Nathan Walworth died in 1640/1, having built not only a chapel in Ringley, but also a school. He was almost seventyyears old at the time of his death, and by this date Peter himself was approaching sixty years of age. Peter’s eldest son, also Peter, baptised in 1617, now began to figure in local events, particularly those associated with the Civil War and its aftermath. The younger Peter was, like his father, puritan in sympathy, although this was not true of all members of the family. The elder Peter’s younger brother, William (one of the twins) supported the Royalist faction. He had entered the church, and by about 1636 was ministering in Chester, and was also the incumbent of a vicarage at Eastham, where he lived with his family. At the outbreak of war he withdrew to the Bishop’s Palace in Chester but was subsequently taken prisoner. He was released for a time, but later found it necessary again to evade the authorities, and ‘scamper’d about privately to the houses of the loyal Gentry’ in order to avoid recapture. At this time he wrote to his brother Peter at Prestolee for support, but only received the reply that ‘would he William conform himself to the Godly party, his own merits would protect and prefer him’.The rift between the brothers was never healed.The younger Peter became a captain in the service of Parliament. He probably took part in the skirmish at Westhoughton Common in 1642, was captured there and subsequently released: during the same year he was a prisoner for a time in Lathom House. When some two and a half years later he gave evidence before members of the Committee for Sequestrations in the case of Isaac Allen, parson of Prestwich, who had Royalist leanings, Captain Peter recalled that the Countess of Derby and some of her chaplains often told him during his imprisonment ‘that he had never learned from Mr. Allen to bear arms in that cause that witness [i.e. Captain Peter] went in, or to rebel against his prince.
The Seddon family and those of their neighbours who supported the Parliament must have had a lively realisation of the difficult position in which their allegiance was likely to place them, for many of them were tenants of the Royalist Earl of Derby. Consequently, after the Earl’s estates were sequestered, the tenants of Bury and Pilkington drew up a petition to Parliament.They pointed out that they had joined with the Parliament at the time of the first rising in Manchester, and had continued in their support, ‘fully persuaded that all they had or could do was too little in so Just & Religious a Cause’, and that the enemy had plundered their goods, and ‘threatened to use the uttmost of Extremities . . . if ever it lye in their power’. The petitioners asked the House to take into consideiation their sufferings, ‘ . . . especially their Just causes of ffeare if the said Earle should be Compounded with’. They asked that if the lands should be sold, the petitioners might have the first choice to purchase land of which they were tenants, but in this they were not successful for the Bury and Pilkington estates were eventually sold to a London merchant, Peter Legay, in 1654.
Fifty-nine tenants signed the petition, including two Peter Seddons undoubtedly the two Peters from Prestolee. If there should be any element of doubt about this identification, it must be dispelled by a document among the Derby family papers.This document is a list of grievances against Captain Peter Seddon and his father drawn up for the information of the eighth Earl. It clearly attributes to Captain Peter and his father the making of a petition against the seventh Earl, who was executed at Bolton in 1651. The document, in setting out the details for the eighth Earl, states that ‘my nobl[e] La: yo[ujr mother had agreed with Cromwell for the whole Earldom but for him [Captain Peter] & the petticon’. This must certainly be untrue, but the fact that it could be alleged shows that the Derby household did not under-estimate the influence of the Seddon family. The paper includes a number of other allegations: that the two Peters would not go to Lathom to ‘give a gratuity to my Lady yo[u]r mother at her first coming into Lancashier’; that ‘nether of them nor Mr. Sergent [another Pilkington tenant] would obey my Lords Com[m]and by me as all other Tennants did when hee [the seventh Earl] went agenst Manchester’that after the Earl’s execution Captain Peter and his father took a field in Kearsley belonging to the manor of Pilkington and made coal pits ‘& sett them to one Walworth & received for his partt above 50 Ii’; as well as a number of other accusations. One of the allegations links Captain Peter’s name with that of ‘Oliver Egge’ who ‘tooke my Lord prisoner’; Captain Peter’s sister, Anne, was married to Captain Oliver Edge of Birch in Rusholme, the officer who took Lord Derby prisoner after the Battle of Worcester in 1651.Both Captain Peter Seddon and his father attended meetings of the Manchester Presbyterian Classis. Ringley Chapel had been built to accommodate the people of Outwood, Kearsley and Clifton, and people from other places, such as Little Lever, also attended there for reasons of convenience. Outwood, in which Ringley Chapel was situated, was part of the Parish of Prestwich, and there-fore belonged to the Manchester Classis, but Kearsley was in the Parish of Deane which was attached to the Bury Classis, as was the area of Little Lever. A meeting was