Martin Stower Wrote:
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > ----------------------
> > > You’ve studied
> > > the systems of telegraphy in operation then?
> > >
> > > Back to obsessing about Brier. Sad.
> > >
> > > M.
> > He probably hasn't but I have. Malta's an
> > but I guess you already knew that.
> > Here's something to read.
> > Maybe a fast sailing ship.. Forty eight hours...
> > fifty mile per hour fast sailing ship. Maybe
> > How about a fifty mile per hour carrier pigeon
> > with extended range tanks?
> > Actually It could take a more direct overland
> > route, (As the crow flies)..so let's say .. A
> > to 40 MPH pigeon? (with drop tanks)
> Let’s see what a shining beacon of honesty you
> are, Ellison (or whatever your name is).
> You say (or imply) that you’ve studied the
> systems of telegraphy in operation in 1838—and
> then you come out with this failed-sarcastic
> drivel about carrier pigeons.
> Which does tend to show that you haven’t
> considered the telegraphy at all, doesn’t it?
> Beyond linking to an irrelevant paper for purely
> rhetorical effect.
> Fast sailing ship—why? 1838 was well into the
> age of steam. Forty-eight hours—to where,
> exactly? You haven’t said—and therefore, I
> infer, you haven’t given the problem realistic
> Perhaps you’d like to explain (as I’m waiting
> for your pal to explain) why the hard-nosed
> businessmen in the Cotton Exchange etc. accepted
> pure fiction from their local paper on topics
> which had commercial implications?
> Meanwhile, going by that evidence thing, I note
> that at least some of the shipping news in the
> Liverpool Mercury is explicitly headed
> “TELEGRAPH OFFICE”. You’ve got it back to
> front: the evidence is that they were getting news
> and getting it remarkably quickly: if your
> assumptions make it inexplicable, then it’s your
> assumptions are wrong.
I am somewhat disappointed with this post. It seems focused on a squabble rather than fact. I think you are the most likely member here to come up with something new on this subject.
Despite the sarcasm (somewhat funny) Jon E has made some good points:
-There may have been a telegraph connection Liverpool to London as early as 1838 but unlikely ,to virtually impossible, that there was connection to Egypt, Malta or Italy.
-If you check again you will find that the research many have done on the Beatrice (as indefinite as it is) indicate that it was MOST likely pure sail and not a steamer.
- Quarantine is imposed on arrival. The little reading I have done on the subject indicate that Italy (Livorno) was particularly very strict imposing up to a 40 day quarrantine.
To progress serious study of the subject I suggest:
It is critical that someone finds the microfiche copy of the letter Campbell to Forshall. All we have is the quote re loading of sarcophogus but the context of that letter (other bits) I think might provide more insight. That is why I bumped this thread hoping that "Dune" had a copy.
Also, I contacted Broughton, but his reply to me indicates he was in part reliant on others research of the movements and itinary of Beatrice's regular voyages. What we need to find out is the route regularly taken and determine why it sailed to Livorno ... seems almost a separate trip to me especially if it went back to Malta?
The big issue IMHO is for someone to identify and research the family history of the crew. If they all survived, as Boughton suggests?????... then were was the next time they 'surfaced' and where.. Spain Italy or UK????
I think it most likely that the "Shipping news" both Mercury and The Times was likely based on communication with other ship arrivals (captains) to UK to give an indication of where other ships intended to be, rather than confirmed actually were.
Clearly Vyse has confused the subject of movements.... because it is impossible to meet the schedule indicated in a sailing ship.
Comments only, not precious about it, nor wanting to enter a pointless squabble.