The episodes of 1767 and 1779 were the two most important direct attempts to obstruct the use of the new spinning machinery, and there is no reason to think that they were in any degree effective.[295] As already mentioned, more important opposition was directed against the patents granted to Hargreaves and Arkwright, and this came from those who wished to use the machinery without complying with the rights the patents conferred. Any opposition of this class to its use was secondary to their opposition to the patents, and as the patent of Hargreaves was never upheld, the machine to which it referred was always freely used.
As regards Arkwright’s machinery, the nearest approach to obstruction of its use took the form, first, of refusing to use the yarn made by it, which led Arkwright and his partners to utilise it themselves in making cotton calicoes, thus giving rise to a new branch of manufacture; and secondly, when it was found that this manufacture was hampered by the Acts passed in 1714 and 1721, by opposing their efforts in 1774 to secure modification of the Acts.[296] By the 1714 Act, calicoes had been made subject to an additional excise duty of 3d., making 6d. in all, and by the 1721 Act the wear or use of printed calicoes had been prohibited. The 1736 Act, it will be remembered, had modified the 1721 Act only in so far as goods made with a linen warp were concerned. The modifications requested by Arkwright and his partners were the removal of the additional duty, and of the prohibition, and as their efforts were successful, goods made wholly of cotton, even though printed, were henceforth on the same footing as mixed goods.[297]
The patent granted to Hargreaves was opposed immediately it was obtained. Arkwright was more fortunate in his patents, although they were certainly infringed. It was not until 1781, however—twelve years after the grant of his first patent, and six years after the grant of his second—that he began a series of actions for infringements.
Hargreaves’ patent “for the more expeditious spinning, drawing, and twisting cotton” was dated 12th July 1770.[298] On 17th July 1770, and for some weeks following, a notice appeared in The Manchester Mercury from James Hargravs (sic.) & Co., informing the public of the fact, and offering a reward of ten guineas for information as to “Persons who shall make, use, or vend, or in any ways imitate the said machines or engines.” On 25th September another notice appeared, drawing attention to the one from Hargreaves, and pointing out that “there are several and various sorts of wheel-machines or engines made and used in and about the Town of Manchester for the more expeditious spinning, drawing, and twisting of cotton” and inviting manufacturers and others concerned in these operations to a meeting at the Bull’s Head Inn, on 2nd October, “to consider of several matters relating to, and concerning the advertisement and the machines above mentioned.”
What happened at this meeting it is impossible definitely to say. Baines’ account of the matter is that Hargreaves “Finding that several of the Lancashire manufacturers were using the jenny ... gave notice of actions against them: the manufacturers met, and sent a delegate to Nottingham, who offered Hargreaves £3000 for permission to use the machine; but he at first demanded £7000, and at last stood out for £4000. The negotiations being broken off, the actions proceeded; but before they came to trial, Hargreaves’ attorney (Mr. Evans) was informed that his client, before leaving Lancashire, had sold some jennies to obtain clothing for his children (of whom he had six or seven); and in consequence of this, which was true, the attorney gave up the actions in despair of obtaining a verdict.”[299]
This account was based upon information obtained in Nottingham nearly seventy years after the event, the informant, apparently, being the son of Hargreaves’ partner, then in his eighty-third year.[300] The account may be correct, and it is impossible definitely to disprove it, but, from the tone of the notice calling the meeting in Manchester on 2nd October, it seems hardly credible that an offer of the kind mentioned would be made at that time, neither is it likely from the general attitude of the manufacturers to patentees that it would be made at any other time. Some months later, however, another notice appeared calling a meeting of manufacturers of cotton, again at the Bull’s Head Inn, to consider “special affairs” relating to their trade.[301] But, at this meeting, it is extremely probable that the “special affairs” had reference not to Hargreaves but to the famous Thomas Highs, who at this time had left Leigh for Manchester, and who, according to Guest, was the original inventor both of the spinning-jenny and of the method of spinning by rollers patented by Arkwright.[302]
In a well-known passage Guest states that in addition to his other achievements Highs “constructed what may be termed a double jenny,” which “was publicly worked in Manchester Exchange in 1772 ... and the manufacturers on that occasion subscribed 200 guineas, and presented them to Highs as a reward for his ingenuity.”[303] As a matter of fact, the exhibition took place in 1771 and was advertised in The Manchester Mercury in the following terms:—“Mr. Hayes’s new invented machine for Spinning Cotton is now fix’d up in the Exchange where all persons concerned in the Manufacturing of Cotton will have an opportunity of viewing it.”[304]
This notice appeared on 2nd July, two weeks after the notice calling the meeting just referred to, and the connection between the two notices seems fairly clear. It is a reasonable assumption that the “special affairs” discussed at the meeting were the question of purchasing the machine of Highs, which may well have been, as Guest suggests, an extension of the principle of the jenny then in use, for there can be little doubt that the jenny was widely in use at this time.[305] Evidently something was known of it before Hargreaves left Lancashire, and if it is true that he had also mounted and sold some jennies, it is probable that by 1770 it was well known, and that it was included among the “machines and engines made and used about the town of Manchester” mentioned in the notice calling the meeting shortly after he obtained his patent. If such was the case, the opposition to the patent and Hargreaves’ failure to uphold it can be easily understood.
