1772, they entered into a combination, and raised an action to have the patent set aside, on the ground that Sir Richard Arkwright was not the original inventor. But the evidence brought forward at the trial was quite insufficient to support this allegation. A verdict was accordingly given in Sir R. A.'s favour; and he retained, without farther opposition of any sort, the exclusive enjoyment of the patent, until the expiration of the fourteen years.

The second patent taken out by Sir Richard Arkwright, in 1775, for additional inventions in the carding and preparation of the cotton for spinning, was not attempted to be disturbed for about six years. In 1781, however, it was contested by a powerful combination, consisting chiefly of the same persons who had attacked his former patent, and a verdict was obtained against him, not on the ground of prior invention, but on the ground that he had not given a sufficiently distinct description of the machinery in the specification. Sir Richard admitted that he had purposely expressed himself with some obscurity, in the view of preventing foreigners from pirating his inventions. On any other principle, indeed, his conduct would be inexplicable; for, as his inventions were fully known to hundreds of workmen in his own employment, and as he had sold the privilege of using them to great numbers of individuals in different parts of the country, it is impossible to suppose that he could either have expected or intended to conceal his inventions after the expiration of his patent. In consequence of the result of this trial, Sir Richard Arkwright and his partners prepared a Case, setting forth the value of the inventions, and the circumstances which had led to the indistinctness complained of in the specification, which they at one time intended to lay before Parliament, as the foundation of an application for an act for their relief. But this intention was subsequently abandoned : and in a new trial, which took place in the Court of Common Pleas, on the 17th of February 1785, Lord Loughborough, the presiding judge, having expressed himself favourably with respect to the sufficiency of the specification, a verdict was given for Sir Richard Arkwright.

In consequence of these conflicting verdicts, the whole matter was brought, by a writ of scire facias, before the Court of King's Bench, to have the validity of the patent finally settled. It is of importance to observe, that, on the two previous trials, no objection had been made to the patent on the ground of priority of invention, but solely on the ground of want of distinctness in the specification. But on this third trial, which took place before Mr Justice Buller and a special jury, on the 25th of June 1785, the patent was contested on both grounds—on

that of prior invention, as well as on that of imperfect specification. In support of the former, Highs or Hayes, the reed-maker at Bolton, was, for the first time, brought forward. He stated, that he had invented a machine for spinning by rollers, previously to 1768; that he had employed the watchmaker, Kay, to whom we have already referred, to make a model of that machine; and Kay was brought forward to prove that he had communicated that model to Sir Richard Arkwright; and that that was the real source of all his pretended inventions. Having no idea that any attempt was to be made to overturn the patent on this new ground, Sir Richard's counsel were not prepared with evidence to repel this statement; but it was stated by Mr Sergeant Adair, on a motion for a new trial on the 10th of November of the same year, that he was furnished with affidavits contradicting, in the most pointed manner, the evidence that had been given by Kay and others, with respect to the originality of the invention. The Court, however, refused to grant a new trial, on the ground, that whatever might be the fact, as to the question of originality, the deficiency in the specification was enough to sustain the verdict.

But, independently altogether of the statements made on the motion for a new trial, the improbability of the story told by Highs and Kay seems glaring and obvious. Highs states in his evidence, that he had accused Arkwright of getting possession of his invention by means of Kay so early as 1769, or about that period. Where, then, it may be asked, was this Mr Highs in 1772, when the trial to set aside Sir Richard Arkwright's first patent took place? and where was he at the two trials in 1781, and in February 1785? Living in Lancashire, associating with manufacturers, and in the habit, as he declares in his evidence, of making machines for them, he could not fail to be speedily informed with respect to the vast importance and value of the invention Sir Richard Arkwright had purloined from him. It is impossible but he must have been acquainted with the efforts that were making by the Lancashire manufacturers to set aside the patents: And is it to be supposed that if he had really been the inventor, he would have remained for SIXTEEN years a passive spectator of what was going forward? that he would have allowed Sir Richard Arkwright to accumulate a princely fortune by means of his inventions, while he remained in a state of poverty? or that he would have withheld his evidence when the manufacturers attempted to wrest from Sir R. A. what he had so unjustly appropriated? A single hint from Highs or Kay would, had their story been well founded, have sufficed to force Sir Richard Arkwright to give them a share of his profits, or would have fur

nished the manufacturers with the means they were so anxious to obtain, of procuring the immediate dissolution of the patents. But it has never been alleged that Sir Richard Arkwright took any sort of pains to conciliate these persons: on the contrary, he treated Highs with the most perfect indifference; and not only dismissed Kay from his service, but even threatened to prosecute him on a charge of felony! And can any one imagine for a moment that persons with so many and such overpowering temptations to speak out, and with no inducement of any sort to be silent, should have gone about for more than twice the period of a Pythagorean novitiate, with so important a secret closely pent up in their bosoms? We confess that such a supposition seems to us altogether absurd and incredible; and we believe our readers will agree with us in thinking that it is infinitely more consistent with probability to suppose that the story of Highs and Kay had been manufactured for the occasion, than that it was really true.

The improbability of the statements made on this subject by Guest, in his History of the Cotton Manufacture, appears still more obvious, from what has been already remarked, of his attributing to Highs the invention not only of the spinning frame, but also of the jenny, which had been universally ascribed to Hargraves. But no weight can be attached to such rash and ill-considered statements. It would be next to a miracle, had two methods of spinning, both very ingenious, but radically different in their first principles, been invented nearly at the same time by the same individual.

