Unconvinced, however, by arguments of this kind, the iron masters persist

in maintaining what I propose to be impossible, because one of them found

that the _exactly reverse_ process is so. In other words, they act just

as those “impossibleists” did, who, in their ignorance that high steam

would admit of the vacuum, air-pump, ponderous condensing chest, and ton

of cold water per horse power per hour, which are inseparable from

low-pressure engines, being dispensed with in high-pressure engines,

pronounced it to be utterly impossible ever to make steam-engines capable

of running upon roads, because such engines could neither carry the

ponderous apparatus inseparable from the condenser, nor the immense

quantity of cold water required to produce the vacuum which, alone,

renders low-pressure engines efficient.

In vain did I point out to them, not only that I had not overlooked their

objection, but that my earliest views of the subject, had adverted to,

and expressly guarded against it. It was of no use: for no “Demetrius”

or other “craftsman” of that day ever vociferated, “Great is Diana of the

Ephesians!” more perseveringly, than the principal iron masters of the

present day have exclaimed in honour of the idol “Impossible,” whom it

pleased them to set up and worship, in opposition to the (as they deemed

it) heresy I presumed to attempt to teach them.

Had they done me the honour to _prove_ me heretical, and that theirs was

the _true_ faith, I should have been importantly benefitted, as well as

convinced: insomuch as it would have prevented me from devoting at least

seven additional years of time, and all the means in my power during that

period, to the subject. But when they would not trouble themselves to

_examine_, and condemned, solely because they proclaimed “impossible,” a

method of operation, which I not only did _not_ advocate, but which my

publications proved I had long and openly disclaimed, I could not but

feel, first, the truth of Dr. Robertson’s observation, “As in Genoa

ignorance had opposed and disappointed Columbus, in Lisbon he had to

combat with prejudice, an enemy no less formidable;” and, secondly, that

just as the reasoning of the pilot who was chosen to execute the

treachery planned against Columbus, failed, because he had courage only

to go half-way, so did the reasoning of these gentlemen fail, because

they have done only _half_ what is necessary to disprove the

practicability of what I propose. {48b}

In publications, besides that just quoted, I have not only stated my

conviction that the method of operation which the iron masters condemn

would be impracticable, but also have endeavoured to analyse the

question, and show _why_ it would be so. But as I do not, like them,

stop there, and (in effect) say that it must ever be impossible to

discover a “North-West Passage,” or reach the _North_ Pole, because

Captain Cook could not get within 30° of the South Pole, these gentlemen

are pleased to act the part of “Alexander the coppersmith,” against me,

rather than to give themselves the trouble of examining whether the part

of another Alexander might not prove more honourable, as well as more

advantageous to them.

The quotation given a few pages back, states that the price of iron was

raised from 7_l._ to 14_l._ in 1825, in consequence of what was then

called “the railway mania.” But, so far from maintaining this price, the

following extract from a Memorial, which was agreed to at a meeting of

the Staffordshire Iron Trade, held at Dudley, on the 4th October, 1831,

shews, that in six years the price of iron had fallen lower than ever

before was known.

“Memorial to the Right Honourable Earl Grey, First Lord of His

Majesty’s Treasury.

“We, the undersigned Iron Masters, of the Staffordshire Iron and Coal

district, think it our duty respectfully to represent to His

Majesty’s Government the following facts:

“1. That for the last five years, ever _since what is called the

panic of_ 1825, we have found, with very slight intermissions, a

continually increasing depression in the prices of the products of

industry, and more particularly in Pig Iron and Bar Iron, which have

fallen respectively from upwards of 8_l._ _per ton_ to under 3_l._

_per ton_, and from 15_l._ _per ton_ to under 5_l._ _per ton_.

“2. Against this alarming and long-continued depression, we have

used every possible effort in our power to make head. We have

practised all manner of economy, and have had recourse to every

possible improvement in the working of our mines and manufactories.

_Our workmen’s wages_ have, in many instances, been greatly reduced,

and such reduction has been attended with, and _effected by_, _very

great suffering and distress_:—but the royalties, rents, contracts,

and other engagements, under which we hold our respective works and

mines, have scarcely been reduced at all, nor can we get them

effectually reduced, _because the law enforces their payment in

full_.

“3. The prices of the products of our industry having thus fallen

within the range of the fixed charges and expenses which the law

compels us to discharge, the just and necessary profits of our

respective trades have ceased to exist: and in many cases a positive

loss attends them.

“4. Under these circumstances, we have long hesitated in determining

what line of conduct our interest and our duties require us to

adopt:—If we should abandon our respective trades, our large and

expensive outlays in machinery and erections must be sacrificed, at

an enormous loss to ourselves, and our honest and meritorious workmen

must be thrown in thousands upon parishes, already too much

impoverished by their present burdens, to support them:—and if we

should continue our respective trades, we see nothing but the

prospect of increasing distress, and certain ruin to all around us.”

The remaining part of this “Memorial” touching on politics, need not be

quoted here.

If the iron of the 3000 miles of railway which Mr. Treasurer Booth, in

his book on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway supposes may eventually

be laid down in England, should be of the same weight which I understand

that of the Birmingham Railway is to be, the whole quantity consumed will

be about 800,000 tons. Supposing an equal application of the system here

advocated, and that only ten times as much iron should be used in the

tunnels as is used in the railways, eight millions of tons, instead of

eight hundred thousand, will be the aggregate consumption.

Now as iron, though unquestionably the best, is neither the only, nor the

_cheapest_ material of which tunnels can be constructed, it may not,

possibly, be unpardonably presumptuous in me to submit to the iron

masters, that if they persist in doing, by this proposition, as the

Genoese did by that of Columbus, they will also lose an opportunity,

which would, to them, prove equally important, as would have been that of

Columbus to Genoa.

I _have_ asked, and I _still_ ask of them only one thing: a full, and

_fair_ investigation. By the result of that I am content to abide;

though I must, in common justice stipulate, that this investigation shall

be entered on in a different spirit to what it has hitherto been my lot

to meet with. “There is always a proneness” says Washington Irving, “to

consider a man under examination as a kind of delinquent, or impostor,

whose faults and errors are to be detected and exposed.” Most truly can

I say that I have “_always_” experienced the effects of this “proneness”

in reference to this subject: and that the object of those who deemed my

proposition worthy throwing away a fragment of their time upon, was

infinitely less to ascertain its truth and justice, than to display their

own penetration and wit, in discovering and turning to ridicule, every

part which admitted (as they thought) of being sneered at and made the

subject of a jest.

Had it been my good fortune to have met with but one candid examinant of

influence, I had been spared years of trouble and anxiety. But my

proposition being deemed deserving only of contempt, candid examination

has no more been vouchsafed me, than to the wanderings of a lunatic.

Should, however, the iron masters, instead of granting me this candid

investigation, continue, “in the pride of half knowledge,” (as Dr. Wells

terms it) to condemn what I propose, because they have found that a

something has failed, which is as different from it, as would be, saying

that it is impossible we can ever get to the North Pole, because Captain

Cook could not get within 30° of the _South_, I venture to commit myself

to the prediction that they will repent it, as bitterly as Genoa repented

her rejection of Columbus’s proposition, to discover, and possess her of

America.

“They inconsiderately rejected his proposal, as the dream of a

chimerical projector,” says Dr. Robertson, of the Genoese, “and lost,

for ever, the opportunity of restoring their commonwealth to its

ancient splendour.”

For, equally certain as it is that iron, though the best, is not the

_only_ material of which tunnels can be constructed, is it, that unless

this proposition is very differently treated by them to what it has

hitherto been, will they drive the manufacturing of tunnels from their

own line into another: and that, too, notwithstanding that opportunities

are arising which, in addition to bringing them to their own doors, would

give such facilities as relates to the transmission of the large stocks

of iron which the uncertainty, and occasional long interruptions of the

present method of conveyance, compel them to keep in London, as to do

away with the necessity for keeping those stocks.

The Welch papers announce the plan of a railway which is to connect the

iron districts and ports of that country with London. In this plan,

Merthyr Tydvil, the centre of the South Wales iron manufacture, is stated

to be 176 miles from London.

Now, even supposing that this railway, instead of costing the _many_

thousands per mile which it must cost, could be laid down for nothing,

still, the circumstance of the _bare expenses_ of conveyance on the

Liverpool and Manchester Railway, amounting to 4¼_d._ per ton, per mile,

exclusive of the charges necessary to pay one farthing of interest, or

return on the capital sunk in laying that railway down—and for which

3¾_d._ per ton, per mile, is charged, in addition to the 4¼_d._ required

to cover the _bare expenses_—the mere _expenses_ of railway conveyance,

_exclusive_ of interest or return on the capital invested, being so great

as this, it appears that, even were this railway laid from their own

doors to the metropolis, the iron masters could not, including the charge

to pay interest or return upon the money sunk in laying the railway down,

get their material to London for less than 4_l._ 10_s._ per ton; which,

on an article the selling price of which (pigs) in London is only about

the same amount, is in effect a prohibition; especially with the expense

of freight for coast conveyance, only 12_s._ per ton from South Wales to

London.

