19th Century Merchant Ships 2t4r

How Did the Construction of British Merchant Sailing Ships Become More Efficient in the Nineteenth Century? By: Janelle Harrison

1

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

2

vessels began with only the use of iron knees or, as the first patented of iron Tbars 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

3

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

4

(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).

Fig 1: Seppings iron braced knee (Stammers 2001)

Fig 2: Seppings curved end iron braced knee (Stammers 2001)

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 5

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-ted 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 [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.

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)

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

6

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 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).

7

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 with teak; unless it has been grown in a marshy soil.

8

So Britain’s merchant shipbuilders now had a source of wood species that did not corrode iron when it came in direct 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 ed 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.

9

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 ed 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 = ed tonnage 94

Therefore, if a ship was built narrow and deep, its ed tonnage was calculated on the breadth and didn’t actually take into 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 ed 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.

10

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 ed, 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?

11

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 age with a load of cargo in an unusually short period of time (i.e. a very fast age). 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 finelined ship will usually have a coefficient ratio under 0.60. The table on the next

12

Extreme clipper

Taeping

City of Adelaide

Areil

Sobraon

Titania

Thermoplae

Cutty Sark

The Caliph

1863

1864

1865

1866

1866

1868

1869

1869

Table 1: (MacGregor 1983a, Appendix XII; Course 1961, Appendix I)

**Under Deck Coefficient

Extreme clipper

Extreme clipper

Extreme clipper

Extreme clipper

Auxiliary steamer (orig)

Extreme clipper

Medium clipper

Type

Date Ship Name

0.56

215.05 x 36.1 x 20.4

13

0.55

0.58

0.58

N/A

0.6

N/A

0.63

Alexander Hall & Sons

Scott & Linton

Bernard Waymouth

R. Steele & Co

Alexander Hall & Sons

R. Steele & Co

W. Pile, Hay & Co

R. Steele & Co

Coefficient** Builder

212.5 x 36.0 x 21.0

212.0 x 36.0 x 20.9

200.0 x 36.0 x 21.0

272.0 x 40.0 x 27.0

197.4 x 33.9 x 21.0

176.6 x 33.25 x 18.5

183.7 x 31.1 x 19.9

Dimensions (in feet)

tonnage could not be calculated (MacGregor 1979).

914 NRT

921 NT

948 NRT

879.45 NRT

2,131 NT

853 NRT

791 NRT

767 NRT

Tons

was the largest built composite ship. It’s worth noting here, that before the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the under-deck

but they are listed because The City of Adelaide is one of the oldest surviving composite built clippers, and The Sobraon

page lists eight composite built clippers and their detail; all but two have their under-deck coefficients listed,

The table on the previous page represents some of the finest built clippers for the China tea trade, enger 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

Fig 7: City of Adelaide (State Library of Victoria. Brodie Collection, La Trobe Picture Collection)

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 . In 1853 John Pile left the business and William took full ownership until his death (Smith, J. and T.S. Holden 1947).

14

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 engers 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 ed 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 15

certainly much lighter than a fully wooden constructed vessel with a larger cargo hold at less ed 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. 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.

4

16

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)

17

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 enger 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)

18

Fig 9: Photograph taken by J. Harrison (TNA: BT99/778)

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 10: Torrens in the Doldrums, 1892 (Smith, J.W. and T.S. Holden 1947)

19

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

20

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.

21

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

22

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 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 13461946 (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>

23