James Taylor prepared a “Memorial”, dated 20 April 1824, addressed to Sir Henry Parnell, who was chairman of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on steamboats. The memorial was published posthumously after Taylor’s death on 18 September 1825.1

No doubt prompted by Taylor’s attempt to secure a financial windfall, William Symington prepared a Petition to Parliament which was dated 4 November 1825 and which Sir Robert Ferguson presented on 24 April 1826. Lord Goderich (Frederick Robinson 1782-1859) was then president of the Board of Trade from and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In his shameless pursuit of glory and remuneration from the government for his alleged place in the introduction of steam navigation, in 1825 James Taylor wrote two letters to the Board of Trade which are now held in the National Archive at Kew, dated 19 May and 20 August 1825.2

I have reproduced herewith this self-indulgent tripe from James Taylor in which he offers a gratuitous derogatory commentary on the character of William Symington. In his ignorance of the true facts, Taylor makes the claim that he,Taylort,  together with Patrick Miller of Dalswinton were the inventors of steam navigation.

Taylor’s letters were addressed to William Huskisson (1770-1830), in his capacity as the President of the Board of Trade in London, and contained Taylor’s narrative relating to the discovery of steam navigation and the part which he had allegedly played therein. A liberal economic reformer, Huskisson was elected as the Member for Liverpool in 1823. That year, he was appointed President of the Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy. Huskisson met an untimely end when in 1830 he became the first person to be killed in a railway accident. He was struck by Stephenson’s Rocket at the opening of the Manchester to Liverpool railway. His recorded speeches to Parliament make no mention of Taylor and his alleged part in the history of steam navigation.3  

In his missives to Huskisson, Taylor dismisses the claims of William Symington, Robert Fulton, Henry Bell. In advancing his own pretensions, Taylor sought to belittle his former friend and classmate William Symington and to minimise his contribution and achievements.

James Taylor.

of Leadhills, Lanarkshire.

Inventor of the application of Steam Power,

to the propulsion of Vessels.

Born 1757. Died 1825.4

LETTER DATED 19 MAY 1825

In submitting his “Memorial” to the Board of Trade, Taylor states that he had already sent his “authentic” account of the origin and progress of steam navigation to Sir Henry Parnell, (1776-1842) who was then chairman of a Select Committee of the House of Commons (into Steam Navigation), but too late to have his submission considered. In this letter, Taylor claims a “prominent share” (with Patrick Miller) in the “invention” of steam navigation. Taylor details the background to Patrick Miller’s steamboat experiments at Dalswinton. He quotes lengthy conversations with Miller in a condescending manner, as if Taylor was the all-knowing sage and Miller a simple half-wit, claiming it was he, Taylor, who introduced Miller to the concept of using a steam engine to power his experimental vessels. Miller had been preparing a narrative on shipping which was printed in 1787. Taylor maintains that he had had firmly advised Miller to include mention of steam power in his narrative, an idea which he alleged had never occurred to Miller.

Taylor had recommended his friend William Symington as the operative engineer who had invented a new form of steam engine but in this narrative he sought to discredit Symington and to minimise the part he played in Miller’s steamboat experiments. Taylor implied he was involved in the actual construction of the engines for Miller’s experiments. Taylor had no training or background as a mechanic or engineer, yet he alleges that it was he who supervised the casting of the parts for the Dalswinton engine, downgrading Symington’s contribution. He wrote that, thereafter, “I took Symington with me to Dalswinton, to put the parts together.” Further, he infers that he was involved in building the engine for Miller’s 1789 steamboat, stating that in the spring of 1789 he went to Carron with William Symington and “in the course of the summer constructed a double Engine, with cylinders 18 inches diameter.” The initial trials of the 1789 vessel were fraught with difficulties: the paddle wheel floats broke away in a public trial, no doubt to Miller’s extreme annoyance and embarrassment. Although a final trial on 26 December was reported as highly successful, Taylor states that Miller was highly displeased at the expense and the time taken to complete the project. Taylor offensively and gratuitously maligns William Symington in quoting Miller who, in his rage, had allegedly described Symington as a “vain extravagant fool.”

Taylor claims that Symington had thereafter “prevailed upon the late Lord Dundas to employ him to fit up a Steam boat.” That statement is a patent lie – it is well documented that it was Lord Dundas who approached Symington to design and build an engine for his steam tug experiments on the Forth and Clyde canal.

In France, the Marquis de Jouffroy is rightly regarded as “l’inventeur de la navigation à vapeur.” His trial of the Pyroscaphe on the River Saone, near Lyon, in 1783 has been well documented. Taylor dismisses Jouffroy’s contribution on the spurious reasoning that Miller’s son heard no mention of Jouffroy during a visit to Paris in 1787.

Page 1.                                                                     Cumnock May 19th 1825.

         To the Right Honorable the President of the Board of Trade.

         Sir,

                     The attention of a Select Committee of the House of Commons

having been some time ago, directed to the subject of Steam Navigation, I felt

myself called upon, owing to the prominent share which I had in that important

invention, to furnish the Committee with authentic information as to its origin

and early progress. With this view I sent a copy of the following Narrative to Sir

Henry Parnell their Chairman but it was unfortunately too late to be incorporated

with their report as the Committee had been previously dissolved. Of this circum-

stance I was not then aware, but the nature of truth is still the same, and can-

not be affected by time or accident and as I am anxious to have the real history

of Steam Navigation both more accurately & more extensively known, I use the free-

dom respectfully to request that you, Sir, would do me the favour first to per-

use this Memorial and afterwards to bring it under the notice of the Honorable

Board at the head of which you are placed.

