The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-03 00:00:00

ling to the iron manufacturers of the countries
above named. At the period to which we allude,

this nation became entangled in tear; with that
war came commercial embarrassments, depre-
ciated paper, foreign prohibitions, and an over-
powering and daily increasing demand for more
iron. Here it was that CORT'S invention enabled
us to stem the torrent of difficulties which then
beset the country. It empowered us to meet
successfully this period of sharp trial, and, as his
descendants allege, it was the main cause of our
success. In looking into the allegations set forth
in the petition of Mr. CORT to the House of
Commons, two enquiries are suggested : First, was
Mr. CORT the bona fide inventor of the process
alleged, and did that process confer the advan-
tages enumerated ? Secondly, granting an affir-
mative to the foregoing question, we have next
to satisfy ourselves whether the profits and
emoluments arising from the use of the patents
which Mr. CORT had secured did not fully remu-
nerate him for the discoveries which he made and
practically applied. As regards the former of
these interrogatories, there is abundant evidence
to satisfy any reasonable mind that the- petition
-of HENRY COPT is truthful as to the numerous
important advantages which resulted from his

father's discoveries. As far back as July, 1783,
we find that a number of government officers
from the Portsmouth Dockyard examined the
process adopted under CORT'S patent for prepar-
ing, welding, and working various sorts of iron,
and reported that the iron so manufactured was
very proper " for making strong chains, bolt
" staves, tackle hooks, &c., or any other uses, it
" may be wanted, for many of her Majesty's yards."
Again, in 1811 the chief representatives of the iron
trade assembled at Gloucester, and unanimously
recorded their indebtedness to Mr. CORT for the

unexampled improvements of which he was the

author and inventor, and that acknowledgment
was repeated last year by the following eminent

scientific gentlemen : ROBERT STEPHENSON,
FAIRBAIRN, MAUDSLEY and FIELD, CUBITT,
RENDEL, Sir CHARLES Fox, GEORGE BIDDER,
and, among iron owners, of CRAWSIIAY BAILEY,
HUTCHINS, and ANTnoNY HILL. After such a host of
witnesses, all of whom stand foremost in the ranks
of their respective professions to which they be-
long, who can gainsay the allegation that the com-
mercial And even political consequences of these
simple innovations on the art of manufacturing
iron have not been enormous ? Indeed, a mo-
mentary glance at the history of the iron trade,
the many and highly important purposes to which
that, metal has been applied, particularly in ex-
tending and developing our trade and commerce
throughout the world, at once proclaim the in-*
ventor to. be a real benefactor to his country and
his kind. True it is he did not lead on the armed
legions of England, and on the battle-field conquer
a peace which extended civilisation, and opened
up fresh sources of industry at home and abroad.
But he enabled the persevering genius of the age
to abridge space, and by the sea-going steamer
and the snorting railway engine brought towns an d
cities—yea, even kingdoms and continents—into
close proximity, so that now they are at last in
daily, aye, hourly, communication with each other.

tories—visit Preston, Bolton, Blackburn, and
Warrington ; consider the manufacturing shops
of Birmingham and Sheffield—nay more, to come
nearer' home, think for a moment of our own
shipbuilding yards, of the thousands upon thou-
sands of vessels of all grades which have gone
forth from the Mersey, all of which have in
their construction been deeply indebted to CoRT'S
invention of manufactured iron—and forget not
to take into account what is passing upon the
Clyde, the Tyne, and numerous other places in
the United Kingdom, to enumerate which is un-
necessary—and certain we are that there cannot
be an over-estimate of the advantages and utility
of the discoveries of HENRY CORT in 1783.

We now come to consider the return which has
been made to the inventor and his descendants
for the truly national boon which he conferred
upon Great Britain. And here, alas ! is a tale
which reflects deeply upon the honour and in-
tegrity of the Government authorities from the
time of Mr. PITT to the present moment. HENRY
Cows, in his general petition to the House of
Commons, in the 58th paragraph sets forth :
" That for these unparalleled services HENRY
" CORT derived no remuneration." He expended
a private fortune exceeding 20,0001. in bringing
his patent process to complete perfection ; when
that was achieved, and the leading ironmasters
of the United Kingdom had, as related, signed
contracts to pay him ten shillings per ton for their
use, his patents were seized by a high officer of the
Crown, holding the responsible and lucrative posts
of Treasurer of the Navy and Secretary at War,
and under an extent obtained, by the perjury of
a confidential deputy, his freeholds at Fontley,
Fareham, and Gosport, valued, with the stock
and goodwill of a lucrative trade, at 39,0001.,
handed over to the son of a public defaulter in
that treasurer's office,"

It appears that on the Bth of January, 1781,
Mr. Henry CORT entered into an agreement with
one Adam J ELLICOE, of the Pay Office, London,
took him into partnership upon certain conditions
set forth in the agreement, whereby JELLICOE was
to ad vance monies to COItT, and for which JELLICOE
was to have certain profits out of the business, his
son Samuel being a partner in the concern. In
1803 certain disclosures were made in the "House"
and charges preferred against the financial
department of the Navy, which resulted in the
appointment of a "Commission of Naval Inquiry."
The charges were a defalcation in the public ac-
counts of nearly 1,500,0001. The Treasurer, and
his deputy, JELLICOE, CORT'S partner, a few weeks
before the sitting of the Commission, indemnified
each other by a release, and agreed to burn the
accounts for the above sum which had passed
through their hands. With these documents
were destroyed all the evidence which would
have established Henry Cola's claims, and the de-
signing culprits determinedly refused to answer