Chapter IIITHE EVOLUTION OF THE MARINE ENGINE

SS. “Britannia,” 1840

Although steamers thus gradually increased in size and power, the “Oceanic,” built in 1899 for the White Star Line, may, I think, claim to be the pioneer of the great Atlantic liners. She was 16,900 tons and 704 feet long, and 21 knots speed. She was quickly followed by the “Lusitania” and “Mauretania,” built for the Cunard in 1907, with a tonnage of 33,000, and a speed of 24½ knots. They were again eclipsed in size by the “Olympic,” “Aquitania,” and the “Imperator,” all about 50,000 tons; but the “Mauretania” still holds the blue riband of the Atlantic for speed. It is scarcely safe to say that the last big ship has been built; size is only limited by commercial considerations and the depth of water available in our harbours, as an iron ship, being a girder, her length is limited by the depth which can be given to the girder. The cost of construction may, however, limit the size of ships, at all events, for some years.

The steamship as a practical proposition developed slowly, being retarded by the dilatory evolution of the marine engine. The first serious effort to apply steam power to vessels of any size dates back to only 1838-1840, years which witnessed the establishment of the Royal Mail, the Peninsular and Oriental, and the Cunard Steamship Companies. Their first vessels were steamers of 1,200 tons, having a speed of eight or nine knots. Such vessels were not formidable competitors of the old packet ships, except in the passenger trades; their average passage across the Atlantic, occupying from thirteen to seventeen days, not being a great improvement upon the passages of the sailing-packets. The ships of the Dramatic Line averaged 20½ days, and those of the Black Ball Line 21 days.

SS. “Great Britain,” Launched 1843

The advantage of the greater regularity in the passages of the steamer was, however, obvious, and greatly stimulated invention. The improvements in the paddle engine were slow. We were a long time getting away from the side-lever engine, working at a low pressure. The “Britannia,” built in 1840, was 1,200 tons; her engines indicated 740horse-power, giving a speed of 8½ knots. The “Scotia,” the finest paddle steamer ever built, and the last of the great paddle boats, was built in 1860, and had the same type of side-lever engine, but her tonnage was 3,871, with an indicated horse-power of 4,800, giving her a speed of 13 knots. The most rapid passage made by the “Britannia” was 14 days 8 hours; the most rapid made by the “Scotia” was 8 days 15 hours.

The screw propeller was invented in 1836, but for a long time it was thought to be inferior to the paddle as a means of propulsion, and there was some difficulty in applying the power to the screw shaft. The side lever in various forms was tried, but proved a failure. The “Great Britain,” 3,270 tons, launched in 1843, had engines which worked upward on to a crank shaft, and the power was brought down by endless chains to the screw shaft. This did not prove satisfactory. Then we had oscillating engines working a large geared wheel fitted with wooden teeth to increase the revolutions of the propeller. Then came the direct-acting engines with inverted cylinders, which for years were almost the universal type of engine, and were a very efficient form of low pressure engine.

The compound engine revolutionised the steamship trade, ensuring such economy of fuel as to permit of long voyages being successfully undertaken. The compound engine developed into thetriple expansion engine; the object being to get the last ounce of power out of the steam by first using it in a high pressure cylinder at 180 lbs., then passing it into a larger cylinder, using it expansively, and finally passing it into a still larger cylinder at about 8 lbs. pressure, and again allowing it to expand. The triple expansion engine came into general use in 1886.

The turbine, invented by Sir Charles Parsons in 1897, has effected a revolution in the engines of large size. The principle is simply to allow steam at a high pressure to impinge upon blades fitted to a rotor which it revolves on the principle of the syren. The steam is afterwards used expansively in a second rotor working directly upon the screw shaft. The advantage of a turbine engine is its simplicity—few working parts and a saving in weight and space; its disadvantage is that a separate turbine has to be employed to obtain sternway. Recently, geared turbines have been introduced which are lighter, slightly more economical in fuel, and are sweeter running machines.

It is noteworthy that whereas gears were necessary in olden times with engines working at a low pressure to speed up the propeller shaft, with turbines gears are used to reduce the revolutions.

