ARKWRIGHT, Sir Richard, famous for his inventions in cotton spinning, was born at Preston in Lancashire, in 1732, of parents in humble circumstances. He was the youngest of thirteen children, received but a very indifferent education, and was bred to the trade of a barber. But the res angu,sta domi could not repress the native vigour of his mind, or extinguish the desire he felt to emerge from his low situation. In the year 1760 he had established himself in Bθlton-le-Moor, where he exchanged the trade of a barber for that of an itinerant hair-merchant; and having discovered a valuable chemical process for dying hair, he was in consequence enabled to amass a little property. It is unfortunate that very little is known of the steps by which he was led to those inventions that raised him to distinction, and have immortalized his name. His residence in a district where a considerable manufacture of linen goods, and of linen and cotton mixed, was carried on, must have given him ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with the various processes that were in use in the cotton manufacture, and of the attempts that had been made and were then making to improve them. His attention was thus naturally drawn to this peculiar department; and, while he saw reason to conclude that it was likely to prove the most advantageous in which he could engage, he had sagacity and good fortune to invent and improve those extraordinary machines by which, unlike most inventors, he amassed vast wealth, at the same time that he added prodigiously to the demand for labour, and to the riches and comfort of the civilized world.

The spinning-fenny, invented in 1767 by Hargraves, a carpenter at Blackburn in Lancashire, gave the means of spinning twenty or thirty threads at once with no more labour than had previously been required to spin a single thread. The thread spun by the jenny could not, however, be used, except as weft, being destitute of the firmness or hardness required in the longitudinal threads or warp. But Mr Arkwright supplied this deficiency by the invention of the spinning-frame — that wonderful piece of machinery, which spins a vast number of threads of any degree of fineness and hardness, leaving to man merely to feed the machine with cotton, and to join the threads when they happen to break. It is not difficult to understand the principle on which this machine is constructed, and the mode of its operation. It consists of two pairs of rollers, turned by means of machinery. The lower roller of each pair is furrowed or fluted longitudinally, and the upper one is covered with leather, to make them take a hold of the cotton. If there were only one pair of rollers, it is clear that a carding of cotton, passed between them, would be drawn forward by the revolution of the rollers; but it would merely undergo a certain degree of compression from their action. No sooner, however, has the carding, or roving as it is technically termed, begun to pass through the first pair of rollers, than it is received by the second pair, which are made to revolve with (as the case may be) three, four, or five times the velocity of the first pair. By this admirable contrivance, the roving is drawn out into a thread of the desired degree of tenuity, a twist being given to it by the adaptation of the spindle and fly of the common flax wheel to the machinery.

Such is the principle on which Mr Arkwright constructed his famous spinning-frame. It is obvious that it is radically different from the previous methods of spinning either by the common hand-wheel or distaff, or by the jenny, which is only a modification of the common wheel. Spinning by rollers was an entirely original idea; and it is difficult to determine which is most worthy of admiration—the genius which led to so great a discovery, or the consummate skill and address by which it was so speedily perfected and reduced to practice. Mr Arkwright stated that he accidentally derived the first hint of his great invention from seeing a red-hot iron bar elongated by being made to pass between rollers^[1. See the account of Mr Arkwright, in the article Derbyshire, in the Beauties of England and Wales, vol. iii. p∙ 518. The statements in this account are of the highest authority, inasmuch as we have reason to believe it was furnished by Mr Strutt, the son of Mr Arkwright’s first partner. ] and though [7:3:569] there is no mechanical analogy between that operation and his process of spinning, it is not difficult to imagine, that by reflecting upon it, and placing the subject in different points of view, it might lead him to his invention. The precise era of the discovery is not known; but it is most probable that the felicitous idea of spinning by rollers had occurred to his mind as early as the period when Hargraves was engaged in the invention of the jenny, or almost immediately after. Not being himself a practical mechanic, Arkwright employed a person of the name of John Kay, a watchmaker at Warrington, to whom we shall afterwards have to refer, to assist him in the prépara* tionofthe parts of his machine. Having made some progress towards the completion of his inventions, he applied in 1767 to Mr Atherton of Liverpool for pecuniary assistance to enable him to carry them into effect; but this gentleman declined embarking his property in what appeared so hazardous a speculation, though he is said to have sent him some workmen to assist in the construction of his machine; the first model of which was set up in the parlour of the house belonging to the free grammar school at Preston.

