THE OPPOSITION TO THE PATENTS
The episodes of 1767 and 1779 were the two most important direct
attempts to obstruct the use of the new spinning machinery, and there
is no reason to think that they were in any degree effective.[295]
As already mentioned, more important opposition was directed against
the patents granted to Hargreaves and Arkwright, and this came from
those who wished to use the machinery without complying with the
rights the patents conferred. Any opposition of this class to its use
was secondary to their opposition to the patents, and as the patent
of Hargreaves was never upheld, the machine to which it referred was
always freely used.
[Footnote 295: An attack was made on the first Robert Peel’s machinery
when he lived at Peel Fold near Blackburn. “Mr. Peel was accustomed to
say that the destruction of his machinery by the populace was a very
fortunate occurrence for him, inasmuch as he was forced thereby to
adopt Arkwright’s machinery, which otherwise he never should have done,
he having a strong and not unnatural affection for his own inventions”
(Wheeler, _History of Manchester_ (1824), p. 519).]
As regards Arkwright’s machinery, the nearest approach to obstruction
of its use took the form, first, of refusing to use the yarn made by
it, which led Arkwright and his partners to utilise it themselves
in making cotton calicoes, thus giving rise to a new branch of
manufacture; and secondly, when it was found that this manufacture
was hampered by the Acts passed in 1714 and 1721, by opposing their
efforts in 1774 to secure modification of the Acts.[296] By the 1714
Act, calicoes had been made subject to an additional excise duty of
3d., making 6d. in all, and by the 1721 Act the wear or use of printed
calicoes had been prohibited. The 1736 Act, it will be remembered,
had modified the 1721 Act only in so far as goods made with a linen
warp were concerned. The modifications requested by Arkwright and
his partners were the removal of the additional duty, and of the
prohibition, and as their efforts were successful, goods made wholly
of cotton, even though printed, were henceforth on the same footing as
mixed goods.[297]
[Footnote 296: Arkwright’s _Case_, p. 99. The _Case_ is quoted in
Arkwright’s _Patent Trial_, 25th June 1785.]
[Footnote 297: 14 Geo. III., c. 72; also _infra_, p. 197.]
The patent granted to Hargreaves was opposed immediately it was
obtained. Arkwright was more fortunate in his patents, although they
were certainly infringed. It was not until 1781, however--twelve years
after the grant of his first patent, and six years after the grant of
his second--that he began a series of actions for infringements.
Hargreaves’ patent “for the more expeditious spinning, drawing, and
twisting cotton” was dated 12th July 1770.[298] On 17th July 1770,
and for some weeks following, a notice appeared in _The Manchester
Mercury_ from James Hargravs (_sic._) & Co., informing the public of
the fact, and offering a reward of ten guineas for information as to
“Persons who shall make, use, or vend, or in any ways imitate the
said machines or engines.” On 25th September another notice appeared,
drawing attention to the one from Hargreaves, and pointing out that
“there are several and various sorts of wheel-machines or engines made
and used in and about the Town of Manchester for the more expeditious
spinning, drawing, and twisting of cotton” and inviting manufacturers
and others concerned in these operations to a meeting at the Bull’s
Head Inn, on 2nd October, “to consider of several matters relating to,
and concerning the advertisement and the machines above mentioned.”
[Footnote 298: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 325.]
What happened at this meeting it is impossible definitely to say.
Baines’ account of the matter is that Hargreaves “Finding that several
of the Lancashire manufacturers were using the jenny ... gave notice
of actions against them: the manufacturers met, and sent a delegate
to Nottingham, who offered Hargreaves £3000 for permission to use the
machine; but he at first demanded £7000, and at last stood out for
£4000. The negotiations being broken off, the actions proceeded; but
before they came to trial, Hargreaves’ attorney (Mr. Evans) was informed
that his client, before leaving Lancashire, had sold some jennies to
obtain clothing for his children (of whom he had six or seven); and in
consequence of this, which was true, the attorney gave up the actions
in despair of obtaining a verdict.”[299]
[Footnote 299: Baines, _ibid._, p. 162.]
This account was based upon information obtained in Nottingham nearly
seventy years after the event, the informant, apparently, being the son
of Hargreaves’ partner, then in his eighty-third year.[300] The account
may be correct, and it is impossible definitely to disprove it, but,
from the tone of the notice calling the meeting in Manchester on 2nd
October, it seems hardly credible that an offer of the kind mentioned
would be made at that time, neither is it likely from the general
attitude of the manufacturers to patentees that it would be made at any
other time. Some months later, however, another notice appeared calling
a meeting of manufacturers of cotton, again at the Bull’s Head Inn,
to consider “special affairs” relating to their trade.[301] But, at
this meeting, it is extremely probable that the “special affairs” had
reference not to Hargreaves but to the famous Thomas Highs, who at this
time had left Leigh for Manchester, and who, according to Guest, was
the original inventor both of the spinning-jenny and of the method of
spinning by rollers patented by Arkwright.[302]
[Footnote 300: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 301: _Manchester Mercury_, 18th June 1771.]
