The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-19 00:00:00

-

-
c

7

r

flare I

~... ..• .
.....
- -
. .. . ..7%.
4/4 4
~'
...,
, i l\eifit ...,,P1,11; ,\ ).
~...I,ll.nic-,/ - -.0. 1,,,L.:-. -. ...- , J..t4•-• illiT).,
~.....„,,
~ :
~,46,.
11111141*/.,.,H '4l
,
--41, ..p . a ~ _____:.,,•
..-..1A : , *
---•
~,-• --t
'''''''
'''''
.:-,,,...i 1.!.,,,,. . , .. '
-,.- -. 1
. ,
(
, .., . 4• •
..ki,,,‘ ," ''.7l- 1g ~4~
i9\, ~,-, ..- •,, , ~. ~,, 1111/4 ----4 Ai ~,,
- w~~r t.,1,,,,,... - -
.-- , .g 4-----4. , ,etv :14. 4 , . , irricaits.4." *,.• -,,,c, .-- c 4 ::
~,, 4444.2....._.,...2._ .„ . ..‘ it k , .F.: 2 •• / A ,n, ,‘ , • ingir x, y...‘mi,,,,,,. • •-•-, - ft,. ... a; ... _, -.4
zi .„1-•
,A, .: ~...,,,, -,.. :- • .‹.
• 4:4r--, - -2 . ' ''' ' '
, )., -----t • I-*, •t; a947r(t9c6-I.\. ' 19,1,.E..,.,W.... .....-11,N:'4,, ;?.,.. - .7%;14,t'..i.:!,0 04 ',: '"'',*,,,-...6"--.a '.I
' 41 ./ 6*
_

C-

/

PRICE 41). STAMPED. SD.

t , •
Voyage witness asked Mr. Itu ell to' give ti c
paddle 0)(61163 more steam. lief'never'cominuni-
cated' with Mr. M'Lennun at all. Mr. Russellgave
all necessary directions for the manag,.tnent of the
paddle engines froth the time of corning on board
till leaving the ship.
By Mr. Newman—There. was a written contract
existing between Mr. Scott RUssell an d the company.
Cannot recollect whether in that document a trial
trip was provided for. It certainly was the under-
standing on which the vessel left the river. Mr.
Brunel said he, did not consider any trial in 'the
river would be satisfactory, as they could not get
up steam enough, for the vessel was moored stem
and stern. Mr. Scott Russell of hia own knowledge
must have known that that'was the opinion of Mr.
Brunt], whether it was communicated to him in
writing or not. The trial trip on the responsibility
of the engine makers was made at the express wish
of the two contractors themselves. It was always
the practice to have a trial trip with ordinary ves-
sels ; but had the practice, not existed, in a vessel
of such size and power as the Great Eastern the
directors would have felt it their duty to 'have
initiated the custom. Mr. Russell, to' do him mere
justice, was as anxious, as the directors themselves
that he, should preserve the responsibility of the
engines by_ having the appointment of the engi-
neers. :He (Mr. Russell) was quite confident as 'to
the success of the paddle engines, and therefore did
not shrink from the responsibility of trying theni,
he said.'

Mr. Leverson said that the opinion 'Of Mr. Super-

intendent Shee and Mr. Lloyd-had been taken on
the terms of the contract, and those gentlemen were
confident that a trial trip was clearly implied by it,
and that the company were not responsible for
taking the engines until after such trip had been
made.

Captain RObertson, remarked that was a legal

question of contract. What they had met to 111-
quire into was, who was in charge of the engines
when the accident occurred?

Mr. John Scott Russell Was the next witness.
He said that, except in so far as the late Mr. Brunel
was the originator of the idea, he was the builder
and designer of the great ship, and the contrador
for the paddle engines. With the trial trip be-
tween Deptford and Portland he (Mr. Russell)
had had nothing to do whatever, directly or in-
directly as a matter of business. He 'took the
deepest personal interest in the trip, but beyond
that there was nothing whatever in the way of
business. During the trial trip the paddle.
engines were never under his charge in any
way or kind whatever. From the day when the
fourth trial, of the engines was made in the river in
the presence of Mr. Brunel, and in conformity with
the terms of the contract, he considered that they

were entirely delivered up to the company. That
fourth trial was made on the Wednesday before the
ship sailed. They were then handed over froin
witness's engineers to those of the company, and
the men about them ceased to be in witness's pay

and went into the employment of the company.
No written agreement or document pasSed when
they were given up. If any fault was to be found
it should have been at the fourth trial, for on that

occasion, according to the contract, witness's re-
sponsibility was to, end. He did not select' the
engineers. for the trial trip, :but it was suggested to
the company that the engineers of both engines
should be applied to by the company to recommend
the entire' staff of both engines. This the company
refused to do, and only allowed them to recommend
the four head engineers of both engines. He
thought that the first course was the wisest course
for both parties, and he thought the men he recom-
mended were the best both for the company's inte-
rests and far the due care of his own engines. As
to Mr. Dickson being on board, it arose from the

