HISTORY
OF
MERCHANT SHIPPING
AND
ANCIENT COMMERCE.

BY
W. S. LINDSAY.

IN FOUR VOLUMES.

VOL. IV.

With numerous Illustrations.

LONDON:
SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, LOW, AND SEARLE.
CROWN BUILDINGS, 188 FLEET STREET.
1876.

[All Rights reserved.]

LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

“GREAT EASTERN” STEAM-SHIP.
BUILT BY MESSRS. J. SCOTT RUSSELL AND CO., MILWALL, 1857.

VIEW OF DECK.

WHEEL HOUSE AND STEERING APPARATUS.

LAYING CABLE.

AT SEA.

Large Image

Longitudinal Sections.

DIMENSIONS AND CALIBRE.

Paddle-Engines.

Screw-Engines.

CONTENTS.

ILLUSTRATIONS.[1]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The whole of these Illustrations have been re-drawn on block, and a great many of them are original. It is, however, only due to the memory of a truly good and unassuming man to state, more especially as he was a thorough genius in the illustration of all nautical subjects, that many of the drawings are reduced copies from those of the late Edward Weedon, who, for many years, and up to his untimely death in 1874, was one of the staff of artists of the Illustrated London News.

MERCHANT SHIPPING.

CHAPTER I.

Earliest modes of propulsion—Suggested partly by nature—Hero of Alexandria, B.C. 120—Dancing steam ball—Æolipile—Application of science to superstitious purposes—Revival of learning—Robertus Valturius, 1472—Blasco de Garay—Story of his experiment, 1543—Disproved by Mr. MacGregor’s investigations, note—Progress of invention—Bourne—Solomon de Caus, Marquess of Worcester, &c.—Morisotus’ vessel with paddle-wheels—Hollar’s drawing—Absurd patents—Phillips and his windmill—Papin and Morland—Savery—Jonathan Hulls—James Watt’s engine—Matthew Wasborough—Marquis de Jouffroy—Bramah’s screw-propeller—Mr. Miller of Dalswinton—Mr. Symington and Mr. Taylor—The Charlotte Dundas—Rumsey and Fitch—J. C. Stevens—Oliver Evans—Robert Fulton and Mr. Livingston—Plan really derived from the English experiments of Symington—Fulton builds steamers in the U. S.—The Clermont—Merits and demerits of Fulton—At all events the first to “run” a steam-vessel regularly, and to develop its power and usefulness—First steam-boat on the St. Lawrence, 1813.

Earliest modes of propulsion.

Modern investigation has confirmed the opinion that the knowledge of the ancients was more varied and extensive than has hitherto been generally supposed, and that there is indeed “nothing new under the sun.” Iron chain-cables, supposed to have been the invention of the present century, were, as already shown,[2] used by the shipowners of Tyre, while the iron-clad rams of to-day are but copies of the prows of the war galleys of ancient Carthage, Rome, or Nineveh:[3] and, although, on the sculptures of Egypt and Assyria there is no trace of the application of wheels or machinery of any kind, as a propelling power, the mechanical knowledge ancient inventions exhibit leads to the conviction that other modes of propulsion than those of poles, oars, and sails must have been understood in remote ages. Indeed, Nature herself, at the dawn of knowledge, must have suggested to men widely removed one from the other, appliances for lessening manual labour, while some of these were undoubtedly carried into practice during the earliest period of the existence of the human race.

Suggested partly by nature.

That such was the case may be reasonably inferred from the ancient stone sculptures exhumed by Layard and others, showing as these do beyond question that the people of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, when floating on bundles of reeds or on inflated skins, propelled them by the motion of their legs,[4] just as an animal swims by using its limbs for the purpose of propulsion in the water which supports it. In aquatic animals may be seen the types of almost every kind of machinery now adopted by man to lessen bodily toil. The cuttle-fish moves forward by fins, and backwards by ejecting water from a tube; whelks suggest the art of punting and towing; the value of paddles may be learned from ducks or other aquatic birds in their motion through the water, and the use of a folding feather from the lobster; while the combined action of the paddle-wheel and screw-propeller will be found in the microscopic insects “Paramacium caudatum” and “Paramacium compressum.” The marine animals “Vebella” and “Physalia,” familiarly known as the “Portuguese men-of-war,” whose bodies resemble an inflated bladder, float on the water and are propelled by the wind acting on their extended membranes. Swans extend their feathers to sail with the wind; and, though that fairy-looking, fragile thing, the paper-nautilus, seems to be the sport alike of the gale and of the most gentle breeze, it possesses in itself the power of propulsion by projecting water.[5]

But the common fish of every sea would have suggested to man, in the most remote ages, a mode of supplementing manual labour: the fin giving him the idea of a paddle or of an oar, and the tail teaching him the art of sculling, the principle in each case being the same: the tail, moving from side to side, by oblique pressure on the water, propels the fish forward along a diagonal line, the resultant of the forces acting from the right and the left sides of the fish, and is, thus, the chief instrument of motion, while the fins serve to direct and steady it.[6]

Hero of Alexandria, B.C. 120.

Nor, indeed, is there much doubt that the ancients were acquainted with the power of steam, though they cannot be said to have applied this knowledge to any useful purposes. A treatise is still in existence “On Pneumatics,” by Hero,[7] a philosophic mathematician who lived at Alexandria about B.C. 120, in which he gives an account of seventy-eight miscellaneous experiments, most of them probably adapted for the superstitious purposes of the heathen priesthood, but some also as certainly foreshadowing the definite application of steam as a motive force. The following, we notice as, in themselves, of considerable interest.

Dancing steam ball.

Æolipile.

“First,” he says (exper. No. 45), “let there be a cauldron with water in it and a covered top; and let a fire be lighted under it. From the cover let a tube run upward, and place at its extremity a hollow hemisphere, in like manner perforated. Then, if a light ball be cast into the middle of the hemisphere, the vapour (steam) raised from the cauldron through this tube will lift the ball so that it seems suspended.” This is no doubt an ingenious and amusing philosophical toy, but has no further value. His next experiment, however (No. 50), is of greater importance, not only as showing a clear and distinct appreciation of the motive power of steam, but because its principle is embodied in the well-known mode of driving potters’ wheels and in the modern turbine. He says, “Let a fire be lighted under a cauldron with water in it and covered with a lid; and attach to this cauldron a bent tube with the extremity fitting into a hollow ball. Opposite to the extremity of this tube place a pivot fastened to the lid, and let the ball have various tubes communicating with it at opposite ends of the diameter, with their bendings at right angles (i.e., in opposite directions). Then when the fire is lighted, the steam passing through the first tube (i.e., from the cauldron) into the ball, will pass out through the bent tubes towards the lid, causing the ball to revolve after the fashion of dancing figures.”[8] This machine was called the Æolipile.

In these few words we have a clear indication of the power of steam, of the nature and effect of a vacuum, and of a rotatory engine moved by this force: we thus see that the ancients knew more than has been generally admitted of the wonderful power which, in our own time, has brought about the most extraordinary changes in the seats and centres of maritime commerce, affording to mankind a facility of intercourse between different nations, while at the same time increasing the wealth, and, what is of much more importance, promoting the comfort and happiness of the human race to an extent far beyond the dreams of the most sanguine enthusiast of any age or of any country.

From the uncontroverted facts here stated, there can be no doubt that Hero was the first to record, even if he did not invent, this mighty civilising instrument, and, if so, that Egypt was the land of its birth.

Application of science to superstitious purposes.

But many centuries elapsed before its power was applied to any useful purpose; indeed, as suggested, there is reason for supposing that this science was misapplied by the priests, and used as a means of deceiving the people by inducing them to believe it to be a miraculous power granted only to the professors of the craft of idolatry. “A fire,” says Hero (experiment No. 70), “having been kindled on a transparent altar, figures will appear to dance” on a drum driven round by steam, “emitting sounds similar to those of a stringed instrument,”[9] which, according to Pausanias, “resemble the snapping of the strings of a harp;” thus, while delighting the young people of those days, as the ornaments in churches now do, these experiments became instruments of make-belief in the hands of the priests, who propounded as strange theories about their supernatural powers as the so-called philosophers of our own days still do, when they attempt to deal with the unrevealed mysteries of creation and of a still more mysterious hereafter.[10]

Revival of learning.

Although the Romans did nothing towards applying the knowledge of the power of steam to useful purposes, and little enough generally for the mechanical arts, the true value of the works of Hero and of the older mechanicians came to be appreciated in the dawn which succeeded the darkness of the Middle Ages. Then the youths of a generation, which had cast aside many of the superstitions of the ancients, and had found in the doctrines of Christianity a wider and nobler field for their genius and aspirations, began to study how the power Hero had described could be best applied for the benefit and happiness of mankind. Then, indeed, was the advent of an era wherein the foundation was laid of a fabric which, though slow in its erection, and not yet completed, is destined to eclipse all the other works of man. There can be, therefore, no subject affecting the transitory interests of the human race more worthy of the pen of the historian than the development of the power and usefulness of steam traced from that remote period to our own time, when we see in every quarter of the civilised world this power compassing land and ocean, affording profitable employment to myriads of the human race, and giving to the people of every nation and tongue rapid and easy intercourse.

Robertus Valturius, 1472.

“Although an old work on China,” remarks Mr. MacGregor,[11] “contains a sketch of a vessel moved by four paddle-wheels, and used perhaps in the seventh century, the earliest distinct notice of this means of propulsion appears to be by Robertus Valturius in A.D. 1472, who gives several woodcuts representing paddle-wheels,”[12] one of which is as follows.

There is, however, no mention of any vessel propelled by steam till M. de Navarette directed attention to this subject in a letter[13] received by him from Thomas Gonzales, Director of the Royal Archives of Simancas of Spain, with an account of an experiment of the year 1543, in which a vessel is said to have been propelled by something resembling a steam-engine.

Blasco de Garay, story of his experiment, 1543.

The substance of this letter is to the effect that, in that year, one Blasco de Garay, proposed to the Emperor Charles V., the construction of an engine (ingenio) capable of propelling large vessels in a calm, and without the use of sails or oars. In spite of the opposition this project encountered, the Emperor consented to witness the experiment, which was accordingly made in the Trinity, a vessel of 200 tons, laden with corn, in the port of Barcelona, on the 17th June, 1543. Garay, however, would not uncover his machinery, or exhibit it publicly: but it was evident that it consisted of a cauldron of boiling water (una gran caldera de agua hirviendo) and of two wheels set in motion by that means, and applied externally on each side (banda) of the vessel.

The persons commissioned by the Emperor to report on the invention seem to have approved it, commending specially the readiness with which the vessel tacked. The treasurer Ravago, however, observed that a ship with the proposed machinery could not go faster than two leagues in three hours; that the apparatus was complex and expensive; and that there was danger of the boiler bursting. The other commissioners maintained that such a vessel might go at the rate of a league an hour, and would tack in half the time required by an ordinary ship. When the exhibition was over, Garay removed the apparatus from the Trinity, depositing the wood-work in the arsenal at Barcelona, but retaining himself the rest of the machinery. Notwithstanding, however, the objections urged by Ravago, the Emperor was inclined to favour his project, but his attention at the time was engrossed by other matters.[14] Garay was, however, promoted and received a sum of money, besides the expenses of the experiment made at Barcelona. The letter concludes with the following statement:—

“This is the substance of the despatches and of the original registers preserved in the royal archives of Simancas, among the State papers of the province of Catalonia, and of those of the Secretary of War (department of land and sea), in the said year, 1543.”

