CHAPTER II.

Progress of steam navigation in Europe—Clyde mechanics take the lead—James Watt, 1766—Henry Bell, 1800—Correspondence between Bell and Fulton—Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton—The _Comet_ steamer, 1811, plies between Glasgow and Greenock, and afterwards on the Forth—Extraordinary progress of ship-building on the Clyde—Great value and importance of the private building yards—J. Elder and Company; their extensive premises, _note_—Steam between Norwich and Yarmouth, 1813; between London and Margate, 1815—The _Glasgow_—Early opposition to the employment of steam-vessels—Barges on the Thames—First steamer between Liverpool and the Clyde—H. M. steam-ship _Comet_—The _Rob Roy_ and other vessels, 1818—The _United Kingdom_, 1826—First idea of iron ships, 1830—Proposals of Trevethick and Dickenson, 1809-1815—The _Vulcan_, 1818—The _Aaron Manby_, 1821—The Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824—Mr. John Laird and Sir William Fairbairn—The _Elburkah_, 1832, and _Garry Owen_, 1834—The _Rainbow_, 1837—Messrs. Tod and MacGregor—The _Great Britain_, 1839-1843—Advantages of iron ships—Action of salt water on iron inconsiderable—Durability, strength, and safety of iron—Affords greater capacity for stowage—Admiralty slow to adopt iron for ships of war—Mr. Galloway’s feathering paddles, 1829—Story of the screw-propeller—Joseph Bramah, 1785—Mr. J. Stevens, 1804—Richard Trevethick, 1815—Robert Wilson, 1833—Captain Ericsson, 1836—The _Francis B. Ogden_, though successful, fails to convince the Admiralty—Mr. T. P. Smith—The _Archimedes_—Her trial with the _Widgeon_, Oct. 1839, and its results—The _Rattler_ and the _Alecto_, 1843—The _Rattler_ not as successful as expected—Captain Robert J. Stockton efficiently supports Ericsson’s views—His vessel, a complete success, and the first “screw” used for commerce in America—Superiority of Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying” propeller, 1832—In building fit vessels, the trade in which they are to be employed must be considered. [Sidenote: Progress of steam navigation in Europe.] During the progress in America of the art of practically applying steam to marine propulsion the people of Europe were making slow but important improvements in the models of their vessels, and in the development of that art for the purposes of navigation. [Sidenote: Clyde mechanics take the lead.] [Sidenote: James Watt, 1766.] In these improvements the mechanics on the Clyde took the lead, establishing there a reputation for the construction of marine engines and more especially of ships adapted to receive them, which they have ever since maintained. In the early part of this century the river Clyde in the vicinity of Glasgow was a scarcely navigable stream, with few or no vessels at its chief port, and these, small craft of not more than 40 tons, drawing, at most, only 5 feet of water when laden. Indeed, my own recollection of that now important river goes back to the time when one could wade across it among the stones at the foot of the old Broomielaw Bridge, and when a small but lucrative salmon fishery was carried on from the two “fishing huts,” then the site where a dock now receives ships of the largest description, and where massive quay walls and numerous warehousing sheds occupy the once verdant grass banks of its southern shore. To the energy and intelligence of the Corporation, and, in later years, through the laudable exertion of a Trust, chosen from members of that body and other citizens of Glasgow, may, in a great measure, be attributed the extraordinary rise and prosperity of a city now possessing an inland navigation and a stream harbour unsurpassed, perhaps, in Europe. Indeed, from the time when James Watt, in 1766,[96] erected in Glasgow his first model of a steam-engine and there laid the foundation of a power which has since revolutionized the commerce of the world, its citizens seem to have specially directed their genius to the development of this mighty agency, their first and necessary step being the improvement of the approaches to their city by the deepening of the Clyde. [Sidenote: Henry Bell, 1800.] But it was not till the beginning of the present century that any real progress was made in the maritime pursuits of the people of Scotland. In 1800, Henry Bell, then resident at Helensburgh, first laid before the British Government his inventions for the improvement of steam navigation. The Board of Admiralty, however, so far from expressing any desire to promote his views, discouraged them, as they did thirteen years afterwards, when the subject was again urged upon their attention. Naturally anxious that his invention should be practically tested on a scale sufficiently extended, Bell forwarded, in 1803, a detailed account of his method of propelling vessels against wind and tide by steam power, to most of the European Governments, and also to the Government of the United States of America. He found, however, that his plans were received no better abroad than at home: while it further seems probable that the Government of the United States had either given or shown them to Fulton, who was then engaged in endeavouring to induce his countrymen to assist him in starting trading steamers on their lakes and rivers, where such vessels were admirably fitted for the profitable development of their vast natural inland resources. [Sidenote: Correspondence between Bell and Fulton.] Mr. Fulton evidently knew how Mr. Bell had been employed, for he opened a correspondence with him, and, in the course of it, requested him to call on Mr. Miller of Dalswinton, and on Mr. Symington, and to send him a drawing and description of their last boat with the machinery. These were sent out, and Fulton, some time afterwards, answered that “he had constructed a steamer from the different drawings of the machinery forwarded to him by Bell, which was likely to succeed with some necessary improvements.” This letter Bell sent to Mr. Miller for his information. As the matter, however, to which it refers is one of considerable importance, it is desirable to state the facts as related by Mr. Bell himself in a letter which appeared in the _Caledonian Mercury_ in 1816, wherein he says, referring to the communication he had received many years previously from Mr. Fulton: [Sidenote: Letter from Bell to Miller of Dalswinton.] [Sidenote: The _Comet_ steamer, 1811.] “This letter led me to think of the absurdity of writing my opinion to other countries, and not putting it into practice in my own country; and from these considerations I was [a]roused (_sic_), to set on foot a steam-boat, for which I made a number of different models before I was satisfied. When I was convinced they would answer the end, I contracted with Messrs. John Wood and Company, shipbuilders, in Port Glasgow, to build me a steam-vessel according to my plan: 40 feet keel, and 10 feet 6 inches beam, which I fitted up with an engine and paddles, and called her the _Comet_, because she was built and finished the year that a comet appeared in the north-west part of Scotland. This vessel is the first steam-boat built in Europe that answered the end, and is, at this present time, upon the best and simplest method of any of them, for a person sitting in the cabin will hardly hear the engine at work. She plies on the Firth of Forth, betwixt the east end of the great canal and Newhaven near Leith. The distance by water is 27 miles, which she performs in ordinary weather in three and a half hours up, and the same down.” In another communication, Bell says, “when I wrote to the United States’ Government on the great utility that steam navigation would be to them on their rivers, they appointed Mr. Fulton to correspond with me.” No merit, as the inventor of the present system of steam navigation, can, however, be conceded to Bell more than to Fulton; nor for any progress beyond the improvements of which he had obtained cognizance from the previous experiments of Messrs. Miller, Taylor, and Symington. In fact, there can be no doubt, from existing drawings, that Symington’s _Charlotte Dundas_ was superior in mechanical arrangements to either Fulton’s _Clermont_ or Bell’s _Comet_. But what Fulton and Livingston accomplished in the United States, Bell effected in his own country; each was, therefore, instrumental in the introduction, for commercial purposes, of steam navigation.[97] [Sidenote: plies between Glasgow and Greenock,] Though Mr. Bell had completed his _Comet_ in January, 1812, more than six months elapsed before he announced to the public, through the medium of an advertisement in the local papers of the period,[98] his intention to employ her for trading purposes on the Clyde. The notice is a modest but curious and interesting document. He does not profess to make more than one passage each day between Glasgow and Greenock, a distance of 22 miles, and, doubtful of its pecuniary success, he informs the public that he intends to continue “his establishment at Helensburgh Baths,” to which the _Comet_ will carry passengers on her return journey from Greenock This little vessel, of which the following is an illustration as she appeared on the Clyde passing Dumbarton, was designed and constructed by Mr. John Wood, shipbuilder, Port Glasgow. She was 40 feet in length of keel, and 10½ feet beam; her engines (which cost 192_l._) were 4 horse-power; and her draught of water 4 feet. She continued to ply for a short time between Glasgow and Greenock, but under many difficulties.[99] [Illustration] Though the engine of the _Comet_ was only of 4 horse-power, driving two small wheels, one on each side, it must, however, have performed its work, on the whole, exceedingly well to have propelled a vessel of 30 tons burthen at the rate Mr. Bell states in his letter published in the _Caledonian Mercury_. [Sidenote: and, afterwards, on the Forth.] But the _Comet_ does not appear to have proved remunerative to her enterprising owner on the line on which he had placed her.[100] The prejudice raised against steam navigation by rival interests, which Fulton had previously experienced on the Hudson, was equally strong on the Clyde, and seriously injured Mr. Bell’s first undertaking. He was consequently obliged to withdraw her from this station and to employ her for some months as an excursion-boat on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, extending his cruises to the shores of England when the weather permitted, to show the superior advantages of steam-boat navigation over other modes of transit to the public, many of whom viewed her with feelings of mingled awe and superstition. Afterwards he transferred her to the Forth, where she ran for a considerable time between the extremity of the Forth and Clyde Canal and Newhaven, near Edinburgh. Here she seems to have done her work most efficiently, for Mr. Bell states that she made the voyage, a distance of 27 miles, on the average, in three and a half hours, being at the rate of more than 7½ miles an hour.[101] [Sidenote: Extraordinary progress of ship-building on the Clyde.] Although the _Comet_ at first proved commercially unsuccessful, there is no part of Europe where the progress in the construction of steamers has been either so great or so astonishing as on the Clyde. From a silvery salmon stream it has become in half a century by far the largest and most important shipbuilding river in the world; but, alas, its once limpid stream has long since ceased to be either silvery or pure.