APOCRYPHAL PASSAGES.

Statements that have at various times been published as matters of fact relating to the personal history of the Marquis of Worcester.

1. The Pot-lid Story.—No account of the Marquis’s great discovery has hitherto been considered complete without relating what is usually offered as a traditional anecdote of its origin. The latest publication, in a popular form, occurs in “A History of Wonderful Inventions,” where its interest is enhanced by a neatly executed engraving. It relates that, at the conclusion of the Civil War, the Marquis “hastened over to France, where, after spending some time at the court of the exiled royal family of England, he returned to this country as their secret agent, but being detected, was confined a prisoner in the Tower.” It is said that during this imprisonment, “while he was engaged one day in cooking his own dinner, he observed the lid of the pot was continually being forced upwards by the vapour of the boiling water contained in the vessel. Being a man of thoughtful disposition, and having, moreover, a taste for scientific investigation, he began to reflect on the circumstance, when it occurred to him that the same power which was capable of raising the iron cover of the pot might be applied to a variety of useful purposes; and on obtaining his liberty, he set to work to produce a practical exposition of his ideas on the subject in the shape of an acting machine, which he described in his work”—the “Century.”

Every writer varies this story in its details. Here the compiler, drawing on his imagination, certifies to the Marquis being his own cook, providing his own dinner, and verifies the pot-lid being of iron. Disraeli and others vaguely state it to have been his meal that was being prepared in his presence, saying nothing whether the pot was brass, copper, or iron. The Tower must have had a large supply of these cooking utensils to meet the wants of its prisoners!

The story reminds one of that of the Three Black Crows related by Addison in The Spectator, for like it this “pot-lid” story may after all have originated in some lecture or conversation, in which the speaker indulged his fancy by venturing the statement as what might appear to him a feasible suggestion, and one calculated to render the matter interesting and impressive. Had it happened at all it must have occurred from 1652 to 1654; but the “pot-lid” story, in another form, was current in 1597, when Lord Bacon, in his Essays, alluding to the origin of Inventions, remarks:—“It should seem, that hitherto men are rather beholding to a wild goat for surgerie, or to a nightingale for music, or to the ibis for some part of physic, or to the pot-lid that flew open for artillery, or generally to chance, or anything else, than to logic for the invention of Arts and Sciences.” The third edition of these Essays was published at Oxford in 1633, and from so popular a source it was natural for the vulgar to take the suggestive idea of the “pot-lid” to account for the origin of the steam engine, rather than to assign the birth of that gigantic production to a natural process of inductive reasoning.

2. Unfounded Charge of Forgery.—Thomas Carte, son of the Rev. Samuel Carte, born in Warwickshire, was baptized there by immersion, 23rd of April, 1686. In 1722, being accused of high treason, he fled to France, but returning in 1728–30, he, in 1735, published the third volume of his “Life of the Duke of Ormonde.” Among other matters, Nichols, in his “Literary Anecdotes,” Vol. IX., 1815, observes: “In an unpublished letter to Dr. Z. Grey, dated May 14, 1736, he says—‘I suppose you have read that volume [the 3rd], and seen there the letters relating to the Earl of Glamorgan, who certainly forged every commission he pretended to from the King.[D] I give you his character in the History very justly, but yet too tenderly drawn, because I am naturally unwilling to lay a load on any man’s memory, except I am absolutely forced to it. I intimate (so strongly that nobody of common sense can mistake the thing) that he forged letters and commissions without number; and I could have produced the compiler of the Nuncio’s memoirs in evidence (who had all those commissions before his eyes, and all the papers signed by Glamorgan to the Nuncio), to prove the commissions and letters he pretended to from King Charles absolutely forged; for he says he was perfectly acquainted with Glamorgan’s secretary, and knew his handwriting as well as his own; and all those commissions and letters were wrote in the hand of an Irish priest, who was Glamorgan’s secretary.’”

After further remarks to the same effect, he concludes, “In fine, I have not the least doubt but that Glamorgan forged every pretended power or commission he had; and all of them so fully express his vanity, and are so adapted to his present views (which in most cases could not arise till after he was in Ireland), that they could have no other author but himself. I must observe to you that this letter, being directed to the Nuncio, is the only original of the King’s writing among his papers (for Glamorgan only gave him copies translated of the others); and whatever commission, or other power, instructions, or letters, Glamorgan pretended to the Nuncio to have from the King, must be in a hand agreeable to that which the Nuncio had as an original.”

