Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a cord turning the pulley or wheel (c); this motion of the teeth (a) works them backwards and forwards upon the cylinder No. 5, and dischargeth the cotton, wool, &c., from it at (d).

der.

No. 5 is the last-mentioned cylinder, which hath fillet cards: The doffer cylinbehind this cylinder, No. 3 delivers its contents upon another cylinder (c).

No. 6 consists of rollers fixed to a wooden frame, the contents The rollers for of No. 5 being brought to it at (a), and going through at (b), drawing and roving. produceth it a proper size (f); (c, c) are brushes for cleaning the

machine.

No. 7, a cylindrical box for twisting the contents of No. 6 The revolving can machinery. at (b); (a, a) are two rollers, one moving the other, between which the contents of No. 6 passeth into the cylinder (b); (c) is a dead pulley fixed to the frame; (d) a cord which, passing from the pulley (c), moves the rollers (a, a); (F) a wheel, the movement of which is brought from (Fc) No. 10, and is fixed to No. 6 (d).

No. 8, a machine for twisting the contents of No. 6, in The twisting mawhich (d, d) is a frame of iron; (b) a roller, on which a bobbin, chinery.

(c) is fixed; this is turned the same as No. 7, that is, by a dead pulley, or wheel fixed to a wooden frame, at (g) (e).

roving machines.

No. 9, a spindle and flyer, being fixed to No. 6, for twist- The bobbins of the ing the contents from (b) in No. 6; (d) is a pulley under the bobbin, which hath a communication by a band to No. 10 at (d, d), it being a conical or regulating wheel, which moves the bobbin quicker or slower as required (f).

of the roving ma

No. 10, a spindle, which being fixed to No. 6 at (a) worketh The pulley work No. 7, No. 8, or No. 9, at (F, F, F), by the pulley (F, c); (d), a chines. regulator for No. 9; (b), a socket, having a bolt going through (d, d) and (F, c) to (G), stops or sets the whole going by means of a catch (a), for the pulley (G, G) being loose upon the spindle, (o) a lever, moveable about (k), raiseth or falleth the bolt (b) (g). In witness, &c.

(c) No. 3 is for feeding cotton to the first cylinder of a carding machine; No. 2 is the comb moved by cranks for stripping off the cotton from the last or doffer cylinder of a carding machine in continuous or perpetual slivers; No. 5 is the last or doffer cylinder of the carding machine, adapted to deliver the cotton (by aid of the comb) in perpetual comb. These three elements are parts of the carding machine in present and general use.

(d) No. 6 and No. 10 constitute the roving can machinery; the former are the drawing rollers of a roving frame in general use as well for drawing as for roving; the latter is the revolving can of a roving frame, and also came into general use, but without the rollers (aa); it is now, however, superseded by improved forms of Nos. 9 and 10.

I

[ocr errors]

(e) This is a substitute for No. 7, the twisting part of a roving machine. It is another mode of doing the same as the revolving can, and was called Jack in a box.' It was adopted by some, and improved forms of it have been the subject of several subsequent patents, but without coming into use; the improved forms of Nos. 9 and 10 being preferable.

(f) This is the origin of the modern bobbin and fly, or cone roving machine, the improved forms of which are principally due to Mr. Houldsworth, and have superseded all other roving machines.

(g) This is pulley work, which was used with No. 7 for the can roving machine, and it also, in reference to No. 9, contains an imperfect suggestion of the cone frame.

History of the Manufacture.—All yarn was originally spun by hand; and cotton was spun twice over ; first the roving or thick thread, with a very slight twist, was formed; then the yarn was formed by spinning the roving over again, by an operation similar to the former, but the thread was drawn out longer and finer, and received more twist. The earliest spinning machines were confined to the latter operation of actual spinning.

In 1738, Louis Paul, a foreigner, had a patent, for a new invented machine for the spinning of wool and cotton." The specification stated briefly (and rather obscurely), that the sliver of wool or cotton is to be put between a pair of rollers, which being turned round, draws in the sliver; and as it passes regularly through, a succession of other rollers, moving proportionably faster than the first, draw the sliver into any degree of fineness which may be required.

In 1758, Paul had another patent for a spinning machine, which was substantially the same as part of that described in his former specification, having only one pair of rollers, but no succession of pairs of rollers.

In 1769 Richard Arkwright had his first patent for spinning machines, wherein the principle of a succession of pairs of rollers was applied with such completeness of mechanical detail, as rendered it perfectly successful, and he was enabled to make the machinery self-acting, so as to be worked by the power of a water mill without manual labour.

