1857.] (m the Great Bell of Westminster. 379 



many as ten men. Secondly, I have a piece of the bell, or rather 

 of one of the runners at the top, which is always the least dense and 

 the weakest part of the casting, about 2 inches square, and '6 inch 

 thick. I tried to break it in two with a 4 lbs. hammer on an anvil, 

 both with and without the intervention of a cold chisel, and I tried 

 in vain ; whereas a piece of the Doncaster bell-metal, cast in 1835, 

 which was exactly twice as thick, and therefore t)ught to have been 

 four times as strong, broke quite easily under the first blow of the 

 hammer, although it is at the same time softer, but of less specific 

 gravity by something like 12 per cent., and visibly porous. 



In fact, the metal of this bell is superior in this very important 

 point of specific gravity to any bell-metal that I have examined, or 

 have found any account of, and to the highest specific gravity which 

 is given in any of the books for the densest alloy of copper and tin. 

 The only exception to this remark is that, according to my weighing, 

 the specific gravity of some small clock bells, made by a man of the 

 name of Drury (who is now either dead or retired from business), 

 was exactly the same as this, if not a little higher. But I do not 

 profess to have done it with the same nicety as the bits of metal in 

 this table (except the two first, which are taken from a book) were 

 no doubt weighed with by Dr. Percy and Mr. Dick, at the Geo- 

 logical Museum, where also the analysis of this and the old Lincoln 

 and York bells were made. And it is remarkable that there are 

 no small clock bells to be got now, equal either in density or 

 quality, to those of Drury's, who is believed to have had some 

 secret mode of making them, as they contain nothing but the usual 

 metals. It ought therefore to be made another condition with a 

 bellfounder, that the specific gravity of his bells should not be less 

 than 8'7 ; and this, you observe, is sensibly below any of the 

 specific gravities in the above table, except the very bad metal of 

 the Doncaster peal of 1835, which was always complained of as 

 inferior to the old peal which it replaced, though the new peal was 

 a heavier one. About a year ago, the founders of this bell were 

 warned that it would not be passed by the referees, if the specific 

 gravity came below this figure, at least unless we were so perfectly 

 satisfied with its sound as to render further inquiry unnecessary ; 

 and I convinced them by a simple experiment, first, that it was easy 

 enough to test the soundness of the casting without breaking it, and 

 secondly, that such a thick casting would not be sound, or at any 

 rate, not of proper density, unless the mould was made so hot as not 

 to chill and set the outside of the metal too soon. I may add, that 

 I knew before the weighing of the bits for specific gravity, that it 

 must be high enough, from the gross weight of the bell, in propor- 

 tion to its size and thickness ; for if the specific gravity had been 

 8*7, instead of 8*9, the bell would have weighed 7 cwt. less, — a 

 quantity quite large enough for calculation even in a bell of 16 tons. 

 I remember that the man who came down from Mears's to examine 

 the old Doncaster bells of 1722 for re-casting, underestimated the 



Vol. II. 2d 