[102] Ancient historians have told us that when the first Punic war roused the citizens of Rome to extraordinary exertions in the equipment of a fleet for the destruction of the maritime supremacy of Carthage, the banks of the Tiber resounded with the axe and the hammer, and that the extent of the ship-building operations then carried on was a matter not merely of surprise, but of wonder. How insignificant, however, was that sound when compared with that of the steam hammer and the anvil and the din of the work now to be heard on the banks of the Clyde. For miles on both sides of the river stupendous ship-building yards line its banks, employing tens of thousands of hardy and skilled mechanics earning their daily bread, as God has destined all men to do, by “the sweat of their brow,” relieved from oppressive taxation, and free from anything approaching the thraldom of slavery, the curse of ancient Rome. Along those banks there is now annually constructed a much larger amount of steam tonnage than in all the other ports of Europe combined, those of England alone excepted. What a contrast to the days of Henry Bell!—days almost within my own recollection. By comparing the Clyde with the Tiber, both in themselves comparatively insignificant rivers—the one made important by the power of the Cæsars, the other by the wisdom and energy of the Clyde trustees, it is to be hoped that more than one lesson may be learned from the character of the employment on their respective banks. The clamour on the Tiber when Rome resolved to achieve maritime greatness, indicated war, terrible war, with Carthage; but the sounds on the Clyde proclaim a mission of peace and good-will among nations, for nearly all the ships constructed there are destined to carry to other lands the fabrics of our workshops and the products of our mills, and with them the civilizing and enlightening influence resulting from the skill and genius of our artisans.[103] [Sidenote: Great value and importance of the private building yards.] Should, however, the necessity arise, these numerous ship-building yards and thousands of mechanics could instantly be made available for the construction of vessels of war. If, therefore, a large naval force be still unhappily necessary, [and I am far from saying that it is not], should we not take into consideration, when we frame our naval estimates, the vast resources we have at our command in our private yards,[104] (infinitely greater as these are than those of all other nations in Europe combined), for producing on an emergency, whatever extra number of vessels of war we may then require? Our private building yards are in themselves the bases of a great fleet.[105] But the Admiralty are slow to learn. At the commencement of the century they declined even to consider the benefits to be derived by the application of steam, and even forty years afterwards, when everybody except themselves had become alive to its advantages, they refused to apply this new and now mighty power to our war ships of the line. [Sidenote: Steam between Norwich and Yarmouth, 1813;] [Sidenote: Between London and Margate, 1815.] [Sidenote: The _Glasgow_.] Happily, however, the great invention made its way without Government aid. Private enterprise carried into execution what the Admiralty would not even consider. In 1813 a steam-boat was built at Leeds, and was started to run between Norwich and Yarmouth in the months of August or September of that year. This was the second steam-vessel launched in British waters. In the same year a steamer was launched at Manchester and another at Bristol. In October 1814 another steamer commenced to ply on the Humber. In December of that year the first steamer was seen on the Thames; she was put in motion on the canal at Limehouse; and, early in 1815, a vessel with a side lever engine of 14 horse-power, constructed by Cook of Glasgow, made her way from that city to Dublin, and thence round the Land’s End to London. Though encountering great opposition from the Thames watermen, from time immemorial an obstructive class of men, she, nevertheless, commenced and successfully carried on a passenger traffic between that city and Margate. Cook had, in the previous year, in association with Bell, built two other steam-vessels, one of which, named the _Glasgow_, became in power and efficiency the standard at that time for river steamers. The public now began to appreciate the value of steamers. Prejudice vanished and travellers by them increased with such rapidity that, in 1816, it was not unusual for 500 or 600 passengers to enjoy, in the course of one day, water excursions on the Clyde.[106] [Sidenote: Early opposition to the employment of steam vessels.] It is, however, not a matter for surprise that steamers, when first placed on rivers for passenger traffic, were viewed with great jealousy by watermen, and that, on the Hudson and especially on the Thames, they were strenuously opposed. The traffic on the Thames had for centuries afforded profitable employment to large numbers of semi-seafaring men who, though not “sailors” in the usual acceptation of the term, could nevertheless be made much more useful on board our ships of war in an emergency than any other class in the community. To suggest any changes whereby their number might be reduced was sure, as has been the case for ages, to rouse the patriotic feelings of the people of England lest there should be a scarcity of men to man their fleets. Thus, on the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, the special clause inserted in the Bill to reserve the coasting trade from the competition of foreign ships and foreign seamen, was _solely_ on the ground of “preserving a nursery for British sailors,” and five years elapsed ere that clause was expunged. When, therefore, the British Legislature, at so recent a period, considered it necessary to pass an enactment for the preservation of seamen in England, as if any law could retain them here if they were desirous of improving their condition by accepting employment elsewhere, it is not surprising that the watermen, bargemen, and others, who obtained their livelihood on the Thames, should have found many sympathisers in 1815, when they affirmed that their “trade would be ruined by the introduction of steamers.” Nor can we wonder that men, in their humble position of life, could not see that the greater facilities afforded for intercourse between London and Margate and other towns on the banks of the river would, so far from reducing their means of employment, tend very materially to increase them. [Sidenote: Barges on the Thames.] Previously to the time when David Napier introduced a steamer, the _Marjory_, to ply on the Thames, the passenger traffic of the river had been carried on by rowing boats, and sailing-craft of various descriptions. Those which made the more distant voyages to Margate, Ramsgate, and Deal were sailing-vessels, most of them carrying cargo as well as passengers, while many were merely barges, called Hoys, of which the following is an excellent illustration from Mr. E. W. Cooke’s interesting collection of the vessels on the Thames. But the great bulk of them were wherries, while the larger class having a mast and sails, plied between Greenwich, Woolwich, Erith, or Gravesend. A few were state barges—ornate structures—belonging to the Lord Mayor and Corporation, or to the different livery companies or ancient guilds, in which for centuries the members made frequent excursions to Richmond or Hampton Court on the one hand, and Greenwich or Blackwall on the other. Jovial pleasant parties they were, especially at that season of the year, when the horse-chestnuts in Bushy Park were in bloom, and whitebait was in its prime at Greenwich. One of these richly decorated barges, almost rivalling the celebrated bucentaur of Venice, I have copied from the drawings of Mr. Cooke as a relic of bygone days. [Illustration: THAMES BARGE.] [Illustration: THE STATIONERS’ BARGE.] But these have all now passed away, though the cargo barges, and some of the wherries may still be seen on the river. Steamers supply their places, and from the time when Napier, in 1815, started his “fire-boat,” steam navigation on the Thames, as on all other navigable rivers, has made a steady, if not, at first, a rapid progress. [Sidenote: First steamer between Liverpool and the Clyde.] On the 28th June, 1815, the first steamer arrived at Liverpool from the Clyde. She was built for the purpose of carrying on the passenger traffic between the Mersey and Runcorn. On her passage round she called at Ramsey, in the Isle of Man, whence she started early in the morning, and arrived at Liverpool about noon of the same day. This vessel, the particular dimensions and details of which it is difficult now to trace, was noteworthy in more ways than one. She was not merely the first regular steamer on the Mersey, but she was, also, in reality the pioneer of the fleet of steamers which now ply with so much regularity between Liverpool and the numerous ports on the English, Irish, and Scotch coasts. The second steamer, introduced to the waters of the Mersey in 1816, was intended to supply communication for passengers and goods between Liverpool and Chester by means of the canal, an object she effectually accomplished. The first application of steam for the purpose of towing vessels—now an important and invaluable part of the numerous services rendered by steam to navigation—was made in October 1816, when the _Harlequin_ was towed out of the Mersey by the _Charlotte_, a steamer which, in the summer of the same year, had been placed as a ferry-boat to run between Liverpool and Eastham. But the first steamer specially built at Liverpool for the purpose of a ferry was named the _Etna_, which, early in April of that year, began to ply between Liverpool and Tranmere. She was 63 feet long, with a paddle-wheel placed in the centre, her extremities being connected by beams, and her deck 28 feet wide over all. This primitive vessel initiated the mode of transit by means of the ferry-boats which now bridge the Mersey. [Sidenote: H.M. steam-ship _Comet_, 1819.] It was not, however, till the year 1819 that the Admiralty of the day became alive to the importance of steam navigation, nor were they likely, even then, to have awakened from their slumbers had not Lord Melville and Sir George Cockburn urged on the Government the great value of steam-power for towing their men-of-war.[107] In that year the first steam-vessel was built for the Royal Navy. She was named the _Comet_, and her dimensions were 115 feet in length, 21 feet in breadth, and 9 feet draught of water, being propelled by two engines of 40 horse-power each, manufactured by Boulton and Watt. [Sidenote: The _Rob Roy_ and other vessels, 1818.] In 1818, Mr. David Napier, a name more associated than any other in Great Britain with the early development of the marine engine, having for some years previously been giving his attention to the propulsion of vessels by steam, launched the _Rob Roy_ from the yard of Mr. William Denny, of Dumbarton.