It appears from a communication from Mr Charles Wyatt to his brother, in the Repertory of Arts for 1817, and which has been reprinted by Mr Kennedy, in an interesting article on the Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade in the Manchester Memoirs, (2d Series, vol. III. p. 135,) as well as from the distinct reference to them in the Case printed by Sir Richard Arkwright and Company in 1782, that attempts had been made in the early part of last century to spin cotton by means of machinery. But these attempts proved ruinous to the parties by whom they were made; and all knowledge of the machinery by which they attempted to effect their purpose, has been long since lost. Mr Kennedy says he had seen a specimen of yarn spun about 1741, by the late Mr Wyatt of Birmingham; but he expresses his opinion that no competent judge would say that it was spun by a similar machine to that of Sir Richard Arkwright. was not indeed alleged at either of the trials that took place with respect to the validity of Sir Richard's patent, nor has it ever been alleged since, that he had borrowed anything whatever from these remote attempts. If he was really indebted for

It

anything to them, it must have been merely for the knowledge of the fact that such attempts had been made; and this might have stimulated him to turn his attention to the subject.

We have access to know that none of Sir Richard Arkwright's most intimate friends, and who were best acquainted with his character, ever had the slightest doubt with respect to the originality of his invention. Some of them indeed could speak to the circumstances from their own personal knowledge, and their testimony was uniform and consistent.-Such also seems to be the opinion now generally entertained among the principal manufacturers of Manchester. In proof of this, we may again refer to Mr Kennedy's valuable paper in the Manchester Memoirs. Mr K. is one of the most eminent and intelligent cotton manufacturers in the Empire; and it is of importance to remark, that, although he was resident in Manchester in 1785, when the last trial for setting aside Sir Richard's patent took place, and must, therefore, have been well acquainted with all the circumstances connected with it, he does not insinuate the smallest doubt as to his being the real inventor of the spinning frame, nor even so much as once alludes to Highs.

On their first introduction, Sir Richard Arkwright's machines were reckoned by the lower classes as even more adverse to their interests than those of Hargraves; and reiterated attacks were made on the factories built for them.* But how extraordinary soever it may appear, it was amongst the manufacturers that the greatest animosity existed against Sir Richard Arkwright; and it required all that prudence and sagacity for which he was so remarkable, to enable him to triumph over the powerful combination that was formed against him. After the Lancashire manufacturers had failed in their attempts to get his patent set aside in 1772, they unanimously refused to purchase his yarn; and when his partners, Messrs Strutt and Need, had commenced a

Dorning Rasbotham, Esq., a magistrate near Bolton, printed some time about the period referred to, a sensible address to the weavers and spinners, in which he endeavoured to convince them that it was for their interest to encourage inventions for abridging labour. The result has shown the soundness of Mr Rasbotham's opinion. It is doubtful whether 30,000 persons were employed in all the branches of the cotton manufacture in 1767; whereas, in consequence of those very inventions which the workmen endeavoured to destroy, there are now nearly 1,000,000 engaged in its different departments! There is, in fact, no idea so groundless and absurd, as that which supposes that an increased facility of production can under any circumstances be injurious to the labourers.

manufacture of calicoes, the manufacturers strenuously opposed a bill to exempt calicoes from a discriminating duty of 3d. ayard laid on them, over and above the ordinary duty of 3d., by an old act of Parliament. Luckily, however, the manufacturers failed of their object; and in 1774, an act of Parliament was obtained (14. Geo. III. cap. 72.) for the encouragement of the cotton manufacture, in which fabrics made of cotton are declared to have been lately introduced, and are allowed to be used as "a lawful and laudable manufacture," the duty of 6d. the square yard on such cottons as are printed or stained being at the same time reduced to 3d. But this disgraceful spirit of animosity, which must, had it been successful, have proved as injurious to the interests of the manufacturers as to those of Sir Richard Arkwright, did not content itself with actions in the courts of law, or a factious opposition to useful measures in Parliament, but displayed itself in a still more striking and unjustifiable manner. For it is a fact, that a large factory, erected by Sir Richard Arkwright at Birkacre, near Chorley in Lancashire, was destroyed by a mob, collected from the adjacent country, in the presence of a powerful body of police and military, without any one of the civil authorities requiring them to interfere to prevent so scandalous an outrage!

Fortunately, however, not for himself only, but for his country and the world, every corner of which has been benefited by his inventions, Sir Richard Arkwright triumphed over every opposition. The same ingenuity, skill, and good sense which had originally enabled him to invent his machine and get it introduced, enabled him to overcome the various combinations and difficulties with which he had subsequently to contend.

Sir Richard Arkwright never enjoyed good health. During the whole of his splendid and ever memorable career of invention and discovery, he was labouring under a very severe asthmatic affection. A complication of disorders at length terminated his truly useful life, in 1792, at his works, at Cromford, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was high sheriff of Derbyshire in 1786; and having presented a congratulatory address to his Majesty on his escape from the attempt on his life, by Margaret Nicholson, received the honour of knighthood. No man ever better deserved his good fortune, or has a stronger claim on the respect and gratitude of posterity. His inventions have opened a new and boundless field of employment; and while they have conferred infinitely more real benefit on his native country than she could have derived from the absolute dominion of Mexico and Peru, they have been universally productive of wealth and enjoyments.

"The originality and comprehensiveness of Sir Richard Ark