[Footnote 302: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 94, 198.]
In a well-known passage Guest states that in addition to his other
achievements Highs “constructed what may be termed a double jenny,”
which “was publicly worked in Manchester Exchange in 1772 ... and the
manufacturers on that occasion subscribed 200 guineas, and presented
them to Highs as a reward for his ingenuity.”[303] As a matter of fact,
the exhibition took place in 1771 and was advertised in _The Manchester
Mercury_ in the following terms:--“Mr. Hayes’s new invented machine
for Spinning Cotton is now fix’d up in the Exchange where all persons
concerned in the Manufacturing of Cotton will have an opportunity of
viewing it.”[304]
[Footnote 303: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 203.]
[Footnote 304: _Ibid._, p. 203. It will be noticed that in this
reference, as in others of the time, the name of the inventor is given
as Hayes. I have used the name Highs in the text as he has become best
known to posterity by that name. Guest states that it is written Highs
in the parish register (_ibid._, p. 18).]
This notice appeared on 2nd July, two weeks after the notice calling
the meeting just referred to, and the connection between the two
notices seems fairly clear. It is a reasonable assumption that the
“special affairs” discussed at the meeting were the question of
purchasing the machine of Highs, which may well have been, as Guest
suggests, an extension of the principle of the jenny then in use, for
there can be little doubt that the jenny was widely in use at this
time.[305] Evidently something was known of it before Hargreaves left
Lancashire, and if it is true that he had also mounted and sold some
jennies, it is probable that by 1770 it was well known, and that it
was included among the “machines and engines made and used about the
town of Manchester” mentioned in the notice calling the meeting shortly
after he obtained his patent. If such was the case, the opposition
to the patent and Hargreaves’ failure to uphold it can be easily
understood.
[Footnote 305: According to Ogden, who, it will be remembered,
published his _Description of Manchester_ in 1783, the aim of Highs’
machine was to produce a yarn suitable for warps. After referring to
the introduction of the jenny and the risings against it, which called
forth an address from Dorning Rasbotham, a magistrate who lived near
Bolton, in which he urged that it would be to the interest of the
workpeople to encourage jennies, Ogden proceeds: “This seasonable
address produced a general acquiescence in the use of these engines, to
a certain number of spindles, but they were soon multiplied to three or
four times the quantity; nor did the invention of ingenious mechanics
rest here, for the demand for twist for warps was greater as weft grew
plenty, therefore engines were soon constructed for this purpose: one
in particular was purchased at a price which was a considerable reward
for the contriver’s ingenuity, and exposed at the Exchange, where
he spun on it, and all that were disposed to see the operation were
admitted gratis” (pp. 90-91).]
But, as already mentioned, Guest claims that the original machine was
not the invention of Hargreaves, but the invention of Thomas Highs,
and that Hargreaves’ relation to it was that he added a considerable
improvement. The evidence put forward by Guest on behalf of Highs rests
mainly on statements made by old men sixty years after the event, and
considerable suspicion of such evidence is excusable particularly
when it has been elicited by an ardent man out to establish a
case.[306] Moreover, it is a remarkable fact that no one--not even
Highs himself--appears openly to have put forward the claim until
Guest published his first book in 1823, although the controversy over
Arkwright’s patents, in which Highs figured so prominently, afforded
many opportunities.
[Footnote 306: Guest, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 13-14,
53-54. also _British Cotton Manufacture_.]
Yet, notwithstanding these difficulties, it is not easy to put
aside as baseless all the evidence adduced by Guest in support of
his case. That Highs was a man with an extraordinary aptitude for
invention is undoubted, and it is not improbable, in the activity to
discover improved methods of spinning in the sixties of the eighteenth
century, that he did experiment with a machine at least similar to
the jenny. At the same time, it is scarcely less probable that others
did likewise.[307] As already pointed out, the jenny reproduced
mechanically the hand operations necessary in spinning with the wheel,
and a machine of the character of the jenny was the obvious line of
advance. Although Highs was a man in whose mind the idea of the jenny
was likely to originate, it is impossible, on the evidence, to say that
it did so. What does seem clear is, that it was in association with
Hargreaves that the jenny became a practicable machine, although when
it left his hands it was not a perfect machine and quickly underwent
improvements.[308] Nevertheless, it had made possible the spinning of
weft with a facility before unknown, and it maintained its position in
the cotton industry for a long period, when it was largely superseded
by the “mule.”
