Steamships and their story E. Keble Chatterton 1153 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Steamships and their story

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Steamships and their story

Author: E. Keble Chatterton

Release date: November 5, 2023 [eBook #72045]

Language: English

Original publication: London: Cassell and company, ltd., 1910

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72045

Credits: Peter Becker, Charlie Howard, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The Internet
Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STEAMSHIPS
AND THEIR STORY ***

Transcriber’s Note
Larger versions of most illustrations may be seen by right-
clicking them and selecting an option to view them separately, or
by double-tapping and/or stretching them.
Additional notes will be found near the end of this ebook.

STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR
STORY

THE WHITE STAR LINER “OLYMPIC”
(Drawn by Charles Dixon, R.I.)

STEAMSHIPS
AND THEIR STORY
BY
E. KEBLE CHATTERTON
Author of “Sailing Ships and Their Story”
WITH 153 ILLUSTRATIONS

CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.
London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
1910

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PREFACE
The exceptionally kind reception on the part of both Press and public
which greeted the appearance of my history of the sailing ship last year, and
the numerous expressions of appreciation that have reached me from so
many parts of the world, have encouraged me to attempt in a similar
manner to set out the story of the steamship from the earliest times to the
present day.
I am by no means unaware that between the sailing ship and the
steamship there is a wide difference, as well in character as in their
respective development. But that is no reason for supposing that the
steamship is less interesting in her history or less deserving of admiration in
her final presentation. Around the sailing ship there hovers eternally a halo
of romance; that is undeniable even by the most modern enthusiast. But, on
the other hand, the sailing ship in the whole of her career has not done more
for the good of humanity than the steamship within a century or less. It
requires but a moment of thought to realise the truth of this statement; and
for that reason alone, the history of the steamship makes its appeal not to a
special class of reader, but to all who interest themselves in progress, in the
development of their own country and empire, in the welfare of the world
generally, and the evolution from stagnation to beneficial activity and
prosperity. There are but few civilised people nowadays who have not been
brought into contact with the steamship in one way or another. Perhaps
sometimes it has been unwillingly, though at other times to their great gain.
In some of those moments which have seemed to drag on wearily during the
enforced idleness of a voyage, the inquiring mind has over and over again
exhibited a desire to know something of the nature of the fine creature
which is carrying him from one distant country to another. He has desired to
know in plain, non-technical language, how the steamship idea began; how
it developed; how its progress was modified, and what were the influences
at work that moulded its character as we know it to-day. Further, he has felt
the desire to show an intelligent interest in her various characteristics and to
obtain a fair grasp of the principles which underlay the building and

working of the steamship. As a normal being himself, with mind and
sympathy, he has wished to be able to enter into the difficulties that have
been overcome so splendidly by the skill and enterprise of others, both past
and present. If he talks to the professional sailor or marine engineer, they
may not, even if they have the inclination to unbend, be able easily to
separate their explanation from the vesture of technicality, and the inquirer
is scarcely less satisfied than before. It is, then, with a view of supplying
this want that I have aimed to write such a book as will interest without, I
trust, wearying, the general reader.
The plan on which I have worked has been to give the historical
continuity of the steamship from the most reliable and authoritative material
obtainable, and to supplement and correct a number of false statements by
comparison with the latest researches. At the same time, my object has been
not merely to ensure absolute historical accuracy, but to show how in a
special manner and peculiar to itself the steamship is every bit as romantic,
and equally deserving of our affectionate regard, as her predecessor the
sailing ship, whose sphere of utility she has succeeded so materially in
limiting. After having been brought safe and sound through gales of wind,
across many thousands of miles of ocean, past cruel coast, and through
treacherous channels, until at last the fairway and the harbour of safety have
been reached, no one who has any heart at all can step ashore without
feeling that he is parting from one of the noblest and best friends that a man
ever had. True, there are some people, as an officer on one of the crack
liners once remarked to me, who, as soon as ever the big ship is tied up
alongside the landing-stage, hurry ashore from her as if she were a plague-
ship. But such, let us hope, are the few rather than representative of the
majority who have been brought into intimate relationship with the
steamship.
Nor only to the history and the glamour of the great steam-driven
vessel have I confined myself. The sea is not merely a wide ocean, but
contains within its mighty bosom many smaller areas such as channels and
bays wherein the steamboat is able to ply as well for pleasure as for profit;
and besides the big, brave sisters with their enormous displacement and
their powerful engines, there are other children which run across smaller
sea-ways, and these, too, are not to be passed over lightly. Then there are
fleets of special steamships which in a quiet, unostentatious manner do their

noble work, and are none the less efficient, even if they escape the limelight
of general publicity. I shall seek to show in the following pages not merely
the conditions which in the past have hindered or helped the ship-maker, but
to indicate the modern problems which have still to be faced and overcome.
The difficulty that awaits an author who writes on a technical subject
for the benefit of the non-technical, average reader, is always to make
himself intelligible without being allowed the full use of the customary but
technical terms. In order that, as far as possible, the present volume may be
both a full and accurate account of the steamship, in all times and in all the
phases of her development, whilst yet being capable of appreciation by
those to whom technicalities do not usually appeal, I have endeavoured
whensoever possible to explain the terms employed.
The story of the steamship may at the first mention seem to be bereft of
any interest beyond that which appeals to an expert in marine engineering.
Pipes and boilers and engines, you are told, are not suggestive of romance.
To this one might reply that neither were sails and spars during the first
stages of their history; and I shall hope that after he has been so kind as to
read the following pages, the reader may feel disposed to withdraw the
suggestion that the steamship is a mere inanimate mass of metal. On the
contrary, she is as nearly human as it is possible to made a steel shell,
actuated by ingenious machinery; and, after all, it is the human mind and
hand which have brought her into being, and under which she is kept
continuously in control. It would be surprising, therefore, since she has
been and continues to be related so closely to humanity, if she should not
exhibit some of the characteristics which a human possesses.
It is fitting that the history of the steamship should be written at this
time, for if final perfection has not yet arrived, it cannot be very far distant.
It is but three or four years since the Lusitania and Mauretania came into
being, and only during the present year have they shown themselves to
possess such exceptional speed for merchant ships. On the 20th of October,
1910, will be launched the Olympic, whose size will dominate even the
Mauretania. Much further than a 45,000-ton ship, surely, it cannot be
possible to go; and the likelihood is that with the commercial steamship’s
manifested ability to steam at the rate of over thirty-one land miles per hour,
we are in sight of the limitations which encompass her. As to the future of
transport, changes happen so quickly, and possess so revolutionary a

character, that it is hardly safe to prophesy; but it is significant that the week
before this preface was written, an aeroplane succeeded in flying, in perfect
ease and safety, the 150 miles which separate Albany from New York; and
thus, just a century after Fulton had convinced the incredulous by traversing
the same course through water in his steamship, the latest means of
travelling from one place to another has caused to look insignificant the
wonderful record which Fulton, in his Clermont, was the first to set up. If,
then, as will be seen from this volume, the steamship has done so much
within a hundred years, what, we may legitimately ask, will be
accomplished by the airship or aeroplane before another century has come
to an end? Those who have the temerity to give expression to their opinions,
suggest that the steamship will ultimately be made obsolete by the flying
craft. If that be a true forecast, it is perhaps as well that the steamship’s
story should be told here and now whilst yet she is at her prime.
Of the matter contained within this volume, much has been obtained at
first hand, but much has also been derived from the labours of others, and
herewith I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness. I would especially wish
to mention in this connection: “A Chronological History of the Origin and
Development of Steam Navigation, 1543–1882,” by Geo. Henry Preble,
Rear-Admiral U.S.N. (1883); certain articles in the “Dictionary of National
Biography”; “Ancient and Modern Ships: Part II., The Era of Steam, Iron
and Steel,” by Sir George C. V. Holmes, K.C.V.O., C.B. (1906); “The Clyde
Passenger Steamer: Its Rise and Progress,” by Captain James Williamson
(1904); “The History of American Steam Navigation,” by John H. Morrison
(1903); “The History of North Atlantic Steam Navigation,” by Henry Fry
(1896); “The American Merchant Marine,” by W. L. Martin (1902); “The
Atlantic Ferry: Its Ships, Men, and Working,” by Arthur J. Maginnis
(London, 1893); “Ocean Liners of the World,” by W. Bellows (1896); “Life
of Robert Napier,” by James Napier (1904); “Handbook on Marine Engines
and Boilers,” by Sir G. C. V. Holmes (1889); “The Royal Yacht Squadron,”
by Montague Guest and W. B. Boulton (1903); “The Rise and Progress of
Steam Navigation,” by W. J. Millar (1881); “Practical Shipbuilding,” by A.
Campbell Holms; “The Boy’s Book of Steamships,” by J. R. Howden
(1908); “The Steam Turbine,” by R. M. Neilson (1903); “Our Ocean
Railways, or Ocean Steam Navigation,” by A. Macdonald (1893); “Life of
R. Fulton and a History of Steam Navigation,” by T. Wallace Knox (1887);
“Life on the Mississippi,” by Mark Twain; “American Notes,” by Charles

Dickens; “The Orient Line Guide,” by W. J. Loftie (1901); “The History of
the Holyhead Railway Boat Service,” by Clement E. Stretton (1901); the
“Catalogue of the Naval and Marine Engineering Collection in the Science
Division of the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington” (1899);
“Catalogue of the Mechanical Engineering Collection in the Science
Division” of the above (1907); “The Progress of German Shipbuilding”
(1909); “Leibnizens und Huygens Briefwechsel mit Papin,” by G. W. Von
Leibnitz (1881); “British Shipbuilding,” by A. L. Ayre (1910); “Lloyd’s
Calendar.” In addition to the above, I have laid myself under obligation to a
number of articles which have appeared at one time and another in the
newspapers and periodicals within the last century, and especially to certain
contributions in the Century Magazine, the Yachting Monthly, the Engineer
and in Engineering. For the rest, I have relied on material which I have
myself collected, as well as on much valuable matter which has been
courteously supplied to me by the various shipbuilding firms and steamship
lines.
My thanks are also due for the courteous permission which has been
given to reproduce photographs of many of the steamships seen within
these pages. To the authorities at South Kensington I am indebted for the
privilege of reproducing a number of the exhibits in the Victoria and Albert
Museum. I wish also to thank the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company
for permission to reproduce the Royal William; Mr. James Napier for the
illustration of the British Queen; the Cunard Steamship Company for the
various photographs of many of their fleet; also the Royal Mail Steam
Packet Company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company,
Messrs. Ismay, Imrie and Co., Messrs. Anderson, Anderson and Co., the
American Line, the Norddeutscher Lloyd Company, the Liverpool Steam
Towing and Lighterage Company, Messrs. L. Smit and Co., the Ymuiden
Tug Company, Messrs. Lobnitz and Co., Renfrew, the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board, Liverpool, Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co.,
Messrs. William Doxford and Sons, Sir Raylton Dixon and Co., Messrs.
Cochrane and Sons, Selby, the Fall River Line, Messrs. A. and J. Inglis,
Messrs. Thos. Rhodes and Co., the Caledon Shipbuilding and Engineering
Co., Messrs. Camper and Nicholson, Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co., the
Great Western Railway Company, the London and North Western Railway
Company, the London and South Western Railway Company, the South
Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and

Messrs. C. A. Parsons and Co. To the Right Hon. the Earl of Stanhope, to
the New Jersey Historical Society, and also to the proprietors of the Century
Magazine I wish to return thanks for being allowed to reproduce certain
illustrations connected with Fulton’s early experiments in steam navigation,
and to the Yachting Monthly for permission to reproduce the diagrams of
steam yachts and lifeboats.
Finally, I have to apologise if through any cause it should be found that
in spite of extreme carefulness errrors should have found their way into this
narrative. The nature of the subject is necessarily such that to have erred
herein would have been easy, but I have been at great pains to prevent such
a possibility occurring.
E. Keble Chatterton.
June, 1910.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1. Introduction 1
2. The Evolution of Mechanically-Propelled Craft 12
3. The Early Passenger Steamships 63
4. The Inauguration of the Liner 104
5. The Liner in her Transition State 145
6. The Coming of the Twin-Screw Steamship 165
7. The Modern Mammoth Steamship 183
8. Smaller Ocean Carriers and Cross-Channel Steamers 215
9. Steamships for Special Purposes 233
10. The Steam Yacht 266
11. The Building of the Steamship 282
12. The Safety and Luxury of the Passenger 297
13. Some Steamship Problems 309

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
The “Olympic” Frontispiece
Hero’s Steam Apparatus 18
Jonathan Hulls’ Steam Tug Boat 30
The Marquis de Jouffroy’s Steamboat 40
Patrick Miller’s Double-hulled Paddle-boat 42
Symington’s First Marine Engine 42
Outline of Fitch’s First Boat 45
The “Charlotte Dundas” 46
The “Clermont” in 1807 46
Fulton’s design for a Steamboat submitted to the Commission
appointed by Napoleon in 1803 51
Fulton’s First Plans for Steam Navigation 57
Fulton’s design of Original Apparatus for determining the
Resistance of Paddles for the propulsion of the “Clermont,”
dated 1806 64
The Reconstructed “Clermont” at the Hudson-Fulton
Celebrations, 1909 70
Paddle-wheel of the Reconstructed “Clermont” 70
Fulton’s Preliminary Study for the Engine of the “Clermont” 75
Fulton’s plans of a later Steamboat than the “Clermont-North-
River,” showing application of the square side connecting
rod Engine 77
The “Comet” 78
Engine of the “Comet” 78
S.S. “Elizabeth” (1815) 84
Russian Passenger Steamer (1817) 84
The “Prinzessin Charlotte” (1816) 90
The “Savannah” (1819) 90

The “James Watt” (1821) 94
Side-Lever Engines of the “Ruby” (1836) 94
The “Sirius” (1838) 96
The “Royal William” (1838) 96
The “Great Western” (1838) 100
Paddle-wheel of the “Great Western” 100
The “British Queen” (1839) 102
The “Britannia,” the First Atlantic Liner (1840) 102
The “Teviot” and “Clyde” (1841) 110
Side-lever Engine 110
Launch of the “Forth” (1841) 112
The “William Fawcett” and H.M.S. “Queen” (1829) 112
Designs for Screw Propellers prior to 1850 118
The “Robert F. Stockton” (1838) 120
The “Archimedes” (1839) 120
Stern of the “Archimedes” 122
The “Novelty” (1839) 122
The “Great Britain” (1843) 126
Propeller of the “Great Britain” 126
Engines of the “Great Britain” 128
Engines of the “Helen McGregor” 128
The “Scotia” (1862) 130
The “Pacific” (1853) 130
Maudslay’s Oscillating Engine. 132
Engines of the “Candia” 132
The “Victoria” (1852) 134
The “Himalaya” (1853) 134
Coasting Cargo Steamer (1855) 134
The “Great Eastern” (1858) 138
Paddle Engines of the “Great Eastern” 140
Screw Engines of the “Great Eastern” 140
The “City of Paris” (1866) 148
The “Russia” (1867) 148
The “Oceanic” (1870) 152

The “Britannic” (1874) 154
The “Servia” (1881) 154
The “Umbria” (1884) 158
The “Orient” (1879) 158
The “Austral” (1881) 162
The “Victoria” (1887) 162
The “Majestic” (1889) 162
The “City of Paris” (1893) (now the “Philadelphia”) 166
The “Ophir” (1891) 166
The “Lucania” (1893) 170
The “Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse” (1897) 174
The “Oceanic” (1899) 176
The “Cedric” 176
The “Celtic” 178
The “Kaiser Wilhelm II.” 180
Giovanni Branca’s Steam Engine (1629) 184
The Blades of a Parsons Turbine 185
The Parsons Turbine 186
The “Carmania” (1905) 188
Lower half of the fixed portion of one of the “Carmania’s”
Turbines 188
A Study in Comparisons: the “Magnetic” and “Baltic” 192
The “Mauretania” when completing at Wallsend-on-Tyne 198
Stern of the “Mauretania” 200
The “Lusitania” 202
The “Adriatic” 206
The “George Washington” 208
The “Berlin” 208
The “Laurentic” on the Stocks 210
The “Mooltan” 216
The Starting Platform in the Engine Room of the “Mooltan” 218
The “Balmoral Castle” 220
The “Cambria” (1848) 222
Engines of the “Leinster” (1860) 222

The “Atalanta” (1841) 226
The “Lyons” (1856) 226
The “Empress” leaving Dover Harbour 226
The Ocean Tug “Blackcock” 234
The Passenger Tender “Sir Francis Drake” 234
The 7,000 ton Floating Dry-dock under tow by the “Roode
Zee” and “Zwarte Zee” 236
The Salvage Tug “Admiral de Ruyter” 238
The New York Harbour and River Tug Boat “Edmund Moran” 238
The Paddle-Tug “Dromedary” 240
The Bucket Dredger “Peluse” 240
The Suction Dredger “Leviathan” 242
The “Vigilant” 242
The Telegraph Steamer “Monarch” 244
Deck View of the Telegraph Ship “Faraday” 244
The “Silverlip” 246
Section of Modern Oil-tank Steamer 246
The Turret-ship “Inland” 248
Midship Section of a Turret-ship 248
Cantilever Framed Ship 250
The North Sea Trawler “Orontes” 252
The Steam Trawler “Notre Dame des Dunes” 252
Hydraulic Lifeboat 255
A Screw Lifeboat 257
The “Inez Clarke” 258
The “Natchez” and the “Eclipse” (1855) 258
The “Empire” 258
The “Commonwealth” 262
Beam Engine of an American River Steamer 262
The “City of Cleveland” 264
An American “Whale-back” Steamer 264
Typical Steam Yacht of about 1890 271
A Steam Yacht of To-day 275
The Russian Imperial Yacht “Livadia” 276

The Royal Yacht “Victoria and Albert” 278
The Royal Yacht “Alexandra” 278
The S.Y. “Sagitta” 280
The S.Y. “Triad” 280
“Flush-decked” Type 283
“Three Island” Type 283
“Top-gallant Forecastle” Type 284
“Top-gallant Forecastle” Type, with raised quarter-deck 284
Early “Well-deck” Type 284
“Well-deck” Type 285
“Spar-deck” Type 285
“Awning-deck” Type 286
“Shade-deck” Type 286
The Building of the “Mauretania” (showing floor and part of
frames) 286
The “George Washington” in course of Construction 288
Bows of the “Berlin” in course of Construction 290
The “Berlin” just before her Launch 290
Stern frame of the “Titanic,” February 9, 1910 292
The Shelter Deck of the “Orsova” in course of Construction 292a
One of the Decks of the “Lusitania” in course of Construction 292a
Launch of the “Araguaya” 294
Launch of a Turret-Ship 294
The “Suevic” ashore off the Lizard 296
The Stern Part of the “Suevic” awaiting the New Bow at
Southampton 296a
The New Bow of the “Suevic” at entrance to Dock 296a
Charles Dickens’s State-room on the “Britannia” 298
The Veranda Café of the “Lusitania” 300
First Class Dining Saloon of the “Adriatic” 300
Dining Saloon of the S.Y. “Liberty” 302
Gymnasium of the S.Y. “Liberty” 302
The Marconi Room on a Cunard Liner 306

STEAMSHIPS AND THEIR STORY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
In my previous book, “Sailing Ships and Their Story,” which, indeed,
this present volume is meant to follow as a complement of the story of the
development of the ocean carrier, I ventured to submit the proposition that a
nation exhibits its exact state of progress and degree of refinement in three
things: its art, its literature, and its ships; so that the development of the ship
goes on side by side, and at the same rate, as the development of the State.
And if this was found to be true with regard to the vessel propelled by sails,
it will be seen that the same can be affirmed with no less truth in respect of
the steamship.
In setting out on our present intention to trace the story of the
steamship from its first beginnings to the coming of the mammoth, four-
funnelled, quadruple-screw, turbine liners of to-day, it is not without
importance to bear the above proposition in mind. For though the period
occupied by the whole story of the steamer is roughly only about a hundred
years, yet these hundred years represent an epoch unequalled in history for
wealth of invention, commercial progress, and industrial activity. The
extraordinary development during these years, alone, not merely of our own
country and colonies, but of certain other nations—of, for instance, the
United States of America, of Germany, of Japan—has been as rapid as it has
been thorough. Consequently, if our proposition were correct, we should
expect to find that the rate of development in the ship had been
commensurate. Nor have we any cause for disappointment, for as soon as
we commence to reckon up the achievements made in art and literature
during the nineteenth, and the first decade of the twentieth centuries, and to
compare the rate of progress of the ship during this same period, it seems at
first not a little difficult to realise that so much should have been
accomplished in so short a time.

When the inhabitant of the Stone Age had succeeded in putting an edge
on his blunt stone implement, he had instantly “broken down a wall that for
untold ages had dammed up a stagnant, unprogressive past, and through the
breach were let loose all the potentialities of the future civilisation of
mankind.” It is by no means an unfitting simile if I suggest that we liken the
invention of steam to the discovery of the potentialities of the edge. Until
the coming of the former we may well say that progress, as we now know
it, remained stagnant, at any rate in respect of rapid movement. Omitting
other uses for steam not pertinent to our present subject, we may affirm that
in annihilating space, in quickly bridging over the trackless expanse of
oceans, steamships have succeeded in accelerating the development of the
countries of the world.
Ever since the time when primitive man first learned to harness the
wind in his navigation of the waters of the earth, there had always been
sailing vessels of some sort. For, at any rate, 8,000 years there is a chain of
evidence illustrating one kind of sailing craft or another, and the work of
later centuries was but to improve and increase the capabilities of the
sailing vessels handed down from one generation to the other. But with the
first experiments in steamships it was quite different. Here was a case of
experimenting, with but few data on which to rely. For, granted that already
some knowledge had been collected concerning the capabilities of steam,
and notwithstanding the fact that a great deal more knowledge was extant
concerning the art of shipbuilding, yet the condition of relationship between
ships and steam was unknown, untried. How to generate the maximum of
steam power at the lowest cost; how to apply this power in such a manner
as to cause the hull to go through the water at a fair pace; whether the
propelling power should find its expression at the side or the extremity of
the ship—these and many other problems could be solved, not by previous
history, but simply and solely by experimenting, as the primitive man had
solved the problem of the mast and sail in their relation to the wind.
And yet it was scarcely probable that the value of the sail, which had
been appreciated for so many thousands of years, should be suddenly found
worthless. Inventions are no sooner born than they find themselves
compelled in their weak infancy to fight for their lives against the militant
conservatism of established custom. Seamen-descendants of ages and ages
of seamen, themselves the most conservative of any section of society, were

not likely to believe so readily that pipes and boilers were going to do as
much for the ship as spars and sails. Nor, in fact, did they all at once. But
something had to come as a greater propelling power than uncertain wind.
For the world in the early part of this hundred years was waking up again
after the dull Georgian period. It was perhaps rather a new birth—another
Renaissance. Soon it began to get busy, and speed, not repose, became the
general cry, whose noise is heard now louder and louder each day on land
as well as sea. Every known device of the architect and builder was
employed to coax additional knots out of the sailing ship: all the
improvements in sails and gear were utilised to this purpose. As the result
of these demands the magnificent clippers doing their marvellous passages
homewards evolved. But that was all too slow. Passengers and freights were
in a hurry to get from shore to shore, and, later, perishable food supplies
could not be entrusted to the sailing ship. And so, when once the steamship
had appeared, even though not as a pronounced success, yet the spirit of the
times was such that she should be encouraged as being likely to satisfy the
cravings of an active, restless age.
In the history of human progress we find everywhere exemplified a
continuous effort through centuries and centuries of change to obtain an end
with the least expenditure of labour. It is one of the most striking
characteristics of our nature that we proceed along that road offering the
least resistance and requiring the smallest amount of endeavour. Not more
true is this assertion to-day than in the ages which have sunk into oblivion,
and but for this human instinct, or failing, the progress of the world would
have been impossible. The prehistoric man found the action of paddling his
dug-out so irksome and wearying that he invented the sail as a means of
harnessing the wind to do his work, and, as a result, what does the world
not owe to his apparent laziness? How else would new countries have been
discovered and peopled, commerce extended to nations beyond the seas,
untilled areas made to yield their fruitful produce, and wealth amassed by
production and exchange of commodities? It was not until Europe had at
last begun to build her big caravels and caracks, and to learn how to handle
them with adequate seamanship, that the art of navigation advanced so far
as to enable Columbus to sail across the Atlantic, and to lay the foundation
of the prosperity of the New World. To have attained such a feat by the
means of physical propulsion would have been impossible; it was only by
the invention of the sail and the perfection of the sailing ship after many

centuries of experimenting that this came about. For man’s endurance is
hedged in by stern limits. He can only work for part of the day, and he must
eat and sleep. But by yoking the wind to the sail the voyage could be
continued without the necessity for plying the oar, and most of the crew
could be below at their rest or their meals.
But the sailing ship, too, has her limitations. When the wind drops her
range of usefulness automatically ends. When the wind becomes contrary,
or rises in sufficient fierceness as to become a gale, the sailing ship again
loses some of her utility, whilst tides and currents in like manner combine
to impede her advance from one port to another. And so, realising all these
harassing circumstances, man has ever had a desire to shake himself free
from such irritating restrictions, to assert his own independence of winds
and seas and tides, and to steer his ships where he liked, and as fast as he
liked with the minimum effort.
And yet he has been a very long time indeed finding the means of
rising superior to the forces of Nature. He has had to fight very hard against
heavy odds, he has had to devise no end of ingenious methods, most of
which have been utterly useless, and many a man, overjoyed at his
discovery of a sure means of overcoming the problem of propelling craft
without sails or oars, has found at the last that in practice it was unworkable
or too costly. Some have died from sheer want through sacrificing their all
to this one end; others, rendered more sensitive by the ridicule and scorn of
their fellow-men, have, on witnessing their own failure, died of a broken
heart, and been reckoned by the least discerning as among those who
wasted their lives in pursuing a shadow, frittered their time and money in
seeking to attain the unattainable, and left behind them no monument
except a pile of unworkable propositions and theories.
But no generation is at any time of its career independent. From its first
moments it is under a debt to those which have come and gone. Literature is
but a collection of data amassed by our predecessors and handed down to
the next age, which adds a little more to what is already known. It is
scarcely possible to point to one man and say that he alone was the inventor
of any new theory or device, although in carelessness we actually so speak.
His own conclusions have been based on the accumulation of what his
predecessors have left for him; and it is the same with the invention of the
steamship. Some writers of different nationalities have patriotically upheld

one man or another as the father of the steamship with a zeal that does more
credit to their national loyalty than to their sense of historical fairness. In
point of fact, although in different epochs one man has been more
successful in practical experiment than another, we cannot, at any rate in the
history of the steamship, give to that man a place of honour to the exclusion
of all those who have gone before. Without their help he would never have
succeeded. Their failures, even if they left him little to work on, at least
showed him what to avoid. As an example we might here cite the instance
of using a propeller shaped after the manner of a duck’s foot, which, being a
close copy of the method employed by a species of animal which has its
being on the surface of the water, appealed powerfully to more than one
inventor as the likely way to solve a great problem; just as the early days of
aviation were wasted in endeavouring to follow too closely the methods of
locomotion adopted by birds. The years of man are but threescore and ten,
and he cannot go on wasting his allotted time in trying and discarding all
the experiments possible; but from the disordered mass of accumulated data
he can extract just those which have any semblance of sound sense and
practicability, from which he can deduce his own new theory and put it to
actual test.
Because, then, of this mutual inter-dependence we shall give the palm
to no individual, but endeavour to show how, step by step, the ship has
shaken herself free of entire slavery to the wind, one age helping her a little
in her ambition, others sending her forward farther still towards her goal.
Chance plays so curious a game with progress. A genius may spring up too
early or too late to be appreciated. He may be hailed as a dangerous lunatic
or as a benefactor of mankind, according to whether the time was ripe for
his appearance.
Papin, as we shall see presently, was born out of due season. His
fellow-men did not want his steamer, so they smashed it to pieces. Solomon
de Caus, who showed that he knew more about the application of steam
than anyone who had ever lived, was shut up as a madman, whereas Fulton,
another man of rare genius and wonderful fertility of invention, has recently
had his centenary celebrated and fêtes in his memory held, lest the
recollection of his great gift to mankind should be easily forgotten. But
Fulton was just the kind of man to acknowledge his dependence on the
work of his predecessors, and, in fact, did this in so many words when he

was being denounced by a rival inventor. Desblanc, a Frenchman, pretended
that his was the prior invention, but Fulton wisely replied that if the glory of
having invented the steamboat belonged to anyone, it belonged not to
himself nor to Desblanc, but to the Marquis de Jouffroy, who had obtained a
success with his steamer on the Saône twenty years before. And the
designers and builders of the Mauretania and Lusitania to-day would be
among the first to admit that such achievements as these mammoth ships
are but the results of all that has gone before: in other words, it is evolution
rather than sudden invention.
Genius is the exclusive possession of no particular nation, still less of
any particular age: but it needs just that happy condition of opportunity
which means so little or may mean so much. And the more we realise that
this is so, and that it is even possible for two men, separated by thousands
of miles, to be working at the same scientific problem and to arrive at
similar solutions at about the same date (as happens more than once in the
story of the steamship), so much more quickly shall we approach a fair and
impartial verdict in assessing praise to whom praise is due. All the mutual
recriminations and slanders, all the long years of law-suits, and the pain and
grief to both parties in several instances regarding their rival claims for
priority of invention of the essential characteristics of the steamboat, might
have been thus avoided. Coincidence is a recognisable factor, and when
men’s minds are at one particular time more keenly set on bringing about a
craft capable of moving without sails or oars, and working with the same
historical data before them, it is, in fact, more probable than improbable that
the same conclusions will be arrived at by men who have never seen each
other, nor availed themselves of each other’s secrets.
There had always been a feeling that some means other than sails or
oars could be found for ship-propulsion, but it was not until the possibilities
of steam had begun to be appreciated that the idea of a mechanically-
propelled ship took on any practical form. Thus we might divide our study
into two separate sections. The first would consist of all those vessels
propelled by some mechanism moved by man or beast: in other words, by
physical strength employed to turn a paddle-wheel or other arrangement.
The other section would include all those efforts to turn the machinery, not
by physical, but by steam force. The first dates from a time almost as old as
the ship herself; the second in actual success covers, as we have already

said, a space of about a hundred years only, but the first efforts date from
the beginning of the eighteenth century, when Papin performed his historic
achievement.
For years and centuries man has longed to be able to navigate the air,
and to this end he has tried all shapes and kinds of balloons, yet he is
always more or less dependent on the currents of the sky. But the recent
jump from years of failure to marvellous success is due as much to the
collateral invention and development of the motor. It was chance that
caused the aeroplane and the motor industry to develop simultaneously, and
yet but for the latter the former could not have advanced. It is much the
same with the evolution of the steamship. It was only after Solomon de
Caus had, early in the seventeenth century, published his treatise on the
application of steam as a means for elevating water, and the Marquis of
Worcester, in 1663, had published his description of “An admirable and
most forcible way to drive up water by fire,” that Papin was able to supply
the key to the question of the mechanical propulsion of ships. Even if it
were possible to prove that he had never acquainted himself with the
theories of de Caus and the Marquis of Worcester, that argument would
avail but little, for the solution was bound to come sooner or later; it was
inevitable. There must be, man reasoned, some means for propelling a ship
along the water other than by sails or oars. The Chinese had been working
at the idea, the Romans had at least attempted it; through the Middle Ages
there had been actually accredited instances, and so the eighteenth century
was not too soon for its accomplishment. Thus, when Papin determined to
apply steam power to vessels, he was just one of those many benefactors of
the world who have succeeded by means of Nature to overcome Nature: by
employing fire and water to overcome water and space.
Let us, then, turn to the next chapter and see something more of the
different methods which were tried before the satisfaction of full and
undoubted success rewarded man in his struggle against the limits to his
freedom. As this is a history rather of steamships than of all kinds of
mechanically-propelled craft, we must examine not all the ingenious
theories and the wild conceptions which many minds in many ages have
conceived for propelling ships by mechanical means other than steam (for
with those alone we could fill this book), but having shown something of
the main principles which underlay these, we shall pass on to tell, for the

benefit of the general reader, something of the vicissitudes through which
has passed that swift and majestic creature which carries him across vast
oceans and broad turbulent channels, as well as the peaceful waters of the
land-locked lake and river. For this reason, while not omitting anything that
shall contribute to the better understanding of the story, we shall omit from
our study such technical details and theories as came to nothing practical
and, notwithstanding their importance in fashioning the future of the
steamship, are of less interest to the average reader than to the shipbuilder
and engineer. Modern activity is now so rapid; event follows event so
quickly; the ship of yesterday is already made obsolescent by a newer type,
that we cannot fairly be accused of living too near the period to obtain an
accurate perspective. Whether steamships will flourish much longer, or
whether they will in turn be surpassed, as they have ousted the sailing ship,
is a debatable proposition. At any rate, to anyone who has at heart one of
the greatest and most powerful forces in the spread of civilisation, the story
of steamship evolution, from comparative inutility to a state of efficiency
which is remarkable even in this wonder age, cannot but appeal with an
attractiveness commensurate with its importance.

CHAPTER II

THE EVOLUTION OF MECHANICALLY-
PROPELLED CRAFT
When the prehistoric man was returning home from his day’s fishing or
hunting, and the evening breeze had died away to a flat calm so that the
primitive sail became for the time a hindrance rather than a saving of
labour, and the tired navigator was compelled reluctantly to resort to his
paddles once more—it was, no doubt, then that our ancestry was first
inoculated with the germ for desiring some mechanical form of propulsion,
and the fever went on developing until it broke out in full infection when
the possibilities of steam were beginning to be weighed.
The earliest records of the employment of some artificial means for
sending the ship along are not preserved to us, although it is certain that
repeated attempts were made in many ages to do without oars and sails.
When slave labour was cheap and plentiful, and this could easily be turned
into propelling power, perhaps it was hardly likely that there would be
much incentive for discovering or rediscovering such forces as steam to do
the work of physical energy. It seems to me to be a curious and interesting
fact that it was not until the freedom of the individual from some sort of
slavery and servitude—whether belonging to ancient times or the Middle
Ages—began to be asserted that there was any real progress made in
labour-saving devices. The dignity of man, and his superiority as a being
possessed of intelligence and discernment, and, consequently, his right to be
considered as something more than a drawer of water, a hewer of wood, and
the motive force for any method of transport, had fully to be recognised and
appreciated before means were earnestly sought to save human labour. The
cry of the last few years and the tendency exhibited by many world
movements have been all for asserting the right of the individual. The
French Revolution, the American War of Independence, the rise of
Socialism of some sort or another in most civilised countries, have

happened collaterally with the progress of machinery, and the development
of power independent of physical force, necessitating less and less the
expenditure of human energy. Never in the history of the world has so much
been accomplished for obtaining mechanical energy as within the last
hundred and fifty years, and never perhaps has the individual been able to
possess himself of so much freedom.
But even in those days when slaves could be made to work to the limits
of their endurance, it is fairly evident that man believed that there was a
future for the mechanical propulsion of ships, and the usual form which this
took was of applying paddle-wheels to the side of the ship, and revolving
these by means of a capstan turned either by slaves or by oxen. The
Chinese, it is scarcely to be wondered at, adopted this means, and so also
did the Romans. In 264 b.c., when Appius Claudius Caudex one dark night
crossed the Straits of Messina to Sicily, he transported the troops in boats
propelled by paddle-wheels through the medium of capstans revolved by
oxen, and there is in existence an ancient bas-relief which shows a galley
with three wheels on either side to be used for this purpose. Over and over
again this same idea was exploited, and even as recently as 1829 Charles
Napier, a British naval officer, when he was in command of the frigate
Galatea, was by special permission of the Admiralty allowed to fit her with
paddles, which were worked by winches on the main deck. He found that in
a calm he could thus get his ship along at three knots an hour, and tow a
line-o’-battle ship at one and a half knots. But it was noticed then, what
experimenters of this nature always found in every age, that, firstly, this
method of capstan-plus-paddle-wheels was good only for a short distance;
and, secondly, that so great an expenditure of physical force could be more
advantageously applied by using the old-fashioned method of rowing.
Many a student and philosopher pictured in his mind some novel
method for doing away with sails and oars, among whom we might mention
Roger Bacon; but most of these theories seem not to have gone farther than
the walls of the study. In 1543 another attempt was made by one Blasco de
Garray, on June 17. Himself a native of Biscay, he proceeded to Barcelona,
and experimented first with a vessel of 109 tons, and later with one of about
twice the size. For many years it was commonly, but erroneously, stated that
this was the first steamship. Apart altogether from the unlikeliness of this
being the case at so early a date, it has now been proved to be little better

than a fable based on insufficient evidence. Even to this present day this
inaccuracy is still repeated, and it is not out of place to emphasise the fact
yet again that de Garray’s was not a steamship. Special research has been
undertaken in the Royal archives of Simancas by able and discriminating
students, and the result is that, while it was found that two separate
experiments were made with two different vessels, and that one ship had a
paddle-wheel on either side worked by twenty-five men, and the other ship
by forty men, and that a speed equal to three and a half English miles per
hour was obtained, yet there was discovered among these manuscripts no
mention whatsoever of the use of steam. The vessels were found to steer
well, but the same conclusion was again arrived at—viz. that for a passage
of any length it was far easier to use oars.
The idea, however, was not dead, and we find it coming up again in the
time of Elizabeth. During her reign there were numbers of little books
issued to make the seamen more efficient, and these, of course, deal with
the sailing ship. One of the most entertaining that I know of is that entitled
“Inventions or Devises Very necessary for all Generalles and Captaines, or
Leaders of men, as well by Sea as by Land: Written by William Bourne.” It
was published in London in 1578, and is full of fascinating matter for
preventing the enemy from boarding ships, and useful tips for sinking him
even when he is superior in strength and size to the ship he is attacking.
Bourne mentions the following “devise” on page 15:—“And furthermore
you may make a Boate to goe without oares or Sayle, by the placing of
certaine wheels on the outside of the Boate, in that sort, that the armes of
the wheeles may goe into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some
provision, and so the wheeles shall make the Boate to goe.” And the next
“devise” refers to the fact that “also, they make a water Mill in a Boate, for
when that it rideth at an Anker, the tyde or streame will turne the wheeles
with great force, and these Milles are used in France.”
In another interesting sixteenth century book, full of curious and
wonderful machines, entitled “Theatrum Instrumentorum et Machinarum
Jacobi Bessoni, Mathematici ingeniosissimi,” published in 1582, there are
detailed illustrations and descriptions of a curious ship which is in shape
something like a heart, the bow being the apex, so to speak; the stern has
two ends, between which is fitted a species of paddle-wheel of unusual
kind. It consists of a cigar-shaped object of wood, not unlike a modern

torpedo, but broader. Through this is an axle which allowed the wheel to
revolve freely, and on the axle at either end rests a vertical spar, which is
fastened to another spar at the top parallel with the wheel. From the centre
of this spar an enormous kind of mast or sprit rose high up into the air,
which was worked by means of a tackle and ropes leading down to a winch,
turned by two men. Thus, if the reader will imagine an object resembling
one of those rollers employed in the preservation of a cricket pitch, but
made of wood instead of metal, he will get something of the shape of this
curious machine. Besson evidently thought a great deal of this invention
and speaks of it as “inventum vix credibile,” but it was a clumsy method
and cannot really have had many virtues to commend it.
Seven years after Besson’s publication there appeared another book
which throws light on the prevailing passion for mechanical propulsion,
though it refers back to the time of the ancient galley. In “The History of
Many Memorable Things Lost, which were in use among the Ancients ...
written originally in Latin by Guido Pancirollus, and now done into English
Vol. i.,” published in London in 1715, but first issued in 1589, the following
statement is made on page 120:—“I saw also the pictures of some ships,
called Liburnæ which had three wheels on both sides, without, touching the
water, each consisting of eight spokes, jetting out from the wheel about an
hand’s breadth, and six oxen within, which by turning an engine stirr’d the
wheels, whose Fellys [spokes], driving the water backwards, moved the
Liburnians with such force that no three-oar’d gally was able to resist
them.” This would seem to confirm the statement that the ancient
inhabitants of the Mediterranean certainly employed the paddle-wheel.
But a year before Pancirolli published his book there appeared another
interesting work, which shows yet again that the employment of paddle-
wheeled craft was far from non-existent. There is a scarce book in the
British Museum, published in 1588, entitled “Le Diverse et Artificiose
Machine del Capitano Agostino Ramelli,” which is illustrated with some
highly informative plates. Fig. CLII. shows a kind of pontoon, to be
employed by the enemy in attacking a town from the other side of a stream
or river. A horse brings a rectangular shaped construction down to the
water’s edge, where it is launched and floats. Everywhere this kind of built-
up dray is covered in, but in the bows a man is seen firing his harquebus
from his protected shelter, while on either side of this craft a paddle-wheel

is seen revolving with its six blades, that are not straight, as in the modern
wheels, but curved inwards like a scythe. The illustration shows these
wheels being turned by a man standing up inside; the wheels are quite open,
without paddle-boxes. An oar projecting at the stern enables the craft to be
steered.
We see, then, that that earliest form of ship propulsion by mechanical
means, the paddle-wheel, was thoroughly grafted into man’s mind long
before he had brought about the steamboat. We cannot give here every
theory and suggestion which the seventeenth century put forward, but we
can state that during this period various patents were being taken out for
making boats to go against wind and tide, some of which were
conspicuously distinguished by their display of ingenuity to overcome the
forces of Nature. We come across all sorts of ideas for “to make boats,
shippes, and barges to go against strong wind and tide,” “to draw or haul
ships, boates, etc., up river against the stream,” “to make boates for the
carryage of burthens and passengers upon the water as swifte in calms and
more saft [sic] in stormes than boates full sayled in greater wynes.” The
Marquis of Worcester, in 1663, published a little book entitled “A Century
of the Names and Scantlings of Inventions,” and he himself patented an
invention for sending a boat against the stream by using the actual force of
the wind and stream in a reverse manner. But the fact to be borne in mind
for our present purpose is that from all these ingenious propositions nothing
practical ever evolved that was found to be of any service to man, or the
transportation of his commerce. At any rate, there is no record of this.

HERO’S STEAM APPARATUS.
From the Exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington.

Now that we have traced in outline the vain attempts at physical
propulsion, let us turn to take a view of the evolution of that other invention
whose advent alone delayed the practical utility of the paddle-wheel to
boats. Who shall say how it was that steam came first to be regarded as a
means of giving power? In certain parts of the world, where geysers and
boiling springs existed, man must naturally have been struck by the elastic

force which steam possessed. An intellect which had any leaning to the side
of practical economy must have reasoned that here was a valuable force
running to waste, which might have been employed in the service of
mankind, just as the swift-running rivers could be made to turn the water-
wheels. But, as we said just now, steam was not wanted yet, for human
labour was too cheap to bother about it; and we might remark incidentally
that it was owing to this same cheapness that the galley, or rowing craft,
was encouraged for many centuries in the Mediterranean, to the partial
exclusion and great discouragement of the big sailing ship. Indeed, slavery,
or abundance of cheap, compulsory labour, has been the means of holding
back the progress of the world. Had the big sailing ships come at an earlier
date the far-off countries would have been discovered much sooner, and the
study of the properties of steam—or some other means as the equivalent of
physical power—would have been regarded with a greater enthusiasm.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to speak of the re-discovery of steam
than of its invention: for as early as 130 b.c. Hero, of Alexandria, had
written a treatise on “Pneumatics,” and described a light ball supported by a
jet of steam which came out of a pipe into a cup, much as one sees in the
rural fairs of to-day the same idea used when the force of water raises a
light ball for the bucolic rifleman to shoot at. Hero also referred to the
“aeolipile,” which was a hollow ball mounted on its axis between two
pivots, one of which was hollow and acted as a steam pipe. Two nozzles
formed part of the ball and were fitted at right angles to the pivots on which
the ball revolved, and owing to the reaction caused by the escape of the
steam from the jets touching the ball the latter was made to revolve. This is
well illustrated in the plate facing page 18.
From the time of Hero to the seventeenth century ensues a wide hiatus,
although in the meantime there were not wanting some who now and again
added slightly to the body of knowledge which the world possessed on the
subject. Of these we might mention such names as Archimedes in the
second century b.c., and Mathesius in the sixteenth century a.d. But
Solomon de Caus, or Carrs, in the first half of the seventeenth century
showed that the steam given off by boiling water could be used for raising
water, and Giovanni Branca, about the same time, brought about what is
really the progenitor of the modern turbine. In this seventeenth century,
also, another ingenious Italian, Evangelista Torricelli, proved that the
atmosphere in which we live possessed weight, and to-day everyone is

aware that this is so, and that the pressure of the air is 15 lb. per square
inch. The working of the mercurial barometer is the simplest proof of this.
We shall see presently how an isolated fact unearthed in one age becomes
the foundation of the mighty success of a later inventor, and thus the
assertion which we made on an earlier page, that the credit of inventing the
steamboat belongs neither to one man nor to one age, is not devoid of truth.
Otto von Guericke, about the middle of the same century, showed the
practical utility of producing a vacuum, of which the syringe and the
common suction pump are such excellent examples. But we are not writing
a history of inventions, nor of steam, but of the steamship, and we shall pass
on presently to see how each of these separate important discoveries
eventually blended to form the subject of our present study. In 1663 Edward
Somerset, the second Marquis of Worcester, to whom we have already
referred, also published his description of “An Admirable and most Forcible
Way to drive up Water by Fire,” and in this year he obtained protection by
Act of Parliament for his “water commanding engine.” When he had
interested himself so much in the problem of sending a craft against a
current, and simultaneously was obtaining success in the development of
steam power, it certainly seems a little strange that the Marquis did not
advance just that one step farther which was necessary to complete the
syllogism, and apply steam for the purpose of solving the problem of going
against the tide or stream. That, however, was reserved for another inventor,
and of a different nationality.
And so we come to one whose name is deserving of especial mention
in the history of the steamship, for it was he who was the first to do what
myriads of others have since done. Many writers have asserted wrongly that
this man or the other was the first to succeed: they have gone back as far as
de Garray and as short a distance as Fulton. Some have stated timidly and
with reserve that Denis Papin is said to have been associated with this
honour. But there can be no manner of doubt that to Papin certainly belongs
the high distinction of having caused the steamboat to be an actual fact and
not merely a figment of imagination. Papin was a French engineer, who,
being a Calvinist was, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, obliged to
go into exile. For that reason, therefore, he betook himself to the Court of
the Landgrave of Hesse, where he found refuge. In 1690 he published a
suggestion for obtaining power by means of steam. His idea was to have a

cylinder made of thin metal; water was to be placed therein and heated. In
the cylinder were to be also a piston and rod on which was a latch, and
when the water had been heated sufficiently so that enough steam had been
generated, the piston would be moved upwards and be kept there by means
of the latch. Thereupon the fire was to be taken away, and, the steam then
condensing, as soon as the latch was loosed the piston was bound to drop to
the bottom of the cylinder; and if a rope and pulley were attached to the rod,
then the descent of the piston would be able to raise a weight at the end of
the rope. This was practically what was afterwards known as the
atmospherical engine, and Papin was of the opinion that it could be
employed for draining rivers, throwing bombs and other purposes. But it is
especially notable for our purpose that he firmly believed that it could be
employed for rowing a craft against the wind, and indeed would be
preferable to the working of galley slaves for getting quickly over the sea;
for men, he explained, occupied too much space, consumed too much food,
and his tubes and pumps would make a far less cumbersome arrangement. It
is worth while noting that the idea of these early inventors of the steamboat
was not so much to propel the ship as to row her mechanically by oars or
paddles. We still call them paddle-wheels rather than propelling wheels, and
the early wheels used for the steamboat were practically paddles placed
crosswise, with a blade at the end of each spar. When fitted to an axle, of
course, they moved in a circular fashion. The French “roue à aubes,” which
is the expression that these French inventors made use of in describing their
creations, conveys precisely the same idea.
Papin, casting about for some method of bringing about the steamboat,
suggests the use of these rotatory oars, and mentions having seen them
fixed to an axle in a boat belonging to Prince Robert of Hesse. This latter
was one more of those attempts to propel a craft by physical means, for
these revolving oars were turned by horses. Papin, in considering the
matter, thought that instead of horses the wheels might be made to go round
by steam force, and in 1707 he actually constructed the first steamboat,
which he successfully navigated on the River Fulda, in Hanover. He even
did so well that he set off in her to steam down to the sea and cross to
London; but, of course, the old, conservative prejudice of the local boatmen
was bound to make its appearance as soon as so historical a craft had shown
her ability. And so, arriving at Münden, the watermen, either through fear
that this new self-propelling craft would take away their livelihood through

inaugurating a fresh era, or, being envious of a success which no man had
ever before obtained, they attacked this steamboat, smashed it to pieces, and
Papin himself barely escaped with his life. Thus, a craft and its engines,
which to-day would be welcomed by any museum in the world, was
annihilated by the men who had the privilege of witnessing the first
steamship. Papin never got over the grief caused by so cruel a reception of
his brilliant labours, and it is deplorable to think that such scant
encouragement was possible. Besides being the successful originator of the
steamboat, he was also the inventor of the safety valve.
The publication of Papin’s correspondence with Leibnitz puts the case
beyond all possibility of doubt, and the reader who cares to pursue the
subject will find the facts he requires in “Leibnizens und Huygens’
Briefwechsel mit Papin,” by Dr. Ernst Gerland. From this we see that Papin
had already published a treatise dealing with the application of heat and
water. In a letter, dated March 13, 1704, he wrote to Leibnitz of his
intention to build a boat which could carry about four thousand pounds in
weight, and expressed the opinion that two men would be able to make this
craft easily and quickly to ascend the current of a river by means of a wheel
which he had adjusted for utilising the oars. That Papin made no aimless
plunge, but went into the matter scientifically, is quite clear. He studied
carefully the important fact of the resistance which is offered to a vessel
passing through the water, and thus found what he believed to be the correct
lines on which his ship was to be built. He shows that he had been hard at
work expanding his theories, and was longing to have the opportunity to put
them to a practical test. On July 7, 1707, he writes to say that he has many
enemies at Cassel (where he was then sojourning) and contemplates going
to England; and in asking permission so to do he brings forward the plea
that it is important that the new type of ship should have a chance of
proving its worth in a seaport such as London. He does not conceal the
great faith which he reposes in this novel craft: “qui, par le moien du feu,
rendra un ou deux hommes capables de faire plus d’effect que plusieurs
centaines des rameurs.” Then, writing again to Leibnitz, also from Cassel,
under date of September 15 of the same year, relating the result of his
experiment of this first steamboat, he remarks: “Je Vous diray que
l’experience de mon batteau a êté faitte et qu’elle a reussi de la manière
que Je l’esperois: la force du courant de la riviere ètoit si peu de chose en

