The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-12-04 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE

The weekly meeting of the members of the Dock Com-
mittee was held yesterday at the office in Revenue-buildings.
The attendance was very numerous, nearly the whole com-
mittee being present. Mr. LCATHOM presided.
The formal part of the proceedings having been disposed
of, a report was presented from the sub-committee of works,
recommending that no more of the land near Birkenhead be
let at present.

Owen Hill. was appointed master of the Liver tender in
the place of JOhn Williams, discharged. ,

The sum of five guineas was awarded to the person named
in our last, for having picked up and restored the moorings
of the Bell buoy.
The MARINE SURVEYOR reported that he had received
a letter, signed by the master, and all the crew of the Form-
by life-boat, giving him notice that unless they were remune-
rated for their services, in proceeding to the rescue of ship-
wrecked persons, they should resign their situations.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the parties who had sent this
letter, had made no claim for remuneration, nor any state-
ment of their services. It appeared that salvage had been
claimed by the life-boat crew, on a timber ship, of Mr. Dun-
can Gibb, which had been wrecked, to the amount of £lO5O.
Mr. Gibb paid £250, none of which came in the hands of
the present applicants, and hence this letter.

Mr. CHAPMAN said a most dangerous precedent would be
established, if encouragement were offered by the committee
for the crews of the life-boats to claim salvage on every
wreck. He would suggest that in cases of this kind the
same rewards be given to the life-boat crews as were given
to the pilot; at all events something must be done to keep
these sort of claims down.
Mr. BENN observed, that the Dock Committee, unlike the
Pilots' Committee, had no power to grant rewards.
Mr. CHAPMAN added, that he would reward the life-boat
crews handsomely, but he could not consent to allow them
to make claims for salvage.
Mr. HORSFALL thought the.subject deserved investigation.
The claimants appeared to think they had absolute power
over the life-boat. This committee would not concede that,
but at the same time the matter was a very proper one for
enquiry by a sub-committee.
Mr. TOBIN said the law gave the applicants a right to claim
salvage, and he for one would not deprive them of their right,
but they must make their claim before a magistrate. This
committee had nothing to do with the matter.
Mr. BENI( remarked that the committee had no desire
whatever to interfere. Let the men make their claims before
the magistrates.

The CHAIRMAN said their object was to obtain a share of
the £250. paid by Mr. Gibb.
Mr. CHAPMAN conceived that if any claims were made at
all, the committee, as owners of the boat, ought to put in
theirs.

The letter was then referred tog sub-committee for a re-
port thereon. _

The. Simth Harbour Master reported that the west quay of
Brunswick dock, and the south quay of Brunswick basin,
were greatly incommoded by large quantities of granite, &c.
being left there, and requesting the obstruction to be re-
moved.—The Surveyor was ordered to give the necessary
instructions.

On the representation of the Master of Salthouse dock, an
additional gateman was appointed to that dock.
[At this stage of the proceedings the reporters were re-
quested to withdraw for ten minutes.l

The SECRETARY then read a report from the Surveyor,
moved for at the last meeeting by Mr. Chapman, relative to
the alteration now being made in Queen's dock No. 2 steam
graving dock, and the expense of them. The cost of them,
the report stated, would be £72.
Mr. CHAPMAN said, he had mentioned the state of the
steam graving dock some months ago, and stated that its
condition amounted to incompetency on the part of the Dock
Surveyor. He was not now going to retract that opinion,
but before he proceeded further he would exemplify the state
of the dock to the committee. Suppose a gentleman ordered
his surveyor to build a coach-house ; he gave him the dimen-
sions of his carriage, and desired him to erect the building
accordingly. But when the work was nearly completed, the
gentleman on viewing it thought it looked rather small, and
on examination found it would admit the body of the carriage
but not the wheels. Would he not blame his surveyor for
the blunder? The case of the steam graving dock was simi-
lar to this ; and he had stated the tact some mouths ago,
but at that time his assertions went for nothing. If the
large steam-boats—for which the dock was expressly con-
structed—went in, their paddle-boxes rested on the quays on
each side, and their keels did not touch the blocks by fourteen
inches. Nothing had been said about this for three months ;
but the other day he went down to the dock and found a
number of men employed in breaking up the sill and remov-
ing large masses of stone and cement—probably about seventy
yards on each side the quay. Now when he (Mr. Chapman)
moved for the return, Mr. Hartley stated that the blocks
were only 9 inches from the keel ; in the report he said 12
inches ; but the shipwrights said the distance was 14. The
expense of the alterations now going on was estimated at
£7O, but he was convinced that to make the dock efficient
would be not less than £lOOO. Another charge he bad to
bring against the surveyor was this--he had stated that the
master shipwrights were satisfied with the alterations he
proposed to make by placing ladders in it, and even men-
tioned Mr. Roydon 's name as approving of them. He (Mr.
Chapman) appealed to the chairman of the sub-committee of
works if Mr. Hartley bad not stated that Mr. Roydon ap—
proved of the plans lie proposed.
Mr. GEO. HOLT said he could not call to mind the exact
terms of the conversation, but he believed Mr. Roydon's
name was mentioned by the surveyor.