But, as already mentioned, Guest claims that the original machine was not the invention of Hargreaves, but the invention of Thomas Highs, and that Hargreaves’ relation to it was that he added a considerable improvement. The evidence put forward by Guest on behalf of Highs rests mainly on statements made by old men sixty years after the event, and considerable suspicion of such evidence is excusable particularly when it has been elicited by an ardent man out to establish a case.[306] Moreover, it is a remarkable fact that no one—not even Highs himself—appears openly to have put forward the claim until Guest published his first book in 1823, although the controversy over Arkwright’s patents, in which Highs figured so prominently, afforded many opportunities.
Yet, notwithstanding these difficulties, it is not easy to put aside as baseless all the evidence adduced by Guest in support of his case. That Highs was a man with an extraordinary aptitude for invention is undoubted, and it is not improbable, in the activity to discover improved methods of spinning in the sixties of the eighteenth century, that he did experiment with a machine at least similar to the jenny. At the same time, it is scarcely less probable that others did likewise.[307] As already pointed out, the jenny reproduced mechanically the hand operations necessary in spinning with the wheel, and a machine of the character of the jenny was the obvious line of advance. Although Highs was a man in whose mind the idea of the jenny was likely to originate, it is impossible, on the evidence, to say that it did so. What does seem clear is, that it was in association with Hargreaves that the jenny became a practicable machine, although when it left his hands it was not a perfect machine and quickly underwent improvements.[308] Nevertheless, it had made possible the spinning of weft with a facility before unknown, and it maintained its position in the cotton industry for a long period, when it was largely superseded by the “mule.”
Probably, as M. Mantoux suggests,[309] Hargreaves did not at first realise the importance of what had been achieved, which would explain his tardy application for a patent. Doubtless the application in 1770 was induced by the increasing use of the jenny, and by the fact that Arkwright had been sufficiently enterprising to obtain a patent for his machinery in the preceding year. That Hargreaves was unfortunate in his patent need not be questioned, but it is some satisfaction to know, on the authority of Baines and others,[310] that in his business at Nottingham, where he and his partner, Thomas James, are claimed to have established the first cotton-mill in the world,[311] he was at least moderately successful.
