In 1620, Pett's friend Sir Robert Mansell was appointed General of the Fleet destined to chastise the Algerine pirates, who still continued their depredations on the shipping in the Channel, and the King thereupon commissioned Pett to build with all dispatch two pinnaces, of 120 and 80 tons respectively. "I was myself," he says, "to serve as Captain in the voyage"—being glad, no doubt, to escape from his tormentors. The two pinnaces were built at Ratcliffe, and were launched on the 16th and 18th of October, 1620. On the 30th, Pett sailed with the fleet, and after driving the pirates out of the Channel, he returned to port after an absence of eleven months.
His enemies had taken advantage of his absence from England to get an order for the survey of the Prince Royal, his masterpiece; the result of which was, he says, that "they maliciously certified the ship to be unserviceable, and not fit to continue—that what charges should be bestowed upon her would be lost." Nevertheless, the Prince Royal was docked, and fitted for a voyage to Spain. She was sent thither with Charles Prince of Wales and the Duke of Buckingham, the former going in search of a Spanish wife. Pett, the builder of the ship, was commanded to accompany the young Prince and the Duke.
The expedition sailed on the 24th of August, 1623, and returned on the 14th of October. Pett was entertained on board the Prince Royal, and rendered occasional services to the officers in command, though nothing of importance occurred during the voyage.
The Prince of Wales presented him with a valuable gold chain as a reward for his attendance. In 1625, Pett, after rendering many important services to the Admiralty, was ordered again to prepare the Prince Royal for sea. She was to bring over the Prince of Wales's bride from France. While the preparations were making for the voyage, news reached Chatham of the death of King James. Pett was afterwards commanded to go forward with the work of preparing the Prince Royal, as well as the whole fleet, which was intended to escort the French Princess, or rather the Queen, to England. The expedition took place in May, and the young Queen landed at Dover on the 12th of that month.
Pett continued to be employed in building and repairing ships, as well as in preparing new designs, which he submitted to the King and the Commissioners of the Navy. In 1626, he was appointed a joint commissioner, with the Lord High Admiral, the Lord Treasurer Marlborough, and others, "to enquire into certain alleged abuses of the Navy, and to view the state thereof, and also the stores thereof," clearly showing that he was regaining his old position. He was also engaged in determining the best mode of measuring the tonnage of ships.[31] Four years later he was again appointed a commissioner for making "a general survey of the whole navy at Chatham." For this and his other services the King promoted Pett to be a principal officer of the Navy, with a fee of 200L. per annum. His patent was sealed on the 16th of January, 1631. In the same year the King visited Woolwich to witness the launching of the Vanguard, which Pett had built; and his Majesty honoured the shipwright by participating in a banquet at his lodgings.
From this period to the year 1637, Pett records nothing of particular importance in his autobiography. He was chiefly occupied in aiding his son Peter—who was rapidly increasing his fame as a shipwright—in repairing and building first-class ships of war. As Pett had, on an early occasion in his life, prepared a miniature ship for Prince Henry, eldest son of James I., he now proceeded to prepare a similar model for the Prince of Wales, the King's eldest son, afterwards Charles II. This model was presented to the Prince at St. James's, "who entertained it with great joy, being purposely made to disport himself withal." On the next visit of his Majesty to Woolwich, he inspected the progress made with the Leopard, a sloop-of-war built by Peter Pett. While in the hold of the vessel, the King called Phineas to one side, and told him of his resolution to have a great new ship built, and that Phineas must be the builder. This great new ship was The Sovereign of the Seas, afterwards built by Phineas and Peter Pett. Some say that the model was prepared by the latter; but Phineas says that it was prepared by himself, and finished by the 29th of October, 1634. As a compensation for his services, his Majesty renewed his pension of 40L. (which had been previously stopped), with orders for all the arrears due upon it to be paid.
To provide the necessary timber for the new ship, Phineas and his son went down into the North to survey the forests. They went first by water to Whitby; from thence they proceeded on horseback to Gisborough and baited; then to Stockton, where they found but poor entertainment, though they lodged with the Mayor, whose house "was only a mean thatched cottage!" Middlesborough and the great iron district of the North had not yet come into existence.
Newcastle, already of some importance, was the principal scene of their labours. The timber for the new ship was found in Chapley Wood and Bracepeth Park. The gentry did all they could to facilitate the object of Pett. On his journey homewards (July, 1635), he took Cambridge on his way, where, says he, "I lodged at the Falcon, and visited Emmanuel College, where I had been a scholar in my youth."
The Sovereign of the Seas was launched on the 12th of October, 1637, having been about two years in building. Evelyn in his diary says of the ship (19th July, 1641):—"We rode to Rochester and Chatham to see the Soveraigne, a monstrous vessel so called, being for burthen, defence, and ornament, the richest that ever spread cloth before the wind. She carried 100 brass cannon, and was 1600 tons, a rare sailer, the work of the famous Phineas Pett." Rear-Admiral Sir William Symonds says that she was afterwards cut down, and was a safe and fast ship.[32]
The Sovereign continued for nearly sixty years to be the finest ship in the English service. Though frequently engaged in the most injurious occupations, she continued fit for any services which the exigencies of the State might require. She fought all through the wars of the Commonwealth; she was the leading ship of Admiral Blake, and was in all the great naval engagements with France and Holland. The Dutch gave her the name of The Golden Devil. In the last fight between the English and French, she encountered the Wonder of the World, and so warmly plied the French Admiral, that she forced him out of his three-decked wooden castle, and chasing the Royal Sun, before her, forced her to fly for shelter among the rocks, where she became a prey to lesser vessels, and was reduced to ashes. At last, in the reign of William III., the Sovereign became leaky and defective with age; she was laid up at Chatham, and being set on fire by negligence or accident, she burnt to the water's edge.