[Footnote 307: “Ce que Hargreaves trouva, beaucoup d’autres l’avaient
cherché en même temps que lui.... C’est ainsi que Hargreaves put être
accusé de n’être pas le premier ou le seul auteur de son invention”
(Mantoux, _La Révolution au XVIII^e Siècle_, p. 210).]
[Footnote 308: Guest, _British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 195.]
Probably, as M. Mantoux suggests,[309] Hargreaves did not at first
realise the importance of what had been achieved, which would explain
his tardy application for a patent. Doubtless the application in 1770
was induced by the increasing use of the jenny, and by the fact that
Arkwright had been sufficiently enterprising to obtain a patent for his
machinery in the preceding year. That Hargreaves was unfortunate in his
patent need not be questioned, but it is some satisfaction to know,
on the authority of Baines and others,[310] that in his business at
Nottingham, where he and his partner, Thomas James, are claimed to have
established the first cotton-mill in the world,[311] he was at least
moderately successful.
[Footnote 309: _Ibid._, p. 211.]
[Footnote 310: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 162-163. Abram, _History of
Blackburn_, 205-206. Baines mentions that Hargreaves’ widow received
£400 as her husband’s share in his business. Abram adds the information
that Hargreaves left property of the estimated value of £4000, but
states that about the middle of the nineteenth century two of his
daughters were living in poverty in Manchester and that a subscription
was raised with difficulty on their behalf.]
[Footnote 311: Wylie and Briscoe, _History of Nottingham_, p. 101.]
Whatever Hargreaves’ success may have been, there can be no question of
the success attained by Richard Arkwright. That Arkwright was a great
inventor may be disputed, but that he was a great man of business it
is impossible to deny. It may be stated with some confidence that, had
his name not been associated with the invention of machinery, he would
have gained a prominent place in the early stages of modern industry.
All that is known of his career supports the view. It was pre-eminently
this characteristic which distinguished him from his less fortunate
contemporaries. Whether the idea of spinning by rollers was his own
or not, it is clear that when he left Preston for Nottingham in 1768,
he realised that he had in his possession an invention which, with
the aid of capital, would bring him material success, and he was able
to convince others of the fact. His association with Samuel Need and
Jedediah Strutt[312]--particularly with the latter--was the tactical
point in his career in the cotton industry. Strutt, by previous
inventions, had already shown his ability as a mechanician[313]; he
was also an established business man and a capitalist, able to realise
the possibilities of Arkwright’s machinery. In every respect he was an
ideal partner for Arkwright, and there can be little doubt that, if all
the facts were known, much of the improvement of the machinery would
have to be ascribed to him: the recorded instance of his rubbing the
spinning rollers with chalk to prevent the cotton sticking to them is
significant.[314]
[Footnote 312: Baines, _ibid._, p. 151.]
[Footnote 313: Felkin, _History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery and Lace
Manufactures_ (1867), p. 90.]
[Footnote 314: _Ibid._]
With Arkwright thus established, with his machinery with its
potentialities, in the very district where silk-mills--the precursors
of cotton-mills--had begun to arise more than a generation before,[315]
the modern cotton industry organised on the lines of the factory
system was inevitably born. It should be borne in mind that in the
twelve years during which the privileges of the patents were enjoyed
Arkwright and his partners did not merely hold the patents and draw
premiums from them. In 1771 they erected their factory at Cromford in
which, eight years later, three hundred workpeople were said to be
employed. This was followed in 1773 by another at Derby, erected for
the specific purpose of carrying on the new manufacture of calico. In
1776 another factory was erected at Belper; about the same time the
one at Birkacre was established; and in 1780 the one at Manchester was
erected, which was said to have cost £4000, and to be sufficiently
large to contain six hundred workpeople.[316]
[Footnote 315: Smiles, _Industry and Invention_ (1884), ch. iv., “John
Lombe: Introducer of the Silk Industry into England.”
