CHAPTER IX

PROPELLING MACHINERY

No aspect of old naval warfare is so difficult for the modern reader

to visualize, perhaps, as that which displays the essential weakness

of the sailing warship: its impotence in a calm. It was a creature

requiring for its activities two elements, air and water. Ruffle the

sea with a breeze, and the sailing ship had power of motion towards

most of the points of the compass; withdraw the winds, and she lay

glued to the smooth water or rolling dangerously in the heavy swell,

without power either of turning or translation. For centuries this

weakness told heavily against her and in favour of the oar-propelled

vessel, particularly in certain latitudes. Through many years, indeed,

the two types held ascendancy each in its own waters; in the smooth

stretches of the Mediterranean the oar-driven galley, light, swift,

and using its sharp ram or bow-cannon as chief means of offence or

defence, was a deadly danger to the becalmed sailing ship; in the

rougher north Atlantic the sailing ship, strong, heavy, capacious,

and armed for attack and defence only along its sides, proved far

too fast and powerful for the oar-driven rival. Progress--increase

of size, improvement in artillery, the development of the science of

navigation--favoured the sailing ship, so that there came at last the

day when, even in the Mediterranean, she attained ascendancy over the

galley. But always there was this inherent weakness: in a dead calm

the sailing ship lay open to attack from a quarter where her defence

lay bare. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, perhaps, she could move

sufficiently to beat off her attacker by bringing her broadsides

to bear. The hundredth, she lay at the mercy of her adversary, who

could, by choosing his range and quarter of attack, make her temporary

inferiority the occasion of defeat. For this military reason many

attempts were made to supplement sails with oars. But oars and sails

were incompatible. They were often, seen together in early times,

but with progress the use of one became more and more irreconcilable

with the use of the other. The Tudor galleasse, though possessing

in our northern waters many advantages over the galley type, had

the defects inherent in the compromise, and gave place in a short

time to the high-charged “great ship” propelled by sails alone. The

sailing ship was by that time strong and powerful enough to risk the

one-in-a-hundred chance of being attacked by oared galleys in a stark

calm. It was only when the first steam vessels plied English waters

that the old weakness became apparent again. It was then seriously

urged that the ship-of-the-line should carry oars once more, against

the attack of small steamers converging on her from a weakly defended

quarter.

[Illustration: SHIP AND GALLEY

(From Tartagliá’s _Arte of Shooting_, English Ed., A.D. 1588.)]

§

The oar was in many ways an objectionable form of power. It was very

vulnerable, its presence made manœuvring at close quarters risky and

difficult; and apart from the necessity, on which the galley service

was based, of a large supply of slave-labour for working them, oars and

the rowers absorbed a large proportion of the available inboard space,

to the detriment both of artillery and merchandise.

Many attempts were therefore made, not only to substitute animals for

men, for the work of propulsion, but to apply power in a manner more

suitable than by the primitive method of levers: oars or sweeps. The

paddlewheel was thought of at a very early date; a Roman army is said

to have been transported into Sicily by boats propelled by wheels moved

by oxen, and in many old military treatises the substitution of wheels

for oars is mentioned.[131] In 1588 Ramelli, engineer-in-ordinary to

the French king, published a book in which was sketched an amphibious

vehicle propelled by hand-worked paddlewheels: “une sorte de canot

automobile blindé et percé de meurtrières pour les arquesbusiers.”

In 1619 Torelli, Governor of Malta, fitted a ship with paddles, and

in it passed through the Straits of Messina against the tide. But

Richelieu, to whom he offered his invention, was not impressed with

its value.[132] Before this, Blasco de Garoy, a Spanish captain, had

exhibited to the Emperor Charles V, in 1543, an engine by which ships

of the largest size could be propelled in a calm: an arrangement of

hand-operated paddlewheels.

In Bourne’s _Inventions and Devices_, published in 1578, is the first

mention of paddlewheels (so far as we know) in any English book. By

the placing of certain wheels on the outside of the boat, he says, and

“so turning the wheels by some provision,” the boat may be made to go.

And then he proceeds to mention the inversion of the paddlewheel, or

the paddlewheel which is driven, as distinguished from the paddlewheel

which drives. “They make a watermill in a boat, for when that it rideth

at an anker, the tide or stream will turn the wheels with great force,

and these mills are used in France,” etc. It is possible, indeed, that

this was the prior form, and that the earliest paddlewheel was a mill

and not primarily a means of propelling the vessel.

Early in the seventeenth century the mechanical sciences began to

develop rapidly and as the century advanced the flood of patents for

the propulsion of ships increased. “To make boats, ships, and barges

to go against the wind and tide”; “the drawing and working of barges

and other vessels without the use of horses”; “for making vessels to

navigate in a straight line with all winds though contrary”; these

are some of the patents granted, the details of which are not known.

At last the ingenious Marquis of Worcester, who in 1663 was granted a

patent for his steam engine, also obtained a patent for an invention

for propelling a vessel against wind and stream. It has sometimes been

inferred that this invention was connected in some way with the steam

engine, and the claim has been made that the Marquis was one of the

first authors of steam propulsion. This is not so. Contained in the

description of the ship-propelling invention are two statements which

dispose completely of the theory that steam was the motive force;

first, that the “force of the wind or stream causeth its (the engine’s)

motion”; secondly, that “the more rapid the stream, the faster it (the

vessel) advances against it.” From this it appears that the Marquis

intended to utilize the watermill as described by Bourne. From a study

of the description of the apparatus it has been concluded that “a

rope fastened at one end up the stream, and at the other to the axis

of waterwheels lying across the boat, and dipping into the water so

as to be turned by the wheels, would fulfil the conditions proposed

of advancing the boat faster, the more rapid the stream; and when at

anchor such wheels might have been applied to other purposes.”[133] If

this reconstruction is correct, the scope of the propelling device was

very limited.

In Bushnell’s _Compleat Shipwright_, published in 1678, a proposal

was made for working oars by pivoting them at the vessel’s side and

connecting their inboard ends by longitudinal rods operated by cranks

geared to a centre-line capstan. But the disadvantages of oars so

used must have been apparent, and there is no evidence that this

invention was ever put into practice. The obvious alternative was

the paddlewheel, and though that device had been known and used in a

primitive form long before the seventeenth century, it was continually

being reinvented (especially in the ’nineties) and tried by inventors

in various countries. Denis Papin turned his original mind to the

solution of this problem. A paper on the subject written by him in

Germany in 1690 is of interest. Discussing the use of oars from ships’

sides he notes that, “Common oars could not be conveniently used in

this way, and it would be necessary to use for this purpose those of

a rotary construction, such as I remember to have seen at London.

They were affixed to a machine made by direction of Prince Rupert,

and were set in motion by horses, so as to produce a much greater

velocity than could be given by sixteen watermen to the Royal Barge.”

Papin, who had suggested the atmospheric steam engine, also suggested

the possible application of steam to propulsion. But it was left to

others to achieve what he had to propose. His talent, it has been

said, lay rather in speculations on ingenious combinations, than in

the mechanical power of carrying them into execution on a great scale.

In 1708 he laid before the Royal Society, accompanied by a letter of

recommendation from Leibnitz, a definite proposal for a boat “to be

moved with oars by heat ... by an engine after the manner that has

been practised at Cassel.” What form this engine was to take, and how

the power was to be transmitted to the oars, is still a matter of

conjecture. Only this is known, that the proposal was considered in

detail by the president, Sir Isaac Newton, and that on his advice no

further action was taken.[134]

In France it has been widely claimed that Papin actually engined a

boat and propelled it over the waters of the Weser by the force of

steam. His biographer states that on the 24th September, 1707, Papin

“embarquait sur le premier bateau à vapeur toute sa fortune.”[135]

But the statement is not correct. The misconception, like that which

assigned to the Marquis of Worcester the invention of a steam-propelled

vessel, was doubtless due to the fact that the inventor was known to

be engaged in the study of the steam engine and of ship-propelling

mechanism. The two things, though distinct in themselves, were readily

combined in the minds of his admirers. It is generally agreed to-day,

we think, even by his own countrymen, that Papin, though he may claim

the honour of having first suggested the application of steam to ship

propulsion, never himself achieved a practical success.

In the meantime Savery in England had produced his successful engine.

