Chapter II (2)

Finding that his invention was likely to succeed when put into practical operation on a larger scale, Ericsson’s next step was to order Mr. Gulliver, a boat-builder at Wapping, to construct for him a boat of wood which he named the _Francis B. Ogden_. She was 45 feet long and 8 feet wide, drawing 2 feet 3 inches of water. In this vessel he fitted his engine and two propellers, each of 5 feet 3 inches diameter. The result of her first trial went far beyond his most sanguine expectations. No sooner were the engines put at full speed, than she shot ahead at the rate of more than 10 miles an hour, and maintained that speed without a single alteration requiring to be made in her machinery;[137] nor were her capabilities as a tug less surprising. This miniature steamer, tested first by a schooner of 140 tons burden, towed her at the rate of 7 miles an hour during slack water on the Thames; and afterwards by the large American packet-ship _Toronto_, moving on with her astern at a speed of more than 5 miles an hour. The next experiment was made in the presence of the Lords of the Admiralty, who, accompanied by Sir William Symonds, Sir Edward Parry, and Captain Beaufort, had embarked in their barge to witness the novelty, and judge for themselves as to its efficiency and practical value. They were minute in their inspection, and as they did not, and in fact could not, offer any valid objections to his invention, Captain Ericsson felt confident that they would soon order the construction of a war-steamer on the new principle. In this, however, he was disappointed, though he had given them a very practical proof of its value by towing them in their barge at the rate of 10 miles an hour for a considerable distance—a speed which must have astonished their Lordships. The unseen and comparatively noiseless propeller, although it had furnished the most convincing proofs of its power, failed to propitiate their favour. Scientific theorists had informed the Board that the invention was constructed upon erroneous principles, and full of practical defects (one being that a ship thus propelled would be unsteerable), while engineers as a body regarded its failure as an event so certain as to preclude any speculations of its success. In a word, when publicly discussed, the general opinion was that the vast loss of mechanical power would prevent it from being employed as a substitute for the now old-fashioned paddle-wheel![138]

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

While Ericsson was making his experiments in the _Francis B. Ogden_, Mr. Thomas Pettit Smith, who, on the 31st of May, 1836, had taken out a patent for a “sort of screw or ‘worm,’ made to revolve rapidly under water in a recess or open space formed in that part of the after part of the vessel commonly called the dead rising or dead wood of the stern,”[139] was also at work with his invention, and, in the following year, put it into practical operation. His first trial, made in a small vessel of 6 tons burden, with an engine the cylinder of which was 6 inches diameter and 15 inches stroke, was considered by a few far-seeing persons so satisfactory,[140] that they applied for, and obtained on the 29th of July, 1839, an Act of Parliament for incorporating a company called the Steam Ship Propeller Company, to enable them to purchase “certain letters patent,” that is, the screw-propeller of T. P. Smith.

[Sidenote: The _Archimedes_.]

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

The first successful application of this screw-propeller, on a large scale, was to a vessel called the _Archimedes_, constructed under the direction of the patentee of the screw, Mr. Smith. Her burden was 237 tons, and her mean draught of water 9 feet 4 inches; the diameter of the cylinder 37 inches, and the length of the stroke of the piston 3 feet; her screw-propeller consisted of two half threads of an 8 feet pitch, 5 feet 9 inches in diameter; each was 4 feet in length, and they were placed diametrically opposite to each other, at an angle of about 45 degrees on the propeller shaft. The propeller itself passed through a hole cut in the dead wood, immediately before the rudder; the keel being continued under the screw. The performance of the engines averaged twenty-six strokes per minute, the revolutions of the screw at the same time being 138⅖. The calculations of the inventor were that, provided there was no slip or recession, the vessel ought to advance 8 feet for every revolution of the screw, or 12·60 miles per hour. But the utmost speed ever obtained by the _Archimedes_, under the power of steam alone, was 9·25 nautical miles per hour, showing a loss by recession of rather less than one-sixth under the most favourable circumstances. The _Archimedes_ was not, however, a fair illustration of the screw-propelling principle, as her steam-power was not great enough to drive a screw sufficient for the size of the vessel. Nevertheless, in her subsequent trials from Dover to Calais against the _Widgeon_, the fastest paddle-steamer on the station, the superior value of the screw-propeller was proved. Although in the first three or four experiments the _Widgeon_ had the advantage by a few minutes, in the subsequent trials, both vessels having set the whole of their sails, the _Archimedes_, carrying much more canvas than the _Widgeon_, on a run of 26 miles from Dover to Calais, close hauled, accomplished this distance in nine minutes less time than the _Widgeon_. Upon the return voyage to Dover, with a fresh breeze abeam and all sail set, the _Archimedes_, with a speed of ten knots per hour, performed the distance in five and a half minutes less time than the _Widgeon_.