         Hoping that you will kindly excuse the liberty I have taken, I shall pro-

ceed without farther preface.

         In the autumn of seventeen hundred and eighty five I went to live in the

family of Mr. Miller of Dalswinton as preceptor to his two younger sons. I

found him a gentleman of great patriotism, generosity, and philanthropy and

at the same time, of a very speculative turn of mind. Before I knew him, he had

gone through a very long and expensive course of experiments upon artillery of

which the carronade was the result. When I came to know him, he was engag-

ed in experiments upon shipping; and had built several, upon different con-

structions, and of various magnitudes. The double vessel seemed to fix his

attention most. In the summer of 1786, I attended him repeatedly in the ex-

periments at Leith, which I then viewed as parties of pleasure and amuse-

2.

ment. But in the Spring of 1787, a circumstance occurred which gave me a

different opinion. Mr Miller had engaged in a sailing match with some gen-

tlemen of Leith against a Custom house boat, a wherry, which was reckoned

a first rate sailer. A day was appointed, and I attended Mr. Miller. His

was a double vessel, sixty feet deck, propelled by two wheels turned by two men

each. We left the harbour in the forenoon and sailed about for some hours

in the Frith; but the day falling calm, the Custom house boat could make

little way. We landed in Inchcolm, where we remained for some hours, wait-

ing for a breeze to spring up. This accordingly happened in the afternoon- a

very fine breeze from the west and fair for the harbour of Leith. The Custom house

boat was managed by a Mr. Weddel, I believe still resident in Leith; Mr. Mil-

ler managed his own, manned by four men at the wheels, and we started

at the same time for a fair run to the harbour. The double vessel beat by a

few minutes. Being then young and stout, I took my share of the labor of

the wheels, which I found very severe exercise; but it satisfied me that a pro-

per power was wanted only to produce much utility from the invention.

         I was now led to converse with Mr. Miller more frequently on the subject

than formally and I observed to him that unless he could apply a more com-

manding power than that of men I was afraid the Invention would be of

little use. He answered “I am of the same opinion, and that power is just

what I am in search of. I will explain my views- my object is to add me-

chanical aid to the natural force of the wind; to enable vessels to avoid or ex-

tricate themselves from dangerous situations, when they cannot do it on their

present construction; and I wish also to give them powers of motion in time

of calm; I am satisfied a capstan, well manned, can effect this purpose

in part; but I want a power more extensively useful, which I have as yet

been unable to attain. Now that you understand the subject, will you lend

me the aid of your head, and see if you can suggest any plan to accomplish

my purpose.” It became the daily subject of our conversation at leisure hours;

we talked of many plans, but none of them satisfactory or preferable to the cap-

stan. At last, after beating over the whole system of mechanics I said, “Mr. Miller

I can suggest no power equal to the Steam Engine or so applicable to your purpose.

3.

He expressed some surprise and said – “That it is a powerful agent I allow, but

will not answer to my purpose, for when I wish chiefly to give aid, it cannot be used.

In such cases as that disastrous event which happened lately; of the wreck of a whole

fleet upon a lee shore, off the coast of Spain, every fire on board must be ex-

tinguished, and of course such an engine would be of no use.” We continued

our conversations, and very frequently reverted to the Steam Engine. In

the mean time every wreck recorded in the Newspapers called forth the most

philanthropic feelings from Mr. Miller, with a strong desire to accomplish

his purpose, of preventing so much waste of human lives, and of property

         The more I thought of the business, the more I became satisfied of the

propriety of applying the Steam Engine; and in various conversations urged

it, as at least worthy of attention for inland Navigation Rivers, Canals &c,

&c, if not for the purposes of general Navigation.

         Mr. Miller said at last “Mr. Taylor you are right - if we cannot accom-

plish the whole, we may a part; but will you show me how you will connect

the Engine with my wheels and I will think of it.” I made out different

sketches for this purpose which so far satisfied, and he said “well, when we

go to Edinburgh, (we were then at Dalswinton) we will apply to an operative

Engineer, and take an estimate for a small Engine and if it is not a large

sum, we will set about it; but as I am a stranger to the Steam Engine, you

shall take charge of that part of the business, and we will try what we can

make of it.” At this period (Summer 1787) Mr. Miller wrote a narrative of his

experiments upon shipping, with a view to have it printed and circulated. He

gave the manuscript to me to read, and as I had witnessed a number of his ex-

periments, requested my observations, if I saw any thing to add or correct.

         After perusing it, I observed that he had omitted to mention the application

of the Steam Engine - He said “I have not done that inadvertently, but from a

wish not to pledge myself to the public for a thing that I may never perform; you

know my intentions on that subject are not conditional.” I said I thought not,

for I was satisfied that any expense that could attach to the small scale

proposed would not prevent him from making that experiment - that I consi-

4.

