142 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[May, 



(Account, p. 292). The erection of the temporary harrack on tlie Rock for 

 the workmen {Report, 15th Novemher 1806) was also an experiment of his 

 equally hold and novel, without which it may wpU he questioned whether 

 the work could have been completed even in double the time that was spent 

 on it. 



7th, The Testimony of Mr. Rennie himself, in his letter formerly quoted 

 by me, and also of the Lighthouse Board by placing a bust of Mr. Steven- 

 son in the Tower, while clearly showing to whom tlie merit of building the 

 Lighthouse is really due, are facts, which, rightly understood, do not derogate 

 from the lesser measure of credit due to Mr. Kennie for the " advice" given 

 by him to the Board as the chief or consulting Engineer, the value of which 

 was in truth not so much real and absolute as contingent upon the event of 

 anything going wrong in the hands of Mr. Stevenson, the otficial and regular 

 or stipendary Engineer of the Board. Nor let it he forgotten that part even 

 of that advice was given by Mr. Kennie in a joint Report with Mr. Steven- 

 son himself, who, besides this, reported periodically and directly to his con- 

 stituents, and nut through Mr. Rennie, during the progress of the work. 



Upon these grounds I objected, and do still object, to the statement in 

 your work on the Plymouth Breakwater (for I know nothing of the 

 Address to which you refer); and I repeat, that Mr. Stevenson alone first 

 jiroposed and finally built the Bell Rock Lighthouse, and that while the late 

 Mr. Rennie acted juintly with him as the adviser of the Board, Mr. Steven- 

 son, as above shown, actually introduced all the improvements into the 

 design of the building, and the implements and methods of conducting the 

 operations which in any respect distinguish the Bell Rock Lighthouse from 

 the Eddystone. To Mr. Stevenson is also due the additional and much 

 greater merit of having followed Smeaton in personally conducting the 

 whole operations, sharing in all the risks, anxieties, and privations which at- 

 tended it, and encouraging by his daily example of zeal and self-denial, the 

 workmen who were resident for months together on that desolate rock. 

 The late Mr. Rennie did none of these things; and be, therefore, in the 

 letter above alluded to (which he addressed to Mr. Stevenson), most frankly 

 and naturally gives the whole credit of the work to my Father, by staling 

 that, if successful, the work would "immortalise him in the annals of fame;" 

 and the Commissioners who, from their frequent visits, knew every step of 

 the proceedings, and feit along with Mr. Stevenson in all his arduous toils, 

 have, as already noticed, also recorded their approval by inscribing bis name 

 and erecting his bust in the Tower. 



How strangely and painfully does your statement contrast with the testi- 

 mony of your late Father, and of those who were most conversant with the 

 facts of the case! You endeavour to raise a claim which Mr. Rennie himself 

 never made, founded on the meaning of the words Chief and Assistant ; and 

 had you, in disregard of all the known facts of the case, strictly confined your 

 statement to the literal terms which the juxtaposition of these words may seem 

 to warrant, you would still have done real injustice to my Father by preferring 

 an extravagant claim, not, however, so susceptible of a formal refutation as 

 the present one; while I might, in that case, have been induced, by a desire 

 for peace, to leave my Father's merits to that slower hut not less thorough 

 vindication which time not seldom mysteriously works out. But you have 

 not been content with the middle course of claiming a moderate or even 

 greater share of the praise, but have grasped at the whole. You have for- 

 gotten, or liave shut your eyes to the fact, that Mr. Stevenson was the 

 original proposer and designer of the work, — that he schemed all the pecu- 

 liarities which distinguish it from Smeaton's great work ; and that even, 

 technically speaking, he was Mr. Rennie's coadjutor in it, and along with hira 

 jointly reported on it, and gave advice about it, and, above all, that he per- 

 sonally superintended the whole operations; and having passed over these 

 facts, you have easily gone a little further, and have entirely suppressed all 

 mention even of his name; nay, you have actually claimed for the late Mr. 

 Rennie, as in your opinion the distinguishing peculiarity of the work, that 

 very feature which very prominently appears in Mr. Stevenson's original 

 design, made four years before Mr. Rennie had ever heard of the subject. 

 Y'ou seem to otter, as an excuse for the suppression of my Father's name, 

 the casual nature of your notice of the Lighthouse in your Address, 

 which, as I have already said, I have never seen. It is not to any such casual 

 notice that I refer, hut to your deliberate statement, on pages 29 and 30 of 

 your " Historical, Practical, and Theoretical Account of the Breakwater in 

 Plymouth Sound;" and I am therefore at a loss to comprehend your motive 

 in repeatedly referring to your Address, which I have never seen nor 

 heard of, and to which I have never alluded. j 



Finally, I ask two questions : \st. Since the example shown by Smeaton, 

 what credit can possildy be due to any engineer in connection with the Bell 

 Rock Lighthouse, which is not included under one or more of the three 

 following beads : — 



Either, the original proposal of Smeaton's Stone Tower for a rock in an 



exposed situation, 16 feet under high water; 

 Or, the proposal of any improvements on Smeaton's design and mode of 



carrying on the work; 

 Or, the personal superintendence of the work, necessarily involving so 

 much fortitude, zeal, and self-denial .' And, 



2dly, Which of these sources of credit can he claimed for Mr. Rennie.' 

