CHAPTER I.

Modern investigation has confirmed the opinion that the knowledge of the ancients was more varied and extensive than has hitherto been generally supposed, and that there is indeed “nothing new under the sun.” Iron chain-cables, supposed to have been the invention of the present century, were, as already shown,[2] used by the shipowners of Tyre, while the iron-clad rams of to-day are but copies of the prows of the war galleys of ancient Carthage, Rome, or Nineveh:[3] and, although, on the sculptures of Egypt and Assyria there is no trace of the application of wheels or machinery of any kind, as a propelling power, the mechanical knowledge ancient inventions exhibit leads to the conviction that other modes of propulsion than those of poles, oars, and sails must have been understood in remote ages. Indeed, Nature herself, at the dawn of knowledge, must have suggested to men widely removed one from the other, appliances for lessening manual labour, while some of these were undoubtedly carried into practice during the earliest period of the existence of the human race.

That such was the case may be reasonably inferred from the ancient stone sculptures exhumed by Layard and others, showing as these do beyond question that the people of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, when floating on bundles of reeds or on inflated skins, propelled them by the motion of their legs,[4] just as an animal swims by using its limbs for the purpose of propulsion in the water which supports it. In aquatic animals may be seen the types of almost every kind of machinery now adopted by man to lessen bodily toil. The cuttle-fish moves forward by fins, and backwards by ejecting water from a tube; whelks suggest the art of punting and towing; the value of paddles may be learned from ducks or other aquatic birds in their motion through the water, and the use of a folding feather from the lobster; while the combined action of the paddle-wheel and screw-propeller will be found in the microscopic insects “Paramacium caudatum” and “Paramacium compressum.” The marine animals “Vebella” and “Physalia,” familiarly known as the “Portuguese men-of-war,” whose bodies resemble an inflated bladder, float on the water and are propelled by the wind acting on their extended membranes. Swans extend their feathers to sail with the wind; and, though that fairy-looking, fragile thing, the paper-nautilus, seems to be the sport alike of the gale and of the most gentle breeze, it possesses in itself the power of propulsion by projecting water.[5]

But the common fish of every sea would have suggested to man, in the most remote ages, a mode of supplementing manual labour: the fin giving him the idea of a paddle or of an oar, and the tail teaching him the art of sculling, the principle in each case being the same: the tail, moving from side to side, by oblique pressure on the water, propels the fish forward along a diagonal line, the resultant of the forces acting from the right and the left sides of the fish, and is, thus, the chief instrument of motion, while the fins serve to direct and steady it.[6]

Nor, indeed, is there much doubt that the ancients were acquainted with the power of steam, though they cannot be said to have applied this knowledge to any useful purposes. A treatise is still in existence “On Pneumatics,” by Hero,[7] a philosophic mathematician who lived at Alexandria about B.C. 120, in which he gives an account of seventy-eight miscellaneous experiments, most of them probably adapted for the superstitious purposes of the heathen priesthood, but some also as certainly foreshadowing the definite application of steam as a motive force. The following, we notice as, in themselves, of considerable interest.

“First,” he says (exper. No. 45), “let there be a cauldron with water in it and a covered top; and let a fire be lighted under it. From the cover let a tube run upward, and place at its extremity a hollow hemisphere, in like manner perforated. Then, if a light ball be cast into the middle of the hemisphere, the vapour (steam) raised from the cauldron through this tube will lift the ball so that it seems suspended.” This is no doubt an ingenious and amusing philosophical toy, but has no further value. His next experiment, however (No. 50), is of greater importance, not only as showing a clear and distinct appreciation of the motive power of steam, but because its principle is embodied in the well-known mode of driving potters’ wheels and in the modern turbine. He says, “Let a fire be lighted under a cauldron with water in it and covered with a lid; and attach to this cauldron a bent tube with the extremity fitting into a hollow ball. Opposite to the extremity of this tube place a pivot fastened to the lid, and let the ball have various tubes communicating with it at opposite ends of the diameter, with their bendings at right angles (i.e., in opposite directions). Then when the fire is lighted, the steam passing through the first tube (i.e., from the cauldron) into the ball, will pass out through the bent tubes towards the lid, causing the ball to revolve after the fashion of dancing figures.”[8] This machine was called the Æolipile.

