that also, as well as arguments from past experiments, some of which have most strangely been considered as proofs of repulsion. By the way, let the repulsionist answer this question-Why is it that electrified pith-balls will lie sociably enough together at the bottom of an electrified cup or a jar insulated, while attempted to be charged by the outside coating, and not fly up and hang suspended in air at a respectful distance from each other in the manner it is supposed the atoms of gases do? I have a great horror of this savage doctrine of repulsion. Let us once get rid of it, and establish homogeneous attraction in its place, and I fancy the science of electricity in all its branches will be found to have been freed from an incubus that has very much retarded the progress of discovery, great and wonderful and beautiful as that progress has been notwithstanding.

The beautiful simplicity of nature is assented to by every tongue. Let every head assent to it likewise, and, taking Newton's advice, determine to reject every cause that can be dispensed with in explaining aud experimenting upon natural phenomena.

When homogeneous attraction is established, perhaps some thoughts on the causes of conduction and non-conduction, as depending upon it, may be admissible. I suppose no one pretends now that the recession of water from greasy surfaces, and of mercury from iron ones, are instances of repulsion; but that every one acknowledges such recession, is caused by the homogeneous attraction of those fluids being greater than their attraction for those surfaces. When ho. mogeneous attraction is admitted in elec

These three qualities-materiality, attraction of affinity, and homogeneous attraction, being once established as belonging to electricity, perhaps the film will at once drop from the eyes of our philosophers, and enable them to see with a glance into many things now quite inexplicable. Perchance they may even be induced to talk of latent and free (I do not mean active) electricity, and of specific effects arising from the peculiar motions of each.

In all the instances I have met with of the denial of repulsion, that denial appears to have been treated either as presumptuous or ridiculous, and perhaps the first proposition of the bolder assumption (I will not at present claim a higher title for it,) of homogeneous attraction in electricity will meet with a still less ceremonious treatment; but 1 can afford to wait for its admission, and, as far as my own selfish feelings are concerned, should have no objection to find it denied till I have leisure and the pecuniary means (alas, at present, a very distant prospect,) to attempt the establishment of it by experiments of my own making. However, I am anxious not to lose any credit that might accrue from the first promulgation of this doctrine, and shall be obliged by your insertion of this letter, as well as two or three others that I am desirous of publishing on the points before mentioned. CORPUSCULUM.*

Leamington, Nov. 29, 1836.

George Stephenson, Esq., C.E., examined. The first scheme to prevent danger from sparks from the engines on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, was to put the wire under the chimney immediately above the tubes that come from the fire. It certainly lessened the number of the sparks; but that part of the wire soon got choked up, and the engine could not go on. Then we tried it at the top; there it was something like this, but

not so close. They could not get power enough with even that; it varied as the apertures of various sizes, till we were obliged to enlarge them. They were tried down to one-eighth of an inch; I think it was about that, but it was a wove wire; it was a number of concentrated rings. There is another scheme which I tried, of putting a large umbrella without any wire so far above the chimney, that all the sparks thrown out must

be thrown back again by the umbrella; but even that retarded the engine so much that I was obliged to give it up. It stood a foot above the chimney, then it came down the sides. The wind blowing will not measure with the carriage; it goes so much faster than that. A sloping inside shield at the lower part of the chimney, and again a sloping shield put at the top of the chimney, the second partly to cover the aperture left for the first, was tried on the Liverpool at my suggestion. My opinion is, it will not prevent the sparks coming, for if there is an outlet for the steam there is an outlet for the sparks. It is not confined to apertures; there it has a larger opening; the sparks will follow the current. I had a number of shields put down like a Venetian blind in rows, or like a Venetian blind hanging down like the shield spoken of; eight or nine of them I added at the bottom, and though there was plenty of space beside the shield, yet it retarded the power of the engine so much as to cause us to take it off.

