Part II., “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion”), convinced

him “that there was not one particle of reliable evidence” in M. de Navarette’s assertion.[15] An attentive consideration of the subject leads to the conclusion at which Mr. MacGregor has arrived. Even in the present day it would require an engine and boiler of considerable size to propel a vessel of 200 tons three miles an hour; moreover, the novel and bulky machinery with which the experiment is said to have been made, could not have been erected in the ship or removed from her without attracting considerable public attention. Indeed, had such an experiment been made before the Spanish Emperor, and made successfully as the narrative leads us to suppose, a matter so important could hardly have lain dormant for any great length of time: whatever, therefore, Blasco de Garay’s invention may have been, it was evidently not a steam-engine practically applicable for any useful purpose. Witzen, no doubt, in confirmation of Garay’s experiment, furnishes an illustration of a “Spanish bark without oars or sails,” but as, unfortunately, there is not a single line of letter-press beyond the few words quoted to throw the faintest light upon his drawing, it can only be supposed from the descriptive title that it referred to the vessel which Garay is said to have propelled. Indeed, De Garay’s whole story looks very much as if it was an invention of the Spaniards; Mr. Scott Russell,[16] as well as Mr. MacGregor, is of this opinion, and Mr. Woodcroft, no mean authority on such matters, states that, having made diligent inquiries at Simancas, he could find no trace of these documents, thus confirming the result of the more minute researches of Mr. MacGregor.[17] [Sidenote: Progress of invention; Bourne, Solomon de Caus, Marquess of Worcester, &c.] About this period, however, frequent mention is made of other modes of propulsion besides those hitherto in use. J. C. Scaliger (who died 1558) published at Frankfort a short notice of a vessel to be propelled without oars. Bourne, in 1578,[18] says, in his own quaint style, “you may make a boate to goe without oares or sayle by the placing of certain wheeles on the outside of the boat in that sort that the armes of the wheeles may go into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some provision, and so the wheeles shall make the boate goe.” I. Bessoni, in 1582, describes a vessel with two prows, or rather two separate vessels attached to each other (not unlike the _Castalia_, now running between Dover and Calais), between which a frame is suspended on gimbles carrying at its lower end a circular reel worked by ropes and a winch whereby they can be propelled.[19] A. Ramelli, in 1588, furnishes a design of a flat-bottomed boat with a wheel on each side, turned by men working upon a winch handle.[20] Indeed, long before this, the celebrated Roger Bacon (A.D. 1214-1296) speaks of a “vessel which, being almost wholly submerged, would run through the water against waves and winds with a speed greater than that attained by the fastest London pinnaces.”[21] Baptista Porta (the inventor of the magic lantern) published in his “Pneumaticorum Libri Tres,” Naples, 1601, many curious experiments on the power of steam, on its condensation, and on its relative bulk as compared with water. In one of these a vacuum is clearly indicated, the water being forced up by the pressure of the atmosphere from without. David Rivault, Seigneur de Flurance near Laval, published “Les Éléments de l’Artillerie,” first in 1605 and secondly in 1668—and in this work he describes the power of steam in bursting a strong bomb-shell partly filled with water, tightly plugged, and then heated. In 1615, Solomon de Caus (Engineer to Louis XIII.) published a treatise (“Les Raisons des Forces Mouvantes”) in which he shows he was well acquainted with the motive power of steam—as, in his fifth theorem, he says, “water will mount by the help of fire higher than its level:” he also shows, by an experiment, how a column of water may be driven up a tube to such a height as will balance the elasticity of the heated air confined in the boiler; and Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” considers that this experiment, though of little practical use, “will make a noble figure in the annals of the steam-engine.” In 1629, Giovanni Branca, an engineer of Loretto, applied steam to blow against vanes attached to the external rim of a wheel, and, doubtless, machinery with due mechanical contrivances could have been impelled by it. He gives a picture of his machine in “Le Machine,” vol. nuovo, Pl. XXV. In 1618, David Ramsay obtained a patent for an invention “to make boates for carriages running upon the water as swift in calmes and more safe in storms than boats full sayled in great windes;” and in 1630 he patented a plan “to make boats, ships, and barges to goe against the wind and tide;” and “to raise water from lowe pitts by fire”[22] (the steam-engine). In 1637, Francis Lin and others patented a plan “to use and exercise upon the River Thames, and any other river within England and Wales, according to their owne way and inventing the sole drauinge and workinge up of all Barges and other vessels without the use of horses;” and, in 1646, Edward Ford proposed a similar plan for the navigation of rivers, and one whereby he could “bring little ships, barges, and vessels in and out of havens without or against any small wynd or tide, and transport souldiers and passengers without or against wynde yf the seas be not rough.”[23] In 1652 (July 30th), Thomas Grant, Doctor of Physic, obtained a patent “for several instruments, whereof the first is an instrument very profitable when co[~m]on winds fayle for a more speedy passage of calmed shipps or other vessells upon the sea or great rivers, which may be called the wynds māty.” In the recital of the inventions of the Marquess of Worcester, 8th February, 1661, reference is made to one which was “applicable to make a boat that roweth or letteth, even against wind and stream to any part of the compass which way soever the streame runs or wind blows, and yet the force of the wind or stream causeth its motion.” But though the Marquess has generally had the credit of having applied a power other than manual or animal labour for the purpose of propulsion, it has been doubted from the description of his invention if it was a steam-engine which could be applied to drive a boat.[24] Petty, in 1663, used a double boat with success.[25] Chamberlaine and Bushnell, in 1678, had also their plans for propelling boats against wind and tide, while Hooke, in 1661, described windmills in which “we have all the main features both of the screw-propeller and feathering wheel.”[26] [Illustration] [Sidenote: Morisotus’ _vessel_ with _paddle-wheels_.] From about this period much attention was directed to the use of machinery for propulsion. Morisotus, moreover, who published his views in 1643,[27] speaks of the paddle-wheel as a mode of propelling vessels, known also, as he believed, to the ancients, and states that the simple machinery employed was the same in fact as was in his day used in mining operations in the Spanish Indies. Schefer, in his instructive and interesting work, also makes mention of a remarkable vessel described by Pancirolli (who wrote, in 1587, on naval and military matters) as resembling what he had seen in an old bas-relief of an Illyrian galley, a vessel apparently propelled by wheels similar in character to those in the above wood-cut, from Morisotus. [Sidenote: Hollar’s drawing.] But, as no such clumsy vessel could have been employed in a seaway, her movements must have been confined to rivers or inland waters. It is just possible that such and similar vessels might at some period have been used for ferrying rivers[28] or lakes. Very extraordinary notions, however, appear to have been propounded about, and subsequently to, this period, and, as a matter of curiosity, I furnish one of these taken from Hollar’s engravings, which does not appear to have been noticed by any writer on this interesting subject. The original engraving, bearing date A.D., 1653, is to be found in the British Museum. Various details[29] are furnished by the inventor. [Illustration] Besides the detailed explanation of this extraordinary looking craft, which in “length