dered the insertion of importance - and that he might throw it in prospectively and

conditionally, which would pledge him to nothing. He was persuaded and a

paragraph was inserted to that purpose. He then printed his manuscript,

in folio had it handsomely bound and transmitted copies to the Royal

Family, to the Ministers and many of the leading Members of both Houses

 of Parliament, to all the maritime Powers of Europe, and to the President of

the United States of America. We went to town in November and about the

New Year, Mr. Miller began to talk of the estimate of the proposed experiment,

and desired me to find an operative Engineer for that purpose. At this

time William Symington, a young man employed at the lead mines at Wan-

lockhead, had invented a new construction of the Steam Engine by throwing

off the air pump. I had seen a model work and was pleased with it, and

thought it very answerable for Mr. Miller’s purpose. Symington had come

into Edinburgh that winter for education. Being acquainted with him,

I informed him of Mr. Miller’s intentions & mine, and asked him if he could under-

take to apply his Engine to Mr. Miller’s vessels, and if he could I would recommend

him; he answered in the affirmative, and from friendship, I recommended both him-

self and Engine; and afterwards introduced him to Mr. Miller. After some conver-

sation Symington engaged to perform the works, and Mr. Miller agreed to employ

him. It was finally arranged that the experiment should be performed on the lake

of Dalswinton in the ensuing Summer (1788). Accordingly, in the spring, after the

classes of the College broke up, I remained in town to superintend the castings &c,

which were done in brass, by George Watt, Founder, back of Shakespeare Square.

         When they were finished, I sent the articles to the country, and followed myself.

After some interval, I took Symington with me to Dalswinton, to put the parts toge-

ther. This was accomplished about the beginning of October, and the Engine mount-

ed in a Frame, was placed upon the deck of a very handsome double pleasure boat

upon the lake. We then proceeded to action and a more complete successful & beaut-

iful experiment was never made by any man, in time either in art or science.

The vessel moved delightfully and, notwithstanding the smallness of the cylin-

ders, (4 Inch dia.) at the rate of five miles an hour. After amusing ourselves

a few days, the Engine was removed, and carried into the house, where it remained.

5.

as a piece of ornamental furniture for some years. After the experiment, I made a

perspective drawing of it and its mode of connection with the paddle wheels, which

if the Select Committee have any desire to see, it may be forwarded for their inspection.

         Mr. Miller’s son told me some time ago, that he had sent the engine itself to Lon-

don, with a view of having it placed in the British Museum. After performing this very

important experiment, I made out a note of intimation of it to the public and sent

it to the Editor of the Dumfries Newspaper, where it was published. I had a ma-

nuscript copy of this note for many years and should have it still, but cannot at

present lay my hands upon it; the Newspaper will, however, will ascertain this fact; the

account was inserted about the middle, or soon after the middle of, October, 1788. This

most satisfactory experiment produced new discussions and further resolutions. It

was agreed to form a business of it, and to cover the invention with a Patent; but

before incurring this last expense, it was also agreed to repeat the experiment

upon a larger scale, upon the Forth & Clyde canal, and to construct the engine at

Carron; but as the season was far advanced, this was to be the operation of the follow-

ing summer. Accordingly, in spring 1789, I repaired to Carrron with Mr. Sy-

mington, for this purpose; and in the course of the summer constructed a double

Engine, with cylinders 18 inches diameter. This proved rather a tedious opera-

tion, for after much trifling, it was the month of November before we were ready for

motion. Mr. Miller’s patience became very much exhausted, but at last he was

advised, and attended. The vessel was carried from the Carron into the canal-

We were attended by the Committee of the managers of the Carron Company, then

met upon business; Mr. Balfour of Pilrig; Mr. Adam of Blair Adam; Mr. Tibbits;

Mr. Stainton, manager; and several other gentlemen. After passing Lock 16, we pro-

ceeded cautiously, and pleasantly for sometime; but upon giving the engine full play

the arms of the wheels, which had been constructed too slight, began to give way,

and one floatboard after another broke off, till we were satisfied no accuracy could be

obtained in the experiment, until the wheels were replaced by new ones of a strong-

er construction. This was done with all possible speed, and upon the 26th of

December, we again proceeded to action. This day we moved freely without

accident, and were much gratified to find our motion nearly seven miles per

hour. Next day we repeated the experiment with the same success and pleasure.

Satisfied now that every thing proposed was accomplished, it was unnecessary

6.

to dwell longer upon the business; for indeed both this, and the experiment of

last year, were as complete as any performance made by Steam boats, even to the

present day. Mr. Miller did not attend on this occasion, and I reported to him. In

his answer he directed me to dismantle the vessel - to place the engine within the

Carron works- to direct the carpenter to lay up the vessel at Bruce Haven (at that

time his own property) and to call in all accounts, and bring them to the country

with me. These objects accomplished, I went to Edinburgh. I there received a

letter from Mr. Miller, directing me to call on Mr. Cullen Advocate (afterwards

Lord Cullen) and to draw up with him a proper note of intimation of the experi-

ment for the public. Mr. Cullen appointed an evening, and after some conversa-

tion on the subject his clerk was called was called in, and the following dictated to him,

which I copy from the original.

         Extract of a letter from Falkirk, dated February 12th 1790, “It is with great plea-

“sure that I inform you, that the experiment which some time ago was made

“upon the great Canal here, by Mr. Miller of Dalswinton, for ascertaining the

“powers of the steam Engine when applied to sailing, has lately been repeated with

“very great success. Although these experiments have been conducted under a vari-

“ety of disadvantages, as having been made with a vessel built formerly for a dif-

“ferent purpose, yet the velocity acquired was no less than from six and a half

“to seven miles an hour. This sufficiently shews that with vessels properly con-

“structed, a velocity of eight, nine, or even ten miles may be easily accomplished

“& the advantages of so great a velocity in rivers, Straits, &c, and in cases of

“emergency, will be sufficiently evident, as there can be few winds, tides, or

“currents, which can easily impede or resist it, and it will be evident that

“even with slow motion, the utmost advantages must result to Inland Navigation.

