[106] It has of course been impossible to refer to the points on which Mr. Brunel was aided, in his different works, by the suggestions of his assistants; but it may be mentioned here that, as appears from one of Mr. Brunel’s letters, the plan of working under a diving-bell had been proposed by Mr. William Glennie, his assistant, before he knew that Mr. Brunel had decided to adopt it.

Mr. Brunel also mentions in another letter that the ‘very simple and effectual manner’ of applying the pneumatic apparatus, by forming the annular space round the circumference of the bottom of the cylinder, was suggested to him by Mr. Brereton, when the method of constructing the cylinder was being finally settled.

[107] In the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. xxi. 1861-2, will be found a paper by Mr. Brereton, giving a detailed description of the means employed for the construction of the central pier.

[108] Shortly after Mr. Brunel’s death some of his friends on the Board of the Cornwall Railway placed the following inscription, in raised letters, over the lard archways—I. K. BRUNEL, ENGINEER, 1859.

[109] A portion of the chains used were those which had been made for the Clifton Suspension Bridge, Mr. Brunel’s earliest design.

[110] Though it is convenient to explain the nature of the strains in the Saltash bridge as an arch and suspension bridge combined, it is not intended to imply that there is any virtual difference between this truss and the one at Chepstow, for in both the strain on the tube counteracts the strain on the chains, though the one tube is curved and the other straight.

[111] Humber’s Bridge Construction, vol. i. p. 231; vol. ii. pl. 78, 79, 80.

[112] This load amounted to two and three quarter tons per foot run, in addition to the weight of the truss. Under this load the central deflection was about 5 inches.

The strain on the iron of the tube and of the chains with a load of one ton per foot run, in addition to the weight of the truss, flooring, and ballast, is under four tons per square inch.

[113] The difficult operations of floating and lifting the superstructures of the Chepstow and Saltash bridges were carried out entirely by Mr. Brunel and his assistants, there being no contractor engaged in, or responsible for, the work in either case.

[114] A photograph taken shortly after the floating of the second tube forms the frontispiece of the first volume of Humber’s Bridge Construction.

[115] See above pp. 190 and 193.

[116] It has been observed with much truth that full justice has not been done to Mr. Brunel’s exertions in this department of practical science.—See ‘Address of George Parker Bidder, Esq., on his election as President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, January 10, 1860.’

[117] Captain Claxton died on March 27, 1868, in his 79th year. The manuscript of this and the three following chapters was fortunately completed in time to be submitted to him. He spared no trouble either in giving or procuring original documents and other materials for all parts of this book, in the preparation of which he took the liveliest interest.

[118] To enable the ship to resist the action of the heavy Atlantic waves, especial pains were taken to give her great longitudinal strength. The ribs were of oak, of scantling equal to that of line-of-battle ships. They were placed close together, and caulked within and without before the planking was put on. They were dowelled and bolted in pairs; and there were also four rows of 1½-inch iron bolts, 24 feet long, and scarfing about 4 feet, which ran longitudinally through the whole length of the bottom frames of the ship. She was closely trussed with iron and wooden diagonals and shelf pieces, which, with the whole of her upper works, were fastened with bolts and nuts to a much greater extent than had hitherto been the practice.

The principal dimensions of the hull and engines are given in the note to this chapter (p. 245).

[119] The engines as designed by Messrs. Maudslay were beam engines, although Mr. Brunel had strongly urged them to adopt the more compact form of direct-acting engines. They, however, thought it better not to depart from what was then the usual form.

[120] Steam and its Uses, by Dr. Lardner, 1856. Chapter on ‘Steam Navigation,’ section 10.

[121] ‘An exposition of the advantages of the proposed Railway from Limerick to Waterford.’

[122] The Steam Engine: its Application to Navigation and Railways, with Plain Maxims for Railway Speculators, 5th edition, 1836, p. 307.