To return to the history of Phineas Pett. As years approached, he retired from office, and "his loving son," as he always affectionately designates Peter, succeeded him as principal shipwright, Charles I. conferring upon him the honour of knighthood. Phineas lived for ten years after the Sovereign of the Seas was launched. In the burial register of the parish of Chatham it is recorded, "Phineas Pett, Esqe. and Capt., was buried 21st August, 1647."[33]
Sir Peter Pett was almost as distinguished as his father. He was the builder of the first frigate, The Constant Warwick. Sir William Symonds says of this vessel:—"She was an incomparable sailer, remarkable for her sharpness and the fineness of her lines; and many were built like her." Pett "introduced convex lines on the immersed part of the hull, with the studding and sprit sails; and, in short, he appears to have fully deserved his character of being the best ship architect of his time."[34] Sir Peter Pett's monument in Deptford Old Church fully records his services to England's naval power.
The Petts are said to have been connected with shipbuilding in the Thames for not less than 200 years. Fuller, in his 'Worthies of England,' says of them—"I am credibly informed that that mystery of shipwrights for some descents hath been preserved faithfully in families, of whom the Petts about Chatham are of singular regard. Good success have they with their skill, and carefully keep so precious a pearl, lest otherwise amongst many friends some foes attain unto it."
The late Peter Bolt, member for Greenwich, took pride in being descended from the Petts; but so far as we know, the name itself has died out. In 1801, when Charnock's 'History of Marine Architecture' was published, Mr. Pett, of Tovil, near Maidstone, was the sole representative of the family.
Footnotes for Chapter I.
[1] This was not the first voyage of a steamer between England and America. The Savannah made the passage from New York to Liverpool as early as 1819; but steam was only used occasionally during the voyage, In 1825, the Enterprise, with engines by Maudslay, made the voyage from Falmouth to Calcutta in 113 days; and in 1828, the Curacoa made the voyage between Holland and the Dutch West Indies. But in all these cases, steam was used as an auxiliary, and not as the one essential means of propulsion, as in the case of the Sirius and the Great Western, which were steam voyages only.
[2] "In 1862 the steam tonnage of the country was 537,000 tons; in 1872, it was 1,537,000 tons; and in 1882, it had reached 3,835,000 tons."—Mr. Chamberlain's speech, House of Commons, 19th May, 1884.
[3] The last visit of the plague was in 1665.
[4] Roll of Edward the Third's Fleet. Cotton's Library, British Museum.
[5] Charnock's History Of Marine Architecture, ii. 89.
[6] State Papers. Henry VIII. Nos. 3496, 3616, 4633. The principal kinds of ordnance at that time were these:—The "Apostles," so called from the head of an Apostle which they bore; "Curtows," or "Courtaulx"; "Culverins" and "Serpents"; "Minions," and "Potguns"; "Nurembergers," and "Bombards" or mortars.
[7] The sum of all costs of the Harry Grace de Dieu and three small galleys, was 7708L. 5s. 3d. (S.P.O. No. 5228, Henry VIII.)
[8] Charnock, ii. 47 (note).
[9] Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, ii. 126.
[10] The Huguenots: their Settlements, Churches, and Industries, in England and Ireland, ch. iv.
[11] Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, ii. 156.
[12] Ibid. ii. 85.
[13] Picton's Selections from the Municipal Archives and Records of Liverpool, p. 90. About a hundred years later, in 1757, the gross customs receipts of Liverpool had increased to 198,946L.; whilst those of Bristol were as much as 351,211L. In 1883, the amount of tonnage of Liverpool, inwards and outwards, was 8,527,531 tons, and the total dock revenue for the year was 1,273,752L.!
[14] There were not only Algerine but English pirates scouring the seas. Keutzner, the German, who wrote in Elizabeth's reign, said, "The English are good sailors and famous pirates (sunt boni nautae et insignis pyratae)." Roberts, in his Social History of the Southern Counties (p. 93), observes, "Elizabeth had employed many English as privateers against the Spaniard. After the war, many were loth to lead an inactive life. They had their commissions revoked, and were proclaimed pirates. The public looked upon them as gallant fellows; the merchants gave them underhand support; and even the authorities in maritime towns connived at the sale of their plunder. In spite of proclamations, during the first five years after the accession of James I., there were continual complaints. This lawless way of life even became popular. Many Englishmen furnished themselves with good ships and scoured the seas, but little careful whom they might plunder." It was found very difficult to put down piracy. According to Oliver's History of the city of Exeter, not less than "fifteen sail of Turks" held the English Channel, snapping up merchantmen, in the middle of the seventeenth century! The harbours in the south-west were infested by Moslem pirates, who attacked and plundered the ships, and carried their crews into captivity. The loss, even to an inland port like Exeter, in ships, money, and men, was enormous.
[15] Naval Tracts, p. 294.
[16] This poem is now very rare. It is not in the British Museum.
[17] There are three copies extant of the autobiography, all of which are in the British Museum. In the main, they differ but slightly from each other. Not one of them has been published in extenso. In December, 1795, and in February, 1796, Dr. Samuel Denne communicated to the Society of Antiquaries particulars of two of these MSS., and subsequently published copious extracts from them in their transactions (Archae. xii. anno 1796), in a very irregular and careless manner. It is probable that Dr. Denne never saw the original manuscript, but only a garbled copy of it. The above narrative has been taken from the original, and collated with the documents in the State Paper Office.
[18] See, for instance, the Index to the Journals of Records of the Corporation of the City of London (No. 2, p. 346, 15901694) under the head of "Sir Walter Raleigh." There is a document dated the 15th November, 1593, in the 35th of Elizabeth, which runs as follows:—"Committee appointed on behalf of such of the City Companies as have ventured in the late Fleet set forward by Sir Walter Raleigh, Knight, and others, to join with such honourable personages as the Queen hath appointed, to take a perfect view of all such goods, prizes, spices, jewels, pearls, treasures, &c., lately taken in the Carrack, and to make sale and division (Jor. 23, p. 156). Suit to be made to the Queen and Privy Council for the buying of the goods, &c., lately taken at sea in the Carrack; a committee appointed to take order accordingly; the benefit or loss arising thereon to be divided and borne between the Chamber [of the Corporation of the City] and the Companies that adventured (157). The several Companies that adventured at sea with Sir Waiter Raleigh to accept so much of the goods taken in the Carrack to the value of 12,000L. according to the Queen's offer. A committee appointed to acquaint the Lords of the Council with the City's acceptance thereof (167). Committee for sale of the Carrack goods appointed (174). Bonds for sale to be sealed (196).... Committee to audit accounts of a former adventure (224 b.)."
