The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-20 00:00:00

THE ACCIDENT AT THE NEW CRYSTAL

PALACE.

The adjourned inquest, commenced at Syslenham
on Wednesday last, by Mr. W. Carter, coroner for Surrey,
on view of the bodies of ten deceased persons blind by the
falling of the scaffold for the erection of the roof of the
central transept of the New Crystal Palace, was resumed
yesterday at noon.
The contractors, Sir Charles Fox and Mr. Henderson,
with Sir Joseph Paxton, director of the conservatories, and
Mr. Francis Fuller, managing director of the Crystal ranee
Company, were in attendance, with a large staff of officials.
Mr. Farquhar, of the firm of Johnson, Farquhar, and
Leech, solicitors to the company, was present. The con-
tractors were not on this occasion represented by counsel.
As soon as the jury had met they proceeded in a body to
the building, to make • second inspection of the Beene of
the accident. After devoting a full hour to this purpose,
during which several of the panel ascended to the level of
the lower trusses, and examined with great minuteness the
present condition of the scaffold, and the quality of the ma-
terials of which it was composed, they returned to the
inquest•room and the proceedings commenced with the
examination of
Henry Willbee, foreman of carpenters, in the service of
the contractor. This witness repeated at length the
testimony he had given before the coroner for Southwark
on the previous day. lie described the mode of erecting
the trusses, expressed his own confidence in the safety of a
scaffold on this construction, and his complete inability to
account for the accident. . ...

---------
Sir Charles Fox here observed that something had been I
said about having an independent opinion as to the con-
struction of the scaffold. It so happened that Mr. Vignolles,
an eminent engineer, had accidentally visited the palace
that morning in company with 'friend. lie was now pre-
sent, and if the jury desired it would, he had no doubt,
give them the result of his examination.
The Foreman of the Jury thought it would be desirable
to hear what Mr. Vignolles had to say, but he would first
ask Sir Charles Fox whether a similar failure of the same
scaffold had not taken place a short time since ?
Sir Charles Fox said an accident bad occurred a few
weeks since, just after the work was commenced. On that
occasion a very strong gale of wind prevailed, and three
of the trusses—all that were erected at that time—fell to-
gether. The whole construction of the scaffold had been I
greatly strengthened since that accident, and whau Ter the
cause of the tailor,' on Monday it could not have been the
same as the first accident, that having been clearly traced to
the wind.
In answer to the Coroner. Willbee stated that the wages
of the labourers employed on the central transept roof
ranged from ss. to 3a. Gil. per day. At the time of the
accident he was about to introduce to Mr. Cochrane, the
general superintendent of the works, a claim for sixpence a
(lay extra, which the men bad made to him. Ile was going
to support the claim, be cause he thought it was deserved,
for they were a class of men not to be found everyday. lie
had not heard of any men objecting to work on this scaffold.
On the contrary, he knew there were some who were jealous
of not being employed upon it. The struts were made on
the ground by piecework, but they were put together by
men paid so much a day. Witness had never had any
apprehension of danger from this scaffold. lie had himself
superintended the erection of a trellis railway bridge at
Leamington on the ame principle with a span thirty feet
wider.
George 'Williams, another foreman of carpenters, who
had been examined by Mr. Carter on Wednesday, was here
recalled, and asked whether he could explain the cause of
the accident in any way. Ile declared himself quite un-
able to do so. We believe Williams was recalled in conse-
quence of the receipt by the coroner of the following
anonymous communication.
"Thursday, August 18, 1853.
" Sir,—l have been looking over Williams evidence and
he say he can not tell the cause of the girders falling. Ask
him if the colum that surported the scaffold was not
broken by a girder they were drawing up swaying against
it and broke it, consequently while that rested on it eume
down. If they had had proper guide ropes upon it to have
directed it in its ascent the accident would not have hap-
pncd. Seein he suppresses the trutb, I thought I would
just write what little I know of it.—Ossazuven.
" \V. Carter, Esq., coroner."
The absurdity and ignorance displayed in this communi-
cation was its best answer, and it was properly, entirely
disregarded by the jury.
The Coroner now asked the jury if they would like to
examine Sir Charles Fox ?
The Foreman said he thought they had better hear what
Mr. Vignolles had to say first.
Mr. Charles Vignolles having been sworn, said—l am a
civil engineer, and reside in Duke-street, Westminster. I
am not professionally engaged at the Crystal Palace. I
heard of this occurrence, and came here this morning with
a foreign engineer, who wished to see the building—parti-
cularly to observe the effect of the accident. lam well ac-
quainted with the principle on which the scaffold is con-
structed. It is very simple and easily understaod. I saw
the wreck of the trusses and made a minute examination
of their several parts. I have endeavoured to form an
opinion as to the cause of the accident, but I am not able to
do so. In fact I have not the slightest conception of how
it originated. The scaffold is constructed on a principle
mathematically correct, always supposing the mate-
rials of which it is composed to be sound. I have
been forty years in my profession, and have had large
experience in buildings of a very extensive chant-
ter. Judging from what I saw I consider the
materials forming the scaffold must :have been of the
best character. I do not consider it injudicious to have
attempted to carry the truss across a soma of 120 feet, at a
height of 100 feet. The height could. have nothing to do
with its safety. I consider the mode of construction, and
tte operation of carrying it out, both judicious and pru-
dent. I should have had no hesitation in adopting the
same principle myself, and I consider the accident to have
been one of these unaccountable circumstances which no
human mind could have foreseen.
Sir Charles Fox said there was another eminent engineer
present, if the jury would like to hear his opinion. Mr.
Thomas Crampton was a gentleman of large experience in
civil engineering. and having gone over the building that
morning, he would be able to give his opinion, as a practical
man, as to the quality of the materials.
Mr. Thomas Crampton being sworn, said, I am a civil
engineer. My offices arc in Buckingham-street, Strand.
From the nature of my profession I have frequent opportu-
nities of judging of the qualities of iron. I have exa-
mined the remains of the trusses that fell ; and I have
formed a decided opinion that they could not
be made of better materials. The principle on
which the trusses are constructed is right, and 1
confider the accident to have been one of those unforeseen
events that cannot be accounted for. As in the case of •
railway accident, we might make fifty suggestions as to the
cause, and yet not hit the right one. I have only one re-
mark to add. I have heard that it is the intention of the
contractors to throw up a scaffolding from the ground cid
the completion of the transept roof. I can only say that if
the work were under my own direction I should not do ets.
I should proceed with it on the same principle as berme
believing it to be perfectly safe. I consider the strengti
and solidity of the scaffold is shown by the fact that not-
withstanding the enormous strain upon it when the accident
occurred no more came down.
The Coroner said it had been stated that some of the
workmen had refused to go up on this scaffold in conse-
quence of an apprehension that it would fall. If this were
so, it would be desirable to obtain tome evidence on the