[108] She was only 90 tons burthen, with engines of 30 horse-power, but, to the credit of her builder, she traded between Glasgow and Belfast, carrying with great punctuality the mails and passengers for two consecutive years without requiring any repairs; and although the first regular sea-going steamer which had been built in either Europe or the United States of America, her success was complete. Subsequently, the _Rob Roy_ was transferred to the English Channel to serve as a packet between Dover and Calais. Soon afterwards Messrs. Wood, of Port Glasgow, built for Mr. David Napier, who had by this time removed to London, a boat named the _Talbot_, of 120 tons. She was fitted with two engines of 30 horse-power each, of his own construction, and proved in all respects the most perfect steam-vessel of the period. This was the first vessel placed upon the now celebrated line carrying the mails and passengers between Holyhead and Dublin. The value of the steam-engine having now been fully established as a means of propelling vessels at sea with safety, and of performing voyages with a regularity hitherto unknown, Mr. Napier found comparatively little difficulty in inducing capitalists to join him in the project of constructing various vessels for a regular line of steam traffic between Liverpool, Greenock, and the city of Glasgow. Three vessels were, consequently, built—the _Robert Burns_ of 150 tons, the _Eclipse_ of 240 tons, each being fitted with two engines of 30 horse-power, and the _Superb_, also of 240 tons with two engines of 35 horse-power each. These vessels proved successful, and the line thus established in 1822 has continued ever since. New coasting lines soon followed, and, in lieu of the Leith smacks, once so celebrated, the _James Watt_ was constructed to ply between London and Leith. She was the largest steamer that had yet been built, being 448 tons measurement, fitted with engines of 50 horse-power each, by Boulton and Watt. Her paddles were moved, not directly by the engines, but, through the interposition of toothed wheels, rendering the number of revolutions of the axis considerably greater than that of the paddles, so that, with the exception of the low proportion of her propelling power to the tonnage, she possessed many, if not most, of the qualities of the steamers of even the present day. The _Soho_ followed the _James Watt_ on the same line, and proved equally successful. [Sidenote: The _United Kingdom_, 1826.] In 1826 the first of the so-called leviathan class of steamers, the _United Kingdom_ (of which the following is an excellent illustration) was built by Mr. Steele of Greenock for the trade between London and Edinburgh. She was 160 feet long, with 26½ feet beam, and engines of 200 horse-power by David Napier, and was considered the wonder of the day. People flocked from all quarters to inspect and admire her.[109] [Illustration: THE “UNITED KINGDOM,” LONDON AND EDINBURGH PACKET.— FROM A DRAWING BY E. W. COOKE, R.A.] Although these two lines of regular steam communication between Liverpool and the river Clyde, and between London and Edinburgh were now successfully established, and proved of considerable importance in the encouragement of steam navigation elsewhere, some years elapsed before those rapid strides were made in its adaptation as a propelling power which have rendered it one of the wonders of the present age. Indeed, this power would probably never have made such an extraordinary advance had iron not been adopted instead of wood for the construction of our ships. [Sidenote: First idea of iron ships, 1830.] Hitherto, and throughout all ages, timber alone had been used in shipbuilding. The forests of Lebanon supplied the naval architects of Tyre with their materials; Italy cultivated her woods with unusual care, so that sufficient trees might be grown for the timber, planking, and masts of the ships of its once powerful maritime republics; and, in our own time, how often have we heard fears expressed that Great Britain would not be able to continue the supply of sufficient oak for her royal dockyards, much less for her merchant fleets! Yet, when shrewd far-seeing men, no further back than the year 1830, talked about substituting iron for the “ribs” of a ship instead of “timbers,” and iron plates for “planking” instead of oak, what a howl of derision the public raised! “Who ever heard of iron floating?” they derisively enquired. It is true they might have seen old tin kettles float on every pool of water before their doors almost any day of their lives, nay, floating even more buoyantly than their discarded wooden coal boxes; but such common-place instructors were beneath their notice. Timber-built ships had from time immemorial been in use by every nation and on every sea, and had bravely battled with the storm from the days of Noah, and were these, they sneeringly asked, to be supplanted by a material which in itself would naturally sink? Such was the reasoning of the period; and indeed, the best of the arguments against the use of iron rested on scarcely more solid foundation.[110] It could not be gainsaid that a frame of iron was infinitely stronger than a frame of wood, which, in fact, has no strength in itself, for the longitudinal timber ends are only butted to each other, and obtain their power of resistance solely by means of the horizontal planks and the trenails which bind them together. Nor could the obstructives deny, though they argued the point, that the ribs when welded with the iron plates riveted to them, formed a hull vastly superior in strength, and much less liable to leakage than any similar body of wood, however well constructed. They must also have seen, by its displacement of water when afloat, that an iron hull was the more buoyant of the two. But these arguments, however unanswerable, were long ere they produced conviction; the fact that iron does not float, and the impression that it could not be made to do so safely, offered almost insuperable difficulties in the way of building vessels of that material; and when it was argued that they would “rip up” if they struck upon a rock, or bulge into a shapeless mass if driven on a sand bank, the opponents of progress raised objections which could be answered only by practical experience. [Sidenote: Proposals of Trevethick and Dickenson, 1809-1815.] [Sidenote: The _Vulcan_, 1818.] Hitherto only a few very small vessels or barges had been constructed of iron, and these neither on a scale nor of a class to practically refute the objections which had been raised against the use of iron for ship-building purposes. It is true that so far back as 1809 Richard Trevethick and Robert Dickenson proposed a scheme for building “large ships with decks, beams, and sides, of plate iron,” and even suggested “masts, yards, and spars, to be constructed of iron in plates with telescope joints or screwed together:”[111] and in 1815, Mr. Dickenson patented an invention for vessels, or rather boats, “to be built of iron, with a hollow watertight gunwale.”[112] But, as these inventors or patentees did not put their ideas into practice, no other person (if, indeed, any other person gave even a passing thought to the subject) was convinced that any craft beyond a boat or a river-barge could be constructed of iron, much less that, if made in the form of a ship, this material would oppose more effectual resistance to the storms of the ocean, or, if dashed upon the strand, to the angry fury of the waves, than timber, however scientifically put together. But though no available substance can withstand the raging elements with less chance of destruction than plates of iron riveted together in the form of a boiler (the principle on which iron ships are now constructed), the public could not then appreciate their superior value; and it was not until 1818 that the first _iron vessel_ was built by Thomas Wilson, at Faskine, on the banks of the Monkland Canal, eleven miles from Glasgow: this vessel, appropriately named the _Vulcan_, is even now (1875) employed on the Clyde in the conveyance of minerals from the Forth and Clyde Canal. [Sidenote: _Aaron Manby_, 1821.] Three years afterwards a steam-engine was, for the first time, fitted into a vessel built of iron. She was named the _Aaron Manby_, and was constructed in 1821 at Horsley, for the joint account of Mr. Manby and Captain Napier, afterwards Admiral Sir Charles Napier. She was sent in parts to London, where they were put together, and when complete was despatched to France under the command of Captain Napier. Another iron steam-vessel, intended for the navigation of the Seine, soon followed; but, in consequence of the prohibitory French navigation laws, with respect to foreign bottoms, the different parts of this vessel were, in this case, sent to France instead of to London, and put together at Charenton. Mr. Manby prepared in a similar manner two others, and shortly afterwards the building of iron vessels was commenced by an engineer at Paris for the same trade. The speculation, however, proved unfortunate. [Sidenote: Shannon Steam Packet Company, 1824.] The Shannon Steam Packet Company was the next to employ iron steamers in river navigation. The first, built by the Horsley Company in 1824, proving very successful, was immediately followed by others. [Sidenote: Mr. John Laird and Sir William Fairbairn.] As the success of these vessels was gradually determining the problem of the suitableness of iron to ship-building purposes, and was drawing attention to the subject, Messrs. Fawcett and Preston established at Liverpool a building yard in connection with their engine factory under the direction of Mr. Page, and constructed several small vessels entirely of iron.[113] Mr. Laird, of Birkenhead, proceeding upon a larger scale, prosecuted this branch of naval architecture with uninterrupted prosperity.[114] Mr. Fairbairn, afterwards Sir William Fairbairn, also took part, at an early period, in cultivating the new art; and ranks with those to whose influence and skill it was first indebted for public confidence. Removing from Glasgow, where he had commenced business, he established himself at Millwall, on the Isle of Dogs, and there became one of the principal constructors of iron vessels upon the Thames. His efforts proving successful, other eminent engineers pursued the same branch of art with the like results; among them may be mentioned Messrs. Miller and Ravenhill, whose vessels were considered at the time to be of exquisite workmanship and beauty of form; and Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare, who built a considerable number of iron vessels, including the _Fairy_, the tender to the Queen’s yacht, her form and speed gaining them a high reputation. [Sidenote: The _Elburkah_, 1832, and _Garry Owen_, 1834.] In 1832, Messrs. Laird were bold enough to carry into practice the theory of iron vessels for ocean navigation; and in the course of that year the firm of MacGregor, Laird, and Company built the _Elburkah_, of 55 tons, as consort to the _Quorra_ in her expedition up the Niger.[115] These enlightened firms justly considered that, whatever objections might be urged against vessels built of iron, they would at least possess equal sea-going qualities and, in some branches of trade, peculiar advantages. Combining strength and lightness of draught, the _Elburkah_ would be better adapted than any vessel built of wood for the exploration and navigation of African rivers:[116] nor were they deceived in their calculations. Immediately afterwards Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead commenced the construction of another iron vessel, the _Lady Lansdowne_ for the navigation of Lough Derg, River Shannon. In 1834 they built the _Garry Owen_, destined to run between Limerick and Kilrush. This vessel (125 feet long and 21 feet 6 inches wide, propelled by two engines of 45 horse-power each) was unfortunately, or perhaps, under the circumstances, fortunately for the progress of science, driven on shore with various other vessels during a strong gale on her first voyage; she, however, sustained comparatively little injury, while nearly all the others, which were built of wood, were totally wrecked or seriously damaged: this important fact, as a practical answer to one of the most reasonable objections raised against iron vessels, gave remarkable impulse to their increase. But strong prejudices, unreasonable doubts, and real difficulties had still to be overcome before the suitableness of iron ships for ocean navigation could be established. Another of the chief and more tenable objections to the extended use of iron vessels was the perturbation of the compass. Moreover, one or two unfortunate accidents had been attributed to this cause, though this more, probably, served as a plausible excuse for bad seamanship or negligence. In the course, however, of a few years iron packets began to be used along our coasts; and the art of building them advanced gradually towards perfection. Iron vessels soon afterwards, therefore, acquired a merited confidence. [Sidenote: The _Rainbow_, 1837.] Their superiority had become apparent to the more intelligent persons of the period who directed their attention to engineering and maritime pursuits. In 1833 and 1834, Mr. Fairbairn launched two passenger steamers of iron to ply on the Humber between Selby and Hull. Mr. Manby also built one of considerable dimensions for general