[ [214] Watt befriended Jabez like the other members of his family, as appears from the following passage in a letter to Boulton (6th September, 1778):—“Capt. Paul has turned Jabez adrift, having for some time taken umbrage at him because he would do his work well and therefore expensively. Jabez has a bad wife, is poor and unhappy. He is very clever, a good engineer, and industrious, though he seems not to have the faculty of conciliating people’s affections. I fear he will go to Holland, and as he can hurt us [there being no patent for the engine secured there] I must try to get him bread here.” Later, Boulton wrote Watt from Redruth (18th November, 1780),—“Old Hornblower has disobliged Mr. Daniel. I have my fears they will not employ him; but when our own business is sealed to-morrow, I will make a push in his favour. That family hath not been successful in conciliating the affections of the people in this neighbourhood.”
[ [215] Watt to Boulton, 16th July, 1781.
[ [216] Watt to Boulton, 19th July, 1781. Boulton MSS.
[ [217] Boulton to Watt, 28th June, 1781. On the 3rd July following he writes,—“The great rotative engine is finished, and I expected the union between it and the little engine would have been performed this evening, but it can’t be till to-morrow. Robert set the elliptic out so true that it had no shake and required no alteration. It goes so much better than the little model made by Joseph that I am now ashamed to send the little one. The great model makes a delightful horizontal foot-lathe. I gave it a few strokes with my foot, and it made 30 revolutions after I withdrew it, and that in a quiet and peaceable manner, which shows how steady and frictionless it is.”
[ [218] Watt to Boulton, 5th July, 1781.
[ [219] “Yesterday I went to Penryn and swore that I had invented ‘certain new methods of applying the vibrating or reciprocating motion of steam or fire engines to produce a continued rotation or circular motion round an axis or centre, and thereby to give motion to the wheels of mills or other machines,’ which affidavit and petition I transmit to Mr. Hadley by this post with directions to get it passed with all due expedition.”—Watt to Boulton, 26th July, 1781.
[ [220] Watt suggested caution as to making use of the cranks. “In relation to Wilkinson’s forges, I wish you would execute them without the double crank. We shall soon have a bad enough lawsuit on our hands without it.”—Watt to Boulton, 19th July, 1781.
[ [221] Watt to Boulton, 28th July, 1781. A few days later Boulton wrote Watt that Dr. Priestley had proceeded with the experiments, and that he had come to the conclusion that “there is nothing to be feared from any of the tribe of gases, which cannot be produced nearly so cheap as steam; and as to steam you know its limits better than any man.”
[ [222] Watt to Boulton, 30th July, 1781. Later he wrote,—“I am tired of making improvements which by some quirk or wresting of the law may be taken from us, as I think has been done in the case of Arkwright, who has been condemned merely because he did not specify quite clearly. This was injustice, because it is plain that he has given this trade a being—has brought his invention into use and made it of great public utility. Wherefore he deserved all the money he has got. In my opinion his patent should not have been invalidated without it had clearly appeared that he did not invent the things in question. I fear we shall be served with the same sauce for the good of the public! and in that case I shall certainly do what he threatens. This you may be assured of, that we are as much envied here as he is at Manchester, and all the bells in Cornwall would be rung at our overthrow.”—Watt to Boulton, 13th August, 1781.
[ [223] Watt to Boulton, 13th November, 1781.