[Sidenote: 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:

[Sidenote: Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton.]

[Sidenote: 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]

[Sidenote: plies between Glasgow and Greenock,]

Though Mr. Bell had completed his _Comet_ in January, 1812, more than

six months elapsed before he announced to the public, through the

medium of an advertisement in the local papers of the period,[98] his

intention to employ her for trading purposes on the Clyde. The notice

is a modest but curious and interesting document. He does not profess

to make more than one passage each day between Glasgow and Greenock,

a distance of 22 miles, and, doubtful of its pecuniary success, he

informs the public that he intends to continue “his establishment at

Helensburgh Baths,” to which the _Comet_ will carry passengers on

her return journey from Greenock This little vessel, of which the

following is an illustration as she appeared on the Clyde passing

Dumbarton, was designed and constructed by Mr. John Wood, shipbuilder,

Port Glasgow. She was 40 feet in length of keel, and 10½ feet beam; her

engines (which cost 192_l._) were 4 horse-power; and her draught of

water 4 feet. She continued to ply for a short time between Glasgow and

Greenock, but under many difficulties.[99]

[Illustration]

Though the engine of the _Comet_ was only of 4 horse-power, driving two

small wheels, one on each side, it must, however, have performed its

work, on the whole, exceedingly well to have propelled a vessel of 30

tons burthen at the rate Mr. Bell states in his letter published in the

_Caledonian Mercury_.

[Sidenote: and, afterwards, on the Forth.]

But the _Comet_ does not appear to have proved remunerative to her

enterprising owner on the line on which he had placed her.[100] The

prejudice raised against steam navigation by rival interests, which

Fulton had previously experienced on the Hudson, was equally strong on

the Clyde, and seriously injured Mr. Bell’s first undertaking. He was

consequently obliged to withdraw her from this station and to employ

her for some months as an excursion-boat on the coasts of Scotland

and Ireland, extending his cruises to the shores of England when the

weather permitted, to show the superior advantages of steam-boat

navigation over other modes of transit to the public, many of whom

viewed her with feelings of mingled awe and superstition. Afterwards

he transferred her to the Forth, where she ran for a considerable time

between the extremity of the Forth and Clyde Canal and Newhaven, near

Edinburgh. Here she seems to have done her work most efficiently, for

Mr. Bell states that she made the voyage, a distance of 27 miles, on

the average, in three and a half hours, being at the rate of more than

7½ miles an hour.[101]

[Sidenote: Extraordinary progress of ship-building on the Clyde.]

Although the _Comet_ at first proved commercially unsuccessful, there

is no part of Europe where the progress in the construction of steamers

has been either so great or so astonishing as on the Clyde. From a

silvery salmon stream it has become in half a century by far the

largest and most important shipbuilding river in the world; but, alas,

its once limpid stream has long since ceased to be either silvery or

pure.[102] Ancient historians have told us that when the first Punic

war roused the citizens of Rome to extraordinary exertions in the

equipment of a fleet for the destruction of the maritime supremacy of

Carthage, the banks of the Tiber resounded with the axe and the hammer,

and that the extent of the ship-building operations then carried on

was a matter not merely of surprise, but of wonder. How insignificant,

however, was that sound when compared with that of the steam hammer and

the anvil and the din of the work now to be heard on the banks of the

Clyde. For miles on both sides of the river stupendous ship-building

yards line its banks, employing tens of thousands of hardy and skilled

mechanics earning their daily bread, as God has destined all men to

do, by “the sweat of their brow,” relieved from oppressive taxation,

and free from anything approaching the thraldom of slavery, the curse

of ancient Rome. Along those banks there is now annually constructed

a much larger amount of steam tonnage than in all the other ports of

Europe combined, those of England alone excepted. What a contrast to

the days of Henry Bell!—days almost within my own recollection.

By comparing the Clyde with the Tiber, both in themselves comparatively

insignificant rivers—the one made important by the power of the

Cæsars, the other by the wisdom and energy of the Clyde trustees,

it is to be hoped that more than one lesson may be learned from the

character of the employment on their respective banks. The clamour on

the Tiber when Rome resolved to achieve maritime greatness, indicated

war, terrible war, with Carthage; but the sounds on the Clyde proclaim

a mission of peace and good-will among nations, for nearly all the

ships constructed there are destined to carry to other lands the

fabrics of our workshops and the products of our mills, and with them

the civilizing and enlightening influence resulting from the skill and

genius of our artisans.[103]

[Sidenote: Great value and importance of the private building yards.]

Should, however, the necessity arise, these numerous ship-building

yards and thousands of mechanics could instantly be made available for

the construction of vessels of war. If, therefore, a large naval force

be still unhappily necessary, [and I am far from saying that it is

not], should we not take into consideration, when we frame our naval

estimates, the vast resources we have at our command in our private

yards,[104] (infinitely greater as these are than those of all other

nations in Europe combined), for producing on an emergency, whatever

extra number of vessels of war we may then require? Our private

building yards are in themselves the bases of a great fleet.[105]

But the Admiralty are slow to learn. At the commencement of the

century they declined even to consider the benefits to be derived

by the application of steam, and even forty years afterwards, when

everybody except themselves had become alive to its advantages, they

refused to apply this new and now mighty power to our war ships of the

line.

[Sidenote: Steam between Norwich and Yarmouth, 1813;]

[Sidenote: Between London and Margate, 1815.]

[Sidenote: The _Glasgow_.]

Happily, however, the great invention made its way without Government

aid. Private enterprise carried into execution what the Admiralty would

not even consider. In 1813 a steam-boat was built at Leeds, and was

started to run between Norwich and Yarmouth in the months of August or

September of that year. This was the second steam-vessel launched in

British waters. In the same year a steamer was launched at Manchester

and another at Bristol. In October 1814 another steamer commenced to

ply on the Humber. In December of that year the first steamer was seen

on the Thames; she was put in motion on the canal at Limehouse; and,

early in 1815, a vessel with a side lever engine of 14 horse-power,

constructed by Cook of Glasgow, made her way from that city to Dublin,

and thence round the Land’s End to London. Though encountering

great opposition from the Thames watermen, from time immemorial an

obstructive class of men, she, nevertheless, commenced and successfully

carried on a passenger traffic between that city and Margate. Cook

had, in the previous year, in association with Bell, built two other

steam-vessels, one of which, named the _Glasgow_, became in power and

efficiency the standard at that time for river steamers.

The public now began to appreciate the value of steamers. Prejudice

vanished and travellers by them increased with such rapidity that, in

1816, it was not unusual for 500 or 600 passengers to enjoy, in the

course of one day, water excursions on the Clyde.[106]

[Sidenote: Early opposition to the employment of steam vessels.]

It is, however, not a matter for surprise that steamers, when first

placed on rivers for passenger traffic, were viewed with great jealousy

by watermen, and that, on the Hudson and especially on the Thames, they

were strenuously opposed. The traffic on the Thames had for centuries

afforded profitable employment to large numbers of semi-seafaring men

who, though not “sailors” in the usual acceptation of the term, could

nevertheless be made much more useful on board our ships of war in

an emergency than any other class in the community. To suggest any

changes whereby their number might be reduced was sure, as has been

the case for ages, to rouse the patriotic feelings of the people of

England lest there should be a scarcity of men to man their fleets.

Thus, on the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, the special clause

inserted in the Bill to reserve the coasting trade from the competition

of foreign ships and foreign seamen, was _solely_ on the ground of

“preserving a nursery for British sailors,” and five years elapsed ere

that clause was expunged. When, therefore, the British Legislature, at

so recent a period, considered it necessary to pass an enactment for

the preservation of seamen in England, as if any law could retain them

here if they were desirous of improving their condition by accepting

employment elsewhere, it is not surprising that the watermen, bargemen,

and others, who obtained their livelihood on the Thames, should have

found many sympathisers in 1815, when they affirmed that their “trade

would be ruined by the introduction of steamers.” Nor can we wonder

that men, in their humble position of life, could not see that the

greater facilities afforded for intercourse between London and Margate

and other towns on the banks of the river would, so far from reducing

their means of employment, tend very materially to increase them.

[Sidenote: Barges on the Thames.]

Previously to the time when David Napier introduced a steamer, the

_Marjory_, to ply on the Thames, the passenger traffic of the river

had been carried on by rowing boats, and sailing-craft of various

descriptions. Those which made the more distant voyages to Margate,

Ramsgate, and Deal were sailing-vessels, most of them carrying cargo

as well as passengers, while many were merely barges, called Hoys, of

which the following is an excellent illustration from Mr. E. W. Cooke’s

interesting collection of the vessels on the Thames. But the great

bulk of them were wherries, while the larger class having a mast and

sails, plied between Greenwich, Woolwich, Erith, or Gravesend. A few

were state barges—ornate structures—belonging to the Lord Mayor and

Corporation, or to the different livery companies or ancient guilds, in

which for centuries the members made frequent excursions to Richmond

or Hampton Court on the one hand, and Greenwich or Blackwall on the

other. Jovial pleasant parties they were, especially at that season of

the year, when the horse-chestnuts in Bushy Park were in bloom, and

whitebait was in its prime at Greenwich. One of these richly decorated

barges, almost rivalling the celebrated bucentaur of Venice, I have

copied from the drawings of Mr. Cooke as a relic of bygone days.

[Illustration: THAMES BARGE.]

[Illustration: THE STATIONERS’ BARGE.]

But these have all now passed away, though the cargo barges, and

some of the wherries may still be seen on the river. Steamers supply

their places, and from the time when Napier, in 1815, started his

“fire-boat,” steam navigation on the Thames, as on all other navigable

rivers, has made a steady, if not, at first, a rapid progress.

[Sidenote: First steamer between Liverpool and the Clyde.]

On the 28th June, 1815, the first steamer arrived at Liverpool from

the Clyde. She was built for the purpose of carrying on the passenger

traffic between the Mersey and Runcorn. On her passage round she called

at Ramsey, in the Isle of Man, whence she started early in the morning,

and arrived at Liverpool about noon of the same day. This vessel, the

particular dimensions and details of which it is difficult now to

trace, was noteworthy in more ways than one. She was not merely the

first regular steamer on the Mersey, but she was, also, in reality the

pioneer of the fleet of steamers which now ply with so much regularity

between Liverpool and the numerous ports on the English, Irish, and

Scotch coasts.

The second steamer, introduced to the waters of the Mersey in 1816,

was intended to supply communication for passengers and goods between

Liverpool and Chester by means of the canal, an object she effectually

accomplished.

The first application of steam for the purpose of towing vessels—now

an important and invaluable part of the numerous services rendered by

steam to navigation—was made in October 1816, when the _Harlequin_

was towed out of the Mersey by the _Charlotte_, a steamer which, in

the summer of the same year, had been placed as a ferry-boat to run

between Liverpool and Eastham. But the first steamer specially built at

Liverpool for the purpose of a ferry was named the _Etna_, which, early

in April of that year, began to ply between Liverpool and Tranmere.

She was 63 feet long, with a paddle-wheel placed in the centre, her

extremities being connected by beams, and her deck 28 feet wide over

all. This primitive vessel initiated the mode of transit by means of

the ferry-boats which now bridge the Mersey.

[Sidenote: H.M. steam-ship _Comet_, 1819.]

It was not, however, till the year 1819 that the Admiralty of the day

became alive to the importance of steam navigation, nor were they

likely, even then, to have awakened from their slumbers had not Lord

Melville and Sir George Cockburn urged on the Government the great

value of steam-power for towing their men-of-war.[107] In that year

the first steam-vessel was built for the Royal Navy. She was named

the _Comet_, and her dimensions were 115 feet in length, 21 feet in

breadth, and 9 feet draught of water, being propelled by two engines of

40 horse-power each, manufactured by Boulton and Watt.

[Sidenote: The _Rob Roy_ and other vessels, 1818.]

In 1818, Mr. David Napier, a name more associated than any other in

Great Britain with the early development of the marine engine, having

for some years previously been giving his attention to the propulsion

of vessels by steam, launched the _Rob Roy_ from the yard of Mr.

William Denny, of Dumbarton.[108] She was only 90 tons burthen, with

engines of 30 horse-power, but, to the credit of her builder, she

traded between Glasgow and Belfast, carrying with great punctuality

the mails and passengers for two consecutive years without requiring

any repairs; and although the first regular sea-going steamer which

had been built in either Europe or the United States of America, her

success was complete. Subsequently, the _Rob Roy_ was transferred to

the English Channel to serve as a packet between Dover and Calais. Soon

afterwards Messrs. Wood, of Port Glasgow, built for Mr. David Napier,

who had by this time removed to London, a boat named the _Talbot_,

of 120 tons. She was fitted with two engines of 30 horse-power each,

of his own construction, and proved in all respects the most perfect

steam-vessel of the period. This was the first vessel placed upon the

now celebrated line carrying the mails and passengers between Holyhead

and Dublin.

The value of the steam-engine having now been fully established as

a means of propelling vessels at sea with safety, and of performing

voyages with a regularity hitherto unknown, Mr. Napier found

comparatively little difficulty in inducing capitalists to join him in

the project of constructing various vessels for a regular line of steam

traffic between Liverpool, Greenock, and the city of Glasgow. Three

vessels were, consequently, built—the _Robert Burns_ of 150 tons,

the _Eclipse_ of 240 tons, each being fitted with two engines of 30

horse-power, and the _Superb_, also of 240 tons with two engines of 35

horse-power each. These vessels proved successful, and the line thus

established in 1822 has continued ever since.

