must have this new species of transit, and that therefore railways will go on progressing for many a year, until every link of the chain of internal communication is completed. Some think the present prejudice of the public in favour of railways is a mania. Let them think so; but it is a mania, like the astrono mical madness of Copernicus, the more it is known the more it will be approved, and the better it will be supported; for it is a mania whose cause is necessity, utility the effect, and mankind the party to be benefited. It will therefore continue, the public being generally too wise to neglect what is found to be advantageous. Besides, if one portion of the country has a railway, another must in self-defence, or sink rapidly in prosperity. For since no place is independent, it flourishes or not in proportion to its absolute and relative facilities of communication with other places; and because railways are far too expensive to be constructed at every whim, there can be but little apprehensions of rivalry; so that the line, which is once judiciously planned, will be a source of permanent as well as considerable profit. The only thing to be feared is, whether advantage will not in too many instances be taken of the present prepossession of the public in favour of railways to foist on them bad and profitless schemes, to the prejudice of those that are intrinsically good. Some do really appear to carry absurdity to a most daring height. It seems as if to make a railway is all that is needful, without the slightest regard to end, object, or utility. I have one or two of this sort in view, which I am surprised and astonished can find supporters. Others again, notwithstanding every facility is given of a good construction, are purposely diverted from the natural course, without any regard to public utility, and even against it, to pass through the lands of an individual who wishes to have the benefit of a railway, and may have promised his Parliamentary influence, with, perhaps, to individuals, a little more.

Thus it is that private interest often mars public undertakings, though it must be allowed much more frequently produces and cherishes them. What, indeed, would the state of this country

be, if it was not for the concentration of individual energies for private interest? As to patriotism in these matters, it is ridiculous to say otherwise, it is a mere name, a shadow the substance of which is private gain. Canvas the twentyfour millions of this empire; lay before them the paralyzing pressure of our national debt; and pourtray to them, in the most glowing colours that pen or pencil could, the advantages to the nation that would result from the paying of it off, and how few and small would be the voluntary contributions towards it, aye, or even towards the interest of it, if law did not compel them ! But publish a prospectus of some new speculation, feasibly showing a profit of 10 or 15 per cent., and the capital, however great, will rapidly be raised, together with an equal or a double sum in the shape of premiums.

The effects of private speculation on the greatness and glory of this country, and many subjects connected with railways, are so very ably handled in a pamphlet just published at Effingham Wilson's, entitled, "A Few Cursory Remarks on Railways, by Thomas Hammond," that I cannot do better than refer my readers to a perusal of it. They will find a depth and justness of thought, and a force and vigour of expression, that rarely characterise the pamphlets of the day. The chief fault, in my opinion, lies in the strong political bias running through the work. I may be wrong, but I cannot see what works of public utility have to do with party politics, nor therefore why the advocates of those works should mingle the one with the other. However, the opinion of a man like myself, whose ruling maxim has always been, “that every government has too many enemies for a prudent man to add unnecessarily to the number," is not likely to be much followed in the present day.

The Eastern Counties Railway.

This railway, which was projected last year, but from some electioneering circumstances, was then prevented from proceeding, has been revived. It is proposed to start from the junction of Bishopsgate-street and Norton Falgate, and thence proceed by Romford, Brentwood, Ingatestone, Chelmsford, Colches

ter, Ipswich, Eye, to Norwich; and afterwards to Yarmouth.

I have been anxious to obtain the inclinations of this line, but have not succeeded, owing to the survey being now in progress, and, of course, not in a state to lay before the public. According, however, to the reports of the engineers, it appears that it can no where exceed about 13 feet a mile; and if so, must be extremely favourable for locomotive power. It is likewise to be free from lofty embankments, deep cuttings, and, above all, from those sad nuisances, tunnels.

One of the most remarkable features of this design, is that of the line of railway crossing the course of every river, except two inconsiderable ones, at right angles. There can, therefore, be no interference with the traffic of rivers, and hence no chance of opposition and interests clashing from such causes. On the contrary, the rivers running across to the right and left of the railway, will be so many tributary streams of traffic to it, both from the east and the west; and will consequently give it an extension of breadth not common to railways. The goods they bring from the interior may be rapidly transported to the capital without the risk and loss of time consequent on a sea-voyage; and those brought from the sea, or which happen to be wind-bound, may also be sent by the railway in less time probably than it would take the vessels to clear the rivers. In a similar way it will happen with goods brought by the railway, which will form the trunk of traffic, and the rivers the distributing branches. Instead, therefore, of being opposing quantities, as rivers and roads commonly are when they run parallel, they will here, like the hour and minute-hands of a watch, be independent indeed, but both conspiring to one object, the utility and perfection of the machine.

Another remarkable feature of this line, is that of its running nearly parallel to the road the whole of the way. There are but two places in which it deviates to any extent, a little to the north of Ipswich and north of Colchester. Of course, a more complete monopoly of the traffic of the road will be the consequence than usually happens to railways; for as to rivalry between roads

and railways, when they come in competition, there can be none-either in speed or expense.

Of the Estimates of the Eastern Counties Railway.

It is a very general complaint, that engineers' estimates are almost ever beneath the actual cost; but here appears to be a most singular exception, at least in certain great items. For in stead of the estimate being too little, it has every appearance of being much too great. This is, however, so good a fault, that one cannot be angry with the engineers. If a man has to pay 251 for an article for which he had agreed to give 201, he feels vexed, and thinks he has been deceived, however good the bargain may then be; but if he has to pay 157. instead of 201., though the deception is the same in amount, he never complains nor murmurs against the man who has so pleasantly deceived him, but calls him an exceedingly good fellow. So here, I suppose, we must do the same; but let us to the point.

