Chapter CDXXIV: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (21)

"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
to have meant a particular port or other place to which
certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
restriction; but these were of brief duration.

_G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._

"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

_C. Gross,
The Gild Merchant,
pages 140-141._

ALSO IN:
_A. Anderson,
History of Commerce,
volume 1, page 216. and after._

STAR, Knights of the.

"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
the same was embroidered on their mantles."

_T. Johnes,
Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 152._

STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
(la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
pages 181-183._

"The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

_A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council,
part 3, chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1._

_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2)._

STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
the British Crown.

_Annual Register, 1861._

STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
The circumstances of the writing of the song.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

STAROSTS.

"Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

_Count Moltke,
Poland,
page 8._

See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
In the 14th Century.

"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
which gave them full power to check and control the royal
authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
superintendence of the administration of the government during
the intervals between sessions of the States-General
themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
promise of free government in France than across the channel.
But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
the ministers of the crown."

_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 10._

{3027}

"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
shadows of national assemblies."

_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
period 4, book 2, chapter 3._

"One single result of importance was won for France by the
states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
John, the states-general became one of the principles of
national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
it remained without application, and the prestige of which
survived even its reverses."

_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 21._

ALSO IN:
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapters 2-3._

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The last States General before the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The States-General of 1789.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------

STATES OF THE CHURCH:
Origin.

See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
under Julius II.

See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
Annexation of Ferrara.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
Annexation of Urbino.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
Seizure by Napoleon.
Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
Final incorporation with the French Empire.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
Papal Sovereignty restored.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------

STATUTES.

See LAW.

STAURACIUS,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.

STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------

STEAM ENGINE:
The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

"It is probable that the first contriver of a working
steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
[when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
with water. … It is probable that the planning and
construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
but his undertakings were not successful.
{3028}
He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
"His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
for the construction of another, and three years later he
died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
important invention by the circumstance of his having been
brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
machine."

_S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 1-4._

"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

_H. Dircks,
Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
page 337._

STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
The improvements of James Watt.

After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
attention first, with all his profound physical and
mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
different temperatures. All these investigations would have
occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
render it complete.
{3029}
The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
the power of the machine, but the total gain was
enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
before he found the means to introduce his invention into
practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
but without the means of rendering it available." For five
years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
point of the additional power gained, was more important than
the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
would occupy too much space."

_Life of James Watt
(Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17)._

"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
little more than improve it by altering the forms and
proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
if ever, real developments."

_R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 5-17._

_J. P. Muirhead,
Life of James Watt. _

_J. P. Muirhead,
Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
of James Watt._

----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------

STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
The beginning of Railroads.

"The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

_W. J. M. Rankine,
Manual of the Steam Engine,
pages xxv-xxvii._

George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
the important improvements which he had effected in the
colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the
colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
"It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

_S. Smiles,
Life of George Stephenson,
chapters 9-24._

"Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
school history of the United States knows something of the
Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
… In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
Brown."

_C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
chapter 1._

----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------

STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.