 Y'ou speak of your intention to publish a "Work" on the Bell Rock 

 Lighthouse, in which you will "do justice to Mr. Stevenson, and all con- 

 cerned." What necessity can possibly exist for such a work, from the 

 hands of one who never saw the Lighthouse, after the public have been for 

 twenty-four years in possession ot an "Account" of it, prepared, at the 



command of the Lighthouse Board, by the Architect himself in his official 

 capacity, and in which the services of every one employed, from the sea-boy 

 to tlie " Cliief Engineer" are so studiously set forth, and no one statement 

 of which has ever been impugned, the pul)lic are best able to judge, llav- 

 i[ig said thus much, 1 should be unwilling, on grounds merely inferential, to 

 assume that I know what you intend by doing "justice to my Father, and 

 all concerned;" and I therefore abstain from expressing any opinion as to 

 your motives in issuing your proposed work. — I am, lic. 



Alan Stevenson. 



VII. Sir Jon.v Rkxnie to Mr. Alan Stevenson. 



[Hell Rock Lighthouse.) 



London, 10th February, 1849. 

 Sir — I have this day received yours of the 9th inst.,and have only to say, 

 that it admits tlie wliole case ; and as it will he unnecessary to continue this 

 correspondence, you will have an opportunity of seeing my statement in 

 print, and the world will judge for itself. 



You seem, however, to have forgotten two or three points, — Y'our Father in 

 his book does not clami the merit of even the first suggestion, but gives it to 

 Sir Alexander Cochrane— who proposed it to the Lighthouse Board in 1793; 

 neither does your Father claim even the second place, for he gives it to Captain 

 Brodie and Mr. Couper; and as for your saying that the late .\lr. Rennie 

 gave your Father the credit of it, this certainly is contrary to what I have 

 always heard him say myself; and I have some copies of his letters, com- 

 menting in very strong terms upon your Father attempting to claim the 

 merit. Mr. David Logan, Mr. Francis Watts, and all who were upon the 

 work, have given nearly the same evidence. I mean the principal persons. 



I am, &c. 



John Rennie. 

 To Alan Stevenson, Esq. 



VIII. Mr. David Stevenson to Sir John Rennie. 



Edinburgb, 13th February, 184!). 



Sir — In my Brother's absence I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 

 10th, received this morning. 



In order to prevent mistakes, I think it right to say, that my Brother's 

 claim as to my Father's having originally proposed the erection of the Bell 

 Rock Lighthouse, refers not to the mere establishment of a light or beacon, 

 which, from the days of thj Abbot of Aberbrothick has been before the 

 public, as fully detailed in my Father's book, but to the proposal to erect a 

 building of stone, which was first suggested by him in 1800. 



It seems strange, if the late Mr. Kennie did not give my Father the credit 

 of the work, that he should have written his letter of 7th September 1807 

 (for it is not a small degree of credit that can be said to "immortalise a man 

 in the annals of fame''), and further, that he should never, either directly or 

 indirectly, have intimated to my Father a contrary opinion. I confess 1 do 

 not understand, after so great a lapse of time, the grounds of a claim of this 

 kind, supported by an appeal to the statements of two foremen employed at 

 the works, and now dead, whose testimony can never surely overturn that of 

 my Father and of Mr. Kennie himself, as above alluded to. But if such 

 evidence be to be founded on, we have ample reference to persons noio alive 

 who were employed at the works in similar capacities, and who give a very 

 different account of the matter. I am, &c. 



David Stevenson. 



IX. Sir John Rennie to Mr. David Stevenson. 



(Bell Hod Lighthouse.) 



London, ITHIi February, 1849. 



Sir — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 13th, and have 

 only to observe, that your supposition that the late Mr. Rennie gave your 

 Father the credit of the Bell Rock Lighthouse is a mistake, for 1 have uni- 

 formly heard him say to the contrary. I view the extract of the letter you 

 allude to wholly in a different light. The simple fact of your Father having 

 been appointed Assistant Engineer under the late Mr. Rennie, and at his, 

 Mr. Rennie's, request, independent of any other point, settles the question. 

 It would be just as reasonable to give any of the gallant generals who com- 

 manded at Waterloo under the Duke of Wellington the credit of the battle 

 of Waterloo, as to give an assistant engineer acting under a ctiief, and ex- 

 pressly appointed on that condition, the credit of the work of the chief 

 engineer. I am sure that you will see that it is unnecessary to continue this 

 correspondence. My statement is being printed, and the public will judge 

 for itself. I am, &c. 



JoH.N Rennie. 



To David SteVffnson, Esq. 



(I did not think it necessary to reply to tliis Letter of Sir John 

 Rennie; but tliere is obviously no analogy between the cases he 

 comiiares, for tlie Duke of Wellington was present at the battle; 

 but Mr. Rennie was not present at the work.) 



A. S. 



