The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LaNIJOS, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1867.

THE LOSS OP THE SHIP HAMLIN.

OFFICIAL REPORT.

Greenwich Police-court, May 18.

Report of inquiry into the circumstances attend-
ing the loss of the ship Hamlin, near Cape Corn-
wall, on the night of the 18th of April, 1867 :
The Hamlin was a ship-rigged, timber-built ves-
sel, built at Kennebunk, in the United States, and
owned by Mr. Edward Mesnard, a merchant, of
London. She had a crew of 26 all told, and was
commanded by Mr. John Napleton Beaver, who
holds a Board of Trade certificate of competency as
master, originally granted in February, 1865, and
rew_wed on Ist May, 1867. She left the Thames
for Cardiff on 31st March last, in charge of a Tri-
nity-housJ pilot, having on board 450 to 500
tons of iron. dro.is in ballast, chartered to
take a cargo of fuel fro:n Cardiff to Bombay.
Mr. Thomas Burfield, who styles himself a coasting
pilot an] shipmasters' assistant, but not licensed by
any pilotage authority, accompanied the ship, as
being a person well acquainted with the navigation
of the English and Bristol Channels. The Hamlin
met with foul winds going down Channel, and was
compelled to put into port several times. Eventually
she took her departure from Plymouth on the 18th
of April, with a wind about S.W., sighting the
Lizard about 7 p.m., and the Longships between 8
and 9 p.m. The weather was then thick, but a sight
of the Longships was got about 10.15 p.m., when it
bore S.E., and was supposed to be between
five and six miles distant. The course from
that time till 10 45 p.m. was N.N.E., when it was
altered to N.E. by E. E. A few minutes after 11
the pilot went below for seven or eight minutes to
take some refreshments, the master being then on
deck. Whilst he was below he felt the ship broach-
ing to, and he immediately ran up, and on going to
the wheel he found the ship heading E. by N. by the
binnacle compass. Ile ordered the helm instantly
" hard a starboard," but before the ship had time to
pay off, breakers were reported under the lee bow,
when he ordered the helm " hard a-port," and imine-
diately the ship struck on the bridge of rocks lying
between the Brisons and the land. This was about
20 minutes after 11 p.m. As soon as the ship
struck, the topsails were got down and the boats
launched, and in an hour or an hour and a half
the whole of the crew left the ship and landed
safely in Sennen Cove. On returning to the ship
about 9 a.m. of the 19th :she was found full of
water, with her bilge stove in, and a total wreck.
From the facts above stated, it appears clearly
that the loss of the Hamlin was caused by the im-
proper courses steered after passing the Longships.
When that lightwas last seen, at 10.15 p.m , bearing
S.E., it was supposed to be distant 5 or 6 miles,
whereas, in fact,the distance could nothave exceeded&
mile or mile and a half, and consequently the change
of course to N.E. by E. E. before passing Cape
Cornwall was a wrongful act, causing the loss of
the ship. The question for the consideration of
the Court was--who is the person responsible
for this act ? The master alleges that the
N.N.E. course was given by him, and that it was
afterwards altered; by the pilot Barfield with-
out his knowledge, and that, therefore, he ought
not to be held responsible. It appears, how-
ever, by the evidence, that all the courses
were given by the pilot, the master never during
the passage from the Downs interfering, or being
even consulted as to the courses to be steered, but
the pilot taking the entire charge in this respect.
Under these circumstances the Court ctme to the

following decision :—That the Merchant Shipping
Act requires that every ship subject to the provisions
of the act shall be under the charge of a certificated
master, except in so far as there may be a concur-
rent charge of a licensed pilot in compulsory pilotage
water. That the person who had charge of the
Hamlin was the master, Mr. Beaver, who was solely
responsible for the navigation of the ship, and
that he cannot exonerate himself from that respon-
sibility by pleading ignorance or misdirection in the
orders given by the unauthorised person acting as
pilot. That had Mr. Beaver attended to his duty as
master by giving the courses himsAf, the alteration
of course from N.N.E. to N.E. by E. a, which
he allegts was the cAuse of the ship going on shore,
could not have happened tut with his knowledge and
on his responsibility, from which responsibility,
therefore, he cannot excuse himself. That, as it has
been stated that the practice of employing per-
sons as coasting pilots who have no pilot's license
is of very common occurrence, it becomes the more
necessary to mark the limits within which such as-
sistance can be lawfully employed. That the master
may undoubtedly ask the advice or opinion of such
a person, but he is bound to know that in following
such advice he is to give all the necessary orders
himself, and see them correctly executed. That the
Court was willing to adopt the conclusion that in
this case the alteration of the course from NN.E. to

N.E. by E. E. was given by the pilot without the

master's knowledge, and, possibly, had he known it
he might, as he says, have advised a longer con-
tinuance on the N:N.E. course. And, under this
impression, the Courb was induced to visit the de-
fault with the lenient sentence of a suspension of
the certificate of the Master, John Napleton Beaver,
for three calendar months from the 18th May
instant. The certificate so suspenthd is transmitted
with this report.

