THE HISTORY OF SHIPS AND SHIPPING INTERESTS (_continued_).
Early Paddle-boats—Worked by Animal Power—Blasco de Garay’s
Experiment—Solomon de Caus—David Ramsey’s Engines—The Marquis of
Worcester—A Horse-boat—Boats worked by Water—By Springs—By
Gunpowder—Patrick Miller’s Triple Vessel—Double Vessels worked by
Capstans—The First Practical Steam-boat—Symington’s Engines—The
Second Steamer—The _Charlotte Dundas_—American Enterprise—James
Rumsey’s Oar-boats worked by Steam—Poor Fitch—Before his
Age—Robert Fulton—His Torpedo Experiments—Wonderful Submarine
Boat—Experiments at Brest and Deal—His first Steam-boat—Breaks in
Pieces—Trip of the _Clermont_, the first American
Steamer—Opposition to his Vessels—A Pendulum-boat—The first Steam
War-ship—Henry Bell’s _Comet_.
The employment of animal power in the propulsion of vessels is of very
ancient date, and we shall see that steam-power was proposed for the same
purpose as soon as the steam-engine had been utilised for pumping mines,
although it was some time before it could be applied practically and
profitably. We are told that “in some very ancient manuscripts extant in
the King of France’s library, it is said that the boats by which the Roman
army under Claudius Caudex was transported into Sicily, were propelled by
wheels moved by oxen. And in many old military treatises the substitution
of wheels for oars is mentioned.”(20) “Although an old work on China,”
says another authority,(21) “contains a sketch of a vessel moved by four
paddle-wheels, and used perhaps in the seventh century, the earliest
distinct notice of this means of propulsion appears to be by Robertus
Vulturius, in A.D. 1472, who gives several wood-cuts representing
paddle-wheels.”
The first use of steam in connection with the propulsion of vessels is
perhaps that said to have been made by Blasco de Garay, in 1543. He had
proposed to the Emperor Charles V. the construction of an engine capable
of moving large vessels in a calm, and without the use of sails or oars.
“In spite of the opposition this project encountered, the emperor
consented to witness the experiment, which was accordingly made in the
_Trinity_, a vessel of 200 tons, laden with corn, in the port of
Barcelona, on the 17th June, 1543. Garay, however, would not uncover his
machinery, or exhibit it publicly, but it was evident that it consisted of
a cauldron of boiling water (_una gran caldera de aqua hirviendo_), and of
two wheels set in motion by that means, and applied externally on each
side (_banda_) of the vessel.
“The persons commissioned by the emperor to report on the invention seem
to have approved it, commending especially the readiness with which the
vessel tacked. The Treasurer Ravago, however, observed that a ship with
the proposed machinery could not go faster than two leagues in three
hours; that the apparatus was complex and expensive; and that there was
danger of the boiler bursting. The other commissioners maintained that
such a vessel might go at the rate of a league an hour, and would tack in
half the time required by an ordinary ship. When the exhibition was over,
Garay removed the apparatus from the _Trinity_, depositing the woodwork in
the arsenal at Barcelona, but retaining himself the rest of the machinery.
Notwithstanding, however, the objections urged by Ravago, the emperor was
inclined to favour his project, but his attention at the time was
engrossed by other matters. Garay was, however, promoted, and received a
sum of money, besides the expenses of the experiment made at Barcelona.”
The above account is from Spanish sources, supposed to be authentic, till
Mr. MacGregor, in 1857, made a journey into Spain for the express purpose
of verifying them. The conclusions to which he came were that the
paddle-wheels were turned by men.
About this epoch, however, frequent mention is made of means of propulsion
other than by sails or oars, and it is evident that men of learning in
various places were nearly simultaneously musing and thinking over the
matter. J. C. Scaliger (who died 1558) published at Frankfort a short
account of a vessel to be propelled without oars. Another inventor(22) a
few years later, says quaintly, “And furthermore you may make a boat to
goe without oares or sayle, by the placing of certain wheeles 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 goe.” Bessoni, in 1582, describes a vessel
consisting of two hulls decked above,—like the _Castalia_ or
_Calais-Douvres_—and a wheel worked by ropes and a windlass in the
interval between them. Ramelli, in 1588, designed a paddle-wheel
flat-bottomed boat, worked by men turning a winch-handle. Indeed, Roger
Bacon had, three centuries and a half before, spoken of a “vessel which,
being almost wholly submerged, would run through the water against waves
and winds with a speed greater than that attained by the fastest London
pinnaces.”
The power of steam was rapidly becoming understood. In 1601, Baptista
Porta (the inventor of the magic-lantern) made many experiments on steam
and its condensation, and its relative bulk to water. Rivault shortly
after describes the power of steam in bursting a strong bomb-shell, partly
filled by water, tightly plugged, and then heated. In 1615, we find
Solomon de Caus proving that “water will mount by the help of fire higher
than its level;” and Branca, in 1629, applying steam to the vanes of a
wheel to make it revolve, as in some toys to-day. In our own country we
find David Ramsey, one of the Pages of the King’s Bedchamber, obtaining,
with a partner, a patent in 1618, “To exercise and put in use _divers newe
apt formes or kinds of Engines_, and other pfitable Invenc’ons, as well to
plough grounds without horse or oxen, and to make fertile as well as
barren peats, salts and sea lands, as inland and upland grounds within the
Realmes of England, &c. As, also, to raise waters, _and to make boats for
carriages runnin upon the water as swift in calmes, and more safe in
storms, than boats fall sayled in great windes_.” Twelve years later we
find Ramsey applying alone for a patent of most comprehensive character.
