The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-01-15 00:00:00

was informed that he would be required to identify it, and
fill up the printed form, one of which was given to him, and
when he presented the Salvor's receipt for salvage; an order
would be given for the delivery of the property.
It then transpired, that the boatmen were not willing to
deliver it on board the ship in the river without being paid,
or a deposit made at this office ; the master said he had no
money, and would neither pay the salvors nor make a deposit
until the property was put on board his vessel.
It subsequently appeared that the master had made an im-
provident bargain with the boatmen, by having promised £l6
to whoever recovered the property, being under the im-
pression that 30 or 40 fathoms of chain were attached to the
anchor.

I explained to the master, that the act was intended in the
first place to protect the owners of property, and prevent
boatmen from concealing property and selling it to marine-
store dealers. While, however, inflicting heavy penalties on
wreckers, it equally protected them and insured them the
payment of such fair remuneration as the magistrates might
award, in case a mutual arrangement could not be made, and
that the law required that I should either hold the property
or a deposit.
I recommended the master to make a deposit, in order to
save the expenses of carting and labour at the depot.
This was done ; and on the delivery of the anchor and
chain, my clerk paid, by order of the master, £l6 to the sal-
vors, receipt enclosed.
The report was forwarded to Lloyd's, being above the value
of £2O.

I have not had any remonstrance from Messrs. Bramley-
Moore and Co., or been asked for any explanation ; and have
no doubt that, had the master paid the salvors, they would
never have reported the anchor and chain, but have delivered
it at once, without troubling themselves to ascertain whether
or not he was the lawful owner. The quantity of chain at-
tached to the anchor does not correspond with the master's
impression of the quantity on which he founded his calcula-
tion of salvage, nor was the anchor buoyed; nevertheless be
claims it, but he does not produce any marks ; and an anchor
of 21 cwt. is rather light for a ship of 621 tons. According
to scale it should be 26 cwt.

Messrs. B. Moore and Co. evidently write under misappre-
hension of the facts of the case, so far as this office is con-
cerned ; they evidently confound the exactions of the boatmen
and the ignorance of the master with the Merchant Shipping
Act, which, if properly understood, is intended to repress the
one and remedy the other.—l remain, &c.,
ILIENBY C. CHAPMAN.
J. H. Farrer, Esq., &c., &c., Board of Trade, London.

Liverpool, 18th December, 1855.
Mr LORD —We have the honour to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of your° Lordship's letter of yesterday, accompanied by
copy of a letter from the Receiver of Droits, in explanation of
our complaint under date of 10th instant.
It is difficult to deal with the special pleading contained in
Mr. Chapman's letter, but we are in a position to substantiate
our case by a simple reference to dates, and Mr. Chapman's
own documents.

We submit the case is not correctly stated by the Receiver
of Droits, and this will be pretty clear when the statement is
stripped of its garnish and reduced to points of fact.
It would appear from Mr: Chapman's statement as if the-
boatmen had accidentally found and picked up the chain and
anchor, as though they belonged to some wreck, and then
reported the fact at his office.
We submit there is no foundation for such a supposition.
The. boatmen who lifted the anchor and chain were employed
on board the vessel at the time the-chain parted, and a bargain
was then entered into between the master and the boatmen
for its,recovery and restoration.
The- chain and anchor were never lost in the sense and
meaning of a wreck.
We havre had the master of the "Pied-nee before us to-
day, and; read to him our letter to your Lordship under date
of 10th instant, and he confirms the' accuracy of that state-
ment.

In answer to the statement respecting' the payment of the
deposit, wa.refer your Lordship to enclosure No. I, receipt for
£l6 deposit, and LI 10s. commission, unfit r date Bth Dec.
Now with reference to the charge for reporting at the Cus-
tom-house, wethave made inquiry at the' Custom-house, and
cannot learn that any such report was evermade there.
We call your ;Lordship's attention to tire-following facts :
The chain andiantbor were delivered ow board on the 9th
instant.