Mr. MacGregor, greatly to his credit, desirous of ascertaining whether this report (which, from the well-known accuracy of M. de Navarette on other subjects, had been accepted as correct) could be depended upon, visited Spain in September, 1857, and made a thorough investigation at Simancas, Madrid, and Barcelona into this interesting subject, but his inquiries (reported, at length, January, 1858, to the Superintendent of Specifications at the Great Seal Patent Office, and printed in Part II., “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion”), convinced him “that there was not one particle of reliable evidence” in M. de Navarette’s assertion.[15]

An attentive consideration of the subject leads to the conclusion at which Mr. MacGregor has arrived. Even in the present day it would require an engine and boiler of considerable size to propel a vessel of 200 tons three miles an hour; moreover, the novel and bulky machinery with which the experiment is said to have been made, could not have been erected in the ship or removed from her without attracting considerable public attention. Indeed, had such an experiment been made before the Spanish Emperor, and made successfully as the narrative leads us to suppose, a matter so important could hardly have lain dormant for any great length of time: whatever, therefore, Blasco de Garay’s invention may have been, it was evidently not a steam-engine practically applicable for any useful purpose.

Witzen, no doubt, in confirmation of Garay’s experiment, furnishes an illustration of a “Spanish bark without oars or sails,” but as, unfortunately, there is not a single line of letter-press beyond the few words quoted to throw the faintest light upon his drawing, it can only be supposed from the descriptive title that it referred to the vessel which Garay is said to have propelled. Indeed, De Garay’s whole story looks very much as if it was an invention of the Spaniards; Mr. Scott Russell,[16] as well as Mr. MacGregor, is of this opinion, and Mr. Woodcroft, no mean authority on such matters, states that, having made diligent inquiries at Simancas, he could find no trace of these documents, thus confirming the result of the more minute researches of Mr. MacGregor.[17]

Progress of invention; Bourne, Solomon de Caus, Marquess of Worcester, &c.

About this period, however, frequent mention is made of other modes of propulsion besides those hitherto in use. J. C. Scaliger (who died 1558) published at Frankfort a short notice of a vessel to be propelled without oars. Bourne, in 1578,[18] says, in his own quaint style, “you may make a boate to goe without oares or sayle by the placing of certain wheeles on the outside of the boat in that sort that the armes of the wheeles may go into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some provision, and so the wheeles shall make the boate goe.” I. Bessoni, in 1582, describes a vessel with two prows, or rather two separate vessels attached to each other (not unlike the Castalia, now running between Dover and Calais), between which a frame is suspended on gimbles carrying at its lower end a circular reel worked by ropes and a winch whereby they can be propelled.[19] A. Ramelli, in 1588, furnishes a design of a flat-bottomed boat with a wheel on each side, turned by men working upon a winch handle.[20] Indeed, long before this, the celebrated Roger Bacon (A.D. 1214-1296) speaks of a “vessel which, being almost wholly submerged, would run through the water against waves and winds with a speed greater than that attained by the fastest London pinnaces.”[21] Baptista Porta (the inventor of the magic lantern) published in his “Pneumaticorum Libri Tres,” Naples, 1601, many curious experiments on the power of steam, on its condensation, and on its relative bulk as compared with water. In one of these a vacuum is clearly indicated, the water being forced up by the pressure of the atmosphere from without.

David Rivault, Seigneur de Flurance near Laval, published “Les Éléments de l’Artillerie,” first in 1605 and secondly in 1668—and in this work he describes the power of steam in bursting a strong bomb-shell partly filled with water, tightly plugged, and then heated.

In 1615, Solomon de Caus (Engineer to Louis XIII.) published a treatise (“Les Raisons des Forces Mouvantes”) in which he shows he was well acquainted with the motive power of steam—as, in his fifth theorem, he says, “water will mount by the help of fire higher than its level:” he also shows, by an experiment, how a column of water may be driven up a tube to such a height as will balance the elasticity of the heated air confined in the boiler; and Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” considers that this experiment, though of little practical use, “will make a noble figure in the annals of the steam-engine.”

In 1629, Giovanni Branca, an engineer of Loretto, applied steam to blow against vanes attached to the external rim of a wheel, and, doubtless, machinery with due mechanical contrivances could have been impelled by it. He gives a picture of his machine in “Le Machine,” vol. nuovo, Pl. XXV.

In 1618, David Ramsay obtained a patent for an invention “to make boates for carriages running upon the water as swift in calmes and more safe in storms than boats full sayled in great windes;” and in 1630 he patented a plan “to make boats, ships, and barges to goe against the wind and tide;” and “to raise water from lowe pitts by fire”[22] (the steam-engine).

In 1637, Francis Lin and others patented a plan “to use and exercise upon the River Thames, and any other river within England and Wales, according to their owne way and inventing the sole drauinge and workinge up of all Barges and other vessels without the use of horses;” and, in 1646, Edward Ford proposed a similar plan for the navigation of rivers, and one whereby he could “bring little ships, barges, and vessels in and out of havens without or against any small wynd or tide, and transport souldiers and passengers without or against wynde yf the seas be not rough.”[23]

In 1652 (July 30th), Thomas Grant, Doctor of Physic, obtained a patent “for several instruments, whereof the first is an instrument very profitable when co[~m]on winds fayle for a more speedy passage of calmed shipps or other vessells upon the sea or great rivers, which may be called the wynds māty.”

In the recital of the inventions of the Marquess of Worcester, 8th February, 1661, reference is made to one which was “applicable to make a boat that roweth or letteth, even against wind and stream to any part of the compass which way soever the streame runs or wind blows, and yet the force of the wind or stream causeth its motion.” But though the Marquess has generally had the credit of having applied a power other than manual or animal labour for the purpose of propulsion, it has been doubted from the description of his invention if it was a steam-engine which could be applied to drive a boat.[24]

Petty, in 1663, used a double boat with success.[25] Chamberlaine and Bushnell, in 1678, had also their plans for propelling boats against wind and tide, while Hooke, in 1661, described windmills in which “we have all the main features both of the screw-propeller and feathering wheel.”[26]

Morisotus’ vessel with paddle-wheels.

From about this period much attention was directed to the use of machinery for propulsion. Morisotus, moreover, who published his views in 1643,[27] speaks of the paddle-wheel as a mode of propelling vessels, known also, as he believed, to the ancients, and states that the simple machinery employed was the same in fact as was in his day used in mining operations in the Spanish Indies. Schefer, in his instructive and interesting work, also makes mention of a remarkable vessel described by Pancirolli (who wrote, in 1587, on naval and military matters) as resembling what he had seen in an old bas-relief of an Illyrian galley, a vessel apparently propelled by wheels similar in character to those in the above wood-cut, from Morisotus.

Hollar’s drawing.

But, as no such clumsy vessel could have been employed in a seaway, her movements must have been confined to rivers or inland waters. It is just possible that such and similar vessels might at some period have been used for ferrying rivers[28] or lakes. Very extraordinary notions, however, appear to have been propounded about, and subsequently to, this period, and, as a matter of curiosity, I furnish one of these taken from Hollar’s engravings, which does not appear to have been noticed by any writer on this interesting subject. The original engraving, bearing date A.D., 1653, is to be found in the British Museum. Various details[29] are furnished by the inventor.

Besides the detailed explanation of this extraordinary looking craft, which in “length is 72 feet, the height 12, the breadth 8,” there is beneath the print the following description: “The true and perfect form of the strange ship built in Rotterdam, 1653. The inventor of it doth undertake in one day to destroy a hundred ships, it can go from London to Rotterdam and back again in one day, and in six weeks to go to the East Indies, and to run as fast as a bird can fly. No fire, nor storme, nor bullets can hinder her unless it please God. Although the ships mean to be safe in their havens, it is in vain, for she shall come to them in any place. It is impossible for her to be taken unless by treachery, and she cannot be governed by any one but himself” (the inventor?). The motive power is not described, and there is no further trace of the ship, of which the illustration is a vertical section. She was built at the time when the Dutch were in the zenith of their power, and most likely proved as worthless as numerous other inventions since produced, though curious as showing the attention devoted at this period to wheels as a mode of propelling vessels.

Absurd patents.

However, we find in the records of our own Patent Office, that Englishmen were not behind the Dutch in curious and frequently very absurd inventions. Thus, in 1675, one Miller[30] patented a windmill fixed to a vessel’s deck to turn an endless rope, and thus, by “two toothed wheels,” to drive a couple of paddle-wheels. Such commonplace matters as storms at sea or adverse winds, still less the likelihood of the whole of the top weight he proposed to erect on the deck of his vessels being blown or rolled overboard, do not appear to have entered into the fertile and imaginative brain of the inventor.

Again, in 1701, two gentlemen (whose names are not worth recording) proposed to have “vanes or sails arranged between two wheels on the same shaft,” the “sails or float-boards being so contrived as to be able to play in a given space, being fixed perpendicularly on the wheel and fastened by a cord or otherwise, so that when the wind blows from any quarter three-fourths of the sails catch the wind, and, by driving the wheel round, the sails, which are forced against the wind, come up edgeways, but when past the centre immediately turn to the breeze, and by that means produce a continued circular motion.”[31]

Phillips and his windmill.

About the same period another invention, of a somewhat similar sort, was published by a person named Phillips, who proposed to erect between two tall masts “a windmill of altogether an original description.”[32] One is reminded when reading these grave proposals, of Don Quixote’s ludicrous exploit with the windmill, and considering the care Mr. Phillips seems to have bestowed upon his invention, he must have been quite as enthusiastic and apparently as serious in his proposal as the hero of Cervantes in his knight-errantry. But all these schemes, and many others too numerous to mention, however impracticable and absurd some of them may have been, had the germ of the great invention more or less developed.

Papin and Morland.

During Papin’s residence in England, 1681, he witnessed one of the interesting experiments made on the Thames, in which a boat constructed from the design of the Prince Palatine Robert, fitted with revolving oars or paddles, “left the King’s barge, manned by sixteen rowers, far astern in the race of trial.” This experiment suggested to him, in 1688, the idea of an engine, and led to his proposal of using gunpowder to create a vacuum under a piston, so that the piston would descend. Two years afterwards, 1690,[33] Papin describes a steam cylinder, in which a piston descends by atmospheric pressure when the steam below it is condensed, and among the subsequent uses of such a machine he mentions the propulsion of ships by “Rames volatiles” or paddle-wheels, the axles of which, he thought, might be turned by several of his cylinders acting alternately by the rack work shown in his drawing.[34]

In 1683, a little before Papin, Sir Samuel Morland, Master of Works to Charles II., wrote a treatise on the “Élévation des Eaux par toutes sortes de Machines,” &c., with four pages appended to it called “The Principles of the New Force of Fire, invented by Samuel Morland in 1682, and presented to His Most Christian Majesty in 1683.” In this work (still in MS. in the Harleian Collection of the British Museum), it is stated that “water being converted into vapour by the force of fire, these vapours shall require a greater space (about 2000 times) than the water occupied, and sooner than be constantly confined would split a piece of cannon.” It is remarkable that, so long before careful experiments had been made on the expansibility of water when converted into vapour, Morland should have given so near an approximation to the true amount (about 1750 times).

Savery.

Thomas Savery, one of the most ingenious men of the age in which he lived, proposed (1696) a mode of raising water and occasioning motion “to all sorts of mill-work by the impelling force of Fire,” adding,[35] “it may be very useful to ships, but I dare not meddle with that matter, and leave it to the judgement of those who are the best judges of maritime affairs.”[36]

In 1697, Papin (whose own invention had proved a failure) used Savery’s engine, which had been greatly improved by Newcomen in 1705 to propel a steam-boat on the Fulda.[37] In that year, too, Papin proposed to drive a vessel by paddle-wheels turned by the stream, and by boat-hooks which somehow pushed against or griped the bottom.[38] Chabert, in 1710, described a vessel with large paddle-wheels working in troughs cut through the hull;[39] and, in 1721, we read of a galley built in France with revolving oars fastened to a drum or wheel with paddle-vanes on hinges, capable of being set to any angle, and of being worked by 200 men, the galley having three of these wheels on each side.[40] John Allan, in 1722, proposed a mode of navigating a ship, “by forcing water or some other fluid through the stern or hinder part, at a convenient distance under the surface of the water, into the sea, by proper engines placed within the ship.” He also proposed, as Papin had previously done, a machine with the power of “firing gunpowder in clauso,” with the view of navigating a ship in a calm.[41]

Jonathan Hulls.