It was designed “_To raise water from lowe pitts by fire_ [the
steam-engine]. To make any sort of Milles to go on standing Waters by
continual moc’on without the helpe of Windes, Weight, or Horse. To make
all sortes of Tapestry without any weaving loome or way even yet in use in
this kingdom. _To make Boats, Ships, and Barges to goe against the Wind
and Tyde, &c._” And so on through the century. Woodcroft, in his standard
work,(23) enumerates over a dozen more patents having for their object the
propulsion of boats and vessels, which were granted before 1700, including
one to the celebrated Marquis of Worcester, which, however, did not
contemplate the use of steam. In the “Century of Invencions” Lord
Worcester says: “By it, I can make a vessel, of as great burden as the
river can bear, to go against stream, _which the more rapid it is, the
faster it shall advance_, and the moveable part that works it, may be by
one man still guided to take advantage of the stream, and yet to steer the
boat to any point; and this engine is applicable to any vessel or boat
whatsoever, without being, therefore, made on purpose, and worketh these
effects:—_it roweth, it draweth, it driveth_, (if needs be) to pass London
Bridge against the stream at low water; and a _boat laying at anchor, the
engine may be used for loading or unloading_.” Woodcroft explains this as
follows: “It is obvious that the Marquis did not, by this, mean a
steam-propelled paddle-wheel boat, the action of which would not have been
such as he describes; but a rope fastened at one end up the stream, and at
the other to the axis of water-wheels laying across the boat, and dipping
into the water, so as to be turned by the wheels, would fulfil the
conditions proposed of advancing the boat faster, the more rapid the
stream; and when at anchor such wheels might have been applied to the
other purposes.” Floating mills, worked by large water-wheels, may be seen
on the Rhine to-day.
Papin, the French philosopher, while in England, witnessed an experiment
on the Thames, in which a boat, fitted with revolving oars or paddles, was
worked from a kind of treadmill turned round by horses. “The velocity with
which this horse-boat was impelled was so great, that it left the king’s
barge, manned with sixteen rowers, far astern in the race of trial.” In
1682, a horse tow vessel was used at Chatham. It was “constructed with a
wheel on each side of the vessel, connected by an axle going across the
boat, and the paddles were made to revolve by horses moving a wheel turned
by a trundle fixed on the axle. It drew but four and a half feet of water,
and towed the greatest ships by the help of four, six, or eight horses.”
In 1729, Dr. John Allen obtained a patent for his new invention, one which
has been revived with some success in later days. It was to propel a
vessel by forcing water through the stern, at a convenient distance under
the surface of the water, into the sea, by suitable engines on board.
“Amongst,” says the doctor, “the several and various engines I have
invented for this purpose, is one of a very extraordinary nature, whose
operation is owing to the explosion of _gunpowder_, I having found out a
method of firing gunpowder in vacuo, or in a confined space, whereby I can
apply the whole force of it, which is inconceivably great, so as to
communicate motion to a great variety of engines, which may also be
applied in working mines and other purposes.” And again, in 1760, a Swiss
clergyman published a pamphlet in London, in which oars worked with
springs were to be used, and the expansive power of gunpowder was to be
used to bend the springs. He states, candidly enough, that since he
arrived in England he had learned that thirty years before a Scotchman had
proposed to make a ship proceed by means of gunpowder, but that thirty
barrels had scarcely forwarded it ten miles. We may smile at these
attempted uses of gunpowder, but they were doubtless suggested by the
scientific studies of the day, which were particularly directed to the
expansive power of vaporised water. In our own day, steam has been
substituted for powder in discharging a cannon. Perkins’ “steam-gun” was
long one of the curiosities of the Polytechnic Institution.
On the 5th of January, 1769, James Watt obtained a patent for a series of
improvements in the steam-engine, one of which was most important in its
bearing on naval engines. It was that which provided for steam acting
_above_ the piston as well as below it, in, of course, the same cylinder.
Here was a grand move at once. Previously every engine for pumping, the
only practical purpose to which steam was yet put, was worked by a beam
engine and pair of cylinders. In 1779, Matthew Wasborough, an engineer of
Bristol, obtained a patent, as others, indeed, had before him, for
converting a rectilinear into a continuous circular motion. It failed, as
the others had done, because they required ratchet wheels, pulleys, &c.
The following year James Pickard invented the present connecting-rod and
crank, with fly-wheel, and removed the great obstacle to propelling
vessels by steam. The following year, again, Watt invented what is now
known as the “sun and planet motion,” another step in the same direction.
We now approach the name of one of those who are most intimately connected
with the history of steam navigation, Patrick Miller of Dalswinton. In
1787 he published a pamphlet(24) describing a _triple vessel_, propelled
by paddle-wheels, and worked by cranks. In it he very distinctly says: “I
have also reason to believe that the power of the _steam-engine_ may be
applied to work the _wheels_, so as to give them a quicker motion, and
consequently to increase that of the ship. In the course of this summer I
intend to make the experiment,” &c. A statement was presented to the Royal
Society, Dec. 20th, 1787, regarding experiments made by Mr. Miller in the
Firth of Forth, the previous summer, in a _double_ vessel, sixty feet long
and fourteen and a half feet broad, put in motion by a water-wheel,
wrought by a capstan of five bars. On the lower part of the capstan a
wheel was fixed, with teeth pointing upwards, to work in a trundle fixed
on the axis of the water-wheel. She was worked at from three and a half to
five miles an hour, with four or five men at the capstan. Two men
propelled her at the rate of two and a half miles.
The vessel was three-masted, and sailed well with a smart breeze, when the
wheel was invariably raised above the surface of the water. “After making
sundry tacks in the Firth,” says the narrator, “with all the sails set,
the wind fell to a gentle breeze, when all the sails were taken in, and
the following experiments made:—
“The vessel being put in motion by the water-wheel, wrought by five men at
the capstern (_sic_) was steered so as to keep the wind right ahead, and
her going was found by the log to be three and a half miles in the hour.
“After this the wind was brought on the beam (that situation being
considered as the nearest to trying the effect of the wheel in a calm),
when five men at the capstern made the vessel to go at the rate of four
miles an hour.
“With the wind brought on the quarter, five men caused her to go at the
rate of four and a half miles an hour,” &c.
And so it goes on. Miller made some very distinct statements as to the
distance the different vessels should be placed from each other, and
further states that the objection that the sea would separate the
different bottoms is not well founded, “top weight not being detrimental
to these ships in point of stiffness, all the beams on the different decks
may be of the same size; and the strength of these united must be very
superior to any weight or force which can operate against it when the ship
is afloat, however agitated or high the sea may be.” These early
experiments are particularly interesting now, when the _Calais-Douvres_, a
vessel which must be described hereafter, has proved a success.
Mr. James Taylor may also be considered as one of the authors or inventors
of the present system of steam navigation. In a memorial laid before a
Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1824, he says:—
“Before, however, entering upon the main object, permit me to introduce it
by a short statement explanatory of my connection with Mr. Miller. In the
autumn of 1785, I went to live in Mr. Miller’s house as preceptor to his
two younger sons. I found him a gentleman of great patriotism, generosity,
and philanthropy, and at the same time of a very speculative turn of mind.