SS. “Scotia,” 1860

Meantime, greater boiler efficiency was being obtained. The “Britannia” worked with a pressure of 12 lbs. This was gradually increased to 30 lbs.in boilers constructed in 1868, and this was practically the range of pressure during the period of single-expansion engines. The salt water used in these boilers caused them to become quickly salted up, which not only diminished their efficiency but shortened their lives, and it was not until the compound engine was invented by John Elder that cylindrical boilers, working at a pressure starting at 60 lbs. and increasing to 190 lbs., were introduced. These proved a great success. By the use of fresh feed water and replenishing it from the condensers, salting was prevented and the life of a boiler greatly increased.

No further great improvement in the boiler has taken place. The water-tube boiler is still in an experimental stage, and attention is now being directed to oil fuel, which will reduce the engine-room staff, ensure greater cleanliness and quicker despatch.

The result of these improvements in marine engines and boilers has been to reduce the consumption of coal from 4 lbs. per indicated horse-power to 1.4 lbs., which cannot be considered otherwise than a great achievement. The future high cost of coal is sure to stimulate invention, and we may at no distant date expect developments in internal combustion engines adapting them to high powers which may open up a new and great era for mechanically-propelled vessels, and again entirelychange the world’s outlook. We have also always before us the probability of further discoveries in electricity; the recent developments in wireless telegraphy teach us that we are only on the threshold of discoveries which will bring this mighty but mysterious power more and more into the service of man.

These sketches of the growth and development of our shipping trade would be incomplete without some reference to those who built up its great prosperity—men who are entitled not merely to our consideration but to our admiration; men whose memories should be treasured by Liverpool people, because they afford to generations yet to come examples of industry and perseverance in the face of difficulties which should not be without beneficial effect if kept in remembrance. Things move so rapidly, and our memory is so limited that we are apt to view the things of to-day as of our own creation, and lose sight of the strenuous spade work done by our forefathers.

Much as we must appreciate the enterprise and ability of our shipowners of to-day, it is no disparagement of them when we claim that the work of those who have gone before was equally enterprising within its limits, and was even more strenuous and anxious. They had to do with a business world only just emerging from the chrysalis state, and without those helps and facilities which modern science has placed at our disposal. Butwhile claiming this, we must avoid considering those who have passed before as “giants” of industry. They were simply the men who, when placed in circumstances of difficulty, always rise to the occasion and develop those faculties of industry, resource and imagination which are so happily characteristic of our race.

That we may, therefore, appreciate the labours of those who have built up our prosperity we must consider shortly the circumstances in which they worked and the tools they had to work with. We have already alluded to the difficulties which a ship’s husband had to contend with owing to the absence of “cables,” or any speedy means of communication with distant places, and to the anxieties attending the maintenance of the old wooden ships; but these did not entirely disappear when iron ships were introduced. The early steamers were badly designed, very short of freeboard, insufficient in strength and short of engine power; they were frequently loaded too deeply, and we had many casualties. One of the greatest improvements in the construction of an iron ship was the introduction of iron decks, which gave the constructional strength required, and when water ballast tanks were also adopted a ship not only gained additional strength, but also mobility and seaworthiness.

Charles MacIver

William Inman

Thomas H. Ismay

Sir Edward Harland

The place of the old cargo boat was in course of time taken by the so-called “tramp,” the moderncargo carrier—a good wholesome ship, a large carrier, with sufficient power to take care of herself in all weathers. With modern machinery a tramp can go to the ends of the earth without replenishing her coal supply. One remarkable change has taken place which would have shocked the shipowners of fifty years ago; steamers no longer carry sails and the tendency is to do away with masts. The “standard” ship has only one mast, which is only used for signalling. The excellence of modern machinery and the general adoption of the twin screw have rendered breakdowns very rare, and the “wireless” is at hand to summon assistance when required. If the cargo steamer of to-day has improved, the design of the passenger ship has made even greater progress. Those who travelled across the Atlantic in the early sixties will recall the stuffy passenger saloons, placed right aft, with no seats except the long settees, and lit only by candles suspended on trays, which swayed to and fro sputtering grease right and left. The state-rooms were placed below the saloon and were lit by oil lamps, one between every two rooms. These were religiously put out at ten o’clock every night.