In these few words we have a clear indication of the power of steam, of the nature and effect of a vacuum, and of a rotatory engine moved by this force: we thus see that the ancients knew more than has been generally admitted of the wonderful power which, in our own time, has brought about the most extraordinary changes in the seats and centres of maritime commerce, affording to mankind a facility of intercourse between different nations, while at the same time increasing the wealth, and, what is of much more importance, promoting the comfort and happiness of the human race to an extent far beyond the dreams of the most sanguine enthusiast of any age or of any country.

From the uncontroverted facts here stated, there can be no doubt that Hero was the first to record, even if he did not invent, this mighty civilising instrument, and, if so, that Egypt was the land of its birth.

But many centuries elapsed before its power was applied to any useful purpose; indeed, as suggested, there is reason for supposing that this science was misapplied by the priests, and used as a means of deceiving the people by inducing them to believe it to be a miraculous power granted only to the professors of the craft of idolatry. “A fire,” says Hero (experiment No. 70), “having been kindled on a transparent altar, figures will appear to dance” on a drum driven round by steam, “emitting sounds similar to those of a stringed instrument,”[9] which, according to Pausanias, “resemble the snapping of the strings of a harp;” thus, while delighting the young people of those days, as the ornaments in churches now do, these experiments became instruments of make-belief in the hands of the priests, who propounded as strange theories about their supernatural powers as the so-called philosophers of our own days still do, when they attempt to deal with the unrevealed mysteries of creation and of a still more mysterious hereafter.[10]

Although the Romans did nothing towards applying the knowledge of the power of steam to useful purposes, and little enough generally for the mechanical arts, the true value of the works of Hero and of the older mechanicians came to be appreciated in the dawn which succeeded the darkness of the Middle Ages. Then the youths of a generation, which had cast aside many of the superstitions of the ancients, and had found in the doctrines of Christianity a wider and nobler field for their genius and aspirations, began to study how the power Hero had described could be best applied for the benefit and happiness of mankind. Then, indeed, was the advent of an era wherein the foundation was laid of a fabric which, though slow in its erection, and not yet completed, is destined to eclipse all the other works of man. There can be, therefore, no subject affecting the transitory interests of the human race more worthy of the pen of the historian than the development of the power and usefulness of steam traced from that remote period to our own time, when we see in every quarter of the civilised world this power compassing land and ocean, affording profitable employment to myriads of the human race, and giving to the people of every nation and tongue rapid and easy intercourse.

“Although an old work on China,” remarks Mr. MacGregor,[11] “contains a sketch of a vessel moved by four paddle-wheels, and used perhaps in the seventh century, the earliest distinct notice of this means of propulsion appears to be by Robertus Valturius in A.D. 1472, who gives several woodcuts representing paddle-wheels,”[12] one of which is as follows.

There is, however, no mention of any vessel propelled by steam till M. de Navarette directed attention to this subject in a letter[13] received by him from Thomas Gonzales, Director of the Royal Archives of Simancas of Spain, with an account of an experiment of the year 1543, in which a vessel is said to have been propelled by something resembling a steam-engine.

The substance of this letter is to the effect that, in that year, one Blasco de Garay, proposed to the Emperor Charles V., the construction of an engine (ingenio) capable of propelling large vessels in a calm, and without the use of sails or oars. In spite of the opposition this project encountered, the Emperor consented to witness the experiment, which was accordingly made in the Trinity, a vessel of 200 tons, laden with corn, in the port of Barcelona, on the 17th June, 1543. Garay, however, would not uncover his machinery, or exhibit it publicly: but it was evident that it consisted of a cauldron of boiling water (una gran caldera de agua hirviendo) and of two wheels set in motion by that means, and applied externally on each side (banda) of the vessel.