Mr. HARTLEY admitted that he had said Mr. Roydon
approved of the dock.
Mr. CHAPMAN said the estimate of the expense of the al-
terations now put in should not deceive him. It was no
answer to the motion he had made. He had moved for a
return of the expense of building the sill, and of taking it
down again ; but the report contained only an estimate of
the expense of certain alterations, which was stated at £72.
He should like to know what calculation had been made of
the loss of materials. He knew himself that two boat-loads
of them had been sent away. These enquiries were the only
check the dock committee had upon their surveyor. Indeed
the error in design had already been admitted by the fact of
the alteration. Now he came to Mr. Roydon's letter, which
was as follows :

" Baffin-street, Ist Dec. 1840.
" DEAR SIR,—I received yours of yesterday respecting
my opinion as to the safety of the sides of the :,,ea:n Graving
Dock, and I beg to inform you that my decided opinion is
that its present state is neither safe for life or property.
" I have received a notice (yesterday) to attend a meeting
of the Ship-builders' Association this evening, when I have
no doubt you will be furnished with the opinion of the trade
generally.—Yours truly, " THOS. ROYDON.
" To Mr. Chapman."
He had also requested Mr. Cato's opinion in writing, in
order that he might have facts to prove his case. Mr. Cato's
reply was this :

" Liverpool, Dec. 1, 1840.
" DEAR SIR,—In reply to your note of yesterday, I have
to observe that a meeting will be held to-night of the
Master shipbuilders to take into consideration the state of
the walls of the Steam Graving Dock ; my own opinion is,
that part of the walls will have to be taken down, and re-
built in a different form from what they now are, for they
are not safe for men to stand to set the shores in the pre-
sent state.—l am, sir, your most obedient servant,
" P. CATO."
He held in his hand a letter from Mr. Wilkins, on enclosing
a copy of a resolution passed at the meeting of the master
shipwrights. The letter was addressed to " Thomas Leathom,
Esq., chairman of the Dock Committee."
The CHAIRMAN said he had not received such a letter.
Mr. CHAPMAN explained that it had been given to him to
be presented to the chairman.
The SECRETARY read the resolution of the shipwrights'
meeting. It expressed the general opinion that the steam
graving dock was inefficient and dangerous both as regarded
life and property ; and that should the Dock Committee re-
quire any further explanation, it would readily be afforded by
a deputation appointed for the purpose.
Mr. CHAPMAN contended that these documents shewed
that Mr. Hartley had not made correct statements to the
sub-committee. It was most surprising, after what had been
read, that he should have described the shipwrights as being
satisfied with the dock. The report, too, was unsatisfactory.
There could, however, be no mistake with reference to the
meaning of his (Mr. Chapman's) motion. On the Ist Decem-
ber he received the following from Mr. Hartley :
" Dockyard, Ist Dec., 1840.
" SIR,—In consequence of your notice of motion regard-
ing No. 2 Queen's Graving Dock, a copy of which has been
handed to me, I have applied to Mr. George Holt, (chair-
man of Sub-Commmittee on Works), to meet me on the spot
to-morrow afternoon; he has fixed to do so at a little before
ten o'clock.