[19] There were three sisters in all, the eldest of whom (Abigail) fell a victim to the cruelty of Nunn, who struck her across the head with the fire-tongs, from the effects of which she died in three days. Nunn was tried and convicted of manslaughter. He died shortly after. Mrs. Nunn, Phineas's mother, was already dead.
[20] It would seem, from a paper hereafter to be more particularly referred to, that the government encouraged the owners of ships and others to clear the seas of these pirates, agreeing to pay them for their labours. In 1622, Pett fitted out an expedition against these pests of navigation, but experienced some difficulty in getting his expenses repaid.
[21] See grant S.P.O., 29th May, 1605.
[22] An engraving of this remarkable ship is given in Charnock's History of Marine Architecture, ii. p. 199.
[23] The story of the Three, or rather Two Ravens, is as follows:—The body of St. Vincent was originally deposited at the Cape, which still bears his name, on the Portuguese coast; and his tomb, says the legend, was zealously guarded by a couple of ravens. When it was determined, in the 12th century, to transport the relics of the Saint to the Cathedral of Lisbon, the two ravens accompanied the ship which contained them, one at its stem and the other at its stern. The relics were deposited in the Chapel of St. Vincent, within the Cathedral, and there the two ravens have ever since remained. The monks continued to support two such birds in the cloisters, and till very lately the officials gravely informed the visitor to the Cathedral that they were the identical ravens which accompanied the Saint's relics to their city. The birds figure in the arms of Lisbon.
[24] The evidence taken by the Commissioners is embodied in a voluminous report. State Paper Office, Dom. James I., vol. xli. 1608.
[25] The Earl of Northampton, Privy Seal, was Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; hence his moving in the matter. Pett says he was his "most implacable enemy." It is probable that the earl was jealous of Pett, because he had received his commission to build the great ship directly from the sovereign, without the intervention of his lordship.
[26] This Royal investigation took place at Woolwich on the 8th May, 1609. The State Paper Office contains a report of the same date, most probably the one presented to the King, signed by six ship-builders and Captain Waymouth, and counter signed by Northampton and four others. The Report is headed "The Prince Royal: imperfections found upon view of the new work begun at Woolwich." It would occupy too much space to give the results here.
[27] Alas! for the uncertainties of life! This noble young prince—the hope of England and the joy of his parents, from whom such great things were anticipated—for he was graceful, frank, brave, active, and a lover of the sea,—was seized with a serious illness, and died in his eighteenth year, on the 16th November, 1612.
[28] Pett says she was to be 500 tons, but when he turned her out her burthen was rated at 700 tons.
[29] This conduct of Raleigh's was the more inexcusable, as there is in the State Paper Office a warrant dated 16th Nov., 1617, for the payment to Pett of 700 crowns "for building the new ship, the Destiny of London, of 700 tons burthen." The least he could have done was to have handed over to the builder his royal and usual reward. In the above warrant, by the way, the title "our well-beloved subject," the ordinary prefix to such grants, has either been left blank or erased (it is difficult to say which), but was very significant of the slippery footing of Raleigh at Court.
[30] Sir Giles Overreach, in the play of "A new way to pay old debts," by Philip Massinger. It was difficult for the poet, or any other person, to libel such a personage as Mompesson.
[31] Pett's method is described in a paper contained in the S.P.O., dated 21st Oct., 1626. The Trinity Corporation adopted his method.
[32] Memoirs of the Life and Services of Rear-Admiral Sir William Symonds, Kt., p. 94.
[33] Pett's dwelling-house at Rochester is thus described in an anonymous history of that town (p. 337, ed. 1817):—"Beyond the Victualling Office, on the same side of the High Street, at Rochester, is an old mansion, now occupied by a Mr. Morson, an attorney, which formerly belonged to the Petts, the celebrated ship-builders. The chimney-piece in the principal room is of wood, curiously carved, the upper part being divided into compartments by caryatydes. The central compartment contains the family arms, viz., Or, on a fesse, gu., between three pellets, a lion passant gardant of the field. On the back of the grate is a cast of Neptune, standing erect in his car, with Triton blowing conches, &c., and the date 1650."
[34] Symonds, Memoirs of Life and Services, 94.
"The spirit of Paley's maxim that 'he alone discovers who proves,' is applicable to the history of inventions and discoveries; for certainly he alone invents to any good purpose, who satisfies the world that the means he may have devised have been found competent to the end proposed."—Dr. Samuel Brown.
"Too often the real worker and discoverer remains unknown, and an invention, beautiful but useless in one age or country, can be applied only in a remote generation, or in a distant land. Mankind hangs together from generation to generation; easy labour is but inherited skill; great discoveries and inventions are worked up to by the efforts of myriads ere the goal is reached."—H. M. Hyndman.
Though a long period elapsed between the times of Phineas Pett and "Screw" Smith, comparatively little improvement had been effected in the art of shipbuilding. The Sovereign of the Seas had not been excelled by any ship of war built down to the end of last century.[1] At a comparatively recent date, ships continued to be built of timber and plank, and impelled by sails and oars, as they had been for thousands of years before.
But this century has witnessed many marvellous changes. A new material of construction has been introduced into shipbuilding, with entirely new methods of propulsion. Old things have been displaced by new; and the magnitude of the results has been extraordinary. The most important changes have been in the use of iron and steel instead of wood, and in the employment of the steam-engine in impelling ships by the paddle or the screw.
