[70] General T. Perronet Thompson is another remarkable instance of a person without ear for music, who has mastered the principles of harmony and applied them in the invention of his “Enharmonic Organ.”

[71] Watt seems to have made other organs besides those above mentioned. Not long since a barrel-organ of his construction was offered for sale at Glasgow. It was originally in the form of a table, about three feet square, having no appearance of a musical instrument externally. At this table, when Watt and his friends were seated, he would set the concealed mechanism in action, and surprise them with the production of the music. It has since been mounted with an organ front and sides, with gilt pipes. When in proper tune it is of considerable power and pleasing harmony; and continues orthodox in its psalm tunes, which range from “Martyrs” to the “Old Hundred.” A correspondent writes as follows:—“A large organ made and used by Watt when he had his shop in Glasgow, was disposed of by him, when he finally left this city. It came into the possession of the late Mr. Archibald M‘Lellan, coach-builder, Miller Street, Glasgow, and he had it fitted up in his elegant residence in that fine old street. I have heard it played by Mr. M‘Lellan. After his death it was sold, and purchased by Mr. James G. Adam of the Denny print-works. Mr. Adam died, and the organ was advertised for sale, in 1864, and purchased for 10l., by Adam Sim, Esq., of Coulter Mains, in whose possession it now is. Mr. Sim has authentic documents to prove that this organ was really James Watt’s.”

[72] The club he frequented was called the Anderston Club, of which Mr. (afterwards Professor) Millar, Dr. Robert Simson, the mathematician, Dr. Adam Smith, Dr. Black, and Dr. Cullen, were members. The standing dish of the club was hen-broth, consisting of a decoction of “how-towdies” (fowls), thickened with black beans, and seasoned with pepper. Dr. Strang says Professor Simson was in the habit of counting the steps from his house to the club, so that he could tell the distance to the fraction of an inch. But it is not stated whether he counted the steps on his return, and found the number of steps the same.

[73] John Anderson was a native of Greenock, and an intimate friend of James Watt. He was appointed professor of Hebrew in his twenty-seventh year, and succeeded Dr. Dick as professor of Natural Philosophy in 1757. Watt spent many of his evenings at his residence within the College, and had the free use of his excellent private library. Professor Anderson is entitled to the honour of being the first to open classes for the instruction of working men—“anti-toga classes,” as he called them—in the principles of Natural Philosophy; and at his death he bequeathed his property for the purpose of founding an institution with the same object. The Andersonian University was opened in 1796, long before the age of Mechanics’ Institutes.

[74] At a meeting held in Glasgow in 1839 to erect a monument to Watt, Dr. Ure observed:—“As to the latent heat of steam,” said Mr. Watt to me, “it was a piece of knowledge essential to my inquiries, and I worked it out myself in the best way that I could. I used apothecaries’ phials for my apparatus, and by means of them I got approximations sufficient for my purpose at the time.” The passage affords a striking illustration of the large results that may be arrived at by means of the humblest instruments. In like manner Cavendish, when asked by a foreigner to be shown over his laboratories, pointed to an old tea-tray on the table, containing a few watch-glasses, test papers, a balance, and a blowpipe, and observed, “There is all the laboratory I possess.”

[75] Watt’s notes to Robison’s Articles on ‘Steam and Steam-engines.’

[76] The following advertisement in the ‘Glasgow Journal’ of the 1st Dec., 1763, fixes the date of this last removal:—

[77] About the site of the Humane Society’s House.

[78] Mr. Robert Hart’s ‘Reminiscences of James Watt,’ in ‘Transactions of the Glasgow ArchÆological Society, 1859.’

[79] “The last step of all,” says Professor Jardine, “was more difficult—the forming of the separate condensing vessel. The great knowledge he had acquired of the mechanical powers enabled him to construct it, but I have often heard him say this was a work of great difficulty, and that he met with many disappointments before he succeeded. I have often made use of this beautiful analysis received from Mr. Watt, in another department in which I have been long engaged, to illustrate and encourage the progress of genius in youth, to show, that once in possession of a habit of attention, under proper direction, it may be carried from one easy step to another, till the mind becomes qualified and invigorated for uniting and concentrating effort—the highest exertion of genius.”

[80] “I have now (April, 1765) almost a certainty of the facturum of the fire-engine, having determined the following particulars: The quantity of steam produced; the ultimatum of the lever engine; the quantity of steam destroyed by the cold of its cylinder; the quantity destroyed in mine; and if there be not some devil in the hedge, mine ought to raise water to 44 feet with the same quantity of steam that theirs does to 32 (supposing my cylinder as thick as theirs), which I think I can demonstrate. I can now make a cylinder 2 feet diameter and 3 feet high, only a 40th of an inch thick, and strong enough to resist the atmosphere; sed tace. In short, I can think of nothing else but this machine.”—Watt to Dr. Lind, quoted in Muirhead’s ‘Life of Watt,’ 94–5.

[81] For Memoir of Roebuck, see ‘Industrial Biography,’ p. 133.

[82] When we visited the place many years ago, Miss Stewart’s spinnet still stood in the drawing-room, but there was not a tone left in it. Like many other old houses, Kinneil has the reputation of being haunted. The ghost is that of a “Lady Lilburne,” wife of the Parliamentary General, who is said to have thrown herself out of one of the windows during her husband’s absence.

[83] Dr. Small was born in 1734 at Carmylie, Angus, Scotland, of which parish his father was the minister. He had been for some time the professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Williamsburg, Virginia, from whence he returned to England and settled at Birmingham.

[84] “I have,” he writes, “just now got a curious book, being an account of all the machines, furnaces, methods of working, profits, &c., of the mines of the Upper Hartz. It is unluckily in German, which I understand little of, but am improving in by the help of a truly Chymical Swiss Dyer, who is come here to dye standing red on linen and cotton, in which he is successful. He is according to the custom of philosophers ennuyÉ to a great degree, but seems to be more modest than is usual with them; and, what is still more unusual, is attached only to his dyeing, though he has a tolerable knowledge of chymestry. He promises to make me a coat that will not wet though boiled in water. This would be of great use to a hundred people I see just now running by, wet to the skin.... I verily believe the drops are an inch in diameter! To return to the book—it contains an account of all the unsuccessful experiments that have been tried in the Hartz, and I assure you it gives me some consolation to see the great Liebnitz, the rival of Newton, bungling repeatedly, applying wind mills to raise ore while water ran idle past him. There is among other machines the fellow of Blackie’s, only worked by water, and a full and true account of why it did not succeed, which he should read. Their machines in general display great ingenuity though ignorance of principles.”—Watt to Small, May 28, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[85] “I mentioned to you a method of still doubling the effect of the steam, and that tolerably easy, by using the power of steam rushing into a vacuum, at present lost. This would do a little more than double the effect, but it would too much enlarge the vessels to use it all. It is peculiarly applicable to wheel engines, and may supply the want of a condenser where force of steam is only used; for, open one of the steam valves and admit steam, until one-fourth of the distance between it and the next valve is filled with steam, shut the valve, and the steam will continue to expand and to press round the wheel with a diminishing power, ending in one-fourth of its first exertion. The sum of this series you will find greater than one-half, though only one-fourth steam was used. The power will indeed be unequal, but this can be remedied by a fly, or in several other ways.”—Watt to Small, 28th May, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[86] He anticipated the use of high-pressure steam, as afterwards employed in the locomotive by Trevithick, in the following passage:—“I intend,” he said, “in many cases to employ the expansive force of steam to press on the piston, or whatever is used instead of one, in the same manner as the weight of the atmosphere is now employed in common fire-engines. In some cases I intend to use both the condenser and this force of steam, so that the powers of these engines will as much exceed those pressed only by the air, as the expansive power of the steam is greater than the weight of the atmosphere. In other cases, when plenty of cold water cannot be had, I intend to work the engines by the force of steam only, and to discharge it into the air by proper outlets after it has done its office.”—Watt to Small, March, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[87] Mr. Hart’s “Reminiscences of James Watt,” in ‘Transactions of the Glasgow ArchÆological Society,’ Part I. 1859.

[88] The telescope was mounted with two parallel horizontal hairs in the focus of the eyeglass, crossed by one perpendicular hair. The measuring pole was divided into feet and inches, so that, wrote Watt, “if the hairs comprehend one foot at one chain distance, they will comprehend ten feet at ten chains,” and so on. This invention Watt made in 1770, and used the telescope in his various surveys. Eight years later, in 1778, the Society of Arts awarded to a Mr. Green a premium for precisely the same invention.

[89] Letter to Small, 24th Nov. 1772. Watt, however, took no steps to bring this invention before the public, and in 1777, a similar instrument having been invented by Dr. Maskelyne, was presented by him to the Royal Society. Thus Watt also lost the credit of this invention.

[90] The Company afterwards came to grief. The original subscription list was not filled up, and the stagnation in trade which took place at the outbreak of the American war, brought the works to a standstill. In 1782 the concern was sold to the Messrs. Stirling, who eventually became the sole proprietors and finished the undertaking.

[91] There was then a ford at Dumbuck, a few miles below Glasgow, which prevented boats of more than ten tons burden ascending to the Broomielaw. This was shortly after removed by the Clyde Trust, who have expended 3,564,397l. in improvement of the navigation between 1770 and 1863, the revenue collected during the same time in dues having been 2,288,000l. Vessels drawing 21 feet can now ascend to the Broomielaw; and when the present improvements are completed the depth at high water is expected to be upwards of 24 feet.

[92] Watt to Small, 21st Dec. 1770. Boulton MSS.

[93] The bridge was partially destroyed by a flood in 1806, when one of the central piers was thrown down. Two of the arches fell, and were rebuilt, but the others stand as originally constructed.

[94] The child was stillborn. Of four other children who were the fruit of this marriage, two died young. A son and daughter survived; the son, James, succeeded his father, and died unmarried, at Aston Hall, near Birmingham, in 1848. The daughter married Mr. Miller, of Glasgow, whose grandson, the present J. W. Gibson Watt, Esq., succeeded to the Watt property.

[95] There seems reason to believe that the capacity for skilled industry is to a certain extent transmissible; and that the special aptitude for mechanics which characterises the population of certain districts, is in a great measure the result of centuries of experience, transmitted from one generation to another. Mr. Morell takes the same view: “We have every reason to believe,” he says, “that the power of specialised instincts is transmitted, and when the circumstances favour it, goes on increasing from age to age in intensity, and in a particular adaptation to the purposes demanded. All confirmed habits which become a part of the animal nature, seem to be imparted by hereditary descent; and thus what seems to be an original instinct may, after all, be but the accumulated growth and experience of many generations.”

[96] For Memoir of Huntsman, see ‘Industrial Biography,’ 102–110.

[97] While on Snow-hill, Mr. Boulton’s business was principally confined to the making of buttons, shoe-buckles, articles in steel, and various kinds of trinkets. His designation was that of “toymaker,” as is shown by the following document copied from the original:—“Received of Matthew Boulton, toymaker, Snow-hill, three shillings and sixpence, for which sum I solemnly engage, if he should be chosen by lot to serve in the militia for this parish, at the first meeting for that purpose, to procure a substitute that shall be approved of. Birmingham, January 11, 1762, Henry Brookes, Sergt.” The Birmingham toymaker was, however, often a man doing a large business, producing articles of utility as well as ornament. Mr. Osler, the Birmingham manufacturer of glass beads and other toys, when examined before a Committee of the House of Commons many years since, astonished the members by informing them that trifling though dolls’ eyes might appear to be as an article of manufacture, he had once obtained an order for 500l. worth of the article. “Eighteen years ago,” said he, “on my first going to London, a respectable-looking man in the city asked me if I could supply him with dolls’ eyes; and I was foolish enough to feel half offended; I thought it derogatory to my dignity as a manufacturer to make dolls’ eyes. He took me into a room quite as wide, and perhaps twice the length of this, and we had just room to walk between the stacks, from the floor to the ceiling, of parts of dolls. He said, ‘These are only the legs and the arms; the trunks are below.’ But I saw enough to convince me, that he wanted a great many eyes.... He ordered various quantities, and of various sizes and qualities. On returning to the Tavistock Hotel, I found that the order amounted to upwards of 500l.... Calculating on every child in this country not using a doll till two years old, and throwing it aside at seven, and having a new one annually, I satisfied myself that the eyes alone would produce a circulation of a great many thousand pounds. I mention this merely to show the importance of trifles.”—Babbage, ‘Economy of Machinery and Manufactures,’ 243–5.

[98] Mr. Boulton afterwards purchased the fee simple of the property, together with much of the adjoining land. The nature of his tenure caused him to take a lively interest in the question of common lands enclosure, and at a much later period (17th April, 1790) we find him writing to the Right Hon. Lord Hawkesbury as follows:—“The argument of robbing the poor [by enclosures of wastes] is fallacious. They have no legal title to the common land; and the more of it that is cultivated, the more work and the more bread there will be for them. I speak from experience; for I founded my manufactory upon one of the most barren commons in England, where there existed but a few miserable huts filled with idle beggarly people, who by the help of the common land and a little thieving made shift to live without working. The scene is now entirely changed. I have employed a thousand men, women, and children, in my aforesaid manufactory for nearly thirty years past. The Lord of the Manor hath exterminated these very poor cottages, and hundreds of clean comfortable cheerful houses are found erected in their place. Thus the inhabitants of the parish have been trebled without at all increasing the poor levies. I am more confirmed in this view when I turn my eyes to a neighbouring parish (Sutton Colefield), where there are 10,000 acres of common land uncultivated, and yet the poor rates are very high. Let this land be divided, enclosed, cultivated, and rendered saleable to active, industrious, and spirited men; and the poor will then have plenty of work, and the next generation of them will be fully reconciled to earning their bread instead of begging for it.”—Boulton MSS.

[99] Mr. Keir, in a MS. memoir of Mr. Boulton now before us, says he was the first to introduce the silver plate business at Birmingham, and to make complete services in solid silver. But the business was not profitable, in consequence of the great value of the material, the loss of interest upon which was not compensated by the additional price put upon it for workmanship. One good consequence of the silver plate business, however, was the establishment of an assay office in Birmingham, the necessary Act for which was obtained at Mr. Boulton’s expense, and proved of much advantage to the town.

[100] “If, in the course of your future travelling,” he wrote Mr. Wendler (July, 1767), “you can pick up for me any metallic ores or fossil substances, or any other curious natural productions, I should be much obliged to you, as I am fond of all those things that have a tendency to improve my knowledge in mechanical arts, in which my manufactory will every year become more and more general, and therefore wish to know the taste, the fashions, the toys, both useful and ornamental, the implements, vessels, &c., that prevail in all the different parts of Europe, as I should be glad to work for all Europe in all things that they may have occasion for—gold, silver, copper, plated, gilt, pinchbeck, steel, platina, tortoiseshell, or anything else that may become an article of general demand. I have lately begun to make snuff-boxes, instrument-cases, tooth-picks, &c., in metal, gilt, and in tortoiseshell inlaid, likewise gilt and pinchbeck watch-chains. We are now being completely fixed at Soho, and when Mr. Fothergill returns (which will not be for six months), I shall then have more time to attend to improvements than I have at present.”—Boulton MSS.