There was no ventilation, and no hot water was obtainable. We have always thought that the introduction of the electric light was a greater boon, and more appreciated on board ship than anywhere else. On a rough, wild night, when everything inyour state-room is flying about, and you begin to conjure up thoughts of possible disaster, if you switch on the electric light, all is at peace. The very waves appear to be robbed of their fury. There were no smoke-rooms in the olden days—the lee side of the funnel in fine weather, the fiddlee at other times. Here, seated on coils of rope, and ready to lift our feet as the seas rolled in from the alleyways on either side, we smoked and spun our yarns. There was an abundance of food in the saloon in the shape of great huge joints of meat and dishes of vegetables, which were placed on the table, and it required some gymnastic agility to be ready to seize them, when the ship gave a lurch, to prevent their being deposited on your lap. We had no serviettes, but there came the enormous compensation for all deficiencies—it was deftly whispered, “the Cunard never lost a life,” and not another word was said.

The conditions of life in the steerage were wretched. The sleeping berths were huddled together, necessitating the occupants climbing over each other; there was no privacy, no washing accommodation except at the common tap, no saloon or seating accommodation except on the hatchways. The food was brought round in iron buckets, and junks of beef and pork were forked out by the steward, and placed in the passenger’s pannikin, and in a similar way potatoes and plum duff were served out.

All this has been changed, and in place of discomfort we have luxurious accommodation for every class of traveller; and this change has been brought about by the men concerning whom we propose to make some notes.

It is very difficult to give to any one man the credit for the great improvements which have been made, but I think ship designing owes much to the late Sir Edward Harland, of Belfast. He was the first to introduce the long ship with easy lines—easily propelled and excellent sea boats.

In designing passenger ships, Sir Edward Harland was the first to see the advantage of placing the saloon passenger accommodation in the centre of the ship (citadel fashion), thus adding greatly to the comfort of ocean travel.

The modern cargo boat—the so-called “tramp,” because she has no fixed trade, but vagrant-like seeks her cargoes at any likely port—owes much also to the genius of Sir Edward. The old-fashioned wave line theory in design, with its concave water lines and hollow sections, had produced bad sea boats and poor cargo carriers. Sir Edward was the first to perceive that long, easy convex water lines, with full sections, gave buoyancy at every point, were more easily propelled, and had large deadweight and measurement capacity. I think,therefore, when considering who were the makers of the shipping industry of to-day, his name must ever occupy a foremost position.

We must also give credit to Messrs. Randolf Elder & Co., for the introduction of the compound engine, and to Sir William Pearse (who became the head of the firm) for the “Atlantic greyhounds,” the “Arizona,” followed by the “Alaska” and the “Oregon.” These ships were the first to make speed one of the first considerations of Atlantic travel.

In the olden days we had not only shipowners but shipbrokers, who had lines of ships to various places, and who either chartered vessels or loaded them upon commission. The loading brokers made it their duty to call upon the forwarding agents every morning to ascertain what goods they had for shipment. This duty was never relegated to clerks, but was always performed by one of the principals. We have a very vivid recollection of the daily morning visits of Mr. Mors, Mr. Astley, Mr. W. Imrie, Mr. Thomas Moss, Mr. McDiarmid, and others. This business of the shipbrokers eventually came to an end when regular lines of steamers were established, but they for long occupied a very influential position in the shipping world.

SS. “Oregon,” 1883

The most outstanding figure among shipowners of 1850-1880 was Charles MacIver, of the Cunard Line, a man of resolute courage and stern discipline. Clean shaven with aquiline features, he looked like a man born to command.