So long as timber was used for the construction of ships, the number of vessels built annually, especially in so small an island as Britain, must necessarily have continued very limited. Indeed, so little had the cultivation of oak in Great Britain been attended to, that all the royal forests could not have supplied sufficient timber to build one line-of-battle ship annually; while for the mercantile marine, the world had to be ransacked for wood, often of a very inferior quality.
Take, for instance, the seventy-eight gun ship, the Hindostan, launched a few years ago. It would have required 4200 loads of timber to build a ship of that description, and the growth of the timber would have occupied seventy acres of ground during eighty years.[2] It would have needed something like 800,000 acres of land on which to grow the timber for the ships annually built in this country for commercial purposes. And timber ships are by no means lasting. The average durability of ships of war employed in active service, has been calculated to be about thirteen years, even when built of British oak.
Indeed, years ago, the building of shipping in this country was much hindered by the want of materials.
The trade was being rapidly transferred to Canada and the United States. Some years since, an American captain said to an Englishman, Captain Hall, when in China, "You will soon have to come to our country for your ships: your little island cannot grow wood enough for a large marine." "Oh!" said the Englishman, "we can build ships of iron!" "Iron?" replied the American in surprise, "why, iron sinks; only wood can float!" "Well! you will find I am right." The prophecy was correct. The Englishman in question has now a fleet of splendid iron steamers at sea.
The use of iron in shipbuilding had small beginnings, like everything else. The established prejudice—that iron must necessarily sink in water—long continued to prevail against its employment. The first iron vessel was built and launched about a hundred years since by John Wilkinson, of Bradley Forge, in Staffordshire. In a letter of his, dated the 14th July, 1787, the original of which we have seen, he writes: "Yesterday week my iron boat was launched. It answers all my expectations, and has convinced the unbelievers, who were 999 in 1000. It will be only a nine days' wonder, and afterwards a Columbus's egg." It was, however, more than a nine days' wonder; for wood long continued to be thought the only material capable of floating.
Although Wilkinson's iron vessels continued to ply upon the Severn, more than twenty years elapsed before another shipbuilder ventured to follow his example. But in 1810, Onions and Son, of Brosely, built several iron vessels, also for use upon the Severn. Then, in 1815, Mr. Jervons, of Liverpool, built a small iron boat for use on the Mersey. Six years later, in 1821, Mr. Aaron Manby designed an iron steam vessel, which was built at the Horsley Company's Works, in Staffordshire. She sailed from London to Havre a few years later, under the command of Captain (afterwards Sir Charles) Napier, RN. She was freighted with a cargo of linseed and iron castings, and went up the Seine to Paris. It was some time, however, before iron came into general use. Ten years later, in 1832, Maudslay and Field built four iron vessels for the East India Company. In the course of about twenty years, the use of iron became general, not only for ships of war, but for merchant ships plying to all parts of the world.
When ships began to be built of iron, it was found that they could be increased without limit, so long as coal, iron, machinery, and strong men full of skill and industry, were procurable. The trade in shipbuilding returned to Britain, where iron ships are now made and exported in large numbers; the mercantile marine of this country exceeding in amount and tonnage that of all the other countries of the world put together. The "wooden walls"[3] of England exist no more, for iron has superseded wood. Instead of constructing vessels from the forest, we are now digging new navies out of the bowels of the earth, and our "walls," instead of wood, are now of iron and steel.
The attempt to propel ships by other means than sails and oars went on from century to century, and did not succeed until almost within our own time. It is said that the Roman army under Claudius Codex was transported into Sicily in boats propelled by wheels moved by oxen. Galleys, propelled by wheels in paddles, were afterwards attempted. The Harleian MS. contains an Italian book of sketches, attributed to the 15th century, in which there appears a drawing of a paddle-boat, evidently intended to be worked by men. Paddle-boats, worked by horse-power, were also tried. Blasco Garay made a supreme effort at Barcelona in 1543. His vessel was propelled by a paddle-wheel on each side, worked by forty men. But nothing came of the experiment.
Many other efforts of a similar kind were made,—by Savery among others,[4]—until we come down to Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, who, in 1787, invented a double-hulled boat, which he caused to be propelled on the Firth of Forth by men working a capstan which drove the paddles on each side. The men soon became exhausted, and on Miller mentioning the subject to William Symington, who was then exhibiting his road locomotive in Edinburgh, Symington at once said, "Why don't you employ steam-power?"
There were many speculations in early times as to the application of steam-power for propelling vessels through the water. David Ramsay in 1618, Dr. Grant in 1632, the Marquis of Worcester in 1661, were among the first in England to publish their views upon the subject. But it is probable that Denis Papin, the banished Hugnenot physician, for some time Curator of the Royal Society, was the first who made a model steam-boat. Daring his residence in England, he was elected Professor of Mathematics in the University of Marburg. It was while at that city that he constructed, in 1707, a small steam-engine, which he fitted in a boat—une petite machine d'un, vaisseau a roues—and despatched it to England for the purpose of being tried upon the Thames. The little vessel never reached England. At Munden, the boatmen on the River Weser, thinking that, if successful, it would destroy their occupation, seized the boat, with its machine, and barbarously destroyed it. Papin did not repeat his experiment, and died a few years later.
The next inventor was Jonathan Hulls, of Campden, in Gloucestershire. He patented a steamboat in 1736, and worked the paddle-wheel placed at the stern of the vessel by means of a Newcomen engine. He tried his boat on the River Avon, at Evesham, but it did not succeed, and the engine was taken on shore again. A local poet commemorated his failure in the following lines, which were remembered long after his steamboat experiment had been forgotten:—
"Jonathan Hull,With his paper skull,Tried hard to make a machineThat should go against wind and tide;But he, like an ass,Couldn't bring it to pass,So at last was ashamed to be seen."
Nothing of importance was done in the direction of a steam-engine able to drive paddles, until the invention by James Watt, in 1769, of his double-acting engine—the first step by which steam was rendered capable of being successfully used to impel a vessel. But Watt was indifferent to taking up the subject of steam navigation, as well as of steam locomotion. He refused many invitations to make steam-engines for the propulsion of ships, preferring to confine himself to his "regular established trade and manufacture," that of making condensing steam-engines, which had become of great importance towards the close of his life.
