The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-02 00:00:00

COMMITTEE. THE COLLISION ON THE OXFORD,
WOR CHESTER, AND WOLVERHAMP-
TON RAILWAY.

TO- TIE EISITOE, OF THE sm.-

_Six,—Will you allow me to concentrate my
objections to the Report of the Bank Committee
into the space of a column. The subject not being
sufficiently interesting to your readers to warrant
the insertion of a series of letters, I will confine

myself to an endeavour to show that in drawing
up that report the public have not been fairly dealt
with, and to expose the fallacies of only one of its
paragraphs, though I am prepared to show that
nearly all those expressive of opinion are equally
objectionable and opposed to the facts given in
evidence. I will now call attention to the fallacious
statement in paragraph No. 60. Instead of " the
supply of gold in the coffers of the Bank being (as
stated in the paragraph) beyond dispute greater
under the Act of 1844 than ever was maintained
under circumstances of pressure in former times,"
the reverse was positively the case, and had the
Act been in force duffing the former crises men-
tioned, of 1825, 1837-1839, the Bank must then,
as in 1847 and 1857, have stopped payment, or the
Act been suspended. The fallacy here is in con-
founding the two departments of issue and banking
together, and treating them as one and the same ;
whereas the banking department represents only
and actually the Bank, and has no more to do with
the issue department than any private banker or
individual who holds notes, and can claim gold for
them at the office of that department. In reference
to this state of things (see Lords' Report, page 14)
the following important evidence was given by the
Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of
England :
" You had only £1,600,000 in the banking de-
partment for the payment of your liabilities ? Yes.
" If anybody had called upon you for anything
beyond that million and a half you must have
stopped payment ? Yes, we must.
" .At that time, if there had been no separation
between the two *departments; and the Bank of
England had been conducted on its old principle,
instead of being within one million and a half of
stopping, there would have been nearly eight mil-
lions and a half in your vaults ? Wd should have
had eight millions and a half in our vaults."
The increase of gold in the Issue Department in
1847 and in 1857 may be attributed to the Act of
1844, for, although the great increase of trade which
had taken place was the primary cause, by calling
for more legal tender money to carry it on, yet as
Bank of England note legal tender could. not 'be
had under the Act of 1844 without depositing gold,
that Act was undoubtedly the cause of that in-
crease in the Issue Department. But this was ob-
tained at the expense of increasing the danger of
the Bank stopping. payment, to depositors and to
fundholders, of their dividends, in order to ensure
the convertibility of the notes of the Bank of Eng-
land which had never been doubted, and for the
greater part of which the whole nation, through its
debt to the Bank, was a 'guarantee.
The following table, compiled from the Appen-
dix No. 10, and from page 10 of the Report of the
Committee of the House of Commons, exemplifies
these views :
In 1825 the Bullion fell to £1,261,000. This was previous to the
Act of 1844, when the
Bank was one and undi-
vided in its departments,
and had entire control
over all the bullion.
£3,831,000 Ditto.
£2,406,000 Ditto.
£448,000 Being subsequent to the
Act of 1844, which sepa-
rated the Bank Depart-
ment from the Issue De-
partment, and deprived
the Bank of any greater
control over the gold in
the Issue Department
than was possessed by
any. other private bank
or individual who held
notes which they could
present for gold.
In 1856 Ditto £615,000 Ditto
In 1857 Ditto £581,000 Ditto
Had the Act of 1844 been passed before the crises
of 1825, 1837-1839, it must also have been sus-
pended during those periods, as the notes in circu-
lation exceeded what would have been permitted
by that Act by
£4,739,000 in 1825
£704,750 in 1837
£765,500 in 1839

In 1837
In 1839
In 1847

Ditto
Ditto
Ditto

Thus, the lowest
amount of bullion

1825. 1837. 1839.
was— £1,261,000 .. £3,831,000 .. £2,406,000
Notes allowed to be
issued by Act of
1844

£15,261,000 .. £17,837,000 .. £16,406,000

•
Notes in circulation
at the period of the
lowest amount of
bullion reserve ... £20,000,000 .. £18,535,752 .. £17,177,000

