Notwithstanding these migrations of enterprising manufacturers, the
iron trade of Sussex continued to exist until the middle of the
seventeenth century, when the waste of timber was again urged upon the
attention of Parliament, and the penalties for infringing the statutes
seem to have been more rigorously enforced.  The trade then suffered a
more serious check; and during the civil wars, a heavy blow was given
to it by the destruction of the works belonging to all royalists, which
was accomplished by a division of the army under Sir William Waller.
Most of the Welsh ironworks were razed to the ground about the same
time, and were not again rebuilt.  And after the Restoration, in 1674,
all the royal ironworks in the Forest of Dean were demolished, leaving
only such to be supplied with ore as were beyond the forest limits; the
reason alleged for this measure being lest the iron manufacture should
endanger the supply of timber required for shipbuilding and other
necessary purposes.

From this time the iron manufacture of Sussex, as of England generally,
rapidly declined.  In 1740 there were only fifty-nine furnaces in all
England, of which ten were in Sussex; and in 1788 there were only two.
A few years later, and the Sussex iron furnaces were blown out
altogether.  Farnhurst, in western, and Ashburnham, in eastern Sussex,
witnessed the total extinction of the manufacture.  The din of the iron
hammer was hushed, the glare of the furnace faded, the last blast of
the bellows was blown, and the district returned to its original rural
solitude.  Some of the furnace-ponds were drained and planted with hops
or willows; others formed beautiful lakes in retired pleasure-grounds;
while the remainder were used to drive flour-mills, as the streams in
North Kent, instead of driving fulling-mills, were employed to work
paper-mills.  All that now remains of the old iron-works are the
extensive beds of cinders from which material is occasionally taken to
mend the Sussex roads, and the numerous furnace-ponds, hammer-posts,
forges, and cinder places, which mark the seats of the ancient
manufacture.



[1] WILKINS, Leges Sax. 25.

[2] Life of St. Egwin, in Capgrave's Nova Legenda Anglioe.  Alcester
was, as its name indicates, an old Roman settlement (situated on the
Icknild Street), where the art of working in iron was practised from an
early period.  It was originally called Alauna, being situated on the
river Alne in Warwickshire.  It is still a seat of the needle
manufacture.

[3] The following is an extract of this curious document, which is
dated the 26th Dec. 1352:  "Ceste endenture fait entre monsire Richard
de Goldesburghe, chivaler, dune part, et Robert Totte, seignour, dautre
tesmoigne qe le dit monsire Richard ad graunte et lesse al dit Robert
deuz Olyveres contenaunz vynt quatre blomes de la feste seynt Piere ad
vincula lan du regne le Roi Edward tierce apres le conqueste vynt
sysme, en sun parke de Creskelde, rendant al dit monsire Richard
chesqune semayn quatorzse soutz dargent duraunt les deux Olyvers avaunt
dist; a tenir et avoir al avaunt dit Robert del avaunt dit monsire
Richard de la feste seynt Piere avaunt dist, taunque le bois soit ars
du dit parke a la volunte le dit monsire Richard saunz interrupcione [e
le dicte monsieur Richard trovera a dit Robert urre suffisaunt pur lez
ditz Olyvers pur le son donaunt:  these words are interlined].  Et fait
a savoir qe le dit Robert ne nule de soens coupard ne abatera nule
manere darbre ne de boys put les deuz olyvers avaunt ditz mes par la
veu et la lyvere le dit monsire Richard, ou par ascun autre par le dit
monsire Richard assigne.  En tesmoigaunz (sic) de quenx choses a cestes
presentes endentures les parties enterchaungablement ount mys lour
seals.  Escript a Creskelde le meskerdy en le semayn de Pasque lan
avaunt diste."

It is probable that the "blomes" referred to in this agreement were the
bloomeries or fires in which the iron was made; and that the "olyveres"
were forges or erections, each of which contained so many bloomeries,
but were of limited durability, and probably perished in the using.

[4] The back of a grate has recently been found, cast by Richard
Leonard at Brede Furnace in 1636.  It is curious as containing a
representation of the founder with his dog and cups; a drawing of the
furnace, with the wheelbarrow and other implements for the casting, and
on a shield the pincers and other marks of the blacksmith.  Leonard was
tenant of the Sackville furnace at Little Udimore.--Sussex
Archaeological Collections, vol. xii.

[5] For an interesting account of the early iron industry of Sussex see
M. A. LOWER'S Contributions to Literature, Historical, Antiquarian, and
Metrical.  London, 1854.

[6] Archaeologia, vol. x. 472.

[7] One of these, 6 1/2 feet long, and of 2 1/2 inches bore,
manufactured in 1543, bears the cast inscription of Petrus Baude Gallus
operis artifex.

[8] Mr. Lower says, "Many foreigners were brought over to carry on the
works; which perhaps may account for the number of Frenchmen and
Germans whose names appear in our parish registers about the middle of
the sixteenth century ."--Contributions to Literature, 108.

[9] The embankment and sluices of the furnace-pond at the upper part of
the valley continue to be maintained, the lake being used by the
present Lord Ashburnham as a preserve for fish and water-fowl.

[10] Reminding one of the odd motto assumed by Gillespie, the
tobacconist of Edinburgh, founder of Gillespie's Hospital, on whose
carriage-panels was emblazoned a Scotch mull, with the motto,

  "Wha wad ha' thocht it,
  That noses could ha' bought it!"