But as the expense of carriage by a tunnel would be as much less than

this over-sea freight, as that is less than railway conveyance; while, in

addition to this superiority over both, a tunnel would save all the

_risk_ as well as the delays and uncertainty of over-sea transmission,

London and the iron districts might be brought within so few hours of

each other, as to obviate the necessity of the iron masters keeping the

heavy stocks of their article in London which they are now obliged to

maintain, and the capital so locked up become, in consequence, liberated

for other purposes: while, were the tunnel extended to Milford Haven, as

it has been announced the railway would be, that port, as well as

Swansea, might be brought within a few hours of London; and the

advantages of its (perhaps) unequalled harbour, rendered fully available

to the nation at large for commercial purposes, as well as to Government

for our fleets.

This consideration merits the serious attention of the advocates of the

Bristol Railway. Swansea and Milford Haven being _both_ more

advantageously situated for all vessels from foreign ports that would

make Bristol their port of delivery; and their harbours being

(particularly the latter) incomparably superior to that of Bristol, a

tunnel would, were it to be laid down between either of them and the

metropolis, be the certain ruin of any _railway_ from Bristol to London.

The mere _expenses_ of carriage on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

being 4½_d._ per ton per mile, and the _whole_ charge 8_d._, it is

evident that, supposing the Bristol Railway were to cost only _half_ what

the Liverpool and Manchester has cost (the “Capital, 3,000,000_l._”

placed at the head of the prospectus of the Bristol Railway, allows

25,000_l._ per mile for each of the 120 miles the map accompanying said

prospectus shews the line will be in length) the whole change for

carriage along its line could not be less than 6_d._ per ton per mile:

the aggregate of which, 3_l._, would be equal to what cargoes have been

brought from the East Indies for; and more than equal to freights from

the West Indies, Mediterranean, &c. &c.; so that only such cargoes or

freights, as stress of weather drove into Bristol, would be sent to

London by the railway; while, by a tunnel from Milford or Swansea, they

might be sent so cheaply, as actually to command the trade which it is

_supposed_ the Bristol Railway will command.

But to return from the long digression, into which the consideration of

the question relative to the effect of the friction of the air, and the

importance of the subject to the iron trade, has led me.

Supposing the possibility of the Liverpool and Manchester railway proving

a failure, that company would have scarcely any more _saleable_ value in

their possession, in exchange for the million and a quarter which it has

already cost, and the million and a half which it _will_ cost them, than

the (about) 5000 tons of iron which is in their rails. Their long,

narrow, slip of ground, dear as it has been to them, would be worth

nothing; while the labour of taking up the between two and three hundred

thousand stone blocks (or bases) they have laid down to carry the rails,

would be more than those blocks are worth. Also would the 450,000_l._

expended in levelling the line _and forming the road_, be utterly lost.

{52} Whereas, had a tunnel been laid down, not only would the whole of

the hundreds of thousands expended in levelling have been saved, but as

not one-tenth of the labour would have been required to lay a tunnel

down, compared with what the railway required, a large sum would have

been saved for that also; while what _was_ laid out, being for _metal_,

instead of labour, there would have been from ten to twenty times more

saleable value in their hands, than they now have.

And as the same circumstances would, in a similar case, apply to the

Birmingham, and Bristol (and indeed to _all_) Railways, as well as to

your line, it would, comparatively, be almost as much better, in this

particular, to have a tunnel instead of a rail-road or canal, as it would

be to hold specie instead of paper, during a run on the bank: though this

advantage would be greatest in relation to a canal; the greater

proportion of the expense of which, is for that _irrecoverable_ outlay,

labour.

In point of the friction of the wheels would the carriages that moved in

the tunnel be importantly superior to railway carriages.

Owing to circumstances which it is not necessary to discuss, the height

of the wheels of the coaches and waggons on railways is confined to about

three feet. Wheels of twice that diameter have been tried, but thrown

aside in consequence of their liability to cause accidents by running off

the rails: the only thing by which the wheels of all vehicles running on

edge railways are kept on them, being a rim, which, projecting _one inch_

beyond the bearing part of the tire of the wheels, keeps them on the

rails; as the brim of a hat will keep the body of it from rising on a

table, over the edge of which said brim hangs.

In consequence of this, all carriages running on open railways are liable

to accidents, such as those mentioned in the notes below, _many_ of which

have occurred; though, owing to their having happened either in the

excavations, on the levels, or on the low embankments, the

dashings-to-pieces which _will_ take place when they occur on the high

embankments have, hitherto, been avoided. {53a}

But as the carriages inside the tunnel _cannot_ get off the railway in

it, as they do on common railways, while, owing to the constantly

vertical position in which the wheels can be kept, they may be twice, or

three times, as high as on common railways, so great a diminution in the

power required to move any load will take place, as to admit of any

weight being moved in the tunnel with less than half the power required

to move it on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.

In point of repairs, too, would the tunnel be importantly cheaper than a

railway. Supposing you were to have a railway, there would be, in every

mile of it, above seven thousand stone blocks, or bases, to carry the

rails; every one of which bases would be liable to sink, and disarrange

the level of the line, as they are so constantly doing (vide page 11);

while the rails themselves would be liable to bend, and break, between

these bases. Sinkings of the bases, and bendings and breakings of the

rails, &c. &c. being (like fractures of the harness and apparatus of

stage-coaches, or the ropes of ships) matters of constant occurrence,

there are, in the whole, and including _every_ liability to

disarrangement and repair, above eighty thousand parts or places, in

every mile of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, where adjustment or

repair _may_ daily be required; while, were that railway to be made a

quadruple one, by having two more lines of road (four more lines of

rails, i.e.) laid down, these liabilities would increase to above one

hundred and sixty thousand per mile; though, for the present, I refer

only to fractures and loosenings of the chairs, &c. bendings and

breakings of the rails, and sinkings, &c. of the bases, which are _now_

possible to the amount of above 40,000 per mile; whereas, in a tunnel,

the corresponding disarrangements would be possible to the amount of only

1056 per mile: an advantage which time will prove to be of much greater

importance than it may at first be considered; owing to the small expense

of repair it will occasion. Supposing the London and Birmingham Railway

were to have the “quadruple line” adverted to when the capital was raised

to three millions, there would, in its whole length, be nearly twenty

millions of parts or places where repair, or adjustment, _might_, daily,

be necessary: a number which might well double the 488_l._ per mile, per

annum, charged under the item “Maintainance of way,” in the half-yearly

accounts of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad.

But neither is this the last circumstance with respect to which a tunnel

would be superior to a railway.

From the statements laid before Parliament, it appears that in the

half-year ending the 31st December, 1831, “the number of trips of 30

miles” made on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was 5392. Now as the

_whole_ weight carried during this half-year was _under_ 91,000 tons, it

appears that the average _profitable_ weight (passengers, or merchandise)

carried each trip, was _less_ than 17 tons.

The average weight of an engine and its tender, with fuel and water,

being, I believe, not less than 12 tons, while there is the weight of the

coaches and waggons additional to this, it would appear that for every

ton which pays any thing, that is carried on the Liverpool and Manchester

Railway, they also carry a ton which pays nothing.

Now, owing to the manner in which the carriages that move in the tunnel

can be constructed, and owing to there being no locomotive engines, and

tenders carrying fuel and water, required to move them, this proportion

of dead and unprofitable weight will be so much reduced, as for it not to

amount to more than one-fifth of the similar weight on the railway.

The _whole_ expense of conveyance on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

during the six months ending the 31st December, 1831, was, it appears by

the statement laid before the Lords’ Committees on the London and

Birmingham Railway bill, fourpence farthing per ton, per mile; while the

whole _charge_ for it was eightpence per ton, per mile. Coal being

nearly ten times dearer here than it is there, there is no reason to

suppose that what it might cost you for conveyance along a line of

railway would be less than this; while it may be presumed that it would

be so much more as, perhaps, and of itself, totally to counteract the

advantages afforded by the shortness of your line, compared with the

present route.

In addition to the advantages which I have stated a tunnel would hold out

to the Company I have the honour to address, there would be one of a

peculiar nature. It is generally understood, and appears from evidence

to be the fact, that a considerable portion of the income of the

Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company has arisen from persons who have

visited and paid for riding over their line, solely from curiosity; while

it is well known that the income derived from visitors to their tunnel,

by the Thames Tunnel Company, is considerable; the average annual amount

having been 1200_l._ per annum.

The curiosity excited by the public relative to the tunnel I constructed

at Brighton, surprised me. Thousands manifested a desire to see it:

hundreds applied to be permitted to do so; and when they found I would

not let them, offered guinea after guinea to be allowed to gratify their

curiosity, under the idea that mercenary motives gave rise to the orders

I left that _no one_ should be admitted; while many of the very highest

rank (including _every_ class of our nobility) made personal application

to me to oblige them with a sight of it.

As I could convey persons in your tunnel (supposing you were to have one)

most safely at the rate of a mile in a minute, and as a velocity of that

kind being attained near the metropolis, by a method so novel as this,

would induce very many thousands to visit and ride through it for

curiosity, it may be expected that a considerable part of what it would

cost to lay a tunnel down would be returned from this source; enough (in

the end) I am bold to say, to pay for the cost of the iron whereof it

would be constructed.

The Thames Tunnel, supposing it never should be completed, will for years

bring in the 1200_l._ per annum, which is the average of what has been

received from people visiting it; and I am fully satisfied that proper

measures would, in the end, bring in, from this source alone, perhaps,

more than would cover the coat of the iron, of which the tunnel I propose

to you would be constructed.