is 72 feet, the height 12, the breadth 8,” there is beneath the print the following description: “The true and perfect form of the strange ship built in Rotterdam, 1653. The inventor of it doth undertake in one day to destroy a hundred ships, it can go from London to Rotterdam and back again in one day, and in six weeks to go to the East Indies, and to run as fast as a bird can fly. No fire, nor storme, nor bullets can hinder her unless it please God. Although the ships mean to be safe in their havens, it is in vain, for she shall come to them in any place. It is impossible for her to be taken unless by treachery, and she cannot be governed by any one but himself” (the inventor?). The motive power is not described, and there is no further trace of the ship, of which the illustration is a vertical section. She was built at the time when the Dutch were in the zenith of their power, and most likely proved as worthless as numerous other inventions since produced, though curious as showing the attention devoted at this period to wheels as a mode of propelling vessels. [Sidenote: Absurd patents.] However, we find in the records of our own Patent Office, that Englishmen were not behind the Dutch in curious and frequently very absurd inventions. Thus, in 1675, one Miller[30] patented a windmill fixed to a vessel’s deck to turn an endless rope, and thus, by “two toothed wheels,” to drive a couple of paddle-wheels. Such commonplace matters as storms at sea or adverse winds, still less the likelihood of the whole of the top weight he proposed to erect on the deck of his vessels being blown or rolled overboard, do not appear to have entered into the fertile and imaginative brain of the inventor. Again, in 1701, two gentlemen (whose names are not worth recording) proposed to have “vanes or sails arranged between two wheels on the same shaft,” the “sails or float-boards being so contrived as to be able to play in a given space, being fixed perpendicularly on the wheel and fastened by a cord or otherwise, so that when the wind blows from any quarter three-fourths of the sails catch the wind, and, by driving the wheel round, the sails, which are forced against the wind, come up edgeways, but when past the centre immediately turn to the breeze, and by that means produce a continued circular motion.”[31] [Sidenote: Phillips and his windmill.] About the same period another invention, of a somewhat similar sort, was published by a person named Phillips, who proposed to erect between two tall masts “a windmill of altogether an original description.”[32] One is reminded when reading these grave proposals, of Don Quixote’s ludicrous exploit with the windmill, and considering the care Mr. Phillips seems to have bestowed upon his invention, he must have been quite as enthusiastic and apparently as serious in his proposal as the hero of Cervantes in his knight-errantry. But all these schemes, and many others too numerous to mention, however impracticable and absurd some of them may have been, had the germ of the great invention more or less developed. [Sidenote: Papin and Morland.] During Papin’s residence in England, 1681, he witnessed one of the interesting experiments made on the Thames, in which a boat constructed from the design of the Prince Palatine Robert, fitted with revolving oars or paddles, “left the King’s barge, manned by sixteen rowers, far astern in the race of trial.” This experiment suggested to him, in 1688, the idea of an engine, and led to his proposal of using gunpowder to create a vacuum under a piston, so that the piston would descend. Two years afterwards, 1690,[33] Papin describes a steam cylinder, in which a piston descends by atmospheric pressure when the steam below it is condensed, and among the subsequent uses of such a machine he mentions the propulsion of ships by “Rames volatiles” or paddle-wheels, the axles of which, he thought, might be turned by several of his cylinders acting alternately by the rack work shown in his drawing.[34] In 1683, a little before Papin, Sir Samuel Morland, Master of Works to Charles II., wrote a treatise on the “Élévation des Eaux par toutes sortes de Machines,” &c., with four pages appended to it called “The Principles of the New Force of Fire, invented by Samuel Morland in 1682, and presented to His Most Christian Majesty in 1683.” In this work (still in MS. in the Harleian Collection of the British Museum), it is stated that “water being converted into vapour by the force of fire, these vapours shall require a greater space (about 2000 times) than the water occupied, and sooner than be constantly confined would split a piece of cannon.” It is remarkable that, so long before careful experiments had been made on the expansibility of water when converted into vapour, Morland should have given so near an approximation to the true amount (about 1750 times). [Sidenote: Savery.] Thomas Savery, one of the most ingenious men of the age in which he lived, proposed (1696) a mode of raising water and occasioning motion “to all sorts of mill-work by the impelling force of _Fire_,” adding,[35] “it may be very useful to ships, but I dare not meddle with that matter, and leave it to the judgement of those who are the best judges of maritime affairs.”[36] In 1697, Papin (whose own invention had proved a failure) used Savery’s engine, which had been greatly improved by Newcomen in 1705 to propel a _steam-boat_ on the Fulda.[37] In that year, too, Papin proposed to drive a vessel by paddle-wheels turned by the stream, and by boat-hooks which somehow pushed against or griped the bottom.[38] Chabert, in 1710, described a vessel with large paddle-wheels working in troughs cut through the hull;[39] and, in 1721, we read of a galley built in France with revolving oars fastened to a drum or wheel with paddle-vanes on hinges, capable of being set to any angle, and of being worked by 200 men, the galley having three of these wheels on each side.[40] John Allan, in 1722, proposed a mode of navigating a ship, “by forcing water or some other fluid through the stern or hinder part, at a convenient distance under the surface of the water, into the sea, by proper engines placed within the ship.” He also proposed, as Papin had previously done, a machine with the power of “firing gunpowder _in clauso_,” with the view of navigating a ship in a calm.[41] [Sidenote: Jonathan Hulls.] In 1736, Jonathan Hulls made some practical progress in the idea so long floating vaguely in the minds of his predecessors, and, on the 23rd December of that year, secured a patent for his invention “of a machine for carrying ships and vessels out of or into any harbour or river against wind and tide or in a calm,” of which the following is a sketch. [Illustration] His specification[42] described how to drive a paddle-wheel by converting a reciprocating rectilinear motion into a continuous rotary one. But though Hulls’ mode of obtaining a rotary motion was new and ingenious, and would, perhaps, enable a steam-boat in a calm to be moved through the water, moreover is the first _steam-boat_ authentically recorded, it was probably not such as could be made practically useful for the general purposes of commerce, and I have been unable to find any record of this or of any such vessel having been so used. At the same time, it must be added that boats not unlike Hulls’ may now be seen trading in parts of the world remote from each other, as, for instance, on the Murray in South Australia, where various vessels, of which the following is an illustration, are employed, and on the upper Thames where one, at least, to my knowledge is now worked, which does not seem to be any very marked improvement on the boat of Jonathan Hulls.[43] [Illustration] [Sidenote: James Watt’s engine.] In 1756, Gauthier, a French mathematician, wrote a treatise on “Navigation by Fire,” which attracted the attention of the Venetian Republic.[44] But whatever merit some of these ingenious discoveries may have possessed, it was not till the 5th January, 1769, when James Watt obtained his patent, that any steam-engine could be effectually adopted in marine propulsion. Among various other improvements in the steam-engine patented by him, the most important was one for causing the steam to act above the piston, as well as below it, described as the “double impulse,” or, now more commonly called, the double acting engine.