JAs. TRAIL, Stipendiary Magistrate.
We concur in this report.
R. B. BAKER,/
Nautical Assess )rs.
Hi. Annis,

METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

_4,-

The Local Government and Taxation Committee
of the city of London, appointed iu March, 1866,
to watch the proceedings of the select committee of
the House of Commons appointed to inquire into
the local government and local taxation of the me-
tropolis, and to take such steps in respect thereof
as might be deemed advisable, have recently sent
in a report to the Court of Common Council, in
which they express their opinion of the general
scope and aim of the 31 resolutions of the select
committee of the House of Commons on metropoli-
tan local government, and conclude with some
practical recommendations in reference thereto.
The tendency of the more important of these re-
solutions, if carried into effect, would be (says the
report) to accomplish the following objects, viz.:—

" 1. The extinction of the county of the city of
London, which, it is proposed, should be included
in a county of the metropolis; the abolition of the.
electiv,.! magistracy of the city of London ; and a
similar interference with portioris of the metropoli-
tan counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, and
the .tithoriti" vested in the justices thereof. 2. The
elevation of the Metropolitan Board of Works, ori-
ginally created principally for the main drainage of
the metropolis, into a governing municipal council
for the whole of London, to be called the Municipal
Council of London. That council to be appointed
partly by justices of the peace, partly by the Crown
directly, partly by the governing body of each dis-
trict, and partly by direct
.representation of the
ratepayers. 3. Such council to exercise the powers
now possessed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
to which arc to be added supervision over water
and gas supply, railways, &c. 4. The existing
divltions of the metropolis are to be readjusted,
and existing boundaries to be obliterated at the
will of the Government. 5. Local boards, such
as vestries and district, boards, to be merged
throughout
_the metropolis, and the united bodies
to be termed common councils ;' such councils to
elect annually each a chairman and dQuty-ch-tir-
inan, 6. The police force to be one for the whole
metropolis. 7. That, so far as necesiary to the
carrying out of the resolutions, all local acts are to
13,:. repealed ; 'and it is recommended that the Go-
vernment should introduce a bill accomlingly." The
report-then concludes as follows :—" It is not neces-
sary that -we should point out that the recommenda-
tions alluded to tend to undermine municipal and
representative government in the metropolis and
elsewhere throughout the kingdom. To reconstruct
the local government of London on such a principle
would not only be inexpedient and unjust as it re-
gards the ancient city of London, but would disap-
point the expectations of the inhabitants of other
districts of the metropolis, who naturally look for
free municipal institutions similar to those accorded

to towns which have been recently incorporated
under the Corporations Act of 1835, as well as to
those 208 ancient corporations which under the
said act were extended and regulated. It will be
noticed that the recommendations make no pro-
vision for one of the most obvious wants of the
metropolis, viz., the provision of machinery for the
expression of public opinion, in accordance with the
usual sanctions and safeguards which our municipal
institutions supply. In this and in other incor-
porated cities and towns the expression of public
opinion (a cherished right of a free people) is exer-
cised under the sanction of the chief magistrate, in
a building suited to the purpose, with all the sur-
rounding conditions, which, while securing its ex-
pression, preserves it against abuse. The absence
of any such sanction and securities in reference to a
large portion of the metropolis is pressing itself upon
the attentian of the Government ; and it is singular
that a committee appointed to suggest local govern-
ment for London should have omitted t•, deal with

this pressing difficulty, which can be reme_lied
only by the provision of free and efficient local
government for the several districts of the metro-
polls. With reference to the letter of the secretary
of the Metropolitan Municipal Association, re-
ferred to your committee, we beg to report that
the views and objects of that association generally
commend themselves to our judgment as sound
and calculated to produce beneficial results as it re-
gards the local government of London ; and we are
informed by parties connected with the said associa-
tion that a bill or bills will be immediately intro-
duced into Parliament on their behalf, which will
embody their views. We are not prepared to sub-
mit any specific recommendation as to the form in
which we should manifest our sympathy with the
objects of the said association, but we recommend
that we should be empowered to watch the progress
of such bills when introduced into Parliament, and
to take such steps in relation thereto as we in our
judgment may deem desirable ; and that we should
.be empowered to oppose any attempts to subvert the
free municipal government of this city, and to assist
the other districts of the metropolis to the att iin-
ment of their undoubted rights of self government.
And, further, that we should have full powers to
confer with the Court of Aldermen, or any com-
mittee of your honourable court, upon any matters
which in the course of our proceedings may appear
to affect the interests of this city, and generally to
take such steps as we may think necessary and ex-
pedient."