The invention of spinning by rollers, and its successful introduction, furnishes an illustration of the manner in which the same principle may be the subject of successive patents.

In 1738, the mere principle of spinning by rollers was stated by Paul, but no practical method of making yarn was described; and the method he afterwards described in 1758 was not a good one. Thirty years afterwards Arkwright hit on the same idea, and described a complete mode, which succeeded, and has become of the greatest national importance. The principle is the same as was announced at the beginning of Paul's specification of 1738, but which he never practised, and he appears to have lost sight of it in his patent of 1758. Arkwright's invention led to great improvement in the manufacture; his was an engine tending to the furtherance of trade. Ante 6.

Cases of this kind, in which the idea or principle of a valuable invention has been announced, and after some ineffectual attempt to carry it into effect has failed, and been abandoned, are of frequent occurrence, and when no beneficial effect is produced on the arts and manufactures of the country by such patent, it may for all practical purposes be considered as a barren suggestion.

In 1748, Paul had a patent for carding machines; he described a cylindrical arrangement of cards, bearing some resemblance to the present carding machine, except that it had no feeder, the wool being put on the cylinder by hand, and the cardings were taken off in short lengths by hand, with a comb, which required the machine to stop, and the short lengths to be joined by hand.

Arkwright appears to have enjoyed the exclusive benefit of his patent of 1769; he established large mills at Cromford, in Derbyshire, for spinning, with his machinery, cotton twist for making stockings, also warp for calico, and made great profit. It is stated in Dr. Rees's Cyclopædia, Art. Cotton, that his patent right was contested about 1772, and that he obtained a verdict. Other mills were established by licence under his patent.

Although the greatest inventor, Arkwright was not the only useful inventor in the same line; about 1767 James Hargreaves had invented the spinning jenny, which was a machine to be turned by hand labour, for spinning several yarns at once, by a very similar process to that whereby one yarn at a time had been previously spun by hand; Hargreaves' invention was the multiplication of the number of spindles which one person could manage at the same time. Although the yarn which was spun was a continuous thread, the operation of the spinning was interrupted every time that about a yard in length of each yarn was completed, in order to wind up that yarn.

The jenny came into common use for spinning weft about the same time that Arkwright was bringing his spinning machinery into use for spinning warp, and the two soon superseded the old mode of spinning by hand. Arkwright's maIchinery was worked by a water wheel, without manual labour; and each spinning frame contained several spindles, which were all supplied with cotton by the same rollers, and formed as many threads at once, but without any interruption, as in the old mode and in the jenny, to wind up the yarn, for the spinning and winding up were going on continually.

Hargreaves took a patent for his jenny in 1770; but as such machines had been commonly used by many during two or three years before that date, the patent was considered as invalid, and was never attempted to be sustained.

The jenny as well as Arkwright's original machinery, was confined to the spinning of yarn from rovings, which were previously prepared by hand, one roving at a time, from short lengths of cotton cardings joined together, and loosely twisted and extended in length by hand to form a loose coarse thread called a roving, in the same manner as already mentioned to have been originally practised for preparing rovings for spinning by hand.

During the period of the term of Arkwright's patent of 1769, after he had introduced his machinery extensively, he turned his attention to invent new machinery for the preparing of cotton wool, and forming it into more perfect rovings than could be made by hand, and more proper for spinning by his original machinery; he had employed several workmen during a long time in making new machinery for carding and roving at his mills, before he took out his second patent of 1775, he used that machinery extensively himself before the patent, and parts became known to others who were his imitators in the spinning trade, and were adopted by them, and some ideas appear to have been suggested to him by his workmen. He delayed his patent for carding and preparing until after his patent for spinning.

Carding machines with cylinders had come into use, by slow degrees, from Paul's unsuccessful attempts but although improved, such machines remained very imperfect.

In 1772, John Lees applied to the carding machine an endless revolving cloth, called a per. petual feeder, upon which the cotton wool was spread; Arkwright made a further improvement, by rolling up the feeder cloth with the cotton spread upon it, in a spiral roll, which gradually unrols as the machine is fed. See No. 3 of his specification.

About 1773, a plate of metal, finely toothed at the edge like a comb, and worked up and down by a crank, with slight but frequent strokes, was applied for stripping off the cotton from the last

or doffer cylinder of the carding machine, in a continuous filmy fleece, which, as it came off, was contracted and drawn through a funnel, and was thus gathered into a sliver, which by passing between two rollers, was compressed into a firm fat riband, and fell into a deep can, where it coiled up in a continuous length till the can was filled.