The number of workpeople employed by one concern in the silk industry,
many years before the appearance of the factory in the cotton industry,
is, perhaps, not always realised. In the sixties of the eighteenth
century, the silk manufacturers in various parts of the country
petitioned the House of Commons regarding the decline of their trade,
and in the evidence on the petition some interesting figures were
given. One silk-throwster asserted that he had employed as many as
1500 workpeople at a time: 500 in London, 200 in Gloucester, 400 in
Dorset, and 400 in Cheshire. Of this number about 1400 were women and
children, and 100 men. A Spitalfields throwster asserted that, in 1760,
he employed 400 workpeople, but the most striking figures were given in
two sets of tables relating to certain firms in London and Macclesfield:
STATE OF SEVERAL SILK-THROWSTERS IN LONDON AND MACCLESFIELD IN THE
YEARS 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764
LONDON
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
Men, women and children | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
employed by | | | | |
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
Spragg, Hopkins, and White | | 800 | 700 | 300 |
John Graham | 500 | 350 | 240 | 120 |
John Powell | | 400 | 300 | 170 |
Triquett and Bunney | 300 | 300 | 200 | 130 |
Sam Nicolls | 300 | 300 | 200 | 150 |
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
MACCLESFIELD
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
Men, women and children | 1761 | 1762 | 1763 | 1764 |
employed by | | | | |
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
Philip Clows | 720 | 690 | 540 | 370 |
Glover and Co. | 400 | 400 | 300 | 180 |
Bradock and Hall | 360 | 360 | 260 | 20 |
Langford, Robinson and Co. | 350 | 350 | 280 | 180 |
Bradburn and Gosling | 271 | 200 | 110 | 30 |
Swain and Gosling | 229 | 190 | 123 | 35 |
W. Hall | 140 | 120 | 90 | 70 |
---------------------------+------+------+------+------+
As regards Macclesfield, it was stated that, in addition to the above,
there were not less than twelve silk-mills of inferior note in the town
which in 1761-1762 employed 1000 hands or thereabouts. The machines
used were called “mills” and the numbers employed by each of the
above Macclesfield concerns were given--_e.g._ Philip Clows had 20,
19, 16, and 10 pairs employed in the years 1761, 1762, 1763, and 1764
(_J.H.C._, xxx., pp. 208-219). See _infra_, p. 197.]
[Footnote 316: Mantoux, _ibid._, pp. 217-221. Espinasse, _ibid._, pp.
392, 413, 420.]
In 1782 it was estimated by Arkwright and his partners that they had
£30,000 embodied in factories, while licences for the use of the
patent machinery had been issued to “adventurers” in the counties of
Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Worcester, Stafford, York, Hertford
and Lancaster, in connection with which these men had invested at
least £60,000. Altogether, at this time, it was claimed, the cotton
industry thus organised employed “upwards of five thousand persons,
and a capital on the whole of not less than £200,000.”[317] According
to Arkwright’s statement, “it was not till upwards of five years had
elapsed after obtaining his first patent, and more than £12,000 had
been expended in machinery and buildings, that any profit accrued to
himself and partners.”[318] This date would roughly coincide with the
Act they obtained relating to the manufacture and sale of calicoes, and
with the grant of the second patent.
[Footnote 317: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, pp. 99, 102.]
[Footnote 318: _Ibid._, p. 99.]
Witness to the progress that was being made after this date is borne by
the infringements of the patents, which led to the institution of nine
actions by Arkwright, only one of which came to trial in 1781. It is
quite certain that privileges such as Arkwright enjoyed were not viewed
with favour in Manchester. Since February, 1774, a Committee for the
Protection of Trade had existed in the town, and continued to exist
until July, 1781, when it was succeeded by another, representative
of the Cotton and Linen, the Silk, and the Smallware Manufacturers of
Manchester and District.[319]
[Footnote 319: _Manchester Mercury_, 8th March 1774; 17th July 1781.
This second committee consisted of sixteen members, ten for cotton and
linen, and three each for silk and smallware. A cotton manufactures
company also came into existence in Manchester about October, 1774,
which finally closed its accounts in November, 1778. This company
apparently existed for the purpose of buying cotton in large quantities
and then disposing of it to those who would sign an agreement to
purchase from the company for six months. It seems to have arisen out
of an agitation against the cotton dealers in Manchester (_ibid._ 20th
September, 4th October, 22nd November, 1774; 10th November 1778, and
many other dates. _Cf._ the Feltmakers’ Project in the seventeenth
century described by Unwin, _Industrial Organisation in the XVIth and
XVIIth Centuries_, pp. 156-164).]
Judging from the frequent notices published in the newspapers by
the first committee, its activities seem to have largely consisted
in keeping the inhabitants of the town on tenterhooks regarding the
presence of foreigners, who had come for the purpose of carrying
away trade secrets, and who, apparently, adopted the most dramatic
methods to discover them. However, the committee was interested in
other matters, among which was the question of patents. In 1776 a
notice appeared warning the public against infringing a patent which
had been granted to a man named Wolstenholme, for the manufacture of
cotton velveteen. Before very long the committee also issued a notice
expressing the opinion that the invention to which the patent referred
was not new, and that any person might safely manufacture the cloth
without being liable to damages.[320] There can be little doubt as to
the side on which the sympathies of Manchester manufacturers lay when
Arkwright instituted his actions in 1781.
[Footnote 320: _Ibid._, 21st May, 24th September 1776.]
