Joseph Merlin in London, 1760–1803: the Man behind the Mask. New Documentary Sources

Abstract

Joseph Merlin (1735–1803), ‘Ingenious Mechanick’, musical-instrument maker and flamboyant showman, is perhaps best remembered for his Museum in Princes Street, London, with its scintillating displays of automata and extraordinary inventions. Two newly identified sets of Court documents, Nicholl v. Merlin, 1779 and Merlin v. Celsson, 1779–81, now provide insights into previously unknown aspects of his business dealings and personal life. The former concerns a dispute over a house that Merlin commissioned to be built in 1776, the latter a violation of his 1774 combined harpsichord-pianoforte patent rights. Material relating to Lavigne Verel, his musical instrument foreman from 1773 to 1781, is also reported. Amongst other novel findings, perhaps the most surprising is Merlin's marriage in 1783. Contemporary primary-source material consulted includes original manuscripts held at The National Archives, UK, the Scone Palace Archives, Parish Registers, Land Tax and Apprenticeship records and numerous contemporary newspaper advertisements and notices.

Keywords:

• ‘Joseph Merlin’
• harpsichord
• pianoforte
• Verel
• ‘Ephraim Celsson’
• Celson

Introduction

Joseph Merlin¹ (1735–1803), the ‘Ingenious Mechanick’, multi-talented inventor and musical-instrument maker active during the closing decades of the eighteenth century, is perhaps best remembered for his Museum in Princes Street, London, with its scintillating displays of automata and extraordinary inventions, both useful and decorative (Figure 1). Anne French has described how he carefully cultivated the public persona of a flamboyant showman. He appeared at society balls and gatherings in ever more eccentric garb, promoting his latest inventions, seizing every opportunity to promote his business, and flattering the ladies at every turn.² But is there more to learn of the man who lies behind this mask? Documentary evidence drawn from two newly identified court cases now provides insights into his activities in the period 1775–81. The first of these, Nicholl v. Merlin (1779–81), concerns a dispute relating to a substantial house Merlin commissioned to be built on the corner of Duchess Street and Portland Place in 1776; the second concerns an action he brought against his former employee, Ephraim Celsson, for making and selling combined harpsichord-pianofortes in contravention of his 1774 patent for this instrument. Other records consulted include contemporary newspaper advertisements and reports, parish registers, Land Tax records, wills and inventories, covering the period 1770–1816.

Figure 1. Portrait of John Joseph Merlin 1781 by Thomas Gainsborough, (1727–88). Kenwood House, Iveagh Bequest, London; © English Heritage, reproduced by permission.

New information on a number of Merlin's associates is also reported, notably: Louis Lavigne Verel, now clearly identified as his chief finisher of keyboard instruments from 1773–81; Sylvanus Jenkins, his assistant for three decades from the mid-1770s and executor of his will – a clockmaker by trade; and Thomas Fletcher Hewlett, his second executor and son of the long-established prosperous ironmonger, William Hewlett of The Strand. Perhaps most surprisingly of all, genealogical records reveal the existence of a wife, Ann Goulding, and two children (one of whom Ann Johanna survived to be married in 1820), as well as information about his half-brother Charles, who married in Southwark, London in 1782 and is later discovered living with his family in Strasbourg from 1786.

Early years in London

According to Kirby, his earliest biographer from 1803 and confirmed by later researchers, (John) Joseph Merlin was born in Huy, near Liège on 6 September 1735³ and studied in Paris at the Academy of Science for six years from 1754 before arriving in London in the entourage of Conde de Fuentes, Spanish Ambassador Extraordinary on 24 May 1760.⁴ Little is known of his activities in the metropolis during the 1760s, though Lalande records his involvement with the building of a barrel organ made for the use of the Princess of Wales in 1763, remarking that it was ‘started by Valrot, finished by Mr Merlin’.⁵ Lalande also notes that Merlin was at that time at ‘Mr Sutton, goldsmith at the Acorn in New Street near Covent Garden’⁶ possibly a supplier of the jeweller and entrepreneur James Cox, with whom Merlin is known to have worked from at least 1765. Merlin's name appears in a list of non-freemen of the City of London in an employment-licence application made by Cox to the City of London authorities in that year.⁷ A notice appearing in The Gentleman's Magazine on 1 February 1771 further confirms their connection:

Mr Chiqua, the celebrated Chinese Artist, is embarking at Gravesend, on board the Greville East Indiaman, on his return to Canton, after having surveyed, with astonishment, a part of Mr. Cox's surprising piece of mechanism, designed for this exhibition in Spring Gardens, and has been introduced by Mr Merlin to view the many excellent paintings of Signora Angelica.⁸

Newly located Land Tax records for 1770–2 list Joseph Merlin as the occupier of 104, Shoe Lane, next door to Cox⁹ and in his evidence given in the case of Merlin v. Celsson, 1781 (see below), Cox stated that Merlin left his employ in 1772.¹⁰ Nevertheless, it is clear from the latter source that some form of business relationship between the two continued for several more years at least, as will be discussed later.¹¹ On 29 January 1773 Merlin filed his patent application for a Rotisseur (Dutch oven) from Little Queen Ann Street, a record which provides corroborative evidence of the date he launched into his solo career.¹² A more precise address 42, Little Queen Ann Street, is given in an undated advertising flyer for this device.¹³

The Queen Ann Street years, 1773–89

Confirmation that Joseph Merlin had launched into the musical-instrument making business on his own account by 1773 (therefore shortly after leaving Cox) is found in a very informative newspaper advertisement placed in February 1782 by his former foreman, Louis Lavigne Verel (of whom more later), just after he had left Merlin's employ.

LAVIGNE VEREL; from Mr. MERLIN's,

Harpsichord and Great and Small Piano Forte Maker,

Removed from No. 7, Gresse-street, Rathbone-place, to

No.2, Maddox-street, corner of Swallow-street, Hanover-

Square; respectfully informs the Nobility and Gentry, that

after being nine years with Mr. Merlin, as chief finisher of

the above instruments, he has now commenced the same bu-

siness for himself … ¹⁴

From this we may infer that that from 1773 to early 1782 the main workshop for Merlin's keyboard instruments had been located at 7, Gresse Street, under Verel's supervision.

As has previously been widely reported, on 12 September 1774 Merlin was granted a patent (No. 1081), for a pianoforte stop, which, he stated, could be fitted to any existing harpsichord (Figure 2).¹⁵

Figure 2. Patent drawing of Joseph Merlin's combined harpsichord-pianoforte, 1774. The National Archives, UK, 210/15; reproduced by permission.

Donald H. Boalch has described salient features of this patent thus:

‘a compound harpsichord’ which was a combination of a single-manual harpsichord – with 2 unison registers and an octave – and a pianoforte with a down-striking action. The patent specification shews a 4-octave keyboard without the bottom F sharp. It has 2 pedals: the left-hand pedal brings on the pianoforte action working on the unison registers; the right hand pedal brings on the unison and octave registers one after the other (with a mechanism completely different from the machine stop), thereby producing the effect of a swell. ¹⁶

The Museum of Fine Arts Music Collection in Boston holds a harpsichord by Kirkman, dated 1758, to which Merlin's patent piano stop was added in 1779.¹⁷ The author has identified an advertisement for a similarly adapted instrument in an auction sale by Messrs Christie and Ansell in December 1777, indicating that in this case the modification took place at least two years earlier than in the Boston instrument, but there is no evidence that this instrument has survived. In this instance the original harpsichord was by Shudi – ‘a fine toned double key'd harpsichord by Burkat Shudi with three stops and additions of Piano Forte, and two Pedals by Merlin’.¹⁸

Merlin also manufactured combined harpsichord­-pianofortes made to this design in his own workshop. As reported by Frances Palmer, a handsome example survives in the Deutsches Museum, Munich, which is traditionally said to have come from Russia and possibly owned by the Empress, Catherine the Great (Figure 3).¹⁹ Michael Cole has described its features thus:

Figure 3. Combined harpsichord-pianoforte by Joseph Merlin, No. 80, 1780 (BN003305 Deutches Museum, Munich); reproduced by permission.

An example in the Deutsches Museum in Munich dated 1780, has four choirs of strings, two at 8^′ pitch, one at 4’, and one at 16’, with buff stop additions to the 16’, as well as to one of the 8’ sets of strings. In theory one can play either harpsichord, or pianoforte, or both together (as the patent promises). Only one set of 8 strings is available on the harpsichord, but the pianoforte stop can include the 16’ strings, which add something to what might otherwise be an indifferent tone.²⁰

Attached to this instrument is a most ingenious musical notation device, driven by clockwork and designed to record each keystroke made by the player on a paper roll, thus capturing the improvisations of the player.²¹ One wonders how well the latter succeeded in practice – it is not mentioned in any of Merlin's contemporary advertisements identified by the author, which typically give extensive lists of his current offerings (Appendix 4). Percy Scholes notes that Merlin sent such a notating machine to Prince Gallitzin in St Petersburg in 1770.²² However, further investigation has revealed that, although Gallitzen journeyed to St Petersburg with his young bride to introduce her to Empress Catherine shortly after his marriage in Aix-la-Chapelle in August 1768²³, by 1770 the newlyweds had arrived in The Hague to take up residence there, Catherine having appointed Gallitzin to be her Ambassador in that city.²⁴ Assuming the accuracy of Schole's cited date, it therefore seems more likely that Gallitzen could have acquired the device on behalf of the Empress during his time at The Hague. If the device attached to the Munich harpsichord-pianoforte is indeed the one supplied to Gallitzin in 1770, that would suggest it was originally attached to a different earlier instrument and subsequently married to this 1780 model; alternatively, it might be a similar example, supplied at a later date.

In April 1774, a newspaper notice of a forthcoming concert at Carlisle House announced the performance of ‘a new Concerto upon Mr Merlin's lately invented Harpsichord, by Mr BACH’,²⁵ thus providing evidence that the instrument was publicly in use before Merlin was granted patent rights in September of that year – an issue which, as we shall see, was destined to become important in his court case against Ephraim Celsson in 1779.²⁶ On 18 January 1775 Merlin advertised such an instrument for sale at No. 61, Little Queen Ann Street, Portland Chapel, claiming a ‘daily increasing demand’, suggesting that production of this model was already well under way by this date.²⁷ The same advertisement also includes his patent Rotisseur Royal and his accurate Money-Scales, demonstrating that the latter had already been designed and were available for sale some years earlier than has previously been supposed.²⁸ In Gainsborough's portrait of Merlin dated 1781 (Figure 1) he is depicted holding such a miniature beam balance.²⁹

Evidence from the Nicholl v. Merlin court documents (discussed below) now strongly suggests that Merlin remained at No. 61, Little Queen Ann Street, until 1778, before moving to No. 66, Queen Ann Street East, in that year.³⁰ These reveal that in August 1776 he commissioned a builder, Thomas Nicholl, to build for him a substantial, high-specification house situated on the corner of Duchess Street and Portland Place, designed to incorporate his showrooms and workrooms, as well as residential accommodation – an ill-fated deal, destined to end in acrimony, as we shall see.³¹ The apparent affluence of his business – it already seems a thriving and lucrative enterprise by 1776 – suggests he must have been supported by wealthy backers. It is difficult to see how he could have otherwise achieved this level of prosperity after only three years of sole trading.³²

Also in 1776, Joseph Merlin recruited a journeyman, Ephraim Celsson, to join his workforce, specifically for the purpose of making combined harpsichord-pianofortes to the design of his 1774 patent. A rancorous parting of the ways was destined to follow only a year later, when Merlin discovered that Celsson had been making and selling copies of the instrument under his own name without permission, in consequence of which in 1779 he (Merlin) was to take court action against his former employee, seeking both recompense and an injunction to prohibit him continuing to do so, claiming infringement of the patent rights (see below).³³

In April 1778, by now removed to 66, Queen Ann Street,³⁴ Merlin placed advertisements announcing both ‘a new invented Fiddle, with five strings’ and ‘a new improvement to violin design’ described as ‘a very simple contrivance by which the pegs cannot get loose, and will help the tuning with a wonderful facility, safety, and accuracy’. Rather extravagantly, he also claimed that he could ‘also improve the worst Fiddle to that degree as to be equal to the best Cremona’.³⁵ A newspaper notice in the previous month had announced a new stringed instrument, the Ipolito, said to have been invented by Mr Barthélémon and made by Mr Merlin. Peter Holman has suggested that this instrument may have combined the tunings of the violin and viola.³⁶ In August 1779, Merlin listed in some detail the various inventions he offered for sale:

 … the various in-

struments and pieces of mechanism, which he has construct-

ed, such as his great collection of Patent Piano Forte, dou-

ble Bass harpsichords, and portable instruments called Ce-

lestinetts, and his new Violins, Tenor and Bass, and im-

proves violins, tenor, and bass, tho’ ever so bad, makes them

equal to the best Cremonea … ³⁷

The closing years of the decade were however to prove a stressful time for Merlin in other ways. On 16 April 1779 he found himself sued for breach of contract by the assigns of Thomas Nicholl (builder of a house commissioned to be constructed to his very particular specifications), after he (Merlin) had categorically refused to complete the deal; and in November of the same year, as stated earlier, he himself brought a Complaint in the Court of Chancery against his former employee, Ephraim Celsson, claiming infringement of his patent rights. Evidence from these two court cases is discussed below.

