1857.] on the Great Bell of Westminster. 383 



you choose to make it ; and besides that, when the bell is worn in 

 one place, it can be turned round to present another after you have 

 loosened the bolts a little. Clock hammers wear the surface of a 

 bell so little compared with ringing, that these Westminster bells 

 are not likely to want turning for 50 or 100 years, and therefore in 

 this case that advantage is not of so much consequence as usual, or 

 as obtaining the safest possible mode of hanging ; but as the power 

 of turning happens to be consistent with hanging the bell in the 

 strongest way, we all agreed in adopting this, except that the foun- 

 ders rather regretted the loss of the canons as an ornamental finish 

 to the bell. Anybody who has happened to read the aforesaid 

 pamphlet, which Mr. Baker has very diligently circulated, will see 

 his drawings of all the three methods, (I mean his own two patented 

 methods, and my unpatented one,) and will see also that he has per- 

 suaded himself, after the manner of patentees, that my " mushroom" 

 (the name which I think he himself gave it), held up under the 

 stock by four or six bolts, is identical with his pipe going through 

 the stock, and fastened on the top by a nut, — a point on which I 

 liave heard yet no opinion but one, that his own drawings are the 

 best answer to his claim. 



I shall conclude by giving you as complete a list as I have 

 been able to make out, of all the large bells in the world, except 

 in China, where the bells are of a different and inferior form. It 

 is substantially the same as that given in the Lectures on Church 

 JBuilding before referred to, but with a few additions and correc- 

 tions. 1 do not believe that the recorded weights of several large 

 bells can be correct, because they are inconsistent with the dimen- 

 sions, which are much more likely to be right. The bells of Sens 

 and Exeter especially, cannot possibly weigh as much as is stated for 

 them, viz. 15 tons and 5^ tons respectively. Indeed I am so con- 

 vinced of that, that I shall put them in the table at 13 tons and 

 4^ tons, and I believe that will be above the real weight rather 

 than below it. The Erfurt bell may, perhaps, be as heavy as is 

 stated, because I believe it is a thick one ; and from its celebrated 

 quality, the specific gravity is certain to be high. I doubt whether 

 the Paris bell is as heavy as that of Montreal, because its diameter 

 is the same, and its thickness less throughout. To be sure, the 

 specific gravity of the Montreal bell is probably no better than 

 that of the late Doncaster bell-metal, from the same foundry ; and 

 therefore I have left the reputed weight in the table for the Paris 

 bell, though from other calculations I still doubt its accuracy. On 

 the other hand, I am certain that the weight of the two great 

 Russian bells is very much underrated. There * can be no mistake 

 about the thickness of the large one, because a piece is broken out 

 high enough for a man to walk through upright, and as I said before, 

 the shape so nearly agrees with that of our bell, that the weight 

 cannot be very different from that given by the ratio of the cubes of 

 the diameters, and that would make it nearly 250 tons, which I 