comparaison de la force de mes rames qu’on avoit de la peine à reconnoitre
qu’il allât plus vite en dêcendant qu’en montant.”
With such statements as these before us, we can no longer be in any
doubt as to the first author of the steamboat.
Papin had discovered a method of producing a vacuum by the
condensation of steam, but Thomas Savery is one of the many instances of
the case where two men in different countries were working separately and
unknown to each other at a common problem. The latter had patented an
apparatus for raising water by the impellent force of fire so far back as the
year 1698, or nine years before Papin’s steamboat made her appearance; but
he had also independently discovered a method of producing a vacuum by
the condensation of steam just as had Papin. And this same Savery had
shown that the same problem which Papin had succeeded in solving was
also interesting himself: for he had gone so far as to ask for a patent for an
invention for moving a paddle-wheel on either side of a ship by means of a
capstan, which capstan was to be revolved by men. Eventually it occurred
to him, as it had not occurred to the Marquis of Worcester, that steam might
be employed as helpful to ships. Nevertheless, Savery did not carry this
idea to any practical test.
We come now to Thomas Newcomen, who, notwithstanding the fact
that his home was at Dartmouth, where in the Elizabethan years so much
had been done in connection with ship-building and the sending forth of so
many naval expeditions across the seas, does not seem ever to have done
anything directly for the development of the steamboat. But indirectly
Newcomen did much, and the machine which he introduced, and with
which his name is inseparably connected, was practically an English
equivalent of Papin’s atmospheric engine, to which we have already
referred. Newcomen’s engine is important to us, inasmuch as it embodied in
a practical manner the main characteristics of what eventually became the
familiar reciprocating steam engine; and had it not been for this, Watt might
not have evolved his historic engine, and consequently Fulton not
succeeded as he did. I shall endeavour not to weary the non-technical
reader, but I must pause a moment here to give some idea of the nature of
Newcomen’s engine, because of the close relation which it bears to the
subsequent development of the steam engine as fitted in ships and boats. It
consisted, then, of a vertical cylinder, which, unlike our modern cylinders,

was open at the top. It was provided with a piston to which were attached
chains that connected with one end of a beam, the centre of the beam being
so fixed as to allow it to oscillate. Steam was generated in a boiler, on the
top of which was a primitive cylinder, and by opening a valve, steam was
admitted into the cylinder and so pushed up the piston. When the piston had
reached the top of the cylinder the valve was closed so that the steam was
shut off. Then cold water from a cistern was allowed to enter the bottom of
the cylinder, and by this means the steam was condensed, so causing a
vacuum; by the pressure of the air—which, as already mentioned, is 15
pounds to the square inch—the piston was forced down again. We get here,
then, the essential features of that steam engine which is so familiar to all
who travel by land or by sea. But these early atmospheric engines were not
invented for the purpose of transport: it was for the pumping of water from
mines that they were principally contrived, and in the case of the
Newcomen engine, the other end of the beam opposite to that which was
worked upwards by steam pressure (and downwards by atmospheric
pressure) was attached to pump-rods that worked in connection with the
buckets for pumping out the water. Thus, like the movement of the see-saw,
when the piston-rod was down at the bottom of the cylinder the pump-rods
were correspondingly elevated, and vice versa. As soon as the piston
descended to the base of the cylinder through the cessation of the vacuum
the spray of cold water was stopped, and steam was again admitted into the
cylinder to cause another upward stroke. At the same time it was necessary
to discharge the hot water which had accumulated at the bottom of the
cylinder, and this was done through a pipe fitted with a valve which would
not allow of its return; any air admitted with the steam and the cooling
water was blown out through a snifting valve (so-called because of the
noise it makes) as the powerful steam came in. But, the reader may ask,
what about the open top of the cylinder? How can it be any good to use an
uncovered cylinder in conjunction with steam? The answer is, that since the
top of the piston was always kept flooded with water, all air was excluded.
We have thus seen the steam engine in its most elementary form; how
that it employs boiling water until it becomes steam which is then admitted
to a cylinder and by its own force moves a tight-fitting disc or piston up and
down. We have also seen that by attaching a rod to this disc, and, further, by
connecting this rod to a beam, we can make the latter go up (by means of
the steam pressure) or come down (through the pressure of the air). In order

to effect the latter we have remarked the fact that a vacuum had to be made
by condensing the steam through spraying cold water.
With this explanation in the mind of the general reader, to whom
engineering matters do not usually appeal, we may proceed with the
progress of our story, and pass on to the year 1730, when a method differing
entirely from any that we have yet mentioned was brought forward. Strictly
speaking it had nothing to do with steam, but, as we shall see when we
come to consider the subject of steam lifeboats, it embodied an idea which
could only be satisfactorily employed by the adoption of steam. In the year
mentioned there was published a little book under the title “Specimina
Ichnographica: or a Brief Narrative of several New Inventions and
Experiments: particularly, The Navigating a Ship in a Calm, etc.,” by John
Allen, M.D. The author’s idea was to propel a ship by forcing water, or
some other fluid, through the stern by means of a proper engine. To this end
he experimented with a tin boat 11 inches long, 5 inches broad and 6 inches
deep. Placing this little ship into stagnant water, he loaded it until it sank in
the water to a depth of 3¾ inches. Into the boat he also placed a cylindrical-
shaped object 6 inches high and about 3 inches in diameter and filled it with
water. At the bottom of the cylinder was a small pipe, a quarter of an inch
square, and this led through the stern of the craft at a distance of an inch and
a half below the surface of the water in which the boat was floating. As
soon as Allen removed his finger from the outlet of the pipe in the stern the
water, of course, ran out from the cylinder, and this action caused the boat
to travel, the speed being reckoned, in the case of the model, at about one-
fifth of a mile per hour. Although nothing actually came of this theory at the
time, it is none the less perfectly workable, with some adaptations, and
some of the steam lifeboats, in order to avoid using propellers, which are
liable to get foul of wreckage when going alongside a ship in distress, have
an elaboration of this principle. They are propelled by engines which work
a pump that drives a stream of water through pipes placed below the water-
line in much the same manner as in Allen’s model. Allen at first
contemplated working the pumps by men, and then causing them to be
driven by an atmospheric steam engine. A similar device was employed in
Virginia, U.S.A., by James Rumsey in 1787. In his boat water was sucked
in at the bow and ejected at the stern. It was found that as long as the vessel
travelled at all she went at the rate of four miles an hour, but as she only
covered less than a mile and then stopped, it cannot be said that this

experiment was conclusive. In 1788, the following year, however, another
boat was made actually to go a distance of four miles in one hour, and the
device was patented in that country during the year 1791, but Allen had
already patented his invention in England thirty years earlier.
It is when we come to Jonathan Hulls or Hull that we encounter the
first Englishman to apply steam to ships. Hulls was a native of
Gloucestershire, who, in 1736, patented a method of propelling vessels by
steam, and in the following year issued a booklet on the subject of his
invention which was subsequently reprinted. The title reads thus: “A
Description and Draught of a New-Invented Machine for Carrying Vessels
or ships out of or into any harbour, port or river, against wind and tide or in
a calm ... by Jonathan Hulls.” His idea was to provide a steam tug so that it
should be able to render beneficial service to those sailing ships accepting
it. His preference for placing the “machine,” or engines, into a separate
ship, and thus using her as a tug-boat, instead of installing the engines on
board each vessel was because he believed the “machine” might be thought
cumbersome and take up too much room in a vessel laden with cargo. But
besides the advantage of having a tow-boat always in readiness in any port,
he suggested that an old ship which was not able to go far abroad could well
be adapted for receiving this “machine.”
“In some convenient part of the Tow-Boat,” he explains, “there is
placed a Vessel about two-thirds full of Water, with the Top close shut. This
Vessel being kept boiling, rarefies the Water into a Steam: this Steam being
convey’d thro’ a large Pipe into a Cylindrical Vessel and there condens’d,
makes a Vacuum, which causes the weight of the Atmosphere to press on
this Vessel, and so presses down a Piston that is fitted into this Cylindrical
Vessel in the same manner as in Mr. Newcomen’s Engine, with which he
raises Water by Fire.”
It will thus be seen that Hulls was an adapter of Newcomen’s
atmospherical engine to marine purposes rather than an actual inventor of
something new and unheard of. But Hulls seems to have anticipated this
criticism, for he adds: “if it should be said that this is not a New Invention,
because I make use of the same Power to drive my Machine that others
have made use of to Drive theirs for other Purposes, I Answer, The
Application of this Power is no more than the Application of any common
and known Instrument used in Mechanism for new-invented Purposes.”

JONATHAN HULLS’ STEAM TUG-BOAT.
After the Drawing attached to his Specification for the Patent.

We have already noticed that the most which Newcomen could get out
of his engine was an up-and-down movement, which was all very well for
the purpose for which it was intended, namely, pumping up water, but
before it was applicable for propelling a ship the power had to be adapted to
give a rotary motion. The accompanying illustration, which is taken from
Hulls’ specification for his patent, and reproduced in the booklet mentioned
above, will afford some idea of his proposal. In the lower half of the picture
the “tow-boat” is seen in imagination hauling an eighteenth century full-
rigged ship, a performance which in actual truth she never achieved. There
is, in fact, some doubt as to whether Hulls ever did put the idea to a
practical test. Admiral Preble, a distinguished American Naval officer, in his
“Chronological History of the Origin and Development of Steam
Navigation,” published in Philadelphia in 1883, a volume which contains a
vast amount of interesting detail up to that date, says that Hulls did not
produce a satisfactory experiment. Scott Russell, one of the greatest
authorities on such matters in the nineteenth century, affirmed that Hulls did
carry out his theory in definite shape, and the recent “Dictionary of National
Biography” also states that at any rate he experimented with a vessel on the
River Avon in the neighbourhood of Evesham in 1737. One thing is certain,
that whatever merits the proposition might have had in certain respects, it
was, commercially, a complete failure. On the other hand, in enunciating a

method of converting the rectilineal motion of the piston-rod into a rotary
movement Hulls undoubtedly showed the direction in which others were to
follow.
In the upper half of the illustration of Hulls’ drawing, beginning at the
bottom right-hand corner, we see the details of his “machine.” P is the pipe
which comes from the furnace and brings the steam to Q, the cylinder in
which the steam was also condensed. (This last remark is important to bear
in mind, as we shall see later to what extent this feature was modified.) The
point marked R is the valve which enables the steam to be cut off from
entering the cylinder whilst that amount of steam which has already been
allowed to go in is being condensed. The other small pipe S conveys the
cooling water which condenses the steam in the cylinder, and T is the cock
which lets in the condensing water after the cylinder is full of steam and the
valve is shut. U is the rope which is fixed to the piston that slides up and
down the cylinder, and this is the same rope that goes round the wheel D in
the machine shown in the larger illustration.
In this latter picture, too, wherein the tow-boat is seen steaming along,
A denotes, of course, the chimney “coming from the furnace,” while B is
the tow-boat and CC are the two pieces of timber which are framed to
support the machine. It will be noticed that inboard are three wheels marked
respectively Da, D, and Db. These are on one axis and receive the ropes as
shown. Ha and Hb are two wheels also on the same axis projecting beyond
the stern, and the six fans or paddles are marked I, which move alternately
in such a manner that when the wheels Da, D, and Db move backwards or
forwards they keep the fans or paddles in a direct motion. When these three
wheels Da, D, and Db move forward then the rope Fb must move the wheel
Hb forward, and so cause the paddles to revolve in the same direction. So
also the rope Fa connects the wheel Ha to Da, and when the latter and its
two sister wheels revolve the wheel Da, then the wheel Ha draws the rope F
and raises the weight G (barely decipherable in the sketch to the left of Da),
at the same time as the wheel Hb brings the paddles forward.
Furthermore, when the weight G is raised while the wheels Da, D and
Db are moving backwards, the rope Fa gives way and the power of the
weight G brings the wheel Ha forward and the paddles with it: so that the
latter always keep going forward, notwithstanding that the three wheels Da,
D, and Db move backwards and forwards as the piston moves up and down

in the cylinder. LL—scarcely recognisable owing to the reduction of the
sketch—indicate the teeth for a catch to drop in from the axis, and are so
contrived that they catch in an alternate manner to cause the paddles to
move always forward, for the wheel Ha, by the power of the weight G, is
performing its work while the other wheel Hb goes back in order to fetch
another stroke. Hulls explains that the weight G must contain but half the
weight of the pillar of air pressure on the piston, because the weight G is
raised at the same time as the wheel Hb is doing its duty, so that in effect
there are really two machines acting alternately by the weight of one pillar
of air of such a diameter as is the diameter of the cylinder.
Hulls expressed another crude idea for when the ship was navigating
“up in-land Rivers” and the bottom could be reached. The paddles were
then to be removed and “cranks placed at the hindmost Axis to strike a
Shaft to the bottom of the River, which will drive the Vessel forward with
greater Force.”
Daniel Bernoulli, in the year 1753, proved on paper that it was
mathematically possible to use a steam engine for propelling ships, the
medium being also wheels with vanes attached. There were not wanting
other theories and experiments also in the eighteenth century which attained
little or no success, their defects arising sometimes through lack of
sufficient power to go against a stream, or through some erroneous
principle. Of these we might mention especially the experiment made in
France by Périer, who, after devoting careful consideration to the problem
of the amount of power required, and, after reckoning the necessary force
likely to be essential, by the number of horses which were required for
drawing along a boat from the towing-path, set to work in his own manner.
It happened that in the year 1775, to which we are now referring, there was
on view in Paris a unique engine which the now famous and ever
memorable James Watt had made. This aroused so much interest that it was
decided to hire a boat on the Seine and place therein a Watt machine of one
horse-power. Périer carried out his experiment, though owing to the force of
the current of the Seine, and the too limited horse-power which the engine
was capable of producing, the result was a failure. But one of Périer’s
associates, the Marquis de Jouffroy, had also been excited by the advent of
this English engine which was an improvement on anything that the world
had yet seen, and he resolved to try for himself to find some means of

making a ship to go against swift-running rivers independent of horse-
towage. In spite of the prejudice which was likely to be aroused in case he
should prove successful (for the owners of the monopoly of the more
primitive form of inland water transport would not quietly consent to see
their living taken away from them), he set forth with considerable courage
and an heroic determination. Since it is doubtful whether these interesting
experiments would ever have been made had it not been for the happy
coincidence of Watt’s engine becoming known when it did, it is only right
that we should first see something of the circumstances which combined to
bring the Englishman’s work into such prominence, and then return to
follow de Jouffroy in his efforts.
To James Watt, notwithstanding that his work and ingenuity were
expended for the purpose of land engines, belongs the honour of having
removed the most harassing obstacles which were delaying the full and
entire possibility of the marine steam engine. In the chain of discoveries
which leads back into early times, without whose cumulative effect he
himself would not have done what he did, James Watt comes immediately
next to Thomas Newcomen. Despised in his weak, delicate boyhood by his
companions, his is another instance of the stone which the builders rejected
becoming the head corner-stone. Or, to put the proposition in another way,
Watt absorbed all the existing good that there was in the latest engineering
knowledge, and advanced that several steps further until it reached the goal
of practicability.
In the Newcomen engine there were several notable defects which
marred its usefulness, and it was not until these could be improved upon
that there could possibly be a future for the steamboat. This type of
“machine” was not closely enough related to the work which it was called
upon to perform. Its pre-eminent fault lay in the fact that the condensation
took place in the cylinder. This meant a considerable waste, for after the
latter had been made cool by the admission of the cold water for condensing
the steam, the cylinder had to be heated again before every upward stroke.
Heat, in fact, was literally thrown away. It was in the year 1764 that Watt,
while endeavouring to repair a model of one of these Newcomen engines
and to remedy its poor performance, was struck by the inadequacy of its
mechanism and realised that some means should be found to ensure a
greater economy of steam. From his ingenious brain, therefore, came an

improvement. He provided for the condensation to take place not in the
cylinder but in a separate condenser, in which a jet of water was to spray,
and finally the condensed steam, the injected water, and the air which had
also found its way in, were to be drawn off by means of an air-pump. After
a delay of several years Watt was introduced to Matthew Boulton, founder
of the Soho Engineering Works, near Birmingham, and in 1769 Watt’s
invention, embodying the principle of the separate condenser, was patented.
Although he had worked out his idea as far back as the year 1765, it was not
till four years after that he had the means to secure its protection. In the
specification for his patent Watt enunciated what is appreciated as an
essential doctrine to-day, that the walls of the cylinder should be maintained
at the same heat as the steam which was about to enter into the cylinder.
And he proposed to bring about this improvement by adding an external
casing to the cylinder, leaving a space between the casing and the outside of
the cylinder itself and keeping always in this space steam so as to preserve a
high temperature.
But, as was mentioned on a previous page, the steam engine at this date
was not developed with a view to transport, but for the convenience of
pumping up water from mines. As a result of Watt’s success a considerable
demand arose among Cornish mine-owners for these engines made by
Boulton and Watt, who were now working in partnership together. For the
work of pumping, these machines continued to serve admirably, so long as
a vertical up-and-down motion was required. At length Watt turned his
mind to some method of obtaining rotary movement from his engine, but in
a manner different from that in which Hulls had attempted to attain his end.
Watt had covered in the top of his cylinder to keep out the cooling effect of
the air, and his well-known beam pumping engine was an improvement on
Newcomen’s, owing to the simple fact that in economising steam it halved
the cost of fuel, and not even to-day are these old-fashioned engines in
disuse. As we shall see later on, the beam engine is very much in evidence
in some of the river steamships of the United States, apart altogether from
those beam engines which are still worked for pumping in some parts of our
own country.
With such satisfactory results to encourage him it was inevitable that
sooner or later so brilliant a schemer would think out some means for rotary
movement, and Watt’s first intention was to cause the beam (which was

pushed up by the rod joining the piston) to drive a fly-wheel by introducing
a crank in something of the same manner in which nowadays the crank of a
bicycle drives round the cog-wheel, the cyclist’s leg being, so to speak, the
connecting rod which joins the beam. But before Watt had a chance of
getting legal protection for this method his secret was stolen by one of his
workmen, named Pickard, who revealed it to a Bristol man of the name of
Wasbrough, who was also in search of some method of obtaining rotary
motion. The latter, therefore, having in 1780 obtained his patent by stealth,
Watt was compelled to cast about for some other means of attaining the
same end: but his fertile mind soon gave forth what was required, and in the
following year he patented what is known as the “sun-and-planet” gear,
which converted the vertical movement into a rotary. Put in a few words,
the working of the engine was as follows: At the top was the straight beam
of wood; from one side of this there hung vertically a rod which connected
with the piston in the cylinder, and was thus made to go up and down as in
the Newcomen engine. It will be remembered that in Newcomen’s machine,
at the opposite end of the beam was the other rod for pumping the water.
Now in Watt’s rotary engine the piston-rod was moved up and down as
before, but the opposite rod, at the other end of the beam, was connected
with a spur-wheel having cogs in it. There was also a large fly-wheel which
had a similar cog-wheel on its shaft, and thus, as the piston rod pushed up
its end of the beam the opposite end of the beam was lowered and its rod
also. But through the arrangement of the two cog-wheels the connecting rod
caused the fly-wheel to revolve, and at twice the rate at which it would have
gone round had Watt’s original rod and crank idea been employed, for the
“planet” cog-wheel goes round in a circle but does not revolve on its own
axis. Some of his engines of this type were so arranged that the speed of the
fly-wheel shaft was not so much greater than in the case where a crank was
employed.
Thus, in this important adaptation of the vertical to the rotary
movement, we get the nucleus of the future steamboat engine, which was to
turn the paddle-wheels round. But Watt did not stop there. We have seen
that whilst it was the steam which pushed the piston and its rod upwards, it
was yet the pressure of the air and the weight of the parts which caused the
piston and rod to descend. Now, as we have seen, Watt had already resolved
to cover in the top of the cylinder in order to keep out the air from cooling
the latter. It was, then, but a natural transition to utilise the steam not merely

for pushing the piston upwards, but also for sending the same down after its
ascent had been made. We thus get what is the well-known double-action of
the modern reciprocating engine, in which steam is employed from either
side of the piston alternatively, so that each stroke becomes a working
stroke and the power of the engine is doubled. It was Watt who, as early as
the year 1782, discovered the advantages which were possessed by the
expanditure of steam, but as this does not enter into practical application
just yet, we can postpone the subject to a later chapter. We need only
emphasise the fact that the fly-wheel which is so familiar to all of us was
the invention of Watt, and it is perhaps scarcely necessary to explain that
the reason for the existence of this wheel is in order that it may, at the
beginning of the stroke, when the engine is at its strongest, store up the
surplus energy and give it back towards the end of the stroke. It thus
maintains an equal motion throughout the whole stroke given forth by the
piston and its rod.
The earliest marine steam engines were very much on these lines, then,
and were really a slightly modified form of land engine. But, as we shall
soon come to refer to the more complicated type of engine, and to make use
of other terms, it may not be out of place here to deal at once with the
expression “horse-power,” which is used for the purpose of indicating the
force which an engine is capable of developing. The origin of this
expression is not without interest, and Sir Frederick Bramwell, Bart., F.R.S.,
D.C.L., in his entertaining article on the life of Watt in the “Dictionary of
National Biography,” points out that Savery, to whom we have referred, was
accustomed to calculate that where any machinery had to be driven by
means of a single horse, it would entail a stock of three of these animals
being kept, so that one should be able always to be at work. Thus supposing
that the power exerted by six horses was necessary to drive a pump, and
Savery made an engine capable of doing the same work by mechanical
means, he would call it not a six horse-power engine, but an eighteen horse-
power. Watt, however, did not credit his engine with the idle horses. He
satisfied himself that an average horse could continue working for several
hours when exerting himself so as to raise one hundredweight to a height of
196 feet in one minute, which is about equal to lifting 22,000 pounds one
foot high in the same time, as the reader will find by simple arithmetic. But
in order that no purchaser of his engines should have any ground for
complaint, Watt went one step better, and determined that each horse-power

of his engine should be capable of raising to a height of one foot, in one
minute, not 22,000 pounds, but 33,000 pounds, or half as much again. And
so to-day when we speak of an engine possessing such and such horse-
power we still mean that it is equivalent to such a power as would raise
33,000 foot-pounds per minute. I make no apology for dwelling to such an
extent on this point, but since at least one writer on steamships has seen fit
to refer to this assessment of horse-power as being entirely arbitrary, and to
admit in the same paragraph that he was altogether ignorant as to what
power a horse was actually capable of producing, I have thought it not
inappropriate to make the point clear in the mind of the reader.

THE MARQUIS DE JOUFFROY’S STEAMBOAT.
From Mr. R. Prosser’s Pen-and-Ink Sketch in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South
Kensington.

Let us now cross the Channel again to France, and remembering that
Watt had patented his engine in 1769 and that Périer, after seeing one of the
Englishman’s engines, had installed one in his boat on the Seine in 1775,
and failed in his experiment, let us see the attempts at steamboat navigation
continued by the Marquis de Jouffroy. Here again writers have cast some
doubt on the achievements accomplished by this distinguished Frenchman,
but if we turn to an interesting little book entitled “Une Découverte en
Franche-Comté au XVIIIe siècle. Application de la vapeur à la navigation,”
by Le Mis. Sylvestre de Jouffroy D’Abbans (Besançon, 1881), we shall find
the facts verified. Briefly, the story is that in 1776 the Marquis, undismayed
by Périer’s failure, obtained a Watt engine suitable for his boat, which was
only 13 metres long, and in width 1 metre 91 centimetres, so that she was
quite a small craft. She was propelled by steam, the revolving blades being
2 metres 60 centimetres in length and suspended on each side of the ship
near the bows. The engine was placed in the middle of the boat and worked
the revolving blades by means of chains. This experiment took place at
Baume-les-Dames, though it does not appear to have contributed much to
the ultimate success of steam navigation. But in 1781 this same François
Dorothée, Comte de Jouffroy D’Abbans, made a much bolder essay and
built a far larger steamboat, which measured 46 metres long, 5 metres wide,
and had a draught of 1 metre. This steamship was tried at Lyons on the
Saône on July 15, 1783, not 1781 nor 1782, as some writers have asserted.
Her success was undoubted, for she went against the stream from Lyons to
the Isle of Barbe several times, not in any secret manner, but in the presence
of 10,000 witnesses. There is no possible doubt, for the interesting event
was duly attested and, I believe, this declaration exists still in Paris. The
illustration here given has been photographed from the pen-and-ink sketch
which was copied in the year 1830 by Mr. R. Prosser from a French print
that was published in 1816, and was alleged to represent this steamboat to
which we are referring. But this illustration, from the fact that it was issued
so many years after the occurrence, and also that it differs in some details as
given by French writers, should be regarded with caution. It shows a boat
whose paddle-wheels are turned by a single horizontal steam cylinder, the
piston-rod engaging the shaft of the paddle-wheels by means of a ratchet
arrangement which will be easily recognised. But it is also affirmed that
Jouffroy’s vessel of 1783 had two cylinders, that the piston of each of these
was connected with an iron flexible chain, and that these revolved the

paddle-wheels. The latter were 14 feet in diameter and the paddle-boards
themselves were 6 feet wide. The two cylinders were placed behind each
other and communicated with each other by means of a wide tube. The
French Revolution followed, in 1789, when the Marquis de Jouffroy, in
order to save his life, had to go into exile for some time, and on his return,
ere he was able to obtain a patent for his achievement, someone else had
stepped in and forestalled him.
In the meantime, in England, something more practicable than Hulls’
efforts had brought about was to be witnessed. If the reader will examine
the illustration facing this page he will see a model of a curious double-
hulled ship, which was one of eight or more paddle-propelled vessels that
were employed in the experiments carried out by Patrick Miller, a wealthy
Edinburgh banker. This particular vessel was built at Leith in 1787, and it is
amusing to see in her that old idea of physical propulsion brought forward
once more. Between the two hulls sufficient space was left for the insertion
of five paddle-wheels, 7 feet in diameter, immediately behind each other,
which were driven by thirty men, heaving away at the capstan placed on
deck. We find pretty much the same speed to be obtained as in the
experiments which we have mentioned in connection with other craft thus
propelled, for the best effort when all these hands were working to get her
through the water appears to have been under 4½ knots per hour. In our
illustration she is seen with masts and sails which she used when the
paddle-wheels were lifted out of the water and placed on deck. It will be
noticed that she was steered by a couple of rudders; her displacement was
255 tons. This probably represents the final development of Miller’s design
using muscular power, but an earlier and smaller ship belonging to the
previous year carried only two paddle-wheels, 6 feet in diameter and 4 feet
wide, which were placed on each side of the middle hull, for this ship was
not double- but triple-hulled.

PATRICK MILLER’S DOUBLE-HULLED PADDLE-BOAT.
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

SYMINGTON’S FIRST MARINE ENGINE.
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

After spending some time in making these experiments and realising
the enormous amount of muscular power which was needed, it was
suggested to Miller by James Taylor, who was tutor to his children and a
personal friend of William Symington, of Wanlockhead, that it would be far
preferable to employ steam power to drive the paddle-wheels; and the
upshot was that Symington was commissioned to design a suitable engine,
which in October of 1788 was placed on one deck of a double-hulled
pleasure craft 25 feet long and 7 feet wide, whilst the boiler was placed on
the other deck. Thus fitted, the strange little ship was tried on Dalswinton
Loch, Dumfriesshire, when she exhibited a speed of five knots per hour, and
afterwards seven knots. At the first attempt the boards of the paddle-wheels
were broken by concussion. Symington’s engine, however, was really of the
atmospheric pattern, with the addition of a separate condenser, and was an
infringement of Watt’s patent. After but a few trials the experiments
accordingly had to be abandoned, although Miller afterwards got into

communication with Boulton and Watt, whom he endeavoured to interest in
steam navigation, but they declined.
Miller next bought one of the boats used on the Forth and Clyde Canal,
and gave an order to the Carron Iron Works to make a steam engine in
accordance with Symington’s plan. On December 26, 1789, this vessel
towed a heavy load seven miles an hour, but was afterwards dismantled.
Symington’s first engine is shown in the illustration facing page 42,
which is taken from a model in the South Kensington Museum, the original
being in the Andersonian Museum, Glasgow, and it will be useful for
reference in case our description of Newcomen’s engine was lacking in
clearness. As will be noticed, there are two cylinders, each being open at the
top, and a piston working up and down inside. It will be seen, too, that there
are two paddle-wheels; these were placed in the ship fore and aft between
the two hulls, and not on either side as in our modern paddle-wheel
steamers. There were eight floats in each wheel, which were not feathering,
but fixed. Each piston was connected with a drum by means of chains, the
latter turning the drums alternately in opposite directions, and power was
obtained both from the upward and downward strokes. By means of a
ratchet arrangement, alternately engaging with pawls, the paddle-wheel was
made always to revolve in one direction. The engine was fitted with air
pumps for the purpose of which we have already dealt. In many ways it will
be seen that Symington’s engine and gear resembled the method proposed
by Hulls.
But the same subject that was beginning to interest both Frenchmen
and Englishmen was also being studied with zest in North America. In
November of 1784, at Richmond, Virginia, James Rumsey had succeeded in
making some interesting experiments with a model boat propelled by steam
power, which boat was seen by George Washington. Rumsey afterwards
came over to England, and it is not without interest to remark at this stage
that one of the most frequent visitors to him in his new home was that
famous Robert Fulton, of whom we shall speak presently. Mr. John H.
Morrison, in his “History of American Steam Navigation” (New York,
1903), alludes to John Fitch as the pioneer of American steam navigation,
but Fitch is known to have been very jealous of Rumsey, and accused him
of “coming pottering around” his Virginian work-bench.

OUTLINE OF FITCH’S FIRST BOAT.

Fitch was the first man in America who successfully made a paddle
steamboat to go ahead. The date of this was July 27, 1786, and the incident
happened on the River Delaware. According to Fitch’s own description of
his ship, which was written in the same year as the vessel’s trial, she was
just a small skiff with paddles placed at the sides and revolved by cranks
worked by a steam engine. This latter machine was similar to the recent
improved European steam engines—that is to say, Watt’s—but the
American engine was to some extent modified. It consisted of a horizontal
cylinder, in which the steam worked with equal force at either end. Each
vibration of the piston gave the axis forty revolutions, and each revolution
of the axis caused the twelve oars or paddles to move perpendicularly,
whose movements, to quote Fitch’s own words, “are represented by the
stroke of the paddle of the canoe. As six of the paddles [i.e., three on each
side], are raised from the water six more are entered.” In 1788, Fitch had
another boat ready which was 60 feet long and 8 feet wide, her paddles
being placed at the stern and driven by an engine which had a 12-inch
cylinder. It was this vessel which steamed from Philadelphia to Burlington,
a distance of twenty miles. He also had another craft built in the following
year which was first tried in December of 1789 at Philadelphia. This was
something more than a mere experiment, for the boat showed a speed of
eight miles an hour; she afterwards ran regularly on the Delaware, and
during the summer of 1790 covered an aggregate of two or three thousand
miles. It is not to be wondered that Fitch was mightily disappointed at the
lack of faith which his shareholders exhibited by retiring one by one, and
finally he ended his days by suicide. It would seem, indeed, that in giving
praise to Fulton, John Fitch has not always been credited with his full
deserts. Of his predecessors it may be said generally that they had

succeeded not so much as a whole, but in regard to overcoming certain
obstacles, and continuous actions were being fought out in the American
Courts for some years which engaged Fulton until the time of his death. It
was not until the Supreme Court of the United States in 1824 decided
adversely to Fulton’s associates on the question of exclusive right to
steamboat navigation on the Hudson that this new industry received its
impetus and a large number of steamships began to be built. But we are
anticipating and must return to the thread of our story.

THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “CLERMONT” IN 1807.
From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

In Scotland, which has been not inaccurately called the cradle of the
world’s steamship enterprise, another interesting experiment was to be
witnessed early in 1802, where a vessel named the Charlotte Dundas (of
which an interesting model, now in the South Kensington Museum, is here
illustrated) was to cause some pleasant surprise. This vessel was 56 feet
long and 18 feet wide; she had a depth of 8 feet. As will be seen from the
illustration, she was fitted with a paddle-wheel placed inside the hull, but at
the stern. Her horizontal engine was also by Symington, and since most of
the mechanism was placed on deck, we are able to see from the model a
good deal of its working. It will be noticed that the cylinder is placed abaft
of the mast and that the piston-rod moved on guides which can be just
discerned in the photograph. Attached to this is the connecting rod, which
terminates at the crank on the paddle shaft, an entirely different means of
obtaining rotary motion as compared with the “sun-and-planet” method
which we saw adopted by Watt. As the steam entered the cylinder from the
boiler it pushed the piston and its rod horizontally; and the connecting rod,
being attached thereto at one end, and to the crank at the other, the paddle-
wheel was made to revolve. Below the deck were the boiler, the condenser
and the air-pump. The two rudders were controlled by means of the capstan-

like wheel seen in the bows. As here seen the paddle-wheel is open in order
to show its character, but as considerable spray would be cast up on deck
when the wheel was revolving it was covered over by the semi-circular box,
which is seen on the ground at the left of the picture. This engine which
Symington supplied to the Charlotte Dundas was of a kind different from
that which he had previously fitted to Miller’s double-hulled ship. For by
his own patent Symington superseded the old beam engine, and obtained
his rotary motion by coupling the piston-rod, by means of a connecting rod,
with the crank.
This little craft is deserving of more than momentary interest, for she
marked an important advance and considerably moulded the ideas of
subsequent steamship inventors or adapters. Hers was the first horizontal
direct-acting engine which was ever made, at any rate in this country, and in
her simple mechanism may be easily recognised the nucleus of the engines
in the modern paddle-wheel excursion steamer. She was built for Lord
Dundas in 1801 as a steam tug-boat to ply on the Forth and Clyde Canal.
The year after she was completed she towed for nearly twenty miles at a
rate of 3¼ miles per hour two 70-ton vessels loaded, but just as bad luck
had followed the efforts of Papin, de Jouffroy and other steamboat pioneers,
so it was to be with the Charlotte Dundas. Although she had so splendidly
demonstrated her usefulness, yet the wash from her paddle-wheel was such
that the owners of the canal feared for the serious amount of injury which
might be done to the canal-banks, and so the Charlotte Dundas was laid up
in a creek of the canal, and rotted out her years until one day she was
removed and buried in Grangemouth Harbour. But we may look upon her
with great respect as being one of the parents of those two notable
steamboats which were to follow and set the seal of success finally on the
steamship proposition. I refer, of course, to the Clermont and the Comet.
And so we come to the name of Robert Fulton, whose praises have
recently been sung so loudly by his appreciative fellow-countrymen. Born
in the year 1765 at Little Britain, Pennsylvania, of Irish descent, he left
A
America in 1786 and came to England, whence in 1797 he crossed over to
France, where he devoted himself assiduously to the production of various
inventions, which included, amongst others, a submarine craft called a
“plunging boat.” Fulton’s “good fairy” was a fellow-countryman whom
duties of office had also sent to settle in Paris. This Robert R. Livingston

was born in New York City in the year 1746, and died in 1813. A
distinguished American politician and statesman, he was appointed in 1801
as the United States Minister to France. It happened that in his private
capacity Chancellor Livingston was keenly interested in mechanical
matters, and the experiments of Fitch and Rumsey had attracted his
attention to the question of steamboats. By an Act passed in 1798,
Livingston had been granted the exclusive right of navigating all kinds of
boats that were propelled by the force of fire or steam on all waters within
the territory or jurisdiction of the State of New York, for a term of twenty
years, on condition that within the ensuing twelve months he should
produce such a boat as would go at a pace of not less than four miles per
hour. Thereupon Livingston immediately had a 30-tonner built, but her
performance was disappointing, for she failed to come up to the four-mile
standard. It was soon after this that he crossed to France and there came into
contact with young Fulton. To quote Livingston’s own words, which he
used in describing the account of their business partnership, “they formed
that friendship and connexion with each other, to which a similarity of
pursuits generally gives birth.”

A
Mr. G. Raymond Fulton, the inventor’s great
grandson, however, gives the date as 1796.

The American Minister pointed out to Fulton the importance which
steamboats might one day occupy, informed him of what had so far been
accomplished in America, and advised him to turn his mind to the subject.
As a result a legal form of agreement was drawn up between them, signed
on October 10, 1802, and forthwith they embarked on their enterprise,
Fulton being allowed a fairly free hand in the preliminary experiments
which “would enable them to determine how far, in spite of former failures,
the object was attainable.” Fulton had a considerable knowledge of
mechanics, both theoretical and practical, and after trying various
experiments on models of his own invention he believed that he had
evolved the right principles on which the steamboat should be built. Some
of these experiments were carried on in the house of another fellow-
countryman, Joel Barlow, then sojourning in Paris. A model 4 feet long and

1 foot wide was used to ascertain the best method to be employed: whether
by paddles, sculls, endless chains or water-wheels, the power being
obtained temporarily by means of clockwork. Finally, he decided on having
one wheel at either side, but in order to convince themselves that what was
true of a small model might also be demonstrated in bigger craft, the two
partners decided to build a boat 70 French feet long, 8 French feet wide,
and 3 French feet deep. Fulton states that they hired from M. Périer a steam
engine “of about 8 horses power.” There were two brothers of this name,
and one of them had already made an essay in the sphere of steam
navigation, as we have noted. Whether or not this borrowed engine was of
the Watt type I am not able to say, but since Périer had already possessed
one, and Fulton during the same summer in which his experiment on the
Seine took place got into communication with Messrs. Boulton and Watt
with a view of purchasing one of their engines, it is by no means
improbable that this was of English make. On either side of the craft was
placed a paddle- or, as Fulton described it, a “water-” wheel, having a
diameter of about 12 feet. In an interesting article in The Century Magazine
for September and October of 1909, Mrs. Sutcliffe, a great-granddaughter
of Fulton, gathered together a number of facts which have hitherto
remained hidden away from the eyes of the public, and published for the
first time a complete description of her ancestor’s trial boat, taken from a
document prepared by Fulton eight years after the vessel was ready for her
experiment. In this statement Fulton strangely enough remarks that the
power from the engine was communicated to the water-wheels “by
mechanical combinations which I do not recollect,” but the drawing shown
on page 51 will clear up this point. The arrangement of the boiler, the
cylinder, and the working parts sufficiently shows those “mechanical
combinations” which had slipped from Fulton’s memory during the
following eventful and industrious years. This boat which was used on the
Seine was 70 feet long, 8 feet wide, and drew very little water.

FULTON’S DESIGN FOR A STEAMBOAT SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION APPOINTED BY NAPOLEON IN 1803.
From the Original Drawing in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers,
Paris.

In January of 1803 Fulton, who had already been attracting some
attention in his adopted country by his submarine experiments, decided to
offer his steamboat to the French Government and a Commission was
appointed to inquire into its merits. The illustration on this page is taken
from Fulton’s own drawing of his projected steamboat submitted to this
Commission appointed by Napoleon, the original of which is now preserved
in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, in Paris. In his letter to the
Commissioners, Fulton observes that his original object in making this
experiment was rather with a view to the employment of steam tow-boats
for use upon the rivers of America, “where there are no roads suitable for
hauling,” and “the cost of navigation by the aid of steam would be put in
comparison with the labour of men and not with that of horses as in
France.” In fact, he suggests that if his experiment should prove successful,
it would be infinitely less useful to France than to his native country, for he
doubts very much if a steamboat, however perfect it might be, would be
able to gain anything over horses for merchandise, “but for passengers it is
possible to gain something because of the speed.” Ultimately Napoleon’s
advisers counselled against the adoption of Fulton’s proposition.

However, by the spring of 1803, the boat was completed and lying on
the Seine in readiness for her trial trip. Fulton spent a restless night, and we
can well picture the feelings of the man who had wrestled with calculations,
worked out theories, made little models, watched their behaviour in still
water, spent hours and days discussing the subject with his friend
Livingston, thought out every conceivable aspect, allowed for obstacles,
and now, at length, after watching the child of his brain gradually take a
concrete shape, waiting sleeplessly for the morrow in which he was to have
the chance of living the great day of his life. Those of us who remember
ever to have looked forward with zest and suppressed excitement to some
new event in our lives likely to alter the trend of future years can well
sympathise with the emotions of this clever young inventor, when, whilst
eating his breakfast, a messenger burst in and dramatically exclaimed to his
horror: “Please, sir, the boat has broken in two and gone to the bottom!”
It was suggested in our introduction that it is usually the case that an
invention is no sooner born than it is compelled, while yet frail and
infantile, to fight for its very existence: and it is curious that this should
seem to be demanded not merely as against the opposition of human
obstinacy but against sheer bad luck, which comes as a test of a man’s
sincerity and of his faith in his own ideas. In the end, historically, this
calamity had no ill-effects, for it only spurred the enthusiast to greater and
more perfect accomplishment. But physically it cut short Fulton’s life of
usefulness. As soon as the heart-breaking news was delivered to him, he
rushed off to the Seine and found that the intelligence was all too true. For
the next twenty-four hours he laboured assiduously, not stopping for food or
rest, ignoring the chilly waters of the river, until his precious craft was
raised from its watery bed. Fulton never recovered entirely from these
physical trials following so suddenly on his years of mental work and
worry, and his lungs were permanently affected for the rest of his life. But
what he did recover—and that no doubt was to him more precious than his
very life—were the machinery and main fragments of the hull. The gale of
the night before had done more than wreck his ship: it had taught him to
allow for one difficulty which he had overlooked, and it was well that it had
happened thus instead of later on, when loss of life might have prejudiced
the coming of the steamboat even longer still.

For Fulton soon realised that he had made his hull insufficiently strong
for the weight of the machinery. This is the truth of the incident, and not
that jealous enemies had maliciously sunk her, nor that Fulton had himself
sent her to the bottom through the lack of appreciation which Napoleon’s
Commissioners were exhibiting. This is confirmed by an eyewitness of the
event, named Edward Church. But Fulton soon set to work to get his ship
built more strongly, and by July of the same year she was ready for her
trials. A contemporary account, in describing the strange sight which was
witnessed on August 9, 1803, says that at six o’clock in the evening, “aided
by only three persons,” the boat was set in motion, “with two other boats
attached behind it, and for an hour and a half he [Fulton] produced the
curious spectacle of a boat moved by wheels, like a chariot, these wheels
being provided with paddles or flat plates, and being moved by a fire-
engine.” The same account prophesies great things for the invention and
that it will confer great benefits on French internal navigation: for, by this
means, whereas it then required four months for barges to be towed from
Nantes to Paris, the new method would cause them to do the distance in ten
or fifteen days. Very quaintly this account speaks of the existence behind
the paddle-wheels of “a kind of large stove with a pipe, as if there were
some kind of a small fire-engine intended to operate the wheels of the
boat!”
These experiments were made in the vicinity of the Chaillot Quay in
the presence of many people, including Périer and some of the leading
Parisian savants, and the boat was found to steam at a rate of 3¼ miles per
hour. It is therefore both inaccurate and unjust to dismiss, as at least one
writer has done, Fulton’s achievements on the Seine in one line by referring
to them as unsuccessful and merely experimental. True, this vessel did not
show that amount of speed which Fulton had hoped to get out of her, but
she was very far from being a failure. Fulton had left nothing to chance, and
the misfortune of the weakness of his first hull and the error in the speed
actually obtained were the results rather of inexperience than of
carelessness. It is difficult to-day, when we are in possession of so much
valuable knowledge connected with naval architecture and marine
propulsion, to realise that these early experimenters were feeling in the dark
for an object they had never seen. At one time Fulton had estimated that a
steamboat could be driven at a rate of sixteen to twenty-four miles an hour,
but he found that so much power was lost in getting a purchase on the water

that he altered his opinion and put forward the speed of five or six miles as
the utmost limit which could be obtained by any boat using the best engines
then in existence.
Fulton had advanced with almost meticulous caution. He had first
collected together all the details that could be got about contemporary
experiments; he had sifted the theories of others and made use of the
residue. He had often talked with Rumsey while in England, and he had
even accompanied Henry Bell to call on Symington, seen a trial trip of the
Charlotte Dundas, and incidentally obtained some valuable information.
Finally, after seeing what was good and what was bad he had proceeded
independently, and, after a stroke of ill-luck, succeeded. He had knowledge
of what others had attempted in America, in England and in France, and
emphatically he was not the kind of man to deny his indebtedness to what
others had done before him. The ship which he evolved was certainly in
shape, proportions and general appearance not unlike the model of that
earlier craft whose exploits on the Saône we considered on another page.
The Marquis de Jouffroy had sent this model to Paris as far back as 1783,
the year of his successful enterprise at Lyons, or twenty years before Fulton
made his achievement, and it is most improbable that Fulton, who
endeavoured to see everything which bore on his pet subject, living several
years in Paris, should not have carefully studied this. Furthermore, Fulton’s
boat was constructed in the workshop and under the very eyes of that Périer
who had been associated with the Marquis in navigating the Seine by
steamboat, and from this same Périer, as already stated, the engine was
borrowed for Fulton’s boat. Fulton also personally considered the patent
which Desblanc, forestalling Jouffroy, had obtained, and the American had
described his impressions of Desblanc’s idea in no praiseworthy terms, for
he saw that at least two-thirds of the latter’s steam power would be lost.
Fulton worked his plans out to the minutest details: Desblanc had left his
theory too scantily clothed with facts. He had not found the proportion
which his paddles should bear to the bow of his boat, nor the velocity at
which they should run in proportion to the velocity at which the boat was
intended to go. Very scathing is the American’s denunciation of this
haphazard method. “For this invention to be rendered useful,” wrote Fulton,
“does not consist in putting oars, paddles, wheels or resisting chains in
motion by a steam engine—but it consists in showing in a clear and distinct
manner that it is desired to drive a boat precisely any given number of miles

an hour—what must be the size of the cylinder and velocity of the piston?
All these things being governed by the laws of Nature, the real Invention is
to find them.”
Fulton believed that previous failures were due not so much to a
defective steam engine, as to the wrong methods employed in applying the
steam power thus generated. He criticised Rumsey’s method of propelling a
ship by forcing water through the stern (in a manner similar to that which
John Allen and Fitch had suggested) as the worst method of all. Ten years
before his Seine success Fulton had been in communication with the Earl of
Stanhope, who in 1790 had patented a means of propelling a ship in a
strange way. This consisted in using a gigantic arrangement resembling a
duck’s foot, placed on either side. These feet opened and shut like umbrellas
and could send the ship along at three miles an hour. Fulton, then staying at
Torquay, wrote to Lord Stanhope and proposed the use of paddle-wheels,
but the noble earl would not listen to the suggestion. A similar freak idea
was also put into practice in North America in 1792 by one Elijah Ormsbee.

FULTON’S FIRST PLANS FOR STEAM NAVIGATION
From the Drawings in possession of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Stanhope.

The illustrations on this page represent Fulton’s first plans for steam
navigation. They were sent by him to Lord Stanhope in the year 1793 and
are here reproduced from a copy, by kind permission of the present earl. In
his letter descriptive of these ideas Fulton shows the upper part of this
illustration, marked No. 1, to be an attempt to imitate the spring in the tail
of a salmon. Amidships will be noticed an object resembling a bow such as
one usually associates with arrows. This bow was to be wound up by the
steam engine, and the collected force attached to the end of the paddle,
shown in the stern of the boat, would urge the ship ahead. But the sketch of
a ship in the lower part of the picture marked No. 2 represents the model at
which he was then working. It will be noticed that she has something of the
characteristic stern which was so marked a feature of the sailing ships of
this period and had been inherited from the Dutch of the seventeenth

century, and is still traceable in the design of the modern royal steam yachts
in England, as will be seen by a comparison with the illustration of the
Alexandra. In referring to this No. 2, Fulton points out that he had found
that three or six paddles answered better than any other number, since they
do not counteract each other. By being hung a little above the water there is
allowed a short space from the delivery of one paddle to the entrance of the
other, and, also, the paddle enters the water more perpendicularly; the
dotted lines show its situation when it enters and when it is covered. In the
smaller illustration, No. 3, he emphasises the importance of arranging the
paddle-blades still further. Thus the paddles A, B, C, and D strike the water
almost flat and rise in the same situation, whilst that paddle marked E is the
only one that pulls, the others acting against it. Whilst E is sending the ship
ahead, “B.A. is pressing her into the water and C.D. is pulling her out, but
remove all the paddles except E and she moves on in a direct line.” Finally,
he concludes his letter with an explanation that the perpendicular triangular
paddles are supposed to be placed in a cast-iron wheel “which should ever
hang above the water” and would answer as a “fly and brace to the
perpendicular oars”; and with regard to the design of the steamship, he says:
“I have been of opinion that they should be long, narrow and flat at bottom,
with a broad keel as a flat Vessel will not occupy so much space in the
water: it consequently has not so much resistance.”
Desblanc had, like the Earl of Stanhope and Elijah Ormsbee,
experimented with the duck’s foot idea, but had also met with failure.
Fulton carefully went into the consideration of its merits before trying his
Seine boat, but deemed it to be unsuitable. Whatever advantages this
method might have possessed, the action of the duck’s foot caused far too
great resistance, since after making the propelling stroke it returned through
the water before being ready for the following stroke; whereas in the case of
the revolving paddles or oars on wheels their return is made through air.
Thus the resistance is considerably less.
But all this time Fulton had his native country in mind and not so much
the advantages that might accrue to the land in which he had made his
experiments. It was the Hudson, not the Seine, which he longed to conquer
by steam, and the title-page of his note-book, dated more than a year prior
to the events on the Seine, in which he drew a prophetical sketch of a
steamboat travelling from New York to Albany in twelve hours, eminently

confirms this. Therefore, we find him immediately writing to Messrs.
Boulton and Watt from Paris, asking them to make for him “a cylinder of 24
horse-power double effect, the piston making a four-foot stroke”; also he
wants them to manufacture a piston and piston-rod, valves, condenser, air-
pump, and so on. It is perfectly clear that Fulton had but limited knowledge
of the amount of power which an engine could develop. His ability
consisted rather in knowing how best to apply that power. Thus he asks in
his letter: “What must be the size of the boiler for such an engine? How
much space for water and how much for the steam? How many pounds of
coal will such an engine require per hour?” and so on. At first Boulton and
Watt had to decline the order, since they were unable to obtain permission
to get the engine into America. Finally, after paying £548 in purchase, it
was not until March of 1805, or most of two years after receiving the order,
that Boulton and Watt received permission to ship the engine to America.
Fulton had crossed from France to England in 1803, and in the autumn of
1806 left by a Falmouth packet for his native land. Writing to-day, when the
Mauretania and Lusitania are still making their wonderful records for fast
voyages between the two countries, little more than a hundred years after
Fulton had given the inspiration to marine engineering, it is no small
contrast that the ship which carried him from England to America took no
less than two months on the way. But the same winter he set to work
immediately after his return to build that ever-famous Clermont, so called
as a courteous acknowledgment of the hospitality he had enjoyed at
Livingston’s country place of that name on the banks of the Hudson. From
an agreement which had already been made in Paris, dated October 10,
1802, between Livingston and himself, Fulton had jointly contracted to
make an attempt to build such a steamboat as would be able to navigate the
Hudson between New York and Albany. She was to be of a length not
exceeding 120 feet, width 8 feet, and was not to draw more than 15 inches
of water. “Such a boat shall be calculated on the experiments already made,
with a view to run 8 miles an hour in stagnate water and carry at least 60
passengers allowing 200 pounds weight to each passenger.” After the
engine had at last arrived in New York it remained for six months at the
New York Custom House, waiting, it is said, until Fulton was able to raise
enough money to pay the duties. But as Mrs. Sutcliffe has pointed out in her
article on Fulton to which reference has already been made, and to which
also I am indebted for many interesting facts then for the first time made

public, it is possible that the delay arose because the boat was not yet ready
to receive her machinery. Fulton had rich friends who were interested in his
work, so that I think the latter is the more probable reason for the delay.
And here, as we step from out of the realm of theories and suggestions
into a realm of almost uninterrupted success, we may bring this chapter to a
close. But before doing so let us not lose sight of that important fact on
which I have already insisted—viz. that when steamboat success did
eventually come, it was the happy fortune of no single individual, but an
achievement in which many men, long since dead and gone, took part. It
was the work of centuries and not of a year or two to bring about this
marvellous means of transport. Hero, the ancient Romans, Blasco de
Garray, Besson, Solomon de Caus, the Marquis of Worcester, Papin, Savery,
Hulls, Watt, Périer, de Jouffroy, Miller, Symington, Taylor, Fitch, Stanhope,
Desblanc, Livingston, Rumsey and others had all assisted in bringing this
about, sometimes by their success, sometimes also by their failures. When
next we step aboard even the most ill-found excursion steamer or the
grimiest and most antiquated tug-boat, still more when we lie peacefully in
the safety and luxury of a great modern liner, let us not forget that none of
this would have been possible but for centuries of work and discovery,
years of patient experiment and costly efforts, much disappointment, and
considerable anxiety and abuse.

