Hitherto, and throughout all ages, timber alone had been used in shipbuilding. The forests of Lebanon supplied the naval architects of Tyre with their materials; Italy cultivated her woods with unusual care, so that sufficient trees might be grown for the timber, planking, and masts of the ships of its once powerful maritime republics; and, in our own time, how often have we heard fears expressed that Great Britain would not be able to continue the supply of sufficient oak for her royal dockyards, much less for her merchant fleets! Yet, when shrewd far-seeing men, no further back than the year 1830, talked about substituting iron for the “ribs” of a ship instead of “timbers,” and iron plates for “planking” instead of oak, what a howl of derision the public raised! “Who ever heard of iron floating?” they derisively enquired. It is true they might have seen old tin kettles float on every pool of water before their doors almost any day of their lives, nay, floating even more buoyantly than their discarded wooden coal boxes; but such common-place instructors were beneath their notice. Timber-built ships had from time immemorial been in use by every nation and on every sea, and had bravely battled with the storm from the days of Noah, and were these, they sneeringly asked, to be supplanted by a material which in itself would naturally sink? Such was the reasoning of the period; and indeed, the best of the arguments against the use of iron rested on scarcely more solid foundation.[110] It could not be gainsaid that a frame of iron was infinitely stronger than a frame of wood, which, in fact, has no strength in itself, for the longitudinal timber ends are only butted to each other, and obtain their power of resistance solely by means of the horizontal planks and the trenails which bind them together. Nor could the obstructives deny, though they argued the point, that the ribs when welded with the iron plates riveted to them, formed a hull vastly superior in strength, and much less liable to leakage than any similar body of wood, however well constructed. They must also have seen, by its displacement of water when afloat, that an iron hull was the more buoyant of the two. But these arguments, however unanswerable, were long ere they produced conviction; the fact that iron does not float, and the impression that it could not be made to do so safely, offered almost insuperable difficulties in the way of building vessels of that material; and when it was argued that they would “rip up” if they struck upon a rock, or bulge into a shapeless mass if driven on a sand bank, the opponents of progress raised objections which could be answered only by practical experience. [Sidenote: Proposals of Trevethick and Dickenson, 1809-1815.] [Sidenote: The _Vulcan_, 1818.]