755 
 n63 
 
Cornell University ----. 
 VM755 .N63 „,„^„er' 
 
 Who invented *e,8cng«Jj,5f'^^-" 
 
 olin 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
WHO INVENTED 
 
 THE 
 
 SCREW PROPELLER? 
 
 WERE THE PATENTED PROPElMs : 
 
 • OF 
 
 FRANCIS PETTIT SMITH 
 
 (rOKMERLY FAUMEH AT HENDON, MIDI>LESEX, ; 
 
 ni EVERY RESPECT OSRiCT PLAGIARISi^S? 
 
 BEING A, STATEMENT OF FACTS 
 
 SHOWING 
 
 'l. THE INCAl'ACITSr OF P. P. SMITH 'TO INVENT. ANI. INABILITY TO INTROI>L'CE, THE 
 SCREW PROPEi:,tEHS ASCRIBED TO HIM ; jfC'ilSj, ,*• 
 
 2, A NARttATIVB OF THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND PUIMAUV INTROOUCTIOK OP 
 
 A SERIES OF SCREW PROPEIiEHS IN IRVINE, AVRSHIHE ; AND 
 
 3. THEMAJ«JI«iB AND EVIDENCE OP THE EXTRAORDINARV PIRACY OF THESE PRO- 
 _^^^^^BT ANDREW SMITH, ENGINEER, DOHDON, WHO IS BELIEVED, TO HAVE 
 
 BEE^rHE a;^A^. AUTHOR OF F.K SMITH'S PATENT. 
 
 J.A.3MI5:S KTICOL. 
 
 LONDON AND GLASGOW: 
 RICHAED GRIFFIN AND COMPANY, 
 
 PUBLJSIJEES TO THE CMVEKSITY OF GLASGOW. 
 
President White Library, 
 Cornell liNivERSfTY. 
 
iTUi^M, muiiiti t iitit m§B\ 
 
 Fic. I. Part of Housewife's Reel. 
 
 Fic. 3. Short Model, shewino Gearino and Stern Blades, sent to Societies of Arts. 
 
 Fio. 6. End View of Model with Stern Blades 
 AS SENT TO Societies. 
 
 Fic. 7 Long Mooel shewing po: 
 APART rROM 'Safe 
 
 ::;^-'^fes, 
 
 F.c 8. WADDELLS revolving scull 
 
 (BI!£tVSr£/t's JOUf>NAL, /SZS.) 
 
 a/f/IW/V rROM MODELS. 
 
 "ONE" fc STKVEMION, t mQinIf m IHa L'THOOm 
 
t iitit BiiiLl, iiiiiii % piiPiLilii. 
 
 Fio. a. First experiment in ditch 
 
 F Art 
 
 Fjc. 5. Short Model shewino Double Thheaded Screw, 
 
 AND ITS POSITION ON THE SIDE IN CONNEXION WITH "SAFETY PLAN ' 
 
 FRONT VIEW OF BEVILWHtaB. 
 
 Fic.7. Long Model shewing position for side Screws 
 APART rRONi "safety plan'.' 
 
 /olvinc scull 
 (brewstcr's journal, lais.) 
 
 FlC.3. PARTIAL REPRESENTATION OF SCOTTS SPIRAL OAR 
 
 (rf/OMSOt/'s -JOUR/l/AL, ISIS.) 
 
 GARDNER t STEVCNSOR, tNGlH££Kl'ta L'THOOlt^^xr^S 
 

GARDNER & STeveNSOU, CftBlWeemiMG LiTMOGMA^Me»M 
 
WHO INVENTED 
 
 THE 
 
 SCREW PROPELLER? 
 
 WERE THE PATENTED PROPELLERS 
 
 OF 
 
 FRANCIS PETTIT SMITH 
 
 (FORMERLY FARIUER AT HENDON, MIDDLESEX,) 
 
 IN EVERY RESPECT DIRECT PLAGIARISMS? 
 
 BEING A STATEMENT OF FACTS ' 
 
 1. THE INCAPACITY OF P. P. SMITH TO INVENT, AND INABILITY TO INTRODUCE, THE 
 
 8CRE\r PROPELLERS ASCRIBED TO HIM ; 
 
 2. A NARRATIVE OF THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRIMARY INTRODUCTION OP 
 
 A SERIES OF' SCREW PROPELLERS IN IRVINE, AYRSHIRE ; AND 
 
 3. THE MANNER AND EVIDENCE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PIRACY OF THESE PRO- 
 
 PELLERS BY ANDREW SMITH, ENGINEER, LONDON, WHO IS BELIEVED TO HAVE 
 BEEN TUB REAL AUTHOR OF F. P. SMITH'S PATENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 LONDON AND GLASGOW : 
 
 RICHARD GRIFFIN AND COMPANY, 
 
 PUnLISHEKS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 
 
 MDCOCLVIII. 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030903458 
 
" To Engineers it has long been known that F. P. Smith has 
 " been the author and establisher of the arft of Screw -propulsion — ■ 
 " at all events in this country ; and Engineers are certainly as 
 " well qualified to form a just opinion on this subject as any other 
 " class of the community, and have as little temptation to strain 
 " their real convictions. Other Screw patentees there are, who, 
 " like Indian mercenaries, have lain by until the battle was fought 
 " by Smith and Ericsson, and liave then come forward to claim 
 " the fruits of victory j and Courts of Law, bewildered by ques- 
 " tions they did not understand, have perniitted claims to be 
 " entertained, which ought to have been at once disallowed. But 
 " whatever decrees may be elsewhere pronounced, the judgment 
 " of the public is pronounced already, and will be ratified by pos- 
 " terity. And when the people of future times inquire in what 
 " way, or by whose instr'amentality, the art of propelling vessels 
 " by a screw was first established, they will learn that this impor- 
 " tant amelioration was accomplished, not by any eminent Engineer 
 " or learned Academician, but by a farmer at Hendon, called, like 
 " another Cincinnatus, from the plough, to advance the interests 
 " of his country. Against that time, other names, at present far 
 " more imposing, will have faded from the recollections of man- 
 " kind, but the name of the originator of a new art lives as long 
 " as the art itself, and gather? new lustre by the lapse of years." — 
 Treatise on the Screw PropeUer, by John Bourne, C.E., p. 93, 
 
 The object of the present Publication is to prove tbat 
 the great merit heretofore ascribed to Francis Pettit 
 Smith had never any foundation in fact. 
 
PREFATORY REMARKS, 
 
 For undertaking the elucidation of a subject for 
 which I am imperfectly qualified, and which is, there- 
 fore, less effectively handled than it might otherwise 
 have been, the circumstances under which I am placed 
 will furnish a satisfactory apology. But the claims 
 of consanguinity and friendship— one of the parties 
 whose prior title to the discovery and application of 
 the Screw Propeller is here sought to be substantiated, 
 being my own Uncle, and the other two intimate 
 acquaintances^whUe they have doubtless stimulated 
 my zeal, have in no degree prompted me to an act of 
 injustice. I desire to found my cause upon facts alone, 
 and by their weight and value I wish the question 
 exclusively to be judged. 
 
 If these facts, and the inferences which may justly 
 be drawn from facts, can be relied upon — and in this 
 case the facts are numerous, come from various sources, 
 and all directly point to one common centre — -the so- 
 called Invention of Francis Pettit Smith, looking to 
 the great results which have flowed from it, has been 
 one of the most gigantic, elaborate, and successful, 
 because hitherto unchallenged, frauds ever perpetrated 
 upon true inventive genius, upon a generous nation, 
 and upon men of the highest order of talent, influence, 
 and wealth. 
 
 The claims of my Constituents have hitherto been 
 
VI 
 
 in abeyance, on account oi the apparently artful means 
 which have been employed to prevent the name of 
 Andrew Smith — who, it now pretty clearly appears, 
 was either the sole author or chief promoter of F. P. 
 Smith's Patent, and through a clear knowledge of 
 which alone the appropriation could be traced— from 
 becoming publicly identified with the Patent and 
 enterprise which has won for F. P. Smith his present 
 distinction. 
 
 Most of the facts recorded in the following pages 
 
 were published by me in another form in the month 
 
 of June last, immediately after I had observed in the 
 
 " Times" the report of a dinner being given and valuable 
 
 testimonial presented to Mr F. P. Smith on the 2d of 
 
 that month. At that time I took occasion to address 
 
 a plain and direct charge of appropriation against the 
 
 Messrs Smith ; but though my articles called forth 
 
 several communications from eminent men, most of 
 
 whom gave me every encouragement to prosecute my 
 
 inquiries farther, no reply, either of a public or private 
 
 character, was elicited from those whose honour and 
 
 reputation they so deeply aflPected. Upon such silence, 
 
 the public have, doubtless, put but one construction. 
 
 Whether the present form of attack will be differently 
 
 received, I presume not to predict. In any event, I 
 
 confidently leave the cause of my Constituents in the 
 
 hands of a discerning public, to whose bar Francis 
 
 Pettit Smith, as a present pensioner on their bounty, 
 
 is amenable. 
 
 Should it ultimately appear that my attack has 
 ■been misdirected, and that the Messrs Sinith are still 
 able to vindicate themselves from the very grave 
 
vu 
 
 charges contained in the following statement, no one 
 will rejoice more heartily than he from whom these 
 charges have emanated ; and no one will be more 
 ready to make the best amends required in such a 
 circumstance. At the same time, in the face of such 
 facts as I now adduce, the nation will not, I am sure, 
 rest contented with any vindication from F. P. Smith 
 short of a satisfactory account of how he came to be 
 the independent discoverer and author of an invention 
 which he solemnly declares, in the Specification of the 
 Patent, to be " to the best of my knowledge and belief 
 *' entirely new, and never before used." Such a narra- 
 tive on the most , interesting part of this, as of every 
 other great invention — the small beginnings — ^which 
 successfur inventors are usually proud to place on 
 record, F, P. Smith has, during a period of twenty- 
 two years, failed to furnish, notwithstanding the oft- 
 recurring doubts and conjectures of journalists. 
 
 I should be sorry that anything I have stated under 
 the first head, respecting the eminent gentlemen who 
 took so prominent a part in the early introduction of 
 the Screw Propeller, should be construed as in any 
 way reflecting upon them. To do so, they may rest 
 assured, I have not the remotest intention. They are, 
 so far as I can judge, worthy of greater honour than 
 has yet been accorded to them, for their indefatigable 
 and praiseworthy exertions in establishing so speedily 
 and successfully the practical introduction of so useful 
 and universal an art. 
 
 With the statements of Mr Bourne, I have been under 
 the necessity of dealing plainly — first, because this 
 gentleman seems to have arrived at conclusions not 
 
VIU 
 
 warranted by. the facts given by himself, and, certainly, 
 opposed to the opinions and facts furnished by others ; 
 and, second, because, as I conceive, it is to his advocacy 
 of the claims, and to his powerful appeals on behalf, of 
 F. P. Smith, that the honours and rewards of late 
 years bestowed, are mainly- to be ascribed. In ques- 
 tioning the statements of so accomplished a writer, I 
 confess that I do so with the less reluctance that he 
 has himself, as I think, failed to observe the ordinary 
 rules of courtesy by the severity of his strictures upon 
 other Engineers, who, I doubt not, candidly believed 
 themselves improvers of the crude propellers at first 
 adopted by F. P. Smith ; although, as the second and 
 third divisions of my statement will show, the Messrs 
 Smith had no need to borrow from any other source 
 for any modification they ever adopted, than the one 
 therein pointed out. < 
 
 Strangely enough, as I have just learned, Mr Bourne, 
 who has so zealously, and, I am convinced, from the 
 purest motives, advocated the cause of one who has 
 never had the courage to speak for himself, resided 
 for some years of his youth, and was educated at the 
 same seminary as myself, in the small town of Irvine ; 
 and that, too, during tTie very years that the greater 
 part of the experiments with the models, which I 
 have endeavoured to trace to F. P. Smith's hands, 
 were being sedulously, though quietly, conducted 
 there. 
 
 J. N. 
 
 20, Cumberland Place, 
 Glasgow, Ut October, 1858 
 
 .} 
 
WHO INVENTED THE SCEEW PEOPELLER? 
 
 FRANCrs Pettit Smith, pf Hendon, in the county of Middlesex, 
 farmer, sealed a Patent for "An Improved Pbopeller fob 
 Steam and other YssSEts," on 31st May, 1836. The declaration 
 of his specification, of which an official copy has been got from the 
 Great Seal Pateht Office, bears : " I, the said Francis Pettit Smitli, 
 do hereby declare the nature of my said invention to consist in a 
 sort of screw or worm made to revolve rapidly under water in a 
 recess or open space formed in that part of the after part of the 
 vessel commonly called the dead rising or dead wood of the run." 
 Then follows a deta,iled description of " the manner in which my 
 said invention is to be performed — reference being had to the 
 drawing annexed, and to the figures and letters marked thereon. 
 - "Fig. 1. is a side view of a boat or vessel to which my said 
 invention is applied." It exhibits the recess or opeiiing in the 
 dead wood, with " a broad-threaded revolving wooden screw or 
 worm" within it, "which screw or worm, placed and arranged as 
 here shown, is in fact the improved propeller." 
 
 " Fig. 2 is an end view of the boat or vessel with its propeller, 
 as seen from astern." 
 
 •" Fig. 3 is a separate view of the propeller and the machinery 
 which gives motion to it." Then follows a description of the 
 machinery by m«ans of -which the power of tlie engine is commu- 
 nicated in a rotating form to the propeller, viz., by a horizontal 
 «'main driving shaft," "an upright revol-ving shaft," and a com- 
 bination of mitred pinions and a cogged wheel attached to these 
 shafts. 
 
 Figs. 4 and 5 are plans of the two plummer blocks of the pro- 
 peller. 
 
 "Fig. 6 is a plan of the steadying gear" for the upright revolv- 
 ing shaft. Of this gear it is specified : "there may be more than 
 one, if necessary, dependent on the length of the upright shaft. It 
 
win be observed by this figure that the upright shaft is enclosed- 
 in a box or case L, M, N, N, wherein the water in which the vessel' 
 floats rises to a level with the water-line, and must ther-efore be 
 made water-tight." 
 
 Besides the gear thus described and adopted, the specification 
 continues : — " Now, whereas it is evident that various other modes 
 of gearing the propeller may be adopted, and perhaps if the pinion- 
 H were a small pulley, and the wheel J a large pulley, and a band ' 
 worked over them, the required speed might be given to the pro- 
 peller as effectually and with less machinery ; but I have had no 
 opportunity of trying this mode on a large scale, and therefore I 
 have adopted the pinion gear in this specification, or the propellep 
 may be worked by hand, or other than^ steam power." 
 
 Then follows the description of the propeller itself : — " And 
 whereas the propeller may be made of wood, sheet iron, or other 
 suitable material, and with a greater number of threads or worms, 
 and set at various angles with the central line of the screw," 
 
 The positions of the propeller are next described, and complete 
 the descriptive part of the specification : — " But whereas I claim 
 as my invention the propeller hereinbefore described, whether 
 arranged singly in an open space in the dead-wood, as here shown, 
 or in duplicate with"' one on each side of the dead-wood, or other- 
 wise placed more forward or more aft, or more or less deep in 
 the water." 
 
 To the concluding words in Mr Smith's declaration particular 
 attention is called: — "And such my invention being, to the best 
 of my knowledge and belief, entirely new, ami never before used 
 within that part of his said Majesty's United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland called England, his said dominion of Wales, 
 and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, nor in any of his said Majesty's 
 colonies or plantations abroad, I do hereby declare this to be my 
 specification of the same ;" " wherefore I do hereby claim to main- 
 tain exclusive right and privilege to my said invention." 
 
 This invention therefore is (1) as Mr F. P. Smith seven times 
 repeats, "mr/ invention " (2) it is "to the best of my knowledge 
 and belief entirely new" and (3) it has been, "to the best of my 
 knowledge and belief, never before used" within his Majesty's 
 dominions at home or abroad. Now, Mr F. P. Smith's so-called 
 invention being at this date in the form of a model only, his 
 
declaration must be held to mean that, to the best of his know- 
 ledge and belief, no similar invention, whether in the form of a 
 model or otherwise, was at the time, or ever had been, in exist- 
 ence. 
 
 These expressions are clear and unambiguous. The two last, 
 though uncalled for by the forms of the Patent Office, were no 
 donbt inserted to give greater efficacy to the first. Each and all 
 of these foreclose Mr F. P. Smith from mating the slightest con- 
 cession. He must, therefore, in his position of a pensioner on the 
 Civil List, be prepared, .when now directly challenged, to satisfy 
 the national mind of the truth of his specification, by substantiat- 
 ing the novelty, at all events the originality, on his part, of every 
 essential point in his "entirely new" invention. 
 
 Since the date of that patent twenty-two years have elapsed 
 without any direct challenge to the Patentee's pretensions being 
 made. Smothered doubts and conjectures, it is true, have from 
 time to time oozed out, and can still be traced through the nume- 
 rous volumes of the London Mechanics' "Magazine; but these never 
 having taken a tangible shape, remain to this day unnoticed by Mr 
 Smith. Placed in such an equivocal position, honourable men, 
 more especially were their antecedents unknown, as Mr F. P. 
 Smith's to this day appear to be, would have regarded it a sacred 
 duty, as well to themselves as to their countrymen, to give explana- 
 tions; but whatever Mr Smith may have thought of the propriety 
 of such a course, he has not yet followed it himself. He produced 
 a model, specification, and drawings of the most comprehensive 
 description, evincing an intimate acquaintance with general science, 
 and the possession of a diversity of creative and acquired gifts. 
 These, per se, have been allowed to plead, as well as to prove his 
 case; he himself opening not his mouth. Indeed, it would seem 
 that silence has, hitherto, proved his strength. 
 
 The most recent instance of Mr Smith's silent "persistency" 
 may be gathered from the after-dinner speeches on the 2d ultimo, 
 where, in the face of direct assertions, made both by the chairman, 
 (Mr Stephenson) and Mr Scott Russell, " that he was not the 
 originator of the idea of the screw propeller, though, undoubtedly, 
 he was the first to set it going, and to bring it under the favour- 
 able notice of those who gave it practical application" — he uc\-er 
 ventured upon one word of explanation, These ri'uiarks wore 
 
direct libels upon his specification, yet they passed in silence. The 
 opinions thus frankly expressed are opposed to the writings of 
 numerous standard authors, who, taking it for granted that Mr F. P. 
 Smith was really the inventor, hare assigned to him that merit in 
 works which are destined to live. In particular, by the influence 
 of his model and specification, he has obtained from Mr Bourne, 
 in his learned Treatise on the Screw Propeller, a brilliant 
 panegyric, in which the following passage occurs : — " To engin- 
 eers it has long been known that F. P. Smith has been the author 
 and establkher of the art of screw propulsion, at all events in 
 this country ; and engineers are certainly as well qualified to 
 form a just opinion on this subject as any other, class of the 
 community, and have as little temptation to strain their real con- 
 victions." " And when the people of future times inquire in what 
 way, or by whose instrumentality, the art of propelling vessels by 
 a screw was first established, they will learn that this important 
 amelioration was accomplished, not by any eminent engineer or 
 learned academician, but -by a farmer at Hendon, called, like 
 another Cincinnatus, from the plough, to advance the interests of 
 his country. Against that time, other names, at present far more 
 imposing, will have faded fronvthe recollections of mankind; but 
 the name of the originator of a new art lives as long as the art 
 itself, and gathers new lustre by the lapse of years." 
 
 To question the opinions of such truly great-minded men as 
 Stephenson, Russell, and Bourne, is a very delicate matter; but 
 amongst them they have effectually placed Mr F. P. Smith 
 between the horns of a dilemma. Mr Russell says (Illustrated 
 London News report) : — -" It was quite true, as had been observed 
 by the chairman (Mr Stephenson), that Mr Smith was not the 
 originator of the idea of the screw propeller." Mr Bourne, on 
 the other hand, says — " To engineers it has long been known that 
 F. P. Smith has been the author and establisher of the art of 
 screw propulsion;" and upon the faith of this he says — " The 
 name of the originator of a new art lives as long as the art itself," 
 &c. 
 
 Now, which of these opinions is to be preferred? Are the two 
 opinions urged in the after-dinner speeches, in the presence of, and 
 while doing high honour to, the person whose reputation they 
 prejudicially affected, equal to one opinion deliberately penned 
 
and issued in a standard form to the world? In ordinary circum- 
 stances it might be difficult to decide, but in this instance there 
 can be no difficulty, Mr Bourne, in this matter, has been too 
 credulous; for if anything more than another were required to 
 place one upon his guard against false pretences, it would most 
 assuredly be the facts Mr Bourne adduces in support of Mr Smith. 
 Some of these are the following: — "In 1835, F. P. 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 
 cooperation of Mr Wright, the banker; and his patent was granted 
 on the 31st May, 1836. A model boat which be had constructed, 
 and which was fitted with a wooden screw, was then exhibited 
 in operation upon a pond on his farm at Hendon, and at the 
 Adelaide -Gallery in London." Treatise, \st Ed., p. 84. 
 
 A woriking model was in existence in 1835, as appears from 
 ,the foot note, p. 91, which contains a list of the various modifi- 
 cations of screws exhibited by Mr Smith at the Great Exhibition. 
 It contains: — " 1. A screw of two entire turns of a single thread, 
 as applied to his working model in 183d, and subsequently to an 
 experimental boat of 6-horse power in 1836." And again : — 
 ■" 7. The original screw, two inches diameter, made by Mr Smith, 
 and applied to his working model boat in 1835." So that from 
 .this foot note we gather the fact that Mr Smith had his attention 
 first directed to screw propulsion somewhere in 1835, and that 
 somewhere in the same year he had been enabled to develope his 
 idea so maturely as to construct a working model. By the spring 
 of 1836 he had mastered his great work so completely, that he 
 could frame the specification above recited. 
 
 As the work involved in this Patent indicates an achieve- 
 ment of no ordinary kind, or importance, it is very natural for 
 us eagerly to inquire, first, what the antecedents were which led 
 to the conception, and, second, what the resources which accom- 
 plished the development so expeditiously and maturely, of this 
 great invention ? 
 
 In seeking an answer to ihe first query, we are met at the outset 
 by a darkness that can truly be felt — for Mr Smith's genius has 
 left not a streak or footprint in its onward march wherewith ho, 
 himself, or any one for him, can retrace its steps. 
 
 To satisfy our second inquiiy, however, we have fads from a 
 
10 
 
 substantial source— the Treatise of Mr Bourne. In this work, 
 which warmly sujDports Mr F. P. Smith throughout, we rfead, 
 p. 90—" Smith was only an Amateur, with almost every- 
 THING except the leading idea to learn :" again, in the same 
 paragraph, when speaking of Mr Smith's labours' a considerable 
 time after the whole patented work was completed—" This cojsi- 
 
 PARATIVE DESTITUTION OE MECHANICAL RESOURCES must have 
 
 added to the difficulties of Smith's career;" and once more, at 
 p. 94 — "This important amelioration was accomplished, not by 
 any eminent engineer or learned academician, but by a farmer 
 at Hondon, called from the plough." 
 