I remember when I was Mayor, in 1880, a commission was given to Herkomer to paint his portrait. He asked me what sort of man Mr. MacIver was, and then proceeded to Calderstones to paint his portrait. In a few days he returned, saying he was going home, as he had not found the strong man I had described. In a few months he returned and called to tell me that he had found my Mr. MacIver and painted him. It appears that on his first visit Mr. MacIver was suffering from illness.

Mr. MacIver built up the Cunard Line, which in the fifties paid one-third of our Liverpool dock dues. I can visualise Colonel MacIver marching down Water Street at the head of 1,000 of his men whom he had drilled and trained. This was one of the first Volunteer regiments raised in 1858, when we had fears that Napoleon III intended to invade this country. Many stories are told of Mr. MacIver’s stern discipline. It is said one of his captains asked permission to take his wife to sea with him. Permission was granted, but when the day of sailing arrived he received passenger tickets for himself and his wife, also an intimation that he had been superseded incommand of the ship. I remember doing some small service for Mr. MacIver which required some promptitude in its execution. In thanking me he added, “Young man, always kill your chickens when young”—and this was the principle he acted upon when threatened with opposition in any of his trades.

Mr. MacIver was very public-spirited, and a liberal supporter of our seamen’s charities.

It was a rule with the old Cunard Line not to introduce improvements until they had been well tried, and they continued to construct wooden paddle steamers long after the iron screw steamer had proved its efficiency. It was no doubt this policy which built up the wonderful reputation the line has always enjoyed for safety.

Although Charles MacIver was the master-builder of the Cunard Company, he was not actually one of the founders. These were Samuel Cunard, George Burns, and David MacIver. David MacIver died in 1845, and his brother Charles took his place. I was staying at Castle Wemyss in 1890, when I received a message that Sir George Burns wished to see me. The old man was lying on what proved to be his deathbed. His features, which were those of a handsome, strong, and resolute man, were thrown into striking relief by the halo of long, flowing, silver-white locks, which fell on his pillow. His mind (he was then ninety-five) evidently loved to live in the distant past, and he told me with pride,not of the doings of the Cunard Company, with which he had been so long and so honourably associated, but of the old sailing brigs, which in the days of his youth carried the mails between this country and Halifax.

Several of the first Cunard ships were built by John Wood at Port Glasgow. As a schoolboy I spent my summer holidays at his house. He was then building the wooden steamer “Lusitania” for my father’s firm. She was intended to trade between Lisbon and Oporto. Old John Wood was the father of shipbuilding on the Clyde, and a brass plate inserted in the wall of Messrs. Duncan’s shipbuilding yard at Port Glasgow now marks the site of his house.

I treasure these links of memory with those olden days of the shipping industry; they bridge over a period of most remarkable achievement and progress.

Sir George Burns was made a Baronet by Queen Victoria on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee, and his son was raised to the Peerage on Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee under the title of Lord Inverclyde. Lord Inverclyde took a very warm interest in shipping matters; he was a keen yachtsman, and dispensed at Castle Wemyss a splendid hospitality. He was for many years Chairman of the Cunard Company.

After the Cunard Company was formedinto a Limited Company, in 1882, Mr. John Burns was the Chairman, but as he lived in Scotland, the Deputy-Chairman (the late Mr. David Jardine) had the practical charge. His devotion to the interests of the Company through difficult times was most praiseworthy. He built the “Umbria” and “Etruria,” the two most successful and popular ships ever owned by the Company. The Marine Superintendent of the Cunard Line (Captain Watson) was a remarkable man, a seaman of the olden school, with great knowledge of a ship, but with a very narrow outlook. Of those who have passed away in connection with the Cunard Company, the most conspicuous figure was the second Lord Inverclyde, who succeeded Mr. Jardine as Chairman in 1905, and remained so until his death, five years later. Lord Inverclyde had a great grasp of affairs, and was a thorough master of the management of a steamer. He built the “Mauretania” and “Lusitania,” and had he lived he was destined to take a leading position in the country. Lord Inverclyde was succeeded as Chairman by Mr. William Watson, who died in 1909.

