Industrial Biography

S >> Samuel Smiles >> Industrial Biography

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

The use of iron, however, could not be dispensed with. The very
foundations of society rested upon an abundant supply of it, for
tools and implements of peace, as well as for weapons of war. In the
dearth of the article at home, a supply of it was therefore sought
for abroad; and both iron and steel came to be imported in
largely-increased quantities. This branch of trade was principally in
the hands of the Steelyard Company of Foreign Merchants, established
in Upper Thames Street, a little above London Bridge; and they
imported large quantities of iron and steel from foreign countries,
principally from Sweden, Germany, and Spain. The best iron came from
Spain, though the Spaniards on their part coveted our English made
cannons, which were better manufactured than theirs; while the best
steel came from Germany and Sweden.*
[footnote...
As late as 1790, long after the monopoly of the foreign merchants had
been abolished, Pennant says, "The present Steelyard is the great
repository of imported iron, which furnishes our metropolis with that
necessary material. The quantity of bars that fills the yards and
warehouses of this quarter strikes with astonishment the most
indifferent beholder."--PENNANT, Account of London, 309.
...]

Under these circumstances, it was natural that persons interested in
the English iron manufacture should turn their attention to some
other description of fuel which should serve as a substitute for the
prohibited article. There was known to be an abundance of coal in the
northern and midland counties, and it occurred to some speculators
more than usually daring, to propose it as a substitute for the
charcoal fuel made from wood. But the same popular prejudice which
existed against the use of coal for domestic purposes, prevented its
being employed for purposes of manufacture; and they were thought
very foolish persons indeed who first promulgated the idea of
smelting iron by means of pit-coal. The old manufacturers held it to
be impossible to reduce the ore in any other way than by means of
charcoal of wood. It was only when the wood in the neighbourhood of
the ironworks had been almost entirely burnt up, that the
manufacturers were driven to entertain the idea of using coal as a
substitute; but more than a hundred years passed before the practice
of smelting iron by its means became general.

The first who took out a patent for the purpose was one Simon
Sturtevant, a German skilled in mining operations; the professed
object of his invention being "to neale, melt, and worke all kind of
metal oares, irons, and steeles with sea-coale, pit-coale,
earth-coale, and brush fewell." The principal end of his invention,
he states in his Treatise of Metallica,*
[footnote...
STURTEVANT'S Metallica; briefly comprehending the Doctrine of Diverse
New Metallical Inventions, &c. Reprinted and published at the Great
Seal Patent Office, 1858.
...]
is to save the consumption and waste of the woods and timber of the
country; and, should his design succeed, he holds that it "will prove
to be the best and most profitable business and invention that ever
was known or invented in England these many yeares." He says he has
already made trial of the process on a small scale, and is confident
that it will prove equally successful on a large one. Sturtevant was
not very specific as to his process; but it incidentally appears to
have been his purpose to reduce the coal by an imperfect combustion
to the condition of coke, thereby ridding it of "those malignant
proprieties which are averse to the nature of metallique substances."
The subject was treated by him, as was customary in those days, as a
great mystery, made still more mysterious by the multitude of learned
words under which he undertook to describe his "Ignick Invention" All
the operations of industry were then treated as secrets. Each trade
was a craft, and those who followed it were called craftsmen. Even
the common carpenter was a handicraftsman; and skilled artisans were
"cunning men." But the higher branches of work were mysteries, the
communication of which to others was carefully guarded by the
regulations of the trades guilds. Although the early patents are
called specifications, they in reality specify nothing. They are for
the most part but a mere haze of words, from which very little
definite information can be gleaned as to the processes patented. It
may be that Sturtevant had not yet reduced his idea to any
practicable method, and therefore could not definitely explain it.
However that may be, it is certain that his process failed when tried
on a large scale, and Sturtevant's patent was accordingly cancelled
at the end of a year.