[101] Boulton to Wedgwood, January, 1769.—Wedgwood was one of his most intimate friends; the two alike aiming at excellence in their respective branches of production. Their kindred efforts seem to have excited the ire of some satirist, whose effusion against them in the ‘Public Ledger’ is thus referred to in the postscript of a letter from Wedgwood to Boulton, dated 19th February, 1771:—“If you take in the ‘Public Ledger’ you’ll see that Mr. Antipuffado has done me the honour to rank me with the most stupendous geniuses of the age, and has really cut me up very cleanly. He talks, too, that he should not wonder if some surprising genius at Birmingham should be tempted to make Roman medals and tenpenny nails, or Corinthian knives and daggers, and style himself Roman medal and Etruscan tenpenny nail-maker to the Empress of Abyssinia. But see the paper: I believe it is the first week in February, and is one of the better sort of this class.”—Boulton MSS.

[102] The clocks, with several other articles, were sent out to Russia, and submitted to the Empress through the kindness of Earl Cathcart. His lordship, in communicating the result to Mr. Boulton, said—“I have the pleasure to inform you that her Imperial Majesty not only bought them all, last week, but did me the honour to tell me that she was extremely pleased with them, and thought them superior in every respect to the French, as well as cheaper, which entitled them in all lights to a preference.”

[103] Pet names of his two children, Matthew Robinson and Anne Boulton.

[104] These letters are without date, but we infer that they were written in the summer of 1767.

[105] Boulton to the Duke of Richmond, April 8, 1770. The Duke was engaged at the time in preparing a set of machines for making the various experiments in Natural Philosophy described in S’Gravande’s book. The Duke was himself a good turner and worker in metal.

[106] The manufactory was complete so far as regarded the hardware manufacture. But additions were constantly being made to it; and, as other branches of industry were added, it became more than doubled in extent and accommodation.

[107] Boulton to John Taylor, 23rd January, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[108] When the canal came to be constructed at the point at which it passed Soho, it occasioned him great anxiety through the leakage of the canal banks and loss of water for the purposes of his manufactory. The supply, especially in dry summers, was already too limited; but the canal threatened to destroy it altogether. Writing to Mr. Thomas Gilbert, M.P., on the subject in February, 1769, he said, “The very holes which Mr. Smeaton hath dug to try the ground, drink up the water nearly as fast as you can pour it in.... Let Smeaton or Brindley, or all the engineers upon earth give what evidence they will before Parliament, I am convinced by last summer’s experience that if the proprietors of the canal continue to take the two streams on which my mill depends, it is ruined. I might as well have built it upon the summit of the hill.” After the act had passed he wrote his friend Garbett, “I have seen the testimony of the two engineers, Smeaton and Yeoman, but I value the opinions of neither of them, nor of Brindley nor Simcox (in this case), nor of the whole tribe of jobbing ditchers, who are retained as evidence on any side which first applies for them.” His alarms, however, proved unfounded, as the leakage of the canal was eventually remedied; and in November, 1772, we find him writing to the Earl of Warwick, “Our navigation goes on prosperously; the junction with the Wolverhampton Canal is complete; and we already sail from Birmingham to Bristol and to Hull.”—Boulton MSS.

[109] Among Boulton’s scientific memoranda, we find some curious speculations, bearing the date of 1765, relative to improvements which he was trying to work out in gunnery. He proposed the truer boring of the guns, the use of a telescopic sight, and a cylindrical shot with its end of a parabolic form as presenting in his opinion the least resistance to the air.

[110] On the 22nd May, 1765, Franklin writes Boulton,—“Mr. Baskerville informs me that you have lately had a considerable addition to your fortune, on which I sincerely congratulate you. I beg leave to introduce my friend Doctor Small to your acquaintance, and to recommend him to your civilities. I would not take this freedom, if I were not sure it would be agreeable to you; and that you will thank me for adding to the number of those who from their knowledge of you must respect you, one who is both an ingenious philosopher and a most worthy honest man. If anything new in magnetism or electricity, or any other branch of natural knowledge, has occurred to your fruitful genius since I last had the pleasure of seeing you, you will by communicating it greatly oblige me.”

[111] Franklin to Boulton, March 19, 1766. Boulton MSS.

[112] Darwin to Boulton, March 11, 1766. Boulton MSS.

[113] The following passage occurs in his letter:—“Suppose one piston up, and the vacuum made under it by the jet d’eau froid. That piston cannot yet descend, because the cock is not yet opened which admits the steam into its antagonist cylinder. Hence the two pistons are in equilibrio, being either of them pressed by the atmosphere. Then, I say, if the cock which admits the steam into the antagonist cylinder be opened gradually and not with a jerk, that the first mentioned [piston in the] cylinder will descend gradually and yet not less forcibly. Hence by the management of the steam cocks the motion may be accelerated, retarded, destroyed, revived, instantly and easily. And if this answers in practice as it does in theory, the machine cannot fail of success! Eureka!”

[114] Small wrote Watt from Birmingham, on the 7th January, 1768:—“Our friend Boulton will by this post send letters both to you and Dr. Roebuck. I know not well how to resolve without seeing you. I have not the pleasure of being enough acquainted with Dr. R. to judge whether we should all suit one another. His integrity and generosity everybody agrees are great. You certainly know the proposal he has made to Boulton, who will tell you his determination about it. Before I knew of your connexion with Dr. R. my idea was that you should settle here, and that Boulton and I should assist you as much as we could, which in any case we will most certainly do. I have no kind of doubt of your success, nor of your acquiring fortune, if you proceed upon a proper plan as to the manner of doing business; which, if you do, you will be sole possessor of the affair even after your patent has expired. I had not thoroughly considered this part of the matter when you left me. In a partnership that I liked, I should not hesitate to employ any sum of money I can command on your scheme, and I am certain it may be managed with only a moderate capital. Whether it would be possible to manage the wheel and reciprocating engines by separate partnerships without their interfering I am not certain. If it is, Boulton and I would engage with you in either, provided you will live here.”—Boulton MSS.

[115] Watt to Small, January 28, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[116] Small to Watt, 18th April, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[117] Roebuck was at this time willing to admit Boulton as a partner in the patent, but only as respected the profits of engines sold in the counties of Warwick, Stafford, and Derby. This Boulton declined, saying, “It would not be worth my while to make engines for three counties only; but it might be worth my while to make for all the world.”

[118] Watt to Small, 28th April, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[119] Watt to Small, 20th September, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[120] “I am really very sorry on my own account,” he wrote, “that your engagements hinder you from entering into our scheme, for that ought to be the result of your deliberation. Though there are few things I have wished more for than being connected with you on many accounts, yet I should be very loath to purchase that pleasure at the expense of your quiet, which might be the case if you involved yourself in more business than you could easily manage, or, what is worse, find money for. Besides, this is not a trade, but a project; and no man should risk more money on a project than he can afford to lose.”—Watt to Small, 21st October, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[121] Watt to Small, 20th September, 1769.

[122] Small informed Watt that it was intended to make an engine for the purpose of drawing canal boats. “What Mr. Boulton and I,” he wrote, “are very desirous of is, to move canal boats by this engine; so we have made this model of a size sufficient for that purpose. We propose first to operate without any condenser, because coals are here exceedingly cheap, and because you can, more commodiously than we, make experiments on condensers, having several already by you. Above 150 boats are now employed on these new waveless canals, so if we can succeed, the field is not narrow.” This suggestion of working canal boats by steam immediately elicited a reply from Watt on the subject. Invention was so habitual to him that a new method of employing power was no sooner hinted than his active mind at once set to work to solve the problem. “Have you ever,” he wrote Small, “considered a spiral oar for that purpose, or are you for two wheels?” And to make his meaning clear, he sketched out a rough but graphic outline of a screw propeller. Small’s reply was unfavourable: he replied, “I have tried models of spiral oars, and have found them all inferior to oars of either of the other forms; I believe because a cylinder of water immersed in water can be easily turned round its own axis. We propose to try gun-lock springs with the fixed part longer than the moving. If we cannot succeed, we will have recourse to what you have so obligingly and clearly described.” Finally Watt writes a fortnight later, “concerning spirals, I do not continue fond of them.”

[123] Roebuck to Boulton, February 12, 1770.

[124] Small to Watt, 17th September, 1770. Boulton MSS.

[125] Watt to Small, 20th October, 1770. Boulton MSS.

[126] He then held an eighth share in the pottery, which brought him in about 70l. a year clear.

[127] Watt to Small, 30th August, 1772. Boulton MSS.

[128] Small to Watt, 16th November, 1772. Boulton MSS.

[129] About this time, in order to bring himself and his engine into notice, Watt contemplated writing a treatise on steam and its applications. “I have some thoughts,” he wrote to Small, “of writing a book on the elements of the theory of steam-engines, in which, however, I shall only give the enunciation of the perfect engine. This book might do me and the scheme good. It would still leave the world in the dark as to the true construction of the engine. Something of this kind is necessary, as Smeaton is labouring hard at the subject, and if I can make no profit, at least I ought not to lose the honour of my experiments.”—Watt to Small, 17th August, 1773. Boulton MSS. To this letter Small replied, “The more I consider the propriety of your publishing about steam, the more I wish you to publish. Smeaton has only trifled hitherto, though he may perhaps discover something. He told Boulton some time ago that the circular engine would not do. He said he had considered it, and was sure of this. As B. does not much respect his genius, this had no effect.” Watt’s treatise was, however, never written; his attention being shortly after fully occupied by other and more engrossing subjects.

[130] Boulton to Watt, 29th March, 1773. Boulton MSS.

[131] “As I found the engine at Kinneil perishing, and as it is from circumstances highly improper that it should continue there longer, and as I have nowhere else to put it, I have this week taken it to pieces and packed up the ironwork, cylinder, and pump, ready to be shipped for London on its way to Birmingham, as the only place where the experiments can be completed with propriety. I suppose the whole will not weigh above four tons. I have left the whole of the woodwork until we see what we are to do.”—Watt to Small, 20th May, 1773. Boulton MSS.

[132] In a letter to Small, Watt wrote, “I begin now to see daylight through the affairs that have detained me so long, and think of setting out for you in a fortnight at furthest. I am monstrously plagued with my headaches, and not a little with unprofitable business. I don’t mean my own whims: these I never work at when I can do any other thing; but I have got too many acquaintances; and there are too many beggars in this country, which I am afraid is going to the devil altogether. Provisions continue excessively dear, and laws are made to keep them so. But luckily the spirit of emigrating rises high, and the people seem disposed to show their oppressive masters that they can live without them. By the time some twenty or thirty thousand more leave the country, matters will take a turn not much to the profit of the landholders.”—Watt to Small, 29th April, 1774. Boulton MSS.

[133] Watt to Small, 25th July, 1773. Boulton MSS.

[134] Mr. Edgeworth was first introduced to the notice of Mr. Boulton in the following letter from Dr. Darwin (1767):—“Dear Boulton, I have got with me a mechanical friend, Mr. Edgeworth, from Oxfordshire,—the greatest conjurer I ever saw. God send fine weather, and pray come to my assistance, and prevail on Dr. Small and Mrs. Boulton to attend you to-morrow morning, and we will reconvey you to Birmingham if the devil permit. E. has the principles of nature in his palm, and moulds them as he pleases,—can take away polarity, or give it to the needle by rubbing it thrice on the palm of his hand! And can see through two solid oak boards without glasses! Wonderful! astonishing!! diabolical!!! Pray tell Dr. Small he must come to see these miracles. Adieu, E. Darwin.”

[136] Dr. Roebuck proposed to confine Boulton’s profits to the engine business done only in three counties. It will be observed that Boulton declined to negotiate on such a basis.

[137] Boulton to Watt, 7th February, 1769. Boulton MSS.

[138] In a statement prepared by Mr. Boulton for the consideration of the arbitrators between himself and Fothergill as to the affairs of that firm, the following passage occurs:—“The first engine that was erected at Soho I purchased of Mr. Watt and Dr. Roebuck. The cylinder was cast of solid grain tin, which engine, with the boiler, the valves, the condenser, and the pumps, were all sent from Scotland to Soho. This engine was erected for the use of the Soho manufactory, and for the purpose of making experiments upon by Mr. Watt, who occupied two years of his time at Soho with that object: and lived there at Mr. Boulton’s expense. Nevertheless Mr. Watt often assisted Boulton and Fothergill in anything in his power, and made one journey to London upon their business, when he worked at adjusting and marking weights manufactured by Boulton and Fothergill.” In another statement of a similar kind, Mr. Boulton says,—“The only fire-engine that was erected at Soho prior to Boulton and Watt obtaining the Act of Parliament, was entirely made and erected in Scotland, and was removed here by sea, being a part of my bargain with Roebuck. All that were afterwards erected were for persons that ordered them, and were at the expense of erecting them.”—Boulton MSS.

[139] Quoted in Muirhead’s ‘Mechanical Inventions of James Watt,’ ii. 79.

[140] Watt to Boulton, 31st January, 1775. Boulton MSS.

[141] Bonds were given for the 1000l., but the assignees of Roebuck becoming impatient for the money, Boulton discharged them to get rid of their importunity, long before any profits had been derived from the manufacture of the engines.

[142] John Wilkinson, the “father of the iron-trade” as he styled himself, was a man of extraordinary energy of character. He was strong-headed and strong-tempered and of inflexible determination. His father, Isaac Wilkinson, who originally started the iron trade at Wrexham, was a man possessed of quick discernment and versatile talents, though he wanted that firmness and constancy of purpose which so eminently distinguished his son. Isaac Wilkinson used thus to tell his own history:—“I worked,” said he, “at a forge in the north. My masters gave me 12s. a week: I was content. They raised me to 14s.: I did not ask them for it. They went on to 16s., 18s.: I never asked them for the advances. They gave me a guinea a week! Said I to myself, if I am worth a guinea a week to you, I am worth more to myself! I left them, and began business on my own account—at first in a small way. I prospered. I grew tired of my leathern bellows, and determined to make iron ones. Everybody laughed at me. I did it, and applied the steam-engine to blow them; and they all cried, ‘Who could have thought it!’” His son John carried on the operations connected with the iron manufacture on a far more extensive scale than his father at Bradley, Willey, Snedshill, and Bersham. His castings were the largest until then attempted, and the boring machinery which he invented was the best of its kind. All the castings for Boulton and Watt’s large Cornish engines were manufactured by him, previous to the erection of the Soho foundry. He also bored cannon for the government on a large scale. Amongst his other merits, John Wilkinson is clearly entitled to that of having built the first iron vessel. It was made to bring peat-moss to his iron furnace at Wilson House, near Castle Head, in Cartmel, in order to smelt the hematite iron-ore of Furness. This was followed by other larger iron vessels, one of which was of 40 tons burden, and used to carry iron down the Severn. Before Wilkinson’s first iron boat was launched, people laughed at the idea of its floating,—as it was so well known that iron immediately sank in water! In a letter to Mr. Stockdale, of Carke, Cartmel, the original of which is before us, dated Broseley, 14th July, 1787, Mr. Wilkinson says, “Yesterday week my iron boat was launched,—answers all my expectations, and has convinced the unbelievers, who were 999 in 1000. It will be only a nine days’ wonder, and afterwards a Columbus’s egg.” In another letter, dated Bradley Iron Works, 24th Oct., 1788, he writes to the same,—“There have been two iron vessels launched in my service since 1st September. One is a canal-boat for this navigation, the other a barge of 40 tons, for the river Severn. The last was floated on Monday, and is, I expect, now at Stourport, a-lading with bar-iron. My clerk at Broseley advises me that she swims remarkably light, and exceeds even my own expectations.” For further notice of John Wilkinson, see ‘Lives of the Engineers,’ ii. 337, 356.

