Chapter II (1)

Progress of steam navigation in Europe—Clyde mechanics take the
lead—James Watt, 1766—Henry Bell, 1800—Correspondence between
Bell and Fulton—Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton—The
_Comet_ steamer, 1811, plies between Glasgow and Greenock, and
afterwards on the Forth—Extraordinary progress of ship-building
on the Clyde—Great value and importance of the private
building yards—J. Elder and Company; their extensive premises,
_note_—Steam between Norwich and Yarmouth, 1813; between London
and Margate, 1815—The _Glasgow_—Early opposition to the
employment of steam-vessels—Barges on the Thames—First steamer
between Liverpool and the Clyde—H. M. steam-ship _Comet_—The
_Rob Roy_ and other vessels, 1818—The _United Kingdom_,
1826—First idea of iron ships, 1830—Proposals of Trevethick
and Dickenson, 1809-1815—The _Vulcan_, 1818—The _Aaron Manby_,
1821—The Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824—Mr. John Laird and
Sir William Fairbairn—The _Elburkah_, 1832, and _Garry Owen_,
1834—The _Rainbow_, 1837—Messrs. Tod and MacGregor—The _Great
Britain_, 1839-1843—Advantages of iron ships—Action of salt
water on iron inconsiderable—Durability, strength, and safety
of iron—Affords greater capacity for stowage—Admiralty slow to
adopt iron for ships of war—Mr. Galloway’s feathering paddles,
1829—Story of the screw-propeller—Joseph Bramah, 1785—Mr.
J. Stevens, 1804—Richard Trevethick, 1815—Robert Wilson,
1833—Captain Ericsson, 1836—The _Francis B. Ogden_, though
successful, fails to convince the Admiralty—Mr. T. P. Smith—The
_Archimedes_—Her trial with the _Widgeon_, Oct. 1839, and its
results—The _Rattler_ and the _Alecto_, 1843—The _Rattler_ not
as successful as expected—Captain Robert J. Stockton efficiently
supports Ericsson’s views—His vessel, a complete success, and the
first “screw” used for commerce in America—Superiority of Mr.
Woodcroft’s “varying” propeller, 1832—In building fit vessels,
the trade in which they are to be employed must be considered.

[Sidenote: Progress of steam navigation in Europe.]

During the progress in America of the art of practically applying steam to marine propulsion the people of Europe were making slow but important improvements in the models of their vessels, and in the development of that art for the purposes of navigation.

[Sidenote: Clyde mechanics take the lead.]

[Sidenote: James Watt, 1766.]

In these improvements the mechanics on the Clyde took the lead, establishing there a reputation for the construction of marine engines and more especially of ships adapted to receive them, which they have ever since maintained. In the early part of this century the river Clyde in the vicinity of Glasgow was a scarcely navigable stream, with few or no vessels at its chief port, and these, small craft of not more than 40 tons, drawing, at most, only 5 feet of water when laden. Indeed, my own recollection of that now important river goes back to the time when one could wade across it among the stones at the foot of the old Broomielaw Bridge, and when a small but lucrative salmon fishery was carried on from the two “fishing huts,” then the site where a dock now receives ships of the largest description, and where massive quay walls and numerous warehousing sheds occupy the once verdant grass banks of its southern shore. To the energy and intelligence of the Corporation, and, in later years, through the laudable exertion of a Trust, chosen from members of that body and other citizens of Glasgow, may, in a great measure, be attributed the extraordinary rise and prosperity of a city now possessing an inland navigation and a stream harbour unsurpassed, perhaps, in Europe. Indeed, from the time when James Watt, in 1766,[96] erected in Glasgow his first model of a steam-engine and there laid the foundation of a power which has since revolutionized the commerce of the world, its citizens seem to have specially directed their genius to the development of this mighty agency, their first and necessary step being the improvement of the approaches to their city by the deepening of the Clyde.

[Sidenote: Henry Bell, 1800.]

But it was not till the beginning of the present century that any real progress was made in the maritime pursuits of the people of Scotland. In 1800, Henry Bell, then resident at Helensburgh, first laid before the British Government his inventions for the improvement of steam navigation. The Board of Admiralty, however, so far from expressing any desire to promote his views, discouraged them, as they did thirteen years afterwards, when the subject was again urged upon their attention. Naturally anxious that his invention should be practically tested on a scale sufficiently extended, Bell forwarded, in 1803, a detailed account of his method of propelling vessels against wind and tide by steam power, to most of the European Governments, and also to the Government of the United States of America. He found, however, that his plans were received no better abroad than at home: while it further seems probable that the Government of the United States had either given or shown them to Fulton, who was then engaged in endeavouring to induce his countrymen to assist him in starting trading steamers on their lakes and rivers, where such vessels were admirably fitted for the profitable development of their vast natural inland resources.

[Sidenote: Correspondence between Bell and Fulton.]

Mr. Fulton evidently knew how Mr. Bell had been employed, for he opened a correspondence with him, and, in the course of it, requested him to call on Mr. Miller of Dalswinton, and on Mr. Symington, and to send him a drawing and description of their last boat with the machinery. These were sent out, and Fulton, some time afterwards, answered that “he had constructed a steamer from the different drawings of the machinery forwarded to him by Bell, which was likely to succeed with some necessary improvements.” This letter Bell sent to Mr. Miller for his information. As the matter, however, to which it refers is one of considerable importance, it is desirable to state the facts as related by Mr. Bell himself in a letter which appeared in the _Caledonian Mercury_ in 1816, wherein he says, referring to the communication he had received many years previously from Mr. Fulton:

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

[Sidenote: The _Comet_ steamer, 1811.]