fact of witness being invited to the trial trip

and allowed to briiT a certain number of
friends. Mr. Dickson only came as Witness's

friend, and never took any charge of the engines

beyond volunteering every assistance in his
power. Mr. Ariott and his engineers had
most undoubted charge of all the machinery under
Mr. M‘Lennan;• the company's engineer in chief.
Witness ,Was on board at the time of the explosion,
and generally concurred in what had been stated
by others as to its cause. He thought it must be
taken for granted that all believed when the feed to
the funnel was shut off the cock at the top of the
tube was open. It was quite proper to shut off the
feed from the casing to the boilers. Boilers always
primed when they left the river, and priming was
a source of great danger and inconvenience to the
boilers. That was checked at last by throwing in
cold water to the boilers, and it became desirable,
therefore, to shut off the hot water from the casing,
and let in the cold water from the donkey engines,
which was done. Witness never knew of any cock
being in the syphon-tube, though he agreed with
•Mr. Dickson that it was always a wise precaution.
He would certainly not have put anything that
could have interfered with the passage of steam
from the casing. The• Cock was not necessary
where it was, though he thought it a useful precau-
tion in case the stand-pipe, or syphon, broke. The
outer wooden funnel-casing acted as a ventilator to
the sleeping cabins below. If, then, the stand-
pipe broke all the steam would have rushed down
into the sleeping cabins. Witness had constructed
two vessels on similar principles before. There was
no provision made for the escape of steam in those
vessels at all. Even, however, with both pipes
open, in the cage of the Great Eastern, they might '
have had an explosion from many other' causes,
such as if the feed was allowed to go low in the
casing, and the water been suddenly let in. It was
one of the mysteries of the present accident that it
might have arisen from such a cause. In that case
the syphon stand-pipe would not have saved the
funnel. Steam would have been generated so
rapidly by the' sudden reflux of the feed water that
the syphon-tube , would never have carried it off
even though open. That might have occurred in
this accident, and he was not alone in this opinion.
He most distinctly denied any official or mercantile
responsibility at all in the charge of the engines in
the trip round. He should have thought it wrong
not to have given the company the benefit of 'Mr.
Di▪
ckson's long experience, in case of any accident
happening.
By Mr. Leverson.—There were four trials of the
engines made. 'Witness was n ware that notice was
sent to the company of the trials being about to take
place,—at least of the second trial, when members
o fboth houses were present, who were invited
joi▪
ntly by the directors and witness. He had the
expense of starting the engines four times. The
first trial took place very early in the morning,
when the company's officers were not present, as
far as witness was aware. He was himself only
present at the second and fourth. He was not
aware that Captain Harrison was angry at not
being present at the first trial to look after his
moorings. That trial he certainly considered to be
one of the four trials under his contract. He re-
membered having an interview with the Board at
which the date of the ship leaving the river was
fixed, and when witness wished it to take place a
fortnight earlier. It was not at his wish that it
was postponed. There was no choice of interme-
diate dates on account of the tides. The directors
were also most anxious to sail as speedily as possi-
ble. Witness undertook to have the vessel ready,
and his contract was in fact finished on the sth of
August. On the last Wednesday in August the
final trial of the engines took place. If any
.of the
directors had then expressed dissatisfaction with the
engines, he would at once have given them another
trial. He considered the four st artings he gee the
engines at their moorings in the river were a suffi
cient trial. A common trial trip meant that the ship
and engines were retained by the builder until a
trial stipulated in the contract, generally at so many
miles an hour, had been fulfilled in the river.
All the parties then given on board were at the
expense and under the control of the engineer
and builder, and the whole contract turned on the
result of that trial. In the present case there was no
stipulated performance whatever, nor would he have
been in any way liable for the expenses of the trip,
though he certainly would had it taken place in !ha
river. Such would be the case with a vessel which
had never been out of the binder's hands. Witness
only contracted to do a portion of the work of the
company's vessel, and therefore it was their trial
trip, and not his. The terms of the contract were for
the best materials and best workmanship. The ques-
tion as to the completeness of the contract was left
to competent arbitrators to decide, and from time to
time three gentlemen (three engineers) had been so
called upon to decide. If the directors had doubted
the excellence of the engines, they should have had
the arbitrators present when the last trial was made.
Witness was on the bridge almost throughout the
whole trip, but t though requested by the pilot to
drive the engines faster he declined. That request
applied to both screw and paddles. Witness,
how-
ever, had agreed with Mr. Blake, who was in
charge of the screw engines, that it would be un-
wise to drive the engines too fast. The pilot might
have requested witness to reverse the paddles, and
he might have declined, and suggested that the
screw should be reversed. In spite of this he denied
that he ever took charge of the paddle engines. He
knew better than the pilot or captain what could