It is just possible that the Fullers may have taken their motto from
the words employed by Juvenal in describing the father of Demosthenes,
who was a blacksmith and a sword-cutler--

  "Quem pater ardentis massae fuligine lippus,
  A carbone et forcipibus gladiosque parante
  Incude et luteo Vulcano ad rhetora misit."

[11] It was then believed that sea or pit-coal was poisonous when burnt
in dwellings, and that it was especially injurious to the human
complexion.  All sorts of diseases were attributed to its use, and at
one time it was even penal to burn it.  The Londoners only began to
reconcile themselves to the use of coal when the wood within reach of
the metropolis had been nearly all burnt up, and no other fuel was to
be had.

[12] Archaeologia Cambrensis, 3rd Series, No. 34, April, 1863.  Art.
"Sussex Ironmasters in Glamorganshire."




CHAPTER III.

IRON-SMELTING BY PIT-COAL--DUD DUDLEY.

"God of his Infinite goodness (if we will but take notice of his
goodness unto this Nation) hath made this Country a very Granary for
the supplying of Smiths with Iron, Cole, and Lime made with cole, which
hath much supplied these men with Corn also of late; and from these men
a great part, not only of this Island, but also of his Majestie's other
Kingdoms and Territories, with Iron wares have their supply, and Wood
in these parts almost exhausted, although it were of late a mighty
woodland country."--DUDLEY's Metallum Martis, 1665.


The severe restrictions enforced by the legislature against the use of
wood in iron-smelting had the effect of almost extinguishing the
manufacture.  New furnaces ceased to be erected, and many of the old
ones were allowed to fall into decay, until it began to be feared that
this important branch of industry would become completely lost.  The
same restrictions alike affected the operations of the glass
manufacture, which, with the aid of foreign artisans, had been
gradually established in England, and was becoming a thriving branch of
trade.  It was even proposed that the smelting of iron should be
absolutely prohibited:  "many think," said a contemporary writer, "that
there should be NO WORKS ANYWHERE--they do so devour the woods."

The use of iron, however, could not be dispensed with.  The very
foundations of society rested upon an abundant supply of it, for tools
and implements of peace, as well as for weapons of war.  In the dearth
of the article at home, a supply of it was therefore sought for abroad;
and both iron and steel came to be imported in largely-increased
quantities.  This branch of trade was principally in the hands of the
Steelyard Company of Foreign Merchants, established in Upper Thames
Street, a little above London Bridge; and they imported large
quantities of iron and steel from foreign countries, principally from
Sweden, Germany, and Spain.  The best iron came from Spain, though the
Spaniards on their part coveted our English made cannons, which were
better manufactured than theirs; while the best steel came from Germany
and Sweden.[1]

Under these circumstances, it was natural that persons interested in
the English iron manufacture should turn their attention to some other
description of fuel which should serve as a substitute for the
prohibited article.  There was known to be an abundance of coal in the
northern and midland counties, and it occurred to some speculators more
than usually daring, to propose it as a substitute for the charcoal
fuel made from wood.  But the same popular prejudice which existed
against the use of coal for domestic purposes, prevented its being
employed for purposes of manufacture; and they were thought very
foolish persons indeed who first promulgated the idea of smelting iron
by means of pit-coal.  The old manufacturers held it to be impossible
to reduce the ore in any other way than by means of charcoal of wood.
It was only when the wood in the neighbourhood of the ironworks had
been almost entirely burnt up, that the manufacturers were driven to
entertain the idea of using coal as a substitute; but more than a
hundred years passed before the practice of smelting iron by its means
became general.

The first who took out a patent for the purpose was one Simon
Sturtevant, a German skilled in mining operations; the professed object
of his invention being "to neale, melt, and worke all kind of metal
oares, irons, and steeles with sea-coale, pit-coale, earth-coale, and
brush fewell."  The principal end of his invention, he states in his
Treatise of Metallica,[2] is to save the consumption and waste of the
woods and timber of the country; and, should his design succeed, he
holds that it "will prove to be the best and most profitable business
and invention that ever was known or invented in England these many
yeares."  He says he has already made trial of the process on a small
scale, and is confident that it will prove equally successful on a
large one.  Sturtevant was not very specific as to his process; but it
incidentally appears to have been his purpose to reduce the coal by an
imperfect combustion to the condition of coke, thereby ridding it of
"those malignant proprieties which are averse to the nature of
metallique substances." The subject was treated by him, as was
customary in those days, as a great mystery, made still more mysterious
by the multitude of learned words under which he undertook to describe
his "Ignick Invention" All the operations of industry were then treated
as secrets.  Each trade was a craft, and those who followed it were
called craftsmen.  Even the common carpenter was a handicraftsman; and
skilled artisans were "cunning men."  But the higher branches of work
were mysteries, the communication of which to others was carefully
guarded by the regulations of the trades guilds.  Although the early
patents are called specifications, they in reality specify nothing.
They are for the most part but a mere haze of words, from which very
little definite information can be gleaned as to the processes
patented.  It may be that Sturtevant had not yet reduced his idea to
any practicable method, and therefore could not definitely explain it.
However that may be, it is certain that his process failed when tried
on a large scale, and Sturtevant's patent was accordingly cancelled at
the end of a year.


