information relative to the question now at issue.

P. R. tells us that the Insurance-Companies incura risk so enormous, that they are utterly unable to realise any thing like the amount, should they be called upon to do so. In my last communication I stated the amount of property standing at the risk of the London fireoffices to be nearly four millions sterling. Now the real and invested capital of those offices is well known to be considerably above three times that amount; how can P. R. then venture to make such a statement?

The capital of most of the InsuranceCompanies, and the amount of insurances actually effected, are continually before the public, and very little trouble is re quisite for obtaining an accurate knowledge of this branch of the subject.

Fire-Fury (p. 227,) bursts forth with the startling announcement that “facts are stubborn things," and so he will most likely find them ere this discussion ends. With respect to the one he has sent for my digestion, my appetite's so good it scorns such trifles, and having well smoked, it, I return the savory morsel for his own devouring. Fire-Fury being fairly beaten out of London-finding that the insurers do not, and that the uninsured have no right to complain; that the public will not entertain his question -he has adjourned the discussion to Manchester. Proceed we there to meet him, being quite as much at home in the fire-department at Manchester as in Lon,

don.

Perhaps Manchester is a very eligible town for our purpose, seeing that the PUBLIC and not the Insurance-Companies, afford the required protection, by means of an efficient fire-police.

In the

I should have been much better pleased had Fire-Fury in common fairness have given the whole description (not a long one,) of "the destructive fire at Messrs. Faulkner and Owen's cotton factory," in lieu of the garbled extract he has endeavoured to turn to his purpose. first place, however, we will exhibit one small dose to Fire-Fury, in the shape of a fact. Being one of "the commonalty," of course he cannot know till he is told, that the Manchester town-engines (at least, three of them), which he calls "useless squirts," are twice as powerful as our London engines; each of them

being equal in power to Braithwaite's steam fire-engine! So much for fact.

Because the misguided persons, whom Fire-Fury designates as "scoundrels," and "the cold-blooded vindictive mob," showed none of the usual disposition to aid the firemen, he imagines a steam fire-engine would have made all right in no time.

This, however, is another sad mistake; in the present instance it is true, after the fire had been kindled, the crowd were content to stand neuter while the destroying element and the firemen contended for the mastery. Fire-Fury does notbut the Manchester paper does-tell us that the fire was stopped in its progress by Mr. Rose and his brave firemen (with the aid of their " useless squirts"), maugre the help of the mob; thereby saving considerable property, which, says FireFury," the steam fire-engine would have done without aid from any one."

But suppose, good Fury, that this same unruly mob had not been pleased to allow a steam fire-engine to put out a fire which they, or some one of them, had taken the trouble to kindle; they have cut one gash in the suction-pipe of the steam fire-engine, and farewell to its miraculous powers.

The fact is, that it is exceedingly difficult, if not quite impossible, to guard effectually against calamities arising out of the bad blood generated by longprotracted differences between masters and their workmen; but as far as the cant of the "House-burning system" is concerned, Manchester had better be let alone; protected as it is, by a wellorganised fire-police, provided with the most powerful engines at present in use, and suffering a smaller loss by fire annually, in proportion to its extent and the property it contains, than almost any other town in England.

Methinks Fire-Fury smells something of this, for in his concluding paragraph he skips back to London and flounders among the Insurance-Companies once more. I pray you, gentle Fury, discriminate between Manchester, where the public provide against the spread of fires, and London, where every species of prevention is laughed to scorn, and every mode of suppression disregarded, so far as the public are concerned. P. R. may well call this an appalling fact.

Many a fire in this metropolis and its

suburbs has been wholly unattended by any public fire-engine or fireman, and but for the exertions of the servants of the Insurance-Companies, whole streets would have been swept away in one common conflagration as of yore,

P. R. repeats a question to which he might as well take an answer from my last letter. If he is really a friend of Mr. Braithwaite's, and wishes well to his invention, he will cease to press the matter so pertinaciously. It is not for P. R., nor myself, to dictate the employment of such a machine; doubtless the parties to whom we think it would prove useless, will avail themselves of its aid so soon as they are satisfied of its economy, superiority, and trustworthiness. I remain, Sir,

Yours respectfully,
WM. BADDELEY.

London, Dec. 27, 1836.

THE INSURANCE SYSTEM.

