The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-09 00:00:00

DOCK COM3fITTEB.

Yesterday the usual weekly meeting of this committee
was held—Mr.
,CHARLES TURNER in th chair. The other
members present were, Messrs; Shand, Robinson, Brockle-
bank, Evans, Gladstone,. Holme, Barber, Malcomson, Lans-
dale, Royden, Lockett, Tobin, Rounthwaite, Smith, Rankin,
and Gregson..
On. the -accounts- being read over, and ordered to be
paid,—
Mr. RomnsioN GLADSTONE said with regard to the
sweeping of the streets, he noticed that 15s. per week was
the rate paid the parties so employed. He believed he was
correct in stating-the amount paid by the health committee
was considerably less. He thought there was some incon-
sistency in this, the dock committee was paying too much,
OT the health committee too little.

The CHAIRMAN thought 2s. 6d. perday was not too much
fora man who did a fair day's work.
_ _

-Afr. LANGSDALE remarked that they only paid is. Bd. per
day in the health committee; but certainly there were many
of the persons whom they employed who were aged men.
The CHAIRMAbr remarked the matter was in the hands of
the harbour-masters' committee. The quays had previously
been swept by the health committee, but in consequence of
complaints which. they had had, the harbour-masters' com-
mittee had taken the matter into its own hands.
It was arranged that the subject should be brought before
the harbour-masters' committee.
The warehouse committee recommended the dismissal of
William Barrow, a landing clerk, recently appointed, on the
ground of inefficiency.
The marine. committee had nothing to report.
The harbourimasters' sub-committee recommended that
William Barrow be appointed a clerk in the office of the
harbour master, at a salary of £BO, in the place of James
Williams, resigned.
The CHAIRIKAN remarked that this was not the same
person.
Mr. LANGSDALE should like to know who recommended
William Barrow who had been dismissed by the warehouse
committee ?

The CHAIRMAN did not think this was a fair question,
unless he was going to impugn the bona fide appointment
of the committee.

Mr. LAN(SSDALE : He was the greatest muff that ever
wentinto a place without exception.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that the committee was de-
ceived as to his character, and as soon as his incompetency
was discovered he was dismissed.
LANOSDALE said he used to calculate mus.
quarter, six quarters to a hundred, and if he reached to tons
he did not kno* What he might have done.
Mr. ROBINSON observed ho was taken a hr fniii,ht on trial,
and when found incompetent he rum dismissed.
Mr. LANGSDALv That was thirteeen days too long.
job, was recommended to be appointed as a dock
bate man. An application to increase the *ages of the men
employed at the graving-docks was refused.
Theimaster porter's committee recommended the appoint-
ment of a scale beam-maker and labourer to this establish-
ment, at an expense of £125 per annum.
A communication was read from several steam-boat com-
panies connected, with the' Mediterranean and ether foreign
trades, submitting to the consideration of the committee the
very,great inconvenience and loSs they frequently sustained
by the detention Of their vessels-arriving at this port, arising
from the w'ant' of greater' accommodation at, the ,leck-:np
sheds, for receiving their inwdid cargoes immediately on
their arrival in dock, 'haVing frequently lost several days
waiting for 'an empty shed. There were at present no less
than 26 screw steamers using the Nelson dock, most of them
not Making less than fcrar; and some of them as many as six-
teen voyages within the last eleven months, since the Ist of
January," showing an aggregate amount of tonnage to the
extent 0f'46,t00 lons 'on which deck dries had, been paid;
and and which vessels discharged in the Nelsen dock, and
for thea,Cconifnedation of which iextensive trade ;there was
at present diki-fuerleck-up sheds. ;
The communication concluded by requesting that ftirther
accomniolation should be given for the foreign steam-ship
trade Of the port. )'> . 1
Mr. GLADSTONE : What an extraordinary .aolcunient in
favour 'of warehouses on the dock quays.
Mr. Evitis was going, make
to, the same remark. It was
dock warehouses not sheds they wanted.
Mr. ROUNTHWAITE said Mr. Wilson was obliged to put
away one vessel, in consequence of, not being able to dis-
charge.
Mr. SHAND observed they used the transit sheds and they
paid nothing for them.
Mr. ToBIN from a conversation which he had withsome'
of those parties, was quite sure they would be willing to pay
any reasonable amount for accommodation which they could,
not do without. - .

