CHAPTER II

THE EVOLUTION OF MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED CRAFT

When the prehistoric man was returning home from his day’s fishing or

hunting, and the evening breeze had died away to a flat calm so that

the primitive sail became for the time a hindrance rather than a saving

of labour, and the tired navigator was compelled reluctantly to resort

to his paddles once more--it was, no doubt, then that our ancestry was

first inoculated with the germ for desiring some mechanical form of

propulsion, and the fever went on developing until it broke out in full

infection when the possibilities of steam were beginning to be weighed.

The earliest records of the employment of some artificial means for

sending the ship along are not preserved to us, although it is certain

that repeated attempts were made in many ages to do without oars and

sails. When slave labour was cheap and plentiful, and this could easily

be turned into propelling power, perhaps it was hardly likely that

there would be much incentive for discovering or rediscovering such

forces as steam to do the work of physical energy. It seems to me to be

a curious and interesting fact that it was not until the freedom of the

individual from some sort of slavery and servitude--whether belonging

to ancient times or the Middle Ages--began to be asserted that there

was any real progress made in labour-saving devices. The dignity

of man, and his superiority as a being possessed of intelligence

and discernment, and, consequently, his right to be considered as

something more than a drawer of water, a hewer of wood, and the motive

force for any method of transport, had fully to be recognised and

appreciated before means were earnestly sought to save human labour.

The cry of the last few years and the tendency exhibited by many world

movements have been all for asserting the right of the individual.

The French Revolution, the American War of Independence, the rise

of Socialism of some sort or another in most civilised countries,

have happened collaterally with the progress of machinery, and the

development of power independent of physical force, necessitating less

and less the expenditure of human energy. Never in the history of the

world has so much been accomplished for obtaining mechanical energy

as within the last hundred and fifty years, and never perhaps has the

individual been able to possess himself of so much freedom.

But even in those days when slaves could be made to work to the limits

of their endurance, it is fairly evident that man believed that there

was a future for the mechanical propulsion of ships, and the usual form

which this took was of applying paddle-wheels to the side of the ship,

and revolving these by means of a capstan turned either by slaves or

by oxen. The Chinese, it is scarcely to be wondered at, adopted this

means, and so also did the Romans. In 264 B.C., when Appius Claudius

Caudex one dark night crossed the Straits of Messina to Sicily, he

transported the troops in boats propelled by paddle-wheels through

the medium of capstans revolved by oxen, and there is in existence an

ancient bas-relief which shows a galley with three wheels on either

side to be used for this purpose. Over and over again this same idea

was exploited, and even as recently as 1829 Charles Napier, a British

naval officer, when he was in command of the frigate _Galatea_, was by

special permission of the Admiralty allowed to fit her with paddles,

which were worked by winches on the main deck. He found that in a calm

he could thus get his ship along at three knots an hour, and tow a

line-o’-battle ship at one and a half knots. But it was noticed then,

what experimenters of this nature always found in every age, that,

firstly, this method of capstan-plus-paddle-wheels was good only for a

short distance; and, secondly, that so great an expenditure of physical

force could be more advantageously applied by using the old-fashioned

method of rowing.

Many a student and philosopher pictured in his mind some novel method

for doing away with sails and oars, among whom we might mention Roger

Bacon; but most of these theories seem not to have gone farther than

the walls of the study. In 1543 another attempt was made by one Blasco

de Garray, on June 17. Himself a native of Biscay, he proceeded to

Barcelona, and experimented first with a vessel of 109 tons, and later

with one of about twice the size. For many years it was commonly,

but erroneously, stated that this was the first steamship. Apart

altogether from the unlikeliness of this being the case at so early a

date, it has now been proved to be little better than a fable based

on insufficient evidence. Even to this present day this inaccuracy is

still repeated, and it is not out of place to emphasise the fact yet

again that de Garray’s was _not_ a steamship. Special research has been

undertaken in the Royal archives of Simancas by able and discriminating

students, and the result is that, while it was found that two separate

experiments were made with two different vessels, and that one ship had

a paddle-wheel on either side worked by twenty-five men, and the other

ship by forty men, and that a speed equal to three and a half English

miles per hour was obtained, yet there was discovered among these

manuscripts no mention whatsoever of the use of steam. The vessels were

found to steer well, but the same conclusion was again arrived at--viz.

that for a passage of any length it was far easier to use oars.

The idea, however, was not dead, and we find it coming up again in

the time of Elizabeth. During her reign there were numbers of little

books issued to make the seamen more efficient, and these, of course,

deal with the sailing ship. One of the most entertaining that I know

of is that entitled “Inventions or Devises Very necessary for all

Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of men, as well by Sea as by Land:

Written by William Bourne.” It was published in London in 1578, and

is full of fascinating matter for preventing the enemy from boarding

ships, and useful tips for sinking him even when he is superior in

strength and size to the ship he is attacking. Bourne mentions the

following “devise” on page 15:--“And furthermore you may make a Boate

to goe without oares or Sayle, by the placing of certaine wheels on

the outside of the Boate, in that sort, that the armes of the wheeles

may goe into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some provision,

and so the wheeles shall make the Boate to goe.” And the next “devise”

refers to the fact that “also, they make a water Mill in a Boate, for

when that it rideth at an Anker, the tyde or streame will turne the

wheeles with great force, and these Milles are used in France.”

In another interesting sixteenth century book, full of curious and

wonderful machines, entitled “Theatrum Instrumentorum et Machinarum

Jacobi Bessoni, Mathematici ingeniosissimi,” published in 1582, there

are detailed illustrations and descriptions of a curious ship which

is in shape something like a heart, the bow being the apex, so to

speak; the stern has two ends, between which is fitted a species of

paddle-wheel of unusual kind. It consists of a cigar-shaped object of

wood, not unlike a modern torpedo, but broader. Through this is an axle

which allowed the wheel to revolve freely, and on the axle at either

end rests a vertical spar, which is fastened to another spar at the top

parallel with the wheel. From the centre of this spar an enormous kind

of mast or sprit rose high up into the air, which was worked by means

of a tackle and ropes leading down to a winch, turned by two men. Thus,

if the reader will imagine an object resembling one of those rollers

employed in the preservation of a cricket pitch, but made of wood

instead of metal, he will get something of the shape of this curious

machine. Besson evidently thought a great deal of this invention and

speaks of it as “inventum vix credibile,” but it was a clumsy method

and cannot really have had many virtues to commend it.

Seven years after Besson’s publication there appeared another book

which throws light on the prevailing passion for mechanical propulsion,

though it refers back to the time of the ancient galley. In “The

History of Many Memorable Things Lost, which were in use among the

Ancients ... written originally in Latin by Guido Pancirollus, and now

done into English Vol. i.,” published in London in 1715, but first

issued in 1589, the following statement is made on page 120:--“I saw

also the pictures of some ships, called Liburnæ which had three wheels

on both sides, without, touching the water, each consisting of eight

spokes, jetting out from the wheel about an hand’s breadth, and six

oxen within, which by turning an engine stirr’d the wheels, whose

Fellys [spokes], driving the water backwards, moved the Liburnians

with such force that no three-oar’d gally was able to resist them.”

This would seem to confirm the statement that the ancient inhabitants

of the Mediterranean certainly employed the paddle-wheel.

But a year before Pancirolli published his book there appeared

another interesting work, which shows yet again that the employment

of paddle-wheeled craft was far from non-existent. There is a scarce

book in the British Museum, published in 1588, entitled “Le Diverse

et Artificiose Machine del Capitano Agostino Ramelli,” which is

illustrated with some highly informative plates. Fig. CLII. shows a

kind of pontoon, to be employed by the enemy in attacking a town from

the other side of a stream or river. A horse brings a rectangular

shaped construction down to the water’s edge, where it is launched and

floats. Everywhere this kind of built-up dray is covered in, but in the

bows a man is seen firing his harquebus from his protected shelter,

while on either side of this craft a paddle-wheel is seen revolving

with its six blades, that are not straight, as in the modern wheels,

but curved inwards like a scythe. The illustration shows these wheels

being turned by a man standing up inside; the wheels are quite open,

without paddle-boxes. An oar projecting at the stern enables the craft

to be steered.

We see, then, that that earliest form of ship propulsion by mechanical

means, the paddle-wheel, was thoroughly grafted into man’s mind long

before he had brought about the steamboat. We cannot give here every

theory and suggestion which the seventeenth century put forward, but

we can state that during this period various patents were being taken

out for making boats to go against wind and tide, some of which were

conspicuously distinguished by their display of ingenuity to overcome

the forces of Nature. We come across all sorts of ideas for “to make

boats, shippes, and barges to go against strong wind and tide,” “to

draw or haul ships, boates, etc., up river against the stream,” “to

make boates for the carryage of burthens and passengers upon the water

as swifte in calms and more saft [_sic_] in stormes than boates full

sayled in greater wynes.” The Marquis of Worcester, in 1663, published

a little book entitled “A Century of the Names and Scantlings of

Inventions,” and he himself patented an invention for sending a boat

against the stream by using the actual force of the wind and stream

in a reverse manner. But the fact to be borne in mind for our present

purpose is that from all these ingenious propositions nothing practical

ever evolved that was found to be of any service to man, or the

transportation of his commerce. At any rate, there is no record of this.