Two records exist of paddle-wheel steamboats having been early tried in France—one by the Comte d'Auxiron and M. Perrier in 1774, the other by the Comte de Jouffroy in 1783—but the notices of their experiments are very vague, and rest on somewhat doubtful authority.
The idea, however, had been born, and was not allowed to die. When Mr. Miller of Dalswinton had revived the notion of propelling vessels by means of paddle-wheels, worked, as Savery had before worked them, by means of a capstan placed in the centre of the vessel, and when he complained to Symington of the fatigue caused to the men by working the capstan, and Symington had suggested the use of steam, Mr. Miller was impressed by the idea, and proceeded to order a steam-engine for the purpose of trying the experiment. The boat was built at Edinburgh, and removed to Dalswinton Lake. It was there fitted with Symington's steam-engine, and first tried with success on the 14th of October, 1788, as has been related at length in Mr. Nasmyth's 'Autobiography.' The experiment was repeated with even greater success in the charlotte Dundas in 1801, which was used to tow vessels along the Forth and Clyde Canal, and to bring ships up the Firth of Forth to the canal entrance at Grangemouth.
The progress of steam navigation was nevertheless very slow. Symington's experiments were not renewed. The Charlotte Dundas was withdrawn from use, because of the supposed injury to the banks of the Canal, caused by the swell from the wheel. The steamboat was laid up in a creek at Bainsford, where it went to ruin, and the inventor himself died in poverty. Among those who inspected the vessel while at work were Fulton, the American artist, and Henry Bell, the Glasgow engineer. The former had already occupied himself with model steamboats, both at Paris and in London; and in 1805 he obtained from Boulton and Watt, of Birmingham, the steam-engine required for propelling his paddle steamboat on the Hudson. The Clermont was first started in August, 1807, and attained a speed of nearly five miles an hour. Five years later, Henry Bell constructed and tried his first steamer on the Clyde.
It was not until 1815 that the first steamboat was seen on the Thames. This was the Richmond packet, which plied between London and Richmond. The vessel was fitted with the first marine engine Henry Maudslay ever made. During the same year, the Margery, formerly employed on the Firth of Forth, began plying between Gravesend and London; and the Thames, formerly the Argyll, came round from the Clyde, encountering rough seas, and making the voyage of 758 miles in five days and two hours. This was thought extraordinarily rapid—though the voyage of about 3000 miles, from Liverpool to New York, can now be made in only about two days' more time.
In nearly all seagoing vessels, the Paddle has now almost entirely given place to the Screw. It was long before this invention was perfected and brought into general use. It was not the production of one man, but of several generations of mechanical inventors. A perfected invention does not burst forth from the brain like a poetic thought or a fine resolve. It has to be initiated, laboured over, and pursued in the face of disappointments, difficulties, and discouragements.
Sometimes the idea is born in one generation, followed out in the next, and perhaps perfected in the third. In an age of progress, one invention merely paves the way for another. What was the wonder of yesterday, becomes the common and unnoticed thing of to-day.
The first idea of the screw was thrown out by James Watt more than a century ago. Matthew Boulton, of Birmingham, had proposed to move canal boats by means of the steam-engine; and Dr. Small, his friend, was in communication with James Watt, then residing at Glasgow, on the subject. In a letter from Watt to Small, dated the 30th September, 1770, the former, after speaking of the condenser, and saying that it cannot be dispensed with, proceeds: "Have you ever considered a spiral oar for that purpose [propulsion of canal boats], or are you for two wheels?" Watt added a pen-and-ink drawing of his spiral oar, greatly resembling the form of screw afterwards patented. Nothing, however, was actually done, and the idea slept.
It was revived again in 1785, by Joseph Bramah, a wonderful projector and inventor.[5] He took out a patent, which included a rotatory steam-engine, and a mode of propelling vessels by means either of a paddle-wheel or a "screw propeller." This propeller was "similar to the fly of a smoke-jack"; but there is no account of Bramah having practically tried this method of propulsion.
Austria, also, claims the honour of the invention of the screw steamer. At Trieste and Vienna are statues erected to Joseph Ressel, on whose behalf his countrymen lay claim to the invention; and patents for some sort of a screw date back as far as 1794.
Patents were also taken out in England and America—by W. Lyttleton in 1794; by E. Shorter in 1799; by J. C. Stevens, of New Jersey, in 1804; by Henry James in 1811—but nothing practical was accomplished. Richard Trevethick, the anticipator of many things, also took out a patent in 1815, and in it he describes the screw propeller with considerable minuteness. Millington, Whytock, Perkins, Marestier, and Brown followed, with no better results.
The late Dr. Birkbeck, in a letter addressed to the 'Mechanics' Register,' in the year 1824, claimed that John Swan, of 82, Mansfield Street, Kingsland Road, London, was the practical inventor of the screw propeller. John Swan was a native of Coldingham, Berwickshire. He had removed to London, and entered the employment of Messrs. Gordon, of Deptford. Swan fitted up a boat with his propeller, and tried it on a sheet of water in the grounds of Charles Gordon, Esq., of Dulwich Hill. "The velocity and steadiness of the motion," said Dr. Birkbeck in his letter, "so far exceeded that of the same model when impelled by paddle-wheels driven by the same spring, that I could not doubt its superiority; and the stillness of the water was such as to give the vessel the appearance of being moved by some magical power."