[143] Boulton to Watt, 24th February, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[144] Watt was himself occupied, during his temporary residence at Broseley, in devising improvements in the details of his engine. Boulton says—“I observe you are thinking of making an inverted cylinder. Pray how are you to counterbalance the descent of the piston and pump rods, which will be a vast weight? If by a counterweight you gain nothing. But if you can employ the power that arises from the descent of that vast weight to strain a spring that will repay its debts—if by it you can compress air in an iron cylinder which in its return will contribute to overcome the vis inertiÆ of the column of water to be raised, you will thereby get rid of that unmechanical tax, and very much improve the reciprocating engine.”—Boulton to Watt, 24th February, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[145] Boulton to Watt, 23rd April, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[146] The arrangement between the partners is indicated by the following passage of Watt’s letter to Boulton:—“As you may have possibly mislaid my missive to you concerning the contract, I beg just to mention what I remember of the terms.

“1. I to assign to you two-thirds of the property of the invention.

“2. You to pay all expenses of the Act or others incurred before June, 1775 (the date of the Act), and also the expense of future experiments, which money is to be sunk without interest by you, being the consideration you pay for your share.

“3. You to advance stock in trade bearing interest, but having no claim on me for any part of that, further than my intromissions; the stock itself to be your security and property.

“4. I to draw one-third of the profits so soon as any arise from the business, after paying the workmen’s wages and goods furnished, but abstract from the stock in trade, excepting the interest thereof, which is to be deducted before a balance is struck.

“5. I to make drawings, give directions, and make surveys, the company paying the travelling expenses to either of us when upon engine business.

“6. You to keep the books and balance them once a year.

“7. A book to be kept wherein to be marked such transactions as are worthy of record, which, when signed by both, to have the force of the contract.

“8. Neither of us to alienate our share without consent of the other, and if either of us by death or otherwise shall be incapacitated from acting for ourselves, the other of us to be the sole manager without contradiction or interference of heirs, executors, assignees, or others; but the books to be subject to their inspection, and the acting partner of us to be allowed a reasonable commission for extra trouble.

“9. The contract to continue in force for twenty-five years, from the 1st of June, 1775, when the partnership commenced, notwithstanding the contract being of later date.

“10. Our heirs, executors, and assignees, bound to observance.

“11. In case of demise of both parties, our heirs, &c., to succeed in same manner, and if they all please, they may burn the contract.

“If anything be very disagreeable in these terms, you will find me disposed to do everything reasonable for your satisfaction.”—Boulton MSS.

[147] Watt to Boulton, 3rd July, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[148] Watt to Boulton, 8th July, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[149] Boulton to Watt, 15th July, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[150] During his Scotch visit, Watt spent much of his time in arranging his father’s affairs, which had got into confusion. He was now seventy-five years old, and grown very infirm. “He is perfectly incapable,” wrote his son, “of giving himself the least help, and the seeing him in such a situation has much hurt my spirits.”—Watt to Boulton, 28th July, 1766. Boulton MSS.

[151] Boulton to Watt (without date), 1776. Boulton MSS. In this letter, Boulton throws out a suggestion for Watt’s consideration—“When,” he says, “we have got our two-foot pumps up, I think it would be right to try our Soho engine with a steam strong enough to work the pumps with the axis in the centre of the beam, which will be almost 19 lb. upon the inch.”

[152] Boulton to Watt, 3rd November, 1776. In the same letter Boulton informs Watt that Perrins, another fireman, had returned from Bedworth, and had not a stroke to do, the fittings for the second engine not having arrived. The first engine was working twenty-four hours a day, but the pit was so full of water that the owners feared they would before long be drowned out; and if the work was stopped, the loss would be far greater than the whole value of the engine. But the sales of coal, though large, were but “a small consideration in comparison with the starving to death of the poor ribbon-weavers of Coventry and a great part of Oxfordshire.... Coals are 9d. and 10d. per cwt., and ’tis said they will be a shilling at Birmingham on Monday.”

[153] Watt to Boulton, 3rd December, 1776. Boulton MSS.

[154] Fire-engines at work were objects of curiosity in those days, and had many visitors. The engineman at the York Buildings reminded those who went to see his engine that something was expected, placing over the entrance to the engine room the following distich:—

[155] “Mr. White told me this morning as a great secret,” wrote Boulton’s London agent, “that he has reason to believe that Carless and Webb were going beyond sea, for Carless had told him he had 1000l. offered for six years, and he overheard Webb say that he was ready at an hour’s warning.” Carless and Webb were immediately ordered back to Soho, and the firm obtained warrants for the apprehension of the men as well as of the person who had bribed them, if they attempted to abscond “even though,” said Watt to Boulton, “Carless be a drunken and comparatively useless fellow.” Later he wrote, “I think there is no risk of Webb’s leaving us soon, and he offers to re-engage. Carless has been working very diligently this week, and is well on with his nozzle patterns. I mentioned to William the story of Sir John Fielding’s warrant, to show him that we are determined to act with spirit in case of interlopers.”—Watt to Boulton, May 3, 1777.

[156] Robert Hart’s ‘Reminiscences of James Watt,’ cited above.

[157] Watt to Boulton, 4th August, 1777.

[158] A mine so-called. Many of the Cornish mines have very odd names. “Cook’s Kitchen,” near Camborne, is one of the oldest and richest. Another is called “Cupboard.” There are also Wheal Fannys and Wheal Abrahams; and Wheal Fortunes and Wheal Virgins in great numbers.

[159] Watt to Boulton, 14th August, 1777.

[160] Watt to Boulton, 25th August, 1777. Boulton MSS.

[161] “I have seen five of Bonze’s engines,” wrote Watt, “but was far from seeing the wonders promised. They were 60, 63, and 70 inch cylinders. At Dalcoath and Wheal Chance they are said to use each about 130 bushels of coals in the 24 hours, and to make about 6 or 7 strokes per minute, the strokes being under 6 feet each. They are burdened to 6, 6½, and 7 lbs. per inch. One of the 60 inches threw out about two cubic feet of hot water per stroke, heated from 60° to 165°. The 63 inches, with a 5 feet stroke, threw out 1½ cubic foot, heated from 60° to 159°,” and so on with the others.—Watt to Boulton, 25th August, 1777. Boulton MSS.

[162] Watt to Boulton, 13th September, 1777.

[163] Watt to Boulton, 2nd July, 1778. Boulton MSS.

[164] Watt to Boulton, 8th July, 1778, Boulton MSS.

[165] Watt to Boulton, 8th July, 1778. Boulton MSS.

[166] While in Cornwall in the previous year, Watt wrote long letters to his partner as to certain experimental alterations of “Beelzebub.” This was the original engine brought from Kinneil, which continued to be the subject of constant changes. “I send a drawing,” he wrote on the 4th August, 1777, “of the best scheme I can at present devise for equalising the power of Beelzebub, and obliging him to save part of his youthful strength to help him forward in his old age.... As the head of one of the levers will rise higher than the roof, a hole must be cut for it, which may after trial be covered over. If the new beam answer to be centred upon the end wall and to go out at a window, it will make the execution easy.... I long (he concluded) to have some particulars of Beelzebub’s doings, and to learn whether he has got on his jockey coat yet [i. e. an outer cylinder], for till that be done, you can form no idea of his perfection.” The engine continued to be the subject of repeated alterations, and was renewed, as Watt observed, like the Highlandman’s gun, in stock, lock, and barrel. After the occurrence of the above fire, we learn from Watt’s MS. Memoir of Boulton, that “Beelzebub” was replaced by a larger engine, the first on the expansive principle, afterwards known by the name of “Old Bess.” This engine continued in its place long after the career of Boulton and Watt had come to an end; and in the year 1857, the present writer saw “Old Bess” working as steadily as ever, though eighty years had passed over her head. The old engine has since found an honourable asylum in the Museum of Patents at South Kensington.

[167] Watt to Boulton, 8th August, 1778. Boulton MSS.

[168] Watt to Boulton, 29th August, 1778. Later, Watt wrote from Redruth, “Captain Paul desires me to attend at Wheal Virgin meeting on Thursday, where several Tingtang people will be; but I shall only write, as I know they will be just in the worst of humours about Wheal Virgin affairs, and they are very disagreeable at the best. Every article must be settled and sealed with Cornish adventures before we begin, otherwise never.... Do not let Chelsea begin until signed and sealed. I hope you will not take amiss my writing so positively on this subject of agreements; but really my faith in mankind will carry me no further, and if I can’t get money, I’m resolved to save my bacon and to live in hunger and ease. As it is, we don’t get such a share of reputation as our works deserve, for every man who cheats us defames us in order to justify himself.”—Watt to Boulton, 6th September, 1778. Boulton MSS.

[169] “With all the faults of the Cornish people, I think we have a better chance for tolerable honesty here than elsewhere, as, their meetings being public, they will not choose to expose themselves any further than strict dealing may justify; and besides, there are generally too many to cabal.”—Watt to Boulton, 29th August, 1778. Boulton MSS.

[170] During his absence Mr. Keir took charge of the works at Soho. It had been intended to introduce him as a partner, and he left the glass-making concern at Stourbridge, into which he had entered, for the purpose; but when he came to look into the books of the Soho firm, he was so appalled by their liabilities that he eventually declined the connexion.

[171] Matthews wrote him on the 8th October, 1778, that he had met a Mr. Boldero at the Goldsmiths’ Hall, who had much influence in Cornwall, and that he expressed the opinion that, if the engines could do what Boulton and Watt promised, they might soon get from 40,000l. to 80,000l. for them in Cornwall. Matthews accordingly recommended Boulton to apply to Elliot and Praed, the Cornish bankers, for an advance on security of the engine contracts.—It would appear from a letter written to Boulton a few days later, by Mr. Barton, Matthews’s partner, that Boulton was, amidst his many speculations, engaged in a privateering adventure during the war of the American Revolution:—“It may give you some pleasure,” wrote Barton, “to hear we are likely to receive some produce from our adventure to New York. One of the vessels our little brig took last year was fitted out at New York, and in a cruise of 13 weeks has taken 13 prizes, 12 of which are carried safe in, and we have advice of 200 hogsheads of tobacco being shipped as part of the prizes, which, if now here, would fetch us 10,000l. But while the embargo on shipping at New York continues, they cannot stir out of port. However, I think we shall see them before you raise that sum from your engine concern, and yet I hope that is not very far off.”

[172] Watt to Black, 12th December, 1778.

[173] Watt to Boulton, 15th Jan., 1779.

[174] M. Perrier, of Paris, ordered an engine early in 1779, and the materials were despatched to Nantes by the end of May in the same year. The engine was erected by M. Jary at a colliery near Nantes, but the fitting was so bad—the steam-case having been forgotten—that it went only four strokes per minute. As Boulton and Watt sought a patent for France, it was necessary in the first place that Commissioners should certify that the new engine was superior to the common engine. This they could not do, and the patent was not secured. Watt feared that there was “a plot” against him; as Perrier immediately proceeded with a manufacture of steam-engines after the alleged invention of M. Betancourt, though this “invention” turned out to be a close copy of the engine M. Betancourt himself had imported from Soho.

[175] Watt to Boulton, 27th January, 1779. Boulton MSS.

[176] The following is Watt’s letter, written in a very unusual style:—

[177] Watt wrote Boulton, 2nd July, 1778,—“On the subject of Mr. Hall I should not have been so earnest had I not been urged on by the prospect of impending ruin, which may be much accelerated by a wicked or careless servant in his place.” Later, on the 6th August, Watt wrote, “I look upon Hall as a very great blunderer, and very inattentive to everything that has hitherto been committed to his care; but I think that our present necessities will oblige us to employ him.”—Boulton MSS.

[178] Watt to Boulton, 11th August, 1779.

[179] Watt to Boulton, 4th October, 1779.

[180] Watt to Boulton, 28th October, 1779.

[181] Watt told Sir Walter Scott that though hundreds probably of his northern countrymen had sought employment at his establishment, he never could get one of them to become a first-rate mechanic. “Many of them,” said he, “were too good for that, and rose to be valuable clerks and bookkeepers; but those incapable of this sort of advancement had always the same insuperable aversion to toiling so long at any one point of mechanism as to gain the highest wages among the workmen.”—Note to Lockhart’s ‘Life of Scott.’ The fact, we suppose was, that the Scotch mechanics were only as yet in course of training,—the English having had a long start of them. Though Watt’s statement that Scotchmen were incapable of being first-class mechanics may have been true in his day, it is so no longer, as the workshops of the Clyde can prove; some of the most highly finished steam-engines of modern times having been turned out of Glasgow workshops.

[182] The above anecdotes, of Murdock’s introduction to Soho, and the fight with the captains, were communicated by his son, the late Mr. Murdock of Sycamore Hill near Birmingham. He also informed us that Murdock fought a duel with Captain Trevithick (father of the Trevithick of Locomotive celebrity), in consequence of a quarrel between him and Watt, in which Murdock conceived his master to have been unfairly and harshly treated.

[183] Watt to Boulton, from Chacewater, 16th October, 1779. Boulton MSS.

[184] It appears from a statement prepared by Zaccheus Walker, the accountant of Boulton and Fothergill, that on an invested capital of about 20,000l., the excess of losses over profits during the eighteen years ending 1780, had been upwards of 11,000l.; and that but for the capital and credit of Matthew Boulton, that concern must have broken down.

[185] Thomas Day, the eccentric but kindly author of ‘Sandford and Merton,’ lent Boulton 3000l. at 4 per cent. When Boulton came to pay a higher rate of interest on other loans, he wrote Day proposing to pay him the same rate; but Day refused to accept the advance, as he could not make more of his money elsewhere. Day, however, offered him some good advice. “Give me leave,” said he, “with the real interest of a sincere friend, to express my wishes that now at last when a fortune is within your power, you will contract that wide sphere of business in which your ingenuity has so long kept you engaged, and which has prevented you hitherto, if I may believe the words of one of your sincerest friends, the late Dr. Small, from acquiring that independence which you ought to have had long ago. I should think that now, like a good Christian, thoroughly convinced of the inutility of other works, you ought to attach yourself to the one thing needful, and determine to be saved ‘even as by fire.’ You are now, dear Sir, not of an age to sport any longer with fortune. Forgive the freedom of these sentiments, and believe me, with the greatest sincerity and regard, Yours, &c.,

“Thomas Day.”

[186] Watt to Boulton, 20th January, 1779.

[187] Some of the specimens in water colour are to be seen at the Museum of Patents, South Kensington. When the paper is moistened with the finger, the colour easily rubs off. The whole subject of these pictures has recently been thoroughly sifted by M. P. W. Boulton, Esq., in his ‘Remarks on some Evidence recently communicated to the Photographic Society’ (Bradbury and Evans, 1864), apropos of the Papers of Mr. W. P. Smith on the same subject, in which it was surmised that they were the result of some photographic process. Mr. Boulton clearly shows, from the original correspondence, that the process was mechanical colour-printing. He also adds,—“From the brief statements which I remember to have heard from my father concerning the polygraphic process, my impression of it was that it copied colour mechanically, not merely chiaro-scuro. And I agree with the opinion which has been expressed to other persons, that in the coloured specimens in the Museum, there are indications that the colour was laid on mechanically,—not by hand or brush.” As the process of “dead-colouring” the pictures is occasionally referred to, it is probable that the pictures passed through more stages than one, as in the case of modern colour-printing. In one of Eginton’s letters, three plates were spoken of as necessary for taking impressions of one of the pictures.

[188] Watt to Dr. Black, 24th July, 1778.

[189] Boulton to Watt, 14th May, 1780. Boulton MSS.