The idea, however, had been fairly born, and repeated patents were
taken out with the same object from time to time.  Thus, immediately on
Sturtevant's failure becoming known, one John Rovenzon, who had been
mixed up with the other's adventure, applied for a patent for making
iron by the same process, which was granted him in 1613.  His 'Treatise
of Metallica'[3] shows that Rovenzon had a true conception of the
method of manufacture.  Nevertheless he, too, failed in carrying out
the invention in practice, and his patent was also cancelled.  Though
these failures were very discouraging, like experiments continued to be
made and patents taken out,--principally by Dutchmen and
Germans,[4]--but no decided success seems to have attended their
efforts until the year 1620, when Lord Dudley took out his patent "for
melting iron ore, making bar-iron, &c., with coal, in furnaces, with
bellows." This patent was taken out at the instance of his son Dud
Dudley, whose story we gather partly from his treatise entitled
'Metallum Martis,' and partly from various petitions presented by him
to the king, which are preserved in the State Paper Office, and it runs
as follows:--

Dud Dudley was born in 1599, the natural son of Edward Lord Dudley of
Dudley Castle in the county of Worcester.  He was the fourth of eleven
children by the same mother, who is described in the pedigree of the
family given in the Herald's visitation of the county of Stafford in
the year 1663, signed by Dud Dudley himself, as "Elizabeth, daughter of
William Tomlinson of Dudley, concubine of Edward Lord Dudley." Dud's
eldest brother is described in the same pedigree as Robert Dudley,
Squire, of Netherton Hall; and as his sisters mostly married well,
several of them county gentlemen, it is obvious that the family,
notwithstanding that the children were born out of wedlock, held a good
position in their neighbourhood, and were regarded with respect.  Lord
Dudley, though married and having legitimate heirs at the time, seems
to have attended to the up-bringing of his natural children; educating
them carefully, and afterwards employing them in confidential offices
connected with the management of his extensive property.  Dud describes
himself as taking great delight, when a youth, in his father's
iron-works near Dudley, where he obtained considerable knowledge of the
various processes of the manufacture.

The town of Dudley was already a centre of the iron manufacture, though
chiefly of small wares, such as nails, horse-shoes, keys, locks, and
common agricultural tools; and it was estimated that there were about
20,000 smiths and workers in iron of various kinds living within a
circuit of ten miles of Dudley Castle.  But, as in the southern
counties, the production of iron had suffered great diminution from the
want of fuel in the district, though formerly a mighty woodland
country; and many important branches of the local trade were brought
almost to a stand-still.  Yet there was an extraordinary abundance of
coal to be met with in the neighbourhood--coal in some places lying in
seams ten feet thick--ironstone four feet thick immediately under the
coal, with limestone conveniently adjacent to both.  The conjunction
seemed almost providential--"as if," observes Dud, "God had decreed the
time when and how these smiths should be supplied, and this island
also, with iron, and most especially that this cole and ironstone
should give the first and just occasion for the invention of smelting
iron with pit-cole;" though, as we have already seen, all attempts
heretofore made with that object had practically failed.

Dud was a special favourite of the Earl his father, who encouraged his
speculations with reference to the improvement of the iron manufacture,
and gave him an education calculated to enable him to turn his
excellent practical abilities to account.  He was studying at Baliol
College, Oxford, in the year 1619, when the Earl sent for him to take
charge of an iron furnace and two forges in the chase of Pensnet in
Worcestershire.  He was no sooner installed manager of the works, than,
feeling hampered by the want of wood for fuel, his attention was
directed to the employment of pit-coal as a substitute.  He altered his
furnace accordingly, so as to adapt it to the new process, and the
result of the first trial was such as to induce him to persevere.  It
is nowhere stated in Dud Dudley's Treatise what was the precise nature
of the method adopted by him; but it is most probable that, in
endeavouring to substitute coal for wood as fuel, he would subject the
coal to a process similar to that of charcoal-burning.  The result
would be what is called Coke; and as Dudley informs us that he followed
up his first experiment with a second blast, by means of which he was
enabled to produce good marketable iron, the presumption is that his
success was also due to an improvement of the blast which he contrived
for the purpose of keeping up the active combustion of the fuel.
Though the quantity produced by the new process was comparatively
small--not more than three tons a week from each furnace--Dudley
anticipated that greater experience would enable him to increase the
quantity; and at all events he had succeeded in proving the
practicability of smelting iron with fuel made from pit-coal, which so
many before him had tried in vain.

Immediately after the second trial had been made with such good issue,
Dud wrote to his father the Earl, then in London, informing him what he
had done, and desiring him at once to obtain a patent for the invention
from King James.  This was readily granted, and the patent (No. 18),
dated the 22nd February, 1620, was taken out in the name of Lord Dudley
himself.

Dud proceeded with the manufacture of iron at Pensnet, and also at
Cradley in Staffordshire, where he erected another furnace; and a year
after the patent was granted he was enabled to send up to the Tower, by
the King's command, a considerable quantity of the new iron for trial.
Many experiments were made with it:  its qualities were fairly tested,
and it was pronounced "good merchantable iron."  Dud adds, in his
Treatise, that his brother-in-law, Richard Parkshouse, of Sedgeley,[5]
"had a fowling-gun there made of the Pit-cole iron," which was "well
approved."  There was therefore every prospect of the new method of
manufacture becoming fairly established, and with greater experience
further improvements might with confidence be anticipated, when a
succession of calamities occurred to the inventor which involved him in
difficulties and put an effectual stop to the progress of his
enterprise.

