W 
 
 . 
 
University of California Berkeley 
 
 Gift of 
 GEORGE K. OPPENHEIM 
 

T H E 
 
 SCREW PROPELLER: 
 
 WHO INVENTED IT? 
 
 EOBEBT WILSON. F.E.S.E., F.B.S.S.A., 
 
 MI-.S-KS. XA-HYTH, W 
 
 ., BR1D< :EW ATEK FnrXPRY, PATKffR* 
 
 \v Propellers experimented with by the Author fnnu LSI: 1 to If 
 
 "TJtc Introduction of a ntv: art const!'- '.re of an age; ami 1/. reicants </<'' 
 
 i'l not be grudging!.;/ measured out by th$ legal ittaiidurd of merit, 
 
 'ognises on!," ms of routine practice, but should be referred, fo <> higher 
 
 isance of the c' .mounted and the public i , 
 
 in arcord(/,ir mtaneous dictates of plain xtnse and plain ho 
 
 "The Screw Propeller," 1>\- John I'.ourne. ' 
 
 SECOND EDITION, WITH APPENDICES A AND P>. 
 
 GLASGOW: THOMAS MURRAY & SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: ANDREW ELLIOT. 
 LONDON : E. & F. N. SPON, 46 CHARING CROSS. 
 
THE 
 
 SCREW PROPELLER: 
 
 WHO INVENTED ITP 
 
 WITH 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT WILSON, P.E.S.B., F.R.S.S.A., 
 
 OF THE FIRM OK MESSRS. NASMYTH, WILSON, AND CO., BRIDGEWATER FOUNDRY, PATRICROFT, 
 NEAR MANCHESTER. 
 
 Screw Propellers experimented with by the Author from 1819 to 1833. 
 
 "The introduction of a new art constitutes a salient feature of an age ; and the rewards due 
 to such an achievement should not be grudgingly measured out by the tegal standard of merit, 
 which recognises only the conditions of routine practice, but should be referred to a higher 
 tribunal, -which, taking cognisance of the difficulties surmounted and the public benefits conferred, 
 should decide in accordance with the spontaneous dictates of plain sense and plain honesty." 
 " The Screw Propeller," by John Bourne, C.E. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, WITH APPENDICES A AND B. 
 
 GLASGOW: THOMAS MURRAY AND SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: ANDREW ELLIOT. 
 LONDON: E. & F. N. SPON, 46 CHARING CROSS. 
 
 MDCCCLXXX. 
 
TO THE 
 
 SccrtttBh Sacutj) 0f JUts 
 
 AND THE 
 
 anb ^grkultural 0detg of ccrtkmb, 
 
 THE EARLIEST ENCOURAGERS OP MY EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER, 
 
 THE FOLLOWING PAGES, IN TESTIMONY OF GRATITUDE, 
 
 AND OF MY HUMBLE APPRECIATION OF THEIR INVALUABLE AID 
 
 IN THE CAUSE OF SCIENCE. 
 
 ROBERT WILSON. 
 
 Et,LESMERE HOUSE, 
 
 PATRICROFT, MANCHESTER. 
 
PREFATOKY NOTE. 
 
 THE first Edition of this Pamphlet being exhausted, I, at the 
 request of friends, have consented to the publication of this 
 second Edition, to which has been added the Opinions of the 
 Press. 
 
 I have also added an Appendix, at page 55, as to my 
 improvements of the Fish Torpedo. The Government, in 
 acknowledgment of these improvements, recently awarded me 
 
 Five Hundred Pounds. 
 
 R. W. 
 
 October, 1880. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 STEAM NAVIGATION, which has done so much for the prosperity of 
 Nations and the grandeur of Britain, has called forth many Inven- 
 tions, and amongst the most important of them is the SCREW 
 PROPELLER. 
 
 This Invention, AS THE MOST SUITABLE FOR PROPELLING SHIPS 
 OF WAR AND OTHER OCEAN STEAMERS, Ijclaim as my OWN, and I am 
 confident I shall be able to establish by documentary evidence THAT 1 
 NOT ONLY INVENTED, AND TESTED ON THE SEA BEFORE COMMITTEES OF 
 THE HIGHLAND SOCIETY AND SOCIETY OF ARTS, AND AT GREAT PER- 
 SONAL SACRIFICES USED ALL THE MEANS IN MY POWER TO INTRODUCE 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER FOR OCEAN NAVIGATION LONG BEFORE MR. 
 SMITH, the Patentee, (who has reaped the honours and rewards of 
 the Invention,) HAD EVEN HIS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO THE SUBJECT; 
 
 AND THAT THE SCREW MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE NAVY AS 
 EARLY AS 1827, TO THE SAVING OF MILLIONS fOF THE PUBLIC MONEY. 
 
 In that year the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty refused 
 to countenance my Invention, though recommended to their 
 notice by the Right Honourable the Earl of Lauderdale; and 
 again in 1833 they rejected it because, (to quote from the official 
 Report of the Officers of Woolwich Dockyard ; *) " it involved a 
 greater loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels 
 to the side" a decision which (as the Secretary of the Royal 
 Scottish Society of Arts expressed it) "just resolved itself into a 
 preference to side paddles over the screw or stern paddles." t 
 
 It may be asked why I have not earlier advanced my claims. 
 To this I reply, that when in 1855 much was being said about 
 Mr. Smith as the originator of the screw propeller, I received 
 many friendly and pressing letters urging me to claim a share of 
 the merit of the Invention. I, however, found upon examining my 
 papers, that the official Report of 1833, by the Officers of Woolwich 
 
 * See Report, p. 36. t Excerpt from Letter to Mr. Wilson. 
 
6 
 
 Dockyard, was amissing ; and that this document seemed to me of 
 essential importance to the establishment of my claim, is evidenced 
 by the fact, that I wrote at the time to the Secretary of the Royal 
 Society of Arts, the late James Tod, Esq., W.S., asking the favour 
 of his applying to the Admiralty for a copy of it, which with his 
 usual courtesy he at once did, but the following correspondence 
 will show that his application was unsuccessful : 
 
 LITTER I. JAMES TOD, Esq., to ROBERT WILSON. 
 
 EDINBURGH, 55 GREAT KINO STREKT, 
 
 Mr. ROBERT WILSON, 1* December, 1855. 
 
 Low Moor Iron Works, 
 
 Near Bradford, Yorkshire. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 I have your letter of the 29th ult. From the letter of mine to 
 the late Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, 24th January, 1833, 1 observe that 
 it was proposed to transmit the Society's account of the experiments 
 made under their inspection with your " Stern Paddles" or Screw, to 
 Captain the Honourable George Elliot, Secretary of the Admiralty, 
 with a recommendatory letter from the Solicitor- General, which letter 
 should be signed also by Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, as convener of the 
 Experimenting Committee, as also by Vice-Admiral Sir David Milne, 
 Sir John Sinclair, and any other influential person acquainted with the 
 subject ; that this letter, together with copies of the papers read before 
 the Society, with relative drawings and report of the Committee, should 
 be transmitted to Captain Elliot, with a private letter of recommenda- 
 tion from the Solicitor- General. 
 
 Now, from the great interest Sir John Sinclair took in this matter, 
 and from his having received a letter on the subject from the Duke of 
 Richmond, and from the circumstance of my finding, in my letter-book, 
 my correspondence with him and Sir Thomas Dick Lauder on the 
 subject of your invention, but no letter to Captain Elliot, I am inclined 
 to think that the papers must have been transmitted to the Admiralty 
 either by Sir John Sinclair, or by Admiral Fleming ; to the latter of 
 whom, as shown by the letter you send me from the Admiralty of 18th 
 September, 1833, they would appear to have been returned along with 
 the report by the Officers of the Woolwich Dockyard. 
 
 I have written to the present Secretary to the Admiralty, the letter, 
 of which copy is enclosed, requesting him to furnish me with another 
 copy of that report, and if I get it you may depend on my forwarding 
 it to you. 
 
I should be exceedingly well pleased to see your merits recognised 
 as the original inventor of the " Screw Propeller," 
 And am, etc., 
 
 (Signed) JAMES TOD, Secretary. 
 
 LETTER II. JAMES TOD, Esq., to the SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY 
 above referred to. 
 
 ROYAL SCOTTISH SOCIETY OF ARTS, 
 EDINBURGH, 55 GREAT KING STREET, 1st December, 1855. 
 SIR, 
 
 In the year 1833, they were transmitted to the Admiralty reports 
 by the Society of Arts in Scotland (now the Royal Scottish Society of 
 Arts), detailing the experiments performed in Leith Roads, under the 
 Society's superintendence, with Rolen Wilsons Stern Paddles or Screw, 
 and recommending their Lordships to try it on a larger scale, as being 
 in the Society's opinion an invention of great importance both for the 
 Royal Navy and Commercial Marine. 
 
 I believe it was recommended to the consideration of the Lords of 
 the Admiralty by the late Sir John Sinclair, Bart., the late Admiral Sir 
 David Milne, the late Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, the Solicitor-General, 
 and others. 
 
 By a letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty, addressed to Vice- 
 Admiral the Honourable C. E. Fleming, dated 18th September, 1833, 
 which is now before me, I observe that their Lordships had referred 
 the documents sent them to the Officers of Woolwich Yard, and that 
 these documents were returned to Admiral Fleming, with a copy of 
 their Report thereon. 
 
 That letter came into the possession of Mr. Wilson, the inventor, and 
 he is very desirous of having a copy of the Report, by the Officers of 
 Woolwich Yard, referred to in the letter. He has accordingly requested 
 me to apply to you for a copy of that Report, which I will take it kind 
 of you to transmit to me as Secretary of said Society, as Mr. Wilson is 
 not aware where the original copy is to be found, which was sent to 
 Admiral Fleming. 
 
 I have the honour, etc , 
 
 (Signed) JAMES TOD, Secretary, 
 Royal Scottish Society of Arts. 
 
 LETTER III. Mr. TOD, in Reply by the SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY. 
 
 ADMIRALTY, I8tk December, 1855. 
 SIR, 
 
 In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting to be supplied 
 with a copy of the Report by the Officers of Woolwich Dockyard in 1833 
 
8 
 
 on Mr. Wilson's invention of Stern Paddles or Screw, I am commanded 
 by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that their 
 Lordships cannot comply with your request. 
 
 I am, etc., 
 
 (Signed) THOMAS PHINN. 
 
 Shortly after this I had the good fortune to discover the missing 
 Report, but my numerous engagements at that time, and a strong 
 personal disinclination to obtrude myself on public notice, will 
 account for my delay in taking further steps. It is only now, 
 after mature consideration, I have come to think that, in justice 
 to the Scottish Societies, as well as to the noblemen and gentlemen 
 after mentioned, and to myself, and in deference to the wishes of 
 my friends, I should no longer remain silent. I shall, however, 
 confine myself almost exclusively to a simple narrative of facts, 
 and leave the public to draw their own inferences as to the 
 credit to be given thereto. I will show that the idea of the 
 screw propeller took posession of my mind as early as 1808, and 
 subsequently cost me much labour and expense; that after many 
 discouragements, my invention attracted public notice, ; that in 
 1827 the Earl of Lauderdale brought it before the Admiralty, 
 in order to have its merits tested on a large scale, but failed to 
 impress upon the Lords Commissioners of that department the 
 importance of it; that in 1828 the Highland Society of Scotland 
 reported highly of my invention, and after a series of experiments 
 made in Leith Roads, with a boat fitted with my screw propellers, 
 voted me a grant; that in 1832 another series of experiments was 
 made in Leith Roads, with a boat fitted with my screw propellers 
 or, as they were then called, revolving sculls under the auspices 
 and at the expense of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, and 
 that the Council awarded to me a silver medal for the invention ; 
 that in the following year, 1833, the last-named Society sent a 
 report of the experiments, and the whole of the machinery with 
 which these experiments were made, and relative documents to the 
 Admiralty; and that, as already stated, the officers of the Dockyard 
 thereupon condemned the screw as objectionable, without even giving 
 it a trial, and that nine years after my first efforts to introduce the 
 screw propeller, I was obliged, owing to this second Government 
 repulse, to stand aside and see the fruits of the labour of years pass 
 
away from me, in consequence of Mr. Smith (who does not appear to 
 have known anything of the screw until 1835) having found friends 
 with sufficient confidence in the invention, to advance the means for 
 obtaining a patent, and, supported by public opinion, having got the 
 Government a few years afterwards to adopt the screw propeller. 
 
 Over the merit due to Mr. Smith as patentee, and for the spirit 
 with which his idea was carried out, I desire not to throw even 
 the shadow of detraction ; but looking to the immense advantages 
 which have resulted from the introduction of the screw propeller,* 
 I trust that neither scientific men nor the public will refuse to 
 give a candid consideration to my claim as prior inventor of the 
 screw propeller for Ocean Navigation. 
 
 That truth in regard to the early history of screw propulsion is 
 apt to be lost sight of, will sufficiently appear from the fact, that 
 in a paper issued in 1850 by the Steam Department of the 
 Admiralty, it is stated that a Report (dated May 2, 1840, and 
 signed " E. Chappell, Captain," and " T. Lloyd ") in regard to the 
 Archimedes screw vessel, that Mr. Smith's patent " was the first 
 official one made to the Board on the subject of screw propulsion ! " 
 whilst, on the contrary, it is certain that there was an official 
 Report on this subject (a copy of which will be found at page 36), 
 rejecting the screw propeller as invented by me, as early as 1833 ! 
 Again, in Mr. Bourne's work on the screw propeller the best 
 authority on the subject extant it is stated that amongst the 
 screws exhibited by Mr. Smith at the Great Exhibition, was " the 
 actual propeller used by Mr. Smith in his experimental Boat, of 
 six horse power, in 1836-37, on the Paddington Canal, and with 
 which he performed the first sea trip ever made with a screw 
 propeller!!" whereas the fact is that, in April, 1828, in the 
 presence of Vice-Admiral Sir David Milne, and many others, a 
 Boat fitted with my propellers accomplished a trip in a heavy sea, 
 carrying at the same time seven individuals (see page 25), and 
 attained an average speed of ten miles an hour. Surely in the 
 face of such errors as these the actual truth should be proclaimed. 
 
 * For Evidences of Advantages up to 1856, see Appendix A, p. 48. 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 FOR the sake of perspicuity, and to facilitate reference, it will be 
 advisable to narrate the history of iny connection with the screw 
 propeller under the following heads and dates : 
 
 1808-1812. First thoughts on Screw Propulsion.* Page 11. 
 
 1812-1825. Discovery of the Screw Propeller Minor Model 
 made Experiments, etc. Page 13. 
 
 1825-1827. Larger Model made Testing Screw Comparative 
 Trials of Screw and Side Paddles.* Page 18. 
 
 1827-1828. The Right Hon. Earl of Lauderdale brings invention 
 before Government, and it is rejected Invention 
 brought before Dunbar Mechanics' Institution 
 Noticed in Edinburgh newspapers, etc.* Page 21. 
 
 1828-1832. Experiments before Highland Society of Scotland on 
 the Union Canal, and at Leith on the open sea 
 Society's Report. Page 24. 
 
 1832-1833. Experiments at Sea by the Society of Arts Their 
 report, and prize awarded. Page 28. 
 
 1833-1836. Society of Arts brings invention before Admiralty 
 Again rejected Official Report (Page 33) of 
 Officers of Woolwich Dockyard Correspondence, 
 Duke of Richmond's Letter Mr. Smith patents a 
 Screw Propeller Contrast between Mr. Smith and 
 myself. Page 38. 
 
 Concluding Remarks Captain Ericsson's Invention, etc. Page 40. 
 
 * Nearly all the incidents mentioned under these three heads can be 
 spoken to by parties now living, many of them still residing in Dunbar. 
 
11 
 
 1808-1812. FIRST THOUGHTS ON SCREW PROPULSION. 
 
 In 1808, I resided at my native place, Dunbar (a sea-port on 
 
 the east coast of Scotland), and as I spent a great part of my time 
 
 in aquatic amusements, and as my father was connected with the 
 
 mercantile marine service, everything associated with the sea was 
 
 to me specially interesting. In that year, and therefore long before 
 
 the introduction of even side paddles for sea voyages, an ingenious 
 
 private soldier (a native of Lanarkshire and a blacksmith by 
 
 trade), then with his regiment quartered at Dunbar, fitted out a 
 
 small fishing-boat with a pair of side paddles, probably for the 
 
 purpose of showing their superiority over the ordinary pulling oars 
 
 (of which side paddles may be said to be as much a modification as 
 
 the screw propeller is of the sculling oar), and so quickly was the 
 
 boat propelled in smooth water by the paddle wheels, that it was 
 
 found the pulling oars with the application of the same amount of 
 
 manual power could not compete with them. On a second trial, 
 
 however, this time beyond the pier-head on the open sea, the 
 
 change of circumstances was accompanied by adverse results, as 
 
 the side paddles could not then compete with the pulling oars. The 
 
 reason was obvious to those who witnessed the experiment, namely, 
 
 that on account of the agitation of the water's surface, which on 
 
 the open sea is seldom or never so smooth as in a harbour, river, 
 
 or lake, the floats of the paddle wheels were either too deep in the 
 
 water, and therefore choked, or nearly out of it and doing little 
 
 more than skimming its surface, and thus producing little or no 
 
 effect, and incapable of making headway against the wind and 
 
 waves. The experiment clearly showed that his side paddles 
 
 were not suitable for the open sea, or where the surface of 
 
 the water was much agitated. I witnessed the experiments 
 
 and the failure, and being an adept in sculling,* and moreover, 
 
 * This art of sculling, i.e., propelling a boat by an oar at the stern, is 
 quite familiar to all acquainted with boating. It may be mentioned that 
 in China at this day junks are propelled by a long oar, fitted on a pivot at 
 the stern, and worked by several Chinese, six being a common number ; 
 side oars being frequently used at the same time. Hooke, speaking in 
 1684 of the method of rowing ancient galleys, states that the oars were 
 moved, not vibrating backwards and forwards and being lifted out of the 
 water at each stroke as oars now are, but inwards and outwards as in 
 sculling, the oar being held at the side, almost perpendicular, and conse- 
 quently always immersed. 
 
12 
 
 having what people call " an inventive turn of mind," the 
 idea occurred to me that if anything like the oar used in the 
 process of sculling could be fitted to the stem of boats and 
 ships, and worked by machinery, such a contrivance would be free 
 from the objections attaching to side paddles, seeing that the 
 sculling oar not only went deep into the water when in action, but 
 fish-tail-like went forward with the boat whilst in the act of pro- 
 pelling, and therefore did not require to be lifted out of the water 
 to obtain a new hold, and was not affected so much as the pulling 
 oar by the agitation of the water. The question, however, as to 
 how the sculling oar was to be modified, so as to be driven by a 
 constant motion like that applied to the paddle wheels, seemed to 
 me at that time difficult to determine, as I was little acquainted 
 with even the rudiments of mechanics, and the means within my 
 reach were not such as could render me much assistance. 
 
 Two years passed away from the time of my witnessing the 
 experiments with the side paddles, and when my desire to over- 
 come the difficulty which presented itself to their use on the rough 
 sea had grown stronger with time, an event happened which for a 
 while turned my thoughts to graver concerns. This was the death 
 of my father, who, after having assisted in the Dunbar life-boat 
 in twice reaching the wreck of the " Pallas " Government Frigate 
 (which was cast ashore near Dunbar in December, 1810), and 
 thereby rescuing many of the crew, lost his life in a third attempt 
 to save the remainder. Although the change of residence of my 
 family, which followed this occurrence, separated me in some mea- 
 sure from my old pursuits, and prevented indulgence in my favourite 
 pastime of boating, my thoughts, after a time, returned into their 
 old channel, and I became as eager as before to solve the problem 
 of how to modify the sculling oar to the purpose I had in view. 
 At length, to my great satisfaction, I was led to a solution of the 
 problem in a way very unexpected. 
 
 1812-1825. DISCOVERY OF THE SCREW PROPELLER MINOR 
 MODEL MADE EXPERIMENTS, ETC. 
 
 When on a visit in the country, my attention was arrested by 
 a running stream acting upon an undershot water wheel, a piece 
 
13 
 
 of machinery I had never before seen. In this wheel I at once 
 recognised a great similarity of construction to that of the paddle 
 wheels of the soldier's boat before referred to. This caused me to 
 examine the water wheel carefully, and I found that the only 
 difference worthy of notice was in the action being reversed that 
 is, the water acted upon the wheel instead of the wheel upon the 
 water, and thus gave motion and power to drive the machinery 
 in the mill; while, in the case of the paddle wheels, they were 
 driven by a separate power which, acting upon the water, pro- 
 pelled the boat. This discovery, simple as it may seem, ultimately 
 led by further investigations (hereafter detailed) to an easy solu- 
 tion of my problem. 
 
 Shortly afterwards, while taking a walk in a different part of 
 East Lothian, I saw, on the farm of Oxwellmains, a wind-mill 
 used for thrashing corn, and, on inquiry, I learnt that it reefed 
 and unreefed its own sails, and turned its face always towards 
 the wind all by self-action or mechanical self-control. 
 
 How this was effected I determined to discover; and a few 
 days after I again returned to Oxwellmains, taking with me a 
 small telescope to enable me more closely to examine the 
 mechanical arrangement of the wind-mill. The mill was not 
 working, and I had, therefore, a better opportunity of studying 
 it. I lay down on the grass field in front of it, so as to use 
 my knee as a rest for the telescope, and in this position, while 
 engaged in wonder and admiration, trying to follow and account 
 for the various motions which I knew the mill to have, an idea 
 suddenly occurred to me, which rendered it perfectly clear in 
 what way I could modify the sculling oar, so as to make it serve 
 as a means of propelling a vessel. This was by putting it in the 
 form of a wind wheel, such as that I had before me, which I saw 
 embodied the very principle I had been in search of being 
 capable of adaptation for performing all the functions necessary 
 for perfect action under water. It was now plain to me that, 
 as the paddle wheel represented the undershot water wheel witli 
 its action reversed, so would also the modification of the sculling 
 oar be in like manner a representation of the wind wheel with 
 its action reversed; and as this wind wheel was acted upon by 
 the medium (the atmosphere) in which it was wholly immersed, 
 
H 
 
 with equal force on each blade or arm during the whole of each 
 revolution so would each blade of the new revolving sculls act 
 upon the water with equal force, if entirely immersed, during 
 the whole of each revolution, and be little liable to be materially 
 affected by agitation of the surface, which had so much affected 
 the success of the soldier's experiments with the side paddles. 
 
 I therefore concluded that revolving sculls would be specially 
 applicable to ocean propulsion, and I determined to make the 
 demonstration of this opinion the object of my ambition. My 
 energies, however, were cramped for a considerable time, owing 
 to the want of the necessary means to 
 carry out my ideas; but a small model 
 in wood, with a set of four blades (Fig. 
 1), or revolving sculls, was made, and 
 found to act as perfectly under water 
 as I had seen the wind wheel do in the 
 air. This, and similar subjects, gave 
 sketch of the first Model of the my mind a more decided turn for 
 
 revolving sculls made of wood. , . , ., , 
 
 mechanical pursuits; but, as no opening 
 
 could be found in any local engineering establishment, and as I 
 had arrived at an age at which it was necessary to learn a trade, 
 I was bound apprentice to a joiner and cabinetmaker. While thus 
 en a g e ^> I amused myself with various inventions. One of these 
 was a horizontal wind wheel, which seemed to possess so much 
 power as a prime mover, that I thought it would answer to drive 
 my new propellers, so that a vessel might run in any direction, 
 and even against the wind. With this idea, a model vessel, 
 about two-and-a-half feet in length, was constructed and fitted 
 with a set of propellers (Fig. 2), and with a wind wheel 
 
 Scale l-6th of Model. 
 
 Model about 2 ft. 6 in. long and 6 in. broad, 1819 to 
 1821 and 1825, with clock-work. 
 