“This letter led me to think of the absurdity of writing my opinion to other countries, and not putting it into practice in my own country; and from these considerations I was [a]roused (_sic_), to set on foot a steam-boat, for which I made a number of different models before I was satisfied. When I was convinced they would answer the end, I contracted with Messrs. John Wood and Company, shipbuilders, in Port Glasgow, to build me a steam-vessel according to my plan: 40 feet keel, and 10 feet 6 inches beam, which I fitted up with an engine and paddles, and called her the _Comet_, because she was built and finished the year that a comet appeared in the north-west part of Scotland. This vessel is the first steam-boat built in Europe that answered the end, and is, at this present time, upon the best and simplest method of any of them, for a person sitting in the cabin will hardly hear the engine at work. She plies on the Firth of Forth, betwixt the east end of the great canal and Newhaven near Leith. The distance by water is 27 miles, which she performs in ordinary weather in three and a half hours up, and the same down.”

In another communication, Bell says, “when I wrote to the United States’ Government on the great utility that steam navigation would be to them on their rivers, they appointed Mr. Fulton to correspond with me.”

No merit, as the inventor of the present system of steam navigation, can, however, be conceded to Bell more than to Fulton; nor for any progress beyond the improvements of which he had obtained cognizance from the previous experiments of Messrs. Miller, Taylor, and Symington. In fact, there can be no doubt, from existing drawings, that Symington’s _Charlotte Dundas_ was superior in mechanical arrangements to either Fulton’s _Clermont_ or Bell’s _Comet_. But what Fulton and Livingston accomplished in the United States, Bell effected in his own country; each was, therefore, instrumental in the introduction, for commercial purposes, of steam navigation.[97]

[Sidenote: plies between Glasgow and Greenock,]

Though Mr. Bell had completed his _Comet_ in January, 1812, more than six months elapsed before he announced to the public, through the medium of an advertisement in the local papers of the period,[98] his intention to employ her for trading purposes on the Clyde. The notice is a modest but curious and interesting document. He does not profess to make more than one passage each day between Glasgow and Greenock, a distance of 22 miles, and, doubtful of its pecuniary success, he informs the public that he intends to continue “his establishment at Helensburgh Baths,” to which the _Comet_ will carry passengers on her return journey from Greenock This little vessel, of which the following is an illustration as she appeared on the Clyde passing Dumbarton, was designed and constructed by Mr. John Wood, shipbuilder, Port Glasgow. She was 40 feet in length of keel, and 10½ feet beam; her engines (which cost 192_l._) were 4 horse-power; and her draught of water 4 feet. She continued to ply for a short time between Glasgow and Greenock, but under many difficulties.[99]

Though the engine of the _Comet_ was only of 4 horse-power, driving two small wheels, one on each side, it must, however, have performed its work, on the whole, exceedingly well to have propelled a vessel of 30 tons burthen at the rate Mr. Bell states in his letter published in the _Caledonian Mercury_.

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

But the _Comet_ does not appear to have proved remunerative to her enterprising owner on the line on which he had placed her.[100] The prejudice raised against steam navigation by rival interests, which Fulton had previously experienced on the Hudson, was equally strong on the Clyde, and seriously injured Mr. Bell’s first undertaking. He was consequently obliged to withdraw her from this station and to employ her for some months as an excursion-boat on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, extending his cruises to the shores of England when the weather permitted, to show the superior advantages of steam-boat navigation over other modes of transit to the public, many of whom viewed her with feelings of mingled awe and superstition. Afterwards he transferred her to the Forth, where she ran for a considerable time between the extremity of the Forth and Clyde Canal and Newhaven, near Edinburgh. Here she seems to have done her work most efficiently, for Mr. Bell states that she made the voyage, a distance of 27 miles, on the average, in three and a half hours, being at the rate of more than 7½ miles an hour.[101]

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

Although the _Comet_ at first proved commercially unsuccessful, there is no part of Europe where the progress in the construction of steamers has been either so great or so astonishing as on the Clyde. From a silvery salmon stream it has become in half a century by far the largest and most important shipbuilding river in the world; but, alas, its once limpid stream has long since ceased to be either silvery or pure.[102] Ancient historians have told us that when the first Punic war roused the citizens of Rome to extraordinary exertions in the equipment of a fleet for the destruction of the maritime supremacy of Carthage, the banks of the Tiber resounded with the axe and the hammer, and that the extent of the ship-building operations then carried on was a matter not merely of surprise, but of wonder. How insignificant, however, was that sound when compared with that of the steam hammer and the anvil and the din of the work now to be heard on the banks of the Clyde. For miles on both sides of the river stupendous ship-building yards line its banks, employing tens of thousands of hardy and skilled mechanics earning their daily bread, as God has destined all men to do, by “the sweat of their brow,” relieved from oppressive taxation, and free from anything approaching the thraldom of slavery, the curse of ancient Rome. Along those banks there is now annually constructed a much larger amount of steam tonnage than in all the other ports of Europe combined, those of England alone excepted. What a contrast to the days of Henry Bell!—days almost within my own recollection.

