[138] Miller is said to have approached the Admiralty twice upon the subject, and certainly he was keenly interested in naval affairs. A generous tribute has been paid him by a friend whose name is honoured in our naval annals: “I was unwearied,” says John Clerk of Eldin in the preface of his Essay on Naval Tactics, published in 1804, “in my attention to the many valuable experiments of the ingenious and liberal-minded Mr. Patrick Miller of Dalswinton; to whom, whether in shipbuilding or in constructing artillery, both musketry and great guns, his country is more indebted than has hitherto been properly acknowledged.”
[139] Dickinson: Robert Fulton, Engineer and Artist.
[140] Colden: Life of Fulton.
[141] M. Marestier’s Report on Steam Navigation in the U.S.A. (Morgan and Creuze, 1826).
[142] Fraser’s Magazine, 1848.
[143] In his book On Naval Warfare with Steam, published thirty years later, Sir Howard Douglas set out more clearly the case for the strenuous development of steam navigation by this country, and exposed one of the chief flaws in M. Paixhans’ argument. At that date it was still the all-but-universal opinion in foreign countries that the introduction of steam had rendered superiority in seamanship of comparatively little importance in naval warfare. Sir Howard Douglas showed that English superiority had spread to machine design, construction and manipulation, and that if this country chose to exert itself it could maintain its lead.
It is curious to note that not one of these three writers emphasises the main disability under which France has actually suffered, viz. the unsuitability of French coal as warship fuel and the distance of her iron and coal mines from her chief shipbuilding centres.
[144] Briggs: Naval Administrations.
[145] A steam paddle-boat, named the Lord Melville in honour of the descendant of Charlotte Dundas, was then plying regularly between London Bridge and Calais.
[146] Memoirs of Sir John Barrow, Bart.