Whatever Hargreaves’ success may have been, there can be no question of the success attained by Richard Arkwright. That Arkwright was a great inventor may be disputed, but that he was a great man of business it is impossible to deny. It may be stated with some confidence that, had his name not been associated with the invention of machinery, he would have gained a prominent place in the early stages of modern industry. All that is known of his career supports the view. It was pre-eminently this characteristic which distinguished him from his less fortunate contemporaries. Whether the idea of spinning by rollers was his own or not, it is clear that when he left Preston for Nottingham in 1768, he realised that he had in his possession an invention which, with the aid of capital, would bring him material success, and he was able to convince others of the fact. His association with Samuel Need and Jedediah Strutt[312]—particularly with the latter—was the tactical point in his career in the cotton industry. Strutt, by previous inventions, had already shown his ability as a mechanician[313]; he was also an established business man and a capitalist, able to realise the possibilities of Arkwright’s machinery. In every respect he was an ideal partner for Arkwright, and there can be little doubt that, if all the facts were known, much of the improvement of the machinery would have to be ascribed to him: the recorded instance of his rubbing the spinning rollers with chalk to prevent the cotton sticking to them is significant.[314]
With Arkwright thus established, with his machinery with its potentialities, in the very district where silk-mills—the precursors of cotton-mills—had begun to arise more than a generation before,[315] the modern cotton industry organised on the lines of the factory system was inevitably born. It should be borne in mind that in the twelve years during which the privileges of the patents were enjoyed Arkwright and his partners did not merely hold the patents and draw premiums from them. In 1771 they erected their factory at Cromford in which, eight years later, three hundred workpeople were said to be employed. This was followed in 1773 by another at Derby, erected for the specific purpose of carrying on the new manufacture of calico. In 1776 another factory was erected at Belper; about the same time the one at Birkacre was established; and in 1780 the one at Manchester was erected, which was said to have cost £4000, and to be sufficiently large to contain six hundred workpeople.[316]
In 1782 it was estimated by Arkwright and his partners that they had £30,000 embodied in factories, while licences for the use of the patent machinery had been issued to “adventurers” in the counties of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Worcester, Stafford, York, Hertford and Lancaster, in connection with which these men had invested at least £60,000. Altogether, at this time, it was claimed, the cotton industry thus organised employed “upwards of five thousand persons, and a capital on the whole of not less than £200,000.”[317] According to Arkwright’s statement, “it was not till upwards of five years had elapsed after obtaining his first patent, and more than £12,000 had been expended in machinery and buildings, that any profit accrued to himself and partners.”[318] This date would roughly coincide with the Act they obtained relating to the manufacture and sale of calicoes, and with the grant of the second patent.
Witness to the progress that was being made after this date is borne by the infringements of the patents, which led to the institution of nine actions by Arkwright, only one of which came to trial in 1781. It is quite certain that privileges such as Arkwright enjoyed were not viewed with favour in Manchester. Since February, 1774, a Committee for the Protection of Trade had existed in the town, and continued to exist until July, 1781, when it was succeeded by another, representative of the Cotton and Linen, the Silk, and the Smallware Manufacturers of Manchester and District.[319]
Judging from the frequent notices published in the newspapers by the first committee, its activities seem to have largely consisted in keeping the inhabitants of the town on tenterhooks regarding the presence of foreigners, who had come for the purpose of carrying away trade secrets, and who, apparently, adopted the most dramatic methods to discover them. However, the committee was interested in other matters, among which was the question of patents. In 1776 a notice appeared warning the public against infringing a patent which had been granted to a man named Wolstenholme, for the manufacture of cotton velveteen. Before very long the committee also issued a notice expressing the opinion that the invention to which the patent referred was not new, and that any person might safely manufacture the cloth without being liable to damages.[320] There can be little doubt as to the side on which the sympathies of Manchester manufacturers lay when Arkwright instituted his actions in 1781.
In February of that year a notice appeared[321] drawing attention to the fact that Arkwright had served several persons in Manchester and neighbourhood with writs for infringing one or both of his patents, and inviting those concerned to attend a meeting. In the following month[322] another meeting was called of merchants, manufacturers, and others, interested in the cotton trade of the town and neighbourhood, to consider the most effectual means of obtaining free and general use of the engines and inventions for the manufacturing of cotton, and for opposing attempts to obtain a monopoly. The leader in this movement was Mr. Robert Peel, later Sir Robert Peel, the father of the statesman, who, at the time, was building up even a greater concern than Arkwright’s, and to whom a revocation of the patents meant much.[323] To meet the expense of the ensuing legal proceedings a subscription was raised, twenty-two firms subscribing at the rate of 1s. a spindle employed by them.[324]
The action tried in 1781, in which a Colonel Morduant was the defendant, had reference to the infringement of the 1775 patent—the carding patent. The defence put forward was that the specification relating to it was insufficient, and on this ground the verdict went against Arkwright.[325] In the following year he drew up his Case, in which he admitted the obscurity of the specification, but claimed that his object was to prevent the introduction of his machines into other countries.[326] The main point of the Case, however, was the request it contained. Arkwright’s second patent had been declared invalid, and normally the term of the first patent would expire in July, 1783. He now requested Parliament, as a reward for the services he had rendered to the country, to consolidate the two patents, and to allow them to run for the remainder of the normal term of the second patent—until the end of 1789.[327] This request, if granted, would have preserved to him the second patent for its normal term, and have extended the life of his first patent for six and a half years.