In 1736, Jonathan Hulls made some practical progress in the idea so long floating vaguely in the minds of his predecessors, and, on the 23rd December of that year, secured a patent for his invention “of a machine for carrying ships and vessels out of or into any harbour or river against wind and tide or in a calm,” of which the following is a sketch.

His specification[42] described how to drive a paddle-wheel by converting a reciprocating rectilinear motion into a continuous rotary one. But though Hulls’ mode of obtaining a rotary motion was new and ingenious, and would, perhaps, enable a steam-boat in a calm to be moved through the water, moreover is the first steam-boat authentically recorded, it was probably not such as could be made practically useful for the general purposes of commerce, and I have been unable to find any record of this or of any such vessel having been so used. At the same time, it must be added that boats not unlike Hulls’ may now be seen trading in parts of the world remote from each other, as, for instance, on the Murray in South Australia, where various vessels, of which the following is an illustration, are employed, and on the upper Thames where one, at least, to my knowledge is now worked, which does not seem to be any very marked improvement on the boat of Jonathan Hulls.[43]

James Watt’s engine.

In 1756, Gauthier, a French mathematician, wrote a treatise on “Navigation by Fire,” which attracted the attention of the Venetian Republic.[44] But whatever merit some of these ingenious discoveries may have possessed, it was not till the 5th January, 1769, when James Watt obtained his patent, that any steam-engine could be effectually adopted in marine propulsion.

Among various other improvements in the steam-engine patented by him, the most important was one for causing the steam to act above the piston, as well as below it, described as the “double impulse,” or, now more commonly called, the double acting engine.[45] On the old principle, when the weight of the atmosphere had pressed down the piston, a valve opened in the bottom of the cylinder whereby a fresh supply of hot steam rushed in from the boiler, which, acting as a pressure in excess of that of the atmosphere above the piston, combined with the weight of the pump rods at the other end of the lever, carried that end down, and of course raised the piston in the steam cylinder. The orifice for the emission of the steam having been then shut, and the cock opened for injecting the cold water into the cylinder, condensation took place, and another vacuum was made below the piston, which was again forced down by the weight of the atmosphere: thus the work was continued as long as water and fuel were supplied, and the steam-engine rendered capable of successful application for pumping purposes, a contrivance used even at the present day.[46] But the method contrived by Watt rendered the power of the engine much more effective by the use of a detached condenser, whereby the cooling of the cylinders by the injection of water was prevented and considerable economy obtained.[47]

Matthew Wasborough.

Matthew Wasborough, however, an engineer of the city of Bristol, considering that something was still wanting to make the marine engine a proper instrument of propulsion in concurrence with Watt’s improvement of the double acting cylinder, obtained, on the 16th March, 1779, a patent for a practical mode of converting a rectilinear into a continuous circular motion; one of his objects being to adapt his invention “for moving in a direct position any ship or vessel.”[48]

His invention, however, did not answer, and was indeed superseded by that of James Pickard, 23rd August, 1780, who, shortly afterwards entering into partnership with Wasborough, patented a method of working a mill with a rotary motion by means of the present connecting rod and crank and a fly wheel, constituting the second important improvement in the steam-engine, and enabling it to be of really practical service in propelling vessels. In 1781 (25th October), James Watt obtained another patent for his newly invented method of applying the vibrating or reciprocating motion of steam or fire-engines to procure a continued circular motion round an axis so as to turn the wheels of mills or other machines. This invention is known as the “Sun and Planet” motion.[49]

Marquis de Jouffroy.

In the same year (1781), the Marquis de Jouffroy is said to have constructed a steam-boat at Lyons 140 feet in length, and to have made with her several successful experiments on the Saone near that city. Mr. MacGregor, however, has made particular inquiries[50] into the authenticity of the claims of the Marquis, and, as no description of the machinery of this vessel is discoverable earlier than that given by himself thirty years afterwards, when he petitioned for the use exclusively of steam-boats for fifteen years, these claims are, to say the least, very questionable, while, in a report on his improvements, the invention is said to be Rumsey’s, but more likely that of his own countryman Gauthier, whose death prevented his plans from being practically exemplified by the Venetian Republic. The French Revolution, however, supervening, the Marquis had not an opportunity of prosecuting his undertaking.

Bramah’s screw-propeller.

In 1785, Joseph Bramah, a man of great genius, and the inventor of the hydraulic press, obtained a patent for an hydrostatical machine and a boiler on a peculiar principle, in which the power of air, steam, or any other elastic vapour, might be employed for the working of engines. Another of his inventions is a mode of propelling vessels by the improved rotatory engine described in the specification, through the medium of either a paddle-wheel or what may be called a screw-propeller. Bramah shows a vessel with a rudder placed in the bow, and describes in his specification the nature of the “screw-propeller” and of its mode of action in minute and specific terms.[51]

Although there is no record of Bramah having put his proposal into practice, the description lodged by him at the Patent Office is interesting, as showing clearly an indication of the now so well-known screw-propeller. Moreover, in this invention, he obviously intended that steam should be used so as to give circular motion to the propeller shaft. Previously, however, to the time when he patented his invention, the rotatory screw as a mode of propulsion had been proposed by Watt, who, in 1770, suggested the application of a screw-propeller to be turned by a steam-engine.[52]

But more than half a century elapsed before the screw, now in almost general use, was practically applied; indeed, the first authentic record we possess of the marine engine itself having been successfully worked by paddle or any other means on board any vessel, dates no further back than 1787, although, between 1774 and 1790, Fitch and Rumsey were experimenting in America on boats (to which I shall hereafter refer) to work against streams.

Mr. Miller of Dalswinton.

In that year (1787) Mr. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton in Scotland, a gentleman of position and fortune, published a pamphlet (given at length by Mr. Woodcroft[53] in his interesting and instructive work on steam navigation, with copies of Mr. Miller’s drawings illustrative of his scheme), on the subject of propelling boats by means of paddle-wheels turned by men, working on a capstan with five bars, each 5 feet long, which drove a water-wheel, having the same object in view as Messrs. Fitch and Rumsey, then engaged on similar works on the other side of the Atlantic.

This wheel, of which the following is a sketch, drove the vessel in a calm from 3 to 4 miles an hour; and, as Mr. Miller judged the capstan the best mode of turning the wheel, he rejected for a time all other modes, believing manual labour so applied more to be depended on than any mechanical contrivances. For the purpose of his experiments he built, from first to last, eight boats of different kinds, expending no less than 30,000l. on them and their machinery. One was a treble vessel, or rather three boats fastened together, of which the following is a transverse representation of the fore part with the lower floats of the wheels at their full dip.

According to a written statement laid before the Council of the Royal Society, London, December 20, 1787, Mr. Miller made various excursions in this vessel in the course of that year; being attended in most of these by a Mr. James Taylor, the tutor in his family, who, being a man of considerable genius, urged Mr. Miller to apply steam to drive the wheels of his boat. At last Mr. Miller was induced to employ a young hard-working operative engineer, named Symington, to carry out Mr. Taylor’s suggestion, and the combination of capital, energy, and genius with practical knowledge soon produced the desired results.

Mr. Symington and Mr. Taylor.

About this time Symington, who was employed at the lead mines at Wanlockhead, had succeeded in constructing a small steam-engine of a new description, originally intended for the purpose of propelling wheeled carriages, which he patented June 5th, 1787.[54]

His specification, accompanied by drawings, relates, 1, to heating the cylinder of a steam-engine; 2, loading the piston; 3, placing a fire round the cylinder; 4, a boiler; and, 5, “when rotatory motions of whatever kind are wanted, two ratchet wheels will be placed upon one or the same axis in such manner that, while the engine turns forward one wheel, the other will be reversed without impeding the motion or diminishing the power so as to be ready to carry on the motion by the time the other wheel begins to be reversed.”

As this engine was considered suitable for the purpose Mr. Taylor had in view, Symington[55] undertook to perform the work and Mr. Miller agreed to employ him. When completed it was mounted in an oak frame and placed on the deck of one of Mr. Miller’s pleasure-boats, a vessel 25 feet long and 7 feet wide, with two wheels, to be tested on Loch Dalswinton. The engine performed its work beyond their most sanguine expectations, driving the vessel at the rate of 5 miles an hour, though the cylinders were only 4 inches in diameter. After being used in cruising about the lake for a few days, the engine was removed from the boat and conveyed to Mr. Miller’s house, where it remained as a piece of ornamental furniture for a number of years.

The accounts which appeared in the Scottish newspapers at the time[56] state that the first experiment was made on the 14th November, 1788, and with such success that it was resolved to repeat it on a larger scale upon the Forth and Clyde Canal. A double engine with cylinders 18 inches in diameter was consequently ordered to be built at Carron Iron Works, and, in November of the following year, it was fitted on board of another of Mr. Miller’s vessels and tried on Dalswinton Loch. As, however, the floats of the wheels gave way, it was not until the 26th of December, by which time stronger wheels had been procured, that an opportunity was afforded for fairly testing the capabilities of this engine. From the accounts in the local papers of the period[57] the experiment appears to have answered thoroughly, though made under many disadvantages; a speed having been obtained of from 6½ to 7 miles an hour, which, in the words of the report, “sufficiently shows that a vessel properly constructed might accomplish 8, 9, or even 10 miles an hour easily.”[58]

Such was one among the first efforts made in steam navigation. That they were considered to be of practical value may in some measure be determined by the fact that Mr. Taylor’s widow was, a few years afterwards, awarded an annual pension of 50l., and that, in 1837, Lord Melbourne’s administration presented 50l. to each of his four daughters, who were in reduced circumstances, Mr. Symington having previously (1825), in answer to his memorial to the Treasury for a pension (he, too, being almost penniless), been awarded 100l. as a gift from the Privy Purse, and subsequently a further sum of 50l. Poor Symington![59] What a miserable return for labours of such inestimable value!

The Charlotte Dundas.

Mr. Miller having expended a large fortune on these experiments, found it, no doubt, inconvenient to continue them, or having other projects in view, gave orders to dismantle the vessel in which his last experiment had been made, and laid her up with her engines at Bence Haven, at that time his property. More than ten years elapsed before Mr. Symington found another patron, indeed, it was not till 1801, that Thomas first Lord Dundas, employed him to fit up a steam-boat for the Forth and Clyde Canal Company, in which he was a large shareholder. Having availed himself of the many improvements made by Watt and others, Symington patented his new engine on the 14th of March of that year,[60] and fitting it on board the Charlotte Dundas, named after his lordship’s daughter, produced, in the opinion of most writers who have carefully and impartially inquired into this interesting subject, “the first practical steam-boat.”[61] Mr. Woodcroft has furnished a sectional drawing of this vessel of which the following is a copy on a reduced scale;[62] it resembled in many respects the description of vessel suggested by Jonathan Hulls, but not till now practically applied.

In March 1802, the Charlotte Dundas made her trial trip on the Forth and Clyde Canal. Embarking at Lock 20 a party of gentlemen, including Lord Dundas, and taking in tow two vessels or barges of 70 tons burden, she accomplished the trip to Port Dundas, Glasgow, a distance of 19½ miles, in six hours, or at the rate of 3¼ miles per hour, although it blew so strong a gale right ahead during the whole day that no other vessel on the canal attempted to move to windward.[63] Lord Dundas entertaining a very favourable opinion of the experiment, recommended the adoption of Symington’s steam-boat in a letter of introduction to the Duke of Bridgewater, who gave him an order to construct eight vessels similar to the Charlotte Dundas to ply on his canal.

