CHAPTER I_English and American tool builders

Transcriber’s Notes

Texts printed in italics and in bold face have been transcribed

between _underscores_ and =equal signs= respectively; small capitals

have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS. ^{text} represents superscript

characters.

More Transcriber’s Notes and an explanation of the transcription of

the “genealogical charts” may be found at the end of this text.

ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS

[Illustration: HENRY MAUDSLAY]

ENGLISH AND AMERICAN

TOOL BUILDERS

JOSEPH WICKHAM ROE

_Museum of the Peaceful Arts, City of New York,

Professor of Industrial Engineering,

New York University_

FIRST PRINTED IN 1916

REPRINTED IN 1926

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.

NEW YORK: 370 SEVENTH AVENUE

LONDON: 6 & 8 BOUVERIE ST., E. C. 4

1926

JOSEPH WICKHAM ROE

First published May, 1916

Republished March, 1926

“Man is a Tool-using Animal. Weak in himself, and of small stature,

he stands on a basis, at most for the flattest-soled, of some

half-square foot, insecurely enough; has to straddle out his legs,

lest the very wind supplant him. Feeblest of bipeds! Three quintals

are a crushing load for him; the steer of the meadow tosses him

aloft, like a waste rag. Nevertheless he can use Tools, can devise

Tools: with these the granite mountain melts into light dust before

him; seas are his smooth highway, winds and fire his unwearying

steeds. Nowhere do you find him without Tools; without Tools he is

nothing, with Tools he is all.”

CARLYLE: “Sartor Resartus,” Chap. IV.

PREFACE

The purpose of this book is to bring out the importance of the work and

influence of the great tool builders. Few realize that their art is

fundamental to all modern industrial arts. Without machine tools modern

machinery could not be built. Little is known by the general public as

to who the great tool builders were, and less is known of their lives

and work.

History takes good care of soldiers, statesmen and authors. It is

even kind to engineers like Watt, Fulton and Stephenson, who have

conspicuously and directly affected society at large. But little is

known, even among mechanics, of the men whose work was mainly within

the engineering profession, and who served other engineers rather

than the general public. The lives and the personalities of men like

Maudslay, Nasmyth and Eli Whitney, can hardly fail of interest to the

mechanic of today. They were busy men and modest, whose records are

mainly in iron and steel, and in mechanical devices which are used

daily with little thought of their origin.

In following the history of English and American tool builders,

the query arises as to whether there might not have been important

contributions to tool building from other countries. Others have

contributed to some degree, but practically all of the creative work

in tool building has been done in these two countries. Although the

French were pioneers in many mechanical improvements, they have always

shown an aptitude for refinements and ingenious novelties rather than

for commercial production on a large scale. They have influenced other

nations more through their ideas than through their machinery. The

Swiss are clever artisans, particularly in fine work, but they have

excelled in personal skill, operating on a small scale, rather than

in manufacturing. Germany has, under the Empire, developed splendid

mechanics, but the principal machine tools had taken shape before

1870, when the Empire began. The history of English and American tool

building, therefore, covers substantially the entire history of the art.

Almost the only book upon tool builders and their work is Samuel

Smiles’ “Industrial Biography,” which is out of print and little known.

It is an admirable and interesting book, and a mine of information upon

the English tool builders down to about 1850. The writer has used it

freely and would urge those who are interested in the subject to go

to it for further information on the early mechanics. It was written,

however, over fifty years ago and contains nothing about modern

developments or about the American tool builders who have contributed

so much.

The writer has tried to trace the origin and rise of tool building

in America and to give something of its spread in recent years. The

industrial life of the United States is so vast that a comprehensive

history of even a single industry, such as tool building, would run far

beyond the limits of one volume. This book, therefore, is confined to

the main lines of influence in tool building and to the personalities

and cities which have been most closely identified with it. The later

history of American tool building has never been written. For this the

writer has had to rely largely upon personal information from those who

are familiar with it, and who have had a part in it.

Part of the material contained in this book has appeared from time to

time in the _American Machinist_, and the writer would acknowledge

his indebtedness most of all to Mr. L. P. Alford, the editor of that

journal. His help and counsel have given these pages much of such value

as they possess. So many have helped with information, corrections and

suggestions that acknowledgments can be made only to a few. The writer

would particularly thank Mr. L. D. Burlingame, Mr. Ned Lawrence, Mr.