purposes; and in 1837 Messrs. Laird built two iron vessels of about 350 tons and 60 horse-power each, ordered by the East India Company for the navigation of the River Indus. In the same year Messrs. Laird constructed for the General Steam Navigation Company an iron vessel, the _Rainbow_,[117] to ply between London and the outports. In that year Muhammed Ali placed upon the Nile an iron steamer built by the same firm, while they also launched from their yard the iron vessels in which Colonel Chesney explored the course of the Euphrates, and which, having been shipped in pieces, were put together by Birkenhead artisans on the banks of that river. Though the value of iron was now fully established for shipbuilding purposes, many years elapsed ere that material came into general use for the construction of over sea _sailing_ vessels, the principal objections being the greater liability of the compass to err,[118] and the difficulty of preventing animalculæ and sea-weeds from adhering to the bottom. But these difficulties were in time overcome, and iron vessels propelled by sails are now nearly as common as steamers built of that material. Experience by degrees successfully met almost every objection; and science was again triumphant over prejudice and ignorance. Iron had been made not merely to float, but to ride buoyantly over the crest of the wave, amidst the raging elements. [Sidenote: Messrs. Tod and MacGregor.] Mr. Laird was followed by other builders of iron vessels at Liverpool; the high estimation in which they were held having led to a constantly increasing demand for them. About this time Messrs. Tod and MacGregor, of Glasgow, began to take a leading position in this occupation; the _Princess Royal_, long engaged on the line between Glasgow and Liverpool, and launched from their yard, having been one of the finest and fastest iron packets of her time. [Sidenote: The _Great Britain_, 1839-1843.] From that period iron shipbuilding on the Clyde increased with great rapidity, but the most magnificent specimen of an iron ship of any description produced at that time was the _Great Britain_, to which reference will be made hereafter, constructed by Mr. Patterson at Bristol, for the Great Western Steam Packet Company. [Sidenote: Advantages of iron ships.] [Sidenote: Action of salt water on iron inconsiderable.] For the information of the general reader, I may here state that the advantages of iron vessels consist principally in their durability, strength and safety, increased capacity for stowage, greater economy, and salubrity.[119] With regard to the perturbations of the compass, Professor Airy, previous to the time when Mr. Evans made his report, had published a very concise series of instructions for correcting the compass on board of iron ships; and the progress of science now bids fair to obviate any difficulty whatever ensuing from this cause. Prior to experience it was apprehended that the saline property of the sea-water would tend to corrode the iron, and, further, that this metal would be rapidly destroyed by oxidation. But experience has shown that the effect of salt water on iron _alone_ is so small as hardly to bear a comparison with its effect upon iron in connection with wood. This remarkable difference has been observed in iron vessels in which timber had been used for the keel; the bolts driven through the keel to form its proper connections having been so rapidly acted on as almost to destroy them before the external iron plates of the hull had been perceptibly diminished in thickness: it is further of importance that the vessel should be kept in use rather than be laid up in ordinary. Vessels built in the earliest stage of this art, subsequently to that of building mere canal-boats, bore many years’ service with little need of repair, and remained in a perfectly good condition for a longer period than that to which the durability of wooden vessels ordinarily, and under similar circumstances, extends. But there is a great difference in iron plates, some are inferior and soon oxidize, while others, as will be presently shown, last for many years. As the inner surface of the plates may be almost wholly protected from oxidation, it is only from the external wear that danger may be apprehended. But, though the outer surface of the metal can be protected in a great measure from corrosion, yet iron vessels are subject to the disadvantage of having their speed diminished, after a short period of service, by the adhesion and growth of animal and vegetable matter. A coating of red lead is not a perfect preventive against this mischief, and various other scientific substitutes have been used of late; so that it cannot be doubted but this inconvenience will disappear altogether before scientific appliances. A perfectly protective varnish for the in sides of iron ships and a coating which shall effectually prevent the adhesion of animal and vegetable substances to the exterior, are desiderata of great value,[120] and will, we may hope, continue to receive the careful consideration of scientific men. [Sidenote: Durability, strength, and safety of iron.] All the facts yet known with regard to the superior _durability_[121] of iron ships are highly satisfactory. It is a consideration not to be overlooked that large ships may be rendered more durable than small vessels; for, as the weight of the hull is generally determined in a certain proportion to the whole displacement, and the plates of iron are much thicker in a large than in a small ship (the oxidizing causing an uniform waste of metal), the durability will be in proportion to the amount of wear the plates of the respective vessels can bear without danger to the ship. But the superior _strength_ of iron ships depends not merely upon the quality of the material employed, but also on the mode of combining it. The strength of wrought iron is well known and its power of resisting strains in almost every direction is a matter of universal experience, add to which, that its resistance to lateral pressure increases in a much higher ratio than the quantity of material. Hence, almost any amount of strength may be given to a large fabric; certainly, enough to bear the pressures and strains to which ships are exposed, with much less liability to injury than wood. With plates of iron of a substance fitly proportioned to the magnitude of the fabric, and with joints properly formed, the sides of ships have been found capable of resisting, in a remarkable manner, forces for which the strength of timber would be quite insufficient. A substance of plates sufficient to constitute this amount of strength generally, is also able to bear concussions of great force with much less hazard than timber. The uninjured state in which the _Great Britain_ was found in Dundrum Bay, after being wrecked and lying on the beach several months during winter, exposed to various storms, proved the correctness of these views, which more extended experience has since confirmed. Experience has also demonstrated that unless the concussion takes place with extreme violence, mere indentation of the metal is generally the greatest injury sustained. Beyond this, the strain sometimes breaks off the heads of a few rivets without opening the seam, but it is uncommon for the rivets to be drawn if the metal and workmanship are good. In the case where an iron ship strikes upon a sharp pointed-like crag of rock or coral reef with considerable force, it frequently happens that a hole is made through the plate; but even when such an accident occurs the damage is generally _local_, the parts not immediately subject to the concussion remaining unhurt. No general leakage is, therefore, consequent on such an accident, as would be the case in all vessels built of wood. [Sidenote: Affords greater capacity for stowage.] As the hull of an iron ship is both thinner and considerably lighter[122] than that of a wooden ship, an iron ship of the same external dimensions as a wooden one has both greater capacity for stowage and greater power to support the weights which may be put into her. These differences vary in some degree with the dimensions and form of the ship, being greater in proportion to the increased dimensions of the ship. They may, of course, be determined by computation; but, in all cases, an iron ship will carry considerably more cargo than a wooden one of the same external dimensions. Again, the consideration of economy must not be omitted in any comparison of the merits of ships built entirely either of timber, or of iron. The economy begins with the construction, for the original cost of an iron ship is less than that of a wooden one, and, apart altogether from her superior capacity for cargo, it runs on with the course of the ship’s service as the result of several causes; as, for instance, the smaller amount and less expensive character of repairs: moreover, as it is not even yet known how long iron ships will last, the precise saving from their use cannot be estimated. On the other hand, the period of service of mercantile timber-built ships is defined. If they reach or exceed thirty years’ service, they must be ships of the very highest class as to quality[123], and must, indeed, within that period have undergone frequent and very expensive repairs. As iron ships are not subject to the same decay, at the same time that accidental damages are generally repaired at a much less cost, every item saved by the diminished charge for repairs is clear profit. [Sidenote: Admiralty slow to adopt iron for ships of war.] But with all these advantages, a considerable time elapsed before the Admiralty could be induced to consider the desirability of constructing any Government steamer of iron, or of even allowing the large private trading vessels engaged in the conveyance of the mails to be built of that material. They had objections of their own applying specially to the ships under their control, and very plausible objections too, in their opinion, compared with those originally raised by an ignorant public. A shot, they said, would penetrate an iron vessel with much greater ease than a wooden one, while the shot holes could not be as effectually plugged, if indeed they could be plugged at all. Wood, they argued, when pierced, would rapidly contract and leave a very small opening for water to get through, whereas a shot would make a clean cut through an iron plate which could not be thus expeditiously filled, and if it did not tear away the whole of the plate, would leave a gap as large as a “barn door.” However, a little experience[124] soon showed their arguments to be fallacious, and when they found that the engines of a paddle-wheel steamer, and, especially, the paddles themselves, offered conspicuous targets to an enemy, and that it was impossible to make the stern-frames of their wooden ships sufficiently strong to withstand, without serious leakage, the vibration of the screw, they abandoned, though reluctantly, the paddle-wheel, and at length gave up, also, vessels of wood for the purposes of war. These resolutions were, however, only carried into practice after vast sums of money had been expended on the “reconstruction” of a _wooden_ British Navy, for which, in one year alone, and that so lately as 1861, when almost everybody except themselves saw that iron must supersede timber, they demanded from Parliament (and carried their vote) no less than 949,371_l._ to replenish the stock of wood in the dockyards: a sum far in excess of any previous vote for that material.