[Sidenote: and its results.]

These experiments decided the practical value of the screw. They proved that the _Archimedes_ was slightly inferior to the _Widgeon_ in light airs, in calms, and in smooth water; but, as the steam power of the former was ten horses less, and her burthen 75 tons more than that of the _Widgeon_, it is evident that in _such_ vessels the propelling power of the screw alone was equal, if not superior, to the ordinary paddle-wheel. In this respect, therefore, Mr. T. P. Smith’s invention might be considered completely successful. It was evident from the second trial that, in steaming against even a light wind, the low masts and snug rig of the _Widgeon_ gave her an advantage over the _Archimedes_ with loftier masts and heavier rig; but, on the last two trials, the power of the sails operated favourably for the _Archimedes_, as she then beat the _Widgeon_, and made the passage between Dover and Calais in less time than it had ever previously been performed by any of Her Majesty’s mail packets. On this occasion the _Archimedes_ went from Dover to Calais in two hours and one minute, and returned in one hour and fifty-three and a half minutes.[141]

Although the successful performances of the _Archimedes_ brought the screw into more general notice, it does not appear that she was ever employed as a trading vessel. After several experiments she lay for a long time in the East India Dock advertised for sale, and her spirited proprietors, who had been so instrumental in promoting the introduction of the screw-propeller, lost all the capital they had invested in this important undertaking.

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

As the _Widgeon_ and _Archimedes_ differed materially in size and form, an exact comparison could not be made by them between the performance of the screw and that of the paddle; but the result of these trials nevertheless showed (especially when the peculiar fitness of the screw for war purposes was taken into consideration) the propriety of having a further and fairer trial of this novel instrument. With this object in view the _Rattler_ was ordered to be built,[142] and, that the experiment might be conclusive so far as a trial could be made between two vessels, she was constructed on the same lines as the _Alecto_ (her after part being lengthened for the insertion of the screw), and fitted with engines of the same power, and on a plan which had been previously tried with paddle-wheel vessels.

The river trials of the _Rattler_ lasted from October 1843 to the beginning of 1845, and showed that the screw-shaft might be advantageously reduced in diameter, and the blades by about one-third of their length, an alteration which greatly reduced the weight of the screw, and facilitated the operation of shipping and unshipping it, while rendering unnecessary the wounding to so great an extent of the after part of the vessel. Before, however, this last point was decided (it not being evident that the good performance of the shorter screw was not attributable to the greater clearance which the reduction of its length had caused), the screw aperture was partly filled up in a temporary manner, so as to leave the shorter screw the same clearance as the longer one had originally. The result of this experiment proved that the aperture in future vessels might be constructed of very moderate dimensions without lessening the propelling power of the screw.

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

These trials clearly showed that the screw, as an instrument of propulsion in smooth water, is not inferior to the paddle-wheel. But further experiments were considered necessary to establish its superiority in all respects. In the early part of the year 1845 the _Rattler_ proceeded, in company with the _Victoria and Albert_ and the _Black Eagle_, from Portsmouth to Pembroke. When rounding the Land’s End, and steaming against a strong head wind, both these vessels, as might be expected, showed a great superiority, their power being much greater than the _Rattler’s_ in proportion to the resistance, and their paddle-floats being constructed on the feathering principle. This comparative failure of the _Rattler_ left an unfavourable impression as to the efficiency of the screw against wind and sea in heavy weather, and this impression continued for several years, although when next tried in a run from the Thames to Leith, she showed in respect to speed a decided superiority over one of the paddle-wheel vessels employed in that trade, whose power as compared with her tonnage was greater than that of her competitor. Before joining the squadron under the command of Rear-Admiral Hyde Parker in July 1845, the _Rattler_ was employed to tow the _Erebus_ and _Terror_ to the Orkney Islands on their fatal expedition to the North Pole, and she seems to have performed that duty to the entire satisfaction of Sir John Franklin.

