Page:Dictionary of National Biography, Second Supplement, volume 3.djvu/269

 son erected blast-furnaces at South Bank, near Middlesbrough, within a mile of the works of Bolckow & Vaughan at Eston. These he worked until 1863, when they were sold, and more extensive premises were built in the neighbourhood of Newport. Samuelson, whose interest in practical applications of science grew keen, studied for himself the construction of blast-furnaces and resolved to enlarge their cubical capacity at the expense of their height. By 1870 eight furnaces were at work, most of them of greater capacity than any others in the district. In 1872 between 2500 and 3000 tons of pig-iron were produced weekly. In 1871 a description of the Newport ironworks which he presented to the Institution of Civil Engineers won him a Telford medal.

In 1887 the iron-working firm of Sir B. Samuelson & Co., Ltd., was formed with a nominal capital of 275,000^. Sir Bemhard was chairman of the company until 1895, when he handed over the chairmanship to his second son, Francis. The blast furnaces were in 1905 producing about 300,000 tons of pig iron annually, and the by-products from the coke ovens started in 1896 averaged about 270,000 tons of coke, 12,000 tons of tar, 3500 of sulphate of ammonia, and 150,000 gallons of crude naphtha.

An important extension of Samuelson's commercial energies took place in July 1870. He then built the Britannia iron-works at Middlesbrough, his third manufacturing enterprise (which subsequently became part of the property of Messrs. Doman Long & Co.). The site was twenty acres of marsh land, which was only adaptable to its purpose after being covered with slag. In the Britannia works there was installed the largest plant at that date put into operation at one time, and their output of iron, tar, and by-products was soon gigantic. One of Samuelson's endeavours which bore tribute to his mechanical ambition came to nothing. He was anxious to make steel from Cleveland ore — an effort in which no success had yet been achieved. He learned on the Continent of the Siemens-Martin process, and now spent some 300,000l. in experimenting with it. In 1869 he leased for the purpose the North Yorkshire ironworks at South Stockton ; but the attempt proved unsuccessful, though the trial taught some useful lessons to iron-masters.

Samuelson, who was a considerate employer of labour, took part in developing Middlesbrough and the Cleveland district, identifying himself with local institutions and effort. But his home was at Banbury, and he was prominent there in publio affairs. Seeking a parliamentary career, he represented the place and district in parliament for more than thirty years. He was a zealous upholder of liberal principles, was loyal to his party, and a staunch supporter of Gladstone. He was first elected for Banbury by a majority of one vote in Feb. 1859, but he was defeated at the general election two months later. In 1865 however he was again elected, and an allegation that he was not of English birth and therefore ineligible was examined and confuted by a committee of the House of Commons. He retained the seat in 1868, 1874, and 1880. In 1885, when the borough was merged in the North Oxfordshire division, he was returned for that constituency, and he sat for it until 1895, when he retired and was made a privy councillor. Although he supported home rule, he lost sympathy with the ultra-radical sentiment which increased in the party during his last years. Through life Samuelson cherished free-trade convictions, yet in his last years he reached the conclusion that 'a departure from free trade' was ’admissible with a view to widening the area of taxation.' In a paper read before the Political Economy Club in London on 5 July 1901, the chief conclusions of which he summarised in a letter to 'The Times' (6 Nov.), he urged a 'tariff for revenue,' and sketched out the cardinal points of the tariff reform movement before they had been formulated by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.

In the House of Commons Samuelson, who gave expert advice on all industrial questions, was best known by his strenuous advocacy of technical instruction. His chief public services were identified with that subject. He thoroughly believed in the need among Englishmen of every rank of a strict scientific training. In 1867 he investigated personally and with great thoroughness the conditions of technical education in the chief industrial centres of Europe and made a valuable report (Parl. Papers, 1867). He was in 1868 chairman of a committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the provisions for instruction in theoretical and applied science to the industrial classes ; and he was a member of the duke of Devonshire's royal commission on scientific instruction (1870), being responsible for that part of the report which dealt with the Science and Art Department. In 1881 he had full opportunity of using his special study to the