LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Robert Fulton (self-portrait)[Frontispiece]
TO FACE PAGE
Title page of “Report on the Canal between the Rivers Heyl and Helford”[8]
Jonathan Hulls’ Steamboat, 1737[16]
de Son’s Underwater Boat, 1653[18]
Fulton’s “Nautilus,” 1798[26]
Manuscript page of “Drawings and Descriptions” with Fulton’s signature[54]
Manuscript page from “Drawings and Descriptions”[56]
Fulton’s Drawings of Submarine: Plate the First[60]
Plate the Second[61]
Plate the Third[62]
Plate the Fourth[63]
Plate the Fifth[64]
Plate the Sixth[65]
Plate the Seventh[66]
Plate the Eighth[68]
Plate the Ninth[70]
Plate the Tenth[72]
Plate the Eleventh[74]
Plate the Twelfth[76]
Compressed Air Cylinder[76]

ROBERT FULTON AND THE SUBMARINE

Chapter I
FROM ART TO ENGINEERING

Instructions to Barlow regarding the “Drawings and Descriptions.” Fulton’s youth (1765–1782). Residence in England studying art (1786–1793). Change from art to engineering as a vocation (1793). Arrival in France (1798).

“... I am now busy winding up everything and will leave London about the 23rd inst. for Falmouth from whence I shall sail in the packet the first week in October and be with you, I hope, in November, perhaps about the 14th, my birthday, so you must have a roast goose ready. The packet, being well manned and provided will be more commodious and safe for an autumn passage, and I think there will be little or no risk; at least I prefer taking all the risk there is to idling here a winter. But although there is not much risk, yet accidents may happen, and that the produce of my studies and experience may not be lost to my country, I have made out a complete set of drawings and descriptions of my whole system of submarine attack.... These with my will, I shall put in a tin cylinder, sealed and leave them in the care of General Lyman, not to be opened unless I am lost. Should such an event happen, I have left you the means to publish these works, with engravings, in a handsome manner, and to which you will add your own ideas—showing how the liberty of the seas may be gained by such means.”

Thus Robert Fulton wrote to Joel Barlow who had been his close friend and faithful guide since his arrival in Paris in 1797. The letter of which the above is but an extract is dated London, September, 1806, and was written, as the context shows, on the eve of his final departure from England, after a residence abroad of nearly twenty years. General Lyman to whom he referred had been appointed American Consul in London in 1805, in which capacity he served until he died in 1811.

Joel Barlow was in his day a person of considerable importance. Born in 1754, in Connecticut, educated at Dartmouth and Yale, he first studied theology and then law. Though he practised these professions in turn for a short time, he retired from both to devote himself to literature. In 1788, he went to London and Paris to market some lands in Ohio, an unfortunate undertaking. While in Europe, he became interested in liberal politics, even to the extent of standing as a candidate for election to the French Convention of 1793. After having acquired a competence in commerce, and after a short but highly creditable service as American Consul at Algiers, he returned to Paris and resumed his literary life, his principal production being a poem entitled, “The Columbiad.” In 1805, he returned to America, remaining there until 1811, when he was appointed American Commissioner to Emperor Napoleon. He joined the latter at Vilna in 1812, during the Russian campaign and, as the result of exposure to inclement conditions on the disastrous retreat from Moscow in the same year, died in Poland on Christmas eve. Barlow was enough older than Fulton to be accepted not only as a friend, but as a counsellor, while his character, experience and views on world questions appealed to the enthusiastic younger American in whom there was curiously blended a high development of an artistic temperament and scientific genius, and who was in thorough sympathy with the extreme liberal movement of the period that Barlow to some extent approved.

When Fulton arrived in Paris in 1797, he at once called on Barlow. The two men were mutually attracted and there soon sprang up an intimacy that was to develop into the most affectionate friendship. This intimacy has been compared to that existing between father and son, or rather between parents and son because Mrs. Barlow joined with her husband in taking Fulton into their lives. This they did the more readily as they had no children of their own. As evidence of the relation, they gave Fulton the nickname of “Toot.”

Cadwallader D. Colden, in his biographical memoir of Fulton, finds no fitter words to describe this friendship than by quoting as he says, “the warm language of one who participated in the sentiments expressed.” From this description of the quotation by Colden, it is evident that the words were those of Mrs. Barlow herself, who was still alive when Colden was writing the memoir in 1817. The quotation that Colden gives is as follows:

Here commenced that strong affection, that devoted attachment, that real friendship which subsisted in a most extraordinary degree between Mr. Barlow and Mr. Fulton during their lives. Soon after Mr. Fulton’s arrival in Paris, Mr. Barlow removed to his own hotel and invited Mr. Fulton to reside with him. Mr. Fulton lived seven years in Mr. Barlow’s family, during which time he learnt the French and something of the Italian and German languages. He also studied the high mathematics, chymistry and perspective, and acquired that science which, when united with his uncommon natural genius, gave him so great a superiority over many of those who, with some talents but without any sort of science, have pretended to be his rivals.

The house in which the Barlows lived in Paris and where Fulton lived with them for much of the time, was No. 59, Rue Vaugirard. The above quotation gives a suggestion of what the Barlows must have been to Fulton during his struggles in a foreign land, with visions of success almost attained alternating with bitter disappointments. It was but natural that the affection of Joel Barlow should be reciprocated and, consequently, when facing in 1806 the then not inconsiderable danger of a transatlantic voyage, it was to Barlow that he entrusted the task of publishing the results of the discoveries and of his labors, should he be lost at sea.

Fulton, as we know, reached America safely and, therefore, Barlow was not called on to publish the “drawings and descriptions” that Fulton had left behind in England. Due to the fact that Fulton lived for some years and became very prominent in the successful development of steam navigation, the drawings and accompanying manuscripts of a device that had not attained practical recognition seemed to have for the moment comparatively small value or importance and were put aside, perhaps after the death of Consul Lyman. They made no appearance until 1870, when they were sold at auction by a Mr. Andrews of Swarland Hall, Felton, Northumberland, and apparently without attracting any comment. Then for a period of 50 years, they rested quietly and unknown to the general public in the family of the purchaser. In 1920, they once more changed owners and passed into the possession of the writer. Now after a lapse of 116 years, the request of Fulton to his dearest friend, Barlow, a request that he realized when he made it might be his last, will be complied with, and the interesting story of his work through several years be made of record.

Could Fulton have foreseen the development that his conception of submarine navigation would attain, it is well within the limit of probability that he would have preferred that publication of his plans be withheld until the basic principle had reached its present status of complete application. Though he lived more than eight years after writing his letter to Barlow, he made no effort to publish his plans, nor did he in any of his subsequent writings refer to his submarine idea nor what he had done in England. Apparently his sole thought of publishing was in the event of his being lost at sea on his return. If he could not carry his conception of submarine attack into actual execution, he apparently preferred that his plans be allowed to rest quietly in some English private library until the idea that he had espoused had taken actual practical form, and the principles that he advocated had been proved true. Absorbed at first on his return to America in the construction of his steamboat, perhaps he realized in the interval between 1806 and his death in 1815, that the world was not yet ready to receive the innovation of sub-surface navigation, that the state of the art of engine construction had not yet been advanced sufficiently to render the theory feasible and, consequently, that publication might have detracted from his fame as an engineer by apparently showing that he was a dreamer. Sometimes it is a misfortune to be ahead of the times. Better to wait until proved facts entitle one to be accorded praise as a man of vision, rather than through premature publication to be classed as a visionary man.

