Legal Records

MS 3147/2

Legal Records

1766 - 1851

Despite the wide covering dates, survivial of the legal records is piecemeal. The bundles of papers are the most comprehensive legal records in the collection. Many of the more formal legal documents have survived only in small numbers. For example there are considerable gaps in the series of parchment engine agreements, and, despite the numerous changes that the engine business partnership underwent, there are only two documents relating to partnership agreements. There is also only one document relating to the premises at Soho. There is very little material dating from the 19th century.

Letters Patent and Patent Specifications
Letters Patent.
Three of James Watt’s letters patent are in the Boulton & Watt collection. The first, of 25 October 1781, is the patent for various methods of rotative motion that Watt designed to avoid infringing existing patents for the crank. This patent includes the sun and planet gear. The second, of 12 March 1782, covers expansive working, the double-acting engine and a type of rotative engine. The third, of 28 April 1784, includes the parallel motion, balanced pitwork and the steam carriage. All the letters patent are on parchment, and all still have their seals attached. These are letters patent as opposed to patent specifications, so they do not have drawings attached. Patent specifications of the three patents with hand-coloured drawings can be found in the Papers of James Watt & Family.

Printed Patent Specifcations and Act of Parliament.
These are the descriptions of Watt’s patents that were printed and published. This is not a complete set of all of the printed specifcations of Watt’s patents, and at least one item came from the offices of Boulton & Watt’s lawyers, A. & J. Weston.

The printed specification for Watt’s original patent of 1769 does not contain drawings, as Watt did not submit drawings with his application. In 1775 this patent was extended by Act of Parliament. The Act was printed and published, with a reprint being made in 1794, and examples of both printings can be found here. The copy from 1794 is marked ‘A. & J. Weston’. Finally there is a printed version of Watt’s patent of 1782 which covered expansive working, the double-acting engine and a rotative engine. This printing dates from around 1795, as the plates attached to this specification are copies of those used for Hall’s New Encyclopedia of July 1795.

The Library added various printed patent specifications to the collection – these are now listed under Material Added by the Library (see MS 3147/30).

Partnership Agreements
The partners in the steam engine firm changed several times from the original partnership between Matthew Boulton and James Watt in 1775 to the firm’s final incarnation, James Watt & Co. and its closure in 1895. Separate partnerships also existed for the running of Soho Foundry. Each time the partnership changed, a new agreement was usually drawn up, but only two these agreements survive in the Boulton & Watt collection. The agreement of 1777 is an incomplete copy of the partnership agreement between Matthew Boulton and James Watt. In 1810 the head of the Drawing Office, John Southern, was brought into the partnership. The agreement with him was formalised on 1 May 1811, backdated to 1 October 1810. The articles are on parchment and are signed and sealed by Matthew Robinson Boulton, James Watt Jr. and Southern.

Other partnership agreements for the engine firm survive among James Watt Jr.’s papers in the Watt Family collection (MS 3219/6/4).

Engine Agreements
Final Agreements, Signed, Sealed and Witnessed.

Boulton & Watt made formal agreements with their customers as to the terms on which their engines could be used. The agreements were mainly intended to protect James Watt’s patent and set out payment details. Once the details had been worked out, a final version would be drawn up, and two copies would be written out on parchment. Both copies would be ‘executed’, i.e. signed, sealed and witnessed by both parties. One copy would be sent to the customer, while the other copy resided at Soho. Boulton & Watt kept their parchments folded up, with the basic details of the agreement written on the back of the folded document (the ‘endorsement’).

The agreements give details such as the size of the engine (usually cylinder diameter and stroke), what the engine is to be used for, and payment, either by an annual premium or a one-off sum. The agreements quickly reached a standard wording, but the earlier agreements for mine pumping engines, particularly those for Cornwall, contain detailed tables outlining the performance of the Watt engine being bought against an atmospheric engine. From the early 1790s basic lists of the metal materials being supplied were often attached to the agreements, and from 1797 a basic list of metal parts was incorporated into the parchment.

