Free to view

The Review

Volume 111, Number 2, Spring 2023

Sir Samuel Bentham 1757–1831: Civil Architect and the First Engineer of the Royal Navy

By Captain John Wills RN (rtd) and Ken Fleming

Message from the Editor

Not too unlike the Hellenstic inventor Archimedes and his patron Hiero II of Syracuse, or 20th century technologists such as Bob Noyce and William Shockley, brothers Samuel and Jeremy Bentham were a pair of functionalist Georgian characters. While Jeremy is well known for his contributions to the Reform Movement and utilitarian philosophy, the younger brother Samuel, a prototypical early steam-era inventor and Royal Navy engineer, in the mold of predecessors such as Thomas Slade and Charles Middleton, or successors like Sir Robert Seppings and Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, is less well known. The authors herein examine Samuel Bentham’s life and work. A 30 minute read.

Machinery set in motion by inanimate force was the significant contribution of Sir Samuel Bentham (1757-1831), a Brigadier General who, in 1813, wrote officially to the Admiralty to propose his innovation to mechanise the making of blocks for ships’ rigging. Britain led the world in the industrial revolution of the late 1700s. In naval shipbuilding and support Bentham is an icon of that revolution, with much the same impact of George Stephenson who introduced steam-powered locomotion for land-based transportation.

Bentham’s Early Life

Born in London, Samuel was the youngest of the seven children of Jeremiah Bentham (1712–1792), an attorney, and his wife, Alicia Woodward Whitehorne Grove (d. 1759). Samuel and his more famous brother Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), philosopher, jurist, and reformer, were the only two children in the family to survive infancy. The two brothers were exceptionally close, and their lives were frequently intertwined.

Jeremy’s education is worth noting as he tutored Samuel at an early age. For the first sixteen years of his life, Jeremy was described as exceedingly small, puny and feeble. He acquired a knowledge of musical notes at age five, and learned to write and play the violin and was subsequently initiated into Latin Grammar. He gained distinction at Westminster School London for writing Latin and Greek verses. At twelve he was entered as a commoner at Queens College, Oxford.

Samuel likewise attended Westminster, beginning at age six. In 1771 at age fourteen Samuel left Westminster to become a naval apprentice to William Grey, the best master-shipwright in the Royal Dockyard at Woolwich. His parents paid Grey the substantial sum of £50 a year for Samuel’s boarding, besides a large apprentice fee. It was doubtless primarily due to Jeremy’s persuasions that their father agreed to let Samuel pursue his enthusiasm for naval architecture rather than go to Oxford.¹

Jeremiah Bentham was an intelligent businessman who had added considerably to his legacy by land speculations and leases, allowing both surviving sons to continue their placements and education. Samuel soon found he was inclined towards the administrative and constructional work of the Navy while working within Chatham Dockyard with Grey. During his apprenticeship Samuel was allotted time to study mathematics, chemistry, electricity, painting, grammar and, especially, the French language at the Royal Naval Academy Portsmouth, all skills connected with a naval education.

During this period he went to sea as a volunteer in the third- rate HMS Bienfaisant (64), under Captain MacBride, aiming to learn more about constructional issues arising from the movement of ships. Captain Bazely had previously carried Samuel from Chatham to Portsmouth in the second-rate HMS Formidable (90), in which Bentham proposed an improvement to the steering gear later adopted by John Jervis (Earl St. Vincent) in the second-rate HMS Foudroyant (80).

Housed in the Portsmouth Dockyard, the Royal Naval Academy had opened in July 1733 for the education and training of future naval officers due in part to the Admiralty’s dissatisfaction with the previous shipboard instruction, which was dependent on the calibre of the captain with whom the boy entrants sailed. Accordingly, students were selected on an exclusive basis, with spots reserved primiarly for boys between the ages of twelve and fifteen who were the sons of nobility or gentlemen. Moreover, no boy was to be admitted unless he produced a certificate to the effect that he had made considerable progress in Latin. The students enjoyed separate rooms, and each paid the master £25 a year for their board. The length of stay was to be not less than two years and no more than three.²

The Academy did not flourish during the first 40 years, and it seems something of an impressive failure for the whole of its duration. From the outset, it was plagued by poor food and discipline problems from the young gentlemen: breaking the rules and drunkenness. The relative dullness of life studying at the shore-based institution could not bear comparison with the excitements of a life at sea aboard a man-of-war.