[45] On the old principle, when the weight of the atmosphere had pressed down the piston, a valve opened in the bottom of the cylinder whereby a fresh supply of hot steam rushed in from the boiler, which, acting as a pressure in excess of that of the atmosphere above the piston, combined with the weight of the pump rods at the other end of the lever, carried that end down, and of course raised the piston in the steam cylinder. The orifice for the emission of the steam having been then shut, and the cock opened for injecting the cold water into the cylinder, condensation took place, and another vacuum was made below the piston, which was again forced down by the weight of the atmosphere: thus the work was continued as long as water and fuel were supplied, and the steam-engine rendered capable of successful application for pumping purposes, a contrivance used even at the present day.[46] But the method contrived by Watt rendered the power of the engine much more effective by the use of a detached condenser, whereby the cooling of the cylinders by the injection of water was prevented and considerable economy obtained.[47] [Sidenote: Matthew Wasborough.] Matthew Wasborough, however, an engineer of the city of Bristol, considering that something was still wanting to make the marine engine a proper instrument of propulsion in concurrence with Watt’s improvement of the double acting cylinder, obtained, on the 16th March, 1779, a patent for a practical mode of converting a rectilinear into a continuous circular motion; one of his objects being to adapt his invention “for moving in a direct position any ship or vessel.”[48] His invention, however, did not answer, and was indeed superseded by that of James Pickard, 23rd August, 1780, who, shortly afterwards entering into partnership with Wasborough, patented a method of working a mill with a rotary motion by means of the present connecting rod and crank and a fly wheel, constituting the second important improvement in the steam-engine, and enabling it to be of really practical service in propelling vessels. In 1781 (25th October), James Watt obtained another patent for his newly invented method of applying the vibrating or reciprocating motion of steam or fire-engines to procure a continued circular motion round an axis so as to turn the wheels of mills or other machines. This invention is known as the “Sun and Planet” motion.[49] [Sidenote: Marquis de Jouffroy.] In the same year (1781), the Marquis de Jouffroy is said to have constructed a steam-boat at Lyons 140 feet in length, and to have made with her several successful experiments on the Saone near that city. Mr. MacGregor, however, has made particular inquiries[50] into the authenticity of the claims of the Marquis, and, as no description of the machinery of this vessel is discoverable earlier than that given by himself thirty years afterwards, when he petitioned for the use exclusively of steam-boats for fifteen years, these claims are, to say the least, very questionable, while, in a report on his improvements, the invention is said to be Rumsey’s, but more likely that of his own countryman Gauthier, whose death prevented his plans from being practically exemplified by the Venetian Republic. The French Revolution, however, supervening, the Marquis had not an opportunity of prosecuting his undertaking. [Sidenote: Bramah’s screw-propeller.] In 1785, Joseph Bramah, a man of great genius, and the inventor of the hydraulic press, obtained a patent for an hydrostatical machine and a boiler on a peculiar principle, in which the power of air, steam, or any other elastic vapour, might be employed for the working of engines. Another of his inventions is a mode of propelling vessels by the improved rotatory engine described in the specification, through the medium of either a paddle-wheel or what may be called a screw-propeller. Bramah shows a vessel with a rudder placed in the bow, and describes in his specification the nature of the “screw-propeller” and of its mode of action in minute and specific terms.[51] Although there is no record of Bramah having put his proposal into practice, the description lodged by him at the Patent Office is interesting, as showing clearly an indication of the now so well-known screw-propeller. Moreover, in this invention, he obviously intended that steam should be used so as to give circular motion to the propeller shaft. Previously, however, to the time when he patented his invention, the rotatory screw as a mode of propulsion had been proposed by Watt, who, in 1770, suggested the application of a screw-propeller to be turned by a steam-engine.[52] But more than half a century elapsed before the screw, now in almost general use, was practically applied; indeed, the first authentic record we possess of the marine engine itself having been successfully worked by paddle or any other means on board any vessel, dates no further back than 1787, although, between 1774 and 1790, Fitch and Rumsey were experimenting in America on boats (to which I shall hereafter refer) to _work against streams_. [Sidenote: Mr. Miller of Dalswinton.] In that year (1787) Mr. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton in Scotland, a gentleman of position and fortune, published a pamphlet (given at length by Mr. Woodcroft[53] in his interesting and instructive work on steam navigation, with copies of Mr. Miller’s drawings illustrative of his scheme), on the subject of propelling boats by means of paddle-wheels _turned by men_, working on a capstan with five bars, each 5 feet long, which drove a water-wheel, having the same object in view as Messrs. Fitch and Rumsey, then engaged on similar works on the other side of the Atlantic. This wheel, of which the following is a sketch, drove the vessel in a calm from 3 to 4 miles an hour; and, as Mr. Miller judged the capstan the best mode of turning the wheel, he rejected for a time all other modes, believing manual labour so applied more to be depended on than any mechanical contrivances. For the purpose of his experiments he built, from first to last, eight boats of different kinds, expending no less than 30,000_l._ on them and their machinery. One was a treble vessel, or rather three boats fastened together, of which the following is a transverse representation of the fore part with the lower floats of the wheels at their full dip. [Illustration] [Illustration] According to a written statement laid before the Council of the Royal Society, London, December 20, 1787, Mr. Miller made various excursions in this vessel in the course of that year; being attended in most of these by a Mr. James Taylor, the tutor in his family, who, being a man of considerable genius, urged Mr. Miller to apply steam to drive the wheels of his boat. At last Mr. Miller was induced to employ a young hard-working operative engineer, named Symington, to carry out Mr. Taylor’s suggestion, and the combination of capital, energy, and genius with practical knowledge soon produced the desired results. [Sidenote: Mr. Symington and Mr. Taylor.] About this time Symington, who was employed at the lead mines at Wanlockhead, had succeeded in constructing a small steam-engine of a new description, originally intended for the purpose of propelling wheeled carriages, which he patented June 5th, 1787.