[125] [Sidenote: Mr. Galloway’s feathering paddles, 1829.] [Illustration] While the art of steam navigation made rapid progress, the ingenuity of engineers had been constantly directed to the improvement of the paddle-wheels; and the above drawing of one, with “feathering paddles,” patented by Mr. Galloway in 1829,[126] represents the most perfect of any wheel in use at that period, and has not been materially improved on since then. But, at that time also, a substitute for the paddle was seeking practical solution. The screw, as a means of propulsion, had been suggested long before the steamboat had been brought into use. Indeed, its principle was known at a very early period in the use of an oar for sculling, and could, as already explained, be seen in the movements of the tail of a fish. [Sidenote: Story of the screw-propeller.] Though my faith in the reports of the genius and early inventions of the Chinese has frequently been rudely shaken in the course of my investigation of their reputed discoveries, I may remark that Mr. MacGregor, for whose opinions I entertain no ordinary respect, states, in the paper he read to the Society of Arts,[127] that “the use of the screw-propeller may be of an indefinite antiquity,” and adds that “a model of one was brought from China in 1680, which had two sets of blades, turning in opposite directions.” It was not, however, until 1729, that we have any authentic account of a plan of propulsion, in any way approaching the valuable invention now so largely in use. In that year an ingenious Frenchman, M. Du Quet, described a contrivance by which a screw turned by the water in a stream, wound up a rope for towing vessels, of which the annexed (p. 101) is an illustration.[128] In 1745, Masson describes an apparatus for working an oar at the stern of a vessel so as to give it a “sculling” motion; in 1746 Bougner mentions that “revolving arms, like the vanes of a windmill,” were tried for the propulsion of vessels, and, in 1770, as already incidentally noticed, the celebrated Watt speaks of using a screw-propeller, of which the annexed is a sketch, to be turned by a steam-engine.[129] [Illustration] [Illustration] [Sidenote: Joseph Bramah, 1785.] In 1779, Matthew Wasborough, to whose genius we are indebted for many inventions in connection with marine propulsion, patented a “new invented machine or piece of mechanism which, when applied to a steam-engine or any reciprocal movement, produces a circular or rotative motion without the medium of a water-wheel;” Joseph Bramah, of whose invention I have already spoken in detail, speaks of (1785) a wheel with inclined fans or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack, which may be turned round either way under water, causing the ship to be forced backward or forward,[130] and, in 1798, he tested the application of a screw in a boat, of which the annexed, copied from Mr. MacGregor’s instructive paper, is an illustration. [Illustration] [Sidenote: Mr. J. Stevens, 1804.] [Sidenote: Richard Trevethick, 1815.] In 1800, Edward Shorter patented an invention which he called “a perpetual sculling machine,” having the action of a two-bladed propeller, and which, two years afterwards, was experimented upon in H.M. Ships _Dragon_ and _Superb_.[131] Various other experiments followed. But, in May 1804, Mr. J. Stevens, of the United States, put to sea with a steam-boat propelled by a screw, turned first by a rotatory engine, and then by Watt’s reciprocating engine; and, as this small craft steamed from Hoboken to New York, she has by some writers been considered the first sea-going screw of which there is any certain account. Richard Trevethick, in 1815, patented “a worm or screw revolving in a cylinder at the head, sides, or stern of a vessel,” as also a “_stuffing-box_, inclosing a ring of water.”[132] In the following year Robert Kinder applied for a patent for a shaft and screw (almost on the exact plan now in use) with “a shoulder formed upon it so as to work in a water-tight manner through a stuffing-box of the common or well-known form, which stuffing-box and shaft are made to pass through the end of the vessel, just above its ordinary water-line, and is thereby affixed to it.” (See “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 64.) [Sidenote: Robert Wilson, 1833.] [Sidenote: Captain Ericsson, 1836.] Many other proposals for propelling vessels by means of the screw were subsequently made and most of them were patented.[133] Two were tried on a small scale in France by Captain Delisle, a Frenchman, in 1823, and by a countryman of his, M. Frédéric Sauvage, in 1832.[134] In 1833, Mr. Robert Wilson, a Scotchman, afterwards manager of the firm of Nasmyth and Co., at Patricroft near Manchester, brought under the notice of the British Admiralty the screw “perfect in all its details” as a means of propulsion, which he says he invented in 1827, and which he states[135] the officers of the Woolwich Dockyard, in their official report, rejected because “it involved a greater loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels to the side.” No great efforts, however, seem to have been made to bring the screw into practical use until 1836, when Captain John Ericsson, C.E. (a native of Sweden, who had established himself in London in partnership with the Messrs. Braithwaites), fully demonstrated its merits according to a plan which he patented on the 13th of July of that year,[136] and carried out successfully. Instead, however, of launching to the public gaze a vessel on a large scale fitted with his plans, he made a model boat of about 20 inches in length, into which he placed a small engine, and floated her in a large bath over which a steam boiler had been fitted for the supply of hot water. From this boiler a pipe projected to within a foot of the water, where it was branched off by a swivel joint and connected with the engine in the boat. The steam when admitted put the engine in motion, and also the propeller, which at once sent the boat forward with considerable rapidity. [Sidenote: The _Francis B. Ogden_, though successful, fails to convince the Admiralty.] Finding that his invention was likely to succeed when put into practical operation on a larger scale, Ericsson’s next step was to order Mr. Gulliver, a boat-builder at Wapping, to construct for him a boat of wood which he named the _Francis B. Ogden_. She was 45 feet long and 8 feet wide, drawing 2 feet 3 inches of water. In this vessel he fitted his engine and two propellers, each of 5 feet 3 inches diameter. The result of her first trial went far beyond his most sanguine expectations. No sooner were the engines put at full speed, than she shot ahead at the rate of more than 10 miles an hour, and maintained that speed without a single alteration requiring to be made in her machinery;[137] nor were her capabilities as a tug less surprising. This miniature steamer, tested first by a schooner of 140 tons burden, towed her at the rate of 7 miles an hour during slack water on the Thames; and afterwards by the large American packet-ship _Toronto_, moving on with her astern at a speed of more than 5 miles an hour. The next experiment was made in the presence of the Lords of the Admiralty, who, accompanied by Sir William Symonds, Sir Edward Parry, and Captain Beaufort, had embarked in their barge to witness the novelty, and judge for themselves as to its efficiency and practical value. They were minute in their inspection, and as they did not, and in fact could not, offer any valid objections to his invention, Captain Ericsson felt confident that they would soon order the construction of a war-steamer on the new principle. In this, however, he was disappointed, though he had given them a very practical proof of its value by towing them in their barge at the rate of 10 miles an hour for a considerable distance—a speed which must have astonished their Lordships. The unseen and comparatively noiseless propeller, although it had furnished the most convincing proofs of its power, failed to propitiate their favour. Scientific theorists had informed the Board that the invention was constructed upon erroneous principles, and full of practical defects (one being that a ship thus propelled would be unsteerable), while engineers as a body regarded its failure as an event so certain as to preclude any speculations of its success. In a word, when publicly discussed, the general opinion was that the vast loss of mechanical power would prevent it from being employed as a substitute for the now old-fashioned paddle-wheel![138] [Sidenote: Mr. T. P. Smith.] While Ericsson was making his experiments in the _Francis B. Ogden_, Mr. Thomas Pettit Smith, who, on the 31st of May, 1836, had taken out a patent for a “sort of screw or ‘worm,’ made to revolve rapidly under water in a recess or open space formed in that part of the after part of the vessel commonly called the dead rising or dead wood of the stern,”[139] was also at work with his invention, and, in the following year, put it into practical operation. His first trial, made in a small vessel of 6 tons burden, with an engine the cylinder of which was 6 inches diameter and 15 inches stroke, was considered by a few far-seeing persons so satisfactory,[140] that they applied for, and obtained on the 29th of July, 1839, an Act of Parliament for incorporating a company called the Steam Ship Propeller Company, to enable them to purchase “certain letters patent,” that is, the screw-propeller of T. P. Smith. [Sidenote: The _Archimedes_.] [Sidenote: Her trial with the _Widgeon_, Oct. 1839,] The first successful application of this screw-propeller, on a large scale, was to a vessel called the _Archimedes_, constructed under the direction of the patentee of the screw, Mr. Smith. Her burden was 237 tons, and her mean draught of water 9 feet 4 inches; the diameter of the cylinder 37 inches, and the length of the stroke of the piston 3 feet; her screw-propeller consisted of two half threads of an 8 feet pitch, 5 feet 9 inches in diameter; each was 4 feet in length, and they were placed diametrically opposite to each other, at an angle of about 45 degrees on the propeller shaft. The propeller itself passed through a hole cut in the dead wood, immediately before the rudder; the keel being continued under the screw. The performance of the engines averaged twenty-six strokes per minute, the revolutions of the screw at the same time being 138⅖. The calculations of the inventor were that, provided there was no slip or recession, the vessel ought to advance 8 feet for every revolution of the screw, or 12·60 miles per hour. But the utmost speed ever obtained by the _Archimedes_, under the power of steam alone, was 9·25 nautical miles per hour, showing a loss by recession of rather less than one-sixth under the most favourable circumstances. The _Archimedes_ was not, however, a fair illustration of the screw-propelling principle, as her steam-power was not great enough to drive a screw sufficient for the size of the vessel. Nevertheless, in her subsequent trials from Dover to Calais against the _Widgeon_, the fastest paddle-steamer on the station, the superior value of the screw-propeller was proved. Although in the first three or four experiments the _Widgeon_ had the advantage by a few minutes, in the subsequent trials, both vessels having set the whole of their sails, the _Archimedes_, carrying much more canvas than the _Widgeon_, on a run of 26 miles from Dover to Calais, close hauled, accomplished this distance in nine minutes less time than the _Widgeon_. Upon the return voyage to Dover, with a fresh breeze abeam and all sail set, the _Archimedes_, with a speed of ten knots per hour, performed the distance in five and a half minutes less time than the _Widgeon_. [Sidenote: and its results.] These experiments decided the practical value of the screw. They proved that the _Archimedes_ was slightly inferior to the _Widgeon_ in light airs, in calms, and in smooth water; but, as the steam power of the former was ten horses less, and her burthen 75 tons more than that of the _Widgeon_, it is evident that in _such_ vessels the propelling power of the screw alone was equal, if not superior, to the ordinary paddle-wheel. In this respect, therefore, Mr. T. P. Smith’s invention might be considered completely successful. It was evident from the second trial that, in steaming against even a light wind, the low masts and snug rig of the _Widgeon_ gave her an advantage over the _Archimedes_ with loftier masts and heavier rig; but, on the last two trials, the power of the sails operated favourably for the _Archimedes_, as she then beat the _Widgeon_, and made the passage between Dover and Calais in less time than it had ever previously been performed by any of Her Majesty’s mail packets. On this occasion the _Archimedes_ went from Dover to Calais in two hours and one minute, and returned in one hour and fifty-three and a half minutes.