In the prospectus of the Greenwich Railway Company is the following

paragraph:—“Moreover, when it is considered that the population of

London, Westminster, and the Borough, is about one million and a half,

and that the population of the surrounding towns and villages, within a

circuit of from forty to fifty miles round the Capital, amounts to nearly

double that number; and that, in short, the number of persons visiting

London during each year, make up a total exceeding five millions of

persons, it is not unreasonable to expect that, through mere curiosity

alone, two millions of persons will gratify the same, when it can be

accomplished at a low price, suppose only one shilling, to go and

return,—yet if so, that item alone would produce 100,000_l._”

Now, as supposing that the curiosity excited by my _novel_ proposition,

will produce only one quarter of what the Greenwich Railroad Company

calculate may come into their pockets from the same source, will, I

think, be allowing sufficient pre-eminence to the _superior_ curiosity

which an old method of conveyance _must_ excite, I trust that my idea,

that the cost of the iron composing the tunnel may be repaid from this

source, will be considered a not immoderate one.

In the Thames Tunnel there is nothing but the bare arch to see; while in

this there would be the tunnel itself, the largest air-pumps, &c. &c. in

the world, and a ride to and fro at the rate of sixty, or more, miles an

hour.

Nor would the objection which, it may be imagined, must arise from the

want of daylight in the tunnel, prove an objection in point of fact. So

trifling is the degree of exhaustion and pressure required to move a load

of 100 tons, that, but that the advantages which would arise, as relates

to cheapness of site, and evasion of opposition on the part of the

land-owners and occupiers, from carrying the tunnel under ground, prevent

it, I could window light the tunnel throughout its whole, length: that

which I constructed at Brighton having light admitted into it through

windows of common thin glass; strong plate-glass not being required.

Indeed, so far as relates to possibility, the upper half of the tunnel

might be one continued window (like the top of a green-house), throughout

its whole length. But as, even if this was done, artificial light _must_

be had for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four in the winter; as the

tunnel might be gas-lighted throughout its whole length; or as, instead

of thus wasting light unnecessarily, each carriage might carry lights

before and behind, the objection that the tunnel being underground would

render it dark as midnight, is no more a serious objection than it would

be, were the Thames tunnel finished, that it would be better to cross the

river by London Bridge, than through that tunnel, because on the bridge

you would have _natural_, while in the tunnel you must have artificial

light.

It is true that there could be no “view of the country” by this method of

conveyance. But, as the object of it is the perfection of travelling, in

the three particulars of safety, expedition, and economy; as even the

comparatively low rates attained on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

prevent objects that are by the road-side being distinctly seen, owing to

the velocity with which the passengers are whirled by them; and as the

much greater velocity at which conveyance may be effected in the tunnel,

would render any attempt to look on what was _passed_ productive of the

effects experienced by a child who looks on the ground while leaning out

of the window of a coach, no _real_ loss, as relates to “seeing the

country,” would result from transmission taking place inside the tunnel

instead of outside it: though, even if it should, it might be submitted

to, when economy of both time and money, and complete obviation of the

dangers attendant on breaking down, being overturned, run away with, or

driven against any thing, became the equivalents.

Have we occasion to travel to Edinburgh by the mail, we unrepiningly

submit to the inconvenience of passing two nights (32 hours in mid

winter) not only in total darkness, but also “cabinned, cribbed,

confined” to a degree which prevents us even from “changing a leg,”

except by previous arrangement with our opposite fellow-passenger. But

when it is proposed that we shall go in vehicles which, in addition to

being as large and commodious as the cabins of many steam-vessels, will

be as much shorter a time in going, as they are larger and more

convenient than the inside of mail-coaches, and in which the most

brilliant light may be enjoyed, we proclaim it to be “impossible” to

consent to go by such vehicles, because they would move inside a tunnel:

not considering that this very circumstance, of being _inside_ said

tunnel, would as certainly secure us from being overturned, driven

against any thing, run away with, breaking down, or any other of the

dangers to which turnpike-road travelling is liable, as it would give us

the ease, comfort, and accommodations of the cabin of a steam-vessel,

instead of the privations and endurances experienced in mail-coaches.

And as the valves which have been adverted to as fixed at every quarter,

or half, or whole mile, would, in point of effect, be doors, by means of

which exit from the tunnel could be effected, the bugbear of being “shut

up in a tunnel many miles long, with no place to get out of it, if any

thing should happen,” need not be seriously replied to.

Such are some of the benefits which laying down a tunnel, instead of a

railway would procure you. But the most important of all is yet to be

mentioned.

As it does not follow that, because you may think proper to lay a railway

down, the public will think proper to use it, it becomes vital to your

interest, that some inducement which shall lead them to use it, and cause

them to prefer the more circuitous route to the Birmingham Railway by

your line, to the more direct one by the Edgeware Road, should be laid

before them. This inducement will be furnished by the tunnel which I

propose to your adoption.

The carriages which would go in said tunnel, may be rendered so superior

in point of size, of the room they will give to each passenger, of

comfort, and of general accommodation, as to be more like the cabin of a

steam-vessel, rather than any thing else I can compare them to.

In one of those I used in the tunnel I constructed at Brighton, above

twenty people have sat with a table between them, covered with

provisions, plates, dishes, &c. &c. which provisions were consumed

according to the usual course of a dinner table: so that accommodations

(even to that of a sofa for each person) which could not be thought of in

coach or omnibus travelling, _might_ be given to passengers.

Owing also to the size and construction of these carriages admitting of

my using the air for springs, their motion would be soft and (as relates

to the avoidance of all jolting) air-balloon-like, to a degree which you

cannot conceive; and which no railway carriage, far less any common road

vehicle, could compare with.

In point of safety, too, would they be incomparably superior; since,

instead of being liable to break down, to be driven against any thing, to

be run away with, or to be overturned, &c. &c. these accidents would be

so impossible, that absolute immunity from danger, and certain security

to life and limb, would be consequent on this method of conveyance; while

the rate of transit under which this safety would be secured, being so

great as to admit of the journey being effected in as few minutes as you

thought proper, your route might be rendered as much shorter as you

pleased in point of time, than the route by the Edgeware road could be

rendered. The expense of the power too, by which your passengers would

be conveyed, being above twenty times cheaper than coaches or omnibuses

could convey them along the Edgeware Road, you would have a still greater

advantage in this particular. It remains, therefore, only to point out

how the public may be caused to take your circuitous line, in preference

to the nearer route by the Edgeware Road.

In order to effect this, and to save the public from having to go from

Hyde Park Corner to your line, as must be done were you to lay a railway

down, I propose bringing your line to Hyde Park Corner, by extending the

tunnel; branching it eastward from your basin, either through Kensington

and Knightsbridge, under the turnpike road; or (in order to avoid all

interference with, or opposition from, the Turnpike Commissioners) along

the shorter line across the vacant grounds to the south of the road, at

the back of Kensington and Knightsbridge; across (though beneath, and

indeed underground all the way) Earl’s Court Lane, Gloucester Road, Grove

Lane, the Brompton Road, and Sloane Street, to the vacant ground on the

North and East of Wilton Crescent.

I am not, at present, prepared to point out either the best route, or the

best spot for the termination towards Hyde Park Corner; having

investigated only so for as to satisfy myself that such a course is

practicable.

You will, at first, be startled at, and disposed to object to this

extension, because you will suppose that it involves the outlay which

would be required for two additional miles of tunnel, without bringing in

any more return than would be received from passengers to the Birmingham

Railway. This conception, however, is an erroneous one.

Were a method of conveyance in operation, by which the inhabitants of the

west end of Kensington, of Earl’s Court, of North End, of Walham Green,

of Brook Green, of Hammersmith, of Turnham Green, of Chiswick, &c. &c.

could be carried (more safely than by coaches) from your basin to Hyde

Park Corner in two or three minutes, instead of the twenty minutes or

nearly half an hour which it now takes to get over that ground, they

would so prefer your method of conveyance, as to render the additional

outlay required for said two extra miles of tunnel, the most remunerating

portion of your whole line; while, in addition to enabling you thus to

convey passengers, said branch would enable you also to deliver coals,

and other goods at Hyde Park Corner from your canal, for an expense of

less than a penny per ton carriage from your canal thither; so that you

would rival the Grosvenor Canal, and add importantly to the tonnage trade

of your own canal by it.

Should the Birmingham and Bristol Railways be completed, this branch

would also enable you to convey goods, as well as passengers, to and from

them, and to and from the western parts of town, more cheaply than could

any how else be done; an accommodation which laying down your railway

could not give. And as I _could_ so construct these two extra miles of

tunnel, as to render their cost—the cost of the tunnel itself, i.e.—not

more than about five thousand pounds per mile, the expense of this branch

would not prove any ruinous addition to your contemplated outlay.

Therefore, for these reasons, I recommend you to prevent its being

necessary that people should pay omnibus (or other) proprietors, to carry

them from Hyde Park Corner to your basin at Kensington, in order that you

may _then_ convey them to the Birmingham (or Bristol) Railway, by

extending your line towards Hyde Park Corner, in the manner I have

pointed out.