[54] His specification, accompanied by drawings, relates, 1, to heating the cylinder of a steam-engine; 2, loading the piston; 3, placing a fire round the cylinder; 4, a boiler; and, 5, “when rotatory motions of whatever kind are wanted, two ratchet wheels will be placed upon one or the same axis in such manner that, while the engine turns forward one wheel, the other will be reversed without impeding the motion or diminishing the power so as to be ready to carry on the motion by the time the other wheel begins to be reversed.” As this engine was considered suitable for the purpose Mr. Taylor had in view, Symington[55] undertook to perform the work and Mr. Miller agreed to employ him. When completed it was mounted in an oak frame and placed on the deck of one of Mr. Miller’s pleasure-boats, a vessel 25 feet long and 7 feet wide, with two wheels, to be tested on Loch Dalswinton. The engine performed its work beyond their most sanguine expectations, driving the vessel at the rate of 5 miles an hour, though the cylinders were only 4 inches in diameter. After being used in cruising about the lake for a few days, the engine was removed from the boat and conveyed to Mr. Miller’s house, where it remained as a piece of ornamental furniture for a number of years. The accounts which appeared in the Scottish newspapers at the time[56] state that the first experiment was made on the 14th November, 1788, and with such success that it was resolved to repeat it on a larger scale upon the Forth and Clyde Canal. A double engine with cylinders 18 inches in diameter was consequently ordered to be built at Carron Iron Works, and, in November of the following year, it was fitted on board of another of Mr. Miller’s vessels and tried on Dalswinton Loch. As, however, the floats of the wheels gave way, it was not until the 26th of December, by which time stronger wheels had been procured, that an opportunity was afforded for fairly testing the capabilities of this engine. From the accounts in the local papers of the period[57] the experiment appears to have answered thoroughly, though made under many disadvantages; a speed having been obtained of from 6½ to 7 miles an hour, which, in the words of the report, “sufficiently shows that a vessel properly constructed might accomplish 8, 9, or even 10 miles an hour easily.”[58] Such was one among the first efforts made in steam navigation. That they were considered to be of practical value may in some measure be determined by the fact that Mr. Taylor’s widow was, a few years afterwards, awarded an annual pension of 50_l._, and that, in 1837, Lord Melbourne’s administration presented 50_l._ to each of his four daughters, who were in reduced circumstances, Mr. Symington having previously (1825), in answer to his memorial to the Treasury for a pension (he, too, being almost penniless), been awarded 100_l._ as a gift from the Privy Purse, and subsequently a further sum of 50_l_. Poor Symington![59] What a miserable return for labours of such inestimable value! [Sidenote: The _Charlotte Dundas_.] Mr. Miller having expended a large fortune on these experiments, found it, no doubt, inconvenient to continue them, or having other projects in view, gave orders to dismantle the vessel in which his last experiment had been made, and laid her up with her engines at Bence Haven, at that time his property. More than ten years elapsed before Mr. Symington found another patron, indeed, it was not till 1801, that Thomas first Lord Dundas, employed him to fit up a steam-boat for the Forth and Clyde Canal Company, in which he was a large shareholder. Having availed himself of the many improvements made by Watt and others, Symington patented his new engine on the 14th of March of that year,[60] and fitting it on board the _Charlotte Dundas_, named after his lordship’s daughter, produced, in the opinion of most writers who have carefully and impartially inquired into this interesting subject, “_the first practical steam-boat_.”[61] Mr. Woodcroft has furnished a sectional drawing of this vessel of which the following is a copy on a reduced scale;[62] it resembled in many respects the description of vessel suggested by Jonathan Hulls, but not till now practically applied. [Illustration] In March 1802, the _Charlotte Dundas_ made her trial trip on the Forth and Clyde Canal. Embarking at Lock 20 a party of gentlemen, including Lord Dundas, and taking in tow two vessels or barges of 70 tons burden, she accomplished the trip to Port Dundas, Glasgow, a distance of 19½ miles, in six hours, or at the rate of 3¼ miles per hour, although it blew so strong a gale right ahead during the whole day that no other vessel on the canal attempted to move to windward.[63] Lord Dundas entertaining a very favourable opinion of the experiment, recommended the adoption of Symington’s steam-boat in a letter of introduction to the Duke of Bridgewater, who gave him an order to construct eight vessels similar to the _Charlotte Dundas_ to ply on his canal. Elated by his success, Symington returned to Scotland to make arrangements for carrying out the orders of his Grace with the hope of realizing the advantages his ingenuity and perseverance so well merited; but he was disappointed in his hopes, the Duke of Bridgewater died before the details of the agreement had been definitely arranged, and the Committee who had charge of the affairs of the canal after his death, came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to use steamboats on it for fear of injury to its banks. We may presume that the Forth and Clyde Canal Company arrived at somewhat similar conclusions, for the _Charlotte Dundas_ does not appear to have been again used. Here it may be desirable to add that the _Charlotte Dundas_ had an engine with the steam acting on each side of the piston (Watt’s patented invention) working a connecting rod and crank (Pickard’s patented invention)[64] together with the union of the crank to the axis of Miller’s improved paddle-wheel, thus combining for the first time the essential characteristics of the existing marine engines: nevertheless, she was laid up in a creek of the canal near to Bramford Drawbridge, where she remained for many years exposed to public view, as a curiosity—doubtless, also, as a warning to speculators![65] Symington’s limited means were now nearly exhausted, and the little that remained was expended in defending himself from attacks made on him by the relations of Mr. Taylor for having patented, as they alleged, the inventions of that gentleman. But the contentions of rival parties, _inter se_, rarely deserve commemoration except for the elucidation of the truth. It is, however, to be regretted that each of those persons who respectively contributed to the maturity of this invention, did not reap more material advantages from it in return for the time and labour they bestowed in perfecting a machine which has done so much for the benefit of mankind. In 1797, an experiment in canal steam navigation, copied no doubt from Symington’s original boat, was made in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, which is alluded to as follows in the _Monthly Magazine_ for July of that year:—“Lately, at Newton Common in Lancashire, a vessel, heavy laden with copper slag, passed along the Sankey Canal without the aid of haulers or rowers, the oars performing eighteen strokes a minute by the application of _steam only_! After a course of 10 miles the vessel returned the same evening by the same means to St. Helens whence she had set out.” While these experiments were being made with success in Great Britain, and especially in Scotland, there were not wanting claimants—some of them of somewhat earlier date—to this great invention in other and distant parts of the world. To that of Gauthier we have already referred. In 1776, a countryman of his, Guyon de la Plombiere, suggested the use of a steam-engine for propelling a vessel;[66] and, in that year, the Marquis de Jouffroy states he used, besides the one already mentioned, a steam boat (40 feet long and 16 feet wide) on the Doubs, with propellers moved by a chain from a single cylinder and counterpoise, which opened and closed like louvre boards;[67] applying, in 1780, an engine to his boat with a duck-foot propeller, two cylinders, inclined at an angle, and turned by a chain round a barrel.[68] In 1782, Dixblancs sent to the Conservatoires des Arts et Metiers a model of a steamboat moved by a chain of floats carried on wheels at its sides turned by a horizontal cylinder;[69] and in 1796, it is stated that one Seraffino Serrati, an Italian, had some time previously placed a steam-boat on the Arno, near Florence.[70] [Sidenote: Rumsey and Fitch.] The Americans, as already stated, had, also, at an early period turned their attention to new modes of propelling vessels. In 1784, James Rumsey mentioned to General Washington a project of steam navigation, but, having been refused a patent in Pennsylvania, came to England and succeeded in inducing a wealthy countryman of his own, then resident in London, and others, to disburse the expenses of an experiment, for which he obtained a patent in 1788. The particulars of his plan are given at length by Mr. Woodcroft[71] and will also be found in the Rolls Chapel Reports.[72] They were altogether impracticable for any useful purpose. In 1786, Mr. John Fitch, also an American by birth, proposed to use vertical oars worked by cranks turned by a horizontal steam-engine of which the following is an illustration.