Nevertheless, Samuel’s father sent him to the Academy to be schooled under the principal, George Witchel, an astronomer and mathematician who designed tables for determining longitude by the moon and was responsible for compiling the Nautical Almanac. Witchel tutored the entire school and the Admiralty paid his tuition fees. Jeremiah Bentham also paid Witchel a retainer. Witchel became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1767. By 1766 the number of scholars had fallen to the smallest since its foundation, remaining so until its closing in February 1806 on the recommendation of the great seaman and naval reformer, John Jervis, Earl St Vincent.

Finally, on 11 January 1778, Samuel came of age and his apprenticeship finished at the month’s end. He was soon as fertile in ideas for improvement in shipbuilding as brother Jeremy was in ideas for improvement in the law. Samuel’s education had been somewhat of an unusual one, although well-rounded, with the accomplishments expected of a gentleman added to the more practical expertise of a shipbuilder. Despite this education, however, he failed to find a suitable position in the Royal Dockyards.

Bentham Begins his Naval Service

In 1779, due to Samuel’s rising abilities and connections, Lord Howe, First Lord of the Admiralty, suggested that he should visit various ports and dockyards in Northern Europe to study their facilities and practices in shipbuilding. So, armed with 70 letters of recommendation, those indispensable social passports of the time, Samuel set off in August 1779 for Holland, visiting naval establishments and various ports on the Baltic Sea. For the next two years he journeyed to Russia on a fact- finding mission, where he toured the Black Sea region, went eastwards into Siberia, and ultimately as far as the frontiers of China.

Returning to Saint Petersburg he enjoyed the patronage of British Ambassador Sir James Harris and became known at the imperial court of Catherine the Great. In February 1783, Samuel made the Empress a formal offer of his services, asking for the rank of Brigadier and a salary of 1,000 rubles. In September of that year he entered the service of the Tsarina, with the equivalent rank to Lieutenant-Colonel.

In 1787, during the Russo- Turkish war, Samuel Bentham commanded a flotilla based at Kherson. He devised a new system for fitting guns without recoil, allowing him to arm his boats with far heavier armament than the enemy could expect them to be carrying. His system called for mounting 36 pdrs and 48 pdrs in pairs so that the recoil of one gun drew out the other, thus diminishing the total recoil, essential on small craft for allowing them to carry a greater weight of cannon. Gun crews could then reload effectively with no time lost in replacing the gun to its firing position. The resulting rapid and heavy fire was so devastating for the Turks that Bentham was awarded the Military Cross of St. George, advanced to the rank of full Colonel, and received a gold- hilted sword of honour.³

In a letter dated at Petersburgh on 30 July O.S. (10 August) 1788, Robert Hynam, the Empress’ watchmaker, sent Jeremy the news after his brother returned from the front: “I am extremely happy to inform you, Sir, that your brother is promoted to the rank of Colonel for his valour and prudence in two successful attacks against the Turks upon the Nieper. He is in good health. The publick papers here have announced his praise.”⁴

There is also a shrewd earlier letter dated 26 February 1787 from George Wilson and James Trail to brother Jeremy, the latter having visited Samuel in 1785 and stayed with him in Russia for almost two years. The letter highlights the character of both brothers. Wilson states: “The cause lies in your constitution. With one-tenth part of your genius, and a common degree of steadiness, both Sam and you would long since have risen to great eminence. But your history, since I have known you, has been to be always running from a good scheme to a better. In the meantime, life passes away and nothing is completed.”⁵