Your case, brought into a focus, is as follows. You have expended a

large sum in opening a line of conveyance which, owing to its not being

carried far enough at first, does not combine all the advantages your

situation admits of. You are, naturally, desirous that it should do

this. If you open a communication for goods with the Grand Junction

Canal, by extending your own canal, you will do this in degree. You

have, therefore, for some years, contemplated carrying your canal up the

height between your basin and the Grand Junction Canal. But the enormous

expense of this has prevented you from doing it.

Being now informed that your object may be better effected by a railway,

you entertain that idea; and as, were you to lay a railway down,

passengers, as well as goods, might be conveyed by it, you are desirous

of, if possible, bringing the “passenger trade,” between the Birmingham

Railway and the west end of London, to your line.

Owing, however, to the distance of your line from the west end of Town;

and to the Edgeware Road, offering a shorter and cheaper communication

from the Birmingham Railway to that part of the metropolis, your laying

down a railway, will, for the reasons I have pointed out, certainly prove

a losing speculation.

As the method I propose would be most importantly cheaper than a railway,

in point of first cost, and still more importantly cheaper in point of

current expenses, I venture to offer it to your notice. And as it would

obviate the objection which your distance from Hyde Park Corner would

occasion, supposing you were to have a railway, I presume to recommend it

to your consideration, as more worthy notice than any thing else you can

have laid before you; for the reasons, that it will, in the first place,

be much cheaper in point of first cost than any other method of

conveyance you can lay down: second, because it will be still more

economical in point of current expenses: third, because, in addition to

being incomparably safer, as relates to life and limb, than any other

method of conveyance, it will be so much more expeditious as to render

your circuitous route quicker, _in point of time_, than the shorter route

by the Edgeware Road, as well as cheaper, in point of charge: and,

fourth, because it will be productive of an important profit, additional

to, and exclusive of, what a railway will bring in; and which will return

no inconsiderable proportion of what it costs to lay it down.

Were the statements I have given relative to the cost and expenses of a

railway, from my own estimates only, they might be doubted by you. In

order, however, to avoid this, I have been careful to quote only the

“evidence,” which was laid before Parliament, and other documents; which

leave no doubt that the first cost and current expenses will be, at

least, _equal_ to what I have stated, though they by no means prove that

they will not be _more_.

Indeed, it appears susceptible of proof that they will be more. Mr.

Grahame, in his “Letter to the Traders and Carriers on the Navigations,

connecting Liverpool and Manchester,” relative to that railway, says, “I

pledge myself, however, to prove (in case the fact be denied by the

Directors) that the aggregate expenditure of the half year, ending on the

31st December, 1832, bears a higher proportion to the income of that

period than the expenses of _any_ preceding half-year bear to the income

of the same.”

Mr. Graham also says, “The Railway Corporation keep two separate accounts

of expenditure, “_ordinary_” and “_extraordinary_.” The “ordinary

expenditure” is paid from the annual returns received from working the

railway; and the “extraordinary” is paid by borrowing money, or a

creation and sale of shares; which is termed “adding to the capital

account.” The ordinary expenditure, only, affects the dividend; and it

is the interest of every one concerned to make _that_ expenditure appear

as low as possible; and, whenever the outlays are commingled, or

doubtful, to throw the burden on the obnoxious shoulder. This

“extraordinary outlay,” or, as it is termed, “outlay on the railway and

works,” or “Capital Account,” has been as great since the railway was

opened, as during the period when it was forming. The amount thus laid

out in the first fifteen months after the opening of the railway,

amounted to nearly 200,000_l._ The outlay on this account in 1832 is not

stated; but the interest on borrowed money paid in that year, is given as

10,522_l._ 10_s._ 6_d._, while the interest paid in 1831 was only

5647_l._ 7_s._ 6_d._”

Railway advocates may dispute this; but _that_ I shall not heed. Should

they, however, _disprove_ it, I shall not be able to deny that I am

liable to the censure due to him who investigates in the spirit of a

partisan, rather than in that of a candid examinant.

It may be objected, in answer to the advantages which I have stated would

result from your substituting this Pneumatic Railway for the common

railway you contemplate, that you have never heard of it before, except

in the way of ridicule and contempt; while not only have the engineers of

the day condemned it, but also do even some of yourselves entertain

doubts as to the sanity of the man who can propose such a thing to you.

In allusion to objectors of this latter description, the M. D. who did me

the honour to propose the first Resolution at the “Town Meeting” at

Brighton, said, in the course of his speech on the occasion, that “Mr.

Vallance had had to contend with the greatest difficulties; such as were

enough to appal any man: he had been derided and ridiculed: his system

had been treated as visionary, theoretical, and fantastic: he had been

called a wild projector—nay, some had even gone so far as to say that he

was mad. If so, he (Dr. Yates) must say, with Polonius, ‘there was

method in his madness.’ And to such insinuations he (Dr. Y.) would

reply, in the words of Hamlet, there was that which ‘sense and sanity

scarce could be delivered of.’”

With my defence against insinuations of this kind thus provided, I may

turn to the more serious objections of the engineers whom you may

consult: who, I am well aware, will treat the proposition only as

Brindsley’s proposal to carry the canal over the Irwell was treated by

the engineers of his day.

Were this any thing new, I might feel it. But when we have it on record

that the professed engineers of the period have done the same by _every_

proposition that has been brought forward, until its being established by

others, caused them to see that money might be made by imitating, instead

of continuing to decry the inventor, their exclamations of “impossible,”

“absurd,” and “madness to think of,” may well be disregarded.

Had Telford, or Stevenson, or Rennie, or Brunel, or any other first-rate

man, originated the proposition, then, indeed, they might have had some

faith in it! But for an unknown nobody to do such a thing, is of itself

enough to prove that it _cannot_ be worth attention.

To these gentlemen I reply, by asking them—to whom are we indebted for

the steam-engine in its application to steam-vessels, and locomotive

purposes, as well as a first mover for machinery? Savary, its first

inventor, was a miner. Newcomen and Beighton, its first improvers, were,

one of them a country blacksmith, and the other a plumber, while its

grand improver, the great Watt, was a mathematical-instrument maker. To

whom are we indebted for our canals—for our nationally-important cotton

machinery—for the public application of the gas-light principle—for the

system of railway transmission—for the hydrostatic press—and the other

manifold improvements, which have raised us to the station we fill? Is

it to men, who, at the periods when these improvements were first

devised, were of high name, and established reputation as civil

engineers? Hear what one whose situation enabled him to decide, says on

the subject:—

“What has been the means of raising our native country to that

eminence in civilization which renders her the admiration of the

world? Her improvements in the arts and sciences.

“From whom have those improvements chiefly sprung? From men who have

emerged from the humbler walks of life.

“What was Sir Richard Arkwright; a man to whose genius this country

is indebted for very much of its commercial prosperity; to whose

improvements in the machinery for spinning cotton, we are indebted

for being enabled to keep the cotton trade chiefly confined to

ourselves. What, I say, was the great Arkwright? A barber. Yet do

we owe our proud superiority in this department of our national

greatness to the unassisted efforts of Dick the barber.

“Who was Ferguson? A simple peasant; a man, who, wrapped in his

plaid, passed the winter nights on the ground in contemplating the

heavens; and who, by arranging his string of beads on the cold heath,

at length completed a map of the stars, and raised himself to the

knowledge of our late sovereign.

“Who was Dr. Herschel, the discoverer of so many important

astronomical facts? A boy who played the pipe and tabor in a foreign

regimental band. Who was the great Watt? A mathematical instrument

maker.

“Who was Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone lighthouse, and the

first engineer of his day? An attorney.

“Who was the great Brindsley, whose canals have given such an

accession of power to our commerce, by the facilities of internal

communication? A country millwright.

“Nicholson was a cabin boy: and Ramadge, the best maker of reflecting

telescopes in the world, was a cutler.”

In continuation of this list of “nobodies,” to whom we owe so much of our

national greatness, I ask, to whom are we indebted for the very

inventions which the engineers of the present day claim as their own,

with justice equal to that wherewith the organ-_blower_ considered the

tones of the instrument _his_?

Railways have been in use among us for a century and a half; and,

notwithstanding that those of this remote date, were no more comparable

with those of the present day, than the matchlocks of the same period are

with a modern gun, the _principle_ was equally developed in the one case

as in the other. Yet is there no engineer who can claim the credit of

having said “As this principle admits of most important benefits being

conferred on society, provided it be worked out, and carried to the

perfection it admits of, I will devote myself to such working out and

perfecting.”

Locomotive engines have been seen among us for these thirty years. Yet

did the engineers of the day no more perceive and seize _their_

advantages than they did those of railways. But, after the perception

and talent of various persons, who were in business had, for the purpose

of adapting them to the necessities of their different trades, so

improved railways and locomotive engines, as to have rendered the latter

capable of running _regularly_ upon the former, at rates of from five to

eleven miles an hour, forth came our engineers, and, claiming both

inventions as their own, set themselves up as having enlarged the

boundaries of science, enabled man to outstrip the fleetest animals, and

almost to vie with the winds!

And, last of all, I ask, to whom are we indebted for the latest important

discovery, by which unprofessional perception has shewn, that what

_every_ engineer of the present day had pronounced to be, not only a

mathematically-demonstrated, but also a _practically_-proved

“impossibility,” is as perfectly, and as easily practicable, as it was

for Columbus to make the egg stand on its end.

