Footnotes
[9]with—for by.
[1]“Intra”—in printed edition, 1663. But “Infra” in MS. and P.
[2]of water—omitted. MS. and P.
[3]that—for the.
[4]found a.
[5]other, have seen. P.
[6]to run.
[7]feet. P.
[8]driving 40 of.
[9]and that to refill.
[1]necessity of—omitted.
[A Fire Water-work.] This is that great invention which has popularized and preserved the fame of the Marquis of Worcester in the public mind. Had the whole of the Century been destroyed, with the exception of this 68th article, enough would have remained to satisfy any engineer, that the Marquis had achieved a grand discovery.
We shall proceed to notice what information books and the patent records would afford, to stimulate his inquiries into the possible practical application of the effects, resulting from the action of fire on water in close vessels.
The work which has, from being often quoted, acquired especial notice on this subject is, “Les Raisons des forces Mouvantes avec diverses Machines. Par Salomon de Caus,” folio, published at Frankfort, 1615, in which, at page 4, theorem V, under the title, “L’eau montera par aide du feu, plus haut que son niveau,” it is illustrated and described as follows:—“Le troisiesme moyen de faire monter, est par l’aide du feu, dont il se peut faire diverses machines, i’en donneray icy la demonstration d’une. Soit une balle de cuiure marquee A. bien soudee tout a lentour, à laquelle il y aura un souspiral marqué D, par ou lon mettra leau, et aussi un tuyau marqué B, C, qui sera soudé en haut de la balle, et le bout C, aprochera pres du fond, sans y toucher, apres faut emplir ladite balle d’eau par le souspiral, puis le bien reboucher et le mettre sur le feu, alors la chaleur donnant contre ladite balle, fera monter toute leau, par le tuyau B, C.” See also Figuier’s “Exposition et Histoire des principales découvertes Scientifiques Modernes.” Tome premier. Paris, 1862, p. 25.
The adjoining engraving is exactly traced from the original, of which it is, in every respect, a faithful copy. It represents a globular metallic vessel A, with a jet and stop-cock at B, and another stop-cock at D, through which water can be injected by means of a syringe. The jet B, is the top end of a pipe C, which nearly touches the bottom of the inside of the hollow sphere. Supposing the globe to be half or two thirds full of water, and placed on a fire, the heat will presently raise a quantity of steam, which, as it increases in quantity, will occupy the upper empty space of the sphere, and by its pressure on the surface of the boiling water, cause the same to rise rapidly up the vertical pipe C, and produce the jet-d’eau above B, the instant the stop-cock is opened. And this operation will continue so long as any water remains for the bottom end of the pipe C, to dip into; after which it can only be renewed by refilling the vessel, and re-boiling the fresh supply of water.
De Caus, in his large folio work, in which varieties of fountains are explained by elaborate copper-plates, and minute descriptions, satisfies himself with the above brief explanation of the simple woodcut figure, which we have here reproduced; from which we infer that he laid no claim to its being his own invention, or at all events that he presented it to his readers as a gratuitous offering, for its curious and amusing results. It is not likely that the author of a considerable work, amidst recondite descriptions and sumptuous engravings of comparatively common affairs would consign his own most valuable contribution to a few lines of bare description and a coarsely engraved diagram. It is obvious, therefore, that De Caus himself, set no great store by this toy fountain; he saw no great scope in its application, and certainly never assumed it to be of greater value than as an amusing experimental fountain. To claim more for an Inventor, than an Inventor claims for himself is mere infatuation. To say that De Caus had only to add another pipe, and only to make another arrangement or two, and then this petite fontaine would somewhat resemble a steam engine, is neither sound nor admissible. An inventor must be judged by his own aim and object, and the example he offers us, without any additions or subtractions at other hands. What De Caus desribes, therefore, is not a continuous but an intermittent fountain; not self-feeding, but to be refilled by a syringe; not emitting cold, but boiling hot water; and the difficulties and delays in the use of which materially increased in proportion with its dimensions.
