Attack on fleet at Boulogne. Torpedoing of Dorothea (1805). Effect of Trafalgar on Fulton’s work. Copies of “Drawings and Descriptions.” Intent of government not to proceed with the submarine. Correspondence with Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. Pitt (1804). Commission of investigation appointed. Decision adverse to a submarine. Nevertheless Pitt signs contract.

Two years had passed since the execution of the contract, during which time Fulton remained actively at work for the Government. He made an attack on the French fleet at Boulogne by means of his bombs but without success. He explained the cause, and probably correctly, but nevertheless he was charged with failure. Then he repeated the experiment with altered details in the mechanism and blew up a brig called the “Dorothea” on October 15, 1805, in the presence of Pitt and other officials. Success was again in sight, but only to vanish as quickly as it appeared.

Six days after the destruction of the “Dorothea” came the great event that made secure England’s control of the sea. On October 21st, Nelson destroyed the combined French and Spanish fleets in the decisive battle of Trafalgar. After that England had no need of submarines, torpedoes or Fulton. Her ships of oak were absolutely supreme, and she saw the force of Lord St. Vincent’s criticism.

The parallel between 1805 and 1922 is close. Then as now, and for similar reasons, England was, and is, opposed to the use of submarines in warfare.

Mention was made above that the “Descriptions” he left in England had been copied. Fulton did this with nearly all his important papers, and the copies were in manuscript, not letter press tissues. In this case the copy is in the possession of Edward C. Cammann, Esq., a great grandson, and bears several dates. To the main recital are added 41 pages of the same size paper, of which 12 pages contain material entitled “London August the 16th, 1806. Notes on observations of the Arbitrators, Particularly of Capt. Hamilton and Sir Charles Blagden in answer to objections stated by them.” The balance are taken up by letters to Lord Grenville dated September the 3rd, and “Further considerations on the instantaneous and clockwork bombs.”

Before leaving England he also copied the drawings. These copies are on thin paper and are obviously tracings of the original “Drawings” that are on bristol board. In the course of time the tracings have become separated from the manuscript copy and are now the property of the New Jersey Historical Society at Newark, N. J. The latter plates are signed and dated 1806, whereas the originals bear date 1804. In the eleventh clause of the contract Fulton stated that he had “deposited the drawing and plans of his submarine scheme of attack in the hands of a confidential friend with the view to their being delivered to the American Government in case of his death.” As it is unlikely that Fulton made two sets of carefully prepared drawings in 1804, the evidence is presumptive that the plans above referred to are the ones that have recently been found in England and that form the basis of this book. The American Consul at the time, especially as he was a man of character and responsibility, would be the natural depositary for papers of semi-official character. Of the original drawings, numbers 1, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are unfortunately missing. Through the courtesy of the Historical Society their copies have been used to make good the deficiency.

By the spring of 1806, Fulton had no misapprehensions as to the intent of the British Government. It was quite clear to him, as his letters show, that the authorities had decided not to use his devices for either submarine or torpedoes. It is also likely that he had received an intimation that his salary would be discontinued. Professional recognition was to be denied him, and unless he was also willing to forego hope for substantial pecuniary recompense he must have recourse to the arbitration clause of his contract.

Whether the necessity for such action came as a surprise to Fulton, one thing is clear from his letters. In spite of a liberal contract, carrying a generous salary and full allowance for his disbursements, Fulton had not been happy from the very first. He was impatient at every delay and intolerant of every suggestion. He would not, or could not, understand that the progress of government affairs is always slow, and that no government official, no matter how exalted his rank, could make decision promptly without reference to his professional advisors. The similar errors in judgment that he committed in France he repeated in England.

His letters, of which he wrote many, are from the very first couched in terms that it must be confessed are impatient, dictatorial and fault-finding, and never in that diplomatic and conciliatory form that has always been considered proper when addressing high government officials. This is particularly true when one remembers that he was corresponding with men holding office under George III, a period when those directing government did not hesitate to arrogate to themselves full autocratic powers and to regard all who were not in their own class as far removed inferiors. From others than their associates they were not inclined to accept dictation or brook carping criticism. That the several ministers with whom Fulton dealt tolerated the tone of his communications and overlooked his demands and complaints, is most striking testimony of the high regard in which they held his devices. Just so long as France was in a position to threaten their power on the ocean they intended to keep and hold Fulton safe.

Although on May 23rd he had submitted his proposals to “Mr. Hammond,” nevertheless immediately afterward, and before his proposals could be examined, he decided to go over Lord Hawkesbury’s head and seek a conference direct with the prime minister. On June 6th, he wrote the following letter in which it will be noticed he explained the connection between his right and assumed names:

Robert Fulton known by the name of Francis Author of Submarine Navigation to Mr. Pitt.