15 
 
 to drive them; but I found that the model made no head- 
 way against the wind, and the scheme was therefore considered 
 a failure. Driving by wind-power, however, was not the 
 principal object I had in view, and not being at that time 
 sufficiently conversant with the steam engine, or any other prime 
 mover likely to suit the purpose of driving the propellers, they 
 were laid aside until 1821, when the "Tourist" steamer (fitted 
 out for the Leith and Aberdeen Steam Boat Company by Mr 
 Gutzmer of Leith) made her first series of sea voyages between 
 Leith and London. In one of these trips, and when the vessel 
 was off Dunbar, her steam-power was put to a severe test, owing 
 to her having to encounter what is termed by the sailors, a ground- 
 swell, that is, a heavy rolling sea unaccompanied by wind, and 
 consequently very dangerous for vessels near the shore. Great 
 fears were entertained for the vessel's safety, more especially as 
 most people considered at that time that a steam voyage to London 
 was little less than a tempting of Divine Providence.* The vessel 
 was seen to roll from side to side, and at every roll to go almost 
 on her beam ends; and as her paddles were alternately high in 
 the air and buried in the water, the steam-power was to a great 
 extent rendered useless. This spectacle gave me fresh energy, as 
 I considered that the screw propeller (or revolving sculls) would 
 have been much better for such a vessel, and that, with such a 
 propeller and sufficient power, a steam boat might not only 
 encounter a ground-swell without much inconvenience, but be 
 safer in a storm than a paddle steamer or sailing vessel. I accord- 
 ingly gave my screw the name of " Bough Sea or Storm Paddles," 
 in contradistinction to side paddles, which I considered only suit- 
 able for smooth water, lake, or river navigation. In 1821, after 
 making a number of experiments with the propeller, Fig. 2, I had 
 to leave the coast to pursue my trade, and the subject again rested 
 for a time. 
 
 * It is well known that Scotland was the first to solve the problem of 
 steam navigation. The first sea voyage by steam and paddles was from 
 Greenock to Belfast, in 1818, by the Rob Roy steam vessel. It is not 
 surprising therefore that in 1821 people had little faith in steam boats for 
 a sea voyage. 
 
16 
 
 1825-1827. LARGER MODEL MADE TESTING SCREW COMPARA- 
 TIVE TRIALS OF SCREW AND SlDE PADDLES. 
 
 During my absence, my leisure time was frequently occupied in 
 my favourite pursuits, and, on my return to Dunbar, four years after- 
 wards, I made another model, and fitted it with a propeller driven by 
 Fig. a. clock-work, moved by a strong main- 
 
 spring of a time-piece. At first I used 
 four blades, as Fig. a, in imitation of 
 the wind-mill, already mentioned, so 
 arranged that each blade was equal to 
 about the eighth part of a whole turn 
 of a four-threaded screw. Thinking, 
 End view. Side view, however, a still greater surface would 
 
 be an improvement, four additional blades of the same proportions 
 were introduced, but the disadvantage of this arrangement I found 
 so great that the number was* immediately reduced to the original 
 four; and after numerous experiments with blades at various 
 angles or pitches, and of different breadths, a further reduction 
 Fig. b. was made in the number of blades, 
 
 the power being reduced in about the 
 same proportion, this being accom- 
 plished by increasing the number of 
 turns of the propeller for each winding 
 up of the spring. Three blades (Fig. b) 
 wer^ first tried, with nearly a corres- 
 End view. Side view, ponding reduction of power, when the 
 advantage seemed so obvious as to induce a still further reduction 
 to two blades (Fig. c,) with a corresponding lessening of power. 
 Fig. c. It was then found that with the same proportion 
 
 of blade as when four were used, and the 
 power reduced one-half, or nearly so, the pro- 
 pellers making about double the number of turns 
 each winding up of the spring, the model not only 
 went as fast as with four blades, but nearly double 
 the distance. A great many experiments were then 
 End view, side view, made with the two-bladed screw, the vanes being 
 set at various angles or pitches, and made of different breadths, but 
 
17 
 
 none of the blades which were tried by me exceeded one-sixth of a 
 whole turn of a screw, as at that breadth they were found not to give 
 such favourable results as with a less breadth; also 
 several experiments with the inner part of the 
 blades cut away to a sharp twisted arm (Fig. d,) 
 the arm part being set with a twist corresponding 
 to the speed of the model, or rather to the slip of 
 the screw. This was found to be a great improve- 
 ment, and with this kind of blade all the sub- 
 sequent experiments were made, with the favour- 
 able results hereafter detailed. 
 
 It may be proper here to mention that, in some of the first experi- 
 ments, the propeller was placed in front of the rudder, as Fig. 3, and 
 
 Stern. Fig. 3. Side view. 
 
 Fig. d. 
 
 1821 to 1825, with clock-work. 
 
 entirely under water, as Fig. 2 (the rudder being hung on a second 
 or false stern-post), but the results were not so favourable as with 
 the propeller behind the rudder, as Fig. 2 ;* the stuffing-box, how- 
 ever, in both cases, through which the propeller shaft worked, gave 
 so much trouble and annoyance, by the water leaking through it 
 (the power being much reduced when all was made tight), that it 
 was resolved to make some fresh experiments with the shaft above 
 the water-line, so as to avoid the annoyance of the leakage, which 
 moreover injured the clock-work. 
 
 Seeing, at the same time, that by using two propellers instead of 
 one, and running in opposite directions, they would balance the 
 oblique action of each other, as the opposite blades do with one pro- 
 
 * Mr. Jack, engineer, Liverpool, informed the author, after reading his 
 pamphlet, that he was much struck by reading these remarks, as he had 
 found in shifting the propeller to behind the rudder the speed of three or 
 four vessels had been increased about one-seventh, or from seven to eight 
 knots per hour. 
 
18 
 
 peller wholly immersed, and by having them double the diameter 
 of the single one, they would be double the pitch with the same 
 angle at the periphery or outer end of the blade, and so would give 
 the same propelling power with half the number of revolutions, a 
 model of about 3 feet long was made and fitted with screw pro- 
 pellers thus arranged, Fig. 4, and so satisfactory were the results, 
 that the subsequent experiments were made with the propellers on 
 this plan, though it was clear that for Ships of War, if not for all 
 Ocean Steamers, it would be necessary, as in the first experiments, 
 to have the propellers entirely under water, as Figs. 2 or 3, proper 
 means being devised to keep the water out without loss of power. 
 
 In order thoroughly to prove my position, and leave nothing 
 untried as far as my means would allow, and so as not to venture 
 before the public unprepared, I fitted out the same model with a 
 pair of side paddles of the best proportions the experience of that 
 day pointed out, Fig. 5 ; but in order to get a satisfactory trial, so as 
 to make a fair comparison of the merits of the one system with the 
 other, I considered it necessary either to cause the model to run the 
 same distance with both plans each time the spring was wound up, 
 or to so adjust the motion of the machinery and connect it with 
 the shaft of the screw, as also with that of the side paddles, as that 
 the model would be propelled at the same speed whether with the 
 one or the other, when the water was perfectly smooth, and no wind 
 to influence the motion of the model. 
 
 I determined eventually to carry out the latter idea, viz., to 
 obtain the same speed with both systems, and simple as this may 
 appear, it turned out to be a work of great labour and requiring 
 much perseverance ; for each alteration required additional experi- 
 ments, and as those experiments had to be made when there was 
 no wind and the water perfectly smooth, it necessarily required a 
 considerable time to get anything like the exact speed with both 
 systems ; especially as I had no opportunity of making experiments 
 except on an exposed sheet of water, and the slightest breeze or 
 ripple on the surface acted much against the side paddles, while it 
 did not seem in the least degree to affect the action of the screw 
 propellers. 
 
 Had this not been the case these experiments would have been 
 anything but encouraging, for when the water was perfectly smooth 
 
21 
 
 the side paddles propelled the model fully one-half farther, or more 
 than one and a half times as far as the screw propellers did, that is 
 for each time the spring was wound up ; but when circumstances 
 were changed, and the surface of the water was in the least degree 
 agitated, the speed of the model with the side paddles was not only 
 reduced, but the distance passed over was also much below that 
 travelled with the screw or stern paddles, while the latter in this 
 slightly-agitated state of the water did not appear to be affected 
 either as to speed or distance. When the water was so rough as 
 to act on the model like a storm at sea on a vessel of greater 
 magnitude, the side paddles, either with a side or head sea, were 
 rendered entirely useless, and the model drifted with the wind and 
 waves without making any headway. But with the screw pro- 
 peller the result was widely different. Even under these circum- 
 stances the model was driven more than two-thirds the distance 
 along which it was moved in perfectly smooth water, and with a 
 side sea or wind upon the beam, the model with the screw propeller 
 ran nearly the same distance as it did in perfectly smooth water, 
 while with side paddles, under these circumstances, it made no 
 headway at all.* 
 
 This was the triumph I expected to obtain, and farther, as the 
 surface of the ocean is seldom what may be termed perfectly smooth, 
 I was convinced that, even in fine weather, the screw propeller 
 would be a match for the side paddles on the open sea. 
 
 1827-1828. THE RIGHT HON. EARL OF LAUDERDALE BRINGS 
 INVENTION BEFORE GOVERNMENT AND IT is REJECTED INVEN- 
 TION BROUGHT BEFORE DuNBAR MECHANICS' INSTITUTION 
 
 NOTICED IN EDINBURGH NEWSPAPERS, ETC. 
 
 I have thus traced, down to 1827, the current of my thoughts 
 in regard to the screw propeller, as far as I can recall them to 
 memory. These thoughts, and the multitudinous experiments, to 
 many of which I have alluded, it will be seen occupied more or 
 less attention and labour for nineteen years. Amidst the struggles 
 
 * When the side paddles were used, the screw propellers were unshipped, 
 and when the screw propellers were used, the side j addles were unshipped. 
 
22 
 
 and occupation of humble life it was impossible* to devote that 
 constant and unceasing attention to my invention which I should 
 have done bad my time been more at my own disposal. I had at 
 first pursued the object alone and unknown, but as my ideas began 
 to develop themselves, some gentlemen of influence, who were 
 kind enough to witness many of my experiments, gave me fresh 
 energy by their valued approbation, and jl [began to realise the 
 importance of the discovery I had made, andjto look forward to 
 the thanks I should receive from men of science, if my labours 
 were brought to a practical and successful termination. 
 
 In 1827, I was introduced to the late James Hunter, Esq., of 
 Thurston, President of the Dunbar Mechanics' Institution, of which 
 I was a member. This gentleman interested himself in everything 
 he considered deserving of encouragement, and in my invention in 
 particular, for he took every opportunity of forwarding my views. 
 By Mr. Hunter, I was introduced to the Earl of Lauderdale, who 
 was supposed to have great influence with the Government and 
 the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. After the invention 
 had been fully explained to his Lordship, he requested his son, 
 the Hon. Captain Antony Maitland, then captain of the " Glasgow " 
 frigate, to accompany me with my model to a sheet of water in the 
 neighbourhood, and report the results of the experiments to his 
 Lordship, in order that he might use his influence with the 
 Admiralty, if the invention appeared to be worthy of notice. Sir 
 William Houston, and several of the leading members of the 
 Dunbar Mechanics' Institution, accompanied the Captain. The 
 day was very favourable for the trial, and the merit of the stern 
 paddles or revolving sculls (as they were then called) over the side 
 paddles was most apparent, so much so that all present expressed 
 themselves delighted with the results of the experiments, and 
 Captain Maitland, as well as Sir Wm. Houston, promised to give 
 the Earl a full account of what they had seen. 
 
 The following morning my attendance was requested at his 
 Lordship's residence, Dunbar House, when he expressed himself 
 highly satisfied with the report, and promised to do all he could 
 with the Government and the Lords of the Admiralty to have the 
 principle tested on a large scale, in order that the merits of the 
 invention might be taken advantage of for the public service. His 
 
23 
 
 Lordship was convinced the invention was worthy of immediate 
 attention and investigation ; but, at the same time, for reasons he 
 then gave, he expressed to his son a doubt as to whether all the 
 influence he could bring to bear would be sufficient to move the 
 Lords of the Admiralty to action in the matter. I was, however, 
 sanguine enough to suppose that, as the Earl had taken up the 
 matter warmly, and seemed determined to leave no stone unturned 
 on his part to bring the invention into notice, there was no fear 
 of success ; but, to my great astonishment and regret, and in the 
 face of the noble Earl's influence, the Lords of the Admiralty 
 declined even to witness the experiments with my model, or to 
 take any notice whatever of the invention. After this, I deter- 
 mined to make my invention publicly known, for, although many 
 persons had witnessed the experiments with the model, as yet no 
 public notice had been taken of them. However, on the 18th 
 October, 1827, a record was made in the minute-book of the Dunbar 
 Mechanics' Institution, of which the following is an extract : 
 
 " Mr. Robert Watson presented to the meeting two models invented 
 by Mr. Robert Wilson (member of this Institution) the first, a Hori- 
 zontal Wind Wheel ; the second, a Model with an Apparatus for Pro- 
 pelling Steam Vessels from the Stern, a kind of Revolving Scull. By it 
 the vessel goes with greater speed than with side paddles, and produces 
 so little motion of the water as to fit it admirably for canal navigation. 
 About three months ago, this model, with the apparatus attached, was 
 tried on the water in the presence of the Honourable Captain Antony 
 Maitland and Sir William Houston, as well as several leading members 
 of this Institution," etc. 
 
 (Signed) WILLIAM ROBERTSON, Secretary. 
 
 About the end of the same year, 1827, some of the newspapers 
 adverted to the matter. Thus, the Edinburgh Mercury of 29th 
 December, 1827, had this paragraph : 
 
 " New Invention. In our paper of Monday, we mentioned that Mr. 
 Robert Wilson of Dunbar had invented a new method of propelling 
 steam vessels ; we have since had the satisfaction of examining the 
 model which he has constructed, and, so far as we are able to judge, 
 we consider it as completely adapted to the objects of the ingenious 
 inventor particularly that of giving to canals the advantage of steam 
 navigation." 
 
24 
 
 1828-1832. EXPERIMENTS BEFORE HIGHLAND SOCIETY OF 
 SCOTLAND SOCIETY'S KEPORTS, ETC. 
 
 In 1828, Mr. Hunter, still confident of the importance of the 
 invention, determined to make another effort to have its merits 
 properly tested, and applied to the Highland Society (of which he 
 was a member), to prevail on the Council to order a trial on a 
 large scale, with a view to the application of the principle at least 
 to steam boats on canals.* For this purpose, early in 1828, I was 
 requested to attend at the Society's Rooms in Edinburgh with 
 my model, and to explain the principle to the Sub-Committee 
 appointed, at Mr. Hunter's request, by the Society, to examine 
 the principle and report upon its merits. At that meeting it was 
 arranged that the gentlemen forming the Sub-Committee should 
 accompany me to the Union Canal, to witness some experiments, 
 the results of which are detailed in the following report : 
 
 " Extract from Report of the Sub-Committee of the Highland Society 
 of Scotland, in regard to the experiments with the model of Mr. 
 Wilson's steam boat for canal navigation, 4th May, 1828. 
 
 " The Sub-Committee report that the paddles or propellers of this 
 model of a steam boat (Fig. 5, page 19) were set in motion by means of 
 clock-work, and there were also a pair of side paddles of the common 
 kind, which were also impelled by the same clock-work, to make the 
 experiments comparative. That this machinery moved the stern paddles 
 or 'propellers for a space of time sufficient to propel this model nearly 
 200 yards before the clock-work run out. 
 
 " That the experiments were tried on that day three or four times, and 
 proved to the satisfaction of all present that the agitation of the water 
 by this model was much diminished by the propelling power being at 
 the stern instead of the sides of the vessel, and that the stern wheels pro- 
 pelled the model fully half the distance farther than the side wheels did.f 
 and also that the vessel steered most correctly with the stern wheels. J 
 
 " That at a meeting of the Machinery Committee, which was called 
 
 * The screw is now extensively used 011 canals in America, on the 
 Continent, and in England aud Scotland. 
 
 t It is only right to explain that there was a considerable ripple on the 
 water's surface at the tiuie referred to, which gave the advantage to the 
 screw propellers here mentioned. 
 
 J The above description is sufficient to show how little the principle was 
 understood ; the propellers are called wheels, although they had only two 
 narrow blades about one-eighth of a whole turn of a double screw. 
 
25 
 
 soon after this experiment had been tried, viz., upon 
 the 10th of March, 1828, for the purpose of deliber- 
 ating upon the merits of this invention of Mr. Wil- 
 son's, upon a verbal statement by Mr. Hunter and 
 other members who had witnessed the experiments, 
 the Committee was so impressed with the benefits 
 that might be derived to the public by Mr. Wilson's 
 invention, if found to answer in a corresponding 
 manner when applied to a large vessel, as it had 
 succeeded on the model, that they allowed the sum 
 of 10 towards enabling Mr. Wilson to get paddles 
 or ' propellers ' made on a large scale, with corres- 
 ponding machinery, to be applied to a boat which 
 should be tried in Leith Roads. 
 
 " That, accordingly, Mr. Wilson got this machinery 
 made, and applied it to a 25 feet boat (Fig. 6) in Leith; 
 and in April, 1828, most of the Committee, with the 
 addition of Commissioner Ferrier, Vice-Admiral Sir 
 David Milne, and other members of the Society, 
 attended at Leith, and witnessed the experiments by 
 Captain Donaldson Boswell, R.N., Captain Trotter, 
 R.N., Mr. M'Pherson Grant, and Mr. M'Donald, the 
 secretary, with Mr. Wilson and two men to work the 
 machinery, going out from the pier of Leith a con- 
 siderable way into the Roads, when the experiments 
 appeared perfectly to answer, the boat having been 
 propelled by the application of the paddles or 'pro- 
 pellers' at the stern with more power than could 
 have been applied by four oars, or double the manual 
 power, and which enabled the boat to quarter a very 
 heavy sea, and get through it with more safety and 
 rapidity than would have been possible by means of 
 oars; and this appeared to be chiefly occasioned by 
 the steady and permanent, as well as the powerful, 
 impetus which was given by the paddles or 'pro- 
 pellers' beyond that which could possibly have been 
 effected by means of oars. The boat, which was 
 also worked by two men who were not at all 
 fresh, having been hard at work all the morning 
 getting it ready, left the pier-head, and, with 
 several gentlemen on board, went to and round 
 
 * Larger plan of propeller, see Fig. d, page 17. 
 
 
26 
 
 the Martello Tower, and returned again in seventeen and a half 
 minutes, with a very heavy sea, and the wind E.N.E. blowing fresh.* 
 
 " Captain Donaldson Bos well, R.N. (who was in the boat during the 
 experiments), considers that the same boat with four oars could not 
 have done the same work in less than half an hour, under the same 
 circumstances." f 
 
 " Having perused the foregoing extract from the report of the Sub- 
 Committee of the Highland Society of Scotland respecting Mr. Wilson's 
 model of a steam boat to be propelled by a new principle of paddles or 
 ' propellers,' which is applied at the stern instead of the sides of the 
 vessel; and having attended the two experiments made in presence of 
 a Committee of Directors respecting Mr. Wilson's ingenious plan and 
 principle applied to the stern of the vessel 
 
 " First, the experiments with the model (Fig. 5, p. 19) upon the Union 
 Canal, as herein specified, and afterwards at Leith, for the purpose of 
 witnessing a practical experiment by applying the paddles or 'propellers ' 
 at the stern of a large open Boat (Fig. 6, p. 25); and having, moreover, 
 been one of those along with Captains Boswell and Trotter of the Royal 
 Navy, and Mr. M'Pherson Grant, who attended Mr.Wilson in the Boat, 
 I have no hesitation in stating it to have been the opinion of those 
 gentlemen who were in the Boat, but also of many others of the 
 Directors of the Society, who attended on that occasion and witnessed 
 the experiments, that the results of Mr. Wilson's ingenious application 
 of the paddles or 'propellers' at the stern of the Boat, answered our 
 most sanguine expectations. In consequence, the Directors not only 
 sanctioned the purchase from Mr. Wilson of his model, but also author- 
 ised that the sum of 10 should be paid to Mr. Wilson, to defray the 
 
 * So rough was the sea on the day referred to when the experiments 
 were made, that none of the pilots could be induced to accompany the 
 experimenters with either oars or sails in any of their boats, and fears 
 were even expressed by the gentlemen on board that the boat would not 
 stand the severe action of the waves and return in safety, but the con- 
 tinuous and rapid motion given by the propellers kept the boat not only 
 free from rolling, but also under the most perfect control, which soon satis- 
 fied them as to her safety. She obeyed the helm most promptly in every 
 position relative to the wind and waves, which gave me full confidence in 
 the principle as applicable to steam ships exposed to heavy storms at sea. 
 
 t These experiments, which were continued about two hours, gave an 
 average speed of about ten miles per hour, without any sensible vibration 
 being felt in the boat from the action of the propellers, either on rough sea 
 outside, or the smooth water within the pier. During subsequent experi- 
 ments, the distance of five miles was run in twenty-five minutes, being 
 equal to twelve miles per hour. The boat with which these experiments 
 were made was well constructed for fast sailing. With these experiments, 
 there were two propellers with two blades each, Fig. 6, the one propeller 
 immediately behind the other, the centres being in the same line, and the 
 shafts just above the water line. 
 
27 
 
 expenses of the experiments in Leith Roads. Certified and declared at 
 Edinburgh, this 18th day of April, 1832, by 
 
 (Signed) " R. MACDONALD, 
 
 " Secretary, Highland Society of Scotland." 
 
 It may seem strange that these experiments were made at Leith 
 instead of on the Union Canal, seeing that they were for the 
 purpose of showing to the Highland Society the applicability of 
 the principle to canal navigation ; but as I was more anxious to 
 show the applicability of the principle to ocean than canal 
 navigation, this arrangement was made through the influence of 
 Mr. Hunter, in order to test the merits of the invention in rough 
 water, and consequently its importance as a means of propulsion 
 for Ships of War and other Ocean Steamers. 
 
 On the day following that on which I attended at the Society's 
 Rooms, Edinburgh, I was requested to wait upon Mr. Waddell of 
 Leith Links, who had made a number of experiments with a pro- 
 peller which was considered by some of the gentlemen present at 
 the experiments with my model on the Canal to be on the same 
 principle as that of my propellers, but a single glance was sufficient 
 to show the difference, as Mr. Waddell's partook of nothing of the 
 principle of the screw, the blades being mere flat surfaces set at an 
 angle. A single trial with Mr. Waddell's model against mine, 
 was quite enough to show the gentlemen present the superiority 
 of the latter ; for, although the amount of moving power was the 
 same in both models, my model ran double the distance of the other 
 for each winding up of the spring, and that in the same time. 
 
 At the conclusion of the above Report it is stated that, besides 
 the purchase of the model, I was to receive .10 to defray the 
 expenses of the experiments; but, whether owing to a rule of 
 the Society, or whether it was considered by the Society as giving 
 encouragement to a project that did not fall within the Society's 
 authorised sphere of action (although Canal navigation might well 
 be considered within that sphere), certain it is that a necessary 
 condition to my receiving the <10 for expenses was the giving up 
 of my model to the Society. This I did, but with the greatest 
 possible reluctance, as it had cost me much anxiety and labour. 
 I had, however, no alternative between doing this or what I dreaded 
 still more, getting into debt. Not a hint had been given previously 
 
28 
 
 to the conclusion of the experiments as to my having to give up 
 my model, and I felt astonished and deeply grieved that I had to 
 do so. For, besides my travelling and other expenses, the experi- 
 ments had cost me upwards of .20, and the model was worth about 
 20 more. While I mention these facts, it will be understood that 
 I do not attach any blame to the Society. It was unfortunate that 
 I had to resign the model, but this does not diminish in any 
 degree the credit due to the gentlemen who took so great an interest 
 in my views, and who put themselves to so much personal trouble 
 to forward them. Indeed, it is not at all unlikely that Ihey were 
 not aware I should be required to deliver up the model to the 
 Society. However, as a set-off to my loss, and to the great dis- 
 couragement I then felt, I now look back to the experiments at 
 Leith in 1828 with any feeling rather than that of repining. To 
 them I am inclined to attribute much of my after success in 
 mechanical pursuits. The first step to my present position may 
 be said to have been taken at the time of making the experiments 
 at Leith ; for I then met with a number of scientific gentlemen, 
 who took great interest in my invention of the screw propeller, 
 and who strongly advised me to persevere, as in their opinion my 
 invention would be of great importance for ocean steamers and 
 ships of war, and they used all the influence in their power to have 
 its merits tested on a larger scale ; but no ship builder or man of 
 capital could be found who would run that risk, which was thought 
 should be undertaken by Government, and, consequently, for want 
 of sufficient capital, it had to be laid aside until 1832. 
 
