The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-21 00:00:00

company's acting engineer, though declining to take
charge of any engine, willingly helped Mr. Scott
Russell with " a pull at the wheel," or, if ke wished
to have messages conveyed, sent them. Mr. Dickson,
the contractors' chief engineer, considered himself
as a passenger, but undertook the manage-
men: of an engine notwithstanding, and seems dur-
ing the i",!lTage to have been one of the most busy
and activein,:ui on board. Mr. J. Roy Campbell,
the chairman an representative of the company,
throws the entire res onsibility of the management
',"
of the vessel during the trial trip on the contrac-
tors, and asserts that there NT a complete under-
standing between them and thC
directors on this
head. Mr. Scott Russell, on the oths7 hand, affirms
that he had nothing whatever to do wi:L4:ll the trial
trip; either directly or indirectly, as a nu:_tter
of
business. The natural conclusion to be drawn
this contradictory evidence is, that there was really-
no one officially in charge of engines from the
time the vessel left the Nore till her arrival at Wey-
mouth. All on board, even the engineers, were
simply passengers, bound on a pleasure trip—the
latter, however, being perfectly willing to make
themselves generally useful ; give " a pull at tho
wheel," or "regulate the throttle valve" if necessary.
Under these circumstances it is only wonderful the
vessel got on as well as she did, or, indeed, at all.
Accidents of all kinds were to be expected, and
would almost inevitably happen if there was really
no one officially in charge of such new, extensive,
and complicated machinery. And the evidence
seems certainly to show that this important prelimi-
nary point was not settled, or at least not settled in
the clear, formal, and decisive manner it ought to
have been. No document has yet been produced to
throw light on this vexed question, and even the
existence of letters referring to it is only hinted at
as possible or probable.
Though the formal responsibility was not settled
with sufficient distinctness, or secured by sufficient
sanctions, the evidence, we must say, goes strongly
to show that the real responsibility was with the
contractors and their agents. We have no wish to
prejudge a question that may yet come before the
legal tribunals of the country. And large allow-
ance of course must be made for the anxiety which
all connected with the vessel naturally feel to escape,
if possible, from the responsibility of such a calamity.
But it is a public duty to report on the facts of the
case as given in evidence. These facts leave little
room for doubt as to who was really managing the
engines during the trip to Portland. Mr. Scott
Russell allows that he was on the bridge nearly all
the way. And that he was there in the capacity of
driver of the engines is plain from the next sen-
tence of the evidence, in which he says explicitly
" that the pilot requested him to drive the paddle
engines faster, but he declined to do this." So ab-
solute, indeed, was his authority, that when the
same request was made by the captain he still re-
fused compliance. " His reason was that the con-
structor of the screw engines, Mr. Blake, had agreed
with him that it was not wise to strain their engines
on that occasion." This scarcely reads like the lan-
guage of one who had officially nothing whatever
to do with the vessel. .It seems rather to describe
" an ordinary trial trip," in which Mr. Russell says
" the ship is steered by the builder, there being
generally an agreement as to speed." All the lead-
ing witnesses confirm the view which Mr. Russell
thus unwittingly gives of the position he held during
the voyage. They all say that he was on the bridge
directing the engines. Mr. Roy-Campbell, the
Chairman of the Directors, says, "At the time of
the accident, Mr. Scott Russell gave all the direc-
tions respecting the paddle engines, and had done
so throughout the whole of the trip, and had his
own representative attending to the engines." The
commander of the vessel, Captain Harrison says :
" Mr. Russell was in charge of the paddle engines,
and Mr. Langdon, of Watt and Co., in charge of
the screw. I know that from my own observa-
tion. Mr. Russell passed down verbal instruc-
tions to those in charge of the paddles." The facts
proved with regard to the management of the en-
gines certainly confirm this statement. Mr. Rus-
sell's immediate agent and representative, Mr.
Dickson, for example, worked one of the engines
during the whole trip, and the other acting engi-
neers were all apparently taken from his yard. On
the other hand, no single fact was adduced to show
that the company's leading engineer, Mr. M'Len-
nan, took any part in the management of the en-
gines during the trip. Mr. Brunel had expressly
told him not to do so before starting, and this in-
junction was repeated by the commander of the
vessel, Captain Harrison. "My instructions," he
says, " to Mr. M‘Lennan, the chief engineer, were
not to interfere with the working of the engines at
all, bit to hand over his staff of assistants to the
contractors."
The fact seems to be that while the contractors
really worked the vessel, partly by the company's
staff, each party tried to evade as much as possible
the responsibility of the management; and the
explosion was the fatal result of this wretched.
struggle. This terrible accident is directly trace-
able to the want of system and organisation in the
engineering staff. Each man did what was right
in his own eyes, without reference either to those
above or those below him. No regular instructions
were issued from the leading engineers to their
dependents, and no reports were made from the
latter to the former. Had this been done the ex-
plosion never could have taken place. We can
trace it exactly to the point where the want of
communication between the leading engineer and
his assistant directly produced the tragic result.
Mr. Patrick, an assistant engineer, was the officer
who about mid-day turned off the water-feed from
the casings, and he knew nothing about the stop-
cock on the stand-pipe. His superior, Mr. Arnott,
however, knew all about this cock, and had the
turning off of the feed been reported to him, would
at once have directed it to be examined. But
Patrick made no report, and Arnott, of course, gave
no instructions. 'The man who knew nothing of
the stop-cock turned off the feed ; the man who
knew all about the stop-cock knew nothing about
the feed being turned off; and so the explosion took
place. For want of a little system and order, of the
commonest rules observed in the working of a staff,
five lives are sacrificed, and this splendid vessel
threatened with destruction. The terrible lesson
must not be thrown away. If strict order and dis-
cipline is necessary in the smallest river steamer
that plies from bridge to bridge, it is, of course,
pre-eminently needful in a floating city of ma-
chinery like the Great Eastern. And a wholly
different system of management must be adopted
before this splendid vessel can secure the confidence
of the public.

