Society, he also witnessed the trial of his paddle-boat on the Thames.
Returning to Marburg, of which university he was professor, he thought
over what he had seen, and it occurred to him to combine the two
contrivances in one, and to apply Savery’s motive power in the pump to
drive Savery’s paddle-wheels. But it took him fifteen years to fit up
a boat that worked to his satisfaction. “It is important,” he wrote to
Liebnitz on 7 July, 1707, “that my new construction of vessel should be
put to the proof in a seaport like London, where there is depth enough
to apply the new invention, which, by means of fire, will render one or
two men capable of producing more effect than some hundreds of rowers.”
Papin’s boat that he intended to send to London was destroyed by some
watermen, who feared the new invention might interfere with their trade.
Savery proposed to apply his engine to various purposes. One was
to pump water into a reservoir for the production of an artificial
waterfall for driving mills or any other ordinary machinery; that
is to say, by means of steam he would lift a body of water which by
flowing back might drive an overshot wheel, from the rotation of
which the motive power for any other mechanical operations would be
derived. This, however, was never done, and Savery’s engine continued
to be employed only in the drainage of Cornish mines. But it had this
disadvantage, that it could not heave water but to about eighty feet,
and as the depth of mines was from fifty to a hundred yards, the only
way to exhaust the water was by erecting several engines in successive
stages, one above the other. But the expense of fuel and attendants and
the constant danger of explosions rendered it clear that the use of
his engine for deep mines was altogether impracticable. Such was the
state of affairs when Thomas Newcomen, a blacksmith and ironmonger of
Dartmouth, turned his attention to the matter.
Thomas Newcomen was a member of a very ancient family.
In the church of Stoke Fleming, near Dartmouth, is a brass with this
inscription:--
Elias old lies here intombed in grave,
But Newcomin to heaven’s habitation.
In knowledge old, in zeal, in life most grave,
Too good for all who live in lamentation.
Whose sheep and seed with heavie plaint and mone,
Will say too late, Elias old is gone!
The 13th May, 1614.
Over this inscription is a shield of arms, with helmet, crest,
and mantling, bearing the arms of Newcomen, of Saltfleetby, in
Lincolnshire, with six quarterings. This is the monument of Elias
Newcomen, rector of Stoke Fleming. The pedigree of the family commences
with Hugo Newcomen, of Saltfleetby, in 1189-99. Elias Newcomen, rector
of Stoke Fleming, had a brother Robert, who went to Ireland and was
created a baronet.
The son of the Rev. Elias was Thomas, who settled in Dartmouth, and
this Thomas had a son Elias, who was the father of the inventor Thomas,
who was baptized at Dartmouth 28 February, 1663-4. He married Hannah,
daughter of Peter Waymouth, of Malborough, Devon, in 1705, and died in
1729.
He left two sons, Thomas and Elias; and Thomas Newcomen, son of the
inventor, compiled a pedigree with a view to proving his claim to the
Irish baronetcy, but probably abandoned the attempt from want of funds
to prosecute the claim.[25]
[Illustration: SKETCH OF NEWCOMIN’S HOUSE, LOWER STREET, DARTMOUTH,
BEFORE IT WAS DEMOLISHED]
[Illustration: THE CHIMNEY-PIECE AT WHICH NEWCOMIN SAT WHEN HE INVENTED
THE STEAM-ENGINE]
Although of gentle blood, Thomas Newcomen, son of Elias, and the
inventor, was a tradesman in Dartmouth, variously described as a
locksmith, an ironmonger, and a blacksmith; and probably combining all
these trades. He lived in a picturesque gabled house, with overhanging
stories sustained by carved-oak corbels, in Lower Street. As the
street was very narrow, it was taken down by order of the Local Board,
in 1864, and Mr. Thomas Lidstone became the purchaser of the most
interesting portions of the old dwelling. These he afterwards erected
in a new building for himself, which he called Newcomen Cottage. This
Mr. Lidstone was greatly interested in the history of Newcomen, and in
1871 published _A Few Notes and Queries about Newcomen_, and in 1876
_Notes on the Model of Newcomen’s Steam Engine_ (1705).
For some time Thomas Newcomen carried on his experiments in secret on
the leads of his house. A letter extant of the time is quoted by Mr.
Lidstone.
