and which my friends consider (with what justice the public must decide) as precisely the same in principle with that subsequently presented to their notice by Sir Humphry Davy." After setting forth the dates at which Sir Humphry Davy made known to the public the several results of his investigations with respect to the explosive conditions of fire-damp, and of his presentation of his first tube lamp to the Royal Society (on the 9th Nov. 1815), Mr. Stephenson goes on to say: "To the above facts and dates I have now only to request the attention of the public, begging them particularly to observe, that, without adverting to the time when I first embraced the idea, the principle upon which the tube lamp is constructed was published, and a plan of it shown, early in September, and that it was actually burning in the mine on the 21st of October; that Sir Humphry Davy does not announce his discovery of the fact, that explosion will not pass down tubes, till the 19th of October in a private letter to Mr. Hodgson; that my double-perforated plate lamp was certainly ordered some time before the 24th of November, tried in the mine on the 30th of the same month; and that the earliest notice I had of Sir Humphry Davy having applied wire-gauze for the same purpose, was, from the 'Newcastle Chronicle' of the 23rd of December. "Upon the important variation recommended in some cases by Sir Humphry Davy, in his communication of the 9th of September, 1816, which renders his lamp the same as mine, both in construction and principle, it is unnecessary for me to dwell. In the judgment that will be pronounced upon this statement I feel the greatest confidence. This at least, I trust, I shall have credit for, that in this publication I have been actuated solely by a justifiable attention to my own reputation, and a sincere desire to have the truth investigated, and not by any disgraceful feeling of envy at the rewards and honours which have been bestowed upon a gentleman who has directed his talents to the same object, and whose reputation is too well established to be injured by me, even if I had the baseness to attempt it." Mr. Stephenson's friends, being fully satisfied of his claims to priority, as the inventor of the safety lamp used in the Killingworth and other collieries, proceeded to hold a public meeting* for the purpose of presenting him with a reward "for the valuable service he had thus rendered to mankind." Charles J. Brandling, Esq., occupied the chair; and a series of resolutions were passed, of which the first and most important was as follows: "That it is the opinion of this meeting that Mr. George Stephenson, having discovered the fact that explosion of hydrogen gas will not pass through tubes and apertures of small dimensions, and having been the first to apply that principle in the construction of a safety lamp, is entitled to a public reward." A subscription was immediately commenced with this object, and a highly influential committee was formed, consisting of the Earl of Strathmore, C. J. Brandling, and others. The subscription list was headed by Lord Ravensworth, one of the partners in the Killingworth Colliery, who showed his appreciation of the merits of Stephenson by giving 100 guineas. C. J. Brandling and partners gave a like sum, and Matthew Bell and partners, and John Brandling and partners, gave fifty guineas each. When the resolutions of Stephenson's friends appeared in the newspapers, the scientific friends of Sir Humphry Davy in London met, and passed a series of counter-resolutions, which they published, declaring their opinion that Mr. Stephenson was not the author of the discovery of the fact that * Held at Newcastle on the 1st of Nov. 1817. explosion of hydrogen will not pass through tubes and apertures of small dimensions, and that he was not the first to apply that principle to the construction of a safety lamp. To these counter-resolutions were attached the well-known names of Sir Joseph Banks, P.R.S., William Thomas Brande, Charles Hatchett, W. H. Wollaston, and Thomas Young. Mr. Stephenson's friends then, to make assurance doubly sure, and with a view to set the question at rest, determined to take evidence in detail as to the date of discovery by George Stephenson of the fact in question, and its practical application by him in the formation and actual trial of his safety lamp. The witnesses examined were, George Stephenson himself, Mr. Nicholas Wood, and John Moodie, who had been present at the first trial of the lamp; the several tinmen who made the lamps; the secretary and other members of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle, who were present at the exhibition of the third lamp; and some of the workmen at Killingworth Colliery, who had been witnesses of Mr. Stephenson's experiments