Excess beyond what
the Act of 1844
would have allowed £4,730,000 .. £701,750 £705,500
The Committee say " that the opinion of the pre-
sent Bank directors is strongly in favour of main-
taining the Act of 1844, but as the Committee were
appointed to take into consideration the evidence
also given before the Committee of 1847, why did
not they in fairness state in their report that Mr.
Horsley Palmer, who had been twice Governor of
the Bank, and thirty-seven years a bank director,
was of a directly contrary opinion, and said (877),
" I feel the objection to the Act to be so consider-
able, that if it were possible I would get rid of it
altogether, and leave the matter as it stood before
the Act was enacted. It is not unnatural that the
present directors should be in favour of maintaining
an act and a monopoly which give them in a panic
a greater dividend than in ordinary and steady
times ? In 1857, the year of the last panic, they
declared a dividend of 11 per cent. in the last half
of the year, being 4 per cent. more than in the last
half year of 1852—the rate of discount ranging
then from 2 to 21 per cent., and from 51 to 10 per
cent. in 1857.
" They say that the assistance which they gave
to the public would not have been ventured on by
them except for the Treasury letter," which means,
except for the suspension of the Act of 1844.
Surely this admission was sufficient at once to con-
demn the act ' • but to counteract this obvious de-
duction, the Report goes on to say, "Nor would
they have ventured to act on that letter if the bul-
lion had been much lower than it was, for they
must have begun to think of the convertibility of the
note." The fact, however, was that little discretion
was left to them as to venturing to act on the letter,
for it is notorious that three of the largest houses in
London had determined on the day preceding the
issue of the letter, that if some such letter were
not issued, and of course acted upon, they would
call for deposits sufficient to stop the bank. 'With
a reserve of only £581,000 for both London and
the country branches together, the directors and
the Bank were at the mercy of any firm or firms
that could demand more than probably half that
amount of deposits in Threadneedle-street.
" The directors further state that for these rea-
sons it appears that the adoption of the policy
which the Act now in force required, placed the
Bank of England in such a position that it was en-
abled at the time of severest pressure to afford a
larger aid to the commercial public than would
otherwise have been in their power."
Was it fair here to suppress the very contrary
opinion of Mr. Horsley Palmer' supported by the
fact that in the crisis of 1837 the Bank did advance
L. 6,000,000 to America, thereby saving our best
trade and customers, which could not have been
done under the Act of 1844.
" That was the means of saving the American
houses. There were three of the principal Ameri-
can houses that failed, but the aid afforded by, the
Bank rendered essential service to others engaged
in that trade. Almost every house connected with
America was in a state of discredit, and unless the
Bank had come forward at that period I do not
believe that there would have been more than one
or two houses that could have sustained them-
selves.
" And the Bank could not have done so, if the
Act of 1844 had been in existence ? Certainly not."
May it not be presumed that if the Bank had not
been trammelled last year with the Act of 1844,
they could have prevented the failure of Messrs.
Denistoun and Co., Messrs. Naylor, Vickers, and
Co., and of the smaller houses dependent upon
them, and, what is of still more importance, the dis-
employment of all their workpeople—the firms
named retaining an enormous surplus after having
paid their creditors in full.
The Report is by nd means creditable to the
ability and intelligence of the House of Commons,
and when contrasted with the justly celebrated
Report of the House of Lords, in 1048, I feel con-
strained, although a Radical in politics, to join
heartily in the exclamation, " Thank God we have
a House of Lords," and as a consistent Reformer
shall feel it a duty to give my humble support to
those Ministers, be they of what party they may,
who will promote monetary reform, as- being the
vantage ground for the people on which to obtain
all other reforms.
I am, Sir, yours, sinßcerely,
HAME STANSFELD.
The Grange, Burley, near Otley, 16th August.
P.S. I am glad to find in the City Article of this
day's Times some remarks which are in accord-
ance with the principles I have long advocated of
the Legislature taking care of the quality of the
currency, by ensuring the convertibility of the
Bank note, but leaving the quantity to take care
of itself, with this difference, that the Times
would sanction free trade in the issue of notes
without security, in which they have the support
of Adam Smith, so far as relates to notes of £5
and upwards,

The inquest on the bodies of the 12 persons who
were killed by the collision of two excursion trains
on the above line of railway on Monday week was
resumed yesterday, at Brettel-lane, before Mr.
Phillips, the district coroner. Another of the
sufferers named Clarke having died yesterday, the
inquiry also had reference to his death.
Mr. Fenton, chairman • Mr. Sherriff, manager •,
Mr. Adcock, secretary ; illr. Wilson, engineer ; and
Mr. King, of Stourbridge, solicitor, attended on
behalf of the railway company. Two attorneys
attended on behalf of sufferers by the collision.
I\