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

In following the progress of the screw as applicable to the propulsion of merchant vessels, and its use in other countries, I must now recur to the period when Ericsson was making his experiments on the Thames. At that time an intelligent gentleman, Captain Robert F. Stockton, of the United States Navy, was on a visit to London. Being of an inquisitive turn of mind, like most of his countrymen, and fond of scientific pursuits, he watched with great interest the trials with the screw then in progress, and having obtained an introduction to Ericsson, he accompanied him on one of his experimental expeditions on the Thames. Unlike the Lords of the British Admiralty, who allowed eight years to elapse before they built their first screw-propeller, the _Rattler_, Captain Stockton was so strongly impressed with the value and utility of the discovery, that, though he had made only a single trip in the _Francis B. Ogden_, and that merely from London Bridge to Greenwich, he there and then gave Ericsson a commission to build for him two boats for the United States, with steam machinery and propeller as proposed by him. Stockton, impressed with its practical utility for war purposes, was undismayed by the recorded opinions of scientific men, and formed his own judgment from what he himself witnessed. He, therefore, not only ordered the two iron boats on his own account, but at once brought the subject before the Government of the United States, and caused various plans and models to be made at his own expense, explaining the peculiar fitness of the new invention for ships of war. So sanguine was he, indeed, of the great importance of this new mode of propulsion, and so determined that his views should be carried out, that he encouraged Ericsson to believe that the Government of the United States would test the propeller on a large scale; Ericsson, relying upon these promises, abandoned his professional engagements in England, and took his departure for the United States. But it was not until a change in the Federal administration, two years afterwards, that Captain Stockton was able to obtain a favourable hearing. Orders were then given to make the experiment in the _Princeton_, which was successful. The propeller, as applied to this war-vessel, was similar in construction to that of the _Francis B. Ogden_, as well in theory as in minute practical details.

One of these boats, named, after her owner, the _Robert F. Stockton_, was built of iron by Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead, and launched in 1838. She was 70 feet in length, 10 feet wide, and drew 6 feet 9 inches of water. Her cylinders were 16 inches diameter with 18 inches stroke, and her propeller 6 feet 4 inches in length. On her trial trips on the Thames, made in January of the following year, she accomplished a distance of 9 miles (over the land) in 35 minutes with the tide, thereby proving the speed through the water to be between 11 and 12 miles an hour. On her second trial, between Southwark and Waterloo bridges, she took in tow four laden barges, with upright sides and square ends, having a beam of 15 feet each, and drawing 4 feet 6 inches of water. One of these was lashed on each side, the other two being towed astern, and, though the weight of the whole must have been close upon 400 tons, and a considerable resistance was offered, also, by their form, the steamer towed them at the rate of 5½ miles an hour in slack water, or in 11 minutes between the two bridges, a distance of 1 mile.

These experiments having been considered in every way satisfactory, the _Robert F. Stockton_, of which the following is an illustration, left England for the United States in the beginning of April 1839, under the command of Captain Cram, of the American merchant service. Her crew consisted of four men and a boy, and, having accomplished the voyage under sail in forty days, Captain Cram was presented with the freedom of the city of New York for his daring in crossing the Atlantic in so small a craft, constructed only for river navigation.

[Sidenote: His vessel a complete success;]

In 1840, Captain Stockton sold this vessel to the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company, permission having been obtained (being British built) by a special Act of Congress, to run her in American waters, and her name was at the same time changed to that of the _New Jersey_. For many years she was in constant work as a steam-tug on the rivers Delaware and Schuylkill during the winter months, as she was capable of towing through the drift ice, where paddle-wheel steamers are of little use.

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

If we except the small vessel tested by J. Stevens[143] between Hoboken and New York in 1804, the _New Jersey_ was the first screw-propelled vessel practically used in America, numerous experiments with the screw having been previously made without success, and she certainly was the first used for commercial purposes. The importance of the screw as a propeller having now been fully admitted in America, 150 vessels of a similar description were in less than ten years from that time employed in the United States; most of which continued to be in active operation in the carrying trade, returning large profits to their owners, particularly those employed on the great North American Lakes. Indeed, in 1848, thirteen screw-propelled vessels were employed on Lake Ontario, and only nine paddle-wheel steamers.

[Sidenote: Superiority of Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch” propeller,
1832.]