         “It is with great satisfaction we have received this intelligence from our obliging

“correspondent. Every well wisher to the extension of arts and commerce must 

“be highly gratified with the signal success of this important experiment,

“which bids fair to introduce an improvement, which by greatly facilitating,

“and rendering more easy, the intercourse by means of Navigation must not on-

“ly be highly advantageous to our own country in particular, but to the world at

7.

“large, and to mankind in general.”

         The following day, I made out three clean copies, and addressed them to the

Editors of the three Newspapers then published in Edinburgh, viz., the Caledonian Mer-

cury, Evening Courant and Advertiser.

         Upon reaching Dalswinton, and producing the accounts of the expense at Car-

ron, Mr. Miller became irritated, and disgusted at the conduct of the engineer, who

had more than doubled both the time and expense necessary. He swore he was

a vain extravagant fool, and did not care how much of his money he wasted,

but he should never have that in his power again, for he would have nothing more

to do with either him or his engine. He even threw out some pretty smart reflections

upon me for having recommended him. This part of the business settled, Mr. Miller

& I resumed our former conversations, and talked of our further progress and im-

provement. I then stated that many ideas had occurred to me, in the course of the

last experiment which had not formerly - that I could approach nearer

his original plan, and adopt a construction more fitted for general Naviga-

tion- that I proposed the Steam Engine to become only secondary or subsidiary

power, and to throw away the wheels. “What!” he exclaimed, Mr. Taylor, do you

think you can substitute any thing better than my wheels?” I said, I thought

I could – “You will not easily persuade me of that” said he, “but at the same time,

I am not so wedded to the wheels, as to reject a better plan, if you can find it, &,

when we begin again, we shall try; but the expense of this last experiment will

make me consider what I am about. I must rest a little upon my oars - besides

I have entered upon the improvement of my estate, and must have a year or two

to devote to that purpose, when I have that business put in proper train, you

& I will return to the Steam Boats again, and it will then be time enough to

take our Patent.”

         This, Sir, is a faithful and correct account of the origin and rise of the pre-

sent system of Steam Boats; from which you will readily perceive that the

application of the Steam Engine to sailing was not an accidental occurrence,

but the result of study, of deliberate investigation and discussion; and

brought forward and matured by a gradual and natural progress. To

every word of this narrative I could affix an affidavit but the public announce-

8.

ments & the documents in my possession, I consider good evidence of its truth.

         I shall now proceed to account for the interval that took place, from the time

of Mr. Miller’s experiments, till the invention came before the public.

         Mr. Miller’s pause separated him and me, and having been much pres-

sed and solicited by a noble Family, whilst these experiments were going on,

to engage in some speculations of theirs, I now, with Mr. Miller’s consent, enter-

ed into treaty with them; reserving the privilege of attending the Steam Boats

when Mr. Miller should be inclined to move again. Two years afterwards

I visited Dalswinton to see how the agricultural improvements stood - I

found Mr. Miller completely engaged, and not willing to have his atten-

tion abstracted from them; for he was not an enthusiast in his pursuits,

and this was then a very prevailing topic with gentlemen with landed property.

A furthur (sic) delay of course followed. For several years I paid Mr. Miller

occasional visits, but found him more & more engaged in his a-

gricultural pursuits. The cultivation of Fiorine grass at last took

such hold of him, that no other object could withdraw him from it.

         In this situation stood matters till 1801 or 1802 when Mr. Symington pre-

vailed upon the late Lord Dundas to employ him to fit up a Steam boat for

the Forth and Clyde Canal company. This he performed & put in motion.

A committee of management attended, who were so alarmed at the agitation of

the water, and washing of the banks, that they would not allow it to be used

again. The vessel, in consequence, was laid up at Lock 16, where it lay a number

of years. After this, Lord Dundas recommended Symington to the Duke

of Bridgewater, who entered readily into the scheme and gave a commission to

fit up several upon his canal; but the Duke’s death soon after, prevented

the execution of that commission.

         Whilst these matters were going on, in one of my visits to Dalswinton,

I found Mr. Miller both hurt and angry at Symington’s indiscreet interfe-

rence, and threatening, if he persisted farther, to take legal measures to stop him.

9.

The objections, however of the Canal company and the death of the Duke of

Bridgewater answered this purpose, and the business again fell asleep.

Whilst the Boat of the Canal company lay at Lock 16, Mr. Fulton, the A-

merican Engineer, was travelling for information in the line of his profession,

and while he and a Mr. Bell of Glasgow were visiting the Carron works, they

they were informed of the Steam Boat. This was exactly an object for Mr. Fulton’s

observation, they accordingly called upon Mr. Symington at Falkirk, and

requested to be shewn the Steam Boat. This was readily granted, and a full

description given. It appears that these gentlemen had afterwards correspond-

ed on the subject and when Mr. Bell was at any loss, he paid visit after visit,

 to lock 16 to get over his difficulty. It appears also that both these gentle-

men had projected a scheme of turning the invention to a speculation of pro-

fit on their account. In consequence Mr. Fulton brought forward his

Boat on the Hudson in 1807, and he and his country vainly claim-

ed the merit of the Invention.

