kind, except the carcasses of two of their companions who had died a day or two previously from fatigue and hunger. The other crew had been driven about for six days, and were not so dejected, but reduced to such a weak state that they were obliged to be drawn on board our vessel by ropes. A brig bound for Havannah took part of the men, and we took the remainder. To attempt any description of my feelings on witnessing such scenes would be in vain. You will not be surprised to learn that I felt somewhat uneasy at the thought that we were so far from England, and that I also might possibly suffer similar shipwreck; but I consoled myself with the hope that fate would be more kind to us. It was not so much so, however, as I had flattered myself; for on voyaging towards New York, after we had made the land, we ran aground about midnight. The vessel soon filled with water, and, being surrounded by the breaking surf, the ship was soon split up, and before morning our situation became perilous. Masts and all were cut away to prevent the hull rocking; but all we could do was of no avail. About 8 o’clock on the following morning, after a most miserable night, we were taken off the wreck, and were so fortunate as to reach the shore. I saved my minerals, but Empson lost part of his botanical collection. Upon the whole, we got off well; and, had I not been on the American side of the Atlantic, I ‘guess’ I would not have gone to sea again.”
After a short tour in the United States and Canada, Robert Stephenson and his friend took ship for Liverpool, where they arrived at the end of November, and at once proceeded to Newcastle. The factory was by no means in a prosperous state. During the time Robert had been in America it had been carried on at a loss; and Edward Pease, much disheartened, wished to retire, but George Stephenson was unable to buy him out, and the establishment had to be carried on in the hope that the locomotive might yet be established in public estimation as a practical and economical working power. Robert Stephenson
immediately instituted a rigid inquiry into the working of the concern, unravelled the accounts, which had fallen into confusion during his father’s absence at Liverpool; and he soon succeeded in placing the affairs of the factory in a more healthy condition. In all this he had the hearty support of his father, as well as of the other partners.
The works of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway were now approaching completion. But, singular to say, the directors had not yet decided as to the tractive power to be employed in working the line when opened for traffic. The differences of opinion among them were so great as apparently to be irreconcilable. It was necessary, however, that they should come to some decision without further loss of time; and many Board meetings were accordingly held to discuss the subject. The old-fashioned and well-tried system of horse haulage was not without its advocates; but, looking at the large amount of traffic which there was to be conveyed, and at the probable delay in the transit from station to station if this method were adopted, the directors, after a visit made by them to the Northumberland and Durham railways in 1828, came to the conclusion that the employment of horse power was inadmissible.
Fixed engines had many advocates; the locomotive very few: it stood as yet almost in a minority of one—George Stephenson. The prejudice against the employment of the latter power had even increased since the Liverpool and Manchester Bill underwent its first ordeal in the House of Commons. In proof of this, we may mention that the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway Act was conceded in 1829, on the express condition that it should not be worked by locomotives, but by horses only.
Grave doubts existed as to the practicability of working a large traffic by means of travelling engines. The most celebrated engineers offered no opinion on the subject. They did not believe in the locomotive, and would scarcely take the trouble to examine it. The ridicule with which George Stephenson had been assailed by the barristers
before the Parliamentary Committee had not been altogether distasteful to them. Perhaps they did not relish the idea of a man who had picked up his experience in Newcastle coal-pits appearing in the capacity of a leading engineer before Parliament, and attempting to establish a new system of internal communication in the country. The directors could not disregard the adverse and conflicting views of the professional men whom they consulted. But Mr. Stephenson had so repeatedly and earnestly urged upon them the propriety of making a trial of the locomotive before coming to any decision against it, that they at length authorised him to proceed with the construction of one of his engines by way of experiment. In their report to the proprietors at their annual meeting on, the 27th March, 1828, they state that they had, after due consideration, authorised the engineer “to prepare a locomotive engine, which, from the nature of its construction and from the experiments already made, he is of opinion will be effective for the purposes of the Company, without proving an annoyance to the public.” The locomotive thus ordered was placed upon the line in 1829, and was found of great service in drawing the waggons full of marl from the two great cuttings.
In the mean time the discussion proceeded as to the kind of power to be permanently employed for the working of the railway. The directors were inundated with schemes of all sorts for facilitating locomotion. The projectors of England, France, and America, seemed to be let loose upon them. There were plans for working the waggons along the line by water power. Some proposed hydrogen, and others carbonic acid gas. Atmospheric pressure had its eager advocates. And various kinds of fixed and locomotive steam-power were suggested. Thomas Gray urged his plan of a greased road with cog rails; and Messrs. Vignolles and Ericsson recommended the adoption of a central friction rail, against which two horizontal rollers under the locomotive, pressing upon the sides of this rail,
were to afford the means of ascending the inclined planes. The directors felt themselves quite unable to choose from amidst this multitude of projects. The engineer expressed himself as decidedly as heretofore in favour of smooth rails and locomotive engines, which, he was confident, would be found the most economical and by far the most convenient moving power that could be employed. The Stockton and Darlington Railway being now at work, another deputation went down personally to inspect the fixed and locomotive engines on that line, as well as at Hetton and Killingworth. They returned to Liverpool with much information; but their testimony as to the relative merits of the two kinds of engines was so contradictory, that the directors were as far from a decision as ever.
They then resolved to call to their aid two professional engineers of high standing, who should visit the Darlington and Newcastle railways, carefully examine both modes of working—the fixed and the locomotive,—and report to them fully on the subject. The gentlemen selected were Mr. Walker of Limehouse, and Mr. Rastrick of Stourbridge. After carefully examining the modes of working the northern railways, they made their report to the directors in the spring of 1829. They concurred in the opinion that the cost of an establishment of fixed engines would be somewhat greater than that of locomotives to do the same work; but thought the annual charge would be less if the former were adopted. They calculated that the cost of moving a ton of goods thirty miles by fixed engines would be 6.40d., and by locomotives, 8.36d.,—assuming a profitable traffic to be obtained both ways. At the same time it was admitted that there appeared more ground for expecting improvements in the construction and working of locomotives than of stationary engines. On the whole, however, and looking especially at the computed annual charge of working the road on the two systems on a large scale, the two reporting engineers were of opinion that fixed engines were preferable, and accordingly recommended their adoption. And, in