Fulton begins work on a submarine (1797). Nautilus launched at Rouen (1800). Havre experiments. Fulton aided by Monge and Laplace. Received in audience by Napoleon Bonaparte. Hopes and disappointments.

The previous chapter shows that not only was the principle of a submarine boat not novel when Fulton began his work on it, but that according to the record a competitor was actually in France urging upon the French Government the adoption of a design that, unlike the fantastic conceptions of Bourne and Drebbel, was capable of being moved by an invisible power and of making an attack beneath the surface. But if Fulton lacked initial originality he achieved practical success in his subsequent labors by greatly improving the plans of his predecessors, as he later did in the case of the steamboat.

At first his work on a design for a submarine was merely incidental and secondary to his more cherished ambition to become a great constructor of canals. It was soon after his arrival in France that the idea of an underwater boat occurred to him, and this several years before mechanical operation of boats obtained the supremacy in his mind over small canals. His first move was apparently on the 24 Frimaire an VI (13 December, 1797) when he wrote to the Directory, “having in view the great importance of lessening the power of the English fleet, that he had a project for the construction of a mechanical Nautilus.” It is interesting to note that this letter was written but six months after his arrival in France, and in the same year that Delpeuch records Bushnell as having laid his own plan before the Directory. It is difficult to repress the thought that the latter’s efforts roused Fulton to action, even if they did not suggest to him the initial thought.

On the 2nd January, 1798, Fulton made definite proposals to the Minister of Marine, among the terms being a request that rank in the French navy be conferred at least on him, if not on all the members of the crews of the submarines, because otherwise he feared the British would treat him as a pirate. On February 12, 1798, Fulton was informed that his proposals had been declined.

Unlike Bushnell, who under similar circumstances went home discouraged and hid himself under an assumed name, Fulton prepared to renew the attack. Waiting until another Minister of Marine had been appointed, he submitted new proposals, under date of 5 Thermidor an VI (23 July 1798), concluding the offer by pointing out that the destruction of the English navy would assure the freedom of the seas and the nation which had the most natural resources—France—would alone hold, and without rival, the balance of power in Europe. The Minister convened a board of technical men to whom Fulton submitted his plans for a submarine that he called the “Nautilus.” This boat had the shape of an imperfect ellipsoid, with an over-all length of 6 m. 48 (21 ft. 3 in.) and extreme beam 1 m. 94 (6 ft. 4 in.). Beneath the ellipsoid there was a hollow iron keel 0 m. 52 (1 ft. 8 in.) in height, running to within 1 m. from the bow. The keel contained a quantity of ballast so that the difference between the weight of the flotation and that of the water displaced by it should be only about 4 to 5 kilograms. The only communication with the interior of the keel lay in the two parts of a suction and force pump which by means of a hand crank would permit the introduction into or removal of water from the metal keel at will. The excess in buoyancy of the Nautilus being small, the introduction of only a little water would make it sink, and conversely, the expulsion of a small quantity would cause it to return to the surface. On the forward and top part of the Nautilus there was a spherical dome pierced with port holes covered by thick glass for observation and a man-hole that served as means of ingress and egress for the crew.

For propulsion, Fulton proposed a screw as Bushnell had already done, a principle that was not to be adopted in general practice until nearly half a century later in spite of its many and great advantages over side wheels. The screw was placed at the stern and directly ahead of the rudder and was operated by a hand crank and gearing turning a shaft passing through a stuffing box. The crank was to be turned by man power only. Plunging was to be secured by pumping water into the keel, while submersion at a given depth, provided the boat was in motion, was to be attempted by means of two inclined planes attached to the sides of the steering rudder. The angle of these planes could be altered from within, thus giving an upward or downward direction to the boat. Motion on the surface he thought to obtain by a fan-shaped sail which, with the supporting mast, could be folded down to the deck and then, preparatory to submersion, covered with envelopes like the wings of a fly. Fulton estimated that he could work the boat with a crew of three men.

The offensive feature of the design consisted first of a vertical spike attached to the top of the observer’s dome. In the spike was an eye through which passed a cord leading through a stuffing box to a winding spool in the forward end of the boat. The second part was a torpedo attached to the other end of the cord. In action the Nautilus would be placed directly beneath the hull of an enemy vessel, the spike being in contact with the bottom planking. As one end of the spike projected into the observer’s dome, a blow on that end would drive the upper end, which was sharp and detachable, into the ship’s timbers. Then the Nautilus was to move forward leaving the spike sticking in the ship. As she moved forward, the torpedo would trail behind, but as the cord passed through the eye in the spike, the torpedo would soon be brought into contact with the hull, when the shock would fire the discharge. In the meanwhile, enough cord would have been paid out to permit the Nautilus to have attained a safe distance.

