The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-09-03 00:00:00

SHARP AND OTHERS v. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY (s. J.)
This action was brought to recover a balance of account
for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs are John
Roberts, Thomas B. Sharp, and John Sharp, survivors of
Thomas Sharp, engine manufacturers, of Manchester, who
claimed from the directors of the Great Western Railway
Company a balance of the amount charged for ten locomo-
tive engines. The defendants pleaded that they had not
promised, as alleged, that they had paid, and that they had a
set off to a greater amount than that claimed.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Yates appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson for the defendants.
Mr. CRusswELL stated, that in the year 1839 the directors,
of the Gre;,t Western Railway contracted with the plaintiffs
to manufacture for them ten locomotive engines, which
amounted to upwards of £20,000, and it was for the recovery
of £662 on those engines that the present action was brought.
The contract was dated 21st May, 1839. The engines were
to have seven-feet driving wheels and tenders, according to
drawings. The engines were to be delivered at certain dates.
Each engine was to he subject to a trial of 1,000 miles, and
Sharp, Roberts. and Co. were to be liable to any breakage
which might take place in such trial, arising out of defective
materials or workmanship. These trials were to take place
within a month of the delivery of each engine. If the en-
gines were not so tried within a month, there was an end of
all responsibility on the part of the manufacturers. The
price of each engine was to be £1,850, and of each tender
£452. In the contract, provision was made that the fire boxes
were to be of copper, 7-16ths of an inch thick. The engines
were delivered from time to time : the Tiger on the 15th
May, 1840; the Leopard. 7th June ; the Panther, 24th June;
the Lynx, 14th September-; the Stag, Greyhound, Vulture,
Hawk, Falcon, and Ostrich, at other dates; and each under-
went its trial of one thousand miles in a proper manner,
one of the plaintiffs' men superintending the trial. It ap-
peared that Mr. Brunel was the engineer for the railway,
and Mr. Gooch attended to the engines. No complaint was
made respecting the engines till after the company had been
pressed for payment of the balance. The plaintiffs received
letters from time to time from Mr. Gooch, stating that their
engines did very well; that the last was the best; that he
was sorry he had not ordered the Hawk to be, made with a
division in the box, &c. Four months after the Hawk had
performed her trial of one thousand miles, a complaint was
made that her crank-axle had turned out a bad one and that
the wheel had got out of truth a little. It was alleged that
various measures had been tried to remedy the defect in the
wheel, and ultimately the crank was sent back. The plain-
tiffs pressed for the payment of the balance. On the day
after Mr. Gooch had, according to the request of the plain-
tiffs, pressed fur payment. Mr. Brunel wrote to them, find-
ing fault with the engines, saying the fire-boxes were all
wrong ; that they were below the specified thickness ; that
one of the partners ought to go over and inspect them ; that,
as they were made of insufficient copper, that he considered
the transaction a little discreditable, and was compelled to
give notice that he should hold them responsible. Mr.
Cresswell said he should prove that the copper was good ;
that it was bought from a respectable manufacturer, and was
of the specified thickness. The complaint had been made
nine months after the engine was tried, and if the copper
was then found thinner than specified it was probably because
some chymical effect had been produced on it by the coke
used. He would prove that the ten engines had been de-
livered and tried according to contract, and that they had all
been received by the company.
The contract having been read, a witness was called who
proved the delivery and trial of the engines ; that they were
in good workint order; and that the company " took to
them."

Mr. Woamin-, iu reply to a question from the Judge, said
he contended that the plaintiffs had not performed their con-
tract : first, that they had not used the best copper for the
purpose ; and, next, that they had not put in proper rivets :
they ought to have put in copper rivets and they had put in
iron rivets.
Mr. CRESSWELL said the copper, it was evident, had be-
come thinner from use. As to the rivets, he had never heard
a word about them till that moment.
Mr. WORTLEY said they had not made the discovery till
the last week.
Mr. CRESSWELL said, if the defendants were prepared to
go Into evidence on the subject of the copper, he was ready
to meet them on the subject of the rivets.
His LORDSHIP thought the evidence as to the copper was
inadmissible, and Mr. Wortley declined to go into evidence
touching the rivets. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
damages, £662.