CHAPTER III

THE EARLY PASSENGER STEAMSHIPS
Robert Fulton was not the first to attempt steam navigation on the
Hudson, and we have already given instances of the experiments made in
the New World; but between the time of his success in Paris and his return
to America, although others had failed before, experiments still went on.
Thus, in the year 1804, John Stevens, whose interest in the steam
propulsion of ships had been aroused by watching Fitch’s endeavours,
decided to see what he could do. So by the month of May he had
constructed a steamboat which succeeded in crossing the Hudson from
Hoboken to New York, being propelled by a wheel placed at the stern,
driven by a rotary engine. In the same month also Robert L. Stevens crossed
from the Battery, New York, to Hoboken in a steamboat fitted with tubular
boilers, which were the first of their kind ever to be made. The machinery
was designed by Stevens himself in his own workshop, and it is important
to add that this vessel was propelled not by a paddle-wheel but by a double
screw, five feet in diameter, with four blades set at an angle of 35°.
Thus it was that three years before Fulton’s Clermont came on to the
scene with her paddle-wheels, Stevens had already shown the way with
screws. But this success was rather momentary than permanent: a mere
flash, though startling in its brilliancy. Immediately after his return to
America, Fulton had set to work to build the Clermont, having to endure in
the meanwhile the scoffings and even threats of the incredulous, which
necessitated the ship being protected night and day before she was quite
ready for service. In addition to the main parts of the engines which had
arrived from Boulton and Watt, there was much to be done before the
combination of hull and parts could produce a steamboat. In the meantime
funds had been drained somewhat extensively, and an offer was made to
John Stevens, to whom we have just referred, to come in as a partner. The
latter happened to be a brother-in-law of Livingston, Fulton’s patron, but

the suggestion was declined. In the end the money, amounting to a thousand
dollars, was found elsewhere, and the Clermont was completed. We know
on Fulton’s own authority that she measured 150 feet in length, was 13 feet
wide, and drew 2 feet of water, so that the original dimensions, as given in
the agreement which we mentioned as having been made between
Livingston and Fulton, were exceeded. She displaced 100 tons of water, her
bottom being built of yellow pine 1½ inches thick, tongued and grooved,
and set together with white lead. The floors at either end were of oak.

FULTON’S DESIGN OF ORIGINAL APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING
THE RESISTANCE OF PADDLES FOR THE PROPULSION OF THE
CLERMONT, DATED 1806.
From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical Society.

Before leaving England in 1806, Fulton had already made a set of
drawings embodying his ideas with regard to the forthcoming Clermont.
And so zealous was he for their safety, that before leaving by the October
Falmouth packet he had these carefully placed in a tin cylinder, sealed and
left in the care of a General Lyman, with instructions that it was not to be
opened unless he went down during the crossing of the Atlantic. But if he
reached America safely these were to be sent across to him in one of the
vessels leaving about the following April, “when the risk will be
inconsiderable.” The illustration on page 64 represents “Plate the First,”
giving Fulton’s design of an apparatus for finding the resistance of paddles

for the propulsion of the Clermont. In this he demonstrated the impropriety
of making small paddles for a large boat. Briefly we may explain it by
remarking that Fulton was proving that the paddles in the water should
present, if possible, more surface than the bow of the boat, and that careful
calculation must be reckoned so as to avoid wastage of power by not
making due allowance for the resistance of the ship as she goes through the
water. In Fulton’s time the relation of the water to the moving ship had not
been accurately defined, and for that matter has not been finally settled to-
day, although, thanks to the patient and valuable experiments of the late
Scott Russell, W. Froude and of his son, Dr. Robert Edmund Froude, we
have now considerable knowledge on the subject, which has borne practical
fruit in the design of the hulls of modern ships. To-day experiments are still
going on in specially-fitted tanks in different parts of England, America and
Germany. At the moment of writing a special launch is being built at
Marblehead, U.S.A., for purely experimental purposes under the direction
of Professor Peabody, since the conditions which prevail in tanks using
small models are not thought to be wholly trustworthy. The problems to be
considered will embrace the number of propellers which give the best
speed; they will be tried in all sorts of positions, and an endeavour will be
made to ascertain the relation of the resistance of the boat to the force
generated by the engines inside, and the effectiveness which the
combination of hull and boat produce. Every motor-boat owner to-day
knows very well that there is a good deal of difference sometimes between
the calculations of the theorist in regard to the propeller and the knowledge
which comes by actual use.
Many of the readers of this volume will no doubt have often been
struck by the enormous rate of speed which a porpoise exhibits as he goes
through the water. Those who spend their time crossing the ocean are
familiar with the sight of these creatures saucily playing about the bows of a
fast liner as she goes tearing through the water. It has been calculated that it
would require no less than 15 horse-power to obtain the twenty miles an
hour at which these animals can travel for long periods at a time. The
explanation is that in their skins there is a wonderful system of glands,
which exude oil and so minimise the influence of skin-friction.
Remembering this, mechanical attempts have even been made quite
recently to obtain a steel plate which would allow the oil to exude under
pressure from the inside of the vessel’s bows.

Possibly, nowadays, every engineer has his own formula for
determining the amount of horse-power essential for a given speed. All
sorts of sliding scales and devices have been invented for this purpose, and
the ideal shape of the modern propeller has still to be ascertained. It is a
well-known fact that when a vessel moves through the sea she sets the
water itself in motion, so that some of it actually travels with the ship; but
Naval Constructor D. W. Taylor, of the United States Navy, found by
experiment in 1908 that when a ship progresses the flow of the water is
down forward, and then it passes under the ship, coming up again aft.
Practically we can sum up the resistance which a ship has to encounter
under three heads. First of all, there is the skin resistance already
mentioned, which, of course, varies with the amount of wetted surface.
Then after the ship has passed through the water there ensues an impeding
eddy at the stern, as the reader must often have observed. Finally, there is
the resistance caused by wave-making, which for vessels propelled at high
speeds is an important consideration, but varies according to the design of
the ship and her pace.
We have digressed somewhat from our immediate historical continuity,
because not merely is it essential to appreciate some of the difficulties
which the ship-man of to-day has to encounter, but in order to show that,
though Fulton was very far from comprehending all the details of the
relations between resistance and hull which recent experiments alone are
determining, yet he was working on right lines, and with a certainty of aim
that was positively unique for the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Reverting, then, to the illustration on page 64, he explains in his footnote
that a nice calculation must be made on the velocities of the wheels which
drive the paddle-wheels, whilst the same regard must also be had for the
rate at which the paddle-wheels and the boat herself are to move. Thus, he
says, supposing a boat is calculated to run at the rate of four miles an hour,
the paddles and bow presenting equal surfaces in the water, then the
circumference of the wheel must run eight miles an hour, of which four
strike water back equal to the water divided by the boat, the other four
miles, so to speak, overtaking the boat. But, he adds, if the paddles were
made twice as large the engine would stand still. In the illustration, much of
which has necessarily suffered through having to be reduced, we see an
arrangement of pulleys and lines, and a weight. To the left of the diagram, A
represents the boat which is to be propelled through the water, while B,

shown at the extreme right of the illustration, is the paddle which is to send
the ship along. Both present a flat front of four feet to the water. By the
known resistance, Fulton argued, each would require twelve pounds to draw
each one mile per hour, so that if the pulley and weight marked C weighed
24 pounds, and descended to where it is marked “No. 1,” then the boat A
would be drawn to the point marked 2 (seen just to the right of it) and the
paddle would be drawn to that spot marked 3, each moving through equal
spaces in equal times, twelve of the 24 pounds being consumed by the boat
and twelve by the paddles. Thus half of the power is actually consumed by
the paddles. Next, he says, suppose that the flat front of the paddle is
reduced to one foot while the boat still remains four. “The paddle being
one-fourth the size of the boat must move 2 miles an hour to create a
resistance for the boat to move one mile in the same time.” Finally, as we
said, he concludes that the paddles acting in the water should, if possible,
present more surface than the bow of the boat, and power will thus be
saved.
Practically no part of the Clermont was an invention of Fulton: it was
the manner of employing these parts scientifically that brought him his
success. He was able, too, to distribute his weights so well that not only was
the wooden hull able to sustain them, but the vessel floated on an even keel
and was not inflicted with a list either one side or the other. To have done
this in those early days of steamship building was rather more important an
achievement than the average reader may imagine, but any naval architect
and shipbuilder will readily grant it. The Clermont’s boiler was set in
masonry, while her condenser stood in a large cold-water cistern. Fulton
threw the whole of his enthusiasm into his work, and when, in the early part
of the year 1807, he was invited by the President of the United States to
examine the ground and report on the possibility of making a canal to join
the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain, the inventor, writing on the 20th of
March, had to decline the invitation for, says he, “I have now Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths and Carpenters occupied at New York in building and
executing the machinery of my Steam Boat.”

THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT” AT THE HUDSON-FULTON
CELEBRATIONS, 1909.

Photographs: Topical.
PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT.”

In May, 1909, four folios containing Fulton’s original drawings for his
first Clermont—she was afterwards much altered—were discovered, and a
well-known American naval architect was able to draw out the plans from
which the replica of the Clermont was built for the Hudson-Fulton
commemoration, which took place from September 25 to October 3, 1909.
On August 9, 1807, exactly four years to the day since that memorable sight
was witnessed on the Seine, the Clermont was first tried, and Fulton found
that his ship was able to “beat all the sloops that were endeavouring to stem
tide with the slight breeze which they had.” Eight days later she began her
memorable voyage on the Hudson, one of the most historic incidents in the
history of the steamship. At first the Clermont went ahead for a short
distance and then stopped, but as soon as Fulton had been below and
examined the machinery, and put right some slight maladjustment, she went
ahead slowly. The illustration facing page 46 is from a contemporary
drawing in the South Kensington Museum, and should be compared with
that here facing, which is from a photograph taken in the autumn of 1909 of
the reconstructed Clermont, built for the Hudson-Fulton celebrations. If we
have the last-mentioned picture in our minds we can easily imagine that
memorable day when, with about forty guests on board, she set forth. The
realistic photograph here given shows about fifty or sixty people aboard, so
that we can gain some idea as to what amount of deck space was available
with so many persons crowding on her. But few believed that she would
succeed in achieving what she did. The crews of passing vessels, as she
went gaily up this gloriously fascinating river between its hilly banks, could
not understand the monster belching forth sparks from its pine-wood fuel,
advancing steadily without sails in spite of wind or tide. Some abandoned
their ships and fled to the woods in terror, others knelt down and said their
prayers that they might be delivered from so unholy a creature. As we look
down on her decks we can see her under the charge of a paid skipper, with
Fulton, handsome, but anxious both as to his success and the lives of his
guests, on board. Some prophesied that she would blow up, and none
thought she would ever reach her destination. Those who are familiar with
the characteristics of the crews of the modern steamship will learn with a
smile that, of course, her chief engineer was a Scotsman, the first of that
long line of serious-faced men whom Kipling and others have
commemorated in “McAndrew’s Hymn” and the like. Leaving New York
on Monday at one o’clock, the ship arrived at Clermont, Livingston’s seat,

exactly twenty-four hours later, having travelled 110 miles, which is about
the distance that an ordinary sailing coaster nowadays covers in the same
time on the sea. Among those on board was an Englishman, the then Dean
of Ripon, though the sentimental may find perhaps a fitting sequel to the
first stage of the voyage, when, before the ship had yet anchored off
Clermont, an announcement was made that Fulton had become betrothed to
another passenger, Miss Harriet Livingston, niece of that other Livingston
with whom Fulton had been so closely associated in his first steamboat
efforts. It was, in fact, this same statesman who, in making the
announcement, also prophesied that before the close of the nineteenth
century vessels having no other motive power than steam might be able
even to make the voyage to Europe. The ensuing chapters of this book will
show how speedily and with what quickly succeeding changes this
possibility was to be realised.
We need not weary the reader with the details of this first voyage. It is
sufficient to state that the Clermont proceeded to Albany, covering the
remaining forty miles in eight hours, having made the whole trip of 150
miles in thirty-two hours, at an average of nearly five miles an hour. The
return journey to New York was made in two hours less. If we look at these
two pictures of the Clermont, old and modern, we shall see that she was an
odd, clumsy craft. Her machinery creaked and groaned as if protesting
against the new service to which it was being subjected. She was fitted with
a yard and square-sail on the fore-, and a spanker on her main-mast, but
during the journey to Albany and back the wind was contrary. “I had a light
breeze against me,” wrote Fulton, “the whole way, both going and coming,
and the voyage has been performed wholly by the power of steam. I
overtook many sloops and schooners, beating to the windward, and parted
with them as if they had been at anchor. The power of propelling boats by
steam is now fully proved.” The sails, however, were retained for use on
future occasions when a favourable wind might accelerate the Clermont’s
speed.
If the reader will look at the illustration facing page 70, he will be able
to obtain an excellent idea of the vessel’s paddle-wheels. Here is shown the
port side of the replica of the Clermont. It will be noticed that the fly-
wheels were hung outside the ship and just in front of the “water-wheels.”
These “water-wheels” were always getting smashed, and on one occasion,

when both of them had been carried away, the engineer made use of the fly-
wheels by attaching small paddle-boards to the rims, and so the voyage was
completed without much loss of time. Local skippers treated the Clermont
in pretty much the same spirit as Papin’s poor ship had been welcomed by
the local watermen, and the Hudson sailing-masters took a malicious
delight in running foul of her whenever they thought they had the law on
their side. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that Fulton, in writing to
Captain Brink, whom he put in charge of her, commands him “run no
risques of any kind when you meet or overtake vessels beating or crossing
your way, always run under their stern if there be the least doubt that you
cannot clear their head by 50 yards or more.” But it was no exceptional
occurrence for the Clermont to come limping home with only one of her
paddle-wheels working. The circumference of these was in each case an
iron rim of about four inches, and a contemporary says they ran just clear of
the water, as will be seen from the illustration, the wheels being supported,
it will be noticed, by the shaft coming out through the hull. The boat was
decked forward, and the stern was roughly fitted up for the accommodation
of passengers, the entrance to which was from aft, just in front of the
steersman, who worked a tiller. This was afterwards supplanted by a wheel,
placed near the main-mast, which connected with the rudder by means of
ropes. Steam hissed from every valve and crevice; there was no steam-
whistle, but warning of the boat’s arrival at a wharf was given by sounding
a horn. After her first voyage, when it was decided to put her into
commission as a regular passenger craft, she was somewhat modified. Thus,
her “boiler works,” which had been open, were decked over, each cabin was
fitted with twelve berths, and many parts of the ship were strengthened with
iron work. There was clearly a future for the steamboat commercially, not
merely “because of the certainty and agreeable movements” of Fulton’s
ship, but whereas the average passage of the sailing packet to Albany took
forty-eight hours, the Clermont had done the distance in eighteen hours less.
She ran so successfully that at the end of her first season she cleared 5 per
cent. on the capital which had been expended on her.
It will be seen from the illustrations of the boat that the Clermont had
no bowsprit, and, also, that in one her paddle-boxes are shown, whereas in
the other two they do not appear. The explanation is that originally the
wheels were uncovered, but as it was found that the wheels were likely to
become entangled with ropes, and also to annoy passengers by splashing

water on deck, they were covered in. It will also be noticed from the older
illustration that Fulton had guards put round the paddles as a protection
against the inimical sailing ships, and also to prevent damage when coming
alongside a wharf. Steps from the stern end of these guards were added for
convenience in discharging and embarking passengers from rowing boats.
There is also existent a record by Fulton in which he even mentions that he
had so placed the masts that the awning seen in the earlier illustration could
be spread for the comfort of the passengers. He also claims that he was “the
first who has so arranged the rudder of his Steamboat as that the pilot may
stand near the centre of the boat and near the engineer to give him orders
when to stop or put the engine in motion.”
With regard to the engines of the Clermont, Fulton claimed to have
been the first to use triangular beams in the body of his boat “to
communicate the power from the piston rod to the Water wheels,” and work
his air-pump. But if the reader will turn back to the illustration on page 51,
he will find that the triangular beam was also employed in the engines of
his first steamboat on the Seine. During the winter of 1807–8 the Clermont
was altered very considerably, so that her name was changed to that of the
North River. Writing to Livingston on November 20th, Fulton suggests that
a new hull be built so as to become nearly twice as stiff as she was
originally, that she should carry much more sail, have a new boiler installed,
additional knees and timbers, new cabins and other improvements. Under
her new name this re-built craft ran regularly to Albany and back at a single
fare of seven dollars a head. On her forestay she carried a fore-sail, and
besides her other courses on her fore-mast she even had stun’s’ls at times, a
mizen with a gaff main-sail being stepped as before. There was a ladies’
cabin containing six upper and four lower berths. The engine was one of
Boulton and Watt’s, having a cylinder whose piston was 2 feet in diameter.
On the top of the piston was a cross-head made of iron which was slid up
and down between guides on the “gallows-frames,” that reached from the
bottom of the vessel to 12 feet above the deck. This will be clearly seen in
the second illustration of the reconstructed Clermont facing page 70. The
“gallows-frames” are just to the left of the funnel, and the cross-head can be
discerned sliding up and down the iron guides. By comparing this with the
below diagram, a very fair idea will be obtainable of the working of this
portion of her mechanism.

FULTON’S PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR THE ENGINE OF THE
CLERMONT
From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical Society.

The optimists had prophesied correctly: the steamboat had come to
stay. So soon as Fulton had shown the way, and during the eight years
which ensued between the completion of the Clermont in 1807 and Fulton’s
death in 1815, no fewer than seventeen craft of various kinds were built by
him, including the first steam frigate, and the first steam ferry-boats.
Among the number of this fleet were the The Car of Neptune, launched in
1808, the Paragon in 1811, the Fire Fly of 1812, and the Richmond of
1814. Fulton had, from the first, as we saw when he wrote to Napoleon’s
Commissioners, the idea of opening up the Mississippi and other North
American rivers by means of steamships, and no sooner had he got the
Clermont to work satisfactorily than he wrote: “Whatever may be the fate
of steamboats for the Hudson, everything is completely proved for the
Mississippi, and the object is immense.” When one considers that it was
Fulton who introduced practical steam navigation, not only to the Hudson
but to the other great rivers of North America, and that the Clermont was

the historic embodiment of his thoughts, it seems a pity that no one has
been able to trace the whereabouts of this epoch-making craft. She has
vanished; and was either broken up or disguised beyond recognition.
We mentioned at an earlier stage the names of John and R. L. Stevens,
who had interested themselves in steamboat experiments. Just about the
time that the Clermont was ready for her life’s work these two men had
built another steamship, called the Phœnix. Originally intended for the
Hudson River, since now the Clermont’s success had obtained for
Livingston and Fulton the monopoly of the steam navigation thereon, the
two Stevenses decided to send their craft to the Delaware River. They
therefore took her round to Philadelphia by sea in June, 1809, one of the
owners being in command. She arrived quite safely, and for several years
plied profitably on the Delaware. This is important as being the first
occasion in history when the steamship took to the sea, for it was not until
the James Watt achieved her distinction in 1811 that a British ship had
shown her full confidence in steam. Impelled by the impetus which had
been given by Fulton and Stevens, the North American continent, with its
vast extent of waterways, quickly realised the possibilities of the steamboat,
so that in the next decade this novel type of craft became familiar in many
parts.

FULTON’S PLANS OF A LATER STEAMBOAT THAN THE
CLERMONT-NORTH RIVER, SHOWING APPLICATION OF THE
SQUARE SIDE-CONNECTING-ROD ENGINE.
From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical Society.

THE “COMET.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

ENGINE OF THE “COMET.”
In the Victoria and Albert Museum.

No apology is needed to the reader for having taken up so much of his
attention in witnessing the growth of the steamship both on the Seine and
the Hudson, for the importance of these rivers in the history of our subject
is anything but insignificant. But let us turn now to see what was being
done in Great Britain, where a kind of slump, or rather inertia, had been
prevalent in regard to the steamship ever since the Charlotte Dundas had
been laid aside. We must cast our eyes in the direction of the Clyde, where
Henry Bell had interested himself in the steamboat problem. Like others
before him, he had begun his experiments at first with hand-driven paddle-
wheels, but it was not long before the inevitable conclusion was thrust on
him that the power ought to be derived not from human force, but from
steam. It was he who had talked the matter over with Fulton, and had
actually accompanied the latter when a visit was paid to Symington and the
two men witnessed a trial trip of the Charlotte Dundas. Bell was a simple,
uneducated man, the proprietor of an hotel at Helensburgh, on the Clyde,

where he also conducted a bathing establishment, and at one time possessed
an engine which was in use at his hotel for pumping up sea-water for the
baths. His enterprising mind argued that it would be for the advantage of his
hotel if he could inaugurate a steamboat service between Helensburgh and
Glasgow, and so he had the Comet built in 1811, by Messrs. John Wood and
Co., of Glasgow. Some interesting details have been collected of this early
British boat by Captain James Williamson in his book on “The Clyde
Passenger Steamer: its Rise and Progress during the Nineteenth Century”
(Glasgow, 1904), and in Mr. James Napier’s “Life of Robert Napier”
(Edinburgh, 1904). The illustration opposite this page, which represents a
model of the Comet now in the South Kensington Museum, will afford a
good idea as to her appearance. As will be seen, she was a paddle-boat, and
originally had two wheels on either side, but one pair was removed later, as
the arrangement was found to be of too complicated a nature to work
satisfactorily. She was far less of a ship than the Clermont, and much more
of a river boat. She did not carry even a single mast, but, as will be noticed
in the model, she utilised her thin, lofty smoke stack for this purpose and set
a yard across it, as the Clermont had done on her fore-mast. On this yard
she set the usual square-sail, while from the end of the stumpy bowsprit she
also set a triangular jib. This model may be taken as authentic in its details,
and it was to David Napier that Henry Bell entrusted the task of making the
boiler and castings. The boat was of about twenty-five tons burthen, 42 feet
long, 11 feet wide, and 5 feet 6 inches deep; was driven by a condensing
steam engine developing four horse-power, and her greatest speed through
the water was five miles an hour. Her cylinder was vertical, the piston-rod
driving a pair of side levers. The crank shaft, on which was fixed a large,
heavy fly-wheel, was worked from the levers by a connecting rod. A
reference to the illustration—which is from a photograph of the identical
engine used in this vessel, and presented to the museum by Messrs. R. and
J. Napier—will reveal these details. Whereas the Clermont had employed
the triangular beam or bell-crank for conveying the power from the piston-
rod to the paddle-wheels, as we saw just now, the Comet had what was
known as the “grasshopper” or half-beam type. The steam was generated
from a boiler set in brickwork, and placed on one side of the engine. When
originally she had her four paddle-wheels—two on either side—these were
driven by means of an intermediate wheel, which engaged them both by
means of spur gearing. The paddles were then, as will be noticed in the

illustration, simply placed on detached arms, but when the alteration was
made complete wheels were given to her. She was fitted with a fo’c’sle and
after-cabin, of which the hatches will easily be recognised in the model. The
engine-room took up the intervening space amidships.
Writing now in the year when everyone has been interested in the
coming of Halley’s Comet, it is interesting to observe that Henry Bell’s ship
was so called from the fact that a meteor had appeared in the heavens about
that time. In August, 1812, she was advertised as being ready to ply up and
down the Clyde “to sail by the power of air, wind, and steam,” the
announcement also stating that “the elegance, safety, comfort, and speed of
this vessel require only to be seen to meet the approbation of the public, and
the proprietor is determined to do everything in his power to merit general
support.” Apparently, however, the “general support” was not forthcoming,
for commercially the Comet proved a failure. Historically she was a
success, for her influence was undoubtedly for good, and Napier made
some interesting observations, from which he was able to deduce important
conclusions. Those who are familiar with the history of the sailing ship will
be aware that at the beginning of the nineteenth century both the large
ocean-going ships and the small coasters were distinguished by their
remarkably heavy and clumsy proportions. Especially was the bow still
made bluff and full, since the idea in the minds of the ship-designers was
that their vessels should rather breast the waves than, cut clean through
them, as the clipper-ships afterwards taught should be the manner. It was
the still surviving Dutch influence of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries which had caused this fashion in naval architecture to prevail for
so long. In a sailing boat, where it was desired to carry sail well forward
near the bows—as was essentially a Dutch custom—and where it was
desired to keep the ship as dry as possible, there was some reason for the
high, blunt bow. But with the advent of steam these conditions disappeared.
It is obvious to every landsman that whatever seaworthy qualities the
forward end of a boat thus designed may possess, the smashing blows
which her obstinate form exchanges with the waves must be a great
hindrance to progress over the water in comparison with the clean, knife-
like movement of the more scientifically designed craft. And so, long before
ever the clipper-ships appeared, the same idea struck David Napier. He
spent some time in making passages from Scotland to Ireland in the Belfast
sailing packets of that time, and came to the conclusion that the full bow

was not suitable for easy propulsion. He followed up these observations by
making further experiments with a model in a tank, and continually
modified the former until he was satisfied. As long as ever she showed an
increase of speed he kept on fining away her bow and thus diminishing her
resistance to the water. What he had in mind, after seeing the achievements
of the Comet, was the inauguration of a steam cross-channel service
between Scotland and Ireland to compete with the sailing packets. At
length, having brought his model to what he deemed was a state of
perfection, he had a full-sized ship built after her by William Denny, the
founder of the well-known shipbuilding firm. The result was the Rob Roy, a
vessel of about ninety tons and thirty nominal horse-power. In 1818 she
began running between Greenock and Belfast, after which she was bought
by the French Government and kept up communication between Calais and
Dover, though the first time the English Channel was crossed, from
Brighton to Havre, by a steamship was in the year 1816 by the Majestic.
Thus, the Comet, if not remunerative to her owner, was anything but a
creation of no account.
Bell’s ship did not belie her name, for her life was literally meteoric.
She had been taken “outside,” and on December 13th, 1820, whilst near
Crinan, on the West Coast of Scotland, was unable to wrestle with the
strong easterly wind and nasty tide-race and was wrecked, Bell himself
being on board; happily no lives were lost. In the following year, Comet the
second was built, but she also foundered in 1825, through collision. In the
first days of the Comet, when engineers were working with insufficient
data, it was generally believed that it would be impossible to make a
steamship’s machinery of sufficient strength to withstand the shock of
crashing into a heavy sea, and for some time no steamer went far outside.
There is an interesting anecdote that James Watt, who, though largely
responsible for the successful inauguration of the steamship in the hands of
Fulton, was none the less never directly connected with the new industry, in
his old age visited his native town of Greenock. This was in the year 1816,
or four years after the Comet had commenced running. On this occasion he
took a trip in one of these steam vessels to Rothesay and back, during which
he entered into conversation with the engineer and pointed out to him the
method of “backing” the engine, and endeavoured with a foot-rule to
demonstrate his point. The engineer, however, was unable to grasp the
inventor’s meaning, but eventually, throwing off his coat and putting his

hand to the engine, Watt explained the idea of using a back-stroke; for,
previously to this the back-stroke of the steamboat engine was not adopted,
and the practice was to stop the engines some considerable time before
coming up to moorings in order to allow of the diminution of the speed. The
incident is related in Williamson’s “Memorials of James Watt,” and quoted
in Chambers’s “The Book of Days.”
Not merely, then, in North America, but in Northern Europe the
steamship had become a practical and interesting success. On the Clyde the
impetus given by the Comet had caused the development of the steamboat
to be more rapid. Vessels larger than Bell’s boat were being built and put
into actual service, and in 1815 one of them was sent round to the Mersey
and thus began the important river steamboat service which is now so
significant a feature of the port of Liverpool. The River Thames, in like
manner, was to yield to the coming of the steamboat. Although the London
newspapers of 1801 refer to the fact that on July 1 of that year an
experiment took place on the Thames for the purpose of working a barge or
any other heavy craft against the tide “by means of a steam-engine of a very
simple construction,” and go on to state that “the moment the engine was
set to work, the barge was brought about, answering her helm quickly,” and
that she made way against a strong current, at the rate of two miles and a
half an hour, yet this was one more of those isolated incidents which came
and went without leaving in their wake any practical result. At a later date a
steamer which had been running between Bath and Bristol was brought to
the London river by means of canal, and history repeated itself once more.
Just as Papin and Fulton had suffered by the unwelcome attentions of the
local watermen, so it was in this case. The men who earned their living on
the waters of the Thames showed so strenuous an opposition that the boat
had to be taken away.
However, in 1815, a steamboat called the Marjory, one of the products
of the Clyde, came round to the Thames and commenced running daily
between Wapping Stairs, near the present Tower Bridge, and Gravesend;
and another boat, the Argyle, came from the Clyde also. Both vessels were,
of course, of wood, and both were propelled by paddle-wheels. The latter
was afterwards re-named the Thames, and was the inaugurator of those
voyages now so dear to the Cockney between London and Margate. After
an exciting voyage from the Clyde, she steamed up the Thames from

Margate to Limehouse, a distance of seventy miles, at an average of ten
miles an hour. Both of these vessels were of about seventy tons burthen.
We mentioned just now that James Watt always refrained from
interesting himself financially in the steamboat, although it was his own
improved form of engines which made the steamboat a success. But “like
father” is not always “like son” in the race of progress, and in 1816 we find
James Watt, Jun., purchasing a steamboat called the Caledonia, which had
also come round from the Clyde to the Thames. After fitting her with new
engines he took her from Margate to Rotterdam and so on to Coblenz: she
was eventually sold to the King of Denmark. Other vessels of about eighty
or ninety feet in length, sometimes with engines by Boulton and Watt of
about twenty horse-power (nominal), were also presently witnessed on the
pea-green waters of the Thames estuary. And before the second decade of
the nineteenth century was ended steamer communication for cross-
Channel services between England and France, and England and Ireland
had already been instituted. But as I shall deal with this branch of steamship
enterprise in a separate chapter, I need not make any further remark upon
that subject now.

SS. “ELIZABETH” (1815).

RUSSIAN PASSENGER STEAMER (1817).
From Drawings in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

In the history of the sailing ship the flow of progress was from east to
west, from Babylon to North America, and then it ebbed back again,
bearing in its stream improvements which newer nations had been able to
effect to the sail-propelled ship. To an extent, something of the same kind
happened in the case of the steamship. The latter’s physically-driven,
paddle-wheel prototype began, if not in China, at least in the
Mediterranean, and the first efforts of steam propulsion were made not
many hundred miles north of this. Then, after the Fulda, the Saône, and the
Seine, the movement was to the Hudson, and so back to Europe through
Great Britain and on to Germany and Russia. Of the progress in steam
navigation made in the two latter countries about this time the illustrations
facing page 84 are interesting instances, and we shall deal with them
presently. But before we proceed to discuss them let us turn back for a

moment to Robert Fulton. After he had at length established the steamboat
as a thoroughly sound concern in America we find him not unnaturally
sighing for other countries to conquer. Accordingly he set his mind on
introducing the steamboat not merely on the chief rivers of North America,
but even on the Ganges and the Neva. The year in which Bell’s Comet had
come into service Fulton had actually entered into a contract with one
Thomas Lane to introduce steamboats into India, and on April 12th of that
year he wrote to a Russian gentleman, who was then staying in London,
with reference to obtaining an exclusive contract for twenty years, for
establishing a steamboat service between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt
within three years after obtaining the grant. It is evident from Fulton’s
correspondence that Imperial permission for this was obtained. Fulton,
however, died in the year 1815, and at the time of his death the steamboat
The Emperor of Russia was in course of construction previous to being
transferred to Russian waters. This enterprise was postponed and
subsequently taken up by other contractors. But the same year (1815) we
find Charles Baird engaged in doing what Fulton would have carried out
had he lived. The upper illustration, then, which faces page 84 represents a
drawing of the steamboat Elizabeth. Originally a barge, she was rebuilt and
engined by Baird in 1815 at St. Petersburg for service on the Neva. The
steering arrangement is not dissimilar to that of some of the Thames sailing
barges of to-day, with the use of the tackle leading from the rudder through
the ship’s quarter to the helm. The reader will doubtless be not a little
amused to notice the brick chimney which stands up in the boat as if rising
from a factory. The engine is hidden away underneath the deck, but it was
of the side-lever type, of which we have already spoken, with a single
cylinder and air-pump. The boiler will be seen placed aft. The weight of the
paddle-wheels was partly supported by the rectangular frame-work which
will be seen stretched across the hull. The paddle-wheels had each four
floats, which were kept level by means of bevel gear. The other illustration
facing page 84 shows another steamer, which Baird built two years later for
passenger traffic between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt. It will be noticed
that, as in all these early steamboats, the paddle-wheels were placed far
forward towards the bows. In this ship both paddle-wheels were fitted with
six floats, which were driven at fifty revolutions per minute by means of a
side-lever engine that had a large fly-wheel. The arrangement of this ship’s
engines was similar rather to those of the Comet than of the Clermont.

Looking at the lower drawing in this illustration we can easily see how she
was propelled. Amidships is the boiler, from which steam is conveyed to the
cylinder, through which appears the piston-rod, which in turn connects with
the side-lever, that is placed as low as it can be in the boat. The connecting
rod comes up from the forward end of the side-lever to the crank, which is
attached to the shaft, and the latter, revolving, of course turns the paddle-
wheels.
And here it may not be out of place to say something concerning the
survival of the beam engine. I have already referred on an earlier page to its
introduction and traced its development from Newcomen’s atmospheric
engine. When, in the early days of the steam engine, its use had been
limited to pumping out water from mines, one connecting rod was
employed in pumping and the other was driven up by the steam in the
cylinder. Then, when the engine was made, not for pumping, but for giving
rotatory motion, the connecting rod which had been in use for pumping was
used to give a rotatory motion, by means of either the sun-and-planet
movement (as in Watt’s patent) or by means of a crank (as in the patent
which his workman stole from him). In America Watt’s beam engines were
imitated very closely, and to-day, as every visitor to New York is aware, the
curious sight is seen of enormous ferry-boats, towering high above the
water, with the beam and connecting rods showing up through the top of the
ship. Now this idea is all very well where the steamer is concerned only
with navigation on rivers and peaceful waters, but for ocean steaming,
where the deck needs to be covered in from the attacks of the mighty seas,
it is out of the question. Therefore, since it was advisable to retain the beam
in some form, and it could not be allowed to protrude through the deck, the
obvious expedient was adopted of placing it below, but as far down in the
ship as possible. As a general statement we shall not get far wrong if we
state that thus placed, at the bottom, with the rods working upwards instead
of downwards, it was really a case of turning the engine upside down. Thus
arranged it became known as the side-lever engine, and now, if the reader
will look again at the bottom illustration facing page 84, he will see our
meaning. By turning the illustration round, so that the beam or side-lever is
at the top, this resemblance to the old-fashioned beam engine becomes still
more apparent. Later on we shall be able to show a more complicated form
of the side-lever engine, but for the present this may suffice for the interest
of the non-technical reader. For many years the side-lever was the

recognised form of marine engine, and its advantages included that of being
remarkably steady in its working because its parts were so nicely balanced.
Moreover, it was easy to drive from the beam the various auxiliary parts,
such as the air-pump. It was also very strong, though both heavy and costly,
as it became in the course of time more complicated.
Although it is true that in Fulton’s Clermont the beam was placed
below the piston-rod, yet that was entirely owing to English influence, as
represented in Boulton and Watt, who had manufactured this engine, or at
any rate a good many of its parts. It is now that the dividing line comes
between the two types, English and American. “From this primitive form,”
says Admiral Preble, in his volume already quoted, “the two nations
diverged in opposite directions—the Americans navigating rivers, with
speed the principal object, kept the cylinder upon deck and lengthened the
stroke of the piston: the English, on the other hand, having the deep
navigation of stormy seas as their more important object, shortened the
cylinder in order that the piston-rod might work entirely under deck, while
Fulton’s working (walking) beam was retained.” From the engine, in fact,
which Boulton and Watt had constructed at Soho for Fulton, by far the
majority of the engines for the earliest steamboats took their pattern. And if
to the Americans belongs the credit of having so thoroughly and so quickly
developed the steamboat navigation of large rivers, it is the British, as we
shall see shortly, who have been the pioneers of ocean navigation in
steamships.
The upper illustration facing page 90, which has been taken from a
contemporary engraving, is worthy of notice as being the first steamer
actually built in Germany. She represents rather a retrogression than an
advance in the story of the steamship, for she was following still on those
lines which had been in mind when Miller’s double-hulled ship and the
Charlotte Dundas were launched. This vessel, the Prinzessin Charlotte, was
built by John Rubie at Pichelsdorf in 1816, for service on the Elbe, Havel
and Spree. As will be seen from the illustration, her paddle-wheel was
placed amidships and covered in. She was driven by an engine possessing
14 horse-power and made by J. B. Humphreys. Her long, lanky smoke-
stack is supported by numerous stays, while her double-rudders, though still
preserving the helms as used in contemporary sailing ships, are moved by
means of a steering wheel. Clumsy and beamy, she is inferior in design to

the Comet, and would no doubt have needed all the help of her twin-rudders
to get her round some of the narrow reaches of the river. In the adoption and
employment of the steering wheel neither the Prinzessin Charlotte nor the
Clermont was the pioneer of this more modern method, its evolution having
come about on this wise: as the tillers became heavier when the size of
ships increased and the pull on them became greater, some sort of lanyard
was first attached to them so as to get a purchase and divide the strain;
otherwise the steersman would not have been able to control the ship. We
see this as far back as the times of the Egyptian sailing ships. In medieval
times and even in the seventeenth century the big, full-rigged ships were
still steered by a helm in the stern, the pilot shouting down his orders to the
steersmen placed under the poop. Then, in order to counteract the wild
capers which some of these vessels had a tendency to perform in a breeze, it
was an obvious expedient to fit up an arrangement of blocks and tackles to
the tiller. From this came the transition to the employment of these in
connection with a winch, such as had been used for hoisting up the anchor.
This winch was driven by means of “hand-spikes,” a method that was not
conducive to rapid alteration of the ship’s course. But in the eighteenth
century, when ships were better designed, and many improvements were
being introduced, the handspikes were discarded and the spoked wheel was
connected with the barrel of the winch, placed not ’thwart-ship, but fore-
and-aft, so that not merely could the direction of the ship’s head be altered
more quickly, but a steadier helm could be kept, because it was less difficult
to meet the swervings of the vessel from her proper course. As everyone
knows, this steering-wheel has been improved by many minor alterations,
and ropes have given way to chains and steel wire: but though steam-
steering gear is now so prominent a feature of the modern steamship, the
wheel itself is not yet superseded.

THE “PRINZESSIN CHARLOTTE” (1816).
From a Contemporary Print.

THE “SAVANNAH” (1819).

Already, then, the steamboat had shown herself capable of doing her
work on inland waters, and even for short voyages across Channel, as well
as for coasting within sight of land. Independent of calms, currents and
tides, she was a being of a different kind as compared with the sailing ship
and was carving out for herself an entirely novel career of usefulness. But
the pessimists believed that here her sphere ended; the long ocean voyages
could never be undertaken except in the sail-carrying ships. However, in the
year 1819, the first attempt was made to conquer the North Atlantic by
means of a ship fitted with a steam engine. In the lower illustration facing
page 90 will be seen the Savannah, a full-rigged ship of 350 tons burthen
which was built in New York in 1818 as a sailing vessel pure and simple.
That, it will be remembered, was eleven years after the launching of the
Clermont, and during these eventful years there had been plenty of
opportunity for those who wished to obtain proof of what steam could do
for a ship. Whilst the Savannah was still on the stocks, one Moses Rogers,
who had followed the efforts of both Stevens and Fulton, and had even
commanded some of the early steamboats, suggested to Messrs.

Scarborough and Isaacs, of Savannah, that they should purchase this ship;
which eventually they did. Therefore, after being fitted with her engine, a
steam trial trip was made in March, 1819, round New York Harbour, and a
few days later she left for Savannah under sail. During this voyage of 207
hours she was practically nothing but a sailing ship, for her engine was only
running for four and a half hours. On the 22nd of May she set forth from
Charleston and steamed outside. It will be noticed on referring to the
illustration that there were no paddle-boxes to cover her wheels, and a
remarkable feature of the Savannah was her ability suddenly to transform
her character as a steamship to a sailing vessel, and vice versa. Within
twenty minutes she could take off her paddle-wheels, and away she could
go without any hindrance to her speed.
So it was, then, after she had brought up outside Charleston.
Unshipping her wheels she got under weigh early in the morning of May
24th, and arrived off the coast of Ireland at noon of June 17th, and three
days later was off the bar at Liverpool. But this voyage proved little or
nothing of the capabilities of the ocean steamship; for of the twenty-one
days during which she was at sea the Savannah only used steam for eighty
hours, and by the time she had arrived off Cork she had used up all her fuel.
However, having now taken on board what she needed, she was able to
steam up the Mersey with the aid of her engines alone. From Liverpool she
went to the Baltic, using her engine for about a third of the passage. Thence
she returned to America, having unshipped her paddle-wheels off Cronstadt,
but, after crossing the Atlantic and arriving off the Savannah river, she
adjusted her wheels once more and steamed home. Shortly afterwards her
engines were taken out of her, and she ended her days as a sailing packet.
Although her voyages did nothing to help forward the ocean steamer, yet
she caused some amazement to the revenue cruiser Kite, which espied her
off the coast of Ireland. Seeing volumes of smoke pouring out from this
“three-sticker,” the Kite’s commander took her for a ship on fire and chased
her for a whole day. The illustration gives a fairly accurate idea of the ship,
though the bow has not been quite correctly given, and should show the
old-fashioned and much modified beak which survived as a relic of
medieval times. It will be noticed that the distance which separates the main
and fore-mast was sufficiently great to allow of plenty of room for the
engine and boiler.

In the meantime the steamship was slowly but surely coming into
prominence and recognition, and the year 1821 was far from unimportant as
showing the practical results which had been obtained. As proof of the faith
which was now placed in steam, the first steamship company that was ever
formed had already been inaugurated the year before, and in 1821 began
running its trading steamers. This was the now well-known General Steam
Navigation Company, Ltd., whose first steamer, the City of Edinburgh, was
built on the Thames by Messrs. Wigram and Green, whose names will ever
be associated with the fine clippers which in later years they were destined
to turn out from their Blackwall yard. The steamship City of Edinburgh was
launched in March, 1821, for the Edinburgh trade, and created so much
attention that the future William IV. and Queen Adelaide paid her a visit,
and expressed surprise at the magnificence of the passenger
accommodation. The machinery (which was only of 100 horsepower) was
described by the contemporary press as “extremely powerful.” In June of
that year was also launched the James Watt, of which an illustration is given
from an old water-colour. This vessel was built by Messrs. Wood and Co.,
of Port Glasgow, and was referred to by the newspapers of that time as “the
largest vessel ever seen in Great Britain propelled by steam.” The James
Watt, it will be seen, was rigged as a three-masted schooner, with the typical
bow and square stern of the period. She was of 420 tons, and measured 141
feet 9 inches in length, 25½ feet wide, and 16½ feet deep. She had a paddle-
wheel, 18 feet in diameter, on either side of the hull. These were driven by
engines of the same horsepower as those of the City of Edinburgh, which
had been made by Boulton and Watt. It was in this year also that the
Lightning, a vessel of about 200 tons and 80 horse-power, gained further
confidence for the newer type of vessel, for she was the first steamship ever
used to carry mails.
Before the third decade of the nineteenth century was closed, a little
vessel named the Falcon, of 176 tons, had made a voyage to India—of
course, via the Cape—and the Enterprise, a somewhat larger craft of 470
tons, had also done the passage from England to Calcutta; but like the
Savannah’s performance, these voyages were made partly under steam and
partly under sail, so that these vessels may be regarded rather as auxiliary-
engined than as steamships proper. At the same time, the Enterprise was
singularly loyal to her name, for out of the 113 days which were taken on
the voyage, she steamed for 103.

THE “JAMES WATT” (1821).
From a Water-Colour Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

SIDE-LEVER ENGINES OF THE “RUBY” (1836).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Let us now pause for a moment to witness some of the changes which
were going on in regard to the machinery for steamships. In the engines
which were installed in the Russian ship shown opposite page 84 we saw
how the beam had become the side-lever, and why it had been placed in this
position in the steamboat. This had become the customary type for
steamships which were still propelled by paddle-wheels, and the perfected
development had been due to Boulton and Watt, dating from about 1820.
Until about 1860 this type was used most generally, until ocean-going
steamers discarded the paddle-wheel for the screw. It is, therefore, essential
that before proceeding farther we should get well-acquainted with it, and
we shall find that following the lead which had been given them, especially
by the famous Robert Napier, marine engineers began to build these types,
as well for deep-sea ships as for river-going craft. The illustration here
facing, which has been taken from a model in the South Kensington
Museum, represents the regular side-lever type, the full-sized engines
having been made by a Poplar firm in 1836 for the Ruby, which plied

between London and Gravesend, a vessel of 170 tons, and the fastest
Thames steamer of that time. On referring to our illustration, the side-lever
will be immediately recognised in the fore-ground at the bottom. To the left
of this are the two cylinders, side by side. The side-lever is seen to be
pivoted at its centre, whilst at the reader’s left hand the end of this is joined
by a connecting rod. Thus, as the piston-rod is moved upwards or
downwards, so the left-hand half of the side-lever will move. At the
opposite, right-hand, side of the latter the connecting rod will be observed
to be attached to the side-lever, whilst the other end of the connecting rod
drives the crank; the latter, in turn, driving the shaft on either end of which
will be placed a paddle-wheel. In this engine before us there are two cranks,
of which one is seen prominently at the very top of the picture. Each
connecting rod is attached to two side-levers, one on either side of the
cylinder, by means of a cross-head. Similarly at the piston-rod there is also
a cross-head, with a connecting rod on either side, of which one only is
visible. Later on a modified form of this type of engine was introduced in
order to economise space, for one of the great drawbacks of the side-lever
engine was that it took up an enormous amount of room, which could ill be
spared from that to be devoted to the carrying of cargo or the
accommodation of the passengers. In this modification the cylinders,
instead of being placed side by side, or athwartships, were fore and aft, the
one behind the other.
In 1831, there was built in Quebec, to run between there and Halifax, a
steamer called the Royal William (not to be confused with a vessel of the
same name to which we shall refer presently). The engines were made by
Boulton and Watt, and dispatched across the Atlantic to Montreal, where
they were installed. In 1833, after taking on board over three hundred tons
of coal at Pictou, Nova Scotia, she started on her journey to the South of
England, and arrived off Cowes, Isle of Wight, after seventeen days, having
covered a distance of 2,500 miles. There is some doubt as to whether she
steamed the whole way, or whether she used her sails for part of the time.
At any rate, she measured 176 feet long, 43 feet 10 inches wide (including
her paddle-boxes), and after calling at Portsmouth, proceeded to Gravesend,
and was afterwards sold to the Spanish Government.

THE “SIRIUS” (1838).
From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “ROYAL WILLIAM” (1838).
By permission of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Co.