But there was shortly afterwards published another highly suggestive work, on a mechanical application of steam, in “Le Machine,” by Giovanni Branca, 4to. 1628; in which the 25th figure represents the operation of pounding, the pestles being acted on by pulleys and cog-wheels set in motion by a jet of steam issuing from a pipe against the vanes of a horizontal wheel. The boiler is in the fanciful form of the bust of a negro, with the steam pipe issuing from the mouth.
On the 21st of January, 1630, a patent was granted to David Ramsey, for, among other inventions, one “to raise water from low pits by fire.” But unfortunately, like all patents of that period, it is unaccompanied by any description.
John Bate, in his “Mysteries of Art and Nature,” 1635, 4to. has “a conceited lamp, for forcing water or air through the figure of a bird.” A minute description is given for constructing a small boiler in the form of a crown, surmounted by a bird, and enclosing various perforated pipes and valves, capable of being turned in various directions; the whole is set over a circular lamp, with several cotton wicks. Water being put in the boiler, Bate observes—“Then the water being by little and little converted into ayre, by the heate of the lights that are underneath, will breathe forth at the mouth of the cock;” but, on being partially turned, “then there being no vent for the ayre to breath out at, it will presse the water, and force it to ascend the pipe, and issue out where the air breathed before.” In conclusion he shrewdly remarks:—“Other devices and those more strange in their effects, may be contrived from hence.” (p. 33, 34.)
In the “Recreation Mathematique” of H. van Etten, 1629, 12mo. of which there were translations in several editions, as 1633, 1653, and others, the 67th problem is descriptive “Of the properties of Æolipiles or bowels to blow the fire.” In the course of the article on this subject it is observed: “Vitruvius, in his first book of Architecture, cap. 8, approves from these engines, that winde is no other thing than a quantity of vapours and exhalations agitated with the aire by rarefaction and condensation;” a remark curious enough, if only for the last word “condensation.” The article concludes—“Now it is cunning and subtiltie to fill one of these Æolipiles with water at so little a hole, and therefore requires the knowledge of a philosopher to finde it out; and the way is thus:—Heat the Æolipiles being empty, and the aire which is within it will become extreamely rarefied; then being thus hot throw it into water, and the aire will begin to be condensed: by which meanes it will occupie lesse roome, therefore the water will immediately enter in at the hole to avoide vacuitie: thus you have some practicall speculation upon the Æolipile.”
Here we have “condensation” a second time adverted to, while the whole experiment proves the folly of attributing to Savery a similar result as a novelty leading for the first time to a knowledge of the property of “condensation,” to the disparagement of the Marquis and his predecessors, assuming their total ignorance of what is here so clearly and graphically described.
Again, Van Etten in the fifth section of Problem LXXXV. treats—“Of a fine fountaine which spouts water very high, and with great violence by turning of a cock.” page 193. “Let there be a vessel made close in all its parts, in the middle of which let a pipe open neare the bottome; and then with a squirt squirt in the water (stopped above by the cock or faucet) with as great violence as possible you can, and turne the cock immediately. Now there being an indifferent quantity of water and aire in the vessel, the water keeps itself in the bottom, and the aire which was greatly pressed, seeks for more place, that turning the cock the water issueth forth at the pipe, and flyes very high, and that especially if the vessell be a little heated.” The concluding sentence would no doubt afford a mind like that of the Marquis of Worcester’s abundant matter for experimental trial, if ever consulted by him, either in the original, or in the translation of 1633.
The following extract from Van Etten’s 83rd Problem, “Of Cannons or great Artillery,” affords strong presumptive evidence (taken along with other extracts) of the Marquis’s acquaintance with the work. The Problem is divided into two parts, of which the first alone need be noticed, namely,—“How to charge a cannon without powder.” It is observed—“This may be done with aire and water, only having thrown cold water into the cannon, which might be squirted forceably in by the closure of the mouth of the piece, that so by this pressure the aire might more condense, then having a round piece of wood very just, and oiled well for the better to slide, and thrust the bullet when it shall be time. This piece of wood may be held fast with some pole, for feare it be not thrust out before his time: then let fire be made about the trunnion or hinder part of the piece to heat the aire and water, and then when one would shoot it let the pole be quickly loosened, for then the aire searching a greater place, and having way now offered, will thrust out the wood and the bullet very quick: the experiment which we have in long trunkes [tubes] shooting out pellats with aire only, sheweth the verity of this Probleme.” (page 173.)
