The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-09-02 00:00:00

THE NEW SHEDS.

The Sub-Committee for the department of the Ware-
houses, submitted an outline or schedule of the duties of the
Superintendent of the Transit Sheds, which they recom-
mended for the adoption of the general committee.
The SECRETARY read these duties, which were of a specific
character, the mos importantt being that the Superintendent
should give security to the amount of £2OO, hold his office
at the pleasure of the committee, devote his whole time to
the office, and not take any fee or emolument from any party
whatsoever.

The Sub-Committee next recommended that Mr. Eclward
Mumford Pilcher be appointed superintendent of the sheds,
at a salary of £lOO per annum ; and that Edward Pitcher
and George lierford be accepted as security for him to the
amount of £2OO.

These recommendations of the Sub-Committee were con-
firmed.

SHED NEAR SEACOMDE SLIP.

An application from Messrs. Eaton and Co., of Mostyn,
near Holywell, praying to be allowed to erect a small but
near Seacombe Slip, or the purpose of protecting paper
parcels from the rain when sent down to their steamers, was
referred to the Sub-Committee for the department of the
Harbour-masters.
ALLEGE!) IMPROPER DISCHARGII OF A MAN BY TILE
SURVEYOR.
Mr. BOLD said, that a statement appeared in the news-
papers about a fortnight ago, that Mr. Hartley hail dis-
charged one of his foremen for having made a mistake with
respect to the width of the railway, when, in fact, the mis-
take was his own ; and, as yet, no explanation of the matter
had gone forth to the public. His (Mr. Bold's) attention
had only been called to the subject this morning, and when
he heard it he thought it was due to the public, no less than
to the surveyor, that some reply should be made to the state-
ment. The statement was, that a great mistake had been
made in the width of the rails, that the pavement had to be
taken up, and that the foreman who had the management of
it was discharged, although he was not to blame. Mr.
Hartley had informed him that he had given an explanation
to the Board of Works, mid he (Mr. Bold) wished to hear it.
Mr. Evaers said the fact was there had been a double
mistake,.one in Mr. Hartley's office, and the other with the
man in question, who had not taken the guage of the railway
right.
Mr. Nicol. begged to mention, as a somewhat singular
circumstance, that the man, although he had made his com-
plaint to the papers, had not thought of making it to the
Dock Committee or to the sub-committee. It was not,
therefore, to be expected that the Dock Committee would
enquire into anonymous complaints when the man himself
had not thought proper to make it. Let him apply to the
sub-committee, in the first instance, and they would investi-
gate the matter.
The CHAIRMAN said be bad made the same remark to a
gentleman who had named the subject to him, and subse-
quently to that the man himself had called upon him at the
office. This was on Saturday last. Ile had shown him (the
chairman) where the mistake had occurred, and explained it
in his own way. At all events Mr. Hartley ought to have
an opportunity of giving his own explanation to the public.
Mr. NICOL added that the matter had come under the
notice of the sub-committee, but they considered it none-
cessary to make any explanation when the man himself did
not come forward.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the man bad called upon Mr.
Ripley, who was so engaged that he had not time to attend
to him.
Mr. EVANS asked why he had not addressed a letter to
the committee ?
The CHAIRMAN.—That is what lie ought to have done.
Mr. NICOL said if the Dock Committee took notice of
every newspaper paragraph, or reports that came before them
in an indirect shape, there would be no end of it. The sim-
plest answer was, that the man himself had made no complaint.
The CHAIRMAN added that the man had made no com-
plaint whatever until Saturday; but, yesterday he sent in a
written complaint, which would be investigated.
Mr. TOBIN thought that equal justice should be done. if,
as Mr. Evans said, there had been a double mistake, one in
the Surveyor's Office, and the other by the man himself, if
one was to be disbanded for it, the other should be disbanded
likewise.
Mr. BOLD said it was hard upon the poor man to be sum-
marily dismissed.
Mr. Nicoe, on the part of the Committee of Works, be,.
ged to say, that they had not the slightest intention to ni'" ("
any concealment at all. Mr. Bold himself would never
ink
th
of attending to anonymous complaints, when the party him-
self did not complain.
Mr. TOBIN asked whether it was right for Mr. Hartley to
dismiss the man without bringing it before the Committee of
Works? After the poor fellow had been seatl; be ought
about his busi-
ness, it was too late for him to make a
complaint
in the first instance to have been called upon for his reasons
why he did not do so and so, and if he could not give a satis-
factory explanation, then let him be
dismissed.
Mr. Nicol. supposed he was a iiti
servantll. to Mr. Hartley,
who had a right, therefore, to dismiss
Mr. EVANS said that Mr. Hartley must have control over
his subordinates. If the committee made all his subordi-
nates of equal and concurrent authority with himself, there
was an end of all discipline.
The Cnalumme was of opinion that if the committee in-
tersfe eredfficiency . with Mr. Hartley's subordinates, they would destroy
hi
Mr. BOLD said, if the man was in fault he ought to be dis-
missed; if he was not, it was a hard case, and
that was the
view which the public took.
Mr. TOBIN dared say, that all the public wanted was an
explanation.
Mr. BOLD added, that some explanation ought to be girell
for Mr. Hartley's own sake ; because, as Mr. Evans had
stated, it was a jont mistake.
Mr. Hour would ask the committee whether Mr. Hartley
was not to have the power of dismissing
his servants?
The CnAialin.N.—Yes, he must have that power.
Mr. BOLD.—But the committee are bound to protect their
servants if they are discharged improperly.
Mr. BARCLAY said, that because a paragraph appeared
in this newspaper or that—he did not care which—the coin-
mittee were not to suppose that Mr. Hartley was in the
wrong.
Mr. EVANS urged that Ifr. Hartley was in the character
of the captain of a
ship ; anidoltueldwonuoltd
eaxskpehcits
to friendh ave
lre.
Tobin if he being a captain, v
control of the mates and the men.
Mr. Twine said no doubt of it, but if lie were the captain
and his friend Mr. Evans the mate, and he tooke
was it tidnruhniku!
to discharge the second mate, he should say he
(Laughter.)
therefore he
Mr. BOLD would certainly d
enquire into the matter if he
found anything wrong, eon 'd
ered Mr.
Hartley in care of thetowhe
nerscharacter of commander of a
ship under the
The CHAIRMAN said he bud taken that view of the matter
himself, and therefore he had desired
the secretary to write
r. ll
a note to Mr. Hartley for an explanation.
had written a letter in reply, which he (the chaMirman)artley had
laid before the Board of Works.
Mr. Tosne.—However, there. will be an explanation given
next week
Mr. Nicol replied in the affirmative.
Mr. EVANS believed that this was not the first instance of
the man havingbeeniinissed.
Mr. BOLD.--u h the Sub-Commit tee of Works have
made inquiry into it el;
The CHAIRMAN. we shall hear the result ?
es..
The conversatie
non this subject then dropped ; and the
Committee proceedsome questions ed to read an opinion of counsel upon
affectin the liability of the estate to pay the
income tax, after g
which they separated.

...