SS. “Umbria,” 1884

Ten years after the Cunard Company was established the late Mr. William Inman, in conjunction with Richardson Brothers, of Belfast, founded aline of steamers to Philadelphia. Their first steamer was the “City of Glasgow.” They shortly after made New York their headquarters in America. Mr. Inman’s policy was to cultivate the emigration trade, which had hitherto been carried by sailing ships; in this he was very successful, and the Inman Line, which existed for nearly forty years, will be remembered as containing some very fine and fast ships. The last ship Mr. Inman built, the “City of Rome,” was certainly the handsomest ship entering the Port. Mr. Inman died in 1881 comparatively young. He was an excellent public-spirited citizen, always ready and willing to help forward any good cause. We saw much of him at Windermere, where he loved to spend his holidays, and owned quite a flotilla of craft on the lake. Before he died the pride of place on the Atlantic had, however, been wrested from his hands by the more enterprising White Star Company. The Inman steamers passed into the hands of the Inman and International Steamship Company, under the direction of the late Mr. James Spence and Mr. Edmund Taylor, and eventually drifted to Southampton, and the old Inman Line, loved by Liverpool people for their handsome ships with their overhanging stems and long graceful lines, is now only a memory.

In 1850 an American line called the Collins Line started in the New York trade. It consisted of wooden paddle steamers with a tonnage of 2,800. They were for those times most luxuriously fitted. They had straight stems, and were known by their black funnels with red tops. The Company was not a financial success, and the steamers were withdrawn in 1858.

The White Star Line was originally a line of clipper ships trading to Australia, and owned by Pilkington and Wilson. The Line was bought by Mr. T. H. Ismay, who had formed a partnership with Mr. Imrie. Mr. Schwabe, of Broughton Hall, West Derby, was a large shareholder in Messrs. Bibby’s Mediterranean Line, and had, much to his annoyance, been notified that he could not have any further interest in their steamers, and the story goes that over a game of billiards he asked his friend, Mr. Imrie, to establish a new Line to New York, and promised, if he would do so, and would give the order to build the ships to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, he and his friends would take a substantial interest. Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co. accepted the proposal, and in conjunction with the late Mr. G. H. Fletcher founded, in 1870, the WhiteStar Line of steamers to New York, Mr. Fletcher being associated with Mr. Ismay in the management. In the design of the “Oceanic,” “Baltic,” “Atlantic,” the first steamers built for the Line, Mr. Harland adopted the novel features to which I have already alluded, and these, with the personal interest which Mr. Ismay displayed in making travellers by his Line comfortable, quickly made the White Star Company very popular. It was this personal touch which contributed largely to the success of the Company, and built up its great prosperity.

Mr. Ismay was a personal friend of whom I saw much in private life. I did not consider his prominent position was due so much to his brilliance, although he was distinctly an able man, as to his personality. He was also very thorough in all he did, and had great initiative. He had the happy gift of winning the confidence of those with whom he was associated, and the power of selecting excellent lieutenants and placing responsibility upon them. He was ambitious—not for honour, for he had refused a Baronetcy—but that the White Star Line should be pre-eminent. I was his guest on board the “Teutonic,” in 1897, on the occasion of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee; the ship was filled by the leading people of the land. All that was great and distinguished in politics, in literature, and art, etc.,were represented. We had also the Kaiser Wilhelm II as a visitor. I was struck by Mr. Ismay’s composure and the perfection of all his arrangements.

The occasion was also made memorable by the appearance of the “Turbinia,” Sir Charles Parsons’ experimental ship. She rushed about at headlong speed, but always under control, and it was evident that the turbine was destined to become—as it has—a great motive power with immense possibilities. Mr. Ismay unfortunately did not live to see the completion of hischef d’œuvre, the “Oceanic.”

The Guion Line occupied for many years an important and distinct position. Founded in 1866, their steamers were specially constructed for the emigration trade. After enjoying considerable success, they were unfortunate in adopting new designs which proved very costly experiments. Upon the death of Mr. Guion, in 1885, the steamers were transferred to a public company, which ceased to exist in 1894. Mr. Guion was very highly esteemed, he was a member of the City Council and Chairman of the Watch Committee; his pleasant, genial smile and his little jokes still linger in my memory.

