FOOTNOTES:
[412] See Appendix to Report of Committee, 1851.
[413] See Report of 6th August, published in the Times, 8th August, 1853.
[414] Author of important works on “The Construction of the Steam-engine,” and “The Capability of Steam-ships.”
[415] As every important fact connected with the design and construction of this vast ship must prove of historical interest, I think it desirable to give an extract from the letter which Mr. Scott Russell himself wrote at the time on the subject, addressed to the editor of the Times, and which appeared in that journal on the 20th April, 1857:
“My share,” says Mr. Scott Russell, “of the merit and responsibility is that of builder of the ship for the Eastern Steam Navigation Company. I designed her lines and constructed the iron hull of the ship, and am responsible for her merits or defects as a piece of naval architecture. I am equally responsible for the paddle-wheel engines of 1000 horse-power, by which she is to be propelled.
“But Messrs. James Watt and Co., the eminent engineers of Soho, have the entire merit of the design and construction of the engines of 1500 horse-power, which are to propel the screw.
“It is to the company’s engineer, Mr. I. K. Brunel, that the original conception is due of building a steam-ship large enough to carry coals sufficient for full steaming on the longest voyage. He, at the outset, and long before it had assumed a mercantile form, communicated his views to me, and I have participated in the contrivance of the best means to carry them into practical effect. I think, further, that the idea of using two sets of engines and two propellers is original, and was his invention. It was his idea also to introduce a cellular construction like that at the top and bottom of the Britannia Bridge into the construction of the great ship. It will be seen that these are the main characteristics which distinguish this from other ships, and these are Mr. Brunel’s. Her lines and her structure in other respects are identical with those of my other ships, which are constructed like this on a principle of my own, which I have systematically carried out during the last twenty years, and which is commonly called the ‘wave’ principle. In other respects, also, her materials are put together in the manner usual in my other ships.”
[416] See article in the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ 7th edition, on “Steam Navigation.”
[417] Whatever may be gained by not requiring to stop at any intermediate port, I consider it a mistake, in a commercial point of view, to suppose any advantage is to be derived from taking on board a steam-ship, especially when engaged on distant voyages, sufficient coal to carry her out and home. The space the coals occupy in a steamer ought to be of more value, for the reception of cargo, than the cost of sending coals in sailing-vessels to the ports abroad where required, and than any loss sustained by the expense and detention of shipping them there.
[418] Equal to 17¼ statute miles.
[419] I need not dwell upon these points, for which see Times, 28th February, 1854, and Mr. C. Atherton’s note, 20th April of that year.
[420] The precise dimensions of the Great Eastern will be found with the [Frontispiece illustrations].
[421] I take the description of the vessel and everything relating to her from Mr. Scott Russell’s “Great Eastern Steam-ship,” H. S. Clarke and Co., Strand, London, 1857, the public journals of the period, the reports of the directors, and from my own observations at the time, as I more than once inspected the ship, when on the stocks and when afloat, for which every facility was afforded by her builders.
[422] The following references will serve more fully to explain the illustration of the transverse section of the hull of the Great Eastern: 1, upper saloon or main deck; 2, principal saloon in lower deck; 3, side cabins and berths; 4, tunnels for steam and water pipes; 5, boiler; 6, coal bunkers; 7, space between skins of ship; 8, skylights to principal saloons; 9, double deck.
[423] The decorations of this saloon, which were exceedingly beautiful, were executed by Messrs. Crace, of Wigmore Street, London.
