¹ Schwartz, Hillel, The Culture of the Copy: Striking Likenesses, Unreasonable Facsimiles (New York, 1996)Google Scholar.

² Benjamin, Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations, ed. Arendt, Hannah (New York, 1968), pp 217–52Google Scholar.

³ Schwartz, Culture of the Copy, pp. 211, 140.

⁴ Taylor, W. Cooke, “Copyright in Design,” Art Union 27 (April 1841): 59–60Google Scholar.

⁵ “A Day at a Lancashire Print-Work,” Penny Magazine 12 (July 1843): 289–96, esp. 292Google Scholar.

⁶ Greysmith, David, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection in the Textile Printing Industry, 1787–1850,” Textile History 14, no. 2 (1983): 165–94, esp. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Schwartz, Culture of the Copy, pp. 140, 318.

⁸ Thanks to Kenneth Lipartito for this formulation.

⁹ These words are used in the introduction to The Culture of the Market: Historical Essays, ed. Haskell, Thomas and Teichgraeber, Richard (New York, 1993), pp. 1–39, esp. p. 2Google Scholar. See also Agnew, Jean-Christophe, Worlds Apart: The Market and the Theater in Anglo-American Thought, 1550–1750 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Influential works include the following: Brewer, John and Porter, Roy, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993)Google Scholar; de Grazia, Victoria and Furlough, Ellen, eds., The Sex of Things: Gender and Consumption in Historical Perspective (Berkeley, 1996)Google Scholar; Rappaport, Erika, Shopping for Pleasure: Women in the Making of London's West End (Princeton, N.J., 2000)Google Scholar; Roberts, Mary Louise, “Gender, Consumption, and Community Culture,” American Historical Review 103 (June 1998): 817–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tiersten, Lisa, “Redefining Consumer Culture: Recent Literature on Consumption and the Bourgeoisie in Western Europe,” Radical History Review 57 (Fall 1993): 116–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Walkowitz, Judith R., “Going Public: Shopping, Street Walking, and Street Harassment in Late-Victorian London,” Representations 62 (Spring 1998): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ For an important discussion of this schism and its effects, see Margot Finn, “Working-Class Women and the Contest for Consumer Control in Victorian County Courts,” Past and Present, no. 161 (1998): 116–54.

¹² This phrase is Tim Burke’s. See his Lifebuoy Men, Lux Women: Commodification and Cleanliness in Modern Zimbabwe (Durham, N.C., 1996), pp. 1–15, esp. p. 3, 116Google Scholar.

¹³ Mukerji, Chandra, From Graven Images: Patterns of Modern Materialism (New York, 1983), chaps. 1, 5–6Google Scholar. See also Berg, Maxine, “From Imitation to Invention: Creating Commodities in Eighteenth-Century Britain,” Economic History Review 55 (Winter 2002): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ The literature on the transformation of Europe's material landscape because of interaction with the East is vast. See, e.g., Berg, Maxine, “New Commodities, Luxuries, and Their Consumers in Eighteenth-Century England,” in Consumers and Luxury: Consumer Culture in Europe, 1650–1850, ed. Berg, Maxine and Clifford, Helen (Manchester, 1999), pp. 63–85Google Scholar; Cox, Nancy, The Complete Tradesman: A Study of Retailing (Aldershot, England, 2000), chap. 7Google Scholar; Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth, Consuming Subjects: Women, Shopping, and Business in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1997)Google Scholar; John E. Wills, Jr., “European Consumption and Asian Production in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” in Brewer and Porter, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 133–47.

¹⁵ Lemire, Beverly, Dress, Culture, and Commerce: The English Clothing Trade before the Factory, 1660–1800 (New York, 1997), pp. 6–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fashion's Favorite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660–1800 (Oxford, 1991), chaps. 1, 3Google Scholar.

