Abstract
This research note traces the emergence of the marine steam engineer in Britain from 1812 to 1860. It examines the development of the British merchant steam fleet and its need for engineers. Crew lists, muster rolls, certificate of service application forms and Parliamentary Papers are examined to reveal the numbers of men seeking to become qualified engineers, and their birthplace, age and training. Consideration is given to the career patterns of marine steam engineers, their relationship to other seafaring ranks, notably firemen and trimmers, the creation of personal wealth and new businesses by some engineers, and the place of their emerging profession in the social context of the era. Administrative and legislative change – essentially, from freedom to control and certification – is identified as a key element in the professionalization of engineers, leading to the establishment of the Institutes of Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers and, finally in 1888, Marine Engineers.
Keywords
The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries witnessed the rapid development of steam power. It commenced with a few individual inventors, 1 whose ideas and concepts were rapidly understood, assimilated and applied by a diverse community of engineers working in a variety of situations. In the eighteenth century, most of these developments were of large, land-based fixed engines, but by the late 1820s steam engines had been developed for railway and possibly road use, so that land-based life was also significantly altered. Late in the eighteenth and early in the nineteenth century, steam power began to be applied to ships, initially to small riverine vessels but by mid century to trans-oceanic vessels of many types. By the early twentieth century, it had become the most common form of marine propulsion, and had almost entirely supplanted wind power at sea.
The application of steam power to sea transport required vision, invention, investment and management. These attributes have been discussed in a number of popular and academic studies of the history of this technological change. 2 Relatively neglected, however, is one influential group of people, the marine engineers. Rosen, for instance, provides a simple overview of the complex inter-relationships that created the steam engine, but only makes a single mention of a marine engineer. 3 Woodman discusses the main phases of the development of steam shipping during the nineteenth century without considering engineers. 4 Greenhill reviews the development of the merchant steamship with reference to the engineers involved in the development of screw propulsion, but not elsewhere. 5 Bearing in mind that the earliest steam vessels were riverine and coastal, Armstrong’s bibliography of the coastal trade might have been fruitful, but the 295 books and articles quoted contain only forty-nine with the word ‘steam’ in the title and none with the word ‘engineer’. 6 The collection of papers published by Armstrong and Williams in 2011 analyses in depth early steam shipping, and includes a bibliography of 122 items on British steam navigation down to the 1850s, without discussing engineers. 7
There are some exceptions to this picture of the general neglect of the marine engineer. Penn produced an excellent review of the early history of Royal Naval engineers, 8 while McMurray examined the status of the marine engineer in the Merchant Navy, 9 and Kennerley reviewed information about marine engineers, particularly in the post-1850 period. 10 Armstrong’s article on the crewing of coastal colliers refers to engineers, though within the data and discussion relating to the crew as a whole. 11 Valuable though these studies are, few deal with the emergence of marine engineering as an occupation in the early years of the steamship. This research note is designed to contribute to the rectification of this sizeable gap in the literature. It focuses on the period from 1812, when the Comet famously steamed down the Clyde, to the commencement of engineer certification in 1863, and poses several key questions: what was understood by the term ‘engineer’ in a maritime context? Why were marine engineers needed, and what was their role on land and at sea? How many engineers were there over this period, and what was their background in terms of geographical origins and training?
To address these issues, evidence has been garnered from a range of primary sources. The most important is the collection of engineers’ Certificates of Service held in the National Maritime Museum (hereafter NMM). These certificates had their genesis in the ‘Merchant Shipping Act, 1854’, 12 which set out rules for ‘Certificates of Competence’ and ‘Certificates of Service’ to be obtained by those wishing to serve as master or mate on a British-registered vessel (paragraphs CXXXI–CXXXIX). In 1862, the 1854 Act was modified by Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 13 which established a broadly similar process for the certification of engineers working aboard British ships (paragraph LXIII). This process entailed the generation of a ‘Certificate of Competency’ by examination, and a ‘Certificate of Service’, which enabled serving engineers to gain accreditation without having to pass an examination. Applicants for Certificates of Service as First Class Engineers were required to provide evidence of their serving for at least one voyage as chief engineer or first engineer in a vessel above 100 horsepower to a ‘Foreign Port’, (that is, beyond the Brest-Elbe limits). If this were proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, a certificate for a First Class engineer would be awarded. A certificate as a Second Class engineer might be awarded to engineers serving in the ‘Home Trade’, or in vessels with smaller sized engines. The 1862 Act also stipulated minimum engineer manning levels according to the trade – Home or Foreign – in which the vessel was employed (section 5). It was still possible for un-certificated engineers to serve aboard some home trade and small foreign-going vessels after the 1862 Act was passed. The Board of Trade produced Form Exn 22 for engineers to list their service and other personal details as part of the application process. Engineers were not obliged to fill in all of their service record, although some did. These forms, particularly those with extensive service lists, have proved fruitful for this study. A typical completed form Exn 22 is displayed in Figure 1.