         Mr. Bell’s motions were less rapid, for it was 1812 before his vessel was

in motion upon the Clyde. He in his turn claimed the merit of the invention;

and October 28th 1816, he published a most impudent and arrogant letter in

the Newspapers (Caledonian Mercury) reprehending and reviling all former

attempts- assuming the whole merit, even of instructing Fulton – and giving

a gross misrepresentation of Mr. Miller’s experiments – even quoting Mr. Miller

himself as authority. There could be nothing more false. Of all his experi-

ments in Artillery or Shipping there was none Mr. Miller was so proud of.

He never spoke of the Steam boat experiments at any time but with exul-

tation. But Mr. Miller was dead and this vain boaster thought he

might take advantage of the circumstance. He falsely and vainly asserts

that his vessel the Comet was the first Steam boat in Europe that an-

swered the purpose. She was only the fifth, and of very spurious extrac-

tion – (Symington had previously fitted up two for the Canal company.)

It may indeed, be allowed to Fulton and him, that they were the first

who turned profit out of the Invention; for neither Mr. Miller, who expend-

10.

the money, nor I who expended time ever received any. But neither of these

Gentlemen can have any pretensions whatever, farther than as mere copiers.

         Mr. Symington also assumed the credit of the invention. But Mr. Miller

and I had discussed, digested and projected the plan nearly twelve months – and

Mr. Miller had published his book six months before Mr. Symington was at all

employed in the concern. He has indeed the merit of being the first opera-

tive Engineer, and performed his task in the first experiment very well; and in

the second equally so as to the result; but with little satisfaction to Mr. Miller as

to time and expense. This circumstance broke up their connection, and in fact

produced the stop that followed.

         When the Steam Boats first appeared upon the Clyde, I waited upon Mr. Miller,

and stated that now was the time, or never, to preserve the benefit of the invention. 

He admitted that to be true, but age and infirmities now pressed upon him

and he said - “My abilities for such speculations are gone, and I must now rest,

satisfied (so far as I am concerned) with having produced an experiment which

will do good to my country and benefit all mankind.” I had not funds to inter-

fere, and Mr. Miller being unwilling, the benefit thus slipped through our hands.

         Such is the history of the transactions, during the period of interval from Mr.

Miller’s experiments, till the invention came into public use.

         It has often surprised me when discussions were going on in the

public Newspapers, Magazines, Reviews &c, that Mr. Miller’s experiments should have

fallen so much into oblivion. The first at Dalswinton, in 1788, was made before

hundreds, many of whom are still living * and in that number, Mr. Stainton, the Man-

ager of the Carron works. Both were announced in the public papers, the first in the

Dumfries and the second in the Edinburgh papers.

         Permit me now, Sir, to make a few observations upon the first page of

the Report of the Honourable the Select Committee on this subject. There is no

disputing the point of precedence with Jonathan Hull, although his views were

more confined than ours, but at the same time his patent was totally unknown

to either Mr. Miller or me, and we borrowed no hints whatever from it. Our i-

deas were produced from necessity, the mother of invention, and in that respect

stand as original with us, as if no such proposal had ever been made.

* in which number is Mr. Monteith of Closeburn. The second in 1789 made upon the

Forth and Clyde Canal, was before thousands, many of whom are also living.

11.

As to the Marquis of Jouffroy, I have a different opinion. I have strong doubts

of the accuracy of the information acquired by the Committee concerning the date (1781.)

When Mr. Miller published, and circulated his book in 1787, his son, the present

Mr. Patrick Miller, was in Paris and presented his father’s book to the King, and  

his Ministers, and at that time there was not a whisper in France on the subject,

but what arose from the book. In short, neither in Europe nor in America, had an

idea of the kind been promulgated till Mr. Miller’s book drew it forth. With re-

spect to the others mentioned in the report, Mr. Symington’s experiment in 1802, was

not new for he had been instructed by Mr. Miller’s experiments, fifteen years be-

fore. Mr. Fulton’s was in 1807, and Mr. Bell’s in 1812, the one nineteen years, and

the other twenty four years posterior to Mr. Miller’s, while their mode of acquiring

information, totally excludes them from any claim of competition.

         It was very unfortunate that Mr. Miller stopped operations when he

did, for we were just in the midst of our progress; and I have all along

considered what has been done, only as a part, & have lived in the faith & hope

of some day coming forward with a more finished whole. But this, my limited

circumstances in life and want of friends, have as yet precluded. I beg leave

however to state that I consider the sequel to these transactions of as much im-

portance as all that has yet been done. Perhaps in the whole circle of Arts & Sciences

none has exercised the ingenuity of men more or with more success than sailing. Yet

there exist philosophical and mechanical combinations which will con-

tribute still much to the success and improvement of both the natu-

ral and artificial powers, though they have not yet been acted upon.

A vessel, which shall know no contrary wind, has been long a deside-

ration with me. How far my theory can be reduced to practice,

remains to be ascertained, but I have been long in the confident hope

of it.

         I shall only further observe, that I have been feelingly alive to every

improvement proposed in Steam Boat machinery; but cannot say that

I have noticed any thing of moment from the first, except Mr. Oldham’s

revolving paddles, which are certainly an improvement.6 The chain

paddles may be so also but are not sufficiently tried. I have per-

haps been too prolix in this narrative, but in recalling a transaction

12.

from oblivion, which has been assailed by so many vain pretenders, I thought

it necessary to be circumstantial to afford the more facility for inquiry, if it be

judged necessary.”