 1832-1833. INVENTION BROUGHT BEFORE SOCIETY OF ARTS 
 THEIR REPORT OF EXPERIMENTS AT SEA, ETC. 
 
 From what has just been stated respecting my position after the 
 experiments made for the Highland Society in 1828, it will not 
 surprise anyone to learn that, for the next two or three years, 
 little was done by me with respect to my invention ; for, although 
 various applications were made to me during that time, with the 
 view of applying the new propeller on a still larger scale, none of 
 
29 
 
 the applicants would undertake to bear the expenses of an outfit j 
 and not being myself in a position to make a second contract on 
 the same conditions as before, I was obliged to take advantage of 
 the lesson I had learned by experience, and wait with patience till 
 a better opportunity presented itself. 
 
 In 1832, Mr. Hunter, still confident of success, brought the 
 subject of the screw propeller before the Society of Arts in Edin- 
 burgh; and, that that object might be the more easily attained, a 
 copy of the Highland Society's Report of my experiments was 
 obtained, with the Secretary's certificate affixed. This certificate 
 is dated 18th day of April, 1832, but the report, as has been 
 already stated, bears date 4th May, 1828. 
 
 The following extracts from the minutes of the Royal Scottish 
 Society of Arts, sufficiently explain with what spirit this Society 
 took up the subject, carried out the experiments, and endeavoured 
 to bring my invention into practical operation : 
 
 " Excerpt from the Minutes of the Society of Arts for Scotland, 
 dated May 2, 1832. 
 
 " Description and Drawings of ' Stern Paddles ' for propelling Steam 
 Vessels, etc., by Robert Wilson, Engineer, 15 North Back of Canongate, 
 Edinburgh, were read and exhibited. 
 
 " These paddles work at the stern in place of the sides of the boat, 
 and act on the principle of sculling.* 
 
 " A pair of Paddles were exhibited. 
 
 " The Society were pleased with the ingenuity displayed in the con- 
 struction of these paddles ; but before expressing a decided opinion on 
 their merits, they resolved that a comparative trial of these paddles and 
 of side paddles of the common kind should be made, by having them 
 fitted to a boat. 
 
 " The following Committee was appointed to conduct the experiment, 
 and defray the expenses of it, and to report at the General Meeting in 
 June: viz., Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, Bart., Vice-President, Mr. 
 Hunter, of Thurston, Mr. Crawfurd, of Cartsburn, Vice- Admiral Sir 
 David Milne, Captain Watson, R.N., Mr. Whytock, Mr. Tod, Secre- 
 tary, and Robert Stevenson, Esq., Civil Engineer, Vice-President, 
 Convener. 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that the name of "Screw" had not then been 
 given to this propeller. The writer's first ideas of this propeller being, as 
 before stated, taken from the sculling oar, (and that being well-known at 
 the time these experiments were made,) will account for what is said above 
 respecting the principle being that of ' ' Sculling. " 
 
30 
 
 Report of the Committee of the Society of Arts for Scotland, appointed 
 on 2nd May last to experiment with Mr. Robt. Wilson's ' Stern Paddles' 
 
 " Your Committee beg leave to report that a pair 
 ''^Y^-l^ of Stern Paddles of the most approved construction, 
 (viz., those revolving on separate axles and in oppo- 
 site directions in the same plane, f ) were by their 
 orders fitted to a Boat kindly lent to Mr. Wilson 
 by Mr. Sim, ship-builder, Leith, the Boat being 18 
 feet long and 7 feet broad, by no means well con- 
 structed for fast sailing. (Fig. 7.) 
 
 " The Committee intended also, if there had been 
 sufficient time, to have ordered a pair of common 
 side paddles to be attached to the same boat, so 
 that a comparative trial might have been made, but 
 from want of time this became impossible. The 
 Committee were also at considerable loss what 
 directions they should have given in regard to the 
 diameter and breadth of such side paddles, even if 
 there had been time for their construction ; as they 
 understood that side paddles on the small scale 
 have never been found to answer, from the circum- 
 stance of their merely skimming the surface of the 
 water, and not going deep enough to get a solid 
 body to act upon. 
 
 " If the Society still wish this comparative 
 trial to be made on the small scale the Committee 
 will attend to their instructions, and will take the 
 best scientific assistance in regard to the proper 
 diameter and breadth of the side paddles. But as 
 they are of opinion that any comparative trial 
 between the stern and side paddles on the small 
 scale would be very unfavourable to the latter, for 
 the reason above assigned, they shall, in the mean- 
 time, report the results of their experiments with 
 the stern paddles alone ; leaving it for the Society 
 to judge of their efficiency, and to consider whether 
 it would be advisable or not to have side paddles 
 constructed, and a comparative experiment still 
 made, remarking at the same time, that the result can hardly be taken 
 as a fair estimate of the speed at which the boat might have been 
 
 * Larger plan of propeller, see page 17, Fig. d. 
 
 f This plan of arrangement was afterwards, in the year 1851, patented 
 by a Mr. Taylor. 
 
31 
 
 propelled, had the circumstances been more favourable, inasmuch as, 
 from the size and shape of the boat, the number of persons aboard, and 
 the position of the men working the cranks, the machinery was heavy 
 to work, soon tired the men, and occasioned them often to change, 
 which caused the boat to roll, and put her frequently out of trim. 
 
 "Notwithstanding these unfavourable circumstances, however, the 
 Committee were highly gratified with the results of their experiments. 
 The boat obeyed the helm most promptly, as well in rough as in smooth 
 water, and nothing seemed to be wanting but a steady and sustained power, 
 such as the steam engine, to produce the requisite velocity; and the Com- 
 mittee are satisfied that if stern paddles on a large scale shall be found 
 to be as efficient in proportion as they are on the small scale, (which 
 the Committee see no reason to doubt,) they will speedily be adopted in 
 situations where side paddles could not be applied, from the advantages 
 they possess over the latter in many points of view, particularly in their 
 creating no agitation in the water that could be hurtful to the banks of 
 canals, in their working equally well in a rough as in a smooth sea, which 
 way soever the wind may blow, in their requiring no flattening on the 
 sides of the Boat, nor cumbrous paddle boxes attached to the sides of the 
 vessel, which are so disadvantageous to a sea Boat, and their being easily 
 unshipped when necessary, either for repairs or (in the event of their 
 being attached to Ships of War) when the use of them is not required. 
 
 " The Committee would therefore humbly suggest that the Society 
 should endeavour if possible to get a trial made of these stern paddles 
 on a large scale, and their results compared with those of large side 
 paddles, and from the simplicity of their construction, this could not be 
 attended with much expense; but as the funds of the Society are 
 inadequate to the attainment of this object, the Society should give a 
 strong recommendation of the principle upon which Mr. Wilson's stern 
 paddles are constructed, which may be the means of bringing this 
 invention under the notice and consideration of the Lords of the 
 Admiralty, who may in all probability be disposed to give it a trial on 
 the large scale ; considering, that if successful, its application to Ships 
 of War, as well as Merchant Ships, from its capability of being placed 
 altogether under water (where in fact its propelling power would be still 
 greater than in your Committee's experiments, where the one-half only 
 was immersed,) and out of the reach of shot, will at once be admitted to 
 be a matter of the greatest importance. All of which is humbly reported 
 
 b ^ (Signed) "THOMAS DICK LAUDER. 
 
 "WILLIAM CRAWFORD. 
 "JAMES TOD, Secy., Convener, 
 "in absence of Robert Stevenson, Esq. 
 "Edinburgh, ISth June, 1832." 
 
32 
 
 " What is written on these seven pages are true excerpts from Min- 
 utes and copy Report of tho Committee of the Society of Arts, read and 
 
 approved of. 
 
 (Signed) "JAMES TOD, Secy., S. A. 
 
 " 20th June, 1832," 
 
 To this may be appended an 
 
 " Extract from Report of the Prize Committee of the Society of Arts. 
 Scotland, dated 6th October, 1832. 
 
 "To Mr. Robert Wilson, Engineer, 15 North Back of Canongate, 
 Edinburgh, for his Description, Drawing and Model of Stern Paddles 
 for propelling Steam Boats, etc., invented by him; read 2nd May, 
 1832, and experiments made at Leith with a boat fitted up with these 
 Stern Paddles, on the 7th and 18th June, 1832 the Society's Silver 
 Medal, value ' Five Sovereigns.' 
 
 " Upon this interesting and very important subject the Committee, 
 to whom this invention was referred, made very accurate experiments 
 with the stern paddles at considerable expense to the Society; and 
 from their report it appears that these paddles possess, in many respects 
 manifest advantages over the common side paddles, and could be easily 
 adapted, not only to merchant ships, canal boats, and steam boats gener- 
 ally, but also to ships of war. They can be kept altogether untie r irate r 
 and out of the reach of shot, and answer equally well in rough as in 
 smooth sea. 
 
 "N.B.The above report was read, and the prize was delivered to 
 Mr. Wilson at the Annual General Meeting, on the 12th December. 
 
 1832. 
 
 (Signed) "JAMES TOD, Secy." 
 
 COPY OF MEDAL. 
 
 for llis L^^ 
 
 StmtflaiDfas; 
 
 FOR PROPELLING VESSELS 
 
33 
 
 1833-1836. SCOTTISH SOCIETY OF ARTS BRING INVENTION 
 BEFORE ADMIRALTY AGAIN REJECTED OFFICIAL REPORT OF 
 OFFICERS OF WOOLWICH DOCKYARD CORRESPONDENCE DUKE 
 OF RICHMOND'S LETTER MR. SMITH PATENTS SAME INVEN- 
 TION CONTRAST. 
 
 The great interest taken in my invention by many noblemen 
 and gentlemen about this time (1833-36), will appear from the fol- 
 lowing correspondence, which also shows the manner in which it 
 was rejected by the Government: 
 
 LETTER I. Sir JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart., to JAMES TOD, Esq., Secretary of 
 the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, dated 16th January, 1833. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I think it would be very desirable to bring the plan for 
 improving the construction of Steam Vessels under the consideration 
 of the Board of Admiralty; and I applied to Sir James Graham to 
 know what would be the best mode of having that object effected. I 
 enclose Sir James' answer, and shall have much pleasure in sending to 
 Captain The Hon. George Elliot any account of the plans which the 
 inventor may wish to submit to the consideration of the Admiralty 
 Board. 
 
 I shall be glad to have the pleasure of seeing you, or the inventor, 
 on the subject, on Friday or Saturday morning, at eleven o'clock. 
 I remain, etc., 
 
 (Signed) JOHN SINCLAIR. 
 
 LETTER II. -JAMES TOD, Esq., Secretary, Scottish Society of Arts, to 
 Sir JOHN SINCLAIR, Bart., dated 17th January, 1833. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I had the honour to receive your obliging communication of 
 yesterday's date, and will have great pleasure in attending at your 
 house on Saturday forenoon, at eleven. 
 
 I have written to the inventor of the stern paddles, Mr. Wilson, to 
 attend on that occasion. 
 
 He is a very intelligent man, and I am sure the Society wish him 
 every success in his endeavour to accomplish the introduction of this 
 improvement both in the Royal and Mercantile Navy, the first desider- 
 atum being an experiment on the large scale, which can only be done 
 under the auspices of Government. 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 I have also asked the attendance of Mr. James Simpson, advocate,* 
 who has all along taken Mr. Wilson by the hand, and who had a 
 conversation with ine only two days ago about forwarding a communi- 
 cation to Captain The Hon. George Elliot, Secretary to the Admiralty, 
 who I heard was lately in Edinburgh, and may not yet have left the 
 city. 
 
 I have the honour, etc., 
 
 (Signed) JAMES TOD. 
 
 LETTER III. Mr. TOD to Sir THOMAS DICK LADDER, Bart., dated 
 24th January, 1833. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Sir John Sinclair has been corresponding with the Admiralty 
 as to the best mode of bringing " Wilson's Stfrn Paddles " before their 
 Lordships' notice. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, Mr. Simpson, advocate, and I, had a meeting with Sir 
 John upon the subject, when Mr. Simpson proposed, as the best way of 
 managing the matter, that a recommendatory letter should be prepared, 
 to be forwarded to Captain the Hon. George Elliot, Secretary to the 
 Admiralty, by the Solicitor-General, who, it seems, undertook to do so 
 after Wilson's invention should receive the sanction of the Society of 
 Arts, and that this letter should be signed by you as Convener of the 
 Experimenting Committee, as also by Sir David Milne, Sir John 
 Sinclair, the Solicitor-General, and any other influential person 
 acquainted with the subject. 
 
 That this letter, together with copies of the papers read before the 
 Society, with relative drawings, and the Report of the Committee, 
 should be transmitted to Captain Elliot, Secretary of the Admiralty, 
 with a private letter of recommendation from the Solicitor-General.! 
 
 In order, therefore, to expedite the matter, and if it is not putting 
 you to too much inconvenience, Mr. Simpson and I would be glad if 
 you could meet us in the Parliament House, either on Saturday or 
 Tuesday, at eleven o'clock, as may best suit you, to converse over the 
 
 * I think it due to the memory of Mr Simpson to say that he was one 
 of the best and most constant friends I ever had. His interest in my 
 invention remained unabated until hia death, and shortly before he died he 
 expressed his deep regret that the importance of my invention had not been 
 more fully recognised. 
 
 t At Mr, Simpson's suggestion, the propeller and machinery with which 
 the experiments were made in Leith Roads were also sent, in order that 
 their Lordships might have an opportunity of testing the principle without 
 loss of time, before proceeding with the experiments on a larger scale with 
 steam power. 
 
35 
 
 business, and endeavour to see the Solicitor-General, and get him to 
 lend a helping hand. The papers are in progress of being copied and 
 nice plans drawn. 
 
 Will you be kind enough to drop me a penny post note in course of 
 to-morrow, fixing your day, as I must let Mr. Simpson know to make 
 
 sure of a meeting. 
 
 I am, etc., 
 
 (Signed) JAMES TOD, Secy. 
 
 P.S. This evening's post has brought me a letter from Sir John 
 Sinclair, enclosing one from the Duke of Richmond, who I observe 
 declines to comply with Sir John's request, which I presume was to 
 try the experiment on one of the Government post office packets, for the 
 obvious reason, as the Duke says, that if the experiment should fail, the 
 consequent delay would be a serious inconvenience to the public. 
 
 LETTER IV. The DUKE OF RICHMOND to Sir JOHN SINCLAIR. 
 
 22nd January, 1833. 
 SIB, 
 
 I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th insL 
 I regret that it is not in my power to comply with your request. The 
 regulations of the department do not permit me to make experiments in 
 the packets, for the obvious reason, that, if the invention should fail, the 
 consequent delay would be a serious inconvenience to the public. 
 I have the honour, etc. 
 
 (Signed) RICHMOND. 
 
 In consequence of the Society of Arts having, in the last quoted 
 report, given " a strong recommendation " of the invention, in order 
 to bring it under the " consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty," 
 because if " successful its application to Ships of War as well as 
 Merchant Ships would at once be admitted to be a matter of the 
 greatest importance,"* the reports detailing the Society's experi- 
 ments at Leith Roads, and a recommendation of the invention as one 
 of great importance, together with the propellers, machinery, etc., 
 were transmitted to the Lords of the Admiralty, requesting their 
 Lordships to try the invention on a large scale. 
 
 In a letter to me on this matter, the Secretary of the Society 
 writes : " To the Society it seemed self-evident that, from the 
 
 * Excerpt from Letter by Mr. Tod. 
 
36 
 
 machinery being out of the range of shot, the invention was parti- 
 cularly desirable for the Navy, so that the trial the Society recom- 
 mended was to find the degree of speed which could be attained by 
 the Screw or Stern Paddles." Notwithstanding this, the application 
 to the Admiralty was unattended by any favourable results, as the 
 following letter and report will show : 
 
 Letter accompanying the Report of the Officers of Woolwich Yard. 
 
 ADMIRALTY, 18th September, 1833. 
 SIB, 
 
 My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty having referred to the 
 Officers of Woolwich Yard the papers (returned herewith) respecting Mr. 
 Wilson's invention for propelling steam boats, I am commanded by their 
 Lordships to transmit to you, for your information, a copy of their report 
 thereon.* 
 
 I am, etc., 
 
 (Signed H. F. AMEDROZ, pro Secretary. 
 
 Vice-Admiral the Hon. C. E. FLEMING. 
 
 Report referred to 
 
 WOOLWICH YARD, nth September, 1833. 
 SIR, 
 
 In pursuance of your directions by Minute of the 10th on the Hon- 
 ourable Captain Elliot's letter of the 9th instant, we are to acquaint you 
 that we have carefully examined the papers therewith transmitted, in 
 conjunction with Messrs. Lloydt and Kingston, who concur with us in 
 the opinion, that the plan proposed (independent of practical difficulties) 
 is objectionable, as it involves a greater loss of power than the common 
 mode of applying the wheels to the side, and herewith return the papers. 
 
 We are, etc., 
 
 (Signed) OLIVER LANG. 
 
 R. ABETHELL. 
 Captain Superintendent WARREN, C.B. 
 
 This Report will surprise many, when it is considered that along 
 with the Report of the Society of Arts there were sent to the Ad- 
 
 * As far as can be ascertained, neither the propellers nor machinery were 
 returned with the papers here referred to. It would be interesting to know 
 what became of them, so as to judge of the opportunity afforded to others 
 to improve upon them. 
 
 t This gentleman is, I presume, the "Mr. T. Lloyd" who reports favour- 
 ably of the screw in 1840, as mentioned at page 9. 
 
37 
 
 miralty full particulars of the practical experiments just referred to, 
 as well as the identical propellers and machinery with which those 
 experiments were made in Leith Roads. The unfavourable reception 
 the invention met with from the Admiralty had the unfortunate 
 effect not only of delaying for years the introduction of the screw 
 propeller into the Royal Navy, but it also deprived me of the co- 
 operation of the noblemen and gentlemen who had until then 
 actively countenanced me. Seeing no prospect of bringing the 
 invention to a practical development for the benefit of the country 
 by a trial on a large scale, they gave up the subject in despair, 
 expressing great regret and disappointment that their influence 
 and trouble had been spent in vain, and that the public service had 
 been deprived of the use and benefit of a valuable invention. 
 This was a very painful discouragement to me, although I could 
 not believe that the Dockyard Reporters would succeed in finally 
 consigning the invention to obscurity, after it had been so often 
 approved of by men of skill. I considered not only that the screw 
 would be valuable in Ships of War and Merchantmen, but also in 
 many other ways. Thus, a boat for embarking or disembarking 
 troops, if fitted with screw propellers, would possess several 
 advantages over a boat with oars; inasmuch as it could be brought 
 close alongside a vessel or landing-place with the propellers in 
 action; and as the propellers could be worked by the troops during 
 their transit, the sailors in charge would be fresh for returning 
 quickly for another detachment. Less room would be required 
 for working the propellers by manual power than is required with 
 the common oars, and therefore a boat could accommodate a 
 greater number of soldiers. Again, owing to the screw working 
 as well in rough as in fine weather, I considered it well adapted 
 for life-boats, often exposed as they are to waves against which 
 oars are of little avail, and they could be constructed so as to be 
 propelled either in one direction or the other, the propellers all 
 the while being quite protected from accident. These considera- 
 tions determined me to wait with patience for an opportunity of 
 getting some shipbuilder or other enterprising person to take up 
 the matter, and meantime to endeavour to save something to aid 
 still further in bringing the invention before the public. 
 
 All my calculations of usefulness in regard to the screw were, 
 
38 
 
 however, suddenly superseded on hearing, some time about 1836 r 
 that a Mr. Smith had not only made the same discovery as myself, 
 but had actually taken out a patent for it. I thereupon gave up 
 the matter in great disappointment, and under a feeling, which has 
 grown stronger with time, that I had not been fairly used by the 
 Admiralty Reporters in regard to my invention. 
 
 It may not be uninteresting briefly to glance at the rise 
 and success of Mr. Smith's invention of the screw propeller, or 
 rather of his " improved propeller" as he termed it, as he does not 
 seem to have claimed the merit of originating it. In 1835, Mr. 
 Smith, then a farmer at Hendon, had his attention first directed 
 to the subject of screw propulsion; in the spring of 1836, he 
 obtained the co-operation of a Mr. Wright, a banker, and a patent 
 was granted to Mr. Smith, on 31st May, 1836, for his "improved" 
 screw propeller, which consisted of two entire turns of a single 
 threaded screw. A model boat which he had constructed, and 
 which was fitted with a wooden screw driven by a spring, was 
 then exhibited in operation upon a pond on his farm at Hendon, 
 and at the Adelaide Gallery in London. The results obtained with 
 the model were so satisfactory that, in the autumn of the same 
 year Mr. Smith and his friends constructed a boat of six tons 
 burthen, and about six horse-power. On 1st November, 1836, 
 she was exhibited to the public, in operation, on the Paddington 
 Canal, and she plied there, and on the Thames, until September, 
 1837. During one of the trips on the Paddington Canal, in 
 February, 1837, an accident occurred which first pointed out the 
 advantage of diminishing the length of the screw. The propeller 
 having come in contact with some object in the water, about one- 
 half of its length was broken away, and no sooner had this 
 occurred, than the boat quickened her speed and was found to 
 realise a better performance than before. In consequence of this 
 accidental discovery, a new screw was fitted, having a single turn, 
 and the results were very satisfactory. To show that his screw 
 was suitable foV sea voyages, Mr. Smith, in September, 1837, went 
 in his experimental boat from Blackwall to Ramsgate, and thence 
 to Dover and other places. In March, 1838, the screw was tried 
 before the Admiralty. After several trials, in May, 1839, before 
 Captain Crispin, Admiral Fleming, and others, with Mr. Smith's 
 
39 
 
 larger vessel, the " Archimedes," (which cost him and his 
 friends 10,500,)* against a Government vessel, and after 
 numerous other trials both at home and abroad, and when 
 the advantages of the screw over the paddle wheel were rendered 
 obvious to everyone, the Admiralty determined to try the screw, 
 and the "Kattler" was, in 1841, begun for the Navy. In 1845, 
 when the Steam Navy was about to be considerably increased, 
 the Board of the Steam Department, Somerset House, "deter- 
 mined that the screw should be adopted," and thus Mr. Smith 
 obtained a world-wide renown as having firmly established the 
 principle of the screw propeller in Great Britain, t as Captain 
 Ericsson did in America. 
 
 * In the London Mechanics' Magazine, No. 830, it is stated, "The 
 Archimedes was built by a company for the purpose of testing the Invention, 
 and we believe the CHIEF PROMOTERS to be the Messrs. Rennie and Messrs. 
 Wright the Bankers." 
 
 f In a printed pamphlet now before me, three Irvine gentlemen, Messrs. 
 Steedman, M'Cririck, and Dick, are said to be entitled to the honour of 
 suggesting the screw propeller to Mr. Smith. Mr. Steedman having 
 noticed a resemblance between " the fish tail and scull," made the discovery 
 of the screw in a "deep ditch" near Irvine, a stob being used for a vessel, 
 and the wand of a mole-trap for the motive power. In 1829, this invention 
 was brought before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and in 1830, before 
 the Royal Society of London. From these learned Societies, however, 
 the pamphlet states, "repeated discouragements were obtained." Some 
 persons will therefore at a first glance assume that the only original things 
 connected with the invention were the instruments with which it was first 
 tried, and that these were not likely to be pirated by anyone ; but an 
 attentive perusal of this pamphlet (published in 1858), which is written 
 with considerable ability, will perhaps incline them to a different opinion. 
 The gist of the pamphlet may thus be summed up : 1. That Mr. Smith 
 was incapable of inventing the propeller ; 2. That the propeller he patented 
 was truly the Irvine one, which had been appropriated by an engineer to 
 whom it had been entrusted, he patenting the Invention in the name ef 
 Francis Pettit Smith. The pamphlet thus speaks of Mr. F. P. Smith's 
 persistency as regards the introduction of the screw; "With all his 
 'persistency' he never made any great personal sacrifice, and never had 
 much at stake in the great adventures with which his name is identified. 
 The whole secret of his ' persistency ' is contained in one sentence of 
 Mr. Bourne's, when acknowledging the services of Smith's coadjutors 
 'first amongst these auxiliaries must' be mentioned Mr. Wright, the 
 banker, but for whose aid Smith's patent would perhaps never have been 
 taken out.' " 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 CAPTAIN ERICSSON'S INVENTION, ETC. 
 