 Upon the accuracy of these facts, as weU as others hereinafter 
 transcribed from, Mr Bourne, we rely, for four reasons : — 
 
 1 . Because, at the close of Chapter II., from which they are ^ 
 extracted, he remarks — " While I am quite sensible of its many 
 deficiencies, I believe that it -will be recognised by the engineering 
 community as an accurate statement of the facts of the case." 
 
 2. Because Mr Bourne had ample opportunities of procuring 
 from Mr Smith the required information, and had no " temptation 
 to strain his real convictions." 
 
 3. Because, in a second edition of his Treatise, published in 
 1 855, three years after the first, and considerably amended, the 
 facts I have quoted continue, verbatim et literatim, the same, 
 although Mr Smith had had, in the interim, abundant opportunities 
 to get errors corrected. 
 
 4. Because the authors of most subsequent standard works have 
 adopted these facts, and upon the faith of their accuracy have 
 assigned to Mr Smith the merit of the invention. , 
 
 From these facts, then, we gaiher, Jirsf, that Mr Smith had 
 been enabled to originate and unfold in his mind a " leading idea;" 
 but, second, that for its physical development he had "almost 
 everything to learn." 
 
 A separate consideration of these two great heads of the subject 
 may be permitted : — 
 
 /. The Intellectual Development. — Without attempting to strain 
 our own or seeking to follow another's imagination, we may, in 
 the absence of a much desiderated narrative of Mr Smith's 
 antecedent experience, endeavour to define, in a rough-hewn 
 way, what the Irrra "learling idi'a" in lhl'5 instance rcallv seems 
 
11 
 
 to involve, even granting that an accident may have Jed to the 
 ftrst stage in its conception. Of the correctness of our exposition, 
 however, readers will judge for thenlselves. Such a practical prin- 
 ciple as the Screw Propeller, although in the form of an idea only, 
 is a tangible existence, and onc'e raatttrely formed, what follows, 
 however difficult to execute, is mere matter of detail. The intel- 
 lectual perception of all the bearings of this idea required a more 
 than ordinai'y mental capacity, since, before anything could result 
 from it, the conceiver had necessarily to attain to a broad, prospec- 
 tive, tangible view of the relations of the idea's own parts, of the 
 relations in which it must stand to other objects and causes in a 
 physical state, and in a great measure of the contingencies to which, 
 in that state, it would be liable. A clear perception of all these rela- 
 tions and contingencies is, in the nature of things, of slow and labo- 
 rious growth, the achievements of the greatest originative intellects 
 being standing memorials of this truth. The lives of all great 
 men bear ample testimony to the fact that accident, while it may 
 lead to the conception of a complicated idea, and discovery of the 
 most valuable principle, can never of itself give to such an idea 
 or principle a spontaneous maturity in the mind of any man. Acci- 
 dent usually presents to the mind the. first stage of an idea in the 
 filmiest form, but the intellect must grasp it, and, by the sober 
 and painful deductions of reason and suggestions of analogy, ulti- 
 mately assign to it in the mind a " local habitation and a name." 
 Now, for the conception of an idea it is freely admitted that the 
 mind of a " farmer," when so directed, is as adequate as the mind 
 of any other member in the community; but for the development, 
 through all its intellectual stages, within so brief a period, of an 
 original and essentially complex idea, like the one under consi- 
 deration — in, the accomplishment of which, by one individual, a 
 diversity of scientific and mechanical resources must necessarily 
 be concentrated — we are far from being convinced that an 
 " Amateur," destitute of such resources, could possibly be equal to 
 the task. 
 
 II. The Physical Development: — Assuming, however, that Mr 
 F. P. Smith had really been enabled to bring this " leading idea" 
 to a state of intellectual maturity, an "entirely new" order of 
 duties still devolved upon him to perform, since, -before the idea 
 could be fit for anything, a great variety of conditions, absolutely 
 
12 
 
 indispensable to its physical existence and vigorous exercise, had 
 to be satisfied in all their intricate details. Mr Smith's qualiflca-. 
 tions for this department of the work were, that he had "almost 
 EVERYTHING TO LEAKN." What those lessons were which a farmer, 
 called from the plough, the whole current of whose thoughts and 
 actions was so suddenly and radically changed, had, within so brief 
 a period, to learn and master in the hard school of practical 
 experience, may be imagined, from the following rather unscientific 
 consideration of some of the external conditions and objects upon 
 which the idea had to depend: — 
 
 1. The working model made by Mr Smith in the very year 
 his attention was first directed to the subject of Screw pro- 
 pulsion, and also the experimental boat, if different from the work- 
 ing model, which was exhibited on the day his patent was sealed. 
 The construction of these model and experimental boats involved 
 both a theoretical and thoroughly practical acquaintance with 
 naval architecture in all its details, since they were necessarily 
 made in the view, and on a reduced scale, of a large ship, in 
 order to demonstrate satisfactorily the eligibility of a screw to 
 propel large vessels. The proportions of the models were nicely 
 balanced, and their lines in some respects novel, so as to be 
 suitably adapted to an " entirely new " propeller. In working 
 out the details of this invention, many problems seem to have pre- 
 sented- themselves for solution. Not the least perplexing of these- 
 occurred when, in constructing the models, the position (one or 
 more) in which the propeller (singly or in duplicate) should be 
 placed fell to be considered. Mr Smith got out of this difficulty 
 for a time by adopting one position, and claiming the right to 
 adopt every other that could ever be suggested. To have attained 
 to the suggestive knowledge condescended on in the " position " 
 clause alone, elaborate experiment was required. 
 
 2. The second great physical condition, necessary to its vigor- 
 ous exercise, was the design and construction of the intricate 
 mechanical members described in the specification. This machin- 
 ery had also necessarily to be in many respects novel, and specially 
 adapted to the new idea; the design requiring an enlarged theo- 
 retical capacity for engineering, and the construction a perfect 
 acquaintatice with its practical details. In this complicated de- 
 partment, Mr Smith's labours, as a first essay, were attended with 
 
13 
 
 marked success, and won the utmost confidence of himself. The 
 only difficulty Jie seems to have felt lay in the superabundance of 
 his mechanical resources, for while he succeeded in constructing 
 one combination worthy of adoption, his experience had made it 
 " evident that various other modes of gearing the propeller may 
 be adopted." This is not altogether a vague generality, for he 
 proceeds to condescend upon another neW combination by the' 
 agency of pullies and a band, which may be used in place of the 
 pinion gear adopted. In- addition to these more complicated con- 
 trivancBS, he had discovered that the hand, or other than steam 
 power, might be employed to communicate a rotating action to the 
 propeller. As we postpone a comparison of inventions till a later 
 stage, we will leave the merits of one and all of these descrip- 
 tions of gearing for after consideration. 
 
 3-. These conditions thus abundantly satisfied, Mr Smith had 
 yet another, and as naval engineers will know, not the least impor- 
 tant and difficult task before him — the design- and construction of 
 the Propeller "singly or in duplicate.'' In this great division of 
 the work rests the merit and originality of the invention, most 
 accomplished engineers being equal to the other parts. We repeat 
 the description in the specification : — " And whereas the propeller 
 may be made of wood, sheet iron, or other suitable material, and 
 with a greater number of threads or worms, and set at various 
 angles with the central line of the screw.'' This, therefore, may 
 be regarded as a three-fold condition, consisting of (1) Material; 
 ^2) Configuration; and (3) Obliquity. 
 
 (1.) TkE Material. — To determine this point would require 
 a considerable degree of mechanical skill of a kind peculiar 
 to itself, with a knowledge of the properties of Water, and an 
 experimental knowledge of the relative consistency and suit- 
 ability of different kinds of material ;■ but an inquiry into this 
 head seems of minor importance. 
 
 (2.) Thcb CoNFlGUEATiON. — A Simple analysis of the meaning 
 and effect of the words " with a greater number of threads or 
 worms^' will, we feel assured, convince every naval engineer that, 
 in truth, no labour, with the view to improvements) or even to the 
 merest personal acquaintance with the first principles of the screw 
 as a ship propeller, could possibly have been made by Mr F. P. 
 Smith, prior to the framing of his brief, but withal most com- 
 
14 
 
 prehensive, specification. Before entering on a consideration of 
 this point, we quote a sentiment from Mr Bourne, expressed) 
 while discussing and denouncing the merits of a Screw invention- 
 of Mr Miles Berry, patented in 1840. He says. Treatise, \st ed., 
 jp. 31 : — " Such rough-hewn ideas ought not to be able to obtain 
 the sanction of a patent at all, for such patents obstruct improve- 
 ment instead of advancing it. To justify the acquisition of a 
 patent, merit should exist, and labour should be bestowed, so that 
 a useful step of improvement may reasonably be expected." Mr 
 Berry's invention had at least the merit of novelty. The justice 
 of Mr Bourne's remark, notwithstanding, will be universally 
 acknowledged. But how will it affect Mr Smith ? Mr Smith 
 either did or did not bestow labour prior to the patent — ^labour 
 in this instance meaning experiments after the first construc- 
 tion of a model, in order to the development of improvements. 
 The Screw adopted by Mr Smith was single-threaded; and the 
 whole invention was " to the best of my knowledge and belief 
 entirely new and never before used." If this declaration be trUe, 
 Mr Smith, as an original inventor, has, by the insertion in hia 
 specification of the words " with a greater number of threads," 
 placed himself in a very anomalous position. For while, on the 
 one hand, nothing but a profound theoretical knowledge of the 
 Screw as a propeller could have suggested, as he does, the appli- 
 cation of more than a single thread, his actual adoption in the 
 specification of a single thread, on the other hand, clearly 
 proves a total absence of the slightest practical or experimental 
 knowledge of the relative efficiency of one, two, three, or more 
 threads. And yet on this very intricate and essential point the 
 theoretical could only have been attained through a thoroughly 
 practical knowledge of the art — since the application of more than 
 one thread was not likely to occur to a person whoUy destitute of 
 the latter kind of knowledge. Mr Smith, therefore, by his insertion 
 of these words, occupies the position of being in possession of a 
 profound theoretical, at the same moment that he exemplifies a 
 total destitution of any practical or experimental knowledge of the 
 first principles of the Screw Propeller. Supposing, however, for 
 an instant, that with some individuals this might be a perfectly 
 consistent incongruity, the question still remains for Mr Smith to 
 answer, why, if he believed that more than one thread might be 
 
15 
 
 tiaed with advantage, did he not test the truth of his theory before 
 arbitrarily adopting a particular, and as he soon afterwards de- 
 monstrated, the weakest form of screw he could employe? Had 
 his theory been self-acquired or well-grounded when his speci- 
 fication was framed, he would most assuredly have tested the 
 ■efficiency of two or more threads against one; and had he done 
 90 a single experiment would bave sufficed to prove -that two 
 threads or three were vastly superior to one. Having adopted the 
 single thread, however, the only legitimate inference we can draw 
 from such a proceeding is, that he had net tested - for himself a 
 theory he himself lays down, notwithstanding that it struck at the 
 root of the most essential element involved in the whole principle 
 of the Screw as a propeller ; and not having so "tested the theory, 
 we must farther infer that at this time it could neither be deep- 
 rooted nor self-acquired. As we shall hereafter discover, Mr 
 Smith carried his multi-threaded theory into practice two years 
 after these words were penned, by suggesting to his eminent coad- 
 jutors the modification of the one-invn-single thread applied- to the 
 " Archimedes" into a half-turn-rfoMJZe thread — the very first ex- 
 periment with which resulted in his abandonment of single-threaded 
 screws. The same result would, we presume, have followed a like 
 experiment prior to the patent; but Mr Smith, although, accord- 
 ing to his specification, quite unconscious that the idea of a Screw 
 Propeller had ever puzzled the brains of anybody but himself, 
 and although he has obtained from Mr Bourne the highest en- 
 comiums for his "persistency of character" and "perseverance," 
 seems, for some reason not altogether inapparent, to have been in 
 too great haste to obtain the sanction of a patent to his specula- 
 tions, however crude, to admit of his testing, even by a single 
 experiment, this or any other of his numerous, and, as he after- 
 wards learned, invaluable theories. And yet these theories could 
 never have been suggested without protracted experimental labour. 
 So ingenious was his posterior modification into the double-thread 
 considered to be by the Rennies, Screw Propelling Company, and 
 others, that it has ever since gone by the name of Smith's original 
 type. 
 
 But Mr Smith's specification, by adopting two full turns of a 
 screw as his "improved propeller," further betrays the total 
 absence of any experinipntal labour on his part prior to Ihe patent; 
 
16 
 
 and an ignorance of the first and most obvious principles of tlie 
 screw as a propeller. We may here take the liberty of stating 
 that Mr Smith himself, though he has never ventured to chronicle 
 his antecedents, has been in the habit of stating in private that he 
 conducted protracted experiments prior to the patent, and thereby 
 effected great reductions on the length of the screw. Yet what 
 does his adoption of twofuU convolutions, and his silence respecting 
 any less quantity, distinctly prove ? Neither more nor less, we 
 think, than that no such experiments were made. Had they really 
 been made, and reductions upon long screws effected, we may 
 naturally ask why did he stop short at, and arbitrarily adopt, two 
 fuU convolutions ? It has universally been demonstrated that the 
 -propelling efficacy of the screw increases in a ratio corresponding 
 to the diminution of its length, Mr Smith himself having soon 
 after the patent discovered, whether from personal experienjce or 
 not, that the maximum of propelling power is got out of about one- 
 sixth part of a convolution. Mr Smith, therefore, notwithstanding 
 his own private statements, and the reputation for industry and 
 perseverance he has earned, tried no experiments prior to his 
 patent j for had he actually done so, and tested the relative effici- 
 ency of different lengths, as every original inventor unquestionably 
 would do, he must of necessity then, as afterwards, have discovered 
 the nature of the screw, and been taught thereby to continue its 
 reduction till he was enabled to determine with some degree of 
 accuracy the best quantity to be employed. 
 
 From this head of his specification, therefore, it may be inferred 
 that Mr Smith, when he presented himself at the Patent Office, 
 had no experimental knowledge whatever of the great work he 
 privately proclaimed as the offspring of his laborious exertions 
 at Hendon. But to prove his inexperience, we are not confined 
 to mere argument or inference. His own supporter, Mr Bourne, 
 proves it by substantial fact. He states no less than twice that 
 the very first experiment made by Mr Smith was upon the day his 
 patent was granted. ( Ti'eatise, \st ed. pp. 84 and 90.) At the latter 
 place it is said : — " The fiest trial of Smith's experimental boat 
 " was made on the i\st May, 1836." Mr Bourne further records 
 of a six -ton boat constructed by " Mr Smith and his friends,'' that 
 " during one of the trips on the Paddington Canal, in February, 
 ' 1837, an accident occurred which first pointed out the advan- 
 
17 
 
 •' tage of dirriinishing the lengtli. of the scrow." Tlieae facts speak 
 for themselves. 
 
 And yet, notwithstanding this absence of 'the slightest ex- 
 perimental knowledge of the principles of screw propulsion, the 
 whole superstructure of Mr F. P. Smith's invention, as embodied 
 ■in his specification, rests upon a profound acquaintance with its 
 every practical detail. The " position " clause alone— to which 
 we again beg to refer our readers — though brief in the extreme, 
 contains a volume of suggestive knowledge which mere theory of 
 thp highest order could not, and which intuition would not impart ; 
 for had intaition been Mr Smith's guide, it would have directed 
 to the truth at once, without the necessity for resorting to alterna- 
 tive reservation. In shpr.t, the framing of the "position" cHuse, 
 by itself, involved an appreciation of the subject only to be attained 
 hj the most elaborate experimental trials. 
 
 (3.) The Oblic^tjitt op the Sceew. — The performance of this 
 part of the work required a keen mathematical eye, and a practical 
 knowledge of water while in a state both of rest and motion. The 
 adjustment of the angles, in order to the efficient, adaptation of the 
 screw to a liquid element, required patient practical experiment for 
 its own special behoof, since, without experiment, the most effective 
 ■obliquity could not be ascertained. Mr Smith does not even con- 
 rdescend upon any angle ; but no one who believes his invention 
 original would suppose he had rushed precipitately to the Paten* 
 Office without an attempt at least to comprehend this point. The 
 great labour which this head of the division must have cost to a 
 really original inventor can best be imagined by practical engin- 
 .eers. 
 
 Having thus hastily, and most unseiejitifically we fear,.attemp^ted 
 an exposition of the mere practical knowledge and labour involved in 
 Mr F. P. Smith's specification, we leave it for the present. We 
 shall have occasion, however, to return to it, for the purpose of 
 drawing a comparison between the prior invention whose merits 
 we now bring before the world, and that which bears the name 
 and seal of Francis Pettit Smith. If desired by Mr Smith, we 
 shall be glad to enter upon a more analytical discussion of the 
 several clauses in his specification. 
 
 Following Mr Bourne, we have already adverted to the period 
 within which the wlwle of Mr Smith's great work was begun and 
 
18 
 
 ended : begun sometime in 1835, when he "had his attention jf?rsi 
 directed to the subject,'' and ended, in so far at least as the con- 
 struction of a -working model was concerned, somewhere in the 
 same year. Bythe spring of 1836 he had obtained the co-opera-' 
 tion of Mr Wright, the banker, and by 31st May, 1836, he had 
 been enabled to frame and deposit, at the Patent Office, the above 
 Comprehensive specification. 
 
 We have also stated the qualifications possessed by Mr Smith 
 for the achievement of such a complicated work ; that he was a 
 "farmer called from the plough ;" that he " was only an amateur, 
 " with almost everything to learn ;" and that, after the whole work 
 was patented, he was still " comparatively destitute of mechanical 
 " resources." Whether or not Mr Smith took kindly to the diversity 
 of new lessons he had so soon to learn and master, upon being sud- 
 denly called from the plough, may be matter for interesting inquiry. 
 Of this we are not expressly informed, but, incidentally, we may 
 gather a satisfactory reply. Some of his practical lessons had, it 
 may be, to be learned in the shipyard ; some in the workshops of 
 the engineer and mechanic ; and the more difficult of all in the 
 books of the mathematician and natural philosopher, unless, for 
 the latter of these two, he resorted to the fountain-head of know- 
 ledge — ^to Nature itself. Besides these factitious acquirements, 
 absolutely necessary to be learned, he had still farther to possess 
 original and unacquirahle powers to enable him to originate and 
 develope the complex "leading idea" in his mind; and also to 
 push his practical instructions beyond the limits of mere learning 
 into more extended and untrodden fields — first by speculation, 
 and aftenvards by mechanical labour and patient experiment. 
 In these great departments of learning we infer that the measure 
 of Mr Smith's success could not be great, from the fact that 
 after the work, for the performance of which they had neces- 
 sarily to be concentrated, was completed, he was yet " compar- 
 atively destitute of mechanical resources." And as respects his 
 possession of originative powers of mind, we may infer that these 
 also could not be uncommon, from the fact that Mr Bourne, 
 after a prolonged and intimate acquaintance with the man, has 
 found "persistency of character'' — by no means an uncommon 
 quality — to be his only characteristic. Mr Bourne, although 
 throughout sayiiifr the utmost of Mr Smith, does not pvfn hint at 
 
19 
 
 ingenuity, or anything akin to it, being a lineament of his mind. 
 And yet, without the possession and active exercise of a variety 
 of originative and acquired gifts, the work involved in Mr Smith's 
 specification could not, we presume, have been performed, nor 
 would its performance have evinced any merit, or entitled it to 
 praise. 
 
 Mr Smith, it is true, might have employed professional assist- 
 ance in his great work; but if he did, no mention of any such 
 assistance is made either by Mr Bourne or any other writer. 
 Indeed Mr Bourne, while preserving silence on this point, leads 
 his readers to the opinion, that prior to the patent, Mr F. P. 
 Smith had worked at Hendon alone, and " without the consola- 
 tions of sympathy.'' 
 
 As " persistency of character " is set down as Mr F. P. 
 Smith's characteristic attribute, it is necessary nest to inquire 
 upon, what objects his "persevering struggles" were expended. 
 We have distinctly seen, that prior to the patent he had had 
 no scope for the exercise of persistency, because of the brief 
 period to which he restricted himself in his work, and the total 
 absence of an experimental acquaintance with the most obvious 
 principles of hi^ " entirely new " invention, as exemplified by the 
 blunders he committed in his specification. We must, therefore, 
 look for the display of Mr Smith's " persistency " subsequent to 
 the patent, if, in reality, it were ever exhibited by him at all. 
 This brings our inquiry to the 
 
 PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION OF THE SCREW 
 PROPELLER. 
 
 In discussing this branch of the subject, Mr Bourne eloquently 
 expatiates upon the moral and physical impediments encountered 
 and surmounted by Mr Smith whilst demonstrating, on the .large 
 scale, the eligibility of the Screw as a propeller. In one pas- 
 sage he says : — 
 
 "Heretofore Engineers had been almost unanimous in the 
 " opinion that a screw would occasion a serious loss of power from 
 " the obliquity of its action, and the consequent dispersion of the 
 " water ; and it was concluded, therefore, that it would be ineli- 
 "gible as a propeller. In this opinion I perfectly remember I 
 " concurred. But it was impossible to resist facts such as the 
 
20 
 
 " performance of the Archimedes afforded. Ancient opinions, in 
 " many cases negligently taken up, had to be modified or aban- 
 "doned; and although few engineers Would yet accept the con- 
 " elusion- that the screw was a better propeller than the paddle, it 
 " nevertheless became clear that their original impressions were to 
 " a certain extent erroneous, and might be erroneous altogether. 
 "Thenceforth they looked upon the screw with less distrust, and 
 " spoke with less dogmatism, of its disqualifications. But at the 
 " outset it was not merely against physical difficulties, but against 
 " the almost universal sentiment of the engineering- world that the 
 " authors of the Screw Propeller had to work, in accomplishing its 
 "practical introduction. Before these combined impediments count- 
 " less inventors had succumbed, and it is difficult to over-rate the- 
 " merit of those who, without the consolations of sympathy, and in 
 " spite of a scepticism well nigh universal, preserved their own- 
 " faith unshaken, and laboured steadily onward until their labours, 
 " pains, and perils had a final issue in successful achievement." 
 (Treatise, 1st ed., p. 86.> 
 
 Now, it is not for us, who advocate the claims of those whom; 
 we believe to be the real authors of the art of screw propulsion 
 as now in use, to question the justice of these sentiments of 
 Mr Bourne. They have doubtless been deservedly earned by 
 some individuals. All we would now require of Mr Bourne, 
 therefore, is, that they be accorded to those who have justly 
 earned them. His sentiments are, perhaps, not overrated, if 
 applied to those eminent and liberal-minded gentlemen he names 
 in his Treatise as having aided in the practical introduction ;: 
 and as we shall hereafter show, they are -within the truth, if 
 applied to those whom we believe to be the primary intro-- 
 ducers of Mr F. P. Smith's succession of propellers. But, on the 
 other Tiand, the facts recorded by Mr Bourne do, we humbly 
 think, clearly warrant us in deprecating the application of any 
 one of such sentiments to any one thing which Mr F. P. Smith 
 ever independently did or felt in relation to the practical de- 
 velopment and introduction of the Screw Propeller. Mr Bourne 
 doubtless meant his remarks to apply essentially to Mr F. P. 
 Smith; but he gives no kind of data whatever warranting their 
 applicability to him. On the contrary, he and other eminent 
 writers, as also Mr Smith's own official Disclaimer of April, 
 
21 
 
 1839, furnish evidence sufficiently abundant to lead every reader 
 to a directly opposite conclusion. Instead of Mr Smith's public 
 exertions being made " without the consolations of sympathy" Mr 
 Bourne records facts i» the very same page which wear a totally 
 different aspect. 
 
