Transcriber’s Notes
Text printed in italics and bold face in the source document has been
transcribed between _underscores_ and =equal signs= respectively.
Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPITALS. ^e represents a
superscript e.
[T], [U] and [V] represent T-, U- and V-shaped symbols rather than
the actual letters.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.
STEAM-SHIPS
_UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME_
SAILING SHIPS:
THE STORY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT
DAY
BY E. KEBLE CHATTERTON
With a Coloured Frontispiece by
CHARLES DIXON
and over 130 Illustrations from Original Sources,
Photographs, Models, &c.
_Extra Royal 8vo, 384 pages, in Designed Cover, Cloth Gilt, 16s.
net_
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM FAWCETT,” THE FIRST P. & O. STEAM-SHIP, 209
TONS, BUILT 1829.
ON THE LEFT IS A BOMB KETCH, A TYPE WITHDRAWN FROM THE NAVY ABOUT THIS
DATE.
ON THE RIGHT IS H. M. S. “ST. VINCENT,” 101 GUNS.
_From a Painting by Charles Dixon_
_By kind permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co._]
STEAM-SHIPS
THE STORY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT
TO THE PRESENT DAY
BY
R. A. FLETCHER
WITH A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY ILLUSTRATIONS
[Illustration]
LONDON
SIDGWICK & JACKSON, LTD.
3 ADAM STREET, ADELPHI, W.C.
1910
_All rights reserved_
[Illustration: PREFACE]
The story of the Steam-ship, and of its development up to the
present time, covers little more than a hundred years. In the
companion volume,[1] the evolution of the sailing ship necessitated a
comprehensive survey of some eight centuries; but that we need vessels,
not only faster than the sailing ship, but also more independent of the
weather conditions, is shown by the fact that in the world’s shipping
tonnage of to-day (omitting small vessels) the proportion of steam to
sail is as nine to one. The “seven seas” must be crossed with speed and
safety, in the interest of all nations that have a mile of sea coast;
but the Anglo-Saxon race, as it has contributed--from either side of
the Atlantic--most largely to the mechanical and structural development
of the steam-ship, now depends most vitally upon the organisation of
its naval and transportation systems. Napoleon said that the strength
of an army lay in its feet; no less true is it that the strength of our
Empire lies in her ships.
[1] “Sailing Ships and their Story,” by E. Keble Chatterton, 1909.
A hundred years ago it was impossible to forecast with any accuracy
how long a journey might take to accomplish, and the traveller by
land or sea was liable to “moving accidents by flood and field”; but
side by side with the growth of the steam-ship, and the accompanying
increase of certainty in the times of departure and arrival, came the
introduction of the railway system inland. Between the two, however,
there is the fundamental difference that the sea is a highway open
to all, while the land must be bought or hired of its owners; and
the result of this was that inland transportation, implying a huge
initial outlay on railroad construction, became the business of
wealthy companies, whereas any man was free to build a steamboat
and ply it where he would. The shipowner, moreover, has a further
advantage in his freedom to choose his route, because he is at liberty
to “follow trade”; but if, as has happened before now, the traffic
of a town decreases, owing to a change in, or the disappearance of,
its manufactures, the railway that serves it becomes proportionately
useless.
In another essential, the development of steam-transport on land and
sea provides a more striking contrast. The main features of George
Stephenson’s “Rocket” showed in 1830, in however crude a form as
regards detail and design, the leading principles of the modern
locomotive engine and boiler; but the history of the marine engine, as
of the steam-ship which it propels, has been one of radical change.
The earliest attempts were made, naturally enough, in the face of great
opposition. Every one will remember Stephenson’s famous retort, when
it was suggested to him that it would be awkward for his engine if a
cow got across the rails, that “it _would_ be very awkward--for the
cow”;--and at sea it was the rule for a long while to regard steam
merely as auxiliary to sails, to be used in calms. While ships were
still built of wood, and while the early engines consumed a great deal
of fuel in proportion to the distance covered, it was impossible to
carry enough coal for long voyages, and a large sail-area had still
to be provided. Progress was thus retarded until, in 1843, the great
engineer Brunel proved by the _Great Britain_ that the day of the
wooden ship had passed; and the next ten years were marked by the
substitution of iron for wood in shipbuilding.
Thenceforward the story of the steam-ship progressed decade by decade.
Between 1855 and 1865 paddle-wheels gave place to screw propellers,
and the need for engines of a higher speed, which the adoption of the
screw brought about, distinguished the following decade as that in
which the “compound engine” was evolved. Put shortly, “compounding”
means the using of the waste steam from one cylinder to do further
work in a second cylinder. The extension of this system to “triple
expansion,” whereby the exhaust steam is utilised in a third cylinder,
the introduction of twin screws, and the substitution of steel for
iron in hull-construction, were the chief innovations between 1875 and
1885. The last fifteen years of the century saw the tonnage of the
world’s shipping doubled, and the main features of mechanical progress
during that period were another step to “quadruple expansion” and the
application of “forced draught,” which gives a greater steam-pressure
without a corresponding increase in the size of the boilers. The
first decade of the present century has been already devoted to the
development of the “turbine” engine.
I have to thank the Institute of Marine Engineers at Stratford, E.,
for much valuable assistance and for placing its _Transactions_ at my
disposal; if I have not acknowledged every item derived therefrom I
trust that this general acknowledgment will suffice. To Mr. J. Kennedy,
author of “The History of Steam Navigation”; Mr. A. J. Maginnis,
author of “The Atlantic Ferry”; and Captain James Williamson, author
of “The Clyde Passenger Steamer,” I am greatly indebted for their kind
permission to draw freely upon their books: and to the publishers of
the two latter, Messrs. Whittaker and Co. and Messrs. MacLehose and
Sons respectively, for the loan of illustrations. Special thanks are
also due to Mr. E. A. Stevens of Hoboken, New Jersey, U.S.A., not only
for information concerning the experiments made by Colonel Stevens with
the screw propeller, but also for the loan of some unique photographs
of early American boats. Mr. A. J. Dudgeon, M.I.N.A., M.I.C.E., son
of the well-known Thames shipbuilder, has revised a large amount of
my work, and was good enough to place at my disposal his valuable
scrap-books, from the pictures in which my friend Mr. Ernest Coffin
has drawn several charming line-illustrations and the initial letters
to the chapters. For various assistance I have to thank other friends
and correspondents: Mr. James A. Smith, M.I.N.A; Mr. Harry J. Palmer,
formerly of _Shipping Illustrated_, New York, and now assistant to
Captain Clark, Lloyd’s agent at New York; Mr. J. W. Little, of Messrs.