In his case, too, the claim has been made that he first proposed steam

propulsion for ships. But in his _Miner’s Friend_ this able mechanician

showed that he recognized the limited application of his steam engine.

“I believe,” he says, “it may be made very _useful_ to ships, but I

dare not meddle with that matter; and leave it to the judgment of those

who are the best judges of maritime affairs.” But in propulsion by

hand-operated paddlewheels Savery was an enthusiastic believer. In 1698

he had published, in a book bearing the title, “_Navigation Improv’d:

Or the Art of Rowing Ships of all Rates, in Calms, with a more easy,

swift, and steady Motion than Oars can_,” a description of a mechanism

consisting of paddlewheels formed of oars fitted radially to drumheads

which were mounted on the two ends of an iron bar placed horizontally

across the ship. This bar was geared by mortice wheels with another

bar mounted vertically as the axis of a capstan; rotation of the

capstan was thus transmitted to the paddlewheels. Savery fitted this

mechanism to a wherry and carried out successful trials on the Thames

before thousands of people. But the Navy Board would not consider it.

They had incurred a loss, it appeared, on a horse tow-vessel which had

been in use at Chatham a few years previously: a vessel which towed

the greatest ships with the help of four, six, or eight horses, and

which, incidentally, may have influenced Savery in adopting the term

“horse power” as the unit of work for his steam engine. The sanguine

inventor made great efforts to interest the authorities, but without

avail; the Surveyor rejected the proposal. So in an angry mood Savery

published his book, with a description of his mechanism and an account

of his efforts to interest the authorities, to show how one man’s

humour had obstructed his engine. “You see, Reader, what to trust to,”

he concluded, “though you have found out an improvement as great to

shipping as turning to windward, or the compass; unless you can sit

round the green table in Crutched Friars, your invention is damned of

course.”

The first detailed scheme for applying steam-power to ship propulsion

was contained in the patent of Jonathan Hulls, in 1736. Though great

credit is generally given to this inventor (who has even been dubbed

the father of steam navigation), it does not appear that in reality

he contributed much to the advancement of the problem; which was,

indeed, still waiting on the development of the steam engine. Hulls’

notion, explained in a pamphlet which he published in 1737, was to

connect the piston of a Newcomen engine by a rope gearing with some

wheels mounted in the waist of the vessel, which wheels oscillated as

the piston moved up and down. These wheels were in turn connected by

rope gearing with a large fan-wheel mounted in a frame rigged out over

the vessel’s stern, the fans in their lowest position dipping into

the water. The oscillating motion of the inboard wheels was converted

into a continuous ahead motion of the fan-wheel by means of a ratchet.

With this machinery he designed to tow ships in harbours and rivers.

It must, however, be remarked that the invention was never more than

a paper project; and that if Hulls had tried to translate his ideas

into three dimensions he would have encountered, in all probability,

insuperable practical difficulties. One very original suggestion of

his certainly deserves notice; as a special case he proposed that when

the tow-boat was used in shallow rivers two cranks, fitted to the axis

of his driving wheels, should operate two long poles of sufficient

length to reach the bottom of the river; these trailing poles, moving

alternately forward, would propel the vessel. Here is an early

application of the crank. But in this case it will be noted that the

crank is driven, and that it converts a rotary into a reciprocating

motion; in short, it is an inversion of the driving crank which, as

applied to the steam engine, was not invented till some years later.

As before remarked, the whole problem of steam propulsion waited upon

the development of the steam engine. In the meantime the application of

convenient forms of man power received considerable study, especially

in France. In Bouguer’s _Traité du Navire_ the problem was investigated

of propulsion by blades or panels, hinged, and folding when not in

use against the vessel’s sides; and in 1753 the prize offered by the

Academy of Sciences for an essay on the subject was won by Daniel

Bernouilli, for a plan on those lines. Euler proposed paddlewheels on a

transverse shaft geared like Savery’s, by mortice wheels to a multiple

capstan. Variations of this method were proposed by other writers and

inventors, and some of the best intellects in France attacked the

problem. But nothing definite resulted. The most valuable result of

the discussion was the conclusion drawn by M. Gautier, a professor of

mathematics at Nancy, that the strength of the crew was not sufficient

to give any great velocity to a ship. He proposed, therefore, as the

only means of attaining that object, the employment of a steam engine,

and pointed out several ways in which it might be applied to produce a

rotary motion.[136]

In the course of time the problem marched forward to a solution. The

first great improvement in the steam engine which rendered it adaptable

to marine use was the invention by Watt of the “double impulse”;

the second, Pickard’s invention of the crank and connecting-rod. By

virtue of these two developments the steam engine was made capable of

imparting to a shaft a continuous rotary motion without the medium of

noisy, brittle or inefficient gearing. As soon as engines having this

power were placed on the public market attempts were made to mount

them in boats and larger vessels; steam navigation was discerned as a

possibility.

§

Of the many efforts which were made at the end of the eighteenth

century to apply steam power to the propulsion of ships a striking

feature is their complete independence from each other and from the

results of prior experience and research. Little information is

available as to the results of various experiments which were known

to be carried on in France at this time, and, with all respect, it is

improbable that they contributed in any way to the subsequent evolution

of the steam vessel. The Abbé Darnal in 1781, M. de Jouffroi in 1782,

and M. Desblancs in 1802 and 1803, proposed or constructed steamboats.

M. de Jouffroi is said to have made several successful attempts on the

Saone at Lyons; but the intervention of the Revolution put an end to

his undertakings.

In Britain a successful attempt to apply the steam engine to the

paddlewheel was made in 1788. In that year three men, combining

initiative, financial resource, and a large measure of engineering

ingenuity, proved the possibility of steam propulsion in an experiment

singularly complete and of singularly little effect on subsequent

progress. In the summer of ’87 a wealthy and inventive banker, Mr.

Patrick Miller of Dalswinton, Edinburgh, had been making experiments

in the Firth of Forth with a double vessel of his own invention, sixty

feet long, which, when wind failed for sailing, was set in motion by

two paddlewheels. These paddlewheels were fitted between the two hulls

of the vessel and were worked by men, by means of a geared capstan.

Miller believed that a boat furnished with paddlewheels and worked

manually would be of great advantage for working in shallow rivers

and canals. But the result of a sailing race between his boat and a

custom-house wherry of Leith, in which his own sails were supplemented

by the labours of four men at the wheels, convinced him that manpower

was insufficient. His sons’ tutor, a Mr. Taylor, suggested the

application of a steam engine. And being acquainted with an engineer

named Symington, Taylor prevailed on his patron to engage him to mount

a one-horse-power engine in a double pleasure boat, upon the lake

at Dalswinton. The experiment was a complete success. “The vessel

moved delightfully, and notwithstanding the smallness of the cylinder

(4 inches diameter), at the rate of 5 miles an hour. After amusing

ourselves a few days the engine was removed and carried into the house,

where it remained as a piece of ornamental furniture for a number of

years.”[137] Determined to pursue the experiment, Miller ordered a

replica of the original engine on a larger scale, and this engine, with

a cylinder of 18 inches diameter, was erected at Carron and fitted to

a larger boat. This also was successful. But no further trials were

made after ’89; for Patrick Miller, who had spent a large sum in order

to establish the feasibility of the invention, decided to close his

investigations, and to turn to other pursuits.

No further attempt was made in Great Britain until 1801, when Lord

Dundas engaged Symington to make a series of experiments on the

substitution of steam power for horse towage of barges on the Forth and

Clyde canal: experiments which resulted in the _Charlotte Dundas_. In

this celebrated vessel a double-acting Watt engine, with its 22-inch

diameter cylinder mounted horizontally on the deck, actuated, through

a simple connecting-rod and a crank with a 4-foot throw, a paddlewheel

which was carried in a centre-line recess at the stern. In March, ’03,

Symington in the _Charlotte Dundas_ towed two 70-ton vessels nineteen

miles against a strong head wind in six hours. Success seemed assured

to him. His reputation was already high, and now an invitation came

from the Duke of Bridgewater for eight similar tow-boats to ply on

his canal. But the inventor’s hopes were disappointed. The Duke died

suddenly, and the governing body of the Forth and Clyde canal vetoed

the further use of steam vessels for fear of the damage the waves might

cause the banks. Other bodies took the same view, and thus came to an

end an important passage in the history of steam navigation. It is

remarkable, considering the efforts which had been made by inventors

from the sixteenth century onwards to improve on oar-propulsion for

military purposes, that Miller, Symington, and their friends do not

seem to have envisaged any use for steamboats other than as tugs on

canals. It is remarkable that in the presence of this initial success

neither the government nor the public showed any realization of the

possibilities which it unfolded; that no attempt was made by commercial

enterprise--even if, in the realm of naval strategy, such an innovation

was regarded as impolitic or impracticable[138]--to develop its

advantages and to secure an undisputed lead in the new application of

steam power.