Sample of page 1 of a completed form Exn 22, Certificate of Service (NMM, RSS/EC 237).
Column 11 was used by the Board of Trade to cross reference the application with statutory crew schedules, known as muster rolls, and crew lists. Sometimes, ‘First Ship’ is noted. This may just be a way to proceed with the rest of the application, so it might not truly be a first ship, but for the sake of simplicity it has been taken at face value in this investigation. Muster rolls were submitted by captains to customs collectors at the conclusion of voyages to facilitate the calculation of the amount tax – ‘seamen’s sixpences’ – due from each man. 14 Introduced in 1747, and current until the 1830s, these returns have been used to identify the names of officers and seamen, and their age, abode and last ship sailed. After the 1835 Merchant Shipping Act, 15 Crew lists replaced the muster rolls for all vessels over eighty tons. They contain similar information to their predecessors, with place of birth instead of abode. Initially they were collected by port and vessel name, but from 1857 they are recorded by year and ship’s official number. From 1835 to 1844, two types of list exist, Schedule C (Foreign Trade) and Schedule D (Home Trade, Half Yearly). After 1845, other lists appeared, notably the Articles of Agreement for the Foreign Trade (Schedule A), and Home Trade (Schedule B), and Names and Register of Tickets of foreign-trade crews (Schedule G). Such Rolls and Lists for the ports of Liverpool and Glasgow informed this study.
Evidence was also adduced from Parliamentary Papers, notably the minutes of evidence and appendices of Select Committee Reports on issues that included: the state of roads from London and Chester to Holyhead, Second and Fifth Reports (Steam-Boats); the means of preventing explosions on steam-boats; steam vessel accidents; steam navigation. These documents shed light on the work and foolishness of engineers during this period, as well as indicating how engineers were viewed by the writers of the reports and their contemporaries. Similarly, the Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons provide good primary data regarding the size of the steam fleet over time, which serves as a guide to the potential number of engineers. 16
Defining an engineer
The Oxford English dictionary’s earliest definition states that an ‘engineer’ is a ‘constructor of military engines; a person who designs and constructs military works for attack and defence’. 17 Over time, more definitions evolved: ‘originally: a person who designs or builds engines or other machinery. Subsequently, more generally: a person who uses specialized knowledge or skills to design, build, and maintain complicated equipment, systems, processes, etc.; an expert in or student of engineering’. 18 Alternatively, ‘a person who manages engines of war; an artillery operator, a gunner’, 19 or ‘a person whose profession is the designing and constructing of works of public utility, such as bridges, roads, canals, railways, harbours, drainage works, etc’. 20 Some descriptions were less verbose: an engineer is ‘a person who operates an engine’. 21 Clearly the term was applied to people carrying out a diversity of activities in a range of situations.
Prior to 1818 there was no formal professional organization for engineers. 22 At this time there were people who worked as and thus described themselves as engineers. Various Parliamentary Select Committee reports published between 1817 and 1839 offer contemporary interpretations of the occupation. The engineers who reported to Parliament after the Norwich steam-boat explosion provide a good sample of such people. For example, Bryan Donkin (1768–1855) served an apprenticeship in a paper factory, and later developed new papermaking machinery, worked to prevent fraud in postage stamp printing and developed air-tight cases to preserve meat for ships food. In 1831, he was chairman of the Royal Astronomical Society and in 1838 became a Fellow of the Royal Society. 23 Timothy Bramah (1784–1838) was a specialist in hot water heating at St. George’s, St. Thomas’s and Westminster hospitals, and his company provided steam engines and iron work for St. Katherine’s Dock. 24 Henry Maudslay (1771–1831) first worked for the Royal Artillery, and then worked in a block making plant at Portsmouth, where he developed a table engine that was in production for forty years. He had a talent for making high-quality machine tools, and he trained other great engineers such as Joseph Whitworth. 25 These men had a diversity of engineering skills which they employed flexibly. They were inventors as well as business creators and managers. No doubt it was more than curiosity that took them to Norwich in April 1817. 26