James Hartness, Mr. Coleman Sellers and Mr. Clarence Bement.

If these pages serve to stimulate interest in the lives and work of the

tool builders, to whom we owe much, they will fulfill the hope of the

writer.

Sheffield Scientific School,

Yale University,

October, 1915.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

In reprinting this book certain minor corrections have been made. In

the later chapters references occur here and there to the “present”

condition of various plants and firms. After careful consideration,

it seems wise to let these statements stand as they were written in

1915. Interest in this subject centers chiefly on the early history

of the plants and firms rather than on recent changes. To revise the

statements, bringing them up to date, would add little. With the ever

shifting status of a live industry, the statements, so revised, would

remain correct for only a short time. Therefore, when a reference is

made to present conditions it should be understood to cover those at

the beginning of the World War, which is a natural dividing point in

our industrial history.

The general predictions made in the last two paragraphs of the book

have been borne out by the developments in American toolbuilding since

that time.

Museum of the Peaceful Arts,

City of New York,

February, 1926.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Chapter I. Influence of the Early Tool Builders 1

Chapter II. Wilkinson and Bramah 11

Chapter III. Bentham and Brunel 22

Chapter IV. Henry Maudslay 33

Chapter V. Inventors of the Planer 50

Chapter VI. Gearing and Millwork 63

Chapter VII. Fairbairn and Bodmer 71

Chapter VIII. James Nasmyth 81

Chapter IX. Whitworth 98

Chapter X. Early American Mechanics 109

Chapter XI. The Rise of Interchangeable Manufacture 128

Chapter XII. Whitney and North 145

Chapter XIII. The Colt Armory 164

Chapter XIV. The Colt Workman--Pratt & Whitney 173

Chapter XV. Robbins & Lawrence 186

Chapter XVI. The Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company 202

Chapter XVII. Central New England 216

Chapter XVIII. The Naugatuck Valley 231

Chapter XIX. Philadelphia 239

Chapter XX. The Western Tool Builders 261

Appendix A 281

Appendix B, The Jennings Gun 292

A Partial Bibliography on Tool Building 295

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Henry Maudslay _Frontispiece_

Fig. 1. Smeaton’s Boring Machine, Carron Iron

Works, 1769 _Facing page 2_

Fig. 2. French Lathes of about 1772 _Facing page 2_

Fig. 3. French Slide-Rest, 1772 _Facing page 6_

Fig. 4. French Lathe for Turning Ovals, 1772 _Facing page 6_

Fig. 5. Genealogy of the Early English Tool

Builders _page 7_

Fig. 6. John Wilkinson _Facing page 14_

Fig. 7. Wilkinson’s Boring Machine _Facing page 14_

Fig. 8. Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-8 _Facing page 20_

Fig. 9. Sir Samuel Bentham _Facing page 22_

Fig. 10. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel _Facing page 26_

Fig. 11. Brunel’s Mortising Machine _Facing page 30_

Fig. 12. Brunel’s Shaping Machine _Facing page 30_

Fig. 13. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, Previous to

1569 _page 37_

Fig. 14. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1740 _page 37_

Fig. 15. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1797 _Facing page 42_

Fig. 16. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1800 _Facing page 42_