Immediately the Committee of Trade in Manchester summoned the manufacturers to oppose the request, and a petition against it was presented to Parliament.[328] It is evident that there was a determination that neither Arkwright nor anyone else should have a patent if it could be prevented, for about the same time we find the Committee deciding to raise £200 for a man named Milne, who had invented a machine to expedite cotton roving, with a proviso that, if more than that sum were raised, the surplus should be devoted to opposing Arkwright’s application.[329] It is not unlikely that Arkwright pressed his case upon Parliament in the months immediately preceding the expiration of his first patent in 1783, for at this time the Committee of Trade called another meeting in order to oppose him.[330] With this continued opposition from the centre most interested, and with foreign affairs absorbing so much of the attention of ministers, it is hardly surprising that Parliament took no action.
For a period of two years the matter lay in abeyance, except that Arkwright, whose partnership with the Strutts had now been dissolved,[331] collected evidence to prove that the specification of his 1775 patent was sufficient for the construction of his machinery. On the strength of this evidence he then instituted another action for its infringement, which came to trial in February, 1785.[332] Certainly the action could not have been instituted at a more appropriate time for catching the Manchester manufacturers with their hands full of other things. In August, 1784, the Bill had been introduced levying the “fustian tax,” which roused a tremendous agitation in the town that continued until the Bill for its repeal was introduced eight months later.[333] Also, just before the trial, the Irish commercial propositions had passed the Irish Parliament, and to these the Manchester manufacturers were vehemently opposed, and none more so than Robert Peel, who, in his evidence before the Committee considering the question, claimed at the time to employ 6800 workpeople, and to pay an annual excise of £20,000. If the propositions were accepted, he asserted, it would pay him to transfer his operations to Ireland, where from the cheapness of labour, and exemption from taxes, he would retain a superiority of thirteen per cent.[334]
The fact that Arkwright caught the Manchester manufacturers at a busy moment may have had a bearing upon the result of the trial, which, it is probable, was different from what they anticipated. The question at issue was the sufficiency of the specification of the 1775 patent, and they do not appear to have been prepared to offer evidence regarding the originality of Arkwright as the inventor, as they apparently were at the first trial,[335] and as they decidedly were at the third. Arkwright put forward witnesses, including James Watt, to prove that machines could be made, and that they actually had been made, from his specification, and so gained the verdict.[336]
If the assertion ever was made that there was collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant to secure a verdict for the former,[337] it was probably made in Manchester.[338] In any case, there can be no doubt of the sensation the result of the trial created in the town. Notwithstanding the anxiety about other matters, a vigorous campaign was at once commenced to reverse it. Complaint was made of Arkwright’s claim having been allowed to lie dormant for so long. Relying on the validity of the verdict in the first trial, a great number of works had been completed, and others were nearing completion, which would employ thousands of poor, and which represented a capital outlay of more than £200,000. Unless relief were obtained, a great number of individuals who had embarked their all would be ruined, and would depart to other countries. Moreover, it was insisted, it was not only those using Arkwright’s spinning machinery who were involved, but also those using the jenny, for they would be deprived of the use of the carding machinery. By the verdict, “this great manufactory, the envy of Europe, will in great degree lie at the mercy of one man, who has already received by far, greater emoluments than any other individual, or united body of discoverers ever did.”[339]
The greatest fear was expressed that the cotton industry would move to Ireland and Scotland, where, it was asserted, Arkwright’s machinery was working without restriction. In so far as Arkwright had power to prevent it, this was extremely unlikely, but apparently there was something in the statement that in conjunction with “several eminent merchants” he was preparing to establish large works in Scotland. It was about this time that he came into contact with David Dale, and played some part in the erection of the famous New Lanark Mills, where, fifteen years later, the famous Manchester cotton-spinner, Robert Owen, “entered upon the government.”[340]
There can be no doubt that the reversal of the verdict of the 1781 trial had created a difficult situation, and a writ was at once applied for, to test the validity of the 1775 patent, and the trial took place in June, 1785, little more than four months after the second trial. This time the attack was made not merely on the ground of the insufficiency of the specification, but also on the ground that the roving operation patented in 1775 was simply a repetition of the spinning operation patented in 1769, for which the patent had expired. But, in addition, the claim of Arkwright to be the inventor of the spinning machinery for which he had enjoyed a patent for its full term was disputed, and the same as regards the carding machinery included in the 1775 patent.