It is not my province to decide to whom the honour of the invention of the screw is due. It had engaged, as has been shown, the attention of various men in different countries for more than a century before it was applied to any useful purpose, and, like most other great inventions, has evidently been the production of many minds. I can, therefore, only deal with it as has been done in the case of the steam-engine itself, in its application to marine propulsion, by inquiring who it was that first, by practical tests, showed its superiority to the paddle-wheel, and that, for the purposes to which it has been applied, it could maintain such superiority over all other modes of propulsion. As this appears to me to be the only way in which this question can be fairly treated, I shall venture to state that, if Robert Fulton of America and Henry Bell of Glasgow are entitled, as I think they are, to be considered the first who put the paddle steamer into practical and _continuous_ employment (I hold that James Watt and Robert Symington were its true inventors), it may, with equal justice, be said that to Captain Ericsson, Mr. Pettit Smith, and Mr. Woodcroft, the credit is chiefly due of having put the screw into working order so as to show how it could be profitably employed for the purposes of commerce or of the arts of war, though, at the time when Smith and Ericsson were practically illustrating the power of the screw, in their respective forms, that of Mr. Woodcroft, though well known, had not then been tried. In fact, his invention bears date antecedent to that of either of the others,[144] and proved equal, if not superior, when tested; indeed, it must have been considered so by the Admiralty, as it was fitted in the royal yacht _Fairy_, which, with the exception of the _Rattler_, and the _Bee_, of thirty tons, was the first screw-propeller in Her Majesty’s Navy: it was also about the same time applied to H.M.S. _Dwarf_. Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch screw-propeller,” patented by him in February 1844, of which the following is an illustration, was, certainly, in advance of any other at that time, and is, I believe, still considered the best and most useful type. In the account of it furnished by its able and ingenious inventor, it is said to be the “only propelling instrument of any description which has the peculiar and inherent property of acting with an increased impulse against the water from the leading part, first taking its action against the water to the end, however long or short such propeller may be upon its axis.”

However, be that as it may, when an impartial review is taken of all the facts, it may be said of Messrs. Woodcroft, Ericsson and Smith that, while each may be regarded as the individual author of their respective plans, conceiving as they did their designs apart from each other, we are indebted to them conjointly for this most valuable invention.

While the relative merits of the paddle-wheel and screw were being tested, the attention of scientific men was necessarily directed to the different forms of ships or lines best adapted to the various requirements of maritime commerce, which the introduction of steam had either created or materially developed. Vessels of every conceivable form, and of varied dimensions, have been in use from the earliest ages: we have had, of one sort or another, canoes, coracles, barges and yachts, coasters and Indiamen, with frigates and line-of-battle ships such as they were, almost from the dawn of history, and no doubt their owners and builders bestowed much thought and exercised considerable skill in their construction, so as to suit the varied purposes for which they were required; but it is only within our own time that a thorough scientific knowledge has been invited to aid in the construction of our merchant ships.

That knowledge has become much more necessary now than it ever was before. To construct an useful and first-class steam-vessel, we must first build a hull adapted to receive machinery, and then erect suitable engines and boilers with an appropriate propelling apparatus, combining the whole into a form such as will insure safety and speed, the requisite space for the crew, machinery, fuel, and stores, with accommodation for passengers and their numerous wants, and, also, sufficient space for a remunerative cargo.

[Sidenote: In building fit vessels, the trade in which they are to be
employed must be considered.]

To embrace to the utmost advantage these various essential qualities in a merchant-vessel, the trade in which she is to be employed requires to be considered with her mercantile capabilities in relation to cost and speed. These calculations must be carefully gone into so as to obtain an approximate estimate of the commercial advantage with regard to the cost of freight per ton, that attends the employment of ships suitably constructed for the service in which they may be employed as compared with vessels of inferior adaptation. By this investigation, the comparative financial balance of outlay and expenditure and, consequently, the income to be expected from one vessel as compared with another, may be equitably apportioned. Such considerations as these are essential to success, and cannot be neglected by any shipowner who understands his business. They will not only conduce to an effective direction and management of mercantile shipping, and of financial economy, but, also, in case a vessel fails to fulfil an assigned service, the degree in which such failure may be attributable to faults of original construction (producing a low scale of locomotive efficiency), or to defective management or to imperfect navigation, may be determined. Moreover, steamship proprietors, especially, would thus be enabled to ascertain the relative value of their stock, not, indeed, as respects the intrinsic value of the respective ships, but as respects their relative working properties and consequent value for any special service. Each vessel might thus be assigned its most appropriate duty, and ships, manifestly unsuitable for one line of trade, might be otherwise employed or disposed of, instead of being put on services which they are _constructively_ inadequate to perform. For example, a vessel may be well suited for the economical conveyance of cargo at eight miles an hour, but, being employed upon a service demanding a higher rate of speed, and failing to attain this, is held to be inefficient, while the value of the ship becomes unduly depreciated, and incapacity of _direction_, the real cause of the failure, escapes due observation.

