Part 16

“And how do the small dealers in English manufactured goods find purchasers in the rude districts of Ireland for our cloths and our hardware? Because the little farmers have sent us their butter and eggs and poultry, and have either taken our manufactures in exchange, or have taken back our money to purchase our manufactures, which is the same thing. Many millions of eggs, collected amongst the very poorest classes, by the industry of the women and children, are annually sent from Dublin to Liverpool. Mr. Williams has known fifty tons, or eight hundred and eighty thousand eggs, shipped in one day, as well as ten tons of poultry; and he says this is quite a new creation of property. It is a creation of property that has a direct tendency to act upon the condition of the poorest classes in Ireland; for the produce is laid out in providing clothes for the females and children of the families who engage in rearing poultry and collecting eggs. Thus the English manufacturer is bettered, for he has a new market for his manufactures, which he exchanges for cheap provisions; and the dealer in eggs and poultry has a new impulse to this branch of industry, because it enables him to give clothes to his wife and children. This exchange of benefits--this advancement in the condition of both parties--this creation of produce and of profitable labour--this increase of the number of labourers--could not have taken place without machinery. That machinery is the carriage which conveys the produce to the river, and the steam-boat which makes a port in another country much nearer for practical purposes, than the market town of a thinly peopled district. A new machinery is added; the steam-carriage running on the railroad, as one of the witnesses truly says, ‘is like carrying Liverpool forty miles into the interior, and thus extending the circle to which the supply will be applicable.’ The last invention perfects all the inventions which have preceded it. The village and the city are brought close together in effort, and yet retain all the advantages of their local situation; the port and the manufactory are divided only by two hours distance in time, while their distance in space affords room for all the various occupations which contribute to the perfection of either. The whole territory of Great Britain and Ireland is more compact, more closely united, more accessible than was a single county two centuries ago.”

The communication between England and Ireland has greatly increased since the above remarks were written, in 1832. There are now upwards of four hundred steam-boats sailing between Ireland and Great Britain, and of late years the largest export from that unfortunate country consists of her starving population, who, true enough, find their way into the interior of England, but not with the intention of purchasing manufactured goods, but of being employed in the manufacturing of them. We believe that our mechanical readers, at least, will agree with us, when we say that the benefit has not been reciprocal. England, for her share, has been burthened with a pauper population, and her sons deprived of their employment, by the immense immigration that has of late years taken place. Poor rates are multiplied to an extent hitherto unheard of, and our streets swarming with beggars--and those of the most importunate class. So much was this the case, that in 1847 and 1848, Liverpool was inundated with paupers from the sister country to such a degree, that her authorities were compelled to petition government to put an end to the nuisance, and to grant them assistance to prevent the death of so many thousands of their fellow-men from dying for want; the poor-rates were so increased that the ratepayers with justice complained. And we question much if ever the English manufactures have been so much benefited by the commerce as the foregoing quotation would lead us to believe. That we have been supplied with enormous quantities of provisions we cannot deny; but that the payment of these was taken back in our cloths and our hardware is very questionable. That the money was taken back there can be little doubt, not for the purpose, however, of buying clothes for the wives and children of those families whose industry had supplied us with eggs and poultry, but for supplying the insatiate wants of their profligate landlords, who were squandering the subsistence of the needy peasantry in another land. If any class of men have obtained benefit by means of this increased and speedy communication between the two countries, it assuredly is the absentee Irish landlord.

MILLS.

Corn Mills are of very ancient origin, and it may not be uninteresting to our readers to learn something of the customs of our forefathers with regard to them; to which we will subjoin such modern improvements as the more advanced state of the arts have enabled the moderns to achieve, and to excel the imperfect information of the ancients in mechanical sciences.

In support of the antiquity of grinding corn, we may go as for back as the days of the patriarch Abraham, who, we are informed in Genesis xviii. 6, “hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.” To this we may add, that it appears in a subsequent text, Numbers xi. 8, that manna was ground like corn. The earliest instrument for this purpose seems to have been the mortar, which was retained long after the introduction of mills, properly so called: because they were most probably at first very imperfect. In process of time the mortar was made ridged, and the pestle notched at the bottom, by which means the grain was rather grated than pounded.