Fig. 17. French Planing Machine by Nicholas Forq,

1751 _Facing page 50_

Fig. 18. Matthew Murray _Facing page 58_

Fig. 19. Richard Roberts _Facing page 58_

Fig. 20. Roberts’ Planer, Built in 1817 _Facing page 60_

Fig. 21. Roberts’ Back-Geared Lathe _Facing page 60_

Fig. 22. James Nasmyth _Facing page 82_

Fig. 23. First Sketch of the Steam Hammer,

November 24, 1839 _Facing page 94_

Fig. 24. Model of the First Steam Hammer _Facing page 94_

Fig. 25. Sir Joseph Whitworth _Facing page 102_

Fig. 26. Samuel Slater _Facing page 122_

Fig. 27. Genealogy of the New England Gun Makers _page 139_

Fig. 28. The First Milling Machine, Built by Eli

Whitney about 1818 _Facing page 142_

Fig. 29. Blanchard “Gun-Stocking” Lathe, Built in

1818 for the Springfield Armory _Facing page 142_

Fig. 30. Eli Whitney _Facing page 152_

Fig. 31. Samuel Colt _Facing page 164_

Fig. 32. The Colt Armory _Facing page 168_

Fig. 33. Root’s Chucking Lathe, about 1855 _Facing page 170_

Fig. 34. Root’s Splining Machine, about 1855 _Facing page 170_

Fig. 35. Francis A. Pratt _Facing page 178_

Fig. 36. Amos Whitney _Facing page 178_

Fig. 37. Genealogy of the Robbins & Lawrence Shop _page 187_

Fig. 38. Robbins & Lawrence Armory, Windsor, Vt. _Facing page 190_

Fig. 39. Frederick W. Howe _Facing page 196_

Fig. 40. Richard S. Lawrence _Facing page 196_

Fig. 41. James Hartness _Facing page 198_

Fig. 42. Joseph R. Brown _Facing page 202_

Fig. 43. First Universal Milling Machine, 1862 _Facing page 208_

Fig. 44. Early Micrometer Calipers _Facing page 212_

Fig. 45. Genealogy of the Worcester Tool Builders _page 223_

Fig. 46. Lucius W. Pond _Facing page 228_

Fig. 47. Salmon W. Putnam _Facing page 228_

Fig. 48. Hiram W. Hayden _Facing page 232_

Fig. 49. Israel Holmes _Facing page 232_

Fig. 50. Genealogy of the Naugatuck Brass Industry _page 235_

Fig. 51. William Sellers _Facing page 248_

Fig. 52. Coleman Sellers _Facing page 252_

Fig. 53. William B. Bement _Facing page 252_

Fig. 54. Worcester R. Warner _Facing page 262_

Fig. 55. Ambrose Swasey _Facing page 262_

Fig. 56. The “Mult-au-matic” Lathe, 1914 _Facing page 276_

Fig. 57. Machine Tool Building Area of the United

States, 1915 _page 279_

ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS

CHAPTER I

INFLUENCE OF THE EARLY TOOL BUILDERS

Well-informed persons are aware of the part which machinery in general

has had on modern industrial life. But the profound influence which

machine tools have had in that development is scarcely realized, even

by tool builders themselves.

Three elements came into industrial life during the latter part of

the eighteenth century. First, the development of modern banking and

the stock company brought out the small private hoards from their

hiding places, united them, and made them available for industrial

undertakings operating on the scale called for by modern requirements.

Second, Watt’s development of the steam engine and its application to

the production of continuous rotative motion gave the requisite source

of power. But neither the steam engine itself nor the machinery of

production was possible until the third element, modern machine tools,

supplied the means of working metals accurately and economically.

It is well to glance for a moment at the problems which were involved

in building the first steam engine. Watt had been working for several

years on the steam engine when the idea of the separate condenser came

to him on that famous Sunday afternoon walk on the Glasgow Green, in

the spring of 1765, and, to use his own words, “in the course of one

or two days the invention was thus far (that is, as a pumping engine)

complete in my mind.”[1] He was a skilled instrument maker and his

first small model was fairly successful, but when he undertook “the

practice of mechanics _in great_,” his skill and all the skill of those

about him was incapable of boring satisfactorily a cylinder 6 inches in

diameter and 2 feet long; and he had finally to resort to one which was

hammered. For ten weary years he struggled to realize his plans in a

full-sized engine, unable to find either the workmen or the tools which

could make it a commercial success. His chief difficulty lay in keeping

the piston tight. He “wrapped it around with cork, oiled rags, tow, old

hats, paper, and other things, but still there were open spaces left,

sufficient to let the air in and the steam out.”[2] Small wonder! for

we find him complaining that in an 18-inch diameter cylinder, “at the

worst place the long diameter exceeded the short by three-eighths of an

inch.” When Smeaton first saw the engine he reported to the Society of

Engineers that “neither the tools nor the workmen existed that could

manufacture so complex a machine with sufficient precision.”[3]

[1] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” pp. 97, 98. London, 1904.

[2] _Ibid._, p. 114.

[3] _Ibid._, p. 186.