Enclosure No:•2; the document to claim the chairs and
anchor, was sent here for the master's signature, and returned
to the receiver onAthelOth, subsequent to delivery on
board.

On the 14th this,decument was sent back ts,rts to have the
description filled up,, and in this state we sent it for 'elibr
Lordship's inspection; without date, descriptioneor deelaratioar.

The fees were paid;. so these were minor pci:nts,-- until we
addressed your Lordship on the subject.
We pass over the nonsense and dust about the boatmen.,
and fictitious claimants:

The documents her3with,. we submit, prove tae conduct of
this office to be a nuisance;. obstructive, 'and meddling- with:
matters not authorizedi* the Act of Parliament.
We are contending for", great principle; to pr.t a=tep to
unjustifiable interferenoeund. unjust demands upenchippiiig,
and we trust your Lorffehiprwill point out to the lerceiver of
Dcoits the difference between a cable and chain dropped in
the manner the ship " Pii)d-net's" was, and a chain, and cable
belonging to a wreck, within, the meaning of the-17th and`
18th of Victoria.

We submit our case to. your Lordship's decision, aced lope
you will order the 30s. feen,to• be refunded.—We have the
honour to be, your Lordship's most obedient humble servants;
(Signed) J. 1313IAMLEY-MOOSB =At Cob .
The Right lion. Lord Sulley,. of Alderley,
Llstsident of the Board ci 'Tiade,. London.

Office of Committee of Privy Council for Tiale,
Marine Department, 24th December, 1855:

Ginwrzatats-s,—My lords;'U'aveeare:fully considered the state.-
Ments forwarded by yourselires and by the receiver, and beg
to:calt your attention to the following observations.
The facts appear to be as follewsv—
The ship "Pied-nez" arrived. in. the Mersey on the 41thi
pember,. and on letting go theunchor, at 7 p.m. on that day.;.
the cable parted, and the anehori.with some fathoms of chain,.
was, slipped.
There were boatmen on board from the shore, and 4 the
master of the vessel made a. bargain with them to lift;fthe.
anchor and chain for £l6. Tabanchor was not buoyed._
It is, stated by the receivevtlaiit there was a dispute after-,-
wards-about the salvage; and'ithat the boatmen, suspecting.:
'that the master would not keep;tellis bargain, refused trrde- •
'liver the anchor on board without payment or a deposiil far,
:,£l6witil the receiver. UpcuatbiSpart of the case the evil nee
is not clear; but upon Mr. Chapman!s statement, that en the-
-Bth,. (foam days after the aneEenwas lost) Mr. William Clirld.,--
tian reported to Mr. Chapmen,, the: receiver, " an anchor and
seven• or eight fathoms of d.a. in;..lying in Prince's Basini,.,ancl.
pioked'np.n.ear the Rock ;" and that he then claimed Elko-tor-
Salra,ge._
On the afternoon of the szme4day,.(Sth) the master e&lhe
"Pied-nee" appeared to claim the property, and was toldthat
he must identify it and fill ap,a form, (which was givminto
him) and that when he presented:the salvor's receipt the pro..
perty would be delivered to him..
To save cartage and 1ab0ur,!,311%. Chapman recommended
the master to deposit the 1'1,6 with, him, to he paid by hirn,to •
the:salvors when the property.was delivered on board- This -
was. done; and the anchor and.chain were put on board. on
'the 9tl.

You. do not appear to lute the.bargain made for tha•z£l6
salvage,.but argue that thoanchor, Sm., were not wreckusithin,
the meaning of the act, and protest against the interference
of the receiver as not warranted, by which you haveobeen
compelled to pay £l. 10s._ for,charges, which you reqmeetimay
be refunded.