The idea, however, had been fairly born, and repeated patents were
taken out with the same object from time to time. Thus, immediately
on Sturtevant's failure becoming known, one John Rovenzon, who had
been mixed up with the other's adventure, applied for a patent for
making iron by the same process, which was granted him in 1613. His
'Treatise of Metallica'*
[footnote...
Reprinted and published at the Great Seal Patent Office, 1858.
...]
shows that Rovenzon had a true conception of the method of
manufacture. Nevertheless he, too, failed in carrying out the
invention in practice, and his patent was also cancelled. Though
these failures were very discouraging, like experiments continued to
be made and patents taken out,--principally by Dutchmen and Germans,*
[footnote...
Among the early patentees, besides the names of Sturtevant and
Rovenzon, we find those of Jordens, Francke, Sir Phillibert Vernatt,
and other foreigners of the above nations.
...]
--but no decided success seems to have attended their efforts until
the year 1620, when Lord Dudley took out his patent "for melting iron
ore, making bar-iron, &c., with coal, in furnaces, with bellows."
This patent was taken out at the instance of his son Dud Dudley,
whose story we gather partly from his treatise entitled 'Metallum
Martis,' and partly from various petitions presented by him to the
king, which are preserved in the State Paper Office, and it runs as
follows: --

Dud Dudley was born in 1599, the natural son of Edward Lord Dudley of
Dudley Castle in the county of Worcester. He was the fourth of eleven
children by the same mother, who is described in the pedigree of the
family given in the Herald's visitation of the county of Stafford in
the year 1663, signed by Dud Dudley himself, as "Elizabeth, daughter
of William Tomlinson of Dudley, concubine of Edward Lord Dudley."
Dud's eldest brother is described in the same pedigree as Robert
Dudley, Squire, of Netherton Hall; and as his sisters mostly married
well, several of them county gentlemen, it is obvious that the
family, notwithstanding that the children were born out of wedlock,
held a good position in their neighbourhood, and were regarded with
respect. Lord Dudley, though married and having legitimate heirs at
the time, seems to have attended to the up-bringing of his natural
children; educating them carefully, and afterwards employing them in
confidential offices connected with the management of his extensive
property. Dud describes himself as taking great delight, when a
youth, in his father's iron-works near Dudley, where he obtained
considerable knowledge of the various processes of the manufacture.

The town of Dudley was already a centre of the iron manufacture,
though chiefly of small wares, such as nails, horse-shoes, keys,
locks, and common agricultural tools; and it was estimated that there
were about 20,000 smiths and workers in iron of various kinds living
within a circuit of ten miles of Dudley Castle. But, as in the
southern counties, the production of iron had suffered great
diminution from the want of fuel in the district, "though formerly a
mighty woodland country; and many important branches of the local
trade were brought almost to a stand-still. Yet there was an
extraordinary abundance of coal to be met with in the
neighbourhood--coal in some places lying in seams ten feet
thick--ironstone four feet thick immediately under the coal, with
limestone conveniently adjacent to both. The conjunction seemed
almost providential--"as if." observes Dud, "God had decreed the time
when and how these smiths should be supplied, and this island also,
with iron, and most especially that this cole and ironstone should
give the first and just occasion for the invention of smelting iron
with pit-cole;" though, as we have already seen, all attempts
heretofore made with that object had practically failed.

Dud was a special favourite of the Earl his father, who encouraged
his speculations with reference to the improvement of the iron
manufacture, and gave him an education calculated to enable him to
turn his excellent practical abilities to account. He was studying at
Baliol College, Oxford, in the year 1619, when the Earl sent for him
to take charge of an iron furnace and two forges in the chase of
Pensnet in Worcestershire. He was no sooner installed manager of the
works, than, feeling hampered by the want of wood for fuel, his
attention was directed to the employment of pit-coal as a substitute.
He altered his furnace accordingly, so as to adapt it to the new
process, and the result of the first trial was such as to induce him
to persevere. It is nowhere stated in Dud Dudley's Treatise what was
the precise nature of the method adopted by him; but it is most
probable that, in endeavouring to substitute coal for wood as fuel,
he would subject the coal to a process similar to that of
charcoal-burning. The result would be what is called Coke; and as
Dudley informs us that he followed up his first experiment with a
second blast, by means of which he was enabled to produce good
marketable iron, the presumption is that his success was also due to
an improvement of the blast which he contrived for the purpose of
keeping up the active combustion of the fuel. Though the quantity
produced by the new process was comparatively small--not more than
three tons a week from each furnace--Dudley anticipated that greater
experience would enable him to increase the quantity; and at all
events he had succeeded in proving the practicability of smelting
iron with fuel made from pit-coal, which so many before him had tried
in vain.