The Tailors' Strike—Chargesoflntimlltion

Yesterday, at the Marlborough-street Police-
court, Joseph Rearden, a tailor, was charged before
Mr. Knox on a warrant with, by threats, intimida-
tion, and molestation, endeavouring to force cer-
tain workmen to leave their employment, hiring,
and work.

Mr. Sleigh (instructed by Messrs. Vallance) ap-
peared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Ribton (in.
structed by Mr. E. Lewis, of Great Marlborough-
street) for the defense.

Mr. Sleigh, in opening the case, said he proposed
only to occupy the magistrate's attention for a short
time, but he believed that after he had called his
witnesses his worship would be of opinion that the
prisoner had brought himself by his conduct within
the statute. Mr. Sleigh then gave an outline of the
case, and called

Mr. Jas. Wm. Brown, son of Mr. Brown, of the
firm of 011iver and Brown, tailors, 37, Sackville-
street, who said that on the evening of Monday last
the prisoner came in and asked if he was in want of
a hand. He asked the prisoner if he belonged to the
union, when he replied that he had just come from
the country. He told the prisoner that that was no
answer to his question, as there was a union in the
country as well as in London. He again asked the
prisoner if he belonged to the union, and he said he
knew nothing about it, but had come up to London
to better himself ; and in answer to another question
the ,prisoner said that he had come from Birming-
ham that afternoon, and that he htd been working
there for a Mr. Hollingsworth, who he (Mr. Brown)
believed to be a master tailor there. He then asked
the prisoner whether he worked in doors or out door;
and he said he worked in. He told the prisoner they
were in want of coat hauls most, and asked the
prisoner whether he woted like to come in then or
in the morning. He said he woul I prefer going in
at once, and he (Mr. Brown) toll Schotield,
young man in their employ, to let the prisoner
go in at once and see if there was a job, and
the prisoner was shown a job—a coat, and was
to make a part of it. About ten minutes after-
wards he (Mr. Brown) was in the shop and the pri-
soner came to the door and took hold of it. He
asked the prisoner what was the matter, and in a
hurried manner he replied, "'I could not work in a
shop where they use filthy language," and he then
went away. At the time they had 10 men at work
in the back part of the premises.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the witness said the
whole affair did not last a quarter of an hour.
In cross-examination the witness said that when
he asked the prisoner if he belonged to the union,
he
h said,e
"No;
I have nothing to do with them,"
and arranged with him to work, the priso-
ner understanding to work at the present terms.
The prisoner did not make inquiries. A certain
number of houses pay a certain rate of wages.
There were 10 men at work, and his young man,
Schofield, introduced the prisoner. lie did not ask
the prisoner his name. What passed between the
prisoner and the others he could not tell. He did
not know that an affray had taken place until a
short time afterwards. The next morning he told
the attorney what had occurred. Ile was sworn at
the court when the warrant was applied far. The
10 men employed by them were non-unionists. Two
of the men were in court. Jle applied the next day
for a warrant. One of the men in the shop knew
the prisoner's address. The matter was placed in
the hands of the attorney. He believed the prisoner
had been locked up all night.

Augustus E. Hirschfield, of Hart-street, Covent-
garden, said that at the present time he was em-
ployed by (illiver and Brown, tailors, of Sack.-
ville-street, and had been for 12 years. on :lion-
day evening he was at work with others on the pre-
mises, and in the course of the evening the prisoner
was brought in by Schofield, the under foreman.

On the prisoner coining in he looked round and
asked what they said in front of the unionists and
the non-unionists, and he told the prisoner that
non-unionists worked in the shop. The prisoner
then pulled off his coat and waistcoat and
sat down, and asked Schofield who was to be his
partner and what he was to do, and the prisoner had
part of a coat given to him,
and when he got it he
jumped up .and looked round and began to dress
himself, and said,
"I am surprised at a lot of young
men like you sitting here. You are a lot of lungs."
The word " dungs"
means men who work under the
men belonging to the union. He asked the prisoner
why he sat down with the " dungs." lie said, ,4 I
know the likes of you ; you live near Covent.
garden. I knew you before, and I'll just wait for
you ; and God strike me dead I'll smash your nose
in." The prisoner did not say anything more in
reference to the trade. The prisoner afterwards
spoke to a young man he knew, telling him that he
was surprised at a young manlike
him sitting there.
The prisoner
Was not in the room more than ten
minutes.