[190] On the 18th May, 1780, Watt wrote Boulton, then in London, as follows:—“I am sorry, my dear Sir, to prove in any shape refractory to what you desire, but my quiet, my peace of mind, perhaps my very existence, depend on what I have told you. I am unhappy in not having any person I can advise with on this subject; and my own knowledge of it is insufficient. Therefore, if I appear too rigid, do not blame me, but my ignorance and timidity.” And again, on the 19th, on returning the draft mortgage, he wrote:—“If my executing this deed cannot be dispensed with, I will do it, but will not execute any personal bond for the money. I would rather assign you all Cornwall on proper conditions than execute this.”

[191] Watt to Boulton, 11th April, 1780.

[192] Boulton, at Plengwarry, to Watt, at Birmingham, 14th September, 1780. This day was Boulton’s birthday, and alluding to the circumstance he wrote,—“As sure as there are 1728 inches in a cubic foot, so sure was I born in that year; and as sure as there are 52 weeks in the year and 52 cards in the pack, so surely am I 52 years old this very day. May you and Mrs. Watt live very long and be very happy.”

[193] Watt to Boulton, 10th October, 1780. Boulton MSS.

[194] Watt to Boulton, 20th April, 1780.

[195] Boulton to Watt, 25th and 30th September, 1780. Boulton MSS.

[196] His partner Fothergill would not, however, consent to let Boulton go, and the Soho business was continued until the death of Fothergill (bankrupt) in 1782, after which it was continued for some time longer under the firm of Boulton and Scale.

[197] Mrs. Watt to Mr. Boulton, then in London, 15th April, 1781. Boulton MSS.

[198] In another letter Watt described himself as “worried by the Wheal Chanceians.... In short,” says he, “I am at this moment so provoked at the undeserved rancour with which we are persecuted in Cornwall, that, were it not on account of the deplorable state of debt I find myself in, I would live on bread and cheese, and suffer the water to run out at their adits, before I would relax the slightest iota of what I thought my right in their favour.”—Watt to Boulton, 17th October, 1780. Boulton MSS.

[199] Watt to Boulton, 31st October, 1780. Boulton MSS.

[200] “Though your long stay, when you were last here,” wrote Henderson, the resident agent, “must have been attended with great inconveniences, yet you are now very much wanted in Wheal Virgin affairs. Different interests have produced a sort of anarchy.... Were Mr. Watt here now, I don’t think his health would allow him to stand the battles with the different people. I have not written to him freely on this subject, as I am afraid it would hurt him.... Your authority here as an adventurer has much greater weight than anything I can propose.”—Henderson to Boulton, 4th February, 1781. Boulton MSS.

[201] Watt to Boulton, 17th October, 1780.

[202] In June, 1780, we find Boulton describing to Colonel Watson the progress of the Soho business, as follows:—“Since I had the honour of seeing you in England we have erected upwards of 40 of our new steam-engines, and have (from so much experience) obviated every difficulty, and made it a most practicable and perfect machine. The steam wheel we have not meddled with since you were at Soho, as we have been fully employed upon large beam-engines; besides, we have applied the beam engine to rotative motions so successfully that the wheel engine seems almost unnecessary.”

[203] Watt had made use of the crank at a very early period. Thus we find him writing to Dr. Small on the 20th September, 1769,—“As to the condenser, I laid aside the spiral wheels because of the noise and thumping, and substituted a crank: in other respects it performed well enough.”

[204] The invention was patented by James Pickard, a Birmingham button-maker, on the 23rd August, 1780 (No. 1263). Matthew Washborough of Bristol arranged with Pickard for employing it in the engine invented by him for securing circular motion. Washborough’s own patent has no reference to the crank, though he is usually named as the inventor of it.

[205] At a later date we find him writing to his partner thus:—“I cannot agree with Mr. Palmer’s notion about the crank engine, as, though a crank is not new, yet that application of it is new and never was practised except by us. It is by no means our interest to demolish the crank patent, because then all our own machines of that kind will be of no use, and I am convinced that the crank can be made their superior.”—Watt to Boulton, 15th October, 1781.

[206] Watt to Boulton, 19th November, 1780.

[207] Boulton and Watt were by this time employing their engine for a like purpose, as appears from a letter of Boulton to S. Wyatt, dated 28th February, 1781, in which he says,—“We are now applying our engines to all kinds of mills, such as corn mills, rolling iron and copper, winding coals out of the pit, and every other purpose to which the wind or water mill is applicable. In such applications, one hundred weight of coals will produce as much mechanical power as is equal to the work of ten men for ten hours, and these mills may be made very much more powerful than any water-mills in England.” To Mr. Henderson he wrote at the same date:—“I make no scruple to say but that I could readily build a more powerful and in every respect better copper-rolling mill by steam than any water-mill now in England. As soon as the Cornish engines are at work, I intend to turn millwright and make our steam-mills universally known.”

[208] Watt to Boulton, 21st April, 1781. On the following day (the 22nd April) Watt wrote another long letter to Boulton on the same subject. His mind could not be at rest, and he thus unburdened himself of his indignation:—“If you find yourself so circumstanced, as you say you are, that you dare not refuse [to erect the proposed engine for the Navy Board], then let them pay M. Washborough and have done with him, and let the engine be erected under our direction or Mr. Smeaton’s. With the latter I will go hand in hand; nay I will do more—I will submit to him in all mechanical matters; but I will by no means submit to go on with thieves and puppies, whose knowledge and integrity I contemn. Though I am not so saucy as many of my countrymen, I have enough of innate pride to prevent me from doing a mean action because a servile prudence may dictate it. If a king were to think Matt Washborough a better engineer than me, I should scorn to undeceive him. I should leave that to Matthew. The connexion would be stronger as the evidence would be undeniable. So much for heroics!... I will never meanly sue a thief to give me my own again, unless I have nothing left behind. As it now stands, I have enough left to make their patent tremble, and shall leave no mechanical stone unturned to aggrieve them. I will do more. I will publish my inventions, by which means they will be entirely precluded, because they must be fools indeed that will pay them for what they can have for nothing. I am very ill with a headache, therefore can write no more than passion dictates.”

[210] Boulton to Watt, 21st June, 1781.

[211] Watt to Boulton, 21st June, 1781.

[212] While Boulton spoke good humouredly to his partner in Cornwall with the object of cheering him up, he privately unbosomed himself to his friend Matthews in London. When requesting him to call at once on the bankers and get the account reduced to an advance of 12,000l., and thus obtain Mr. Watt’s release, he complained of the distress which the communications of the latter had caused him. He thought his conduct ungenerous, taking all the circumstances into account, and considering that the firm were within a year of being tolerably easy in money matters. “When I reflect,” he wrote, “on his situation in 1772 and my own at that time, and compare them with his and mine now, I think I owe him little.... I some time ago gave him a security of all my two-thirds, after paying off L. V. and W. [the bankers], from which you may judge how little reason he has to complain. He talks of his duty to his wife and children; by the same rule I ought not to neglect mine. His wife’s fortune joined to his own did not amount to sixpence: my wife brought me in money and land 28,000l. I advanced him all he wanted without a security, but in return he is not content with an ample security for advancing nothing at all but what he derived from his connexion with me.”—Boulton to Matthews, 28th June, 1781. Boulton MSS.

[213] Watt to Boulton, 24th June, 1781.

[214] Watt befriended Jabez like the other members of his family, as appears from the following passage in a letter to Boulton (6th September, 1778):—“Capt. Paul has turned Jabez adrift, having for some time taken umbrage at him because he would do his work well and therefore expensively. Jabez has a bad wife, is poor and unhappy. He is very clever, a good engineer, and industrious, though he seems not to have the faculty of conciliating people’s affections. I fear he will go to Holland, and as he can hurt us [there being no patent for the engine secured there] I must try to get him bread here.” Later, Boulton wrote Watt from Redruth (18th November, 1780),—“Old Hornblower has disobliged Mr. Daniel. I have my fears they will not employ him; but when our own business is sealed to-morrow, I will make a push in his favour. That family hath not been successful in conciliating the affections of the people in this neighbourhood.”

[215] Watt to Boulton, 16th July, 1781.

[216] Watt to Boulton, 19th July, 1781. Boulton MSS.

[217] Boulton to Watt, 28th June, 1781. On the 3rd July following he writes,—“The great rotative engine is finished, and I expected the union between it and the little engine would have been performed this evening, but it can’t be till to-morrow. Robert set the elliptic out so true that it had no shake and required no alteration. It goes so much better than the little model made by Joseph that I am now ashamed to send the little one. The great model makes a delightful horizontal foot-lathe. I gave it a few strokes with my foot, and it made 30 revolutions after I withdrew it, and that in a quiet and peaceable manner, which shows how steady and frictionless it is.”

[218] Watt to Boulton, 5th July, 1781.

[219] “Yesterday I went to Penryn and swore that I had invented ‘certain new methods of applying the vibrating or reciprocating motion of steam or fire engines to produce a continued rotation or circular motion round an axis or centre, and thereby to give motion to the wheels of mills or other machines,’ which affidavit and petition I transmit to Mr. Hadley by this post with directions to get it passed with all due expedition.”—Watt to Boulton, 26th July, 1781.

[220] Watt suggested caution as to making use of the cranks. “In relation to Wilkinson’s forges, I wish you would execute them without the double crank. We shall soon have a bad enough lawsuit on our hands without it.”—Watt to Boulton, 19th July, 1781.

[221] Watt to Boulton, 28th July, 1781. A few days later Boulton wrote Watt that Dr. Priestley had proceeded with the experiments, and that he had come to the conclusion that “there is nothing to be feared from any of the tribe of gases, which cannot be produced nearly so cheap as steam; and as to steam you know its limits better than any man.”

[222] Watt to Boulton, 30th July, 1781. Later he wrote,—“I am tired of making improvements which by some quirk or wresting of the law may be taken from us, as I think has been done in the case of Arkwright, who has been condemned merely because he did not specify quite clearly. This was injustice, because it is plain that he has given this trade a being—has brought his invention into use and made it of great public utility. Wherefore he deserved all the money he has got. In my opinion his patent should not have been invalidated without it had clearly appeared that he did not invent the things in question. I fear we shall be served with the same sauce for the good of the public! and in that case I shall certainly do what he threatens. This you may be assured of, that we are as much envied here as he is at Manchester, and all the bells in Cornwall would be rung at our overthrow.”—Watt to Boulton, 13th August, 1781.

[223] Watt to Boulton, 13th November, 1781.

[224] Watt to Boulton, 19th November, 1781.

[225] Watt to Samuel Ewer, jun., 9th July, 1781. Boulton MSS.

[226] Watt to Boulton, 30th August, 1781.

[227] Watt to Boulton, 30th August, 1781. In a subsequent letter he explained the invention as follows:—“The method I propose to stop an engine when the pump rods break is by means of an air bellows or forcing pump of a good large diameter fixed in the shaft and having a solid piston in it which is wrought constantly by the engine and quite easily while it goes at its ordinary speed, because there is a large valve open in its bottom or rather top, which suffers the air to pass and repass easily; but whenever the engine attempts to move quick, that valve shuts and all exit from the air is cut off, and it becomes a feather-bed to save the blow of the engine. This is exemplified by turning the valve-hole of a common bellows upwards and stopping the nozzle, then working the bellows first slowly and then quickly. I think this contrivance will be of great use and may prevent damage, especially those bangs which occur in setting on an engine.”—Watt to Boulton, 27th September, 1781.

[228] Boulton to Watt, 10th September, 1781. Boulton immediately proceeded with the erection of the new engine as secretly as possible. “The principles of the expansion engine,” said he to Watt, “you had invented before Dr. Small died, as Mr. Keir can testify as well as others. However, it is highly proper to execute every kind of beam that can be devised for the purpose of equalising the power. I have removed the little portions into the wooden house next the smith’s shop, and have blinded the window and barred the door. There is a convenient well that can be filled from the back brook, and the engine may be applied to the raising of water, which is the best sort of load to calculate from.”

[229] Watt to Boulton, 20th September, 1781.

[230] Watt to Boulton, 18th October, 1781.

[231] Watt, in a letter to Boulton, dated the 3rd July, 1782, speaks of it as an old plan of his own “revived and executed by William Murdock;” but we were informed by the late Mr. Josiah Parkes, that at an interview which he had with Mr. Watt at Heathfield, at which Murdock was present, Murdock spoke of the Sun and Planet motion as his invention, which Watt did not contradict. Boulton also attributed the invention to Murdock, as appears from his letter to Henderson, dated 22nd January, 1782; in which he says,—“Mr. Watt’s packet is not ready. I am to wait till his drawings [of the rotatory motion] are completed, which he is executing himself. There was some informality in those sent from Soho. Besides, he has another rotative scheme to add, which I could have told him of long ago, when first invented by William Murdock, but I did not think it a matter of much consequence.”

[232] Watt to Boulton, 26th Jan., 1782.

[233] “I have some time ago thought,” wrote Watt, “of a new expansive engine—a reciprocating engine with a heavy circular fly moved by a pinion from the end of the beam, so as to make three turns per down-stroke and as many contrariwise per return; so that in the first half of the stroke it may acquire a momentum which will carry it through the last half; and if a weight equal to half the load be put upon the inner end of the beam, and the engine be made to lift it during the return, by making a vacuum above the piston and using a rack instead of a chain, a cylinder of the present size may work to the same depth by half the steam; and I believe the engine will work very sweetly.”—Watt to Boulton, 16th January, 1782.

[234] Watt to Boulton, 20th September, 1781.

[235] Watt to Boulton, 20th December, 1781.

[236] Boulton to Watt, 26th March, 1782. The following was Boulton’s method of dealing with a refractory and drunken workman:—“I told you in my former letters how Jim Taylor had gone on,—that I had talked to him in a friendly way but all to no purpose. He came last Monday evening to the smith’s shop, drank more ale, was sent for, and he became abusive to the men, saying we had nobody could work well but himself, and that we could not do without him. The next morning I went into the shop predetermined to part with him. I stopped the noise of bellows and hammers, and appealed to the jury of the shop for the justice of my determination, and made the best use I could of the example. I sent Taylor off with deserved contempt, and to convince him that we really could do without him. However we are very much behind hand in nozzles.”—Boulton to Watt, 19th April, 1782.

[237] “To-day was account day at Wheal Virgin, when there was nothing remarkable, only that Mr. Phillips insisted upon William Murdock being wholly at Wheal Virgin, which I told him could not possibly be complied with, unless I went to Crenver in his place, as I had nobody else to send thither; nevertheless, that William should be here as much as possible. This did not satisfy him, and I know not what to do, as Crenver will be ready to work in three weeks and must not be delayed.... I think my personal attendance should satisfy Wheal Virgin adventurers, but as they seem to have more confidence in William, I will for peace’s sake yield to their will, being satisfied that William will do the business well.”—Watt to Boulton, 15th November, 1781.

[238] One of the pleasantest events that occurred to Watt in the course of his stay in Cornwall, was the visit of Wedgwood, who had come to inspect some of the mines in which, on Boulton’s recommendation, he had taken an interest, and at the same time to search for clays for use in his earthenware and porcelain manufacture at Etruria. “Mr. Wedgwood,” he wrote Boulton, “has been in this country some days hunting clays and soap rocks, cobalts, &c. I have had two visits of him at the expense of a day and a half. Nevertheless I don’t grudge that, as I am glad to see a Christian. He has just left me.”—Watt to Boulton, 18th October, 1781.