New coasting lines soon followed, and, in lieu of the Leith smacks,

once so celebrated, the _James Watt_ was constructed to ply between

London and Leith. She was the largest steamer that had yet been built,

being 448 tons measurement, fitted with engines of 50 horse-power

each, by Boulton and Watt. Her paddles were moved, not directly by the

engines, but, through the interposition of toothed wheels, rendering

the number of revolutions of the axis considerably greater than that

of the paddles, so that, with the exception of the low proportion

of her propelling power to the tonnage, she possessed many, if not

most, of the qualities of the steamers of even the present day. The

_Soho_ followed the _James Watt_ on the same line, and proved equally

successful.

[Sidenote: The _United Kingdom_, 1826.]

In 1826 the first of the so-called leviathan class of steamers, the

_United Kingdom_ (of which the following is an excellent illustration)

was built by Mr. Steele of Greenock for the trade between London and

Edinburgh. She was 160 feet long, with 26½ feet beam, and engines of

200 horse-power by David Napier, and was considered the wonder of the

day. People flocked from all quarters to inspect and admire her.[109]

[Illustration: THE “UNITED KINGDOM,” LONDON AND EDINBURGH PACKET.—

FROM A DRAWING BY E. W. COOKE, R.A.]

Although these two lines of regular steam communication between

Liverpool and the river Clyde, and between London and Edinburgh were

now successfully established, and proved of considerable importance

in the encouragement of steam navigation elsewhere, some years

elapsed before those rapid strides were made in its adaptation as a

propelling power which have rendered it one of the wonders of the

present age. Indeed, this power would probably never have made such an

extraordinary advance had iron not been adopted instead of wood for the

construction of our ships.

[Sidenote: First idea of iron ships, 1830.]

Hitherto, and throughout all ages, timber alone had been used in

shipbuilding. The forests of Lebanon supplied the naval architects of

Tyre with their materials; Italy cultivated her woods with unusual

care, so that sufficient trees might be grown for the timber, planking,

and masts of the ships of its once powerful maritime republics; and,

in our own time, how often have we heard fears expressed that Great

Britain would not be able to continue the supply of sufficient oak

for her royal dockyards, much less for her merchant fleets! Yet, when

shrewd far-seeing men, no further back than the year 1830, talked about

substituting iron for the “ribs” of a ship instead of “timbers,” and

iron plates for “planking” instead of oak, what a howl of derision the

public raised!

“Who ever heard of iron floating?” they derisively enquired. It is

true they might have seen old tin kettles float on every pool of

water before their doors almost any day of their lives, nay, floating

even more buoyantly than their discarded wooden coal boxes; but such

common-place instructors were beneath their notice. Timber-built ships

had from time immemorial been in use by every nation and on every sea,

and had bravely battled with the storm from the days of Noah, and were

these, they sneeringly asked, to be supplanted by a material which in

itself would naturally sink? Such was the reasoning of the period; and

indeed, the best of the arguments against the use of iron rested on

scarcely more solid foundation.[110]

It could not be gainsaid that a frame of iron was infinitely stronger

than a frame of wood, which, in fact, has no strength in itself, for

the longitudinal timber ends are only butted to each other, and obtain

their power of resistance solely by means of the horizontal planks and

the trenails which bind them together. Nor could the obstructives deny,

though they argued the point, that the ribs when welded with the iron

plates riveted to them, formed a hull vastly superior in strength, and

much less liable to leakage than any similar body of wood, however

well constructed. They must also have seen, by its displacement of

water when afloat, that an iron hull was the more buoyant of the two.

But these arguments, however unanswerable, were long ere they produced

conviction; the fact that iron does not float, and the impression

that it could not be made to do so safely, offered almost insuperable

difficulties in the way of building vessels of that material; and when

it was argued that they would “rip up” if they struck upon a rock, or

bulge into a shapeless mass if driven on a sand bank, the opponents of

progress raised objections which could be answered only by practical

experience.

[Sidenote: Proposals of Trevethick and Dickenson, 1809-1815.]

[Sidenote: The _Vulcan_, 1818.]

Hitherto only a few very small vessels or barges had been constructed

of iron, and these neither on a scale nor of a class to practically

refute the objections which had been raised against the use of iron for

ship-building purposes. It is true that so far back as 1809 Richard

Trevethick and Robert Dickenson proposed a scheme for building “large

ships with decks, beams, and sides, of plate iron,” and even suggested

“masts, yards, and spars, to be constructed of iron in plates with

telescope joints or screwed together:”[111] and in 1815, Mr. Dickenson

patented an invention for vessels, or rather boats, “to be built of

iron, with a hollow watertight gunwale.”[112] But, as these inventors

or patentees did not put their ideas into practice, no other person

(if, indeed, any other person gave even a passing thought to the

subject) was convinced that any craft beyond a boat or a river-barge

could be constructed of iron, much less that, if made in the form

of a ship, this material would oppose more effectual resistance to

the storms of the ocean, or, if dashed upon the strand, to the angry

fury of the waves, than timber, however scientifically put together.

But though no available substance can withstand the raging elements

with less chance of destruction than plates of iron riveted together

in the form of a boiler (the principle on which iron ships are now

constructed), the public could not then appreciate their superior

value; and it was not until 1818 that the first _iron vessel_ was

built by Thomas Wilson, at Faskine, on the banks of the Monkland

Canal, eleven miles from Glasgow: this vessel, appropriately named the

_Vulcan_, is even now (1875) employed on the Clyde in the conveyance of

minerals from the Forth and Clyde Canal.

[Sidenote: _Aaron Manby_, 1821.]

Three years afterwards a steam-engine was, for the first time, fitted

into a vessel built of iron. She was named the _Aaron Manby_, and was

constructed in 1821 at Horsley, for the joint account of Mr. Manby and

Captain Napier, afterwards Admiral Sir Charles Napier. She was sent in

parts to London, where they were put together, and when complete was

despatched to France under the command of Captain Napier. Another iron

steam-vessel, intended for the navigation of the Seine, soon followed;

but, in consequence of the prohibitory French navigation laws, with

respect to foreign bottoms, the different parts of this vessel were,

in this case, sent to France instead of to London, and put together

at Charenton. Mr. Manby prepared in a similar manner two others, and

shortly afterwards the building of iron vessels was commenced by an

engineer at Paris for the same trade. The speculation, however, proved

unfortunate.

[Sidenote: Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824.]

The Shannon Steam Packet Company was the next to employ iron steamers

in river navigation. The first, built by the Horsley Company in 1824,

proving very successful, was immediately followed by others.

[Sidenote: Mr. John Laird and Sir William Fairbairn.]

As the success of these vessels was gradually determining the problem

of the suitableness of iron to ship-building purposes, and was drawing

attention to the subject, Messrs. Fawcett and Preston established

at Liverpool a building yard in connection with their engine factory

under the direction of Mr. Page, and constructed several small vessels

entirely of iron.[113] Mr. Laird, of Birkenhead, proceeding upon

a larger scale, prosecuted this branch of naval architecture with

uninterrupted prosperity.[114] Mr. Fairbairn, afterwards Sir William

Fairbairn, also took part, at an early period, in cultivating the new

art; and ranks with those to whose influence and skill it was first

indebted for public confidence. Removing from Glasgow, where he had

commenced business, he established himself at Millwall, on the Isle

of Dogs, and there became one of the principal constructors of iron

vessels upon the Thames. His efforts proving successful, other eminent

engineers pursued the same branch of art with the like results; among

them may be mentioned Messrs. Miller and Ravenhill, whose vessels were

considered at the time to be of exquisite workmanship and beauty of

form; and Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare, who built a considerable number

of iron vessels, including the _Fairy_, the tender to the Queen’s

yacht, her form and speed gaining them a high reputation.

[Sidenote: The _Elburkah_, 1832, and _Garry Owen_, 1834.]

In 1832, Messrs. Laird were bold enough to carry into practice the

theory of iron vessels for ocean navigation; and in the course of that

year the firm of MacGregor, Laird, and Company built the _Elburkah_,

of 55 tons, as consort to the _Quorra_ in her expedition up the

Niger.[115] These enlightened firms justly considered that, whatever

objections might be urged against vessels built of iron, they would at

least possess equal sea-going qualities and, in some branches of trade,

peculiar advantages. Combining strength and lightness of draught, the

_Elburkah_ would be better adapted than any vessel built of wood for

the exploration and navigation of African rivers:[116] nor were they

deceived in their calculations. Immediately afterwards Messrs. Laird

of Birkenhead commenced the construction of another iron vessel, the

_Lady Lansdowne_ for the navigation of Lough Derg, River Shannon. In

1834 they built the _Garry Owen_, destined to run between Limerick

and Kilrush. This vessel (125 feet long and 21 feet 6 inches wide,

propelled by two engines of 45 horse-power each) was unfortunately,

or perhaps, under the circumstances, fortunately for the progress of

science, driven on shore with various other vessels during a strong

gale on her first voyage; she, however, sustained comparatively little

injury, while nearly all the others, which were built of wood,

were totally wrecked or seriously damaged: this important fact, as

a practical answer to one of the most reasonable objections raised

against iron vessels, gave remarkable impulse to their increase.

But strong prejudices, unreasonable doubts, and real difficulties had

still to be overcome before the suitableness of iron ships for ocean

navigation could be established. Another of the chief and more tenable

objections to the extended use of iron vessels was the perturbation

of the compass. Moreover, one or two unfortunate accidents had been

attributed to this cause, though this more, probably, served as a

plausible excuse for bad seamanship or negligence. In the course,

however, of a few years iron packets began to be used along our coasts;

and the art of building them advanced gradually towards perfection.

Iron vessels soon afterwards, therefore, acquired a merited confidence.

[Sidenote: The _Rainbow_, 1837.]

Their superiority had become apparent to the more intelligent persons

of the period who directed their attention to engineering and maritime

pursuits. In 1833 and 1834, Mr. Fairbairn launched two passenger

steamers of iron to ply on the Humber between Selby and Hull. Mr. Manby

also built one of considerable dimensions for general purposes; and

in 1837 Messrs. Laird built two iron vessels of about 350 tons and 60

horse-power each, ordered by the East India Company for the navigation

of the River Indus. In the same year Messrs. Laird constructed for the

General Steam Navigation Company an iron vessel, the _Rainbow_,[117] to

ply between London and the outports. In that year Muhammed Ali placed

upon the Nile an iron steamer built by the same firm, while they also

launched from their yard the iron vessels in which Colonel Chesney

explored the course of the Euphrates, and which, having been shipped in

pieces, were put together by Birkenhead artisans on the banks of that

river.

Though the value of iron was now fully established for shipbuilding

purposes, many years elapsed ere that material came into general use

for the construction of over sea _sailing_ vessels, the principal

objections being the greater liability of the compass to err,[118] and

the difficulty of preventing animalculæ and sea-weeds from adhering

to the bottom. But these difficulties were in time overcome, and

iron vessels propelled by sails are now nearly as common as steamers

built of that material. Experience by degrees successfully met almost

every objection; and science was again triumphant over prejudice

and ignorance. Iron had been made not merely to float, but to ride

buoyantly over the crest of the wave, amidst the raging elements.

[Sidenote: Messrs. Tod and MacGregor.]

Mr. Laird was followed by other builders of iron vessels at Liverpool;

the high estimation in which they were held having led to a constantly

increasing demand for them. About this time Messrs. Tod and MacGregor,

of Glasgow, began to take a leading position in this occupation;

the _Princess Royal_, long engaged on the line between Glasgow and

Liverpool, and launched from their yard, having been one of the finest

and fastest iron packets of her time.

[Sidenote: The _Great Britain_, 1839-1843.]

From that period iron shipbuilding on the Clyde increased with great

rapidity, but the most magnificent specimen of an iron ship of any

description produced at that time was the _Great Britain_, to which

reference will be made hereafter, constructed by Mr. Patterson at

Bristol, for the Great Western Steam Packet Company.

[Sidenote: Advantages of iron ships.]

[Sidenote: Action of salt water on iron inconsiderable.]

For the information of the general reader, I may here state that the

advantages of iron vessels consist principally in their durability,

strength and safety, increased capacity for stowage, greater economy,

and salubrity.[119] With regard to the perturbations of the compass,

Professor Airy, previous to the time when Mr. Evans made his report,

had published a very concise series of instructions for correcting

the compass on board of iron ships; and the progress of science now

bids fair to obviate any difficulty whatever ensuing from this cause.

Prior to experience it was apprehended that the saline property of

the sea-water would tend to corrode the iron, and, further, that this

metal would be rapidly destroyed by oxidation. But experience has shown

that the effect of salt water on iron _alone_ is so small as hardly to

bear a comparison with its effect upon iron in connection with wood.

This remarkable difference has been observed in iron vessels in which

timber had been used for the keel; the bolts driven through the keel to

form its proper connections having been so rapidly acted on as almost

to destroy them before the external iron plates of the hull had been

perceptibly diminished in thickness: it is further of importance that

the vessel should be kept in use rather than be laid up in ordinary.

Vessels built in the earliest stage of this art, subsequently to that

of building mere canal-boats, bore many years’ service with little need

of repair, and remained in a perfectly good condition for a longer

period than that to which the durability of wooden vessels ordinarily,

and under similar circumstances, extends. But there is a great

difference in iron plates, some are inferior and soon oxidize, while

others, as will be presently shown, last for many years. As the inner

surface of the plates may be almost wholly protected from oxidation,

it is only from the external wear that danger may be apprehended.

