[Footnote 338: Was it _generally_ known in Manchester that an action was pending or were the manufacturers over-confident? So far as newspaper notices were concerned, the activity which preceded the first and the third trials was absent. Two days before the action was tried _The Manchester Mercury_, which could not be accused of favour to Arkwright, contained the following paragraph: “Rd. Arkwright, Esq., has established a Sunday school at Cromford, in Derbyshire, which already consists of two hundred children. Pleasing it is to the friends of humanity, when power like his is so happily united with the will to do good!” (15th February 1785).] [Footnote 339: _Manchester Mercury_, 1st March 1785.] 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] [Footnote 340: _Ibid._ Espinasse, _ibid._, 449 _et seq._ Robert Owen, _Autobiography_, i., p. 56.] 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.