The Commission to whom the design was submitted found in its favor, except as to the sail arrangement, which they pointed out had the larger part of its area too far aloft, and that consequently the boat would lack stability under a strong wind. A translation of the Commission’s conclusion is as follows:

The Minister of the Marine and Colonies is therefore requested to give to Citizen Fulton the authorization and necessary means to construct the machine of which he has submitted a model. There is no doubt that with the same wisdom that has been put into its conception, and the refinement and solidity of the various mechanisms comprising the whole, that he who has supervised the execution of this interesting model will be able to construct the full sized machine in a manner equally ingenious and that the new ideas that he will have obtained from study and experience will but lead to its perfecting.

Though the design of the Nautilus fell far short of that of a modern submarine, nevertheless, it was so far ahead of anything previously accomplished or suggested that it entitles Fulton to be credited with being the first to propose a type of vessel capable of plunging and being navigated beneath the surface of the water. That his plans gave promise of this accomplishment was recognized by the examining commission in their report, a report that gave Fulton great encouragement for further action. Delpeuch in his book on submarines states that in consequence of this favorable official approval:

Fulton submitted to the Minister on the 27 Vendemiaire an VI (October 17, 1798) a new project of the Company which was similar to those previously proposed except in the following articles:

1. That the Government should pay immediately on the receipt of news of the destruction of an English ship of the line, 500,000 francs, with which sum he engaged to build a squadron of 10 Nautilus to be used against the English fleets.

2. That the Government was to pay him or his assigns the sum of 100 francs for each pound of calibre of the guns of English ships destroyed or put out of action by the Nautilus during the war, that is to say, for a 5 pounder gun 500 francs, or for a 10 pounder, 1000 francs.

In spite of the favorable report by the investigating Commission and of the financial terms offered by Fulton, which were certainly liberal as they were entirely contingent on success, Fulton’s proposals were again rejected.

He then went to Holland, but obtained no more encouragement from the Dutch Government than from the French. Hearing that Bonaparte had been named First Consul, he hurriedly returned to Paris. On the 13 Vendemiaire, an XI (October 6, 1800), he wrote to the Minister of Marine again proposing the consideration of the Nautilus. Attached to this letter was a memorial entitled, “Observations sur les Effets Moreaux du Nautile.” This memorial was written in French, and is preserved in the Archives Nationales and is quoted at length by E. L. Pesce in “Navigation Sous-Marine.” The plaint as to delay with which he began he repeated in varying form until finally in 1806, he abandoned all European negotiations and returned to America. The portion of the memorial that gives his political reasoning is at the present time the most interesting, especially as the German Admiralty held almost precisely the same views with respect to the effect that submarines would have on the British Empire during the recent war. Fulton’s severe restrictions on the British navy and his lauding of the submarine as an instrument for true “liberty and peace” sound much like communiquÉs emanating from Berlin during 1914–1918. As we will see, Fulton recognized later that his description of the criminal character of the British was at least inaccurate when in very similar language he pointed out how it could and should destroy the naval power of France.

The Memorial reads in part as follows:^[2]

Citizen Minister

It is now twenty months since I presented for the first time the plan for my Nautilus to ex-Director La Reveillere Lepaux. He presented it to the Directory who ordered that it be forwarded to Minister of Marine PlÉville, and finally it was turned down after five months of discussion.

Taken up again under the administration of Citizen Bruix, it had the same fate after about four months of waiting. A reception so little favorable on the part of the first magistrates of France, whose duty it is to encourage discoveries tending to spread liberty and to establish harmony among nations, proves to me that it was considered with a false idea of the physical as well as the moral effects of this machine.

Let us see first what would be for France the immediate effects of the Nautilus. The loss of the first English ship destroyed by extraordinary means would throw the English Government into utter embarrassment. It would realize that its whole navy could be destroyed by the same means, and by the same means it would be possible to blockade the Thames and to cut off the whole commerce of London. Under such circumstances what would the consternation be in England? How would Pitt then be able to support the allied powers? The result would be that deprived of Pitt’s guineas, the coalition would vanish and France thus delivered from its numerous enemies would be able to work without obstacle for the strengthening of its liberty and for peace.

After having thus shown the happy effects that would follow immediately a success by the Nautilus, I pass to the objections, quite as commonplace as they are lacking in philosophy, that have been raised against this machine. I will show below how the Nautilus can further real liberty and establish harmony among peoples.

