Part 7

_Coaling Ships at Sea._--In the coaling of ships at sea the cableway has rendered great service. The conditions under which this operation has to be carried out present many difficulties, especially in rough water. One of the chief obstacles is the maintenance of the necessary tension on the cable used in conveying the coal from the collier to the ship. The first test in coaling ships at sea, made by the British admiralty, took place in 1890 in the Atlantic at a point 500 m. south of the Azores in water 2000 fathoms deep. Ten ships of war were coaled, each vessel taking enough coal to enable it to steam back to Torbay, 1800 m. away. In this case the collier was lashed alongside the battleship it was feeding, thick fenders being interposed to prevent damage, but nevertheless as the colliers got light they pitched considerably, and one or two sustained dents in their sides. The ships did not roll, being kept bows-on to the swell, which became heavy before the coaling was completed. The coal was taken in by derricks at the main deck ports. It is clear that had the sea been really rough coaling in this fashion would have been impossible.

The most practicable method of coaling at sea yet devised is the marine cableway of Spencer Miller, which has been tried with some success in the American navy. It is intended for use between vessels 350 to 500 ft. apart. The ship being coaled takes the collier in tow, steaming at the rate of 4 to 8 knots; it has been found that a speed of five knots in moderately rough water will keep the cableway taut and maintain a sufficient distance between the crafts. The collier is fitted with an engine having double cylinders and double friction drums, which is placed just abaft the foremast. A steel rope ¾ in. in diameter is led from one drum over a pulley at the mast head and thence to a pulley at the head of shear-poles on the vessel being coaled, and brought back to the other drum. The engine moves in the same direction all the time and keeps on winding in both the strands of the conveying rope. Should the two vessels increase the distance between them during the operation of conveying the coal bags, of which two, weighing 420 lb each, may be fastened to the carrier, the extra rope called for is obtained by slipping the upper strand from the drum; this increases the speed of the upper cable. On the other hand should the distance between the vessels be reduced, this operation is reversed, the speed of the upper strand being reduced. To keep the carriage steady on its return empty, a rope, known as the sea-anchor line, is stretched above the two strands of the conveyor line, and under a pulley on the carriage. This cable is attached to the vessel, resting on a saddle on the shear head, whence it leads through the carriage over pulleys at the head of the foremast and mainmast of the collier, running on astern several hundred feet into the sea. A drag or sea-anchor, usually made of canvas and cone-shaped, is attached to the end of this rope. This anchor is used to support the empty carriage on its return to the collier. The diameter of the cone's base is graduated to the speed of the vessels. Thus in a smooth-water test, with a ship steaming at 6 knots, one 7 ft. in diameter was used, while the same anchor answered its purpose very well with a ship doing 5 knots in rough water.

The results given by this system of coaling at sea are relatively satisfactory. Tests made in the United States navy showed that 20 to 25 tons of coal per hour could be delivered by a collier to a war-vessel during a moderate gale. As the ship was under steam all the time and consumed 3 to 4 tons of coal per hour, the balance of the coal bunkered amounted to between 16 and 20 tons per hour, or say 384 tons in 24 hours. It has been suggested that under service conditions the speed of the towing vessel might be increased to 8 or 10 knots an hour; this would of course increase the coal consumption unless the collier proceeded under her own steam. But in such a case the space between the two crafts might be diminished, which would have the effect of causing the cable to sag and of stopping the work, since the conveyor cable to act properly must be kept taut. In Great Britain the Temperley Transporter Company have taken up this method of coaling at sea, working in collaboration with Spencer Miller, and have introduced several improvements in detail. Their system has been tried by the British admiralty.

The coaling of a large vessel by this appliance has the advantage of economizing hand labour. One man is required to work the hoist on the collier, while 20 men will be in the hold filling the bags and delivering them to the deck, where 15 or so will transfer the bags to the lift. One or two men suffice for the overhead work; their station is in the trestle trees. On board the receiving ship a few men will be stationed at the shear head to empty the bags into a canvas shoot, and then return them, while there will be the usual force of bunker trimmers. A ton of coal per minute has been transferred from the collier to the vessel, but for this capacity the ships must not be too far apart, else the rope would not remain taut under such loads. During the Russo-Japanese War, many of the Russian battleships were coaled by means of aerial cableways. The coaling of vessels in this manner seems a success, but it would be desirable to increase the carrying capacity of the cableway or to duplicate the installations.

