The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

DETENTION .OF PASSENGERS
. • AT NORMANTON.

TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS
- AND .NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAYS.

--------
GENTLEME2!I=I think it due to the public to take
notice iu the manner most likely to arrest.yoUr attention,
and to enforce improved arrangements for the future,
of the great inconvenience, annoyance, and injustice to
which a number of your passengers were subjected on
Tuesday last.. You have made considerable efforts to
bring upon your lines a portion of the traffic for the
south, which would otherwise proceed by the Grand
Junction ; but you appear to have made no adequate
arrangements to secure the regular and timely convey-,
ance of your passengers.
On Tuesday last, a number of passengers, of Whom I
was one, took tickets at the Manchester, and other sta-
tions of the Manchester and Leeds line, for Barnsley,
Sheffield, Derby, London, &c., by the 4. 45. p.m. train.
We left Manchester at that time, and on arriving at
the Normanton station, we found that the train by
which we should have been conveyed forward, had
started not more than two minutes before—in fact, we
had met the train within 300 yards of the platform.
,No attempt was made to detain the South train for the
few moments that would have sufficed to detach our
carriage. And there we were at Normanton, whence
no other passenger train for the south was to start until
the next morning.
We applied to the station master to have a pilot en-
gine attached to our carriage, to convey us forward. It
was a North Midland carriage, which we had been told
at Manchester was there expressly for the south passen-
gers, in order that no time -might be lost by a change of
carriage at Normanton. There, then, was the carriage
at Normanton, ready to proceed, and there, too, stood upon
the rails, an unengaged engine, with the steam up, which
might have been attached to our carriage to overtake the
mail train; or, if not, to convey it forward to Derby. 'We
strongly urged our claim to be thus forwarded, but we were
peremptorily told that such a thing never had been, and
could not now be done. But the offer was made, with
that exquisite consideration in which railway officials
seem to be great proficientsolot to send us south, accord-
ing to the engagement of- our tickets, but to send us
north to Leeds ! where 'we might stay for the night ; and
whence gentlemen who had important engagements in
London for the next morning, might then, instead of being
at their destination, start for town ! This insulting pro-
posal was, of course, indignantly rejected.
During the altercation which took place between us
(the party of detained passengers), and the servants of
the railway, we accidentally learned that Mr. Stansfield,
one of the Directors of the North Midland, was at the
adjoining Hotel. To him, therefore, we repaired ; and
there we found also Mr. Craig, superintendent of the
Leeds station. It appeared that Mr. Stansfield was in
the same boat with ourselves, he having come from Man-
chester for the south. Mr. Stansfield and Mr. Craig
concurred in telling us that they had no power to order
out a special engine fur our conveyance, and even as-
sured us that there was not a spare engine at the station,
for that Ivhich we had seen belonged to the York and
North Midland. It was also gravely represented to us
by these gentlemen and the station master, that to send
a special train would be very dangerous, Because, as the
mail train had not signalised that any other was to follow
it, there might be rails taken up, or other work in pro-
gress on the line. But Mr. Stansfield and Mr. Craig of-
fered us the alternative of being carried north to Leeds
for the night, or being attached to the luggage train ex-
pected from Leeds at about half-past eight, and so con-
veyed, though late and slowly, towards our respective
destinations. We chose the latter, but not without great
uneasiness, thinking of the danger mentioned by Mr.
Stansfield and Mr. Craig, and remembering the late ter-
rific accident on the Great Western, to passengers tra-
velling with a luggage train. Our anxiety was not a
little increased at Barnsley, by the attaching of several
heavy trucks behind our carriage, which in the event of
any accident occasioning a sudden stoppage, would pro-
bably have overwhelmed us in the same way as the un-
fortunate passengers on the Western were de-
stroyed, on the occasion to which I have referred. Hap-
pily, however, we arrived in safety, though late, at Mas-
borough. There Mr. Stansfield, who had, Ahroughout,
conducted himself with the greatest politeness, as-
sumed an authority which we blame him only for not hav-
ing exercised at Normanton. He ordered out a pilot
engine and a Royal carriage (which was at Masborough
to convey Lord Wharneliffe to town on the following day)
by which we were soon conveyed to Sheffield the
passengers for Derby, &c., having proceeded with the
luggage train. But even in the short run from Masborough
to Sheffield, we found fresh cause for uneasiness, in the
discovery that the tender ran before the engine—that
unsafe and improper arrangement which, about twelve
months ago, caused a dreadful accident and the deaths of
an engineer and stoker, on this very line. We arrived
at Sheffield a quarter before twelve. But the passengers-
for the south, on their arrival, at a late hour, at Derby,
would have to remain there until a quarter past eight on •
-the following morning, before they could proceed to town.
I have thus given you a plain statement of the filets,
and I remark that no sufficient reason but bad manage-
ment or negligence can be assigned for cur- arriving at
Normanton too late for the south train; that arriving
there immediately after the train had started, it would
have been the easiest thing imaginable to stop the train
fur the few moments necessary to attach ourcurriage, and
even had the detention amounted to five minutes, the loss
could have been recovered with fhe utmost ease before ;
arrtivini rat the next station; and my third remark is, that
`
if the Nurtnantou station. be, as
.we were assured, unpro-
vided with a pilot-engine, if the station master has- no
authority to fulfil tho engagements of the Companies
with their passengers, this state of things betrays a
shameful disregard of he rights of the public, and of the
contract into which the Companies enter with their
passengers. Under the old system of coaching, the
public were protected by the power which passen-
gers had to provide themselves with another convey-
ance at the cost of the coach proprietors. But since the
Railway Companies, by keeping exclusively in their -own
hands the passenger traffic on their lines, deprive
the public of this remedy, it is incumbent upon them not
only to make such arrangements as shall reduce the un-
certainties of travelling to the minimum, but also to
make provision fur the prompt redress of such wrongs as
the mismanagement of their servants may at any time
cause. Their engagements with passengers ought to be
:kept with scrupulous fidelity. They have no right to
throw upon the public all the loss and inconveniences
of the casualties of the line. When a bargain is made
with: .a passenger, by the issue of a ticket, to convey
him to a given place, by a given time, that passenger
has a right to expect the utmost exertion to be made
by the Company to overcome any accidental difficulty
that may arise. But for Railway Companies, that have
contracted to deliver passengers in London, on the Wed-
nesday morning, to suffer their understrappers at Nor-
manton to offer, as the only alternative in the case of
disappointment, a conveyance back to Leeds, is adding
insult to injury, and is a flagrant violation of that good
faith which the public have a right to expect.
I remain, Gentlemen, yours obediently,
- THOMAS WILEY.