Before I knew him he had gone through a very long and expensive course of
experiments upon artillery, of which the carronade was the result. When I
came to know him he was engaged in experiments upon shipping, and had
built several (ships or vessels) upon different constructions, and of
various magnitudes. The double vessel seemed to fix his attention most. In
the summer of 1786 I attended him repeatedly in his experiments at Leith,
which I then viewed as parties of pleasure and amusement. But in the
spring of 1787 a circumstance occurred which gave me a different opinion.
Mr. Miller had engaged in a sailing match with some gentlemen at Leith,
against a Custom House boat (a wherry), which was reckoned a first-rate
sailer. A day was appointed, and I attended Mr. Miller. His was a double
vessel, sixty feet deck, propelled by two wheels, turned by two men each.
* * * Being then young and stout, I took my share of the labours of the
wheels, which I found very severe exercise, but it satisfied me that a
proper power only was wanting to produce much utility from the invention.”
This led to long and interesting discussions on the subject, and Miller
explained that his principal object was to enable vessels to avoid or
extricate themselves from dangerous situations, and also give them powers
of motion during calms. He asked Mr. Taylor to give him the benefit of his
brains. At last the latter told him that he could suggest no power equal
to the steam-engine. The question then became how to apply it. Taylor made
sketches according to his ideas, and Mr. Miller then said, “Well, when we
go to Edinburgh we will apply to an operative engineer, and take an
estimate for a small engine, and if it is not a large sum, we will set
about it; but as I am a stranger to the steam-engine, you shall take
charge of that part of the business, and we will try what we can make of
it.”
“At this time William Symington, a young man employed at the lead mines at
Wanlockhead, had invented a new construction of the steam-engine, by
throwing off the air-pump. I had seen a model work, and was pleased with
it, and thought it very answerable for Mr. Miller’s purpose. Symington had
come into Edinburgh that winter for education. Being acquainted with him,
I informed him of Mr. Miller’s intentions and mine, and asked if he could
undertake to apply his engine to Mr. Miller’s vessels, and if he could I
would recommend him. He answered in the affirmative, and from friendship I
recommended both himself and engine, and afterwards introduced him to Mr.
Miller. After some conversation, Symington engaged to perform the work,
and Mr. Miller agreed to employ him. It was finally arranged that the
experiment should be performed on the lake at Dalswinton, in the ensuing
summer (1788). Accordingly in the spring, after the classes of the College
broke up, I remained in town to superintend the castings, &c., which were
done in brass, by George Watt, founder, back of Shakspear Square. When
they were finished I sent the articles to the country, and followed
myself. After some interval I took Symington with me to Dalswinton to put
the parts together. This was accomplished about the beginning of October,
and the engine, mounted in a frame, was placed upon the deck of a very
handsome double pleasure-boat, upon the lake. We then proceeded to action,
and a more complete, successful, and beautiful experiment was never made
by any man at any time, either in art or science. The vessel moved
delightfully, and notwithstanding the smallness of the cylinders (four
inches diameter), at the rate of five miles an hour. After amusing
ourselves a few days, the engine was removed, and carried into the house,
where it remained as a piece of ornamental furniture for a number of
years.” The vessel was 25 feet long and 7 broad. Thus was steam navigation
inaugurated! How few of the readers of the _Dumfries Newspaper_, the
_Edinburgh Advertiser_, or the _Scots’ Magazine_, when reading the brief
account printed in their columns, dreamt of the revolution which this
interesting and successful little experiment involved. The latter could
not see farther than its utility in canals, and other inland navigation.
The _Annual Register_ for the year does not even mention it.
It was now agreed to repeat the experiment. A double engine with
eighteen-inch cylinder was constructed at Carron under Symington’s
directions. In November, 1789, she was tried on the Forth and Clyde Canal.
“After passing Lock 16,” says Taylor, “we proceeded cautiously and
pleasantly for some time, but after giving the engine full play the arms
of the wheels, which had been constructed too slight, began to give way,
and one float after another broke off, till we were satisfied no accuracy
could be attained in the experiment until the wheels were replaced by new
ones of a stronger construction. This was done with all possible speed,
and upon the 26th December, we again proceeded to action. This day we
moved freely without accident, and were much gratified to find our motion
nearly seven miles per hour. Next day we repeated the experiment with the
same success and pleasure. Satisfied now that everything proposed was
accomplished, it was unnecessary to dwell longer upon the business; for,
indeed, both this and the experiment of last year were as complete as any
performance made by steam-boats, even to the present day.” Mr. Miller, who
paid all the expenses of these steam experiments, did not pursue them
further, and it is to be regretted, inasmuch as his name has not been so
popularly associated with the infancy of steam navigation as could be
wished. He was an enthusiast in many branches of practical science, and
seems latterly to have given his mind more particularly to improvements in
agriculture. Mr. Taylor’s connection with steam-boat experiments ceased
with those of the second boat in 1789. “And it is clear,” says Woodcroft,
“from his own statement and those of his friends, that he was neither the
inventor of the machinery by which either of those boats was driven, nor
of the mode of connecting the engines to the boat and wheels.” His widow
received a small pension from Government, and in 1837 each of his four
daughters received a gift of £50 for their father’s connection with the
experiments. Miller sought no pecuniary aid or reward of any kind; and,
although he devoted his time and talents, and expended nearly £30,000 of
his own fortune in the improvement of artillery and naval architecture,
his services were wholly overlooked by the powers that were. Mr. Woodcroft
has very clearly shown that Miller, in spite of the apparent success of
the experiments, had not great faith in Symington’s machinery, which he
describes in a letter “as the most improper of all steam-engines for
giving motion to a vessel.” We find him much later describing, in a patent
specification, a new form of flat boat, with centre-boards and
paddle-wheels, still worked by his favourite capstans.
[Illustration: THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS.”]