 To enable our readers to form a judgment on the publicly re- 
 corded share which Mr F. P. Smith, as an individual, had in the 
 practical introduction of his so-called invention, and- of the " dog- 
 matism,'' " seepticism," and " physical diificwlties," which, as an 
 individual, he had to encounter in obtaining favour and encour- 
 agement from others, we have only to ask their careful attention 
 to the following narrative of the proceedings which followed on 
 Mr Smith's patent. This narrative is taken verbatim from Mr 
 Bourne's Treatise; bwt into it we will take the liberty to inter- 
 polate one or two quotations from other writers, on points where 
 Mr Bourne is less clear and full. Mr Bourne, then, proceeds : — 
 
 " In 1835 F. P. 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 cooperation of Mr Wright, 
 "the banker ('but for whose aid Smith's patent would perhaps 
 "'never have been taken out,' ^.94) ; and his patent was granted 
 "on the 31st May, 1836. A model boat which Ae Aarf' coMsfrwcferf, 
 " and which was fitted with a wooden screw, was then exhibited 
 " in operation upon a pond on his farm at Hendon, and at the 
 "Adelaide Gallery in London, At the latter place ii was in- 
 "spected by Sir John Barrow, then Secretary of the Admiralty, 
 " and an offer was made by Messrs Harris & Bell, of Alexandria, 
 "to purchase the invention for the Pasha of Egypt, bttt this 
 
 " OFFER WAS DECLINED," 
 
 Sir John and Mr George Rennie, of whom, in Stephenson! s 
 Life, pi 275, it is said, " the Eennies were then the gebat lights 
 "of the engineering world," had their attention immediately called 
 to the invention, and Mr George Rennie afterwards openly 
 undertook its advocacy in the journals. Of the early connection 
 of these two eminent brothers with the screw propeller, Mr Bourne, 
 p. 94, says : " Among engineers they were tke first who augured 
 "favourably of the issue of the project, and they also had a con- 
 '• siderable pecuniary stake in the result." 
 
 "The results obtained with the model boat were deemed so satis- 
 
22 
 
 "factory, that in the autumn- of the sanne year (1:836) Mr Smithr 
 "and his friends constructed a boat Of six tons burthen and about 
 " six-horse power, in order further to demonstrate the advantage of 
 " the invention. This boat was fitted with a wooden screw of two 
 "turns. On the 1st of November, 1836, she was exhibited to the 
 " public in operation on the Paddington Canal, and she continued to 
 "ply there and on the Thames until the month of September, 1837- 
 " During one of the trips on the Paddington Canal in February, 
 " 1887, an accident occurred which ^rs^ pointed out the advantage 
 "of dimishing 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 been done 
 " than the boat quickened her speed, and was found to realize a 
 " better performance than before. In consequence of this discovery, 
 " a new screw was fitted of a single turn, and with the vessel 
 " thus itnproved, very satisfactory results were obtained." 
 
 " But although these experiments established in a great mea- 
 sure the eligibility of the screw as a propeller in the case of canal 
 and river vessels, nothing had yet been done that was then gener- 
 ally known or remembered, to show that it w-as applicable to 
 vessels navigating the sea. To this point, therefore, Mr Smith 
 now directed his attention, and he determined to carry his small 
 vessel to sea, with the view of ascertaining if she there exhibited 
 a similar efficiency to that displayed, in the case of canal and river 
 navigation. Accordingly, on a Saturday evening,'in the month 
 of September, 1837, he proceeded in his miniature vessel fron> 
 Blackwall to G-raveseild, where, having at three in the morning 
 taken in a pilot on board, he went on to Ramsgate, and reached 
 that place the same morning during divine service. From Rams- 
 gate he proceeded to Dover, where a trial of the vessel's perform- 
 ance was made in the presence of Mr John Wright, and of Mr 
 Peake, Civil Engineer. From Dover he went on to Folkestone, 
 and from thence to Hythe, returning again to Folkestone. The 
 distance between Hythe and Folkestone, which, is about five miles 
 was accomplished in about three-quarters of an hour. On the 
 25th of the same month he returned to London^ in weather so 
 stormy and boisterous, that it was accounted dangerous for any 
 vessel of so small a size to put to sea. The courage of the under- 
 taking, and the unexpected efficiency of the propeller, rendered the 
 
Httle'Vessel during this voyage an object of much interest; and 
 her progress was watched with solicitude from the cliffs by nau- 
 tical and naval men, who were hud in their praises. These 
 favourable impressions reached the Admiralty, and produced a 
 visible effect there. In March, 1838, the Lords of the Admiralty 
 requested Mr Smith to have the vessel tried under their inspection. 
 Two trials were accordingly made, which were considered satis- 
 factory; and thenceforth the adoption of the propeller for the 
 Naval Service was deemed not an improbable contingency. 
 
 "Before finally deciding, however, upon the adoption of the 
 propeller, the Lords of the Admiralty considered it desirable that 
 an experiment should be made with a -vessel of at least 200 tons ; 
 and Mr Smith and the gentlemen associated with him in 'the enter- 
 prize, accor.dingly resolved to construct the Archimedes. This 
 vessel was of the burthen of 237 tons. She was designed by Mr 
 Pascoe, wa« laid down in the spring of 1838, was launched on the 
 18th October following, and made her first trip in 1839. She 
 was fitted with a screw of one convolution, which was set in the 
 deadwood, and was propelled by two engines of the collective 
 power of 90 horses. Her cost was £10,500." 
 
 In the Civil Engineer and Architects Journal, vol. 11., p. 442, 
 we read — " Our readers wiU probably recollect that the Archi- 
 medes, a remarkably fine formed vessel of 230 tons burden, fitted 
 with a pair of engines of 45 horse power each, manufactured by 
 Messrs Rennie, and the screw propeller as applied by Mr Smith, 
 was first tried early last summer." 
 
 ^n the London Mechanics' Magazine, No. 830, we farther read : 
 ""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.'' 
 
 And, still farther, in Professor Woodcroft's "Origin and Pro- 
 gress of Steam Navigation," we read, p. 102 — -" This Company 
 subsequently purchased letters patent whidh had been granted 
 to Francis Pettit Smith, in England, on ^;he 31st May, 1836, and 
 being a numerous, wealthy, and influentla.l body, they had 
 an experimental steam screw vessel built of timber. This vessel 
 was named the Archimedes, and made her first experimental trip 
 on Monday, the 14th October, 1839. (This date differs from Mr 
 Bourne's, quoted below.) A second experimental trip was made 
 
24 
 
 on the following Wednesday, in presence of a number of distin-- 
 guished naval officers and engineers. Among the numerous visit- 
 ors on board were — Sir Edward Parry^ Sir William Symonds, 
 Colonel Acklom; Captains Basil Hall, Austin, and Smith, R.N. 5 
 
 Messrs D'Este, P. Ewart, C.E., Miller, C.E., and ■ Manby, 
 
 C.E., all of whom appeared to pay minute attention to the action 
 of the machinery." See farther on this point "Inventor's Advo- 
 cate, vol. I., p. 152,. 
 
 Returning to Mr Bourne's Treatise where we left off, we find 
 him continuing — " Slie (the Archimedes) was built under the 
 persuasion that her performance would be considered satisfactory 
 if a speed was attained of four or jive knots an hour ; and that 
 in such an event the invention would be immediateh/ adopted for 
 the service of the Navy. Nearly tjpiee this speed was actually 
 obtained. 
 
 "After having made various trials on the Thames and at 
 Sheerness, the Archimedes, on the 15th May, 1839, proceeded to 
 sea." She made the trip from Gravesend to Portsmouth, under 
 adverse circumstances of wind and water, in twenty hours. At 
 Portsmouth she was tried against the Vulcan, one of the swift- 
 est vessels in Her Majesty's service. The trial took place before 
 Captain Crispin, Admiral Fleming, and other competent authori- 
 ties, who acquired from the result a very high opinion of the 
 efficiency of the screw as a propeller, and this opinion they- 
 expressed in writing to Mr Smith. These successes were achieved 
 by a screw of one complete convolution; and although it has sub- 
 sequently been found beneficial to reduce the length of the screw 
 to less than a convolution, it ia certain, nevertheless, that a screw 
 of a whole turn is an efficient propeller. 
 
 " Soon after this the Archimedes had to return to London in 
 consequence of an accident having occurred to the boilers, and new 
 boilers were fitted, which occupied a period of five months. She 
 was then sent to the Texel, at the request of the Dutch Govern^ 
 ment, whose interest her performances had excited; but on the way 
 thither she broke the crank shaft of one of her engines. She 
 was consequently put into the hands of Messrs Miller, Ravenh;U, 
 & Co., to undergo a complete repair, and at the same time the 
 form of her screw was altered, by dividing the one whole turn 
 into two half-turns, which, being placed on the opposite sides of 
 
25 
 
 sthe axis, gave to 'the propellei- the character of a double-threaded 
 Screw of half a turn. In April, 1840, the Admiralty de- 
 spatched Captain Chappell of the Eoyal Navy, and Mr Lloyd, the 
 'Chief engineer of Woolwich Dockyard, to conduct a series of ex- 
 periments upon -the vessel at Dover. During April and May 
 these experiments were carried on, and the speed of the Archi- 
 medes was tested relatively with that of the mail packets on the 
 Dover Station. The result was a highly favourable report 
 to the Admiralty, stating that the success of this new method of 
 PROPULSION had been completely proved. 
 
 " Immediately after these experiments were concluded, the 
 vessel was placed at the disposal of Captain ChappeU, who, 
 .accompanied by Mr Smith, performed with her the circumnaviga- 
 tion of Great Britain, visiting in her progress every sea-port of 
 importance, so as to afford ship-owners, engineers, and others, an 
 opportunity of becoming acquainted with this new mode of navi- 
 gation. Everywhere the~vesael became an object of wonder 
 and admiration.'' 
 
 This point brings the narrative to a period of fouT years from 
 the date of the patent. Without fear of scepticism on the par.t 
 of a single reader, we think we may here venture the remark, 
 .that to this point the public career of Mr F. P. Smith, the 
 "farmer" and "amateur," was one fraught with the most unparal- 
 leled and triumphant success ; and that, too, so far as we can 
 judge after mature consideration and research both in Mr Bourne's 
 and other authoritative writings, without the slightest exertion 
 being either called for or made on the part of Mr Smith himself, 
 yet, will it be .credited, that the veiry next word from Mr Bourne 
 ibegins that most touching passage quoted at the outset of the 
 " Practical Introduction," wherein he eloquently expatiates on the 
 -" dogmatism," the "physical difficulties," the "combined impedi- 
 ments,'' "a scepticism well nigh universal," and "the almost uni- 
 versal sentiment of the engineering world," against one and all of 
 which " the authors of the screw propeller had to work in accom- 
 plishing its- practical introduction ! " But we have not nearly 
 .exhausted the measure of Mr Smith's success, as narrated by Mr 
 Bourne. Having made this remarkable "braise" in his narrative, 
 he proceeds : — 
 
 " After the Archimedes had accomplished the circumnavigation 
 
26 
 
 of Great Britain, she made a voyage to Opoi?to. THis voyage 
 was performed in 68| hours, and Was at the time held to be the 
 quickest voyage on record. She also visited Antwerp and Amster- 
 dam, passed through the North Holland Canal, and made a great 
 number of trips to other places, leaving everywhere the impression 
 that she had succeeded in demonstrating the practicsability of pro- 
 pelling vessels by a screw in an efficient manner. She was next 
 LENT TO Mk Brtjnel, who performed various experiments with 
 her at Bristol, after having fitted her with screws of several dif- 
 ferent forms. The result was considered so satisfactory, that the 
 Great Britain, originally intended to be propelled by paddles, was 
 altered to adapt her to the reception of a screw. 
 
 " Meanwhile the Admiralty had determined upon adopting 
 fee screw ybr the service of the Navy, and in the Merchant Seb- 
 TiCB an opinion had arisen equally favourable to its eligibility. 
 In 1840 and 1841 the Princess Royal was built at Newcastle, the 
 Margaret and Senator were built at Hull, and the Great Northern, 
 a vessel of about 1500 tons burthen, was laid down at London- 
 derry, in Ireland. All these were merchant vessels. In 1841 
 the Rattler, the first screw vessel built for the Navy, was laid 
 down at Sheerness. This vessel, which is of 888 tons burthen, ^ 
 was launched in the spring of 1843. The Rattler was fitted with 
 a screw the same in every respect as the screw of the Archimedes, 
 namely, a double-threaded screw of half a convolution. But the 
 length of the screw was subsequently reduced, and it was found 
 that the best results were obtained with a length of screw answer- 
 ing to one-sixth of a convolution. In the years 1843, 1844, and 
 1845, an extensive series of experiments was made in the Rattler, 
 upon screws of various forms, and under varying circumstances of 
 wind and water. The performance of the vessel was found to be 
 so satisfactory, that the Lords of the Admiralty ordered twertty 
 vessels to be fitted with the screw, under Mr Smith's superin- 
 tendence. The screws introduced into these vessels were in 
 every case double-threaded screws set in the deadwood, after the 
 fashion adopted in the Archimedes and the Rattler; and the 
 WHOLE of the screw vessels built in this country have been con- 
 structed upon this ORIGINAL TYPE." 
 
 " Seen THEN," concludes Mr Bourne, " has been Smith's career, 
 
 and such its results " ! ! ! 
 
on 
 
 But we must not stop short of the climax. Having completed 
 his first public climacteric in the spring q/" 1845, Mr F. P. Smith 
 had the distinguished honour of personally presenting the/ac simile 
 of a model of the screw propeller of H. M. steam yacht " Fairy," 
 to Her Most G-raciotis Majesty Queen Victoria, on board the 
 " Great Britain" steam-ship, at Blackwall, on the 22d of April, 
 1845. 
 
 recapitulatoet retiew of practical introduction. 
 
 Upon the foregoing authentic narrative, we doubt not but that 
 the unanimous opinion will be formed by readers respecting the 
 public career of Mr F. P. Smith and its results — that both, from 
 the outset, were equally unclouded and brilliant ; and that as 
 respects his experience, the touching remarks of Mr Bourne do 
 not apply. Notwithstanding his instantaneous and uninterrupted 
 success, however, there has hitherto been a pretty general impres- 
 sion in the public mind that to Mr Smith's persevering struggles 
 alone the introduction of his so-called invention is wholly due ; 
 and this impression has from time to time been strengthened and 
 confirmed by the publication of engineering and scientific works- 
 ascribing to him the merit both of the invention and practical 
 introduction. Our reading on the subject leads us to believe that 
 this impression is a most erroneous one, and altogether without 
 foundation in, fact. To prove our position, we beg a short reca- 
 pitulatory review of a few of the leading facts above recited. 
 
 We have seen that the Lords of the Admiralty had formed a 
 favourable opinion of the performances of the six-ton- boat which 
 had been constructed by "Mr Smith and his friends" in the autumn 
 of 1836, but that, before finally deciding upon the adoption of the 
 screw propeller for the Navy, they desired a demonstration of the 
 principle on a scale of ship of not less than 200 tons burthen. 
 To have made such a proposal to Mr Smith himself, who had but 
 recently been " called from the plough" in poverty, was evidently 
 preposterous. The proposal itself, however, the result shows, was 
 not so ; for it was met witk becoming alacrity — ^the Archimedes, 
 of 237 tons burthen, having been laid down in the spring of 1838. 
 This circumstance proves that the Admiralty's request was addressed 
 to Mr Smith's " friends." Mr Bourne states that the Archimedes 
 was constructed by a resolution of " Mr Smith and the gentlemen 
 
28: 
 
 " associated with him in the enterprise.'' Mr Woodcroft is more 
 definite and precise, when he states that these gentlemen were 
 a Company, and formed " a numerous, wealthy, and influential 
 "body ;" as also the Mechanic's Magazine, when it states that the 
 Messrs Wrights and Bennies were " the chief promoters" of this 
 Company. So valuable and important, indeed, had this Company 
 discovered the invention to be, that as early as 1838 they depo- 
 sited a Bill, in the Bill Chamber, having for its object the incor- 
 poration of the Company, and the purchase of Mr Smith's patent p 
 which Bill they promoted in Parliament in the following year ; and 
 on the 29th July, 1839, an Act of Parliament was obtained, inti- 
 tuled «AN ACT FOR FORMINC AND REGULATING A 
 « COMPANY, TO BE CALLED ' THE SHIP PROPELLING 
 « ' COMPANY,' AND TO ENABLE THE SAID COMPANY 
 «T0 PURCHASE CERTAIN LETTERS PATENT." 
 
 In terms of this statutory enactment, the formal transference of 
 Mr F. P. Smith's patent was made. 
 
 From these facts it is clear that, if not from the first, at latest 
 on the formation of this great Company — which must have been 
 constituted sometime anterior to the spring of 1838 — the whole 
 care and responsibility .connected with the practical introduction 
 must have been removed from the shoulders of Mr F. P. Smith, 
 and the whole merit due to the successful issue of the project 
 must thereupon have accrued to " The Ship Propelling Company," 
 and that, too, within a period of less than two years from! the- 
 sealing of the patent. In ordinary circumstances it niight 
 be supposed that the patentee's connection with his invention 
 would cease upon the absolute sale and transference of the 
 patent. In this instance, however, this was not the case, and for 
 obvious reasons. Though disburdened of all responsibility and 
 care respecting the practical introduction, the result shows that 
 Mr Smith, or some one whom he represented, was by this time 
 aware, tbat besides the introduction of the invention to public- 
 favour, there was something still more meritorious to be done, 
 viz., the development and improvement of the propeller as origin- 
 ally patented. To the modifications subsequently effected we shall 
 hereafter advert. 
 
 Meanwhile, it is proper and necessary to inquire -what, if any, 
 degree of merit Mr F. P. Smith is entitled to for the proceedings 
 
29 
 
 between the period when lie was called from the plough and the 
 formation of the Ship Propelling Company, and what part, if any, 
 he did, or could, perform, in concentrating so expeditiously the 
 most powerful array of wealth, influence, and talent ever combined 
 to promote an invention. This period embraces the most interest- 
 ing epoch in the whole history of the " Introduction," and cer- 
 tainly the most interesting and important in the eventful life of Mr 
 F. P. Smith. We would, therefore, naturally look for a narrative of 
 facts respecting Mr Smith's individual proceedings at this period, 
 at once interesting, perspicuous, and conclusive ; and that the more 
 especially, that Mr Bourne has lavished upon Mr Smith encomiums 
 the most glowing for persistency and perseverance manifested by 
 him, throughout this period, in overcoming the universal prejudice 
 of the engineering community " without the consolations of sym- 
 "pathy." Instead of perspicuity, however, Mr Bourne has couched 
 this part of his narrative in a brevity and mysterious vagueness 
 unaccountable in one who believes "that it will be recognised by the 
 "engineering community as an accurate statement of the facts of 
 " the case." But, strangely enough, such general facts as he does 
 furnish, are quite sufficient of themselves, we humbly think, to lead 
 every careful and unbiassed reader to a conclusion diametrically 
 opposed to that arrived at by Mr Bourne himself, and in no way 
 whatever do they seem to warrant the sombre colouring in which 
 this part of the narrative is drawn. 
 
 We disclaim any wish to be over-Critical or exacting, and in 
 ordinary circumstances would have been content to regard a 
 twenty-two years' general impression-, though founded on facts the 
 most meagre, as tantamount to direct and conclusive evidence. 
 But in Mr Smith's case the facts, while meagre in the extreme, 
 can in no way account for the origin of the impression that to him 
 the practical introduction is due, for they lead to an opposite con- 
 viction. We, therefore, come to the deliberate conclusion that 
 this impression was created entirely by two significant circum- 
 stax^e&s— -first, from Mr F. P. Smith's name being kept constantly 
 before the world as the original inventor and patentee of the art ; 
 and, second, because of, the merit of all subsequent modifica- 
 tions being, for palpable reasons, ascribed to him. As Mr Smith 
 has derived many of the honours accorded to him because of the 
 belief that he was primarily the practical introducer as well as the 
 
30 
 
 inventor, we would seek to dispossess the public mind of tHis 
 delusion ; and propose to do so chiefly by a very brief considera- 
 tion of a few of Mr Bourne's general facts. 
 
 We have seen from his Treatise, that Mr F. P. Smith, after con- 
 ceiving and hatching the "leading idea," within a very few months 
 ^—number unrecorded — in 1835, at his farm of Hendon, startled the 
 engineering world, by suddenly emerging from his obscurity, in 
 the spring of 1836, bearing in one hand a miniature development 
 of what has proved to be one of the noblest arts of modern times ; 
 an art destined to hold sway in an empire of whose subtle and 
 warring elements a farmer, heretofore resident in an inland county 
 of England, might, in ordinary circumstances, be presumed to have 
 had but an imperfect acquaintance — and an art, moreover, as Mr 
 Bourne justly remarks, " destined to mark a new and important 
 " epoch in our maritime and commercial history;" and holding in 
 the other hand a specification, not only descriptive lof this particu- 
 lar development, but suggestive of many more. The period to 
 which Mr Smith, though " only an amateur," thus restricted him- 
 self, we venture, without fear of contradiction, to assert, was alto- 
 gether inadequate even for a Stephenson, Brunei, Rennie, or Rus- 
 Sel, to accomplish such a work ; and sure we are, that any one of 
 these great-minded men, though conscious that he is in possession 
 of consummate practical skill, and the most ample mechanical 
 resources, would have considered it presumptuous on his part to 
 publish his experience within so brief a period from the first 
 ©rigination of such an idea in his mind. No sooner was Mr Smith 
 " called from the plough," than he found himself surrounded at 
 once by the affluence, influence, and " cooperation" of the Messrs 
 Wright of London, who are designated by one writer of the day 
 " the rich bankers." On whose pinions the poor farmer so speedily 
 rea,ched this giddy elevation we are not informed by Mr Bourne, 
 who, after his long personal acquaintance with Mr Smith, must 
 have learned something of it, and ought to have considered it worth 
 recording, since it led directly to the almost immediate adoption of 
 his so-called invention, and to his great renown. Looking to all 
 the circumstances, one thing seems pretty clear, that this speedy 
 elevation was not attained by any effort of Mr Smith's own ; but 
 in the absence of any precise data on this point, we for the present 
 content ourselves by simply indicating what appears to us a 
 
31 
 
 aaystery' — by leaving the " Appropriation " division of our paper 
 to raise its own grave conjectures — and by trusting to Time 
 satisfactorily to explain the whole. 
 