By comparing the Clyde with the Tiber, both in themselves comparatively insignificant rivers—the one made important by the power of the Cæsars, the other by the wisdom and energy of the Clyde trustees, it is to be hoped that more than one lesson may be learned from the character of the employment on their respective banks. The clamour on the Tiber when Rome resolved to achieve maritime greatness, indicated war, terrible war, with Carthage; but the sounds on the Clyde proclaim a mission of peace and good-will among nations, for nearly all the ships constructed there are destined to carry to other lands the fabrics of our workshops and the products of our mills, and with them the civilizing and enlightening influence resulting from the skill and genius of our artisans.[103]

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

Should, however, the necessity arise, these numerous ship-building yards and thousands of mechanics could instantly be made available for the construction of vessels of war. If, therefore, a large naval force be still unhappily necessary, [and I am far from saying that it is not], should we not take into consideration, when we frame our naval estimates, the vast resources we have at our command in our private yards,[104] (infinitely greater as these are than those of all other nations in Europe combined), for producing on an emergency, whatever extra number of vessels of war we may then require? Our private building yards are in themselves the bases of a great fleet.[105]

But the Admiralty are slow to learn. At the commencement of the century they declined even to consider the benefits to be derived by the application of steam, and even forty years afterwards, when everybody except themselves had become alive to its advantages, they refused to apply this new and now mighty power to our war ships of the line.

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

[Sidenote: Between London and Margate, 1815.]

[Sidenote: The _Glasgow_.]

Happily, however, the great invention made its way without Government aid. Private enterprise carried into execution what the Admiralty would not even consider. In 1813 a steam-boat was built at Leeds, and was started to run between Norwich and Yarmouth in the months of August or September of that year. This was the second steam-vessel launched in British waters. In the same year a steamer was launched at Manchester and another at Bristol. In October 1814 another steamer commenced to ply on the Humber. In December of that year the first steamer was seen on the Thames; she was put in motion on the canal at Limehouse; and, early in 1815, a vessel with a side lever engine of 14 horse-power, constructed by Cook of Glasgow, made her way from that city to Dublin, and thence round the Land’s End to London. Though encountering great opposition from the Thames watermen, from time immemorial an obstructive class of men, she, nevertheless, commenced and successfully carried on a passenger traffic between that city and Margate. Cook had, in the previous year, in association with Bell, built two other steam-vessels, one of which, named the _Glasgow_, became in power and efficiency the standard at that time for river steamers.

The public now began to appreciate the value of steamers. Prejudice vanished and travellers by them increased with such rapidity that, in 1816, it was not unusual for 500 or 600 passengers to enjoy, in the course of one day, water excursions on the Clyde.[106]

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

It is, however, not a matter for surprise that steamers, when first placed on rivers for passenger traffic, were viewed with great jealousy by watermen, and that, on the Hudson and especially on the Thames, they were strenuously opposed. The traffic on the Thames had for centuries afforded profitable employment to large numbers of semi-seafaring men who, though not “sailors” in the usual acceptation of the term, could nevertheless be made much more useful on board our ships of war in an emergency than any other class in the community. To suggest any changes whereby their number might be reduced was sure, as has been the case for ages, to rouse the patriotic feelings of the people of England lest there should be a scarcity of men to man their fleets. Thus, on the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, the special clause inserted in the Bill to reserve the coasting trade from the competition of foreign ships and foreign seamen, was _solely_ on the ground of “preserving a nursery for British sailors,” and five years elapsed ere that clause was expunged. When, therefore, the British Legislature, at so recent a period, considered it necessary to pass an enactment for the preservation of seamen in England, as if any law could retain them here if they were desirous of improving their condition by accepting employment elsewhere, it is not surprising that the watermen, bargemen, and others, who obtained their livelihood on the Thames, should have found many sympathisers in 1815, when they affirmed that their “trade would be ruined by the introduction of steamers.” Nor can we wonder that men, in their humble position of life, could not see that the greater facilities afforded for intercourse between London and Margate and other towns on the banks of the river would, so far from reducing their means of employment, tend very materially to increase them.

[Sidenote: Barges on the Thames.]

Previously to the time when David Napier introduced a steamer, the _Marjory_, to ply on the Thames, the passenger traffic of the river had been carried on by rowing boats, and sailing-craft of various descriptions. Those which made the more distant voyages to Margate, Ramsgate, and Deal were sailing-vessels, most of them carrying cargo as well as passengers, while many were merely barges, called Hoys, of which the following is an excellent illustration from Mr. E. W. Cooke’s interesting collection of the vessels on the Thames. But the great bulk of them were wherries, while the larger class having a mast and sails, plied between Greenwich, Woolwich, Erith, or Gravesend. A few were state barges—ornate structures—belonging to the Lord Mayor and Corporation, or to the different livery companies or ancient guilds, in which for centuries the members made frequent excursions to Richmond or Hampton Court on the one hand, and Greenwich or Blackwall on the other. Jovial pleasant parties they were, especially at that season of the year, when the horse-chestnuts in Bushy Park were in bloom, and whitebait was in its prime at Greenwich. One of these richly decorated barges, almost rivalling the celebrated bucentaur of Venice, I have copied from the drawings of Mr. Cooke as a relic of bygone days.

But these have all now passed away, though the cargo barges, and some of the wherries may still be seen on the river. Steamers supply their places, and from the time when Napier, in 1815, started his “fire-boat,” steam navigation on the Thames, as on all other navigable rivers, has made a steady, if not, at first, a rapid progress.

