NATURE 



I2X 



THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1881 



THE STEPHENSON CENTENARY 



GEORGE STEPHENSON was born June 9, 1781. 

 The importance of this event to us who now in- 

 habit civihsed countries is certain ; for whatever view 

 we may ta've as to the inevitability of railways, it is 

 matter of history that for twenty-five years — 1815 to 1830 

 —after Stephenson had to all intents perfected the system 

 of railway and locomotive, which still holds its own, no 

 other engineer or competent mechanic went even so far as 

 to admit its merit. It is therefore to George Stephenson 

 that we are indebted for our existing railways, for the 

 immense extension of mechanical contrivance which has 

 followed in their train, and for all that these have done 

 for us in the way of improving the circumstances of life. 



As the custom of centennial celebrations has become 

 almost universal, it would partake 'of irreverence to allow 

 the hundredth anniversary of the birth of one who has 

 given us so much to pass unnoticed. But in what form 

 can we celebrate such an event ? No oratory can remind 

 us of Stephenson's name when we continually hear the 

 puffing of his engine. What monument can compare 

 with the cuttings and embankments seen whichever 

 way we turn ? In truth Stephenson's works are ever 

 before the eyes and sounding in the ears of all people. 

 We have no political or social purpose to serve by a 

 national ceremony. Killingworth or Newcastle will have 

 its dinner and, as we understand, the intention is that 

 some money should be subscribed for an educational 

 foundation. This is all very well, but it is confined to a 

 few who take a special interest in the place, and is no 

 measure of that universal offering to the memory of our 

 hero which goes up, not once in a hundred years, but 

 hourly. 



To the readers of Nature who are not only of the 

 travelling public, but to whom doubtless the works of 

 Mr. Smiles are familiar, anything we can say as to the 

 life and work of Stephenson must seem totally inadequate. 

 But not to let the occasion pass we will endeavour, by 

 reference to some of the features of Stephenson's work, 

 to illustrate a thought which has recurred to us with ever- 

 increasing force when considering the works of those who 

 have pioneered the way in practical mechanics. This 

 thought may be expressed somewhat as follows : — That if 

 we are to accept the proved ability to predict results with 

 certainty as conclusive evidence of a knowledge of the 

 laws and principles on which these results depend, then 

 it is evident that acute observation of mechanical and 

 physical phenomena does lead to a very clear insight 

 into the laws and principles involved, although the ob- 

 server may be — generally has been — altogether unable, 

 save by the prediction of results, to give definite shape to 

 his abstract ideas, and much more to give them articulate 

 expression. And further, that this apprehension of prin- 

 ciples, acquired by the observation of the dependent 

 phenomena, is the only real apprehension, and is a very 

 different thing from that knowledge or conviction of the 

 truth of principles which comes from reading or argu- 

 ment, and which, however useful for purposes of criticism, 

 rarely if ever leads to a prediction. 

 Vol. x.itv. — No. 606 



In the instance of Stephenson we have a perfect 

 example. He received absolutely no education except 

 by his own observation of the animals and other works 

 of nature in the vicinity of his dwelling, and the rude 

 mechanism of the surrounding collieries. Such too were 

 the exigencies of his existence, that although he was 

 assiduous in the task of self-instruction, as in all other 

 things in 1815, at the age of thirty-four years, and at the 

 very time when he was making his first engines, " Blucher " 

 and " Puffing Billy," the first of a race destined to over- 

 run the earth and create the greatest of all revolutions 

 though he could read|and write he had not as yet mastered 

 the rule-of-three. Yet in the construction of these very 

 engines he showed his confidence in results, the predic- 

 tion of which shows that he had acquired an insight into 

 principles which were entirely unexpressed at that time 

 and as regards some of which their expression is still 

 incomplete. 



Amongst the mechanism of the railway, almost every 

 detail of which was conceived by Stephenson, there are 

 certain details or features which, with a view to rescue 

 them from being altogether claimed for other inventors, 

 the friends of Stephenson have ever marked as bearing 

 more distinctly the impression of Stephenson's hand. 

 These are the smooth driving-wheel, the chimney blast, 

 and the multitubular boiler. This is as it should be. 



But, as it seems to us, in thus bringing into prominence 

 the special features of Stephenson's system, Stephenson's 

 friends have effectually diverted attention from that which 

 is of far more importance. Thus, although it has never 

 been claimed for Stephenson that he was the first to use 

 smooth driving-wheels, Trevithick and Hedley having 

 been obviously before him, it is contended ihat Stephen- 

 son consistently from the first maintained the sufficiency 

 of the adhesion, while the others invented " imaginary 

 difificulties" which led them to contrive all sorts of means 

 of preventing the wheels of their locomotives from slipping. 

 This view of the matter is however essentially wrong, and 

 is unfair to both sides, for on the one hand, while there is 

 no evidence to show that Trevithick or Blenkinsop ever 

 ignored the tractive power of smooth wheels, neither is 

 there any evidence to show that Stephenson ever main- 

 tained that the adhesion of smooth wheels would suffice to- 

 accomplish that for which the rack was being used. Had 

 he done so he would have been wrong. But, on the con- 

 trary, there is ample evidence to show that Stephenson 

 clearly perceived — that at the very onset he determined 

 by careful experiment — the limit of the adhesion of his 

 smooth wheels, and that he never attempted to use them 

 except on a level road. The question at issue is much 

 broader and more important than that of mere mechanical 

 contrivance. It was as to how far the locomotive should 

 be set to the task of the horse in drawing its load over 

 the hills and valleys, and how far the hills should be cut 

 down and the valleys filled up. 



This, the level road, the very form of the railway, was 

 Stephenson's main idea. And it was his foresight and 

 determination in respect of this that made his railways a 

 success from the first. His experience and observation 

 had led him to perceive what all subsequent experience 

 has confirmed, that the locomotive, in virtue pf its size 

 and clumsiness, could only be usefully employed on a 

 nearly level railway. He did not actually maintain that 