 Because of the ready cooperation of the Messrs Wright, the 
 Patent Office, before whose stem front many a noble intellect has 
 gone down, was all placid to Mr Smith. No sooner, again, had 
 he passed the Patent Office than he found himself caressed, as 
 it were, by two of the greatest engineering intellects of the age, 
 Sir John and Mr George Rennie. Immediately thereafter, more- 
 over, his model was inspected by Sir John Barrow, Secretary of 
 the Admiralty, and the invention was at once sought to be pur- 
 cliased for the Fasha of Egypt, but the offer as promptly declined. 
 The declinature of so tempting an offer from a munificent Oriental 
 Sovereign seems a strange procedure on the part of a poor man, 
 with the sad fate of a host of inventors and patentees in every 
 department of art before his view. It clearly indicates, however, 
 the existence of other influences than any Mr F. P. Smith could 
 personally ^command, and the immediate prospect of results greater 
 than he himself could foresee. 
 
 At the very outset, therefore, Mr Smith's experience as a poor 
 inventor, as recorded by Mr Bourne, could in no way warrant Mr 
 Bourne's statements about physical difficulties, combined impedi- 
 ments, universal scepticism, &c. Indeed, the sympathy at once 
 accorded to him seems, in many respects, to have been of a descrip- 
 tion unexampled in the annals of invention — for, in the first place, 
 Mr F. P. Smith. had, as coadjutors, apart from another hereafter 
 to be named, two brothers, known as "the rich bankers," whose 
 cooperation was secured prior to the patent, and two other brothers, 
 equally well known as the " great lights of the engineering world," 
 whose cooperation was obtained immediately after, if not also be- 
 fore, the patent. Than such cooperation no greater could ever be 
 anticipated or wished, at the outset, by any inventor, however 
 accomplished or influential he himself might be. The assistance 
 these rich and talented gentlemen rendered was, besides, not merely 
 of a patronising kind j on the contrary, it consisted of indefati- 
 gable personal exertion — as all after proceedings clearly show — and 
 for the most cogent of reasons, that they had all a substantial, 
 pecuniary interest at stake in the enterprize. Of the first service 
 rendered by Messrs Wright, Mr Bourne, at the close of chap. II., 
 
32 
 
 says, " but for whose aid Smith's patent would perhaps never have 
 " been taken out." And of the Messrs Reujiie, it is said in the 
 same paragraph that, amongst engineers, " they were the first who 
 " augured favourably of the issue of the project, and they also had 
 " a considerable pecuniary stake in the result.'' The following 
 sentence, from the London Mechanics' Magazine, vol. 40, p. 158 
 (1844), seems to approach the truth more closely than any other 
 we have seen. In speaking of the early introduction, the Editor 
 says that Smith, " with the help of an eminent engineering firm, 
 " and some adventurous men of money, turned it to a successful 
 " account. To Mr George Rennie, and to Mr Wright, the banker, 
 " the cause of screw propelling is even more indebted than to Mr 
 " Smith." Indeed, Mr George Eennie openly undertook the advo- 
 cacy of the merits of Smith's invention in the scientific journals, 
 insomuch that one writer, vulgarly it may be, calls the screw 
 propeller " Rennie's wooden tooth." 
 
 The first practical step of importance subsequent to the patent 
 was the construction of the boat of six tons burthen and six hotrse 
 power. This boat, Mr Bourne states, was constructed by "Mr 
 "Smith and his friends'' What extension the term "friends" 
 here employed may be capable of is not at first sight apparent j 
 and the particalar share which they had in the work is not even 
 indicated. Indeed, if we regard a passage recorded in a different 
 part of the same chapter {\st ed., p. 90), we would be led to con.- 
 clude that this six ton boat was altogether the offspring of Mr F. 
 P. Smith ; at least, that the part, if any, taken by his friends was 
 but a secondary one. It is there said : — " Smith had therefore to 
 "accept expedients then usual among engineers as his starting 
 "point." And again:— '"In bringing up the speed of the screw, 
 " Smith had to submit to the use of gearing, because that was the 
 " expedient which was approved by orthodox jengineers." On this 
 point, which is of the last importance in determining the merit of 
 practical introduction, some precise data is absolutely called for. 
 As matters at present stand, it cannot be credited that an indi- 
 vidual who, in the sentence immediately following our last quotar 
 tion, is stated to have been at the time comparatively destitute of 
 mechanical resources, would perform the work thus ascribed -to 
 him, when he was at the moment surrounded and aided by engineers 
 possessed of the'highest order of talent, and who had an important 
 
^3 
 
 interest ait stake in the enterprise. We belieye the "Appropriation " 
 division of our paper will discover at least one other " friend," not 
 heretofore mentioned in any scientific work, as having taken part in 
 the construction of this boat, and whose name is never once hinted 
 at by Mr Bourne. 
 
 From a general review of Mr Bourne's narrative, we think our- 
 selves safe to assert, that while Mr F. P. Smith obtained at the 
 very outset the zealous cooperation, both by money, skill, and in- 
 fluence, of the first men in the kingdom, he was, at the same time^ 
 jas an individual, wholly destitute of the means, talent, and influ- 
 ence necessary to obtain for such a great invention, at so sceptical a 
 period, the instantaneous and profound respect and favour accorded 
 to it ; whereas Ericsson, who was universally acknowledged, and 
 Jby none more justly than Mr Bourne, as one of the most accom- 
 plished and persevering engineers of the day, could not even obtain 
 a hearing for a somewhat similar invention, in consequence of 
 which he had to leave this country. If Mr Bourne, therefore, 
 expects us to form an opinion respecting Mr Smith different from 
 what we have indicated, he must furnish some data (we will not, 
 we repeat, be exacting) upon which to rest our faith. These, 
 after a long acquaintance with Mr Smith, and an intimate know- 
 ledge of the progress of his so-called invention, he should have had 
 no difficulty to furnish at once. 
 
 In the absence of such data fior the present, the public will 
 natoally be prepared to ask what position Mr Smith, as a farmer 
 and "amateur," destitute of engineering resources and experience, 
 could occupy amongst the eminent men mentioned by Mr Bourne, 
 and how such an individual could possibly sustain the splendid 
 reputation he earned at the outset as the originator of the new art 
 they had combined to promote. Looking from a common-sense 
 point of view, the public would doubtless expect to see his fame 
 speedily eclipsed. In this expectation, however, they would find 
 themselves wofuUy astray- — for instead of suffering an eclipse from 
 ;tbese gathering luminaries, his fame waxes the greater, and con- 
 tinues steadily to ascend in brightness till it reaches a fixed position 
 in the firmament of mind, high over the heads of his intellectual 
 auxiliaries. This is indeed a wonderful phenomenon, but it now 
 seems anything but inexplicable. Mr Smith's great and powerful 
 coadjutors performed most, if not all, the important experimental 
 
34 
 
 labour, and speedily accomplished the work of introdutition — ^he 
 being, in most instances, a mere spectator of the one, and powerless 
 as regards the other. Besides experiments, however, something 
 more important was required to bring up Mr Smith's original pro- 
 peller to its present state of perfection; and this part of the work, 
 which was the only one evincing real merit, was wholly effected by 
 Mr F. P. Smith ! ! Whilst his eminent coadjutors were indefatigably 
 experimenting, Mr Smith was the only individual equal to the sug- 
 gestion of improved modificaitions. An accident to the six-ton boat, 
 in February, 1837, it is said, resulted in the first reduction to one 
 full turn of the screw. Another accident brought back the Archi- 
 medes to the slip, when Mr F. P. Smith suggested the half-turn 
 double-threaded screw, now known as Smith's original type; and 
 soon again a modification into two and three helical blades respec- 
 tively was recommended by him and as promptly adopted. By 
 one and all of these successive modifications, and their vast results, 
 Mr F. P. Smith's fame was rapidly and widely extended, and per- 
 manently established. Yet, significantly enough, he has never 
 since attempted, nor shown himself competent to perform, any other 
 description of mechanical work, although the resources which could 
 originate and develop the invention of a screw propeller and its 
 concomitants were surely capable of farther achievements in engi- 
 neering. In recommending these modifications, however, he proved 
 himself superior to the great men associated with him ; and thus 
 .■once, and once only in the history of invention, did a " destitute 
 amateur" prove, through a course of years, to be a master mind. 
 
 We fear we have dwelt at too great length on this division of 
 the sabjeet, but trust the importance of the inquiry will be consid- 
 ered a sufficient apology. We now hasten to a close, and, in 
 doing so, have simply to refer our readers to the two following 
 (divisions of our statement, with relative drawings appended, 
 wherein we believe they will discover the copious fountain whence 
 Mr F. P. Smith, as a mere automaton, or something akin to it, in 
 the hands of a hitherto unnamed " friend," who was, we believe, 
 all along pulling the strings behind the scenes, imbibed all the 
 inspiration he ever possessed on the subject of a screw propeller; 
 and wherein, too, they will discover a satisfactory solution of all 
 the anomalies we have endeavoured to point out, both in the speci- 
 fication of Mr Smith and the narrative of IMr Bourne. 
 
35 
 
 Before concluding this division, we may further advert to the 
 fact that Mr F. P. Smith having, in 1836, left Hendon in poverty, 
 with nothing to pay the Patent Office fees, had, consequently, no 
 pecuniary interest at stake in the adventure which has won for 
 him his great renown. He had, however, from the outset, much 
 to gain ; and herein, doubtless, lies the whole secret of his " per- 
 sistency of character" — herein lies the true cause why his faith 
 was, as Mr Bourne remarks, " preserved uijshaken.'" Whilst many 
 years elapsed before a shilling was made of the invention by his 
 generous coadjutors, and the Ship Propelling Company, who, Mr 
 Bourne tells us, were great losers by the undertaking, Mr Smith, from 
 the outset, was earning not a name only, but a substantial living 
 at their expense — a living which enabled him at once to forsake 
 the plough and furrows at Hendon, and to maintain in London a, 
 " style" suited to the position to which he was so suddenly ele- 
 vated. From the first moment of his public career, Mr F. P. 
 Smith seems to have been rapidly and involuntarily propelled along 
 the smooth surface of the steadily deepening and expanding stream 
 of private and national wealth, talent, and influence by which his 
 so-called invention was speedily surrounded — sublimely unconscious 
 of the "physical difficulties" and "combined impediments," and 
 heedlessly smiling, we doubt not, at the "dogmatism," "the almost 
 universal sentiment," and the "scepticism well nigh universal," 
 upon which Mr Bourne so touchingly descants. 
 
36 
 
 ORIGIN OF IRVINE PROPITLLERS. 
 
 In the preceding division we endeavoured, and, with defefence, 
 we think successfully, to prove the incapacity of F. P. Smith 
 to originate, or inaugurate, the great system of Navigation with 
 which his name is so closely identified. We did so by indicating 
 the absence of antecedents calculated to give birth to the " lea(Eng 
 idea," and by showing that every presumption was against him. 
 We quoted his own supporter, Mr Bourne, passages which seemed 
 to indicate his want of the resources absolutely required to enable 
 him even to copy or appropriate the ripe fruits produced by the 
 labour of others in a field of which he had na acquaintance ; an<I 
 we further adverted to, and proved by abundant facts — gleaned, 
 mainly, from the same author— his inability to do anything of him- 
 self in the way of practically introducing the art of screw pro- 
 pulsion. We now proceed to narrate, in an imperfectly abridged 
 form, a few of the observations and circumstances which led to the 
 discovery, origin, development, and introduction of a series of 
 Screw Propellers in Irvine. These propellers, we have good 
 grounds to believe, were appropriated by an engineer, to whose 
 friendship, confidence, and talents they were in some measure 
 entrusted, with the view to his furthering the interests of their 
 authors. Tbis trust he seems to have betrayed ; and that, in place 
 of standing by his friends, who confided in his integrity in their 
 hour of need, be clandestinely sought, in their absence, to promote- 
 bis own interests, to their grievous injury, loss, and disappointment. 
 This we believe he did by patenting the invention of his friends- 
 in the name of Francis Pettit Smith, farmer at Hendon — a hitherto 
 unknown, obscure, and apparently uninitiated individual.- The 
 grounds of our belief will be found under their proper head — the 
 " Appropriation "^ division. 
 
 We regret that the space and object of this paper do not admit 
 of our entering into anything like a perfect abridgment of the beau- 
 tiful history of the discovery of the principle of Screw Propulsion,, 
 as now in use. The first dawnings of Newton's, Franklin's, Watt's, 
 
37 
 
 and Fergusoa's discoveries, are not more interesting than this one, 
 which will, we believe, when hereafter related at length, be found 
 worthy a place amongst the greatest achievements in science and 
 art. To James Steadman, who continues in his obscurity of a 
 carpenter and cabinet-maker in Irvine, the discovery of the prin- 
 ciple is due. It sprung from his very nature as a deep search- 
 ing and thoroughly practical Naturalist — the first beginnings 
 being traceable to his early boyhood. From the moment he could 
 run about the extensive woods in the grounds at Eglinton, where 
 his father was private baker, he evinced a striking love of solitude 
 as respects his fellows, and a passion for every species of beast and 
 bird. At a very early age his knowledge of their instincts, habits, 
 and structures surprised the oldest heads. His mind was ever on 
 the stretch till he thoroughly understood the rationale of their 
 minutest parts ; and his chief in-door amusement was found in 
 modelling, sketching, and taming animals. 
 
 When watching the flight and gyrations of birds, he became 
 deeply impressed with the matchless skill manifested in their 
 design, particularly in their locomotive appliances, the expansive 
 and contractive properties of which he spent much time in study- 
 ing ; and he was thus led to reflect on the feebleness of his own 
 physical powers in comparison with the birds'. His reflections led 
 him to attempt some feasible expedient analogous to the bird's 
 wing, to help or supersede his own limbs ; but after long-sustained 
 thought, and when an enlarged experience of nature dawned upon 
 him, he was compelled to relinquish his efforts because of two 
 insuperable obstacles he never could overcome-^viz., the great size 
 which such apparatus must assume to obtain for a heavy body both 
 elevation and propulsion in a light' elastic medium, and the great 
 mechanical power necessary to move the apparatus. 
 
 Long before he had abandoned his asrostatic notions, and when 
 still a- schoolboy, he began to pry more deeply into the structure 
 and manoeuvres of the trout and minnow in the streams at Eglin- 
 ton, the capabilities of their different appliances, and the effect of 
 these upon the water. Before this, he had been sailing little boats 
 of his own construction, made on the lines of the trout, in a long 
 pond dug by himself and a younger brother to enable them to float 
 a canoe they had hollowed out of part of the trunk of a tree ; but 
 having seen the many contingencies to which sails were liable 
 
38 
 
 that did not affect the fish, he now wondered whether he conld 
 assimilate his boats as well in propellers as in shape to the trout. 
 This notion led him to a course of inquiry, which resulted in the 
 discovery of the Screw Propeller. The principal point he dis- 
 covered was, that the tail of the fish alone was brought into action 
 when velocity was the object, and that, though proportionately 
 small in size, its vast power was to be ascribed to its firm attach- 
 ment to. the backbone, which penetrated the whole body. The 
 flexibility of the tail and body of the fish, the graceful and powerful 
 effect of which he fully appreciated, long proved a partial stumbling- 
 block in his way ; but, as he could not, after much thought, devise 
 any really practical artificial imitation of such a property, since, to 
 adapt it with effect, the moving energy must inhere in the object — 
 -a result unattainable in art — he was forced ta abandon the attempt, 
 a6d confine himself to the best praeft'ca^ expedient he could invent 
 in imitation of the tail. During his apprenticeship to his trade in 
 Irvine, the incidental circumstance of seeing a schoolfellow scull a 
 boat with equal rapidity and ease, was the first to lead him to a 
 protracted investigation of the respective processes of rowing and 
 sculling. He found the great superiority of the latter to consist in 
 its power being communicated to the strongest part of the boat, 
 immediately over the keel or backbone, and also in its unintermittent 
 and oblique revolutions in deep and solid water. In many respects 
 it seemed to resemble the fish tail. With the scull he now made 
 very numerous experiments, and being well up in Mathematics, he 
 was enabled to determine the best angle at which to work the oar 
 blade — namely, 45 degrees. His further observations of web-footed 
 birds (in imitation of which he also devised expedients), the feet 
 of the frog, and also his own personal experience, all brought him 
 to the unalterable conclusion that a propeller, to produce the best 
 effect, must have its position in the rear of the body propelled, and 
 be entirely submerged. His experience of the fish tail and scull 
 further demonstrated the fact that to be powerful the propeller 
 must be of very plain construction, and must revolve at an angle 
 to the direction of the body to which its shaft is attached. 
 
 On the completion of his apprenticeship, which expired in 1811, 
 he removed for a short time to Glasgow, and entered the employ- 
 ment of Robertson, Keid, & Co. This proved a very interesting 
 period to him, for the " Comet" of Henry Bell was building at the 
 
39 
 
 time. He watclied its progress daily, and, when finished, saw its 
 earliest trips. He was, however, in many respects, greatly shocked 
 with her paddles, particularly their attachment to the most yield- 
 ing part of the ship, which afforded but a weak propelling pur- 
 chase, and the projecting boxes, which, while destroying the 
 natural symmetry of the ship, occasioned a great atmospheric 
 resistance. The "Comet,"' however, had one redeeming quality: 
 she cSmpletely demonstrated to his mind the eligibility of steam 
 as an actuating power in Navigation. 
 
 After about three years' absence, Stea,dman returned to Irvine, 
 and sometime afterwards set to work to contrive such an appliance 
 as would answer all the purposes he had in view. It was for 
 sometime beyond his reach; but an interesting circumstance helped 
 him out of his difficulty. He happened to be in the house of an 
 old woman who still used a reel — a primitive expedient for wind- 
 ing yarn into cuts. Though of apparently rude and simple con- 
 struction, the reel embodied a combination of mechanical powers, 
 consisting of one large fly-wheel, two small perpetual wooden 
 screws, each of about two convolutions, and two spur wheels. A 
 spur wheel being placed below each screw, the threads of the screw 
 and the spurs of the wheel dovetailed, so that, when set in motion, 
 the threads slid between and forced round the spurs. (See partial 
 representation. Fig. 1 of Drawings.) The united action of screw 
 and wheel arrested James's attention. He saw the obliquity of 
 the screw's action, its perpetually progressive tendency, and its 
 capabiUty to drive everything before it. The rationale of the 
 operation was soon obvious, and his object he thought attained. 
 To satisfy himself, however, he made farther experiments with 
 the scull, and farther observations of the fish tail and bird's wing, 
 and was gratified to find that they were all fully represented by 
 the screw. 
 
 In the meantime he had picked up an old wooden reel screw, 
 which he cut down to a little less than a convolution, in order that 
 there might be no complexity, and to answer the propelling sur- 
 face of the fish tail. He farther screed it into a more effective 
 angle, and fixed a piece of strong wire through its centre for a 
 spindle. His first experiment was equally rude and simple. One 
 afternoon, when on his way to Eglinton, he was passing, for a 
 ■" short cut," through a field in which was a pretty deep ditch. 
 
40 
 
 On crossing this ditch, it occurred to him as a convenient place 
 to try an experiment unobserved. In thinking of the materials 
 to be employed, his eye fell upon a long stob or stake lying at 
 the root of the hedge, which he adopted for a boat? and for his , 
 actuating power he procured the spring wand of a mole trap set 
 in the field. Having returned to Irvine for his propeller, and 
 some slate nails, he constructed the combination represented by 
 Fig. 2 of the Drawings, which need not be described.' When all 
 was complete, he put a stone at the stern to depress the screw, 
 placed the stob in the water, and having let go his hold of the 
 screw, the spriag relaxed, and afforded him the immediate satis- 
 faction of seeing the stob shoot forward in the ditch. In after- 
 wards maturing his plans, he could not well see how both rudder 
 and propeller could be accommodated in a line with the keel, and 
 to obviate this difficulty he proposed to have two rudders, one 
 placed in either quarter of the stern. 
 
 In 1816 and 1817 Steadman communicated his ideas to several 
 parties, in the hope of obtaining cooperation, the first being a 
 shipbuilder, who, however, ridiculed the notion of a propeller 
 wholly submerged. His own poverty at the time presented an 
 insuperable obstacle to unaided attempts at practical demonstration, 
 since he could not provide the mechanism necessary for a working 
 model. Somewhere about 1820 the incidental circumstance of 
 seeing an acquaintance of his own, the late Mr William 
 M'Cririck, gunsmith, Irvine, screw down the curved shoulder 
 plate on the butt end of a gun, led to a conversation between them 
 on the great power and utility of screws for fixing bodies ; and to 
 the communication by Steadman to M'Cririck of his ideas of the 
 adaptation of a submerged screw for ship propulsion. Mr 
 M'Cririck was a most ingenious mechanician, and during his life 
 acquired great celebrity as an improver of guns. He invented 
 an tmderstruck percussion gun lock, of which a drawing and 
 description were communicated to the Society of Arts, Adelphi, 
 along with the Screw Propellers in 1830, afterwards published in 
 the London Mechanics' Magazine of June, 1841, and patented in 
 America by a person to whom M'Cririck had sold one of his 
 guns. M'Cririck's air gun staff, metallic piston air pump, rifling 
 machine, and instrument for testing the strength of gunpowder, 
 all brought him into high repute as a gunmaker and mechanic. 
 
41 
 
 After very frequent and interesting conversations, extending 
 over two or three years, in which other parties occasionally joined, 
 Mr M'Cririck was at length brought to understand the eligibility 
 of a screw to exert a propelling power in water, and the great 
 importance of such an appliance, particularly for ships of war ; 
 and arrangements for the construction of a working model were 
 -thereupon made by him and Steadman. When the quality of the 
 propeller, however, came to be considered, M'Cririck's ingenious 
 intellect shot beyond Steadman's simple, and, as he firmly main- 
 tained, weak appliance of a stern force, only, to more powerful 
 and complicated conceptions. He argued that the screw, to get 
 -a " grip," required some degree of length, and that where the 
 substance in which it was to act was a liquid and yielding ele- 
 ment, this law would the more necessarily obtain. He farther 
 contended that propellers placed on the sides of a ship, either by 
 themselves or acting in conjunction with another at the stern, 
 would of necessity yield a proportionately greater power and speed 
 4;han a stern propeller alone. From these opinions he could not 
 be driven, and Steadman remained equally firm. 
 
 With the view to test his own theories, M'Cririck got a small 
 model boat constructed somewhere about 1824 or 1825. In the 
 perfecting of this model, as also of other and larger ones afterwards 
 constructed, including the various propellers and gearing em- 
 ployed, M'Cririck had the cooperation of Mr Maxwell Dick 
 of Irvine. This gentleman will also be known in the engineering 
 community as the inventor and patentee of the " Elevated Rail- 
 way" as early as 1828 ; of a peculiar manipulated telegraph 
 Insulator, exhibited by him at the Great Exhibition of 1851, when 
 it created considerable interest and discussion in the journals ; of 
 a rotatory engine purposely designed for application to the screw 
 propelling shaft, &c. 
 