Nicholl v. Merlin

³⁸ On 16 April 1779, Thomas Nicholl S^nr, assignee of his bankrupt son, Thomas J^nr (a builder based in Duke Street) lodged a Bill of Complaint against Joseph Merlin in the Court of Chancery, addressed to Lord Thurlow. The dispute concerned a substantial house that Merlin (described in the Bill as a harpsichord maker and mechanist) had commissioned to be built in August 1776 on the corner of Duchess Street and Portland Place, adjoining the premises of Josias Dupre (Du Pre), a wealthy merchant and money lender.³⁹ Confirmation of the exact location of this house (at that time No. 2, Portland Place) is found in Richard Horwood's Map of London, Westminster and Southwark Shewing Every House, 1792–99 (Figure 4), in conjunction with a Land Tax record for the widow of Josias Dupre, who is shown as resident at No. 1 Portland Place in 1781, her husband having died in 1780.⁴⁰ Merlin had reneged on the deal at the last moment when the house was almost completed on the grounds that it was not finished and ready for his occupation on the agreed completion date, Michaelmas 1777.⁴¹ Nicholl's complaint provides detailed information about the internal layout and structure of the house. The three east–west rooms running from front to rear of the house on the ground, first and second floors were to measure 41 ft x 20 ft 6 inches each, expressly designed to provide large rooms to exhibit Merlin's inventions (including harpsichords). Other parts of the house were to include both work rooms and living accommodation.

Figure 4. Detail from Richard Horwood's Map of London, Westminster and Southwark Shewing Every House, 1792–1799. 2, Portland Place, is shown on the left of the picture, just above the grounds of Foley House; reproduced by permission of Motco Enterprises Limited, ref: www.motco.com

According to Nicholl, Merlin proved an exacting client. His insistence on minute attention to detail had, Nicholl claimed, caused great delays because of the difficulty of procuring the precisely specified materials. He had, for example, insisted that the front of the house must be built of Malms Stock bricks,⁴² which were at that time in short supply, and that not even one board containing a single knot was to be laid in the large principal rooms. Merlin, on the other hand, averred that the reason for the delays was Nicholl's shortage of credit and also that his workmen were heavily involved in other projects and disappeared to work elsewhere for several weeks at a time – a salutary reminder that such widely differing perceptions between builders and clients are nothing new.⁴³ Nevertheless it appears that the two remained on amicable terms for some time. Indeed, in the early summer of 1777 they had taken a ride out into the countryside together and chatted about Merlin's forthcoming marriage. According to Nicholl, Merlin had been doubtful that the marriage would take place in time for him to move into the new house that winter. Merlin, on the contrary, protested in his own testimony that he had wanted the house completed as soon as possible in readiness for him and his intended wife. This is a most surprising finding, since Merlin has hitherto been presumed by historians to have remained single throughout his life. As we shall see later, it now appears this was not the case.⁴⁴

By the spring of 1778 Nicholl had run out of funds and was declared bankrupt. He assigned all his rights to his father as executor, who proceeded with completion of the house to meet Merlin's specifications.⁴⁵ Merlin, however, repeatedly refused to accept it.⁴⁶ In consequence of the delay, he said, he had been forced to lease another house and warehouse and fit both out at great expense in order to carry on his business. This situation accounts for his previously noted change of address at this time.

No record of the judgement in the case has been located. However, a notice placed in The London Gazette on 30 March 1779 records the forced sale of certain premises concerned with Thomas Nicholl's bankruptcy, including ‘a complete modern-built house, situate on the East Side of Portland Place, and the corner of Duchess-street, and may be entered upon immediately’. So it is safe to assume that by the time Merlin filed his Answer to the Bill of Complaint the following August the house had already been disposed of to another purchaser.⁴⁷

Since it was a requirement of the court at that time that a Defendant's sworn answer to a Bill of Complaint should be signed personally in the presence of the clerk of the court,⁴⁸ Joseph Merlin's signature appears at the foot of his Answer, providing us with a rare example of his authentic signature (Figure 5).⁴⁹

Figure 5. Joseph Merlin's signature on his Answer to Thomas Nicholl's Bill of Complaint; The National Archives, UK C12_1057_15_003; reproduced by permission.

Meanwhile, another storm was brewing which would threaten to rock Joseph's business enterprise. Discovering that instruments that imitated his combined harpsichord-pianoforte were being made and sold, he alleged, in blatant infringement of his patent rights, he took his former employee, Ephraim Celsson, to court, seeking an injunction to prevent him from continuing to do so.

Merlin v. Celsson (Celson) 1779–81

⁵⁰ On 29 November 1779 Joseph Merlin lodged a Bill of Complaint in the Court of Chancery (addressed to Lord Thurlow), alleging that Ephraim Celsson, his former employee, had been making and selling combined harpsichord-pianofortes in contravention of his patent rights without his knowledge or consent.⁵¹ Celsson's sworn Answer, which tellingly describes him as ‘A Pauper’, is dated 30 May 1780. For reasons presently not established, it transpires that the case was later transferred to the Court of Kings Bench, where it was heard by Lord Mansfield and a ‘special jury’ on 22 February 1781, the Defendant pleading not guilty to the accusations made against him.⁵²

In his sworn Answer, dated 30 May 1780,⁵³ Celsson testified that he had begun working for Mr Merlin on 5 November 1776. He was taken on as a journeyman employed in making such instruments, with an agreement that he would be employed for a term of seven years – at £1.1 s. per week for the first three years and £1.4 s. per week for the remaining term of four years. However, he claimed, only a year later Merlin had picked a quarrel with him for no valid reason and dismissed him. He had pleaded to be reinstated, but Merlin had declined and refused to honour his contract – a decision that had left Celsson and his young family in dire straits.⁵⁴

Celsson strenuously denied that he had gained the knowledge and expertise to imitate the construction of such instruments during his employment with Merlin. On the contrary, he indignantly explained, he had worked as a harpsichord maker for the past 15 years and had been a Master harpsichord maker for ten years before being employed by Merlin,⁵⁵ during which time he had made a great many instruments, including pianofortes and other musical instruments. It was Merlin who, so Celsson claimed, had never himself served any apprenticeship as a musical-instrument maker and had learnt from his (Celsson's) techniques⁵⁶ and, once having done so, had manufactured an excuse to dispense with his (Celsson's) services. Celsson also insisted that several other people had been making similar instruments for some time before the date of Merlin's patent, and in particular at Mr Cox's premises, where he had been previously employed.

Lord Mansfield's surviving judicial notebooks provide an enlightening summary of the verbal testimonies of witnesses called to give evidence in the case, heard by a ‘special jury’ on 22 February 1781.⁵⁷ A helpful aid to understanding the issues under consideration in patent disputes at this time is found in a most useful succinct summary given by James Oldham in connection with an earlier patent action, Liardet and Adam v. Johnson, 1778.

In an infringement action, such as in this case, the plaintiff was required to show three things; that the defendant used the discovery that the plaintiff claimed to have invented; that the discovery was not in prior use; and that the specification ‘is such as instructs others to make it.’ The third requirement was intended to give the inventor the benefit during the term of the monopoly and the public the benefit afterward.⁵⁸

First to take the stand in the case of Merlin v. Celsson was Dr [Charles] Burney, who testified that he had been shown a model of the invention eight or nine years previously (therefore in 1772/3). The hammers, he said, operated above the strings instead of below them; it was different to any he had ever seen or heard of at that time and was a new invention. He had had such an instrument made for his own use immediately and more had been made by his recommendation. He had often advised Merlin to take out a Patent. Two years previously (therefore c.1779), he told the court, he had also seen the instrument now said to have been made by Celsson.

An example of the instrument made by Merlin was then produced in court, followed by the one made later by the Defendant. Both were pronounced by Dr Burney to operate by the same mechanisms as in the patent specification. He reiterated that, except for the Plaintiff, he was not aware that anybody had made such an instrument before the patent was granted, though examples were made for others (by the Plaintiff) at about that time. He had had one in his possession for eight years and he believed that both his own and two others were made before the patent.⁵⁹

Lord Mansfield also recorded brief notes on the evidence given by Stoddart [recte Stodart] and [John] Broadwood. Stodart testified that he had never seen a spring mechanism like that of the patent. His Lordship's notes on Broadwood's testimony are a little more detailed. Broadwood observed that he had never seen the mechanism before the patent was taken out, its merit being to join a pianoforte and harpsichord. He could not say whether or not he himself could make it. The Defendant's, he said, was the same in respect of the specification. While he considered it an ingenious invention, it might, he opined, be possible to join two such instruments together in another manner.

Next to testify was one ‘Jenkins’, who, from his evidence, may be deduced to have been working for Merlin.⁶⁰ He confirmed that Celsson had been ‘sent to the Plaintiff’ in November 1776, and had then been hired for many years. He was employed in making this invention but had stayed only until November 1777, when Merlin had accused him (Celsson) of having copied his instrument. The latter had not denied this and so had been dismissed, though he (Jenkins) stated he had not been present at the actual parting of the ways.

Mr Christy [sic]⁶¹ told the court that he had sold an instrument of this type for Celsson three years earlier to a gentleman in Berners Street. Later in the trial, following the testimony of a Mr Wilkinson who stated he had purchased a similar example made by the Defendant at auction in 1779, he recalled that he had in fact sold two, one about three years earlier and a second the following season, possibly in May 1779.

Jas. [James] Cox was then called as a witness for Celsson. His evidence, as recorded by Lord Mansfield, appears curiously self-defensive in tone. He opened by saying that he did not remember the Defendant working with him. He had, he went on, such an instrument at home made by the Plaintiff – the original inventor – adding that the Defendant never made any. He (Cox) employed people on the Plaintiff's plan to finish instruments, never to begin them.⁶² The carcasses, he continued, were begun and made by the Plaintiff and he (Cox) employed men with his privilege [sic] to finish what the Plaintiff had begun.⁶³ He (Cox) had never begun one, nor sold one. Three years earlier he had made a present of one and had given another to cover a debt. The Plaintiff, who had left his employ in 1772, was the original inventor and Cox had never seen such a frame before that time.

The next witness, Ro: [Robert] Faulkner [recte Falkener],⁶⁴ on the other hand, maintained that the original invention was by Backhouse [recte Backers – the pianoforte inventor and maker Americus Backers⁶⁵] and that he had seen it 14 years earlier (therefore 1767), though the Welch harp, he said, was original. Though he could not say it was the same, it answered the same purpose. He himself had not made one like it. However, Backers, he stated, did not unite a pianoforte and harpsichord in this way.

One further witness Chas. Croll [probably Crole]⁶⁶ testified that he had never seen one before 1774; he had, however, seen two at Cox's since. Stating that an actual instrument would give more insight than the paper specification, he was not positive whether he could be able to make one; he had not tried to do so.

Finally, Lord Mansfield notes Stodart's response to an additional question put to him relating to Falkener's evidence. Stodart stated that eight years earlier he had lived with Backhouse (Backers) ‘a year’ and that he had never seen an instrument of this kind made by him, adding ‘I tune [sic] his from the beginning’, presumably meaning that he had tuned Backers' earliest instruments. In the light of both Stodart's and Broadwood's statements, it is interesting to recall that Robert Stodart had himself taken out a patent for a combined harpsichord and piano in 1777, therefore after Merlin's and before this case was brought. However, as Michael Cole has reported, ‘whereas Merlin's [patent] was a pianoforte stop applied to a harpsichord, Stodart's was fundamentally a piano modified to incorporate a harpsichord.’⁶⁷ Michael Latcham has observed that in Stodart's design the two actions appear to have been equally important and that ‘this single-manual instrument was to combine an up-striking piano action, the one already invented by Backers in 1771 with a harpsichord action.’⁶⁸ The Smithsonian Institution holds in its collection a combination instrument that bears Stodart's name on the name-board; however, the inscription is considered to be fraudulent.⁶⁹ A plate of this name-board appears in Boalch, Makers Harpsichord and Clavichord (2^nd edn, 1974, Plate 13). No other examples are known to survive.