[73] [Illustration] Although the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania had, in 1784, turned a deaf ear to the applications of Messrs. Rumsey and Fitch, these gentlemen, in the following year, obtained from the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland the exclusive right to run steamboats on the waters of those States, while Pennsylvania and New York having, in 1786, granted to Mr. Fitch himself similar exclusive rights, he in that year made a trial of his machine at Shepherdstown, Pennsylvania, in a boat of 9 tons, obtaining, it is said, the speed of 4 or 5 miles an hour against the current of the Potomac. In 1787, Mr. Fitch[74] built another vessel, 12 feet beam, and 45 feet long, with a 12-inch cylinder, the mode of propulsion being somewhat similar, in which he is reported[75] to have made the trip from Philadelphia to Burlington at an average rate of 7 miles an hour. In 1790, he completed another and a larger boat, propelled in a different manner: and, by referring to the _Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Advertiser_, of 26th July, 1790, the following advertisement will be found: “_The steam-boat_ sets out to-morrow morning at ten o’clock from Arch Street Ferry, in order to take passengers for Burlington, Bristol, Bordingtown, and Fenton:” there is, therefore, no doubt that this boat actually traded with passengers on the Delaware. But a glance at the second boat built by Fitch, of which the following is an illustration, will show that the grasshopper paddles which he now employed, however well they may have answered for a time on the smooth waters of the Delaware, were not adapted for the general purposes of navigation any more than the treadles in his first invention.[76] Indeed, Fitch himself did not follow up the line of steam service he had commenced at so early a date, but on the invitation, as he alleged, of the French Government, he soon afterwards visited Paris with the view of constructing vessels on his plan. As he was not, however, supplied with the necessary funds (no doubt arising from the fact that the French engineers were not satisfied with the practicability or desirability of his mode of propulsion) no vessel on his plan was built in France, and he was obliged to return to the United States, at the expense of the American Consul. As no further mention is made of vessels fitted on the plans[77] suggested by Fitch, it may be inferred that they were not adapted for practical or useful purposes, or that the machinery was too complicated or too expensive to work remuneratively. [Illustration] [Sidenote: J. C. Stevens.] In 1791, John Cox Stevens, of New York, commenced improvements on steam navigation; but it was not until 1804 that any of these were carried into practice; and even after an expenditure, as he states, of “twenty thousand dollars,” and the constant devotion “of thirteen years of the best period of his life” to the project, he admits that his attempts were on the whole unsuccessful. These consisted of a plan for propelling a boat 25 feet long and 5 feet wide, by a rotatory engine, on the axle of which revolved a wheel, like a windmill or smoke-jack, worked at the stern, but he found it impossible to preserve a sufficient degree of tightness in the packing of the engine. A second modification of his rotatory apparatus proving on trial no better than the first, he had recourse to Watt’s engine, omitting the beam, and having a cylinder 4½ inches diameter with a nine-inch stroke; the boiler, which was only 2 feet long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, consisting of no less than forty-one copper tubes, each an inch in diameter. This boat (which is interesting as the first in which we have a direct account of the use of tubular boilers) was tried in May 1804, and attained a velocity of 4 miles an hour.[78] After having made repeated trials with her, his son undertook to cross from Hoboken to New York, when, unfortunately, as she approached the wharf, the steam-pipe gave way. The boiler having also been damaged, he constructed another with the tubes placed vertically, and for this, perhaps the only portion of his invention worth securing, he, in the year 1805, obtained a patent in England,[79] where he then resided. [Sidenote: Oliver Evans.] While Fitch and Stevens were employed in the manner I have described, another American citizen, Oliver Evans, an ingenious mechanic, was endeavouring to mature a plan for using steam of a very high pressure, to be employed in propelling waggons on common roads, and in an account of his plans which he published in 1786,[80] he suggests a mode of propelling vessels by steam. From this circumstance he has been regarded by some authors as the contriver of a practicable steam-boat: his pretensions, however, rest solely on his own allegations. He states that, in 1785, he placed his engine, used to cleanse docks, in a boat upon wheels, the combined weight being equal to 200 barrels of flour, which he transported down to the water, and, when it was launched, he fixed a paddle-wheel to the stern, and drove it down the Schuylkill to Delaware and up the Delaware to the city, “leaving all the vessels going up behind me at least half-way, the wind being ahead.” In 1794, one Samuel Morey, of Connecticut, is said to have built a steam-boat which he propelled at 5 miles an hour on the Connecticut River, and, in 1797, he built another, with side wheels, at Bordentown, New Jersey, which was publicly exhibited and made a passage to Philadelphia, but which does not appear to have been afterwards employed. [Sidenote: Robert Fulton.] In 1793, Robert Fulton, of whose exertions in the development of steam-engines and their early application to useful purposes[81] the Americans are justly proud, is said to have conceived some time previously the idea of propelling vessels by steam. It was not, however, until 1796 that any of his inventions were brought under notice: when, in that year, his plan for using small canals as a means of transit and for raising and lowering vessels on them by inclined planes was published. In the same year, 1796, it is said that he also suggested and used an apparatus for propelling vessels under water, to be employed in war,[82] but it was not until 1798 that he tried successfully to propel a boat with a steam-engine and a four bladed screw-propeller.[83] That he had shown an early taste for mechanical pursuits there can be no doubt, and, in 1801, when Napoleon contemplated the conquest of England, we know that Fulton made the friendly proposal to convey the legions of French soldiers who were to invade our shores by means of rafts propelled by steam; but, though the Emperor rejected the proposal as chimerical, Fulton, by his intercourse with the French Government, was afforded an opportunity of becoming intimately acquainted with Mr. Livingston, at that time Minister of the United States at Paris, with whom he frequently conversed on the subject of steam navigation, these communications having in the sequel very important results. [Sidenote: And Mr. Livingston.] Mr. Livingston, who had previously been associated with Stevens in the United States in experiments and in various plans for promoting steam navigation, entered readily into the proposals of Fulton, and, on his suggestion, a boat was built on the Seine, the engine for which was ordered in England. This experimental boat, 66 feet long, and 8 feet wide, was completed in 1803. When on the point of making her first trial, the weight of the machinery broke the boat in two and both sank. They were, however, soon raised and the necessary repairs were shortly completed, but, on trial, the boat did not move with as much speed as Mr. Fulton expected. [Sidenote: Plan really derived from English experiments of Symington.] Before describing Fulton’s further experiments, it may be convenient to direct attention to a statement made by Symington soon afterwards in the newspapers of the period, which remains uncontradicted, for the purpose of showing that whatever merit is due to Fulton, his information was derived from others. There is, indeed, no doubt that, in 1802, when Symington was conducting his experiments under the patronage of Lord Dundas, a stranger came to the