 A considerable time elapsed before the first model with its 
 power and gearing were -completed, and it was not till 1827 
 that the experiments may be said to have begun in earnest. The 
 actuating - power was a powerful barrel spring. The connecting 
 gearing ultimately adopted, and by -means of -which a high rate 
 •of rotatory velocity was communicated to the propellers, will best 
 •be understood by consulting the sectional part of Fig. 3 of the 
 Drawings. The shaft communicating with the stern propeller, it 
 
42 
 
 will be observed, passed horizontally along the bottom of the hold, 
 and entered the water through a stuffing box. Another shaft, 
 crossing at right angles to the first, communicated with the side 
 propellers. The extremities of this latter shaft also entered the 
 water through stuffing boxes, and attached themselves to the 
 propeller shafts by means of a pair of bevelled wheels, as shown 
 in Figs. 5 and 7 of the Drawings. Wheel A is solid, while B is 
 open, having four arms set in the form of screws at the angle of 
 45". If applied to the manceuvring of ships of war, the stern 
 propeller was ultimately considered admirably adapted to perform 
 simultaneously the double purpose of a propeller and rudder, and 
 with this view the shaft was fitted with an universal joint, which 
 could be worked by manual power. 
 
 During the years 1827 and 1828 an extensive series of experi- 
 ments were conducted with the view to determine the best length, 
 angle, and pitch of different kinds of screw, all of which were 
 made of sheet iron. In these experiments the application of pro- 
 pellers to the sides proved of the best possible service. A screw 
 of two full convolutions on the shaft was begun with, on one side, 
 and another, of a somewhat less quantity, on the other. When set 
 in motion it was soon discovered that the smaller quantity indi- 
 cated a preponderance of propelling power by turning the head 
 of the boat. This result accordingly led to successive reductions, 
 which were continued till the screw assumed the form of a small 
 segment. A collection of six detached segments, or blades, were 
 thereafter set round a shaft, as shown in Fig. 4 of the Drawings. 
 This propeller, however, though tried at various angles, proved unsa- 
 tisfactory, because of its multiplicity. A propeller consisting of two 
 half -turns of a screw, set on opposite sides of the axis in the form 
 of a double thread, was thereafter tried, the performance of which 
 was attended with marked success. Figs. 5 and 7 represent this 
 form of propeller. Various positions at the sides were likewise tried 
 by, similar experiments, and that which was found the most con- 
 venient and effective is shown in Fig. 7 of the Drawings. - In many 
 of these experiments, propellers of different forms had been fitted 
 into the dead wood of the run, attached to the universal joint, and 
 tried in conjunction with the side screws. This led to a deter- 
 mination of the comparative efficiency of side and stern positions, 
 the result of which, after lengtliened experiment, proved to be 
 
43 
 
 greatly in favour of the stern propeller, as with it alone the boat 
 nearly doubled the speed obtained from side screws. It was there- 
 upon resolved to abandon the use of side screws altogether, and to 
 confine themselves to the design of the most efficient form and 
 combination of segments for the stern. After various modes had 
 been made and tested, three blades, set round the axis, as shown 
 in the Drawings, were ultimately adopted ;, but such blades, more 
 or less in number, they found could be applied at pleasure. 
 
 M'Cririck, however, conceived a new idea, which, although 
 disapproved by his coadjutors, he persisted in making known. 
 This was what he designated a " Safety Plan" for, ships, if pro- 
 pelled by side screws, and consisted of a quadrant, or, as he 
 himself called it, a " radiating frame," capable of throwing down 
 the screws into a vertical or inclined position, in case of accident, 
 whereby, in the event of the vessel sinking, the screws would be 
 made to work upwards, and consequently have a tendency to keep 
 it on the surface. For the application of this " Safety Plan," it 
 was necessary the propellers should be placed near midships, as 
 shown in Fig. 5 of the Drawings ; and in this position, therefore, 
 as well as at the stern, propellers were afterwards transmitted to 
 the Societies. (See descriptions therewith sent, hereafter quoted.) 
 
 These labours, which were conducted openly, and chiefly on the 
 river, occupied till the close of 1828. During their progress 
 several model boats were constructed or obtained, two of these 
 being original models of two of the fine class of ships built by the 
 Duke of Portland, in His Grace's building-yard at Troon, and of 
 which the " Pantaloon," that proved to be the swiftest ship in 
 H. M.'s Navy at the time, was the forerunner. The working 
 model with which most of the experiments were made, was, at 
 an early period of the work, . christened the " Archimedp?," by 
 William Mutter, Esq., a gentleman unconnected with the inven- 
 tion, and still living. 
 
 Throughout the whole progress of the inquiries above nar- 
 rated which led to the discovery, and the protracted experimental 
 labours which accomplished the development, in Irvine, of the 
 screw principle of propulsion, the parties still living are prepared 
 to declare, in the most solemn manner, that of any previous dis- 
 covery, or application of such a principle, they were in total 
 ignorance. ' 
 
4i 
 
 Attempts at Introduction of Irvine Propellers. 
 
 A short account of the first attempt at practical introduction 
 will be interesting to our readers : — 
 
 In December, 1828, Mr Dick learned that Captain (afterwards 
 Sir John) Ross, with whom he was intimately acquainted) was 
 about to return to the Arctic regions, taking with him a paddle 
 steamer with floats of the skew principle — the patented invention 
 of Mr Archibald Robertson of Liverpool. He immediately 
 wrote to Captain Ross, informing him of the submerged propellers 
 invented in Irvinp ; pointing out the peculiar advantages of 
 the stern blades for navigating amongst the loose floating ice, 
 and strongly urging him to adopt it for his ship in place of 
 paddles. A correspondence-^the letters of which are still pre- 
 served—ensued, and continiied until the Captain's departure 
 towards the end of the spring of 1829. In one letter' Mr Dick 
 proposed to run up- to London with one of the' models, in order 
 that the Captain might test the prbpeller for himself. He fixed 
 a meeting in G-lasgow; but though Messrs Dick and M'Cririck 
 eagerly availed themselves of the appointment, an unfortunate 
 circumstance prevented Captain Ross keeping his engagement. 
 After this disai;^p6intment Mr Dick wrote him a letter, .of date 24th 
 March, 1829, in which the following passages occur — "The 
 propeller, with the universal joint, I think admirably suited for 
 your steam vessel, as it would give you the power of making your 
 way through the ice with much greater ease, for it acts simul- 
 taneously as a rudder and propeller. This is the one power I 
 would, like you to see. The small space it occupies, the ease with 
 which it passes through the water, and with which it would pass 
 through the loose floating ice, are some of the recommenda- 
 tions of this propeller, which I would like to see fitted upon your 
 steamer.'' Mr Dick then speaks of the skew paddle, and • con- 
 tinues — "But the nature of its acting will be so very different 
 from the perfect blades of a screw working entirely under water, 
 in a line with the wake of the vessel, that I wish you had had 
 this appliance of the stern screw with~you in your perilous voyage." 
 Although now too late for him to think of adopting the screw for 
 this voyage, Capt. Ross was nevertheless anxious to see the model, 
 
45 
 
 and i^equested that it might be forwarded by his coaling ship, the 
 " Johns/' which was to start on a certain day from the Clyde, and 
 join him at Lochryan. Mr Dick thereupon resolved to go with 
 it himself, and accordingly proceeded to Greenock. On reaching 
 this place he found the " Johns" had left shortly before, and was 
 by that time as far as Rothesay Bay. He however jumped on 
 board a steamer about to start for Rothesay, in the hope of still 
 overtaking the ship, and on his passage he discovered her beat- 
 ing down the Firth. On landing at Rothesay he proceeded with 
 all speed in a carriage to the south end of the island of Bute, where 
 he saw her opposite Largs, and believed he might yet get on board. 
 He accordingly hired a four-oared boat, and~rowed a considerable 
 way towards her ; but his pursuit was doomed to be a fruitless 
 one, for, a favouring gale springing up, the " Johns" retreated on 
 the approach of the infant Titan. His disappointment, however, 
 proved to be somewhat fortunate, for, on her passage to Lochryan, 
 the steamer broke her main paddle shaft, in consequence of 
 which she had to put in to the Isle of Man for repair. After 
 his unsuccessful pursuit Mr Dick returned to Irvine, and despatched 
 the model overland to Lochryan, accompanied with a letter to 
 Capt. Ross, instructing him how to manage it in making experi- 
 ments. The model reached its destination in good time, but still 
 another untoward circumstance was to prevent the Captain making 
 any use of it. This was the mutiny and desertion of the " Johns" 
 crew while on the eve of starting, occasioned by the delay of the 
 steamer, which so disconcerted the plans of the gallant Captain, 
 that anything like experimenting with a model was out of the 
 question. With its precious contents, therefore, the box returned 
 to Irvine unopened. 
 
 Transmission to Edinburgh. 
 
 On 12th November, 1829, a short model, which was adapted 
 for convenient transmission, with three appliances fitted on it' — <■ 
 the triple gtern blade, half-turn double thread, and segmental 
 screws — ^was sent by Mr M'Cririck to the Royal Scottish Society 
 of Arts, Edinburgh, accompanied by a paper in which the fol- 
 lowing are the principal passages : — 
 
 " These screw or inclined plane propellers should, I think, be 
 placed with their under edges nearly as low as the keel, and as 
 
46 
 
 near to the stern of the vessel as possible, so as to have the advau'^ 
 tage of working in solid and undisturbed water, in which they* 
 would produce a continuous progressive motion, without that waste 
 of action that the common paddle is liable to by the vessel rolling 
 with the sea and dipping too much on one side while the other 
 loses water altogether, and also without agitating ' the water, or 
 producing that tremulous motion in the .vessel that attends the 
 common paddle. 
 
 " The rudder or tail gives powerful aid in propelling the vessel 
 forward, and is also a most active power to lay the vessel about.. 
 This model is laid round when all three propellers are working, in. 
 a circle not of greater diameter than three lengths of the boat; but 
 when the side propellers are taken off the boat is turned by the" 
 rudder alone in a circle the diameter of which does not exceed ita 
 own length. 
 
 " The radiating frame, to which the after parts of the propellers 
 are attached, was meant for safety, in case the vessel should get 
 damaged. By lowering the frame it throws down the hinder end 
 of the propellers, which will then incline to run out of the water, 
 and consequently, while the engine can be kept going, have a great 
 tendency to buoy up a vessel that would otherwise sink. 
 
 " It will easily be seen that this rudder can be applied to any 
 steam vessel; it may likewise be of use if applied to a sailing vessel, 
 and driven by the hand, by means of a crank attached to the head 
 of the rudder, connected with the propelling part by a chain band 
 or shaft and bevel pinions. 
 
 " My idea of placing the propellers forward (aft), as described 
 above, is not to be understood as applicable to the safety plan as 
 shown by the model, because in the latter case they require to be 
 placed nearer midships of the boat. I likewise think these pro- 
 pellers proportionally larger in diameter than necessary. The 
 propelling surface required may be given lengthways, which will 
 require less power to drive, and be equally effective. 
 
 " I beg leave to observe that if this plan succeeds, as I antici- 
 pate, it might be applied to ships of war with much advantage, 
 as the propelling parts are entirely out of the reach of shot ; and 
 the rudder having such a powerful effect, that a vessel may be 
 manoeuvred in a superior manner to any plan hitherto adopted. 
 
 " It likewise might be applied to Canal Navigation. A Single 
 
4? 
 
 screw propeller, placed betwixt aomething like twin boat keels, 
 would serve the purpose of propelling without injuring the em- 
 bankments, and it would also work equally well in mud, a thing 
 I believe Canal Navigation liable to." 
 
 The model and paper were submitted to the Society on 23d 
 Dec, 1829, and remitted to a Committee. This Committee again 
 remitted the whole to Mr Andrew Waddell, of Leith, one of its 
 members. The Committee's report, which was read to the 
 Society on 20th January, 1830, is as follows : — 
 
 " The Convener transmitted Mr M'Cririck's account of hjs 
 invention to Mr Waddell, one of the Members of the Commit^- 
 tee, being aware that he invented and experimented with a boat 
 propelled by a revolving scull paddle several years ago, an account 
 of which is published in Dr Brewster's Journal for 1825. Mr 
 Waddell favoured the Convener with a letter on the merits of the 
 ■invention, and also wrote to the Secretary of the Society on the 
 subject. 
 
 " These letters having been considered by the Committee, they 
 agree and acquiesce in Mr Waddell's opinion, and beg leave to 
 present his letters as their report. * 
 
 (Signed) "J. Clebk Maxwell, Convener." 
 
 £ Copy Letter Andrew Waddell, Esq., to John Clerk Maxwell, Esq.'\ 
 
 " Hermitage Hill, Leith, . 
 , 4th January, 1830. 
 
 *' Sir, — I am favoured with your letter of the 29th ultimo, with 
 Mr M'Cririck's description of a steam-boat with new propelling 
 machine. I have since seen the model, and find the propellers are 
 not original, but may possibly be so as regards the author ; yet all 
 these propellers have been experimented with more than ten years 
 ago. But they are fitted up in this model in a manner which will, 
 in my humble opinion, yield much disappointment to the inven*or, 
 if tried on a large scale. As for the side propellers being set 
 down to raise the boat up, is absurd. The revolving paddle scull, 
 used here as a rudder, is the most useful P^^rt of the whole, if put 
 up in a proper manner. For a description of this scull, see Dr 
 Brewster's Journal of Science for April, 1825, page 206 or 207, 
 a model -of which w-as before the Society of Arts some years ago. 
 
48 
 
 I am of opinion the common paddle wheel now in general use, is 
 the very best propeller, in most cases, that has yet been thought 
 •of. , Utility in most machines is only to be obtained by simplicity 
 in their construction. I have the honour to remain," &c. 
 
 [Copy Letter Andrew Waddell, Esq., to James Tod, Esq., W.S., 
 Secretary, Society of Arts.'] 
 
 "Hermitage Hill, Lbith, 
 4th January, 1830. 
 
 " Deab Sib, — I have received a letter from the Convener, with 
 Mr M'Cririck the inventor's description of his model, which model 
 I have since seen. All the propellers which Mr M'Cririck exhibits 
 are old, and the revolving scull which he uses as a rudder was my 
 invention more than 10 years ago ; as a propeller, it is no doubt 
 the best of the whole, had it been properly put up. For a descrip- 
 tion of this scull, see Dr Brewster's Journal of Science, for April, 
 1825, page 206 or 7, which paddle scull was before your Society 
 some years ago. 
 
 " The propelling part of Mr M'Cririck's machinery, only, ought 
 to be under water ; to obtain speed all the wheel part should be 
 above water, and even as little of the conducting rods should be 
 under water as possible, not only to keep the boat tight (free from 
 water), but to lessen friction. 
 
 " To raise the boat up in the water, by lowering the after end 
 of th^ side paddles, is absurd. Mr M'C.'s description I this day 
 returned to your Convener, Mr J. C. Maxwell, with some re- 
 marks. I remain, &c. 
 
 " P.S. The whole of the machinery may possibly be all new to 
 Mr M'Cririck, of the model he has presented to the Society." 
 
 By turning to Fig. 8 of the Drawings, our readers will see & 
 fac simile of the revolving scuU invented by Mr Waddell, as 
 represented in Brewster's Journal for April, 1825; and they will 
 be able to judge whether there be any similarity between the in- 
 ventions thus brought into comparison, and likewise of their com- 
 parative merits. 
 
 With the report of this learned Society the Inventors were, 
 mortified; but, besides considering that the arbiter to whom the 
 merits of their, invention had been referred was not the most 
 
49 
 
 impartial that could have been selected, they further knew that 
 his objections were erroneous, and inconsistent with their own 
 experience. They were not, therefore, discouraged, since they 
 had another and higher tribunal to appeal to — the " Society 
 of Arts" of London. 
 
 Transmission to London, 
 
 Mr Dick accordingly proceeded to London two months after- 
 wards, with both the screw model and the, models of his own 
 Elevated Railway. To exhibit the latter he procured rooms in the 
 West End, which he occupied for several months ; and there the 
 model boat and its vai^ious propellers also lay during the whole of 
 ^hat time. 
 
 At this time Mr Dick contracted an intimate friendship with 
 ■three- Scotch engineers then in London, viz., Mr Malcolm Muir, 
 patentee of the flooring machinery ; Mr John M'Dowall (after- 
 wards of Johnstone), patentee of the saw mills ; and Mr Andrew 
 -Smith, who is generally well known -as a most prolific patentee, and 
 hy naval engineers as the patentee of «rank paddles, steam engines, 
 standing wire rigging, ropes, cables, machinery, &c. Mr Dick 
 met with these three engineers frequently in the evenings, dis- 
 cussing the merits of their own and others' inventions ; and Mr 
 Andrew Smith further visited Mr Dick's rooms almost daily, his 
 own premises being close at hand. He took a great interest in 
 the model boat and its appliances^ over and over again got the 
 minutest account of all that had been done respecting the inven- 
 tion in Irvine, and either saw the Edinburgh Society's Report, or 
 was told its whole import. The screw principle of propulsion was 
 then quite a new thing to him, for he gave no indication whatever 
 •that such mode of propulsion had previously been brought under 
 his notice. 
 
 Mr Dick returned to Irvine towards the end of 1830; but 
 hefore leaving London Mr Andrew Smith accompanied him and 
 the model to the chambers of the Society of Arts, Adelphi, and 
 introduced both to Mr Aik«n, the Secretary. A description 
 of the capabilities of the appliances was afterwards sent from 
 Irvine by Mr M'Cririck, addressed to Mr Aiken, under date 10th 
 December, 1830. The principal document, which is officially 
 endorsed on the back, "Mechanics, Dec. 15, 1830, T. W., 
 
50 
 
 "As?*- Secy," has been recovered within the last few days, and is 
 now in our possession. It is a duplicate of the one previously 
 sent to Edinburgh, with the exception of one or two phraseologicai 
 variations, and two additional hints. These latter are, first, that 
 the stern screw rudder, "if applied to a sailing vessel when not 
 required as a propelling power, it may be allowed to run with the 
 vessel's way, giving motion to index wheels at top of rudder to 
 show the rate of sailing ;" and, second, as respects the side pro- 
 pellers, that, "in place of using large-sized wheels, as shown, the 
 propellers may be driven at the after end with pinions." 
 
 The model was remitted by this Society in January, 1831, to its 
 Committee on Mechanics, who received it with disfavour — the 
 grounds of rejection in this instance being that, in Dr Thomsor^S 
 Philosophical Journal, vol. XL, p. 438 (1818), there was published 
 a partial representation of a spiral oar, designed to run horizontally 
 along the whole length of both sides of a ship, to serve the purpose 
 of row-oars. For a fao simile of this partial representation, see 
 Drawing, Fig. 9 of the Appendix. The communication to Thom- 
 son's Journal, including, inter alia, this partial design, we find 
 was made by Mr T. L. Dick, who states that the enlarged design 
 was found, on paper amongst a number of other drawings, in the 
 repositories of Mr Scott of Ormiston, after his death. Mr Scott's 
 design, as will readily be believed, had never taken a material form, 
 and had never been tested* Solely, however, because of its publica- 
 tion, and for no other reason, the Committee on Mechanics of the 
 ,Adelphi Society resolved that the Irvine propellers "did not 
 "possess sufficient novelty to require their attention." We regret 
 that the rules and practice of the Adelphi Society preclude their 
 furnishing us with an official extract of their report. 
 
 It is here worthy of mention that neither of the two Societies 
 to whom the model and description were sent, considered the 
 invention worth the slightest notice in their volumes of Transac- 
 tions for these respective years, although many inventions, which 
 with deference we think of a very trivial kind in comparison with 
 this one, either received medals or lengthened and honourable 
 mention. 
 
 Mr Aiken having signified the adverse nature of the Adelphi 
 Society's report, Mr Dick, on 16th February, 1831, wrote to Mr 
 Andrew Smith, asking the favour of his procuring the model 
 
51 
 
 and its appliances from the Society, and retransmitting them to 
 Irvine. Mr Smith did not reply till 12th March, 1831, of which 
 date he sent a letter, containing inter aZta .the following passage: — 
 "I duly received yours of the 16th February. I should have 
 " noticed it sooner, but I have been in the country ever since 
 " half-an-hour after I received it. I have been twice at the 
 " Society of Arts, but have not seen Mr Aiken. I am going there 
 " on Monday and Tuesday night, when I will get the models you 
 " have mentioned, and forward them agreeably to your direction." 
 This letter is in our possession. 
 
 The model and propellers were returned some time after the 
 receipt of this letter, and have ever since been sacredly preserved, 
 fitted up exactly as they then were, by Messrs M'Cririck and Dick. 
 Of the identity of the whole we have a great variety of evidence. 
 
 The model, with it& appliances, being thus summarily rejected 
 by the two most learned and practical Societies in the king- 
 dom, the inventors were greatly chagrined. Their mortification 
 was increased by the grounds of rejection being altogether erro- 
 neous, and by themselves continuing, if possible, more con- 
 vinced than ever of the great eligibility of the propellers for 
 steam-ships — particularly for ships of war — and their vast supe- 
 riority, in point of power, utility, simplicity, and economy of space, 
 to any hitherto employed. Instead of seeking pecuniary aid from 
 wealthy friends, in order to restrict their use by patent, they had 
 adopted the most effective measures they could devise for giving 
 publicity to their invention — their sole view being to present the 
 fruits of their discovery and labours to their country and the 
 world. In these unceasing efforts they had spent much of their 
 time, sacrificed much of their business, and exhausted their pecu- 
 niary resources. They were, therefore, for the time, completely 
 paralysed, and had no alternative but to place their models and 
 propellers on the shelf — but not without the hope that more pro- 
 pitious circumstances would by-and-bye dawn upon themselves, 
 and more enlightened views upon the engineering world. 
 
 In their obscure retreat in the north, only a few years had 
 elapsed when significant tidings reached Irvine of a large experi- 
 mental steam-ship, named the Archimedes, fitted with a double- 
 threaded screw propeller of half a convolution, the patented inven- 
 
52 
 
 tion of a Mr Francis Pettit Smith, farmer, having arrived in the 
 Firth of Forth. Before this time the name of F. P; Smith had 
 never reached their ears.. 
 
53 
 
 APPROPHIATION. 
 
 Believing, as we have done from the commencemfent of our 
 inquiries, that the appropriation was originally the sole work of 
 Mr Andrew Smith, we have had the curiosity to consult Mr 
 Woodcroft's valuable Compilation of Patents, with the view to 
 ascertain what subjects, apart from the screw propeller, he had 
 directed his attention to. We there find that amongst inventions 
 pertaining tt) many' different branches of art, Mr Andrew Smith 
 had obtained several patents for subjects immediately connected 
 with naval architecture and propulsion. Saving made a selection 
 of such as, with regard as well to time as to subject-matter, seemed 
 to bear on our case, we procured official copies of the specifications 
 and drawings of these from the Great Seal Patent Office ; and we 
 now beg to submit, and to call the particular attentiop of readers 
 to, the following preambles of a few of these specifications, and to 
 such extracts from them as appear to us significant. Before doing 
 so we may again premise that the Irvine Model first came under 
 the eye of Mr Andrew Smith in the summer of 1830; and that, 
 up till the period of its rejection by the Society of Arts, Adelphi, 
 in the beginning of 1831, shortly after which he had the model 
 and description in his own possession, he had uninterrupted oppor- 
 tunities of seeing and sketching the model, and of copying the 
 d^escription. A very careful attention to dates is requested from 
 readers in perusing aU that follows. 
 