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

On the 28th June, 1815, the first steamer arrived at Liverpool from the Clyde. She was built for the purpose of carrying on the passenger traffic between the Mersey and Runcorn. On her passage round she called at Ramsey, in the Isle of Man, whence she started early in the morning, and arrived at Liverpool about noon of the same day. This vessel, the particular dimensions and details of which it is difficult now to trace, was noteworthy in more ways than one. She was not merely the first regular steamer on the Mersey, but she was, also, in reality the pioneer of the fleet of steamers which now ply with so much regularity between Liverpool and the numerous ports on the English, Irish, and Scotch coasts.

The second steamer, introduced to the waters of the Mersey in 1816, was intended to supply communication for passengers and goods between Liverpool and Chester by means of the canal, an object she effectually accomplished.

The first application of steam for the purpose of towing vessels—now an important and invaluable part of the numerous services rendered by steam to navigation—was made in October 1816, when the _Harlequin_ was towed out of the Mersey by the _Charlotte_, a steamer which, in the summer of the same year, had been placed as a ferry-boat to run between Liverpool and Eastham. But the first steamer specially built at Liverpool for the purpose of a ferry was named the _Etna_, which, early in April of that year, began to ply between Liverpool and Tranmere. She was 63 feet long, with a paddle-wheel placed in the centre, her extremities being connected by beams, and her deck 28 feet wide over all. This primitive vessel initiated the mode of transit by means of the ferry-boats which now bridge the Mersey.

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

It was not, however, till the year 1819 that the Admiralty of the day became alive to the importance of steam navigation, nor were they likely, even then, to have awakened from their slumbers had not Lord Melville and Sir George Cockburn urged on the Government the great value of steam-power for towing their men-of-war.[107] In that year the first steam-vessel was built for the Royal Navy. She was named the _Comet_, and her dimensions were 115 feet in length, 21 feet in breadth, and 9 feet draught of water, being propelled by two engines of 40 horse-power each, manufactured by Boulton and Watt.

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

In 1818, Mr. David Napier, a name more associated than any other in Great Britain with the early development of the marine engine, having for some years previously been giving his attention to the propulsion of vessels by steam, launched the _Rob Roy_ from the yard of Mr. William Denny, of Dumbarton.[108] She was only 90 tons burthen, with engines of 30 horse-power, but, to the credit of her builder, she traded between Glasgow and Belfast, carrying with great punctuality the mails and passengers for two consecutive years without requiring any repairs; and although the first regular sea-going steamer which had been built in either Europe or the United States of America, her success was complete. Subsequently, the _Rob Roy_ was transferred to the English Channel to serve as a packet between Dover and Calais. Soon afterwards Messrs. Wood, of Port Glasgow, built for Mr. David Napier, who had by this time removed to London, a boat named the _Talbot_, of 120 tons. She was fitted with two engines of 30 horse-power each, of his own construction, and proved in all respects the most perfect steam-vessel of the period. This was the first vessel placed upon the now celebrated line carrying the mails and passengers between Holyhead and Dublin.

The value of the steam-engine having now been fully established as a means of propelling vessels at sea with safety, and of performing voyages with a regularity hitherto unknown, Mr. Napier found comparatively little difficulty in inducing capitalists to join him in the project of constructing various vessels for a regular line of steam traffic between Liverpool, Greenock, and the city of Glasgow. Three vessels were, consequently, built—the _Robert Burns_ of 150 tons, the _Eclipse_ of 240 tons, each being fitted with two engines of 30 horse-power, and the _Superb_, also of 240 tons with two engines of 35 horse-power each. These vessels proved successful, and the line thus established in 1822 has continued ever since.

New coasting lines soon followed, and, in lieu of the Leith smacks, once so celebrated, the _James Watt_ was constructed to ply between London and Leith. She was the largest steamer that had yet been built, being 448 tons measurement, fitted with engines of 50 horse-power each, by Boulton and Watt. Her paddles were moved, not directly by the engines, but, through the interposition of toothed wheels, rendering the number of revolutions of the axis considerably greater than that of the paddles, so that, with the exception of the low proportion of her propelling power to the tonnage, she possessed many, if not most, of the qualities of the steamers of even the present day. The _Soho_ followed the _James Watt_ on the same line, and proved equally successful.

[Sidenote: The _United Kingdom_, 1826.]

In 1826 the first of the so-called leviathan class of steamers, the _United Kingdom_ (of which the following is an excellent illustration) was built by Mr. Steele of Greenock for the trade between London and Edinburgh. She was 160 feet long, with 26½ feet beam, and engines of 200 horse-power by David Napier, and was considered the wonder of the day. People flocked from all quarters to inspect and admire her.[109]

Although these two lines of regular steam communication between Liverpool and the river Clyde, and between London and Edinburgh were now successfully established, and proved of considerable importance in the encouragement of steam navigation elsewhere, some years elapsed before those rapid strides were made in its adaptation as a propelling power which have rendered it one of the wonders of the present age. Indeed, this power would probably never have made such an extraordinary advance had iron not been adopted instead of wood for the construction of our ships.

