From Cromford to Chancery Lane: New Light on the Arkwright Patent Trials

Abstract

Court cases involving patents are useful sources for the history of technology and patent law, particularly for periods when other evidence may be scanty. Both Richard Arkwright and James Watt vigorously defended their rights in a series of trials in the latter 18th century. Central to all these cases was the legal doctrine of disclosure of the essence of an invention by means of a formal specification; this had been written into the patent grant as an absolute requirement since the first half of the 18th century.' Wielded by the bench, particularly as represented by Lord Mansfield, as a somewhat blunt instrument for annulling a patent, its importance was not yet fully understood by the laity of inventors. These trials show patent law developing, as well as the shortcomings of its administration, and are still cited in the courts. Many early cases were reported inadequately or not at all, but where verbatim evidence is available, as in the case of Arkwright, their value as historical sources needs no stressing. In the 19th century the Arkwright cases were used by Guest, Ure, and others with varying emphasis, as bearing on the origins of mechanical spinning and carding.2 Somewhat more recently, Wadsworth and Mann, Daniels, and others have considered Arkwright's exploitation and loss of his patents in the general context of the English textile industry. Indeed, nothing to do with Arkwright has been alien to us; the provocation of his attempted monopoly and the consequent organized opposition of the Manchester manufacturers are part of the image of his character and of a familiar view of early industrialization in Britain. So much is well known; yet I suggest that although much of the