But, though the outer surface of the metal can be protected in a

great measure from corrosion, yet iron vessels are subject to the

disadvantage of having their speed diminished, after a short period of

service, by the adhesion and growth of animal and vegetable matter. A

coating of red lead is not a perfect preventive against this mischief,

and various other scientific substitutes have been used of late;

so that it cannot be doubted but this inconvenience will disappear

altogether before scientific appliances. A perfectly protective varnish

for the in sides of iron ships and a coating which shall effectually

prevent the adhesion of animal and vegetable substances to the

exterior, are desiderata of great value,[120] and will, we may hope,

continue to receive the careful consideration of scientific men.

[Sidenote: Durability, strength, and safety of iron.]

All the facts yet known with regard to the superior _durability_[121]

of iron ships are highly satisfactory. It is a consideration not to be

overlooked that large ships may be rendered more durable than small

vessels; for, as the weight of the hull is generally determined in a

certain proportion to the whole displacement, and the plates of iron

are much thicker in a large than in a small ship (the oxidizing causing

an uniform waste of metal), the durability will be in proportion to the

amount of wear the plates of the respective vessels can bear without

danger to the ship.

But the superior _strength_ of iron ships depends not merely upon the

quality of the material employed, but also on the mode of combining it.

The strength of wrought iron is well known and its power of resisting

strains in almost every direction is a matter of universal experience,

add to which, that its resistance to lateral pressure increases in a

much higher ratio than the quantity of material. Hence, almost any

amount of strength may be given to a large fabric; certainly, enough

to bear the pressures and strains to which ships are exposed, with

much less liability to injury than wood. With plates of iron of a

substance fitly proportioned to the magnitude of the fabric, and with

joints properly formed, the sides of ships have been found capable of

resisting, in a remarkable manner, forces for which the strength of

timber would be quite insufficient. A substance of plates sufficient

to constitute this amount of strength generally, is also able to bear

concussions of great force with much less hazard than timber. The

uninjured state in which the _Great Britain_ was found in Dundrum

Bay, after being wrecked and lying on the beach several months during

winter, exposed to various storms, proved the correctness of these

views, which more extended experience has since confirmed. Experience

has also demonstrated that unless the concussion takes place with

extreme violence, mere indentation of the metal is generally the

greatest injury sustained. Beyond this, the strain sometimes breaks off

the heads of a few rivets without opening the seam, but it is uncommon

for the rivets to be drawn if the metal and workmanship are good. In

the case where an iron ship strikes upon a sharp pointed-like crag of

rock or coral reef with considerable force, it frequently happens that

a hole is made through the plate; but even when such an accident occurs

the damage is generally _local_, the parts not immediately subject to

the concussion remaining unhurt. No general leakage is, therefore,

consequent on such an accident, as would be the case in all vessels

built of wood.

[Sidenote: Affords greater capacity for stowage.]

As the hull of an iron ship is both thinner and considerably

lighter[122] than that of a wooden ship, an iron ship of the same

external dimensions as a wooden one has both greater capacity for

stowage and greater power to support the weights which may be put into

her. These differences vary in some degree with the dimensions and form

of the ship, being greater in proportion to the increased dimensions

of the ship. They may, of course, be determined by computation; but,

in all cases, an iron ship will carry considerably more cargo than a

wooden one of the same external dimensions.

Again, the consideration of economy must not be omitted in any

comparison of the merits of ships built entirely either of timber, or

of iron. The economy begins with the construction, for the original

cost of an iron ship is less than that of a wooden one, and, apart

altogether from her superior capacity for cargo, it runs on with the

course of the ship’s service as the result of several causes; as, for

instance, the smaller amount and less expensive character of repairs:

moreover, as it is not even yet known how long iron ships will last,

the precise saving from their use cannot be estimated. On the other

hand, the period of service of mercantile timber-built ships is

defined. If they reach or exceed thirty years’ service, they must be

ships of the very highest class as to quality[123], and must, indeed,

within that period have undergone frequent and very expensive repairs.

As iron ships are not subject to the same decay, at the same time that

accidental damages are generally repaired at a much less cost, every

item saved by the diminished charge for repairs is clear profit.

[Sidenote: Admiralty slow to adopt iron for ships of war.]

But with all these advantages, a considerable time elapsed before the

Admiralty could be induced to consider the desirability of constructing

any Government steamer of iron, or of even allowing the large private

trading vessels engaged in the conveyance of the mails to be built of

that material. They had objections of their own applying specially to

the ships under their control, and very plausible objections too, in

their opinion, compared with those originally raised by an ignorant

public. A shot, they said, would penetrate an iron vessel with much

greater ease than a wooden one, while the shot holes could not be as

effectually plugged, if indeed they could be plugged at all. Wood, they

argued, when pierced, would rapidly contract and leave a very small

opening for water to get through, whereas a shot would make a clean cut

through an iron plate which could not be thus expeditiously filled, and

if it did not tear away the whole of the plate, would leave a gap as

large as a “barn door.” However, a little experience[124] soon showed

their arguments to be fallacious, and when they found that the engines

of a paddle-wheel steamer, and, especially, the paddles themselves,

offered conspicuous targets to an enemy, and that it was impossible

to make the stern-frames of their wooden ships sufficiently strong to

withstand, without serious leakage, the vibration of the screw, they

abandoned, though reluctantly, the paddle-wheel, and at length gave up,

also, vessels of wood for the purposes of war. These resolutions were,

however, only carried into practice after vast sums of money had been

expended on the “reconstruction” of a _wooden_ British Navy, for which,

in one year alone, and that so lately as 1861, when almost everybody

except themselves saw that iron must supersede timber, they demanded

from Parliament (and carried their vote) no less than 949,371_l._ to

replenish the stock of wood in the dockyards: a sum far in excess of

any previous vote for that material.[125]

[Sidenote: Mr. Galloway’s feathering paddles, 1829.]

[Illustration]

While the art of steam navigation made rapid progress, the ingenuity

of engineers had been constantly directed to the improvement of the

paddle-wheels; and the above drawing of one, with “feathering paddles,”

patented by Mr. Galloway in 1829,[126] represents the most perfect of

any wheel in use at that period, and has not been materially improved

on since then. But, at that time also, a substitute for the paddle was

seeking practical solution. The screw, as a means of propulsion, had

been suggested long before the steamboat had been brought into use.

Indeed, its principle was known at a very early period in the use of

an oar for sculling, and could, as already explained, be seen in the

movements of the tail of a fish.

[Sidenote: Story of the screw-propeller.]

Though my faith in the reports of the genius and early inventions of

the Chinese has frequently been rudely shaken in the course of my

investigation of their reputed discoveries, I may remark that Mr.

MacGregor, for whose opinions I entertain no ordinary respect, states,

in the paper he read to the Society of Arts,[127] that “the use of

the screw-propeller may be of an indefinite antiquity,” and adds that

“a model of one was brought from China in 1680, which had two sets of

blades, turning in opposite directions.” It was not, however, until

1729, that we have any authentic account of a plan of propulsion,

in any way approaching the valuable invention now so largely in

use. In that year an ingenious Frenchman, M. Du Quet, described a

contrivance by which a screw turned by the water in a stream, wound

up a rope for towing vessels, of which the annexed (p. 101) is an

illustration.[128] In 1745, Masson describes an apparatus for working

an oar at the stern of a vessel so as to give it a “sculling” motion;

in 1746 Bougner mentions that “revolving arms, like the vanes of a

windmill,” were tried for the propulsion of vessels, and, in 1770, as

already incidentally noticed, the celebrated Watt speaks of using a

screw-propeller, of which the annexed is a sketch, to be turned by a

steam-engine.[129]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Sidenote: Joseph Bramah, 1785.]

In 1779, Matthew Wasborough, to whose genius we are indebted for

many inventions in connection with marine propulsion, patented a

“new invented machine or piece of mechanism which, when applied to

a steam-engine or any reciprocal movement, produces a circular or

rotative motion without the medium of a water-wheel;” Joseph Bramah,

of whose invention I have already spoken in detail, speaks of (1785) a

wheel with inclined fans or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack,

which may be turned round either way under water, causing the ship

to be forced backward or forward,[130] and, in 1798, he tested the

application of a screw in a boat, of which the annexed, copied from

Mr. MacGregor’s instructive paper, is an illustration.

[Illustration]

[Sidenote: Mr. J. Stevens, 1804.]

[Sidenote: Richard Trevethick, 1815.]

In 1800, Edward Shorter patented an invention which he called “a

perpetual sculling machine,” having the action of a two-bladed

propeller, and which, two years afterwards, was experimented upon

in H.M. Ships _Dragon_ and _Superb_.[131] Various other experiments

followed. But, in May 1804, Mr. J. Stevens, of the United States,

put to sea with a steam-boat propelled by a screw, turned first by

a rotatory engine, and then by Watt’s reciprocating engine; and, as

this small craft steamed from Hoboken to New York, she has by some

writers been considered the first sea-going screw of which there is

any certain account. Richard Trevethick, in 1815, patented “a worm

or screw revolving in a cylinder at the head, sides, or stern of a

vessel,” as also a “_stuffing-box_, inclosing a ring of water.”[132]

In the following year Robert Kinder applied for a patent for a shaft

and screw (almost on the exact plan now in use) with “a shoulder formed

upon it so as to work in a water-tight manner through a stuffing-box

of the common or well-known form, which stuffing-box and shaft are

made to pass through the end of the vessel, just above its ordinary

water-line, and is thereby affixed to it.” (See “Specifications of

Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 64.)

[Sidenote: Robert Wilson, 1833.]

[Sidenote: Captain Ericsson, 1836.]

Many other proposals for propelling vessels by means of the screw

were subsequently made and most of them were patented.[133] Two were

tried on a small scale in France by Captain Delisle, a Frenchman, in

1823, and by a countryman of his, M. Frédéric Sauvage, in 1832.[134] In

1833, Mr. Robert Wilson, a Scotchman, afterwards manager of the firm

of Nasmyth and Co., at Patricroft near Manchester, brought under the

notice of the British Admiralty the screw “perfect in all its details”

as a means of propulsion, which he says he invented in 1827, and which

he states[135] the officers of the Woolwich Dockyard, in their official

report, rejected because “it involved a greater loss of power than the

common mode of applying the wheels to the side.” No great efforts,

however, seem to have been made to bring the screw into practical use

until 1836, when Captain John Ericsson, C.E. (a native of Sweden, who

had established himself in London in partnership with the Messrs.

Braithwaites), fully demonstrated its merits according to a plan which

he patented on the 13th of July of that year,[136] and carried out

successfully.

Instead, however, of launching to the public gaze a vessel on a large

scale fitted with his plans, he made a model boat of about 20 inches

in length, into which he placed a small engine, and floated her in a

large bath over which a steam boiler had been fitted for the supply

of hot water. From this boiler a pipe projected to within a foot of

the water, where it was branched off by a swivel joint and connected

with the engine in the boat. The steam when admitted put the engine in

motion, and also the propeller, which at once sent the boat forward

with considerable rapidity.

[Sidenote: The _Francis B. Ogden_, though successful, fails to

convince the Admiralty.]

Finding that his invention was likely to succeed when put into

practical operation on a larger scale, Ericsson’s next step was to

order Mr. Gulliver, a boat-builder at Wapping, to construct for him

a boat of wood which he named the _Francis B. Ogden_. She was 45

feet long and 8 feet wide, drawing 2 feet 3 inches of water. In this

vessel he fitted his engine and two propellers, each of 5 feet 3

inches diameter. The result of her first trial went far beyond his

most sanguine expectations. No sooner were the engines put at full

speed, than she shot ahead at the rate of more than 10 miles an hour,

and maintained that speed without a single alteration requiring to be

made in her machinery;[137] nor were her capabilities as a tug less

surprising. This miniature steamer, tested first by a schooner of 140

tons burden, towed her at the rate of 7 miles an hour during slack

water on the Thames; and afterwards by the large American packet-ship

_Toronto_, moving on with her astern at a speed of more than 5 miles

an hour. The next experiment was made in the presence of the Lords of

the Admiralty, who, accompanied by Sir William Symonds, Sir Edward

Parry, and Captain Beaufort, had embarked in their barge to witness the

novelty, and judge for themselves as to its efficiency and practical

value. They were minute in their inspection, and as they did not, and

in fact could not, offer any valid objections to his invention, Captain

Ericsson felt confident that they would soon order the construction

of a war-steamer on the new principle. In this, however, he was

disappointed, though he had given them a very practical proof of its

value by towing them in their barge at the rate of 10 miles an hour

for a considerable distance—a speed which must have astonished their

Lordships. The unseen and comparatively noiseless propeller, although

it had furnished the most convincing proofs of its power, failed to

propitiate their favour. Scientific theorists had informed the Board

that the invention was constructed upon erroneous principles, and full

of practical defects (one being that a ship thus propelled would be

unsteerable), while engineers as a body regarded its failure as an

event so certain as to preclude any speculations of its success. In a

word, when publicly discussed, the general opinion was that the vast

loss of mechanical power would prevent it from being employed as a

substitute for the now old-fashioned paddle-wheel![138]

[Sidenote: Mr. T. P. Smith.]