held at Ringley on July 12th, 1649, to resolve the problem, and it was agreed that Deane parishioners who wished to join the Ringley congregation should be allowed to do so and should be released from the Bury Classis accordingly.Both Peter Seddon senior and Peter his son served as elders of the Ringley congregation, the elder Peter serving during the earlier years of the classis. Captain Peter was elected an elder in 1657/8, by which time his father was approaching eighty years of age. Captain Peter’s brother, Robert Seddon, was a Presbyterian minister, a young man at the time of the civil war; many years later, in 1695, he gave land for the site of Bank Street Presbyterian Chapel in Bolton.Peter Seddon the elder died on February 15th, 1664/5. Oliver Edge was one of the appraisers of the inventory of his goods. Peter’s moveable estate totalled approximately £210, less than half the value of that of his father, Rauffe Seddon. Why this should be can only be a matter for speculation. A boukhouse still stood among the farm buildings as it had in 1611/12, but in 1665 it contained carts, wheels, ploughs and harrows, and if the bouk-keares were there, they are not mentioned. There is no hint of any involvement in the textile trade, or indeed any trade other than husbandry; but Peter was old, and perhaps there were other goods which belonged to his son. Perhaps Captain Peter’s involvement in the war had been expensive. Perhaps some of Peter’s money had been spent on enlarging his house; a comparison of the two inventories, in which rooms are named, points to the fact that the house was extended between 1611/12 and 1664/5, and an examination of the house, which still stands, leads to the conclusion that such an extension was indeed made, quite possibly within that period. Perhaps the difference is simply due to the fact that his younger children had already been provided for and ‘had their portions’; Peter Seddon senior had at least seven children, of whom at least four survived him.Captain Peter continued to live at Prestolee until his death in 1701 at the age of eighty-four. He retained his puritan outlook throughout his life. He was a friend of Oliver Heywood, the nonconformist divine, whose family lived at Little Lever nearby. Oliver preached at Captain Seddon’s house in 1667 on one of his visits home to Lancashire, and when Oliver distributed his book ‘Heart treasure’ among his friends, ‘Couzen Seddon’ (the two families were linked by marriage) was one of the recipients.The Seddon family was not a gentry family, and it is remarkable that so much information about the activities of its members has survived. Their story is worth recording as an uncommonly detailed example of the interests of a family of modest wealth living in a valley community which, although geographically somewhat isolated, was none-the-less deeply concerned about the contemporary political and religious debate. Within their limited circle of neighbours, the influence of the Seddon family was considerable, a fact which was implicitly recognised by the Stanley family, one of the most powerful families in the land. Active in the affairs of their village, working for their church, involved in political conflict, in regular contact with friends and relatives in London, they lived a life far less isolated than their situation in an obscure Lancashire valley might suggest.
The Cromptons of Prestolee
One-hundred and Eighty Two years ago, in 1823, the Earl of Derby granted a lease to a bleacher in Prestolee named Ralph Crompton. This lease was for a plot of land on the right bank (South) of the River Irwell on which Ralph was to build a bleach works. So Ralph, with his two nephews James and Roger as partners, crossed the river from Prestolee, and Stoneclough Mill, then known as Kersley Bleachworks, was born. The tax assessment on this land for the remainder of 1823 was only 10d, rising for a full year in 1824 to no more than 18/9d. This is an interesting comment on the change in value of both money and land since the 1800s. There are few contemporary records of Ralph Crompton other than the mentioning of him in the trade directories of the day. These show that he and his elder brother, James, who died in 1813, were in partnership as bleachers in Prestolee as far back as 1805. But from a letter written by Ralph Crompton’s grandson, S Douglas Crompton, to his kinswoman. Maria Crompton, in 1935, the former states that he was the son of James Crompton who lived at Breightmet Old Manor until his death in 1785. This house, no longer standing, had been in the possession of the Crompton family since the time of Elizabeth I, when Sir Thomas Crompton was Auditor General to the queen. Mr Crompton adds that the family is related to the Cromptons of Hacking Hall, Bolton, and it is also claimed that they were descended from the Venables, whose roots are to be found in the days of the early Normans. In 1813, the partnership between James and Ralph was brought to an end by the death of James, and as soon as they came of age James’s two sons, James and Roger, were taken into partnership by their uncle, trading as Ralph Compton and Nephews, bleachers, of Prestolee also of the Old Boar’s Head, Hyde’s Cross, Manchester. According to administration papers issued in 1844 on the death of the younger James concerning the estate of Ralph Compton, who died intestate in 1826, the business became insolvent during the