Letter from Samuel Holmes, New Jersey to Robert Young

615 Broad St, Elizabeth NJ . June 10th 1920
My dear Bob,

Yours of 20th to hand. I cannot understand why you keep harping on about me writing a third & you two thirds or any thirds for anybody. This is the great work of placing Timothy Hackworth in his proper position before the world as the ‘Father of the Locomotive’ (the term is correct). The Locomotive is the greatest unit in the development of the World. For that is a big enough contract to set aside the foolishness of talking for weeks about an extra hundred pages in a work that has to place Timothy Hackworth in his proper position. He was cheated out of it by Edward Pease. George Stephenson who was propaganded (sic) into the position by Pease has no right there. Solid people who know, say so. (Written in pencil above line ‘Replies to letter John W Hackworth July 47)’. Stephenson was a fraud, an unmitigated fraud. How could he be otherwise, he never learned any engineering, he never practised any and neither did he originate one ..…….. & inventable detail. (Written in pencil above line ‘See page 50 John Wesley Hackworth)’. He was forever putting his nose into what other people were doing & trying to steal something. These are facts, solid, proved facts. He made money out of building railways, became rich, but he never became the ‘Father of the Locomotive’. He never brought all the blessings to the world the real producer of the locomotive brought to the world. He must
[Page 2] be exposed as a truculent ^mechanical^ imposter. I have dealt very gently but ^positively^ with Stephenson. xxxxx Engineers will recognise what I say as true, backed up by my other friends. The world will also recognise there has been a great injustice done and that is what we must accomplish, so please never again talk to me about Stephenson being a ‘household word’ or about anything I say XXXXXX having a ‘damaging effect in England’ or anywhere else, because it isn’t true. The English People have been imposed upon, they have taken a novel for history and they will consider it verified by such false writing as W. W. Tomlinson has engaged in. Stephenson was a sly businessman, and that is all, he was a profuse fireraiser and drunkard and I believe Edward Pease was a very similar drunkard, but nothing appears excepting his bills for liquor when in London which tells a tale. I can understand a man drinking out of a joyous heart with friends, but I cannot understand an intelligent man guzzling by himself or without good talks going on at the same time. I am not a prohibitionist, & hate the crowd. I omitted the drinking to death ^purposely^ but any moderation stands where it is. I will now take your latter ………………. , although I don’t think much of your criticism, the items are of so little importance, really beneath notice, and give the impression the argument which runs through the article was not understood. . All reference to yourself can come out although I think the reader would like to know something about you, & it came from me quite naturally, but what you (sic) will about it.
Page 9 : Important history shall not be fed to the world through popular literature etc. This is correct, it must be read with the context. Xxxxx It does not require any paraphrase. On Page 40 the same remarks apply, take the context. It is correct & perfectly understandable. You were in too great a hurry. Hackworths (sic) engines were an entire change. I don’t refer to any of the Billies engines. The context says so as in the other cases. . You are correct about the apprenticeship time being seven years (1). I intended writing you upon this subject but forgot it. It must be altered. South Hetton Engine. I of course took the ‘Locomotion’ account as neither of us knows anything of it otherwise. Xxxxx I don’t see that it needs any attention. There is no Hackworth number on it. There are two sets of numbers, the S&DR numbers and Soho numbers, for instance the Russian engine was Hackworths (sic) No.28. It was credited to the magazine ‘Locomotive’ & can stand at that. . I haven’t mixed up the Firms. I only refer to G. Stephenson & Son. I have not mentioned the name of the Robert Stephenson & Cos (sic) firm