His inventions being at length brought into a ’pretty advanced state, Arkwright, accompanied by Kay, and a Mr Smalley of Preston, removed to Nottingham in 1768, in order to avoid the attacks of the same lawless rabble that had driven Hargraves out of Lancashire. Here his operations were at first greatly fettered by a want of capital. But Mr Strutt^[2. This was the justly celebrated Mr Jedediah Strutt. He was the son of a farmer, and was born in 1726. His father paid little attention to his education; but, under every disadvantage, he acquired an extensive knowledge of science and literature. He was the first individual who succeeded in adapting the stocking-frame to the manufacture of ribbed stockings. The manufacture of these stockings, which he established at Derby, was conducted on a very large scale, first by himself and his partner Mr Need, and subsequently by his sons, until about 1805, when they withdrew from this branch of business. ] of Derby, a gentleman of great mechanical skill, and largely engaged in the stocking manufacture, having seen Arkwright’s inventions, and satisfied himself of their extraordinary value, immediately entered, conjointly with his partner Mr Need, into partnership with him. The command of the necessary funds being thus obtained, Mr Arkwright erected his first mill, which was driven by horses, at Nottingham, and took out a patent for spinning by rollers, in 1769. But as the mode of working the machinery by horse-power was found too expensive, he built a second factory, on a much larger scale, at Cromford in Derbyshire, in 1771, the machinery of which was turned by a water-wheel, after the manner of the famous silk-mill erected by Sir Thomas Lombe. Having made several additional discoveries and improvements in the processes of carding, roving, and spinning, he took out a fresh patent for the whole in 1775; and thus completed a series of machinery so various and complicated, yet so admirably combined, and well adapted to produce the intended effect, in its most perfect form, as to excite the astonishment and admiration of every one capable of appreciating the ingenuity displayed and the difficulties overcome.^[3. See the Case of Richard Arkwright & Co. in 1782; the account of Sir Richard Arkwright in Aikin’s Biographical Dictionary ; the History, Gazetteer, 8μ. of Lancashire, by Edward Baines, vol. ii. p. 484, &c. ]

When the vast importance of these discoveries became known, it is not surprising that every effort should have been made to have the patents set aside, and Mr Arkwright deprived of the profit and honour to be derived from them. But after a pretty attentive consideration of the various proceedings relative to this subject, we have no hesitation in saying, that we see no good grounds for crediting the statement made in the court of king’s bench in 1785, and recently repeated by Mr Guest in his work on the cotton manufacture, which ascribes the invention of spinning by rollers to Highs or Hayes, from whom Arkwright is said to have learned it; and we shall now briefly state our reasons for holding this opinion.