The distance from London to Yarmouth by the proposed line is 125 miles. At 30 feet wide we should have 3.6 acres to the mile; but for the purposes of embankments, cuttings, and approaches, we may set it at 6. Then 6 x 125 = 750 acres for the whole line; say, by way of allowing liberally for depots, 800. Now, gentlemen who well know the value of land on this line assure me it is exceedingly poor, and not worth more than from 207. to 30%. per acre. Taking it, then, at double the higher sum, or 607., we shall have 800 × 60 48,0007., or, in round numbers, 50,000l. for the total cost of the land.

Again, for the compensation to occupiers and owners, we cannot surely estimate it at more than our liberal estimate of the land; it is often calculated at a half or two-thirds. These two items will then make 100,000l. instead of 250,000l. given in the engineers' estimate. Deducting the dif ference, 150,000l., from their total estimate, 1,322,8607., excluding contingencies, leaves 1,172,8601. Adding to this, 10 per cent. for contingencies, the usual allowance (our very liberal engineer allows 277,1407.), gives about

1,320,0901., or 280,000l. less than the engineers computed.

On what scale the other items are calculated it is impossible to tell without the section and farther data; but if the same system is pursued, one may fairly conclude the line would not much exceed 1,000,000, or two-thirds of the engineers' estimate. This, in comparison of the known expense of other lines, would certainly be very low.

The Revenue.

It is customary with engineers to take credit in their estimate of revenue for some 30, 40, or 50 per cent increase on the existing traffic, which experience has shown the introduction of railways induce. What, however, is here done? The existing traffic is stated to be 1,124,2807. annually; and instead of increasing it, credit is taken for only 421,8907., little better than one-third of what there is now stated to be. Yet on this high estimate, and this unparalleled

diminution of revenue, they talk of a dividend of 15 per cent. profit.

No person can tell the credit due to the data on which the existing traffic has been computed, except him who has collected them; but if they are entitled to any reliance, the favourable result of two calculations made so decidedly against the project, is a proof of merit which richly deserves to be inquired into. Indeed, it was this very singular point in the prospectus which first attracted my attention. For if, while other parties use every means of lowering their estimates, and take credit for presumed increases of trade in order to make out a profit, the engineers here greatly overrates their estimates, and much underrate the existing revenue, it appeared to me to be a project with claims on public patronage much better founded than numbers of others now in the meridian of prosperity.*

Kensington, Oct. 1835,

JOHN HERAPATH.

It was a light gravelly soil.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRACTICABILITY

OF GUIDING AND DIRECTING AIRBALLOONS OR AERIAL SHIPS.

Sir,-The discovery that heavy bodies might be raised in the atmosphere by confining gas specifically lighter than the common air in a thin envelope, was first made by Joseph and Stephen Montgolfier, paper-makers at Annonay, near Lyons, in the year 1782. Since that time up to the present, a period of fifty-three years, the science of aerostation has remained almost stationary. Various attempts have been made from time to time to turn balloons to some useful account; but the means hitherto adopted, when put to the test of experiment, have universally failed. This result is to be attributed, in a great measure, to projectors being led by the analogies of marine navigation, without considering that the cases of a ship in the water and a balloon in the air are wholly dissimilar.

It would require more time and space than can be afforded at present to give a full and comprehensive view of the two cases, so as to convince those who entertain an idea that balloons may be conducted by means of sails, that their opinion is founded in error. Those who have informed themselves sufficiently upon the subject know, that by the action of the wind upon the sails propelling the vessel in one direction, and the action of the rudder in the water holding the head of the vessel in another direction, a middle course is obtained, which enables the seanian, even in contrary winds, by tacking about to steer his vessel to its destination. A very little consideration will show that these means are not applicable to balloons, because in the latter case the sail and rudder are both acted upon by one force, and, consequently, a middle course between two acting forces cannot be obtained.

The next mode of conducting balloons that presents itself, is the use of oars or mechanical wings, attached to the body of the balloon or to the car. Here a second force is introduced; and although the power thereby obtained may not be sufficient to urge the balloon forward against a brisk wind, yet by these means, however inadequate, the balloon is not wholly at the mercy of the wind, but is to

a certain extent under the direction of the aeronauts. But there are some serious objections to the use of mechanical wings. When the stroke of the wing has been made, it must necessarily be brought back to its former position before another stroke can be made. This occasions a loss of nearly one-half the time, and, consequently, of nearly one-half the power that might be employed in propelling the balloon. Besides this very serious loss of power, we must take into consideration the re-action caused by the pressure of the wings against the air whilst being brought back to their former position. The wings of the aerial ship are provided with moveable flaps, which fly open and allow the air to pass through in making the back stroke. This contrivance diminishes the loss caused by the re-action of the wings to a certain extent, but does not remove it altogether; the flaps must be opened by the pressure of the air, and therefore a very considerable loss still remains.

Besides these objections to the use of mechanical wings we must add, that the mode in which they are necessarily worked being an alternating motion, is the most disadvantageous application of power that could be adopted; because the impetus is destroyed at the end of every stroke, and the machinery for working them must be in some degree complicated, in order that the power may follow and adapt itself to the backward and forward stroke of the wings.

The same objections apply to the use of oars, except so far as regards the machinery; but whatever superiority oars may have in this respect, it is fully coun-. terbalanced by the disadvantages of the situation in which they are used, so that the power obtained with oars and mechanical wings is very nearly equal. M. Blanchard made an experiment with wings and a rudder in the year 1784, but he found they were a mere incumbrance. In the same year, MM. Demonceau and Bertrand tried the use of oars, which they thought gave them some power, but the effect was so trifling that the experi ment was not followed up.

There is another form of mechanical power applicable to the propelling of balloons so much superior to oars or mecha