BROOKS AND OTHERS V. MITCHELL.
In this case, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cow-
ling appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Dundas and Mr.
Watson for the defendant. The plaintiffs were the assignees
of Charles Evans, a bankrupt, and the action was brought to
recover fi om Mr. Mitchell the sum of £l,OOO, the amount of
a promissory note received from a Mr. Lens, drawn in 1824,
and bearing interest to the day of payment. It was alleged
that the note had passed into the hands of the defendant, in
fraud of the creditors of Evans.
Mr. WORTLEY stated the case, to the effect that Evans,
who was a man of humble birth, had lost his mother early in
life, and had been brought up by a person named Lens. He
subsequently entered the army, and on his return he found
that his uncle, Mr. Mottram, was a flourishing banker.
Eventually, Mr. Mottram retired from business, and left it
to Evans, occasionally exercising some controul over it, and
supplying funds. In 1824, being anxious to assist his
foster-brother, Mr. Lens, he lent to that person £l,OOO,
unknown to Mr. Mottram. He received Mr. Lens's pro-
missory note for the amount,lthe note bearing interest to the
date of payment. Some time afterwards Evans became a
bankrupt. The note had passed from his hands, through
those of a person named Royle, into those of the defendant,
Mitchell. Royle was also embarrassed soon afterwards, and
paid a dividend of 4s. Gd. in the pound. Evans having paid
ss. Gd. in the pound, Royle proved on Evans's estate for a
small sum, but no mention was made of the promissory
note either on Evans's bankruptcy or Royle's composition.
Mr. Wortley said that he should prove that Mitchell, who
had held the note for some time, was in limited business,
though he had held the note a year and a half without apply-
ing for payment, and that the three, Evans, Royle, and
Mitchell, had been in constant habits of intimacy. The
learned counsel read over the examination of Mitchell be-
fore Evans's assignees. Mitchell stated that he had given a
consideration of £950 for the bill, but on being cross-
examined his memory appeared to have been rather loose as
to the circumstances. He stated that his first payment was
£3OO, for which lie received a promissory note, the second
£4OO, for which he also received a promissory note, and the
remainder was in small sums.
Several witnesses were called, who proved that Evans,
Royle, and Mitchell were on intimate terms, and that Mr.
Mitchell did not appear to be in a very extensive way of
business. It appeared that Mrs. Lens, the widow of Mr.
Lens, had paid the whole amount of the bill into the Court of
Chancery. It was shown on the face of the bill, and by
letter, that Mitchell had applied for the interest of the bill,
and that ultimately he had applied peremptorily for payment.
It was contended by Mr. Dundas, that Mitchell had given a
valuable consideration of the bill.
His Lordship said, the questions for the jury would be,
whether the note were indorsed to Royle before or after the
bankruptcy ; if they were of opinion that it was before the
bankruptcy, the next question would be, whether Royle gave
a valuable consideration for the indorament. If they were
of opinion that Royle did not give a valuable consideration
for it, they were next to consider whether Mitchel gave Royle
a valuable consideration for it.
The jury found generally for the defendant. They were of
opinion that the note was indorsed before the bankruptcy : as
to whether Royle gave value for it, there was no evidence ;
and they believed that Mitchell gave a valuable consideration
for the note.