" Perhaps you may also wish to be present, in order to
have such explanation on the spot, as can better be given
there than elsewhere. I therefore take the liberty of trou-
bling you with this.—l am, sir, your obedient servant,
"JESSE HARTLEY.
"To H. C. Chapman, Jun., Esq. 24, James-st."
His reply was as follows :

" Dvember 1, 1840.
" am in receipt of your note of this date, request-
ing me to attend at Queen's Graving Dock to-morrow morn-
ing, at ten o'clock, in order to receive " such explanations on
the spot as can better be given there than elsewhere."
" In reply I beg to state, that the explanation I require is the
expense of building up the sill too high, and taking it down
again. The error in design has already been admitted by the
fact of the alteration.
" I regret much that a sense of public duty obliges me to
stir up in this matter, as it is, at all times, an ungracious task
to find fault particularly with one who has so long served the
dock estate.—l remain, sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) " HENRY C. CHAPMAN.
"Jesse Hartley, Esq."
Now, if the Dock Committee were to go on in this way, it
would be useless to apply to parliament for power to erect
warehouses on the dock quays. Inquiry must be instituted
into the enormouse expenses of the surveyor's department.
He (Mr. Chapman), had proved him to be inefficient in design,
and that he had led the committee into enormous expenses.
To establish this, he would not enter into the proceedings of
times beyond the short ,period during which he had been a
member of the committee. The first thing was the Coburg
Dock. Mr. Hartley had reported it to be completed, but
it was found to require deepening; that work was expected to
have been finished in September, with dredging machines.
The dredging machines, however, were still. Scarcely was
this undertaken, when Mr. Hartley called upon the com-
mittee for a grant of £BOOO to place reverse gates in that
very dock. 'That was one little item in the year. Then take
the South Graving Dock. The shipowners had complained
about it till they were tired ; they were smarting under the
expense it imposed upon them ; and to remedy the defect
the committee were obliged to erect an engine. Here was
£lOOO spent. If a searching inquiry were made, it would be
found that at least £30,00 a-year might be saved in this
department alone, if the work were done in a different way.
He would not take up more time, but give notice of the fol-
lowing motion for the next meeting.
Ist—" That the increase of the Liverpool Dock Estate has
been such and the expenditure so enormous in the surveyor's
department as imperatively to call for a corresponding in-
crease 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 he exclusively devoted
to the superintendence of the works belonging to the Dock
Estate. 3dly—That a first-rate engineer shall he engaged to
design 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
Surveyor, and as occasion may require by the Superintendent
Engineer."

Mr. HARTLEY commenced his defence by saying that Mr.
Roydon had seen the plan of the dock before any alterations
were made in it, and that he had no fault to find with it.
He had shewn the nature of the intended alterations to seve-
ral carpenters—to Mr. Stephen as well as Mr. Roydon—and
as they made no objection to them, he ordered the work to
proceed. With regard to the sill, he never had to take it up.
After the Oriental had been in, he saw that if a larger vessel
should come she could not be accommodated.
Mr. CHAPMAN asked if Mr. Hartley had not the dimen-
sions of the British Queen before him in making the dock.
Mr. HA RTLEY replied that he had them, but long after
the dock was made. With regard to the estimate of the cost
of the alterations, be was not aware that he had stated any-
thing false ; the work was there to speak for itself, and he
should be willing to call in any competent gentleman to exa-
mine it. _

Mr. CnAPmAx said all the labour was not included in the
estimate.

Mr. HARTLEY pledged his word that all the labour was
included. He then referred to the original plans, and en-
tered into some explanations, with the view of showing that

the dock had been constructed strictly in obedience to the
directions of the committee.
Mr. CHAPMAN asked the surveyor if, when Mr. Royden
found fault with the dock, he had not told him, " If you
cannot find men to shore a ship in this dock, I can."
Mr. HARTLEY did not think he had made such a remark.
He could only tell Mr. Chapman that the Oriental had been
shored in the dock, and no remark was made upon the dock
then. The Liverpool was shored in did. old dock. He felt
he had particularly done his duty with regard to this dock ;
but it so happened that he was found most fault with where
he considered he most deserved commendation.
Mr. CHAPMAN was of a very different opinion.
Mr. HARTLEY repeated that he had done his duty.
Mr.' CHAPMAN reminded Mr. Hartley that he had proved
him, from documents and facts, to have been wrong. All
the shipwrights condemned the dock. They could not stand
upon a ladder placed on a mere ledge without danger.
Mr. HARTLEY observed that it was strange they had not
found out the danger until within the last fortnight.
Mr. CHAPMAN said he had known of it for months. His
motion was for a return of the expense of pulling the masonry
down and raising it up. It was a state of things that all the
committee must deprecate. In fact, they would find that
they had spent as much money in rectifying the errors of
Mr. Hartley, as the docks themselves had cost.
Mr. HARTLEY.—What errors have I made ?

