the fame of singular ingenuity do not expire with the possessor,” both “for the honor of the discoverers,” and for insuring “a rich harvest of future discoveries.” 23 It is true that on certain occasions, as in 1779 during the period of unemployment and suffering accompanying the war against the American colonies, the workers held inventors of labor-saving machines partly responsible for their misfortunes. But the workers had no opportunity for education in self-restraint and foresight, no control over the machines, and no share in the profits save their meager wage, which was cut off entirely in times of depression and unemployment; and in view of these circumstances, their occasional hostility toward inventors was natural and inevitable.

The statement that inventors generally were held in high esteem should be qualified in another way. That is, a distinction should be made between public esteem and financial reward. [It is unquestionably true that some of

the inventors were not adequately rewarded financially, but the injustice has been exaggerated.] John Kay, the inventor of the flying shuttle, is frequently cited as an instance of unrewarded genius. His career was in a somewhat earlier period, however, the flying shuttle having been patented as early as 1733, and his ill treatment. he himself attributed to the attitude prevailing about' 1740. Kay's misfortunes, and those of other inventors, mostly of earlier times, were utilized in exaggerated form by writers who were trying to counteract the occasional hostility of the workers to machines. When Arkwright was trying to maintain his monopoly of his patented machines for spinning, he resorted to the same device, seeking sympathy by comparing his own case with the exaggerated misfortunes of other inventors, and particularly of Hargreaves. The tradition that Hargreaves died in a workhouse has been traced directly to the statements

* T., Letters on Employing Machines to Shorten Labor, 21.

· by Arkwright. Hargreaves was perhaps rewarded inade

quately for the invention of the spinning jenny (though the obscurity of the records makes judgment difficult), but in any case, instead of being forced to pass his last ;days in a workhouse, he was able to spend them in comfort. His estate at the time of his death amounted to several thousand pounds. Nor does the case of Samuel Crompton, inventor of the spinning “mule,” afford unqualified evidence of ill treatment of inventors. An attempt to patent it would probably have involved him in difficulties with Arkwright, because of the use of rollers, common to the “mule” and to Arkwright's patented "water frame.”] In any case a patent would have been expensive, and difficult to utilize. The importance of the invention seems not to have been fully recognized at first, either by Crompton or by his contemporaries; and indeed the machine, as it came from Crompton's hands, was crude and far from satisfactory. Crompton's personal idiosyncrasies also had something to do with his failure to profit fully from his invention. Finally, it should be remembered that he received a small subscription as early as 1780; that Robert Peel offered him a partnership; and that ultimately he and his family received, in the form of subscriptions and grants, aside from business • profits, several thousand pounds in recognition of his services.24

The unjust treatment of inventors has been exagger• ated, and yet there was injustice. Inventors as well as people generally, unless possessed of wealth and position, had precarious legal rights (as witness the laws against debtors, the game laws, and the Draconian penal code for the protection of property); and they commonly experienced great difficulty, unless patronized by some one of position, in maintaining such legal rights as they possessed. This condition seems to be an inevitable accompaniment of a differentiation of social classes such as existed in eighteenth-century England. The inventors belonged for the most part to the unprivileged classes;/ and in securing the enactment of laws as well as in taking advantage of legal rights, they encountered the difficulties inseparable from rigorous class rule in society and government. Furthermore, many inventors were working at the same time on similar problems, and justice was often complicated by rival claims.

L

3. The reward of invention It is true that too often inventors had to solace themselves with the thought that genius, like virtue, is its own reward. But it is equally true that there was an unprecedented interest in the question of rewards—an interest which found expression in varied and curious forms. This widespread interest is significant for a number of reasons. It is an indication of the prevailing spirit of invention; it tended to stimulate further inventive activity; and it is evidence of the essentially social character of the mechanical revolution.

Among the curious manifestations of interest in the question of rewarding inventors might be placed the views of Edward Goodwin of Sheffield in his discussion of the question, "Whether a patent, or a public premium, is the more eligible mode of encouraging useful inventions." In emphasizing the importance of the subject, he remarked that in ancient times "mortals who had signalized themselves by their beneficial inventions" were so honored by posterity as to be “often exalted into

deities.” Classical allusions were reinterpreted in the light of mechanical interests, as when aviation was described as a lost art well known of old to Daedalus and Hanno.25

Contemporary interest of a more tangible nature found expression in another somewhat curious form-a booklet published as early as 1774 entitled An Address to the Artists and Manufacturers of Great Britain Respecting an Application to Parliament for the Farther Encouragement of New Discoveries and Inventions in the Useful Arts. The author, W. Kenrick, ridicules the idea, which he says has been all too prevalent, that devotees of literature and other “polite arts” are more honorable than those who seek out "new inventions and discoveries." His own vigorously expressed views as to the relative importance of “polite art” and “useful invention” were reinforced by quotations from the expressive if inelegant verses of a contemporary rimester:

'Tis great, 'tis wonderful, sublime,
No doubt, to build the lofty rime!
But, deaf to what the poet sings,
Tho' charm his muse the ear of kings,
The patriot sees more wit and good in
Th'invention of a marrow pudding.

But the main purpose of the writer who quoted these lines was to advocate a reform of patent law and procedure to the end that inventors might be more adequately rewarded. (It was generally agreed that the inventor should be compensated in some way other than by the privilege of allowing him to sell his invention or to apply it himself to its intended use, but belief in the

Gentleman's Magazine, LVI, Pt. I, 25, 26; European Magazine, VII, 84-88; Annals of Agriculture, IV, 205-210, VIII, 161, 162. See also a booklet by J. Peacock, Proposals for a Magnificent and Interesting Establishment, which, while savoring less of antiquity, presents a singular plan for encouraging and rewarding invention.

25

desirability of monopolistic patents was by no means unanimous. Some argued for the supplanting, others for the supplementing, of patents by special rewards and compensations to be granted by the government. Many were opposed to the monopolistic feature of patents, and were at the same time fearful of corruption and favoritism in special governmental grants; and persons of this type were the principal advocates of a third method of rewarding inventors, namely, by means of private aid, usually in the form of premiums and medals by societies. These three methods, in their development and application during the latter part of the eighteenth century, are characteristic of the age of invention.

The patent system as first devised and long applied by the Crown had very slight connection with inventions in the modern sense, but dealt with the granting of monopolies and special privileges. Letters patent concerning economic interests involved "the sole buying, selling, making, working or using" of a wide variety of things. The abuses and disadvantages connected with monopolies led to the limiting of the patent system by the famous • Statute of Monopolies of 1624. It has been said that the principle therein set forth "still forms the basis of the whole of the English patent law, and . . . of the patent laws of the world." 26

The law, after uttering a sweeping condemnation of monopolies, makes an important exception by allowing letters patent to be issued granting a fourteen-year monopoly for "the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures . . . to the true and first inventor and inventors of such manufactures, . . . so . . . they be not contrary to law nor mischievous to the state, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient." But "inventor" meant not "Moulton, Present Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, 2.