¹⁶ This fashion craze figures centrally in many discussions of the eighteenth century's consumer revolution. The past twenty years have witnessed a lively historiographical debate over the origins of and motivations for the rise of consumption. Influential discussions include Jean-Christophe Agnew, “Coming Up for Air: Consumer Culture in Historical Perspective,” in Brewer and Porter, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 19–39; Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford, “Introduction,” in Berg and Clifford, eds., Consumers and Luxury: Consumer Culture in Europe, 1650–1850, pp. 1–16; Berg, “New Commodities, Luxuries, and their Consumers”; Campbell, Colin, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Fine, Ben and Leopold, Ellen, “Consumerism and the Industrial Revolution,” Social History 15 (May 1990): 151–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McKendrick, Neil, Brewer, John, and Plumb, J. H., eds., The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England (Bloomington, Ind., 1982)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Berg, “New Commodities, Luxuries, and their Consumers,” pp. 64, 68. Cox, The Complete Tradesman, chap. 7, esp. pp. 198–202.

¹⁸ See McKendrick, “The Consumer Revolution of Eighteenth-Century England,” pp. 9–33, and “The Commercialization of Fashion,” pp. 34–99, both in McKendrick, Brewer, and Plumb, eds., Birth of a Consumer Society.

¹⁹ Erin Mackie notes that the “discourse of fashion” took shape around the turn of the eighteenth century. This, incidentally, coincides with the calico craze. See her Market à la Mode: Fashion, Commodity and Gender in “The Tatler” and “The Spectator” (Baltimore, 1997), pp. 4, 13, 15, 41, 45Google Scholar.

²⁰ On anxiety about feminine consumption during this period, see Kowaleski-Wallace, Consuming Subjects.

²¹ From J. Roberts, The Spinster, as quoted in Turnbull, Geoffrey, A History of the Calico Printing Industry of Great Britain, ed. Turnbull, John G. (Altrincham, England, 1951), p. 21Google Scholar.

²² Defoe, Daniel, Weekly Review, as quoted in Wood, L. S. and Wilmore, A., The Romance of the Cotton Industry in England (London, 1927), p. 46Google Scholar.

²³ Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 165. Domestic woollen manufacturers engaged in a similar rhetorical maneuver when they contrasted “sturdy English woollen cloth” to “effeminate French silk.” See John Styles, “Manufacturing, Consumption, and Design in Eighteenth-Century England,” in Brewer and Porter, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods, pp. 527–54, esp. p. 541.

²⁴ Lemire, Fashion's Favourite, chaps. 1–2; A Calico Printer, A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Lord Althorp (London, 1831), p. 11Google Scholar.

²⁵ On the inefficacy of the laws, see Wills, “European Consumption and Asian Production,” p. 137.

²⁶ Wood and Wilmore, Romance of the Cotton Industry, p. 48.

²⁷ Potter, Edmund, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture (London, 1852), p. 7Google Scholar; Chapman, Sydney J., The Lancashire Cotton Industry: A Study in Economic Development (Manchester, 1904), pp. 49–52Google Scholar; Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection”; Lemire, Fashion's Favourite, chaps. 1–2; Wood and Wilmore, Romance of the Cotton Industry, p. 48.

²⁸ Turnbull, History of the Calico Printing Industry, p. 21. See also Berg, “New Commodities, Luxuries, and their Consumers,” pp. 77–78.

²⁹ O’Brien, George, The British Manufacturer's Companion, and Callico Printer's Assistant (London, 1795), n.pGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ On the cylinder, see A Person Concerned in the Trade, A Complete History of the Cotton Trade (Manchester, 1823), pp. 162–65Google Scholar. For a sense of the inventive activity around the printing trade, see the notices of patents in Newton, W., London Journal of Arts and Sciences; and Repertory of Patent Inventions (London, 1839–43)Google Scholar. See also Styles, John, “What Was New? Georgian Britain, 1714–1837,” in Design and the Decorative Arts: Britain, 1500–1900, ed. Snodin, Michael and Styles, John (London, 2001), pp. 281–307, esp. p. 301Google Scholar.

