364 THE COTTON TRADE. 



those now in use. In 1757, the same James Hargreaves invented the spinning 

 jenny, and after several unsuccessful attempts, succeeded in producing a 

 machine with which he could spin eight threads at once. He speedily im- 

 proved on his first attempt, and constructed a jenny to run eighty spindles. 

 This may be considered as the leading step in that march of discovery 

 which has improved every branch of the manufacture. . 



Like other benefactors of the human race, Mr. Hargreaves was not 

 destined to reap much advantage from his discoveries. He was hunted 

 from his native place, and settled in Nottingham, where he shortly after 

 died — if not in great poverty, as has been asserted — certainly in very 

 indifferent circumstances. 



About the same time, Mr. Arkwright, of Preston, in Lancashire, gave 

 his attention to the improvement of spinning machinery. He was brought 

 up to the humble occupation of a barber, but seems to have been endowed 

 with a rare combination of inventive talent, and a capacity for business* 

 His want of mechanical skill was compensated by ardour and perseverance, 

 and he succeeded, after many struggles with adverse circumstances, in per- 

 fecting that rare piece of mechanism called at first the " Water Frame," 

 and, subsequently, the " Throstle," which performs of itself the whole pro- 

 cess of spinning, leaving to the workman only the duty of supplying it 

 with material and of piecing such threads as are accidentally broken. 



In partnership with Mr. Strutt, a man of great mechanical ability, Mr. 

 Arkwright erected a mill at Nottingham for spinning yarn with his 

 machinery. In 1771, he removed to Cromford, where he erected another 

 mill, and where he continued to follow up his first great invention, with 

 many important though subordinate improvements. He was not, however, 

 to enjoy the fruits of his invention without dispute. Like Hargreaves, he 

 was first persecuted as an innovator ; then, when the value of his inven- 

 tions was demonstrated by the work they produced, his patents were con- 

 tested, and, had it not been for his business tact, his inventions would have 

 been pirated by the very men who had ridiculed them, and persecuted him. 



It is commonly believed — and often appealed to as a fact by the 

 advocates of protection to home manufactures — that the factory system of 

 Great Britain was fostered into existence by protective duties. So far as 

 this branch of the system is concerned, nothing can be more erroneous. 

 It fought its way in the face of adverse laws. No sooner had Arkwright 

 and his partners surmounted the mechanical difficulties that lay in their 

 path than they discovered that they were doomed to ruin, unless they could 

 command sufficient wealth and influence to obtain the repeal of preposterous 

 legislative enactments. It was not until 1774 that Parliament was pleased 

 to recognise the propriety of permitting genuine cotton fabrics to be made 

 and sold, and then only under vexatious excise restrictions. The sapient 

 lawgivers had previously considered it a necessary stroke of policy to 

 ensure the consumption of home-grown material by requiring that a 

 certain proportion of every fabric should be composed of linen yarn. It 

 required no small degree of energy, and involved very great expenditure 