The new works had been in successful operation little more than a year,
when a flood, long after known as the "Great May-day Flood," swept away
Dudley's principal works at Cradley, and otherwise inflicted much
damage throughout the district.  "At the market town called
Stourbridge," says Dud, in the course of his curious narrative,
"although the author sent with speed to preserve the people from
drowning, and one resolute man was carried from the bridge there in the
day-time, the nether part of the town was so deep in water that the
people had much ado to preserve their lives in the uppermost rooms of
their houses."  Dudley himself received very little sympathy for his
losses.  On the contrary, the iron-smelters of the district rejoiced
exceedingly at the destruction of his works by the flood.  They had
seen him making good iron by his new patent process, and selling it
cheaper than they could afford to do.  They accordingly put in
circulation all manner of disparaging reports about his iron.  It was
bad iron, not fit to be used; indeed no iron, except what was smelted
with charcoal of wood, could be good.  To smelt it with coal was a
dangerous innovation, and could only result in some great public
calamity.  The ironmasters even appealed to King James to put a stop to
Dud's manufacture, alleging that his iron was not merchantable.  And
then came the great flood, which swept away his works; the hostile
ironmasters now hoping that there was an end for ever of Dudley's
pit-coal iron.

But Dud, with his wonted energy, forthwith set to work and repaired his
furnaces and forges, though at great cost; and in the course of a short
time the new manufacture was again in full progress.  The ironmasters
raised a fresh outcry against him, and addressed another strong
memorial against Dud and his iron to King James.  This seems to have
taken effect; and in order to ascertain the quality of the article by
testing it upon a large scale, the King commanded Dudley to send up to
the Tower of London, with every possible speed, quantities of all the
sorts of bar-iron made by him, fit for the "making of muskets,
carbines, and iron for great bolts for shipping; which iron," continues
Dud, "being so tried by artists and smiths, the ironmasters and
iron-mongers were all silenced until the 21st year of King James's
reign."  The ironmasters then endeavoured to get the Dudley patent
included in the monopolies to be abolished by the statute of that year;
but all they could accomplish was the limitation of the patent to
fourteen years instead of thirty-one; the special exemption of the
patent from the operation of the statute affording a sufficient
indication of the importance already attached to the invention.  After
that time Dudley "went on with his invention cheerfully, and made
annually great store of iron, good and merchantable, and sold it unto
diverse men at twelve pounds per ton." "I also," said he, "made all
sorts of cast-iron wares, as brewing cisterns, pots, mortars, &c.,
better and cheaper than any yet made in these nations with charcoal,
some of which are yet to be seen by any man (at the author's house in
the city of Worcester) that desires to be satisfied of the truth of the
invention."

Notwithstanding this decided success, Dudley encountered nothing but
trouble and misfortune.  The ironmasters combined to resist his
invention; they fastened lawsuit's upon him, and succeeded in getting
him ousted from his works at Cradley.  From thence he removed to Himley
in the county of Stafford, where he set up a pit-coal furnace; but
being without the means of forging the iron into bars, he was
constrained to sell the pig-iron to the charcoal-ironmasters, "who did
him much prejudice, not only by detaining his stock, but also by
disparaging his iron."  He next proceeded to erect a large new furnace
at Hasco Bridge, near Sedgeley, in the same county, for the purpose of
carrying out the manufacture on the most improved principles.  This
furnace was of stone, twenty-seven feet square, provided with unusually
large bellows; and when in full work he says he was enabled to turn out
seven tons of iron per week, "the greatest quantity of pit-coal iron
ever yet made in Great Britain."  At the same place he discovered and
opened out new workings of coal ten feet thick, lying immediately over
the ironstone, and he prepared to carry on his operations on a large
scale; but the new works were scarcely finished when a mob of rioters,
instigated by the charcoal-ironmasters, broke in upon them, cut in
pieces the new bellows, destroyed the machinery, and laid the results
of all his deep-laid ingenuity and persevering industry in ruins.  From
that time forward Dudley was allowed no rest nor peace:  he was
attacked by mobs, worried by lawsuits, and eventually overwhelmed by
debts.  He was then seized by his creditors and sent up to London,
where he was held a prisoner in the Comptoir for several thousand
pounds.  The charcoal-iron men thus for a time remained masters of the
field.

Charles I. seems to have taken pity on the suffering inventor; and on
his earnest petition, setting forth the great advantages to the nation
of his invention, from which he had as yet derived no advantage, but
only losses, sufferings, and persecution, the King granted him a
renewal of his patent[6] in the year 1638; three other gentlemen
joining him as partners, and doubtless providing the requisite capital
for carrying on the manufacture after the plans of the inventor.  But
Dud's evil fortune continued to pursue him.  The patent had scarcely
been securedere the Civil War broke out, and the arts of peace must at
once perforce give place to the arts of war.  Dud's nature would not
suffer him to be neutral at such a time; and when the nation divided
itself into two hostile camps, his predilections being strongly
loyalist, he took the side of the King with his father.  It would
appear from a petition presented by him to Charles II. in 1660, setting
forth his sufferings in the royal cause, and praying for restoral to
certain offices which he had enjoyed under Charles I., that as early as
the year 1637 he had been employed by the King on a mission into
Scotland,[7] in the train of the Marquis of Hamilton, the King's
Commissioner.  Again in 1639, leaving his ironworks and partners, he
accompanied Charles on his expedition across the Scotch border, and was
present with the army until its discomfiture at Newburn near Newcastle
in the following year.