Lord Mansfield awarded a mere one shilling in damages to the Plaintiff – seemingly a trivial amount. However, the major benefit of this ruling was to establish the technical validity of the claim, thus achieving Merlin's objective of prohibiting Celsson from continuing to make instruments copying his patent design during the remaining years of its term.⁷⁰

In the Land Tax records for 1780 we find Joseph Merlin still listed as the occupier of 66, Queen Ann Street. From this same address in this year he advertised for sale ‘his great collection of Patent Piano Forte, double bass Harpsichord, and portable instruments called Celestinas, new and improved violins.’⁷¹ In 1781, the year of the judgement in the case of Merlin v. Celsson, a newspaper columnist reported that Mr Merlin had completed an extraordinary instrument:

This Instrument is in one and the same Case, a Harpsichord, Piano-forte, Hautboy, Trumpet and Kettle Drum; it is a keyed Instrument, and it to be played like a Harpsichord. Mr. Bach is to be the first public Performer on the Instrument, and in his Concerts it is to be introduced … ⁷²

Evidence from one of Merlin's later museum catalogues (c.1789) suggests that this model continued to be made for some years to come.⁷³

Kirby implied in his obituary of Merlin that after the patent court case the inventor decided that he would no longer bother with patents, trusting instead in his ingenuity and reputation for good workmanship to sell his wares.⁷⁴ It now seems the court case in 1781 may indeed have proved a catalyst for a change in Merlin's working arrangements as a musical-instrument maker. Early the following year we find Louis Lavigne Verel, his erstwhile foreman, placing an advertisement in the London press announcing that he had left Merlin's employ to set up in business on his own account in Maddox Street, Hanover Square, not far from Merlin's main establishment. Presumably he would not have dared to do so had he not parted from Merlin on amicable terms.

Louis Lavigne Verel (–1783)

As reported earlier, on 7 February 1782 Lavigne Verel placed a lengthy announcement in the press stating that he had left Mr Merlin's employ after nine years as his chief finisher of musical instruments at 7, Gresse Street,⁷⁵ and commenced business alone.

LAVIGNE VEREL; from Mr. MERLIN's,

Harpsichord and Great and Small Piano Forte Maker,

Removed from No. 7, Gresse-street, Rathbone-place, to

No.2 Maddox-street, corner of Swallow-street, Hanover-

Square; respectfully informs the Nobility and Gentry, that

after being nine years with Mr. Merlin, as chief finisher of

the above instruments, he has now commenced the same bu-

siness for himself … and he hopes to be honoured with the favor,

of their commands. In the course of nine years application

to improve the said instruments; he has found a new method

to construct the Piano Forte with a double bass and octave

by this new construction he has rendered the touch so light

and easy, that it may be played as quick as possible, without

feeling the least interruption by any hard resistance in the

keys; and by the same method he has found means to sup-

press all the noise which has been heretofore complained of,

and flatters himself that the sound of that instrument is of

a superior quality. The said instrument may be seen every

day, Sunday excepted, as No. 2, Maddox-street, Hanover square … ⁷⁶

Also included later in this same advertisement are ‘small piano-fortes of a new design which prevents the hammers repeating on the strings when playing fast, violins, and combined harpsichords, piano-fortes and organs’. When considered in conjunction with Ephraim's Celsson's claim that Merlin had been inexperienced in the field of keyboard-instrument making in the early 1770s, the items described in this advertisement lead one to ponder whether perhaps some of the innovations attributed to Merlin might have emanated from the mind of his foreman. Also in the same notice Verel offered for sale small money scales, which, from their description, appear remarkably similar to those that Merlin had been selling over the course of the previous decade.⁷⁷

Alas, poor Verel's enterprise was destined to be short lived. He died intestate the following year and was buried at St Pancras Old Church on 13 May 1783. An inventory of his assets reveals that he died a poor man. His estate totalled only £170.18 s, including modest household goods and a pitiful bundle of old clothes, all sold by his executor, Jean Baptiste Verel. His stock of instruments, itemised in the inventory,⁷⁸ included ‘a great double bass piano forte, valued at about £60’; a great pianoforte, which had been left with one John Compton as surety for a debt, said to be worth £15; a square piano, sold for £18.18; two very small square pianos, estimated to be worth £10.10; two unfinished fiddles and one old fiddle.

An extant small portable piano, which is dated 1783 (Figure 6) – and therefore completed shortly before Verel's death – may be a surviving example of the type of ‘very small square piano’ described above.

Figure 6. ‘Verel portable’. First published in C. F Colt and A Miall, The Early Piano (London, 1981), 30; reproduced by permission of Stainer and Bell Ltd., London, England ref: www.stainer.co.uk

On 12 May 1784 Mr Compton, opposite Trinity Chapel, Conduit Street, Hanover Square, presumably the John Compton referred to in the inventory, advertised for sale:

Two new and capital Instruments, made in very handsome wood inlaid case, viz. A GRAND DOUBLE BASS PIANO FORTE, with an octave, five fine stops, by pedal, &c. A GRAND PIANO FORTE, with pedal.

He added that his only reason for selling them was that they have been left to him by the maker, who was lately deceased, and as he has no occasion for them, he thought this method the surest method to part with them.⁷⁹

The year 1782 also marked a significant milestone in Merlin's family life. On 20 June 1782, his half-brother Charles (later of Strasbourg), married Margaretha Elizabeth Zahlmeister at the church of St Olave, Southwark.⁸⁰ It is worthy of note that one of the witnesses to the ceremony was Balthasar Silberrad, a wealthy Southwark-based merchant.⁸¹ One wonders whether he may have been one of Joseph's influential backers.

Merlin in Princes Street, 1783–1803

It can now be confirmed that Merlin had taken possession of No. 2, Princes Street, by April 1783, when he advertised that his Museum of Musical Instruments and Mechanical Inventions was open for inspection by lovers of the Arts at this address.⁸² But perhaps the most surprising finding for this year is the record of the marriage of Joseph Merlin to Ann Goulding (–1793),⁸³ which took place on 17 September 1783 at the church of St Saviour, Southwark, where both parties declared themselves resident.⁸⁴ Merlin's signature in the register (Figure 7) resembles that of his sworn answer to Nicholl's Bill of Complaint in 1779 (Figure 5).

Figure 7. Entry in the parish register of St Saviour Southwark, of the marriage of Joseph Merlin and Ann Goulding, 17 September 1783 (St Saviour, Southwark, Register of marriages, P92/SAV, item 3044); reproduced by permission of The City of London; London Metropolitan Archives.

Whether Ann was the same lady he had been intending to marry in 1776 (as he had openly discussed with his builder, Nicholl)⁸⁵ perhaps we shall never know. Two children were born of the union, Ann Johanna, baptised 19 November 1786,⁸⁶ followed by Joseph, baptised 18 May 1790, both at St Andrew Holborn. In both instances the parish register gives the address of the parents as Shoe Lane, not Princes Street. Merlin advertised ‘a genteel First Floor to let, furnished at 2, Princes Street’ in 1784, an indication that he was not living there at that time.⁸⁷ Although his name does not appear in the Land Tax records for Shoe Lane during this period, according to a Topography of London, 1810, a block of apartments adjacent to No. 50, Shoe Lane was named ‘Merlin's Rents’.⁸⁸ One wonders if perhaps his wife and children were housed there, living in discreet anonymity, or alternatively in a suite of rooms within another household in this vicinity.⁸⁹ That Merlin nevertheless publicly continued to proclaim himself a single man is confirmed by a notice he placed advertising for a tenant at his Princes Street property in January 1786.

GENTEEL LODGING.

MR. MERLIN, Prince-street, Hanover-

square, well known for his mechanical inventions,

being single, and not having occasion for a whole house,

would like to accommodate a single Gentleman of charac-

ter, with genteel furnished apartments. He thinks this

might prove agreeable to a Gentleman of a mechanical and

musical turn, who might have an opportunity of observing

and gratifying his curiosity in numerous respects … ⁹⁰

One may surmise he felt it politic to maintain his image of a fancy-free man about town for the purpose of promoting his business.

Earlier, in July 1784, Merlin announced that he had for sale ‘a patent Double Bass Piano Forte Harpsichord similar to that he has lately sent to the Infanta of Spain’ – clear evidence of prestigious royal patronage. In the same notice he advertised for experienced finishers to work for him on an occasional basis.

 … N.B. Wanted some complete harpsichord and piano-forte finishers, who are perfect in the [tuning?] [illegible] and [illegible] able to work occasionally. Enquire as above. None but such as are perfect in the business need apply, or expect encouragement.⁹¹

It would appear he was successful in recruiting suitable applicants since in 1786 he advertised not only a ‘patent double bass pianoforte harpsichord, with twenty different stops, as well as his grand patent pianoforte, with four unisons’⁹², but also an additional invention:

 … a new invented machine, that will play kettle-

drums and trumpets and may be added to any harpsichord;

it may be used with or without the harpsichord at pleas-

ure; also undertakes to build mechanical organs, which

will imitate wind and instrumental music, with

kettle-drums, trumpets, &c.⁹³

Frances Palmer (The Ingenious Mechanick, 94, 134) cites an entry from one of Merlin's catalogues, dated c.1789, for a mechanical organ which may have been an example of one of these latter instruments: ‘IV A Mechanical Organ in a very elegant case, which after it is wound up, continues for above half an hour to play a variety of the most pleasing and fashionable tunes.’ Clive Edwards quoting Sophie La Roche (‘Sophie in London’) reports a variety of objects that could be found in Merlin's premises including:

Neat little writing – reading – or working tables, combined with charming soft toned pianos … Others with pianos concealed, and clever desks with lights attached for quartettes set up in less than three minutes, which if not required for music might be converted into a nice piece of furniture for playing chess … ⁹⁴

In November 1787 Merlin announced he had opened his Great Room for the season at 11, Princes Street, Hanover Square – a new (or additional) address. An intriguing item listed in his collection consisted of ‘two antique busts by means any person may converse with another without being heard by the company’⁹⁵ – an early forerunner of the telephone? In January 1788 Samuel Bury of 113, Bishopsgate was granted a patent for what appears to be a very similar listening device – an additional item in his patent No. 1637, which refers mainly to a new pianoforte invention:

A temple is shown in the drawing with a bent tube issuing from the top and terminating in a bell mouth piece. A corresponding concave mouth-piece is attached to a distant column. ‘The receiver being placed to the temple, or any other instrument or before a person's mouth, conveys the sounds or voice to a distant place.’ The corresponding piece at a distance ‘receives the sound from the tube and returns an echo’.⁹⁶

Could it be that Bury was one of the individuals recruited to make instruments for Merlin? In this connection, it is interesting to observe that William David Dettmer, son of George Dettmer, was apprenticed to Samuel Bury in 1787. Both father and son would later become well-known and respected pianoforte makers in their own right during the first half of the nineteenth century.⁹⁷ Bury also had a working connection with George Goulding (later of Goulding & D'Almaine) who in 1788 advertised a music-selling agency at Bury's premises.⁹⁸ Goulding's advertisement also includes reference to a Royal Concert Piano Forte ‘comprising the Harpsichord, Organ, Dulcimer, Dulceano, Harp and Flute’, of which he states he is the sole vendor at the west end of the Town. Unfortunately, however, he fails to name the maker. The author has been unable to establish any connection between George Goulding and Ann Goulding, wife of Joseph Merlin, but it is interesting to speculate whether the two may have been related.

In 1789, the year in which Merlin announced he had invented his well-known light two-wheeled chariot for one horse only,⁹⁹ he also advertised the addition of another novel musical invention to his collection, a Harp played with keys: ‘A Harp which plays with keys and produces diminuendo and crescendo. During the performance, it displays a celestial body of sound, resembles the human voice, gives the effect of fiddles and basses and is most admirably calculated for the Expressive.’¹⁰⁰ Frances Palmer reports on a catalogue description of vocal harps, which would appear to tally with this instrument:

25. The VOCAL HARP, IS THE BODY OF A Welch Harp strung with catgut,

and laid on one side, forming an instrument somewhat similar to a

Harpsichord. It has a regular set of keys, by playing on which the most

melodious and pleasing sounds may be obtained, alternatively resembling

Violins, Violincellos, Tenor, Flageolets, Eolian Harps, and a full Organ.¹⁰¹

Curiously, despite the survival in the Brussels Conservatoire of a most interesting undated upright pianoforte of unusual and innovative design which bears Merlin's name,¹⁰² the author has located no mention of this type of instrument amongst the items advertised by Merlin in his lifetime. Possibly it was a ‘one-off’ prototype that never proceeded beyond that stage. An upright pianoforte by Merlin was however advertised in 1811, several years after his death, in an auction sale by Mr John Few. It was reported to be part of the stock in trade of one Mr G.D. Fontaine, an upholsterer who was removing to Dorking.¹⁰³

Merlin in the 1790s – declining health and productivity

In 1793 a flurry of advertisements appeared announcing yet more novel clockwork devices on show in Merlin's museum (Appendix 4). Then, at the very height of this prodigious activity, tragedy struck the Merlin household. Ann Merlin died – her burial is recorded at Christ Church, Southwark on 22 November 1793.¹⁰⁴ Although no further details of the circumstances have emerged, one may imagine that Merlin, left a widower with infant children, would have been deeply affected by this loss. Possibly it might account for the onset of the ill health that afflicted him during subsequent years. Certainly little was heard of him in the press for some time. The author has located no press advertisements, either for further musical instruments, his museum, or any other work for the whole of the year 1794.