J. Walker, Esq., C.E., examined.

As regards the importance of guarding against fire, I would beg to state that I have had a good deal to do with the subject of water-works for towns, particularly the very large water-works that were projected for the supply of the greater part of London. The prevention of fire was one of the articles that the parties held out in their prospectus as one of the inducements to subscribers and to the public to come forward to encourage these water-works, and of all other parties I expected that the fire-offices would be the more ready to attend to it; however, after giving the thing a good deal of consideration, and going to one or two of the offices, I was surprised to find the great indifference they had towards it, and I inquired how it was, and I remember one of the officers told me the truth was that they gave themselves little concern about, because it did not injure them; I said, "How does it not injure you, have not you to pay the losses?" His reply was, that if they had not fires occasionally they would have no insurances.

Hardman Earle, Esq., Managing Director of the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad, examined.

The first accident we had, I think, was occasioned by a single waggon of merchandise catching fire, and being communicated to the next it was entirely consumed, and the waggons also. We have, I should state, frequently on the sides of the road set on fire the long grass in summer-time; and the furze bushes have also been set on fire; and our attention has been consequently called

to it, and we have devised several means to obviate it. Your lordships are aware that a sudden blast up the chimney carries the coke along with it; the vacuum in the chimney formed by the steam being discharged into it causes the air to rush through the fireplace, carrying up with it out of the top of the chimney small particles of coke; we were under the impression that the accident arose from that cause, but we have since discovered that that was not the case; we put on the chimney-top what we called a bonnet made of wire with small meshes, which prevented any large embers escaping up the chimney, but we still found we were liable to accidents; we then discovered that it was the coke dropping through the bars, and falling upon the wheel going with great velocity was thrown a considerable distance. In all the accidents we have had on the road we found that it was those waggons in the train, two or three removed from the engine, which took fire, and therefore it could not arise from any thing that was cast out of the chimney, because those particles describe a very large arch and come down farther behind the train; and this led us to put what we call ash-boxes beneath the fire-place. Still we found when those got full, the cinders, by the shaking of the road, dropped out, and we were still liable to meet with accidents, and we now therefore have them inclosed back and front. There certainly has been since a difference in some measure in the draught through the fire-place of the engine, but not such as to impair its efficiency, and we have had no accident since that was done. The waggons consumed at the first accident contained cotton wool; there were about 2001. or 300l. worth destroyed; and at the last accident 30001. worth of merchandise, it being unfortunately silk goods. We paid for the damage, but I believe it was rather a doubtful point whether we were really obliged to pay, the goods being silk, and not specially mentioned as silk goods; but we did pay; we thought it our interest to pay, and we thought it right besides; it being a contingency which the parties did not and could not expect. There have been minor accidents, such as females having their shawls burnt, small holes in them, and men in the second-class trains, which are open, having some holes burnt in their coats; but since we have had the engines fitted up with those bonnets and ash-boxes we have not had any serious accidents, and do not expect we shall. But I should state there are other engines on the road besides those belonging to the Company; there are engines belonging to the Bolton Company and to colliers on the line; and the latter are not quite so particular, as the article they carry is net of that combustible nature as to be

likely y to be set fire to by sparks. It is an order that they should be done, and they profess to be in the course of doing it; but they are not quite so quick in their movements as perhaps they ought to be, and from that cause we may have lately had a little dry grass burnt on the road-side, which any person passing along the road may have seen evidence of.

Would you, as an individual member of a railroad company, prefer being compelled by legislative enactments to use particular precautions, or would you prefer being made liable to any damage which might be proved to have occurred by the locomotive-engines to the property of individuals through whose land the railroad passes?-I should rather, certainly, have the legislative enactment, if that prescribed the sort of security that the Legislature would deem sufficient, because it would be the duty of the railway to adopt it; but that security must not be incompatible with performance of the engine. You might close every thing up so completely that no fire could come through, but the draught would be so impeded that you could not make steam.

If there were legislative enactments respecting the use of caps, or a tray under the fire, would it not be easy to evade those regulations or to neglect the precautions?— It certainly would be, just as it would be easy for a hackney coachman not to have his plate on the door, but he would be subject, I conceive, to a fine if it was omitted.

Do you not believe the most certain way to secure the public against danger would be to subject the proprietors of railways to the liability alluded to?-I think it would be an immense liability; you might ruin a whole

concern.