[Illustration: THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS”

(From Fincham.)]

It was in America that the most persistent and continuous development

took place, quite independently of efforts elsewhere and almost

contemporaneously with those above described. America, whose

geographical conditions made water transport relatively far more

important than it was in Great Britain, lent a ready ear to the schemes

of inventors. In 1784 James Rumsey, and shortly afterwards John Fitch,

had already laid plans before General Washington for the propulsion of

boats by steam.

John Fitch, whose original idea was a steamboat propelled by means

of an endless chain of flat boards, afterwards experimented with

an arrangement, “borrowed no doubt from the action of Indians in a

canoe,” of paddles held vertically in frames mounted along the sides

of the boat and operated by cranks. In 1786 a boat thus equipped made

a successful trial on the Delaware, and in the following year a larger

boat, fitted with a horizontal double-acting engine with a 12-inch

cylinder and a 3-foot stroke, giving motion to six paddles on each

side, was publicly tried on the same river. The speed attained was

very small. At last in 1790, still protected by a patent which granted

him a temporary monopoly in steamboat building, Fitch succeeded in

building a boat which was an undisputed mechanical success. Discarding

the paddle-frame and adopting a beam engine to drive paddle-boards

at the stern, he produced a steamboat which, after being tested and

credited with eight knots’ speed on a measured mile in front of Water

Street, Philadelphia, in the presence of the governor and council

of Pennsylvania, ran two or three thousand miles as a passenger

boat on the Delaware before being dismantled. It was a considerable

achievement. But the excessive weight and space absorbed by the

machinery prevented the boat from being a financial success; and, after

a journey to France, then distracted by the Revolution, Fitch returned

home to America and ended his days a disappointed and a broken man.

Nevertheless, the work he did was of service to others. He proved that

the ponderous nature of the machinery was the greatest obstacle to

the propulsion of small craft by steam, and from his failure deduced

the conclusion, on which later inventors were able to build, that the

solution of the problem lay in the _scale_: that, “it would be much

easier to carry a first-rate man-of-war by steam at an equal rate than

a small boat.”[139]

James Rumsey, a Virginian, carried out in 1775 the first practical

trials of water-jet propulsion, a small boat of his plying the Potomac

at a small speed by means of a steam pump which sucked in water at the

bow and threw it out at the stern. But as he felt himself obstructed

in further experiments by the patent rights which had been given his

rival Fitch he came to England; where, financed by a wealthy compatriot

and aided by James Watt himself, he produced in ’93 a boat which on the

Thames attained a speed of over four knots. Unfortunately Rumsey died

in the middle of his experiments.

An individual of extraordinary qualities had now turned his attention

to the problem of steam propulsion. In that same year a young American

artist, Robert Fulton, who had come to England to work under the

guidance of his countryman Benjamin West, wrote to Lord Stanhope

informing him of a plan which he had formed for moving ships by steam.

Lord Stanhope, well known as a scientific inventor, had recently been

experimenting with a vessel fitted with a 12-horse-power engine of

Boulton and Watt’s working a propeller which operated like the foot of

an aquatic bird. A correspondence ensued. Fulton, whose self-confidence

equalled his originality, illustrated by drawings and diagrams his

ideas on the subject. At first, he said, he thought of applying the

force of an engine to an oar or paddle which, hinged on the counter

at the stern, by a reciprocating motion would urge the vessel ahead.

But on experimenting with a clockwork model he found that, though the

boat sprang forward, the return stroke of the paddle interfered with

the continuity of the motion. “I then endeavoured,” he wrote, “to give

it a circular motion, which I effected by applying two paddles on an

axis. Then the boat moved by jerks; there was too great a space between

the strokes. I then applied three paddles, forming an equilateral

triangle to which I gave a circular motion.” These paddles he proposed

to place in cast-iron wheels one on each side of the boat and mounted

on the same shaft at some height over the waterline, so that each wheel

would “answer as a fly and brace to the perpendicular oars.” And he

stated that he found, from his experiments with models, that three or

six oars gave better results than any other number. From which it is

clear that the paddlewheel was evolved by Fulton from the simple paddle

independently of suggestion received from previous inventors.

Some time was to elapse before the results of his experiments were

utilized. Attracted by the boom in canal construction then in vogue

Fulton devoted his mind to that subject; though in this connection

the idea of steam-propelled boats still occupied him, as is shown

by a letter he wrote in ’94 to Messrs. Boulton and Watt, asking for

an estimate of costs and dimensions of “an engine with a rotative

movement of the purchase of 3 or 4 horses which is designed to be

placed in a boat.” From England he went to Paris, to try his fortune at

half a dozen projects. In ’98 he was experimenting on the Seine with a

screw propeller--“a fly of four parts similar to that of a smoke-jack,”

which gave promising results. This screw propeller, however, was as yet

unrecognized as the propulsive medium of the future. It had already

been patented in England by Bramah in 1785--“a wheel with inclined

fans, or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack or the vertical

sails of a windmill”; and, hand-operated, it had actually been used

in America in 1776 by Bushnell in connection with his submarine. But

in 1802 Fulton had decided against the screw, and in favour of the

paddlewheel.

It was in this year that an introduction to an influential

compatriot, himself an experimenter in steam propulsion, gave Fulton

the opportunity to display his talents to their mutual advantage.

Chancellor Livingston, U.S. Minister to France, was aware of the

enormous advantages which would accrue to America (and to the happy

inventor) if steam propulsion could be achieved economically. With

Fulton’s aid he decided on building an experimental steam vessel

in France, with a view to transferring to America for commercial

enterprise the perfected results of their labour. A partnership was

formed, the work proceeded; but the experimental steamboat, whose

scantlings were unequal to supporting the weight of the 8-horsepower

machinery placed on board, sank at her moorings in a storm. A second

boat, stronger and bigger, attained complete success. Fulton promptly

wrote to Messrs. Boulton and Watt asking them to export to America a

24-horse-power engine complete with all accessories, in accordance

with his sketches; and with a brass air-pump suitable for working in

salt water. Then, going himself to England, he visited Messrs. Boulton

and Watt and gleaned what information he could as to the properties

of their machinery; studied the newly published results of Colonel

Beaufoy’s experiments on ship form and fluid resistance; and journeyed

to Scotland to visit Symington and see the famous _Charlotte Dundas_.

Armed with this knowledge, with all the experience of Rumsey and Fitch,

and with the data from his own trials, Fulton brought to a successful

solution the problem of steam propulsion on a commercial scale. It

has been remarked that there was no element in the _Clermont_ or her

successors so original in conception that it would entitle Fulton to

be regarded as the inventor of steam navigation. Nor did he himself

claim to be such. He was successful in fitting together the elements,

the inventions of others. Science is measurement, and Fulton applied

his data and measured with great insight, adapting his elements in the

right manner and proportion to form an efficient whole. “He was the

first to treat the elementary factors in steamship design--dimensions,

form, horse-power, speed, etc.--in a scientific spirit; to him belongs

the credit of having coupled the boat and engine as a working unit.”

From Fitch he had learned the economy of size, and the advantages of

enlarging the scale of operations; from Beaufoy, the importance of a

fair underwater form, with a sharp bow and stern. From Symington, who

generously took him for a trip in the _Charlotte Dundas_, he could

not fail to have gleaned much practical advice and information; it is

remarkable, in this connection, that, after a sight of Symington’s

horizontal cylinder with its simple connecting-rod drive to the

stern wheel, he should have adhered to the vertical cylinder and the

bell-crank or beam for the transmission of the force: an initial

divergence which was perpetuated, and which became the hall-mark

distinguishing American from English practice for some years to come.