Robert Fulton was born on the 14th November, 1765, on his father’s farm on Conowingo Creek in Little Britain Township, Pennsylvania. His father, Robert Fulton, Sr., was of Scottish descent. To his mother, Mary Smith, a woman of force and intelligence, young Robert owed his early education, and from her he derived the personal qualities that were to make him distinguished. His father was not successful as a farmer, so that when he died in 1768 he left his widow and five children in very straightened circumstances. Of the five children, three were girls, and of the boys, Robert was the elder.

This story is not concerned with the history of the Fulton family which has been thoroughly set forth by others, except to recall those salient steps in Robert’s career that led to his investigation of the possibilities of submarine navigation, and the designing of a boat to accomplish the end so far as the then state of the art of boat and engine construction would permit.

At school he did not excel in his studies which he neglected for sketching and mechanical experiments. When he was seventeen years of age, he set out to make his own career. As the village of Lancaster, where he was living with his mother, offered narrowly limited opportunities, he went to Philadelphia, then in many respects the most important city in the colonies. Not much is known of his early struggles, though apparently he devoted part of his time to art, because the City Directory in 1786, puts him down as a miniature painter, and some of his miniatures are in existence. Under the patronage of Benjamin Franklin, he made progress and earned enough money to purchase a farm for his mother.

But the spirit that was within him—the spirit that was to record his name indelibly in history—led him to think of the greater world that lay beyond the colonies, even though the colonies were at last successful in their struggle for independence and were then engaged in the equally difficult and more prolonged struggle to weld themselves into a nation. In 1786, he sailed for England provided only with a letter from his protector, Franklin, to Benjamin West. At that time West was approaching the height of his career as painter in London, being chosen president of the Royal Academy in 1792. Under the guidance of and probable instruction by West, Fulton made progress as an artist, the Royal Academy accepting some of his pictures.

The path of a young artist is rarely a smooth one. It is no smoother when the young artist is working in a foreign land without fame, friends or private means. What Fulton did and how he lived in London during the first four years of his stay in England, is best told by himself in his own words, in a letter to his mother under date of January 20, 1792, a letter given at full length by Dickenson.

... And I must now Give Some little history of my life since I Came to London. I Brought not more than 40 Guineas to England and was set down in a strange Country without a friend and only one letter of Introduction to Mr. West—here I had an art to learn by which I was to earn my bread but little to support whilst I was doing it And numbers of Eminent Men of the same profession which I must Excell before I Could hope to live—, Many Many a Silant solitary hour have I spent in the most unnerved Studdy Anxiously pondering how to make funds to support me till the fruits of my labours should sifficant to repay them. Thus I went on for near four years—happily beloved by all who knew me or I had long ear now been Crushed by Poverties Cold wind—and Freezing Rain—till last Summer I was Invited by Lord Courtney down to his Country seat to paint a picture of him which gave his Lordship so much pleasure that he has introduced me to all his Friends—And it is but just now that I am beginning to get a little money and pay some debtt which I was obliged to Contract so I hope in about 6 months to be clear with the world or in other words out of debt and then start fair to Make all I Can.

In 1793, when he was on the very threshold of a successful career as an artist, he suddenly, and without any explanation that is known, gave up the art of painting and turned to the science of engineering as his life’s vocation. It is an interesting fact that two great American engineers—Fulton who made steam navigation practical, and Morse who did the same for the electric telegraph—were both artists before they became engineers. The only hint as to the cause of his change of occupation is given by himself in the introduction to his first and greatest literary production, “A Treatise on the Improvement of Canal Navigation,” which appeared in 1796. In this introduction he said: “On perusing a paper descriptive of a canal projected by the Earl of Stanhope in 1793, where many difficulties seem to arise, my thoughts were first awakened to this subject.”

But Fulton in 1796 was something more than an author and investigator of canals. He was at that date actually in the field as a practicing engineer as is shown by a printed report, dated London, November 24th, 1796, addressed to “Sir Francis Buller, Bart. and the Gentlemen interested in the Helston Canal.” This report is of particular interest in that it is not recorded in any Fulton bibliography and no copy is to be found in the British Museum, or in the Congressional or other American public libraries. Perhaps the copy lying before the writer is the sole survivor. The edition was undoubtedly very small and the few copies, as soon as immediate interest was lost, were likely to be thrown aside as of no value. The title page is reproduced in facsimile on the opposite page.

Now as an addition to the Fulton bibliography, this, his second book and first published account of his own engineering work, is of importance and merits a brief description.

The pamphlet consists of fifteen pages, those of the copy referred to measuring 4⅞ by 7¾ inches, with an engraved map 10¾ by 7¾ inches, showing the route of the proposed canal from the headwaters of St. Ives Bay to the navigable waters of the Helford River in Cornwall.

The report possesses no scientific or constructive value. It presents neither plans nor details, except estimates of cost and earnings, obviously imperfect. Had Sir Francis and his friends followed the advice of their professional advisor, it is probable that they would have suffered financial disappointment. The report, however, is full of a young man’s optimistic hopes, a spirit of altruism and a plea for economy. These are sentiments that always actuated Fulton and frequently find expression in his other writings. It is not impossible, in fact it is quite probable, that a desire to be of tangible service to others was one of the compelling reasons that led him to devote himself to construction rather than to art. The underlying thought on which this report is based is shown by the following extracts in which Fulton after pointing out how in his professional opinion he believes that the operations of this enterprise will be lucrative, gives his own views of such undertakings as follows:

But I hope the gentlemen of Cornwall will view them in a better light; and, considering them as of national utility, contemplate the infinite advantages they give to the numerous operations of society....

In such investigation, if by a facility in carriage I find the expence of manure reduced, I then see that the farmer may improve more land, give a greater polish to his estates, and nourish agriculture to the benefit of the mass of society and the emolument of his landlord....

In towns, if the grocers, carpenters, ironmongers, or other tradesmen, have the carriage of their commodities reduced, they or their customers are benefitted; and so on in all professions where much carriage is required. If the housekeeper or cottager have their coals reduced, the comfort becomes more extended. In fact there is no point in which a canal can be viewed but it exhibits advantages to the mass of the people; and for an evident reason, because all improvements which reduce manual labour, or which give a greater produce with the same quantity of labour, will render the conveniences of life more abundant, cheap and diffused....

By 1786, Fulton had definitely devoted himself to canal engineering, or, as he says himself in the Report of the Board of Commissioners of the Western Canal, published at Albany and dated February 22, 1814:

I passed three years at various canals in England to obtain practical knowledge on the manner of constructing them and to make myself familiar with their advantages.

With Fulton’s work on canals, his designs for inclined planes to take the place of locks, his financial difficulties and his acquaintance with the Earl of Stanhope, the present story has no concern, except as such work is the intermediate step in Fulton’s career between art and mechanical navigation.

