The early English cotton industry

by George W. Daniels

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]