required for their consumption in a given time five times the length of thread that the first did, they could obviously only obtain so much length by drawing out the common portion of cotton into thread of five times the original fineness. Nothing could be more beautiful or more effective than this contrivance; which, with an additional provision for giving the proper twist to the thread, constitutes the water-frame or throstle, which is so called from its having been originally moved by water power.

Of this part of his machinery Arkwright particularly claimed the invention as his own. He admitted, with regard to some of the other machines included in his patent, that he was rather their improver than their inventor; and the original spinning-machine for coarse thread, commonly called the spinning-jenny, he frankly attributed in its first conception to a person of the name of Hargrave, who resided at Blackburn, and who, he said, having been driven out of Lancashire in consequence of his invention, had taken refuge in Nottingham, but, unable to bear up against a conspiracy formed to ruin him, had been at last obliged to relinquish the further prosecution of his object, and died in obscurity and distress.

There were, however, other parties who had an interest as well as Arkwright in these new machines, and who would not allow that any of them were of his invention. As to the principal of them, the waterframe, they alleged that it was in reality the invention of a poor reedmaker, of the name of Highs or Hayes, and that Arkwright had obtained the knowledge of it from his old associate Kay, who had been employed by Highs to assist him in constructing a model of it a short time before Arkwright had sought his acquaintance. Many cotton-spinners, professing to believe this to be the true state of the case, actually used Arkwright's machinery in their factories, notwithstanding the patent by which he had attempted to protect it; and this invasion of his monopoly was carried to such an extent, that at last he found himself obliged to bring actions against no fewer than nine different parties.*

The first of these, in which a Colonel Mordaunt was defendant, was tried in the Court of King's Bench in July, 1781. Upon this occasion, however, the question as to the originality of the inventions was not mooted, the position taken for the defence being the insufficiency of the

*It is asserted, in the article on the Cotton Manufacture, in the Supplement to the sixth edition of the "Encyclopædia Britannica," and repeated in a paper on the same subject in the 91st number of the "Edinburgh Review," that a trial took place upon the subject of Arkwright's first patent in the year 1772, on which occasion he obtained a verdict establishing its validity. This statement, however, for which no authority is given, appears to be a mistake. No such trial is alluded to in the course of the proceedings in

the Court of King's Bench in June and November, 1785, although both that of July, 1781, and that of February, 1785, are repeatedly mentioned; nor is it noticed, we believe, in any of the earlier accounts of Arkwright's machinery. Mr. Guest (who has written a history of the cotton manufacture, which is marked by a somewhat strong dislike to Arkwright) searched the records of the courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, for the year 1772, without finding any trace of it.

specification on which the patent had been obtained; and upon that ground a verdict was given in favour of the defendant. On this result Arkwright abandoned the other eight actions he had raised; and, instead of attempting any longer to maintain his patent in a court of law, published a pamphlet, containing what he called his "Case," with a view of inducing the legislature to interfere for his protection. It is proper we should here mention, that, although the first of these actions in 1781, which decided the fate of the others, thus went off without the real merits of the case having been gone into, yet several of the defendants were prepared to dispute the claim of the patentee to the invention of the machines, and that both Highs and Kay had been summoned to give their evidence upon that point, and were actually in court during the trial of the action against Colonel Mordaunt, the former having been brought over from Ireland, where he was then residing, expressly for the occasion.

Arkwright submitted to the verdict that had been given against him for nearly four years; but at last, in February, 1785, he raised a second action, which was tried in the Court of Common Pleas; and having brought forward several engineers who declared that they could make the machines from the descriptions which he had given in his specification, he obtained a verdict which reinstated him in the enjoyment of his monopoly. Upon this, as on the former occasion, the only question submitted to the jury was that regarding the sufficiency of the specification; although it soon appeared that several of the parties interested were determined not to rest satisfied with a decision of the matter upon that ground alone.