 These sketches of my efforts to introduce the screw propeller 
 and render it useful to my country, and the statements* concerning 
 Mr. Smith, suggest, without the smallest disparagement to that 
 gentleman, a somewhat startling contrast. 
 
 I, a mere boy and afterwards a working lad, first take up the 
 idea of the screw propeller in 1 808 ; Mr. Smith, a grazing farmer 
 (born 1808), does so in 1834. The invention costs me, ere its 
 last rejection by Government, some twenty-five years more or 
 less of labour, privation, and anxiety ; Mr. Smith in a very short 
 time finds a friend in Mr. Wright, and, in 1845, his improved 
 propellert is finally adopted in the Navy, and becomes common 
 
 * These Statements are taken from the very able work on the screw 
 propeller by John Bourne, Esq. , C. E. 
 
 t Perhaps 1 may rather say my propeller, for Mr. Smith had now come, 
 step by step, to the identical propeller I used in 1826. His propeller was 
 reduced, from time to time, from two whole turns of a single-threaded 
 screw, patented in 1836, to one-sixth of a turn of a double-threaded screw, 
 ere it was adopted in 1845 ; which I had found to be the maximum breadth 
 for advantage by my experiments in 1826, nineteen years before. See 
 page 17. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 No. 1 A screw of two turns, patented by Mr. 
 F. P. Smith. Patent granted on 31st May, 
 1836. and applied to a boat about 10 tons 
 burden and about 6 horse-power. 
 
 No. 3. No. 3. 
 
 No. 4. No. 4. 
 
 No. 2. A screw of one turn as pointed 
 out by accident to be preferable to two 
 turns, as No. 1. in 1837, and fitted to 
 the "Archimedes" in 1839. 
 
 No. 5. No. 5. 
 
 No. 3. Adouble-threadod No.4. A double-threaded No. 5. A double-threaded screw 
 
 screw of half a turn, 
 fitted t-> the "Archi- 
 medes " in 1840, and 
 fitted to the "Rattler" 
 in 1843. 
 
 screw of a fourth of a 
 turn, tried on the "Rat- 
 tler," from 1843, with 
 other forms, to 1845. 
 
 of a sixth of a turn, adopted in 
 1845 after many experiments 
 with the "Rattler," but which 
 was also experimented with 
 by the writer in 1826 to 1832, 
 and with less portions of a 
 turn. See page 16. 
 
41 
 
 in the merchant service. I, backed by the best influence in Scot- 
 land, for the second time, offer the invention, gratuitously, to the 
 Admiralty in 1833, and it is rejected as inferior to side paddles : 
 Mr. Smith, secured by a patent, and backed by rich and 
 enterprising commercial men, and by public opinion, brings the 
 matter as a commercial speculation before the Admiralty in 1838, 
 and three years later the Government are building screw ships. 
 I make (passing over all preliminary experiments on lakes) a trial 
 of the screw in a twenty-five feet boat, in 1828, in the open sea, in 
 presence of Vice-Admiral Sir David Milne and many other official 
 gentlemen, and in a sea so rough and dangerous that none of the 
 pilots at Leith would accompany the experimenters. In Septem- 
 ber, in 1837, Mr. Smith (keeping lake and canal experiments out 
 of view) tests his six ton boat at sea \ and finally, in 1845, twelve 
 years after finally rejecting the screw propeller at my hands, the 
 Government accept and " adopt " it at Mr. Smith's. 
 
 Having now completed the evidence I have to offer as regards 
 my claim to the invention of the screw propeller, as adapted to 
 Ocean Navigation, I believe impartial readers will conclude that I 
 have clearly proved that the screw propeller might have been 
 introduced into the Navy in 1827 or at least as early as 1833, and 
 that its not being so was owing not to any want of steady 
 perseverance and effort on my part, backed by the influence and 
 intelligence of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, and several 
 eminent men, but solely in consequence of an unfortunate error in 
 judgment on the part of the then officers of the Woolwich Dock- 
 yard in rejecting all recommendations to adopt the screw without 
 so much as putting the invention to a test and then issuing a 
 report which all subsequent experience has shown to be entirely 
 erroneous. I readily acquit the then Lords of the Admiralty of 
 any blame in this matter. Their Lordships, doubtless, placed 
 implicit confidence in the scientific knowledge and industry of the 
 officers of the Dockyard, and were warranted in abiding by their 
 report ; but it is not the less evident that this report caused me to 
 suffer, at the hands of the Government, almost irreparable injury 
 and injustice. Had the invention been carefully scrutinised by 
 those to whom it was referred, or had they understood the 
 principles involved, they could not have reported upon it as 
 
42 
 
 "objectionable," and "as involving a greater loss of power than 
 the common mode of applying the wheels to the side." On the 
 contrary, is it too much to say, that, had the representations of 
 noblemen and others, whose statements were beyond question, 
 been listened to, a trial of the screw on a large scale would have 
 been immediately ordered, and Government would have been 
 building many vessels fitted with the screw, before Mr. Smith 
 (who afterwards carried off all the honours and rewards of the 
 invention) had even his attention directed to the matter in 1835? 
 It is curious to note the influence which time the refuter of errors 
 has had upon the minds of gentlemen who at first were foremost 
 in opposing the introduction of the screw propeller, and who seem 
 actually to have forgotten having offered such opposition. Thus, 
 on the list of Mr. F. P. Smith's Testimonial, published in 1856, is 
 to be found the name of at least one eminent engineer, who, little 
 more than twenty years before, took an active part as opponent 
 in a discussion on the merits of the principle of the screw 
 propeller as compared with that of the side paddles, and lectured 
 against it to the pupils of his mechanical class as a most absurd 
 idea. That same gentleman is now (I may presume) an admirer 
 of the principle he formerly condemned, since he is not only one of 
 the most liberal subscribers on that list, but took an active part 
 in obtaining subscriptions from others. Again, at tJie very head of 
 this list, is the name of- another admirer of the principle of the 
 screw propeller, whose name, in 1833, appeared at the end of the 
 Report of the officers of Woolwich Dockyard ; and further, there 
 is to be found on that list the name of another eminent engineer, 
 of whom it is said, that, " after making a number of experiments, 
 at the command of the Lords of the Admiralty, with screw 
 propellers and side paddles, in order to determine which was the 
 most suitable for Her Majesty's Navy, he gave such a favourable 
 report of the advantages of the screw propeller compared with the 
 side paddles, that their Lordships were induced at once to make 
 arrangements for its adoption in Her Majesty's Navy ;" and yet, 
 strange to say, this gentleman's name is also in the Report of 1833, 
 condemning the screw as inferior to side paddles. The actings of 
 these gentlemen, who thus, in 1833, condemned my screw propeller 
 without a trial (though the machinery and propellers, with the 
 
43 
 
 papers before referred to, had been sent to enable them to j udge of 
 it) ; but, when its advantages could no longer be denied, showed 
 themselves so eager to testify their approval of it, is a curious 
 illustration of the experiences of inventors. Had the gentlemen not 
 been themselves professedly scientific men, and had my invention 
 come to them as a mere theoretic effusion of a dreamy imagination, 
 unsupported and untried, then their rejection of it might have been 
 less surprising ; as the principle and advantages of the screw pro- 
 peller were not fully understood, nor was it seen by many to be a 
 desideratum for our Navy and other ocean steamers. Moreover, 
 it is proverbial that the most important inventions have been at 
 first scoffed at, and the inventors treated with ridicule. Take for 
 an illustration the case of Mr. George Stephenson, whose theory of 
 railway travelling was energetically opposed by the engineering 
 world. The Quarterly Review for March, 1825, says : "What can 
 be more palpably absurd and ridiculous than the prospect held out, 
 of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stage coaches. We should 
 as soon expect the people of Woolwich to suffer themselves to be 
 fired off upon one of Congreve's ricochet rockets, as trust them- 
 selves to the mercy of such a machine going at such a rate. We 
 will back old Father Thames against the Woolwich Railway for 
 any sum." Again, Mr. William Brougham (retained by the pro- 
 moters of a railway to carry the bill through Parliament) frankly 
 told Stephenson, who spoke of being able to impel his locomotive 
 at twenty miles an hour, that if he did not moderate his views, 
 and bring his engine within a reasonable speed he would "inevi- 
 tably damn the whole thing, and be himself regarded as a maniac 
 fit for Bedlam" If such a man as Stephenson was misunderstood 
 and his statements doubted, I repeat, the officers of Woolwich 
 Dockyard might have been justified in refusing to listen to a mere 
 theory propounded by an unknown youth. But how different was 
 their position ! They had referred to them, by the Lords Com- 
 missioners of the Admiralty, the particulars of an invention which 
 had been actually tested on the open sea, and had been declared by the 
 Committee appointed by the Scottish Society of Arts, on the strength of 
 personal observation, " to possess manifest advantages over the com- 
 mon side paddles, and which might be easily adapted to merchant 
 ships and ships of war." They had the very apparatus sent to them 
 
44 
 
 with which they could have put the invention to the test, and yet 
 they did not try it, but on the contrary summarily rejected it for 
 an assigned reason, which all subsequent experience has proved to 
 be totally untenable, and thus deprived the Government of an 
 opportunity of obtaining a valuable invention gratuitously, and of 
 saving millions of the public money* I do not wish, however, to 
 reflect even on the officers of the Woolwich Dockyard. I can only 
 regret that they had not acted otherwise. 
 
 Some persons may say, Why did I not secure a patent ! To this 
 1 answer, that my means were inadequate, and I had no friends 
 who could assist me to procure one ; and moreover, although I 
 had had opportunities of doing this, such an idea would probably 
 not have occurred to me, as I had no selfish object in view. 
 Besides this, I had not kept my invention secret. I knew it was 
 valuable, and what I most desired was, to make it useful to my 
 fellow-men. Nor is it by any means certain, though I had secured 
 a patent, that this would have led to the adoption of the screw by 
 Government. I might have shared the fate of Captain Ericsson 
 in England, without obtaining the ultimate success which fell 
 to his lot in a foreign land. This accomplished mechanician took 
 out a patent for the screw propeller in July, 1836 little more 
 than a month after Smith. In 1837, he exhibited his vessel to 
 the Lords of the Admiralty, and towed the barge in which they 
 were seated at the rate of ten miles an hour, and yet, notwith- 
 standing this success, Captain Ericsson, from some "inscrutable 
 reason," received no encouragement from the Admiralty. He 
 went to America in disgust. His propeller was introduced into the 
 United States Navy, and hundreds of vessels in America are now 
 propelled by the screw his propeller being still taken as the type 
 which has been almost universally followed in America. The 
 French nation also encouraged him ; the Admiralty of England at 
 last, seven years after rejecting his invention, (and after America 
 and France had pronounced it a valuable one,) gave an order for 
 the fitting up of the " Aniphion." frigate with Ids propeller. Capt. 
 Ericsson at length discovered that the " inscrutable reason " lay in 
 an idea taken up by the Surveyor of the Navy that,f as tlie pro- 
 
 * See Appendix, page 53. 
 t The same objection as was stated to Mr. Wilson in 1833. 
 
45 
 
 pelting power was applied at the stem, the vessel could not be steered 
 in an efficient manner.* I repeat, therefore, that even though I 
 had obtained a patent, some inscrutable reason might have rendered 
 the fruit of it only the ruin of some over-confident friend. May 
 not my own experience, and occasional paragraphs in newspapers, 
 suggest the fear that many a promising inventor may be unable 
 to realise his plans from want of the means to bring them forward, 
 or owing to the incredulity of those to whom his invention may 
 have been submitted, and that thus the public may be deprived of 
 benefits which otherwise might have been enjoyed 1 The great 
 reduction in the price of patents has to some extent removed a 
 stumbling-block which formerly lay in the path of inventors ; but 
 if unable, or unwilling to turn his discovery into a commercial 
 speculation, by patenting it, the career of an inventor is far from 
 an enticing one. He has to pass, at first, through the trying 
 ordeal of being looked upon as a visionary and a dreamer ; he 
 lives for a time surrounded, as it were, by an atmosphere of as 
 Thomas Carlyle would say " deaf, dead, infinite injustice," con- 
 scious in his own mind that he is right, but supposed by everybody 
 to be wrong ; he has to bear up against the indifference of the 
 learned, and the ridicule of the ignorant ; or if, perchance, he 
 happens to meet as I did with the encouragement of those who can 
 rise superior to stereotyped opinions, all his efforts may yet, after 
 the labour and anxieties of many years, end in disappointment, 
 and he may live to see the rejectors of his invention, when it is 
 again offered by another, roused from their indifference by the voice 
 of public opinion, and become suddenly enthusiastic in doing honour 
 to a discovery which years before they had cast carelessly away. 
 
 If this paper has the effect of teaching caution in the rejection 
 of inventions of bringing before the Lords of the Admiralty, and 
 the public, the efforts of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, the 
 Highland Society, and the Noblemen and Gentlemen above alluded 
 to, together with my own humble endeavours to introduce the 
 screw propeller to the public service, and if, moreover, it throws 
 
 * This was in the summer of 1837. In September, 1837, Smith, (to use 
 the telling words of Mr. Bourne,) carried his vessel to sea, and showed, by 
 repeated experiments, that the objections said to have been entertained in 
 the case of Ericsson's plan did not at all events exist in his. Of course it 
 did not, nor in the more efficient vessel of Ericsson's. 
 
46 
 
 any new light on the earlier history of the invention then my 
 purpose in writing it is served. I have sought only to establish 
 facts. If any of the statements I have advanced can be refuted, 
 I invite such refutation ; because, though the rise of screw pro- 
 pulsion has several times been written of, yet. in the word of an 
 illustrious author, "Truth being the legitimate object of history, I 
 hold it better that she should be sought after by many than by 
 few, lest for want of seekers, amongst the mists of prejudice, and 
 the false lights of interest, she be lost altogether." 
 
 ROBERT WILSON. 
 
 MODEL STEAMER. 
 
 By this morning's post (17th May, 1860) I received a letter 
 from the Secretary of the Highland and Agricultural Society of 
 Scotland, Edinburgh, as follows : 
 
 " HIGHLAND AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND, 
 
 " 6 ALBANY PLACE, 16th May, 1860. 
 "DEAR SIR, 
 
 " I am happy to say that I have suceeded in recovering 
 the model of your screw steamer. It is now in my possession and can 
 be inspected by any person who wishes to do so on your behalf. 
 
 " I am, etc., 
 (Signed) " J. HALL MAXWELL." 
 
 The model referred to above is the one represented at page 19, 
 Fig. 5, and referred to in the Highland Society's Report, page 24, 
 and was lodged in their Museum immediately after the experiments 
 at Leith in April, 1828. Some years after this the Museum took 
 fire, and ib was supposed this model had been destroyed with a 
 great number of others, but it was only slightly injured, and 
 after being repaired was placed in the Museum again, but when 
 sought for in 1860, to refer to, it could not be found. But some 
 time afterwards it was accidentally discovered, and so pleased was 
 Mr. Hall Maxwell by the recovery that he wrote me immediately 
 as above. 
 
 On learning that all the models had been given over to the 
 Edinburgh Museum, I went to enquire if my model steamer had 
 got there with the others; but it had not, and I could get no 
 
47 
 
 account of it anywhere. Professor Archer, the able Director of 
 the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, was most anxious for 
 its recovery, and at last, after all hopes were given up, it was 
 found under the cellar stairs of the Highland Society's new 
 offices. It was then nearly a perfect wreck, all the machinery 
 gone, as well as the propellers; but it will no doubt be again 
 repaired, and take its proper place in the Edinburgh Museum of 
 Science and Art, as an object of interest. 
 
 P.S. Since the above pages were written, I have visited 
 Dunbar, my native place, and I deemed it my duty to wait upon 
 Captain Hunter, of Thurston, (whose father, the late James 
 Hunter, Esq., had, as I have stated, taken so much interest in my 
 invention^) to inform him of my intention of publishing my claim 
 as the inventor of the screw propeller as the most suitable for ocean 
 propulsion, when greatly to my astonishment and satisfaction, the 
 Captain not only informed me that he had in his possession, but 
 also showed me the identical propeller and machinery, which are 
 represented by Fig. 6, page 25, with which I made the experi- 
 ments in Leith Roads for the Highland Society in 1828. 
 Captain Hunter spoke of having a boat built for them, to ply on 
 a small lake near Thurston House, in honour of the invention and 
 the interest his father took in it ; but that anticipation was not 
 carried out, as he died shortly after my visit to Thurston House. 
 After his death the estate came into the hands of his nephew 
 Richard Hunter, Esq., who seemed to have known but little of 
 the taste and interest which his grandfather took in all such 
 scientific subjects, and the propellers referred to above were cast 
 aside as useless lumber, when an old friend, who knew something 
 of their history, saw them amongst a lot of old scrap iron for the 
 smith's use, and wrote to me about them, asking if I would like 
 to have them as a memento of the past, and because I said I would 
 like to see them again, they were sent at once, and are now in my 
 office at my Foundry (September 1879), but I intend to send them 
 to the Edinburgh Museum with a proper inscription prefixed on 
 each of the four blades, being two right and two left hand portions 
 of double-threaded screws, used in 1828 experiments, at Leith, 
 page 25. 
 
APPENDIX A.* 
 
 REMARKS on the introduction and progress of the Screw Propeller, with 
 statistics of the comparative economy of Screw Ships and Paddle Vessela 
 for Her Majesty's Service. Pamphlet published by Longman, Brown, 
 Green and Longmans : London, 1856. See pages 55 to 62. 
 
 Statistics of the comparative Economy of Screw Ships and Paddle Vessels 
 for Her Majesty's Service, with a Table of the relative speed of the 
 several classes and descriptions of Ships. Compiled from the Navy 
 Last and other authentic sources, May, 1856. 
 
 TABLE No. 1. 
 
 A List of Steamers of all classes in Her Majesty's Service, fitted and 
 fitting with the Screw Propeller. 
 
 Number of Ships. 
 
 Class of Ship. 
 
 No. of Guns. 
 
 Horses' Power. 
 
 Total Horses 
 Power. 
 
 6 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 Troopers, mounting 
 Store Ships . . . 
 Water Tanks . . . 
 Flour Mills . . . 
 Floating Factory . 
 Lighter .... 
 Yacht 
 
 36 
 
 2510 
 1910 
 130 
 200 
 100 
 30 
 128 
 
 
 162 
 6 
 
 72 l.l 
 La 
 
 25 o 
 43j 3 
 
 Gun Boats, mounting 
 Floating Batteries 
 
 Sloops,Corvettes, De- 
 spatchGun Vessels, 
 Mounting . . . 
 Frigates .... 
 Line of Battle Ships 
 
 324 
 
 84 
 
 GO 
 
 c 
 
 p 
 
 O 
 764 ) 
 931 f S 
 3797 ) -H. 
 
 8680 
 1200 
 
 15602 ) 
 107(50 ( 
 22950 ) 
 
 5008 
 9880 
 
 [49312 
 
 Total 327ships 
 
 Total Guns 
 
 5936 
 
 Total H. P. 
 
 64200 
 
 * It may be only justice to state, that this Appendix is taken from a pam- 
 phlet evidently written to advance Mr. F. P. Smith's claim to a public 
 reward ; and certainly no better facts could be produced to show how much 
 the nation is indebted to the Inventor of the Screw Propeller ; but whether 
 Mr. F. P. Smith is that individual, is a different question. 
 
 t 49,312 horses' power, divided by 5,492 guns, gives 8 '9, or eight and 
 nine-tenths horses' power to each gun on the average. 
 
49 
 
 TABLE No. 2. 
 A List of War Steamers in H.M.'s Service, fated with Paddle Wheels. 
 
 
 Name. 
 
 Guns. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Horses' power. 
 
 1 
 
 Barracouta 
 
 f, 
 
 
 300 
 
 2 
 
 Basilisk, 
 
 6 
 
 1000 
 
 400 
 
 3 
 
 Buzzard, 
 
 6 
 
 
 300 
 
 4 
 
 Oyclops 
 
 6 
 
 1195 
 
 320 
 
 5 
 
 Devastation 
 
 6 
 
 1058 
 
 400 
 
 6 
 
 
 6 
 
 1196 
 
 560 
 
 7 
 
 
 6 
 
 1056 
 
 280 
 
 8 
 
 Firebrand, 
 
 6 
 
 1190 
 
 410 
 
 9 
 
 Furious * 
 
 1C) 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 10 
 
 Geyser . 
 
 (j 
 
 1060 
 
 480 
 
 11 
 
 Gladiator .. 
 
 fj 
 
 1210 
 
 430 
 
 12 
 
 Hecla, 
 
 (i 
 
 816 
 
 240 
 
 13 
 
 Hermes, 
 
 (> 
 
 830 
 
 220 
 
 14 
 
 Hydra 
 
 (j 
 
 817 
 
 220 
 
 15 
 
 Inflexible, 
 
 6 
 
 1122 
 
 378 
 
 16 
 
 Leopard,* 
 
 18 
 
 1326 
 
 560 
 
 " 17 
 
 Maoicienne ; ' : . 
 
 16 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 18 
 
 Polyphemus, 
 
 5 
 
 800 
 
 200 
 
 19 
 
 
 ft 
 
 1299 
 
 467 
 
 20 
 
 Sidon,* 
 
 22 
 
 1328 
 
 560 
 
 21 
 
 Sphynx . 
 
 6 
 
 1058 
 
 500 
 
 22 
 
 Spiteful, 
 
 6 
 
 3060 
 
 280 
 
 23 
 
 
 6 
 
 970 
 
 280 
 
 24 
 
 Styx , 
 
 6 
 
 1057 
 
 280 
 
 25 
 
 Terrible * 
 
 21 
 
 1850 
 
 800 
 
 26 
 
 Retribution * 
 
 28 
 
 1640 
 
 400 
 
 27 
 
 Valorous * . 
 
 16 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 28 
 
 Virago, 
 
 6 
 
 1060 
 
 300 
 
 29 
 
 Vulture, 
 
 (i 
 
 1190 
 
 470 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 268 
 
 
 11,235 
 
 * A selection of seven of the largest and newest Paddle Vessels in the Navy. 
 
 
 Name. 
 
 Guns. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Horses' power. 
 
 1 
 
 Furious . 
 
 16 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 2 
 
 Leopard, 
 
 18 
 
 1326 
 
 560 
 
 3 
 
 Magicienne 
 
 16 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 4 
 
 Sidon, 
 
 22 
 
 1328 
 
 560 
 
 5 
 
 Terrible 
 
 21 
 
 1850 
 
 800 
 
 6 
 
 Valorous, . 
 
 28 
 
 1640 
 
 400 
 
 7 
 
 Retribution . 
 
 16 
 
 1255 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total..., 
 
 137 1 
 
 9909 
 
 3520 
 
 9909 tons, total tonnage of seven vessels, divided by 7, gives 1415 as the 
 tonnage of each vessel, and 3520 horses' power, divided by 137 guns, gives 
 25 '7, or 25 and seven-tenths, as the average horses' power to each gun. 
 
 The same calculation upon the whole number of vessels is as follows : 
 11,235 horses' power, divided by 268 guns, gives 41 '9, or 41 and nine-tenths, 
 as the average horses' power to each gun. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 A TABLE OF COMPARISON between the SPEED of SCREW and PADDLE 
 sured Knot in Stokes Bay, and other officially measured, distances ; their propor- 
 
 SCREW SHIPS. 
 GUN BOATS. 
 
 130 of 
 12 
 20 
 
 Guns. 
 
