|
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. |
THE FURORE OF THE 1850s
|
That the whole blaze of the prosperity of the world, wealth to
the amount of thousands of millions sterling, has been created, within little
more than half a century, by the inventions of one single man; that he was
deliberately and perseveredly hindered from reaping any other reward but loss
from his labours by the acts of official authority, in no barbarous times,
but within the memory of living men; and that these injuries, so artfully
aided by designing men, hoodwinked or bewildered a committee of the House of
Commons, presided over by a future President of the Royal Society, into a report upon the circumstances so utterly absurd and
false... these are the facts now brought before the country by the papers of
Mr. Richard Cort, that deeply-injured man's surviving son. From
letter of David Mushet jnr published in Journal of the Society
of Arts, 24 August 1855. |
By 1855 all but one of Henry Cort's sons
is dead.
But Richard, the youngest, is very much alive at 69.
And the conclusions of the 1812 inquiry
still rankle.
He gets his chance to refute them, in a series of articles in
the Journal of the Society of Arts in July and
August.
He reviews the evidence presented, and points out what he thinks
are its flaws. Who is there to
contradict him?
Indeed, if we read his assertions now,
we can see a few which are demonstrably wrong.
|
You have a right to call for national acknowledgment and I
should be glad to learn how I could assist you to obtain it.
From letter of Charles Sanderson, quoted by Richard Cort in article in
Journal of Society of Arts, 3 August 1855. |
But he impresses many of his readers, particularly David Mushet,
whose father had been a great contributor to the iron industry, both as
practitioner and chronicler.
|
One of Henry Cort's sons and three daughters, each over seventy,
are now living in indigent circumstances in England, while the nation has
grown rich on their father's discoveries. From letter of David Mushet jnr in Journal
of Society of Arts, 4 January 1856. |
Subsequent issues of the Journal reverberate with Mushet's
tirades on the injustice meted out to Henry Cort and his family.
Other sympathisers are less vocal, but they are busy working on
Richard's behalf. They feel the matter
is of national importance, and should be brought to Parliament's attention.
|
Mr. Roebuck's overwhelming engagements have hitherto delayed the
presentation of this petition, and of another from Mr. R. Cort, declaring the
enormous benefits derived from his father's inventions. The honourable member, however, will
present both petitions immediately, and no doubt will do all he can to get
them printed and distributed, that both Houses of Parliament may be made
acqainted with important facts, which appear at present to be known to only a
very few of them. From letter of David Mushet jnr in Journal
of Society of Arts, 4 July 1856. |
The Petition of the undersigned Manufacturers, Consumers, and
others, who feel that the nation has greatly benefited by the use of British
puddled, rolled, and wrought-iron, first invented and successfully
established in all the royal dockyards by the late Mr. Henry Cort of Gosport,
in the county of Southampton, iron manufacturer, for the safety of our fleets
and seamen, for our naval and military defence at home and abroad, for
railways, steam navigation, ship-building, agriculture, mining, domestic, and
other purposes, and lastly, for securing the independence of the British
nation over foreign powers for an adequate supply of bar-iron... Preamble to Society of Arts petition
presented to Parliament, 4 July 1856. |
Yes, another petition!
Two, if you count one submitted by Richard himself - a copy of which
goes to The Times, prompting their 1856 editorial.
|
The petitioner Richard Cort states that his father Henry Cort was
the Inventor of two processes secured by Letters Patent in 1783 and 1784, the
first process effected the cheap manufacture of wrought-iron by the flame of
pit-coal in the puddling furnace; the second
process, which was the rolling this cheap wrought-iron through grooved
rollers, enabled the manufacturer to produce twenty tons of bar-iron in the
same time and with the same labour previously required to manipulate one ton
of inferior quality by the tedious operation of forging under the hammer; he
states that this process of rolling imparted a peculiar fibre and toughness
not before known; sets forth the immense advantages to the Country resulting
from these inventions both in Peace and War, alluding more especially to the
use from that time of British Iron in the Navy to the exclusion of Foreign
Iron, to the extensive development of the Railway system by the production of
cheap and good bar-iron, to the creation of a magnificent steam-fleet and
construction of iron-ships, gun-boats, and batteries; he considers such
Inventions to have been instrumental in increasing the power and greatness of
this Country; and prays for Inquiry into his Claims upon the gratitude of the
Nation with a view to relief from that destitution of which he and his family
complain. From fifty-first report of House of
Commons Select Committee, 4 July 1856. |
The list of petitioners from the Society is headed by
"Anthony Hill, Iron Master, Plymouth Works, Glamorganshire". Identified in the Dictionary of Welsh
Biography as son of Richard Hill, manager at Cyfarthfa under Anthony Bacon. On Bacon's death. Richard took over the
Plymouth works which later passed to Anthony.