In 1822, when the next report to Parliament was published, a hierarchy of terms had developed, at least in the minds of those giving evidence to, or writing for, Parliament. Their comments might be interpreted as showing a typical middle-class disdain for manual work. Accordingly, the following rather dismissive, patronising descriptions were recorded: ‘a set of men accustomed to attend engines’: ‘engine keepers’; 27 ‘practical engineer’; 28 ‘working engineer’; and ‘operative engineer’. 29 These were men who daily placed their hands on the engines, boilers and machinery of the ships in which they served. There were also more positive phrases, such as ‘an engineer of superior skill’, 30 ‘a scientific and regular engineer’, an ‘inspecting engineer’, and a ‘managing engineer’, 31 all of which imply some extra abilities to do the work, perhaps cultivated through experience, education, training or personal skill. They infer, too, that these were shore-based people who oversaw the work of individuals working on vessels day by day. The title ‘inspecting engineer’ infers that this was someone who surveyed vessels, with the working engineers, on a regular basis, possibly to identify faults and suggest solutions to overcome them. Moreover, ‘managing engineer’, ‘inspecting manager’ and ‘committee of management’, 32 are terms that focus on people who have oversight of the vessels, but are in regular contact with the owners and others who might set fares, freights and destinations. Further up the definitional hierarchy was the engineer as a ‘professional man to superintend the engines and conduct of the working engineers’, a professional man with a diverse knowledge and experience of engineering in a large organization such as a dockyard. 33 Slightly different phraseology referred to a ‘steam engine maker’, or just ‘engine maker’; terms that were applied to those initially constructing engines or boilers, although the latter were described as ‘boiler makers’ in crew lists. 34
Twenty years later, contributors to the 1839 Select Committee of Parliament were rather more critical, with ‘engine keeper’ and ‘engine driver’, often said with the same patronising overtones, becoming ‘reckless, ignorant, engine men’. 35 ‘Engineer’, ‘working engineer’, ‘engine man’, ‘attendant engineer’, ‘practical engineer’ were applied to men who got their hands dirty by working directly with the engines and machinery of the ship. 36 ‘Chief engineer’, ‘master engineer’ and ‘captain of engineers’ were terms used for the more skilled and experienced engineers, often in charge of a team working aboard larger vessels, 37 while ‘general inspecting engineer’ was used for the shore-based supervisor of those based on vessels. 38 Lloyds from 1834, and the Board of Trade from 1854, appointed engineers who were alluded to as ‘surveying engineers’, whose job was to verify the satisfactory condition of steamships’ engines and machinery. 39
Such definitions clearly indicate a profession in the making. Some engineers invented and built new steam engines and placed them into small wooden vessels, of less than 100 tons, built by others. There were men who performed the hourly and daily tasks necessary to run and maintain the steam engines in good working order. This sufficed when the craft were small and riverine but as larger vessels were introduced, teams of engineers, firemen and trimmers were needed. Engineers required the management skills needed for good teamwork. Greater investment resulted in fleets of vessels that needed technical direction from the placement of an order and on into service. Complex engines needed complex care, which was delivered in specialist shipyards under the supervision of their superintendent engineers. Paraphrasing Natasha McCarthy, a modern engineer serves humankind, changes the world of humankind, exploits natural laws and materials to create new artefacts and materials, is rarely satisfied, always wishes to intervene modify or improve. Engineers will need to understand Science and Mathematics as well as human behaviour. 40 The early marine engineers also thought and acted in such ways amidst the changes in public perception of the ‘profession’ that occurred from 1812 to 1863.
Demand for engineers
In 1812, the voyage of the Comet from Glasgow to Helensburgh on the river Clyde in Scotland effectively marked the start of commercial steam shipping operations in Britain. Between then and 1863, when the certification of engineers was enacted, the number of British-registered steam-powered vessels expanded steadily to exceed 2000 in the early 1860s (see Figure 2). Traditional wooden ships had engines added to them. Steam engines were often made away from the shipyards, stripped down, transported and then fitted into the hull of the ship. Centres of marine engine building therefore developed on the Clyde and the Thames, but also at inland locations such as Derby. The tasks that engineers were required to perform increased in variety and complexity. Their skill and ingenuity was needed in the design of suitable boilers and engines for ships. The Norwich disaster proved that this was not a simple matter of transferring technology, for a large terrestrial steam engine of the time would have sunk a 100-ton wooden vessel. Indeed, throughout the 1812–1862 period, the majority of steamships were tugs or riverine vessels with a few making the short sea crossing to Ireland or the near continent. In a river close to home, motive power, fuel economy and reliability were much less critical than they were during longer voyages. As soon as vessels entered the sea, with its complex wave and weather patterns, and ventured away from shore, reliability and fuel efficiency emerged as vital variable factors, not least because the fuel had to be carried on board. This, and the space needed for the engine, reduced cargo-carrying capacity, thus increasing costs and lowering profits.