Elated by his success, Symington returned to Scotland to make arrangements for carrying out the orders of his Grace with the hope of realizing the advantages his ingenuity and perseverance so well merited; but he was disappointed in his hopes, the Duke of Bridgewater died before the details of the agreement had been definitely arranged, and the Committee who had charge of the affairs of the canal after his death, came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to use steamboats on it for fear of injury to its banks. We may presume that the Forth and Clyde Canal Company arrived at somewhat similar conclusions, for the Charlotte Dundas does not appear to have been again used.

Here it may be desirable to add that the Charlotte Dundas had an engine with the steam acting on each side of the piston (Watt’s patented invention) working a connecting rod and crank (Pickard’s patented invention)[64] together with the union of the crank to the axis of Miller’s improved paddle-wheel, thus combining for the first time the essential characteristics of the existing marine engines: nevertheless, she was laid up in a creek of the canal near to Bramford Drawbridge, where she remained for many years exposed to public view, as a curiosity—doubtless, also, as a warning to speculators![65]

Symington’s limited means were now nearly exhausted, and the little that remained was expended in defending himself from attacks made on him by the relations of Mr. Taylor for having patented, as they alleged, the inventions of that gentleman. But the contentions of rival parties, inter se, rarely deserve commemoration except for the elucidation of the truth. It is, however, to be regretted that each of those persons who respectively contributed to the maturity of this invention, did not reap more material advantages from it in return for the time and labour they bestowed in perfecting a machine which has done so much for the benefit of mankind.

In 1797, an experiment in canal steam navigation, copied no doubt from Symington’s original boat, was made in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, which is alluded to as follows in the Monthly Magazine for July of that year:—“Lately, at Newton Common in Lancashire, a vessel, heavy laden with copper slag, passed along the Sankey Canal without the aid of haulers or rowers, the oars performing eighteen strokes a minute by the application of steam only! After a course of 10 miles the vessel returned the same evening by the same means to St. Helens whence she had set out.”

While these experiments were being made with success in Great Britain, and especially in Scotland, there were not wanting claimants—some of them of somewhat earlier date—to this great invention in other and distant parts of the world. To that of Gauthier we have already referred. In 1776, a countryman of his, Guyon de la Plombiere, suggested the use of a steam-engine for propelling a vessel;[66] and, in that year, the Marquis de Jouffroy states he used, besides the one already mentioned, a steam boat (40 feet long and 16 feet wide) on the Doubs, with propellers moved by a chain from a single cylinder and counterpoise, which opened and closed like louvre boards;[67] applying, in 1780, an engine to his boat with a duck-foot propeller, two cylinders, inclined at an angle, and turned by a chain round a barrel.[68]

In 1782, Dixblancs sent to the Conservatoires des Arts et Metiers a model of a steamboat moved by a chain of floats carried on wheels at its sides turned by a horizontal cylinder;[69] and in 1796, it is stated that one Seraffino Serrati, an Italian, had some time previously placed a steam-boat on the Arno, near Florence.[70]

Rumsey and Fitch.

The Americans, as already stated, had, also, at an early period turned their attention to new modes of propelling vessels. In 1784, James Rumsey mentioned to General Washington a project of steam navigation, but, having been refused a patent in Pennsylvania, came to England and succeeded in inducing a wealthy countryman of his own, then resident in London, and others, to disburse the expenses of an experiment, for which he obtained a patent in 1788. The particulars of his plan are given at length by Mr. Woodcroft[71] and will also be found in the Rolls Chapel Reports.[72] They were altogether impracticable for any useful purpose. In 1786, Mr. John Fitch, also an American by birth, proposed to use vertical oars worked by cranks turned by a horizontal steam-engine of which the following is an illustration.[73]

Although the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania had, in 1784, turned a deaf ear to the applications of Messrs. Rumsey and Fitch, these gentlemen, in the following year, obtained from the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland the exclusive right to run steamboats on the waters of those States, while Pennsylvania and New York having, in 1786, granted to Mr. Fitch himself similar exclusive rights, he in that year made a trial of his machine at Shepherdstown, Pennsylvania, in a boat of 9 tons, obtaining, it is said, the speed of 4 or 5 miles an hour against the current of the Potomac. In 1787, Mr. Fitch[74] built another vessel, 12 feet beam, and 45 feet long, with a 12-inch cylinder, the mode of propulsion being somewhat similar, in which he is reported[75] to have made the trip from Philadelphia to Burlington at an average rate of 7 miles an hour. In 1790, he completed another and a larger boat, propelled in a different manner: and, by referring to the Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Advertiser, of 26th July, 1790, the following advertisement will be found: “The steam-boat sets out to-morrow morning at ten o’clock from Arch Street Ferry, in order to take passengers for Burlington, Bristol, Bordingtown, and Fenton:” there is, therefore, no doubt that this boat actually traded with passengers on the Delaware.

But a glance at the second boat built by Fitch, of which the following is an illustration, will show that the grasshopper paddles which he now employed, however well they may have answered for a time on the smooth waters of the Delaware, were not adapted for the general purposes of navigation any more than the treadles in his first invention.[76] Indeed, Fitch himself did not follow up the line of steam service he had commenced at so early a date, but on the invitation, as he alleged, of the French Government, he soon afterwards visited Paris with the view of constructing vessels on his plan. As he was not, however, supplied with the necessary funds (no doubt arising from the fact that the French engineers were not satisfied with the practicability or desirability of his mode of propulsion) no vessel on his plan was built in France, and he was obliged to return to the United States, at the expense of the American Consul. As no further mention is made of vessels fitted on the plans[77] suggested by Fitch, it may be inferred that they were not adapted for practical or useful purposes, or that the machinery was too complicated or too expensive to work remuneratively.

J. C. Stevens.

In 1791, John Cox Stevens, of New York, commenced improvements on steam navigation; but it was not until 1804 that any of these were carried into practice; and even after an expenditure, as he states, of “twenty thousand dollars,” and the constant devotion “of thirteen years of the best period of his life” to the project, he admits that his attempts were on the whole unsuccessful. These consisted of a plan for propelling a boat 25 feet long and 5 feet wide, by a rotatory engine, on the axle of which revolved a wheel, like a windmill or smoke-jack, worked at the stern, but he found it impossible to preserve a sufficient degree of tightness in the packing of the engine. A second modification of his rotatory apparatus proving on trial no better than the first, he had recourse to Watt’s engine, omitting the beam, and having a cylinder 4½ inches diameter with a nine-inch stroke; the boiler, which was only 2 feet long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, consisting of no less than forty-one copper tubes, each an inch in diameter. This boat (which is interesting as the first in which we have a direct account of the use of tubular boilers) was tried in May 1804, and attained a velocity of 4 miles an hour.[78] After having made repeated trials with her, his son undertook to cross from Hoboken to New York, when, unfortunately, as she approached the wharf, the steam-pipe gave way. The boiler having also been damaged, he constructed another with the tubes placed vertically, and for this, perhaps the only portion of his invention worth securing, he, in the year 1805, obtained a patent in England,[79] where he then resided.

Oliver Evans.

While Fitch and Stevens were employed in the manner I have described, another American citizen, Oliver Evans, an ingenious mechanic, was endeavouring to mature a plan for using steam of a very high pressure, to be employed in propelling waggons on common roads, and in an account of his plans which he published in 1786,[80] he suggests a mode of propelling vessels by steam. From this circumstance he has been regarded by some authors as the contriver of a practicable steam-boat: his pretensions, however, rest solely on his own allegations. He states that, in 1785, he placed his engine, used to cleanse docks, in a boat upon wheels, the combined weight being equal to 200 barrels of flour, which he transported down to the water, and, when it was launched, he fixed a paddle-wheel to the stern, and drove it down the Schuylkill to Delaware and up the Delaware to the city, “leaving all the vessels going up behind me at least half-way, the wind being ahead.”

In 1794, one Samuel Morey, of Connecticut, is said to have built a steam-boat which he propelled at 5 miles an hour on the Connecticut River, and, in 1797, he built another, with side wheels, at Bordentown, New Jersey, which was publicly exhibited and made a passage to Philadelphia, but which does not appear to have been afterwards employed.

Robert Fulton.

In 1793, Robert Fulton, of whose exertions in the development of steam-engines and their early application to useful purposes[81] the Americans are justly proud, is said to have conceived some time previously the idea of propelling vessels by steam. It was not, however, until 1796 that any of his inventions were brought under notice: when, in that year, his plan for using small canals as a means of transit and for raising and lowering vessels on them by inclined planes was published. In the same year, 1796, it is said that he also suggested and used an apparatus for propelling vessels under water, to be employed in war,[82] but it was not until 1798 that he tried successfully to propel a boat with a steam-engine and a four bladed screw-propeller.[83] That he had shown an early taste for mechanical pursuits there can be no doubt, and, in 1801, when Napoleon contemplated the conquest of England, we know that Fulton made the friendly proposal to convey the legions of French soldiers who were to invade our shores by means of rafts propelled by steam; but, though the Emperor rejected the proposal as chimerical, Fulton, by his intercourse with the French Government, was afforded an opportunity of becoming intimately acquainted with Mr. Livingston, at that time Minister of the United States at Paris, with whom he frequently conversed on the subject of steam navigation, these communications having in the sequel very important results.

And Mr. Livingston.

Mr. Livingston, who had previously been associated with Stevens in the United States in experiments and in various plans for promoting steam navigation, entered readily into the proposals of Fulton, and, on his suggestion, a boat was built on the Seine, the engine for which was ordered in England. This experimental boat, 66 feet long, and 8 feet wide, was completed in 1803. When on the point of making her first trial, the weight of the machinery broke the boat in two and both sank. They were, however, soon raised and the necessary repairs were shortly completed, but, on trial, the boat did not move with as much speed as Mr. Fulton expected.

Plan really derived from English experiments of Symington.

Before describing Fulton’s further experiments, it may be convenient to direct attention to a statement made by Symington soon afterwards in the newspapers of the period, which remains uncontradicted, for the purpose of showing that whatever merit is due to Fulton, his information was derived from others.

There is, indeed, no doubt that, in 1802, when Symington was conducting his experiments under the patronage of Lord Dundas, a stranger came to the banks of the Forth and Clyde Canal and requested an interview, announcing himself as Mr. Fulton of the United States,[84] whither he intended to return, and expressing a desire to see Mr. Symington’s boat and machinery, and to procure some information of the principles on which it was moved, before he left Europe. He remarked that, however beneficial the invention might be to Great Britain, it would be of more importance to North America, considering the numerous navigable rivers and lakes of that continent, and the facility for procuring timber for building vessels and supplying them with fuel; that the usefulness of steam-vessels in a mercantile point of view could not fail to attract the attention of every observer; and that, if he was allowed to carry the plan to the United States, it would be advantageous to Mr. Symington, as, if his engagements would permit, the constructing or superintending of the construction of such vessels would naturally devolve upon him. Mr. Symington, in compliance with the stranger’s request, caused the engine fire to be lighted, and the machinery put in motion. Several persons entered the boat, and along with Mr. Fulton were carried from where she then lay, to Lock No. 16 on the Forth and Clyde Canal, about four miles west, and returned to the starting-place in one hour and twenty minutes, being at the rate of six miles an hour, to the astonishment of Mr. Fulton and the other gentlemen.[85]

Mr. Fulton obtained leave to take notes and sketches of the size and construction of the boat and apparatus; but he never afterwards communicated with Mr. Symington. From the concurrent testimony of Mr. Jacob Perkins, and the oaths of those present in the boat during the experiment, it is evident that Fulton availed himself of the information obtained from Symington, and ordered from Messrs. Boulton and Watt of Birmingham, a steam-engine for propelling a boat intended to be built in the United States.[86]

Fulton builds steamers in the United States.