³¹ Potter, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture, pp. 13–14; Thomson, James, A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Lalor Sheil, on Copyright in Original Designs and Patterns for Printing (Clitheroe, England, 1841), p. 6Google Scholar. On mechanical developments, see also Chapman, Stanley D., “Quantity versus Quality in the British Industrial Revolution: The Case of Printed Textiles,” Northern History 21 (1985): 175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Cotton Industry in the Industrial Revolution, 2d ed. (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Clark, Hazel, “The Design and Designing of Lancashire Printed Calicoes during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Textile History 15, no. 1 (1984): 101–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forty, Adrian, Objects of Desire: Design and Society since 1750 (London, 1986), chap. 3Google Scholar; Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection”; Turnbull, History of the Calico Printing Industry.

³² “A Day at a Lancashire Print-Work,” p. 295.

³³ Chapman, Stanley D. and Chassagne, Serge, European Textile Printers of the Eighteenth Century: A Study of Peel and Oberkampf (London, 1981), p. 78Google Scholar.

³⁴ Farnie, D. A., The English Cotton Industry and the World Market (Oxford, 1979), p. 97Google Scholar. See also Potter, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture, pp. 24, 38; Wills, “European Consumption and Asian Production,” pp. 139–40.

³⁵ See Lemire, Fashion's Favourite, pp. 29–42; Clark, “Design and Designing of Lancashire Printed Calicoes”; Turnbull, History of the Calico Printing Industry, chap. 5.

³⁶ Potter, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture, p. 24.

³⁷ Thomson, James, Notes on the Present State of Calico Printing in Belgium (Clitheroe, England, 1841), p. 21Google Scholar.

³⁸ On the pervasiveness of this practice, see Berg, “From Imitation to Invention,” p. 24; Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 166.

³⁹ O’Brien, British Manufacturer's Companion, n.p.; Thomson, James, Letter to the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., on Copyright in Original Designs and Patterns for Printing (Clitheroe, England, 1841), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Snodin, Michael, “Who Led Taste? Victorian Britain, 1837–1901,” in Snodin, and Styles, , eds., Design and the Decorative Arts, pp. 369–97, esp. p. 369Google Scholar.

⁴¹ House of Commons, Report from the Select Committee on Arts and Manufactures, together with the Minutes of Evidence (London, 1835), pp. 11, 27, 66, 92Google Scholar. Attempts to extend the copyright in 1821 and 1837–38 had failed. See Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 166. Greysmith does not explain why these acts did not succeed, but the dates of each attempt are telling. The former did not enjoy the momentum of the 1835 Select Committee report; the latter initiative proved too early to piggyback on the School of Design.

⁴² Tennent, James Emerson, A Treatise on the Copyright of Designs for Printed Fabrics (London, 1841), p. 18Google Scholar. For a detailed description of the 1839 act, see “Copyrights of Designs,” London Journal of Arts and Sciences and Patent Register 15, no. 92 (1840): 106–16Google Scholar; “Copyright of Designs,” London Journal of Arts and Sciences and Patent Register 16, no. 99 (1840): 95–98Google Scholar. See also Public Record Office (PRO), BT 3/27, Trade Letters, Board of Trade, 3 May 1838.

⁴³ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 61 (1842), col. 675.

⁴⁴ Babbage, Charles, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures (1835; reprint, London, 1993), p. 69Google Scholar. See also Forty, Objects of Desire, p. 55.

⁴⁵ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 51 (1839), col. 1263.

⁴⁶ House of Commons, Report from the Select Committee on Copyright of Designs; Together with the Minutes of Evidence Taken before Them (hereafter SCCD) (1840; reprint, Shannon, Ireland, 1968), pp. 6, 12–13Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ SCCD, pp. 361–62; Tennent, Treatise on the Copyright of Designs, pp. xiv–xv, 1–17, chap. 5.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 518.

⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 100, 108.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 114, 116, 518.