King, on behalf of the railway company,
expressed their sympathy with the sufferers and
apologised for the absence of the chairman at the
previous sitting, that gentleman having been in
Scotland when the jury first met.
The witnesses were then examined.
Eli Newton deposed that at about a quarter past
8 o'clock on Monday evening week he heard an ex-
plosion, and went down to the railway, where he
found the trains in collision. Saw Francis Mills
lying against the rails With a cut across his fore-
head. He was sensible and asked for some water.
Witness removed him from the line. He appeared
in a dying state, and expired in 10 minutes or a
quarter of an hour.
William J. Humphries, station master at the joint
station of the Great Western and Oxford, Wor-
cester, and Wolverhampton Railways at Wolver-
hampton, stated that his duty was to take charge
of the station generally, but not to inspect the car-
riages. Superintended the starting of the excur-
sion train from Wolverhampton on Monday week.
It was advertised as an excursion for Sunday-school
teachers and children. Believed there were
24 carriages and two break vans used in the
the train that started from Wolverhampton.
It was a single train. It left at 9.18, and
was advertised for 9.15 There was one engine
employed, but witness did not know what was its
power, and= an engine-driver and fireman accom-
panied it. Ninety-nine persons left Wolverhamp-
ton in the train, chiefly children. The engine was
in front of the train, and as far as he knew every-
thing was in perfect working order. Examined the
train himself before it left. No complaints were
made by the guard or other person as to the chains.
When the train left the station witness had done
1 with it. _ _ _