We now come to the year 1838, in which a handful of steamers made
history, and showed how uncalled-for had been the ridicule which the
pessimists had cast at the steamship. With this year we reach the turning-
point of the steamship, and from that date we may trace all those wonderful
achievements which are still being added to year by year. Hitherto no vessel
had crossed the Atlantic under steam power solely. Because of the large
amount of fuel consumption which was a necessary failing of the early
steamships, in proportion to the amount of steam developed, it was denied
that it would ever be financially possible for steamers to run across oceans
as the sailing packets were doing, even if they were capable of carrying
sufficient fuel together with their passengers and cargo. But deeds were
more eloquent than the expounding of theories, and the first surprise was
quickly followed by another, far from inferior. The first of these epoch-
making steamers was the Sirius. She was rigged as a brig, like many of the
contemporary sailing ships which then carried mails, passengers, and cargo
between the Old World and the New, whose unsavoury characters had
earned for them the nickname of “coffin-brigs.” This Sirius was a
comparatively small ship of 703 tons, and quite small enough to cross the
Atlantic in the weather which is to be found thereon. She measured only
178 feet along the keel, was 25½ feet wide, her hold was 18¼ feet deep,
and her engines developed 320 horsepower. Built for the service between
London and Cork, she was specially chartered for this transatlantic trip by
the British Queen Steam Navigation Company, whose own vessel, the
British Queen (shown opposite page 102), was not yet ready, owing to the
fact that one of her contractors had gone bankrupt. With ninety-four
passengers on board, the Sirius steamed away from London and called at
Queenstown, where she coaled. After clearing from the Irish port, she
encountered head winds, and it was only with difficulty that her
commander, Lieut. R. Roberts, R.N., was able to quell a mutiny among the
crew, who had made up their minds that to try and get across the North
Atlantic in such a craft was pure folly. Having been seventeen days out, the
Sirius arrived off New York on April 22nd, and before the end of her
journey had not merely consumed all her coal, at a daily average of 24 tons,
but had even to burn some of her spars, so that she had got across just by
the skin of her teeth. But it was her engines which had got her there and not
her sails; the former were of the side-lever type to which we have just
referred.

The next day came in the Great Western, a much larger craft, that had
come out of Bristol three days after the Sirius had started; and in her we see
the prototype of those enormous liners which go backwards and forwards
across the Atlantic to-day with a regularity that is remarkable. Unlike the
little Sirius, the Great Western had been specially designed for the Atlantic
by that engineering genius, Brunel, who, like his ships and his other works
of wonder, was one of the most remarkable products of the last century. She
was built with the intention of becoming practically an extension of the
Great Western Railway across the Atlantic, and in order to be able to
withstand the terrible battering of the seas, which she would have to
encounter, she was specially strengthened. Here was a vessel of 1,321 tons
(gross), with a length of 236 feet over all, with about half her space taken
up with her boilers and engines. Now the strain of so much dead-weight in
so long a ship whose beam was only 35 feet 4 inches, or about one-seventh
of her length, had to be thought out and guarded against with the greatest
care. And let us not forget that at this time vessels were still built of wood,
and that, except in a few instances, iron had not yet been introduced. She
was given strong oak ribs, placed close together, while iron was also used to
some extent in fastening them. The advantage of making an ocean-going
vessel long is that she is less likely to pitch in a sea, and will not dip twice
in the same hollow; and if she is proportionately narrow in comparison with
her length, she will also roll less than a more beamy craft. But the difficulty,
so long as wood was employed, was to get sufficient longitudinal strength
to endure the strains of so long a span. We shall be able to get some idea of
this when we consider the behaviour of a vessel in a sea. Waves consist, so
to speak, of mountains and valleys. If the waves are short and the vessel is
long, then she may stretch right over some of them; but if the contrary is the
condition, then, while her ’midship portion is supported by the water, her
fore and aft ends are inclined to droop, so that in a very extreme case she
would break in two. At any rate, the tendency is for the centre of the ship to
bend upwards and the unsupported ends to droop. This is technically called
“hogging.” In the reverse circumstance, when the ends are supported on the
tops of two mountains of waves, whilst the centre of the ship spans,
unsupported, the intervening valley, the tendency is to “sag.” Now this has
to be allowed for in the construction of the ship, and, as already pointed out
in my “Sailing Ships and Their Story,” this was understood as far back as
the times of the Egyptians, who counteracted such strains as these by means

of a longitudinal cable stretched tightly from one end of the ship to the
other. But with the coming of steamships there was another problem to be
taken into consideration. Engines, boilers, fresh water for the boilers, coal
and so on are serious weights to be placed in one part of the ship. (In the
case of the Great Western, the first three alone weighed 480 tons, although
the gross tonnage of the whole ship was only 1,321.)
Throughout the length of the ship, then, she is subjected not merely to
irregular strains by the peaks and valleys of the waves, but by the
distribution of weights. Her structure has to undergo the severest possible
stresses, and these are different when the ship is loaded and when she is
“light.” If you divide a ship into sections transversely, as is actually done by
the designer, you will find that some parts are less buoyant than others, no
matter whether your ship is made of wood, iron, or steel. Those sections, for
instance, which contain a steamer’s machinery will have much inferior
buoyancy, and, indeed, were you to sever them from the ship and seal them
up so as to be perfectly water-tight, they would in many cases sink.
Therefore, this irregularity of buoyancy has to be met by making the more-
buoyant sections help to support the less-buoyant. In actual shipbuilding
practice it is customary to regard the greatest stress to a ship as occurring
when she is poised on the crest of a wave, and it is usual to suppose, in
order to safeguard her manner of construction, that she is poised upon the
crest of a wave whose length from trough to trough is equal to the length of
the ship, and the height of the wave from trough to crest to be one-twentieth
of its length when 300 feet long and below, and one twenty-fifth when
exceeding that length.
We have digressed a little from our immediate subject in order to put
into the mind of the general reader some conception of the difficulties
which Brunel had to encounter when he set to work to produce such a
vessel as the Great Western. That she was built on sound lines is proved by
the service which she rendered to her owners before she was finally broken
up in 1847. On her first return voyage from New York she took fifteen days,
and the Sirius seventeen. The Great Western had no such trouble with her
“coal-endurance” on her maiden voyage as the Sirius had suffered, for she
had reached New York with one quarter of her coals still unconsumed, and
the obvious conclusion which came to any reasoning mind was that it
certainly paid to build a vessel big enough to carry plenty of fuel. But the

Great Western “paid” in more senses than this; and at the end of her first
year, her directors were able to announce a dividend of 9 per cent. Thirty-
five guineas was the fare in those days, and the largest number of
passengers carried on any one of her journeys was 152.

THE “GREAT WESTERN” (1838).
By permission of Messrs. Henry Castle & Sons.

PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE “GREAT WESTERN.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Like her contemporaries, the Great Western was fitted with side-lever
engines, built by Maudslay. Steam was generated from four boilers, and
conducted into two cylinders, her daily consumption of coal being about 33
tons. A model of one of her paddle-wheels, which were 28 feet 9 inches in
diameter, is here illustrated. This type is known as the “cycloidal” wheel, in
which each float, instead of being made of one solid piece of material, is
composed of several horizontal widths arranged after the manner of steps in
a cycloidal curve, as will be seen by looking at the right-hand of the wheel.
It will be noticed that through the space left between each “step” the water
could penetrate when the wheel was in the sea, but when revolving out of it,
the resistance to the air was diminished because the latter was allowed to
get through. As the paddle came in contact with the sea, the concussion was
lessened, and thus there was not so much strain on the engines. The Great

Western employed the type introduced by Joshua Field in 1833, but this
form was brought in again by Elijah Galloway two years later.
So far we have seen steamers running from London and from Bristol to
New York. Now we shall see the first steam-vessel crossing from Liverpool
to New York. Facing page 96 is the other Royal William, which was built in
1838 for the Irish passenger trade between Liverpool and Kingstown, and
owned by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, by whose courtesy
this picture is now reproduced. The Royal William was 3 feet shorter than
the Sirius, but 2 feet wider, and with a hold just 6 inches shallower. In July
of that same memorable year, the Royal William made her maiden trip from
Liverpool to New York, having been built and engined at the former port. In
was no doubt a great temptation to emulate what the Sirius had been the
first to perform, especially as the two ships were so similar in many
respects. Outward bound, the Royal William did the trip in about the same
time as the Sirius, though her return journey occupied about a day and a
half less than that of the other vessel. But these vessels were not big
enough, nor seaworthy enough, for the toil of the Atlantic, and both were
soon taken off from this route. The illustration reproduced is from an
engraving after a sketch made of the Royal William, as seen in the Atlantic
on July 14th, 1838, when in latitude 47.30 N., longitude 30.0 W., on her
first voyage to New York, and the landsman in looking at the waves which
the artist has depicted may find some assistance in reading our previous
remarks on “hogging” and “sagging” in this connection.

THE “BRITISH QUEEN” (1839).
By permission of James Napier, Esq.

THE “BRITANNIA,” THE FIRST ATLANTIC LINER (1840).
From a Model. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

Finally, we come to the British Queen, which was yet another vessel to
steam across the broad Atlantic, and to show once more that it was neither
good fortune nor the powers of any single vessel that had conquered the
ocean, but the building of the right kind of ship, engined with suitable
machinery. Built in London, and installed with engines by Robert Napier

(by the courtesy of whose kinsman, Mr. James Napier, the illustration is
here given), the British Queen was considered a wonder in her day, and
even exceeded the dimensions of the famous Great Western, costing as
much as £60,000 to build. As will be seen, she is neither brig- nor ship-
rigged, but is a barque. In spite of the hideous old stern of those times and
the old-fashioned square ports, and the medieval custom of stowing one of
her anchors abreast of the fore-mast—a practice which survived until well
into the nineteenth century—her appearance shows that she was an advance
on what had gone before. She had about seven beams to her length, and her
bow gives evidence that the old Dutch influence was at last being forsaken:
it is, in fact, the transition stage before the clippers modified it still more.
The same long space which we noted in an earlier ship, extending between
the fore- and main-mast to afford room for the engines, will here be
recognised, and the paddle-wheels, unlike those of the early river craft, are
placed about amidships. In designing her with about 40 feet greater length
than the Great Western had possessed, the aim was no doubt to attain not
merely sufficient space for passengers, cargo, engines and ample fuel, but
also to be able to wrestle with the long Atlantic waves, whose average
length has been computed at about 200 feet. Seventy years ago this British
Queen was designed to be 275 feet over all; to-day, the Lusitania is 760 feet
thus measured, and it is this appreciation of the value of length which has a
good deal to do with the evolution of the modern liner from being a
moderate-sized vessel to one of enormous proportions. In her first voyage
from Portsmouth to New York, the British Queen kept up an average speed
for one day of over ten knots, whereas the Great Western had on her maiden
voyage outward-bound averaged about two knots less. Leaving Portsmouth
on April 2nd, 1839, the British Queen arrived in New York on April 16th, or
three days quicker than the first Royal William had done the journey in the
opposite direction under sail and steam. The British Queen consumed about
613 tons of coal on the way.
Thus we have seen the steamship arrive at a stage very far from being
merely experimental. We have watched her gradually grow from her
infancy, when she was good only as a tug or river craft, until now she has
shown in the enthusiasm of her youth that she can stride across the Atlantic.
It will be our duty in the following chapter to indicate how she came to be
treated with entire confidence, and to take her part in the regular routine of
the world’s work.

CHAPTER IV

THE INAUGURATION OF THE LINER
It was not to be thought that the achievements which we chronicled at
the end of the preceding chapter would remain without their immediate
results. If such small vessels as the Sirius, propelled by steam, could cross
the Atlantic and return safe and sound; if still more easily the Great Western
had been able to perform the feat and to show a substantial return on the
capital laid out, surely there was an assured future for steamship enterprise.
“What man has done, man can do,” is an old proverb, the application of
which has led to the founding of those mighty, excellently equipped fleets
which have transformed the trackless, desolate North Atlantic into a busy
thoroughfare, along whose fixed routes every day of the year are carried
thousands of passengers and tons of merchandise from one continent to the
other. Although nowadays there is scarcely a corner of the world to which a
regular line of steamships does not run, yet it is the North Atlantic that has
always been the scene of the greatest enterprise in steamship development.
We could find plenty of reasons for this if we cared to inquire into the
matter. It was not until the advent of the transatlantic steamship that all the
possibilities of the Tudor voyages and discoveries began to be appreciated
fully. A continent, like a single country, flourishes not merely by its produce
of wealth, but by its exchange thereof. So long as it is separated by
thousands of miles, every fathom of which is fraught with danger and has to
be traversed by sailing ships whose arrival may be weeks or months late,
which may, in fact, never arrive at all, a tight restriction is kept on the
exchange of wealth; stagnation ensues, people travel as little as possible,
and remain ignorant in their own narrow provincialism. Whereas, to-day,
they take every possible advantage of travel, of voyaging the world over,
not merely to exchange wealth but to exchange ideas, to add to their
knowledge, to wipe out their provincialism.
For this we must thank the coming of the liner.

It was that memorable year of 1838 that set all this going. Impressed by
the obvious advantages which the steamship now showed for speed and
reliability, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to whose care was
then entrusted the arrangement of postal contracts, saw that those ancient
“coffin brigs” were doomed. Their lordships forthwith issued circulars
inviting tenders for the carrying of the American mails by steamers. It
happened that one of these circulars fell into the hands of Samuel Cunard, a
prominent merchant of Halifax, Nova Scotia. He had been anything but
disconnected with shipping, for he was the owner of a number of sailing
ships trading between Boston, Newfoundland and Bermuda, and was agent
at Halifax for the East India Company, who in their time owned some of the
very finest sailing fleets that ever put to sea. And this Samuel Cunard had
been one of the shareholders of that first Royal William which crossed in
1833 from Pictou, Nova Scotia, to the Isle of Wight. A man of energy and
enterprise, he had already realised that a line of steamers connecting the two
continents ought to become something real, and he had sufficient foresight
to see that this was an opportunity which does not occur many times in a
generation.
Having made up his mind, after reading this circular, the next thing was
to find the money. In Halifax it was not possible to raise the required
capital, so he crossed forthwith to London. But London is not always ahead
of the provinces, and the wealthy merchants declined to show their financial
interest in the scheme. Therefore, armed with a letter of introduction from
the secretary of the East India Company, Mr. Cunard travelled north to
Glasgow, to Mr. Robert Napier, whose name we have already mentioned as
a great Clyde shipbuilder and engineer. Napier promised to give him all the
assistance possible, and introduced him to Mr. George Burns, and the latter,
in turn, to Mr. David MacIver. Both had an expert knowledge of the
shipping business, and to a Scotch shrewdness united wide experience and
ability to look ahead. As a result, within a few days the necessary capital of
£270,000 had been subscribed, and an offer was made to the Admiralty for
the conveyance of Her Majesty’s mails once a fortnight between Liverpool
and Halifax and Boston. But the owners of the Great Western, with a ship
all ready for the work, were not going to let so fine a chance slip by without
an effort. They, too, competed for the privilege, though eventually the
organisation with which Cunard was connected was considered to have
made the more favourable tender. This was accepted by the Government,

and a contract for seven years was signed. The three enterprisers went to
their posts—Cunard to London, Burns to Glasgow, and MacIver to
Liverpool, but before matters had taken a final shape the Government
required that the service was to be carried on by four ships instead of three,
that fixed dates of sailings should be adhered to, and in consideration of all
this a subsidy was eventually granted to the steamship owners of the sum of
£81,000 per year. The corporation which we now know as the Cunard
Company was then called the British and North American Royal Mail
Steam Packet Company, and they proceeded to get in hand the building of
those first four steamers of which the Mauretania and Lusitania to-day are
the lineal descendants. These four, then, were respectively the Britannia,
the Acadia, the Caledonia, and the Columbia. They were all built of wood,
all propelled by paddle-wheels, specially adapted for the transport of troops
and stores in the event of war, with an indicated horse-power of 740,
accommodation for 115 cabin passengers, a cargo capacity of 225 tons,
while their dimensions and tonnage differed but slightly the one ship from
the other. Their speed averaged 8½ knots per hour on a coal consumption of
thirty-eight tons a day, the engines in each case being not unnaturally made
by that Robert Napier who had by his introduction done so much to bring
the formation of this company to a practical conclusion. These vessels were
built on the Clyde by four different builders in the year 1840, but the
Britannia was the first that was ready for service, her measurements being
207 feet long, 34 feet 4 inches wide, and 22 feet 6 inches deep, with a
tonnage of 1,154.
Before we go on to outline the marvellous growth which has been seen
under the Cunard Company’s flag, whose history is practically a history of
the Atlantic liner, varied here and there by the happenings which other rival
companies have brought about, it is both curious and amusing to append the
following letter, which has only quite recently been made public, and which
will surprise many of those who here read it. It is evidence of the
remarkable speed at which events may happen, and men’s minds adapt
themselves to newer conditions. Although Samuel Cunard was part owner
of the first Royal William in 1833, and already three years earlier had
thought over the idea of starting a line of Atlantic steamers, yet it will be
seen that towards the end of 1829 he was not favourably inclined to the
project. Having in mind all that the Cunard Company has done towards the
inauguration of the liner, her continuous improvements, her safety and her

efficiency, it is instructive to read the reply which was sent at this time to
Messrs. Ross and Primrose, of Pictou, Nova Scotia, who had written to
Cunard and Company in regard to steamship establishment:—

“Dear Sirs,—We have received your letter of the 22nd inst. We
are entirely unacquainted with the cost of a steamboat, and would
not like to embark in a business of which we are quite ignorant.
Must, therefore, decline taking any part in the one you propose
getting up.—We remain, yours, etc.
S. Cunard and Company.
“Halifax, October 28th, 1829.”

The above letter is now in the possession of Mr. John M. Ross, of
Pictou.
But to return to the first sailing of the new company: the Britannia
started the mail service in no conventional manner. Not merely was she to
throw time-honoured custom to the winds by carrying the mails by the help
of steam, but she dealt another blow to sailor-conservatism by setting forth
on her maiden voyage on a Friday, which also happened to be the fourth of
July, a day commemorative of another kind of Independence. Of course, the
old-fashioned prophesied that so flagrant a disregard for superstition would
spell disaster; but somehow the Britannia managed to arrive quite safely at
Boston, on July 18th, 1840, after a voyage of just eight hours beyond a
fortnight, though she had touched at Halifax after eleven days, four hours.
The citizens of Boston celebrated the event with banqueting and wild
enthusiasm as the forging—shall we not say?—of the first of those stronger
links which were to bind the two countries more closely and more securely
together. Four years later, one bitter February, when this same Britannia
was hemmed in, icebound in Boston harbour, the same enthusiasts liberated
her by cutting a canal seven miles long and a hundred feet wide through the
ice, and this entirely at their own expense.
Facing page 102 will be seen an illustration of a model of this
Britannia. Old paintings show her rigged as a barque, with a couple of
ship’s boats in davits on either side, and another hung over the stern in a
manner that will be familiar to those readers who have seen the American

sailing schooners, and some of the Norwegian craft. The space for boilers
and engines still causes that long gap between the fore- and main-mast that
we mentioned earlier. The square stern, the old-fashioned bows, and her
lines generally, show that this first Atlantic liner was hardly a thing of
beauty, if even she is to be remembered for ever as the first of a new series.
Her paddle-wheels were 28 feet in diameter, and had 21 floats, which
measured 8 feet by 2.8 feet. The mean draught of this little ship was 16.8
feet. Her engines were of the side-lever type, of course, the making of
which Napier understood so well. Steam was generated in four boilers with
twelve furnaces, and there were two cylinders. As we have already dealt
with the working of these engines we need do little more than ask the reader
to turn to the next page, where he will find a sectional model of an engine
very similar to that which was installed in these first four Cunard liners. The
non-technical reader will find this some considerable help in following our
previous references to engines of this type, and the section of the cylinder at
the extreme left-hand of the picture will be found illustrative of the working
of the piston inside the cylinder. As we are writing the story of the
steamship, and not a history of engineering, we need not digress from our
historical continuity, and we can now pass on to two other steamers built in
1841, for the Royal Mail Company. In the illustration facing this page will
be seen the Teviot and Clyde respectively, the former being of 1,793 tons,
the latter of 1,371 tons.
We have already spoken of the founding of the General Steam
Navigation Company, and shall speak presently of the Peninsular and
Oriental Company. Following the precedent set by the Cunard Company,
the Royal Mail Line, on March 20th, 1840, entered into an agreement with
the British Government by which the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company
were “to provide, maintain, and keep seaworthy, and in complete repair and
readiness, for the purpose of conveying all Her Majesty’s mails, a sufficient
number (not less than fourteen) of good, substantial, and efficient steam
vessels, of such construction and strength as to be fit and able to carry guns
of the largest calibre now used on board of Her Majesty’s steam vessels of
war, each of such vessels to be always supplied with first-rate appropriate
steam engines of not less than 400 collective horse-power, and also a
sufficient number—not less than four—of good, substantial, and efficient
sailing vessels, of at least 100 tons burthen each.” Previous to this
agreement, the Government had conveyed the mails to the West India

Islands in gun-brigs, and in those days we must not forget that the seas were
not the free highways that they are now.

THE “TEVIOT” AND “CLYDE” (1841).
From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

SIDE-LEVER ENGINE.
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The contract was for ten years, and to take effect from December 1st,
1841. The fourteen ships were all named after British rivers, and many
readers will be aware that this custom of the company has continued ever
since, although in some cases the names of foreign rivers have also been
thus employed. Some of these vessels were built at Northfleet on the
Thames, others (including the Teviot and Clyde) were built at Greenock,
others at Dumbarton, Leith, and Cowes. The Lords of the Admiralty
stipulated that the vessels should be built under their supervision, and a
naval officer was put in charge of the mails on each steamer, and carried out
a sort of supervision of the ship’s affairs, a boat’s crew being always at his
service when the mails were being taken aboard or disembarked. The
illustration facing page 112 shows the launch of the Forth at Leith in 1841.
This picture, which is taken from a contemporary painting, is worthy of
perusal, as showing the close resemblance between the mercantile marine
and naval architecture of the period. Strength rather than slim beauty,
massiveness rather than fineness, formed the keynote both in the steam and

sailing ships of that time. In the same year had already been launched the
Thames from Northfleet, and in the following year that vessel inaugurated
this new service, setting forth, like the older packets, from Falmouth. The
voyage from there to the West Indies took about eighteen days, but
exceptional runs were done in seventeen days.
This new steamship departure was an undoubted success, and the
Admiralty admitted that even the Government, with all its naval resources,
could not have succeeded so well as this private company in getting
together and ready for sea in so short a time so many large and well-
equipped new steamers. Financially this meant a very large outlay, and
there was not much less than a million of money expended on this first
fleet. It should be stated, however, that the Government subsidised the
concern by a grant of £240,000 per annum. Presently Falmouth gave way to
Southampton as the headquarters of the Royal Mail fleet. To-day there are
so many big liners calling at the Hampshire port, and there is at all times of
the day so continuous a procession of all kinds of large steamships, that it is
difficult to realise that in those days this was comparatively a small port.
It was only natural that, as soon as ever the West Indian service should
have proved itself successful, a branch should be extended to the South
American Continent. In 1846, therefore, the company organised a means of
transit by mules and canoes across the Isthmus of Panama, which were in
1855 superseded by the Panama Railroad. Although we are departing from
our historical sequence in the development of the steamship, it is
convenient here to sketch very rapidly the progress of the Royal Mail Line
farther still, for the evolution of a steamship company is not necessarily that
of the steamship. A small company may be famous for having one or two
ships that are always the last word in modern ship-building and marine
engineering; a large company may possess a considerable aggregate of
tonnage, but its ships may be behind the lead of others in improvements.
For the moment we are considering the enterprise which enabled the early
steamships to penetrate to distant, over-sea territories where the Elizabethan
sailors had gone in their slow-going ships scarcely three centuries before.

LAUNCH OF THE “FORTH” (1841).
By Permission of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.

THE “WILLIAM FAWCETT” AND H.M.S. “QUEEN” (1829).
From the Painting by Frank Murray in the possession of the Peninsular &
Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

In 1851 the Royal Mail Line service to South America began, and
about 1869 those steamers which had stopped short at Brazil, and served the
Argentine by transfer, continued their voyage to Buenos Ayres. In the
course of time it was only to be expected that the heavy subsidy should be
reduced. It dwindled down to £85,000 a year, and was finally allowed to
vanish altogether as recently as June, 1905. Since then the Royal Mail
Company has extended its West Indian service to New York via Jamaica.
During the Crimean War some of the vessels of this line did good service as
transports, and even more recently still during the South African War. It was
on one of the vessels of this line that, during the American Civil War, an
incident occurred which was of international importance. The ship which
was brought so prominently into notice was the Trent, that had been
launched at Northfleet. Some readers will doubtless remember that Messrs.
Slidell and Mason were forcibly taken from this vessel by a Federal man-
of-war, and that Lord Palmerston, by his action in the matter, set forth that
valuable doctrine, still recognised, that an individual on board a British ship
is as safe from foreign interference as if he were on British soil.
It was in 1840, also, that the Pacific Steam Navigation Company was
granted its charter, and its history is, so to speak, a complement of that of
B
the Royal Mail Company. After the latter had extended its service to the
Isthmus of Panama, and established a means of transit across to the western
coast, it was evident that the Pacific littoral was ready for the steamship,
and this the Pacific Steam Navigation Company now supplied. In the olden
days the sailing ship had been the only means of doing this, but that meant
braving the terrors of Cape Horn, as many of the surviving sailing ships do
to this day. But the enterprise of the Royal Mail Line on the one side of the
narrow neck separating North from South America, and the co-operation of
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company on the other, together with the
intervening land-journey, brought the inhabitants of the Southern Pacific
much nearer to Europe. The Panama Canal, which is promised for opening
in 1915, was thus foreshadowed. Sending round its two steamers, the Chile
and Peru, to the west coast, the Pacific Company opened up a new sphere
of commerce, and these two steamships were the very first steam-propelled
craft that ever passed through the Straits of Magellan.

B
The Royal Mail Co. has now absorbed the Pacific
Steam Navigation Co.

The foundation of the Peninsular Company dates back as far as 1837.
Even a year or two before then its ships had commenced running to the
Peninsula, but at the time mentioned a regular service of mail packets from
London to Lisbon and Gibraltar was instituted. Here again we find the
existence of a contract between the Admiralty and a steamship company for
the carrying of the mails, but it was not until 1840 that the line was
extended to Malta and Alexandria, and was incorporated by Royal Charter
under the now well-known title of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company, with a view to carrying on operations in the Far East.
The lower illustration facing page 112 shows the first steamship owned by
the Peninsular Company, a little paddle vessel of only 209 tons. This was
the William Fawcett, which was built in the year 1829. She measured 74
feet long, only 16 feet wide, developed 60 horse-power, and was engaged in
the trade between England, Lisbon, and Gibraltar. But the first steamer
which the newly incorporated company dispatched to India, via the Cape of
Good Hope, was the Hindostan, a vessel of 1,800 tons, and 500 horse-
power. She began her voyage from England in September, 1842, and her
departure was a memorable event when we consider all that was destined to
follow therefrom, and how certainly it meant the ending of the careers of
those fine East India sailing ships which had been brought to such a high
state of perfection ere steam had appeared on the sea. The Hindostan was a
three-masted vessel with a long bowsprit, “steeved” at a big angle, setting
yards on her fore-mast for fore-sail, topsail and t’gallant, while her main
and mizen were fore-and-aft rigged. She is interesting as having not one but
two funnels, the first being placed very far forward, just abaft the fore-mast,
whilst the other was immediately in front of the main-mast. The distance
between the two funnels was great, for the purpose already indicated. The
Hindostan was followed by other steamers, and in 1844 the P. and O.
Company undertook a mail service between England and Alexandria, and
so from Suez to Ceylon, Calcutta, and China.

Of course, as yet, there was no Suez Canal, so that, in a manner similar
to that across the Isthmus of Panama, an overland route had to be instituted
for passengers, cargo, and mails across the Isthmus of Suez. The P. and O.
Company had, then, to land their passengers at Alexandria, and just as
canoes and mules had to be employed in America, so boats and camels were
requisitioned in Africa. But it was a complicated journey, for this
“overland” route was mostly an over-water route. By means of the
Mahmoudieh Canal the passengers and goods were sent from Alexandria to
the Nile, whence they proceeded by steamer to Cairo. From there they
travelled through the desert to Suez. Three thousand camels had to be
employed for transporting a single steamer’s loading; every package had to
be subjected to three separate transfers, and the inconvenience was indeed
considerable. But for nearly twenty years this system continued.
Steam communication was inaugurated by the company with Australia
in 1852, by means of a branch line from Singapore, and two years later the
service between Suez and Bombay was absorbed by the P. and O. Company.
This had been retained hitherto by the East India Company in order to keep
alive their navy. In 1869, came the opening of the Suez Canal, and it was
essentially the steamship and not the sailing ship which brought this about,
although the Suez Railway preceded the canal by ten years. It is not
generally known, perhaps, that a continuous waterway had already existed
long years before. In the times of the early Egyptians there had been a canal
which connected the Nile with the Red Sea, so that ships could
circumnavigate Africa and, returning by the Mediterranean, could come out
through the Nile into the Red Sea again. But the Suez Canal had not been
demanded so long as the steamship remained undeveloped, and even for
some time after the traffic to Australia and New Zealand was principally
carried on in those handsome clipper-ships which were representative of the
finest examples of the sailing ship. It is only by means of the steamship that
it is possible to bring across so many thousands of miles the great quantities
of frozen meat and other perishable foods which now reach this country,
and the Suez Canal certainly assisted to make this possible. Not merely did
the steamship indirectly bring about the Canal, but the latter increased the
steamship’s sphere of usefulness.
About the time when the Suez Canal was opened the practical adoption
of the compound engine was taking place in the mercantile marine. This

idea had been introduced about 1856 by Messrs. Randolph Elder and
Company, and had been installed in the ships of the Pacific Steam
Navigation Company. In explanation of this system we may say at once that
its great advantage lay in the fact that it reduced the coal consumption to
just about half of what it had been hitherto in the most economical engines.
The principle is based on the fact that steam possesses elastic properties
which can be put to excellent use. Put simply, the compound engine allows
the steam to enter one cylinder at high pressure, and, after it has moved the
piston, escapes into one (or more) cylinders of larger size, where it does its
work by direct expansion, and so much more work is done at little expense.
The expression “triple expansion,” which frequently confronts the reader
interesting himself in steamships, simply means that the steam is expanded
one stage further. Quadruple expansion is the same idea pushed still another
stage. When about twenty years ago the triple expansion system was
brought in, the steam pressures were increased from 125 lb. to 160 lb. per
square inch, and so the coal consumption was reduced also. But the triple
expansion had been preceded by the compound and the low pressure
engine, just as it was followed by the quadruple.
The opening of the Suez Canal was not devoid of side issues, for it took
away that monopoly which the P. and O. had enjoyed, since the world’s
steamships now poured in and began to go eastward and back again. There
was difficulty with the Post Office, who refused to allow the Canal route for
the conveyance of mails, on the ground that it was not so suitable as the
Egyptian Railway, and it was not until 1888, when the charge for carrying
the mails had been reduced by nearly £100,000 a year, that the accelerated
mails sent via Brindisi were transferred to the Canal route, although the
heavy mails had already been carried by it. But the P. and O. were unlucky
in another way. The Mooltan, their first ship to be installed with the
compound engine, in 1860, had proved such a success that several other
steamers of the line were thus fitted, but the result was disappointing.
Although it was quite clear that this type of engine made for economy, yet it
was found unreliable, and in some cases had to be replaced by less complex
machinery.
We have now been able to see steamship lines established and sending
their fleets regularly with passengers, cargoes, and mails to the uttermost
ends of the earth, and we have been able to look ahead a little so that we

shall be free to concentrate our attention very shortly on that centre of
steamship activity the North Atlantic. Between 1840 and 1860 the Cunard
Company had practically a monopoly of the Atlantic trade. For a time the
American clippers hung on, but as they had ousted the old brigs, even the
fastest sailing vessels were replaced by the steamship. From 1850 to 1858
there was, indeed, some opposition from a steamship company called the
Collins Line, which had been subsidised by the American Government. This
competition was very keen, for both lines were compelled to put forth the
best steamers they could, but in the end the Collins Line withdrew from the
contest.

DESIGNS FOR SCREW PROPELLERS PRIOR TO 1850.
From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

But there was now another force coming in, which was to entirely alter
the character of the liner. Let us trace the evolution of the screw propeller,

which has completely banished the old-fashioned paddle-wheel from its
place in the ocean-going ship, and is rapidly having the same effect in
cross-Channel steamers. We saw that away back in 1804 John Stevens had
crossed the Hudson in a little ship that was driven along by a screw
propeller, but it was not until the year 1836 that the screw was re-
introduced. In this year John Ericsson, a Swedish engineer, obtained a
patent for his invention which consisted of two drums, on whose exteriors
were seven helical blades, the interior of each drum having the three blades
which formed the radii of the circle. Both these drums worked on one axis,
and were placed behind the rudder, and not in front of it as is the modern
propeller. If the reader will turn to the plate facing page 118, he will see this
at the beginning of the second line to the left. The drums were made to
work in opposite directions, the object being to avoid loss due to the rotary
motion already remaining in the water discharged by a single screw.
Ericsson applied this invention to the Francis B. Ogden, which was
built in 1837. She was 45 feet long, and was driven by a two-cylinder steam
engine with a boiler pressure of 50 lb. The result of the experiment showed
that she could tow a vessel of 630 tons burthen at 4½ knots against the tide.
The following year a larger vessel, the Robert F. Stockton, was built by
Laird Brothers, and attained a speed of thirteen knots on the Thames, with
the tide in her favour. Afterwards she crossed the Atlantic, but under canvas,
and was turned into a tug as the New Jersey, for work in New York waters.
The illustration facing page 120, which has been lent by Messrs. Cammell,
Laird and Company, Limited, of Birkenhead, shows her rigged as a topsail
schooner under sail and steam. Her measurements were 63.4 feet long, 10
feet beam, 7 feet deep, with a register of 33 tons, and engines of 30
horsepower. Although she was the first screw steamer to cross the Atlantic,
yet her voyage is interesting rather as a fairly daring trip of a small sailing
ship than as proving the reliability of the screw propeller.
But at the same time that Ericsson was working at his idea, Francis
Smith, an Englishman, who was afterwards knighted, was also engaged at
the same problem, though his method of solution was of a different nature,
as will be seen by a reference to the last illustration on the first line of the
plate facing page 118. His patent was granted in the same year as
Ericsson’s, and was tried with success the year after on the Paddington
Canal. Smith was a farmer at Hendon, and had already experimented with a

model driven by clockwork on a farm pond, just as Fulton had carried out
his early experiments with a clockwork model in a tank. The next step was
to repeat the experiment on a six-ton boat which was driven by a steam
engine, the propeller being, like those of the modern aeroplanes, of wood. It
was while thus experimenting that an interesting accident happened, for
about one-half of the screw thus shown in the illustration was broken off,
and to everyone’s surprise the boat instantly began to leap forward at a
quicker speed. Later the boat was fitted with a screw having one turn
instead of two, and made of metal instead of wood, and in this small craft
Smith cruised as far as Folkestone. Her speed was 5½ knots.

THE “ROBERT F. STOCKTON” (1838).
Photograph supplied by Messrs. Cammell, Laird & Co., Limited,
Birkenhead.

THE “ARCHIMEDES” (1839).
From a Contemporary Print.

From these satisfactory results made by the six-tonner Francis Smith,
sufficient interest was aroused to form a syndicate to test the proposition
commercially, and to purchase Smith’s patents. The result was that the
Archimedes, of 240 tons, was launched from Limehouse in November,
1838, and fitted with Smith’s screw. It must be recollected that the same old
obstinacy was still very much alive that had hindered other inventions
connected with the ship, and it was not until the Archimedes had toured
round Great Britain, and steamed across the Bay of Biscay and back
without mishap, that people began to believe in this new method of
propulsion. To-day everyone knows how entirely dominated by the screw
the steamship now is, and that the paddle-wheel belongs almost exclusively
to the excursion passenger steamer.
Of course, Smith’s propeller was very different in expression from the
shape in use to-day, but the last word as to the ideal shape and size of the
screw has even yet to be said. It would be interesting to detail all the
attempts which have been made by different inventors to deal with the
screw, but their name is legion, and our space will not permit. An idea,
however, can be obtained of the various forms of screw propellers patented

in England before 1850 from the plate facing page 118, to which we have
already called attention.
The lower illustration facing page 120, which is taken from a
contemporary aquatint, shows the Archimedes on her voyage from London
to Portsmouth in the year 1839, when she attained a speed of eight knots
against both wind and tide. Facing page 122 is reproduced a model of her
stern framing before being planked up. As a further test of this screw idea
Wimshurst, who had built the Archimedes, launched the Novelty in 1839, a
much larger vessel than her predecessor. The Novelty will be seen in the
next illustration, and in her we see the “screw” vanishing and becoming
more assimilated to the modern propeller. Originally the corkscrew shape
entitled it to be called a screw; but the evolution of time and experience has
now considerably altered this. It will be noticed that in the Archimedes the
screw is a little distance away from the stern-post, but as seen in the Novelty
the propeller is put right close up against it. This Novelty was the first cargo
steamer fitted with a screw, and made her inaugural trading voyage from
London to Constantinople and back with entire success. She is interesting
also as having been the first ship to be fitted with an iron mast. This
material was employed for the mizen, the other masts were of wood; her rig
was that of a barque. For some years after the introduction of the screw, and
so long as sails were still retained as auxiliaries, there had to be some means
of overcoming the resistance of the screw when not in use and the ship was
proceeding under sail power. This was done either by fixing the blades so
that they caused the minimum drag, or by lifting the screw into a well. The
Novelty lifted hers on deck over the quarter by means of davits. This
arrangement will also be seen in the illustration. This idea is now obsolete,
since sails are but rarely employed as auxiliaries.

STERN OF THE “ARCHIMEDES.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “NOVELTY” (1839).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Now the introduction of the propeller was not so simple an event as the
reader might imagine. Ordinarily, one is tempted to argue that it was merely
a case of putting the power aft instead of at either side, as in the use of the
paddle-wheels. But, in fact, the introduction of the screw opened up a new
set of problems connected with ship design. In the early days the design of a
ship’s stern, both in the sailing ship and the steamer, was badly neglected.
Later on the improved lines of the clipper sailing ships certainly did much

to improve matters. I referred at the beginning of the previous chapter to the
manner in which a vessel going ahead moves the water in which she floats,
and how the eddies round the stern impede her advance. Now when a
propeller revolves, much of its power is, even nowadays, wasted by what is
called “slip”—that is to say, by the yielding of the water so that the screw
does not progress to the full extent of its “pitch.” (The “pitch” of a propeller
is the amount of distance which is represented by one whole turn of the
thread. We could measure, for instance, the “pitch” of a corkscrew by the
distance which it would penetrate in a cork.) Even after years of
experiments and improvements the wake at the end of a steamship tends to
reduce the speed of the water past the propeller, but when first the screw
experiments were conducted the design of the afterbody of a ship’s hull was
so carelessly considered that the “slip” of the propeller was considerable.
There is also to be taken into account the fact that by the rounding in of the
“stream lines” at the stern the vessel receives a pressure which helps her
forward. When, however, a propeller is added to a ship and set in motion it
disturbs this helping-forward movement, and in a ship fitted with only a
single screw this disturbance is even greater than in a twin-screw steamer,
because the latter has her propellers placed well out, away from the hull. We
need not here pursue the subject further; it is enough now to show that
every improvement in the steamship began a new chapter of problems,
introduced difficulties that could never have been anticipated, which time
and patience alone can solve satisfactorily.
And so we come to the construction of the Great Britain, of which the
model is illustrated opposite page 126. Let us recollect that it was only in
1836 that the little six-ton launch Francis Smith had been built, and that it
was only three years later that the Archimedes showed by her successful
voyages that the screw method of propulsion was no fanciful, impracticable
theory. In this same year, 1839, there began to be built a still more
wonderful screw steamer. The Great Western Steamship Company had
already been so satisfied with the Great Western that they believed that a far
larger ship would be even still more profitable. Therefore, Brunel was again
consulted, and he reported that already the furthest limit of long ships built
of wood was reached. There was no alternative but to construct her of iron,
for the reasons that I explained some time since. Iron had already been used
in ship-building for barges and also for steamboats, but on no large scale.
Aaron Manby, in conjunction with Charles Napier, had built the first iron

steamboat as far back as 1821. This ship had been conveyed in sections
from Horseley, where she was made, to the Surrey Canal Dock, and there
put together. After being tried on the Thames on May 9th, 1822, she
steamed away the next month with Napier in command, and Manby as
engineer, arriving in Paris on the eleventh of the same month. She was thus
not merely the first iron steamship, but the first iron ship that ever put to
sea. For the next twenty years she continued to ply on the Seine. Napier was
the financier of the attempt to promote iron steamers on the French river,
but by 1827 the slump in the steamboat had taken an acute form, and he
was left a comparatively poor man. But in 1832 the Lady Lansdowne was
built by John Laird of Birkenhead for the City of Dublin Steam Packet
Company, and she was the first iron steamer constructed with the intention
of performing sea-service. She was a paddle-boat, and measured 133 feet
long, 17 feet wide, with a tonnage of 148 and a nominal horse-power of 90.
Later still the Robert F. Stockton, to which we have alluded, was also of
iron.
But the Great Britain was to be 322 feet long, with a beam of 50½ feet,
and a displacement of 3,618 tons, with a cargo capacity of 1,200 tons, able
to carry also 1,000 tons of coal, and 260 passengers. To build such a big
lump of a boat as this was to be a very grave undertaking indeed. In fact, no
contractor could be found who would undertake the construction of the ship
or her engines. She was something out of the unknown; there were no data
upon which to base calculations. Brunel, therefore, made out the designs
and the Great Western Company with great daring proceeded to lay down
plans for building her themselves at Bristol. This was in 1839. It was
intended to give her the usual paddle-wheel engines, but the Archimedes
arrived at this port, and the success of her screw propulsion caused Brunel
to modify his designs so that the Great Britain should become not only the
largest iron ship ever built, but the largest screw steamer.
It was originally intended to name her the Mammoth, but she had better
been called the White Elephant, for all the use she was afterwards to her
owners. Her rig was like nothing afloat, and the vocabulary of nautical
terms contains no adequate description. From our illustration it will be seen
that she had six masts. On all except the second she carried fore-and-aft
canvas, but this second mast carried two yards and square sails. Forward
she had a bowsprit and triangular headsails. In sail area alone she carried

1,700 yards of canvas, and in length the hull was 100 feet in excess of the
largest line-of-battleship afloat. She was actually floated on July 19th, 1843,
but it was not until December of the following year that she was able to
enter the river, owing to the delay in the alteration of the dock. In the
meantime her engines had been put aboard, and on July 26th, 1845, after
trips to London and Liverpool, she left the latter port with sixty passengers,
and 600 tons of cargo for the Atlantic run. She arrived in New York after a
fifteen days’ passage, with an average speed of 9¼ knots. On the homeward
voyage her best day’s run was 287 miles. The illustration facing page 126 is
from a model of her six-bladed propeller, with which originally she was
fitted; but on one of her voyages she had the misfortune to break this and
proceeded to Liverpool under her canvas. A new propeller was then fitted
which had but four blades, but later on she again resorted to the original
number. She continued her Atlantic voyages until 1846, when she ran
ashore off the Irish coast in Dundrum Bay during the month of September,
and remained for eleven months exposed to the terrible wintry weather; but
Brunel had a wooden breakwater, loaded with stones, constructed round
her, and she was eventually re-floated and taken to Liverpool, and though
her bottom was naturally considerably damaged, yet the mere fact that she
had been able to survive at all showed that confidence might be placed in
iron as a material for ship-building. But by this time her owners had had
enough of her, and she was sold for less than one quarter of the £100,000
she had cost. After alterations to her rig and her engines, she was employed
in the Australian trade. She was next relieved of her engines, and turned
into a sailing vessel, and then used as a coal-hulk off the Falkland Islands.
Finally she was broken up at Barrow.

THE “GREAT BRITAIN” (1843).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

PROPELLER OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

But apart from her size, the Great Britain possessed other novel
features which are worthy of notice. We have already remarked that as the
length of ships increased, so did the longitudinal strain, and new methods
had to be devised in order to overcome this. The Great Britain was
specially strengthened longitudinally, and furthermore she was divided into
five water-tight compartments. The original purpose of transverse
bulkheads was that if a vessel were holed by collision or grounding, or—in
the case of naval vessels—pierced by shell, she might yet remain afloat.
Nowadays they do more than this, for, when carried up to the strong deck,
they add to the longitudinal strength of the ship. The Great Britain also
possessed another novelty, in bilge keels, which extended for about one-
third of her length. The object of these, which are so well-known a feature
of modern steamships, was to lessen rolling. Her bulwarks consisted of iron
rails with netting running round the ship. Here, again, was a new departure.
In the older ships the heavy wooden bulwarks were a relic of the days when
the guns were sheltered behind them; but from the view of seaworthiness
they were really a false safety. If a heavy sea were shipped, the water was
held in and not allowed to get away easily; in the case of the Great Britain
the water could escape just as quickly as it came aboard.
Facing page 128 will be seen a reproduction of a model of the Great
Britain’s engines, as originally placed in her before she ran ashore. Steam
was generated in a double-ended boiler. The nominal horse-power was
1,000, but twice that amount could be obtained, and a speed of over 12
knots. There were four direct-acting cylinders—of which two will be seen
in the foreground of the illustration—placed as low down in the ship as
possible. The early engines which were used for the screw did not drive the
latter directly, and on reference to the illustration it will be seen that in the
centre of the crank shaft was a drum, which was connected with another
drum just below it on the propeller shaft by means of four chains.
When referring to the side-lever engines in a former chapter, I drew
attention to the fact that in spite of their virtues they had the great drawback
of taking up a great deal of space. The second illustration facing page 128
represents an attempt to overcome this disadvantage. As will be seen on
examining the lower part of the engines, the lever has now become very
small in size. It will be noticed that there are two inverted cylinders, whose
piston-rods are connected by a cross-head, the latter being guided by lever

parallel movement, and from it the power was conveyed by means of a
connecting rod to the crank on the paddle-wheel shaft. The connecting rod
can be seen between the two cylinders in the illustration. These engines
were made in 1843 for the Helen McGregor, a paddle-steamer engaged in
the Hull-Hamburg trade. She was of 573 tons, and was one of the largest
ships of her class.

ENGINES OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

ENGINES OF THE “HELEN McGREGOR.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

It was not until 1852 that the Cunard Company were so thoroughly
convinced of the capabilities of either iron ship-building or the screw
propeller as to give both a trial. Four iron screw steamers were then built,
and these were the first owned by this line which were fitted with
accommodation for emigrants. The next year six more iron screw steamers
were added, and connection formed with the chief ports of the
Mediterranean; and when the Crimean War broke out a number of the
Cunard ships were employed as transports. But from one reason and
another the screw propeller had not found general favour among
passengers. The vibration it caused, its unpleasant “racing” in bad weather,
and the new motion as compared to that of the old paddle-wheel, allied to
the usual obstinate temperament, showed that the earlier type had still to be

retained for a while. Following on the medieval custom, the stern of these
early steamships was still regarded as the place of honour, and the saloon
passengers were accordingly placed abaft the machinery, which was
amidships. Thus placed, the traveller was doubtfully privileged, for the
close proximity of the propeller made life on shipboard exceedingly trying
to the nerves, and there were many who, having voyaged in the old ocean-
going sailing ships, looked back with mixed feelings to the longer but less
nerve-racking journeys. The strain on the early screw engine was very
considerable when the vessel was pitching fore and aft into the Atlantic
seas. Being of comparatively small size, its movements in such
circumstances were far more lively than in a modern, lengthy liner, which is
able to stretch over a longer span. Consequently, as the bow came down
into the sea and the stern rose out, the propeller was much more prone to
race wildly, and the gearing, such as we saw in the engines of the Great
Britain, was not infrequently unable to endure the terrible strain to which it
was put. It was for this reason that the screw engines were afterwards made
direct-acting.
The Cunard Company decided to build their next ship of iron, but with
paddle-wheels. This was the Persia, launched in 1856, a vessel of 3,300
tons burthen, with accommodation for 250 passengers. But she was even
surpassed by the Scotia, which was built in 1862, and is interesting as being
the last and the finest paddle-ship which was ever made for their Atlantic
service. An illustration of this vessel will be found opposite page 130. She
was fitted with the greatest luxury of the time, to carry 275 cabin
passengers, had seven water-tight compartments, and a double bottom, so
that even if she should have had the bad luck to run ashore she would still
most probably be able to endure. Nowadays most steamships are fitted with
this excellent arrangement, which was first adopted in the Great Eastern,
through the ingenuity of Brunel, to which we shall refer presently. But the
Scotia turned out to be also a fast boat, and materially altered the time spent
in crossing the Atlantic; she lowered the record to just two hours under the
nine days. Her engines were of the familiar side-lever type, and were the
finest examples of their kind that were ever made. The cylinders were 100
feet in diameter, and steam at 20 lb. pressure was supplied by eight boilers
with forty furnaces, the speed attained being 13½ knots per hour; her daily
coal consumption was 159 tons. She could carry 1,800 tons of coal, and was
exceedingly strongly constructed. We can obtain some idea of those paddle-

wheels shown in the illustration when we remark that they were no less than
40 feet in diameter. She was afterwards turned into a “telegraph” ship for
use in cable-laying, and her paddles changed for twin screws. It was not
until about 1896 that her water-tight bulkheads were put to practical use; for
as the result of an explosion on board of vapour from spirit her bow was
blown out of her, and the water began to rush in. Her collision bulkhead
was also damaged, but happily the second bulkhead saved the ship from
foundering.

THE “SCOTIA” (1862).
From a Painting. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

THE “PACIFIC” (1853).
From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Turning our attention away from the North Atlantic for a while, we
shall be able to see that steamships on other routes were now fast passing
from the olden types, when designers and builders were working with only
a minimum of data on which to base their achievements. We have already
referred to the highly important knowledge which was gradually being
obtained concerning the relations between the hull of a ship and the water in
which she is floated. One of the greatest authorities on this subject about the
middle of the last century was John Scott Russell, who worked out a theory
regarding the resistance of the ship passing through the water. He it was
who contended that the hull should only move the water out of the way
sufficiently to allow the widest section of the ship to pass through, and to do
this in such a manner as should cause the least amount of friction and
disturbance of the water, so that, when the ship was gone by, the particles of
water should be restored to their original quietude. It is important to bear in
mind that the design of a ship must be made with regard to the speed which
it is intended to get out of her. Thus, it is now a well-known principle that to
give a ship highly powerful engines so that she is forced beyond her proper
speed only makes the waves diverge from the sides and waste themselves
instead of travelling with the vessel and giving it a forward impetus.