point.
The Foreman said, in consequence of haying heard a
rumour to the effect that no less then eight men had left
their work rather than be employed on this scaffold, he bad
taken some pains to endeavour to ascertain how far the
report was true. After a diligent inquiry into the matter,
he had sot been able to find one man who would come for-
ward and state the fact. He was therefore obliged to say
he could not attach any credit to the rumour.
The Coroner (addressing Superintendent Lund)—Have
you ascertained whether there is any truth in this report ?
Superintendent Lund—l can only say, sir, that I have
seen the relatives of all the deceased parties, and have asked
each of them whether they desired to bring forward any
evidence. They one and all informed me they had nothing
whatever to produce in the shape of evidence.
Coroner—And you have been actively engaged in getting
op evidence yourself ?—I have.
Coroner—And you have not heard of parties having left
their work from fear or apprehension of danger ?—I have
not.
Coroner—You have a number of police officers on duty in
the building ?—Yes, sir.
Coroner—Have you never received a report or intimation
to the effect described from any of those officers ?—Never.
A young man here stepped forward, and said he had had
a brother kided by the accident, and he should like to say a
few words.
The Coroner desired him to proceed.
The man said his name was Henry Smith. Most of the
evidence produced was to the effect that no workman had
refused to go up.m this scaffold. lie declared men had re-
fined to do to.
Coroner—What men were they ?
Witness—A man named West. I beard him say he
would not go up unless he hunt more money.
Foreman—Would he have gone up for more money ?—I
don't kaow ; perhaps he would.
By the Coroner—l hove been employed on the work.; for
the last eleven months, and worked up to last Monday.
My brother formerly worked with me, but he was taken
from my gang by Mr. Williams, the foreman, to go upon
the transept roof. I was asked to go up, but I refused,
because I did not like the job. I thought there was danger
attending it, and I asked my brother to leave it twenty
times. I did not like the construction of the scaffold. I
considered as there was no au pport in the centre it could
not be safe. My wages were 3s. did. a day. I was not
offered more to go up on the transept roof.
Foreman—Who asked you to go up on the roof ?
Witness—l can't recollect whether it was Mr. Williams
the foreman, or a Mr. 'Willoughby, who was engaged on
the stone part of the work.
By the Coroner—l dont think there was much difficulty
in getting ms nto go up. My objection arose from a fear of
my personal safety. 1 Lava heard my brother and other
men express the same fear.
Sir Charles Fox was next sworn.—lfs said an impression
i appeared to bare obtained in the minds of some of the