[239] Fothergill died insolvent in 1782. Notwithstanding what he had suffered by the connexion, Boulton acted with great generosity towards Fothergill’s family, providing for his widow and orphan children. “Whatever the conduct of any part of that family towards me may have been,” said he, “their present distresses turn every passion into tender pity. I waited upon Mrs. Fothergill this morning, and administered all the consolation that words could give, but I must do more, or their distresses will be great indeed. I never wished for life and health so fervently as at present; for I consider it my duty to act as a father to that family to the best of my power, and the addition of a widow and seven children is no small one.” Boulton was as good as his promises; and he not only helped the Fothergill family through their difficulties, but he undertook to pay an annual sum (though under no obligation to do so) to a Mrs. Swellingrebel—a widowed lady from whom Fothergill had obtained money which he lost; and who, but for Boulton’s generous help, must have been left destitute.

[240] Watt to Boulton, 16th March, 1782.

[241] Watt to Boulton, 18th March, 1782.

[242] Watt to Boulton, 27th March, 1782.

[243] Watt to Boulton, 30th March, 1782.

[244] Watt to Boulton, 19th September, 1782.

[245] Boulton to Watt, 28th September, 1782.

[246] Watt to Boulton, 3rd October, 1782.

[247] “On my road to this place (Cosgarne) I stayed two days at Bristol in order to learn the particulars of Hornblower’s new engine erected in that neighbourhood, and I had the satisfaction to find that it is worse than a common engine, although made upon our principles; but from the various evasions introduced it is as bad as need be. Nevertheless I think we should stop it in order to stop the effects of the numerous lies they propagate in this county, and other mischiefs.”—Boulton to Watt, 30th September, 1782.

[248] “I don’t know a man in Cornwall amongst the adventurers,” he wrote, “but what would think it patriotism to free the mines from the tribute they pay to us, and thereby divide our rights amongst their own dear selves. Nevertheless, let us keep our tempers, and keep the firm hold we have got; let us do justice, show mercy and walk humbly, and all, I hope, will be right at last.”—Boulton to Watt, 2nd November, 1782.

[249] Boulton to Watt, 30th September, 1782.

[250] Boulton to Watson of Bristol, 7th November, 1782.

[251] Boulton to Wyatt, 16th December, 1782.

[252] Boulton to Watt, 7th December, 1782.

[253] Watt to Boulton, 28th November, 1782.

[254] The above illustration represents the first engine employed at Soho, with the alterations subsequently introduced, for the purpose of producing rotary motion. The old Kinneil engine, “Beelzebub,” as Watt called her, was entirely removed, and replaced by this engine, as explained by Watt in his MS. Memoir of Boulton now before us, wherein he states,—“The first engine of 18 inches cylinder, which was employed in returning the water to Soho mill, was replaced about 1778 or 1779 by a larger engine, the first on the expansive principle, which still remains there.” The engine became known at Soho as “Old Bess,” and she continued in regular work until within the last eight years. The illustration shows the state in which the engine now stands in South Kensington Museum.

A. steam cylinder; B. steam pipe; C. throttle valve; D. steam valve; E. eduction valve; F. eduction pipe; G. valve gearing; H. condenser; I. air pump; K. air pump rod; L. foot valve; M. hand gear tappet rod; N. parallel motion; O. balance weight; P. rocking beam; Q. connecting rod; R. feed pump rod; S. sun wheel; T. planet wheel; U. fly wheel; W. governor; X. feedwater cistern.

[255] “We have had a visit to-day from a Mr. Cort of Gosport, who says he has a forge there, and has found out some grand secret in the making of iron, by which he can make double the quantity at the same expense and in the same time as usual. He says he wants some kind of engine, but could not tell what; wants some of us to call on him, and says he had some correspondence with you on the subject. He seems a simple goodnatured man, but not very knowing. He says he has most of the smith-work for the king’s yard, and has a forge, a rolling and slitting mill. I think him a brother projector.”—Watt to Boulton, 14th December, 1782.

[256] 4th December, 1782.

[257] Letter to Thomas Knox, M.P.

[258] With an almost excess of politeness, Boulton wrote long letters to unknown correspondents to set them right about mechanical errors into which they seemed to him to have fallen. Thus a Mr. Knipe of Chelsea, supposing he had discovered a perpetual motion machine, wrote inviting Boulton to join him as a partner. Though the man was without means and evidently foolish, Boulton wrote him several long letters in the kindest spirit, pointing out that his scheme was contrary to reason and science. “It is impossible,” said he, “for inanimate mechanism to produce the least degree of power or to augment the sum total of the primum mobile. Mechanism may communicate or concentrate or economise power, but cannot create or augment it.” Knipe replied at great length, vindicating his invention. His enthusiasm pleased Boulton, who, in the generosity of his nature, sent him a draft for ten guineas on his London bankers to enable the poor inventor to secure his invention if there was really anything in it. But nothing more was heard of Knipe’s Perpetual Motion Machine.

[259] No wonder the miners were so urgent for reductions in working expenses, as we find from a communication from Watt to Boulton, of facts to be laid before Parliament against the proposed tax on coal, that Chacewater had sunk 50,000l. in setting the mine to work; Wheal Virgin 28,000l. in ten months, and still unprosperous; Poldice a very large sum, and merely paying expenses; Wheal Chance 35,000l., and only moderately prosperous; Pool 14,000l., without much prospect of recovery; Roskere languishing, and not paying expenses; United Mines, which had been at death’s door, still in a tottering state; Wheal Union stopped, after losing about 8000l.; Dalcoath 500l. spent on timber per month, and a new kibble-rope, of above a ton weight, worn out in a fortnight. [To draw a kibble of ore then, weighing about 3 cwt., took fully fifteen minutes, owing to the great depth of that mine, and two-thirds of the stuff drawn was stones.] To which Watt added, “if we had not furnished the miners with more effectual means of draining the water, almost all the deep mines would have been abandoned before now.”

[260] The engine was of 40-horse power. It was erected at the “Black Works,” Etruria, where it continues working with the sun and planet motion,—one of the very few engines of the old construction still remaining in existence.

[261] Watt to Boulton, 22nd June, 1784.

[262] Watt to Boulton, 30th June, 1784. Boulton MSS.

[263] The parallel motion was first put in practice in the engine erected for Mr. Whitbread; Watt informing Boulton (27th October, 1785) that “the parallel motion of Whitbread’s answers admirably.”

[264] ‘Lives of Engineers,’ iii. 77.

[265] In a letter dated 28th August, 1784, Watt communicated his views to his partner on the subject of locomotive engines at great length. In the course of the letter he says,—

[266] Boulton to Watt, 8th November, 1784. Though Murdock was thus occupied, he did not abandon his idea of making a working locomotive. Two years later we find Watt thus writing Boulton:—

[267] Boulton to Wilson, 16th December, 1784. Boulton MSS.

[268] Watt to Boulton, 31st March, 1785.

[269] Watt to Boulton, 21st July, 1785. Writing to Boulton on a later occasion on the subject of these threatened attacks on all patents, he said, “A pursuance of such decisions as have been given lately in several cases must at length drive men of invention to take shelter in countries where their ingenuity will be protected; and the other states of Europe know their interest too well to neglect any opportunity of curbing the insolence and humbling the pride of Britain. If the minister should not think it right to amend and confirm the patent laws, the next best thing would be to make a law totally taking away the king’s power of granting them. I mean, this would be the honest part.”—Watt to Boulton, 19th March, 1786. Boulton himself had equally strong views on the subject of patents, believing that they tended to encourage industrious and ingenious men to labour for the common good. Referring to the decision against Argand’s lamp patent, he wrote De Luc in 1787,—“It was hard, unjust, and impolitic, as it hath (to my knowledge) discouraged a very ingenious French chemist from coming over and establishing in this country an invention of the highest importance to one of our greatest manufactures. Moreover, it tends to destroy the greatest of all stimulants to invention, viz. the idea of enjoying the fruits of one’s own labour. Some late decisions against the validity of certain patents have raised the spirits of the illiberal, sordid, unjust, ungenerous, and inventionless misers, who prey upon the vitals of the ingenious, and make haste to seize upon what their laborious and often costly application has produced. The decisions to which I refer have encouraged a combination in Cornwall to erect engines on Boulton and Watt’s principles, contrary to the Law of Patents and the express provisions of an Act of Parliament; and this they are setting about in order to drive us into a court of law, flattering themselves that it is the present disposition of the judges to set their faces against all patents. Should such a disposition (so contrary to Lord Mansfield’s decisions) continue to prevail, it will produce far greater evils to the manufacturing industry of the kingdom than the gentlemen of the law can have any idea of.”

[270] Watt to Boulton, 27th August, 1785.

[271] Watt to Boulton, 24th September, 1785.

[272] Boulton to Wilkinson, 21st November, 1785.

[273] Writing to M. De Luc, the Queen’s Librarian, of what he and his partner had done for Cornwall, Boulton said,—“The copper and tin mines of Cornwall are now sunk to so great a depth that had not Mr. Watt and myself nearly expended our fortunes and hazarded our ruin by neglecting our regular business, and by a long series of expensive experiments in bringing our engine to its present degree of perfection, those mines must inevitably have stopped working, and Cornwall at this time would not have existed as a mining county. The very article of extra coals for common engines would have amounted to more than the entire profits of their working.”—Boulton to De Luc, 31st March, 1787.

[274] Two days after this event, when about to set out for Polgooth, a messenger arrived at Boulton’s lodgings, bringing him the sad news of Mr. Phillips’s sudden death. He describes the scene at the funeral, at which Catherine Phillips, though strongly urged by him to stay away, insisted on being present. “She was attended by a widow lady who had lost a good husband last year, and though she had not been accustomed to speak in the congregation of the righteous, yet on this occasion she stood with her hand upon her husband’s coffin and spoke above an hour, delivering one of the most pathetic discourses I ever heard.” A large concourse of people attended the interment, which took place in a garden near Redruth. Boulton, in writing to Mrs. Boulton, said, “I wish I had time to give you the history and character of my departed friend, as you know but little of his excellences. I cannot say but that I feel a gloomy pleasure in dwelling upon the life and death of a good man: it incites to piety and elevates the mind above terrestrial things. Now, let me ask you to hold a silent meeting in your heart for half an hour and then return to your work.”

[275] The Albion Mill engine was set to work in 1786. The first rotative with a parallel motion in Scotland, was erected for Mr. Stein, of Kennet Pans near Alloa, in the following year.

[276] In a letter to Mr. Matthews (30th April, 1784) Boulton wrote,—“It seems the millers are determined to be masters of us and the public. Putting a stop to fire-engine mills because they come into competition with water-mills, is as absurd as stopping navigable canals would be because they interfere with farmers and waggoners. The argument also applies to wind and tide mills or any other means whereby corn can be ground. So all machines should be stopped whereby men’s labour is saved, because it might be argued that men were thereby deprived of a livelihood. Carry out the argument, and we must annihilate water-mills themselves, and thus go back again to the grinding of corn by hand labour!”

[277] Watt, however, continued to adhere to his own views as to the superiority of the plan adopted:—“I am sorry to find,” he observed in his reply to Boulton, “so many things are amiss at Albion Mill, and that you have lost your good opinion of double engines, while my opinion of them is mended. The smoothness of their going depends on the steam regulators being opened a little before the vacuum regulators, and not opened too suddenly, as indeed the others ought not to be. Otherwise the shock comes so violently in the opposite direction that no pins or brasses will stand it. Malcolm has no notion how to make gear work quietly, nor do I think he properly understands it. You must therefore attend to it yourself, and not leave it until it is more perfect.”—Watt to Boulton, 3rd March, 1786.

[278] Watt to Boulton, 10th March, 1786.—Boulton MSS.

[279] “The Albion Mill,” wrote Watt to Boulton, “requires your close attention and exertions. I look upon it as a weight about our necks that will sink us to the bottom, unless people of real activity and knowledge of business are found to manage it. I would willingly forfeit a considerable sum to be clear of the concern. If anybody will take my share I will cheerfully give him 500l. and reckon myself well quit. My reasons are that none of the parties concerned are men of business, that no attention has been hitherto paid to it by anybody except Mr. W. and ourselves, and that if we go on as expensively in carrying on the business as in the erection, it is impossible but that we should be immense losers, and thus probably our least loss will be to stop where we are. As to our reputation as engineers, I have no doubt but the mill will perform its business, but whether with the quantity of coals and labour is what I cannot say.”—Watt to Boulton, 19th March, 1786.

[280] Watt to Boulton, 17th April, 1786.

[281] Watt wrote Boulton from London, 1st October, 1789,—“I called on Wyatt (the architect) last night. He says the mill sold above 4000l. worth of flour last week and is doing well.”

[282] For further particulars as to the Albion Mill, see Life of Rennie in ‘Lives of the Engineers,’ ii. 137.

[283] Watt to Boulton, 23rd September, 1786.

[284] He spoke of Goodwyn’s Brewery engine, finished in 1784, as the best that Soho had up to that time turned out—it “performed wonderful well—not the smallest leak and scarce any noise.... The working gear and joints are the best I ever saw.”

[285] Watt to Boulton, 24th February, 1786.

[286] Boulton to Morris, 2nd November, 1786.

[287] “Your mind, my friend, is too active, too powerful for your body, and harasses it beyond its bearing. If this was the case with any other machine under your direction, except that in whose regulation your friends take so much interest, you would soon find out a remedy. For the present permit me to advise a more ample use of the oil of delegation through your whole machinery, and I am persuaded you will soon find some salutary effects from this application. Seriously, I shall conclude in saying to you what Dr. Fothergill desired me to say to Brindley—‘Spare your machine a little, or like others under your direction, it will wear out the sooner by hard and constant usage.’”—Josiah Wedgwood to Watt, December 10, 1782.

[289] “Mr. Watt hath lately remitted all his money to Scotland, and I have lately purchased a considerable quantity of copper at the request of Mr. Williams.... Besides which I have more than 45 tons of copper by me, 20 of which was bought of the Cornish Metal Company, and 20 of the Duke’s at 70l., and not an ounce of either yet used. In short, I shall be in a very few weeks in great want of money, and it is now impossible to borrow in London or this neighbourhood as all confidence is fled.”—Boulton to Wilson, 4th May, 1788.

[290] Boulton to Matthews, 22nd December, 1788.

[291] Boulton acted with his usual open-handed generosity in his partnership arrangements with Watt. Although the original bargain between them provided that Boulton was to take two-thirds, and Watt one-third profits, Boulton providing the requisite capital and being at the risk and expense of all experiments, he subsequently, at Watt’s request, agreed to the profits being equally divided between them.

[292] As early as August, 1768, we find Dr. Small in one of his letters describing Edgeworth to Watt as “a gentleman of fortune, young, mechanical, and indefatigable, who has taken a resolution to move land and water carriages by steam, and has made considerable progress in the short space of time that he has devoted to the study.”

[293] Dr. Darwin to Boulton, April 5, 1778. When the Doctor removed to Derby in 1782, he wrote,—“I am here cut off from the milk of science, which flows in such redundant streams from your learned Lunatics, and which, I can assure you, is a very great regret to me.” In another letter he said,—“I hope philosophy and fire-engines continue to go on well. You heard we sent your Society an air-balloon, which was calculated to have fallen in your garden at Soho; but the wicked wind carried it to Sir Edward Littleton’s. Pray give my compliments to your learned Society.” In another letter he wrote,—“I hope Behemoth has strength in his loins. Belial and Ashtaroth are two other devils of consequence, and good names for engines of Fire.” When he heard of the Albion Mill being burnt down, the Doctor wrote,—“The conflagration of the Albion Mill grieved me sincerely, both as it was a grand and successful effort of human art, and also because I fear you were a considerable sufferer by it. I well remember poor old Mr. Seward comparing the Immortality of the Soul (in a devout sermon) to a fire-engine. He might now have made it a type of the mortality of this world, and the conflagration of all things.”