GOW U. GREGORY AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff, in this case, was Mr. Walter Gow, a com-
mission agent, at Manchester ; the defendant, James Gregory,
Pollett, and John Edie, formerly clerks with Messrs. Cope-
land and Duncan, of this town.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Watson for Gregory, and Mr. Cowling for Pollett. John
Edie had suffered judgment to go by default.
The action was brought to recover the sum of £95, with
interest. It appeared that Mr. Pollett and Mr. Edie tran-
sacted business in this country, and Mr. Gregory in Calcutta.
Pollett and Edie acting as shipping agents, ordered Mr. Gow
to purchase certain goods in Manchester, which was consigned
to Gregory. The evidence, which was principally of a docu-
mentary character, went to prove, that the transaction was a
joint one amongst the parties.
Mr. WATSON, ou behalf of Gregory, contended that his
client had nothing to do with the matter. A letter from
Gregory was put in, stating that the markets were bad on the
arrival of certain goods, and begging that no further con-
signments should be made "on joint account."
The jury found for the plaihtiff, damages X 95, with £l.los.
interest. . _ _

The court broke up at eight o'clock, the business of the
assizes having terminated with the above case.

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE

At the meeting of the Dock Committee yesterday the fol-
lowing members were present :—Messrs. Benn, (chairman,)
Horsfall, Holmes, Middleton, Sands, Sandbach, Mellor, G.
Holt, Chapman, Moon, Martin, Smith, Tobin and Evans.
The Sub-committee of Works reported that the deepening
of Prince's Basin, ordered on the Bth of November last, was
now completed • also that the road round Brunswick Grav-
ing Dock into gefton-street was now completed and in use.
The DOCK SURVEYOR called the attention of the committee
to the management of the dock cranes and stages, requesting
some better arrangements to be made for the care of them.
The handles of the cranes were frequently lost or misplaced,
and others applied which did not belong to them, by which
the squares were injured, or they were used by incompetent
parties. Stages were also frequently left across the quay,
and injured by carts running up.on their ends. The report
of the surveyor concluded by stating that it was desirable for
closer attention to be paid to these matters. After some dis-
cussion, in which various remedies were suggested, the sub-
ject was referred for
enquiry to the Harbour-masters' Sub-
committee.
A letter was read from the Secretary of the Steam-tug
Company, requesting the committee to accept the use of their
tug Albert, for the periodical excursion on Monday last, free
of charge.
Mr. EvANs, in the course of the conversation' complained
that the fact of the committee being at Hilbre Island had not
been telegraphed.
Mr. HORSPALL said the circumstance had been tele-
graphed, but the keepers of the telegraph in this town had
not communicated it to the Underwriters'-room.
The SEcRETARY then read the report of the committee
of the result of their examination of the various telegraph
stations, channels, lighthouses, lightships, and buoys, from
which it appeared that all were in good order.
A resolution was then passed adopting the report autho-
rising the treasurer to pay £2 to the captaiu, and ss. each to
the men, of the Albert steam-tug.
On the recommendation of the Sub-committee of Works,
capstans and mushrooms were ordered to be placed on ap-
propriate sites on the quays of Waterloo, Victoria and
Clarence docks.
A report from the head-constable, concerning the fire
which occurred on Sunday morning last, on board the Mary,
in Salthouse-dock, was read and received. It attributed the
fire to some of the crew having been smoking.
An application from the consignees of the Frew:ill vessel
Cormoran, bound for Rochefort, and now taking in machi-
nery in this port, for a remission of the dock dues was
declined, on the ground that the committee have not power
to comply with the application.
The committee then separated.

TO THE HON. AND REV. BAPTIST NOEL
(No. H.)