That Fulton was sorely pressed as to money in these days, the following extract from a long letter addressed to Lord Stanhope, and given in full in Dickenson’s “Robert Fulton,” clearly proves:

Works of this kind Require much time, Patience and application. And till they are Brought About, Penury frequently Presses hard on the Projector; And this My Lord is so much my Case at this Moment, That I am now Sitting Reduced to half a Crown, Without knowing Where to obtain a shilling for some months. This my Lord is an awkward sensation to a feeling Mind, which would devote every minuet to Increase the Comforts of Mankind. And Who on Looking Round Sees thousands nursed in the Lap of fortune, grown to maturity, And now Spending their time In the endless Maze of Idle dissipation. Thus Circumstanced My Lord, would it be an Intrusion on your goodness and Philanthropy to Request the Loan of 20 guineas Which I will Return as Soon as possible. And the favour shall ever be greetfully Acknowledged By your lordship’s

Most obliged

Robert Fulton

In 1797, Fulton conceived the idea of making a short trip to France and then returning to America. From various letters he appears to have had expectations, or perhaps they were only hopes, that he could find opportunity to apply his canal ideas in his own country. Accordingly, the summer of 1797 finds him in France en route for America. But instead of tarrying for a few weeks as he had in mind, he remained seven fruitful and critical years.

In France he began at once to devote himself, as he had been doing in England, to the development of small canals, republishing in French his “Treatise on Canals” under the title, “Recherches sur les Moyens de Perfectionner les Canaux de Navigation, etc.” It bore date an 7, the French revolutionary equivalent to 1799, and contained not only all the matter of the English edition of 1796, but also new material of particular application to France. In 1798, he was granted a French patent for certain details of canal construction, and in the same year attempted to secure the interest of Napoleon in the utilization of his ideas. The letter in which he makes the attempt was written in French, and a copy made by Fulton is now preserved in the New York Public Library.[[1]]

To General Bounaparte

Citizen General

Citizen Perier having advised me that you desire to know of my work on the System of Small Canals, I take the liberty of presenting you a copy of that book, only too happy if you will find therein some means of improving the industry of the French Republic.

Of all the causes of War, every day, it is true, sees those disappear which appertain to the existence of kings, priests and all that accompany them. But, nevertheless, republics will not be free of these lamentable properties so long as they do not free themselves from the erroneous systems of exclusive commerce and distant possessions. It is therefore a reason for every man who loves his fellows to endeavor to destroy these errors. Even ambition cannot seek a greater glory than in pointing out to men the path of truth and removing obstacles that impede nations from arriving at a durable peace. What glory can stand against time if it does not receive the approval of philosophy? In order to free nations, Citizen Bounaparte, you have executed vast enterprises and the glory with which you are covered should be as permanent as time itself. Who then can support with more efficacious approbation, projects which contribute to the general welfare? It is with this idea that I submit to you my work, hoping that if you find therein any useable truths that you will deign to support them with an influence as powerful as your own, and in effect to patronize projects the execution of which should render millions of men happy. Can there be for virtuous genius a more delicious reward? It is from this point of view that interior improvements and freedom of commerce are of the highest importance.

Should success crown the efforts of France against England, there will remain but gloriously to terminate this long war, to give freedom to commerce and make other powers adopt the system. Political liberty will then acquire that degree of perfection and breadth of which it is susceptible and philosophy will see with joy the olive branch of an eternal peace shade the course of science and industry.

This letter possesses two great points of interest. One that it marks the first approach of Fulton to Napoleon, leading as will be seen below to a far more important suggestion than that of building small canals; and the other that it is animated by an intense desire for French success over England. That this was in the beginning Fulton’s hope is to be borne in mind when, as will be shown, having developed in 1804 the opposite or pro-British sympathy, he lived and worked during two years in England for the destruction of Napoleon’s power though perhaps not of French ascendancy. The letter speaks of a “lasting peace.” That is something that the same nations a century and a quarter later are still seeking.

How delightfully charming and naïve is Fulton’s confidence that his picture of an altruistic ambition would excite a sympathetic emotion in Bonaparte. If Napoleon read the letter he must have smiled at Fulton’s enthusiastic simplicity.

Fulton’s leaning to French views at this time is explained by the fact that in politics he was intensely republican, in fact, somewhat extreme, a position that was undoubtedly encouraged and strengthened by his mentor, Barlow, who we have seen was a candidate for the celebrated Convention of 1793. This same leaning very likely influenced his remaining in France, rather than undertaking his contemplated return to his native land, because at this period his political ideals seemed more probable of realization in the former than in the latter country.

Chapter II
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT SUB-SURFACE NAVIGATION

Fulton’s first efforts for mechanical navigation. Some early submarines: Bourne, Van Drebbel, Mercenne, de Son, Wilkins, Bushnell.

While Fulton was taking out patents for his little canals—patents that never had either practical or profitable application—and endeavoring to earn a livelihood through the introduction of some of his methods of canal construction, there was germinating in his mind the great principle of mechanical propulsion on water that was eventually to win for him both fame and a competence.

The seeds had found lodgment some years previously. Dickenson shows that in 1793, or about the time when he retired from his art career, Fulton wrote a letter to the Earl of Stanhope stating that he had a project for moving boats by steam. This was a subject in which Stanhope took particular interest, being an inventor and a great student of applied science, and especially as he at that same time was working on a design of his own for a steamboat. Lord Stanhope requested Fulton to present his plan in detail. The original letter and accompanying sketches, dated November 4th, 1793, are still in the possession of the Stanhope family.

The idea of propelling boats by steam was not new. Jonathan Hulls had published a pamphlet in 1737 entitled, “A Description and Draught of a New Invented Machine for Carrying Vessels Out of or Into Any Harbour, Port or River, Against Wind or Tide or in a Calm.” This pamphlet is of great rarity, and the plate it contains, being the first pictorial representation of a boat propelled by the force of steam, merits reproduction. But in Fulton’s own country practical results had already been achieved. James Rumsey had actually moved a vessel by steam on the Potomac in 1785–88, and in 1788 and 1790 took out British patents. In February, 1793, Rumsey ran a steamboat on the Thames. Equally important was the work of John Fitch, who also constructed a boat operated by a steam engine and actually conveyed passengers on a regular schedule on the Delaware River in 1790. Fitch, like his rival inventor Rumsey, went to Europe further to develop his ideas and, in 1791, took out a French patent. All these experiments were, of course, known to Fulton and it is not impossible that they gave him his first suggestion.

For the moment we are not interested in the development of steam navigation. However fascinating the story of how Fulton gradually developed a better engine than his predecessors and contemporary experimenters had succeeded in doing, and one that was completely practical, it is not to be repeated here. Our story is concerned with his work on submarines, but before leaving the subject of steamboats, it is convenient to recall that the fortuitous appointment of Robert R. Livingston (1746–1813), the famous Chancellor of the State of New York, as American Minister to France in 1801 brought to Fulton his ultimate means of success through the partnership that the two men established. Chancellor Livingston, like Fulton’s other friend, Lord Stanhope, was interested in philosophical subjects and had turned his attention to the possibility of steam navigation as early as 1798. Therefore, his arrival in France in 1801, when Fulton was struggling with the mechanical problems, was most opportune for Fulton and the art of mechanical propulsion. Though Fulton even then had almost reached the solution of the engineering difficulties, he was without the necessary funds to put his ideas in concrete form. These funds Livingston supplied, and, what to a man of Fulton’s temperament was almost as valuable, personal encouragement and guidance. It is not too much to assert that the early realization of the application of steam to navigation was due to Livingston’s acceptance of the post of Minister to France, thus bringing the two men together.