The crank and comb is No. 4 in Arkwright's specification, but to render this available, it was necessary to cover the last, or doffer cylinder, all round its circumference with narrow fillet cards, banded round it circularly like belts, so that the cotton could be brought off in an unbroken fleece. Arkwright actually used a narrow fillet card wound circularly around the cylinder in spiral coils, which mode has been continued to the present time; it appears to have been practised by Wood and Pilkington, a year before the date of Arkwright's patent: but it is doubtful on the evidence whether he or they first invented it.

The cards had been previously fixed on the doffer cylinder in detached portions, which did not oin together around its circumference, but left intervals between them; the cardings, therefore, came off in detached portions, or short lengths, as much as the width across the cylinder, and these lengths required joining by hand, a mode which is still in general use for carding wool for making woollen cloth.

By these improvements, the carding machine was perfected. The cotton wool as fed to it is an entangled knotted mass, with the fibres lying in every direction; but comes out compressed into a uniform and continuous carding or sliver. The introduction of these improvements into prac. tical operation is to be ascribed to Arkwright, and he showed his usual talent and judgment in combination, by putting all the improvements together and producing a complete machine, so admirably calculated for the purpose, that it has scarcely been improved upon to the present day.

Arkwright's specification describes the various elements, Nos. 3, 4, and 5, of this carding machine, but furnishes no information as to the manner in which the parts are to be put together. The specification does not mention the drawing process to which the perpetual carding or sliver of cotton is subjected after the carding, for the purpose of straightening the fibres. And the next process of roving is not clearly explained.

The rollers of the drawing and roving frames are No. 6 in the specification, and are successive pairs of rollers, the same as those of the spinning frame in his patent of 1769; by the action of such rollers, the perpetual carding or sliver which comes from the carding machine is drawn out in length, and consequently reduced in size, at successive repetitions of the drawing operation, until the sliver becomes so small that it would not hold together without some twist; a slight twist is therefore given in the roving machine, which may be considered as the last of the series of drawing machines, and so forms the cotton into the coarse soft threads called rovings.

Arkwright invented three modes of giving the requisite twist, and gathering up the roving as fast as it is twisted; Nos. 7, 8, and 9.

After Arkwright, about 1775, Samuel Crompton combined the rollers of Arkwright's spinning machinery with the spindles of Hargreaves' jenny, and the combination produced a new machine called the mule, which was at first worked by hand; it soon came into use, particularly for spinning finer yarn for muslin, the rovings for it being prepared by Arkwright's carding, drawing, and roving machinery.

In 1790, Kelly adapted the mule to be worked partly by power of a mill, but still requiring some manual labour; in that state it was made to spin very fine yarn for making lace, such as had never before been produced from cotton. The mule became most extensively used for spinning coarser yarn for weft, such as had been spun by the jenny. That spinning by the jenny was expedited by having the rovings prepared for it, by aid of another machine called the billy, which was derived from the mule and the jenny, soon after the introduction of the mule.

In modern times the mule has wholly superseded the jenny and billy, except that they are still commonly used for spinning wool for making woollen cloth. In 1812, Mr. Crompton was rewarded by parliament with £5000. for his invention of the mule. In 1818, Mr. Eaton had a patent for a self-acting mule, so as to be worked entirely by power of a mill, without any manual labour, and in 1825 and 1830, Richard Roberts had patents for the self-acting mule now in general use, of which an extension has been granted by the Privy Council. Post. In 1834, Mr. James Smith had a patent for a self-acting mule on another construction.

ARKWRIGHT v. MORDAUNT.

T. V. A.D. 1781.

In this action for the infringement of the plaintiff's patent, the defendant objected that the specification was obscure, unintelligible, and generally defective and insufficient, and the following specific objections were made: That the specification does not describe in what manner the cotton is to be taken off the feeding cloth No. 3, and how it delivers its contents to the cards of another cylinder; that the cylinder represented at No. 5 was abandoned, and a different one used by Mr. Arkwright;

that the velocity of the different pairs of drawing rollers No. 6 is not specified; that in the model produced in court these rollers were pressed down by weights, whereas the specification gives no directions respecting weights; and also that the said rollers were fluted, whereas those shown in the drawings were plain.

This case is not reported, but see as to it per Adair, Serjt. in his opening speech of the subsequent case, as reported in Davies's Patent Cases, 41-4.

The plaintiff failed in this action, and eight other actions were abandoned.