[Page 3] which was a later institution changed in many points, for instance Mr. Longridge went out and started his own locomotive building works and built the second order for Nova Scotia. Got under T.H. (2) fingers by skimping the boiler until an engine 10 tons heavier would carry half as much pull as Grandfather’s 25 ton engines.ease and Richardson remained. This is my understanding, but I do not refer to its reorganized firm at all. I only dealt with the birth of the locomotive. I think you are wrong about RS & Co. starting 1822 or ’23 (3). There was no need of two firms and I don’t believe two ever existed. It started with G. Stephenson & Son & was reorganised into Robert Stephenson & Co. later with changes part of which was Longridge going out. As far as I am concerned, I only deal with the original Stephenson firm, established by Edward Pease who I believe kept right along with them for he provided the foundry & put capital in and a surveying & constructing firm did not require that. So the firm name changed but that was practically all, and it was later not before Pease did his part in establishing Stephenson it wouldn’t make sense. Trevithick – you are certainly wrong about Uncle John considering him an engineer. Trevithick was no engineer. What Uncle John said about Trevithick is – ‘as to Richard Trevithick, he neither originated the idea of steam locomotion, nor made the first, second, third, or fourth attempt to develop it. His productions were no more successful, or practically better than his predecessors neither did he establish anything to meet the world’s need for such a consideration. The representations put forth in the Life are chiefly ingenuous fabrication whereas, the testimony in the Hackworth accomplishments partly herein recorded, has stood the critical test of over forty years, being founded in facts’. . I cannot understand such remarks as you make. Uncle John’s views are expressed in the quotation I give above. He also researched Stephenson. We don’t want any writing to go out from the family under such sickly heading ‘also I have been more generous to George Stephenson & I think in respect to both these men to depreciate them too much would have a damaging effect in England’. That is
[Page 4]
what you say, & if it is true, I would say damn England. Uncle John and Thomas Greener never gave George Stephenson credit for anything connected with the locomotive and that is what we are writing about. Your argument to plaster Stephenson with credit to prevent ‘ill feeling & opposition’ is enough to make the dead ^rise^. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . You have looked at your papers until you have lost the sense of all proportion and are afraid of ‘ill feeling and opposition’ by discrediting George Stephenson and Trevithick. You wiould allow injustice to continue its reign. What are you writing the book for?
I know that Blackett ordered a locomotive from Trevithick & Trevithick sent the plans north and it was built in the north & Blackett wouldn’t accept it. Why? because it was no good as I xxxxxxxxx say.
Storey was another Colliery Viewer. Tomlinson uses him to depreciate Hackworth definitely and I have answered him effectively. I don’t care what became of Storey. If he had been given the consideration depicted by Tomlinson Timothy Hackworth would have resigned. Hackworth was of more importance to the railway company than the railway company was to Hackworth. I have made that plain, but it had to be made plain and it is evident you haven’t. In fact ^I would have written it all^ if I could have supposed for an instant your views of timidity ‘damaging effect, Stephensons (sic) household name’ and almost worst of all your ingratitude to Sekon who did so much for us. Pangborn in 1899 started our side with a boom. Sekon in 1899 told England ‘Royal George was the first successful locomotive’ etc. etc.. We had no friends before the B&O Railroad took up the cudgels. Sekon followed bravely, truly and well. Now you call him names. Compare him with engineers who as a rule are little better than two foot rules. Stiff, uncomprehending, unless they have the spark ‘Genius’ which you possess. Bob you grieve me, I had unbounded confidence in your writing, now I have lost it. I couldn’t believe you would play both sides, but you say you are doing so; only don’t bring Uncle John in as having any consideration for George Stephenson. He had none at all, and your engineers will have so little when they read what I have written.
You apparently don’t realise the world has been deceived in the greatest happening of time. It has been lied to, enslaved, fettered, bound hand & foot by propaganda, for why? For a syndicate to get rich. Your Grandfather was used like a tool, and for God’s sake you defend such people. What I have written must stand. The only mistake is there is not enough of it, but it can be added to. This answers

[Page 5](There may be a page missing here)(The Page numbering is in another hand (probably Robert Young) and lists front page, 2, 3, 4 and then 5 which is probably 6 and 6 which is probably 7).
[Page 6] Going to be corrected tell them we can advertise it with them. If they like to make any publishing proposition that will be all right, but I would let it come from them. I would now let them read it. There will be lots of Trade Paper interest, and I hope some fighting. I hope the whole press will take it up. That is just what we want. You cannot get a better advertisement than opposition. They all thought the family was dead, but they will have to take another guess.