In February of that year a notice appeared[321] drawing attention to
the fact that Arkwright had served several persons in Manchester and
neighbourhood with writs for infringing one or both of his patents,
and inviting those concerned to attend a meeting. In the following
month[322] another meeting was called of merchants, manufacturers, and
others, interested in the cotton trade of the town and neighbourhood,
to consider the most effectual means of obtaining free and general use
of the engines and inventions for the manufacturing of cotton, and for
opposing attempts to obtain a monopoly. The leader in this movement was
Mr. Robert Peel, later Sir Robert Peel, the father of the statesman,
who, at the time, was building up even a greater concern than
Arkwright’s, and to whom a revocation of the patents meant much.[323]
To meet the expense of the ensuing legal proceedings a subscription
was raised, twenty-two firms subscribing at the rate of 1s. a spindle
employed by them.[324]
[Footnote 321: _Ibid._, 27th February.]
[Footnote 322: _Manchester Mercury_, 20th March.]
[Footnote 323: Wheeler, _History of Manchester_ (1842), p. 521.]
[Footnote 324: _Ibid._, pp. 521-522, where the names of the firms are
given.]
The action tried in 1781, in which a Colonel Morduant was the
defendant, had reference to the infringement of the 1775 patent--the
carding patent. The defence put forward was that the specification
relating to it was insufficient, and on this ground the verdict went
against Arkwright.[325] In the following year he drew up his _Case_, in
which he admitted the obscurity of the specification, but claimed that
his object was to prevent the introduction of his machines into other
countries.[326] The main point of the _Case_, however, was the request
it contained. Arkwright’s second patent had been declared invalid, and
normally the term of the first patent would expire in July, 1783. He
now requested Parliament, as a reward for the services he had rendered
to the country, to consolidate the two patents, and to allow them to
run for the remainder of the normal term of the second patent--until
the end of 1789.[327] This request, if granted, would have preserved to
him the second patent for its normal term, and have extended the life
of his first patent for six and a half years.
[Footnote 325: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 428-431.]
[Footnote 326: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, p. 100.]
[Footnote 327: _Ibid._, p. 102. _J.H.C._, xxxviii., p. 687.]
Immediately the Committee of Trade in Manchester summoned the
manufacturers to oppose the request, and a petition against it
was presented to Parliament.[328] It is evident that there was a
determination that neither Arkwright nor anyone else should have a
patent if it could be prevented, for about the same time we find
the Committee deciding to raise £200 for a man named Milne, who had
invented a machine to expedite cotton roving, with a proviso that,
if more than that sum were raised, the surplus should be devoted
to opposing Arkwright’s application.[329] It is not unlikely that
Arkwright pressed his case upon Parliament in the months immediately
preceding the expiration of his first patent in 1783, for at this
time the Committee of Trade called another meeting in order to
oppose him.[330] With this continued opposition from the centre most
interested, and with foreign affairs absorbing so much of the attention
of ministers, it is hardly surprising that Parliament took no action.
[Footnote 328: _Manchester Mercury_, 12th February 1782. _J.H.C._,
xxxviii., p. 865.]
[Footnote 329: _Manchester Mercury_, 16th April 1782.]
[Footnote 330: _Ibid._, 11th February 1783.]
For a period of two years the matter lay in abeyance, except
that Arkwright, whose partnership with the Strutts had now been
dissolved,[331] collected evidence to prove that the specification of
his 1775 patent was sufficient for the construction of his machinery.
On the strength of this evidence he then instituted another action for
its infringement, which came to trial in February, 1785.[332] Certainly
the action could not have been instituted at a more appropriate time
for catching the Manchester manufacturers with their hands full of
other things. In August, 1784, the Bill had been introduced levying
the “fustian tax,” which roused a tremendous agitation in the town
that continued until the Bill for its repeal was introduced eight
months later.[333] Also, just before the trial, the Irish commercial
propositions had passed the Irish Parliament, and to these the
Manchester manufacturers were vehemently opposed, and none more so than
Robert Peel, who, in his evidence before the Committee considering the
question, claimed at the time to employ 6800 workpeople, and to pay
an annual excise of £20,000. If the propositions were accepted, he
asserted, it would pay him to transfer his operations to Ireland, where
from the cheapness of labour, and exemption from taxes, he would retain
a superiority of thirteen per cent.[334]
[Footnote 331: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 431.]
[Footnote 332: Arkwright _versus_ Nightingale. Espinasse, _ibid._, pp.
435-437.]
[Footnote 333: _Ante_, p. 63.]
[Footnote 334: _Manchester Mercury_, 22nd March 1785.]
The fact that Arkwright caught the Manchester manufacturers at a busy
moment may have had a bearing upon the result of the trial, which, it
is probable, was different from what they anticipated. The question at
issue was the sufficiency of the specification of the 1775 patent, and
they do not appear to have been prepared to offer evidence regarding
the originality of Arkwright as the inventor, as they apparently were
at the first trial,[335] and as they decidedly were at the third.
Arkwright put forward witnesses, including James Watt, to prove that
machines could be made, and that they actually had been made, from his
specification, and so gained the verdict.[336]
[Footnote 335: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 429.]