We have nearly 3000 miles of canals in the island; the draught on which

being twenty times easier than on common roads, and the “wear and tear”

equally less, it has, ever since they were first cut, been an important

object to render the rate of conveyance along them rapid enough to induce

persons to travel from place to place _on_ them, as well as to send their

goods by them.

This became more particularly important, when, in consequence of the

rapidity attained on railways, it was found that they could combine the

conveyance of passengers with that of goods; and I do not hesitate to

say, that any engineer, who had, in 1825, informed the Canal interest

that he had discovered a method by which conveyance could be effected on

canals at the same rate as by mail-coaches, or post-chaises on turn

pike-roads, and for one-tenth of their expense of draught, might have

made terms with them for the adoption of this method, which should have

brought him in above 100,000_l._ sterling.

But, so far from the engineers of the day informing the canal interest

that they could do any thing for them in this case, they universally

preached despair with respect to it; satisfying them, by mathematical

demonstration, that, owing to the resistance of fluids to bodies moving

through them, increasing according to the square of the velocity,

rapidity of transmission along canals was no more possible than for a

coal-barge to beat to windward like a cutter.

It is true they admitted that the steam-engine gave them power enough to

more vessels on canals as rapidly as steamers move on rivers. But, they

said, owing to the surge which it was _unavoidable_ such rapid motion

_must_ create, the banks of the canals would be so soon washed down, that

it was impossible to avoid ruining the canals, if rapid conveyance were

attempted on them. Therefore, though steam has been in use as a moving

power on our rivers for above these twenty years, it has never yet been

employed for a similar purpose on our canals, except in the way of

experiment.

In consequence of these things, they could do nothing to meet the wishes

of the canal interest: and, in the evidence on the Birmingham Railway,

before the Lords’ Committees, on the 29th June, 1832, it is stated, in

answer to an inquiry as to what was the quickest kind of canal

communication between London and Birmingham, that “The fly boats go by

the shortest route, and they are three days and three nights on the

road.” Now as this “shortest route” is 152½ miles, it appears that the

quickest rate of canal conveyance by “fly boats” was less than 2⅛th miles

an hour; while in answer to the question, “What time is occupied by the

slow boats?” it is replied, “About six or seven days: they seldom travel

at night.”

In this state of despair on the part of the canal interest, and amid this

chorus of “impossible,” on the part of the whole of the engineers of the

present day, a private gentleman (William Houston, Esq. of Johnstone

Castle) became impressed with the opinion that, equally as we can, by

giving it rapid motion, cause a flat stone to skim over the surface of

the water (as boys do, when playing at what they call “making ducks and

drakes”) so might we, by giving rapid motion to a properly constructed

boat an a canal, cause it, not only to skim _over_ the water, so as to

avoid raising the wave which the engineers had pronounced equally

unavoidable as it would be fatal to the banks of canals, but also much

more easily than boats can be drawn _through_ the water.

On putting this thought into practice, Mr. Houston found the result to be

what he had anticipated; and the consequence is, that it is now

established by actual and _daily_ practice on the Paisley and Ardrossan

Canal, that boats which carry more passengers than (on an average) the

locomotive engines, of twenty and thirty horse power each, draw on the

Liverpool and Manchester Railway, at rates of from 15 to 20 miles an

hour, {62} are drawn from Johnstone to Glasgow at the rate of ten miles

an how by _two_ horses only; while a velocity so high as 15 miles an hour

has been attained: “and this speed was not limited by _the labour of the

draught_, but by _the power of speed_ of the horses.”

In other words, that which the whole of the engineers of the present day

had pronounced and _demonstrated_ to be utterly impossible, is now

constantly done, several times every day, as a regular passenger-carrying

business, on the Paisley and Ardrossan Canal.

And, although the charges for this rate of conveyance are “just one-half,

and one-third, of the fares in the Liverpool Railway coaches, the profits

are such, as to have induced the proprietors to quadruple the number of

boats on the canal;” while the passengers, instead of being boxed up as

in the railway coaches, and exposed to the weather, as in the railway

“second class carriages,” may either take exercise on the decks, or seat

themselves in the long cabins of these passenger-boats.

As this method of rapid canal conveyance is becoming generally adopted,

this simple idea of a private gentleman, has not only put to shame the

whole of the engineering talent of the present day, but has also

possessed the kingdom of nearly 3000 miles of liquid way, which, as if by

the stroke of a wand, are raised from the low value of heavy, miry, cross

country roads, on which no greater velocity than that of a carrier’s

waggon could be attained, to the high value, not merely of the best

turnpike-roads, on which the conveyance of persons, at mail-coach and

post-chaise rates, can be effected, but also of routes on which two

horses can (and daily do) draw one hundred people as fast and (I

understand) _more_ easily than four draw sixteen persons on our best

mail-coach roads, with less than one-twentieth the wear and tear to the

vehicles than takes place as to coaches on roads: on advantage, the money

value of which will be inadequately expressed by saying, that as it would

cost above thirty thousand pounds per mile to give us roads on which the

same power could do the same work, with the same small expense of wear,

tear, and current expenses, the simple thought of a private gentleman,

whom the engineers of the day would have pronounced a “nobody” in point

of scientific authority, has possessed the nation of what it would have

cost above one hundred millions sterling to purchase, had said engineers

been employed to procure an equal amount of roads, of equally easy

draught, and little “wear and tear” for us.

Yet are these gentlemen looked up to as infallible; and allowed to

fulminate their anathemas with respect to what they please to pronounce

“impossible” as if they were omniscient.

The actual charges the passenger-boats, which now run daily (at the rate

of ten miles an hour) between Johnstone and Glasgow, are, one penny per

head per mile in the first cabin, and three farthings per head per mile

in the second cabin.

How much less these charges are than turnpike-road fares, need not be

pointed out: my object being to submit, that equally as our canals having

for these three-quarters of a century remained only routes for goods at

carriers’-waggon rates, when they might, all along, have been routes for

passengers at the highest rates whereat it is possible for horses to go,

proves that the engineers of the day knew nothing whatever of a subject

which they professed _fully and entirely_ to understand—so may they be

equally ignorant of the merits of the proposition which they have so

ridiculed and condemned me for presuming to bring forward; and which is,

as exactly what _they_ term it, as they _demonstrated_ it to be

“impossible” to be conveyed at mail-coach and posting-rates along canals.

Now, great as is the honour due to the engineers of the present day, for

thus permitting the accidental thought of a private gentleman to possess

the nation (as it were by the stroke of a wand) of 3000 miles of liquid

way, over which conveyance may take place at rates of from 10 to 15 miles

an hour, for one-tenth the expense, and less than one-tenth of the wear

and tear that takes place on roads, after they had _demonstrated_ that no

greater rate than two or three miles an hour could be attained on said

routes; and, greatly as the canal interest must be indebted to them, for

suffering them (the canal interest), in consequence of said

_demonstration_, to lose the millions upon millions they might have

received of the public, for conveyance at these rates of 10 or 15 miles

an hour, during the three-quarters of a century canals have been in

operation among us—equally as the engineers _thus_ deserve public

gratitude, do they also deserve it for the manner in which they have

suffered the law of motion, by means of which the stage-coachman “swings”

his vehicle up the first part of a hill, to remain useless with respect

to that improvement of our turnpike-roads which it admits of; and which,

though not equal in money-value to the “idea” of Mr. Houston, which has

just been described, is yet highly important.

The law itself is “old as the hills;” and, notwithstanding that the

advantage taken of it by stage-coachmen when coming to the bottom of a

rise, is not _quite_ of such long standing, yet is it old enough to have

pointed out an advantageous alteration in the arrangement of all our

turnpike roads, had the engineers under whose direction said roads were

laid out, but availed themselves of it.

By the table given on page 33 it appears, that if a vehicle be moving on

a level with a velocity of 2¾ miles an hour, its momentum will (under the

circumstances there stated) carry it up a rise to three inches of

perpendicular height: while, if the rate of motion be twice, and four

times 2¾ miles an hour—i.e. 5½ and 11 miles—the momentum will carry it up

heights of one foot and four feet respectively: and the following table

gives the altitudes due to every intermediate mile of rate:

Bodies moving on levels at the under Have moments, which

mentioned velocities, the motions of which (friction being

are changed from horizontal to ascending, by counteracted) will

means, either of angular or circular ascents. cause them to rise to

the under-mentioned

heights above the

level where those

velocities were

attained, let the

rate of rise, or

angle of ascent, be

what it may.

MILES PER HOUR. FEET. INCHES.

3 0 3½

4 0 6⅜

5 0 10

6 1 2⅜

7 1 7⅝

8 2 1⅝

9 2 8½

10 3 4

11 4 0

12 4 9⅝

13 5 7¾

14 6 6⅝

15 7 6¼

16 8 6⅝

17 9 7⅞

18 10 9⅞

19 12 0⅝

20 13 4½

A velocity of six miles an hour being thus capable of giving momentum

sufficient to enable any vehicle to surmount an ascent of above one foot

in perpendicular height, let the angle of ascent or rate of rise, be what

it might, it has been necessary only to lay out our turnpike-roads in

alternate short levels, with sharp rises of one foot in height between

them, similar to the line below, to render all our roads level, in point

of effect, to every vehicle which went at the rate of six miles an hour;

since, as the _continued_ draught of the horse would overcome,

neutralise, and (as relates to its counteractive effect) annihilate the

friction of the wheels and axes during the ascent, the momentum imparted

by that velocity would enable the vehicle _of itself_ to rise up, and

surmount the ascent, without any _extra_ effort on the part of the horse:

while, supposing that the practice of stage-coachmen were to be imitated,

and the horses of these six-miles-an-hour vehicles pushed to a pace of

twelve miles an hour for a few yards before the wheels actually touched

these rises, so as to give the vehicle a velocity of 12 miles an hour at

the moment of its _beginning_ to ascend them, the momentum imparted by

this velocity would carry the vehicle up four feet nine inches

perpendicular, instead of one; so that the road might be laid out in

alternate levels and rises of four feet.

