Primary tabs
Transcription
[Page 5]
he best can tell.
Arnold had a direct Patent for the Helical Spring and Expansion in the balance, both of which the Protestor may be convinced he stole from Harrison and others. See report of Select Committee of the House of Commons on Mr Mudges Petition page 105, and if he will go to Greenwich he will see the Helical Springs in Harrisons Machines from which Arnold first took it, and by referring to Page 104 of the above Report he will find by the Evidence of Mr Emery that the Helical Spring was applied to a French watch long before Mr Arnold used it - and Arnold acknowledged (see page 80 of the same Report) that Mr Harrison advised the Compensation to be in the Balance, which advice Arnold unquestionably followed - and though Arnold had a direct Patent for things he evidently took from Harrison and others, yet the Board gave him one thousand three hundred pounds, and the Protestor objects to rewarding me under the Idea that I had a Patent only in directly.
The Protest further states that Arnold had received one thousand three hundred pounds for that which I have copied from him, and that the Public must not pay twice for the same thing, but the Protestor should have remembered that the one thousand three hundred pounds was given to Arnold long before Arnolds pretended Invention came out as his Patent is dated August one thousand seven hundred and eighty two. Therefore if so Arnold really was the Inventor of the detached escapement jn question he never was paid for it, as asserted in the protest.
Brockbank says in his Evidence to the Board, that when Arnold first showed him the detached escapement he then said that he must after his Specification. Arnold's specification is dated August one thousand seven hundred and eighty two, and Mr Best and Mr Trodsham have clearly proved that I have made it long before, and Brockbank has acknowledged that I shewed it to him, when Mr Best was his Foreman, and he has likewise acknowledged that Mr Best did not live with him in August one thousand seven hundred and eighty two and notwithstanding this positive conviction and the Evidence I have produced both positive and circumstantial the strongest Evidence that human Affairs can possibly admit of, after so long a Period as twenty three years yet the Protest says I have given no Proof of my being the Inventor. The Protest sets forth the going of a Watch made by Mr Emery and tried by Count Bhrul. But after the following Circumstances, what reliance can the Protestor have on the accuracy of that account. Did not Count Bhrul challenge Doctor Maskelyne with calculating the Nautical Almanack wrong, and the Doctor clearly proved the Blunder to be the Counts - and from the account given by Count Bhrul of the going of his Watch, Mr Emery received an Order from the Board to have two tried for the premium, but the going of those two by no means answered the description which the Count had given of Mr Emery's watches, as they run considerably out of the limits of the Act. Here then the Astronomer Royal was insulted, and the Public Time and Money wasted. Would it not have been more fair in the Protestor to have published the going of Mr Emery's Watches tried by authority and compared them with mine also tried by authority instead of comparing