The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-28 00:00:00

NEW WA LL OPPOSITE TIIE DUKE'S DOCK.
It was stated that the Bridgewater Trust had offered to pay
the sum of £lOOO. towards the construction of the new or

river wall opposite this property.
course, made to receiving the money

No objection was, of

MR. CHAPMAN'S CHARGES AGAINST THE DOCK SURVEYOR

VINDICATION OF MR. HARTLEY.
The result of the investigation of the special sub-committee
appointed to inquire into the dock-yard department, as con-
ducted by Mr. Hartley, and a letter from that gentleman, on
the subject of the charges in connection therewith brought
against him some months ago, by Mr. Chapman, was the
next subject of discussion.
Mr. Hartley's letter was read by the secretary. The writer
complained that certain charges were brought against him,
six months ago, by a member of that committee, seriously—
and in a broad and unqualified manner—affecting his charac-
ter as regarded the discharge of his duties as surveyor, as
well as his professional capacity. Very little explanation
had been required from him, although he was prepared to
reply to all inquired; that a strict investigation without such
delay would have been to his advantage ; and that he had

just cause of complaint that these charges had been so long
held over him, and still rested on his professional capacity.
He strongly urged upon the trust that they should bring for-
ward the report of the sub-committee. He also called the
attention of the committee to a resolution, (of which he had
received no official notification,) to the effect that his duties
should be exclusively confined to the business of the docks.

He repeated that the charges made against him had been
most injurious to him professionally, and trusts that the
stigma that thereby attached to him would, without further
delay on the part of the sub-committee, be removed.
Mr. CHAPMAN said that the charges made had been re-
duced to writing, and had been proved.
Mr. AIKIN suggested that the several parts of the letter
should be discussed in the order in which they stood. The
first charge was as to delay.
Mr. MELLOR, chairman of the special sub-committee, ex-
plained the causes of the delay. They had decided to call in
a professional gentleman to inspect all the works ; to whom
the hooks should be open, and who should make himself ac-
quainted with the syspeni pursued, and hand in his report.
The reports were not given in to the sub-committee until the
27th or 28th of April. It was therefore impossible for them
to take into consideration the reports of that professional
gentleman at an earlier period.' Some of the members of the
sub-committee, moreover, had been called to London, on the
business of the Trust, so that there was no culpable delay on
the part of that body. That sub-committee had originated
with Mr. Hartley himself, and he would state that they en-
tertained the highest opinion of him as a professional man,
as well as in private life. He (Mr. Mellor) had entertained
an opinion, that the work required in so many trades as were
embraced by Mr. Hartley, could he accomplished at a cheaper
rate by contract or purchase, than a single individual was
competent to do. But the sub-committee had strictly
enquired into the subject that was assigned to them, and had
entered upon no enquiry into his talent or capacity as a pro-
fessional man.

