Thomas Bakewell
of Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester
1832 'SALFORD SESSIONS — Saturday, January 21. The court was occupied from its opening until 10 o'clock at night, in hearing case in which Thomas Bakewell was indicted for a nuisance. The defendant is a manufacturer of size and glue, at the upper end of Great Bridgewater-street; and the indictment against him was preferred by his neighbours, who alleged themselves to be much inconvenienced by the smell arising from the boiling of bones. Messrs. Courtenay, Armstrong, and Duck conducted the prosecution, and Messrs. Brown and Brandt appeared for the defence. A great number of witnesses,residents in the neighbourhood of the defendant's premises, and workmen in the adjoining mills and foundries, proved the noisomeness of the stench arising from the boiling of putrid bones and other matter. For the defence, Mr. John Dalton, Dr. Davenport Hulme, Dr. Gaulter, and other gentlemen, conspicuous for their knowledge of chemistry, proved that they had inspected Mr Bakewell's process of size manufacturing, and they could not see anything in it prejudicial to health, nor particularly uncomfortable. The defendant was found guilty, but on his undertaking to remove the nuisance before the next sessions, judgment was respited until then.'[1]
1839 'SALFORD COURT LEET.—AFFEERING.
The affeerors entered upon their business at eleven o'clock the same day, when Mr. Thomas Bakewell, size manufacturer, who had been fined the sum of 5s. for a nuisance created by noxious and offensive vapours emitted from his manufactory in Sandford-street, and in the further sum of £100 unless the nuisance should be abated in six months, appeared and addressed the court. He said he had not brought any witnesses forward in his favour, but he wished to make a few observations himself. And first he was desirous cf apologising to Mr. William Lockett and Mr. Agnew, for having, at the former sitting of the court, in a moment of excitement, charged them with factious motives and unneighbourly conduct. He was willing to admit, on further consideration of the matter, that their conduct was justifiable, though he thought they had in some measure acted under a mistaken notion. If they expected, however, to find places in a town like this perfectly free from noxious vapours and unpleasant smells, they might rest assured that they would be disappointed. There were several dye-houses and chemical works carried on in the same neighbourhood which as much deserved the character of nuisances as did his manufactory, and it was a curious fact that a gentleman who had recently become the owner of one of them, had only a few years ago complained in this court of the others. That this was no excuse for him he was aware, but it was hard that they should run foul of such an humble individual as himself when others and richer men in the neighbourhood were allowed to carry on offensive works undisturbed. The article he manufactured was a very important one; and having already been obliged, in consequence of an indictment at the Salford sessions, to remove from Hulme, at a loss of several hundred pounds, the decision of the jury in this case would almost amount to stoppage of his business, for he did not know where he could find another situation suitable for his purpose. What rendered him more dissatisfied with the finding of the jury was, the belief that they had formed their verdict upon the statements of persons who were in error as to the cause of the nuisance of which they complained; for it must be remembered that the chemical works of Mr. Southern closely adjoined his own, and that he manufactured there the very articles which had so often been the subject of complaint and litigation in Liverpool. Under these circumstances, he thought it possible that the nuisance complained arose, in a great measure, from Mr. Southern's works, and not at his (Mr. Bakewell's). However, he would pay the fine of 5s.; and if the jury would give him the time they had before fixed (six months) to escape the larger penalty, he would endeavour, before the expiration of that term, either to make such alterations in his works to abate the nuisance, or remove from the place. The Chairman said it was now for the jury to say whether they would confirm their former decision or depart from it. It appeared to him that Mr. Bakewell had admitted the existence of the nuisance. Mr. Brettargh was satisfied that such works as Mr. Bakewell's could not be allowed, and ought not, in the neighbourhood of dwelling-houses, and the sooner both he and the other parties complained of removed, the better ; for they might be assured that they would, sooner or later, be compelled to do it. The jury then confirmed their former finding—that Mr. Bakewell be fined 5s., and £100 if the nuisance should not be satisfactorily abated in six months.'[2]