THE RECORD OF THE STEAM ENGINE
The Soho works, up to January, 1824, had completed 1164 steam engines,
of a nominal horse-power of 25,945; from January, 1824, to 1854, 441
engines, nominal horse-power, 25,278, making the total number 1605, of
nominal horse-power, 51,223, and real horse-power, 167,319. Mulhall
gives the total steam-power of the world as 50,150,000 horse-power in
1888. In 1880 it was only 34,150,000. Thus in eight years it increased,
say, fifty per cent. Assuming the same rate of increase from 1888 to
1905, a similar period, it is to-day 75,000,000 nominal, which Engel
says may be taken as one-half the effective power (vide Mulhall,
"Steam," p. 546), the real horse-power in 1905 being 150,000,000. One
horse-power raises ten tons a height of twelve inches per minute.
Working eight hours, this is about 5,000 tons daily, or twelve times a
man's work, and as the engine never tires, and can be run constantly, it
follows that each horse-power it can exert equals thirty-six men's work;
but, allowing for stoppages, let us say thirty men. The engines of a
large ocean greyhound of 35,000 horse-power, running constantly from
port to port, equal to three relays of twelve men per horse-power, is
daily exerting the power of 1,260,000 men, or 105,000 horses. Assuming
that all the steam engines in the world upon the average work double the
hours of men, then the 150,000,000 horse-power in the world, each equal
to two relays of twelve men per horse-power, exerts the power of
3,600,000,000 of men. There are only one-tenth as many male adults in
the world, estimating one in five of the population.
If we assume that all steam engines work an average of only eight hours
in the twenty-four, as men and horses do (those on duty longer hours are
not under continuous exertion), it still follows that the 150,000,000 of
effective steam-power, each doing the work of twelve men, equals the
work of 1,800,000,000 of men, or of 150,000,000 of horses.
Engel estimated that in 1880 the value of world industries dependent
upon steam was thirty-two thousand millions of dollars, and that in 1888
it had reached forty-three thousand millions of dollars. It is to-day
doubtless more than sixty thousand millions of dollars, a great increase
no doubt over 1880, but the one figure is as astounding as the other,
for both mean nothing that can be grasped.
The chief steam-using countries are America, 14,400,000 horse-power in
1888; Britain, 9,200,000 horse-power nominal. If we add the British
colonies and dependencies, 7,120,000 horse-power, the English-speaking
race had three-fifths of all the steam-power of the world.
In 1840 Britain had only 620,000 horse-power nominal; the United States
760,000; the whole world had only 1,650,000 horse-power. To-day it has
75,000,000 nominal. So rapidly has steam extended its sway over most of
the earth in less than the span of a man's life. There has never been
any development in the world's history comparable to this, nor can we
imagine that such a rapid transformation can ever come in the future.
What the future is finally to bring forth even imagination is unable to
conceive. No bounds can be set to its forthcoming possible, even
probable, wonders, but as such a revolution as steam has brought must
come from a superior force capable of displacing steam, this would
necessarily be a much longer task than steam had in occupying an
entirely new field without a rival.
The contrast between Newcomen and Watt is interesting. The Newcomen
engine consumed twenty-eight pounds of coal per horse-power and made not
exceeding three to four strokes per minute, the piston moving about
fifty feet per minute. To-day, steam marine engines on one and one-third
pounds of coal per horse-power--the monster ships using less--make
from seventy to ninety revolutions per minute. "Destroyers" reach 400
per minute. Small steam engines, it is stated, have attained 600
revolutions per minute. The piston to-day is supposed to travel
moderately when at 1,000 feet per minute, in a cylinder three feet long.
This gives 166 revolutions per minute. With coal under the boilers
costing one dollar per net ton, from say five pounds of coal for one
cent there is one horse-power for three hours, or a day and a night of
continuous running for eight cents.
Countless millions of men and of horses would be useless for the work of
the steam-engine, for the seemingly miraculous quality steam possesses,
that permits concentration, is as requisite as its expansive powers. One
hundred thousand horse-power, or several hundred thousand horse-power,
is placed under one roof and directed to the task required. Sixty-four
thousand horse-power is concentrated in the hold of the great steamships
now building. All this stupendous force is evolved, concentrated and
regulated by science from the most unpromising of substances, cold
water. Nothing man has discovered or imagined is to be named with the
steam engine. It has no fellow. Franklin capturing the lightning, Morse
annihilating space with the telegraph, Bell transmitting speech through
the air by the telephone, are not less mysterious--being more ethereal,
perhaps in one sense they are even more so--still, the labor of the
world performed by heating cold water places Watt and his steam engine
in a class apart by itself. Many are the inventions for applying power;
his creates the power it applies.
