The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-12-11 00:00:00

The crew of this boat having applied to the committee for
some remuneration for saving the crew and passengers of
the ship " Scotland," lately stranded near Formby, the sub-
committee to whom the matter was referred recommended
the parties to apply to the Humane Society. An extract was
read from the log-book of the vessel, showing that she was
in imminent danger when the life-boat came off, after being
on the bank, and exposed to the fury of winds and waves
over night; and that the captain of the Formby Light-boat,
which came off at nine in the morning, stated to the captain
that there was every probability of the gale continuing and
freshening; that he could not again reach the ship when the
tide turned, and that .the safety of those on board would be
endangered by their longer remaining with the vessel. Under
this persuasion the captain got his passengers and crew into
the life-boat and his own long boat, and they were safely
landed. After leaving the ship, the Magazine life-boat came
up, and asked them if they wanted any assistance, and the
reply was in the negative. The Magazine boat afterwards
went to the ship, and with assistance which she subsequently
procured, got the ship off and towed her to the Magazines.
The CHAIRMAN said that considerable discussion had
taken place at the Humane Society, yesterday, on the sub-
ject, which ended in their awarding £2 per man to the crew
of the Formby boat, and £3 to the captain. He thought the
boatmen were deserving of some reward from their body. The
other boatmen that towed the vessel to the Magazines had
also made a claim ; but they were to receive £250 for towing
her, bringing her into dock, and unloading her. He did not,
therefore, think they had ally claim upon the committee.
Mr. CHAPMAN said men ought to be rewarded for doing
their duty, in such eases, in the saving of life, not those who
merely went to secure wrecked property.
Mr. TOBIN said that there was an inclination amongst
some to underrate the services of the life-boatmen. He
thought the crew of the Formby boat should be rewarded.
Mr. HoRSFALL moved that £3 be given to each of the men,
and £5 to the captain. The primary duty of life-boatmen
was to save life—not property. This motion was agreed to. -
A. short conversation arose as to the Magazine boat, which
resulted in the opinion that the men would receive amongst

them the £250 for saving the property, and that their claim
for saving life could not be entertained.

LIGHT-HOUSES, &C.
A report of the inspectors of light-ships, light-houses,
telegraph stations, &c., was read. From this it appeared
that the light-ships were visited on the 13th October, and
were found to be in a most efficient and satisfactory state.
The report noticed the light-houses respectively, and the re-
pairs which some of them required; and recommended an
increase and equalization of the salaries of several of the

keepers, which will. of course, become a matter of future co:
sideration. The committee adopted the report.

DOCK GATEMEN

The SECRETARY read a recommendation from the sub-
committee in favour of the appointment of several new
Dock-gatemen.
Mr. HORSFALL recommended that gatemen and persons
employed at the docks should be prohibited from asking for
Christmas boxes. It was agreed that a former order should
to, that effect be communicated to them by the harbour
master and dock masters.

KING'S DOCK

It was stated that the west quay of the King's Dock w
not coveted with a shed above half its length, and that
would be desirable that the whole should be covered. Tb
was referred to the Committee of Works.
CLARENCE DOCK.

A letter was read from Mr. James Brebner, to the effect,
that the shed at the Clarence Dock, occupied by the Com-
pany for which he was agent, at the north end, was imperfect ;
goods were damaged in stormy weather, notwithstanding the
use of tarpaulins. He submitted that some improvement
should be made.—Referred to the same committee.
QUEEN'S DOCK.

A communication was read by the SECRETARY from Mr.
Alexander Smith, jun., stating that many of the roads and
paths about the Queen's Dock were in great want of im-
provement. The writer trusted that the fact need but be
pointed out to the committee.—Referred.
CHARGES AGAINST THE DOCK •SURVEYOn.
The CHAIRMAN (as we understood him) said he had re-
ceived a letter from the surveyor, enclosing his reply to the
charges that had been preferred against him, and requesting
that the same might be read to the committee, in presence
of the reporters, before Mr. Chapman brought forward the
motion of which he had given notice.