The model of the hull in the illustration facing page 134 represents the
steamship Victoria, which was built in 1852 of iron, and designed by those
two great geniuses Brunel and Scott Russell for the Australian Royal Mail
Steam Navigation Company. Even the least practised eye on looking at her
lines can see that she possessed speed, and it was this ship that gained the
£500 prize offered by the Colonies for the fastest voyage to Australia, her
time from Gravesend to Adelaide being sixty days, including two days’
delay at St. Vincent. The Victoria was designed as embodying the wave-line
theory and for a speed of ten knots. It is not necessary to examine this
model many moments before one realises how unmistakably the clumsy,
ponderous hulls so characteristic of earlier years were now being replaced
by sweet, graceful, non-resisting features. The hull of the Victoria was
separated into a dozen water-tight compartments and displaced 3,000 tons,
her length being 261 feet, with a breadth of 38 feet, or approximately seven
beams to the length. She had a two-bladed screw, and when this was not in
use, and the Victoria proceeded under sail-power alone, the propeller was
fixed vertically. Thus arranged, the ship could sail 5½ knots, but it is
interesting to remark that when the screw was allowed to revolve freely the
speed of the ship was increased another couple of knots.

MAUDSLAY’S OSCILLATING ENGINE.
From the Original in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

ENGINES OF THE “CANDIA.”
From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

It was in this ship that a type of engine was fitted to which, so far, we
have not referred. This was the oscillating kind, and was destined to become
pretty well universal in paddle-ships, though not without serious opposition
at one time. This type had been patented as far back as 1827, by Joseph
Maudslay, and in the Aaron Manby, already mentioned, the machinery was
of an oscillating nature, for which Manby had obtained a patent in 1821, but
even farther back still—in 1785—William Murdoch had proposed the use
of oscillating cylinders. It is only fair to Maudslay to say that he had
independently worked out this arrangement, and so afforded yet another
instance of the possibility, which I have enunciated before, of different
inventors working at the same set of problems and bringing about a similar
method of solution. In the accompanying illustration is shown Maudslay’s
original oscillating engine. In this type the cylinders, instead of being fixed,
oscillate, and the necessity of the connecting rod is dispensed with, for the
cylinder is placed immediately underneath the crank shaft, as a reference to
the illustration will show. Each cylinder is mounted on trunnions in the
same manner as a cannon, being placed at a point about the middle of the
cylinder’s length, so that it can swing, or oscillate, in such a way as to
correspond with the arc which the crank makes in its movement. Thus there
are both weight and valuable space saved. In the instance before us the
condenser is placed between the two cylinders; the central trunnions
communicate with the condenser, and the outside trunnions with the steam
pipe. But Maudslay’s engines did not at that time find the appreciation
which had been hoped for, and it was not until 1838, when they were re-
introduced by John Penn, that they received their full favour. We shall
return to the oscillating type when we come to consider the Great Eastern.
But we may remark that the interesting steamship illustrated opposite page
130 was also provided with the oscillating pattern. This is the packet
steamer Pacific, which was built in 1853 for the Mediterranean service, and
is another example of a vessel constructed on the wave-line system. She
was built of iron, and had nine water-tight compartments.
The Pacific was interesting in another feature, in that she generated her
steam in four tubular boilers, each of which had five furnaces. Briefly the
evolution of the boiler had been on this wise: As originally fitted in the
Clermont and Comet it was simply a water-tank set in brickwork, and was
nearly full of water, with the fire outside, or, to use the expression generally
employed, “externally fired.” In those days the pressure of the steam was

not greater than the pressure of the air, which we saw to be 15 lb. to the
square inch. Then came a modification of this in which the furnace was
placed inside the boiler, the advantage being that, with the water all round,
the latter could be the more readily heated. This developed into the marine
“box” boiler, with internal flat-sided flues and furnaces. This type continued
to be fairly universal until about 1845, but the utmost pressure of steam
which these were capable of enduring was not above 35 lb. or thereabouts.
But tubes instead of the flat flues began to be introduced about the year
1850, owing to the suggestion of the Earl of Dundonald, and these were to
be of about double the diameter of those which had been common to
locomotives for the previous twenty years. The pressure was soon raised
considerably, but there was a strong prejudice against using high pressures
at sea, and the idea was not encouraged.

THE “VICTORIA” (1852).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “HIMALAYA” (1853).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

COASTING CARGO STEAMER (1855).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

In the same year that the Pacific took the water was launched the
Himalaya, of which a beautiful little model is here illustrated. She was built
for the P. and O. Line. This fine ship-rigged steamship was constructed of
iron at Blackwall in 1853, and in the following year was bought by the
British Government and steamed away from Plymouth with soldiers for the
Crimea. She was of 4,690 tons displacement, and in that year made a record
run from Gibraltar at an average speed of 13½ knots. Originally she had
been built for carrying both cargo and passengers, but now she is, or was,
ending her sphere of usefulness as a coal hulk at Devonport. Her coal
“endurance”—she could carry 1,200 tons—made her a valuable asset, and
her six water-tight bulkheads rendered her still more efficient. As will be

seen from the illustration, she had a single propeller, and this was driven by
yet another type of engine, which we have now to consider. We refer to the
vertical trunk engine. We shall be able to understand this better if we
examine the illustration facing page 132, which reproduces a drawing of a
similar type of engines installed in the P. and O. Candia, built a year later
than the Himalaya. In the trunk engine the piston-rod was done away with,
so that the connecting rod is attached directly to the piston within a trunk or
tube. This trunk passes through a steam-tight stuffing-box in the cylinder
cover, and is made wide enough to allow of the lateral vibrations of the
connecting rod inside. As long as steam pressures did not exceed 35 lb. this
proved to be satisfactory; but the friction of the stuffing-boxes when they
became of large dimensions was a serious drawback. The Candia, for which
these engines were made, was a screw ship, and the cylinders were placed
in a fore-and-aft position. By means of this type of engine, employing
trunks, the height required was greatly lessened, and it was not necessary, as
will have been noticed was essential in the case of the Great Britain’s
engines, that part of them should come up through the deck. Thus, the trunk
type meant a saving of valuable space. Between the cylinders were arranged
the condensers, which were of the jet type. We may stop to remind the
reader that the condenser had been the invention of Watt, who had improved
on the Newcomen engine not merely by covering over the top of the
cylinder, but by condensing the exhausted steam in a separate vessel, called
a condenser. This condensation he brought about by means of a jet of cold
water, and the same principle was still employed in the Candia.
Condensation having taken place, the water thus formed, together with any
air which has got in, is then drawn off by the air-pumps, which will be seen
in the illustration to be worked from an intermediate crank. It will be
remarked on glancing at the left of the picture that the Candia’s crank shaft
was connected with the propeller shaft by means of spur gearing, which
doubled the speed of the screw, and so of the ship, but yet allowed the
actual engines to run comparatively slowly. This toothed wheel idea was a
better method than that employed in the Great Britain’s engines, though it
was only just one stage better. There was a rooted objection in the early
days of the screw to running the engines at a great speed, and thus it was
only by some such means of gearing that the propeller was made to revolve
quickly. In the course of time, when a wider experience and knowledge of
engineering matters had been obtained, the gearing was done away with and

the engines became direct-acting, and so there ensued far less friction, an
absence of complication, and less expense caused by gearing. At the same
time the power obtained by the newer method became more direct.
A customary apparatus nowadays adopted for steamships is the surface
condenser, and in the effort to increase the steam pressures this has been a
potent factor. But it had already been tried by Watt, by David Napier, and
re-introduced by Samuel Hall in 1831. The surface condenser consists of a
number of brass tubes about three quarters of an inch in diameter, through
which a stream of cold water circulates. This necessarily keeps the pipes
cool, and thus condenses the exhaust steam which is thrown on to them
from the cylinder; it is practically a kind of tubular boiler. Instead of the jet,
as in the older form of condenser, it is the outside of the pipes which
performs the office, and the air-pump does its work as before. The
condensed steam is now available for feeding the boiler, and after being
filtered the feed pump draws it into a heater and thence it is led into the
boiler once more. If the reader will now turn to the illustration facing page
132 once more, he will see in the right hand of the picture that in the
Candia the feed and bilge pumps were worked by small beams from an
eccentric.
By being able to use this water for the boilers a great economy was
effected, but in some of the P. and O. liners the boilers suffered rather badly,
since an injurious chemical action was set up owing to the continuous
return of the same water backwards and forwards from the condenser.
Nowadays the problems connected with the condenser have been fully
mastered, and the advantage of being able to use distilled water is obvious;
for one of the surest and quickest methods of bringing about ruin is to use
sea-water for the boiler, over which it will lay a thick crust of salt.
The third illustration facing page 134 is interesting as representative of
a type of coasting steamer introduced about the year 1855. She shows very
well the simplest form of an iron ship propelled with a screw, and evinces
sufficient resemblance to the dying sailing ship before the steamer had
taken on a distinctive character of her own. In a word, here is the steamship
not in her crudity, as in the case of the Clermont, but certainly in her
elementary form without any of those extra decks and houses which were
still to come, and which to-day give such distinct personality to the
steamship. It will be seen that she is just a flush-decked vessel, with a

central protection amidships for her engines and boilers. There is no
forecastle, no poop, and in the development of type she stands at the
beginning. She was built for the North Sea trade, and in bad weather must
have been a singularly wet boat. She was only of 677 tons gross register,
and the absence of any shelter would, when steaming to windward in a bad
sea, cause her to be swept from end to end. Similarly, her stern being
equally unprotected by either poop or quarter deck, she would be at the
mercy of a bad following sea. It was not surprising that this elementary type
soon gave way to those modifications that we shall see hereafter. In design
of her body this present model illustrates again Scott Russell’s system of
obtaining a capacious ship combined with the qualities of slipping through
the water with the minimum of resistance. This will be especially noticeable
by regarding the long straight middle body. She was propelled by
oscillating engines, and a two-bladed screw, having also sails on her three
masts.
And so we come to that famous monstrosity and wonder of her decade
the Great Eastern, some idea of whose appearance will be obtainable from
a model of her, illustrated herewith. Here again will be found a repetition of
a curious rig with the half-dozen masts, of which the second and third
carried yards and square-sails, and the others the usual fore-and-aft sails set
on the gaffs here seen. Although she carried one triangular headsail, yet this
was a staysail, and it is significant that in this notable ship we find the
disappearance of the bowsprit, a change that is so characteristic of the
modern liner. Much more than either the Great Western or the Great Britain
this epoch-making monster stands for something altogether distinctive in
the evolution of the steamship. Frankly, in spite of her virtues, she was a
creature born out of due time. Historically, she exhibits in no uncertain
manner the extraordinary and almost incredible speed at which the
development of the steamship had progressed in fifty years, during which
period designers, ship-builders, and engineers had to feel their way in the
most cautious manner. No ship was built with such a length as hers until the
White Star Oceanic in 1899; no vessel ever had such a beam until the
coming of the Mauretania and Lusitania, and even they only exceed the
Great Eastern’s extreme width by a mere five feet. But it is half a century
since the latter was built, when all the experience that we possess now was
not yet obtained.

THE “GREAT EASTERN” (1858).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Originally she had been named the Leviathan, and her beginning
happened as follows: Already the fact had come to be appreciated that there
was a superior advantage in a large steamer compared with a ship of smaller
size when voyages of considerable distances were contemplated, and that,
as already pointed out on a previous page, length of hull, other things being
equal, makes for speed. In designing the Great Eastern with an extreme
length of 692 feet she spanned over so large a number of wave-lengths that
the possibility of pitching was very decidedly reduced. But even in smooth
water length still means speed, and to take the case of a rowing “eight” and
compare it with a single “sculler,” we find that this law is well exemplified.
Without pursuing so interesting a point beyond our limitations of subject,
we might remark that quite recently an expert took the trouble to work out
data obtained from the performances respectively of a Leander “eight” and
a “sculler” as observed at a Henley Regatta. Although the displacement of
the eight-oared craft works out at about 240 pounds per rowing man, or

including the coxswain at about 217 pounds, whilst the sculler only
displaces 208 lb., yet for all that the speed of the longer boat was found to
be greater in the proportion as 9.75 knots are to 8.12 knots, and this, bear in
mind, while the eight is carrying a ninth man who contributes nothing to the
speed of the craft. We mention this as a simple example of that important
fact of the superiority of length in ship-making, an importance that is now
exhibited so clearly in the enormous lengths of the latest liners.
Brunel, who had already broken steamship records by his previous
daring essays, suggested to the Eastern Navigation Company the building of
such a ship as would be able to carry an unheard-of number of passengers, a
very large amount of cargo, and at the same time be capable of steaming all
the way to Australia without having to coal on the voyage. These virtues,
together with her speed of fifteen knots, would, it was thought, enable her
to attract such a large amount of business that she would handsomely repay
her owners. The contract was eventually given to Scott Russell’s firm, who
were entrusted with the building of the ship, together with the paddle-wheel
engines. The screw engines were made by Messrs. James Watt and Co., so
that three of the names most prominently connected with the history of the
steamship were especially associated with the construction of this leviathan.
Brunel was assisted in the designing by Scott Russell, and the latter’s wave-
line principle was followed. The building of the ship began on the 1st of
May, 1854, and on the last day of January, 1858, she was sent into the water
at Millwall. But this was not done without some difficulty. The first attempt
to launch this enormous mass of 12,000 tons was unsuccessful. Her weight
was resting on a couple of gigantic cradles which were to slide down an
incline to the water; but they only moved a few feet and then stopped.
Finally, three months after the first effort, she was slowly persuaded into the
water, side-ways, by hydraulic machinery. Instead of running her on the
route for which she had been built, where her exceptional abilities might
have been utilised, she was put to compete with the steamships already
running on the Atlantic, for which short voyage she was not specially
suitable, and financially she spelt ruin all round. First, the attempts to
launch her, and the ensuing delay cost £120,000 and the company, unable to
bear the expense, was wound up. Then the new company which bought her
for £160,000 were ill-advised to employ her in the American trade, for
neither as a passenger ship nor as a cargo carrier could she be made to pay
her way. Subsequently she was used in laying the Atlantic cable, and was

handed over to the ship-breakers in 1888, who brought her career to an end
during the next couple of years.

PADDLE ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

SCREW ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The Great Eastern was, in accordance with Brunel’s idea, propelled by
both paddle-wheels and a screw. An illustration is here given of a model of
her paddle-engines, which were of the oscillating type. It will be borne in
mind that the leading advantages of this type lay in the fact of their
comparative lightness in weight, and their economy as regards space. If the
reader will just glance at the illustration which faces page 138 of the Great
Eastern’s longitudinal section, he will be able to see what little room these
engines actually needed. It will be noticed in her paddle-engines that each
of two cylinders drove a crank, the cylinders being placed vertically but at
an inclined angle. Each paddle-wheel could, if desired, be driven separately.
The condensers were of the jet type, and there were two air-pumps, which
were driven by a single crank in the middle of the paddle shaft. The paddle-
wheels were tremendous, weighing ninety tons each, and measuring fifty-
six feet in diameter. But the Great Eastern amply proved how unsuitable
the paddle-wheel was for ocean work. Every time the big monster rolled in
a bad sea a great strain was put on the machinery; these vast projections,

too, offered not merely increased windage and accentuated the ship’s
general unwieldiness, but afforded a fine target for the Atlantic waves to
smash against. Once the Great Eastern, during a gale in the year 1861,
suffered pretty badly in this respect, when the paddle-wheels were
destroyed. She was afterwards fitted with wheels five feet smaller in
diameter, and of greater strength.
In the next illustration will be seen a model of her screw engines,
whose position in the ship will be found on referring again to the
longitudinal section. These were, it will be noticed, no longer of that early
type which needed gearing, but worked directly, the cylinders being placed
horizontally. The number of cylinders was four, each of which had two
piston-rods, and steam was supplied by half a dozen double-ended tubular
boilers of the rectangular or “box” type. For the benefit of the non-technical
reader we may explain that the object seen in the foreground of the picture,
extending from the centre to the right-hand side, is what is commonly called
the “link motion gear,” which is employed for reversing the engines when it
is required to send the ship astern. This controls the slide valves which
allow the steam to enter the cylinders. The principle of the link motion is
just this: two eccentrics are placed side by side on the shaft, but opposite to
each other. Each of them is connected by a rod to one end of the “link,”
which is curved in shape. In this illustration it will be easily recognised at
the right-hand side in the front. Now, as the link is moved up or down, so it
controls the eccentric. If it is lowered, for instance, then one eccentric only
is working the valve, but if the link is raised the other eccentric will control
the valve, and so the latter will work in the opposite direction to which it
did before. Thus, by using one eccentric, steam enters the cylinder at one
end first, while if the other eccentric is employed steam will enter first at
the other. Thus it becomes possible to make the engine turn in whichever
direction is desired by regulating the end of the cylinder by which the steam
shall first enter.
The Great Eastern’s propeller had four blades, and an interesting
arrangement was adopted so that when the ship was proceeding by means
of her paddles, sails, or both, the screw propeller was kept revolving by
means of two auxiliary engines in order that the speed of the ship through
the water might not be diminished by the drag of the screw. Actual results
showed that this ship could do her fifteen knots with screw and paddles, but

her average speed was one knot less. Under screw alone she could do nine;
under paddle power alone she did seven and a quarter. It will thus be
noticed that when using both paddles and screw she ought to have done
better, and this failing is explained by asserting that the paddle-wheels and
the screw caused a resistance too great for their respective engines.
The construction of this ship calls for more space than we can here
devote thereto, but some of the important features may be enumerated. She
was of great strength longitudinally, and from the keel to the water-line her
hull was double. The longitudinal bulkheads extended to the topmost deck,
and materially added to her strength, while the inner skin just mentioned not
merely gave added strength, but was an extension of the double-bottom
idea, and so increased her chances in case of collision. Furthermore, the
space between the two skins was available for water ballast, so as to
preserve the trim of the ship as she neared the end of her voyage, and her
coal bunkers were becoming lightened. Transversely, also, the ship was
divided by iron bulkheads into water-tight compartments in addition to the
longitudinal ones. The iron plates out of which the ship’s skin was made
varied from a half to three-quarters of an inch thick. The Great Eastern was
able to give the world a very convincing proof of the utility of the double
bottom, for she had the bad luck to run on a rock, and although more than a
hundred feet of her outer hull was afterwards found to be damaged, yet she
was able to complete her voyage without the water getting through into her
hull proper.
For steering so large a vessel as the Great Eastern the usual type of
steering-wheel would clearly have entailed the expenditure of very
considerable physical effort; so, for the first time, was introduced in this
ship a steam steering gear, an example that is nowadays followed by almost
all steamers of any size, including even excursion boats. This arrangement
necessitates the use of a miniature steam engine, the two cylinders working
cranks, and the shaft causing the drum containing the steering chain to
revolve. Any movement of the steering wheel admits steam, and as soon as
the steersman ceases to turn his wheel so quickly does the little engine
cease to work.
We have no desire to try the patience of the reader by presenting a mass
of statistics, but those who delight in comparisons may be interested to
learn how the Great Eastern would appear if put alongside the Mauretania.

The latter displaces 40,000 tons, the Great Eastern displaced 32,000. The
big Cunarder is 790 feet long, between perpendiculars, while the Great
Eastern was 680 feet. The latter possessed a combined horse-power—
paddle and screw engines—of 11,600, while the Cunarder has 70,000. And
so we could continue. But now that we have seen to what unheard-of limits
the steamship had shown herself capable of reaching by the end of the sixth
decade in the nineteenth century—how she had, step by step, grown from
moderation to exaggeration—let us now examine her progress during the
next twenty years, in which she passed through her transition period.

CHAPTER V

THE LINER IN HER TRANSITION STATE
The period which follows after about the year 1862 is notable as
witnessing not only the gradual universal adoption of the screw in
steamships, but the more general appreciation of iron as the material from
which to construct a vessel’s hull. After the prejudices which already we
have seen arising at different stages of the steamship’s history, it was
scarcely to be wondered at that iron should come in for its full share of
virulent criticism and opposition. The obvious remark made on all sides was
that to expect iron to float was to suppose that man could act exactly
contrary to the laws of Nature, and this notwithstanding that already,
besides barges, a few ships thus built had somehow not only managed to
keep afloat, but to traverse channels and oceans in perfect safety, carrying
such heavy weights as their own machinery, to say nothing of their cargoes
and human freights. But slowly the public prejudice began to wane. Already
the Cunard Company had given way to iron in 1856, and in 1860 the
Admiralty were at last convinced that the new method was just and sound.
Within the limited scope at our command we have not space here to enter
into the elaborate discussion of matters which have to be taken for granted
before the building of the steamship begins. But the plain answer to the
natural inquiry, as to how and why a vessel made out of iron does not
immediately sink to the bottom as soon as ever she is launched, is this:
whereas iron in itself is far heavier than water, yet the iron ship has not the
same specific gravity as the iron from which it is made. Therefore, the ship
of this material will be supported by the water in which it is placed.
In actual displacement, an iron ship is proportionately lighter than a
ship built of wood, and by “displacement” is meant the amount of water
which a vessel displaces through being allowed to float. Of course, the
quantity of water which a ship displaces (or pushes to one side) depends
entirely on the weight of the vessel, and is exactly equal to the weight of the

ship. Thus, suppose we were to fill a dock with water up to the level of the
quay and then lower down into it by means of gigantic cranes a Mauretania
or Lusitania, the water would, of course, flow over on to the quays. Now
the amount of water thus driven out would be the exact equivalent of the
liner’s displacement. When we say, for instance, that the displacement of
the Mauretania is 40,000 tons, when loaded, we mean that her total weight
when loaded is this number of tons, and her hull when afloat puts on one
side (or “displaces”) just that amount of water.
Now, as compared with wooden ships, the use of iron meant a saving in
displacement of about one-third, taking the wooden and the iron ships to be
of the same dimensions. From this followed the fact that the iron ship could
carry a greater amount of cargo with consequent greater profit to her
owners. And, as I have already indicated in another chapter, before it was
possible to build ships of great length iron had to be introduced to enable
them to endure such longitudinal strains. Again, a wooden ship must have
her skin and ribs made of a thickness far greater than an iron ship, for the
clear reason that one inch of iron is much stronger than one inch of wood;
in other words, to obtain a given strength the iron will take up less room in
the ship. Thus in an iron steamer there will be more space available for
cargo than in a wooden ship of the same design. We could go on
enumerating the advantages of iron, and quote instances of iron ships,
whose cargo had got on fire, arriving safely in port and coming into dock
where the assistance of the local fire-brigade had enabled the vessel’s own
pumps to get the conflagration under. It is only as recently as December of
1909 that the Celtic, the well-known White Star liner, during a voyage
between New York and Liverpool, had the misfortune to get on fire while at
sea. By means of tarpaulins and injections of steam it was possible to
control the burning until the Mersey was reached, when it was intended to
flood her holds. Had she been a wooden ship instead of steel, or even iron,
the Celtic would undoubtedly have ended her days in the Atlantic.
The first Atlantic company to build all its steamers of iron was the
Inman Line, which had been founded in 1850, and until 1892 was one of
the foremost competitors for the coveted “blue ribbon” of the Atlantic.
Their first ships had been the City of Glasgow and the City of Manchester,
and these, inasmuch as they were built of iron, and were propelled by a
screw at a time when prejudice had not yet died down, were entirely

different from the prevailing type of steamer; and this, it should be
remembered, at a period six years before the Cunard had built their iron
Persia. This City of Glasgow was built by a Glasgow firm of shipbuilders,
and Mr. Inman had sufficient confidence in her to purchase her and form a
company. Barque-rigged, with a single funnel, she was of only 1,610 tons
and 350 horse-power. Under the command of Captain B. E. Matthews, who
had been on the famous Great Western, she had already crossed from
Glasgow to New York and back in 1850, and on December 11th of that year
began her regular sailings between England and America. The City of
Glasgow—all the ships of this line were named after cities—was fitted up
in a manner which at that time called forth the greatest admiration. “One
room,” wrote a correspondent in the Glasgow Courier, about that date, “is
being fitted up as an apothecary’s shop, from which the surgeon will
dispense his medicines.” She was provided with five water-tight bulkheads,
and had a propeller whose diameter was 13 feet, with an 18 feet pitch. It
was in connection with the Inman ships that the custom was inaugurated of
carrying steerage passengers on the best Atlantic liners, although hitherto
they had been taken across solely on board sailing ships.

THE “CITY OF PARIS” (1866).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “RUSSIA” (1867).
From a Painting. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

The City of Glasgow and the City of Manchester began to quicken the
pace, and at once ensued a contest between the paddle-steamers and those
propelled by screws. In 1857 this enterprising company instituted the
custom of calling at Queenstown on the way to America, and began running
their steamers to New York in place of Philadelphia. Their success was so
great that these ships were followed by the City of Philadelphia, and, in
1866, by the City of Paris, of which a beautiful little model is here
illustrated. This was the first of their steamships of that name, and is not to
be confused with another ship built in 1888. It will be seen that the liner
before us was ship-rigged and had a single screw. She measured 346 feet
long, 40 feet wide, and 26 feet deep, her tonnage being 2,651. She was
driven by horizontal trunk engines, with steam at 30 lb. pressure,
consuming 105 tons of coal per day, and giving her a speed of 13½ knots.
Her name was afterwards changed to the Tonquin, and the superstitious will
find interest in the fact that she subsequently foundered at sea in the year
1885. In the City of Paris the reader will be able to remark some of the last
traces of the old sailing ship, which were destined presently to be altered
considerably. The long, narrow wooden deckhouse going down almost the
length of the ship, and leaving but little room for the passengers to
promenade; the high, stout bulwarks, which rise almost to the top of the
deckhouse, were among the last links which connected the steamship with
the sailing ship. We must not forget that about the time when the City of

Paris was built, the great clipper sailing ships were enjoying their prime,
and no one will deny that their influence is very clearly marked in the
model before us. As an interesting lesson in comparisons, showing how the
tendency since the ’sixties has been to raise the decks of the steamships
higher and higher, the reader is invited to compare this illustration with that
of the Majestic, facing page 162, and also that of the Kaiser Wilhelm II.,
facing page 180. In the sailing ship the deckhouse had to be small, for the
reason that the deck space was required for the crew to work the sails; in the
steamer this space was encroached upon, so that the deckhouse was
elongated, and extended from the break of the anchor deck to the hood at
the stern.
The City of Paris’s great rival came with the launching of the Cunard
Company’s steamship Russia, which is here illustrated, and began running
across the Atlantic in 1867. But though the latter’s quickest passage from
New York to Queenstown was eight days twenty-four minutes, the City of
Paris, in 1867, crossed in eight days four hours, which at the time had
broken the record, though the City of Brussels reduced it still further to
under eight days. The Russia was another Clyde-built boat, and measured
358 feet long, 43 feet broad, and nearly 28 feet deep, having a gross
tonnage of 2,960, and an indicated horse-power of 2,800. Her average
hourly speed was 13 knots on a coal consumption of 90 tons per day. She
was, of course, built of iron and had a single screw—two characteristics
which practically all the crack Atlantic liners possessed from about 1862
until the end of 1883, if we except the Cunard Servia, which was launched
in 1881, although the Allan liner Buenos Ayrean had been the first steel ship
on the Atlantic.
During this period the liner was steadily adapting herself, her design,
her engines, and her build, to meet the increase of experience gained at sea,
and the increase of knowledge which shipbuilders and engineers were
accumulating was in readiness for the continuity of advance. In 1881, after
a period of much usefulness and great popularity among passengers, the
Russia was sold to the Red Star Line, who lengthened her, changed her
direct-acting engines to compound engines, and named her the Waesland.
But the Russia was not the first screw-ship possessed by the Cunard
Company. Already I have mentioned that though this line had introduced
the screw-steamer into their fleet, it had not met with the reception it had

expected, and for a time a return had been made to the paddle-wheel. It was
the China, which had begun running in 1862 to New York, that helped to
convince those who were prejudiced against the newer form of propulsion.
She was 326 feet long, and was driven by a type of surface-condensing
engine geared down to the propeller shaft by means of tooth-gearing after
the manner already described, her engines being of the oscillating kind.
But we approach now another of those important crises in the history of
the steamship when her future, for some years to come, became so
definitely moulded. On other pages I have already alluded to the boilers in
use on the big steamers, and to the important adoption of the compound
engines using the expansive force of steam to do additional work after it has
entered one cylinder. The increase of steam-pressure necessitated the
adoption of a different type of boiler, with a cylindrical shell and flues.
Thus the type which is known as the “Scotch” boiler was introduced about
the year 1870, and is still in use even on the Mauretania. It was not until
this type was adopted that the compound system began to make progress. At
the same time it is only fair to state that the latter method had been
introduced by the Pacific Steam Navigation Company as far back as 1856,
and by the National Line in the early ’sixties. But it is when we come to the
pioneer steamship of the White Star Line that we see the real influence
which was at work to make the final cleavage between the old-fashioned
steamship and the new type of liner. That flag which is now so familiar to
all who travel across the Atlantic used to fly at the masthead of a fleet of
sailing clippers. In 1867 the managing owner of the White Star Line retired;
Mr. T. H. Ismay took over the control and began by introducing iron for the
clippers instead of wood. Two years later and a fleet of steamships,
especially constructed for the American passenger trade, was ordered to be
built. The order was given to that famous Belfast firm, Messrs. Harland and
Wolff, who have built the White Star steamships ever since. In August of
1870 was launched the first Oceanic, which made the old-fashioned rub
their eyes in surprise and shake their heads in distrust. For the Oceanic
simply threw convention to the winds and set going an entirely new order of
things in the steamship world. From her have followed most of the modern
steamship improvements up to the coming of the turbine. Some idea of her
appearance may be gathered from the illustration facing this page, but in the
fewest words we will now endeavour to indicate some of her especial
characteristics.

THE “OCEANIC” (1870).
From a Painting by W. L. Wyllie, R. A. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

When she came into the Mersey that memorable day in February of
1871 her immense length in comparison with her beam was instantly
noticeable. I have already explained the value of length in ocean travel, but
here was a ship with a beam exactly one-tenth of her 420 feet length. Sir
Edward Harland knew what he was about when designing so novel a craft,
and in spite of the general comments that the Oceanic would prove a bad
sea-boat, and unfit to face the terrors of an Atlantic winter’s gale, she
showed that science in ship-building is of more avail than the blind
following of an existing convention. Nor did she encumber herself with the
usual heavy, high bulwarks that we noticed in the City of Paris, but, instead,
she substituted iron railings, and for a perfectly sound reason. The old
method gave to a ship a false security, for it could not altogether prevent a
sea from coming on board, and when the latter had come over the ship the
bulwarks tended to keep it there, whereas the Oceanic’s railings allowed the
sea to flow off immediately and freely, as she shook herself and rose to the
next wave. The long, narrow wooden deck-house that we also noticed on
the City of Paris was also discarded, but another deck of iron was added.

With her, too, disappeared most of the objections to the propeller—at any
rate, in the higher-priced accommodation, since the saloon passengers for
the first time were placed not at the stern of the ship (where the vibration
and jarring of the propeller were most felt), but amidships and forward of
the machinery. The saloon extended the entire width of the ship, whilst the
numerous state-rooms were forward and abaft of the saloon. Furthermore,
to an extent that had never been known on an Atlantic liner, the use of glass
side-lights was employed, and these were made much larger than was
customary, so that the interior of the ship was rendered much lighter, as it
was also made more airy.
The Oceanic also introduced an improved type of water-tight doors.
The old-fashioned candle-lamps which lit the rooms were replaced by oil-
lamps, and instead of the old-fashioned form for seating, the passengers had
the comfort of revolving arm-chairs, which have since become such
features of ocean travel. On deck, her forward and stern ends were fitted
with turtle decks, so that a wave sweeping over this dome-like shape could
swish across it without doing the damage it could have effected on the first
City of Paris, for instance. The importance of this in a following sea of any
size is obvious, and we must remember that whereas to-day the stern of a
modern liner towers high above the waves, and can usually defy them, yet
in those days the Oceanic and her contemporaries were still of modest
altitude. From the illustration before us some conception of the bow turtle
deck, painted white, may be gathered, but a much better idea may be seen
of a similar arrangement at the stern of the Britannic (facing page 154). The
addition of that extra deck of iron in the Oceanic shows the commencement
of the many-decked modern liner, to which attention was drawn in the
German liner and her successors, so that in the Mauretania, as we look
down on her decks, she seems to be built up over every possible inch of
space that is permissible.
But the Oceanic was something more than a comfortable boat and an
ingenious example of the naval architect’s originality; she was also a
“flyer.” With her four-cylinder compound engines she was able to reel off
her 14¼ knots on an average. There were two high-pressure cylinders and
two of low-pressure, the high-pressure cylinder being above the low-
pressure and driving the same crank. Her indicated horse-power was 3,000,
and her tonnage came out at 3,808 gross. She even attained to 14¾ knots,

and showed herself to be the fastest liner afloat, faster even than the Inman
liner City of Brussels. It is a proof of the excellence of her design and the
perfection of her build that on her sixty-second voyage in October, 1889,
after she had been transferred to the Pacific service running between San
Francisco and Yokohama, she made the quickest passage on record across
the Pacific.

THE “BRITANNIC” (1874).
As she appeared as a transport during the South African War.
From a Photograph by F. G. O. Stuart, Southampton.

THE “SERVIA” (1881).
From a Painting. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

The owners of the Oceanic followed up their success by the Britannic
and the Germanic in 1874. A photograph of the former is here reproduced
as she appeared when leaving Southampton during the Boer War for South
Africa, acting as a transport, with British troops aboard. From this picture it
will be noticed that she is purely a steamship, but when launched she was
rigged as a four-masted barque with yards and sails, but, following the
fashion of the Oceanic, the bowsprit had been discarded. At one time the
Britannic was given a curious arrangement by which she could lower her
propeller so that it was almost level with the keel, and being placed thus
low it was hoped that all tendency to race when the vessel pitched would be
eradicated. To this end a hollow recess was made in the hull at the stern so
that the shaft could be made to work up or down as desired. But the results
were disappointing, so that after giving the method several months’ trial it
was discarded. Both the Britannic and the Germanic were larger craft than
the Oceanic, and had a tonnage of just over 5,000 tons, and a length of 468
feet, with 45 feet beam. They also were fitted with compound engines,
which gave 5,000 indicated horse-power, and a pressure of 75 lbs. to the
square inch. The Britannic broke the record again by her speed of 16 knots,
but the year after her launch the Inman Line, with the City of Berlin, also
developed 16 knots, and wrested the record from the White Star boats by
crossing the Atlantic in seven days fourteen hours. She was a much larger
ship than those other two, had a gross tonnage of 5,491, and was 520 feet

over all. This ship is interesting as having been the first Atlantic liner to be
fitted with electric light, which was installed in 1879. The White Star Line,
however, had endeavoured in 1872 to instal in their Adriatic a system of
lighting the ship by gas generated from oil. But the rolling of the ship and
other causes led to so much leakage that it was discarded.
In the year 1879 the Atlantic competition was further accelerated by the
advent of the Arizona, which belonged to the Guion Line. This company
had been formed in 1866, and was originally known as Williams and Guion.
In 1879 the Arizona further reduced the Atlantic passage by eight hours, but
in the same year, whilst bound eastwards, she had the misfortune to run at
full speed into a great iceberg, and her bows were altogether crumpled up;
she would have foundered, but her water-tight bulkhead happily kept her
afloat so that the ship was able to reach St. John’s, Newfoundland, her
nearest port. It was such incidents as this which caused the adoption of
efficient water-tight compartments on most steamships of any size, and the
influence of the British Admiralty on our national shipping was in the late
’seventies and the early ’eighties decidedly powerful. By their instructions
every steamship on their list available for transport duties was to be divided
up in such a manner that if any one of her compartments should be opened
to the sea in calm water this loss of buoyancy would not imperil the ship’s
safety. As a result the shipbuilders took the hint, and greater attention was
paid to so important a point.
The Oregon, another of the Guion Line’s famous steamships, was
purchased by the Cunard Company, and showed her marvellous turn of
speed by making the run from Queenstown to New York in six days, nine
hours, fifty-one minutes. She distinguished herself by keeping up what was
then the unheard-of average passage of six days fourteen hours. But, like
the Arizona, this Oregon was born unlucky. Off the North American coast
she was run into and sunk by a sailing ship, though the passengers and
mails were happily saved. The Oregon had a tonnage of 7,375, and was
driven by direct-acting inverted engines which developed the remarkable
sum of 13,500 horse-power, and produced the equally wonderful speed of
18 knots per hour, thus earning for her the name of the “Greyhound of the
Atlantic.”
We wish to call the reader’s attention now to the Servia, of which an
interesting picture is reproduced opposite page 154. In her was embodied

the result of another scientific discovery which has revolutionised the
construction of the deep-sea ship, whether propelled by steam or sails. As
iron had superseded wood, so now steel was to take the place of iron as the
material of which to build the hull. So thoroughly, indeed, has this practice
spread that during the year 1909, with the exception of a few small wooden
vessels whose aggregate tonnage does not much exceed a thousand, the
entire amount of new British shipping in that year was constructed of steel,
and iron was not used at all for the hull. Such a fact is highly significant of
the value of the newer material. Although as far back as 1873 the French
had used this in constructing parts of their warships, it was not until four
years later that the British mercantile marine began to be interested in it.
But at length the Cunard Company were convinced of its superior virtues
over iron, and ordered the Servia to be built of this material. When she
made her appearance in 1881, she was the largest and most powerful ship,
excepting the Great Eastern, that had ever been launched; her
measurements were 515 feet, breadth 52 feet, depth 37 feet, with 7,392
gross tonnage. She lowered the Atlantic voyage once more to seven days,
one hour, thirty-eight minutes, her speed being 17 knots, though it was not
until 1884 that she really showed her full abilities. We may sum up the
advantages which were now recognised in mild steel as consisting of,
firstly, a saving of 25 per cent. in weight, just as we saw that iron exercised
a similar superiority over wood. “Mild” steel is very ductile and can easily
be fashioned into the required shape suitable for a steamship without risk of
cracking. Iron is comparatively brittle, and steel is more uniform in quality.
The latter will also endure a greater strain on its elasticity, and this had
already been appreciated by the Royal Navy years before commercial
shipbuilders realised its full value. Although the first cost of a steel-built
ship was greater than one constructed of iron, yet that extra cost was found
to be over-balanced by other considerations. Just as iron was stronger than
wood, so steel was proved to be stronger than iron: consequently, the
weight of the ship was diminished, which meant that the ship could carry a
greater amount of fuel or cargo, or allowed of her being fitted with more
powerful, though more weighty, engines. Steel is now very much cheaper
than wrought iron, and is used not merely for the plates of the hull, but in
almost every portion of the ship’s construction. Even in sailing ships the
yards, masts, and rigging are to a large extent now made of this material.

THE “UMBRIA” (1884).
From a Painting. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

THE “ORIENT” (1879).
From a Painting. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co.

The same builders who had been responsible for the Oregon were
commissioned to build two of the most historic Cunarders, whose names
are almost as familiar as the Atlantic over which they voyaged for so many
years with a regularity and reliability that would be hard to beat. In 1884 the
first of this famous couple, the Umbria, was delivered, followed early the
next year by the Etruria. An illustration of the former, as she appeared when

originally rigged as a barque, will be found facing this page. Both ships
were identical in their main features, and are interesting in many ways.
Their masts were of steel, as well as their hulls. At the stern we can see the
idea of the turtle deck, as inherited from the Oceanic, slightly modified so
that the upper part has become available for a short promenade deck for
second-class passengers, and the graceful overhang at the stern also is
indicative of the rapid advance since the clumsy after-end of the steamship
gave her a far less yacht-like appearance. There is also a promenade deck
extending for nearly 300 feet amidships for the use of the first-class
passengers, on which a large teak deckhouse encloses the entrances to the
saloon, ladies’ saloon, captain’s room, and chart room. Above this house
comes the officers’ lookout bridge and house for the steersman, and over
this, again, is the flying bridge. Forward there will be seen the large top-
gallant forecastle, which extended for over 100 feet aft from the stern. The
engines were, of course, compound, with one high-pressure cylinder and
two of low-pressure. These vessels were built to the highest class and to be
available for Government service as armed cruisers in the event of war.
Their average speed was found to be 18½ knots, although the Umbria
reached over 20 knots during her six-hours’ trial on the Clyde. These two
ships between them broke up all standing Atlantic records, for in August,
1885, the Etruria crossed from Queenstown to New York in six days, six
hours, thirty-six minutes, although in 1892 the Umbria did better still by
crossing the Atlantic at an average rate of over 19½ knots. Until the coming
of the Campania and the Lucania, the Cunard possessed in these the two
fastest ships of their fleet. But it is certain the company never owned two
more satisfactory steamships, for they have confessed that “no ships ever
gave their owners less uneasiness than these two, and none have done such
an extraordinary quantity of good work. They are monuments, that cannot
lie, to the skill of the design and the faithfulness of the labour that went to
their accomplishment.”
As they got older, they actually became faster instead of slower, and the
Etruria made her fastest westward passage in five days, twenty hours, fifty-
five minutes, with a highest day’s run of 509 knots. She even maintained an
average of 20 knots bound eastward. At the end of 1909 she was sold by the
Cunard Company, and a like fate befell her sister, the Umbria, which was
sold to the Forth Shipbreaking Company in April, 1910, for the sum, it is
said, of £20,000. But the Umbria, right to the end, continued to break

records, even when she had been long since outrun in matters of speed. For
instance, in the year 1893, two days before Christmas, whilst bound west
across the Atlantic, it was discovered that a serious fracture had occurred in
the propeller shaft. The engines were accordingly stopped, and after a time
the German steamship Bohemia came in sight and took her in tow, but a
heavy gale sprang up and the tow-rope parted. The Umbria lost sight of her
friend and drifted about the Atlantic for three days and nights, but during
this time Chief-Engineer Tomlinson pluckily succeeded in repairing the
shaft, and the Umbria, with her engines going half-speed, made New York
on the last day of the old year, to the great relief of those ashore who had
given her up for lost. Another record of a totally different nature was made
by her only a few weeks before she was sold out of the Cunard Line. She
reached Liverpool just before midnight on Thursday, February 10th, 1910,
and in spite of having only just completed her round trip of the double
Atlantic journey, she was got ready at once to sail eastward again on the
Saturday, February 12th. We can gain some idea of the magnitude of the
task when we realise that in that remarkably brief time she had not only to
be overhauled, but to have her stores taken on board, to be supplied with
3,000 tons of coal and 450,000 gallons of water, to say nothing of the many
tons of cargo of all kinds. Some of the officers had barely time to make a
hurried call to see their wives before rushing back on board to superintend
this exceptionally fast “turn-round.” The measurements of these two ships
were 501 feet long, 57 feet broad, 38 feet deep, with a gross tonnage of
7,718 tons; their builders were Messrs. John Elder and Company, of
Glasgow.
Before we pass on in the next chapter to witness the coming of the
twin-screw ship, and the disappearance of sails as the auxiliaries of the
steamship, we must glance at the progress which was going on during the
’seventies and ’eighties in the steamships employed running, not across the
Atlantic, but to the East. Already we have seen something of the origin of
the Peninsular and Oriental Line, and the difficulties which it had to
contend with in its early career. Now, in 1877, another steamship service to
the East was started by the Orient Line, which began by chartering from the
Pacific Steam Navigation Company a suitable vessel which should run from
London to Sydney via the Cape of Good Hope. This was the Lusitania—a
very different ship, of course, from the modern Cunarder of the same name
—but in her own time this Lusitania was also famous. For many years,

until, indeed, as recently as 1905, the Orient and Pacific Lines worked
together to maintain a service between England and Australia. At first the
sailings were only monthly, but from 1880 they were fortnightly. Since
1905 the Pacific Company has withdrawn from this trade.
The pioneer of the Orient Line’s own ships—apart from chartered
vessels—was the steamer Orient, of which an illustration is given opposite
to page 158. She was built of iron, in 1879, by the same firm who turned
out the Etruria and Umbria. Her measurements are 460 feet long, 46½ feet
wide, 36 feet 8 inches deep, with a tonnage of 5,386, and 5,400 horse-
power. She was given four decks, of which two were entirely of iron, and
sufficient bunker space was provided to carry enough coals to enable her to
steam all the way to Australia round the Cape without having to coal en
route. She was also provided with a double bottom, which could be filled
with water as ballast, if desired. She was driven by inverted vertical engines
having the compound principle—one high-pressure cylinder and two of
low-pressure—and had a four-bladed propeller. Amidships, it will be noted,
is a white erection, which rises up from the ship’s side and becomes the
bridge-deck, extending right across the ship and some distance both fore
and aft. The origin of this development in the steamship is as follows:
Originally, in some of the early ocean-going steamships, the openings on
deck from the engine and boiler compartments were merely protected by
means of glazed skylights and coamings, forming a hatch. Perhaps it was
not a very seaworthy kind of arrangement, but it is essential for plenty of air
to get down below, unhindered, for the proper burning of the furnaces, to
say nothing of a supply for the engineering section of the crew. However,
during the month of January, 1866, the steamship London, after
encountering a heavy gale in the Bay of Biscay, endeavoured to make for
Plymouth, but during the night a bad sea broke over her, destroyed her
engine-room skylight, extinguished the furnaces, and eventually the ship
foundered. From this incident was learnt the advisability of protecting this
opening with something more substantial. Its first form was, therefore, to
raise the sides of the hatchways from the ship by means of an iron casing so
as to be about eight feet above the deck and about level with the captain’s
bridge. From this it was a perfectly easy transition from the bridge to the
bridge-deck, extending it sufficiently to protect the opening adequately. The
same idea in a more elementary form will be seen in the tug Blackcock
illustrated in Chapter IX.

THE “AUSTRAL” (1881).
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson & Co.

THE “VICTORIA” (1887).
From the Painting by Frank Murray in the possession of the
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

THE “MAJESTIC” (1889).
From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

The Austral shows another early steamship of the Orient Line.
Constructed by the same builders as the Orient and Umbria, she was
launched in 1881, and it is a sign of those later times that the yards have
now disappeared, though she was schooner-rigged and could set 28,000
square feet of canvas on her four masts. Her gross registered tonnage
worked out at 5,524. Built of mild steel with a double bottom, the latter
being subdivided into nineteen water-tight compartments with thirteen
water-tight bulkheads in her hull, the Austral was specially constructed to
act as a cruiser, and to carry guns in case of war. The year after she was
launched the Austral was lying in Sydney Harbour with her port-holes left
open, when, owing to a heavy list, caused through unequal coaling, the
water poured in, and she sank in fifty feet of water, but was refloated again
several months after.
The four-masted steamship shown opposite page 162 is the Victoria,
one of the P. and O. boats of this period. Launched in 1887, the Victoria
belongs to the company’s “Jubilee” class, and is now one of the oldest boats
in this line’s employ. Both at the bow and stern there will be seen a
modification of the turtle deck. A sister ship was launched under the name
of the Britannia. Their tonnage is, in the case of the Victoria, 6,522, but the
Britannia comes out at three tons more, the length being slightly over 465
feet, with a beam of 52 feet, and a depth of over 26 feet.

We have thus seen the liner in a condition of change, and it is only from
the close of the eighth decade of the nineteenth century that she begins to
take on a form more in accordance with a steamship able to pursue her way
totally independent of auxiliary sails. The experience which we recorded as
having happened to the Umbria clearly marked the way for the coming of
the twin-screw ship. It was patent to anyone that by this means an efficient
safeguard would be obtained in the event of a fractured shaft befalling the
ship. If it was likely that one should come to grief, it was highly improbable
that the other would not be available for getting the ship into port, and so
enabling the owning steamship line not merely to preserve their reputation
for carrying passengers, mails and cargo with safety, but to avoid the very
costly possibilities of having to pay salvage claims to the rescuing ship that
should happen to fall in with the injured liner and to tow her home. As soon
as the twin-screw became established there was virtually little use for the
sails, and so it was not much longer before they disappeared altogether from
the crack liner.

CHAPTER VI

THE COMING OF THE TWIN-SCREW
STEAMSHIP
During the ’eighties the competition for the Atlantic “blue ribbon” had
become very keen indeed, until the Umbria and Etruria began to shatter
existing records and to show their undoubted superiority. But their turn to
be eclipsed was not long in coming, and the Inman Line were determined to
make a bold bid for supremacy once again. A year or two before the launch
of the Umbria they had made a spirited effort with the City of Rome, a large
vessel with a displacement of over 11,000 tons. But she did not prove
successful.
The line became the Inman and International Company, and set forth to
build a couple of large, powerful steamships which would be in advance of
the City of Rome in speed, though not quite so large. Already there had been
small twin-screw ships, but the City of New York and the City of Paris were
to be driven by twin-screws of a size and power which had not yet been
produced. It was fitting that the Inman Line which had introduced the
successful screw liner to the Atlantic should also be the pioneers of the very
big steamships fitted with twin-screws. These two vessels were taken over
in 1893, when the Inman Line became reorganised, and passed from the
British flag to sail under the eagle of the American Line. Nowadays they
sail from Southampton under the names of the New York and the
Philadelphia respectively. The illustration facing page 166 shows the City
of Paris (afterwards called the Paris, and only later still the Philadelphia)
getting under way from New York. Her graceful bow, with its bowsprit and
figure-head, is reminiscent of the old clipper sailing ships. The high dome
of the first cabin dining-saloon will be seen rising in the space between the
fore-mast and the bridge, and the promenade deck runs practically the
whole length of the ship from the bows to the stern.

The hulls of these steamships are built of mild steel, and in addition to
possessing a double bottom throughout their entire length in which a
considerable amount of water ballast can be carried, they are divided into
fifteen water-tight compartments. The bulkheads of the latter come right up
to a height of 18 feet above the water-line, so that in case of collision the
ship could still keep afloat even if three compartments were open to the sea.
Their two engine rooms are separated from each other by means of a
longitudinal bulkhead, and they are driven by two separate sets of triple-
expansion engines. We have already seen that triple-expansion is just the
principle of the compound engine carried one stage farther, and if the desire
for attaining the high speed contemplated were to be gratified it was
inevitable that this method should have been adopted. With the exception of
a very few quadruple-expansion engined ships, such as the Cunard Ivernia,
the White Star Baltic, and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II., most modern
liners which have not been fitted with turbines are of the triple-expansion
type. It may not be out of place, therefore, very briefly to explain the
working of this.

THE “CITY OF PARIS” (NOW THE “PHILADELPHIA”) (1893).
From a Photograph. By permission of the American Line.

THE “OPHIR” (1891).
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Anderson, Anderson &
Co.