More than ten years elapsed before Symington, the builder of Miller’s
engines, found another patron. In 1801, Thomas, first Lord Dundas,
employed him to fit up a steam-boat for the Forth and Clyde Canal Company,
in which he was a large shareholder. “Having,” says Lindsay,(25) “availed
himself of the many improvements made by Watt and others, Symington
patented his new engine on the 14th of March of that year, and fitting it
on board the _Charlotte Dundas_, named after his lordship’s daughter,
produced, in the opinion of most writers who have carefully and
impartially inquired into this interesting subject, ‘the first _practical
steam-boat_.’” In March, 1802, the _Charlotte Dundas_ made her trial trip
on the canal. It was in one sense a fortunate day for the experiment, for
a gale of wind blew, and no other vessel attempted to move to windward.
The little steamer, towing two barges of seventy tons burden, accomplished
the trip to Port Dundas, Glasgow, a distance of 19½ miles, in six hours,
or at the rate of 3¼ miles per hour. Lord Dundas, who was on board,
thought favourably of the experiment, and in a letter of introduction to
the Duke of Bridgewater, recommended Symington’s new engine to his notice.
His grace almost immediately gave him an order to construct eight vessels
similar to the _Charlotte Dundas_, and the struggling engineer naturally
thought that his fortune was made. Alas! before the arrangements could be
consummated the duke died, and the committee who had charge of the canal
after his decease, came to the conclusion that the wash from steam-boats
would injure its banks. Woodcroft considers that “this vessel might, from
the simplicity of its machinery, have been at work to this day with such
ordinary repairs as are now occasionally required for all steam-boats,”
and claims that to Symington belonged “the undoubted merit of having
combined for the first time those improvements which constitute the
_present system of steam navigation_.” The success of the engine consisted
in this: that, “after placing in a boat a double-acting reciprocating
engine, he _attached his crank to the axis of the paddle-wheel_,” a
combination on which there has been no improvement to the present day, as
rotatory motion is secured without the interposition of a lever or beam.
So much for the engine, but how about the poor engineer? This boat was
laid up in a creek of the canal, where she remained for many years exposed
as a curiosity, and perhaps also as a warning to ambitious speculators.
Symington’s means were nearly exhausted, and after having had to fight
Taylor at law in regard to some of the minor inventions employed, we find
him in 1825 receiving the miserable gift of £100 from the Privy Purse, and
later, a further sum of £50. What a return for labours which so distinctly
led to our present system of steam navigation!
[Illustration: SYMINGTON.]
In 1797, an experiment which took place in the neighbourhood of Liverpool
is recorded in the _Monthly Magazine_, on oars worked by steam; the engine
made eighteen strokes per minute, and propelled a vessel, heavily laden
with copper slag, through the Sankey Canal. The claims of other countries
have also been put forth, but the first attempts at _practical_ steam
navigation belong to Scotland, and, as we shall see, were improved to such
an extent in America, that to that country belongs the credit of having
first organised a steam-boat line for continuous and paying traffic.
The Americans had at an early period turned their attention to new modes
of propelling vessels. As early as 1784, James Rumsey proposed to General
Washington a project of steam navigation, but having been refused a patent
in Pennsylvania, came to England, and succeeded in inducing a wealthy
countryman of his own, then in London, and others to disburse the expenses
of an experiment, for which he afterwards obtained a patent. In this also
oars were worked by steam. A couple of years later, Fitch obtained from
the States of Pennsylvania and New York the exclusive right to run
steamers on their waters, and is said to have attained with one of his
vessels the rate of four or five miles an hour against the current of the
Potomac. In 1787 he built another vessel, 12 feet beam and 45 feet long,
with a 12-inch cylinder, which progressed at the rate of seven miles an
hour. In 1790 he completed another and larger boat, which was advertised
and used for a time as a regular passenger boat on the Delaware. The oars
or paddles were worked from the stern.
[Illustration: OUTLINE OF FITCH’S FIRST BOAT.]
[Illustration: FITCH’S SECOND BOAT.]
Poor Fitch! He, in common with many others of the day who did and did not
give their ideas to the world, was on the right track, but could not put
them into practical and practicable shape. He was really a man of
remarkable genius. The son of a Connecticut farmer, he had been
apprenticed to a watch and clock maker, where doubtless he increased his
knowledge of the mechanical arts. During the early part of the
Revolutionary War, he was armourer to the State of New Jersey, and later,
became a land surveyor. While acting in that capacity, the idea first
suggested itself to him, as it did almost simultaneously to Symington in
Scotland, of propelling carriages by steam, but he soon abandoned it on
account of the roughness of the American roads. After that he turned his
attention almost exclusively to the propulsion of vessels by steam,
visiting England and France, but obtaining no pecuniary advantage from the
experiments he proposed or consummated. In a sketch of his life, which
appeared a few years since,(26) the writer describes Fitch’s difficulties
in raising the money to finish his second steam-boat: “In a letter to
David Roltenhouse, when asking an advance of £50 to finish the boat, he
says, ‘This, sir, whether I bring it to perfection or not, will be the
mode of crossing the Atlantic for packets and armed vessels.’ But
everything failed, and the poor projector loitered about the city for some
months, a despised, unfortunate, heart-broken man. ‘Often have I seen
him,’ said Thomas P. Cope, many years afterwards, ‘stalking about like a
troubled spectre, with downcast eyes and lowering countenance, his coarse
soiled linen peeping through the elbows of a tattered garment.’ Speaking
of a visit he once paid to John Wilson, his boat-builder, and Peter Brown,
his blacksmith, in which, as usual, he held forth upon his hobby, Mr. Cope
says: ‘After indulging himself for some time in this never-failing topic
of deep excitement, he concluded with these memorable words: “Well,
gentlemen, although I shall not live to see the time, you will, when
steam-boats will be preferred to all other means of conveyance, and
especially for passengers; and they will be particularly useful in the
navigation of the river Mississippi.” He then retired, on which Brown,
turning to Wilson, exclaimed, in a tone of deep sympathy, “Poor fellow!
what a pity he is crazy!”’” Fitch, reduced to utter poverty and despair,
threw himself into the Alleghany in 1798, and thus terminated his
chequered life.