At last in March 1795 his long silence in the press was broken by a brief notice announcing that Merlin's Mechanical Museum was open for business as usual¹⁰⁵ followed in April of that year by an announcement of a fascinating new invention of a clock activated by magnetism:

MAGNETICAL PROBLEM

THOUGH Merlin has not produced any thing

new for some time, he respectfully assures the Public that

he has not been idle, but has been expending both money and

labour for their amusement. He begs leave to inform them that

he has now ready for inspection a most curious, and at the same

time simple piece of Machinery, which, if he does not flatter him-

self too much, he thinks will be well worthy the observation of

the curious; it consists of a Clock that has neither wheels, springs,

nor weights, but acts by magnetism alone, and points to the hours

and minutes by the same hand … ¹⁰⁶

In December of the same year he announced he had added an additional room to showcase an increasing number of curiosities,¹⁰⁷ after which yet another period of silence ensued until February 1797, when he advertised a new invented time piece ‘three feet diameter, in the form of a Watch’¹⁰⁸ and in September a distorting mirror, designed for amusement of his clientele.¹⁰⁹ Eventually, in July 1799, he made a public apology in the press for the diminishment of his activities, explaining that he had suffered a long illness of more than two years. Anxious to complete a grand mechanical organ that was in the course of construction, he advertised for a well-qualified organ builder to assist in the workmanship of this instrument.¹¹⁰

Further evidence of his decreasing personal involvement with his museum is found in a notice placed in 1801. He ‘informs the Public in general, that it is greatly against his inclination to let his people exhibiting his MECHANISM, make any charge for Catalogues, as he always intended to give them gratis’ and goes on to ask that ‘no gratification may be made to any of his people for shewing his Mechanisms.’ Reading between the lines, these remarks suggest that showroom staff had been taking full advantage of his absence to line their own pockets.¹¹¹

In January 1803, Merlin made what may have been his last public appearance, when a newspaper reported that he had ‘appeared in Hyde-park on Sunday last, in a carriage without horses, and attracted universal notice. He kept the vehicle in motion by means of a windlass, and it went with tolerable facility, except against a rising ground.’¹¹² Four months later this prodigiously gifted man was dead. His burial is recorded in the parish register of St Mary's Church, Paddington, on 8 May 1803.¹¹³ Kirby's statement in his obituary that Merlin died a ‘single man’¹¹⁴ has consistently been interpreted as meaning that he had never married. Since the newly discovered evidence from parish registers indicates he had been a widower for ten years at the time of his death, Kirby's information is of course factually accurate – Merlin was a single man at the time of his death. However, it seems possible this may have been a careful choice of words designed to respect Merlin's desire for privacy, even unto the grave.

Merlin's death (1803) and its aftermath

As Anne French has reported, shortly before he died in 1803, Merlin made his will.¹¹⁵ The main beneficiaries were named as his brother Francis, his sister Elizabeth Toussaint of Liège,¹¹⁶ his half brother Charles of Strasbourg (an inventor) and his ‘niece’ Ann Merlin, though little more has been known about them. French suggested that this Ann Merlin may have been his illegitimate daughter,¹¹⁷ a suspicion that now appears prescient since almost certainly she was his daughter, Ann Johanna, the firstborn child of his wife, Ann Goulding. His two executors were named as Sylvanus Jenkins, identified by Merlin as having been his assistant for many years, and his friend, Thomas Fletcher Hewlett, an ironmonger of the Strand (see Appendix 2 for information on these gentlemen).

In March 1804 The Morning Chronicle announced that Merlin's Museum would remain open for two months longer, after which it was to be disposed of for the benefit of surviving relatives.¹¹⁸ However, according to Sun Fire Insurance records, by October of that year John Wigley and John Weeks were running the establishment as a going concern.¹¹⁹ Possibly they had bought it in its entirety or, alternatively, they may have been running it on behalf of the executors of Merlin's estate. Four years later in 1809 the contents of the museum at Merlin's Rooms, Princes Street, were sold at auction.¹²⁰ Either John Wigley retained some of the contents for his own use or, if at that time they still belonged to Merlin's estate, purchased a substantial part of the collection. Sylvanus Jenkins had retired to his home county of Somerset sometime before 1812 (the year in which he made his will), and in 1810 Thomas Fletcher Hewlett was declared bankrupt.¹²¹ One wonders whether Hewlett's escalating financial problems may have precipitated the sale of the contents of Merlin's Museum, if he were no longer in a position to fulfil his obligations as an executor of Merlin's estate. By 1812 Wigley had moved to 3, Spring Gardens, and in 1814 the Post Office Directory specifically lists his address as ‘Merlin's Museum, Spring-gardens’.¹²²

In 1810 the pianoforte maker George Wilkinson and his partner Robert Wornum¹²³ took over the lease of 11, Princes Street, (Wornum took up residence there) together with a piece of land at the back of No. 12. The firm built extensive showrooms and a piano factory in the garden of No. 11, but sadly this partnership was destined to be short lived. The factory accidentally burnt to the ground as a result of a fire in 1812.¹²⁴

Conclusions

The contemporary primary-source materials reported here provide insights into previously unknown aspects of Merlin's business dealings and his relationships with his workmen. Evidence from the two reported court cases suggests that he was a demanding client and apparently an irascible employer. On the other hand, from other sources he now stands revealed as a family man who, it appears, took great pains to keep his wife and children a secret. Perhaps he felt the need for a quietly private family life to counter-balance the larger-than-life show-business persona he adopted to publicise his wares. Or perhaps he just wished to shield a shy wife and children from the glare of the limelight.

The advertisement and inventory of possessions relating to his former foreman Louis Lavigne Verel provide useful information to elucidate the type of work undertaken in Merlin's musical-instrument manufacturing workshops. Other sources, most particularly his newspaper advertisements, now reveal not only more precise information and dates of his sojourns at his various addresses but also the first recorded appearance of the various inventions he offered for sale, or on show. Some of these advertisements provide unwitting testimony of his character, demonstrating an underlying sense of responsibility he felt towards his public clientele as well as his desire to present pleasing spectacles in his Museum. Although more details about his life and work remain to be uncovered, these newly identified sources now permit a clearer glimpse of the man behind the public mask.

Note on contributor

Margaret Debenham is an independent scholar living in Suffolk. Awarded her doctorate in 2001 at The Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, UK, in retirement she enjoys developing her use of Computer Mediated Communication as an innovative research tool in the field of music history. Recent publications include, ‘Piano Wars: The Legal Machinations of London Pianoforte Makers, 1795–1806’ in The Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle (2009), jointly authored with George S. Bozarth, (awarded the American Musical Instrument Society's Frances Densmore Prize, 2011); ‘Pioneer Piano Makers in London, 1737—1774: newly discovered documentary sources’ in The Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle Vol. 44 (2013), jointly authored with Michael Cole; and the ‘Roger Plenius’ entry in the Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, 2^nd edition (forthcoming).

Notes

¹ In all UK primary-source materials (including legal documents and advertisements) identified by the author, Merlin consistently refers to himself as Joseph Merlin, never as ‘John Joseph’. For this reason I have adopted this convention throughout this paper.

² Anne French, ‘Merlin, his Friends, his Patrons, and his Portrait’, in John Joseph Merlin: The Ingenious Mechanick (London, 1985), 17–32. An extract from a newspaper report of a Masquerade Ball at the Pantheon, identified by the author, illustrates Merlin's penchant for self-promotion. ‘The company, about 900 in number, consisted of a more equal and agreeable mixture than usual, of Characters and Dominos: the most striking of the former, were, Mr. Merlin, the mechanic, as a gouty gentleman, in a chair of his own construction, which, by a transverse direction of two winches, he wheeled about himself, with great facility to any part of the room … ’ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (1675), 4 March 1778, 2.

³ R.S. Kirby, ‘The Life of Mr. John Joseph Merlin’, The Wonderful and Scientific Museum or Magazine of Remarkable Characters (London, 1803), i, 274. According to Palmieri, (citing genealogical research by Pierre Bauens of Huy) Merlin's parents were Maximillien Joseph Merlin and Ann Levasseur; Robert and Margaret Palmieri, Piano: An Encylopedia (London and New York, 2003), 231. An online database of early marriages in Liège confirms that this couple did indeed marry in 1732. Ann must have died before 1743, since a second marriage of Maximilien Joseph to Marie Therese Dechesalle is recorded in 1743. Joseph Merlin mentions his half brother, Charles, in his will so it is reasonable to surmise that Charles was a child of this second marriage.

⁴ The date of Conde de Fuentes' arrival in London is confirmed by a newspaper notice on 28 May 1760 announcing that on 27 May 1760 the Conde de Fuentes had a private audience with his Majesty to present his credentials; The Public Ledger, 1 (118), 28 May 1760, 1.

⁵ Jerome Lalande, Journal d'un Voyage en Angleterre, ed. Helene Monod-Cassidy (Oxford, 1980), 70.

⁶ Lalande, Journal d'un Voyage en Angleterre, 106. According to Sir Ambrose Heal, Joseph Sutton was active 1754–84. Ambrose Heal, The London Goldsmiths, 1200–1800: A Record of the Names and Addresses of the Craftsmen, Their Shop Signs and Trade-cards (Cambridge, 1935).

⁷ City of London Record Office, Licence Book, 4, 349: Cox's licence valid for three months from 10 September 1765. Cited by Roger Smith in ‘James Cox (c. 1723–1800): A Revised Biography’, Burlington Magazine, 142 (June 2000), 353–6, quoting a list of workmen employed by Cox drawn from this source, as first reported in D. Roberts, Mystery, Novelty and Fantasy Clocks (Alglen, PA, 1999), 166. For additional information on Cox and his activities, see Clare Le Corbeiller, ‘James Cox: A Biographical Review’, Burlington Magazine, 112 (1970), 351–58 and Marcia Pointon, ‘Dealer in Magic: James Cox's Jewelry Museum and the Economics of Luxurious Spectacle in Late-Eighteenth Century London’, Economic Engagements with Art, ed. Neil de Marchi and Craufurd D.W. Goodwin (New York and London, 1999), 423–48.

⁸ The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, 1 February 1771, 93.

⁹ Land Tax registers for Shoe Lane, 1770, 1771, 1772. London, England, Land Tax Records, 1692–93: London Metropolitan Archives; accessed via www.Ancestry.co.uk, 18 July 2012.

¹⁰ Evidence recorded in Lord Mansfield's judicial notebooks relating to this case (Merlin v. Celsson: Scone Palace Archives, MS. TD 80/52/487, 107–111). The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge Lord Stormont's kind permission to consult and cite these documents and to thank Sarah Adams, Scone Palace archivist, for her invaluable advice and assistance. In 1772 James Cox lapsed into bankruptcy and began to organise his lottery at Spring Gardens in an attempt to clear his debts; see Roger Smith, James Cox: a Revised Biography (2000), 357–8. Clearly this event provided the impetus for Merlin to strike out into business on his own account.

¹¹ Merlin v. Celsson. Lord Mansfield's judicial notebooks, Scone Palace Archives: MS. TD 80/52/487, 111.

¹² Patent No. 1032 for a new invented spring jack having a reflector to increase the heat (enrolled 10 April 1773), cited by Michael Wright, The Ingenious Mechanick, B6, 66.

¹³ Heal Collection 85, 194; cited in The Ingenious Mechanick, B7, 67.

¹⁴ The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (398), 7 February 1782. See Appendix 1 for more information on the activities of Louis Lavigne Verel.

¹⁵ Patents for Inventions. Abridgements of Specifications relating to Music and Musical Instruments A.D. 1694–1856 (2^nd edn, London, 1871); see also Appendix 5.

¹⁶ Donald H. Boalch, Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440–1840 (2^nd edn, Oxford, 1974), 112. Frances Palmer provides an image of the original manuscript of the patent specification and drawing documents and a discussion of its features (Frances Palmer, ‘Merlin and Music’, The Ingenious Mechanick, C1, 97). For valuable observations on Merlin's design see also Michael Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era (1998), 244 and Michael Latcham, ‘Pianos and Harpsichords for Their Majesties’, Early Music (August 2008), 362–4.

