wright called at his works and saw it, and John Lees proved that he invented a similar feeder in 1772. In the specification this article was described in a very obscure and confused manner. No. 4. The Crank for taking the carded cotton off the cylinder. This was proved, by Hargrave's Widow and Son, and by George Whitaker and others, to have been invented by James Hargrave, in 1772. No. 5. Filleted Cards on the second cylinder. These were nailed round the cylinder circularly, and took the carded cotton from the first cylinder in one continued fleece. Mr. Pilkington and Mr. Wood proved that these were invented by Mr. Wood, in 1774. No. 6. Two pairs of Rollers, one pair revolving faster than the other. These were proved by John Kay, his Wife, and Thomas Highs, to have been invented by the latter at Leigh, in 1767. See Appendix, Nos. 3, 4 and 5. No. 7. The Roving Can. Benjamin Butler proved that he used this article in 1759, and Betty Kennion and Joseph Woolley, proved that it was used in Mr. Binyon's factory, in 1773, or early in 1774. No. 8. The witnesses could not explain for what use this article was intended, and Mr. Arkwright's Counsel admitted that it was not used for preparing cotton, nor for spinning. No. 9. The Spindle used by Thomas Highs in the Water Frame, in 1767, and previously used in the Flax or Treddle Wheel. No. 10. None of the witnesses described the use of this article; it is a Shaft or Spindle, on which is a pully and drum, which by strings give motion to the spindles, or to the roving can.

There never was a greater practical attempt made to mystify a subject since the creation of the world, than this specification of Mr. Arkwright's. He wished to have all the benefit of a patent as long as the law allowed him, and when that time was expired, he wished his specification to be such a stumbling block and inexplicable enigma to the public, that no one but himself should be able to make the machines. This is evident from his own admission to Mr. W. D. Crofts, who was examined on the trial, and then proved, that he was employed by Mr. Arkwright to draw out the specification, and that Mr. Arkwright told him he wished it to operate "as a specification, but to be as obscure as the nature of the case would possibly admit." From the evidence it appears, that the component parts of Mr. Arkwright's machines were all borrowed by him from other persons. When he saw an improvement in the Carding Engine or Roving Frame, he adopted it, and in the end, by combining Lees' Feeder, Wood's Filleted Cylinder, "Poor Hargrave's" Crank, Highs' Water Frame, and Butler's Roving Can, he completed a series of machines for carding and roving. He was enabled to do this the more easily by having the command of a large capital. The

H

inventors of the improvements had not the means of carrying them into effect on an extensive scale; they found the game, but from the want of capital were unable to secure it, whilst Mr. Arkwright, by availing himself of their inventions, and by inducing "men of property to engage with him to a large amount," reaped all the advantages and obtained all the rewards. That Mr. Arkwright deserves well of his country, and that he was one great means of forwarding her manufactures, is not meant to be denied. To combine, to arrange, to put in execution, though secondary to the merits of original invention, are, nevertheless, necessary to the perfection of art. Without Mr. Arkwright, the Water Frame would probably have had a slow and tedious introduction, or might have perished with its author and been lost to the world.

On the attempted assassination of his late Majesty, by Margaret Nicholson, Mr. Arkwright presented an address from the Hundred of Wirksworth, and was knighted; from which circumstance he was, by some, quaintly called "one of Peg Nicholson's knights." The following year, 1787, he was High Sheriff of Derbyshire.

Sir Richard Arkwright died at Cromford, in Derbyshire, in August, 1792, aged 59, and his life and labours are a worthy subject of contemplation. From a very low situation in life, he raised himself to the highest dignity in an extensive and affluent county-what a contrast does his splendid career present to that of Highs and how melancholy the reflection, that the founder of Sir Richard's greatness partook not of his prosperity. While Sir Richard was filling the situation of the King's representative, escorting his Judges, and receiving favours from the Royal hand-Highs continued to make reeds. While gold was flowing in copious streams into the coffers of Sir Richard-Highs was struggling for the pittance of a day labourer. The latter was a man of a serious turn of mind and retired habits; sober, intelligent, and unassuming. He was universally respected and esteemed, and is even now well remembered in Leigh as a kind and benevolent man.

CHAPTER VIII.

Mis-statements of the foregoing Facts.

The misrepresentations of the above facts, by various writers, are so great, that it is frequently difficult to discover the spark of truth, through the misty and uncertain atmosphere which surrounds it, or to know whether we see a beacon or an ignis-fatuus.

The General Biography by Aikin and Enfield, 4to. London, 1799, vol. 1st. p. 392, says, that Hargrave invented the Jenny, in 1767. This is erroneous, as has been sufficiently shewn.