The CHAIRMAN : Perhaps we had better refer this to the
committee, and they will see the parties, know what they do
want, and report to the committee.
The resolution of the finance committee, asking to what
extent the dock committee could place back 1000 yards of
the wall of the Prince's dock wall, so as to give accommo-
dal-11414k velpifegge. land ;tic, etncra fnr all, can -crnino•
The. CHAIRMAN in explanation stated that himself, the
deputy-chairman, and Mr. Lockett had two conferences with
the finance committee of the town council on the subject of
the landing stage; and at one of the conferences they met
Sir William Cubitt, and he produced a very elaborate plan
of a landing stage for channel and foreign steamers. It was
to have two decks, and to be 1000 feet long, and his estimate
of the expense was very considerable, £130,000 was the
lowest, £140,000 was the average, and £150,000 might be
thelargest estimate. It would be absolutely necessary if this
landing stage were built and placed where they proposed to
put it, they must have a convenient access, and it was quite
clear the Prince's parade at its present width would not
afford sufficient access,—sufficient convenient access to a
stage of that description. The present width of the Prince's
pier was 30 feet, and he thought from the opinion which
was expressed, if the dock committee could threw back the
wall 15 feet, which Would then leave the approaches 4 feet
wide, which would be sufficient for the purposes required.
If the wall were thrown back 15 feet it would leave 35 feet
between the wall and the back of the transit sheds, so that
there would be sufficient width left for working the transit
sheds.

Mr. Tonar asked what was the depth from the back of
the transit sheds to the dock ?
Mr. J. HARTLEY : About from 80 to 85 feet.
Mr. TOBIN : That would leave a road at the back of the
warehouses of 35 feet wide ?
The CHAIRMAN : Yes.
Mr. EvaNs : How far is it to extend ?
The CHAIRMAir : For 1000 yards.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked what was the whole length of the
Prince's dock ?

The Cnarnmarr : About 2000 feet ; it is to extend half
the length. He was speaking of the parade, not of the
dock ; the dock was not so long.
M. EVA.NS wished to have the opinion of Mr. Hartley on
this subject.
The CRAIRMA.N remarked that Mr. Hartley's opinion was
that 30 feet was quite sufficient. The landing stage would
be a considerable advantage to the dock estate ; it would be
used by'vessels paying dock rates. It Was not like the pre-
sent landing stage, from which they derived no benefit.
Mr. GREGSON said it would be a great advantage. Many
steamers might then discharge in the river without going
into dock.

Mr. BARBER : What is the depth of the warehouses at the
Stanley dock ?
UL ..r. . 4 foot
Mr. BARBER : Would taking this portion on permit, us cu
build equally large warehouses ?
JOHN HARTLEY : No ; not to the extent of more than
75 feet.

Mr. EVANS : Would this interfere with the other 1000
feet ?
The CHAIRMAN : It would not interfere further than the
continuation of the approaches.
Mr, EvAxs should hke to hear Mr. Hartley's opinion on
that subject ; to know how it would affect the warehouses.
Mr. MALcomsox : Have we an offer for this 15 feet?

The CHAIRMAN: The corporation thought as they were
laying out this large sum of money, that it would be for
the interest of the dock estate to meet their views on this
matter.; and, as they were laying out so large a sum of
money, that they might be allowed to take this piece of
land without payment. •
Mr. GLADSTONE : The 'corporation bears all the expense.
Mr. HOLM?. .remarked that the present landing-stage
ought to have been built by the finance committee of the
council, and the dock estate ought to build the projected
landing-stage,
The CHAIRMAN : That is not,the question here.
Mr. Ilorzna said when parties spoke about the corporation
paying, they forgot that this landing stage would bo for the
benefit of the dock estate. -
Mr. GREGSON remarked that it would become a question
of interchange—the corporation should take the present,
and the dock committee the projected landing-stage.
Mr. HOLME thought if this landingrstage was to be used
by such an immense mass of persons as it was likely to be
used by the addition of 15 feet., it would still leave the ap-
proaches very narrow : for cars and carts could not approach
within a certain distance of the faco of the pier head.
The CHAIRMAN thought somethinc, additional might be
got by, throwing a projection out for foot passengers.
. Mr. HoLmE: Before we settle this question the best thing
would be for Mr. Hartley to prepare a rough ground plan
of the warehouses, and let us see how far we can go, and
and then give another 5 feet if we can do so.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought it would be well to have Mr.
Hartley's views on the subject.
Mr. HARTLEY would state them in writing.
Mr. BALDER*as' afraid 15 feet, would be scarcely suf-
ficient. They would have an innumerable number of
vehicles, and there would be scarcely space to turn around.
The ViiAirtmax said the corporation. would be glad to get
as much as they could, give them, It .had been considered
that 15`feet was as much as they could give them, looking,
at the other,parts of their land, and the width between the
dock qUay.• They could not give more without damaging
Llaeir,9wn land.very much.
Mr. PABBER. asked, would the dock committee be ,respon-
iible'reir. the thiSaptiropriatiOn of this land: It would be a
gr,eakfetigg4en if it:were. putt there was not a sufq.eient
-
quantity. 1,120.1
••• The CHAIRMAN said that was not a question for them.