The sword was now fairly drawn, and Dud seems for a time to have
abandoned his iron-works and followed entirely the fortunes of the
king.  He was sworn surveyor of the Mews or Armoury in 1640, but being
unable to pay for the patent, another was sworn in in his place.  Yet
his loyalty did not falter, for in the beginning of 1642, when Charles
set out from London, shortly after the fall of Strafford and Laud, Dud
went with him.[8]  He was present before Hull when Sir John Hotham shut
its gates in the king's face; at York when the royal commissions of
array were sent out enjoining all loyal subjects to send men, arms,
money, and horses, for defence of the king and maintenance of the law;
at Nottingham, where the royal standard was raised; at Coventry, where
the townspeople refused the king entrance and fired upon his troops
from the walls; at Edgehill, where the first great but indecisive
battle was fought between the contending parties; in short, as Dud
Dudley states in his petition, he was "in most of the battailes that
year, and also supplyed his late sacred Majestie's magazines of
Stafford, Worcester, Dudley Castle, and Oxford, with arms, shot,
drakes, and cannon; and also, became major unto Sir Frauncis Worsley's
regiment, which was much decaied."

In 1643, according to the statement contained in his petition above
referred to, Dud Dudley acted as military engineer in setting out the
fortifications of Worcester and Stafford, and furnishing them with
ordnance.  After the taking of Lichfield, in which he had a share, he
was made Colonel of Dragoons, and accompanied the Queen with his
regiment to the royal head-quarters at Oxford.  The year after we find
him at the siege of Gloucester, then at the first battle of Newbury
leading the forlorn hope with Sir George Lisle, afterwards marching
with Sir Charles Lucas into the associate counties, and present at the
royalist rout at Newport.  That he was esteemed a valiant and skilful
officer is apparent from the circumstance, that in 1645 he was
appointed general of Prince Maurice's train of artillery, and
afterwards held the same rank under Lord Ashley.  The iron districts
being still for the most part occupied by the royal armies, our
military engineer turned his practical experience to account by
directing the forging of drakes[9] of bar-iron, which were found of
great use, giving up his own dwelling-house in the city of Worcester
for the purpose of carrying on the manufacture of these and other arms.
But Worcester and the western towns fell before the Parliamentarian
armies in 1646, and all the iron-works belonging to royalists, from
which the principal supplies of arms had been drawn by the King's army,
were forthwith destroyed.

Dudley fully shared in the dangers and vicissitudes of that trying
period, and bore his part throughout like a valiant soldier.  For two
years nothing was heard of him, until in 1648, when the king's party
drew together again, and made head in different parts of the country,
north and south.  Goring raised his standard in Essex, but was driven
by Fairfax into Colchester, where he defended himself for two months.
While the siege was in progress, the royalists determined to make an
attempt to raise it.  On this Dud Dudley again made his appearance in
the field, and, joining sundry other counties, he proceeded to raise
200 men, mostly at his own charge.  They were, however, no sooner
mustered in Bosco Bello woods near Madeley, than they were attacked by
the Parliamentarians, and dispersed or taken prisoners.  Dud was among
those so taken, and he was first carried to Hartlebury Castle and
thence to Worcester, where he was imprisoned.  Recounting the
sufferings of himself and his followers on this occasion, in the
petition presented to Charles II. in 1660,[10] he says, "200 men were
dispersed, killed, and some taken, namely, Major Harcourt, Major
Elliotts, Capt.  Long, and Cornet Hodgetts, of whom Major Harcourt was
miserably burned with matches.  The petitioner and the rest were
stripped almost naked, and in triumph and scorn carried up to the city
of Worcester (which place Dud had fortified for the king), and kept
close prisoners, with double guards set upon the prison and the city."

Notwithstanding this close watch and durance, Dudley and Major Elliotts
contrived to break out of gaol, making their way over the tops of the
houses, afterwards passing the guards at the city gates, and escaping
into the open country.  Being hotly pursued, they travelled during the
night, and took to the trees during the daytime.  They succeeded in
reaching London, but only to drop again into the lion's mouth; for
first Major Elliotts was captured, then Dudley, and both were taken
before Sir John Warner, the Lord Mayor, who forthwith sent them before
the "cursed committee of insurrection," as Dudley calls them.  The
prisoners were summarily sentenced to be shot to death, and were
meanwhile closely imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster, with
other Royalists.

The day before their intended execution, the prisoners formed a plan of
escape.  It was Sunday morning, the 20th August, 1648, when they seized
their opportunity, "at ten of the cloeke in sermon time;" and,
overpowering the gaolers, Dudley, with Sir Henry Bates, Major Elliotts,
Captain South, Captain Paris, and six others, succeeded in getting
away, and making again for the open country.  Dudley had received a
wound in the leg, and could only get along with great difficulty.  He
records that he proceeded on crutches, through Worcester, Tewkesbury,
and Gloucester, to Bristol, having been "fed three weeks in private in
an enemy's hay mow."  Even the most lynx-eyed Parliamentarian must have
failed to recognise the quondam royalist general of artillery in the
helpless creature dragging himself along upon crutches; and he reached
Bristol in safety.

His military career now over, he found himself absolutely penniless.
His estate of about 200L. per annum had been sequestrated and sold by
the government;[11] his house in Worcester had been seized and his
sickly wife turned out of doors; and his goods, stock, great shop, and
ironworks, which he himself valued at 2000L., were destroyed.  He had
also lost the offices of Serjeant-at-arms, Lieutenant of Ordnance, and
Surveyor of the Mews, which he had held under the king; in a word, he
found himself reduced to a state of utter destitution.