The second point may be dismissed without discussion. Undoubtedly the spinning and the roving operations were essentially the same; the application of the rollers to carded cotton to produce roving was a repetition of their application to roving to produce yarn. Moreover, the question whether the new application was sufficient to justify an extension of the patent was secondary to the question whether Arkwright could be regarded as the inventor of the rollers. As regards the carding machinery part of the patent, damaging evidence was given by the widow and son of Hargreaves, and by a workman formerly employed by him, who stated emphatically that Hargreaves was the inventor of the crank and comb device, which was an immensely important part of the carding machinery, while others claimed either to have invented or used this, and other parts of the carding machinery, before Arkwright obtained his patent.[341]
At the trial Arkwright was unable to produce much evidence to rebut that given against him, though he claimed to be able to do so shortly afterwards, particularly as regards his invention of the crank and comb,[342] and apparently in this matter he had a strong case. Before Baines finished his History of the Cotton Manufacture he was quite convinced, by information obtained from the son of Hargreaves’ partner at Nottingham, that, though Hargreaves’ relatives might have spoken in good faith at the trial, instead of the crank and comb having reached Arkwright from Hargreaves, as was implied, the case was exactly the opposite.[343] Assuming that the information obtained by Baines was correct, it must be recognised that Arkwright was unfortunate, as there can be little doubt that the evidence given regarding the crank and comb must have influenced the view taken of his claim to have been the inventor of the spinning rollers.[344]
In the effort to refute the claim of Arkwright as the inventor, the important witnesses were Thomas Highs and John Kay. The story has been often told and need not be repeated at length. Briefly stated, Highs was put forward as the real inventor, and Kay as the person from whom Arkwright obtained information of the invention, which he patented in 1769. For some years before 1766 Highs and Kay had lived at Leigh as neighbours, and, according to Guest, in 1763 or 1764 the latter assisted the former in his efforts, already referred to, to construct the spinning-jenny.[345] About 1766 apparently, Highs conceived the idea of spinning by rollers, at any rate, in his evidence, he claimed to have made them in the following year. Kay, by this time, had gone to live at Warrington, where he followed the trade of clockmaking, and Highs employed him to make the wheels necessary to give different velocities to the rollers, and also a model.[346] Another remarkable claim of Highs was that, at this time, he used the rollers not only to spin but to rove as well, which Arkwright did not publicly claim to do until 1775. According to his own statement, however, he did not proceed with the rollers beyond the experimental stage, owing, as he said, to his inability through poverty, nor did he mention the invention for fear of losing it.
In the meantime, Arkwright, who lived at Bolton, is supposed to have heard of Highs’ experiments and to have sought out Kay with the object of obtaining knowledge of them. In his evidence, Kay stated that Arkwright visited him at Warrington in 1767, and that he made two models of Highs’ method of rollers for Arkwright, who took them away. Shortly afterwards he accompanied Arkwright to Preston (where the machinery was brought to a practicable stage), then to Nottingham, remaining in Arkwright’s employment some four or five years. At the end of this time trouble arose between them and they parted more or less as enemies.[347]
Apart from a statement of Highs that Kay’s wife told him of what had passed between her husband and Arkwright, there is only Kay’s testimony, which was not always convincing, to go upon, and clearly under the circumstances he was not likely to err in Arkwright’s favour. On the other hand, it is incredible that the two could have been associated as they were without Highs’ experiments having been mentioned, assuming that he had carried on any experiments. In view of the statements of Highs, this can hardly be doubted: there is nothing to suggest that he was deliberately untruthful. At the same time, this does not prove that Arkwright had not conceived the idea of spinning by rollers before his contact with Kay at Warrington. The difficult point to explain is why Arkwright sought out Kay at all, coupled with the fact that, from this time, he devoted his whole activity to the construction of the spinning-machine. The statement that previously he had been experimenting in mechanics, and that he sought out Kay for some purpose thus connected, does nothing but leave the difficulty unsolved.