“When [Newcomen] was engaged on his great work, which took him three
years from its commencement until it was completed, and was kept a
profound secret, some of his friends would press Mrs. Newcomen to find
out what her husband was engaged about, and, ‘for their part, they
would not be satisfied to be kept in ignorance.’ Mrs. Newcomen replied,
‘I am perfectly easy. Mr. Newcomen cannot be employed about anything
wrong; and I am fully persuaded, when he thinks proper, he will,
himself, unasked, inform me.’”
When Thomas Newcomen had perfected his engine he associated with
himself Calley or Cawley, a Dartmouth brazier, and How, another
Dartmouth man, in applying for a patent.
Newcomen was a man of reading, and was in correspondence with Dr.
Hooke, secretary of the Royal Society. There are to be found among
Hooke’s papers, in the possession of the Royal Society, some notes
of observations made by him for the use of Newcomen on Papin’s
boasted method of transmitting to a great distance the action of a
mill by means of pipes. Papin’s project was to employ the mill to
work two air pumps of great diameter. The cylinders of these pumps
were to communicate by means of pipes with equal cylinders furnished
with pistons in the neighbourhood of a mine. The pistons were to
be connected by means of levers with the piston-rods of the mine.
Therefore, when the piston of the air pumps at the mill was drawn up by
the engine the corresponding piston at the side of the mine would be
pressed down by the atmosphere, and thus would raise the piston-rod in
the mine and throw up the water. It would appear from these notes that
Dr. Hooke dissuaded Newcomen from erecting a machine on this principle,
of which he saw the fallacy.
It is highly probable that, in the course of his labours and
speculations, it occurred to Newcomen that the vacuum he so much
desired to create might be produced by steam, and that this gave rise
to his new principle, and the construction of his steam engine. He saw
the defects of Savery’s engine, and laboured to correct them. Savery,
however, claimed the invention as his own, which lay at the root of
Newcomen’s improvements; and Newcomen, being a Quaker, and averse from
contention, and moreover glad to be assisted by Savery’s wide circle of
acquaintances, was content to share the honours and the profits with
Savery.
Switzer, who knew both, says: “Mr. Newcomen was as early in his
invention as Mr. Savery was in his; only, the latter being nearer the
Court, had obtained the patent before the other knew it, on which
account Mr. Newcomen was glad to come in as a partner to it.”[26]
[Illustration: _The STEAM ENGINE near Dudley Castle. Invented by_ Capt.
Savery. & M^r. Newcomen Erected by y^e later. 1712 _delin. & Sculp by
T^t Barney 1719._
_Reproduced by kind permission of Messrs. Macmillan & Co._]
Savery had created his vacuum by the condensation of steam in a closed
vessel by dashing cold water against it. Papin had created his vacuum
by exhausting the air in a cylinder, fitted with a piston, by means of
an air pump. What Newcomen did was to combine both systems. Instead
of employing Savery’s closed vessel, he made use of Papin’s cylinder
fitted with a piston, but worked by the condensation of steam, still
employing the clumsy system of dashing cold water against the cylinder.
Whilst the engine was still in its trial state an accident occurred
that led to another change in the mode of condensation. It was this. In
order to keep the cylinder as free from air as possible, great pains
were taken to prevent it from passing down with the piston, and to keep
the cylinder air-tight, water was employed to lie above the place where
the piston passed up or down.
At one of the early trials the inventors were surprised to see the
engine make several rapid strokes, and on looking into the cause found
that there was a small hole in the piston, which allowed a jet of cold
water to penetrate within, and that this acted as a rapid condenser of
the steam.
A new light suddenly broke upon Newcomen. The idea of condensing the
steam, and so producing a vacuum by injecting cold water into the
receiver, instead of splashing it against the outside, at once occurred
to him; and he proceeded to embody the principle which this accident
had suggested, as part of his machine.
Another improvement was due to another accident, if so it may be
termed. To keep the machine in action a man or boy had to be employed
in turning alternately two taps, one admitting the steam into the
cylinder, the other admitting the cold jet into it to condense it.
The story has been often told how that a boy named Humphry Potter
was planted beside the engine to turn the cocks, and found that this
was excessively tedious and monotonous work, and being a shrewd lad,
observing the alternate ascent and descent of the beam above his head,
worked by the piston, he thought that by attaching to the beam the
levers that governed the cocks, that would do the work for him. The
result was the contrivance of what he called the _scoggan_, consisting
of a catch, worked at first by strings, and afterwards by rods, that
did the work automatically. This story has however been discredited.
