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

SHED NEAR SEACOMBE SLIP.

An application from Messrs. Eaton and Co., of Mostvn,
near Holywell, praying to be allowed to erect a small but
near Seacombe Slip, for 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.
ALLEGED IMPROPER DISCHARGE OF A MAN BY THE
SURVEYOR.
Mr. BOLD said, that a statement appeared in the news-
papers about a fortnight ago, that Mr. Hartley had 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, and he (Mr. Bold) wished to hear it.
Mr. EVANS 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 Codlimittee 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 he had 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. He had shewn 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 unne-
cessary to make any explanation when the man himself did
not come forward.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the man had 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 he 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 lie sent in a
written complaint, which would be investigated.
Mr. TomN thought that equal justice should be done. If,
onen
i
as Mr. Evans said, there had been a double mistake,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. nem., on the part of the Committee of Works, beg_
ged to say, that they had not the slightest intention to mtbaitilke.
any concealment at all. Mr. Bold himself would never
of attending to anonymous complaints, when the party him-
self did not complain.
Mr. Tons 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 sent a
complaint
his busi-
ness, it was too late for him to make ; he ought
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 Nvdaisa
issesrsvmanistsetod.Mr. Hartley,
dismiss who had a right, therefore, to him.
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 CHAIRMAN was of opinion that if the committee in-
tersfe erediency with Mr. Hartley's subordinates, they would destroy
hiffic.
Mr. BOLD said, if the man was in fault he ought to bea the
dis-
missed missed if he was not, it was a hard case, and that wa
view which the public took
Mr. TOBIN dared
say,t.hat all the public wanted was an
explanation.
Mr. BOLD added, that some explanation ought to be given
for Mr. Hartley's own sake ; because,
stated, it was a jont mistake as Mr. Evans had
Mr. Hoi.T would ask the committee' whether Mr. Hartley
was not to have the power of dismissing his servants?
The CHAIRMAN.—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
s in
histh efr ciehuadra Mr.cte
r
com-
mittee were not to suppose that Mr. Hartley was in the
wrong.
Mr. EVANS urged that 11 larn.dHhaertwleoyul dyad
a ask
of the captain of a ship ;
Tobin if he being a captain, would not expect to have the
control of the mates and the men.
Mr. Touts said no doubt of it, he were the captain
and his friend Mr. Evans the e mate,but
if
and he took it upon him
to discharge the second mate, he should say lie was drunk.
(Laughter.)
Mr. BOLD would certainly enquire into the matter if he
found anything wrong, and therefore he considered Mr.
Hartley in the character of commander of ,
care of the owners. a snip under the
The CHAIRMAN said he had taken that view of the matter
himself, and therefore lie had desired the secretary to write
an xplanation. Mr. Hartley
a note to Mr. Hartley for.
had written a letter in reply, which he
(the chairman) had
laid before the Board of Work
Mr. TOBlN.—However, theres 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 having been dismissed.
Mr. BOLD.—\`—\`hen thesd•
Sub-Committee of Works have
made inquiry into it
The CHAIRMAN We shall hear the result?
The coriversatiel.l—elestilis subject then dropped ; and the
Committee proceeded to read an opinion of counsel upon
some questions affecting the liability of the estate to pay the
income tax,
after which they separated.