         I have had, Sir, in the foregoing narration, given a full & accurate

account of the origin of Steam Navigation & of its progress till it became an ob-

ject of rapidly increasing interest not only to the commercial world, but to the

public at large. Its importance is now universally felt and acknowledged; but

though it promises to be of unspeakable advantage to Trade in general, and to

Multitudes of His Majesty’s subjects, it has never been productive of one shilling

to the original Inventor.

         While therefore awards are liberally, and no doubt properly bestowed, for various

useful inventions & discoveries, while they are even held out for achieve-

ments in Steam Navigation itself, can it be thought too presuming, if I solicit some

share of attention to my claims? I am aware that owing to the long period

which has elapsed since the first successful experiment, my pretensions must

now appear under a decided disadvantage, but much of this will be neutra-

lized by a due regard to the circumstances in which I was placed, and as I am

confident that you will not refuse my case a fair consideration, I feel equal

confidence that your decision will be regulated by justice and propriety.

         If then you find that I am entitled to any recompense for the service

I have performed, I shall receive the Boon with sincere and respectful grati-

tude. If you determine otherwise I shall yet have the comfort of reflecting

that I contributed largely to a great & permanent national benefit, although

it has never been of the slightest advantage to myself.

I have the honor to be, Sir

with the greatest respect

                                                         your most obedient &

very humble servant

James Taylor

LETTER DATED 20 AUGUST 1825

In this letter Taylor seeks to further his pretensions and to decry the claims of Symington, Fulton and Bell. In his rambling diatribe, Taylor dismisses the contributions of Symington, Fulton and Bell and makes the extraordinary and unconscionable claim that he and Patrick Miller were the joint “inventors” of steam navigation. To support his claims, Taylor includes letters from Alexander Fergusson of Craigdarroch and his son Robert. Alexander Fergusson of Craigdarroch (1746-1796) was well connected: he was born in Drumlanrig Castle, the seat of the Duke of Queensberry; his father, James Fergusson, was Chamberlain to the Third Duke of Queensberry. Fergusson was a lawyer and friend of the poet Robert Burns and was immortalised in verse as the victor of the drinking match in Burns’ ballad "The Whistle".  He was Master of the Lodge Canongate Kilwinning and had proposed Robert Burns as a member. Burns was made Poet Laureate of the Lodge. Burns was the tenant farmer of Elliesland Farm which was owned by Patrick Miller at the time of the Dalswinton experiment. Other members of the Lodge included the artist Alexander Naesmyth and James Bruce of Kinnaird, the Abyssinian explorer.7. Fergusson was a long-standing acquaintance of Patrick Miller and it was Fergusson who recommended James Taylor to Miller as a tutor to Miller's sons. 8 Robert Cutlar Fergusson, the eldest son of Alexander Fergusson, was an advocate and politician.

Although he had no background in engineering, Taylor alleges that it was he who had persuaded Miller to use a steam engine, boasting that “I had been long and intimately conversant with that subject” (of the Steam Engine). Four weeks after writing this letter, Taylor died, on 18 September 1825

Cumnock Augt. 20th, 1825

Sir,

                                 I had the honour, some months ago, through the

medium of Mr. Kennedy of Dunure,9 to transmit to you a detailed account

of the origin of Steam Navigation, and of my connection with that import-

ant discover\y. This produced from you a polite answer, addressed to Mr.

Kennedy, in which, I regret to observe you hold out little hope that

Government will consider it a fit subject of remuneration. It appear-

ed to me however that this disinclination of His Majesty’s Government

to grant my award for an Invention of such acknowledged importance

might probably arise from their being actually puzzled between conflicting

claims; and in doubt as to whom such remuneration could with strict jus-

tice be assigned – and I fancied I could discover, from an expression

in your letter, that my claims are thought to rest on insufficient evidence,

as being built principally, if not wholly, on my own assertion.

         Assuming this to be their impression, I confess I do not see how Go-

vernment could act otherwise than they have done. But for this very rea-

son, it becomes the more necessary that I try to rectify all misapprehension

on the subject and to set it in as clear a light as circumstances will

now permit.

         I have taken the liberty therefore to address the following representation

to you, in the hope that it may tend to remove any unfavourable impression

of my case, at least in so far as such impression can be shown to be errone-

ous.

         For this purpose, I beg a few moments’ previous attention to the claims

of the other competitors, viz Symington, Fulton, & Bell.

As to Mr. Symington, I shall only ask the question – Had he ever

applied steam to the propelling of Vessels previous to his having been

employed by Mr. Miller, at my suggestion, to do so? or has such a

2.

thought ever entered his mind before? This cannot, with truth, be answered

in the affirmative.

         Mr. Fulton is next in order, but his having seen Mr. Symington’s

production, and having had it fully and distinctly explained by Mr.

Symington himself a number of years before his own appeared in America,

totally destroys his claim as an original inventor.

         Mr. Bell of Glasgow is the third and last on the list – and his pre-

tensions appear to me to be the worst founded, and the most imprudent of all;

for he not only had the advantage, in common with Mr. Fulton, of seeing

Mr. Symington’s vessel, and having her minutely and repeatedly described,

but he had the additional advantage of knowing the successful result of Mr.

Fulton’s attempt on the Hudson, five years before he himself brought forward

any thing of the kind in this country. Mr. Bell indeed admitted the

priority of Mr. Miller’s experiments, but affected to deny that they ever suc-

ceeded. This was either wilful misrepresentation, or must have proceeded

from gross ignorance. No experiments were ever more completely suc-

cessful. As a proof of which, I refer you to the Scots Magazine

for Nov.r 1788. vol 2. page 566.th second column, where a sufficiently full

account of them may be seen. So much for the Original Inventors!!

