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 4s. for the best cabin, and 3s. 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 50l. 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 500,000l. 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 3319l. 16s. 1d. In 1874, the revenue for that year, ending 30th June, amounted to 192,127l. 16s. 11d.
[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.”
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,” Part II. 1860. In this interesting paper, Mr. Evans calls attention to one or two important facts, certainly not known to the general public, or perhaps not even to many shipbuilders. He says, p. 354:
“In an iron sailing-ship, built head to south, there will be an attraction of the north point of the compass to the head, and if built head to north, a like attraction to the ship’s stern; and so far there would seem to be no advantage in one direction over the other. But, in the first case, the topsides near the compass have weak magnetism; in the second case, they are strongly magnetic: the first position seems therefore preferable.
“In an iron steam-ship, built head to the south, the attraction due to machinery is added to that of the hull, whereas in one built head to the north, the attractive forces of hull and machinery are, in the northern hemisphere, antagonistic, and a position of small, or no ‘semicircular’ deviation for the compass may generally be obtained. To iron steam-vessels engaged on the home or foreign trades in the northern hemisphere, this direction of build is therefore to be preferred.”
And, again, at p. 355, he remarks:
“As every piece of iron not composing a part of, and hammered in the fabrication of the hull,—such as the rudder, funnel, boilers, and machinery, tanks, cooking galleys, fastenings of deck houses, &c.,—are all of a magnetic character differing from the hull of a ship, their proximity should be avoided, and, so far as possible, the compass should be placed so that they may act as correctors of the general magnetism of the hull.
“A compass placed out of the middle line of the deck is affected by the nearest topside, and its deviations must necessarily be much increased if that topside has the dominant polarity, as in ships built east or west.”
[119] “The principal reason of an iron vessel being so much healthier is on account of her coolness and her freedom from all manner of smell; in an iron vessel there is no disagreeable smell of bilgewater, which there is in a wooden vessel in a tropical climate; it is, in fact, the difference between carrying water in a cask, and in a tank.” (Evidence of Mr. McGregor Laird, p. 58, “Steam Navigation to India.”)
[120] Mr. Robert Stephenson thought it possible, that if you had a dock filled with sulphate of copper, you might treat an iron vessel as you do a small teapot, and electrotype it with a thin coating of copper. (Evidence, 1851, 26th June, before Committee of the House of Commons.)
[121] The Liverpool underwriters, in their book of registry for iron vessels (established 1862), in the edition of that work for 1863 and 1864, offer the following remarks:
“Experience has shown that iron ships are much more durable than was at first supposed. By the use of cement inside, and by careful attention to outside coating, a well constructed iron ship can be reckoned upon to last, in first-class condition, for a period of at least twenty years. Wear and tear of equipment, and of the wood used in their construction, must in all cases be excepted.”
[122] Mr. McGregor Laird states in his evidence (Question 553, p. 59) before the Select Committee on “Steam Navigation to India,” 1834, “A strong iron vessel will not weigh one-half of that of a wooden one, and therefore will draw considerably less water;” further (Q. 554), “Her capacity for stowage will be much greater, her sides, including strong iron frames, not exceeding 4 inches in thickness, while those of a wooden vessel will be 12 inches thick.”
“The average weight of the iron steam vessels is about 6 cwt. per register ton; a wooden one will weigh about 20 cwt. and upwards.”—(See evidence of C. W. Williams, Appendix to Report of the above Committee, p. 43.) See note, [Appendix No. 5, p. 599].
[123] The greatest number of years originally allowed by “Lloyd’s Register” for the classification of any vessel built of wood to remain on the first class, was from four to sixteen years, but seldom more than twelve from the date of construction; they might be renewed, but the original term never exceeded the periods I have named.
[124] Captain (now Admiral Sir) W. H. Hall, R.N., in his evidence before Lord Seymour’s (now the Duke of Somerset) Committee on Navy Estimates which sat in 1848, stated (p. 648) that, when he commanded the Nemesis, an iron vessel engaged in the Chinese war, she was in one action struck fourteen times by the shot of the enemy; “one shot went in at one side and came out at the other, it went right through the vessel;” there were “no splinters;” “it went through just as if you put your finger through a piece of paper.” “I had,” he added, “a favourable opinion of it” (iron). “Several wooden steamers,” he continues, “were employed upon the same service, and they were invariably obliged to lie up for repairs, whilst I could repair the Nemesis in twenty-four hours and have her always ready for service; indeed, many steamers were obliged to leave the coast of China and go to Bombay for repairs. Repairs which would have taken in a wooden ship several days, would take in ours as many hours only.”