[123] It is right to add that, according to the report given in the AthenÆum newspaper of the meetings of the British Association at Liverpool in September 1837, ‘Dr. Lardner addressed the section (Mechanical) on his old subject, the application of steam to long voyages. His remarks and calculations were to a great extent identical with those brought forward by him last year at Bristol, and published long since in his work on the steam-engine, but the conclusions were somewhat varied. The Doctor did not now deny that the voyage might be practicable, but he did not believe that it would be profitable’ (AthenÆum, September 23, 1837). Dr. Lardner was answered by several speakers, and among them by Mr. Guppy, who pointed out in much detail the unreliable character of Dr. Lardner’s data; while nothing was suggested about commercial profits or subsidies. It may therefore be inferred that Dr. Lardner’s arguments as to the consumption of fuel remained the same, although he may have abandoned the conclusion which legitimately followed from them—namely, that the long voyages were practically impossible.

The Report in the Bristol Mirror newspaper of the same date (copied from the Liverpool Standard) is as follows:—‘Dr. Lardner’s speech was little beyond a repetition of his discourse last year in Bristol, re-published by him in the Edinburgh Review. The voyage to America by steam he treated as practicable, but so uncertain as to render a profitable result hopeless.... During nearly all the year there was an adverse west wind, and the Gulf Stream was to be avoided.’

[124] She had only seven passengers on board; fifty, it is stated, were deterred from going in her by hearing of the fire.

[125] These engines were to have had two cylinders of 88 inches diameter.

[126] It is interesting, in connection with this subject, to mention the following circumstance. At Mr. Brunel’s recommendation, Mr. Humphrys consulted Mr. James Nasmyth as to the best means of forging the large paddle-shaft; as they could not get any manufacturer to undertake it. To accomplish this forging Mr. Nasmyth designed his steam-hammer, and though it was not then erected in Bristol, in consequence of the alteration of the form of the engines of the ‘Great Britain,’ it soon afterwards came into general use.

[127] In the Minute Book of this date it is mentioned as a reason for postponing any decision on the subject, that Mr. Brunel was making ‘final,’ and afterwards ‘further,’ experiments.

[128] See Mr. Guppy’s paper, printed in the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers for 1845, p. 151.

[129] This report is printed in Appendix II. p. 539. The paragraphs in which Mr. Brunel describes the advantages of the screw propeller will be found at page 552.

[130] A description of Mr. Humphrys’ trunk engines is given in Tredgold’s work on the steam engine (ed. 1838), p. 390.

[131] The balanced rudder, which is peculiarly applicable to screw ships, has encountered much opposition; but it has lately been successfully introduced by Mr. E. J. Reed, C.B., into vessels designed by him for the Royal Navy.

[132] It maybe convenient here to state that the dock in which the ‘Great Britain’ was built led into the Floating Harbour, which is a portion of the channel of the river Avon closed in. The Floating Harbour communicates through the Cumberland Basin with the river.

[133] One of the consequences of the publication of this report was, that Mr. Brunel received so many letters containing suggestions for lifting and floating the ship, that he was obliged to have a circular letter printed declining assistance; and more than four hundred letters were also received by the Company’s secretary.

[134] ‘The “Great Britain” Steam-Ship. Extracts from the letters of Captain Claxton, R.N., to I. K. Brunel, Esq., and the Directors. Bristol, 1847.’

Mr. Bremner’s apparatus is also described in a paper read by him at the Institution of Civil Engineers, and printed in the twenty-first volume of the Transactions, p. 160.

Accurate illustrations of the break-water and floating apparatus will be found in the Illustrated London News of August 21, 1847.

In publishing the correspondence to which reference has been made, the Directors acknowledge their obligations to all concerned in the arduous task of saving the ‘Great Britain;’ and they add—‘to Mr. Brunel above all their thanks are most due, for opening their eyes to what might be accomplished, and for taking upon himself the responsibility of her release, provided that Captain Claxton was employed to carry out his views.’

[135] Sir E. Parry was at that time Controller of Steam Machinery, and a warm supporter of those who desired to make a fair trial of the screw propeller.

[136] Bourne, on the Screw Propeller, ed. 1867, p. 263.

[137] The records of these trials, found among Mr. Brunel’s papers, show results which coincide in all material points with those given by Mr. Bourne at p. 284 of his work on the Screw Propeller, ed. 1867.

[138] Bourne, Appendix, p. xxxiii.