¹⁷ The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: Edwin M. Ripin Collection, Friends of the Collection Fund: Accession Number 1977.56. Images of this instrument, together with a detailed description appear in Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, C5, 100­–1.

¹⁸ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (602), 9 December 1777.

¹⁹ Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, 95 and C2, 99. See also ‘Keilflugel (harpsichord) mit abwartsschlagender Stosszungenmechanik, Signierung: Jospehus Merlin / Privelegiarus Novi Forte Piano No. 80, London, 1780’, in Alte Musik aus view Jahrhunderten: Tasteninstrument im Deutchen Museum (1980); and Raymond Russell The Harpsichord and Clavichord: an Introductory Study (2^nd edn, London, 1973), Plate 79. Michael Latcham reports that a second privately owned example survives in Switzerland. Michael Latcham, ‘Pianos and Harpsichords for Their Majesties’, Early Music, 22 (August 2008), 389–90. Latcham also gives a detailed description of this instrument in his article ‘Merlin’, Proceedings of the Harmoniques International Congress, Lausanne (2004), 293–5.

²⁰ Michael Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era (Oxford, 1998), 245.

²¹ Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era, 245.

²² Percy A. Scholes, The Great Dr. Burney: His Life – His Travels – His Works and His Friends (Oxford, 1948) ii, 206. Scholes cites as his source Fetis, 1870, who in turn cited a notice in the Correspondence musical de Spire (1792), 398.

²³ The Cornhill Magazine, 24 (1871), 556.

²⁴ Baroness Pauline von Hugel, A Royal Son and Mother (Notre Dame, 1902), 12–16.

²⁵ The Morning Chronicle and Daily Advertiser (1525), 13 April 1774.

²⁶ The Case of Merlin v. Celsson, 1779–1781, Bill and Answer. The National Archives, UK. C 12_2119_49_001; C 12_2119_49_002.

²⁷  … The daily increasing Demand for

Merlin's Patent Pianoforte, adding to the Encomiums

bestowed on it by the most eminent Professors and

Performers in that Branch of Music, will, it is sup-

posed, be with Justice considered as a sufficient Voucher

of its Excellence, as well as a Testimony of its Right

in claiming Superiority and Preference over any In-

struments of the like Nature ever yet invented and of-

fered to the Public. The Public Advertiser (14134), 18 January 1775.

The author has been unable to establish the date of his removal from 42, Little Queen Ann Street; however, it is now clear that he can only have remained at that address for a relatively short time since Land Tax records now confirm his address was 104, Shoe Lane, in 1772 and this January 1775 advertisement gives 61, Little Queen Ann Street.

²⁸  … Orders by Letter from Town or Country, will be

Most punctually attended to, and may be addressed to

The Author, at his House, No. 61, Little Queen Ann-

Street, Portland-chapel; where will be found like-

wise invented by the same Author, his Patent Rotis-

seur Royal, which will roast any joint of Meat in two

Thirds of the Time, and with one Half of the Fewel

generally required by the common Method: an Ad-

vantage of prodigious Savings to Families.

* * Also his accurate Money-Scales on a new

Construction, &c, &c. … The Public Advertiser (14134), 18 January 1775.

²⁹ The Ingenious Mechanick, C A1, 34.

³⁰ Nicholl v. Merlin, The National Archives, UK. C12_1057_15_001; 002; 003. See also note 34.

³¹ Nicholl's Bill of Complaint against Merlin describes the premises in considerable detail, as will be discussed later. The National Archives, UK. C12_1057_15_001, 002.

³² See Appendix 3 for information on Balthasar Silberrad, mooted by the author as a possible backer in the initial stages of Merlin's business.

³³ The National Archives UK, C 12_2119_49_001; C 12_2119_49_002.

³⁴ The reason for Merlin's move to 66, Queen Ann Street, is made clear by the events described in the Complainant's Bill and Merlin's Answer in the case of Nicholl v. Merlin, discussed below.

³⁵ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (1726), 30 April 1778; repeated (1730), 5 May 1778. See also p 16 for Louis Lavigne Verel's advertisement of 1782, in which he offers apparently similar instruments for sale.

³⁶ The Public Advertiser (13562), 28 March 1778. For Peter Holman's thoughts on this instrument see: Peter Holman, Life after Death: The Viola Da Gamba in Britain (Woodbridge, 2010), 162.

³⁷ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (2122), 3 August 1779. See Appendix 4 for other items offered in this advertisement.

³⁸ The National Archives UK, C12_1057_15_001, 002, 003.

³⁹ ‘Fronting towards the north on the south side of Duchess-street and abutting westwards on the ground and premises of Josias Dupre.’ Dupre died 30 September 1780 (family tree record, Ancestry.co.uk). His will (name recorded as Josias Du Pre), was proved 27 October 1780; The National Archives, UK, PROB 11/1069/320.

⁴⁰ London Land Tax records for Portland Place in 1781 (accessed via Ancestry.co.uk, 18 July 2012). Portland Place was later re-numbered and No. 2 became No. 22 – but it appears was later demolished to make way for a new building.

⁴¹ The lease was contracted to begin after completion of the house at Michaelmas 1777, subject to the usual covenants stipulated by the Duke of Portland. The work was to be supervised for Merlin by Benjamin Pujolas, a surveyor and William Cadwell on behalf of Nicholl.

⁴² Alan Cox has described this type of brick thus: ‘Malms tended to have a more pronounced yellow colour, as can be seen, for instance on No. 30. Portland Place, built about 1778’. Alan Cox, Construction History 13 (1997), 58. Nicholl stated that he had eventually persuaded Merlin that it would be just as effective to use common bricks finished with Liardet Adams compound. This material was a novel type of stucco patented in 1773 by John Liardet. Interestingly, Liardet had entered into a business arrangement with Robert Adam and his brothers to develop use of this material in 1774 and an alleged breach of their patent rights later led to a court case heard by Lord Mansfield in 1778. John A. Dunlap ‘Liardett [sic] and Adams v. Johnson and Another’, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the English Courts of Chancery, 20 (1849), 526–8; also reported by James Oldham, The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill and London, 1992), i, 749–57.

⁴³ Merlin's answer to Nicholl's Bill of Complaint, 17 August 1779. The National Archives, UK C12_1057_15_003.

⁴⁴ See also Figure 8, Parish Register of St Saviour, Southwark – entry recording the marriage of Joseph Merlin and Ann Goulding, 17 September 1783. City of London: London Metropolitan Archives, P92/SAV, Item 3044.

⁴⁵ The house had cost £3,500 to build, according to Nicholl Senior.

⁴⁶ In a wily attempt to force him to accept ownership, Nicholl had sent a messenger round to Merlin's house purporting to have come from Lord Rochfort to leave a box containing the keys to the house with a servant. Merlin immediately returned them to Nicholl Junior, who was by then held prisoner for debt in the Kings Bench Prison.

⁴⁷ The London Gazette (11966), 5. In 1781 the Land Tax records show the occupant as Lord Sandys.

⁴⁸ The Bills of Complaints themselves however were often signed by the lawyer acting on behalf of the Complainant.

⁴⁹ Joseph Merlin's signature on his sworn Answer to Thomas Nicholl's Bill of Complaint. (The National Archives UK, C12_1057_15_003)

⁵⁰ Bill of Complaint filed by Merlin and Answer of Ephraim Celsson. The National Archives UK, C12_2119_49_001; 002: Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings 1758 to 1800. Reynardson and Edmonstone Division. Merlin v Celson [sic].

⁵¹ The spelling of Celsson's name varies; in some newspaper advertisements and parish registers it is given as ‘Celson’. However, his signature is clearly ‘Celsson’ on his sworn Answer to Merlin's Bill of Complaint. Philip James identified a newspaper advertisement for an instrument made by Celson [sic], placed in October 1778: ‘To be sold by Christie and Ansell … (Earl Ferrers decd's effects) … A remarkable fine toned Harpsichord by EPHRAIM CELSON, an instrument of a most extraordinary construction and justly esteemed the most compleat Harpsichord in the Kingdom; it contains a double Bass, two Unisons and an Octave, the Welch Harp, Piano Forte and Celestial Harp: a matchless Cabinet inlaid with Tortoise-shell and ornamented with Or boule [sic] … ’ The Public Ledger, 2 October 1778. Philip James, Early Keyboard Instruments from their Beginnings to the Year 1820 (London, 1970), 65.

⁵² Lord Mansfield's judicial notebooks. Scone Palace Archives, MS. TD 80/52/487, 107. The author gratefully acknowledges the kind assistance of Professor James Oldham, who has suggested possible reasons for this change of venue: ‘Factual disagreements ordinarily had to be resolved by a common law jury, and when it became clear in a Chancery case that a factual question required resolution, the case would be referred to the Court of King's Bench so that a jury could be impanelled for that purpose.…The case, then, that came before Mansfield and the jury was a patent infringement action calling for fact-finding about the exact nature of the instruments produced by the defendant, measured against the plaintiff's patent specification. This was resolved by the jury verdict for nominal damages (one shilling). The one-shilling verdict meant that the plaintiff's claim was viewed as valid by the jury, and that the defendant would be responsible for costs of the proceeding. The procedure then would be to send the case back to Chancery to be concluded there, with factual issues settled. But often cases would be settled at this point and no further proceedings would occur – this may be what happened in the Merlin [Martin] case.’ James Oldham, Georgetown Law, private communication.

⁵³ The National Archives, UK, C12_2119_49_002.

⁵⁴ In January 1778, shortly after his dismissal by Merlin, Celsson's wife Mary gave birth to twins, Ephraim and Christian. Eighteen months later a daughter, Ann Elizabeth, was born to the couple. Parish register, St Marylebone Church, 26 January 1778 and 24 June 1779. In these circumstances it is scarcely surprising that the family found themselves in penury.

⁵⁵ Unfortunately Celsson fails to name the Master under whom he served his apprenticeship.

⁵⁶ No firm information about the nature of Merlin's early training has been previously identified. Celsson's testimony suggests though that his apprenticeship must have been in an area other than musical-instrument making.

⁵⁷ Merlin v. Ephraim Celsson. Lord Mansfield's judicial notebooks, Scone Palace Archives, MS TD 80/52/487, 107–12. Lord Mansfield's notes, made during the court proceedings, consist of brief jottings recording his understanding of the evidence given. The notes are perhaps best described as an aide mémoire, clearly intended primarily for his personal use; his handwriting is quite difficult to decipher in places. In some instances his spelling of the names of witnesses and other individuals referred to during the course of the trial is inconsistent (no doubt written down from the spoken word at the time) – a fact that only becomes readily apparent when considered in the light of the names of musical-instrument makers and others known to have been active in the musical scene during this period. In the transcription of his Lordship's notes of this case published in Oldham (1992) the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant are shown as being ‘Martin’ and ‘Calfson’ rather than ‘Merlin’ and ‘Celsson’. James Oldham, The Mansfield Manuscripts (1992), i, 760–6.

⁵⁸ James Oldham, The Mansfield Manuscripts (1992), i, 735.

⁵⁹ That Dr Burney played Merlin's instrument in the courtroom is confirmed by a later newspaper advertisement in February 1785 which positively identifies this instrument:

‘A FINE BRILLIANT TONED DOUBLE BASS HARPSICHORD, by MERLIN, with FORTE PIANO, and other Stops, the property of A LADY of FASHION. And the identical Instrument that was played upon in the court of King's Bench, by Dr. Burney; at which time Merlin's patent for his invention was established … ’ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (3758), 24 February 1785.

⁶⁰ Merlin nominated Sylvanus Jenkins in his will as one of his executors and left him a substantial bequest of £500, stating that Jenkins had worked for him as his assistant for many years. The National Archives, UK, PROB 11/1394. See Appendix 2 for more information on Jenkins.

⁶¹ The spelling ‘Christy’ here is that given by Lord Mansfield in his notebooks. The likelihood is that the person referred to is in fact the well-known auctioneer, James Christie (1703–1803) and that the spelling has been recorded incorrectly from the verbal testimony of the witness.

⁶² This suggests that he may have contracted work out to Celsson, so considering him to be self-employed rather than an employee.

⁶³ From this evidence, it would appear that Cox himself was working as a contractor for Merlin at this time.

⁶⁴ Robert Falkener is best remembered today for having been accused of faking instruments purporting to be by Kirkman. Active as a harpsichord builder from 1761 – several years earlier than had been previously reported – even at this early stage of his career he held strong opinions on the importance of allowing the quality of a craftsman's work to speak for itself: ‘Notwithstanding it is usual for Purchasers to have the Opinion of Music-Masters upon Instruments, no Fee or Bribe will be given for the Praise of this Instrument; Mr FALKENER being determined not to encourage such base Practices.’ The Daily Register of Commerce and Intelligence, 2, 14 August 1761. For further information on Falkener see Michael Cole, ‘Fakes, Frauds and Forgeries’, in The Pianoforte in the Classical Era, 311–13; and Lance Whitehead, ‘Robert Falkener: An Eighteenth-Century Harpsichord Builder, Music Publisher and Malfeasant?’ The Galpin Society Journal, 55 (April 2002), 310–31.

