that China lacked a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans— specifically the British— had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about using different forms of energy to automate production. And, England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So, that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. ["Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Know what I mean?"] But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work— namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much else in the Industrial Revolution, created a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in, like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that it was economically efficient for manufacturers to look to machines as a way of lowering their production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high and energy was cheap. These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Stan, I’m a little worried that people are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s Danica drawing. [big ups, Modern Times. you endure] Like, the fact of coal being near the surface in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India was the world’s largest producer of cotton textiles, despite paying basically the lowest wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population meant that Indian textile manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective, there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution, and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which European industrialization was truly a world phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny, cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. [can't wait to read the comments section for that one. yes i can] Thanks for watching, I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was "New England Revolution" If you want to suggest future phrases of the week, you can do so in comments where you can also guess at this week’s phrase of the week or ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. Special shout out to our only known platinum-selling artist viewer, Lupe Fiasco. And as we say in my hometown, don’t forget My philosophy, like color TV, is all there in black and white.
The mills
Standing mills
Name | Architect | Location | Built | Demolished | Served (Years) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arkwright Mill | Hawkins St SD532302 53°45′58″N 2°42′40″W / 53.766°N 2.711°W | 1854 | 169 | ||
![]() |
Notes: 1891:Daniel Arkwright, 36,248 spindles, 599 looms[2] | ||||
Aqueduct Street Mill | Aqueduct St SD529304 53°46′05″N 2°42′58″W / 53.768°N 2.716°W | ||||
![]() |
Notes: 1891, together with India and Flats Mills: William Calvert and Co, 150,566 spindles[2] | ||||
Brookfield Mill | SD538305 53°46′08″N 2°42′07″W / 53.769°N 2.702°W | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with Peel Mill: John Goodair and Co, 73,591 spindles and 1322 looms[2] | |||||
Centenary Mill | SD551297 53°45′43″N 2°40′59″W / 53.762°N 2.683°W | 1895 | Standing | 128 | |
![]() |
Notes: Grade II listed building[3] Known as Horrockses, it was powered by a four-cylindered horizontal triple-expansion engine by John Musgrave & Sons that delivered 2000 ihp.. The mill had rolled steel beams and concrete floors.[2][4] |
||||
Cliff Mill | SD557297 53°45′43″N 2°40′23″W / 53.762°N 2.673°W[2] | ||||
Embroidery Mill | |||||
Fylde Road Mill | SD530300 53°45′50″N 2°42′50″W / 53.764°N 2.714°W[2] | ||||
Hartford Mill | Campbell St SD551298 53°45′47″N 2°40′59″W / 53.763°N 2.683°W | ||||
Notes: 1891:Hartford Mills Co Ltd, 43472 spindles, 662 looms[2] | |||||
Hanover Mill (Moss Mill; Spital's Moss Mill; Moss Shed) | Fylde Road SD533299 53°45′47″N 2°42′36″W / 53.763°N 2.710°W[2][5][6] | 1796 | 227 | ||
![]() |
Notes: | ||||
Hanover Street Mill | Gt George St SD539303 53°46′01″N 2°41′56″W / 53.767°N 2.699°W | ||||
Notes: 1891:Birley Brothers, 46,466 spindles, 826 looms | |||||
Pitt Street Mill | SD534294 53°45′32″N 2°42′29″W / 53.759°N 2.708°W[2] | ||||
Red Scar Mill | SD525306 53°46′12″N 2°43′19″W / 53.770°N 2.722°W | 1939 | |||
Notes: Then produced rayon until 1980[2] | |||||
Stocksbridge Mill | SD525306 53°46′12″N 2°43′19″W / 53.770°N 2.722°W[2] | ||||
St Georges Road Mill | SD539306 53°46′12″N 2°42′04″W / 53.770°N 2.701°W | ||||
Notes: 1891: Moor Park Manufacturing Co, Limited, 600 looms[2] | |||||
Shelley Road Mill | SD525303 53°46′01″N 2°43′19″W / 53.767°N 2.722°W | ||||
![]() |
Notes: 1891:Hartley Brothers, 42,560 spindles, 864 looms[2] | ||||
Tulketh Mill | FW Dixon | SD524309 53°46′19″N 2°43′26″W / 53.772°N 2.724°W | 1905 | Standing | 118 |
![]() |
Notes:
Grade II listed building[7] Powered by a J&E Wood, 2000 ihp, horizontal cross compound, Corliss valves with superheated steam. Initially 4 Lancashire boilers fifth Yorkshire boiler added in 1918. The 24 ft flywheel was geared for 44 ropes. The chimney was 77 yds tall, later reduced to 60, when the mill was lengthened to 427 ft in 1918 it housed 127,400 mule and 12,600 ring spindles[2][8] |
||||
Other mills
