The Life of George Stephenson and of his Son Robert Stephenson / Comprising Also a History of the Invention and Introduction of the Railway Locomotive

by Samuel Smiles

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 recognized. 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-labor class, without chemical knowledge or literary culture, pursuing his experiments in obscurity, with a view only to usefulness; the other was the scientific prodigy of his day, the pet of the Royal Society, the favorite of princes, 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. The scientific class united to ignore him entirely in the matter. 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 really far above claiming for himself an invention not his own. He had already accomplished a far greater thing even 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; yet no one—not even the philosophers—detected as yet the significance of that wonderful machine. It excited no scientific interest, called forth no leading articles in the newspapers or the reviews, and formed the subject of no eloquent lectures at the Royal Society; for railways were as yet comparatively unknown, and the might which slumbered in the locomotive was scarcely, as yet, even dreamed of. 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 to raise 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 independently of all that Stephenson had done; and having directed his careful attention to the subject, and elucidated the true theory of explosion of carbureted hydrogen, he was entitled to all praise and reward for his labor. 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.

But this was not at all in George Stephenson's line. He had never appeared in print before, and it seemed to him a far more formidable thing to write a letter for publication in "the papers" than even to invent a safety-lamp or design a locomotive. Having called his son Robert to his assistance, he set him down before a sheet of foolscap, and when all was ready, he said, "Now, 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 it was the penmanship that was called in question, and he had written his very best. Mr. Brandling then requested his visitors to sit down while he put the letter in a more polished form, which he did, and it was shortly after published in the local papers.

As the controversy continued for some time longer to be carried on in the Newcastle papers, Mr. Stephenson, in the year 1817, consented to publish the detailed plans, with descriptions, of the several safety-lamps which he had contrived for use in the Killingworth Colliery. The whole forms a pamphlet of only sixteen pages of letter-press.[46]

His friends, being fully satisfied of his claims to priority as the inventor of the safety-lamp used in the Killingworth and other collieries, proceeded to hold a public meeting for the purpose of presenting him with a reward "for the valuable service he had thus rendered to mankind." Charles J. Brandling, Esq., occupied the chair; and several resolutions were passed, of which the first and most important was as follows: "That it is the opinion of this meeting that Mr. George Stephenson, having discovered the fact that explosion of hydrogen gas will not pass through tubes and apertures of small dimensions, and having been the first to apply that principle in the construction of a safety-lamp, is entitled to a public reward."

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 subscription list was headed by Lord Ravensworth, one of the partners in the Killingworth Colliery, who showed his appreciation of the merits of Stephenson by giving 100 guineas. C. J. Brandling and partners gave a like sum, and Matthew Bell and partners, and John Brandling and partners, gave 50 guineas each. When the resolutions appeared in the newspapers, the scientific friends of Sir Humphry Davy in London met, and passed a series of counter-resolutions, which they published, declaring their opinion that Mr. Stephenson was not the author of the discovery of the fact that explosion of hydrogen will not pass through tubes and apertures of small dimensions, and that he was not the first to apply that principle to the construction of a safety-lamp. To these counter-resolutions were attached the well-known names of Sir Joseph Banks, P.R.S., William Thomas Brande, Charles Hatchett, W. H. Wollaston, and Thomas Young.