 ANDEEW SMITH'S PATENTS. 
 
 No. 6063 Sealed 22d Januaryi 1831. 
 
 "My Invention of ' Certain Improvements in Machineet 
 
 ■ " FOR Propelling Boats and other Vessels on Water, and 
 
 " IN THE Manner of Constructing Boats -or Vessels for 
 
 " Carrying such Machinery.' " See Fig. 10 for one of Andrew 
 
 Smith's specification Drawings. 
 
 This invention, the specification states, was " designed to ob- 
 " viate the lifting of the backwater, which imperfection, in the 
 
54 
 
 " common paddles of the wheel construction, occasions a great loss 
 " of power, and consequently retards the speed of the boat or 
 " vessel; and, further, that they may' enter the water in such a 
 " position as to take the greatest possible hold, and perform their 
 " stroke or action on it to the best advantage, and without gausistg. 
 
 " THE SURGE OR MOTION ON THE SURFACE OP THE ■VTATEK ATTEND- 
 " ANT ON PADDLES OF THE WHEEL CONSTEUCTION." 
 
 In comparison with this passage, attention is called to the fol- 
 lowing language in the paper sent by Mr M'Cririck, to the Society 
 of Arts, London: — "The first time I ever saw a steamer I 
 " thought the means adopted for propelling quite unnatural ; be- 
 " sides, there appeared to me to be an evident waste of power 
 " on the wheels entering and leaving the water." "These screw 
 " or inclined plane propellers should, I think, be placed with 
 "their under edges nearly as low as the keel, and as near 
 " to the stern of the vessel as possible, so as to have the advan- 
 " tage of working in solid and undisturbed water, in which they 
 " would produce a continuous progressive motion, without that 
 " waste of action that the common paddle is liable to, by the vessel's 
 " rolling with the sea, and dipping too much on one side, while the 
 " other loses hold of the water altogether; and also without 
 
 " AGITATING THE WATER, OR PRODUCING THAT TREMULOUS MOTION 
 "in THE VESSEL THAT ATTENDS THE COMMON PADDLE." 
 
 In this specification Andrew Smith farther states : — " I propose 
 " to place the paddles at the stem part of the vessel, in a short 
 " channel or chamber, open to the water at the bottom, as shown 
 " in the sectional part." This was quite a novel situation for 
 paddles or propellers of any description; but it is the same as 
 that adopted in the Irvine invention, as shown in the Drawings 
 annexed. 
 
 This specification farther states: — "It will be observed in Fig. 
 " 6, that it is necessary in boats of this construction to have two 
 " rudders, one on each side of the chamber, which may be worked- 
 "by one tiller, as shown in the Drawing." This was also a novel 
 expedient, and was the one at first proposed by Steadman, for 
 ships if propelled by the screw. 
 
 With respect to this crank-paddle invention, it may be men- 
 tioned, that in a letter, still preserved, dated London, 26th Feb., 
 1831, received by Mr Dick from a mutual friend of Mr Andrew 
 
55 
 
 Smith and himself, the following passage occurs : — " The Admi- 
 *' ralty have taken them up, and he has exhibited them, and got 
 " orders to fit up a canal-boat and a sloop-of-war with them, as 
 " experiments.'' 
 
 No. 6743 Sealed I2th January, 1835. 
 
 " My Invention of * A New Standing Eigging pok Ships 
 " AND Vessels, and a new method of Fitting and Using it.' " 
 
 No. 7002. . . .. . Sealed \1ih February, \%ZQ. 
 
 *' My Invention of * Certain Impeoyembnts in Engines foe 
 '? exerting power foe DRivrNG Machinert, and for Raising 
 *• AND Lowering Heavy Bodies.' " 
 
 (Reference will be made to this and two other similar patents 
 -hereafter.) 
 
 These iniprovements, the specification .states, "consist in the 
 *' first instance in a modic of converting the power exerted by a 
 " reciprocating piston, working in a steam cylinder, into a rotary 
 •*' power, through the agency of rods, chains, coMs, or bands, con- 
 " nected to the piston .-rod, and to pullies carrying driving clicks 
 *' or pawles, which take iato .clutches fixed upon the shaft in- 
 ■*' tended to reyol^re." The specification faa-ther states that "the 
 " force of the reciprocating action of the piston in the working 
 " cylinder wiU be converted into a continuous rotary movement in 
 '^the shaft K, which may be employed as a power for driving a 
 "locomotive carriage, or for actuating any other hind of machin- 
 *' ery." (This invention will be returned to.) 
 
 No. 7261 Sealed 21st December, 1SS6, 
 
 " My Invention of ' Certain Improvements in the Con- 
 " sTRUCTiON OF Standing Rigging and Stats foe Ships and 
 " "Vessels, and in the Method of fitting ok using it, and in 
 " the Constecction of Chains applicable to various pur- 
 
 " POSES, AND IN MaCHINEEY OR APPAEATUS FOR MAKING OE 
 
 <' Mancfacturing suoh Rigging and C!hains.' " 
 
 No. 8009: .... Sealed 20th March, 183Q. 
 
 "My Invention of ' Cbrtain Lviprovements in the Manufac-^ 
 
56 
 " TUKE OP Ropes fok Cables, and oihek 1*081*031^ to whicm 
 
 " KOPES ABE APPLICABLE.' " 
 
 No 9031 Sealed 2\st July, ISAl. 
 
 " yij Invention of ' Certain Improvements in the ArbangE- 
 
 "MENT and CoNSTRTJOTlON OP ENGINES, TO BE WORKED BY THE 
 
 " FORCE OF Steam or other FLtfios, which improved Engines 
 
 " ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE KaiSING OP WatEB AND OTHER 
 
 "Liquids."' 
 
 Having given this selection from the numerous list of Mi- 
 Andrew Smith's Patents, we have now to ask our readers' atten- 
 tion while we endeavour to prove-^- 
 
 I. The intimate and LONG-CONTINtrED PARTICIPATION of Mr 
 Andrew Smith in the so-called "entirely new and never before 
 "used" invention, patented in the name of Francis Pettit Smith; 
 and the substantial interest he had in its practical intro- 
 duction ; and 
 
 II. The striking resemblance in almost every essential 
 particular which the drawings annexed to Mr F. P. Smith's 
 specification bear to the Irvine invention ; and the numerous 
 coincidences between that specification and the descriptions sent 
 by Mr M'Cririck, with the model, to the two Societies of Arts. 
 
 I. ANDREW SMITHES INTIMATE PARTICIPATION IN 
 F. P. SMITH'S PATENT. 
 
 We have seen that Andrew Smith obtained a patent for crank 
 paddles in 1831, the year after the Irvine invention was first 
 brought so closely under his notice, and that in this patent; he 
 adopted several of the novel and valuable ideas and expedients 
 propounded by the Irvine inventors-: farther, that the Admiralty 
 had taken these paddles into their favourable consideration, by 
 ordering the patentee to fit up a canal boat and sloop of war with 
 them, in order to experiments being conducted. These experi- 
 ments would, no doubt, be made; but of this, or of the nerind /»vpr 
 
57 
 
 which they extended, we have no knowledge. As such propellers, 
 however, seem never to have come into use, we must presume that 
 they failed to satisfy the Admiralty and the public. 
 
 On the 31st May, 1836, the patent granted to Francis Pettit 
 Smith was sealed, its enrolment having been accomplished on the 
 30th November following. The merits of this patented invention, 
 and Mr F. P. Smith's disqualification for the great work, have been 
 already fully adverted to under our first division, a perusal of 
 which will, we feel assured, convince every unbiased reader that 
 Mr F. P. Smith could not, in reality, be the author of the inven- 
 tion he boldly declares to be entirely his own. Up till the present 
 time no one was, publicly at least, known to have been a partici- 
 pator ; but the evidence now in our possession clearly establishes: — 
 
 1. That Andrew Smith constructed at least one of the models 
 of F. P. Smith, and fitted it up with the necessary gearing and 
 propeller. 
 
 2. That Andrew Smith was the custodier of what seems to 
 have been the Exhibition model of F. P. Smith as late as the 
 summer of 1841, being a period of five years subsequent to the 
 date of the patent. 
 
 N.B.— We think it unnecessary here to detail the particulars of how we havecome tc 
 the knowledge of these two important facts. We are, however, prepared to do so. 
 
 In addition to these facts, we will now endeavour to prove, from 
 
 documentary evidence — 
 
 3. That Andrew Smith framed, or had at least a very import- 
 ant hand in the framing of, F. P. Smith's comprehensive and 
 anomalous specification, which is of even greater consequence than 
 the making of a model, since it contains a large fund of suggestive 
 knowledge not at first adopted in the patent ; 
 
 4. That Andrew Smith at, and immediately subsequent to, 
 the date of the patent, possessed sufficient personal infiuence to 
 obtain for the invention the cooperation of influential men, and 
 particularly of the Lords of the Admiralty ; while F. P. Smith, 
 on the contrary, seems to have possessed none of the means neces- 
 sary therefor ; and 
 
 5. That Andrew Smith had or anticipated a substantial and 
 varied interest in the whole screw propeller adventure. 
 
 We will take up the evidence in support of these three latter 
 points seriatim : — 
 
58 
 
 Ut Andrew Smith's Share in Framing F. P. Smith's 
 Specification. 
 That Andrew Smitli had at least a hand in drawing F. P. 
 Smith's specification, we gather from the following extracts from 
 the respective specifications of these two individuals; which ex- 
 tracts, of themselves, do, we humbly think, reveal coincidences, 
 both in ideas and language, sufficiently glaring to prove a collu- 
 sion : — 
 
 (1.) It will be remembered that Andrew Smith settled a patent 
 on 12th February, 1836, for "Certain improvements in Engines 
 " for exerting power for driving machinery," &c. ; and that the spe- 
 cification of this patent states these improvements to " consist, in 
 " the first instance, in a mode of converting the power exerted by 
 " a reciprocating piston working in a steam cylinder into a rotary 
 "power through the agency of rods, chains, cords, or hands con- 
 "nected to the piston rod and to pullies carrying driving clicks 
 " or pawles, which take into clutches fixed upon the shaft intended 
 " to revolve." In this specification only one reservation is made by 
 Mr Andrew Smith, which is, that " it is not my intention to con- 
 fine myself to the horizontal position," for the reason, as is stated, 
 that "the improvements are adapted to work in a vertical direction." 
 For one of the Specification Drawings of this pulley and band 
 machinery, see Fig. 11 of the Drawings annexed. 
 
 In comparison with these passages, we quote the following 
 alternative mode of gearing from F. P. Smith's specification, of 
 date 81st May, 1836 : — "And perhaps if the pinion H were a small 
 "pulley, and the wheel J a large pulley, and a band worked over 
 "them, the required speed might be given to the propeller, as 
 " effectually and with less machinery; but I have had no oppor- 
 " tunity of trying this mode on a large scale." This last state- 
 medt seems doubly significant, inasmuch as Andrew Smith's 
 patent for this description of machinery was still uncompleted at 
 the time of its adoption by F. P. Smith — the patent for it not 
 being enrolled till 12th August, 1836. This being the case, the 
 patentee himself would, doubtless, have yet had no opportunity of 
 trying it on a large scale. Besides this, we have seen that An- 
 drew Smith's specification contains but one reservation, viz., to 
 adapt his pullies and bands to work in a vertical direction — this 
 
59 
 
 direction being the only one suited to F. P. Smith's progeller, as 
 originally patented in May, 1836. 
 
 (2.) It will also be remembered that in the specification of 
 Andrew Smith's crank paddles of 1831, it is stated: — " I propose 
 " to place the paddles at the stbbn part op the vessel, in a short 
 " channel or chamber open to the water at the bottom." 
 
 In comparison with this passage, we quote the following from 
 F. P. Smith's specification : — " I, the said Francis Pettit Smith, 
 " do hereby declare the nature of my said invention to consist in 
 " a sort of screw or worm, made to revolve rapidly under water, 
 " in a recess or open space, formed in that part of the after part 
 " OP THE VESSEL commonly called the dead rising or dead wood 
 "of the run." 
 
 (3.) In Andrew Smith's crank paddle specification, of 1831, it 
 is farther stated, p. 2: — "It will be obvious that there are many 
 "■ways of giving motion to these Cranks from the Steam Engine or 
 "first mover;" and again, p. 4 — " There are various ways of con- 
 " necting the Cranks to the first mover." 
 
 In comparison with these we quote the following passage from 
 F. P. Smith's specification: — "Now whereas it is evident that 
 '' various other modes of gearing the Propeller may be adopted." 
 
 2d. Andrew Smith's Influence with the Admiralty, ^c, as early 
 
 as 1831. 
 It will be remembered that we quoted an extract from a. letter 
 addressed to Mr Dick by a mutual friend of Mr Andrew Smith 
 and him, of date 26th February, 1831, in which it was stated re- 
 specting Andrew Smith's crank paddles, " that the Admiralty have 
 " taken them up, and he has exhibited them, and got orders to fit 
 " up a canal boat and a sloop of war with them as experiments." 
 These experiments, we. believe, if made, did not prove satisfactory 
 to the Admiralty. Mr A. Smith's influence at the Admiralty, 
 however, continued, in proof of which we are enabled to quote one 
 or two passages from a publication of his own. This print, which 
 was published in 1841, is entitled, "Patent Selvagee Served 
 " Iron Wire Eopes for Standing Rigging, Stropping Blocks, &c., 
 " and Copper Wire Hawser Laid Ropes for Lightning Conductors." 
 
60 
 
 It contains inter alia the following — " Four Grant's of her Majes- 
 " ty's Rojal Letters Patent having been obtained within lihe last 
 " seven years by Andrew Smith, engineer, of 69,- Princes Street, 
 " Leicester Square, and Mill Wall, Poplar, he begs leave briefly 
 " to explain the properties of his Kopes." 
 
 '•' Li consequence of the great strength and toughness of the 
 " material, it was found, by the experiments made in Her Majesty's 
 " Dockyard at Woolwich, by order of the Lords Commissioners of 
 " the Admiralty, in the year 1837, that a 2-inch patent wire rope 
 " bore half a ton more strain than a 7-inch hemp rope, and not 
 " half the weight." 
 
 " Within the last seven years, this rope has been fitted to a 
 "great number of merchant vessels; also to three vessels in Her 
 " Majesty's Navy." 
 
 Appended to this publication are five testimonials: in particular, 
 one from the Lords of the Admiralty, headed " The mode adopted 
 " in Her Majesty's Wavy for the application of Andrew Smiths 
 " patent copper wire rope, as lightning conductors." This testi- 
 monial, which is dated- " Somerset House, 25th Feb., 1841," con- 
 tains the following passage: — " A great number of Her Majesty's 
 " ships have been, and are, fitting out with the above conductors,' 
 " and also merchant ships." 
 
 In a postscript, Mr Andrew Smith farther states : " All persons 
 "ordering lightning conductors will be furnished gratuitously 
 " with a copy of the official Drawings and Descriptions, ordered 
 "for the use of the Merchants' Service by the Lords Commissioners 
 " of the Admiralty.'' 
 
 From these passages, in a docutaent published by Mr Andrew 
 Smith himself, it clearly appears that he was in full and intimate 
 communication with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 
 between 1835 and 1841 ; that is to say, during the very years that 
 the experiments with the screw propeller were being conducted in 
 presence, and by special request, of the Admiralty. Farther, as 
 appears from one of the extracts given, Mr Andrew Smith's wire 
 rope was being experimented with " in H.M.'s dockyard at Wool- 
 "wich in the year 1837" — the very year that the Admiralty's 
 attention was so prominently vouchsafed to F. P. Smith's screw- 
 propelled experimental boat. Such facilities of intercourse with 
 the Admiralty were not readily acquired at this period, as appears 
 
61 
 
 from Mr Bourne's Treatise, and other works, wherein we are told, 
 inter alia, that Ericsson, though a distinguished foreigner, and one of 
 the most accomplished engineers of the day, could not, in the same 
 year that F. P. Smith's propellers were brought under the favour- 
 able notice of the Lords of the Admiralty, obtain a hearing from 
 their Lordships with respect to a somewhat similar invention, in 
 consequence of which he soon after left Britain for France and 
 America. In such circumstances it is very plain that F. P. Smith 
 was in a much worse position than Ericsson for commanding the 
 respect or support of so powerful a Board, being, at the date of his 
 patent, a poor and obscure farmer, and only an amateur, ignorant 
 of the very work he is said to have performed. 
 
 Before leaving these patented wire rigging and ropes, it will be 
 " recollected that the large experimental ship " Archimedes," built 
 by " The Ship Propeller Company" at the special request of the 
 Lords of the Admiralty, was laid down in the spring of 1838, and 
 launched on the 18th October following. This ship was fitted 
 with Andrew Smith's rigging and ropes, and appears to have been 
 amongst the first to adopt them. Whilst reporting on the experi- 
 mental trips of the " Archimedes,'' the Journals of the day stated 
 this vessel to be " altogether an experimental ship, being fitted up 
 " with another great and important invention, viz., Mr Andrew 
 " Smith's Wire Standing Eigging." 
 
 Although Mr A. Smith publishes four testimonials from private 
 parties on the merits of these rigging and ropes — the earliest being 
 dated Dec. 16, 1839, and the others in 1840 and 1841 — he gives 
 none from the owners or officers of the " Archimedes." 
 
 3id. Andrew Smith's varied interest in the Introduction of the 
 Screw Propeller. 
 
 Any remarks we can offer on this head will be anticipated : we 
 therefore merely indicate, in a word, what appear to us the two 
 more prominent grounds of our belief. Apart from the direct in- 
 terest Andrew Smith would look for from the successful introduction 
 of the screw propeller into the Navy or Mercantile service (assum- 
 ing that he was the real patentee), he had, besides, anticipated a 
 valuable indirect interest in the practical introduction of F. P. 
 Smith's patent, — 
 
 1. By having his own pullies and band machinery, the patent 
 
62 
 
 for which was still incomplete, specified as a mocle of gearing the 
 screw propeller ; and, 
 
 2. By having his own newly patented standing wire rigging 
 and ropes fitted into the first experimental screw ship "Archi- 
 medes" in 1838. 
 
 Having cited these authoritative data in support of \h& first head 
 of the "Appropriation" division, it now only remains to us to 
 prove, by comparison, the second head of this division. 
 
 II. THE STRIKING SIMILARITY BETWEEN F. P. 
 SMITH'S SO-CALLED "ENTIRELY NEW" INVEN- 
 TION, AS EXHIBITED BY THE PATENTED SPECI- 
 FICATION AND DRAWINGS, AND THE IRVINE 
 INVENTION, AS EXHIBITED BY THE MODEL AND 
 DESCRIPTIONS ENTRUSTED TO ANDw. SMITH. 
 
 We will divide this niore important head of the " Appropri- 
 ation" division into three parts : — 
 
 L Geaeing;, 2. Positions; 3. Pkopellees. 
 
 1. Gearing. 
 
 This part we may consider in a two-fold aspect — first, as re- 
 spects the shafts ; and second, as respects the wheels and pinions. 
 
 (1.) Shafts. — By turning again to Fig. 3 of the Drawings, it 
 will be observed that the power from the first mover was com- 
 municated to the stern blades of the Irvine model by a singh 
 revolving shaft, which passed horizontally along the bottom of the 
 vessel, and entered the water through a stuffing box. 
 
 In F. P. Smith's original patent, however, a difierent and more 
 complicated arrangement was adopted, as shown by Fig. 14, he 
 having employed two revolving shafts, the first being passed along 
 the vessel in a horizontal direction above the water line, and the 
 second being an upright shaft connected to the first, which de- 
 scended in a vertical direction through the water to the " recess 
 or open space" formed in the deadwood of the stern wherein the 
 propeller was placed. By the adoption of this cumbrous mode of 
 gearing, so unlike the simple, effective, and, as the result soon 
 
63 
 
 after proved, correct arrangement made use of in the Irvine model, 
 it may at first sight be thought that the patentee of F. P. Smith's 
 invention could have had no assistance from the Irvine one. On 
 the contrary, however, the truth seems to be that the very adoption 
 of so complicated a plan just the more clearly betrays, not only 
 an intimate acquaintance with the whole structure of the Irvine 
 model, but also a thorough knowledge of its history. By again 
 referring to the adverse report made by the Society of Arts, Edin- 
 burgh, quoted in the " Origin" division, it will be seen that the 
 simple arrangement devised and applied in Irvine was condemned 
 by that Society. Of the gearing of the stern-bladed propeller, 
 this report states : — " As a propeller it is no doubt the best of the 
 "^^ whole, had it been properly put up." " The propelling part of 3Ir 
 *' M'CriricKs machinery, only, ought to he under water ; to obtain 
 *' speed all the wheel part should be above watek, and even as 
 *' little of the conducting rods should be under water as possible, 
 " not only to keep the boat tight (free from water), but to lessen 
 "friction." With this report, as already stated, Mr Aadrew 
 Smith was intimately acquainted 5 for, if he did not see, or have it 
 in his possession in 1830, he was at least over and over again 
 informed of its whole import in that year by Mr Dick. Keeping 
 this fact in view, it does, therefore, simply appear that Andrew 
 Smith, if really the patentee, sought to obviate the strong and un- 
 " qualified objection taken by the Society of Arts to the Irvine 
 mode of gearing, by designing another more cumbrous mode, in 
 order to give effect to their suggestions. But though this com- 
 plicated plan was originally adopted and patented, it was soon 
 thereafter abandoned, in order to the adoption of the single shaft 
 and stufiing box system propounded by the Irvine inventors. We 
 are ignorant of the precise date of this latter appropriation, but it 
 could not be later than 1838 or 1839, since fhe Archimedes ha,i her 
 propeller "geared" in this manner. This we learn from the 
 London Mechanics' Magazine of 6th July, 1839, which says of 
 the Archimedes : — " The shaft or axis passes through a stuffing 
 " box in the after part of the frame and stern of the vessel, and 
 *' onwards to the engine, by which it is made to revolve." Ac- 
 cording to this description the gearing of the Archimedes would 
 be precisely the same as is shown in Fig. 3 annexed. 
 
64 
 
 (2.) Wheels and Pinions. — -By referring again to Fig 3 of the 
 Drawings, it will be observed that the means employed in the 
 Irvine experimental model for bringing up the velocity of all the 
 propellers was a combination of cogged wheels and pinions ; and, 
 farther, by Fig. 5, that the plan adopted for connecting the side- 
 propellers^ the first mover was a pair of mitred and cogged 
 wheels on either side of the boat, one wheel being attached to 
 each extremity of the -cross revolving shaft, and so placed as to 
 communicate in turn with similar wheels attached to the axes 
 of the side propellers. 
 
 By again consulting Fig. 14 of the Drawings, our readers will 
 see that the very same expedient was adopted for F. P. Smith's 
 stern propeller, as originally patented; although soon afterwards 
 abandoned, in order to assimilate the gearing to Fig. 3. 
 