partnership of Ralph and his nephews. It is probable, therefore, that with fresh capital becoming available from whatever source, this was the major cause of the transfer of the business to its new site across the river at Stoneclough. When the first James died in 1813 he left his entire estate to his brother-in-law Thomas Hewitt of Ardwick, Manchester, on trust for his three children, James, Roger, and Mary, who were then minors. From those days to the present time no more was heard of insolvency and one may assume that the firm prospered from the start. Ralph Crompton was destined not to enjoy this prosperity for more than three years, for in 1826 he was drowned in the Irwell. As mentioned above he died intestate and the business passed into the hands of his nephews, James the younger Roger. Later, Roger undertook to act as guardian to Ralph's two younger children Rachel and James Roger of whom the latter was born in 1827 after his father's death. The administration papers referred to above also state that in 1829 James and Roger started making paper at Stoneclough. Another 15 years or so were to elapse before textile bleaching was finally abandoned, leaving papermaking alone in the field. This combination of papermaking and textile bleaching was entirely in keeping with the practice common in this district for many years past. It was also a natural venture, in view of the fact that papermaking had been flourishing on the banks of the Irwell and the Croal since the 1670s, when James Crompton set up a paper mill at the Bottoms, Little Lever, later known as Creams Mill, and his younger brother set up as a papermaker at Darley Mill, Famworth Bridge. The descendants of these two brothers, whose father is still a mystery, continued to own paper mills in the district for over 150 years, and their example was followed by others, such as the Seddons, the Liveseys and the Grundys who established mills at Prestolee, Springfield, Bolton, and Little Lever. The most important of these Cromptons, who may or may not have been related somewhere back in the 18th or 17th centuries to the Breightmet Cromptons, was the famous Thomas Bonsor Crompton. His contribution to the industry was immense, and his invention of the continuous drying cylinder, together with the introduction for the first time of a dry felt to hold the paper against the cylinder, was revolutionary. He took out his patent in 1820 and it provided just what was lacking in the earlier Fourdrinier machine. For with the latter the paper was wound from the continuous wire mould onto a wooden reel, cut by hand into sheets, and hung in lofts to dry as had always been the custom with hand made sheets. From this day onwards the old vat mills were fighting a losing battle against the new machines. By 1820, the year of T B Crompton’s patent, production from these machines had already equalled that of the old vat mills, at about 10,000 tons per annum each.There after, machine production raced ahead and the gap between the two rapidly widened. This is not surprising when it is realised that the new machines could produce in a 12-hour day the output of eight vats. The result was that it became increasingly difficult for the small vat mills to compete, and only those survived which were fortunate enough or far seeing enough to have concentrated on highly specialised types of paper. Thus, of all the mills mentioned above set up on the banks of the lrwell and the Croal only three had survived at the time when Ralph Crompton founded Stoneclough Mill in 1823, Creams mill, Farnworth Bridge mill, and Springfield mill, all of whom had installed machines. Of the 41 licences for Fourdrinier machines, for which the user had to pay the Fourdriniers £350 per annum, granted between 1807 and 1822, when the patent expired, three had been granted to Thomas Bonsor Crompton at Farnworth Bridge and two to his brothers in law, John and James Livesey of Prestolee. It is obvious, in view of the current trends in the industry towards more and more mechanisation, that when the Cromptons started making paper at Stoneclough in 1829 they must have installed at least one of these new machines at the start. At this period of time no one in his right mind would have even contemplated the idea of setting up a vat mill and there is certainly no evidence of a mill race ever having been, which rules out the existence of water power by which the vat mills were all run. Although no records are exact concerning the types of paper made at Stoneclough it is reasonable to assume from the reputation the Cromptons rapidly acquired of being producers of fine tissues that these were the papers manufactured there from the start. When Stoneclough Mill began, the paper industry was passing through a period of transition from making paper by hand into the unknown future of intensive mechanisation. Excellent as this was in many ways it was disastrous for the workers in the old vat mills, who regarded the new machines as evil things that would destroy their craft. Added to this, a reduction in wages had had to be enforced to meet the new competition and unemployment among skilled workers reached serious proportions.As a result of this strikes and rioting became an ugly feature of this part of Lancashire for many years to come. So much so that strong measures had to be taken to protect life and property. Thus, as early as 1824, the year in which the hated Combination Laws