19th century merchant ships
TRANSCRIPT
1
How Did the Construction of British Merchant Sailing Ships Become More Efficient in the
Nineteenth Century?
By: Janelle Harrison
2
Introduction It�s safe to say that the British merchant ships of the last half of the 19th
Century underwent enormous technological and economical changes. Many of
these changes, especially those made in the design of the sailing vessel were
tied to changes in the Merchant Shipping Act and the Navigation Laws in Britain
(known as tonnages law of 1773, and the new tonnage laws of 1836 and 1854).
Other changes like the invention of the steam engine, and the use of iron or steel
hulled ships, eventually contributed to the decline in construction of the sailing
ship in Britain. This turn of events did not progress rapidly, and it took several
decades to perfect these innovations so that they could work together to create
an economically viable ship that was fast and reliable (Graham 1956, 77; Harley
1970, 262).
It was the imperfections of the Industrial Revolutions� technology and the
rise in British world trade that contributed to the increase in the building of sailing
ships in Britain and Scotland between 1850-1875. Many of the sailing vessels
coming out of the shipyards were of a new breed- many of them designed
experimentally by each individual builder, yet striving for the same goal: to build
faster, lighter, stronger sailing ships (MacGregor 1983a, 84). This innovation in
sailing vessels leads to the building boom of a type of vessel known as a
composite ship. The composite ship did have variations in its composition, but for
the purpose of this essay when a composite constructed vessel is mentioned it
will refer to a ship constructed of iron frames overlaid with a wooden hull (unless
otherwise stated). In the early years of the 19th century composite constructed
3
vessels began with only the use of iron knees or, as the first patented of iron T-
bars was used on a ship construction by William Watson of Dublin in 1839
(MacGregor 1983a, 85). When iron knees were used in this early stage, the
frames and hull were still constructed of wood which was weaker than iron. To
combat this fault in design by the1850�s iron plating was laid over the bottom
section of the ships keel and run up the stem and stern to which the iron frames
were riveted and the inner ceiling completely constructed of iron. Finally, the
wood was overlaid onto these plates, increasing the cost of the vessel as well as
its gross tonnage (MacGregor 1983a, 85). Both of these methods were discarded
for what we now call composite construction.
It is the author�s intention to examine the rise in construction of British
merchant sailing vessels in the mid-19th century through the analysis and
comparison of numerous composite constructed ships to their contemporary
counterparts. For this purpose the essay will focus on economic and
technological contributions and shortcomings of wooden, iron and steam ships
built in the 19th century (steel will not be examined). And through this brief
comparison perhaps the answer to the question �How did the construction of
British merchant sailing vessels become more efficient in the 19th century?� will
be answered.
Composite Construction �The story of technological change in the nineteenth-century shipping
industry is essentially that of the transformation of the small wooden sailing ship
4
into the large steel steamer as the ideal embodiment of naval vessels and of the
merchant carrier�� (MacGregor 1993c, 52).
Although it is ultimately true that wood gave way to iron, and sail gave way
to steam, there was a decade where multiple shipyards in Britain and Scotland in
the 1860�s found the best use of iron metal and wood to produce a sailing vessel
that would dominate in various trade routes; most notably the China tea trade.
These sailing ships were not just composite constructed vessels; many of them
were clippers. Clippers being a term used for fast sailing ships with tall and large
sail areas. Not all composite constructed vessels were clippers; in fact, some of
the earliest examples of composites were actually steam-propelled ships. But it
was during the 1860�s that ship owners ordered these fast going sailing vessels
known as clippers for trade, and composite construction was the ultimate choice
to make these ships stronger, lighter and thus, faster in the competitive world of
international trade. David MacGregor (1993c) points out that composite
construction �never formed a significant part of the merchant marine� in Britain
and according to Mitchell and Deane (as cited in MacGregor 1993c, 61) at their
peak in 1866 (composite constructed vessels) only represented 14 percent of
sailing ship production in Britain.