Then comes another claimant—Mr. Robert Wilson, then of Dunbar (not far from Coldingham), but afterwards of the Bridgewater Foundry, Patricroft. In his pamphlet, published a few years ago, he states that he had long considered the subject, and in 1827 he made a small model, fitted with "revolving skulls," which he tried on a sheet of water in the presence of the Hon. Capt. Anthony Maitland, son of the Earl of Lauderdale. The experiment was successful—so successful, that when the "stern paddles" were in 1828 used at Leith in a boat twenty-five feet long, with two men to work the machinery, the boat was propelled at an average speed of about ten miles an hour; and the Society of Arts afterwards, in October, 1882, awarded Mr. Wilson their silver medal for the "description, drawing, and models of stern paddles for propelling steamboats, invented by him." The subject was, in 1833, brought by Sir John Sinclair under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty; but the report of the officials (Oliver Lang, Abethell, Lloyd, and Kingston) was to the effect that "the plan proposed (independent of practical difficulties) is objectionable, as it involves a greater loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels to the side." And here ended the experiment, so far as Mr. Wilson's "stern paddles" were concerned.
It will be observed, from what has been said, that the idea of a screw propeller is a very old one. Watt, Bramah, Trevethick, and many more, had given descriptions of the screw. Trevethick schemed a number of its forms and applications, which have been the subject of many subsequent patents. It has been so with many inventions. It is not the man who gives the first idea of a machine who is entitled to the merit of its introduction, or the man who repeats the idea, and re-repeats it, but the man who is so deeply impressed with the importance of the discovery, that he insists upon its adoption, will take no denial, and at the risk of fame and fortune, pushes through all opposition, and is determined that what he thinks he has discovered shall not perish for want of a fair trial. And that this was the case with the practical introducer of the screw propeller will be obvious from the following statement.
Francis Pettit Smith was born at Hythe, in the county of Kent, in 1808. His father was postmaster of the town, and a person of much zeal and integrity. The boy was sent to school at Ashford, and there received a fair amount of education, under the Rev. Alexander Power. Young Smith displayed no special characteristic except a passion for constructing models of boats. When he reached manhood, he adopted the business of a grazing farmer on Romney Marsh. He afterwards removed to Hendon, north of London, where he had plenty of water on which to try his model boats. The reservoir of the Old Welsh Harp was close at hand—a place famous for its water-birds and wild fowl.
Smith made many models of boats, his experiments extending over many years. In 1834, he constructed a boat propelled by a wooden screw driven by a spring, the performance of which was thought extraordinary. Where he had got his original idea is not known. It was floating about in many minds, and was no special secret. Smith, however, arrived at the conclusion that his method of propelling steam vessels by means of a screw was much superior to paddles—at that time exclusively employed. In the following year, 1835, he constructed a superior model, with which he performed a number of experiments at Hendon. In May 1836, he took out a patent for propelling vessels by means of a screw revolving beneath the water at the stern. He then openly exhibited his invention at the Adelaide Gallery in London. Sir John Barrow, Secretary to the Admiralty, inspected the model, and was much impressed by its action. During the time it was publicly exhibited, an offer was made to purchase the invention for the Pacha of Egypt; but the offer was declined.
At this stage of his operations, Smith was joined by Mr. Wright, banker, and Mr. C. A. Caldwell, who had the penetration to perceive that the invention was one of much promise, and were desirous of helping its introduction to general use. They furnished Smith with the means of constructing a more complete model. In the autumn of 1836, a small steam vessel of 10 tons burthen and six horse-power was built, further to test the advantages of the invention. This boat was fitted with a wooden screw of two whole turns. On the 1st of November the vessel was exhibited to the public on the Paddington Canal, as well as on the Thames, where she continued to ply until the month of September 1837.
During the trips upon the Thames, a happy accident occurred, which first suggested the advantage of reducing the length of the screw. The propeller having struck upon some obstacle in the water, about one-half of the length of the screw was broken off, and it was found that; the vessel immediately shot ahead and attained a much greater speed than before. In consequence of this discovery, a new screw of a single turn was fitted to her, after which she was found to work much better.
Having satisfied himself as to the eligibility of the propeller in smooth water, Mr. Smith then resolved to take his little vessel to the open sea, and breast the winds and the waves. Accordingly, one Saturday in the month of September 1837, he proceeded in his miniature boat, down the river, from Blackwall to Gravesend. There he took a pilot on board, and went on to Ramsgate. He passed through the Downs, and reached Dover in safety. A trial of the vessel's performance was made there in the presence of Mr. Wright, the banker, and Mr. Peake, the civil engineer. From Dover the vessel went on to Folkestone and Hythe, encountering severe weather. Nevertheless, the boat behaved admirably, and attained a speed of over seven miles an hour.
Though the weather had become stormy and boisterous, the little vessel nevertheless set out on her return voyage to London. Crowds of people assembled to witness her departure, and many nautical men watched her progress with solicitude as she steamed through the waves under the steep cliffs of the South Foreland. The courage of the undertaking, and the unexpected good performance of the little vessel, rendered her an object of great interest and excitement as she "screwed" her way along the coast.
The tiny vessel reached her destination in safety. Surely the difficulty of a testing trial, although with a model screw, had at length been overcome. But no! The paddle still possessed the ascendency; and a thousand interests—invested capital, use and wont, and conservative instincts—all stood in the way.
Some years before—indeed, about the time that Smith took out his patent—Captain Ericsson, the Swede, invented a screw propeller. Smith took out his patent in May, 1836; and Ericsson in the following July. Ericsson was a born inventor. While a boy in Sweden, he made saw mills and pumping engines, with tools invented by himself. He learnt to draw, and his mechanical career began. When only twelve years old, he was appointed a cadet in the Swedish corps of mechanical engineers, and in the following year he was put in charge of a section of the Gotha Ship Canal, then under construction. Arrived at manhood, Ericsson went over to England, the great centre of mechanical industry. He was then twenty-three years old. He entered into partnership with John Braithwaite, and with him constructed the Novelty, which took part in the locomotive competition at Rainhill on the 6th October, 1829. The prize was awarded to Stephenson's Rocket on the 14th; but it was acknowledged by The Times of the day that the Novelty was Stephenson's sharpest competitor.
