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 ➢ock Trus-
tees. _ _ _ .

--EOrd 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 ac,,aainted 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 bad 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 had 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 hold, 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 had already walled in the
cliffs on their property, and at Fleetwood the whole of
the cliffs were protected.
In reply to questions pit by Lord G. Somerset, witness
found an opportunity of contradicting a paragraph in the
LIVERPOOL STANDARD, imputing to him that he had had
some communication with the opponentsof the bill, 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 laud, 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
had been ebbing at least two hours, and not after three
hours' ebb ; and he 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.--In 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.

He calculated that there were eight square miles of banks
in the estuary, and that, at the present rate of deposit, it
would take upwards of 300 years to raise them one foot.
He had not, however, made a personal examination. The
silt flats ought not to be discharged at any place above
Seacombe. The Victoria Channel was now as deep as
any one belonging to the Mersey, and it received no more
than its fair proportion of the mud. No other plan could
be adopted for getting rid of the cleansings of the docks
which would not entail upon the trust an enormous ex-
pense.

Mr. Walker was called, and in file evidence he gene-
rally agreed in opinion with the last witness, though he
would not advlse either the continuance of the power to
the Dock Committee now existing, or give it to another,
without a full and searching inquiry into the subject in
all its bearings. The sand, and not the impalpable mud,
was injurious to the channels.
The committee then adjourned till Friday.
On Friday, Mr. Hill having addressed the committee
to the effect that in the anxiety of the trustees to preserVe
the navigation of the Mersey in the best condition, they
would not regard ary expense, but, in this case, fully
assured that no injury could or would result, or had
already resulted, from the manner in which the docks are
now cleansed, they would bring evidence to that effect, as
any other measure would entail an enormous expense on
the commerce of the town without producing the least
possible :mprovement or benefit.
Mr. M`Bride was then called to show the manner in
which the docks are now dredged and the mud deposited
in the river.

Mr. Rennie, Mr. Provis, Mr. Hartley, and Mr. Giles
were examined at great length. They all agreed that no
injury had occurred from the present mode of operation ;
and Mi. Giles stated, that, if any alteration were to be
made, it might be confined to depositing the mud, &c.
near Seacombe Point. That was all he would recom-
mend ; anything else would be useless and expensive.
The committee soon after adjourned to Monday (yes-
terday).