Dudley was for some time under the necessity of living in great privacy
at Bristol; but when the king had been executed, and the royalists were
finally crushed at Worcester, Dud gradually emerged from his
concealment.  He was still the sole possessor of the grand secret of
smelting iron with pit-coal, and he resolved upon one more commercial
adventure, in the hope of yet turning it to good account.  He succeeded
in inducing Walter Stevens, linendraper, and John Stone, merchant, both
of Bristol, to join him as partners in an ironwork, which they
proceeded to erect near that city.  The buildings were well advanced,
and nearly 700L. had been expended, when a quarrel occurred between
Dudley and his partners, which ended in the stoppage of the works, and
the concern being thrown into Chancery.  Dudley alleges that the other
partners "cunningly drew him into a bond," and "did unjustly enter
staple actions in Bristol of great value against him, because he was of
the king's party;" but it would appear as if there had been some twist
or infirmity of temper in Dudley himself, which prevented him from
working harmoniously with such persons as he became associated with in
affairs of business.

In the mean time other attempts were made to smelt iron with pit-coal.
Dudley says that Cromwell and the then Parliament granted a patent to
Captain Buck for the purpose; and that Cromwell himself, Major Wildman,
and various others were partners in the patent.  They erected furnaces
and works in the Forest of Dean;[12] but, though Cromwell and his
officers could fight and win battles, they could not smelt and forge
iron with pit-coal.  They brought one Dagney, an Italian glass-maker,
from Bristol, to erect a new furnace for them, provided with sundry
pots of glass-house clay; but no success attended their efforts.  The
partners knowing of Dudley's possession of the grand secret, invited
him to visit their works; but all they could draw from him was that
they would never succeed in making iron to profit by the methods they
were pursuing.  They next proceeded to erect other works at Bristol,
but still they failed.  Major Wildman[13] bought Dudley's sequestrated
estate, in the hope of being able to extort his secret of making iron
with pit-coal; but all their attempts proving abortive, they at length
abandoned the enterprise in despair.  In 1656, one Captain Copley
obtained from Cromwell a further patent with a similar object; and
erected works near Bristol, and also in the Forest of Kingswood.  The
mechanical engineers employed by Copley failed in making his bellows
blow; on which he sent for Dudley, who forthwith "made his bellows to
be blown feisibly;" but Copley failed, like his predecessors, in making
iron, and at length he too desisted from further experiments.

Such continued to be the state of things until the Restoration, when we
find Dud Dudley a petitioner to the king for the renewal of his patent.
He was also a petitioner for compensation in respect of the heavy
losses he had sustained during the civil wars.  The king was besieged
by crowds of applicants of a similar sort, but Dudley was no more
successful than the others.  He failed in obtaining the renewal of his
patent.  Another applicant for the like privilege, probably having
greater interest at court, proved more successful.  Colonel Proger and
three others[14] were granted a patent to make iron with coal; but
Dudley knew the secret, which the new patentees did not; and their
patent came to nothing.

Dudley continued to address the king in importunate petitions, asking
to be restored to his former offices of Serjeant-at-arms, Lieutenant of
Ordnance, and Surveyor of the Mews or Armoury.  He also petitioned to
be appointed Master of the Charter House in Smithfield, professing
himself willing to take anything, or hold any living.[15]  We find him
sending in two petitions to a similar effect in June, 1660; and a third
shortly after.  The result was, that he was reappointed to the office
of Serjeant-at-Arms; but the Mastership of the Charter-House was not
disposed of until 1662, when it fell to the lot of one Thomas
Watson.[16]  In 1661, we find a patent granted to Wm. Chamberlaine
and--Dudley, Esq., for the sole use of their new invention of plating
steel, &c., and tinning the said plates; but whether Dud Dudley was the
person referred to, we are unable precisely to determine.  A few years
later, he seems to have succeeded in obtaining the means of prosecuting
his original invention; for in his Metallum Martis, published in 1665,
he describes himself as living at Green's Lodge, in Staffordshire; and
he says that near it are four forges, Green's Forge, Swin Forge, Heath
Forge, and Cradley Forge, where he practises his "perfect invention."
These forges, he adds, "have barred all or most part of their iron with
pit-coal since the authors first invention In 1618, which hath
preserved much wood.  In these four, besides many other forges, do the
like [sic ]; yet the author hath had no benefit thereby to this
present."  From that time forward, Dud becomes lost to sight.  He seems
eventually to have retired to St.  Helen's in Worcestershire, where he
died in 1684, in the 85th year of his age.  He was buried in the parish
church there, and a monument, now destroyed, was erected to his memory,
bearing the inscription partly set forth underneath.[17]



[1] As late as 1790, long after the monopoly of the foreign merchants
had been abolished, Pennant says, "The present Steelyard is the great
repository of imported iron, which furnishes our metropolis with that
necessary material.  The quantity of bars that fills the yards and
warehouses of this quarter strikes with astonishment the most
indifferent beholder."--PENNANT, Account of London, 309.

[2] STURTEVANT'S Metallica; briefly comprehending the Doctrine of
Diverse New Metallical Inventions, &c.  Reprinted and published at the
Great Seal Patent Office, 1858.

[3] Reprinted and published at the Great Seal Patent Office, 1858.

[4] Among the early patentees, besides the names of Sturtevant and
Rovenzon, we find those of Jordens, Francke, Sir Phillibert Vernatt,
and other foreigners of the above nations.

[5] Mr. Parkshouse was one of the esquires to Sir Ferdinando Dudley
(the legitimate son of the Earl of Dudley) When he was made Knight of
the Bath.  Sir Ferdinando's only daughter Frances married Humble Ward,
son and heir of William Ward, goldsmith and jeweller to Charles the
First's queen.  Her husband having been created a baron by the title of
Baron Ward of Birmingham, and Frances becoming Baroness of Dudley in
her own right on the demise of her father, the baronies of Dudley and
Ward thus became united in their eldest son Edward in the year 1697.