banks of the Forth and Clyde Canal and requested an interview, announcing himself as Mr. Fulton of the United States,[84] whither he intended to return, and expressing a desire to see Mr. Symington’s boat and machinery, and to procure some information of the principles on which it was moved, before he left Europe. He remarked that, however beneficial the invention might be to Great Britain, it would be of more importance to North America, considering the numerous navigable rivers and lakes of that continent, and the facility for procuring timber for building vessels and supplying them with fuel; that the usefulness of steam-vessels in a mercantile point of view could not fail to attract the attention of every observer; and that, if he was allowed to carry the plan to the United States, it would be advantageous to Mr. Symington, as, if his engagements would permit, the constructing or superintending of the construction of such vessels would naturally devolve upon him. Mr. Symington, in compliance with the stranger’s request, caused the engine fire to be lighted, and the machinery put in motion. Several persons entered the boat, and along with Mr. Fulton were carried from where she then lay, to Lock No. 16 on the Forth and Clyde Canal, about four miles west, and returned to the starting-place in one hour and twenty minutes, being at the rate of six miles an hour, to the astonishment of Mr. Fulton and the other gentlemen.[85] Mr. Fulton obtained leave to take notes and sketches of the size and construction of the boat and apparatus; but he never afterwards communicated with Mr. Symington. From the concurrent testimony of Mr. Jacob Perkins, and the oaths of those present in the boat during the experiment, it is evident that Fulton availed himself of the information obtained from Symington, and ordered from Messrs. Boulton and Watt of Birmingham, a steam-engine for propelling a boat intended to be built in the United States.[86] [Sidenote: Fulton builds steamers in the United States.] In 1806 Mr. Fulton, in conjunction with Mr. Livingston, commenced building a steam-boat in America, in the yard of Charles Brown on the East (Hudson) River. She was decked for a short distance only at stem and stern. The engine was open to view, and a house, like that of a canal boat, was raised to cover the boiler and the apartments for the passengers and crew. There were no wheel-guards. The boiler was set in _masonry_. She was launched in the spring of 1807, and the engines ordered from Boulton and Watt[87] were fixed in that boat. The engine differed very little from that of the _Charlotte Dundas_, whose piston had a four-foot stroke, with a cylinder 22 inches in diameter, while that of the _Clermont_ (as the American boat was named, after the residence of Mr. Livingston on the Hudson) had also a piston with a four-foot stroke, and a cylinder 24 inches in diameter. Such similarity in the dimensions of the engines could hardly have arisen from a mere accident. But whatever information Fulton derived from Symington, he claimed no patent for the assumed discovery. On the first trial of the _Clermont_ her speed was 5 miles an hour. Fulton perceiving that her paddles entered too deep into the water had them removed, and placed nearer the centres of the wheels. He afterwards made a further trip in her, leaving New York at one o’clock on Monday, and arrived at Clermont, the seat of Mr. Livingston, at one o’clock on Tuesday, performing in twenty-four hours a distance of 110 miles. On the voyage from Clermont to Albany, a distance of 40 miles, the time was eight hours, equal on the average of both passages to nearly 5 miles an hour. [Sidenote: The _Clermont_.] The _Clermont_ was soon afterwards lengthened and considerably improved in appearance and usefulness—indeed, almost wholly rebuilt. Her hull was covered from stem to stern with a flush deck, beneath which two cabins were formed, surrounded by double ranges of berths, and fitted up for comfort in a manner then unexampled. Her dimensions now were, “Length, 130 feet; breadth, 16½ feet; with an engine of only eighteen horse-power,[88] though her burden was 160 tons, the boiler being 20 feet long, 7 feet deep, and 8 feet broad; the axle of her paddle-wheel was cast iron, but it had no outer support; the diameter of the paddle-wheels was 15 feet, and the paddles were 4 feet long, dipping into the water 2 feet.” It appears from a paragraph in the _American Citizen_ (newspaper) of the 17th August, 1807,[89] that Mr. Fulton’s original intention was to ply with his boat on the Mississippi; but the passenger trade on the Hudson then offered greater inducements. Various accounts have been given of the performances of the _Clermont_, but, without referring to these, it is better to furnish Fulton’s own description of the trial, which he gave in a letter addressed to the above newspaper,[90] as this is more likely to be accurate than any other account, and has never been contradicted; indeed, had his statements been exaggerated, they would certainly have been questioned at the time, the more so that his great experiment was bitterly opposed by the owners of all the sailing-vessels then employed on the Hudson. The following is a representation of the _Clermont_ as she appeared on the Hudson after being improved,[91] and where she continued to ply with goods and passengers between New York and Albany for some years. [Illustration] [Sidenote: Merits and demerits of Fulton.] But though the _Clermont_ was unquestionably a great practical success, and the first boat in the world regularly and continuously engaged in passenger traffic, she encountered many difficulties in her commercial operations.[92] In overcoming these difficulties and persevering with his novel undertaking, much credit is due to Robert Fulton; and though he was not, indeed he never claimed to be, the inventor of the steam-engine as applicable to marine propulsion, the manner in which various English authors of note have written,[93] and the tone in which an eminent English engineer has spoken of him, do not become men in their positions.[94] If we do not consider it necessary to be generous to the genius or, rather, to the persevering industry of men of other nations, we ought at least to be just, and not to overlook important facts or allow our judgment to be biased, because the man whose labours we are describing was not a countryman of our own. [Sidenote: At all events, the first “to run” a steam-vessel regularly;] Even when the fact is clearly established, and there is, without doubt, every reason to suppose that Fulton borrowed largely from Watt, Pickard, and Symington, and, it might be added, from his own countrymen, Fitch and Rumsey, this ought not to detract from his merit in putting all the inventions of these men and others together, and in first applying them to practical and useful purposes. He did what no other man had done before him; he commenced and _continued to run_ the steam-ship which now traverses every river, every coast, and every ocean, and which, of all the inventions of man, is the mightiest harbinger of peace and good-will among nations the world has ever seen. If his was a combination of the inventions of others, if he were a “quack,” it was only on a small scale compared to those persons who combine the inventions of men of all nations in the magnificent steam-engines of the present day. Do we, however, think less of any one of these engines when we see it in motion, and know that that beautiful machine, more like a living thing than any other work of man, is not the invention of any one man, or of any one nation? And ought we to think less highly of Robert Fulton when we know the labour he bestowed to collect the inventions of the age in which he lived, the hardships he endured to put them into operation, and the difficulties he had to overcome in applying them to useful purposes? That these difficulties were very great, so great indeed that to most men they would have been insurmountable, may be known from the fact that the _Clermont_ was often, intentionally, run into by rival vessels on the river Hudson, and that the legislature was compelled to pass a law punishing by fine and imprisonment any person who attempted to destroy or injure her. Nor did his troubles end here. When the State of New York, convinced of the practical utility of his