| Description | Edward Bull originally worked for Boulton & Watt, and in 1781 he was sent to Cornwall, where he remained. He became well-known to several of the mine owners as an engineer, and he applied to Boulton & Watt to make engines on Watt’s principles. Boulton & Watt refused. Bull then began to make engines which featured an inverted cylinder mounted directly over the pump, with the pump rod connected directly to the piston rod. Bull’s engines also employed a separate condenser, which infringed James Watt’s patent.
In 1792 the first of Bull’s inverted engines began work at Balcoath Mine. Boulton & Watt brought an action against him for infringing Watt’s patent. The trial was heard in the Court of Common Pleas before Lord Chief Justice Eyre and a special jury in June 1793. The jury decided that Bull had indeed infringed Watt’s patent, but they also found that Watt’s patent did not give sufficient information for his invention to be built from the specification alone, which was a legal requirement for patents. This placed a question mark over the validity of Watt’s patent, which therefore encouraged engineers such as Bull to carry on erecting engines. The doubts over the patent also encouraged Cornish mines to withhold premium payments to Boulton & Watt until the validity of the patent was settled at law. The "Special Case" concerning the validity of the patent was not heard in the Court of Common Pleas until February 1795. It was heard before Lord Chief Justice Eyre, and three other judges – Justices Rooke, Heath and Buller. The judgement was not given until May and the judges were equally split as to whether Watt’s patent was valid or not.
Meanwhile Boulton & Watt began an action in the Court of Chancery in 1794, to get an injunction to prevent Bull from making engines. The Court of Chancery treated Watt’s patent as valid until it had been proved otherwise, and it also took into account the long period of time that Watt had been in possession of his patent. Therefore Boulton & Watt could obtain injunctions against engineers that they felt were infringing Watt’s patent, even though the Court of Common Pleas had not made a definite judgement about the patent.
In April 1795 Bull’s attorneys offered a compromise, by which Bull would restrict himself to Cornwall. This was rejected. In June 1795 they applied to the Attorney General for a writ of Scire Facias. This was a writ to force Matthew Boulton and James Watt to attend court and prove that Watt’s patent should not be repealed. Such a writ had been considered in 1792, during Boulton & Watt’s opposition to Jonathan Hornblower’s bill to extend his patent. Boulton & Watt were successful in their opposition, and the Attorney General of the day said that he would not allow a writ of scire facias to be issued that sought to repeal a patent after a Parliamentary grant had been awarded. However the split verdict of the Judges in Common Pleas in February 1795 once again opened up the use of this writ. However it appears that the writ, although prepared, was never issued.
Bull, assisted by Richard Trevithick continued to erect engines until 1795, when injunctions were served against them. Bull died on 27 March 1798, having only been taken ill the day before. Thomas Wilson, Boulton & Watt’s Cornish agent, commented "Imagine it has been an apoplexy, that has carried him off, it would have been better has it happened 7 years ago."
This bundle contains the majority of the papers relating to the action against Bull. It contains correspondence, memoranda, information about the engines erected by Bull, and copies of various legal documents such as affidavits, transcripts of court proceedings, and so on. Much of the evidence presented in Chancery against Bull was collected by Thomas Wilson.
The bundle is divided into the following smaller bundles and documents:
1. Original Cover
2. Proceedings in Common Pleas 1792—1795
3. List of Bull’s Engines 1794.
4. Weston’s Correspondence with Mr. Short 1795
5. Proceedings in Chancery 1794—1795
6. Scire Facias 1795
7. Affidavits & Letters of Wilson &c. respecting Bull’s Engine on Poldice.
8. Copy Affidavit of Defendant Bull. 11 Jul. 1795.
9. Copy Affidavit of Defendant Bull. 14 Jul. 1795.
10. Copy Affidavit of Richard Trevithick. 17 Jul. 1795.
11. Copy affidavit of Trevithick & Stephens. 14 Jul. 1797.
Many of the documents were sent by A. J. & G. Weston, Boulton & Watt’s London attorneys.
For papers relating to the premiums demanded from those mines which used Bull’s engines, see the bundles of papers relating to Cornish Law Cases (MS 3147/2/51—MS 3147/2/60). For drawings of Edward Bull’s engines, see "Sketches and Descriptions of Pirate and Rival Engines" (MS 3147/2/62) and "Drawings of Engine Designs by James Watt, Bull and Hornblower’s Engines, Dutch Windmill etc.", Portfolio MS 3147/5/1339a. |