Only agreements for sun & planet engines survive in large numbers. No agreements dating from after 1799 survive, and it is probable that the system of making agreements for engines changed with the expiration of Watt’s patent the following year.

Draft and Copy Agreements.
Before the final parchments described above were written out and executed, agreements for engines often went through several drafts, which were passed back and forth between Boulton & Watt and their customers. In order to formalise and speed up the process, Boulton & Watt introduced a printed form which contained the standard wording common to all agreements, but which had blanks for details such as customer name, size and use of the engine etc. to be filled in. Once the details had been filled in, the final parchment agreement would be written up from the printed form.

This bundle appears to have been assembled from various sources, as it contains several of the printed forms with customer details filled in, various draft agreements written entirely by hand, and also the only two agreements in any form which date from after 1800.

Memoranda and Agreements for Second Hand Cornish Engines.
Boulton & Watt engines were frequently sold second-hand, especially in Cornwall, where some engines passed through the ownership of as many as five mines. New terms had to be made with each new set of owners – usually Boulton & Watt would offer terms through their Cornish agent Thomas Wilson, and the mine adventurers would make a resolution to accept or reject these terms at one of their regular meetings. This bundle contains transcripts and memoranda of these resolutions, and agreements for second-hand engines drawn up by Thomas Wilson. Some of the transcripts are signed and witnessed by the mine adventurers. The bundle also contains an agreement made with Richard Trevithick for paying the premium on a pirate engine at Ding Dong Mine.

Cornish Mine Agreement
Boulton & Watt took shares in several mines in Cornwall, sometimes as payment for engines, but only one agreement for shares has survived. This records the assignment to Matthew Boulton of a fortieth share in Wheal Chance mine in June 1780.

Matthew Boulton’s Coinage Licences
These parchment indentures relate to Matthew Boulton’s production of copper coins. The first is a copy of letter appointing Joseph Sage as the Comptroller of the copper coinage (Sage and Boulton were later to clash over the production of coins), while the second two are Matthew Boulton’s licences to produce copper coin for the government. The copper coinage was carried out under Boulton’s own auspices rather than those of Boulton & Watt, but these documents presumably became mixed up with Boulton & Watt’s records while at Soho Manufactory.

Papers relating to Patents and Legal Actions
Patents, Defence of the Patent Specification etc., 1758-1799.
These bundles contain material relating to James Watt’s patents, including drafts of various patent petitions and specifications by Watt, papers relating to the Dutch and Irish patents, and other documents from his career such as his correspondence with John Robison and the Russian Ambassador about Watt possibly becoming Master of Iron Ordnacnce to Catherine the Great in 1771. They also contain documents used in defence of James Watt’s specification and in the prosecution of the various legal actions. These include other engineers’ patents that Boulton & Watt cited as precedent, papers defending Watt’s patent against various objections, etc. There is also a bundle of printed Acts of Parliament which affected Boulton & Watt. Many of the documents in these bundles were acquired by Boulton & Watt from various external sources, including their London attornies the Westons.

Opposition to Jonathan Hornblower.
Jonathan Hornblower, one of the sons of the veteran Cornish mine engineer Jonathan Hornblower, patented a double-cylinder or compound engine in 1781. James Watt considered that Hornblower’s engine infringed his patent, but Boulton & Watt took no legal action against him. However when Hornblower sought to extend his patent through an Act of Parliament in 1792, Boulton & Watt strongly opposed his bill and his attempt to get an extension failed. Hornblower had a great deal of support among the owners or ‘adventurers’ of Cornish mines, and both he and Boulton & Watt produced various newspaper advertisements and pamphlets supporting their cases.