_Telpherage._--A telpher ropeway or cableway may be defined as a ropeway or cableway worked and controlled electrically, only a rail rope being required besides the live rail or wire from which the electric current is taken. Telpherage was devised by Professor Fleeming Jenkin in 1881, and developed by him in conjunction with Professors W. E. Ayrton and J. Perry. The telpher itself consists of a light two-wheeled truck, carrying the driving motors, which, to avoid gearing or other complicated mechanism, are usually coupled directly to the axles of the telpher. Thus the telpher is a self-propelled electric carrier running on a mono-rail, which, according to the conditions, may be a steel rail or a steel cable. From the telpher are suspended carriers which can be adapted to any kind of material. In many cases the whole load may be suspended from the telpher, or the load, especially if of some length, may be supported at one end by a telpher, and at the other end by what is known as a trailer, or again, two telphers may be installed, one at each end of the load. The telpher carries a small trolley sheave or bow which serves to collect the current from a trolley wire stretched a little above the rail. Frequently the telpher is accompanied by an attendant who manipulates it, but by dividing the trolley wire into sections any system of telpherage may be constructed to work automatically, and by switching off the current from the section in which the telpher is required to stop it can be brought to a standstill at any required point. The speed of the telpher may be readily regulated by the introduction of a resistance between any section of the line and the supply of electricity. The speed may be high, as much as 1500 ft. per minute over the straight portions of the line, but slackened at curves and loading stations, or when approaching a terminus. The required power may be obtained from the mains of an ordinary electric supply with either direct or alternating current, but the former is preferable. The mean expenditure of power in a working day is said to average (including electrical hoisting) 1 H.P. per ton of average load.

The uses of telpherage are many and various. In factories and warehouses, where the buildings are scattered, it has been installed with excellent results. Being essentially an overhead system, there is a saving of floor space, the ground not being obstructed by trucks or trolleys. The same reasons which render ropeways an economical means of handling such material as coal, ore, stone, slate, &c., between the mine or quarry and the rail or barge, may be adduced in favour of telpherage. For the unloading of railway trucks in a crowded goods-yard it is undoubtedly applicable. Any kind of tipping or hoisting operations can be automatically effected by its aid, and any sort of grab may be used in dealing with such materials as sand, clay or gravel. Telpherage is clearly a labour-saving method of handling materials, but of course the exact conditions under which any system is to be used need careful study, while the economy to be effected by the installation of a telpher line must to a great extent depend upon the available supply of electrical energy. (G. F. Z.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The illustrations in this article are taken, by kind permission, from the _Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers_.

CONVOCATION (Lat. _convocatio_, a calling together), an assembly of persons met together in answer to a summons. The term is more usually applied in a restricted sense to assemblies of the clergy or of the graduates of certain universities.

In the American Protestant Episcopal Church a convocation is a voluntary deliberative conference of the clergy; it has no legislative function, and like the convocation of a university, assembles primarily to discuss matters of common interest.

