Size of the “Drawings and Descriptions.” Pseudonyms. Proposals. Contract with the British government. Was Fulton false to his principles in supporting Great Britain against France? His financial position under the contract.
The “Descriptions” that Fulton left in England were in two parts, of which the first is a recital of his negotiations and work, and the second a minute description of the boat and bombs. Both parts are wholly in Fulton’s handwriting and cover twelve double sheets of paper, five for the first and seven for the second part. The sheets are 14¾ inches high with a double or folded width of 19⅛ inches. The writing is on both sides of the sheets, so that exclusive of the outside pages, which are left blank, except for the descriptive recital on page 1 of the first part, there are 43 pages of writing. There are from 26 to 28 lines to a page with a margin of 2 inches on the left-hand side, and about 8 words to a line. The paper is heavy hand-made linen, slightly off the white in color with gilt on the edges. One-half of each sheet is water-marked with a design composed of a crown and fleur-de-lys surmounting the letters P & B, the other half of the sheet being water-marked Portal & Co. 1796.
The drawings are water-colored and are on sheets of heavy Bristol paper measuring 22¼ × 18¾ inches. As will be seen each one is dated and signed by Fulton.
The “Bond and Contract” to which reference is made was found in 1812 among the papers of Lord Melville and was then deposited by his executors in the Public Record office. With the exception of the Admiralty CIRCULAR given on page 52, the contemporaneous archives of the government contain little concerning Fulton’s work, and are in this respect quite different from the French records. The explanation is that the British ministers were fearful lest information regarding the submarine should transpire to their detriment. They, therefore, treated all correspondence as confidential and kept letters and other documents in their personal rather than official files. In fact Fulton adopted the pseudonym of “Robert Francis,” a designation that was frequently, though not exclusively, used by both the Government officials and himself in correspondence during the years 1804–1806.
The “Contract” was Fulton’s own conception in form and substance, the government accepting the terms that he proposed. This is shown by his notes and copies of letters that still exist.
Lord Hawkesbury who had induced Fulton to leave France for England was Robert Banks Jenkinson (1770–1828). His father, created Lord Hawkesbury in 1786 and Earl of Liverpool in 1796, had served as Secretary for War from 1778 and therefore during the greater part of the American Revolution. The son, using his father’s junior title of Lord Hawkesbury, became Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1801 in the Addington ministry. As such Secretary, he would be the one to open negotiations with Fulton in Paris.
Fulton arrived in London on the 19th of May. Addington had been displaced by Pitt in the control of the government a few days before. Lord Hawkesbury, though no longer in charge of Foreign Affairs, continued in office, holding the portfolio of the Home Office in the new cabinet. In spite of his change of status, Fulton would naturally call on him as the only official with whom he was acquainted. In his note book, in which he copied in neat hand the letter of Lord Hawkesbury that the agent “Mr. Smith” had handed him in Paris, he writes at the bottom of the copy of the letter, “I had an interview with Mr. Hammond on the 21 when he desired me to give in proposals they were as follows.”
From this juxtaposition of names it is fair to assume that to Lord Hawkesbury he gave the name of Hammond. Fulton was fond of doing such things. His own attempt at personal disguise under the name of Francis was very thin. The coincidence that his real and temporarily assumed names began with the same letter will be noted. So do Hawkesbury and Hammond. The letters to “Mr. Hammond” are letters that would be written only to one who was high in authority. It was not in accordance with Fulton’s character to send such communications as are the Hammond letters to a subordinate. In “Mr. Hammond” can be seen Lord Hawkesbury who had just been made a peer in his own right and was Pitt’s leader in the House of Lords. This identification of “Mr. Hammond” will be borne in mind in connection with several letters given on pages 96 et seq. as well as those immediately below containing the proposals promised on May 21st.
London May the 22d 1804
Proposals for the examination of a System of Submarine navigation,