The bundles contain letters and papers relating to Hornblower’s patent and his first engine at Radstock Colliery in Somerset, his bill for an extension of his patent and Boulton & Watt’s opposition to it. The material dates back to 1781, when Boulton & Watt first received reports of Hornblower’s engine, but it was gathered together in 1791-1792 for their opposition to his patent bill.

Action against Edward Bull.
Edward Bull was a former employee of Boulton & Watt who erected several engines in Cornwall which infringed James Watt’s patent. Boulton & Watt pursued actions against him in the Courts of Common Pleas and Chancery. The former court, while finding that Bull had infringed Watt’s patent, questioned the validity of Watt’s patent, which led to further engine piracies and several Cornish mines withholding payments. A ‘Special Case’ in Common Pleas in 1795 failed to reach a decisive verdict about Watt’s patent.

The two bundles contain correspondence and memoranda relating to the action against Bull, as well as copies of various legal documents such as affidavits, transcripts of court proceedings, and so on. Following the judgement in 1795, Boulton & Watt had the proceedings published as ‘The Special Case in the cause Boulton & Watt against Bull in the Court of Common Pleas, with the Arguments of the Judges thereon; and an Appendix of Matters referred to.’ This was printed again in 1799 as part of ‘The Arguments of the Judges in Two Causes relating to the Letters Patent granted to James Watt, Engineer, for his Method of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in fire engines’ following the action against Jabez Hornblower and Stephen Maberly (2/50).

Action against Jabez Hornblower and Stephen Maberly.
Jabez Hornblower, one of the sons of the veteran Cornish engineer Jonathan Hornblower, went into business with Stephen Maberly in the 1790s, selling engines based on a patent of 1791 granted to Isaac Manwaring. These engines infringed James Watt’s patent and pursued an action against Hornblower and Maberly in the Court of Common Pleas in 1796, which found in Boulton & Watt’s favour. The case was referred to the Court of King’s Bench through a Writ of Error taken out by Hornblower and Maberly. The judgement of the King’s Bench, which upheld the earlier verdict of the Court of Common Pleas, was a decisive one for Boulton & Watt’s legal activity, as it effectively establised the validity of James Watt’s patent.

The bundles contain correspondence and memoranda relating to Hornblower and Maberly’s engines and the action against them, as well as copies of various legal documents such as lists of the jury, transcripts of court proceedings, and so on. There is also a copy of the pamphlet written by Joseph Bramah, one of Hornblower and Maberly’s leading witnesses.

Printed Material relating to Jonathan Hornblower and the Actions against Edward Bull and Hornblower & Maberly.
Boulton & Watt collected copies of the West County newspapers that carried articles and advertisements concerning their engines and attacks by their rivals. The bundle of newspapers also contains a copy of The Times carrying the announcement of the decisive judgement in the Court of King’s Bench in the action against Hornblower and Maberly in 1799.

Following this judgement, Boulton & Watt issued a publication designed to reinforce the validity of Watt’s patent. Titled ‘The Arguments of the Judges in Two Causes relating to the Letters Patent granted to James Watt, Engineer, for his Method of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in fire engines’, this contained the patent and transcripts of the legal arguments from the actions against Edward Bull and Hornblower and Maberly, as follows:

Part the First.
The Letters Patent granted to James Watt, Engineer, and the Act of Parliament prolonging the term thereof; together with the The Special Case in the Court of Common Pleas, and the Arguments of the Judges thereon, in a cause Boulton and Watt versus Bull.
versus Bull.
Part the Second.
The Proceedings in Error in a Cause Boulton and Watt versus Hornblower and Maberly: with the Arguments of the Judges thereon in the Court of King’s Bench.
Appendices:
The Declaration in the Cause Boulton and Watt v. Bull, contains the following Counts.
A List of Sundry Patents from 1693 to 1798 chiefly relating to Methods, Ways and Means, with some for Arts, shewing that such Patents were considered as legal in the opinion of the following Great Lawyers among others namely, Lord Somers, Lord Cowper, Lord Hardwicke, Lord Northington, Lord Camden &c. as Lord Chancellors; and Lord Mansfield, Lord Walsingham and Lord Kenyon and others, when Attornies or Solicitors General; and Lord Thurlow, and Lord Loughborough, the former as Attorney General and Chancellor, and the latter as Solicitor General and Chancellor.