Mr. GLADSTONE moved that it be referred to the com-
mittee of works, for Mr. Hartley to report to them, and
that the matter should then come before the general
committee.

Mr. EVANS thought there was hardly room on the Prince's
parade for a horse of an unruly character.
Mr. RANKIN thought if the river were piled they might
get fifty feet.
The CHAIRMAN hardly thought that could be done. There
would be a difficulty with the conservators of the river.
The finance committee wanted to know what quantity of
land they could give; but how to carry out this landiN'-
stage was a matter for the finance committee of the council,
who had to pay all the expense.
Mr. RANKIN understood from Mr. Hartley, that twenty
feet might be got without piling.
The CHAIRMAN : Yes, and that with their fifteen feet
might be sufficient. The matter was referred to the com-
mittee of works.

The sub-committee of finance recommended that the
salaries of Mr. George Jackson, and Mr. Mason, clerks in
the treasurer's department, be raised from £l5O to £2OO
per annum.
Mr. LANGSDALE thought Mason was paid a great deal
more than he was worth.

Mr. EVANS : When are we to stop in this course of
advancing salaries ? He moved that when, in future, they
engaged a new servant, he should give an assurance under
his own hand that he would not ask for an increase of
salary.
Mr. BARBER asked : Was this the result of an application ?
The CHAIRMAN : Mr. Jackson's application was made
some time ago, and Mr. Mason's had only just come in. It
had been deferred from time to time, and it was thought
desirable to bring it before the committee to-day.
Mr. EVANS said they had rare instances of this kind not
long ago. A dock gateman, who had been engaged
.a
week before, memorialed-for an increase of wages (laughter).
The CHAIRMAN said it should be borne in mind that Mr.
Jackson's predecessor had £250 per annum.
Mr. LANGSDALE : There was no similarity between the
two characters ; Jackson might be worth something more,
but Mason had a great deal too much. He came down in
the morning between ten and eleven o'clock, and he went
' home at three or four o'clock iu the afternoon.
Mr. SHAND asked were the duties the same ?
The CHAIRMAN said one kept the cash book and ledger,
and the other the bond ledger.
Mr. GLADSTONE : Have the duties increased ? I believe
they have.
Ihe UHAinmAN : very considerably.
Mr. HOLME remarked that the treasurer was answerable
to them, and he must say that £l5O per annum was a very
fair salary, considering the hours they worked in the dock
office.
Mr. LANGSDALE had come down with Mason between ten
and eleven o'clock in the morning, and he had gone up with
him at three o'clock. They had him before the committee
some time ago, and in his (Mr. Langsdale's) opinion, his
oharacter was not A 1.
Mr. SMITH believed both Mr. Mason and Mr. Jackson to
be valuable servants, but looking at all the circumstances, he
did not think that this was the time to seek for advance of
wages.
The CHAIRMAN said this matter had been standing over
some time, and it was thought better to have it settled one
way or the other.
Mr. HOLME remarked there was not a week but they had
an application for an increase of salary. He was himself
opposed to it ; he would not do so for himself; and he would
not permit it to be said he did it in his public capacity.
Knowing what he himself paid to a highly respectable young
man, who had given him a heavy bond, he could not vote
for this increase of salary.
After some further conversation, the recommendation was
withdrawn.
The sub-committee also recommended that the salary of
Mr. Pennington should be raised from £l2O to £l5O per
annum.
The CHAIRMAN said Mr. Pennington's duties had been
largely increased, in consequence of his being made receiver
of all the dock rents; and he had been obliged to give a
bond, which he was not required to do before. The rent
accounts had been in a very unsatisfactory state, but since
he took the management of the department, it was in a very
satisfactory state.
Mr. R. GLADSTONE remarked that the London and North
Western railway had recently lost by its servants, from
£2OOO to £3OOO, and the opinion of the directors was that
the loss was caused by salaries being too low. He was not
advocating high salaries, or for encouraging people to ask
for more, but a fair salary should be paid. The recommen-
dation was confirmed, and the public business terminated.