 4 
 4 
 2 
 
 Crew. Tons. * ^j^ 
 
 36 238 60 8-8 
 30 232 40 7'5 
 25 212 20 6-9 
 
 Average Average 
 tons per men per 
 gun. gun. 
 59 9-0 
 58 7'5 
 106 12-5 
 
 Victor 
 Flying Fish 
 Mohawk 
 Wanderer 
 
 DESPATCH GUN VESSELS. 
 6 100 850 350 12 -5 
 
 4 80 670 200 11 '5 
 
 142 16-7 
 167 20-0 
 
 Rattlert 
 Archer 
 Plumper 
 Falcon 
 Harrier 
 
 11 
 14 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 SLOOPS. 
 130 888 200 10-0\ 
 175 973 202 79/ 
 100 490 60 7-4*- 61 10 
 
 100 750 100 10-2J 
 
 Pylades 
 Cossack 
 Tartar 
 Esk 
 
 21 
 20 
 20 
 21 
 
 CORVETTES. 
 240 1400 350 108 
 240 1383 250 10 -2 
 240 1322 250 10'3 
 240 1153 250 105 
 
 64 11-7 
 
 Euryalus 
 Imperieuse 
 Dauntless 
 Hawke 
 
 51 
 51 
 33 
 60 
 
 FRIGATES. 
 530 2371 400 110 
 530 2357 360 10 5 
 330 1569 580 10 "3 
 600 1754 200 67 
 
 41 10-3 
 
 TWO DECKED LINE OF BATTLE SHIPS. 
 Conqueror 101 930 3283 800 12 "0\ 
 St. Jean D'Acre 101 930 3280 600 114 I 
 Orion 91 850 3281 600 11 -51 
 Agamemnon 91 850 3281 600 11.3 
 Ccesar 91 850 3100 -400 10 "2 V 34 q . 7 
 Brunswick \ / 
 Colossus ( 
 Majestic > 80 750 2589 400 10 "5 \ 
 Cressy I 
 Centurion / / 
 
 THREE DECKED LINE OF BATTLE SHIPS. 
 Marlborough 131 1100 4000 800 ll'O 
 
 Duke of Wellington 131 1100 3759 800 ll'O 
 Royal Albert 121 1000 3726 500 lO'O 
 
 Royal George 102 920 2616 400 9 '4 
 
 29 
 
 8'5 
 
 NAVAL TRANSPORT SHIP. 
 
 Guns. Crew. Tons. ^ Tons per horse. 
 
 Himalaya 3550 700 13 "8 5 
 
 The Himalaya is constructed of iron, and had on board, at the trial of 
 speed in Stokes Bay, 13th January, 1854, 700 tons of coal. Her screw is 
 also of iron, weighs nearly 11 tons, and cost about 400. Gross power 
 indicated at the time of trial, 2050 horses. 
 
 * Obtained from records of official trials kept by contracting engineers. 
 t Rattler was the first ship of war fitted with the screw in H.M. Service. Launched 
 in 1843. 
 
51 
 
 VESSELS, of similar classes in Her Majesty's Service, as ascertained at the mea- 
 tion of tonnage to the number of guns carried, and the number of crew to each gun. , 
 
 PADDLE VESSELS. 
 
 Guns. 
 
 
 
 No vessels of this class. 
 
 No vessels of this class. 
 
 SLOOPS. 
 
 Polyphemust 
 Prometheus 
 
 i 
 
 130 
 
 800 
 
 200 8-5 
 
 
 Driver 
 
 6 
 
 160 
 
 1056 
 
 280 9-3 1 
 
 > 168 25-4 
 
 Inflexible 
 
 6 
 
 160 
 
 1122 
 
 378 9'0| 
 
 
 Devastation 
 
 6 
 
 160 
 
 1058 
 
 400 10 -Oj 
 
 
 
 
 SMALL 
 
 FRIGATES. 
 
 Vulture 
 
 6 
 
 200 
 
 1190 
 
 470 10-0 
 
 
 Dragon 
 Magicienne 
 
 6 
 16 
 
 200 
 220 
 
 1296 
 1256 
 
 560 10-0 
 400 10-0 
 
 113 19 
 
 Valorous 
 
 16 
 
 220 
 
 1255 
 
 400 10-0 
 
 
 FRIGATES. 
 
 Terrible 
 
 21 
 
 300 
 
 1850 
 
 800 11-0 
 
 
 Retribution 
 
 28 
 
 300 
 
 1640 
 
 400 10-0 
 
 
 Sidon 
 
 22 
 
 300 
 
 1328 
 
 560 10-0 
 
 60 12*8 
 
 Leopard 
 
 18 
 
 235 
 
 1326 
 
 560 10-5 
 
 
 No ships of this class. 
 
 No ships of this class. 
 
 NAVAL TRANSPORT SHIP. 
 
 Horse Speed 
 
 Guns. Crew. Tons. power. in knots. Tons per horse. 
 Atrato 2721 900 13 '9 3 
 
 The Atrato is constructed of iron, and had on board, at the trial of speed 
 in Stokes Bay, 10th March, 1854, 290 tons of coal. Her paddle wheels (on 
 the feathering principle) weigh 70 tons each, and cost about 5000. Gross 
 power indicated at the time of trial, 3070 horses. 
 
 * Vide Weale's List of the British Steam Navy, published 1849. by permission of the 
 Board of Admiralty, 
 t Polyphemus, Prometheus, and Alecto, sister ships to Rattler. Launched in 1839. 
 
EEMAEKS. 
 
 THE strength of naval power being, in a very great degree, measurable by 
 the number and weight of guns brought into action, the following calcula- 
 tions are given to show ibefiwt cost of hulls and machinery in propoitkn to 
 the number of guns carried, without reference of any kind to the admitted 
 advantages which screw ships possess over paddle vessels, viz. , in being 
 perfect sailing thips, independent of steam power, in presenting a complete 
 broadside of guns to an enemy, and in having their machinery (of a much 
 lighter description) placed entirely below the water line. 
 
 The speed of both descriptions of vessels under consideration is ascer- 
 tained to have Leen at least equal.* 
 
 The estimate of power in the preceding tables is in nominal horses, 
 because the first cost of machinery is always regulated by that standard. 
 
 For the purposes of a rough calculation of the current working expenses 
 of screw and paddle ships, it maybe as well to state that the indicated duly 
 of screw engines over their nominal power is, in most cases, higher than that 
 of paddle engines, and their consumption of fuel per hour is greater in a 
 similar propoition ; but as the screw ship performs all ordinary, and tome 
 special, services under sail, without steam, the consumption of fuel jitr 
 annum of any given number of horses' power may be veiy fairly taken as 
 equal, or in dirt ct proportion to the nominal power of the engines employed. 
 Every thousand horses' power consumes, on the average, about 100 tons of 
 coals per day.+ 
 
 Of the 327 screw vessels enumerated in Table No. 1, 140 of them corsist 
 of the classes denominated sloops, corvettes, frigates, and line-of battle 
 ships, which may be considered as the actual fighting^ force of screw ships 
 in the British navy, independently of the 162 gunboats and six floating 
 batteries. 1 he collective force of the 140 vessels referred to is represented 
 by an armament of 5492 guns, and a power of 49,312 horses, or about nine 
 horses to each pun. 
 
 On the Paddle Table, Ko. 2, it will be found that the force of 29 vessels 
 of all classes is represented by an armament of 268 guns, and 11,235 horses, 
 or about 42 horses to each gun ; the difference in favour of screw ships is 
 therefore 33 horses, or a saving of 1980 per gun in the first cost of 
 machinery alone. 
 
 It may not, however, be right to include the earliest of the 29 paddle 
 vessels in such an estimate of their relative value. Seven of the largest 
 and the newest of that number have therefore been selected to compare 
 with the total list of screw ships, without reference to date or size ; and 
 taken thus, the paddle ships have about 25 horses to each gun a difference 
 of about 16 horses or 960 per gun in favour of screw ships. 
 
 Hence it would require three paddle steamers of 16 guns, 1255 tons, and 
 400 horses' power each, as "Valorous," '* Leopard, "and "Furious," to can y 
 the armament of one 50 gun screw frigate like " Euryalus." The machineiy 
 of the "Euryalus," of 2371 tons, is 400 horses' power, the cost of which 
 
 * See table of comparative speed, in the preceding pages. 
 
 f The average price of coals consumed at home and abroad, in H.M. Navy, may be taken 
 at about 2 per ton. 
 
53 
 
 may be roughly estimated at 24,000, and her hull at 71,130, total 
 95,130; whilst the charge for machinery of the three paddle steamers 
 would be 72,000, their hulls 115,080, together 187,080 ; showing a 
 difference of 91,950, fir si cost, in favour of the screw frigate. 
 
 If any of the larger class of screw ships, as " Agamemnon," " Orion," etc., 
 of 91 guns, 3,281 tons, and 600 horses each, or nearly seven horses to each 
 gun, are taken as an example, and compared with the largest class of paddle 
 ships, such as the "Terrible," of 21 guns, 1850 tons, and 800 horses' power, 
 or 38 horses per gun, the difference is still more apparent ; being 31 horses' 
 power, or 1,860 per gun, in favour of the screw line-of -battle ships. In 
 other words, it would require nine ' ' Terribles " to bring into action an 
 armament equal to that of "Agamemnon" and " Orion," the cost of which 
 two ships would be machinery, 72,000; hulls, 196,860; together, 
 268,860; whilst the cost would be for nine "Terribles" machinery, 
 432,000 ; hulls, 499,500 ; together, 931,500 ; or a difference of 662,640 
 in favour of the two screw ships. 
 
 If such ships as the "Duke of Wellington," of 3,759 tons, and "Marl- 
 borough," of 4,000 tons, 131 guns, and 800 horses' power each, are taken 
 as examples, the economy in the first outlay for machinery is proportionably 
 increased beyond the case last stated. 
 
 The smallest class of screw fighting ships, such as "Falcon," "Harrier," 
 and "Hornet," of 17 guns, 750 tons, 100 horses each, represent six horses 
 to each gun, and the nearest approach to . them on the Paddle List is 
 "Devastation," "Basilisk," etc., of six guns, 1,000 tons, and 400 horses' 
 power each, being 66 horses to each gun ; the difference between these 
 vessels being 60 horses, or 3,600 per gun original cost for machinery. 
 
 In all the preceding estimates the averages of each item have been taken; 
 but if extreme comparisons are made, say between " St. Jean d'Acre " and 
 "Falcon" (screws), and " Terrible " and " Dragon " (paddles), they stand 
 as below. * 
 
 * FALCON. Total cost of hull and 
 
 machinery per gun, . . 1,635 
 
 ST. JEAN D' ACRE. Total cost of 
 
 hull and machinery per gun, 1,133 
 
 DRAGON. Total cost of hull and 
 
 machinery per gun, 
 TERRIBLE. Total cost of hull 
 
 and machinery per gun, 
 
 
 
 12,080 
 
 5,000 
 
 It seems almost needless to carry this calculation further ; but, as the 
 full extent of it may not have been previously anticipated, one more view 
 is given, as follows : 
 
 It has been stated already that the actual fighting force of screw ships in 
 tha British navy, capable of being transported to any part of the globe, is 
 5,492 guns, and 49,312 horses' power, in 140 ships of various classes ; giving 
 a total average, say, of nine horses' power to each gun, or 16 horses less 
 per gun than the best specimens of paddle ships, which average in tons 
 1,415 each ; in horses' power, 503 each ; and ia guns, 20 each. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that 275 ships of this class would have been required 
 to carry the 5,492 guns which are now carried in the 140 screw vessels, and 
 that 138,325 horses' power would have been necessary instead of 49,312. 
 showing a difference of 135 vessels and 89,017 horses ; the cost of which 
 would be 5,730,750 for hulls, and 5,341,020 for machinery, or a saving of 
 upwards of eleven millions stering. without reckoning the cost of the main- 
 tenance of the crews, and other curreut expenses, of so many additional 
 vessels. 
 
 To form some idea of the cost of pay and maintenance of the crews of 
 such an extra number of ships, it is only necessary to glance at the table on 
 pages 50 and 51, where it will be seen that the crews of paddle vessels 
 average in the proportion of 19 to 10.5 men per gun more than in screw 
 vessels of a similar denomination or class ; and is this item of expense is 
 
54 
 
 (so long as ships are in commission) constant, and unlike the steam engine, 
 which only requires fuel occasionally, it would of necessity add to the 
 national expenditure an annual sum quite equal to the cost of coals and 
 other stores for engine room consumption. 
 
 These observations are not intended to imply that guns of the same size 
 on board paddle steamers require more men to work them than they do in 
 screw steamers, but that the difference arises from the fact that the former 
 vessels average, in point of tonnage, 117 to 56 tons, or about 105 per cent, 
 more in tons per gun than the three classes of screw vessels which have been 
 selected for this comparison. The same table exhibits great economy in 
 favour of the largest class of paddle ships, as well as screw ships, in point of 
 tonnage per gun, men per gun, and tons per horse power ; but as it may be 
 urged that, if paddle ships were to be constructed as large as line-of-battle 
 ships, there would be no difference in these respects, and as the practical 
 limit to the dimensions of paddle wheels seems to have been almost reached 
 in the " Terrible" and " Atrato," their weight, including paddle boxes and 
 supports, being little short of 100 tons on each side, this circumstance, apart 
 from their obstruction to the broadside, and consequent exposure of ma- 
 chinery, is in itself a sufficient reason for not enlarging on the proportions 
 of the paddle ships of the navy. 
 
 By substituting the words " tons per horse," for "horses' power per gun, 1 ' 
 it will be seen that a similar saving is effected by the use of screw ships in 
 the merchant and naval transport service ; and this cannot be more clearly 
 shown than by the fact that there are already about 400 merchant screw 
 steamers in existence, and that but few paddle vessels are being built. 
 
 In conclusion, it may be remarked, that the present class of gun-boats 
 could not have existed but for the introduction of the screw ; as paddle 
 vessels, sufficiently small for the purposes of gun-boats, could not carry 
 heavy guns at the botv or stern, and to work them in the middle of the 
 vessel, as is now done, would have been altogether impracticable, on account 
 of the paddle-boxes. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 DOUBLE ACTION SCREW PROPELLERS. 
 
 IN the propulsion of vessels by means of the screw propeller one great dif- 
 ficulty to be overcome is, the loss of speed arising from what is usually called 
 the "slip of the screw," in the absence of a more explicit term or expres- 
 sion to explain the cause of this loss of speed, the actual cause being due to 
 the yielding of the water behind to the reaction of the screw in forcing of 
 the vessel forward through the water, action and reaction being in all cases 
 equal to each other ; so that, whatever the yielding of the water to the 
 reaction of the screw propeller may be, the loss of speed in the vessel's 
 forward motion (and consequently the loss of power in the same ratio) will 
 be exactly equal in amount to the yielding of the water. This loss 
 frequently amounts to as much as one-half of the progress that would be 
 due to the pitch and number of revolutions of the screw in a given time, 
 even if the propeller is constructed on the true principle of the helix, or 
 perfect screw. In the endeavour to reduce this so-called slip to the smallest 
 possible amount, the author made a large number of experiments, and 
 found that the best results were obtained by making use of two propellers 
 instead of a single one, and so arranging them that their combined action 
 would produce an effect upon the water similar to that produced by the 
 tail of a fish, or an oar in sculling ; that is to say, the water being put in 
 motion in one direction by the oblique action of the angled blades of the 
 first or fore propeller, similar to the action of a fish's tail or a sculling oar, 
 that motion of the water will in like manner be counteracted by an opposite 
 action, obtained from the second or aft propeller, placed directly behind the 
 first, and revolving in the opposite direction, having also its blades angled 
 in the contrary direction to those of the first propeller, so that <a more 
 perfect resistance shall be obtained to meet the reaction of the screw pro- 
 pellers in forcing the vessel forwards, than would be the case were the 
 motion of the water from the action of the first propeller allowed to con- 
 tinue without obstruction in the same direction, similar to the revolving 
 motion which is given to the water when only one propeller is used. 
 
 The two propellers may each have two, three, four, or more blades, as 
 the case may require, and although they may be of the same form in general 
 use, with rounded back and expanding pitch, or otherwise, the author 
 would prefer that they should be made as near as possible to the form of a 
 portion of the thread of a true screw, whether of two, three, or more threads, 
 according to the number of blades employed. When made of this form, the 
 forward tendency of each portion of the blades, when in motion, will be 
 exactly the same throughout. 
 
 The pitch or speed of one propeller may, however, be more or less than 
 
56 
 
 that of the other, according to circumstances and requirements, and in 
 order to prevent vibration the section of the blades should be such as will 
 produce a direct line of screw action, and at the same time offer the 
 smallest possible resistance in passing through the water, as is consistent 
 with the strength required for the blades, &c. 
 
 This principle and arrangement of propellers may be applied to twin 
 screws, on each side of the dead wood, or on each side of the rudder, or 
 behind the rudder, or in the opening of the dead wood, in the same manner 
 as most of the ordinary screw propellers now in use ; but in place of the 
 opening in the dead wood being, as usually made, so short fore and aft as 
 merely to allow a clear space for the propeller to pass through, the author 
 prefers it to be as wide as circumstances will permit, so that the water may 
 have free access to the fore propeller and equally free exit from the aft one. 
 The main and false stem posts, also, should both be bevelled inwards to the 
 opening, so that the water may enter and leave freely, and with the least 
 possible resistance, as shown in fig. 1, page 57. 
 
 THE FISH TORPEDO. 
 
 This invention is particularly adaptable for the propulsion of the White- 
 head Fish-Torpedoes (shown in figs. 3 and 4), to which the double-action 
 propellers have been applied with extraordinary success the results being 
 that a rate of speed equal to 27 knots, or 31 miles, per hour has already 
 been obtained ; and in consideration of so great an advantage as the attain- 
 ment of this speed by so small a vessel as the fish -torpedo, the Secretary 
 of State for War, on the 29th of March, 1880, sanctioned a payment of 
 500 to be made to the author for the application of his patent propellers 
 to the fish-torpedoes made forH.M. War Department in the Royal factories. 
 
 Fig. 3 represents a side view or plan of the Whitehead Torpedo, to a 
 scale of half an inch to the foot. In cross section it is round, the shape 
 longitudinally being somewhat similar to that of a cigar, the ends being 
 tapered almost to a point, and having the propellers a, b, at the very ex- 
 tremity, behind the rudders d, d, of which there are four, placed at right 
 angles to each other. Two of these rudders are for guiding the torpedo to 
 maintain a straight course, or a course to the right or left, as required, and 
 the other two are for regulating the depth of the course below the surface 
 of the water. 
 
 Fig. 4 represents a part section of the after portion of the torpedo, en- 
 larged to a scale of one inch to the foot, showing the driving gear by which 
 the right and left hand motion of the propellers on the same centre line of 
 action is obtained. 
 
 Fig. 5 13 an enlarged view of the driving gear. The same letters refer 
 to identical parts in each of the figures : A or a, the aft and right hand 
 revolving propeller ; B or b, the fore and left hand revolving propeller ; 
 c, the main stern post, through which the tube/ and shaft e protrude, and 
 on which the propellers A and B are severally fixed, as in fig. 1. 
 
59 
 
 In figs. 1, 3, and 4, e is the main driving shaft, on which the right hand 
 propeller A or a is fixed ; f is the tube on which the left hand propeller 
 B or b is fixed ; g is the main driving wheel, fixed on the main driving shaft 
 e, which gives motion to the two wheels /, i, which drive the wheel h, fixed 
 on the tube/, on which is also fixed the left hand propeller B, as before 
 stated. 
 
 Previous to the application of the author's double-action propellers to the 
 Fish Torpedo, the maximum speed attained by a certain torpedo with the 
 single propeller was 10 knots per hour, but after the application of the 
 double-action propellers to the same torpedo a speed of 12 knots per hour 
 was attained, with precisely the same amount of power as before. 
 
 ROYAL LABORATORY, WOOLWICH, S.E., 
 
 23rd June, 1877. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 In reply to your letter of 19th instant, I beg to inform you 
 that in November, 1874, your double screw was put on a torpedo, which, 
 with the single screw in use before that date, had given a speed of 10 '24 
 knots for 200 yards at 36 atmospheres; the result was that a speed of 12*33 
 knots was obtained for same distance at same pressure. The average speed 
 of torpedoes of this class since made in this department has been 12 '5 knots. 
 And believe me, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) G. ERASER, Col. 
 
 R. WILSON, Sen., Esq. 
 
 To attain this increase of speed with the single propeller 73 per cent, addi- 
 tional power would have to be applied, assuming that it would have been 
 possible to apply such additional power without churning the water that is 
 causing it to revolve with the propeller, or otherwise causing the torpedo 
 itself to revolve in the water in the opposite direction to the propeller. In 
 either of these cases, or in a combination of the two, the greater portion of 
 the power would have been absorbed without giving much forward motion to 
 the torpedo. The power required to produce a speed of 12 knots per hour 
 was calculated to be about seven horse power ; and the power required to 
 produce any given speed varies as the cube of the speed, therefore 27 
 knots being 2| times 12 knots, and the cube of 2| times 11.39, then 
 11.39 x 7=79.73, or nearly 80 horse power would be required to produce a 
 speed of 27 knots per hour. 
 
 The attainment of this wonderful speed of 27 knots per hour by such a 
 small vessel as the Fish Torpedo, with propellers revolving in a circle of 14 
 inches diameter, must be attributed to certain advantageous points, which 
 may be said to belong strictly to the principle of the double-action screw 
 propellers alone. 
 
 The first of these to be noticed as a primary cause of this unexampled 
 speed being attained is, that the effect upon the water due to the action of 
 the first or fore propeller being counteracted by the action of the second or 
 
60 
 
 aft propeller prevents not only the circular motion of the water which takes 
 place by the action of the single propeller, but also prevents the tendency 
 which the torpedo itself has to revolve in the opposite direction to the pro- 
 peller, when extra power is employed with a view of obtaining a high rate 
 of speed. These two defects, if not counteracted by some sufficient means, 
 would absorb almost the whole of the power expended, with little or no 
 resulting forward motion of the torpedo. 
 
 The nexb point to be noticed is that, the above-named defects being over- 
 come, almost any practicable amount of power may be applied in order to 
 obtain the speed required. The same amount of power could not be applied 
 with tlie single propeller without churning the water when extra resistance 
 had to be overcome. This was clearly proved by an actual trial of the 
 towing power of two boats. The two boats were each fitted with engines 
 having the same power, with equal steam pressure, one boat being provided 
 with a single propeller only, while the other was fitted with the double 
 propellers, the trial was made by making fast the boats stern to stern, by 
 a rope, leaving a space of about 30 feet between them. The boat with the 
 single propeller used steam at a pressure of 120 Ibs. per square inch, while 
 the other boat with the double propellers, using steam of only 50 Ibs. 
 pressure per square inch, towed the first boat along behind her, as though 
 there was but little extra resistance to be overcome. This experiment was 
 repeated several times with the same result ; the explanation of this, is 
 simply that the whole of the power expended upon the single propeller, was 
 absorbed in merely churning the water, while with the double propellers 
 less than half the amount was expended, but that power was utilized for 
 propelling only, there being no churning of the water with the double 
 propellers. 
 
 Another point of advantage to be noticed is, that by having all the 
 angular action and effect, of the one propeller counterbalanced by the 
 opposite action and effect of the other propeller, the acting power of 
 the rudder seldom requires to be brought into use, to maintain the vessel 
 on a straight course, and thus a considerable saving of power is effected. 
 Vessels fitted with the ordinary single propellers, require almost constantly, 
 either a starboard, or a port-helm, according to their propellers being right 
 or left hand screws, to maintain them on a straight course. This is 
 especially the case when the vessel is pitching, when the screw being more 
 or less lifted out of the water, racing ensues, which affects the vessel's 
 course, and requires to be checked by the action of the rudder, which at 
 the same time reduces the speed of the vessel. This is entirely obviated 
 by the use of the double acting propellers, as the action of one is counter- 
 balanced by the action of the other in any position. And yet another 
 point of advantage remains, in as much, that a considerable greater speed 
 can be obtained going astern with the double propellers, than with the 
 single propeller. This advantage, coupled with the superior towing power, 
 which was found to be about 50 per cent, above the single propeller in the 
 experiments made with a Dynamometer ; and the facility for stopping, and 
 starting, which these extra powers confer, will be at once recognised as 
 affording increased safety from risk of accidents and collisions which too 
 frequently are the occasion of most lamentable losses of life and valuable 
 property. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PEESS. 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER. 
 (From " The Leader and Saturday Analyst (London),'' 1 June 2nd, I860.} 
 
 Out of a hundred persons on board a steamer at any time who are there 
 for pleasure or for business, how many ever think of asking, Who invented 
 the Screw Propeller? and even were they all to put the question, it is 
 doubtful if the captain himself could satisfactorily answer it. About an 
 invention so useful and so new, however, there should, we think, be no 
 doubt whatever. Far back in antiquity we are not surprised to find that 
 the origin of a thing fades into uncertainty or total obscurity, but we may 
 reasonably be not a little astonished, that almost within the recollection of 
 everybody now living a great and important invention is a subject of dispute 
 and error. We know that the nation has been benefited by the invention, 
 that our trade and commerce at home and abroad have increased by it, but 
 who is the individual who has personally profited as the ingenious inventor 
 of the Screw Propeller ? 
 