A passage in Pliny, which has not as yet had a satisfactory interpretation, renders this conjecture probable. In time a handle was added to the top of the pestle, that it might be more easily driven round in a circle, whence this machine at first was called _mortarium_, by this means assuming the name of a hand-mill. Such a mill was so called from rubbing backwards and forwards; and varied but little from those used by our colour-grinders, apothecaries, potters, and other artisans. From expressions in the sacred volume, we may rationally infer that it was customary to have a mill of this sort in every family. Moses having forbidden to take such instruments for a pledge; for that, says he, “No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life.” It is observed by Michaelis, on this passage, that a man could not then grind, consequently could not bake the necessary daily bread for the family.

Grinding was then the employment of the women, particularly of female slaves, as at present in those countries which are uncivilised: the portion of strength required for the operation, therefore, could not have been great; but afterwards the mills were driven by bondsmen, whose necks were placed in a circular machine of wood, so that they could not put their hands to their mouths or eat of the meal. This must have been an interesting link between the hand and the horse-mill.

In course of time shafts were added to the mill, that it might be driven by cattle, which were then blindfolded. The first cattle mills were called _molae jumentaria_, which had, probably, only a heavy pestle like the hand-mill; but it is conjectured, that it must have been soon remarked, that the labour would be more easily accomplished, if, instead of the pestle a large heavy cylinder was employed. A competent judge has, however, believed that the first cattle mills had not a spout or trough as ours have; at least those hand-mills Tournefort saw at Nicaria, consisted only of two stones; but the meal issued through an opening in the upper one, and fell upon a board or table, on which the lower one rested.

The upper millstone they called _meta_, or _turbo_; and the lower one _catillus_: the name of the first also signified a cone with a blunt apex, whence it has been thought by some, that corn was first rubbed into meal, by rolling one stone upon another, as painters now grind colours with a muller. This is not improbable, as present practice among barbarous people fully proves. It is also apparent that the upper millstone was substituted for the pestle, which action may have lent it a name, when they called it _meta_.

Professor Beckmann has followed Gori in his description of an antique gem, engraved on red jasper, upon which appears “the naked figure of a man, who in his left hand holds a sheaf of corn, and in the right a machine that in all probability is a hand-mill. Gori considers the figure as a representation of the god Eunostus, who was the god of mills. The machine which Eunostus seems to exhibit, or to be surveying himself, is, as far as one can distinguish, (for the stone is scarcely half an inch in size), shaped like a chest, narrow at the top, and wide at the bottom. It stands upon a table, and in the bottom there is a perpendicular pipe, from which the meal, also represented by the artist, appears to be issuing. Above, the chest or body of the mill has either a top with an aperture, or perhaps a basket sunk into it, from which the corn falls into the mill. On one side, nearly about the middle of it, there projects a broken shank, which, without overstraining the imagination, may be considered as a handle, or that part of the mill which some call _mobile_. Though this figure is small, and though it gives very little idea of the internal construction, one may, however, conclude from it that the roller, whether it was of wood or of iron, smooth or notched, did not stand perpendicularly, like those of our coffee mills, but lay horizontally, which gives us reason to conjecture a construction more ingenious than that of the first invention. The axis of the handle had, perhaps, within the body of the mill, a crown wheel, that turned a spindle, to the lower end of the perpendicular axis of which the roller was fixed. Should this be admitted, it must be allowed also, that the hand-mills of the ancients had not so much a resemblance to the before-mentioned colour mills as to the philosophical mills of our chemists; and Langelott, consequently, will not be the real inventor of the latter. On the other side, opposite to where the handle is, there arise from the mill of Eunostus two shafts, which Gori considers as those of a besom and shovel, two instruments used in grinding; but as the interior part cannot be seen, it appears to me doubtful whether these may not be parts of the mill itself.”

In the commencement of the last century, the remains of a pair of Roman millstones were found at Adel, in Yorkshire. One of these stones, twenty inches in breadth, is thicker in the middle than at the edge, consequently one side is convex; the other was of the same size, but as thick at the sides as the other was in the centre; the traces of notching were discoverable.

Enough, may, perhaps, have been said concerning this original invention; therefore this article will not be encumbered with quotations of all those passages relative to mills, which are found in ancient authors, as they would afford but little additional information. Neither will mythological records be disturbed to inquire to which deity or hero the invention was originally attributed; or to ascertain the descent of Milantes, whom Stephanus distinguishes by that honour, or how those millstones were constructed which are alleged to have been built by Myletes, son of Lelex, King of Laconia; but we shall proceed to the invention of Water-Mills.