Do you not believe that if the law were to cast that liability upon the proprietors, that they would consult scientific men who would discover precautions that would make that liability in truth one of very little extent ?— I think it might involve such very important consequences, that it would really be a serious objection to having any thing to do with property in railways.

You have stated that you believe there is but little danger to be apprehended from fire-But that is a different thing from fixing the liability on the Railway Company by law. It is possible that such a thing might happen, and the public are not so well aware as I am of these things, because I see them every day. Many people have a great dread of a railway who never saw one, but I have not that dread who have it before my eyes every day.

But in case of accident, do you not think that it is but fair that the company who are most likely to profit by the railway, are those

persons who ought to pay for the damage which may have occurred from the use of the locomotive-engines?—I am not sure that I do. A person may carry on a very beneficial manufactory to himself which is more liable to ignition than another, and yet it would be very hard to make him pay because he happens to set all his neighbours houses on fire.

Would it not be still harder on the neighbour to have his house burnt down? It is a contingency that the neighbourhood expects, and being in a dangerous neighbourhood he insures his property accordingly.

But then he must pay a greater premium in consequence?-So he may.

Is it not very hard and unjust to force a man to sell a portion of his land and then to burn the crops which he retains?—If he can prove they burnt his crops it would be

With the improvements that may be made in the progress of invention in locomotiveengines, is it not more than probable that they may be made so perfect that no accidents can arise; do you not think it a just principle that if you, for instance, had your house burnt down by one of the engines, the company who employ the engines should pay for the damage done?-These are opinions which I hardly expected to be asked, and they involve questions of law and equity which I perhaps am not equal to answer on the moment; they require a good deal of consideration.

You have stated that you do not apprehend any danger?-I am not very sanguine about very great improvements being made in these engines; we have now been at work many years, and there has been no improvement in the principle, though there have been improvements in the details. The engines are more durable, but there has been no improvement in the principle as yet; and I think that with these precautions the chance of accident is very remote. At the same time that is a very different thing to fixing the liability on the Railway Company by law.

If there is no danger according to your statement, or the danger is very remote, the liability cannot be much?-I do not know that it is much.

Then, why should you feel so great a repugnancy to the liability being thrown on the Railway Company ?-Nobody likes to have more liability fixed on them than it is necessary to bear; and therefore it is but reasonable to object to it.

Do you not believe that practically it would be found if the railroad proprietors were subject to responsibility for any damage done by fire arising from the locomotiveengines, that they would exert themselves in such a manner as to provide precautions

against danger, and that in point of fact they would be subject to very little loss in consequence of damage that might arise ?That would be the strongest inducement they could possibly have to take every pains in their power.

As a practical man, do you not expect in progress of time the calls made upon them for damages will be so small that they would have no apprehension at all?--I think the chance would be very much reduced of fire; but if you make a public company of this kind liable, it might give rise, I apprehend, to very great frauds,

In speaking of the lial ility to which the proprietors ought to be subject, I am suppos. ing it to be clearly made out that the aceident from fire did arise from the locomotiveengine?-But it is not always very easy to prove it. With all these precautions the thing may happen, and you lay it on an engine; it might have happened from a man smoking a pipe or a cigar on the train.

But is it not the duty of the proprietors and of their servants to take care that no

danger of that kind shall arise?-Yes, it is;: to do their best.

What is the amount of damage you have paid, since the Liverpool and Manchester Railway has been opened, from fire?-I should think about 40007., of which 30007. was on one occasion. We cover up all the merchandise with oil cloth.

You consider side walls are most essential precautions?-Yes, I think so, in case of accidents. All the new railways that are making now have mounds along the em bankments which answer the double purpose of preventing the engines in case of their going off the rails from going down the embankment, and the cinders from setting fire, though they were not intended for the latter purpose.

Do you, as a gentleman of considerable experience employed in the direction of the greatest railway in the country, think there is no danger from the locomotive-engines used at present, due precaution being taken; is that your distinct opinion?—That is my distinct opinion, due precaution being taken and persevered in.