Smeaton himself had designed a boring machine in 1769 for the Carron

Iron Works for machining cannon, an illustration of which is given in

Fig. 1.[4] It consisted of a head with inserted cutters mounted on a

long, light, overhung boring bar. The work was forced forward on a rude

carriage, as shown. The method of supporting the cutter head, indicated

in the section, shows an ingenious attempt to obtain a movable support

from an inaccurate surface. One need hardly say that the work resulting

was inaccurate.

[4] “Engineer,” London, March 4, 1910; p. 217. Drawn from the

description given in Farey’s “Treatise on the Steam Engine.”

[Illustration: FIGURE 1. SMEATON’S BORING MACHINE

CARRON IRON WORKS, 1769]

[Illustration: FIGURE 2. FRENCH LATHES OF ABOUT 1772]

Fortunately, in 1774, John Wilkinson, of Bersham, hit upon the idea,

which had escaped both Smeaton and Watt, of making the boring bar

heavier, running it clear through the cylinder and giving it a fixed

support at the outboard end as shown in Fig. 7. The superiority of this

arrangement was at once manifest, and in 1776 Boulton wrote that “Mr.

Wilkinson has bored us several cylinders almost without error; that of

50 inches diameter, which we have put up at Tipton, does not err the

thickness of an old shilling in any part.”[5] For a number of years,

Wilkinson cast and bored all the cylinders for Boulton & Watt.

[5] Farey: “Treatise on the Steam Engine,” p. 328. 1827.

The importance to Boulton & Watt of the timely aid of Wilkinson’s

boring machine can hardly be overestimated. It made the steam engine

a commercial success, and was probably the first metal-working tool

capable of doing large, heavy work with anything like present-day

accuracy.[6]

[6] Watt’s beautiful parallel motion, invented in 1785, was made

necessary by the fact that there were no planers to machine a

crosshead and guides. Planers were not developed until thirty years

later.

We hardly realize the crudity of the tools available in the eighteenth

century. In all machinery the principal members were of wood, as

that could be worked by the hand tools then in use. The fastenings

and smaller parts only were of metal, and consisted of castings and

forgings fitted by hand. There were some lathes of the very simplest

type. Most of them were “pole” lathes, operated by a cord reaching

from a foot treadle, around the work itself, and up to a pole or

wooden spring attached to the ceiling. The work rotated alternately

forward and backward, and was caught with a hand tool each time as it

came forward. Two are shown in Fig. 2, one at the back and one at the

left. Only the very best forms had continuous motion from a direct

drive on the live spindle, as shown at the right of the same figure.

This figure is reproduced from the French _Dictionnaire des Sciences_,

published in 1772. Such lathes were almost useless for metal cutting,

as they lacked both the necessary power and a holding device strong

enough and accurate enough to guide a tool. The slide-rest, while it

had been invented, had not been put into practical form or come into

general use. There were a few rude drilling and boring machines, but no

planing machines, either for metal or wood. The tool equipment of the

machinist, or “millwright,” as he was called, consisted chiefly of a

hammer, chisel and file. The only measuring devices were calipers and a

wooden rule, with occasional reference perhaps to “the thickness of an

old shilling,” as above. Hand forging was probably as good as or better

than that of today. Foundry work had come up to at least the needs of

the time. But the appliances for cutting metal were little better than

those of the Middle Ages.

Such was the mechanical equipment in 1775; practically what it had been

for generations. By 1850 it was substantially that of today. In fact,

most of this change came in one generation, from about 1800 to 1840.

Since that time there have been many improvements and refinements,

but the general principles remain little changed. With so wonderful

a transformation in so short a time, several questions arise almost

inevitably: Where did this development take place, who brought it

about, and why was it so rapid?

The first question is fairly simple. England and America produced the

modern machine tool. In the period mentioned, England developed most

of the general machine tools of the present day; the boring machine,

engine lathe, planer, shaper, the steam hammer and standard taps and

dies. Somewhat later, but partially coincident with this, America

developed the special machine tool, the drop hammer, automatic lathes,

the widespread commercial use of limit gauges, and the interchangeable

system of manufacture.

