The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-19 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE

The weekly meeting of the Dock Committee was held
yesterday, when the following members were present : Messrs.
Benn, Horsfall, Barclay, T. Holt, Holmes, Quayle, Booth,
Mellor, Bulley, G. Tobin, Aiken, Middleton, Sands, Smith,
Ripley, and Evans.--Mr. Benn, the chairman, presided.
James Irving, commander of the stearn.packet City of
Carlisle, sent in a letter, stating that he had received a claim
on the part of the committee for £ll 19s. 2(1., for da nage
done by his vessel to the bridge of Claren !tr: Dock gates, at
half-past four, on the morning of tile 2nd Ja wary. He
alleged that no notice was given to him of the bridge being
closed, which ought to have been, especially as the morning
was dark. On the other hand the report of the. north har-
bour master showed that notice was given to the captain.
Mr. Irving was called in, and said the vessel was going at
the rate of three miles' an hour, when the gateman ordered
him to reverse motion, but it was then too late. The fault
he contended lay in the bridge not having been open. To
this it was replied, that notice had been given of the bridge
being closed, and that it was necessary to be closed for the
accommodation of the public. The committee ultimately
decided that the evidence was against the captain, and or-
dered the claim to be enforced.
On the recommendation of the sub-committee of works,
the surveyor was ordered to purchase a quantity of larch
and oak timber.

The CHAIRMAN stated that a complaint had been made
by Messrs. D. M'Arthur and Co. against James Cosnahan,
master of George's Dock, for improper conduct with regard
to the schooner Diamond, on the 6th instant. It appeared
from the statement of Mr. M'Arthur, that the Diamond, a
Scotch trader, wished to remove from George's Dock into
Canning Dock, for the purpose of taking in 80 tons of coals
and two marine cranks shipped by Messrs. Mather, Tom-
linson, and Co. The master of George's Dock, however,
refused to allow the Diamond to pass in, notwithstanding,
according to the statement of the captain, he presented a
written order to that effect ; and so much delay was thereby
caused, that the vessel had to put to sea without the marine
cranks. Mr. Cosnahan, on the other hand, denied the pro-
duction of any order, and said the application was not made
till an hour after high water, when it was inconsistent with
the rules for her to be admitted. Mr. M'Arthur, in answer
to this, said that on the evening of the sth inst. the captain
of the Diamond applied to Mr. Cosnahan, but was refused
till the following morning; and that in the morning, when
the captain presented the order, the master refused to admit
the ship till the Patriot King had come through the gut
from the Graving Dock. An hour and a half was thus need-
lessly lost, and when the Diamond attempted to pass, the
gates were shut, whereupoß game recrimination took place.
Captain Pindar, of the Patriot King, was called, but his
testimony was found to have no reference to the main facts.
Mr. Cosnahan denying that he had ever received any written
order from the captain of the Diamond, and the captain
being at sea, the further investigation of the matter was
postponed till his return.
The CHAIRMAN next stated that a complaint had been
made by Messrs. Berry and Co., of Clarence Foundry,
against the keeper of Prince's Dock weighing-machine. The
circumstances of the case were these. At various times,
from the 25th June, 18-10, Messrs. Berry had sold cart loads
of scrap iron, to a dealer named Burke. Each cart load was
sent to the Prince's Dock machine to be weighed, and the
ticket delivered to the lodge-keeper, at Messrs. Berry's.
A few days ago two loads were sent : the first was larger
than usual, but on the ticket being returned, the sus-
picions of the lodge-keeper were excited by less weight
being stated than was usual. The second load was afterwards
sent ; it was first weighed by Prince's Dock machine, and
then by the machine at George's Dock, when the ticket
from Prince's Dock was found to represent the weight as
2 cwt. less than it really was. By proceedings of this nature
Messrs. Berry and Co. calculated that since June last they
had been defrauded to the amount of £3OO. In addition to

Mr. Berry, on being called in, stated he had ascertained

that Burke had been selling the iron to the foundries for a
less price than he had given for it; and further, that he had
on one occasion been before the magistrates for substituting
one ticket for another, in a weighing-machine book. The
wife of the machine keeper, on being called in, said her hus-
band had been confined for a month by illness, that she did

not know Burke at all, and that the apparent mistake in the
weight had been caused by the substitution of a ballast
ticket. Mr. Berry remarked that the same cart, the same
two horses, and the same driver, had always been sent to the
machine. He added that a large portion of the iron would

have to go to the forge, because it consisted of boiler-makers'
scraps,but some of it consisted of iron bolts, and those, he
understood, Burke had been in the habit of selling to small
dealers. On the suggestion of Mr. HORSF ALL, the case was
referred to the sub-committee for further investigation.
The CHAIRMAN said that a complaint had been forwarded
to him by the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Rushton, against
the master of Prince's Dock, and enclosing a statement made
by police-officer No. 421, Peter Dutton. From this state-
ment it appeared that on the morning of the 12th instant he
was on duty at the north end of Prince's Dock. The ship
Mary Hartley was hauled off the gridiron, when, by the ne-
glect of the mate who was in charge of her, the vessel drifted,
and ran foul of the bridge. The mate was drunk, and after

