The Life of George Stephenson and of his Son Robert Stephenson

Chapter XX Robert Stephenson’s Victoria Bridge, Lower Canada — Illness and Death

George Stephenson bequeathed to his son his valuable collieries, his share in the engine manufactory at Newcastle, and his large accumulation of savings, which, together with the fortune he had himself amassed by railway work, gave Robert the position of an engineer millionaire—the first of his order. He continued, however, to live in a quiet style; and although he bought occasional pictures and statues, and indulged in the luxury of a yacht, he did not live up to his income, which went on accumulating until his death.

There was no longer the necessity for applying himself to the laborious business of a Parliamentary engineer, in which he had now been occupied for some fifteen years. Shortly after his father’s death, Edward Pease recommended him to give up the more harassing work of his profession; and his reply (15th of June, 1850) was as follows:

“The suggestion which your kind note contains is quite in accordance with my own feelings and intentions respecting retirement; but I find it a very difficult matter to bring to a close so complicated a connection in business as that which has been established by twenty-five years of active and arduous professional duty. Comparative retirement is, however, my intention, and I trust that your prayer for the Divine blessing to grant me happiness and quiet comfort will be fulfilled. I can not but feel deeply grateful to the Great Disposer of events for the success which has hitherto attended my exertions in life, and I trust that the future will also be marked by a continuance of His mercies.”

Although Robert Stephenson, in conformity with this expressed intention, for the most part declined to undertake new business, he did not altogether lay aside his harness, and he lived to repeat his tubular bridges both in Egypt and Canada. The success of the tubular system, as adopted at Menai and Conway, was such as to recommend it for adoption wherever great span was required, and the peculiar circumstances connected with the navigation of the Nile and the St. Lawrence may be said to have compelled its adoption in carrying railways across both those rivers.

Two tubular bridges were built after our engineer’s designs across the Nile, near Damietta, in Lower Egypt. That near Benha contains eight spans or openings of 80 feet each, and two centre spans, formed by one of the largest swing-bridges ever constructed, the total length of the swing-beam being 157 feet, a clear waterway of 60 feet being provided on either side of the centre pier. The only novelty in these bridges consisted in the road being carried upon the tubes instead of within them, their erection being carried out in the usual manner by means of workmen, materials, and plant sent out from England. The Tubular Bridge constructed in Canada, after Mr. Stephenson’s designs, was of a much more important character, and deserves a fuller description.

The important uses of railways had been recognized at an early period by the inhabitants of North America, and in the course of about thirty years more than 25,000 miles of railway, mostly single, were constructed in the United States alone. The Canadians were more deliberate in their proceedings, and it was not until the year 1840 that their first railway, 14 miles in length, was constructed between Laprairie and St. John’s, for the purpose of connecting Lake Champlain with the River St. Lawrence. From this date, however, new lines were rapidly projected; more particularly the Great Western of Canada, and the Atlantic and St. Lawrence (now forming part of the Grand Trunk), until in the course of a few years Canada had a length of nearly 2000 miles of railway open or in course of construction, intersecting the provinces almost in a continuous line from Rivière du Loup, near the mouth of the St. Lawrence, to Port Sarnia, on the shores of Lake Huron.

But there still remained one most important and essential link to connect the lines on the south of the St. Lawrence with those on the north, and at the same time place the city of Montreal in direct railway connection with the western parts of Canada. The completion of this link was also necessary in order to maintain the commercial communication of Canada with the rest of the world during five months in every year; for, though the St. Lawrence in summer affords a splendid outlet to the ocean—toward which the commerce of the colony naturally tends—the frost in winter is so severe, that during that season Canada is completely frozen in, and the navigation hermetically closed by the ice.

The Grand Trunk Railway was designed to furnish a line of land communication along the great valley of the St. Lawrence at all seasons, following the course of the river, and connecting the principal towns of the colony. But stopping short on the north shore, nearly opposite Montreal, with which it was connected by a dangerous and often impracticable ferry, it was felt that, until the St. Lawrence was bridged by a railway, the Canadian system of railways was manifestly incomplete. But how to bridge this wide and rapid river! Never before, perhaps, was a problem of such difficulty proposed for solution by an engineer. Opposite Montreal, the St. Lawrence is about two miles wide, running at the rate of about ten miles an hour; and at the close of each winter it carries down the ice of 2000 square miles of lakes and rivers, with their numerous tributaries.

As early as the year 1846, the construction of a bridge at Montreal was strongly advocated by the local press as the only means of connecting that city with the projected Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railway. But the difficulties of executing such a work seemed almost insurmountable to those best acquainted with the locality. The greatest difficulty was apprehended from the tremendous shoving and pressure of the ice at the break-up of winter. At such times, opposite Montreal, the whole river is packed with huge blocks of ice, and it is often seen piled up to a height of from 40 to 50 feet along the banks, placing the surrounding country under water, and occasionally doing severe damage to the massive stone buildings erected along the noble river front of the city.

But no other expedient presented itself but a bridge, and a survey was made accordingly at the instance of the Hon. John Young, one of the directors of the railway. A period of colonial depression having shortly after occurred, the project slept for a time, and it was not until six years later, in 1852, when the Grand Trunk Railway was under construction, that the subject was again brought under discussion. In that year, Mr. Alexander M. Ross, who had superintended the construction of Robert Stephenson’s tubular bridge at Conway, visited Canada, and inspected the site of the proposed structure, when he at once formed the opinion that a tubular bridge carrying a railway was the most suitable means of crossing the St. Lawrence, and connecting Montreal with the lines on the north of the river.

The directors felt that such a work would necessarily be of a most formidable and difficult character, and before coming to any conclusion they determined to call to their assistance Mr. Robert Stephenson, as the engineer most competent to advise them in the matter. Mr. Stephenson considered the subject of so much interest and importance that, in the summer of 1853, he proceeded to Canada to inquire as to all the facts, and examine carefully the site of the proposed work. He then formed the opinion that a tubular bridge across the river was not only practicable, but by far the most suitable for the purpose intended, and early in the following year he sent an elaborate report on the whole subject to the directors of the railway. The result was the adoption of his recommendation and the erection of the Victoria Bridge, of which Robert Stephenson was the designer and engineer, and Mr. A. M. Ross the joint and resident engineer in directly superintending the execution of the undertaking. The details of the plans were principally worked out in Mr. Stephenson’s office in London, under the superintendence of his cousin, Mr. George Robert Stephenson, while the iron-work was for the most part constructed at the Canada Works, Liverpool, from whence it was shipped, ready for being fixed in position on the spot.

The Victoria Bridge is, without exception, the greatest work of its kind in the world. For gigantic proportions, and vast length and strength, there is nothing to compare with it in ancient or modern times. The entire bridge, with its approaches, is only about sixty yards short of two miles in length, being five times longer than the Britannia Bridge across the Menai Straits, seven and a half times longer than Waterloo Bridge, and more than ten times longer than Chelsea Bridge. The two-mile tube across the St. Lawrence rests on twenty-four piers, which, with the abutments, leave twenty-five spaces or spans for the several parts of the tube. Twenty-four of these spans are 242 feet wide; the centre span—itself a huge bridge—being 330 feet. The road is carried within the tube 60 feet above the level of the river, so as not to interfere with its navigation.

As one of the principal difficulties apprehended in the erection of the bridge was that arising from the tremendous “shoving” and ramming of the ice at the break-up of winter, the plans were carefully designed so as to avert all danger from this cause. Hence the peculiarity in the form of the piers, which, though greatly increasing their strength for the purpose intended, must be admitted to detract considerably from the symmetry of the structure as a whole. The western face of each pier—that is, the up-river side—has a large wedge-shaped cutwater of stone-work, presenting an inclined plane toward the current, for the purpose of arresting and breaking up the ice-blocks, and thereby preventing them from piling up and damaging the tube carrying the railway. The piers are of immense strength. Those close to the abutments contain about 6000 tons of masonry each, while those which support the great centre tube contain about 12,000 tons. The former are 15 feet wide, and the latter 18. Scarcely a block of stone used in the piers is less than seven tons in weight, while many of those opposed to the force of the breaking-up ice weigh fully ten tons.

As might naturally be expected, the getting in of the foundations of these enormous piers in so wide and rapid a river was attended with many difficulties. To give an idea of the water-power of the St. Lawrence, it may be mentioned that when the river comes down in its greatest might, large stone boulders weighing upward of a ton are rolled along by the sheer force of the current. The depth of the river, however, was not so great as might be supposed, varying from only five to fifteen feet during summer, when the foundation-work was carried on.

The method first employed to get in the foundations was by means of dams or caissons, which were constructed on shore, floated into position, and scuttled over the places at which the foundations were to be laid, thus at once forming a nucleus from which the dams could be constructed. The first of such dams was floated, got into position, scuttled, and sunk, and the piling fairly begun, on the 19th of June, 1854. By the 15th of the following month the sheet-piling and puddling was finished, when the pumping of the water out of the inclosed space by steam-power was proceeded with, and in a few hours the bed of the river was laid almost dry, the toe of every pile being distinctly visible. By the 22d the first stone of the pier was laid, and on the 14th of August the masonry was above water-level.

The getting in of the foundations of the other piers was proceeded with in like manner, though frequently interrupted by storms, inundations, and collisions of timber-rafts, which occasionally carried away the moorings of the dams. Considerable difficulty was in some places experienced from the huge boulder-stones lying in the bed of the river, to remove which sometimes cost the divers several months of hard labor. In getting in the foundations of the later piers, the method first employed of sinking the floating caissons in position was abandoned, and the dams were constructed of “crib-work,”106 which was found more convenient, and less liable to interruption by accident from collision or otherwise.

By the spring of 1857 a sufficient number of piers had been finished to enable the erection of the tubes to be proceeded with. The operations connected with this portion of the work were also of a novel character. Instead of floating the tubes between the piers and raising them into position by hydraulic power, as at Conway and Menai, which the rapid current of the St. Lawrence would not permit, the tubes were erected in situ on a staging prepared for the purpose, as shown in the following engraving.