JONATHAN HULLS’ STEAMBOAT, 1737

While Fulton was studying and experimenting with mechanical propulsion of boats on the surface of the water, it was but natural that he should take under consideration the possibility of constructing a boat that could be sunk and raised at will and move under water. This basal principle was far from being novel. From the earliest times man has not been content to remain only a land animal. As far back as records go, he has had the ambition to emulate the birds, and certainly during the Roman period he began to think of sharing with fishes the power to explore the depths of the sea.

Perhaps William Bourne was the first writer on submarine vessel design. In his little quarto volume published in 1573, and entitled, “Inuentions or Deuises very necessary for all Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of Men, as well by Sea as by Land,” he describes as the “18 Deuise,” “a Ship or a Boate that may goe vnder the water vnto the bottome, and so to come vp againe at your pleasure.” Recognizing that the variation in displacement of a vessel whose weight remains constant adds to or detracts from its buoyancy, he suggested a vessel with sides that could be distended or contracted at will by screws, thus permitting her to sink and rise. These distendable sides, he thought, might be made of leather. For ventilation when submerged, he would have a hollow mast, taking care that the depth of water in which the boat should plunge would never exceed the height of the mast. He did not propose any means of propulsion.

Van Drebbel, a Dutch engineer, born in Holland in 1572, made actual application of Bourne’s ideas, and constructed a submersible boat in 1624. He tested it in 15 feet of water in the Thames at London, during one of which tests it is reported that he had King James I. as a passenger. Apparently he attempted propulsion by means of oars that passed through the boat’s sides, the apertures being covered by leather pockets attached to oars and boat. What plan he had for keeping the boat’s air respirable when submerged is not clear, though there are some fantastic but not authenticated claims that he used a chemical compound for refreshing it. If he really plunged, which is by no means certain, it was probably for only a few minutes at a time.

In 1634, the same year in which Van Drebbel died in London, there was published a book entitled, “Hydraulica Pneumatica,” containing a chapter “De nauibus sub aqua natantibus.” This interesting work was written by a noted French theologian and philosopher, Marin Mercenne (1588–1648), a member of the order of Minimes Fathers. As was frequently done at that period in the case of technical treatises, Father Mersenne wrote his book in Latin, and gave his name the latinized form of Mercennus. He describes Drebbel’s boat, but credits Bourne with having first proposed the principles that Drebbel used, and recalled that Bourne had suggested the possibility of getting fresh air through tubes reaching to the surface. Mercenne’s contribution to the art was his stated belief that the compass would be equally efficient beneath as well as on the surface.

DE SON’S UNDERWATER BOAT, 1653

In 1653, a French engineer, de Son, constructed in Holland a curious boat, 72 feet long, propelled by a hand-driven wheel. This boat was hardly a submarine as it was not expected to submerge completely. It is interesting as the first application of a mechanical motive force other than oars and the first suggestion of a paddle wheel. It, therefore, marked a great step forward in matters of design. A translation of de Son’s modest description of this boat as shown on the bottom of the design is as follows:

Accurate Representation of the New Wonderful Ship Made at Rotterdam.

As Mons. Duson has been greatly disappointed at the presentment of his ship, which was in all ways greatly misrepresented, both as regards the rudder, the paddle wheel, and the whole disposition of the vessel when published at Amsterdam, we think it useful to give an exact representation of the ship (as above depicted) and the reader will at once see the difference. The Inventor will undertake to destroy with the ship in one day a fleet of a hundred vessels. No fire, no cannon ball or rocket, no storm or waves can hinder him unless God the Lord should intend to do so. Even if the ships which lie in the harbors consider themselves safe, he will run them to the bottom and turn around just as easily as a bird in the sky so that no one can hurt him, and should his ship be taken by treason, for otherwise it is quite impossible, it could not be governed by any one else but him. He will be able to make in one hour at least ten miles, and should he run on a bank his vessel will swim as light on the water as a light sloop would do. He believes he will be able to go with this vessel in ten weeks to and from the East Indies, and in one day to and from France, so that it may be called the greatest wonder of the world.

The next contributor was an Englishman, John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester. Wilkins was an exceedingly interesting character and deserves to be remembered not only for what he did to advance the art of submarine design, but for what he was and what he accomplished in many ways. His life is set forth in considerable detail in the preface of the fifth edition of his principal scientific production, “Mathematical Magick: or the Wonders that may be perform’d by Mechanical Geometry,” this particular edition being published posthumously in 1707.

From this sketch it appears that he was born in 1614. It is stated that at school his proficiency was such that he entered New Inn, Oxford, when 13 years old. After graduation, not at New Inn but at Magdalen Hall, he took orders and served as Chaplain, first to Lord Say and then to Charles, Count Palatine of the Rhine. On the outbreak of the English civil war, he joined the parliamentary party. In 1648, he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and in 1656, married the sister of Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector. Soon after he was appointed head of Trinity College, Cambridge. Charles II, on his restoration to power, removed Dr. Wilkins from his position at Cambridge, though subsequently gave him preferment, first, by making him Dean of Ripon, and soon after, Bishop of Chester. Apparently Wilkins had made it clear to the royalist party that he could serve quite as well under their standard as under that of his late brother-in-law.

In the short interim while out of royal favor he resided in London, where he was elected to the Royal Society and a member of its Council. It will thus be seen that Wilkins was no narrow-minded person. He could adapt himself to whatever political party was in power, and apparently he could do equally well as an educator, theologian and man of science. At any rate, of his varied abilities, his excellence in these three was recognized by his contemporaries who conferred on him the highest honors in each of the three fields. He did not however restrict himself to those labors, but was also an author of no small productivity. Among his writings are :

1. “The Discovery of a New World; or, a Discourse tending to prove that (’tis probable) there may be another Habitable World in the Moon.” 1638.

2. “Discourse concerning the Possibility of a Passage to the World in the Moon.” 1638.

3. “Discourse concerning a New Planet; tending to prove, that (’tis probable) our Earth is one of the Planets.” 1640.

4. “Mercury; the Secret Messenger: Shewing how a Man may with Privacy and Speed communicate his thouhts to his friend at any Distance.” 1641.

5. “Mathematical Magick; or, The Wonders that may be perform’d by Mechanical Geometry.” 1648.

6. “An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language” including, “An Alphabetical Dictionary.” 1668.

7. Several works on theological subjects.

The above books seem to have won popular approval because they appear in several editions. Bishop Wilkins died in 1672 after a life full of strenuosity, variety and action.

It is with his scientific publication standing fifth in the above list that we are specially interested. This little book, which treats of a great number of mechanical devices and principles such as wheels, pulleys, screws, engines of war, clocks and other similar machines, contains two chapters, one entitled, “Concerning the Art of Flying. The several ways whereby this hath been, or may be attempted”; and the other, “Concerning the Possibility of framing an Ark for Submarine Navigation. The Difficulties and Conveniences of such a Contrivance.” The latter chapter is the one that bears on our present discussion.