⁵¹ Snodin, “Who Led Taste? Georgian Britain, 1714–1837,” pp. 217–46, esp. pp. 228, 238; Helen Clifford, “The Printed Illustrated Catalogue,” pp. 288–89, both in Snodin and Styles, eds., Design and the Decorative Arts; Kusamitsu, Toshio, “British Industrialization and Design before the Great Exhibition,” Textile History 12 (1981): 77–95, esp. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵² The history of retail culture in this period presents something of a chasm, situated as it is between the eighteenth-century consumer revolution and the later nineteenth-century birth of department stores. Nancy Cox's The Complete Tradesman does a fine job of encapsulating the historiography for the earlier period. On the development of visual practices of display in the eighteenth century and before, see chap. 3 of Cox, coauthored with Clare Walsh, entitled “Shop Design and Sale Techniques.” See also Walsh, 's “Shop Design and the Display of Goods in Eighteenth-Century London,” Journal of Design History 8, no. 5 (1995): 157–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two notable works for the later period, when the department store epitomized consuming modernity, include Rappaport, Shopping for Pleasure, and Walkowitz, “Going Public.” The testimony produced in the design copyright debate suggests that this middle period is one of both continuities and changes in retail culture. On this historiography and its effects, see Finn, Margot, “Sex and the City: Metropolitan Modernities in English History,” Victorian Studies 44 (Autumn 2001): 25–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

⁵³ SCCD, pp. 9, 41, 290, 399.

⁵⁴ Thomson, Letter to Peel, p. 12.

⁵⁵ SCCD, pp. 120–21.

⁵⁶ On Britain as an exporter of machinery, see, e.g., “Machine for Block Printing,” Manchester Guardian (30 January 1841); for instances of shipping printing equipment from London to continental Europe, see PRO, BT 1/337/Bundle N.13, 10 January 1838.

⁵⁷ “Speech of James Emerson Tennent,” Morning Post (30 January 1843), as found in Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), James Emerson Tennent Papers, D2922/C/9/5.

⁵⁸ Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 167; “Obituaries of Eminent Manufacturers: Memoir of the Late James Thomson, F.R.S., of Clitheroe,” Journal of Design and Manufactures 4 (November 1850): 65–72, esp. 65Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Thomson, Letter to Peel, p. 10; “Speech of James Emerson Tennent.” See also Brace, George, Observations on Extension of Protection of Copyright of Designs (London, 1842), p. 3Google Scholar. For discussions of the formation of French national definition around the category of taste, see Auslander, Leora, Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France (Berkeley, 1996)Google Scholar; Walton, Whitney, France at the Crystal Palace: Bourgeois Taste and Artisan Manufacture in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Thomson, Letter to Peel, pp. 4–5, 15, 52–53; Letter to Sheil, pp. 21–23. See also Senior, Nassau William, Lloyd, Samuel Jones, Jackson, William E., and Leslie, John, From the Report of the Commissioners of Hand-Loom Weaving on Improvement of Designs and Patterns and Extension of Copyright (London, 1841)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Scott, Katie, “Art and Industry: A Contradictory Union: Authors, Rights and Copyrights during the Consulat,” Journal of Design History 13, no. 1 (2000): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Most notable here is Colley, Linda's Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, Conn., 1992)Google Scholar.

⁶³ Thanks to Timothy Alborn for suggesting that the advocates of extension were engaged in a process of “self-fashioning.” Stephen Greenblatt developed this notion at length in Renaissance Self Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago, 1980), pp. 1, 6, 9Google Scholar. Greenblatt's arguments that self-fashioning is a “manipulable artful process”; that it engages figures in “their own acts of selection and shaping”; that it happens “in language”; and that it “is achieved in relation to something perceived as alien, strange, or hostile” have been especially helpful.

⁶⁴ SCCD, pp. 161–67, 356.

⁶⁵ Potter, Edmund, A Letter to Mark Philips, Esq., in Reply to His Speech in the House of Commons on the Design Copyright Bill (Manchester, 1841), p. 18Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Augustus Applegath to James Emerson Tennent, 26 January 1843, PRONI, James Emerson Tennent Papers, D2922/C/9/4; SCCD, pp. 106, 161–63, 184–87.