While Ericsson was making his experiments in the _Francis B. Ogden_,

Mr. Thomas Pettit Smith, who, on the 31st of May, 1836, had taken out

a patent for a “sort of screw or ‘worm,’ made to revolve rapidly

under water in a recess or open space formed in that part of the after

part of the vessel commonly called the dead rising or dead wood of

the stern,”[139] was also at work with his invention, and, in the

following year, put it into practical operation. His first trial,

made in a small vessel of 6 tons burden, with an engine the cylinder

of which was 6 inches diameter and 15 inches stroke, was considered

by a few far-seeing persons so satisfactory,[140] that they applied

for, and obtained on the 29th of July, 1839, an Act of Parliament

for incorporating a company called the Steam Ship Propeller Company,

to enable them to purchase “certain letters patent,” that is, the

screw-propeller of T. P. Smith.

[Sidenote: The _Archimedes_.]

[Sidenote: Her trial with the _Widgeon_, Oct. 1839,]

The first successful application of this screw-propeller, on a large

scale, was to a vessel called the _Archimedes_, constructed under the

direction of the patentee of the screw, Mr. Smith. Her burden was 237

tons, and her mean draught of water 9 feet 4 inches; the diameter of

the cylinder 37 inches, and the length of the stroke of the piston 3

feet; her screw-propeller consisted of two half threads of an 8 feet

pitch, 5 feet 9 inches in diameter; each was 4 feet in length, and

they were placed diametrically opposite to each other, at an angle of

about 45 degrees on the propeller shaft. The propeller itself passed

through a hole cut in the dead wood, immediately before the rudder; the

keel being continued under the screw. The performance of the engines

averaged twenty-six strokes per minute, the revolutions of the screw

at the same time being 138⅖. The calculations of the inventor were

that, provided there was no slip or recession, the vessel ought to

advance 8 feet for every revolution of the screw, or 12·60 miles per

hour. But the utmost speed ever obtained by the _Archimedes_, under the

power of steam alone, was 9·25 nautical miles per hour, showing a loss

by recession of rather less than one-sixth under the most favourable

circumstances. The _Archimedes_ was not, however, a fair illustration

of the screw-propelling principle, as her steam-power was not great

enough to drive a screw sufficient for the size of the vessel.

Nevertheless, in her subsequent trials from Dover to Calais against

the _Widgeon_, the fastest paddle-steamer on the station, the superior

value of the screw-propeller was proved. Although in the first three

or four experiments the _Widgeon_ had the advantage by a few minutes,

in the subsequent trials, both vessels having set the whole of their

sails, the _Archimedes_, carrying much more canvas than the _Widgeon_,

on a run of 26 miles from Dover to Calais, close hauled, accomplished

this distance in nine minutes less time than the _Widgeon_. Upon the

return voyage to Dover, with a fresh breeze abeam and all sail set,

the _Archimedes_, with a speed of ten knots per hour, performed the

distance in five and a half minutes less time than the _Widgeon_.

[Sidenote: and its results.]

These experiments decided the practical value of the screw. They

proved that the _Archimedes_ was slightly inferior to the _Widgeon_

in light airs, in calms, and in smooth water; but, as the steam power

of the former was ten horses less, and her burthen 75 tons more

than that of the _Widgeon_, it is evident that in _such_ vessels the

propelling power of the screw alone was equal, if not superior, to the

ordinary paddle-wheel. In this respect, therefore, Mr. T. P. Smith’s

invention might be considered completely successful. It was evident

from the second trial that, in steaming against even a light wind,

the low masts and snug rig of the _Widgeon_ gave her an advantage

over the _Archimedes_ with loftier masts and heavier rig; but, on the

last two trials, the power of the sails operated favourably for the

_Archimedes_, as she then beat the _Widgeon_, and made the passage

between Dover and Calais in less time than it had ever previously been

performed by any of Her Majesty’s mail packets. On this occasion the

_Archimedes_ went from Dover to Calais in two hours and one minute, and

returned in one hour and fifty-three and a half minutes.[141]

Although the successful performances of the _Archimedes_ brought the

screw into more general notice, it does not appear that she was ever

employed as a trading vessel. After several experiments she lay for a

long time in the East India Dock advertised for sale, and her spirited

proprietors, who had been so instrumental in promoting the introduction

of the screw-propeller, lost all the capital they had invested in this

important undertaking.

[Sidenote: The _Rattler_ and the _Alecto_, 1843.]

As the _Widgeon_ and _Archimedes_ differed materially in size and form,

an exact comparison could not be made by them between the performance

of the screw and that of the paddle; but the result of these trials

nevertheless showed (especially when the peculiar fitness of the screw

for war purposes was taken into consideration) the propriety of having

a further and fairer trial of this novel instrument. With this object

in view the _Rattler_ was ordered to be built,[142] and, that the

experiment might be conclusive so far as a trial could be made between

two vessels, she was constructed on the same lines as the _Alecto_ (her

after part being lengthened for the insertion of the screw), and fitted

with engines of the same power, and on a plan which had been previously

tried with paddle-wheel vessels.

The river trials of the _Rattler_ lasted from October 1843 to

the beginning of 1845, and showed that the screw-shaft might be

advantageously reduced in diameter, and the blades by about one-third

of their length, an alteration which greatly reduced the weight of the

screw, and facilitated the operation of shipping and unshipping it,

while rendering unnecessary the wounding to so great an extent of the

after part of the vessel. Before, however, this last point was decided

(it not being evident that the good performance of the shorter screw

was not attributable to the greater clearance which the reduction of

its length had caused), the screw aperture was partly filled up in a

temporary manner, so as to leave the shorter screw the same clearance

as the longer one had originally. The result of this experiment proved

that the aperture in future vessels might be constructed of very

moderate dimensions without lessening the propelling power of the screw.

[Sidenote: The _Rattler_ not as successful as expected.]

These trials clearly showed that the screw, as an instrument of

propulsion in smooth water, is not inferior to the paddle-wheel.

But further experiments were considered necessary to establish its

superiority in all respects. In the early part of the year 1845 the

_Rattler_ proceeded, in company with the _Victoria and Albert_ and the

_Black Eagle_, from Portsmouth to Pembroke. When rounding the Land’s

End, and steaming against a strong head wind, both these vessels, as

might be expected, showed a great superiority, their power being much

greater than the _Rattler’s_ in proportion to the resistance, and their

paddle-floats being constructed on the feathering principle. This

comparative failure of the _Rattler_ left an unfavourable impression as

to the efficiency of the screw against wind and sea in heavy weather,

and this impression continued for several years, although when next

tried in a run from the Thames to Leith, she showed in respect to speed

a decided superiority over one of the paddle-wheel vessels employed in

that trade, whose power as compared with her tonnage was greater than

that of her competitor. Before joining the squadron under the command

of Rear-Admiral Hyde Parker in July 1845, the _Rattler_ was employed

to tow the _Erebus_ and _Terror_ to the Orkney Islands on their fatal

expedition to the North Pole, and she seems to have performed that duty

to the entire satisfaction of Sir John Franklin.

[Sidenote: Captain Robert F. Stockton efficiently supports Ericsson’s

views.]

In following the progress of the screw as applicable to the propulsion

of merchant vessels, and its use in other countries, I must now recur

to the period when Ericsson was making his experiments on the Thames.

At that time an intelligent gentleman, Captain Robert F. Stockton,

of the United States Navy, was on a visit to London. Being of an

inquisitive turn of mind, like most of his countrymen, and fond of

scientific pursuits, he watched with great interest the trials with

the screw then in progress, and having obtained an introduction to

Ericsson, he accompanied him on one of his experimental expeditions

on the Thames. Unlike the Lords of the British Admiralty, who allowed

eight years to elapse before they built their first screw-propeller,

the _Rattler_, Captain Stockton was so strongly impressed with the

value and utility of the discovery, that, though he had made only a

single trip in the _Francis B. Ogden_, and that merely from London

Bridge to Greenwich, he there and then gave Ericsson a commission to

build for him two boats for the United States, with steam machinery and

propeller as proposed by him. Stockton, impressed with its practical

utility for war purposes, was undismayed by the recorded opinions

of scientific men, and formed his own judgment from what he himself

witnessed. He, therefore, not only ordered the two iron boats on his

own account, but at once brought the subject before the Government

of the United States, and caused various plans and models to be

made at his own expense, explaining the peculiar fitness of the new

invention for ships of war. So sanguine was he, indeed, of the great

importance of this new mode of propulsion, and so determined that his

views should be carried out, that he encouraged Ericsson to believe

that the Government of the United States would test the propeller

on a large scale; Ericsson, relying upon these promises, abandoned

his professional engagements in England, and took his departure for

the United States. But it was not until a change in the Federal

administration, two years afterwards, that Captain Stockton was able

to obtain a favourable hearing. Orders were then given to make the

experiment in the _Princeton_, which was successful. The propeller, as

applied to this war-vessel, was similar in construction to that of the

_Francis B. Ogden_, as well in theory as in minute practical details.

One of these boats, named, after her owner, the _Robert F. Stockton_,

was built of iron by Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead, and launched in 1838.

She was 70 feet in length, 10 feet wide, and drew 6 feet 9 inches of

water. Her cylinders were 16 inches diameter with 18 inches stroke,

and her propeller 6 feet 4 inches in length. On her trial trips on

the Thames, made in January of the following year, she accomplished

a distance of 9 miles (over the land) in 35 minutes with the tide,

thereby proving the speed through the water to be between 11 and 12

miles an hour. On her second trial, between Southwark and Waterloo

bridges, she took in tow four laden barges, with upright sides and

square ends, having a beam of 15 feet each, and drawing 4 feet 6 inches

of water. One of these was lashed on each side, the other two being

towed astern, and, though the weight of the whole must have been close

upon 400 tons, and a considerable resistance was offered, also, by

their form, the steamer towed them at the rate of 5½ miles an hour in

slack water, or in 11 minutes between the two bridges, a distance of 1

mile.

[Illustration]

These experiments having been considered in every way satisfactory, the

_Robert F. Stockton_, of which the following is an illustration, left

England for the United States in the beginning of April 1839, under the

command of Captain Cram, of the American merchant service. Her crew

consisted of four men and a boy, and, having accomplished the voyage

under sail in forty days, Captain Cram was presented with the freedom

of the city of New York for his daring in crossing the Atlantic in so

small a craft, constructed only for river navigation.

[Sidenote: His vessel a complete success;]

In 1840, Captain Stockton sold this vessel to the Delaware and Raritan

Canal Company, permission having been obtained (being British built)

by a special Act of Congress, to run her in American waters, and her

name was at the same time changed to that of the _New Jersey_. For many

years she was in constant work as a steam-tug on the rivers Delaware

and Schuylkill during the winter months, as she was capable of towing

through the drift ice, where paddle-wheel steamers are of little use.

[Sidenote: and the first “screw” used for commerce in America.]

If we except the small vessel tested by J. Stevens[143] between Hoboken

and New York in 1804, the _New Jersey_ was the first screw-propelled

vessel practically used in America, numerous experiments with the screw

having been previously made without success, and she certainly was

the first used for commercial purposes. The importance of the screw

as a propeller having now been fully admitted in America, 150 vessels

of a similar description were in less than ten years from that time

employed in the United States; most of which continued to be in active

operation in the carrying trade, returning large profits to their

owners, particularly those employed on the great North American Lakes.

Indeed, in 1848, thirteen screw-propelled vessels were employed on Lake

Ontario, and only nine paddle-wheel steamers.

[Sidenote: Superiority of Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch” propeller,

1832.]

It is not my province to decide to whom the honour of the invention

of the screw is due. It had engaged, as has been shown, the attention

of various men in different countries for more than a century

before it was applied to any useful purpose, and, like most other

great inventions, has evidently been the production of many minds.

I can, therefore, only deal with it as has been done in the case of

the steam-engine itself, in its application to marine propulsion,

by inquiring who it was that first, by practical tests, showed its

superiority to the paddle-wheel, and that, for the purposes to which

it has been applied, it could maintain such superiority over all other

modes of propulsion. As this appears to me to be the only way in which

this question can be fairly treated, I shall venture to state that,

if Robert Fulton of America and Henry Bell of Glasgow are entitled,

as I think they are, to be considered the first who put the paddle

steamer into practical and _continuous_ employment (I hold that James

Watt and Robert Symington were its true inventors), it may, with equal

justice, be said that to Captain Ericsson, Mr. Pettit Smith, and Mr.

Woodcroft, the credit is chiefly due of having put the screw into

working order so as to show how it could be profitably employed for

the purposes of commerce or of the arts of war, though, at the time

when Smith and Ericsson were practically illustrating the power of

the screw, in their respective forms, that of Mr. Woodcroft, though

well known, had not then been tried. In fact, his invention bears date

antecedent to that of either of the others,[144] and proved equal, if

not superior, when tested; indeed, it must have been considered so

by the Admiralty, as it was fitted in the royal yacht _Fairy_, which,

with the exception of the _Rattler_, and the _Bee_, of thirty tons, was

the first screw-propeller in Her Majesty’s Navy: it was also about the

same time applied to H.M.S. _Dwarf_. Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch

screw-propeller,” patented by him in February 1844, of which the

following is an illustration, was, certainly, in advance of any other

at that time, and is, I believe, still considered the best and most

useful type. In the account of it furnished by its able and ingenious

inventor, it is said to be the “only propelling instrument of any

description which has the peculiar and inherent property of acting with

an increased impulse against the water from the leading part, first

taking its action against the water to the end, however long or short

such propeller may be upon its axis.”