[Illustration: HERO’S STEAM APPARATUS.

_From the Exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington._]

Now that we have traced in outline the vain attempts at physical

propulsion, let us turn to take a view of the evolution of that

other invention whose advent alone delayed the practical utility of

the paddle-wheel to boats. Who shall say how it was that steam came

first to be regarded as a means of giving power? In certain parts

of the world, where geysers and boiling springs existed, man must

naturally have been struck by the elastic force which steam possessed.

An intellect which had any leaning to the side of practical economy

must have reasoned that here was a valuable force running to waste,

which might have been employed in the service of mankind, just as the

swift-running rivers could be made to turn the water-wheels. But,

as we said just now, steam was not wanted yet, for human labour was

too cheap to bother about it; and we might remark incidentally

that it was owing to this same cheapness that the galley, or rowing

craft, was encouraged for many centuries in the Mediterranean, to the

partial exclusion and great discouragement of the big sailing ship.

Indeed, slavery, or abundance of cheap, compulsory labour, has been the

means of holding back the progress of the world. Had the big sailing

ships come at an earlier date the far-off countries would have been

discovered much sooner, and the study of the properties of steam--or

some other means as the equivalent of physical power--would have been

regarded with a greater enthusiasm. Perhaps it would be more accurate

to speak of the re-discovery of steam than of its invention: for as

early as 130 B.C. Hero, of Alexandria, had written a treatise on

“Pneumatics,” and described a light ball supported by a jet of steam

which came out of a pipe into a cup, much as one sees in the rural

fairs of to-day the same idea used when the force of water raises a

light ball for the bucolic rifleman to shoot at. Hero also referred to

the “aeolipile,” which was a hollow ball mounted on its axis between

two pivots, one of which was hollow and acted as a steam pipe. Two

nozzles formed part of the ball and were fitted at right angles to the

pivots on which the ball revolved, and owing to the reaction caused by

the escape of the steam from the jets touching the ball the latter was

made to revolve. This is well illustrated in the plate facing page 18.

From the time of Hero to the seventeenth century ensues a wide

hiatus, although in the meantime there were not wanting some who now

and again added slightly to the body of knowledge which the world

possessed on the subject. Of these we might mention such names as

Archimedes in the second century B.C., and Mathesius in the sixteenth

century A.D. But Solomon de Caus, or Carrs, in the first half of

the seventeenth century showed that the steam given off by boiling

water could be used for raising water, and Giovanni Branca, about

the same time, brought about what is really the progenitor of the

modern turbine. In this seventeenth century, also, another ingenious

Italian, Evangelista Torricelli, proved that the atmosphere in which

we live possessed weight, and to-day everyone is aware that this is

so, and that the pressure of the air is 15 lb. per square inch. The

working of the mercurial barometer is the simplest proof of this. We

shall see presently how an isolated fact unearthed in one age becomes

the foundation of the mighty success of a later inventor, and thus

the assertion which we made on an earlier page, that the credit of

inventing the steamboat belongs neither to one man nor to one age, is

not devoid of truth.

Otto von Guericke, about the middle of the same century, showed the

practical utility of producing a vacuum, of which the syringe and the

common suction pump are such excellent examples. But we are not writing

a history of inventions, nor of steam, but of the steamship, and we

shall pass on presently to see how each of these separate important

discoveries eventually blended to form the subject of our present

study. In 1663 Edward Somerset, the second Marquis of Worcester, to

whom we have already referred, also published his description of “An

Admirable and most Forcible Way to drive up Water by Fire,” and in

this year he obtained protection by Act of Parliament for his “water

commanding engine.” When he had interested himself so much in the

problem of sending a craft against a current, and simultaneously was

obtaining success in the development of steam power, it certainly seems

a little strange that the Marquis did not advance just that one step

farther which was necessary to complete the syllogism, and apply steam

for the purpose of solving the problem of going against the tide or

stream. That, however, was reserved for another inventor, and of a

different nationality.

And so we come to one whose name is deserving of especial mention in

the history of the steamship, for it was he who was the first to do

what myriads of others have since done. Many writers have asserted

wrongly that this man or the other was the first to succeed: they

have gone back as far as de Garray and as short a distance as Fulton.

Some have stated timidly and with reserve that Denis Papin is said to

have been associated with this honour. But there can be no manner of

doubt that to Papin certainly belongs the high distinction of having

caused the steamboat to be an actual fact and not merely a figment

of imagination. Papin was a French engineer, who, being a Calvinist

was, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, obliged to go into

exile. For that reason, therefore, he betook himself to the Court of

the Landgrave of Hesse, where he found refuge. In 1690 he published

a suggestion for obtaining power by means of steam. His idea was to

have a cylinder made of thin metal; water was to be placed therein

and heated. In the cylinder were to be also a piston and rod on which

was a latch, and when the water had been heated sufficiently so that

enough steam had been generated, the piston would be moved upwards

and be kept there by means of the latch. Thereupon the fire was to be

taken away, and, the steam then condensing, as soon as the latch was

loosed the piston was bound to drop to the bottom of the cylinder; and

if a rope and pulley were attached to the rod, then the descent of the

piston would be able to raise a weight at the end of the rope. This

was practically what was afterwards known as the atmospherical engine,

and Papin was of the opinion that it could be employed for draining

rivers, throwing bombs and other purposes. But it is especially notable

for our purpose that he firmly believed that it could be employed for

rowing a craft against the wind, and indeed would be preferable to

the working of galley slaves for getting quickly over the sea; for

men, he explained, occupied too much space, consumed too much food,

and his tubes and pumps would make a far less cumbersome arrangement.

It is worth while noting that the idea of these early inventors of

the steamboat was not so much to _propel_ the ship as to _row_ her

mechanically by oars or paddles. We still call them paddle-wheels

rather than propelling wheels, and the early wheels used for the

steamboat were practically paddles placed crosswise, with a blade at

the end of each spar. When fitted to an axle, of course, they moved in

a circular fashion. The French “roue à aubes,” which is the expression

that these French inventors made use of in describing their creations,

conveys precisely the same idea.

Papin, casting about for some method of bringing about the steamboat,

suggests the use of these rotatory oars, and mentions having seen them

fixed to an axle in a boat belonging to Prince Robert of Hesse. This

latter was one more of those attempts to propel a craft by physical

means, for these revolving oars were turned by horses. Papin, in

considering the matter, thought that instead of horses the wheels

might be made to go round by steam force, and in 1707 he actually

constructed the first steamboat, which he successfully navigated on

the River Fulda, in Hanover. He even did so well that he set off in

her to steam down to the sea and cross to London; but, of course, the

old, conservative prejudice of the local boatmen was bound to make its

appearance as soon as so historical a craft had shown her ability. And

so, arriving at Münden, the watermen, either through fear that this

new self-propelling craft would take away their livelihood through

inaugurating a fresh era, or, being envious of a success which no man

had ever before obtained, they attacked this steamboat, smashed it to

pieces, and Papin himself barely escaped with his life. Thus, a craft

and its engines, which to-day would be welcomed by any museum in the

world, was annihilated by the men who had the privilege of witnessing

the first steamship. Papin never got over the grief caused by so

cruel a reception of his brilliant labours, and it is deplorable to

think that such scant encouragement was possible. Besides being the

successful originator of the steamboat, he was also the inventor of the

safety valve.

The publication of Papin’s correspondence with Leibnitz puts the case

beyond all possibility of doubt, and the reader who cares to pursue the

subject will find the facts he requires in “Leibnizens und Huygens’

Briefwechsel mit Papin,” by Dr. Ernst Gerland. From this we see that

Papin had already published a treatise dealing with the application

of heat and water. In a letter, dated March 13, 1704, he wrote to

Leibnitz of his intention to build a boat which could carry about four

thousand pounds in weight, and expressed the opinion that two men would

be able to make this craft easily and quickly to ascend the current

of a river by means of a wheel which he had adjusted for utilising

the oars. That Papin made no aimless plunge, but went into the matter

scientifically, is quite clear. He studied carefully the important

fact of the resistance which is offered to a vessel passing through

the water, and thus found what he believed to be the correct lines on

which his ship was to be built. He shows that he had been hard at work

expanding his theories, and was longing to have the opportunity to put

them to a practical test. On July 7, 1707, he writes to say that he has

many enemies at Cassel (where he was then sojourning) and contemplates

going to England; and in asking permission so to do he brings forward

the plea that it is important that the new type of ship should have a

chance of proving its worth in a seaport such as London. He does not

conceal the great faith which he reposes in this novel craft: “_qui,

par le moien du feu, rendra un ou deux hommes capables de faire plus

d’effect que plusieurs centaines des rameurs_.” Then, writing again

to Leibnitz, also from Cassel, under date of September 15 of the same

year, relating the result of his experiment of this first steamboat,

he remarks: “_Je Vous diray que l’experience de mon batteau a êté

faitte et qu’elle a reussi de la manière que Je l’esperois: la force du

courant de la riviere ètoit si peu de chose en comparaison de la force

de mes rames qu’on avoit de la peine à reconnoitre qu’il allât plus

vite en dêcendant qu’en montant._”

With such statements as these before us, we can no longer be in any

doubt as to the first author of the steamboat.

