The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-20 00:00:00

THE BIRKENHEAD

DOCKS' BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY EVENING.
The Select Committee on the Birkenhead Docks Bill,
consisting of Sir W. Clay (chairman), Sir J. Paxton, Sir B.
Dering, and Mr. Fergus, re-assembled to-day in Committee-
room, No. 2, of the House of Commons.
The counsel in attendance were Mr. Lock and Mr. Burke,
who attended for the Liverpool Corporation ; Mr. Sergeant
Wrangham, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Johnson, for the Great
Western Railway Company ; Mr. Denison and Mr.
for the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction
Railway, and Mr. King was represented by Mr. Monk.
Mr. J. Hartley was re-examined by Mr. Calvert, with a view
to shake his previous testimony. He said, with respect to vibe
reserved tithe, that his previous statement of £lO7 for one
year was correct. There was a large quantity of business
transacted in the Mersey, but he had no means of ascertaining
what quantity of small craft entered and returned through that
river, nor was he in a position to state the amount of traffic
Webster
that passed away by rail in addition to what he bad laid down
in the estimate. He did not contemplate that there would be
any great traffic with great float. The railway company
no property near the latter place. When they Passed thei
warehouses marked on the map they came on the property 0
the railway company. There would be no inconvenienc?
from vessels containing large quantities of goods passing throtle
the docks to the Mersey. A great portion of the coasting
traffic in Liverpool was provided for by special Dock Dues.
Inconvenience to that class of traffic, by the arrangements at
the Birkenhead Docks, would be sustained. Those ships which
would come into the Birkenhead Docks would not go into the
Liverpool docks. The less convenience they provided for
ships in the Birkenhead docks the better it would necessarily
be for the traffic of the Liverpool docks. When wester: Y„,
winds prevailed there was a large number of vessels in
Birkenhead docks. He could not state how often in the Year
it would be necessary to use the intermediate basin. Ile Sing
posed to move ships to the latter basin by means of cap for
and towing tugs. There would be quite as much facility for
steamers entering the intermediate basin, as there was in the
low water basin of Mr. Rendell. The water was
be drawn partly from the float and Ce. partly fro, the
intermediate dock. The witness was exasnined at
much length, chiefly with reference to technical points, and In
the course of which he stated that he was not aware that the
plan of sluicing adopted b.-, Mr. Rendall was the same that had
been so successful in its operation at Boulogne. He denie
that Mr. Reudall's low water-basin could generally be a harbour._
of refuge, thongh it might, in some cases, be turned to that
purpose. He had heard that the low water-basin in question
was to be a harbour of refuge from Mr. Rendall and not from
Sir 'William Cubitt. Had never recommended to the Corp
o•
ration of Liverpool to lose the twelve months which they h,s d
done in completing these docks. He did not consider bY
811
evidence which he had given in 1848 that he had expressed /
opinion that it would be desirable to construct a harbour 4!
refuge, though he did not deny that he might have said that ita
would be a convenience to vessels, if such were establishe t
With reference to the traffic entering Birkenhead, he theullti'
the same kind of merchantdise went into Birkenhead as fri
Liverpool, and was not limited to any particular description of

t, acfic.
Some legal discussion here arose as to whether the witnesa
should answer a question relative to the other engineers NO°
had been consulted with respect to the docks, but the com
tee decided that the information required would be useful.
Cross-examination resumed : The engineers consulted by
the corporation of Liverpool were Sir William Cubitt, Sir J.
r
M'Neil, Mr. G. Rennie, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Harrison,
Murray, and Mr. Hawkshaw. The witness was then Vet;
tioned respecting the depth of the sills and other technics'
points, on which on his previous examination he had give
°.
evidence, but no discrepancy was elicited. As he had alroci,Y,
stated, it would take between four and five years to construct
the works. The Cocker dam would take twelvemonths to
complete, but excavations might h 3 going on simultaneously.
After 1858 they could proceed with the rest of the work in
mass. They could not commence the Cocker dam before Map'
1857, and he was of opinion that the whole works would b°
completed by May, 1861.
Mr. Burke re-examined the witness at considerable length,
but entirely with reference to the matters contained in the
direct examination.
By Mr. Calvert : The landing carriage would be chiefly M
eit
the accommodation of steamboats. It would be the means
a communication between the passengers from the railroad t.o
the latter. He considered that such would be a very an.
accommodation for passengers.
The remainder of the evidence was of a technical character,'
and the committee adjourned at four o'clock.