Name | Architect | Location | Built | Demolished | Served (Years) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Albert | Cemetery Rd, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: J. F. Woods and Co, 445 looms [5] | |||||
Alexandra | Skeffington Road North, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Wilding Brothers, 1022 looms [5] | |||||
Alliance Works | New Hall Lane, Preston | ||||
![]() |
Notes: 1891:Thomas Brindle and Co, 1070 looms [5] | ||||
Arthur Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Ashton Shed | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Richard Walsh and Co, 470 looms [5] | |||||
Astley Field | St Pauls Rd, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Martin Hopkins and Co, 448 looms [5] | |||||
Avenham | Preston[5] | ||||
Back Lane | Preston[5] | ||||
Bamber Bridge Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd | Wesley St, Bamber Bridge | ||||
Notes: Horizontal 4-cylinder triple by J&E Wood with 26 ft flywheel, housed 127,500 mule spindles [9] | |||||
Bank Top | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: (together with Hopwood St and Primrose Hill Mills): William Paley, 30,992 spindles [5] | |||||
Broomfield | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891, (together with Grimshaw Mill): John Anderton, 1764 looms [5] | |||||
Bold Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Moses S. Maynard, 42,000 spindles[5] | |||||
Bow Lane | Preston[5] | ||||
Bridge Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Brookhouse | Old Lancaster Lane, Preston | 1845 | 178 | ||
![]() |
Notes: Grade II listed building[10] 1891: John and Adam Leigh, 40,520 spindles and 1,156 looms Engine: 500hp cross compound engine by Ashton Frost, 1906 [5] |
||||
Brunswick Place | Preston[5] | ||||
Bushell Street | Lancaster Rd North, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: John Humber, 702 looms [5] | |||||
Bute | Preston[5] | ||||
Cable Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Castle Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Caledonian Go | Pitt St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:William Entwisle's Sons, 437 looms [5] | |||||
Canal Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Cottage Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Croft Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:William Henry Hincksman, 36,620 spindles [5] | |||||
Dale Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Deepdale | Preston[5] | ||||
Edward Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Eldon Street (Stocks Bridge) | P.Pickup | Preston | 1903 | 120 | |
Notes: Powered by a Yates & Thom, 800ihp cross compound [11] | |||||
Emerson Road | Preston[5] | ||||
Fishwick | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Swainson, Birley and Co, 95,562 spindles [5] | |||||
Fitzroy Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Flats | Victoria Rd, Walton-le-Dale | ||||
Notes: 1891, together with Aqueduct and India Mills: William Calvert and Co, 150,566 spindles [5] | |||||
Frenchwood | Preston[5] | ||||
Fylde Road Shed | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: S. and E. Leese, 40,924 spindles and Edward Hayes, 331 looms [5] | |||||
Grimshaw Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Greenbank | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with St Paul's Rd Mill: John Hawkins and Sons, 95,352 spindles [5] | |||||
Heatley Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Higher Walton | Blackburn Rd, Higher Walton | ||||
![]() |
Notes: [5] | ||||
Hopwood Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: (together with Bank Top and Primrose Hill Mills): William Paley, 30,992 spindles [5] | |||||
Hunt Street | Preston[5] | ||||
India | New Hall Lane, Preston | 1864 | 1972 | 108 | |
Notes: 1891, together with Aqueduct and Flats Mills: William Calvert and Co, 150,566 spindles [5] | |||||
Kay Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: F. Mangnall and Co, 32,000 spindles [5] | |||||
Kent Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Lawson | Cumberland St, Preston | ||||
Notes: William Shaw and Co, 416 looms[5] | |||||
Lord Street | Tithebarn St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: 11,700 spindles [5] | |||||
Lutwidge | Isherwood St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Birley, Beaumont and Co, 27,160 spindles [5] | |||||
Manchester | Preston | ||||
![]() |
Notes: [5] | ||||
Markland Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Marsh Lane | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Brotherton and Co, 576 looms | |||||
Meadow Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Moor Brook | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:William Anderton, 744 looms and J. R. and A. Smith Ltd, 1140 looms[5] | |||||
Moor Hall | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Edward Healey, 684 looms [5] | |||||
Moor Park | Preston[5] | ||||
Moor Lane | Preston[5] | ||||
Murray Street | Preston[5] | ||||
New Hall Lane | Preston | 1856 | 167 | ||
Notes: Grade II listed building[12] 1891 with Victoria and Wellington Mill: Eccles Brothers, 90,428 spindles, 1078 looms [5] |