These appear to have been introduced about the period of Mithridates, contemporary with Cæsar and Cicero. Strabo, relating that there was a water-mill near the residence of the Pontian king, that honour has been ascribed to him; but so far is this remote from certainty, that nothing can be inferred from thence, other than that water-mills at that period were known in Asia. Pomponius Sabinus informs us, that the first water-mill seen at Rome was erected on the banks of the Tiber, a little before the time of Augustus; but of this there is no other proof than his simple assertion: he having taken the greater part of his remarks from the illustrations of Servius, he must have had a more perfect copy of that author than any now remaining, and from these his information might have come.

The most certain proof we have that Rome had water-mills in the time of Augustus, is, that Vitruvius has told us so; but those mills were not corn-mills, they were hydraulic engines, which he describes in his works. From whence we learn that the ancients had wheels for raising water, which were driven by being trod upon by men; the usual employment for criminals, as may be learnt from Artemidorus. Also from a pretty epigram of Antipater; “Cease your work, ye maids, ye who laboured in the mill; sleep now, and let the birds sing to the ruddy morning; for Ceres has commanded the water nymphs to perform your task; these, obedient to her call, throw themselves on the wheel, force round the axle-tree, and by these means the heavy mill.” Antipater lived at the period of Cicero. Palladius, also, with equal clearness, speaks of water-mills, which he advises to be built on estates where is running water, in order to grind corn without men or cattle.

It likewise appears that the water-wheels to which Heliogabalus directed some of his friends and parasites to be tied, cannot be considered to be mills for the purpose of grinding corn; for these, as well as the _haustra_ of Lucretius were probably like those machines for raising water, which are spoken of by Vitruvius as _hydraulic_.

It is, however, on the authority of Pompinius Sabinus, before-cited, that both wind and water mills were known to have been in Italy, and even the latter in Rome, in the days of Augustus. However, about twenty-three years after the death of Augustus, when Caligula seized every horse from the mills, to convey effects he had in contemplation to take from Rome, the public were much distressed for bread; whence we must infer that water-mills must have been very rare. Even three hundred years after Augustus, cattle mills were so common in that city, that their number amounted to three hundred; mention of them, and of the hand-mills, often occurs for a long time after. It is not their use we inquire after, it is enough for us to know that they existed.

We now come to another period, when we are informed that _public mills_ were first introduced, which occurs in the year 398, mention being made of them in that year, which also clearly shows that they were then newly-established; which establishment was found necessary to be protected by laws made in their favour. The orders for that purpose were renewed more than once, and made more secure by Zeno, towards the end of the fifth century. It may be properly remarked, that in the whole code of Justinian, the least mention of wooden pales or posts is not made, which occurs in all the new laws,--and which, it appears, when there were several mills on the same stream, occasioned so many disputes then, as well as in after times. The mills at Rome were erected on those canals which conveyed water to the city; and because these were employed in several arts, and for many purposes, it was ordered that, by dividing the water, the mills should always be kept going; but as they were driven by so small a quantity of water, they probably executed very little work; and for this reason, but probably on account of the great number of slaves, and the cheap rate at which they were maintained, these noble machines were not so much used, nor were so soon brought to perfection, as under other circumstances they might have been. It appears, however, that after the abolition of slavery, they were much improved, and more employed, and to this a particular incident seems, in some degree, to have contributed.

When Vitiges, King of the Goths, besieged Belisarius in Rome, in the year 536, and caused the fourteen large expensive aqueducts to be stopped, the city was reduced to great distress; not from want of water, in general, because it was secured against that inconvenience by the Tiber; but by the loss of that water which the baths required, and, above all, of that necessary to drive the mills, which were all situated on these canals. Horses and cattle, which might have been employed upon grinding, were not to be found; but Belisarius fell upon the ingenious contrivance of placing boats upon the Tiber, on which he erected mills that were driven by the current. This experiment was attended with complete success; and as many mills of this kind as were necessary were constructed. To destroy these, the besiegers threw into the stream logs of wood, dead bodies, &c., which floated down the river into the city; but the besieged, by making use of booms to stop them, were enabled to drag them out before they could do any mischief. This seems to have been the origin of _floating-mills_, no record of them appearing previously. By these means the use of water-mills became very much extended; for floating-mills can be constructed almost upon any stream, without forming an artificial fall; they may be stationed at the most convenient places, and they rise and fall of themselves with the water.--They are, however, attended with these inconveniences: they require to be strongly secured; they often block up the stream too much, and move slowly; and they often stop when the water is too high, or when it is frozen.

