The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1861-01-25 00:00:00

THE DOCK BOARD.

The weekly meeting of this board was held yesterday,
at the Dock Offices. Mr. Charles Turner presided, and
the other members present were Messrs. Smith, Hub-
back, Laird, Anderson, Boult, Rankin, Bushell, Little-
dale, Holme, Evans, Segar, Bold, Arnold, Inman,
Langton, Tobin, and Shand.
TitE COMICriEE Or dreg.

The r4bEEediriii of this Committee included 'a recom-
mendation to accept the tenders of Meisrs. Samuel
Turner and Son, and Messrs. Sleight and Jones, for a
supply of oak and ash: timber. The subject of the con-
struction of the 85 feet wide graving dock had again
been taken into Pons4erAtioni when the engineer had
114 ii iiisifikited to prepare a plan showing tile rtilggel-
iions made, and submit it to the committee. Ifl'ttfet-
ence to the indemnity demanded from Vessels entering
the Birkenhead chicks; the Eonimittee recodirdended that
it shoind.lie Witlidfathi OM
srig sYsteilt ebtild lie
" " /"d 1W 66 eiigniebi oro ag t into operation EAiggesce attd
harbour master ; but that the same indemnity be
required from the Morpeth half-tide dock as in the
half-tide docks on this side of the river. The engineer
had been instructed to fdrnish plans for a landing-stage.
for the low water basin.
Mr. Rankin moved, and Mr. Smith seconded, the
confirmation of the proceedings.
Mr. LAIRD said the indemnity should never have been
put on; it had existed nine months, without any autho-
rity froM the board. It had been put in force without
their having an opportunity of dlscuSsing the matter in
public. Many reasons were given for the indemnity.
One was that the gates and sills *ere defective. -
inquiring into that; it *di found that they were 'not
defective. reason was that they were only
single gates, and therefore unsafe. The Coburg dock
tind,George's dock, on, this side, had single gates, yet no
indemnity was asked for them. When the indemnity
was. removed,. the Great Float would be opened, the
satne as the docks on this side were ; but on this
side the quays ..were paved, rails laid, sheds reared,
and eiefithing 'done to induce trade to them.
On the other side of•the water, 'if gentlemen would
go,. they would find that the quays were a mass
of mud and dirt ; no preparations were made ; and
no ftrade Could be expected for months to come. He
regretted this had not been seen to sooner ; he had
brought forward the matter from time to time, and
orders Had been given to carry on the works without
delay, but unfortunately this had not been done. When
a dock was made for the steam trade at the North, the
sheds were arranged, and the dock was opened, not only
with water space, but every convenience for trade. He
thought the public and the board must not be flisap-
pointhdi if for, the next six or twelve months very little
tr#tle stititild go to the other side of the water.
he CHAIRMAN said with respect to the Coburg
bock, the chairman was ,under a mistake. It was
explained in committee that the Coburg was not to act
as a half-tide dock : it was worked to the tide. As
regarded the other matter, he thought Mr. Laird ought
to have taken into account the great difference in the
works on the two sides of the river. At Birkenhead
there had been a great many unforeseen difficulties,
liable to arise with all new works, a tremendous quan-
tity of piling, and a deal of additional `work that the
engineer did not contemplate ; and he had confidence
that the engineer had gone on with the work as fast as
he possibly could. It was easier to get men to work on
this side of the water than on the other. The works
were comparatively small ; while at Birkenhead they
were of an enormous character, involving millions of
money ; but the remarks of Mr. Laird would lead the
public to suppose that they had not done all that they
could. Now it had been the anxious desire of the
Works Committee to carry on the works with the
utmost speed consistent with safety, and there had been
no want of energy on the part of the engineer. Every-
thing had been done to carry out to the spirit and he
letter the works imposed upon them by act of Par-
liament.