Sir, Your correspondent, "Fire-Fury" (p. 227), if he had had his eyes about him, might have found a much more indigestible fact for Mr. Baddeley's mastication than that he has brought all the way from Manchester-and without going so far from home in search of it. In the very Number of the Mechanics' Magazine which was graced by his former letter (No. 696, p. 182) will be found a piece of evidence which throws much more light on the principles and practice of the Fire-Insurance Companies than a thousand such facts as those adduced by our friend with the terrific signature. I allude to the evidence of Mr. Walker, the eminent engineer, before the House of Lords' Committee on the danger from fire in the use of locomotive-engines in narrow streets. He tells us, that when employed as engineer to certain extensive water-works, one of whose objects was the better prevention of damage from fire, he waited on one or two of the Insurance-Companies, with the expectation that they would take particular interest in the matter, and he goes on to observe, "I was surprised to find the great indifference they had towards it, and I inquired how it was, and I remember one of the officers told me, the truth was that they gave themselves little concern about it, because it did not injure them; I said,

How does it not injure you, have not

you to pay the losses?' His reply was, that if they had not fires occasionally, they should have no insurances."

Now, this broadly-stated fact certainly appears to be by no means corroborative of Mr. Baddeley's very decided opinion, that " every nerve has been strained" by the Insurance Companies "to render the Fire-engine Establishment as effective as possible"-and to tally as little with his "answers from his own personal knowledge" of "YES" to Fire-Fury's question, "Whether the Companies desire a more effective instrument than the engine now in use?” In point of fact, this "nerve. straining" appears to be a very inconsist ent piece of business, even on the view of the state of the case put forth by Mr. Baddeley himself, which is doubtless the correct one. How can it be expected that the Companies should "strain every nerve" to increase the means of protecting property, two-thirds of which (the uninsured proportion) belongs to parties who pay them nothing, whether it is burnt or not?

The matter seems plain and straightforward enough; and Mr. Baddeley and his adversaries are perhaps not so widely at variance as they imagine themselves to be. "The Insurance-Companies do not patronise the most effectual means of extinguishing fires," cry P. R. and FireFury. Mr. Baddeley rejoins, indeed, that they do; but at the same time takes care to show the reason why they do not, and why it cannot be expected that they should do it; while Mr. Walker's evidence steps in by way of "clincher." It is quite obvious, that if preventive and other measures were carried to such a point of excellence that fires seldom occurred, and when they did occur were speedily put out, the inducement to insure would be very small. Now, this is the precise point at which it is the interest of the public to arrive; but can it be, for a moment, contended that it is also the interest of the Insurance-Companies? If the London Establishment were to adopt Mr. Braithwaite's steamer to-morrow, and it proved such a complete fire-eater as its advocates assert it to be, so that the moment a conflagration was discovered, it steamed itself off to the point of action, and forthwith destroyed every vestige of "the devouring element," what would be the natural effect? Why, that no new insurers would come

in, and most of the old insurers would back out! "A consummation devoutly to be wished," indeed, on the part of the Companies who had expended their thousands in encouraging invention whose success must needs involve their ruin!

This makes it clear that the matter really stands as P. R., in his original communication, supposed it to stand-to wit," the Insurance-Companies v. the Public Security," inasmuch as if the public security were perfect, InsuranceCompanies would cease to exist. Mr. Baddeley admitted as much in his reply, contending, very reasonably, that it was absurd to call on the Insurance-Companies to protect the whole of the property of "the public," when they were only paid for protecting, or rather for guaranteeing the restoration of one-third of its amount. Yet, with some degree of inconsistency, in his last letter he vouches for the desire of the Companies to procure the most effective means, and to "strain every nerve" to perfect the system of wholesale protection. How is this?

Fire-Fury and Co. deal very largely in threats of "public reprobation." But where is it to fall? On the InsuranceCompanies? No; they conduct their "trade" in the way best calculated to bring in the most profit; i. e. they like a fire now and then, provided it does not burn too large a quantity of insured property, and make a great parade with firemen in melodramatic costume and most imposing helmets, while they throw cold water on any new scheme for putting out fires too fast, and with too little stage effect! It is " the public" that ought to meet with "public reprobation." It is

to "the public" interest that the property of the public" should be preserved; and if the public" neglect to take the proper means of doing so, in the name of common sense, let the public" bear all the obloquy.