making trade unions illegal were abolished, a public meeting at the Black Horse Inn, Kearsley or Kersley as it was then known resolved ‘that a number of special constables be now appointed’. One of these was James Crompton of Stoneclough and another was Thomas Bonsor Crompton of Farnworth Bridge.The trouble sprang, however, more from the unemployed workers of the older local industries than from those who had found work in the new mechanised mills. There are no records of labour unrest at Stoneclough at this time, but the attitude of the masters towards their workers, influenced to a large extent by the terrors of the French Revolution only a few years away, was at the worst intolerant and unjust, and at the best paternalistic. In either case no sign of unrest could have been tolerated. Fortunately, there is some evidence that the Cromptons at Stoneclough belonged to the latter category, as did their namesake, T B Crompton, at Farnworth Bridge. It is known, for example, that they sprang from stock that was predominantly puritan in outlook, and they must have sincerely deplored the ignorance, vice, and coarseness that the Industrial Revolution brought in its train. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that they were actively engaged in local ecclesiastical affairs : James and Thomas Bonsor being members of the select vestry of St johnts Church, Farnworth with Kersley, and Roger having inherited his uncle Rogers lifelong interest in the Swedenborgian religious sect. This Roger Crompton was the second son of James Crompton of Breightmet and was the brother of James and Ralph, the lafter of whom later founded Stoneclough Mill. He died before this event, however, in 1805 at the age of 49. Today one would call this a young age at which to die, but of all the Cromptons associated with Stoneclough only the younger Roger lived to be over 60, and even he was only 62 when he died in 1859. Roger, who was described as a gentleman, a rank to which papermakers apparently could not aspire - was a wealthy bachelor living in what was then the aristocratic suburb of Manchester named Ardwick. He seems to have been a more enthusiastic supporter of the Swedenborgian sect than either of his brothers, for among his minor bequests was the sum of £20, a large sum in those days to a Society of Gentlemen of Manchester for the purpose of translating into English and publishing the works of the late Honourable Emanuel Swedenborg whereof the Reverend John Clowes of St. John’s Church is President. Following the footsteps of his uncle, the younger Roger and the Seddons of Prestolee Bridge took a prominent part in managing the affairs of the small Swedenborgian meeting house which the elder Roger had founded in 1791 at what was known as Top o’th’ Brow, Ringley. To this meeting-house the Reverend John Clowes, mentioned in the elder Roger’s will, paid periodic pastoral visits and it is said that he would ride out there from Manchester on horseback, and that as soon as he was seen approaching, a flag was hoisted on the building as a signal to the faithful to come and hear him preach and to worship with him. Later, in 1837, the Swedenborgians having in the meantime completely outgrown their small meeting house in Ringley, Roger and the Seddons were the prime movers in founding the New Jerusalem Church in Kearsley where Roger was to hold the offices of honorary secretary and superintendent of the Sunday school for many years, and to become its most munificent benefactor. It was at this time, as a result of the increased demand for labour created by the erection and expansion of Stoneclough Mill, that Stoneclough village, was no more than a scattered hamlet, quickly emerged into a shape not dissimilar from that of the present day. Some of the houses then built, in fact, still exist, including Kearsley Vale House, standing in its own grounds opposite the mill in Blackhurst Green, now Market Street, which the Cromptons, and later the Fletchers, made their home. Thus, with a village growing up on one side of the mill and a river flowing on the other, the site chosen for it clearly ensured two important requirements for either a bleachworks or a paper mill: availability of labour and an abundant supply of water. It suffered, however, from the drawback that its produce and its raw materials had to be carried to and from the mill by horse-drawn transport over roads that by the standards of today were little more than muddy tracks. This entailed a long pull up what was known, as it still is, as Stoneclough Brow, which was so steep and had such a muddy and uneven surface that an extra horse and carter had to be employed to get a laden wagon to the top. To overcome this drawback the local turnpike trustees set to work on the construction of a cuffing to reduce the steepness, but when this was completed they found themselves faced with a crippling financial burden. So they applied to Parliament for powers to levy a toll at Stoneclough and Kearsley to recoup their losses. But this was strongly opposed by the Cromptons at Stoneclough. They no doubt welcomed the better road, but like many of us today were unwilling to pay for it, but their resistance was in vain. The trustees, convinced that the Cromptons were now saving an enormous sum of money in the reduced wear and tear of horseflesh in order to get over Stoneclough Brow, stuck to their guns. As a result, the Moses Gate and Ringley Road