Most of his knowledge he gained by his activities in England, and many

writers have contested a claim--which so far as is known was never

made by him--to the invention of the steamship. His achievements were

well defined and legitimately executed, and the remarkable insight and

initiative which he displayed in adapting the labours of others to

serve his own utilitarian ends cannot, surely, deserve the opprobrium

cast on them by some of the nineteenth-century writers. Prometheus,

it is said, stole fire from heaven. Fulton bought his in the open

market; obtaining his engine in Soho and his boiler in Smithfield

he transported them across the Atlantic, and in 1807 produced the

_Clermont_.

The _Clermont_, a flat-bottomed wall-sided craft 166 feet in length and

only 18 feet in beam, steamed at a speed of five knots from New York

to Albany, in August, 1807; to the surprise of thousands of spectators

who knew her as “Fulton’s folly,” and whose shouts of derision gave

place to silence, and then to a chorus of applause and congratulation.

Many of the inhabitants of the banks of the Hudson had never heard

even of an engine, much less of a steamboat. “A monster moving on the

waters, defying the winds and tide, and breathing flames and smoke!

The first steamboat used dry pine wood for fuel, which sends forth a

column of ignited vapour many feet above the flue, and, whenever the

fire is stirred, a galaxy of sparks fly off which, in the night, have

a very brilliant and beautiful appearance.”[140] The _Clermont_ was

followed by others, each an improvement on the last; until in 1816,

so rapid was the process of evolution, the _Chancellor Livingston_

was built, ship-shaped, with figure-head and fine bows, faired sides

and tapering stern, with engines of 75-horse-power and with promenade

decks and accommodation for 120 passengers. Certain characteristics

now showed themselves in all American construction. The engines were

mounted with cylinders vertical, their rods actuating large overhead

beams which transmitted the force of the steam to the paddlewheels.

The boats were made very broad to give the necessary stability, the

machinery being carried high; and to reduce their underwater resistance

as much as possible their bodies were made full near the water-line and

lean below. For the same reason, and since the principal weights were

concentrated amidships, fine forward and after bodies were given them;

a rising floor, and a deep draught if necessary. The position of the

paddlewheels was limited by that of the engine. Experience showed that

where two paddles on each side were used their relative position had to

be adjusted nicely, otherwise the rear paddles, acting on accelerated

water, might actually be a disadvantage. Much difficulty was caused

with accidents to paddles; on the Mississippi the wheels were generally

mounted astern, where they were protected from floating logs of timber.

In some cases double hulls were built, with the paddlewheels between

them; but owing to the rush of water on which they acted these wheels

were not very efficient.[141]

[Illustration: THE _COMET_ OF 1812

From an oil painting in the South Kensington Museum]

Fulton had so far built steam vessels only for commercial traffic. He

now came near to revolutionizing naval warfare with them. In 1813, in

the middle of the war with this country, he presented to the President

his plan for a steam-propelled armoured warship for coast defence, a

design of an invulnerable vessel of thirty guns, twin-hulled, with a

120-horse-power engine in one hull, a boiler in the other, and a single

paddlewheel in a space between the two; double-ended, flat-bottomed,

and protected by a belt of solid timber 58 inches thick. Her armament

was to consist, in addition to thirty 32-pounders, of submarine guns

or columbiads, carried at each end and firing 100-pound projectiles

below the water-line. Named the _Demologos_, this monstrous vessel was

nearly completed when the war came to an end. It was too late for use.

The treaty of Ghent being signed, interest in armaments immediately

evaporated. Nevertheless, in the following year a trial of the

_Demologos_ was carried out, which showed that a speed of five and a

half knots could be attained with her. The _Demologos_, now renamed the

_Fulton_, served no useful purpose. She was laid up in Brooklyn Navy

Yard, and many years elapsed before steam war vessels were built again

in America.

§

In the meantime progress had been made on this side of the Atlantic.

Stimulated by Fulton’s commercial successes, Thomas Bell of Helensburgh

built in 1812 a vessel of thirty tons’ burden named the _Comet_,

successfully propelled by a 3-horse-power engine which worked a

paddlewheel on each beam. This “handsome vessel” was intended to ply

between Glasgow and Greenock, to sail by the power of wind, air, and

steam; and so it did, with fair financial success, with a square sail

triced to the top of a tall smoke-stack: the first passenger steamer

to ply in European waters. Shortly afterwards steam vessels were built

which pushed out to the open sea. In 1815 the _Argyle_, built on the

Clyde and renamed _Thames_ on being purchased by a London company, made

a voyage from Greenock to London which was the subject of much comment.

On making the Cornish coast after a stormy run south, boats were seen

by those on board making towards her with all possible speed in the

belief that she was on fire! All the rocks commanding St. Ives were

covered with spectators as she entered the harbour, and the aspect of

the vessel, we are told, “appeared to occasion as much surprise amongst

the inhabitants, as the ships of Captain Cook must have produced on

his first appearance among the islands of the South Seas.” Next day

the _Thames_, her 9-foot paddlewheels driven by a 16-horse-power

engine, reached Plymouth, where the crews of all the vessels in the

Sound filled the rigging, and the harbour-master was “struck with

astonishment.” From Plymouth she steamed to Portsmouth, making the

passage in twenty-three hours. So great was the swarm of vessels that

crowded round her, that the port admiral was asked to send a guard

to preserve order. She steamed into harbour, with wind and tide, at

from twelve to fourteen knots. A court-martial was sitting in the

_Gladiator_ frigate, but the whole court except the president adjourned

to inspect the strange visitor. Next day the port admiral sent off a

guard and band; and soon afterwards he followed, accompanied by three

admirals, eighteen post captains, and a large number of ladies.[142]

The success of the _Thames_ led to the immediate building of other

and larger steamers. In ’17 the son of James Watt purchased a 94-foot

boat, the _Caledonia_, fitted her with 28-horse-power machinery

driving 10-foot paddlewheels, and for a pleasure trip proceeded in

her up the Rhine as far as Coblentz. From this time onwards steam

navigation for commercial purposes progressed rapidly. In 1818 a

steamboat made regular voyages at sea; the _Rob Roy_, 90 tons, built

by Denny of Dumbarton, with engines of 30 horse-power made by Napier,

plied regularly between Holyhead and Dublin. In the same year the

_Savannah_, a ship of 350 tons’ burden built and fitted with auxiliary

steam machinery at New York, crossed the Atlantic, partly under steam;

her paddlewheels with their cast-iron frame and axletree successfully

withstanding heavy weather. In ’21 the postmaster-general introduced a

steam service for the mails at Dover and Holyhead; and in the following

year there were steamboats running between London and Leith, and other

seaports. The experience of the Holyhead packets was of special value,

as it proved that steam vessels could go to sea in weather which would

keep sailing vessels in harbour. Soon after this the question was

raised of employing steam power to shorten the passage between England

and the East, as well as of the navigation by steam of the great

Indian rivers. Steam superseded sails in the government mail service

between Falmouth, Malta and Corfu; everywhere commercial enterprise

was planning new lines of steamships and new possibilities of ocean

travel. In ’25 a barque belonging to Mr. Pelham, afterwards Earl of

Yarborough, was fitted with steam machinery as an auxiliary and made

the voyage to India. The plash of the paddlewheel was then heard for

the first time in Oriental waters.

By this time the great question of steam as applied to naval ends had

arrived to agitate the Admiralty.

In ’22 M. Paixhans discharged his revolutionary treatise at the

French nation, advocating, with a wealth of argument, a navy of

steam-propelled warships armed with a few shell guns. Six years later

a warning echo reverberated through Whitehall. Captain Sir John Ross

published a volume on “Steam Navigation, with a System of the Naval

Tactics peculiar to it,” in which, though his name was not mentioned,

the arguments of M. Paixhans were set forth from an opposite point

of view. The two books, starting with the same arguments, arrived

at diametrically opposite conclusions. While Paixhans claimed that

steam power offered important advantages to France, the English

writer reached the gratifying conclusion that the change which steam

would effect in naval affairs might be rendered favourable to this

country. For coast defence alone steam vessels would be invaluable. The

colonies would be safer from piracy. Passages, at present difficult

or dangerous, would be made with speed and safety. Incidentally, an

entirely new system of tactics would be evolved by the coming of steam;

each ship-of-the-line would be escorted by a steam vessel, to tow her

into position, and concentration of force would be obtained by such

means as, harnessing two steamers to one sailing ship, so as to tow one

half of the fleet to a position of vantage over the enemy. After the

main action the steamers would themselves attack each other; and so on.