SS. “Oceanic,” No. 1, 1870

We have not alluded to the National Line, which was established in 1862, and which, after enjoying a fluctuating career of prosperity and adversity, came to an end in 1892.

In the forties the Mediterranean trade was conducted by sailing brigs and fore and aft schooners. The late Mr. W. Miles Moss, of James Moss & Co., told the story that in 1849, feeling convinced that the time had arrived to introduce steamers, he invited those engaged in the trade to dinner at his house. He gave them his opinion, and added that he had contracted to build a steamer to cost £21,000, and invited his guests to take an interest with him. They responded to the extent of £12,000 only. Mr. Moss significantly added, “I took the balance.” This steamer was the “Nile,” and was the beginning of the Moss, Bibby, Viana, Chapple Lines. They all rapidly grew to be enterprises of great importance, and the sources of large wealth. James Moss & Co. were the pioneers in the steam trade to Egypt and the Levant, their first steamer being the “Nile.”

The Bibby Line to the Mediterranean was established in 1850 by John and James Bibby, whohad for many years owned a Line of small sailing-vessels trading to Italy.

The success of the Line was largely due to the genius of a young man, Mr. F. R. Leyland, who worked his way up from one of the lower rungs of the ladder, and eventually became the owner of the company. The career of Mr. Leyland is one of the most remarkable in our annals; receiving but a scant education he became a great linguist, an excellent musician, and as lover and connoisseur of art he had few superiors. Mr. Leyland’s dispute with the great Whistler as to the decoration of his Peacock room will be remembered by many.

The Bibby Line was revived by the nephews of the Messrs. Bibby who built up the old Bibby Line. The present Bibby Line has made for itself a very leading position in the East Indian trade.

The Liverpool shipping trade owes much to the late Mr. W. J. Lamport, who for many years was the Nestor of the trade, and also the founder, in co-partnership with Mr. George Holt, of the firm of Lamport & Holt. Mr. Lamport was a very able man and was the author of the first Merchant Shipping Bill.

SS. “Nile,” 1850

Messrs. T. and J. Harrison, in the sixties, owned a few iron ships in the Calcutta trade, andsome small steamers in the Charente wine trade. The late Mr. James Harrison was a genius—some thought he was a little eccentric, but he saw much further than most men, and recognised that there was an opening in the India trade for ships of moderate power that could make their passages with some regularity, and he boldly chartered the ships of Messrs. Malcolmson, which were large carriers, and with their engines of small power placed right aft, they quickly made a great success. Mr. James Harrison’s mantle fell upon very worthy shoulders in the late Mr. John Hughes, and under his direction the little Charente Line developed into the important Harrison Line of to-day. Mr. James Harrison’s sons are among the foremost of the supporters of our charities, and have contributed largely to the building of our Cathedral.

Mr. Holt claims a prominent niche in our gallery. He was essentially an inventor and a pioneer. In the early sixties he owned a line of small steamers trading to the West Indies, and afterwards he entered the China trade in association with the Swires, and was the founder of the prosperous Holt Line. Mr. Holt was for long years the advocate of the single engine, which he claimed to be the most economical, and alsoof models having fine lines and a big rise of floor—claiming that it was most economical in practice to have an easily-driven vessel. Experience has, however, demonstrated that ships with full bodies can be more cheaply propelled at moderate speeds.

Mr. Holt was the Chairman of the Dock Board, and was the inventor of the “plateway”; a scheme suggested to be adopted on our highways in order to facilitate the conveyance of heavy goods in competition with the railways, a scheme of which we shall hear more.

The late Sir Alfred Jones was a remarkable personality. He climbed up to the prominent position he eventually occupied by the sheer force of his will and character, backed by marvellous industry. I once asked him why he did not take a partner. His answer was, “I will do so as soon as I can find a man as ‘intense’ as myself.” On my inquiry how he got through his work he replied, “System. My day is mapped out—a certain hour for my steamers, another for my banana trade, another for coal, another for my properties, another for my theatres in the Canaries.” With all this he spent several days each week in London, taking his correspondence clerks with him on the train and shedding them on the way as he completed his letters. For sheer force ofcharacter and power for work, Sir Alfred was the most remarkable man Liverpool has produced in my day.

