The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-02 00:00:00

ebetningni

LONDON. TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 2, 1847.

The trial of HAMLIN, the engineer of the Cricket
steamer at the time of the unfortunate explosion
which took place on the 27th of August last, has
been adjourned, at the instance of the Crown, until
the next session of the Central Criminal Court. 'We
believe that no bill was sent before the grand jury
against him, and that it is on the Coroner's inquisi-
tion solely that the matter yet rests. 'We regret this
postponement for many reasons. It was due to the
public that no time should have been lost in bringing
to a conclusion the investigation into the causes that
led to the melancholy accident by which five human
beings have been deprived of their lives. It would
have been highly desirable that every additional light
should have been thrown on the transaction, in ad-
dition to the searching inquiry that had already
taken place before the Coroner, that it might be fully
and accurately known whether there is anything
really dangerous in the peculiar construction of the
engines used on board of the halfpenny boats, whether
there was any reasonable precaution omitted on
the part of the proprietors, and whether, in
fact, the same degree of safety is afforded
that is to be obtained in the other boats plying on
the river, and that the very great accommodation
yielded by the company may be made use of without
any degree of imprudence or foolhardiness. If there
1- not that safety, means should be taken without a
moment's delay to obviate the future risks to which
Passenger' may be exposed • but if, on the other
o
hand, nothing really objectionable ableis to be discovered,
if there is no extraordinary
danger beyond that which
must necessarily exist, and which cannot be avoided
by any human foresight precaution, the excite-
ment which naturally followed shocking an occur-
ranee should be calmed down, and no vague fears
should be permitted to prevent the people
their reach,e from avail-
ing themselves of the advantages
w
and by which they may be safely,
speedily, and
cheaply conveyed to their destinations, effecting a
double saving, both in time and money.
But if the public had a right to desire that no un-
necessary delay should have been interposed before
they should receive the assurance that would be af-
forded by a trial before one of the judges of the supe-
rior courts, with able counsel to speak on either aide,
it appears to us that the proprietors of the halfpenny
boats, more especially Mr. SMITH, upon whom a cer-
tain degree of censure has been cast, have had a still
stronger claim thereto. That gentleman has suffered
a heavy pecuniary loss, not only in the destruction of
his property on the occasion in question, but also in
the prejudice excited in the public mind against the
mode of conveyance he had provided, and which pre-
vented many from availing themselves thereof, and