In England the name "convocation" is specifically given to an assembly of the spirituality of the realm of England, which is summoned by the metropolitan archbishops of Canterbury and of York respectively, within their ecclesiastical provinces, pursuant to a royal writ, whenever the parliament of the realm is summoned, and which is also continued or discharged, as the case may be, whenever the parliament is prorogued or dissolved. These assemblies consist of two Houses, an upper and lower. In the upper house sit the archbishops and bishops, and in the lower the deans and archdeacons of every cathedral, the provost of Eton College, with one proctor elected by each cathedral chapter and two by the beneficed clergy in each diocese in the province of Canterbury (in the province of York two proctors are elected by each archdeacon), with a prolocutor at their head. When and how this convocation originated is not historically clear. This much is known from authentic records, that the present constitution of the convocation of the prelates and clergy of the province of Canterbury was recognized as early as in the eleventh year of the reign of Edward I. (1283) as its normal constitution; and that in extorting that recognition from the crown, which the clergy accomplished by refusing to attend unless summoned in lawful manner (_debito modo_) through their metropolitan, the clergy of the province of Canterbury taught the laity the possibility of maintaining the freedom of the nation against the encroachments of the royal power. It had been a provision of the Anglo-Saxon period, the origin of which is generally referred to the council of Clovesho (747), that the possessions of the church should be exempt from taxation by the secular power, and that it should be left to the benevolence of the clergy to grant such subsidies to the crown from the endowments of their churches as they should agree to in their own assemblies. It may be inferred, however, from the language of the various writs issued by the crown for the collection of the "aids" voted by the _Commune Concilium_ of the realm in the reign of Henry III., that the clergy were unable to maintain the exemption of church property from being taxed to those "aids" during that king's reign; and it was not until some years had elapsed of the reign of Edward I. that the spirituality succeeded in vindicating their constitutional privilege of voting in their own assemblies their free gifts or "benevolences," and in insisting on the crown observing the lawful form of convoking those assemblies through the metropolitan of each province.

The form of the royal writ, which it is customary to issue in the present day to the metropolitan of each province, is identical in its purport with the writ issued by the crown in 1283 to the metropolitan of the province of Canterbury, after the clergy of that province had refused to meet at Northampton in the previous year, because they had not been summoned in lawful manner; whilst the mandates issued by the metropolitans in pursuance of the royal writs, and the citations issued by the bishops in pursuance of the mandates of their respective metropolitans, are identical in their purport and form with those used in summoning the convocation of 1283, which met at the New Temple in the city of London, and voted a "benevolence" to the crown, as having been convoked in lawful manner. The existing constitution of the convocation of the province of Canterbury--and the same observation will apply to that of the province of York--in respect of its comprising representatives of the chapters and of the beneficed clergy, in addition to the bishops and other dignitaries of the church, would thus appear to be of even more ancient date than the existing constitution of the parliament of the realm.

Contest between spirituality and crown.

From this period down to the eleventh year of the reign of Edward III. there were continual contests between the spirituality of the realm and the crown,--the spirituality contending for their constitutional right to vote their subsidies in their provincial convocations; the crown, on the other hand, insisting on the immediate attendance of the clergy in parliament. The resistance of the clergy to the innovation of the "praemunientes" clause had so far prevailed in the reign of Edward II. that the crown consented to summon the clergy to parliament through their metropolitans, and a special form of provincial writ was for that purpose framed; but the clergy protested against this writ, and the struggle was maintained between the spirituality and the crown until 1337 (11 Edward III.), when the crown reverted to the ancient practice of commanding the metropolitans to call together their clergy in their provincial assemblies, where their subsidies were voted in the manner as accustomed before the "praemunientes" clause was introduced. The "praemunientes" clause, however, was continued in the parliamentary writs issued to the several bishops of both provinces, whilst the bishops were permitted to neglect at their pleasure the execution of the writs.

Five characteristic periods.

The history of the convocation of the province of Canterbury, as at present constituted, is full of stirring incidents, and it resolves itself readily into five periods. The first period, by which is meant the first period which dates from an epoch of authentic history, is the period of its greatest freedom, but not of its greatest activity. It extends from the reign of Edward I. (1283) to that of Henry VIII. The second period is the period of its greatest activity and of its greatest usefulness, and it extends from the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Henry VIII. to the reign of Charles II. The third period extends from the fifteenth year of the reign of Charles II. (1664) to the reign of George I. This was a period of turbulent activity and little usefulness, and the anarchy of the lower house of convocation during this period created a strong prejudice against the revival of convocation in the mind of the laity. The fourth period extends from the third year of the reign of George I. (1716) to the fifteenth year of the reign of Queen Victoria. This was a period of torpid inactivity, during which it was customary for convocation to be summoned and to meet _pro forma_, and to be continued and prorogued indefinitely. The fifth period may be considered to have commenced in the fifteenth year of the reign of Queen Victoria (1852).