The steam, then, enters the cylinder above the piston-rod by means of a
valve, but when it has half-filled the cylinder and the stroke is also half
completed, the supply of steam is cut off. But the piston-rod does not for
that reason come to a standstill: owing to the expansive force of the steam
the rest of the stroke is completed when the steam has occupied twice the
space it did at the time it was cut off—that is, when the half-stroke had been
made. Having, therefore, now completed its work in this cylinder, instead of
being allowed to escape, the steam is conducted to a much larger cylinder
than the first, for the steam still retains much of its expansive force. In this
second cylinder, the same thing occurs again, but when it is admitted to a
third, it has already lost much of its pressure. It does its work, and having
come through the third cylinder has thus undergone “triple expansion.”
Now that it has completed the stroke it passes into the surface condenser
already referred to, where it is suddenly chilled and converted into water
again, and the vacuum thus formed tends to pull the piston back. In the
olden days, as we have seen, the vacuum was made by means of the jet
condenser, but now it is done by what is known as the “surface” condenser.

It is by means of the latter that the fresh water is able to be used again and
again. Otherwise, a steamship could only carry enough fresh water for a
few days’ voyage, salt water being not used for the boilers, but merely for
circulating through the pipes of the condenser to keep them cool. As the
steam comes out from the lower pressure it impinges on the sea-water
cooled tubes and so falls to the bottom of the condenser as water. It is then
pumped into a tank by means of the air-pump, and from the tank it is
pumped back again to the boilers by a feed pump, passing on its way
through a filter in order that any oil which may have been gathered in the
cylinder may be extracted. It now passes through feed-heaters, where it is
heated by exhaust steam from the auxiliary machinery, and so when the
condensed water again enters the boiler it is almost at boiling point.
The advantage of this triple-expansion was found to give greater speed
with less expenditure of horse-power. At first the City of Paris was not as
fast as she ought to have been, but after the A-shaped brackets, which
supported the two shafts, were removed and, instead, the hull at the stern
was, so to speak, bulged out to contain the shafts, her speed was found to be
19 knots with an employment of 2,000 horse-power less than she had
needed before this alteration.
The City of Paris had made her appearance in 1888, but in the
following year it was the White Star Line’s turn to come to the front again.
From 1873 till 1884 their fleet had been the fastest on the Atlantic; and now
again they were ready to enter the lists. Sir Edward Harland was once more
entrusted with the task of designing the new ships, and those two beautiful
creatures the Teutonic and Majestic were launched, the former in January
and the latter in June of 1889. The Majestic is illustrated opposite page 162,
but this view shows her as she was afterwards altered and appears now.
When these ships first commenced to run they were both fitted with three
pole-masts with a gaff on each; but following the custom now adopted on
many modern liners, one of the masts and all the gaffs have since been
removed. It will be seen that a modified turtle-deck is still retained at the
stern, and in one other respect this ship also continued the influence of the
first Oceanic. It will be recollected that the latter possessed the enormous
proportion of ten beams to her length. The Teutonic measured 582 feet long
and 57·8 feet broad, so that she is only a few feet lacking in this respect.
Her gross tonnage is 9,984, and her indicated horse-power 18,000. The

Majestic broke the record by crossing from Queenstown to New York in
five days eighteen hours eight minutes; the Teutonic by doing the same
journey in five days sixteen hours thirty-one minutes. If called upon, these
ships could steam from Portsmouth to Bombay via the Cape of Good Hope,
a distance of over 10,000 miles, in twenty-two days without having to coal
on the way, a fact that might have some importance in the event of war
breaking out.
In these two ships was also introduced the practice of overlapping the
twin-screws, and in order that they might be able to clear the deadwood at
the extreme end of the stern, a hole—technically called a “screw port”—
was made after the manner in which a “port” is left for the screw to revolve
when a vessel is provided only with a single propeller. The advantage in the
case of the twin-screws was that they were allowed plenty of water for their
propellers to revolve in. The advantage of the screws overlapping tended
also to enable them to work in a manner as near as possible to the centre
line of the hull.
The introduction of the twin-screw system was made in the Orient liner
Ophir (see opposite page 166), which was built in 1891. Each of her four
decks is of steel, and she was given the triple-expansion engines in two sets
—one set for each propeller. She was the first vessel on the Australian route
to be fitted with twin-screws, but many others have since followed and
proved the wisdom of this innovation. Her propellers are made of
manganese bronze, with three blades each, and give her a speed of between
18 and 19 knots. It will be recollected that it was this ship which was
selected to carry the present King and Queen on their tour of the British
Colonies in 1901.
The ceaseless competition in the Atlantic steamship progress continued
without abatement, and by now the Cunard Line was ready again to fight
for the lead. In September of 1892 the Campania was launched, and was
followed in the next February by the Lucania. Since their length was greater
than the width of the Clyde, where they were built, they had to be launched
into the river diagonally. They were, of course, fitted with twin-screws and
with triple-expansion engines, there being five cylinders, of which two are
high-pressure, one intermediate, and two low-pressure. We do not intend to
weary the reader with a list of statistics which can easily be obtained by
those to whom bare figures make their appeal; our purpose is served if we

show in what important detail each successive vessel advanced the history
of the steamship so as to approach more nearly to what is considered the
ideal by modern experts. But we shall be shirking our duty if we do not
indicate some of the main characteristics which gave to such a craft as the
Campania a distinctiveness that distinguished her and her sister the Lucania
from her contemporaries. One greatly improved liner nowadays so quickly
surpasses her predecessor; the age of obsolescence now moves at so greatly
quickened a speed; that the general public, whose memory is also so short-
lived, scarcely has time to appreciate all that the latest steamship means ere
it has passed quietly from service and been handed over to the ship-
breakers, or, under a new flag and a changed name, continues its work at
some remote corner of the world.

THE “LUCANIA” (1893).
From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

Those who remember seeing the Campania lying in the Mersey soon
after she was commissioned, and with their minds full of the hitherto
unparalleled features which had been foretold concerning her, will recollect
that the first impression conveyed was identical with that made on seeing
the Mauretania immediately after she had left the builders’ hands. Not so
much size but gracefulness; not the characteristics of a floating monster, but
of a singularly beautiful creature whose every line suggested dignity with
speed were the points that attracted one.
Handsome is as handsome does; these two sisters, one of which is no
more, were not long in showing that their achievements were not belied by
their good looks. In appearance less like “the biggest things afloat” than the
most symmetrical colossal yacht, the Campania was built for business, and
not primarily to be a thing of beauty. She has made the run between
Queenstown and New York in 5½ days, and ocean travellers soon
appreciated the important fact that in getting from one country to the other
she had a reputation for regularity that would be hard to beat, irrespective of
winter and summer weather. The Campania is slightly larger than her late
sister, and has averaged just under 22 knots for a whole year’s east-bound
voyages. The engines of these elegant ships were arranged in the manner
already indicated so as to avoid having unnecessarily large cylinders, the
two high-pressure cylinders driving one crank, being arranged tandem
fashion, the intermediate cylinder driving one crank, whilst the two low-
pressure were also put the one above the other like the high-pressure, and
by an ingenious contrivance it is possible to prevent the screws racing; for
when the number of revolutions begins to exceed its proper limit the supply
of steam is automatically cut off.
In order to render these boats less likely to roll in a sea-way, they were
fitted with bilge-keels. They have, too, since been provided with wireless
telegraph gear, whose aerials stretch from one mast to the other, and
connect with the Marconi cabin, and the up-to-date system of submarine
signalling is also installed, so that in case of thick weather the sound waves
transmitted from submerged bells on lightships outside Liverpool or New
York may be conveyed to the ship herself below the waterline, and so by
means of a telephone up to the officer on duty in the navigating room.
These two ships also marked another advance in method of building,
for the steel plates from which their sides were made were of unprecedented

size, and thus it is obvious that the number of rivets was considerably
smaller. Opposite page 170 we give an illustration of the Lucania under
way, and by comparing her with the earlier Atlantic liners, a fair idea will be
obtained of the trend of steamship evolution. It will be noticed that the
Oceanic turtle deck has gone, for the reason that since the stern had now
become at such a height from the water it was hardly necessary. The
topmost deck of the Lucania is the shade deck, and the one immediately
below it the promenade deck; it should be noted that these two are not
really part of the structure of the ship herself, but platforms superadded in
much the same way as in a vastly different type of craft, the Viking ship,
which, when it began to enter its transition state, had fighting platforms
erected both at bow and stern so as to accommodate her men. The
Campania measures 600 feet (between perpendiculars), with a beam of 65
feet 3 inches, and displaces nearly 20,000 tons. It was only in the early
months of 1910 that the Lucania, her sister, after being on fire and
compelled for that reason to be flooded with water, was sold out of the
Cunard Company’s service.
We come now to consider the entering of fierce competition from a
quarter that hitherto had not affected the development of the modern liner.
We have seen that in spite of the efforts which America had put forth from
time to time, the pride of the Atlantic Ocean had been British ultimately.
The American-subsidised Collins Line had in the end to bow its head and
yield, nor has the reorganised Inman Line (now the American Line) been a
dangerous competitor in the matter of record passages. At different times
first one British line of steamships pushed itself to the front, to be in turn
ousted by its rival; and so the evolution of the steamship profited. But now
it was to be not Britain, nor America, but Germany, which was to make a
bold bid for the commercial sovereignty of Atlantic speed. Few phenomena
are more notable within recent years than the sudden rise of Germany as a
world power. In the realm of steamships there has been scarcely any parallel
to the rapid development which that nation exhibited, so that within a
remarkably short space of time she became able not merely to build her
own ships, but of a size that had been exceeded only by the Great Eastern,
and with a speed that no liner of any sort or of any nationality had ever yet
attained. It is fitting, therefore, to give here a brief sketch of the manner in
which this new competition originated, for to this undoubtedly is due the
coming of the mammoth ships represented by the Mauretania and

Lusitania. In the future this is the direction from which the quickening
factor will come, as formerly it used to come from internal steamship
organisations.
Modern German ship-building, like her other industries, dates only
from the close of the Franco-Prussian War, and the birth of a united Empire.
At the same time wood had already given way to iron, and a new era had
begun in the making of ships. Great Britain possessed the exclusive
confidence of shipping owners, and, speaking generally, if Germany wanted
a large ocean carrier built, she had to send her order across the North Sea,
although steadily and gradually her national shipbuilding yards were
growing up. But her designers and shipwrights lacked the knowledge which
the British, through long years of experience, possessed. Since, however,
the Germans were determined to engage in overseas trade, they had to
obtain steamships, and these were made frequently on the Clyde, where so
many other fine ships had first been seen.

THE “KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE” (1897).
From a Photograph. By Permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.

But from the early ’eighties a new order of things began, and the
Norddeutscher Lloyd commissioned a German firm to build the first
Imperial mail steamers, which were also the first passenger steamers of
large dimensions that the new Empire had yet constructed. Up till then
Germany had built only two large passenger steamers, the displacement of
each not exceeding 3,500 tons. The first German express steamer for the
Norddeutscher Lloyd Company had been the Elbe, which was built at
Glasgow, and began service in 1881, her tonnage being 4,510. During the
’eighties, spurred on by the competition which British steamships were
arousing, the Germans endeavoured to build for themselves vessels of
considerable proportions and send them on their long voyages. It is when
we come to the ’nineties that we find the North German Lloyd Company
entirely reorganising its fleet, scrapping the older-fashioned members, and,
incited by the success which the Campania and Lucania had obtained,
determined to produce from German yards such an express steamer as

should surpass both of the Cunard vessels. In 1897, therefore, was built by
the Stettin Vulcan Company the famous Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse—of
which a striking illustration will be seen facing this page. She was longer,
wider, deeper and of greater displacement than the Campania, but her
horse-power was inferior to the Cunarder’s by 2,000. Nevertheless, the
German outstripped the performances of the Campania and Lucania by
attaining a mean speed of 22·81 knots, although her designed speed had
only been 22·5 knots, and thus for the first time in the history of the
steamship, the “blue ribbon” of the Atlantic passed over to Germany. Like
the Cunard ships, the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse was installed with two sets
of triple-expansion engines, and it had been expressly agreed between the
Norddeutscher Company on the one hand, and the Vulcan Company on the
other, that the ship was first to run a trial trip across the Atlantic to New
York, and, if during this she did not come up to the requirements of the
contract, then the Norddeutscher Lloyd were to be free to reject the ship.
Such a condition as this was as severe as could ever be invented by any
steamship line. However, she not merely came up to specifications, but
even surpassed them, and remains one of the most efficient liners traversing
the North Atlantic.
This steamship was built with flaring bows so as to increase her
buoyancy forward, and is propelled by twin-screws. Another instance of the
advantages which the latter possess as a means of ensuring the safety of the
ship was exhibited as recently as October, 1907. Whilst coming across the
Atlantic in that month the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse chanced to fracture
her rudder. The weather was bad, and it was blowing a gale, but her skipper
instead of running for the nearest port, which was Halifax, distant about 700
miles, brought her home safe and sound to Bremerhaven, another 2,300
miles, calling at Plymouth on the way. By means of the twin-screws the
ship could be manœuvred quite independently of the steering gear. The
measurements of this ship are as follows: length over all, 648 feet 7 inches;
beam, 66 feet; moulded depth, 43 feet; gross tonnage, 14,349; indicated
horse-power, 28,000.

THE “OCEANIC” (1899).
From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

THE “CEDRIC.”
From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

The British reply to the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse came not in speed
but in size, for it is not always realised how costly it is to get an extra knot
or two out of a big steamship, and that such an attainment is out of all
proportion to the expense which this has involved. At high speeds the
resistance of the ship, of which we have already said something, increases
far more rapidly than it does when the speed through the water is slow or
even moderately fast. When a ship reaches the speed of 20 knots the
influential factor of wave-making comes in prominently. Furthermore, in
order to coax an extra knot or two out of the ship, you must needs increase

her weight and usurp a very serious amount of space by larger engines and
boilers. Therefore, the answer to the German attack was seen in the
comparatively slow White Star Oceanic, the second steamship of that name
sailing under the same flag. This modern ship was the first vessel which
exceeded the length of the Great Eastern, and is about 13 feet longer,
though about 14½ feet narrower than Brunel’s craft. True to the White Star
type, the latest Oceanic is ten beams, and even more, to her length, her
measurements being 705 feet long over all, 68·4 feet wide, a draught of
32½ feet, and the terrific displacement of 28,500 tons, that of the Great
Eastern having been 32,000. Like the other great Atlantic liners since the
City of Paris, this Oceanic was fitted with two sets of triple-expansion
engines driving twin-screws; she began her voyaging at the end of 1899. As
will be seen from the accompanying photograph, in spite of her magnitude,
she is so beautifully designed that there is nothing in the least out of perfect
proportion. Some idea of the number of tiers possessed by the Oceanic,
rising high above the water, may be gathered if we enumerate them singly.
Looking at the illustration, and beginning from the top, there is the captain’s
bridge towering 43 feet above the sea. Eight feet below comes the boat
deck, and below that the promenade deck, and lower still the upper deck.
Then the first line of port-holes shows the extent of the middle deck, and
the next line the lower deck. In addition to these five decks which stretch
from one end of the ship to the other there are two partial decks, the orlop
and lower orlop respectively. Like other modern steamships, the Oceanic
has a double bottom, sub-divided into so many cells. She has been built
with the intention of being used, if necessary, as an auxiliary cruiser, and
was designed with the necessary additional strength. Keeping up an average
speed at sea of about 20 knots, this great ship is not compelled to drive
headlong into whatever weather may be waiting for her. The absence of
extra powerful engines also means the absence of that unpleasant vibration
which is not unknown to some of the “flyers” that tear across the ocean in a
hurry to get their passengers and mails to port. It will be noticed on
examining this illustration that, unlike the case of her namesake, the turtle
decks have disappeared altogether, the reason being, as already pointed out,
that the hull is so high above the water as not to need these. In spite of her
great length, the Oceanic is not so unhandy as she might seem. Her forefoot
is well cut-away, and this, in addition to the proper employment of her twin-

screws, enables her to be manœuvred with a facility that is a little
surprising.
The Cunard Company resting content with the performances of their
express steamers Campania and Lucania, still left the Kaiser Wilhelm der
Grosse to maintain the reputation for pace, and, following the example of
the White Star Line, built in the Ivernia and Saxonia a couple of steamships
of great size but comparatively moderate speed. The Ivernia is two feet
shorter than the Majestic, but her gross tonnage comes out at 14,027,
making her in this respect but little inferior to the Kaiser Wilhelm der
Grosse, though superior to the latter in displacement tonnage. The Ivernia’s
speed averages about 15¼ knots; she came into being in 1899. These
vessels belong to a class of steamship which has grown up under the title of
“intermediate,” its origin being based on the assumption that a comfortable,
economical, moderately fast type of ship would be able to find appreciation
no less than the high-powered ships. Both the Ivernia and Saxonia have
considerable capacities for cargo as well as passengers, and are
characterised by their exceptionally low coal consumption. They are single-
funnelled boats, and engaged on the Liverpool-Boston route. But the
Ivernia was the first of the Atlantic liners to break away from the triple-
expansion system and to be installed with the more modern quadruple-
expansion type of engine. This being the same principle as the triple-
expansion pushed one stage further, using four instead of three cylinders,
we need not stop to explain what is already clear in the mind of the reader.

THE “CELTIC.”
From a Photograph. By Permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

Two other of these “Intermediates” were added to the White Star Line
in 1901 and 1903 respectively. These are the Celtic and Cedric, and a
photograph of the latter will be seen opposite page 176. Only in regard to
speed have these handsome vessels the slightest right to be designated
“intermediate.” They both possess a tonnage about twice that of the City of
Paris, for the Celtic is 20,880, and the Cedric 21,034 tons, and the speed of
each is 16 knots. Speed is not the main consideration to those who have the
slightest affection for ships and the sea. The beautiful motion of the Cedric,
for instance, in a winter’s Atlantic gale, rolling and pitching in a manner
just enough to show she is a living ship and not a dull, lifeless steel box,
pursuing her way with boldness and dignity, caring little for the great waves
mounting up astern, is a delight that lives long in one’s memory. She has no
need to break her neck hurrying and scurrying, trying to become a large-
sized submarine; she prefers to go over the sea rather than through it, and
this with a movement that is comparable to that of a well-bred lady gliding
along smoothly and with dignity.

From the owners’ point of view these are economical ships to run, for
with 16 knots the coal consumption is very moderate, whilst at the same
time their size enables them to carry large numbers of passengers and
considerable quantities of cargo. As evidence of the remarkable evolution in
type, I would ask the reader to compare the accompanying illustration of the
Cedric with that of the Great Eastern. Both are of about the same length,
although the latter was about 8 feet wider, and at the time of her launch the
Cedric was the largest ship of any kind that had hitherto been constructed.
Another “intermediate,” the Arabic, followed in the same year, possessing
the same speed of 16 knots, but a tonnage only of 15,801. This is one of the
vessels employed on the Liverpool-New York route, the Southampton-New
York White Star service being supplied by the Adriatic (to which I shall
refer presently), together with the Oceanic, the Majestic and the Teutonic.
The German success in the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse was now to be
followed up by a still more wonderful achievement in the Kaiser Wilhelm
II., a photograph of which is here reproduced. Her coming in 1903 caused a
sensation in the shipping world, for she represented not merely the
extraordinary capabilities which the German shipbuilders had already
attained, but was superior in speed not only to all the British steamships, but
to her own sister, the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. Two and a half feet longer
than the Oceanic, about 4 feet wider, but with 5 feet less depth, she was,
like the Ivernia, fitted with two sets of quadruple-expansion engines to
drive her twin-screws. Her gross tonnage exceeded that of the Oceanic and
the Great Eastern as well, and with a speed of 23½ knots was a knot faster
than the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. This vessel and the Hamburg-
American liner Deutschland were able to give to Germany the proud
possession of the fastest liners in the world until the Lusitania arrived on
the scene. The Kaiser Wilhelm II.’s best day’s run is 583 knots, and she has
maintained an average speed from New York to Plymouth of 23·58 knots.
To obtain this the phenomenal amount of 45,000 horse-power has to be
developed by means of a double set of quadruple-expansion engines—two
for each propeller shaft—necessitating sixteen cylinders, steam being
generated from nineteen boilers fired by no fewer than 124 furnaces. But no
one could assert that such a ship as this is economical to run, for although
her speed is only one knot faster than the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, yet
each day she burns about another 200 tons of coal in doing it, and
supposing we were to take the cost of fuel at 20s. a ton, we can easily see

that each Atlantic voyage means an extra expense of much more than
£1,000.

THE “KAISER WILHELM II.”
From a Photograph by West & Son, Southsea.

Now, since the steamship is run for the purpose of making money, it is
essential that over-seas trade should not show any signs of lagging;
otherwise it becomes commercially impossible to run these fast ships from
one continent to the other. The craze for speed is one that may go on and on
for just such a time as the financial support continues; but as soon as a
diminution in trade sets in, and with it a falling-off in revenue, this wild,
reckless race for speed-supremacy must automatically cease. At present it is
but a reflection of the restless activity on shore. May the time not come
when rest and simplicity will again replace excessive strenuousness and
restore to the Atlantic something of its plain expansiveness, and take back

the character which it has now developed as being merely a race-track for
ocean greyhounds? However much designers, shipbuilders and engineers
may conspire together; whatever inventions man in his brilliant efforts may
succeed in bringing about, the solid fact remains that Nature is superior in
force to all these. The winds will blow and the great seas will roll up against
all the mighty ships man may build. Among the gifts to humanity there is
not included that of taming the sea. She is tyrannical in her strength,
untamable, dominant; and when you launch into her bosom heavy masses
of iron or steel, and deceive yourself with high-sounding names—call them
Great Easterns, Majestics, Indomitables, Titanics, and the rest—the Sea
only laughs at you, for she knows perfectly well that a blow or two from her
mighty arm will end their days and settle their fate for all time. To fight
against Nature is to contend against heavy odds, to engage in a contest
whose result is known long beforehand; and the most that man can ever do
is make a truce with his superior foe, so that he may be able to rush across
her expanse much as he would hurry past the open cage of a tigress. For
that reason speed is appreciated by some as the greatest weapon which was
ever given to the ship, but even then it cannot terrify a much mightier
power. In spite of wireless gear, submarine bells, navigational science,
expert seamanship, perfect ship-building and design, well-found ships still
put to sea and disappear presently never to be seen again. The case of the
Waratah is not an isolated incident, but an example of the universal law that
human achievement in comparison with the eternal sovereignty of the Sea
must take only a second place, and learn to obey, when bidden, a power of
far older, far superior strength.

CHAPTER VII

THE MODERN MAMMOTH STEAMSHIP
In the history of the steamship during the short space of time that she
has been employed, the changes in connection with her have followed with
singular celerity. We have, during the previous pages, witnessed in the
material of which she is built the gradual transition from wood to iron and
steel; we have seen how steam pressures became greater, and the ensuing
introduction of the compound system, the triple-expansion and the
quadruple. We have also watched the change from paddle-wheels to a single
screw, and thence to twin-screws. Each change has seemed to be so
excellent in its nature, so beneficial in results, that almost on each occasion
we might have thought that finality had been reached. At times our minds
have been wearied with the constant reiteration of the latest wonders, and
our imaginations have found some difficulty in responding to the demands
which one invention after another has put forward. It has all happened
within so short a time, and on a scale of such unheard-of magnitude, that
scarcely have we been able to find expressions adequate to our subject.
But now we enter upon what is the most wonderful of any period since
the steamship came into the world, and for this we have to thank the
introduction of the turbine, merely the beginnings of which we are now
watching; whose influence, not merely in the engineering world generally,
but in the domain of the steamship particularly, is already marking, in the
most certain manner, a distinct cleavage between the things of yesterday
and those of to-morrow. The turbine is only in its infancy, yet since its
infantile influence has caused already so great a revolution, one hesitates to
reckon what it will do before it is as old as the old-fashioned reciprocating
engine, whose history we have outlined. Its modern practical invention is
due to two men, one an Englishman, the other a Swede, who during the
early ’eighties made their systems public. The latter is Dr. Gustav de Laval;
the former the Hon. Charles Algernon Parsons, son of the Earl of Rosse,

who after a distinguished career at Cambridge, where he graduated as
eleventh Wrangler, brought out this new method in 1884. Five years later
Dr. de Laval, working at the same problem, developed a somewhat similar
engine. We have spoken of the modern invention advisedly, for there is
nothing new under the sun, and we shall see that the bare principle is
hundreds of years old. In its simplest form, the turbine is similar to a water-
wheel, a jet of steam taking the place of water. As far back as 1629,
Giovanni Branca, an Italian engineer, had suggested much the same thing,
and if the reader will now refer to the illustration opposite he will be able to
gain some idea of the form in which his idea took shape.

GIOVANNI BRANCA’S STEAM ENGINE (1629).
The simplest form of Turbine.
From the Exhibit in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Steam was to be raised as usual, by applying heat to a vessel containing
water. (In the picture this vessel is seen to be in the shape of a man’s head
and neck, the steam, so soon as it is formed, issuing out of his mouth. The

original illustration was published in Le Machine by Giovanni Branca,
printed in 1629, and containing all sorts of most interesting labour-saving
devices, such as the employment of winches, chain-pumps, water-wheels,
water-buckets and pumps of many kinds.) As the steam escaped it was
directed against the vanes on the circumference of a wheel fitted with little
fans like a water-wheel, and so causing it to revolve. In the picture the
wheel is being utilised by means of gearing for lifting pestles. Speaking
generally, this resembles roughly the idea of the de Laval turbine, but in
actual application de Laval allows the steam to issue through one or more
nozzles placed as close as one-sixteenth of an inch to the blades or fans, so
that every particle of steam shall strike a blade.

THE BLADES OF A PARSONS TURBINE.
By permission of Messrs. C. A. Parsons & Co., Newcastle-on-Tyne.

But the Parsons system differs in detail from this, and employs a
number of wheels mounted on the same shaft, the steam entering at one
end, working its way along and expending its energy to each wheel as it
passes. If the reader will examine the illustration facing page 186, he will
see a section of one of these turbines, which is here reproduced through the
courtesy of Messrs. C. A. Parsons and Co. But before we deal with the
actual working of this, we would also call attention to the drawings on page

185, which depict alternate rows of fixed and moving blades. Steam enters
the turbine in a direction parallel with the axis of the shaft, and flows
through the length of the turbine in a zig-zag fashion. Looking at the top
line in this diagram, we see a row of fixed discs or blades sloping in one
direction, on to which the steam pours. These, so to speak, reflect the steam
so that it passes at right angles from the slope of the fixed blade to the first
row of moving blades which are on the shaft, thus giving them and it a
rotational force in the direction indicated by the arrow. But the curved shape
of the moving blades causes the steam to issue from them in a direction
exactly opposite to that in which it had entered, and thus the reaction gives
additional rotational force to these moving blades. The steam now reaches
the next row of fixed blades and repeats the same action again on the next
row of moving blades.

THE PARSONS TURBINE.
By permission of Messrs. C. A. Parsons & Co.

Turning now to the illustration of the turbine facing this page, let us see
how this applies in actuality. This sketch represents a section of a

cylindrical case with rows of inwardly projecting blades, and within this
cylinder revolves a shaft with outwardly projecting blades. Steam enters at
the point marked A on the lower half of the cylinder, and then passes
through the different rows of fixed and moving blades, as previously
explained, finally leaving the cylinder at the exhaust pipe, marked B. But it
will be noticed that the diameter of the shaft varies in three different stages,
the reason for this being that a method analogous to the compound method
in the triple-expansion engines is here employed. Thus the whole expansive
force of the steam is not converted into speed all at one stage, but working
its way along, expands as it goes. It should be added that the fixed blades
are on the case of the cylinder, but the moving blades are on the rotor (or
rotating part, consisting of a hollow steel drum), the steam rebounding from
the fixed blades to the moving ones much as one billiard ball cannons off
another.
The cylindrical case is divided horizontally, and can be taken off, so
that the blades may be got at. The illustration facing page 188 shows the
lower half of the fixed portion or cylinder of one of the Carmania’s
turbines. The blades themselves are made either of brass or copper, and are
caulked one by one into grooves in the cylinder and shaft, but a newer
method enables them to be assembled in complete sectors ready for
insertion. The Allan Line turbine-steamer Virginian contains no fewer than
750,000 of these blades on the rotating part, but together with those which
are fixed, they total a million and a half, the diameter of the largest blade
being 8 feet 6 inches.
Such, briefly, is the principle of the new form of engine which is
causing so thorough an alteration in the means of propelling the steamship.
Practically all the turbine craft are of the Parsons type. For some years this
system was employed for driving electric dynamos on land, for pumping
stations, colliery fans and the like, but in 1894 it was first installed in the
now celebrated little ship, the Turbinia, which was built for the purpose of
exhibiting the capabilities of the turbine. She was of only 44 tons,
developing 2,000 horse-power, but those who happened to see her racing
along the water at Spithead, doing her 34 knots without distress, were in no
further need of conviction as to her speed abilities. But therein lay the
drawback; the difficulty at first was to obtain such a speed as should be

suitable for slow-going vessels, though we shall see that this difficulty is
now disappearing.

THE “CARMANIA” (1905).
From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

LOWER HALF OF THE FIXED PORTION OF ONE OF THE
“CARMANIA’S” TURBINES.
From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

Another great fault of the turbine is that it can only go one way, so that
in order to enable a ship to go astern, she has to be fitted with an additional
propeller and turbine, the blades in the latter being placed in the opposite
way; when the ship is going ahead, these just revolve idly. In practice it is
usual to employ two propellers and turbines for going astern instead of one.
For driving other than fast ships the turbine was found not to be
economical, but the reader may ask the question: “Why not let the ship go
fast? Why detain her, if she is anxious to get to port?” The answer is that
she wouldn’t get there as fast, for the reason that unless the ship is designed
to travel at very high speeds, the propeller, revolving at a great rate, loses its
efficiency; for, instead of being able to use the water, much as an oarsman
uses the water for his oar to get a good grip, the water is simply carried
round with the screw. In order to counteract this failing, therefore, it has
been suggested that the turbine should not drive the propeller direct but
drive a dynamo, the current from which should actuate electric motors for
such a speed as will suit the propellers. With this would also vanish the

reversing difficulty, for a motor is easily reversible. But a paper was read by
the Hon. C. A. Parsons, the Vice-President, at the annual meeting of the
Institution of Naval Architects, in March, 1910, in which he gave
particulars of a scheme to enable a high-speed turbine to be suitable for a
low-speed tramp steamer. As Mr. Parsons’ theory has actually been put into
practice, and will no doubt be found to be the solution of the problem, we
may here outline so interesting an experiment. In a word, the method
employed is just that which we saw was used in those early days, when the
screw engines were first brought in. As the reader will recollect, the
difficulty was then overcome by means of gearing, instead of the engines
working directly on to the shaft; so, in principle, at least, is it in the present
instance.
With a view of putting to a test turbines mechanically geared to the
propeller shaft, an old screw steamer, named the Vespasian, was purchased
in 1909. She was built in 1887, and has a displacement of 4,350 tons.
Originally, she was fitted with ordinary triple-expansion engines, and before
making any alterations it was decided to run trials with those engines in use.
But in order that these should show their best performances, they were
overhauled, and rendered thoroughly efficient. It was further decided, in
order that the proper data under service conditions might be obtained, that
she was to be run properly loaded. Arrangements were therefore made with
a firm of shipbrokers to take a cargo of coal from the Tyne to Malta, and
during this voyage a special recording staff on board made careful
measurements of the coal and water consumed. She then returned to the
Turbinia Works, and her triple-expansion engines were taken out, and in
their place were installed two turbines, one high-pressure and one low-
pressure, the former being placed on the starboard side, the latter to port, a
reversing turbine being incorporated in the exhaust casing of the low-
pressure turbine. By means of mechanical gearing the power was conveyed
from the turbine to the shaft, and without having made any alterations to the
propeller, the vessel was loaded again to her proper trim and sent out to sea
in February, 1910. The results are significant, and may be summed up thus:
the Vespasian was found to possess under normal full-speed conditions an
increase of about one knot per hour owing to the higher efficiency of the
turbine, but with reduced water-consumption, and consequently coal
consumption, amounting to nearly 20 per cent. Further, the weight of the
reciprocating engines was 100 tons; that of the turbines is only 75. Thus the

ship is enabled to carry a larger amount of cargo, whilst simultaneously she
effects a saving in coal, in oil, in engine-room staff and in up-keep. Mr.
Parsons asserts that the turbines and gearing have given no trouble, have
caused very little noise or vibration, and there is no appreciable wear on the
teeth of the gearing.
To the Allan Line belongs the honour of having been the first to
introduce the turbine upon the Atlantic, and at the beginning of the year
1905, the Victorian and Virginian, which had been contracted for two years
earlier, began running. These two ships are employed on the Liverpool-
Montreal service, and were built to be of as great a size as safe navigation
of the river St. Lawrence would permit. They displace 12,000 tons each,
and are fitted with Parsons triplicate turbines, driving three independent
shafts and maintaining a speed of 17 knots average; but on her trials the
Virginian attained a speed of 19·8 knots, and the Victorian 19·2 knots.
Three propellers are used for steaming ahead, and two low-pressure
turbines are employed for manœuvring either ahead or astern; these are
provided with a supplementary turbine for going astern. When going ahead,
the steam is first used in the high-pressure turbine engine and then allowed
to flow therefrom to the two low-pressure turbines, after which it passes to
the condensers. Owing to the turbine system the vibration is reduced to a
minimum, and since it is possible, from their nature, to place the turbine
engines very low in the hull, it follows that the screws also can be placed
very low. The practical effect of this is that the propellers are rarely out of
the water in a heavy sea, and so the objectionable “racing” disappears. The
Virginian soon showed that she was not merely a comfortable, but a
comparatively fast ship, for she made an eastward trip in the shortest time
hitherto occupied between Canada and England.
In the same year the Cunard Line followed with the Carmania, their
first turbine liner, fitted with three turbines and three screws. She was
preceded a little by the Caronia, a sister ship in every way except that the
latter is propelled by two sets of quadruple-expansion reciprocating
engines, driving twin-screws. These ships have a displacement of 30,000
tons, and a length over all of 675 feet. They were built of a strength that was
in excess of Board of Trade and other requirements, and when we state that
no fewer than 1,800,000 rivets were used in the construction of each, one
begins to realise something of the amount of work that was put into them.

Their steel plating varies in thickness from three-quarters of an inch to an
inch and an eighth in thickness, the length of each plate being 32 feet. Fitted
with a cellular bottom which is carried well up the sides of the ship above
the bilges, they can thus carry three and a half thousand tons of water-
ballast. The principles underlying the design and construction of these ships
were steadiness and strength, and in the attainment of this they have been
eminently successful. There are eight decks, which may be detailed by
reference to the photograph of the Carmania facing page 188. Immediately
below the bridge is the boat deck. Then follow successively the upper
promenade deck, the promenade, the saloon, upper, and main decks. Below
the water-line come two other decks for stores and cargo, the depth from the
boat deck being eighty feet. Both of these ships are fitted with the now
well-known Stone-Lloyd system of safety water-tight doors, which renders
the vessel practically unsinkable. This enables the doors to be closed by the
captain from his bridge, after sufficient notice has been given by the
sounding of gongs, so that everyone may move away from the
neighbourhood of these doors. But should it chance that, after they have
been shut, any of the crew or passengers have had their retreat cut off, it is
only necessary to turn a handle, when the door will at once open and
afterwards automatically shut again. The system is worked by hydraulics,
and is a vast improvement on the early methods employed to retain a ship’s
buoyancy after collision with an iceberg, vessel or other object. A glance at
the illustration will show that a very great amount of consideration was paid
to the subject of giving the Carmania a comprehensive system of
ventilation, a principle which has been carried still further in the
Mauretania and Lusitania.
In the event of war the Carmania and Caronia would be fitted with
twelve large quick-firing guns, for the hulls were built in accordance with
the Admiralty’s requirements for armed cruisers. For this reason, also, the
rudder is placed entirely under water, and besides the ordinary set of
steering gear, there is another placed below the water-line.

A STUDY IN COMPARISONS: THE “MAGNETIC” AND “BALTIC.”
From a Photograph. By Permission of the London & North Western Railway.

On her trials the Carmania attained a speed of over 20 knots, and the
saving in weight by adopting turbine engines as compared with the
Caronia’s reciprocating engines was found to amount to 5 per cent. In
actual size these fine ships are inferior to the Great Eastern, but they were
built with meticulous regard for strength, and needed 2,000 tons more
material than was used in the old Brunel ship. The arrangements of the
Carmania’s turbines are worthy of note. There are three propellers and
shafts. That in the centre is the high-pressure turbine, whilst the “wing” (or
two side) turbines placed respectively to starboard and port are the low-
pressure and astern turbines. Steam is supplied by eight double-ended and
five single-ended boilers, which are fitted with Howden’s system of forced
draught. This latter enables the air to be heated before it enters the furnace,
and was patented in 1883. It is also in use on the Mauretania.

The beautiful picture facing page 192 was taken in Holyhead Harbour
in June, 1909, and is a study in comparisons. At the left, first come the two
small steam craft, then the White Star passenger tender, the Magnetic, a
twin-screw steamer of 619 tons, and, finally, the other White Star twin-
screw mammoth Baltic, of 23,876 tons. The Magnetic happens to be less
than 100 tons smaller than the little Sirius, which was the first steamer to
cross the Atlantic entirely under steam power in 1838. Therefore, if we but
imagine in place of the twin-screw tender the paddle Sirius, we can form
some fairly accurate idea of the extent to which the Atlantic steamship has
developed in less than seventy years, a development that neither Fulton nor
anyone else could have foretold in their wildest flights of imagination. This
Baltic, with her 24,000 tons, is one of the largest vessels in the world—
about 9,000 tons larger than Noah’s Ark, if we take the Biblical cubit as
equal to a foot and a half, which makes that historic craft about 15,000 tons
register. The Baltic has a length of 725¾ feet; the Ark measured 450 feet in
length. The Baltic can carry with the utmost ease and luxury 3,000
passengers, as well as 350 crew. Just how many animals she could put away
in her holds as well, if called upon, I do not know; but in any case it would
be able to put up a keen competition with the capacities of Noah’s craft.
Here, again, we find a White Star ship excelling not in speed, but in
size, for she was designed to do only 16½ knots at the outside. She is
propelled by quadruple-expansion engines. She made her appearance in
1905, and is additionally interesting, as she exhibits a slight divergence
from the ten beams to the length principle, which governed for so long a
time the White Star ships; to come up to this rule this vessel would have to
be another 30 feet in length.
We have already explained the reason which underlies the
comparatively moderate speed of these ships, and mentioned that the
question of economical steaming was at the root of the matter. As an
example we might quote the case of the Majestic, belonging to the same
line, as an instance. This vessel consumes 316 tons of coal per day to get a
speed of 19 knots; the Baltic, a vessel nearly twice and a half the size,
requires only 260 tons of fuel a day for her 16½ knots.
And so we come to those two leviathans which form, without
exception, the most extraordinary, the most massive, the fastest, and the
most luxurious ships that ever crossed an ocean. Caligula’s galleys, which

were wondrously furnished with trees, marbles and other luxuries which
ought never to desecrate the sweet, dignified character of the ship, were less
sea-craft than floating villas exuding decadence at every feature. There are
some characteristics of the Mauretania and Lusitania, with their lifts, their
marbles, curtains, ceilings, trees, and other expressions of twentieth century
luxury, which, while appreciated by the landsman and his wife, are
nauseating to the man who loves the sea and its ships for their own sakes,
and not for the chance of enjoying self-indulgence in some new form. But
all the same these two Cunarders are ships first, and floating mansions only
in a secondary sense. They are even more than that: they are ocean-
greyhounds of a new breed with a pace that surpasses any other of the
mercantile sea dogs.
These two historic craft are regarded in different ways by different
people. You may think of them as hotels, you may look at them as
representing the outcome of the greatest minds in naval architecture, ship-
construction and marine engineering. Or, again, you may reckon up how
much capital is tied up within their walls, how much material they have
eaten up, how many hundreds of men they have given, and are giving,
employment to. But whichever way you regard them, from whatever
standpoint you choose, there is nothing comparable to them, there are no
standards whatsoever by which to judge them. We can only doff our hats to
the organising and originating geniuses who in one way or another brought
these marvels from out of the realm of impossibility to the actuality of the
broad Atlantic. Cover them with tier upon tier of decks, scatter over them a
forest of ventilators, roofs and chimneys, till they look like the tops of a
small town; fill them inside with handsome furniture, line their walls with
costly decorations; throw in a few electric cranes, a coal mine, several
restaurants, the population of a large-sized village and a good many other
things besides; give them each a length equal to that of the Houses of
Parliament, a height greater than the buildings in Northumberland Avenue,
disguise them in any way you please, and for all that these are ships, which
have to obey the laws of Nature, of the Great Sea, just as the first sailing
ship and the first Atlantic steamship had to show their submission. I submit
that to look upon these two ships as mere speed-manufacturers engaged in
the record industry, as palatial abodes, or even as dividend-earners is an
insult to the brains that conceived them, to the honourable name of “ship”
which they bear.

The Mauretania and Lusitania are the outcome of an agreement made
between the British Government and the Cunard Steamship Company, in
which it was contracted to produce two steamships “capable of maintaining
a minimum average ocean speed of from 24 to 25 knots an hour in
moderate weather.” In every way these ships have exceeded the dimensions
of the Great Eastern. There was no precedent for them in dimensions,
engine power, displacement or aught else. It was not to be expected that
such gigantic productions as these could be the outcome of one mind; such
a thing would be impossible. It was only as a result of an exhaustive inquiry
made on behalf of the Cunard Company by some of the most experienced
ship-builders and marine engineers of this country, aided by the
constructive and engineering staff of the Admiralty, as well as by the
preliminary knowledge derived from models, that the best form for
obtaining this unprecedented speed was evolved. Whatever was best in
existing knowledge or materials was investigated. A special committee,
representing the Cunard Company, the Admiralty and private industries
went deeply into the question of engines; and with right judgment, and, it
must be said, with no little courage and enterprising foresight, decided, after
conferring with Mr. Parsons, to choose turbines, applied to four shafts, each
carrying a single screw.

THE “MAURETANIA,” WHEN COMPLETING AT WALLSEND-ON-TYNE.
From a Photograph. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

These two absolutely unique steamships differ entirely from the
previous fast liners that we have enumerated, as well as from those large
“intermediates” with moderate speed. The size of these mammoths was
decided upon, not with reference to their cargo-carrying capacity—for they
have practically no space for this—but in order to be able to steam at an
average speed of 25 knots in moderate weather for 3,000 miles, to carry
enough coal to last them the voyage when consuming about a 1,000 tons
per day, and to carry an adequate number of passengers to allow the ships to
pay their way. It was impossible, therefore, to have given them any smaller
dimensions. I make this statement on the authority of no less an expert than
Sir William H. White, K.C.B., the illustrious naval architect who was
connected so closely with the birth of the Mauretania. It was a happy

coincidence that the turbine had already shown itself capable of so much
that to employ it in these ships seemed a justifiable experiment. For
otherwise, in order to obtain the requisite speed the vessel could not have
contained the large amount of propelling apparatus. The working speeds of
these two ships exceeds by 1½ knots the highest speeds ever attained in the
Atlantic service. Had the reciprocating engine been employed instead of the
turbine there would have been serious risk of troublesome vibration, the
shafts would have had to have been of very large dimensions; large-sized
propellers would have been necessary, and these latter, of course, would
have been unfavourable to high efficiency of propulsion, whilst with the
more rapidly revolving turbine the screws are still of moderate diameter.
But apart altogether from the questions of economy of space, liability to
accident and so on, there was a national consideration to be reckoned. This
country has now for many hundreds of years prided itself on being the
mistress of the seas, a title that was only won after serious, hard struggles.
Although that title has reference rather to matters immediately connected
with the Royal Navy, yet national industry and a series of private
enterprises had, as we have seen, given us also an analogous position in
regard to our mercantile marine. This was until the German Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse, followed by the Kaiser Wilhelm II. and the Deutschland, took
away—in speed, at least—this title. It was, therefore, a matter affecting our
honour and our pride that we should put on to the water some ship or ships
that should be capable of winning back the “blue ribbon” of the Atlantic,
and restoring to us the supremacy of speed at sea. There is, however, a more
practical consideration. Without the assistance of the Government it would
have been financially impracticable even for so wealthy a corporation as the
Cunard Company to cause such a couple of ships as these to be built. And
yet it was worth while that the nation should help the Company, for in the
event of war breaking out between us and another first-class nation, it
would not be long before we should be starved into submission if by any
chance our over-seas food supply were cut off. It has been suggested with
every appearance of probability, that in such a condition the Mauretania
and Lusitania might render the highest service by making rapid passages
across the Atlantic and, being there loaded up with grain, might hurry back
home again. Their speed alone would save them from the enemy, except
perhaps from the latest and fastest types of fighting-ships. But if convoyed
by the Indomitable and Invincible battleship-cruisers, with their enormous

speed and equally enormous “smashing power,” the chances would be in
favour of the grain-ships reaching port. Thus when the British Government
advanced the sum of £2,000,000 sterling (which amount represents about
one-half of the total cost of the two vessels) it was acting with a wisdom
and a power for looking well ahead that is not always possessed by political
bodies. With their very considerable capacities for passenger
accommodation, these two ships would also be invaluable if called upon to
act as transports.
The singularly impressive picture facing page 198 shows the
Mauretania whilst she was still lying on the Tyne at Wallsend before being
quite ready for service. It is by a happy coincidence that the same picture
shows a delightful contrast between this last word of modern invention and
the old-fashioned type of steam tug-boat in the river, to the right. There is,
in fact, so mighty a divergence in character that it is not easy to catalogue
both under the very elastic and comprehensive title of steamship. Only by
comparison with existing ships can one gain any idea of the Mauretania’s
colossal qualities. The present writer was one of those who watched the
Mauretania docked for the first time at Liverpool immediately after she had
come round to the Mersey from the Tyne. By her was lying another
steamship, by no means out of date, whose appearance at one time called
forth some of the expressions of amazement and wonder that these two
Cunarders have brought about. For size and speed this older “greyhound”
was properly and legitimately famous, but yet within the comparatively
small dimensions of the dock-space one was able to obtain a more accurate
idea as to the exact proportions of the Mauretania than when lying outside
in the river, where space brings with it deception; and it was amazing to
remark how utterly and unconditionally the new steamship overshadowed
the old. Even in such close proximity as one stood, everything else looked
small by comparison. The captain on the Mauretania’s bridge resembled a
small, black dot, the funnels looked like four great, red caverns. A brand
new thick rope warp was brought to the shore to stop the Mauretania’s way.
It was so heavy that a score of men were needed to move it about. And yet
although she seemed scarcely to be moving the liner broke it in two just as a
toy model breaks a piece of cotton. Or, again, one may look at this same
ship lying at her mooring buoy on the Cheshire side of the Mersey and be
lost in wonder at her graceful curves. With such sweet lines you could not
doubt that she was also speedy. But it is not until one sees a good-sized

steam-tug go shooting by the buoy that one obtains any idea as to
measurements. The buoy is as big and bigger than the tug, and, therefore,
how many more times must the liner herself be bigger than the tug? You see
another steamer alongside this mountain of steel and the steamer is nothing
remarkable. But presently as she comes down by the landing-stage, past a
smaller liner brought up to her anchor in the middle of the river, you find
that that little steamer is several sizes bigger than a moderate coaster. It
would have been so easy to make this finest ship in the world look also the
largest; it is a much finer achievement to have made her look, what she is,
the handsomest.

STERN OF THE “MAURETANIA.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

Passing then to some of the details of these leviathans, we find that they
measure 790 feet long, 88 feet broad, whilst the depth from the topmost
deck to the bottom is 80 feet. Choose out some high building or cliff 150
feet high, and it will still be 5 feet less than the height of these ships from
the bottom to the top of their funnels. Their displacement at load draught is

40,000 tons; they each develop 68,000 horse-power, and draw, when fully
loaded, 37½ feet of water. When crew and passengers are on board each
ship represents a community of 3,200 persons. They are fitted with bilge
keels, double bottoms, water-tight doors, and there are eight decks in all. To
hold such massive weights as these ships exceptionally powerful ground
tackle is necessitated. The main cable alone weighs about 100 tons, and
there are about 2,000 feet of this, or 333 fathoms. The double bottom of the
Mauretania averages in depth 5 to 6 feet, and she has five stokeholds
containing twenty-three double-ended and two single-ended boilers; the
coal bunkers are arranged along the ship’s sides in such a manner as to be
handy and as a protection to the hull in case of collision. Three hundred and
twenty-four firemen and trimmers are engaged in three watches of four
hours in the stokehold.
The striking illustration facing page 200 shows the stern of the
Mauretania out of water, the photograph having been taken whilst the
vessel was being built at Wallsend-on-Tyne by Messrs. Swan, Hunter and
Wigham Richardson. It will be noticed that there are two propellers on
either side of the rudder. The two outermost are driven by the high-pressure
and the inside two by the low-pressure turbines. The two inner propellers
are also used for going astern, and since the turbine can only turn in one
direction these two are each fitted with a high-pressure turbine, and when
the ship is steaming ahead these astern-turbines are simply revolving idly.
When we examined the interior of a turbine on page 186, we noted that the
steam is allowed to expand in stages therein. The turbines of the
Mauretania are arranged with eight stages of steam expansion, while the
blades vary in length from 2½ to 12 inches.

THE “LUSITANIA.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.