The sentiment of frustrated over- ambition is emphasized clearly by Matthew Anderson, one of the first to write about Samuel Bentham in the mid-20th century, who commented on this same letter,

“This criticism was abundantly justified. Brilliant, volatile, headstrong, unbusinesslike, Samuel Bentham was not marked out for great material success in any society. His correspondence nevertheless shows us, with remarkable fidelity and completeness, the reactions of an intelligent nonofficial observer confronted by the vast and half understood phenomenon of the empire of Catherine II. It illustrates a phase in the career of a very remarkable man. It also illumines a small corner of the eighteenth- century Europeanization of Russia.”⁶

Bentham took charge of Prince Potemkin’s factories which, at that time, were badly mismanaged. As there were few skilled workers, Bentham started working on the problem of transferring skills and using machines. He thought it should be possible to replace skilled workers with machines, operated by unskilled labour, producing the same products in the same amount of time and at the same cost.

His time in Russia gave him many other opportunities to apply his talents as an engineer and inventor, constructing machinery for industrial use and experimenting with processes such as steelmaking. He designed and built many novel vehicles for Catherine the Great, including an amphibious vessel and an articulated barge. He later campaigned for the introduction of watertight compartments, an idea that, he acknowledged, came from seeing large Chinese vessels on the Amur River on the Siberia boarder with China. Samuel was promoted to Brigadier General and received a Knighthood from the Tsarina for his services to Russia.

Bentham returned home in 1791 at age 34, after what may be considered an exceptionally long and continous education, in time to see something of his father before his father’s death in 1792. Samuel remained in England, touring the dockyards under the authority of the Admiralty with the objective of suggesting improvements in construction and organization, and received King George III’s permission to use his titles, becoming thus Sir Samuel.

Inspector General of Naval Works 1796–1805

In 1796 Bentham was appointed Inspector General of Naval Works, an office created specifically for him. In this position he could continue his modernization program, with the introduction of steam power and mechanising production processes in the dockyard. His office employed specialists as assistant mechanists (engineers), draftsmen, architects, chemists, and clerks. Bentham was a man of drive, whose innovations continued to adapt the products of Britain’s Industrial Revolution, reflecting his ingenuity, leadership, and engineering prowess. His inventions, adaptations, and improvements often took years to complete, and his many projects overlapped with each other over a span of nine years during his time as Inspector General. For that reason, the following subsections are organized, not chronologically from 1796 to 1807, when his position was abolished, but by project, so that the reader might more fully appreciate each of Bentham’s major innovations in full.

Maintaining Fresh Water

In early 1796, Bentham had devised a practical way of maintaining fresh water for long periods at sea. To demonstrate this capability, he conducted an experiment for the forerunner of the Royal Society for the Arts. In the experiment, the Navy Board authorized him to have constructed at Redbridge, on the River Test, seven small vessels, uncontrolled by any Navy Board or dockyard officer, built to his own specifications. The vessels were to be two sloops of war, Arrow and Dart, both of 28 guns, and four schooners, Nelly, Eling, Redbridge and Milbrook, all of 16 guns, together with an unnamed water vessel.⁷ He sent the results to the society in a letter on 27 January 1801, in which he wrote:

“The method I conceived Fresh Water might be preserved sweet, was merely by keeping it in vessels of which the interior lining at least should not be acted upon by the water, so as to become a cause of contamination. Accordingly on board the two ships here alluded to [Arrow and Dart], the greater part of the water was kept, not in casks, but in cases or tanks, which, though they were made of wood, on account of strength, were lined with metallic plates, of the kind manufactured by Mr. Charles Wyatt of Bridge Street under the denomination of tinned copper-sheets; and the junctures of the plates or sheets were soldered together.

The shape of these cases was adapted to that of the hold of the ship, some of them being made to fit close under the platform, by which means the quantity of the water stowed was considerably greater than could have been stored, in the same space, by means of casks; and thereby the stowage room on board ship was very much increased.