 Besides this mode of gearing, however, at first actually adopted 
 for F. P. Smith's patent, it seems to have appeared to him " evident 
 " that various other modes of gearing the propeller maybe adopted;" 
 and to justify this declaration so far, he thereupon condescends upon 
 another, but only one other, and that an entirely different mode, 
 which altogether dispensed as well with " the upright revolving 
 " shaft" as with the two pairs of cogged wheels and mitred pinions 
 pertaining to it. This other and different mode was, as we have 
 seen, the pullies <it,nd band gearing of Andrew Smith, the patent 
 for which had not yet been enrolled. 
 
 Though somewhat apart from the question of gearing, we may 
 farther advert to another most significant and glaring coincidence. 
 By referring again to the description sent by Mr M'Cririck to the 
 Society of Arts, Edinburgh, our readers will find the following 
 passage, which passage also occurred verbatim in the description 
 sent to London : — " It will easily be seen that this rudder can be 
 " applied to any steam vessel ; it may likewise be of use if applied 
 " to a sailing vessel, and driven by the hand by means of a crank 
 " attached to the head of the rudder, connected with the propelling 
 " part by a chain band or shaft, and bevel pinions." 
 
 The suggestion thus made is clearly appropriated by the follow- 
 ing passages in F. P. Smith's specification, first, in the preamble, 
 wheie it is said the propeller is an " improved propeller Jor steam 
 " and other vessels" a second, in the words which immediately 
 follow that part of the description relating to the pullies and band 
 
65 
 
 —^"or the propeller may be^ioorked by hand, or other than steam 
 "power" 
 
 It has thus been seen that while it was evident to F. P. Smith 
 that various modes of gearing his propeller might be adopted, we 
 have, we submit, been able to trace in the very clearest manner 
 the source whence one and all of those actually adop||d and con- 
 descended on were dei-ived. 
 
 2. Positions, 
 
 For the Irvine invention we have seen that although Steadman 
 never suggested any position but the stern, with the propeller 
 placed in a direct lina with the keel of the vessel, yet that the in- 
 genious intellect of M'Cririck sought out other positions, which, 
 however, after much labour on the part of M'Cririck and Dick, 
 were ultimately found less advantageous than the stern. 
 
 In discussing the "Position" head of the division, we will con- 
 sider, separately, the two parts into which it may be divided :■ — 
 (1) the Side Positions, and (2) the Stern Position. 
 
 (1.) Side Positions. — The model transmitted to Edinburgh and 
 London contaimed, besides the triple-bladed screw fitted on to the 
 universal joint in the deadwooi of the run, first, a segmental 
 screw fitted upon one side, and, second, a half-turn double-threaded 
 screw fitted upon the other side. In sending a single specimen of 
 these different modifications to the Societies, the inventors intended 
 thereby chiefly to illustrate the later stages in the progress of de- 
 velopment, and in retaining the side positions, which in the course 
 of their experiments they had demonstrated to be less advantage- 
 ous for propelling purposes than the stern, it was necessary to do 
 so in order to illustrate the character of M'Cririck's " safety plan," 
 which had taken a strong hold on his mind. Apart from this 
 safety plan, the most effective side positions were found to be on 
 either side of the deadwood of the stern, which were accordingly 
 recommended in M'Cririck's descriptions, in the event of side 
 screws being adopted. The propriety of placing all the propellers 
 deep in the water was also clearly recommended. This part of 
 the description is in the following terms: — "These screw or in- 
 " clined-plane propellers should, I think, be placed with their under 
 " edges nearly as low as the keel, and as near to the stern of the 
 " vessel as possible, so as to have the advantage of working in solid 
 
66 
 
 " and undisturbed water." And again : — " My idea of placing the 
 " propellers aft, as described above, is not to be understood as 
 " applicable to the safety plan as shown by the model, because, in 
 " the latter case, they require to be placed nearer midships of the 
 "boat." 
 
 In comp.-vrison with one and all of the positions thus clearly 
 pointed out by the Irvine model and descriptions, attention is 
 called to the "position" clause in F. P. Smith's original specifica- 
 tion, which is as follows: — "But whereas I claim as my Invention 
 "the propeller herein before described, whether arranged singly 
 " in an open space in the dead wood, as here shown, or in duplicate 
 "with one on each side of the deadwdod, or otherwise placed more 
 "forward or more aft, or more or less deep in the water." 
 
 But besides requesting a comparison of descriptions, we farther 
 call particular attention to the positions respectively shown in 
 Figs. 5, 7, and 12 of the Drawings annexed. 
 
 (2.) Stern Position.— "Qy turning again to Figs. 3, 5, and 7 of 
 the Drawings, it will be seen that the universal joint, to which the 
 Irvine stern propeller was attached, was placed in a recess or open 
 space formed in the dead wood of the run, which was quite a 
 novel situation. 
 
 By looking to Figs. 10 and 12 it will also be observed that the 
 very same expedient was adopted, first, by Andrew Smith, in 
 1831, for his crank paddles; and, next, in P. P. Smith's patent 
 for the screw propeller; in which latter case it is called "a recess 
 "' or open space formed in that part of the after-part of the vessel 
 ^' commonly called the dead rising or dead wood of the run." But 
 though this position, which was the one found and proclaimed by 
 the Irvine inventors to be the most advantageous, was the one 
 actually adopted in F. P. Smith's specification, model, and draw- 
 ings, we have seen, from the comprehensive alternative clause 
 previously quoted, that it was by no means definitely determined 
 on as the only position capable of adoption. On the contrary, the 
 right to adopt every one of the other numerous and peculiar posi- 
 tions tried in Irvine, and shown by the model and suggested in 
 the descriptions sent to the Societies, was fully and unqualifiedly 
 claimed in F. P. Smith's specification, — not one other position 
 beyond those distinctly indicated by the Irvine inventors having 
 been therein suggested or reserved. 
 
67 
 » 
 In consideringjfcUnder our first" division, the merits of F. P. 
 Smith's invention, as indicated by his specification, w.e took occa- 
 sion to point out several anomalies totally inconsistent with his 
 declaration that it v/as ".my invention," or " entirely new and 
 " never before used." From the existence of those anomalies, which 
 evince, at the same time, the possession of a profound,^ theoretical 
 and a total want of any practical knowledge, as also from the 
 plain statements of Mr Bourne, we learn the fact, that at the date 
 of his original patent in 1836^ F. P. Smith had made no experi- 
 ments to test the principle of screw propulsion. Keeping this in 
 view, the sweeping reservative " position " clause introduced into 
 the specification is satisfactorily explained — seeing that without 
 an intimate experimental knowledge of the subject, the best posi- 
 tion could not be arbitrarily determined. Immediately after the 
 patent, however, a series of experiments were commenced by 
 " Mr Smith and his friends ;" and improvers of his so-called in- 
 vention having quickly arisen, it was found necessary to enter a 
 "Disclaimer" at the Patent Office, on 30th April, 1839, in Mr 
 F. P. Smith's name, limiting, inter alia, the application of the 
 propeller to the dead wood of the run. The words of this Dis- 
 claimer are : — " Now, whereas I, the said Francis Pettit Smith, 
 " do hereby further declare, that since the inrolment of my said 
 "specification, I find that the dead wood or run. of the vessel is 
 " the only place in which the said propeller can be advantage- 
 " ously placed ; and, for this reason, I, the said Francis Pettit 
 " Smith, in order to limit my claim to the position last mentioned, 
 " namely, placed singly in the centre of that part of the vessel 
 " called the dead wood or run of the vessel, do hereby make the 
 " following memorandum of alteration in the claiming clause of 
 " the said specification, reference being had to the said Drawing 
 " annexed ; that is to say, after the words ' I claim as my inven- 
 " ' tion the propeller,' I hereby insert the words ' placed singly in 
 " ' the centre of the dead wood or run of the vessel, as shown in the 
 "'figures of the Drawing annexed to the original specification.'" 
 
 By turning to Fig. 15 of the Drawings annexed, our readers 
 will see ufac simile of a sketch of the stern of the "Archimedes," 
 experimental ship, built by the Ship Propeller Company in 1838, 
 as given by the London Mechanics' Magazine, No. 830, p. 266 
 (1839). ' According to this Drawing, the recess or open space in 
 
68 
 
 the dead wood is formed nearer the rudder th»a that shown in 
 Fig. 12 ; and to this extent it only the more closely resembles 
 the position assigned to the Irvine stern blades. 
 
 In this position the screw propeller is now universally placed. 
 
 3. Propellers. 
 
 It will be remembered that in the short narrative of the ex- 
 periments conducted with the models in Irvine, as given in the 
 " Origin " division of our statement, we informed our readers of 
 the principal modifications of the screw, successively effected and 
 tried by M'Cririck and Dick. Steadman having derived his ideas 
 of a submerged propeller from a close and lengthened study of the 
 fish tail, which he sa5V, for the reasons deduced from his observa- 
 tions, to be infinitely superior to any other aquatic propeller in 
 Nature, he made it his sole aim to imitate in quantity and position 
 an appliance so admirably adapted to the purposes it subserved. 
 In his view, long screws defeated his object, but M'Cririck's ex- 
 perience of the screw made him think differently, and determined 
 him to test the accuracy of his own theories before proceeding 
 farther. When experiments commenced in earnest in 182Y, a 
 single threaded screw, of the length of two full convolutions on 
 the shaft, was applied to one side of a boat, and another of a less 
 quantity placed on the other side, the result from the experiments 
 with which led to many successive reductions. One full convolution 
 on the shaft was soon arrived at, and the experiments were con- 
 tinued till a small segment was found to represent the most efiica- 
 cious propelling surface. We need not farther recapitulate the 
 narrative already given. Suflice it here merely to repeat, that the 
 short model transmitted to the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, 
 Edinburgh, in 1829, and Society of Arts, Adelphi, in 1830, had 
 attached to it the following modifications, the configurations of 
 which are represented in the Drawings annexed, viz. : — 
 
 1st, The triple stern bladed screw, shown in Figs. 3, 6, and 
 7 respectively. 
 
 2d, A segmental screw, consisting of six detached segments set 
 round a shaft, as shown in Fig. 4 ; and 
 
 3d, A double threaded screw, of two half convolutions wound 
 round opposite sides of a shaft, as showm in Figs. 5 and 7. 
 
 The short model, with all these propellers fitted on it, was, as 
 
69 
 
 has been stated, in some measure entrusted by Mr Dick to Andrew 
 Smith, in 1830 and 1831. 
 
 In comparison with the "propeller" part of the Irvine inven- 
 tion, we have now to direct very particular attention to such of 
 the stages in the development of F. P. Smith's so-called inven- 
 tion as wo have been able to discover authoritative data for. 
 
 The-flrst public step taken was the sealing of the patent "for 
 an improv-ed propeller for steam and other vessels" upon 31st 
 May, 1836. 3efore this -period nothing whatever is known of 
 the nominal patentee in connexion with the subject, farther than 
 the statement of Mr Bourne, that "In 1835, F. P. Smith, then a 
 ''farmer at Hendon, had his attention first directed to the subject 
 "of screw -propulsion, and in the spring of 1836 he obtained the 
 "cooperation of Mr Wright, the banker." After an anxious 
 inquiry we haye, as previously stated, failed to discover the cir- 
 cumstances which thus led Mr F. P. Smith to turn his attention 
 to a subject so far beyond- his natural sphere of thought and action; 
 and- notwithstanding the many dubious conjectures and misgivings 
 of journalists, he has failed to furnish the most meagre ^facts in 
 proof of the screw propeller's independent origin with himself. 
 In the absence of any such data, we have been led to 'look closely 
 into the specification, and, as already stated, the result of our exa- 
 mination of this document, -alone, seemsto be that every presump- 
 tion that can be raised- is calculated- to lead to the conviction that 
 F. P. Smith neither could be, nor in reality was, the author of, the 
 invention patented in his name. Apart,- however, from his own 
 mysterious silence, and -from any mere presumptive or negative 
 proof, we now come to consider and compare the positive facts 
 which have been made known in relation to his succession of pro- 
 pellers, with those which relate to the, Irvine propellers. 
 
 ■The principal Drawing - annexed to F. P. Smith's specification, 
 of which :Fig. 12 annexed hereto is a.fcfc simile, esMhiis ".abroad- 
 " threaded revolving screw or worm," of two full single-threaded 
 convolutions; and the specification farther declares "the nature of 
 "my said invention to consist in a sort of screw or worm made to 
 " revolve - rapidly under water in a recess or open space," 85c. 
 -Although this is- the first public mention of F. P. Smith's "entirely 
 "new and ne-ver before used" invention, nothing is said as to how 
 he- arrived aX-^e arbitrary adoption -.of two full, uniform, tarns on 
 
70 
 
 the shaft. That this was an arbitrary adoption in respect of length 
 is plain, from the fact that the specification lays no claim to and 
 makes no reservation of any less quantity whatever. Such unquali- 
 fied adoption consequently proves complete ignorance on the part 
 of the patentee, personally, of the very first principles of the screw 
 as a propeller, seeing that had but a single experiment been made 
 in the proper manner to test the accuracy of his theory, on this the 
 most vital point in the invention, he would most assuredly have 
 been led to adopt, or at all events to reserve the right to adopt, a 
 quantity very much less than two full turns. If the eviden9e 
 already adduced be sufiicient to show that Andrew Smith was either 
 the real patentee or an intimate participator in the patent, then 
 the arbitrary adoption of two full turns is pretty satisfactorily 
 accounted for, since he, was in the full knowledge that that length 
 had been applied at an early stage in the model experiments cpn- 
 ducted in Irvine. 
 
 But the question will here naturally be asked, why did Andrew 
 Smith, if an accomplished engineer, and in the fullest knowledge 
 of the many reductions on the two whole turns effected in Irvine, 
 not adopt, specify, or reserve the right to apply, one or other of 
 the short propellers which Mr Dick verbally, a§ also the model 
 and description, represented to him as the best ? To such a ques- 
 tion we would, for the present, offer the following answers : — 
 
 1. That Andrew Smith was well aware that the Irvine short 
 propellers had been rejected by the learned practical Society of 
 Arts of London, on the sole ground that a propeller of several 
 convolutions had previously been designed and published ; 
 
 2. That he had himself no experimental knowledge of the com- 
 parative efficiency of the Irvine propellers, having learned their 
 respective merits by hearsay/ only ; and, 
 
 3. That his experience of paddles may have caused him, as it 
 did many other eminent engineers, to be incredulous of the propel- 
 ling power of small objects when entirely immersed. 
 
 According to Mr Bourne, the very first experiment known to 
 have been made was performed on the day the patent was sealed ; 
 after which the model boat was exhibited at the Adelaide Gallery, 
 where it was immediately inspected by Sir John Barrow, Secre- 
 tary of the Admiralty, and others, and the invention sought to be 
 purchased for the Pasha of Egypt, The same authority goes on to, 
 
state "that in the autumn of the same year (1836) Mr (f. P.) 
 " Smith and his friends constructed a boat of six tons burthen and 
 " about six-horse power, in order further to dempnstrate the advan- 
 " tage of the invention. This boat was fitted with a wooden screw 
 " of two turns.'' " 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 been done than the boat quickened her speed. In. conse- 
 " quence of this discovery, a new screw was fitted of a single turn, 
 " and with the vessel thus impi-oved, very satisfactory results were 
 " obtained." 
 
 That such an accident did occur is probable enough; but that 
 it should have been the first to point out the advantage of dimin- 
 ishing the length of the screw to an original inventor, whose work 
 had been patented no less than nine months previously, is passing 
 strange .' 
 
 With the propeller now reduced to one complete convolution of 
 a single thread, another series of performances took place, which 
 so favourably impressed the Lords Commissioners of the Admir- 
 alty that at their Lordships' request -the gentlemen who formed 
 themselves into "The Ship Propeller Company" built a beautiful 
 vessel of 237 tons burthen, which was named the "Archimedes." 
 This vessel was launched in October, 1838, and was fitted with a 
 screw of one complete convolution, placed in the dead wood of the 
 run. (For a representation of this propeller, and its position, see 
 again Fig. 1 5 of the annexed Drawings. This representation being 
 afac simile of that given by the London Mechanics' Magazine, of 
 date 6th July, 1839, only carries with it the authority usually 
 ascribed to that valuable Journal.) 
 
 On 30th April, 1839, the "Disclaimer," or memorandum of 
 alteration before adverted to, was entered, at the Patent Office. 
 The object sought to be attained by this proceeding was to correct 
 the more important of the several vital mistakes committed under 
 the original patent. The principal of these mistakes was the 
 arbitrary or unqualified adoption of two full turns of the screw — a 
 length that the patentee now officially renounced all claim to. 
 The Disclaimer states that "I, the said Francis Pettit Smith, do 
 
72 
 
 "hereby fartbei* declare that since the enrolment of my said 
 " specification, I find that a screw of one turn or two half turns as 
 " a propeller wilt be sufficient for every purpose; and for this reason, 
 " I, the said Francis Pettit Smith, in order to limit my claim to 
 " invention to such a screw for a propeller, as herein before last 
 " mentioned, a drawing of which is annexed, do hereby make the 
 " following memorandum of alteration in the claiming clause of the 
 "said specification; reference being had to the said drawing 
 "annexed; that is to say,' after the words 'I claim as my inven- 
 " ' tion the propeller,' I hereby insert the words ' described in 
 " ' Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the drawing annexed to this memoran- 
 " ' dum of alteration, and placed singly in the centre of the dead 
 " * wood or run of the vessel,' " &c. In the official drawing 
 annexed to this Disclaimer, Fig. 1 exhibits one full single-threaded 
 turn of a screw; and Fig^ 2 a double-threaded screw cf two half 
 turns. Of the latter. Fig. 16 hereto annexed, is a,fac similci 
 
 In this memorandum of alteration, the same strange anomaly 
 observable throughout the original specification will be seen to 
 exist,- viz., a fund of theoretical or rather prescient knowledge, 
 without any practical experience of the comparative efficiency of 
 the two different propellers here represented and claimed. The 
 first place is here given to the propeller of one turn, for hi-s 
 "discovery" of which it is said Mr F. P. Smith was indebted to 
 accident; but to what circumstance his discovery of the half-turn 
 double thread is owing, he seems never to have condescended to 
 make known. The marvel presented by this Disclaimer is, thai; 
 while the Patentee knew that a double thread might be advan- 
 tageously employed, in place of the single thread, and thought it 
 of sufficient importance to enter it at the Patent Office, yet he had 
 not tried it at the date of the Disclaimer, nor did he do so for about 
 twelve months thereafter. And, yet, d single experiment, to test 
 the relative efficiency of the two, would have at once resulted in 
 the total abandonment of the single thread, and in the adoption 
 of the double thread — since the latter was previously demonstrated 
 in IrvinCj and subsequently by F. P. Smith q,nd his coadjutors, 
 to be so greatly superior to the former that the two .could not be 
 brought into competition. Had ]>li.t Smith, therefore, prior to his 
 second resort to the Patent Office, tested his two new propellers 
 against each other, as he most assuredly would have done had the 
 
73 
 
 idea of-tlie half-turn double' thrtead been> his^own, and firmly fixed 
 in his mind, he would not theii have ciaimedj art least he certainly 
 would not have given the first place to a propeller that he and his 
 coai^utors afterwards discovered to be unworthy their attention. 
 Seeing, however, that the whole tura of a single' thread was not 
 only assigned the first pla«e in the Disckimer, bu-t Was tenaciously 
 clung to &r alMJut a year after that date, m the ime of the double- 
 threaid therein represented,' we think it may reasonably be assumed 
 that the peculiar form' of a double thread could not be F. P. 
 Smith's own suggestion, since he proved himself so long devoid of 
 any experimental or practical knowledge of its capabilities. 
 
 From the date of the Disclaimer (April 1 839') till some'whepe iii 
 the beginning of 1840, the promoters of the invention continued 
 to experiment in the Archimedes with the one complete single' 
 threaded tufni At the fetter period, however, the Archimedes, 
 while on her way to the Texel, broke the erank shaft of ofle of her 
 engines, in consequence of which she had to undergo repairs.^ 
 During the progress of these repairs, -which seem to have occupied 
 till April 1840, '■'■the form of her screw was altered) hff dwidinffthe 
 " one wholeturn into two half turns, ivhich being placed on the oppO' 
 " site sides of the axis, gave to the propeller the character of a double- 
 " threaded screw of half a turn."^— Treatise, \st ed., p. 86. The 
 result whiph immediately followed upon the adoption of the half- 
 turn double-threaded propeller, was so favourable a report to the 
 Lords of the Admiralty, by Captain Chappell, of the Eoyal Navy, 
 and Mr Lloyd, the chief engineei' of Woolwich Dockyard, who 
 had been despatehed.by the Admiralty to conduct the experiments 
 with the Archimedes, that it was determined, in thfe same' year, 
 to adopt the screw propeller both in the Navy and Merchant Ser- 
 ivice. In 1840 and 1841 three large merchant vessels were built 
 for the reception of the screw, at Newcastle, Hull, and London- 
 derry ; and "in 1841, the Rattler, the first screw Tassel built for 
 " the Navy, was laid down at Sheerness." " The Eattler was fitted 
 *' with a sfcrew the same in every respect as the screw of the Archi- 
 " medes ; namely, a double-thi-eaded screWj of half a tonvaluOoh." 
 ■" JBuf," continues Mr Bourne, " the lehgth of the screw ivas Sub- 
 -" sequently reduced, and it was found that the best results Were 
 •" obtained with a length of screw answering t'o one-sixth of a con- 
 " volution. In the years 1843, 1844, aad 1845, an extensive series 
 
74 
 
 " of experiments was made in the Rattler, upon screws of various 
 " forms, and under varying circumstances of wind and water. 
 " Tiie performance of tlie vessel was found to be so satisfactory 
 "that the Lords of the Admiralty ordered twenty vessels to be 
 " fitted with the screw under Mr Smith's superintendence. The 
 " screws introduced into these vessels were in every case double' 
 " threaded screws, set in the dead-wood, after 'the fashion adopted in 
 *' the Archimedes and the Rattler ; and the whole of the screw 
 " vessels built in this country have been constructed UPON THIS 
 " ORIGINAL TYPE." 
 
