444 Moreland’s Steam-Engine . [Book IV.

stroke, because the plungers would occupy one half only of the interiorcapacities of the cylinders. See the figure of one on page 272.

If this view of Moreland’s project be correct, then he merely usedsteam to work his plunger pump ; and therefore eould not justly claim in1682 to have invented, but only to have applied, the “ force of fire.”That he employed a simple form of a high-pressure engine, in other wordsmoved a piston by the elasticity of the vapor, like Hautefeuille and Wor-cester, we have little doubt. His language intimates that steam was thenrendered so manageable as to be applicable to numerous operations “ forthe benefit of mankind,” of which the raising of water was the only oneunder his consideration. He obviously was in possession of the meansof imparting motion to solids by steam, and thus making it peaceablvto carry burdens, or overcome resistances, “ like good horses—In-deed, one might almost suppose from his apparent carelessness in notmentioning the mode in which the steam was applied, viz. in givingmotion to a piston, that explanation on this point was then no longernecessary.

It is singulär that Moreland made no claim fbr this invention in England.Why was this, if he had any l Does it not imply that he did not inventthe steam part of the apparatus 'I—eise why not have patented it as wellas the pump 'l for the object deserved it, and the prospects of remunera-tion were as promising at home as in France . The fact is, he could notclaim the piston steam-engine where the labors of Worcester and otherswere still in remembrance, and where some of their machines were pro-bably extant. As an educated man and an enlightened mechanic, More-land was not ignorant of the labors of Ramseye, Fludd, Hautefeuille andWorcester . It is pretty clear that he lit his candle at the lamps of diesemen, and particularly the latter; for in the short chapter on steam quotedabove, he has copied both the ideas and the language of the author of theCentury of Inventions. One observation is highly creditable to him, if hewas the author of the experiments from which it was deduced, viz. therelative volume of steam and water. A quantity of the latter when con-verted into the former occupies, he observes, 2000 times its former space:modern experiments make it between 1800 and 1900 times.

Of several simple modes by which Moreland may have applied steamto work his pumps, we shall mention one :—Let a small steam-cylinder,open at the top,' be placed under the same end of a vibrating beam as theplunger of the pump; the piston rods of both cylinders being connectedto the beam : then, by turning a three-way steam-cock, the vapor wouldrush into the bottom of the steam-cylinder, and pushing up the piston,would raise the beam and the loaded plunger of the pump; and by thenturning the cock so as to close the communication between the cylinderand the boiler, and to open one between the former and the external air,the steam would escape, and the weights on the plunger would cause it,with the beam and steam-piston, to descend. By turning the steam-cockas before, the stroke would be repeated. The only objection to such adevice is, that it is too crude to be attributed to Moreland ; for, from theadvantages he possessed in knowing all that had been previously done,there can be little doubt that he was in possession of a self-acting engine,and of the knowledge of increasing its energy according to the differentsized pumps required to be worked by it.

Moreland possessed a natural turn for mechanics, and during the latterhalf of his life devoted himself almost exclusively to the invention andimprovement of useful machinery. Were a description of his and Wor-cester’s workshops now extant, it would possess more real interest than