Captain E. F. Charlwood, who had served in iron vessels “about four or five years,” stated, in his evidence before the same Committee, that the Guadaloupe, which he commanded, had been repeatedly struck by shot, and that “the damage was considerably less than is usually suffered by a wooden vessel,” and that “there was nothing like the number of splinters which are generally forced out by shot sent through a wooden vessel’s side.” He added that the shot went clean through (the holes being plugged by the engineer at the time), and did not otherwise injure the plates or leave a rent or displace any of the rivets.
[125] The author moved that the vote should be reduced by 300,000l. (see “Hansard’s Parliamentary Report” for May 23rd, 1861, page 30, where his reasons are given), but, after a long debate, he was defeated, only thirty members voting with him, and sixty-six against any reduction. The reader will find what became of this timber (a large portion lay rotting in the dock-yards) if he refers to the Report of the Committee, appointed on the motion of Mr. Seely, some years afterwards. But, beyond the reasons then given by the author, the Admiralty or their practical advisers must have known, long before 1861, that a screw-ship built of wood was vastly inferior to one constructed of iron; that the action of the shaft of the screw would prevent wooden vessels from lasting through a succession of long voyages without very considerable repairs from the vibration in the after body; and that the wood, by frequent concussion and constant working, would gradually lose its power of resistance, the fibres becoming bruised and compressed, which would not be the case with an iron ship, at least to anything like the same extent. Indeed, the naval constructors ought frankly to have told their Lordships that it would be unsafe to send a wooden ship to sea fitted with a very powerful propeller. No stern framework could be built to resist the vibration of the largest class of engines now in use in the navy. An iron ship, moreover, affords a much better and more solid foundation for the engines.
[126] Dr. Lardner (“Steam-engine,” p. 479) observes that, “when first introduced by Mr. Galloway, each board was divided into six or seven parts; this was subsequently reduced, and in the more recent wheels of this form constructed for the Government vessels, the paddle-boards consist only of two parts coming as near the common wheel as is possible, without altogether abandoning the principle of the split-paddle.”
[127] April 14th, 1858.
[128] See Tredgold “On the Steam-engine;” Appendix D, 1842, p. 292; Woodcroft’s MS. Collection, p. 22; Bourne “On the Screw-propeller,” p. 8, and other writers.
[129] Woodcroft’s “Specifications,” p. 1, n., pp. 25 and 28. Ibid., pp. 31 and 34.
[130] It would appear that his experiment was successful if reliance can be placed, as I have no reason to doubt, on the accuracy of a letter from Mr. Fulton, in the memoir by E. Cartwright, London, 1843, p. 142.
[131] Woodcroft “On Steam Navigation,” p. 54; with drawing; Bourne “On the Screw-Propeller,” p. 12; and accounts of trials which appeared in the newspapers, 1802.
[132] Woodcroft “On Steam Navigation.”
[133] As one more conspicuous than any other, it must be stated that, in March 1832, Mr. Bennet Woodcroft patented an “increasing screw-propeller,” which he thus describes: “A spiral worm blade or screw coiled round a shaft (this resembles the invention of Watt) or cylinder of any convenient length and diameter, in such form that the angle of inclination which the worm makes with the axis of the cylinder continually increases, and the pitch or distance between the coils or revolutions of the spiral, continually increases throughout the whole length of the shaft or cylinder upon which the spiral is formed.” (Specifications of “Marine Propulsion,” Part II. p. 112.)