Whether the steam engine has reached its climax, and gas, oil, or other
agents are to be used extensively for power, in the near future, is a
question now debated in scientific circles. Much progress has been made
in using these substitutes, and more is probable, as one obstacle after
another is overcome. Gas especially is coming forward, and oil is freely
used. For reasons before stated, it seems to the writer that, where coal
is plentiful, the day is distant when steam will not continue to be the
principal source of power. It will be a world surpriser that beats one
horse-power developed by one pound of coal. The power to do much more
than this, however, lies theoretically in gas, but there come these wise
words of Arago to mind: "Persons whose whole lives have been devoted to
speculative labours are not aware how great the distance is between a
scheme, apparently the best concerted, and its realisation." So true!
Watt's ideas in the brain, and the steam engine that he had to evolve
during nine long years, are somewhat akin to the great gulf between
resolve and performance, the "good resolution" that soothes and the
"act" that exalts.
The steam engine is Scotland's chief, tho not her only contribution to
the material progress of the world. Watt was its inventor, we might
almost write Creator, so multiform were the successive steps. Symington
by the steamship stretched one arm of it over the water; Stephenson by
the locomotive stretched the other over the land. Thus was the world
brought under its sway and conditions of human life transformed. Watt
and Symington were born in Scotland within a few miles of each other.
Stephenson's forbears moved from Scotland south of the line previous to
his birth, as Fulton's parents removed from Scotland to America, so that
both Stephenson and Fulton could boast with Gladstone that the blood in
their veins was Scotch.
The history of the world has no parallel to the change effected by the
inventions of these three men. Strange that little Scotland, with only
1,500,000 people, in 1791, about one-half the population of New York
City, should have been the mother of such a triad, and that her second
"mighty three" (Wallace, Bruce and Burns always first), should have been
of the same generation, working upon the earth near each other at the
same time. The Watt engine appeared in 1782; the steamship in 1801; the
locomotive thirteen years later, in 1814. Thus thirty-two years after
its appearance Watt's steam-engine had conquered both sea and land.
The sociologist may theorise, but plain people will remember that men do
not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles. There must be
something in the soil which produces such men; something in the poverty
that compels exertion; something in the "land of the mountain and the
flood" that stirs the imagination; something in the history of centuries
of struggle for national and spiritual independence; much in the
system of compulsory and universal free education; something of all
these elements mingling in the blood that tells, and enables Scotland to
contribute so largely to the progress of the world.
Strange reticence is shown by all Watt's historians regarding his
religious and political views. Williamson, the earliest author of his
memoirs, is full of interesting facts obtained from people in Greenock
who had known Watt well. The hesitation shown by him as to Watt's
orthodoxy in his otherwise highly eulogistic tribute, attracts
attention. He says:
We could desire to know more of the state of those affections
which are more purely spiritual by their nature and origin--his
disposition to those supreme truths of Revelation, which alone
really elevate and purify the soul. In the absence of much
information of a very positive kind in regard to such points of
character and life, we instinctively revert in a case like this
to the principles and maxims of an infantile and early training.
Remembering the piety portrayed in the ancestors of this great
man, one cannot but cling to the hope that his many virtues
reposed on a substratum of more than merely moral excellence.
Let us cherish the hope that the calm which rested on the spirit
of the pilgrim ... was one that caught its radiance from a far
higher sphere than that of the purest human philosophy.
Watt's breaking of the Sabbath before recorded must have seemed to that
stern Calvinist a heinous sin, justifying grave doubts of Watt's
spiritual condition, his "moral excellence" to the contrary
notwithstanding. Williamson's estimate of moral excellence had recently
been described by Burns:
But then, nae thanks to him for a' that,
Nae godly symptom ye can ca' that,
It's naething but a milder feature
Of our poor sinfu' corrupt nature.
Ye'll get the best o' moral works,
Many black gentoos and pagan works,
Or hunters wild on Ponotaxi
Wha never heard of orthodoxy.
Williamson's doubts had much stronger foundation in Watt's
non-attendance at church, for, as we shall see from his letter to DeLuc,
July, 1788, he had never attended the "meeting-house" (dissenting
church) in Birmingham altho he claimed to be still a member of the
Presbyterian body in declining the sheriffalty.