The words italicised are a complete description of the Marquis’s experiment, although made with a widely different object, but both afford evidence of the force obtainable from a small quantity of heated water, the one in an imperfectly closed, the other in a well closed cannon. It is remarkable how near this experiment comes to the steam-engine cylinder, piston, and safety valve; and we can scarcely believe that such applications would escape the Marquis’s observation, when repeated and varied as was his customary course in pursuing his own inquiries.
We have thus, from 1615 to 1653, shown, what sources were open to afford suggestions to the Marquis of Worcester’s wakeful and watchful mind, alive and on the alert to seize on every hint promising some enlarged and useful application. We come next to that part of his own statement, where he says: “so that having found a way to make my vessels, so that they are strengthened by the force within them, and the one to fill after the other, &c.” “Vessels” may here apply to cisterns, receivers, boilers, &c., in short whatever appliances were used. But it is usually supposed to mean the boiler only, and hence the difficulty to understand how its safety should increase with the increased internal expansive force of the steam. But allowance must be made for the general vagueness throughout the “Century,” and we must bear in mind that its language was not arranged to inform the public in respect to construction, but, as its author explicitly states, the several inventions are “set down in such a way as may sufficiently instruct me to put any of them in practice.” Now there is good ground for believing that the Marquis had a special meaning for the word “force,” as here applied, a word then used indifferently in its ordinary and in a technical sense, in the same sentence. This is particularly worth illustrating; firstly, because it shows a probability that the Marquis had, before 1655, designed some kind of safety-valve; and secondly, to remove the common supposition of the foregoing invention being utterly paradoxical.
It has already been stated, that there is sufficient evidence to prove, that John Bate’s “Mysteries of Nature and Art,” had attracted the especial notice of the Marquis. He would be about 33 years of age on its first publication, and he wrote his Century about 20 years after its appearance, we may, therefore, readily see how likely it would be for him to adopt even its very style and language. John Bate says, at page 11:—
“A forcer is a plug of wood exactly turned and leathered about; the end that goeth into the barrel, is semicircularly concave; p. 57. Forces may be made to move either horizontally or perpendicularly, according unto the convenience of the work, or the invention of the artist and engineer; p. 59. (Describing ‘the water mill or engine near the north end of London Bridge.’) These two barrels must be bound fast unto two posts of the frame, with two strong iron bands, as T T; unto each of these must be fitted a force well leathered, and in the tops of the forces must be set two pieces of wood.”
Then again, at page 66:—“K K, L L, the barrels of the forces, which force the water;” p. 67. “E, a barrel of brass or wood fastened in the well, K, a force fitted into it.” Again, “the force must be very heavy;” p. 71. “B, a barrel of iron or brass, fastened in the midst of the cistern, with a force fitted unto it;” p. 72. “The force is linked, and it is noted with the letter D,” (in the engraving.) Again, “F, the barrel of the force, fastened within two or three inches of the bottom of the cistern;” p. 73, “C, a force, D, the forces barrel.” Again, “the force draweth the water out of the cistern B, into the barrel D;” p. 74, “another strong iron bar as I I, unto each end whereof must be linked a force; K K, the two barrels of the aforesaid forces.”
In the 21st volume of Philosophical Transactions, published in 1700, there is a description, with an engraving,[M] being, “An account of Mr. Thomas Savery’s engine for raising water by the help of fire.” It states that Mr. Savery, on the 14th of June, 1699:—“Entertained the Royal Society with shewing a model of his Engine for raising water by the help of fire, which he set to work before them; the experiment succeeded according to expectation, and to their satisfaction. The Engine may be understood by the draughts of it, where Fig. 1 is the front of the Engine for raising water by fire; and Fig. 2, the side prospect of the Engine.