We would call attention once more to the modern custom introduced by
Harland and Wolff of cutting a hole, or “port,” in the deadwood of the ship.
On referring to the illustration facing page 200, it will be seen that the
Mauretania possesses this feature in a remarkable degree, so that the flow
of water to the screws is very free indeed. It will be noticed also that the
rudder is of the balanced type, so that part of it projects forward of its axis,
whilst the whole of it is some distance below the water-line. It will also be
remarked that the two “wing,” or outermost, propellers are placed a good
deal forward of the two inner screws, the object aimed at being to give these
forward screws plenty of clear water to work in without either pair of
propellers having to revolve in water disturbed by the other pair. In
examining this picture the reader will readily be able to obtain the scale by
remembering that the draught up to the water-line shown is 37½ feet. The
illustration facing this page shows the appearance these sister ships possess
at the bows. The present photograph shows the Lusitania under way. The
navigating bridge, which will be discerned at a great height, has been

necessarily placed comparatively much nearer to the bows of the ship than
is customary in many liners. Here the binnacle, the engine-room telegraph
instruments, and other apparatus employed in the controlling of the ship, are
stationed, whilst immediately abaft of this bridge, but in a connecting room,
is the wheel-house. Into this small space is concentrated the exceptionally
serious responsibility of ruling the ship, a responsibility which, though it
now lasts but a short time, thanks to the shorter passages of the steamship,
is far heavier than it was when steamships were less complicated and less
huge. It is a responsibility which covers not merely the ship herself, the
crew, the mails, and the passengers’ lives, but sometimes a very precious
cargo. Only whilst these pages are being written the Mauretania steamed
into Liverpool a veritable treasure ship, far surpassing in this respect a
whole fleet of some of those old Spanish treasure-frigates. Stored in the
strong-rooms of the Cunarder were precious metals of the aggregate value
of over a million pounds sterling, consisting of 6½ tons of gold coin and 36
tons of bullion in the shape of 1,100 bars of silver. Add all this to the value
of the ship, her furniture and her passengers’ belongings, and we get
something between three and four millions of money. The mere thought of
it is enough to make Sir Henry Morgan and other buccaneers and pirates
turn restlessly in their prison-graves.
Ever since they first came out the Mauretania and Lusitania have been
improving on their speeds. Their most recent remarkable performances have
been caused by important alterations to their propellers. These were
preceded by experiments made by the Mauretania’s builders with their
specially constructed electrically-driven model launch. Since these two
liners commenced running, over twenty-four different sets of three-bladed,
and seventeen sets of four-bladed propellers have been tested, in addition to
further frequent experiments with models of the three-bladed propellers
originally supplied to the Mauretania. By modifying the bosses and the
blades, and adopting four blades instead of three, a very extensive saving in
horse-power was effected in experiments. Finally, the Mauretania was fitted
with four-bladed propellers on the wing shafts, while three-bladed
propellers were retained on the inside shafts. The result has been a
substantial raising of her average speed, while the coal consumption has
been about the same or rather less, but this latter is thought to be due
probably to the improvements in stokehold organisation. Sir William H.
White has expressed himself as of the opinion that the recently much

increased speed of these two monsters is due much more to the greater
knowledge of the turbines, as well as the better stokehold management, than
to the propeller alterations. Up to May of the year 1908 the best average
speed of the Mauretania on her westward trip was 24·86 knots, but during
the year 1909 it was raised to 26·6 knots. It was officially stated, on March
24th, 1910, that the Lusitania made a new record on her westward trip by
steaming at 26·69 knots for a whole day, that is at the rate of 30·7 land
miles. Leaving Queenstown on the Sunday, she had up till noon of the
following Wednesday covered 2,022 knots, at an average of 25·97 sea
miles. A fortnight previous to this the Mauretania, for the last part of her
eastward voyage to Fishguard, steamed at an average speed of 27·47 knots
per hour, or 31·59 land miles. The Lusitania is now fitted with the
Mauretania’s first propellers, and the chairman of the Cunard Company has
remarked that he has been informed that the Mauretania would be glad to
have them back again. The following tables will give some idea of the
comparative passages which these ships have made. They are interesting as
being reckoned not from Queenstown, but from Liverpool landing-stage
and the Cunard pier, New York:—

Outward Voyages Days. h. m.

Lusitania Quickest passage 5 7 0
Mauretania Quickest passage 5 1 30
Lusitania Longest passage 6 18 0
Mauretania Longest passage 5 21 0
Lusitania Average passage 5 21 35
Mauretania Average passage 5 16 48

Homeward Voyages.
Lusitania Quickest passage 5 15 30
Mauretania Quickest passage 5 5 0
Lusitania Longest passage 5 22 0
Mauretania Longest passage 5 17 0
Lusitania Average passage 5 19 22
Mauretania Average passage 5 12 14

But in spite of their bold dimensions and their efforts to prove their
superior prowess in contending with the mighty ocean, both the Mauretania
and the Lusitania have shown that after all they are still yet ships, and are
subject to those same laws which govern the rusty old tramp, the square-
yarded sailing ship, and the massive modern liner. We may take but two
recent instances, one as happening to each of these two great vessels during
the winter of 1910. In the month of January, the Lusitania made the slowest
passage in her history, having encountered adverse winds and mountainous
waves ever since leaving Daunt’s Rock. On Monday, the 10th of January,
she ran into what was thought to be a tidal wave. Immediately an avalanche
of water broke on the promenade deck. The officers on duty at the time
calculated the liquid weight that came aboard at 2,000 tons, and 100 feet
high. At the time of the occurrence the captain and the passengers were
below at dinner, and it was fortunate that no one was on deck. The wave
wrecked the pilot house, which is 84 feet above the water-line; four
lifeboats were smashed, as well as eleven windows in the wheel-house.
Companion ladders were carried away, while the captain’s, officers’ and
their stewards’ quarters below the bridge were so badly damaged that they
could not be used. The chief officer was on the bridge at the time, and he
found himself in water up to his armpits. The quartermaster was swept off
his feet, and struck against the chart-room bulkhead, with the fragments of
the steering wheel in his hands, and the chart-room was flooded everywhere
with water. As if that were not bad enough, the masthead lights and
sidelights were extinguished by the wave. Happily, the chief officer kept his
head above all this excitement, and finding that the engine-room telegraph
gear was undamaged, signalled down to the engineer to reverse the turbines.
The captain, who had only left the bridge a few minutes earlier, rushed
back, and in less than half an hour the big ship was on her course again,
heading for New York, where she arrived twenty-six hours late.
It was during the following month that the Mauretania also suffered her
worst passage on record. The weather was so bad from the first that she was
unable to land her pilot at Queenstown, who had to go all the way to New
York. During the first day or two the sea became worse and worse. On the
night of Sunday, February 20th, the Mauretania was in the thick of a heavy
gale and meeting seas of rare magnitude. Some idea may be gathered of the
conditions, when it is mentioned that the speed of this colossal liner had to
be reduced to seven knots, and kept at that for the next five hours. It may be

remembered that the Astronomer Royal reported that the wind-pressure at
Greenwich that night showed a velocity of 100 miles an hour. When full
steam was again resumed, the Mauretania received some punishing blows,
and the upper works were subjected to a series of continuous batterings
from heavy head seas. The glass of the bridge-house was shattered, several
of the lifeboats were shifted, the water got below and flooded the forecastle,
and finally an anchor, weighing 10,000 lbs., and 50 fathoms of cable were
swept into the sea. Reading all this whilst having in mind the magnitude of
these two steamships, truly we can say that the sea is no respecter of
persons, nor even of the most marvellous products of naval architecture.

THE “ADRIATIC.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Ismay, Imrie & Co.

The four-masted steamship here illustrated is the White Star Adriatic,
which was built in 1906. This mighty vessel is of 25,000 tons, and though
smaller than the two Cunarders with which we have just dealt, is superior in
size and speed to the White Star Baltic, and until the advent of the Olympic

and Titanic, was the biggest production which the White Star Line has
conceived. Like the Baltic, the second Oceanic, and the Cedric, this
Adriatic follows out the modern White Star practice of giving mammoth
size, moderate speed, and considerable luxury. She steams at 17½ knots
with an indicated horse-power of 16,000. Unlike the more modern ships,
the Adriatic is propelled not by triple or even quadruple screws, but by
twin-screws, and is employed on the Southampton-Cherbourg-Queenstown-
New York route. Although not provided with turbines, the Adriatic exhibits
a minimum of vibration owing to the careful regard which is now paid to
ensure the balancing of the moving parts of the reciprocating engine. She
has two three-bladed screws, which are made of manganese bronze, driven
by twin engines, and her dimensions are: length, 725·9 feet; beam, 77·6;
depth, 54 feet. It will be seen, therefore, that the old ten-beams to length
rule is yet again broken in the modern White Star leviathans.
In 1905, the German Hamburg-American Line became possessed of the
Amerika, which with the length of 670½ feet, beam 74·6, and a tonnage of
22,225, and a moderate speed, makes her rather a rival of the White Star
Baltic and Adriatic, than of the Cunard ships or the Norddeutscher Lloyd
Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse and Kaiser Wilhelm II., and the Hamburg
Company’s own fast steamship, the Deutschland. Although sailing under a
foreign flag, she is to all intents and purposes a British ship, for she was
built at Harland and Wolff’s famous Belfast yard, where the White Star
ships have come into being. Her speed is 18 knots, so that she is rather
faster than the latest White Star ships, although inferior to the fastest
contemporary liners. Carrying a total of 4,000 passengers and crew, the
Amerika is one of the finest vessels, not merely in the German fleet, but in
the whole world.

THE “GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.,
Bremen.

THE “BERLIN.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.,
Bremen.

The George Washington, which is seen steaming ahead in the
illustration herewith, was the first of the Norddeutscher Lloyd steamers to
make a considerable advance on the 20,000 tons (registered) limit. In
length, breadth and tonnage she was launched as the biggest of all German
ships, and some of her details are not without interest. Her speed of 18½
knots is obtained by two engines with an indicated horse-power of 20,000,
and her gross register is 26,000 tons. She is propelled by twin-screws, and
was built of steel according to the highest German standards, with five steel
decks extending from end to end, a double bottom, which is divided up into
twenty-six water-tight compartments, while the ship herself is divided by
thirteen transverse bulkheads which reach up to the upper deck, and
sometimes to the upper saloon deck, and separate the vessel into fourteen
water-tight compartments. A special feature was made in the bulkheads to
render them of such a strength as to be able to resist the pressure of the
water in the event of collision. The three upper decks seen in the
photograph show the awning, the upper promenade, and the promenade-
decks; while, as in the Mauretania and her sister, and in the Adriatic,
electric lifts are installed for the convenience of the passengers wishing to
pass from one deck to the other. The four pole-masts are of steel, and have
between them no fewer than twenty-nine derricks. The George
Washington’s engines are of the quadruple-expansion type, with two sets of
four cylinders, the propellers being two three-bladed, made of bronze. The
difficulty with large reciprocating engines has always been to cause them to
work without giving forth considerable vibration. But the careful
arrangement of the cranks of the engine so as to balance each other tends to
neutralise the vibration. It is easier to balance four cranks than three, and in
this German ship the four-crank principle is followed. Steam is supplied by
four single-ended and eight double-ended boilers, the Howden draught
system being employed.
The Berlin, the other latest modern liner of the Norddeutscher Lloyd
Line, will be seen in the next illustration. Unlike her sister, she has been
given only two masts, and in another illustration, in a later chapter, we show
this ship under construction. She was recently built at Bremen for the
Mediterranean to New York service, and carries 3,630 persons, inclusive of
crew. Like other modern German liners, this vessel is handsomely
furnished, and the public rooms are all united in a deckhouse lighted by a
large number of cupola-shaped sky-lights. She has a registered tonnage of

19,200 gross, and in the Norddeutscher fleet ranks next after the Kaiser
Wilhelm II. She passed into the hands of her owners at the end of 1909.

THE “LAURENTIC” ON THE STOCKS.
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Harland & Wolff.

Two interesting new ships were commissioned in 1909 by the White
Star Line, for the Liverpool-Quebec service, named respectively the
Laurentic and Megantic. An illustration, showing the former on the stocks
at Harland and Wolff’s yard, Belfast, is given opposite page 210. The
Laurentic and Megantic are, as to hulls, sister ships, and each has a tonnage
of 14,900, thus being among the largest steamers in the Canadian trade. But
whilst the latter is a twin-screw ship propelled by reciprocating engines, the
former has three screws and a combination of reciprocating engines and a
low-pressure turbine, being the first large passenger steamship to be

designed with this ultra-modern method. Each of the “wing” propellers is
driven by four-crank triple balanced engines, the central propeller, however,
being driven by the turbine. The object aimed at by this novel hybrid
method was to retain the advantages of the carefully balanced reciprocating
engines, but at the same time to obtain the benefit of the further expansion
of steam in a low-pressure turbine, without having to employ a turbine
specially for going astern. The reciprocating engines of the Laurentic are
adequate for manœuvring in and out of port, and for going astern, since they
develop more than three-quarters of the total combined horse-power. This
steamship, single-funnelled and two-masted, measures 565 feet in length,
and 67 feet 4 inches in width, and besides having accommodation for 1,690
passengers, carries a large quantity of cargo. Like many other big
steamships that we have noted in the course of our story, she has a double
cellular-bottom which extends the whole length of the ship, being specially
strengthened under the engines. Her nine bulkheads divide her up into ten
water-tight compartments. It will be noticed that the rudder has gone back
to the ordinary type common before the introduction of the balance method.
Notice, too, that the blades of the propeller are each bolted to the shaft, and
that the latter terminates in a conical shape now so common on screw-ships.
This is called the “boss,” and was invented by Robert Griffiths in 1849. It
was introduced in order to reduce the pressure of the water towards the
centre. This method was first tried on a steamer in the following year at
Bristol and afterwards on H.M.S. Fairy. By reason of its shape, it naturally
causes less resistance through the water.
Whilst these lines are being written, there are building at Harland and
Wolff’s yard still another couple of ships for the White Star flag, which, if
not in speed, will be the most wonderful, and certainly the largest ships in
the world. After the Baltics and Mauretanias one feels inclined to ask in
amazement: “What next, indeed?” They will measure 850 feet long, 90 feet
broad, and be fitted with such luxuries as roller-skating rinks and other
novelties. They will each possess a gross register of 45,000 tons. (By way
of comparison we might remind the reader that the Mauretania has a gross
register of 33,000 tons.) Named respectively the Olympic and Titanic, they
will be propelled by three screws, and have a speed of 21 knots, so that
besides being leviathans, they will also be greyhounds, and are destined for
the Southampton-New York route. The first of these, the Olympic, will take
the water in October, 1910, and some idea of her appearance may be

gathered from the illustration which forms our frontispiece. Like the
Laurentic, these ships will be fitted with a combination of the turbine and
reciprocating engines, and will thus be the first ships running on the New
York route to have this system. Their builders estimate that the
displacement of each of these mighty creatures will be about 60,000 tons,
which is about half as much again as that of the Baltic. Each ship will cost
at least a million and a half of money, and it will be necessary for each of
those harbours which they are to visit to be dredged to a depth of 35 feet. It
is a complaint put forward by both ship-builders and owners of modern
leviathans that the governing bodies of ports have not shown the same spirit
of enterprise which the former have exhibited. To handicap the progress of
shipping by hesitating to give the harbours a required depth, they say, is
neither fair nor conducive to the advance of the prosperity of the ports in
question, and on the face of it, it would seem to be but reasonable that if the
honour of receiving a mammoth liner means anything at all, it should be
appreciated by responding in a practical manner. In New York Harbour this
fact is already recognised, for dredging is being undertaken so as to provide
a depth of 40 feet.
At the present moment the Cunard Company are also engaged in
replenishing their fleet, consequent on the removal from service of the
Lucania, the Umbria, the Etruria, and the Slavonia. An 18,000 ton
steamship, to be called the Franconia, is being built by Messrs. Swan,
Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., the firm which turned out the
Mauretania, and will be ready some time in 1911. This latest addition will
not, it is understood, be a “flyer,” for her speed is believed to be less than 20
knots, and it is therefore probable that she is intended to replace the
Slavonia. But it is supposed that another vessel is to be built presently to
relieve the Mauretania and Lusitania, or to co-operate with them, and that
her speed will be 23 knots, though it must not be forgotten that this ship will
not be built with the help of Government money, but will be purely and
solely a commercial transaction.
In the meantime German enterprise shows but little signs of lagging.
The Hamburg-American Line are understood to have ordered from the
Vulcan Yards at Hamburg a new passenger liner of more than 800 feet in
length and a displacement of between 45,000 and 50,000 tons. Her speed is
to be 21 knots. Herr Ballin a couple of years ago had a similar project in

view, and entered into a contract with Harland and Wolff for building the
largest ship in the world, to be called the Europa. But the condition of the
Atlantic passenger trade became unfavourable for the enterprise, and the
contract was annulled. The contract now goes, not to Belfast, but to
Hamburg, for the Belfast yard has no slip vacant for several months to
come. It will mean, therefore, that this Europa, which is destined to excel
the big Cunarders in size though not in speed, will be the largest
undertaking that German ship-building yards have yet had to face, for the
biggest merchant ship which up till now they have turned out is the George
Washington, of 26,000 tons. Since the Deutschland lost the honour of
holding the “blue ribbon,” the Hamburg-American Line have not worried
much about recapturing the first position in speed. Economy plus a first-
class service would seem to be the modern combination of influence that is
dominating the great steamship lines. Speed is a great deal, but it is not
everything in a passenger steamship, and whether the limits have not
already been surpassed, and the Mauretania and Lusitania with their high
speeds and enormous cost of running will presently be regarded rather as
belonging to the category of white elephants than of practical commercial
steamships, time alone can show.
After all, the Atlantic and the other oceans were made by the Great
Designer as barriers between separate continents, and although we speak of
them casually as rather of the nature of a herring-pond, and build our big
ships to act as ferries, yet are we not flying in the face of Nature, and asking
for trouble? In the fight between Man and Nature, it is fairly plain on which
side victory will eventually come, in spite of a series of clever dodges
which throughout history man has conceived and put into practice for
outwitting her. You can fool her very well in many ways for part of the
time; but you cannot do this for ever in every sphere. When we read of fine,
handsome, well-found modern liners going astray in the broad ocean, or of
excellent, capable little cross-channel steamships foundering between port
and port, without any living witnesses to tell how it all happened, we have a
reminder that the ways of man are clever beyond all words, but that Nature
is cleverer still. What the future of the steamship will be no one can tell.
Already ship-builders profess themselves capable of turning out a monster
up to 1,000 feet in length. But whether this will come about depends on the
courage of the great steamship lines, the state of the financial barometer,
and any improvements and inventions which the marine engineer may

introduce in the meantime. Perhaps the future rests not with the steam, but
the gas engine: we cannot say. It is sufficient that we have endeavoured to
show what a century and but little longer has done in that short time for the
steamship. Sufficient for the century is the progress thereof.

CHAPTER VIII

SMALLER OCEAN CARRIERS AND CROSS-
CHANNEL STEAMERS
Although it is true, as I have already pointed out, that the North
Atlantic has been the cockpit wherein the great steamship competition has
been fought out, yet it is not to that ocean alone that all the activity has been
confined. Because of the limitations which the Suez Canal imposes it is not
possible to build steamships for the Eastern routes of such enormous
tonnage as are customary for the North American passages.
In the course of our story we have seen the beginnings of the principal
steamship companies trading not merely to the west, but in many other
spheres. In tracing the history of steamship companies as distinct from that
of the steamship herself, we are immediately confronted with difficulties,
for the company may be older than steamships of any sort; or, again, the
company may be of comparatively modern origin, yet from the first
possessed of the finest steamships, of a character surpassing their
contemporaries. For instance, one of the very oldest lines is the Bibby Line
to Rangoon. This was founded as far back as 1807, yet it was not until 1851
that it adopted steam. The White Star Line, as we have seen, was previously
composed of sailing vessels, and its first steamship, the Oceanic, did not
appear until 1870, but when she did make her appearance, she surpassed
anything else afloat by her superior virtues. To take, therefore, a
chronological survey of the establishment of the steamship organisations
would be to convey nothing satisfactory to us in our study of the evolution
of the steamship, but nevertheless, we may pertinently set forth some of the
more venerable but no less active steamship lines of the present day.

THE “MOOLTAN.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

In addition to those already mentioned whose coming certainly was
intimately connected with the evolution of the steamship, we might mention
Messrs. George Thompson and Company’s Aberdeen Line, which at one
time was famous for its fine fleet of sailing ships. This line was established
in 1824, the year of incorporation of the General Steam Navigation Co. Six
years later the Harrison Line arose, though the Allan Line, which dates back
to 1820, did not run its first steamer until 1854. The well-known Hull firm
of Messrs. Thomas Wilson and Sons appeared in 1835, and the African
Steamship Company three years earlier. In 1849 the City Line, now
amalgamated with the Ellerman Line, was founded, as also were Messrs.
Houlder Brothers. The Anchor Line came in 1852, and the Castle Mail
Packets Company, which is now amalgamated with the Union Line to form
the Union-Castle Line. The British East India Company dates from 1855,

and the Donaldson Line a year earlier. The year 1856 saw the inauguration
of Messrs. J. T. Rennie and Sons’ Aberdeen Line to South Africa, and in
1866 the Booth Line was first started, whilst the Collins Line had been
formed in 1850, the Inman Line the same year, the North German Lloyd in
1858, the Compagnie Transatlantique in 1861, the National Line in 1863,
and the Guion Line (originally Williams and Guion) in 1866. Some of the
last-mentioned are now extinct, and have been dealt with in another chapter.
Within the last few months the P. and O. Company have absorbed the Lund
Line, and the shipping interests of the late Sir Alfred Jones have been
consolidated by Lord Pirrie, whose name is so well known by his close
connection with the firm of Harland and Wolff. During 1910 another
Atlantic service was inaugurated by the appearance of the Royal Line,
which the Canadian Northern Railway Company is running between Bristol
and the Dominion. Their two ships the Royal Edward and the Royal George
were originally built under different names for an express service between
Marseilles and Alexandria, but that venture was not found profitable. They
have recently been modified to suit the North Atlantic route and are
representative of the finest examples of the modern steamship, though not
so large as the biggest liners. Propelled by turbines driving triple screws,
they have all the luxury of the most up-to-date ships, with lifts, wireless
telegraphy, special dining-room for children, cafés and many other up-to-
date features. The Royal Line is thus another instance of a new steamship
organisation stepping right into the front rank at the first effort. If it is
alleged that some of the older lines engaged on the South Atlantic and
Eastern routes have not shown that same progressive spirit which the North
Atlantic companies have exhibited, at least recent ships have shown that
everything is being done which can be expected, short of reaching the
mammoth dimensions of the Atlantic liners. Passengers voyaging to
Australia, India, South Africa, and South America, for example, realise that
they are destined to remain at sea for a long period, and the question of the
utmost speed is not of primary importance. Owing partly to the American
spirit of speed and the much shorter distance which separates the two
continents, the voyage between England and New York has become rather
an elongated channel passage than a journey in which one settles oneself
down for weeks, and the incentives to make it shorter still are never for a
moment wanting.

The recent additions to the P. and O. fleet are indicative that progress is
not confined to any one route. A new epoch in the history of this company
began when the first of their “M” class was added. Reckoning them
historically from 1903 these are the Moldavia, Marmora, Mongolia,
Macedonia, Mooltan, Malwa, Mantua, and the Morea. The smallest of
these, the Moldavia, is of 9,500 tons; the largest are the last three
mentioned, which are of 11,000 tons, and though wireless telegraphy has
not played the same conspicuous part as on the Atlantic, yet this is now
being installed in all the P. and O. mail steamers on the Bombay and
Australian routes. Two new steamers, also of the “M” class, are being built,
to be called respectively the Medina and the Maloja, which will be thus
fitted. It is no doubt owing to the slowness with which Australia, India, and
Ceylon have adopted land installations that a corresponding reluctance has
been found in the case of the steamships to adopt what is so significant a
feature of the modern steamship. The illustration facing page 216 shows
one of this “M” class, the Mooltan, coming to her berth in the Tilbury Dock,
whilst the opposite illustration will afford some idea of the starting platform
in her engine room. Her measurements are: length 520·4 feet, beam 58·3
feet, and depth 33·2 feet; her tonnage is 9,621, with an indicated horse-
power of 15,000. She was built in 1905 by Messrs. Caird and Company, of
Greenock. It was owing to the increase in size of the new P. and O. ships
that the comparatively recent transfer was made of the company’s mail and
passenger steamers from the Royal Albert Dock to Tilbury.

THE STARTING PLATFORM IN THE ENGINE ROOM OF THE “MOOLTAN.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The Union-Castle fleet is composed partly of those ships which
belonged at the time of amalgamation to the old Castle Line, and partly of
those which were of the Union Line. In addition to these, new steamships
have been since brought out to swell the list. The depression in South Africa
consequent on the Boer War necessitated a careful consideration before the
addition of other mail steamers, but the Balmoral Castle (see opposite page
220), which was completed in 1910, and her sister the Edinburgh Castle,
are the largest and most powerful vessels employed in the South African
trade. This Balmoral Castle has a gross tonnage of about 13,000, with an
indicated horse-power of 12,500, and is fitted with twin-screws. Fitted, of
course, with water-tight bulkheads and cellular bottom, every modern
improvement has been taken advantage of in her internal arrangement with
regard to the service for which she was built. The Balmoral Castle has a
deck space larger than that usually given in this line, the first and second
class having practically the whole of the boat deck; whilst by joining the

poop and promenade deck the third class have their deck space doubled.
She is installed with the modern loud-speaking telephones between the
bridge and engine-room and the extremities of the ship. Wireless telegraphy
has not been installed, but a room has been specially built and equipped if it
is decided hereafter to adopt this apparatus. On the fore-mast head a Morse
signalling lamp has been placed for long distance signalling, and a
semaphore after the Admiralty pattern on the bridge for short distance
signalling. She is propelled by two sets of quadruple-expansion engines,
and has ten boilers.
The White Star Line, in addition to their regular mail and passenger
service across the North Atlantic, have three special freight and live-stock
steamers—viz. the Georgic, of 10,077 tons, the Cevic of 8,301 tons, and the
Bovic of 6,583 tons—all of these having twin-screws. Besides these they
possess four ships engaged on the New Zealand route, five on the
Australian trade, besides two smaller ships for freight.
We have already mentioned the Ivernia and Saxonia as belonging to the
intermediate, economical types which the Cunard Company own in addition
to their bigger liners. They also carry on a Mediterranean service from New
York to Gibraltar, the Italian and Adriatic ports, to Algiers and Alexandria.
The North German Lloyd Company also own a number of smaller
steamships employed in intermediate service to ports other than those
served by their fast liners, the largest being of about 6,000 tons.
The American Line, which was formerly the old Inman organisation,
own besides the Philadelphia, already discussed, the New York, the St.
Louis, and St. Paul, but the last two, each being only 11,629 tons, are the
largest of their small fleet. Besides the Anchor and the Allan Lines and the
new Royal Line the Canadian Pacific Railway now maintains a long
connection by steamship and railway from Liverpool right away to Hong
Kong through Canada. The Empress of Britain, with her quadruple-
expansion engines and twin-screws, is one of the finest steamships on the
Canadian route.

THE “BALMORAL CASTLE.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Co.

We could continue to deal singly with all the steamship lines which
have now sprung into existence, with the fine ships of the Atlantic Transport
Line, whose Minnehaha, in the spring of 1910, had the misfortune to run on
to the Scillies during her voyage from America to this country. We might
instance the Holt Line, the Nelson Line, and other enterprising
organisations, but such matter would hardly come within the scope of our
subject, which shows the manner in which the steamship has developed into
so useful an institution. Since we have now been able to witness the manner
in which the steamship has been adapted for service across the deep, wide
ocean, let us, before we close this chapter, take a glance at the way in which
she has also become so indispensable for those shorter but no less important
cross-channel passages.

THE “CAMBRIA” (1848).
From a Painting. By Permission of the London & North Western
Railway.

ENGINES OF THE “LEINSTER” (1860).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

At an earlier stage we saw that the cross-channel steamship service
owed its inauguration almost exclusively to that shrewd Scotsman, Napier,
who, after devoting a great amount of patient study to the subject, evolved
the Rob Roy. But we must not omit to give credit also to others whose work
in this connection has been of such historic importance. From about the
second decade of the eighteenth century there had been a service between
Holyhead and Dublin, carried on by means of sailing packets, as there was,
indeed, between Scotland and Ireland, as well as England and the
Continent. Then had come the first steam service when the Talbot, of 156
tons, built in 1818 at Port Glasgow, for David Napier, began running in the
following year between Holyhead and Dublin. In 1819, also, was
inaugurated the Liverpool and Dublin service, and in 1823 one of the oldest
steamship companies still in existence, the Dublin Steam Packet Company,
was formed. It must be recollected that the journey between London and
Dublin was a long and tedious one, for there was no railway, and
considerable sums of money were expended in order to improve the road
between Holyhead and the English capital. The sailing packets took on the
average about twenty hours to cross the Irish Channel. The Royal William,
already alluded to when we discussed the first Atlantic steamers, was one of
the early steamships of this City of Dublin fleet. In 1836, when George
Stephenson proposed the construction of the Chester and Holyhead
Railway, he intended that the company should also provide ships between
the latter port and Ireland, but the various steamship companies opposed
this until 1848. The London to Liverpool railway was opened in 1838, and
so, since the Liverpool to Dublin route was the quickest way to get from
London to Ireland, Holyhead was given the cold shoulder for the next ten
years. But when the continuous railway was opened between London and
Holyhead, the popularity of the Welsh port returned, and the directors and
principal shareholders of the Chester and Holyhead Company, who had
formed themselves into a small independent company, ordered four new
vessels, the Cambria, the Anglia, the Hibernia, and the Scotia. Of these the
first is illustrated herewith. These ships were 207 feet long, 26 feet wide,
and 14 feet deep, with a draught of 8 feet 10 inches. They had a gross
tonnage of 589, carried 535 passengers, and possessed the remarkable speed
of 14 knots. Instead of the slow passages of the old sailing packets these
four ships lowered the average voyage to 3 hours 34 minutes. In 1859 this
Chester-Holyhead railway was amalgamated with the London and North

Western Railway, and in 1863 the latter introduced a new type of craft, with
the same speed as before, but of 700 tons. Both a day and a night service
were presently instituted, and this service has continued to be one of the
most efficient and the fastest of all the cross-channel ferries from this
country. Of four new vessels which were built for the Holyhead-Kingstown
service in 1860 we may mention the Leinster. She was a large vessel for
those times, with a displacement of 2,000 tons, and constructed of iron. The
illustration facing this page shows a capital model of her engines, which
were of the oscillating type, and since we have previously described this
kind it is hardly necessary to deal with them now, further than to remark
that they gave the ship a speed of nearly 18 knots.
Coming now further south, it will be remembered that Napier’s Rob
Roy, which had first plied between Greenock and Belfast in 1818, was in
the following year transferred to the Dover and Calais route, and was thus
the first regular steamship to open the mail and passenger service between
these ports. This was followed for a long time by other steam “ferries,”
some of which were Government mail packets, and others were privately
owned. The General Steam Navigation Company, which had been formed
in 1820, and commenced its steam coastal trade, was not long before it had
inaugurated a service between London and Hamburg, and by 1847 it had
steamships running between London and the following ports:—Hamburg,
Rotterdam, Ostend, Leith, Calais, Havre, as well as from Brighton to
Dieppe, and Dover to Boulogne. These were all paddle-steamers until the
screw was introduced in 1854. In April of 1844 their paddle-steamer Menai
was advertised to leave Shoreham Harbour, calling at Brighton Chain Pier
—or rather Brighthelmstone, as it was then still known—and thence
proceeding to Dieppe. She was thus the first channel steamer to run
between these places.
It was not until the old stage-coach had given way to the railroad that
the numbers of travellers between England and the Continent increased. By
June of 1843 the South Eastern Railway had reached Folkestone, and in
February of the following year it had also joined Dover. The London,
Chatham, and Dover Line was of later date, and did not reach Dover until
1860, where they were able to put to the best use their capable fleet of
passenger boats which steamed to Calais. But in 1845 the South Eastern
Railway had, like the Chester and Holyhead Line, formed themselves into a

separate company, to run a line of steam packets, owing to the fact that the
successors to the Rob Roy were deemed unsatisfactory, and endless
objections were made by the complaining passengers who reluctantly
crossed the choppy waters of the English Channel. Previous to this date the
South Eastern Railway were wont to hire steamships to carry their
passengers between England and the Continent to Boulogne, Calais, and
Ostend. When their line had joined up Dover they started running from
there to Calais with their own boats in two hours, twenty-eight minutes,
calling at Folkestone on the way for twenty-eight minutes. The first of these
steamboats were the Princess Maud and the Princess Mary. The run from
Dover to Ostend took four and a half hours.
In 1848 the Admiralty, which had been responsible for the steam mail
packets service (as also we have seen earlier in this book they had charge of
the transatlantic mails), handed over their charge to the Post Office. But
neither of these Governmental branches was able to make a success of this,
and after a time the Post Office withdrew their mail packets and in 1854 put
the carrying out to contract. A Mr. Churchyard was accepted as the
contractor, and his agreement continued until 1862. It will be recollected
that two years previous to the latter date the London, Chatham and Dover
Company had connected their line to Dover, and they obtained the contract
in succession to Churchyard for carrying the mails from Dover to Calais. At
the same time the South Eastern Railway Company withdrew their
steamboat service to Folkestone. It should be mentioned that the General
Steam Navigation Company had also withdrawn from this route owing to
the competition on the part of the railway companies, who were in a
superior position by being able to run their passengers on both their own
railways and their own steamboats.
The general character of these early cross-channel steam-craft was very
similar to that of the Cambria. Some of the steamboats employed on this
Dover-Calais route have been marked by the possession of exceptional
features. It was in 1875 that the Bessemer was designed with the object of
making the dreaded passage across the Straits of Dover less disagreeable
and free from the infliction of sea-sickness. To this end she was given a
unique apparatus which was to swing with the motion of the vessel, and in
such a manner that the passengers would always be kept on a level,
however much the ship might roll. She was built double-ended, so that she

would not have to be turned round when she reached the French port. But
emphatically she resulted in a complete failure, for not only was this
ingenious deck found to be unworkable, and had to be fixed, but the
Bessemer collided with Calais Pier, and succeeded in knocking away about
fifty yards thereof.

THE “ATALANTA” (1841).
From a Painting. By permission of the London and South Western
Railway Co.

THE “LYONS” (1856).
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “EMPRESS” LEAVING DOVER HARBOUR.
From a Photograph. By permission of the South Eastern and Chatham
Railway Co.

Another ingenious vessel on this service was the Castalia. She was a
twin-ship composed of a couple of hulls. Those who crossed in her about
the year 1876 found her very comfortable, and she was so steady that
comparatively few of her passengers were sea-sick, but her drawback was
that she was not fast. The genesis of this double-hulled ship was in order to
obtain greater steadiness, and the experiment was first tried by fastening
two Woolwich steamers together, having first removed the inside paddle-
wheels. Following up this, the same principle was exemplified in a ship
called the Express, which had been constructed for a firm that became
financially embarrassed, and she was accordingly taken over instead by the
owners of the Castalia, and became the famous Calais-Douvres, which
most of my readers will well remember. She was certainly a fast ship, but
her life was not devoid of adventures. In May, 1878, she collided with
Dover Pier through her steering-gear going wrong, her main engines having
previously broken down. She was subsequently repaired and did well until
1887, when, worn out by active service, she was withdrawn, having proved

an expensive boat to run, and obtained an unenviable reputation for a large
coal consumption. The Castalia was withdrawn in 1878, and became a
floating small-pox hospital on the Thames, where she remained for about
twenty years, and was finally towed therefrom to Dordrecht by one of that
fleet of Dutch tugs which we shall mention in a later chapter as being
famous for the towage of big docks. In the course of time new and
improved Channel steamers continued to be put on this Dover-Calais route,
and in 1899 an amalgamation of interests owned by the South Eastern and
the London, Chatham and Dover Railways took place, so that now the two
fleets are under one management. Within recent years they have shown a
very enterprising spirit by leading the way in placing turbine steamers on
their route, and the illustration on the opposite page shows their turbine
steamer Empress clearing out of Dover Harbour. In general character we
may take the appearance of this vessel as typical of the more modern cross-
channel steamers which now ply also on other routes owned by the various
railway companies. The fine service of steamboats, for instance, possessed
by the Great Western, Great Eastern, the Midland, the London and North
Western, the Great Central, and the London and South Western consists
rather of miniature liners of a very up-to-date type. Not merely wireless
telegraphy and turbines have been introduced into the cross-channel
steamers, but every conceivable regard for the comfort of the passengers
has been taken commensurate with the size of the ships, and the special
work which they are called upon to perform.
We have addressed ourselves especially to the services between Dover
and Calais and between Holyhead and Dublin, for, owing to their
geographical character, these two are naturally the most important and the
most historic. The custom of railways being owners of steamships has
continued, the chief exception being the Great Northern Railway. The
Newhaven to Dieppe route is of comparatively modern origin, and it was
not until 1847 that the London to Newhaven line was completed. During the
following year there were three steamers running to Dieppe from this port,
but at first the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway was thwarted
owing to legal difficulties, and properly their service dates from 1856, for at
one time they were compelled to run a service under different ownership
from their own. The model shown opposite page 226 shows the packet
steamer Lyons, which was built in 1856 for the Newhaven-Dieppe service.
She was a paddle-boat of 315 tons displacement.

Between England and the Channel Isles connection in the pre-
steamship days was kept up by sailing cutters. After that the Admiralty
conveyed the mails from Weymouth to Jersey and Guernsey by ships of the
Royal Navy, and one of these—the Dasher—was until recent years
employed in watching the oyster fisheries off Jersey. But in 1835 a steam
packet service was started from Southampton to Havre, twice a week, and
between the Hampshire port and the Channel Islands, which was owned by
the South of England Steam Navigation Company, while a rival came
forward in the British and Foreign Steam Navigation Company, which ran
to the Channel Isles. One of the earliest steamers belonging to the former
company was the Atalanta, of which we give an illustration opposite page
226. She was afterwards lengthened, and as thus altered she appears in our
illustration. Her days were ended as a coal hulk in Jersey.
From 1838 to 1845 the mail service between England and the Channel
Isles was carried on from Weymouth, but in the latter year this service was
transferred to the South Western Steam Packet Company, and remained
exclusively with the Southampton steamers until 1899, when the joint
running of the Channel Islands service by the steamers of the London and
South Western from Southampton, and of the Great Western Railway from
Weymouth, once more caused mails also to be carried from Weymouth. It
was in the year 1860 that the South Western Railway, following the
prevailing custom, took over their fleet from the South Western Steam
Packet Company, and under the railway ownership this service has
continued ever since. The origin of the Weymouth service was on this wise.
An opposition company had been floated by the Channel Islands merchants
under the title of the Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Packet
Company, and this continued until 1888, when the service was taken up by
the Great Western Railway Company. For a time the keenest competition
between the two railway companies as steamship owners continued, but
after eleven years an amicable arrangement was come to whereby they
agreed to work a joint service, which agreement is still in force. To-day,
notwithstanding the losses which have been sustained by sad disasters
involving loss of life, notably the memorable instance of the Stella, which
foundered on the Casquets in March, 1899, this fleet is able to keep up an
uninterrupted service carrying passengers, mails, and freight, whilst during
the summer season extra cargo steamers have to be put on for the
conveyance of the big potato trade, fruit and flowers. These vessels, by

reason of their route, cannot be expected always to avoid accidents. Those
who know the treacherous character of the Channel Islands coast-line, and
the continuous stream of traffic which is going up and down the English
Channel, will readily appreciate what it means to take a small steamship
from port to port in thick weather. It was only in April of 1910 that one of
the London and South Western Railway boats, the Laura, while on her way
from Southampton to Cherbourg, collided when about twenty miles south
of the Needles, with a Norwegian sailing vessel named the Sophie, bound
up channel from South America to Hamburg. Here again the wireless
telegraph gear came in useful, for it chanced that the Royal Mail Liner
Asturias was in the vicinity, and she at once telegraphed for assistance.
These Channel Islands steamers all carry sufficient coal for the voyage
there and back, with an additional amount adequate for all ordinary
contingencies. From Southampton also the same owners carry on a
steamboat service to Havre, Cherbourg, Honfleur, Roscoff, and St. Malo;
while from Jersey to St. Malo and from Jersey to Granville two twin-screw
steamers are employed.
Between Harwich and the Hook of Holland, the Great Eastern Railway
keep up an important steamship connection, and employ in their ships not
merely wireless telegraphy, but the submarine signalling which is
mentioned as being a characteristic of the modern Atlantic liner. Their
turbine steamer, the St. Petersburg—a sister ship to the same company’s
Munich and Copenhagen—which was only put into active service in 1910,
began a steamship connection that is carried on entirely by turbine craft. It
is, indeed, owing to the advent of the turbine that the notable improvements
in our cross-channel steamers have been made within the last few years.
Not only has this system obtained for the ships a greater popularity because
of the absence of vibration, but it has also enabled the owners to avail
themselves of the greater accommodation for cargo and passengers, as well
as giving greater speed to the ships under economical conditions of
working.
One of the most notable cross-channel steamers is the Isle of Man
Steam Packet Company’s Ben-my-Chree, which can do 25 knots per hour
and carry 2,500 passengers. On this route the turbine has very decidedly
justified itself also. A breakdown causing the disablement of the turbine
steamer is as yet unknown, and it is worth noting that from the now

celebrated Channel steamer Queen, a turbine steamer of only 8,000 horse-
power, which was ordered only as recently as the year 1900, to the
Mauretania, with her 70,000 horse-power, is a step that shows how
thoroughly satisfactory the turbine has proved itself in so short a space of
time. In the case of a liner a breakdown is a serious enough item, but in the
case of a channel steamer it is an occurrence of sufficiently grave a nature
as to be guarded against with every precaution. The chances of a shaft
breaking in the case of a turbine steamer are very remote, and will probably
continue to be so, with the steady nature of the working of the turbine, the
worst likely accident being the breaking of one of the many blades.
Moreover, the turbine has proved that it gives increased reliability to
the steamship, which, in the case of the short cross-channel voyages, is a
matter that cannot lightly be regarded. In the case of the Ben-my-Chree just
mentioned, the mean time in performing the distance from Liverpool Bar
lightship to Douglas Head differed only by a minute in one season from that
of the previous year, a fact that is highly significant. It is the time that is
wasted in manœuvring to get alongside the quay and clearing away that
detracts from the smartness of the voyage, although in this connection it
may be stated that bow rudders are in use in certain cross-channel craft in
order to enable this manœuvre to be accomplished with greater celerity.
It is curious how the channel service of a steamship line presents
difficulties and problems of its own no less than those demanded by the
ownership of ocean-going steamships. Obviously the short-voyage ship is
limited as to size. What she has to accomplish must be done quickly. Not
only must she get out of one harbour and into the other with the greatest
economy of time, but she must get up her full speed at once. Then, again,
owing to the demands of the passengers for special comfort a great strain is
put on the patience of those responsible, as well as on the designer of the
ship. Cross-channel steamers which have a fairly long night passage require
a good deal of their limited space to be usurped by extra state-room
accommodation, and the modern demand for single-berthed cabins means
rather more than the average passenger realises. The figures work out
something as follows in the case of a four-berthed room the measurement of
the space occupied comes to about seven-eighths of a ton per passenger. In
the single-berthed cabin it becomes nearly two and a quarter tons per

passenger. All this means that the ship has less available space for earning
her living, since fewer passengers and less cargo can thus be carried.
Again, the passenger is spoiled nowadays. If a line has turbines and
wireless telegraphy, submarine bells, the latest conceivable luxury, speed
and other virtues, he is sufficiently well informed to appreciate these things
to the disadvantage of another service, scarcely less efficient, but perhaps a
little less advanced in accordance with the very latest inventions and
improvements. An old ship that has done years of good service and earned a
reputation for punctuality and reliability has to be scrapped before her time
just because a rival service has held out the tempting bait of the latest
steamship features. On the other hand, there was room for an approach to be
made towards more satisfactory conditions. The short crossings on some of
the cross-channel steamers were in the past no unmixed joy. The bad sea-
boats which some of these proved themselves to be, driven at a speed that
made them vibrate from stem to stern, wet and generally uncomfortable,
badly ventilated and equally inefficiently lighted, they certainly belonged to
the days that are past. What the future has in store this deponent knoweth
not; but if the internal combustion engine should ever become sufficiently
popular for big ships, certainly in no service is it likely to be more suitable
than in the cross-channel voyages, where speed is a vital consideration. But
economy is equally to be taken into account, if steamers are still to be
regarded as commercial, dividend-earning concerns, and not exclusively as
objects for the exercise of sentiment. We have, owing to the influences at
work everywhere, come to regard the virtue of speed as excelling
everything else. Whether this is deserving of all-powerful merit, or whether
in the future there may be a reaction and a desire to “go slow,” time alone
can tell. Perhaps such a condition might lead to an increased tranquillity of
life as a whole, but it would also put a brake on progress generally, and on
the steamship in particular.

CHAPTER IX

STEAMSHIPS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES
We have been enabled to gain some idea by now both of the nature and
the historical evolution of the steamship liner. But not all steamships are
liners, any more than all cattle are race-horses. Steamship is a word which
covers a multitude of varying craft and embraces a large family of different
natured children. Some of them go out into the world far beyond the
horizon and vanish until a few weeks or months later they come returning
homewards proud of their achievements as the safe carriers of mails and
passengers. But there are other members of the same family whose duty
keeps them close to the home where they first saw the light; who rarely
venture out of sight of land. There are others who, though they never carry
any passengers but their crew, nor an ounce of cargo, are yet as useful to the
human race as those great speed-makers which go rushing through night
and day across the ocean. Some of these steamships used for special
purposes have a character of their own no less distinctive than their more
elegant sisters, and the mere fact that they are not so violently advertised, or
so prominently pushed before the eyes of the average citizen, detracts
nothing from their interesting virtues. Nor, again, do we wish to give the
impression that this large class of special steamships is in any way entirely
confined to coasting or inland voyages. The steamship nowadays, both large
and small, goes everywhere, and is ready to do almost anything, and one of
the most interesting of all mechanically-propelled craft is the tug-boat,
which it is quite possible the landsman, promenading his floating hotel, may
have barely deigned to cast his eyes upon as his big steel home is being
drawn out from the quay, or landing-stage, and swung round on her way to
the other side of the world. How frequently indispensable is the tug to the
big steamship, both when entering and leaving the comparatively narrow
harbours! You see her at Southampton, for instance, pulling the great steel
hull away from the quay; you see her at Liverpool hauling ahead to get the
mighty, towering bows of the liner clear of the landing-stage out into the

river. You see them in New York when the mammoth comes to enter the
narrow opening alongside the pier, pressing their noses on to the
mammoth’s stern and compelling her giant dimensions to move round. Or,
again, you see the tug towing her overgrown sister through the dock at the
end of her voyage, coming slowly in as if she had captured one mightier
than herself, and was proudly conscious of her performance. Yet it is not
only the big steamships, but those beautiful modern steel sailing ships
which have to employ her help. You meet them down Channel somewhere
with perhaps only staysails and jigger set and a powerful tug ahead at the
end of a strong tow-rope. In a day or so they will have parted company. The
tug will return whence she set out; the bigger ship will spread her canvas
and begin her many-monthed voyage.

THE OCEAN TUG “BLACKCOCK.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Liverpool Screw Towing &
Lighterage Co.

THE PASSENGER TENDER “SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Great Western
Railway Co.

It is possible that if you were not a sailorman, and your eyes chanced to
fall upon such a ship as that illustrated opposite this page, whether in
harbour or at sea, you might feel no more interest in her than in any other
craft. And yet this is a little vessel which can go anywhere and tow almost
anything from a great floating dock to a disabled liner. Her name is the
Blackcock, and she is one of the famous, powerful tugs owned by the
Liverpool Screw Towing and Lighterage Company. Captain G. B. Girard,
who commands the Blackcock, has been aptly termed the “Grand Old Man”
of deep-sea towing, and during the last quarter of a century has covered
200,000 miles over the seas at this work. Quite recently he took the
Blackcock to Fayal in mid-Atlantic to fetch over to Oporto a dismasted
Portuguese barque. In spite of stiff breezes and heavy cross seas, the
Blackcock and her tow made an average of 160 miles per day. It was this
same tug which set up an interesting record some years ago by steaming

2,600 miles from Barbados to Fayal without having to stop for coal
anywhere. She was towing a 2,000-ton German ship, named the Ostara,
from Barbados to Hamburg, a distance of 5,000 miles altogether. In 1894,
the Gamecock, a sister of this tug, towed a disabled steamer from Port Said
to Liverpool, a distance of 3,300 miles, in twenty-seven days. The
Blackcock took an important part in towing from Fayal to Liverpool the
Cunard liner Etruria, which had been disabled, and caused the greatest
anxiety in consequence of her being lost sight of for so long a period with
hundreds of passengers aboard at the time. This towing voyage represented
a distance of a couple of thousand miles, and there are many other equally
wonderful incidents connected with these well-known “Cock” tugs. If the
reader will bear in mind what we said some time back with reference to the
origin of the bridge deck, he will be able to see the point well-illustrated in
the illustration before us. The bridge deck and its sides are joined to the
ship’s hull in such a way that in the case of the tug being attacked by a
cross-sea she is not likely to founder through the water getting down below
to the engines, as in the sad incident that we chronicled at an earlier stage.
These tug-boats are necessarily exceptionally powerful, the Blackcock
having over 1,000 horse-power.
But it is the Dutch, for some reason or other, who have specialised
more than any other country in the towing industry, and they own the
largest and finest tugs in the world. The reason for this national
development I attribute partly to the nature of the coastline between
Germany and France, with its series of nasty sandbanks and shoals always
ready to pick a ship up; partly, also, to the numerous straightways with
frequently a foul wind. In either case there is plenty of opportunity for the
tug to go out and earn a living.

THE 7,000 TON FLOATING DRY-DOCK UNDER TOW BY THE “ROODE ZEE” AND
“ZWARTE ZEE.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. L. Smit & Co., Rotterdam.