The number of steam vessels registered in Britain, 1814–1862.
The new engineers had to be able work the engines as efficiently as possible. They required the skills needed to repair faults at sea, often in dangerous circumstances; for instance, the City of Glasgow was wrecked at the entrance to Douglas Harbour when its engines stopped on 18 October 1825. 41 As even larger vessels were designed with ever-more complex machinery, the demand for engineers increased. The Great Eastern had both paddle engines and screw engines, thereby needing two sets of engineers and a superintendent engineer. The growing complexity of tasks increased the need for more training, leading to compulsory apprenticeships for aspiring engineers. Assuming that the demand for the services of engineers rose at a similar rate to the number of steamers active, and that there was a minimum of one engineer per vessel, estimates of the number of engineers needed for the growth in British steam shipping can be devised from Mitchell’s data, as shown in Table 1.
Estimates of the number of engineers serving in British-registered vessels, 1820–1860.
Source: derived from B. R. Mitchell, British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1988), 535–6.
These estimates can be refined by deploying evidence from other sources. For example, the crew lists submitted at Liverpool and Glasgow reveal that steamship complements might include one or more of four engine room occupations – engineer, fireman, trimmer and boilermaker. 42 They also reveal a relationship between vessel size and the engine-room crew. Vessels less than 100 tons usually had a single engineer, one or two firemen and no trimmers, 43 whereas vessels of 100–400 tons had two engineers, four firemen and one or two trimmers, 44 and those above 400 tons tended to have more engineering staff, though there were only a very few vessels in this category. It would seem that extra engineers, firemen and trimmers were recruited for longer voyages and worked according to a watch system. 45 Examination of the crew lists also indicates that firemen and engineers were interchangeable. The muster roll of the Solway for 1827–1828, for example, shows John St. Ledger moving from fireman to engineer, while William Martin of the James Gallocher testified to a Select Committee that he had re-graded from fireman to engineer. 46 Further supplementary information was gleaned from parliamentary returns, 47 and from Lloyd’s Register, to refine the estimates of the number of engineers needed. The results of these calculations indicate that 3903 engineers were required to service Britain’s steam fleet in 1860 (see Table 2), which was almost twice the figure reported by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen in a Parliamentary return of 1861 (see Table 3).
Refined estimates of engineers required, 1860.
Sources: BPP, 1829 (210), XVII.195; 1829 (90), XVII.197; 1830 (333), XXVII.35; 1851 (196) (310), LII, 229, 235; 1822 (417), VI.115; Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1843–44, 1845 and 1846.
Number, crew size and selected crew ratings of British-registered vessels, 1858–1860.
Source: BPP, 1861 (549), LVII, 23, Return of the Number of Apprentices Registered in the Home and Foreign Trades of the United Kingdom, 1835–1860.
The difference in the figures may be attributable to the fact that before 1863 engineers were not certificated, and the flexibility of working between firemen and engineers, which may well have led to engineers on vessels of less than eighty tons not being counted. Moreover, it is not known whether the ships registered were in active employment when the data were collected, while there may have been movement between occupations ashore and afloat. By 1860, some engineers would have been recruited as superintendents of larger fleets, and some moved from the merchant marine to the Royal Navy, foreign fleets or other occupations. Perhaps a figure of 2000–4000 is a reasonable estimate of the manpower pool. Although further research is required to clarify this point, it is abundantly clear that there was a growing demand for engineers. Where did they come from?
Geographical origins
Evidence obtained from Certificates of Service application forms (Exn 22) indicates the spatial distribution of the birthplaces of those applying for certification as engineers. 48 As can be perceived in Figure 1, applicants were obliged to state the town and county in which they had been born. 49 These data indicate that some counties did not feature in the applications, while approximately twenty-five per cent of the listed counties only have one engineer recorded and sixty-one per cent have less than five. Lanarkshire, on the other hand, had forty-nine (12.37%) of the recorded engineers (see Table 4). Adopting a regional perspective, 146 (36.8%) of the engineers came from the counties around the coasts of the Clyde, Forth and Tay, whereas ninety (22.7%) hailed from the counties around the Tyne, Tees and Humber, thirty-three (8.3%) had been born in Thames-side counties, and twenty-seven (6.8%) cited the Merseyside counties as their place of birth. While it should be borne in mind that place of birth does not indicate a place of future residence, the data clearly show that a large proportion of engineers had been born in districts close to Britain’s major shipping rivers. Others came from counties with a strong engineering presence, such as Derby, the home of the Midland Railway engineering complex and marine engine builders such as the Butterley Company and James Naismith.
Number and percentage of engineers by county of birth.