It seems probable that Watt, in his theological views, like Priestley
and others of the Lunar Society, was in advance of his age, and more or
less in accord with Burns, who was then astonishing his countrymen.
Perhaps he had forstalled Dean Stanley's advice in his rectorial address
to the students of St. Andrew's University: "go to Burns for your
theology," yet he remained a deeply religious man to the end, as we see
from his letter (page 216), at the age of seventy-six.
We know that politically Watt was in advance of his times for the prime
minister pronounced him "a sad radical." He was with Burns politically
at all events. Watt's eldest son, then in Paris, was carried away by the
French Revolution, and Muirhead suggests that the prime minister must
have confounded father and son, but it seems unreasonable to suppose
that he could have been so misled as to mistake the doings of the famous
Watt in Birmingham for those of his impulsive son in France.
The French Revolution exerted a powerful influence in Britain,
especially in the north of England and south of Scotland, which have
much in common. The Lunar Society of Birmingham was intensely
interested. At one of the meetings in the summer of 1788, held at her
father's house, Mrs. Schimmelpenniack records that Mr. Boulton presented
to the company his son, just returned from a long sojourn in Paris, who
gave a vivid account of proceedings there, Watt and Dr. Priestly being
present. A few months later the revolution broke out. Young Harry
Priestley, a son of the Doctor's, one evening burst into the
drawing-room, waving his hat and crying, "Hurrah! Liberty, Reason,
Brotherly Love forever! Down with kingcraft and priestcraft! The majesty
of the people forever! France is free!" Dr. Priestley was deeply stirred
and became the most prominent of all in the cause of the rights of man.
He hailed the acts of the National Assembly abolishing monarchy,
nobility and church. He was often engaged in discussions with the local
clergy on theological dogmas. He wrote a pamphlet upon the French
Revolution, and Burke attacked him in the House of Commons. All this
naturally concentrated local opposition upon him as leader. The
enthusiasts mistakenly determined to have a public dinner to celebrate
the anniversary of the Revolution, and no less than eighty gentlemen
attended, altho many advised against it. Priestley himself was not
present. A mob collected outside and demolished the windows. The cry was
raised, "To the new meeting-house!" the chapel in which Priestley
ministered. The chapel was set on fire. Thence the riot proceeded to
Priestley's house. The doctor and his family, being warned, had left
shortly before. The house was at the mercy of the mob, which broke in,
destroyed furniture, chemical laboratory and library, and finally set
fire to the house. Some of the very best citizens suffered in like
manner. Mr. Ryland, one of the most munificent benefactors of the town,
Mr. Taylor, the banker, and Hutton, the estimable book-seller, were
among the number. The home of Dr. Withering, member of the Lunar
Society, was entered, but the timely arrival of troops saved it from
destruction. The members of the Lunar Society, or the "lunatics," as
they were popularly called, were especially marked for attack. The mob
cried, "No philosophers!" "Church and King forever!" All this put
Boulton and Watt upon their guard, for they were prominent members of
the society. They called their workmen together, explained the
criminally of the rioters, and placed arms in their hands on their
promise to defend them if attacked. Meanwhile everything portable was
packed up ready to be removed.
Watt wrote to Mr. DeLuc, July 19, 1791:
Though our principles, which are well known, as friends to the
established government and enemies of republican principles,
should have been our protection from a mob whose watchword was
Church and King, yet our safety was principally owing to most of
the Dissenters living south of the town; for after the first
moment they did not seem over-nice in their discrimination of
religion and principles. I, among others, was pointed out as a
Presbyterian, though I never was in a meeting-house (Dissenting
Church) in Birmingham, and Mr. Boulton is well-known as a
Churchman. We had everything most portable packed up, fearing
the worst. However, all is well with us.
From all this we gather the impression that Radical principles had
permeated the leading minds of Birmingham to a considerable extent,
probably around the Lunar Society district in greater measure than in
other quarters, altho clubs of ardent supporters were formed in London
and the principal provincial cities.
In the political field, we have only one appearance of Watt reported.
Early in 1784, we find him taking the lead in getting up a loyal address
to the king on the appointment as prime minister of Pitt, who proposed
to tax coal, iron, copper and other raw materials of manufacture to the
amount of $5,000,000 per year, a considerable sum in those days when
manufacturing was in its infancy. Boulton also joined in opposition.
They wisely held that for a manufacturing nation "to tax raw materials
was suicidal: let taxes be laid upon luxuries, upon vices, and, if you
like, upon property; tax riches when got, but not the means of getting
them. Of all things don't cut open the hen that lays the golden eggs."