[139] The letter to Mr. Guppy of August 1843 (given above, p. 259) contains a reference to some of Mr. Brunel’s ideas upon iron shipbuilding, subsequent to the date of the design of the ‘Great Britain.’

[140] Extract from a memorandum by Mr. Brunel (dated February 25, 1854) on the early history of the great ship.

[141] So Mr. Brunel wrote to the secretary when excusing his own absence from the meeting on account of illness.

[142] Mr. Brunel concludes this report by indicating the best mode of contracting for the construction of the ship and engines, and suggests that an examination should be made of the river Hooghly.

[143] From the great length of this report it has been necessary to omit the less important paragraphs.

[144] The passages which are omitted refer to the relative cost and merits of the different tenders.

[145] Two years later Mr. Brunel spoke of the success of the screw engines as ‘a most grave question upon which hangs I fear to think how much.’

[146] Mr. Geach was one of the most zealous friends of the great ship. His death, within a year after the commencement of the work, was the first of her many misfortunes.

[147] Stringent conditions as to jacketing were introduced into the contracts; but they were not enforced by Mr. Brunel, in deference to the strong objections urged by the makers. He much regretted this concession.

[148] The destination of the ship as proposed at this time was Australia.

[149] The power of blowing off the steam without noise is of great importance, and Mr. Brunel made many experiments on the point. The noise of the steam blowing off, when the engines of a ship are stopped for fear of an impending collision or other accident, is so great, that it is almost impossible to hear any orders that may be given.

[150] The screw propeller of ‘Agamemnon’ was broken in a trial trip outside Plymouth Sound, on November 9, 1853; and the result was that, from not having efficient governors, the engines flew round at an alarming speed.

[151] Mr. Russell’s works. The ship was built in a yard immediately adjoining them.

[152] See, for example, an article in the Quarterly Review of March 1856, entitled ‘The Triton and the Minnows.’

[153] It must be remembered that this report describes the ship as she was at that time designed by Mr. Brunel.

[154] Extract from memoranda of October 5, 1855:—

‘By constant observation, to lay down position and course of ship, and correct compasses.

‘To record speed of ship through water by logs.

‘Revolution of engines.

‘Force and direction of wind.

‘Draught and trim of ship, sails carried, &c.

‘Temperature and peculiarities of sea water.

‘As the result of these observations, to plot down hour by hour the position of the ship, to compute the speed, variations of compass, the direction and force of current, and true direction and force of the wind.’

[155] Mr. Brunel also proposed to have charts prepared for the route of the great ship to Australia and Calcutta, similar in character to some which were made under his directions for the route of the ‘Great Western’ to New York, which he described as follows:—

‘When we started the “Great Western” to New York, I had a chart drawn and engraved of the sea (that is, the lines of latitude and longitude, and the bearings of the compass, and the coast and soundings) on a cylindrical projection of a great circle from Bristol to New York; and we found it very useful for the captain to see his great circle sailing, and to see how much he was deviating from it.’

[156] Captain Harrison’s command of the ‘Great Eastern’ after she left the river was unhappily of but short duration, as he was drowned by the accidental upsetting of his boat in Southampton Water on January 21, 1860, four months after Mr. Brunel’s death.

[157] With this paper Mr. Brunel enclosed a letter, in which he points out with great earnestness the responsibility of his own position.

After calling the Directors’ attention to the important step they were about to take, he proceeds:—

‘I am not pointing out a danger without being prepared to propose a remedy. The same man who, after he has been selected and appointed on account of his previous character as a sailor, and as an experienced naval man, would probably feel disposed to reject advice coming from those who do not profess to be sailors, and to resist directions which might appear to him as trenching upon his authority, or as implying doubts of his ability, could have no such feeling (if he is a sensible man and fit for the position) if his attention had been drawn to these views before his appointment, and if he accepts the trust reposed in him on the understanding that he is expected to pay attention to these opinions, and if, as I shall urge upon the Directors to ascertain, he entertains no objection to the adoption of them, and agrees to follow the principles of action which I hope to induce the Directors to adopt as rules in the navigation of the ship.