[294] In a letter from Priestley to Boulton, dated London, 6th November, 1775, he wrote,—“I shall not quarrel with you on account of our different sentiments in politics. When I tell you what is fact, that the Americans have constructed a cannon on a new principle, by which they can hit a mark at a distance of a mile, you will say their ingenuity has come in aid of their cowardice! I would tell you the principle of it, but that I am afraid it would set your superior ingenuity to improve upon it for the use of their enemies.” From Boulton’s memoranda-books we find that the subject of improved artillery had occupied his attention some ten years before.

[295] Mrs. Schimmelpenninck, who had no sympathy for Dr. Priestley’s religious views, nevertheless bears eloquent testimony to the beauty of his character. She speaks of him as “a man of admirable simplicity, gentleness, and kindness of heart, united with great acuteness of intellect. I can never forget,” she says, “the impression produced on me by the serene expression of his countenance. He, indeed, seemed ever present with God by recollection, and with man by cheerfulness.... A sharp and acute intellectual perception, often a pointed, perhaps a playful expression, was combined in him with a most loving heart.... Dr. Priestley always spent part of every day in devotional exercises and contemplation; and unless the railroad has spoilt it, there yet remains at Dawlish a deep and beautiful cavern, since known by the name of “Dr. Priestley’s cavern,” where he was wont to pass an hour every day in solitary retirement.”—‘Life of Mary Ann Schimmelpenninck.’

[296] Boulton to Watt, 3rd July, 1781. Dr. Black denominated carbonic acid gas “fixed air” because of his having first discovered it in chalk, marble, &c., wherein it was fixed until the furnace or other means extracted it from its fixture.

[297] Boulton to Henderson, 6th September, 1781.

[298] Wedgwood to Boulton, Etruria, 10th March, 1781.

[299] Boulton to Wedgwood, 30th March, 1781.

[300] Watt to Boulton, 26th October, 1782.

[301] A common word in the north,—meaning literally putting sense into one.

[302] He discovered, in the course of his inquiries at different periods, no fewer than nine new gases,—oxygen, nitrogen (a discovery also claimed by Cavendish and Rutherford), nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, sulphurous acid, muriatic acid (chlorine), volatile ammonia, fluo-silicic acid, and carbonic oxide,—“a tribute to science,” as is truly observed by Dr. Henry, “greatly exceeding in richness and extent that of any contemporary.”

[303] We find among the Boulton MSS., a letter from Priestley, dated Calne, 28th September, 1776, introducing Warltire to Boulton as follows:—“As I know you will take pleasure in everything in which the advancement of science is concerned, I take the liberty to recommend to you Mr. Warltire, who has been some time in this part of the country, and who is going to read lectures on the subject of Air at Birmingham. I think him an excellent philosopher, as well as a modest and agreeable man. He is perfectly acquainted with his subject, and has prepared a set of experiments which have given the greatest satisfaction wherever he has been. He has been so obliging as to spend some time with me, and has given me much assistance in my late experiments, of which he can give you some account.”

[304] Wilson’s ‘Life of Cavendish,’ p. 60. In this work, the claims of Cavendish are strongly advocated. The case in favour of Watt is alike strongly and ably stated by Mr. Muirhead in his ‘Correspondence of the late James Watt on his Discovery of the Theory of the Composition of Water.’

[305] Watt to Boulton, 10th December, 1782.

[306] De Luc, Watt’s “ami zÉlÉ,” as he described himself, confirms the fact of Cavendish having, in 1782, communicated to Priestley the nature of his experiments as well as his theory of the composition of water, in the following passage:—“Vers la fin de l’annÉe 1782, j’allai À Birmingham, oÙ le Dr. Priestley s’Étoit Établi depuis quelques annÉes. Il me communiqua alors que M. Cavendish, d’aprÈs une rÉmarque de M. Warltire, qui avoit toujours trouvÉ de l’eau dans les vases oÙ il avoit brÚlÉ un mÉlange de l’air inflammable et d’air atmosphÉrique, s’Étoit appliquÉ À dÉcouvrir la source de cette eau, et qu’il avoit trouvÉ qu’un mÉlange d’air inflammable et d’air dÉphlogistique en proportion convenable, Étant allumÉ par l’Étincelle Électrique, se convertissoit tout entier en eau.—Je fus frappÉ au plus haut degrÉ de cette dÉcouverte.”—‘IdÉes sur la MÉtÉorologie,’ tome 2, 1787, pp. 206–7.

[307] Watt to Black, 21st April, 1783.

[308] That Watt felt keenly on the subject, is obvious from his letter to Mr. Fry of Bristol (15th May, 1784), wherein he says,—“I have had the honour, like other great men, to have had my ideas pirated. Soon after I wrote my first paper on the subject, Dr. Blagden explained my theory to M. Lavoisier at Paris; and soon after that, M. Lavoisier invented it himself, and read a paper on the subject to the Royal Academy of Sciences. Since that, Mr. Cavendish has read a paper to the Royal Society on the same idea, without making the least mention of me. The one is a French financier; and the other a member of the illustrious house of Cavendish, worth above 100,000l., and does not spend 1000l. a year. Rich men may do mean actions. May you and I always persevere in our integrity, and despise such doings.”

[309] Watt to Boulton, 20th September, 1785.

[310] Watt to Boulton, 30th December, 1787. Boulton MSS.

[311] Mr. W. P. Smith, of the Patent Museum, raised this question at a meeting of the Photographic Society held on the 3rd November, 1863. Certain photographic pictures on metal plates were found in Mr. Boulton’s library at Soho, which, it was supposed, had not been opened for about fifty years: and it was accordingly inferred that these photographs had been the work of Mr. Boulton, or some member of the Lunar Society, about the year 1791. One of them was supposed to be a view of Soho House “before the alterations, which were made previous to 1791.” But the evidence is very defective, as has been clearly shown by M. P. W. Boulton, Esq., the grandson of Mr. Boulton, in his ‘Remarks concerning certain Photographs supposed to be of early Date’ (Bradbury and Evans, 1864). Instead of having been closed for fifty years, the room in which the pictures were found, was in constant use, and the books were freely accessible. It is also very doubtful whether the house represented in one of the pictures is old Soho House; the strong probability being that it is not, but a house still standing at Winson Green. The explanation given by Mr. M. P. W. Boulton seems to be the true one—that the room in question having been used by a Miss Wilkinson, an experimenter in photography after its invention by Niepce, these photographs were merely the results of her first amateur experiments in the art. The late Mr. Murdock, son of William Murdock of Soho, who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, was also a very good photographist, and was accustomed to meet Miss Wilkinson to make experiments in the new art.

There can be no doubt that the Wedgwoods of Etruria, more particularly Josiah’s son Thomas, as well as Humphry Davy, were early engaged in experimenting on the action of light upon nitrate of silver, but they wholly failed in fixing the pictures. A letter, dated “January, 1799,” is quoted in the ‘Photographic Journal’ for Jan. 15, 1864, as from James Watt to Josiah Wedgwood (which must be an error, as Josiah died in 1795), in which the following words occur:—“I thank you for your instructions respecting the silver pictures, about which, when at home, I will make some experiments.” If such experiments were really made, we have been unable to find any record of them.

[312] ‘Voyage en Angleterre, en Ecosse, et aux Iles HÉbrides.’ Par B. Faujas-Saint-Fond. 2 vols. Paris, 1797.

[313] Horner’s ‘Memoirs and Correspondence,’ ii. 2.

[314] The word “Brummagem” doubtless originated in the numerous issues of counterfeit money from the Birmingham mints.

[315] The punishment for this crime was sometimes of a very brutal character. In March, 1789, a woman, convicted of coining in London, was first strangled by the stool being taken from under her, and then fixed to a stake and burnt before the debtor’s door at Newgate!

[316] “I lately received a letter from a Jew about making for him a large quantity of base money, but I should be sorry ever to become so base as to execute such orders. On the contrary I have taken some measures to put a stop to the execution of them by others, and if Mr. Butcher hath any plan of that sort he would do well to guard against me; as I certainly shall endeavour all in my power to prevent the counterfeiting of British or other money—that being the principle on which I am acting.”—Boulton to Matthews, December, 1787.

[317] Boulton to Woodman, 13th November, 1789.

[318] Watt says Droz “did not know so much on the subject as Boulton himself did,” and being found incompetent, a pretender, and disposed to be quarrelsome and litigious, he was shortly after dismissed with liberal payment.

[319] In a letter written by James Lawson to Matthew Robinson Boulton shortly after his father’s death, he observed,—“God only knows the anxiety and unremitting perseverance of your father to accomplish the end; and we all aided and assisted to the best of our powers, without ever considering by whose contrivance anything was brought to bear. Indeed the bringing of everything to bear was by your father’s perseverance, and by his hints and personal attendance; for often he attended and persevered in the experiments till we were all tired.”—Lawson to M. R. Boulton, January 10, 1810. Boulton MSS.

[320] We find numerous letters from Boulton to Joseph Harrison relative to the execution of the presses, and the manner in which the various details of the work were to be carried out. On the 16th of January, 1788, he wrote,—“Push forward with the utmost expedition six of the cutting-out presses and one of the coining presses. I have engaged to have six of each kind at work by this day four months.... I shall be obliged to work after the rate of 1500 tons a year. I fear I must have eight presses [eight were eventually erected] in which case I must lengthen the building next the Gate road. Pray push forward, and be silent.” Various details as to the working of the presses and the execution of the coin were given in succeeding letters.

[321] To Lord Hawkesbury he wrote (14th April, 1789),—“In the course of my journeys I observe that I receive upon an average two-thirds counterfeit halfpence for change at toll-gates, &c.; and I believe the evil is daily increasing, as the spurious money is carried into circulation by the lowest class of manufacturers, who pay with it the principal part of the wages of the poor people they employ. They purchase from the subterraneous coiners 36 shillings’-worth of copper (in nominal value) for 20 shillings, so that the profit derived from the cheating is very large. The trade is carried on to so great an extent that at a public meeting at Stockport in Cheshire, in January last, the magistrates and inhabitants came to a resolution to take no other halfpence in future than those of the Anglesey Company [also an illegal coinage, though of full weight and value of copper], and this resolution they have published in their newspapers.”

[322] Boulton to the Lords of the Privy Council for Trade, 16th December, 1787.

[323] In 1787, and again in 1789, we find the merchants, traders, and others in Southwark urgently memorialising the Lords of the Treasury on the subject. The Memorial addressed to them in the latter year was signed by 800 of the principal inhabitants of the Borough, and presented to Mr. Pitt by a deputation, headed by Mr. Barclay, of Thrale’s Brewery. It set forth that the counterfeits of copper coin had become a very serious burden and loss, more especially to poor manufacturers, labourers, and others, many of whom were compelled to take counterfeit copper coin in payment of their commodities and wages; and concluded by stating that, having seen specimens of a new copper coinage made by Mr. Boulton of Birmingham (under order of the Lords of the Privy Council) the Memorialists take leave to represent, that such a coinage, from its greater weight and superior execution, would in their opinion afford to themselves and the public at large a certain remedy for the present grievance, and they therefore strongly recommended its adoption.

[324] The coins were: in 1790, a five-sous piece, “Pacte FÉdÉratif;” in 1792, a four sous “Hercule;” and a two sous “LibertÉ.” Boulton’s reputation as a coiner abroad, brought upon him while at Paris, a host of foreign schemers, one of whom pretended that he had discovered an infallible method of converting copper into gold! The schemer and his wife followed Boulton to Soho, accompanied by a letter of introduction from his friend Baumgarten. After taking measure of the schemer, Boulton replied to Baumgarten as follows:—

[325] The following were the principal provincial halfpenny tokens executed at Soho:—1789, Cronebane and Dundee; 1791, Anglesey, Cornwall, Glasgow, Hornchurch, Southampton; 1793, Leeds, London, Penryn, John Wilkinson’s; 1794, Inverness, Lancaster; 1795, Bishops Stortford; 1800, Enniscorthy.

[326] The following medals were also struck by Mr. Boulton at Soho:—Prince and Princess of Wales on their marriage; Marquis Cornwallis on the peace with Tippoo; Earl Howe on his victory of the First of June; Hudson’s Bay Company; Slave Trade abolished; Chareville Forest; General Suwarrow on his successes in Italy; the Empress Catherine of Russia; in commemoration of British Victories; Union with Ireland; on the peace of 1802; Battle of Trafalgar; Manchester and Salford Volunteers; Frogmore Medal; Prince Regent of Portugal; and the Emperor Alexander of Russia. The execution of the Trafalgar Medal furnishes a remarkable illustration of Boulton’s princely munificence. It was struck on the occasion of Lord Nelson’s last victory, and presented by him, with the sanction of government, to every officer and man engaged in the action. He gave an additional value to the present by confining the medal to this purpose only.

[327] Boulton to Wilson, 26th February, 1792. Boulton MSS.

[328] There was a great deal of graphic vigour in Watt’s correspondence about engines. Thus, in the case of an engine supplied to F. Scott and Co. to drive a hammer, it appears that instead of applying it to the hammer only, they applied it also to blow the bellows. The consequence was, that it worked both badly. They had also increased the weight of the hammer. Watt wrote,—“It was easy to foresee all this; and the only adequate remedy is to have another engine to blow the bellows. It is impossible that a regular blast can be had while the engine works the hammer and bellows, without a regulating belly as big as a church.... They have been for having a pocket bible in large print. If they mean to carry on their work regular, they must have a blowing engine; otherwise they will lose the price of one in a few months.”

[329] Watt to Boulton, 27th June, 1790.

[330] Boulton to his son, 19th December, 1787.

[331] Boulton to Matthews, 25th August, 1788. In a letter dated the preceding day, he wrote—“I have been exceedingly harassed last week, have many letters before me unanswered. I cannot sleep at nights, and the room I write in is so hot by the fire-engine chimney as to relax me, and my head is distracted by the noise of the engine, by the making and riveting of boilers, and by a constant knocking at my door by somebody or other; but I believe and suspect that the separation of my son from me contributes more to the oppression of my spirits than anything else.”

[332] “I have sent my son to Mr. Wilkinson’s ironworks at Bersham, in Wales, where he is to study practical book-keeping, geometry, and algebra, at his leisure hours; and three hours in the day he works in a carpenter’s shop. I intend he should stay there a year; what I shall do with him next I know not, but I intend to fit him for some employment not so precarious as my own.”—Watt to Mrs. Campbell, 30th May, 1784.

[333] Watt, jun., to Boulton, 4th December, 1789.

[334] Mr. Boulton having been absent at Bath, some time elapsed before young Watt’s letter reached him. Receiving no reply, the youth became apprehensive that his letter had fallen into his father’s hands, and wrote a second letter expressing his fears. Thus Boulton replied to both letters at the same time, informing his correspondent for his satisfaction that they had reached him “unopened.” He proceeded—

[335] Watt, junr. to Boulton, 26th March, 1789.

[336] ‘Life of Mary Ann Schimmelpenninck,’ 3rd ed., 1859, pp. 125–6.

[337] Ibid., p. 181.

