Notwithstanding Stephenson’s claim to be regarded as the first inventor of the Tube Safety-lamp, his merits do not seem to have been generally recognised; and Sir Humphry Davy carried off the larger share of the éclat which attached to the discovery. What chance had the unknown workman of Killingworth with so distinguished a competitor? The one was as yet but a colliery engine-wright, scarce raised above the manual-labour class, pursuing his experiments in obscurity, with a view only to usefulness; the other was the scientific prodigy of his day, the most brilliant of lecturers, and the most popular of philosophers.
No small indignation was expressed by the friends of Sir Humphry Davy at Stephenson’s “presumption” in laying claim to the invention of the safety-lamp. In 1831 Dr. Paris, in his ‘Life of Sir Humphry Davy,’ thus wrote:—“It will hereafter be scarcely believed that an invention so eminently scientific, and which could never have been derived but from the sterling treasury of science, should have been claimed on behalf of an engine-wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephenson—a person not even possessing a knowledge of the elements of chemistry.”
But Stephenson was far above claiming for himself any invention not his own. He had already accomplished a far greater feat than the making of a safety-lamp—he had constructed a successful locomotive, which was to be seen in daily work on the Killingworth railway. By the
improvements he had made in the engine, he might almost be said to have invented it; but no one—not even the philosophers—detected the significance of that wonderful machine. What railways were to become, rested in a great measure with that “engine-wright of Killingworth, of the name of Stephenson,” though he was scarcely known as yet beyond the bounds of his own district.
As to the value of the invention of the safety-lamp there could be no doubt; and the colliery owners of Durham and Northumberland, to testify their sense of its importance, determined to present a testimonial to its inventor. The friends of Sir H. Davy met in August, 1816, to take steps for raising a subscription for the purpose. The advertised object of the meeting was to present him with a reward for “the invention of his safety-lamp.” To this no objection could be taken; for though the principle on which the safety-lamps of Stephenson and Davy were constructed was the same; and although Stephenson’s lamp was, unquestionably, the first successful lamp that had been constructed on such principle, and proved to be efficient,—yet Sir H. Davy did invent a safety-lamp, no doubt quite independent of all that Stephenson had done; and having directed his careful attention to the subject, and elucidated the true theory of explosion of carburetted hydrogen, he was entitled to all praise and reward for his labours. But when the meeting of coal-owners proposed to raise a subscription for the purpose of presenting Sir H. Davy with a reward for “his invention of the safety-lamp,” the case was entirely altered; and Stephenson’s friends then proceeded to assert his claims to be regarded as its first inventor.
Many meetings took place on the subject, and much discussion ensued, the result of which was that a sum of £2000 was presented to Sir Humphry Davy as “the inventor of the safety-lamp;” but, at the same time, a purse of 100 guineas was voted to George Stephenson, in consideration of what he had done in the same direction. This result was, however very unsatisfactory to Stephenson, as well as to his friends,
and Mr. Brandling, of Gosforth, suggested to him that, the subject being now fairly before the public, he should publish a statement of the facts on which his claim was founded.
This was not at all in George’s line. He had never appeared in print; and it seemed to him a more formidable thing to write a letter for “the papers” than to invent a safety-lamp or design a locomotive. However, he called to his aid his son Robert, set him down before a sheet of foolscap, and told him to “put down there just what I tell you.” The composition of this letter, as we were informed by the writer of it, occupied more evenings than one; and when it was at length finished, after many corrections, and fairly copied out, the father and son set out—the latter dressed in his Sunday’s round jacket—to lay the joint production before Mr. Brandling, at Gosforth House. Glancing over the letter, Mr. Brandling said, “George, this will never do.” “It is all true, sir,” was the reply. “That may be; but it is badly written.” Robert blushed, for he thought the penmanship was called in question, and he had written his best. Mr. Brandling, however, revised the letter, which was shortly after published in the local journals.
Stephenson’s friends, fully satisfied of his claims to priority as the inventor of the safety-lamp used in the Killingworth and other collieries, held a public meeting for the purpose of presenting him with a reward “for the valuable service he had thus rendered to mankind.” A subscription was immediately commenced with this object, and a committee was formed, consisting of the Earl of Strathmore, C. J. Brandling, and others. The subscriptions, when collected, amounted to £1000. Part of the money was devoted to the purchase of a silver tankard, which was presented to the inventor, together with the balance of the subscription, at a public dinner given in the Assembly Rooms at Newcastle. [105] But what gave Stephenson even
greater pleasure than the silver tankard and purse of sovereigns was the gift of a silver watch, purchased by small subscriptions amongst the colliers themselves, and presented by them as a token of their personal esteem and regard for him, as well as of their gratitude for the perseverance and skill with which he had prosecuted his valuable and lifesaving invention to a successful issue.