London society's name. It offered premiums, mostly for experiments in agriculture and for the invention and improvement of implements; and it published a series of Letters and Papers resembling the Transactions of the national society. A society was organized in 1767 for Salford Hundred, and was later extended to include the region thirty miles or so around Manchester. Its object was to promote improvements, particularly in agriculture, by encouraging experiments and offering premiums. It was in connection with the work of this organization that Arthur Young, during his tour in the north, made soon after it was founded, observed “a great spirit of improvement” in the agriculture of Lancashire. An organization at Odiham in Hampshire promoted improvements by offering premiums, and by the interesting method of purchasing improved implements as well as seeds and reselling them at cost to non-members as well as to members, “in order to make the use of them more common.” Organizations of the same general nature, with varying degrees of resemblance to the London society, were instituted in various other localities, includ, ing the East Riding and the West Riding of Yorkshire, Leicester, Kent, Durham, Melford and South Devon.49

In their relation to the general problem of material progress, these various organizations resembled the Society of Arts, but in their slighter emphasis upon the particular problem of stimulating and rewarding invention, most of them deviated somewhat from its example. The unique relation of the Society of Arts to the mechani

“ Concerning the society at Bath: Rules and Orders (1783); Letters and Papers (1783 and later); Annual Register, 1789, 72 (2d part). Manchester: Manchester Mercury, July 18, 1769, and passim ; Holland, General View of the Agriculture of Cheshire, 339-341 ; Young, Northern Tour, III, 194, ff. Odiham: Annals of Agriculture, III, 231-239, 304, 481-490, IV, 195, 321, V, 286 and passim. Other localities: Annual Register, 1780, 207 (Chron.), 1781, 104 (2d part), 1792, 51 (Chron.); Gentleman's Magazine, L, 243; Young, Eastern Tour, I, 356, ff.; Annals of Agriculture, XIX, 541-551, XX, 404-410, XXII, 69-72.

cal revolution is its principal claim to historical importance. Its methods and influence in promoting inventive activity have now been sufficiently discussed, and details concerning particular inventions and improvements resulting from its work need not detain us. But there remains one pertinent question. In view of the outstanding importance of the mechanical revolution in the

textile industries, what was the relation of the society , to the invention of the epoch-making machines for spin• ning and weaving? The question is important not only

because of the exceptional significance of the textile inventions, but as well because the work of the society in connection with them has usually been either ignored or misunderstood.

Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny about 1764, and the water frame was patented by Arkwright in 1769. As early as 1760, that is, four years before the invention of the spinning jenny, the Society of Arts offered premiums for “the best invention of a machine that will spin six threads of wool, flax, cotton, or silk, at one time, and that will require but one person to work it and to attend it.” The premiums offered in that year were £40 for the best machine and £20 for the second best. In 1761 the premiums offered were increased to £50 and £25; and in 1763, to £100 and £50. It has been suggested that these offers of premiums were not for “the construction of a spinning machine—the idea did not enter the minds of its members—but only an improvement of the wheel.” 50 But such a supposition is contrary to the plain terms of the society's offers of premiums; and it is contradicted as well by contemporaneous interpretation. Robert Dossie,

8° Mantoux, La Révolution Industrielle, 208. Mantoux's comprehensive and thorough work is here in error. Baines' History of the Cotton Manufacture, and Wood's History of the Royal Society of Arts, similarly fail to note the vital distinction between a new machine and a mere improvement in the wheel made by the society in its offers of premiums.

who was well informed concerning the early history of the society, and acquainted with many of its members, tells us that their interest in the problem was aroused by knowledge of the unsuccessful spinning machine patented by Lewis Paul in 1738. They were fearful that mechanical resources had been exhausted in the expensive attempt, involving an outlay of more than £60,000, to perfect this machine for practical use. And yet they ventured to "carry their speculation further” than a mere improvement of the wheel, by the thrice repeated offer, beginning in 1760, of a premium for “the best invention of a machine that would spin six threads." Dossie himself, in view of the failure of Paul's device, was doubtful of success, and he intimates that this was the determining factor in the discontinuance of the offer in 1764. And yet the fact remains that in three successive years preceding the invention of the spinning · jenny, and with increasing rewards, the society published 'broadcast its proposals calling the attention of those interested throughout the country to the nature and urgency of the problem. 51