By a Juror—There, were printed rules for the
management of trains. Examined the train itself
before it left, and could say positively that there
was no visible defect in the chains or fastenings,
nor was any complaint made by any person.
The printed rules were here put in, and the
" duties of station masters" read from them. Did
not examine the inside of the guards' vans, and
therefore could not say that anv passengers were
in them. It was contrary to rules, and did not
think any one would have got in. Any, of the
agents on the line could have given permission.
The regulations to be observed by guards were
then referred to, and the following directions read:
" The train will be under the control of the
guard ; the passengers and their property under
his charge ; he must take care, previously to start-
ing, that there area, sufficient number of carriages
attached to the train ; that they are properly
coupled ; that an adequate number of covers for
luggage are provided ; and the signal and roof
lamps are attached."
Witness continued—He had been 11 years sta-
tion master and six years in another capacity
attached to a railway. Examined all the coupling
chains before the train left Wolverhampton. The
inspector of carriages was the officer who started
the trains, and who had to see that the couplings
were secure. Mr. Drinkwater was the inspector
of carriages, and witness believed he was at the
station at the time the train left Wolverhampton.
By Mr. King.—Had seen a Great Western
excursion tram of 50 carriages. That was on the
broad guage, and the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railway was on the narrow guage.
By the Coroner.—There were two guards to the
train. It was customary for all guards and other
officers of the company to be supplied with copies
of the rules.
The rules were again referred to, and the follow-
ing were quoted as referring to the inquiry :
" 16. No person shall be permitted to ride in the
guard's break without an order in writing from one
of the officers of the company%
" 20. Guards must immediately report at the
first station at which they , stop any defect they
have observed in the works."
Witness further stated, in answer to the Coroner,
that he had no complaint made to him after the
train had left of the insufficiency of the locomotive
power provided for it.
Mr. Phillips, station agent at the Round Oak
station, who was examined on the first inquiry,
added some particulars to the evidence then given.
He had picked up a broken shackle on the lme, a
short distance from his station. This had fallen
from an excursion train from Wolverhampton about
a month since. The train arrived safely at the
station, but on leaving the chain broke. Was not
aware if the breakage of that shackle was ever re-
ported to any superior authority.
By a Juror.—Was well acquainted with the rules.
Was at Dudley at the time of the collision, and left
the station in charge of his deputy. Did not leave
word how long he would be away. The general
understanding was, that when he was absent his
deputy should superintend the station instead of
him. Witness had charge of the goods as well as
the passengers at Round Oak station. Was likewise
goods station master at Primrose-hill, distant a mile
and three-quarters from Round Oak. His aggre-
gate salary was £9O per annum, with allowance
for a horse, and a prospect of an increase. The
office was not thrust upon him. He solicited it.
There were two persons on duty at the Round Oak
station at the time of the collision. There were
competent persons at the Round Oak station and
the goods station during his absence. [lt was here
stated that 'Unison was the driver of the train from
Wolverhampton to Worcester. Cook was guard to
Worcester. Cook and Cording were the guards of
the return excursion train, and Prickett and Pest-
i ridge of the second. Cording went on to Dudley,
he being in the foremost part of the train.] -Witness
did not inquire for Cook when he went to the scene
of the disaster. Knew it would be Cook's duty to put
on the break when the train was running down the
incline, and believed he did so, or a greater speed
would have been attained. Did not inquire of Cook
the cause of the accident ; it was patent to
him that it had been caused by a coupling-chain
breaking. Did not examine the break-van after
the accident ; it was too much broken. Did not
examine the broken van next morning, as his su-
perior officer Mr. Adcock, the secretary and super-
intendent, was present, and also Mr. Sheniff, the
manager. Had been two years in the company's
service. Cook was a properly constituted guard,
and witness never knew him in any other capacity.
Knew nothing of Cording. Never saw him till the
morning of the accident. Could not say who was
the chief guard—Cook or Cording.
The Rev. Mr. Perry, who was previously exa-
mined, again appeared to tender in evidence some
calculations which he had made in reference to the
strength of the couplings. Objection was taken to
the reception of such testimony, in answer to which
the rev: gentleman stated that he had been for
many years engaged practically as a civil engineer.
The jury having ultimately decided that he
should be heard,
The Rev. Mr. Perry then deposed—The train
consisted of 45 carriages, weighing five tons each,
and two engines and tenders of 30 tons each, which
would require a force of 101. b. a ton upon the whole
weight to drive it along a level and straight road
at a rate of 20 miles an hour, a very third-class
rate. - An additional force of 21b. per ton would be
required to drive a train of equal weight round a
curve that was not inclined, therefore the force
needed under the most favourable circumstances to
drive a train towards Worcester would be equal to
2,8501b5. The chains connecting the carriages to-
gether would, therefore, at the starting of the train,
have a strain upon them of not less than 2,8501 b.,
or 1 ton 5 cwt. l'qr. and 221 b., which is only 1-12th
the tension of good iron an inch square. If,
therefore, the iron of which the chains were naaile I
had been of good quality it would have stood 12
times the strain. It is, 'however, quite poseible to
bring to bear on the connecting chains 10 times
the tension by putting on an excess of steam.
It therefore follows—all things being favourable to
the train—that the iron in question was either of
l,ad quality, or that an excess of steam was applied.
The train from 'Worcester consisted of 29 carriages,
weighing 5 tons each, and. two engines and tenders
30 tons each, ascending an incline, the gradient of
which was 1 in 75, a force of 401 b. per ton on tv.i.e
whole train, would be required to maintain a 514e.3,:,.
of 20 miles per hour, overcoming, of cours'a, ache
usual resistance. The weight of each car:ie e.e and
its passengers being set at five tons, 1-1,10 ;:ietached
13 carriages would weigh 65 tons. T :ids weight
having to descend an incline 1,520 9P.rds in length,
with a gradient of 1 in 75, the 'distance due to
gravity, or through which it fell , would be 61 feet,
and by the time it came int' collision with the
other train would strike, with a force equal to 3,965
tons, supposing the pro' ak was not applied ;
and, assuming that
break nullified thatthe application of the
orce by one-half, it would then
strike with a forele of not less than 1,982 tons and
a-half, and the velocity at this point would be 60
feet per seceJnd. The force of 401 b. per ton being
required take a train up an incline of lin 75,
which r.,n 205 tons would be equal to 2,8001 b., or
3 t9AS 19 cwt,, which will be the strain upon the

connecting chain. This, of course, would be the
lowest pressure, and if the iron be of good quality
it is capable of sustaining with perfect safety four
times the amount of pressure, showing that had
everything been favourable, therefore the chain
must either have been of bad quality or, as was the
case in going to Worcester, too great a power put
on, which power was what is technically termed
" back lash." .

By Mr. Kin;—The thickness of the coupling or
side chains is about an inch round. The thickness
of the shackle is an inch and a quarter before the
thread is placed upon it, and an inch and an eighth
at the bottom.

Mr. William Thomson Adcock examined—l am
secretary and superintendent of the Oxford, Wor-
cester, and Wolverhampton Railway, and reside at
Worcester. I was at the Worcester station when
the excursion train arrived on Monday, the 22d of
August, at half-past 12. Frederick Cook was the
chief guard of that train ; the under guard being
John Cording. My assistant, Charles Harris, who
had travelled by the train, explained to me that a
coupling-chain had broken.
The Coroner—Had he any charge over the train ?
Witness—He had, and the guard would act
under him. On hearing that a coupling-chain had
broken I directed him to send away the train in
the evening in two parts, and to send only one
engine with each train. In accordance with these
instructions the train was so divided. I was very
much surprised when the train arrived at Wor-
cester to find so many passengers besides the school
children. No tickets should have been used to any
but the school children and their friends, and those
who did so acted contrary to their duty. I believe
that tickets were issued at every station. Each
station master had the instructions before him, and
in granting tickets they exceeded their duty.
By Mr. King—William and Co., of London, are
the builders of the Great Northern Railway Com-
pany's carriages, and they are considered the best
in the kingdom. Ours are the same build, and I
believe are made as models for the Great
Northern.

