The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

or five

- The Harbour and Dock Masters being introduced,
The CHAILLMAN directed Mr. Hartley to look at Mr.
Gage's plan, and give the committee some idea of the time it
would take in its execution.
Mr. RIPLEY added, after the act of parliament had been
obtained, he understood that the Manchester Dock was

under lease for about 20 years.
Mr. AIKEN said the Ltrge plan went upon the principle of
doing away with the King's Dock, Salthonse Dock, two
Graving Docks, and the Manchester Dock. Would it not be
sufficient for the committee to say at once that they never
could contemplate a plan which involved the doing away
with of two of the most useful ducks in the town?
The CHAIRMAN said it would take 12 or 13 years to get
• rid of the Manchester Dock.
Mr. Hour said the unexpired lease was for 14 years.
Mr. TOBIN said the gentlemen who recommended Mr.
Gage's plans seemed to think nothing of expense or time. If
the Manchester dock could be•bought only .for its weight in
gold, they would not care about the expense.
Mr. ItryLry remarked that the Manchester Dock be-
longed to the corporation.
Mr. HARTLEY said he had examined the large plan, and it
was impossible far him to say in what time it would be exe-
cuted. At the south end it might be completed at three or
four different periods ; and, when one part was completed,
another might be begun. It would, perhaps, take six or
eight years in the whole.
Mr. CHAPMAN repeated that they had no act of parliament
for it. The only thing for discussion now should be the
principle of the future dock. Mr. Hartley had admitted that
the principle was right by the plan he had suggested some
years ago, but the committee had nothing to do with anything
but the parliamentary site.
Mr. EVANS said the committee had also to consult the
opinions of the mercantile associations. A majority of them
were in favour of Mr. Gage's plan, therefore the committee
were bound to give it some consideration and dispose of it
formally.

Mr. 'RIPLEY said Mr. Chapman had stated that Mr.
Hartley had admitted the principle and acted upon it ; but
in the new dock Mr. Hartley had entered upon another
principle and the committee had admitted it.
Mr. HARTLEY said he admitted the principle to be the
best for east and west docks.
Mr. RI LEY.—Precisely so.
Mr. HARTLEY added that when he first came into office,
two docks like the Prince's Dock were about to be con-
structed. He was ordered to report on the plans, which he
did, and they were abandoned, and his own substituted.
Mr. HORSFALL said that was precisely so. The commit-
tee had approved of the plan, and it had been carried out as
far as practicable in the docks to the northward of the Prince's.
Mr. HARTLEY.—Yes, certainly,

The CHAIRMAN said sorneeiolianations had been received
from Mr. Gage, which ought, perhaps to be now read.
The SECRETARY then read the following :
" Liverpool, December 2d, 1841.
"MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN,
" Agreeably with your instructions of the 29th
ultimo, I hearwith beg to hand the plans which I was then
required to deliver this day; they are Marked and numbered
as follows, that is to say—the plan marked A contains the
design of Mr. Hartley -No. 1, in juxta position with that sub-
mitted by me No. 5. An explanation of the plan and table
of contents will be found at the foot thereof.
" The plan marked B exhibits a disposition of the whole
space between the Duke's Dock and George's Basin, with an
explanation and table of contents.
" The plan marked C is an arrangement of the same space
with two Graving Docks, at the south-east corner next the
Duke's Dock.
" The plan marked D, No. 4, is the design with the Horse
Shoe Basin, containing an explanation and table of contents.
"These are the identical plans which have been exhibited
by me to the ditiarent mercantile associations, and which are
referred to in my pamphlet lately published on the dock
question.

" It is with great reluctance that I feel myself called upon
at the present juncture most respectfully to advert to the re-
port of Mr. Hartley which was read at the last meeting of
the committee, inasmuch as the subject matter of that report
necessarily carries with it great weight, from the circumstance
of its being the production of the confidential adviser of the
dock estate, and also from its being the document upon which
the committee appear to have acted last year, in the settle-
ment of the very same question which is now about to receive

