It is, however, not a matter for surprise that steamers, when first placed on rivers for passenger traffic, were viewed with great jealousy by watermen, and that, on the Hudson and especially on the Thames, they were strenuously opposed. The traffic on the Thames had for centuries afforded profitable employment to large numbers of semi-seafaring men who, though not “sailors” in the usual acceptation of the term, could nevertheless be made much more useful on board our ships of war in an emergency than any other class in the community. To suggest any changes whereby their number might be reduced was sure, as has been the case for ages, to rouse the patriotic feelings of the people of England lest there should be a scarcity of men to man their fleets. Thus, on the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, the special clause inserted in the Bill to reserve the coasting trade from the competition of foreign ships and foreign seamen, was _solely_ on the ground of “preserving a nursery for British sailors,” and five years elapsed ere that clause was expunged. When, therefore, the British Legislature, at so recent a period, considered it necessary to pass an enactment for the preservation of seamen in England, as if any law could retain them here if they were desirous of improving their condition by accepting employment elsewhere, it is not surprising that the watermen, bargemen, and others, who obtained their livelihood on the Thames, should have found many sympathisers in 1815, when they affirmed that their “trade would be ruined by the introduction of steamers.” Nor can we wonder that men, in their humble position of life, could not see that the greater facilities afforded for intercourse between London and Margate and other towns on the banks of the river would, so far from reducing their means of employment, tend very materially to increase them. [Sidenote: Barges on the Thames.]