The CHAIRMAN thoughiiVaiTiNir7aaPtnati made a
charge of this sort, he ought to produce some grounds for it.
Mr. HARTLEY said this accusation took away all the sting
of the other charges against him.
Mr. SANDS suggested that inquiry by a sub-committee
would be the best course to take both for Mr. Hartley and
for the committee.

Mr. GEO. Hot.; asked the surveyor what induced him to
alter the plan originally approved by the committee ?
Mr. HARTLEY made a reply, which was quite inaudible.
Mr. CHAPMAN, in reference to something which had fallen
from the surveyor, repeated that the paddle-boxes of a large
steamer in the dock would rest upon the quays, and her keel
be 11 inches from the sills.
Mr. HORNBY asked whether the complaint was, that the
dock was not large enough to hold a large steamer ?
Mr. AIKIN.—No.
Mr. CHAPMAN said that in consequence of large steamers
coming to this port, the committee had been induced to alter
No. 2 graving dock for the purpose of receiving them. Mr.
Hartley had the dimensions of all of these large vessels ; Mr.
John Laird supplying him with those of the President and
the British Queen. Mr. Hartley found he had committed
an error as to the sills, but denied it when asked the question.
Not only that, but the dock was not safe for vessels, nor for
men to work in it. If every thing was referred to, the sur-
veyor, (who was the accused party), and he was acquitted
upon his own evidence, the committee would never arrive at
the truth.

Mr. G. BOLT said Mr. Chapman alleged that the Presidentiat
would hare hung on the quays by her paddle boxes, and that
Mr. Hartley had raised the sills 12 or 1.1 inches higher than
he ought with regard to the blocks.
Mr. EVANS asked whether in point of fact that error had
been committed ?

Mr. AMIN had visited the spot and was satisfied that an
error had been committed ; and by the enquiries he made
from practical people, he was convinced that the dock was
exceedingly dangerous, to the ship in it and to the people em-
ployed upon her.

Mr. HARTLEY referred Mr. Aikin to the original plan.
Mr. ATKIN replied that he did not go by that, but by what
he had himself seen.
Mr. HORSFALL asked the Surveyor whether at the time
the dock was made, he was aware of the dimensions of the
large steam-ships?
MT. JIARTLEY.—NO.
Mr. HORSFALL enquired how it happened that the dock
had been so constructed that vessels could not be shored in
safety ?

Mr. HARTLEY replied it was because there was not room
without encroachinz anon the Quays. Already there were

2; feet less of qui-Too-rin than there ought to be.
Mr. CHAPMAN repeated that no vessel could be placed in
the dock with safety to her or to the lives of the people, par-
ticularly in dark nights. He pointed out the advantages that
would arise from the engagement of a regularly educated en-
gineer, under whom the surveyor might act.
Mr. MELLOR said the committee gave orders for the dock
to be made in January for the accommodation of large stea-
mers; in August and not before Mr. Hartley obtained the
dimensions of them. Why hatZhe not taken steps to obtain
their measurement before that period ?
Mr. BENN said the dock would not have been undertaken
if it had not been to accommodate the large steamers.
Mr. GEO. HOLT thought the surveyor did not do himself
sufficient justic3 before committee.
Mr. CHAPMAN said it was monstrous not to have efficiency
in the surveyors department when the expences of it were
£lOO,OOO per annum.
Mr. G. HOLT said he ought to have mentioned that the
South Harbour-master was of opinion that all 'circumstances
considering the best possible plan had been adopted with
regard to the dock.

Mr.
BARCLAY observed that it had been made in the
Wrong place.
Mr. CHAPMAN.—That is the fault of the surveyor.
The subject was then referred to a sub-committee, and
the meeting separated.