Papin had discovered a method of producing a vacuum by the condensation

of steam, but Thomas Savery is one of the many instances of the case

where two men in different countries were working separately and

unknown to each other at a common problem. The latter had patented

an apparatus for raising water by the impellent force of fire so far

back as the year 1698, or nine years before Papin’s steamboat made

her appearance; but he had also independently discovered a method of

producing a vacuum by the condensation of steam just as had Papin.

And this same Savery had shown that the same problem which Papin had

succeeded in solving was also interesting himself: for he had gone so

far as to ask for a patent for an invention for moving a paddle-wheel

on either side of a ship by means of a capstan, which capstan was to be

revolved by men. Eventually it occurred to him, as it had not occurred

to the Marquis of Worcester, that steam might be employed as helpful to

ships. Nevertheless, Savery did not carry this idea to any practical

test.

We come now to Thomas Newcomen, who, notwithstanding the fact that his

home was at Dartmouth, where in the Elizabethan years so much had been

done in connection with ship-building and the sending forth of so many

naval expeditions across the seas, does not seem ever to have done

anything directly for the development of the steamboat. But indirectly

Newcomen did much, and the machine which he introduced, and with

which his name is inseparably connected, was practically an English

equivalent of Papin’s atmospheric engine, to which we have already

referred. Newcomen’s engine is important to us, inasmuch as it embodied

in a practical manner the main characteristics of what eventually

became the familiar reciprocating steam engine; and had it not been for

this, Watt might not have evolved his historic engine, and consequently

Fulton not succeeded as he did. I shall endeavour not to weary the

non-technical reader, but I must pause a moment here to give some idea

of the nature of Newcomen’s engine, because of the close relation which

it bears to the subsequent development of the steam engine as fitted

in ships and boats. It consisted, then, of a vertical cylinder, which,

unlike our modern cylinders, was open at the top. It was provided with

a piston to which were attached chains that connected with one end

of a beam, the centre of the beam being so fixed as to allow it to

oscillate. Steam was generated in a boiler, on the top of which was a

primitive cylinder, and by opening a valve, steam was admitted into the

cylinder and so pushed up the piston. When the piston had reached the

top of the cylinder the valve was closed so that the steam was shut

off. Then cold water from a cistern was allowed to enter the bottom of

the cylinder, and by this means the steam was condensed, so causing

a vacuum; by the pressure of the air--which, as already mentioned,

is 15 pounds to the square inch--the piston was forced down again.

We get here, then, the essential features of that steam engine which

is so familiar to all who travel by land or by sea. But these early

atmospheric engines were not invented for the purpose of transport:

it was for the pumping of water from mines that they were principally

contrived, and in the case of the Newcomen engine, the other end of

the beam opposite to that which was worked upwards by steam pressure

(and downwards by atmospheric pressure) was attached to pump-rods that

worked in connection with the buckets for pumping out the water. Thus,

like the movement of the see-saw, when the piston-rod was down at the

bottom of the cylinder the pump-rods were correspondingly elevated,

and vice versa. As soon as the piston descended to the base of the

cylinder through the cessation of the vacuum the spray of cold water

was stopped, and steam was again admitted into the cylinder to cause

another upward stroke. At the same time it was necessary to discharge

the hot water which had accumulated at the bottom of the cylinder, and

this was done through a pipe fitted with a valve which would not allow

of its return; any air admitted with the steam and the cooling water

was blown out through a snifting valve (so-called because of the noise

it makes) as the powerful steam came in. But, the reader may ask, what

about the open top of the cylinder? How can it be any good to use an

uncovered cylinder in conjunction with steam? The answer is, that since

the top of the piston was always kept flooded with water, all air was

excluded.

We have thus seen the steam engine in its most elementary form; how

that it employs boiling water until it becomes steam which is then

admitted to a cylinder and by its own force moves a tight-fitting disc

or piston up and down. We have also seen that by attaching a rod to

this disc, and, further, by connecting this rod to a beam, we can make

the latter go up (by means of the steam pressure) or come down (through

the pressure of the air). In order to effect the latter we have

remarked the fact that a vacuum had to be made by condensing the steam

through spraying cold water.

With this explanation in the mind of the general reader, to whom

engineering matters do not usually appeal, we may proceed with the

progress of our story, and pass on to the year 1730, when a method

differing entirely from any that we have yet mentioned was brought

forward. Strictly speaking it had nothing to do with steam, but, as we

shall see when we come to consider the subject of steam lifeboats, it

embodied an idea which could only be satisfactorily employed by the

adoption of steam. In the year mentioned there was published a little

book under the title “Specimina Ichnographica: or a Brief Narrative of

several New Inventions and Experiments: particularly, The Navigating

a Ship in a Calm, etc.,” by John Allen, M.D. The author’s idea was

to propel a ship by forcing water, or some other fluid, through the

stern by means of a proper engine. To this end he experimented with a

tin boat 11 inches long, 5 inches broad and 6 inches deep. Placing

this little ship into stagnant water, he loaded it until it sank in

the water to a depth of 3¾ inches. Into the boat he also placed a

cylindrical-shaped object 6 inches high and about 3 inches in diameter

and filled it with water. At the bottom of the cylinder was a small

pipe, a quarter of an inch square, and this led through the stern of

the craft at a distance of an inch and a half below the surface of

the water in which the boat was floating. As soon as Allen removed

his finger from the outlet of the pipe in the stern the water, of

course, ran out from the cylinder, and this action caused the boat

to travel, the speed being reckoned, in the case of the model, at

about one-fifth of a mile per hour. Although nothing actually came of

this theory at the time, it is none the less perfectly workable, with

some adaptations, and some of the steam lifeboats, in order to avoid

using propellers, which are liable to get foul of wreckage when going

alongside a ship in distress, have an elaboration of this principle.

They are propelled by engines which work a pump that drives a stream of

water through pipes placed below the water-line in much the same manner

as in Allen’s model. Allen at first contemplated working the pumps by

men, and then causing them to be driven by an atmospheric steam engine.

A similar device was employed in Virginia, U.S.A., by James Rumsey in

1787. In his boat water was sucked in at the bow and ejected at the

stern. It was found that as long as the vessel travelled at all she

went at the rate of four miles an hour, but as she only covered less

than a mile and then stopped, it cannot be said that this experiment

was conclusive. In 1788, the following year, however, another boat was

made actually to go a distance of four miles in one hour, and the

device was patented in that country during the year 1791, but Allen had

already patented his invention in England thirty years earlier.

It is when we come to Jonathan Hulls or Hull that we encounter the

first Englishman to apply steam to ships. Hulls was a native of

Gloucestershire, who, in 1736, patented a method of propelling vessels

by steam, and in the following year issued a booklet on the subject of

his invention which was subsequently reprinted. The title reads thus:

“A Description and Draught of a New-Invented Machine for Carrying

Vessels or ships out of or into any harbour, port or river, against

wind and tide or in a calm ... by Jonathan Hulls.” His idea was to

provide a steam tug so that it should be able to render beneficial

service to those sailing ships accepting it. His preference for placing

the “machine,” or engines, into a separate ship, and thus using her

as a tug-boat, instead of installing the engines on board each vessel

was because he believed the “machine” might be thought cumbersome and

take up too much room in a vessel laden with cargo. But besides the

advantage of having a tow-boat always in readiness in any port, he

suggested that an old ship which was not able to go far abroad could

well be adapted for receiving this “machine.”

“In some convenient part of the Tow-Boat,” he explains, “there is

placed a Vessel about two-thirds full of Water, with the Top close

shut. This Vessel being kept boiling, rarefies the Water into a Steam:

this Steam being convey’d thro’ a large Pipe into a Cylindrical Vessel

and there condens’d, makes a Vacuum, which causes the weight of the

Atmosphere to press on this Vessel, and so presses down a Piston that

is fitted into this Cylindrical Vessel in the same manner as in Mr.

Newcomen’s Engine, with which he raises Water by Fire.”

It will thus be seen that Hulls was an adapter of Newcomen’s

atmospherical engine to marine purposes rather than an actual inventor

of something new and unheard of. But Hulls seems to have anticipated

this criticism, for he adds: “if it should be said that this is not a

New Invention, because I make use of the same Power to drive my Machine

that others have made use of to Drive theirs for other Purposes, I

Answer, The Application of this Power is no more than the Application

of any common and known Instrument used in Mechanism for new-invented

Purposes.”

[Illustration: JONATHAN HULLS’ STEAM TUG-BOAT.