They had had it in evidence from Mr. Patrick that
both the funnel casings were alike closed against the
escape of steam, and it seemed marvellous how it
t was
that the second did not also explode, when was
more than probable that.the immense vessel, wi:h
all its passengers, would have been buried in the
sea. The evidence which had been set before them
and on -which they had to decide was, unfortunately,
of the most contradictory character as to the person
or persons really responsible for the charge of the
paddle engines. It had been positively sworn to by
Arnott and M'Farlanethatthey had both examined
the cocks on the Tuesday before sailing, and had
found and left them open. If this was so he could
hardly believe it possible that any human being
could be such a monster as to close them wilfully,
and knowing the dreadful consequences which
would be certain to ensue from such an act. He
must leave it entirely to the consideration of the
jury to settle the disputed point whether Mr. Dick-
son, Mr. Arnott, or Mr. M'Lennan was responsible
for the proper management of the machinery. It
certainly appeared most astonishing to him that
the company should have started their vessel on
her trip without coming to more definite terms as
to who was really in charge of the engines. Mr
Scott Russell had declared most emphatically that
his contract was completed on August 6th, before
the vessel sailed, that he had nothing whatever to
do with the trial trip, and this evidence was borne
out by the testimony of those who had formerly
been in his employ. On the other hand, they had
the strongest evidence that Dickson did interfere
with the working of the engines, and also that Mr.
Scott Russell gave directions for their management
from the bridge. The jury, he was sure, would agree
with him that the first witness who was called,
Mr. William Briscoe, had given his evidence in the
most satisfactory and straightforward manner, and
ho certainly thought that every confidence might
be placed upon his testimony, whichunquestionably
was to the effect that Mr. Dickson was in charge
of the paddle engines. This evidence was as posi-
tively denied by Arnott, but Arnott had not given
his evidence in a creditable manner, or with the
manner of one who was desirous of stating the
whole truth. The evidence of Briscoe was corro-
borated by several important witnesses, and more
especially by those whose evidence they had last
heard. The whole cause of the accident was evidently
due to neglect on the part of some one, and he
thought that undoubtedly there was sufficient evi-
dence before them on this subject to justify their
sending the matter before another tribunal for
further investigation. The law of the case was
clear, that if any person in the discharge of his
proper and lawful duties did them in such a manner
as would endanger the lives of others, that, in the
eye of the law, would justify a charge of man-
slaughter. Mr. Scott Russell had given it in evi-
dence that he did not know that the cock was there
at all, and so far, certainly, there was not enough
to justify a charge of manslaughter against that
gentleman. But Mr. Dickson did know it, and not
only said so, but went still further, and admitted
that he left it there without a thought. There was
not sufficient, he repeated, in the evidence to ground
any charge against Mr. Scott Russell himself, but
there was, he thought, quite sufficient to justify the
jury in coming to the conclusion that Mr. Dickson
had acted carelessly and thoughtlessly in not at-
tending to the condition of the cocks when he
knew they were there. Mr. Galloway and all the
other witnesses had proved that there was no
use whatever in having the stand cocks in such a
place, and that they were, on the contrary, a con-
stant source of danger. Mr. Arnott, it appeared,
also knew of the cocks, and he was bound to exa-
mine them from day to day, and he therefore, the
coroner thought, was almost fully as culpable as
Mr. Dickson. It was really a great source of regret
that they could not have that distinguished man's
evidence—the evidence of Mr. Brunel—who could,
if he were living, at once have thrown a light upon
the question of who was in charge of the engines.
The jury had now to solve the difficulty for them-
selves, and upon the most contradictory evidence.
The company, he thought, were undoubtedly not
freefrtohmeyhou
blameit lin this matter, in not using the fore-
sightd have done in ascertaining beyond
all doubt who was to be held responsible for the
proper management of their machinery. The ques-
tion for the jury, however, was, who put the cock in
the pipe, and who, being in charge of the engines,
was answerable for seeing that it was open. The
coroner then proceeded to read over the evidence,
commenting upon the statements of each witness
as he proceeded. He concluded by again placing
before them these separate questions—Who was in
charge of those engines when the accident hap-
pened ? Ought the cock in the syphon to have been
left there ? Was there any negligence on the part
of the individual who knew it was there? And
who left it there ? And was it such ,a. case as, in
their opinion, would render the person whom they
might find to have been guilty of this negligence
liable to a charge of manslaughter ? In conclusion,
he thought it right, before the inquiry ended, to
express the high sense he entertained of the value
of the services conferred upon them, and the assist-
ance which had been given in the course of the
proceedings, by Captain Robertson, R.N., the Sur-
veyor-General of the Board of Trade. On their
part, and on his own, ho was sure he might be per-
mitted to tender to Captain Robertson their best
thanks.
The Foreman—We quite concur in these remarks,
Mr. Coroner.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict at
eight o'clock, and, after deliborating upwards of
two hours, returned into court with the following
special verdict:—
" We find the deceased came to their deaths by
injuries received from steam, hot air, and water,
in consequence of the bursting of the jacket
attached to the foremost funnel of the Great Eastern
steamer, and that the said bursting was caused by
the closing of a tap connected with the syphon
attached to the said jacket in conjunction with
the shutting off the feed from the watercasing to the
boilers, but there is no evidence before the jury to
show by what person or persons the said tap was
shut off, and the jury iurther express their opinion
that taps are highly dangerous when placed in
such positions, and that sufficient caution was not
used by the engineers."
The jury, however, returned a verdict of "Acci-
dental death."
The jury then signed the inquisition, and the in-
quiry terminated.
of