Sir What I have to say on this subject and its prompt effects I hope you will find interesting, it possibly may be of the utmost importance in Seconding your Views if Soon adopted; it is at least of some moment that you feel a conviction what I propose to demonstrate are facts and that your mind trace over the political consequences I beg 20 minuets conversation with you as soon as possible.

Before Pitt had reasonable opportunity to arrange for an interview, or Lord Hawkesbury to name a commission of investigation, Fulton wrote “Mr. Hammond” a tart letter of complaint just one month after he had arrived in London:

The first day I had the pleasure of Seeing you I promised you candor, and Should time make me more known to your government they will find frankness one of the leading lines of my character, Now I candidly declare that having been here 5 weeks in some degree like a prisoner, and at present as much in the dark as on the day of my arrival such a state of Suspence begins to grow extremely unpleasant

The flattering and I believe candid promises of the late ministry induced me to come to this country and as yet I do not repent it but I beg to be informed if the present ministry mean to act up to the spirit of Lord Hawkesburies letter to me or what do they desire of me?

On my part I came here to acquire wealth by communicating a new System to government which I do not hesitate to Say is to them more than one thousand times the value of any sum I may receive, I have pointed out the most Simple and honorable mode of determining whether this ascertion is fact, by means of a committee of scientific men, and now I beg to know will government agree to such decision and when Shall the discussion commence? or do they wish to decline all research into this business you will have the goodness to give me their ultimatum when I shall have the honor to see you on tuesday

As a matter of fact, in spite of Fulton’s impatience the government acted with commendable, if not extraordinary, celerity. A commission was named and it reported before June 27th, because on that date Fulton addressed to “Mr. Hammond” a review of their findings. The commission was composed of Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Academy, the Hon. H. Cavendish, a well-known chemist, Sir Home Popham, Major Congreve, an inventor of projectiles, and Mr. John Rennie, one of England’s leading engineers. Dickenson thinks that possibly the first two were suggested by Fulton. The subjoined letter to “Mr. Hammond” seems to contradict this, because in it he complains that they “passed judgment” (adversely) “without even desiring to have the details of operation.” Had two of the five members been representing Fulton it is almost certain that they would have insisted on his being invited to be present to explain his device. As it was, all they had were certain proposals made by a “Mr. Francis.”

I have examined the 5 Articles of the commission they seem to admit the possibility of making a Submarine Vessel but they conceive it impossible to use it to Advantage, hence recommend that it Should not be adopted,

It possibly may be good policy in government not to adopt the whole of my system, it merits however their serious consideration whether they cannot draw great advantage from using part of it without risque to themselves, But that the whole of it is practicable and even in general cases easy executed can be proved, hence I am somewhat surprised that 5 Gentlemen of science Should pass Judgement on a work which rises out of the progress of improving Arts, without even desiring to have the details of Combination or operation, without having evidence of what has been done; and Judging from thence what maybe done, thereby leaving government as much uninformed of the truth and probable consequences of Submarine navigation as though I had never arrived; this is not the interest of Government your interest is to know the whole truth that you may see, clearly what maybe hoped or calculated upon from this discovery, I shall be happy to have an interview with Mr. Congreve, Mr. Cavendish and Sir home popham, but I can say little more to those gentlemen than endavour to convince them that the true Interest of Government, is to go into a thorough examination in order to arrive at truth; which examination I will put on the most liberal and honorable terms, you will have the goodness to desire a meeting as soon as possible

The suggestion to have a conference with Major Congreve, Mr. Cavendish and Sir Home Popham was referred to Mr. Pitt and was objected to by him, as is shown by a memorandum among Fulton’s papers:

Saw Mr. Hammond this morning at 1 who informed me Mr. Pitt wished me to see the whole of the commission least it should offend Sir Joseph Banks & Mr. Rennie, Agreed

If Fulton was impatient he was also indefatigable. However much one must condemn his lack of tact, one cannot help admiring his persistence. He wrote not only to “Mr. Hammond,” but also to Sir Home Popham. In spite of the fault-finding tone of Fulton’s letters, he and Sir Home Popham apparently remained friendly to the very end. As will have been noticed, it was the latter who witnessed the contract and perhaps was instrumental in arranging for its execution. When Fulton found that the commission would not come together again, he wrote to Sir Home a long letter under date of June the 30th. The letter is too long to quote fully but the following extracts will show its general nature:

Were the Gentlemen who reported on my proposals to meet again I Should have addressed them as a commission. As that may not be the case I shall be happy to have some conversation with you on the subject of submarine navigation........................