[Illustration]

However, be that as it may, when an impartial review is taken of all

the facts, it may be said of Messrs. Woodcroft, Ericsson and Smith

that, while each may be regarded as the individual author of their

respective plans, conceiving as they did their designs apart from

each other, we are indebted to them conjointly for this most valuable

invention.

While the relative merits of the paddle-wheel and screw were being

tested, the attention of scientific men was necessarily directed to

the different forms of ships or lines best adapted to the various

requirements of maritime commerce, which the introduction of steam had

either created or materially developed. Vessels of every conceivable

form, and of varied dimensions, have been in use from the earliest

ages: we have had, of one sort or another, canoes, coracles, barges

and yachts, coasters and Indiamen, with frigates and line-of-battle

ships such as they were, almost from the dawn of history, and no

doubt their owners and builders bestowed much thought and exercised

considerable skill in their construction, so as to suit the varied

purposes for which they were required; but it is only within our own

time that a thorough scientific knowledge has been invited to aid in

the construction of our merchant ships.

That knowledge has become much more necessary now than it ever was

before. To construct an useful and first-class steam-vessel, we must

first build a hull adapted to receive machinery, and then erect

suitable engines and boilers with an appropriate propelling apparatus,

combining the whole into a form such as will insure safety and speed,

the requisite space for the crew, machinery, fuel, and stores, with

accommodation for passengers and their numerous wants, and, also,

sufficient space for a remunerative cargo.

[Sidenote: In building fit vessels, the trade in which they are to be

employed must be considered.]

To embrace to the utmost advantage these various essential qualities

in a merchant-vessel, the trade in which she is to be employed requires

to be considered with her mercantile capabilities in relation to cost

and speed. These calculations must be carefully gone into so as to

obtain an approximate estimate of the commercial advantage with regard

to the cost of freight per ton, that attends the employment of ships

suitably constructed for the service in which they may be employed as

compared with vessels of inferior adaptation. By this investigation,

the comparative financial balance of outlay and expenditure and,

consequently, the income to be expected from one vessel as compared

with another, may be equitably apportioned. Such considerations

as these are essential to success, and cannot be neglected by any

shipowner who understands his business. They will not only conduce

to an effective direction and management of mercantile shipping, and

of financial economy, but, also, in case a vessel fails to fulfil an

assigned service, the degree in which such failure may be attributable

to faults of original construction (producing a low scale of locomotive

efficiency), or to defective management or to imperfect navigation,

may be determined. Moreover, steamship proprietors, especially, would

thus be enabled to ascertain the relative value of their stock, not,

indeed, as respects the intrinsic value of the respective ships, but

as respects their relative working properties and consequent value

for any special service. Each vessel might thus be assigned its most

appropriate duty, and ships, manifestly unsuitable for one line of

trade, might be otherwise employed or disposed of, instead of being put

on services which they are _constructively_ inadequate to perform.

For example, a vessel may be well suited for the economical conveyance

of cargo at eight miles an hour, but, being employed upon a service

demanding a higher rate of speed, and failing to attain this, is

held to be inefficient, while the value of the ship becomes unduly

depreciated, and incapacity of _direction_, the real cause of the

failure, escapes due observation.

FOOTNOTES:

[96] It would appear from Dr. Robinson’s interesting narrative

(Muirhead, “Life of Watt,” p. 65), that Watt’s first connection with

the steam-engine arose from his having been desired, by the Professors

of Natural Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, to repair a model

of one of Newcomen’s engines in the year 1764. (See Smiles’ “Lives,” p.

121.)

[97] See Tredgold “On the Steam-engine,” and Woodcroft, p. 82.

[98] The following is a copy, from “Memorials of James Watt” by

George Williamson, Esq., late perpetual Secretary of the Watt Club of

Greenock, printed for the Club, of Mr. Bell’s original advertisement

of his new steamer the _Comet_ to ply between Glasgow, Greenock, and

Helensburgh:—

STEAM PASSAGE BOAT, THE ‘COMET,’ between Glasgow, Greenock, and

Helensburgh, for passengers only.

The subscriber having, at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to

ply upon the River Clyde, between Glasgow and Greenock, to sail by the

power of Wind, Air, and Steam, he intends that the Vessel shall leave

the Broomielaw on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, about midday, or

at such hour thereafter as may answer from the state of the tide, and

to leave Greenock on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning to

suit the tide.

The elegance, comfort, safety, and speed of this Vessel require only to

be proved to meet the approbation of the public; and the Proprietor is

determined to do everything in his power to merit public encouragement.

The terms are, for the present, fixed at 4_s._ for the best cabin, and

3_s._ the second, but beyond these rates nothing is to be allowed to

servants, or any other person employed about the Vessel.

The subscriber continues his establishment at Helensburgh Baths, the

same as for years past, and a vessel will be in readiness to convey

Passengers that intend visiting Helensburgh.

Passengers by the ‘COMET’ will receive information of the hours of

sailing, by applying at Mr. Thomas Stewart’s, Bookseller Square; and at

Mr. Blackly’s, East Quay Head, Greenock; or at Mr. Houston’s office,

Broomielaw.

HENRY BELL.

_Helensburgh Baths, 5th August, 1812._

[99] Mr. James Deas, C.E., in his “Treatise on the Improvements and

Progress of Trade of the River Clyde,” (1873) says, “An old gentleman,

seventy-seven years of age, and who has been connected with the Clyde

for upwards of fifty years, informed me a short time ago that he made a

voyage in the _Comet_ in 1812. He left Greenock at 10 A.M. for Glasgow,

but, in consequence of a ripple of head wind, it was 2 P.M. before they

got to Bowling, 10½ miles above Greenock, where all the passengers were

landed and had to walk to Glasgow, owing to the want of water, the

tide having ebbed. It was no uncommon occurrence for the passengers,

when the little steamer was getting exhausted, to take to turning the

fly-wheel to assist her.”

[100] Henry Bell, like too many of the pioneers of vast and truly

important undertakings, failed to profit by the successful application

of steam to navigation; and in his declining years he was chiefly

supported by an annuity of 50_l._ granted him by the Clyde trustees. He

died at Helensburgh in 1830, aged 63. (“Treatise” by Mr. James Deas, p.

24.)

[101] “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 638.

In the Patent Office Museum there is now to be seen the engine of the

first _Comet_ which carried goods and passengers on the Clyde. It was

erected there in 1862 by the same engineer, Mr. John Robertson of

Glasgow, who fitted it in the _Comet_, exactly fifty years before that

time. To this engine I shall again refer.

[102] When Smeaton first officially surveyed the Clyde in 1755, with

a view to certain engineering improvements, he found the depth of the

river, between Glasgow and Renfrew, of not more on the average than

eighteen inches at low water—nor did he hope by the improvements then

contemplated to obtain more than “4½ feet of water at all times up

to the Quay at Glasgow;” but, in 1768, “the river,” according to the

report of another engineer, John Golborne, “was in a state of nature,

and for want of due attention has been suffered to expand too much.”

He, also, did not expect to secure more “than 4 or perhaps 5 feet of

water up to the Broomielaw” at a cost of “ten thousand pounds,” a very

considerable sum in those days to be raised by the citizens of Glasgow.

Nor does Mr. Telford even, in 1820, hold out much hope of improvement,

for in his report he remarks: “There does not appear to be any good

grounds to expect such increase of revenue as to justify incurring any

very considerable expense.” But the corporation of the city, who had

then the river under their charge, was happily not deterred by these

disheartening reports from attempting further improvements, and, in

1824, Mr. James Reddie, their town clerk, in an able letter, called

for further reports, which brought wiser engineering counsellors to

their aid. By the indomitable energy of the corporation and the river

trust, the Clyde was by degrees deepened; and at the Broomielaw,

which only fishing wherries and small barges could reach forty years

ago, the largest and most magnificent ships afloat, many of them more

than 3000 tons register, drawing upwards of 20 feet of water, are now

moored. See “Reports of the Improvement and Management of the River

Clyde and Harbour of Glasgow.” See also “Treatise” by Mr. James Deas,

C.E., chief engineer to the river Clyde trustees, edited by Mr. James

Forrest, C.E. (1873), pp. 31 and 32, where we learn that “during the

last twenty-eight years, 1844 to 1872, no less than 18,000,000 tons of

stuff have been dredged from the river by the Clyde trustees,” and that

the expenditure for dredging and depositing alone since the year 1770

has amounted to upwards of 500,000_l._ These dredging-machines are so

complete and so superior to anything else of the kind to be found in

any other part of the world, that I furnish, Appendix No. 2, p. 591, an

account of them, their cost, horse-power, and other details. In 1800

the total amount of the annual revenue of the Clyde trust was only

3319_l._ 16_s._ 1_d._ In 1874, the revenue for that year, ending 30th

June, amounted to 192,127_l._ 16_s._ 11_d._

[103] In 1868 the total number of vessels built and launched on the

Clyde was 232 of 174,978 tons, including 8 war vessels of 5384 tons;

in 1869, 240 vessels of 194,000 tons, including 3 war vessels of 9100

tons; in 1870, 234 vessels of 189,800 tons, including 1 war vessel

of 2640 tons; in 1871, 231 vessels of 196,200 tons, including 6 war

vessels of 3050 tons; in 1872, 227 vessels of 224,000 tons, and no war

vessel. (Treatise of Mr. James Deas, pp. 25 and 26.)

The vessels launched on the Clyde in the year 1873, are thus analyzed

by Mr. William West Watson, the chamberlain of the city of Glasgow, in

his report of the statistics of that city:

No. Tons.

Iron steamers under 100 tons 14 1,076

Iron steamers from 100 to 500 tons 26 8,382

Iron steamers from 500 to 1000 tons 13 9,786

Iron steamers from 1000 to 2000 tons 22 34,315

Iron steamers from 2000 to 3000 tons 24 60,026

Iron steamers from 3000 tons and upwards 30 104,188

--- -------

129 217,773

Tons.

Iron sailing ships under 500 tons each 2 328

Iron sailing ships from 500 to 1000 tons None

Iron sailing ships from 1000 to 2000 tons 7 12,148

-- ------

9 12,476

Hull or barge for shipment 1 198

Steamers shipped in pieces 3 2,459

1 screw steam yacht 1 20

--- -------

143 232,926

During the year 1873, the Iberia, gross tonnage 4670 tons, was

launched, being the largest merchant steamer ever built on the Clyde.

Similar particulars for 1873-74 will be found, Appendix No. 3, pp.

593-4.

[104] See Appendices Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 593-9, “Shipbuilding Yards on

the Clyde and Wear.”

[105]

[Sidenote: J. Elder and Co., their extensive premises.]

One firm alone, that of John Elder and Co., Fairfield, Glasgow, who

employ, on an average, 4000 men, launched in the year 1867 sixteen

vessels of a total burden of 10,323 tons; and, in 1868, there were

turned out from the Fairfield shipbuilding yard no fewer than fifteen

vessels, of which six were sailing-ships and nine screw-steamers, the

latter including a gunboat for the Royal Navy, and the _Magellan_, an

iron barque of 3000 tons and 600 horse-power for the Pacific Steam

Navigation Company. The total burden of the vessels launched from this

one private yard in 1869 was 16,050 tons. In the following year (1870)

fourteen steamers and three sailing-vessels were launched at Fairfield,

measuring 25,235 tons, their engines having a total of 4115 horse-power

nominal. There were likewise two steamers of 2600 tons transformed in

the year. In 1871 they launched sixteen vessels of which twelve were

steamers, amounting in the aggregate to 31,889 tons. In 1872 32,000

tons of steam shipping were built by this firm, and, in the course of

that year, they had as many as sixteen vessels on hand at one time or

contracted for, of an aggregate tonnage of upwards of 36,000 tons, six

of them being about or above 4000 tons each: one of these was delivered

to her owners complete and ready for sea, with steam up, within

thirteen months from the time she was contracted for! These works, as

may be supposed, are gigantic, covering upwards of 60 acres of land,

and embracing a wet dock where the ships are placed when launched to

have their boilers and machinery fitted on board; an engine shop, 300

feet square; a blacksmiths’ shop 296 feet in length and 102 feet in

width containing 44 fires, one large plate furnace and four forging

furnaces, six large steam hammers, and various hydraulic cranes. There

are also in the yard two bays spanned by travelling cranes, each

capable of lifting a dead weight of 40 tons; and among the numerous

tools and machines there is one capable of planing armour plates of 20

feet in length and 6 feet in width, and one boring machine which can

drill holes 4 inches in diameter, and penetrate a 9-inch plate in half

an hour.

Here we regret to add, for we can ill afford to lose such men, that the

head of this vast shipbuilding firm, and the man by whose remarkable

genius it was founded, John Elder, died in September 1869 at the early

age of forty-five. His father had been for many years the manager of

the well-known works of Robert Napier and Co. There Mr. Elder served

his apprenticeship and gained that practical knowledge which, combined

with great natural abilities and an enthusiastic taste for mechanics,

enabled him to create the very large business I have briefly attempted

to describe.

[106] Mr. Muirhead (in his “Life of Watt,” pp. 428-9) mentions a few

additional particulars which it seems worth while to record. Thus he

states that the largest steamer built up to the year 1813 was the

_Glasgow_ noticed above, of 74 tons and 16 horse-power; and that,

in 1815, the _Morning Star_ of 100 tons and 26 horse-power, and, in

1815, the _Caledonia_ of 102 tons and 32 horse-power, were severally

launched. He adds that, during his last visit to Greenock in 1816, Mr.