Floating scows, each 60 feet by 20, were moored in position, and kept in their place by piles sliding in grooves. These piles, when firmly fixed in the bed of the river, were bolted to the sides of the scows, and the tops were leveled to receive the sills upon which the framing carrying the truss and platform was erected. Timbers were laid on the lower chords of the truss, forming a platform 24 feet wide, closely planked with deals. The upper chords carried rails, along which moved the “travelers” used in erecting the tubes. The plates forming the bottom of each tube having been accurately laid and riveted, and adjusted to level and centre by oak wedges, the erection of the sides was next proceeded with, extending outward from the centre on either side, this work being closely followed by the plating of the top. Each tube between the respective pairs of piers was in the first place erected separate and independent of its adjoining tubes; but after completion, the tubes were joined in pairs and firmly bolted to the masonry over which they were united, their outer ends being placed upon rollers so arranged on the adjoining piers that they might expand or contract according to variations of temperature.

The work continued to make satisfactory progress down to the spring of 1858, by which time fourteen out of the twenty-four piers were finished, together with the formidable abutments and approaches to the bridge. Considerable apprehensions were entertained as to the security of the piers and the unfinished parts of the work at the usual breaking-up of the ice. We take the following account from a letter written by Mr. Ross to Mr. Stephenson descriptive of the scene.

“On the 29th of March, the ice above Montreal began to show signs of weakness, but it was not until the 31st that a general movement became observable, which continued for an hour, when it suddenly stopped, and the water rose rapidly. On the following day, at noon, a grand movement commenced; the waters rose about four feet in two minutes, up to a level with many of the Montreal streets. The fields of ice at the same time were suddenly elevated to an incredible height; and so overwhelming were they in appearance, that crowds of the townspeople, who had assembled on the quay to watch the progress of the flood, ran for their lives. This movement lasted about twenty minutes, during which the jammed ice destroyed several portions of the quay wall, grinding the hardest blocks to atoms. The embanked approaches to the Victoria Bridge had tremendous forces to resist. In the full channel of the stream, the ice in its passage between the piers was broken up by the force of the blow immediately on its coming in contact with the cutwaters. Sometimes thick sheets of ice were seen to rise up and rear on end against the piers, but by the force of the current they were speedily made to roll over into the stream, and in a moment after were out of sight. For the two next days the river was still high, until on the 4th of April the waters seemed suddenly to give way, and by the following day the river was flowing clear and smooth as a millpond, nothing of winter remaining except the masses of bordage ice which were strewn along the shores of the stream. On examination of the piers of the bridge, it was found that they had admirably resisted the tremendous pressure; and though the timber “crib-work” erected to facilitate the placing of floating pontoons to form the dams was found considerably disturbed and in some places seriously damaged, the piers, with the exception of one or two heavy stone blocks, which were still unfinished, escaped uninjured. One block of many tons’ weight was carried to a considerable distance, and must have been torn out of its place by sheer force, as several of the broken fragments were found left in the pier.”

Toward the end of January, 1859, the plating of the bottom of the great central tube was begun. The execution of this part of the undertaking was of a very formidable and difficult character. The gangs of men employed upon it were required to work night and day, though the season was mid-winter, as it was of great importance to the navigation that the staging should be removed by the time that the ice broke up and the river became open. The night gangs were lighted at their work by wood-fires filling huge braziers, the bright glow of which illumined the vast snow-covered ice-field in the midst of which they worked at so lofty an elevation; and the sight as well as the sounds of the hammering and riveting, the puffing of the steam-engines, and the various operations thus carried on, presented a scene the like of which has rarely been witnessed. The work was not conducted without considerable risk to the men, arising from the intense cold. The temperature was often 20° below zero, and notwithstanding that they all worked in thick gloves, and that care was taken to protect every exposed part, many of them were severely frostbitten. Sometimes, when thick mist rose from the river, they would become covered with icicles, and be driven from their work.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the laying of the great central tube made steady progress. By the 17th of February the first pair of side-plates was erected; on the 28th, the bottom was riveted and completed; 180 feet of the sides was also in place, and 100 feet of the top was plated; and on the 21st of March the whole of the plating was finished. A few days later the wedges were knocked away, and the tube hung suspended between the adjoining piers. On the 18th of May following the staging was all cleared away, with the moored scows and the crib-work, and the centre span of the bridge was again clear for the navigation of the river.

The first stone of the bridge was laid on the 22d of July, 1854. The works continued in progress for a period of five and a half years, until the 17th of December, 1859, when the first train passed over the bridge; and on the 25th of August, 1860, it was formally opened for traffic by the Prince of Wales. It was the greatest of Robert Stephenson’s bridges, and worthy of being the crowning and closing work of his life. But he was not destined to see its completion. Two months before the bridge was finished he had passed from the scene of all his labors.

---

We have little to add as to the closing events in Robert Stephenson’s life. Retired in a great measure from the business of an engineer, he occupied himself for the most part in society, in yachting, and in attending the House of Commons and the Clubs. It was in the year 1847 that he entered the House of Commons as member for Whitby; but he does not seem to have been very regular in his attendance, and only appeared on divisions when there was a “whip” of the party to which he belonged. He was a member of the Sewage and Sanitary Commissions, and of the Commission which sat on Westminster Bridge. He very seldom addressed the House, and then only on matters relating to engineering. The last occasions on which he spoke were on the Suez Canal107 and the cleansing of the Serpentine. Besides constructing the railway between Alexandria and Cairo, he was consulted, like his father, by the King of Belgium as to the railways of that country; and he was made Knight of the Order of Leopold because of the improvements which he had made in locomotive engines, so much to the advantage of the Belgian system of inland transit. He was consulted by the King of Sweden as to the railway between Christiana and Lake Miösen, and in consideration of his services was decorated with the Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olaf. He also visited Switzerland, Piedmont, and Denmark, to advise as to the system of railway communication best suited for those countries. At the Paris Exhibition of 1855 the Emperor of France decorated him with the Legion of Honor in consideration of his public services; and at home the University of Oxford made him a Doctor of Civil Laws. In 1855 he was elected President of the Institute of Civil Engineers, which office he held with honor and filled with distinguished ability for two years, giving place to his friend Mr. Locke at the end of 1857.

Mr. Stephenson was frequently called upon to act as arbitrator between contractors and railway companies, or between one company and another, great value being attached to his opinion on account of his weighty judgment, his great experience, and his upright character; and we believe his decisions were invariably stamped by the qualities of impartiality and justice. He was always ready to lend a helping hand to a friend, and no petty jealousy stood between him and his rivals in the engineering world. The author remembers being with Mr. Stephenson one evening at his house in Gloucester Square when a note was put into his hand from his friend Brunel, then engaged in his fruitless efforts to launch the Great Eastern. It was to ask Stephenson to come down to Blackwall early next morning, and give him the benefit of his judgment. Shortly after six next morning Stephenson was in Scott Russell’s building-yard, and he remained there until dusk. About midday, while superintending the launching operations, the balk of timber on which he stood canted up, and he fell up to his middle in the Thames mud. He was dressed as usual, without great-coat (though the day was bitter cold), and with only thin boots upon his feet. He was urged to leave the yard and change his dress, or at least dry himself; but, with his usual disregard of health, he replied, “Oh, never mind me; I’m quite used to this sort of thing;” and he went paddling about in the mud, smoking his cigar, until almost dark, when the day’s work was brought to an end. The result of this exposure was an attack of inflammation of the lungs, which kept him to his bed for a fortnight.

He was habitually careless of his health, and perhaps he indulged in narcotics to a prejudicial extent. Hence he often became “hipped,” and sometimes ill. When Mr. Sopwith accompanied him to Egypt in the Titania, in 1856, he succeeded in persuading Mr. Stephenson to limit his indulgence in cigars and stimulants, and the consequence was that by the end of the voyage he felt himself, as he said, “quite a new man.” Arrived at Marseilles, he telegraphed from thence a message to Great George Street, prescribing certain stringent and salutary rules for observance in the office there on his return. But he was of a facile, social disposition, and the old associations proved too strong for him. When he sailed for Norway in the autumn of 1859, though then ailing in health, he looked a man who had still plenty of life in him. By the time he returned his fatal illness had seized him. He was attacked by congestion of the liver, which first developed itself in jaundice, and then ran into dropsy, of which he died on the 12th of October, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. He was buried by the side of Telford in Westminster Abbey, amid the departed great men of his country, and was attended to his resting-place by many of the intimate friends of his boyhood and his manhood. Among those who assembled round his grave were some of the greatest men of thought and action in England, who embraced the sad occasion to pay the last mark of their respect to this illustrious son of one of England’s greatest working-men.

---

It would be out of keeping with the subject thus drawn to a conclusion to pronounce any panegyric on the character and achievements of George and Robert Stephenson. These, for the most part, speak for themselves; and both were emphatically true men, exhibiting in their lives many valuable and sterling qualities.

No beginning could have been less promising than that of the elder Stephenson. Born in a poor condition, yet rich in spirit, he was from the first compelled to rely upon himself, every step of advance which he made being conquered by patient labor. Whether working as a brakesman or an engineer, his mind was always full of the work in hand. He gave himself thoroughly up to it. Like the painter, he might say that he had become great “by neglecting nothing.” Whatever he was engaged upon, he was as careful of the details as if each were itself the whole. He did all thoroughly and honestly. There was no “scamping” with him. When a workman, he put his brains and labor into his work; and when a master, he put his conscience and character into it. He would have no slop-work executed merely for the sake of profit. The materials must be as genuine as the workmanship was skillful. The structures which he designed and executed were distinguished for their thoroughness and solidity; his locomotives were famous for their durability and excellent working qualities. The engines which he sent to the United States in 1832 are still in good condition; and even the engines built by him for the Killingworth Colliery, upward of thirty years since, are working there to this day. All his work was honest, representing the actual character of the man.