FOOTNOTES:

[96] It would appear from Dr. Robinson’s interesting narrative (Muirhead, “Life of Watt,” p. 65), that Watt’s first connection with the steam-engine arose from his having been desired, by the Professors of Natural Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, to repair a model of one of Newcomen’s engines in the year 1764. (See Smiles’ “Lives,” p. 121.)

[97] See Tredgold “On the Steam-engine,” and Woodcroft, p. 82.

[98] The following is a copy, from “Memorials of James Watt” by George Williamson, Esq., late perpetual Secretary of the Watt Club of Greenock, printed for the Club, of Mr. Bell’s original advertisement of his new steamer the _Comet_ to ply between Glasgow, Greenock, and Helensburgh:—

STEAM PASSAGE BOAT, THE ‘COMET,’ between Glasgow, Greenock, and Helensburgh, for passengers only.

The subscriber having, at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to ply upon the River Clyde, between Glasgow and Greenock, to sail by the power of Wind, Air, and Steam, he intends that the Vessel shall leave the Broomielaw on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, about midday, or at such hour thereafter as may answer from the state of the tide, and to leave Greenock on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning to suit the tide.

The elegance, comfort, safety, and speed of this Vessel require only to be proved to meet the approbation of the public; and the Proprietor is determined to do everything in his power to merit public encouragement.

The terms are, for the present, fixed at 4_s._ for the best cabin, and 3_s._ the second, but beyond these rates nothing is to be allowed to servants, or any other person employed about the Vessel.

The subscriber continues his establishment at Helensburgh Baths, the same as for years past, and a vessel will be in readiness to convey Passengers that intend visiting Helensburgh.

Passengers by the ‘COMET’ will receive information of the hours of sailing, by applying at Mr. Thomas Stewart’s, Bookseller Square; and at Mr. Blackly’s, East Quay Head, Greenock; or at Mr. Houston’s office, Broomielaw.

HENRY BELL.

_Helensburgh Baths, 5th August, 1812._

[99] Mr. James Deas, C.E., in his “Treatise on the Improvements and Progress of Trade of the River Clyde,” (1873) says, “An old gentleman, seventy-seven years of age, and who has been connected with the Clyde for upwards of fifty years, informed me a short time ago that he made a voyage in the _Comet_ in 1812. He left Greenock at 10 A.M. for Glasgow, but, in consequence of a ripple of head wind, it was 2 P.M. before they got to Bowling, 10½ miles above Greenock, where all the passengers were landed and had to walk to Glasgow, owing to the want of water, the tide having ebbed. It was no uncommon occurrence for the passengers, when the little steamer was getting exhausted, to take to turning the fly-wheel to assist her.”

[100] Henry Bell, like too many of the pioneers of vast and truly important undertakings, failed to profit by the successful application of steam to navigation; and in his declining years he was chiefly supported by an annuity of 50_l._ granted him by the Clyde trustees. He died at Helensburgh in 1830, aged 63. (“Treatise” by Mr. James Deas, p. 24.)

[101] “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 638.

In the Patent Office Museum there is now to be seen the engine of the first _Comet_ which carried goods and passengers on the Clyde. It was erected there in 1862 by the same engineer, Mr. John Robertson of Glasgow, who fitted it in the _Comet_, exactly fifty years before that time. To this engine I shall again refer.