(From the Daily _Yews.)
The Coroner's inquest which has been sitting at
Weymouth for some days past on the unfortunate
victims of the explosion on board the Great Eastern
has concluded its labours. But neither the reported
behaviour of the jury during the trial nor the ver-
dict they have arrived at tend much to sustain the
dignity of this ancient institution. A prtion of
the ;jury at least seem to have paid little attention
to the evidence, and the verdict is but a diffuse re-
petition of facts that have been notorious from the
first day of the trial. As an instrument for the col-
lection of evidence the trial has no doubt been
useful. But the jury evaded the real difficulty of
the case; they made no attempt to inquire into tho
moral responsibility of the accident, but were satis-
fied with ascertaining its material cause. This was
simple enough. The evidence adduced before the
inquest satisfactorily determined the immediate
cause of this disastrous accident. From the first
indeed there seemed to be little difficulty or differ-
ence of opinion on this head. The rival engineers,
however much they may quarrel and contradict
each other on the question of their relative respon-
sibility, all agree as to the main point on which it
should have been brought to bear in order to pre-
vent the accident. The explosion took place be-
cause the stop-cock of the stand-pipe near the top
of the casing or " water jacket" of the funnel was
closed, instead of being left open as it ought to
have been. Had this been the case no harm would
have resulted from shutting off the communication
between the casing and boilers, and feeding the
latter directly from the donkey engines instead of
through the jackets. The casing would soon have
emptied itself, as the water remaining in it when
the feed was stopped would pass off through the
The
as fast as it became converted into steam.
The whole mischief, therefore, resulted immediately
from the closing of the stop-cock in the stand-pipe.
The engineers are divided in opinion as to whether
there ought to have been any such cock in the pipe
at all. Mr. M'Lennan, the Company's engineer,
says dec.isively, "I think the cock ought never to
have been placed there." Others justify it as a
useful precaution against the possible breaking of
the stand-pipe, which without a stop-cock would, it
is said, have inundated the cabins with hot water.
But whether it was right to have the cock or not,
all agree that it was utterly wrong for it to be
shut, and that the explosion was only the natural
and necessary result of this criminal carelessness or
neglect.