[6] Patent No. 117, Old Series, granted in 1638, to Sir George Horsey,
David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dudd Dudley.

[7] By his own account, given in Metallum Martis, while in Scotland in
1637, he visited the Highlands as well as the Lowlands, spending the
whole summer of that year "in opening of mines and making of
discoveries;" spending part of the time with Sir James Hope of Lead
Hills, near where, he says, "he got gold."  It does not appear,
however, that any iron forges existed in Scotland at the time:  indeed
Dudley expressly says that "Scotland maketh no iron;" and in his
treatise of 1665 he urges that the Corporation of the Mines Royal
should set him and his inventions at work to enable Scotland to enjoy
the benefit of a cheap and abundant supply of the manufactured article.

[8] The Journals of the House of Commons, of the 13th June, 1642,
contain the resolution "that Captain Wolseley, Ensign Dudley, and John
Lometon be forthwith sent for, as delinquents, by the Serjeant-at-Arms
attending on the House, for giving interruption to the execution of the
ordinance of the militia in the county of Leicester."

[9] Small pieces of artillery, specimens of which are still to be seen
in the museum at Woolwich Arsenal and at the Tower.

[10] State Paper Office, Dom. Charles II., vol. xi. 54.

[11] The Journals of the House of Commons, on the 2nd Nov. 1652, have
the following entry:  "The House this day resumed the debate upon the
additional Bill for sale of several lands and estates forfeited to the
Commonwealth for treason, when it was resolved that the name of Dud
Dudley of Green Lodge be inserted into this Bill."

[12] Mr. Mushet, in his 'Papers on Iron,' says, that "although he had
carefully examined every spot and relic in Dean Forest likely to denote
the site of Dud Dudley's enterprising but unfortunate experiment of
making pig-iron with pit coal," it had been without success; neither
could he find any traces of the like operations of Cromwell and his
partners.

[13] Dudley says, "Major Wildman, more barbarous to me than a wild man,
although a minister, bought the author's estate, near 200L. per annum,
intending to compell from the author his inventions of making iron with
pitcole, but afterwards passed my estate unto two barbarous brokers of
London, that pulled down the author's two mantion houses, sold 500
timber trees off his land, and to this day are his houses unrepaired."
Wildman himself fell under the grip of Cromwell.  Being one of the
chiefs of the Republican party, he was seized at Exton, near
Marlborough, in 1654, and imprisoned in Chepstow Castle.

[14] June 13, 1661.  Petition of Col. Jas. Proger and three others to
the king for a patent for the sole exercise of their invention of
melting down iron and other metals with coal instead of wood, as the
great consumption of coal [charcoal?] therein causes detriment to
shipping, &c.  With reference thereon to Attorney-General Palmer, and
his report, June 18, in favour of the petition,--State Papers, Charles
II.  (Dom. vol. xxxvii, 49.)

[15] In his second petition he prays that a dwelling-house situated in
Worcester, and belonging to one Baldwin, "a known traitor," may be
assigned to him in lieu of Alderman Nash's, which had reverted to that
individual since his return to loyalty; Dudley reminding the king that
his own house in that city had been given up by him for the service of
his father Charles I., and turned into a factory for arms.  It does not
appear that this part of his petition was successful.

[16] State Papers, vol. xxxi. Doquet Book, p.89.

[17]

  Pulvis et umbra sumus
  Memento mori.

Dodo Dudley chiliarchi nobilis Edwardi nuper domini de Dudley filius,
patri charus et regiae Majestatis fidissimus subditus et servus in
asserendo regein, in vindicartdo ecclesiam, in propugnando legem ac
libertatem Anglicanam, saepe captus, anno 1648, semel condemnatus et
tamen non decollatus, renatum denuo vidit diadaema hic inconcussa
semper virtute senex.

  Differt non aufert mortem longissima vita
  Sed differt multam cras hodiere mori.
  Quod nequeas vitare, fugis:
  Nec formidanda est.

Plot frequently alludes to Dudley in his Natural History of
Staffordshire, and when he does so he describes him as the "worshipful
Dud Dudley," showing the estimation in which he was held by his
contemporaries.




CHAPTER IV.

ANDREW YARRANTON.

"There never have been wanting men to whom England's improvement by sea
and land was one of the dearest thoughts of their lives, and to whom
England's good was the foremost of their worldly considerations.  And
such, emphatically, was Andrew Yarranton, a true patriot in the best
sense of the word."--DOVE, Elements of Political Science.


That industry had a sore time of it during the civil wars will further
appear from the following brief account of Andrew Yarranton, which may
be taken as a companion memoir to that of Dud Dudley.  For Yarranton
also was a Worcester ironmaster and a soldier--though on the opposite
side,--but more even than Dudley was he a man of public spirit and
enterprise, an enlightened political economist (long before political
economy had been recognised as a science), and in many respects a true
national benefactor.  Bishop Watson said that he ought to have had a
statue erected to his memory because of his eminent public services;
and an able modern writer has gone so far as to say of him that he was
"the founder of English political economy, the first man in England who
saw and said that peace was better than war, that trade was better than
plunder, that honest industry was better than martial greatness, and
that the best occupation of a government was to secure prosperity at
home, and let other nations alone." [1]

Yet the name of Andrew Yarranton is scarcely remembered, or is at most
known to only a few readers of half-forgotten books.  The following
brief outline of his history is gathered from his own narrative and
from documents in the State Paper Office.

