Overseas exhibitors at the Great Exhibition

 Continuing my attempt to address the question of who else shaped the manufacturing world, I draw on a series of papers given to the Society of Arts in 1852 reflecting upon the Great Exhibition. One such had as its focus machines for working in metal and wood.

The author looks first at what I suspect was a bug bear, the gulf between scientific and practical men and the huge distrust each group had for the other. He then moves to machinery and looks first at early examples before focusing on clock making where he suggests some of the first machines were to be found.

In terms of shaping the manufacturing world, he sees a process of one idea leading on to the next, but, importantly, without national borders. So the British may come up with a new machine, for example for gear cutting, but then the French perhaps would improve on it. He explores wood working machines and again sees the interplay between artisans of different countries.

In relation to America he refers to all manner of contrivance used in workshops including first a foot-mortising machine for wood patented in 1827 by John McClintic of Pennsylvania. He then traces the machine to Liverpool and a patent for improvements granted in 1851. The point he makes is that invention is difficult, but is made much easier the more brains that are brought to bear on the problem. Collaboration is key and in this the Exhibition could offer a meeting place where inventors from different countries could see the fruits of each other’s labour.

Another paper had its focus on philosophical instruments, which was part of the section for which my great grandfather was responsible. The image, with kind permission of Weiss & Son for the post is a knife in the shape of a cross with 1851 blades made by Weiss for the exhibition.

The author lists some of the inventions that had by 1851 become almost commonplace: steam engines, the telegraph, photography and electromagnetism.  He then notes that in relation to agriculture each of chemistry, mechanics and astronomy have made their contribution. Once again he picks up the value of the interchange of ideas between countries.

The benefit of sharing ideas is brought into sharp relief in an encounter with a would be exhibitor who had spent years developing a particular machine only to be told that a number of similar machines had already accepted. He then offers a summary of the categories of instrument before looking in detail at astronomical instruments. He makes the point that would be exhibitors from overseas may have been put off by the risk of damage to their instrument in the course of travel to the exhibition. He then highlights two exceptions from Germany who instruments he praises highly.

Electromagnetism is his next focus beginning with Volta’s discovery in 1800 of voltaic electricity and then Oersted’s work in 1820 on the interaction of electricity and magnetism, from which the electric motor was conceived. We could add to this list of inventors, the English scientist Michael Faraday. The paper’s author instead takes his audience to the United States and a galvanic meter which enabled the measuring of longitude and then an electromagnetic clock.

Levelling and surveying instruments were exhibited by England, France and Belgium. Optical instruments ranged from microscopes to lighthouses. Thermometers were exhibited by the English Negretti and Zambra and the French Fastre. Photography originated in France and at the Exhibition was represented by Germany, Austria and England. Balances attracted a broader following with exhibits from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium , Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and the USA. Calculating machines bring in the name Babbage, but not as an exhibitor. The best instrument was Russian made by Staffel. The exhibition was ‘rich with electric telegraphs’, with the British Electric Telegraph Company’s instruments taking pride of place. Prussia exhibited through Siemens and Halske. Cooke and Wheatstone are praised for keeping the UK ahead in telegraph technology. He concludes his talk by lamenting the lack of reward for British scientists, despite which they labour on.

The presentation on large steam engines begins with a lament on the limitations of the exhibition space which restricted the size of machine which could be exhibited. The well known British names are mentioned first but then a Belgian, French and Dutch, the latter particularly for land drainage. Fire engines were exhibited by France and Canada as well as the UK. Railway locomotives were dominated by the famous British makers. There were then manufacturing machines with Oldham’s Hibbert & Platt textile machinery. France, Belgium and the USA exhibited machines for working with cotton. There is a note that a future exhibition was planned for India. Wool machinery came from Yorkshire but also from France which produced the medal winning Mercier and Company. The most frequently mentioned name was Jacquard and this apparatus was shown as attached to a number of weaving machines. The other French invention of the circular knitting machine for the making of stockings was highlighted as only then recently taking the place of frame-knitting and so saving many hours of work. The section ends with printing machines and a further mention of Applegarth’s advanced machine previously highlighted in Ward’s account of the exhibition.

Who else shaped the Manufacturing world?

I was challenged by the reviewer in the Historian Magazine that How Britain Shaped the Manufacturing World didn’t say much about other countries. I could counter by saying that my book’s title implied this. However, her point is important and I am undertaking some explorations to discover what was going on elsewhere.

My starting point, as with my book, is the Great Exhibition of 1851.

James Ward, the celebrated animal artist, wrote a book on the Great Exhibition entitled The World and its Workshops. He is viewing the exhibition from the point of view of a British visitor comparing the produce of his home country with that of foreigners. In relation to this he is keen to encourage the development of other nations for they will then become better customers for British goods.