‘I propose therefore to lay before the Directors the result of my anxious consideration of this subject, to urge upon them the adoption of my views, and, if they adopt them, to urge that they should make it a condition in the selection and appointment of a commander that such views are approved of and adopted by him.

‘This is a strong and plainly stated request, but not more strongly put than I feel that the occasion requires.

‘I have an immense stake in the success of this enterprise. I do not refer merely to my pecuniary investment; but, as affecting my professional reputation, my stake is much deeper; as, although I was accidentally led by circumstances into proposing the plan we have adopted, and the Company was not originally formed to carry it out, and although the plan when proposed was well weighed and considered by men competent to judge, at all events, upon the prospects as a commercial speculation, and although it was adopted by them, and therefore they must share in the responsibility, and although many may share with me in the credit of our success; yet there is no doubt that I should have to bear solely and very heavily the blame of a failure. On this ground alone, therefore, the Directors, I am sure, will willingly allow me to urge my views strongly, and will excuse the length at which I do so. But I shall rely upon satisfying them that my views and opinion should command their concurrence on their own merits; and with this preface, which has already reached an undue length, I will lay before them a paper on the subject, most of which has been written for some time in anticipation of the present circumstances, and having been thus written at different periods is, I fear, somewhat disjointed, and wanting in arrangement, and therefore much longer than it might have been.’

[158] Shortly after the publication of this report, Mr. Brunel received a letter from Mr. G. W. Bull, of Buffalo, U.S.A., encouraging him to adopt the plan of launching sideways, as that was the way in which the large steamboats of the American lakes were launched. In the course of a correspondence which ensued, Mr. Bull gave much information as to the manner in which these launches were effected. He advocated a free launch for the ‘Great Eastern.’

[159] For an account of this and other experiments and observations on friction, see note A at the end of this chapter.

[160] The power mentioned here as applied for starting the ship was two hydraulic presses, to overcome adhesion at the first start. The river tackle was relied on to overcome the friction.

[161] See below, note A, p. 389.

[162] The reason for stopping was lest the ship should float at high water during the night.

[163] It remained a doubtful point whether or not the bow cradle was stopped by the brakes. Subsequent experience favoured the opinion that it had stopped of itself.

[164] The ship had always been spoken of as the ‘Great Eastern,’ and this name was specially agreeable to Mr. Brunel. It was not a point on which he set much store, but his views were pretty well known; and, as the name had not been of his choosing, but had rather grown out of the name of the Company, and the natural association of ideas with his first ship, the ‘Great Western,’ it might reasonably have been supposed that it would have been adopted. But some fastidious person suggested that the name was objectionable, as consisting of two adjectives. A list of names was prepared and submitted to Mr. Brunel on the day of the launch at the moment when he was busiest. He said off-hand that they might call it ‘Tom Thumb’ if they liked. The Directors, however, selected the name ‘Leviathan,’ and so the ship was christened. The new name never stuck to the ship, and she was registered as the ‘Great Eastern.’

[165] The action of an hydraulic press is limited to the length of stroke of the ram. Hence, as soon as the ship moved a distance equal to the length of the stroke, it became necessary to relieve the water pressure in the cylinder, to pull back the ram into it, and to insert between the ram of the press and the cradle an additional length of timber. This operation of pulling back the ram and putting in another length of timber was called ‘fleeting’ the press, a term used in many mechanical operations when the motive arrangements are reinstated in their primary position ready for a further advance in the work.

[166] On this occasion Mr. Brunel had his way, and there were not a dozen spectators in the yard.

[167] See note A at the end of the chapter.

[168] At this time the friction when the ship was in motion was not much greater than it had been on previous occasions; but, the adhesion being greatly increased, a large excess of power became stored up in the elasticity of the abutments and the chains. This excess of power, on the ship commencing to move, discharged itself in giving her velocity, and therefore she moved by short slips, instead of by a gradual motion, as had been the case previously, when the resistance due to friction and that due to adhesion had been more nearly equal. For observations on the friction, see note A at the end of the chapter.