Little and Johnson; and Mr. James Gallagher of Paris for his researches
at the Academy of Sciences and elsewhere.
For permission to reproduce many illustrations of models, &c., in the
Science Museum at South Kensington, I am indebted to the Board of
Education; while for particular information I am glad to acknowledge
the especial courtesy of Messrs. Barclay, Curle and Co., Ltd., of
Whiteinch, Messrs. R. and W. Green, Ltd., Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and
Wigham Richardson, Ltd.; and, for revising the portion relating to
Floating Docks and supplying illustrations thereof, to Messrs. Clark
and Standfield. To many other famous shipbuilding firms who have
supplied material or illustrations thanks must also be tendered:
Messrs. Harland and Wolff of Belfast; Messrs. A. and J. Inglis of
Glasgow; Messrs. Thornycroft and Co., Ltd.; the Carron Company; Messrs.
Yarrow; Messrs. Eltringham and Co., Ltd.; Messrs. Smith’s Docks Co.,
Ltd.; Messrs. Palmer’s Shipbuilding and Iron Co., Ltd.; Messrs.
Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., Ltd.; the Parson’s Marine Steam Turbine
Co., Ltd.; the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.; the Vulcan
Shipbuilding Co. of Stettin; Messrs. W. Denny and Brothers, Ltd., of
Dumbarton; Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co., Ltd.; Messrs. William Gray
and Co., Ltd.; Sir Raylton Dixon and Co. of Middlesbrough; Messrs. W.
Doxford and Sons of Sunderland; and the Newport News Shipbuilding and
Dry Dock Company, U.S.A.
To many shipowning firms I and my publishers are alike indebted for
information and the loan of illustrative material; the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.; The Cunard Company; the White Star
Line; the American Line; the Pacific Steam Navigation Company; the
Orient Line; Messrs. Shaw, Savill and Co., Ltd.; Lund’s Blue Anchor
Line; the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; Messrs. Elder, Dempster
and Co., Ltd.; the General Steam Navigation Company; the Isle of Man
Steam Packet Company, Ltd.; the principal Railway Companies owning
steam-ships; the Anchor Line; the Allan Line; Messrs. Brocklebank and
Co.; the Bibby Line; Messrs. George Thompson and Son’s Aberdeen Line;
the North German Lloyd, and the Hamburg-American Line.
Certain illustrations appear by arrangement with the editors of the
_Magazine of Commerce_, the _Shipping World_, the _Syren and Shipping_,
the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_ (of New York), the _Engineer_, and the
_Shipbuilder_. The photograph of the _Minas Geraes_ is reproduced by
special permission of his Excellency the Chief of the Brazilian Naval
Commission.
R. A. FLETCHER
_June 1910_
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
I. PRIMITIVE EXPERIMENTS IN PROPULSION -- SOME EARLY
EXPERIMENTS WITH STEAM 1
II. AMERICAN PIONEERS IN STEAM NAVIGATION 19
III. THE PROGRESS OF STEAM-SHIP BUILDING IN GREAT BRITAIN 56
IV. RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR STEAM-SHIPS 102
V. OPENING OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE 122
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE 149
VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEAM AUXILIARY -- OCEAN ROUTES 164
VIII. EXPERIMENTAL IRON SHIPBUILDING -- _The Great Britain_ 193
IX. DEVELOPMENT OF IRON SHIPBUILDING -- _The Great Eastern_ 228
X. THE BUILDING OF STEEL SHIPS -- MODERN LINES -- TURBINES 279
XI. STEAM-POWER AND THE NAVY -- OTHER NAVIES 311
XII. MISCELLANEOUS: TUGS -- CARGO-BOATS -- FLOATING DOCKS, ETC.
-- ECCENTRICITIES OF DESIGN 341
BIBLIOGRAPHY 391
INDEX 395
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
1. The _William Fawcett_, the first P. & O. Steam-ship;
with a Bomb Ketch and H.M.S. _St. Vincent_.