By Mr. Ebsworth—We do not keep our best
carriages 'in stock ; they are used indiscrimately.
-
The best carriages are used in the ordinary traffic,
and. the -carriages used in the excursion trains are
the same as would be used in the ordinary traffic
if required. The carriages used in this excursion
train were built by Messrs. Williams in 1853 and
1854. Some of them might be built in 1852, but a
very small minority—none prior to that date. The
eoupling andside chains were supplied by Messrs.
Williams. When we buy any carriages they arc
all 'thoroughly examined by Mr. G. B. Gooch, late
engineer on the Eastern Counties Railway. When
Harris told me of the breaking of the coupling-
chains in, the meriting they were referred to Robt.
Gransmore, whO has charge of that matter at Wor-
cester. I was not present when they were referred
to Gransmore, nor do I know whether he applied
any, test. Harris did not accompany the train back.
Cook has been in the company's service six years.
He was not under notice to -leave at the time of
the aceident.•

By the Jury—The second guard in charge of the
train is frequently raised from among the best con-
ducted porters--a man in whom we have confi-
dence. Cook has been a guard for two years.
Cording, who assisted him, was only a porter.

Coroner—Have any of the station-masters been
rebuked for issuing tickets indiscriminately on the
day of the excursion P
Witness—No steps have yet been taken in that
matter.

By Mr. Burbary—lt was the duty
.of Cook to
have fog signals and extra coupling-irons in his
break-van. It was his duty also to have examined
his break, and if out of order to have reported it to
Brown or Meyrick, the superintendents at Wor-
cester.

Edwin Walter Hart, station-master at Brettel-
lane station, sworn—l remember the excursion
train coming down on Monday, the 23d, and spoke
to Cook, the chief guard. When the train started
from Brettel-lane station one of the coupling-irons
broke ; one of the side chains was broken and the
other torn out. When I saw the train part I held.
up my hands to the driver, who at once brought
his engine to a stand, and the train then ran to-
gether with a slight shock. We got another
coupling-iron from the guard's van and re-attached
the carriages. The side chains were not fastened.
The only link of the shackle-chain was hung down,
and went on with the carriage. I saw the train
pass the Brettel-lane station, and the first I heard.
of the accident was the signal-man's whistle, and
hearing a loud noise ; and I ran up the line, having
ordered the signal-man to put up the signals and
block both lines.
By the Coroner—After the train passed my
station—that is, the second train—l heard the
crash, and the first thing I saw was the guard
Cook -running towards me with a lamp,
and he said, "We have had a dreadful smash." I
told him to go on to the Round Oak station, and stop
all that might be coming on the line. On arriving
at the spot I saw a heap of carriages smashed up,
and heard the groans of the dying and shrieks of
the mutilated passengers. I sent both my men off
for medical aid. The guard, Cook, told me the
train had broken loose, and it was, I concluded, from
that cause the accident had happened. I have
been seven months station-master at Brettel-lane.
I do not remember any coupling chains breaking

before.
By the Jury--I believe there were passengers in
the break-van. It is contrary to regulations, but
rather than allow passengers to remain behind they
are sometimes allowed to ride in the break-van
with the guard. I did not refuse any one who ap-
plied for a ticket, as I thought they were friends of:
the children.
By Mr. Ebsworth—There is no person 'appointed
to examine the carriages at Brettel-lane. Ido not
consider it to be my duty to examine the carriages.
I made no report as to the breaking of the coup-
lings in the morning. Nor on the return journey
did I look to see if the couplings which had been
broken in the morning were properly perfected.
By Mr. Burbary-4 have no doubt if the wheels
were examined by a competent party he could tell
whether the break had been properly applied.
By Mr. King—lt would be almost impossible
for a station-master to examine the couplings of
every carriage when a train arrives at a station.
The couplings put on at Brettel-lane station in lieu
of those broken in the morning. were extra strong
chains. It was a goods coupling, and equal to the
strength of an ordinary shackle and side chains.
It being now 6 o'clock the inquiry was again
adjourned for a week.

DR. LIVINGSTONE IN AFRICA.