⁶⁵ Americus Backers was active in London as a musical-instrument maker from 1763 and in 1771 designed and introduced a novel pianoforte action, termed the ‘English grand action’. For more information on Backers' activities see Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era, 114–128; and ‘Americus Backers’ on Michael Cole's ‘Square Pianos’ website: http://squarepianos.com/backers.html

⁶⁶ Charles Crole is listed in Bailey's British Directory, 1785 as an organ builder at 11, Wells Street. A bureau organ restored by Lammemuir pipe organs, previously attributed to John Snetzler (1710–85) is signed ‘No. 2 Charles Crole’ on the underside, suggesting he may have trained or worked as a journeyman for this distinguished maker; see www.lammermuirpipeorgans.co.uk/restoration.asp and also note 127.

⁶⁷ Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era, 248.

⁶⁸ Michael Latcham also includes an image of the drawing accompanying Stodart's patent specification (TNA 210/15), held at The National Archives, UK. Latcham, Early Music, 36, no. 3 (2008), 364.

⁶⁹ Michael Latcham, ‘The Combination of the Piano and the Harpsichord throughout the Eighteenth Century’, in Instruments A Claviers: Expressivite Et Flexibilibite Sonores: Actes Des Rencontres Internationales Harmonique, ed. Thomas Steiner (Lausanne, 2002), 145; see also Cole, The Pianoforte in the Classical Era, 248.

⁷⁰ That Celsson must have resumed activities as a maker at some time following the court case is indicated by two further advertisements for pianofortes, the first placed in 1789: ‘To be Sold, a Brilliant Toned Pianoforte, with three stops and two pedals by Ephraim Celson [sic], in an elegant mahogany case, neatly inlaid: a capital instrument. To be seen at No, 23, New Street, Carnaby Market.’ The World (665), 14 February 1789. The second in 1790 is for an even more elaborate instrument: ‘TO be SOLD. A brilliant-toned grand PIANO FORTE, with three stops, and two pedals, made by CELSSON, richly inlaid, in a purple and Satin Wood-case; a capital instrument, finished in a most exquisite Manner. To be seen at No. 13, Stephen-street, Rathbone-place, Oxford-street.’ The Public Advertiser, 24 May 1790. The author has also located a later advertisement placed in 1804 by auctioneers Williams and Son for a ‘grand piano-forte in an elegant inlaid case by Celson’ [sic]. The Times, 24 March 1804.

⁷¹ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (2365), 24 May 1780.

⁷² The Public Advertiser (14450), 31 January 1781.

⁷³ Frances Palmer cites a description of an instrument included in one of Merlin's catalogues (E2) c.1789, which appears to concur with that of this newspaper advertisement, but minus the hautboy (oboe]. It is difficult to envisage how a keyboard instrument could possibly be made to imitate a woodwind instrument of this type and most likely the newspaper advertisement is an example of hyperbole, designed to attract the attention of the reader.

XVIII. A Curious Patent Piano-Forte-Harpsichord, having Kettledrums and a Trumpet-stop, so constructed as to play together or separately with great Facility. Frances Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, 90.

For further information including detailed descriptions of Merlin's extant instruments, see Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, Catalogue section D, 111–22.

⁷⁴ R.S Kirby, The Wonderful and Scientific Museum (1803), 274, cited by Frances Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, 13. Further evidence to support a change of his working practices is found in an advertisement placed by Merlin in 1784, in which he advertised for experienced makers to assist him in making musical instruments, suggesting he had changed his manufacturing arrangements. The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (102), 4 February 1784.

⁷⁵ See Appendix 1, note 126 for information on the incoming occupants of 7, Gresse Street – Thomas Francis Prussurot in 1781 and John Prussurot, active as a carver and gilder, 1783–91.

⁷⁶ The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (398), 7 February 1782 (see also p.4 and note 14).

⁷⁷ The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (398), 7 February 1782.

⁷⁸ An Inventory of the possessions of the late Louis Lavigne Verel, 5 July 1783, prepared by his administrator and creditor, Jean Baptiste Verel. The National Archives, UK, PROB_31_718_001- 004; see Appendix 1 for a transcription of this document.

⁷⁹ The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser (4676), 12 May 1784.

⁸⁰ Parish register, St Olave, Southwark. See Appendix 3 for information on Charles Merlin and his family.

⁸¹ See Appendix 3 for information on Balthasar Silberrad.

⁸² The Morning Post (756), 1 April 1783. Land tax records for Princes Street in 1782 show Merlin's name listed adjacent to an empty property No. 2 (on a blank page to the right of the entry), presumably as an incoming tenant.

⁸³ The author has been unable to positively identify Ann Goulding's parentage. Given that her marriage to Joseph took place on 17 September 1783 at the church of St Saviour, Southwark, one possibility is that she was the Ann, daughter of John (a cabinet maker) and Ann Goulding, baptised at St Saviour, Denmark Park, on 7 April 1754.

⁸⁴ Parish register of St Saviour, Southwark, 17 September 1783. Witnesses to the marriage were John McHarg and Sam. Swift (the latter being parish clerk of St Saviour's at this time, as is confirmed by a report of his witness evidence in a case dated 1784, reported in the London Lives database): www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=t17841208-188-victim1627&div=t17841208-188#highlight. Joseph's half-brother, Charles, had been married and resident in Southwark in the previous year, providing evidence of the existence of a family connection with this area of London (see Appendix 3).

⁸⁵ Merlin's Answer to Nicholl's Bill of Complaint, The National Archives, UK, C12_1057_15_003 – see p 9

⁸⁶ One of the chief beneficiaries of Merlin's will in 1803 was named as his ‘niece’ Ann Merlin. It now seems almost certain that she was in fact his legitimate daughter. Also named in his will was Elizabeth Hazell, whom he identifies as her aunt but whose background remains a mystery. Possibly she may have been a married sister of Ann Goulding. That Ann Johanna survived into adulthood is evidenced by a notice of her marriage to Joseph Griffin at Christ Church, Southwark, on 10 December 1820, the same parish in which Ann Merlin was buried in 1793. It is worthy of note that one of the witnesses to the marriage was Mary Ann Hazell – the same surname as the aunt named in Merlin's will. It seems likely that Ann Johanna's brother Joseph died in infancy since Joseph does not mention him in his will.

⁸⁷ The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (1171), 28 July 1784.

⁸⁸ Lockie's Topography of London (1810), 181.

⁸⁹ James Cox was still resident in Shoe Lane at this time and one possibility is that he may have sheltered Ann Merlin and her children.

⁹⁰ Daily Register (328), 12 January 1786.

⁹¹ The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (102), 4 February 1784.

⁹² An example of a grand pianoforte by Merlin, dated 1786, which appears to accord with this description is described by French, The Ingenious Mechanick, C6 102–3. In 2013 this instrument was sold at auction by Christie's, London for £67,875: ‘A George III Holly and Wenge-Inlaid, Satinwood and Tulipwood-Crossbanded Mahogany Grand Piano, with Ivory and Ebony Key Coverings, incorporating Merlin's Patent “Four Unison” Stringing and Down-striking Action.’ The Collection of Professor Sir Albert Richardson, P.R.A., Christie's, King Street, London – Sale Catalogue for Sale 1186, Lot 130; 18–19 September 2013.

⁹³ Daily Register (328), 12 January 1786. This lengthy advertisement also lists many other items on sale, including:

‘a new invented machine, which may be added to any harpsichord, that by turning a winder, will play seven different tunes in one barrel; new violins made equal to the best Cremonas, and tenor and bass viols, with his new invented pegs and tail pieces, which prevent slipping … New improved music desks, which will hold four books at a time with receivers for candles and are very stable and others made to answer for a writing or reading desk and is made to rise or lower at pleasure; sanctorious balance, a machine for weighing to find the increase or decrease of the weight of any person; it will balance from four ounces to six hundred pounds weight, easy mechanical chair for gouty and infirm persons to wheel themselves about; Morpheus sleeping chairs, made to fall back and form beds at pleasure: are intended for the repose of infirm persons … ’

The description of the winder mechanism mentioned above fits that described by Frances Palmer as included in one of Merlin's catalogues (E22): ‘XVI A new invented Machine which may be added to any harpsichord and by turning a winder will play seven different Tunes on one Barrel. Price 35 Guineas.’ Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, 94.

⁹⁴ Cited by Clive Edwards, Turning Houses into Homes: a History (London, 2005), 14. Longman and Broderip were selling ‘new invented Quarter and Upright Desks’ at this time, which seem to fit the above description.

⁹⁵ The World (266), 20 November 1787; repeated (287), 14 December 1787.

⁹⁶ Extract from Patent No. 1637 granted to Samuel Bury, 15 January 1788. Specifications relating to Music and Musical Instruments A.D. 1694–1896 (2^nd edn, London, 1871), 20­–2. In 1788 Bury was listed in Lowndes London Directory as a musical-instrument maker at the above address – and in 1790 as a pianoforte maker at an additional address, 61, Old Bailey (Wakefield's Merchant and Tradesman's General Directory for London). Bailey's London Directory (1790) lists him as an organ builder.

⁹⁷ George Dettmer is listed in the Land Tax records as the occupant of 7, Gresse Street, (Merlin's former workshop) commencing 1799.

⁹⁸ The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (4663), 28 February 1788.

⁹⁹ MR MERLIN respectfully informs the Nobi-

lity and Gentry, that he has invented a variety

of curious articles, and, in particular, a light and ele-

gant two-wheel chariot for one horse only. On the

shafts is placed a hand-rail, or balcony, for the purpose

of ascending and descending with safely, and in the mid-

dle of the balcony is the Harp of Apollo, in the center

of which is fixed a double dial, which accurately shews

the several parts of a mile. An aperture is made through

the carriage, to enable those who travel in it to guide

the horse, without exposing themselves to the inclemen-

cy of the weather, and on the imperial is placed a pavi-

lion which gives a brilliancy to the whole. The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (4935), 21 January 1789.

A plate that illustrates this chariot appeared in R.S. Kirby, The Wonderful and Scientific Museum (1803) i, 74, reproduced in The Ingenious Mechanick, 111.

¹⁰⁰ The World (931), 30 December 1789. This advertisement also announces that he had ‘added to his Circus of Cupid a beautiful figure of Venus in a Car, drawn by Doves that flutter their wings and sail together with the other figures upon the surface of the still water’.

¹⁰¹ Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, 91 and catalogues C6, c.1786 and E27, c.1803.

¹⁰² Palmer, The Ingenious Mechanick, C11.106; Catalogue descriptif & analytique du Musée instrumental du Conservatorie Royal d Musique de Bruxelles (1900), iii, 201–3.

¹⁰³ The Times, 5 December 1811. George David Fontaine is listed as a cabinet maker, upholder and undertaker at 23, Great Russell Street, 1800–12 and in Dorking, Surrey in 1826. Dictionary of English Furniture Makers 1660–1840, ed. Geoffrey Beard and Christopher Gilbert (Leeds, 1986), 308.

¹⁰⁴ Ann Merlin was buried in the same area in which she and Joseph had married, ten years earlier (though in the burial ground of a different church) and where Charles Merlin was resident at the time of his marriage in 1782.

¹⁰⁵ The Morning Post and Fashionable World (7226), 30 March 1795.

¹⁰⁶ The Morning Chronicle (7963), 22 April 1795.

¹⁰⁷ The Morning Post and Fashionable World (7437), 21 December 1795.

¹⁰⁸ The True Briton (1286), 7 February 1797

¹⁰⁹ ‘ … a REFLECTING MIRROR, which operates in a stile entirely new, and must cause a risibility in the countenance of every spectator from the variety it displays in the transfiguration of the human face, and must cause infinite merriment to the polite assembly who honor him daily with their Company’ … The Observer (302), 17 September 1797.

¹¹⁰ ‘MR. MERLIN being very desirous to finish his

GRAND MECHANICAL ORGAN, which is to display a

CONCERT, but being prevented owing to his last long illness of more than

two years, and since his recovery he has been very busily employed in

making some curious pieces of Mechanism, which he is now finishing

and which requires so much of his attention as to oblige him to work per-

sonally himself: the great encouragement which he has received from

the Nobility and Gentry makes him anxious to complete the above Grand

Organ for their amusement; he therefore would be very happy to employ an

organ builder qualified to assist him in the Workmanship … ’ The Observer (394], 14 July 1799.

¹¹¹ The Courier (2673), 7 March 1801.