Mr. CHAPMAN said, that no doubt the surveyor might
publish his reply in the newspapers. He bad certainly that
mode of communication to the public open to him ; but he
(Mr. C.) was not aware that such a communication could be
received there as from a member of the Dock Committee.
It was connected with the motion he had to make. He, too,
was anxious that it should be laid before the public; but he
conceived it could not affect his motion, to which it could
have in that stage of the proceedings no legitimate reference.
If were read, it should be read after his motion was made, and
not before it. To what points did the documents refer?
The CHAIRMAN. —To all the charges that had been made
against him.

After a short conversation, Mr. Chapman consented to the
reading of the document, of which the following is a copy :
" To THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DOCK

COMMITTEE

" GENTLEMEN,—I feel called upon, not only as a mark
of respect to those various gentlemen who have composed
the Dock Committee during the sixteen years I have had the
honour to fill the situation of Dock Surveyor, but also in
justification of myself, to make some remarks on the notice
of a motion given by Mr. Chapman, at the last meeting of
this Committee, as well as to the charges brought against
me by him in so abundant and unqualified a manner, both
previous and subsequent to his giving notice of that motion.
" It was, I believe, and I do not wonder at it, a subject of
surprise to many, that 1 did not say more in my defence. It
was not, however, from a deficiency of matter, but from an
overpowering feeling of astonishment at the sudden and un-
qualified torrent of assertions, charging me with incompe-
tency, incorrect statements, &c., with which I was assailed.
" Had I only to reply to the individual member who made
these charges, I might think it proper to take- a different
course, and ould probably simply refer him to the books
and resolutions of this committee; but as his charges reflect
not only upon me, but upon this Committee, upon those who
composed the Committee before you, as well as upon those
who elected me to the office I hold, I think I am bound to
rebut them, in doing which I anticipate little difficulty.
" In the first place, I am charged with incompetency and
ignorance of my profession, upon which is founded the mo-
tion ' a first-rate engineer be appointed, to furnish de-
signs for new works, and superintend their construction.'
" In answer to this charge, I will not refer you to the tes-
timonials which procured my appointment to this situation
from amongst numerous candidates, without my having had
any previous knowledge of any gentleman forming the then
council ; but I will refer you to those important works which
I have constructed since I have filled the situation I hold,
from my practical knowledge as a civil engineer, and from
the energies of my own mind alone, unaided by the designs,
arrangement, or superintendence of any other civil engineer,
and which, I may be allowed to say, so far from being con-
sidered evidences of incompetency, have elicited the admira-
tion of civil engineers of the highest standing, both of our
own and foreign nations. I will also refer you to the pro-
ceedings of the Dock Committee since my appointment, and
during the progress of those works, and I will ask the mem-
ber who has brought forward these charges, whether he has
found in those proceedings (which, of course, .he made him-
self master of before bringing such charges) any resolutions
accusing me, in the most remote manner, with incompetency,
or casting the slightest stain upon my character ? and I will
ask him further, to mention an instance in rwhich those "in-
terested in the working of the different designs I have fur-
nished and executed, have made a complaint of the ineffi-
ciency of those designs, or of their construction, to this com-
mittee, until his becoming a member of it, and bringing for-
ward objections against a work, the first of the kind yet
executed here or elsewhere, which had been in progress for
several months, which had received the approbation of the
authority next to be consulted by me after the Committee
(I allude to the Master of the Graving Docks), and in which,
on the 31st July, when partly completed, one of the large
steam ships was docked, shored, and the necessary work ef-
fected, without a complaint having been made, or an objec-
tion offered ?—a practical proof of its not being unsafe for
life or property.