Both French and English writers agreed that there would be a reversion

to the ancient warfare of the galleys; the steamer, whose paddlewheels

lent themselves readily to a pivot gun armament and to great powers of

manœuvring, would always attack like a bull, facing the enemy, its bows

presenting one or more large and well-protected cannon. Sir John Ross

regarded the steamer, however, essentially as an auxiliary. M. Paixhans

took a more sanguine view. “At this moment,” he wrote in May, ’22,

“the English admiralty are building two steam vessels, each of thirty

horsepower, one at Portsmouth and one at Plymouth, for tugging sailing

ships held up by contrary winds. They commence by being the servitors

of the ships-of-the-line; but it is their destiny to become their

masters.”[143]

But the views of Sir John Ross did not find favour at the Admiralty.

In the presence of the revolution the authorities continued to steer

a policy of passive resistance to all changes and methods which might

have the effect of depreciating existing naval material; and Lord

Melville himself penned, as a reply to the Colonial Office to a request

for a steam mail service between two Mediterranean ports, the principle

which guided the Board. They felt it their bounden duty (he wrote in

1828) to discourage, to the utmost of their ability, the employment

of steam vessels, as they considered that the introduction of steam

was calculated to strike a fatal blow at the naval supremacy of the

Empire.[144][145]

So far, then, new methods of propulsion had not been greeted with

enthusiasm. Yet to the First Lord himself was due the utilization of

steam for minor purposes in the navy. In spite of the non-success

of Lord Stanhope’s experimental “ambi-navigator” ship in 1795, Lord

Melville in 1815 caused the three-masted schooner _Congo_, designed

for a surveying expedition to the river of that name, to be fitted

with paddlewheels and machinery by Boulton and Watt, expressly to

try it in a ship-of-war. This machinery was so large and ponderous

that, not only did it usurp one-third of the space aboard the ship,

but brought her down so deep as only to give four knots through the

water. It was all removed again before she sailed, and sent to Chatham

for use in the dockyard. In the following year we find Mr. Brunel in

correspondence with his lordship on the question of steam navigation.

Brunel wrote quoting evidence to the effect that paddlewheels could be

made of sufficient strength and stiffness to withstand the violence of

seas and gales; to which Lord Melville replied that the Board deemed

it unnecessary to enter, at that time, into the question of steam

navigation generally, but desired his views on the application of steam

to the towing of ships-of-war out of harbour against contrary winds

and tides: which would be a matter of great advantage to his Majesty’s

service. Brunel answered recommending that the steamer _Regent_, plying

between Margate and London, be chartered during the winter and employed

on this work, as a particular experiment.

“From this period may be dated the introduction of steam navigation

into the English navy. Lord Melville was now so fully convinced of the

great utility which the naval service would derive from it, that he

ordered a small vessel to be built at Deptford, by Mr. Oliver Lang, to

be called the _Comet_, of the burthen of 238 tons, and to have engines

of 80 horse-power. She was built accordingly and ready for sea in

1822.”[146] As a matter of fact, the first steamer actually brought

into H.M. service was the _Monkey_, built at Rotherhithe in 1821; and

she was followed by the more powerful _Sprightly_, built at Blackwall

by Messrs. Wigram and Green in ’23. Gradually the use of these

paddlewheel tugs extended, their tonnage and horse-power increased, and

the Surveyor of the Navy and his master shipwrights began to divert

their talents to a consideration of the small steamers.

For the reason stated by Lord Melville, steamers were at this time

tolerated only for towing and other subsidiary duties; authority poured

cold water on the idea of utilizing them as ships-of-war; and if steam

could have been dispensed with altogether, everyone would have been the

better pleased.

Even at this period the idea of using manual labour, applied in an

effective manner, for towing and bringing into position sailing

warships had not been altogether abandoned. In 1802 the transport

_Doncaster_ had been propelled at a slow speed in Malta harbour by the

invention of a Mr. Shorter: a screw propeller rigged over the stern.

In 1820 experiments were made at Portsmouth with paddlewheels manually

worked, and in ’29 Captain C. Napier took his ship _Galatea_ out of

Portsmouth Harbour by use of paddlewheels geared to winches which

were worked by the crew. One hundred and thirty men were able to give

her a speed of 2½ knots, while the full crew of a hundred and ninety

produced a speed of three. After this doubtful success another trial

was held--a race between the _Galatea_, propelled by paddles, and

the _Briton_, towed by boats--which _Galatea_ won. Captain Napier’s

paddlewheels afterwards did good work for his ship in other quarters

of the world.[147] Nothing resulted, however, from his initiative

in this connection; only was emphasized the enormous superiority of

steam-propelled vessels as tugs, in which capacity they had already

made their appearance, and from which they were destined to evolve, in

the next decade, into fighting vessels of considerable force.

By 1830 steam navigation had made significant strides along the

lines of commercial development. In that year a service of steam

mail boats started to run at regular intervals between Falmouth and

Corfu, covering the distance in about one-fourth of the time which

had been taken by the sailing packets; a Dutch government steamer,

the _Curaçoa_, built in England, had since ’27 been running between

Holland and the East Indies; and already the Indian Government had

built an armed steamer, designed as the forerunner of others which were

to connect Bombay with Suez and thus to place India in more direct

communication with England.

The navy was still represented only by paddle-tugs. With a change

of administration, however, came a change in Admiralty policy. The

new Board took a distinctly progressive view. It was agreed that,

if foreign powers initiated the building of steam war-vessels, this

country must build as well, and not only as well but better: a policy

tersely summed up by Admiral Sir T. M. Hardy in his saying, “Happen

what will, England must take the lead.” Certain objections to steam

vessels as naval units which had hitherto held a vogue were now seen

to be ill-founded or baseless. In particular it was discovered, not

without surprise to many, that steamers could be manœuvred without

difficulty. A paddlewheel steamer, the _Medea_, gained her commander

considerable credit from the skill with which she was navigated from

the Thames into the basin at Woolwich dockyard, which proved that

steamers could be steered and manœuvred better than sailing ships.

In ’33 the construction of steamers was placed in the hands of the

Surveyor.[148]

But small progress was made. One reason alleged was that the shape of

hull which the Surveyor had made peculiarly his own was ill-adapted for

steam machinery. “Nothing more unpropitious,” observed a later writer,

“for Sir William Symond’s mode of construction than the introduction of

steam can be conceived. His sharp bottoms were the very worst possible

for the reception of engines; his broad beam and short length the most

unfavourable qualities that could be devised for steam propulsion. As

much as he could, he adhered to his principles.... Rather than yield

to the demands of the new power, he sacrificed the armaments of his

vessels, kept down the size of their engines, and recklessly exposed

the machinery to shot should they go into action.”[149] There doubtless

was something in this criticism. And yet, as we have seen, experience

in America led to a form of hull for paddle steamers in many respects

approaching that condemned as being favoured by the Surveyor!

Another and more valid reason for the slow progress made lay in the

inherent unsuitability of the paddlewheel steamer as a substitute

for the large sailing warship. Not only did the paddlewheels offer a

large and vulnerable surface to destruction by enemy shot, but the

wheels and their machinery could not be embodied in a ship design

without interference with its sails and sailing qualities and, still

more, without serious sacrifice of broadside armament. The machinery

monopolized a large section of the midship space, the huge wheels

covered the sides and interfered with the training of those guns for

which room remained. The problem of arming steam-vessels was novel and

difficult of solution. The guns must be few and therefore powerful.