¹¹² Bells Weekly Messenger (354), 23 January 1803.

¹¹³ 8 May 1803, Burial register, St Mary's Paddington Green.

¹¹⁴ R.S. Kirby, The Wonderful and Scientific Museum, or Magazine of remarkable Characters (1803), i, 274; French, The Ingenious Mechanick, 15.

¹¹⁵ The National Archives, UK, PROB 11/1394; reported by Anne French, The Ingenious Mechanick (London, 1985), 14–16.

¹¹⁶ An index of Liège marriages shows the marriage of Jean Gerard Toussaint to Marie Elisabeth Merlin in 1770. The details for this lady appear to tally with those of Joseph Merlin's sister. Province de Liège – Mariages: www.scgd.net/dbase01/dbase0125.php

¹¹⁷ French, The Ingenious Mechanick, 15.

¹¹⁸ The Morning Chronicle (10,860), 10 March 1804.

¹¹⁹ Sun Fire Insurance record for John Wigley, 11 Princes Street, Hanover Square, 10 October 1804. The National Archives, UK, MS 11936/431/767829; and Sun Fire Insurance record for John Wigley and John Weeks, Princes Street, Hanover Square, proprietor of the museum, late Martins [sic – a transcription error for Merlin's], 11 February 1805. The National Archives UK, MS 11936/431/772616.

¹²⁰ The Courier (4,496), 28 September 1809. The lots included a ‘valuable organ, which cost 16,000 l in building’.

¹²¹ See Appendix 2.

¹²² Sun Fire Insurance record, 27 July 1812. The National Archives, UK, MS 11936/459/873092; and The Post Office Directory, London 1814.

¹²³ From 1 January 1810 the lease was taken over by Wilkinson and Wornum, according to the testimony of H. Broadhurst Wilkinson when writing of his family history. H.B. Wilkinson, Souvenir of the Broadhurst Wilkinsons, Privately published (1902) 24.

¹²⁴ Wilkinson, Souvenir of the Broadhurst Wilkinsons, 25; Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, 112 (July–December 1812), 38.

¹²⁵ Possibly a scribe's error for Prussurot – see note 126.

¹²⁶ The author's investigations have revealed that a Thomas Francis Prusserot of 7, Gresse Street, took out a Sun Fire Insurance policy for £400 in 1781, the year in which Verel left this address. Between 1783 and 1791 this was the workshop of John Prussurot, (presumably a relative of Thomas), a carver and gilder who undertook prestigious commissions, including much work for the Prince of Wales at Carlton House and Lord Howard of Walden at Audley End; Dictionary of English Furniture Makers, 1660–1840, (1986), 729–30. Prussurot is also listed in the Land Tax records at George Street, Camden in 1782. In a simple will proved in September 1791, he left his estate in its entirety to his wife, Jane. The National Archives UK, PROB 11/1209. It seems likely that the Prussurots also had business connections with Merlin.

¹²⁷ Possibly Charles Crole, a witness in the case of Merlin v. Celsson, 1781; see note 66.

¹²⁸ Presumably Joseph Merlin.

¹²⁹ The National Archives, UK, PROB _31_718_001; 002; 003; 004.

¹³⁰ UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices’ Indentures, 1710–1811. Board of Stamps: Apprenticeship Books, Series IR 1; The National Archives of the UK; accessed via Ancestry UK, 1 September 2012. Examples of Spiller's surviving long-case clocks command substantial prices in antique emporia today.

¹³¹ Merlin v. Celsson. Lord Mansfield's judicial notebooks, Scone Palace Archives, MS.TD 80/52/487, 109–10.

¹³² According to Horwood's Map of London 1792–1799, Ogle Street ran north from its intersection with Queen Ann Street East, almost opposite No. 66 where Joseph Merlin had been based from 1778–83.

¹³³ Sun Fire Insurance record, 27 August 1792. The National Archives, UK, MS 11936/389/604227.

¹³⁴ The National Archives, UK PROB 11/1580.

¹³⁵ Samuel Bishop is listed in Bailey's British Directory at 53, Great Pulteney Street, London in 1784–5 and at 83, Portland Street in Wakefield's Directory in 1790. His death in Great Portland Street is recorded in The New Monthly Magazine (London, 1814), 291, from which we learn that he was the father of Samuel Bishop ‘the celebrated musical composer’.

¹³⁶ 'St. James's Square: No 33', Survey of London: volumes 29 and 30: St James Westminster, 1 (1960), 206–10: www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40567 (Accessed 23 September 2012). James Gaynor and Nancy L. Hagedorn report that in 1773 Hewlett senior sold a neat mahogany chest.

‘Two gentlemen's toolchests sold by a London ironmonger survive. One, purchased by an unknown customer on Feb 13 1773, is constructed like a fashionable piece of London furniture and is covered with mahogany veneer. Hewlett probably obtained it from London cabinet maker.’ James M. Gaynor and Nancy L. Hagedorn, Tools: Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America, 1994.

In 1791 he is listed as a contributing member in Transactions of the Society Instituted at London for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, 10 (1792), 409 and Kent's Directory for 1794 gives his address as 460, Strand, occupation: ironmonger and brazier.

¹³⁷ The National Archives, UK, PROB 11/1418.

¹³⁸ The London Gazette (15998), 7 February 1807, 164.

¹³⁹ The London Gazette (16431), 1 December 1810, 1935.

¹⁴⁰ The National Archives, UK, C13_128_001; 002. The case concerned a loan made to William Hewlett and Thomas Fletcher Hewlett, both of whom who had mortgaged property as security for this purpose some years before the death of the former.

¹⁴¹ Description des Machines et Procedes specifies dan les Brevets D'Invention, de Perfectrionnement et D'Importation, dont la duree est expiree; Tome Quatrieme (Paris, 1820), 321

¹⁴² London and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597–1921 DW/MP/115/053. City of London; The Metropolitan Archives; accessed via www.ancestry.co.uk, 27 April 2012. Charles was required to state that he had lived in the parish for ‘the Space of four Weeks last past’.

¹⁴³ Birth of Marguerite Elisabeth Merlin (France, Births and Baptisms, 1546–1896’, index, FamilySearch: //familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FMC5-J3R (Accessed 25 September 2012). FHL microfilm 757104. A second daughter, Adelaide Caroline was born to the couple on 13 January 1794, also in Strasbourg. She is said to have married Pierre Antoine Marcel Perrin on 20 August 1822 and died 24 October 1867 at Levallois-Perret, Hauts-de-Seine, France. Family tree site: http://sitepasteurs.free.fr/base/pag169.htm#43 (Accessed 5 October 2012).

¹⁴⁴ ‘France, Births and Baptisms, 1546–1896’, index, Marguerite Elisabet Merlin in entry for François Charles Adolphe Edmond Pelletier, 15 October 1823; ref: 1657, Family History Library microfilm 757104.

¹⁴⁵ Maisons de Strasbourg: http://maisons-de-strasbourg.fr.nf/?page_id=2692 (Accessed 5 October 2012).

¹⁴⁶ Balthasar Silberrad is said in a family tree on Ancestry.co.uk to have been born in 1724 in Temple Neuf, Stansbourg, Bas-Rhin, France. The author has been unable to confirm this information and the date of birth given does not tally with that indicated by his age at date of death (90) given in the burial register of St Katherine Cree in 1823.

¹⁴⁷ Both Kent's Directory (1771) and London Westminster Directory (1774) list his address as No. 4, Maze Pond, Southwark. A second address, 5, Crosby Square, London, perhaps refers to his domestic residence. An insurance record in 1779 gives his occupation as Bluemaker. SUN 1 270 22\08\79: BN, policy No. 408406; insured value £700, London Lives database (Accessed 28 September 2012).

¹⁴⁸ City of London Apprenticeship Indenture, 20 August 1791. The Metropolitan Archives, City of London, Ancestry.co.uk (Accessed 27 September 2012). The Post Office Directory of London, for 1808 and 1814 both list Charles Silberrad, optician at 34, Aldgate Within.

¹⁵⁰ See note 96.

¹⁴⁹ Many of these items are listed in two surviving Catalogues of Merlin's Museum, reproduced in the Appendix of The Ingenious Mechanick (Morning Amusement, Merlin's Mechanical Exhibition, 1787–9 (Princeton University Library) and 1803 (The Wellcome Institution, 138–14). The newly located newspaper sources cited here provide a concise summary of more accurate dates for their first appearances for sale or to view. Digital sources consulted during the course of the author's research include Newspaperarchive.com, The British Library 17^th and 18^th Century Burney Collection Database and The Times Digital Archive.

Appendix 1. A posthumous inventory of the possessions of Louis Lavigne Verel, 5 July 1783

As stated in the main text, Louis Lavigne Verel died intestate in 1783. A transcription of an inventory of his possessions made by the Administrator of his Estate, Jean Baptiste Verel, is given below:

A True and perfect Inventory of all / and singular the Goods Chattels and Credits of /Louis Lavigne Verel late of the Parish of St. George / Hanover Square in the County of Middlesex deceased / which at any time since his death have come to the / Hands Possession or Knowledge of Jean Baptiste / Verel a Creditor and intended Administrator of / all and singular the Goods Chattels and Credits of the / said Deceased made and given in by virtue of the / Corporal Oath of the said Jean Baptiste Verel / follow to wit.

Table

[illegible word] Cash in the Deceased possession
at the time of his death	0. 0. 6
A Metal Watch worth as this Exhibitant believes	1. 11. 6
Eight Shirts and Stocks, two towells, five
handkerchiefs, ten pairs of Stockings, three Old
Coats and a pair of Leather Breaches, three ditto
Waistcoats, a parcel of Rags, an Old Coat
Waistcoat and a pair of Breeches, two old pair of
Silk Stockings, one Old Night Cap, some old
Shoes, two old Hats and one Old Trunk
sold by this Exhibitant to John Crussuvot [sic]^125 for	5. 10. 0
A Feather Bed, a Mattress, three Blanketts,
Six Chairs, a Stool, a Carpet, and
Three Tables, Three Stoves, a Fire Great [sic] and a
Coal Box, sold by this Exhibitant to William
Blackstock for	6. 15. 0
A Lot of different sorts of Wood, a Bench and
sundry small Articles, sold by this Exhibitant to
M^r Potter for	5. 0. 0
Folio 2
A Lott of Tools a Screw frame String and other
sundry Articles sold by this Exhibitant to William
Bradwood [sic] for	2. 9. 6
Sundry Tea Cups Saucers and other Articles
sold by this Exhibitant to M^r Prussurot ^126 for	0. 10. 0
A Grind Stone and sundry other small
Articles sold by this Exhibitant to M^r Crolle^127 for	1. 12. 0
Five Lime Tree Boards sold by this Exhibitant
to M^r Merlin^128 for	0. 11. 0
A Great Double Bass Piano Forte which
this Exhibitant believes to be worth about	60. 0. 0
A Great Piano Forte in the possession of
John Compton and which was left with him
by the said Deceased as a Security for payment
of the Sum of £10.17.6 due to him from
the said Deceased and which Piano Forte
this Exhibitant believes to be worth subject to
the payment of the aforesaid Debt about
the sum of …	15. 0. 0
Another Piano Forte sold by this Exhibitant for	24. 3. 0
A Square Ditto sold by this Exhibitant for	18. 18. 0
A Ditto which this Exhibitant believes to be worth about …	15. 15. 0
Two very small Ditto which this Exhibitant
believes to be worth about	10. 10. 0
Two New Fiddles not finished which this
Exhibitant believes to be worth about	2. 2. 0
Folio 3
One Old ditto which this Exhibitant believes to be worth about	0. 10. 6
	170. 18. 0
Lastly This Exhibitant declares That no
Goods Chattels or Credits of or belonging to the
Personal Estate of the said Deceased have at
any time whatsoever since his death come to the
Hands Possession or Knowledge of this Exhibitant
other than what are mentioned and set forth in
the before written Inventory
5^th Day of July 1783 the said
Jean Baptiste Verel was duly
Sworn to the truth of this Inventory [signed] J B Verel
Before me
[signed] Geo. Harris
Surrogate
[followed below by an illegible administrative note]^129

Appendix 2. Joseph Merlin's executors

Sylvanus Jenkins (c.1748–1816)

The first of the two executors named in Merlin's will, Sylvanus Jenkins, is described there as ‘for many years been and at present is my assistant’. The author has been unable to establish his parentage. However, on 25 March 1762, the apprenticeship duties registers record that he was apprenticed to Joel Spiller, a well-regarded clockmaker, in Wellington in Somerset, near to the Devon border.¹³⁰ Assuming that Sylvanus was the usual 14 years of age when apprenticed this places his birth year as c.1748 and he would have qualified as a journeyman c.1769. One may surmise that it was at this time he arrived in London and encountered Joseph Merlin, then in the employ of James Cox. His testimony in the case of Merlin v. Celsson confirms that he was working for Merlin in 1776 at the time when Ephraim Celsson was first taken on as a journeyman harpsichord maker.¹³¹ Later, a Sun Fire Insurance policy for 1792 records his occupation as a clockmaker at 42, Ogle Street, Marylebone (Figure 8),¹³² at which time he also insured another property at Lanchend, Colmstock [sic], Devon.¹³³ It will be noted that Ogle Street ran north from Queen Ann Street and was a mere stone's throw away from Merlin's premises in the 1770s and 1780s.

