The First Inquest
The inquest on the victims who died at the scene of the accident was begun in the afternoon of the day of its occurrence, but then adjourned until the following Tuesday, 28 December 1841. The proceedings were held at the Shepherd's House Inn, which is near the scene of the accident. A jury of twelve men was sworn-in and the coroner began the inquest at 9.00 am. Those present included Charles Russell MP, chairman of the GWR, I.K. Brunel, engineer to the GWR and several other "influential gentlemen of the neighbourhood" including Mr R. Palmer MP, lord of the manor in which the crash happened.
The coroner stated that the object of the inquest was to hear evidence as to whether the earth slip that caused the accident had been sudden, or whether "it had occurred after a previous indication, which called-for and required the attention of the railway company…". Harrowing evidence on the identification of those killed was then heard: they were in the main stonemasons working in London who were returning home for Christmas.
The inquest then considered whether or not the bank slip that caused the accident might have been reasonably predicted. The first witness was a labourer who crossed a wooden bridge over the cutting twice a day and knew the spot where the slip happened. He had noticed bulging in the soils and a slip which had exposed drainage tiles at the same place, about two weeks before the accident happened. The witness did not know the distance between the wooden bridge and the slip, but the foreman of the jury said that it was about 270 yards (250 m).
The next witness was a bricklayer who said that he knew the cutting well and that about two weeks before the accident he passed over the wooden bridge and on looking down the line towards Twyford he had noticed two slips nearly opposite each another, one on the right and the other on the left. The soils in the right hand slip, on the southern side of the line where the accident had happened, had fallen between the bank and the rails and amounted to one or two cart-loads and lay "in a sort of circle". The slip appeared to have occurred in the bank ten or twelve feet up from the bottom of the cutting. The witness estimated the distance between the wooden bridge and the site of the slip as being about 240 yards (220 m). Asked by the coroner if he saw anything else at the site of the slip, the witness replied that on the day in question he had seen two workmen shovelling soils back from the rails. Through the coroner, Mr Brunel asked the witness whether he had seen drainage tiles near the spot, which he had not. When asked by a juror the witness said that the slip had not been made good, nor was it in the days that ensued. Mr Brunel then asked the witness if he knew that slips were normally left open to drain them, but the witness said he knew nothing of this.
Other witnesses called confirmed having seen bulging and slips in the embankment near to the site of the accident. A GWR employee testified that between two and three weeks before the accident he had noticed a slip at the place where the accident happened. He and four men had drained the slip and a watch was kept on the works by night, because of the risk that further slippage might occur, but the watch was stopped after the slip had been made good.
Mr Brunel in evidence then stated that he had examined the slip that caused the accident, but that it was a new one, close to the earlier one. The cutting was 57 feet (17 m) deep, 40 feet (12 m) wide at the bottom, 268 feet (82 m) wide at the top. Spoil heaps on the top edge of the slope had not moved and therefore could not have contributed to the slip. The passenger trucks on the train had been between the tender and the goods waggons because this was the safest place for them: "many accidents might arise to passengers if placed in the rear of the luggage trains" if a following train ran into it.
The coroner's jury returned a verdict of accidental death in all cases, and a deodand of one thousand pounds on the engine, tender, and carriages. The coroner refused to reveal the basis on which deodand had been made, but subsequently it emerged that firstly, "the jury are of opinion that great blame attached to the company in placing the passenger trucks so near the engine", and secondly "that great neglect had occurred in not employing a sufficient watch when it was most necessarily required".
Read more about this topic: Sonning Cutting Railway Accident