Hence it appeared that paddlewheel steamers, notwithstanding the

advantages they possessed of speed and certainty of motion, could only

sustain a small concentrated armament, consisting of the heaviest

and most powerful ordnance: guns of large calibre, which possessed

large power of offence at ranges where the broadside cannon would be

deprived of much of their efficiency. Hence in ’31 a 10-inch shell gun

of 84 hundredweight was expressly designed and cast for this purpose;

and all the classes of steamers in early use in the navy were armed

with it until, in ’41, it was displaced by the 68-pounder pivot gun,

which then became the principal pivot gun of the service. Thus the

development of paddlewheel machinery reacted on the development of

artillery. The steamer was a stimulus to the development of large

ordnance worked on the pivot system. And this form of armament in

turn influenced the form of the ship. The main weights--those of the

propelling machinery--were already concentrated in the waist of the

vessel, and it was now possible so to place the few pivot guns that the

ends of the vessel were left very lightly loaded. Thus it was possible

to give unprecedentedly fine lines to the new steamers, a sharp and

lengthened bow and a well-tapered run: an improved form of body by

the use of which high speeds were obtained. In the case of commercial

steamships the advantages of fine lines had already been recognized,

and their designers had been free to give them a form which would allow

of a high speed being attained; but in the case of war vessels designed

to carry a broadside armament the limitations imposed by the heavily

weighted ends had hitherto prevented other than bluff bows and sterns

being given them. But now the subject of ship form came under general

consideration, and the new conditions led to a more serious study of

the laws governing the motion of bodies through water.

Year after year the size of steamers grew.[150] And as with size the

cost of construction and maintenance increased, the question pressed

itself more and more clearly--what was the naval utility of such

expensive and lightly armed vessels? Numerous attempts were made to

produce a form of paddlewheel steamer which would carry a broadside

armament comparable with that which a sailing vessel of the same

burthen would bear. In 1843 the _Penelope_, 46 guns, was cut in

halves at Chatham and lengthened by the addition of about 65 feet, in

which space engines of 650 horse-power were installed. But the extra

displacement failed to compensate for the weight of the machinery;

the altered vessel drew more water than had been anticipated and,

though various alterations were made to minimize the effects of this,

the experiment was not a success and was not repeated. In ’45 a steam

frigate called the _Odin_ was built by order of the Board. “The results

aimed at in constructing this ship were--capability of carrying

broadside armament; diminished rolling, in comparison with any war

steamers then built; and less draught of water in relation to the size.

These objects were accomplished; but as the position of the machinery

and boilers is partially above the water-line, and the propellers

are exposed to danger in broadside fighting, the ship is necessarily

imperfect in these two conditions, as well as in the position of the

sails; for in this case the proper place of the mainmast was occupied

by the boilers, and consequently the centre of effort of the wind on

the sails is in a wrong place.”[151] In the same year the _Sidon_ was

laid down, the design being on the lines of the _Odin_ but modified in

accordance with the ideas of Sir Charles Napier: with greater depth of

hold and with machinery below the water-line. Iron tanks were placed in

the hold for carrying the coals; by filling these with water when empty

the steamer was kept at a more or less constant draught, a matter of

considerable importance to the efficient working of the paddlewheels.

In other respects, however, the _Sidon_ was unsatisfactory. She was so

crank that the addition of ballast and a modification of her armament

were necessary. Her engines were cramped, her boilers of insufficient

power and of unsuitable design, and her coal capacity too small to give

her a useful radius of action. For the attainment of all the properties

specified it was subsequently calculated and shown that a much larger

displacement was necessary. Just as Fitch had discovered and Fulton

had discerned, increase in scale reduced many of the difficulties

encountered in designing heavily weighted steam vessels. Hence the

success of the _Terrible_. In the case of the _Terrible_, a large

paddlewheel frigate of 1,850 tons and 800 horse-power built in 1845, it

was clear that an increase of size had given a partial solution to the

problem of designing a war-vessel with heavy and spacious propelling

machinery, with adequate armament, and with full sail-power and all the

properties of a sailing ship.

Still the steam war-vessel was not satisfactory. Her machinery usurped

the weight and space required for armament, her cumbrous paddlewheels

were far too exposed to damage by shot or shell. And how to surmount

these difficulties and reconcile the conflicting requirements of

artillery and motive power, was a problem which cost the country years

of unsuccessful experiments and millions of money. “It was,” said

Dahlgren, “the riddle of the day.”

§

The problem was solved by the adoption of the screw propeller.

Since Archimedes’ day the screw had been known in the form of a pump,

and in two familiar objects--the smoke-jack and the windmill--the

principle of the driven screw had been for centuries widely employed.

In connection with ship propulsion the screw appears to have been tried

at an early date, like the Marquis of Worcester’s water-wheel, in the

form of a mill. Among the machines and inventions approved by the

Royal Academy of Sciences of Paris between the years 1727 and 1731 is

one described as a screw, suspended in a framework between two boats,

which when acted upon by the current was intended to warp the vessels

upstream, the motion of the screw being transmitted to a winch barrel

on which a tow-rope was wound. But so far as is known no attempt had

been made at this date to use the screw directly as a propeller. In

1768 its use in this form was suggested in a work entitled _Théorie de

la Vis d’Archimede_.[152] And shortly after, as we have already seen,

Bramah in England and Bushnell in America had patented, and the latter

had actually put into use, the screw as a means of propelling vessels

through water. We have seen, too, that Fulton successfully adapted

the screw propeller, on a small scale, in one of his experimental

steamboats. Sporadic attempts were made in the early days of the

nineteenth century both in this country and in America to drive ships

by means of screws, both manually and by the medium of steam, some of

which were attended with a certain measure of success.[153] Yet some

time was to elapse before screw propulsion gained recognition. Doubt

as to the efficiency of a screw’s action, ignorance as to the shape

of the vessel required and as to the best position for the propeller,

difficulty in accommodating the early long-stroke steam engine to drive

direct an under-water propeller shaft; inertia, prejudice and vested

interest, all seem to have played a part in delaying the adoption of

what, when it did come, was acknowledged to be the only suitable form

of steam propulsion for war vessels.

[Illustration: PETTIT SMITH’S PROPELLER]

In 1825 a premium was offered by the Admiralty for the best plan

of propelling vessels without paddlewheels; and a plan proposed by

Commander S. Brown, R.N., was deemed sufficiently promising for trial:

a two-bladed screw propeller placed at the bow of a vessel and actuated

by a 12-horsepower engine. But though exhibiting advantages this form

of the invention did not survive.

The history of the screw-propeller may be said to date from 1836. In

that year two capable inventors obtained patents: Mr. Francis Pettit

Smith and Captain Ericsson. So little attention had, up to that time,

been given to the subject that the two proposals “were presented to the

public in the character of novelties, and as such they were regarded

by the few who had curiosity enough to look at them.” Smith’s patents

were for the application of the screw to propel steam vessels by

fixing it in a recess or open space formed in the deadwood; and, says

Fincham, “the striking and peculiar merit of Mr. Smith’s plan appears

to consist, _chiefly_, in his having chosen the right position for it

to work in.” Trials were carried out with Smith’s propeller in a 6-ton

boat on the City and Paddington canal, and then between Blackwall and

Folkestone, with encouraging success; the boat, encountering heavy

weather off the Foreland, demonstrated the advantage derived from

the absence of paddlewheels, and showed the new form of propelling

machinery to place no limitations on her qualities as a sailing vessel.

She returned to Blackwall, having run over 400 miles at a mean speed of

8 knots.

Captain Ericsson, a Swedish army officer who had come to London and

established himself as a civil engineer, had a contemporary success

with a boat fitted with two large-bladed propellers each 5 feet 3

inches in diameter. So successful was he, indeed, that he invited the

Board of Admiralty to take a trip in tow of his novel craft; a trip

which had important and unexpected results on the subsequent progress

of steam navigation. One summer day in ’37 the Admiralty barge, in

which were the Surveyor and three other members of the Board, was towed

by Ericsson’s screw steamer from Somerset House to Limehouse and back

at a speed of 10 knots. The demonstration was a complete success, and

the inventor anticipated some further patronage of his invention. But

to his chagrin nothing was asked of him, and to his amazement he was

subsequently informed that the proposal to propel warships by means

of a screw had been pronounced impracticable. Never, perhaps, in the

whole history of mechanical progress has so signally wrong a decision

been made, never has expert opinion been so mistaken. Engineers and

shipbuilders all failed to realize the possibilities of the screw.

