As uprisings raged across Europe and Prussia and Denmark came to blows, newspapers sometimes referred to the way in which the delivery of information was being speeded up. Typically, the Dublin Weekly Nation carried a report about troubles in Poland highlighting that it had been transmitted by the 'Electric Telegraph'. This statement was rather misleading because communication through wires would have served only parts of the information chain as telegraphic messages could not yet cross the English Channel never mind the Irish Sea. It would be some time before these gaps were closed although recent developments at the Gutta Percha Company had brought that day much closer. These may, however, have been made with a degree of secrecy that raise questions about the relationship between Charles Hancock and Henry Bewley.

If Charles Hancock was concerned about the theft of information to be used in a patent application it would have been sensible to keep this under wraps as long as possible. When Thomas Hancock developed the ‘pickle’ the secret was maintained for years by the tight group of workers who were all members of the Eschol Chapel but the workforce at the Gutta Percha Company factory did not have such a bond. A spy, perhaps posing as a regular employee, might steal vital intellectual property so, for this reason alone, secrecy was considered the best way to ensure no theft could take place. Nonetheless, it might be thought rather unusual that, having worked so closely with Bewley, Hancock did not extend his confidence in such an important matter.

In 1845 Charles Hancock may have thought he had done well to negotiate an income of £800 per annum, this being ten times the salary offered by the Gutta Percha Company to a junior office employee. However, nothing was firmly on offer beyond three years, although he would still be entitled to his share of the proceeds from the pooled patents and had a supplementary income stream from painting. But as the last of the thirty six months ticked by it would have been understandable had Charles decided he must ensure a more permanent route to wealth by his sixth decade, which would begin in 1850. The volatility of the economy in such a dynamic period meant the threat of losing everything was, if unlikely, always a possibility and recovery could be very difficult. Sir George Duckett, who had built the link between the Lea and the Regents Canal, lived in comparatively straightened circumstances (although he was nowhere near to seeking admittance to a workhouse) after being declared bankrupt at the age of 54. It was only after his wife died and he married a wealthy widow that he was able to live a relatively comfortable life again. An apparently sound and innovative business idea was no guarantee of ultimate financial success, as had been shown by the collapse of Walter’s steam carriage service, so it may have appeared to Charles that enforcing payments from patent licences was the only viable way to become wealthy. Regrettably, as far as his interests in patents were concerned, the pooling arrangement meant the rewards would have to be shared but if he could reap royalties from a patent outside that agreement then the money would be his alone. Perhaps the breakthrough he made in late 1847 or early 1848 offered such an opportunity.

As Hancock made plans to capitalise on this breakthrough he would, as he made his way to Wharf Road, have been reminded of how things might turn out if he was not careful. Coal was vital to keep the wheels of industry turning and homes warm. On any journey through the streets of London coal carts would be seen and, particularly on cold, winter days, rows of smoking chimneys too. Steam engines at the Gutta Percha Company powered machinery and provided hot water for processing sliced blocks, and the factory, being on the Regents Canal, was well supplied with both coal and water. However, although there was plenty of coal available there was plenty of competition too, which would probably have been cut-throat. John Burgh Crampern, a coal merchant who also operated from Wharf Road and who Hancock may have known by sight, appeared after his business failed in the English Bankrupts column of several newspapers. Why Crampern’s business went under is unclear but it may have been an inability to match the prices of Alfred Penny, another merchant based close by. Penny took advantage of a new chain of supply established by mine owners of Wallsend. After being shipped down the east coast their coal was unloaded at Blackwall and then brought by railway to a depot at Shoreditch. A selling point of this fine fuel was that, according to Penny, when being transferred to wagons rather than barges, machinery was used to avoid breaking large lumps into small ones. This enabled merchants to sell larger coals of the best quality at a moderate price, a moderate price being 23 shillings a ton delivered within three miles of London. Penny seems to have thrived, Crampern clearly did not.