LivErpool, 31st August, 1841.
Ray. Slll,--On page 7 of your pamphlet, I find what I
cannot but call another most sweeping assertion, in the fol-
lowing words :—" The greatest opponents to any change in
the corn laws, no less than the advocates of change, declare
that it will cheapen bread." And then flow on a number of
beautiful results from this supposed cheapening of bread, in
the reduction in the price of meat and all the other necessa-
ries of life. But how stands the matter of fact respecting
these various opinions? I find my Lord Spencer, an advo-
cate for the change. speaking thus :—" He did not believe
that, by the abolition of the corn laws, the price of corn
would be materially altered, and the price of corn in other
countries would be in a great measure regulated by its price
in England." I also find my Lord Brougham in the same
debate, saying—" A fixed duty, however, of Bs. could not
possibly produce any reduction in price. * *
The government had not the right to speak of flair mea-
sure as calculated to cheapen corn, seeing that it could not
possibly lower the price of corn one farthing." These are
the opinions of the only two noblemen whom I find speaking
upon the subject of the change in duty lowering the price of
bread, and although both advocate for a change, unhesita-
tingly state that they do not expect it to produce such re-
sults. Neither can I find that Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Mel-
bourne, or any other able advocates for the change, argue
that it will cheapen the price of bread.
I am justified, therefore, in saying, that this must be
looked upon as a very hasty and rash assertion, with which,
I am sorry to say, your pamphlet abounds.
You also seem to consider that the " turning of corn lands
into pasturage," as it would cheapen meat, must be a result
heartily to be desired. But, taking the liberty of preferring
the opinion of a practical man, I turn again to Earl Spencer,
and find him speaking thus on the subject :—" He had no
hesitation in saying, that were the proposed alterations to
have the effect of throwing a considerable portion of the
best land out of cultivation, it would be most calamitous to
the country."
On the subject of the decrease of wages producing an in-
crease of trade, and thereby an increase of labour, which
would cause an increase in the rate of wages, you have cer-
tainly entered a labyrinth of mystification. If lowering the
price of bread will have the effect of increasinc, the price of
wages, how are the manufacturers benefitted, who cannot at
the present wages compete with the foreign manufacturer ?
They require a reduction in the wages to enable them thus
to compete with foreigners ; for what would be the benefit
of opening up new sources of trade, if, in the outset, our
manufacturers find themselves undersold by foreigners?—
and they admit that they cannot now compete with them.
What, then, is to enable them to do it, but a reduction in
the cost of manufacturing? and in what can this reduction
take place, except in wages?
That " nearly one-third of the Irish population of Liver-
pool would be found, at any time, to be starving there in
damp, dark, naked, and pestiferous cellars," I deny; for, to
the shame of the merchants of Liverpool be it spoken, these
Irish labourers are employed to the exclusion of their own
townsmen, the honest Protestant operatives of Liverpool,
who are many of them in a state of the greatest destitution;
while they see the labour of the town taken from them by a
body of men much less entitled to it than themselves. I
must just remark in passing, that this is a grievous and
shainefut system, and one against which the merchants
should set their faces. I could point out men, employing
from one, two, to three hundred labourers ; and these al-
most to a man Papists, and no other would be employed.

This is the doing of the master lumper or warehouseman,
and indirectly the fault of the merchants themselves. That
these Irish labourers may be seen in their cellars in a state
of ragged and apparently wretched misery, I do not deny ;
but 1 do deny that doublingc, the wages would alter the case.
Experience teaches this. Inglis, in his Tour in Ireland,
says :—" But bad as is the condition of the Irish, they do
not make the best of it, and will not work for what they call
kitchen,' which Means any comfort beyond what is neces-
sary for bare existence."

On page 11 you say—" It seems then clear that cheap
bread would secure to the labouring classes of Great Britain
and Ireland more abundant employment, better wages, and a
large share of the comforts of life ; and it is most satisfactory
to think of the consequences which might result from their
improved condition. Thus many would have their lives pro-
longed, who are now sinking prematurely to the grave from
insufficient food. Children now dwarfed and crippled in
their growth from the same cause, would grow up in the en-
joyment of ruddy health to a vigorous maturity. The demo-
ralization generally attendant upon hopeless inaction and
habitual mendicity would cease. Parents who now cannot
afford to pay anything for their children's education, would
then be able to provide for it; and these children, now taken
from school the moment that they can learn anything, how-
ever trifling, by their labour, might then remain much longer
under instruction."