Ericsson had a wonderfully inventive brain, a determined purpose, and a great capacity for work. When a want was felt, he was immediately ready with an invention. The records of the Patent Office show his incessant activity. He invented pumping engines, steam engines, fire engines, and caloric engines. His first patent for a "reciprocating propeller" was taken out in October 1834. To exhibit its action, he had a small boat constructed of only about two feet long. It was propelled by means of a screw; and was shown at work in a circular bath in London. It performed its voyage round the basin at the rate of about three miles an hour. His patent for a "spiral propeller," was taken out in July 1836. This was the invention, to exhibit which he had a vessel constructed, of about 40 feet long, with two propellers, each of 5 feet 3 inches diameter.
This boat, the Francis B. Ogden, proved extremely successful. She moved at a speed of about ten miles an hour. She was able to tow vessels of 140 tons burthen at the rate of seven miles an hour. Perceiving the peculiar and admirable fitness of the screw-propeller for ships of war, Ericsson invited the Lords of the Admiralty to take an excursion in tow of his experimental boat. "My Lords" consented; and the Admiralty barge contained on this occasion, Sir Charles Adam, senior Lord, Sir William Symonds, surveyor, Sir Edward Parry, of Polar fame, Captain Beaufort, hydrographer, and other men of celebrity. This distinguished company embarked at Somerset House, and the little steamer, with her precious charge, proceeded down the river to Limehouse at the rate of about ten miles an hour. After visiting the steam-engine manufactory of Messrs. Seawood, where their Lordships' favourite apparatus, the Morgan paddle-wheel, was in course of construction, they re-embarked, and returned in safety to Somerset House.
The experiment was perfectly successful, and yet the result was disappointment. A few days later, a letter from Captain Beaufort informed Mr. Ericsson that their Lordships had certainly been "very much disappointed with the result of the experiment." The reason for the disappointment was altogether inexplicable to the inventor. It afterwards appeared, however, that Sir William Symonds, then Surveyor to the Navy, had expressed the opinion that "even if the propeller had the power of propelling a vessel, it would be found altogether useless in practice, because the power being applied at the stern, it would be absolutely impossible to make the vessel steer!" It will be remembered that Francis Pettit Smith's screw vessel went to sea in the course of the same year; and not only faced the waves, but was made to steer in a perfectly successful manner.
Although the Lords of the Admiralty would not further encourage the screw propeller of Ericsson, an officer of the United States Navy, Capt. R. F. Stockton, was so satisfied of its success, that after making a single trip in the experimental steamboat from London Bridge to Greenwich, he ordered the inventor to build for him forthwith two iron boats for the United States, with steam machinery and a propeller on the same plan. One of these vessels—the Robert F. Stockton—seventy feet in length, was constructed by Laird and Co., of Birkenhead, in 1838, and left England for America in April 1839. Capt. Stockton so fully persuaded Ericsson of his probable success in America, that the inventor at once abandoned his professional engagements in England, and set out for the United States. It is unnecessary to mention the further important works of this great engineer.
We may, however, briefly mention that in 1844, Ericsson constructed for the United States Government the Princeton screw steamer—though he was never paid for his time, labour, and expenditure.[6] Undeterred by their ingratitude, Ericsson nevertheless constructed for the same government, when in the throes of civil war, the famous Monitor, the iron-clad cupola vessel, and was similarly rewarded! He afterwards invented the torpedo ship—the Destroyer—the use of which has fortunately not yet been required in sea warfare. Ericsson still lives—constantly planning and scheming—in his house in Beach Street, New York. He is now over eighty years old having been born in 1803. He is strong and healthy. How has he preserved his vigorous constitution? The editor of Scribner gives the answer: "The hall windows of his house are open, winter and summer, and none but open grate-fires are allowed. Insomnia never troubles him, for he falls asleep as soon as his head touches the pillow. His appetite and digestion are always good, and he has not lost a meal in ten years. What an example to the men who imagine it is hard work that is killing them in this career of unremitting industry!"
To return to "Screw" Smith, after the successful trial of his little vessel at sea in the autumn of 1837. He had many difficulties yet to contend with. There was, first, the difficulty of a new invention, and the fact that the paddle-boat had established itself in public estimation. The engineering and shipbuilding world were dead against him. They regarded the project of propelling a vessel by means of a screw as visionary and preposterous. There was also the official unwillingness to undertake anything novel, untried, and contrary to routine. There was the usual shaking of the head and the shrugging of the shoulders, as if the inventor were either a mere dreamer or a projector eager to lay his hands upon the public purse. The surveyor of the navy was opposed to the plan, because of the impossibility of making a vessel steer which was impelled from the stern. "Screw" Smith bided his time; he continued undaunted, and was determined to succeed. He laboured steadily onward, maintaining his own faith unshaken, and upholding the faith of the gentlemen who had become associated with him in the prosecution of the invention.
At the beginning of 1838 the Lords of the Admiralty requested Mr. Smith to allow his vessel to be tried under their inspection. Two trials were accordingly made, and they gave so much satisfaction that the adoption of the propeller for naval purposes was considered as a not improbable contingency. Before deciding finally upon its adoption, the Lords of the Admiralty were anxious to see an experiment made with a vessel of not less than 200 tons. Mr. Smith had not the means of accomplishing this by himself, but with the improved prospects of the invention, capitalists now came to his aid. One of the most effective and energetic of these was Mr. Henry Currie, banker; and, with the assistance of others, the "Ship Propeller Company" was formed, and proceeded to erect the test ship proposed by the Admiralty.
The result was the Archimedes, a wooden vessel of 237 tons burthen. She was designed by Mr. Pasco, laid down by Mr. Wimshurst in the spring of 1838, was launched on the 18th of October following, and made her first trip in May 1839. She was fitted with a screw of one turn placed in the dead wood, and propelled by a pair of engines of 80-horse power. The vessel was built under the persuasion that her performance would be considered satisfactory if a speed was attained of four or five knots an hour, where as her actual speed was nine and a half knots. The Lords of the Admiralty were invited to inspect the ship. At the second trial Sir Edward Parry, Sir William Symonds, Captain Basil Hall, and other distinguished persons were present.
