In quoting the “Century” Mr. Muirhead notices that it concludes with the promise of a more finished work, which only elicits the sinister remark: “that he either was unable, or never seriously intended to make such a further publication.” This is indeed unjust, and severe enough. And what he quotes from the “Century” about the _Engine_, is only to tell what “posterity supposes” about it; and to note that, in respect to it, “there has always prevailed a great diversity of opinion.” But here is no attempt made to trace and analyse that “diversity of opinion,” or to dissipate the cloud. The Marquis’s captivity in the Tower is mis-stated; and the luckless “pot-lid” story enlarged and improved upon, for it is concluded that hence--“so runs the story--arose the ‘Century of Inventions,’ with its steam-engine all ready--made and acting;--at least in the mind of its contriver!” This undignified view of the case of the imprisoned, ruined, neglected inventor of the steam-engine, never deserved to be enrolled in the volume devoted to the life of his glorious but remote successor.[I] Although, however, we have been presented with a view of De Caus as elevated through the medium of Arago’s eloquent Eloge, when endeavouring with true national zeal to claim the honour of the invention of the steam-engine (even on this slender proof) for his own country; this position seems only to have been assigned to him in the present instance, to make his downfall the more signally complete; for Mr. Muirhead most dispassionately observes:--“Considering the uselessness of the contrivance of De Caus, and the doubtfulness existing as to that of the Marquis, it is, perhaps, rather surprising that ‘the invention of the steam-engine’ should have been attributed to either of them, with such great confidence as both English and French writers have alternately shown.” Unfortunately for this antithesis, the one invention is not “worthless,” and the other is not properly to be charged with “doubtfulness.” It may be justly said, in one sense, that all the engines preceding those made in Watt’s time are “worthless,”--but we have here a wide range. In 1615 De Caus’s invention was not “_worthless_,” although its worth was limited to its demonstrating one simple mode of applying an important elementary principle. And the vast amount of accumulated evidence relating to the Marquis of Worcester’s Engine indisputably removes all “_doubtfulness_” as to its actual accomplishment and general construction, so far as words, irrespective of absolute models and drawings, can supply information; and the absence of these latter accessories is traceable solely to the lapse of time, combined with the indifference of the public to designs that went beyond general information on such matters, as well as from their exceeding the common manufacturing skill, and not captivating the small commercial enterprize of that age.