[Footnote 336: It appears that Watt had a personal interest in the
matter. Writing to Matthew Boulton after Arkwright had been non-suited
in 1781, he stated: “Though I do not love Arkwright, I don’t like the
precedent of setting aside patents through default of specification.
I fear for our own.... I begin to have little faith in patents; for
according to the enterprising genius of the present age, no man can
have a profitable patent but it will be pecked at.” And a few days
later: “I am tired of making improvements which by some quirk or
wresting of the law may be taken from us as I think has been done in
the case of Arkwright, who has been condemned merely because he did
not specify quite clearly. This was injustice, because it is plain
that he has given this trade a being--has brought his invention into
use and made it of great public utility. Wherefore he deserved all
the money he has got. In my opinion his patent should not have been
invalidated without it had clearly appeared that he did not invent the
things in question. I fear we shall be served with the same sauce _for
the good of the public_! and in that case I shall certainly do what he
threatens. This you may be assured of, that we are as much envied here
as he is in Manchester, and all the bells in Cornwall would be rung at
our overthrow” (Letters dated 30th July and 13th August 1781. Smiles,
_Boulton and Watt_ (1904 Edition), p. 274).]
If the assertion ever was made that there was collusion between the
plaintiff and the defendant to secure a verdict for the former,[337]
it was probably made in Manchester.[338] In any case, there can be no
doubt of the sensation the result of the trial created in the town.
Notwithstanding the anxiety about other matters, a vigorous campaign
was at once commenced to reverse it. Complaint was made of Arkwright’s
claim having been allowed to lie dormant for so long. Relying on the
validity of the verdict in the first trial, a great number of works
had been completed, and others were nearing completion, which would
employ thousands of poor, and which represented a capital outlay of
more than £200,000. Unless relief were obtained, a great number of
individuals who had embarked their all would be ruined, and would
depart to other countries. Moreover, it was insisted, it was not only
those using Arkwright’s spinning machinery who were involved, but also
those using the jenny, for they would be deprived of the use of the
carding machinery. By the verdict, “this great manufactory, the envy
of Europe, will in great degree lie at the mercy of one man, who has
already received by far, greater emoluments than any other individual,
or united body of discoverers ever did.”[339]
[Footnote 337: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 436.]
[Footnote 338: Was it _generally_ known in Manchester that an action
was pending or were the manufacturers over-confident? So far as
newspaper notices were concerned, the activity which preceded the first
and the third trials was absent. Two days before the action was tried
_The Manchester Mercury_, which could not be accused of favour to
Arkwright, contained the following paragraph: “Rd. Arkwright, Esq., has
established a Sunday school at Cromford, in Derbyshire, which already
consists of two hundred children. Pleasing it is to the friends of
humanity, when power like his is so happily united with the will to do
good!” (15th February 1785).]
[Footnote 339: _Manchester Mercury_, 1st March 1785.]
The greatest fear was expressed that the cotton industry would move to
Ireland and Scotland, where, it was asserted, Arkwright’s machinery
was working without restriction. In so far as Arkwright had power to
prevent it, this was extremely unlikely, but apparently there was
something in the statement that in conjunction with “several eminent
merchants” he was preparing to establish large works in Scotland. It
was about this time that he came into contact with David Dale, and
played some part in the erection of the famous New Lanark Mills, where,
fifteen years later, the famous Manchester cotton-spinner, Robert Owen,
“entered upon the government.”[340]
[Footnote 340: _Ibid._ Espinasse, _ibid._, 449 _et seq._ Robert Owen,
_Autobiography_, i., p. 56.]
There can be no doubt that the reversal of the verdict of the 1781
trial had created a difficult situation, and a writ was at once applied
for, to test the validity of the 1775 patent, and the trial took
place in June, 1785, little more than four months after the second
trial. This time the attack was made not merely on the ground of the
insufficiency of the specification, but also on the ground that the
roving operation patented in 1775 was simply a repetition of the
spinning operation patented in 1769, for which the patent had expired.
But, in addition, the claim of Arkwright to be the inventor of the
spinning machinery for which he had enjoyed a patent for its full term
was disputed, and the same as regards the carding machinery included in
the 1775 patent.
The second point may be dismissed without discussion. Undoubtedly the
spinning and the roving operations were essentially the same; the
application of the rollers to carded cotton to produce roving was a
repetition of their application to roving to produce yarn. Moreover,
the question whether the new application was sufficient to justify
an extension of the patent was secondary to the question whether
Arkwright could be regarded as the inventor of the rollers. As regards
the carding machinery part of the patent, damaging evidence was given
by the widow and son of Hargreaves, and by a workman formerly employed
by him, who stated emphatically that Hargreaves was the inventor of
the crank and comb device, which was an immensely important part of
the carding machinery, while others claimed either to have invented or
used this, and other parts of the carding machinery, before Arkwright
obtained his patent.[341]
[Footnote 341: _Trial_, 25th June 1785. Evidence of Elizabeth
Hargreaves, George Hargreaves, and others regarding the crank and
comb. On other points John Lees, Henry Marsland, Thomas Hall, and the
partners Pilkington and Wood.]