 From the foregoing narrative of Mr Bourne, taken from Chap. 
 II. of his Treatise, we learn that after a considerable time the 
 half-turn double thread was reduced, by the suggestion of Mr F, 
 P. Smith, till it was found that the best results were obtained 
 from segments answering to one-sixth of a convolution. From 
 Chap. V. of the Treatise, 1st ed., p. 133, we farther learn that in 
 or before the year 1843 F. P. Smith had recommended the adop- 
 tion of screw propellers, consis,ting of three blades and two blades 
 respectively, with which numerous experiments were conducted in 
 the Rattler in the years 1843 and 1844. Mr Bourne in this 
 chapter gives " a perspective view of Smith's screw of two threads 
 "or blades, SiS finally settled in the Rattler, and this is the form of 
 "screw now commonly adopted in the Navy of this country." 
 Regarding this perspective view Mr Bourne farther states, that 
 " Smith's screw of three threads differs from this screw only in 
 " having three arms instead of two'' 
 
 Respecting the comparative merits of these screw-bladed pro- 
 pellers, Mr Bourne, towards the close of Chapter V., remarks : — 
 " If these views be correct, it will follow that a vessel with a deep 
 " screw will be able to back more effectually than a vessel with a 
 "superficial screw, and will also have less motion at the stern. 
 " A screw of three blades will also act more beneficially, so far as 
 " these disturbing influences are concerned, than a screw of two 
 " blades; since the impulse upon the vertical blade when at the 
 " lower part of the disc is balanced by the impulse upon the two 
 " other blades, which are at that time in the upper part of the disc. 
 " Screws of three blades, moreover, divide better than screws of two 
 " blades, the momentary increase of the forward thrust which gives 
 " the serrated outline to the dynamometer diagram, and which is 
 
75 
 
 " caused by the arms of the screw coming into the dead water in the 
 " rear of the stern post. They are also less affected by the rough- 
 " ness of the sea. But tliese points of superiority will be less con- 
 " spicuous if the screw be deeply immerged ; and, under such 
 " conditions, a screw of two blades is probably the best that can be 
 f employed." (Treatise, 1st ed. p. 166.) 
 
 SUMMARY OF SECOND HEAD OF "APPROPRIATION" 
 DIVISION. 
 
 I. — Gearing. 
 
 The gearing adopted and specified in F. P. Smith's original 
 patent was, including the hand-power suggested, of three kinds; — 
 
 (1.) A horizontal revolving shaft placed above the water line, 
 an upright revolving shaft, and two pairs of mitred and cogged 
 wheels attached to these shafts, and to the axis of the propeller. 
 For the application of so cumbrous a mode of gearing we have 
 endeavoured satisfactorily to account, being, as we believe, to 
 obviate the strong objection taken to the Irvine mode by the 
 Society of Arts, Edinburgh. The mitred and cogged wheels, 
 however, are the same as those used for the side propellers in the 
 Irvine model, although, as is stated in the description sent with 
 the model to London, it was proposed that " in place of using large 
 " sized wheels, as shown, the propellers may be driven at the after 
 " end with pinions.'' 
 
 (2.) The Pullies and Band. This description of gearing we 
 have seen was the invention of Andrew Smith, and was not 
 enrolled at; the patent office for upwards of two months after it 
 had been specified in F. P. Smith's patent. 
 
 (3.) " The Hand or other than Steam power." This power is 
 suggested, and in the very same language, in the Irvine descrip- 
 tions. 
 ^^ , II. — Positions. 
 
 The positions suggested in F. P. Smith's specification are vari- 
 ous. He claims as his invention the propeller, whether 
 
 (1.^ "Arranged singly in an open space in the deadwood;" 
 
 (2.) " In duplicate with one on each side of the deadwood ;" 
 
 (3.) "Placed more forward or more aft;" or 
 
 (4.) " More or less deep in the water." 
 
76 
 
 One and all of these distinctive and alternative positions for -the 
 screw propeller, whether employed singly or in duplicate, are 
 pointed out in the Irvine model and descriptions with the utmost 
 clearness. 
 
 III. — ^Pkopellbhs. 
 
 It has been seen that the propellers adopted in regular succes- 
 sion by, or in the name of, Francis Pettit Smith, were as follows: — 
 
 (1.) A screw of two complete convolutions, patented on 31st 
 May, 1836. 
 
 (2.) A screw of one complete convolution, first adopted in 
 February, 1837, and entered at the Patent Office, on 30th April, 
 1839. 
 
 (3.) A double-threaded screw of two half convolutions, entered 
 at. the Patent Office on 30th April, 1839, but not tried tiU April, 
 1840. 
 
 (4.) Screws of /Aree blades and it^wj blades respectively, tried in 
 the Eattler in 1843 and 1844. 
 
 One and all of these propellers were tested in Irvine, by Messrs 
 M'Cririek and Dick, in 1827 and 1828. In testing the merits of 
 bladed screws the preference was given to-three blades, which was 
 the form afterwards transmitted to Sir John -Ross and: the two 
 Societies of Arts. Although two blades are now more frequently 
 employed,- the three-bladed propeller is likewise common, possess- 
 ing, as it does, according to Mr Bourne, qualities which make 
 it more suitable than the other for sea going vessels, and such 
 as are of a light draught of water. 
 
 Wo have -thus seen that while every one of -the many valuable, 
 ■peealiar, and perfect expedients and appliances deduced by the 
 Irvine inventors from their protracted labours has been, at one 
 time or another, specified, claimed, or adopted in name of F. P. 
 Snlith; yet, that not one idea or expedient, in addition, has, so.far 
 as we can discover, been thought of or applied, with the exception 
 of the gearing suggested by the Edinburgh Society, and the puUiss 
 and band of Andrew Smith. 
 
77 
 
 Since writing the foregoing statement, we have procured a copy 
 of the Act of Parliament constituting " The Ship Propeller Com- 
 pany "; and so much oi it as appears necessary to our case will be 
 found in the Appendix. We were surprised to find that the names 
 of the gentlemen inserted in the first section of the Act, as its os- 
 tensible promoters, were entirely new to us in connexion with the 
 screw propeller enterprise ; while not one of those stated by the 
 difierent authorities we have quoted in the first division of our 
 statement as having been, from the outset, the recognised and 
 acknowledged promoters of the invention, and more especially as 
 having been the " chief promoters " of the Act itself, viz., the 
 Messrs Wright & Renuies, had their names inserted therein. We 
 have accordingly caused a search to be instituted in the register 
 of enrolments of shareholders in the High Court of Chancery, 
 kept in terms of the 10th section of the Act, and inter alios we 
 discover as follow? : — 
 
 1. That the name of Andrew Smith, as was to be expected, 
 appears in no capacity whatever in the memorials enrolled in 
 Chancery. 
 
 2. That Mr John Wright and Sir John and Mr George Rennie 
 appear among the shareholders in the first memorial, enrolled of 
 date 27th July, 1840 ; and 
 
 3. That Mr Francis Pettit Smith appears in the third memorial, 
 enrolled of date 27th "January, 1841, as manager of the company, 
 in place of Captain Edward Chappell, R.N., who had previously 
 filled that office. ^ 
 
 The several memorials entered in Chancery were enrolled of the 
 foUowing dates, viz.:— 27th July and 26th October, 1840; 27th 
 January and 26th October, 1841 ; l-3th July, 1842 ; 22d July, 
 1843; 8th August, 1814; and 23d May, 1849. Since the latter 
 date no enrolments have been made. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ACT OF PAELIAMENT CONSTITUTING "THE SHIP 
 PROPELLER COMPANY." . 
 
 [ The more important sections are given at length. Of the 
 remainder the rubrics only are given. The extracts are taken 
 from a Queen^s Printer's Copy of the Act.'] 
 
 ANNO SECUNDO & TERTIO VICTORIiE REGIN^. 
 
 Cap. XCIII. 
 An Act for forming and regulating a Company to be called " The 
 " Ship Propeller Company,'' and to enable the said Company to 
 purchase certain Letters Patent. [29th July, 1839.] 
 
 Whereas by Letters Patent under the Great "Seal of Great 
 
 Letters Patent, i . -r-v ttt- • n i m ■ 
 
 dated 3ist May, Britain, bearing Date at yvestminster on or about the Thirty- 
 first Day of May, in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His late 
 Majesty King William the Fourth, His said Majesty did give and 
 grant unto Francis Pettit Smith, his Executors, Administrators, 
 and Assigns, the sole Privilege that he, the said Francis Pettit 
 Smith, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, and such 
 others as he the said Francis Pettit Smith, his Executors, Ad- 
 ministrators, or Assigns, should at any time agree with, and no 
 others, during the Term of Fourteen Years from the Date of the 
 said Letters Patent, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, 
 and vend within that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Bri- 
 tain and Ireland called England, the Dominion of Wales, and the 
 Town of Berwick' upon- Tweed, an Invention therein mentioned of 
 an improved Propeller for Steam and other Vessels : And- whereas 
 
79 
 
 the Nature of the said Invention and the manner in which the 
 same was to be performed, were declared by a Specification there- 
 of duly enrolled in Chancery, and by a memorandum of Alteration 
 thereof also duly enrolled : And whereas by Letters Patent direct- patent 
 
 ed by His said late Majesty King William the Fourth, at 'S'«*w« for &^ootiand^^^ 
 James's Palace, on the Fourth day of June, One thousand eight i836. 
 hundred and thirty-six, to be sealed under the Seal by the Treaty 
 of Union, ordained to be used in Scotland instead of the Great 
 Seal thereof, and accordingly sealed with such Seal at Edinburgh 
 on the Fifteenth day of June in the said Year One thousand eight 
 hundred and thirty-six, His said late Majesty did grant unto the 
 said Francis Pettit Smith, his Executors, Administrators, and As- 
 signs, the sole Privilege that he the said Francis Pettit Smith, his 
 Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, or such other Persons as 
 he should agree with, and no others, during the Term of Fourteen 
 Years from the Date of the same Letters Patent, should make, use, 
 exercise, and vend the said Invention therein described as an im- 
 proved Propeller for Steam atid other Vessels, within that Part of 
 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Scot- 
 land: And whereas the Nature of the said Invention and the 
 Manner in which the same was to be performed were declared by 
 a Specification thereof duly enrolled in His said Majesty's High 
 Court of Chancery in Scotland: And whereas by Letters Patent 
 under the Great Seal of Ireland, bearing date at Dublin on or Letters Patent 
 
 - ° forlreland,dated 
 
 abaut the Third day of September, in the Seventh Year of the ^^ Sept., i836. 
 Reign of His said late Majesty King Willi&m the Fourth, His 
 said late Majesty did give and grant unto the said Francis Pettit 
 Smith, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, the sole Pri- 
 vilege that he the said Francis Pettit Smith, his Executors, Ad- 
 ministrators, and Assigns, and such other Persons as he the said 
 Francis Pettit Smith, his Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, 
 should at any Time agree with, and no others, during the Term of 
 Fourteen Years from the Date of the said Letters Patent, should 
 and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend in Ireland the 
 said Invention therein described as " an improved Propeller for 
 " Steam and other Vessels :" And whereas the Nature of the said 
 Invention and the Manner in which the same was to be performed 
 v^ere declared by a Specification thereof duly enrolled in His Ma- 
 jesty's Court of Chancery in Ireland; And whereas the said Dis- 
 
80 
 
 coverj and Invention comprised in tlie said Lettei's Patent respec* 
 tively will be of ^reat public Advantage and Importance, if Means 
 are provided for facilitating the general Use thereof : And whereas 
 the private Fortune of ^he said Francis Pettit Smith is insufficient 
 to enable him to furnish the necessary Capital for carrying into 
 full Effect the Object of his said Discovery and Invention as afore- 
 said : And whereas the Right Honourable Charles Callis, Lord 
 Western, Admiral Charles Wollaston, Charles Andrew Caldwell^ 
 Henri/ Robinson, Edward Henry. Darell, John Neave Wells, and 
 Frederick Cayley Worsley, being well satisfied of the great Utility 
 of the said Discovery and Invention, and that the full Benefit of 
 the same would be most advantageously exercised and afforded to 
 the Public by a Joint Stock Company, to be formed and estab- 
 lished for that Purpose, are desirous of purchasing the said Letters 
 Patent so granted as aforesaid, and the -said Francis Pettit Smith 
 is willing to sell and assign the said Letters Patent unto ,the 
 said Company, if they shall be authorized or enabled by Par- 
 liament to make such Assignment without making the said 
 Letters Patent respectively void ; but the several Purposes 
 aforesaid cannot be effected without the Aid -and Authority 
 of Parliament : May it therefore please your Majesty that 
 it may be enacted ; and be it enacted by the Queen's most Excel- 
 lent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament 
 assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said Charles 
 bHshed. ^ ' Callis Lorl Western, Admiral Charles Wollaston, Charles An- 
 drew Caldwell, Henry Robinson, Edward Henry Darell, John 
 Neave Wells, and Frederick Cayley Worsley, and all and every 
 other Persons and Person, Bodies and Body Politic, Corporate, or 
 Collegiate, who shall for the time being hold any Share or Shares 
 in the Capital or Joint Stock herein-after mentioned (so long as 
 they shall respectively hold the same, and no longer), and their 
 respective Successors, Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, 
 shall be and they are hereby established and united into a Joint 
 Stock Company, by the Name of " The Ship Propeller Com- 
 " pany." 
 Purpose of the ^^' And be it further enacted, that the said Company shall be 
 Company. ^established for the Purpose of purchasing the said Letters Patent, 
 :,.nd exercising the said Discovery and Invention, or any Part or 
 
Si 
 
 Parts thereof, in the said Letters Patent mentioned, and also for 
 the building, using, and employing any Ships or Vessels, and fit- 
 ting with the said Propeller any Ships or Vessels built by the 
 said Company or otherwise, and also for the ei'ecting and establish- 
 ing Works containing such Apparatus and Machinery as to the 
 said Company may seem expedient, and also for the Appointment 
 of proper Persons to attend, conduct, and manage the same, with 
 full Power to the said Company to grant any Bicenccs to others 
 to use the said Discovery and Invention, or any Part or Parts 
 thereof, under such Limitations and Restrictions as the said Com- 
 pany shall think fit, and generally to vend, use, employ, and deal 
 with the said Invention, and the_ said Letters Patent, and any 
 such Ships or Vessels, for their own Profit, Benefit, and Advan- 
 tage, in such Manner in all respects as the said Company shall 
 think fit. 
 
 III. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Patentee may 
 said Company to purchase, and also for the said Francis PettitVllmt to i\\e- 
 Smith, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, at any Time ou™iori"ei'ti7r&'"' 
 a-fter the passing of this Act, to sell, transfer, grant, and assign 
 unto the said Company, or unto any Person or Persons as a Trus- 
 tee or Trustees for the said Company hereby established, the said 
 several Letters Patent granted to the said Francis Pettit Smith 
 as aforesaid, and 4he Invention therein comprised, and all the 
 Eights, Privileges, Benefits, and Advantages of the said Francis 
 Fettit Smith in or to the same, together with the Benefit of all or 
 any Licences or Licence pi-eviously granted thereunder, or to 
 :grant unto the said Company, or to any Person or Persons as a 
 Trustee or Trustees for the said Company hereby established, any 
 Licence or Licences, exclusive or otherwise, to make, exercise, use, 
 or vend, the said Invention, or any Part or Parts thereof ; and 
 every such Sale, Transfer, Grant, and Assignment of any such 
 Letters Patent as aforesaid, or of a/11 or any of the Eights, Privi- 
 leges, Benefits, or Advantages granted by such Letters Patent 
 as aforesaid, or of all or any Benefit of such Licences, and any 
 such Grant or Grants of Licence and Licences, to or in Trust for 
 -the said Company as aforesaid, shall be good, valid, and effectual 
 to ^11 Intents and Purposes, and shall Tiot render void any such 
 Letters Patent, any Provisoes or Restrictions, Proviso or Eestric- 
 tion contained or to be contained in any such Letters Patent (o 
 
82 
 
 the contrary thereof in anywise notwithsianding ; and after any 
 such Sale, Transfer, Grant, or Assignment of such Letters Patent 
 as aforesaid, or of any of the Rights, Privileges, Benefits, or Ad- 
 vantages granted by any such Letters Patent as aforesaid, or of 
 any such Licence or Licences as aforesaid, all such Letters Pa- 
 tent, Eights, Privileges, Benefits, Advantages, and Licenses 
 respectively shall be, and the same are hereby declared to be, 
 fully, absolutely, *ind efiectually vested in the said Company, or 
 held or possessed by some Person or Persons as a Trustee or 
 Trustees for the said Company, to all Intents and Purposes what- 
 soever ; and all and every such Letters Patent as afol-esaid which 
 shall or may be sold, transferred, or assigned as aforesaid unto 
 the said Company, or unto some Person or Persons as a Trustee 
 or Trustees for the said Company, or under or by virtue of which 
 any such Licence or Licences shall or may be granted as aforesaid 
 unto the said Company, or unto some Person or Persons as a 
 Trustee or Trustees for the said Company, shall thenceforth be 
 construed and considered in such and the same Manner to all In- 
 tents and Purposes whatsoever as if no such Condition, Provision, 
 or Restriction as herein-before mentioned or referred to, or any 
 other Condition, Provision, or Restriction against any such Sale, 
 Transfer, Grant, or Assignment as aforesaid, had been inserted, 
 expressed, or contained in such Letters Patent or any of them. 
 
 Company may IV. And be it further enacted. That after any such Sale, 
 grant Licenses. . -r-> n . 
 
 Transfer, or Assignment oi any such Letters Patent as aforesaid 
 
 shall have been made unto the said Company, or to any Person 
 or Persons as a Trustee or Trustees for the said Company, it shall 
 be lawful for the said Company, or for any Two of the Directors 
 for the Time being thereof, by the Direction of the Majority of a 
 Board of Directors, at which Board Three Directors at the least - 
 shall be present and vote, to grant any Licence or Licences to any 
 Person or Persons to make, use, exercise, or vend the said Dis- 
 covery and Invention, or Discoveries and Tnventions, comprised 
 in such Letters Patent, or any Part or Parts thereof, either 
 generally or within certain limited Districts, and under such 
 Restrictions as to other Persons within the same District, and in 
 all respects upon such conditions and upon such Terms, and in 
 all respects in such Manner, as the said Company or Board, of- 
 Directors or such Majority thereof shall think fit, 
 
^ 83 
 
 V. Company may sue and be sued in the Name of a Director 
 or of the Secretary. Proceedings not to abate by Death, &c., of 
 Director or Secretary, &c. 
 
 VI. Judgments in Action against the Director or Secretary, 
 &c., shall bind the Property of the Company and the Proprietors. 
 
 VII. Directors and Secretary to be reimbursed on account of 
 Suits. 
 
 VIII. No Action against the Company to be affected in conse- 
 quence of the Plaintiff being a Member. 
 
 IX. No Action commenced by the Company to be affected in 
 consequence of the Defendant being a Member. 
 
 X. And be it further enacted, That a Memorial of tte Names j^ames of Mem- 
 and Descriptions of the Secretary, and of every Director, and of Jailed In the™" 
 the several Persons being Proprietors or Members of the said ^^ISm?".'^ °^ 
 Company, in the Form for that Purpose expressed in the Schedule 
 hereunto annexed, shall be verified by the Declaration of the 
 Secretary or some Director of the said Company before a Master 
 
 or Master Extraordinary in Chancery, and when so verified shall 
 be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery in England vrithin 
 Twelve Calendar Months after the passing of this Act; and when 
 any new Secretary or Director shall be elected, and when any 
 Person or Persons shall cease to be a Member or Members of the 
 said Company, and when any Person or Persons shall become a 
 Member or Members of the said Company, a Memorial thereof 
 respectively, so verified as aforesaid, shall in like Manner be 
 enrolled as aforesaid vsdthin Three Calendar Months afterwards, 
 in the Form or to the Effect expressed in the said Schedule for 
 that Purpose; and when and so often as it shall be necessary to 
 memorialize the Name or Names and Description or Descriptions 
 of any Secretary, Director or Directors, Member or Members, 
 either ceasing to be or becoming such, or to memorialize the 
 Names of any Two or Three of the above Classes, the Names and 
 Descriptions of such Persons respectively may be contained in one 
 and the same Memorial to the Effect expressed in the said Sche- 
 dule, to be verified and enrolled as herein-before is directed; and 
 if any Declaration so made shall be false in any material Particu- 
 lar, the Persons wilfully making such false Declaration shall be 
 deemed guilty of a Misdemeanor. 
 
 XI. No Action to be brought until Memorial enrolled. 
 
84 
 
 Act to 
 all future 
 
 pany. 
 
 Capital of the 
 Company. 
 
 Number of 
 Shares. 
 
 XII. Actions when pleadable in bar. 
 em. XIII. And be it further enacted, That this Act and the Provi- 
 bevsottheCom-gjojjg herein contained shall extend and be construed and taken to 
 extend to the said Company called the Ship Propeller pompany at 
 all Times during the Continuance of the same, whether the said 
 Company shall hereafter be "composed of all or some of the Persons 
 who were the original Members thereof, or of all or some of those 
 Persons together with some other Person or Persons, or shall be' 
 composed altogether of Persons who were not original Members of 
 the same, or of Persons all of whom shall become Members after 
 the passing of this Act. 
 
 XIV. And be it further enacted. That the Capital or Joint 
 Stock of the said Company shall consist of the Sum of One hun- 
 dred thousand Pounds, which Sum it shall be lawful for the said 
 Company to raise amongst themselves when and as it may be 
 deemed expedient; and such Capital or Joint Stock shall be 
 divided into Four thousand Shares of Twenty-five Pounds each ; 
 and every Holder of a Share or Shares of the said Capital or Joint 
 Stock shall be considered a Member or Proprietor of the said 
 Company, and shall be entitled to and interested in such Capital 
 or Joint Stock according' to the Number of Shares which such 
 Member or Proprietor shall have therein. 
 
 XV. And be it further enacted. That in case the said Sum of 
 crease.theCapi-Qjjg hundred thousand Pounds hereby authorized to be raised 
 
 shall be found insufficient for the Purposes of this Act, then and 
 in such Case it shall be lawful for the Directors for the Time 
 being of the said Company, at any Board to be specially called for 
 that Purpose, with the Consent of any General Meeting specially 
 called for that Purpose, to raise at One or more Time or Times 
 any further Sum or Sums of Money, not exceeding in the whole 
 the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds, and which further 
 Sum or Sums shall form Part of the said Capital or Joint Stock 
 of the said Company, and shall be raised in Shares at such Rate 
 or Price per Share and under such Regulations as the Directors 
 shall think expedient. 
 
 XVI. Shares to be deemed Personal Estate. 
 
 XVII. Joint Stock and Property of Company to be liable to 
 its Debts and Contracts. 
 
 XVIII. Not to extend to incorporate the Company. 
 
 Power to in- 
 
85 
 
 XIX. Servants of the Company not incompetent Witnesses. 
 
 XX. Any Director of the Company may grant Releases to 
 Witnesses. 
 
 XXI. Service of Notice on the Company. 
 
 XXII. Service of Notice by the Company. 
 
 XXIII. Mode of Proof, kc, by Company in Cases of Bank- 
 ruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 XXIV. Directors may.sign Deeds, &c. 
 
 XXV. Directors may execute Powers of Attorney. 
 
 XXVI. Expenses of Act how to be paid. 
 
 XXVII. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall be Public Act. 
 deemed and taken to be a Public Act, and shall be judicially 
 
 tak& notice of as such by all Judges, Justices, and others. 
 
 EEEATA. 
 Page 7, line 33. For "ultimo'' read "June last" 
 „ 36, „ 7. After "quoted" insert "from." 
 
 „ 55j „ 12. Place the parenthesis beginning witli the word "Reference" after Pa- 
 tent No. 6743, instead of after No. 7002. 
 
 The Italics introduced into the quotations from Mr Bourne's Treatise and others are, 
 in most cases, the author's. 
 
 PRINTED AI THE AYR OBSERVER OPFICE.