The persons commissioned by the Emperor to report on the invention seem to have approved it, commending specially the readiness with which the vessel tacked. The treasurer Ravago, however, observed that a ship with the proposed machinery could not go faster than two leagues in three hours; that the apparatus was complex and expensive; and that there was danger of the boiler bursting. The other commissioners maintained that such a vessel might go at the rate of a league an hour, and would tack in half the time required by an ordinary ship. When the exhibition was over, Garay removed the apparatus from the Trinity, depositing the wood-work in the arsenal at Barcelona, but retaining himself the rest of the machinery. Notwithstanding, however, the objections urged by Ravago, the Emperor was inclined to favour his project, but his attention at the time was engrossed by other matters.[14] Garay was, however, promoted and received a sum of money, besides the expenses of the experiment made at Barcelona. The letter concludes with the following statement:—

“This is the substance of the despatches and of the original registers preserved in the royal archives of Simancas, among the State papers of the province of Catalonia, and of those of the Secretary of War (department of land and sea), in the said year, 1543.”

Mr. MacGregor, greatly to his credit, desirous of ascertaining whether this report (which, from the well-known accuracy of M. de Navarette on other subjects, had been accepted as correct) could be depended upon, visited Spain in September, 1857, and made a thorough investigation at Simancas, Madrid, and Barcelona into this interesting subject, but his inquiries (reported, at length, January, 1858, to the Superintendent of Specifications at the Great Seal Patent Office, and printed in Part II., “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion”), convinced him “that there was not one particle of reliable evidence” in M. de Navarette’s assertion.[15]

An attentive consideration of the subject leads to the conclusion at which Mr. MacGregor has arrived. Even in the present day it would require an engine and boiler of considerable size to propel a vessel of 200 tons three miles an hour; moreover, the novel and bulky machinery with which the experiment is said to have been made, could not have been erected in the ship or removed from her without attracting considerable public attention. Indeed, had such an experiment been made before the Spanish Emperor, and made successfully as the narrative leads us to suppose, a matter so important could hardly have lain dormant for any great length of time: whatever, therefore, Blasco de Garay’s invention may have been, it was evidently not a steam-engine practically applicable for any useful purpose.

Witzen, no doubt, in confirmation of Garay’s experiment, furnishes an illustration of a “Spanish bark without oars or sails,” but as, unfortunately, there is not a single line of letter-press beyond the few words quoted to throw the faintest light upon his drawing, it can only be supposed from the descriptive title that it referred to the vessel which Garay is said to have propelled. Indeed, De Garay’s whole story looks very much as if it was an invention of the Spaniards; Mr. Scott Russell,[16] as well as Mr. MacGregor, is of this opinion, and Mr. Woodcroft, no mean authority on such matters, states that, having made diligent inquiries at Simancas, he could find no trace of these documents, thus confirming the result of the more minute researches of Mr. MacGregor.[17]

About this period, however, frequent mention is made of other modes of propulsion besides those hitherto in use. J. C. Scaliger (who died 1558) published at Frankfort a short notice of a vessel to be propelled without oars. Bourne, in 1578,[18] says, in his own quaint style, “you may make a boate to goe without oares or sayle by the placing of certain wheeles on the outside of the boat in that sort that the armes of the wheeles may go into the water, and so turning the wheeles by some provision, and so the wheeles shall make the boate goe.” I. Bessoni, in 1582, describes a vessel with two prows, or rather two separate vessels attached to each other (not unlike the Castalia, now running between Dover and Calais), between which a frame is suspended on gimbles carrying at its lower end a circular reel worked by ropes and a winch whereby they can be propelled.[19] A. Ramelli, in 1588, furnishes a design of a flat-bottomed boat with a wheel on each side, turned by men working upon a winch handle.[20] Indeed, long before this, the celebrated Roger Bacon (A.D. 1214-1296) speaks of a “vessel which, being almost wholly submerged, would run through the water against waves and winds with a speed greater than that attained by the fastest London pinnaces.”[21] Baptista Porta (the inventor of the magic lantern) published in his “Pneumaticorum Libri Tres,” Naples, 1601, many curious experiments on the power of steam, on its condensation, and on its relative bulk as compared with water. In one of these a vacuum is clearly indicated, the water being forced up by the pressure of the atmosphere from without.

