The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-01-13 00:00:00

THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.

We, the undersigned clergymen, being members of the
Manchester Clerical Society, and invited to take part in
" The• Evangelical Alliance," having, at our recent
monthly meeting, calmly, candidly, and prayerfully de-
liberated upon the invitation which had been addressed to
us, and having unanimously come to the conclusion that
we could not accept that invifation, deem it right, in
faithfulness, but in all charity, to place in the hands of
our respective congregations, for their information and
satisfaction, the following statement of the chief reasons
which determined our decision :
We arrived at our conclusion,

1. Because we cannot, as we conceive, in consistency
with our duty to the Church of which we are ministers,
identify ourselves with an association which appears to
regard all the unhappy separations from our Church as
comparatively unimportant, and to take it for granted
that such separations must, and indeed ought to,
continue.
2. Because having already subscribed articles of faith
and union, we do not feel ourselves called upon to sub-
scribe others of a vague and general character.
3. Because whilst we hold that tender consideration
is due to the feelings and scruples of Christian men
without the pale of our Church, we hol.l that still
greater consideration is due from us to the feelings and
scruples of Christian men within the pele of our
Church, to many of whom we know we should occasion
much perplexity and distress were we to join " the pro-
jected alliance."
4. Because, solemnly pledged as we are to uphold the
principle of a national establishment, we do not see how
we can consistently strengthen the hands of wen who
declare, on the vesy platform of " The Alliance," that
they consider " the anti-state-church principle as
amongst the essentials of their Christianity."
5. Because, although deeply anxious to cherish bro-

therly kindness and fellowship with true believers, how-
ever separated from us, we entirely concur in the lan-
guage of one of the speakers at the " Liverpool Confer.
ence," that unless the society be composed of none but
real believers, " it will be fraught with danger and dis-
appointment,"—" there will he seeds of disunion sown,
which will constantly spring up ;" and concurring in
these sentiments, we see no sufficient guarantee that
tne projected Alliance shall consist exclusively, even in
the judgment of charity, of the living members of
Christ.

6. Because Holy Scripture charges Christians to be
"perfectly joined together in one mind and one judg-
ment." so that they may "with one mind and one
mouth,
;glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ ; ' but on the face of The Evangelical Alliance,
we find all attempt at such unanimity openly dis-
claimed.
7. Because we conceive tbat th-e-sulviaof union
a ought to precede the manifestation and that
instead of Christians saying to the world—" see how we
Cbristians love one another," they ought rather, by
their quiet example, to compel the world to exclaim, as
in primitive times—" see how these Christians love one
another."
8. Because we perceive no likelihood of any practical
and important measure emanating from a combination
which is embarassed and crippled by so many conflict-
ing peculiarities of sentiment and opinion.
9. Because even irrespectively of all beside, we do
not think it would be wise to commit ourselves to a

movement the principles of which are avowedly so par-
tially developed, and its plans so faintly indicated.
In submitting these considerations to the devout and
charitable attention of those for whose souls we watch,
we would solemnly assure them that we do so with the
kindest feelings towards those who do not see eye to eye
with us in this matter; and that, instead of courting con-
troversy, we shall not, collectively at least, notice any
strictures which may possibly be made on this statement
of our views.

IluGn STOWELL, M.A., Chairman ; HENRY W.
WGRATH, M.A. ; ROBERT FROST, M.A. ; WM.
HUNTINGTON, M.A.; JNO. HOLLIST; ARTHUR
W. ARCHER, M.A.; JOHN BYWATER, M.A.;
HENRY DECK, M.A.; HENRY MARLEN ; ED..
WARD BIRCH. M.A.; P. J. O'LEARY ; CHAS.
CAMERON, M.A. ; EPHRAIM HARPER, A,B. ;
JOHN HERON MACGUIRE, S.C.L. ; RICHARD
HILL, A.B. ; J. G. VANCE, A. 8.; JOHN HAYES,
M.A ; WILLIAM FELLING, M.A. ; WILLIAM
BEAD, B.A.;THOS. FARTHING, 8.A.; WILEI AM
VERDON, A.B. ; J. A. BODDY, M.A.; A P. IR-
WINE, M.A. ; STEPHEN RICHARD WALLER,
M.A.; WILLIAM BURNS ; P. THOMPSON, B.A.
Manchester, January 2, 1846.

BURSTING OF THE TANK AT THE WATER
WORKS.-VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

