[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.

[288] Watt to his brother-in-law, Gilbert Hamilton, Glasgow, June 18, 1786.

[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.