Watt's services were enlisted and he drew up a paper for circulation
upon the subject. The policy failed, and soon after Pitt was converted
to sounder doctrines by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." Free trade has
ruled Britain ever since, and, being the country that could manufacture
cheapest, and indeed, the only manufacturing country for many years,
this policy has made her the richest, per capita, of all nations. The
day may be not far distant when America, soon to be the cheapest
manufacturing country for many, as it already is for a few, staple
articles, will be crying for free trade, and urging free entrance to the
markets of the world. To tax the luxuries and vices, to tax wealth got
and not in the making, as proposed by Watt and Boulton, is the policy to
follow. Watt shows himself to have been a profound economist.
Watt had cause for deep anxiety for his eldest son, James, who had taken
an active part in the agitation. He and his friend, Mr. Cooper of
Manchester, were appointed deputies by the "Constitutional Society," to
proceed to Paris and present an address of congratulation to the Jacobin
Club. Young Watt was carried away, and became intimate with the leaders.
Southey says he actually prevented a duel between Danton and Robespierre
by appearing on the ground and remonstrating with them, pointing out
that if either fell the cause must suffer.
Upon young Watt's return, king's messengers arrived in Birmingham and
seized persons concerned in seditious correspondence. Watt suggests that
Boulton should see his son and arrange for his leaving for America, or
some foreign land, for a time. This proved to be unnecessary; his son
was not arrested, and in a short time all was forgotten. He entered the
works with Boulton's son as partner, and became an admirable manager.
To-day we regard his mild republicanism, his alliance with Jacobin
leaders, and especially his bold intervention in the quarrel between two
of the principal actors in the tragedy of the French Revolution, as "a
ribbon in the cap of youth." That his douce father did the same and was
proud of his eldest born seems probable. Our readers will also judge for
themselves whether the proud father had not himself a strong liking for
democratic principles, "the rights of the people," "the royalty of man,"
which Burns was then blazing forth, and held such sentiments as quite
justified the prime minister's accusation that he was "a sad radical."
In Britain, since Watt's day, all traces of opposition to monarchy
aroused by the French Revolution have disappeared, as completely as the
monarchy of King George. The "limited monarchy" of to-day, developed
during the admirable reign of Queen Victoria, has taken its place. The
French abolished monarchy by a frontal attack upon the citadel,
involving serious loss. Not such the policy of the colder Briton. He won
his great victory, losing nothing, by flanking the position. That the
king "could do no wrong," is a doctrine almost coeval with modern
history, flowing from the "divine right" of kings, and, as such, was
quietly accepted. It needed only to be properly harnessed to become a
very serviceable agent for registering the people's will.
It was obvious that the acceptance of the doctrine that the king could
do no wrong involved the duty of proving the truth of the axiom, and it
was equally obvious that the only possible way of doing this was that
the king should not be allowed to do anything. Hence he was made the
mouthpiece of his ministers, and it is not the king, but they, who,
being fallible men, may occasionally err. The monarch, in losing power
to do anything has gained power to influence everything. The ministers
hold office through the approval of the House of Commons. Members of
that house are elected by the people. Thus stands government in Britain
"broad-based upon the people's will."
All that the revolutionists of Watt's day desired has, in substance,
been obtained, and Britain has become in truth a "crowned republic,"
with "government of the people, for the people, and by the people." This
steady and beneficent development was peaceably attained. The
difference between the French and British methods is that between
revolution and evolution.
In America's political domain, a similar evolution has been even more
silently at work than in Britain during the past century, and is not yet
exhausted--the transformation of a loose confederacy of sovereign
states, with different laws, into one solid government, which assumes
control and insures uniformity over one department after another. The
centripetal forces grow stronger with the years; power leaves the
individual states and drifts to Washington, as the necessity for each
successive change becomes apparent. In the regulation of interstate
commerce, of trusts, and in other fields, final authority over the whole
land gravitates more and more to Washington. It is a beneficent
movement, likely to result in uniform national laws upon many subjects
in which present diversity creates confusion. Marriage and divorce laws,
bankruptcy laws, corporation charter privileges, and many other
important questions may be expected to become uniform under this
evolutionary process. The Supreme Court decision that the Union was an
indissoluble union of indissoluble states, carries with it finally
uniform regulation of many interstate problems, in every respect
salutary, and indispensable for the perfect union of the American
people.