[141] Although the successful performances of the _Archimedes_ brought the screw into more general notice, it does not appear that she was ever employed as a trading vessel. After several experiments she lay for a long time in the East India Dock advertised for sale, and her spirited proprietors, who had been so instrumental in promoting the introduction of the screw-propeller, lost all the capital they had invested in this important undertaking. [Sidenote: The _Rattler_ and the _Alecto_, 1843.] As the _Widgeon_ and _Archimedes_ differed materially in size and form, an exact comparison could not be made by them between the performance of the screw and that of the paddle; but the result of these trials nevertheless showed (especially when the peculiar fitness of the screw for war purposes was taken into consideration) the propriety of having a further and fairer trial of this novel instrument. With this object in view the _Rattler_ was ordered to be built,[142] and, that the experiment might be conclusive so far as a trial could be made between two vessels, she was constructed on the same lines as the _Alecto_ (her after part being lengthened for the insertion of the screw), and fitted with engines of the same power, and on a plan which had been previously tried with paddle-wheel vessels. The river trials of the _Rattler_ lasted from October 1843 to the beginning of 1845, and showed that the screw-shaft might be advantageously reduced in diameter, and the blades by about one-third of their length, an alteration which greatly reduced the weight of the screw, and facilitated the operation of shipping and unshipping it, while rendering unnecessary the wounding to so great an extent of the after part of the vessel. Before, however, this last point was decided (it not being evident that the good performance of the shorter screw was not attributable to the greater clearance which the reduction of its length had caused), the screw aperture was partly filled up in a temporary manner, so as to leave the shorter screw the same clearance as the longer one had originally. The result of this experiment proved that the aperture in future vessels might be constructed of very moderate dimensions without lessening the propelling power of the screw. [Sidenote: The _Rattler_ not as successful as expected.] These trials clearly showed that the screw, as an instrument of propulsion in smooth water, is not inferior to the paddle-wheel. But further experiments were considered necessary to establish its superiority in all respects. In the early part of the year 1845 the _Rattler_ proceeded, in company with the _Victoria and Albert_ and the _Black Eagle_, from Portsmouth to Pembroke. When rounding the Land’s End, and steaming against a strong head wind, both these vessels, as might be expected, showed a great superiority, their power being much greater than the _Rattler’s_ in proportion to the resistance, and their paddle-floats being constructed on the feathering principle. This comparative failure of the _Rattler_ left an unfavourable impression as to the efficiency of the screw against wind and sea in heavy weather, and this impression continued for several years, although when next tried in a run from the Thames to Leith, she showed in respect to speed a decided superiority over one of the paddle-wheel vessels employed in that trade, whose power as compared with her tonnage was greater than that of her competitor. Before joining the squadron under the command of Rear-Admiral Hyde Parker in July 1845, the _Rattler_ was employed to tow the _Erebus_ and _Terror_ to the Orkney Islands on their fatal expedition to the North Pole, and she seems to have performed that duty to the entire satisfaction of Sir John Franklin. [Sidenote: Captain Robert F. Stockton efficiently supports Ericsson’s views.] In following the progress of the screw as applicable to the propulsion of merchant vessels, and its use in other countries, I must now recur to the period when Ericsson was making his experiments on the Thames. At that time an intelligent gentleman, Captain Robert F. Stockton, of the United States Navy, was on a visit to London. Being of an inquisitive turn of mind, like most of his countrymen, and fond of scientific pursuits, he watched with great interest the trials with the screw then in progress, and having obtained an introduction to Ericsson, he accompanied him on one of his experimental expeditions on the Thames. Unlike the Lords of the British Admiralty, who allowed eight years to elapse before they built their first screw-propeller, the _Rattler_, Captain Stockton was so strongly impressed with the value and utility of the discovery, that, though he had made only a single trip in the _Francis B. Ogden_, and that merely from London Bridge to Greenwich, he there and then gave Ericsson a commission to build for him two boats for the United States, with steam machinery and propeller as proposed by him. Stockton, impressed with its practical utility for war purposes, was undismayed by the recorded opinions of scientific men, and formed his own judgment from what he himself witnessed. He, therefore, not only ordered the two iron boats on his own account, but at once brought the subject before the Government of the United States, and caused various plans and models to be made at his own expense, explaining the peculiar fitness of the new invention for ships of war. So sanguine was he, indeed, of the great importance of this new mode of propulsion, and so determined that his views should be carried out, that he encouraged Ericsson to believe that the Government of the United States would test the propeller on a large scale; Ericsson, relying upon these promises, abandoned his professional engagements in England, and took his departure for the United States. But it was not until a change in the Federal administration, two years afterwards, that Captain Stockton was able to obtain a favourable hearing. Orders were then given to make the experiment in the _Princeton_, which was successful. The propeller, as applied to this war-vessel, was similar in construction to that of the _Francis B. Ogden_, as well in theory as in minute practical details. One of these boats, named, after her owner, the _Robert F. Stockton_, was built of iron by Messrs. Laird of Birkenhead, and launched in 1838. She was 70 feet in length, 10 feet wide, and drew 6 feet 9 inches of water. Her cylinders were 16 inches diameter with 18 inches stroke, and her propeller 6 feet 4 inches in length. On her trial trips on the Thames, made in January of the following year, she accomplished a distance of 9 miles (over the land) in 35 minutes with the tide, thereby proving the speed through the water to be between 11 and 12 miles an hour. On her second trial, between Southwark and Waterloo bridges, she took in tow four laden barges, with upright sides and square ends, having a beam of 15 feet each, and drawing 4 feet 6 inches of water. One of these was lashed on each side, the other two being towed astern, and, though the weight of the whole must have been close upon 400 tons, and a considerable resistance was offered, also, by their form, the steamer towed them at the rate of 5½ miles an hour in slack water, or in 11 minutes between the two bridges, a distance of 1 mile. [Illustration] These experiments having been considered in every way satisfactory, the _Robert F. Stockton_, of which the following is an illustration, left England for the United States in the beginning of April 1839, under the command of Captain Cram, of the American merchant service. Her crew consisted of four men and a boy, and, having accomplished the voyage under sail in forty days, Captain Cram was presented with the freedom of the city of New York for his daring in crossing the Atlantic in so small a craft, constructed only for river navigation. [Sidenote: His vessel a complete success;] In 1840, Captain Stockton sold this vessel to the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company, permission having been obtained (being British built) by a special Act of Congress, to run her in American waters, and her name was at the same time changed to that of the _New Jersey_. For many years she was in constant work as a steam-tug on the rivers Delaware and Schuylkill during the winter months, as she was capable of towing through the drift ice, where paddle-wheel steamers are of little use. [Sidenote: and the first “screw” used for commerce in America.] If we except the small vessel tested by J. Stevens[143] between Hoboken and New York in 1804, the _New Jersey_ was the first screw-propelled vessel practically used in America, numerous experiments with the screw having been previously made without success, and she certainly was the first used for commercial purposes. The importance of the screw as a propeller having now been fully admitted in America, 150 vessels of a similar description were in less than ten years from that time employed in the United States; most of which continued to be in active operation in the carrying trade, returning large profits to their owners, particularly those employed on the great North American Lakes. Indeed, in 1848, thirteen screw-propelled vessels were employed on Lake Ontario, and only nine paddle-wheel steamers. [Sidenote: Superiority of Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch” propeller, 1832.] It is not my province to decide to whom the honour of the invention of the screw is due. It had engaged, as has been shown, the attention of various men in different countries for more than a century before it was applied to any useful purpose, and, like most other great inventions, has evidently been the production of many minds. I can, therefore, only deal with it as has been done in the case of the steam-engine itself, in its application to marine propulsion, by inquiring who it was that first, by practical tests, showed its superiority to the paddle-wheel, and that, for the purposes to which it has been applied, it could maintain such superiority over all other modes of propulsion. As this appears to me to be the only way in which this question can be fairly treated, I shall venture to state that, if Robert Fulton of America and Henry Bell of Glasgow are entitled, as I think they are, to be considered the first who put the paddle steamer into practical and _continuous_ employment (I hold that James Watt and Robert Symington were its true inventors), it may, with equal justice, be said that to Captain Ericsson, Mr. Pettit Smith, and Mr. Woodcroft, the credit is chiefly due of having put the screw into working order so as to show how it could be profitably employed for the purposes of commerce or of the arts of war, though, at the time when Smith and Ericsson were practically illustrating the power of the screw, in their respective forms, that of Mr. Woodcroft, though well known, had not then been tried. In fact, his invention bears date antecedent to that of either of the others,[144] and proved equal, if not superior, when tested; indeed, it must have been considered so by the Admiralty, as it was fitted in the royal yacht _Fairy_, which, with the exception of the _Rattler_, and the _Bee_, of thirty tons, was the first screw-propeller in Her Majesty’s Navy: it was also about the same time applied to H.M.S. _Dwarf_. Mr. Woodcroft’s “varying-pitch screw-propeller,” patented by him in February 1844, of which the following is an illustration, was, certainly, in advance of any other at that time, and is, I believe, still considered the best and most useful