He was ready to turn his hand to any thing—shoes and clocks, railways and locomotives. He contrived his safety-lamp with the object of saving pitmen’s lives, and periled his own life in testing it. With him to resolve was to do. Many men knew far more than he, but none was more ready forthwith to apply what he did know to practical purposes. It was while working at Willington as a brakesman that he first learned how best to handle a spade in throwing ballast out of the ships’ holds. This casual employment seems to have left upon his mind the most lasting impression of what “hard work” was; and he often used to revert to it, and say to the young men about him, “Ah, ye lads! there’s none o’ ye know what wark is.” Mr. Gooch says he was proud of the dexterity in handling a spade which he had thus acquired, and that he has frequently seen him take the shovel from a laborer in some railway cutting, and show him how to use it more deftly in filling wagons of earth, gravel, or sand. Sir Joshua Walmsley has also informed us that, when examining the works of the Orleans and Tours Railway, Stephenson, seeing a large number of excavators filling and wheeling sand in a cutting, at a great waste of time and labor, went up to the men and said he would show them how to fill their barrows in half the time. He showed them the proper position in which to stand so as to exercise the greatest amount of power with the least expenditure of strength; and he filled the barrow with comparative ease again and again in their presence, to the great delight of the workmen. When passing through his own workshops he would point out to his men how to save labor and get through their work skillfully and with ease. His energy imparted itself to others, quickening and influencing them as strong characters always do, flowing down into theirs, and bringing out their best powers.

His deportment to the workmen employed under him was familiar, yet firm and consistent. As he respected their manhood, so they respected his masterhood. Although he comported himself toward his men as if they occupied very much the same level with himself, he yet possessed that peculiar capacity for governing which enabled him always to preserve among them the strictest discipline, and to secure their cheerful and hearty services. Mr. Ingham, M.P. for South Shields, on going over the workshops at Newcastle, was particularly struck with this quality of the master in his bearing toward his men. “There was nothing,” said he, “of undue familiarity in their intercourse, but they spoke to each other as man to man; and nothing seemed to please the master more than to point out illustrations of the ingenuity of his artisans. He took up a rivet, and expatiated on the skill with which it had been fashioned by the workman’s hand—its perfectness and truth. He was always proud of his workmen and his pupils; and, while indifferent and careless as to what might be said of himself, he fired up in a moment if disparagement were thrown upon any one whom he had taught or trained.”

In manner, George Stephenson was simple, modest, and unassuming, but always manly. He was frank and social in spirit. When a humble workman, he had carefully preserved his sense of self-respect. His companions looked up to him, and his example was worth much more to many of them than books or schools. His devoted love of knowledge made his poverty respectable, and adorned his humble calling. When he rose to a more elevated station, and associated with men of the highest position and influence in Britain, he took his place among them with perfect self-possession. They wondered at the quiet ease and simple dignity of his deportment; and men in the best ranks of life have said of him that “he was one of Nature’s gentlemen.”

Probably no military chiefs were ever more beloved by their soldiers than were both father and son by the army of men who, under their guidance, worked at labors of profit, made labors of love by their earnest will and purpose. True leaders of men and lords of industry, they were always ready to recognize and encourage talent in those who worked for and with them. Thus it was pleasant, at the openings of the Stephenson lines, to hear the chief engineers attributing the successful completion of the works to their assistants; while the assistants, on the other hand, ascribed the principal glory to their chiefs.

George Stephenson, though a thrifty and frugal man, was essentially unsordid. His rugged path in early life made him careful of his resources. He never saved to hoard, but saved for a purpose, such as the maintenance of his parents or the education of his son. In his later years he became a prosperous and even a wealthy man; but riches never closed his heart, nor stole away the elasticity of his soul. He enjoyed life cheerfully, because hopefully. When he entered upon a commercial enterprise, whether for others or for himself, he looked carefully at the ways and means. Unless they would “pay,” he held back. “He would have nothing to do,” he declared, “with stock-jobbing speculations.” His refusal to sell his name to the schemes of the railway mania—his survey of the Spanish lines without remuneration—his offer to postpone his claim for payment from a poor company until their affairs became more prosperous, are instances of the unsordid spirit in which he acted.

Another marked feature in Mr. Stephenson’s character was his patience. Notwithstanding the strength of his convictions as to the great uses to which the locomotive might be applied, he waited long and patiently for the opportunity of bringing it into notice; and for years after he had completed an efficient engine, he went on quietly devoting himself to the ordinary work of the colliery. He made no noise nor stir about his locomotive, but allowed another to take credit for the experiments on velocity and friction which he had made with it upon the Killingworth railroad. By patient industry and laborious contrivance he was enabled, with the powerful help of his son, almost to do for the locomotive what James Watt had done for the condensing engine. He found it clumsy and inefficient, and he made it powerful, efficient, and useful. Both have been described as the improvers of their respective engines; but, as to all that is admirable in their structure or vast in their utility, they are rather entitled to be described as their inventors. They have both tended to increase indefinitely the mass of human comforts and enjoyments, and to render them cheap and accessible to all. But Stephenson’s invention, by the influence which it is daily exercising upon the civilization of the world, is even more remarkable than that of Watt, and is calculated to have still more important consequences. In this respect it is to be regarded as the grandest application of steam-power that has yet been discovered.

George Stephenson’s close and accurate observation provided him with a fullness of information on many subjects which often appeared surprising to those who had devoted to them a special study. On one occasion the accuracy of his knowledge of birds came out in a curious way at a convivial meeting of railway men in London. The engineers and railway directors present knew each other as railway men and nothing more. The talk had been all of railways and railway politics. Stephenson was a great talker on those subjects, and was generally allowed, from the interest of his conversation and the extent of his experience, to take the lead. At length one of the party broke in with, “Come, now, Stephenson, we have had nothing but railways! can not we have a change, and try if we can talk a little about something else?” “Well,” said Stephenson, “I’ll give you a wide range of subjects; what shall it be about?” “Say birds’ nests!” rejoined the other, who prided himself on his special knowledge of the subject. “Then birds’ nests be it.” A long and animated conversation ensued: the bird-nesting of his boyhood—the blackbird’s nest which his father had held him up in his arms to look at when a child at Wylam—the hedges in which he had found the thrush’s and the linnet’s nests—the mossy bank where the robin built—the cleft in the branch of the young tree where the chaffinch had reared its dwelling—all rose up clear in his mind’s eye, and led him back to the scenes of his boyhood at Callerton and Dewley Burn. The color and number of the birds’ eggs—the period of their incubation—the materials employed by them for the walls and lining of their nests, were described by him so vividly, and illustrated by such graphic anecdotes, that one of the party remarked that, if George Stephenson had not been the greatest engineer of his day, he might have been one of the greatest naturalists.

His powers of conversation were very great. He was so thoughtful, original, and suggestive. There was scarcely a department of science on which he had not formed some novel and sometimes daring theory. Thus Mr. Gooch, his pupil, who lived with him when at Liverpool, informs us that when sitting over the fire, he would frequently broach his favorite theory of the sun’s light and heat being the original source of the light and heat given forth by the burning coal. “It fed the plants of which that coal is made,” he would say, “and has been bottled up in the earth ever since, to be given out again now for the use of man.” His son Robert once said of him, “My father flashed his bull’s eye full upon a subject, and brought it out in its most vivid light in an instant: his strong common sense and his varied experience, operating on a thoughtful mind, were his most powerful illuminators.”

The Bishop of Oxford related the following anecdote of him at a recent public meeting in London: “He heard the other day of an answer given by the great self-taught man, Stephenson, when he was speaking with something of distrust of what were called competitive examinations. Stephenson said, ‘I distrust them for this reason—they will lead, it seems to me, to an unlimited power of cram;’ and he added, ‘Let me give you one piece of advice—never to judge of your goose by its stuffing!’”

George Stephenson had once a conversation with a watchmaker, whom he astonished by the extent and minuteness of his knowledge as to the parts of a watch. The watchmaker knew him to be an eminent engineer, and asked how he had acquired so extensive a knowledge of a branch of business so much out of his sphere. “It is very easily to be explained,” said Stephenson; “I worked long at watch-cleaning myself, and when I was at a loss, I was never ashamed to ask for information.”

His hand was open to his former fellow-workmen whom old age had left in poverty. To poor Robert Gray, of Newburn, who acted as his brideman on his marriage to Fanny Henderson, he left a pension for life. He would slip a five-pound note into the hand of a poor man or a widow in such a way as not to offend their delicacy, but to make them feel as if the obligation were all on his side. When Farmer Paterson, who married a sister of George’s first wife, Fanny Henderson, died and left a large young family fatherless, poverty stared them in the face. “But ye ken,” said our informant, “George struck in fayther for them.” And perhaps the providential character of the act could not have been more graphically expressed than in these simple words.

On his visit to Newcastle, he would frequently meet the friends of his early days, occupying very nearly the same station in life, while he had meanwhile risen to almost world-wide fame; but he was not less hearty in his greeting of them than if their relative position had remained the same. Thus, one day, after shaking hands with Mr. Brandling on alighting from his carriage, he proceeded to shake hands with his coachman, Anthony Wigham, a still older friend, though he only sat on the box.

Robert Stephenson inherited his father’s kindly spirit and benevolent disposition. We have already stated that he was often called in as an umpire to mediate between conflicting parties, more particularly between contractors and engineers. On one occasion Brunel complained to him that he could not get on with his contractors, who were never satisfied, and were always quarreling with him. “You hold them too tightly to the letter of your agreement,” said Stephenson; “treat them fairly and liberally.” “But they try to take advantage of me at all points,” rejoined Brunel. “Perhaps you suspect them too much?” said Stephenson. “I suspect all men to be rogues,” said the other, “till I find them to be honest.” “For my part,” said Stephenson, “I take all men to be honest till I find them to be rogues.” “Ah! then, I fear we shall never agree,” concluded Brunel.

Robert almost worshiped his father’s memory, and was ever ready to attribute to him the chief merit of his own achievements as an engineer. “It was his thorough training,” we once heard him say, “his example, and his character, which made me the man I am.” On a more public occasion he said, “It is my great pride to remember that, whatever may have been done, and however extensive may have been my own connection with railway development, all I know and all I have done is primarily due to the parent whose memory I cherish and revere.”108 To Mr. Lough, the sculptor, he said he had never had but two loves—one for his father, the other for his wife.

Like his father, he was eminently practical, and yet always open to the influence and guidance of correct theory. His main consideration in laying out his lines of railway was what would best answer the intended purpose, or, to use his own words, to secure the maximum of result with the minimum of means. He was pre-eminently a safe man, because cautious, tentative, and experimental; following closely the lines of conduct trodden by his father, and often quoting his maxims.