Now, sir, these are all very delightful results, but I fear
they arise simply from the fertile imagination of a benevolent
disposition, and if not borne out by matter of fact, are much
more likely to mislead and cause discontent than produce
any other result ; would it not be better to prove as you go
on, that a change in the corn laws would produce cheap
bread, that cheap bread would produce abundant labour and-
better wages, and a larger share of the comforts of life ; and
when these points have been proved, then, perhaps, it would
be time enough to contemplate the happy consequences re-
sulting therefrom. But be it remembered that you have not
yet proved any of these points ; and can you satisfactorily
prove " that many are sinking prematurely to the grave from
insufficient food ;" and that " children are dwarfed and
crippled in their growth from the same cause." If not,
surely it is a pity to draw up imaginary distress and misery,
simply to harrow up the feelings, and which must do harm to
those who fancy themselves the victims or martyrs. That
" children are dwarfed and crippled in their growth," and
the seeds of consumption and other diseases sown by the
manufacturing system, which appears to be your palladium
for all the distress of the country, I can refer you to abundant
evidence to prove. You say in page 11, " the poor do not
ask the charity of their countrymen ; all they wish is to be
permitted to buy with their own labour what other nations
are willing to sell. Left alone they could feed and clothe
themselves, educate their children, and provide for the de-
crepitude of age ; why should the law step in and say, you
shall neither labour nor eat? God has provided food for
theta in other lands ; and if no law prevented, they could
easily buy it. Can it be right that the law should intercept
the bounty of God, and sentence them to perpetual want."
Can any good result from this extravagant mode of over-
stating a case? How does the law say? " you shall neither
labour nor eat." Ilow can it be said that the law intercepts
the bounty of God, and sentences them to perpetual want."
Such expressions as these, sir, however good the motive
of the party making them, must have an evil tendency. But
to argue the matter in plain common sense, would it be ra-
tional and just, think you, for the labourer to say to the party
from whom he was earning his bread—lt is true you pay the
taxes of the country,—it is true you pay for the support of
the army and navy, to protect our country from the invasion
of a foreign foe,—it is true you pay for the support of our na-
tional church ;—but I think I could buy bread cheaper of a
foreigner, who has not these taxes to pay ; therefore, al-
though I earn my living out of you,—although I derive the
advantage of the protection given to the country from foreign
foes, and benefit by the happy administration of our coun-
try's laws,—and enjoy the blessings of a national church,—
all paid for by you,—yet I can buy my bread at a cheaper
market, and therefore will do so ? Now, to turn the tables
for one minute, what would be said of a landholder or a ma-
nufacturer who- should say,—" I have for some time been
employing 500 labourers, at a cost of 12s. or 15s. per week
each ; but I have discovered a more economical mode, by
sending for 500 Spaniards, or other foreigners, whom I can
get at half that price ; I shall, therefore, turn off all my
English bands, and take these foreigners into my employ?"—
Why, the man would be justly scouted as a foe to his coun-
try, and these very free-trade brawlers would be the first to
condemn him. Then let us have fair play on both sides.
And now, sir, I come to your climax of logical argument.
Be it remembered that I lay no claim whatever to the cha-
racter of a logician myself, but merely wish to state the case
as a matter-of-fact-man. You say, then, " If it be replied
that grave interests require this interposition of the law, let
me ask what interests? It is not very likely that agriculture
would suffer by a reduction of the corn duty, since the Dukes
of Bedford and Devonshire, of Sutherland and Cleveland,
Marquis of Westminster, Lord Leicester, Lord Spencer, and
Lord Fitz william are all favourable to the change." A most
luminous argument forsooth. So, then, if I can say, " Such
an alteration in the corn-laws tritest be most ruinous to the
landed interest, as the Dukes of Buckingham, Richmond,
Rutland, and Wellington, the Marquis Camden, the Earls of
Harrowby, Liverpool, Winchelsea, and Ripon are opposed
to it. According to your mode of argument, I must have
the best of it, as I should count nine against your eight. I
think this will not do, sir, even with the operatives. At any
rate, I can answer for the operatives of Liverpool seeing
through it. In my next I will take the liberty to show how
ready you have been to pourtray great grievances to the poor.
which exist only in the misstatements of individuals, too
ready at all times to hunt out for supposed wrongs, and cause
discontent amongst the labouring classes of our land.—l beg
to remain, reverend sir, your very obedient servant,
J. C.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SlR,—Can you inform your numerous readers why it is
that the shabby whigs have not included our worthy and
talented townsman, Sir Joshua Walmsley, in the list of new
baronets ? It does appear to me, that he has been most
scurvily treated. A man of his importance to be thrust aside
with a shabby knighthood ! The thing is incredible. A.
whole batch of Scotchmen and Irishmen, who, like Sir
Joshua, were defeated at the last election, have had blushing
honours thrust upon them, whilst he, the foremost man of
the Liverpool reformers, has been passed over in contemptu-
ous negligence. Why, sir, it is enough to make ones blood
boil! He was not born to greatness, but he has nobly
achieved it. He did not thrust himself forward as a candi-
date for the Civic Chair, nor for the honour of representing
Liverpool. His proverbial modesty forbade such a " pre-
sumption." It was absolutely forced upon him. Nay, sir,
do not laugh, for I assure you it is true ; and to a very high
place in the cabinet he was destined, had not the calamitous
turn-out of Labouchere and Co. so unhappily occurred.
The only solution to the mystery must be this, that it has
been offered him ; but he, being a quiet, unambitious man,
very unassuming and very modest, has declined the honour.
Sir Joshua, I am confidently told, is to represent Liverpool
as soon as his fingers and thumbs are all of one length.—l
am, sir, yours obediently, ZETA.
Brunswick-street,
Ist day for partridge shooting.

