In 1801 William Symington patented his invention of a "new method of constructing Steam Engines and of using their power for the purpose of producing rotatory motion without the intervention of a Lever or Beam." The specification states explicitly that his invention was specifically designed to drive boats on inland waterways: "The above mentioned construction of Steam Engines is peculiarly adapted for navigating Boats, vessels or Rafts in Canals or Rivers." "Firstly, a wheel or wheels with blades may be placed in a Boat vessel or Raft to act in such manner upon the water when put in motion by the Steam Engine as to be able to impel the Boat Vessel or Raft which may be used in the place of horses to drag to drag boats vessels or Rafts and a wheel or wheels may be placed to act within the boat vessel or Raft if constructed with two keels or divided from Stem to Stern or upon the outside of those built in common form as circumstances  may require. The principle of this Invention comprehends any species of machinery thus put in rotatory motion by a Steam Engine which may be made use of to navigate Boats Vessels or Rafts."

The patent specification was signed and sealed in Edinburgh on 9th March 1802 before Mr. James Gibson, clerk to H.M. Signet.

In 1736 Jonathan Hulls had patented a concept using a steam engine to power a boat: a "Machine to carry ships and vessels out of and into any harbour, port, or river against wind and tide or in a calm.” This steam tugboat was illustrated in a pamphlet which Hulls published in 1737. However, Hulls did not produce a working example. William Symington's concept was more sophisticated and the system described in his 1801 patent was proven to be effective: his invention combined three distinct elements: a double acting Watt engine with separate condenser with the cylinder placed in a horizontal position; the paddle wheel which was coupled to the piston rod by an arm and crank or system of gears. William Symington's patented system was proven to be practical and effective in the Charlotte Dundas which was the first successful steamboat. The efficacy of the Charlotte Dundas was demonstrated in a seminal trial in March 1803 in which she towed two fully laden barges on the Forth and Clyde Canal a distance of nearly 20 miles into a head wind. 

In 1812, Henry Bell 1767-1830 set up the first commercial passenger steamboat service in Great Britain. Bell was proprietor of the baths at Helensburgh. His vessel, the Comet, transported passengers across the Clyde from Greenock to Helensburgh.

Described as shrewd man with "a rich vein of vulgar humour", [1] Bell had scant formal education. Bell's biographer hails him as "the practical introducer of the steam-boat into Great Britain." [2] He mentions William Symington's steam boats, only to dismiss his trial boats as "experiments and of no practical utility." At about the time of Patrick Miller's 1789 steamboat trials, Bell was working as a carpenter in Glasgow. Bell claimed to have worked with the esteemed engineer Rennie in London.

Henry Bell had been afforded every opportunity to study the machinery of the Charlotte Dundas in detail. Bell was well known to Lawrence McLaren, the senior blacksmith and fitter who had worked on the Charlotte Dundas. At the time when the machinery was being fitted to the Charlotte Dundas in the Lock at Carron Company, Bell was working as a carpenter under Jock Stein, the master carpenter for Carron Company. [3]

[1] Russell, John Scott, On The Nature, Properties, and Applications of Steam, and on Steam Navigation. (From the seventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica) Edinburgh 1841

[2] Morris, Edward, The Life of Henry Bell the Practical Introducer of the Steam-Boat into Great Britain and Ireland 1844

[3] Falkirk Herald 24 February 1886 page 3 and 10 April 1862

In the above map, the canal linking Carron Ironworks to the River Carron is outlined in red. The Charlotte Dundas was fitted out in the Lock at the entry to the canal. Across the river from the lock was Carronside farm. The hull of the Charlotte Dundas would have been sailed or dragged to the Lock up the River Carron or along the Forth and Clyde canal from Grangemouth, where she was built by John Allan. Ship's carpenters employed by Carron company worked on the "point" of a strip of land between the canal and the river, known as "the island" (shaded in green). Henry Bell was working as a carpenter on the island when the Charlotte Dundas was being fitted out.

According to the SYMINGTON TESTIMONIAL (q.v.), Mr. Bell who was often on board Mr. Symington's boats, and intruded himself, even offensively among the pattern makers and constructors of Mr. Symington's Steam Boat Machinery, in the Carron Iron Works; and had many opportunities, of which he repeatedly availed himself, of examining the Steam Boat laid up in Bainsford Creek, before he succeeded in producing the "Comet." Bell did not deny that he had benefitted from observing the work of William Symington and others.  

WILLIAM SYMINGTON'S ACTION AGAINST BELL'S ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT

William Symington regarded Bell's commercial steam boat operation as an infringement on his 1801 patent and initiated legal proceedings in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the supreme civil court of Scotland. The new court house for the second division was opened in 1809 and described as "very elegant and compact." [1] The case was heard in the Second division of the Court of Session by Lord Pitmilly, David Monypenny 1769-1850. [2]

Lord Cockburn 1779-1854, lawyer and judge, described Monypenny, as being “of good sense, but of moderate ability”, and as follows: “Slender, pure-eyed, clear-skinned, a beautifully composed manner, a distinct quiet voice, and an air of steady propriety in all he said and did.” Cockburn observed that Monypenny sat so serenely and with such composure that “it made one cool to look at him.” [3]

[1] Bell's letter to the Edinburgh Evening Courant Sept 1827, quoted in the Bell Biography page 80

[2] Perthshire Courier 16 November 1809 page 4.   