The naval authorities who, in the face of their personal experience,

dismissed the project as impracticable (owing to some anticipated

difficulties in steering ships fitted with screws) merely expressed the

unanimous opinion of the time. “The engineering corps of the empire

were arrayed in opposition to it, alleging that it was constructed on

erroneous principles, and full of practical defects, and regarding

its failure as too certain to authorize any speculations even of

its success. The plan was specially submitted to many distinguished

engineers, and was publicly discussed in the scientific journals; and

there was no one but the inventor who refused to acquiesce in the truth

of the numerous demonstrations, proving the vast loss of mechanical

power which must attend this proposed substitute for the old-fashioned

paddlewheel.”[154] Yet in five years’ time steamers designed for

paddlewheels were being converted to carry screws, and a great

screw-propelled liner, the _Great Britain_, had been launched for the

Atlantic traffic!

It was in America, we have seen, that progress in steam navigation

was of the greatest interest to the public, and it was by Americans

that the disabilities of the paddlewheel were most keenly appreciated.

Two witnesses of the trial of Ericsson’s boat saw and admitted the

advantages of the new method: Mr. Ogden, an engineer who had been U.S.

consul at Liverpool for some years, and Captain Stockton, U.S.N. The

latter appreciated the military advantages of screw propulsion and was

soon its enthusiastic advocate. Under his influence and encouragement

Ericsson threw up his engagements in London and went to America. “We’ll

make your name ring on the Delaware,” said Captain Stockton to him at a

dinner in his honour given at Greenwich. The prediction was fulfilled.

In the course of time Ericsson saw his propeller applied on a large

scale, not only to mercantile craft but in the American navy. Early in

’37 Captain Stockton had ordered an iron vessel to be built by Messrs.

Laird, of Birkenhead, and fitted with a screw. In the following year

she was launched, and in the spring of ’40, after giving demonstration

on the Thames of the great towing power of her propeller, she left for

America for service as a tug on the big rivers. On this work one of the

great advantages of the screw was realized: the immunity with which the

screw vessel could work in drift ice, when paddlewheel steamers were

perforce laid up.

In the meantime, fortunately, Pettit Smith’s successes had not been

without their effect on opinion in this country. A company was formed

to exploit the screw, and a vessel, the _Archimedes_, was built amid

a strange chorus of detraction, opposition and ridicule. She made her

trials in October, ’39. Her propeller was at first in the form of a

complete convolution of a helical screw of 8-foot pitch and of 5 foot 9

inches diameter; but subsequently this blade was replaced by two, each

of which formed half a convolution, with the two halves set at right

angles to one another. Comparative trials were ordered by the Admiralty

in the following year to test the merits of the _Archimedes’_ screw as

compared with the ordinary paddlewheels applied to her Majesty’s mail

packets on the Dover station. The results were inconclusive.[155] But

a subsequent voyage round the coasts of Great Britain, during which

the machinery of the _Archimedes_ was laid open to the inspection of

the general public, and a later voyage from Plymouth to Oporto which

recreated a new record for a steam passage, went far to establish in

public estimation the merits of the new propeller. But generally the

invention was discouraged. Prejudice and vested interests, rather than

a reasoned conservation, seem to have operated to oppose its progress.

“A striking instance of prevailing disinclination to the screw

propeller was shown on the issue of a new edition of the _Encyclopædia

Britannica_, in which the article on steam navigation contained no

notice whatever of the subject.”

But in spite of all prepossessions against it the screw had won a

decisive victory over its rival. So striking were the results recorded

by the _Archimedes_, that a decision was made in December, 1840, to

change the _Great Britain_, an Atlantic liner then under construction,

from paddlewheel to screw propulsion. In two ways she was a gigantic

experiment: she was the first large ship to be built of iron, and it

was now proposed to fit her with a screw. Mr. Brunel took all the

responsibility for advising the adoption of both these revolutionary

features; the result was a splendid testimony to his scientific

judgment, boldness of enterprise, and “confident reliance on deductions

from facts ascertained on a small scale.”

Before the completion of the _Great Britain_ the Admiralty had

initiated experiments which were to furnish important information as

to the power and efficiency of the screw propeller in its various

forms, and to settle beyond cavil the question of its superiority over

the paddlewheel for the propulsion of warships. The sloop _Rattler_,

888 tons and 200 horsepower, was fitted with screw machinery. Several

forms of screw were tried during the winter of 1843-4. First the

screw as used in the _Archimedes_ was fitted: a screw of 9-foot

diameter, 11-foot pitch, and of 5½ feet length, consisting of two

half-convolutions of a blade upon its axis. Then a screw was tried

of the same diameter and pitch but of only 4-foot length; and then

the length was again reduced to 3 feet. The effect of cutting down

the length was to give an increase of efficiency.[156] The screw was

again shortened by 2 feet, and finally to 1 foot 3 inches; with each

reduction in length the slip diminished and the propulsive efficiency

increased. Various other forms of screws were tried, and it was shown

that Pettit Smith’s short two-bladed propeller was on the whole the

most efficient.

The best form of screw having been determined, it still remained to

compare the screw propeller with the paddlewheel. Accordingly the

_Alecto_, a paddlewheel sloop of similar lines to the _Rattler_, was

selected as the protagonist of the older form of propulsion, while

the _Rattler_ herself represented the screw. Naval opinion was still

completely divided on the great question, while in the competing sloops

the utmost emulation existed, each captain advocating his own type of

propeller. The speed trials took place, and showed the _Rattler_ to

have an undoubted advantage. The paddlewheel, however, laid claim to

a superiority in towing power. So a further competition was ordered,

as realistic as any, perhaps, in the history of applied science:

nothing less than a tug-of-war between Paddle and Screw, those two

contending forms of steam propulsion! Lashed stern to stern and both

steaming ahead full power, one evening in the spring of ’45 the two

steamers struggled for mastery. And as _Rattler_ slowly but surely

pulled over _Alecto_, the question which had been for years so hotly

debated was settled; the superiority of the screw was demonstrated.

With the adoption of the screw the problem of disposing the armament

was settled. The broadsides and the spaces between decks were once

more free to the guns along the entire length; moreover the action of

the screw was in complete harmony with that of the sails. With the

screw as an auxiliary to sail power, and subsequently with the screw

as sole means of propulsion, a change came over the character of the

pivot armament. Whereas with the paddlewheel the pivot gun was the

chief means of offence, when the screw was introduced the broadside

was restored, and though the heavy pivot guns were retained (steam and

the pivot gun had become associated ideas), yet by their comparatively

limited numbers they became a subordinate element in the total armament.

[Illustration: _RATTLER_ VERSUS _ALECTO_

From an aquatint in the South Kensington Museum]

External affairs now lent a spur to screw propulsion. In ’44 the

French navy came under the reforming power of the ambitious Prince de

Joinville, and from this year onwards the attitude of France to this

country became increasingly hostile and menacing. The thoughts of

the French were turned toward their navy. No sooner had de Joinville

been placed in command than schemes of invasion were bruited in this

country; and the public viewed with some alarm the altered problems of

defence imposed on our fleets by the presence in the enemy’s ports of a

steam-propelled navy. Sanguine French patriots sought to profit by the

advent of the new power. A pamphlet appeared in Paris claiming to prove

that the establishment of steam navigation afforded France the very

means by which she could regain her former level of naval strength. The

writer, using the same arguments as Colonel Paixhans had used in ’22,

reviewed the effect of steam power on the rival navies, and pointed to

the Duke of Wellington’s warnings in parliament of the defencelessness

of the English coasts and to his statement that if Napoleon had

possessed steam power he would have achieved invasion. These cries of

alarm, said the writer, should trace for France her line of policy. She

should emulate the wise development of steam propulsion as practised

by Great Britain. “We think, England acts; we discuss theories, she

pursues application. She creates with activity a redoubtable steam

force and reduces the number of her sailing ships, whose impotence

she recognizes.... Sailing vessels have lost their main power; the

employment of steamers has reduced them to the subaltern position

of the siege artillery in a land army.” The writer praised English

policy in the matter of steam development: its wise caution, its

reasoned continuity. There had admittedly been some costly deceptions.

