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

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 SURVEYOR.
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 be 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—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 should 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
rehnt 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 That 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,
arrarb,ement,.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 which those in-
terested in the working of the different designs I have fur-
nll,lled 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 properly.

" 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 quays 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 2feet 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 information of all,
that what the member blames me for, concerning the south
graving docks, is what was expressly contemplated in their
construction—viz., the increased depth of their sills to allow
of the admission of the heaviest ships coining 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 9 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 to 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

bed which is not yet efficiently deepened, but is expected to
be finished in all September, chiefly with dredging machines,'
and that report would have been borne out, had it not been
from the desire to afford the earliest accommodation to the
large steamers which have since almost continually occupied
the dock, often greatly to the hindrance of the dredging
machines.
" I will also beg leave to mention, that so far from my hav-
ing been considered incompetent by others, I have at various
times been requested to exercise my profession in similar and
other works, both here and in several other parts of the
kingdom ; and I may also remark, in noticing the second
portion of this motion, that although the terms of my ap-
pointment gave 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 of 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 my 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 character 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 motion, 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 otfiet, 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,.ast a saving of £lO,OOO a-year may be made
in my department, by a different method 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 following extract from
the printed copy of the Inquiry into the affairs of the Cot-
potation 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, Intake 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 2,5 th of
the same month, 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,—

" Resolved,—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-
ions made by the member as I think it necessary to notice,
[ 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, "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
he 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 th 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 Harbour-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-

("aired to giTve his time and talents exclusively to the Dock-
estate. He (Mr. 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 X] ,500. per annum. It was stated in the repre-

sentaiion made by the Surveyor, that he had not been ab;ent
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 his 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 absent himself 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 ought 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. MELIOR 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. lie 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 Works for the investigation, and that
they should have specified in writing what they were to in-
quire into. _

'--The Dom( SURVEYOR being called in and questioned, said
that he contracted for masonry by measurement. All was
done bycontract.._

Mr. 'AMIN 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

have his exclusive time. With regard to the proposal to work
only by contract, he thought that a separate matter, and
worthy of attention. If they were unanimous that Mr. Hart-
ley's whole time and attention were necessary, be should beg
to move a resolution.

Mr. ATKIN moved a resolution to the effect that; in taking
into consideration the increase of the port, the whole time of
Mr. Hartley should be devoted to his duties as surveyor;
that the contracts should be entered into ; and that eminent
engineers be in future consulted, except in cases in which
their professional assistance was not required.
Mr. CHAPMAN said this meant that the surveyor was to
design new plans, but to consult eminent engineers upon
them ; that, in fine, he should have the first advice. Science
was now so much advanced, that this could easily be accom-
plished. He begged to ask Mr. Hartley a question, and that
was, whether he had not been employed on the Bolton and
Bury railway, for which he received an additional £l5OO
a-year ?

The SURVEYOR said he did not know that Mr. Chapman
had any right to question on such a subject, or to enquire
into his emoluments.

Mr. CHAPMAN modified his question to enquiry, whether
the Surveyor had not been employed in other works.
The SURVEYOR said he had been employed in building the
Chester bridge, and on several railways.
After considerable conversation and several propositions
being submitted, a motion was unanimously carried, to the
effect that, from the increase of the port, the whole time and
attention of the Surveyor was required, which ended in the
following motion proposed by Mr. Mellor, being carried :
" That a special committee be appointed, to examine and
report whether it would not be practicable, and with regard
to the public interest advisable, to adopt the following reso-
lutions :

" First—To give up the establishment at the Dock-yard,
and instead of making numerous articles in iron and wood, to
contract for or purchase them when required.
" Second—Not only to contract for all new works and al-
terations but for repairs also, either at a fixed §um per an-
num or separately, as may be required.
" Third—to give up the Kirkmaybrick Quarry, even sup-
posing that the rent to be paid during the remainder of the
lease, without working it, and sacrificing all the property
which has been laid out upon it, which cannot be sold or
brought away for the use of the Dock Estate."
The committee then separated.