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

Hitherto, and throughout all ages, timber alone had been used in shipbuilding. The forests of Lebanon supplied the naval architects of Tyre with their materials; Italy cultivated her woods with unusual care, so that sufficient trees might be grown for the timber, planking, and masts of the ships of its once powerful maritime republics; and, in our own time, how often have we heard fears expressed that Great Britain would not be able to continue the supply of sufficient oak for her royal dockyards, much less for her merchant fleets! Yet, when shrewd far-seeing men, no further back than the year 1830, talked about substituting iron for the “ribs” of a ship instead of “timbers,” and iron plates for “planking” instead of oak, what a howl of derision the public raised!

“Who ever heard of iron floating?” they derisively enquired. It is true they might have seen old tin kettles float on every pool of water before their doors almost any day of their lives, nay, floating even more buoyantly than their discarded wooden coal boxes; but such common-place instructors were beneath their notice. Timber-built ships had from time immemorial been in use by every nation and on every sea, and had bravely battled with the storm from the days of Noah, and were these, they sneeringly asked, to be supplanted by a material which in itself would naturally sink? Such was the reasoning of the period; and indeed, the best of the arguments against the use of iron rested on scarcely more solid foundation.[110]

It could not be gainsaid that a frame of iron was infinitely stronger than a frame of wood, which, in fact, has no strength in itself, for the longitudinal timber ends are only butted to each other, and obtain their power of resistance solely by means of the horizontal planks and the trenails which bind them together. Nor could the obstructives deny, though they argued the point, that the ribs when welded with the iron plates riveted to them, formed a hull vastly superior in strength, and much less liable to leakage than any similar body of wood, however well constructed. They must also have seen, by its displacement of water when afloat, that an iron hull was the more buoyant of the two. But these arguments, however unanswerable, were long ere they produced conviction; the fact that iron does not float, and the impression that it could not be made to do so safely, offered almost insuperable difficulties in the way of building vessels of that material; and when it was argued that they would “rip up” if they struck upon a rock, or bulge into a shapeless mass if driven on a sand bank, the opponents of progress raised objections which could be answered only by practical experience.

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

[Sidenote: The _Vulcan_, 1818.]

Hitherto only a few very small vessels or barges had been constructed of iron, and these neither on a scale nor of a class to practically refute the objections which had been raised against the use of iron for ship-building purposes. It is true that so far back as 1809 Richard Trevethick and Robert Dickenson proposed a scheme for building “large ships with decks, beams, and sides, of plate iron,” and even suggested “masts, yards, and spars, to be constructed of iron in plates with telescope joints or screwed together:”[111] and in 1815, Mr. Dickenson patented an invention for vessels, or rather boats, “to be built of iron, with a hollow watertight gunwale.”[112] But, as these inventors or patentees did not put their ideas into practice, no other person (if, indeed, any other person gave even a passing thought to the subject) was convinced that any craft beyond a boat or a river-barge could be constructed of iron, much less that, if made in the form of a ship, this material would oppose more effectual resistance to the storms of the ocean, or, if dashed upon the strand, to the angry fury of the waves, than timber, however scientifically put together. But though no available substance can withstand the raging elements with less chance of destruction than plates of iron riveted together in the form of a boiler (the principle on which iron ships are now constructed), the public could not then appreciate their superior value; and it was not until 1818 that the first _iron vessel_ was built by Thomas Wilson, at Faskine, on the banks of the Monkland Canal, eleven miles from Glasgow: this vessel, appropriately named the _Vulcan_, is even now (1875) employed on the Clyde in the conveyance of minerals from the Forth and Clyde Canal.

[Sidenote: _Aaron Manby_, 1821.]

Three years afterwards a steam-engine was, for the first time, fitted into a vessel built of iron. She was named the _Aaron Manby_, and was constructed in 1821 at Horsley, for the joint account of Mr. Manby and Captain Napier, afterwards Admiral Sir Charles Napier. She was sent in parts to London, where they were put together, and when complete was despatched to France under the command of Captain Napier. Another iron steam-vessel, intended for the navigation of the Seine, soon followed; but, in consequence of the prohibitory French navigation laws, with respect to foreign bottoms, the different parts of this vessel were, in this case, sent to France instead of to London, and put together at Charenton. Mr. Manby prepared in a similar manner two others, and shortly afterwards the building of iron vessels was commenced by an engineer at Paris for the same trade. The speculation, however, proved unfortunate.

[Sidenote: Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824.]

The Shannon Steam Packet Company was the next to employ iron steamers in river navigation. The first, built by the Horsley Company in 1824, proving very successful, was immediately followed by others.

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

As the success of these vessels was gradually determining the problem of the suitableness of iron to ship-building purposes, and was drawing attention to the subject, Messrs. Fawcett and Preston established at Liverpool a building yard in connection with their engine factory under the direction of Mr. Page, and constructed several small vessels entirely of iron.[113] Mr. Laird, of Birkenhead, proceeding upon a larger scale, prosecuted this branch of naval architecture with uninterrupted prosperity.[114] Mr. Fairbairn, afterwards Sir William Fairbairn, also took part, at an early period, in cultivating the new art; and ranks with those to whose influence and skill it was first indebted for public confidence. Removing from Glasgow, where he had commenced business, he established himself at Millwall, on the Isle of Dogs, and there became one of the principal constructors of iron vessels upon the Thames. His efforts proving successful, other eminent engineers pursued the same branch of art with the like results; among them may be mentioned Messrs. Miller and Ravenhill, whose vessels were considered at the time to be of exquisite workmanship and beauty of form; and Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare, who built a considerable number of iron vessels, including the _Fairy_, the tender to the Queen’s yacht, her form and speed gaining them a high reputation.