Source: National Maritime Museum, RSS/EC, Certificates of Service 1–399.
Age
The Exn 22 forms were examined to identify patterns in the ages of these engineers. The dates of birth cited by applicants suggest that most were born between 1818 and 1832, with the oldest two stating that they had been born in 1803. Age was calculated as 1863 minus year of birth. Most of the engineers in the sample were mature men: 88.8% were over thirty years of age, while 46.9% were over forty, and 13.2% were over fifty (see Table 5). It is possible that this reflects a preference by older men for the Certificate of Service. Kennerley analysed the ages of engineers receiving Certificates of Competency from 1863 to 1910. 50 In his sample, 33.92% of the engineers were under thirty when they received first class certificates. This may infer that Certificates of Competency were sought by younger engineers, while Certificates of Service were obtained by older engineers who made most use of this ‘bridging facility’. However, this age profile is consistent with the training and experience needed before serving as an engineer. After 1863, many engineers completed a four- or five-year land-based apprenticeship and one year’s sea time before examination. This was happening before 1863, with men such as Robert Embley and Alexander Sinclair declaring that they gained experience of land work before sea service. 51 These might be reasons for sea-going engineers being older than most crew members.
Ages of marine engineers.
Source: National Maritime Museum, RSS/EC, Certificates of Service 1–399.
Note: Where percentages do not total 100, this is due to rounding to one decimal place.
Career paths
The records also shed light on the routes that men followed on their way into marine engineering. One route was via a family business. A number of the engineers giving evidence to the 1817 Select Committee had been trained in family businesses. For instance, Robert Robertson, the engineer of the Comet, may well have been a relative of John Robertson, the engine builder. Another route was through apprenticeship. John Penn II, the engine builder, served a formal apprenticeship in his family business, 52 while Alexander Annan was recorded in the 1841 census records as being an apprentice engineer. 53 Transfer from an engine builder was another pathway, as George Burns, a Glasgow steamship owner attested: ‘the engineers of the vessels are carefully selected and uniformly recommended by the manufacturers of the engines to us as picked men’. 54 Mr Muir, of Caird and Co. of Greenock, concurred: ‘they generally appoint an engineer to the vessel which they fit out and continue him for six months at least; they always select good mechanics for this purpose’. 55 John Johnson, engineer of the Confiance in September 1831, was asked: ‘were you in her in the voyage which has been described by the captain?’ He replied, ‘I was I put the engines in the vessel’. 56 Murray Bain, later an applicant for an engineer’s certificate, was described as an engine fitter and builder in the 1851 census. 57
A further means of entry was employment in an unskilled capacity in the engine room. During the 1820s and 1830s, it was possible for firemen to assume the role of engineer. Captain W. Smithett of the steam packet Dolphin answered questions as follows:
Are the firemen, in the case of an accident to the engineers, capable of taking charge?
I think some of them, most of them are.
You are capable of taking charge yourself?
Yes I can work the engines myself as well as the engineer. 58
He might have been exaggerating his own abilities, but a Certificate in Steam did become available to qualified masters. 59 Crew agreements and muster rolls verify this flexibility. The muster roll of the Solway for 1827–1828 indicates that John St. Ledger moved from fireman to engineer. Similarly, the muster roll of the James Gallocher records that William Martin made a similar progression, although in his case inexperience may have led to a subsequent disaster. 60 Flexibility of crewing seems to have been possible in early small coasting vessels powered by low-horsepower side-lever engines. A more formal arrangement must have been needed for the later, larger, higher-powered, long-distance, watch-keeping vessels.
Engineers may also have transferred from related activities, such as technical work in terrestrial steam plants, pumping engines, brewing and sugar refining, while it is reasonable to suppose that the opportunity offered by the relatively new marine engineering profession would have attracted partly trained men as well as millwrights, wheelwrights and clock makers, all of whom would have understood gear mechanisms. It is worth noting that such men would not have needed seamanship skills in their land-based occupations, resulting in tensions between seamen and engineers.