David Rivault, Seigneur de Flurance near Laval, published “Les Éléments de l’Artillerie,” first in 1605 and secondly in 1668—and in this work he describes the power of steam in bursting a strong bomb-shell partly filled with water, tightly plugged, and then heated.

In 1615, Solomon de Caus (Engineer to Louis XIII.) published a treatise (“Les Raisons des Forces Mouvantes”) in which he shows he was well acquainted with the motive power of steam—as, in his fifth theorem, he says, “water will mount by the help of fire higher than its level:” he also shows, by an experiment, how a column of water may be driven up a tube to such a height as will balance the elasticity of the heated air confined in the boiler; and Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” considers that this experiment, though of little practical use, “will make a noble figure in the annals of the steam-engine.”

In 1629, Giovanni Branca, an engineer of Loretto, applied steam to blow against vanes attached to the external rim of a wheel, and, doubtless, machinery with due mechanical contrivances could have been impelled by it. He gives a picture of his machine in “Le Machine,” vol. nuovo, Pl. XXV.

In 1618, David Ramsay obtained a patent for an invention “to make boates for carriages running upon the water as swift in calmes and more safe in storms than boats full sayled in great windes;” and in 1630 he patented a plan “to make boats, ships, and barges to goe against the wind and tide;” and “to raise water from lowe pitts by fire”[22] (the steam-engine).

In 1637, Francis Lin and others patented a plan “to use and exercise upon the River Thames, and any other river within England and Wales, according to their owne way and inventing the sole drauinge and workinge up of all Barges and other vessels without the use of horses;” and, in 1646, Edward Ford proposed a similar plan for the navigation of rivers, and one whereby he could “bring little ships, barges, and vessels in and out of havens without or against any small wynd or tide, and transport souldiers and passengers without or against wynde yf the seas be not rough.”[23]

In 1652 (July 30th), Thomas Grant, Doctor of Physic, obtained a patent “for several instruments, whereof the first is an instrument very profitable when co[~m]on winds fayle for a more speedy passage of calmed shipps or other vessells upon the sea or great rivers, which may be called the wynds māty.”

In the recital of the inventions of the Marquess of Worcester, 8th February, 1661, reference is made to one which was “applicable to make a boat that roweth or letteth, even against wind and stream to any part of the compass which way soever the streame runs or wind blows, and yet the force of the wind or stream causeth its motion.” But though the Marquess has generally had the credit of having applied a power other than manual or animal labour for the purpose of propulsion, it has been doubted from the description of his invention if it was a steam-engine which could be applied to drive a boat.[24]

Petty, in 1663, used a double boat with success.[25] Chamberlaine and Bushnell, in 1678, had also their plans for propelling boats against wind and tide, while Hooke, in 1661, described windmills in which “we have all the main features both of the screw-propeller and feathering wheel.”[26]

From about this period much attention was directed to the use of machinery for propulsion. Morisotus, moreover, who published his views in 1643,[27] speaks of the paddle-wheel as a mode of propelling vessels, known also, as he believed, to the ancients, and states that the simple machinery employed was the same in fact as was in his day used in mining operations in the Spanish Indies. Schefer, in his instructive and interesting work, also makes mention of a remarkable vessel described by Pancirolli (who wrote, in 1587, on naval and military matters) as resembling what he had seen in an old bas-relief of an Illyrian galley, a vessel apparently propelled by wheels similar in character to those in the above wood-cut, from Morisotus.

But, as no such clumsy vessel could have been employed in a seaway, her movements must have been confined to rivers or inland waters. It is just possible that such and similar vessels might at some period have been used for ferrying rivers[28] or lakes. Very extraordinary notions, however, appear to have been propounded about, and subsequently to, this period, and, as a matter of curiosity, I furnish one of these taken from Hollar’s engravings, which does not appear to have been noticed by any writer on this interesting subject. The original engraving, bearing date A.D., 1653, is to be found in the British Museum. Various details[29] are furnished by the inventor.