The experiments of John Cox Stevens, of New York, were not particularly
successful, although made at an expense of some 20,000 dollars. His vessel
was a “stern-wheeler,” similar to those common enough on many American
rivers to-day. But he deserves the credit, apparently, of having been the
first to practically apply a tubular boiler to marine engines. His boiler,
only 2 feet long by 15 inches wide and 12 inches high, consisted of no
less than 41 copper tubes, each an inch in diameter. While Fitch and
Stevens were experimenting, another American citizen, Oliver Evans, was
endeavouring to mature a plan for using steam at a very high pressure, to
be employed in propelling road wagons, and in an account of his plans,
which he published in 1786, he suggests a mode of propelling vessels by
steam. “He states,” says Lindsay, “that in 1785 he placed his engine, used
to clean docks, in a boat upon wheels, the combined weight being equal to
200 barrels of flour, which he transported down to the water, and when it
was launched he fixed a paddle-wheel to the stern, and drove it down the
Schuylkill to Delaware, and up the Delaware to the city, ‘leaving all the
vessels going up behind, one at least half-way, the wind being ahead.’” In
1794 and 1797 one Samuel Morey, of Connecticut, is said to have built two
steamers, which were publicly exhibited and made passages, but which do
not appear to have been afterwards employed. It is to Robert Fulton, who
all this time was working at naval applications of many kinds, that not
merely America, but the whole world owes the practical and continuous use
of steam-vessels. He and his associates started the first paying line of
steam-boats.
The life of this remarkable man is little known in England, and not
generally even in his own country. Pursuing then the plan which has guided
the writer throughout this work, he proposes to give it, for these very
reasons, in fuller detail than has been usual with better known examples
of patient and struggling inventors.
Robert Fulton was born in the year 1765, in the village of Little Britain,
Pennsylvania, of respectable, but not wealthy, parents. From his earliest
years he showed a great aptitude for the study of the mechanical arts,
and, indeed, for the fine arts also. So marked was his progress in drawing
and painting, that he was recommended to go to England and study art
seriously. This at length he did, and for several years we find him an
inmate of Benjamin West’s house. Most readers will remember that West,
although he spent the larger part of his life in England, and made his
great successes there, was by birth American. Fulton afterwards lived in
Devonshire and other parts of England, and practised art for a time, while
his brain was busy with schemes for improving inland navigation by the
construction of canals, with new forms of bridges and aqueducts. Next we
find him in France living with the family of one of his countrymen, Joel
Barlow; during this period he painted a panorama, which was a great
success. In 1797 he experimented with carcases of gunpowder—practically
torpedoes—under water, and was engaged in perfecting a wonderful submarine
boat. The French and Dutch Governments gave him some little encouragement,
so far as fair words were concerned, and he wasted a considerable amount
of time in hanging about public offices, to be eventually disappointed,
for his plans were rejected.
But the French Government changed. Bonaparte placed himself at the head of
it, with the title of First Consul. Mr. Fulton soon presented an address
to him, soliciting him to patronise the project for submarine navigation,
and praying him to appoint a commission with sufficient funds and powers
to give the necessary assistance. This request was immediately granted,
and the citizens Volney, La Place, and Monge were named the commissioners.
In the spring of the year 1801, Mr. Fulton repaired to Brest, to make
experiments with the plunging-boat he had constructed the previous winter.
This, so he says, had many imperfections, natural to a first machine of
such complicated combinations; added to this, it had suffered much injury
from rust in consequence of his having been obliged to use iron instead of
brass or copper for bolts and arbours. Notwithstanding these
disadvantages, he engaged in a course of experiments with the machine,
which required no less courage than energy and perseverance. Of his
proceedings he made a report to the committee appointed by the French
executive, from which report we learn the following interesting facts:—
“On the 3rd July, 1801, he embarked with three companions on board his
plunging-boat in the harbour of Brest, and descended in it to the depth of
five, ten, fifteen, and so to twenty-five feet; but he did not attempt to
go lower, because he found that his imperfect machine would not bear the
pressure of a greater depth. He remained below the surface one hour.
During this time they were in utter darkness. Afterwards, he descended
with candles; but, finding a great disadvantage from their consumption of
vital air, he caused, previously to his next experiment, a small window of
thick glass to be made near the bow of his boat, and he again descended
with her, on the 24th July, 1801. He found that he received from his
window, or rather aperture covered with glass, for it was no more than an
inch and a half in diameter, sufficient light to enable him to count the
minutes on his watch. Having satisfied himself that he could have
sufficient light when under water, that he could do without a supply of
fresh air for a considerable time, that he could descend to any depth, and
rise to the surface with facility, his next object was to try her
movements as well on the surface as beneath it. On the 26th July he
weighed his anchor and hoisted his sails; his boat had one mast, a
mainsail, and a jib. There was only a light breeze, and, therefore, she
did not move on the surface at more than the rate of two miles an hour,
but it was found that she would tack and steer, and sail on a wind or
before it, as well as any common sailing-boat. He then struck her mast and
sails; to do which, and perfectly to prepare the boat for plunging,
required about two minutes. Having plunged to a certain depth, he placed
two men at the engine, which was intended to give her progressive motion,
and one at the helm, while he, with a barometer before him, governed the
machine which kept her balanced between the upper and lower waters. He
found that with the exertion of one hand only, he could keep her at any
depth he pleased. The propelling engine was then put in motion, and he
found, upon coming to the surface, that he had made, in about seven
minutes, a progress of four hundred meters, or about five hundred yards.
He then again plunged, turned her round while under water, and returned to
near the place he began to move from. He repeated his experiments several
days successively, until he became familiar with the operations of the
machinery and the movements of the boat. He found that she was as obedient
to her helm under water as any boat could be on the surface; and that the
magnetic needle traversed as well in the one situation as in the other. On
the 7th August, Mr. Fulton again descended with a store of atmospheric air
compressed into a copper globe of a cubic foot capacity, into which two
hundred atmospheres were forced. Thus prepared, he descended with three
companions to the depth of about five feet. At the expiration of an hour
and forty minutes, he began to take small supplies of _pure_ air from his
reservoir, and did so, as he found occasion, for four hours and twenty
minutes. At the expiration of this time he came to the surface, without
having experienced any inconvenience from having been so long under
water.”
Fulton’s boat is pretty evidently the original from which Jules Verne took
the idea of his wonderful submarine ship, the _Nautilus_. It was utilised
for an important torpedo experiment, and a shallop was successfully blown
up at Brest in the presence of Admiral Villaret and other officials. The
submarine boat approached within two hundred yards of the hull which was
to be destroyed, and fired its torpedo under water. The French Government
employed him for a time to cruise about and watch our vessels, but no
opportunity seems to have occurred for any attack, and he was evidently
looked upon as a failure. In 1803, a correspondence passed between the
English Government and Fulton, and he was induced to come to London, where
he had an interview with Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville. “When Mr. Pitt first
saw a drawing of a torpedo, with a sketch of the mode of applying it, and
understood what would be the effects of its explosion, he said, that if
introduced into practice, it could not fail to annihilate all military
marines.” Fulton accompanied an expedition sent against the French
flotilla in the roads of Boulogne, where his torpedoes were launched, but
did no damage.
