ner's inquest on the body of the person killed, asserted that the accident would have equally occurred if the engine had been one with SIX, wheels. He cannot seriously expect the public to believe this. He must have meant what he said with a reservation; such as, that the six-wheeled engines he referred to were those of the old and still common form, with outside bearings. He certainly could not mean to say, that the risk of oversetting would not have been greatly diminished if the engine had been on six wheels, with inside bearings, on the same judicious plan on which the four-wheeled engines made by his firm are constructed, and for the first introduction of which they deserve all the credit which they claim. (See Circular of Messrs. Bury, Curtis, and Kennedy, in Mechanics' Magazine, No. 1006, and also the letter from the firm, in our present Number.) Our own firm belief is, that, had the engine been one of this description, there would have been no oversetting, and no damage from that cause, at least.

But there is another danger, besides oversetting, likely to result from the breaking of an axle. The sudden stoppage of the engine of a train going at the rate of between 25 and 30 miles an hour, (the rate at which the one in question was going,) is certain, if it remain on the line, to cause a crushing collision between it and the first carriage behind (and perhaps second) so as to make the latter swerve from the line, at the risk, in some cases, of being dashed against an adjacent wall of rock or earth, or, in others, of being thrown over a high embankment; and, as regards this sort of accident, it matters nothing whether the engine is on four wheels or on six. An absolute remedy for it there may be some difficulty to find; but all mortal harm from it can always be averted by carrying nothing in the first and second carriages next to the engine but goods or luggage. Many accidents have happened, as well from such direct collisions, as from engines turning over to one side, to the first carriages of trains, and many have been the lives destroyed by them; but very rarely has a second carriage been injured in

either way, and never once (we believe) any carriage stationed farther to the rear. Often and often have the railway companies been urged to adopt this obvious plan of protection; but, until just now, with only very partial success. When crowned heads have had occasion to travel by railway, the plan has been invariably adopted (killing a sovereign being, it would seem, more than they chose to run the risk of); but the vulgar million most of the companies have persisted in carrying as before, in close proximity to the engine. At length the melancholy accident which has called for these present remarks occurs, and Mr. Bury, in giving evidence respecting it before the coroner, is obliged to make this explicit admission

"An empty carriage or van, interposed between the engine and carriages, in this instance would have prevented the accident," (i. e. the death of the person killed.)

Mr. Bury is naturally asked by the coro

ner

"Admitting then, as you of course do, its safety, why do you not adopt this plan? Are there any objections to it?"

And he answers

The

"There are objections to it. matter has been a subject of great discussion, and I believe the company will now adopt the plan. Experience points out the necessity of doing something of the sort; yet there may be circumstances in which a truck or van, placed between the engine and carriages, would produce serious accidents."

What "circumstances?" We have heard before of such "circumstances," but always in so vague and mysterious a way, that we never could make any thing tangible of them. We cannot, ourselves, imagine any class of circumstances whatever, and do not believe that any such can ever exist, under which any serious accident could possibly arise from the interposition of a luggage van or two between the engine and passenger carriages-that is, accidents involving loss of life or personal injury, of which alone we speak, and about which alone the public have any anxiety.

The jury found a verdict of "Accidental death," with a deodand of only 5s. on the engine; but accompanied their verdict by a

recommendation to the railway company, "to place for the future an empty carriage, or luggage van, between the engine and the passenger carriages." Whereupon, Mr. Creed, the secretary to the company, announced that "The company had already determined upon adopting the plan suggested by the jury."

And this, gentle reader, is the little more reform which we spoke of in the outset as being the consolatory result of the little more killing and bone-smashing.

The four-wheel system, which was the primary cause of the accident, is still, for some time longer, to be adhered to on the Birmingham line, in spite of the many proofs which experience has furnished of its tendency to produce such accidents, and in spite of public opinion, often and most unequivocally expressed, on the subject; but the dangers attending it are to be henceforth so far diminished, that when axles next break, and engines next tumble over embankments, there shall be one luggage van, at least, between them and the passengers. Two would be better; but that would have been too much to hope for at once, at the hands of such slow-going, bitby-bit reformers. Let us be thankful that one step has been gained, as long as it is one so much in the right direction. We have but to wait for a few more such innocent illustrations as we have just had of the infallibility of the four-wheel system, and we may safely reckon on that, too, being ultimately classed among the exploded errors of a bygone time.