Cornish Law Cases.
In the 1790s several Cornish mines, believing that Boulton & Watt’s system of premium payments was harsh and hoping that the ongoing legal actions against Edward Bull and Hornblower and Maberly would result in James Watt’s patent being declared invalid, withheld premium payments. These included mines who had engines made by both Jonathan Hornblower and Edward Bull – such mines were liable to pay premiums as they were effectively using Watt’s invention that Hornblower and Bull had pirated. ‘Cornish Law Cases’ refers to the actions against the owners or ‘adventurers’ of these mines as opposed to the actions against the engine makers such as Bull. Some of the mines settled before legal action began, while others were pursued through the courts of Common Pleas and Chancery. The term ‘recusant mines’ was often used for the mines which were withholding payment. Many of the payments due from the recusant mines were collected by Matthew Robinson Boulton during his visits to Cornwall in 1799 and 1800.

The bundles contain correspondence, lists of engines, memoranda, calculations of premiums due, copies of legal documents, receipts and accounts etc. relating to the demands made by Boulton & Watt and the legal actions begun against various mines.
‘Extracts from Letters relating to Messrs. Boulton & Watt’s Steam Engine Concerns in the County of Cornwall, and Memorandums in relation to the Same Subject’:

This volume (MS 3147/2/57), also referred to as the ‘Extracts Book’, contains transcripts of extracts from letters from Thomas Wilson, and various mine adventurers and engineers to Boulton & Watt about the state of mines, premiums due, statements of account, etc. It was prepared for legal proceedings against a group of mines still refusing to pay their premiums in 1799. The volume is divided as follows:
Pages 1-30: Wheal Crenver, 28 Jan. 1786-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 34-42: Godolphin, 12 Feb. 1786-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 45-69: United Mines, 22 May 1786-14 Jan. 1794.
Pages 72-77: Herland or Manor, 15 Oct. 1791-9 Apr. 1794.
Pages 83-84: Wheal Gons, 4 Apr. 1789-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 88-91: Wheal Treasure, 21 Mar. 1790-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 95-97: Edward Bull, 8 Sep. 1791-9 Apr. 1794.
Pages 101-103: Hallamanin, 12 Feb. 1786-9 Apr. 1794.
Page 107: Poldice, 20 Jul. 1792.

The second volume (2/58) is almost identical, and the transcripts are written in the same hand. This volume was probably the draft version of the ‘Extract Book’, as it includes ‘ommitted letters’ at the beginning and end of some of the sections, which are in their proper places in the chronological order in the above volume. The sections are therefore as follows:
Pages 1-32: Wheal Crenver, 28 Jan. 1786-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 36-44: Godolphin, 12 Feb. 1786-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 49-70: United Mines, 22 May 1786-14 Jan. 1794.
Pages 76-81: Herland or Manor, 15 Oct. 1791-9 Apr. 1794.
Pages 87-88: Wheal Gons, 4 Apr. 1789-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 93-96: Wheal Treasure, 21 Mar. 1790-13 Jan. 1794.
Pages 101-102: Edward Bull, 8 Sep. 1791-9 Apr. 1794.
Pages 107-109: Hallamanin, 12 Feb. 1786-9 Apr. 1794.
Page 110: Poldice, 20 Jul. 1792.
Page 116: Letter omitted respecting Edward Bull, 9 Apr. 1794.

‘Messrs. Boulton & Watt – Memorandums,’ 4 Mar. 1799:
This manuscript summarises various injunctions, cases, and actions against the various mines. It makes several references to the ‘Extract Book’ – the two volumes described above.