_After the Drawing attached to his Specification for the Patent._]

We have already noticed that the most which Newcomen could get out of

his engine was an up-and-down movement, which was all very well for

the purpose for which it was intended, namely, pumping up water, but

before it was applicable for propelling a ship the power had to be

adapted to give a rotary motion. The accompanying illustration, which

is taken from Hulls’ specification for his patent, and reproduced in

the booklet mentioned above, will afford some idea of his proposal. In

the lower half of the picture the “tow-boat” is seen in imagination

hauling an eighteenth century full-rigged ship, a performance which

in actual truth she never achieved. There is, in fact, some doubt as

to whether Hulls ever did put the idea to a practical test. Admiral

Preble, a distinguished American Naval officer, in his “Chronological

History of the Origin and Development of Steam Navigation,” published

in Philadelphia in 1883, a volume which contains a vast amount of

interesting detail up to that date, says that Hulls did not produce a

satisfactory experiment. Scott Russell, one of the greatest authorities

on such matters in the nineteenth century, affirmed that Hulls did

carry out his theory in definite shape, and the recent “Dictionary of

National Biography” also states that at any rate he experimented with

a vessel on the River Avon in the neighbourhood of Evesham in 1737.

One thing is certain, that whatever merits the proposition might have

had in certain respects, it was, commercially, a complete failure. On

the other hand, in enunciating a method of converting the rectilineal

motion of the piston-rod into a rotary movement Hulls undoubtedly

showed the direction in which others were to follow.

In the upper half of the illustration of Hulls’ drawing, beginning at

the bottom right-hand corner, we see the details of his “machine.” _P_

is the pipe which comes from the furnace and brings the steam to _Q_,

the cylinder in which the steam was also condensed. (This last remark

is important to bear in mind, as we shall see later to what extent this

feature was modified.) The point marked _R_ is the valve which enables

the steam to be cut off from entering the cylinder whilst that amount

of steam which has already been allowed to go in is being condensed.

The other small pipe _S_ conveys the cooling water which condenses the

steam in the cylinder, and _T_ is the cock which lets in the condensing

water after the cylinder is full of steam and the valve is shut. _U_

is the rope which is fixed to the piston that slides up and down the

cylinder, and this is the same rope that goes round the wheel _D_ in

the machine shown in the larger illustration.

In this latter picture, too, wherein the tow-boat is seen steaming

along, _A_ denotes, of course, the chimney “coming from the furnace,”

while _B_ is the tow-boat and _CC_ are the two pieces of timber which

are framed to support the machine. It will be noticed that inboard are

three wheels marked respectively _Da_, _D_, and _Db_. These are on

one axis and receive the ropes as shown. _Ha_ and _Hb_ are two wheels

also on the same axis projecting beyond the stern, and the six fans or

paddles are marked _I_, which move alternately in such a manner that

when the wheels _Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move backwards or forwards they

keep the fans or paddles in a direct motion. When these three wheels

_Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move forward then the rope _Fb_ must move the

wheel _Hb_ forward, and so cause the paddles to revolve in the same

direction. So also the rope _Fa_ connects the wheel _Ha_ to _Da_, and

when the latter and its two sister wheels revolve the wheel _Da_, then

the wheel _Ha_ draws the rope _F_ and raises the weight _G_ (barely

decipherable in the sketch to the left of _Da_), at the same time as

the wheel _Hb_ brings the paddles forward.

Furthermore, when the weight _G_ is raised while the wheels _Da_, _D_

and _Db_ are moving backwards, the rope _Fa_ gives way and the power

of the weight _G_ brings the wheel _Ha_ forward and the paddles with

it: so that the latter always keep going forward, notwithstanding that

the three wheels _Da_, _D_, and _Db_ move backwards and forwards as the

piston moves up and down in the cylinder. _LL_--scarcely recognisable

owing to the reduction of the sketch--indicate the teeth for a catch

to drop in from the axis, and are so contrived that they catch in an

alternate manner to cause the paddles to move always forward, for the

wheel _Ha_, by the power of the weight _G_, is performing its work

while the other wheel _Hb_ goes back in order to fetch another stroke.

Hulls explains that the weight _G_ must contain but half the weight of

the pillar of air pressure on the piston, because the weight _G_ is

raised at the same time as the wheel _Hb_ is doing its duty, so that in

effect there are really two machines acting alternately by the weight

of one pillar of air of such a diameter as is the diameter of the

cylinder.

Hulls expressed another crude idea for when the ship was navigating “up

in-land Rivers” and the bottom could be reached. The paddles were then

to be removed and “cranks placed at the hindmost Axis to strike a Shaft

to the bottom of the River, which will drive the Vessel forward with

greater Force.”

Daniel Bernoulli, in the year 1753, proved on paper that it was

mathematically possible to use a steam engine for propelling ships,

the medium being also wheels with vanes attached. There were not

wanting other theories and experiments also in the eighteenth century

which attained little or no success, their defects arising sometimes

through lack of sufficient power to go against a stream, or through

some erroneous principle. Of these we might mention especially the

experiment made in France by Périer, who, after devoting careful

consideration to the problem of the amount of power required, and,

after reckoning the necessary force likely to be essential, by the

number of horses which were required for drawing along a boat from the

towing-path, set to work in his own manner. It happened that in the

year 1775, to which we are now referring, there was on view in Paris

a unique engine which the now famous and ever memorable James Watt

had made. This aroused so much interest that it was decided to hire a

boat on the Seine and place therein a Watt machine of one horse-power.

Périer carried out his experiment, though owing to the force of the

current of the Seine, and the too limited horse-power which the engine

was capable of producing, the result was a failure. But one of Périer’s

associates, the Marquis de Jouffroy, had also been excited by the

advent of this English engine which was an improvement on anything

that the world had yet seen, and he resolved to try for himself to

find some means of making a ship to go against swift-running rivers

independent of horse-towage. In spite of the prejudice which was likely

to be aroused in case he should prove successful (for the owners of the

monopoly of the more primitive form of inland water transport would

not quietly consent to see their living taken away from them), he set

forth with considerable courage and an heroic determination. Since

it is doubtful whether these interesting experiments would ever have

been made had it not been for the happy coincidence of Watt’s engine

becoming known when it did, it is only right that we should first see

something of the circumstances which combined to bring the Englishman’s

work into such prominence, and then return to follow de Jouffroy in his

efforts.

To James Watt, notwithstanding that his work and ingenuity were

expended for the purpose of land engines, belongs the honour of having

removed the most harassing obstacles which were delaying the full

and entire possibility of the marine steam engine. In the chain of

discoveries which leads back into early times, without whose cumulative

effect he himself would not have done what he did, James Watt comes

immediately next to Thomas Newcomen. Despised in his weak, delicate

boyhood by his companions, his is another instance of the stone which

the builders rejected becoming the head corner-stone. Or, to put the

proposition in another way, Watt absorbed all the existing good that

there was in the latest engineering knowledge, and advanced that

several steps further until it reached the goal of practicability.

In the Newcomen engine there were several notable defects which marred

its usefulness, and it was not until these could be improved upon

that there could possibly be a future for the steamboat. This type

of “machine” was not closely enough related to the work which it was

called upon to perform. Its pre-eminent fault lay in the fact that the

condensation took place in the cylinder. This meant a considerable

waste, for after the latter had been made cool by the admission of

the cold water for condensing the steam, the cylinder had to be

heated again before every upward stroke. Heat, in fact, was literally

thrown away. It was in the year 1764 that Watt, while endeavouring

to repair a model of one of these Newcomen engines and to remedy its

poor performance, was struck by the inadequacy of its mechanism and

realised that some means should be found to ensure a greater economy

of steam. From his ingenious brain, therefore, came an improvement. He

provided for the condensation to take place not in the cylinder but in

a separate condenser, in which a jet of water was to spray, and finally

the condensed steam, the injected water, and the air which had also

found its way in, were to be drawn off by means of an air-pump. After a

delay of several years Watt was introduced to Matthew Boulton, founder

of the Soho Engineering Works, near Birmingham, and in 1769 Watt’s

invention, embodying the principle of the separate condenser, was

patented. Although he had worked out his idea as far back as the year

1765, it was not till four years after that he had the means to secure

its protection. In the specification for his patent Watt enunciated

what is appreciated as an essential doctrine to-day, that the walls of

the cylinder should be maintained at the same heat as the steam which

was about to enter into the cylinder. And he proposed to bring about

this improvement by adding an external casing to the cylinder, leaving

a space between the casing and the outside of the cylinder itself and

keeping always in this space steam so as to preserve a high temperature.

But, as was mentioned on a previous page, the steam engine at this date

was not developed with a view to transport, but for the convenience

of pumping up water from mines. As a result of Watt’s success a

considerable demand arose among Cornish mine-owners for these engines

made by Boulton and Watt, who were now working in partnership together.

For the work of pumping, these machines continued to serve admirably,

so long as a vertical up-and-down motion was required. At length

Watt turned his mind to some method of obtaining rotary movement

from his engine, but in a manner different from that in which Hulls

had attempted to attain his end. Watt had covered in the top of his

cylinder to keep out the cooling effect of the air, and his well-known

beam pumping engine was an improvement on Newcomen’s, owing to the

simple fact that in economising steam it halved the cost of fuel, and

not even to-day are these old-fashioned engines in disuse. As we shall

see later on, the beam engine is very much in evidence in some of the

river steamships of the United States, apart altogether from those beam

engines which are still worked for pumping in some parts of our own

country.