Accordingly, in the month of June, in the same year, a scire-facias, an action which is nominally at the suit of the Crown, was brought against Arkwright in the Court of King's Bench to repeal the patent, in the trial of which the whole of the question was at last gone into. The principal evidence on which it was attempted to be shown that the water-frame was not invented by Arkwright was that of Highs, of Kay, and of Kay's wife, the substance of which was, that the double rollers had been originally contrived by Highs in the early part of the year 1767, while he was residing in the town of Leigh; that he had employed his neighbour and acquaintance Kay to make a model of a machine for him upon that principle; and that Kay, upon meeting with Arkwright a short time after, at Warrington, had been persuaded by him to communicate to him the secret of Highs's invention, on the understanding, as it would appear, that the two should make what they could of it, and share the advantages between them. The evidence of each of the witnesses corroborated, so far as the case admitted, that of the others; Highs stating that he had been first informed of the manner in which Arkwright had got possession of his invention by Kay's wife, who, on her part, swore that she recollected her husband making models, first for Highs, and

afterwards for Arkwright, although she could not speak with any distinctness to the nature of the machine; while Kay himself acknowledged the treachery of which he had been guilty, and gave a particular account of the manner in which, as he said, Arkwright had contrived to obtain from him the secret of Highs's invention. Highs also stated that, upon meeting with Arkwright in Manchester, some years after he had taken out his patent, he charged him with the source from which he had derived the machine; to which Arkwright said nothing at first, but afterwards remarked that, if any person, having made a discovery, declined to prosecute it, he conceived any other had a right, after a certain time, to take it up and obtain a patent for it, if he chose.

This famous trial lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till half-past twelve at night, and excited the greatest interest, both among those more immediately concerned, and among the public generally. Among the witnesses examined were Mr. Cumming, the well-known watchmaker, Mr. Harrison, the son of the inventor of the marine chronometer, Mr. Darwin, and the since celebrated James Watt. The result was a verdict again invalidating the patent; which, on a motion being made for a new trial, the court refused to disturb. Arkwright after this never took any further steps to vindicate his patent rights. This has led some writers to argue that in all probability he had really obtained the inventions in the manner that Highs and Kay alleged. It is, however, to be remem bered that it has been a common fate with those, who have been fortunate enough to enrich themselves by their happy inventions, to have attempts made to take from them the honour of those discoveries, of the profits of which it is found impossible to deprive them; and that it has seldom, in such cases, been difficult to find some hitherto unheard-of genius to set up his claim to the prior discovery of what, nevertheless, it would appear he scarcely knew the value of, after he had discovered it. In this particular case the other party had a strong interest in setting aside Arkwright's pretensions if they could, and the circumstance of Kay having been connected with Highs before he was employed by him, afforded them a tempting foundation on which to erect what they, no doubt, considered a very convenient theory. Then again, as for so much of their allegation as rested upon the evidence of this Kay, it was not entitled to command much attention, since it appeared both that he had some time before quarrelled with Arkwright, and that he must, even by his own account, have acted so perfidious a part in regard to his first friend, Highs, as to deprive him of all claim to be believed in anything he might now choose to assert. Highs's own evidence is undoubtedly what seems to bear strongest against Arkwright; but he, from very natural causes, might have been mistaken as to various points. He appears to have told his story in a very confused and ineffective way-much as if he either did not feel his ground to be very sure, or was not at all aware of the im