The results were again satisfactory. The success of the Archimedes astonished the engineering world. Even the Surveyor of the Royal Navy found that the vessel could steer! The Lords of the Admiralty could no longer shut their eyes. But the invention could not at once be adopted. It must be tested by the best judges. The vessel was sent to Dover to be tried with the best packets between Dover and Calais. Mr. Lloyd, the chief engineer of the Navy, conducted the investigation, and reported most favourably as to the manner of her performance. Yet several years elapsed before the screw was introduced into the service.
In 1840 the Archimedes was placed at the disposal of Captain Chappell, of the Royal Navy, who, accompanied by Mr. Smith, visited every principal port in Great Britain. She was thus seen by shipowners, marine engineers, and shipbuilders in every part of the kingdom. They regarded her with wonder and admiration; yet the new mode of navigation was not speedily adopted. The paddle-wheel still held its own. The sentiment, if not the plant and capital, of the engineering world, were against the introduction of the screw. After the vessel had returned from her circumnavigation of Great Britain, she was sent to Oporto, and performed the voyage in sixty-eight and a half hours, then held to be the quickest voyage on record. She was then sent to the Texel at the request of the Dutch Government. She went through the North Holland Canal, visited Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other ports; and everywhere left the impression that the screw was an efficient and reliable power in the propulsion of vessels at sea.
Shipbuilders, however, continued to "fight shy" of the screw. The late Isambard Kingdon Brunel is entitled to the credit of having first directed the attention of shipbuilders to this important invention. He was himself a man of original views, free from bias, and always ready to strike out a fresh path in engineering works. He was building a large new iron steamer at Bristol, the Great Britain, for passenger traffic between England and America. He had intended to construct her as a paddle steamer; but hearing of the success of the Archimedes, he inspected the vessel, and was so satisfied with the performance of the screw that he recommended his directors to adopt this method for propelling the Great Britain. His advice was adopted, and the vessel was altered so as to adapt her for the reception of the screw. The vessel was found perfectly successful, and on her first voyage to London she attained the speed of ten knots an hour, though the wind and balance of tides were against her. A few other merchant ships were built and fitted with the screw; the Princess Royal at Newcastle in 1840, the Margaret and Senator at Hull, and the Great Northern at Londonderry, in 1841.
The Lords of the Admiralty made slow progress in adapting the screw for the Royal Navy. Sir William Symonds, the surveyor and principal designer of Her Majesty's ships, was opposed to all new projects. He hated steam power, and was utterly opposed to iron ships. He speaks of them in his journal as "monstrous."[7] So long as he remained in office everything was done in a perfunctory way. A small vessel named the Bee was built at Chatham in 1841, and fitted with both paddles and the screw for the purposes of experiment. In the same year the Rattier, the first screw vessel built for the navy, was laid down at Sheerness. Although of only 888 tons burthen, she was not launched until the spring of 1843. She was then fitted with the same kind of screw as the Archimedes, that is, a double-headed screw of half a convolution. Experiments went on for about three years, so as to determine the best proportions of the screw, and the proportions then ascertained have since been the principal guides of engineering practice.
The Rattler was at length tried in a water tournament with the paddle-steamer Alecto, and signally defeated her. Francis Pettit Smith, like Gulliver, may be said to have dragged the whole British fleet after him. Were the paddle our only means of propulsion, our whole naval force would be reduced to a nullity. Hostile gunners would wing a paddle-steamer as effectually as a sportsman wings a bird, and all the plating in the world would render such a ship a mere helpless log on the water.
The Admiralty could no longer defer the use of this important invention. Like all good things, it made its way slowly and by degrees. The royal naval authorities, who in 1833 backed the side paddles, have since adopted the screw in most of the ships-of-war. In all long sea-going voyages, also, the screw is now the favourite mode of propulsion. Screw ships of prodigious size are now built and launched in all the ship-building ports of Britain, and are sent out to navigate in every part of the world.
The introduction of iron as the material for shipbuilding has immensely advanced the interests of steam navigation, as it enables the builders to construct vessels of great size with the finest lines, so as to attain the highest rates of speed.
One might have supposed that Francis Pettit Smith would derive some substantial benefit from his invention, or at least that the Ship Propeller Company would distribute large dividends among their proprietors. Nothing of the kind. Smith spent his money, his labour, and his ingenuity in conferring a great public benefit without receiving any adequate reward; and the company, instead of distributing dividends, lost about 50,000L. in introducing this great invention; after which, in 1856, the patent-right expired. Three hundred and twenty-seven ships and vessels of all classes in the Royal Navy had then been fitted with the screw propeller, and a much larger number in the merchant service; but since that time the number of screw propellers constructed is to be counted by thousands.
In his comparatively impoverished condition it was found necessary to do something for the inventor. The Civil Engineers, with Robert Stephenson, M.P., in the chair, entertained him at a dinner and presented him with a handsome salver and claret jug. And that he might have something to put upon his salver and into his claret jug, a number of his friends and admirers subscribed over 2000L. as a testimonial. The Government appointed him Curator of the Patent Museum at South Kensington; the Queen granted him a pension on the Civil List for 200L. a year; he was raised to the honour of knighthood in 1871, and three years later he died.
Francis Pettit Smith was not a great inventor. He had, like many others, invented a screw propeller. But, while those others had given up the idea of prosecuting it to its completion, Smith stuck to his invention with determined tenacity, and never let it go until he had secured for it a complete triumph. As Mr. Stephenson observed at the engineer's meeting: "Mr. Smith had worked from a platform which might have been raised by others, as Watt had done, and as other great men had done; but he had made a stride in advance which was almost tantamount to a new invention. It was impossible to overrate the advantages which this and other countries had derived from his untiring and devoted patience in prosecuting the invention to a successful issue." Baron Charles Dupin compared the farmer Smith with the barber Arkwright: "He had the same perseverance and the same indomitable courage. These two moral qualities enabled him to triumph over every obstacle." This was the merit of "Screw" Smith—that he was determined to realize what his predecessors had dreamt of achieving; and he eventually accomplished his great purpose.