1

their project for a monopoly in his own interest. As a result of his efforts, the Pinners Company of London was granted a monopoly of the English market for pins 1 on condition that they would make their pins of wire furnished from his works, although foreign wire was better suited to the manufacture of pins.2 The arrangements under this contract were never carried out, for the Long Parliament, which met in the following autumn, made it impossible to pursue the plans agreed upon. In 1665 the copper used in England was entirely imported, the English being still dependent upon the Dutch and Swedes for their supplies of copper and most of their brass, while Welsh zinc was exported in the ore. A contemporary petition of the brass manufacturers shows that the Swedes undersold the English who attempted to revive the latten works, and, after they had command of the market once more, raised the price. A countervailing duty, the petitioners claimed, would cause plenty of rough copper to be brought in.*

In judging the merits of the two mining monopolies, full credit may be given to the worthy motives that originally inspired them. Their creation was due to the feeling on the part of the crown and the ministers that it was economically and strategically important to develop the mineral resources of the kingdom. They knew that to do this it was necessary to offer adequate inducements to foreign master-workmen to bring into the country the metallurgical arts of the continent. They took the obvious means of encouragement, and, so far as the mere introduction of industries was concerned, they accomplished their purpose. That the means they adopted were perhaps not the most suitable, that at any rate the privileges granted were too extensive, was an error due to lack of experience. It must be remembered that these two concessions were the first important patents of monopoly. Many lessons were

1 C. R. March 18, 1640.

2 "It was necessary to harmonize these two jarring monopolies by subordinating them both to a higher conception of mercantile policy. The possibility of maintaining a steady market for unsatisfactory English wire was dependent on the possibility of maintaining a regular demand for unsatisfactory English pins." Unwin, p. 168. Dudley, Metallum Martis (p. viii of the epistle to Parliament), 1665. The petition is reprinted in Stringer's Opera, p. 157.

See Cunningham, ii. pp. 53-63, in 3d ed.

learned from these concessions, and subsequent grants were naturally made with more precision. In a review of the results of these two monopolies, it is evident that their object was accomplished in some degree, for the industries thus introduced were permanently established within the country. Particular kinds of technical skill were transmitted from the alien workmen to the English, who at least kept the spark alive until a more favorable time. They formed the nucleus, indeed, of the work-masters who revived the metallic industries of a later date. They had acquired sufficient familiarity with such work to qualify them for introducing further improvements. But, having stated this much to the credit of the monopolies, some qualifications are necessary. Admitting that metallurgical arts were naturalized by means of the monopolies, it must be stated that the fact had little importance at the time, nor, indeed, till long afterwards. The chief mineral resources of the realm, tin, lead, and coal, were unaffected by the societies. Copper and zinc were the metals which chiefly concerned the societies, but in the production of these they contributed little and exacted much. The form of the privileges was most unfortunate. Such rigid monopolies went far toward defeating their own end. That they were broader than was necessary to tempt the foreigners to introduce their arts, or to encourage natives to finance them, is demonstrated by the fact that neither of these companies availed themselves of all their rights, but reserved many only for special exigencies, to save themselves from troublesome competition. Privileges directly proportional to actual undertakings would probably have been as tempting as perpetual grants covering all mines in the country, for Shutz was content to develop his wire-work, and Houghstetter, according to tradition,' soon dropped his active connection with his company and retired into Wales, where he founded a family. On the other hand, the grant of monopolies in the hands of two companies which did not exercise them tended to discourage enterprise and adventure outside the companies. The societies had most to gain by confining their attention to a few concerns which enjoyed a close market. Outside the monopolies it was discouraging to operate, for the companies were ready to suppress or levy tribute upon any undertaking which proved successful.

And cf. above, page 53.

CHAPTER V

THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS

THE ordinary sources of information as to the results of the sixteenth and seventeenth monopolies are almost silent as to the many privileges that were granted for mechanical inventions. The fact is that no single one of the inventions of this character proved of firstrate importance. In the aggregate, they represent a fair state of mechanical activity, some ingenuity, and considerable teachableness. They indicate that Englishmen were alive to the value of technical improvements, and that they were introducing them from all sources domestic and foreign. The whole period was one of great industrial expansion, and it was this condition rather than a system of governmental encouragement that caused the unusual exercise of mechanical ingenuity. In the mechanical progress that took place the patents were not leading factors. Some of the most successful mechanical innovations of the period did not enjoy any patent. The patent system could not create ingenuity, which is dependent upon far deeper influences than are at the command of government. The influence of the patents was at best indirect.