After the water kept in this manner had remained on board a length of time which was deemed sufficient for the experiment, it was used out, and the tanks were replenished as occasion required: but in some of the tanks, on board one ship at least, the original water had remained three years and a half, as appears on the certificates herewith in-closed.”⁸

A certificate from Captain William Bolton, commander of the Dart, dated 28 June 1800 at Sheerness, accompanied this letter, stating that the water delivered to the society was taken from a tank holding about 700 gallons, and which his predecessor, Captain Portlock, had informed him had been poured into this tank in December 1796, except about 30 gallons added in 1798, and had remained good during the whole time.⁹

In another letter, Bentham also stated that, “the water which had been preserved sweet on board his Majesty’s sloops Arrow and Dart, was taken from the well at the King’s Brew House at Weevil, [adjacent to the present High Street] from whence ships of war lying at or near Portsmouth are usually supplied with water for their sea store, as well as present use.”¹⁰

Public recognition for this innovation resulted in the ‘Premium’ award of a Gold Medal in 1801 to Samuel Bentham from the forerunner of the Royal Society of Arts.¹¹

Steam Power

Bentham developed an interest in steam technology when he toured the country, observing the mining industry. He wanted to see for himself how this inanimate force was replacing manual labour. He saw workers using machines to lift water out of the mines, spin cotton, and roll metal into sheets. What he did not find was any application for processing and turning wood. England had no sawmills for slitting timber, as there were abroad. Only a few Royal Navy contractors made blocks for ships’ rigging.

The prime power to drive Bentham’s machinery, which in turn would replace much manual labour, was steam. Despite the erection of a facility at Redbridge on Southampton Water, suspicion toward this new technology was still difficult to overcome. Bentham needed to persuade the dockyards to accept the innovation of steam machinery, but the people needed persuasion too, and this is where Bentham’s leadership and drive played a strong part in implementing a successful revolution in naval engineering early in the 19th century.

Realizing that the pumping of docks was only an occasional requirement, Bentham further applied his ingenuity and leadership in pursuit of greater efficiency in other dockyard processes. He focused on the processing of timber and devised and introduced a means of slitting and shaping timber planks. By the year 1812, sawyers could cut 4- inch and 5-inch timber planks in Portsmouth Dockyard at the rate of 9,000 to 10,000 feet per week.¹²

Improvements to Firefighting

A naval industrial site, such as a dockyard or a timber-built ship, does not exist without risk of fire. In the early days of the industrial revolution, processing large volumes of timber entailed the constant hazard of sawdust. The dynamic motion of metal tools generated considerable heat, which, together with the sawdust, created highly flammable conditions. With commendable foresight, Bentham deduced the need for efficient firefighting in the Portsmouth Dockyard. In 1797, he introduced a system of distributing water to the at-risk parts of the dockyard’s industrial site.

Bentham achieved this by constructing an elevated static water reservoir into which water from a well was raised by either of the two steam engines in the wood-mills, not otherwise in use during meal hours and in the evening. From this reservoir, the water was distributed throughout the dockyard by a system of pipes passing by all the principal buildings, and by the sides of the docks and to the jetties; upon these pipes, means were provided, at intervals of from 50 to 200 feet, for speedily affixing fire hose, jet, and branch pipes.

This system of pipes was arranged so that water flowed through them by two different courses. Thus, should any temporary interruption occur, the supply of water at any point would be affected by the other course. In addition to this supply, always ready to be instantaneously applied to extinguishing a fire in any part of the dockyard, and with a force sufficient to throw the water into the first floors of buildings, the steam engines also raised either fresh water from the well, or an immense supply of sea water, forcing this water, fresh or salt, into the fire.¹³

Dredging Operations

Crucial to maintaining the operations of a naval port is for the harbour seawater level to be kept at a depth that enables ships to remain afloat at low tide. Seabed levels are continually scoured by the ebb and flow of the tide, which in turn deposits silt. The gunnery school HMS Excellent on Whale Island, Portsmouth, was built predominantly on reclaimed land, using the deposits dredged from Portsmouth harbour during the 19th century, increasing the land harbour area by about 125%. The island was constructed with the labour of many prisoners taken in the Napoleonic Wars.