Action against Matthew Murray.
A bundle of papers relating to Boulton Watt & Co.’s action against Matthew Murray, an engineer from Leeds. Murray first came to the attention of Soho in 1797, and over the next four years his activities were carefully monitored. In 1801 he took out a patent, parts of which Boulton Watt & Co. considered as infringing William Murdock’s patent of 1799. This led to a successful legal action to have Murray’s patent revoked.

Other Papers relating to Engine Premiums and Pirate Engines.
Various documents relating to the enforcing of engine premiums and other engineer’s designs that were considered as pirating James Watt’s patents, including a bundle of sketches of various rival engines, the legal opinions of two London attornies on various cases, and papers concerning action taken against John Sturges & Co. of the Bowling Iron Works near Bradford in Yorkshire.

Miscellaneous Legal Papers.
This bundle contains various legal items found scattered though the collection, including the statements about Richard Cartwright and the alledged piracy of the crank in 1780, a bill from the Birmingham attorney William Bedford, details of premiums owed by the Manchester merchant Alexander Brodie, and other items.

Embezzlement by Employees, Debts etc.
Bundles of papers relating to action taken against clerks who embezzled money from Soho: Robert Hodges, a clerk to the press copying company, who absconded in 1805; John Bennett, Boulton Watt & Co.’s Head Clerk at Soho Foundry who was found to have been embezzling money and who was tried at Stafford Assizes and sentenced to transportation to Australia in 1827; and John Dawn, also a Head Clerk from Soho Foundry whose embezzlements were discovered in 1832 and who was forced to sell off his property.

There is also a bundle of papers relating to the debts of Francis Eginton, an artist and engraver who had worked for Matthew Boulton and who left considerable debts when he died. This bundle appears to have been kept with Boulton & Watt’s legal material although the steam engine business was not directly involved in Eginton’s affairs.

The Legal Records mainly consist of single documents, for example Watt’s letters patent of 1782, or single bundles of papers, for example ‘Papers relative to Action in Common Pleas versus Hornblower & Maberly, 1796.’ Where appropriate, the documents and bundles have been arranged into series, for example a series of letters patent, or a series of bundles relating to the Action against Hornblower and Maberly. The series have been grouped together thematically as follows, beginning with formal documents such as letters patent and agreements:
Letters Patent and Patent Specifications
Partnership Agreements
Engine Agreements
Cornish Mine Agreement
Matthew Boulton’s Coinage Licences
Lease
Papers relating to Patents and Legal Actions

More detailed information on each series is given in the Description field, while reference numbers and covering dates of the actual records, and a list of the old reference numbers will be found in the pdf of the full series list attached. Item level lists are available in the searchroom of Birmingham Archives and Heritage.

6 assorted volumes, 37 archive boxes

There are no restrictions on access to or use of the Boulton & Watt Legal Records. However fragile items or those in a poor state of repair may not be served at the discretion of the Duty Archivist.

The records listed here are the surviving legal records of the firm of Boulton & Watt and its successors. They include formal legal documents such as patents, partnership agreements, and agreements with customers for engines. They also include bundles of papers relating to patents and patent law, and to the various legal actions that the steam engine business undertook. These include the actions against the Cornish engineers Jonathan Hornblower, Edward Bull and Jabez Hornblower who were considered to be pirating James Watt?s engines, actions against various Cornish mines, referred to as ?recusant mines?, to recover engine premium payments, and the action against the Yorkshire engineer Matthew Murray. There are also bundles relating to the prosecution of various employees for embezzlement from the firm. The legal records in the collection are those documents that were kept in the engine firm?s offices at Soho Foundry. These are not records that were kept by their legal representatives.

