Fulton’s first efforts for mechanical navigation. Some early submarines: Bourne, Van Drebbel, Mercenne, de Son, Wilkins, Bushnell.

While Fulton was taking out patents for his little canals—patents that never had either practical or profitable application—and endeavoring to earn a livelihood through the introduction of some of his methods of canal construction, there was germinating in his mind the great principle of mechanical propulsion on water that was eventually to win for him both fame and a competence.

The seeds had found lodgment some years previously. Dickenson shows that in 1793, or about the time when he retired from his art career, Fulton wrote a letter to the Earl of Stanhope stating that he had a project for moving boats by steam. This was a subject in which Stanhope took particular interest, being an inventor and a great student of applied science, and especially as he at that same time was working on a design of his own for a steamboat. Lord Stanhope requested Fulton to present his plan in detail. The original letter and accompanying sketches, dated November 4th, 1793, are still in the possession of the Stanhope family.

The idea of propelling boats by steam was not new. Jonathan Hulls had published a pamphlet in 1737 entitled, “A Description and Draught of a New Invented Machine for Carrying Vessels Out of or Into Any Harbour, Port or River, Against Wind or Tide or in a Calm.” This pamphlet is of great rarity, and the plate it contains, being the first pictorial representation of a boat propelled by the force of steam, merits reproduction. But in Fulton’s own country practical results had already been achieved. James Rumsey had actually moved a vessel by steam on the Potomac in 1785–88, and in 1788 and 1790 took out British patents. In February, 1793, Rumsey ran a steamboat on the Thames. Equally important was the work of John Fitch, who also constructed a boat operated by a steam engine and actually conveyed passengers on a regular schedule on the Delaware River in 1790. Fitch, like his rival inventor Rumsey, went to Europe further to develop his ideas and, in 1791, took out a French patent. All these experiments were, of course, known to Fulton and it is not impossible that they gave him his first suggestion.

For the moment we are not interested in the development of steam navigation. However fascinating the story of how Fulton gradually developed a better engine than his predecessors and contemporary experimenters had succeeded in doing, and one that was completely practical, it is not to be repeated here. Our story is concerned with his work on submarines, but before leaving the subject of steamboats, it is convenient to recall that the fortuitous appointment of Robert R. Livingston (1746–1813), the famous Chancellor of the State of New York, as American Minister to France in 1801 brought to Fulton his ultimate means of success through the partnership that the two men established. Chancellor Livingston, like Fulton’s other friend, Lord Stanhope, was interested in philosophical subjects and had turned his attention to the possibility of steam navigation as early as 1798. Therefore, his arrival in France in 1801, when Fulton was struggling with the mechanical problems, was most opportune for Fulton and the art of mechanical propulsion. Though Fulton even then had almost reached the solution of the engineering difficulties, he was without the necessary funds to put his ideas in concrete form. These funds Livingston supplied, and, what to a man of Fulton’s temperament was almost as valuable, personal encouragement and guidance. It is not too much to assert that the early realization of the application of steam to navigation was due to Livingston’s acceptance of the post of Minister to France, thus bringing the two men together.

While Fulton was studying and experimenting with mechanical propulsion of boats on the surface of the water, it was but natural that he should take under consideration the possibility of constructing a boat that could be sunk and raised at will and move under water. This basal principle was far from being novel. From the earliest times man has not been content to remain only a land animal. As far back as records go, he has had the ambition to emulate the birds, and certainly during the Roman period he began to think of sharing with fishes the power to explore the depths of the sea.

Perhaps William Bourne was the first writer on submarine vessel design. In his little quarto volume published in 1573, and entitled, “Inuentions or Deuises very necessary for all Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of Men, as well by Sea as by Land,” he describes as the “18 Deuise,” “a Ship or a Boate that may goe vnder the water vnto the bottome, and so to come vp againe at your pleasure.” Recognizing that the variation in displacement of a vessel whose weight remains constant adds to or detracts from its buoyancy, he suggested a vessel with sides that could be distended or contracted at will by screws, thus permitting her to sink and rise. These distendable sides, he thought, might be made of leather. For ventilation when submerged, he would have a hollow mast, taking care that the depth of water in which the boat should plunge would never exceed the height of the mast. He did not propose any means of propulsion.