Second name on the petitioners' list: Robert Stephenson, son of
George and large-scale user of wrought iron.
As in the Britannia tubular bridge over the Menai Strait and the High
Level Bridge at Newscastle.
Third name: Crawshay Bailey, M.P., Ironmaster. Longevity here: 1789-1872, according the
Dictionary of Welsh Biography. His
mother was Richard Crawshay's sister Susannah.
|
Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House may be induced
to make some adequate provision for the declining years of the only surviving
representatives of the late Mr. Henry Cort, being one son and three
daughters, only one of whom is under seventy years of age, for having added,
by the inventions of their father, at the expense of ruin to himself and
family, so enormously to the wealth of the country year after year, for more
than half a century, besides extending its commerce in British iron to all
the markets of the world. From Society of Arts petition to
Parliament, published in their Journal, 4 July 1856. |
52 other names listed in the Journal, including Charles
Sanderson, Thomas Webster and David Mushet.
Also "William B. Carpenter, M.D., F.R.S.",
who is married to Cort’s granddaughter – one of the
hopeful beneficiaries is his mother-in-law!
John Arthur Roebuck, who hands in both petitions, is an MP with
industrial credentials. Grandson of John Roebuck who founded the Carron Ironworks in Scotland.
Documents in the National Archives Granville Papers
(PRO/29/19/2) shed light on some of the transactions involved. Apparently Granville is asked by the
Government to look into Richard's claims, and engages the help of Royal
Geographical Society President Sir Roderick Murchison: he in turn asks the
opinion of John Percy, Lecturer on Metallurgy at the Government School of
Mines, who replies in August 1856...
|
Henry Cort, the father of the
present memorialist, was the inventor of the process which is universally
known both in this country and abroad as “Cort’s Puddling Process. It is a process by which the conversion of
pig or cast iron into bar or wrought iron is effected with a degree of
rapidity and economy previously unknown.
Almost the whole of the wrought iron manufactured in this country is
produced by this process. The iron of
every rail in the kingdom and of a considerable part of every stem-engine, whether
stationary, locomotive or marine is produced by Cort’s process. It
is scarcely possible to over-estimate the effect of Cort’s invention
upon the material interests of this country and I may add of the world.
Modern civilization, I need not remind you, is due in no inconsiderable
degree to cheap wrought iron and we owe cheap wrought iron to Henry
Cort. Three gret discoveries, if I
may be allowed so to designate practical applications, have been made in the
iron trade of the country; - the first is the application of coal as a fuel
by Dudley in the 17th century the second the process of puddling
by Cort in the 18th – and the third the ‘hot blast’ by Neilson in
the 19thh; and, assuredly, not the least important is that of
Cort. Rail-roada and stem navigation
are mighty improvements everywhere seen and recognized by the Public but
Cort’s invention, to which both in great measure owe their extension, remains
comparatively unknown.
If a country should ever confer substantial rewards upon men, who by
their inventions develope its resources and so mightily increase its wealth
and power then, undoubtedly should Henry Cort have received such reward. But he is dead and rewards can no longer
reach him. He died a poor man,
who has enabled others to realize millions.
He ought to have been rich; but peculiar circumstances, which justly
excite our sympathy and which have been fully detailed contributed to his ruin.
A son in comparative poverty and at an advanced age survives; and I cannot
but think that if the whole country were appealed to the unanimous response
would be to reward the son in grateful remembrance of the achievements of the
father.