In 1806 Mr. Fulton, in conjunction with Mr. Livingston, commenced building a steam-boat in America, in the yard of Charles Brown on the East (Hudson) River. She was decked for a short distance only at stem and stern. The engine was open to view, and a house, like that of a canal boat, was raised to cover the boiler and the apartments for the passengers and crew. There were no wheel-guards. The boiler was set in masonry. She was launched in the spring of 1807, and the engines ordered from Boulton and Watt[87] were fixed in that boat. The engine differed very little from that of the Charlotte Dundas, whose piston had a four-foot stroke, with a cylinder 22 inches in diameter, while that of the Clermont (as the American boat was named, after the residence of Mr. Livingston on the Hudson) had also a piston with a four-foot stroke, and a cylinder 24 inches in diameter. Such similarity in the dimensions of the engines could hardly have arisen from a mere accident.

But whatever information Fulton derived from Symington, he claimed no patent for the assumed discovery. On the first trial of the Clermont her speed was 5 miles an hour. Fulton perceiving that her paddles entered too deep into the water had them removed, and placed nearer the centres of the wheels. He afterwards made a further trip in her, leaving New York at one o’clock on Monday, and arrived at Clermont, the seat of Mr. Livingston, at one o’clock on Tuesday, performing in twenty-four hours a distance of 110 miles. On the voyage from Clermont to Albany, a distance of 40 miles, the time was eight hours, equal on the average of both passages to nearly 5 miles an hour.

The Clermont.

The Clermont was soon afterwards lengthened and considerably improved in appearance and usefulness—indeed, almost wholly rebuilt. Her hull was covered from stem to stern with a flush deck, beneath which two cabins were formed, surrounded by double ranges of berths, and fitted up for comfort in a manner then unexampled. Her dimensions now were, “Length, 130 feet; breadth, 16½ feet; with an engine of only eighteen horse-power,[88] though her burden was 160 tons, the boiler being 20 feet long, 7 feet deep, and 8 feet broad; the axle of her paddle-wheel was cast iron, but it had no outer support; the diameter of the paddle-wheels was 15 feet, and the paddles were 4 feet long, dipping into the water 2 feet.”

It appears from a paragraph in the American Citizen (newspaper) of the 17th August, 1807,[89] that Mr. Fulton’s original intention was to ply with his boat on the Mississippi; but the passenger trade on the Hudson then offered greater inducements. Various accounts have been given of the performances of the Clermont, but, without referring to these, it is better to furnish Fulton’s own description of the trial, which he gave in a letter addressed to the above newspaper,[90] as this is more likely to be accurate than any other account, and has never been contradicted; indeed, had his statements been exaggerated, they would certainly have been questioned at the time, the more so that his great experiment was bitterly opposed by the owners of all the sailing-vessels then employed on the Hudson.

The following is a representation of the Clermont as she appeared on the Hudson after being improved,[91] and where she continued to ply with goods and passengers between New York and Albany for some years.

Merits and demerits of Fulton.

But though the Clermont was unquestionably a great practical success, and the first boat in the world regularly and continuously engaged in passenger traffic, she encountered many difficulties in her commercial operations.[92] In overcoming these difficulties and persevering with his novel undertaking, much credit is due to Robert Fulton; and though he was not, indeed he never claimed to be, the inventor of the steam-engine as applicable to marine propulsion, the manner in which various English authors of note have written,[93] and the tone in which an eminent English engineer has spoken of him, do not become men in their positions.[94] If we do not consider it necessary to be generous to the genius or, rather, to the persevering industry of men of other nations, we ought at least to be just, and not to overlook important facts or allow our judgment to be biased, because the man whose labours we are describing was not a countryman of our own.

At all events, the first “to run” a steam-vessel regularly;

Even when the fact is clearly established, and there is, without doubt, every reason to suppose that Fulton borrowed largely from Watt, Pickard, and Symington, and, it might be added, from his own countrymen, Fitch and Rumsey, this ought not to detract from his merit in putting all the inventions of these men and others together, and in first applying them to practical and useful purposes. He did what no other man had done before him; he commenced and continued to run the steam-ship which now traverses every river, every coast, and every ocean, and which, of all the inventions of man, is the mightiest harbinger of peace and good-will among nations the world has ever seen. If his was a combination of the inventions of others, if he were a “quack,” it was only on a small scale compared to those persons who combine the inventions of men of all nations in the magnificent steam-engines of the present day. Do we, however, think less of any one of these engines when we see it in motion, and know that that beautiful machine, more like a living thing than any other work of man, is not the invention of any one man, or of any one nation? And ought we to think less highly of Robert Fulton when we know the labour he bestowed to collect the inventions of the age in which he lived, the hardships he endured to put them into operation, and the difficulties he had to overcome in applying them to useful purposes?

That these difficulties were very great, so great indeed that to most men they would have been insurmountable, may be known from the fact that the Clermont was often, intentionally, run into by rival vessels on the river Hudson, and that the legislature was compelled to pass a law punishing by fine and imprisonment any person who attempted to destroy or injure her. Nor did his troubles end here. When the State of New York, convinced of the practical utility of his invention, granted him the exclusive privilege of navigating its rivers for a certain number of years, he was harassed by numerous law suits, and at last so thoroughly broken down by the oppressive influence of men of capital, who were either interested in the sailing-vessels, or in other inventions, that the State, in deference to the opinions of those sticklers who grudged him the merit of his labours, rescinded its concession, and passed a resolution that the boats built by Fulton were in substance the invention of his countryman, Fitch; a most unjust decision, as both of Fitch’s models, as I have shown, were valueless, while Fulton’s were practicable.

and to develop its power and usefulness.

But, to whomsoever the invention belonged, the merit of first permanently developing its power and usefulness belongs to Robert Fulton. He it was who showed how it could be made not merely an instrument of vast importance to mankind, but also an immense source of profit to all who adopted it, though he himself, if reports be true, derived no advantage from it, but died in 1815 very poor and almost broken-hearted through the persecution of jealous and narrow-minded rivals, leaving his family in greatly embarrassed circumstances, but at the same time leaving behind him an everlasting memorial of his energy and perseverance, and an enduring stigma on those who had taunted him with a “Fulton’s folly.”

The application of the new power to the propulsion of vessels was rapidly followed up in America, and, in 1809, the first steamboat was launched on the St. Lawrence of which an account at the time appeared in the Quebec Mercury.[95]

First steam-boat on the St. Lawrence, 1813.

In the spring of 1813, a second boat of increased dimensions was launched from the banks of the St. Lawrence. She was 130 feet in length of keel, and 140 feet on deck with a width of 24 feet, and by the account given by the Mercury she made the passage from Montreal to Quebec in twenty-two and a half hours, notwithstanding that the wind was easterly the whole time and blowing strong. But though the Swiftsure, for such was her name, beat the most famous of the sailing packets on the line (fourteen hours in a race of thirty-six hours), her owners do not seem to have been very confident of her movements under all circumstances or of the number of passengers who would patronize her, for she was advertised to “sail as the wind and passengers may suit.” The success of the Clermont for the purposes of passenger traffic on rivers soon, however, spread to other countries.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Ante, vol. i. Introd. p. xxxi. Arrian, Exped. Alex. 11, 21.

[3] Galley from Koyunjik, ante, vol. i. p. 276.

[4] See the bas-reliefs from Nineveh, British Museum.

[5] Owen’s “Lectures on Comparative Anatomy,” 2nd. ed. p. 605. Carpenter’s “Physiology,” 645. “Woodcroft on Marine Propulsion,” note, p. 1, and drawing of Nautilus in frontispiece to Woodcroft’s “Steam Navigation.” See also an interesting paper, read at the Society of Arts on the 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., M.A., Barrister at Law.

[6] There is little difference between the action of an oar in sculling and that of the modern screw-propeller, which is fast superseding the paddle-wheel in all ocean-going steamers: the one has an alternate lateral motion, like the tail of a fish; the other is rotatory, but with the same effect. It may be added that fishes often have the power of “feathering” their tails, by puckering their lobes in their forward motion, and expanding them on their return, so as to displace as little water as possible, while they, at the same time, rely for their advancement on the reaction of the water in the direction of their body. These points have been carefully considered in the construction and arrangement of the blades of the screw, as well as the important fact that the tail of the fish or the sweep of an oar in their motions displace a quantity of water, great in proportion to the length of the instruments employed; and further, that it is by the resistance the water makes to this displacement by the oar or tail, in their continued oscillation, coming as these do from their extreme sweep to the axis of the boat or fish, that either is urged forward.

[7] An edition of Hero’s “Pneumatics” has been published by Mr. Woodcroft. Lond., 4th ed. 1851. His second experiment is referred to in Muirhead’s “Life of James Watt,” 2nd ed. p. 107.

[8] The principle of Hero’s steam-machine depends on the physical law that, when any fluid issues from a vessel in which it has been confined, the vessel is acted on by a force equal to that with which the fluid escapes, but in the opposite direction. Thus, if water issues from an orifice, a pressure is produced behind the orifice corresponding to the force with which the water escapes: hence, the recoil of a gun when fired. If the muzzle were turned at right angles to the length of the gun, the explosive gases would escape sideways, and the shooter, instead of being forced back, would spin round. The orifices in each case are exposed to the atmosphere, which tends to rush in with a force of a little less than 15 lbs. on the square inch: the force, therefore, with which the steam escapes represents the excess of its elasticity over that of the atmosphere, which furnishes, as it were, the fulcrum, and thus gives motion to the machine. Mr. Bourne states that the principle of the Æolipile is the same as that embodied in Avery and Ruthven’s engines for the production of rotatory power. “These engines,” he says, “are more expensive in steam than ordinary engines and travel at an inconvenient speed; but in other respects they are quite as effectual, and their construction is extremely simple and inexpensive.”

[9] In another experiment (No. 37), Hero shows “how temple doors may be opened by fire on an altar.” He says, “Let the proposed temple stand on a pedestal, on which is also a small altar. Through the altar insert a tube, of which one mouth is within the altar, and the other nearly at the centre of a globe. The tube must be soldered to the globe in which a bent syphon is placed. Let the hinges of the doors be extended downwards, turning freely on pivots, and from the hinges let two chains running into one be attached by means of a pulley to a leaden weight, on the descent of which the doors will be shut, let the outer leg of the syphon bend into a suspended vessel and fill the globe half full of water. When the fire becomes hot, the heated air in the altar expands and, passing through the tube into the globe, will drive the liquid through the syphon into the suspended vessel which, descending by its weight, will tighten the chains and open the doors.”

[10] Although there may be a doubt how far the inventions recorded by Hero were used for superstitious practices, there is no question that, somewhat later, the agency of steam was employed for purposes anything but legitimate. Thus Gibbon (c. xl.) gives an amusing account of how Anthemius, the architect of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, avenged, himself on Zeno, the orator. “In a lower room,” says he, “Anthemius arranged several vessels or cauldrons of water, each of them covered by the wide bottom of a leathern tube, which rose to a narrow top, and was artificially conveyed among the joints and rafters of the adjacent building. A fire was kindled beneath the cauldron; the steam of the boiling water ascended through the tubes; the house was shaken by the effects of imprisoned air, and its trembling inhabitants might wonder that the city was unconscious of the earthquake they had felt.” Still later, Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” notices an ancient Teutonic god, called Bustarich, on the banks of the Weser, who was made by the priests to show his displeasure through the agency of steam. The head of the metal God was hollow and had within it a pot of water. Its mouth and another hole having been plugged, a charcoal fire was cleverly lighted under it, in such a way as not to be perceived by the expectant worshippers. After a while, the imprisoned steam forced out the plugs, with a loud report, followed by two jets of steam, which formed a dense cloud round the god and concealed him from his astonished worshippers.

[11] Paper read at the Society of Arts 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., Barrister at Law.

[12] This work in Latin, printed at Verona, 1472, is the first book with woodcuts printed in Italy.

[13] This letter is written from Simancas, and bears the date 27th August, 1825. It was published 1826, in Lack’s “Astronomical Correspondence.”

[14] The interview with the Pope took place at Bupeto, 22nd of June, 1543, and the campaign against the duke of Cleves, the ally and general of Francis, followed.