The first objection is that if France should make use of the Nautilus against England, England would be equally able to make use of it against France. But it does not seem to me any way likely that the English would make use of it against France because before they could become acquainted with the mechanism, France would be able to blockade the Thames and cut off commerce from London and thus reduce the cabinet of St. James to terms of the most complete submission.

It is the naval force of England that is the source of all the incalculable horrors that are committed daily. It is the English navy which supports the English Government, and it is that Government which by its intrigues has been the cause of two-thirds of the crimes that have marked the course of the revolution.

If by means of the Nautilus one could succeed in destroying the English navy, it would be possible with a fleet of Nautilus to blockade the Thames to the end that England would become a republic. Soon Ireland would throw off the yoke and the English monarchy would be wiped out. A rich and industrious nation would then increase the number of republics of Europe and this would be a long step toward liberty and universal peace.

If England should adopt a republican government, I do not doubt that France and she would bury in oblivion the old hates and that fatal rivalry fomented by the stupid aristocracy, and the two republics would treat each other as sisters and would give to their respective commerce complete freedom, and in this case neither one nor the other would have need of a military marine. Then friendship in spite of common opinion would unite these two great peoples and humanity would breathe freely.

Small circumstances often produce changes in the affairs of men. The mariners’ compass has given to commerce an extension without limits and has multiplied its knowledge. The invention of gunpowder has changed the whole art of war without diminishing its horrors. I hope that the Nautilus will not only destroy military marines, but in breaking these destructive instruments in the hands of the aristocracy will serve the cause of liberty and peace.

I have laid before you in a clear and impartial manner a part of its happy effects and I am far from assuming any merit of having imagined the first thought. The idea could have come to any other engineer seeking with the same ardor that I have to make the cause of humanity triumph.

At last success seemed to be in sight. Official lethargy and resistance were overcome and permission was given Fulton to build a Nautilus at Rouen, which he at once commenced doing in the boat yard of the firm of Perrier. From his model he made one important change, the addition of a deck about 6 feet wide and 20 feet long, enabling the crew to come out of the hull when not submerged.

On July 24, 1800, the Nautilus was launched, and on July 29, she made her first plunge in 25 feet of water. The first submersion lasted 5 minutes, and the second, 17 minutes, the personnel consisting of Fulton and two companions. The swift river current interfered with the manipulation of the boat to such an extent that Fulton decided to make further tests in still, open water at Havre.

Under date of 19th November, 1800, he wrote a long letter to Messrs. Monge and Laplace giving an account of results obtained. These gentlemen appear to have been his loyal and enthusiastic friends through all his efforts. When others failed, or his propositions were refused by the authorities, they continued to support him, and were always ready to undertake to obtain a new hearing.

Gaspard Monge, born 1746, died 1818, was a well-known mathematician, particularly celebrated in the field of descriptive geometry. He was an ardent revolutionist, serving as Minister of Marine during 1792–3. When Bonaparte came into power, Monge espoused his cause and accompanied him to Italy.

Pierre Simon Laplace, afterward Marquis de Laplace, was even more illustrious, being a mathematician and astronomer of the highest distinction. His “MÉcanique CÉleste” whose exposition of the nebular hypothesis gives it permanent rank among the masterpieces of scientific reasoning, secured for its author the proud position of President of the French Academy. Like Monge he was a republican, and allied himself to Bonaparte immediately on the latter becoming First Consul, although in 1814, he voted for Napoleon’s dethronement. At the time Fulton could have found no better supporters than these two men of science, especially as both enjoyed the personal friendship of Bonaparte.

From the above mentioned letter it appears that while at Havre he carried the same crew as at Rouen, he now had a lighted candle. On his early experiment he plunged in darkness fearful that a light might seriously vitiate the air. He now remained submerged in one test six hours without inconvenience, during which time he obtained some air through a tube with the open end supported by a surface float that could not be seen at a distance of 200 fathoms. While trying relative speeds produced by two men rowing as against two men working the screw, the former made the boat cover 60 fathoms in 7 minutes, while the latter propelled it the same distance in 4 minutes. He reported that the Archimedes screw and the horizontal rudder for depth control did not satisfy him in point of efficiency. The Bushnell screw was literally a full screw with several turns as proposed by Archimedes twenty centuries earlier to raise water. When Fulton found that a full screw was not efficient, he proposed to replace it with separate blades set at an angle similar to the sails of a windmill. To this arrangement he gave the name of “Flier.” The error of trying to use a full screw in propeller design persisted for more than forty years after Fulton had appreciated the lack of efficiency. Other engineers for nearly two generations ignored Fulton’s experience and decision.