You said you were going to write xxxxxxx plainly. I have followed your example. My metaphors express disproval, but my heart has a very tender side for you, so consider what I say about a shoe maker sticking to his last. xxxx A publisher knows more about selling a book than an engineer. True I suggested seeing the Engineer people, but it is more because it’s an engineering publication, & may be interested in knowing what is doing, give some wise advice, if nothing else but the Book is an important event, and old trade papers will be interested. See Sekon, show him what I have written, & I know he will be pleased. You know his Railway Magazine published an account of Grandfather, gave picture of Soho Cottage also his Tombstone & Grave. I had a copy which was sent me.
Yours aft. . Samuel Holmes
You said you had all the literature that Aunt Pru (4) had printed, but I fear you haven’t read it. Your remarks make it essential, they should form an appendix. See page 50 & 51 JWH Sunderland, April 17/89 ‘Replies to Letters ‘ a continuation of Memoir of Timothy Hackworth (the Father of Locomotives)’
[Page 7]
I wanted awfully to complete the ‘Paper’ Black sent me, but I left it for you. I should have enjoyed writing in all the Scotch names he enumerates. No Germans there. No Sir Finns, just fine Scotch people like in Scotland, no trouble makers. I itched to write in their names for it is impressive. I also wanted to tell of Uncle Johns (sic) challenge to run Sanspareil 2 against Stephenson’s own engine & Robert Stephenson’s silence . . S.H. they say England is a sporting nation.
I forgot your criticism of Cardinal Manning and Wesleyans. These Tractarians made a great stir at that period, and Grandfather was a man of mind. He wasn’t a village blacksmith under a spreading chestnut tree, but a thinker. He recognised the Revolution in the Episcopal Church as all other people do ^now^: even those who now attend Episcopal Church as I do. So don’t be too thin skinned, & sensitive. No one is going to hurt any new religion learnings. But T.H. must be treated as more than a horse show. Color yes color, not colour ^was necessary^. My friend Sir George Hunter the head of Swan, Hunter & Wigam Richardsons, the longest line of shipbuilders in England, goes in for abridged spelling. It is a fad with him. So you see all England does not take your view of England. It is a small matter, but was true and thrown in for colour. T.H. was a man of more than an idea, and that must be brought out, like every other imminent characteristic.
The letter J W Hackworth to Miss Gurney is an extremely good one, & contains a lot. It will make interesting reading in the Appendix. The offer of a properly constituted tribute in Uncle John’s letter to the Engineer, August 14th 1857, before witnesses died, is great evidence. Also Hedleys (sic) son 1858 ‘Who invented the Loco?’ & …………engine ran a mile a minute. They were ordered, designed, inspired, & inspected by T.H. in fact his engines. Again the Life of Trevithick. His Penydarran Locomotive made one run, he says I have run on the course, have handled the rails it ran over, down hill nine miles. ‘Smiles’ fiction outdone’ his characterization. S&DR. Ed Pease & Thos Richardson J.W.H. says Page 49 ‘These two chieftains were the prime movers in Stephenson being appointed engineer of the line, and were partners in the Locomotive Works, Newcastle. But for these facts locomotives would never have been used at all, nor the losing game tolerated righteous mouths’. Tomlinson was set to work to counteract all this, which I handle by ^quoting^ J W Hackworth Pangbourn & Sekon.* Frame the word Injustice & xx keep it in front of you and you will get over trying to make it pleasant for Stephenson, & the fear of hurting the feelings of some silly English people. There are plenty of strong English people who believe in Justice. .
S.H.
(1) The apprenticeships at Wylam were for 10 years.
(2) T.H.: Timothy Hackworth.
(3) There WERE two Stephenson Firms – George Stephenson & Son established by . George Stephenson (principally for civil engineering work) and Robert Stephenson . & Co. founded in 1823 (principally for mechanical (locomotive building) work).
(4) Aunt Prue was Prudence Hackworth, fifth child of Timothy Hackworth.