 Ihis question ought to be easily answered. The patentee is Mr. Smith, 
 and he it appears, has reaped the honours and the rewards of the invention. 
 But is he not the inventor ? Mr. Robert Wilson says no, and his arguments 
 in support of his own claim to the invention appear to be so strong and 
 conclusive, that until we hear both sides of the question we can scarcely 
 suspend our judgment. He sa,ys, " This invention, as the most suitable 
 for propelling ships of war and other ocean steamers, I now for the first 
 time publicly claim as my own, and I am confident I shall be able to 
 establish, by undoubted documentary evidence, that I not only invented, and 
 tested in the the sea before Committees of the Highland Society and Society 
 of Arts, but at great personal sacrifices used all the means in my power to 
 introduce the screw propeller for ocean navigation, long before Mr. Smith, 
 the patentee, had even his attention directed to the subject ; and that the 
 screw might have been adopted in the navy as early as 1827, to the saving 
 of millions of the public money." 
 
 We cannot follow Mr. Wilson through the process of evidence and 
 testimony by which he establishes his claim to the invention, but must 
 content ourselves with simply referring the reader, or any one interested 
 in the matter and who is not uninterested in seeing justice done to those 
 to whom it is due ? to the little work upon the subject of Ms claim. We 
 may, however, mention the singular fact, that the French represent M. 
 Sauvage, of Havre, as the inventor of the screw propeller. M. Sauvage 
 derived no pecuniary advantage from the adoption of the invention in France ; 
 and he, within the last few years, became so poor that the Emperor, having 
 been informed of his position, undertook to provide for him. However, 
 amid all rival and conflicting claims to the honour of the invention, we 
 think Mr. Robert Wilson puts forth the strongest. 
 
 THE DISCOVERER OF THE SCREW PROPELLER. 
 
 (From ".The Haddingtonshire Courier," June Sth, 1860.) 
 Mr. Robert Wilson, of the firm of Messrs. J. Nasmyth & Co., Manchestei , 
 now comes publicly forward to claim the merit of having first discovered 
 
62 
 
 the screw propeller, though Mr. Smith has until now received the credit 
 and the rewards. In the pamphlet which he has just published, Mr. 
 Wilson brings forward very conclusive evidence that in 1827, at a period 
 long anterior to the date of Mr. Smith's patent, he had discovered the 
 principle of the screw propeller, and had actually verified it by successful 
 experiments in Leith Roads in the presence of numerous noblemen and 
 gentlemen, and members of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts. 
 
 The publication of this modest narrative unequivocally proves the claim 
 of Mr. Wilson to priority of invention, and entitles him to the thanks of his 
 countrymen, as adding another to the list of those illustrious Scotchmen 
 who have by their native talent augmented the mechanical resources of 
 the age. 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER; WHO INVENTED IT? 
 
 WITH ILLUSTRATIONS. BY ROBERT WILSON. T. MURRAY AND SON, GLASGOW. 
 
 (From " Tim Scotsman" Jum 9t/i, 1860.) 
 
 Questions as to the priority of inventions or discoveries are perhaps the 
 most disagreeable that arise in the scientific world. Discoveries are fre- 
 quently so much a result of the advance of knowledge, or of some felt 
 practical necessity of the time, that we may almost say it is often a mere 
 accident that determines who the individual discoverer shall be. Many 
 minds are working on the same idea, or the necessity of remedying some 
 practical defect has been felt by more than one individual, and the very 
 conditions of the case lead to coincidence in discovery or invention. One, 
 of course, by greater diligence, or what is called good fortune or luck, gets 
 before his compeers in the race, and is the first to publish the results of his 
 labours, and, by the established law of the scientific world, he who first 
 makes known any new fact or invention is entitled to claim it as his own. 
 
 Simple as the rule seemsj tts application is often difficult. Some in- 
 genious inventor publishes an important discovery, but wants the influence 
 or energy to secure its full recognition by the public, and is overlooked or 
 forgotten. In a few years some other person with more fortune or perse- 
 verance again brings it forward, and obtains the honour that of right 
 should have fallen to his predecessor. In such cases reclamations are sure 
 to follow, and questions of much nicety are sure to arise. These become 
 more troublesome when an invention brings not only fame but profit, as in 
 the case of the screw propeller, noticed in this pamphlet. The invention 
 was patented in 1836 by Mr. Smith, a farmer at Hendon, supported by 
 some monied men in London. In a pamphlet published in 1858, which we 
 noticed at the time, the invention was claimed for a mechanic in Irvine, 
 whose discovery was alleged to have been appropriated by an engineer to 
 whom it had been intrusted. In the present pamphlet M r. Wilson shows 
 that in 1828 he brought a model of a similar propeller under the notice of 
 the Highland Society, and that a committee of the Society, after seeing it 
 work in the Union Canal, reported in its favour. In 1832 the Society of 
 Arts for Scotland awarded Mr. Wilson a prize medal for the same inven- 
 tion, after testing it in a boat in Leith Roads, and strongly recommended 
 that it should be brought under the consideration of the Lords of the 
 Admiralty for trial on a large scale. Through the influence of Sir John 
 Sinclair, Mr. James Simpson, advocate, and other friends, it was in 1833 
 submitted to the Admiralty, who referred it to the officers at Woolwich, 
 by whom the papers were returned, with "the opinion that the plan pro- 
 posed is objectionable." Mr. Wilson with some justice complains that no 
 trial was made even of the model sent. In consequence of this unfavour- 
 able reception by the Admiralty, Mr. Wilson had no opportunity of bringing 
 
63 
 
 his invention again under public notice till he found it patented by Mr. 
 Smith in 1836, and in 1845 finally adopted by the navy, it would appear, 
 on the recommendation of some of the very persons who had condemned it 
 without trial when proposed by Mr. Wilson. It must be confessed that 
 with such facts apparently established by official documents, Mr. Wilson 
 seems to have been very hardly treated, and that a good case is made out, 
 at least for further inquiry. 
 
 (From "The Glasgow Citizen," 9th June, 1860.) 
 
 Everybody is aware of the controversy which has raged, from time to 
 time, as to who invented steam-boats. Was it Fulton on the Hudson, or 
 Bell on the Clyde ? or was it Miller, or Taylor, or Symington in their prior 
 and more obscure experiments on Dalswinton Loch ? A dispute of a very 
 similar nature has arisen with respect to the inventor of the screw propeller. 
 Hitherto, not only the renown of that invention, but the national reward, 
 together, we believe, with a considerable yearly pension, has been enjoyed 
 by Mr. Francis Pettit Smith, originally a farmer at Hendon in England. 
 In 1858, however a pamphlet made its appearance, and was noticed in our 
 columns at the time, claiming, on irrefragable documentary evidence, the 
 invention of the screw propeller for three Irvine gentlemen Messrs. Steed- 
 man, M'Cririck, and Maxwell Dick. The first idea of the screw was 
 ascribed, in that brochure, to Mr. Steedman, and to his having noticed a 
 resemblance between "the fish tail and scull." In the article "Irvine," 
 
 Maxwell Dick constructed a variety of screws, and, during 1827 and 1828, 
 made an extensive series of experiments with working models, to determine 
 the best length and angle of screw. In these trials they applied varied 
 arrangements of screw to each side of the vessel. In this way they discovered 
 the most powerful description, as a strong person would do in pulling an 
 oar against a weaker one. This object being gained, the next plan was to 
 fix the approved screw in the best dynomical position, namely, in the stern 
 of the boat, which they, in their experiments, had also proved." All this 
 would, of course, detract nothing from Mr. Smith's claims if these Irvine 
 mechanics had merely pursued their labours in privacy. But repeated 
 attempts were made to push the invention forward. In 1829 it was 
 brought before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and in 1830 Mr. Dick 
 introduced it personally to the Royal Society of London. Mr. Dick was 
 assisted in placing his model and propeller before the latter learned body 
 by Mr. Andrew Smith, Engineer, Princess Street, Leicester Square, who 
 afterwards namely, in March, 1831 was instrumental in getting the 
 models back, and returning them to Irvine, where they are still preserved. 
 Now, the supposition seems to be that Mr. F. P. Smith had got hold of the 
 idea of the screw propeller from Mr. A. Smith, with whom he was in some 
 way connected. At all events, there stands the broad facts that a screw- 
 propeller emanated from the Scotch town of Irvine as early as 1829 that 
 it was exhibited in London in 1830 and that it was not until 1835 that 
 Mr. F. P. Smith had his attention turned at all to the subject, nor until 
 31st May, 1836, that the patent for his " improved " screw propeller was 
 obtained ! 
 
 But within the last week or two even the Irvine claimants have met 
 with a formidable competitor. Mr. Robert Wilson, of the firm of Messrs, 
 .lames Nasmyth & Co. , Bridgewater Foundry, Patricroft, near Manchester, 
 declares himself to be the original inventor of the screw propeller, the idea 
 of which occurred to him as early as 1808. This gentlemen likewise brings 
 
64 
 
 the honour of the invention to the country of Watt and Bell, being a native 
 of Dunbar, on the east coast of Scotland. It is but fair, however, to state 
 that both seem to have been prosecuting their experiments quite unknown 
 to each other. In a pamphlet which Mr. Wilson has just published, and 
 which is now before us, he gives an interesting account of the manner in 
 which the screw suggested itself to his mind from sculling, from the 
 action of a fish's tail, and from combining the principle of a windmill with 
 the reverse motion of an undershot wheel. From turning the matter over 
 in his thoughts, he proceeded to make numerous experiments, continuing 
 these, at intervals, during a period of nineteen years. All this we have 
 only on his own authority, but in 1827 two years before the earliest date 
 at which the Irvine experiments were made public he had his stern 
 paddles, or revolving sculls, brought under the notice of the Earl of 
 Lauderdale, who promised to use his influence with the Lords of the 
 Admiralty in order to have the principle tested on a large scale. Their 
 Lordships, it turned out, were not to be moved ; but from that time Mr. 
 Wilson made no secret of his invention. A record of it is contained in the 
 minute-book of the Dunbar Mechanics' Institution, dated 18th October, 
 1827. The model was likewise noticed and briefly described in the 
 Edinburgh Mercury of 29th December, 1827. In 1828 it was brought 
 formally under the notice of the Highland Society of Scotland. A sub- 
 committee of that body witnessed experiments with it in Leith Koads, and 
 gave in a somewhat lengthy report in its favour, in which they authorized 
 the purchase of the model, and awarded 10 to the ingenious inventor. 
 Here, too, we get a passing glimpse of another screw inventor, in the 
 person of Mr. Waddell, of Leith Links, but his "blades being mere flat 
 surfaces, set at an angle," had no chance, it seems, against Mr. Wilson's. 
 In 1832 Mr. Wilson submitted his invention to the Edinburgh Society of 
 Arts, and was rewarded with the Society's Silver Medal, value five 
 sovereigns. The Committee appointed to report on the subject likewise 
 strongly recommended the invention to the attention of the Admiralty for 
 war-ships, the propelling power being " altogether under water," and out 
 of the reach of shot. This was followed up by actual and influential 
 appeals to Government, but without any favourable result the officers of 
 Woolwich Yard, to whom the matter was referred, having examined the 
 papers respecting Mr. Wilson's invention, and pronounced the plan 
 objectionable, on the ground that it involved "a greater loss of power 
 than the common mode of applying the wheels to the side." These state- 
 ments are all authenticated by *a variety of documents and correspondence. 
 We have no wish to detract from the real merits of Mr. Smith. In 
 reference to the screw propeller he occupies a similar position to that 
 occupied by Fulton in the matter of steam navigation. His mode of 
 exciting attention appears to have been, not to seek the patronage of 
 learned societies, or to batter at the door of the Admiralty, but with the 
 aid of friends to secure a patent, get up a screw vessel, and begin plying. 
 On the Paddington Canal, and on the Thames, he showed the principle in 
 actual and successful operation ; while about the same time the accom- 
 plished Captain Ericsson was introducing his screw, and in a manner 
 equally triumphant, in America. These two are, indeed, the Fulton and 
 the Bell of steam-screw propulsion. They were the first to bring it into 
 practical use. But the original thinkers and experimenters the Millers, 
 the Taylors, and the Symingtons of the invention were clearly Mr. 
 Robert Wilson, of Dunbar, and~ Messrs. Steedman, M'Cririck, and Maxwell 
 Dick, of Irvine, who, after much early effort, struggle, and expense, have 
 had the mortification of seeing the honours and emoluments passing into 
 other hands. 
 
65 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER; WHO INVENTED IT? 
 
 WITH ILLUSTRATION. BY ROBERT WILSON, BRIDGEWA.TER FOUNDRY, 
 PATRICROFT. 
 
 (From " The Manchester Daily Examiner and Times," June 20th, 1860.) 
 
 It is not very long since the relative merits of Symington, Taylor, Miller, 
 and Fulton, in the invention of the steamboat were fairly elucidated. The 
 controversy was long and keen, but it served the interests of historical 
 truth, and did justice to men who were benefactors of their race, and who, 
 dying unrewarded for their share in introducing to the world a new agent 
 in locomotion, left their names to the calm and impartial judgment of 
 posterity. The latest development in steam navigation is the screw 
 propeller, and the history of this invention has yet to be written. The 
 pamphlet before us (pp. 54) is a contribution to that history. The author, 
 Mr. Robert Wilson, is connected with the firm of Messrs. Nasmyth & Co., 
 of the Bridge-water Foundry, at Patricroft, and during a long life engaged 
 in mechanical pursuits. The books of reference in art and science tell us 
 that the screw propeller as a means of locomotion at sea was perfected 
 between 1835-9 by Mr. Francis Pettit Smith, who patented his invention, 
 succeeded in getting it practically tested by the Admiralty, and ultimately 
 adopted by the Government for the propulsion of our steam navy. Neither 
 this formula nor Mr. Smith's merits as an inventor does Mr. Wilson seek to 
 challenge. He simply desires to lay claim to priority of discovery of the 
 theory of the screw as a means of propulsion. As early as 1808, Mr. Wilson 
 had his thoughts directed to the subject. The first real step in advance he 
 made by closely watching the motions of a self-acting windmill, the idea 
 suddenly occurring to him that he could modify the sculling oar so as to 
 make it serve as a means of propelling a vessel. This was simply by putting 
 it in the form of a wind-wheel, capable of performing all the functions 
 necessary for perfect action under water. Revolving sculls applicable to 
 ocean propulsion, were the object of his search. Between 1819-21 be per- 
 fected his model (a fac- simile of which he gives) and made a number of 
 experiments, his model boat being 2 feet 6 inches long and 6 inches broad. 
 Between 1825 and 1827 Mr. Wilson still further improved his models. In 
 his first experiments the propeller was placed in front of the rudder, but 
 the most favourable results were obtained with it behind the rudder. 
 
 The invention is thus brought down to 1827- In that year the Earl of 
 Lau denial e, through his son, then Captain of the Glasgow frigate, had the 
 invention put before the Admiralty. Next year the invention came under 
 the notice of the Highland Society, a sub-committee of which body fully 
 reported on its merits, gave Mr. Wilson a sum of money to enable him 
 to get propellers made on a large scale, to be applied to a boat which should 
 be tried in Leith Roads. A boat 25 ft. long was obtained, the propellers 
 applied, and the experiment took place in April, 1 828, several naval gentle- 
 men being present, including Vice- Admiral Sir David Milne. The minutes 
 of the Highland Society, quoted in the pamphlet, fully prove the importance 
 attached to the experiment at the time, and the satisfaction its results gave 
 to the naval gentlemen who witnessed it. Four years after, that is in 1832, 
 several of Mr. Wilson's friends desired him to bring his propeller before 
 the Edinburgh Society of Arts. The minutes of the Society (2nd May, 
 1832) have the description of the experiments with what were at the time 
 called "stern paddles." The concluding part of the report is significant, 
 the Committee recommending that the Society " should give a strong 
 recommendation of the principle upon which Mr. Wilson's stern paddles are 
 constructed, which may be the means of bringing this invention under the 
 notice and consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty, who may in all pro- 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 bability be disposed to give it a trial on the large scale ;" especially as the motive 
 being placed under water and out of the reach of shot, would be a matter 
 of the greatest importance to the navy. In 1833, accordingly urged on by 
 the late Sir John Sinclair, the Society of Arts brought the matter fully 
 before the notice of the Admiralty, who transmitted the papers to the 
 officers of Woolwich Yard, Messrs. Oliver Lang and Abethell. These 
 gentlemen reported (17th September, 1833) that they had examined the 
 paper and models, and give as their opinion (to which the subsequent 
 history of the screw propeller gives a direct contradiction) " that the plan 
 proposed (independent of practical difficulties) is objectionable, as it involves 
 a greater loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels to 
 the side." Routine sees practical difficulties in everything out of the 
 ordinary well-beaten tract. The difference between Mr. Wilson and Mr. 
 Smith as competing inventors may be just the difference between applying 
 to an unwilling and a willing Admiralty Board. Certainly those who urged 
 Mr. Wilson to make his application, after knowing its result, would have 
 had little encouragement to give Mr. Smith to apply in the same direction. 
 But Mr. Smith did apply, under happier auspices. Had Mr. Smith, like 
 Mr. Wilson, been quietly remitted to the Woolwich Yard routine, the 
 verdict might have been "there is nothing in it." and the hopes of the 
 inventor, as well as the progress of steam navigation, indt finitely 
 Since 1841, the royal naval authorities, who in 1833 backed the sid- paddles, 
 have adopted the screw in most of their ships, and Mr. Smith stands before 
 the world as the originator of an idea which has more than anything else 
 contributed to the extraordinary development of our steam marine within 
 the last twenty years. We can make allowance for the feeling under 
 which Mr. Wilson contrasts his own bad with Mr. Smith's good luck. The 
 latter, however, would have shared the same fate had his invention 
 like that of the former, been sent to a couple of Government underlings, 
 evidently utterly incapable of giving an opinion upon it. But Mr. Wilson 
 does not stand alone as a victim of Government discouragement Captain 
 Ericcson, it seems, was even with Mr. Smith in point of time in the inven- 
 tion of a screw, with which he towed a vessel at the rate of 10 miles an 
 hour. The Captain offered his invention in 1837 to the Admiralty ; but it 
 was rejected. He went with it to America ; introduced it into the United 
 States navy, and the Ericcson propeller i.s to this day the type of motor 
 generally followed in the American navy. The friends of Mr. Smith, know- 
 ing the thorough appreciation of his substantial merits as an inventor in 
 this department, will hardly seek to ignore the claims of others to whose 
 minds the theory of the screw had plainly suggested itself. An additional 
 incentive to put the history of this matter fully before the public waa 
 supplied to Mr. Wilson, by the publication of an Admiralty minute issued 
 in 1850, which contained, among other documents, a report of date May 2, 
 1840, embodying a statement to the effect that this report (on the Archi- 
 medes screw and Mr. Smith's patent) "was the n'r.-t official one made to 
 the Board on the subject of screw propulsion." While Messrs. Lang and 
 Abethell's report of 1833 is on the Admiralty books, these words are 
 contradicted. For those who wish to know more about the matter, we 
 must refer to Mr. Wilson's pages. They prove beyond doubt that the career 
 of the poor inventor is a very difficult and disheartening one ; and that the 
 legislature did wisely in removing the great obstacles which the old patent 
 laws presented to meritorious men receiving the reward to which they 
 were entitled. 
 
67 
 
 THE INVENTION OF THE SCREW PROPELLER. 
 (From "The Haddingtonshire Courier," June 22nd, 1860.) 
 
 In reference to the claim made by Mr. Wilson, of Manchester, to the 
 invention of the steam screw propeller an extract from whose pamphlet 
 on the subject we published the other week a correspondent from 
 Grangemouth, who knew Mr. Wilson intimately in his earlier years, 
 writes : 
 
 " In the summer of 1827 I visited my native town (Dunbar). The few 
 days I then remained was with a relative who took great delight in young 
 Mr. Wilson's inventive faculties. The model of the ocean steam-ship was 
 then finished, with which we had several very satisfactary experimental 
 trials, both with the side paddles and the stem revolving blades, or sculls, 
 as they were then designated. I was at the time in charge of different 
 departments on the Forth and Clyde Canal, and so thoroughly convinced 
 was I that Mr. Wilson's invention would supersede the use of horses for 
 tracking vessels on the canal, that I requested and obtained leave from him 
 to take the model home, where several experiments were made at Tophill, 
 No. 16, and in the canal at Port-Dundas, in presence of the late Governor 
 and Council of the Forth and Clyde Canal. All the gentlemen present 
 appeared well pleased with the invention, and passed high encomiums upon 
 the inventor, and all signified their intention to take the matter seriously 
 into consideration. A few weeks after the above experiments, I met the 
 Governor, and again suggested the benefit to the Company likely to be 
 derived by having the Vulcan passage boat the first iron boat on record 
 fitted up with Mr. Wilson's apparatus. His reply, however, was to the 
 effect that, after the failure of the paddle steamers on the canal, the com- 
 mittee were not convinced that the stern power would give greater facility 
 or cause less injury to the canal banks. This, therefore, dispelled my 
 hopes, and the model was returned to my friend with no satisfactory 
 encouragement. It is not surprising, however, 'that Mr. Wilson's invention 
 has taken root, and that within the past three years several of the Com- 
 pany's boats have been fitted up with the screw, which has been found to 
 cause little or no surge on the canal, so much dreaded in former days. My 
 motive for recalling the above circumstances, which came under my own 
 observation upwards of 30 years ago, is simply with the view of bearing 
 testimony to my friend's justly-merited title to the invention, of which he 
 has been deprived. " 
 
 WHO INVENTED THE SCREW PROPELLER? 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER : WHO INVENTED IT ? BY ROBERT WILSON. 
 GLASGOW: THOMAS MURRAY AND SON. 
 
 (From " The Manchester Review" June 30th, 1860.) 
 
 As a general rule inventors are an unfortunate race, nor is it difficult to 
 find a reason for this unfortunate law of humanity. Men who are largely- 
 endowed with the shaping and contriving spirit of imagination seldom 
 possess an equal share of those more solid qualities which are requisite to 
 insure worldly success. A man of lively and creative imagination ought 
 to have a larger share of common sense and business prudence than bis 
 neighbours, in order to prevent his becoming the dupe of his own ideas, 
 which are sometimes merely mischievous delusions, until they have been 
 carefully revised and amended by practical skill, so as to render them fit 
 to perform the task which the inventor designed, but which he may have 
 been utterly unable to succeed in making them accomplish. 
 
68 
 
 A more common misfortune is the want of sufficient capital to enable the 
 inventor to overcome the difficulties which he must encounter, in bringing 
 his innovation upon use and wont into actual operation. This appears to 
 have been the sole cause of Robert Wilson's failure to introduce the screw 
 propeller into use, many years before Mr. Smith had ever thought of that 
 invention. Taking for granted that the facts brought forward in his very 
 interesting pamphlet are substantially correct, as we believe them to be, 
 it is plain that Mr. Wilson \vas the real inventor of the screw propeller. 
 So far back as the year 1808, more than half a century ago, while 
 residing in Dunbar, his native town, his attention was directed to the 
 subject, but it was several years later before he tried to put any of his ideas 
 into a practical shape. After a number of experiments he appears to have 
 at last succeeded in making a model of a steam vessel with an apparatus 
 for propelling it from the stern, a kind of revolving scull. The invention 
 is thus described in the minute-book of the Dunbar Mechanics' Institution, 
 October, 1827. " By it, the vessel goes with greater speed than with side 
 paddles, and produces so little motion of the water as to fit it admirably 
 for canal navigation." 
 