Van Drebbel, a Dutch engineer, born in Holland in 1572, made actual application of Bourne’s ideas, and constructed a submersible boat in 1624. He tested it in 15 feet of water in the Thames at London, during one of which tests it is reported that he had King James I. as a passenger. Apparently he attempted propulsion by means of oars that passed through the boat’s sides, the apertures being covered by leather pockets attached to oars and boat. What plan he had for keeping the boat’s air respirable when submerged is not clear, though there are some fantastic but not authenticated claims that he used a chemical compound for refreshing it. If he really plunged, which is by no means certain, it was probably for only a few minutes at a time.

In 1634, the same year in which Van Drebbel died in London, there was published a book entitled, “Hydraulica Pneumatica,” containing a chapter “De nauibus sub aqua natantibus.” This interesting work was written by a noted French theologian and philosopher, Marin Mercenne (1588–1648), a member of the order of Minimes Fathers. As was frequently done at that period in the case of technical treatises, Father Mersenne wrote his book in Latin, and gave his name the latinized form of Mercennus. He describes Drebbel’s boat, but credits Bourne with having first proposed the principles that Drebbel used, and recalled that Bourne had suggested the possibility of getting fresh air through tubes reaching to the surface. Mercenne’s contribution to the art was his stated belief that the compass would be equally efficient beneath as well as on the surface.

In 1653, a French engineer, de Son, constructed in Holland a curious boat, 72 feet long, propelled by a hand-driven wheel. This boat was hardly a submarine as it was not expected to submerge completely. It is interesting as the first application of a mechanical motive force other than oars and the first suggestion of a paddle wheel. It, therefore, marked a great step forward in matters of design. A translation of de Son’s modest description of this boat as shown on the bottom of the design is as follows:

Accurate Representation of the New Wonderful Ship Made at Rotterdam.

As Mons. Duson has been greatly disappointed at the presentment of his ship, which was in all ways greatly misrepresented, both as regards the rudder, the paddle wheel, and the whole disposition of the vessel when published at Amsterdam, we think it useful to give an exact representation of the ship (as above depicted) and the reader will at once see the difference. The Inventor will undertake to destroy with the ship in one day a fleet of a hundred vessels. No fire, no cannon ball or rocket, no storm or waves can hinder him unless God the Lord should intend to do so. Even if the ships which lie in the harbors consider themselves safe, he will run them to the bottom and turn around just as easily as a bird in the sky so that no one can hurt him, and should his ship be taken by treason, for otherwise it is quite impossible, it could not be governed by any one else but him. He will be able to make in one hour at least ten miles, and should he run on a bank his vessel will swim as light on the water as a light sloop would do. He believes he will be able to go with this vessel in ten weeks to and from the East Indies, and in one day to and from France, so that it may be called the greatest wonder of the world.

The next contributor was an Englishman, John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester. Wilkins was an exceedingly interesting character and deserves to be remembered not only for what he did to advance the art of submarine design, but for what he was and what he accomplished in many ways. His life is set forth in considerable detail in the preface of the fifth edition of his principal scientific production, “Mathematical Magick: or the Wonders that may be perform’d by Mechanical Geometry,” this particular edition being published posthumously in 1707.

From this sketch it appears that he was born in 1614. It is stated that at school his proficiency was such that he entered New Inn, Oxford, when 13 years old. After graduation, not at New Inn but at Magdalen Hall, he took orders and served as Chaplain, first to Lord Say and then to Charles, Count Palatine of the Rhine. On the outbreak of the English civil war, he joined the parliamentary party. In 1648, he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and in 1656, married the sister of Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector. Soon after he was appointed head of Trinity College, Cambridge. Charles II, on his restoration to power, removed Dr. Wilkins from his position at Cambridge, though subsequently gave him preferment, first, by making him Dean of Ripon, and soon after, Bishop of Chester. Apparently Wilkins had made it clear to the royalist party that he could serve quite as well under their standard as under that of his late brother-in-law.

In the short interim while out of royal favor he resided in London, where he was elected to the Royal Society and a member of its Council. It will thus be seen that Wilkins was no narrow-minded person. He could adapt himself to whatever political party was in power, and apparently he could do equally well as an educator, theologian and man of science. At any rate, of his varied abilities, his excellence in these three was recognized by his contemporaries who conferred on him the highest honors in each of the three fields. He did not however restrict himself to those labors, but was also an author of no small productivity. Among his writings are :

1. “The Discovery of a New World; or, a Discourse tending to prove that (’tis probable) there may be another Habitable World in the Moon.” 1638.