HEALTH OF LONDON DURING IIIE
WEEK.

(From the Registrar-General's Report.)
The number of deaths registered in London in
the week that ended last Saturday was 1,092. Ex-
cluding the deaths by cholera in the corresponding
weeks of the two years 1849 and 1854, it will be
round that the number now returned differs not
very materially from that which the average rate
of mortality near the middle of September in the
last ten years would have produced.
Last week there was a clear increase in the mor-
tality from small-pox, the deaths that are referred
to this head having risen to 36. Fifteen of these
occurred in the East districts. There is an increase
also in scarlatina, the deaths from which rose from
68 to 92, whilst those recorded as caused by diph-
theria were 21. Scarlatina was fatal in 5 cases in
Chelsea south sub-district, is 4 cases in nagger-
Stone East, in 4 in Mile-end, Old Town East, in 5
in the sub- district of Woolwich Arsenal. The un-
usual number of 6 deaths is referred to diphtheria
in Islington East. Diarrhoea exhibits a great de-
crease, the number of fatal cases having fallen from
148 to 82. Five cases of cholera or choleraic
diarrhoea are returned, 2 of which occurred to
adults. One of these is described as " Asiatic
cholera," and occurred to an aged woman at 49,1
Pearson-street, Haggerstone West. A girl, 11
years old, died of cholera; another girl, aged one
year; of pemphigus.
It has been found that the mortality in Sheffield
and Northampton was high during the strikes. Th a
registers afford the means of showing the mortality
of the families of workpeople in different trades,
and will enable the public to judge whether similar
results aro produced by the strikes in London among
persons in the building trades. Of bricklayers 2
died in the week, of bricklayers' wives 1, of brick-
layers' children 5 ; of carpenters 3 died, of carpen-
ters' wives 5, of carpenters' children 16 ; of painters
6 died, of painters' wives 1, of painters' children 12 ;
of plasterers 1 died, of plasterers' children 2.
Last week the, births of 802 boys and 805 girls,
•in all 1,607 children, were registered in L6ndon.
In the ten corresponding weeks of the year 1819-58
the average number was 1,506.
At the Royal ObserVatory, Greenwich, the mean
height of the barometer in the week was 29.658 in.
The readings fell from 30.18 in. on Sunday to 29.31
in. on Friday, being the highest and lowest in the
week. The air has become much colder, the mean
temperature having fallen from 58 deg. in the pre-
vious week to 53
8 deg. last week, which is 3.1 deg.
below the average of the same week in 43 years (as
determined by Mr. Glaisher). The mean tempera-
ture was below the average on every day except
Monday. Tho mean daily range of temperature was
20.7 deg. ; the range on Monday was 31.7 deg.
The mean temperature of the water of the Thames
was 624 deg., which is higher by 8.6 deg. than
that of the air. The difference between the mean
dew-point temperature and air temperature was
6.2 deg. The mean degree of humidity of the air
was 79, complete saturation being represented by
100. The wind blew from a northerly point dur-
ing the latter half of the week. Rain fell to the
depth of 0•0 in.; on Wednesday it was (Olin.

Where does the responsibility of this tieglect
fall ? This is the important question, which ought
surely to admit of an easy and direct reply. It
would seem incredible that a vessel like the Great
Eastern should put to sea on a trial trip without
any responsible officers formally commissioned to
watch over and regulate the working of her engines.
Yet the evidence goes to show that this, or some-
thing very like it, was actually the fact. It seems
impossible to decide to whom, if to any one,
the responsibility of working the engines was com-
mitted. There were two sets of engineers on board,
the company's engineers, and the contractors' en-
gineers, but neither of them, according to their own
account and that of their principals, had anything
whatever to do with the responsible working of the
vessel. It is true they mutually rendered a certain
amount of amateur assistance. Mr.*.Lennan, the

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1859.