Watt made a voyage in a steam-boat to Rothesay and back, and showed the

engineer how to “back” the engine, it having been usual previously to

stop the engine for some time previously to mooring. He further states

that, in April 1817, Mr. James Watt, Jun., purchased the _Caledonia_

and, having refitted her, took her in October to Holland and up the

Rhine to Coblentz; having thus been the first to cross the English

Channel in a steam-boat. The average speed he obtained was seven

and a half knots an hour. On her return to the Thames in 1818, Mr.

Watt, Jun., made no fewer than thirty-one experiments with her on the

river, resulting in the adoption of many material improvements in the

construction and adaptation of marine engines.

[107] At this period, Mr. Rennie, who planned the breakwater at

Plymouth and new London Bridge, was “advising engineer” to the

Admiralty, and on every occasion urged the application of steam-power

to vessels of war. More than this, he hired at his own cost the Margate

steam-boat, the _Eclipse_, and successfully towed the _Hastings_,

74, against the tide from Woolwich to Gravesend, June 14th, 1819.

On this the Admiralty, supported by Lord Melville, gave up their

objections.—Smiles’ “Lives,” vol. ii. p. 267.

[108] William Denny, the builder of the _Rob Roy_, as also of the

_Marjory_ (noticed p. 75), was born in Dumbarton in 1789, where his

forefathers for some generations had been “wee lairds” (yeomen) farming

their own land. After serving his apprenticeship as a joiner and

ship-carpenter, and acting as manager of a small ship-building yard on

the River Leven, Dumbarton, he commenced business on his own account

at that place, and was the first to lay down in his yard Morton’s

patent slips, where he built various sailing-ships for the East and

West India trades. He died in December 1833. Three of his sons, also,

William, Alexander, and Peter, commenced business at that place as

iron ship builders in 1844, on a small piece of ground, removing in

1847 to a larger yard, where they continued the business of iron ship

builders under the firm of William Denny and Brothers, by which it is

still known. In 1851, two other brothers, James and Archibald, having

then joined them, they (there were seven brothers, all shipbuilders)

commenced the business of engine builders, subsequently adding to

this that of founding and forging, so that all the branches of work

connected with steam shipbuilding might be done on the spot. William

was a man of remarkable genius and talent, and attained so high a

reputation as a marine architect that he and his brother Alexander

planned most of the steamers built on the Clyde from 1839 to 1844.

He died in 1854, and the only brother now left is the youngest, Mr.

Peter Denny, who, with his son and Mr. Walter Brock, carries on this

well-known and extensive business, which, in the years 1873 and 1874,

built and fitted with engines 37,000 tons of iron screw-ships. Since

1844 the town of Dumbarton has risen, almost entirely through their

exertions, from a population of 4000 to 12,000 inhabitants. But, beyond

his fame as an iron ship builder, Mr. Peter Denny is known in public

life, having been appointed a member of the Royal Commission in 1872 of

which the Duke of Somerset was Chairman, to inquire into the cause of

the loss of life and property at sea.

[109] In this vessel Mr. Napier introduced, for the first time in

England, a plan for surface condensation; the condenser was composed

of a series of small copper tubes, through which the steam passed

towards the air-pump, and a constant current of cold water encircling

the pipes, the steam was cooled and returned into water, which was

again sent into the boiler for conversion into steam, without being

mixed with the cold salt water, which, in the usual plan, was injected

into the condenser. But, like Watt, Cartwright, and others who had

tried this system, both here and in America, Mr. Napier finding the

rapidity of condensation not sufficient, returned to the old system

of condensation by jet. Some years afterwards, however, he reverted

to the use of a surface condenser under peculiar circumstances,

which rendered it desirable to use flat plates instead of tubes, but

the advantages of the system have not been considered sufficient to

counterbalance the disadvantages. The first engine of Bell was to some

extent a vertical engine, inasmuch as the axis of the cylinder and of

the crank were placed in one vertical line; but there was no direct

connection between the cranks and the piston-rod, to the paddle-axle:

the communication of motion to it, being effected through the medium of

toothed wheels. In the common or lever engine, the piston-rod acts on a

cross-head, the cross-head on side rods, the side rods on side levers,

the lever on a cross-tail, the cross-tail on the connecting-rod, the

connecting-rod on the crank-pin, by which, through the axle, the

paddle-wheels revolve. In the engine of direct communication, the side

levers and some other parts of the train of communication are removed

by a device which enables the piston-rod to be almost immediately

attached by a connecting-rod to the crank of the paddle-shaft. This

plan was first adopted by Mr. Gutznur, of Leith, who built the _Athol_,

and another vessel called the _Tourist_, on this principle: but as his

method, though very simple, was not applicable in ordinary cases, Mr.

Napier made several modifications, so that his vertical engine, in the

judgment of the most competent engineers, includes almost all the best

improvements as yet introduced.

[110] In an able pamphlet, “The Fleet of the Future,” by Mr. Scott

Russell, published by Longman & Co. in 1861, the author remarks (p.

20), “A good many years ago I happened to converse with the chief naval

architect of one of our dockyards on the subject of building ships of

iron—the answer was characteristic, and the feeling it expressed so

strong and natural that I have never forgotten it; he said, with some

indignation, “Don’t talk to me about iron ships, _it’s contrary to

nature_.””

There was at one time almost as great a prejudice against Indian teak

as a material for ship-building, as this wood is heavier than water,

and in the form of a log will not float. (Arnott, “Elem. of Physics,”

p. 305.)

[111] See “Rolls’ Chapel Reports,” 7th Report, p. 204.

[112] See “Repository of Arts,” vol. xxviii. (second series), p. 138,

and Woodcroft’s “Specification of Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 63,

and “Steam Navigation,” p. 125.

[113] Fincham’s “Naval Architecture,” on the use of iron for

shipbuilding.

[114] William Laird, father of the late John Laird, M.P., established

the Birkenhead Iron Works in 1824, under the style of William Laird and

Sons, and, in 1829, they built for the Irish Inland Company the first

iron vessel constructed on the Mersey. She was a lighter of 60 tons

measurement, about 60 feet long and 13 feet beam. From that time until

1861, Mr. John Laird carried on this extensive business of shipbuilding

and engineering, and when, in that year, he was elected to represent

Birkenhead in Parliament, he transferred it to his sons, who now carry

it on under the style of Laird Brothers.

Mr. Laird died in October 1874, about the same time as Sir William

Fairbairn, another distinguished worker in the field of applied

science, and both men of great eminence in their profession.

[115] The _Elburkah_ was 70 feet long, 13 feet beam, and 6 feet

6 inches deep. Her plates were a quarter of an inch thick in the

bottom, and her sides one-eighth of an inch. She weighed only 15 tons,

including her decks, but without engines, boilers, spars, and outfit.

(See evidence, Mr. McGregor Laird before Select Committee on Steam

Navigation to India (1834), p. 59.)

[116] Lardner (“Steam Navigation,” p. 482) says that, in one of their

experimental trials, the _Elburkah_ got aground and heeled over on her

anchor, and that in a wooden vessel the anchor would probably have

gone through her; and, further that an iron vessel built for the Irish

Inland Navigation Company, on being towed across Lough Derg, was driven

on the rocks in a gale owing to the rope breaking; but, though she

bumped for a considerable time, she sustained no injury.

[117] The _Rainbow_ was, perhaps, the largest iron steam-vessel then

afloat. She was 185 feet long, 25 feet beam, 600 tons burden and 180

horse-power.

[118] See a learned and able report on the “Deviations of the Compass,”

by Mr. Frederick J. Evans, Master R.N., Superintendent of the Compass

Department of H.M. Navy, printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,”

Part II. 1860. In this interesting paper, Mr. Evans calls attention to

one or two important facts, certainly not known to the general public,

or perhaps not even to many shipbuilders. He says, p. 354:

“In an iron sailing-ship, built head to south, there will be an

attraction of the north point of the compass to the head, and if built

head to north, a like attraction to the ship’s stern; and so far there

would seem to be no advantage in one direction over the other. But, in

the first case, the topsides near the compass have weak magnetism; in

the second case, they are strongly magnetic: the first position seems

therefore preferable.

“In an iron steam-ship, built head to the south, the attraction due

to machinery is added to that of the hull, whereas in one built head

to the north, the attractive forces of hull and machinery are, in the

northern hemisphere, antagonistic, and a position of small, or no

‘semicircular’ deviation for the compass may generally be obtained.

To iron steam-vessels engaged on the home or foreign trades in the

northern hemisphere, this direction of build is therefore to be

preferred.”

And, again, at p. 355, he remarks:

“As every piece of iron not composing a part of, and hammered in the

fabrication of the hull,—such as the rudder, funnel, boilers, and

machinery, tanks, cooking galleys, fastenings of deck houses, &c.,—are

all of a magnetic character differing from the hull of a ship, their

proximity should be avoided, and, so far as possible, the compass

should be placed so that they may act as correctors of the general

magnetism of the hull.

“A compass placed out of the middle line of the deck is affected by the

nearest topside, and its deviations must necessarily be much increased

if that topside has the dominant polarity, as in ships built east or

west.”

[119] “The principal reason of an iron vessel being so much healthier

is on account of her coolness and her freedom from all manner of smell;

in an iron vessel there is no disagreeable smell of bilgewater, which

there is in a wooden vessel in a tropical climate; it is, in fact, the

difference between carrying water in a cask, and in a tank.” (Evidence

of Mr. McGregor Laird, p. 58, “Steam Navigation to India.”)

[120] Mr. Robert Stephenson thought it possible, that if you had a dock

filled with sulphate of copper, you might treat an iron vessel as you

do a small teapot, and electrotype it with a thin coating of copper.

(Evidence, 1851, 26th June, before Committee of the House of Commons.)

[121] The Liverpool underwriters, in their book of registry for iron

vessels (established 1862), in the edition of that work for 1863 and

1864, offer the following remarks:

“Experience has shown that iron ships are much more durable than was at

first supposed. By the use of cement inside, and by careful attention

to outside coating, a well constructed iron ship can be reckoned upon

to last, _in first-class condition_, for a period of at least twenty

years. Wear and tear of equipment, and of the wood used in their

construction, must in all cases be excepted.”

[122] Mr. McGregor Laird states in his evidence (Question 553, p. 59)

before the Select Committee on “Steam Navigation to India,” 1834, “A

strong iron vessel will not weigh one-half of that of a wooden one, and

therefore will draw considerably less water;” further (Q. 554), “Her

capacity for stowage will be much greater, her sides, including strong

iron frames, not exceeding 4 inches in thickness, while those of a

wooden vessel will be 12 inches thick.”

“The average weight of the iron steam vessels is about 6 cwt. per

register ton; a wooden one will weigh about 20 cwt. and upwards.”—(See

evidence of C. W. Williams, Appendix to Report of the above Committee,

p. 43.) See _note_, Appendix No. 5, p. 599.

[123] The greatest number of years originally allowed by “Lloyd’s

Register” for the classification of any vessel built of wood to remain

on the first class, was from four to sixteen years, but seldom more

than twelve from the date of construction; they might be renewed, but

the original term never exceeded the periods I have named.

[124] Captain (now Admiral Sir) W. H. Hall, R.N., in his evidence

before Lord Seymour’s (now the Duke of Somerset) Committee on Navy

Estimates which sat in 1848, stated (p. 648) that, when he commanded

the _Nemesis_, an iron vessel engaged in the Chinese war, she was in

one action struck fourteen times by the shot of the enemy; “one shot

went in at one side and came out at the other, it went right through

the vessel;” there were “no splinters;” “it went through just as if

you put your finger through a piece of paper.” “I had,” he added,

“a favourable opinion of it” (iron). “Several wooden steamers,”

he continues, “were employed upon the same service, and they were

invariably obliged to lie up for repairs, whilst I could repair the

_Nemesis_ in twenty-four hours and have her always ready for service;

indeed, many steamers were obliged to leave the coast of China and go

to Bombay for repairs. Repairs which would have taken in a wooden ship

several days, would take in ours as many hours only.”

Captain E. F. Charlwood, who had served in iron vessels “about four

or five years,” stated, in his evidence before the same Committee,

that the _Guadaloupe_, which he commanded, had been repeatedly struck

by shot, and that “the damage was considerably less than is usually

suffered by a wooden vessel,” and that “there was nothing like the

number of splinters which are generally forced out by shot sent through

a wooden vessel’s side.” He added that the shot went clean through (the

holes being plugged by the engineer at the time), and did not otherwise

injure the plates or leave a rent or displace any of the rivets.

[125] The author moved that the vote should be reduced by 300,000_l._

(see “Hansard’s Parliamentary Report” for May 23rd, 1861, page 30,

where his reasons are given), but, after a long debate, he was

defeated, only thirty members voting with him, and sixty-six against

any reduction. The reader will find what became of this timber (a

large portion lay rotting in the dock-yards) if he refers to the

Report of the Committee, appointed on the motion of Mr. Seely, some

years afterwards. But, beyond the reasons then given by the author,

the Admiralty or their practical advisers must have known, long

before 1861, that a screw-ship built of wood was vastly inferior to

one constructed of iron; that the action of the shaft of the screw

would prevent wooden vessels from lasting through a succession of long

voyages without very considerable repairs from the vibration in the

after body; and that the wood, by frequent concussion and constant

working, would gradually lose its power of resistance, the fibres

becoming bruised and compressed, which would not be the case with an

iron ship, at least to anything like the same extent. Indeed, the naval

constructors ought frankly to have told their Lordships that it would

be unsafe to send a wooden ship to sea fitted with a very powerful

propeller. No stern framework could be built to resist the vibration

of the largest class of engines now in use in the navy. An iron ship,

moreover, affords a much better and more solid foundation for the

engines.