“A, is the furnace; B, the boiler; C, two cocks which convey the steam from the bottom in order to discharge it again at the top; D, which convey the steam by turns, to the vessel D. the vessels which receive the water from the bottom in order to discharge it again at the top; E, valves; F, cocks which keep up the water, while the valves on occasion are cleaned; G, the force pipe; H, the sucking pipe; and I, the water.”
Neither at the time nor afterwards does the invention appear to have attracted any further notice in that quarter. The next account we have of it is afforded by “The Miners Friend, or an Engine to raise Water by Fire,” by Thomas Savery, Gent., 1702; in which the invention appears with two furnaces, instead of one, and with other details. In his description he refers to two vessels, marked P, No. 1, and P, No. 2, which correspond with the two receivers above, marked D, D.
Remarking on these, in “The Miners Friend,” Savery says:—“So that P, No. 1, is by the external pressure of the atmosphere, immediately refilled, while P, No. 2, is emptying; which being done, you push the handle of the regulator from you, and throw the force on P, No. 1, pulling the condensing pipe over P, No. 2, causing the steam in that vessel to condense, so that it fills while the other empties. The labour of turning these two parts of the engine, viz. the regulator and water-cock, and tending the fire, being no more that what a boy’s strength can perform for a day together * * * yet, after all, I would have men. * * *”
In the above 68th Article, the Marquis of Worcester says:—“A man that tends the work is but to turn two cocks, that one vessel of water being consumed, another begins to force and refil with cold water, and so successively, the fire being tended and kept constant, which the self-same person may likewise abundantly perform between the necessity of turning the said cocks.”
And in No. 100, he says, “a child’s force bringeth up an hundred feet high, an incredible quantity of water.”
We do not purpose to press any charge against Savery, but simply to relate what is on record respecting the engine he put forward; and to notice here the remarkable coincidence between his description, and that given by the Marquis 32 years before. The Marquis writes in the singular number of “the fire,” thereby indicating a single furnace; and in Savery’s first drawing we find the model represented with one furnace. Then in “The Miners Friend,” we have parts described agreeing precisely with the preceding article, No. 68. And at the particular point just quoted, we have even a closer analogy, in the use of the very same words in reference to the same parts—turning and tending. And while, in No. 100, the Marquis informs us what “a child’s force” can perform; here Savery speaks of “a boy’s strength,” which is enlarged on, however, by recommending a man’s services.
The next earliest notice we find of this engine is given by Richard Bradley, F.R.S., in his “New Improvements of Planting and Gardening,” 8vo. 1718, who, in the third part, at page 175, supplies an engraving of “the late Mr. Savory, F.R.S.,”[N] his engine, as set up by him “for that curious gentleman Mr. Balle of Cambden House.” It is represented as a spherical boiler, capable of holding forty gallons, supported on a tripod, with a fire on the ground underneath. It is connected with a bell-shaped receiver of thirteen gallons capacity, supplied below with a pipe sixteen feet long, and above with a pipe to elevate the water, forty-two feet. The steam pressure is stated to be capable of discharging fifty-two gallons per minute, the pipes being of three inches bore; and the original cost of the whole was £50.
In 1729, Stephen Switzer published his “Introduction to a general system of Hydrostaticks,” in two volumes quarto. He says:—
“Amongst the several Engines which have been contrived for the raising of water for the supply of houses and gardens, none has been more justly surprising than that of the raising of water by fire; the particular contrivance and sole invention of a gentleman, with whom I had the honour long since to be well acquainted; I mean the ingenious Captain Savery, some time since deceased, but then a most noted engineer, and one of the Commissioners of the Sick and Wounded. This gentleman’s thoughts (as appears by a preface of his to a little book, entitled, ‘The Miners’ Friend’), were always employed in Hydrostatics and Hydraulics; and the first hint from which it is said he took his engine, was from a tobacco pipe, which he immersed to wash or cool it, as is sometimes done; he discovered by the rarefaction of the air in the tube by the heat or steam of the water, and the gravitation or impulse of the exterior air, that the water was made to spring through the tube of the pipe in a wonderful surprising manner; though others say, that the learned Marquis of Worcester, in his ‘Century of Inventions,’ (which book I have not seen), see page 68, gave the first hint for this raising water by fire.”—Vol. ii. p. 325.