 Having been introduced to the Earl of Lauderdale, by Mr. Hunter, of 
 Thurston, the President of the Dunbar Mechanics' Institution, Mr. Wilson 
 was sanguine enough to fancy that he would now succeed in getting his 
 invention patronised in high quarters. His lordship was supposed to have 
 great influence with the Lords of the Admiralty, and he promised to \ise 
 all his influence with them to have the principle tested on a large scale, 
 in order that the merits of the invention might he taken advantage of for 
 the public service. As might have been expected, however, the Lords of 
 the Admiralty declined even to witness the experiments with Mr. Wilson's 
 model, much less to give him encouragement to try its merits on a larger 
 scale. 
 
 Nothing daunted by this neglect, Mr. Wilson had his invention brought 
 under the notice of the Highland Society, by whom it was highly approval. 
 The directors who witnessed the experiments declared that "the results 
 of Mr. Wilson's ingenious application of the paddles or propellers at the 
 stern of the boat" had answered their most sanguine expectations; and, 
 to show their satisfaction, they not only sanctioned the purchase of the 
 model, but also granted the sura of 10 to defray the expense 'of the 
 experiments. 
 
 In 1832 the screw propeller was brought under the notice of the Society 
 of Arts, Edinburgh, which granted the silver medal to Mr. Wilson, and 
 reported most favourably of his invention, as having many advantages over 
 the steam boats with side paddles. In 1833 another attempt was made to 
 draw the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to the invention, it being 
 the opinion of some of the highest authorities that its application to ships 
 of war, as well as merchant vessels, was a matter of very great importance. 
 But Mr. Wilson was not able to make a favourable impression on the 
 Board. Having examined the reports transmitted along \\ith the model, 
 the Lords of the Admiralty came to the conclusion that "the plan proposed 
 (Mr. Wilson's screw propeller), independent of practical difficulties, is objec- 
 tionably as it involves a greater loss of power than the common mode of 
 applying the wheels to the side. " Discouraged by this rebuff, the noblemen 
 and gentlemen who had till then been actively countenancing Mr. "Wilson, 
 gave up the matter in despair, "expressing great regret and disappointment 
 that their influence and trouble had been spent in vain, and that the public 
 service had been deprived of the use and benefit of a valuable invention." 
 For his part he resolved to wait with patience, in the hope that some 
 enterprising shipbuilder might be induced to take up the matter ; but here 
 his practical philosophy was put to a severe trial. "All my calculations 
 
69 
 
 in regard to the screw," says Mr. Wilson, "were suddenly superseded on 
 hearing, some time about 1836, that a Mr. Smith had not only made the 
 same discovery as myself, but had actually taken out a patent for it. 
 I thereupon gave up the matter in great disappointment, and under a 
 feeling, which has become stronger with time, that I had not been fairly 
 used by the Admiralty." In that opinion, any candid person who reads 
 Mr. Wilson's pamphlet will be very much inclined to concur. 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER: WHO INVENTED IT? 
 
 BY MR. ROBERT WILSON. 8VO. PP. 54. WOOD ENGRAVINGS. GLASGOW : 
 THOMAS MURRAY AND SON. 1860. 
 
 (From " The Practical Mechanics' Journal," July 1st, 1860. 
 
 The mystery which enshrouds the authorship of " Junius'" letters, and 
 the discussions which have arisen therefrom, may fairly be said to be 
 rivalled by the great controversy on the subject of "Who invented the 
 Screw Propeller ? " In the present case, Mr. Robert Wilson, so well known 
 for his many inventions, particularly in connection with that splendid 
 tool, the steam hammer, comes forward to assert his claims for considera- 
 tion in the matter, and adduces, as we have long known he could do, some 
 capital evidence in his favour. The little pamphlet which we are now dis- 
 cussing brings out many things which have hitherto been concealed from 
 the public eye, or only dimly revealed. Mr. Wilson here gives, in chrono- 
 logical order, a history of the rise and progress of the screw propeller, 
 first as it originated in his mind, and was subsequently put into practice. 
 Pages 11-15. 
 
 The period to which Mr. Wilson here refers, when the experiments were 
 made with a four blade screw propeller, is between 1812 and 1821. Follow- 
 ing up the idea four years afterwards he made another model, and in order 
 to obtain additional surface he applied four other blades, but the disad- 
 vantages were found so great that the number was soon reduced to the 
 original four. Then after numerous experiments with blades at various 
 angles or pitches, and of different breadths, a further reduction was made 
 in the number of the blades. Three blades were tried, and then two, 
 bringing the propeller as nearly as possible to the form used at the present 
 day. The proper position was also duly thought of and tested. 
 
 This brings the time down to 1827 ; and in that year, through the kind- 
 ness of the President of the Dunbar Mechanics' Institute, the author was 
 introduced to the Earl of Lauderdale, who, in company with other influen- 
 tial gentlemen, witnessed experiments with the model, when the superiority 
 of the screw, or revolving sculls, as they were then called, was most 
 apparent. His Lordship undertook to bring the invention under the notice 
 of the Lords of the Admiralty, and the heart of the young inventor beat 
 high with expectation. But here we have the old, old tale : " my Lords" 
 refused to notice the invention, or even witness the experiments with the 
 model. This was a death-blow to the sanguine hopes which had been built 
 on the sandy foundation of official justice and liberality. In 1828, the 
 Highland Society, after a committee had witnessed the experiments, voted 
 10 to enable Mr. Wilson to apply it to a 25 feet boat. She was fitted 
 with two screws arranged longitudinally, the motion of the driving handles 
 being communicated to the screws by means of bevel gearing. On the day 
 of trial the weather wag very stormy. The boat, however, fully answered 
 the expectations which had been formed, and gave the inventor full con- 
 fidence in the principle as applicable to steam ships exposed to heavy storms 
 at sea. The correctness of Mr. Wiison's views on this point is now familiar 
 
70 
 
 to everyone, as the exposure of the British fleet during the recent gales 
 amply prove. In May, 1832, the Royal Scottish Society of Arts appointed 
 a committee to make experiments with a boat 18 feet long. These experi- 
 ments gave great satisfaction ; and the applicability of the propeller to 
 ships of war was particularly dwelt upon, in consequence of its being under 
 water and out of the reach of shot. Another effort was made with "my 
 Lords/' and after the usual tedious delay, a report from Mr. Oliver Lang, 
 of whom one would have expected better things, and from Mr. R. Abethell, 
 was issued, stating "that the plan (independent of practical difficulties) is 
 objectionable, as it involves greater loss of power than the common mode 
 of applying the wheels to the side." And here ends Mr. Wilson's sad 
 experience of Admiralty management. In language remarkable for its 
 temperate tone, and which reflects the highest credit on the author's good 
 sense, he thus notices the introduction of Mr. Smith's screw (see pages 
 36 and 38). 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that after "my Lords" did condescend to 
 notice Mr. Smith's propeller, backed, as it was, by the weighty influence 
 of a banker, that neither they nor their intelligent Barnacle Tites should 
 remember that one Robert Wilson had, in 1827, and again in 1832, brought 
 before them a similar invention, as their letter books would prove. But 
 there was this difference in the propellers, that Kobert Wilson's was far 
 superior to Smith's, for it closely resembled the most approved form of 
 screw of the present day ; for the inventor had gone through a series of 
 experiments exactly similar to those upon which "my Lords" subsequently 
 expended so many thousands of the public money. The rejection of 
 Mr. Wilson's invention by the Admiralty and the subsequent adopting it 
 at other hands, is one of a hundred similar cases of injustice which might 
 be adduced. And although it may be but poor consolation to him that 
 others equally deserving have been rejected, it must nevertheless afford 
 him some consolation to think that he is one of that noble company who 
 are indeed the true benefactors of the human race. 
 
 ADMIRALTY SLUGGISHNESS AND INCOMPETENCE. 
 (From "The Standard" (London), January 26th, 1861.) 
 
 No. IV. 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 SIR, I am told if I succeed in rousing public attention to the defective 
 administration of the navy I shall render a great national service ; " that 
 nothing sinks into the English mind like facts ; that what is wanted is 
 specific instances of incompetence and neglect not mere rumours, but well 
 authenticated facts. Scatter such broadcast amongst the community, and 
 they will bear fruit." I fully subscribe to the soundness of this advice, and 
 flatter myself my correspondent will find this letter not entirely barren of 
 the species of facts he desiderates. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive anything more obvious with regard to the 
 equipment of a ship of war than the vast superiority of the screw as a 
 means of propulsion over the paddle-wheel. The great diminution in space 
 for carrying guns crippling the vessel's broadside ; the liability of the 
 machinery to injury from the enemy's shot ; the increased tendency to roll, 
 caused by the great addition of weight to the extremity of an increased 
 beam are three evils most injurious to a vessel's efficiency for war purposes, 
 inseparable from the cumbrous appendage of paddle-wheels, but all entirely 
 obviated by the substitution of a snug submerged propeller at the stern. 
 In short, plain common sense, unaided by technical or professional know- 
 
71 
 
 ledge, cannot fail to recognise at a glance the great advantages the screw 
 has over the paddle-wheel as a means of propulsion for ships of war. Let 
 us now see how a residence in the foggy atmosphere of the Admiralty, 
 muddles the intellect and weakens the vision, till at last total blindness to 
 the most palpable facts ensues. 
 
 Mr. Robert Wilson to whom belongs the honour of having invented the 
 first practically successful form of screw propeller for ocean navigation, 
 after many years' consideration of the subject and various experiments, 
 made in 1826 a model driven by clock-work, which showed very satisfac- 
 torily the advantages of the screw propeller over the ordinary paddle-wheel. 
 The late James Hunter, Esq., president of the Dunbar Mechanics' 
 Institution, regarding the invention as a valuable one, introduced Mr. 
 Wilson to the Earl of Lauderdale, who requested his son, the Hon. Captain 
 Maitland, commanding the Glasgow frigate, to accompany Mr. Wilson 
 with the model to a sheet of water in the neighbourhood, and report the 
 result of the experiment to In' 3 Lordship. Sir William Houston and several 
 leading members of the i .stitution accompanied the captain, and all 
 present expressed themselves delighted with the result of the experiments. 
 
 "The following morning," says Mr. Wilson, "my attendance was 
 requested at his lordship's residence, Dunbar House, when he expressed 
 himself highly satisfied with the report, and promised to do all he could 
 with the Admiralty to have the principle tested on a large scale, in order 
 that the merits of the invention might be taken advantage of for the 
 public service. His Lordship was convinced the invention was worthy of 
 immediate attention and investigation, but at the same time expressed to 
 his son a doubt as to whether all the influence he could bring to bear 
 would be sufficient to move the Lords of the Admiralty to action in the 
 matter. I was, however, sanguine enough to suppose that, as the earl had 
 taken up the matter warmly, and seemed deter tinned to leave no stone 
 unturned on his part to bring the invention into notice, there was no fear 
 of success; but, to my great astonishment and regret, the Lords of the 
 Admiralty declined even to witness the experiments with my model, or to 
 take any notice whatever of the invention." And here it will be instruc- 
 tive to pause in our narrative for a moment to contemplate the services 
 that this invention thus unceremoniously dismissed by the Admiralty, 
 without being even entertained, is at the present moment conferring on the 
 country. The power of a navy is represented by the number and weight 
 of the guns that compose it. Paddle-wheel steamers, compared with 
 screw, require double the horse-power and double the tonnage for each gun 
 carried. To carry the 10,000 guns mounted by the screw steamers of the 
 British navy in paddle-wheel A^e^sels would therefore require twice as many 
 ships, with twice the engine power, and such a fleet would cost 20,000,000 
 more to construct, and more than twice as much annually to maintain, 
 without possessing half the efficiency of our present navy. 
 
 Mr. Hunter, still confident of the value of the invention, notwithstand- 
 ing the rebuff from the Admiralty, determined to make another effort to have 
 its merits properly tested, and applied to the Highland Society, of which 
 he was a member, to prevail on the council to order a trial on a large scale, 
 and after appointing a committee to witness experiments with the model, 
 and receiving a favourable report, the council consented, and, in April, 
 1828, Mr. Wilson fitted his invention to a boat twenty-five feet long in 
 Leith. Vice- Admiral Sir David Milne, and other members of the Society, 
 attended at Leith to witness the experiment, and the success obtained was 
 of the most solid and practical kind. Captain Boswell, R. N., Captain 
 Trotter, R.N., Mr. Macpherson Grant, Mr. Macdonald, the secretary, and 
 Mr. Wilson, being propelled by two men round the Martello Tower at the 
 rate of ten miles an hour in a rough sea, Captain Boswell stating that the 
 
72 
 
 same boat with four oars, under the same circumstances, would have taken 
 half-an-hour to accomplish the distance achieved with the propeller in 17 
 minutes. " So rough," says Mr. Wilson, "was the sea on the day when 
 the experiments were made, that none of the pilots could he induced to 
 accompany the experimenters with either oars or sails in any of their 
 boats, and fears were even exprtssed by the gentlemen on board that the 
 boat could not stand the severe action of the waves and return in safety ; 
 but the continuous and rapid motion given by the propellers kept the boat 
 not only free from rolling, but also under the most perfect control, which 
 soon satisfied them as to her safety. She obeyed the helm most promptly 
 in every position relative to the wind and waves, which gave me full con- 
 tidence in the principle as applicable to steam ships exposed to heavy 
 storms at sea." 
 
 In 1832, Mr. Hunter, still confident of the success and the importance of 
 the invention of the screw-propeller, brought the subject before the Koyal 
 Scottish Soeit ty of Arts, who, recognizing its importance, had a boat fitted 
 at Leith with ihe invention, and appointed a committee to experiment. 
 The result was highly satisfactory, and Mr. Wilson was awarded the 
 Society's Silver Medal, value five sovereigns, the committee reportii :_ that 
 Mr. Wilson's propeller "possessed in many respects manifest advantages 
 over the common side paddles, and could be easily adapted, not < nly to 
 merchant ships, canal boats, and steam boats generally, but also to ships of 
 war. They can be kept altogether rnder water and out of the reach of 
 shot, and answer equally well in rough as in smooth sea." In consequence 
 of this report, ISir John Sinclair, Sir Thomas l>ick Lander, Vice-Admiral 
 Sir havin Milne, and other members of the Society, imbued with a "love 
 of perfection," resolved that the report, together with the ] ropeller and 
 machinery with which the tx] eriments were made, should be forwarded to 
 the Lords of the Admiralty, with a strong recommendation that the propeller 
 be tried with steam power, and on a larger scale, as an mvntion of great 
 value to our mercantile marine, and pre-eminently adapted for ships of war. 
 
 This was done, and the report and machinery were referred by their 
 LonUhips to the officers of Woolwich Dockyard, u ho reported thereon as 
 follows: "The plan proposed (independent of practical difficulties) is 
 objectionable, as it involves a greater loss of power than the common mode 
 of applying the wheels at the side." Perhaps many will be of opinion that, 
 under all the ( ircumstances of the case, this decision was hastily arrived at; 
 but such persons do not sufficiently consider that benighted individuals 
 dwelling so far north as Edinburgh, would hardly be expected, even with 
 the aid of can fully-conducted experiments, to attain to that insight into 
 the question arrived at at a glance by officers of Her Majesty's Royal Dock- 
 yard of Woolwich, residing, if not actually at In ad-quarters, within easy 
 distance of that focus of eidinlit- nment the establishment at Whitehall. 
 Mr. Wilson, not sufficiently imbued with this view of the case, observes on 
 this report of the dockyard officials as follows :" They had referred to 
 them the particulars of an invention that had actually been tested on the 
 open sea, and had been declared by the committee appointed by the Scot- 
 tish Society of Arts, on the strength of personal observation, 'to possess 
 manifest advantages over the common side paddles, and which might be 
 easily adapted to merchant ships and ships of war.' They had the very 
 apparatus sent them, with which they could have put the invention to the 
 test ; and yet they did not try it, for an assigned reason which all subse- 
 quent experience has proved to be totally untenable, and thus deprived the 
 Government of an opportunity of obaiiiing a valuable invention gratuitously 
 and of saving millions of the public money. " 
 
 T. SYMES PRIDE AUX. 
 
 WILLOW HOUSE, HAMPSTEAD, Jan. 25. 
 
73 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER- WHO INVENTED IT? 
 
 (From " Eccles Advertiser and District Recorder," January 26th, 1861.) 
 
 The great and rapid progress made by our country during the last eighty 
 years, both as regards position, importance, and the accumulation of capital, 
 is mainly due to the wonderful Mechanical inventions by which this period 
 has been so highly distinguished, and the names of Watt, Arkwright, Har- 
 greaves, and others, will be handed down to posterity as benefactors to the 
 country, and of whom the nation may well feel proud. And amongst these 
 inventions, few, if any, are of more importance to us as a Maritime Nation, 
 than that of the Screw Propeller, which has already saved millions of the 
 public money, and worked a complete revolution in ocean sailing, the 
 inventor of which is deserving the thanks and lasting gratitude of the 
 people, but as in the case of all great improvements when once established, 
 a host of rival competitors are in the field, each claiming to himself the 
 honour of the invention, but to whom the honour and credit of this splendid 
 invention really and truly belong, can no longer, we think, for a moment 
 be a matter of doubt or uncertainty, after reading a pamphlet lately pub- 
 lished by our distinguished neighbour Robert Wilson, Esq., of the Bridge- 
 water Foundry, Patricroft, entitled " The Screw Propeller, Who invented 
 it," in which, we think, the author clearly and indisputably makes good 
 his own claim to whatever honour and credit is attached to so great and 
 important an invention. We have read this pamphlet with both interest 
 and pleasure, and find it to be remarkable for an honest simple statement 
 of facts, each of which, step by step, is substantiated by incontrovertible 
 documentary evidence, which places (at least to our minds) the whole 
 question beyond doubt or cavil. The facts are arranged in chronological 
 order. Commencing so early as 1808, at which time the author states that 
 he resided at his native place Dunbar, a seaport on the east coast of Scot- 
 land, and as his father was connected with the Mercantile Marine Service, 
 he spent a good portion of his time in aquatic amusements. In that year, 
 long before the introduction of paddles for sea- voyages, an ingenious private 
 soldier, stationed with his regiment at Dunbar, fitted out a small fishing 
 boat with a pair of side paddles, in order to show their superiority over 
 ordinary pulling oars, which they effectually did in smooth water, but when 
 tried in the open sea, and the water somewhat agitated, the result was not 
 so satisfactory. The reason was simply this, that when the water was 
 agitated, the floats of the paddle wheels were either too deep in the water, 
 and therefore choked, or nearly out of it, and doing little more than skim- 
 ming its surface, and this producing little or no effect, and incapable of 
 making much headway against the wind and waves, the experiment clearly 
 showed that side paddles were not suitable for the open sea, or where the 
 surface of the water was much agitated. Mr. Wilson having witnessed 
 these experiment^, and -having what people called "an inventive turn of 
 mind," the idea occurred to him that if anything like the oar used in the 
 process of sculling, could be fitted to the stern of boats and ships, and 
 worked by machinery, such a contrivance would be free from the objections 
 attached to side paddles, seeing the sculling oar not only went deep into the 
 water, when in action, but fish-tail like went forward with the boat whilst 
 in the act of propelling. But the question, however, was, how the sculling 
 oar could be modified so as to be driven by a constant motion, like that 
 applied to the paddle wheels. But being at that time,, not only a mere boy, 
 but totally unacquainted with even the rudiments of Mechanics, was there- 
 fore quite unable to solve the difficulty how this modification was to be 
 accomplished. The idea, however, seems to have taken deep and perma- 
 nent root in his youthful mind, for although, for the reasons given above, 
 
74 
 
 no immediate results presented themselves, yet the notion seems never to 
 have been lost sight of, for he informs us that in a few years after witness- 
 ing the soldier's experiments with the paddle wheels, he accidentally saw on 
 the farm of Oxwellmains, in East Lothian, a wind-mill used for thrashing 
 corn, but the event which gave the first idea of an invention which has 
 ultimately assumed such vast proportion 5 ', is in itself so interesting that we 
 must quote the author's own description : " The mill was not working, and 
 I had therefore a better opportunity of studying it ; I lay down on the 
 grass field opposite the mill, so as to use my knee as a rest for a telescope, 
 and in this position, while engaged in wonder and admiration, trying to 
 follow and account for the various motions which I knew the mill to have, 
 an idea suddenly occurred to me, which rendered it perfectly clear in what 
 way I could modify the sculling oar, so as to make it serve as a means of pro- 
 pelling a vessel. This was by putting it in the form of a wind ichcel, such as 
 that 1 had before me, which I saw embodied the very principle I had been in 
 search of being capable of adaptation for performing all the functions neces- 
 sary for perfect action under water. I therefore concluded that revolving 
 sculls would be specially applicable to ocean propulsion, and I determined 
 to make the demonstration of this opinion the object of my ambition. My 
 energies, however, were cramped for a considerable time, owing to the want 
 of means to carry out my ideas, but a small model in wood with a set of four 
 blades or ' revolving sculls ' was made, and found to act as perfectly under 
 water as I had seen the wind-wheel do in the air." 
 
 From 1825 to 1827 he seems to have been gradually approaching nearer 
 and nearer to the form of screw now universally adopted as yielding the 
 best results in proportion to the power applied and in this particular case 
 is presented another of those remarkable instances in which original 
 inventors often see, and are enabled to shadow forth (if not able to realise 
 their own ideas) all the improvements which ultimately have been added to 
 the original invention, for even at this early period in the history of the 
 Screw Propeller, say 1827, we find that Mr. Wilson had already arrived at 
 and constructed his propellers of the same form and proportions as that 
 used in the Great Eastern Steam Ship in 1859, a result arrived at by others, 
 after many tedious years' study and experiment. Up to this period, the 
 experiments had evidently been made entirely by himself, and out of the 
 limited means at his disposal ; but in 1827 he was introduced to the late 
 James Hunter, Esq., of Thurston, president of the Dui.bar Mechanics' 
 Institution, of which Mr. Wilson was a memler. Mr. Hunter appears to 
 have done all in his power to bring the invention into notice, and intro- 
 duced Mr. Wilson to the Earl of Lariderdale, whose son the Hon. Captain 
 Anthony Maitland, then Captain of the frigate "Glasgow," along with Sir 
 William Houston and several leading members of the Dunbar Mechanics' 
 Institution proceeded to witness upon a large sheet of water experiments 
 made by the revolving sculls (as the invention was at that time called) as 
 compared with the side paddles, and the result was such as to satisfy all 
 who witnessed them of the vast superiority of the new invention when the 
 water was somewhat agitated, and consequently more suitable for sea 
 voyages. The Earl of Lauderdale expressed himself so highly satisfied with 
 the experiments that he promised to use all his influence in order to bring 
 the invention under the notice of the Admiralty, with a view of having it 
 tested on a large scale, but the Lords of -the Admiralty declined even to 
 witness the experiments or to take any notice whatever of the project. In 
 1828 Mr. Wilson was enabled to bring his invention before the Highland 
 Society of Scotland, who appointed a Committee to examine and report 
 upon its merits. A report was drawn up, and presented to the Society 
 highly favourable to the ingenious inventor, and recommending that ten 
 pounds be awarded to him towards the cost of his models. 
 
75 
 
 In 1832 the invention was brought before the " Society of Arts," now 
 the "Royal Scottish Society of Arts," which Society also appointed a 
 Committee consisting of Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, Bart., Vice-President ; 
 Mr. Hunter, of Thurston ; Mr. Crawford, of Cartsburn ; Vice- Admiral Sir 
 David Milne, Captain Watson, R N., Mr. Whytock, Mr. Todd, Secretary, 
 and Robert Stephenson, Esq., C.E. This Committee, after a variety of 
 trials not only expressed its entire approval of the invention, but strongly 
 recommended that exertions should be made to bring it before the Admiralty 
 as being of the greatest importance to ships of war, the propelling power 
 being out of the reach of shot. They also at the same time awarded 
 to Mr. Wilson the Society's silver medal, value five guineas. In 1833, 
 after great exertions on his own part, and the valuable assistance of many 
 friends, he at last succeeded in getting his plans and a model of his splendid 
 invention brought before the Lords of the Admiralty. And now he seemed 
 to be in a fair way of realizing his most cherished hopes, but alas ! instead 
 of the discovery being hailed as it ought to have been, as one of the tirst 
 importance and value to the public good, the Barnacles of the circumlocu- 
 tion office again not only refused to acknowledge the value of the invention, 
 but as if to add insult to injury, presented a report condemning the principle 
 of stern paddles, " as (independent of practical difficulties) objectionable, 
 as involving a greater loss of power than the common mode of applying 
 the wheels to the side." Thus was his long- cherished ambition and desire 
 to be useful to his country, unjustly, cruelly, and with official coldness 
 doomed to the most severe disappointment, and after 25 years more or less 
 of labour, privation, and anxiety, he found himself little or no nearer the 
 realization of his boyish hopes and his more matured anticipations, than 
 when first experimenting with his small models or gazing with delight upon 
 the windmill at Oxwellmains ; and in 1836 all his calculations of uselulness 
 in regard to the screw were suddenly blighted on being informed that a 
 Mr. F. P. Smith had actually taken out a patent for the invention that he 
 Mr. Wilson had brought out, and shown in operation to hundreds of people 
 more than 20 years before and the honour and profit carried away by 
 another, whose only claim to either seems to have consisted in coolly appro- 
 priating to himself the ideas and inventions of an abler man than himself, 
 and the faculty of enabling him to impose upon others the belief that they 
 were his own. 
 