Before I conclude, let me say a word on the analogous subject of "Marine Insurance." A Committee of the House of Commons, it appears, have promulged it as their opinion, that the system of ship-insuring is pernicious, because" the risk of loss can be covered by a fixed premium of insurance, which being charged on the freight, and re-charged on the goods conveyed, fixes the real loss and real responsibility ultimately on the pub

lic." What a discovery to be set forth in these politico-economical days! Do the Committee really mean to assert, that the price of goods is determined by the mer. chant, and that "the public" (poor soul!) puts his hand in his pocket, and pays whatever he chooses to demand? Do they actually think that the merchant and the ship-owner may settle what the amount of "freight" shall be betwixt them, and that the much-enduring 66 public" is forced to reimburse the merchant, whether he may choose to give one pound per ton or one thousand? If not, where is the point of their observation?

Whether the merchant imports his commodities in insured or uninsured ships, the price paid him by "the public" is the same; it is, therefore, his interest to reduce all the charges as much as possi ble, and he will hardly go to the expense of insurance if that expense is not re quired. Custom, indeed, may do a good deal, but it is too much to suppose that it should induce a merchant to pay a shipowner an increased freight, in order that the ship-owner may pay a large sum for insurance to the underwriters; when all the while he might employ a vessel which would be certain to perform the voyage in safety, without any need of troubling the underwriting fraternity at all. But then, say the Committee, it is nothing to him; he charges it all on the public! If so, why not send a sound ship, and put the insurance-money into his own pocket? I remain, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,
AQUARIUS.

Dec. 28, 1836.

AERIAL NAVIGATION-A SUGGESTION.

Sir, The late bold aerial voyage of Messrs. Green, Holland, and Mason, will, in all probability, lead to attempts of still greater magnitude. From the suggestions of many, some improvements may ensue, which may perhaps facilitate the next great attempt. With much diffidence, I presume, through your journal, to suggest the following plan, which would, under some circumstances, enable the aeronauts after descending to re-ascend and continue their route.

The ballast should in part consist of well-made recipients filled with condensed gas; to each recipient a wellmade stop-cock should be attached, and which should be fitted to a cock connected

by an elastic tube to the balloon. By that method the gas discharged in the descent might, in some measure, be replenished. To recondense gas into the recipients from the balloon, would be more difficult, but not impossible; and I think a light and simple apparatus for that purpose might be constructed.* Could this be effected, the deserts of Africa might be crossed, as the winds are during certain seasons not variable. A country like Australia might be surveyed, and even the belt of the trade winds made a highway. To try the latter, a vessel might carry gas recipients charged with condensed gas, and the balloon might proceed to a certain latitude where, either over the launch or on a raft prepared, the balloon might be inflated from the recipients as readily as in Vauxhall Gardens, and then left to the winds and the management of the aeronauts. The best gas-recipients I ever saw were made by a Mr. Bowser, not far from St. Katharine's Docks; as some time has elapsed since I saw them, there may be others lighter and sufficiently strong for the purpose. There is no difficulty in constructing tubes six inches diameter and three feet six in length, which weigh only nine pounds, and which I constantly use at three hundred pounds pressure of steam on the square inch, and which are quite safe at 1000. It would be premature to enter farther on this subject. If it is worthy of the aeronauts' attention, I can always be communicated with; and I will merely add, that it would give me pleasure to put the idea into practice.

Your obedient servant,
NATHANIEL OGLE.

Albion Club, St. James's-street,
Dec. 26, 1836.

ON CASTING AND GRINDING SPECULA. (Continued from p. 219.)

Sir,-Referring to my last letter, I now proceed to describe the process of model. ling the metal in the sand. The boxes or flasks should be similar to those used by brass-founders, excepting that the upper box should be deeper than the lower, as the former contains the metal and block. Fig. 1 represents a section of the boxes when ready for pouring;

This has been repeatedly proposed; but I believe never tried.

a, the metal; b, a large block of wood in the shape of a cone with its vertex removed, and also a small piece cut off one side by a perpendicular section. The use of the block b is to afford a reservoir or supply for the metal which contracts on becoming solid; and as the block from its size is always fluid some little time after the casting itself ceases to be so, it affords a supply to the latter and prevents its cracking or sinking on the back. So completely does it answer this purpose, that on removing it from the sand it is scarcely more than a shell; its section being similar to that marked out by the dotted line b. For this essential improvement in the art of casting, as, indeed, for many others connected with the subject, I am indebted to my friend Mr. Carnfield, late of Northampton. It is in vain to try to cast metals with only a small git, as they will invariably be found cracked when the boxes are opened. A piece of wood is to be modelled in the lower box, the size and shape of which will be understood by the two views of it given at c, figs. 1 and 3; d, fig. 2, represents the lower end of the git; e, fig. 3, a little well or indenture made in