invention, granted him the exclusive privilege of navigating its rivers for a certain number of years, he was harassed by numerous law suits, and at last so thoroughly broken down by the oppressive influence of men of capital, who were either interested in the sailing-vessels, or in other inventions, that the State, in deference to the opinions of those sticklers who grudged him the merit of his labours, rescinded its concession, and passed a resolution that the boats built by Fulton were in substance the invention of his countryman, Fitch; a most unjust decision, as both of Fitch’s models, as I have shown, were valueless, while Fulton’s were practicable. [Sidenote: and to develop its power and usefulness.] But, to whomsoever the invention belonged, the merit of first permanently developing its power and usefulness belongs to Robert Fulton. He it was who showed how it could be made not merely an instrument of vast importance to mankind, but also an immense source of profit to all who adopted it, though he himself, if reports be true, derived no advantage from it, but died in 1815 very poor and almost broken-hearted through the persecution of jealous and narrow-minded rivals, leaving his family in greatly embarrassed circumstances, but at the same time leaving behind him an everlasting memorial of his energy and perseverance, and an enduring stigma on those who had taunted him with a “_Fulton’s folly_.” The application of the new power to the propulsion of vessels was rapidly followed up in America, and, in 1809, the first steamboat was launched on the St. Lawrence of which an account at the time appeared in the _Quebec Mercury_.[95] [Sidenote: First steam-boat on the St. Lawrence, 1813.] In the spring of 1813, a second boat of increased dimensions was launched from the banks of the St. Lawrence. She was 130 feet in length of keel, and 140 feet on deck with a width of 24 feet, and by the account given by the _Mercury_ she made the passage from Montreal to Quebec in twenty-two and a half hours, notwithstanding that the wind was easterly the whole time and blowing strong. But though the _Swiftsure_, for such was her name, beat the most famous of the sailing packets on the line (fourteen hours in a race of thirty-six hours), her owners do not seem to have been very confident of her movements under all circumstances or of the number of passengers who would patronize her, for she was advertised to “sail as the wind and passengers may suit.” The success of the _Clermont_ for the purposes of passenger traffic on rivers soon, however, spread to other countries. FOOTNOTES: [2] _Ante_, vol. i. Introd. p. xxxi. Arrian, Exped. Alex. 11, 21. [3] Galley from Koyunjik, _ante_, vol. i. p. 276. [4] See the bas-reliefs from Nineveh, British Museum. [5] Owen’s “Lectures on Comparative Anatomy,” 2nd. ed. p. 605. Carpenter’s “Physiology,” 645. “Woodcroft on Marine Propulsion,” note, p. 1, and drawing of Nautilus in frontispiece to Woodcroft’s “Steam Navigation.” See also an interesting paper, read at the Society of Arts on the 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., M.A., Barrister at Law. [6] There is little difference between the action of an oar in sculling and that of the modern screw-propeller, which is fast superseding the paddle-wheel in all ocean-going steamers: the one has an alternate lateral motion, like the tail of a fish; the other is rotatory, but with the same effect. It may be added that fishes often have the power of “feathering” their tails, by puckering their lobes in their forward motion, and expanding them on their return, so as to displace as little water as possible, while they, at the same time, rely for their advancement on the reaction of the water in the direction of their body. These points have been carefully considered in the construction and arrangement of the blades of the screw, as well as the important fact that the tail of the fish or the sweep of an oar in their motions displace a quantity of water, great in proportion to the length of the instruments employed; and further, that it is by the resistance the water makes to this displacement by the oar or tail, in their continued oscillation, coming as these do from their extreme sweep to the axis of the boat or fish, that either is urged forward. [7] An edition of Hero’s “Pneumatics” has been published by Mr. Woodcroft. Lond., 4th ed. 1851. His second experiment is referred to in Muirhead’s “Life of James Watt,” 2nd ed. p. 107. [8] The principle of Hero’s steam-machine depends on the physical law that, when any fluid issues from a vessel in which it has been confined, the vessel is acted on by a force equal to that with which the fluid escapes, but in the opposite direction. Thus, if water issues from an orifice, a pressure is produced behind the orifice corresponding to the force with which the water escapes: hence, the recoil of a gun when fired. If the muzzle were turned at right angles to the length of the gun, the explosive gases would escape sideways, and the shooter, instead of being forced back, would spin round. The orifices in each case are exposed to the atmosphere, which tends to rush in with a force of a little less than 15 lbs. on the square inch: the force, therefore, with which the steam escapes represents the excess of its elasticity over that of the atmosphere, which furnishes, as it were, the fulcrum, and thus gives motion to the machine. Mr. Bourne states that the principle of the Æolipile is the same as that embodied in Avery and Ruthven’s engines for the production of rotatory power. “These engines,” he says, “are more expensive in steam than ordinary engines and travel at an inconvenient speed; but in other respects they are quite as effectual, and their construction is extremely simple and inexpensive.” [9] In another experiment (No. 37), Hero shows “how temple doors may be opened by fire on an altar.” He says, “Let the proposed temple stand on a pedestal, on which is also a small altar. Through the altar insert a tube, of which one mouth is within the altar, and the other nearly at the centre of a globe. The tube must be soldered to the globe in which a bent syphon is placed. Let the hinges of the doors be extended downwards, turning freely on pivots, and from the hinges let two chains running into one be attached by means of a pulley to a leaden weight, on the descent of which the doors will be shut, let the outer leg of the syphon bend into a suspended vessel and fill the globe half full of water. When the fire becomes hot, the heated air in the altar expands and, passing through the tube into the globe, will drive the liquid through the syphon into the suspended vessel which, descending by its weight, will tighten the chains and open the doors.” [10] Although there may be a doubt how far the inventions recorded by Hero were used for superstitious practices, there is no question that, somewhat later, the agency of steam was employed for purposes anything but legitimate. Thus Gibbon (c. xl.) gives an amusing account of how Anthemius, the architect of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, avenged, himself on Zeno, the orator. “In a lower room,” says he, “Anthemius arranged several vessels or cauldrons of water, each of them covered by the wide bottom of a leathern tube, which rose to a narrow top, and was artificially conveyed among the joints and rafters of the adjacent building. A fire was kindled beneath the cauldron; the steam of the boiling water ascended through the tubes; the house was shaken by the effects of imprisoned air, and its trembling inhabitants might wonder that the city was unconscious of the earthquake they had felt.” Still later, Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” notices an ancient Teutonic god, called _Bustarich_, on the banks of the Weser, who was made by the priests to show his displeasure through the agency of steam. The head of the metal God was hollow and had within it a pot of water. Its mouth and another hole having been plugged, a charcoal fire was cleverly lighted under it, in such a way as not to be perceived by the expectant worshippers. After a while, the imprisoned steam forced out the plugs, with a loud report, followed by two jets of steam, which formed a dense cloud round the god and concealed him from his astonished worshippers. [11] Paper read at the Society of Arts 