The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD•

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.-AL-
TERATIONS IN THE DOCK BILL.

Yesterday, a special meeting of the Dock committee
was held at the Revenue-buildings, for the purpose of
taking into consideration and determining upon three al-
terations which had been suggested to be made in the
new Dock bill. There was a full attendance of members.
Shortly after one o'clock, the chair was taken by Mr.
Alderman Bromley-Moore.
The CHAIRMAN opened the proceedings by stating the
nature of the proposed alterations. One had been de-
signed with the view of enabling the continuing members
of the dock committee to meet for the dispatch of busi-
ness in cases of death or resignation upon the part of any
of the members ; the second, would have the effect of
legalising the sub-committees, and authorising them to do
legally what they were occasionally in the habit of doing
at present ; and the third, was to the effect, that vessels
should not, while being removed from one dock to ano-
ther, be forced into the river.
Mr. WORTHINGTON, the dock solicitor, read the latter
alteration, whereby it was provided that, whenever the
proceeds of repelling or cleansing should be obstructed
by any vessel lying in the docks, whether the cargo the
same should or should not be discharged, it should be
lawful for the trustees to cause such vessel to be removed
into 'any dock, without being taken into the river, and
that the master, owner, or consignee should pay the cost
of such removal.
Mr. EVANS said he should like the clause to give a
more extended power, but that as, in all likelihood, it
would not be acceptable to his friends around him, he
would not urge any alteration. He thought everything
ought to be left to the discretion of the committee, parti-
cularly as the case about to be provided against might not
occur once in a thousand times.
Mr. TOBIN thought they ought to take care of the
widows and orphans who might be possessed of ships in
the docks as well as of bonds. What, then, should they
think of a dock-master who might send a vessel into the
river, ballast or no ballast ? He thought it would be very
wrong to send vessels into the river at the risk of the pro-
perty of the owner.
Mr. BOLD suggested that three days' notice be given in
cases of the kind.
Mr. KENDALL asked who was to be accountable in
case of accidents occurring while the removals were being
effected ? Ile contended that it was not for the owner to
pay, if accidents occurred after the dock trustees had
taken charge of his vessel. _ _ _

The CHAIRMAN believed the Dock Committee were

not to be held responsible any more than the pilot.
Mr. EVANS said he had always contended that the
Dock Committee were not to be responsible in any way
whatever.
Mr. RIPLEY said, that upon a former occasion they had
paid for neglect at one of the graving docks.
Mr. Nicol, said the power of the Council was held
under acts of Parliament, and that they were as much
liable as any other parties in certain •cases. He thought
three days notice might be found to work inconveniently,
inasmuch as it might very often b.' desirable to move a
ship when she happened to be in the way of others.
Mr. Boas intimated his willingness to reduce the time
to 24 hours.
M. TOBIN said that at the present time it would be
unsafe to let many vessels in the docks cross the basins
and go into the river, and that if the notice were reduced
to 24 hours they could not get ballast into them in that
period of time.
Mr. RoYDEN thought the discussion useless, inasmuch
as the existing practice was, for the Dock Trustess to
send a notice that a certain dock was to be let dry, which
was quite sufficient for any ship-owner.
The CnitIRMAN explained. The clause had nothing to
do with the letting of a dock run dry, it meant merely
to give a power to have a ship removed from the George's
into the Prince's, or any other Dock the Committee
might think proper in certain cases.
Mr. BOLD thought the clause very objectionable; for,
supposing he had a ship discharging in the Prince's and
that he wanted to load her there again, the Dock Com-
mittee might order her away to the Trafalgar, and he
could not bring her back again for her load without the
consent of the Committee. Then if he happened to dis-
charge her in full, the dock master might go on board
without a moment's notice and take her away to the
Waterloo, not only at the ship-master's risk but at his
expense also. (Hear.) Under these circumstances be
thought the clause altogether was most objectionable, and
that a notice of 3 days at least ought to be given.
Mr. RIPLEY thought the clause might be improved,
and expressed his belief that the banking of the docks was
much worse than it might be.
Mr. NLcoL was of opinion that a 24 hours' notice was
reasonable, and that to compel a man to have his slings
removed instantly would be a hardship.
Mr. Anctiv said that if a man chose to hold .a berth in
despite of the rules of the dock, he ought not to get a
moment's notice.
Mr. KENDALL presumed the Dock Committee would
never order the removal of a vessel which was not in a
situation to be removed?
Mr. WORTHINGTON said, the power given under the
fourth of Victoria for removing vessels from the Albert
into any other dock, did not contain any restrictions as
to notice. '

Mr. ToBIN asked upon whom the consequences might
fall, supposing a vessel, which had been so ordered to be
removed, hau to pass a basin and was lost?
Mr. WORTHINGTON replied. If there was not any
negligence, the Dock Committee would not be liable;
but, if there were negligence on their parts, the Dock
Commi ee would be liable, the same as any other body.
Air. BOLD put a case :—Suppose a dock-master came
anu said " dock this ship at either the Prince's or any
other—that the owners told him she had not any ballast—

that, notwithstanding that inforna,ttion, the dock-master
persevered, and that, going through the basin, ,the vessel
was injured. He wished to know, in such a case, who
was to pay the expense?
Mr. W ORTHINGTON said, the case put by Mr. Bold
would amount to a wilful perversion of the power invested
in the Dock Committee and their officers.