|||||
New Hall Lane (Rigby Street) | Rigby St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Paul Catterall, Son and Co, 42,296 spindles [5] | |||||
New Preston | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 (together with Yard and New Preston Mills): Horrockses, Crewdson and Co, Limited, 131,200 spindles and 4405 looms [5] | |||||
Orr & Co. (Bamber Bridge) | School Lane, Bamber Bridge[5] | ||||
Oxhey | Ripon St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Oxhey Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing Co Ltd, 18,086 spindles [5] | |||||
Parker Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Joseph and John Haslam, 42000 spindles [5] | |||||
Park | North Rd, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Park Lane Twist Co Ltd, 48,760 spindles | |||||
Park Lane | Preston[5] | ||||
Peel | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with Brookfield Mill: John Goodair and Co, 73,591 spindles and 1322 looms [5] | |||||
Pole Street | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: M.B. Copland, 27,812 spindles [5] | |||||
Primrose Hill | Primrose Hill, Preston | ||||
![]() |
Notes: 1891: (together with Hopwood St and Bank Top Mills): William Paley, 30,992 spindles [5] | ||||
Progress | Preston[5] | ||||
Queens | Greenbank St, Preston | ||||
Notes: William Smith and Co, 770 looms [5] | |||||
Raglan | Preston[5] | ||||
Ribble Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Ribbleton | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: (together with Southgate Mill) Joseph Smith, 67,550 spindles [5] | |||||
Ribble Bank | Preston[5] | ||||
Ribbleton Lane | Preston[5] | ||||
Sedgewick Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Soho (Fylde Road) | Preston[5] | ||||
Southgate | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: (together with Ribbleton Mill) Joseph Smith, 67,550 spindles [5] | |||||
Sovereign | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with Yard and New Preston Mills: Horrockses, Crewdson and Co, Limited, 131,200 spindles and 4405 looms [5] | |||||
Spa | Marsh Lane, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891:Levi Fish, 530 looms [5] | |||||
Springfield | Brook St, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Richard Goodair Ltd, 836 looms [5] | |||||
Steam | Fylde Rd, Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Joseph Eccles and Co, 548 looms[5] | |||||
Stourton | Fishwick, Preston | ||||
Notes: Mellor Brothers, Limited, 30,500 spindles [5] | |||||
St Pauls Road | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with Greenbank Mill: John Hawkins and Sons, 95,352 spindles [5] | |||||
Swillbrook | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 together with Deepdale: Hampson and Fish Ltd, 1786 looms [5] | |||||
Tennyson Road | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Limited, 480 looms [5] | |||||
Tulketh Mill | Preston | ||||
![]() |
Notes: [5] | ||||
Turk's Head | Preston[5] | ||||
Walker Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Waverley Park | Preston[5] | ||||
Wellfield | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: Preston Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing Co, Limited, 49,672 spindles [5] | |||||
Wellington | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 (with Victoria and New Hall Lane Mill): Eccles Brothers, 90,428 spindles, 1078 looms[5] | |||||
Wharton | Preston[5] | ||||
Willow Street | Preston[5] | ||||
Victoria (Peel Hall Street) | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891: John Liver and Co, 476 looms [5] | |||||
Victoria (nr New Quay) | Preston[5] | ||||
Yard Works (Horrockses) | Preston | ||||
Notes: 1891 (together with Sovereign and New Preston Mills): Horrockses, Crewdson and Co, Limited, 131,200 spindles and 4405 looms [5] | |||||
See also
References
- ^ Dickinson 2002, p. 184
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Ashmore 1982, pp. 217, 219
- ^ Historic England. "CENTENARY MILL (1218681)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 6 February 2016.
- ^ Dickinson 2002, p. 122
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn Dickinson 2002, p. 199
- ^ Oxford Archaeology North (March 2010). "Lancashire Textile Mills: Rapid Assessment Survey Final Report" (PDF). Lancashire County Council and English Heritage. p. 63.
- ^ Historic England. "TULKETH MILL (1207235)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 6 February 2016.
- ^ Dickinson 2002, p. 147
- ^ Dickinson 2002, p. 150
- ^ Historic England. "BROOKHOUSE MILL (1218790)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 6 February 2016.
- ^ Dickinson 2002, p. 153
- ^ Historic England. "NEW HALL LANE MILL (1207305)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 6 February 2016.
- "1891 Cotton Mills in Preston". Grace's Guide. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
Bibliography
- Ashmore, Owen (1982). The industrial archaeology of North-west England. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-0820-4.
- Dickinson, T.C. (2002). Cotton Mills of Preston.The power behind the thread. ISBN 1859360963.
![](/s/i/modif.png)