Immediately after the second trial had been made with such good
issue, Dud wrote to his father the Earl, then in London, informing
him what he had done, and desiring him at once to obtain a patent for
the invention from King James. This was readily granted, and the
patent (No. 18), dated the 22nd February, 1620, was taken out in the
name of Lord Dudley himself.

Dud proceeded with the manufacture of iron at Pensnet, and also at
Cradley in Staffordshire, where he erected another furnace; and a
year after the patent was granted he was enabled to send up to the
Tower, by the King's command, a considerable quantity of the new iron
for trial. Many experiments were made with it: its qualities were
fairly tested, and it was pronounced "good merchantable iron." Dud
adds, in his Treatise, that his brother-in-law, Richard Parkshouse,
of Sedgeley,*
[footnote...
Mr. Parkshouse was one of the esquires to Sir Ferdinando Dudley (the
legitimate son of the Earl of Dudley) When he was made Knight of the
Bath. Sir Ferdinando's only daughter Frances married Humble Ward, son
and heir of William Ward, goldsmith and jeweller to Charles the
First's queen. Her husband having been created a baron by the title
of Baron Ward of Birmingham, and Frances becoming Baroness of Dudley
in her own right on the demise of her father, the baronies of Dudley
and Ward thus became united in their eldest son Edward in the year
1697.
...]
"had a fowling-gun there made of the Pit-cole iron," which was "well
approved." There was therefore every prospect of the new method of
manufacture becoming fairly established, and with greater experience
further improvements might with confidence be anticipated, when a
succession of calamities occurred to the inventor which involved him
in difficulties and put an effectual stop to the progress of his
enterprise.

The new works had been in successful operation little more than a
year, when a flood, long after known as the "Great May-day Flood,"
swept away Dudley's principal works at Cradley, and otherwise
inflicted much damage throughout the district. "At the market town
called Stourbridge," says Dud, in the course of his curious
narrative, "although the author sent with speed to preserve the
people from drowning, and one resolute man was carried from the
bridge there in the day-time, the nether part of the town was so deep
in water that the people had much ado to preserve their lives in the
uppermost rooms of their houses." Dudley himself received very little
sympathy for his losses. On the contrary, the iron-smelters of the
district rejoiced exceedingly at the destruction of his works by the
flood. They had seen him making good iron by his new patent process,
and selling it cheaper than they could afford to do. They accordingly
put in circulation all manner of disparaging reports about his iron.
It was bad iron, not fit to be used; indeed no iron, except what was
smelted with charcoal of wood, could be good. To smelt it with coal
was a dangerous innovation, and could only result in some great
public calamity. The ironmasters even appealed to King James to put a
stop to Dud's manufacture, alleging that his iron was not
merchantable. And then came the great flood, which swept away his
works; the hostile ironmasters now hoping that there was an end for
ever of Dudley's pit-coal iron.

But Dud, with his wonted energy, forthwith set to work and repaired
his furnaces and forges, though at great cost; and in the course of a
short time the new manufacture was again in full progress. The
ironmasters raised a fresh outcry against him, and addressed another
strong memorial against Dud and his iron to King James. This seems to
have taken effect; and in order to ascertain the quality of the
article by testing it upon a large scale, the King commanded Dudley
to send up to the Tower of London, with every possible speed,
quantities of all the sorts of bar-iron made by him, fit for the
"making of muskets, carbines, and iron for great bolts for shipping;
which iron," continues Dud, "being so tried by artists and smiths,
the ironmasters and iron-mongers were all silenced until the 21st
year of King James's reign." The ironmasters then endeavoured to get
the Dudley patent included in the monopolies to be abolished by the
statute of that year; but all they could accomplish was the
limitation of the patent to fourteen years instead of thirty-one; the
special exemption of the patent from the operation of the statute
affording a sufficient indication of the importance already attached
to the invention. After that time Dudley "went on with his invention
cheerfully, and made annually great store of iron, good and
merchantable, and sold it unto diverse men at twelve pounds per ton."
"I also," said he, "made all sorts of cast-iron wares, as brewing
cisterns, pots, mortars, &c., better and cheaper than any yet made in
these nations with charcoal, some of which are yet to be seen by any
man (at the author's house in the city of Worcester) that desires to
be satisfied of the truth of the invention."