With such satisfactory results to encourage him it was inevitable

that sooner or later so brilliant a schemer would think out some

means for rotary movement, and Watt’s first intention was to cause

the beam (which was pushed up by the rod joining the piston) to drive

a fly-wheel by introducing a crank in something of the same manner

in which nowadays the crank of a bicycle drives round the cog-wheel,

the cyclist’s leg being, so to speak, the connecting rod which joins

the beam. But before Watt had a chance of getting legal protection

for this method his secret was stolen by one of his workmen, named

Pickard, who revealed it to a Bristol man of the name of Wasbrough,

who was also in search of some method of obtaining rotary motion. The

latter, therefore, having in 1780 obtained his patent by stealth, Watt

was compelled to cast about for some other means of attaining the same

end: but his fertile mind soon gave forth what was required, and in

the following year he patented what is known as the “sun-and-planet”

gear, which converted the vertical movement into a rotary. Put in a few

words, the working of the engine was as follows: At the top was the

straight beam of wood; from one side of this there hung vertically a

rod which connected with the piston in the cylinder, and was thus made

to go up and down as in the Newcomen engine. It will be remembered that

in Newcomen’s machine, at the opposite end of the beam was the other

rod for pumping the water. Now in Watt’s rotary engine the piston-rod

was moved up and down as before, but the opposite rod, at the other

end of the beam, was connected with a spur-wheel having cogs in it.

There was also a large fly-wheel which had a similar cog-wheel on its

shaft, and thus, as the piston rod pushed up its end of the beam the

opposite end of the beam was lowered and its rod also. But through

the arrangement of the two cog-wheels the connecting rod caused the

fly-wheel to revolve, and at twice the rate at which it would have gone

round had Watt’s original rod and crank idea been employed, for the

“planet” cog-wheel goes round in a circle but does not revolve on its

own axis. Some of his engines of this type were so arranged that the

speed of the fly-wheel shaft was not so much greater than in the case

where a crank was employed.

Thus, in this important adaptation of the vertical to the rotary

movement, we get the nucleus of the future steamboat engine, which

was to turn the paddle-wheels round. But Watt did not stop there. We

have seen that whilst it was the steam which pushed the piston and

its rod upwards, it was yet the pressure of the air and the weight of

the parts which caused the piston and rod to descend. Now, as we have

seen, Watt had already resolved to cover in the top of the cylinder

in order to keep out the air from cooling the latter. It was, then,

but a natural transition to utilise the steam not merely for pushing

the piston upwards, but also for sending the same down after its

ascent had been made. We thus get what is the well-known double-action

of the modern reciprocating engine, in which steam is employed from

either side of the piston alternatively, so that each stroke becomes

a working stroke and the power of the engine is doubled. It was Watt

who, as early as the year 1782, discovered the advantages which were

possessed by the expanditure of steam, but as this does not enter into

practical application just yet, we can postpone the subject to a later

chapter. We need only emphasise the fact that the fly-wheel which is

so familiar to all of us was the invention of Watt, and it is perhaps

scarcely necessary to explain that the reason for the existence of this

wheel is in order that it may, at the beginning of the stroke, when the

engine is at its strongest, store up the surplus energy and give it

back towards the end of the stroke. It thus maintains an equal motion

throughout the whole stroke given forth by the piston and its rod.

The earliest marine steam engines were very much on these lines, then,

and were really a slightly modified form of land engine. But, as we

shall soon come to refer to the more complicated type of engine, and

to make use of other terms, it may not be out of place here to deal at

once with the expression “horse-power,” which is used for the purpose

of indicating the force which an engine is capable of developing. The

origin of this expression is not without interest, and Sir Frederick

Bramwell, Bart., F.R.S., D.C.L., in his entertaining article on the

life of Watt in the “Dictionary of National Biography,” points out

that Savery, to whom we have referred, was accustomed to calculate

that where any machinery had to be driven by means of a single horse,

it would entail a stock of three of these animals being kept, so that

one should be able always to be at work. Thus supposing that the power

exerted by six horses was necessary to drive a pump, and Savery made

an engine capable of doing the same work by mechanical means, he would

call it not a six horse-power engine, but an eighteen horse-power.

Watt, however, did not credit his engine with the idle horses. He

satisfied himself that an average horse could continue working for

several hours when exerting himself so as to raise one hundredweight

to a height of 196 feet in one minute, which is about equal to lifting

22,000 pounds one foot high in the same time, as the reader will find

by simple arithmetic. But in order that no purchaser of his engines

should have any ground for complaint, Watt went one step better, and

determined that each horse-power of his engine should be capable of

raising to a height of one foot, in one minute, not 22,000 pounds, but

33,000 pounds, or half as much again. And so to-day when we speak of

an engine possessing such and such horse-power we still mean that it

is equivalent to such a power as would raise 33,000 foot-pounds per

minute. I make no apology for dwelling to such an extent on this point,

but since at least one writer on steamships has seen fit to refer to

this assessment of horse-power as being entirely arbitrary, and to

admit in the same paragraph that he was altogether ignorant as to what

power a horse was actually capable of producing, I have thought it not

inappropriate to make the point clear in the mind of the reader.

[Illustration: THE MARQUIS DE JOUFFROY’S STEAMBOAT.

_From Mr. R. Prosser’s Pen-and-Ink Sketch in the Victoria and Albert

Museum, South Kensington._]

Let us now cross the Channel again to France, and remembering that Watt

had patented his engine in 1769 and that Périer, after seeing one of

the Englishman’s engines, had installed one in his boat on the Seine

in 1775, and failed in his experiment, let us see the attempts at

steamboat navigation continued by the Marquis de Jouffroy. Here again

writers have cast some doubt on the achievements accomplished by this

distinguished Frenchman, but if we turn to an interesting little book

entitled “Une Découverte en Franche-Comté au XVIIIe siècle. Application

de la vapeur à la navigation,” by Le Mis. Sylvestre de Jouffroy

D’Abbans (Besançon, 1881), we shall find the facts verified. Briefly,

the story is that in 1776 the Marquis, undismayed by Périer’s failure,

obtained a Watt engine suitable for his boat, which was only 13 metres

long, and in width 1 metre 91 centimetres, so that she was quite a

small craft. She was propelled by steam, the revolving blades being 2

metres 60 centimetres in length and suspended on each side of the ship

near the bows. The engine was placed in the middle of the boat and

worked the revolving blades by means of chains. This experiment took

place at Baume-les-Dames, though it does not appear to have contributed

much to the ultimate success of steam navigation. But in 1781 this

same François Dorothée, Comte de Jouffroy D’Abbans, made a much bolder

essay and built a far larger steamboat, which measured 46 metres long,

5 metres wide, and had a draught of 1 metre. This steamship was

tried at Lyons on the Saône on July 15, 1783, not 1781 nor 1782, as

some writers have asserted. Her success was undoubted, for she went

against the stream from Lyons to the Isle of Barbe several times, not

in any secret manner, but in the presence of 10,000 witnesses. There

is no possible doubt, for the interesting event was duly attested and,

I believe, this declaration exists still in Paris. The illustration

here given has been photographed from the pen-and-ink sketch which was

copied in the year 1830 by Mr. R. Prosser from a French print that

was published in 1816, and was alleged to represent this steamboat to

which we are referring. But this illustration, from the fact that it

was issued so many years after the occurrence, and also that it differs

in some details as given by French writers, should be regarded with

caution. It shows a boat whose paddle-wheels are turned by a single

horizontal steam cylinder, the piston-rod engaging the shaft of the

paddle-wheels by means of a ratchet arrangement which will be easily

recognised. But it is also affirmed that Jouffroy’s vessel of 1783 had

two cylinders, that the piston of each of these was connected with

an iron flexible chain, and that these revolved the paddle-wheels.

The latter were 14 feet in diameter and the paddle-boards themselves

were 6 feet wide. The two cylinders were placed behind each other

and communicated with each other by means of a wide tube. The French

Revolution followed, in 1789, when the Marquis de Jouffroy, in order to

save his life, had to go into exile for some time, and on his return,

ere he was able to obtain a patent for his achievement, someone else

had stepped in and forestalled him.

In the meantime, in England, something more practicable than Hulls’

efforts had brought about was to be witnessed. If the reader will

examine the illustration facing this page he will see a model

of a curious double-hulled ship, which was one of eight or more

paddle-propelled vessels that were employed in the experiments carried

out by Patrick Miller, a wealthy Edinburgh banker. This particular

vessel was built at Leith in 1787, and it is amusing to see in her that

old idea of physical propulsion brought forward once more. Between

the two hulls sufficient space was left for the insertion of five

paddle-wheels, 7 feet in diameter, immediately behind each other,

which were driven by thirty men, heaving away at the capstan placed

on deck. We find pretty much the same speed to be obtained as in the

experiments which we have mentioned in connection with other craft

thus propelled, for the best effort when all these hands were working

to get her through the water appears to have been under 4½ knots per

hour. In our illustration she is seen with masts and sails which she

used when the paddle-wheels were lifted out of the water and placed on

deck. It will be noticed that she was steered by a couple of rudders;

her displacement was 255 tons. This probably represents the final

development of Miller’s design using muscular power, but an earlier

and smaller ship belonging to the previous year carried only two

paddle-wheels, 6 feet in diameter and 4 feet wide, which were placed

on each side of the middle hull, for this ship was not double- but

triple-hulled.