Yet there is a lot to be said about their design and their method of
construction. As mentioned in the introduction of this essay, the composite
constructed ship didn�t start off being built with iron frames and a wooden hull. As
early as the late 18th century shipbuilders were experimenting with building
individual parts of the ship out of iron (MacGregor 1993c). Michael Stammers
5
(2001) traces the first use of individual parts of a ship made of iron to the date
circa 1744 to the French warship Invincible. By 1813 this method of construction
had been adopted by the British Royal Navy. Stammers (2001) states �The Royal
Navy adopted the practice of retrospectively fitting iron knees to vessels strained
by long periods enforcing the Blockage during the Napoleonic War. The
systematic installation of ironwork into new ships began under the auspices of Sir
Robert Seppings, the Navy�s chief surveyor from 1813 to 1832 (Stammers 2001,
115).
It wasn�t until the 1850�s that composite construction was acknowledged
as an alternative method of shipbuilding as opposed to the competition that was
being built of wood or iron, at least in merchant shipbuilding. The Royal Navy and
The Merchant Navy were less inclined to build composite ships and made a swift
transition from wooden vessels to iron in the mid to late 19th Century.
It was the Excelsior, built in 1850 by John Jordan at Liverpool that is
attributed with the general credit for being the first composite constructed ship
(MacGregor 1983a; MacGregor 1993c). The schooner Excelsior was a
composite constructed vessel by definition and patent, and with this design the
Fig 1: Seppings iron braced knee (Stammers 2001)
Fig 2: Seppings curved end iron braced knee (Stammers 2001)
6
concept of a composite built vessel evolved over the next decade. The outer skin
of the Excelsior�s hull was made of wood that was butt-jointed together, over the
stringers (inside ceiling, or inner planking) that were iron plates riveted to the iron
frames as explained in the first paragraph of the introduction (McGregor 1983a;
Steffy 1994). Jordan�s patent is this best structural concept of a composite built
vessel because �all its structural members [are] iron (Stammers 2001). Little
details are given about Excelsior�s exact lines plan, but she was 683 tons and
according to Stammers (2001) the best surviving examples of Jordan�s design
concept are the City of Adelaide built 1864, and the Cutty Shark built in 1869.
The fact that these two vessels still exist, 143, and 138 years later respectively, is
testimony to the durable method of composite construction.
Leading To Composite Clippers
It was mentioned at the beginning of this essay that not all composite
constructed ships were clippers or even sailing vessels for that matter, but the
Fig 3: City of Adelaide Present Day (NMM: http://www.nhsc.org.uk/)
Fig 4: Cutty Sark Present Day (www.grahamowen.com/Uk/Cutty-Sark.jpg)
7
majority of clippers built in Britain between 1850-1869 were composite
constructed for multiple reasons that shall now be enumerated. Firstly, a brief
analysis of the differences between a fully built wooden ship (such as the kind
that were being built in the United States) and the composite built clipper that
developed in Britain. Secondly, a sample comparison between iron-constructed
clippers built in Britain and composite constructed clippers will be considered.
Finally, the use of steam powered engines as a source of propulsion verses the
power of sail used on clipper ships will be examined.
Early in the 19th century Britain was finding it difficult to �procure supplies
of timber� to build wooden ships (Stammers 2001). This fact is one of the key
probable reasons for combining construction materials such as iron and wood in
shipbuilding. Through this method, a ship much stronger and lighter was
developed. This allowed for faster sailing times in comparison to wooden built
ships that were constructed without much consideration of the tonnage laws,
which will be discussed later1.
One of the major drawbacks to the combination of iron and wood
according to W. J. Rankine (1866, 180) is that the species of wood found in
Britain such as Old English Oak (Quercus Robur) or other species of oak found
in the Baltic region contains gallic acid, which contributes to the durability of the
timber but corrodes iron fastenings or any iron material it comes in direct contact
with. So now the shipbuilding industry was facing two problems: the first is a 1 The British tonnage laws did not affect the vessels being built in the United States, which maybe one of the reasons that composite constructed clippers never took hold in the U.S. Needless to say, the flying clippers from the U.S. were fast, but it were the British composite extreme clippers that held the records for the fastest trips back from China with tea (MacGregor 1983a; MacGregor 1988b; Course 1961; MacGregor 1893c).
8
shortage of wood to build ships, and the second is that by combining iron pieces
such as fastenings or knees with most wood used in the construction of wood
ships there was a rapid rate of corrosion to the iron pieces. This is one factor that
led to the Royal Navy abandoning Seppings method of building by the 1850�s
even though Britain was sourcing out other species of strong wood that would not
have this affect.