[169] Mr. Stephenson went with Mr. Brunel into all the facts relative to the operations and all the experience gained therefrom, and examined carefully the investigations which had been made by means of self-recording apparatus, and which showed that the friction diminished as the velocity increased. So struck was Mr. Stephenson at these results that he urged Mr. Brunel on no account to neglect having the brakes properly attended to; lest the great adhesion should cause a large amount of stored-up power, which might give the ship such a velocity that the force of gravity might exceed that of the friction. The brakes had not been hitherto neglected; but, in conformity with Mr. Stephenson’s suggestion, it was thenceforward made a rule that, when a moderate amount of slack had been overhauled from the drums, the brakes should be put down, on a signal being given that the pressure in the presses was rising.

[170] Mr. Brunel received a great many suggestions for launching the ship. Puncheons, gas, artillery, and especially levers, were among the appliances recommended. With the desire of behaving civilly to well-meaning persons who were wishing to do him a service, Mr. Brunel adopted a plan similar to that which he had found useful when the ‘Great Britain’ was on shore. He had a circular letter printed, thanking his correspondents for their suggestions, but saying that the number of such communications had become so great that it was impossible for him to do more than cause the receipt to be acknowledged, with thanks for the intentions of the parties writing.

This plan had, however, the effect of increasing the number of his correspondents, as several of them wrote a second time to express their regret that their letters had had no better effect than to be classed with the numerous communications which Mr. Brunel said he had received on the same subject, which had seemed unworthy of his notice; and they explained that though other people’s schemes were, no doubt, worthless, still that their own, if adopted, would launch the ship.

[171] The number of the presses being almost doubled, but the resistance of the ship not being much greater than before, the elastic compression of the abutments was less than it had been previously, so that when the ship moved there was much less work stored up to give it velocity; therefore the slides were shorter than they had been before.

[172] Among the many congratulations which Mr. Brunel received on the completion of the launch, there was perhaps none which pleased him more than the following letter from Mr. Robert Stephenson, who had been prevented by illness from being present at the concluding operations, the critical character of which he had fully appreciated:—

A letter from Mr. Brunel to his friend Mr. Froude, describing the floating, is given in note B to this chapter.

[173] The principal dimensions of the ship and engines are given in the note to this chapter, p. 416.

[174] During the last-mentioned voyage, returning from Quebec, a north-easterly wind blew with a velocity of from 30 to 40 miles an hour. For the first 24 hours the ship paid no attention to the sea; the next day, the wind remaining the same, but the sea having got more swell on, the ship began to roll slowly and sedately, the rolls gradually increasing up to about 9 degrees on either side of the perpendicular, and dying out again, and then recommencing.

[175] Between the screw and the rudder was what was termed the after stern-post, which had no duty to perform except to steady the heel of the ship, into which the rudder was stepped.

[176] Before the ship was finished, Mr. Brunel had her stability and rolling carefully investigated. Calculations were made to ascertain the position of her centre of gravity and the other necessary elements for determining her stability and period of rolling.

He also had a model made, with arrangements for altering the levels of weights placed inside. By this means the results of the calculations were verified. It was determined that the ship would make a single roll from one side to the other in about six seconds. While she was in the Thames a steamer struck the hulk alongside and gave the great ship a slight impulse. Mr. Brunel, who was on board, took advantage of the opportunity to observe the period of the roll she made, and was pleased at finding it agree with the calculated period. It is to the investigations initiated at that time by Mr. Brunel that are due the great steps since made in the knowledge of the laws which govern the rolling of ships. Had Mr. Brunel lived he would no doubt have taken the same pains to record the rolling of the ‘Great Eastern’ as he had in the case of the ‘Great Western’ when, in 1839, he sent an assistant to America and back, who took observations of the rolling and pitching of that vessel in several voyages. These observations were made by a simple angle-measuring instrument, adjusted by the visible level line of the horizon, and not by the fallacious method of noting down the swings of a pendulum.

The ‘Great Eastern’ remains almost perfectly steady in ordinary rough seas. When the seas become very long, so that their period is nearly the same as that of the ship, she rolls; though the number of degrees on either side of the perpendicular is not large. By stowing the weights of cargo high in the ship, the tendency to roll has been much diminished, and when engaged in cable laying, with the enormous weights in the cable tanks all placed above the lower deck, she is remarkably steady.