[424] As I have been frequently asked when the “rudder” was invented, I may here state that I really do not know, and I should be disposed to question the accuracy of any writer who fixed any epoch or any age for its invention. Before me I see, at this moment, a swan in pursuit of other swans which have evidently been poaching upon its manor on that portion of the River Thames where, on its banks, I now revise the proof sheets of this volume. It is in full chase, with its wings so arranged as best to gain advantage from the breeze; its feet are paddling it onward with great vigour, but to turn the corner opposite to where I sit, I see that the swan sweeps itself round by the operation of one of its feet, which has been brought close to the surface, and is performing exactly the same part, only in a more rapid and perfect manner, which the rudder, attached to a boat, performs, when sweeping round the same bend of the river. Perfect rudders may, therefore, be said to have existed from the creation, for nothing could be more complete in the shape of a rudder, than this action of the swan’s foot in the water. A similar action may be seen in the fins and tails of fish.
Turning to mechanical contrivances which had this object in view, it will be found that, during the earliest historic ages, the paddle of the canoe was used, not merely to propel, as in the case of the gondola of the middle ages as well as in the gondola of to-day, but also to guide, and was, in itself, one of the most powerful mechanical rudders which have yet been produced. The oar over the quarter followed, and if my readers will refer to the sculptured illustration of a vessel on the leaning Tower of Pisa (see [ante, vol. i. p. 521]) erected A.D. 1178, they will find, that that was the only description of a rudder represented at that comparatively recent period. At a later period, by referring to the contracts still extant which Louis IX., King of France, entered into, A.D. 1268, with the Venetians and Genoese for the construction of various ships ([ante, vol. i. p. 510]), “two rudders” for each vessel (one on each side) “nine palms long” are required to be provided, showing that this mode of steering, which is no advance upon what may be found on the ancient sculptures of Egypt, was, then, the only one known, or at least in use, among the most celebrated navigators of the middle ages; and from their dimensions, the vessels which Louis IX. ordered to be built were large ships, not boats, which the one represented on the Tower of Pisa may have been.
In the drawings of some vessels of a subsequent period, a hole is shown in the stern above the stern post, through which an oar, sweep or “rudder” was passed for guiding the course of the vessel, its lower extremity being probably worked by tackles from each quarter; from this appliance the hanging rudder now in use no doubt originated, being improved on by slow degrees, and gradually assuming a more and more perpendicular position; thence, the transition to hanging it by a second ligature was easy and natural; thence, the gudgeons and pintals, by which the rudder now swings from the stern post; and, hence, the tiller and, subsequently, the wheel to move the tiller, the blade of the rudder itself being increased in size according to the force required to turn the vessel. Thus, the foot of aquatic birds first gave the idea of the paddle, and this, in time, was displaced by the oar, from which the rudder evidently sprung. The Dutch and German word for oar is now and always has been “Ruder.”
[425] In the summer of 1857, the late Robert Stephenson and I paid a visit to the ship. We were accompanied by Brunel. The hull was then drawing towards completion, and preparations for launching were about to be commenced. After thoroughly inspecting everything about the vessel, Brunel asked me what I thought of her. “Well,” I replied, “she is the strongest and best built ship I ever saw and she is really a marvellous piece of mechanism.” “Oh,” he said, rather testily and abruptly, “I did not want your opinion about her build. I should think I know rather more about how an iron ship should be put together than you do. How will she pay?”
“Ah,” I replied, “that is quite a different matter;” and, seeing that I did not care to answer his question, he repeated it, adding, “If she belonged to you in what trade would you place her?” “Turn her into a show,” I said, with a laugh, “something attractive to the masses; for, if you insist on having my opinion about her commercial capabilities, it is only in that direction where you can look for profit. She will never pay as a ship. Send her to Brighton, dig out a hole in the beach and bed her stern in it, and if well set she would make a substantial pier and her deck a splendid promenade; her hold would make magnificent salt-water baths and her ’tween decks a grand hotel, with restaurant, smoking and dancing saloons, and I know not what all. She would be a marvellous attraction for the cockneys, who would flock to her in thousands.” And, as I saw he was far from pleased with my answer—no wonder—though given half in joke and half in earnest, I added, “As you would insist on having my opinion, I have given it to you candidly, for I really do not know any other trade, at present, in which she will be likely to pay so well.” Stephenson laughed, but Brunel never forgave me.