Mr Arkwright’s first patent for spinning by rollers, which is by far the most important, or rather, indeed, the essential part of his inventions, was obtained, as we have previously stated, in 1769; and its value and importance were no longer doubtful after the establishment of the factory at Cromford in 1771. The success which attended this novel method of spinning naturally excited the strongest desire on the part of the Lancashire manufacturers to participate in the advantages to be derived from it; and the fair presumption is, that instead of attempting clandestinely to pirate the invention, they would, had they conceived there were any good grounds to go upon, have at once contested the validity of the patent. But no such attempt was made till 1781, twelve years after the date of the first patent, and six years after the date of the second. And, even at that late period, Mr Arkwright’s opponents came forward only in consequence of his having resolved to vindicate his rights, which had begun to be invaded on all sides, by raising an action against Colonel Mordaunt for an infringement of his patent. Mordaunt was supported by a combination of manufacturers; and, as they felt the question to be of the greatest importance, it is all but impossible to suppose that any thing would be omitted on their part which was conceived likely to contribute to their success. The case having been tried in the court of king’s bench, after Trinity term, ,July 1781, the decision was unfavourable to Mr Arkwright. But it is of importance to observe, that no attempt was made at the trial to charge him with having purloined the inventions of others, and that the verdict was given on the sole ground of the description of the machinery in the specification being obscure and indistinct. Mr Arkwright admitted that such was partly the case; adding, however, that the obscurity charged against the specification had been intended only to prevent 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.^[4. It was erroneously stated, in an article in the Edinburgh Review (No. 91), from which this sketch is principally abstracted, on the authority of the article “Cotton Manufacture,” in the Supplement to this work. (vol. iii. p. 394), that a trial had been instituted ⅛ 1772, in which Mr Arkwright proved successful, to have the original patent set aside. But the first trial did not really take place, as above stated, till 1781. ] In consequence of the result of this trial, Mr 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 (Arkwright v. Nightingale), 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 [7:3:570]of the specification, a verdict was given for Mr Arkwright. On this, as on the former trial, nothing was stated against the originality of the invention.

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. And it was not till this third trial, which took place before Mr Justice Buller and a special jury, on the 25th of June 1785, that Mr Arkwright’s claim to the inventions which formed the subject of the patent was disputed. To support this new allegation, Mr Arkwright’s opponents brought forward, for the first time, Highs or Hayes, a reed-maker at Bolton. 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 produced to prove that he had communicated that model to Mr Arkwright, and that that was the real source of all his pretended inventions. Having no idea that any attempt was to be made at so late a period to overturn the patent on this new ground, Mr Arkwright’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 ever since that period, and particularly during the first trial in July 1781, and the second 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 Mr 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, had he really been the inventor, that he would have remained for sixteen years a passive spectator of what was going forward? that he would have allowed Mr 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 Mr Arkwright what he had so unjustly appropriated? A single hint from Highs or Kay would, had their story been well founded, have sufficed to force Mr Arkwright to give them a share of his profits, or would have furnished 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 Mr Arkwright took any 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 noviciate, 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 wi⅛ 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, appear still more obvious, from 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 Mr Arkwright 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 Mr Arkwright. It was not indeed alleged at any of the trials that took place with respect to the validity of his patent, nor has it ever been alleged since, that he had borrowed anything whatever from these remote attempts. If he was really indebted 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 Mr 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 Kennedy 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 Mr Arkwright’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, Mr 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.^[5. Doming ltasbotham, 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 ] But [7:3:571]• how extraordinary soever it may appear, it was amongst the manufacturers that the greatest animosity existed against Mr Arkwright; and it required all the prudence for which he was so remarkable to enable him to triumph over the powerful combination that was formed against him. At the outset of the business, they unanimously refused to purchase his yarn; and when his partners, Messrs Strutt and Need, had commenced a manufacture of calicoes, the manufacturers strenuously opposed a bill to exempt calicoes from a discriminating duty of 3d a yard 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 (14th 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 Mr 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 Mr 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 bis country and the world, every corner of which has been benefited by his inventions, Mr 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.

Though a man of great personal strength, which he is said to have displayed when young, in election riots at Preston, Mr 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 from the wapentake of Wirksworth to his majesty George III., 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 Mexicoand Peru, they have been universally productive of wealth and enjoyments.

“The originality and comprehensiveness of Sir Richard Arkwright’s mind,” says Mr Bannatyne, “was perhaps marked by nothing more strongly than the judgment with which, although' new to business, he conducted the great concerns his discovery gave rise to, and the systematic order and arrangement which he introduced into every department of his extensive works. His plans of management, which must have been entirely his own, as no establishment of a similar nature then existed, were universally adopted by others; and, after long experience, they have not yet, in any material point, been altered or improved.”

Mr Arkwright was twice married. By his first marriage he had a son, the present Richard Arkwright, Esq. of Willersley Castle, near Cromford; by his second marriage he had a daughter, now Mrs Charles Hurt of Wirksworth, Derbyshire. Both have numerous descendants, (c. c.) ∙