2. “Discourse concerning the Possibility of a Passage to the World in the Moon.” 1638.

3. “Discourse concerning a New Planet; tending to prove, that (’tis probable) our Earth is one of the Planets.” 1640.

4. “Mercury; the Secret Messenger: Shewing how a Man may with Privacy and Speed communicate his thouhts to his friend at any Distance.” 1641.

5. “Mathematical Magick; or, The Wonders that may be perform’d by Mechanical Geometry.” 1648.

6. “An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language” including, “An Alphabetical Dictionary.” 1668.

7. Several works on theological subjects.

The above books seem to have won popular approval because they appear in several editions. Bishop Wilkins died in 1672 after a life full of strenuosity, variety and action.

It is with his scientific publication standing fifth in the above list that we are specially interested. This little book, which treats of a great number of mechanical devices and principles such as wheels, pulleys, screws, engines of war, clocks and other similar machines, contains two chapters, one entitled, “Concerning the Art of Flying. The several ways whereby this hath been, or may be attempted”; and the other, “Concerning the Possibility of framing an Ark for Submarine Navigation. The Difficulties and Conveniences of such a Contrivance.” The latter chapter is the one that bears on our present discussion.

Although Wilkins gives credit to Mercennus, who as he puts it, “doth so largely and pleasantly descant upon the making of a ship wherein men may safely swim under the Water,” nevertheless he follows the line of thought of Bourne without giving him credit. He closely imitated Bourne’s scheme of leather attachments. He suggested leather bags open at both ends, one end being without and the other within the ship, the ends capable of being closed like those of a purse. These bags he would use as means of ingress and egress for men and materials. Motion he proposed to obtain by means of oars whose blades would be collapsible on the back stroke, the oars projecting through the ship’s sides, the holes being closed with leather attached to the oars and vessel. Wilkins had in mind the use of such a vessel in attack against a “Navy of Enemies, who by this means may be undermined in the water and blown up.”

The submersible power Wilkins would obtain by having his boat or “Ark” ballasted so as to be of “equal weight with the like magnitude of water,” that is, to be at the critical point between floating and sinking, obviously one of greatest danger. He fancied that he could then obtain vertical motion or plunging by attaching a great weight to the bottom of the ship, to be computed, of course, as part of the ballast. If the weight were lowered by means of a cord, so would the boat ascend, and if the weight were raised, it would descend. The method of supplying air to the submerged crew was equally amusing. He depended upon the ability of men to live in a polluted atmosphere by continued practice, or if that were found impossible, the air might be purified by what he calls “refrigeration,” that is, by heating it by lamps and allowing it to cool on coming in contact with the sides of the vessel, the process being assisted by bellows. It is hoped that the theology of the undoubtedly worthy bishop was sounder than his science, and that it emulated rather the particularly high scale of wisdom of his political adaptability. But no matter how ridiculous his details, he, nevertheless, left the main idea more firmly implanted in men’s minds.

The above references are not a complete rÉsumÉ of the early development of the underlying principles of the art of submarine navigation. They are nothing more than a brief recital of the salient and outstanding features that mark the path of progress like milestones along a road.

With these and other similar impracticable conceptions, the art of submarine construction was found by an American, David Bushnell, born at Saybrook, Connecticut, in 1742, and graduated from Yale in 1775. In the war with Great Britain, which broke out shortly after his graduation, Bushnell conceived the idea of attacking the enemy’s ships under water and there is no doubt that he constructed a boat embodying among other novel devices a screw propeller. His boat, a small affair carrying but a single operator, was scarcely a submarine as it was not intended to plunge, but to float just “awash” or almost submerged. Like Rumsey and Fitch, Bushnell went abroad and, as Fulton did later, opened negotiations with the French Government. Delpeuch says, “Then (1797) there appeared an engineer who offered to the Directory a means quite as terrible as it was invisible to force the British to lift their blockade, and not only did this man undertake to drive the enemy from our shores, but he even proposed to carry the war to the shores and ports of Great Britain, heretofore inviolable.”

Fulton undoubtedly became acquainted with Bushnell during the time they were both in France engaged in similar pursuits. But the failure to accomplish results or to get his ideas adopted by others disappointed Bushnell so keenly that he returned to his native country, went to Georgia, adopted the name of Bush, and began the practice of medicine. He died in 1826, at the age of 84, when his will disclosed his identity.