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.

[Illustration: 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.”

[Illustration: THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT” AT THE HUDSON-FULTON CELEBRATIONS, 1909.]

[Illustration:

_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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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._]

[Illustration: THE “COMET.”

_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: SS. “ELIZABETH” (1815).]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: THE “PRINZESSIN CHARLOTTE” (1816).

_From a Contemporary Print._]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: THE “JAMES WATT” (1821).

_From a Water-Colour Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: THE “SIRIUS” (1838).

_From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: THE “GREAT WESTERN” (1838).

_By permission of Messrs. Henry Castle & Sons._]

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: THE “BRITISH QUEEN” (1839).

_By permission of James Napier, Esq._]

[Illustration: 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.

##