The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-07 00:00:00

THAMES POLICE.

Yesterday John Sampson Spilling, the master of a small
steam-vessel called the John and Richard, plying between
London and Woolwich, and belonging to a new company
called the London and Woolwich Steam-packet Company,
appeared before Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. COOMBE, to
answer a charge of acting as master and chief steersman
of that vessel, he not having been licensed or approved of
by the Watermen's Company, contrary to the 33d by-law
of the Court of Aldermen, by which he had incurred a pe-
nalty of 51.
The case excited an extraordinary degree of interest,
and the office was crowded by watermen and persons con-
nected with steam-packet companies. The master of the
steamer called the Queen Adelaide, which lately conveyed
passengers to and from Greenwich, has been already con-
victed three times by a magistrate of this office, for carry-
ing passengers without a licence ; and the watermen, whose
interests have been sensibly affected by the deprivation of
the means of obtaining support, having succeeded in stop-
ping the running of the Greenwich steamers, have com-
menced proceedings against the conductors of those who
are conveying passengers to Woolwich, Putney, and other
places.
Mr. Noakes, a solicitor and the Secretary of the Wool-
wich and London Steam-boat Company, attended for the
defendant.

Edward Saunders, a waterman belonging to Hunger-
ford-market stairs, the complainant, proved that on the day
laid in the information, he saw the defendant acting as
master and chief steersman, and heard him give directions
o ease, and stop the vessel, to set her going, &c., between
London and Woolwich.
A waterman named Cadwell confirmed the statement of
Saunders.

Mr. Noakes cross-examined the witnesses, but without
shaking their evidence, and asked them what motives in-
duced them to commence their proceedings ?
Mr. BALLANTINE said the men were not bound to
state their motives for lodging the complaint ; there could
he no doubt that their business was injured by the steam-
ers, and as they felt themselves aggrieved they had a right
to appeal to the law.
Saunders said the steamers were taking the bread out of
the watermen's mouths.
Mr. Noakes—Have you not received compensation?
Saunders—None at all. I and my brother watermen
are injured by the Woolwich steamers.
Mr. John Ban on, clerk of the Watermen's Company,
said the defendant was not licensed or approved of by the
court to act as maker of the John and Richard.
Mr. Noakes—Does the Watermen's Company counte-
nance this prosecution ?
Mr. Banyon—They have nothing to do with it. I am
merely here to give evidence.
Mr. Noakes said it was the intention of the Company to
appeal in the event of a conviction, and he should offer no
defence, although he might otherwise make some observa-
tions on the case, which was one of great public importance.
Mr. Ryland, the barrister, said he was not engaged in the
case, but he should feel obliged if Mr. Ballantine would
suspend his judgment on this case until the next was heard,
as both cases involved the same point.
Mr. BALLANTINE said, he should be very happy if the
gentlemen would at once state their objections, if they had
any. It had been insinuated that the magistrates had no
jurisdiction ; he should feel obliged to Mr. Ryland and
Mr. Noakes if they would state why, because he was of
opinion that he had jurisdiction under the Act of Par-
liament ; if, however, they had any arguments to bring
forward to the contrary, he should be happy to hear them.
The evidence before them was, that the defendant acted
as master of a vessel without a licence, which was contrary
to Act of Parliament The parties had subjected them-
selves to a penalty of 5/. He believed this was clearly
proved, and it further appeared that as long as these vessels
did work in the manner stated, they would be subjected to
the same prosecutions, and consequently liable to the same
penalties. It was quite clear that the watermen would not
let the thing rest, because it interfered with their interests.
He himself was disposed to think that steam-vessels were
of great benefit, and the convenience they afforded to the
public was much greater than could be afforded by the
passage-boats or the wherries. These improved modes of
conveyance were the consequence of the improved state of
science, and they could not he stopped ; but interfering as
those vessels did with a most respectable and useful class of
men, it was very much to be regretted. He was quite sure,
however, that the Legislature must interfere, and he did
hope that the attention of the public would be called
through the medium of the public press to this very im-
portant subject.
Mr. Noakes wished to set the worthy magistrate right on
that point. The Woolwich watermen were not injured by
the steamers, but were in fact gainers, earning from 225. to
245. per week, by receiving one penny on account of every
passenger who landed. As to the watermen of Hungerford-
stairs, they had no reason to complain, as the watermen
there were not in the habit of taking long fares—it could
not therefore interfere with their business. The Woolwich
Steam-boat Company consisted of the most respectable ma-
gistrates, naval and military officers, and gentlemen of that
town. The establishment of these vessels had already cre-
ated a new interest, and was likely to prove highly beneficial
to the town of Woolwich. He felt sure that the public de-
rived great benefit from those modes of conveyance, as was
evinced by the encouragement given to the company.
Mr. BALLANTINE would not depart from the regular
course of proceeding ; he should therefore inflict a fine of
40s. and costs.
Notice of appeal was immediately given.
Thomas ATealc, the master of a small steam-boat called
the Fly, whs charged with navigating that vessel between
Hungerford-stairs and Putney, and acting as chief master,
without being licensed, contrary to the act of parliament.
William Andrew Cadwell, a waterman, and Hartley, the
beadle of the Watermen's Company, and another witness,
proved the case as far as regarded the defendant acting as
master and steersman.

Mr. Ryland here inquired of Mr. Banyon if the company
had any objection to grant licenses ?
Mr. Banyon.—lt is contrary to the practice of the Court
to grant licences to any but owners, who must be freemen
of the company. . _

Mr. Spiller said the Watermen's Company formerly li-
censed the boat, but would not allow it to carry more than
22 persons, although it was capable of carrying 50.
Mr. White, a warden of the Waterman's Company, said
the vessel could not accommodate more that 22 with safety.
If steamers were allowed to carry passengers to Woolwich,

Putney, Greenwich, and other places, many hundred wa-
termen would be ruined ; in fact, there was nothing but
starvation staring them in the face.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he felt bound to convict in this
case also in a penalty of 40s. Notice of appeal was also
given in this case.