At the trial Arkwright was unable to produce much evidence to rebut
that given against him, though he claimed to be able to do so shortly
afterwards, particularly as regards his invention of the crank and
comb,[342] and apparently in this matter he had a strong case. Before
Baines finished his _History of the Cotton Manufacture_ he was quite
convinced, by information obtained from the son of Hargreaves’ partner
at Nottingham, that, though Hargreaves’ relatives might have spoken in
good faith at the trial, instead of the crank and comb having reached
Arkwright from Hargreaves, as was implied, the case was exactly the
opposite.[343] Assuming that the information obtained by Baines was
correct, it must be recognised that Arkwright was unfortunate, as there
can be little doubt that the evidence given regarding the crank and
comb must have influenced the view taken of his claim to have been the
inventor of the spinning rollers.[344]
[Footnote 342: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 447.]
[Footnote 343: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 177-179.]
[Footnote 344: Actually the leading counsel against Arkwright in the
third trial asserted that the crank and comb device so impressed the
jury in the second trial as to gain Arkwright the verdict on that
occasion (_Trial_, 25th June 1785, p. 19).]
In the effort to refute the claim of Arkwright as the inventor, the
important witnesses were Thomas Highs and John Kay. The story has been
often told and need not be repeated at length. Briefly stated, Highs
was put forward as the real inventor, and Kay as the person from whom
Arkwright obtained information of the invention, which he patented
in 1769. For some years before 1766 Highs and Kay had lived at Leigh
as neighbours, and, according to Guest, in 1763 or 1764 the latter
assisted the former in his efforts, already referred to, to construct
the spinning-jenny.[345] About 1766 apparently, Highs conceived the
idea of spinning by rollers, at any rate, in his evidence, he claimed
to have made them in the following year. Kay, by this time, had gone
to live at Warrington, where he followed the trade of clockmaking,
and Highs employed him to make the wheels necessary to give different
velocities to the rollers, and also a model.[346] Another remarkable
claim of Highs was that, at this time, he used the rollers not only to
spin but to rove as well, which Arkwright did not publicly claim to do
until 1775. According to his own statement, however, he did not proceed
with the rollers beyond the experimental stage, owing, as he said, to
his inability through poverty, nor did he mention the invention for
fear of losing it.
[Footnote 345: Guest, _History of Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 13, 53. The
question of the jenny was not dealt with at the trial, of course.]
[Footnote 346: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Highs’ evidence.]
In the meantime, Arkwright, who lived at Bolton, is supposed to have
heard of Highs’ experiments and to have sought out Kay with the
object of obtaining knowledge of them. In his evidence, Kay stated
that Arkwright visited him at Warrington in 1767, and that he made
two models of Highs’ method of rollers for Arkwright, who took them
away. Shortly afterwards he accompanied Arkwright to Preston (where
the machinery was brought to a practicable stage), then to Nottingham,
remaining in Arkwright’s employment some four or five years. At the end
of this time trouble arose between them and they parted more or less as
enemies.[347]
[Footnote 347: _Ibid._, Kay’s evidence.]
Apart from a statement of Highs that Kay’s wife told him of what
had passed between her husband and Arkwright, there is only Kay’s
testimony, which was not always convincing, to go upon, and clearly
under the circumstances he was not likely to err in Arkwright’s
favour. On the other hand, it is incredible that the two could have
been associated as they were without Highs’ experiments having been
mentioned, assuming that he had carried on any experiments. In view of
the statements of Highs, this can hardly be doubted: there is nothing
to suggest that he was deliberately untruthful. At the same time, this
does not prove that Arkwright had not conceived the idea of spinning
by rollers before his contact with Kay at Warrington. The difficult
point to explain is why Arkwright sought out Kay at all, coupled with
the fact that, from this time, he devoted his whole activity to the
construction of the spinning-machine. The statement that previously he
had been experimenting in mechanics, and that he sought out Kay for
some purpose thus connected, does nothing but leave the difficulty
unsolved.
The only other scrap of evidence regarding the question as to whether
Arkwright did obtain Highs’ invention, was contained in a reference
of Highs to a conversation he had with Arkwright at Manchester, when
he charged him with having obtained it. Arkwright’s attitude, on this
occasion, as described by Highs, was, however, as appropriate to a man
with a clear conscience, who had no desire to enter into an unpleasant
argument, as to a man who was guilty and wished to evade a charge.[348]
One point that may be noticed is that as this conversation was said
to have taken place about the time when Highs’ machine was exhibited
in the Exchange, the date of the exhibition, as revealed by its
advertisement, fixes the conversation one year nearer to the time when
Arkwright took out his first patent than has always been supposed. On
the side of Highs, the great difficulty is to explain why his claim
was allowed to lie so long in abeyance, seeing that he was not without
friends in Manchester, men, moreover, who, it may be assumed, would
not have been slow to attack Arkwright’s patent had the slightest
opportunity been offered.