⁶⁷ Ditz, Toby L., “Shipwrecked; or, Masculinity Imperiled: Mercantile Representations of Failure and the Gendered Self in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia,” Journal of American History 81, no. 1 (1994): 51–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ Although Thomson and Potter sought to correlate artisanal structure and good design, they did not necessarily oppose the values of industrialization. Later in his career, Thomson would lead a campaign to extend the hours of children working in print works. When it became clear to him that he would not succeed, he withdrew his support. See “Obituaries of Eminent Manufacturers,” p. 67.

⁶⁹ This line of argument on Potter's behalf is puzzling, for according to David Greysmith, “Potter was one of the first to dispense with block printers altogether” (“Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 183).

⁷⁰ SCCD, pp. 20–23, 33; James Thomson to James Emerson Tennent, 20 May 1840, as printed in SCCD, pp. 493–94. On the persistence of hand labor, see Samuel, Raphael's “The Workshop of the World: Steam Power and Hand Technology in Mid-Victorian Britain,” History Workshop Journal 3 (Spring 1977): 6–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Potter's life and affiliations are well documented in Hurst, J. G., Edmund Potter and Dinting Vale (Manchester, 1948)Google Scholar. See esp. chaps. 3, 5.

⁷² Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. i; see also Manchester Guardian (6 March 1841); SCCD, pp. 113–15, 185, 399, 482.

⁷³ Thomson, Letter to Sheil, pp. 1, 4–5; SCCD, p. 168; see also Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, chap. 2.

⁷⁴ SCCD, pp. 20–23, 33, 493–94.

⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 204–5.

⁷⁶ These phrases are taken from Poovey, Mary's “‘Figures of Arithmetic, Figures of Speech’: The Discourse of Statistics in the 1830s,” Critical Inquiry 19 (Winter 1993): 256–76Google Scholar. See also Poovey, 's Making a Social Body: British Cultural Formation, 1830–1864 (Chicago, 1995), esp. chaps. 1, 3, 6Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ SCCD, pp. 21–22, 493–94.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 458–68, 496–97.

⁷⁹ Timothy Alborn provocatively suggested that I examine the debate in light of Rule's work. See Rule, John, “The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture,” in The Historical Meanings of Work, ed. Joyce, Patrick (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 99–118Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 20.

⁸¹ Coulter, Moureen, Property in Ideas: The Patent Question in Mid-Victorian Britain (Kirksville, Mo., 1991)Google Scholar; Macleod, Christine, Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800 (Cambridge, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Purbrick, Louise, “Knowledge Is Property: Looking at Exhibits and Patents in 1851,” Oxford Art Journal 20 (1997): 53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸² This literature is vast. Some of the most important expositions are Foucault, Michel, “What is an Author?” in Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, ed. Mukerji, Chandra and Schudson, Michael (Berkeley, 1991), pp. 446–64Google Scholar; Poovey, Mary, “The Man-of-Letters Hero: David Copperfield and the Professional Writer,” in her Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago, 1988), pp. 89–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Mark, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar; Ross, Trevor, “Copyright and the Invention of Tradition,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 26 (Fall 1992): 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saunders, David and Hunter, Ian, “Lessons from the ‘Literatory’: How to Historicize Authorship,” Critical Inquiry 17 (Spring 1991): 479–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodmansee, Martha, “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author,’” Eighteenth-Century Studies 17 (Summer 1984): 425–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ See Vanden Bossche, Chris R., “The Value of Literature: Representations of Print Culture in the Copyright Debate of 1837–1842,” Victorian Studies 38 (Autumn 1994): 41–68Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Spedding, James, “Dickens’ American Notes,” Edinburgh Review 76 (January 1843): 497–522, esp. 497, 500Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Tennent is known to posterity as the author of Ceylon: An Account of the Island, Physical, Historical, and Topographical (London, 1859)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Tennent, A Treatise on the Copyright of Designs, pp. 20–21. See also Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 61 (1842), cols. 667–70, 683–84.