With reference to the several assertions made by the
member concerning this graving dock, which have gone
through the newspapers before the public—` That if the large
steam-boats, for which this dock was expressly constructed,
went into it, their paddle-boxes rested on the quays, and
their keels did not touch the blocks by fourteen inches,' and
also, ' that the sill had been broken
up'—l would beg, in the
first place, to observe, that the extreme width of the largest
steam-ship that has yet come to this port, (the President,)
is, according to the dimensions furnished me, 66 feet 8 inches
from outside to outside of paddle-boxes,—whereas the width
of the graving dock, from the edge of one quay to that of the
other, is 71 feet 6 inches, which proves that the paddle-
boxes could not touch the quay by 2 feet 5 inches on each side,
and secondly, that the sill of the dock has not been altered.
The alterations alluded to by the member, which caused the
taking up of the masonry, was an improvement in the original
design, but no error, and was totally unconnected with the
sill, and partly composed of the original masonry of the former
graving dock which had not previously been touched.
" From the blame of having neglected to procure the di-
mensions of the largest steamers until the.work was so far ad-
vanced, I think the chairman of this committee can fully excul-
pate me. With regard to the allusions made by the member,
to the south graving docks and Coburg Dock; I have to ob-
serve that those matters have been previously canvassed,—
but it may be as well to state here, for the iriformation of all,
that what the member blames me for, concerning the south
graving docks, is what was expressly contemplated in their
construction—viA,, the increased depth of their sills to allow
of the admission of the heaviest ships coming to the port, at
a lower tide than the old graving docks would permit ; but
if vessels are allowed to be taken in by the carpenters at all
tides, it cannot be expected by any who have paid attention
to the tides here, that a sill lying 2 feet 6 inches below the
level of the old dock sill, can be laid dry at a low neap tide,
which does not ebb within a foot of the level of that datum,
unless recourse be had to mechanical assistance, And as to
my desire tq put reverse gates to the passage leading into the
Coburg Dock, that was an addition to, but certainly not an
alteration of, or error in, my original design ; neither did I
report ' that the dock was complete, after which it was
found that it required deepening,' as asserted by the mem-
ber, my report to the committee being as follows :—` The
Coburg Dock has been completed, excepting a portion of its ,

_ me full liberty to exercise my profession
elsewhere, yet so closely have I devoted my time to the dock
works as not to allow myself any leisure to accept other en-
gagements, excepting such as my son's assistance enabled
me to do, without requiring any lengthened absence from the
duties or my situation • and I would wish the member to
name any instance in which I have heretofore been accused
of non-attendance to, or neglect of those duties ; indeed, so
far has the contrary been the case, that during the last three
years I have not been in the whole more than fifteen days
absent on private business, and the most of those days I
have been but partially absent. In concluding my notice of
these charges, I would beg leave to call to your remem-
brance the circumstance of my having been presented with
the freedom of this town as a mark of the Council's appro-
bation of any conduct as Dock Surveyor.
" The other charges made against me by the member, and
the implication contained in the first part of the motion given
notice of, backed as it was by many assertions of impropriety
in the expenditure of my department, need not, I think, re-
quire any lengthened refutation. ' With regard to the first
of these, personal attacks of this description are easily made
on any one filling a public situation, and however unjust
they may be, cause great annoyance to those unfortunately
subjected to them. In the present case the effect ceases
there. I have been too long a public servant here and else-
where, too long open to the scrutiny of all, to feel afraid of
my characte- suffering from any assertion or observation the
member can, or has made; and I shall content myself with
simply assuring this committee, that in all my statements to
them I have invariably adhered to what I have believed to be
the truth.
" As respects that part of the rnotiox, stating an increased
vigilance in the, superintendence of the expenditure in my de-
partment to be necessary, taken in the abstract, I have.no-
thing to say against it; on the contrary, too great a vigi-
lance cannot be had to please me, as it will consequently, in
like proportion, relieve me from care and responsibility.
But taking this part of the motion in the spirit in which it is
brought forward, and coupling it with the personal allusions
made in bringing it before you, I should have considered it
the most serious part of the attack upon me, and should
have felt great anxiety to have disproved it most fully, had
it been made by any gentleman of experience in the proceed-
ings of the Dock Committee; but when I recollect that it is
made by a member who has but recently joined the com-
mittee, and •who has not yet given himself any opportunity
of enquiring into the manner in which the expenditure he
alludes to, in my department, is made, never having yet
been to my offick, to ask any explanation or information as to
our accounts or method of business, I think it best to refer it
to your own judgment, what foundation he has for his asser-
tion, ' that at I...ist a saving of z£lo,ooo a-year may be made
in my departnie.st, by a different tnethod of carrying on the
work.' I feel, therefore, very easy in leaving my character
in your hands, to most of whom I have been known so long,
and under whom, until now, I have filled my situation free
from all ungenerous attacks or uncourteous treatment. In
concluding, I beg leave to quote the fallowing extract from
the printed copy of the Inquiry into the affairs of the Cor-
poration of Liverpool, before the Parliamentary Commis-
sioners—' Twelfth day. Mr. Alderman Lawrence said, he
was glad to find it was not considered necessary to put any
questions to Mr. Hartley, the Dock Surveyor ; as an expen-
diture of £1,400,000 or £1,500,000 had passed through that
gentleman's hands, he deemed that circumstance highly
complimentary. Mr. Duncan said, he did not know a more
deserving officer than Mr. Hartley ; the rate-payers were
perfectly satisfied with him,' &c.—and to remark, that that
opinion, unqualified, uncontradicted, and expressed at such
a time, is not exactly in accordance with the member's state-
ment, That you will find you have spent as much money
in rectifying my errors as the docks themselves have cost.'
" Finally, I take the liberty of calling your attention to a
resolution of the Dock Committee of the 31st October, 1836,
come to on the reading of my report to them of the 25th of
the same montb, and to that report I would beg especially
to refer the member bringing forward the motion :
" At a meeting of the Dock Committee, 31st Oct., 1836 ;
present, Charles Lawrence, Esq., chairman, &c., &c., &c. ;
a printed copy of the Surveyor's report having been laid
upon the table, in compliance with the directions of the last
committee,—