In a generalization such as this, the broad lines of influence must be

given the chief consideration. Some of the most valuable general tools,

such as the universal miller and the grinder, and parts of the standard

tools, as the apron in the lathe, are of American origin. But, with all

allowances, most of the general machine tools were developed in England

and spread from there throughout the world either by utilization of

their design or by actual sale. On the other hand, the interchangeable

system of manufacture, in a well-developed form, was in operation in

England in the manufacture of ships’ blocks at Portsmouth shortly after

1800; and yet this block-making machinery had been running for two

generations with little or no influence on the general manufacturing of

the country, when England, in 1855, imported from America the Enfield

gun machinery and adopted what they themselves styled the “American”

interchangeable system of gun making.[7]

[7] See page 139.

The second question as to who brought this change about is not so

simple. It is not easy to assign the credit of an invention. Mere

priority of suggestion or even of experiment seems hardly sufficient.

Nearly every great improvement has been invented independently by a

number of men, sometimes almost simultaneously, but often in widely

separated times and places. Of these, the man who made it a success is

usually found to have united to the element of invention a superior

mechanical skill. He is the one who first embodied the invention in

such proportions and mechanical design as to make it commercially

available, and from him its permanent influence spreads. The chief

credit is due to him because he impressed it on the world. Some

examples may illustrate this point.

Leonardo da Vinci in the fifteenth century anticipated many of the

modern tools.[8] His sketches are fascinating and show a wonderful and

fertile ingenuity, but, while we wonder, we smile at their proportions.

Had not a later generation of mechanics arisen to re-invent and

re-design these tools, mechanical engineering would still be as unknown

as when he died.

[8] _American Machinist_, Vol. 32, Part 2, pp. 821 and 868.

Take the slide-rest. It is clearly shown in the French encyclopedia of

1772, see Fig. 3, and even in an edition of 1717. Bramah, Bentham and

Brunel, in England, and Sylvanus Brown,[9] in America, are all said to

have invented it. David Wilkinson, of Pawtucket, R. I., was granted

a patent for it in 1798.[10] But the invention has been, and will

always be, credited to Henry Maudslay, of London. It is right that it

should be, for he first designed and built it properly, developed its

possibilities, and made it generally useful. The modern slide-rest is a

lineal descendant from his.

[9] Goodrich: “History of Pawtucket,” pp. 47-48. Pawtucket, 1876.

[10] _Ibid._, p. 51.

Blanchard was by no means the first to turn irregular forms on a lathe.

The old French rose engine lathe, shown in Fig. 4, embodied the idea,

but Blanchard accomplished it in a way more mechanical, of a far wider

range of usefulness, and his machine is in general use to this day.

[Illustration: FIGURE 3. FRENCH SLIDE-REST, 1772]

[Illustration: FIGURE 4. FRENCH LATHE FOR TURNING OVALS, 1772

The spindle swings sidewise under the influence of the two cams which

bear against the upright stops]

[Illustration:

+------------------------+ +-----------+ +-------------+

| | |=1757-1831=| | =1769-1849= |

|Invented Lock, Hydraulic| +----+------+ +----------+--+

|press, 4-way cock, and | | |

|wood working machinery. | | 44 NEW MACHINES, |

+------+----------+------+ |BLOCK M’CHRY-1800-08|

| | +---------+----------+

| | |

| +--------+------------------------+---------+

| | =HENRY MAUDSLAY= |

| | =1771-1831= |

| |Slide rest for metal work, Block machinery,|

| |Flour, Sawmill and Mint mach’ry, Punches, |

| |Mill and Marine Steam Engines, Fine screw |

| |cutting. Laid basis for Lathe, Planer and |

| |Slotter |

| +--------+------------+-----+----+----------+

| | | | \

+------+----------+--------+ | | \

| =JOSEPH CLEMENT= + | | \

| =1779-1844= |\ | | \

| Slide Lathe, | \ | | \

| Planer 1820 and 1824 | \| | \

|Manufactured Taps and Dies| | | \

| Standard Screw Threads | |\ | \

+--------------------------+ / \ | \

/ \ | \

+-------+ +--------+ +----+----+ +-+-------------+ +---------+

| | | | | | | =1803-87= | |=1808-90=|

| | | Planer | | | |19^{th} Century| | Hammer |

+-------+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------------+ +---------+

AM. MACHINIST

FIGURE 5. GENEALOGY OF THE EARLY ENGLISH TOOL BUILDERS]

To the third question as to why this development when once begun should

have been so rapid, there are probably two answers. First, an entirely

new demand for accurate tools arose during these years, springing

from the inventions of Arkwright, Whitney, Watt, Fulton, Stephenson

and others. The textile industries, the steam engine, railways, and

the scores of industries they called into being, all called for

better and stronger means of production. While the rapidity of the

development was due partly to the pressure of this demand, a second

element, that of cumulative experience, was present, and can be clearly

traced. Wilkinson was somewhat of an exception, as he was primarily

an iron master and not a tool builder, so his relationship to other

tool builders is not so direct or clear. But the connection between

Bramah, Maudslay, Clement, Whitworth and Nasmyth, is shown in the

“genealogical” table in Fig. 5.

