2 
A Paper was read entitled “Remarks on Mr. Dyer’s Paper 
entitled ‘ Notes on Spinning Machines/ by Mr. Henry 
Brierly” ; communicated by E. W. Binnf.y, F.R.S. 
Mr. Dyer, in the abstract of his paper {Proceedings, vol. iii. 
p. 265), commences by saying that “ two distinct principles 
were embraced in the inventions of James Hargreaves and 
Richard Arkwright, which were afterwards combined by 
Samuel Crompton, to form the beautiful power-driven machine 
called the mule. Arkwright employed the throstle, or throated 
spindle, with arms or £ flyers 5 to conduct the threads on bob- 
bins arranged in stationary frames ; Hargreaves employed 
naked spindles arranged on a traversing frame or carriage, 
by which the threads were drawn out (about five feet) in 
horizontal lines, whilst being twisted, and were then taken 
up, or wound, on the spindles, to form ‘ cops,’ whilst the 
carriage returned to the roller beam for another ‘ stretch.’ ” 
As I understand Mr. Dyer, he attributes to Arkwright 
the invention of the spindle and flyer, and seems to consider 
that as the leading ce principle” of Arkwright’s invention, as 
distinguished from Hargreaves’s invention, the main “prm- 
ciple” of which he mentions as consisting in the employment 
of nalied spindles mounted on a traversing frame or carriage. 
Mr. Dyer is in error on both these points; and it is only 
fair to a very ingenious inventor who preceded both Har- 
greaves and Arkwright that these matters should be properly 
understood. 
As to Hargreaves’s “ Jenny,” there is no doubt of the 
originality of the invention, and that Hargreaves is entitled 
to the sole merit of whatever was valuable in that invention ; 
hut I shall show that as regards the inventions commonly 
attributed to Arkwright the case is far different. Before 
doing so, however, I must point out the mistake committed 
by Mr. Dyer as regards the nature of Hargreaves’s inven- 
