There has been more sheer nonsense, to say nothing of sloppy scholarship, published about the percussion cap, its inventor, date of introduction, and delayed use by the military, than any other invention or device I know connect with arms development and trade. One recent book on military snipers wrote, “in 1814 Thomas Shaw of Philadelphia adapted Forsyth’s ideas and came up with the percussion cap.” He was perhaps copying his information for a slightly earlier author who wrote, “in 1814 Thomas [sic] Shaw of Philadelphia invented a steel percussion cap, substituting for it a copper one in 1816.” An even earlier author, while getting Shaw’s first name correct, wrote that “in 1814 Joshua Shaw of England invented the percussion cap.” Another author was more accurate. ”Alexander John Forsyth (1768-1843) invented the percussion system although not the percussion cap itself.” A late nineteenth century encyclopedia avoided the controversy by using the passive voice, i.e., “the percussion cap was invented.” A very early twentieth century book totally confused the fulminate of mercury- based priming system with the percussion cap: “The percussion cap which was destined to make such a revolution in small arms was patented April 11, 1807, by the inventor, Rev. A. J. Forsyth, of Belhelvie, Aberdeenshire. It soon came into use.”
By far the most accurate early account of Shaw’s involvement in the arms trade was in Colonel Robert Gardner, Small Arms Makers. Gardner had his dates of birth, death, and invention correct as well as cities of birth and death, patent contributions, and final claim all correct. For whatever reason, Gardner did not seem to make the connection between Shaw the inventor and Shaw the artist. Gardner’s work dates to 1963 and some subsequent authors might have done well to have consulted his work.
Shaw held a number of patents for arms-related inventions, although not for invention of the percussion cap. His firearms patents include:
19 June 1822, percussion gun
24 June 1822, improvement in percussion guns
24 October 1828, improved cannon lock
7 May 1829, improved firearm
3 December 1832, portable cannon
3 December 1832, cannon lock
3 December 1832, cannon percussion primers
17 March 1834, percussion pistol whip
30 January 1841, manner of discharging firearms
Joshua Shaw
Joshua Shaw (1776-1860) was born in Bellingborough, Lincolnshire, in northeast England. Shaw was left an orphan at the age of seven years, by the death of his father. His mother remarried so he was called home to assist in the business of his stepfather, a plumber and glazier by occupation. At the end of this time, Mr. Shaw, a lad of about fifteen years, was again obliged to shift himself. An uncle now gave him nine weeks' schooling, the only regular tuition he had during his life. He then obtained employment upon one of the rural mail-routes, but this employment did not last long He was apprenticed in his to a sign and house painter, George Sparrow of Stamford, Lincolnshire, but essentially he was a self-taught as an artist. . His first exploit of a public nature was the painting of Commandments in St. Michael's Church with the King's arms, and beneath it Moses and Aaron, agreeably to the old English custom. He now began to acquire considerable reputation as a painter of the pictorial signs of the period. His employer, having become jealous of Mr. Shaw's reputation, a separation took place, the latter purchasing freedom from his last year of service for twenty pounds sterling, and removing to Manchester. During his residence in Bath from 1805 to 1812 and later in London, he exhibited regularly at the Royal Academy and the British Institution. He next to London, where he enjoyed considerable popularity and received many commissions; but being so unfortunate as to differ in politics from the aristocratic directors of the British Institution, he was subjected to persecution, and the prize awarded to his painting of the deluge, by that institution, was withheld He had previously made the acquaintance and secured the warm personal friendship of Benjamin West, then President of the Royal Academy, who urged him to canvass for a membership in that institution, but he refused. This and other subsequent events disgusted him with England, and he resolved to come to America.
In 1817, Shaw came from England to Philadelphia. He obtained introductory letters from West to many distinguished men of the time in the United States, came to Philadelphia, where he permanently established himself. He was the bearer of West's celebrated picture of Christ Healing the Sick, a present to the Philadelphia Hospital He became a key figure in the development of landscape painting in America and actively participated in the artistic life of his adopted city. Landscape with Cattle, among the first canvases Shaw executed after his arrival, is a prime example of his mature style.
In many of his compositions Shaw created a remembrance of the rural England he remembered for the healthful pleasures of country living that were far removed from urban congestion. This glorification of nature and a pastoral existence would have been particularly appealing to a Jeffersonian deist audience. Shaw's compositions owe a debt to those of the seventeenth- century Franco-Italian painters and to their British followers. Although Shaw drew on his American experience for inspiration, especially in his depictions of Native Americans in historical settings, he nevertheless continued to paint British landscapes virtually until the end of his life, often including picturesque remnants of castles as well as peasants in what were essentially imaginary compositions. Despite the pronounced British flavor of paintings Shaw remains a critical figure in the development of American landscape painting. As an artist born and trained in England, who revisited his native country on at least one occasion, he was in touch with current artistic developments and aesthetic theories. Through him, the American public as well as his colleagues came to know the work and techniques of some of Britain's leading artists.