Thirty-four years later, Dr. J. T. Desaguliers, F.R.S., and Chaplain to His Royal Highness, Frederick, late Prince of Wales, &c., published his “Course of Experimental Philosophy,” in two volumes, quarto, 1763. His 13th section is a discourse on the “Fire-engine,” as the steam-engine was then designated. And the following lecture treats largely on the Marquis of Worcester’s present article in the “Century,” which he quotes and then observes:—
“Captain Savery, having read the Marquis of Worcester’s book, was the first who put in practice the raising Water by Fire, which he proposed for the draining of mines. His Engine is described in Harris’s Lexicon (on the word Engine), which being compared with the Marquis of Worcester’s description, will easily appear to have been taken from him; though Captain Savery denied it, and the better to conceal the matter, bought up all the Marquis of Worcester’s books that he could purchase in Pater-Noster-Row, and elsewhere, and burned them in the presence of the gentleman his friend, who told me this. He said that he found out the power of steam by chance, and invented the following story to persuade people to believe it, viz., that having drank a flask of Florence at a tavern, and thrown the empty flask upon the fire, he called for a bason of water to wash his hands, and perceiving that the little wine left in the flask had filled up the flask with steam, he took the flask by the neck, and plunged the mouth of it under the surface of the water in the bason, and the water of the bason was immediately driven up into the flask by the pressure of the air.”
Desaguliers doubts the veracity of this bottle story, and we may well agree with him, when we find that in another version the discovery is attributed to a tobacco-pipe.
He proceeds:—“Captain Savery made a great many experiments to bring this machine to perfection, and did erect several, which raised water very well for gentlemen’s seats; but could not succeed for mines, or supplying towns, where the water was to be raised very high, and in great quantities: for then the steam required being boiled up to such a strength, as to be ready to tear all the vessels to pieces. I have known Captain Savery, at York-Buildings, make steam eight or ten times stronger than common air; and then its heat was so great, that it would melt common soft solder; and its strength so great as to blow open several of the joints of his machine: so that he was forced to be at the pains and charge to have all his joints soldered with spelter or hard solder.”—Pp. 464–467.
The serious accusation made against Savery of deriving all his information from the Marquis of Worcester’s invention, and destroying all he could procure relating to the Marquis, rests solely on the authority of Desaguliers, to whom it was related by one of Savery’s friends! In 1699, the Marquis’s Act had yet 63 years unexpired, had the Duke of Beaufort felt disposed to investigate how far Savery’s engine interfered with his father’s invention; but no such interest was excited, nor had Savery at any time so much success as to induce such an inquiry. But, in 1699, the Marquis had only been dead 32 years, and we have proof that his engine was in existence in 1670, reducing the space of time to 29 years; by no means an unlikely period for Savery to find parts of the large engine, or models of a small one, or drawings, or MS. descriptions, or verbal details from eye-witnesses, from among some of the many visitants to Vauxhall, if, indeed, not directly from descendants of the “incomparable workman,” Kaltoff.
Savery’s connection with the mining interests of the country would appear to have first drawn his attention to the value of a scheme, proposing to raise vast bodies of water by the aid of a most stupendous power. He might, when a mere youth, have heard enough of the Marquis’s invention, however vaguely communicated, to excite his curiosity, and decide him on a course of action whenever an opportunity should occur.
After a lapse of more than a century and a half, Savery’s claim is not likely to be materially disturbed; but it will always be a matter of interest to observe the close similarity there is between the simple model he exhibited before the Royal Society, and the Marquis of Worcester’s brief summary of the parts and nature of his own engine. And it is not very favourable to a belief in Savery’s independence of the Marquis’s invention, that the former should be the sole inventor of a single marvellous production of ingenuity, without producing any novelty either before or afterwards, or displaying any particular inventive ability to improve on this early effort, which he left as at first produced.
“The Miners Friend” is not unlike an imitation of the “Exact and true definition of the most Stupendous Water-commanding Engine;” for example:—
The Marquis’s invention is recommended “to every individual, if he either have surrounded Marsh-ground to drain, or dry land to improve.”