type. In the account of it furnished by its able and ingenious inventor, it is said to be the “only propelling instrument of any description which has the peculiar and inherent property of acting with an increased impulse against the water from the leading part, first taking its action against the water to the end, however long or short such propeller may be upon its axis.” [Illustration] However, be that as it may, when an impartial review is taken of all the facts, it may be said of Messrs. Woodcroft, Ericsson and Smith that, while each may be regarded as the individual author of their respective plans, conceiving as they did their designs apart from each other, we are indebted to them conjointly for this most valuable invention. While the relative merits of the paddle-wheel and screw were being tested, the attention of scientific men was necessarily directed to the different forms of ships or lines best adapted to the various requirements of maritime commerce, which the introduction of steam had either created or materially developed. Vessels of every conceivable form, and of varied dimensions, have been in use from the earliest ages: we have had, of one sort or another, canoes, coracles, barges and yachts, coasters and Indiamen, with frigates and line-of-battle ships such as they were, almost from the dawn of history, and no doubt their owners and builders bestowed much thought and exercised considerable skill in their construction, so as to suit the varied purposes for which they were required; but it is only within our own time that a thorough scientific knowledge has been invited to aid in the construction of our merchant ships. That knowledge has become much more necessary now than it ever was before. To construct an useful and first-class steam-vessel, we must first build a hull adapted to receive machinery, and then erect suitable engines and boilers with an appropriate propelling apparatus, combining the whole into a form such as will insure safety and speed, the requisite space for the crew, machinery, fuel, and stores, with accommodation for passengers and their numerous wants, and, also, sufficient space for a remunerative cargo. [Sidenote: In building fit vessels, the trade in which they are to be employed must be considered.] To embrace to the utmost advantage these various essential qualities in a merchant-vessel, the trade in which she is to be employed requires to be considered with her mercantile capabilities in relation to cost and speed. These calculations must be carefully gone into so as to obtain an approximate estimate of the commercial advantage with regard to the cost of freight per ton, that attends the employment of ships suitably constructed for the service in which they may be employed as compared with vessels of inferior adaptation. By this investigation, the comparative financial balance of outlay and expenditure and, consequently, the income to be expected from one vessel as compared with another, may be equitably apportioned. Such considerations as these are essential to success, and cannot be neglected by any shipowner who understands his business. They will not only conduce to an effective direction and management of mercantile shipping, and of financial economy, but, also, in case a vessel fails to fulfil an assigned service, the degree in which such failure may be attributable to faults of original construction (producing a low scale of locomotive efficiency), or to defective management or to imperfect navigation, may be determined. Moreover, steamship proprietors, especially, would thus be enabled to ascertain the relative value of their stock, not, indeed, as respects the intrinsic value of the respective ships, but as respects their relative working properties and consequent value for any special service. Each vessel might thus be assigned its most appropriate duty, and ships, manifestly unsuitable for one line of trade, might be otherwise employed or disposed of, instead of being put on services which they are _constructively_ inadequate to perform. For example, a vessel may be well suited for the economical conveyance of cargo at eight miles an hour, but, being employed upon a service demanding a higher rate of speed, and failing to attain this, is held to be inefficient, while the value of the ship becomes unduly depreciated, and incapacity of _direction_, the real cause of the failure, escapes due observation. FOOTNOTES: [96] It would appear from Dr. Robinson’s interesting narrative (Muirhead, “Life of Watt,” p. 65), that Watt’s first connection with the steam-engine arose from his having been desired, by the Professors of Natural Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, to repair a model of one of Newcomen’s engines in the year 1764. (See Smiles’ “Lives,” p. 121.) [97] See Tredgold “On the Steam-engine,” and Woodcroft, p. 82. [98] The following is a copy, from “Memorials of James Watt” by George Williamson, Esq., late perpetual Secretary of the Watt Club of Greenock, printed for the Club, of Mr. Bell’s original advertisement of his new steamer the _Comet_ to ply between Glasgow, Greenock, and Helensburgh:— STEAM PASSAGE BOAT, THE ‘COMET,’ between Glasgow, Greenock, and Helensburgh, for passengers only. The subscriber having, at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to ply upon the River Clyde, between Glasgow and Greenock, to sail by the power of Wind, Air, and Steam, he intends that the Vessel shall leave the Broomielaw on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, about midday, or at such hour thereafter as may answer from the state of the tide, and to leave Greenock on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning to suit the tide. The elegance, comfort, safety, and speed of this Vessel require only to be proved to meet the approbation of the public; and the Proprietor is determined to do everything in his power to merit public encouragement. The terms are, for the present, fixed at 4_s._ for the best cabin, and 3_s._ the second, but beyond these rates nothing is to be allowed to servants, or any other person employed about the Vessel. The subscriber continues his establishment at Helensburgh Baths, the same as for years past, and a vessel will be in readiness to convey Passengers that intend visiting Helensburgh. Passengers by the ‘COMET’ will receive information of the hours of sailing, by applying at Mr. Thomas Stewart’s, Bookseller Square; and at Mr. Blackly’s, East Quay Head, Greenock; or at Mr. Houston’s office, Broomielaw. HENRY BELL. _Helensburgh Baths, 5th August, 1812._ [99] Mr. James Deas, C.E., in his “Treatise on the Improvements and Progress of Trade of the River Clyde,” (1873) says, “An old gentleman, seventy-seven years of age, and who has been connected with the Clyde for upwards of fifty years, informed me a short time ago that he made a voyage in the _Comet_ in 1812. He left Greenock at 10 A.M. for Glasgow, but, in consequence of a ripple of head wind, it was 2 P.M. before they got to Bowling, 10½ miles above Greenock, where all the passengers were landed and had to walk to Glasgow, owing to the want of water, the tide having ebbed. It was no uncommon occurrence for the passengers, when the little steamer was getting exhausted, to take to turning the fly-wheel to assist her.” [100] Henry Bell, like too many of the pioneers of vast and truly important undertakings, failed to profit by the successful application of steam to navigation; and in his declining years he was chiefly supported by an annuity of 50_l._ granted him by the Clyde trustees. He died at Helensburgh in 1830, aged 63. (“Treatise” by Mr. James Deas, p. 24.) [101] “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 638. In the Patent Office Museum there is now to be seen the engine of the first _Comet_ which carried goods and passengers on the Clyde. It was erected there in 1862 by the same engineer, Mr. John Robertson of Glasgow, who fitted it in the _Comet_, exactly fifty years before that time. To this engine I shall again refer. [102] When Smeaton first officially surveyed the Clyde in 1755, with a view to certain engineering improvements, he found the depth of the river, between Glasgow and Renfrew, of not more on the average than eighteen inches at low water—nor did he hope by the improvements then contemplated to obtain more than “4½ feet of water at all times up to the Quay at Glasgow;” but, in 1768, “the river,” according to the report of another engineer, John Golborne, “was in a state of nature, and for want of due attention has been suffered to expand too much.” He, also, did not expect to secure more “than 4 or perhaps 5 feet of water up to the Broomielaw” at a cost of “ten thousand pounds,” a very considerable sum in those days to be raised by the citizens of Glasgow. Nor does Mr. Telford even, in 1820, hold out much hope of improvement, for in his report he remarks: “There does not appear to be any good grounds to expect such increase of revenue as to justify incurring any very considerable expense.” But the corporation of the city, who had then the river under their charge, was happily not deterred by these disheartening reports from attempting further improvements, and, in 1824, Mr. James Reddie, their town clerk, in an able letter, called for further reports, which brought wiser engineering counsellors to their aid. By the indomitable energy of the corporation and the river trust, the Clyde was by degrees deepened; and at the Broomielaw, which only fishing wherries and small barges could reach forty years ago, the largest and most magnificent ships afloat, many of them more than 3000 tons register, drawing upwards of 20 feet of water, are now moored. See “Reports of the Improvement and Management of the River Clyde and Harbour of Glasgow.” See also “Treatise” by Mr. James Deas, C.E., chief engineer to the river Clyde trustees, edited by Mr. James Forrest, C.E. (1873), pp. 31 and 32, where we learn that “during the last twenty-eight years, 1844 to 1872, no less than 18,000,000 tons of stuff have been dredged from the river by the Clyde trustees,” and that the expenditure for dredging and depositing alone since the year 1770 has amounted to upwards of 500,000_l._ These dredging-machines are so complete and so superior to anything else of the kind to be found in any other part of the world, that I furnish, Appendix No. 2, p. 591, an account of them, their cost, horse-power, and other details. In 1800 the total amount of the annual revenue of the Clyde trust was only 3319_l._ 16_s._ 1_d._ In 1874, the revenue for that year, ending 30th June, amounted to 192,127_l._ 16_s._ 11_d._ [103] In 1868 the total number of vessels built and launched on the Clyde was 232 of 174,978 tons, including 8 war vessels of 5384 tons; in 1869, 240 vessels of 194,000 tons, including 3 war vessels of 9100 tons; in 1870, 234 vessels of 189,800 tons, including 1 war vessel of 2640 tons; in 1871, 231 vessels of 196,200 tons, including 6 war vessels of 3050 tons; in 1872, 227 vessels of 224,000 tons, and no war vessel. (Treatise of Mr. James Deas, pp. 25 and 26.) The vessels launched on the Clyde in the year 1873, are thus analyzed by Mr. William West Watson, the chamberlain of the city of Glasgow, in his report of the statistics of that city: No. Tons. Iron steamers under 100 tons 14 1,076 Iron steamers from 100 to 500 tons 26 8,382 Iron steamers from 500 to 1000 tons 13 9,786 Iron steamers from 1000 to 2000 tons 22 34,315 Iron steamers from 2000 to 3000 tons 24 60,026 Iron steamers from 3000 tons and upwards 30 104,188 --- ------- 129 217,773 Tons. Iron sailing ships under 500 tons each 2 328 Iron sailing ships from 500 to 1000 tons None Iron sailing ships from 1000 to 2000 tons 7 12,148 -- ------ 9 12,476 Hull or barge for shipment 1 198 Steamers shipped in pieces 3 2,459 1 screw steam yacht 1 20 --- ------- 143 232,926 During the year 1873, the Iberia, gross tonnage 4670 tons, was launched, being the largest merchant steamer ever built on the Clyde. Similar particulars for 1873-74 