12 
ness box of a court of justice; but if this test were applied to 
the invention of Messrs. Curtis and Lakin, of 1847, it would be 
found lower down in the scale than even Roberts's. Many 
persons have, indeed, until a comparatively recent period, 
entertained the opinion that the spinning of fine yarns would 
never be successfully accomplished by the self-acting mule ; 
and had I not already extended these observations to a much 
greater length than I at first intended, I could mention some 
interesting circumstances connected with the progress of this 
branch of invention. That would carry me, however, into a 
discussion with reference to inventors and inventions not 
mentioned in Mr. Dyer’s paper, and I will therefore reserve 
what I have to say upon that part of the subject for some 
future occasion. 
Mr. Dyer, in reply, said that he had supported his state- 
ments about the patented inventions noticed in his paper 
(the abstract of which only was commented upon by Mr. 
Brierly), by literal citations from the printed specifications. 
Ilis Notes were entitled “ Part the First, on the Mule Jenny,” 
and that therefore he had only to make the distinction of 
this class of spinning machines from those of the throstle 
class, and his description of the latter went no further than 
to show how much of it Crompton took to make up his 
composite mules. 