Turnpike Act was placed on the statute book in 1830, and tolls were finally abolished in 1875.In so far as it is possible to trace them completely from the scanty records that have been handed down to us, these were the roots from which the firm sprang 182 years ago. Enough has been revealed, however, to show that thanks to a congenial soil and to skilful nurture on the part of the Cromptons, they were able to take a firm hold even at a time when the Industrial Revolution was beginning to exert its maximum effect on every aspect of both the industrial and social life of the district. Never in the long history of papermaking on the banks of the Irwell and the Croal had there been greater opportunity for success nor greater risk of ruin and failure. To the Cromptons of Stoneclough this must have been the greatest challenge of their lives. That they accepted it and not only survived and prospered exceedingly.
Robert Fletcher
Stoneclough Mill was only seven years old when Robert Fletcher first appears upon the scene in 1830. Exactly what his ancestors were is still uncertain, but he appears on good authority to have been a kinsman of the Cromptons. Thus, in the letter written to Maria Crompton, Sydney Douglas Crompton writes that my fathers cousin was Roger Crompton of Kearsley Vale House who owned paper mills there (later belonging to his relatives the Fletchers). Apart from this the only records so far available show that he was born in Radcliffe, that he began his working life with a local printer, who subsequently failed, and that he then set up in business on his own account as a textile bleacher. But this business also failed, and it was presumably then that his kinsmen, the Cromptons, came to his rescue by offering him the job of textile bleacherman in the croft of Stoneclough Mill. Robert Fletcher was then a man of 26, which in those days of shorter lives would have been considered almost middle-aged. He was, in fact, nearly halfway through his life, as he was only 61 when he died. It is not surprising that after such a disastrous early career he appears to have looked upon his new job more as a haven in a storm than as a stepping-stone to better things. In fact, four uneventful years were to pass before his real abilities as a textile bleacher first came to the serious notice of the Cromptons. This was as a result of his skilful handling of a problem concerning the treatment of dimities which had long been troubling them. We do not know exactly what the problem was, but the Cromptons were so impressed by his solution of it that they immediately put him in charge of the whole bleaching department. This appointment was to lead only three years later to a turning point not only in his own life, but also in that of Stoneclough Mill itself This occurred after he had been consulted by the Cromptons about a batch of paper that had been returned by a customer on account of its low strength. He was not only able to immediately point to the cause of the trouble, but also to advise them how to avoid its repetition. What he suggested would seem obvious today, but was by no means so obvious for them. As an experienced bleacherman he must have been more alive than many of his contemporaries to the hazards that might be encountered in the application of calcium hypochlorite to any form of cellulose. This compound, discovered in 1799 by Charles Tennant, was by this time in general use as a bleaching agent for both textiles and paper under the name of bleaching powder, but it was still sufficiently new not always to be handled with the care its use demanded. Robert Fletcher, therefore, rightly advised that stricter control of the conditions of bleaching and more efficient final washing should be insisted upon. He was, in fact, so convinced of the importance of these simple precautions that for the rest of his life he clung doggedly to the motto that paper is made or ruined in the croft. This invaluable advice, which presumably produced the desired results, coupled with the high opinion the Cromptons obviously already had of him, suggested to them that they might profitably make far greater use of his ability. They therefore took the decisive step in that direction of offering him the position of manager of the whole mill, including both papermaking and textile bleaching. At first, having no direct experience of papermaking other than what he will have picked up during his seven years at the mill, he turned the offer down. Having already tasted the bitterness of failure as a young man on more than one occasion he was understandably not prepared to run the risk of being forced to submit once again to the same misfortune The Cromptons, like the importunate widow, were insistent and eventually wore his resistance down. But though he finally accepted their offer, he still had misgivings and did so only on the following unusual, but characteristic, terms, which seemed to him to be the essential conditions that would ensure his future security. His first condition was that if he were to prove to be a failure as a papermaker, which he did not claim to be, he was not to be dismissed from the Cromptons’ service, but was to be allowed to resume his former work as head of the cloth bleaching department. Secondly, the Cromptons were to tell him without reserve whenever they disapproved of any of his actions. And finally, whatever at any time was ordered to be done by himself was not