Shaw died in September, 1860 in Burlington, New Jersey. He was a long member of the Franklin Institute, and contributed many valuable papers to its transactions, and enjoyed the friendship and confidence of many of the most distinguished men of his time. His genius as an artist has been universally acknowledged, but it is evident that his genius for work was the real basis of his success. One author commented, “As a controversialist he wielded a vigorous and fearless pen, and though one of the most genial and kind-hearted of men, was unsparing where he deemed censure deserved.”
The Percussion Cap
Inventions of the percussion cap have been attributed variously to Alexander John Forsyth, clerk of Belhelvie, Aberdeenshire, Scotland; to Joseph Manton, London, a major gunsmith; and to John Day, of Barnstable, England. In 1808 an advertisement in the British Morning Post boasted of Forsyth’s invention.
To Sportsmen. The Patent Gun-Lock, invented by Mr. Forsyth is to be had at No. 10, Piccadilly, near the Haymarket. Those who may be unacquainted with the excellence of this Invention are informed that the inflammation is produced without the assistance of flint, and is much more rapid than in the common way. The Lock is so constructed as to render it completely impervious to water, or damp of any kind, and may, in fact, be fired under water.
However, the specification attached to their patents show that the copper cap as patented by Shaw, was unknown to them. They had knowledge of fulminates and methods of firing them, but there was only one thing in common with their methods and that of Mr. Shaw, the ignition of fulminate of mercury by percussion. Forsyth patented percussion powder in 1807. Many people, including Colonel Peter Hawker, were claiming this around 1820 but the best documented evidence to date makes Joseph Egg the first. The first recorded patent for such a thing by the Frenchman Francois Prelat on 28th July 1820. As one British author wrote, “The United States has its own candidate for the credit of having invented the percussion cap, an English born artist named Joshua Shaw.” As far as the U.S. government was concerned, “Mr. Shaw is certainly the inventor of the percussion primer for cannon and probably for small arms.” Both Joseph Manton and Colonel Peter Hawker insisted that they were great inventors.
By the time of the Civil War both Ordnance and civilian manufacturers had agreed upon a standard formula as detonating material for use in the percussion cap. It consisted of six parts fulminate of mercury, six parts chlorate of potash, and four parts antimony. This was sealed inside the cap in a way so as to prevent mixture. Whether this was Forsyth’s or Shaw’s formula is difficult if not impossible to say.
And contrary to popular opinion the British Board of Ordnance held its first trials of copper cap guns during the middle of 1820. Adoption was, of course, a wholly different matter. The same authors who gave Shaw’s Christian name as Thomas wrote, “Yet in England it was not until 1834 that experiments were made with the percussion system” in military arms. It is, however, true that as one author wrote, “so slow is the growth of inventions . . .that all Europe continued to make flintlocks for many years after the percussion cap was invented.” General Winfield Scott preferred the flintlock to percussion caps in the Mexican War of 1846-47. Indeed, during that war caps were in very short supply as those who carried the first American percussion rifle, the Model 1841 “Mississippi,” found out. This shortage rendered those arms useless on many occasions.
Forsyth’s lock was an ingenious contrivance, equipped with a magazine that held detonating powder (fulminate of mercury). The magazine revolves around a roller whose end is screwed into the barrel breech. The priming powder passed through a small hole in the roller, leading to a cannel that empties into the gun’s chamber. The pan that holds the priming compound is placed over the hole in the roller. There was a steel punch in the magazine, whose lower end stands above the pan, ready to ignite the priming compound when the hammer strikes the top. The punch, having been driven down into the pan, is raised again by a spiral spring. For each firing the magazine must be turned sufficiently so as to allow the fulminate to drop into the pan, after which it is turned back.
The invention of the copper percussion cap was a great improvement over the complex Forsyth lock. The iron, pewter, and steel caps, with which Shaw initially experimented, had significant problems which Shaw could not overcome. One authority referred to it as “the first really significant improvement in nearly two centuries.” He continued,
The many advantages of this new system of lock were obvious. It was little affected by dampness, the fulminating powder being protected and rendered practically waterproof. . . . It could be carried for days or week in all kinds of weather and could be fired at any moment by simply cocking the piece and pulling the trigger. With the flintlock . . . damp weather was always disastrous; while shaking it about, as in marching, even in dry weather, was likely to misplace the priming and cause misfires. This one advantage of the cap-and-nipple over the flintlock would determine its adoption. But another important discovery was soon made – the cap-and-nipple short farther, and recoiled less, than the flintlock, even with smaller charges of powder.