The SECRETARY then read the following
REPORT.
The Special Committee, appointed on the 10th of Decem-
ber last, to " examine and report whether it would not be
" practicable, and with regard to the public interests, ad-
" visable, to adopt the following resolutions, viz.:—
" Ist. To give up the establishment at the dock-yard, and
" instead of making the various articles in iron and wood, to
" contract for or purchase them when required."
" 2nd. Not only to contract for all new works and altera-
" tions, but for repairs also, either eta fixed sum per annum,
" or separately, as they may be required :"—Having given
their serious attention to the matters referred to them, and
obtained the opinions of practical gentlemen on the system
on which the various branches of trade connected with the
dock-yard establishment has been managed, and is now con-
ducted, report to the general committee, that with regard to
the staff of the establishment at the dock-yard it does not
appear that any material reduction can at present be recom-
mended. The number of persons of the various trades em-
ployed under the dock surveyor is as follows :
32 carpenters, 2 coopers, 1 blockmaker, 2 painters, 1
brazier, 1 shipwright, 18 millwrights, 37 masons, at day
wages, 21 at piece-work, 12 paviers, 34 assistants, 20 smiths,
26 assistants, 5 pairs of sawyers, 304 labourers, employed in
various works, I book-keeper, 7 accountant clerks, 1 drafts-
man, and 2 apprentices.
The rates of wages paid to the men do not appear to be
more than those paid by other establishments ; but the sub-
committee are of opinion, and would strongly recommend,
that the system of working overtime should, under ordinary
circumstances, be discouraged, and that no extra time be
allowed in any of the branches of trade, except when en-
gaged in tide work, or in cases of absolute necessity. With
regard to the superior foremen, the timekeepers, and the
measurers, who have hitherto been paid at rates of day
wages, and allowed to work overtime, as well as the common
workmen, the sub-committee think it is advisable that they
should be paid fixed wages per week, for their entire atten-
tion at all hours to the duties required of them, without the
allowance of any extra time whatever. The sub-committee
find that it has also been the practice to allow the book-
, keepers, accountants, clerks, draftsmen. and two apprentices,
employed in the office, to work over-hours, paying them by
day wages, according to the number of hours they may have
made per day or per week, which the sub-committee think
an objectionable mode of remunerating that class of persons,
and they therefore recommend that they be paid fixed sala-
ries, requiring from them the devotion of the whole of their
time to the duties of their station.
On the subject of the paving of the dock quays, the sub-
committee are advised that, with the exception of some
occasional and trifling repairs, the whole may be done by
contract, either at rates per square yard, or at a sum per
annum. The sub-committee are not prepared to say that a
saving of any amount would be made in this branch of work,
if it were done by contract instead of by the present system,
yet they recommend a trial to be made of contract, as ap-
pearing to them to be a preferable mode.
Asstiming that the general committee will not deem it ad-
visable
to reduce the present establishment of the dock-yard,
the sub-committee have inquired for, and obtained from the
dock surveyor, a statement of the permanent stock of various
materials which be would recommend to be kept constantly
on hand for the d
immediate and efficient maintenance of all
the works ;
and they fin that of
Oak timber .............. from £5 to £7,000
Other Timber
Iron ........ 300
Lead, copper, brass, nails, &c. 5OO
Making altogether a value of about £9,300
which the surveyor thinks will be amply sufficient, and
which, by its reduction to that amount, or near it, will be the
means of saving a considerable sum per annum in interest of

money.
Of granite the surveyor says there is no necessity for any
stock beyond what is wanted for use ; there is at present a con-
siderable quantity on hand ; but in anticipation of its being
soon required, granite, limestone, or other stone of hard
quality, appears to be desirable, to a limited extent, for the
coping of the dock walls,
tne facings of the entrances of the
docks, and all other parts which are subject to wear and
tear. The surveyor is of opinion too that granite blocks are
the best material for paying the dock quays, of which a stock
will be constantly required for repairs, whether that work be
done by contract or as at present.
Considering the probability of but a limited quantity of
granite being in future used in the dock works, and the con-
sequent reduction of the establishment at Kirkmabreck, the
sub-committee do not report on, that branch of enquiry re-
ferred to them, except
they find that, sinking the entire
outlay, the cost of granite from the query laid upon the
dock works is about 2s. 9d. per cubic foot for ashler blocks,
whilst the cost of Anglesea limestone, of which the Rock
Lighthouse is built, was about ls. Bd. per cubic foot; and
the cost of red sand-stone, inilar in quality to that of which
the river wall of the Prince' a Parade is built, would be about
6id per cubic foot—with a very great reduction in the cost of
labour upon the material.
On the general question of doing all the works by contract,
the sub-committee have nothing to recommend, as it appears