Ship designs, in their turn, got bigger and required deeper water. In 1800 Bentham applied his engineering mind to this challenge with his invention of a steam- powered dredging machine. He calculated that this apparatus, when constructed, would raise 1,000 tons of soil a day. He sent an estimate of the cost of the apparatus to the Navy Board, and of barges for carrying away soil.¹⁴

The dredging machine fulfilled its promise, allowing wharf walls to serve as viable alongside- berths for ships, instead of ships having to anchor off in the deeper midstream. In addition, sailors had the benefit of being able to walk aboard their ships, when loading and off-loading stores and ammunition. Bentham’s “floating engine for digging underwater” found application at Portsmouth as well as the other naval ports on the Thames and Medway.

Manufacture of Ships’ Block Pulleys

Even before becoming Inspector General, Bentham set about to mechanise the sawyers’ processes by devising machinery, driven by the new engines, to fashion common component parts of a ship’s rigging: namely the wooden blocks, that, with ropes, enabled the mechanical advantage required for hoisting or trimming sails. In 1793 Bentham had taken out a patent, which has been called one of the most remarkable patents ever issued by the British Patents Office. It set forth the whole scheme of woodworking machinery for making ships’ blocks.¹⁵ Of all their innovations, Samuel Bentham and Sir Marc Brunel are particularly renowned for introducing a factory in Portsmouth that included their design for machinery to automate the manufacture of pulley blocks.

It is worth noting that the human reluctance to change appears to have prevailed in the 19th century as strongly as it can in the modern world! Bentham’s innovation threatened the sawyers, who feared that such an attempt to mechanise their trade would jeopardise their livelihoods. Under the direction of a Mr. Burr, of the Inspector General’s Office, some dockyard labourers were trained to the machinery and were encouraged by some small extra allowances to exert themselves in this employment.¹⁶

By 1794 government representatives had started taking an interest, and Lord Melville (Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville 1742-1811), then Secretary of War (1794–1801), recognized the advantages of more efficiency and speed of manufacture for these essential components of the nation’s warships. Melville championed the work of Bentham in the House of Commons, and the Admiralty subsequently appointed Bentham to visit all His Majesty’s dockyards to expand the deployment of his mechanisation. In considering the functioning of a sailing warship before the industrial revolution, the humble wooden block stands out as one of the most essential components a ship would have needed for its propulsion and manoeuvrability, as these simple devices kept its rigging ‘running’. A first-rate ship of the line such as HMS Victory required 768 blocks of various types.

In battle, not unlike modern yacht racing, captains and sailing masters would compete for wind advantage by a superior choice of course and the effective setting of their sails. Consider, for example, Nelson’s closing approach to the enemy at Trafalgar, where, with the wind advantage, his fleet ‘crossed the T’ of the combined French and Spanish fleets and so enabled both his port and starboard guns to come to bear on the enemy. Hundreds of humble blocks would have enabled the fleet’s sheets to be veered and hauled with superior speed and efficiency. It was Bentham, a true engineer, who not only thought through the problems, but devised engineering-based solutions on a mass scale that revolutionised the manoeuvrability of the fleet. Indeed, it could be argued that the mass production of the wooden block was as important an innovation to the Georgians as the microchip has been for the 20th century Elizabethans!

The block mills in Portsmouth Naval Base have long been known to students of naval and industrial history, and were in fact the first mass-production factory in Britain.¹⁷ Within this group of buildings, a remarkable set of machine tools designed by Sir Marc Brunel laid the foundations for the subsequent worldwide development of industrial production lines that used ever more sophisticated machinery to replace the work of individual craftsmen. They have rightly become regarded as one of the seminal buildings of the industrial revolution in Britain. Equally importantly, they are also the site of the first stationary steam engines used by the Admiralty.