" Reso'lved,—That the committee have read with much
satisfaction the able report of the Surveyor upon the state of
the works, and regret that, from the shortness of the time
since which this report has been delivered, they are not able
to enter into any minute investigation of its various details.
They feel it quite unnecessary to express any encomium
upon those magnificent works which will speak for them-
selves, and remain a lasting memorial of the great talents of
Mr. Hartley. The major part of this committee being about
to be removed by an act of the legislature, cannot relinquish
their trust without availing themselves of their last meeting
to record their high sense of the indefatigable zeal and great
ability with which that gentleman has for more than twelve
years executed the very important duties of his office, and
they beg him to accept their sincere acknowledgments and
thanks.

" Extracted from the proceedings.
(Signed) " CHARLES LAWRENCE, Chairman.'
" Having thus disposed of such of the charges and asser-
tions made by the member as I think it necessary to notice,
I feel that it would be an act of injustice to this committee
to court a stricter investigation of the various details of my
department than they have already received ; and the unim-
portance of the charges which have been made ought, I ima-
gine, to have been a sufficient protection against such an
attack as I have been subjected to. If not, the further de-
fence must rest with the committee, not with me.
" It now only remains for me most respectfully to request
this committee to do me the justice of calling upon the
member to prove his assertions, so serious in their nature,
and to hope that this defence may meet with the same pub-
licity as was given to the charges against me.
" I have the honour to be, gentlemen,
<<" JESSE HARTLEY, Dock Surveyor.
Dockyard, Liverpool, 10th Dec., 1840."
The SECRETARY then read the notice of Mr. Chapman's
motion :
" Ist. That the increase of the Liverpool Dock Estate has
been such,.and the expenditure so enormous in the Survey-
or's department, as imperatively to call for a corresponding
increase of vigilance and superintendence.
" 2dly. That it is incompatible with the interests of the
Dock Estate any longer to allow the Surveyor to undertake
other works, and that his time and talents for the future
must be exclusively devoted to the superintendence of the
works belonging to the Dock Estate.
" 3dly. That a first-rate engineer shall be engaged to de-
sign and arrange the proposed works, and that from hence-
forth all works shall be let and executed by contract. The
progress of the works to be superintended by the Dock Sur-
veyor, and as occasion may require by the Superintendent
Engineer."
Mr. CHAPMAN said, that in introducing this motion to
the committee, he should avoid all notice of the document
which had just been read, as one which he ought to ac-
knowledge as a member of that committee. The writer of
it was the paid officer of that body, and it could not be re-
ceived as from one of their number. It contained, more-
over, much of personal observation, which had better have
been omitted. With regard to the charges made respecting
Queen's Graving Dock No. 2, they were proved by the sub-
committee having ordered the wall in question to be pulled
down and thrown back. Two questions were involved—the
widening of the dock in a safe manner, and the contraction
of the quay. The plan of the upper walls as now constructed
was one evil, and the reduction of the quay was another, but
not so great an evil. Mr. Hartley had chosen the greater
evil. A person of common sense would have chosen the
other alternative. With respect to the increase of the dock
estate, no question could, he believed, arise. The expendi-
ture, which had last year amounted to £91,130, fully proved
this fact. The accounts had, he contended, not been suffi-
ciently checked by that committee for many years. They
were received from the trustees with the words " errors
excepted " at the bottom, and had since 1823 been passed
without due examination. The accounts were, in fact, taken
out of their hands by the trustees. He did not complain of
the character of individuals in this respect : he complained
of the system only. It was the continuance of that system
to which he objected. He disclaimed all imputation on the
character of Mr. Hartley : he believed him to be an honest,
well-meaning man, and a good practical engineer ; but he
th ught they should have the advantage of the first talent in
works of such magnitude. Besides, his proposition involved
nothing new in principle or practice. It was but carrying out
a system which had long been admitted in other departments
connected with the port. In the Marine Surveyor's office,
so far back as 1825, the increase of the port rendered it ne-
cessary to adopt a different system from that previously pur-
sued, and a professional gentleman was appointed to assist
the H arbour-master to whom the entire duties were too