that the system bf contracts has hitherto been in practice,
and especially since the establishment of a sub-committee of
works, to whom is referred the consideration of all plans for
new works, as well as of extensive repairs, together with esti-
mates of costs, specifications, and mode of carrying them
into operation, the principle of contracts is recognised, and,
where desirable, adopted.
The sub-committee do not remark on the removal of the
dock-yard, its establishments, stores, &c., &c. from its pre-
sent site, or the providing of a new situation, as that subject
will be brought under consideration at the proper time, and
such removal does not appear to be immediately necessary.
The sub-committee having personally examined the ac-
counts at the dock-yard, and the system of checks on labour
and expenditure of stores, are unanimously of opinion, after
a very strict investigation of the stock accounts, and careful
examination of the books, which skew in detail the expenses
incurred in every department of work, and making allownace
for the expense of the establishment and maintenance of a
large stock, that the various works have been executed on
very reasonable terms, and at lower rates than they could
have been in any other way. The interests of the dock
trust, in the conduct and management of the mechanical
departments of the surveyor's establishment, have been ma-
terially promoted by the system which has been pursued ;
and as long as that system is kept up in the same orderly,
vigorous, and efficient manner, no better system can be de-
vised for the general benefit of the trust, the establishment
being highly creditable to the dock surveyor, whose indefati-
gable zeal, honour, and industry, cannot be too highly com-
mended.

On the subject of obtaining the professional opinion of
some civil engineer of eminence on all plans of new works,
this sub-committee are not aware that any difficulty has ever
existed is obtaining the sentiments of competent persons
whenever required; and with regard to the plans of the pro-
posed new works, for the erection of which authority has re-
cently been obtained from parliament, such plans having re-
ceived the sanction of the legislature, and the estimates of
the cost of the works having been supported by the profes-
sional opinion of Mr. James Walker, civil engineer, it does
not appear to this sub-committee that any farther opinion is
necessary. J. M.
Mr. ToniN apprehended that if the recommendation of the
sub-committee with reference to extra hours of draftsmen
and others were acted upon, they would lose the services of
the best men.
Several members stated that sufficient latitude would be
allowed on this point in cases of emergency.
Mr. HORSFALL said that no definite salaries could be fixed
for such individuals, who might be called upon to devote more
or less of their time ; and in order to have the work well and
carefully done, some latitude must be given to the surveyor.
He remarked on the comparative cost of stone that had been
alluded to. The report stated, that the granite cost 2s. 9d.
per cubic foot, laid down here,--and of limestone as fur-
nigher) Inr the. orprtinn of thp Pnr.l4- Lirchthnipte lq Rd a
toot. The last, however, was a transaction of tienty years
ago; and it became a question at what price it could be ob-
tained for now. If it could be got for is. Bd., he thought it
would be desirable to procure a quantity of it for future use.
With respect to the report, and the origin of it, he had him-
self seconded the proposition, being satisfied that the inves-
tigation, after what had occurred, would be more satisfactory
to the committee, and also better for Mr. Hartley. With
respect to that gentleman, he (Mr. H.) was of opinion that
he had faithfully done his duty for the trust. He thought, if
he were not mistaken, that Mr. Chapman's expression re-
lative to their surveyor was, he was incompetent as an en-
gineer, but as good a stonemason as ever was in the world.