The Editor properly notes here: “If Glamorgan only gave copies translated of the other commissions, it is no great wonder that they should be written in his secretary’s hand.”

In the same work is the following inquiry from a correspondent: “I never met with anybody but Mr. Thomas Carte who talked of Impartiality and Mr. Thomas Carte in the same breath. But, waiving that question, I cannot help asking—If the Irish Rebellion, and all the mischiefs of that period, are to be attributed to commissions and powers forged by the soi-disant Earl of Glamorgan, what pretence is there for laying all the load and odium thereof upon the Parliament?”

A thin quarto volume of MSS., in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, entitled “Notes on Carte’s History,” contains a note from Mr. Birch, dated 2nd February, 1742–3, to Rev. Mr. Thomas Carte; also, “The full answer to the Bystander, compared with the History of the Life of James Duke of Ormonde, written by the same author, September, 1742;” likewise several letters from Rev. J. Boswell, Taunton; and lastly, the following MS. letter:—

“Sir,—I am very much concerned to find by your last letter that you have received such a message from Mrs. Carte. I persuade myself she would think me entitled to the greatest civility from her, if she was apprised of the friendship which subsisted between me and her late husband. I took no small pains for several years to serve poor Mr. Carte, and had the satisfaction of such a valuable correspondence with him as entitled him to every good office that I could do him. In 1748 I laid before him The Case of the Royal Martyr considered with candour, and he was so good as to approve of it, and earnestly pressed me to print it. In the course of our correspondence I mentioned some difficulties which I had met with in that work, and particularly in relation to some facts which had been misrepresented in a book entitled An Enquiry into the share which King Charles, &c. Mr. Carte, in a series of letters which he favoured me with on that subject, gave me many valuable Notices, which were of great use to me in clearing up those difficulties, and which I have occasionally availed myself of in many parts of my work. It is likely Mrs. Carte may have found copies of those letters, some of which were very long. But as Mr. Carte first sent them to me professedly with design that I should make what use of them I thought proper, I leave Mrs. Carte to consider, whether her finding such copies of letters in her late husband’s own handwriting will give her a claim to any part of my work which you have printed. If Mrs. Carte shall choose to write to me on this affair, I shall be glad to receive a letter from her directed under cover to you.

I am, yours &c.,

The Author of The Case of the Royal Martyr, &.”

July 25th, 1754.

(It has no direction, and the writing is evidently not that of the Rev. J. Boswell, of Taunton.)

Dr. Birch was at variance with Mr. Carte on historical points relating to Charles the First and the Earl of Glamorgan; but in his “Inquiry,” 1756, he never touches on the subject of this pretended forgery of commissions. The charge is every way discreditable to Carte, being a mere theory of his own to give colour to the King’s representations made in public, although well known to have had no effect to alienate old friendship between the King and the Earl.

3. Fanshawe’s story of £8,000. raised in Ireland. Lady Fanshawe’s Memoirs, 1665, written by herself, were printed in London, 1829. In an introductory memoir we are informed:—

“On receiving orders from his Majesty [Charles II.] to deliver the seals to Lord Inchiquin, Mr. Fanshawe proceeded on his mission, and embarked with his wife at Galway, in February, 1650, on board a Dutch ship for Malaga. Their entry into Galway, (which had been devastated by the plague), is deserving of attention, and an anecdote, which is related of the conduct of the Marquis of Worcester to the merchants of that town, if true, reflects equal disgrace on the cause which he espoused and on his memory.”

Writing in Ireland, about 1650, as appears from the context, Lady Fanshawe says:—“Our house was very clean, only one maid in it besides the master; we had a very good supper provided and being very weary went early to bed. The owner of this house entertained us with the story of the last Marquis of Worcester, who had been there sometime the year before: he had of his own and other friends’ jewels to the value of £8,000, which some merchants had lent upon them. My Lord appointed a day for receiving the money upon them and delivering the jewels; being met, he shows them all to these persons, then seals them up in a box, and delivered them to one of these merchants, by consent of the rest, to be kept for one year, and upon the payment of the £8,000 by my Lord Marquis to be delivered him.

“After my Lord had received the money, he was entertained at all these persons’ houses, and nobly feasted with them near a month: he went from thence to France. When the year was expired, they, by letters into France, pressed the payment of this borrowed money several times, alleging they had great necessity of their money to drive their trade with, to which my Lord Marquis made no answer, which did at last so exasperate these men, that they broke open the seals, and opening the box found nothing but rags and stones for their £8,000, at which they were highly enraged, and in this case I left them.”