It is true that, supposing this principle to be acted on, half the width

of the road must be left in the usual manner, in order to enable waggons,

which do not move faster than two or three miles an hour, to pass over

it. But as the slow rate of two miles an hour will give momentum enough

to admit of a rise of 1⅝ inches being surmounted, the principle might be

taken some advantage of, even on the half of the road appropriated to

waggons; since rises not exceeding 1½ inches each, could be surmounted by

vehicles which did not move faster than two miles an hour.

However, leaving the waggon-half of the road to the usual arrangement,

the advantage of, as it were, doing away with all hills and rises, and

rendering all our roads level (in point of effect) to all vehicles

travelling at the rate of six miles an hour, might have amply repaid the

expense of this suggested alteration in the _form_ of the roads, had the

engineers under whose direction they were cut, but laid them out in that

manner: while, supposing that a rate of 16 miles an hour could be

attained by pushing the horse to a gallop _just before_ reaching the

ascent, the levels and rises might be laid out in gradations of eight

feet each instead of four feet.

But let the heights of these proposed elevations be what they might, the

advantage of (in effect) doing away with all hills and rises, and of

rendering our roads level to us all over the kingdom would be attained;

which might prove ample reward for varying the mere form of the roads;

and would not, I think, have been unworthy the notice even of our

omniscient engineers; notwithstanding that the way in, and degree to

which they have neglected and slighted this law of motion, with respect

to its application to railways as well as to turnpike-roads, proves them,

one and all, to have been equally percipient of its advantages, as they

were of the practicability of rapid conveyance on canals; and as they

_are_ of the merits of the method of transmission which the individual

who has now the honour of addressing you is presumptuous enough to think

deserving even of THEIR attention: omniscient as they deem themselves

relative to it; and omnipotent as they have, hitherto, proved, with

respect to its condemnation and rejection.

Should I, however, be fortunate enough to meet with any who will measure

the competence of these gentlemen thus to condemn, by the following

standards, I cannot but trust that my appeal from their decision will be

favourably received.

The question, divested of technicalities, resolves itself into the three

following considerations.

First, can we construct iron (or any other kind of) tunnels, such as

would be requisite for the operation of the principle? Secondly, can we

construct air-pumps large enough to exhaust from the said tunnels with

the necessary rapidity? And, thirdly, can we make steam-engines powerful

enough to work these air-pumps?

Now as there is no one who denies that we have the power of making

tunnels of any size, not exceeding (say) twelve feet in diameter, nor

that we can form the separate segments, or pieces, in which such tunnels

might be cast, into cylindrical “lengths,” of from ten to fifteen feet

each, so as to lay them down and connect them as (suppose for the

present) gas mains are laid down and united—as no one denies this, the

second question, relating to the air-pumps, is the first to be replied

to.

In 1827 there were, in Great Britain, 284 smelting furnaces; the quantity

of iron made during that year by which, was 690,000 tons.

Blast apparatus being as indispensable appendages to smelting furnaces,

as the flux is to the ironstone which is to be smelted in those furnaces,

it follows, that (with the possibility of exception where one blast

apparatus may be made to serve more than one furnace) there must, seven

years ago, have been 284 sets of pneumatic apparatus for urging the fires

of these furnaces to the necessary intensity, by forcing currents of air

into them. These apparatus formerly varied in form, from common bellows

on a large scale, to the diversities of the “water blast.” But the whole

of these varieties of blast apparatus are now found so inferior to what

are termed “blowing cylinders” that no one who erects a smelting furnace

ever thinks of applying to it any other means for urging its fire than

this latter description of apparatus.

These “blowing cylinders” are all air-pumps on a large scale; differing

from the common air-pump only in being of iron instead of brass; in

having their valves so arranged as to cause them, instead of exhausting

air _from_ the vessel they operate on, to blow _into_ it; and in their

being as much larger than a common air-pump as the “monster mortar” used

at the late reduction of the citadel of Antwerp is than a boy’s sixpenny

cannon.

The largest of this kind of air-pumps that I have seen was nine feet in

diameter, by an equal or rather superior height; though an iron-founder

has informed me that he once cast one of eleven feet in diameter. And it

is unquestionable, that it will require only the preparation of the

necessary moulding and boring, &c. &c. apparatus, to make any number, of

any diameter we please, not exceeding (say) twelve feet. Supposing them

to be 11.3 feet in diameter, their area would be equal to 100 square

feet; and, supposing the velocity with which their pistons moved, to be

only half that of the average velocity of the pistons of steam-engines,

each of these air-pumps would cause 11,000 cubic feet (i.e. about 70,000

gallons) of air, to pass through each of them per minute; which air would

be drawn out of, or forced into, any thing, according as the valves were

arranged.

Every one of such pumps that was used to exhaust air from a tunnel of

eight feet in diameter would produce a current in it, moving at the rate

of two miles and a half an hour; while, supposing that its piston moved

at the same velocity whereat the pistons of steam-engines in general

move, this current would pass through the tunnel at the rate of five

miles an hour.

It being evident, then, that it is necessary only properly to arrange the

size and number of the pumps, to cause the atmosphere to rush along the

tunnel at any rate we desire; and it being a fact that we have, in daily

operation, about 300 such air-pumps as these (though not quite so large)

there is only one remaining shelter behind which these “impossibleists”

can pretend to screen themselves.

The first steam-engine which Boulton and Watt erected in their

manufactory of Soho as a specimen for the examination of those who wanted

such machines, was about the year 1780. The exact number we now have

among us there are no means of ascertaining. But the authority which I

have quoted for the existence of 15,000 steam-engines in Great Britain,

states them to be of the average power of twenty-five horses.

If this may be received, the whole amount of “horse power” in operation

among us in 1831 was equal to that of 375,000 horses. And even though it

should be necessary to lower this down to M. Dupin’s estimate of 200,000

horses in 1824, there would remain an aggregate ample for our purpose.

Since, if there was not in 1790 _one_ steam-engine in Manchester, while

there are now nearly 300 there, it may safely be assumed that so much the

larger proportion of the thousands of them which are now spread over the

kingdom have been made within the last thirty years, as to admit of its

being fairly inferred that we have, for many years past, constructed them

at a rate equal to ten thousand horses’ power per annum.

Yet, with these facts almost as easily verified as it would be to obtain

copies of all the newspapers published in the kingdom, and with some of

these engines so large as to be equal to 300, or 500, or (as quoted in

page 46) even 1000 horses’ power, do these “impossibleists” say we cannot

obtain power enough to work the air-pumps we should require to pump the

air out of the tunnel. Just as, twenty years ago, they said we could not

use steam to carry us across the seas, nor gas to light our streets.

In reply to a demand of the great Lord Chatham that a certain naval force

should be ready by a certain day for an expedition be contemplated; and

which, the nature of the service rendered it necessary should be

despatched as promptly as it was determined on, the then first lord of

the admiralty stated, as an intended conclusion to several notes (or

messages) which had passed between the two departments on the subject,

that “it could not be done, because it was _impossible_.” “Inform the

first lord from me,” said the minister, “that the service of the state

requires the _immediate_ despatch of the expedition: and that if he, with

the military marine of the kingdom at his order by virtue of his office,

and the commercial marine at his command by the course of hiring

transports, delays the departure of the expedition because _he_ deems it

impossible, I will impeach him.” Under this alternative, the

“impossibility” vanished, and the expedition sailed.

Now as the facts which I have adduced relative to the existence of all

the necessary means for rendering importantly available to general use

the principle here described, prove that the gentlemen of that profession

which is devoted to the practical application of mechanical science to

the public service have, for these seven years, proclaimed to be

“impossible” that which is as easily practicable as it was for the first

lord of the admiralty to prepare the naval part of the expedition

referred to, I leave it to themselves to make evident why they should not

be impeached, as equally traitors to the cause of practical science, as

the first lord of the admiralty would have been to the state, had the

expedition not sailed at the period the minister required.

Those who will give themselves the trouble of the calculations necessary

to establish the truth of the preceding statements relative to the effect

of momentum, it will be unnecessary to remind of any of the occurrences

which prove it. But those who do not choose to take that trouble, may be

reminded, that a circumstance often witnessed, gives practical

demonstration of the accuracy of these statements.

During certain adhesive states of the crust of the road, it is frequently

seen when travelling, that the pressure of the wheels causes particles of

earth to adhere to, and rise from the ground, sticking to the tire of the

wheel.

The adhesion of these particles of earth being, however, soon destroyed

by the centrifugal force imparted by the revolution of the wheel, they

become, the moment _it_ loosens them from the wheel, and allows the other

influence to operate, projected in directions varying according to the

position of the part of the wheel to which they adhered, at the moment of

their quitting it.