will be found, Appendix No. 3, pp. 593-4. [104] See Appendices Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 593-9, “Shipbuilding Yards on the Clyde and Wear.” [105] [Sidenote: J. Elder and Co., their extensive premises.] One firm alone, that of John Elder and Co., Fairfield, Glasgow, who employ, on an average, 4000 men, launched in the year 1867 sixteen vessels of a total burden of 10,323 tons; and, in 1868, there were turned out from the Fairfield shipbuilding yard no fewer than fifteen vessels, of which six were sailing-ships and nine screw-steamers, the latter including a gunboat for the Royal Navy, and the _Magellan_, an iron barque of 3000 tons and 600 horse-power for the Pacific Steam Navigation Company. The total burden of the vessels launched from this one private yard in 1869 was 16,050 tons. In the following year (1870) fourteen steamers and three sailing-vessels were launched at Fairfield, measuring 25,235 tons, their engines having a total of 4115 horse-power nominal. There were likewise two steamers of 2600 tons transformed in the year. In 1871 they launched sixteen vessels of which twelve were steamers, amounting in the aggregate to 31,889 tons. In 1872 32,000 tons of steam shipping were built by this firm, and, in the course of that year, they had as many as sixteen vessels on hand at one time or contracted for, of an aggregate tonnage of upwards of 36,000 tons, six of them being about or above 4000 tons each: one of these was delivered to her owners complete and ready for sea, with steam up, within thirteen months from the time she was contracted for! These works, as may be supposed, are gigantic, covering upwards of 60 acres of land, and embracing a wet dock where the ships are placed when launched to have their boilers and machinery fitted on board; an engine shop, 300 feet square; a blacksmiths’ shop 296 feet in length and 102 feet in width containing 44 fires, one large plate furnace and four forging furnaces, six large steam hammers, and various hydraulic cranes. There are also in the yard two bays spanned by travelling cranes, each capable of lifting a dead weight of 40 tons; and among the numerous tools and machines there is one capable of planing armour plates of 20 feet in length and 6 feet in width, and one boring machine which can drill holes 4 inches in diameter, and penetrate a 9-inch plate in half an hour. Here we regret to add, for we can ill afford to lose such men, that the head of this vast shipbuilding firm, and the man by whose remarkable genius it was founded, John Elder, died in September 1869 at the early age of forty-five. His father had been for many years the manager of the well-known works of Robert Napier and Co. There Mr. Elder served his apprenticeship and gained that practical knowledge which, combined with great natural abilities and an enthusiastic taste for mechanics, enabled him to create the very large business I have briefly attempted to describe. [106] Mr. Muirhead (in his “Life of Watt,” pp. 428-9) mentions a few additional particulars which it seems worth while to record. Thus he states that the largest steamer built up to the year 1813 was the _Glasgow_ noticed above, of 74 tons and 16 horse-power; and that, in 1815, the _Morning Star_ of 100 tons and 26 horse-power, and, in 1815, the _Caledonia_ of 102 tons and 32 horse-power, were severally launched. He adds that, during his last visit to Greenock in 1816, Mr. Watt made a voyage in a steam-boat to Rothesay and back, and showed the engineer how to “back” the engine, it having been usual previously to stop the engine for some time previously to mooring. He further states that, in April 1817, Mr. James Watt, Jun., purchased the _Caledonia_ and, having refitted her, took her in October to Holland and up the Rhine to Coblentz; having thus been the first to cross the English Channel in a steam-boat. The average speed he obtained was seven and a half knots an hour. On her return to the Thames in 1818, Mr. Watt, Jun., made no fewer than thirty-one experiments with her on the river, resulting in the adoption of many material improvements in the construction and adaptation of marine engines. [107] At this period, Mr. Rennie, who planned the breakwater at Plymouth and new London Bridge, was “advising engineer” to the Admiralty, and on every occasion urged the application of steam-power to vessels of war. More than this, he hired at his own cost the Margate steam-boat, the _Eclipse_, and successfully towed the _Hastings_, 74, against the tide from Woolwich to Gravesend, June 14th, 1819. On this the Admiralty, supported by Lord Melville, gave up their objections.—Smiles’ “Lives,” vol. ii. p. 267. [108] William Denny, the builder of the _Rob Roy_, as also of the _Marjory_ (noticed p. 75), was born in Dumbarton in 1789, where his forefathers for some generations had been “wee lairds” (yeomen) farming their own land. After serving his apprenticeship as a joiner and ship-carpenter, and acting as manager of a small ship-building yard on the River Leven, Dumbarton, he commenced business on his own account at that place, and was the first to lay down in his yard Morton’s patent slips, where he built various sailing-ships for the East and West India trades. He died in December 1833. Three of his sons, also, William, Alexander, and Peter, commenced business at that place as iron ship builders in 1844, on a small piece of ground, removing in 1847 to a larger yard, where they continued the business of iron ship builders under the firm of William Denny and Brothers, by which it is still known. In 1851, two other brothers, James and Archibald, having then joined them, they (there were seven brothers, all shipbuilders) commenced the business of engine builders, subsequently adding to this that of founding and forging, so that all the branches of work connected with steam shipbuilding might be done on the spot. William was a man of remarkable genius and talent, and attained so high a reputation as a marine architect that he and his brother Alexander planned most of the steamers built on the Clyde from 1839 to 1844. He died in 1854, and the only brother now left is the youngest, Mr. Peter Denny, who, with his son and Mr. Walter Brock, carries on this well-known and extensive business, which, in the years 1873 and 1874, built and fitted with engines 37,000 tons of iron screw-ships. Since 1844 the town of Dumbarton has risen, almost entirely through their exertions, from a population of 4000 to 12,000 inhabitants. But, beyond his fame as an iron ship builder, Mr. Peter Denny is known in public life, having been appointed a member of the Royal Commission in 1872 of which the Duke of Somerset was Chairman, to inquire into the cause of the loss of life and property at sea. [109] In this vessel Mr. Napier introduced, for the first time in England, a plan for surface condensation; the condenser was composed of a series of small copper tubes, through which the steam passed towards the air-pump, and a constant current of cold water encircling the pipes, the steam was cooled and returned into water, which was again sent into the boiler for conversion into steam, without being mixed with the cold salt water, which, in the usual plan, was injected into the condenser. But, like Watt, Cartwright, and others who had tried this system, both here and in America, Mr. Napier finding the rapidity of condensation not sufficient, returned to the old system of condensation by jet. Some years afterwards, however, he reverted to the use of a surface condenser under peculiar circumstances, which rendered it desirable to use flat plates instead of tubes, but the advantages of the system have not been considered sufficient to counterbalance the disadvantages. The first engine of Bell was to some extent a vertical engine, inasmuch as the axis of the cylinder and of the crank were placed in one vertical line; but there was no direct connection between the cranks and the piston-rod, to the paddle-axle: the communication of motion to it, being effected through the medium of toothed wheels. In the common or lever engine, the piston-rod acts on a cross-head, the cross-head on side rods, the side rods on side levers, the lever on a cross-tail, the cross-tail on the connecting-rod, the connecting-rod on the crank-pin, by which, through the axle, the paddle-wheels revolve. In the engine of direct communication, the side levers and some other parts of the train of communication are removed by a device which enables the piston-rod to be almost immediately attached by a connecting-rod to the crank of the paddle-shaft. This plan was first adopted by Mr. Gutznur, of Leith, who built the _Athol_, and another vessel called the _Tourist_, on this principle: but as his method, though very simple, was not applicable in ordinary cases, Mr. Napier made several modifications, so that his vertical engine, in the judgment of the most competent engineers, includes almost all the best improvements as yet introduced. [110] In an able pamphlet, “The Fleet of the Future,” by Mr. Scott Russell, published by Longman & Co. in 1861, the author remarks (p. 20), “A good many years ago I happened to converse with the chief naval architect of one of our dockyards on the subject of building ships of iron—the answer was characteristic, and the feeling it expressed so strong and natural that I have never forgotten it; he said, with some indignation, “Don’t talk to me about iron ships, _it’s contrary to nature_.”” There was at one time almost as great a prejudice against Indian teak as a material for ship-building, as this wood is heavier than water, and in the form of a log will not float. (Arnott, “Elem. of Physics,” p. 305.) [111] See “Rolls’ Chapel Reports,” 7th Report, p. 204. [112] See “Repository of Arts,” vol. xxviii. (second series), p. 138, and Woodcroft’s “Specification of Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 63, and “Steam Navigation,” p. 125. [113] Fincham’s “Naval Architecture,” on the use of iron for shipbuilding. [114] William Laird, father of the late John Laird, M.P., established the Birkenhead Iron Works in 1824, under the style of William Laird and Sons, and, in 1829, they built for the Irish Inland Company the first iron vessel constructed on the Mersey. She was a lighter of 60 tons measurement, about 60 feet long and 13 feet beam. From that time until 1861, Mr. John Laird carried on this extensive business of shipbuilding and engineering, and when, in that year, he was elected to represent Birkenhead in Parliament, he transferred it to his sons, who now carry it on under the style of Laird Brothers. Mr. Laird died in October 1874, about the same time as Sir William Fairbairn, another distinguished worker in the field of applied science, and both men of great eminence in their profession. [115] The _Elburkah_ was 70 feet long, 13 feet beam, and 6 feet 6 inches deep. Her plates were a quarter of an inch thick in the bottom, and her sides one-eighth of an inch. She weighed only 15 tons, including her decks, but without engines, boilers, spars, and outfit. (See evidence, Mr. McGregor Laird before Select Committee on Steam Navigation to India (1834), p. 59.) [116] Lardner (“Steam Navigation,” p. 482) says that, in one of their experimental trials, the _Elburkah_ got aground and heeled over on her anchor, and that in a wooden vessel the anchor would probably have gone through her; and, further that an iron vessel built for the Irish Inland Navigation Company, on being towed across Lough Derg, was driven on the rocks in a gale owing to the rope breaking; but, though she bumped for a considerable time, she sustained no injury. [117] The _Rainbow_ was, perhaps, the largest iron steam-vessel then afloat. She was 185 feet long, 25 feet beam, 600 tons burden and 180 horse-power. [118] See a learned and able report on the “Deviations of the Compass,” by Mr. Frederick J. Evans, Master R.N., Superintendent of the Compass Department of H.M. Navy, printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,”