Savery recommends the Engine he proposes:—
4. “As for draining fens and marshes,” &c.
“Thus whole cities may be kept clean, delightful, and wholesome.”
3. “Nothing can be more fit for serving cities and towns with water.”
“Or, if he have (I further say), Mines wherewith to enrich himself withal.”
6. “For draining of mines and coal pits, the use of the engine will sufficiently recommend itself in raising water so easy and cheap.”
“Houses to be served, or gardens to be beautified by plentiful fountains, with little charge, yet certain in ever so dry a Summer.”
2. “It may be of great use for palaces, for the nobilities, or gentlemen’s houses; for by a cistern on the top of a house * * * which water in its fall makes you what sorts of fountains you please.”
Savery says:—“And though my thoughts have been long imployed about water-works, I should never have pretended to any invention of that kind, had I not happily found out this new, but yet a much stronger and cheaper force or cause of motion than any before made use of. But finding this of rarefaction by fire, the consideration of the difficulties the miners and colliers labour under by the frequent disorders, cumbersomness, and in general of water-engines, incouraged me to invent engines to work by this new force, that tho’ I was obliged to incounter the oddest and almost insuperable difficulties, I spared neither time, pains, nor money till I had absolutely conquer’d them.”
Savery is reputed to have died in 1715, therefore he was very probably between 40 and 50 years of age in 1699; and he might have commenced his investigations into the existence of the Marquis’s inventions, models, books, papers, drawings, and traditional statements at 25 or 30 years of age, still leaving him from 15 to 20 years to complete his search for information. If he died at 60 years of age, he would be 12 years old when the Marquis died. At all events he had ample leisure, and the period was promising for such an inquiry.
In his time neither writers nor inventors were very scrupulous in their adoption of the labours of others; the wholesale literary plunder then practised by compilers, would not be permitted in modern times, nor would it be attempted by any author of moderate reputation. Invention, on the contrary, has always been a doubtful sort of preserve, the rights of which have been contested with fearless impunity by every poacher down to the present period. In the 16th and 17th centuries particularly, no rights were so ill defined as those of the inventor, even in the face of patents, and Acts of Parliament. But the rights of a deceased inventor were still less sacred in public opinion, and there never has been, at any time, an organized body interested in detecting and exposing unjust assumptions of being a true and first inventor.
Savery claimed perfect independence of the Marquis of Worcester, and promulgated a story to parallel that of the pot-lid, usually related in reference to his predecessor’s invention, while (as is pretended) he was a prisoner in the Tower. Let us now compare certain dates and circumstances to see how far they favour Dr. Desaguliers’ charge.
On the 25th of July, 1698, Thomas Savery, Gentleman, had granted to him a 14 years’ patent for “A new Invention for raising of Water and occasioning motion to all sorts of Mill Work by the impellent force of fire.”
Within six months afterwards, on the 21st of January, 1699, died the only son and heir of the Marquis of Worcester, Henry Duke of Beaufort, at 70 years of age.
Within three months after his Grace’s decease Savery had a Bill brought into the House of Lords, which, on the 6th of April, was reported to the House of Commons, and passed on the 25th of the same month. This private Act extended the patent privilege over 21 years further, making 35 years.
On the 14th of June following, it is stated in the Royal Society’s Transactions, “Mr. Savery entertained the Society with shewing the model of his engine for raising water by the help of fire.” (See page 485.)
Dr. Hook was then living, but died on the 3rd of March, 1702. Above 38 years had elapsed since his visit to Kaltoff, to see the engine at Vauxhall; and he could have spoken to the merits of Savery’s engine, as compared with what he had earlier seen, had his age and health permitted, or his inclination prompted him so to act.
On the decease of Dr. Hook, there was published “The Miners Friend,” (1702), by Thomas Savery,[O] Gentleman. He there speaks of his model shown to the Royal Society, “June the 14th, 1699,” thanking the Society for “your kindness in countenancing this invention in its first appearance in the world;” that is, within six months after the death of the Duke of Beaufort.