On the 15th October, 1805, he blew up a strongly built Danish brig, of the
burden of 200 tons, which had been provided for the experiment, and which
was anchored in Walmer roads, near Deal; within a mile of Walmer Castle,
the then residence of Mr. Pitt. He has given an interesting account of
this experiment in a pamphlet which he published in this country, under
the title of “Torpedo War.” In a letter to Lord Castlereagh, of the 16th
October, 1805, he says, “Yesterday, about four o’clock, I made the
intended experiment on the brig, with a carcass of one hundred and seventy
pounds of powder; and I have the pleasure to inform you that it succeeded
beyond my most sanguine expectations. Exactly in fifteen minutes from the
time of drawing the peg and throwing the carcass into the water, the
explosion took place. It lifted the brig almost bodily, and broke her
completely in two. The ends sunk immediately, and in one minute nothing
was to be seen of her but floating fragments. Her mainmast and pumps were
thrown in the sea; her foremast was broken in three pieces; her beams and
knees were thrown from her deck and sides, and her deck planks were rent
to fibres. In fact, her annihilation was complete, and the effect was most
extraordinary. The power, as I had calculated, passed in a right line
through her body, that being the line of least resistance, and carried all
before it. At the time of her going up she did not appear to make more
resistance than a bag of feathers, and went to pieces like a shattered
egg-shell.”
Notwithstanding the complete success of the experiment, the British
ministry seem to have been but little disposed to have anything further to
do with Mr. Fulton and his projects. Indeed, the evidence it afforded of
their efficiency may have been a reason for this. However Mr. Pitt and
Lord Melville may have thought on the subject, there had been a change in
the administration, and the new ministers probably agreed with the Earl
St. Vincent, that it was great folly in them to encourage a project which,
if it succeeded, would revolutionise all maritime questions. Lord
Grenville and his Cabinet were not only indisposed to encourage Mr.
Fulton, but they were unwilling to fulfil the engagements which their
predecessors had made, and that inventor, after some further experiments,
of which we have no particular account, wearied with incessant
applications, disappointments, and neglect, at length embarked for his
native country.
But Fulton’s greatest fame rests on his steam-boats. In his first attempt
made in France, where he was aided by Mr. Robert R. Livingston, a
fellow-countryman, he was not successful. Their experimental boat was
completed early in the spring of 1803; they were on the point of making an
experiment with her, when one morning, as Mr. Fulton was rising from a bed
in which anxiety had given him but little rest, a messenger from the boat,
whose precipitation and apparent consternation announced that he was the
bearer of bad tidings, presented himself to him, and exclaimed in accents
of despair, “Oh, sir, the boat has broken to pieces and gone to the
bottom!” Mr. Fulton, who himself related the anecdote, declared that the
news created a despondency which he had never felt on any other occasion;
but this was only a momentary sensation. Upon examination, he found the
boat had been too weakly framed to bear the great weight of the machinery,
and that, in consequence of an agitation of the river by wind the
preceding night, what the messenger had represented had literally
happened. The boat had broken in two, and the weight of her machinery had
carried her fragments to the bottom. It appeared to him, as he said, that
the fruits of so many months’ labour, and so much expense, were
annihilated, and an opportunity of demonstrating the efficiency of his
plan was denied him at the moment he had promised it should be displayed.
His disappointment and feelings may easily be imagined, but they did not
check his perseverance. On the very day that this misfortune happened, he
commenced repairing it. He did not sit down idly to repine at misfortunes
which his manly exertions might remedy, or waste in fruitless lamentations
a moment of that time in which the accident might be repaired. Without
returning to his lodgings, he immediately began to labour with his own
hands to raise the boat, and worked for four and twenty hours incessantly,
without allowing himself rest or refreshment; an imprudence which, as he
always supposed, had a permanently bad effect on his constitution, and to
which he imputed much of his subsequent ill health.
The accident did the machinery very little injury; but they were obliged
to build the boat almost entirely anew. She was completed in July; her
length was sixty-six feet, and she was eight feet wide. Early in August,
Mr. Fulton addressed a letter to the French National Institute, inviting
them to witness a trial of his boat, which was made in their presence, and
in the presence of a great multitude of the Parisians. The experiment was
entirely satisfactory to Mr. Fulton, though the boat did not move
altogether with as much speed as he expected. But he imputed her moving so
slowly to the extremely defective fabrication of the machinery, and to
imperfections which were to be expected in the first experiment with so
complicated a machine, but which he saw might be easily remedied. Such
entire confidence did he acquire from this experiment, that immediately
afterwards he wrote to Messrs. Watt and Boulton, of Birmingham, ordering
certain parts of a steam-engine to be made for him and sent to America. He
did not disclose to them for what purpose the engine was intended, but his
directions were such as would produce the parts of an engine that might be
put together within a compass suited to a boat. Mr. Fulton then designed
to return to America immediately; but, as we have seen, he first visited
England, and it is probable that he then gave new orders on this subject,
as we find that the engine which was employed in the first American Fulton
boat was of the manufacture of Messrs. Watt and Boulton, but it did not
arrive in America till long after the time of which we are speaking.
Mr. Livingston also wrote immediately after this experiment to his friends
in America, and through their interference, an Act was passed by the
Legislature of the State of New York, on the 5th of April, 1803, by which
the rights and exclusive privileges of navigating all the waters of that
State, by vessels propelled by fire or steam, granted to Mr. Livingston by
the Act of 1798, were extended to Mr. Livingston and Mr. Fulton for the
term of twenty years from the date of the new Act. By this law, the time
for producing proof of the practicability of propelling by steam a boat of
twenty tons’ capacity, at the rate of four miles an hour, with wind
against the ordinary current of the Hudson River, was extended for a
period of two years. And by a subsequent law the time was enlarged to
April, 1807.