[15] “On the 23rd of September last (1857),” remarks Mr. MacGregor, “I visited the town of Simancas, near Valladolid in Spain, with Captain John Ussher, to inspect some letters of Blasco de Garay, which are there preserved among the national archives.

“Having obtained the requisite Royal permission, I was allowed, after much difficulty, to read (but not to copy) two letters signed by Blasco de Garay, written clearly in Spanish and well preserved. One of these was addressed from Malaga, the other from Barcelona; and both were dated, A.D. 1543. They describe two separate experiments with different vessels, both of them moved by paddle-wheels turned by men.

“One vessel was stated to be of two hundred Spanish tons burthen, propelled by a paddle-wheel on each side, worked by twenty-five men. The other vessel was moved in a similar manner by forty men (in all). The speed attained is mentioned in the text, and is stated in a side note (written in a different hand) to have been one league, about three and a half English miles per hour. Various calculations, as to the tonnage, the motive power, the cost, and other matters are contained in the letters, and it is said that the vessel thus moved was found to steer well, but could be propelled more easily for a long time by oars. Also that, like other inventions, this would probably be improved by the experience of further trials. We read the letters carefully through, and neither of them contained any mention whatever of the use of steam, or any expression to indicate that this was contemplated.

“The officer left in charge of the documents, Don Manuel Garcia, said that he did not know of any other letters of Blasco de Garay, or of any other authentic papers relating to his experiment; that he believed most certainly Blasco de Garay did not invent or suggest the use of steam for propulsion; and that the assertion he had made was ‘un mensonge historique.’”

Disproved by Mr. MacGregor’s investigations.

On October 15th, 1857, and following days, Mr. MacGregor made diligent inquiries at Barcelona respecting Blasco de Garay, and after writing a letter inviting information on the subject to the Diario de Barcelona, 19th October, 1857, Señor Michel Mayor undertook to satisfy his inquiries. In the Archives of Aragon, the Director said that no trace of any document relating to Blasco de Garay was to be found, and, that the MSS. in that library were only by order of reigns, and not by dates. With the assistance of Don Gregorio and Fidil Clares, Mr. MacGregor states that he inspected the catalogue of the Bibliotheca Publica and of the Bibliotheca Publica Episcopal without any better result, the keepers of these libraries declaring they knew nothing of any other letter of Blasco de Garay; one of these officers said he believed that men only had been used to move the vessel, and the Government Inspector of Mines assured him that he was of the same opinion. But a Spanish engineer mentioned that some of the actual steam-engine machinery used in the vessels was still to be seen at the School of Artillery; after, however, diligent inquiry there, Mr. MacGregor could find no trace of any of these relics.

But after these investigations, it was reported to Mr. MacGregor through Colonel Stopford, of Madrid, that there was another letter of Blasco de Garay, in which he alludes to the steam-boat, and that this document was kept secret at Madrid, which, as Mr. MacGregor adds, “would not probably be the case if by its means the claim of a Spaniard to the invention of the steam-boat could be substantiated;” and he remarks in conclusion that, if Blasco de Garay used a steam-engine to propel a vessel, the evidence of this fact is not supported by his two letters at Simancas, and, further, that it has not been produced, if it is known there or at Barcelona, by the public officers and others interested in supporting such a claim.

[16] “Steam and Steam Navigation;” and article, “Steam Navigation,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 8th ed., vol. xx. p. 636.

[17] Since Mr. MacGregor’s visit, M. Bergenroth, who has done so much towards the elucidation of the manuscript treasures at Simancas, has been able at his leisure to copy the documents relating to De Garay, preserved there, they are;—1. A holograph from him to the Emperor, dated Malaga, September 10th, 1540, containing his report on the trial of one of his paddle-wheel ships. 2. The report of Captain Antonio Destigasura on the same trial trip. 3. The report of the Proveedores of Malaga concerning the same trip, dated July 24th, 1540. 4. The report of Blasco de Garay to the Emperor, dated July 6th, 1543, concerning the trial trip of another of his paddle-wheel ships, made at Barcelona in June, 1543. 5. A letter of Blasco de Garay to Carrs, dated June 20th, 1543. In none of these is any reference to steam-power to be found—thus completely confirming Mr. MacGregor’s previous statements.

[18] “Inventions and Devises,” by William Bourne, p. 15; London, 1578.

[19] Woodcroft’s “Manuscript Collection” and “Marine Propulsion,” vol. i. p. 7.

[20] “Marine Propulsion” from Patent Office, Woodcroft, vol. i. p. 8.

[21] Works of Roger Bacon, Hamburg, ed. 1598, pp. 74-75.

[22] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” pp. 3 and 4.

[23] Ibid., p. 5.

[24] Although there is no evidence that the Marquess of Worcester did employ steam to propel any boat, it must be allowed (in spite of the perhaps natural desire of Mr. Muirhead to exalt the genius of his relative, James Watt) that he was the first to make an actual steam-engine. Certain important points are clear from his description, viz., that the vessel in which the water was evaporated was distinct from that containing the water to be raised; that there were two vessels of similar description, the contents of which were alternately raised by the pressure of the “water rarefied by fire;” and that the water was lifted in a continuous stream by the aid of two cocks communicating with these vessels, and with the boiler. Now this is exactly the agency of steam at the present time, in that it is generated in one vessel, and used for mechanical purposes in another: indeed, it is just this distinction which shows the invention to have been a true one—for had the action of the steam been confined to the vessel in which it was produced, it would have been of no more practical use than were the experiments of Hero, De Caus, or Rivault. Complaint has been often made of the indistinctness and incompleteness of the descriptions furnished by the Marquess in his famous “Scantlings of one hundred Inventions,” but it may be doubted whether the author’s intention was really to convey knowledge of the mechanism he used, or even to indicate the physical principles on which they depend. His statement, however, is sufficient to enable any one possessing a knowledge of the mechanical qualities of steam, to understand the general nature of the machine produced. It ought also to be remembered that many of the ideas of inventions thrown out by the Marquess, as stenography, speaking statues, combination locks, &c., &c., have been since his time carried into effect.

[25] “Buchanan on Steam Propelling,” Glasgow, 1816, p. 161.

[26] “Bourne on the Screw-Propeller,” pp. 5 and 9.

[27] Morisotus, “Orbis Maritima,” Generalis Historia divisio, fol., 1643.

[28] The ferry boats at Quebec plying between the opposite sides of the river St. Lawrence were, at a very recent period, if they are not so still, propelled by horses and oxen walking along circular platforms so as to produce a power applied to the paddle-wheels of the boat. And a boat of a somewhat similar kind was, in the course of the present century, employed for some time between Yarmouth and Norwich in this country.

[29] 1. The middle beam. 2. The end with iron bars wherein the strength of the ship lyeth both ends alike. 3. Rudder of the ship. 4. The keel. 5. Iron bolts with screws. 6. Depth of the inner beam. 7. The wheel that goeth round it hath its motion. 8. The scuttles or hatchways. 9. The gallery where they walk.

[30] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, Part I. p. 29.

[31] Woodcroft, Part I. p. 51; and see Drawings, “Repository of Arts,” vol. i. (second series), p. 11.

[32] “He was a foolish man,” says Dr. Arnott, “who thought he had found the means of commanding always a fair wind for his pleasure boat by erecting an immense bellows in the stern. The bellows and the sails acted against each other, and there was no motion: indeed, in a perfect calm, there would be a little backward motion, because the sail would not catch all the wind from the bellows.”—Arnott, “Elements of Physics,” p. 120.

[33] “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, vol. i. pp. 16 and 17.

[34] Papin was driven from France by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and was associated with Robert Boyle in many of his experiments on the air-pump—he was elected F.R.S. in 1681, and was for a time, the secretary of the society. He was invited to Germany by the Landgrave of Hesse, was some years Professor of Mathematics at Marburg and died there, 1710; he seems the first to have clearly discerned the necessity of the vacuum under the cylinder, and that the pressure of the atmosphere alone is enormous. (A cylinder 1 foot in diameter, has a surface of 113 square inches, hence, the atmospheric pressure in it is 113 ⨉ 15 = 1695 lbs.). Papin first proposed to exhaust the air by pumps, and in 1687 laid this plan before the Royal Society; but such a plan would only have been a transference of power, the effect being the same in character as that of lifting the water to the water-wheel. His most important invention was that of a method of producing a vacuum by the condensation of steam—the reversal, in fact, of the process of the previous machines of De Caus and Lord Worcester. He drew the inference that, if water in its conversion into steam swelled many hundred times, it must follow that steam reconverted into water would shrink into its primitive dimensions. He was also the first to suggest the safety-valve, but he did not, strange to say, apply it to the machine subsequently invented. It has been asserted, though not proved, by some writers that Papin derived many of his ideas from Otto von Guericke, who had invented an air-pump as early as 1654.

[35] The “Miners’ Friend,” &c. A paper published by Savery in 1702.

[36] Thomas Savery was born about 1650, and, in early life, served as a military engineer; he then gave himself to the study of mechanics, and constructed a clock still in existence. He also made a boat with paddle-wheels, turned by a capstan, his object being, as he says, to enable ships to be moved independently of the wind. He next invented what he called his “Fire-machine,” and exhibited it to William III. and the Royal Society in 1699. He applied his engine largely to the pumping out of mines, and, though it was found ultimately to have too little power, and was superseded by that of Newcomen, Savery may fairly claim the credit of having constructed the first really practicable steam-engine. He invented also a very ingenious plan for determining the height of the water in the boiler of the steam-engine, which is still sometimes used.

[37] Letters to Leibnitz, “Dictionnaire des Inventions,” Migne’s N. Encycl., Paris, 1852, vol. xxxvi., art. “Vélocipèdes,” p. 317. Thomas Newcomen was a working blacksmith in the town of Dartmouth (Devon). He was assisted in his inventions by John Calley, a glazier of the same place, with whom he subsequently entered into partnership, and erected more than one engine which successfully pumped water from mines.

[38] “Acta Eruditorum,” 1737, p. 80.

[39] Ibid., 1709, p. 282.

[40] Gill’s “Technical Repository,” 1829, p. 251.

[41] “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, vol. i. p. 21.

[42] The reader will find this plan described at length in Woodcroft’s “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” pp. 23 and 34 (note). Hulls “placed a paddle-wheel on beams projecting over the stern, and it was turned by an atmospheric steam-engine acting in conjunction with a counterpoise weight upon a system of ropes and grooved wheels” (MacGregor).

[43] Jonathan Hulls was born at Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1699, and made his first experiments on the Avon at Evesham. In 1737 he published a pamphlet entitled “A Description and Draughts of a New Invented Machine;” in this he proposed to put a Newcomen engine on board a tow-boat to work a paddle-wheel placed in the stern.

Mr. Smiles (“Lives of Boulton and Watt,” p. 63) observes, “It has been stated that Newcomen took out a patent for his invention in 1705;” but this is a mistake, as no patent was ever taken out by Newcomen. It is supposed that Savery, having heard of his invention, gave him notice that he would regard his method of producing a vacuum as an infringement of his patent, yet the principle on which Newcomen’s engine worked was entirely different from that of Savery.

[44] He died shortly after his arrival at Venice, and his plans were never put into practical operation.

[45] The now well-known principle of a steam-engine is this: there is a cylinder with its rod fixed to one end of a lever, which is worked by the combined pressure of the atmosphere and the steam upon a piston, a temporary vacuum being made below it by suddenly condensing the steam, which had been let into the cylinder where this piston works, by a jet of cold water thrown into it. A partial vacuum being thus made, the weight of the atmosphere presses down the piston and raises the other end of the straight lever, thereby drawing up water from a mine, or, by the numberless improvements made of late years, communicating a mechanical power which may set in motion every description of machinery.

[46] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 14; “Cabinet Cyclopædia,” Mechanics, p. 258.

[47] Letter to Dr. Small, with a drawing; Muirhead’s “James Watt,” London, 1854, vol. ii. pp. 4, 8, 11.