Figure 8. Detail from Richard Horwood's Map of London, Westminster and Southwark Shewing Every House, 1792–1799, showing Ogle Street and St Ann Street East; reproduced by permission of Motco Enterprises Limited, ref: www.motco.com

Having made his will in 1812 when living in Culmstock, where presumably he had returned to spend his retirement, Jenkins died in 1816 and left the lease of a house in John Street, St Pancras, a clock and all the working tools of his trade to his niece Jane Humphrey (née Trimwell), wife of Robert Humphrey.¹³⁴ He also left £50 to his friend Samuel Bishop of London Street, St Pancras, possibly the Samuel Bishop who was also a well-regarded London watchmaker and clockmaker of his day, though this remains unproven.¹³⁵

Thomas Fletcher Hewlett (1768–)

Merlin's second executor, Thomas Fletcher Hewlett, was born in 1768, the son of William and Sarah Hewlett of the Strand. William Hewlett was a prosperous ironmonger and may well have been one of Merlin's suppliers. In 1770–2 Hewlett Senior was involved in the building work of No. 33, St James Square, designed by Robert Adam.¹³⁶ William Hewlett died in 1804, leaving his business and what appeared to be substantial property holdings to his two sons, Thomas Fletcher and William Junior.¹³⁷ It appears that Thomas then opted to leave the London business to move to Kent in partnership with one Henry Gill, a gunpowder maker. However this partnership was dissolved on 30 January 1807, with Hewlett carrying on the business alone.¹³⁸ In December 1810 he was declared bankrupt.¹³⁹ This event seems to have been a consequence of a court case brought against him on 27 November 1810 by Thomas Earnshaw, a watch-timepiece maker of High Holborn.¹⁴⁰ What happened to Thomas Fletcher after this time is unknown.

Appendix 3. Charles Merlin and John-Balthasar Silberrad

Charles Merlin (c.1743–)

According to Merlin's will of 1803, his half-brother Charles was at that time an inventor living in Strasbourg. A person of this name living in Strasbourg did indeed register a French patent for a weighbridge in 1803, thus confirming his location in this year.¹⁴¹ On 13 June 1782, Charles Merlin ‘a Bachelor of the age of Twenty one years and upwards’ of the parish of St Olave, Southwark, London, signed a bond registering his intention to marry the very distinctively named Margaretha Elizabeth Zahlmeister of the same parish ‘a spinster of the age of Twenty one years and upwards’.¹⁴² A witness at the ceremony one week later was Balthasar Silberrad, a prosperous merchant of Southwark. The second witness, Sommers Hodgsen, was an attorney (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Parish register entry for the marriage of Charles Merlin, St Olave, Southwark, 20 June 1782 (St Olave, Bermondsey, Composite register: marriages, banns, P71/OLA, item 025); reproduced by permission of The City of London, Metropolitan Archives.

Later continental church records reveal that by 1786 Charles and his wife had moved to Strasbourg, where their daughter Marguerite Elisabeth Merlin was born on 4 September 1786.¹⁴³ Fortunately for genealogists, the record of the marriage of this daughter to Francois Denis Cesar Pelletier in this city in 1823 gives her parents' full names as Charles Merlin and Marguerite Zahlmeister,¹⁴⁴ thus providing proof positive that this was the same Charles who had married in London in 1782. Later records relating to his two children's inheritance of his estate suggest that he had owned a large tobacco manufactory in that city.¹⁴⁵

John-Balthasar Silberrad (c.1733–1823)

In 1768, when already a widower, John-Balthasar Silberrad¹⁴⁶ married Mary Humphreys at St Olave, Mile End New Town. As stated above, he was a witness at the wedding of Charles Merlin, in 1782 (Figure 9). The signatures on the two parish registers are distinctive and match (with the addition of the forename John in the 1768 record), confirming that this was the same person.

There are many entries relating to the Silberrad family in the parish registers of St Paul's, Covent Garden. A John Silberrad is listed in Denmark Court, Covent Garden, in the Land Tax records for 1768, possibly the same gentleman. In contemporary London directories in the 1770s Balthasar Silberrad is listed variously as a merchant, a hop merchant and a Bluemaker, at No. 4, Maze Pond, Southwark.¹⁴⁷ His burial, aged 90 (said to be ‘of Aldgate’) is recorded in the parish register of St Katherine Cree Church on 26 October 1823. His son Charles was apprenticed to Charles Lincoln in the Fletchers and Longbow-string makers Company in 1791 and became a well-known maker of barometers, globes and similar items, with an address at 34, Aldgate.¹⁴⁸ Extant pieces from Charles Silberrad's hand command substantial prices in auction houses today.

Appendix 4. A list of Merlin's inventions identified in contemporary newspaper advertisements, in chronological order of appearance

Table

Items advertised		Source
61, Little Queen Ann Street, Portland Chapel
1775	• New patent combined Harpsichord-Piano • Patent Rotisseur Royal • Accurate Money-Scales to a new invention	The Public Advertiser (14134), 18 January 1775
66, Queen Ann Street East, Portland Chapel
1778	• Ipolito invented by Mr Barthélémon and made for him by Merlin • Simple contrivance to prevent pegs from becoming loose on fiddles • New invented Fiddles with four or five strings	The Public Advertiser (13562), 28 March 1778 The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (1726), 30 April 1778; repeated (1730), 5 May 1778
1779	• Patent Piano Forte • Double Bass Harpsichord • Portable instruments called Celestinetts • New Violins Tenor and Bass (claimed to make them equal to the best Cremonas) • Patent Rotisseurs • Sanctorious Balances • Money-Scales • Harpsichord stools • Gouty Chairs and Morphices • Sleeping Chairs for infirm persons	The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (2122), 3 August 1779
1780	• Items in 1779 advertisement repeated	The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (2365), 24 May 1780
1781	• New musical instrument combining Harpsichord, Pianoforte, Hautboy, Trumpet and Kettle drum; a keyed instrument to be played like a Harpsichord	The Public Advertiser (14450), 31 January 1781, 3
No. 2, Princes Street, Hanover Square
1783	• Patent Pianofortes and Double Bass Harpsichords • Morpheus and Gouty chairs • Quartet [?] Desks on different constructions • Sanctorius Balances • Money-Scales • Rotisseurs • Cremona Violins • Violin cellos • New invented pegs and tail pieces for Violins and Violin cellos which prevents the strings from slipping	The Morning Post (756), 1 April 1783
1784	• Patent Double Bass Piano Forte Harpsichord (similar to one lately sent to the Infanta of Spain) • Harpsichords • Piano Fortes Organiser [sic] • Violins • Violin cellos • Sanctorius Balances • Morpheus Chairs • Reading Desks	The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (1171), 28 July 1784
	• Patent Piano Forte • Double Bass Harpsichord • Harpsichord with Trumpets and Kettle drums • Merlin notes that he can add his patent piano forte to any Harpsichord, or the Trumpet with Kettle drums • Morpheus and Gouty chairs • Quartetto Music Desk on a new construction • Sanctorious Balance • Cremona Violins and Violin cellos • New invented pegs and tail pieces that infallibly prevent the strings from slipping	The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser (102), 4 February 1784
1786	• Patented Double Bass Pianoforte Harpsichord with 20 different stops • Grand Pianoforte with four unions • Patent Harpsichords with two unions and octave, with various stops • New invented machine that plays Kettle drums and Trumpets, may be added to Harpsichord or used with or without the Harpsichord • Undertakes to build Mechanical Organs which will imitate instrumental music, with Kettle drums, Trumpets &c. • A new invented machine which may be added to any Harpsichord that by turning a winder will play seven different tunes in one barrel • New invented Music Desks which hold four books at a time, with receivers for candles • Other desks made for writing or reading and made to rise higher or lower at pleasure • A Balance (weighing machine) to find the increase or decrease in weight of any person; said to balance from four ounces to 600 pounds weight. • Easy Mechanical Chairs for gouty and infirm persons to wheel themselves about • Morpheus Sleeping Chairs, made to fall back and form a bed at pleasure and intended for the repose of infirm persons.	Daily Register (328), 12 January 1786
No. 11, Princes Street, Hanover Square
1787	• Two antique Busts by means of which any person my converse with another without being heard by others^150 • Hygaeian chair • Escarpolets	The World (266) 20 November 1787; repeated (287), 14 December 1787
1788	• Invention that restores paintings to their original beauty	The London Chronicle,­ 2­­–4 September 1788, 232
1789	• Two-wheeled Chariot for one horse only	The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser (4935), 21 January 1789
	• Harp played with keys and produces diminuendo and crescendo	The World (931), 30 December 1789
1790	• Harp played with keys and produces diminuendo and crescendo • Addition to Circus of Cupid, a figure of Venus in a car drawn by doves • A variety of new conveniences for infirm persons	The Argus (251), 6 January 1790
	• Merlin's Harp • A curious Hydraulic Vase ‘consisting of several new pieces of mechanism’ • A figure of Venus in a car, drawn by doves who flutter their wings and fly over the surface of the still water • A variety of other conveniences for the accommodation of infirm persons	The Argus (274), 2 February 1790
	• The Hydraulic Vase • The Celestial Harp • The Circus of Cupid • The Single Horse Chariot • The Double and Single Escarpoletts • The Review of Beauties • The Antique Busts • The Portable Hygeian Chair • The Mechanical Library • The Mechanical Tea Table • The Card Machine for the Blind • The Mechanical Bedstead • The Morpheus Chair • The Sanctorious Balance • The Patent Piano-forte Harp • Sichora, with Trumpets and Kettle drums	The World (989), 4 March 1790
1793	• A model of Merlin's Cave • A Mechanical Temple of Flora with a variety of beautiful cascades, several butterflies sporting upon flowers, windmills that move the same as in nature and a diversity of other objects	The Morning Chronicle (7501), 19 June 1793
	• A Mechanical Cruizing [sic] Frigate which falls in an undulating motion upon a curious piece of Artificial Water • (In preparation) A beautiful orchestra representing a grand Concert and accompaniment of Voices • Double drums	The Morning Chronicle (7622), 7 November 1793
1795	• A Clock that has neither wheels, springs nor weights, but acts by magnetism alone and points to the hours and minutes by the same hand	The Morning Chronicle (7963), 22 April 1795
1797	• A new invented time piece ‘three feet diameter, in the form of a Watch’	The True Briton (1286), 7 February 1797
	• A Reflecting Mirror, ‘which must cause risibility in the countenance of every spectator from the variety it displays in the transfiguration of the human face and must cause infinite merriment to the polite assembly who honor him daily with their company’	The Observer (302), 17 September 1797
1799	• A Grand Mechanical Organ in the process of construction. Merlin advertises for qualified organ builder to assist him, having been prevented from completing it by his long illness of more than two years.	The Observer (394), 14 July 1799
1803	• Mr Merlin appeared in Hyde Park in a carriage without horses. ‘He kept the vehicle in motion by means of a windlass and it went with tolerable facility, except against a rising ground.’	Bells Weekly Messenger, 23 January 1803, 30

¹⁴⁹

Appendix 5. Transcription of the abridged specification of Joseph Merlin's patent (No. 1081) September 12, 1774, Patent No. 1081.

MERLIN, JOSEPH. A new kind of compound harpsichord in which, besides the jacks with quills, a set of hammers of the nature of those used in the kind of harpsichord called pianoforte, are introduced in such manner that either may be played separately or both together at the pleasure of the performer, and for adding the aforesaid hammers to an harpsichord of the common kind already made so as to render it such compound harpsichord.

Drawings annexed to the specification represent a brass hammer frame with sixty hammers, each hammer being covered with leather and cloth and raised by a spring. The hammer frame is forced by a slider into the catches or jerks; a lever fixed at the side of the carcass of the harpsichord acts upon a slide under the hammer frame by which the latter is forced into the catches of jerks ‘for to play piano forte at pleasure’ A pedal is attached to the instrument; ‘placing the foot upon it gradually plays one unison, one degree lower plays the second unison, and lastly the octave which produces the swell of an organ.’ Patents for Inventions. Abridgements of Specifications relating to Music and Musical Instruments A.D. 1694–1856 (2^nd edn, London, 1871)