[3] Cockburn, Henry, Memorials of His Time. Edinburgh 1856, pages 299,300

[1] Reproduced in Burnett, George, The Scottish Bar Fifty Years Ago: Sketches of Scott and his Contemporaries. Edinburgh 1871

David Monypenny was called to the bar in 1791. He was created a Lord of Session in 1813. 

His obituary appears in the Fifeshire Journal 31 December 1850 pages 2 and 3.

William Symington had initiated proceedings against Henry Bell in which he sought damages for "violation of a privilege or monopoly which was invested in letters patent."

The proceedings are held in the National Archive, Edinburgh: CS238/S/20/83 WILLIAM SYMINGTON v BELL 1815.

Both sides procured formidable legal support.

BELL'S LAWYERS

Henry Bell was represented by the eminent Edinburgh law firm Gibson, Christie and Wardlaw. The senior partner was Sir James Gibson 1765-1850, lawyer and politician. Gibson's mother was Mary Cecilia, a daughter of James Balfour of Pilrig. He was admitted to the Society of Writers of the Signet in 1786.

WILLIAM SYMINGTON'S LAWYER

Acting on behalf of William Symington was the highly esteemed advocate James Greig of Eccles 1782-1859.

Before taking action against Bell, William Symington had sought the advice of John Clerk of Eldin 1717-1832 who had been the Solicitor-General for Scotland.   In his "Brief Narrative" Dr. Robert Bowie enclosed a copy of the legal opinion written by John Clerk which had encouraged William Symington to initiate proceedings against Henry Bell:

Opinion of John Clerk, Esq., advocate, regarding William Symington’s specification and patent for steam boats:

Primo. - I am of opinion there can be no well founded objection to the specification: it describes, in proper terms, the invention for which the patent was granted.

Secundo. -The notice the patentee gives how the same is to be performed is by no means irrelative ; but, on the contrary, is requisite and proper.

           Tertio.- If the proprietors, or builders of steam boats, refuse a reasonable compensation, the patentee is entitled to stop them by an interdict; but I would not advise that measure. He should rather bring an action of damages against them, for having invaded his privilege, and benefited themselves by his invention.

                                                 (Signed)       John Clerk.

Edinburgh, June 30, 1814.

Bell's lawyers, Gibson, Christie & Wardlaw, offered the offensively condescending objection that this action "cannot possibly prove successful." The firm's principal, James Gibson had been the signatory to Symington's patent specification which would prove to be not worth the paper on which it was written. William Symington had spent a great deal of time and money in attempting to protect and gain from his invention and to no avail. He claimed this had cost him £500 Scots. (See section on his adviser, Robert Wight).

They claimed first that it was not clear that the specification had been enrolled "debito tempore" (in due time), perhaps because there had been a precedent to the concept of marine steam propulsion, prior to William Symington demonstrating that his scheme was practicable and useful. However, it seems that no argument was presented that the concept of steam propulsion had already been patented by Hulls.

Secondly, they claimed that the form of steam engine described in the patent was not "new or useful; indeed it is of no utility whatever."

Third, they reiterated that Symington's patent was for "a new mode of constructing steam-engines, and applying their power to the purposes of producing rotatory motion and other motions, without the interposition of a lever or beam"

Symington's intention was to differentiate his drive mechanism using a connecting rod and crank or gears from the existing system which employed an overhead beam as compared with the "old" system of vertical cylinder and overhead beam.

Lord Pitmilly's final decision is not documented in the proceedings, but clearly Symington's action was dismissed. [1] [2] William Symington must have been mortified to find that his patent was considered worthless.

Hulls had already patented a concept of marine steam propulsion which was not workable; William Symington had designed and operated a practicable system of steam propulsion. However his patent was only for his particular mechanism of propulsion and not considered as an inclusive concept.

NOTES ON THE LEGAL TEAMS

WILLIAM SYMINGTON'S SOLICITOR

JAMES GREIG 1782-1859

James Greig of Eccles, Writer to the Signet

Died 10 December 1859 at 9 Abernethy Place Edinburgh

Address 19 Duke Street Scottish P. O. Directory 1815 page 110

HENRY BELL'S LAWYERS

GIBSON, CHRISTIE & WARDLAW

7 North St. Andrew's Street, Edinburgh

The partners:

SIR JAMES GIBSON 1765-1850 (known as Gibson-Craig from 1823).

Lawyer and politician.

His mother was Mary Cecilia, a daughter of James Balfour of Pilrig.

Admitted to the Society of Writers of the Signet in 1786.

DAVID CHRISTIE, writer, died 29 September 1823 aged 55

DAVID WARDLAW of Gogar Mount, Edinburgh 

Writer to the Signet.

Founder of the Scottish Widows Fund.

Died at Peebles 28 August 1831 aged 58. [3]

(Will NA PROB 11/1793/363 date 31 December 1831)

[1] CS238/S/20/83 WILLIAM SYMINGTON v BELL 1815.

[2] Decisions of the First and Second Divisions of the Court of Session, From November 1814 to November 1815 Edinburgh 1816

[3] Smith, John, compiler, Paul, James Balfour, Editor Memorial Inscriptions in St. Cuthbert's Churchyard Edinburgh 1915 Burial site 225

 [1] Maxwell, Sir Herbert, Annals of the Scottish Widows' Fund Life Assurance Society During One Hundred Years 1815-1914 Edinburgh 1914