On Tuesday last an enquiry commenced in the Nisi
Prins Court, before the Coroner, into the circumstances
connected with the death of Ann Deveney, (wife of Joseph
Deveney,) another of the unfortunate sufferers by the
bursting of the tank at the Harrington Water Works.
The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury :
William Hutton, Francis Eaglesfield, Charles Pain,
Thomas Kirkpatrick, Patrick Thompson, Daniel Turner,
James Lloyd, John Thompson, John Satterthwaite Swith-
enbank, William Hetherington, Daniel Cross Sudlow,
George Nickson, Thomas Neale, Peter Marsh, Joshua
Powell, George Brown, John Chadwick, George Phillips,
Benjamin Smith, Joseph M`Cartin, Joseph Burrows,
Joseph Ritson, and Robert Wilson.
Mr. Jamieson, prosecuting solicitor for the Corporation,
was in attendance. Mr. Stanistreet, solicitor, appeared
on behalf of the Water Works, and Mr. Miller, solicitor,
for the Hawarden Company.
The Coroner said he had been induced to summon the
full number of twenty-three, not for the pu-pose solely of
inquiring into the cause of the death of the deceased Ann
Deveney, but from having heard observations made—
remarks made, to say the least of them, injudiciously,
after a previous inquiry of thirteen hours' duration—to
show that the, facts gone into and the verdict come to upon
those facts, were not satisfactory to the public. It was
his duty, and their duty, to dismiss from their minds every
thing but the facts which would be brought before them at
the present inquest, and upon those facts to determine
their verdict. . _

Witnesses having been examined as to the nature of the
accident ,the following scientific gentlemen were examined.
Mr. John Grantham called, and examined by the Town-
clerk.—His evidence: was substantially the same as that
he had given at the former inquest, namely, that the
foundation of the tank was solid and undisturbed, the
quality of the iron good,and the side plates strong enough
for the pressure, if they had been well stayed. He ex-
plained the mode in which the tank was staved, illustra-
ting his observations by reference to a model. The mean
pressure on the sides with 16 feet water would be nibs. to
the square inch ; and the outward pressure 255 tons. He
objected to the mode of placing the stays, and considered
if they had been properly placed they were of sufficient
thickness. The principal defect was, that when the pres-
sure came on the horizontal or diagonal stays there would
be a leverage exerted tending to break the bolts which se-
cured the binder to the side plates. The bolts he exam-
ined did not fit well in the bolt holes, which would have a
tendency to produce danger when the strain came on them.
The diagonal stays would have been much better had they
gone directly across, and been fastened to the sides,instead
of with the intervention of a binder, and the stays should
have been more numerous, and more evenly divided over
the surface of the sides. The greatest pressure on the
tank would be at the bottom, and a few feet from the bot-
tom the stays should have been the most numerous, but
that precaution had not been adopted to the extent de-
sirable. He attributed the accident to one of two causes,
either one or more of the horizontal stays breaking off at
the nuts. or the bolts in the flanges breaking, leaving the
side plates without support. He considered there was no
want of care in the construction of the tank, but there
was a slight want of skill.
By the Coroner.—Knew Mr. Howell, and considered
him a person of great experience in such matters. The
mode of construction, in matters of detail as to a tank,
was a matter of opinion amongst engineers, upon which
there would be a difference. _ _ _

Mr. Samuel Holme called.—He had examined the
place in which the tank was erected, and his attention
was directed to the foundation, which he examined, and
which appeared to have been constructed. carefully. He
could not find the slightest subsidence or fracture in any
part of it, not even in the arches, which would have been
the first to show if it had occurred. He agreed with Mr.
Grantham, that the method adopted for fastening the
stays was not the best, as there was a probability of the
bolts being drawn out by a wrench, or unless the whole
of the nuts and screws had been equally tight, an unusual
strain might be thrown upon them, and break them off.
He had observed that the plates were broken in front of
the bolt holes, and many of the bolts wrenched, but with
one or two exceptions there was not much to complain of
as regarded the bolt holes. He attributed the bursting to
the wrenching out of the bolts. He considered there had
been a want of skill, or an error in judgment, in regard to
the construction of the tank, but it was in the quantity or
quality of the materials.
In this opinion Mr. Kennedy, of the firm of Messrs.
Bury, Curtis, and Co., Mr. Macgregor, of the firm of
Messrs. Forrester and Co., Mr. Alfred King, of the Gas
Works, Mr. Pooley, ironfounder, and Mr. Franklin, Cor-
poration Surveyor, coincided.
Mr. Miller then called Mr. James Beaumont, builder,

Mr. Barnes, bricklayer, Mr. Clarke Rampling, Mr.
Samuel Siddon, pattern-maker, and Mr. Robert M`Kean,
ironfounder, to show that the foundation, oy giving way,
had caused the accident.
The Coroner proceeded to sum up the case to the jury.
Their business was to deal with the evidence as it appeared
before them. A case of manslaughter might be the result
of commission or omission. If a person did a work in an
improper manner, and death ensued therefrom, the party
might be guilty of manslaughter ; and if a person had a
work to do, and failed to do it, and death resulted in con-
sequence, be was equally guilty of the crime of man-
slaughter. He then went over the evidence with great
care, calling the attention of the jury, as be proceeded, to
those parts of it which would require their more serious
consideration.
The jury retired at twenty minutes to nine, and re-
mained locked up about half an hour, when they returned,
bringing a verdict of manslaughter against Joseph Howell,
the manager of the Hawarden Iron-works, with a deodand
of £lOO on the tank.
The Coroner informed them that a deodand could not
be levied for two reasons,—first, because in'a case of man-
slaughter no deodand was admissible; and, second, that
the tank was an appurtenant to the freehold.
The foreman of the jury stated that nineteen of the jury
were unanimous in returning the verdict which they bad
brought in.
The Coroner—l take this opportunity of stating that I
quite agree with the dissentients.