3 
tion. Hargreaves did not employ spindles mounted upon 
a moving carriage, nor was there any “roller beam ” in 
his machine at all. Mr. Dyer seems to he here confounding 
the invention of Hargreaves with the subsequent invention of 
Crompton. An inspection of the specification of the patent 
taken out by Hargreaves in 1770 (No. 962) will show that in 
his “ Jenny 5 ’ the spindles revolve in stationary bearings, 
while instead of rollers for drawing out the material to the 
requisite fineness a “ clasp ” was used, which was arranged 
to move backwards and forwards in suitable framing. Thus, 
before beginning to spin a “ stretch,” the spinner had the 
“ clasp ” near to the spindles, with, a certain length of roving 
between the clasp and each spindle. He then with one hand 
drew the clasp gently away from the spindles, thus elongating 
the portions of roving between them, while with the other 
hand he turned round certain apparatus by means of which 
the spindles were caused to revolve and twist the threads, and 
having thus drawn away the clasp for about five feet from 
the spindles he then returned it back towards them, at the 
same time guiding the threads by means of a “presser,” or 
faller, and turning the spindles round so as to wind the spun 
threads upon bobbins placed upon them, and not upon the 
spindles themselves . This is a very different operation from 
that of the mule, in which rollers moving at different veloci- 
ties draw the material to the required fineness, while the 
spindles recede from them in a moving carriage, at the same 
time revolving so as to twist the threads, which are afterwards 
wound upon the spindles themselves so as to form “cops.” 
It is necessary to bear these distinctions in mind in following 
the progress of development which resulted in the production 
of the highly effective spinning machinery in use at the pre- 
sent day. 
In coming to the consideration of the inventions usually 
attributed to Arkwright, it is only proper that due notice 