[_To face title-page_
From a painting by Charles Dixon; by kind permission of
the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
2. The _Chancellor Livingston_ _Headpiece to Preface_
From a drawing by W. T. Loveday
3. Primitive Paddle-boats 3
From Robertus Valturius, _De Re Militari_, 1472
4. “Barque à Roues”: Primitive Chinese Paddle-boat 5
Sketched from a drawing
5. “Liburna” or Galley, worked by Oxen 7
From Morisotus, _Orbis Maritimi Historia_, 1643
6. Jonathan Hulls’ Paddle-steamer, 1737 _To face_ 14
From the drawing in the Science Museum, South Kensington
7. The Marquis de Jouffroy’s Steamboat, 1783 _To face_ 16
From a copy of a French print published in 1816
8. John Fitch’s Oared Paddle-boat, 1786 22
From a contemporary drawing
9. John Stevens’ _Phœnix_, 1807 _To face_ 28
From a contemporary picture, by courtesy of E. A. Stevens,
Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
10. Robert Fulton’s _Clermont_, 1807 37
By courtesy of the _Shipping World_
11. The _Paragon_, built 1811 _To face_ 40
By courtesy of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
12. The _Philadelphia_, built 1826 _To face_ 44
From a contemporary picture, by courtesy of E. A. Stevens,
Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
13. The _De Witt Clinton_, built 1828 _To face_ 46
14. The _William Cutting_, built 1827 _To face_ 48
By courtesy of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
15. The _Mary Powell_ (Hudson River Day Line) 50
Sketched by E. Coffin from a photograph
16. The _Hendrick Hudson_ (Hudson River Day Line), 1906 _To face_ 50
Photograph by courtesy of the Hudson River Day Line
17. The _Robert Fulton_ (Hudson River Day Line), 1909 _To face_ 52
As the last
18. The _William M. Mills_ _To face_ 54
19. The _City of Cleveland_ _To face_ 54
Both by courtesy of the _Shipping World_
20. Patrick Miller’s Triple Boat the _Edinburgh_ _To face_ 56
From the engraving at South Kensington
21. Model of Miller’s Double Boat _To face_ 58
From the original at South Kensington
22. The _Charlotte Dundas_: longitudinal section 60
From a drawing
23. Symington’s Original Engine of 1788 _To face_ 60
Preserved at South Kensington
24. Model of the _Charlotte Dundas_ _To face_ 62
From the original at South Kensington
25. The Original Engines of the _Comet_ _To face_ 64
Preserved at South Kensington
26. The _Comet_, 1812 _To face_ 66
27. The _Industry_, 1814 _To face_ 68
Both by courtesy of the Institute of Marine Engineers, from the
lecture by J. H. Hulls, delivered Feb. 26, 1906
28. Plan and Lines of the _Comet_ _To face_ 70
29. The Engine of the _Leven_ _To face_ 70
Both by courtesy of Messrs. MacLehose and Sons and of the author,
from Captain Williamson’s “Clyde Passenger Steamers”
30. The _Sea-Horse_, about 1826 _To face_ 72
By courtesy of the Institute of Marine Engineers, from the
lecture by J. H. Hulls, delivered Feb. 26, 1906
31. The _Monarch_ and _Trident_, convoying the _Royal
George_ Yacht, with Queen Victoria and the Prince
Consort, to Edinburgh, August 1842 _To face_ 80
32. The _Trident_, in which the Queen and Prince Consort
returned, Sept. 1842 _To face_ 82
Both by courtesy of the General Steam Navigation Co.
33. The _Carron_ _To face_ 84
By courtesy of the Carron Co.
34. The _Kingfisher_ _To face_ 84
By kind permission of the General Steam Navigation Co.
35. The _Fingal_ _To face_ 86
By courtesy of the London and Edinburgh Shipping Co.
36. The _Lady Wolseley_ _To face_ 86
By courtesy of the British and Irish Steam Packet Co.
37. The _Ben-my-Chree_ (I.), built 1845 _To face_ 88
38. The _Tynwald_ (I.), built 1846 _To face_ 90
39. The _Mona’s Isle_ (II.), built 1860, as a paddle
steamer _To face_ 92
40. The _Ellan Vannin_ (the foregoing, altered to a
screw steamer and re-named, 1883) _To face_ 94
The last four illustrations by courtesy of the Isle of Man Steam
Packet Co.
41. The _Majestic_ _To face_ 96
From a photograph of a contemporary bill, by courtesy of J. W.
Little, Esq., of Little and Johnston
42. The _Lady Roberts_ _To face_ 98
By courtesy of the British and Irish Steam Packet Co.
43. The _Augusta_, 1856 100
By courtesy of F. H. Powell and Co., Liverpool
44. The Turbine Steamer _Marylebone_ (G.C. Railway) _To face_ 104
45. The _Cambria_ (L. & N.W. Railway) _To face_ 104
46. The Turbine Steamer _St. Patrick_ (G.W. Railway) _To face_ 114
47. The R.M. Turbine Steamer _Copenhagen_ (G.E.
Railway) _To face_ 116
48. The _Scotia_ (L. & N.W. Railway) _To face_ 120
The last five by courtesy of the respective companies
49. The _Savannah_ _To face_ 124
By kind permission of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
50. The _Rising Star_ 130
Drawing by E. Coffin from a very rare picture
51. The _Dieppe_ (L.B. & S.C. Railway) _To face_ 134
By permission of the Company
52. The _United Kingdom_ _To face_ 134
By courtesy of _Syren and Shipping_
53. The _Sirius_, from a print of 1837 _To face_ 140
54. The _Great Western_, from a print of 1837 _To face_ 142
Preserved at South Kensington
55. The _President_ 146
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
56. The _British Queen_ _To face_ 146
From an original oil-painting in the possession of the Author
57. The _Britannia_, 1840 _To face_ 152
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
58. The _Atlantic_ 156
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
59. The _Adriatic_ (Collins Line, 1857) _To face_ 160
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by A. J. Maginnis, by kind permission
of the publishers, Messrs. Whittaker and Co.
60. The _Earl of Hardwicke_ 168
61. The _Massachusetts_ 171
Both drawn by E. Coffin from contemporary pictures
62. The _Hindostan_, 1842 _To face_ 178
63. H.M. Troopship _Himalaya_ in Plymouth Sound _To face_ 180
Both from prints kindly supplied by the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation Co.
64. H.M. Troopship _Himalaya_ _To face_ 182
By courtesy of the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co.
65. The _Norman_ (Union-Castle Line, 1894) _To face_ 184
By permission of the _Engineer_
66. Maudslay’s Oscillating Engine _To face_ 200
From the original at the Science Museum, South Kensington
67. Model of the Engines of the _Leinster_ _To face_ 204
From the original at South Kensington
68. The _Pacific_ 205
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
69. Stevens’ 1804 Engine, showing Twin-screw Propellers _To face_ 208
By courtesy of E. A. Stevens, Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
70. The _Q.E.D._ 211
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
71. The _John Bowes_, launched 1852 _To face_ 214
72. The _John Bowes_, 1906 _To face_ 214
By courtesy of Palmer’s Shipbuilding and Iron Co.