Although Wilkins gives credit to Mercennus, who as he puts it, “doth so largely and pleasantly descant upon the making of a ship wherein men may safely swim under the Water,” nevertheless he follows the line of thought of Bourne without giving him credit. He closely imitated Bourne’s scheme of leather attachments. He suggested leather bags open at both ends, one end being without and the other within the ship, the ends capable of being closed like those of a purse. These bags he would use as means of ingress and egress for men and materials. Motion he proposed to obtain by means of oars whose blades would be collapsible on the back stroke, the oars projecting through the ship’s sides, the holes being closed with leather attached to the oars and vessel. Wilkins had in mind the use of such a vessel in attack against a “Navy of Enemies, who by this means may be undermined in the water and blown up.”

The submersible power Wilkins would obtain by having his boat or “Ark” ballasted so as to be of “equal weight with the like magnitude of water,” that is, to be at the critical point between floating and sinking, obviously one of greatest danger. He fancied that he could then obtain vertical motion or plunging by attaching a great weight to the bottom of the ship, to be computed, of course, as part of the ballast. If the weight were lowered by means of a cord, so would the boat ascend, and if the weight were raised, it would descend. The method of supplying air to the submerged crew was equally amusing. He depended upon the ability of men to live in a polluted atmosphere by continued practice, or if that were found impossible, the air might be purified by what he calls “refrigeration,” that is, by heating it by lamps and allowing it to cool on coming in contact with the sides of the vessel, the process being assisted by bellows. It is hoped that the theology of the undoubtedly worthy bishop was sounder than his science, and that it emulated rather the particularly high scale of wisdom of his political adaptability. But no matter how ridiculous his details, he, nevertheless, left the main idea more firmly implanted in men’s minds.

The above references are not a complete résumé of the early development of the underlying principles of the art of submarine navigation. They are nothing more than a brief recital of the salient and outstanding features that mark the path of progress like milestones along a road.

With these and other similar impracticable conceptions, the art of submarine construction was found by an American, David Bushnell, born at Saybrook, Connecticut, in 1742, and graduated from Yale in 1775. In the war with Great Britain, which broke out shortly after his graduation, Bushnell conceived the idea of attacking the enemy’s ships under water and there is no doubt that he constructed a boat embodying among other novel devices a screw propeller. His boat, a small affair carrying but a single operator, was scarcely a submarine as it was not intended to plunge, but to float just “awash” or almost submerged. Like Rumsey and Fitch, Bushnell went abroad and, as Fulton did later, opened negotiations with the French Government. Delpeuch says, “Then (1797) there appeared an engineer who offered to the Directory a means quite as terrible as it was invisible to force the British to lift their blockade, and not only did this man undertake to drive the enemy from our shores, but he even proposed to carry the war to the shores and ports of Great Britain, heretofore inviolable.”

Fulton undoubtedly became acquainted with Bushnell during the time they were both in France engaged in similar pursuits. But the failure to accomplish results or to get his ideas adopted by others disappointed Bushnell so keenly that he returned to his native country, went to Georgia, adopted the name of Bush, and began the practice of medicine. He died in 1826, at the age of 84, when his will disclosed his identity.

Chapter III
FULTON’S FIRST SUBMARINE

Fulton begins work on a submarine (1797). Nautilus launched at Rouen (1800). Havre experiments. Fulton aided by Monge and Laplace. Received in audience by Napoleon Bonaparte. Hopes and disappointments.

The previous chapter shows that not only was the principle of a submarine boat not novel when Fulton began his work on it, but that according to the record a competitor was actually in France urging upon the French Government the adoption of a design that, unlike the fantastic conceptions of Bourne and Drebbel, was capable of being moved by an invisible power and of making an attack beneath the surface. But if Fulton lacked initial originality he achieved practical success in his subsequent labors by greatly improving the plans of his predecessors, as he later did in the case of the steamboat.

At first his work on a design for a submarine was merely incidental and secondary to his more cherished ambition to become a great constructor of canals. It was soon after his arrival in France that the idea of an underwater boat occurred to him, and this several years before mechanical operation of boats obtained the supremacy in his mind over small canals. His first move was apparently on the 24 Frimaire an VI (13 December, 1797) when he wrote to the Directory, “having in view the great importance of lessening the power of the English fleet, that he had a project for the construction of a mechanical Nautilus.” It is interesting to note that this letter was written but six months after his arrival in France, and in the same year that Delpeuch records Bushnell as having laid his own plan before the Directory. It is difficult to repress the thought that the latter’s efforts roused Fulton to action, even if they did not suggest to him the initial thought.

On the 2nd January, 1798, Fulton made definite proposals to the Minister of Marine, among the terms being a request that rank in the French navy be conferred at least on him, if not on all the members of the crews of the submarines, because otherwise he feared the British would treat him as a pirate. On February 12, 1798, Fulton was informed that his proposals had been declined.

Unlike Bushnell, who under similar circumstances went home discouraged and hid himself under an assumed name, Fulton prepared to renew the attack. Waiting until another Minister of Marine had been appointed, he submitted new proposals, under date of 5 Thermidor an VI (23 July 1798), concluding the offer by pointing out that the destruction of the English navy would assure the freedom of the seas and the nation which had the most natural resources—France—would alone hold, and without rival, the balance of power in Europe. The Minister convened a board of technical men to whom Fulton submitted his plans for a submarine that he called the “Nautilus.” This boat had the shape of an imperfect ellipsoid, with an over-all length of 6 m. 48 (21 ft. 3 in.) and extreme beam 1 m. 94 (6 ft. 4 in.). Beneath the ellipsoid there was a hollow iron keel 0 m. 52 (1 ft. 8 in.) in height, running to within 1 m. from the bow. The keel contained a quantity of ballast so that the difference between the weight of the flotation and that of the water displaced by it should be only about 4 to 5 kilograms. The only communication with the interior of the keel lay in the two parts of a suction and force pump which by means of a hand crank would permit the introduction into or removal of water from the metal keel at will. The excess in buoyancy of the Nautilus being small, the introduction of only a little water would make it sink, and conversely, the expulsion of a small quantity would cause it to return to the surface. On the forward and top part of the Nautilus there was a spherical dome pierced with port holes covered by thick glass for observation and a man-hole that served as means of ingress and egress for the crew.

For propulsion, Fulton proposed a screw as Bushnell had already done, a principle that was not to be adopted in general practice until nearly half a century later in spite of its many and great advantages over side wheels. The screw was placed at the stern and directly ahead of the rudder and was operated by a hand crank and gearing turning a shaft passing through a stuffing box. The crank was to be turned by man power only. Plunging was to be secured by pumping water into the keel, while submersion at a given depth, provided the boat was in motion, was to be attempted by means of two inclined planes attached to the sides of the steering rudder. The angle of these planes could be altered from within, thus giving an upward or downward direction to the boat. Motion on the surface he thought to obtain by a fan-shaped sail which, with the supporting mast, could be folded down to the deck and then, preparatory to submersion, covered with envelopes like the wings of a fly. Fulton estimated that he could work the boat with a crew of three men.