every day increases that loss. Lie had a right, too, to
be permitted to vindicate his character on the earliest
opportunity. He has been accused of negligence and
carelessness where the safety of his 1 now-creatures
was at stake, of being actuated solely by the desire
of gain, and of setting aside and disregarding every
consideration that might in any manner interfere
with the amount of his profits. These are
weighty charges if well founded, and great
as the benefits unquestionably have been
which the public have dorired from Mr. SMITH'S
speculation and enterprise, 'WM edvantages would
not be sufficient to free him from those grave imputa-
tions. We shall, however, see from the evidence that
has already been adduced hew far they have been
warranted by the facts, and whether Mr. SMITH has
really been so much in fault, or his conduct been so
worthy of censure as has been asserted.
It appears that in the month of September, 1845,
Mr. SMITH, in conjunction with three other gentle-
men, formed a company, for the purpose of conveying
passengers on the river at a much cheaper rate, and
with greater expedition, than at that time or pre-
viously had existed. It should be borne in mind,
that at that period the lowest fare from Charing-cross
to the City was, by omnibus, Gd., and by steam-boat,
4d , that, in consequence of the crowded state of the
thoroughfares--to say nothing of the constant break-
ing up of the pavement, which frequently compelled
carriages to travel by circuitous routes—it was im-
possible to calculate on arriving at London-bridge
in less than half an hour. By the then existing river
conveyances it required from fifteen to twenty minutes
for the same purpose, two or three stoppages taking
place, which consumed much time. Mr. SMITH be-
lieved that by procuring vessels of a peculiar con-
struction the journey might be performed in from
five to six minutes, and that by the application of a
new patent, by which a considerable saving of fuel
would be effected, a charge of one penny to each
passenger would be sufficient to remunerate the pro-
prietors for their outlay. He accordingly had boats
made with both ends alike, which could be propelled
in either direction with equal speed and safety ; in
fact, each extremity would act either as stem or
stern. By this peculiarity the necessity of turning
in the river was wholly obviated, and a considerable
loss of time consequently avoided. These vessels
were fitted up with engines of a new construction,
being, as stated by Mr. SMITH in his evidence,
an application of WOLFE'S principle to oscillating
engines. They were found eminently to
answer the object intended ; the distance between
the company's pier at the Adelphi and London-
bridge was performed, without any stoppage on the
way, in five minutes when the tide was favourable,
and in seven or eight when against them. The
boats were crowded every journey, and many thou-
sands were every day borne on " the silent highway,"
and breathing the pure air of the river, in place of
enduring the heat, the bustle, and the delay that
would otherwise have been sustained. It is needless
to expatiate on the vast importance of such an accom-
modation. It was found that the punctuality of the
boats might be relied on, and consequently such num-
bers made use of them that the original low estimate
of one penny per passenger was proved to be far more
than was required to defray every expenditure, and
to leave a fair profit on the capital embarked in the
project. Had Mr. SMITH been an avaricious man,
greedy of gain, and anxious to obtain it by any
means, per fas aut nefus, he would at least have
retained the penny fares, or perhaps raised them when
he had established a character for his boats ; but,
on the contrary, he made a still further re-
duction—he gave the public the benefit of
his enlarged profits, and when the experience of a
reasonable time convinced him that a halfpenny fare
would prove remunerative the price was reduced
thereto, and that without any great competition to
contend against, or any perceptible falling off in the
numbers who travelled by his boats.
Formerly it was the habit both by omnibuses
and on the river to charge at a higher rate
on Sundays, thus making the hard-working man,
who had been closely confined during the week,
pay exorbitantly for the privilege of breathing
a purer atmosphere on the Sabbath•day. Mr.
SMITH was the first who reversed this principle,
who conceived that prices ought to be lowered in
place of being raised, in consequence of the increased
traffic, and he therefore conveyed passengers on
Sundays at half price for some time before the
general reduction of farsaa_
companies have reduced their rate; and persons may
now be carried from London bridge to Chelsea for
2d., and from Charing-cross to London-bridge by
omnibus for 3d. It appears to us that Mr. Smut'
may fairly claim credit as the originator of the re-
forms that have given so great a saving to the public,
and that every person in the habit of passing regularly
from one end of the City to the other, is indebted to
his sagacity and enterprise for an annual saving of
several pounds. Mr. SMITH was not only cheap
himself, but the cause of cheapness in others.
But let us see whether this great cheapness was
owing to any undue parsimony either in the price
paid for the boats or in the wages of the men, or
whether there was really that negligence that could
justly be censured. The contract for the boat has
been before the public. The agreement to supply it
was entered into with a respectable engineer; the
price to be paid, 2,5504, was not in any manner be-
low the usual rate for similar boats, and Mr. JOYCE
undertook " to make, construct, finish the whole in
all respects ready to go to work upon her station, of
the very best quality, best of materials and workman-
ship, for the sum agreed on." Here, at least was no
undue economy, but every exertion was made to pro-
cure the best articles of the kind for the public. The
men engaged were, according to the evidence,," su-
perior men, paid frum 15 to 20 per cent. higher than
any on the_ river." The stoker's wages were 1/. 9s.
per week, and CLARKE'S, the engineer, 31. This
did not show a desire to adopt any petty or paltry
saving to endanger the public by intrusting them to
incompetent persons.
It now remains to be seen whether or not there
was a culpable negligence on the part of the pro-
prietors, and whether they acted as prudent
men, whose lives and properties were at stake. Mr.
SMITH travelled daily back %Nerds and forwards by the
boats, and exercised his personal superintendence of
the mode in which they were managed. In his own
sworn statement, he says—" I have been constantly
on hoard, hoping by my presence to keep parties
steadily at their duty." This was certainly very far

'row either being negligent or careless. If there was

danger to any, Mr. SKITEL bilLlself participated

herein to the fullest extent. a minuto-book

was kept for the entry, of complaints, and

reports from the captains or any of the crew which
was upen tug an 1 inspected by, 1211 the proprietors."
Any passenger would have been attended to who had

stated anything objectionable, but none of those who

came before the Coroner thought it necessary to
inform Mr. SMITH, or any of the parties connected
with the company, of what they had observed, until
after the accident had take❑ place. But it may be
said that the complaint against CLAuKE was not pro-
perly investigated, and here comes the only part of
the transaction in which Mr. SMITH'S conduct was in
the least degree doubtful, or other than highly praise-
worthy, and of this we think a great deal too much
has been made.

CLARKE was a man who had received the highest
character. Mr. JOYCE thought him the best man in
his establishment, and had employed him for six or

eight months as superintendent over a number o:

men. Mr. SMITH said—" I never saw any irregu-
larity in tying the valves, and never heard of it until

the quarrel between CLARKE and the stoker. I never

conceived that such a thing could have been done. It
was reported to me that the stoker had accused

CLARKE of tying the valves on one particular occa

sion. This was when the stoker was discharged. I
spoke to CLARKE, who denied that he did such a
thing; he said he never could be guilty of such a
thing. The man who informed me had not the good
opinion of any one in the company. I had great
confidence in CLARKE, and took his contradiction of
tying the valves as a sufficient contradiction to the
stoker's assertion. I was satisfied with CLARKE'S
evidence, because he was the responsible person
and being responsible, he had enemies among the
other men." Now this, which was fullbo rated by Mr. PonErn, the superintendent, appearsco-
an extremely reasonable view, and such as any
person would be likely to take who heard a highly
improbable accusation preferred against a confidential