73. The _Novelty_, built 1839 _To face_ 218
From the model at the Science Museum, South Kensington
74. The _Great Britain_ _To face_ 222
75. Engines of the _Great Britain_ _To face_ 224
From the models at South Kensington
76. The _Sarah Sands_, 1846 _To face_ 230
77. The _City of Glasgow_ (Inman Line, 1850) _To face_ 236
78. The _City of Rome_ (Inman Line, 1881) _To face_ 242
The last three from “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of
the publishers, as above
79. The _City of Chicago_ 244
Drawn from a contemporary print
80. The _Persia_ and _Scotia_ (Cunard, 1856 and 1862) _To face_ 244
81. The _China_ (Cunard, 1862) _To face_ 246
82. The _Russia_ (Cunard, 1867) _To face_ 246
The last three from “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of
the publishers, as above
83. Model of the _City of Paris_, 1866 _To face_ 248
From the original at South Kensington
84. The _Oregon_ (Cunard and Guion Lines, 1883) _To face_ 250
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
85. The _America_ (National Line, 1884) _To face_ 254
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
86. The _Delta_ leaving Marseilles for the opening of
the Suez Canal _To face_ 260
From a photograph kindly supplied by the P. & O. Co.
87. The _Thunder_ 265
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
88. Model of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 270
89. Longitudinal section of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 272
From the originals in the Science Museum, S. Kensington
90. Caricature of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 274
From a contemporary print
91. Model of the Paddle-engines of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 276
From the original at South Kensington
92. The _Britannic_ (White Star Line, 1874) _To face_ 280
By courtesy of the White Star Line
93. The _Umbria_ and _Etruria_ (Cunard) _To face_ 280
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
94. The _Mauretania_ (Cunard, 1907) _To face_ 282
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
95. The _Campania_ (Cunard, 1892) _To face_ 282
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
96. The _Teutonic_ and _Majestic_ (White Star Line,
1889) _To face_ 288
By courtesy of the White Star Line
97. The _Olympic_ (White Star Line, 1910) _To face_ 288
From the painting by Charles Dixon
98. The _Olympic_ building, October 18, 1909 _To face_ 290
By courtesy of the White Star Line
99. The _St. Louis_ (American Line) _To face_ 294
By courtesy of the American Line
100. The _Morea_ (P. & O. Line) _To face_ 294
By courtesy of the P. & O. Co.
101. The _Assiniboine_ (Canadian Pacific Railway Co.) _To face_ 300
By courtesy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
102. The _Kronprinzessin Cecilie_ (Norddeutscher Lloyd) _To face_ 304
103. The _Kaiser Wilhelm II._ (Norddeutscher Lloyd) _To face_ 304
Photographs by G. West and Son
104. The _Turbinia_ _To face_ 308
Photographs by G. West and Son, and by courtesy of the Parsons
Marine Steam Turbine Co.
105. The _Otaki_ (New Zealand Shipping Co.) _To face_ 310
By courtesy of W. Denny and Sons
106. H.M.S. _Waterwitch_, armoured gunboat 321
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
107. H.M.S. _Minotaur_ _To face_ 326
By courtesy of the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co.
108. The _Koenig Wilhelm_, German Navy _To face_ 328
109. The _Baden_, German Navy _To face_ 328
110. H.M.S. _Devastation_ _To face_ 330
111. H.M.S. _Thunderer_ _To face_ 330
112. H.M.S. _Dreadnought_ _To face_ 332
113. H.M.S. _Lightning_, torpedo-boat _To face_ 334
114. H.M.S. _Tartar_, torpedo-boat _To face_ 334
115. H.M.S. _Lord Nelson_ _To face_ 336
116. H.M.S. _Invincible_, armoured cruiser _To face_ 336
The last nine from photographs by G. West and Son
117. The _Minas Geraes_, Brazilian battleship _To face_ 336
By special permission of the Brazilian Naval Commission, from a
photograph kindly supplied by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and
Co.
118. The _Kearsarge_, U.S. Navy _To face_ 340
119. The _San Francisco_, U.S. Navy _To face_ 340
Both from photographs by G. West and Son
120. The _Monitoria_ _To face_ 348
By courtesy of Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co.
121. The _Iroquois_ and _Navahoe_ _To face_ 348
By permission of the _Syren and Shipping_
122. The _Monitoria_, transverse section 350
By courtesy of Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co.
123. The old Floating Dock at Rotherhithe, _circa_ 1800 _To face_ 354
By courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
124. Model of the Bermuda Dock _To face_ 356
From the original at South Kensington
125. Self-docking of the Bermuda Dock (well heeled) _To face_ 358
126. Bermuda Dock: Centre Pontoon Self-docked _To face_ 358
127. Bolted Sectional Dock lifting a Vessel _To face_ 360
128. The Cartagena Dock _To face_ 362
The last four by courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
129. The _Baikal_ _To face_ 362
By courtesy of the _Magazine of Commerce_
130. The _Drottning Victoria_ _To face_ 366
From a photograph by Frank and Sons, by courtesy of the
_Shipbuilder_ and Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson
131. The _Ermack_ _To face_ 370
By courtesy of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co.
132. The _Earl Grey_ _To face_ 370
By courtesy of the _Magazine of Commerce_
133. The Royal Yacht _Victoria and Albert_ _To face_ 372
134. The Imperial Yacht _Hohenzollern_ _To face_ 372
Photographs by G. West and Son
PLANS
135. The Evolution of Floating Docks, 1800-1910 389
By courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
CHAPTER I
PRIMITIVE EXPERIMENTS IN PROPULSION--SOME EARLY EXPERIMENTS WITH STEAM
Opinions are divided as to whether the paddle-wheel is a development
from the action of a man paddling a canoe, or the result of applying to
a vessel an ordinary wheel, with blades to make it bite the water; or
it may be stated thus: Did the paddle-blades grow out of the wheel, or
the wheel out of a number of paddle-blades? There is no satisfactory
evidence one way or the other; suffice it that the idea of revolving
paddles was developed.