[177] History of the Atlantic Telegraph: New York, 1866.

[178] It may be desirable to give a short explanation of these works, which consisted principally of a sluice, a trunk, and a drag-boat.

The Sluice was made in the abutment of Prince’s Street Bridge, and was intended to create a scour after the water had been let off from either side of the float, the opening at the bridge being closed by a caisson which had long been in use when (as was formerly the case) the upper part of the float was scoured through Bathurst Basin.

The Trunk, near the entrance from Cumberland Basin, is a wooden culvert between the floating harbour and the river. As much of the mud as could be dragged there was deposited at the entrance of the trunk, and, when the tide was low in the new channel of the Avon, sluices were opened, and the water rushed through from the floating harbour, carrying the mud with it.

The Drag-Boat was fitted with a steam-engine which worked a large windlass with three compartments, round two of which chains were passed and fixed to posts on the quays, and the boat was dragged backwards and forwards. The third compartment of the windlass worked a chain which elevated or depressed a scraper, attached to a long pole at the stern, and secured from swerving by a chain-bridle which passed under the boat. The scraper stirred up the mud, and deposited the more solid parts at the entrance of the trunk.

Mr. Brunel also desired that the float boards of the Neetham Dam should be put into proper working order; and that they should be altered so that, in times of land floods, the whole or a considerable portion of the excess of water should be retained, and passed through the feeder; and that even the water of spring tides should be allowed to pass the dam, and then be stopped back for the same purpose.

[179] The advantage of forming an air-chamber in the lower part of the gate, and allowing the water to enter above it, is that when the size of the air-chamber is properly adjusted to the weight of the gate, there need not come on the wheels, while moving, more than a trifling amount of weight.

[180] The arrangements of a buoyant gate have been explained above, p. 429.

[181] In the year 1856 and afterwards, Mr. Brunel was engaged in improving the navigable channel of the river Neath, at its embouchure into the Bristol Channel. A bank of furnace slag, for directing the course of the river, had been made previously by Mr. Palmer, and continued as far seawards as it was then thought could be done with safety. Mr. Brunel carried a training bank still farther, and succeeded in cutting off a bend of the river; Mr. Brereton has since extended the navigable channel in a straight line to low-water mark, a distance of two miles; and the bar has been lowered to within 1 foot of the level of the dock sill.

[182] Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition 1867 vol. i., p. xxiv. 194

[183] When, at the close of the Exhibition, Mr. Brunel was compelled, much against his will, to accept a pecuniary acknowledgment of his services, he spent the money in the erection of model cottages at Barton, a village near his property in Devonshire.

[184] See Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Ordnance, 1863, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix (ordered to be printed July 23, 1863):—p. 306, Report of Ordnance Select Committee; p. 44, Statement of Mr. Whitworth; p. 56, Evidence of Mr. Whitworth (Q. 1329-1337); pp. 58, 59, the same (Q. 1385-1410); pp. 402, 403, Papers delivered in by Mr. Isambard Brunel; p. 110, Further Evidence of Mr. Whitworth (Q. 2545-2551); p. 112, the same (Q. 2602-2610); p. 548, Letter from Mr. Westley Richards to Mr. Isambard Brunel.

[185] Captain Claxton, at Mr. Brunel’s desire, went for a voyage in Messrs. Ruthven’s vessel, the ‘Enterprise,’ in order to test her performances.

[186] This appears to be the only instance in which Mr. Brunel printed an account of any of his works.

[187] On this application of tin for the covering of the roof, Dr. Parkes observes (Manual of Practical Hygiene, London, 1869, p. 317):—‘In the Crimean War the roofs of Renkioi Hospital, on the Dardanelles, were covered with polished tin; it was found, however, somewhat difficult to place it so as to exclude rain, and the surface soon became tarnished. The thermometric experiments did not show a greater lessening of heat than 3° Fahr. below houses not tin-coated.’