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

In 1832, Messrs. Laird were bold enough to carry into practice the theory of iron vessels for ocean navigation; and in the course of that year the firm of MacGregor, Laird, and Company built the _Elburkah_, of 55 tons, as consort to the _Quorra_ in her expedition up the Niger.[115] These enlightened firms justly considered that, whatever objections might be urged against vessels built of iron, they would at least possess equal sea-going qualities and, in some branches of trade, peculiar advantages. Combining strength and lightness of draught, the _Elburkah_ would be better adapted than any vessel built of wood for the exploration and navigation of African rivers:[116] nor were they deceived in their calculations. Immediately afterwards Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead commenced the construction of another iron vessel, the _Lady Lansdowne_ for the navigation of Lough Derg, River Shannon. In 1834 they built the _Garry Owen_, destined to run between Limerick and Kilrush. This vessel (125 feet long and 21 feet 6 inches wide, propelled by two engines of 45 horse-power each) was unfortunately, or perhaps, under the circumstances, fortunately for the progress of science, driven on shore with various other vessels during a strong gale on her first voyage; she, however, sustained comparatively little injury, while nearly all the others, which were built of wood, were totally wrecked or seriously damaged: this important fact, as a practical answer to one of the most reasonable objections raised against iron vessels, gave remarkable impulse to their increase.

But strong prejudices, unreasonable doubts, and real difficulties had still to be overcome before the suitableness of iron ships for ocean navigation could be established. Another of the chief and more tenable objections to the extended use of iron vessels was the perturbation of the compass. Moreover, one or two unfortunate accidents had been attributed to this cause, though this more, probably, served as a plausible excuse for bad seamanship or negligence. In the course, however, of a few years iron packets began to be used along our coasts; and the art of building them advanced gradually towards perfection. Iron vessels soon afterwards, therefore, acquired a merited confidence.

[Sidenote: The _Rainbow_, 1837.]

Their superiority had become apparent to the more intelligent persons of the period who directed their attention to engineering and maritime pursuits. In 1833 and 1834, Mr. Fairbairn launched two passenger steamers of iron to ply on the Humber between Selby and Hull. Mr. Manby also built one of considerable dimensions for general purposes; and in 1837 Messrs. Laird built two iron vessels of about 350 tons and 60 horse-power each, ordered by the East India Company for the navigation of the River Indus. In the same year Messrs. Laird constructed for the General Steam Navigation Company an iron vessel, the _Rainbow_,[117] to ply between London and the outports. In that year Muhammed Ali placed upon the Nile an iron steamer built by the same firm, while they also launched from their yard the iron vessels in which Colonel Chesney explored the course of the Euphrates, and which, having been shipped in pieces, were put together by Birkenhead artisans on the banks of that river.

Though the value of iron was now fully established for shipbuilding purposes, many years elapsed ere that material came into general use for the construction of over sea _sailing_ vessels, the principal objections being the greater liability of the compass to err,[118] and the difficulty of preventing animalculæ and sea-weeds from adhering to the bottom. But these difficulties were in time overcome, and iron vessels propelled by sails are now nearly as common as steamers built of that material. Experience by degrees successfully met almost every objection; and science was again triumphant over prejudice and ignorance. Iron had been made not merely to float, but to ride buoyantly over the crest of the wave, amidst the raging elements.

[Sidenote: Messrs. Tod and MacGregor.]

Mr. Laird was followed by other builders of iron vessels at Liverpool; the high estimation in which they were held having led to a constantly increasing demand for them. About this time Messrs. Tod and MacGregor, of Glasgow, began to take a leading position in this occupation; the _Princess Royal_, long engaged on the line between Glasgow and Liverpool, and launched from their yard, having been one of the finest and fastest iron packets of her time.

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

From that period iron shipbuilding on the Clyde increased with great rapidity, but the most magnificent specimen of an iron ship of any description produced at that time was the _Great Britain_, to which reference will be made hereafter, constructed by Mr. Patterson at Bristol, for the Great Western Steam Packet Company.

[Sidenote: Advantages of iron ships.]

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

For the information of the general reader, I may here state that the advantages of iron vessels consist principally in their durability, strength and safety, increased capacity for stowage, greater economy, and salubrity.[119] With regard to the perturbations of the compass, Professor Airy, previous to the time when Mr. Evans made his report, had published a very concise series of instructions for correcting the compass on board of iron ships; and the progress of science now bids fair to obviate any difficulty whatever ensuing from this cause. Prior to experience it was apprehended that the saline property of the sea-water would tend to corrode the iron, and, further, that this metal would be rapidly destroyed by oxidation. But experience has shown that the effect of salt water on iron _alone_ is so small as hardly to bear a comparison with its effect upon iron in connection with wood. This remarkable difference has been observed in iron vessels in which timber had been used for the keel; the bolts driven through the keel to form its proper connections having been so rapidly acted on as almost to destroy them before the external iron plates of the hull had been perceptibly diminished in thickness: it is further of importance that the vessel should be kept in use rather than be laid up in ordinary. Vessels built in the earliest stage of this art, subsequently to that of building mere canal-boats, bore many years’ service with little need of repair, and remained in a perfectly good condition for a longer period than that to which the durability of wooden vessels ordinarily, and under similar circumstances, extends. But there is a great difference in iron plates, some are inferior and soon oxidize, while others, as will be presently shown, last for many years. As the inner surface of the plates may be almost wholly protected from oxidation, it is only from the external wear that danger may be apprehended. But, though the outer surface of the metal can be protected in a great measure from corrosion, yet iron vessels are subject to the disadvantage of having their speed diminished, after a short period of service, by the adhesion and growth of animal and vegetable matter. A coating of red lead is not a perfect preventive against this mischief, and various other scientific substitutes have been used of late; so that it cannot be doubted but this inconvenience will disappear altogether before scientific appliances. A perfectly protective varnish for the in sides of iron ships and a coating which shall effectually prevent the adhesion of animal and vegetable substances to the exterior, are desiderata of great value,[120] and will, we may hope, continue to receive the careful consideration of scientific men.