Andrew Yarranton was born at the farmstead of Larford, in the parish of
Astley, in Worcestershire, in the year 1616.[2]  In his sixteenth year
he was put apprentice to a Worcester linendraper, and remained at that
trade for some years; but not liking it, he left it, and was leading a
country life when the civil wars broke out.  Unlike Dudley, he took the
side of the Parliament, and joined their army, in which he served for
some time as a soldier.  His zeal and abilities commended him to his
officers, and he was raised from one position to another, until in the
course of a few years we find him holding the rank of captain.  "While
a soldier," says he, "I had sometimes the honour and misfortune to
lodge and dislodge an army;" but this is all the information he gives
us of his military career.  In the year 1648 he was instrumental in
discovering and frustrating a design on the part of the Royalists to
seize Doyley House in the county of Hereford, and other strongholds,
for which he received the thanks of Parliament "for his ingenuity,
discretion, and valour," and a substantial reward of 500L.[3]  He was
also recommended to the Committee of Worcester for further employment.
But from that time we hear no more of him in connection with the civil
wars.  When Cromwell assumed the supreme control of affairs, Yarranton
retired from the army with most of the Presbyterians, and devoted
himself to industrial pursuits.

We then find him engaged in carrying on the manufacture of iron at
Ashley, near Bewdley, in Worcestershire.  "In the year 1652", says he,
"I entered upon iron-works, and plied them for several years." [4]  He
made it a subject of his diligent study how to provide employment for
the poor, then much distressed by the late wars.  With the help of his
wife, he established a manufacture of linen, which was attended with
good results.  Observing how the difficulties of communication, by
reason of the badness of the roads, hindered the development of the
rich natural resources of the western counties,[5] he applied himself
to the improvement of the navigation of the larger rivers, making
surveys of them at his own cost, and endeavouring to stimulate local
enterprise so as to enable him to carry his plans into effect.

While thus occupied, the restoration of Charles II. took place, and
whether through envy or enmity Yarranton's activity excited the
suspicion of the authorities.  His journeys from place to place seemed
to them to point to some Presbyterian plot on foot.  On the 13th of
November, 1660, Lord Windsor, Lord-Lieutenant of the county, wrote to
the Secretary of State--"There is a quaker in prison for speaking
treason against his Majesty, and a countryman also, and Captain
Yarrington for refusing to obey my authority." [6]  It would appear
from subsequent letters that Yarranton must have lain in prison for
nearly two years, charged with conspiring against the king's authority,
the only evidence against him consisting of some anonymous letter's.
At the end of May, 1662, he succeeded in making his escape from the
custody of the Provost Marshal.  The High Sheriff scoured the country
after him at the head of a party of horse, and then he communicated to
the Secretary of State, Sir Edward Nicholas, that the suspected
conspirator could not be found, and was supposed to have made his way
to London.  Before the end of a month Yarranton was again in custody,
as appears from the communication of certain justices of Surrey to Sir
Edward Nicholas.[7]  As no further notice of Yarranton occurs in the
State Papers, and as we shortly after find him publicly occupied in
carrying out his plans for improving the navigation of the western
rivers, it is probable that his innocence of any plot was established
after a legal investigation.  A few years later he published in London
a 4to. tract entitled 'A Full Discovery of the First Presbyterian Sham
Plot,' which most probably contained a vindication of his conduct.[8]

Yarranton was no sooner at liberty than we find him again occupied with
his plans of improved inland navigation.  His first scheme was to
deepen the small river Salwarp, so as to connect Droitwich with the
Severn by a water communication, and thus facilitate the transport of
the salt so abundantly yielded by the brine springs near that town.  In
1665, the burgesses of Droitwich agreed to give him 750L. and eight
salt vats in Upwich, valued at 80L. per annum, with three-quarters of a
vat in Northwich, for twenty-one years, in payment for the work.  But
the times were still unsettled, and Yarranton and his partner Wall not
being rich, the scheme was not then carried into effect.[9]  In the
following year we find him occupied with a similar scheme to open up
the navigation of the river Stour, passing by Stourport and
Kidderminster, and connect it by an artificial cut with the river
Trent.  Some progress was made with this undertaking, so far in advance
of the age, but, like the other, it came to a stand still for want of
money, and more than a hundred years passed before it was carried out
by a kindred genius--James Brindley, the great canal maker.  Mr.
Chambers says that when Yarranton's scheme was first brought forward,
it met with violent opposition and ridicule.  The undertaking was
thought wonderfully bold, and, joined to its great extent, the sandy,
spongy nature of the ground, the high banks necessary to prevent the
inundation of the Stour on the canal, furnished its opponents, if not
with sound argument, at least with very specious topics for opposition
and laughter.[10]  Yarranton's plan was to make the river itself
navigable, and by uniting it with other rivers, open up a communication
with the Trent; while Brindley's was to cut a canal parallel with the
river, and supply it with water from thence.  Yarranton himself thus
accounts for the failure of his scheme in 'England's Improvement by Sea
and Land':--"It was my projection," he says, "and I will tell you the
reason why it was not finished.  The river Stour and some other rivers
were granted by an Act of Parliament to certain persons of honor, and
some progress was made in the work, but within a small while after the
Act passed[11] it was let fall again; but it being a brat of my own, I
was not willing it should be abortive, wherefore I made offers to
perfect it, having a third part of the inheritance to me and my heirs
for ever, and we came to an agreement, upon which I fell on, and made
it completely navigable from Stourbridge to Kidderminster, and carried
down many hundred tons of coal, and laid out near 1000L., and there it
was obstructed for want of money." [12]