Besides the detailed explanation of this extraordinary looking craft, which in “length is 72 feet, the height 12, the breadth 8,” there is beneath the print the following description: “The true and perfect form of the strange ship built in Rotterdam, 1653. The inventor of it doth undertake in one day to destroy a hundred ships, it can go from London to Rotterdam and back again in one day, and in six weeks to go to the East Indies, and to run as fast as a bird can fly. No fire, nor storme, nor bullets can hinder her unless it please God. Although the ships mean to be safe in their havens, it is in vain, for she shall come to them in any place. It is impossible for her to be taken unless by treachery, and she cannot be governed by any one but himself” (the inventor?). The motive power is not described, and there is no further trace of the ship, of which the illustration is a vertical section. She was built at the time when the Dutch were in the zenith of their power, and most likely proved as worthless as numerous other inventions since produced, though curious as showing the attention devoted at this period to wheels as a mode of propelling vessels.

However, we find in the records of our own Patent Office, that Englishmen were not behind the Dutch in curious and frequently very absurd inventions. Thus, in 1675, one Miller[30] patented a windmill fixed to a vessel’s deck to turn an endless rope, and thus, by “two toothed wheels,” to drive a couple of paddle-wheels. Such commonplace matters as storms at sea or adverse winds, still less the likelihood of the whole of the top weight he proposed to erect on the deck of his vessels being blown or rolled overboard, do not appear to have entered into the fertile and imaginative brain of the inventor.

Again, in 1701, two gentlemen (whose names are not worth recording) proposed to have “vanes or sails arranged between two wheels on the same shaft,” the “sails or float-boards being so contrived as to be able to play in a given space, being fixed perpendicularly on the wheel and fastened by a cord or otherwise, so that when the wind blows from any quarter three-fourths of the sails catch the wind, and, by driving the wheel round, the sails, which are forced against the wind, come up edgeways, but when past the centre immediately turn to the breeze, and by that means produce a continued circular motion.”[31]

About the same period another invention, of a somewhat similar sort, was published by a person named Phillips, who proposed to erect between two tall masts “a windmill of altogether an original description.”[32] One is reminded when reading these grave proposals, of Don Quixote’s ludicrous exploit with the windmill, and considering the care Mr. Phillips seems to have bestowed upon his invention, he must have been quite as enthusiastic and apparently as serious in his proposal as the hero of Cervantes in his knight-errantry. But all these schemes, and many others too numerous to mention, however impracticable and absurd some of them may have been, had the germ of the great invention more or less developed.

During Papin’s residence in England, 1681, he witnessed one of the interesting experiments made on the Thames, in which a boat constructed from the design of the Prince Palatine Robert, fitted with revolving oars or paddles, “left the King’s barge, manned by sixteen rowers, far astern in the race of trial.” This experiment suggested to him, in 1688, the idea of an engine, and led to his proposal of using gunpowder to create a vacuum under a piston, so that the piston would descend. Two years afterwards, 1690,[33] Papin describes a steam cylinder, in which a piston descends by atmospheric pressure when the steam below it is condensed, and among the subsequent uses of such a machine he mentions the propulsion of ships by “Rames volatiles” or paddle-wheels, the axles of which, he thought, might be turned by several of his cylinders acting alternately by the rack work shown in his drawing.[34]

In 1683, a little before Papin, Sir Samuel Morland, Master of Works to Charles II., wrote a treatise on the “Élévation des Eaux par toutes sortes de Machines,” &c., with four pages appended to it called “The Principles of the New Force of Fire, invented by Samuel Morland in 1682, and presented to His Most Christian Majesty in 1683.” In this work (still in MS. in the Harleian Collection of the British Museum), it is stated that “water being converted into vapour by the force of fire, these vapours shall require a greater space (about 2000 times) than the water occupied, and sooner than be constantly confined would split a piece of cannon.” It is remarkable that, so long before careful experiments had been made on the expansibility of water when converted into vapour, Morland should have given so near an approximation to the true amount (about 1750 times).