After initially agreeing to work for the Gutta Percha Company Charles Hancock found a place for Walter as one of the firms three ‘experimental managers’, the other two being himself and Henry Bewley. It did not take long to break new ground. The mass reproduction of items such as ornate picture frames was clearly something gutta percha could be used for, particularly as it did not, after being heated, shrink on cooling. Standardisation was increasingly demanded in manufacturing and the craft skills of the individual worker continued to give way to the precision offered by machinery ultimately powered by steam. It was true the march of C19th mechanics sometimes stumbled - a good example being the ill-fated Congreve’s lock at Camden - but on the whole the movement was very successful in reducing costs and improving consistency. Unfortunately, the results also included the destruction of livelihoods that had sustained families for generations. The new gutta percha industry was machine based from the start so no skilled workers directly lost their employment as it grew. However, the products of Wharf Road certainly undermined established crafts as seen, for example, in the production of self adhesive soles and, subsequently, waterproof shoes made completely of gutta percha. Mr Header of Snow Hill would not stock gutta percha products and an attempt to organise more widespread resistance was seen later in the year in Northampton, a town sometimes called the ‘shoemaking capital of the world’.  

An anti-gutta percha meeting was held in Northampton in June 1848 where those attending, mostly workers in the shoe industry, were urged to join the National Association of the Trades’ Union as the best means of guaranteeing themselves against the threatened evil. Such demonstrations had no impact on Charles Hancock, intent as he was on developing gutta percha footwear and allaying any concerns potential customers might have. For example, it was suggested that one problem with gutta percha shoes was inflexibility so Hancock devised a method whereby a thin plate of bent steel would be compressed between two sheets of a gutta percha sole. Under pressure and heat this metal strip would become permanently fixed, so adding spring to the step of the wearer. It should be noted there was no connection between these shoes and those worn by the legendry ‘Spring-heeled Jack’ who, according to various reports, was over 10 feet tall, could leap over gates and houses, exhaled blue flames and cackled with high pitched laughter. It is doubtful if such a character ever existed but if he did the springy shoes he wore were not made at Wharf Road as Jack’s first terrifying appearance was in 1837!

Between January 1846 and July 1848 Charles Hancock was granted six patents, all of which covered various aspects of the manufacture and application of gutta percha. Whoever made an application for a patent had to ensure it was detailed enough to allow any unauthorised copying to be challenged. Submissions often included illustrations and diagrams in order to make a point clear and concluded with a summary which gave an overview of what had been covered in the main body of the document. When drawing up one application Charles Hancock included various methods of moulding, which detailed the injection of air, hot water and sand to hollow out a product and the use of vents for releasing entrapped air. Some modern authorities suggest these steps formed the basis of modern moulding processes, which combine high speeds with high volumes, so Charles was certainly at the edge of technological development. As far as the material itself was concerned, Hancock’s experiments with various compounds were quite wide ranging. One patent, granted in January 1846, was aimed at improving the use of gutta percha in manufacturing by, amongst other methods, adding jintawan which, he said, had recently been imported from the East Indies and as far as he knew had never previously been used in the arts and manufactures of this country. Jintawan was a climbing shrub from which latex could be collected. It seems to have been found in the same areas as those where the gutta percha tree grew.

Along with jintawan Hancock cited a number of other ingredients, including caoutchouc, orpiment and liver of sulphur, which could be blended to make compounds that might be used for a variety of products. For example, when the best compound for driving bands was needed 6 parts of orpiment would be added to 20 parts of caoutchouc, 24 parts of jintawan and 50 parts of gutta percha. Everything would be blended in a kneading machine based on the ‘pickle’. As with the moulding processes some of these compounds were notable achievements, recognised by the modern polymer industry as being the first thermoplastics ever manufactured.

The compound which had the largest proportion of jintawan would make the softest and spongiest product and would be used for stuffing chairs. The hardest products had the highest gutta percha content and once this compound had been blended it would be pressed into moulds, secured with metal plates. Then, for between one and six days depending on the hardness required, the moulds would be heated by steam or hot air at temperatures between 300 and 380 degrees Fahrenheit. When the heating phase was over and the moulds had cooled the solid contents would be removed and could be turned on a lathe in a similar way to wood or ivory.