[134] The number of claimants to every important invention is remarkable. An impartial student will, however, probably come to the conclusion that the invention of the screw and its application was, like that of the steam-engine itself, the sole property of no one man, as he finds by research that experiments to discover the means of applying the screw as a motive power to ships were at different periods spontaneously and independently made in various places by inquiring minds, who frequently were perfect strangers to each other and to each other’s discoveries or appliances; yet, as time passes on, and the labours of others are forgotten, a nation or a town claims for some one of its countrymen or townsmen who may have experimentalised on an invention which has become of great use to mankind, the sole or the largest share of the credit of the invention, and erects in their midst an enduring monument of his fame. Such would appear to be the case of Frédéric Sauvage, who has just (October, 1874) had a statue erected to his memory in the town of Boulogne-sur-Mer, where he was born on the 20th of September, 1786. On either side of the monument (which is 14 feet high surmounted by a large bronze bust of M. Sauvage) is an inscription setting forth the date of his birth and of the translation of his remains, together with a list of his inventions. On the front are the two words “Frédéric Sauvage,” and a bronze bas-relief showing a vessel with a screw-propeller. Frédéric Sauvage’s life was similar to those of many other inventors, in that he spent his days and fortune in perfecting inventions which brought him no profit. Having lost his own money, he borrowed from others, and, being unable to repay, was thrown into a debtors’ prison, which he afterwards exchanged for a madhouse, where he died on the 19th of July, 1857.
[135] “The Screw-Propeller: who Invented it?” by Robert Wilson, published by Thomas Murray and Son, Glasgow, 1860.
[136] See “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part II. pp. 127 and 128; London Journal (Newton’s), p. 14, conjoined series, p. 34; Mechanics’ Magazine, vol. xxvii. p. 130, vol. xxviii. p. 215, vol. xxix. pp. 143 and 283, and vol. xlii. p. 225; Artizan, vol. viii. pp. 187 and 209; also Bourne “On the Screw-Propeller,” pp. 30 and 34.
[137] See Weale’s Papers on “Engineering,” vol. iii. Part V. pp. 1-7, “Steam Navigation.”
[138] With regard to the question of the progress of steam-ships in the Royal Navy since then, Mr. T. H. Farrer, of the Board of Trade, remarks, with great force, in a letter I recently received from him: “We hardly know how fast we move. One of my first colleagues at the Board of Trade, in 1850, was Admiral Beechey, an officer of very superior attainments and intelligence, and one who, having been much employed on surveys, was well acquainted with steam-vessels. And yet I well remember his telling me that he did not believe that the Navy of the future—the Royal Navy—ever could consist of steamers! Nor could he endure iron ships. It was a very few years after this that, in company with him, I witnessed one of the most beautiful sights of my life—the Naval Review at Spithead, in the first summer of the Russian war, when the last four or more sailing-vessels of the Royal Navy formed the attacking squadron. I shall never forget the beauty of the scene, when late in the afternoon these magnificent ships came on with a gentle breeze from the east, and the descending sun shed a ‘dying glory’ on their towers of canvas. It was a fit obsequy for the Hearts of Oak of Rodney, Howe, and Nelson.”
[139] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part II. p. 127.
[140] Mechanics’ Magazine, vol. xxxi. p. 225.
[141] The first experimental trip of the Archimedes was made on Monday, October 14th, 1839, the second on the following Wednesday, in the presence of Sir Edward Parry, Sir William Symonds, Captains Basil Hall, Austin, and Smith, R.N., and several civil engineers. Subsequently to the Admiralty trials between Dover and Calais, Captain Chappell, R.N., sailed round England and Scotland in her, calling at numerous ports; details of this voyage will be found in Appendix D to Tredgold “On the Steam Engine.”
[142] The Rattler was launched from Sheerness Dockyard in April 1843. She was considered a remarkably fine model, and of very unusual length in proportion to her beam, her dimensions being 195 feet extreme length, close upon 33 feet extreme breadth, and 18½ mean depth of hold. Her burden was 888 tons. The log of this vessel from 28th of March to 13th April, 1851, will be found in the Appendix to a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, 1851, p. 565, where the merits of the screw are examined.
[143] The “screw” which Mr. Stevens used in his boat cannot have been of a practical character, or the Americans would not have allowed so valuable an invention to lie dormant for 35 years.
[144] Mr. Woodcroft patented, on the 18th of November, 1826, a mode “for propelling boats and vessels,” but no specification was enrolled; and on the 22nd of March, 1832, he “prolonged” his patent “increasing-pitch screw-propeller,” which he then fully described. (See “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Part XI. p. 112.)