The Patent of 1698, like all patents of that period, contains no more account of Savery’s engine than the mere title, or designation of the nature and intention of the invention; therefore, when the Act of Parliament was applied for and obtained, there had still been no publication indicating the modus operandi. It was not until the 14th of June, 1699, that the Invention made its first appearance in the world, in the rooms of the Royal Society. And it was not until 1702, that Savery published any account of his invention, and we then expect to learn something interesting in regard to the wonderful discovery. But all he has to say on the matter is in these few lines “And though my thoughts have been long employed about water-works, I should never have pretended to any invention of that kind, had I not happily found out this new, but yet a much stronger and cheaper force or cause of motion than any before made use of. But finding this of rarefaction by fire, the consideration of the difficulties the miners and colliers labour under by the frequent disorders, cumbersomeness, and in general of water-engines, encouraged me to invent engines to work by this new force, that though I was obliged to encounter the oddest and almost insuperable difficulties, I spared neither time, pains, nor money, till I had absolutely conquered them.”
This stoicism and total absence of the least ray of mental enthusiasm are the first remarkable circumstances to strike our observation. Here, after a lapse of three years, some encouragement, and writing on the matter of a great discovery, the precious jewel is treated as if it were of the nature of the most ordinary pump. “And though my thoughts have been long employed about water-works,” yet we are to presume that he never heard of the great “Water-commanding Engine” at Vauxhall, 30 years previous. He believes in his having “found out this new, but yet a much stronger and cheaper force than any before made use of,” yet never, even remotely, declares how or in what way he came by it. “But finding this of rarefaction by fire,” as he says, we on our part naturally ask, And pray where and how did you find it? He names the considerations that “encouraged him to invent engines to work by this new force;” but from the time of producing the model of 1699 to the last improvement of 1702, there was no essential difference; the invention remained the same throughout. The only difficulties in his way were, in his own words, “the oddest and most insuperable,” but we are left to guess in what their oddness consisted.
He finally states, in his first chapter:—“I may modestly affirm that the adventurer or supervisor of the mine will be freed from that perpetual charge, expence, and trouble of repairs which all other engines ever yet employed in mines for the raising of water are continually liable unto.”
In Article No. 100, of the “Century,” however, it is shortly but expressly urged, as one important point, that the engine works, “with little charge, to drain all sorts of mines, &c.”
It appears from documents dated 1664, relating to Vauxhall, that Caspar Kaltoff is named therein as “lately deceased.”[P] So that in 1699 Thomas Savery was left in full possession of the field he had entered upon. The facts and dates now furnished, are not very favourable to the genuineness of Savery’s Invention. For it is not likely that all trace of the “Water-commanding Engine” would have been lost between 1670 and 1699, when Kaltoff’s family were still living, as also many persons who had witnessed the performance of the great engine at Vauxhall. It is true that the last we hear of it is not later than 1670, but it was then the property of the Dowager Marchioness, who died in 1681, and her Ladyship would most likely, from respect, as well as from personal interest in the matter, not permit the engine to be sold or destroyed. Then from 1681 to 1699, reduces the probability of its existence up to a period within 18 years, taking the dates to the uttermost limit, although we can easily understand that for the whole or a large portion of those 18 years Savery was in possession of all the facts he would require for coming before the public on the decease of Kaltoff, the Dowager Marchioness of Worcester, and the Duke of Beaufort; the latter being the last party interested in the invention, and likely, during his life, to frustrate such a design.
But what papers could he procure at Paternoster Row for destruction? 1. There was a pamphlet, being the Definition and Act, the latter printed in black letter. 2. There was the “Definition” itself, printed in the form of a posting bill. And, 3, there was the “Century.” All these were printed 1663 to 1664, and are editions which are now remarkably scarce. There are only about three copies of the Act, and one of the “Definition,” known to exist, while the few copies of the “Century” of 1663, are rarely indeed to be found in private collections. But, besides these, it was quite possible to procure, within 15 or 20 years after his decease, even manuscripts, drawings, and books, the property of the deceased Marquis, more or less referring to his great invention.