Some of them, being carried to the top of the wheel, fly forward; but the

majority, leaving the wheel at about the height of the axle-tree, become

projected vertically, and are seen bobbing up and down by the windows of

the carriage, somewhat like motes in the sunbeam.

Their thus rising and falling may, perhaps, hitherto have been observed,

without being regarded as demonstrative of any principle which may be

rendered subservient to our purposes. But as they are, in point of fact,

evidences, that the momentum imparted by the velocity at which the tire

of the wheels is revolving, will cause bodies to rise to the height of

three or four feet perpendicular, above the point of the wheel from which

they fly; and as this velocity is exactly commensurate with that at which

the carriage goes over the ground, they are unquestionable proofs, that,

provided friction be annihilated as relates to counteractive effect, by

the continued operation of the moving power, the vehicle itself would

ascend an inclined plane of _any_ rate of ascent, to the same height to

which they rise above the position of the part of the wheel they adhered

to, at the moment of their flying from it.

But, to leave this question relative to momentum, and return to that of

the steam-engines and air-pumps.

It being the property of air to neutralise, or absorb, a smaller portion

of whatever impulse may be imparted to it, than, perhaps, any other

ponderable medium nature offers us, the power of the steam-engines which

operated on the air-pumps that exhausted air from the tunnel, might be

brought to bear,—and that too, without their energy being so diminished

as even to _approach_ an insuperable objection—on the vehicles in it; and

an effect in consequence produced, which we cannot, at first, conceive to

be possible.

It is evident, that it will not require the power of the engines (each

equal to several hundred horses’ power), by which the air-pumps would be

worked, to move one, or even many vehicles. What then will become of the

surplus power? Will it be lost in overcoming the friction of the air, as

adverted to at page 41; or, rather, may it not operate to increase the

rate at which the vehicles will move? And if so, how many times will the

rate at which we may be conveyed, exceed that at which we now travel, and

what is the limit that will be attained in this particular?

It is well known that air will rush into a vacuum at the rate of nearly a

thousand miles an hour. Now although it is no more expected we should be

conveyed at any such rate as that, than it is intended we should be

placed in a vacuum, yet are, both this almost inconceivable velocity, and

what is generally expressed by the term “vacuum,” so connected with the

subject of consideration, that it becomes unavoidable to advert to them,

injurious as they must prove, and strongly as they will array our

preconceived notions and prejudices against the proposition.

It cannot be denied that we have the power of laying down a tunnel, such

as has been referred to, and of adapting a railway to the inside of it,

for any distance we please: and, though it may not be in our power so to

connect the separate “lengths” or cylinders which compose it, as to

render the joints perfectly air-tight against a vacuum, yet, with

reference to the trivial degrees of exhaustion necessary for the purpose

here contemplated, every joint may most easily be made “air-tight”:

since, supposing the degree of exhaustion to be equal to the pressure at

which gas is forced through the mains of a public company whose works I

know, a load of above 100 tons would be carried along a tunnel of eight

feet in diameter, at whatever rate the air was pumped out of it. Equally

certain, as it therefore becomes, that we have the power of extending

this tunnel at pleasure, is it, that the power of making and working any

number of air-pumps, such as have been referred to, will enable us to

exhaust from, and consequently cause air to rush through it, at rates so

vastly exceeding any at which we now travel, that our preconceived

notions and prejudices cause us to look on the proposition as both

impossible and absurd.

One of the circumstances which at first strikes us as fatal to the

proposition, is the inability to respire, which we all feel we should be

liable to, if conveyed rapidly _through_ the air. A moment’s reflection

will, however, enable us to see that this objection has no application

whatever to the case. It is not proposed that we shall be conveyed

rapidly _through_ the air, but that we shall cause air, which we have

first set in rapid motion, _to convey us along with it_, _as fast as

itself goes_: a state of things so different from going through, or

against, and meeting the air, that our supposed objection does not apply

to the case.

Stating facts will, however, be the best way of settling this question;

and for this purpose the experience of our aeronauts is referred to.

Much as they have sometimes been inconvenienced from the rarity of the

air, at the heights to which they have ascended, yet have we never heard

them complain of being unable to breathe freely, owing to the velocity

with which they were carried along over the earth’s surface,

notwithstanding that they have been conveyed at rates of 70, 80, and, in

one instance, 160 miles an hour. And why? because that which was the

cause of motion went with them.—“I had not,” says Lunardi, in his account

of the first ascent ever made in England, “the slightest sense of motion

from the machine. I knew not whether I went swiftly or slowly—whether it

ascended or descended—whether it was agitated or tranquil, but by the

appearance or disappearance of objects on the earth.” Rapidly,

therefore, as they have moved, yet have they felt as if in a calm. Now

exactly similar in point of respiration, would be the feeling of those

who might be conveyed in the proposed tunnel. The air, being the cause

of motion, must go, _at least_, equally fast as it drove them, and

necessarily be wherever they were. Let the rate of motion therefore, be

what it might, the feeling of those who experienced it, must prove that

of being in a perfect calm.

Nor are the objections we at first conceive, relative to the effect which

pumping air from the tunnel, and producing what only the word vacuum

(inapplicable as it is) will enable us to convey the idea of, at all more

tenable. The degree to which air would be exhausted from the tunnel

might scarcely ever be sufficient to sink a barometer two inches lower

than one exposed to the atmosphere stood at; so that even were we exposed

to it no inconvenience would be felt. {69} But we never shall be exposed

to it, any more than those who witness the cruel experiment of putting a

mouse under the receiver of an air-pump, and then exhausting it, are

exposed to what the little animal suffers. Between those who _see_ and

the poor creature which _feels_ the effect of the apparatus, is the side

of the receiver. And between the part of the tunnel in which the

exhaustion, or rather the difference of density is, and the passengers in

the vehicle, would be the _end_ of the vehicle; so that though _close to

them_ would be an atmosphere rarer than (we will suppose) it might prove

pleasant to be in, yet would the atmosphere _they actually were in_ be

the same as that of the air at large. No inconvenience, therefore, can

be experienced in this particular.

Equally untenable is the idea we take up, that it will be impossible so

to adapt the ends of the vehicles to the inside of the tunnel, as to

cause them to act as pistons in preventing the passage of the air by

them, without occasioning friction to a degree which should deprive us of

all the advantages the air would otherwise give, as a mean of

communicating motion.

In the last carriage which I had for the tunnel I constructed at

Brighton, there was a space of above an inch and a half in width left all

round between the _piston_ part of the carriage and the tunnel, through

which air rushed unimpeded. Yet did not this “windage,” or leak, though

equal in the aggregate, to an aperture of three square feet, prevent the

carriage from springing forward to the impulse of the air-pumps, with a

readiness I was surprised at. Nor did it ever cause the least

_perceptible_ diminution in their effect; owing to the small quantity of

air that passed through it, in comparison with the immense quantity

exhausted by the pumps.

When the Brighton Committee rode in that tunnel, one of them brought with

him a mountain barometer, that he might ascertain the degree of “vacuum”

or exhaustion necessary to move the carriage. This barometer was

accordingly suspended in the part where the “vacuum” was to be produced,

and the vernier adjusted with the greatest accuracy. But to his surprise

the degree of exhaustion was not sufficient to lower the barometer in the

_least_ degree. Being aware of this, I had spirit gauges previously

prepared, one of which was fixed in the end of the carriage. But even

this gauge, though nearly fifteen times more sensitive than the

barometer, was affected hardly enough to be visible, the amount of

“vacuum” indicated by it, being only about ten grains per square inch, or

_less_ than the ten-thousandth part of a vacuum.

Nor would the quantity of air that rushed by the _piston-end_ of the

carriage be at all important, even when travelling at _very_ great

velocities, and with heavy loads. In a tunnel of the diameter which

would be proper for such lines as those to Bristol, or South Wales, the

pressure requisite to move a load of 100 tons would not be more than

about 100 grains per square inch; which would cause air to rush past the

piston-end of the carriage at the rate of about 30 feet per second.

Therefore, even could no better adjustment of the piston-end of the

carriage and the inside of the tunnel be effected, than took place with

respect to that at Brighton, only 90 cubic feet of air per second would

rush past, even were the carriages standing still; which is only

one-tenth of what the air-pumps I used there were capable of exhausting

in the same time; while, on such a line as the Bristol, or South Wales,

it would not be one-hundredth of what the exhausting apparatus would take

out in the same period; so that not one-hundredth of the power would be

lost by it: and even this hundredth could easily be reduced to a

thousandth: the space left between the piston-end of the carriage in the

tunnel at Brighton being _purposely_ an inch and a half in width, in

order that I might shew, by actual proof, how utterly unimportant was

_that_ objection which engineers of the highest name and reputation had

assured me must, _inevitably_, prove fatal to the motion of _any_

carriage in _any_ tunnel.

And as the carriage, instead of standing still, would be moving forward,

the loss of power, which would, otherwise, result from the pressure

requisite to _give the velocity_ as well as move the load, would be

equally unimportant as that arising from the pressure requisite to move

the load alone.

With pressures so trivial as these capable of producing practical

effects, and with it fully practicable so to adjust the “piston” part of

the carriages to the tunnel, as to render this “windage,” or leak,

perhaps less than one-hundredth of that which I _purposely_ caused in the

tunnel at Brighton, there can be no difficulty, either in preventing any

important quantity of air from rushing past the carriages; or in so

connecting the “lengths” of which the tunnel would be composed, as to

render the joints air-tight.

