ater being turned on,
it forced its way into the leathern concavity and 'flapped out' the
bent edges of the collar; and, in so doing, caused the leather to apply
itself to the surface of the rising ram with a degree of closeness and
tightness so as to seal up the joint the closer exactly in proportion
to the pressure of the water in its tendency to escape. On the other
hand, the moment the pressure was let off and the ram desired to
return, the collar collapsed and the ram slid gently down, perfectly
free and yet perfectly water-tight. Thus, the former tendency of the
water to escape by the side of the piston was by this most simple and
elegant self-adjusting contrivance made instrumental to the perfectly
efficient action of the machine; and from the moment of its invention
the hydraulic press took its place as one of the grandest agents for
exercising power in a concentrated and tranquil form.

Bramah continued his useful labours as an inventor for many years. His
study of the principles of hydraulics, in the course of his invention
of the press, enabled him to introduce many valuable improvements in
pumping-machinery. By varying the form of the piston and cylinder he
was enabled to obtain a rotary motion,[3] which he advantageously
applied to many purposes. Thus he adopted it in the well known
fire-engine, the use of which has almost become universal. Another
popular machine of his is the beer-pump, patented in 1797, by which the
publican is enabled to raise from the casks in the cellar beneath, the
various liquors sold by him over the counter. He also took out several
patents for the improvement of the steam-engine, in which, however,
Watt left little room for other inventors; and hence Bramah seems to
have entertained a grudge against Watt, which broke out fiercely in the
evidence given by him in the case of Boulton and Watt versus Hornblower
and Maberly, tried in December 1796. On that occasion his temper seems
to have got the better of his judgment, and he was cut short by the
judge in the attempt which he then made to submit the contents of the
pamphlet subsequently published by him in the form of a letter to the
judge before whom the case was tried.[4] In that pamphlet he argued
that Watt's specification had no definite meaning; that it was
inconsistent and absurd, and could not possibly be understood; that the
proposal to work steam-engines on the principle of condensation was
entirely fallacious; tha