These same basic advantages of the percussion lock over the flint system were summed up by a nineteenth century encyclopedia. “The advantages of these locks are: 1. the lock is simplified; 2. the operation of firing is shortened; 3. the sureness of firing is increased, the presence of water having no effect upon the explosion of a good percussion cap.”
Shaw corresponded with many governments, and particularly with the Ordnance Department of the United States. In 1814 he invented the copper percussion cap, after first trying pewter, iron, and steel. He kept the discovery secret until his arrival in America, when he sought to obtain a patent for it, but was refused on the ground of his being an alien, the law at that time denying a patent to aliens unless they had resided two years in the country.
His claim to the origination of the invention of the percussion cap was, however, recognized, although the Patent Office refused to issue a patent. One explanation was that Shaw had not been a resident, let alone citizen, of the United States, for the then requisite two years. A second explanation was that Shaw had filed to demonstrate clearly what aspects of his patent were already known and is general use and those aspects for which Shaw claimed originality. One Joseph Cooper, otherwise unknown to this author, claimed that Shaw had merely copied Forsyth’s ideas, adding little of his own. “And further that the same patent was void, because in and by the specification, or description therein referred, no distinction or discrimination is made between the parts and portions previously known and used as aforesaid, and any parts or portions of which the said Joshua Shaw may be the inventor or discoverer.”
After filing many appeals for relief and then after a protracted investigation of his claims, the United States subsequently decided to award Shaw up to $25,000 “upon principles of justice and equity”, which, it acknowledged, was a very small portion of its real debt to the accomplished inventor. The award was to cover not only the percussion cap, but the percussion system, including the wafer primer, as used in cannon; and such percussion gunlocks and principles as Shaw had invented. On 20 February 1846 Congress authorized the Secretary of War to consider compensation. The Secretary decided upon $18,000 was a sufficient sum. The U. S. Senate’s Committee on Military Affairs thought that there was no reason to reduce the award by $7000. It argued that the government has made valuable use of all Shaw’s arms patents, but especially the percussion systems for small arms and cannon. New shoulder arms were made in the percussion system and older muskets now were retrofitted for the percussion cap. The percussion system now was used to the total exclusion of all other systems. Caps are effective, safe, and serviceable. Even the Maynard system “is to be used in conjunction with percussion caps and not to their disuse.” Finally, it noted that “the government has liberally compensated other inventors for the use of their inventions.”
The Senate Committee sought the advice and opinion of Colonel Craig, Chief of Ordnance, who announced that $25,000 was certainly not too great a sum to compensate Shaw. Craig pointed out that the percussion cap had been used for some years past and its future was assured. It was far more useful than many inventions the government had paid much more to use. Finally, Craig stated that as early as 23 April 1847 Ordnance had conceded that Shaw was surely the inventor of the percussion ignition system for cannon and most probably also for small arms.
The Committee therefore recommended that the $7000 removed by the Secretary of War be replaced and that a supplemental appropriation, matching the initial estimate, be restored. However, the additional amount was not paid and the Attorney General offered the opinion that the Secretary of War had no statutory duty or authorization to pay the additional sum and that the award had been exhausted. Statutes provide a two year window in time during which such claims appropriations may be made; that time was long since exhausted. .
Not surprisingly, Shaw advocated major reform in American patent law. He expended considerable effort toward the end of his life in that cause.
About 1817 Shaw allegedly received his first recognition, this by the Tsar of Russia. Russian artillery adopted Shaw’s percussion cap and agreed to pay for its use although no money was ever forthcoming. Hard evidence for this claim has yet to be shown. In 1833 he visited England with a view to obtaining the adoption of improvements in cannon locks, which he had made, and the wafer primer for cannon. He also received several minor patents, among which was a swivel diamond used by glaziers.
Controversy followed Shaw all the days of his life. As we have seen, on 17 March 1834 he obtained a patent for a whip which also contained a pistol, the bulk of the invention having been made of India rubber. Almost immediately a man who claimed to have invented the India rubber coffin wrote to the editor of the Mechanics Magazine, claiming that “above a year ago, a friend of mine sent a pistol whip, of similar construction.” He went on to note similarities between this whip-pistol and Shaw’s patent.