Thomas Savery, one of the most ingenious men of the age in which he lived, proposed (1696) a mode of raising water and occasioning motion “to all sorts of mill-work by the impelling force of Fire,” adding,[35] “it may be very useful to ships, but I dare not meddle with that matter, and leave it to the judgement of those who are the best judges of maritime affairs.”[36]

In 1697, Papin (whose own invention had proved a failure) used Savery’s engine, which had been greatly improved by Newcomen in 1705 to propel a steam-boat on the Fulda.[37] In that year, too, Papin proposed to drive a vessel by paddle-wheels turned by the stream, and by boat-hooks which somehow pushed against or griped the bottom.[38] Chabert, in 1710, described a vessel with large paddle-wheels working in troughs cut through the hull;[39] and, in 1721, we read of a galley built in France with revolving oars fastened to a drum or wheel with paddle-vanes on hinges, capable of being set to any angle, and of being worked by 200 men, the galley having three of these wheels on each side.[40] John Allan, in 1722, proposed a mode of navigating a ship, “by forcing water or some other fluid through the stern or hinder part, at a convenient distance under the surface of the water, into the sea, by proper engines placed within the ship.” He also proposed, as Papin had previously done, a machine with the power of “firing gunpowder in clauso,” with the view of navigating a ship in a calm.[41]

In 1736, Jonathan Hulls made some practical progress in the idea so long floating vaguely in the minds of his predecessors, and, on the 23rd December of that year, secured a patent for his invention “of a machine for carrying ships and vessels out of or into any harbour or river against wind and tide or in a calm,” of which the following is a sketch.

His specification[42] described how to drive a paddle-wheel by converting a reciprocating rectilinear motion into a continuous rotary one. But though Hulls’ mode of obtaining a rotary motion was new and ingenious, and would, perhaps, enable a steam-boat in a calm to be moved through the water, moreover is the first steam-boat authentically recorded, it was probably not such as could be made practically useful for the general purposes of commerce, and I have been unable to find any record of this or of any such vessel having been so used. At the same time, it must be added that boats not unlike Hulls’ may now be seen trading in parts of the world remote from each other, as, for instance, on the Murray in South Australia, where various vessels, of which the following is an illustration, are employed, and on the upper Thames where one, at least, to my knowledge is now worked, which does not seem to be any very marked improvement on the boat of Jonathan Hulls.[43]

In 1756, Gauthier, a French mathematician, wrote a treatise on “Navigation by Fire,” which attracted the attention of the Venetian Republic.[44] But whatever merit some of these ingenious discoveries may have possessed, it was not till the 5th January, 1769, when James Watt obtained his patent, that any steam-engine could be effectually adopted in marine propulsion.

Among various other improvements in the steam-engine patented by him, the most important was one for causing the steam to act above the piston, as well as below it, described as the “double impulse,” or, now more commonly called, the double acting engine.[45] On the old principle, when the weight of the atmosphere had pressed down the piston, a valve opened in the bottom of the cylinder whereby a fresh supply of hot steam rushed in from the boiler, which, acting as a pressure in excess of that of the atmosphere above the piston, combined with the weight of the pump rods at the other end of the lever, carried that end down, and of course raised the piston in the steam cylinder. The orifice for the emission of the steam having been then shut, and the cock opened for injecting the cold water into the cylinder, condensation took place, and another vacuum was made below the piston, which was again forced down by the weight of the atmosphere: thus the work was continued as long as water and fuel were supplied, and the steam-engine rendered capable of successful application for pumping purposes, a contrivance used even at the present day.[46] But the method contrived by Watt rendered the power of the engine much more effective by the use of a detached condenser, whereby the cooling of the cylinders by the injection of water was prevented and considerable economy obtained.[47]