" If you beat me, I will call out the soldiers,"

says the

PERILOUS SITUATION OF THE SOLWAY STEAMER.—The
large steamer the Solway was on Wednesday last run ashore
about three miles to the south-west of the Southerness,
Galloway. There is a light-house on the point, but from
the haziness of the sky, and the swelling of the waters, it
was of no avail. She had sailed from Belfast on the prece-
ding evening, and had on board between 200 and 300 steer-
age passengers, composed chiefly of Irish reapers ; 20 cabin
passengers, including Colonel Napier (brother of the Com-
modore) and his lady and daughter, and other individuals ;
301 head of cattle, 10 horses, besides pigs, bacon, and flour.
On nearing the banks, the vessel struck upon a portion of
the Barnhourie sand-bank. The first shock excited much
alarm, and was followed by many others. In order to lighten
the vessel, the whole of the cattle were thrown overboard,
with the exception of those which happened to be in the
hold. After much exertion the Solway was floated off the
bank ; but her timbers had been in the meantime so strained,
that the water had made its way in, and soon stood as high
as the lower-deck beams, and before long extinguished the
fires, which prevented the engines from being worked.
The vessel would have sunk had the captain continued
standing up the channel. The steerage passengers be-
came drenched with rain, which fell heavily for several hours,
aceompanied by a high wind ; and, thinking they could not
be the worse for a dip in the sea, they resolved to make for
the shore in the best way they could. They were taken a
certain distance in the boats, and then waded through the
water. On reaching comparatively shoal water, the scramble
landward was not a little laughable. Some, immersed to the
chin, sank in the mud at every step ; but the taller men held
up the shorter, and linked in parties of six, eight, or a dozen,
they formed groups which, though objects of compassion to
those on land, presented a very fantastic appearance. On
landing, they made their way to Kirkbean, New Abbey, and
thence to Dumfries. The cabin passengers remained longer
on board, and were ultimately landed in safety with compara-
tive ease and comfort. Of the 304 head of cattle thrown
overboard, only 47 were saved. The horses saved themselves
by swimming. Mr. Jackson, of Belfast, had cattle on board
to the value of £lOOO. The vessel had not been raised on
Monday, although attempts had been made to float her.