He then returned to Paris and elated by the success of his experiments, which certainly justified elation, he again drew up new proposals in which he offered to accept whatever remuneration the government would give, so great was his confidence. These proposals his friend Monge laid before the First Consul with whom Monge was on terms of intimacy and whose interest Fulton had so long desired to obtain. The First Consul forwarded Fulton’s letter to the Minister of Marine on 27 November, 1800, with the following marginal note:

Je prie le Ministre de la Marine de me faire connaÎtre ce qu’il sait sur les projets du capitaine Fulton.

A few days later Monge and Laplace presented Fulton to Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul, urging the latter to make an allowance of 60,000 francs for further experiments.

What a dramatic moment when the two men of science presented the young American to the still younger Frenchman! A moment heavy with destiny, because the fates of nations were trembling in the balance, awaiting the decision. But no one of the four understood the importance of the conference, not even he who had most at stake. The central figure was the young Corsican artillery officer whose guns had swept the remnants of the French Revolution from the streets of Paris only five years before, then a man almost unknown, but now First Consul and Dictator of France. The successes of Lodi, the Pyramids and Marengo were still fresh in his mind and were beckoning him on to other conquests. Almost within his grasp was the crown of empire, plans to seize which he was even then maturing. In his eyes there stretched before him a path through conquest and glory,—but leading where? As he then saw the path in his imagination it led to absolute world domination with the great and little powers of Europe vassals of France.

The beginning of the path as he saw it with all its magnificence he had already found. It lay over the glittering heights of Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland and Wagram. Across it there was only one obstacle to prevent his reaching the culmination of his ambition, and that obstacle was England’s navy. Unless that could be removed, he would be forced to turn from the path over the heights and pass down into the valley of Borodino, Leipzig and Waterloo to the island prison of St. Helena. In boundless confidence in his destiny and in his own power to control it, he saw not the obstacle; or if he did, there was no doubt in his mind that he himself could remove it. Already he was all powerful on land, and he dreamed of being all powerful on sea.

It is not difficult to picture the dictator, supreme in his arrogance, facing the American, who was actually offering him the only chance there was to surmount the obstacle. Bonaparte had already learned who he was, a foreigner with few friends and no money, an unsuccessful artist in England, and an engineer in France without practise, a dreamer and inventor. Hardly the type of man to appeal to one who had already resolved to be an Emperor.

With what means did this inventor propose to attack those great masses of oak with their towering sides, with row on row of guns and great spreads of canvas? A tiny boat propelled by two men by hand, that would meet the enemy, not as Bonaparte would meet him by an attack in force, but by stealth, unseen and beneath the surface of the sea! As Bonaparte looked at his visitor he could not see the valley of Waterloo and St. Helena. Nor could he possibly imagine that long before that fateful June day of 1815, when the silence of the guns on the slope of Mt. St. Jean would mark the end of his career, the man who had been rash enough to seek the audience would have given to the world a vessel whose motive power would defy that of wind and that he would have designed a ship of war more powerful than any ship that sailed under the command of Nelson.

The tiny boat that was offered him was far from being a perfected machine, but even as it was it presented sufficient potentiality to strike terror to England’s navy as Fulton had prophesied in his Memorial. If Livingston with such limited means as he possessed could develop Fulton’s ideas into practical reality, how much sooner could the same result have been attained through the resources of a great government?

Fulton offered to Bonaparte world dominion.

Bonaparte listened and took the offer under consideration.

While waiting Bonaparte’s answer and apparently while Admiral DecrÈs, Minister of Marine, still had the matter under investigation in accordance with Bonaparte’s instructions, Fulton wrote the Minister under date of 3rd December, 1800, saying among other things:^[3]

You will permit me to observe that although I have the highest respect for you and the other members of the Government, and although I retain the most ardent desire to see the English Government beaten, nevertheless the cold and discouraging manner with which all my exertions have been treated during the past three years will compel me to abandon the enterprise in France if I am not received in a more friendly and liberal manner.

It is interesting to note that this is the only letter in French that has been found in the government archives written wholly in the handwriting of Fulton himself. The other letters in the possession of the French Government that are written in French were written by his secretary and signed by him.

Fulton’s wise and diplomatic friends, Barlow, Monge and Laplace, must have been absent when the above tactless lines were penned. That they were the actual handwork of Fulton himself would seem to indicate that he was actuated by a momentary burst of impatience, and that in his haste to give vent to his feelings, he did not wait for his secretary to write the letter in French. What was in consequence almost inevitable, happened. Admiral DecrÈs, as Minister of Marine, reported adversely on Fulton’s plans. Fulton’s letter, of course, had not served to overcome the settled objection of a sailor to mechanical innovation.