Expansion of Dockyard Facilities, Personnel, and Efficiency

In 1798 Bentham drew up a report to the Lords of his Majesty’s Council recommending a host of improvements to the management of naval dockyards. The report stated, among other items, that each dockyard needed an additional officer who was conversant with the principles of mechanics as well as with the business of the millwright, and capable of implementing the recommendations of the surveyors on all mechanical subjects.

The man for this job was Simon Goodrich. He had been with Bentham’s office since 1796, first as a draftsman before being promoted to the post of machinist. He became Bentham’s deputy, and was responsible for managing the installation of machinery at the Portsmouth block mills, and for the metal mills and millwright’s shop at Portsmouth. Later, Goodrich was also responsible for the mechanical engineering work at all the other naval dockyards and he travelled incessantly on naval business as engineer to the Navy Board.¹⁸ Due to Bentham’s absence in Russia in 1805, it was Simon Goodrich who actually brought all the block mills into full production.

Bentham’s report also stated that, as the Inspector General, he was required to submit, in writing, all proposals for reorganisation and improvements, along with a complete account of the supporting reasons, to the First Sea Lord and the Navy Board.¹⁹ This process required lengthy and time-consuming explanations for even the most minor proposals. Samuel’s letter, explaining the reasoning behind his proposed changes, ran into tens of pages. The report was by no means unusual in its length or the wealth of its detail. Such documents must have taken up a considerable amount of Samuel’s time while Inspector General. One cannot fail to conclude that Samuel’s professional life at this stage was marked by almost constant frustration as his efforts were thwarted by petty bureaucracy.²⁰

The Earl St. Vincent, when in Torbay towards the end of 1800, spoke to Bentham of dangers to which the fleet had been exposed in consequence of the frequent bad quality of cordage and sailcloth, and expressed his wish that Sir Samuel should turn his attention to the improvement of these important articles of naval equipment. His lordship shortly afterwards, when at the head of the naval administration, repeated his wishes on the subject. Sir Samuel then entered into investigations as to the manufacture of the stores in question.

Bentham also designed and built a mortar mill that facilitated the construction of numerous brick and stone buildings required to house a range of stores, offices, and factories within the Portsmouth Naval Base and Dockyard. Bentham took further measures to create what transpired to be the introduction of a branch of millwrights to work metals, as well as timber, who, it could be argued, were the forerunners of today’s marine engineers. By February 1805, wood mills and metal mills were established in Portsmouth Dockyard, each with specialist millwrights.²¹

Bentham’s Retirement and Death

In 1805 the Admiralty sent Bentham back to Russia in the audacious hope that the Tsar would allow British warships to be built at Archangel to overcome the shortage of oak timber in England. The Admiralty had agreed to an allowance sufficient to cover all his expenses, taking his family with him and various “shipwright men” together with a surgeon and his principal assistant, Mr. Helby, who worked as a quartermaster in Portsmouth Dockyard.

The Russian Government and Admiral Techitchagoff did not take the Admiralty and the British government’s appeal as a civil diplomatic request. After repeated and lengthy discussions, Russia consented to the building of the ships, under the condition that for every vessel laid down for the English government, a similar one should be laid down for Russia, that Bentham should equally supervise the one as the other during construction, and that all improvements in naval construction should be introduced and exemplified in the ships for Russia.

Bentham’s wife, Mary Sophia, found the experience of living in Russia rather trying. She occupied herself with the children, their education, and pursuits, while continuing to be a supportive assistant to Samuel. After many delays, and transiting between the British and Russian governments, Bentham returned home two years later at the end of 1807, fatigued by many constant obstacles from both governments and without having achieved any of the apparent official objectives.

During his absence, the Naval Commissioners recommended that the Inspector General become a member of the “Navy Board, with the title of civil architect and engineer.” Accordingly, the office of Inspector General was abolished in October 1807; a decision Bentham discovered on his return. The family came to believe that he had been sent to Russia to get him out of the way while the post was abolished.