The only other scrap of evidence regarding the question as to whether Arkwright did obtain Highs’ invention, was contained in a reference of Highs to a conversation he had with Arkwright at Manchester, when he charged him with having obtained it. Arkwright’s attitude, on this occasion, as described by Highs, was, however, as appropriate to a man with a clear conscience, who had no desire to enter into an unpleasant argument, as to a man who was guilty and wished to evade a charge.[348] One point that may be noticed is that as this conversation was said to have taken place about the time when Highs’ machine was exhibited in the Exchange, the date of the exhibition, as revealed by its advertisement, fixes the conversation one year nearer to the time when Arkwright took out his first patent than has always been supposed. On the side of Highs, the great difficulty is to explain why his claim was allowed to lie so long in abeyance, seeing that he was not without friends in Manchester, men, moreover, who, it may be assumed, would not have been slow to attack Arkwright’s patent had the slightest opportunity been offered.
On the evidence given at the third trial, not only as regards the invention of the rollers, but as regards the other questions at issue, no other decision was possible than one that involved the annulment of Arkwright’s patent, and it was arrived at without hesitation. It does not necessarily follow that the evidence was complete, and on one point, as already noticed, it probably was not. In an application for a new trial, made shortly afterwards, evidence regarding the crank and comb, similar to that obtained by Baines, and from the same source, was mentioned, and also evidence to rebut that given by Kay and Highs. The judges, however, were convinced that there was not sufficient ground for the application and in November, 1785, the patent was cancelled.[349]
After the trial, The Manchester Mercury, in a comment on the evidence, stated that it appeared from it, that the most material engines in Arkwright’s patent for preparing cotton were the cylinder carding-engine and the roving-engine. The first was so old that its origin could not be traced, and improvements had been added to it by Hargreaves, Whittaker, Wood and others, long before Arkwright claimed it. The roving-engine and the spinning-engine were one and the same thing, and the evidence proved that it was invented by Mr. Hayes of Leigh, although Arkwright had enjoyed a monopoly of it for fourteen years, while the real inventor was prevented by poverty from seeking redress.[350]
There is some truth in this view, but certainly not the whole truth. It must be recognised that neither Highs nor Arkwright was the first to conceive the principle of attenuating cotton by the roller-method. That honour undoubtedly belongs to Lewis Paul, and the principle was crudely stated in the specification[351] of the patent he obtained, and embodied in the machinery he constructed, thirty years before either of them had begun to experiment. But how far were these men or either of them indebted to Paul for knowledge of the method? Taking into account the lives and the characters of the two men, Arkwright was more likely to have been acquainted with it than Highs. In his peregrinations about the country he had the opportunity, and with his unbounded push and curiosity it is fairly certain that, if anything could be known of it, Arkwright was the man to know it. Indeed, if Kay’s account of the conversation he had with Arkwright at Warrington may be trusted, he went far to avow the fact.[352]
It cannot be said, of course, that Highs had not heard of the method, but in his case it was less likely and, as mentioned in connection with the jenny, he was just the type of man in whose mind ideas were likely to originate anew.[353] About Arkwright there was not the same suggestion of originality. He was just the type of man, however, who, having got an inkling of Paul’s method, and then gaining a knowledge of Highs’ experiments through Kay, would carry the roller method to a practicable issue. Whether the idea was his own, or whether he was carrying the work of Paul, or Highs, or both, it is certain that it was with Arkwright that the method of spinning by rollers came into use, and of the carding machinery, for which again, as we have seen, some credit was due to Paul, the same may be said.
In certain respects Arkwright was undoubtedly a great man. He became prominent when ideas of invention were fermenting in men’s minds, and even if all that was affirmed at the third trial of the obligations he owed to others were true, somehow, in his hands, their achievements were carried a long step towards perfection, and were collated into a successful system. From the early cotton industry, against great odds, he gained wealth; perhaps that was his supreme aim; even so, what he gained was a trifle compared with the pecuniary value of his achievements. On the whole, perhaps it was just as well that Arkwright’s career as patentee concluded when it did. As we have seen, by 1780 he had several concerns under his control; also, in 1785, he had great schemes on hand in Scotland. Baines informs us that “he contemplated entering into the most extensive mercantile transactions, and buying up all the cotton in the world, in order to make an enormous profit by the monopoly.”[354] Had Arkwright maintained his position for a little longer, his name might have been handed down to posterity, not only in connection with the invention of spinning by rollers, and with the early factory system, but also as the earliest of the great modern Trust magnates.