[126] Dr. Lardner (“Steam-engine,” p. 479) observes that, “when

first introduced by Mr. Galloway, each board was divided into six or

seven parts; this was subsequently reduced, and in the more recent

wheels of this form constructed for the Government vessels, the

paddle-boards consist only of two parts coming as near the common wheel

as is possible, without altogether abandoning the principle of the

split-paddle.”

[127] April 14th, 1858.

[128] See Tredgold “On the Steam-engine;” Appendix D, 1842, p. 292;

Woodcroft’s MS. Collection, p. 22; Bourne “On the Screw-propeller,” p.

8, and other writers.

[129] Woodcroft’s “Specifications,” p. 1, n., pp. 25 and 28. Ibid., pp.

31 and 34.

[130] It would appear that his experiment was successful if reliance

can be placed, as I have no reason to doubt, on the accuracy of a

letter from Mr. Fulton, in the memoir by E. Cartwright, London, 1843,

p. 142.

[131] Woodcroft “On Steam Navigation,” p. 54; with drawing; Bourne “On

the Screw-Propeller,” p. 12; and accounts of trials which appeared in

the newspapers, 1802.

[132] Woodcroft “On Steam Navigation.”

[133] As one more conspicuous than any other, it must be stated

that, in March 1832, Mr. Bennet Woodcroft patented an “increasing

screw-propeller,” which he thus describes: “A spiral worm blade or

screw coiled round a shaft (this resembles the invention of Watt) or

cylinder of any convenient length and diameter, in such form that the

angle of inclination which the worm makes with the axis of the cylinder

continually increases, and the pitch or distance between the coils or

revolutions of the spiral, continually increases throughout the whole

length of the shaft or cylinder upon which the spiral is formed.”

(Specifications of “Marine Propulsion,” Part II. p. 112.)

[134] The number of claimants to every important invention is

remarkable. An impartial student will, however, probably come to the

conclusion that the invention of the screw and its application was,

like that of the steam-engine itself, the sole property of no one man,

as he finds by research that experiments to discover the means of

applying the screw as a motive power to ships were at different periods

spontaneously and independently made in various places by inquiring

minds, who frequently were perfect strangers to each other and to each

other’s discoveries or appliances; yet, as time passes on, and the

labours of others are forgotten, a nation or a town claims for some

one of its countrymen or townsmen who may have experimentalised on an

invention which has become of great use to mankind, the sole or the

largest share of the credit of the invention, and erects in their midst

an enduring monument of his fame. Such would appear to be the case of

Frédéric Sauvage, who has just (October, 1874) had a statue erected

to his memory in the town of Boulogne-sur-Mer, where he was born on

the 20th of September, 1786. On either side of the monument (which is

14 feet high surmounted by a large bronze bust of M. Sauvage) is an

inscription setting forth the date of his birth and of the translation

of his remains, together with a list of his inventions. On the front

are the two words “Frédéric Sauvage,” and a bronze bas-relief showing a

vessel with a screw-propeller. Frédéric Sauvage’s life was similar to

those of many other inventors, in that he spent his days and fortune in

perfecting inventions which brought him no profit. Having lost his own

money, he borrowed from others, and, being unable to repay, was thrown

into a debtors’ prison, which he afterwards exchanged for a madhouse,

where he died on the 19th of July, 1857.

[135] “The Screw-Propeller: who Invented it?” by Robert Wilson,

published by Thomas Murray and Son, Glasgow, 1860.

[136] See “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part II. pp.

127 and 128; _London Journal_ (Newton’s), p. 14, conjoined series, p.

34; _Mechanics’ Magazine_, vol. xxvii. p. 130, vol. xxviii. p. 215,

vol. xxix. pp. 143 and 283, and vol. xlii. p. 225; _Artizan_, vol.

viii. pp. 187 and 209; also Bourne “On the Screw-Propeller,” pp. 30 and

34.

[137] See Weale’s Papers on “Engineering,” vol. iii. Part V. pp. 1-7,

“Steam Navigation.”

[138] With regard to the question of the progress of steam-ships in

the Royal Navy since then, Mr. T. H. Farrer, of the Board of Trade,

remarks, with great force, in a letter I recently received from him:

“We hardly know how fast we move. One of my first colleagues at the

Board of Trade, in 1850, was Admiral Beechey, an officer of very

superior attainments and intelligence, and one who, having been much

employed on surveys, was well acquainted with steam-vessels. And yet

I well remember his telling me that he did not believe that the Navy

of the future—the Royal Navy—ever could consist of steamers! Nor

could he endure iron ships. It was a very few years after this that, in

company with him, I witnessed one of the most beautiful sights of my

life—the Naval Review at Spithead, in the first summer of the Russian

war, when the last four or more sailing-vessels of the Royal Navy

formed the attacking squadron. I shall never forget the beauty of the

scene, when late in the afternoon these magnificent ships came on with

a gentle breeze from the east, and the descending sun shed a ‘dying

glory’ on their towers of canvas. It was a fit obsequy for the Hearts

of Oak of Rodney, Howe, and Nelson.”

[139] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part II. p. 127.

[140] _Mechanics’ Magazine_, vol. xxxi. p. 225.

[141] The first experimental trip of the _Archimedes_ was made on

Monday, October 14th, 1839, the second on the following Wednesday,

in the presence of Sir Edward Parry, Sir William Symonds, Captains

Basil Hall, Austin, and Smith, R.N., and several civil engineers.

Subsequently to the Admiralty trials between Dover and Calais, Captain

Chappell, R.N., sailed round England and Scotland in her, calling at

numerous ports; details of this voyage will be found in Appendix D to

Tredgold “On the Steam Engine.”

[142] The _Rattler_ was launched from Sheerness Dockyard in April

1843. She was considered a remarkably fine model, and of very unusual

length in proportion to her beam, her dimensions being 195 feet extreme

length, close upon 33 feet extreme breadth, and 18½ mean depth of hold.

Her burden was 888 tons. The log of this vessel from 28th of March

to 13th April, 1851, will be found in the Appendix to a Report of a

Committee of the House of Commons, 1851, p. 565, where the merits of

the screw are examined.

[143] The “screw” which Mr. Stevens used in his boat cannot have been

of a practical character, or the Americans would not have allowed so

valuable an invention to lie dormant for 35 years.

[144] Mr. Woodcroft patented, on the 18th of November, 1826, a

mode “for propelling boats and vessels,” but no specification was

enrolled; and on the 22nd of March, 1832, he “prolonged” his patent

“increasing-pitch screw-propeller,” which he then fully described. (See

“Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Part XI. p. 112.)

CHAPTER III.

Steam-ships of the United States—Improvements in form of

hull—Natural facilities for Steam Navigation in America—Her

lakes—Canals—Harbours—Rivers—Seaboard—Bays and

roadsteads—Rapid increase of steam-vessels—First vessels

built for the western rivers and lakes—Dangers of River

Navigation—Number of steamers lost by “snags,” ice, fire,

and collision, 1831-1833—Peculiar description of wharves

and levees—Description of steamers employed—Boats of the

Mississippi—Boatmen—Engines of the steamers—Different

construction of the steamers on the Atlantic rivers—Great

speed of American lake and river steamers—Peculiarity

of construction—Steamer _New World_—Details of her

construction—The _Daniel Drew_—Her enormous speed—Pacific

Steam-ship Company started, 1847—Cost of establishing it—Speed

of its vessels—Difficulties to encounter—Number of its

steamers—Services performed—China and Japan line—“Law” line

of steamers—South American Steam-ship Company—Mr. Randall’s

projected large American steamer—Details of proposed ship—Two

sets of paddle-wheels—Principle of construction—Advantages to

be derived from vessels thus built—Mr. Randall’s experience of

steamers employed on the lakes and the Pacific.

[Sidenote: Steam-ships of the United States.]

While Great Britain is entitled to the credit of the invention of the

marine steam-engine with its auxiliaries, the paddle-wheel and screw,

and of having first put both into practical, if not in the earliest

stages remunerative, operation, America may, on her part, justly claim

the making of many improvements on them, and the turning the new motive

power to profitable account with greater rapidity than England.

[Sidenote: Improvements in the form of hull.]

To the Americans we owe the modification of Watt’s engine still in use

in their vessels: to them we are also indebted for engines of long

stroke with the necessarily long crank, and the further peculiarity of

upright guides for the piston-rod instead of the old parallel motion.

They likewise first introduced the paddle-wheel with divided floats by

which the resistance of the water was rendered more uniform, and the

concussion of the common paddle-wheel avoided. But, above all, they

were the first to improve the form of steam-vessels by substituting a

fine entrance and a clean, clear run for the round or bluff bows and

full sterns previously prevailing. By these important alterations, and

by making the length of their vessels eight and, occasionally, ten

times their beam, they succeeded, even during the infancy of marine

steam propulsion, in raising the rate of progress from 9 to 13 miles

an hour, and in giving to the world lines for the modelling of ships

vastly superior to any hitherto adopted.

[Sidenote: Natural facilities for steam navigation in America.]

[Sidenote: Her lakes.]

But nature has afforded our great Transatlantic rivals marvellous

facilities for the development and rapid increase of vessels propelled

by steam, not possessed by ourselves. The lakes[145] of America are,

in fact, extensive inland seas, affording in themselves an almost

unlimited source of profitable employment to vessels propelled by

steam. Their shores are lined with sheltered bays and natural harbours,

with waters unusually free from rocks and shoals, while, in their

immediate vicinity, are vast tracts of rich lands requiring only the

industry of man to render them subservient to his wants, while the

surrounding forests at the same time produce some of the finest pine

timber in the world.

[Sidenote: Canals.]

[Sidenote: Harbours.]

Great cities, such as Chicago,[146] Buffalo, Detroit, Michigan,

Milwaukie, Toronto, and Kingston, besides numerous towns and villages,

now line their banks, while those lakes which have no natural navigable

communication with each other are now connected by means of canals,

so that vessels from the Atlantic can penetrate for upwards of 2000

miles into the interior, in fact, to the most remote habitable regions

of North America.[147] Short canals, also, overcome the natural

obstacles presented to navigation by the rapids of the St. Lawrence

and the Falls of Niagara; and, while, on the one hand, the Erie canal

of 363 miles in length connects that lake with the River Hudson, and

consequently with the Atlantic Ocean, the Ohio Canal, 334 miles in

length, on the other hand, brings it into connection with the Gulf of

Mexico by way of the great rivers Ohio and Mississippi: thus, with

the Welland Canal,[148] the connecting link between the other lakes

and Ontario, there is navigable communication throughout the whole of

the vast continent of North America, extending from the Gulf of St.

Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of upwards of 3000 miles.

All these lakes are now well supplied with lighthouses, buoys, and

beacons to insure the safety of the large fleets of shipping employed

on them. There are, also, numerous spacious harbours, many of them

built of stone, as also breakwaters, the waves on these lakes during

gales of wind being hardly less formidable to navigation than those of

the ocean.

[Sidenote: Rivers.]

But if the lakes of North America are vast in extent, the navigable

rivers are even more gigantic, and afford still wider fields of

remunerative employment for steamers.[149] Indeed, until steam-ships

were launched on their surface, many of these rivers were altogether

unnavigable, and some of them unexplored. Those of my readers who have

not visited America, can form only a very imperfect idea of her mighty

streams. Some of them, as may be seen by reference to a map of the

United States, have their source in the northern parts of the Rocky

Mountains, and discharge themselves by the Gulf of St. Lawrence into

the Atlantic, while others rising in the west of these mountain ranges

flow into the Pacific. Those which have their sources to the east of

the Alleghany Mountains find their way by various routes, and through

luxuriant valleys, some of them of enormous extent, to numerous outlets

on the shores of the Atlantic and on the north-eastern portion of the

Gulf of Mexico, while the rivers comprehended under the head of the

Mississippi and its tributaries, which spring from that great valley

between the Alleghany and the Rocky Mountains, likewise pour their huge

volumes of water into the Mexican Gulf, with New Orleans as the chief

entrepôt of their now gigantic commerce. The former rivers, upwards

of one hundred in number, afford an aggregate amount of more than

3000 miles of ship and boat navigation. But the latter, embracing the

parent Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio, Arkansas, Red River, and

various other tributaries pouring their waters into the giant stream,

constitute an aggregate length of no less than 44,000 miles![150]

Large steamers now ascend to Pittsburg, a distance of 2000 miles from

the Gulf of Mexico. The Missouri, which joins the Mississippi 18

miles above the city of St. Louis and about 1200 miles from the gulf,

has an uninterrupted navigation of 2532 miles from its mouth; its

tributaries being the Gasconade, navigable for 150 miles; the Osage

for 500 miles; the Chariton for 300 miles; the Tansas for 200 miles;

and the Yellowstone for 800 miles; while the Moine, which flows into

the Mississippi 130 miles above the Missouri, is supposed, with its

tributaries, to be navigable for a distance of 1500 miles.