Bentham’s many attacks on abuses and mismanagement in the dockyards naturally did not serve to make him popular. Inevitable in a time of modernisation, some inflexible and narrow-minded working practices persisted in the yards during this early phase of industrialisation.

Standpipes, for example, were provided for supplying fresh water to ships lying in the basin or at the jetties, but for some years these new standpipes were not used, as ships were required to shift berth because watering ship was the victualling yards’ responsibility. Other practices included each dockyard department being separated by a fence in case of pillage or loss: no equipment, not even basic timber planking, could be moved to other sections of the yard.²²

Bentham was appointed to the Navy Board with his new title where, unfortunately, his relations with his colleagues were strained further by various divergences of opinion and personality. In 1812 he was retired with a pension of £1,500 a year, equal to his full pay. There is no doubt that the frustrations and difficulties of petty officialdom and workplace tensions influenced this outcome.

In 1814 Bentham moved with his family to France, settling eventually in the neighbourhood of Montpellier. Shortly after their departure the family suffered a tremendous blow when the elder son, Samuel junior, died, aged seventeen. On this occasion, Bentham himself and his wife wrote to Jeremy, informing him of the sad event.²³

Both letters were moving expressions of the grief of bereaved parents. Samuel wrote that “at ½ past 5 in the afternoon I lost my boy, my friend and companion from whom for the last twelvemonth I had no secret and in whom I found the most correct judgement.” Bentham recorded that his son’s last words were “my breather pipe is stopt,” a not inappropriate comment for the son of an engineer! In 1827, George, Samuel’s surviving son and later a noted botanist, was to write to his elder sister Mary Louisa, “It is a sad thing to think how those whom I have most loved and confided in have been separated from me, my poor brother whom I had never quitted a single day till his last fatal illness.”²⁴

Samuel returned with his family to London, spending most of his time writing on various naval matters, his last being on the influence of the shape of a ship’s hull on its speed and direction. He died in 1831, a year before his brother Jeremy, with whom his life had been intertwined. In 1854, his widow, now aged 93 wrote her husband’s biography, in an effort to vindicte his memory of various accusations. It was published four years after her death in 1858. In the preface of this work, she correctly wrote:

“To him are to be traced some of the most important changes in Naval Administration; and to him we are indebted for many inventions which have effected an incalculable saving in public expenditure, as well as for Dockyard and other reforms which closed the sources of many long-continued and most pernicious abuses. Official opposition, which sought to uphold all vested interests, prevented him from carrying out many things which he had at heart; while, even in that he was enabled to accomplish, he had to struggle with the obstacles furnished by a passive resistance.”

One might add that Bentham’s inventions did much to enable the Royal Navy to prevail at sea during the great Anglo-French wars of 1793 to 1815.

It is generally acknowledged that today’s world of factory mass- production had its origins in the Portsmouth block mill, a Georgian building that still stands within the heart of Portsmouth’s Royal Naval Dockyard. Discerning contemporaries recognised the importance of Bentham’s pioneering work, and the building swiftly became an object of pilgrimage for many, its fame assured by its inclusion in major 19th century encyclopedias. Block- making ceased there in 1965, but several machines still survive, in Portsmouth and in the London Science Museum, while the building remains much as it was completed in the first decade of the 19th century with the interiors little altered. The block mills have not been in use for many years, although many of the original pulley systems remain in situ.

In her 1999 PhD thesis on Bentham, Felicity Wilkin wrote: “These advances were primarily due to a small group of men led by Samuel Bentham who became the First Engineer of the Navy. For their innovative use of new technologies and their management skills, these men can justifiably claim their place in the history of the Navy and of technology. More importantly, the applications of technology in Portsmouth Dockyard made a significant contribution to the industrial revolution in Britain and Imperial history during the period.”²⁵

Portsmouth’s Royal Naval Dockyard No. 2 Dock dates from 1799-1801. It forms one of six docks designed by Sir Samuel Bentham. No. 2 Dock represents another visible legacy to his improvements to the Royal Dockyard. The first steam-powered engine in the dockyard was used there to empty and to fill the docks. The docks are protected by law as a Grade 1 Listed Structure and as part of the Portsmouth Royal Naval Dockyard Scheduled Monument. HMS Victory entered the dock in 1922 where she remains to this day. We are sure Bentham would be pleased.