Very soon after Mr. Fulton’s arrival in New York he commenced building the
first American boat. While she was constructing, he found that her
expenses would greatly exceed his calculation. He endeavoured to lessen
the pressure on his own finances by offering one-third of the exclusive
right which was secured to him and Mr. Livingston by the laws of New York,
and of his patent rights, for a proportionate contribution to the expense.
He made this offer to several gentlemen, and it was very generally known
that he had made such propositions; but no one was then willing to afford
this aid to his enterprise.
“In the spring of 1807, the first Fulton boat built in America was
launched from the ship-yards of Charles Brown, on the East River. The
engine from England was put on board of her; in August she was completed,
and was moved by her machinery from her birth-place to the Jersey shore.
Mr. Livingston and Mr. Fulton had invited many of their friends to witness
the first trial. Nothing could exceed the surprise and admiration of all
who witnessed the experiment. The minds of the most incredulous were
changed in a few minutes. Before the boat had made the progress of a
quarter of a mile, the greatest unbeliever must have been converted. The
man who, while he looked on the expensive machine, thanked his stars that
he had more wisdom than to waste his money on such idle schemes, changed
the expression of his features as the boat moved from the wharf and gained
her speed; his complacent smile gradually stiffened into an expression of
wonder. The jeers of the ignorant, who had neither sense nor feeling
enough to suppress their contemptuous ridicule and rude jokes, were
silenced for a moment by a vulgar astonishment, which deprived them of the
power of utterance, till the triumph of genius extorted from the
incredulous multitude which crowded the shores shouts and exclamations of
congratulation and applause.”
There can be no doubt that Fulton derived his general plan from the
experiments of Symington. While that engineer was conducting his
experiments under the patronage of Lord Dundas, a stranger came to the
banks of the Forth and Clyde Canal and requested an interview, announcing
himself as Mr. Fulton, of the United States, whither he intended to
return, and expressing a desire to see Mr. Symington’s boat and machinery,
and to procure some information of the principles on which it was moved,
before he left Europe. He remarked that, however beneficial the invention
might be to Great Britain, it would be of more importance to North
America, considering the numerous navigable rivers and lakes of that
continent, and the facility for procuring timber for building vessels and
supplying them with fuel; that the usefulness of steam-vessels in a
mercantile point of view could not fail to attract the attention of every
observer; and that, if he were allowed to carry the plan to the United
States, it would be advantageous to Mr. Symington, as, if his engagements
would permit, the constructing or superintending the construction of such
vessels would naturally devolve upon him. Mr. Symington, in compliance
with the stranger’s request, caused the engine-fire to be lighted, and the
machinery put in motion. Several persons entered the boat, and along with
Mr. Fulton were carried from where she then lay to Lock No. 16 on the
Forth and Clyde Canal, about four miles west, and returned to the
starting-place in one hour and twenty minutes, being at the rate of six
miles an hour, to the astonishment of Mr. Fulton and the other gentlemen.
Mr. Fulton obtained leave to take notes and sketches regarding the boat
and engine, “but he never afterwards communicated with Mr. Symington.”(27)
He, it has been shown, almost immediately afterwards ordered a marine
engine from Messrs. Boulton and Watt, of Soho, near Birmingham. This
engine reached America before the _Clermont_, which had been constructed
at the instance of Fulton and Livingston, had been launched from the yard
of Charles Brown, on the East (Hudson) River. She was decked for a short
distance only, at stem and stern, her engines being open to view, while a
house on deck, and over the boiler, accommodated passengers and crew. _The
boiler was set in masonry._ Her engine was of almost identical size to
that of the _Charlotte Dundas_. It is right to add that Fulton claimed no
patent or privilege for this engine, which was so evidently founded on
that of Symington. Her hull was quite as distinctly his own design, and
was vastly superior in build to the Scotch vessel. The first trip of the
_Clermont_ was from New York to Clermont, the seat of Mr. Livingston,
returning to Albany, and the average speed was five miles per hour.
[Illustration: THE “CLERMONT.”]
“The _Clermont_, on her first voyage, arrived at her destination without
any accident. She excited the astonishment of the inhabitants of the
shores of the Hudson, many of whom had not heard even of an engine, much
less of a steam-boat. There were many descriptions of the effects of her
first appearance upon the people on the banks of the river; some of those
were ridiculous, but some of them were of such a character as nothing but
an object of real grandeur could have excited. She was described by some
who had indistinctly seen her passing in the night, to those who had not
had a view of her, as a monster moving on the waters, defying the winds
and tide, and breathing flames and smoke. She had the most terrific
appearance from other vessels which were navigating the river when she was
making her passage. The first steam-boats, as others yet do, used dry
pine-wood for fuel, which sends forth a column of ignited vapour many feet
above the flue, and whenever the fire is stirred a galaxy of sparks fly
off, and in the night have a very brilliant and beautiful appearance. This
uncommon light first attracted the attention of the crews of other
vessels. Notwithstanding the wind and tide were adverse to its approach,
they saw with astonishment that it was rapidly coming towards them; and
when it came so near as that the noise of the machinery and paddles was
heard, the crews (if what was said in the newspapers of the time be true),
in some instances, shrunk beneath their decks from the terrific sight, and
left their vessels to go on shore, while others prostrated themselves, and
besought Providence to protect them from the approaches of the horrible
monster which was marching on the tides and lighting its path by the fires
which it vomited.”
The _Clermont_ was soon afterwards lengthened and considerably improved in
appearance and usefulness. Her hull was covered from stem to stern with a
flush deck, beneath which two cabins were formed, surrounded by double
ranges of berths, and fitted up with great regard to comfort. Her
dimensions now were—length, 130 feet; breadth, 16½ feet; diameter of
paddle-wheels, 15 feet, the paddles dipping into the water 2 feet. Fulton
afterwards built a number of steam-boats, and, it will be well understood,
encountered a vast deal of opposition from the owners of sailing craft and
ferry-boats. Attempts were also made to put forward rival inventions, and
a company was started who proposed to navigate boats on the Hudson by the
following somewhat incomprehensible mode of propulsion. The quotation is
from the biography of Fulton(28) by his friend, C. D. Colden:—
“The opposition boats on the Hudson, which the owners had built to rival
the steam-boats, were at first to have been propelled by a pendulum,
which, according to the calculations of some ingenious gentlemen, would
give a greater power than steam, but when their boat came to be put in the
water they soon found that their wheels, which were turned with great
facility and velocity while their vessel was on the stocks, could not be
made to perform their functions without the application of a great power
to the pendulum. The projectors were utterly at a loss to account for so
extraordinary a phenomenon, and could not conceive why the wheels, which
had moved so much to their satisfaction when they were resisted only by
the air, should require so much force when they turned in the water, and
were to drag the weight of the vessel. But having by actual experiment
determined that a pendulum would not supply the place of steam, and
knowing no other way of supplying steam than that which they saw practised
in the Fulton boats, they adopted all their machinery with some very
insignificant alterations, which were made with no other view than to give
those persons who had set out by professing to make a pendulum-boat a
pretence for claiming to be the inventors of improvements in steam-boats.”