He focuses in particular on the position of the ‘artisan’ whom he places alongside the manufacturer and the customer. He picks up concerns expressed by Ruskin that the British artisan working in a factory is ‘only a pair of hands’ waiting in the labour market for the chance of being the lowest bidder for employment, instead of going to the capital market to find the highest budder for his services. Artisans should also be artists contributing to the design of what he makes.

Ward makes an interesting comparison with France where there is little child labour. He sees the benefit in this in the better education offered to French children which he suggests equips them with taste where comparing manufactured objects.

He sees the English as supreme in the manufacture of items to meet the ordinary wants and comforts of the world, but lagging behind in beauty of design, artistic conception and skill and in decorative art.

He confesses that his fascination is in machinery. He harks back to his mid-life when machines were seen as the enemy of the artisan, and we can recall the Luddites. Forty years later he sees the machine as the extension of the human being augmenting his manual capacity. 

In terms of inventions, he singles out William Lea for his stocking-frame, Hargreaves, and Jacquard who would delight in seeing his invention improved by a Belgian. I return to Jacquard later.

He makes another interesting observation about raw materials, suggesting that the English habit of buying raw materials from countries purchasing English finished goods may put the English at a disadvantage if better raw materials are available elsewhere. He suggests that the exhibition would offer an opportunity for comparison which could influence future purchasing decisions.

He then turns to the categories of exhibits starting with steel and is clear that ‘the art of making steel of the finest quality is almost exclusively confined to this country’. In France and Germany, whilst the theories are well understood, the resulting product is inferior. Sheffield was the home of steel production as was Manchester for cotton and Leeds for wool.

Russian and Swedish raw materials are praised as superior to the British, but even in Sweden the final product doesn’t match its English counterpart. German steel producers, Krupp and Hundsdecker, are mentioned but not praised.

The position of American is important. We are talking of a period ten years before the Civil War when industry was highly fragmented albeit equally energetic. Giants of steel making like Bethlehem Steel would only start as iron founders in 1856, and not take on the name of Bethlehem Steel until 1899. It would of course go on to produce steel for America’s iconic buildings and bridges.  

Swords, guns and pistols follow on from steel. ‘If due regard be paid to quality as well as to price, Birmingham has no equal on the continent.’ It is worth adding that Ward was impressed by an American product only later to discover that its was derived from an earlier British invention. He was also impressed by Liege in Belgium which he says has become in relation to muskets the Birmingham of the world. He does though suggest that the cost advantage they achieve is the result of using inferior metal in manufacture. He looks in detail at the process of making swords and sees the British as superior in use to both the Damascus and Toledo more decorative blades. In looking at gun making he refers to the Birmingham workshop system suggesting that there is no such thing a single gun maker. He looks at rifles and, once again, sees the superiority of the British.

He then turns his attention to copper, brass and mixed metals for mainly ornamental use. He describes the making of steel pens and then pin-making and wire-drawing and the making of buttons before moving on to electro-plate.

He includes a chapter on typography, lithography and stereotype. This is of personal interest since only four years earlier my great-great uncle, William Smith Williams, had given a paper On Lithography to the Royal Society of Arts. The paper had been prepared in conjunction with Sir Henry Cole who was significant in the creation of the Great Exhibition. Charles Hullmandel, my great-great uncle’s employer, was French and it was from France that lithography came and so perhaps it is not surprising that Ward sees French lithographs as superior. The same is not true of typography where the English have the lead. Stereotype was an English invention and the English were still the masters.

We then arrive at the core of Ward’s reflections, those on machinery. ‘Upon entering the department of machinery in motion, the casual visitor is in some measure amazed and bewildered by the continued whirring and clatter which surrounds him in every direction.’ The first machine is an old had printing press producing barely a score of copies an hour; there is then ‘Applegarth’s latest improvement’ producing many thousands. From there it is textile machinery, the first producing bobbin-net, the second cotton yarn and silk warps and then Ward’s favourite, the Jacquard machine – ‘a monument of man’s intuitive sagacity’.

Siemens Brothers who manufactured the electric motor for the Brighton railway was emphatically British. William Siemens family was German and the two worked closely as did inventors and manufacturers of many nations

Reviews of Vehicles to Vaccines

A fantastic amount of detailed, interesting history - Ian Brentnall on Amazon 

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 1 March 2024

There’s a huge amount of detail in this book organised into industrial sectors, making it an interesting lexicon of the ghosts of companies and people of our manufacturing past and where our manufacturing is at present.

I had earlier received an affirming comment from Kelvin Bray who was managing director of Ruston Gas Turbines (and its successors) for twenty five years and who provided wonderful material for my chapter on Energy:

You have done a truly outstanding job in condensing a huge amount of data into a very readable, even compelling volume – I was surprised at how much I read on first sight.