See Galloway’s _Steam Engine_, 1881.
“Thus, step by step,” says Mr. Smiles, “Newcomen’s engine grew in power
and efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
machine. It will be observed that, like all other inventions, it
was not the product of any one man’s ingenuity, but of many. One
contributed one improvement, and another another. The essential
features of the atmospheric engine were not new. The piston and
cylinder had been known as long ago as the time of Hero (222-205
/B.C./). The expansive force of steam and the creation of a
vacuum by its condensation had been known to the Marquess of Worcester,
Savery, Papin, and many more.
“Newcomen merely combined in his machine the result of their varied
experience, and, assisted by the persons who worked with him, down to
the engine-boy Potter, he advanced the inventions several important
stages, so that the steam-engine was no longer a toy or a scientific
curiosity, but had become a powerful machine capable of doing useful
work.”[27]
In 1712 Newcomen and his partner, Cawley, contracted to erect an engine
at Wolverhampton. Next they erected two engines near Newcastle. The
fourth was put up at Leeds in 1714. The fifth was erected in Cornwall
at Wheal Fortune in 1720, and was on a larger scale than any previously
constructed, having a cylinder of nearly four feet in diameter, and
its performance was regarded as extraordinary, since it made fifteen
strokes a minute, and drew up at each stroke a hogshead of water from a
depth of 180 feet.
Thomas Savery was a captain of military engineers in 1702, and in
1705 he published a translation of Cohorn’s work on fortification. In
the same year he was appointed Treasurer of the Hospital for Sick and
Wounded Seamen. In 1714, by the favour of Prince George of Denmark, he
was given the surveyorship to the waterworks at Hampton Court; but he
died in the course of the following year, 15 May, 1715.
The date of Newcomen’s death has been already mentioned. Engines of his
pattern continued to be erected long after his death, till there was
scarcely a tin or copper mine of any importance in Cornwall that had
not one or more of such engines at work, and the gaunt and ugly ruins
of the engine-houses disfigure the landscape throughout the mining
districts of Cornwall.
In 1882 Louis Figuier produced a five-act play at the Gaieté in Paris
on Denis Papin. According to this version, Papin, who was a Huguenot,
having fled to London with his family after the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, abandoned wife and family to go to Germany, there to pursue
his scientific investigations. When skimming a pot, he noticed the
force that raised the lid, and conceived the idea of the power of steam.
He next set about contriving a model of a steamboat, and as that was
successful, he constructed another on a large scale on the Weser,
which was hacked to pieces by the boatmen, who were incited to this
act of vandalism by a harpy of the name of Barbara. Papin returned to
London, where his wife and son, he learned, had died during his ten
years’ absence, and there, when reduced to the utmost distress, he
learned that a Dartmouth locksmith named Thomas Newcomer [sic] had
invented an engine in which steam was employed as a motive power.
Papin then begged his way to Dartmouth, and recognized in Newcomer his
son, whom he had supposed to be dead. The young man had been led to
this invention by information he had found in drawings and writings of
his father that had been left behind when he went to Germany. Papin
did not make himself known, however, but allowed his son to reap all
the honour and reward of his discovery. In the last scene Newcomer’s
pump is being tried on the Thames in the presence of the Lord Mayor
and Corporation of London, when Barbara and the Weser boatmen, having
crossed the “silver streak” for the purpose, cripple the machine by
cutting some cord that prevents the valve opening, and Papin, who has
perceived this, rushes forward to avert an explosion, and falls a
victim to his generous devotedness, for the boiler bursts just as he
reaches it; he dies in his son’s arms, and Newcomer proclaims to the
Lord Mayor and the world generally that all the honour of the invention
and application of steam is due to his father, a Frenchman--a very
satisfactory conclusion for a French audience.[28]
The French continue to claim for their countryman the glory of being
the inventor of the modern steam engine. The system of the Marquess of
Worcester was propulsion of cold water by the introduction of a blast
of steam. Papin suggested the use of a vacuum formed by condensation of
steam, so as to work a piston; and this vacuum in a cylinder he formed
first by exploding gunpowder in it; and, as this did not answer, by
removing the fire every time the condensation was required--a clumsy
and impracticable method. Savery formed the vacuum first by dashing
cold water against the cylinder, then by forming an outer ring of cold
water about the receiver; but this did not answer well, as this body of
water rapidly heated. Moreover, he did not adopt the piston, but drew
up the water from mines by suction. Then came Newcomen, who adapted
the piston in a cylinder to Savery’s engine; and finally Newcomen and
Savery together discovered how to chill and condense the steam by an
injection of cold water. Papin undoubtedly suggested the leading lines
on which the steam engine was to be constructed, but he was unable
effectually to apply his ideas or to rectify defects in such machines
as he suggested. The solution was due to Newcomen and Savery.