the vessel had been hauled into dock he abused the officer.
Next morning the officer lodged an information before the
magistrates against the mate, for not obeying the directions
of the dock gatemen. On the hearing Mr. Rushton directed
the officer to request the attendance of the dock master
(whilst he could have enforced it), and on Saturday afternoon
the officer went to him for that purpose. He found him in
conversation with the captain and mate of the Mary Hartley,
and after they had separated be told the dock master that the
magistrate desired h►s attendance, and that of the gatemen.
He, however, refused; and neither he nor the gatemen at-
tended. The Chairman and Mr. Horsfall remarked that it
was quite out of courtesy that Mr. Rushton had not sum-
moned the dock master, and that his conduct appeared in-
explicable.—Mr. MELLOR said the charge was one of a
serious nature, and he should move that further investigation
be made into it by the harbour-master's sub-committee.—
Agreed to.

The HEAD-CONSTABLE reported that a dock gateman had
'alien into Prince's Dock on the Ist inst, but was rescued by

a police constable. The officer said the man was rather the
worse for liquor. The accident seemed to have been caused
by a crane being too near the edge of the quay ; and the
head-constable suggested that it be removed so as to prevent
danger.—Referred to the sub-committee of works.
The report of the Sub-committee of Works,rerommend-

ing the deepening of Prince's Basin and Queen's Basin, was
reconsidered ; and the work was ordered to be executed by
contract, by the men employed on the establishment, Mr.

Hartley to mention the amount of the contract before the
commencement of the work.

7he_CIIAIRmAN said the next business was the considers-

tion of the report of the Harbour Master's Sub-committee,
recommending the payment of the dock-masters by fixed
salaries, instead of by a rate on the tonnage, and also the
erection of houses for the harbour and dock masters; the
change in the payment of the dock-masters to commence in
June next.

Mr. SANDS enquired what object the proposed change was
intended to effect?
The CHAinmAN replied, the more efficient working of the
docks.

Mr. MELLOR enquired whether the sub-committee were
unanimous in recommending the change ?
Mr. SMITH (the Chairman).—Quite so.
Mr. SANDS said that Mr. Thornely and other merchants
_

had expressed an opinion in favour of the present system.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to a passing remark from some
member, said that the master of Brunswick Dock was paid
by a fixed salary, and that dock was most efficiently worked.
Mr EVANS remarked that the committee had always been
in favour of a fixed salary, and would not have departed from
that principle had they not been coerced from without.
On the motion of Mr. RIPLEY, seconded by Mr. BROWN,
that part of the report was confirmed which recommended a
change in the mode of paving the dock masters.
That part of the Sub-committees report which recom-
mended the building of houses for the dock and harbour
masters was next considered. It was eventually confirmed,
on the word provided being substituted for building.
John Edwards was appointed a night watchman at 15s. a
week wages.

On the; application of Messrs. 111`Iver.and Co., the privi-
lege was granted, for the present, for the Royal North Ameri-
can Mail Steamers to enter the graving docks, when neces-
sary, though out of their regular turn.
The Parliamentary and Sub-committee of Finance reported
that three plans bad been submitted to them for the erection
of transit sheds upon the west quay of the Prince's Dock, and
an estimate of the cost of each. No. 1 was estimated to cost
£15,000, No. 2 £28,000, and No. 3 £21,500. The Sub-com-
mittee thereupon resolved that the plan No. 3 be approved.
and recommended its adoption. The new sheds to be at-
tached to the old, with the view of reducing their estimated
cost. Report approved.
Mr. CHAPMAN gave notice that at the next meeting he
should propose the following motion :
To call the attention of the committee to the reduction of
the dock rates in 1836, stated to be about 38i per cent., but
which, although affording great relief on goods, has not proved
equally beneficial in its operation on tonnage, owing, it is
supposed, in a great measure to the new mode of measuring
having subsequently come into active operation, and to give
notice of a motion for Thursday next, with a view to the sub-
ject being referred to the Finance Committee, to report upon
the best mode of so apportioning the reduction as to place
the rates of tonnage and goods on the same relative footing,
with respect to each other, as shewn prior to 1838 ; such re-
duction, however, not to take place until the passing of the
new Dock Bill.
Mr. Chapman's notice is founded on the following return :
A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DOCK DUTIES.
PRIOR TO 1836.

833 Duties on Tonnag9....
„ Duties on Merchandise
834 Duties on Tonnage,. s.
„ Duties on Merchandise
.835 Duties on Tonnage... .
Duties on Merchandise

X. s. d. X. s. d
79,538 311

103,422 12 5

A 4,061 15 11

107,668 1 9

87,614 14 5

110,993 4 4

251,261 14 3 322,083 18 6