Fulton, without doubt, designed and superintended the construction of the
first steam war-vessel. On the 20th June, 1814, the keel was laid, and in
little more than four months, that is, on the 29th October, she was
launched from the yard of Adam and Noah Brown, her able and active
architects. The scene exhibited on that occasion was magnificent. It
happened on one of the brightest autumnal days. “Spectators,” says Colden,
“crowded the surrounding shores, and were seen upon the hills which
limited the beautiful prospect. The river and bay were filled with vessels
of war, dressed in all their variety of colours, in compliment to the
occasion. In the midst of these was the enormous floating mass whose bulk
and unwieldy form seemed to render her as unfit for motion as the land
batteries which were saluting her. Through the fleet of vessels which
occupied this part of the harbour were seen gliding in every direction
several of our large steam-boats, of the burden of three or four hundred
tons. These, with bands of music, and crowds of gay and joyous company,
were winding through passages left by the anchored vessels as if they were
moved by enchantment. The heart could not have been human that did not
share in the general enthusiasm expressed by the loud shouts of the
multitude. He could not have been a worthy citizen, who did not then say
to himself, with pride and exultation, ‘This is my country!’ and when he
looked on the man whose single genius had created the most interesting
objects of the scene, ‘This is my countryman!’”
By May, 1815, her engine was put on board, and she was so far completed as
to afford an opportunity of trying her machinery. But, unhappily, before
this period the mind that had conceived and combined it was gone. Fulton,
almost to the last day of his life, worked incessantly at this, the first
steam war-vessel.
On the 4th July, in the same year, the steam frigate made a passage from
New York to the ocean and back, and went the distance—which, going and
returning, is fifty-three miles—in eight hours and twenty minutes, by the
mere force of her engine. These trials suggested the correction of some
errors, and the supplying of some defects in the machinery. In September
she made another passage to the sea, and having at this time the weight of
her whole armament on board, she went at an average of five and a half
miles an hour, with and against tide. When stemming the tide, which ran at
the rate of three miles an hour, she advanced at the rate of two and a
half miles an hour.
We now reach the period which brings us to practical steam navigation in
Europe. In January, 1812, Henry Bell, of Helensburgh, Scotland, completed
the construction of a small passenger steam vessel, the _Comet_, of thirty
tons burden. She was only forty feet in length, with an engine of
three-horse power. The circular which announced its regular trips is worth
reprinting, as it is the first advertisement of the kind made in all
Europe. It reads as follows:—
“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 mid-day, 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 requires 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 four shillings for the best cabin,
and three shillings for 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
in the _Comet_ from Greenock to Helensburgh.
“Passengers by the _Comet_ will receive information of the hour of sailing
by applying at Mr. Houslem’s office, Broomielaw, or Mr. Thomas Blackney’s,
East Quay Head, Greenock.
“(Signed), HENRY BELL.
“Helensburgh Baths, Aug. 5, 1812.”
[Illustration: BELL’S “COMET.”]
Bell’s claims to recognition are very much the same as those of Fulton and
Livingston in the United States. He was instrumental in bringing steam
navigation to a practical issue, but was not its inventor or first
introducer. In 1816, he addressed an interesting letter to the _Caledonian
Mercury_, showing the intimacy which existed between himself and Fulton,
and proving that the leaders of the new steam movement were in frequent
communication. In this letter he commences by recapitulating Miller’s
experiments in propelling vessels or rafts by paddles worked by capstans
or by wind, like a windmill. These ideas were communicated to all the
Courts of Europe, and the French, at one time, actually proposed something
of the nature of rafts worked by Miller’s plan, for the conveyance of
troops to England. Miller sent one of his capstan vessels as a present to
the King of Sweden. Bell makes the following statement:—
“Fulton came to the knowledge of steam-boats by employing me (H. Bell)
about some plans of machinery, and begged me to call on Miller and see how
he had succeeded in his steam-boat plan; and if it answered, to send him
full drawings and description along with my machinery. I had a
conversation with Miller, who gave me every information. I (H. Bell) told
him that his engineer was wrong, and that I intended giving Fulton my
opinion on steam-boats. I left Fulton’s letter with Miller.
“Two years after, a letter from Fulton arrived, stating that he had
constructed a steam-boat from the drawings I had sent him, but
improvements were required. This letter I also sent to Miller.”
He goes on to say that he set on foot his steam-boat after making various
models, and when convinced they would answer, contracted with John Wood
and Co., ship-builders, Port Glasgow, to build the _Comet_, so called from
a comet which appeared in Scotland at that period. He claims that the
_Comet_ was the first steam-vessel built in Europe “that would work,” but
this is unfair to the memories of Miller and Symington.
Oddly enough, while Bell was experimenting on the Clyde, Mr. Dawson was
doing the same in Ireland. He even claims that he built a fifty-ton
steamer in 1811, and which, by a coincidence simply, as it would seem, he
had also named the _Comet_. He put the first steamer for public
accommodation on the Thames in 1818, to run between London and Gravesend.
Mr. Lawrence, of Bristol, introduced a steam-boat on the Severn shortly
after Bell put the _Comet_ on the Clyde, and brought her to London, but so
great was the opposition from the watermen that he took her back to
Bristol. She was afterwards taken to Spain, and long plied between Seville
and St. Lucar. These were the precursors of those grand steam-ship lines
which now run to every part of the habitable world. Bell’s steamer was
made, in the second year of its career, a pleasure-boat to many parts of
the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and may therefore count as
one of the first ocean-going as well as river steamers.
[Illustration: FOUR GREAT ENGINEERS.]