Sir Thomas Brocklebank

W. Miles Moss

Frederick R. Leyland

Sir Alfred Jones

We had in Mr. Walter Glynn a successful manager of the Leyland Line, and also a very useful member of the Dock Board. Very blunt of speech, his directness of purpose was a very useful quality in public affairs.

Mr. William Johnston, the founder of the Johnston Line, devoted himself to the building up of his own business, in which he was most successful. He was the first to recognise and profit by through freight arrangements in connection with the great trunk lines of railway in America.

were among the first to form a Line of steamers to Calcutta. The “Orion,” “Pleiades,” and others, were handsome vessels, but the general impression was that they were not sufficiently large carriers for such a distant trade. Mr. William Rathbone’s memory will be long treasured by Liverpool as one of our most useful public men. He represented thetown in Parliament for many years, and Liverpool was never better represented. He had an office at the rear of his private residence in London, where he kept a staff of clerks for his Parliamentary business. Those were days when a Member could initiate and carry through legislation. Mr. Rathbone took a leading position in the reform of the Poor Laws, and in the promotion of the first Merchant Shipping Bill. His brother, Mr. Samuel G. Rathbone, devoted his remarkable ability to local affairs, and was a very valuable and leading member of the Town Council.

the owners of the Asiatic Line, trading on the coast of India, were represented by the late Mr. Alfred Turner, who was one of our most large-hearted citizens. When we failed in the eighties to raise money to build a Cathedral on the St. John’s site, he defrayed the whole of the initial expenses. He was for some years the President of the Seamen’s Orphanage.

was at one time one of our most prominent shipbuilders. He afterwards devoted his attention entirely to ship owning, in which he was most successful. Sir Thomas was a tower of strength to the Tory party, his eloquence and his smile beingamong their most valuable assets. Sir Thomas lived to a good old age, and was always prominent in Liverpool affairs.

founded, in 1865, the West India & Pacific Co., of which he was the Managing Director, until he entered Parliament. He was a man of striking ability and power of organisation, and was endowed with enormous energy. As the leader of the Tory party in Liverpool and in the County he did a great work for Liverpool, and he became the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.

The Booth Line occupies a prominent position, and has built up a large trade with the Northern Brazilian ports. It was founded by the Right Hon. Charles Booth, the philanthropist, and the late Mr. Alfred Booth. The original Booth Line amalgamated some years ago with Messrs. Singlehurst & Co.

It is impossible to refer to the many who have been interested in our Atlantic steam trade who valiantly bore their part in the struggles of the past. In these days, which have been days of remarkable prosperity, one is apt to forget the struggles of the past, and in no trade were they more severe than in the Atlantic.

Among the sailing-ship owners of the day Messrs. Brocklebank took the lead. Their ships, distinguished by a white band, seemed to monopolise the Albert and the Salthouse Docks. They were not only our largest shipowners but our largest merchants, their ships conveying mostly their own cargoes. They were very slow in changing over from sail to steam. Mr. Ralph Brocklebank took an active interest in the affairs of our Dock Board, and was for many years the Chairman. Sir Thos. Brocklebank took a prominent position in politics as a Unionist, and both were very public spirited.

Messrs. Rankin, Gilmour & Co., associated with the old firm of Pollock & Gilmour, of Glasgow, had a large fleet, mostly engaged in the timber trade. Mr. Robert Rankin lived at Bromborough Hall, and was for many years the Chairman of the Dock Board. The firm is now most worthily represented by Mr. John Rankin, to whose widespread philanthropy Liverpool is so greatly indebted.

Mr. Edward Bates was among our principal shipowners. His ships traded with Bombay, were built of iron, and bore family names. To the surprise of most people, Mr. Bates entered Parliament. He won the reputation of being the most regular member in his attendance, and was created a Baronet.