In 1805, the Royal Navy launched the first battleship constructed
completely of teak from Bombay India. It was in India where British colonial
power tried to replenish Britain�s shortage of wood to build vessels with teak from
the forests of Burma (Lang 2003). By 1856 Britain�s superintendent of teak
forests �tried to assert state control over Burma�s teak forests� (Lang 2003), but
this still did not reduce the cost of teak being imported back to Britain where it
was most widely used in the construction of composite built vessels, namely the
clippers. Despite the expense involved in building with teak, it was recommended
as the wood of choice for composite built clippers; increasing the cost per ton
considerably to wooden built vessels manufactured of other species of softer
wood.
W.J. Macquorn Rankine (1866, 181) explains the attributes of teak wood as
follows:
Teak (tectona grandis), for its great strength, stiffness, toughness, and durability, is the most valuable of all woods for shipbuilding. It is produced in the mountainous districts of South-Eastern Asia and the East India Islands. The best comes from Moulmein, Malamar, Ceylon, Johore, and Java. The best logs of teak range from 40 to 80 feet in length, and 15 to 30 inches square; trees are to be found of much greater size, but they are liable to be unsound at the heart�Good teak resembles oak in colour and luster, is uniform and compact in texture, and has very narrow and regular annual rings�.Iron is not corroded by contact with teak; unless it has been grown in a marshy soil.
9
So Britain�s merchant shipbuilders now had a source of wood species that
did not corrode iron when it came in direct contact with it, unlike the problems
they encountered with oak wood. In light of this scientific discovery, the
advantages of a composite constructed ship over a wood ship can be compared:
1) There was less weight in the composite construction, which allowed them
to carry a greater dead weight on the same registered tonnage.
2) Longer ships could be built with more strength and greater speeds
achieved without increasing the ships weight.
3) It was also proved that composite ships were tighter (i.e. less water
seepage into the ship) than wooden built vessels (Course 1961).
These improvements were not just attributed to the idea of building a composite
constructed merchant vessel. Some of the explicit reasons behind the move for
innovated design and technological change were the changes in British Tonnage
Laws.
Changes in Law, Changes in Design
In 1773 what is now know as the old tonnage laws, were pasted by an Act
of Parliament and went into affect in 1774. Basil Greenhill (1980) states that
when registration of all merchant vessels became compulsory in 1786,
shipbuilders recognized that they had to abide by the tonnage laws that were in
place, and they began to build merchant vessels in a way that evaded the
purpose of the tonnage laws, namely taxation on cargoes carried by the ton.
10
Also worth noting before moving on, is that the compulsory registration of
merchant vessels further increased and encouraged the Shipping and Navigation
Act of 1794 (Graham 1956; Course 1961). Because of this formula for calculating
and measuring the ships registered tonnage in 1773, so began the legacy of
deep hulled, unstable merchant vessels. The reason for this, according to
Graham (1956) is that the old tonnage laws did not use the true depth of a ships
hull, but rather, a formula that assumed the depth was half the breath of the ship.
Below is the formula:
(Length � 3/5 Breadth) x Breadth x ½ Breadth = Registered tonnage 94
Therefore, if a ship was built narrow and deep, its registered tonnage was
calculated on the breadth and didn�t actually take into account the ships actual
depth. The difference in actual tonnage could be as much as 30 per cent
(Moorsom 1852). Not all merchant shipowners were in favor of this method of
calculation, and by 1836 these �progressive� merchant shipowners supported the
underwriters of Lloyd�s in reconstituting the regulation, survey, and classification
of merchant ships (Graham 1956). But because the law, as stated by Parliament
was not changed in a significant manor to entice change, and many merchant
ship builders continued to use the old tonnage law for calculating tonnage and for
paying taxes on the amount of cargo they could carry.
11
G. Moorsom (1852) like many of the merchant shipowners saw the
dangers in these tonnage laws and recognized that the old tonnage laws were
ineffective and he therefore produced a new method of calculation that he
proposed to Parliament. He states:
The term �tonnage� as originally applied to mercantile vessels whether intended to express the burthen or weight that a ship is enabled safely to carry, or whether to convey an idea of the relative sizes of vessels, as indicated by the cubical contents of the hold or space for the stowage of cargo, is by no means unequivocally set forth in the earlier Parliamentary documents relating to the subject.