⁸⁷ SCCD, pp. 161–63.

⁸⁸ See Hurst, Edmund Potter of Dinting Vale.

⁸⁹ Thomson, Letter to Peel, p. 13. See also Taylor, “Copyright in Design”; Manchester Guardian (6 March 1841).

⁹⁰ Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, p. 9.

⁹¹ Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 1; Manchester Guardian (6 March 1841); Brace, Observations on the Extension of Protection of Copyright of Designs, p. 11. See also SCCD, pp. 113–15, 185, 399, 482.

⁹² SCCD, p. 123.

⁹³ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 51 (1840), cols. 1262, 1265; Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 56 (1841), col. 490; SCCD, pp. 20–23, 31, 33; Thomson, Letter to Peel, pp. 20–21.

⁹⁴ Taylor, “Copyright in Design,” p. 59.

⁹⁵ Hill, Christopher, “Radical Pirates,” in Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, vol. 3, People, and Ideas in Seventeenth-Century England (Amherst, Mass., 1986), 161–87Google Scholar; Ritchie, Robert C., Captain Kidd and the War against the Pirates (Cambridge, 1986), chaps. 1, 10Google Scholar; Turley, Hans, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity (New York, 1999), introduction, chaps. 1–2Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ On English piracy in its seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century heyday, see Hill, Christopher, Radical Politics, Religion, and Literature in Seventeenth-Century England (London, 1990), chap. 1Google Scholar; Senior, C. M., A Nation of Pirates: English Piracy in Its Heyday (Newton Abbott, England, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ “Sigma,” “Social Piracy, or the Rovings, Roamings, Motions, Locomotions, Peregrinations, Pouncings, Maneuvers, and Maraudings, Great Larcenies and Petty Larcenies, of Mr. and Mrs. Hawke,” New Monthly Magazine 72 (September 1844): 1–17Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Potter, Letter to Philips, pp. 14, 17, 22. See also SCCD, pp. 14, 63, 102.

⁹⁹ SCCD, pp. 119–20.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., p. 167.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., pp. 63–67.

¹⁰² See Baines, Edward, History of the Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain (1835; New York, 1966), pp. 284–85Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ This understanding is enabled by Daunton, Martin's “The Material Politics of Natural Monopoly: Consuming Gas in Victorian Britain,” in The Politics of Consumption: Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America, ed. Daunton, Martin and Hilton, Matthew (Oxford, 2001), pp. 69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Daunton notes that the “‘consumer interest’” might be “constructed through rhetorical appeals to represent the consumer or public in a way which masked self interest” (p. 73).

¹⁰⁴ Manchester Guardian (6 March 1841).

¹⁰⁵ Kuchta, David, The Three-Piece Suit and Modern Masculinity: England, 1550–1850 (Berkeley, 2002)Google Scholar. On masculinity and craft production, see McClelland, Keith, “Some Thoughts on Masculinity and the ‘Representative Artisan’ in Britain, 1850–1880,” Gender and History 1, no. 2 (1989): 164–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 174.

¹⁰⁷ [Tennent, James Emerson], Argument Made Easy; or the Whole Art of Answering Yourself: Expounded and Illustrated in the Evidence of James Kershaw (London, 1840)Google Scholar, and The Policy of Piracy as a Branch of National Industry, and a Source of Commercial Wealth: Expounded in the Evidence of Daniel Lee (London, 1840)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” p. 173.

¹⁰⁹ SCCD, pp. 213, 223, 257, 368.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 233, 348 229, 266–68, 289, 332; Brace, Observations on the Extension of Protection of Copyright of Designs, pp. 44–45. See also Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection,” pp. 168–74.

¹¹¹ SCCD, pp. 350–60.

¹¹² Ibid., p. 333.

¹¹³ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 56 (1841), col. 495.

¹¹⁴ SCCD, pp. 310–11, 317, 374–88.