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

All the facts yet known with regard to the superior _durability_[121] of iron ships are highly satisfactory. It is a consideration not to be overlooked that large ships may be rendered more durable than small vessels; for, as the weight of the hull is generally determined in a certain proportion to the whole displacement, and the plates of iron are much thicker in a large than in a small ship (the oxidizing causing an uniform waste of metal), the durability will be in proportion to the amount of wear the plates of the respective vessels can bear without danger to the ship.

But the superior _strength_ of iron ships depends not merely upon the quality of the material employed, but also on the mode of combining it. The strength of wrought iron is well known and its power of resisting strains in almost every direction is a matter of universal experience, add to which, that its resistance to lateral pressure increases in a much higher ratio than the quantity of material. Hence, almost any amount of strength may be given to a large fabric; certainly, enough to bear the pressures and strains to which ships are exposed, with much less liability to injury than wood. With plates of iron of a substance fitly proportioned to the magnitude of the fabric, and with joints properly formed, the sides of ships have been found capable of resisting, in a remarkable manner, forces for which the strength of timber would be quite insufficient. A substance of plates sufficient to constitute this amount of strength generally, is also able to bear concussions of great force with much less hazard than timber. The uninjured state in which the _Great Britain_ was found in Dundrum Bay, after being wrecked and lying on the beach several months during winter, exposed to various storms, proved the correctness of these views, which more extended experience has since confirmed. Experience has also demonstrated that unless the concussion takes place with extreme violence, mere indentation of the metal is generally the greatest injury sustained. Beyond this, the strain sometimes breaks off the heads of a few rivets without opening the seam, but it is uncommon for the rivets to be drawn if the metal and workmanship are good. In the case where an iron ship strikes upon a sharp pointed-like crag of rock or coral reef with considerable force, it frequently happens that a hole is made through the plate; but even when such an accident occurs the damage is generally _local_, the parts not immediately subject to the concussion remaining unhurt. No general leakage is, therefore, consequent on such an accident, as would be the case in all vessels built of wood.

[Sidenote: Affords greater capacity for stowage.]

As the hull of an iron ship is both thinner and considerably lighter[122] than that of a wooden ship, an iron ship of the same external dimensions as a wooden one has both greater capacity for stowage and greater power to support the weights which may be put into her. These differences vary in some degree with the dimensions and form of the ship, being greater in proportion to the increased dimensions of the ship. They may, of course, be determined by computation; but, in all cases, an iron ship will carry considerably more cargo than a wooden one of the same external dimensions.

Again, the consideration of economy must not be omitted in any comparison of the merits of ships built entirely either of timber, or of iron. The economy begins with the construction, for the original cost of an iron ship is less than that of a wooden one, and, apart altogether from her superior capacity for cargo, it runs on with the course of the ship’s service as the result of several causes; as, for instance, the smaller amount and less expensive character of repairs: moreover, as it is not even yet known how long iron ships will last, the precise saving from their use cannot be estimated. On the other hand, the period of service of mercantile timber-built ships is defined. If they reach or exceed thirty years’ service, they must be ships of the very highest class as to quality[123], and must, indeed, within that period have undergone frequent and very expensive repairs. As iron ships are not subject to the same decay, at the same time that accidental damages are generally repaired at a much less cost, every item saved by the diminished charge for repairs is clear profit.

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

But with all these advantages, a considerable time elapsed before the Admiralty could be induced to consider the desirability of constructing any Government steamer of iron, or of even allowing the large private trading vessels engaged in the conveyance of the mails to be built of that material. They had objections of their own applying specially to the ships under their control, and very plausible objections too, in their opinion, compared with those originally raised by an ignorant public. A shot, they said, would penetrate an iron vessel with much greater ease than a wooden one, while the shot holes could not be as effectually plugged, if indeed they could be plugged at all. Wood, they argued, when pierced, would rapidly contract and leave a very small opening for water to get through, whereas a shot would make a clean cut through an iron plate which could not be thus expeditiously filled, and if it did not tear away the whole of the plate, would leave a gap as large as a “barn door.” However, a little experience[124] soon showed their arguments to be fallacious, and when they found that the engines of a paddle-wheel steamer, and, especially, the paddles themselves, offered conspicuous targets to an enemy, and that it was impossible to make the stern-frames of their wooden ships sufficiently strong to withstand, without serious leakage, the vibration of the screw, they abandoned, though reluctantly, the paddle-wheel, and at length gave up, also, vessels of wood for the purposes of war. These resolutions were, however, only carried into practice after vast sums of money had been expended on the “reconstruction” of a _wooden_ British Navy, for which, in one year alone, and that so lately as 1861, when almost everybody except themselves saw that iron must supersede timber, they demanded from Parliament (and carried their vote) no less than 949,371_l._ to replenish the stock of wood in the dockyards: a sum far in excess of any previous vote for that material.[125]