[102] When Smeaton first officially surveyed the Clyde in 1755, with a view to certain engineering improvements, he found the depth of the river, between Glasgow and Renfrew, of not more on the average than eighteen inches at low water—nor did he hope by the improvements then contemplated to obtain more than “4½ feet of water at all times up to the Quay at Glasgow;” but, in 1768, “the river,” according to the report of another engineer, John Golborne, “was in a state of nature, and for want of due attention has been suffered to expand too much.” He, also, did not expect to secure more “than 4 or perhaps 5 feet of water up to the Broomielaw” at a cost of “ten thousand pounds,” a very considerable sum in those days to be raised by the citizens of Glasgow. Nor does Mr. Telford even, in 1820, hold out much hope of improvement, for in his report he remarks: “There does not appear to be any good grounds to expect such increase of revenue as to justify incurring any very considerable expense.” But the corporation of the city, who had then the river under their charge, was happily not deterred by these disheartening reports from attempting further improvements, and, in 1824, Mr. James Reddie, their town clerk, in an able letter, called for further reports, which brought wiser engineering counsellors to their aid. By the indomitable energy of the corporation and the river trust, the Clyde was by degrees deepened; and at the Broomielaw, which only fishing wherries and small barges could reach forty years ago, the largest and most magnificent ships afloat, many of them more than 3000 tons register, drawing upwards of 20 feet of water, are now moored. See “Reports of the Improvement and Management of the River Clyde and Harbour of Glasgow.” See also “Treatise” by Mr. James Deas, C.E., chief engineer to the river Clyde trustees, edited by Mr. James Forrest, C.E. (1873), pp. 31 and 32, where we learn that “during the last twenty-eight years, 1844 to 1872, no less than 18,000,000 tons of stuff have been dredged from the river by the Clyde trustees,” and that the expenditure for dredging and depositing alone since the year 1770 has amounted to upwards of 500,000_l._ These dredging-machines are so complete and so superior to anything else of the kind to be found in any other part of the world, that I furnish, Appendix No. 2, p. 591, an account of them, their cost, horse-power, and other details. In 1800 the total amount of the annual revenue of the Clyde trust was only 3319_l._ 16_s._ 1_d._ In 1874, the revenue for that year, ending 30th June, amounted to 192,127_l._ 16_s._ 11_d._

[103] In 1868 the total number of vessels built and launched on the Clyde was 232 of 174,978 tons, including 8 war vessels of 5384 tons; in 1869, 240 vessels of 194,000 tons, including 3 war vessels of 9100 tons; in 1870, 234 vessels of 189,800 tons, including 1 war vessel of 2640 tons; in 1871, 231 vessels of 196,200 tons, including 6 war vessels of 3050 tons; in 1872, 227 vessels of 224,000 tons, and no war vessel. (Treatise of Mr. James Deas, pp. 25 and 26.)

The vessels launched on the Clyde in the year 1873, are thus analyzed by Mr. William West Watson, the chamberlain of the city of Glasgow, in his report of the statistics of that city:

No. Tons. Iron steamers under 100 tons 14 1,076 Iron steamers from 100 to 500 tons 26 8,382 Iron steamers from 500 to 1000 tons 13 9,786 Iron steamers from 1000 to 2000 tons 22 34,315 Iron steamers from 2000 to 3000 tons 24 60,026 Iron steamers from 3000 tons and upwards 30 104,188 --- ------- 129 217,773

Tons. Iron sailing ships under 500 tons each 2 328 Iron sailing ships from 500 to 1000 tons None Iron sailing ships from 1000 to 2000 tons 7 12,148 -- ------ 9 12,476 Hull or barge for shipment 1 198 Steamers shipped in pieces 3 2,459 1 screw steam yacht 1 20 --- ------- 143 232,926

During the year 1873, the Iberia, gross tonnage 4670 tons, was launched, being the largest merchant steamer ever built on the Clyde. Similar particulars for 1873-74 will be found, Appendix No. 3, pp. 593-4.

[104] See Appendices Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 593-9, “Shipbuilding Yards on the Clyde and Wear.”

[105]

[Sidenote: J. Elder and Co., their extensive premises.]

One firm alone, that of John Elder and Co., Fairfield, Glasgow, who employ, on an average, 4000 men, launched in the year 1867 sixteen vessels of a total burden of 10,323 tons; and, in 1868, there were turned out from the Fairfield shipbuilding yard no fewer than fifteen vessels, of which six were sailing-ships and nine screw-steamers, the latter including a gunboat for the Royal Navy, and the _Magellan_, an iron barque of 3000 tons and 600 horse-power for the Pacific Steam Navigation Company. The total burden of the vessels launched from this one private yard in 1869 was 16,050 tons. In the following year (1870) fourteen steamers and three sailing-vessels were launched at Fairfield, measuring 25,235 tons, their engines having a total of 4115 horse-power nominal. There were likewise two steamers of 2600 tons transformed in the year. In 1871 they launched sixteen vessels of which twelve were steamers, amounting in the aggregate to 31,889 tons. In 1872 32,000 tons of steam shipping were built by this firm, and, in the course of that year, they had as many as sixteen vessels on hand at one time or contracted for, of an aggregate tonnage of upwards of 36,000 tons, six of them being about or above 4000 tons each: one of these was delivered to her owners complete and ready for sea, with steam up, within thirteen months from the time she was contracted for! These works, as may be supposed, are gigantic, covering upwards of 60 acres of land, and embracing a wet dock where the ships are placed when launched to have their boilers and machinery fitted on board; an engine shop, 300 feet square; a blacksmiths’ shop 296 feet in length and 102 feet in width containing 44 fires, one large plate furnace and four forging furnaces, six large steam hammers, and various hydraulic cranes. There are also in the yard two bays spanned by travelling cranes, each capable of lifting a dead weight of 40 tons; and among the numerous tools and machines there is one capable of planing armour plates of 20 feet in length and 6 feet in width, and one boring machine which can drill holes 4 inches in diameter, and penetrate a 9-inch plate in half an hour.