to be countermanded by the Cromptons, or vice versa, without mutual agreement. In spite of his earlier diffidence over accepting responsibility these conditions were clearly those of a man who knew exactly what his goal now was and who had sufficient confidence in himself and the necessary strength of character to ensure that no foreseeable obstacles should hinder his progress towards it. At the same time, his insurance against possible failure was not an act of timidity, but that of a wise man. That the Cromptons had the wisdom to: accept these terms without question is a clear indication of the faith they had in his ability. He was obviously a man after their own hearts. And Robert Fletcher, far from needing to ask for his old job back again, rapidly acquired, as the Cromptons must have known he would, the same mastery over the art of papermaking as he had already acquired over that of textile bleaching. From this time onwards, fortified by his strong, religious convictions, he became a dedicated man. He had been brought up by his parents in an atmosphere of strict, puritanical nonconformity so typical of those who revolted against the ignorance, vice, and depravity of the unsettled times in which they lived. There can be little doubt that these convictions had enabled him to rise above the failures and disappointments that had beset him as a young man, and developed in him the singleness of purpose that governed the rest of his life. He himself attributed his later success to what he termed a good Sunday school education and this may well have been the only education he had ever received. It is clear that the influence of such a man as Robert Fletcher must have been immediately felt by all those who worked for him. While one cannot imagine a man of his character and upbringing suffering fools gladly or countenancing slipshod work, he seems to have been a just, if strict, master who displayed none of the petty, ignorant tyranny that was all too prevalent a feature of the industrial life of his day. Even so, he was not popular with his workers during the early days of his management. it was a case, no doubt, of a new broom sweeping a little too clean for the comfort of those whose habits were already firmly set. But his unpopularity was short lived, for it became increasingly realised that strict discipline often leads to greater efficiency, and this in turn to constant work and regular wages, however poor these undoubtedly were by modern standards. For in those days of financial insecurity, well named the hungry 40s when the fear of unemployment and the dreaded workhouse can never have been wholly absent from the minds of so many men and women, this must have meant much more than anyone living in the welfare state of today can possibly imagine. That his workpeople did not lose a single day’s work through scarcity of orders during the whole of his managership, and later ownership, of the mill was indeed a rate achievement. Conditions in Stoneclough Mill, therefore, must have been in sharp contrast with those that prevailed in many of the local mines and cotton mills. These were often so bad that a fierce resentment had grown up against the whole set up of factories and machines, particularly with those who had been ruthlessly replaced by them. Destroy the machines, it was argued, and the status quo would be immediately restored. That in the long run these same machines would bring more, and not less, work did not occur to them, but hungry men do not take long views. The result was that rioting and general unrest became a common feature of the times, and bands of desperate men, emulating their predecessors the Luddites, went from factory to factory throughout the district attempting to bring production to a halt by drawing the plugs from the boilers. In 1842 these plug drawing riots, as they were called, reached such alarming proportions that strong measures had to be taken to put them down. Thus, on August 16th of that year a meeting of special constables sworn at the Bowling Green Inn, Farnworth, to act for the townships of Famworth and Kersley passed a resolution that a committee consisting of 10 persons, besides the petty constables of each township, be appointed to make arrangements for the protection of persons and property with power to add to their number. Among the members of this committee, as might be expected, was Robert Fletcher, and it also included the names of James and Roger Crompton, and that of the famous Thomas Bonsor Crompton of Famworth Bridge Mill. It appears to have acted with vigour, had a number of volunteers properly drilled, and was given permission by the justices to obtain arms from the military at Manchester for their use. It is not known to what extent resort to force was found necessary, but Robert Fletcher, though a member of the committee, declined to take advantage of armed protection for his mill. Instead, presumably with the approval of the Crompton brothers, he decided to take the law into his own hands. From a report by his great grandchildren, Miss D E Fletcher and Mrs E W Winstanley, it appears that as soon as he heard that the rioters were coming from Farnworth down Stoneclough Brow he had all work stopped and closed the gates. Then arming himself with a watchman’s truncheon he fearlessly took up his stand at the entrance to the narrow passage that led past the timekeeper’s office into the mill yard. When the