[Footnote 348: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Highs’ evidence. Evidently
Arkwright made a gesture of impatience, and suggested that even if
Highs had any claim to the invention, he had not gone forward with it,
and, in such a case, another man had the right to do so.]
On the evidence given at the third trial, not only as regards the
invention of the rollers, but as regards the other questions at issue,
no other decision was possible than one that involved the annulment
of Arkwright’s patent, and it was arrived at without hesitation. It
does not necessarily follow that the evidence was complete, and on one
point, as already noticed, it probably was not. In an application for
a new trial, made shortly afterwards, evidence regarding the crank and
comb, similar to that obtained by Baines, and from the same source,
was mentioned, and also evidence to rebut that given by Kay and Highs.
The judges, however, were convinced that there was not sufficient
ground for the application and in November, 1785, the patent was
cancelled.[349]
[Footnote 349: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 447-448.]
After the trial, _The Manchester Mercury_, in a comment on the
evidence, stated that it appeared from it, that the most material
engines in Arkwright’s patent for preparing cotton were the cylinder
carding-engine and the roving-engine. The first was so old that its
origin could not be traced, and improvements had been added to it by
Hargreaves, Whittaker, Wood and others, long before Arkwright claimed
it. The roving-engine and the spinning-engine were one and the same
thing, and the evidence proved that it was invented by Mr. Hayes of
Leigh, although Arkwright had enjoyed a monopoly of it for fourteen
years, while the real inventor was prevented by poverty from seeking
redress.[350]
[Footnote 350: 5th July 1785.]
There is some truth in this view, but certainly not the whole truth.
It must be recognised that neither Highs nor Arkwright was the first
to conceive the principle of attenuating cotton by the roller-method.
That honour undoubtedly belongs to Lewis Paul, and the principle was
crudely stated in the specification[351] of the patent he obtained, and
embodied in the machinery he constructed, thirty years before either of
them had begun to experiment. But how far were these men or either of
them indebted to Paul for knowledge of the method? Taking into account
the lives and the characters of the two men, Arkwright was more likely
to have been acquainted with it than Highs. In his peregrinations about
the country he had the opportunity, and with his unbounded push and
curiosity it is fairly certain that, if anything could be known of
it, Arkwright was the man to know it. Indeed, if Kay’s account of the
conversation he had with Arkwright at Warrington may be trusted, he
went far to avow the fact.[352]
[Footnote 351: Baines, _ibid._, pp. 122-123.]
[Footnote 352: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, Kay’s evidence.]
It cannot be said, of course, that Highs had not heard of the method,
but in his case it was less likely and, as mentioned in connection
with the jenny, he was just the type of man in whose mind ideas were
likely to originate anew.[353] About Arkwright there was not the same
suggestion of originality. He was just the type of man, however, who,
having got an inkling of Paul’s method, and then gaining a knowledge
of Highs’ experiments through Kay, would carry the roller method to
a practicable issue. Whether the idea was his own, or whether he was
carrying the work of Paul, or Highs, or both, it is certain that it was
with Arkwright that the method of spinning by rollers came into use,
and of the carding machinery, for which again, as we have seen, some
credit was due to Paul, the same may be said.
[Footnote 353: In addition to his relation to the machines mentioned
in the text Guest asserts that Highs effected some improvement in the
carding-machine (_British Cotton Manufacture_, p. 204).]
In certain respects Arkwright was undoubtedly a great man. He became
prominent when ideas of invention were fermenting in men’s minds, and
even if all that was affirmed at the third trial of the obligations he
owed to others were true, somehow, in his hands, their achievements
were carried a long step towards perfection, and were collated into
a successful system. From the early cotton industry, against great
odds, he gained wealth; perhaps that was his supreme aim; even so,
what he gained was a trifle compared with the pecuniary value of
his achievements. On the whole, perhaps it was just as well that
Arkwright’s career as patentee concluded when it did. As we have seen,
by 1780 he had several concerns under his control; also, in 1785, he
had great schemes on hand in Scotland. Baines informs us that “he
contemplated entering into the most extensive mercantile transactions,
and buying up all the cotton in the world, in order to make an enormous
profit by the monopoly.”[354] Had Arkwright maintained his position for
a little longer, his name might have been handed down to posterity, not
only in connection with the invention of spinning by rollers, and with
the early factory system, but also as the earliest of the great modern
Trust magnates.
[Footnote 354: _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 196.]