[48] There seems little doubt (see Lardner, p. 186, and Muirhead’s “Life of Watt,” p. 273), that Watt was the real inventor of the crank for which Mr. Wasborough obtained the credit. Mr. Watt says distinctly, that, having noticed, in 1778 or 1779, certain defects in the “ratchet wheels” invented by Wasborough, he proceeded to remedy them, but having neglected to take out a patent for these improvements, a workman employed to make Mr. Watt’s model told “some of the people about Mr. Wasborough,” on which he took a patent for the application of the crank to steam-engines.

[49] In the Patent Museum, London, may be seen now (1875), the same “Sun and Planet” engine (a great curiosity), which Watt constructed in 1788 at Soho, near Birmingham.

[50] See “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion” (Part II.), p. 109, in which the existing documents are recapitulated and described.

[51] There is more in Bramah’s inventions than at first appears, and the scientific reader would do well to study that part of them referring to the “boiler.” The following remarks have reference to the screw:—

“Instead of the (paddle-wheel) A, may be introduced a wheel with inclined fans or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack, or the vertical sails of a windmill: this wheel or fly may be fixed on the spindle C alone, and may be wholly under water, where it would, by being turned round either way, cause the ship to be forced backwards or forwards, as the inclination of the fans or wings will act as oars with equal force both ways, and their power will be in proportion to the size and velocity of the wheel; allowing the fans to have a proper inclination, the steam-engine will also serve to clear the ship of water with singular expedition, which is a circumstance of much importance. This “apparatus for working the ship” is fixed in or beyond the stern, in or about the place where the rudder is usually placed, and its movement is occasioned by means of an horizontal spindle or axletree conveyed to the engine through the stern end of the ship.”

[52] See letter to Dr. Small (who replies he had tried it); Muirhead’s “James Watt,” London, 1854, vol. ii. pp. 4, 8, 11.

[53] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 20, et seq.

[54] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 36.

[55] It is clear that Mr. Symington is entitled to the credit of the application of steam-power to propel the paddles. Mr. Miller stuck to the capstan and manual labour, but, on one occasion, having been to see Symington’s locomotive, he told him of his own invention, and of the difficulty he had with his paddles for lack of power. “Why don’t you use the steam-engine?” was Symington’s immediate remark. Miller at once assented, but first constructed a double vessel, with the paddle-wheels worked by five men at the capstan amidships, and, in June 1787, the first experiment with her was deemed successful. A short time subsequently steam was directly applied, but, whether in consequence of Symington’s remark, is not certain. Mr. Taylor, who is said to have suggested it, was an intimate friend and fellow-pupil with Symington at Edinburgh 1786-7. (Smiles’ “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” p. 438.)

[56] Dumfries paper; Edinburgh Advertiser, and the Scot’s Magazine, vol. 1. p. 566, November, 1788.

[57] Caledonian Mercury, Evening Courant, and Advertiser.

[58] In the Patent Office Museum, London, there may still be seen, “the parent engine of steam navigation, made for Patrick Miller, Esq., and used by him on the lake at Dalswinton, 1788.” It consists of two small paddles, working one behind the other, to be fitted on the same side apparently of a small boat.

[59] From the narrative given by Mr. Smiles in his “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” it is certain that they discouraged what they considered “speculative” adventures. Both were written to, with requests that they would make engines for Mr. Miller, those constructed by Symington not having answered as well as was expected, and both declined to have anything to do with the scheme. (Smiles, p. 445.)

[60] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 54.

[61] “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 637.

[62] Mr. Smiles, in his interesting “Lives of the Engineers” (i.) states that, in 1790, Lord Stanhope had proposed a mode of propelling vessels by steam, and had been in communication with Mr. Rennie on this subject, who, on the 26th April of that year, sent his Lordship such information as he could obtain about Boulton and Watt’s improved steam-engine. Lord Stanhope objected to the space occupied by the condensing apparatus, to which Mr. Rennie replied that high pressure could be applied, on which his Lordship constructed a vessel on that plan which obtained a speed of 3 miles an hour (vol. ii. p. 237).

[63] Mr. Woodcroft observes that “this vessel might, from the simplicity of its machinery, have been at work to this day with such ordinary repairs as are now occasionally required for all steamboats,” p. 53; and, again, “thus had Symington the undoubted merit of having combined for the first time those improvements which constitute the present system of steam navigation.”

[64] Patented 23rd August, 1780. An invention in which the reciprocating motion of a beam acting on a connecting rod turns a wheel. Woodcroft, “Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 32.

[65] It seems important to record that the success of Mr. Symington’s engine consisted mainly in this: that, after placing in a boat a double acting reciprocating engine, he attached his crank to the axis of the paddle-wheel, a combination on which, as Mr. Woodcroft justly observes, “there has been no improvement even to the present time, either in this or in any other country.” The power thus applied secured rotary motion without the interposition of a lever or beam. Mr. Symington might fairly claim, as he does in his patent of October 14th, 1801, that “the principle of this invention comprehends any species of machinery thus put in rotatory motion by a steam engine which may be made use of to navigate boats, vessels, or rafts.”

[66] “Encyclopédie Moderne,” Paris, 1855, art. “Vapeur,” p. 171.

[67] See “Des Bateaux à Vapeur,” par Jouffroy (the son of the Marquis), pp. 13 and 17; and “L’Universel Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la France,” Paris, 1845, vol. ix. p. 737.

[68] Ibid., p. 737.

[69] Stuart’s “Anecdotes of Steam Engines,” vol. ii. pp. 450 and 483.

[70] “Elements of Experimental Physics,” Florence, 1796, quoted by J. Scott Russell on “Steam and Steam Navigation,” p. 238; also referred to nine years previously in “Lettere di Fisica Sperimentale,” di Seraffino Serrati; Firenze, 1787, 12mo., and quoted in “Biographie Universelle,” Paris, 1856, art. “Fulton.”

[71] “Steam Navigation,” pp. 48-51.

[72] 6th Report, p. 179.

[73] See Brewster’s “Encyclopædia,” extracted from the Columbian Magazine, Philadelphia, vol. i., December 1786.

[74] John Fitch, who was a remarkable genius, was born in Connecticut, U.S., on the 21st January, 1743. His father, a small farmer, who could not afford to give him more than a limited education, bound him apprentice to a watch and clock maker. Afterwards he became a silversmith at Trenton, New Jersey, and, during the early part of the Revolutionary War, he was appointed by the “Committee of Safety” armourer to that State. Dislodged by the approach of the British, he fled to Bucks County, Pennsylvania; subsequently, he became a sutler, and supplied the American camp at Valley Forge with goods and provisions: he was also a land surveyor, and, in that capacity, the idea first suggested itself to him (as, curiously enough, it had done to Symington, in Scotland, about the same time) of propelling carriages by steam, but he soon abandoned it on account of the roughness of the roads in America, and turned his attention to propelling vessels by that power on the rivers.

In a sketch of his life, which appeared in the “Philadelphia Dispatch” of the 9th February, 1873, the writer, in describing the difficulties Fitch had to encounter in raising money to finish his second steam-boat, remarks: “In a letter to David Rettenhouse, when asking an advance of fifty pounds to finish the boat, he says, ‘This, sir, whether I bring it to perfection or not, will be the mode of crossing the Atlantic in time for packets and armed vessels.’ But everything failed, and the poor projector loitered about the city for some months, a despised, unfortunate, heart-broken man. ‘Often have I seen him,’ said Thomas P. Cope, many years afterward, ‘stalking about like a troubled spectre, with downcast eyes and lowering countenance, his coarse soiled linen peeping through the elbows of a tattered garment.’ Speaking of a visit he once paid to John Wilson, his boat builder, and Peter Brown, his blacksmith, in which, as usual, he held forth upon his hobby, Mr. Cope says: ‘After indulging himself for some time in this never-failing topic of deep excitement, he concluded with these memorable words, “Well, gentlemen, although I shall not live to see the time, you will, when steam-boats will be preferred to all other means of conveyance, and especially for passengers; and they will be particularly useful in the navigation of the river Mississippi.” He then retired, on which Brown, turning to Wilson, exclaimed, in a tone of deep sympathy, ‘Poor fellow! What a pity he is crazy!’”

The same writer states that Fitch, in 1796, after his return from France, built, under the patronage of Chancellor Livingston, at New York, “a yawl, which he moved by steam with a screw-propeller, on the Collect Pond.” Poor Fitch died by his own hands in 1798. See also “Life of John Fitch,” by Thompson Westcott, published by J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1857.

[75] “New York Magazine” for 1790, p. 493.

[76] “History of Philadelphia,” by Thompson Westcott.

[77] Fitch himself thus describes the engines of his first boat in a letter which appeared in the Philadelphia newspaper of the period:

“Philadelphia, Dec. 8, 1786.

“Sir,—The reason of my so long deferring to give you a description of the steam-boat, has been in some measure owing to the complication of the works, and an apprehension that a number of drafts would be necessary in order to show the powers of the machine as clearly as you could wish. But as I have not been able to hand you herewith such drafts, I can only give you the general principles. It is in several parts similar to the late improved steam-engines in Europe, though there are some alterations. Our cylinder is to be horizontal, and the steam to work with equal force at each end. The mode by which we obtain (what I take the liberty of terming) a vacuum is, we believe, entirely new; as is also the method of letting the water into it, and throwing it off against the atmosphere without any friction. It is expected that the engine, which is a 12-inch cylinder, will move with a clear force of 11 or 12 cwt., after the frictions are deducted; this force is to act against a wheel of eighteen-inch diameter. The piston is to move about 3 feet, and each vibration of the piston gives the axis about forty evolutions. Each evolution of the axis moves twelve oars or paddles 5½ feet (which work perpendicularly, and are represented by the stroke of the paddle of a canoe). As six of the paddles are raised from the water six more are entered, and the two sets of paddles make their stroke of about 11 feet in each evolution. The cranks of the axis act upon the paddles about one-third of their length from the lower end, on which part of the oar the whole force of the axis is applied. Our engine is placed in the boat about one-third from the stern, and with the action and reaction turn the wheel in the same way.

“With the most perfect respect, sir, I beg leave to subscribe myself

“Your very humble servant,
“John Fitch.”

[78] In a letter I received (May 2nd, 1875) from Commodore G. H. Preble, Commandant U.S. Navy Yard, Philadelphia, to whom I am indebted for much valuable information, he says, “John Stevens invented the twin screw-steamer in 1804, which is still preserved in the Stevens’ Institute, Hoboken, N.Y.”

[79] The patent bears date 21st May, 1805, and was granted to “John Cox Stevens, of New York, but now residing in New Bond Street, Middlesex.”

[80] Gill’s “Technical Repository,” 1829, vol. iv. p. 251 (for 1823), where a paper by Evans is given, but no further authority.

[81] Fulton invented the drop and the double-ended steam ferry-boats now in use in all the principal cities of the U.S.

[82] Stuart’s “Anecdotes of Steam-engines,” vol. ii. p. 478.

[83] Letter from R. Fulton in a memoir by E. Cartwright, London, 1843, p. 142.

[84] Robert Fulton is said to have been born in Little Britain, Pennsylvania, in 1765. He was trained as an engineer, but having acquired some knowledge of portrait and landscape painting he came to England and studied under his distinguished countryman, West, with whom he continued to reside for several years; and, after quitting him, he made painting his chief employment for some time. He afterwards formed an acquaintance with Rumsey, and followed the profession of an engineer. He died 1815.—“Biographical Treasury,” Longmans, 1873.

The following notice appears in the obituary of an American newspaper of the period:

“At New York, aged about 34 (50 years?) Robert Fulton, Esq., a great mechanical genius. He had been ill ten days, arising principally from exposure to the weather, in the pursuit of objects calculated, as our authority says, to increase the national greatness. These objects were steam-vessels of war, and a safe and certain method of submarine explosion. The first is so far completed, that it may be finished by other hands. Mr. Fulton was the inventor of steam-boats as they are now in use.”