¹¹⁵ Ibid., p. 334.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 284, 390, 398. See also Taylor, “Copyright in Design.”

¹¹⁷ SCCD, pp. 208, 228, 289, 333, 351, 361, 365.

¹¹⁸ Thomson, Letter to Peel, p. 15.

¹¹⁹ Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 20.

¹²⁰ SCCD, p. 351.

¹²¹ Thanks to Gail Bederman for introducing this term into my discussion.

¹²² SCCD, pp. 19, 264; Senior et al., From the Report of the Handloom Weavers, p. 33; Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 7.

¹²³ SCCD, p. 263.

¹²⁴ Schwartz, Culture of the Copy, p. 229.

¹²⁵ SCCD, p. 39.

¹²⁶ Speech of Mark Philips as printed in Potter, Letter to Philips, pp. 3–4. See also SCCD, p. 208.

¹²⁷ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 65 (1842), col. 965.

¹²⁸ SCCD, pp. 32, 419.

¹²⁹ Ibid., pp. 257–58.

¹³⁰ [Tennent], Argument Made Easy, p. 6.

¹³¹ See Schwartz on Reynolds in Culture of the Copy, p. 249.

¹³² Berg, “From Imitation to Invention,” pp. 9–12.

¹³³ SCCD, p. 258.

¹³⁴ Ibid., p. 49.

¹³⁵ Thomson, Letter to Peel, p. 19; SCCD, p. 172.

¹³⁶ Taylor, “Copyright in Design,” p. 59.

¹³⁷ Rule, “Property of Skill,” p. 111.

¹³⁸ Schwartz, Culture of the Copy, pp. 218–19.

¹³⁹ Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, pp. 7–9. For use of organic metaphors in the course of the copyright debate, see Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 11; Potter, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture, pp. 6–7. Baines's rhetorical maneuvers are particularly striking in light of an assertion made by Edward Young in 1757. Young had claimed that originals “grew,” while imitations were “made” or produced by “manufacture.” See Young, , Conjectures on Original Composition (1759; reprint, London, 1918), p. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ SCCD, p. 99; Thomson, Letter to Peel, pp. 18–21, and Letter to Sheil, pp. ii, 8, 17; Potter, Letter to Philips, p. 12.

¹⁴¹ Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 56 (1841), col. 500. This view persisted into the 1860s. See, e.g., The Times (20 February 1862), which discusses trademark forgery: “The English are not an original people. We apply, we improve, we multiply, we facilitate, but we are not inventive in the sense of the French or some other countries” (Archive of Art and Design, London, Newspaper Cuttings, Book 11, Miscellaneous, September 1859–May 1862, p. 351).

¹⁴² SCCD, pp. 153–54, 158, 326; Hay, David Ramsay, An Essay on Ornamental Design (London, 1844), pp. 2, 4Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ Adas, Michael, Machines as the Measure of Men (Ithaca, N.Y., 1989)Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Potter, Calico Printing as an Art Manufacture, pp. 34–37. See also Potter, Edmund, A Letter to One of the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 (London, 1853)Google Scholar; Thomson, Letter to Sheil, p. 11.

¹⁴⁵ “Speech of James Emerson Tennent,” Morning Post (30 January 1843), PRONI, Tennent Papers, D2922/C/9/5.

¹⁴⁶ For a thorough and suggestive examination of these books, see Greysmith, “Patterns, Piracy and Protection.”

¹⁴⁷ For a provocative attempt to grapple with the legacies of the explosion of consumer history, see also Matthew Hilton and Martin Daunton, “Material Politics: An Introduction,” in Daunton and Hilton, eds., The Politics of Consumption, pp. 1–32.

¹⁴⁸ Design history provides an ideal vehicle for integrating production and consumption into the same field of analysis. See Forty, Objects of Desire. For the U.S. case, see Lee Blaszczyk, Regina, Imagining Consumers: Design and Innovation from Wedgwood to Corning (Baltimore, 2000)Google Scholar.