If Gentlemen were Actuated by what the conceived Patriotism in rejecting every investigation of this Subject in order to keep it in oblivion as much as possible I conceive the measure not effectual, what has been proved And is Supported with Energy, cannot be consealed but by the consent of the Author; but perhaps this was not the motive, for deciding without evidence........................

Now Sir permit me to make some observations on the real patriotism connected with this business.

If what I Say of submarine navigation and attack be true, if fleets can be destroyed by this means without any human foresight preventing it; is it not important that Government should Know how and by what means, if on investigation you should found it all false and visionary would not the infirmation be pleasing to government and cost nothing? If true is not the wise policy to take amicable measures to prevent it doing any injury to this country. Suppose the decision of the commitee should necessitate me to seek fortune else where by disclosing my system it might fineally appear that such a decision was the most unpatriotic act a citizen could commit, Sir I give you my honor I have come here with the most friendly disposition towards the government. And I have not one sinister feeling the interest of this nation is not to adopt the submarine vessel they government aught to know what it is and its probable consequences........................

When he speaks of the most friendly disposition towards the government, it is interesting and perhaps amusing to recall that in 1798 he wrote to Barras, then the guiding spirit of the Directorate, urging the destruction of British ships of war, saying: “Le commerce Énorme de l’Angleterre, ainsi que son Gouvernement monstreux, dÉpend de sa marine militaire.” Times had changed!

To “Mr. Hammond” he wrote begging the latter to persuade “Mr. Pitt to name one person in whome he has full confidence, to treat or arrange with me.”

Fulton perhaps felt that the action of the commission was not intended to be final and therefore it was for him to suggest other ways for passing on his devices. If so, he was justified by the fact that in spite of the adverse report of the commission of which Mr. Pitt must have been informed, the latter accorded Fulton an interview on July 20th at which Sir Home Popham, who had just voted against the submarine, was present. An account of this interview Fulton committed to paper.

Breakfasted with Mr. Pitt at his country house Near Putny common, Sir Home Popham only present Lord Melville expected but did not arrive, after my being Introduced Mr. Pitt demanded of Sir Home if he and Mr. Francis had agree’d on terms Sir Home replied in the affirmative and told Mr. Pitt his perusal and Signature were only wanting. He then read and Signed the papers, delivering them to Sir Home, with orders to call on Lord Melville for his signature.

At Breakfast some general principles of Submarine navigation and mode of attack explained, which appeared to give pleasure; and make a Strong impression. When Sir Home Popham went into an ajoining Room, Mr. Pitt, remarked that this is an extreordinary invention which seemed to go to the distruction of all fleets; I replied that It was invented With that View, And as I had no design to desceive him or the government I did not hesitate to give it as my opinion that this invention would lead to the total annihilation of the existing System of Marine war,

But in its present state of perfectionment Said Mr. Pitt those who command the seas will be benefited by it while the minor maritime powers can draw no advantag from what is Now known, Answer, true unless plunging or submarine Vessels were introduced into practice; that it probably would be some years before any nation could bring to perfection such a Vessel, that it is not the interest of the British government to use such Vessels that consequently there was not at present much danger to be apprehended from that part of my System; at all events there would be, time to fit future politics to future circumstances, if at present the french preperations can be destroyed by Submarine attack, it will convince Bonapart and the whole world that frenchmen never can make a descent on England for any future fleet prepared by them may be burnt in like manner manner—

Little more passed it was agree’d to make the Submarine attack on Boulogne as soon as the engines could be prepared, returned to town with an appointment to meet at the same place on the following Week,

From the above it will be seen that Fulton and Sir Home had come to an agreement between June 30, the date of Fulton’s letter, and July 20.

While at work on his submarine he did not permit his political ardor to cool. He has left a copy of a letter about 2600 words in length written “to the right Honorable Lord Viscount Melville,” dated London, Jany the 20th, 1805, giving his “Observations on Bonaparte’s pacific Communications.” This long letter is in the flamboyant style that Fulton used when writing on political topics. After dilating upon economies that would flow from peace and how such savings from war disbursements might be turned to establishing canals, iron works, manufactures and improving agriculture, he speaks of Napoleon:

Humanity would commend the Man, who turned his talents to such usefull works provided he should use the fruits of it humainly, but it is a question whether, Bonaparte would do So, his insatiable ambition and extravagant Ideas, do not warrent so much confidence in him, Raised from nothing by military talents and a combination of extriordinary events, he is intoxicated with success, adulation has become his daily food as necessary to his happiness as high seasoning to a vitiated appetite, his mind is perpetually working on schemes, which he thinks will give great Eclat, he seeks to be ranked by the future historian above Ceasar and Charlemagne, his principle is that future ages, never take into consideration the miseries which accompany war, they only listen to the brilliant actions of the Chief....