Two years later, in 1854, Moorsoms� method of calculation (which is too
complicated to expand on at this time, but worth noting that is still the method
used today all over the world) was made the law by an Act of Parliament and is
now known as the new tonnage laws. Under the new tonnage laws according to
Greenhill (1980) the affects of the old tonnage laws lingered for a while. But soon
after the law was passed, the design of ships changed after years of stagnation.
And one particular ship design that evolved from the changes in the law was the
fine-lined hull of a clipper sailing ship (MacGregor 1979).
Classification Of A Composite Clipper
The meaning of what a composite constructed vessel is has already been
discussed. It is a ship, whether a sailing vessel or a steam powered ship that was
constructed of iron framing and a wooden hull usually made of teak wood. But
what makes a clipper ship a clipper? It has already been stated that a clipper had
to be fast, but what other criteria can be used to define this type of vessel?
12
MacGregor (1979, 3) states that a clipper could be �of any size or rig� from fifty
tons upward, but usually did not included cutters.
MacGregor (1979; Greenhill 1980) claims that the main criterion used to
define a clipper ship was a fine-lined hull, which allowed the ship to have greater
speed. An aesthetic appeal through its streamlined appearance and most
importantly, a clipper ship required a �daring and skillful master� (MacGregor
1979). Another attribute of a clipper was that it usually carried a large sail area.
The lines of the vessel, described as fine or sharp, convey whether the ship will
be fast or not. The sharper the entrance at the load waterline, the faster the ship
is theoretically supposed to be able to go (MacGregor 1979). The terminology
here meaning that the fore section of the ship is referred to as the entrance, and
the aft part of the hull the run, and usually these two ends meet amid ship (where
the hull supposedly was at its widest, but on a clipper that was not always the
case) (MacGregor 1979).
MacGregor (1979) lists three classes of clippers; regardless of their
construction material they were either extreme clippers, medium clippers, or
clipper. The extreme clipper possessed a very fine-lined hull and was expected
to make a passage with a load of cargo in an unusually short period of time (i.e. a
very fast passage). One way used to compare these three classes of clippers is
to use the under-deck coefficient, which is used to represent the under-deck
tonnage for displacement of a vessel. MacGregor (1983a) purports that a fine-
lined ship will usually have a coefficient ratio under 0.60. The table on the next
13
page
list
s ei
ght c
ompo
site
bui
lt cl
ippe
rs a
nd th
eir d
etai
l; al
l but
two
have
thei
r und
er-d
eck
coef
ficie
nts
liste
d,
but t
hey
are
liste
d be
caus
e Th
e C
ity o
f Ade
laid
e is
one
of t
he o
ldes
t sur
vivi
ng c
ompo
site
bui
lt cl
ippe
rs, a
nd T
he S
obra
on
was
the
larg
est b
uilt
com
posi
te s
hip.
It�s
wor
th n
otin
g he
re, t
hat b
efor
e th
e M
erch
ant S
hipp
ing
Act o
f 185
4, th
e un
der-d
eck
tonn
age
coul
d no
t be
calc
ulat
ed (M
acG
rego
r 197
9).
Dat
e Sh
ip N
ame
Type
D
imen
sion
s (in
feet
) C
oeffi
cien
t**
Bui
lder
To
ns
1863
Ta
epin
g Ex
trem
e cl
ippe
r 18
3.7
x 31
.1 x
19.
9 0.
63
R. S
teel
e &
Co
767
NR
T
1864
C
ity o
f Ade
laid
e M
ediu
m c
lippe
r 17
6.6
x 33
.25
x 18
.5
N/A
W
. Pile
, Hay
& C
o 79
1 N
RT
1865
A
reil
Extre
me
clip
per
197.
4 x
33.9
x 2
1.0
0.6
R. S
teel
e &
Co
853
NR
T
1866
So
brao
n Au
xilia
ry s
team
er (o
rig)
272.
0 x
40.0
x 2
7.0
N/A
Al
exan
der H
all &
Son
s 2,
131
NT
1866
Ti
tani
a Ex
trem
e cl
ippe
r 20
0.0
x 36
.0 x
21.
