7 
Crompton’s invention, in which he combined the drawing 
rollers of Paul with the use of spindles mounted in a movable 
carriage, and which was thence called the “ mule,” as par- 
taking to some extent of the principles of both the jenny and 
the throstle, formed an immense improvement on all previous 
inventions. Of course the mule has been greatly improved 
since Crompton’s time ; but in speaking of Mr. Kennedy and 
Mr. Peter Ewart as being among the most eminent of those 
who have improved that machine, Mr. Dyer gives no reason 
for his opinion. I pass from this, however, to Mr. Dyer’s 
observations on the self-acting mule. 
Mr. Dyer says the “ real difficulty” connected with the 
construction of a self-acting mule was chiefly confined to the 
winding of the threads on the cops ; but, as I can testify 
from some twenty years’ actual experience, this is by no 
means the greatest difficulty, especially as regards the con- 
struction of large mules . The backing off, or unwinding of 
the loose coils of yarn from the spindles, which are above the 
cops, so as to allow the depression of the faller,” or guiding 
wire, is connected with mechanical difficulties of a most 
formidable nature, and the reaction produced by the sudden 
stoppage and reversal of the motion of the spindles of a large 
mule, with their attendant pulleys and geering, &c., has been 
a source of trouble and annoyance which none but those who 
have experienced it can understand. Mr. Dyer mentions a 
Mr. Snodgrass as having made the first “ notable ” attempt to 
construct a self-acting mule ; but beyond the attempt being a 
notable failure , I know of nothing to entitle it to that dis- 
tinction. Mr. Eaton’s invention of 1819, which Mr. Dyer 
mentions as next in succession to that of Mr. Snodgrass, was 
undoubtedly a very ingenious invention, and was used by 
himself for some little time. Mr. Eaton’s specification shows 
that his knowledge of the subject was very accurate, but the 
details of the invention, practically considered , were in many 