If the above facts are nstnccurately stated, my lorcitmill,be
glatt to be corrected ; but assuming them to be correct; .they
desire• to observe :

That it is the receiver'S duty to detain property, even
though not "wreck" where.there is a disputed claim,fer sal-
vage;. until the dispute is.settled, or security given (eci-463.)
This•power is given him for the purpose of preventing the
indefinite detention of the sproperty which might take place.
were the salvors to exercise- the rights which they, have at
common law of keeping.-it as security for payment of. what is
due to them. In the ppesent ease the salvors, it- appears,
applied to the receiver to Interfere, and he could not: lawfully
refuse. Had the salvage• been paid at once, tho•receiver's
interference might never:have been called for.
2. It is by no means dear that the receiver was-not justified.
in treating the property as "wreck." If that anchor was.
really all the time so buoyed, marked, or otherwise dis-
tinguished, as to be in-the custody of the owners-or-of persons.
employed by them, and, if these facts were brought to. his.
notice, it would not be, within his province to take possession.
of it, unless for the.. purpose above-mentioned, ,of settling
salvage disputes. 'Mit was not, or if any mistake •or dispute•
could have arisen as.te the ownership, the receiver, would, be
justified in treatingA as "wreck," and in requiring it toam
strictly identified.
If the anchor was. "wreck," it was riglt, to report l at
Lloyds, and it should, also have been repodo€l. at the Custom
House, under section 45`x, and the fee of 19s. would be payable.
If there was a,dispute with salvors, the receiver would, as
above stated, be, obliged to detain the anchor, under section
468 and woula.ba onbithtd to charge £l.
My lords have gone fully into this case, as they are-satisfied
that your ()bled in bringinc, it forwards must be to, sea the
receiver's position and duties placect on, a, proper footing.
They desire me also to enclose a copy of the instructions
issued by them to receivers, and to, nail attention to para-
graphs 3, 33-to 44, 52, and 53.
My lords delay their final communication to the receiver
till you have had an opportunity ol replying to this letter.
The papers inclosed in your letter, are returned, and I am
to request that the form of claim may be duly declared to and
delivered to the receiver, as a voucher for his protection.—l
am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
Messrs. Bromley Moore and Co., T. H. FAI.REE.
Liverpool.

(Copy.) Liverpool, 26th December, 1855.
Mr LORI:O,—We have the honour to acknowledge receipt of
your letter of 24th instant, and beg to thank your lordship for
the care and attention given to our complaint in connection
with the case of the " Pied-nez."

We are of opinion that some misapprehension exists on the
mind of your lordship, and shall now endeavour to explain the
points in doubt. _

We have had the master of the "Pied-nez " before us to-day,
and have read to him your lordship's letter ; and, with
reference to any dispute between him and the boatmen, he
most emphatically denies that there ever was any dispute
between them. He says there could be no dispute, they
having mutually entered into an agreement when the chain
was slipped. Whether the bargain was an improvident one
or not is beside the question ; the master never disputed or
tried to upset the arrangement. We here enclose the agree-
ment for your lordship's perusal, signed by W. Christian, on
the 4th December. (Enclosure No. 3.) This document is also
an answer to Mr. Chapman's statement about "some boatmen"
reporting and picking up a chain and anchor, as if they had
been found accidentally as wreck. (Enclosure No. 4.)
With reference, also, to Mr. Chapman's recommendation to
the mastermaster to deposit
thereosittlie
was£l6n
too
emna
sraeveeearteangdeatainedn labour,
thebou case,r,&
the
but that it was authoritatively demanded.

It is difficult to fix the receiver to any point ; his state-
ments are so uncertain and change from day to day.
We enclose copy of a letter (enclosure No. 4) received from
him, dated the 17th inst., from which we embody the following
extract :—"I have doubts as to the articles being what he
(the master) supposed, from circumstances which have since
come to my knowledge." Now there never was a doubt
about the property, and if there had been ally doubt, it was
too late to raise such a question on the 17th inst., when the
chain was delivered on board on the 9th inst.
There never was a shadow of a doubt about the identity
of the property, and such doubt was never raised till it suited