[Illustration: PATRICK MILLER’S DOUBLE-HULLED PADDLE-BOAT.

_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

[Illustration: SYMINGTON’S FIRST MARINE ENGINE.

_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

After spending some time in making these experiments and realising the

enormous amount of muscular power which was needed, it was suggested

to Miller by James Taylor, who was tutor to his children and a

personal friend of William Symington, of Wanlockhead, that it would

be far preferable to employ steam power to drive the paddle-wheels;

and the upshot was that Symington was commissioned to design a

suitable engine, which in October of 1788 was placed on one deck of a

double-hulled pleasure craft 25 feet long and 7 feet wide, whilst the

boiler was placed on the other deck. Thus fitted, the strange little

ship was tried on Dalswinton Loch, Dumfriesshire, when she exhibited a

speed of five knots per hour, and afterwards seven knots. At the first

attempt the boards of the paddle-wheels were broken by concussion.

Symington’s engine, however, was really of the atmospheric pattern,

with the addition of a separate condenser, and was an infringement of

Watt’s patent. After but a few trials the experiments accordingly had

to be abandoned, although Miller afterwards got into communication with

Boulton and Watt, whom he endeavoured to interest in steam navigation,

but they declined.

Miller next bought one of the boats used on the Forth and Clyde Canal,

and gave an order to the Carron Iron Works to make a steam engine in

accordance with Symington’s plan. On December 26, 1789, this vessel

towed a heavy load seven miles an hour, but was afterwards dismantled.

Symington’s first engine is shown in the illustration facing page

42, which is taken from a model in the South Kensington Museum, the

original being in the Andersonian Museum, Glasgow, and it will be

useful for reference in case our description of Newcomen’s engine was

lacking in clearness. As will be noticed, there are two cylinders, each

being open at the top, and a piston working up and down inside. It will

be seen, too, that there are two paddle-wheels; these were placed in

the ship fore and aft between the two hulls, and not on either side

as in our modern paddle-wheel steamers. There were eight floats in

each wheel, which were not feathering, but fixed. Each piston was

connected with a drum by means of chains, the latter turning the drums

alternately in opposite directions, and power was obtained both from

the upward and downward strokes. By means of a ratchet arrangement,

alternately engaging with pawls, the paddle-wheel was made always to

revolve in one direction. The engine was fitted with air pumps for the

purpose of which we have already dealt. In many ways it will be seen

that Symington’s engine and gear resembled the method proposed by Hulls.

But the same subject that was beginning to interest both Frenchmen

and Englishmen was also being studied with zest in North America. In

November of 1784, at Richmond, Virginia, James Rumsey had succeeded

in making some interesting experiments with a model boat propelled

by steam power, which boat was seen by George Washington. Rumsey

afterwards came over to England, and it is not without interest to

remark at this stage that one of the most frequent visitors to him in

his new home was that famous Robert Fulton, of whom we shall speak

presently. Mr. John H. Morrison, in his “History of American Steam

Navigation” (New York, 1903), alludes to John Fitch as the pioneer of

American steam navigation, but Fitch is known to have been very jealous

of Rumsey, and accused him of “coming pottering around” his Virginian

work-bench.

[Illustration: OUTLINE OF FITCH’S FIRST BOAT.]

Fitch was the first man in America who successfully made a paddle

steamboat to go ahead. The date of this was July 27, 1786, and the

incident happened on the River Delaware. According to Fitch’s own

description of his ship, which was written in the same year as the

vessel’s trial, she was just a small skiff with paddles placed at the

sides and revolved by cranks worked by a steam engine. This latter

machine was similar to the recent improved European steam engines--that

is to say, Watt’s--but the American engine was to some extent modified.

It consisted of a horizontal cylinder, in which the steam worked with

equal force at either end. Each vibration of the piston gave the

axis forty revolutions, and each revolution of the axis caused the

twelve oars or paddles to move _perpendicularly_, whose movements,

to quote Fitch’s own words, “are represented by the stroke of the

paddle of the canoe. As six of the paddles [_i.e._, three on each

side], are raised from the water six more are entered.” In 1788, Fitch

had another boat ready which was 60 feet long and 8 feet wide, her

paddles being placed at the stern and driven by an engine which had a

12-inch cylinder. It was this vessel which steamed from Philadelphia

to Burlington, a distance of twenty miles. He also had another craft

built in the following year which was first tried in December of 1789

at Philadelphia. This was something more than a mere experiment, for

the boat showed a speed of eight miles an hour; she afterwards ran

regularly on the Delaware, and during the summer of 1790 covered an

aggregate of two or three thousand miles. It is not to be wondered

that Fitch was mightily disappointed at the lack of faith which his

shareholders exhibited by retiring one by one, and finally he ended

his days by suicide. It would seem, indeed, that in giving praise to

Fulton, John Fitch has not always been credited with his full deserts.

Of his predecessors it may be said generally that they had succeeded

not so much as a whole, but in regard to overcoming certain obstacles,

and continuous actions were being fought out in the American Courts

for some years which engaged Fulton until the time of his death. It

was not until the Supreme Court of the United States in 1824 decided

adversely to Fulton’s associates on the question of exclusive right to

steamboat navigation on the Hudson that this new industry received its

impetus and a large number of steamships began to be built. But we are

anticipating and must return to the thread of our story.

[Illustration: THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS.”

_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

[Illustration: THE “CLERMONT” IN 1807.

_From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

In Scotland, which has been not inaccurately called the cradle of the

world’s steamship enterprise, another interesting experiment was to be

witnessed early in 1802, where a vessel named the _Charlotte Dundas_

(of which an interesting model, now in the South Kensington Museum,

is here illustrated) was to cause some pleasant surprise. This vessel

was 56 feet long and 18 feet wide; she had a depth of 8 feet. As will

be seen from the illustration, she was fitted with a paddle-wheel

placed inside the hull, but at the stern. Her horizontal engine was

also by Symington, and since most of the mechanism was placed on

deck, we are able to see from the model a good deal of its working.

It will be noticed that the cylinder is placed abaft of the mast and

that the piston-rod moved on guides which can be just discerned in the

photograph. Attached to this is the connecting rod, which terminates

at the crank on the paddle shaft, an entirely different means of

obtaining rotary motion as compared with the “sun-and-planet” method

which we saw adopted by Watt. As the steam entered the cylinder from

the boiler it pushed the piston and its rod horizontally; and the

connecting rod, being attached thereto at one end, and to the crank

at the other, the paddle-wheel was made to revolve. Below the deck

were the boiler, the condenser and the air-pump. The two rudders were

controlled by means of the capstan-like wheel seen in the bows. As

here seen the paddle-wheel is open in order to show its character,

but as considerable spray would be cast up on deck when the wheel was

revolving it was covered over by the semi-circular box, which is seen

on the ground at the left of the picture. This engine which Symington

supplied to the _Charlotte Dundas_ was of a kind different from that

which he had previously fitted to Miller’s double-hulled ship. For by

his own patent Symington superseded the old beam engine, and obtained

his rotary motion by coupling the piston-rod, by means of a connecting

rod, with the crank.

This little craft is deserving of more than momentary interest, for

she marked an important advance and considerably moulded the ideas

of subsequent steamship inventors or adapters. Hers was the first

horizontal direct-acting engine which was ever made, at any rate in

this country, and in her simple mechanism may be easily recognised the

nucleus of the engines in the modern paddle-wheel excursion steamer.

She was built for Lord Dundas in 1801 as a steam tug-boat to ply on

the Forth and Clyde Canal. The year after she was completed she towed

for nearly twenty miles at a rate of 3¼ miles per hour two 70-ton

vessels loaded, but just as bad luck had followed the efforts of Papin,

de Jouffroy and other steamboat pioneers, so it was to be with the

_Charlotte Dundas_. Although she had so splendidly demonstrated her

usefulness, yet the wash from her paddle-wheel was such that the owners

of the canal feared for the serious amount of injury which might be

done to the canal-banks, and so the _Charlotte Dundas_ was laid up in

a creek of the canal, and rotted out her years until one day she was

removed and buried in Grangemouth Harbour. But we may look upon her

with great respect as being one of the parents of those two notable

steamboats which were to follow and set the seal of success finally on

the steamship proposition. I refer, of course, to the _Clermont_ and

the _Comet_.

And so we come to the name of Robert Fulton, whose praises have

recently been sung so loudly by his appreciative fellow-countrymen.

Born in the year 1765 at Little Britain, Pennsylvania, of Irish

descent, he left America in 1786 and came to England, whence in 1797[A]

he crossed over to France, where he devoted himself assiduously to the

production of various inventions, which included, amongst others, a

submarine craft called a “plunging boat.” Fulton’s “good fairy” was

a fellow-countryman whom duties of office had also sent to settle in

Paris. This Robert R. Livingston was born in New York City in the

year 1746, and died in 1813. A distinguished American politician and

statesman, he was appointed in 1801 as the United States Minister to

France. It happened that in his private capacity Chancellor Livingston

was keenly interested in mechanical matters, and the experiments

of Fitch and Rumsey had attracted his attention to the question of

steamboats. By an Act passed in 1798, Livingston had been granted the

exclusive right of navigating all kinds of boats that were propelled

by the force of fire or steam on all waters within the territory or

jurisdiction of the State of New York, for a term of twenty years,

on condition that within the ensuing twelve months he should produce

such a boat as would go at a pace of not less than four miles per

hour. Thereupon Livingston immediately had a 30-tonner built, but

her performance was disappointing, for she failed to come up to the

four-mile standard. It was soon after this that he crossed to France

and there came into contact with young Fulton. To quote Livingston’s

own words, which he used in describing the account of their business

partnership, “they formed that friendship and connexion with each

other, to which a similarity of pursuits generally gives birth.”

