Writing in Ireland, about 1650, as appears from the context, Lady Fanshawe says:—“Our house was very clean, only one maid in it besides the master; we had a very good supper provided and being very weary went early to bed. The owner of this house entertained us with the story of the last Marquis of Worcester, who had been there sometime the year before: he had of his own and other friends’ jewels to the value of £8,000, which some merchants had lent upon them. My Lord appointed a day for receiving the money upon them and delivering the jewels; being met, he shows them all to these persons, then seals them up in a box, and delivered them to one of these merchants, by consent of the rest, to be kept for one year, and upon the payment of the £8,000 by my Lord Marquis to be delivered him.
“After my Lord had received the money, he was entertained at all these persons’ houses, and nobly feasted with them near a month: he went from thence to France. When the year was expired, they, by letters into France, pressed the payment of this borrowed money several times, alleging they had great necessity of their money to drive their trade with, to which my Lord Marquis made no answer, which did at last so exasperate these men, that they broke open the seals, and opening the box found nothing but rags and stones for their £8,000, at which they were highly enraged, and in this case I left them.”
The least acquaintance with the character of the Marquis must satisfy any one of the absurdity of this silly story, fastened on a man of stainless honour, by an obscure lodging-house keeper. The man who related it could never have imagined that Lady Fanshawe would place on record the story he was relating for her amusement, as an historical fact, or he might have shown more discretion than her Ladyship, by affording some authority for a statement of so scandalous a character.
4. Pretended interview between the Marquis of Worcester and De Caus in the Bicêtre, Paris.—This fiction was long supported by a forged letter, pretended to have been written in February, 1641, by Marion Delorme, addressed to M. de Cinq-Mars. An exposure of this fable is due to M. Figuier, in his “Principales Découvertes Scientifiques Modernes,” post octavo, 4 volumes, 1862. After quoting the fabricated document, he says:—“Cette pièce, fabriquée par un mystificateur hardi, eut un succès prodigieux, et l’on ne manqua pas de dire que le marquis de Worcester, à qui ses compatriotes attribuent la découverte de la machine à vapeur, en avait puisé l’idée dans sa conversation avec le fou de Bicêtre. On pouvait cependant élever contre l’authenticité de cet écrit quelques objections qui ne manquent pas de solidité. On pouvait faire remarquer, entre autres choses, que Salomon de Caus, mort en 1630, aurait pu difficilement être enfermé en 1641 dans un hôpital de fous; que Bicêtre était alors une commanderie de Saint-Louis, où l’on donnait asile à d’anciens militaires, et non un hôpital;—que Salomon de Caus n’avait jamais pensé à construire une machine utilisant les effets méchaniques de la vapeur;—enfin qu’il n’avait jamais reçu que de bons offices de la part de Richelieu puisque dans la dédicase de son livre, La practique et démonstration des horloges il exprime sa reconnaissance pour les bontés du cardinal. Mais le public n’y regarde pas de si près, et bien de gens ne renoncent pas sans douleur à la bonne fortune historique d’un homme de génie mourant à l’hôpital. Un sujet si bien trouvé revenait de droit aux ouvres de l’imagination et de l’art. On a vu, à l’une des expositions du Louvre, un tableau de l’un de nos peintres, M. Lecurieux, dans lequel Salomon de Caus, enfermé à Bicêtre, est représenté les yeux caves et la barbe hérissée, tendant les mains, à travers les barreux de sa prison, au couple brillant de Marion Delorme et du marquis. La lithographie et la gravure ont consacré à l’envi ce préjugé historique, le théâtre[E] et de roman l’ont exploité, de telle sorte que l’architecte normand tient aujourd’ hui sa place à côté de Galilée et de Christophe Colomb sur la liste des hommes de génie persécutés et méconnus. Jusques à quand cette légende de fabrication moderne usurpera-t-elle le titre de fait historique?” [Pages 32, 33.]
5. A Scotch view of the “Century.” In Blackwood’s Magazine, Vol. 6, 1820, p. 655, a correspondent, under the signature of J. C., in an article dated Manchester, February 8, 1820, “On Sir Thomas Urquhart’s Jewell,” declares:—“I have good reason [?] to believe, Sir Thomas was the real author of that singular production, ‘A century of names and scantlings of inventions,’ the credit or discredit of which was dishonestly [?] assumed by the Marquis of Worcester.”
Mr. Hugh Miller, in his “Scenes and Legends of the North of Scotland,” 12mo. Edin. 1835, has enlarged on this speculative view with amusing fervour. He says:—“If intrinsic evidence be allowed to weigh anything, either this little tract [the “Century”] was written by Sir Thomas; or, what is much less probable, the world, nay, the same age and island, have produced two Sir Thomases. Some little weight, too, may be attached to the fact, that many of his manuscripts were lost in the city of Worcester, near which place, judging from the Title, it is probable the Marquis resided [!]; and that the “Century of Names” was not published until 1663, two years after death had disarmed poor Sir Thomas of his sword and his pen, and rendered him insensible to both his country’s honour and his own. If in reality the author of this piece, he must be regarded, it is said, as the prime inventor of the steam engine.”
APPENDIX I.
PETITION.
[At page 284 of the “Life” is a copy of an undated letter, which may have been one addressed to the Duke of Albemarle. The Marquis speaks of the neglect of two petitions, which may be the one given at page 282, and the present petition, to the matter of both of which the annexed letter from the Duke of Albemarle may refer. It would thus appear that his petitions lay neglected for two months.]