Footnotes

1
J. H. Burns (ed), The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, ‘Correspondence 1756 – 1756’, Vol 1. (London: Bentham Project, University College London). Burns was editor 1961 – 1979. Kindle edition.
2
F. B. Sullivan, ‘The Royal Academy at Portsmouth 1729-1806’, The Mariner’s Mirror, Vol 63, No 4, Nov 1977, p315.
3
Mary Sophia Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General Sir Samuel Bentham (Miami, Florida: HardPress, 2017, reprint) pp85-89. Original document published in 1862.
4
The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, volume 3: January 1781 to October 1788. Jeremy Bentham and Professor Ian R. Christie.
5
George Wilson and James Trial to Jeremy Bentham, The Correspondence of Jeremy
Bentham, vol 3, January1781 to October 1788.
6
Samuel Bentham in Russia, 1779-1791. Matthew S. Anderson. The American Slavic and East European Review Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr. 1956), pp. 157-172 (16 pages) quoted page
172.
7
M. S. Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General,p106.
8
Samuel Bentham, ‘Preserving Fresh Water Sweet during Long Voyages, 1800 [on board his Majesty’s sloops Arrow and Dart]’, Sir Samuel Bentham 1757–1831: Civil Architect and the First Engineer of the Royal Navy 123 Society for The Encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures, and Commerce; Inventory No: 350140.
9
Bentham, ‘Preserving Fresh Water’.
10
Bentham, ‘Preserving Fresh Water’.
11
Bentham, ‘Preserving Fresh Water’.M. S.
Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General, p106; R. A. Morris, ‘Samuel Bentham and The Management of The Royal Dockyards, 1796-1807’, Bulletin of The Institute of Historical Research, 1981, p7.
12
The Life of Brigadier General, p6
13
M. S. Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General, p7.
14
M. S. Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General, p127.
15
Wikipedia, ‘Samuel Bentham,’ accessed
27/1/22. Original source: Joseph Wickham, English and American Tool Builders, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1916), p25.
16
M. S. Bentham, The Life of Brigadier General, pp114-115.
17
David K. Brown, “Wood, Sail, and Cannonballs to Steel, Steam, and Shells, 1815-1895,” in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, ed. J. R. Hill and Bryan Ranft (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 200–226., p. 202
18
Wikipedia: Simon Goodrich. (accessed 31 January 2022). Due to Bentham’s absence in Russia, Goodrich brought the block mills into full production.
19
Ibid.
20
Catherine Pease-Watkin, Journal of Bentham Studies, Vol. 5 (2002). Part 1 – ‘Jeremy and Samuel Bentham – The Private and the Public’, (London: UCL Bentham Project, University College London).
21
Felicity Susan Wilkin, The application of emerging new technologies by Portsmouth Dockyard 1790–1815, PhD thesis, 1999, The Open University.
22
Samuel Bentham, Suggestions for the Better
Management of Civil Concerns of the Navy, in M S Bentham, Papers of Sir S. Bentham (Newalk, New Jersey: reprinted by Palala Press, 2015.
23
Catherine Pease-Watkin, Journal of Bentham Studies, Vol. 5 (2002). Part 1 – ‘Jeremy and Samuel Bentham – The Private and the Public’, (London: UCL Bentham Project, University College London).
24
George Bentham and M. Filipiuk (eds), Autobiography 1800-1834, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), p262.
25
Wilkin.

The Man in the Margins – The Black Sailor’s Voyage to Nelson’s Column (I)

Civil-Military relationship

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_ga_EF0SNC8FQN	2 years	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics.
_gat_gtag_UA_112095442_1	1 minute	Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_chatwoot_session	session	No description available.
ampDeviceId	never	No description available.
cw_conversation	1 year	No description