Here we regret to add, for we can ill afford to lose such men, that the head of this vast shipbuilding firm, and the man by whose remarkable genius it was founded, John Elder, died in September 1869 at the early age of forty-five. His father had been for many years the manager of the well-known works of Robert Napier and Co. There Mr. Elder served his apprenticeship and gained that practical knowledge which, combined with great natural abilities and an enthusiastic taste for mechanics, enabled him to create the very large business I have briefly attempted to describe.

[106] Mr. Muirhead (in his “Life of Watt,” pp. 428-9) mentions a few additional particulars which it seems worth while to record. Thus he states that the largest steamer built up to the year 1813 was the _Glasgow_ noticed above, of 74 tons and 16 horse-power; and that, in 1815, the _Morning Star_ of 100 tons and 26 horse-power, and, in 1815, the _Caledonia_ of 102 tons and 32 horse-power, were severally launched. He adds that, during his last visit to Greenock in 1816, Mr. Watt made a voyage in a steam-boat to Rothesay and back, and showed the engineer how to “back” the engine, it having been usual previously to stop the engine for some time previously to mooring. He further states that, in April 1817, Mr. James Watt, Jun., purchased the _Caledonia_ and, having refitted her, took her in October to Holland and up the Rhine to Coblentz; having thus been the first to cross the English Channel in a steam-boat. The average speed he obtained was seven and a half knots an hour. On her return to the Thames in 1818, Mr. Watt, Jun., made no fewer than thirty-one experiments with her on the river, resulting in the adoption of many material improvements in the construction and adaptation of marine engines.

[107] At this period, Mr. Rennie, who planned the breakwater at Plymouth and new London Bridge, was “advising engineer” to the Admiralty, and on every occasion urged the application of steam-power to vessels of war. More than this, he hired at his own cost the Margate steam-boat, the _Eclipse_, and successfully towed the _Hastings_, 74, against the tide from Woolwich to Gravesend, June 14th, 1819. On this the Admiralty, supported by Lord Melville, gave up their objections.—Smiles’ “Lives,” vol. ii. p. 267.

[108] William Denny, the builder of the _Rob Roy_, as also of the _Marjory_ (noticed p. 75), was born in Dumbarton in 1789, where his forefathers for some generations had been “wee lairds” (yeomen) farming their own land. After serving his apprenticeship as a joiner and ship-carpenter, and acting as manager of a small ship-building yard on the River Leven, Dumbarton, he commenced business on his own account at that place, and was the first to lay down in his yard Morton’s patent slips, where he built various sailing-ships for the East and West India trades. He died in December 1833. Three of his sons, also, William, Alexander, and Peter, commenced business at that place as iron ship builders in 1844, on a small piece of ground, removing in 1847 to a larger yard, where they continued the business of iron ship builders under the firm of William Denny and Brothers, by which it is still known. In 1851, two other brothers, James and Archibald, having then joined them, they (there were seven brothers, all shipbuilders) commenced the business of engine builders, subsequently adding to this that of founding and forging, so that all the branches of work connected with steam shipbuilding might be done on the spot. William was a man of remarkable genius and talent, and attained so high a reputation as a marine architect that he and his brother Alexander planned most of the steamers built on the Clyde from 1839 to 1844. He died in 1854, and the only brother now left is the youngest, Mr. Peter Denny, who, with his son and Mr. Walter Brock, carries on this well-known and extensive business, which, in the years 1873 and 1874, built and fitted with engines 37,000 tons of iron screw-ships. Since 1844 the town of Dumbarton has risen, almost entirely through their exertions, from a population of 4000 to 12,000 inhabitants. But, beyond his fame as an iron ship builder, Mr. Peter Denny is known in public life, having been appointed a member of the Royal Commission in 1872 of which the Duke of Somerset was Chairman, to inquire into the cause of the loss of life and property at sea.

