1811-2 inquiry

This page is part of a website based on the life and achievements of eighteenth-century inventor Henry Cort. Please email site controller Eric Alexander with any comments or queries.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY 1811-2

The Petitioners, viewing the merit of their late Father through the medium of parental affection so natural to their situation, seem quite exempt from any charge of presumption in thus soliciting the bounty and liberality of Parliament.

From conclusion of Parliamentary Committee considering the Cort petition, 20 March 1812.

By the beginning of the eighteenth century, Richard Crawshay's success with puddling has led to its adoption by many ironmasters.

The big resulting increase in British iron manufacture is being recognised as a significant factor in the struggle against Napoleon, who has had success restricting imports into Britain.

When Richard Crawshay dies in 1810, he leaves the Cyfarthfa ironworks to three of his relations. One of these is his son-in-law Benjamin Hall, who by this time is an MP.

Hall is particularly conscious of the part Henry Cort has played, and sympathetic to approaches from the family.

In March 1811 a meeting of ironmasters agrees to supplement the navy pension granted to Cort's widow, as a token of their gratitude and esteem.

Encouraged by this development, Cort's two eldest surviving sons, Coningsby and William, petition Parliament.

They hope their father will be granted national recognition, and the family will be compensated accordingly.

Parliament sets up a committee of inquiry to look into their claims. Hall gives evidence in support.

Unfortunately, two others called as witnesses are Crawshay's son William and ironmaster Samuel Homfray from Penydarren iron works, Merthyr Tydfil.

William recalls the difficulties his father had in making puddling work.

If my family had pursued the plans of Mr. Cort, my family would have been ruined.

From evidence of William Crawshay to Parliamentary committee

- Is there no part of Mr. Cort’s invention considered by you as really his?

- Not any, except by varying the size and shape of the furnace.

From interrogation of Samuel Homfray by Parliamentary committee

Homfray may have reasons for belittling Cort's contribution. His evidence suggests that Cort's processes were not original.

The committee does its best to be fair in its conclusions, but the Corts are bitterly disappointed.

Mr. Cort appears to have possessed a considerable share of merit; but your Committee have not been able to satisfy themselves that either of the two Inventions claimed by him, one for subjecting Cast Iron to an operation called Puddling, during its conversion into malleable Iron; and the other for passing it through fluted or grooved Rollers, were so novel in their principles, or in their application, as fairly to entitle the Petitioners to a Parliamentary reward.

From conclusion of Parliamentary Committee considering the Cort petition, 20 March 1812.