Notwithstanding this decided success, Dudley encountered nothing but
trouble and misfortune. The ironmasters combined to resist his
invention; they fastened lawsuit's upon him, and succeeded in getting
him ousted from his works at Cradley. From thence he removed to
Himley in the county of Stafford, where he set up a pit-coal furnace;
but being without the means of forging the iron into bars, he was
constrained to sell the pig-iron to the charcoal-ironmasters, "who
did him much prejudice, not only by detaining his stock, but also by
disparaging his iron." He next proceeded to erect a large new furnace
at Hasco Bridge, near Sedgeley, in the same county, for the purpose
of carrying out the manufacture on the most improved principles. This
furnace was of stone, twenty-seven feet square, provided with
unusually large bellows; and when in full work he says he was enabled
to turn out seven tons of iron per week, "the greatest quantity of
pit-coal iron ever yet made in Great Britain." At the same place he
discovered and opened out new workings of coal ten feet thick, lying
immediately over the ironstone, and he prepared to carry on his
operations on a large scale; but the new works were scarcely finished
when a mob of rioters, instigated by the charcoal-ironmasters, broke
in upon them, cut in pieces the new bellows, destroyed the machinery,
and laid the results of all his deep-laid ingenuity and persevering
industry in ruins. From that time forward Dudley was allowed no rest
nor peace: he was attacked by mobs, worried by lawsuits, and
eventually overwhelmed by debts. He was then seized by his creditors
and sent up to London, where he was held a prisoner in the Comptoir
for several thousand pounds. The charcoal-iron men thus for a time
remained masters of the field.

Charles I. seems to have taken pity on the suffering inventor; and on
his earnest petition, setting forth the great advantages to the
nation of his invention, from which he had as yet derived no
advantage, but only losses, sufferings, and persecution, the King
granted him a renewal of his patent*
[footnote...
Patent No. 117, Old Series, granted in 1638, to Sir George Horsey,
David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dudd Dudley.
...]
in the year 1638; three other gentlemen joining him as partners, and
doubtless providing the requisite capital for carrying on the
manufacture after the plans of the inventor. But Dud's evil fortune
continued to pursue him. The patent had scarcely been securedere the
Civil War broke out, and the arts of peace must at once perforce give
place to the arts of war. Dud's nature would not suffer him to be
neutral at such a time; and when the nation divided itself into two
hostile camps, his predilections being strongly loyalist, he took the
side of the King with his father. It would appear from a petition
presented by him to Charles II. in 1660, setting forth his sufferings
in the royal cause, and praying for restoral to certain offices which
he had enjoyed under Charles I., that as early as the year 1637 he
had been employed by the King on a mission into Scotland,*
[footnote...
By his own account, given in Metallum Martis, while in Scotland in
1637, he visited the Highlands as well as the Lowlands, spending the
whole summer of that year "in opening of mines and making of
discoveries;" spending part of the time with Sir James Hope of Lead
Hills, near where, he says, "he got gold." It does not appear,
however, that any iron forges existed in Scotland at the time: indeed
Dudley expressly says that "Scotland maketh no iron;" and in his
treatise of 1665 he urges that the Corporation of the Mines Royal
should set him and his inventions at work to enable Scotland to enjoy
the benefit of a cheap and abundant supply of the manufactured
article.
...]
in the train of the Marquis of Hamilton, the King's Commissioner.
Again in 1639, leaving his ironworks and partners, he accompanied
Charles on his expedition across the Scotch border, and was present
with the army until its discomfiture at Newburn near Newcastle in the
following year.