The obscurity surrounding the invention of the spinning jenny and the water frame is so great that it is impossible to say whether or not the society's offer was a source of inspiration. But it is known that the offer aroused much interest, as is evidenced by the fact that during the years 1761 to 1764 premiums were paid for several devices with which more than one thread at a time could be spun. Thus in 1763 George Buckley presented an invention which, in accordance with the society's proposals, could spin six threads at once. The committee which examined the machine declared it to be

** Premiums Offered by the Society of Arts (lists published annually by the society); Transactions, I, 33; Dossie, Memoirs of Agriculture, I, 96-98; Bailey, Advancement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 194, 195.

constructed imperfectly, but believed it to be capable of improvement, and therefore awarded the inventor a prize "as an encouragement to his ingenuity.” 52

The attempt of the Society of Arts to solve the problem of mechanical spinning was but one of many measures it undertook for the improvement of textile manufacturing. The catalog of machines and models on exhibit in 1783 includes a variety of inventions—a combing machine, three winding machines, four looms, and other devices. Two of the looms were for the weaving of hosiery, known as stocking frames. The inventors of ; these improved stocking frames were awarded £100 each, and one of them received in addition a subscription raised by manufacturers. Before the introduction of these improved stocking frames, important advances had been made in the weaving of hosiery, and also of small-wares (tapes, laces, etc.), but in the weaving of ordinary cloth, progress was confined mainly to the use of Kay's flying shuttle. With the introduction of mechanical spinning, the increased output of yarn shifted the problem of technical progress in the textile industries from spinning to weaving. This change was early recognized by the Society of Arts. In 1783, two years before Cartwright's first power-loom patent, the society offered premiums for the solution of the problem of mechanical weaving, and the offer was continued in effect during the next two

years.53

The influence of the society in bringing about the . transition to mechanical production in the textile industries cannot be estimated with accuracy. It was the

5 Bailey, Advancement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 200 (an account of Buckley's invention). For various other awards and contemporaneous accounts, see Ibid., 195-202; Dossie, Memoirs of Agriculture, I, 16-18; Annual Register, 1764, 66, 67 (Chron.); Museum Rusticum et Commerciale, IV, 72, 73.

Transactions, I, 26, 200, 217, 218, II, 338, III, 292; Dossie, Memoirs of Agriculture, I, 136, 137, 180-184.

3

belief of the editor of the Transactions (1783) that "the great improvements in spinning, which have taken place within twenty years in these kingdoms, ... are to be assigned to the premiums paid by this society.” 54 To one who studies the entire period in due perspective, the 'society occupies indeed a unique position; but a more 'acceptable view is that its work was but one of many , manifestations of a very general interest in the improvement of all instruments of production,

4. Causes of the revolution in technique This remarkable and widely diffused outburst of inventive activity constitutes one of the major phenomena of history. From this judgment few students of history would be inclined to dissent. As to its causes, there is less uniformity of judgment. Many, indeed, have ventured no explanation, contenting themselves rather with a study of the attendant facts. But this attitude in its extreme form leads to an undue emphasis upon details. Mastery of details is not in itself the worthiest of ends but may be made the means of formulating generalizations. Ignorant men seek vainly and oftentimes claim pretentiously to pierce the veil of truth; while men of learning, having climbed to the vantage-ground of facts, where alone the truth is discernible, oftentimes needlessly deny themselves the vision thereof. Students have too often bowed down to the facts of history as to idols, forgetting the supreme reverence due to the truth of history.

In the study of the spirit of invention suddenly arising 'in England in the second half of the eighteenth century, 'it is less difficult, to be sure, to describe its manifestations ithan to explain its causes or evaluate its importance. Its causes are indeed so obscure, and the results of inquiry are so uncertain, as to lend color of justification, in this