0 0.
58
R. S
teel
e &
Co
879.
45 N
RT
1868
Th
erm
opla
e Ex
trem
e cl
ippe
r 21
2.0
x 36
.0 x
20.
9 0.
58
Bern
ard
Way
mou
th
948
NR
T
1869
C
utty
Sar
k Ex
trem
e cl
ippe
r 21
2.5
x 36
.0 x
21.
0 0.
55
Scot
t & L
into
n 92
1 N
T
1869
Th
e C
alip
h Ex
trem
e cl
ippe
r21
5.05
x 3
6.1
x 20
.40.
56
Alex
ande
r Hal
l & S
ons
914
NR
T
**U
nder
Dec
k C
oeffi
cien
t Ta
ble
1: (M
acG
rego
r 198
3a, A
ppen
dix
XII;
Cou
rse
1961
, App
endi
x I)
14
The table on the previous page represents some of the finest built clippers for the
China tea trade, passenger and goods cargo trade for the Australian gold rush
camps and the Australian wool trade. Only one of the above listed composite
constructed clippers had been classified as a medium clipper, and she was
known as the City of Adelaide. Using her as the representative composite
constructed clipper she will be compared to several of her contemporary
competitors in the attempt to achieve efficiency during the 19th Century.
City Of Adelaide: Comparative Analysis
Before the City of Adelaide2 was built and launched by W. Pile in 1864,
the first iron ship had already entered into the tea trade between China and
Britain in 1849 (MacGregor). In fact iron was becoming widely used and so was
steam but both had major drawbacks until the late 19th Century. The most
2 The City of Adelaide was William Piles first composite constructed vessel. He had already been building wooden ships at the family yard in Sunderland with his brother John since 1845, but in 1848 he took over part of the business, building on his own account. In 1853 John Pile left the business and William took full ownership until his death (Smith, J. and T.S. Holden 1947).
Fig 7: City of Adelaide (State Library of Victoria. Brodie Collection, La Trobe Picture Collection)
15
significant drawback for the use of iron was that the ships hull below the water
line became fouled quite quickly. This fouling slowed vessels down considerably
and in specialized trades such as the China tea trade or the transport of
passengers and cargo over long distances, time was money. The invention of an
effective anti-fouling chemical was still lacking in 1867 when Charles Young
authored his book on fouling and corrosion. Young (1867) purports that �fouling
involves an enormous loss of money and time.� He goes on to list them in order
of cost as:
1. Docking and undocking 2. Cost of coating materials 3. Wear and tear of ship�s bottom when scraped or cleaned 4. Wages of unemployed crew 5. Loss by reduced speed
As an example of this cost Young (1867) purports that the Peninsular and
Oriental Steamship Company were expending upwards of £70,000 a year trying
to keep their iron hulled ship bottoms clean. And MacGregor (1979) also purports
that during this period �the great drawback to iron hulls was the lack of success in
checking the growth of weed and barnacles below the water. Peacock &
Buchan�s pink-coloured anti-fouling paint, introduced in 1848, gave the best
results.� The cost per ship of 900 tons to have this service provided was
approximately £70 (MacGregor 1979, 38). This usually had to be done twice a
year if the vessel was to be efficient in speed at all.
It is evident that the benefits of iron hulled ships, which were lighter in
gross tonnage and capable of carrying more cargo at the same or even less
registered tonnage rating than a composite built vessel were not great enough to
make the transition to iron in all merchant shipping. And the iron ship was
16
certainly much lighter than a fully wooden constructed vessel with a larger cargo
hold at less registered tonnage, but the fouling played a major factor in the
merchant shipowners choice for trade during the 1860�s and the major
drawbacks overshadowed the benefits, at least until the 1870�s. Wood of course
was not immune to fouling, and so the composite constructed vessel also faced
this problem. In fact, ships sailing through Mediterranean waters also faced the
threat of worms boring into the hull (Young 1867). This had been combated for
several hundred years with a metal sheathing, either of copper or zinc3. A
composite constructed ship could be sheathed and thus avoid the redundant cost
listed above that iron shipowners incurred twice a year.