ANDREW BRICE, PRINTER
Andrew Brice, an Exeter printer, was born 21 August, 1692, “in the
house where Mary Hellier now lives [1719] near the Butcherow.”[29] He
was educated to be a dissenting minister, and received a good grounding
in classical studies. But owing to the pinched circumstances of his
father, and probably also his own disinclination for the pastorate, he
was withdrawn from school, and at the age of seventeen apprenticed to a
printer. His earliest biographer[30] states:--
“Mr. Bliss, a printer of Exeter, wanting a person capable of correcting
the press, young Brice (aged 17) was proposed to, and accepted by
him as an apprentice for the term of five years. However, having
long before his service expired inconsiderately contracted marriage,
and being unable to support a family of a wife and two children,
he enlisted as a soldier in order to cancel his indentures; and,
by the interest of his friends, very soon procured his discharge.”
Bliss in his paper, the _Mercury_, 30 December, 1715, inserted this
advertisement: “Whereas Andrew Brice, who is my Lawful Apprentice,
hath, without any Cause, in the midst of a Flush of Business, and when
I was disabled by Illness from working myself, roguishly absconded and
deserted my Service to my present great Loss of Businress [sic], and
Damage, this is to forbid all Persons to entertain or Employ the
said Andrew Brice in any Business, or upon any Account, whatsoever;
for, acting by the Advice of the Learned in the Law, I am resolved,
upon Notice thereof to prosecute such as shall so do. If he returns
not to my Business in a very short Time, I shall apply myself to the
Magistrates of this City for Justice in this Case.
[Illustration: ANDREW BRICE, PRINTER
_Reproduced by kind permission from a print in the possession of Dr.
Brushfield_]
“N.B. I am inform’d his dependence is on Mr. Bishop; but I am greatly
deceiv’d, if He is not a Person of more sense; and better understands
what belongs to an Apprentice, than to encourage such a Rascal as shall
so basely leave his Master without the least Cause. /Joe Bliss/.”
What became of Brice during the next two years is not known, but
in 1717 he was back in Exeter, for on 22 March of that year Bliss
inserted the following paragraph in his _Protestant Mercury_: “N.B.
Having received reiterated Assurances from several Gentlemen, that,
notwithstanding that Villain Brice’s Opposition against me, they are
firmly resolved to continue in my Interest: To oblige them, therefore,
and the rest of my Customers, I shall for the future publish my
News on no worse Paper than this, Price One Penny. I can’t forbear
remarking, how that sorry Rascal has opened his Printing Press with a
most rediculous and shabby Advertisement, and a shameful obscene bawdy
Ballad, which deserves to be burnt. Curious Specimens of Rare Genius
and Great Capacity.”
It is evident from this that Brice had already taken up his permanent
abode in Exeter, and had established himself there with a printing
press of his own. His place of business was in Southgate Street, and
he started a paper of his own, the _Postmaster, or Loyal Mercury_. In
the “Journals of the House of Commons” we find under date 19 December,
1718: “Complaint having been made to the House, as a printed Pamphlet,
intituled _The Postmaster, or the Loyal Mercury, Friday, November the
28th, 1718; Exon._ Printed by Andrew Brice, at the head of the Serge
Market in Southgate Street. Wherein the Resolutions and Proceedings
of this House are falsely represented and printed, in Contempt of the
Order, and in Breach of the Privilege of this House; the said Pamphlet
was delivered in at the Clerk’s Table; and several Paragraphs thereof
being read: _Ordered_ That the said Andrew Brice do attend this House
upon Wednesday the 14th January.”
On the day appointed Brice presented himself at the Bar, and it
was ordered “that the said Andrew Brice be, for the said Breach of
Privilege, taken into Custody of the Sergeant of Arms.” Next day,
having acknowledged his offence, “he was accordingly brought to the
Bar: when he, upon his Knees, received a Reprimand from Mr. Speaker;
and was discharged out of Custody, paying his Fees.”