Working patterns
The fragility, fragmentation and disappearance of the primary records make it difficult to obtain precise work patterns. Some engineers seem to have made only a single voyage, but this may be due to sampling error or document loss. It could be that the work did not meet expectations or that there were better opportunities ashore or that family circumstances changed. Some engineers, particularly in the 1820s and 1830s, were content to remain on local single-day voyages or short sea crossings. This may have been attractive to the solitary engineer and, as the Para Handy Tales show, this was an agreeable life in Scotland into the twentieth century. 61 Another pattern was to start in a small vessel of 100 tons or under as the lone engineer, before moving into a vessel of 200–400 tons for several voyages, working with other engineers. Some then sought a post in a large vessel of 1000+ tons, sailing transatlantic or foreign routes, working as part of a large team. The latter option only became possible from the 1840s. These larger vessels created the option of starting as a junior engineer, working through the ranks, gaining experience and finally reaching chief engineer. 62 Some captains were able to retain crews for numerous voyages, 63 while the larger companies were able to retain staff and move them through their fleets. 64 Indeed, senior engineers might leave the sea to become land-based superintendent engineers for whole fleets of vessels. 65
Further information on working patterns has been derived from census records (1851–1911). A working seaman should only have appeared on his vessel’s record, but this was not always the case since some were also found in their home parish records, having probably been entered by family members. The data collected at each census changed, but it has been possible to obtain some information about the age, marital status, number of children and vessel of engineers. In addition, christening, birth, marriage, death, probate and Register of Seamen tickets records yielded information about most of the first class engineers who appeared in the Certificate of Service applications. From this variety of sources, it appears that first class engineers died between the ages of 41 years – this was Benjamin Bailey, who probably died after an accident – and 91 years, which was the age Robert Anderson had reached on his death in Calcutta in 1909. 66 All the first class engineers in this sample seem to have married. A few were widowed, possibly due to the high rate of perinatal mortality amongst Victorian women. Family size ranged from one to nine children.
Length of service has been impossible to ascertain with certainty, as thirty-eight per cent of engineers appear in only one census. Their length of service cannot be verified from census sources. Some thirty-three per cent of the engineers appear in two censuses, which would suggest careers of ten to twenty years, but part of that could be due to service as land-based apprentices or superintendents. The longest traceable record is that of Michael Allen who served for fifty years before finishing his career as a marine engineering superintendent. 67
Probate records give some indication of wealth at death. Of the five traceable records, two left less than £1000, two between £1000 and £2000, while Michael Allen left £11,603 and a second class engineer, Francis Batey, owner of a tug company, left £13,103. 68 Although these fortunes may have accrued from other activities, they do indicate that engineers might prosper above and beyond the sea pay they received, which, for chief engineers, amounted to £20–£50 per month. 69 At the other extreme, Samuel McNamara was still working as a caretaker at the age of sixty-nine, having lost his pension because he was on leave when the Honourable East India Company transferred its steam fleet to the Indian Navy. 70 Noah Beamish, chief engineer of the Great Britain, provides an indication of the range of documents that can be deployed to paint a picture of his life as engineer, inventor, publican and husband from 1852 to 1891. 71
Conclusion
In the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, Britain experienced rapid industrial expansion. Roads were improved, new canals and docks were created, more coal mines were sunk. Simultaneously new banking mechanisms with stable money and low interest rates made investment simpler, while patent laws gave protection to inventors and reduced abuse and fraud. In this environment, the steam engine developed and was applied to ships and railways, forming the nursery in which a new breed of engineer, the marine engineer, grew. Military engineers, civil engineers, blacksmiths, millwrights, carpenters, wagon makers, clock makers and paper manufacturers all had the skills and flexibility of mind to facilitate the expansion of steam-powered shipping. This research note has outlined the backgrounds and contributions of 400 of these men, each identifiable by name and sometimes by address. It has shown, moreover, that there is an abundance of material available for further research.
Early findings indicate that many marine engineers were born near the great shipping rivers – the Clyde, Forth, Humber, Mersey, Tees, Thames and Tyne – where shipbuilding and engineering were clustered, and where there were good prospects for those wishing to develop an engineering career. Their role was diverse, encompassing maintenance and improvement of equipment, boilers, engines and valves, and propulsion, screw as well as paddle. Over time, ideas and good practice were recorded, hard-earned knowledge was shared and education through apprenticeship and on-board training expanded. Testing engineers by experience, and later by examination, laid the foundations for the introduction of statutory certification from 1863. This set minimum standards for marine engineers and served to remove the incompetent. A profession began to develop, culminating in the establishment of the Institute of Marine Engineers in 1888. 72
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the advice given by Professor Sarah Palmer, Dr Martin Wilcox, the staff of the Caird Library, National Maritime Museum, and the anonymous reviewer during the preparation of this article.
1.
N. McCarthy, Engineering (London, 2009), 45: ‘anything an engineer develops must meet a pre-existing need or stimulate a new demand’.
2.
See E. A. Wrigley, Energy in the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 2010); Robert C. Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global perspective (Cambridge, 2009); Jan De Vries, The Industrious Revolution (Cambridge, 2008); Gardiner, Robert and Basil Greenhill, eds, The Advent of Steam: The Merchant Steamship before 1900 (London, 1993); Gardiner, Robert, Lambert, Andrew, eds, Steam, Steel and Shellfire, The Steam Warship (London 1993).