In society Robert Stephenson was simple, unobtrusive, and modest, but charming and even fascinating in an eminent degree. Sir John Lawrence has said of him that he was, of all others, the man he most delighted to meet in England—he was so manly yet gentle, and withal so great. While admired and beloved by men of such calibre, he was equally a favorite with women and children. He put himself upon the level of all, and charmed them no less by his inexpressible kindliness of manner than by his simple yet impressive conversation.

His great wealth enabled him to perform many generous acts in a right noble and yet modest manner, not letting his right hand know what his left hand did. Of the numerous kindly acts of his which have been made public, we may mention the graceful manner in which he repaid the obligations which both himself and his father owed to the Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Institute when working together as fellow experimenters many years before in their humble cottage at Killingworth. The Institute was struggling under a debt of £6200, which impaired its usefulness as an educational agency. Mr. Stephenson offered to pay one half the sum provided the local supporters of the Institute would raise the remainder, and conditional also on the annual subscription being reduced from two guineas to one, in order that the usefulness of the institution might be extended. His generous offer was accepted and the debt extinguished.

Both father and son were offered knighthood, and both declined it. During the summer of 1847, George Stephenson was invited to offer himself as a candidate for the representation of South Shields in Parliament. But his politics were at best of a very undefined sort. Indeed, his life had been so much occupied with subjects of a practical character that he had scarcely troubled himself to form any decided opinion on the party political topics of the day, and to stand the cross-fire of the electors on the hustings might possibly have proved an even more distressing ordeal than the cross-questioning of the barristers in the Committees of the House of Commons. “Politics,” he used to say, “are all matters of theory—there is no stability in them; they shift about like the sands of the sea; and I should feel quite out of my element among them.” He had, accordingly, the good sense respectfully to decline the honor of contesting the representation of South Shields.

We have, however, been informed by Sir Joseph Paxton that, although George Stephenson held no strong opinions on political questions generally, there was one question on which he entertained a decided conviction, and that was the question of Free Trade. The words used by him on one occasion to Sir Joseph were very strong. “England,” said he, “is, and must be, a shopkeeper; and our docks and harbors are only so many wholesale shops, the doors of which should always be kept wide open.” It is curious that his son should have taken precisely the opposite view of this question, and acted throughout with the most rigid party among the Protectionists, supporting the Navigation Laws and opposing Free Trade, even to the extent of going into the lobby with Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Spooner, and the fifty-three “cannon-balls,” on the 26th of November, 1852. Robert Stephenson to the last spoke in strong terms as to the “betrayal of the Protectionist party” by their chosen leader, and he went so far as to say that he “could never forgive Peel.”

But Robert Stephenson will be judged in after times by his achievements as an engineer rather than by his acts as a politician; and, happily, these last were far outweighed in value by the immense practical services which he rendered to trade, commerce, and civilization, through the facilities which the railways constructed by him afforded for free intercommunication between men in all parts of the world. Speaking in the midst of his friends at Newcastle in 1850, he observed:

“It seems to me but as yesterday that I was engaged as an assistant in laying out the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Since then, the Liverpool and Manchester, and a hundred other great works have sprung into existence. As I look back upon these stupendous undertakings, accomplished in so short a time, it seems as though we had realized in our generation the fabled powers of the magician’s wand. Hills have been cut down and valleys filled up; and when these simple expedients have not sufficed, high and magnificent viaducts have been raised, and, if mountains stood in the way, tunnels of unexampled magnitude have pierced them through, bearing their triumphant attestation to the indomitable energy of the nation, and the unrivaled skill of our artisans.”

As respects the immense advantages of railways to mankind there can not be two opinions. They exhibit, probably, the grandest organization of capital and labor that the world has yet seen. Although they have unhappily occasioned great loss to many, the loss has been that of individuals, while, as a national system, the gain has already been enormous. As tending to multiply and spread abroad the conveniences of life, opening up new fields of industry, bringing nations nearer to each other, and thus promoting the great ends of civilization, the founding of the railway system by George Stephenson and his son must be regarded as one of the most important events, if not the very greatest, in the first half of this nineteenth century.

Footnotes

1 “The Railway Service, its Exigencies, Provisions, and Requirements.” By W. F. Mills. London, 1867.

2 “Lives of the Engineers,” vols. i. and ii.

3 Harleian MSS., vol. iii., 269.

4 “Six Months’ Tour,” vol. iii., 9.

5 “Travels in England, Scotland, and the Hebrides,” vol. i., 142.

6 “Railway Locomotion and Steam Navigation, their Principles and Practice.” By John Curr. London, 1847.

7 A curious account of this early project is to be found in the library of the British Museum, under the name “Stevin, 1652.”

8 The writer adds—“I believe he (Sir Humphry Mackworth) is the first gentleman in this part of the world that hath set up sailing engines on land, driven by the wind; not for any curiosity or vain applause, but for real profit; whereby he could not fail of Bishop Malkin’s blessing on his undertakings, in case he were in a capacity to bestow it.”

9 See farther, “Lives of the Engineers,” vol. iv., Boulton and Watt, p. 182-4.

10 Soho MSS.

11 Soho MSS.

12 Ibid.

13 “Portfeuille du Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers,” Livraison 1, p. 3.

14 This statement is made in “The Life of John Fitch,” by Thompson Westcott, Philadelphia, 1857. Mr. Thompson there states that the idea of employing a steam-engine to propel carriages on land occurred to John Fitch at a time when, he avers, “he was altogether ignorant that a steam-engine had ever been invented!” (p. 120). Such a statement is calculated to damage the credibility of the entire book, in which the invention of the steam-boat, as well as of the screw propeller, is unhesitatingly claimed for John Fitch.

15 Horne’s “Memoirs of the Most Eminent American Mechanics,” New York, 1858, p. 76.

16 Weale’s “Papers on Engineering,” vol. i., “On the Dredging Machine,” p. 7.

17 Paper read by Henry Boaze, Esq., “On Captain Trevithick’s Adventures,” at the Anniversary Meeting of September, 1817.—“Transactions of Royal Geological Society of Cornwall,” vol. i., p. 212.

18 On the 12th of August, 1831, by which time the Liverpool and Manchester line was in full work, Trevithick appeared as a witness before the select committee of the House of Commons on the employment of steam-carriages on common roads. He said “he had been abroad a good many years, and had had nothing to do with steam-carriages until very lately. He had it now, however, in contemplation to do a great deal on common roads, and, with that view, had taken out a patent for an entirely new engine, the arrangements in which were calculated to obviate all the difficulties which had hitherto stood in the way of traveling on common roads.”

19 A tradition exists in the family that Robert Stephenson’s father came across the Border on the loss of considerable property. Miss Stephenson, the daughter of Robert’s third son, John, has stated that a suit was commenced for recovery of the property, but was dropped for want of the requisite means to prosecute it.

20 The family Bible of Robert and Mabel Stephenson, which seems to have come into their possession in November, 1790, contains the following record of the births of these children, evidently written by one hand and at one time:
“A Rechester of the children belonging Robert and Mabel Stepheson—
“James Stepheson Was Born March the 4 day 1779
“George Stepheson Was Born June 9 day 1781
“Elender Stepheson Was Born April the 16 day 1784
“Robert Stepheson Was Born March the 10 day 1788
“John Stepheson Was Born November the 4 day 1789
“Ann Stepheson Was Born July the 19 day 1792.”
Of the two daughters, Eleanor married Stephen Liddell, afterward employed in the Locomotive Factory in Newcastle. Ann married John Nixon, with whom she emigrated to the United States; she died at Pittsburg in 1860. John Stephenson was accidentally killed at the Locomotive Factory in January, 1831.

21 Father of Mr. Locke, M.P., the engineer. He afterward removed to Barnsley, in Yorkshire.

22 The Stephenson Memorial Schools have since been erected on the site of the old cottage at Willington Quay represented in the engraving at the head of this chapter. A vignette of the Memorial Schools will be found at the end of the volume.

23 No register was made of Robert Stephenson’s birth, and he himself was in doubt whether he was born in October, November, or December. For instance, a dinner was given to him by the contractors of the London and Birmingham Railway on the 16th of November, 1839, that day being then supposed by his father to have been his birthday. When preparing the “Life of George Stephenson,” Robert stated to the author that the 16th of December was the correct day. But, after the book had passed through four editions, he desired the date to be corrected to the 16th of October, which, on the whole, he thought the right date, and it was so altered accordingly.

24 The congregation in a church near Newcastle were one Sunday morning plentifully powdered with chips from the white ceiling of the church, which had been crept under, being above an old mine. “It is only the pit a-creeping,” said the parish clerk, by way of encouragement to the people to remain. But it would not do; for there was a sudden creep out of the congregation. The clerk went at last, with a powdered head, crying out, “It’s only a creep.”—“Our Coal-Fields and our Coal-Pits.”

25 This incident was related by Robert Stephenson during a voyage to the north of Scotland in 1857, when off Montrose, on board his yacht Titania; and the reminiscence was immediately communicated to the author by the late Mr. William Kell, of Gateshead, who was present, at Mr. Stephenson’s request, as being worthy of insertion in his father’s biography. Mr. George Elliott, one of the most skilled coal-viewers in the North, was of the party, and expressed his admiration at the ready skill with which the difficulty had been overcome, the expedient of the boot being then unknown in the Northumberland and Durham mines. He acknowledged it to be “a wrinkle,” adding that its application would, in several instances within his own knowledge, have been of great practical value.

26 As different versions have been given of this affair, it may be mentioned that the above statement is made on the authority of the late Robert Stephenson, and of George Stephenson himself, as communicated by the latter to his friend Thomas L. Gooch, C.E., who has kindly supplied the author with his memoranda on the subject.

27 Speech at Newcastle, on the 18th of June, 1844, at the meeting held in celebration of the opening of the Newcastle and Darlington Railway.

28 At one part of the road he was once pulled off his donkey by some mischievous boys, and released by a young man named James Burnet. Many years after, Burnet was taken on as a workman at the Newcastle factory, probably owing his selection in some measure to the above circumstance.

