[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.”

[209] Washborough was much mortified by the decision of the Navy Board, and alleged that he had been badly used by them. The anxieties occasioned by his failure, and the pecuniary losses he had sustained, preyed heavily upon his mind, and he was seized by a fever which carried him off in October, 1781, when only in his 28th year. He was unquestionably a young man of much ingenuity and merit, and had he lived would have achieved high eminence and distinction as an engineer.