How the power which caused the revolution of the paddles was applied
at first is as unknown as the identity of the man who first thought
of making navigation easier by mechanical means. It was probably
human power, as the first inventor can hardly have discovered how to
utilise animals for the purpose, and from what we know of primitive
expedients we may conjecture what the first contrivance used to urge
a boat onwards without sails or oars was like. The craft would be a
small one. Perhaps the proprietor was too poor to hire rowers. Perhaps,
a subtle financier, he realised that if he could bring his goods to a
certain place before rival shippers he would secure the market. Hence,
stimulated by poverty or cupidity or both, he reflected, experimented,
and finally invented the revolving paddle. But his apparatus was
probably nothing more than a smooth, straight branch or tree log, which
projected over either side of the boat and carried at each end paddles
fixed radially. He probably used two or four paddles, as it would be
easier to attach them to the axle in pairs. The radii of the paddles
consisted of two poles tied at right angles about the middle and there
fastened to the axle ends, rough-hewn boards or strips of bark being
attached at the extremities of the poles to form the paddle-blades.
The axle was doubtless kept in place either by pins in the gunwales
placed before and after it, or by bringing two of the ribs on either
side above the gunwale line and disposing the axle between them. In
many modern row-boats one or other of these plans is adopted for the
accommodation of the oars or sculls. This much being accomplished, it
only remained to apply the power. The inventor now passed a rope twice
round the middle of the axle, and tied the ends together. By hauling on
it he got all the power he was likely to require; to go astern he had
merely to pull the rope the other way. If more power was required more
men tugged at the rope.
When paddles were made larger to suit hulls of larger dimensions, it
may fairly be assumed that a winch turned by several men was used, and
that the power was transmitted to the axle of the paddle by means of an
endless rope. But soon it occurred to the shipowners that animals might
be used to produce the power instead of men. Horses or oxen were made
to drive a turntable or capstan, to work in a cage after the fashion
of white mice in their cylinders, or on a moving floor which imparted
its motion to an axle connected by an endless rope with the axle of
the paddle. Such boats, deriving their power from animals, were built
by the Romans, were in use in the early centuries of the Christian
era, and were not unknown in the nineteenth century in Britain and the
United States.
[Illustration: PRIMITIVE PADDLE-BOATS.
_From Valturius’ “De Re Militari,” 1472._]
One of the earliest authentic records of a vessel fitted with
paddle-wheels is to be found in Robertus Valturius’ “De Re Militari,”
published in 1472, wherein are pictures[2] of two boats, one of which
has five pairs of paddle-wheels, and the other one pair. Modern
engineers know by experience that if two wheels be placed one behind
another--and in the early days of steam navigation several boats were
equipped with two pairs of paddle-wheels--the hinder wheels, having to
work in disturbed and moving water, are practically useless. But at the
time of which Valturius writes the wheels were so small, the number
of revolutions were so few, and the propelling power they exerted so
slight, that no wheel was likely to have its efficiency much interfered
with by any number of wheels in front of it. The wheels had four
paddles each, and were revolved by cranks on their axles, the cranks of
the ten-wheeled boat being connected by a rope to give uniform action.
[2] The designs have been attributed to Matteo de’ Pasti, who lived at
the court of Malatesta (d. 1464).
In the Far East also, wheel-boats were in use long before steam-driven
paddle-wheels were invented. The Chinese certainly used them. In a
paper read at the Society of Arts in April 1858, Mr. John McGregor,
a barrister, who devoted considerable time to the study of early
mechanical appliances, stated that an old work on China contains a
sketch of a vessel moved by four paddle-wheels, and used perhaps in the
seventh century. In certain “Memoires” of the Jesuit Fathers at Peking,
published at Paris in 1782, there appears this quaint description of
a “barque à roues”: “This vessel is 42 feet in length and 13 feet in
width. The wheels are fixed in an empty space about a foot high situate
underneath the strip between the stout planks _a b_. From the axle
or centre of the wheels any number of spokes radiate which act like
teeth for the wheels. They enter the water to the depth of a foot. A
number of men make the wheels turn round. The length of the prow from
_l_ to _m_ is 8 feet. The length of the body of the vessel from _n_
to _o_ is 27 feet, and the length of the poop 7 feet. Heads of tigers
are represented on movable boards covered with leather, about 5 feet
in height and 2 feet wide. These boards shelter from the enemy the
soldiers who are behind them. They are removed when the crew decide
on boarding the enemy’s vessel.” The good Fathers in their “Memoires”
add a recommendation to experts in Paris to study the principle with a
view to its adoption in French vessels, and they point out that even if
the extra speed attained were ever so slight it might be sufficient to
bring a vessel out of a dangerous situation. It may well be doubted,
however, whether the shipping experts in Paris at that date profited
by this humanitarian suggestion. Be this as it may, the passage proves
that the propulsion of vessels by revolving wheels was not a western
idea only.
[Illustration: “BARQUE À ROUES,” PRIMITIVE CHINESE PADDLE-BOAT.]
Panciroli, writing in the sixteenth century, describes an
extraordinary boat of which he had seen a picture. His book is not
illustrated; but we find a representation of a _liburna_, or galley,
which exactly corresponds to Panciroli’s description,[3] in Morisotus’
(Claude Barthélemy Morisot) “Orbis Maritimi ... generalis Historia,”
published in 1643.
[3] “Vidi etiam effigiem Navium quarundam, quas Liburnas dicunt;
quæ ab utroque latere extrinsecus tres habebant rotas, aquam
attingentes: quarum quælibet octo constabat radiis, manus palmo e
rota prominentibus: intrinsecus vero sex boves machinam quandam
circumagendo rotas illas incitabant: et radii aquam retrorsum
pellentes, Liburnam tanto impetu ad cursum propellebant, ut
nulla triremis ei posset resistere.”--GUIDO PANCIROLI: _Rerum
memorabilium_, libri ii. Ambergæ, 1599.
The vessel, an Illyrian galley, had six wheels propelled by as many
oxen. The curious picture suggests an unwieldy, top-heavy concern which
could only be of use in still water, and would probably be safest in
shallow water, so that if anything happened the oxen and men could walk
ashore without trouble. The cattle apparently occupy most of the space,
an immense bird’s head with a hooked nose juts out in front immediately
above the water-line; this is of course the ram, above which is a
platform upon which a dog stands as the vessel’s figure-head.
It is unnecessary to go in detail into all the schemes devised by
inventors and visionaries for propelling vessels by mechanical means.
