Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-04 00:00:00

was agreed to,

MARINE COMMITTEE

The proceedings contained a direction to the solicitor
to prepare a bye-law for the prohibition of the discharge
of rockets from vessels in the river within the Rock-
light. The consideration of the subject of vessels
anchoring in the way of the ferry steamers had been
entered into by the committee, and several witnesses had
been examined, but the subject was again adjourned.
The committee directed that the memorialists who asked
to have a time-ball placed upon the Victoria Tower, be
informed that the subject is under the consideration of
the committee on the subject of the dock lino of
telegraph.
Mr. Mondel moved the confirmation of the pro-
ceedings.
Mr. Moss seconded the motion.

Mr. Bold observed that the prohibition of the discharge
of rockets from vessels in the river ought to be very well
considered. Only the other night a vessel foundered
near Rock-ferry, and blue lights were burnt, but without
effect. The vessel herself had no rockets on board, but
another vessel let off some, and they were the means of a

ler coming to her rescue

The Chainniin said, it might, perhaps, be allowed that
vessels Should let off rockets in cases of actual distress,
but not in such cases as the requiring of a pilot.
Mr. Mondel said, he thought, if a vessel after burning
blue lights, then fired a gun, and again burned blue lights
it must, in all probability, have the effect of obtaining
assistance for her.

The proceedings were confirmed.
The minutes of the pilots' committee were read, and,
upon the motion of Mr. Smith, confirmed.

DOCKS AND QUAYS COMMUTE/

The committee had had under their consideration, a
complaint made by Mr. Frost, of injuries done to a
vessel, by the lowering of the water in Salisbury Dock.
The committee came to the conclusion that greater care
might have been exercised in the lowering of the water,
but were unable to attach positive blame to the men
engaged in doing it. The committee recommended that
the sheds upon the north and west quays of the Salthouse
Dock should be enclosed for the better .protection of
goods from weather.
Mr. Smith moved that the proceedings be confirmed,
which was agreed to.

The proceedings of the master porter' committee were
confirmed, upon the motion of Mr. Tobin.
A letter was read from Mr. William Johnson, secretary
of the Birkenhead Railway Company, stating that, as, the
company understood it to be proposed to draw off the water
in July nest in the Great Float, they wished to know
what provision was to be made to enable them to carry
on their business during the construction of the works ;
and requesting that adeputation might wait upon the
committee in reference to this and some minor points.

The letter was reterred to the works' committee.

Mr. Bold begged leave to make an explanation in
reference to the subject of a nature 'entirely per-
sonal. Every gentleman at that board had received,
through 'the courtesy of Mr. Evans, a copy of
a pamphlet published by that gentleman. In,
page 6 of that pamphlet it was stated, in relation to the
Brarnley-Moore dock, that the member of the board who
proposed that the dock should be called that name, after-
wards moved its abrogation.
The Chairman : I feel it my duty to say that there is
nothing in the proceedings of the board to-day which
justifies any reference to Mr. Evans's pamphlet, but I
have no doubt the board will allow Mr. Bold, if anything
has been stated in that pamphlet which he considers
erroneously stated, with regard to his conduct as a mem-
ber of the board, to offer any explanation ; but there
certainly is nothing to justify any discussion at this
board of the pamphlet, and I hope we shall have none.
Mr. Bold said, it was impossible anything he was
going to say could lead to any discussion whatever.
Re begged to observe that it was perfectly true that
he moved the abrogation of the name given
to the dock, b

ut it was equally incorrect
that he moved that: the dock be so named. From
circumstances which it was not necessary for him
to state, of a painful nature, he had not attended the
Dock Committee for many months, and he was not aware
that

any gentleman was koing to propose that the dock
should be so named. He knew nothing of it until after
it was named, and then he did express an opinion of
disapproval, inasmuch as he considered that the rule
which had previously been adhered to was a sound and
wise one; but if that rule were to be deviated from, and
that a. dock was to be called after an inhabitant of
Liverpool, he should have proposed that it be a Tobin,
a Bolton, a Leyland, a Gladstone, or some in that
capacity. With these few remarks, he would simply say
that Mr. Evans was now himself perfectly satisfied that
what was stated in the pamphlet was incorrect,
having been introduced inadvertently, and upon
information which that gentleman considered reliable;
and he believed the present explanation being before the
public, would set the matter perfectly right:
Mr. Evans said he was quite satisfied that what Mr.
Bold stated was correct, and that the statement in the
pamphlet was a mistake.

Mr. Grai;es gave notice that at the next meeting he
would move that the name of Mr. Bushell be added to
the Docks and Quays Committee, for the purpose of con-
sidering the feasibility of extending the customs' hours,
and working the docks more advantageously, according
to the motion adopted at the last meeting but one.
This concluded the genet al business.