Matthew Wasborough, however, an engineer of the city of Bristol, considering that something was still wanting to make the marine engine a proper instrument of propulsion in concurrence with Watt’s improvement of the double acting cylinder, obtained, on the 16th March, 1779, a patent for a practical mode of converting a rectilinear into a continuous circular motion; one of his objects being to adapt his invention “for moving in a direct position any ship or vessel.”[48]

His invention, however, did not answer, and was indeed superseded by that of James Pickard, 23rd August, 1780, who, shortly afterwards entering into partnership with Wasborough, patented a method of working a mill with a rotary motion by means of the present connecting rod and crank and a fly wheel, constituting the second important improvement in the steam-engine, and enabling it to be of really practical service in propelling vessels. In 1781 (25th October), James Watt obtained another patent for his newly invented method of applying the vibrating or reciprocating motion of steam or fire-engines to procure a continued circular motion round an axis so as to turn the wheels of mills or other machines. This invention is known as the “Sun and Planet” motion.[49]

In the same year (1781), the Marquis de Jouffroy is said to have constructed a steam-boat at Lyons 140 feet in length, and to have made with her several successful experiments on the Saone near that city. Mr. MacGregor, however, has made particular inquiries[50] into the authenticity of the claims of the Marquis, and, as no description of the machinery of this vessel is discoverable earlier than that given by himself thirty years afterwards, when he petitioned for the use exclusively of steam-boats for fifteen years, these claims are, to say the least, very questionable, while, in a report on his improvements, the invention is said to be Rumsey’s, but more likely that of his own countryman Gauthier, whose death prevented his plans from being practically exemplified by the Venetian Republic. The French Revolution, however, supervening, the Marquis had not an opportunity of prosecuting his undertaking.

In 1785, Joseph Bramah, a man of great genius, and the inventor of the hydraulic press, obtained a patent for an hydrostatical machine and a boiler on a peculiar principle, in which the power of air, steam, or any other elastic vapour, might be employed for the working of engines. Another of his inventions is a mode of propelling vessels by the improved rotatory engine described in the specification, through the medium of either a paddle-wheel or what may be called a screw-propeller. Bramah shows a vessel with a rudder placed in the bow, and describes in his specification the nature of the “screw-propeller” and of its mode of action in minute and specific terms.[51]

Although there is no record of Bramah having put his proposal into practice, the description lodged by him at the Patent Office is interesting, as showing clearly an indication of the now so well-known screw-propeller. Moreover, in this invention, he obviously intended that steam should be used so as to give circular motion to the propeller shaft. Previously, however, to the time when he patented his invention, the rotatory screw as a mode of propulsion had been proposed by Watt, who, in 1770, suggested the application of a screw-propeller to be turned by a steam-engine.[52]

But more than half a century elapsed before the screw, now in almost general use, was practically applied; indeed, the first authentic record we possess of the marine engine itself having been successfully worked by paddle or any other means on board any vessel, dates no further back than 1787, although, between 1774 and 1790, Fitch and Rumsey were experimenting in America on boats (to which I shall hereafter refer) to work against streams.

In that year (1787) Mr. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton in Scotland, a gentleman of position and fortune, published a pamphlet (given at length by Mr. Woodcroft[53] in his interesting and instructive work on steam navigation, with copies of Mr. Miller’s drawings illustrative of his scheme), on the subject of propelling boats by means of paddle-wheels turned by men, working on a capstan with five bars, each 5 feet long, which drove a water-wheel, having the same object in view as Messrs. Fitch and Rumsey, then engaged on similar works on the other side of the Atlantic.

This wheel, of which the following is a sketch, drove the vessel in a calm from 3 to 4 miles an hour; and, as Mr. Miller judged the capstan the best mode of turning the wheel, he rejected for a time all other modes, believing manual labour so applied more to be depended on than any mechanical contrivances. For the purpose of his experiments he built, from first to last, eight boats of different kinds, expending no less than 30,000l. on them and their machinery. One was a treble vessel, or rather three boats fastened together, of which the following is a transverse representation of the fore part with the lower floats of the wheels at their full dip.