First period.

During the first of the five periods above mentioned, it would appear from the records preserved at Lambeth and at York that the metropolitans frequently convened congregations (so called) of their clergy without the authority of a royal writ, which were constituted precisely as the convocations were constituted, when the metropolitans were commanded to call their clergy together pursuant to a writ from the crown. As soon, however, as King Henry VIII. had obtained from the clergy their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the crown in all ecclesiastical causes, he constrained the spirituality to declare, by what has been termed the Act of Submission on behalf of the clergy, that the convocation "is, always has been, and ought to be summoned by authority of a royal writ"; and this declaration was embodied in a statute of the realm (25 Henry VIII. c. 19), which further enacted that the convocation "should thenceforth make no provincial canons, constitutions or ordinances without the royal assent and licence." The spirituality was thus more closely incorporated than heretofore in the body politic of the realm, seeing that no deliberations on its part can take place unless the crown has previously granted its licence for such deliberations. It had been already provided during this period by 8 Henry VI. c. 1, that the prelates and other clergy, with their servants and attendants, when called to the convocation pursuant to the king's writ, should enjoy the same liberty and defence in coming, tarrying and returning as the magnates and the commons of the realm enjoy when summoned to the king's parliament.

Second period.

Sheldonian compact.

The second period, which dates from 1533 to 1664, has been distinguished by four important assemblies of the spirituality of the realm in pursuance of a royal writ--the two first of which occurred in the reign of Edward VI., the third in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the fourth in the reign of Charles II. The two earliest of these convocations were summoned to complete the work of the reformation of the Church of England, which had been begun by Henry VIII.; the third was called together to reconstruct that work, which had been marred on the accession of Mary (the consort of Philip II. of Spain), whilst the fourth was summoned to re-establish the Church of England, the framework of which had been demolished during the great rebellion. On all of these occasions the convocations worked hand in hand with the parliament of the realm under a licence and with the assent of the crown. Meanwhile the convocation of 1603 had framed a body of canons for the governance of the clergy. Another convocation requires a passing notice, in which certain canons were drawn up in 1640, but by reason of an irregularity in the proceedings of this convocation (chiefly, on the ground that its sessions were continued for some time after the parliament of the realm had been dissolved), its canons are not held to have any binding obligation on the clergy. The convocations had up to this time maintained their liberty of voting the subsidies of the clergy in the form of "benevolences" separate and apart from the "aids" granted by the laity in parliament, and one of the objections taken to the proceedings of the convocation of 1640 was that it had continued to sit and to vote its subsidies to the crown after the parliament itself had been dissolved. It is not, therefore, surprising on the restoration of the monarchy in 1661 that the spirituality was not anxious to retain the liberty of taxing itself apart from the laity, seeing that its ancient liberty was likely to prove of questionable advantage to it. It voted, however, a benevolence to the crown on the occasion of its first assembling in 1661 after the restoration of King Charles II., and it continued so to do until 1664, when an arrangement was made between Archbishop Sheldon and Lord Chancellor Hyde, under which the spirituality silently waived its long-asserted right of voting its own subsidies to the crown, and submitted itself thenceforth to be assessed to the "aids" directly granted to the crown by parliament. An act was accordingly passed by the parliament in the following year 1665, entitled An act to grant a Royal Aid unto the King's Majesty, to which aid the clergy were assessed by the commissioners named in the statute without any objection being raised on their part or behalf,[1] there being a proviso that in so contributing the clergy should be relieved of the liability to pay two subsidies out of four, which had been voted by them in the convocation of a previous year. In consequence of this practical renunciation of their separate _status_, as regards their liability to taxation, the clergy have assumed and enjoyed in common with the laity the right of voting at the election of members of the House of Commons, in virtue of their ecclesiastical freeholds.

The most important and the last work of the convocation during this second period of its activity was the revision of the Book of Common Prayer which was completed in the latter part of 1661.

Third period.

Claim of Lower House to sit independently.

Bangorian controversy.

Fourth period.

Fifth period.