[338] “The address of the SociÉtÉ des Amis de la Constitution de Bourdeaux” to the Revolutionary Society in London, dated the 21st May, 1791, contains the following passage:—“Le jour consacrÉ À porter le deuil de M. Price [the Rev. Dr. Price recently dead,—an ardent admirer of the French Revolution in its early stages], nous avons entendu la lecture du Discours de M. l’EvÊque d’Autun sur la LibertÉ des Cultes: on nous a fait ensuite le rapport des ouvrages de MM. Priestley et Payne qui ont vengÉ M. Price des ouvrages de M. Burke; et c’est ainsi que nous avons fait son oraison funÈbre. Peut-Être, Messieurs, apprendrez vous avec quelque intÉrÊt, que nous avons inscrit dans la liste de nos Membres les noms de MM. Payne et Priestley; c’est l’hommage de notre estime, et l’estime d’hommes libres a toujours son prix.”

[339] The representation given above of Dr. Priestley’s house is taken from a rare book, entitled ‘Views of the Ruins of the principal Houses destroyed during the Riots at Birmingham, 1791.’ London, 1792.

[340] “At midnight,” says Hutton, “I could see from my house the flames of Bordesley Hall rise with dreadful aspect. I learned that after I quitted Birmingham the mob attacked my house there three times. My son bought them off repeatedly; but in the fourth, which began about nine at night, they laboured till eight the next morning, when they had so completely ravaged my dwelling that I write this narrative in a house without furniture, without roof, door, chimneypiece, window, or window-frame.”—‘The Life of William Hutton,’ written by himself. London, 1816.

[341] “Though our principles, which are well known, as friends to the established government and enemies of republican principles, should have been our protection from a mob whose watchword was Church and King, yet our safety was principally owing to most of the Dissenters living south of the town; for after the first moments they did not seem over nice in their discrimination of religion and principles. I, among others, was pointed out as a Presbyterian, though I never was in a meeting-house in Birmingham, and Mr. Boulton is well known as a Churchman. We had everything most portable packed up, fearing the worst. However, all is well with us.”—Watt to De Luc, 19th July, 1791.

[342] The ‘Discours’ delivered by the MM. Cooper and Watt (1792) may be seen at the British Museum.

[343] ‘Life of Southey,’ vi. 209.

[344] Watt to Boulton, 16th May, 1794. Boulton MSS.

[345] The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended on the 23rd May, 1794.

[346] Watt to Boulton, 19th May, 1794. Boulton MSS.

[347] Watt to Boulton, 23rd May, 1794. Young Watt continued to sympathise with his political friends; as we find him, some months later, writing Matthew R. Boulton from London as follows:—“The citizens here are all in very high spirits since the late trials; and I had the honour of dining with two of the acquitted felons on Sunday last.” Watt, junr., having remained for some time in London on business connected with the prosecution of Bull and others for infringement of his father’s patent, Boulton, junr., kept up an active correspondence with him on the affairs of the firm. In one letter (19th February, 1795), after discussing various matters of detail relating to the letter-copying machine and engine business, Boulton entreats his friend to send him down a supply of hair-powder. “I have to intrust to your care,” he says, “the execution of an important commission on the part of the ladies and myself. The report of a scarcity of hair-powder has caused great consternation amongst the beaux and belles here, and we beg of you to preserve for us 1 cwt. of that necessary article.” To which Watt, jun. replied,—“Your new order is in train, so that I hope (whatever the poor may suffer by the destruction of so scarce an article of nourishment) your aristocratical vanity will be gratified, with only the additional sacrifice of one guinea per annum to your immaculate friend Mr. Pitt, for the purpose of carrying on this ‘just and necessary war!’ Under the existing circumstances, I am doubtful whether I shall not sacrifice my aristocratical appendage [queues being then the appendages of gentlemen], as it goes much against my inclination to throw away my money at this moment of personal poverty, or to contribute any sum, however small, to the support of measures which I reprobate in toto. On the other hand, however, I do say that, of all the taxes which have ever been imposed within my memory, this is the most politic and the least likely to be burdensome to the poor.”—Boulton MSS.

[348] Watt to Boulton, 20th March, 1796.

[349] “We have WON THE CAUSE hollow,” Watt wrote from London. “All the Judges have given their opinions carefully in our favour, and have passed judgment. Some of them made better arguments in our favour than our own counsel, for Rous’s speech was too long and too divergent. I most sincerely give you joy.”—Watt to Boulton, 25th January, 1799.

[350] The model was carefully preserved and exhibited with pride by his son, in whose house at Handsworth we saw it in 1857.

[351] Watt said to Robert Hart, “When Mr. Murdock introduced the slide valve, I was very much against it, as I did not think it so good as the poppet valve, but I gave in from its simplicity.”—Hart, ‘Reminiscences,’ &c.

[352] These several inventions were embodied by him in a patent taken out in 1799.

[353] Burning springs, though by no means common in Europe, were not unknown. They were kept burning by natural and spontaneous supplies of carburetted hydrogen gas issuing from fissures in the earth overlying beds of asphalte or coal. The inflammable character of fire-damp and the explosions which it occasioned in coal mines were also familiar to most persons living in the coal-mining districts. In 1658 Mr. Thomas Shirley first communicated to the Royal Society the result of some experiments which he had made on the inflammable gas issuing from a well near Wigan in Lancashire. Some time before 1691 the Rev. Dr. Clayton, Dean of Kildare, made some experiments on what he called the spirit of coal: he distilled some coal in a retort, and, confining the gas produced thereby in a bladder, he amused his friends by burning it as it issued from a pin-hole. In 1721 Dr. Stephen Hales found it was practicable to produce elastic inflammable air from coal and other substances, and that nearly one-third of Newcastle coal was drawn off in vapour, gas, &c., by the action of heat. In 1733 Sir James Lowther communicated to the Royal Society a paper on the subject of the fire-damp issuing from the shaft of a coal mine near Whitehaven, which had been accidentally set fire to and continued to burn for two years. Dr. Watson, Bishop of Landaff, and Dr. Priestley of Birmingham, examined the properties of coal-gas, and made experiments on its inflammable qualities, but pursued the subject no further. Lord Dundonald also had been accustomed, for the amusement of his friends, to set fire to the gas disengaged by the burning of coal in the process of coke-making. The same phenomena must have been observed on a large scale wherever coke was made. Each chamber in which coal was distilled was in point of fact a gas retort. Oil and gas were the products of the distillation; but strange to say, although the oil was collected and used, no heed was taken of the gas. Nor was it until Mr. Murdock’s attention was called to the subject that lighting by gas was proved to be practicable.

[354] ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ 1808, pp. 124–132.

[355] Many years later (in 1818), when Murdock was at Manchester for the purpose of starting one of Boulton and Watt’s engines, he was invited, with Mr. William Fairbairn, to dine at Medlock Bank, then at some distance from the lighted part of the town. “It was a dark winter’s night,” writes Mr. Fairbairn, our informant, “and how to reach the house over such bad roads was a question not easily solved. Mr. Murdock, however, fruitful in resources, went to the Gas Works, (then established in Manchester), where he filled a bladder which he had with him, and placing it under his arm like a bagpipe, he discharged through the stem of an old tobacco-pipe a stream of gas which enabled us to walk in safety to Medlock Bank.”

[356] Watt here alluded to the new machinery and plant erected at Soho under Murdock’s directions, at a cost of about 5000l. for the purpose of manufacturing gas apparatus.

[358] The first application of the “Gas-light and Coke Company” to Parliament in 1809 for an Act proved unsuccessful, but the “London and Westminster Chartered Gas-light and Coke Company” succeeded in the following year. The Company, however, did not succeed commercially, and was on the point of dissolution, when Mr. Clegg, a pupil of Murdock, bred at Soho, undertook the management and introduced new and improved apparatus. Mr. Clegg first lighted with gas Mr. Ackerman’s shop in the Strand in 1810, and it was regarded as a great novelty. One lady of rank was so much delighted with the brilliancy of the gas-lamp fixed on the shop counter, that she asked to be allowed to carry it home in her carriage, and offered any sum for a similar one. Mr. Winsor by his persistent advocacy of gas-lighting, did much to bring it into further notice; but it was Mr. Clegg’s practical ability that mainly led to its general adoption. When Westminster Bridge was first lit up with gas in 1812, the lamplighters were so disgusted with it that they struck work, and Mr. Clegg himself had to act as lamplighter.

[359] “It consisted,” says Mr. Buckle, “of a piston working in a cylinder 10 feet diameter in water, with a lift of 12 feet, and raised by forcing in air from a small blowing cylinder 12 inches diameter, 18 inches stroke, which was worked by the gearing in the boring-mill.” Paper read by the late William Buckle at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers at Birmingham, 23rd October, 1850.

[360] Lockhart’s ‘Life of Scott,’ one vol. edition, p. 500.

[361] Mr. Buckle, in the memoir above cited, says,—“So completely was he absorbed at all times with the subject he had in hand, that he was quite regardless of everything else. When in London explaining to the brewers the nature of his substitute for isinglass, he occupied handsome apartments. He, however, little respected the splendour of his drawing-room, and, fancying himself in his laboratory at Soho, he proceeded with his experiments quite careless and unconscious of the mischief he was doing. One morning his landlady calling in to receive his orders, was horrified to see her magnificent paper-hangings covered with wet fish-skins hung up to dry; and he was caught in the act of pinning up a cod’s skin to undergo the same process. Whether the lady fainted or not is not on record, but the immediate ejectment of the gentleman and his fish was the consequence.”

[362] The young partners regarded him with a degree of affection and veneration, which often shows itself in their correspondence. Towards the later years of his life Mr. Murdock’s faculties gradually decayed, and he wholly retired from the business of Soho, dying at his house at Sycamore Hill, Handsworth, on the 15th Nov., 1839, in his 85th year.

[363] The first piece of iron-toothed gearing ever cast is placed on the lawn in front of Murdock’s villa. The teeth are of somewhat unequal form, and the casting is rough—perhaps it has been exposed to rough usage. It bears the following inscription:—“This Pinton was cast at Carron Ironworks for John Murdock, of Bellow Mill, Ayrshire, A.D. 1760, being the first tooth-gearing ever used in millwork in Great Britain.”

[364] The Symingtons, father and son, began at an early period to design improvements on Watt’s pumping-engine, and took out a patent for a fire-engine on a new principle as early as the year 1785. Watt heard of its progress from time to time; but he had no great opinion of the Symingtons, and treated their alleged invention with indifference. On the 28th September, 1787, he wrote Boulton,—“Isaac Perrins [a fitter] is returned from Scotland. He says Symington has invented a new engine, which is to work under 12½ lbs. on the inch and has got a patent for it, which Mr. M[eason] has paid for. By his account it seems to be on the same principle as the Trumpeters. As soon as they can rely fully on the new engine, the old one is to be pulled down, and Symington is to put up one of his in the house, and, on that answering, ours is to be stopped!”

[365] This interesting letter, so important as regards the early history of the invention of the steamboat, appeared for the first time in the supplementary volume to the ‘Official Description and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851,’ to which it was contributed by Mr. W. C. Aitkin of Birmingham.

[366] ‘The Elevation, Section, Plans, and Views, of a Triple Vessel, and of Wheels, with Explanations of the Figures in the Engraving, and a short Account of the Properties and Advantages of the Invention.’ By Patrick Miller, Esq., of Dalswinton, Edinburgh, 1787.

[367] Mr. Miller’s statement to the Royal Society, 20th December, 1787.

[368] Boulton to Sir John Dalrymple, 26th March, 1788. The “one purpose” alluded to by Boulton is supposed to have been the Torpedo, then a favourite scheme with French inventors for blowing up English ships.

[369] Taylor to Miller, 20th August, 1788. ‘Supplementary Vol. to Official Description and Illustrated Catalogue of the Exhibition of 1851,’ p. 1473.

[370] Taylor to Miller, 20th August, 1788. ‘Supplementary Vol. to Official Description and Illustrated Catalogue of the Exhibition of 1851,’ p. 1473.

[371] The following contemporary account of the trial appeared in the ‘Scots Magazine’ for November, 1788:—“On October 14th, a boat was put in motion by a steam-engine upon Mr. Miller of Dalswinton’s piece of water at that place. That gentleman’s improvements in naval affairs are well known to the public. For some time past his attention has been turned to the application of the steam-engine to the purposes of navigation. He has now accomplished, and evidently shown to the world, the practicability of this, by executing it upon a small scale. A vessel, 25 feet long and 7 broad, was, on the above date, driven with two wheels by a small engine. It answered Mr. Miller’s expectations fully, and afforded great pleasure to the spectators. The success of this experiment is no small accession to the public. Its utility in canals, and all inland navigation, points it out to be of the greatest advantage, not only to this island, but to many other nations of the world. The engine used is Mr. Symington’s new patent engine.”

[372] From a memorandum found amongst Mr. Boulton’s papers, we learn that the following were the details of Symington’s engine:—“Engine hath two cylinders of 18 inches diameter each and 2 feet stroke. The rods of each piston are connected to a circular barrel of cast iron by means of chains, so that whilst one piston moves down the other ascends, and so gives the barrel a reciprocating motion. Upon the axis of the barrel is an arm or lever which works the plug and working gear. Each of the cylinders hath 2 pistons, one at top and the other at bottom; the 2 bottom pistons have their rods moving in stuffing-boxes and are connected together by a beam. The steam is admitted into the cylinder at its side, between the 2 pistons, and moves the one up and the other down; but the motion of the upper is greater than the under. When the upper piston is got to the top and the under one to the bottom, the steam valve is shut and the exhaustion one opened; by which the steam is admitted into the bottom of the cylinder, and is in its way met by a jet of cold water, which condenses it, and then it is squeezed out by the under piston, which in fact makes the bottom of the cylinder an air-pump. Whilst this condensation is going forward in the one cylinder, the steam is operating in the other, and vice versÂ.”

[373] “I am now satisfied,” he said, “that Mr. Symington’s steam-engine is the most improper of all steam-engines for giving motion to a vessel, and that he does not know how to calculate frictions or mechanical powers. By means of a new well-constructed valve-wheel, and the pinion being doubled in diameter, I doubt not that the velocity of the vessel’s motion will be increased; but, do as you will, a great deal of power of the engine must be lost in friction. I remember well that when the small engine was wrought in the boat at Dalswinton, I had formed the same idea, and that I told you so; but not having studied the subject, I gave up my own common sense. This is now past remedy. As the engine cannot be of use to me now, I hope, with the aid of Mr. Tibbets and Mr. Stainton, you will get it sold before you leave Carron.”—Miller to Taylor, 7th December, 1789.

[374] J. Watt to R. Cullen, 24th April, 1790, ‘Supplementary Volume to Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Exhibition of 1851,’ p. 1475.

[375] One day in March, 1802, on the occasion of a strong west wind blowing, when the canal-boats could with difficulty be moved to windward, the steamer took in tow two laden sloops, the ‘Active’ and ‘Euphemia,’ of seventy tons each, from Lock 20 to Port Dundas, Glasgow, a distance of 19½ miles, in six hours.

[376] ‘A sketch of the Origin and Progress of Steam Navigation.’ By Bennet Woodcroft. London, 1848.

[377] Symington continued to struggle for many years under the burden of debt which he had incurred by his experiments; and though a sum of 100l. was granted him from the Privy Purse in 1824, and 50l. a year or two afterwards, he remained in a state of poverty during the rest of his life. He died on the 22nd March, 1831, and was buried in the churchyard of St. Botolph, Aldgate, London.