their grave reconsideration.
" The predominant feature of the report in question is an
overweening desire, on the part of Mr. Hartley, to establish
a prior claim to the original idea of the principle which I
have publicly advocated, and upon which my plans are con-
structed. lie struggles to establish a kind of patent right
to the principle, and then endeavours to cast ridicule upon
its application. A dock capable of containing
*four tiers of
vessels of nine hundred tons burthen, with a c;ear gangway
in the centre, he designates a ' canal'; the object of this
singular misapplication of terms is manifest, and it is painful
to observe the labyrinth in which this gentleman has en-
tangled both himself and his subject; he has treated it in
such a manner as to require opposite conclusions to be drawn
from the same premises. In that document he has cast a
discreditable imputation upon the writer who has now the
honour of addressing you, he has been expostulated with upon
the subject in your presence, and, although he disclaimed the
intention of any such imputation, he has suffered the errone-
ous paragraph to eo before the public.
"I should not have complained in this communication of
any personal misrepresentation from Mr. Hartley, however
offensive or unjust, had it not been mixed up with an official
report which has heretofore received the sanction of the Dock
Committee.
" From the magnitude and importance of the subject upon
which the committee are about to deliberate, and the great
responsibility attached to the office of a confidential adviser
of the dock estate, it was only reasonable to expect a report
founded upon something more than the crudities of a 'hasty
consideration,' yet such is the character of the report given
by Mr. Hartley himself.
" Considering, therefore, that Mr. Hartley was called upon
to sit in judgment on a case which concerned his own pro-
fessional reputation, it is hardly to be expected that he could
pronounce an impartial verdict, if even he had given the
question his mature deliberation ; but when we find a most
momentous subject involving the interest of the whole mer-
cantile community treated in a slovenly manner, and with
nothing but `hasty considerations,' there is little reason to
expect that such a production should contain those sound ar-
guments which are calculated to assist the superior authori-
ties in their legislative capacity.
" Under such circumstances it would seem almost unneces-
sary to enter upon a confutation of the illogical conclusions
which are drawn from the document in question ; it may,
nevertheless, be proper to combat some of the fallacious
statements therein set forth. Mr. Hartley admits the
principle which I have laid down to be correct, and re-
fers to the similarity of his own plans submitted years ago—
he states that the Victoria, Trafalgar, and Waterloo Docks
are upon the principle of my plans, whereas the very reverse
is the case. The docks in question are no more upon the
principle which I have designed, than are any of the other
existing ones. The mercantile associations and a numerous
body of gentlemen who have inspected my drawing of Mr.
Hartley's docks, with the vessels represented therein,
can all bear testimony to the correctness of his asser-
tion ; if, however, Mr. Hartley continues to approve
of the principles, why has he designed the present dock
upon one that is diametrically opposite? The cause of
this extraordinary contradiction seems to baffle the boldest
conjecture. Mr. Hartley does not appear to be aware that
a vessel can be dropped into her discharging-berth and
hauled out again in a narrow water-space ; yet this is an
operation daily performed in our long graving-docks. If his
intended square dock is filled with ships lying idle, the sup-
posed spare water-space becomes pre-occupied with a cum-
brous mass, presenting a floating barrier to the performance
of Mr. Hartley's favourite •evolution of swinging a large
ship in the middle of a dock. At the concluding part of
his repOrt he contradicts his assertion in the former part, and
thus proceeds :—"fo the general principle of these four
plans, namely, that of crowding as much loading and dis-
charging room into as small a space as possible, without
' paying due attention to other considerations, I have
decided objections.'
"To this I would reply, that nothing can be worse than
crowding laden ships together in the middle of a dock, with-
out paying any attention to the great consideration of afford-
ing them quay accommodation whereon to land their corgoes.
Mr. Hartley forgets that the old docks afford ample water-
space, and that the new act of parliament permits the dock
authorities to remove ships from one dock to another when
requisite. If the intention is, therefore, to make the new
dock with its warehouses an important dock, of what use,
then, will be the square area of water? If warehouses are
to be the only consideration, more quay room and less water-
space should have been provided; hence the advautage of
an extended line of warehouse frontage.
" Mr. Hartley's idea that a vessels Side would only touch
in the middle when moored alongside the Horse Shoe Basin
wall, and would thereby subject the ship to injury from an
unequal pressure is an absurd fallacy; this is an assertion
capable of the clearest demonstration. I must not, however,
trespass further upon your valuable time, and am, therefore,
compelled to reserve my extended observations to a more
suitable opportunity.
" I have the honour to be,
" Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,
"Your most obedient Servant,
" MICHAEL ALEXANDER GAGE.
" The Dock Committee."
The CHAIRMAN said, that from this document it was
evident that Mr. Gage contemplated covering the whole site.
After some remarks from Mr. Tobin, Mr. Aiken, Mr.
Chapman, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Ripley, in proof of Mr.
Hartley's having propounded the principle now put forth by
Mr. Gage, 17 years ago,
Mr. Askew, the South Harbour Master, was examined on
Mr. Gage's plan for covering the parliamentary site, it
being understood that the extended plan was to be left out
of consideration as impracticable.
The CHAIRMAN.—Mr. Askew have you seen this plan of
Mr. Gage's ?
Mr. ASKEW.—I have, sir.
The CHAIRMAN.—TeII us what you think of it.
Mr. TOBIN, before the question was answered, would
observe that Mr. Gage laid much stress upon the fact, that
trade had so increased within the last fifteen years, as to re-
quire double the number of docks. From this he contended
that double the number of docks would be required in the
next fifteen years ; but at the same time did he give double
the number of graving docks ? So far from that, what did
he do? Upon his last amended plan he put two graving
docks only ; but if he had maintained his own proportions,
he should have put eight. Of the three graving docks that
there were, one had been taken away, and two remained,
whilst Mr. Gage had himself proved that our increased trade
would require six more Graving docks were so essentially
necessary that they ought to be in the centre of the docks
themselves