The CIIAIRM--ANsatid, That it twenty-four hours' notice
were given, and the parties neglected to comply, the Dock
Trusteess would then be exonerated from all responsibi-
lity, and the risk would be thrown upon the ship. He
should say the shipowner would be better without the
notice than with it.
Mr. BOLD expressed his belief that the present .com-
mittee would act com.ctly, but they should bear in mind
that the docks might get into other bands, and that the
state of things might then be altered.
Mr. Evaris thought it injudicious to hold such language
as that future committees would not act as honestly and
morally as they did.
gthhety b
righte mighttsoolp d
r, eg forseut into
that
h instance.iantte
theyrior
hands;
Mr. BOLD admitted that be bad made the observation,
but what he intended to convey was this—that he would
be satisfied with any thing the present trustees did, but
that the docks might get into very different management
in a very few wNh
be
admitted y etahlo.sua h They
‘hi
tetyhoanmtlyi
Air
might get into better hands.

ft was here understood that the opposition was with-
drawn, and that the clause was agreed to.
Mr. WORTHINGTON read the second clause, authorishik
the Dock Committee to appoint sub-committees. It was
to the effect that, whereas it was expedient the general
committee should appoint sub-committees to assist in the
management of the dock trust, it should be lawful for
them to appoint, out of their own body, such and so many
sub-committees, consisting of such a number of persons
as the committee should direct, and the proceedings and
acts of such sub-committees should be subject to such
conditions as the general committee should direct, pro-
vided that their proceedings were entered in proper books,
and were submitted to the general committee for approval
or rejection, and which books should be laid before the
trustees as the books of the entire of the said committee;
and all proceedings of the sub-committees should be sub-
ject to the same directions as were expressed in the last
mentioned act, with respect to the proceedings of the
said sub-committees.

Mr. Nicol, thought the machinery of this clause a
little complicated, and that it would be sufficient to have
the cording made general—that the proceedings of the
sub-committees should be brought before the general
committee, for confirmation, and the trustees, in the
usual manner.

Mr. WORTHINGTON said there were certain restrictions
with regard to the sub-committees, and there were no
powers given theta but what the general committee should
think proper to delegate. Therefore, it was necessary
the proceedings of the sub-committees should be entered
on books, and that those books should be submitted to
the trustees.
Mr. Nicol. said that if they were to have half a dozen
sub-committees, and that their proceedings were to be
read over first in the general committee, then the books
of those sub-committees would have again to be read
over in the Council, along with the proceedings of the
general committee. He thought this would be a heavy
machinery to work. _
- - -

The CHAtiutAN.—That's not intended.
Mr. Nicol..—But the clause makes it so.

Mr. AIKIN thought the clause unnecessary. He saw
considerable disadvantage in it without any correspond-
ing advantage to be derived. He should rather they went
on as they were going at present.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked what was more easy than
to read the books of the sub-committees to the trustees,
instead of having them re-copied into the proceedings of
the general committee ?
The CHAIRMAN thought the clause necessary, because
if the sub-committees ordered payments to be made at
present, they did so on their own responsibility until the
same were authorised by the general committee.
Mr. RIPLEY asked whether the clause would give a
power to the
be consentsub-commalitteesmmi to mtteeake payments without
mr. \l,n
GTON replied, that subject to certain re-
co ?
o oTfut
I the
genet
re-
strictions it did.
Mr. Nicol. coincided in opinion with the chairman, that
whatever was done, under the present arrangement, be-
tween Thursday and Thursday, was done upon the per-
sonal responsibility of the sub-committees.
Mr. AIKIN asked what was done?
Mr. Nicol, replied that payments were ordered. Ad-
vances, for instance, were made for works.
Mr. AIKIN contended that the great object of the sub-
committees ought to be to clear away the ground for the
general committee, and that powers ought not to be ex-
ercised by a portion until after tbey had been sanctioned
by the whole of the committee. Had any particular in-
convenience arisen which would show that the clause was
necessary ? because, if not, they need not look out for
probable inconveniences. He was altogether opposed to
the granting of powers to sub-committees.
The CitAnmAN said, the real object of the clause was
to enable them to do legally what they now did illegally.
Mr. RIPLEY asked v,lietlicr the general committee had
not the power at present to appoint sub-committees ?

The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative, but added that
the General Committee, seeing the necessity of such a
measure, had been acting in accordance with the prc.i-
sions of the clause since 1840.
Mr. AIKIN presumed that when the sub-committee of
Works authorised the payment of bills, those hills were
not paid until they came before the General Committee
on a Thursday ?
The Secretary replied that they were paid on the Satur-
day night previous.
After a few further ohservations, it was moved by Mr.
Nicol, and seconded by Mr. Middleton, that the clause be
inserted.
Mr. AIKEN moved, as an amendment, that the clause
be omitted.
Upon a discussion the numbers were :—for the clause,
9; against it, 6; the motioo was consequently carried.
The next clause, authorising the General Committee to
meet for the transaction of business, no withstanding the
death or resignation of any of its members, was agreed
to without any observation.
Mr. ROYDEN then asked whether they could make a
couple of graving docks in the vicinity of the Prince's-
basin without applying to Parliament ?
Mr. WORTHINGTON inquired on what land?
Mr. ROYDEN replied, on land belonging to the corpo-
ration, where the slates were. It was more a nuisance
than anything else.
Mr. WORTHINGTON replied, that they had no authority
to purchase the land, therefore they e'/..ti;l not make
graving docks there.
Mr. TOBIN said this subject had been discussed over
and over again by the committee.
Mr. AIKIN wished the Chairman to call the attention
of the members to the bill, and to request of them to
point out any valuable clauses which they might think
necessary to have introduced. It would be better to in-
troduce them now than hereafter. The subject just
brought forward by Mr. Boyden had been before the com-
mittee on former occasions, and the expense as compared
to accommodation would be immense.
The Committee then entered on the discussion of some
matters of a private nature, and shortly after adjourned.

CORRESPONDENCE.