[378] The following deposition was made on oath by Robert Weir of Kincardine, before Robert Dundas J. P. for the county of Perth, at Blair Castle, on the 23rd October, 1824:—“That, in the year 1801, he remembers of Mr. Symington erecting a boat, and fitting a steam-engine into it, and dragging two vessels along the Forth and Clyde Canal by means of the said steamboat. That the deponent was employed as engine-fireman on board of the said boat. Deposes that the following persons, now living, were also on board, viz., Alexander Hart and John Allen, ship-builders, Grangemouth, and John Esplin and William Gow, shipmasters there. That some time after the first experiment, while the boat was lying upon the canal at Lock 16, it was visited by a stranger, who requested to see the boat worked. That the said William Symington desired the deponent to light the furnace, which was done, and the stranger was carried about four miles along the canal, and brought back. That this stranger made inquiries both as to the mode of constructing and of working the boat, and took notes of the information given him by the said William Symington. That the deponent heard the stranger say his name was Fulton, and that he was a native of the United States of America. That the deponent remembers Mr. Symington remarking that the progress of the boat was much impeded by the narrowness of the canal, to which Mr. Fulton answered that the objection would not apply to the large rivers of North America, where he thought the boat might be used to great advantage.”—From copies of affidavits in the ‘Biography of William Symington.’ By J. and W. R. Rankin, Engineers, Falkirk, 1862.

[379] In one of his letters, Bell says—“Fulton came at different times to the country and stopped with me for some time.”—‘Life of Henry Bell,’ p. 74.

[380] Cited in Muirhead’s ‘Life of James Watt,’ 2nd ed. p. 426.

[381] Boulton to Lord Hawkesbury, 22nd August, 1803. Boulton MSS.

[382] It is stated in the ‘Life of Henry Bell,’ that he applied to Mr. Watt in the year 1801, for his advice as to a suitable engine for a steamboat; but Watt gave him no encouragement to proceed with his design. “How many noblemen, gentlemen, and engineers,” he wrote to Bell, “have puzzled their brains, and spent their thousands of pounds, and none of these, nor yourself, have been able to bring the power of steam in navigation to a successful issue.”—‘Life of Bell.’ By E. Morris, Glasgow, 1844, p. 30.

[383] The starting of the ‘Comet’ naturally excited great interest along the Clyde. In the evenings, thousands of spectators lined the banks as far as Govan to see her pass up from Greenock. The masters of the old sailing craft, however, regarded the ‘Comet’ with apprehension and dismay. The old Highland gabert men were especially hostile, denouncing the new vessel as being impelled by the “teevil’s wun” (devil’s wind). The story is told of the steamer one day coming up with a fly boat tacking against the tide, when the crew began to jeer the skipper of the fly, calling upon him to come along with his lazy craft. “Get oot o’ my sight,” he cried, in reply, “I’m just gaun as it pleases the breath o’ the Almichty, and I’ll ne’er fash my thumb how fast ye gang wi’ your blasted deevil’s reek.”

[384] Boulton to Dumergue, 25th December, 1800.

[385] Lockhart’s ‘Life of Scott.’ 8vo. ed. p. 457. One of Scott’s visits to Soho was made in company with his wife in the spring of 1803. Boulton was so pleased with the visit, that he urged Scott, or at least his wife, to repeat it, which produced the following letter, dated London, 13th May, 1803:—

[386] Watt to M. Robinson Boulton, 9th September, 1799.

[387] Watt to M. Robinson Boulton, 26th September, 1799.

[388] Boulton to Watt, 10th October, 1802. One of Boulton’s objects in making his contemplated journey to Paris, was to undertake the erection of coining machinery for the French Government, who were about to recoin the whole of their gold, silver, and copper money. With their imperfect machinery, he calculated that it would take them nearly twenty years to accomplish this; whereas with his new machinery he could undertake to turn out a thousand million of pieces in three years. He communicated to Watt, that he had been making experiments as to the maximum speed of his coining machines, worked by the steam-engine, and found that he could regularly strike fifty-three of his copper pieces or fifty-six English crown-pieces per minute, while he could with one press in collars also regularly strike India copper pieces of half the diameter at the rate of 106 to 112 per minute, or from 6360 to 6720 pieces per hour; but when pieces of half an inch diameter were wanted he had recourse to his new small press, with which he could strike from 150 to 200 pieces per minute! “My presses,” said he, “are far more exact and more durable, and my means of working them are now infinitely beyond anything they (the French coiners) have ever thought of, and my mint is now in far better order than ever.”

[389] Watt to Boulton, 23rd November, 1802.

[390] Robison to Watt, 3rd February, 1797.

[391] Cited in Muirhead’s ‘Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt,’ ii. 264

[392] Lord Cockburn’s ‘Memorials,’ 51.

[393] It is a remarkable fact that Dr. Priestley was regarded with as much suspicion in America as he had been in England. The American government looked upon him as a spy in the interest of France; and he had great difficulty in forming a Unitarian congregation. The horror of the French Revolution, which had extended to America, was the cause of the hostile feeling displayed towards him. “The change that has taken place,” he said, in a letter dated 6th September, 1798, “is indeed hardly credible, as I have done nothing to provoke resentment; but, being a citizen of France, and a friend to the Revolution, is sufficient. I asked one of the more moderate of the party whether he thought, if Dr. Price, the great friend of their own Revolution, were alive, he would now be allowed to come into this country. He said, he believed he would not!”—In 1801 Dr. Priestley, by deed of trust, appointed Matthew Boulton, Samuel Galton, and Wm. Vaughan, Esqrs., trustees for Mrs. Finch (his daughter) and her children, in respect of 1200l. invested for their benefit in public securities.

[394] Beattie’s ‘Life of Campbell,’ i. 112.

[395] Letter to M. R. Morehead, 7th May, 1796.

[396] Paris’s ‘Life of Davy,’ i. 48–9.

[397] ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ xcix. 279.

[398] J. Watt, jun., to M. R. Boulton, 8th June, 1804.

[399] Watt to Boulton, Sidmouth, 14th October, 1804.

[400] Watt to Boulton, Exeter, 22nd October, 1804.

[401] Paris’s ‘Life of Davy,’ i. 198–200.

[402] Cited in Muirhead’s ‘Mechanical Inventions of James Watt,—Correspondence,’ ii. 269.

[403] One of these, thrown out in a letter to Watt, may be mentioned—a speculation since revived by the late Dr. S. Brown of Edinburgh,—the transmutation of bodies. “These are wonderful steps,” said he, “which are every day making in chemical analysis. The analysis of the alkalis and alkaline earths by Guyton, by Henry, and others, will presently lead, I think, to the doctrine of a reciprocal convertibility of all things into all. It brings to mind a minister lecturing on the first chapter of one of the Gospels, when, after reading, ‘Adam begat Abel, and Abel begat,’ &c.,—to save himself the trouble of so many cramp names, he said, ‘and so they all begat one another to the 15th verse.’ I expect to see alchemy revive, and be as universally studied as ever.”

[404] Watt to Boulton, 13th May, 1804.

[405] Watt to Boulton, 14th October, 1804.

[406] De Luc to Boulton, Windsor Castle, 25th January, 1807. It had been arranged that George III., the Queen, and the Princesses, should pay a visit to Soho in 1805, though the King had by that time become quite blind. When told of Boulton’s illness, and that he was confined to bed, his Majesty replied, “Then I will visit Mr. Boulton in his sick-chamber” (MS. Memoir by Mr. Keir). The royal visit was eventually put off, the Council advising that the King should go direct to Weymouth and nowhere else.

[407] The following is the inscription on the mural monument erected to his memory in the side aisle of Handsworth Church, in the composition of which James Watt assisted:—

[408] The monument to Boulton is on the left hand of the altar in the above illustration; that of Murdock is opposite to it, on the right.

[409] Isaac Perrins was one of the most noted among the fighters of Soho. Mr. Scale, a partner in the hardware business, wrote to Mr. Boulton, then at Cosgarne (15th October, 1782),—“Perrins has had a battle with the famous Jemmy Sargent for a hundred guineas, in which Perrins came off conqueror without a fall or hurt: in 13 rounds he knocked down his antagonist 13 times. They had it out at Colemore on our Wake Monday. The Sohoites all returned with blue cockades.” Mrs. Watt, in a gossipy letter to Mr. Boulton of the same date, says “1500l. was betted against Perrins at Birmingham, and lost.” Perrins’s success led him to turn “professional bruiser” for a time, and he left his place in the smith’s shop. But either not succeeding in his new business, or finding the work harder than that of the smithy, he came back to Soho, and, being a good workman, he was taken on again and remained in Boulton’s employment till the close of his life, leaving sons to succeed him in the same department.

[410] Boulton to De Luc, 20th October, 1787.

[411] The MS. memoir is dated Glasgow the 17th September, 1809, at which period Watt was in his 73rd year. It had evidently been written at the request of M. Robinson Boulton, Esq., shortly after his father’s death. We find various testimony to the same effect as the above in the Soho papers. Thus Mr. Peter Ewart, C.E., speaks of Mr. Boulton’s remarkable quickness in selecting objects to which machinery might be applied with advantage, and of his great promptitude and determination in carrying his plans into effect. He also describes the contagiousness of his example, which strengthened the weak and inspired the timid. “He possessed,” says Mr. Ewart, “above all other men I have ever known, the faculty of inspiring others with a portion of that ardent zeal with which he himself pursued every important object he had in view; and it was impossible to be near him without becoming warmly interested in the success of his enterprises. The urbanity of his manners, and his great kindness to young people in particular, never failed to leave the most agreeable impression on the minds of all around him; and most truly may it be said that he reigned in the hearts of those that were in his employment.”—Boulton MSS.

[412] Boulton to M. Vanlinder, Rotterdam, 24th April, 1788.

[413] “Though I was in some measure prepared,” he wrote, “yet I had hoped that he might have recovered from this fit, as he has done from other severe ones. Such wishes, however, were selfish; for in respect to himself, none of his friends could rationally have desired the prolongation of a life which has long been passed in torture, without hope of relief. May he therefore rest in peace; and when our end approaches, may we have as little to reproach us and as much to console us as he had.”—Mr. Watt to his son, 22nd August, 1809. Boulton MSS.

[414] Watt to M. Robinson Boulton, 23rd August, 1809.

[415] Lord Brougham’s ‘Lives of Philosophers of the Time of George III.’ The Friday Club of Edinburgh was so called because of the evening of the week on which it met and supped. It numbered amongst its members Professor Playfair, Walter Scott, Henry Brougham, Francis Jeffrey, Leonard Horner, Lord Corehouse, Sir W. Drummond, and others known to fame. Watt was a regular attender of the Club during his Edinburgh visits.

[416] In March, 1811, he wrote Dr. P. Wilson as follows:—“For want of other news I must now say a little upon my late invention, with which Dr. Herschel seemed much pleased. It continues to succeed, and I have realised some more of my ideas on the subject. I have executed several small busts in alabaster, not being strong enough to work in marble. I had a difficulty in getting the several segments which form the surface of the bust to meet, but have now accomplished it. It requires a very accurate construction of the machine, and a very accurate adjustment of the tools, so that their axes may be always equally distant from each other, as the axes of the pattern and that of the stone to be cut are. I have also made some improvements in the tools for cutting marble and other hard stones. The things you saw were done by the tool and the guide-point, moving in parallel lines, straight or circular, and very near one another; (an illustration of Euclid’s position, that the motion of a point generates a line, and the motion of a line generates a surface). I have now contrived, though not executed, that the two points, the guide and the cutting point, may move in any line, whether straight or crooked, square or diagonal, so that an inscription might be cut in stone from a drawing on paper.”—Cited in Muirhead’s ‘Mechanical Inventions of James Watt,’ ii. 329–30.

[417] Cited in Muirhead’s ‘Mechanical Inventions,’ &c., ii. 340–1. These drawings must be in existence, and of great interest, as showing the vigour of Watt’s inventive faculty at this late period of his life.

[418] In 1808 Mr. Watt made over 300l. to the College by Deed of Gift, for the purpose of founding a prize for students in Natural Science, as some acknowledgment of “the many favours” which the College had conferred upon him.—In 1816 he gave to the Town of Greenock 100l. for the purpose of purchasing books for the Mathematical School. “My intention in this donation,” he observed in his letter to Mr. Anderson of Greenock, “is to form the beginning of a scientific library, for the instruction of the youth of Greenock; and I hope it will prompt others to add to it, and to render my townsmen as eminent for their knowledge as they are for their spirit of enterprise.” Watt’s idea has since been carried out by his townsmen, and the Watt Library is now one of the most valuable institutions of Greenock. It ought to be added, that the erection of the building was mainly due to the munificence of Mr. Watt’s son, the late James Watt, Esq., of Aston Hall, near Birmingham. A marble statue of Watt, by Chantrey, is placed in the Library, with an inscription from the pen of Lord Jeffrey.

[419] Answer by the author of ‘Waverley’ to the Epistle Dedicatory of ‘The Monastery.’

[420] ‘Autobiography of Mrs. Schimmelpenninck,’ 3rd ed. 35.

[421] The following anecdote is told by Mrs. Schimmelpenninck:—“During the peace of Amiens, Mr. Watt visited Paris. It so happened that while going through one of the palaces, I believe the Tuileries, a French housemaid appeared much perplexed concerning some bright English stoves which had just been received, and which she did not know how to clean. An English gentleman was standing by, to whom she appealed for information. This was Charles James Fox. He could give no help; “But,” said he, “here is a fellow-countryman of mine who will tell you all about it.” This was Mr. Watt, to whom he was at the moment talking; and who proceeded to give the housemaid full instructions as to the best mode of cleaning her grate. This anecdote I have often heard Mrs. Watt tell with great diversion.”

[422] Lord Brougham says, “His voice was deep and low, and if somewhat monotonous, it yet seemed in harmony with the weight and the beauty of his discourse, through which, however, there also ran a current of a lighter kind; for he was mirthful, temperately jocular, nor could anything to more advantage set off the living anecdotes of men and things, with which the grave texture of his talk was interwoven, than his sly and quiet humour, both of mind and look, in recounting them.”—‘Lives of Philosophers of the Time of George III.’

[423] “I remember, as a young girl,” she says, “the pleasant dinners and people I have seen at Soho. I remember being present one day when Bertrand de Moleville, the exiled minister of Louis XVI., left the dinner-table to make an omelette, which was, of course, pronounced ‘excellent.’ That man then gave me a lifelong lesson,—of the power of enjoyment and of giving pleasure by his cheerful bright manner and conversation, under such sad circumstances as exile and poverty. I looked at him with great admiration, and I have his face distinct before me now, though I saw him only that once.”

[424] The following is the inscription:—

[425] E. M. Bataille, ‘TraitÉ des Machines À Vapeur.’ Paris, 1847–9.

[426] What the steam-engine has done for the West is well known. What is yet expected from it in the East may be gathered from the few pregnant words lately uttered by Hassan Ali Khan, Persian Ambassador at the Court of France, at the recent celebration in Paris of a national festival instituted nineteen centuries before the birth of Christ. Having recalled the minds of his hearers to the early fire worship of his country, which sprang from the primeval idolatry, he proceeded to say that it was still to Fire that he fondly looked for the regeneration of Persia. Fire had changed the face of Europe. In the steam-engine, the railroad, the electric spark, the screw or paddle ship, far more than in gunpowder or rifled cannon, fire was the great benefactor that would bless one day the land of his forefathers, who had instinctively worshipped that element in secret anticipation of what was to come.