The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

DOCK COMMITTTEE.

The usual weekly meeting of this committee was held
at one o'clock yesterday, in the Dock offices, Mr. Charles
Turner in the chair. The other members present were
Messrs. Rankin, Robinson, Palmer, Chaloner, Rounth-
waite, Robertson Gladstone. Littledale, Barber, Mondell,
Clint, Anderson, Hubback, Rathbone, Bold, Chilton,
Smith, Halbead, Brocklebank, and Evans.
The minutes of the last meeting were read and con-
firmed.

The sub committee (works) recommended that the
offer of Messrs. Corcoran and Magee for nine tons of old
rope, and of W. Johnson and Co., to restore the crane
on the west side of George's dock, be accepted.— Con-
firmed.

It was also agreed, on their recommenda+ion, that the
use of 160 fathoms of two inch chain and two anchors
be granted to Messrs Vernon and Son for six months,
for £lOO, to be used as temporary mooring for the new
landing stage ; and that the tender of Mr. Bancroft for
t vo tons of cotton, and of P. Holdgrave and Co., for 30
barrels of pitch, be accepted.
Francis M'Kee, who is 70 years ol 1, and has been 40
years in the service, was ordered to be placed o❑ the list
of old workmen at 18s per week.
The sub committee (warehouse) recommended that
Mr. William D. Turner, for many years in the service
of the London East India Dock Company, be ap-
pointed superintendent of the Manley Dack ware-
houses, at £250 per annum, and a house, and that £3O
be granted to him for the expenses of removal.
Mr. Robinson said that they had had 99 applications
for the situation, and that the sub-committee were
to be the most competent man.
Mr. Barber also spoke in testimony of Mr. Turner's
ability and character.
Mr. Smith observed that it struck him as strange,
seeing that they had had 99 applicants for this situation
at £250, that they should be paying another certain
officer £6OO a year for d'scharging the very same duties.
The Chairman observed that they could not then
discuss the general question of salaries.
The appointment of Mr. Turner was confirmed.
The resignation of Mr. Wright, ledger clerk at the
Stanley Dock warehouses, was accepted, and the sub
committee were instructed to fill up the vacancy.
The sub committee (harbour masters) recommended
that Mr. G. H. Fletcher be appointed a master porter.
Confirmed.
The usual annual account of the docks to be laid be
fore Parliament, was placed on the table.
The Chairman observed, that it was satisfactory to
know that the admiralty highly approved of the plans
for the construction of the Birkenhead docks, as drawn
up by Mr. John Hartley, and laid before tbem by the
Town Clerk. The Secretary would read the report,
though it more particularly concerned the Town Council.
The Secretary then read the following
REP 3 RT.

The objects of this bill are to enable the corporation
of Liverpool (which in 1855 acquired the works and
properties of the Birkenhead Dock Company, under
certain provisions) to construct and complete the works,
ace , with as little delay as possible, and to effect which a
bill was brought into potliatnent in 1856; but as a great
difference of opinion existed as to the nature and effect
of the proposed works, the bill was in committee. ft
appears from the plans and sections transmitted to the
admiralty, that the subject of giving every facility
for vessels of all classes to dock and undock, and of
affording every accommodation to the trade, has been
well and deeply considered by the engineer to the corpo
ration, and as regards the docks and their entrances their
lordships have no objection to make. With respect to
the further accommodation to shipping, so much wanted
in the Mersey, their lordships consider it to be highly
desirable that works on which so much time and money
have been spent should now be carried out and completed,
and that the corporation of Liverpool, who ought to be
the best judges of the requirements, and who have the
greatest interest in the outlay, should be permitted to
complete works which have remained so long in abeyance.
As regards the proposed quays in front of the Woodside
Ferry and landing pier, and the establishment of a float-
ing stage in front of the same, their lordships cannot
see the advantage of carrying out the south end of
the proposed quay so far into the river, thereby causing
a shoulder to jut out into the Mersey, to the extent of 270
feet which must tend to deflect and injure the present
set of the currents of ebb along the shore at the site in
question. At present the Woodside jetty projects to a
considerable extent into the tideway, and their lordships
recommend that no further extension there take place,
4nd that the proposed line of quay to the south
take a direction more in harmony with the line of the
west shore of the Mersey, as shown by a dotted red
line cn a plan deposi ed at the admiralty, and with that
alteration of a work not immediately connected with
the docks or their entrance their lordships assent to the
Mr. John Hartley observed, that the plans were
slightly misapprehended. The works would not project
auy further than the Woodside pier.
Mr. Flathead asked, if a vessel discharging in the
Birkenhead docks, and going also into the Herculaneum
dock, would at present be subject to two dues ?
The Chairman replied that she would not, as both the
Birkenhead docks and the Herculaneum dock were one
property; but if she also went into the Liverpool docks.
she would be subj et to two dues.
This concluded the general business.