29 Robert Stephenson was, perhaps, prouder of this little boyish experiment than he was of many of his subsequent achievements. Not having been quite accurately stated in the first edition of this book, Mr. Stephenson noted the correction for the second, and wrote to the author (Sept. 18th, 1857) as follows: “In the kite experiment, will you say that the copper wire was insulated by a few feet of silk cord; without this, the experiment can not be made.”

30 Evidence given before the Select Committee on Accidents in Mines, 1835.

31 The same fallacy seems long to have held its ground in France; for M. Granier tells us that some time after the first of George Stephenson’s locomotives had been placed on the Liverpool and Manchester line, a model of one was exhibited before the Academy. After it had been examined, a member of that learned body said, smiling, “Yes, this is all very ingenious, no doubt, but unfortunately the machine will never move. The wheels will turn round and round in the same place.”

32 John Steele was one of the many “born mechanics” of the Northumberland district. When a boy at Colliery Dykes, his native place, he was noted for his “turn for machinery.” He used to take his playfellows home to see and admire his imitations of pit-engines. While a mere youth he lost his leg by an accident; and those who remember him at Whinfield’s speak of his hopping about the locomotive, of which he was very proud, upon his wooden leg. It was a great disappointment to him when Mr. Blackett refused to take the engine. One day he took a friend to look at it when reduced to its degraded office of blowing the cupola bellows; and, referring to the cause of its rejection, he observed that he was certain it would succeed, if made sufficiently heavy. “Our master,” he continued, “will not be at the expense of following it up; but depend upon it the day will come when such an engine will be fairly tried, and then it will be found to answer.” Steele was afterward extensively employed by the British government in raising sunken ships; and later in life he established engine-works at Rouen, where he made marine-engines for the French government. He was unfortunately killed by the explosion of an engine-boiler (with the safety-valve of which something had gone wrong) when on an experimental trip with one of the steamers fitted up by himself, and on his way to England to visit his family near Newcastle.

33 Thomas Gray, a native of Leeds, was an enthusiastic believer in the new tractive power, and wherever he went he preached up railways and Blenkinsop’s locomotive. While he was living at Brussels in 1816, a canal to Charleroi was under consideration, on which he seized the opportunity of urging the superior merits of a railway. When he returned to England in 1820, he wrote a book upon the subject, entitled, “Observations on a General Iron Railway,” in which he strongly advocated the advantages of railways generally, giving as a frontispiece to the book an engraving of Blenkinsop’s engine. And several years after the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway we find Thomas Gray, true to his first love, urging in the “Mechanics’ Magazine” the superiority of Blenkinsop’s cogged wheel and rail over the smooth road and rail of the modern railway.

34 Other machines with legs were patented in the following year by Lewis Gompertz and by Thomas Tindall. In Tindall’s specification it is provided that the power of the engine is to be assisted by a horizontal windmill; and the four pushers, or legs, are to be caused to come successively in contact with the ground, and impel the carriage.

35 Mr. Hedley took out a patent to secure his invention, dated the 13th of March, 1813. Specification No. 3666. If it be true, as alleged, that the wheels of Trevithick’s first locomotive were smooth, it seems strange that the fallacy should ever have existed.

36 By the year 1825, the progress made on the Wylam Railroad was thus described by Mr. Mackenzie in his “History of Northumberland:” “A stranger,” said he, “is struck with surprise and astonishment on seeing a locomotive engine moving majestically along the road at the rate of four or five miles an hour, drawing along from ten to fourteen loaded wagons, weighing about 21-1/2 tons; and his surprise is increased on witnessing the extraordinary facility with which the engine is managed. This invention is a noble triumph of science.”

37 At the Stephenson Memorial meeting at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 26th of October, 1858, Mr. Hugh Taylor, chairman of the Northern Coal-owners, gave the following account of one of such visits made by Stephenson to Wylam, in the company of Mr. Nicholas Wood and himself: “It was, I think, in 1812, that Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Wood came to my house, then at Newburn, and after we had dined, we went and examined the locomotive then on Mr. Blackett’s wagon-way. At that early date it went by a sort of cog-wheel; there was also something of a chain to it. There was no idea that the machine would be sufficiently adhesive to the rails by the action of its own weight; but I remember a man going before—that was after the chain was abrogated—and scattering ashes on the rails, in order to give it adhesiveness, and two or three miles an hour was about the rate of progress.”

38 Speech at the opening of the Newcastle and Darlington Railway, June 18, 1844.

39 It must, however, be mentioned that Mr. Zerah Colburn, in his excellent work on “Locomotive Engineering and the Mechanism of Railways,” points out that Mr. Davies Gilbert noted the effect of the discharge of the waste steam up the chimney of Trevithick’s engine in increasing the draught, and wrote a letter to “Nicholson’s Journal” (Sept., 1805) on the subject; and Mr. Nicholson himself proceeded to investigate the subject, and in 1806 he took out a patent for “steam-blasting apparatus,” applicable to fixed engines, which, however, does not seem to have come into use. (See ante, p. 82.)

40 Nicholas Wood, “Practical Treatise on Railways,” ed. 1825, p. 147.

41 Ibid., p. 292-3.

42 Nicholas Wood, “Practical Treatise on Railways,” ed. 1825, p. 294. These passages will be found in the first edition of Mr. Wood’s work, published in 1825. The subsequent editions do not contain them. A few years’ experience wrought great changes of opinion on many points connected with the practical working of railways, and Mr. Wood altered his text accordingly. But it is most important for our present purpose to note that, in the year 1825, long before the Liverpool and Manchester line was opened, Mr. Wood should have so clearly described the steam-blast, which had been in regular use for more than ten years in all Stephenson’s locomotives employed in the working of the Killingworth railway.

43 Evidence given by George Stephenson before the Select Committee on Accidents in Mines, 26th June, 1835.

44 The accuracy of the above statement having been called in question, it is proper to state that the facts as set forth were verbally communicated to the author in the first place by Robert Stephenson, to whom the chapter was afterward read in MS. in the presence of Mr. Sopwith, F.R.S., and received his entire approval. But at the time at which Mr. Stephenson communicated the verbal information, he also handed a little book with his name written in it, still in the author’s possession, saying, “Read that; you will find it all there.” This little book contains, among other things, a pamphlet, entitled “Report on the Claims of Mr. George Stephenson relative to the Invention of his Safety-lamp. By the Committee appointed at a Meeting holden in Newcastle, on the 1st of November, 1817. With an Appendix containing the Evidence.” Among the witnesses examined were George Stephenson, Nicholas Wood, and John Moodie, and their evidence is given in the pamphlet. Stephenson said that he tried the first lamp “in a part of the mine where the air was highly explosive. Nicholas Wood and John Moodie were his companions when the trial was made. They became frightened when they came within hearing of the blower, and would not go any farther. Mr. Stephenson went alone with the lamp to the mouth of the blower,” etc. This evidence was confirmed by John Moodie, who said the air of the place where the experiment was about to be tried was such, that, if a lighted candle had been introduced, an explosion would have taken place that would have been “extremely dangerous.” “Told Stephenson it was foul, and hinted at the danger; nevertheless, Stephenson would try the lamp, confiding in its safety. Stephenson took the lamp and went with it into the place in which Moodie had been, and Moodie and Wood, apprehensive of the danger, retired to a greater distance,” etc. The accuracy of the other statements made in the text relative to the invention of the safety-lamp is confirmed by the same publication.

45 The early connection of Robert with the Philosophical and Literary Society of Newcastle had brought him into communication with the Rev. William Turner, one of the secretaries of the institution. That gentleman was always ready to assist the inquirer after knowledge, and took an early interest in the studious youth from Killingworth, with whose father he also became acquainted. Mr. Turner cheerfully helped them in their joint inquiries, and excited while he endeavored to satisfy their thirst for scientific information. Toward the close of his life Mr. Stephenson often spoke of the gratitude and esteem he felt toward his revered instructor. “Mr. Turner,” he said, “was always ready to assist me with books, with instruments, and with counsel, gratuitously and cheerfully. He gave me the most valuable assistance and instruction, and to my dying day I can never forget the obligations which I owe to my venerable friend.”

46 “A Description of the Safety-lamp, invented by George Stephenson, and now in use in the Killingworth Colliery.” London, 1817.

47 The committee, in their report, after setting forth in a tabular form the dates at which Stephenson and Davy verified their theories by experiments, and brought out their respective safety-lamps, proceeded to say: “The friends of Mr. Stephenson, with this table before them, conceive their resolution to be fully borne out by the testimony of dates and facts, so far as they are known; and without the slightest idea or wish of detracting from the scientific fame, honor, or veracity of Sir Humphry Davy, they would repeat, and confine themselves to the simple assertion of their belief, that Mr. Stephenson was the first to construct a lamp upon the principle in question. And when the friends of Mr. Stephenson remember the humble and laborious station of life which he has occupied; when they consider the scanty means and opportunities which he has had for pursuing researches in practical science, and look to the improvements and discoveries which, notwithstanding so many disadvantages, he has been enabled to make by the judicious and unremitting exercise of the energy and acuteness of his natural understanding, they can not persuade themselves that they have said any thing more than any liberal and feeling mind would most readily admit.”

48 The tankard bore the following inscription: “This piece of plate, purchased with a part of the sum of £1000, a subscription raised for the remuneration of Mr. George Stephenson for having discovered the fact that inflamed fire-damp will not pass through tubes and apertures of small dimensions, and having been the first to apply that principle in the construction of a safety-lamp calculated for the preservation of human life in situations formerly of the greatest danger, was presented to him at a meeting of the subscribers, Charles John Brandling, Esq., in the chair, January 12th, 1818.”