         From what has been here said, I flatter myself it is no more than a

fair inference, that the honour of the invention lies betwixt Mr. Miller, and me –

and if so – we must either have made the discovery simultaneously, or

one of us must have seized it first, and suggested it to the other. Let us

suppose for the sake of argument, that Mr. Miller was the first inventor.

In that case, what had he to apprehend from me? Could he ever sup-

pose that a person situated as I was, - under his immediate patronage –

an inmate of his family - & an object of his unvaried kindness, would in-

iquitously start up as an opponent and seek to rob him of an honour

which I knew to belong solely to him? The thing is impossible! He

could entertain no such idea. What then hindered him from boldly

and publicly urging his indisputable right to the whole merit? The

wheels were his acknowledged property – all the cost of the experiments

was defrayed by him alone. There did not therefore exist a single cir-

3

cumstance, which the nicest honour or the most romantic delicacy could

have recognised as an obstacle. Yet Mr. Miller always shrunk from

any exclusive claim!! Was he then indifferent to the honour, or insen-

sible of the advantage that might result from such a discovery? He

certainly was neither the one, nor the other. On the contrary, he was

quite an idolater of fame – and with respect to profit, it is at least

natural to suppose that for the many considerable sums which he has

spent on fruitless experiments, he would be glad to be reimbursed by some

more successful speculation. Thus, though a large accession of

fortune, as well as reputation, was placed, as it were, within his grasp,

and (according to the above hypothesis) was legitimately his own;

Yet Mr. Miller sat down, and, (as far as the subject of Steam Na-

vigation was concerned) remained in a state of Apathy & Indolence,

from which no arguments, or entreaties of mine, could ever afterwards

rouse him!

         How is this strange inconsistency to be accounted for? Simply

thus – He was conscious that he was neither the sole, nor the principal inventor of Steam

Navigation; and had had too much honour to appropriate what was

not his own. This affords a key to the whole mystery. Upon

this explanation, all his seeming inconsistency vanishes; and his re-

luctance to proceed is resolved into a very natural human weakness,

-a strong dislike of admitting a participation in the credit or of

bringing forward a coadjutor whose claims might eventually collapse (sic)

his own.        It is however, but justice here to state, that,

in all my subsequent intercourse with Mr. Miller, so far from de-

nying my claims, he generally, on that subject, associates me with

himself, by employing such expressions as “we,” “you & I,” “us,” &

“our steam boat,” &c, &c.      Indeed Mr. Patrick Miller in his

lately published account, seems to admit that his father always

acknowledged his obligations to me in the matter. And here

a question naturally occurs. What were these obligations? They

must have been connected with Steam Navigation; for he owed

nothing to me in any other of his schemes. But had that

4

invention belonged exclusively to Mr. Miller, no obligation would have

existed, and none would have been acknowledged. Nor is the difficulty

lessened by supposing that we had both stumbled on the discovery at

the same time. The knowledge of such an accidental coincidence

might perhaps have confirmed Mr. Miller in his opinion, but never

could have drawn from him an acknowledgement of obligations to

me. It is scarcely possible therefore to avoid the conclusion that these

obligations consisted in my having furnished him with ideas on the

subject he was investigating, which had not previously occurred to

himself – or in other words I must have urged the necessity, and at

the same time, persuaded him of the practicability of applying steam

as a substitute for human force in the turning of his wheels. This is

the more probable because Mr. Miller was then wholly unacquaint-

ed with the structure and properties of Steam Engines; whereas

I had been long and intimately conversant with that subject.

         In the above reasoning, I have confined myself to such

arguments as seemed to arise out of the nature and circumstances

of the case, without any regard to extrinsic corroboration – allow

me to state one more, which has both considerable weight in it-

self, and can, I think be established on very satisfactory evidence.

It is this – Ever since the invention of Steam Navigation, I have uni-

formly asserted my claim to that part of it which regards the applica-

tion of Steam as an agent in moving the wheels. This can be prov-

ed both by living witnesses, and by letters, from some who have long been

deceased, and from some who are still in existence. I beg leave to

transcribe one of the former class. It is from the late Mr. Fergusson of

Craigdarroch, a gentleman of high respectability, then on a visit to the

Duke of Queensberry. It is as follows.

Drumlanrig 15.th Aug.t 1790

         Dear Sir       

“If this find you at home, I beg you will come down here

tomorrow morning, as I wish to shew you a letter from my son from

Paris, which I think is of the utmost importance to you, and may turn

out of great advantage to you. It respects your Steam Engine. If you

cannot come here tomorrow, or early on Tuesday, you must come over

5

to Craigdarroch on Saturday, when you will find me there, & I am,

Dear Sir

Mr. James Taylor                                                                   Yours sincerely

Leadhills                                                                  (Signed) Alex.r Fergusson”

         The letter alluded to by Mr. Fergusson was one from his son stating his con-

viction that it would turn out a very beneficial speculation were I to carry

my invention to the continent; and that I would probably meet with

ample encouragement at Vienna, or in Hungary. I have also one

from the same gentleman addressed to myself, in answer to some queries

which I had put to him on the above subject, some extracts from which

I shall here put down. Viz.

Paris 12.th Octr 1790

Dear Sir,

“I have your favour of the 25th ult. from Leadhills – continued

on the 28th from Craigdarroch. I have carefully noted what you men-

tion regarding the application of the Steam Engine to the purposes

of Navigation &c.”