Mr. SHIT'', as a member of the Works Committee,
said fair play for both sides was a game which he should
like to see at that board ; but it appeared there was one
exception in Mr. Laird. He always fiddled on one
string. They heard everything on one side of the
question ; but they did not hear what might be said on
the other. Mr. Laird complained that those works had
not been gone on with as fast as they possibly could;
but had they ever heard Mr. Laird, when he rose to
make those complaints, refer to the fact that that scheme
when it came.into the hands of the board, either from
the ignorance or negligence of those who had concocted
it, was so deficient that when the water was let out of
Float, they found they had to spend £60,000 to put
walls in repair which they had thought were
in perfect order, and did not require 6d. spent upon
them. Had Mr. Laird ever referred to the different
position in which they would have been if the labourers
on whom this £60,000 had been expended had been
employed on the new works ? He never had. sow, he
admired Mr. Laird's courage; he was a man who was
never afraid to speak : but he thought that when a gen-
tleman took up a question, he should view it from all
sides.

Mr. BOULT said Mr. Laird's remarks formed their
thanks for letting the water into the Great Float before
the work was done. Only a few months since workmen
were strengthening the walls, the leakage being very
great. With respect to the gates and the indemnity,
they had only acted upon the opinion of the engineer.
Mr. LAIRD said he did not allude in any way to the
outer works : that was a wide question which they did
not wish to go into. Tie referred to the quays, cranes,
and conveniences necessary to work a dock properly.
No gentleman could say that he had not promoted every
measure for giving facilities on this side, and therefore
he was not open to the remarks of Mr. Smith.
Mr. RANKIN- was sorry that Mr. Laird should harp
on the imputation as to delay at Birkenhead; but any
one who went over there would see that the allegation
was unfounded. There was not one member of the
Works Committee who was not as desirous to carry out
the works in their integrity as Mr. Laird himself. As
to the supposition that works were progressing faster
on the Liverpool side, he could state that at this moment
the works at the canal docks were stopped, so as to
expedite those at Birkenhead ; and of that the timber
trade might justly complain, although they did not do so.
The proceedings were then confirmed.

THE WAREHOUSE COMMITTEE.—THE GUANO TRADE.
The proceedings of this committee having been read,
Mr. HUBBACK. moved their confirmation. As chair-
man of the committee, he expressed his regret at the
decision come to by the board last week, with respect
to the charge on warehousing guano at 13irkenhead.
Being absent in London, he was unable to take part in
the discussion, lie thought gentlemen had allowed
jtheir personal feelings to get the better of their sense of
ustice. lie should certainly have voted in the minority
on the ground that the superintendent of the Birken-
head warehouses had stated that a reduction could be
made without incurring loss to the trust. No ou,
taking a surface view of the question, it might seem bt
to
members of the board almost unreasonable to suppose
that 2d. per ton would prevent an article of the value of
£l3 a ton coming to this port; but he thought they
must deal with men and things as they found them, and
not stick to abstract principles. As he possessed some
knowledge of the guano trade, he was inclined to
think that it was a matter of indifference to Messrs.
Anthony Gibbs and Son whether a ton of guano came
or not. His feeling was that no more guano would
come, and he was confirmed in that by letters which he
had received from shipowners in town. Two vessels at
Cork had been ordered to Bristol instead of coming to
the Mersey. One shipowner wrote that he had 21
vessels which would be thus diverted ; another had
11,000 tons.

kr. EvAirs—ls this question before the board ?
This is a posthumous hearing after the thing is dead
and gone.
The CHAIRMAN said it was not properly before the
Board.

Mr. HUBBACK said time alone would show whether
he was correct in his opinion; bat this he wished to be
understood, that if hereafter they found that no more
guano came to the port of Liverpool, he, as chairman of
the Warehouse Committee, and the majority of that
committee, would not be to blame.
Mr. AU OLD seconded the confirmation of the minutes,
but differed materially from Mr. B.ubback, and thought
the board had come to a right conclusion. The reason
given for the reduction was the 2d advance in the town
dues. That was a condemnation in itself of the increase
of the town drift. lie could not believe for a moment
that the trade of the port hung upon so slender a thread
as 2d a ton. .