[109] In this vessel Mr. Napier introduced, for the first time in England, a plan for surface condensation; the condenser was composed of a series of small copper tubes, through which the steam passed towards the air-pump, and a constant current of cold water encircling the pipes, the steam was cooled and returned into water, which was again sent into the boiler for conversion into steam, without being mixed with the cold salt water, which, in the usual plan, was injected into the condenser. But, like Watt, Cartwright, and others who had tried this system, both here and in America, Mr. Napier finding the rapidity of condensation not sufficient, returned to the old system of condensation by jet. Some years afterwards, however, he reverted to the use of a surface condenser under peculiar circumstances, which rendered it desirable to use flat plates instead of tubes, but the advantages of the system have not been considered sufficient to counterbalance the disadvantages. The first engine of Bell was to some extent a vertical engine, inasmuch as the axis of the cylinder and of the crank were placed in one vertical line; but there was no direct connection between the cranks and the piston-rod, to the paddle-axle: the communication of motion to it, being effected through the medium of toothed wheels. In the common or lever engine, the piston-rod acts on a cross-head, the cross-head on side rods, the side rods on side levers, the lever on a cross-tail, the cross-tail on the connecting-rod, the connecting-rod on the crank-pin, by which, through the axle, the paddle-wheels revolve. In the engine of direct communication, the side levers and some other parts of the train of communication are removed by a device which enables the piston-rod to be almost immediately attached by a connecting-rod to the crank of the paddle-shaft. This plan was first adopted by Mr. Gutznur, of Leith, who built the _Athol_, and another vessel called the _Tourist_, on this principle: but as his method, though very simple, was not applicable in ordinary cases, Mr. Napier made several modifications, so that his vertical engine, in the judgment of the most competent engineers, includes almost all the best improvements as yet introduced.

[110] In an able pamphlet, “The Fleet of the Future,” by Mr. Scott Russell, published by Longman & Co. in 1861, the author remarks (p. 20), “A good many years ago I happened to converse with the chief naval architect of one of our dockyards on the subject of building ships of iron—the answer was characteristic, and the feeling it expressed so strong and natural that I have never forgotten it; he said, with some indignation, “Don’t talk to me about iron ships, _it’s contrary to nature_.””

There was at one time almost as great a prejudice against Indian teak as a material for ship-building, as this wood is heavier than water, and in the form of a log will not float. (Arnott, “Elem. of Physics,” p. 305.)

[111] See “Rolls’ Chapel Reports,” 7th Report, p. 204.

[112] See “Repository of Arts,” vol. xxviii. (second series), p. 138, and Woodcroft’s “Specification of Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 63, and “Steam Navigation,” p. 125.

[113] Fincham’s “Naval Architecture,” on the use of iron for shipbuilding.

[114] William Laird, father of the late John Laird, M.P., established the Birkenhead Iron Works in 1824, under the style of William Laird and Sons, and, in 1829, they built for the Irish Inland Company the first iron vessel constructed on the Mersey. She was a lighter of 60 tons measurement, about 60 feet long and 13 feet beam. From that time until 1861, Mr. John Laird carried on this extensive business of shipbuilding and engineering, and when, in that year, he was elected to represent Birkenhead in Parliament, he transferred it to his sons, who now carry it on under the style of Laird Brothers.

Mr. Laird died in October 1874, about the same time as Sir William Fairbairn, another distinguished worker in the field of applied science, and both men of great eminence in their profession.

[115] The _Elburkah_ was 70 feet long, 13 feet beam, and 6 feet 6 inches deep. Her plates were a quarter of an inch thick in the bottom, and her sides one-eighth of an inch. She weighed only 15 tons, including her decks, but without engines, boilers, spars, and outfit. (See evidence, Mr. McGregor Laird before Select Committee on Steam Navigation to India (1834), p. 59.)

[116] Lardner (“Steam Navigation,” p. 482) says that, in one of their experimental trials, the _Elburkah_ got aground and heeled over on her anchor, and that in a wooden vessel the anchor would probably have gone through her; and, further that an iron vessel built for the Irish Inland Navigation Company, on being towed across Lough Derg, was driven on the rocks in a gale owing to the rope breaking; but, though she bumped for a considerable time, she sustained no injury.

[117] The _Rainbow_ was, perhaps, the largest iron steam-vessel then afloat. She was 185 feet long, 25 feet beam, 600 tons burden and 180 horse-power.

[118] See a learned and able report on the “Deviations of the Compass,” by Mr. Frederick J. Evans, Master R.N., Superintendent of the Compass Department of H.M. Navy, printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,”