Such are a few, but a few only, of the many navigable rivers which

pour their waters into the Mississippi; there are many others whose

names our space precludes the possibility of our even mentioning. To

the north and the west, we have the St. Lawrence, a river second only

to the Mississippi, with a course of upwards of 2000 miles, receiving

the waters of about thirty others of considerable size; and, though

navigable itself for large sea-going vessels only as far as Montreal,

a distance of 880 miles from the Atlantic, it is extensively used in

its upper portion under the name of the St. Mary’s River, where, among

the islands with which it is studded and the numerous rapids with which

it is impeded, it is navigated by vast rafts of timber and by fleets

of strong flat-bottomed boats expressly built for the purpose, and

well-known as the Canadian _batteaux_.

Then we have the River Hudson (on which the first vessel in America

propelled by steam was employed), small in itself compared to those I

have named, but important from its connection with New York, and the

extent and value of its trade; and most interesting to the traveller,

from its beautiful scenery. This river is navigable for ships of large

burden up to the town from which it derives its name, about 120 miles

above New York, and for vessels of smaller draught of water to Albany

and Troy respectively 30 and 34 miles further. To the north we have the

Penobscot with a course of 300 miles from the bay of that name in the

State of Maine, navigable for large vessels to Bangor, a distance of 50

miles, and the Kennebach River with a course of 230 miles, navigable

for 40 miles from the sea, as also the Merrimac of 200 miles in length,

and the Connecticut, which, after a course of 450 miles through a

highly cultivated and fertile country, discharges itself into Long

Island Sound.

To the south there is the important River Delaware, of 310 miles in

length, navigable for vessels of the largest class to Philadelphia, a

distance of 40 miles, and the Susquehanna flowing into the Chesapeake,

which, though the largest river in the important and productive State

of Pennsylvania, is more celebrated for the beauty of its scenery

than for the facilities it affords for navigation. There is also the

Patapsco, navigable to Baltimore for vessels drawing 18 to 20 feet of

water; the Patuscent, navigable for 60 miles from its mouth; and the

Potomac, navigated by vessels of the largest class to Washington, a

distance of 103 miles from Chesapeake Bay; as also the Rappahannoc,

navigable for 110 miles to the town of Fredericksburg, besides the

James River and various others of greater or less importance extending

along the line of coast from Chesapeake Bay to the western shores of

the Gulf of Mexico.

[Sidenote: Seaboard.]

[Sidenote: Bays and roadsteads.]

But, beyond the vast facilities these immense lakes and rivers afford

to a maritime commerce capable of development to an extent far beyond

the conception of the most sanguine enthusiast, there is the extensive

seaboard of that great continent, studded with harbours, and containing

some of the most magnificent bays and the largest and safest roadsteads

to be found in any part of the world. Take, for instance, the line

of coast extending northwards from Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of St.

Lawrence: that bay, itself, has safe anchorage for an untold number

of vessels; and, to the northward, there are numerous other bays and

sheltered sounds, affording natural facilities for the formation of

harbours more commodious than any which works of art alone, however

costly, could possibly supply. From among these the Americans have been

able to select many admirable sites for their trade emporiums,—in

themselves also natural harbours of refuge of the finest description,

completely sheltered from the surge of the ocean, and, therefore, not

requiring for their protection the expensive breakwaters of Plymouth,

Portland, or Cherbourg; where, along the margin of projecting tongues

of land or within out-lying islands, vessels of the largest description

can anchor in safety, or be moored alongside jetties erected at a

trifling expense, where, too, they can discharge their cargoes into

warehouses with almost as much ease as they could do in the London or

Liverpool docks. These natural advantages, amply illustrated as they

are in the case of New York, a city evidently destined to rival, if

not to surpass, any city of either ancient or modern times, London not

excepted, struck the writer with surprise and wonder. Situated on the

southern portion of the island of Manhattan, New York is washed on

the east by the sound separating it from Long Island,[151] and on the

west by the estuary of the River Hudson, while the bay itself, which

is nine miles in length and five miles in breadth, has a communication

with the Atlantic through a strait two miles in width, between Staten

Island and Long Island, completely sheltered from the ocean and forming

a magnificent deep-water basin, with abundant quays and jetties on its

eastern, western, and southern margins: here vessels of any size can

deliver their cargoes into the heart of the city at all times and in

perfect safety.

Proceeding further north we reach Boston Bay, more celebrated than any

other place in the history of the War of Independence, a thoroughly

sheltered inlet of about 75 square miles in extent, inclosed by two

necks of land so nearly approaching each other as to leave only a

narrow entrance communicating directly with the Atlantic, with deep

water close in shore where numerous wharves are erected as in the

case of New York. Further north, we reach Narraganset Bay, and, within

it, the town of Newport and its finely sheltered roadstead forming one

of the most superb natural harbours in America; also Penobscot Bay

into which the river of that name flows, and Passamaquoddy with its

excellent roadstead receiving the waters of the River St. Croix, the

boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada.

With such magnificent bays, harbours, roadsteads, lakes, and rivers

all ready formed by the hand of Nature to receive an almost unlimited

extent of shipping, and, at the same time, peculiarly adapted for

the employment of steamers, it is not a matter for surprise that

the Americans should have directed their genius and energy to this

new branch of industry and their skill to the rapid development of

the power of steam, affording them as it did extraordinary means of

opening out hitherto unknown branches of commerce and new sources of

almost unbounded wealth. More conversant at this period than any other

nation with the most approved style of shipbuilding, and possessing

an abundant supply of materials at a comparatively low price, they

were able, when steam-vessels were first introduced, to construct them

at a lower cost than any other people; and if they had not the same

facilities for obtaining steam-engines, these could easily be obtained

from England.

[Sidenote: Rapid increase of steam-vessels.]

From the time therefore that Fulton[152] launched the _Clermont_

at New York, and proved, by her performance in 1808 on the Hudson,

that vessels propelled by steam could be made a source of profitable

employment, they were increased with a rapidity and employed to an

extent, especially during the first quarter of this century, far in

excess of Great Britain. Besides the _Clermont_, launched in 1807,

Mr. Charles Brown, an enterprising shipbuilder of New York, built in

that year, also for the navigation of the Hudson, the _Car of Neptune_

of 295 tons, and the _Rareton_, of 120 tons, named after the river

on which she was employed. In 1811, he launched the _Paragon_, of

331 tons, which was likewise employed on the Hudson, and, in 1812,

the _Firefly_, to trade between New York and Newburg, as well as the

_Jersey_, ferry-boat of 118 tons, employed in the same year by the

Ferry Company for the conveyance of passengers between New Jersey and

the city of New York.

[Sidenote: First vessels built for the western rivers and lakes.]

In 1814 the Americans launched their first steam-ship on the great

waters of the Mississippi, at once showing the practicability of

ascending that mighty river by accomplishing on her trial trip,

immediately after she was built, a distance of 700 miles against the

current. In 1818, they started a steam-boat to ply between New York

and New Orleans, and, from that time, vessels of this description,

steadily, and we may say rapidly, increased on their coasts and rivers.

Their first steamer on the lakes was the _Orleans_, a two-masted

vessel built at Pittsburg in 1811, but some time elapsed before

any other steamer appeared on the Lakes, their then limited trade

offering little inducement for profitable employment; hence, when the

_Walk-in-the-Water_—a most characteristic name—commenced to trade on

Lake Erie in 1819, there was no one to furnish her with a cargo except

the American Fur Company. In 1827, the waters of Lake Michigan were

first ploughed by steam, a boat having made an excursion to Green Bay,

and in 1832, another steam-boat reached Chicago with troops, that site

being then in course of clearance and settlement: in the following

year, there were eleven boats on the lakes at a cost of 360,000

dollars, carrying in that year (1833) 61,480 passengers, and earning

in freight 229,211 dollars. In 1834, seven new boats were launched,

making eighteen in this service during that year; and in 1840, the

number of boats trading between Buffalo, Chicago and other ports west

of Detroit, their trip between these two places occupying fifteen days,

had increased to forty-eight. Such was the beginning of the steam-boat

traffic on the great North American lakes.[153] In the following

woodcut may be seen a fair illustration of one of these early vessels.

[Illustration]

But it was on the rivers and along the sheltered bays on the coast that

the new mode of propulsion made at first the most rapid progress. From

the time when the pioneer boat ascended the Mississippi, steam-ships

rapidly increased in number and in size, as well as in the power of

their engines, so that, so early as 1832, there were no less than 900

arrivals of steamers at New Orleans from the upper country, and in

1834, there were 234 steam-vessels running on the Mississippi and Ohio,

the large majority of which were built at Pittsburg and Cincinnati.

[Sidenote: Dangers of river navigation.]

[Sidenote: Number of steamers lost by “snags,” ice, fire, and

collision, 1831-1833.]

The navigation, however, of these great rivers was for many years

attended with almost endless difficulties and dangers. In the Ohio and

other western waters of the United States, though the current does not

average more than three miles an hour, there were rapids where, in some

instances, it attains a velocity of from seven to eight miles. There

were also numerous sandbanks, most of which have now been removed,

whereon the boats frequently took the ground and were detained until

the next rise of water, sometimes for even three and four months. In

the upper waters, too, the floating ice during the spring of the year

occasioned many disasters, and is still a danger not to be prevented.

But the greatest danger arose from what was known as “snags,” stumps

of trees which, from the falling in of the banks, are carried down the

river until they lodge, with one end resting in the mud or sand, and

the other rising to the surface sometimes so concealed as to baffle the

utmost precaution in avoiding it. Among the sixty-six boats lost in the

navigation of these western rivers during the years 1831-2-3, while

seven were wrecked by ice, fifteen stranded and abandoned, fifteen

destroyed by fire, and five wrecked by collision with other boats, no

less than twenty-four were “_snagged_.”

But, besides the “snags,” there are dangers, though of somewhat less

importance, arising from other falling trees, known by the name of

“sawyers,” trees which have sunk with an inclination down the stream,

the action of the current upon them causing a continual vertical

vibration, whence their name. Generally, when a boat going down stream

strikes a sawyer, she will pass over it with little or no injury as its

inclination is in the direction of the boat’s movement. But the danger,

here, differs from that of the “snags.” Their inclination is up the

river, their ends sometimes projecting above the surface at low water,

or when the river is at a higher stage, remaining just sufficiently

beneath the surface to be still more dangerous. Boats going down

stream, therefore, encounter very great peril, and it has frequently

occurred that, when the “snag” lies at a great inclination, the end

rises when struck and not only pierces the hull but passes up through

all the decks.

These dangers are increased by the remarkable fluctuation in the depth

of the water in the rivers, which is sometimes so great, as to admit

the navigation of the largest vessel, and again so small, as to render

it impossible to construct vessels with draught of sufficient lightness

to float upon them.

On the Ohio, the rapids are chiefly caused by bars, or as they are

termed “chains of rock,” extending across the river, which, when the

water is low, impede navigation and sometimes stop it altogether.

Artificial means have, however, in some instances been adopted whereby

a greatly increased volume of water is thrown into a single channel,

but hitherto these schemes have not been of much practical utility,

though the money expended in the removal of “snags” and other temporary

obstructions has tended to render the navigation of the Ohio, as well

as of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Red River, comparatively safe and

easy to what it was when steam-boats were for the first time despatched

upon these mighty streams.

[Sidenote: Peculiar description of wharves and levees.]

In consequence of the great fluctuations in the depth of the western

rivers, no regular wharves or jetties can be formed alongside of

which the boats engaged in the traffic can land their passengers and

goods. In lieu of these, therefore, the banks of the river opposite

to the towns, or where landing-places are necessary, are sloped off

at a considerable inclination and paved with ordinary paving-stones.

At intervals along the shore, and, also, at different distances up

the bank, piles are driven with large ringbolts attached to their

heads for the purpose of mooring the boats. Owing, also, to the same

cause, and the ever varying strength of the currents of the rivers,

it is necessary that the boats employed on them should be as light as

possible combined with the requisite strength, of small draught of

water, and of great power, so as to be able to pass over the sandbanks

and make headway against the currents.

[Sidenote: Description of steamers employed.]

In order that the boats may land passengers without difficulty at these

sloping banks or “levees,” as they are termed, and also discharge and

take in freight and passengers, their bows have a very long rake, so

that when they strike the bank the bow gradually rises out of the water

till it has sufficient hold upon the bank to maintain its position

while landing the cargo, without any material assistance from the warps

attached to the mooring post. To facilitate the operation of landing,

the forecastle deck carries its width in most cases right to the stem,

so as to furnish the necessary platform for discharging and loading

cargo. In order, also, to meet the frequent occurrence of very shallow

water during the summer months, a class of boats has been constructed

termed light-water steamers. They differ from the ordinary description

of boats, in that they are built in the lightest possible manner and

with a comparatively small engine power, so that their speed seldom

exceeds from 6 to 7 miles per hour; they have, however, the advantage

of being able to navigate rivers the ordinary boat could not traverse,

their draught of water ranging from 12 to not more than 18 inches when

laden with cargo and passengers.

The vessels employed on the Mississippi vary in size from 150 to 1500

tons burden, and in some cases more. It is necessary, too, that these

should be built so to draw as little water as possible, the largest not

exceeding when loaded from 7 to 8 feet, as this great river is also

impeded by bars or “chains” extending across it, though not to the

same extent as the Ohio and other smaller rivers. At New Orleans, the

_levee_ or quay is from four to five miles in extent, with an average

breadth of 100 feet. It is 15 feet above low-water mark, or that

condition of the river when its waters retire within their natural bed,

and is 6 feet above the level of the city, to which it is graduated by

an easy descent. It is constructed of the alluvial soil brought down

from the north, and deposited in the vicinity by the waters of the

Mississippi.

[Sidenote: Boats of the Mississippi.]