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. [Footnote 325: Espinasse, _ibid._, pp. 428-431.] [Footnote 326: _Trial_, 25th June 1785, p. 100.] [Footnote 327: _Ibid._, p. 102. _J.H.C._, xxxviii., p. 687.] 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. [Footnote 328: _Manchester Mercury_, 12th February 1782. _J.H.C._, xxxviii., p. 865.] [Footnote 329: _Manchester Mercury_, 16th April 1782.] [Footnote 330: _Ibid._, 11th February 1783.]