Having pointed out several of the major disadvantages to iron built ships in
comparison to composite constructed vessels, it is important to realize that this
had a ripple after affect on the use of the steam engine as a means of power for
propulsion by either paddle wheels or the screw propeller. The steam engine,
patented by Watt in the late 18th Century, was one of the key inventions that
brought about the Industrial Revolution and coincided with the use of iron
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt). In 1821, the Aaron Manby, a small iron
steamboat was running in the Surrey Canal4 (Young 1867, 26). Steam power
was being utilized, but the major drawbacks for such use were:
3 Zinc as a material for sheathing was patented in 1805, but was not well employed until 1848. 4 The use of iron in fresh water was less inclined to the same fouling problems that sea going vessel encountered. There also wasn�t and urgency in speed and the cargoes were not being transported long distances.
17
1. Steam engines caused a lot of vibration on a wooden ship and this
compromised the structural integrity of the vessel, so steam power
worked best with iron hulled ships, which the drawbacks of this
material has already been discussed.
2. Before the wide spread use of the screw propeller, the paddle wheel
was powered by the steam engine. Paddle wheels were inefficient and
slow on the open rough sea, and difficult to maneuver.
3. The steam engine did not produce a lot of power until triple expansion
was introduced in 1881 (Morriss 2007, Lecture). In the 1860�s the
steam engine pressure was only 60 1b/sq inch (and increased to 125
in 1881).
4. Inefficient engines required a lot of coal for power. This took up much
of the cargo hold space. Coal was also expensive increasing the cost
considerably on long distance trade routes. Ships also had to make
multiple stops to replenish the coal supply, paying a hirer price at these
coal stations, and wasting valuable time (Harley 1970).
Fig 7: Engraving by R. Ackermann published in 1817 (Gardiner 1993)
18
It should be apparent now why ships such as the City of Adelaide were in
such high demand during the mid �19th Century. She was a ship that reaped the
benefit of having a wooden hull manufactured out of the strongest wood available
and could be sheathed with copper or zinc metal to prevent the fouling that iron
ships encountered on their sea going voyages. But she also had the structural
integrity of an iron built vessel because her frames were made of iron. Her tall
masts and large sail area gave her the speed that was necessary to be
competitive in the Britain to Australia passenger and cargo journeys of the 1860�s
and 70�s, which she was employed in for 23 years until 1887
(http://www.sunderlandmaritimeheritage.org.uk/adelaide.htm).
Fig 8: Newspaper clipping, 1887 (Flinders Ranges Research, http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/cityofadelaide.htm)
19
Even though the City of Adelaide wasn�t considered an extreme clipper,
she held the record (tied with the Yatala) for the fasts journey time from London
to Adelaide in 65 days set in 1867. This record was not broken until 1880 by the
iron-constructed clipper the Torrens, which sailed from Plymouth to Adelaide in
65 days, though the distance is shorter it was concluded that the record was
broken. The Torrens never achieved a journey that fast again in her entire
career, after which time she was sold and broken up in 1903 (Bruzelius 1997).
Below is a photograph of the Torrens, full sail.
Fig 9: Photograph taken by J. Harrison (TNA: BT99/778)
Fig 10: Torrens in the Doldrums, 1892 (Smith, J.W. and T.S. Holden 1947)
20
Final Conclusion
Merchant sailing shipping changed dramatically during the 19th Century.
Sailing ships faced the competition of the steam-powered vessel, but with
changes in construction design and materials on various parts of the ship they
were able to stay competitive in many of the specialized trades that sprouted up
in the mid-19th Century. Many of these part modifications were influenced by
industry, such as lighter wire rigging instead of heavy burdensome rope.
Stronger, hollow iron masts, and iron frames were used on composite built ships.
With these technological changes the sailing ship became more efficient and was
able to compete with the Industrial Revolutions other major inventions up until the
end of the 19th Century.