 But we venture to predict that whatever injustice the present generation 
 may have inflicted upon Mr. Wilson in reference to the screw propeller, the 
 next will ever associate his name with this splendid invention, and look 
 upon him as one to whom the Nation owes a heavy and lasting debt of 
 gratitude. We regret that our space will not allow us to make more copious 
 extracts from this little pamphlet, every page of which possesses deep 
 interest to those who care for such matters, and to all such we earnestly 
 recommend a careful perusal of the book itself. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SCOTTISH SHIPBUILDERS' 
 
 ASSOCIATION, 1864 1865. 
 ZETLAND PLACE, GRANGEMOUTH, 1st October, 1864. 
 
 ARCHD. GILCHRIST, Esq. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 I was duly favoured with yours and the enclosed this 
 morning, and sorry am I to state that there are now no copies of communi- 
 cations with my friend Mr. Robert Wilson in my possession. You are 
 aware that I contracted with, in 1818, and built for, the Forth and Clyde 
 
76 
 
 Canal Company the "Vulcan," iron passage-boat, considered the first iron 
 vessel on record. There was no angle iron in those days, nor any 
 machinery, except an old-fashioned piercing machine purchased from Mr. 
 Robt. Baird, Old Basin, a cast-iron grooved block to form the ribs, a 
 smith's fire, one foot kneed at a heat considered good work. I recollect 
 visiting my native place, Dunbar, in the summer of 1827, and was so 
 delighted with Mr. Wilson's model steamer, propelled by the stern and 
 side wheels,* that I prevailed upon him, and he granted me the loan of it, 
 on condition that if the Canal Company approved of it, I would suggest 
 and advise them to employ Mr. Wilson to produce plans to convert the 
 "Vulcan" into a stern-propeller steam-boat. Being aware that the chief 
 objection to the first side -wheeled steamboat, built by Mr. Symington in 
 1801, was the impression that the side-paddles caused too much surge and 
 injured the banks, on taking the model home, and having made the trial, 
 I found the greatest speed was produced by the side-paddles when there 
 was no surge, but when the water was not smooth the stern -propeller 
 produced fully a little more speed, and caused very little swell. Being 
 convinced that boats of this description were the most likely for canal 
 traders, I took the model to Port-Dundas, where it was exhibited in pre- 
 sence of the late Kirkman Findlay, Esq., Governor, and a few other Direc- 
 tors, who appeared satisfied that it was a great improvement. One of them, 
 however, seemed to hold by the old system that no machinery could be 
 made to supersede the horse-power for tracking vessels on the canal with 
 greater safety and less expense. My suggestion was therefore deferred to 
 another period, and I am sorry to say there is not one of those gentlemen 
 now in life to witness the number of steam lighters trading on the canal on 
 the principle then proposed. 
 
 The letter published in the Haddington paper to which Mr. Wilson 
 refers, if I mistake not, was intended to corroborate a statement in a 
 former paper in favour of Mr. Wilson being the first inventor of the screw- 
 propeller. 
 
 I have given you a hurried statement, and if it prove worth your notice, 
 and add anything to convince the English folks "that bodies on this side 
 of the Tweed are rather a step in advance," I will be gratified. 
 I am, Dear Sir, 
 
 Yours most respectfully, 
 
 THOS. WILSON. 
 
 THE SCREW PROPELLER AND WHO INVENTED IT. 
 
 (From "The North British Daily Mail" Glasgow, June 24th, 1872.) 
 
 A recent article in our columns, on the origin of the screw propeller, has 
 had the effect of bringing out another claimant for the honour of that 
 invention, in the person of a countryman of our own, Mr. Robert Wilson, a 
 native of Dunbar. From the evidence afforded, the proofs of Mr. Wilson's 
 priority of claim are indisputable. He is the actual inventor of the screw 
 propeller, and not any one else. 
 
 This gentleman when, in 1808 and afterwards, a working joiner and 
 cabinetmaker in Dunbar, appears to have pursued a path of inventive experi- 
 ment in relation to screw propulsion entirely his own, and for many years his 
 operations were unknown to any but a narrow circle of intimate friends, and 
 only to them when his plan had reached considerable maturity and com- 
 
 * The model was so fitted with side-wheels and stern-paddles, or screws, in order to 
 show the difference of effect when one or the other was used, but not for both to be used 
 at the same time. 
 
77 
 
 pleteness. In our article we alluded to a Dr. Short, an English mechanician, 
 as having in 1802 started the notion of propelling sailing vessels by some- 
 thing of the character of screw action, hand worked. This project never 
 came to anything, and very probably never would have been heard of, from 
 that time to this, but for the success of the plans Mr. Wilson and later 
 inventors applied to steam navigation. Mr. Wilson in a pamphlet he has 
 published, lets us into the secret of his earliest cogitations on this subject. 
 In 1808 his attention was first directed to it from an attempt made by a 
 Lanarkshire lad, a private soldier in a regiment then quartered in Duiibar, 
 to propel a fishing boat by side paddles. It was found that this plan was 
 suitable only for smooth water. Being an adept at sculling, he thought of 
 the possibility of propelling ships and boats by a scull worked with 
 machinery. It is the prerogative of genius to detect identities under the 
 variety of appearance, and Mr. Wilson saw in a running stream and an 
 undershot wheel impelled by it; in a wind mill, with the sails set obliquely 
 to the direction of the wind, the suggestive elements of the screw propeller. 
 He had but to consider the paddle-wheel of the soldier's boat, " as repre- 
 senting the undershot wheel, with its action reversed," and the "wind 
 wheel, with its action reversed," as a sculling oar when he had, with the 
 combination of these mechanisms, the screw propeller ideally before him. 
 
 This project of screw propulsion began, in his apprehension, to assume 
 greatly increased importance. He rightly concluded (1821) that revolving 
 sculls, which he called "rough sea or storm paddles," would be especially 
 applicable to ocean propulsion, and he "determined to make the demon- 
 stration of this opinion the object of his ambition." He remarks, "my 
 energies however, were cramped for a considerable time, owing to the 
 want of the necessary means to carry out my ideas, but a small model in 
 wood, with a set of four blades or revolving sculls was made, and found to 
 act perfectly under water, as I had seen the wind wheel do in air." 
 Subsequent to 1821, and between 1825 and 1827 a larger model was made, 
 with various propellers, having severally two, three, and four blades, 
 driven by clock work, and comparative trials were made of screw and side 
 paddles. In smooth water the side paddles won the race, and in rough 
 water the screw, and the latter very decidedly. In 1827, and after the 
 attention of competent critics, of men eminent in naval and civil life, came 
 to be drawn to Mr. Wilson's plans, they at length, more than once, emerged 
 before the Lords of the A dmiralty. The Earl of Lauderdale brought the 
 invention before the Government, and they referred it to the Admiralty 
 Board, who rejected it, thereby gibbeting most conspicuously their own 
 ignorance and incompetence. 
 
 At this period, from 1825 to 1828, the public proofs of Mr. Wilson's prior 
 claim to the invention of the screw propeller become clear and conclusive. 
 This was more than nine years before the date of the patent (1836) of Mr., 
 now Sir F. P. Smith, for reputedly the first screw propeller. In 1827 Mr. 
 Wilson's plans were before the Government. They were then noticed in 
 the Edinburgh papers, and brought before the Dunbar Mechanics' Institu- 
 tion, while under the presidency of Mr. Hunter of Thurston. Between 
 1828 and 1832 the attention of the Highland Society of Scotland was called 
 to this method of propulsion, as suitable to canal navigation, to whom he 
 gave up his experimental model, receiving in return 10 to assist this work- 
 ing lad, which Mr. Wilson then was to continue his experiments. A letter 
 from the Secretary of the Society to Mr. Wilson speaks of the paddles or 
 propellers at the stern of the boat as " answering their most sanguine ex- 
 pectations." In 1832-3 the Society of Arts, Edinburgh, had Mr. Wilson's 
 invention brought before them, and their report of trials at sea upon the 
 propulsion of a boat 18 feet long and 7 feet broad is expressive of "high 
 gratification with the results of the experiments." The Society's silver 
 
78 
 
 medal was granted to Mr. Wilson, with a letter from the Secretary to the 
 effect that the " manifest advantages over the common side paddles of the 
 screw propeller are such as to permit of its being easily adapted, not only 
 to merchant ships, canal boats, and steamboats generally, but also to ships 
 of war. The screw can be kept altogether under water, and out of the 
 reach of shot, and it answers equally well in rough as in smooth sea." 
 Again, in 1833 Mr. Wilsou's invention was laid before the Admiralty, and 
 again it was rejected. He was backed by the best influence in Scotland, 
 but that was of no avail, the screw was rejected as being inferior to side 
 paddles for steamship propulsion. They had never put the invention to a 
 test, but "my Lords," trusting the opinion of underlings, allowed a report 
 on this matter, under their name, to be issued, which all subsequent ex- 
 perience has proved to be erroneous. Mr. Wilson generously absolves the 
 Admiralty from blame in the matter, but there are few who will be disposed 
 to acquiesce in his apology. The side paddle continued in use in the navy, 
 and to enter into the construction of war ships at the expense of the 
 nation, for eighteen years after it should have been discarded for the screw, 
 which Mr. Wilson urged upon their acceptance in 1827. In 1845 the Board 
 accepted and adopted the screw propeller accredited to Mr. F. P. Smith, 
 when in fact it was more properly the production of Mr. Wimshurst, a 
 Thames shipbuilder, and hardly ut all of Mr. Smith. Mr. Wimshurst asks 
 the Admiralty to investigate, with a view to reward, if he is seen to deserve 
 it, his claims to being the true inventor of the screw. If this investigation 
 is conceded, we are disposed to put in a caveat for Mr. Wilson, for to him, 
 we believe, most sincerely belongs the merit of the invention in question. 
 Mr. Smith named his invention an "improved propeller," thereby, we may 
 suppose, disclaiming the merit of originating screw propulsion, and nothing 
 would seem more reasonable than that the Board of Admiralty should be 
 asked to go a little farther back than the date of Mr. Smith's invention to 
 find that one of which his is an improvement, and then most likely they 
 will light upon the performances of Mr. Wilson. 
 
 WHO INVENTED THE SCREW PROPELLER? 
 
 (From the "North British Daily Mail," 1st July, 1872.) 
 
 SIR, A very lively interest is taken by intelligent people in the settle- 
 ment of this question. I believe they still live who are entitled to claim 
 the honour of having invented the screw propeller, and there being several 
 candidates in the field, it is proper that their respective claims should be 
 considered by a discerning public. In your article of June 24th you favour 
 the claims of Mr. Wilson, Dunbar, now of Manchester, and go into con- 
 siderable detail in proof of your position. Mr. Wilson never patented his 
 invention, his pecuniary means being inadequate. The rival claimant, Mr. 
 F. P. Smith, did, and in 1836, and Captain Ericsson in July of the same 
 year; and, in about a month after, Smith took out a patent in this country 
 for a screw propeller, with which he experimented on the Thames. But 
 although Wilson did not patent his invention, there are extant abundant 
 public proofs that priority of claim should be assigned to him, and I agree 
 with you in thinking so. Moreover, Smith's claims are now contested 
 as you show, by a Mr. Wimshurst, formerly a ship builder on the Thames, 
 who appears to have aided Smith (who, according to account, was not a 
 mechanician, but a grazing farmer) in maturing his plans, and he (Wims- 
 hurst) afterwards produced a screw propeller, which he claims as his own. 
 Now, the elementary conception of propulsion by screw action does not 
 altogether suffice ; the position of the screw in the ship, its form, and the 
 
79 
 
 particular manner of applying the force to move it, are so many constituent 
 parts of an effective screw propeller, and while we must allow for priority 
 in the inception of this mode of propulsion, to him who first realised the 
 thought in an available form should be accredited the invention. Wilson 
 took up the idea of a screw propeller in 1808, the year in which his rival, 
 Smith, was born, and it is on record that Smith began his operations in 
 connection with screw repulsion in 1834, or 26 years after Wilson. In 1812, 
 on to 1825, Wilson constructed various working models for the verification 
 of his notions about screw propulsion. Between 1819 and 1821 he produced 
 a model vessel, 30 inches long by 6 inches broad, with a stern propeller or 
 "revolving scull," as he called it, having four blades. It is important to 
 note that in Wilson's first experiments the propeller was placed in the 
 stern and in advance of the rudder, just as we place the propeller now, the 
 rudder being hung on a second or false stern-post. An inner stera-post was 
 introduced on which the construction lines of the vessel terminated. This 
 plan was in perfect consistency with the original idea of Wilson, to propel 
 a ship by a revolving scull. In your article you notice the suggestions 
 which Wilson derived from the scull oar, from an undershot wheel, and 
 the sails of a windmill, in the construction of his so-called " rough sea" or 
 *' storm paddles." Now, Smith tried to introduce the propeller under 
 the body of the ship and towards, but not at, the stern. He after- 
 wards, I believe, attached the propeller at the stern, but in this he appears 
 to have been anticipated by Wimshurst ; but both these inventors were at 
 least fourteen years later in this plan than Wilson. The plan of employing 
 the propeller not in advance but behind the rudder was at a later date tried 
 by Wilson, he finding at the time better results by following this plan. 
 About this time (1828) a 25 feet boat in Leith was fitted up with a screw pro- 
 peller and experimented on in the Firth of Forth by Vice- Admiral Sir David 
 Milne, and nival Captains Bosvvell and Trotter, and others, under the 
 auspices of the Highland Society of Scotland. The identical propellers and 
 machinery used on this occasion are still extant, and in possession of Capt. 
 Hunter, of Thurston. Mr. Wilson received from this Society 10 for his inven- 
 tion. In this case the propeller was placed behind the rudder. At the close of 
 1827, the Earl of Lauderdale, after witnesing the successful results of Mr. 
 Wilson's model propeller, undertook to bring the invention before the Lords 
 of the Admiralty. "My Lords" declined even to witness the experiments 
 with his model, or to take any notice whatever of the invention. In the mean- 
 time, the Edinburgh newspapers published the invention, and the Dunbar 
 Mechanics' Institution made a record of it in their minutes. In 1832, four 
 years before the date of Mr. Smith's patent, we find Mr. Wilson before the 
 Society of Arts, Edinburgh, with his invention, and a report of experi- 
 ments at sea with it, recorded in the minutes of that Society, describing it 
 as possessing "manifest advantages over the common side-paddles, and 
 could be easily adapted not only to merchant ships, canal boats, and steam- 
 boats generally, but also to ships of war. The paddles can be kept under 
 water, and out of the reach of shot, and answer equally well in rough as in 
 smooth sea." The Society's Silver Medal was bestowed on Mr. Wilson 
 that year (1832). So much, then, for priority in the invention; and for 
 the position of the screw in the ship, in particular, which Wilson can 
 certainly claim. Then as to the forms given to the earlier screw propellers, 
 in after years the forms have been greatly varied. Mr. Wilson at first 
 used four blades for his propeller in imitation of the wind -mill, each blade 
 being equal to about the eighth part of a whole turn of a four-threaded 
 screw, with clockwork as the actuating power. He then tried three blades 
 with still better results, when the motion was quickened, and latterly a 
 great many experiments were made with the two-bladed screw, the vanes 
 being set at various angles, or pitches, and made of different breadths, 
 
80 
 
 but none of the blades tried exceeded one sixth of the whole turn of a 
 screw. In the two the blades were cut away at the boss to a sharp twisted 
 arm set with a twist corresponding to the speed of the model, or rather to 
 the slip of the screw. This plan closely resembles the form of screw- 
 paddle adopted many years after in Maudslay's feathering screw shown in 
 model in London, 1862. Mr. Robert Griffiths exhibited on the same 
 occasion two screw propellers, one having two and the other three blades. 
 The roots of these blades were fastened into a boss formed round the axis 
 of the screw shaft. Neither Maudslay nor Griffiths showed anything new 
 on Wilson's plan of 1827, excepting in the forms of their blades, and the 
 facility of feathering them, which last was also in measure available for 
 Wilson's method, while Maudslay could feather his blades by mechansim, 
 worked on the ship's deck. I hesitate not to affirm that the solid merits of 
 the invention, to this hour remain with Mr. Wilson. Further, as to the 
 method of driving the screw propeller, in his first attempts with little 
 models, Wilson used clock-work, as I have above stated. Steam naviga- 
 tion was then in its infancy and hardly known to Europe (1812-19).. It 
 was an ingenions thought of Wilson to introduce a horizontal Mind-wheel 
 on a ship's deck to work the revolving scull in the water, and thus to drive 
 the ship against the wind if required. All along, after steam navigation 
 had been introduced he saw that "a stern scull "or screw propel k-r was 
 the proper apparatus for sea-going steamers. In 1S21 he witnessed the 
 extreme peril of the "Tourist," steamer, off Dunbar owing to the unfitness 
 of paddles for a rough sea. This vessel rolled from side to side, and her 
 steam power was rendered nearly useless from the side-paddles alternately 
 dipping under water and then emerging wholly into air. Wilson felt his 
 way slowly in regard to the mode of driving his propeller, approaching 
 more and more closely to our present plan. Curiously enough he made a 
 step back in 1821 to 1825, in placing, contrary to his earlier method, 
 the rudder in advance of the screw. The stuffing box of the propeller 
 shaft leaked when the shaft worked direct and with the screw in advance of 
 the rudder, and to get rid of this inconvenience, which damaged the clock- 
 work, we find him, in his model of 1826, introducing toothed rectangular 
 gearing, in connection with a vertical shaft underwater, driven from the 
 ship's deck to urge the propeller. The screw could thus be attached to the 
 outside of the ship's hull and hand-worked from al>ove by means of cranks. 
 Four years' later, or in 1832, we find in the model with which he experi- 
 mented before the Society of Arts, Edinburgh, a return to the old method 
 of directly driving the propeller shaft from within the vessel. The screw 
 shaft was prolonged within, the ship having on its inner end a pinion which 
 geared into a wheel on the crank shaft on deck. It would, of course, be a 
 mere detail of mechanism to attach this screw shaft with its pinion to a 
 steam engine in the hull of the vessel, and then we should have something 
 closely akin to our present plan of screw propulsion by steam. On the 
 whole, then, I think we may fairly deduce the conclusion that the 
 invention of the screw propeller belongs to Mr. Robert Wilson, of Dun- 
 bar, and this opinion is indirectly confirmed by what is stated in your 
 article, that Mr. Smith, in his patent of 1836, called his "an improved 
 propeller." Apologising for the length of these reasonings and remarks, 
 
 I am, &c., 
 
 A CONSTANT READER. 
 GLASGOW, June 28. 
 
81 
 
 (From the " North British Daily Mail," Glasgow, 5th August, 1872.) 
 WHO INVENTED THE SCREW PROPELLER? 
 
 To the Editor of the "North British Daily Mail." 
 
 STR, Kindly allow me space for a few remarks on the above subject, and 
 permit me in the offset to say that I think the public interested in this 
 matter must feel indebted to you for allowing a correspondence on the 
 subject in your widely- circulated and influential paper. It is, as you 
 evidently consider it, of real importance to ascertain to whom is due the 
 honour of one of the greatest inventions of modern times the screw pro- 
 peller. Having, as I believe, read most if not all of the authorities and 
 notices on the subject, I have no hesitation in repeating what you have 
 already indicated viz., that the gentleman entitled to the honour of the 
 invention is the well-known engineer, Mr. Robert Wilson. At the very 
 outset we have this in Mr. Wilson's favour, that he must necessarily have 
 engineering talents of a high order, seeing that he is the only acting partner 
 in the eminent firm of Messrs. Nasmyth, Wilson, & Co, , Patricroft, Man- 
 chester a firm of world-wide notoriety, owing, amongst other successes, to 
 their invention and improvement of the steam hammer. On referring to a 
 pamphlet published by Messrs. Thomas Murray & Son, of Glasgow, so far 
 back as 1860, and in which the invention is claimed by Mr. Wilson, I find 
 that Mr. Wilson's claim is put as follows, viz. : 
 
 " Steam navigation, which has done so much for the prosperity of nations 
 and the grandeur of Britain, has called forth many inventions, and amongst 
 the most important of them is the screw propeller. This invention, as the 
 most suitable for propelling ships of war and other ocean steamers, I now 
 for the first time publicly claim as my own, and I am confident that I shall 
 be able to establish, by undoubted documentary evidence, that I not only 
 invented, and tested on the sea before the Committees of the Highland 
 Society and Society of Arts, but at great personal sacrifices used all the 
 means in my power to introduce the screw propeller for ocean navigation 
 long before Mr. Smith, the patentee (who has reaped the honours and 
 rewards of the invention), had even his attention directed to the subject ; 
 and that the screw might have been adopted in the navy as early as 1827, 
 to the saving of millions of the public money. In that year the Lords 
 Commissioners of the Admiralty refused to countenance my invention, 
 thoueh recommended to their notice by the Right Honourable the Earl of 
 Lauderdale ; and again in 1833 they rejected it because (to quote from the 
 official report af the officers of Woolwich Dockyard) ' it involved a greater 
 loss of power than the common mode of applying the wheels to the side,' a 
 decision which (as the Secretary of the Royal Society of Art expressed it) 
 * just resolved itself into a preference to side paddles over the screw or stern 
 paddles.'" 
 
 This statement of the case puts it in very distinct and narrow limits, and 
 there is at pasre 36 of the pamphlet a copy of an official report, dated 17th 
 September, 1833, to the effect that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 
 had had reported to them that the screw propeller was inferior to the side 
 paddles. But for this most erroneous report I do not see how it can be 
 even doubted that the invention and the honour and reward of the same 
 properly belong to Mr. Wilson ; and it must be obvious that, had the report 
 been favourable to the screw propeller, that the Government could not have 
 hesitated to admit the obligations of the country to Mr. Wilson. The 
 great point in Mr. Wilson's favour is this, that he was admittedly the very 
 first to bring before the Government in a practical form this important dis- 
 covery, and that he did not bring it forward in a crude shape, but only after 
 
82 
 
 it had beeu thoroughly tested, and had met with the special approval of 
 well known public bodies in Scotland, and of the Earl of Lauderdale, and a 
 number of eminent noblemen and gentlemen. The Practical Mechanics' 
 Journal, the London Mechanics' Mayazine, a writer in the Standard, the 
 Manchester Review, and others, have expressed their views in favour of Mr. 
 Wilson. The Review says: "It is plain that Mr. Wilson was the real 
 inventor of the screw propeller." Another newspaper says : " The publi- 
 cation of this modest narrative unequivocally proves the claim of Mr. 
 Wilson to priority of invention, and entitles him to the thanks of his 
 countrymen as adding another to the list of those illustrious Scotsmen who 
 have by their native talent augmented the mechanical resources of the 
 age.'' In common fairness, and as an encouragement to inventors, it is to 
 be hoped that the Government will order an enquiry as to who was the 
 original practical inventor of the screw propeller, and as to who first brought 
 it in a practical form before Government. If it be found, as I believe it 
 will be, that Mr. Wilson is entitled to the honour, then I hope Government 
 will not object specially to acknowledge this. I enclose my card. 
 I am, &c., C. 
 
 EDINBURGH, August 2. 
 
v