FULTON’S “NAUTILUS,” 1798

The offensive feature of the design consisted first of a vertical spike attached to the top of the observer’s dome. In the spike was an eye through which passed a cord leading through a stuffing box to a winding spool in the forward end of the boat. The second part was a torpedo attached to the other end of the cord. In action the Nautilus would be placed directly beneath the hull of an enemy vessel, the spike being in contact with the bottom planking. As one end of the spike projected into the observer’s dome, a blow on that end would drive the upper end, which was sharp and detachable, into the ship’s timbers. Then the Nautilus was to move forward leaving the spike sticking in the ship. As she moved forward, the torpedo would trail behind, but as the cord passed through the eye in the spike, the torpedo would soon be brought into contact with the hull, when the shock would fire the discharge. In the meanwhile, enough cord would have been paid out to permit the Nautilus to have attained a safe distance.

The Commission to whom the design was submitted found in its favor, except as to the sail arrangement, which they pointed out had the larger part of its area too far aloft, and that consequently the boat would lack stability under a strong wind. A translation of the Commission’s conclusion is as follows:

The Minister of the Marine and Colonies is therefore requested to give to Citizen Fulton the authorization and necessary means to construct the machine of which he has submitted a model. There is no doubt that with the same wisdom that has been put into its conception, and the refinement and solidity of the various mechanisms comprising the whole, that he who has supervised the execution of this interesting model will be able to construct the full sized machine in a manner equally ingenious and that the new ideas that he will have obtained from study and experience will but lead to its perfecting.

Though the design of the Nautilus fell far short of that of a modern submarine, nevertheless, it was so far ahead of anything previously accomplished or suggested that it entitles Fulton to be credited with being the first to propose a type of vessel capable of plunging and being navigated beneath the surface of the water. That his plans gave promise of this accomplishment was recognized by the examining commission in their report, a report that gave Fulton great encouragement for further action. Delpeuch in his book on submarines states that in consequence of this favorable official approval:

Fulton submitted to the Minister on the 27 Vendemiaire an VI (October 17, 1798) a new project of the Company which was similar to those previously proposed except in the following articles:

1. That the Government should pay immediately on the receipt of news of the destruction of an English ship of the line, 500,000 francs, with which sum he engaged to build a squadron of 10 Nautilus to be used against the English fleets.

2. That the Government was to pay him or his assigns the sum of 100 francs for each pound of calibre of the guns of English ships destroyed or put out of action by the Nautilus during the war, that is to say, for a 5 pounder gun 500 francs, or for a 10 pounder, 1000 francs.

In spite of the favorable report by the investigating Commission and of the financial terms offered by Fulton, which were certainly liberal as they were entirely contingent on success, Fulton’s proposals were again rejected.

He then went to Holland, but obtained no more encouragement from the Dutch Government than from the French. Hearing that Bonaparte had been named First Consul, he hurriedly returned to Paris. On the 13 Vendemiaire, an XI (October 6, 1800), he wrote to the Minister of Marine again proposing the consideration of the Nautilus. Attached to this letter was a memorial entitled, “Observations sur les Effets Moreaux du Nautile.” This memorial was written in French, and is preserved in the Archives Nationales and is quoted at length by E. L. Pesce in “Navigation Sous-Marine.” The plaint as to delay with which he began he repeated in varying form until finally in 1806, he abandoned all European negotiations and returned to America. The portion of the memorial that gives his political reasoning is at the present time the most interesting, especially as the German Admiralty held almost precisely the same views with respect to the effect that submarines would have on the British Empire during the recent war. Fulton’s severe restrictions on the British navy and his lauding of the submarine as an instrument for true “liberty and peace” sound much like communiqués emanating from Berlin during 1914–1918. As we will see, Fulton recognized later that his description of the criminal character of the British was at least inaccurate when in very similar language he pointed out how it could and should destroy the naval power of France.

The Memorial reads in part as follows:[[2]]

Citizen Minister

It is now twenty months since I presented for the first time the plan for my Nautilus to ex-Director La Reveillere Lepaux. He presented it to the Directory who ordered that it be forwarded to Minister of Marine Pléville, and finally it was turned down after five months of discussion.

Taken up again under the administration of Citizen Bruix, it had the same fate after about four months of waiting. A reception so little favorable on the part of the first magistrates of France, whose duty it is to encourage discoveries tending to spread liberty and to establish harmony among nations, proves to me that it was considered with a false idea of the physical as well as the moral effects of this machine.

Let us see first what would be for France the immediate effects of the Nautilus. The loss of the first English ship destroyed by extraordinary means would throw the English Government into utter embarrassment. It would realize that its whole navy could be destroyed by the same means, and by the same means it would be possible to blockade the Thames and to cut off the whole commerce of London. Under such circumstances what would the consternation be in England? How would Pitt then be able to support the allied powers? The result would be that deprived of Pitt’s guineas, the coalition would vanish and France thus delivered from its numerous enemies would be able to work without obstacle for the strengthening of its liberty and for peace.

After having thus shown the happy effects that would follow immediately a success by the Nautilus, I pass to the objections, quite as commonplace as they are lacking in philosophy, that have been raised against this machine. I will show below how the Nautilus can further real liberty and establish harmony among peoples.

The first objection is that if France should make use of the Nautilus against England, England would be equally able to make use of it against France. But it does not seem to me any way likely that the English would make use of it against France because before they could become acquainted with the mechanism, France would be able to blockade the Thames and cut off commerce from London and thus reduce the cabinet of St. James to terms of the most complete submission.

It is the naval force of England that is the source of all the incalculable horrors that are committed daily. It is the English navy which supports the English Government, and it is that Government which by its intrigues has been the cause of two-thirds of the crimes that have marked the course of the revolution.

If by means of the Nautilus one could succeed in destroying the English navy, it would be possible with a fleet of Nautilus to blockade the Thames to the end that England would become a republic. Soon Ireland would throw off the yoke and the English monarchy would be wiped out. A rich and industrious nation would then increase the number of republics of Europe and this would be a long step toward liberty and universal peace.

If England should adopt a republican government, I do not doubt that France and she would bury in oblivion the old hates and that fatal rivalry fomented by the stupid aristocracy, and the two republics would treat each other as sisters and would give to their respective commerce complete freedom, and in this case neither one nor the other would have need of a military marine. Then friendship in spite of common opinion would unite these two great peoples and humanity would breathe freely.

Small circumstances often produce changes in the affairs of men. The mariners’ compass has given to commerce an extension without limits and has multiplied its knowledge. The invention of gunpowder has changed the whole art of war without diminishing its horrors. I hope that the Nautilus will not only destroy military marines, but in breaking these destructive instruments in the hands of the aristocracy will serve the cause of liberty and peace.

I have laid before you in a clear and impartial manner a part of its happy effects and I am far from assuming any merit of having imagined the first thought. The idea could have come to any other engineer seeking with the same ardor that I have to make the cause of humanity triumph.

At last success seemed to be in sight. Official lethargy and resistance were overcome and permission was given Fulton to build a Nautilus at Rouen, which he at once commenced doing in the boat yard of the firm of Perrier. From his model he made one important change, the addition of a deck about 6 feet wide and 20 feet long, enabling the crew to come out of the hull when not submerged.

On July 24, 1800, the Nautilus was launched, and on July 29, she made her first plunge in 25 feet of water. The first submersion lasted 5 minutes, and the second, 17 minutes, the personnel consisting of Fulton and two companions. The swift river current interfered with the manipulation of the boat to such an extent that Fulton decided to make further tests in still, open water at Havre.

