|
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 over-whelming 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 honour-able
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 acquainted 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, agri-culture, 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 great 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-roads and steam 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 develop 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 use 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.
However, Cort’s daughter
(and Carpenter’s mother-in-law) Louisa Powell has
little opportunity to benefit from these proceedings, as she dies in September
1859.
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 Refutation of
allegations of conspiracies against Cort |
henrycort.net
p