After this improvement, the use of water-mills was never laid aside or forgotten, but was soon made known all over Europe; and passages innumerable might be quoted, in every century, to prove their continued use. The Roman, Salic, and other laws, constantly provided for the security of these mills, and defined a punishment for such as destroyed the sluices, or stole the mill-irons. It is said, however, that there were water-mills in France and Germany a hundred years before these laws had existence.

At Venice, and other places, there were erected mills which regulated themselves by the motion of the waters, and which were regulated by the flowing and ebbing of the tide, and which every six hours changed the motion of the wheels. Of this species of mills, a new invention, or, perhaps, rather an improved one, was made in London, called a tide-mill, an engraving of which may be seen in “The Advancement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce,” London, 1772.

Zanetti is said to have shown, by some old charters, that such mills existed about the year 1044; but with still more certainty in 1078, 1079, and 1107.

It appears, however, that hand and cattle mills were in most places retained, after the use of proper watermills, particularly in convents. They were used, because the otherwise lazy monks found the exercise they afforded beneficial to their health. Likewise the legends of popish mythology are full of the miracles which have been wrought at these mills.

A modern author of credit impeaches the veracity of Pomponius Sabinus after he had previously quoted his authority, and likewise after he had said that he bore a good character, in a popular work, by charging him with improbability, nay, positive falsehood, and alleging that the Romans had no wind-mills. It should be noticed, without venturing to decide upon the point, that he has adduced no authority for such allegation, and that he only concludes so, by inference, as upon the authority of Vitruvius; that mechanist, he says, in enumerating all moving forces, does not mention wind-mills. But, for the sake of candour, was not the one as liable to err as the other? He also says, that neither Seneca nor St. Chrysostom mention wind-mills; and is unmercifully severe upon an old Bohemian annalist who speaks of wind-mills so early as 718. But he is all along bringing his forces to prove, that wind-mills had first existence in his own district, Germany; that they were then invented; and, perhaps, because he is of that country. It is somewhat remarkable that scarcely any invention of any consequence has occurred since that of printing, but the honour has been claimed by the natives of Germany.

Mabillon mentions a diploma of the year 1105, in which a convent in France is allowed to erect water and wind-mills, _molendina ad ventum_.

Bartolomeo Verde proposed to the Venetians in 1332, to build a wind-mill. When his plan had been examined, he had a piece of ground assigned him, which he was to retain if his undertaking succeeded within a specified time. In 1373, the city of Spires caused a wind-mill to be erected, and sent to the Netherlands for a person acquainted with the method of grinding by it. A wind-mill was also constructed at Frankfort, in 1442; but it does not appear to have been ascertained whether there were any there before.

About the twelfth century, in the pontificate of Gregory, when both wind and water-mills became more general, a dispute arose whether mills were titheable or not. The dispute existed for some time between the persons possessed of mills and the clergy; when neither would yield. At length, upon the matter being referred to the pope and sacred college, the question was, (as might have been expected when interested persons were made the arbitrators,) determined in favour of the claims of the church.

There was one inconvenience attending wind-mills, which might be obviated in other mills: the mill was useless unless the wind was in a particular direction. To remedy this, various modes were tried; at first, the mill was fixed on a floating body in the water, which might be turned to any wind. The next improvement consisted in turning the body of the mill to meet the direction of the wind; this was effected by two modes: first, the whole building is constructed in such a manner as to turn on a pivot below; this method is said to have been invented in Germany, and is called the German mode: second, the building is formed so as to turn on the roof, with the shafts supporting the sails only; this is called the Dutch mode, being invented by a Fleming about the middle of the sixteenth century. This is the mode principally adopted in England.

Although in the earliest ages of the world men might have been, perhaps, satisfied with having their corn reduced to a mealable form alone; yet after this had been with care effected, then they thought of improving upon this conveniency, and separating the farinaceous part from the bran and husks. This was certainly desirable; therefore they bolted it in a sieve with a long handle attached to it, with a hair, or fine lawn lining; this was common in this country till within the last sixty or eighty years; but by degrees, opportunities of improvement in the mechanism of mills suggested to some mechanic the idea of constructing what is now called bolting mills, applied to the mill for grinding, and wrought at the same time by appropriate machinery.

It appears that sieves of horse-hair were first used by the Gauls, then those of linen by the Spaniards. The mode of applying a sieve in the form of an extending bag to catch the meal as it fell from the stones, and of causing it to be turned and shaken, was first made known in the beginning of the sixteenth century.