And as there are _no_ objections which the engineers can bring forward,

that cannot be replied to in an equally satisfactory manner, I need not

trouble you with any additional answer to them.

It is now four years ago since the locomotive engine competition took

place on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. In all probability no

proprietor of the Kensington Canal happened to be present at that

contest; yet is it equally probable that all were as fully convinced of

the fact from the accounts which appeared in the newspapers, as if you

had seen it. Now though I cannot give the conviction arising from the

evidence of your senses, yet can I give stronger evidence than the public

vehicles of intelligence gave as to that competition, by referring you to

the public authorities and records of Brighton, to know whether I did not

carry an appointed number of its inhabitants to and fro, as the

locomotive engines went during that competition; “when,” says Mr.

Treasurer Booth, in his “Account of the Liverpool and Manchester

Railway,”—“the prescribed distance, it should be understood, was, owing

to the circumstances of the railway, obliged to be accomplished, by

moving backwards and forward on a level plane of one mile and three

quarters in length.” I did not, it is true, carry those gentlemen so far

as those engines went. Nor, indeed, was there any occasion for it. Had

it been necessary, they could have continued riding to and fro in my

tunnel, as long as the locomotives ran to and fro on the railway. But,

as when they had satisfied themselves that there was no trickery in the

motion of the carriage, and that it was _really_ moved by the air, they

had, then, seen all that it was necessary to see, to convince them that a

longer tunnel would enable me to move a carriage equally far, as a longer

railway would have admitted of the locomotive engines going, they gave

over riding, “because,” as the Editor of the Brighton Herald says, in the

extract which I have quoted from that paper, “because they became so

convinced that the invisible and intangible medium we breathe, might be

rendered a safe and expeditious means of getting us from one place to

another, as to be tired of riding.”

Were it necessary for your interest that a gas-pipe should be laid

throughout the line you propose, your inquiry of the engineer you might

employ would be, not whether the gas would pass through such a length of

pipe, because you know that to have been long established, and to be

every day acted upon, but what would be the _expense_ of it; that is, it

would be a money question, not a question of practicability.

The tunnel I constructed at Brighton was nearly eight feet in diameter,

while the air-pumps I adapted to it were large enough to make an

artificial wind blow through it at the rate of ten miles an hour. And

doubling, tripling, quadrupling, &c. &c. the size, or number of the

pumps, would have doubled, tripled, &c. &c. the rate at which this wind

blew.

A common size for gas mains is eight inches. Were it propounded to

you—“Can a mouse run through a rat-hole, let that bole be as long as it

may?” your answer would not be dubious. Why, then, if it be proved, that

we can, with pneumatic apparatus of an almost infinitely less efficient

nature than that which I purpose using, make air move through smaller

pipes five, fifteen, or even fifty miles long, {72} should any doubt be

entertained whether air-pumps will cause it to move through one of eight

feet in diameter; more particularly, when it is well known, that the

larger the pipe the less the proportionate friction; and when your line

will be little more than two miles long.

The pressure by which the gas is driven through the pipes of the work I

know the most of, is equal to an ounce and a half per square inch. A

similar pressure on the carriage in my tunnel would have moved above one

hundred tons. The length of your line would be only about eighty times

longer than the tunnel I constructed; and as the area of your tunnel

would be nearly 150 times larger than the eight-inch mains through which

the gas is carried many times farther than the length of your line, there

need be no more question as to whether, or not, the principle will act

throughout your line, merely because it is eighty times longer than my

tunnel, than there is whether gas would pass through eighty lengths of

gas-pipe.

And as the joints which connect the different “lengths” of gas-pipes can

easily be made air-tight, so could the “lengths” and joints of the

tunnel. “Under the trivial degree of exhaustion which will be

necessary,” says the Report of the Russian Engineer Officer, “rendering

the tunnel sufficiently air-tight will be far less difficult than is at

first supposed. Indeed, I see so many different ways of doing it,”

continues the Report, “that I am satisfied it would not, in practice,

prove more difficult than, nor, indeed, so difficult as, causing some

canals I have seen, to retain the water let into them.” Following up the

illustration which this gentleman thus gives, I beg to assure you I will

guarantee that the tunnel shall not leak, or let air improperly in, so

much as I see the basin of your canal leaks water out.

Adverse as were the original circumstances of the great father of canal

navigation in England, yet did he put to signal shame the opposition and

predictions of the engineers who proclaimed him a madman for pretending

that it was possible to carry a canal over a navigable river. Ten

thousand times more mad as the engineers of the present day proclaim me,

and a hundred thousand times more absurd and “impossible” as they have

pronounced my proposition to be, yet, owing to having in my favour (what

Brindsley had not in his) the circumstance of my principle having been

tried, I am enabled to oppose to their ridicule and sneers the FACT that

I have proved it on a scale, which, as relates to size, was fully, and in

_every_ particular practical; while it was less than practical in point

of length, only because no individual could do that which it requires a

public company and an act of parliament to do, that is, lay it down

between places for actual trade.

Short, however, as it was, yet was it many times longer than the pipes

through which gas was first carried, to prove the practicability of

lighting our streets with that illuminator: while its length was great

enough to be equally conclusive, as the movement of the first

steam-vessel built by the introducer of steam-navigation.

“When,” says Fulton, “I was building my first steam-boat at New York, the

project was viewed by the public either with indifference or with

contempt, as a visionary scheme. My friends, indeed, were civil, but

they were shy. They listened with patience to my explanations; but with

a settled cast of incredulity on their countenances. I felt the full

force of the lamentation of the poet:

‘Truths would you teach, to save a sinking land,

All fear, none aid you, and few understand.’

“At length the day arrived when the experiment was to be put into

operation. To me it was a most trying and interesting occasion. I

invited many friends to go on board, to witness the first successful

trip. Many of them did me the favour to attend as a matter of personal

respect; but it was manifest that they did it with reluctance, fearing to

be the partners of my mortification, and not of my triumph.

“The moment arrived in which the word was to be given for the vessel to

move. My friends were in groups on the deck. There was anxiety, mixed

with fear, among them. They were silent, and sad, and weary. I read in

their looks nothing but disaster; and almost repented of my efforts. The

signal was given; and the boat moved on a short distance, and then

stopped—and became immoveable.”

When _my_ opponents can prove, that because Fulton’s first steam-vessel

would, on its first trial, move only the “short distance” stated in the

above quotation, it was, therefore, impossible to move any other vessel

farther by means of steam, I may heed the clamour they raise about my

proposition not being practicable through a long line of tunnel.

Until then, I can consider it only as a proof of their knowledge being on

a par with the wisdom of that most learned opponent of Galileo’s theory

that day and night are occasioned by the revolution of our planet on its

axis, who, in answer to the query, “How then is it that the sun gets back

to, and always rises in the east of a morning?” replied, that he went

back by night, when nobody could see him.

In concluding, I will endeavour to guard against a circumstance that may

otherwise be injurious to me, by an observation. You will perceive that

the evidences which I have quoted have been in existence six or seven

years. How then, it may be inquired, is it, that a method which is

spoken of so highly as those evidences speak of this mode of conveyance,

should have remained seven years without having been put into actual

practice, or brought any nearer to that consummation than it was when

those documents were written?

During the many years which elapsed between the period of Columbus’s

first proposing to Ferdinand and Isabella the discovery of America, and

their actually setting him afloat to do it, he sent his brother

Bartholomew to England, to lay the proposition before our Seventh Henry,

who, he expected, would entertain it. Henry did entertain it; and would

have possessed England of the southern more firmly than she afterwards

became possessed of the northern half of America, but for the misfortune

which prevented Bartholomew Columbus from approaching him, till Isabella

had agreed with, and dispatched Columbus himself.

“In his voyage to England,” says the historian of America, “Bartholomew

Columbus had been so unfortunate as to fall into the hands of pirates;

who, having stripped him of every thing, detained him a prisoner for

several years:” reducing him to such poverty, that when released from

captivity, he could in no other way obtain the means of procuring a dress

fit for his appearance before the king, than by employing himself in

drawing maps.

Circumstances which, morally speaking, are _exactly_ similar to this

captivity and imprisonment of Bartholomew Columbus—excepting that they

failed in compelling me to sign away the patent rights, to wrest which

from me they were instituted—have equally hindered and reduced me:

occasioning the destruction of the tunnel which I constructed to

demonstrate, practically, the truth of the proposition; and depriving me

of all means of proving it, except by carrying small things on an

experimental scale, instead of persons on a practical one.

As relates to myself, I have no desire to obtrude the details of the

oppression and injustice practised upon me, on any one.

But with respect to the subject I advocate, I am most anxious that the

whole world should know that I court the _fullest_ inquiry, and am ready

to answer _every_ question.

As one proof of this, and to shew that there is nothing which I need to

blush for, any more than Bartholomew Columbus had cause to blush for

being imprisoned by the pirates, I beg to direct your attention to the

annexed copy of the Petition I presented to Parliament; of which only an

extract is given in page 19. Soliciting the favour of your perusing it,

I have the honour to be,

My Lords, and Gentlemen,

Your very obedient,

And most humble Servant,

JOHN VALLANCE.