Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-10-30 00:00:00

TO Till eIIAIRMAN AND GINTLEMIEN OF TIIE D CK COMMIT7NR

Gentlemen,—We beg res4•ectfully to state thatic;;;;l;
extreme ciancern we learn there is a proposition now before
your boaralo alter the Brunswick Dock, which has hitherto
been used for the d schargin,g of timber, into d cki for
general pr.-duce, thereby depriving the south end of the
town of the means of discha-ging timber. We cannot
contemplate this charge of taking away all means of dis-
charging timber at the a nith rid without serious appre-
hension that it will most injuriously affect all parties
connected with the supply and use of timber in all its
branches—especially in the repairing of vessels.
We, therefore, most earnestly request your serious cin-
sideration of this matter, and trust that you will see the
necessity of continuing the Brunswick Dock as a timber
dock.

If the Brunswick Dock requires repair, we would respect-
fully suggest that the south wall of the Union Thck be not
built to its filll height at present, so that vessels may have
the means of di charging their cargoes of timber during
the time the Brunswick Dock is under repair.—We have
the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servants—
T. and R Clarke, jun. ; Joseph Steel ; W. B. Jones and
Co. ; Chaloner, Hart, and Sinnott ; Thomas Hoyden and
Son ; Edward Parkin and Co ; Gregson and Co : Thomas
Rimmer and Co ; Cato, Miller and Co. ; Holderness and
Chilton.—Liverpool, October, 1857.

73, Shaw-street Liverpool, October, 1857.
Sir,—Being still incapable of atten ling in my place in
the committee, but taking unabate 1 jail' reet in dock atfaire,
I ern constrained to request the indulgent reception, by
the committee, of my written sentiments in respect to
measures recently proposed for our sanction and t) be
recommended, far our adoption, to our successors under
under the new eonstitteion of the Dock Estate. Al recent
casual perusal of the Liverpool Chronicle of 17th inst.,
informed me that, at the meeting on the 15th instant,
omitted by other ne vspepers, a report from a sub-
committee has recommended a plan f taking the page,
and making three divisions of the Brunswick Deck. This
suggested scheme springs from what I conceive to be a
growing tendency to fancifal nutrie,l t themes, sacrificing
existing dock water space to a suppose I inc-ease of criey
room, and dwarfing the accommodation for ships, stable
like, into stalls. It is surely to disregard economy, in
its most extended sense, to refill already excavated dock
space with earth and costly masoney, in order to form
traverse piers, incapable of affording warehouse accommo
dalion, in docks already perfected, and the increased
quay room they would give, being at the expense of the
more economical side quays of the clack itself, the con-
tinuous lines of which will be broken, at great disadvan-
tage, to the extent of six separate breadths of the
intersecting piers abutting thereon. But (were these plans
unobjectionable), I would ask, is this a time t>' expend
money in tinkering existing docks, at a loss if water space
and expenditure of money more than sufficient to build
additional docks on improved plans and of proper dimen-
sions ? Is this a time to contract water space and to
obstruct business, when the cry is loud for dock room, and
the flag has been flyit g from all the d• eke notifyir g to
ships, detained at risk and expense in the river, that they
cannot bs admitted fur want of water space. It is
additional docks, with acAnnpanying warehouses, or
other accommodation to an extent sufficient. not only
to accommodate active business, but to afford water
space sufficient to rescue ships from the river. 13r
these purpoees there is no lack of suitable sites on
the dock estate. In particular I will point to the
land eastward of the Hu-kiseon Thck, and especially
to the 'Harrington estate—that standing reproach to
the Dock Committee who are accused of having broken
faith with Parliament and the p blip, by evading the
execution of plans held out as the object in view fo- the
purchase of that property which, instead of farniebing a
dock of 14 acres, incurs a loss t, the estate of £13,000
per annum—accumulated alrea-y to nearly X 10,) o_o. I
hope that amongst the advice bequeathed to cur successors
that of building gravirg dock., apart from the commercial
docks will not be overlooked, nor the eecessPy for ex-
empting the Birkenhead docks from poor rates be forgotten.
I see some of our ward patriots attending to recammend
themselves to their constituents by advocating the impo-
sition of rates upon the docks on this side. The result of
docks, which are the mere amendment of the defects of
the river Markey, with these sapient gentlemen, is to
produce poverty and paupers —I am, sir, with due respect,
your obedient humble servant, Eras EVANS.
To Chad s Turner, Esq.

TO DANIEL MASON, ESQ , DOCK OFFICE LIVIRPOOL.
Redeross-street, October 28, 18.57.
Dear Sir,—We bog to hand a memorial from parties
interested in the timber trade to the dock committee, ra-
F pectirg further accommodasion for carrying on their
business, which we shall feel obliged by your laying before
them at the meeting tomorrow.—We are, dear sir, yours
respectfully, MILLER, HOUGLITON, & CO.

TO TIIE CHAIRMAN AND MIMI:RS OF THE DUCK. COMMITTER
Gentiemsn,—We the undersigned merchants aid
traders interested in tits timber trade, respectfully beg to
call the attention of your c)mmittee to the great 10-s and
inconvenience we have for some time past suffered in
consequence of the inadequee aecommoda ion afforded for
carrying on our business
Your committee are aware that for many years this trade
has been located at the Brunswick D ck, u here the offices
and yards are situated, and so long as it was possible to
carry on the business in that locali y, it was not desirable
that it should be removed. But in consequence of the
great increase of this -trade, and the alte-ed class of ships
engaged in it, the Brunswick Dock is rendered totally
inadequate for carrying on this business. Notwith,tand-
lug that the utmost facilities which the character of the
dock would allow have been afforded by your committee,
and every effort has been made by ourselves, considera-
ble inconvenience been experienced by all interested
in this trade, especially. during the past year. Many of
the ships now engaged are of so large a tonnage that
they cannot enter the Brunswick D )ck under any cir-
cumstances, and th 3 consequence is that it has been
necessary to discharge a large amount of timber in the
Huskies :n Dock, and at re it there.
The result of this is to divide the trade, thus causing a
serious loss to merchants and ship ,wners The latter
have frequently their ships chateered to discharge cargo
in the southern docks, thereby occasioning a detention of
three or four weeks.

Under these circumstance', we have to request that
your committee will, with the least possible delay, afford
that accommodation at the north end of the town which
has been so long promised.
We are conv.uced hit if your committee carry out the
plan which was proposed with reference to the north end,
this trade would be conducted at a less expense than is
occurred in connecti n with the present system, and con•
sequently the area of consumption would be extended, and
the timber trade of the port would be materially
increased.
Liverpool, October 22.1 d, 1857.
(Signed)
Miller, Houghton, and Co.; James Bland and Co.;
Farnworth and Jardine; Lloyd, Jone', and A. F.
and D. Mackay ; Wilfred Carter and Co. ; Robert Co.;'Coltart
and Co. ; James M'Murdo and Co.; Houghton, Smith, and
Co. ; Duncan, Ewing, and Co. ; Mercer, Broths s, and
Co. ; Sharpies, Jones, and Co.; Hugh Pierce and Co ;
Fowes, Rayner, and Co.; Massey and Molyneux • John
Fazakerley and Co. ; Harden and Sheraton ; H. T. Wilson
and Chambers ; David Cannon, Sons, and Co. ; John
Jardine and Son; John S. Do Wolf and Co.; William