Aikin's History of Manchester, 4to. London, 1795, pages 170 and 171, says, that Arkwright obtained a patent for the Twist Machine and afterwards sued several cotton spinners for an invasion of his patent; that they joined issue with him, and that, in the event, he was non-suited. That Arkwright finding several improvements not in his first specification, got it extended, and specified in particular the invention of the Crank and Comb. That on the extension of the patent, care being taken to specify the additional improvements, he instituted another suit for the invasion of his patent, and obtained a verdict in the Court of Common Pleas. That the persons concerned got the matter removed in the Court of King's Bench, where, upon trial, it was proved that the Crank and Comb was a prior invention of an ingenious mechanic, Mr. Heyes by name. This account is equally incorrect with the former one given by Aikin and Enfield; there was no extension whatever of the patent after the trial in 1781, when Arkwright was non-suited, and it is apparent from the preceding pages that the Crank and Comb were invented by Hargrave and not by Highs, who had sufficient merit of his own to enable him to dispense with usurping the discoveries of others.

The Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, 4to. article, Cotton Manufacture, page 392, states that Mr. John Kay, of Bury, invented the Fly Shuttle,

about 1762. In page 393 it is said that Hargrave invented the Jenny in 1767, and in page 394, that Arkwright's patent was contested in 1772.

Rees' Cyclopædia, 4to. London, 1819, vol. 10th. article, Cotton Manufacture, states that Hargrave invented the Jenny in 1767; that Highs invented the Crank and Comb, and that Arkwright's patent was contested about the

year 1772. Lempriere's Universal Biography, 4to. London, 1808, article, Arkwright, says that Arkwright invented the Jenny.

The Gentleman's Magazine, for August 1792, page 771, says that Arkwright acquired his wealth by accidentally purchasing a piece of Mechanism, called the Spinning Jenny, the invention of an ingenious carpenter. And in the following month, (page 863,) that Arkwright was a Barber, at Wirksworth, in Derbyshire, and by frequent opportunities of examining the silk mills at Derby, acquired the invention of the cotton mills.

It is a melancholy reflection, that on matters of such general notoriety, and which have happened within the memory of the present generation, so much incorrectness and misrepresentation should exist. They forcibly remind us of Sir Walter Raleigh's mortified feelings as to the uncertainty of History, when having witnessed an assassination from his window, while writing his History of the World, a number of witnesses swore directly contrary to the facts he had seen with his own eyes. And of Louis the 14th's remark to his officers when giving him accounts of a battle totally at variance with each other-"voila ce que l'histoire."

It may be proper to mention, that the account of the inventions of the Fly Shuttle and the Drop Box, given in the second chapter, is derived from a manuscript lent to me by Mr. Samuel Kay, of Bury, son of Mr. Robert Kay, the inventor of the Drop Box, and grandson of Mr. John Kay, the inventor of the Fly Shuttle. And that the orthography of Highs' name is taken from the Register of his marriage in Leigh Church.

CHAPTER IX.

Invention of the Mule and Exportation of Twist.

In the year 1780, there were twenty Water Frame factories, the property of Mr. Arkwright, or of persons who had paid him a consideration for permission to use his machines. After the repeal of the patent in 1785, the number of factories rapidly increased, and in 1790, there were one hundred and fifty in England and Wales. About 1790, factories were also built for the Jenny; in these factories the cotton was carded and roved by the newly-invented machines, which furnished weft better in quality and lower in price, than that spun on the smaller Jennies in the houses of the weavers. Carding, roving and spinning were now given up in the cottages, and the women and children formerly employed in those operations, applied themselves to the Loom. The invention of the Mule, by enabling spinners to make finer yarns than any the Jenny and Water Frame could produce, gave birth to the muslin manufacture, and found employment for this additional number of weavers.

The Mule is a compound of the Jenny and the Water Frame, from which circumstance it derives its name, and was invented in 1775, by Samuel Crompton, of Bolton-le-Moors. In this machine, the roving passes from the back part through rollers to the spindles, which are placed in front on a moveable frame. As the spindles revolve, this frame recedes from the rollers, somewhat faster than they give out the roving. The first pair of rollers draw the roving from the bobbin, the second pair draw it out and lengthen it, as in the Water Frame, and the pull of the spindles as the frame recedes, stretches it still finer. When a certain quantity of roving is given out, the rollers stop and shut fast the roving, as the clove does in the Jenny, the spindles still continuing to revolve and the frame to recede, drawing out the roving to the fineness required and giving it the necessary twist, the yarn is then wound upon the spindles by returning the