“Aracan,” 1854

Among other owners of sailing-ships we had Mr. James Beazley, who will always live in our kindly memory as the founder of the Seamen’s Orphanage; Mr. F. A. Clint, Mr. David Fernie, and others.

Probably the most active trade in the fifties was the Australian trade, the gold discoveries attracting a large emigration trade. Mr. H. T. Wilson (the Napoleon of the Tory party) was very prominent and active in this trade. He founded the White Star Line, which he afterwards sold to Mr. Ismay. Mr. James Baines (who never appeared to be able to buy a hat sufficiently large to contain his big head), with his henchman, Mr. Graves, was always active and pushing, and kept the Black Ball Line of Australian packets well to the fore. He owned quite a large fleet of clippers, including the celebrated ship the “Marco Polo,” the “James Baines,” the “Donald M‘Kay,” and others. The Australian trade did not make fortunes; the soft wooden ships were costly to maintain, and competition became severe.

was a prominent shipowner. He became one of the Members of Parliament for Liverpool; hewas very popular in the House, and his friends expected he would have taken a high position had he lived. He was the popular Commodore of the Royal Mersey Yacht Club, and his schooner yacht “Ierne” will be remembered by many.

We must not forget the fruit schooners owned by Messrs. Glynn & Co., which filled the old George’s Dock. They were the Witches of the Sea.

One of our most flourishing trades was the West Coast trade of South America. It was worked by small barques of 400-500 tons, always smart, well-equipped vessels, as they needed to be to do battle with the heavy westerly gales off Cape Horn. Messrs. Balfour, Williamson & Co., who owned many vessels in this trade, made a noteworthy departure in providing a home in Duke Street for their masters and apprentices when in port.

In bringing these sketches to a close, one feels it may be considered presumptuous to attempt to allot the position which each may claim in building up our shipping prosperity, but we may point to distinctive features in the work of each claiming recognition. I think Mr. Charles MacIver stands out prominently as the founder of our great Atlantic trade. Mr. T. H. Ismay demands our appreciation for the good work he did for the ocean traveller—he made the comfort of the passenger his firstconsideration. The late Mr. W. Miles Moss can claim to be the pioneer of the Mediterranean steam trade. Mr. Inman was the friend of the Irish emigrant. Sir Alfred Jones, the active minded and energetic owner, whose ambition was boundless and success great. And last, but not least, Sir Edward Harland, the great master shipbuilder, whose genius prevailed everywhere, and is still felt.

It is very gratifying to be able to record the successful careers of many of our shipowners, who, from small beginnings, have achieved not only wealth, but positions of influence and importance. We have already alluded to Mr. Ismay, Mr. F. R. Leyland, and Sir Alfred Jones. The late Sir Donald Currie was for many years head of a department in the Cunard Co., and became in after years the Chairman and principal owner of the Cape Mail Line of steamers; and Sir Charles Cayzer, while in the service of the P. & O. Company, saved sufficient to buy a small sailing-vessel, and afterwards associating himself with Messrs. Arthurs & Co., of Glasgow, founded the important line of steamers bearing his name.

It is a subject for sincere regret that the recent craze for amalgamation has obliterated so many landmarks in the history of our shipping. In a very few years names which were household words with us will have disappeared. Ismay, Imrie & Co., the Inman Company, the Guion Line,the West India and Pacific, the Dominion Line, the old Bibby Line have all already gone, and have become absorbed in still larger companies. The process is still making headway, and in a few years very few of the old companies will be left, and the headquarters of our great shipping industry will be in London. This will not make for the general prosperity of Liverpool, and we shall miss the old Liverpool shipowner in many ways. It will, however, be always pleasant to think of how nobly he did his duty. Messrs. MacIver, Inman, Ismay, Allan, Beazley, Sir Alfred Jones were all distinguished by their public spirit and their generous support of our charities, particularly those associated with the welfare of the sailor, and no Port in the world is so well equipped with institutions which care for his welfare.

Back to Index Next