See note, [Appendix No. 1. p. 587.]

[85] Woodcroft, pp. 64-65, Bourne, on “Steam Navigation,” p. 14; and “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 638.

[86] Woodcroft, on “Steam Navigation,” pp. 65-67.

[87] Woodcroft, on “Steam Navigation,” with drawing of the vessel in question, p. 60.

[88] The term horse-power is employed to express the magnitude or capacity and power of an engine. It originated with James Watt from the actual measure of the work which a horse could perform, in raising 33,000 lbs. one foot high per minute; but as any such measure must, in the nature of things, be vague and fluctuating, it was replaced by what is now known as “nominal horse-power,” a mode of measurement based mainly upon the area of the cylinder, the number of strokes per minute and the pressure. But this method is far from showing the actual horse-power, as some modern engines will give an effective power three, four, and even six times greater than the nominal; it serves, however, as a commercial unit of capacity or power of performance and regulates the price to be paid for an engine. But it is much to be regretted that nominal power is not yet estimated by an uniform standard, as different rules are still applied to condensing and non-condensing engines, and these vary in different places.

[89] “Mr. Fulton’s ingenious steamboat, invented with a view to the navigation of the Mississippi, from New Orleans and upwards, sails to-day from the North Run, near States Prison and Albany, the velocity of the steam-boat is calculated at 4 miles an hour. It is said that it will make a progress of two against the current of the Mississippi and, if so, it will certainly be a very valuable acquisition to the commerce of the Western States.”—American Citizen, 17th August, 1807.

[90] “To the Editor of the American Citizen.

“New York, 21st August, 1807.

“Sir,—I arrived this afternoon at 4 o’clock in the steam-boat from Albany. As the success of my experiment gives me great hope that such boats may be rendered of much importance to my country, to prevent erroneous opinions, and give satisfaction to the friends of these useful improvements, you will have the goodness to publish the following facts:

“I left New York on Monday, at 1 o’clock, and arrived in Clermont, the seat of Chancellor Livingston, at 1 o’clock on Tuesday; time, 24 hours; distance, 110 miles; on Wednesday I departed from the Chancellor’s at 8 o’clock in the morning, and arrived at Albany at 5 in the afternoon; distance, 40 miles; time, 8 hours! The sum of this is 150 miles in 32 hours, equal near 5 miles an hour.

“On Thursday, at 9 o’clock in the morning, I left Albany, and arrived at the Chancellor’s at 6 in the evening. I started from thence at 7, and arrived at New York on Friday, at 4 in the afternoon; time, 30 hours; space run through, 150 miles, equal to 5 miles an hour. Throughout the whole way, going and returning, the wind was ahead; no advantage could be drawn from my sails. The whole has therefore been performed by the power of the steam-engine.

“I am, sir, your most obedient,
“Robert Fulton.”

[91] Stuart’s Anecdotes of “Steam-engines,” vol. ii. p. 488.

[92] Fulton’s second large boat on the Hudson was the Car of Neptune. Besides these two vessels he constructed steam ferry-boats to run between New York and New Jersey, also a boat for the navigation of Long Island Sound, as well as others for the Hudson, and for the Ohio and Mississippi.

[93] Mr. Woodcroft, in concluding his remarks about Fulton, disparagingly says that, “If these inventions separately (those borrowed from Watt, Pickard, and Symington) or, as a combination, were removed out of Fulton’s boat, nothing would be left but the hull; and, if the hull be then divested of that peculiarity of form admitted to have been derived from Colonel Beaufoy’s experiments, all that would remain would be the hull of a boat of ordinary construction.... Fulton’s patents and specifications must, therefore, be considered either as mere importations, borrowed (in patent phraseology) from ‘foreigners residing abroad’ ‘or as barefaced plagiarisms.’”

[94] In this judgment Mr. Woodcroft is supported by Mr. Rennie, who considered “Fulton a quack who traded upon the inventions of others.”—Smiles’ “Lives,” vol. ii. p. 237.

[95] “On Saturday morning, at eight o’clock arrived here, from Montreal, being her first trip, the steam-boat Accommodation, with ten passengers. This is the first vessel of the kind that ever appeared in this harbour. She is continually crowded with visitants. She left Montreal on Wednesday, at two o’clock, so that her passage was sixty-six hours, thirty of which she was at anchor. She arrived at Three Rivers in twenty-four hours. She has at present berths for twenty passengers, which next year will be considerably augmented. No wind or tide can stop her. She has 75 feet keel, and 85 feet on deck. The price for a passage up is nine dollars, and eight down—the vessel supplying provisions. The great advantage attending a vessel so constructed is, that a passage may be calculated on to a degree of certainty, in point of time, which cannot be the case with any vessel propelled by sails only. The steam-boat receives her impulse from an open, double-spoked, perpendicular wheel, on each side, without any circular band or rim. To the end of each double spoke is fixed a square board, which enters the water, and, by the rotary motion of the wheel, acts like a paddle. The wheels are put and kept in motion by steam, operating within the vessel. A mast is to be fixed in her, for the purpose of using a sail when the wind is favourable, which will occasionally accelerate her headway.”

CHAPTER II.

Progress of steam navigation in Europe—Clyde mechanics take the lead—James Watt, 1766—Henry Bell, 1800—Correspondence between Bell and Fulton—Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton—The Comet steamer, 1811, plies between Glasgow and Greenock, and afterwards on the Forth—Extraordinary progress of ship-building on the Clyde—Great value and importance of the private building yards—J. Elder and Company; their extensive premises, note—Steam between Norwich and Yarmouth, 1813; between London and Margate, 1815—The Glasgow—Early opposition to the employment of steam-vessels—Barges on the Thames—First steamer between Liverpool and the Clyde—H. M. steam-ship Comet—The Rob Roy and other vessels, 1818—The United Kingdom, 1826—First idea of iron ships, 1830—Proposals of Trevethick and Dickenson, 1809-1815—The Vulcan, 1818—The Aaron Manby, 1821—The Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824—Mr. John Laird and Sir William Fairbairn—The Elburkah, 1832, and Garry Owen, 1834—The Rainbow, 1837—Messrs. Tod and MacGregor—The Great Britain, 1839-1843—Advantages of iron ships—Action of salt water on iron inconsiderable—Durability, strength, and safety of iron—Affords greater capacity for stowage—Admiralty slow to adopt iron for ships of war—Mr. Galloway’s feathering paddles, 1829—Story of the screw-propeller—Joseph Bramah, 1785—Mr. J. Stevens, 1804—Richard Trevethick, 1815—Robert Wilson, 1833—Captain Ericsson, 1836—The Francis B. Ogden, though successful, fails to convince the Admiralty—Mr. T. P. Smith—The Archimedes—Her trial with the Widgeon, Oct. 1839, and its results—The Rattler and the Alecto, 1843—The Rattler not as successful as expected—Captain Robert J. Stockton efficiently supports Ericsson’s views—His vessel, a complete success, and the first “screw” used for commerce in America—Superiority of Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying” propeller, 1832—In building fit vessels, the trade in which they are to be employed must be considered.

Progress of steam navigation in Europe.

During the progress in America of the art of practically applying steam to marine propulsion the people of Europe were making slow but important improvements in the models of their vessels, and in the development of that art for the purposes of navigation.

Clyde mechanics take the lead.

James Watt, 1766.

In these improvements the mechanics on the Clyde took the lead, establishing there a reputation for the construction of marine engines and more especially of ships adapted to receive them, which they have ever since maintained. In the early part of this century the river Clyde in the vicinity of Glasgow was a scarcely navigable stream, with few or no vessels at its chief port, and these, small craft of not more than 40 tons, drawing, at most, only 5 feet of water when laden. Indeed, my own recollection of that now important river goes back to the time when one could wade across it among the stones at the foot of the old Broomielaw Bridge, and when a small but lucrative salmon fishery was carried on from the two “fishing huts,” then the site where a dock now receives ships of the largest description, and where massive quay walls and numerous warehousing sheds occupy the once verdant grass banks of its southern shore. To the energy and intelligence of the Corporation, and, in later years, through the laudable exertion of a Trust, chosen from members of that body and other citizens of Glasgow, may, in a great measure, be attributed the extraordinary rise and prosperity of a city now possessing an inland navigation and a stream harbour unsurpassed, perhaps, in Europe. Indeed, from the time when James Watt, in 1766,[96] erected in Glasgow his first model of a steam-engine and there laid the foundation of a power which has since revolutionized the commerce of the world, its citizens seem to have specially directed their genius to the development of this mighty agency, their first and necessary step being the improvement of the approaches to their city by the deepening of the Clyde.

Henry Bell, 1800.

But it was not till the beginning of the present century that any real progress was made in the maritime pursuits of the people of Scotland. In 1800, Henry Bell, then resident at Helensburgh, first laid before the British Government his inventions for the improvement of steam navigation. The Board of Admiralty, however, so far from expressing any desire to promote his views, discouraged them, as they did thirteen years afterwards, when the subject was again urged upon their attention. Naturally anxious that his invention should be practically tested on a scale sufficiently extended, Bell forwarded, in 1803, a detailed account of his method of propelling vessels against wind and tide by steam power, to most of the European Governments, and also to the Government of the United States of America. He found, however, that his plans were received no better abroad than at home: while it further seems probable that the Government of the United States had either given or shown them to Fulton, who was then engaged in endeavouring to induce his countrymen to assist him in starting trading steamers on their lakes and rivers, where such vessels were admirably fitted for the profitable development of their vast natural inland resources.

Correspondence between Bell and Fulton.

Mr. Fulton evidently knew how Mr. Bell had been employed, for he opened a correspondence with him, and, in the course of it, requested him to call on Mr. Miller of Dalswinton, and on Mr. Symington, and to send him a drawing and description of their last boat with the machinery. These were sent out, and Fulton, some time afterwards, answered that “he had constructed a steamer from the different drawings of the machinery forwarded to him by Bell, which was likely to succeed with some necessary improvements.” This letter Bell sent to Mr. Miller for his information. As the matter, however, to which it refers is one of considerable importance, it is desirable to state the facts as related by Mr. Bell himself in a letter which appeared in the Caledonian Mercury in 1816, wherein he says, referring to the communication he had received many years previously from Mr. Fulton:

Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton.

The Comet steamer, 1811.

“This letter led me to think of the absurdity of writing my opinion to other countries, and not putting it into practice in my own country; and from these considerations I was [a]roused (sic), to set on foot a steam-boat, for which I made a number of different models before I was satisfied. When I was convinced they would answer the end, I contracted with Messrs. John Wood and Company, shipbuilders, in Port Glasgow, to build me a steam-vessel according to my plan: 40 feet keel, and 10 feet 6 inches beam, which I fitted up with an engine and paddles, and called her the Comet, because she was built and finished the year that a comet appeared in the north-west part of Scotland. This vessel is the first steam-boat built in Europe that answered the end, and is, at this present time, upon the best and simplest method of any of them, for a person sitting in the cabin will hardly hear the engine at work. She plies on the Firth of Forth, betwixt the east end of the great canal and Newhaven near Leith. The distance by water is 27 miles, which she performs in ordinary weather in three and a half hours up, and the same down.”

In another communication, Bell says, “when I wrote to the United States’ Government on the great utility that steam navigation would be to them on their rivers, they appointed Mr. Fulton to correspond with me.”

No merit, as the inventor of the present system of steam navigation, can, however, be conceded to Bell more than to Fulton; nor for any progress beyond the improvements of which he had obtained cognizance from the previous experiments of Messrs. Miller, Taylor, and Symington. In fact, there can be no doubt, from existing drawings, that Symington’s Charlotte Dundas was superior in mechanical arrangements to either Fulton’s Clermont or Bell’s Comet. But what Fulton and Livingston accomplished in the United States, Bell effected in his own country; each was, therefore, instrumental in the introduction, for commercial purposes, of steam navigation.[97]

plies between Glasgow and Greenock,