rioters arrived on the scene they were presented with the spectacle of a big, powerful man brandishing a truncheon in an entrance not wide enough for more than one man to pass at a time. However, they were bold enough to ask if the mill was working, and getting a negative reply said they would come in to find out for themselves. This however, did not have the intimidating effect on Robert Fletcher they had anticipated, and he retorted promptly by asking them who would like to try first. Such unflinching resistance to their demands was something they had not expected, and the sight of this determined man, threatening to break the pate of anyone bold or foolish enough to come within striking distance of his truncheon must have struck terror into their hearts. For courage in the face of determined resistance is rarely to be found in the ranks of an undisciplined mob. After a hasty council of war they decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and leaving both Robert Fletcher and his mill unmolested, they went hastily on their way to Radcliffe, where they hoped, no doubt, for easier prey. Work was immediately resumed in the mill, and never again, as far as is known, was it threatened with attempted interference of this kind. On the purely technical side no records are available concerning developments within the mill. But it is highly probable that even during these early years of papermaking there it was already specialising in the manufacture of tissues. Within 20 years of the production of the first sheet of paper, in fact, the mill had acquired the reputation of being one of the world’s leading manufacturers of fine tissues. In the meantime, the bleaching of textiles had been discontinued and all the efforts of the mill were thereafter concentrated solely on the manufacture of paper. Thus, in 1844, Roger Crompton was still officially described as both a textile bleacher and a papermaker. By 1851, on the other hand, his firm is recorded in local directories solely under the heading of papermaking: the mill now being referred to as Kearsley Paper Works The discontinuance of textile bleaching must therefore have taken place sometime during the late 1840s. There is indirect evidence, however, of how Robert Fletcher appears to have tackled a problem that must have faced Stoneclough Mill during the early days of his managership. This was the increasing pollution of the water of the River Irwel!, which was used by the mill for both processing and steam raising, and had resulted from the rapid growth of industry along its banks and those of its tributaries, the Roach and the Croal. When the mill was built in 1823 the river was still a fishing stream, and in an early conveyance the right to fish and take salmon from a specified length was granted by the Earl of Derby to the owners of the mill and in 1824 it was still possible for Baines to write that the lrwell and its tributaries were ‘frequented by trout, chub, dace, and gudgeon’. Only 14 years later, on the other hand, a pamphlet commemorating the opening of the railway from Manchester to Bolton on May 29, 1838, has a very different story to tell. In the flowery language of his day the author of this pamphlet, Arthur Freeling, has this to say about this same river. We do not now see the angler with his picturesque attire and busy rod, for the once invigorating waters which sparkled with life are now like the Dead Sea, filled with a poison inimical to life, no philosophic Walton now reclines on its banks: but the poisonous waters bear away their odours to the sea, proving as they flow that the enterprising spirit of the manufacturer leaves no solitude unvisited, in this country at least, which can contribute to the objects of trade. And after referring to the comments by Baines, quoted above, he continued that he would like to see a specimen of these fish, for they must be of a species which can live in sulphuric acid a race so rare as to have eluded our piscatory researches.This pollution was going on all over the country, and some way of purifying such waters to make them fit for use became increasingly essential. Hence, it came about that in 1829 the biological purification of water by means of its slow passage by gravity through a bed of sand was first developed in this country for treating water from the Thames for drinking purposes. This process must have come to Robert Fletcher’s notice, for there is evidence that he constructed such a sand filter during the early days of his managership. This sand filter later became a storage reservoir, known since the turbine was installed in 1931 as the spray lodge because cooling water from the turbine was also sprayed into it, and it was only recently that it was done away with to make room for a new machine house. Exactly when it was constructed is not known, but it is included in the first ordnance survey of the district made in 1845. II must therefore have followed very closely on the heels of the original invention: a clear indication, if one were needed, of how a man like Robert Fletcher, with no scientific background, was nevertheless determined to keep abreast of new ideas. In April 1844, the death of James Crompton brought the partnership between himself and his younger brother, Roger, to an end. He had been a rather shadowy figure, and little is known about the part he played in the affairs of Stoneclough Mill. And outside the mill his name appears