The above objections to the specification would hardly be sufficient to invalidate the patent, if the following answers, suggested by the learned counsel in the subsequent trial, had been established in fact. That the manner of taking off the cotton from the feeder No. 3, by means of the feeding rollers of the carding machine in order to give it to the cards being well known, and these feeding rollers being old, and well known to mechanics who had seen the former carding machine, need not be described. That the doffer cylinder shown by No. 5 with belts of fillet card would do, but that the one at present used with a fillet wound spirally around the cylinder was a better mode subsequently discovered. That the drawing, No. 6, showing one pair of the drawing rollers larger

than the others, the velocity of the larger would be greater, and mechanics would thereby know that one pair of the rollers, No. 6, is to draw the cotton faster than the other pair will pass the cotton through them. That it is obvious to any mechanic that the upper rollers of No. 6 must be pressed down on the lower ones, and this may be done in various ways. That the fluting of those rollers, or making them rough, were ways known to every mechanic for making the rollers draw more than the plain ones. Dav. Pat. C. 41.

In 1782, Mr. Arkwright printed a case in relation to the preceding, with his reasons in applying to parliament for an act to secure his right, in which he stated that he had purposely omitted giving so full a description in his specification as he otherwise would, lest his invention should be carried into foreign countries. See folio report of King v. Arkwright, p. 97.

The application to parliament was not persevered in.

ARKWRIGHT v. NIGHTINGALE.

Hil. V. A.D. 1785. Cor. Ld. Loughborough.

[Dav. Pat. C. 37-60.]

Adair, Serjt. stated the case for the plaintiff;-Bearcroft for the defendant, after some of the plaintiff's witnesses had been examined, objected that this appeared to be a new invention, the application of which to an old machine was not described; but the patent was for the invention of "certain machines for preparing the substance for spinning." That the evidence did not apply either to the patent or the declaration, for the new invention would not work alone, but must be applied to the old machine. That this objection was ground of nonsuit.

Lord Loughborough: I have known it overruled. In all the oylet-hole work patents they are additions to the old stocking frame, and they are not so described. I tried one of those causes last term; the objection made at the trial was, that the The description description was to be taken from the terms of the patent, which to be taken from were loose and inaccurate. I was of opinion, then, that the the specification description was to be looked for in the specification, the description of what was invented; but upon that I am very confident there was no reference to the old machine.

of the invention

Some witnesses were then examined, who had made models to produce the intended effect from the specification alone, without any other knowledge of the machine.

favour.

Lord Loughborough: Will any number of witnesses prove Lord Loughbo that this machine cannot be made from the specification (a)? rough to the jury Lord LOUGHBOROUGH, before he stated the evidence, took notice of some things that had occurred in the course of the trial, merely for the purpose of laying them aside as foreign to the purpose of the inquiry. There is no matter of favour can enter Letters patent into consideration in a question of this nature. The law has not a matter of established the right of patents for new inventions; that law is extremely wise and just. One of the requirements is, that a specification shall be enrolled, stating the nature of the invention; the object of which is, that after the term is expired the public shall have the benefit of the invention; but without that condition is complied with, the patentee forfeits all the benefit he derives from the great seal.

It has been said, that many persons have acted upon an idea that Mr. Arkwright had no right, he having failed to establish it when this cause underwent an examination in another place, in which the event was unfavourable to him. If the question at present were what damages Mr. Arkwright should have received for the invading that right, I would have allowed the parties to have gone into evidence to show to what extent persons have acted upon the faith of the former verdict; but the Acts done in requestion now is upon the mere right, and if the result of this liance on former cause is in favour of the plaintiff, the verdict will be with one in reduction of shilling damages. A future invasion of this right would entitle damages. Mr. Arkwright to an action for damages, but in the present case they are not asked.

It is said to be highly expedient for the public that this patent, having been so long in public use after Mr. Arkwright had failed in that trial, should continue to be open; but nothing could be more essentially mischievous than that questions of property between A. and B. should ever be permitted to be decided upon considerations of public convenience or expediency. The only question that can be agitated here is, which of the two parties in law or justice ought to recover?

verdict,evidence

There are many objections that may be taken to patents; but the only objection in this case is, that the specification is not so intelligible that those who are conversant in the subject are capable of understanding it, and of perpetuating the invention when the term of the patent is expired. The clearness of the The specificaspecification must be according to the subject-matter of it; it is tion addressed to persons of addressed to persons in the profession having skill in the sub- skill in the ject, not to men of ignorance; and if it is understood by those subject-matter.

(a) For a report of the speeches of counsel, &c. see Dav. Pat. C. 37-54.

Bearcroft, in addressing the jury for the defence, commented on the fact of Arkwright's acquiescence for more than three years in the result of the pre

ceding trial, as raising a strong presumption against the patent; and also on the admission made by Arkwright in his case (ante 60, n.), of his intention partially to conceal the invention.

« ZurückWeiter »