Under date of 19th November, 1800, he wrote a long letter to Messrs. Monge and Laplace giving an account of results obtained. These gentlemen appear to have been his loyal and enthusiastic friends through all his efforts. When others failed, or his propositions were refused by the authorities, they continued to support him, and were always ready to undertake to obtain a new hearing.

Gaspard Monge, born 1746, died 1818, was a well-known mathematician, particularly celebrated in the field of descriptive geometry. He was an ardent revolutionist, serving as Minister of Marine during 1792–3. When Bonaparte came into power, Monge espoused his cause and accompanied him to Italy.

Pierre Simon Laplace, afterward Marquis de Laplace, was even more illustrious, being a mathematician and astronomer of the highest distinction. His “Mécanique Céleste” whose exposition of the nebular hypothesis gives it permanent rank among the masterpieces of scientific reasoning, secured for its author the proud position of President of the French Academy. Like Monge he was a republican, and allied himself to Bonaparte immediately on the latter becoming First Consul, although in 1814, he voted for Napoleon’s dethronement. At the time Fulton could have found no better supporters than these two men of science, especially as both enjoyed the personal friendship of Bonaparte.

From the above mentioned letter it appears that while at Havre he carried the same crew as at Rouen, he now had a lighted candle. On his early experiment he plunged in darkness fearful that a light might seriously vitiate the air. He now remained submerged in one test six hours without inconvenience, during which time he obtained some air through a tube with the open end supported by a surface float that could not be seen at a distance of 200 fathoms. While trying relative speeds produced by two men rowing as against two men working the screw, the former made the boat cover 60 fathoms in 7 minutes, while the latter propelled it the same distance in 4 minutes. He reported that the Archimedes screw and the horizontal rudder for depth control did not satisfy him in point of efficiency. The Bushnell screw was literally a full screw with several turns as proposed by Archimedes twenty centuries earlier to raise water. When Fulton found that a full screw was not efficient, he proposed to replace it with separate blades set at an angle similar to the sails of a windmill. To this arrangement he gave the name of “Flier.” The error of trying to use a full screw in propeller design persisted for more than forty years after Fulton had appreciated the lack of efficiency. Other engineers for nearly two generations ignored Fulton’s experience and decision.

He then returned to Paris and elated by the success of his experiments, which certainly justified elation, he again drew up new proposals in which he offered to accept whatever remuneration the government would give, so great was his confidence. These proposals his friend Monge laid before the First Consul with whom Monge was on terms of intimacy and whose interest Fulton had so long desired to obtain. The First Consul forwarded Fulton’s letter to the Minister of Marine on 27 November, 1800, with the following marginal note:

Je prie le Ministre de la Marine de me faire connaître ce qu’il sait sur les projets du capitaine Fulton.

Bonaparte.

A few days later Monge and Laplace presented Fulton to Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul, urging the latter to make an allowance of 60,000 francs for further experiments.

What a dramatic moment when the two men of science presented the young American to the still younger Frenchman! A moment heavy with destiny, because the fates of nations were trembling in the balance, awaiting the decision. But no one of the four understood the importance of the conference, not even he who had most at stake. The central figure was the young Corsican artillery officer whose guns had swept the remnants of the French Revolution from the streets of Paris only five years before, then a man almost unknown, but now First Consul and Dictator of France. The successes of Lodi, the Pyramids and Marengo were still fresh in his mind and were beckoning him on to other conquests. Almost within his grasp was the crown of empire, plans to seize which he was even then maturing. In his eyes there stretched before him a path through conquest and glory,—but leading where? As he then saw the path in his imagination it led to absolute world domination with the great and little powers of Europe vassals of France.

The beginning of the path as he saw it with all its magnificence he had already found. It lay over the glittering heights of Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland and Wagram. Across it there was only one obstacle to prevent his reaching the culmination of his ambition, and that obstacle was England’s navy. Unless that could be removed, he would be forced to turn from the path over the heights and pass down into the valley of Borodino, Leipzig and Waterloo to the island prison of St. Helena. In boundless confidence in his destiny and in his own power to control it, he saw not the obstacle; or if he did, there was no doubt in his mind that he himself could remove it. Already he was all powerful on land, and he dreamed of being all powerful on sea.

It is not difficult to picture the dictator, supreme in his arrogance, facing the American, who was actually offering him the only chance there was to surmount the obstacle. Bonaparte had already learned who he was, a foreigner with few friends and no money, an unsuccessful artist in England, and an engineer in France without practise, a dreamer and inventor. Hardly the type of man to appeal to one who had already resolved to be an Emperor.

With what means did this inventor propose to attack those great masses of oak with their towering sides, with row on row of guns and great spreads of canvas? A tiny boat propelled by two men by hand, that would meet the enemy, not as Bonaparte would meet him by an attack in force, but by stealth, unseen and beneath the surface of the sea! As Bonaparte looked at his visitor he could not see the valley of Waterloo and St. Helena. Nor could he possibly imagine that long before that fateful June day of 1815, when the silence of the guns on the slope of Mt. St. Jean would mark the end of his career, the man who had been rash enough to seek the audience would have given to the world a vessel whose motive power would defy that of wind and that he would have designed a ship of war more powerful than any ship that sailed under the command of Nelson.

The tiny boat that was offered him was far from being a perfected machine, but even as it was it presented sufficient potentiality to strike terror to England’s navy as Fulton had prophesied in his Memorial. If Livingston with such limited means as he possessed could develop Fulton’s ideas into practical reality, how much sooner could the same result have been attained through the resources of a great government?

Fulton offered to Bonaparte world dominion.

Bonaparte listened and took the offer under consideration.

While waiting Bonaparte’s answer and apparently while Admiral Decrès, Minister of Marine, still had the matter under investigation in accordance with Bonaparte’s instructions, Fulton wrote the Minister under date of 3rd December, 1800, saying among other things:[[3]]

You will permit me to observe that although I have the highest respect for you and the other members of the Government, and although I retain the most ardent desire to see the English Government beaten, nevertheless the cold and discouraging manner with which all my exertions have been treated during the past three years will compel me to abandon the enterprise in France if I am not received in a more friendly and liberal manner.

It is interesting to note that this is the only letter in French that has been found in the government archives written wholly in the handwriting of Fulton himself. The other letters in the possession of the French Government that are written in French were written by his secretary and signed by him.

Fulton’s wise and diplomatic friends, Barlow, Monge and Laplace, must have been absent when the above tactless lines were penned. That they were the actual handwork of Fulton himself would seem to indicate that he was actuated by a momentary burst of impatience, and that in his haste to give vent to his feelings, he did not wait for his secretary to write the letter in French. What was in consequence almost inevitable, happened. Admiral Decrès, as Minister of Marine, reported adversely on Fulton’s plans. Fulton’s letter, of course, had not served to overcome the settled objection of a sailor to mechanical innovation.

Chapter IV
NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE

Nautilus reconstructed and tested at Brest (1801). Reports to Monge, Laplace and Volney. Great expectations. Final rejection (1802). Partnership with Robert R. Livingston. Work begun on steamboat. British Admiralty aware of his submarine accomplishment. Induced to return to England (May, 1804).