portance of the facts to which he was brought to speak. It is not impossible that, if he actually did invent the machine in question, Arkwright may have also hit upon the same idea about the same time; or may, at least, have been led to it merely by some vague rumour that had got abroad as to what Highs was about-not an unnatural supposition, when we reflect that his operations seem to have been a good deal talked of in the neighbourhood, and that the slightest hint of the principle of the water-frame would have sufficed to put an ingenious man like Arkwright in possession of the whole machine. And this after all gives us, perhaps, the most natural explanation of his conversation with Highs at Manchester. If he knew that he had really stolen his invention from that person in the manner stated in Kay's evidence, it is not likely that he would have been much disposed to meet him at all; whereas the interview appears to have been arranged by the intervention of a mutual acquaintance, who no doubt had obtained the consent of both parties to his bringing them together. His silence, when Highs charged him with having got possession of his invention, or rather merely noticed the circumstance (for the whole seems to have passed in quite an amicable manner), will depend for its interpretation very much upon the exact words used by Highs, which it is very possible he did not recollect perfectly when he gave his evidence in the Court of King's Bench twelve or thirteen years afterwards. Perhaps he said nothing about Kay at all; but merely remarked in general terms that he had been beforehand with Mr. Arkwright in thinking of the two pairs of rollers which formed so valuable a part of his patent machinery. This was an averment which for anything that Arkwright knew might be true, and which if incorrect he had at any rate no means of refuting; so that nothing could be more natural than his remaining silent-although he would scarcely, one would think, have taken the thing quite so passively if he had been flatly charged with the base conduct afterwards imputed to him. The observation, again, he is said to have made a little while after is perfectly consistent with this view of the case. He waives the question as to which of the two might have been first in possession of the idea; and contents himself with simply remarking that, however that might be, he conceived any one who had made a discovery which he thought might be turned to advantage, was quite entitled to take it up and prosecute it by himself, even though another might also be in possession of it, if that other showed no intention of stirring in the business. And to this remark Highs, by his own account, quietly assented, although it certainly would have been natural for him to have hinted, if he really had previously advanced the charge which on the trial he said he had, that, whatever a man might do with regard to an invention that was really his own, he could hardly have a right in any circumstances to steal those of other people, and take out a patent for them.

Whatever conclusion may be come to on the subject of Arkwright's claim to the invention of the machinery introduced by him into his spinning factories, it is incontestable that to him alone belongs the merit both of having combined its different parts with admirable ingenuity and judgment, and of having by his unwearied and invincible perseverance first brought it into actual use on anything like an extensive scale, and demonstrated its power and value. The several inventions which his patent embraced, whether they were his own or not, would probably but for him have perished with their authors; none of whom, except himself, had the determination and courage to face the multiplied fatigues and dangers that lay in the way of achieving a practical exemplification of what they had conceived in their minds, or to encounter any part of that opposition, incredulity, and ridicule, of those disappointments, repulses, losses, and other discouragements, over all of which he at last so completely triumphed. When he set out on this career he was poor, friendless, and utterly unknown. We have already stated that, on his coming with Kay to Preston, he was almost in rags; and it may be added that, when he and Kay made application immediately before this to a Mr. Atherton for some pecuniary assistance to enable them to prosecute their plans, Arkwright's appearance alone was enough to determine that gentleman to have nothing to do with the adventure. Can we have a more exciting example, then, of what a resolute heart may do in apparently the most hopeless circumstances? -of what ingenuity and perseverance together may overcome in the pursuit of what they are determined to attain? And this is the grand lesson which the history of Arkwright is fitted to teach us-to give ourselves wholly to our object, and never to despair of reaching it. Even after he had succeeded in forming his partnership with Messrs. Need and Strutt, his success was far from being secured. For a long time the speculation was a hazardous and unprofitable one, and no little outlay of capital was required to carry it on. He tells us himself in his "Case" that it did not begin to pay till it had been persevered in for five years, and had swallowed up a capital of more than twelve thousand pounds. We cannot doubt that it required all Arkwright's dexterity and firmness to induce his partners to persevere with the experiment under this large expenditure and protracted disappointment. But it was the character of the man to devote his whole heart and faculties to whatever he engaged in. Even to the close of his life the management of his different factories was his only occupation, and even amusement. Although he had been from his early years afflicted with severe asthma, he took scarcely any recreation-employing all his time either in superintending the daily concerns of these establishments, which were regulated upon a plan that itself indicated in its contriver no little