Brice introduced a new feature into his paper by devoting the first
two pages to some tale or narrative of voyages, continued from week to
week, in the style of the French _feuilleton_. His paper terminated its
career on Friday, 23 April, 1725, owing to the imposition of a Stamp
Duty of a penny for every whole sheet; but on the ensuing 30th April,
in the same year, appeared a new journal from his press, entitled
_Brice’s Weekly Journal_, price twopence.
In the meantime Samuel Farley, an enterprising printer, had started a
rival paper, _Farley’s Exeter Journal_, and this seriously interfered
with the sale of Brice’s _Journal_. This led to bickering that reached
a climax in 1726, when there ensued an open quarrel, and Brice was
obliged to publish an apology. According to his own admission, he had
acted in an injudicious and unjustifiable manner. However, he wrote:
“The Farleys have vauntingly given out, That they will totally effect
my Overthrow, and that I am now tottering on the Brink of Destruction;
For that Sam the younger is now actually gone to London to swear some
dreadful Thing (I know not what) against me,” and he intimates that he
may possibly be compelled to shift his quarters to Bristol.
In 1727 Brice energetically took up the case of the treatment of
insolvent debtors. In his _Journal_ of 8 September appeared “The
Case of Mr. Charles Lanyon, &c., of Newlyn, near Penzance, Merchant,
a Prisoner in the Sheriff’s Ward in St. Thomas’s,” with a copy of a
letter to Mr. George Glanvill, gaoler of this prison, which had been
disregarded by him; and a postscript commencing: “We have desired Mr.
Brice, in pure Commiseration, to insert this Account in his Journal,
that the World may be made sensible of our Sufferings.”
On 20 October he contrasted the manner in which Dally, the keeper of
Southgate Prison, treated those committed to his charge with that of
Glanvill at St. Thomas’s. “Be it known to my Country Readers, that that
very worthy Governor is as distinguishable for Humanity, Good-nature,
Charity, and Indulgence to the poor People under his Guard and Care, as
He in St. Thomas’s is for Revenge, Savageness, Cruelty, and a long _et
cætera_ of abhorred Things which want a Name.”
Brice doubtless had good cause to bring before the public the atrocious
manner in which insolvent debtors were treated, but he did this in an
intemperate manner, and with personal abuse that Glanvill could not
allow to pass without placing the matter in the hands of his lawyer,
and legal proceedings were taken against Brice.
In his _Journal_ of 10 November is the remarkable paragraph: “This is
to give Notice, that the poor Printer hereof, who expects never to be
free from Trouble till Death or Dishonesty takes him under Tutelage,
was last Week sued by the most merciful Governour of St. Thomas’s. But
he dares lay _2d. ob._ neither he nor his Councel knows for what. Well!
the Comfort is he fears none but God.... However, being just going to
drink, Mr. Grandvile, my humble Service t’ye!”
Up to the end of the year Brice continued to hammer at Glanvill; one
of his leaders, being a specially vituperative one, he repeated twice;
and in his paper of 16 August, 1728, he accused Glanvill of riding
round the country, visiting the gentlemen empanelled on the jury for
the trial of the case, to endeavour to prejudice and influence them
in his own favour against Brice. After several adjournments the case
was tried; and judgment was given against Andrew Brice, and a fine and
costs imposed, amounting to a large sum.
Dr. Brushfield says truly: “That Brice’s language was strong,
outspoken, coarse, and at times savage, no one will dispute--he was
undoubtedly a hard hitter, and went straight to the mark. In reflecting
upon him, due regard must be had to the coarse period in which he
lived. Let any one read the accounts given by the debtors themselves
and others (in _Brice’s Weekly Journal_, 8 September, 1717, 19 July,
and 6 December, 1728); and if they even make allowance for some
exaggeration, let them ask themselves whether anything could be more
revolting than Glanvill’s treatment of the debtors, and whether Brice’s
language could be too strong in his condemnation of such practices.
In such a case, truth, if vigorously expressed, was a libel in law.
His active sympathies were roused by, what appeared to him to be,
the gross injustice and cruelty of the keeper of St. Thomas’s Ward.
His enthusiasm never wavered in the support of what he deemed to be
a good cause; and no subject did he prosecute more vigorously than
that of rendering some assistance to the confined debtors. Under such
circumstances, trouble, expense, and future consequences were never
considered by him.”