Mr. Lunn said he had voted with the minority from
a conviction that they could afford 2d a ton on a com-
modity the revenue from which was last year X 7,000.
Mr. EVANS said this had been all discussed before,
and they had no right to have their time taken up with
a posthumous speech after the body was buried.
Mr. LAlRD—Although Mr. Evans has a license for
interrupting people—
Mr. EVANS—I anystopping, you on a point of order:
It is you, sir, who are interrupting the board.
Mr. Laird was proceeding, when the chairman inter-
posed, and stopped the discussion.
Mr. LirrLEDALE asked if the letters which Mr. Hub-
back had received could be read to the board. •
The CHAIRMAN—Not to-day; you may give notice
for next week.
Mr. IlunnAcx—There is an apprehension on the,part
of Messrs. Gibbs & Sons that, owing to the unfortunate
business of the Sierra Nevada, they will not have the
same facilities.
The Chairman again interposed.
Mr. SMITH—Mr. ilubback has said that gentlemen
allowed their feelin,gs to get the better of their judgment;
it was a most improper expression. If he meant me, I
call upon him to withdraw it:
Mr. HU)3BACK-4 withdraw it. - --
Mr. Siam—Then I accept it.
The proceedings were then confirmed; as were also
those of the Pilotage Committee.
•
THE DOCKS AND QUAYS COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of this committee comprised the

appointment of two pier-masters, and five dockgatemen ;
and to remove a shed from the east quay of the Hus-
kisson Dock, at 'a cost of about £6O ; also, to provide
two double, purchase capstans for the Egerton Dock at
Birkenhead.—the master of the Garibaldi had written
that he should hold the hoard liable for any damage the
• ship or eargo might sustain by straining: on the sill of
the Stanley Dock.HThe five dock-gate men reConi-
iriended. 'And Emir of lioit`i are for
liirkenhcad, -*ere Hugh toberts'i Molitneui,
Francie,Dixon, James-Downey; and James
Mr,smith.Dcved the confirmation of the proceedings.
Mr. LAIRD understood the plans for the accommo-
dation of the corn trade had been submitted to the
committee ?

The CummuN--Yes, but nothing
,decided upon.
Mr. Smiern—The subject will come beiore the board
nett tock.

Mr. lA/an—Has anything been done as to the Bruns-
wick Dock ?

Mt. Slititg. replied that nothing bad been done last
Wednesday as to the erection of warehonses at the
Brunswick Dock. That opened a large question, be-
eanse it involved the purchase of land from Wapping
to Sefton-street, and probably the purchase of property
On the east side.. •

Mr. Lunn said the corn trade were most anxious to
have accommodation, but they were put off from time
to time. He did not see that the queition had anything
to do with the widening of Wapping.

The proceedings were then confirmed; as were also
those of the Master Porterage Committee.

THE NEW DOCK BILL.

the folloYrlng letter was read and referred to the
Parliamentary Committee.
"Rumford.:street, Jan. 18, 1861.

"SlR,—The Cotton Brokers' Association have had
under their consideration several provisions contained
in a proposed bill, entitled Bill to enable the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board to purchase, &c., &c., and to
enable the board to improve the working of the docks
and the loading and unloading of vessels.'
" The association are of opinion that several of the
provisions contained in the latter portion of the bill are
very inimical to the interests of the cotton trade, and
have appointed rt committee of five gentlemen, to seek
an interview either with the board or with such of their
committees as are entrusted with the regulation of-mas-
ter porterage and of goods remaining on the, quays.
" Will you have the kindness to inform me if, and
when, it will be convenient to receive the deputation ?
—I am, sir. Tours truly,
"Daniel Mason, Esq." " SAm. GATT, Chairman."
THE SALT TRADE AND THE NAVIGATION OF THE

WEAVER.
• The following communication was next read :
" Salt Chamber of Commerce, isTorthwich and
"Liverpool ; 23rd January, 1861. •
" have been requested by some of the leading
shipbrokers to send you the accompanying memorial,
signed by captains of vessels now in port, respecting thd
detention they have met, with in obtaining cargoes of
salt, " I am, your obedient servant,
" H. HADFIELD, Secretary.
"Charles Turner, Esq., Chairman of the Mersey
" Docks and Harbour Board."
"TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MERSEY' DOCKS AND