Mr. C. had also stated that he (Mr. Hartley) had made
great mistakes and blunders in the expenditure. Unfortu-
nately for Mr. Hartley, these reflections had got into the
newspapers, and with the stamp of authority, being ut-
tered by a member of that committee. He (Mr. Hors-
fall) did not think Mr. Chapman's remarks correct ;
the report before them, after a careful investigation,
proved that they were not so, and that Mr. Chapman wa
too hasty in expressing them. They had remained
however, hanging over Mr. Hartley for a period of five or
six months without contradiction. These charges, too, in
directly implicated every member of that committee, for the
implied that they had for years retained in their employmen
an incompetent person, and had sanctioned an extravagan
expenditure of the public money. He was glad that Mr
Chapman had watched the progress of the enquiry, as that
he trusted, would enable him to see his mistake. He (sir
Horsfall) was the only individual now left out of the old
committee who had been thus accused of improper conduct,
and he trusted Mr. C. would explain ; for it was necessary
that such explanation should be given as would do away with
the charge that bad been made. The committee were re-
sponsible for those whom they employed ; and since it had
been proved that they had not employed an incompetent
person, he trusted that some distinct disavowal of his former
impressions would be made by Mr. Chapman.
Mr. CHAPMAN said that he admitted the honesty, zeal,
and attention of Mr. Hartley to the mechanical department,
but he did not retract what he had before stated in reference
to other points. The cost of stone, &c. had been, lie might
almost say, nearly double what it ought to have been, by the
extravagant working of the quarry at Kirkmabreck. The
blame rested principally, however, with the old committee of
1821, under whom the money had been expended. Many
thousand pounds had been unnecessarily expended, entailing
an enormous burthen on the public. The cost of using that
stone, in place of the limestone, was at least £60,000 more.
He admitted, indeed, that this arose from an error of judg-
ment, and that Mr. Hartley was not to blame. The extras
vagant expenditure was the act of the committee, and Mr.
Horsfall was one of them. Nothing could, in his opinion,
justify that enormous outlay. The inquiry had exonerated
Mr. Hartley from any charge of extravagance; but he could
not exculpate the committee for having expended such a sum
as a mere toy. His opinion on this point was unaltered,
though he might have expressed himself rather warmly.
A MEMBER remarked that Mr. Chapman had made
charges against Mr. Hartley, which were shown to be un-
founded ; and the question was would he now retract them ?
Mr. CHAPMAN said he had left the charge against the
man, and attacked the system.
A MEMBER remarked that the subject was the report of
the committee, which he could state was passed unani-
mously. Mr. Chapman himself was a member of that sub-
committee, and had as such paid a compliment to Mr.
Hartley.
Mr. HOBSFALL inquired whether it was thought neces-
sary that he should reply to Mr. Chapman? He was pre-
pared to do so.
Mr. XIKIN was of opinion that no reply was requisite.
The committee had found on inquiry that the system pur-
-1 sued was excellent, that it was faithfully carried out, and
that the expenditure was also conducted with great pro-
priety. He was sorry that Mr. Chapman declined to say
more directly that he had laboured under a mistake with re-
gard to the expressions he had used, and that he had uttered
them in the hurry of the moment. That part of the report,
however, that complimented Mr. Hartley, he was glad to
find had emanated from Mr. Chapman himself. He (Mr.
A.) and those around him were, however, satisfied with the
report of the sub-committee, and he hoped that in the dis-
cussion of the subject, members would avoid all personal re-