THE ACCIDENT ON THE VERSAILLES RAILWAY-ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

The important trial arising out of the awful railway accident of the 8th of May last, and which, in fact, is a grand inquest taken on the causes and consequences of this lamentable event, commenced on the 22nd Nov., and was continued de die in diem until Dec. 3. The Chamber de Conseil having, after mature consideration of the previous examinations, declared that there were no grounds for including the Council of Administration of the Company of the Paris and Versailles Railroad (Left Bank) in the pro

secutions, decided that M. Jules Bourgeois, Administrateur délégué; M. Bordet, Provisional Director; M. Henri, Chief of the Paris Station; M. Bricogne, Civil Engineer, Directeur du Matériel; M. Lamoninare, Chief of the Station at Versailles; and M. Milhau, Inspector of the Service, should be arraigned as guilty of homicide through imprudence. The act of accusation, or indictment, gave a full and minute recapitulation of all the disastrous circumstances attending the accident, enumerating the persons who became its victims, either by loss of life or severe mutilation. The points of accusation insisted upon by the prosecution were-the insufficiency of the number of engines for the service of the road, so as not to allow time enough between their respective jour neys to be properly inspected and repaired, when requiring repair; the unfitness of the four-wheel engine, the Matthew Murray; the want of judgment and prudence in placing it before the Eclair, a six-wheel engine of much greater force; and, lastly, the imprudence of running the train with too great velocity, whereby the accident was caused. On the question of the fitness of the Matthew Murray, the testimony was peared from the evidence that its peculiarities various and contradictory. It certainly ap required a skilful conductor, but it was declared, that with such conductor it was an effective machine. On the subject of the opinion of George, who guided it on the 8th of May, and who was among those who lost their lives on that day, who also is acknowledged by every one to have been both skilful and zealous in the service, the evidence was very contradictory. Some witnesses deposed that he had frequently denounced it as incompetent and dangerous, and others declared that it was a favourite with him, and that he took great pride and pleasure in guiding it. The charge of want of skill and judgment in placing the weaker engine before the more powerful one was rebutted. This was proved by men of experience to be the universal practice, and the suggestion that the strongest engine must overrun the weakest was shown to be false and unfounded, as the swiftness did not depend upon power of traction; and further, that if the stronger machine, by drawing with greater force, took the weight of the train, the weaker, by being thus relieved, would go the faster, and thus keep out of the way of the other, and could not be overtaken by it. The last charge, that of the train being urged to an inordinate degree of velocity, was, like the others, a subject of strongly conflicting opinions. Many witnesses, as well from among the persons who were passengers as from others who observed it from the roadside when passing Sevres and Meudon, im

mediately before the accident, testified that the train was then moving with a degree of rapidity that excited in their minds the most serious alarms. Opposing witnesses, however, affirmed that the train was not going at any greater rate than it usually ran when going direct, that is to say, without having to stop at the intermediate stations, as was the case in the present instance; and others deposed that a much greater velocity is constantly kept on many railroads without increase of danger. Upon the whole of the evidence it should seem that this deplorable disaster was occasioned by the breaking of the axle-tree of the hind wheels of the Matthew Murray, but the cause of this breakage could not be accounted for, and most certainly did not arise from her being overrun by the Eclair. The Court deferred giving its judgment till Saturday the 10th of December.-Abridged from the Times.

[The decision of the Court has been in favour of the defendants. The proceedings have not thrown any new light on the subject; and, strange as it may seem, the most correct and intelligible explanation of the causes of the accident which has yet appeared, is one to be found in the pages of an English Journal. The reader will perceive at once, that we refer to the excellent letter of "A Practical Engineer," published in the Mechanics' Magazine, page 341 of our present volume.-ED. M. M.]

The

free use of well known and familiar materials in particular ways is prohibited. The patent referred to is a case in point: for what is better known or more commonly used than hair soles for putting within shoes, &c.? and except perhaps in the application of a coat of India rubber on the under surface, there does not appear to be anything new in the preparation of the material. principle, or real merit of the improvement, is due to the earlier patentee of 1824; and consists in placing a layer of some material which resists the transmission of moisture between the inner and outer soles of shoes, &c. The first patentee used a layer of whalebone; and Mr. Baker, out of the large assortment of materials suitable for resisting moisture, has selected a layer of felted hair similar to what is used for false soles. This is the difference: but if the simple substitution of felted hair for whalebone form a just ground or claim for a patent right, why may we not, on the same principle, have patents for India rubber itself, cork, mackintosh, and other waterproof cloths, and similar articles, alone or in combination, to be used in this way, until the whole range of materials suitable for resisting moisture might come to be monopolized by patent rights?

BAKER'S PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BOOTS AND SHOES.