The least acquaintance with the character of the Marquis must satisfy any one of the absurdity of this silly story, fastened on a man of stainless honour, by an obscure lodging-house keeper. The man who related it could never have imagined that Lady Fanshawe would place on record the story he was relating for her amusement, as an historical fact, or he might have shown more discretion than her Ladyship, by affording some authority for a statement of so scandalous a character.

4. Pretended interview between the Marquis of Worcester and De Caus in the BicÊtre, Paris.—This fiction was long supported by a forged letter, pretended to have been written in February, 1641, by Marion Delorme, addressed to M. de Cinq-Mars. An exposure of this fable is due to M. Figuier, in his “Principales DÉcouvertes Scientifiques Modernes,” post octavo, 4 volumes, 1862. After quoting the fabricated document, he says:—“Cette piÈce, fabriquÉe par un mystificateur hardi, eut un succÈs prodigieux, et l’on ne manqua pas de dire que le marquis de Worcester, À qui ses compatriotes attribuent la dÉcouverte de la machine À vapeur, en avait puisÉ l’idÉe dans sa conversation avec le fou de BicÊtre. On pouvait cependant Élever contre l’authenticitÉ de cet Écrit quelques objections qui ne manquent pas de soliditÉ. On pouvait faire remarquer, entre autres choses, que Salomon de Caus, mort en 1630, aurait pu difficilement Être enfermÉ en 1641 dans un hÔpital de fous; que BicÊtre Était alors une commanderie de Saint-Louis, oÙ l’on donnait asile À d’anciens militaires, et non un hÔpital;—que Salomon de Caus n’avait jamais pensÉ À construire une machine utilisant les effets mÉchaniques de la vapeur;—enfin qu’il n’avait jamais reÇu que de bons offices de la part de Richelieu puisque dans la dÉdicase de son livre, La practique et dÉmonstration des horloges il exprime sa reconnaissance pour les bontÉs du cardinal. Mais le public n’y regarde pas de si prÈs, et bien de gens ne renoncent pas sans douleur À la bonne fortune historique d’un homme de gÉnie mourant À l’hÔpital. Un sujet si bien trouvÉ revenait de droit aux ouvres de l’imagination et de l’art. On a vu, À l’une des expositions du Louvre, un tableau de l’un de nos peintres, M. Lecurieux, dans lequel Salomon de Caus, enfermÉ À BicÊtre, est reprÉsentÉ les yeux caves et la barbe hÉrissÉe, tendant les mains, À travers les barreux de sa prison, au couple brillant de Marion Delorme et du marquis. La lithographie et la gravure ont consacrÉ À l’envi ce prÉjugÉ historique, le thÉÂtre[E] et de roman l’ont exploitÉ, de telle sorte que l’architecte normand tient aujourd’ hui sa place À cÔtÉ de GalilÉe et de Christophe Colomb sur la liste des hommes de gÉnie persÉcutÉs et mÉconnus. Jusques À quand cette lÉgende de fabrication moderne usurpera-t-elle le titre de fait historique?” [Pages 32, 33.]

5. A Scotch view of the “Century.” In Blackwood’s Magazine, Vol. 6, 1820, p. 655, a correspondent, under the signature of J. C., in an article dated Manchester, February 8, 1820, “On Sir Thomas Urquhart’s Jewell,” declares:—“I have good reason [?] to believe, Sir Thomas was the real author of that singular production, ‘A century of names and scantlings of inventions,’ the credit or discredit of which was dishonestly [?] assumed by the Marquis of Worcester.”

Mr. Hugh Miller, in his “Scenes and Legends of the North of Scotland,” 12mo. Edin. 1835, has enlarged on this speculative view with amusing fervour. He says:—“If intrinsic evidence be allowed to weigh anything, either this little tract [the “Century”] was written by Sir Thomas; or, what is much less probable, the world, nay, the same age and island, have produced two Sir Thomases. Some little weight, too, may be attached to the fact, that many of his manuscripts were lost in the city of Worcester, near which place, judging from the Title, it is probable the Marquis resided [!]; and that the “Century of Names” was not published until 1663, two years after death had disarmed poor Sir Thomas of his sword and his pen, and rendered him insensible to both his country’s honour and his own. If in reality the author of this piece, he must be regarded, it is said, as the prime inventor of the steam engine.”