Nevertheless the method was to be commended, and France should proceed

in a similar manner: by a succession of sample units while steam was

still in the experimental stage, by far-sighted single strides, and

then by bold and rapid construction of a steam navy which would compete

on more even terms with that of her hereditary rival.[157]

Faced with the probability that our rivals would pursue some such

progressive and challenging policy as outlined by the pamphleteer, the

Admiralty acted rapidly. Before the _Rattler_ trials were complete a

decision was made favourable to the screw propeller, and an order was

made for its wide application to warships built and building. It was

resolved, on the advice of Sir Charles Napier, that the screw should

be regarded solely as an auxiliary to, and in no way as in competition

with, sail power. The _Arrogant_ was laid down, the first frigate

built for auxiliary steam power; and screws driven by engines of small

horse-power were subsequently fitted to other ships with varying

degrees of success.

Two important features were specified for all: the machinery was

required to be wholly below the water-line, and the screw had to

be unshippable. Engines were now required for Block Ships and for

sea-going vessels. So the principal engineers of the country were

called together and were asked to produce engines in accordance with

the bare requirements given them. A variety of designs resulted. From

the experience obtained with this machinery two important conclusions

were quickly drawn: firstly, that gearing might be altogether dispensed

with; secondly, that no complex contrivance was necessary for altering

the pitch to enable engines to work advantageously under varying

conditions, the efficiency of the screw varying very little whether

part of the ship’s velocity were due to sail power or whether it were

wholly due to the screw.[158]

And here it may not be amiss to note, in relation to a nation’s

fighting power, the significant position assumed by naval material.

In land warfare a rude measure of force could always be obtained by

a mere counting of heads. At sea man was in future to act, almost

entirely, through the medium of the machine.

However we may have deserved the eulogy of the French writer in

respect of developing the paddlewheel war steamer, the development

of screw propulsion in the next decade was marked by a succession of

failures and a large outlay of money on useless conversions and on new

construction of poor fighting value, most of which could have been

avoided. Had our methods been less tentative and more truly scientific

the gain would have been undoubtedly very great; we should have laid

our plans on a firmer basis and arrived at our end, full screw power,

by a far less circuitous route than that actually taken. In this

respect France had the advantage of us.

Although a decision had been made to maintain the full sail power of

our ships and install screw machinery only as an auxiliary motive

power, attempts were naturally made to augment so far as possible the

power exerted by the screw; and within a short time new ships were

being fitted with machinery of high power, in an endeavour to make the

screw a primary means of propulsion. The results were disappointing. As

the power increased difficulties thickened. The weight of the machinery

grew to be excessive, the economy of the comparatively fast-running and

short-stroke engines proved to be low, and the propulsive efficiency of

the screws themselves grew unaccountably smaller and smaller. So poor

were the results obtained, indeed, that in the case of a certain ship

it was demonstrated that, by taking out the high-power machinery and

substituting smaller engines an actual gain in speed was obtained, with

the reduced displacement. The first screw ship in which an attempt was

made to obtain full power with the screw was the _Dauntless_, of 1846.

Although a frigate of beautiful lines she was considered a comparative

failure. It was agreed that, equipped with paddlewheels and armed with

guns of larger calibre, she would have constituted a faster and more

powerful warship than, with her 580-horse-power engines, her 10 knots

of speed, and her 32-pounder guns, she actually was.

Part of the trouble was due to the unsuitability of our ships’ lines

for screw propulsion. It has already been noted that, owing to the

carriage of heavy weights at their extremities, war vessels were always

given very full bows and sterns. In the case of the _Rattler_, whose

records served as a criterion for later designs of screw ships, the

lines of the stern were unusually fine: partly, no doubt, in imitation

of the _Archimedes_. Also, since it had been necessary to allow

space enough for a long screw to be carried (a screw of a complete

convolution was thought possible) the _Rattler’s_ short screw as

finally adopted worked at some distance aft of the deadwood, and thus

suffered no retarding influence from it when under way. But in the case

of later ships these advantages did not obtain. They were built with

the usual “square tuck,” a bluff form of stern which prevented a free

flow of water into the space ahead of the propeller and thus detracted

from its efficiency. It was not appreciated at this time that, for

efficient action, the screw propeller demands to be supplied with a

body of unbroken, non-eddying water for it to act upon, which with the

square-cut stern is not obtained. At low speeds, and in the ship to

which the screw was fitted as an auxiliary, the effect of the square

tuck was not marked. But as power and speed increased its effect became

more and more evident; the increase in power gave no proportionate

increase in speed; and many, ignorant of the cause, surmised that there

was a limit to the power which could be transmitted by a screw and that

this limit had already been reached. The inefficiency of the square

tuck was exposed by trials carried out in H.M.S. _Dwarf_ at Chatham. As

a result of these, future new and converted ships were given as fine a

stern as possible.

For several years, however, the policy of the Admiralty remained the

same: the screw was regarded solely as an auxiliary. The French, on the

other hand, took a less compromising line of action. After waiting for

some time and watching our long series of experiments, they convened

in 1849 a grand _Enquête Parliamentaire_: a commission which, primed

with the latest information as to British naval material, was to

decide on what basis of size, number, armament and means of propulsion

future French warships should be built. For two years the commission

sat sifting evidence. And then it recommended screw propulsion of the

highest power for all new ships, as well as the conversion of some

existing classes to auxiliary screw power. England had fitted her

ships with screws capable of giving them small speed; France must fit

hers with screws of greater power. Speed, said the commission, is

an element of power. Superior speed is the only means by which the

English can be fought with a good chance of success. Sails must be

secondary, therefore, and full reliance must be placed on the screw.

The recommendations of the commission were duly realized. In the

following years a powerful force of fast screw battleships, frigates,

transports, and despatch boats was constructed which by ’58 had brought

the aggregate of the horse-power of the French fleet almost to a level

with that of England.

When the Crimean War brought the two navies together as allies in

’54 the full effect of the new policy of the French had not yet been

made apparent. Some apprehension existed in this country as to the

adequacy and efficiency of our navy, when compared directly with that

of France. But from then onwards this country became aware of the

increasing hostility of the French public and government; speeches

were made, and letters appeared in the press of both countries, which

tended to fan the flames of fear and suspicion.[159] It was not till

’58, however, that general attention was drawn to the great strides

which the French navy had made in recent years, and to the skilful

way in which its position, relative to that of its great rival, had

been improved. An article entitled “The Navies of England and France”

appeared in the _Conversations Lexicon_ of Leipsic, and caused a great

sensation. Reprinted in book form, with a long analysis and with a

mass of information about the French, English and other navies and

arsenals,[160] this notorious article brought apprehension to a head.

Though written by no friendly critic, it was in most respects an

accurate presentment of the respective navies and of their condition.

The analysis of Hans Busk, while ostensibly exposing its bias and its

inaccuracies, in effect confirmed the main contentions of the German

article; in addition his book gave in spectacular columns a summary of

the units of the rival navies, which gave food for thought. The article

itself professed to show how much France had benefited by the bold

and scientific manner in which she had handled the problem of naval

construction since the coming of steam. Other factors were discussed,

the forms of ships, the Paixhans system of armament, problems of

manning and of education; but the factor which had caused the greatest

accession of strength to France, by her wise divergence from the

English policy, was (according to the critic) steam propulsion. In the

case of paddlewheel steamers England, by her unscientific and ruinous

experiments, had squandered millions of money and produced a series of

crank and inefficient war vessels. In the case of screw ships England’s

waste of exertions and money was even more surprising; the building of

new ships and the conversion of others was carried out at an enormous

cost with many galling disappointments. The French, on the other hand,

took longer to consider the principle of the screw, but then, when

their more scientific constructors had completed their investigations

and analysed the new power, they acted thoroughly and without delay.

From all of which the German critic inferred that England had good

reason to watch with anxious eye the significant development of

strength on the part of her neighbours across the Channel. “We

must pronounce,” he concluded, “that with a nearly equal amount of

_matériel_, the French navy surpasses the English in capacity and in

command of men. France need feel no hesitation in placing herself in

comparison with England.... Never was the policy of England so yielding

and considerate towards France as at the present day. And then, with

respect to the vexed question of the invasion, it is certain that

Napoleon III has the means of effecting it with greater ease and far

greater chance of success than his uncle.”

The means was steam power. But the much-talked-of invasion was never

to be attempted. Other events intervened, other developments took

place, which reduced the tension between the two great naval powers and

removed for an indefinite time the danger, which the Leipsic article

disinterestedly pointed out, of war under novel and unprecedentedly

terrible conditions: with shell guns and wooden unarmoured steam

warships.