on only rare occasions in local records in connection with such organisations as the parish church and the special constabulary. He was only 52 when he died, was unmarried, and left his entire estate, including his share in the business, to his brother, Roger. This must have been considerable another indication of the firm’s success for Roger was now able to acquire a house in Regents Park, London, where ‘he kept an almost princely retinue of servants and entertained a lot. From then on he divided his time between his London and his Stoneclough homes. It is clear from this that Roger Crompton must have had complete confidence in Robert Fletcher’s capabilities as a mill manager. He would not otherwise have been prepared to leave the affairs of Stoneclough Mill so entirely in his hands. And this unchallenged ascendancy of Robert Fletcher may well explain why Roger’s ward and nephew, James Roger Crompton, who was still a minor when his uncle James died, was not subsequently taken into partnership, in spite of the remarkable ability he was later to show. There can hardly have been room for both Robert Fletcher and himself under the same roof and one is not surprised to learn that in 1856, when he was 29 years old, he followed the example of so many of the Cromptons before him of leaving the paternal roof to set up elsewhere on their own. Shaking the dust of Stoneclough from his feet, and taking with him as his manager a machine foreman of the name of Joseph Sidebottom, he started the manufacture of fine tissues in a new paper mill at Elton, Bury. This mill, now the home of the well-known firm of J R Crompton Brothers, is controlled to this day by James Roger’s descendants.Roger was now the only representative of the Crompton family to be connected with Stoneclough Mill. But it was only three years later that he died in his London home at the age of 62. Thus passed the last of the Cromptons and a chapter was closed in the life of the firm he had helped to create and over the destinies of which he had presided for many years. In spite of his frequent absences in London during the later years of his life, his death must have been no little loss not only to the firm, but also to the district he had served so long and so well by the standards of his day. For he had always given active support and had been a generous benefactor to any cause he considered worthy. In particular, the worshippers at the New Jerusalem Church, Kearsley, in the building of which, in 1837, he had played such a prominent part, had every reason to be grateful to him for the life-long interest he had taken in their affairs. And in his will, which ran well into six figures, he left this church the handsome legacy of £17,000, which in those days was a lot of money. He was buried in Highgate Cemetery, but a memorial service was held in the New Jerusalem Church, Kearsley. At this service, with a parade of grief so typical of the time, The whole congregation was in mourning, and his widow and daughter provided all the church officials with black gloves, black silk scarves, and black hat bands. Men from his works came in procession similarly clad. This long association, lasting nearly 30 years, between Roger Crompton and Robert Fletcher must have been an extremely happy one. Both were able men of high principles and integrity, and under their direction the business had prospered exceedingly and grown in both national and international prestige. It was, therefore, a fitting and gracious recognition of this fruitful business association and personal friendship that in his will Roger Crompton not only named Robert Fletcher as one of his three executors the other two being Edward Howarth, a calico printer’s engraver of Manchester, and John Christian Williamson, schoolmaster of Gorton, Manchester but also gave him the option to purchase the business under most favourable terms. Thus, he stipulated that when the mill was to be valued for this purpose by two valuers, of whom one was to be appointed by Robert Fletcher and the other by his two co executors, as an acknowledgment of the long and faithful service of the said Robert Fletcher in the management of my said business the goodwill of the said business is not to be considered. He further stipulated that Robert Fletcher’s two coexecutors were to allow him to pay the agreed purchase money for the business in five yearly instalments. Availing himself of this concession, Robert Fletcher immediately took over the control and ownership of the mill. He made his elder son, James, then aged 26, a partner and gave the firm the new title of Robert Fletcher and Son: a title that was not changed when his younger son, John, was later taken into partnership, and has persisted through other changes to the present day. He also moved into the Cromptons’ old home at Kearsley Vale House. It was about this time that the trademark ‘Archer’ was adopted because of the coincidence that the word fletcher means a maker of arrows. This change in ownership cannot have made any difference in the fortunes of the firm so long as Robert Fletcher remained at the helm, where he had been for many years. But his health was troubling and he died in Vale House on May 17, 1865, at the early age off 6l. He was buried in the churchyard of the Parish Church of his native Radcliffe in what was to become the Fletcher family vault. He was followed only a few months later by his wife, Tabatha.