The bundles of papers relating to patents and the various legal actions that the company was engaged in against pirate engineers and recusant Cornish Mines were kept together. As the company?s legal activity increased throughout the 1790s, so did the volume of papers being produced, and a trunk was purchased to act as a repository. James Watt Jr. bought the trunk in April 1795, and he wrote to his father in London about it on the 30th of that month:?Not finding any trunk ready made of that size you wanted, I was obliged to order one? In ordering it, you will see that I have speculated upon the future increase of our stock of papers, indeed I wish you may not fill up the vacancy on this journey alone. I have endeavoured to arrange some of the papers under particular articles, but others I have not touched, as they appeared to be made up in distinct parcels for particular purposes. You had better however go over the whole and arrange them in your own manner,as you may otherwise be at a loss to find what you are at any time in want of.?(James Watt Jr. to James Watt, 30 Apr. 1795. MS 3147/3/45/16)

The Law Trunk contained all the relevant material for the court cases of the 1790s, as this extract from a letter from Watt Jr. to his father on 11 May 1796 shows:?You will find in the Law Trunk a drawing of Bramah?s engine at Norwich by William Harrison. A description of the action of it, is either subjoined or is in the letter book for 1795 in a letter to Mr. Ramsden.?(James Watt Jr. to James Watt, 11 May 1796. MS 3147/ 3/46/22)

This sketch of Bramah?s engine will be found in the bundle of sketches of rival and pirate engines (2/62). Material was also added from other already existing bundles, for example on 20 July 1796 Matthew Robinson Boulton wrote the following to their engineer James Lawson, who was in Manchester:?I wish you to procure from [George Lee] a packet of letters, chiefly yours to J. Watt upon the subject of piracies, which we want to arrange with the other documents upon this memorable affair.?(M. R. Boulton to James Lawson, 20 July 1796 (MS 3147/3/281/73)

However, records from the trunk could sometimes go astray, for example some letters from the London attorney Ambrose Weston were missing in May 1796:?I have searched the law trunk & everywhere else I can think of for Mr. Weston?s letters in 1795 but can find none earlier than November. I fancy you have them with you, or at least locked up somewhere.?(James Watt to James Watt Jr., 27 May 1796. MS 3147/3/25/13)

As well as the Law Trunk, iron chests and ?red boxes? were used to store more formal documents such as patents, both Watt?s and those of other engineers. In December 1798 James Watt Jr. required various documents in London, including Watt?s patent for the copying press, and a copy of Savery?s patent. On 28 December Matthew Robinson Boulton wrote:?I fortunately met with the enclosed [copying patent] this morning ? it had been put into a wrong red box with the Irish patent and thus escaped my search yesterday. Savery?s Act of Parliament has not yet turned up.?

Some original covers for these bundles survive, usually consisting of a title and a list of the contents of the bundle. The handwriting on these covers shows that much of the material was organised by Matthew Robinson Boulton and James Watt Jr. in the 1790s. However legal papers were referred to several times, and were therefore subject to a great deal of disruption. Documents were often extracted from their bundles and sent to London or Cornwall to support ongoing court cases, for example, on 23 August 1800 Gregory Watt forwarded a large amount of material to Matthew Robinson Boulton, who was pursuing unpaid premiums in Cornwall. The parcel contained:?- Wilson?s pamphlets.- The diagram or rather curve for Hornblower?s engine.- Printed proposals to the Adventurers in the Cornish mines, never published, but which may be useful as they illustrate the equity of the principles on which the calculation of premiums is founded.- Proposals to and memorandums of agreements with the recusant mines in Cornwall from April 1799 to -. This contains an account of the monies paid extracted from Pearson?s books.- Recent general documents relative to the recusant mines. This contains an account of the sums due.?

Much of this material can be identified in the collection today, but it is not in the order above. For example the pamphlet by Thomas Wilson can be found at 2/37, while the ?Recent general documents relative to the recusant mines? were probably temporarily removed from the bundles now numbered as 2/55 and 2/56. So Matthew Robinson Boulton appears to have replaced the material once he had finished with it. However other documents did get lost, and several items listed on the original bundle covers, particularly the bundles of papers relating to patents, are now missing from the collection.