The sword was now fairly drawn, and Dud seems for a time to have
abandoned his iron-works and followed entirely the fortunes of the
king. He was sworn surveyor of the Mews or Armoury in 1640, but being
unable to pay for the patent, another was sworn in in his place. Yet
his loyalty did not falter, for in the beginning of 1642, when
Charles set out from London, shortly after the fall of Strafford and
Laud, Dud went with him.*
[footnote...
The Journals of the House of Commons, of the 13th June, 1642, contain
the resolution "that Captain Wolseley, Ensign Dudley, and John
Lometon be forthwith sent for, as delinquents, by the
Serjeant-at-Arms attending on the House, for giving interruption to
the execution of the ordinance of the militia in the county of
Leicester."
...]
He was present before Hull when Sir John Hotham shut its gates in the
king's face; at York when the royal commissions of array were sent
out enjoining all loyal subjects to send men, arms, money, and
horses, for defence of the king and maintenance of the law; at
Nottingham, where the royal standard was raised; at Coventry, where
the townspeople refused the king entrance and fired upon his troops
from the walls; at Edgehill, where the first great but indecisive
battle was fought between the contending parties; in short, as Dud
Dudley states in his petition, he was "in most of the battailes that
year, and also supplyed his late sacred Majestie's magazines of
Stafford, Worcester, Dudley Castle, and Oxford, with arms, shot,
drakes, and cannon; and also, became major unto Sir Frauncis
Worsley's regiment, which was much decaied."

In 1643, according to the statement contained in his petition above
referred to, Dud Dudley acted as military engineer in setting out the
fortifications of Worcester and Stafford, and furnishing them with
ordnance. After the taking of Lichfield, in which he had a share, he
was made Colonel of Dragoons, and accompanied the Queen with his
regiment to the royal head-quarters at Oxford. The year after we find
him at the siege of Gloucester, then at the first battle of Newbury
leading the forlorn hope with Sir George Lisle, afterwards marching
with Sir Charles Lucas into the associate counties, and present at
the royalist rout at Newport. That he was esteemed a valiant and
skilful officer is apparent from the circumstance, that in 1645 he
was appointed general of Prince Maurice's train of artillery, and
afterwards held the same rank under Lord Ashley. The iron districts
being still for the most part occupied by the royal armies, our
military engineer turned his practical experience to account by
directing the forging of drakes*
[footnote...
Small pieces of artillery, specimens of which are still to be seen in
the museum at Woolwich Arsenal and at the Tower. ...]
of bar-iron, which were found of great use, giving up his own
dwelling-house in the city of Worcester for the purpose of carrying
on the manufacture of these and other arms. But Worcester and the
western towns fell before the Parliamentarian armies in 1646, and all
the iron-works belonging to royalists, from which the principal
supplies of arms had been drawn by the King's army, were forthwith
destroyed.

Dudley fully shared in the dangers and vicissitudes of that trying
period, and bore his part throughout like a valiant soldier. For two
years nothing was heard of him, until in 1648, when the king's party
drew together again, and made head in different parts of the country,
north and south. Goring raised his standard in Essex, but was driven
by Fairfax into Colchester, where he defended himself for two months.
While the siege was in progress, the royalists determined to make an
attempt to raise it. On this Dud Dudley again made his appearance in
the field, and, joining sundry other counties, he proceeded to raise
200 men, mostly at his own charge. They were, however, no sooner
mustered in Bosco Bello woods near Madeley, than they were attacked
by the Parliamentarians, and dispersed or taken prisoners. Dud was
among those so taken, and he was first carried to Hartlebury Castle
and thence to Worcester, where he was imprisoned. Recounting the
sufferings of himself and his followers on this occasion, in the
petition presented to Charles II. in 1660,*
[footnote...
State Paper Office, Dom. Charles II., vol. xi. 54.
...]
he says, "200 men were dispersed, killed, and some taken, namely,
Major Harcourt, Major Elliotts, Capt. Long, and Cornet Hodgetts, of
whom Major Harcourt was miserably burned with matches. The petitioner
and the rest were stripped almost naked, and in triumph and scorn
carried up to the city of Worcester (which place Dud had fortified
for the king), and kept close prisoners, with double guards set upon
the prison and the city."

Notwithstanding this close watch and durance, Dudley and Major
Elliotts contrived to break out of gaol, making their way over the
tops of the houses, afterwards passing the guards at the city gates,
and escaping into the open country. Being hotly pursued , they
travelled during the night, and took to the trees during the daytime.
They succeeded in reaching London, but only to drop again into the
lion's mouth; for first Major Elliotts was captured, then Dudley, and
both were taken before Sir John Warner, the Lord Mayor, who forthwith
sent them before the "cursed committee of insurrection," as Dudley
calls them. The prisoners were summarily sentenced to be shot to
death, and were meanwhile closely imprisoned in the Gatehouse at
Westminster, with other Royalists.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28