The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

DOCK COMMIITEE.

There were pre&ent at the tneetinir on Thursday last
Ales,rs. Moore, Nicol, Barclay, Holt, Holmes, Moly-
neux, Tobin, Kendall, Sandbaca, Bald, Bulley, Middle-
ton, and Ripley.
It was referred to the Surveyor to report on the pro-
priety of lowering the bottom of No. 2 Queen's Graving
Dock-

The number of days the flags, indicating the docks to
be full, had been flying duti g the last qu,rter, was stated
to be as follows :—Waterloo and Victoria Docks 37 days,
Prince's 54, George's 65, Canning and Salt house 24.
The three keerers of the transit shed requested perm's-
'sloth as they had been working suffrage, to charge the
merchants something for overtime. The application was
refused by a majority of 11 to 4.
Mr. 'slim, cared attention to the circumstance that
the cargo of the Cantinas had been put into the transit
shed without being weighed, and tl:e importers finding
they could have the sheds without rent, the cargo not
having passed the scale, declined to get it weighed, to the
inconvenience of parties who bad cargo in the vessel, for
they could not get it. Some are angement should be made
with the Customs, otherwise a few parties might keep the
sheds altogether. It nas resolved to refer the matter to
the Warehouse Committee.

M r. TOBIN thought it was desirable that the committee
should h ive printed copies of the evidence gi,•en in both
!mutes of p itliament on the Liverpool Dock 13111, that
they might see who sere the friends or otherwise of the
docks, and whether paid dock servants bad done their
duty or not. The parliamentary committee ought to have
had the evidence printed.
The CHAIRMAN said the printing would cost at least
£3OO.
Mr. Tony.; said if it cost £3,000 it would be of service
to them.
Mr. RIPLEY said they had better also print the evi-
dence on the Birkenhead Dock 13i11.
Mr. Them. would have no objection, as it would show
that the opposition to the schen)o over the water was en-
tirely upon public grounds. It would also show that if
the navigation of the river was injured they had doue
their duty.
Mr. EVANS thought their cash account, showing how
Much the opposition cost, was quite as much as was ne-
cessary.

Mr.' RIPLEY said he was not serious, but he felt that
if they were going to throw away £3OO on the evidence
on the one bill, hey miAht as well do so on the other.
lie added, that the evidence on the Birkenhead bill had
been printed, and that they had received copies of it.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to Mr. Tobin as to the state
of the Liverpool Dock Bill, said it had been read a third
lime, and had gone down to the Commons for the verbal
alterations to be approved of. It had pas,ed in the same
state as it had left the committee, with the exception of
the leasing clause, which was reduced to twenty-one
years. lie entered into a statement, to show that the
publication of the evidence would be of great importance
in reference to several matters, which he named, relating
to the port, the receipts of which had decreased £4,000.
Mr. Nicor. said the opposition to the bill in the Lords
would cost £2,000. _

Mr. EVANS said, " that opposition was intended to
save £25,000, which I am prepared to say will be thrown
away. lam prepared for the war. The press is open to
us all. lam prepared to substantiate every thing I said,
and to justify it."
After some further conversation the subject was defer-
red till next week, so that an estimate of the cost of print-
ing might be obtained, and the meeting adjourned.

THE LIVERPOOL EYE AND EAR IMFIRMARY.

It must be highly gratifying to the benevolent supporters
of this institution to find that its benefits extend even to
remote districts, and that their liberality is appreciated,
as is evinced by an interesting case, the particulars of
which were recently supplied to the Newry Telegraph, by
Roger Hail, Esq., a gentleman of high standing as a
magistrate in the county of Down. Mr. Hall, in his letter
to the editor, (dated 28th ult.,) states, that " the patient
is the son of one of my labourers, and I can bear testi-
mony from his report of the truth of what is set forth,
(in the report enclosed,) as well as to the kindness, libe-
rality, and humane attention with which he was admitted
by the managers of the Eye and Ear Infirmary, in Liver-
pool, through the interest and recommendation of Mr.
Neill, the surgeon of the institution, to whose skill and
care, under Providence, the boy owes the blessing of the
restoration of sight." This case (from the report-book
of the institution here) is then given. The patient was
" Absalom Hanan, aged 12 years, an intelligent boy, from
near Warrenpoint. county of Down, who was admitted an
in-patient, under Mr. Neill's care, January 16th, 1844."
His statement, on entering, was as follows :
" When about six years old he was attacked with small-pox,
which deprived him of sight, and from that time to the present
he has been quite blind. He was taken to many medical men,
who pronounced his case hopeless. Steps ere taken to have
him admitted into the Blind Asylum of Dublin, when Mr. Hall,
of Narrow-water, County Down, thought it would be well first
to
try if any operation would restore his sight, and he sent the
boy to Liverpool."

The state of the boy's eyes, when admitted, was a com-
plete atrophe, or destruction of the left eye : the pupil of
the right eye was obliterated, and the iris thickened and
much diseased. (We condense the remainder of the re-
port.) Mr. Neill—though with little hope of success—
performed two operations (in February, and again in
larch) for the formation of an artificial pupil, but in both
instances an unhealthy action resulted, and the pupil which
had been formed again closed. In April he again operated,
and succeeded in removing a considerable portion of the
iris, "leaving an excellent pupil—no inflammation en-
sued ;" and when the eye had been accustomed to lights,
a very useful amount of sight was obtained. In three
weeks he was allowed to run about and amuse himself.
Ile one day absented himself from the hospital, and his
absence for six hours created uneasiness in the matron.
On his return, being asked where he had been, he replied,
"To the docks," and described shat he had seen. It was
afterwards ascertained that he had passed through crowded

th nong'tfare.. and round the docks, without assistance.
lie was sent home On the 7th of May. Th, remarkable
pnin, s in the case are. that he was six years blind; ilia
one eye wa• destr,yed and t' e vt,er nearly so, as the light
was quite shut oral; yet, e'er two unsnevessfol operations,
the third suec-eded : the ease al-o shows how- much in-
jury thc, eve e::n sustlin without destroying the parts
essential for sight.