When Werner Siemens considered the insulation to be used on the the Berlin to Frankfurt telegraph it is more than likely he knew of Hancock’s patents. No one had to apply to the Court of Chancery, which managed the patent process at that time, to view them because the relevant information was freely available and disseminated through periodicals such as the Mechanics Magazine. This raises the question as to whether Hancock’s patent was infringed but it does not seem to have been an issue, perhaps because installing the long distance telegraph line was, at first, essentially a military rather than a commercial project. Such indulgence was unlikely to be given to anyone who infringed a patent to make money, particularly after Charles Hancock began to feel he had been taken advantage of. It would seem that although he was at first happy with the arrangements he made with Henry Bewley he subsequently thought he had been rather naïve and gradually decided the rewards offered for his talents were less than fair. When he mulled over what he saw as inadequate recompense resentment began to build up towards the Dublin based businessman with whom he had once worked so closely. Perhaps this was the reason that, according to Bewley, Hancock eventually started to become rather quarrelsome when he visited the factory.

As the need for adequate insulation for the electric telegraph became more and more pressing so holding a patent for a coating machine would become increasingly valuable. At some stage Hancock concluded such a machine could be developed from one already in use for extruding gutta percha tubes and rods. According to Werner Siemens the screw press that had successfully insulated the Berlin to Grossbeeren line had been in operation in the summer of 1847 but it appears Hancock was not at all influenced by the design of that. In fact, the machine he developed was based on one devised by Henry Bewley and for which a patent had been granted in 1845, something Hancock must have known might compromise any patent registration. It is possible that all the experimental work was done at Wharf Road but given the perceived need for secrecy perhaps work on elements of a prototype took place away from Wenlock basin. Although the main base of the Gutta Percha Company was at Wharf Road another unit was maintained in Stratford and, as Hancock probably had other contacts in that area, an independent workspace might have been provided well away from curious eyes. Wherever he worked Charles had the benefit of one assistant who could be relied on to keep a secret and who could make his own contribution to machine development. This was his brother Walter. Together they developed a machine that could make a fortune.

Had Walter and Charles been seen at Wharf Road working on their new project then Mr Statham would surely have passed the information to Henry Bewley who, if he visited the works, could have seen how his machine was being adapted. Evidently it appears this did not happen and Bewley seems to have remained unaware of the work being done until about the time the new patent was revealed to the public. At that moment secrecy no longer mattered. As might be expected Bewley was less than pleased about being kept in the dark but took the view that, although the Hancocks jointly owned the patent, the pooling agreement and the fact that it had been developed on Gutta Percha Company premises meant the innovative machine could still be used by the Gutta Percha Company without the agreement of the brothers. It was at this point that the business relationship originally formed over bottle stoppers collapsed into acrimony for Charles Hancock asserted that the new patent was not covered by the pooling or any other agreement and refused to allow Bewley to use the machine. Bewley’s swift reaction indicated he thought the Hancocks had overplayed their hand, at least in the eyes of the law.

The power balance in the Gutta Percha Company was naturally very much in favour of the investing partners because they had risked their capital to start the enterprise. Although Charles Hancock had been involved from the inception he was not a partner and never had been. He and Walter were ultimately contractors working to the terms set out by Bewley who, if he got support from other partners could dismiss them. Bewley therefore contacted Samuel Gurney, a member of a well known banking family, who had no hesitation in agreeing to the move and so the brothers were quickly paid off. At the same time Bewley made it clear he would not be prevented from using the coating machine and if this was disputed the matter could be decided in court. Bewley may have hoped that after leaving the Gutta Percha Company with quite a good payout the Hancocks would abandon the gutta percha industry and try something else. Walter may have been tempted but Charles certainly wasn’t so the brothers returned to Stratford where they set up a new enterprise in competition with the one based at Wharf Road. This was successful, allowing Hancock to pursue his legal case against Bewley. It would be years before the dispute was finally settled.

Although the subsequent legal struggles were to drag on there were to be immediate and positive benefits, at least for the Gutta Percha Company, from Bewley’s uncompromising decision. Once it became clear the Wharf Road factory could manufacture insulated telegraph cable of a far superior quality than that previously available orders began to arrive and the new cable soon became the main money spinner for the company. However, it did not have a clear field as 1848 also saw a patent concerning gutta percha insulation for telegraph wires granted to a competitor who had nothing to do with Charles or Walter Hancock.

Back to Chapter 11      On to Chapter 13

Return to introduction

When London Became An Island

Gutta Percha comes to the Metropolis

Chapter 12 - A breakthrough and a breakdown

Commanders and clippers

Spring-heeled Jack the Terror of early Victorian London!

Advert for gutta percha insulated telegraph cable