[188] ‘At Renkioi, in Turkey, Mr. Brunel supplied square wooden sewers about 15 inches to the side; they were tarred inside, and acted most admirably without leakage for fifteen months, till the end of the war. The water-closets (Jennings’s simple syphon), arranged with a small water-box below the cistern, to economise water, never got out of order, and in fact the drainage of the hospital was literally perfect. I have little doubt such well-tarred wooden sewers would last two or three years’ (Parkes’s Manual of Practical Hygiene, p. 635).

[189] The woodcut, fig. 22, is a reduction of part of this drawing.

[190] The case of Ranger v. the Great Western Railway Company.

[191] See above, p. 192.

[192] The remainder of this letter is printed above, p. 192.

[193] Although Mr. Brunel endeavoured, as far as possible, to lay aside work during his visits to Watcombe, he found occasions for the use of his mechanical knowledge. He prepared tools for transplanting young trees; he did not, however, succeed in making them flourish as well as before they were transplanted, though he attended to the work himself, and took care that a large amount of earth was moved with the tree. The bridge of rough poles across the turnpike road between Teignmouth and Torquay is as good of its kind as his larger works.

[194] On June 10, 1830, when he was twenty-four years old, Mr. Brunel was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. He subsequently became a member of most of the other scientific societies; but he rarely attended any meetings, except those of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

[195] At the beginning of 1858, on the expiration of Mr. Robert Stephenson’s term of office as President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Mr. Brunel came next in rotation for election; but his failing health, and the pressure of his professional duties, led him to request that he might not then be put in nomination.—- See Inaugural Address of John Fowler, Esq., January 9, 1866.

[196] A drawing of their Nile boat, the ‘Florence,’ which he made for his daughter, exhibits the same beautiful minuteness which appears in all his early sketches for the Clifton bridge and Great Western Railway.

[197] Mr. Brunel’s Nile boat, being of iron, could not safely go up the Cataracts.

[198] A few weeks after Mr. Brunel’s death, a meeting of his friends was held, when it was determined to raise some memorial to him. A statue was made by the late Baron Marochetti, and a site for it promised by the First Commissioner of Works; but it has not yet been erected.

Mr. Brunel’s family, by the permission of the Dean of Westminster, have placed a memorial window in the north aisle of the nave of Westminster Abbey.

Along the bottom of the window (which consists of two lights, each 23 feet 6 inches high and 4 feet wide, surmounted by a quatrefoil opening, 6 feet 6 inches across) is the Inscription, ‘IN MEMORY OF ISAMBARD KINGDOM BRUNEL, CIVIL ENGINEER. BORN APRIL 9, 1806. DEPARTED THIS LIFE, SEPTEMBER 15, 1859.’ Over this are four allegorical figures (two in each light): Fortitude, Justice, Faith, and Charity. The upper part of the window consists of six panels, divided by a pattern work of lilies and pomegranates. The panels contain subjects from the history of the Temple. The three subjects in the western light represent scenes from the Old Testament—viz. the Dedication of the Temple by Solomon, the Finding of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah, and the Laying the Foundations of the Second Temple. The subjects in the eastern light are from the New Testament—viz. Simeon Blessing the Infant Saviour, Christ Disputing with the Doctors, and The Disciples pointing out to Christ the Buildings of the Temple. In the heads of each light are angels kneeling, and in the quatrefoil is a representation of Our Lord in Glory, surrounded by angels.

The work was placed in the hands of Mr. R. Norman Shaw, architect, who prepared the general design, arranged the scale of the various figures, and designed the ornamental pattern work. The figure subjects were drawn by Mr. Henry Holiday, and the whole design was executed in glass by Messrs. Heaton, Butler, & Bayne.

[199] Mr. Locke here spoke in feeling language of Mr. Robert Stephenson.

[200] There appears, from the table, to be an immense extent of paddle-board to this vessel, if the table be correct—greater than the midship section.

[201] In a Report by Mr. Brunel on improvements in the port of Bristol, dated December 26, 1839, the following passage occurs: ‘A great change is unquestionably about to take place in the carriage of merchandise by sea, a change similar, though possibly not so striking, as that which has so suddenly been effected by railways in land carriage. To ensure the speed which the passenger traffic demands, great size in the vessels is required; in the course of a very few years we shall find Atlantic steamers desirous of taking 500 or 600 tons of cargo to make up their draught.’