3.
William Rosen, The most powerful idea in the world (London, 2010), 199.
4.
Richard Woodman, The history of the ship (London, 1997), chapter 9; Richard Woodman, Masters under God (Stroud, 2009), chapters 4 and 5.
5.
Greenhill, ed., Advent of steam, chapter 7.
6.
John Armstrong, ‘An annotated bibliography of the British coastal trade’, International Journal of Maritime History VII, No. 1 (1995), 117–92.
7.
John Armstrong and David M. Williams, The impact of technological change: The early steamships in Britain (St. John’s, Newfoundland, 2011), 7–30.
8.
G. Penn, Up funnel, down screw (London, 1955).
9.
H. C. McMurray, ‘Technology and social change at sea: The status and position on board of the ship’s engineer, circa 1830–1860’, in Rosemary Ommer and Gerald Panting, eds., Working men who got wet (Newfoundland, 1980); H. C. McMurray, ‘The Status of Sea-going Engineers’, Marine Engineers Review June (1979), 14–16.
10.
Alston Kennerley, ‘Engineers in British Merchant Ships 1850–1970’, Proceedings of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, Part B, No. B10 (2006), 3–13; Alston Kennerley, ‘British Merchant Marine Engineer Licensing, 1865–1925’, in Richard Gorski, ed., Maritime Labour: Contributions to the History of Work at Sea (Amsterdam, 2007); Alston Kennerley, ‘Stoking the Boilers: Firemen and Trimmers in British Merchant Ships, 1850–1950’, International Journal of Maritime History XX, No. 1 (2008), 191–220.
11.
John Armstrong, ‘The Crewing of Coastal Colliers, 1870–1914’, The Great Circle 20, No. 2 (1998), 73–89.
12.
17 & 18 Victoria cap 103, 104.
13.
25 & 26 Victoria cap 63.
14.
Ralph Davis, ‘Seamen’s sixpences: An index of commercial activity, 1697–1828’, Economica XXIII (1956), 328–43.
15.
5 & 6 William IV cap 19
16.
British Parliamentary Papers (hereafter BPP), Accounts and Papers, 1814/15–1861; Reports of Committees, 1817–1838.
17.
Oxford English dictionary (1879), Sir Ferumbras (c. 1380) l. 3223: ‘Þe Amyral made his engyneour þe engyns to sette & bende’.
18.
W. S. Bullokar’s Eng. expositor (revised edition, 1656).
19.
Samuel Johnson, A dictionary of the English language (1755).
20.
John Smeaton, A narrative of the building and a description of the construction of the Edystone Lighthouse with stone (2nd edition, London, 1793), §101.
21.
‘Catastrophe at Wells Street’, The Times, 17 November 1815, 3.
22.
The Institution of Civil Engineers was founded on 2 January 1818 and was the world’s first professional engineering body: https://www.ice.org.uk/about-us/our-history. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers was founded in Birmingham in 1847: http://www.imeche.org/about-us/imeche-engineering-history/institution-and-engineering-history. The Institute of Marine Engineers was formally constituted on 7 December 1888: 
[accessed 18 February 2016].
23.
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter ODNB), (vol. V) (Oxford), 1122.
24.
A. W. Skempton, R. W. Rennison, et al., A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland (London, 2002), 72.
25.
ODNB, XIII, 81.
26.
BPP, 1817 (422), VI, 223, Select Committee on Means of Preventing Explosions on Steam-Boats, Report, Minutes of Evidence, 5–45.
27.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, Select Committee on the State of Roads from London and Chester to Holyhead, Fifth Report (Steam-Boats), Minutes of Evidence, Appendix, 10.
28.
BPP, 1822 (180), VI, 9, Select Committee on the State of Roads from London and Chester to Holyhead, Second Report, (Steam Packets), Appendix, 7.
29.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, 72.
30.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, 58.
31.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, 72.
32.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, 57.
33.
BPP, 1822 (417), VI, 115, 72.
34.
The National Archives (hereafter, TNA), BT98/266, Crew Lists, Britannia, 1841.
35.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 1, Report on Steam Vessel Accidents Committee of the Privy Council for Trade, 12 and 67.
36.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 1, 11–15.
37.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 1, 90, 131 and 158.
38.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 1 and 190.
39.
Lloyd’s Register 1834, 13–27; Mercantile Navy List 1857 and 1858.
40.
McCarthy, Engineering, chapter 1.
41.
BPP, 1839 (273), 36.
42.
TNA, BT 98, Crew Lists, 1827–1847, Liverpool and Glasgow.