Bramah had a shop in London where, for many years, he manufactured

locks and built hydraulic machinery and woodworking tools. Maudslay,

probably the finest mechanician of his day, went to work for Bramah

when only eighteen years old and became his foreman in less than a

year. He left after a few years and started in for himself, later

taking Field into partnership, and Maudslay & Field’s became one of the

most famous shops in the world.

Sir Samuel Bentham, who was inspector general of the British navy,

began the design of a set of machines for manufacturing pulley blocks

at the Portsmouth navy yard. He soon met Marc Isambard Brunel, a

brilliant young Royalist officer, who had been driven out of France

during the Revolution, and had started working on block machinery

through a conversation held at Alexander Hamilton’s dinner table while

in America a few years before. Bentham saw the superiority of Brunel’s

plans, substituted them for his own, and commissioned him to go ahead.

In his search for someone to build the machinery, Brunel was referred

to Maudslay, then just starting in for himself. Maudslay built the

machines, forty-four in all, and they were a brilliant success. There

has been considerable controversy as to whether Bentham or Brunel

designed them. While Maudslay’s skill appears in the practical details,

the general scheme was undoubtedly Brunel’s. In a few of the machines

Bentham’s designs seem to have been used, but he was able enough and

generous enough to set aside most of his own designs for the better

ones of Brunel.

Of the earlier tool builders, Maudslay was the greatest. He, more than

any other, developed the slide-rest and he laid the basis for the

lathe, planer and slotter. His powerful personality is brought out in

Nasmyth’s autobiography written many years later. Nasmyth was a young

boy, eager, with rare mechanical skill and one ambition, to go to

London and work for the great Mr. Maudslay. He tells of their meeting,

of the interest aroused in the older man, and of his being taken

into Maudslay’s personal office to work beside him. It is a pleasing

picture, the young man and the older one, two of the best mechanics in

all England, working side by side, equally proud of each other.

Joseph Clement came to London and worked for Bramah as chief draftsman

and as superintendent of his works. After Bramah’s death he went

to Maudslay’s and later went into business for himself. He was an

exquisite draftsman, a fertile inventor, and had a very important

part in the development of the screw-cutting lathe and planer. Joseph

Whitworth, the most influential tool builder of the nineteenth century,

worked for Maudslay and for Clement and took up their work at the point

where they left off. Under his influence machine tools were given a

strength and precision which they had never had before. Richard Roberts

was another pupil of Maudslay’s whose influence, though important, was

not so great as that of the others.

We have an excellent example of what this succession meant. Nasmyth

tells of the beautiful set of taps and dies which Maudslay made for his

own use, and that he standardized the screw-thread practice of his own

shop. Clement carried this further. He established a definite number

of threads per inch for each size, extended the standardization of

threads, and began the regular manufacture of dies and taps. He fluted

the taps by means of milling cutters and made them with small shanks,

so that they might drop through the tapped hole. Whitworth, taking up

Clement’s work, standardized the screw threads for all England and

brought order out of chaos.

Some account of the growth of machine tools in the hands of these men

will be given later. Enough has been said here to show the cumulative

effect of their experience, and its part in the industrial advance

of the first half of the nineteenth century. Similar successions of

American mechanics will be shown later.

Writing from the standpoint of fifty years ago, Smiles quotes Sir

William Fairbairn: “‘The mechanical operations of the present day could

not have been accomplished at any cost thirty years ago; and what was

then considered impossible is now performed with an exactitude that

never fails to accomplish the end in view.’ For this we are mainly

indebted to the almost creative power of modern machine tools, and the

facilities which they present for the production and reproduction of

other machines.”[11]

[11] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 399.