In cross-examination the witness said there were
ten men sittin
soner's partner faced the prisoner. " Dungs" had
those work ingg pretty close together, and the pri-
a certain meaning in the mtge. It was applied to
against the mks of the trade. He had
not often been called one himself. It was an op-
probrious term, used ,when they got angry. It was
only made 11:3C of at the present time because there
was more point in it. It was only with those work-
ing ont and those working in that it was used. He
was not pleased at what the prisoner said, but he
did not know that lie was particularly angry. He
asked the prisoner why he sat with the " (lungs,"
but not in a particularly loud voice: The prisoner
did not sit down many minutes. He never men-
tioned the name of the Green Dragon (the house
where the tailors on strike assemble). Something
was said by the prisoner about a wager. He said,
"Now, men, you see I've won my wager." He did
not say what the wager was. Ile did not tell the
prisoner that he would whit for him outside, No

one asked the prisoner what the wager was, and no
one said they would wait for the prisoner outside.
By Mr. Sleigh—The term " dung" had only come
into use since the strike had commenced.

Samuel Soloman, in the employ of Messrs. 011iver
and Brown—l saw the prisoner come into the work-
shop with Schofield. The prisoner asked what was
the meaning of the word unionists. Having been
told, he sat down to his job ; but afterwards got
up, and said he could not work in that shcp, adding
that they were all a set of " dungs," and turning to
Hirschfield said, " I know you ; you live about
Covent-gar:l2n. I shall wait for you, and will punch
your nose or head." The prisoner used this lan-
guage in an offensive nrinner to Hirschfeld. The
prisoner said if they wanted his name it was Joe
Reardon.

Cross-examined—Hirschfeld tried to explain to
the prisoner the terns of the union men. The pri-
soner tiseJ a variety of threats to Hirschfeld.
Robert Foale, in the employ of Messrs. 011iver,
corroborate 1 the previous witnesses. The men in
the shop were not afraid of the prisoner's threats,
but they were afrai 1 there might be a lot of the
same sort waiting in the street.

Mr. Ribton considered the case trumpery and
absurd, and a ridiculous attempt to bring the pri-
soner within the terms of the statute. There could
be n 9 mistake about the words of the statute. They
were quite explicit; and as the statute was a highly
penal one the words must be construed literally.
Now he contended that the evidence showed there
was no case whatever against the prisoner.
Mr. Knox would remark there was a broad and
clear case of threats and intimidation, taking the
words used by the prisoner in their common accep-
tation.

Mr. Ribton would contend that the words used
by the prisoner were only the angry reply of a man
who had been aggravated by taunts and jeers from
his fellow-workmen. If every trumpery quarrel
and trifling misunderstanding were to be dragged in
and connected with the strife now going on be-
tween masters and workmen it would only serve to
throw an air of ridicule on the whole proceedings.
There was nothing to show that the prisoner in-
tended to intimid tte any one, or to:prevent any man
from working for a master. There was no mention
of the strike throughout the oceurrence, and there-
fore he was justified in saying the strike had nothing
to do with the 'water. He submitted that the law
permitted workmen to combine to settle their rate of
payment; it was the only means that labour possessed
to withstand the tyranny of capital. Bat then he
admitted there must be no violence or intimidation,
and he would go further, and say if a conviction took
place in this instance the result would be that the
police courts would be besieged with cases of a paltry
character, brought there for purposes that needei
no definition, and the law would be called upon to
deal with pretended offences as if resulting from the
strike, when they were really nothing more than
mere ebullition of ill-temper or anger, that might
arise strike or no strike. He would ask for a re-
mand, as he had witnesses to produce who would be
able to place the case in its correct light.
Mr. Knox wished to know the nature of the evi-
dence.

Mr. Ribton said the witnesses would prove it was
only an absurd frolic; that the prisoner made a bet
of a gallon of beer that he would get work, and that
what he did was done to win his bet.
Mr. Knox did not think such evidence would in-
duce him to change his decision. He must hold the
prisoner in custody if he consented to an adjourn-
ment, and refuse
Mr. Ribton made a strong appeal for bail, but

Mr. Knox declined to accept bail, as the proba-
bility was if the prisoner was released on bail he
would not be seen in that court again.
ANOTHER CAsE.--William Conelly was next
charged with another in conspiring to prevent
Joseph Hope from working for his employer, Mr.
Bowater, of lianover-street, and with violently
assaulting him.
Mr. Sleigh s lid the assault was a violent one, and
as the other man charged htd absconded, he must
-ask for substantial bail, as an a ljourana_mt was re-

quired.
Mr. litlox fixed the bail at two sureties in £lOO

each.