No. 12, Old Ira/market, Sheffield, Jan. 19, 1842.
P.S.—I would-Just add, that a short statement of the
facts was made in ihe'Company's books, at Normanton,
and signed by the.' following gentlemen and several
others:—Mr. John Armitage, Mr. Win. Pitt and bro-
ther, and Mr. Thos. Swift, of Huddersfield • Mr. Low-
max, of Rochdale; Mr. Hamilton, of Sheffield, &c.

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS.
The following are the results of " A Table of Mortality in
the Metropolis, showing the Number of Deaths from all Causes
Registered in the week ending Jan.ls, 1842." The Table is
issued from the Office of the Registrar-General:—
Weekly
Average
108-9-40-1.

Four ,I Four
wi oters Years
Epidemic, Endemic, Sc Contagious Diseases 162 199 190
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses 165 160 149
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of
Respiration
Diseases of the flea-t and Blood-vessels
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other
Organs of Digestion
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c.
Childbed, Diseases of the Uterus, &e 7 11 10
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles 7 7 6
Diseases of the Skin, &c 1 1 1
Diseases of Uncertain Seat 124 115 104
Old Age, or Natural Decay .. lO7 90 69
Deaths by Violence, Privation, or Intern-
26
perance
Causes not specified
Deaths from all causes . 1042 ----
Average Weekly Deaths.
Population Average Deaths
Low. Weekly in
Inerated Deaths the
1641. P.39-9-4NI. Week.
West—Kensington;St:George
(Hanover-square),Westmin- Four I Four
ster, St. Martin in the Fields, Years. Wint:rs.
St. James
North—St. Mary-le-bone, St
. Pancras, Islington, Hackney 365,660 162 182 Is 7
Central—Saint Giles and Saint
George, Strand, Clerkenwell,
Holborn St. Luke, East Lon-
don, West London, City of
London ...273,806 188 213 221
East—Shoreditch,Whitechapel,
Bethnal Green, St. George
in the East, Stepney, Poplar 392;492 206 228 214
South—St Saviour, St. Olave,
St. George( Soutlwark),Ber-
mond‘ey, Newington. Lam-
beth, Camberwell; Bother-
Greenwich .... -.438,060 221 243 266

CAUSES OF DEATH.

Total.

26 26
7 7

DISTRICTS.

Total 1,870,727 912 1017 1042
It is stated that under the term Metropolis are comprised the
32 districts herein mentioned, which include the City of Lou-
don with and without the walls, the City and Liberties of
Westminster, the out-parishes within the Bills of Mortality—•
and the parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Kensington,
Fulham, Hammersmith(Chapelry), St. Luke (Chelsea), Pad-
dington, St. Mary (Stoke Newington), St. Leonard (Brom
ley' ) St. Mary-le-bow, Camberwell, Greenwich, St. Nicholas
and St. Paul (Deptford), and Woolwich. The population, as
enumerated in 1831, was 1,594,890; and in June 1841, was
1,870,727. The- weekly average for 1838, 1839,1840, and
1841, was obtained by:dividing the deaths in the four years by
208, and the deaths in the four winters by 52.
TEMPERATURE IN TILE WEEKS ENDING
Jan. 8. ;Jan. 15.
41° 38'
28 29
34 33
20, 1842.

Highest

Lowest
Daily Mean ....
General Register Office, Jan.

DEATH OF LADY FRANCES PHILLOTT.—.
Her Ladyship died at Bath on Sunday last. The de-
ceased, who was youngest daugl►tcr of Thomas first Earl
of Howth, and aunt of the present Earl, was relict of the
late venerable Dr. James Phillott, Archdeacon of Bath,
and was upwards of 80 years of age. The families of
the Earl and Countess of Howth, Viscountess Dungar-
van, Sir Edward and Lady Elizabeth Borough, Mr. and
Lady Matilda Burke, &C., are placed iu mourning by her
Ladyship's demise.