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

While the art of steam navigation made rapid progress, the ingenuity of engineers had been constantly directed to the improvement of the paddle-wheels; and the above drawing of one, with “feathering paddles,” patented by Mr. Galloway in 1829,[126] represents the most perfect of any wheel in use at that period, and has not been materially improved on since then. But, at that time also, a substitute for the paddle was seeking practical solution. The screw, as a means of propulsion, had been suggested long before the steamboat had been brought into use. Indeed, its principle was known at a very early period in the use of an oar for sculling, and could, as already explained, be seen in the movements of the tail of a fish.

[Sidenote: Story of the screw-propeller.]

Though my faith in the reports of the genius and early inventions of the Chinese has frequently been rudely shaken in the course of my investigation of their reputed discoveries, I may remark that Mr. MacGregor, for whose opinions I entertain no ordinary respect, states, in the paper he read to the Society of Arts,[127] that “the use of the screw-propeller may be of an indefinite antiquity,” and adds that “a model of one was brought from China in 1680, which had two sets of blades, turning in opposite directions.” It was not, however, until 1729, that we have any authentic account of a plan of propulsion, in any way approaching the valuable invention now so largely in use. In that year an ingenious Frenchman, M. Du Quet, described a contrivance by which a screw turned by the water in a stream, wound up a rope for towing vessels, of which the annexed (p. 101) is an illustration.[128] In 1745, Masson describes an apparatus for working an oar at the stern of a vessel so as to give it a “sculling” motion; in 1746 Bougner mentions that “revolving arms, like the vanes of a windmill,” were tried for the propulsion of vessels, and, in 1770, as already incidentally noticed, the celebrated Watt speaks of using a screw-propeller, of which the annexed is a sketch, to be turned by a steam-engine.[129]

[Sidenote: Joseph Bramah, 1785.]

In 1779, Matthew Wasborough, to whose genius we are indebted for many inventions in connection with marine propulsion, patented a “new invented machine or piece of mechanism which, when applied to a steam-engine or any reciprocal movement, produces a circular or rotative motion without the medium of a water-wheel;” Joseph Bramah, of whose invention I have already spoken in detail, speaks of (1785) a wheel with inclined fans or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack, which may be turned round either way under water, causing the ship to be forced backward or forward,[130] and, in 1798, he tested the application of a screw in a boat, of which the annexed, copied from Mr. MacGregor’s instructive paper, is an illustration.

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

[Sidenote: Richard Trevethick, 1815.]

In 1800, Edward Shorter patented an invention which he called “a perpetual sculling machine,” having the action of a two-bladed propeller, and which, two years afterwards, was experimented upon in H.M. Ships _Dragon_ and _Superb_.[131] Various other experiments followed. But, in May 1804, Mr. J. Stevens, of the United States, put to sea with a steam-boat propelled by a screw, turned first by a rotatory engine, and then by Watt’s reciprocating engine; and, as this small craft steamed from Hoboken to New York, she has by some writers been considered the first sea-going screw of which there is any certain account. Richard Trevethick, in 1815, patented “a worm or screw revolving in a cylinder at the head, sides, or stern of a vessel,” as also a “_stuffing-box_, inclosing a ring of water.”[132] In the following year Robert Kinder applied for a patent for a shaft and screw (almost on the exact plan now in use) with “a shoulder formed upon it so as to work in a water-tight manner through a stuffing-box of the common or well-known form, which stuffing-box and shaft are made to pass through the end of the vessel, just above its ordinary water-line, and is thereby affixed to it.” (See “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 64.)

[Sidenote: Robert Wilson, 1833.]

[Sidenote: Captain Ericsson, 1836.]

Many other proposals for propelling vessels by means of the screw were subsequently made and most of them were patented.[133] Two were tried on a small scale in France by Captain Delisle, a Frenchman, in 1823, and by a countryman of his, M. Frédéric Sauvage, in 1832.[134] In 1833, Mr. Robert Wilson, a Scotchman, afterwards manager of the firm of Nasmyth and Co., at Patricroft near Manchester, brought under the notice of the British Admiralty the screw “perfect in all its details” as a means of propulsion, which he says he invented in 1827, and which he states[135] the officers of the Woolwich Dockyard, in their official report, rejected because “it involved a greater loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels to the side.” No great efforts, however, seem to have been made to bring the screw into practical use until 1836, when Captain John Ericsson, C.E. (a native of Sweden, who had established himself in London in partnership with the Messrs. Braithwaites), fully demonstrated its merits according to a plan which he patented on the 13th of July of that year,[136] and carried out successfully.

Instead, however, of launching to the public gaze a vessel on a large scale fitted with his plans, he made a model boat of about 20 inches in length, into which he placed a small engine, and floated her in a large bath over which a steam boiler had been fitted for the supply of hot water. From this boiler a pipe projected to within a foot of the water, where it was branched off by a swivel joint and connected with the engine in the boat. The steam when admitted put the engine in motion, and also the propeller, which at once sent the boat forward with considerable rapidity.

[Sidenote: The _Francis B. Ogden_, though successful, fails to
convince the Admiralty.]