Several of them from time to time suggested placing wheels on the
outside of the boat, and “turning the wheeles by some provision so that
the wheeles make the boat goe,” to quote William Bourne’s proposition
of 1578, but the “some provision” constituted a problem which he and
many others found too much for them. David Ramsay in 1618 took out a
patent “to make boats for carriages running upon water as swift in
calms and more safe in storms than boats full sailed in great winds,”
and twelve years later another patent is recorded to his credit for
making ships and barges go against the tide. The optimism of these and
other mechanical pioneers was wonderful; indeed, had their inventive
genius only equalled their imagination, some of the difficulties
which until comparatively recently baffled naval engineers and marine
architects would have been long since overcome.
[Illustration: “LIBURNA” OR GALLEY, WORKED BY OXEN.
_From Morisotus._]
The webbed feet of water-birds suggested to many a form in which
mechanical propulsion could be applied. This was only natural, as
early shipbuilders took as their models the birds which they saw
floating before them. In 1759 a Swiss pastor named Genevois published
at Geneva a proposal to use an oar fitted with a foot which should
expand when used for propelling a boat and contract when being moved
forward through the water for another stroke. Genevois visited London
in 1760 to lay his proposal before the Government. His propellers were
to be worked by springs which in turn were to be compressed by a kind
of cannon with a piston. A pamphlet which he issued at the time of his
application to the Government contains the interesting statement that
he had been informed that a Scotchman had propounded a scheme thirty
years earlier for propelling vessels forward by the recoil from the
firing of cannon over the stern. The gunpowder of the period made up
in smoke what it lacked in power; hence, although the vessels of his
day were not large, the ingenious Scot “found, by the experiments
made for that purpose, that thirty barrels of Gun-powder had scarce
forwarded the ship the space of ten Miles”; and it is not surprising
that this means of mechanical propulsion shared the fate of all of its
predecessors.[4]
[4] “Some New Inquiries tending to the Improvement of Navigation,” by
J. A. Genevois, 1760.
Many other extravagant schemes might be quoted. Edward Ford in 1646 was
quite modest in his patent to “bring little ships, barges, and vessels
in and out of any havens without or against any small wind or tide,” to
which he cautiously added the qualification “if the seas be not rough.”
With the exception, however, of a few sporting proposals of which the
Scotch Gunpowder Plot is a type, no advance in solving the problem of
producing the power for propulsion was made for centuries. The burden
of physical exertion had been shifted from men to animals, but that was
all; and yet in every age during the last two thousand years there seem
to have been many people who were acquainted with the expansive power
of steam, a fact which makes this slow development the more remarkable.
The first person to observe the properties of steam, or at any rate
the first to record his observations, was Hero of Alexandria in 120
B.C., but though he advanced from theory to practice, his æolipile
does not seem to have answered any useful purpose. This machine
consisted of a hollow glass ball supplied with steam at its axis. The
steam escaped by means of a series of hollow tubes, placed at right
angles and projecting from the globe at a circle on its circumference
equidistant from the two poles, the tubes being closed at the ends and
provided with orifices at the sides near the ends. Nothing came of his
invention, so far as is known, and the æolipile remained an interesting
toy and nothing else--a toy, however, which has the honour of being
the first mechanical contrivance in which the expansive power of steam
was used. After this, for many centuries, no attempt was made to use
this great natural agency for the purpose of producing what Bacon
called “fruits” for mankind. Unscrupulous priests worked “miracles” by
this means for the edification of their flocks, and doubtless revived
thereby many whose faith had become lukewarm. It never seems to have
occurred to them that a far more direct means of moving mountains was
already under their control.
At last in 1629 the use of steam as a means of producing power was
suggested by Giovanni Branca of Loretto, who, apparently adopting a
simplified form of Hero’s device, planned so that a jet of steam blew
against a series of vanes arranged on the rim of a wheel.
In the seventeenth century also, that eccentric genius the second
Marquis of Worcester published his “Century of Inventions.” In this he
suggested a number of mechanical contrivances, some of which contained
the fundamental ideas of later inventions, the most notable being that
of a steam-engine with a piston and lever; but he does not seem to have
designed any vessel which would justify the claim sometimes made on his
behalf that he was the inventor of the steamboat.[5]
[5] Partington’s edition of the “Century of Inventions.”
About the same time, Sir S. Morland, another experimenter, estimated
the expansive force of water at 2000 times, in which he was not far
from the truth.
England, however, was not the only country to produce inventors. One
Blasco de Garay, who flourished a hundred years before the Marquis of
Worcester, is declared by his champions to have been the first to solve
the problem of propelling a vessel by steam-power. But investigations
as to the accuracy of the story tend to the belief that he did nothing
of the kind, and that the beautifully circumstantial account of his
experiment does greater credit to the imagination of the narrator
than to his regard for accuracy.[6] De Garay’s experiment was made
at Barcelona in the year 1543 in the presence of representatives of
the Emperor Charles V. Ravago, the Treasurer, reported to the Emperor
that the vessel would go two leagues in three hours, but that the
machine was complex and expensive, and that the cauldron in which the
steam was generated might burst. This is exactly the report which a
cautious financier, presumably not an expert in mechanics, might be
expected to make. Other reports were more favourable to the project,
the commissioners appointed for the purpose ascribing to the vessel a
speed of a league an hour. What has been established beyond question,
however, is that De Garay made the experiment with a boat fitted with
paddle-wheels, but that the wheels were turned by men and not by steam.
[6] Mr. John McGregor reported to the Society of Arts that the claim
that De Garay used a steam-engine is unfounded, human power being
used.