Mr. ASKEW then said, he was of opinion that the Horse
Shoe plan would never do at all. A large ship could not lie
upon the convex side of the circle. There would be no-safety
for her : he was sure that the pressure against her bow and
quarter would do her injury, but a very important question
was, how were they to work her ? He thought the dock
might be worked with warehouses ; but there must be an
opening between the two. The quay would be only 90 feet
wide; a cart turning would occupy a great part of it.
Th
the accommodation
etwo plans would give
greatest to
the
shipping eCHAIRMAN.—Which
I amountßmAN.—W of hicil
of
in-
terest of the port ?
Mr. ASKEW.—I am decidedly of opinion that Mr. Hart-
ley's would; but I would recommend you, if it can be done,
to widen the basin a little.
Mr: Nicor..--What width is it?
Mr. ASKEW.—It is 245 feet.
The CHAIRMAN.—What we want at present is your
opinion of the plans as they now exist.
Mr. 411,1iEW.-1 am decidedly of opinion that Mr. Hart-

ley's plan is superior to Mr. Gage's. Mr. Askew tilts as-
signed his reasons for several minor alterations in Mr. Hart-
ley's plans.
Mr. HODGSON, the North Harbour Master, was next
called. He said he had a decided objection to the horse-
shoe plan, for these reasons : The first was, that a vessel,
150 feet long, could not lie to the quay against the segment of
a circle of ten feet; his next objection was the strong indraft,
Which would almost be increased at certain times to a hurri-
cane, that would be created by the proposed warehouses upon
the quays ; and, thirdly, that vessels could not be worked in
the dock. He would not have any entrance to the river. On
these accounts he tliouzlit Mr. Hartley's plans greatly supe-
perior to those of Mr. Gage. Two entrances, in his opinion,
were sufficient to work three docks.

Mr. JOHN EASTON, the master of Brunswick Dock, was
next called. He said he had paid attention to the plan pro-
posed by Mr. Gage, and he was Quite opposed to it. A
curved wall made it very difficult indeed to secure the ships,
and they must be damaged by it.
Mr. CHAPMAN.—Suppose it was a square basin, like
Brunswick Dock ?

Mr. EASTON said a square basin was much superior. He
had seen the basin on Air. Hartley's plan, and he preferred
it to Mr. Gage's, but he would prefer a inure southern en-
trance.

Mr. TOBIN suggested that each person who gave his testi-
mony upon these plans should he asked what his nautical ex-
perience had been, in order that the public might be able to
estimate the value of their opinion.
Mr. EASTON. in reply,' said he had followed a seafaring
life for upwards of thirty years, and that for ten years he had
been dock master.

Mr. AIKIN said, that there was not a single harbour or
dock master who had not been brought up to the sea or to the
master of a ship.

The CHAIRNI.IN.—And most of them have been dock
masters a very considerable time.

The CHAIRMAN.—Under all the circumstances do you
think the plan of Mr. Hartley is better than that of Mr.
Gage ?

Mr. EASTON.—Decidedly.
Mr. HORSFALL here asked Mr. Askew how long he had
been either dock or harbour master?

Mr. ASKEW said in a very few months it would be 21 years ;
and that he was the only man living in the service of the estate
who commanded a ship in the year 1800.
Mr. TODIN.—How long have you followed the sea?
Mr. ASKEW.—I went to sea very soon after the action of
the Ist of June, 1794.

The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Hodgson a similar question.
Mr. HonGsoN said he had been twelve years at sea, nine
years dock-master, and two years harbour-master.

Mr. TOBlN.—and you were brought up among shipping
before you went to sea?

Mr. il ODGSON.-I have_ had to do with shipping for thirty-
one years.

Afr. John Garniss, master of Queen's Dock, said he had
been for twenty-nine years following the seafaring profession,
and bad bee❑ dock master eleven years. He had examined
the plan of Mr. Gage, anal was most decidedly opposed to
it on the same grounds as the harbour-masters.

Mr. Hugh *Bride, master of Clarence and Trafalgar
Does, said he had been for thirty-one years at sea, and ele-
ven years dock master. Hit opinion of Mr. Gage's plan
was, most decidedly, that it was inferior when compared with
Mr. Hartley's, and that it would be impracticable.
Mr. Henry Rea, master of Waterloo and Victoria docks,
who had been 27 years at sea, and seven years dock-master,
expressed-a very strong objection to the circular basin, and said
that Mr. Hartley's plan was much better than Mr. Gage's.
The warehouses on the quay would make a complete funnel.
Mr. James Cosnahan, master of George's Dock, said he
had been 2t years at sea, and dock-master six years. He had
carefully examined Mr. Gage's plans, and was most decidedly
of opinion that Mr. Hartley's were the best, for the reasons
stated by the harbour and dock masters.

The dock- toasters' testimony being,now gone through, the
committee resumed the consideration of the question whe-
ther competent engineers should be appointed to examine
the respective plans, and aid the committee with the advan-
tage of their opinion. After some discussion it was resolved,
that the opinion of two such gentlemen should be obtained;
and by a subsequent resolution, it was determined that Mr.
Walker and Mr. Cubitt should be invited to Liverpool for
that purpose.
The committee then separaticl.