49 The accident above referred to was described in the “Barnsley Times,” a copy of which, containing the account, Robert Stephenson forwarded to the author, with the observation that “it is evidently written by a practical miner, and is, I think, worthy of record in my father’s Life.” Mr. John Browne, C.E., Barnsley, in a communication which appeared in the “Times” of December 24th, 1860, observed:
“At the period of this occurrence we had two kinds of safety-lamps in use in this pit, viz., ‘Davy’ and ‘Stephenson,’ and the gas, in going off to the upcast shaft, had to pass great numbers of men, who were at work with both kinds of lamps. The whole of the ‘Davy’s’ became red-hot almost instantaneously from the rapid ignition of the gas within the gauze; the ‘Stephenson’s’ were as instantly self-extinguished from the same cause, it being the prominent qualification of these lamps that, in addition to affording a somewhat better light than the ‘Davy’ lamp, they are suddenly extinguished when placed within a highly explosive atmosphere, so that no person can remain working and run the risk of his lamp becoming red-hot, which, under such circumstances, would be the result with the ‘Davy’ lamp.
“The red-hot lamps were, most fortunately, all safely put out, although the men in many cases had their hands severely burnt by the gauze; but from that time I fully resolved to adopt the exclusive use of the ‘Stephenson’ lamps, and not expose men to the fearful risk they must run from working with ‘Davy’ lamps during the probable recurrence of a similar event.
“I may remark that the ‘Stephenson’ lamp, originally invented by the great George Stephenson, in its present shape combines the merits of his discovery with that of Sir Humphry Davy, constituting, to my mind, the safest lamp at present known, and I speak from the long use of many hundreds daily in various collieries.”
In an account given in the “Times” of the 10th of August, 1867, of a number of experiments made upon different safety-lamps at the Barnsley Gas-works, occasioned by the terrible explosion at the Lund Hill Colliery, it is stated that the different lamps were tested with the following results: “The ‘Davy’ lamp with no shield on the outside exploded the gas in six seconds, and with the shield inside the gauze in nine seconds. The ‘Belgian’ lamp exploded in ten seconds; the ‘Mozard’ in ten seconds; the small ‘Clanny’ in seven seconds, the large one in ten seconds; and the ‘Stephenson’ in seventy-five seconds. Although the ‘Stephenson’ is undoubtedly the best, it will be seen that none of the so-called safety-lamps can be depended upon when coming in contact with a strong explosive current of fire-damp and air.”

50 The iron wheels of this engine were afterward removed, and replaced with wooden wheels, when it was again put upon the road, and continued working until quite recently. Its original cost was £750. It was sold in 1848 for £13, and broken up as old materials.

51 The act for constructing the Merthyr Tydvil Tram-road was obtained from Parliament as early as 1794; that for the Sirhoway Railroad in 1801; the Carmarthenshire Railroad was sanctioned in the same year; and the Oystermouth Railway in 1803.

52 Mr. Richardson was founder of the afterward well-known discount-house of Richardson, Overend, and Gurney, Lombard Street, London.

53 The first clause in any railway act empowering the employment of locomotive engines for the working of passenger traffic.

54 This incident, communicated to the author by the late Edward Pease, has since been made the subject of a fine picture by Mr. A. Rankley, A.R.A., exhibited at the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1861.

55 Stephenson’s recommendation of wrought-iron instead of cast-iron rails was the cause of a rupture between Mr. Losh and himself. Stephenson thought his duty was to give his employers the best advice; Losh thought his business was to push the patent cast-iron rails wherever he could. Stephenson regarded this view as sordid; and the two finally separated after a quarrel, in high dudgeon with each other.

56 The rapid progress of the coal and merchandise traffic of the Stockton and Darlington line, of which Middlesbro’ is the principal sea-port, may be inferred from the following brief statement of facts: The original estimate assumed that 165,488 tons of coal would be carried annually, and produce an income of £11,904. The revenue from other sources was taken at £4104. In 1827, the first year in which the coal and merchandise traffic was fully worked, the revenue from coal was £14,455; from lime, merchandise, and sundries, £3285; and from passengers (which had not been taken into account), £563. In 1860, when the original line of 25 miles had become extended to 125 miles, and the original capital of £150,000 had swelled to £3,800,000, the quantity of coal carried had increased to 3,045,596 tons in the year, besides 1,484,409 tons of ironstone and other minerals, producing a revenue of £280,375; while 1,484,409 tons of merchandise had been carried in the same year, producing £63,478, and 687,728 passengers, producing £45,398.

57 The coaches were not allowed to be run upon the line without considerable opposition. We find Edward Pease writing to Joseph Sandars, of Liverpool, on the 18th of June, 1827: “Our railway coach proprietors have individually received notices of a process in the Exchequer for various fines, to the amount of £150, in penalties of £20 each, for neglecting to have the plates, with the numbers of their licenses, on the coach doors, agreeably to the provision of the Act 95 George IV. In looking into the nature of this proceeding and its consequences, it is clear, if the court shall confirm it by conviction, that we are undone as to the conveyance of passengers.” Mr. Pease incidentally mentions the names of the several coach proprietors at the time—“Pickersgill and Co., Richard Scott, and Martha Hewson.” The proceeding was eventually defeated, it being decided that the penalties only applied to coaches traveling on common or turnpike roads.

58 “Many years ago I met in a public library with a bulky volume, consisting of the prospectuses of various projects bound up together, and labeled, ‘Some of the Bubbles of 1825.’ Among the projects thus described was one that has since been productive of the greatest and most rapid advance in the social condition of mankind effected since the first dawn of civilization: it was the plan of the company for constructing a railway between Liverpool and Manchester.”—W. B. Hodge, in “Journal of the Institute of Actuaries,” No. 40, July, 1860.

59 “Wood on Railroads,” ed. 1825, p. 290.

60 George’s Northumberland “burr” was so strong that it rendered him almost unintelligible to persons who were unfamiliar with it; and he had even thoughts of going to school again, for the purpose, if possible, of getting rid of it. In the year 1823, when Stephenson was forty-two years of age, we find his friend Thomas Richardson, of Lombard Street, writing to Samuel Thoroughgood, a schoolmaster at Peckham, as follows: “Dear Friend,—My friend George Stephenson, a man of first-rate abilities as an engineer, but of little or no education, wants to consult thee or some other person to see if he can not improve himself—he has so much Northumberland dialect, etc. He will be at my house on sixth day next, about five o’clock, if thou could make it convenient to see him. Thy assured friend, Thos. Richardson.”

61 Hugh Steele and Elijah Galloway afterward proceeded with the survey at one part of the line, and Messrs. Oliver and Blackett at another. The former couple seem to have made some grievous blunder in the levels on Chat Moss, and the circumstance weighed so heavily on Steele’s mind that, shortly after hearing of the rejection of the bill, he committed suicide in Stephenson’s office at Newcastle. Mr. Gooch informs us that this unhappy affair served to impress upon the minds of Stephenson’s other pupils the necessity of insuring greater accuracy and attention in future, and that the lesson, though sad, was not lost upon them.

62 When the Liverpool directors went to inspect the works in progress on the Moss, they were run along the temporary rails in the little three-feet gauge wagons used for forming the road. They were being thus impelled one day at considerable speed when the wagon suddenly ran off the road, and Mr. Moss, one of the directors, was thrown out in a soft place, from which, however, he was speedily extricated, not without leaving a deep mark. George used afterward laughingly to refer to the circumstance as “the meeting of the Mosses.”

63 Mr. Gooch’s letter to the author, December 13th, 1861. Referring to the preparation of the plans and drawings, Mr. Gooch adds, “When we consider the extensive sets of drawings which most engineers have since found it right to adopt in carrying out similar works, it is not the least surprising feature in George Stephenson’s early professional career that he should have been able to confine himself to so limited a number as that which could be supplied by the hands of one person in carrying out the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway; and this may still be said, after full allowance is made for the alteration of system involved by the adoption of the large contract system.”

64 While at Liverpool Stephenson had very little time for “company;” but on one particular occasion he invited his friend Mr. Sandars to dinner, and, as that gentleman was a connoisseur in port wine, his host determined to give him a special treat of that drink. Stephenson accordingly went to the small merchant with whom he usually dealt, and ordered “half a dozen of his very best port wine,” which was promised of first-rate quality. After dinner the wine was produced; and when Mr. Sandars had sipped a glass, George, after waiting a little for the expected eulogium, at length asked, “Well, Sandars, how d’ye like the port?” “Poor stuff!” said the guest, “poor stuff!” George was very much shocked, and with difficulty recovered his good humor. But he lived to be able to treat Mr. Sandars to a better article at Tapton House, when he used to laugh over his first futile attempt at Liverpool to gain a reputation for his port.

65 Letter to the author.

66 Letter to Mr. Illingworth, September 25th, 1825. The reports made to the directors and officers of the company, which we have seen, contain the details of the operations carried on at the mines, but they are as dry and uninteresting as such reports usually are, and furnish no materials calculated to illustrate the subject of the text.

67 In a letter to Mr. Illingworth, then resident at Bogotá, dated the 24th of March, 1826, Robert wrote as follows: “Nothing but the fullest consent of my partners in England could induce me to stay in this country, and the assurance that no absolute necessity existed to call me home. I must also have the consent of my father. I know that he must have suffered severely from my absence, but that having been extended so far beyond the period he was led to expect, may have induced him to curtail his plans, which, had they been accomplished, as they would have been by my assistance, would have placed us both in a situation far superior to any thing that I can hope for as the servant of an association however wealthy and liberal. What I might do in England is perhaps known to myself only; it is difficult, therefore, for the association to calculate upon rewarding me to the full extent of my prospects at home. My prosperity is involved in that of my father, whose property was sacrificed in laying the foundations of an establishment for me; his capital being invested in a concern which requires the greatest attention, and which, with our personal superintendence, could not fail to secure that independence which forms so principally the object of all our toil.”

68 Mr. Booth’s Account, p. 70-1. While concurring with Mr. Rastrick in recommending “the stationary reciprocating system as the best” if it was the directors’ intention to make the line complete at once, so as to accommodate the traffic expected by them, or a quantity approaching to it (i.e., 3750 tons of goods and passengers from Liverpool toward Manchester, and 3950 tons from Manchester toward Liverpool), Mr. Walker added, “but if any circumstances should induce the directors to proceed by degrees, and to proportion the power of conveyance to the demand, then we recommend locomotive engines upon the line generally; and two fixed engines upon Rainhill and Sutton planes, to draw up the locomotive engines as well as the goods and carriages;” and “if on any occasion the trade should get beyond the supply of locomotives, the horse might form a temporary substitute.” As, however, it was the directors’ determination, with a view to the success of their experiment, to open the line complete for working, they felt that it would be unadvisable to adopt this partial experiment; and it was still left for them to decide whether they would adopt or not the substantial recommendation of the reporting engineers in favor of the stationary-engine system for the complete accommodation of the expected traffic.