onerous. All he (Mr. C.) only asked for some similar in-
creased assistance in the Dock Surveyor's department. His
second proposition was that the Surveyor should be re-
quired to give his time and talents exclusively to the Dock-
estate. He (M r. C.) found that Mr. Hartley had since 1824 been
originally engaged as assistant surveyor, at a salary of £6OO.
In 1825 that salary was raised to £l,OOO, and in 1828, as
surveyor, to £1,500 per annum. It was stated in the repre-
sentation made by the Surveyor, that he had not been absent
from his office for some years more than one day in four-
teen. But he (Mr. Chapman) could not think that a paid
officer with £1,500 a year, was right in absenting himself at
all. This absence either showed that the duties were not
sufficient to occupy the whole of his time, or that kis salary
was not enough, and ought to-be increased. He contended,
however, that in either case the whole of his time should be
devoted to their service. He the more especially urged this
point, inasmuch as the Harbour-master was required to give
his whole time to the duties of his office, and was under a
bond of £5OO not to undertake any other service, without con-
sent of the committee. He was not to absenthimself from his
duty, and was required, in sickness to send a report of the fact.
The principle he contended for being thus carried out in one
department, and they might to be carried out in others. His
next proposition was that a first rate engineer should be en-
gaged to design and arrange the proposed works, and that
all works shall hereafter be let by contract. Now he thought
that in all professions there must be higher and subordinate
parties. What would they think of a country practitioner
in law being elevated to the woolsack ? or of a Liverpool
apothecary being appointed physician to the infirmary ? Let
them look at the Clarence dock, and the numerous altera-
tions required in other docks. These alterations caused a
great waste of public money.
The CHAIRMAN enquired of the speaker whether he was
prepared with any proof of the waste alluded to, and its
amount.

Mr. CHAPMAN said he left that to be investigated by the
committee : he confined himself to facts. With regard to
Coburg dock, the facts were too glaring to be refuted. The
expenditure was very great ; and where was their store-
keeper. All, he urged, ought to be done by contract, and
then they would know what surplus they would have
to lay out in sheds and other dock improvements. He re-
peated that he objected to the system ; and concluded by ex-
pressing his trust that there was sufficient spirit amongst
the committee to go fairly into an investigation of the subject
he had brought before them.
Mr. MELLOR. recommended Mr. Chapman to alter his
motion, and refer the question to a special committee, or to
the board of works. Mr. Chapman had stated much in
which he (Mr. M.) concurred. He agreed that the whole
of the surveyor's time should be devoted to their service.
Other points mooted required, he thought, mature consi-
deration. If Mr, Chapman would refer the matter to a sub-
committee, he should second the motion, which he should
like to extend to an inquiry into the efficiency of the dock-
yard, and whether one man, whatever his talents, could unite
the offices of smith, carpenter, engineer, and contractor. He
would also wish an inquiry into the policy of working a
quarry at a great distance, and whether doing so were more
expensive than if by contract. He instanced the London and
St. Catharine's Docks as being nearly all constructed and
maintained by contract.

Mr. G. HOLT thought a special committee would be pre-
ferable to the Board of Wprks for the investigation, and that
they should have specified in writing what they were to in-
quire into.

The DOCK SunvElton being called in and questioned, said
that he contracted for masonry by measurement. All was
done by contract.

Mr. -ATKIN did not altogether concur in the sweeping
charge made against the Surveyor ; but was certainly of
opinion, that, from the great increase of the port, they should