One of the finest and most efficient developments to take place and then
fade into history was the design and development of the extreme composite
clipper. This fine-lined vessel represents a period in history that proves
sometimes modern inventions like the steam engine wasn�t always the best or
most efficient method of use until it was in fact redesigned and improved. It took
hundreds of years for the sailing ship to develop into its finest form; one would
expect the same from new inventions on some level. The early steam powered
ship is testament to that. The theory then, in summation, is that inventions can
continuously be modified until they eventually reach their peak in efficiency only
to be replaced by another, new unrefined invention which at its beginnings may
21
not be at its most efficient. But there are still those that do not give recognition
where recognition is due. Greenhill (1980, 5) purports that �at all times the very
fast sailing vessel represented only a small part of the total of contemporary
merchant shipping activity and had relatively little influence on the industry as a
whole.�
What Greenhill fails to realize is that this small percentage of merchant
shipping represents an era in British and world history, filled with stories that
strike the human imagination and that take the maritime historian or
archaeologist back to a time and place that could only be understand through the
study of these fast, competitive vessels. To understand the demand for speed on
the China tea trade or the Australian trade route is to understand the meaning of
the composite constructed clipper. The composite clippers may have �reached
their peak in efficiency and capability by the time they had already become
obsolete� (Greenhill 1980, 6) but that does not make their worth any less
significant in maritime archaeology or maritime history.
22
Bibliography Brodie Collection, La Trorbe Picture Collection (2007) City of Adelaide (State Library of Victoria, online, Accession number(s): H99.220/1994) consulted 09.03.07
http://sinpic.slv.vic.gov.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BBID=102546
Bruzelius, L. (2003) Tea Clippers (Bibliography online) consulted 23.02.07 http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Clippers/Teaclippers.html City of Adelaide. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (Wikipedia online) consulted 10.02.07 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Adelaide_%281864%29> Course, A.G. (1961) Painted Ports: The Story of the Ships of Devitt & Moore (London: Hollis & Carter) Cutty Shark. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (Wikipedia online) consulted 11.02.07 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark> Flinders Ranges Research.(FRR) (2006) City of Adelaide (online) consulted 09.03.07 < http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/cityofadelaide.htm> Gardiner, R. (1993) Sail�s Last Century: The Merchant Sailing Ship 1830-1930 (London: Conway Maritime Press) Gardiner, R. (1993a) The Advent of Steam: The Merchant Steamship before 1900. (London: Conway Maritime Press) Graham, G. (1956) The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship 1850-85, The Economic History Review 9: 74-88. Greenhill, B. (1980)The Ship: The Life and Death of the Merchant Sailing Ship 1815-1965 (London: Her Majesty�s Stationery Office) Harley, C. (1970) British Shipbuilding and Merchant Shipping 1850-1890, The Journal of Economic History 30: 262-266. Lang, C (2003) Burma, Thailand, Laos: Colonial Forestry�Then and Now. (Chris Land Blog online) consulted 02.11.07 http://chrislang.blog.com/2003_03_04_chrislang_archive.html
23
MacGregor, D.R. (1979) Clipper Ships (Watford: Argus Books) MacGregor, D.R. (1983a) The Tea Clippers: Their History and Development 1833-1875 (London: Conway Maritime Press) MacGregor, D.R. (1988b) Fast Sailing Ships: Their Design and Construction, 1775-1875. (London: Conway Maritime Press) MacGregor, D.R. (1993c) British & American clippers: a comparison of their design, construction and performance in the 1850s. (London: Conway Maritime Press) National Archives, The (TNA) (2007) BT99/778: Captain J. Bruce Official Logbook: City of Adelaide 1866 (Picture taken by J. Harrison 17.02.07) National Maritime Museum (NMM) (2207) National Register Of Historic Vessels: The City of Adelaide (NMM online) consulted 15.02.07 < http://www.nhsc.org.uk/index.cfm/event/getVessel/vref/433> Owen, G. (2003) My Trip to England and Wales (Google Pictures) consulted 05.03.07 < http://www.grahamowen.com/Uk/Cutty-Sark.jpg> Shipbuilding on the Wear: Part 2. City Library and Arts Centre (Sunderland City Council) consulted 10.02.07 < http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/libraries/Leaflets/Shipbuilding%202.pdf> Smith, J.W. and T.S. Holden (1947) Where Ships are Born: Sunderland 1346-1946 (Sunderland: Thomas Reed and Company Ltd) Stammers, M.K. (2001) Iron knees in wooden vessels� an attempt at a typology, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30: 115-121. Sunderland. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (Wikipedia online) consulted 10.02.07 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunderland#Traditional_industry> Watt Steam Engine. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (Wikipedia online) consulted 10.02.07 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_steam_engine>