69 The arguments used by Mr. Stephenson with the directors in favor of the locomotive engine were afterward collected and published in 1830 by Robert Stephenson and Joseph Locke, as “compiled from the Reports of Mr. George Stephenson.” The pamphlet was entitled “Observations on the Comparative Merits of Locomotive and Fixed Engines.” Robert Stephenson, speaking of the authorship many years after, said, “I believe I furnished the facts and the arguments, and Locke put them into shape. Locke was a very flowery writer, whereas my style was rather bald and unattractive; so he was the editor of the pamphlet, which excited a good deal of attention among engineers at the time.”

70 The conditions were these:

1. The engine must effectually consume its own smoke.

2. The engine, if of six tons’ weight, must be able to draw after it, day by day, twenty tons’ weight (including the tender and water-tank) at ten miles an hour, with a pressure of steam on the boiler not exceeding fifty pounds to the square inch.

3. The boiler must have two safety valves, neither of which must be fastened down, and one of them be completely out of the control of the engine-man.

4. The engine and boiler must be supported on springs, and rest on six wheels, the height of the whole not exceeding fifteen feet to the top of the chimney.

5. The engine, with water, must not weigh more than six tons; but an engine of less weight would be preferred on its drawing a proportionate load behind it; if of only four and a half tons, then it might be put on only four wheels. The company to be at liberty to test the boiler, etc., by a pressure of one hundred and fifty pounds to the square inch.

6. A mercurial gauge must be affixed to the machine, showing the steam pressure above forty-five pounds per square inch.

7. The engine must be delivered, complete and ready for trial, at the Liverpool end of the railway, not later than the 1st of October, 1829.

8. The price of the engine must not exceed £550. Many persons of influence declared the conditions published by the directors of the railway chimerical in the extreme. One gentleman of some eminence in Liverpool, Mr. P. Ewart, who afterward filled the office of Government Inspector of Post-office Steam Packets, declared that only a parcel of charlatans would ever have issued such a set of conditions; that it had been proved to be impossible to make a locomotive engine go at ten miles an hour; but if it ever was done, he would undertake to eat a stewed engine-wheel for his breakfast!

71 Some correspondence took place between Boulton and Watt on the subject, when the latter was scheming the application of the steam-engine to locomotive purposes. In a letter to Boulton, dated the 27th of August, 1784, Watt said, “Perhaps some means may be hit upon to make the boiler cylindrical with a number of tubes passing through, like the organ-pipe condenser, whereby it might be thinner and lighter; but,” he added, “I fear this would be too subject to accidents.”

72 The inventor of this engine was a Swede, who afterward proceeded to the United States, and there achieved considerable distinction as an engineer. His caloric engine has so far proved a failure, but his iron cupola vessel, the “Monitor,” must be admitted to have been a remarkable success in its way.

73 Mr. Wood’s speech at Newcastle, 26th of October, 1858.

74 When heavier and more powerful engines were brought upon the road, the old “Rocket,” becoming regarded as a thing of no value, was sold in 1837. It was purchased by Mr. Thompson, of Kirkhouse, the lessee of the Earl of Carlisle’s coal and lime works, near Carlisle. He worked the engine on the Midgeholme Railway for five or six years, during which it hauled coals from the pits to the town. There was wonderful vitality in the old engine, as the following circumstance proves. When the great contest for the representation of East Cumberland took place, and Sir James Graham was superseded by Major Aglionby, the “Rocket” was employed to convey the Alston express with the state of the poll from Midgeholme to Kirkhouse. On that occasion the engine was driven by Mr. Mark Thompson, and it ran the distance of upward of four miles in four and a half minutes, thus reaching a speed of nearly sixty miles an hour, proving its still admirable qualities as an engine. But again it was superseded by heavier engines; for it only weighed about four tons, whereas the new engines were at least three times that weight. The “Rocket” was consequently laid up in ordinary in the yard at Kirkhouse, from whence it has since been transferred to the Museum of Patents at Kensington, where it is still to be seen.

75 Letter of Mr. John Herapath in “Mechanics’ Magazine,” vol. xv., p. 123.

76 Tubbing is now adopted in many cases as a substitute for brick-walling. The tubbing consists of short portions of cast-iron cylinder fixed in segments. Each weighs about 4-1/2 cwt., is about three or four feet long, and about three eighths of an inch thick. These pieces are fitted closely together, length under length, and form an impermeable wall along the sides of the pit.

77 The word “navvie,” or “navigator,” is supposed to have originated in the fact of many of these laborers having been originally employed in making the navigations, or canals, the construction of which immediately preceded the railway era.

78 During this period he was engaged on the North Midland, extending from Derby to Leeds; the York and North Midland, from Normanton to York; the Manchester and Leeds; the Birmingham and Derby, and the Sheffield and Rotherham Railways; the whole of these, of which he was principal engineer, having been authorized in 1836. In that session alone, powers were obtained for the construction of 214 miles of new railways under his direction, at an expenditure of upward of five millions sterling.

79 It may be mentioned that these views were communicated to the author by Robert Stephenson, and noted down in his presence.

80 “Treatise on Railway Improvements.” By Mr. Richard Badnell, C.E.

81 He often refused to act as engineer for lines which he thought would not prove remunerative, or when he considered the estimates too low. Thus, when giving evidence on the Great Western Bill, Stephenson said, “I made out an estimate for the Hartlepool Railway, which they returned on account of its being too high, but I declined going to Parliament with a lower estimate. Another engineer was employed. Then, again, I was consulted about a line from Edinburg to Glasgow. The directors chalked out a line and sent it to me, and I told them I could not support it in that case.” Hence the employment of another engineer to carry out the line which Stephenson could not conscientiously advocate.

82 Speech of Wm. Jackson, Esq., M.P., at the meeting of the Chester and Birkenhead Railway Company, held at Liverpool, October, 1845.

83 The question of the specific merits of the atmospheric as compared with the fixed engine and locomotive systems will be found fully discussed in Robert Stephenson’s able “Report on the Atmospheric Railway System”, 1844, in which he gave the result of numerous observations and experiments made by him on the Kingstown Atmospheric Railway, with the object of ascertaining whether the new power would be applicable for the working of the Chester and Holyhead Railway then under construction. His opinion was decidedly against the atmospheric system.

84 The Marquis of Clanricarde brought under the notice of the House of Lords, in 1845, that one Charles Guernsey, the son of a charwoman and a clerk in a broker’s office at 12s. a week, had his name down as a subscriber for shares in the London and York line for £52,000.

85 On the 17th of November, 1845, Mr. Spackman published a list of the lines projected (many of which were not afterward prosecuted), from which it appeared that there were then 620 new railway projects before the public, requiring a capital of £563,203,000.

86 The original width of the coal tram-roads in the North virtually determined the British gauge. It was the width of the ordinary road-track—not fixed after any scientific theory, but adopted simply because its use had already been established. George Stephenson introduced it without alteration on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and the lines subsequently formed in that district were laid down of the same width. Stephenson from the first anticipated the general extension of railways throughout England, and one of the ideas with which he started was the essential importance of preserving such a uniformity as would admit of perfect communication between them. When consulted about the gauge of the Canterbury and Whitstable, and Leicester and Swannington Railways, he said, “Make them of the same width: though they may be a long way apart now, depend upon it they will be joined together some day.” All the railways, therefore, laid down by himself and his assistants in the neighborhood of Manchester, extending from thence to London on the south, and to Leeds on the east, were constructed on the Liverpool and Manchester, or narrow gauge. Besides the Great Western Railway, where the gauge adopted was seven feet, the only other line on which a broader gauge than four feet eight and a half inches was adopted was the Eastern Counties, where it was five feet, Mr. Braithwaite, the engineer, being of opinion that an increase of three and a half inches in the width of the line would afford better space for the machinery of the locomotive. But when the northern and eastern extension of the same line was formed, which was to work into the narrow-gauge system of the Midland Railway, Robert Stephenson, its new engineer, strongly recommended the directors of the Eastern Counties Line to alter their gauge accordingly, for the purpose of securing uniformity, and they adopted his recommendation.

87 The atmospheric lines had for some time been working very irregularly and very expensively. Robert Stephenson, in a letter to Mr. T. Sopwith, F.R.S., dated the 8th of January, 1846, wrote: “Since my return [from Italy] I have learned that your atmospheric friends are very sickly. A slow typhus has followed the high fever I left them in about three months ago. I don’t anticipate, however, that the patient will expire suddenly. There is every appearance of the case being a protracted one, though a fatal termination is inevitable. When the pipes are sold by auction, I intend to buy one and present it to the British Museum.” During the last half year of the atmospheric experiment on the South Devon line in 1848, the expenditure exceeded the gross income (£26,782) by £2487, or about 9-3/4 per cent. excess of working expenses beyond the gross receipts.

88 “When my father came about the office,” said Robert, “he sometimes did not well know what to do with himself. So he used to invite Bidder to have a quiet wrestle with him, for old acquaintance sake. And the two wrestled together so often, and had so many ‘falls’ (sometimes I thought they would bring the house down between them), that they broke half the chairs in my outer office. I remember once sending my father in a joiner’s bill of about £2 10s. for the mending of broken chairs.”

89 The simple fact that in a heavy storm the force of impact of the waves is from one and a half to two tons per square foot, must necessarily dictate the greatest possible caution in approaching so formidable an element. Mr. R. Stevenson (Edinburg) registered a force of three tons per square foot at Skerryvore during a gale in the Atlantic, when the waves were supposed to run twenty feet high.

90 See “Lives of the Engineers,” vol. ii., p. 445. It appears that Mr. Fairbairn suggested this idea in his letter to Mr. Stephenson, dated the 3d of June, 1845, accompanied by a drawing. See his “Account of the Construction of the Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges,” etc. London, 1849.

91 Robert Stephenson’s narrative of the early history of the design, in Edwin Clark’s “Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges,” vol. i., p. 25, London, 1850.

92 Robert Stephenson’s narrative in Clark’s “Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges,” vol. i., p. 27.

93 Robert Stephenson’s narrative in Clark’s “Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges,” vol. i., p. 27.

94 “Account of the Construction of the Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges.” By W. Fairbairn, C.E., London, 1849.