on fire-damp, made with the lamps at various periods, considerably before Sir Humphry Davy's investigations were heard of. This evidence was quite conclusive to the gentlemen who investigated the subject, and they published it in 1817, together with their Report, in which they solemnly declared that, "after a careful inquiry into the merits of the case, conducted, as they trust, in a spirit of fairness and moderation, they can perceive no satisfactory reason for changing their opinion.' After setting forth a comparative table of facts and dates, in proof of their assertion "that Mr. Stephenson was the first to construct a lamp upon the principle in question," the Report proceeds: * Report upon the Claims of Mr. George Stephenson relative to the Invention of his Safety Lamp, by the Committee appointed at a meeting holden in Newcastle on the 1st of November, 1817; with an Appendix, containing the Evidence. Newcastle: Hodgson, 1817 "When the friends of Mr. Stephenson remember the humble and laborious station of life which he has occupied ; when they consider the scanty means and opportunities which he has had for pursuing the researches of science; and look to the improvements and discoveries which, notwithstanding so many disadvantages, he has been enabled to make by the judicious and unremitting exercise of the energy and acuteness of his natural understanding, they cannot persuade themselves that they have said anything more than every liberal and feeling mind would most readily admit." The Stephenson subscription, when collected, amounted to about 1000., which was presented to him, together with a silver tankard, at a public dinner given in the Assembly Rooms at Newcastle, in the month of January (1818) following. Mr. Brandling, on presenting the testimonial, observed, "A great deal of controversy, and, he was sorry to say, of animosity, had prevailed upon the subject of the 'safety lamp; but this, he trusted, after the example of moderation that had been set by Mr. Stephenson's friends, would subside, and all personalities would cease to be remembered. the claim of that individual, to testify their gratitude to whom they were that day assembled, he thought every doubt must have been removed from the minds of unprejudiced persons by a perusal of the evidence recently laid before the public. He begged Mr. Stephenson's acceptance of this token of their esteem, wishing him health long to enjoy it, and to enable him to employ those talents with which Providence had blessed him for the benefit of his fellow-creatures." As to On returning thanks for the honour done him, Mr. Stephenson said, "I shall ever reflect with pride and gratitude that my labours have been honoured with the approbation of such a distinguished meeting; and you may rest assured that my time, and any talent I may possess, shall hereafter be employed in such a manner as not to give you, gentlemen, K any cause to regret the countenance and support which you have so generously afforded me." That Stephenson amply fulfilled this promise and pledge to his friends, his future career abundantly proved. But what said Sir Humphry Davy as to this testimonial presented to Stephenson for having invented the safety lamp? In a private letter*, written at the time, he characterised as "infamous" the resolutions adopted by Mr. Stephenson's supporters, alleging that he had only "pirated" his invention. "It will turn out," said he, alluding to the Stephenson testimonial, "a very disgraceful business for the persons who have agitated it ;" and in another letter he said, "there never was a more gross imposture than that of Stephenson." To his friend Sydney Smith, he seems to have spoken of the Killingworth engine-wright as "a spurious Aladdin." † Whilst Sir Humphry Davy spoke thus bitterly in his private letters, it is somewhat remarkable that he never once in his published papers on the subject alluded to the fact that Mr. Stephenson had constructed and tested a safety lamp in the mine, months before his own was invented, although, as appears from a private letter since published by Dr. Paris in his "Life of Davy," he was aware of the fact. Nor did he refer to Humboldt's contrivance of a safety lamp in 1796, on a plan similar to that afterwards adopted by Dr. Clanny.§ Indeed, the manner in which he alluded to the last-named gentleman, who was the first to show Sir. H. Davy a safety lamp, imperfect though it might be, was considered very disrespectful by Dr. Clanny and his friends. Now that all angry feelings between the contending parties have softened down, it is not perhaps very difficult to Since published in the Mechanics' Magazine, vol. liv. p. 423. Sydney Smith's Life and Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 136. 2nd ed. § Journal des Mines, tom. viii, p. 839. |