Sir, In No. 23 of the Mechanics' Magazine, 31st January, 1824, (vol. I. page 367,) appears the following communication from a correspondent :

"A friend of mine has obtained a patent for the insertion of a thin lamina of whalebone under the inner sole, which completely excludes the wet, even though the sole may be nearly worn through, the beneficial effects of which I have experienced by two years' trial." "S. D."

"Skinner-street."

The above appears to me to contain as clear an exposition as words can convey, of the principle of a recent patent for improvements in the manufacture of boots and shoes, an abstract of which is given in No. 995, 3rd Sept., 1842, of your Magazine. In fact, except in the materials used there is obviously not the slightest difference between the two.

The public have just cause for complaint, of the shadowy grounds on which patents are often nowadays obtained, by which their

RENEWAL OF PATENT.

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

Dec. 8.

(Present-Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Erskine, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, the Judge of the Admiralty Court.) SINISTER'S PATENT.

Mr. M. D. Hill and Mr. Webster appeared in support of the petition, which was opposed by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Cowling on the part of the staymakers.

This was an application under Lord Brougham's act for the renewal of a patent granted on the 18th of Dec., 1829, to Mr. James Sinister, of Birmingham, staymaker, for an invention of improvements in weaving, preparing or manufacturing a cloth or fabric, and the application thereof to the making of stays and other articles of dress, which improvements are also applicable to other purposes." The petition stated, that before this invention the cloth used for stays (sateen) was woven according to the usual and well-known methods of weaving, and stays were made by placing two surfaces of such cloth together, and sewing or stitching by the hand in such manner as to leave the requisite spaces for the introduction of the

whalebone, steel, wood, cotton, or other article or material with which stays were filled; and that in stays so made the work was not performed with so much regularity, the stays in the process of making became soiled, and they did not fit so easily or pleasantly to the wearer. The petitioner, after bestowing much labour and expense in devising means to obviate these defects, had succeeded in discovering a method of weaving whereby the cloth or fabric might be formed into stays, consisting of two surfaces united together in a proper manner, the requisite open spaces to be filled with whalebone, so being left or made at the time the cloth was woven, and the method so discovered was applicable to other articles of dress, such as braces, purses, bags, or reticules, &c.

The extension of the term of the patent was moved for on the ground of the invention being of public utility, and on account of the expense the applicant had been put to in perfecting it, and in law proceedings.

Several witnesses were heard in support of the application, which was opposed by

The Solicitor General, on the ground that the described fabric was not a new invention, and because the applicant had failed to prove that the invention (if it were one) was of public utility, or that he had not derived that emolument from it to which he was fairly entitled.

After a short deliberation,

Lord Campbell said, that in this case their Lordships were of opinion that no sufficient case had been made out to entitle the applicant to a renewal of his patent.

Henry Clarke, of Drogheda, in the county of Louth, linen merchant, for improvements in machinery for lapping and folding all descriptions of fabrics, whether woven by hand or power. September 13.

William Newton, 66, Chancery-lane, in the county of Middlesex, civil engineer, for certain improved machinery for excavating and dredging earthy and stony matters, in the construction of railroads, canals, cleaning of rivers, harbours, and redeeming of marshy and alluvial soils; also for boring rocks, indurated clay, and other earthy matters, for the purpose of blasting and remov. ing the same; the whole to be worked by steam or other power. September 13. (Communicated by a foreigner.)

William Henry Kempton, of South-street, Pentonville, in the county of Middlesex, gentleman, for improvements in the manufacture of candles. October 6.

Alexander Johnston, of Hill-house, in the county of Edinburgh, Esq., for certain improvements on carriages, which may also be applied to ships, boats, and various other purposes where locomotion is required. October 6.

Charles Augustus Preller, of 16, Eastcheap, in the City of London, merchant, for improvements in machinery for preparing, combing, and drawing wool and goats' hair. October 6.

William Geeves, of Old Cavendish-street, in the county of Middlesex, gentleman, for improvements in machinery for cutting cork. October 6.

William Baker, of Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square, in the county of Middlesex, surgeon, for certain improvements in the manufacture of boots and shoes. October 8.

Thomas Banks, of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, engineer, for certain improvements in the construction of wheels, and tires of wheels, to be employed upon railways. October 14.

John Anthony Tielens, of Fenchurchstreet, in the City of London, merchant, for improvements in machinery or apparatus for knitting. October 14. (Communicated by a foreigner.)

INTENDING PATENTEES may be supplied gratis with Instructions, by application (postpaid) to Messrs. J. C. Robertson and Co 166, Fleet-street, by whom is kept the only COMPLETE REGISTRY OF PATENTS EXTANT from 1617 to the present time).