From letter of John Percy to Sir Roderick Murchison, 20 August 1856 |
Richard Cort later requests a copy of this appraisal, but Percy
is not happy.
|
Have seen sufficient of Mr Cort to convince me that he is a very
indiscreet person; and my fear is that he may make an improper us of the
letter which I wrote to you concerning his late father’s inventions by hawking
it about with a view to obtain subscriptions to the fund which is being
raised for his benefit among the iron masters.
As an instance of his want of prudence I enclose a copy of a letter
from Mr Mushet to him... [copied from the original letter which I received
from Mr Cort without reservation of any kind..]
From letter of John Percy to Sir Roderick Murchison, 13 November 1857. |
More than £500 having now
been collected in your fund I shall require a cheque for £100 in accordance
with your note of 30th April last promising me a remuneration of
one fifth of the whole result little or much of my labours in your behalf.
- My losses upon patents and various
matters which I set aside August 1855 with perhaps more zeal than prudence..
to attend to your great national case, have been considerable and
inconvenienced me, as I cannot renew them until my time is disengaged from
the present heavy efforts…
From letter of David Mushet jnr to Richard Cort, 2 January 1857 |
The matter is still occupying Parliament’s attention in February
1759.
|
That there be laid before the House a Copy of the Paper from Dr
Percy FRS to Sir Roderick Murchison, on the inventions of Henry Cort.
From Journal of the House of Commons, cxiv 66, 21 February 1859. |
Report from the Museum of Practical Geology on the Invention of
Puddling Iron by the late Henry Cort for making Cast Iron malleable; and of a
Memorial praying for an inquiry. From Journal of the House of Commons,
cxiii 352 p57. |
In addition to these two reports, a "Memorial to Viscount
Palmerston signed by 25 of the most eminent scientific and practical
authorities" is recorded.
Meanwhile Society member Thomas Webster has stoked the furore
with a long series of articles on Cort in Mechanics Magazine.
Wesbster links the story of Cort's misfortunes in 1789 with Melville's impeachment in 1806.
He reckons Melville (Henry Dundas) was intent on some villainy
of which Cort was the innocent victim.
And Parliament's verdict in 1812 was
a whitewash to save the reputation of a prominent member!
|
There is little doubt that the part
taken by Mr. Trotter in the proceedings against Cort was prompted by
fraudulent motives, and were connected with that series of transactions for
which Lord Melville was impeached by the House of
Commons in 1805. Had time and
opportunity been afforded to him, Cort could easily have made up Jellicoe's deficiency, as he was engaged in lucrative
contracts for the navy, and his engagements with the ironmasters, then on the
eve of completion, would have provided him with ample funds to meet the
liability. But no, – Cort had been marked
out as the victim of deception on every side. Not only were his patents taken
possession of by the Admiralty, but also his contracts with the Welsh
ironmasters, who, basely taking advantage of the difficulties which the unfortunate
patentee had been thus placed in, faithlessly broke the engagements they were
under for the payment of license dues, and never paid Cort a shilling out of
the thousands which were justly due to him. From Alverstoke Parish Magazine, June
1864. |
Some contemporaries took Webster's conclusions seriously, as did
Charles Morgan 40 years later.
Samuel Smiles, whose Industrial Biography was published in 1863,
took a more rational approach. Although
he acknowledged that Cort suffered an undeserved fate, he also saw that
Melville was the victim of political intrigue.
There are two items of contemporary evidence that show that
Dundas sympathised with Cort's plight.
From a Recollection of the great Kindness and condescending Attention
which you so repeatedly manifested towards my late father Mr Henry Cort, I am
induced to hope you will pardon the Liberty I take of addressing you by
Letter.
From letter of Coningsby Cort to Robert Dundas, 23 March 1808 in
National Archives of Scotland (GD51/4/1307).
Robert Dundas had acted for several years as secretary to his father
Henry, later Viscount Melville. |
Upon the representation of Mr. H Dundas (Lord Melville), the
Treasury by warrant granted him a similar pension of £200 which he enjoyed
until his death in 1800.
From Weale collection, Vol 3 leaf 205 |
|
Related pages What happened to Cort’s patents |
henrycort.net
p