[Footnote 296: Arkwright’s _Case_, p. 99. The _Case_ is quoted in Arkwright’s _Patent Trial_, 25th June 1785.] [Footnote 297: 14 Geo. III., c. 72; also _infra_, p. 197.] 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.” [Footnote 298: Espinasse, _ibid._, p. 325.] 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] [Footnote 299: Baines, _ibid._, p. 162.]