Salomon de Caus, a native of Normandy, is sometimes claimed by French
writers to have first thought of using steam as a motive power in 1615,
but his invention does not seem to have fructified. Half a century
later the unlucky Doctor Denis Papin, a native of Blois, entered the
field of invention. He came to this country from France in 1675, was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1681, and in 1690 described
a steam cylinder fitted with a piston which descended by atmospheric
pressure when the steam below it was condensed. He suggested that one
of the uses to which his engine might be put was the revolution of
paddle-wheels fitted to a ship, several cylinders being applied which
worked alternately with the rackwork he designed. He may have been
led to this by witnessing in 1681 the experiments on the Thames with
a boat designed by Rupert, the Prince Palatine, with revolving fans,
which easily left behind a boat manned by a number of oarsmen. It has
been claimed for Papin that he was the inventor of the safety-valve,
but this is disputed.[7] Prior, however, to his atmospheric engine
he brought out in 1685 a machine for raising or pumping water, but
the Royal Society treated it with contempt and referred to it as
a “mere trick.” Neither of his machines received the recognition
which historians have since decided was their due, and he went back
disheartened to France, whence he was driven by the Revocation of
the Edict of Nantes to Marburg. He reappeared in England in 1707 and
announced a project for moving ships by means of wheels and steam.
Unfortunately for him, Thomas Savery, born in 1658, had already been at
work on the problem, and had brought out his fire-engine, which among
other things he thought might be used to propel ships. His machine
lacked power, and was replaced by one made after the design of his
partner Newcomen. Papin was also associated with Newcomen and Savery
at one time. Savery says of his own machine that he would refer the
question of its suitability for shipping to those more competent than
himself to judge. Papin appealed to the Naval Department to consider
his invention, but the Government of the day, after the manner of
Governments when face to face with a new project, thought it useless,
and made severe remarks on his presumption in continuing to invent for
them. He exhibited his invention on the Thames, but no one took any
interest in it. Thoroughly disheartened by the failures which attended
all his efforts, Papin went to Germany, and is stated to have there
built a steamer which was actually tried on the Fulda or the Weser, but
the local watermen, fearing the rivalry of the new machine, smashed
it, and that is the last which history has to record of Papin as a
pioneer of steamboats. It is asserted that this boat was built for
him by Newcomen and Savery in this country. As an experimenter he did
valuable work, for he seems to have been the first to have grasped the
importance of the vacuum under the piston.[8]
[7] Hy. Frith’s “Triumphs of Steam.”
[8] Lindsay’s “History of Merchant Shipping.”
In 1730 another remarkable proposition was made for marine propulsion.
Doctor John Allen thought it possible to move a boat by pumping in
water at the bows and pumping it out again at the stern, this scheme
being probably the earliest attempt to secure motion by what has
since become known as the jet-propeller system. Like almost all other
inventions of his period it was crude in its details and does not seem
to have been put to any practical use.
The next inventor who turned his attention to the question was Jonathan
Hulls, for whom it has been claimed, with some show of justification,
that he was the actual inventor of the steamboat. That he did invent a
steamboat is beyond question, but whether his vessel was ever built,
and if so whether it attained any measure of success, are points upon
which historical evidence is not conclusive. But if it was constructed,
and there is strong circumstantial evidence in support of this
contention, then to the West of England, which has contributed so
largely to the maritime glory of Britain, must be ascribed also the
honour of being the birthplace of one of the two inventions which have
done more than anything else to aid in the spread of civilisation and
commerce. Hulls was born at Aston Magna in 1699. By occupation he was
a clock repairer, a precarious trade at best. The difficulties he had
to encounter through lack of means were very great, but he persevered,
and a patron at last appeared in the person of a Mr. Freeman, of
Batsford Park, near Chipping Campden, who supplied him with about £160
to develop and patent his invention. This enabled Hulls to proceed to
London, and he petitioned Queen Caroline, as Guardian of the Realm in
the absence of her Consort George II. at Hanover, for Letters Patent
for the invention, which was accordingly granted to him December 21,
1736, provided he enrolled in Chancery within the following three
months a specification describing his invention.[9] The patent read as
follows:
“Whereas our Trusty and Well Beloved Jonathan Hulls hath by his
petition humbly represented unto Our most dearly beloved Consort
the Queen.... That he hath with much Labour and Study, and at Great
Expense Invented and Formed a machine for carrying Ships and Vessels
out of or into any Harbour, &c., which the Petitioner apprehends
may be of great service to our Royal Navy and Merchant Ships, and
to Boats and other Vessels, of which Machine the Petitioner hath
made oath that he is the sole inventor, as by affidavit to his said
petition annexed.
“Know ye therefore that we of our special grace, have given and
granted to the said Jonathan Hulls our special license, full power,
sole privilege and authority during the term of fourteen years, and
he shall lawfully make use of the same for carrying ships and other
vessels out to sea, or into any harbour or river.
“In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made
patent.
“(Witness) CAROLINE,
“Queen of Great Britain.
“Given by right of Privy Seal at Westminster this 21st day of
December 1736.”[10]
[9] Mr. J. H. Hulls’ lecture at the Institute of Marine Engineers on
“The Introduction of Steam Navigation,” February 26, 1906.
[10] From copy of patent in possession of Mr. J. H. Hulls.
Mr. P. C. Rushen, in referring to the experiment, writes:
“About this time it may be presumed that Jonathan set about
constructing a vessel in accordance with his plans, and for this
purpose he had the help of the Eagle Foundry at Birmingham, to which
he forwarded rough model plans and sketches to aid in founding and
forging the various parts. Until quite recent years these relics were
existent, but on the sale and demolition of the foundry they seem to
have been destroyed.
“The new vessel was tried on the Avon, but tradition says it was a
failure, by reason of the inventor not providing the proper means
to communicate the power to the paddle. That the experiment was a
failure seems evident from the fact that nothing more was heard of
the boat, but for the given reason is very improbable, because the
very ingenious means the inventor describes, although perhaps not
quite practical on a large scale, are not palpably unworkable for a
small experimental boat. Even if these means were a failure, it would
be ridiculous to suppose that a clever mechanic such as Hulls shows
himself to be in his pamphlet would be at a loss for some expedient.
[Illustration: JONATHAN HULLS’ PADDLE STEAMER, 1737.]