The finest fleet of ocean-going tugs is owned by Messrs. L. Smit and
Company, of Rotterdam. Besides about a score of river and harbour craft,
they have no fewer than ten bold ocean-tugs, which by reason of their high
power and large bunker capacity are enabled to undertake towages to
almost any part of the world. When the Mauretania left the Tyne for her
trial trip this company’s tugs, the Ocean and the Poolzee, had her in tow at
the bows. Tugs of this line have also accomplished such interesting long
voyages as towing floating dry-docks from the Tyne to Trinidad; an
obsolete Spanish warship from Ferrol to Swinemünde; the s.s.
Kronprinzessin Victoria from Las Palmas to Antwerp, after the liner had
lost her propeller. When the old Inman liner City of Rome was put aside, she
was towed by the tug Zwarte Zee from Greenock round to the Weser. The
illustration facing this page shows the tugs Roode Zee and the Zwarte Zee
taking in tow an enormous floating dock, capable of holding vessels up to
7,000 tons, from Wallsend on Tyne to Callao (Peru). To tow so unwieldy a

thing as this for any distance at all is a pretty severe tax on a tug; but to take
it all the way to Peru on the west coast of South America is about the
utmost test which the most severe critic could ever impose. The distance is
10,260 nautical miles. One of the largest and most modern of this line’s tugs
is the Zwarte Zee, which was launched in 1906. She resembles very closely
the Roode Zee, seen in the foreground of the accompanying picture, and
measures 164 feet long, 30 feet wide, 18 feet deep, and has the
extraordinary high horse-power (indicated) of 1,500. It will be noticed that,
like the Blackcock, she is well protected by her bridge deck amidships.
The sturdy little vessel illustrated opposite page 238 shows the salvage
tug Admiral de Ruyter. She is owned by the Ymuiden Tug Company,
Amsterdam, and is stationed at Ymuiden in readiness to render assistance to
vessels in distress off the treacherous Dutch coast. She is capable of facing
any weather, and her high bows and bold sheer enable her to keep fairly dry
in even a pretty bad sea. An interesting comparison will be seen between
this and the Edmund Moran. This represents a typical New York harbour
and river tug. No one who has ever come into the American sea-port can
have failed to have been struck instantly by the numbers of fussy little tug-
boats of a peculiar type that come running up and down the Hudson and
across from the New Jersey shore to the great city. Their prominent features
include a good deal of sheer, an exaggerated bridge deck with wheel-house
in front, at the top of which is usually a golden spread-eagle. In the winter-
time, when thick ice-floes obstruct the Hudson and the bitter cold penetrates
into the little wheel-house, there are more comfortable though less exciting
avocations than those enjoyed by the commanders of these busy steam
craft, which now carry on their work in such numbers where little more
than a century ago Fulton’s Clermont was scorned and ridiculed by those
who never thought that the river and harbour would ever see such steam-
shipping.
But the tug-boat has in some cases been enlarged, and super-imposed
by a promenade deck, and even given a saloon so as to become a passenger
tender. The illustration opposite page 234, for instance, shows this
evolution. This is the Sir Francis Drake, one of the passenger tenders
owned by the Great Western Railway Company, and, since the opening of
Fishguard Harbour for the calling of Atlantic liners, this vessel has been
employed for landing the Mauretania’s and other great ships’ passengers

without wasting time. The liner comes into harbour from America, lets go
her anchor, and immediately after there come alongside her three of these
tenders. One takes the mails as they are shot on to her deck, another
receives the baggage, while the third is used for passengers; this third tender
is also the last to leave the liner, so that when the passengers get ashore they
find their baggage already awaiting them at the Customs platform. In the
olden days the tug was a wheezy old lady lacking the smallest attempt at
smartness, and exceedingly slow. Her hull was of wood and clinker built,
her paddle-wheels gave to her a very moderate speed, and her
accommodation was chiefly non-existent. But to-day, as the Sir Francis
Drake shows, she has developed in some cases into practically an Atlantic
liner in miniature.

THE SALVAGE TUG “ADMIRAL DE RUYTER.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Ymuiden Tug Co.,
Amsterdam.

THE NEW YORK HARBOUR AND RIVER TUG BOAT “EDMUND
MORAN.”

But although the screw-propeller has ousted the paddle-wheel in very
many instances, yet this has been by no means universal. The advantage
which the older method possesses is that it can work in less water than the
screw needs for its revolutions. In certain harbours, for instance, and
shallow rivers—especially in those extreme cases where it is weedy—the
paddle-wheel steamer is still pursuing its useful work. It is therefore not
unnatural that the tug should in many cases be paddle-driven. The
illustration facing page 240 shows one of these paddle-tugs of a fairly
modern date. She is owned by the British Admiralty. The Dromedary, as she
is called, is well known among the Portsmouth craft, and just as the tug is
employed for helping liners out of port, so the Admiralty use the
Dromedary for assisting such leviathans as the modern Dreadnoughts out of
Portsmouth harbour, and rendering assistance in berthing in a harbour
where the tides are very strong and the water is considerably crowded.
We referred in a preceding chapter to the serious difficulty which,
owing to the gradual increase of the modern steamships, is felt in certain
ports. New York harbour had to be dredged before it could accommodate
the Mauretania and Lusitania with safety. Liverpool’s depth of water is

such that the two Cunarders can only enter during twelve hours out of the
twenty-four. Fishguard has had to be dredged, whilst Southampton has
been, and will need it again. In a smaller degree most ports need constant
dredging, otherwise local conditions combine to silt up the navigation
channel. Now all this is carried out by specially designed steamships,
which, like other vessels, have gradually been increasing to enormous sizes.
We might divide dredgers into two classes—the “bucket” dredger, and the
“suction” dredger. The illustration facing page 240 gives an excellent idea
of the former. This is the Peluse, the largest sea-going bucket-dredger in the
world. She was built by Messrs. Lobnitz and Company, Limited, of
Renfrew, for employment on the Suez Canal.
There is nothing in the least beautiful about this type of steamship.
Ugly to look upon, splashed all over with mud and sand, covered with
machinery and unsightly erections, they are sisters of toil to the ships of
beauty. They “bring up” in a harbour or channel, and set their series of
buckets dredging away to increase the depth. These buckets are readily seen
coming down from a height in the centre of the ship. They are revolved by
an endless chain, and the ship is cut open longitudinally to allow them to
work.
It will be noticed that since the rudder, if placed in its accustomed place
in the centre line of the hull, would be in the way, it has been duplicated and
placed on either side of the stern. After the dredger has taken aboard her full
cargo of mud from the sea-bottom she proceeds to the deep sea, and there
discharges her contents through doors placed in the bottom of the hull,
though sometimes she may discharge the mud into barges brought
alongside. It will be seen that the Peluse has been very efficiently protected
against any damage which might be inflicted by another vessel coming
alongside her. These vessels are given very powerful machinery, which
drives both the propellers and the dredging apparatus, an arrangement
allowing the latter to be connected with the main engines. The most modern
example of this type has triple-expansion engines and twin-screws, so that
she is entitled to more respect than her unwelcome appearance might
suggest.

THE PADDLE-TUG “DROMEDARY.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE BUCKET-DREDGER “PELUSE.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Lobnitz & Co., Ltd.

The suction-dredger, on the other hand, as its name signifies, does not
scoop up the sand, but sucks it up into her holds through pipes which reach

down to the bed of the river or estuary. The largest of these is well-named,
and is illustrated opposite page 242. This represents the Leviathan, which is
owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Liverpool, and it is
through her work that the river is able to be maintained in a navigable
condition. This voracious animal sucks up sand at the rate of 10,000 tons in
less than an hour, by means of centrifugal pumps, and when loaded with
this heavy cargo steams out to sea at a speed of ten knots, and then by
means of doors discharges the sand through her bottom. The doors are
worked by means of hydraulic machinery. She herself is propelled by four
sets of triple-expansion engines, which also work the centrifugal pumps. We
can get some idea of the size of this dredger when we remark that her
enormous length of 500 feet makes her as long as the Etruria.
The owners of the Leviathan are also the proprietors of the ship shown
in our next illustration. This, the Vigilant, is seen alongside the crane in the
Herculaneum Dock, Liverpool. The Dock and Harbour Boards are
practically local Trinity House brethren, though totally independent bodies.
Just as the Trinity House authorities have the upkeep of the light-houses and
lightships round the English coast, so the Dock and Harbour Boards are
charged with the duties of keeping the local buoyage in efficient order for
ensuring safe navigation into and out of their ports and estuaries. Gas buoys
have to be refilled periodically, moorings have to be laid down afresh, and,
in the case of damage, replaced. Periodically these have, in any case, to be
brought ashore to be overhauled, repainted and then returned to their duties,
bobbing about to the ceaseless heave of the waves. For such work as this
the Vigilant is employed. The illustration shows a gas buoy being lowered
on to her deck from the quay. Not very long ago an out-going steamship
from Liverpool fouled one of the Mersey buoys in a curious manner. She
was proceeding in such close proximity to the latter that she actually caught
her propeller in one of the mooring chains, with, as may be expected,
consequent damage.

THE SUCTION DREDGER “LEVIATHAN.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board.

THE “VIGILANT.”
From a Photograph. By permission of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board.

The introduction of electricity and the invention of the telegraph caused
a new sphere of work for the steamship. For connecting land to land across
the sea, cables had to be laid, and for this purpose it was thought at one time
that any very large steamship would suffice. It will be recollected that the
unhappy Great Eastern was thus employed after she had given up running
as an Atlantic passenger ship. Then presently it was shown to be advisable
to use specially designed ships for this purpose. The illustration facing page
244 shows an interesting little model of one of the older craft thus
employed, the telegraph steamer Monarch, a schooner-rigged, iron, screw
vessel built at Port Glasgow in 1883, for the Telegraph Department of the
Post Office. Enormous sheaves are fitted at the bows as fair-leads for the
cable to run out or for hauling it in. This particular ship was employed both
in laying and repairing submarine cables, and could carry enough fuel and
stores for six weeks’ work. She had a displacement of 2,135 tons, and a
single propeller driven by compound engines. The bow-sheave will be
easily discerned. An earlier telegraph ship was the Medway, launched in
1865, and built originally for the Mediterranean trade, but she was used in
the following year to help the Great Eastern in laying the Atlantic cable.
She carried the Newfoundland end of the cable after the Great Eastern had
gone as near in to shore as she dared. The Medway also carried 500 miles of
cable in case the 2,730 miles which the Great Eastern had aboard should
prove inadequate. Another converted vessel, the John Bowes, was used in
laying the cable from Dover to Ostend, but modern telegraph ships have the
dimensions and general appearance of liners. The Silvertown, which was
well-known on this work, is still afloat and to be seen in the West India
Dock, London. Such modern cable-laying ships as the Faraday are further
supplied with platforms which project from the side of the ship at the stern
for greater convenience in the work for which these vessels are intended. As
much as from three to four thousand sea-miles of telegraph cable can be
carried by some of these ships, which, in addition to the bow fair-lead have
a similar arrangement at the stern, and are supplied with all necessary
grappling apparatus in case a broken cable has to be picked up.

THE TELEGRAPH STEAMER “MONARCH.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

DECK VIEW OF THE TELEGRAPH SHIP “FARADAY.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Siemens & Co.

Another special type of steamship is the oil-tanker. Owing to the nature
of her cargo a steamship that carries oil is far more liable to disaster through
combustion than even a cotton-ship. Oil is carried not in barrels, but in
bulk. At one time it used to be carried by sailing ships in barrels, but this
meant that a great deal of trouble and space were unnecessarily expended.
The first tank steamer was built in 1886 by Sir W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell
and Company. Carrying a cargo of petroleum in bulk is obviously a fairly
risky proceeding. Firstly, there is the terrible risk of fire, more especially as
the ship must have engines and furnaces; but there is also the risk of the oil
obtaining a good deal of impetus, unless guarded against, as the ship rolls.
It can easily be understood that so considerable a weight moving about in
liquid form—a shifting cargo, in fact, of a peculiar type—is likely to cause
the gravest anxiety. The illustration facing page 246 will show to what
trouble the designers and builders have been put in order to devise a safe
oil-carrier. This represents the interior of a modern tank steamer built by
Messrs. Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth and Company, Limited, by whose
courtesy this photograph of a model is here reproduced. First of all, it will
be seen that the whole of the engines are placed aft, so as to be away from
the dangerous oil. This characteristic, however, has recently been departed
from, and in some ships the engines have been placed amidships, as in most
steamships. Of this we might instance the s.s. Phœbus, built by Messrs.
David J. Dunlop and Company, for the carrying of 9,000 tons of bulk oil. In
such cases as these it is essential to insert a long, oil-tight tunnel which
encloses the propeller shaft, but the drawback is that it takes up a good deal
of valuable space from the ship’s hold. The accompanying illustration
shows the holds divided up into a number of separate compartments by
means of oil-tight bulkheads, which are further subdivided by a longitudinal
bulkhead. But oil possesses the properties of expansion and varies
according to the prevailing temperature. It is obvious, therefore, that room
must be left for expansion. To meet this, then, a long trunk or slit is left to
allow the oil to expand, so that after the ship has filled her holds to the
proper height the cargo may yet be allowed to become larger in bulk. The
model before us shows slits at the sides at the ’tween deck, so that this
expansion may take place. It will be recognised where the ladders lead
down to the holds beneath. These vessels carry powerful pumps, the oil
being taken on board and discharged by this means. Oil is also employed as
the ship’s fuel, and the boiler is kept as far away from the cargo as possible,

but in order to counteract the possibility of the oil getting adrift and leaking
into the after part of the ship, a separate small compartment is also added,
so as more completely to divide the hold from the boiler and engines. This
will be easily recognised in the illustration. The other illustration facing
page 246 shows a model of the Silverlip, also with her engines placed well
aft; but this, with her derricks and her deck-houses, represents a larger and
more complex ship.
We come now to a type of steamship, which, by reason of its peculiar
construction, is deserving of more than ordinary consideration. Opposite
page 248 we give the latest example of this type—the s.s. Inland. The
“turret-ship,” as the class is called, is of quite modern origin, and no one
can come face to face with her without being instantly struck with her
unusual appearance. She owes her birth to Messrs. William Doxford and
Sons, Limited, of Sunderland, who are the patentees and builders of this
kind of ship. It is needless to say that when this novel class of steamship
first appeared in the early ’nineties there was aroused the usual prejudice;
indeed, having in mind what has been the experience of other inventors in
connection with our subject, the reader could hardly expect otherwise.
Firstly, let us consider her with regard to her appearance. It will be seen that
she differs from the usual cargo and passenger ship in that her sides tumble
right in above the water-line. This forms a kind of half turtle deck, and is
known as the harbour deck. But the upper deck of the “turret-ship” is
extremely narrow. (This will be seen more easily by reference to the next
illustration, which gives a model of the midship section of such a ship.) The
harbour deck need not be used except when in port, but it can be employed
for stowing long timbers or even iron girders if required. Like the oil-
tanker, many of the turret-ships have their engines placed right aft, so that
there is a long clear space for stowing the cargo in the hold, an advantage
which is especially appreciated in the carrying of certain kinds of cargoes.
Just as we saw there was great danger to a ship in the possibility of oil
washing about the hull and shifting in a perilous manner, so also there is a
danger in such cargoes as rice and grain. With regard to the latter, I
remember the case of a big cargo ship which had the misfortune to spring a
leak and the water swelled the rice to such an extent that the ship, strong as
she was, burst her sides. But in the case of grain the danger is not merely
that, but also of shifting. As guarding against this possibility the turret-ship,
by reason of her special design, is specially suitable, for any shifting that

may take place in the turret matters but little, and whatever shifting may
take place in the hold is compensated for by the turret; the cargo can be shot
into the hold without needing any trimming. The deck of the “turret”
portion will be seen from the illustration facing page 248 to form a
navigating platform.

SECTION OF MODERN OIL-TANK STEAMER.
Photograph from a Model. By permission of Messrs. Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth & Co.,
Ltd.

THE “SILVERLIP.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Some of the modern turret-ships are fitted with twelve or fourteen
masts arranged in pairs, each pair being across the ship instead of fore-and-
aft-wise. These vessels have proved themselves to be excellent sea-boats,
and owing to their high freeboard and the harbour deck, which acts as a
kind of breakwater, it has to be a very bad sea indeed that will break over

the ship. Furthermore, the harbour deck tends to reduce the rolling of the
ship, for when one side of the ship heels over so that one harbour deck is
under water, the windward side, when it holds a certain amount of water,
actually tends to bring the ship back to her level. Moreover, since these
decks are unencumbered with obstructions, they can suffer no damage
through the wash of the sea. They are also extremely strong ships, for the
sides of the turrets increase the strength of the vessel longitudinally, while
the curved formation of the harbour deck augments their strength
transversely; their simplicity of construction and their adaptability for
almost any cargo still further add to their virtues. But from the view-point
of the owners the turret-ship is even still more a welcome type of craft, in
that since dues are paid on a ship’s registered tonnage the turret-ship is able
to carry far more cargo in proportion to her size than most vessels. On a
small registered tonnage the turret-ship has an exceptionally large dead-
weight capacity, and those parts of her which are liable to be taxed are
diminished as far as is possible, whilst at the same time greater space is
allowed to the carrying and handling of the cargo. Economically, then, the
turret-ship, with her odd shape, her many masts and derricks, is a very
advantageous carrier.
A good deal of interest has recently been aroused by the peculiarities of
a steamship named the Monitoria, which, though not a turret-ship, is
sufficiently out of the ordinary design to warrant special mention. She is
just an ordinary single-deck cargo steamer, but instead of the usual wall-
sided shell-plating has two longitudinal corrugations along the outside of
her hull. These swellings, so to speak, extend below the water-line and
gradually merge into the ship’s lines at bow and stern. The claim made for
this novelty is that it is effective in reducing the wave-like irregularities,
and allows of more power being available for propulsion, whilst it also
lessens the rolling and pitching of the ship. The captain of this ship is
reported to have said that these corrugations had a beneficial effect on the
steering, whilst the wake of the ship was found to be smooth and about half
the width instead of the full breadth of the ship. Very interesting as practical
comment on a subject that we have treated elsewhere in this volume, is her
commander’s remark that whilst in a diagonal sea, which was running at a
height of 9 feet or 10 feet, a ship of ordinary form and the same dimensions
as the Monitoria would have been safe proceeding at no higher speed than 6
or 6½ knots, yet the Monitoria was safe going ahead at 7¼ to 7½ knots. The

corrugations are said also to increase the ship’s buoyancy, and thus admit of
three per cent. more cargo being carried, while the hull is more readily able
to resist the strains than vessels of ordinary shape. It is probable that this
novel principle will be presently exemplified in a first-class liner, and in a
foreign cruiser.
Similar to the turret-type is the “trunk-deck” steamer, which possesses
like advantages. She resembles in appearance the former type, but instead
of the curves (seen in the Inland) at the gunwale and bases of the turret or
“trunk,” the sides of the trunk rise from the main deck nearly at right
angles, the harbour deck being really a true deck. This kind of ship owes her
birth to Messrs. Ropner and Sons, of Stockton-on-Tees. Such vessels afford
even more than the turret-ships the appearance of a kind of up-to-date man-
of-war, without the guns which one would almost expect to see protruding
from behind some of her steel plates. It should be borne in mind that both
the turret and the trunk type possess an absence of sheer, for the height of
the lofty turret, or trunk, enables this to be dispensed with, while to make up
for this lack of sheer from the bows to the stern, the vessel is given a top-
gallant forecastle.

THE TURRET-SHIP “INLAND.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. W. Doxford & Sons,
Ltd.

MIDSHIP SECTION OF A TURRET-SHIP.
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

When a vessel is carrying her full cargo her stern is sufficiently
immersed to prevent her propeller from racing badly in a heavy sea. But
when she is making a voyage “light” there is great danger of damage to the
ship through the fracturing of the propeller shaft as the ship dips her bows
and raises her tail in the air. Everyone who has had experience of handling
small craft of any kind is aware that the lower the ballast is placed the more
the ship will roll. In an extreme case, when all the ballast is placed outside
the ship on to her keel, the motion in a sea-way is more like that of the
pendulum than anything else. The method which we are now about to
discuss allows of water-ballast tanks being placed sufficiently high at the
“wings” to counteract this rolling. Opposite page 250 will be seen two
illustrations of the patent cantilever-framed steamers which are built by
Messrs. Sir Raylton Dixon and Company, Limited, of Middlesbrough,
through whose courtesy the photographs are reproduced. By examining
them it will be seen that water-ballast can be carried not only in the usual
tank at the bottom of the ship, but in the wing tanks at the sides of the ship,

and at such a height that when the ship is crossing the ocean without cargo,
she will have an easy motion.
The lower illustration shows a section of one of these cantilever ships,
and the water-ballast tanks, above which is a shelter deck that in the case of
a passenger ship can be used as a promenade, or can accommodate live
cargo in cattle-ships. It will be noticed that the ship’s frames are bent
inwards, and that these, together with the vertical sides of the hull, form the
triangular spaces for the tanks. Now these tanks run fore and aft on both
sides and increase the strength of the ship, not merely longitudinally, but
transversely. Owing to this the necessity of adding such obstructions to the
hold as pillars and beams vanishes, and as will be seen in the illustrations,
the hold is thus free and unencumbered for all manner of cargo. It is further
claimed for this cantilever craft that she can carry a dead-weight more than
three times the net register, and since these tanks are not reckoned into the
tonnage they increase the safety and comfort of the ship without detracting
from her utility. The reader will also notice in the upper picture to what an
enormous extent the modern steamship is now being fitted with extra
derricks, with a cross-piece up the mast to take the strain involved in
working the latter.
As the reverse of being specially adapted for a particular service, the
steam tramp is built so that she can readily engage in almost any carrying
trade. Unlike the liner with her fixed routes and set times of departure and
arrival, the tramp is a nomad, and wanders over the world picking up a
cargo here and there, and taking it across the ocean at her economical but
jog-trot speed. If there is nothing for her to pick up at the last port of call
she betakes herself elsewhere with the hope of better luck. Her main income
is derived as a coal-carrier, and for this she is quite suited. But the modern
collier—the kind of ship which is expressly built for the coal trade—is
fitted with numbers of steam winches in keeping with the modern feverish
haste and hurry, so that no sooner has she come alongside than she may
instantly begin to unload. In old-fashioned times the discharging was done
from the shore, but nowadays the up-to-date turret-ship makes short work
of handling her black diamonds. Special appliances are also provided for
those steamships which bring over the seas vast quantities of New Zealand
mutton, fruit, and other perishable articles of food. Elaborate refrigerating

machinery has to be installed in the ship, and special means employed to
facilitate the disembarking of the cargo, especially in the case of the former.

CANTILEVER-FRAMED SHIP.
By permission of Sir Raylton Dixon & Co., Ltd.

To a still more exceptional purpose has the steamship been adapted in
order to act as an ice-breaker and give liberty to those ships which, in
certain parts of the world, have, with the approach of winter, been
compelled to enter a lengthy imprisonment. Such localities are found in
both Canada and Russia. Thanks to the ice-breaker steamship it has been
made possible to keep open the Baltic ports with a passage of sufficient
width. Constructed of a strength which is possessed by no other vessel than
a man-of-war, the ice-breaker attacks the frozen masses as a battleship used
to ram her foe. She goes for the ship’s enemy with her curved bow, and
wages war with all the ability which the ship-builder and naval architect
have given her. Her bow is specially strengthened to suffer the force of the
contact with the heavy ice masses, and the lines of the hull are such that the
ice in its endeavour to crush the ship finds difficulty in getting a good grip
upon it. Nevertheless, these ships are fitted with numerous water-tight
compartments. Their means of propulsion are, of course, screws.
Similarly, across the North Atlantic, the steamship on the Great Lakes,
where for one third of the year the water is frozen, has to battle with the ice-
fiend. Ordinary steamers have to be laid aside, but the train-ferry steamship
still goes on with her work, being specially designed to break through the
impeding ice. As in the Russian ice-breakers, so here the principle
employed is that the ship shall forge her way unto the ice, and by means of
her overhanging bow, and its weight, shall break through the obstruction.
Across the wide harbour of New York the steamship train ferries,
carrying rolling stock run aboard by lines, are employed to an extent that is
strange in comparison with English customs, although the idea is not new to
the Mersey, and the evergreen scheme of instituting a ferry of this nature
across the English Channel to France, so that international travellers can go
from Charing Cross to the other end of the world without having to change
their compartments, is still advocated with enthusiasm.
We pass now to another type of steamship, which is endowed with as
much distinctive character as the steam tug. The steam trawler may not be
as smart as a steam yacht nor as fast as a torpedo destroyer; yet, for all that,
she is able to encounter as bad weather and—size for size—is perhaps a
good deal better sea-boat. In the North Sea, which has been the favourite
cruising ground of the steam trawler, there is to be encountered as nasty and
dangerous a short sea as can be found, perhaps, in any other part of the

world. In all weathers, and at all times of the year, the trawler has to go
about her business, and the comparatively few disasters that overtake her is
a credit at once to the seamanship of her skipper and the seaworthiness of
the little ship herself. Opposite this page we show a photograph of a typical
North Sea steam trawler. This is the Orontes of Hull, built in 1895, of iron,
by Messrs. Cochrane and Sons, of Selby. She measures 110 feet long, 21
feet wide, and 12 feet deep, her net tonnage being 76, and her horse-power
60. The evolution of the steam trawler was on this wise: When the value of
steam had been shown to be worth the consideration of the fisherman he
responded. At first the old-fashioned paddle-steamer was used tentatively
on the north-east coast of England, and the writer remembers in the early
’eighties the singular unattractiveness—the total absence of beauty, indeed
—which these vessels possessed. By birth and adoption these were properly
tugs, but they did a bit of trawling on their own account when not otherwise
required, and met with sufficient success to repeat the experiment many
times. Some of these ugly old craft are still to be seen in the neighbourhood
of Scarborough and Whitby.

THE NORTH SEA TRAWLER “ORONTES.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Cochrane & Son, Selby.

THE STEAM TRAWLER “NOTRE DAME DES DUNES.”
From a Photograph. By permission of Messrs. Cochrane & Son, Selby.

But since the fishing fleets were at sea for weeks together, and
something faster than a sailing ship was required to hurry the cargoes to
market, a special steam fish-carrier came in which plied her voyages from
the Dogger to London and the east coast ports. From that it was an easy step
to building a steamship for use not as a carrier but as a trawler. Already
steam had been in use on board the sailing trawler, but that had been for
hauling the nets and warping into dock. The increase of competition, the
loss of a market through calms and the prevalence of head winds, clearly
marked the way for the coming of the steam trawler. Recently it has been
shown that the employment of the motor-propelled trawler means a saving
of cost and a greater share of profits to all concerned, and perhaps in the
next decade the steam trawler may find the more modern form of
propulsion to be a serious rival. But even now sail has anything but
vanished, and there are many purely sail-driven trawlers, as also there are
many steam trawlers with auxiliary sails. Within the last few years the
steam fishing ship has grown to be of considerable size, with topgallant
forecastle, high freeboard and lofty wheel-house, so that it penetrates to
oceans thousands of miles away from the North Sea, being enabled by
reason of its size to carry sufficient quantities of coal for many miles. The
lower illustration facing page 252 shows one of the modern type of steam

trawler. This is the Notre Dame des Dunes, built by the same makers as the
Orontes. Her substantial forecastle, her bold sheer and high bows, together
with her length (rather more than six beams to the longitudinal expanse),
eminently fit her for her work in most trying circumstances. A curious
survival of the old-fashioned sailing ship is seen in the retention in a
twentieth century ship of the imitation square ports painted along her
topsides. The Notre Dame measures 160 feet long, 25 feet wide, and 14½
feet deep.

HYDRAULIC LIFEBOAT.
By permission from “The Yachting Monthly.”

But to-day, even with all the modern improvements which have been
put into the ship, both sailing and steam-propelled; notwithstanding all the

navigational appliances, the water-tight compartments, the size of ships and
the excellence with which they are sent on their voyages, there is still need
for the lifeboat, which has to go out many times during a bad winter at the
summons of necessity. Although it is possible that the motor, as in the
trawler, will eventually oust steam from this special type of craft, that stage
has not yet been reached. Steam is a comparatively recent innovation to the
lifeboat, and this is partially explainable by the deep-rooted prejudice of the
local seamen. It is also owing to the fact that when the lifeboat has to go out
at all the seas are very bad, and the craft is subjected to the water breaking
over, and unless special precautions were taken to guard against this the
fires would be put out, and the boat would be rather worse off than if she
had no engines. There are only a few steam lifeboats along our shores, and
they are placed at such stations where they can lie afloat instead of having
to be launched down the beach or from a specially constructed slipway. The
first form of steam lifeboat was to some extent on the lines of the ship
which John Allen had suggested as far back as 1730, of which we spoke in
an earlier chapter. It will be remembered that he advocated a system which
was actually employed by James Rumsey in 1787. The principle was that of
sucking water in at the bows and ejecting it at the stern. A more recent
instance of the use of this idea will be found in the boat illustrated on the
opposite page which shows a hydraulic lifeboat. The disadvantage of
having a screw propeller is that it stands a very good chance of being
fouled, if not damaged, by wreckage and ropes. Therefore engines were
installed which sucked in the water by means of a “scoop,” placed at the
bottom of the boat amidships. The water thus indrawn is discharged aft on
either side of the hull, and if the craft is desired to go astern, then this is
easily done by discharging water forward. This type has been in actual use,
and has been highly efficacious in saving human life from shipwreck. By
referring to the lower figure of the illustration on page 255, which shows
the midship section of one of the hydraulic type, some idea will be gained
of the placing of the “scoop.” By using alternately one of the after pipes the
ship can be manœuvred to port or starboard just like a vessel fitted with
twin-screws. But there are corresponding disadvantages which require to be
weighed. It is distinctly not an economical method of propulsion, and if the
sea happens to contain much sand considerable damage may happen to the
engines, and other undesirable matter also may work still greater havoc.

A SCREW LIFEBOAT.
By permission from “The Yachting Monthly.”

On the other hand, we have mentioned that the screw has its drawbacks
owing to the possibility of its suffering injury. It was therefore decided that

this could be avoided by placing it in a tunnel some distance forward of the
stern, and thus protected against all likely damage. (A similar method is
also employed in the steam fire-boats which are used by the London Fire
Brigade on the Thames, and are summoned whenever a river-side
warehouse or factory gets ablaze.) If reference is made to the illustration on
page 257, this tunnel will be discernible. In order to leave nothing to chance
a water-tight hatch is placed in the cock-pit floor just over the propeller,
through which any pieces of sea-weed, rope, or other undesirable matter can
easily be removed without having to beach the craft first. These little ships
measure about 50 feet long, and about 15 feet wide; they are driven by
direct-acting, compound, surface-condensing engines, which give to them a
speed of about nine knots.
In certain parts of the world where the rivers are shallow, either at their
banks or in mid-stream, steam navigation is only possible by means of
“stern-wheelers.” Such instances occur on the West Coast of Africa, and
also in America. In general idea, though not in detail, this method is a
reversion to the antiquated ship already discussed in Hulls’ idea for a tow-
boat. The stern of these steamships to which we are referring is not ended in
the same continuous straight line, but is raised slightly upwards at an angle
so that the paddle-wheel is able to revolve freely without requiring such a
draught of water as otherwise it would have needed if placed on the ship’s
side in the usual manner. This will be seen on examining the stern of the
Inez Clarke, illustrated opposite this page. This stern-wheeler was built as
far back as 1879, but the points on which we are insisting are here well
demonstrated. The draught of the ship, notwithstanding the weight of her
engines, was only 15 inches, so that she was enabled to go into the very
shallowest water, where even a bottle could float. Nevertheless her stern-
wheel was sufficiently powerful to send her along at 15 miles per hour. Her
measurements are 130 feet long, and 28 feet wide. Steamboats possessing a
similar principle to that exhibited in the Inez Clarke, but much different in
the arrangement, are to-day in use on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,
being used as tugs to tow along a large fleet of flat-boats containing coal.
As much as fifty to sixty thousand tons are taken in tow at one time.

THE “INEZ CLARKE.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

THE “NATCHEZ” AND THE “ECLIPSE” (1855).

THE “EMPIRE.”
From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

To North America, with its fine long rivers, the steamboat has been, as
Fulton in his foresight prophesied it would be, a highly useful institution. To
the European mind the vast possibilities of the mighty Mississippi come as
a shock when fully realised. To quote the very first sentence in one of the
most popular books which that most popular writer, Mark Twain, ever
wrote, “The Mississippi is well worth reading about”; so, also, we might
add, are its steamboats, but in our limited space we can only barely indicate
some of their essential features. The illustration facing page 258 shows a
couple of these, the Natchez and the Eclipse, racing against each other
along this great river by the light of the moon at midnight. The first thing
that strikes the attention is the enormous height to which the decks of these
steamboats are raised. The pilot-house is higher still, and will be recognised
as about midway between the water-line and the top of the long, lanky
funnels. Even to Mark Twain the height seemed to be terrific. “When I
stood in her pilot-house,” says the author of “Life on the Mississippi,” “I
was so far above the water that I seemed to be perched on a mountain; and
her decks stretched so far away, fore and aft, below me, that I wondered
how I could ever have considered the little Paul Jones a large craft. When I
looked down her long, gilded saloon, it was like gazing through a splendid
tunnel.... The boiler deck—i.e. the second storey of the boat, so to speak—
was as spacious as a church, it seemed to me; so with the forecastle; and
there was no pitiful handful of deck-hands, firemen, and roustabouts down
there, but a whole battalion of men. The fires were fiercely glaring from a
long row of furnaces, and over them were eight huge boilers.”

The accompanying picture, which is taken from a lithograph printed in
1855, shows two of the finest contemporary Mississippi steamboats. The
Eclipse was propelled by a high-pressure engine with a single cylinder, the
paddle-wheels being 40 feet wide. Her two boilers were placed forward
about 3½ feet above the deck, having internal return tubes, such as we
discussed at an earlier stage. The waste gases returned through the tubes
and escaped through the funnels, which rose 50 feet above the hurricane
deck. This ship only drew 5 feet, and measured 360 feet long and 42 feet
wide, whilst the hull was 8 feet deep. For fuel, rosin and pitch pine as well
as coal were used. Mark Twain has left us some details of the keenness with
which these and similar Mississippi steamboats used to race.
“In the olden times,” he wrote, “whenever two fast boats started out on
a race, with a big crowd of people looking on, it was inspiriting to hear the
crews sing, especially if the time were night-fall, and the forecastle lit up
with the red glare of the torch-baskets. Racing was royal fun. The public
always had the idea that racing was dangerous; whereas the opposite was
the case.... No engineer was ever sleepy or careless when his heart was in a
race. He was constantly on the alert, trying gauge-cocks and watching
things. The dangerous place was on slow, plodding boats, where the
engineers drowsed around and allowed chips to get into the ‘doctor,’ and
shut off the water supply from the boilers. In the ‘flush times’ of steam-
boating, a race between two notorious fleet steamers was an event of vast
importance.... Every encumbrance that added weight, or exposed a resisting
surface to wind or water, was removed.... When the Eclipse and the A. L.
Shotwell ran their great race many years ago, it was said that pains were
taken to scrape the gilding off the fanciful device which hung between the
Eclipse’s chimneys and that for one trip the captain left off his kid gloves
and had his head shaved. But I always doubted these things.”
In 1870 the Natchez ran from New Orleans to Natchez, a distance of
268 miles, in seventeen days seventeen hours. The most famous race of all,
and one that created national interest, was that in the year 1870, between the
Robert E. Lee and the Natchez, from New Orleans to St. Louis, a distance
of 1,218 miles. The former covered the journey in three days eighteen hours
fourteen minutes, the latter in three days twenty-one hours fifty-eight
minutes, but the officers of the Natchez claimed seven hours for having had
to stop through fog, and repairs to the machinery.

But let us pass further North. The Hudson has, since the time of Fulton,
been famous for its steam-craft, and the impetus which necessarily followed
after the success of the Clermont, and her successors, has not yet ceased to
exist. As representative of the Hudson River type of boats in vogue during
the ’sixties, the model of the steamer Empire facing page 258 is not without
interest, since it shows, the half-way transition between the Clermont and
the ultra-modern built-up ship as in the illustration facing page 262. Like
her other sisters, the Empire, it will be seen, has a very light draught, and a
characteristic feature of the development of the North American passenger
side-wheel steamer is here to be noted in embryo, and as pushed to its
furthest limits, in the case of the Commonwealth. I am calling attention to
the manner in which the American custom extends the steamship’s
sponsons or “guards” (as they are called). In a British paddle-wheel
steamer, such as one finds employed on passenger or tug service, the
sponsons are quite short. (This can easily be seen by reference to the
Dromedary opposite page 240.) But the American fashion is to allow these
not to end suddenly, but gradually fine off at bow and stern so that the deck
is carried well out-board. Forward is the pilot house, the passenger
accommodation being provided in the centre of the “guard” deck and upper
deck. The length of this vessel was 336 feet, whilst the breadth of the hull
proper was 28 feet, though including “guards” 61 feet. In many of the
Hudson steamers the strange sight is still seen of the use of the old walking-
beam which penetrates through the top of the deck. As we have already
discussed this elsewhere, it is scarcely necessary here to refer to it further,
but the sectional model illustrated opposite this page will show quite clearly
this principle.

THE “COMMONWEALTH.”

BEAM ENGINE OF AN AMERICAN RIVER STEAMER.
From the Sectional Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

One of the best known steamship companies in the United States is the
Fall River Line, belonging to the New England Navigation Company. The
Fall River Line runs from New York to Boston, and their vessels are of
exceptional interest as being propelled by paddle-wheels notwithstanding
that their size is in some cases of from four to six thousand tons.
Characteristic, too, is the extent to which the decks tier aloft and spread out
beyond the hull of the ship. Among their fleet may be reckoned the
Priscilla, Puritan, and Providence, vessels which vary in length from over,
to just under, 400 feet, with a beam of about 50 feet, but including “guards”
about another 30 feet. Opposite this page will be seen the Commonwealth,
the flagship of this celebrated fleet, and the most modern. Instead of the
paddle-boxes rising to a great height, they are absorbed by the excessive
amount of top-hamper. To such an extent, also, has the widest beam of the
ship been pushed that the paddle-wheels are scarcely discernible, being
quite underneath the “guards,” instead of projecting from the hull. The
Commonwealth plies between New York and Boston via Newport and the
Fall River, and is the largest and most magnificent steamship built for
service on inland waters. Some idea of her value may be gathered when we
remark that she cost £400,000 to build. It will be seen that she has been
given a high bow, for the reason that she must be a good sea-boat, since part
of her route is exposed to the Atlantic. She is 456 feet long, 96 feet wide
(reckoning in the “guards”), and has sleeping accommodation for two
thousand people. This voyage is performed in about twelve hours, mostly
by night, from New York to the Fall River, and the retention of the paddle-
wheel gives an absence of vibration, and enables the nerve-wrecked citizen
to sleep as peacefully as on shore. The Commonwealth is steady in a sea-
way, and has pushed the cult of luxury just about as far as it can go, whilst
yet retaining any of the accustomed characteristics of the ship. Practically
these craft are remarkably up-to-date hotels moved by a pair of paddle-
wheels. Replete with their barber’s shops, cafés, libraries, saloons,
orchestra, galleries, stairways, dining-rooms, spacious bedrooms, kitchens,
and other features too numerous to mention, they are representative afloat
of the prevailing passion ashore for luxury and personal comfort. The
Commonwealth, like her sisters of the same fleet, is built of steel, and for
greater safety she has seven bulkheads, which extend to the main deck, and
are so installed that no carelessness can leave the doors open. Her hull is
double and the space between the bottoms is divided into numerous water-

tight compartments, whilst collision bulkheads are also placed at each side
of the steamer at the “guards.” Her speed is twenty-two knots per hour,
which is obtained by compound engines, with two high-pressure cylinders.
The paddle-wheels are of the feathering type, with curved steel buckets, and
in addition to the usual steam pumps, there is a large pump for use on the
fire-sprinkler system which covers the whole interior of the ship. The ship
has a powerful search-light, and an electric lift to the kitchen. In case both
her steam-steering and hand-gear should get out of order the ship can be
steered by independent auxiliary gear attached direct to the rudder stock.
Having regard to the fact that it was North America which played so
prominent a part in the history and introduction of the steamship, it is by no
means unfitting that that country should also have developed the paddle-
wheel steamboat to an extent that is entirely unknown in Great Britain. The
difference in types is partly owing to the difference in tastes and habits
between the two peoples, but also owing to the contrast in geographical
arrangement. We in England have nothing comparable with the Hudson, for
instance, and its fine, long sweep of navigable water; nor with the vast
American Great Lakes, which, in a unique manner, have held out a special
kind of encouragement to the steamship. As carriers not merely of cargoes,
but also of passengers, especially during the tourist seasons, the steamships
on the Great Lakes have attained the character rather analogous to the ocean
liner than to the inland steamboat. The spirit of luxury is not concealed in
these Lake liners, and some idea of one of the two-funnelled passenger
steamboats now plying on the Great Lakes of America may be seen in the
illustration facing this page of the City of Cleveland. The two characteristics
already noted in the case of the Hudson and the Fall River steamships will
here be noticed still further. We refer to the extent of the added decks, and
to the increased beam which is given to the ship by means of the “guards.”

THE “CITY OF CLEVELAND.”

AN AMERICAN “WHALE-BACK” STEAMER.

But perhaps the most extraordinary looking American steamship is the
well-known “whale-back” which is in use on the Great Lakes as a cargo-
carrier. Practically speaking she is just a whale-like steel tank with an
engine and propeller at the stern. Anything but comely in appearance, she is
something of the American counterpart of the British turret-ship, but with
one difference. The American type has no turret, but is just a long curved
box with two comparatively small erections at bow and stern respectively,
as will be seen by examining the photograph of one of these vessels
reproduced opposite page 264. But the design of these Lake steamers is to
carry the largest amount of cargo with the lowest registered tonnage, and
this object is attained with satisfactory results, for there is scarcely any
space at all in the ships but is thus employed.
And with this we may bring our chapter to an end. We have now seen
the rise, the gradual growth, and the specialisation of the steamship in many
ways, and in many different localities whenever employed as a commercial
money-earning concern. But the steamship, like the sailing ship, is not
exclusively employed either for commerce or for war. With the latter kind
of ships we have in the present volume no concern; but with regard to the
development of the steam yacht we shall now have something to say.

CHAPTER X

THE STEAM YACHT
That the steamship should become for the sportsman what for some
time the sailing vessel had been was a natural prophecy. Even if steam were
not to oust the simpler craft, at least both might sail the seas together
without let or hindrance. But, of course, the old prejudice asserted itself
again in yachting just as we have so frequently through the pages of this
book seen that it did in the evolution of the purely commercial and
experimental ships.
The pioneer of the steam yacht was undoubtedly the late Mr. Assheton
Smith, of Tedworth, near Andover. A man of substantial means, a keen
sportsman, who was well-known among both hunting and yachting men, he
was rather more far-sighted than his contemporaries, and considerably less
prejudiced. He had owned a number of sailing yachts, was a member of the
Royal Yacht Squadron, and had it in mind to extend the encouragement of
the sport also to vessels using steam. But to the select and conservative
minds of the Royal Yacht Squadron this was by no means a happy
suggestion, and they promptly showed their resentment by passing a
resolution on May 5th, 1827, to the effect that since a material object of the
club was to promote seamanship and improvements of sailing vessels to
which the application of steam-engines was inimical, no vessel propelled by
steam should be admitted into the club, and that any member applying a
steam engine to his yacht should cease to be a member. As the late Mr.
Montague Guest, in his history of the Royal Yacht Squadron, remarked, this
prejudice was no doubt caused by the objectionable vomits of smoke which
contemporary steamers in that locality were wont to emit, so that the fair
shores of Southampton Water were polluted, and distant objects completely
obscured. Smith was taunted with the remark that in wishing to introduce
the steam yacht he was intending to make a connection between business

and pleasure, and this insult stung him so severely that he eventually
resigned his membership.
In August of 1827, the Northern Yacht Club offered at their regatta a
twenty guinea cup, to be awarded to the swiftest steamboat, and so far as I
am able to ascertain this was the first occasion when steam craft ever raced
against each other under such conditions. Several steam vessel owners sent
in their entries for the race, and after an exciting contest for three hours
round a marked course, a paddle-ship, named the Clarence, won. This is
especially interesting, inasmuch as that boat had been engined by the
famous Robert Napier to whom we referred earlier in this book, and in
more ways than one this success led to considerable success. The incident
attracted the attention of Assheton Smith, who, although he was then fifty
years old, was fired with enthusiasm over the possibilities of the new sport.
He had already had five sailing yachts built for him, and after resigning
from the Royal Yacht Squadron, wrote to Napier asking him to come south
to his place near Andover. Neither had met before, and the upshot of the
northerner’s visit was that he was commissioned to build a steam yacht, the
cost of which came to £20,000, Napier being given a free hand in regard to
her entire construction. A recent writer has seen fit to remark that “no
account exists of the first steam yacht built by Mr. Smith,” so that it may be
worth while to add that this vessel was named the Menai, that she was built
in the year 1830 and delivered at Bristol. She measured 120 feet long and
20 feet wide, her tonnage being 230, and her nominal horse-power 110. She
was, of course, a paddle-wheel craft and driven by Napier’s double side-
lever engines, of which we have already explained the detailed working.
Those who wish to see what this first historic steam yacht was like can
examine a model of her in the Glasgow Art Galleries.
The Menai turned out a great success, and so pleased was her owner,
that he commissioned Napier to build him another boat, which was named
the Glowworm, a vessel of 300 tons and 100 horse-power. She was made
ready by 1838. Until Smith was eighty years old the connection thus formed
between the two men was continued, and during the period of twenty or
thirty years Napier built quite a fleet of steam yachts for his patron. The
Glowworm was followed by the Fire King in 1839—this being a 700-ton
ship and the biggest of them all. Afterwards came at different dates three
Fire Queens (in honour of Queen Victoria, who had come to the throne

since the first steam yacht had been launched), the Jenny Lind, and the Sea
Serpent; the latter about 1851. The Fire King was designed with hollow
water-lines, and was a vessel possessing considerable speed. Before her
trials were run, Smith issued a public challenge in Bell’s Life that she would
run against any steamer then afloat, from Dover Pier to the Eddystone
Lighthouse and back, for 5,000 guineas, or even higher stakes if desired.
One of the three Fire Queens was the fastest vessel of any kind at that time,
and possessed the exceptional speed of 16 knots. This was the third vessel
of that name, and was built in 1846, her tonnage being 300 and her horse-
power 120. She was driven by steeple engines which actuated a screw, and
the Admiralty thought so much of her that they purchased her as a packet.
Smith, however, did not like the screw, and his next ship reverted to the use
of paddle-wheels.
In 1844 the Royal Yacht Squadron began to climb down gradually from
their haughty position of serene isolation, for in that year they showed some
slight recognition of the steam yacht by resolving that “no steamer of less
than 100 horse-power should be qualified for admission into, or entitled to
the privileges of the Squadron,” and in 1853 the last objection to the steam
yacht was withdrawn by the rescinding of all rules which prohibited her
use. Thereupon a number of the Royal Squadron members had auxiliary
engines fitted to their sailing craft, but by 1856 there were not more than a
score of steam-engined yachts as against seven or eight hundred sailing
ones. In 1868 a unique race, which excited some derision at the time, was
run between Lord Vane’s steam yacht Cornelia and Mr. Talbot’s Eothen.
During the early ’eighties many of the non-racing yachts flying the
Squadron’s colours, and used solely for cruising, were either purely steam
or auxiliary steam yachts. By 1883, out of 2,000 yachts no fewer than 700
were steam, which had cost originally two and a half millions sterling. To
such an extent had this new development of the sport gone ahead that it was
even seriously suggested by the Field that ordinary cruising would be
extinguished by the steam yacht. During the ’eighties the number of English
steam yachts multiplied in all parts of the Kingdom owing to several causes.
The improvements which had been going on, as well in the making of
marine engines as in yacht building and designing, were assisted by the
more economical consumption of coal which was now possible. But the
sport of steam-yachting is entirely, by reason of its nature and its costliness,
confined to the rich man. Apart altogether from the advantages which steam

gives in that it renders the yacht independent of calms and tides, yet it
carries with it especially a social feature. The influence of Cowes week, the
dispensing of hospitality, and the privilege of enjoying a floating home
anything but bereft of the highest comfort, must be reckoned as among the
potent factors of an extent equal to, if not greater than, the sheer delight of
voyaging from one port to another. Many steam yachts spend their time
within the comparatively sheltered waters of the south coast of England, or
the west coast of Scotland, perhaps running out to the Riviera in December
or January. But a few, such as Lord Brassey’s celebrated Sunbeam, go round
the world, penetrate to the Arctic circle, cross the Atlantic, and go east
through the Suez Canal.

TYPICAL STEAM YACHT OF ABOUT 1890.
By permission of “The Yachting Monthly.”

For a long time the steam yacht naturally enough retained most of the
features of the sailing yacht. I say naturally, not merely because steam was
still distrusted, and, therefore, canvas was retained, but because beauty of
form and symmetry are demanded more in the steam yacht than in the
steamship designed for commercial purposes. For the creators of steam
yachts were rather yacht-architects than steamship-designers. We have only
to quote the admirable work of such men as St. Clare Byrne and G. L.

Watson to emphasise this point. Indeed, with the exception of the Triad, so
recently added to the fleet of steam yachts, and to which we shall refer fully
in due course, the lines and general appearance of the steam pleasure vessel
is far more “yachty” than perhaps one might have imagined would be the
case, having regard to the differences which have sprung up in the
appearance of the commercial steamship. The illustration on page 271,
which is typical of the steam yacht about the year 1890, shows how
markedly the influence of the clipper sailing ships of the ’sixties was at
work. The gilding at the bow, the figure-head, the fine entrance, and the
bowsprit have existed long after the latter was required for setting a jib at
the end of it. As a rule, the schooner rig has prevailed, though some ocean-
going steam yachts are rigged as barques, ships, and barquentines. For long
voyages between distant ports the retention of the sail as a saving of the
limited coal supply is but natural, and also for the purpose of steadying the
ship in a sea-way.
In the early days the steam yacht was usually of the type which has one
flush deck. But to-day she varies to the same extent as the sailing yacht.
Topgallant forecastles, quarter decks, bridge-houses, awning decks, shade
decks, spar decks, and many other features have been added. Three masts
have given way to two, and now only one is being retained, and that merely
for signalling purposes or for wireless telegraphy. Formerly, the steam yacht
was a long, narrow creation carrying a considerable quantity of ballast, but
to-day she is given greater beam, and in many points is coming far more
under the sway of the ocean steamship than ever she has in the whole of her
history. The accommodation is being modified and improved, and the
elemental features are undergoing a change. Whereas the older types carried
their dining and drawing-rooms below, nowadays these, as well as the state-
rooms, are, whenever possible, placed on the main deck. Much more room
is afforded for promenade by the adding of deck upon deck, and a
noticeable characteristic of the modern steam yacht is the extent to which
the deck-house and pilot-house have been carried. Like their bigger sisters,
the steam yachts of to-day are fitted with every thought for comfort.
Electric light, refrigerating plant, exquisite decorations, heating apparatus,
search-lights, and a thousand other details go to swell the long bill which
has to be paid for the private steamship.