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., Barrister at Law. [12] This work in Latin, printed at Verona, 1472, is the first book with woodcuts printed in Italy. [13] This letter is written from Simancas, and bears the date 27th August, 1825. It was published 1826, in Lack’s “Astronomical Correspondence.” [14] The interview with the Pope took place at Bupeto, 22nd of June, 1543, and the campaign against the duke of Cleves, the ally and general of Francis, followed. [15] “On the 23rd of September last (1857),” remarks Mr. MacGregor, “I visited the town of Simancas, near Valladolid in Spain, with Captain John Ussher, to inspect some letters of Blasco de Garay, which are there preserved among the national archives. “Having obtained the requisite Royal permission, I was allowed, after much difficulty, to read (but not to copy) two letters signed by Blasco de Garay, written clearly in Spanish and well preserved. One of these was addressed from Malaga, the other from Barcelona; and both were dated, A.D. 1543. They describe two separate experiments with different vessels, both of them moved _by paddle-wheels turned by men_. “One vessel was stated to be of two hundred Spanish tons burthen, propelled by a paddle-wheel on each side, worked by twenty-five men. The other vessel was moved in a similar manner by forty men (in all). The speed attained is mentioned in the text, and is stated in a side note (written in a different hand) to have been one league, about three and a half English miles per hour. Various calculations, as to the tonnage, the motive power, the cost, and other matters are contained in the letters, and it is said that the vessel thus moved was found to steer well, but could be propelled more easily for a long time by oars. Also that, like other inventions, this would probably be improved by the experience of further trials. We read the letters carefully through, and neither of them contained any mention whatever of the use of steam, or any expression to indicate that this was contemplated. “The officer left in charge of the documents, Don Manuel Garcia, said that he did not know of any other letters of Blasco de Garay, or of any other authentic papers relating to his experiment; that he believed most certainly Blasco de Garay did not invent or suggest the use of steam for propulsion; and that the assertion he had made was ‘_un mensonge historique_.’” [Sidenote: Disproved by Mr. MacGregor’s investigations.] On October 15th, 1857, and following days, Mr. MacGregor made diligent inquiries at Barcelona respecting Blasco de Garay, and after writing a letter inviting information on the subject to the _Diario de Barcelona_, 19th October, 1857, Señor Michel Mayor undertook to satisfy his inquiries. In the Archives of Aragon, the Director said that no trace of any document relating to Blasco de Garay was to be found, and, that the MSS. in that library were only by order of reigns, and not by dates. With the assistance of Don Gregorio and Fidil Clares, Mr. MacGregor states that he inspected the catalogue of the Bibliotheca Publica and of the Bibliotheca Publica Episcopal without any better result, the keepers of these libraries declaring they knew nothing of any other letter of Blasco de Garay; one of these officers said he believed that men only had been used to move the vessel, and the Government Inspector of Mines assured him that he was of the same opinion. But a Spanish engineer mentioned that some of the actual _steam-engine machinery_ used in the vessels was still to be seen at the School of Artillery; after, however, diligent inquiry there, Mr. MacGregor could find no trace of any of these relics. But after these investigations, it was reported to Mr. MacGregor through Colonel Stopford, of Madrid, that there was another letter of Blasco de Garay, in which he alludes to the steam-boat, and that this document was kept secret at Madrid, which, as Mr. MacGregor adds, “would not probably be the case if by its means the claim of a Spaniard to the invention of the steam-boat could be substantiated;” and he remarks in conclusion that, _if_ Blasco de Garay used a steam-engine to propel a vessel, the evidence of this fact is not supported by his two letters at Simancas, and, further, that it has not been produced, if it is known there or at Barcelona, by the public officers and others interested in supporting such a claim. [16] “Steam and Steam Navigation;” and article, “Steam Navigation,” _Encyclopædia Britannica_, 8th ed., vol. xx. p. 636. [17] Since Mr. MacGregor’s visit, M. Bergenroth, who has done so much towards the elucidation of the manuscript treasures at Simancas, has been able at his leisure to copy the documents relating to De Garay, preserved there, they are;—1. A holograph from him to the Emperor, dated Malaga, September 10th, 1540, containing his report on the trial of one of his paddle-wheel ships. 2. The report of Captain Antonio Destigasura on the same trial trip. 3. The report of the Proveedores of Malaga concerning the same trip, dated July 24th, 1540. 4. The report of Blasco de Garay to the Emperor, dated July 6th, 1543, concerning the trial trip of another of his paddle-wheel ships, made at Barcelona in June, 1543. 5. A letter of Blasco de Garay to Carrs, dated June 20th, 1543. In none of these is any reference to steam-power to be found—thus completely confirming Mr. MacGregor’s previous statements. [18] “Inventions and Devises,” by William Bourne, p. 15; London, 1578. [19] Woodcroft’s “Manuscript Collection” and “Marine Propulsion,” vol. i. p. 7. [20] “Marine Propulsion” from Patent Office, Woodcroft, vol. i. p. 8. [21] Works of Roger Bacon, Hamburg, ed. 1598, pp. 74-75. [22] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” pp. 3 and 4. [23] Ibid., p. 5. [24] Although there is no evidence that the Marquess of Worcester did employ steam to propel any boat, it must be allowed (in spite of the perhaps natural desire of Mr. Muirhead to exalt the genius of his relative, James Watt) that he was the first to make an actual steam-engine. Certain important points are clear from his description, viz., that the vessel in which the water was evaporated was distinct from that containing the water to be raised; that there were two vessels of similar description, the contents of which were alternately raised by the pressure of the “water rarefied by fire;” and that the water was lifted in a continuous stream by the aid of two cocks communicating with these vessels, and with the boiler. Now this is exactly the agency of steam at the present time, in that it is generated in one vessel, and used for mechanical purposes in another: indeed, it is just this distinction which shows the invention to have been a true one—for had the action of the steam been confined to the vessel in which it was produced, it would have been of no more practical use than were the experiments of Hero, De Caus, or Rivault. Complaint has been often made of the indistinctness and incompleteness of the descriptions furnished by the Marquess in his famous “Scantlings of one hundred Inventions,” but it may be doubted whether the author’s intention was really to convey knowledge of the mechanism he used, or even to indicate the physical principles on which they depend. His statement, however, is sufficient to enable any one possessing a knowledge of the mechanical qualities of steam, to understand the general nature of the machine produced. It ought also to be remembered that many of the ideas of inventions thrown out by the Marquess, as stenography, speaking statues, combination locks, &c., &c., have been since his time carried into effect. [25] “Buchanan on Steam Propelling,” Glasgow, 1816, p. 161. [26] “Bourne on the Screw-Propeller,” pp. 5 and 9. [27] Morisotus, “Orbis Maritima,” Generalis Historia divisio, fol., 1643. [28] The ferry boats at Quebec plying between the opposite sides of the river St. Lawrence were, at a very recent period, if they are not so still, propelled by horses and oxen walking along circular platforms so as to produce a power applied to the paddle-wheels of the boat. And a boat of a somewhat similar kind was, in the course of the present century, employed for some time between Yarmouth and Norwich in this country. [29] 1. The middle beam. 2. The end with iron bars wherein the strength of the ship lyeth both ends alike. 3. Rudder of the ship. 4. The keel.