which will shew what a workman would make from the description in the specification, and it will be proved, that that machine will produce all the effects that are required by this new invention; it will also be proved, that the machine in its improved state, with the advantage of little alterations, is substantially the same machine with all its constituent parts, worked upon the same principles, and, in fact, is only a more finished way of making the same thing, and producing the same effect; and more than one witness will be produced, who never saw a cottonmill in their lives, who have actually made the machine from the specification alone.

The learned serjeant then desired the models to be brought into court, and explained them successively, comparing the parts with the specification, and shewing the manner in which they were applied to the old machine, and the advantages gained by the addition.

One objection taken to the specification upon the former occasion was, that it did not describe in what manner the cotton was to be taken off the cloth; but that being part of the machine before in use, it was not necessary to describe it: and the witnesses who are mechanics will say, that when they are told that No. 3. delivers its contents upon another cylinder, that that is sufficient description to any man who knew the construction of the former machine, to understand, that the rollers in the former machine must be retained in use; it therefore was perfectly intelligible to any man who had ever seen the former machine. The two rollers

are not specified: no part of the old machine need be specified. The next objection at the former trial was to the cylinder substituted in the place of the old one: the objection to that was, that if it was worked with parallel card fillets round it, the effect would be certain; being spread upon the whole of the web of cloth that discharged it on the other cylinder: there being no card in the interval between these fillets, that interval would be choaked up with cotton, so as to obstruct the moving of the machine, and, therefore, it was contended, that that description in the specification was imperfect. In answer, it is no where said, that the cotton is to be spread over the whole of the web, and if it is spread in corresponding fillets, the fillets on the machine will take it off; but they say Mr. Arkwright has departed from this, and has made an improvement upon that card cylinder. He has so; the way. is, by placing those cards in a spiral line round the cylinder. It certainly is an improvement, but it was a very obvious improvement to any man acquainted with the principles of mechanics; and although this has been chosen as the most convenient way, there is another mode of producing the same effect, suggested by the drawing in the specification: for the axis in the drawing projects a great way beyond the cylinder, which necessarily suggests the idea, that it was to have a motion backwards and forwards, parallel to its axis. The spiral fillet is not essential, although it is a better method of producing the same effect; but a machine to produce this effect could have been produced from the specification alone. It would

be nonsense to protect the rights of men for ingenious inventions by patent, if other persons were able to alter the form and construction; because, every mechanic, when he knows the invention, and the effect to be produced, can alter the machine into fifty shapes, and yet, if he retains the principles, it will produce the same effect, although the machine, to common eyes, would appear totally different; it might agree in every principle of this specification, and produce entirely the same effect. This completes the improvement in the carding machine. The next machine is for sizing and roving. The parts described in the specification may be worked together, or separately, but, in point of fact, they are generally worked separately. They say, it is not said that the rollers mentioned in the specification are to be set in motion, or how they are to be set in motion. While the rollers remain without motion, they cannot produce much effect; therefore, no man can suppose that the rollers are to remain at rest. Motion must be given to them: there is no occasion to state the manner, it may be by pullies, and in a variety of ways, well known to mechanics. But, say they, the degree of velocity of these rollers is not specified. Look to the drawing: one pair of rollers is larger than the others, consequently, the velocity of the larger roller will be greater than that of the smaller. There remains one objection more, that in the machine produced in the Court of King's Bench, these rollers were pressed down by weights; and there is nothing said about weights in the specifi

cation. True, but it is manifest that the rollers can produce no effect, if the upper are not pressed down to the lower. Now, it is not necessary that it should be done by weights, it may be done by making the upper roller heavy enough to produce the effect; or it may be done by a spring fixed to the axis of the upper roller, which would give it a uniform pressure, and some think that the better mode. But no mechanic employed to construct a machine could be so ignorant as not to know that the upper rollers must be pressed down upon the others; therefore, that is an objection addressed to children. A fourth objection was made, that in the machine then produced, the rollers were fluted. The effect of that will be to make them draw more than plain ones, but every mechanic knows that; or, if they are not fluted, but made rough, it will produce the same effect: therefore, it was not necessary to convey the information that they should be fluted, nor, in fact, is it necessary, for they are frequently used without being fluted; and if you look to the old machine, you will see they were in that case fluted, and it would have been arrogating an invention that was not his, if he had put it in his specification. The whole of the roving machine is entirely new; for this operation was done entirely by hand before. The question will be, whether it is sufficiently described. Mechanics will tell you, that the description is so plain, that any one who has seen the specification might understand it in a quarter of an hour, and could have made it perfectly. Other parts described in the specifica

tion are disused, and, therefore, are not the subject matter of the present action; they were different modes of producing the same effect. Now, the material point to be attended to is, that every constituent part is accurately described: you have before you the whole of these two very ingenious machines, for they are two in effect, the first for carding, the next for sizing and roving. I have, I trust, explained to your satisfaction the nature of the machine as applied to the specification, and I do not doubt but you will say, that the specification is a sufficient description of these machines. In addition to that, we shall call the first men in the kingdom for ability in the mechanical line, who will all tell you, that being informed of the machine formerly in use, and reading the specification, they could direct the construction of the machine in question. We shall also produce several workmen, who, from the specification alone, have made the machine. After that, it cannot be contended, that it is not sufficiently understood, and cannot be constructed.

After some of the witnesses had been examined, Mr. Bearcroft, on behalf of the defendant, submitted to the Court, that this appeared to be a new invention, the application of which, to an old machine, was not described. On the contrary, the patent was for an invention of a machine or machines useful in preparing these articles for spinning, and, therefore, that the case did not apply to their patent, nor to their declaration; for the new invention will not work alone, but must be