The always faithful Monge and Laplace came once more to the aid of their temperamental friend. They personally intervened with the First Consul, and actually succeeded in persuading him to authorize the reconstruction of the Nautilus in spite of the adverse professional opinion of the Minister. He appointed a new commission to investigate, naming MM. Monge, Laplace and Volney. The last, unlike the first two, was not a scientist. He was an eminent scholar, a great traveller and member of the Institute. He had visited the United States five years previously and had written a book on its climate and soil. He narrowly escaped the guillotine, was created a count under the Empire, and a peer of France after the restoration. He died in 1820.

With the encouragement induced by the naming of this friendly commission, Fulton at once began his task. The Nautilus was transported from Havre to Brest and there refitted with the alterations and improvements that occurred to Fulton as the result of the Havre experiments. On July 3rd, 1801, he made his first plunge at Brest in his improved boat. This time he was accompanied by three men instead of two as on the previous occasions.

An account of what he did at Brest is preserved in a manuscript copy of a report that he made to the commissioners. This report was published by Mrs. Sutcliffe in her book on the “Clermont” but it is so graphic that with Mrs. Sutcliffe’s consent it is reprinted in full exactly as Fulton wrote it:

Paris 22d, fructidore An 9

Robert Fulton to the citizens Monge, La Place and Volney, members of the National Institute, and Commissioners appointed by the first Consul to promote the invention of Submarine Navigation—

Citizens, yesterday on my return from Brest I received your note, and will with pleasure communicate to you the result of my experiments, during the summer, also the mode which I conceive the most effectual for using my invention against the enemy. Before I left Paris I informed you that my plunging boat had many imperfections, natural to the first machine of so difficult a combination, added to this I found she had been much injured by the rust during the winter in consequence of having in many places used Iron bolts and arbours instead of copper or brass, the reperation of those defects and the difficulty of finding workmen consumed near two months. And although the machine remained still extremely imperfect yet she has answered to prove every necessary experiment In the most satisfactory manner.

On the 3d of thermidor I commenced my experiments by plunging to the depth of 5 then 10 then 15 and so on to 25 feet but not to a greater depth than 25 feet as I did not conceive the Machine Sufficiently Strong to bear the Pressure of a Greater column of water, At this depth I remained one hour with my three companions and two candles burning without experiancing the least inconvenience.

Previous to my leaving Paris I gave to the Cn. Gueyton member of the Institute a calculation on the number of cube feet In my boat which is about 212 in Such a Volume of Air he calculated there would be sufficient Oxszine to nourish 4 Men and two small candles 3 hours. Seeing that it would be of great Improvement to despence with the candles I have constructed a Small window in the upper part of the Boat near the bow which window Is only one inch and a half diameter and of Glass 9 lines thick, with this prepared I descended on the 5th of thermidor to the depth of between 24 and 25 feet at which depth I had Suffecient light to count the minuets on the Watch, hence I conclude that 3 or 4 Such windows arranged in different parts of the boat would give suffecient light for any operation during the day each window may be Guarded by a Valve in Such a manner that Should the glass break the Valve would immediately Shut and Stop out the Water, finding that I had air and light Suffecient and that I could Plunge and Rise perpendicular with facility. On the 7th Therd I commenced the experiments on her movements. At 10 in the Morning I raised her anchor And hoisted her Sails which are the Mainsail and Gib the breeze being light I could not at the Utmost make more than about two thirds of a league per hour. I tacked and retacked tryed her before and by the wind And in all these operations found her to Answer the helm And Act like a common dul Sailing boat, After exersising thus About An hour I lowered the mast and Sails and commenced the operation of Plunging this required about two Minuets. I then placed two men at the engine which gives the Rectileniar Motion, And one At the helm, while I governed the machine which keeps her ballanced between two waters. With the bathomater before me And with one hand I found I could keep her at any depth I thought Proper the men then commenced movement and continued about 7 Minuets when mounting to the Serface I found we had gained 400 Matres. I again plunged turned her round under water and returned to near the Same place. I again plunged And tried her movements to the right and left, in all of which the helm answered And the compass acted the same as if on the serface of the Water having continued these experiments the 8, 9, 10 and 12th untill I became fameliar with the movements And confidence in their operation, I turned my thoughts to Increasing or preserving the Air, for this purpose the Cn. Gueyton advised to precipitate the carbonic acid with lime, or to take with me bottles of Oxizine which might be uncorked as need required; but as any considerable quantity of bottles would take up to much room, And as oxizine could not be created at Sea without a Chymical operation which would be Very Inconvenient, I adopted a mode which occured to me 18 months ago which is a Simple Globe or bombe of copper capable of containing one cube foot to (Manuscript is torn here) A Pneumatick Pump by means of which Pump 200 Atmospheres or 200 cube feet of common Air may be forced Into a Bomb consequently the Bomb or reservoir will contain As much oxegine or Vital air as 200 cube feet of common respirable Air, hence if according to Cn. Gueyton’s Calculation 212 feet which is the Volume of the boat will nourish 4 Men and two small candles 3 hours this additional reservoir will give Suffecient for 6 hours—this Reservoir is constructed with a measure and two cocks So as to let measures of Air Into the Boat as Need may require require—

Previous to my leaving Paris I gave orders for this machine but it did not arrive till the 18 of thermidore on the 19 I ordered 2 Men to fill it which was an operation of about one hour I then put It into the boat and with my three companions but without candles plunged to the depth of about 5 feet, At the expiration of one hour and 40 Minuets I began to let off Measures of air from the reservoir and So on from time to time for 4 hours 20 Minuets without experiancing any Inconvenience—

Having thus succeeded

And to Augment the respirable air by a reservoir, which may be obtained at all times, I conceived every experiment of importance, to be proved in the most satisfactory manner hence I Quit the experiments on the Boat to try those of the Bomb Submarine. It is this bomb which is the Engine of destruction the Plunging boat is only for the purpose of carrying the bomb to where it may be used to Advantage. They are constructed of Copper and of different sizes to contain from 10 to 200 Pounds of powder each bomb is arranged with a Gun lock In Such a manner that if it Strikes a Vessel or the Vessel Runs against it, the explosion will take place and the bottom of the Vessel be Blown in or so Shattered as to insure her destruction. To prove this Experiment the Prefet Maritime, And Admiral Vellaret ordered a Small Sloop of About 40 feet long to be anchored in the Road, on the 23d of Thermidor With a bomb containing about 20 Pounds of powder I advanced to within about 200 Matres then taking my direction So as to pass near the Sloop I Struck her with the bomb in my Passage the explosion took Place and the Sloop was torn into Atoms, in fact nothing was left but the buye and cable, And the concussion was so Great that a Column of Water Smoak and fibres of the Sloop was cast from 80 to 100 feet in Air, this Simple Experiment at once Proved the effect of the Bomb Submarine to the Satisfaction of all the Spectators; of this experiment you will See Admiral Villarets description in a letter to the Minister of Marine Marine—

Having Given in a Short Sketch of the Sucession of my Experiments, the mode of using these inventions Against the enemy is now to be considered, on this Point time and experience will make numerous improvements As in all other new inventions and discover modes of operation which could not possibly accur to me; when Powder was Invented Its Infinite applications were not thought of, nor did the Inventors of the Steam Engine conceive the numerous purposes to which It could be applied, in like manner it is Impossible At present to See the Various modes, or the best methods of Using a plunging boat or the bomb Submarine—

But as far as I have Reflected on this point I conceive the best operation to be as follows—