“The more probable reason of Hulls’ failure was the want of financial
support, that previously accorded him being perhaps withdrawn on the
first hitch in the experiments, or for some other reason, this so
disheartening him that he relinquished the idea. While Hulls had been
at work on his project, he had worn a brown paper cap, as usual with
mechanics at that time, and this fact was taken advantage of in a
scathing doggerel, which was circulated upon his failure, and which
ran:
“Jonathan Hull
With his paper skull;
Tried to make a Machine
To go against wind and tide,
But he, like an ass,
Couldn’t bring it to pass
So at last was ashamed to be seen.”[11]
[11] P. C. Rushen’s “History and Antiquities of Chipping Campden in
the County of Gloucester,” 1899.
The engine which Hulls used was an adaptation of Newcomen’s. He
published a lengthy description of his boat, in which he states that,
in his opinion, it would not be practicable to place his machine on
anything but a tow-boat, as it would take up too much room to allow of
other goods being carried on the same vessel, and it could “not be used
in a storm, or when the waves are very raging.” Hulls died in London
destitute, and the world inherited his ideas. Steam tow-boats are now
found all over the world, and the despised stern-wheeler of his day was
the forerunner of the great stern-wheelers of the Mississippi.
Another person who took up the subject seriously was a Frenchman,
Jouffroy d’Abbans, better known perhaps as Claude François Dorothée,
Marquis de Jouffroy. His invention was known as the Pyroscaphe. It was
claimed for him by the Marquis de Bausset-Roquefort that “he was the
first who carried out in practice a scheme for navigation by steam,
his successful experiments on the Saône at Lyons in 1783 being attested
by official documents, and by the evidence of thousands of spectators.
The glory of the invention of the means of using steam-power in
navigation belongs therefore to France, as is clearly shown by the
archives of the town of Lyons.”
The Marquis de Jouffroy was born at Roche-sur-Rognon in 1751. A duel
fought while he was page to the Dauphin caused his exile to Provence,
where he studied the methods by which the ancient rowing galleys
were propelled. He returned to Paris in 1775 and conceived the idea
of inventing some form of steamboat while looking at the Chaillot
fire-pump which Périer[12] had erected a short time previously. He
communicated his project to Périer, who made some fruitless experiments
and declared the idea impossible. Jouffroy, however, persevered, and in
1776 had constructed a machine which he adapted for use on a boat. “His
first pyroscaphe was 13 m. long, and 1 m. 95 c. wide. The ‘swimming’
apparatus consisted of rods 2 m. 66 c. in length suspended on either
side well forward and carrying at their extremity frames fitted with
hinged flaps with a dip of 50 c. The frames were capable of describing
an arc of 2 m. 66 c. (8 feet) radius and of 1 m. (3 feet) in length,
and were drawn forward at the end of the stroke by a counterweight. A
single-acting engine by Watt, installed in the middle of the boat, set
in action these hinged flaps. The construction of this apparatus in a
locality where it was impossible to obtain a cast and bored cylinder
was a work of genius, courage, and patience. Despite its imperfections
it was superior to anything attempted up to that time in navigation.
The boat worked on the Doubs at Baume-les-Dames between Montbéliard and
Besançon during the months of June and July.” This system, since called
the “Palmipède,” imitated the movements of aquatic birds, and was the
only one that could be applied to the steam-engine as then known. It
was, however, useless for moving large masses or for working against
the current. “Jouffroy saw the defects caused by the fact that the
rapidity of the boat’s motion prevented the hinged flaps from reopening
after the forward stroke, especially when the pyroscaphe was moving
upstream or against the tide. Hence the engine only acted at intervals
instead of keeping up a sustained movement. But Jouffroy substituted
paddle-wheels for the hinged flaps (_volets à charnière_) and devised
a new machine in which the action of the steam was made continuous by
means of two bronze cylinders, the top placed lengthwise with the run
of the ship, making with the horizon an angle of about 50 degrees.
The bottoms of the cylinders were encased in a metal box containing a
sliding tile which opened and shut, alternately giving a passage to the
steam and the intake of water in each cylinder.
[12] The name is spelt “Perrier” by some writers.
[Illustration: THE MARQUIS DE JOUFFROY’S STEAMBOAT. 1783.]
“By July 1, 1783, Jouffroy had constructed a second boat which was
launched at Lyons. Its dimensions were considerable, the length
attaining 46 m. and the breadth 4 m. 50 c. The wheels were 4 m.
diameter, the paddles 1 m. 95 c., dipping 65 c. The draught of water
of the vessel was 95 c. The total weight was 327 milliers, of which
27 were for the vessel and 300 for the freight. This enormous vessel
voyaged against the tide of the Saône from Lyons to L’île Barbe in the
presence of the Commission de Savants and thousands of spectators, as
officially recorded in the archives of the Municipality of Lyons.”
Arago says this vessel continued to navigate the Saône for sixteen
months.[13]
[13] Paper read by the Marquis de Bausset-Roquefort before the Lyons
Literary Society in 1864, and preserved at the Mazarin Library
(Academy of Sciences), Paris.
Jouffroy now thought of starting a company to run boats on the new
system, and applied to the Government for the necessary permission.
The question was submitted to the Academy of Sciences, who appointed
a Commission to inquire into the matter, but among the members of the
Commission was the unsuccessful Périer, whose opposition resulted in
the Academy concluding that the experiments at Lyons were not decisive.
The Marquis had not the means to continue building steamboats and,
profoundly discouraged, he abandoned the rôle of inventor. He had
already been subjected to much ridicule, and it was generally agreed
that he must be mad to think of “making fire and water agree”; he was
even nicknamed “Pump Jouffroy.” He witnessed the experiments of Fulton
in France, but did not think of claiming the merit of his discovery
until 1816, when he issued a publication entitled “Steamboats.” The
same year he took out a patent, formed a company, and on August 20
launched a steamboat at Bercy, but the venture did not come up to
the expectations of the shareholders, and this was his last effort.
Jouffroy died of cholera at the Hôpital des Invalides in 1832. Arago,
the historian, says that his claims to be the first inventor of
the steamboat have been established, and, according to Larousse’s
“Dictionnaire universel du XIX^e siècle,” Fulton himself openly
acknowledged them in the United States law courts.