“The object I had in view was the Danube, not the Seine” &c.

“I know the late Queen of Hungary, and her son the late Emperor

were both exceedingly anxious to discover some method of lessening the

expense of navigation to Vienna, which from the rapidity of the cur-

rent (which requires an immense power of horses) is enormous.”

“I am endeavouring to procure every information regarding the

object in view. I hope soon to be able to tell you at what rate

per hour the Danube runs.” &c.

“When our informations on that subject are as complete as can

be, I might propose the matter here to the Compte de Merci,

ambassador of the King of Hungary, who is a public spirited man.” &c.

“It would however be essential to have it known that it is not the

mad project of an adventurer that has no prospect of succeeding;

and for this purpose the matter should be opened perhaps at Vienna by

the British Ambassador.” &c. &c.

“As I am not so conversant in the principles of the machine itself

as I could wish, I beg you may explain it to me as correctly as you

can on paper; which will be absolutely necessary for answering any

6

general questions that may be put to me on the subject – for you may

believe I will never enter so far into particulars as to disclose in any

manner, what it may be proper to conceal.” &c. &c.

Mr. James Taylor                   (Signed) Robert Fergusson

These letters, the originals of which I have now before me, are dated

1790, being soon after the first satisfactory experiments on Steam Navigation

were made, and long prior to the death of Mr. Miller. Both gentlemen

were his intimate friends and visitors and well acquainted with all the facts

I have detailed.

It may also be observed that, in these letters, I am not addressed

as a mere subordinate agent, but as a principal, who was supposed to

exercise an independent discretion, and whose inseparable connection

with the original discovery, entitled him at least to a participation of

all the benefits which Steam-boat-Speculations might produce.

I need scarcely add that, the breaking out of the French Revolution, and some

other unforeseen obstacles, put a stop to the projects which were then formed for

my advantage.

The foregoing statement should have been prepared & forwarded

long ago – but a tedious and dangerous illness put it out of my power to

attend to it sooner. It is now however sent and should it succeed

in eradicating from your mind any doubt as to the legitimacy of my

claims, it may chance to be the happy means of raising up for me a power-

ful advocate. If on the contrary, it fails to produce the impression which

I wish, I can only lament, that a combination of unfortunate circumstan-

ces, over which I possessed no control, has prevented me from reaping any

benefit from a discovery which, in the hands of a more pushing, or more

lucky individual, might have raised him to opulence and distinction.

I have the honour to be,

With the greatest respect,

Sir,

Your most obedient &

Very humble servant

James Taylor

The Right Honourable

William Huskisson

President of the Board of Trade

London

Taylor’s letter dated 20 August 1825 is endorsed as follows by Lord Melville (Robert Dundas 1771-1851), First Lord of the Admiralty: “Discovery of Steam Navigation. Mr. Taylor is thought to be dead; but a pension of from £50 to £100 would be desirable if it can be obtained.”10

William Symington’s appeal for remuneration was somewhat less successful. His biographer, Dr. Robert Bowie, wrote that Symington had attempted to bring his claims before Parliament by means of petition, but Mr. Goulburn, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, refused to allow its being presented, alleging the subject had previously been frequently before him.11  Henry Goulburn (1784-1856) was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1828 to 1830 under Wellington. An amount of £150 had been awarded, when Lord Goderich and Mr. Canning were Chancellors of the Exchequer but no ongoing pension was awarded.

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

1 Memorial of the Late Mr. James Taylor, of Cumnock, Ayrshire, presented to the Select Committee of the Honourable the House of Commons on Steamboats, &c., through the Right Hon. Sir Henry Parnell, Bart., on the subject of propelling vessels by steam power. Dated April 1824. Second Edition, with original correspondence, supporting Mr. Taylor’s claims.

2 National Archive GD51/1/466/1-2

3 The Speeches of the Right Honourable William Huskisson, with a Biographical Memoir, supplied to the author, from Authentic Sources. Volume III. London 1831

4 Portrait reproduced from the Memorial of the Late Mr. James Taylor op. cit.

5 In reference to mention of de Jouffroy in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Steamboats, Sir Henry Parnell, Chairman. June 1822

6 John Oldham (1779-1840), Irish engineer, invented a “feathering” paddle wheel which he patented in 1827, in which the angle of the float boards varies, becoming vertical at the lowest extremity, the direction of the boards radiating from a point in the upper part of the circumference of the wheel.

7 Mackenzie, Allan, History of the Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No. 2. Edinburgh 1888

8 Letter from Fergusson to Taylor, dated Edinburgh, 18th June 1785, quoted in the Memorial by the late Mr. James Taylor, of Cumnock, Ayrshire; presented to the Select Committee of the House of commons on Steamboats, &c., through the Right Hon. Sir Henry Parnell, Bart., on the subject of propelling vessels by steam power. Dated April, 1824. Second edition, with original correspondence sustaining Mr. Taylor’s claims.

9 Thomas Francis Kennedy (1788-1879) of Dunure. Advocate and Member of Parliament for the Ayr Burghs.

10 Melville Papers, National Records of Scotland GD51/1/466/1-2

11 Bowie, Robert, A Brief Narrative, Proving the Right of the Late William Symington, Civil Engineer, to be Considered the Inventor of Steam Land Carriage Locomotion; and also the Inventor and Introducer of Steam Navigation. London. 1833