The mechanical inventions which were of the greatest importance were for draining and water-raising. The influence back of the various pumping and draining devices was the mining activity in the various parts of the country. The operations of the two mining companies, and of the lessees under them, have already been noted. Several mining interests which antedated 1560 were beyond their control. In all these the problem of deep mining was becoming an important one. At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was believed that the Newcastle coal supply was nearly exhausted,' for by that time the surface deposits had been pretty well worked. During Elizabeth's reign, deep-shaft lead mining was tried without success, although considerable sums of money had been staked 1 Proceedings Arch. Inst. Newcastle, 1852, p. 186.

1

upon the venture under Bevis Bulmer, one of the most resourceful engineers of that reign.1 In iron mining an attempt at draining was made in 1573,2 but nothing is known of the results. In tin mining there is positive information of attempts at deep shafts and drainage, and there may have been some slight relation between these attempts and the increase in production about the middle of the seventeenth century. About one fifth of the inventions that were patented between the years 1620 and 1640 were for various water-raising and draining devices, showing not only the relative importance of the problem of improved drainage at this time, but also the great activity in attempts to meet the growing economic

need.'

It is noteworthy that the accounts of mining enterprise, as well as the patent rolls, point unmistakably to the conclusion that the improved appliances in mining were introduced by Germans. The engines commonly used for water-raising in the coal mines of England in the seventeenth century were those which were known on the continent in the sixteenth century. The two mining corporations owed their charters to the introduction of Germans and the most important mining operations that were ever conducted under their leases were carried out by Bushell, who stated that his success was due to German methods. The patents for drainage themselves confirm the evidence from the mines, by the German names of many of the patentees, as well as the frequent direct statement as to the place of origin of the "invention." Among other such patentees in the sixteenth century were Burchsard Cranick, Daniel Houghstetter, John Synnerton, and Peter Morris, all of them either German or Dutch, who patented inventions for water-raising and drainage. It is less easy to discover the chief agents of activities

1 Bushell's Abridgment.

Pat. 15 Eliz. pt. 5 (October 28, 1573).

Patents, December 31, 1562, June 22, 1563.

• Specifications of Letters Patent for Invention, 1617, nos. 3, 19, 21, 29, 34, 37, 42, 48, 49, 50, 57, 66, 67, 76, 84, 105, 110, 114, 117, 125. These patents were issued at quite regular intervals, usually one a year.

Galloway, Annals of Coal Mining and Coal Trade, 1898, pp. 152, 153, 157. Compare Agricola, De re Metallica, 1559.

See above, pages 53, 54

of this sort in the seventeenth century, because the preference for conferring privileges upon natives led to the practice of petitioning for grants in the name of an Englishman. But as England looked to Germany, High and Low, for all her technical progress, it is to be inferred that a majority of the patents were of continental origin.1 It is probable, therefore, that there was little native mechanical genius in England. There were, to be sure, professional men of genius, but though men like David Ramsey and the Marquis of Worcester invented new things by the score and by the hundred, they cannot be considered industrial leaders. The latter, indeed, probably invented little in the modern sense of the term "inventions." In that period it is a significant fact that the popular and even the legal meaning of the word "inventor" covered not only the originating but also the importing of technical ideas and processes.3 Indeed, imitation of the foreigner was a much more important factor than "native wit." The latter long found its chief scope in adapting foreign devices to domestic conditions. But this eager, imitative apprenticeship bore its fruit in the following century when English mechanical skill, joined with scientific genius, furnished the tools for the Industrial Revolution.

In passing judgment upon this group of patents the motives are easily disposed of. None of the patents were more free from any suspicion of selfish interest on the part of the crown. The rents or fees were merely nominal, and it is clear that it was the intention to grant them to the persons justly entitled to them. There is some reason to suspect that in the Stuart days this intention was occasionally defeated by rogues near the throne, who, hearing of a project, contrived to secure a privilege for themselves, perhaps with the purpose of extorting bribes from the only persons to whom such a privilege could have a working value. In other cases, however, patents were quite legitimately granted to natives for aliens in order to meet popular objections. These grants corresponded in motive and character to the industrial patents of our own day, 1 This indebtedness was remembered as late as the eighteenth century, when, for instance, the ribbon loom was still called a "Dutch loom."

* Consult Specifications, and also A Century of Inventions by the Marquis of Worcester, 1663.

See above, p. 24, and Appendix H.

See, e. g., S. P. D. July 1610, Ivi, 47, 48.