The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL DOCKS.

The Parliamentary Committee on the Liverpool Docks
Bill re-assembled yesterday week, consisting of Lord
Sandon, Sir Howard Douglas, Mr. T. Egerton, Mr.
Brotherton, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Blackburn, Mr.
Barnard, Captain Plumridge, Admiral Sir Thomas Trou-
bridge, and Lord Granville Somerset, an added member.
Mr. M. D. Hill appeared on the part of the Dock Trus-
tees.

Lord G. SOMERSET said he wished to examine three
very eminent engineers, viz., Messrs. Walker, Cubit, and
Kendall; but as they were then engaged in another com-
mittee, Captain Evans was called. He stated that he had
been conservator of the River Mersey for the last twelve
months, and was well acquainted with the sand-banks.
The Brombro Bank, above the town, was increasing. The
banks in Liverpool Bay extended over 80 square miles.
There were five channels to the sea, the best of which was
the Victoria Channel, the next was the Rock Channel—
all of them had bars across the entrance. The Victoria
was the only channel navigable for a certain class of ves-
sels at low water spring tides ; it had then eleven feet of
water over the bar. It was eminently a safe channel; for
although upwards of twenty thousand vessels had passed
annually through it for the last four years, not one had
been lost. No material change had taken place in the
past year in the banks and channels of the bay. The prin-
cipal change was in the Victoria Channel, the bar of
which was extending seaward, and he thought that every
means should be taken to prevent it from silting up. He
considered that the outward extension of the bar was oc-
casioned by there being a greater quantity of detritus held
in suspension by the ebb than the flood tide—aggravated
by throwing the cleansings of the docks into the river, to
the weight, during the last year, of 213,000 tons. The
flats that carried this out discharged, just before high
water, and in the middle of the stream, 360 tons every
tide. The time selected was wrong, as part of the mud
was taken up the river, and part precipitated to the bottom.
It would be better to carry it to a narrower part of the
channel, where the tide was stronger, and drop it half
ebb, so that it might be washed away.
On cross-examination by several parties he said :—The
cliffs above Liverpool were constantly falling and deterior-
ating the river. He bad proposed to protect them by a
strong wall along the shores, which might be backed by
the mud from the docks. The channels in Liverpool Bay
were never better than now, though all of them had bars.
The bars would increase from the gradual operations of
nature; but he was decidedly of opinion that that evil was
very greatly aggravated by the cleansings of the docks
being thrown into water already as fully charged with mat-
ter as it could bold, and all in one place, and while the
tide was still flowing. He proposed to begin the wall at
Eastham, and continue it up to the flats—that would be
about three miles on the Cheshire side. On the Lan-
caster side many gentlemen bad already walled in the
cliffs on their property, and at Fleetwood the whole of
the cliffs were protected.
In reply to questions put by Lord G. Somerset, witness
found an opportunity of contradicting a paragraph in the
LIVERPOOL STANDARD, imputing to him that he bad had
some communication with the opponentsof thebill,and had
become a partizan. He explained, and appealed to seve-
ral gentlemen present, who corroborated his statement
that there was no truth whatever in the imputation, and
Lord Somerset expressed himself perfectly satisfied. He
replied to questions afterwards put, that the sea-walls
should be made at the expense of the parties who owned
the land, and that he thought dredging at the bars would
be very expensive, and not efficient.
Mr. Rendall, civil engineer, said that the system of
throwing the silt from the docks into the river was inju-
rious. The deposit ought not to be made before the tide
bad been ebbing at least two hours, and not after three
hours' ebb ; and be would disperse the mud barges more
than was the practice at present. The heavier stuff ought
to be separated from the lighter, and dealt with in a dif-
ferent manner. The heavier stuff ought to be put on
shore.—ln cross-examination, he admitted that the gra-
netic matter from the streets, &c., might amount to more
than the silt, &c., from the docks ; and that there was no
existing injury to the navigation of the Mersey at the pre-
sent moment which required legislation. With respect
to docks on the Cheshire side, he thought parliament
ought not to give the parties constructing them the same
power of throwing their deposit into the river—except at
two hours after flood tide, if at all.

Mr. Cubitt, engineer, was of opinion that the deposit
of 360 tons per tide would do no damage, because it was
not a greater quantity than would be held in solution by
the water in a state of agitation; and it was only restoring
to the water that which had been taken from it before.