Even admitting that Savery was an independent inventor in 1699, notwithstanding so many conflicting circumstances pointing to a different conclusion, he could not have been working many years at York Buildings in the Strand, without hearing of the Engine at Vauxhall, invented by the proprietor of Worcester House in the Strand. This very propinquity alone was sufficient to excite in the mind of some intelligent, inquisitive, and observant visitor the fact, which so singular a coincidence would obviously suggest.
While, however, everybody else is viewing the engine of Savery’s reputed invention with astonishment, Savery himself is present to our mind only as a cold calculating man, proud, not of being a Captain over Mines, but of being designated “Gentleman;” and while thus precise to inform the world of his gentility, he leaves us in perfect ignorance of his mental acquirements, or the origin of the marvellous engine. It may appear to some, that his exhibiting of the model before the Royal Society is at once evidence of straightforwardness and uprightness of conduct. But this view is open to the objection, that he had never before shown the model, and he thanks the Royal Society for “countenancing this Invention on its first appearance in the world.” From the 25th of July 1698, to the 14th of June 1699, he had been nursing the invention in secret. What doubts could remain in his mind, when all persons likely to be most interested were no longer in existence? Men of science alone remained, who might possibly disturb his claims, and what means could be found more likely to set this doubt at rest, than a bold appeal to that learned body? And come of it what might, there would still remain to him the question of improvements; supposing the grand claim to originality to become a matter of dispute. But to Savery’s great satisfaction, if not to his greater surprise, so far from a word of dissent being raised, there was (contrary to all precedent) a certificate given in favour of the invention at Savery’s request.
Savery’s career may be taken as commencing in 1699, thirty-two years after the decease of the Marquis of Worcester, thirty-six years from the date of the “Century of Inventions,” or thirty-nine years after the establishment of the Royal Society, and yet his operations made slight impression on the public, and scarcely any on scientific society. This circumstance removes much of the surprise we might otherwise seriously entertain respecting the occasion of the Marquis of Worcester’s own publications and personal labours, during four arduous years of excessive mental and physical activity, leaving little behind to attest the extent of his operations and the precise nature of the difficulties with which he had to contend. Great strides must have been made in arts, manufactures and trade, during the intervening thirty-two years, all in favour of Savery’s progress, and yet, with the exception of Dr. Papin, scientific men were not attracted by the remarkable results which Savery prominently placed before the public; and Savery’s own exposition before the Royal Society is abridged to a single copper-plate engraving, and the shortest possible printed reference to its several details. Thus was this true mechanical prodigy of the age treated as though it were of little or no interest.
When we compare this long continued apathetic feeling, this absence of forecast to form some strikingly favourable judgment of the value of the novelty thus published, although in its earliest stage, with the superior knowledge on the subject evinced by the writings, labour, and conduct of the Marquis of Worcester, at least thirty-six years before Savery; it is then, and then only, perhaps, that we become fully alive to his almost prescient judgment, that could, as if inspired, prognosticate so truthfully as he did the future benefits of his invention to mankind.
69.
A way how a little triangle[2] scrued Key, not weighing a Shilling, shall[3] be capable and strong enough to bolt and unbolt round about a great Chest an hundred Bolts through fifty Staples, two in each, with a direct contrary motion, and as many more from both sides and ends, and at the self-same time shall fasten it to a place beyond a mans natural strength to take it away: and in one and the same turn both locketh and openeth it.
[A triangle Key.] This ingenious trifle may be really only one part of another instrument, just as we see in the cutting portion of a centre bit, which, if its operation were attempted to be described after the same fashion, would afford a perplexing and seemingly paradoxical statement. Yet no doubt the little triangle key was capable to the full of performing the duty here stated.
70.
A Key with a Rose-turning pipe, and two Roses pierced through endwise[4] the Bit thereof,[5] with several handsomly-contriv’d Wards, which may likewise do the same effects.[6]
[A Rose-Key.]
71.
A key perfectly square, with a Scrue turning within it, and more conceited then any[7] of the rest,[8] and no heavier then the triangle-scrued Key, and doth the same effects.