flections.
Some conversation ensued relative to the comparative
price of stone—Mr. Chapman repeating that £60,000 more
was expended on the cost of granite than would have been
incurred had lime-stone been substituted. This was denied,
and Mr. Aikin said the question was, whether the granite
was not 50 per cent. better for the purpose than the other
stone. Another Member remarked, that which they had
paid only 2s. 9d. a foot for granite, other parties had paid as
high as 3s. Gd.
Mr. Alderman EVANS thought they should not stop short
of exonerating Mr. Hartley from the charges that had been
preferred against him. It was not enough that they should
merely express their conviction that he was a good mason.
They must go beyond that, as his professional reputation had
been assailed. He wished that that expression of Mr. Chap-
man had been explained away or withdrawn ; for no person,
after the investigation which had been gone into, and its re-
sult, could say that Mr. Hartley was not fully competent to
the performance of all the duties assigned to him.
Mr. CHAPMAN said that he admitted that Mr. Hartley
was a man of great talent and ability in the working depart.
ment, and that he was an honest man ; but he did not consi-
der him adequate in design ; and with reference to his capa-
city as a civil engineer, he entertained very great doubts.
Mr. TOBIN relied upon the report of the sub-committee,
who had fully investigated the matter.
Mr. THOMAS RIPLEY regretted that Mr. Chapman would
not withdraw his charge of incompetency on the part of Mr.
Hartley. From the investigation they had entered into, that
gentleman was proved to be not only a clever stone-mason,
carpenter, and joiner, but'a very competent engineer in all
the. departments that were within the line of his duties. He
proceeded to notice several instances of the great talent ex-
hibited by Mr. Hartley, even in matters not pertaining to his
professional pursuits. Some lanterns required for the float-
ing-light ships were constructed by Mr. Hartley, and were
approved of. It was thought, however, that the article
might be procured better and cheaper from Birming-
ham, and a manufacturer was written to, and employ-
ed. The result was, that Mr. Hartley had furnished
three superior lanterns, and that in this department alone
he had effected a saving of £173 to the trust. It was,
indeed, entirely disproved that the system Mr. H. had pur-
sued was extravagant ; on the contrary, it was one of great
economy to the Dock Estate. He had another remark to
make. In order to ascertain whether the dock-yard could
not be made much smaller, without affecting its utility, Mr.
Stewart had been consulted, and asked whether the work
could not be done cheaper by contract. He replied, that that
did not appear obvious ; but that it would be well, as Mr.
Hartley must leave them in a few years, from his advanced
age, or other causes, to look out for contracts, in order that
they might feel their ground, for they would not readily find
a man competent to till his place with equal efficiency.
Several members expressed their satisfaction at hearing
these details.
A resolution was then read by Mr. HoitsrALL, expressing
confidence in Mr. Hartley as an engineer and surveyor.
Mr. CHAPMAN said, he understood Mr. Hartley was en-
gaged merely as surveyor, and not as engineer of the trust.
Formerly the surveyor acted under an engineer, merely exe-
cuting the work according to the plans and specifications.
He had nothing to say against Mr. Hartley but that lie was
wanting in design. He was of opinion that, at the end of
the year, the accounts should be laid before the ratepayers,
to be by them examined and scrutinized. The more publicity
was given to them the better. The blame of extravagant ex-
travagant expenditure was solely attributable to the committee
to which he had before alluded.
Mr. TOBIN said, that he had frequently gone to Mr. Hart-
ley's yard, and found everything perfectly satisfactory.
It was moved by Mr. MELLOR, and seconded by Mr.
AKIN, that the report of the Sub-committee that had been
read should be adopted. This was unanimously carried.
Mr. HORSFALL then moved his resolution, expressing con-
fidence in the ability of Mr. Hartley. After a modification,
suggested by Mr. Aikin, rendering it an appendage to the re-
port, it was thus submitted :
" That this committee entertain the highest opinion of
A.l r. Hartley's able and faithful services to the Dock Estate
since the period of his first appointment of surveyor, and
continue to repose the fullest confidence in his zeal and abi-
lity to discharge the duties of his office."
This was seconded by Mr. T. Hour, and carried unani-
mously.
Mr. HoemEs enquired whether this was the proper time
to consider the question of the exclusive attendance of Mr.
Hartley to the duties of the Dock Estate, alluded to in his
letter.
Mr. EVANS thought that if the duties—including the con-
templated new works—would occupy his whole time, he ought
not to seek other employment.
Mr. AILIN and others were of opinion, that Mr. Hartley's
undivided attention would be required.
Some conversation arose on the subject, which ended in a
resolution to the effect that the revolution of the committee of
the 10th December last, which had never been officially
communicated to Mr. Hartley, and which was to the effect
that his undivided services would be required,. should be
transmitted to him along with the report—leaving him to
make his propositions as to future salary, &c., hereafter..
oAnftof After
Aa
ishort
Worthington,conversation
as
relative
solicitorto tthoe tendered d epr
oe de
kr els cgunsat:
ti
which did not result in any resolution, the meeting separated