95 Mr. Stephenson continued to hold that the elliptical tube was the right idea, and that sufficient justice had not been done to it. A year or two before his death, Mr. Stephenson remarked to the author that, had the same arrangement for stiffening been adopted to which the oblong rectangular tubes owe a great part of their strength, a very different result would have been obtained.

96 “Mr. Fairbairn’s Account,” p. 22.

97 The following passage occurs in Robert Stephenson’s report to the directors of the Chester and Holyhead Railway, dated the 9th of February, 1846: “You will observe in Mr. Fairbairn’s remarks that he contemplates the feasibility of stripping the tube entirely of all the chains that may be required in the erection of the bridge; whereas, on the other hand, Mr. Hodgkinson thinks the chains will be an essential, or, at all events, a useful auxiliary, to give the tube the requisite strength and rigidity. This, however, will be determined by the proposed additional experiments, and does not interfere with the construction of the masonry, which is designed so as to admit of the tube, with or without chains. The application of chains as an auxiliary has occupied much of my attention, and I am satisfied that the ordinary mode of applying them to suspension bridges is wholly inadmissible in the present instance; if, therefore, it be hereafter found necessary or desirable to employ them in conjunction with the tube, another mode of employing them must be devised, as it is absolutely essential to attach them in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of the smallest oscillation.”

98 In a letter of Mr. Fairbairn to Mr. Stephenson, dated July 18th, 1846, he says: “To get rid of the chains will be a desideratum; and I have made the tube of such strength, and intend putting it together upon such a principle, as will insure its carrying a dead weight, equally distributed over its hollow surface, of 4000 tons. With a bridge of such powers, what have we to fear? and why, in the name of truth and in the face of conclusive facts, should we hesitate to adopt measures calculated not only to establish the principle as a triumph of art, but, what is of infinitely more importance to the shareholders, the saving of a large sum of money, nearly equal to half the cost of the bridge? I have been ably assisted by Mr. Clark in all these contrivances; but in a matter of such importance we must have your sanction and support.”—“Mr. Fairbairn’s Account,” p. 93.

99 “The Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges.” By Edwin Clark. Vol. ii., p. 683-4.

100 No. 34 Gloucester Square, Hyde Park, where he lived.

101 The hydraulic presses were of an extraordinary character. The cylinders of those first constructed were of wrought iron (cast iron being found altogether useless), not less than 8 inches thick. They were tested by being subjected to an internal pressure of 3 or 3-1/2 tons to the circular inch. The pressure was such that it squeezed the fibres of the iron together; so that, after a few tests of this character, the piston, which at first fitted it quite closely, was found considerably too small. “A new piston,” says Mr. Clark, “was then made to suit the enlarged cylinder; and a farther enlargement occurring again and again with subsequent use, the new pistons became as formidable an obstacle as the cylinders. The wrought-iron cylinder was on the point of being abandoned, when Mr. Amos (the iron manufacturer), having carefully gauged the cylinder inside and out, found to his surprise that, although the internal diameter had increased considerably, the external diameter had retained precisely its original dimensions. He consequently persevered in the construction of new pistons, and ultimately found that the cylinder enlarged no longer, and to this day it continues in constant use. Layer after layer having attained additional permanent set, sufficient material was at length brought into play, with sufficient tenacity to withstand the pressure; and thus an obstacle, apparently insurmountable, and which threatened at one time to render much valuable machinery useless, was entirely overcome. The workman may be excused for calling the stretched cylinder stronger than the new one, though it is only stronger as regards the amount of its yielding to a given force.”—Clark, vol. i., p. 306. The hydraulic presses used in raising the tubes of the Britannia Bridge, it may be remembered, were afterward used in starting the Great Eastern from her berth on the shore at Milwall, where she had been built.

102 While the preparations were in progress for floating the third tube, Mr. Stephenson received a pressing invitation to a public railway celebration at Darlington, in honor of his old friend, Edward Pease. His reply, dated the 15th of May, 1850, was as follows: “I am prevented having the pleasure of a visit to Darlington on the 22d, owing to that or the following day having been fixed upon for floating the next tube at the Menai Straits; and as this movement depends on the tide, it is, of course, impossible for me to alter the arrangements. I sincerely regret this circumstance, for every early association connected with my profession would have tended to render my visit a gratifying one. It would, moreover, have given me an opportunity of saying publicly how much the wonderful progress of railways was dependent upon the successful issue of the first great experiment, and how much that issue was influenced by your great discernment, and your confidence in my late revered father. In my remembrance you stand among the foremost of his patrons and early advisers; and I know that throughout his life he regarded you as one of his very best friends. One of the things in which he took especial delight was in frequently and very graphically describing his first visit to Darlington, on foot, to confer with you on the subject of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.”

103 The effect of sunshine in deflecting the bridge is very curious. When the first main tube was tested, ballast-wagons loaded with iron were drawn into the centre and left standing there. The first 20 tons increased the deflection an eighth of an inch, and with 50 tons the deflection was 9 inches. After standing all night, the deflection in the morning was found to be only 8-3/8 inches. How was this to be accounted for? Mr. Clark says: “This was attributed at the time to an error made in the reading; but this, and many other anomalies in the deflection, were afterward fully accounted for by local changes of temperature. A gleam of sunshine on the top of the tube raised it on one occasion nearly an inch in half an hour with 200 tons at the centre, the top plates being expanded by increase of temperature, while the lower plates remained constant from radiation to the water immediately beneath them. In a similar manner, the tube was drawn sidewise to the extent of an inch from the sun shining on one side, and returned immediately as clouds passed over the sun, being, in fact, a most delicate thermometer in constant motion, both vertically and laterally.”

104 This was a favorite notion of George Stephenson’s, and he held that what produced light and heat had originally been light and heat. Mr. Fearon, solicitor, has informed the author that he accompanied Stephenson on one of his visits to Belgium, when it seemed to him that the engineer did not take much interest in the towns, churches, or public buildings of Belgium, probably because he knew little of history, and they recalled no associations with the past. One day the party went to see the beautiful Hôtel de Ville at Brussels, but Stephenson did not seem moved by it. On passing out of the square, however, by the little street which leads toward the Montague de la Cour, his interest was thoroughly roused by the sight of an immense fat pig hung up in a butcher’s shop. He immediately took out his foot-rule, measured the pig, and expressed a desire to have some conversation with the butcher as to how it had been fed. The butcher accordingly waited upon them at the hotel, and told all he knew about the feeding of the pig; and then, says Mr. Fearon, “George went off into his favorite theory of the sun’s light, which he said had fattened the pig; for the light had gone into the pease, and the pease had gone into the fat, and the fat pig was like a field of coal in this respect, that they were, for the most part, neither more nor less than bottled sunshine.”

105 The second Mrs. Stephenson having died in 1845, George married a third time in 1848, about six months before his death. The third Mrs. Stephenson was an intelligent and respectable lady, who had for some years officiated as his housekeeper.

106 The dams of “crib-work” were formed by laying flattened pine logs along the whole outer edge of the work, and at intervals of from 5 to 10 feet parallel therewith throughout the whole of the breadth, connected with transverse timbers firmly treenailed and notched into them. When one course was formed, another was laid upon and firmly treenailed to it. After two or three courses were laid, transverse timbers were placed over them close together, so as to form a flooring, on which stone was placed to suit the crib as the work progressed. When the under side of the crib touched the bottom, it was carefully filled with loose stones and clay puddle to the water level. The process of puddling and pumping out the water, and building up the pier within the dam thus formed, then proceeded in the usual manner. In some cases a powerful steam dredge was employed to clear out the puddle-chambers.

107 Mr. Stephenson entertained a very strong opinion as to the inexpediency of making this canal, and the impracticability of keeping it open except at an enormous expense. Of course it was possible to make the canal provided there was money enough raised for the purpose. But, even if made, he held that it would not long be used, for there would not be traffic enough to pay working expenses. In 1846, Mr. Stephenson carefully examined the country along the line of the proposed canal, from Tineh on the Mediterranean, to Suez on the Red Sea, in company with the agents of M. Talabot, a French engineer, and M. de Negrelli, an Austrian engineer. They ascertained that there was no difference of level between the two seas, and that consequently a canal capable of being scoured by the waters of either was impracticable. On the occasion of Captain Pim’s reading a paper on the subject of the revived project of the canal before the Geographical Society on the 11th of April, 1859, Mr. Stephenson took part in the discussion which followed. He held that any harbor constructed at Port Said, however far it might be extended into the sea, would only act as a mud-trap, and that it would be impracticable to keep such a port open. Mr. George Rennie had compared the proposed breakwater at Pelusium with the breakwater at Portland, on which Mr. Stephenson observed, “Why, at Portland, the stones are carried out from the shore and thrown into the sea, but at Pelusium there is no solid shore, and all the stones must be brought 100 miles. Can there be any comparison between a breakwater at Portland and one in the Mediterranean on a lee-shore, where there is no stone and no foundation whatever? It is only the silt of the Nile. The Nile brings down millions of tons of mud yearly, and hence the Delta formed at its mouth. The moment you construct a harbor at Port Said and project piers into the sea, you immediately arrest the course of the mud, and will never be able to keep the port open. It would be the most extraordinary thing in the world to project two jetties into an open sea on a lee-shore, which has for almost three months in the year a northeast wind blowing upon it. There is no seaman, except in fair weather, who would venture to approach such a place. To render it at all accessible and safe, there must be a harbor of refuge made, and we know from experience in our own country what a large question that would open up. But even suppose such a harbor to be made. The current carries the mud of the Nile in an easterly direction; and if you provide a harbor of refuge, which means a quiescent harbor, it will act merely as a gigantic mud-trap. I believe it to be nearly if not absolutely true, that there is no large harbor in the world maintained on the delta of a large river. Any such harbor would be silted up in a few years. And whoever has traveled over the district between Port Said and Suez, and seen the moving sands, must see that it would be necessary to dredge, not only that harbor, but the canal itself.” Mr. Stephenson’s conclusion accordingly was that the scheme was impracticable, that it would not justify the expenditure necessary to complete it, and that, if ever executed, it would prove a commercial failure.

108 Address as President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, January, 1856.