[A] Mr. G. Raymond Fulton, the inventor’s great grandson,

however, gives the date as 1796.

The American Minister pointed out to Fulton the importance which

steamboats might one day occupy, informed him of what had so far been

accomplished in America, and advised him to turn his mind to the

subject. As a result a legal form of agreement was drawn up between

them, signed on October 10, 1802, and forthwith they embarked on their

enterprise, Fulton being allowed a fairly free hand in the preliminary

experiments which “would enable them to determine how far, in spite of

former failures, the object was attainable.” Fulton had a considerable

knowledge of mechanics, both theoretical and practical, and after

trying various experiments on models of his own invention he believed

that he had evolved the right principles on which the steamboat should

be built. Some of these experiments were carried on in the house of

another fellow-countryman, Joel Barlow, then sojourning in Paris.

A model 4 feet long and 1 foot wide was used to ascertain the best

method to be employed: whether by paddles, sculls, endless chains

or water-wheels, the power being obtained temporarily by means of

clockwork. Finally, he decided on having one wheel at either side,

but in order to convince themselves that what was true of a small

model might also be demonstrated in bigger craft, the two partners

decided to build a boat 70 French feet long, 8 French feet wide, and

3 French feet deep. Fulton states that they hired from M. Périer a

steam engine “of about 8 horses power.” There were two brothers of

this name, and one of them had already made an essay in the sphere

of steam navigation, as we have noted. Whether or not this borrowed

engine was of the Watt type I am not able to say, but since Périer had

already possessed one, and Fulton during the same summer in which his

experiment on the Seine took place got into communication with Messrs.

Boulton and Watt with a view of purchasing one of their engines, it

is by no means improbable that this was of English make. On either

side of the craft was placed a paddle-or, as Fulton described it, a

“water-” wheel, having a diameter of about 12 feet. In an interesting

article in _The Century Magazine_ for September and October of 1909,

Mrs. Sutcliffe, a great-granddaughter of Fulton, gathered together a

number of facts which have hitherto remained hidden away from the eyes

of the public, and published for the first time a complete description

of her ancestor’s trial boat, taken from a document prepared by Fulton

eight years after the vessel was ready for her experiment. In this

statement Fulton strangely enough remarks that the power from the

engine was communicated to the water-wheels “by mechanical combinations

which I do not recollect,” but the drawing shown on page 51 will clear

up this point. The arrangement of the boiler, the cylinder, and the

working parts sufficiently shows those “mechanical combinations” which

had slipped from Fulton’s memory during the following eventful and

industrious years. This boat which was used on the Seine was 70 feet

long, 8 feet wide, and drew very little water.

[Illustration: FULTON’S DESIGN FOR A STEAMBOAT SUBMITTED TO THE

COMMISSION APPOINTED BY NAPOLEON IN 1803.

_From the Original Drawing in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers,

Paris._]

In January of 1803 Fulton, who had already been attracting some

attention in his adopted country by his submarine experiments, decided

to offer his steamboat to the French Government and a Commission was

appointed to inquire into its merits. The illustration on this page is

taken from Fulton’s own drawing of his projected steamboat submitted

to this Commission appointed by Napoleon, the original of which is now

preserved in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, in Paris. In his

letter to the Commissioners, Fulton observes that his original object

in making this experiment was rather with a view to the employment of

steam tow-boats for use upon the rivers of America, “where there are

no roads suitable for hauling,” and “the cost of navigation by the aid

of steam would be put in comparison with the labour of men and not

with that of horses as in France.” In fact, he suggests that if his

experiment should prove successful, it would be infinitely less useful

to France than to his native country, for he doubts very much if a

steamboat, however perfect it might be, would be able to gain anything

over horses for merchandise, “but for passengers it is possible to

gain something because of the speed.” Ultimately Napoleon’s advisers

counselled against the adoption of Fulton’s proposition.

However, by the spring of 1803, the boat was completed and lying on the

Seine in readiness for her trial trip. Fulton spent a restless night,

and we can well picture the feelings of the man who had wrestled with

calculations, worked out theories, made little models, watched their

behaviour in still water, spent hours and days discussing the subject

with his friend Livingston, thought out every conceivable aspect,

allowed for obstacles, and now, at length, after watching the child

of his brain gradually take a concrete shape, waiting sleeplessly for

the morrow in which he was to have the chance of living the great day

of his life. Those of us who remember ever to have looked forward with

zest and suppressed excitement to some new event in our lives likely to

alter the trend of future years can well sympathise with the emotions

of this clever young inventor, when, whilst eating his breakfast, a

messenger burst in and dramatically exclaimed to his horror: “Please,

sir, the boat has broken in two and gone to the bottom!”

It was suggested in our introduction that it is usually the case that

an invention is no sooner born than it is compelled, while yet frail

and infantile, to fight for its very existence: and it is curious that

this should seem to be demanded not merely as against the opposition

of human obstinacy but against sheer bad luck, which comes as a test

of a man’s sincerity and of his faith in his own ideas. In the end,

historically, this calamity had no ill-effects, for it only spurred the

enthusiast to greater and more perfect accomplishment. But physically

it cut short Fulton’s life of usefulness. As soon as the heart-breaking

news was delivered to him, he rushed off to the Seine and found that

the intelligence was all too true. For the next twenty-four hours he

laboured assiduously, not stopping for food or rest, ignoring the

chilly waters of the river, until his precious craft was raised from

its watery bed. Fulton never recovered entirely from these physical

trials following so suddenly on his years of mental work and worry, and

his lungs were permanently affected for the rest of his life. But what

he did recover--and that no doubt was to him more precious than his

very life--were the machinery and main fragments of the hull. The gale

of the night before had done more than wreck his ship: it had taught

him to allow for one difficulty which he had overlooked, and it was

well that it had happened thus instead of later on, when loss of life

might have prejudiced the coming of the steamboat even longer still.

For Fulton soon realised that he had made his hull insufficiently

strong for the weight of the machinery. This is the truth of the

incident, and not that jealous enemies had maliciously sunk her, nor

that Fulton had himself sent her to the bottom through the lack of

appreciation which Napoleon’s Commissioners were exhibiting. This is

confirmed by an eyewitness of the event, named Edward Church. But

Fulton soon set to work to get his ship built more strongly, and by

July of the same year she was ready for her trials. A contemporary

account, in describing the strange sight which was witnessed on August

9, 1803, says that at six o’clock in the evening, “aided by only

three persons,” the boat was set in motion, “with two other boats

attached behind it, and for an hour and a half he [Fulton] produced

the curious spectacle of a boat moved by wheels, like a chariot, these

wheels being provided with paddles or flat plates, and being moved

by a fire-engine.” The same account prophesies great things for the

invention and that it will confer great benefits on French internal

navigation: for, by this means, whereas it then required four months

for barges to be towed from Nantes to Paris, the new method would

cause them to do the distance in ten or fifteen days. Very quaintly

this account speaks of the existence behind the paddle-wheels of “a

kind of large stove with a pipe, as if there were some kind of a small

fire-engine intended to operate the wheels of the boat!”

These experiments were made in the vicinity of the Chaillot Quay in

the presence of many people, including Périer and some of the leading

Parisian _savants_, and the boat was found to steam at a rate of 3¼

miles per hour. It is therefore both inaccurate and unjust to dismiss,

as at least one writer has done, Fulton’s achievements on the Seine in

one line by referring to them as unsuccessful and merely experimental.

True, this vessel did not show that amount of speed which Fulton had

hoped to get out of her, but she was very far from being a failure.

Fulton had left nothing to chance, and the misfortune of the weakness

of his first hull and the error in the speed actually obtained were the

results rather of inexperience than of carelessness. It is difficult

to-day, when we are in possession of so much valuable knowledge

connected with naval architecture and marine propulsion, to realise

that these early experimenters were feeling in the dark for an object

they had never seen. At one time Fulton had estimated that a steamboat

could be driven at a rate of sixteen to twenty-four miles an hour, but

he found that so much power was lost in getting a purchase on the water

that he altered his opinion and put forward the speed of five or six

miles as the utmost limit which could be obtained by any boat using the

best engines then in existence.