43.
TNA, BT 98/88, St David, 99 tons, June 1829 to January 1830 had one engineer and two firemen in a crew of nine.
44.
TNA, BT 98/88, Hibernia, 210 tons, June 1829 to January 1830 had two engineers, four firemen and one trimmer.
45.
TNA, BT 98/266, Acadia, 1156 tons, 1835–1844 had five engineers, one boilermaker, twelve firemen and ten trimmers on her voyages from Liverpool to Halifax and Boston.
46.
BPP, 1839 (273).
47.
BPP, 1829 (210), XVII, 195, Account of Number of Steam Vessels belonging to Ports of United Kingdom, 1814–1828, 1; BPP, 1829 (90), XVII, 197, Return of Steam Vessels in the Ports of Great Britain, 7; BPP, 1830 (333), XXVII, 35, Return of Number of Ships belonging to Ports in the United Kingdom; Return of the Number of Steam-Boats in Great Britain, 1829, 10; BPP, 1851 (196) (310), LII, 229 and 235, Return of Registered Steam Vessels of United Kingdom, January 1851, 25; BPP, 1822 (417), VI 115, 83–7; Lloyd’s Register of Shipping 1843–1844, 1845 and 1846.
48.
National Maritime Museum (hereafter NMM), RSS/EC, Certificates of Service 1–399. This box contains 396 differently named first class Certificates of Service because some are duplicate replacements. Note that number 400 in this box is for a second class certificate. Many long-serving engineers would not have been able to obtain this certificate because they were in vessels of less than 100 horsepower, or they were working in home waters or they were not the chief engineer.
49.
Changes in local government and devolution have created difficulties in interpretation of boundaries and names because one area may have different names for different administrative purposes and many areas have had name changes. For this research note, the English counties as they were before 1889 are used; Irish counties as in 1875 are used; Scottish counties as in 1975 are used; and the historic counties of Wales are used. Where engineers only gave parishes of birth these have been included in the appropriate county. The engineer who gave Germany as place of birth has been omitted from the data.
51.
NMM, RSS/EC 47 Robert Embley ‘served my apprenticeship with Brownlow Parsons of Hull’; RSS/EC 384, Alexander Sinclair ‘served an apprenticeship of 5 years with Tod and McGregor, Glasgow’.
52.
Richard Hartree, John Penn and sons of Greenwich (Malta, 2008), 14.
53.
Census of the Population, 1841, Scotland, Fife, Inverkeithing. NMM, RSS/EC 9.
54.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 127.
55.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 1 and 132.
56.
BPP, 1831 (335), Report from the Select Committee on Steam Navigation, together with the minutes of evidence and an appendix and index, 106.
57.
Census of the Population, 1851, Scotland; NMM RGSS/Eng, 14.
58.
BPP, 1831 (335), VIII, 111, questions 2039 and 2040.
59.
NMM, CHR/26, 1842, Certificates of Competence for Commander William Wyly Chambers RN.
60.
BPP, 1839 (273), XLVII, 83.
61.
Neil Munro, Para Handy Tales 1 (London, 1974).
62.
NMM, RSS/EC 17, Noah Beamish is recorded as fourth engineer on the Great Britain for voyage 9, progressing through third and second engineer, finally becoming chief engineer for voyage 14. Alexander McLennan’s service in the Great Eastern followed a similar pattern.
63.
TNA, BT 98/101, Crew List, Admiral.
64.
TNA, BT 98/266, Crew Lists, Achilles, Acteon, Aran Castle.
65.
NMM, RSS/EC 251, William Lowther, 339, John Bowers, 359, William Heard.
66.
NMM, RSS/EC 13, Benjamin Bailey, 8, Robert Anderson.
67.
Census of the Population, 1841, England, Hull; 1851, Wolverton; 1861, Sculcoates; 1871, Hull; 1881, Hull; 1901, Hull.
68.
NMM, RSS/EC 417; Francis Batey, England and Wales Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations 1858–1966), 1915, 62.
69.
Penn, Up funnel, 73, quotes pay of £20 per month in 1847 for naval chief engineers on sea service.
70.
NMM, RSS/EC 324, Samuel McNamara 1891 Census England, London, Paddington; British Library, L/MIL/7/12991, File number 287, Memorials to the Queen.
71.
SS Great Britain Archives, Crew Lists, Great Britain, May 1852 to October 1861; TNA, Register of Seamen’s Tickets, BT 114, 1845–1854, piece 2; BT116, 1853–1857, piece 6; Liverpool Mercury, 29 December 1864; Blackburn Standard, 28 February 1872; Patents dated 19 February 1872.
72.
See footnote 22.