Fulton had advanced with almost meticulous caution. He had first

collected together all the details that could be got about contemporary

experiments; he had sifted the theories of others and made use of the

residue. He had often talked with Rumsey while in England, and he had

even accompanied Henry Bell to call on Symington, seen a trial trip

of the _Charlotte Dundas_, and incidentally obtained some valuable

information. Finally, after seeing what was good and what was bad

he had proceeded independently, and, after a stroke of ill-luck,

succeeded. He had knowledge of what others had attempted in America,

in England and in France, and emphatically he was not the kind of

man to deny his indebtedness to what others had done before him. The

ship which he evolved was certainly in shape, proportions and general

appearance not unlike the model of that earlier craft whose exploits

on the Saône we considered on another page. The Marquis de Jouffroy

had sent this model to Paris as far back as 1783, the year of his

successful enterprise at Lyons, or twenty years before Fulton made his

achievement, and it is most improbable that Fulton, who endeavoured to

see everything which bore on his pet subject, living several years in

Paris, should not have carefully studied this. Furthermore, Fulton’s

boat was constructed in the workshop and under the very eyes of that

Périer who had been associated with the Marquis in navigating the Seine

by steamboat, and from this same Périer, as already stated, the engine

was borrowed for Fulton’s boat. Fulton also personally considered

the patent which Desblanc, forestalling Jouffroy, had obtained, and

the American had described his impressions of Desblanc’s idea in no

praiseworthy terms, for he saw that at least two-thirds of the latter’s

steam power would be lost. Fulton worked his plans out to the minutest

details: Desblanc had left his theory too scantily clothed with

facts. He had not found the proportion which his paddles should bear

to the bow of his boat, nor the velocity at which they should run in

proportion to the velocity at which the boat was intended to go. Very

scathing is the American’s denunciation of this haphazard method. “For

this invention to be rendered useful,” wrote Fulton, “does not consist

in putting oars, paddles, wheels or resisting chains in motion by a

steam engine--but it consists in showing in a clear and distinct manner

that it is desired to drive a boat precisely any given number of miles

an hour--what must be the size of the cylinder and velocity of the

piston? All these things being governed by the laws of Nature, the real

Invention is to find them.”

Fulton believed that previous failures were due not so much to a

defective steam engine, as to the wrong methods employed in applying

the steam power thus generated. He criticised Rumsey’s method of

propelling a ship by forcing water through the stern (in a manner

similar to that which John Allen and Fitch had suggested) as the worst

method of all. Ten years before his Seine success Fulton had been in

communication with the Earl of Stanhope, who in 1790 had patented a

means of propelling a ship in a strange way. This consisted in using a

gigantic arrangement resembling a duck’s foot, placed on either side.

These feet opened and shut like umbrellas and could send the ship along

at three miles an hour. Fulton, then staying at Torquay, wrote to Lord

Stanhope and proposed the use of paddle-wheels, but the noble earl

would not listen to the suggestion. A similar freak idea was also put

into practice in North America in 1792 by one Elijah Ormsbee.

[Illustration: FULTON’S FIRST PLANS FOR STEAM NAVIGATION

_From the Drawings in possession of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Stanhope._]

The illustrations on this page represent Fulton’s first plans for

steam navigation. They were sent by him to Lord Stanhope in the year

1793 and are here reproduced from a copy, by kind permission of the

present earl. In his letter descriptive of these ideas Fulton shows

the upper part of this illustration, marked No. 1, to be an attempt

to imitate the spring in the tail of a salmon. Amidships will be

noticed an object resembling a bow such as one usually associates

with arrows. This bow was to be wound up by the steam engine, and the

collected force attached to the end of the paddle, shown in the stern

of the boat, would urge the ship ahead. But the sketch of a ship in

the lower part of the picture marked No. 2 represents the model at

which he was then working. It will be noticed that she has something

of the characteristic stern which was so marked a feature of the

sailing ships of this period and had been inherited from the Dutch of

the seventeenth century, and is still traceable in the design of the

modern royal steam yachts in England, as will be seen by a comparison

with the illustration of the _Alexandra_. In referring to this No. 2,

Fulton points out that he had found that three or six paddles answered

better than any other number, since they do not counteract each other.

By being hung a little above the water there is allowed a short space

from the delivery of one paddle to the entrance of the other, and,

also, the paddle enters the water more perpendicularly; the dotted

lines show its situation when it enters and when it is covered. In the

smaller illustration, No. 3, he emphasises the importance of arranging

the paddle-blades still further. Thus the paddles _A_, _B_, _C_, and

_D_ strike the water almost flat and rise in the same situation, whilst

that paddle marked _E_ is the only one that pulls, the others acting

against it. Whilst _E_ is sending the ship ahead, “_B.A._ is pressing

her into the water and _C.D._ is pulling her out, but remove all

the paddles except _E_ and she moves on in a direct line.” Finally,

he concludes his letter with an explanation that the perpendicular

triangular paddles are supposed to be placed in a cast-iron wheel

“which should ever hang above the water” and would answer as a “fly and

brace to the perpendicular oars”; and with regard to the design of the

steamship, he says: “I have been of opinion that they should be long,

narrow and flat at bottom, with a broad keel as a flat Vessel will not

occupy so much space in the water: it consequently has not so much

resistance.”

Desblanc had, like the Earl of Stanhope and Elijah Ormsbee,

experimented with the duck’s foot idea, but had also met with failure.

Fulton carefully went into the consideration of its merits before

trying his Seine boat, but deemed it to be unsuitable. Whatever

advantages this method might have possessed, the action of the duck’s

foot caused far too great resistance, since after making the propelling

stroke it returned through the water before being ready for the

following stroke; whereas in the case of the revolving paddles or oars

on wheels their return is made through air. Thus the resistance is

considerably less.

But all this time Fulton had his native country in mind and not so

much the advantages that might accrue to the land in which he had made

his experiments. It was the Hudson, not the Seine, which he longed to

conquer by steam, and the title-page of his note-book, dated more than

a year prior to the events on the Seine, in which he drew a prophetical

sketch of a steamboat travelling from New York to Albany in twelve

hours, eminently confirms this. Therefore, we find him immediately

writing to Messrs. Boulton and Watt from Paris, asking them to make for

him “a cylinder of 24 horse-power double effect, the piston making

a four-foot stroke”; also he wants them to manufacture a piston and

piston-rod, valves, condenser, air-pump, and so on. It is perfectly

clear that Fulton had but limited knowledge of the amount of power

which an engine could develop. His ability consisted rather in knowing

how best to apply that power. Thus he asks in his letter: “What must

be the size of the boiler for such an engine? How much space for water

and how much for the steam? How many pounds of coal will such an

engine require per hour?” and so on. At first Boulton and Watt had to

decline the order, since they were unable to obtain permission to get

the engine into America. Finally, after paying £548 in purchase, it

was not until March of 1805, or most of two years after receiving the

order, that Boulton and Watt received permission to ship the engine

to America. Fulton had crossed from France to England in 1803, and

in the autumn of 1806 left by a Falmouth packet for his native land.

Writing to-day, when the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ are still making

their wonderful records for fast voyages between the two countries,

little more than a hundred years after Fulton had given the inspiration

to marine engineering, it is no small contrast that the ship which

carried him from England to America took no less than two months on

the way. But the same winter he set to work immediately after his

return to build that ever-famous _Clermont_, so called as a courteous

acknowledgment of the hospitality he had enjoyed at Livingston’s

country place of that name on the banks of the Hudson. From an

agreement which had already been made in Paris, dated October 10, 1802,

between Livingston and himself, Fulton had jointly contracted to make

an attempt to build such a steamboat as would be able to navigate the

Hudson between New York and Albany. She was to be of a length not

exceeding 120 feet, width 8 feet, and was not to draw more than 15

inches of water. “Such a boat shall be calculated on the experiments

already made, with a view to run 8 miles an hour in stagnate water

and carry at least 60 passengers allowing 200 pounds weight to each

passenger.” After the engine had at last arrived in New York it

remained for six months at the New York Custom House, waiting, it is

said, until Fulton was able to raise enough money to pay the duties.

But as Mrs. Sutcliffe has pointed out in her article on Fulton to

which reference has already been made, and to which also I am indebted

for many interesting facts then for the first time made public, it is

possible that the delay arose because the boat was not yet ready to

receive her machinery. Fulton had rich friends who were interested in

his work, so that I think the latter is the more probable reason for

the delay.

And here, as we step from out of the realm of theories and suggestions

into a realm of almost uninterrupted success, we may bring this chapter

to a close. But before doing so let us not lose sight of that important

fact on which I have already insisted--viz. that when steamboat success

did eventually come, it was the happy fortune of no single individual,

but an achievement in which many men, long since dead and gone, took

part. It was the work of centuries and not of a year or two to bring

about this marvellous means of transport. Hero, the ancient Romans,

Blasco de Garray, Besson, Solomon de Caus, the Marquis of Worcester,

Papin, Savery, Hulls, Watt, Périer, de Jouffroy, Miller, Symington,

Taylor, Fitch, Stanhope, Desblanc, Livingston, Rumsey and others had

all assisted in bringing this about, sometimes by their success,

sometimes also by their failures. When next we step aboard even the

most ill-found excursion steamer or the grimiest and most antiquated

tug-boat, still more when we lie peacefully in the safety and luxury of

a great modern liner, let us not forget that none of this would have

been possible but for centuries of work and discovery, years of patient

experiment and costly efforts, much disappointment, and considerable

anxiety and abuse.