The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

The Committee then proceeded to financial matters.

FRIDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.—THE BIRKENHEAD DOCKS.
A special meeting of the committee was held on Friday.
for the purpose of taking into consideration the chairman's
leiteron tat half of the Committee to the Lords Conservators
of the river Mersey; together with the digest of (or state-
ment on) the parliamentary evidence, as drawn up by
Captain Evans, the acting conservator. All the members
of the board were present with the exception of Messrs.
Royden and Moon.
The CHAIRMAN opened by stating that the documents
had been submitted to the parliamentary sub-committee,
who, being of opinion that there was nothing in them pre-
judicial to the interests of the Dock Estate, had requested
him to lay them before the general committee. The sub-
committee, he added, were further of opinion that the
course he had pursued on the previous day was the correct
one, as they considered that documents connected with
proceedings in parliament should be laid before them
in the first instance that they might keep them back, or
make them public, as might appear most prudent. He
explained that he could not call the sub-committee sooner
together, as one of the documents did not come to hand
until Monday, and the other he had only received the
previous day (Thursday.) He offered no opinion on the
documents, except to say that Captain Evans's report
went into a great deal of matter totally irrelevant to the
subject, and was not what the admiralty had asked him
for, as instead of a digest of the evidence, it was the mere
opinion of Captain Evans himself. The memorial to which
it was a reply (and which would now be read) had been
drawn up under the best advice, and was in accordance
with the opinion of the council.
The SECRETARY then read the memorial to the Lords
Conservators of the River, and which was signed by Mr.
Bramley-Moore. It set forth that a bill was then pending
in parliament for the construction of certain tidal basins
and other works at Birkenhead, on the site of the creek
called Wallasey Pool, and which involved the damming up
of the pool itself, as well as the reclaiming of 120 acres at
the mouth of the pit ; that the Dock Trustees opposed it
on public consideration only, and did not oppose the con-
struction of docks and other works at Wallasey Pool,
provided they are so planned as not to injure or endanger
the navigat'on of the port; that they had consulted emi-
nent engineers, and were advised by them :hat it was likely,
to be injurious to the navigation of the river, and especi-
ally to the sea channels of the port, inasmuch as the eb-
bing waters were now barely sufficient to keep those chan-
nels open, and the present scheme would greatly reduce
the volume of such waters; that it had been alleged that
their lordships approved of the scheme, and had sanc-
tioned it, and that the promoters of the measure urged
that such sanction ought to be conclusive ; that the Dock
Trustees were informed that it had been stated to their
lordships that although the proposed works would dimi-
nish the quantity of water, yet that that might be compen-
sated for by reserving a certain quantity and discharging
it at a later period of the tide, when it would be more
effectual for scouring the channels; that the dock trus-
tees have taken every means to test this assertion, and
that experienced engineers were of opinion that the mode
proposed of compensating for the water abstracted would
be altogether unavailing ; and, under these circumstances,
the Dock Trustees " earnestly request their lordships to
cause an inquiry to be instituted in such manner as may
be deemed expedient, as to the probable effects of these
works upon the sea channels of the port, and that the opi-
nion of the most eminent engineers and of other persons
distinguished in science, may be ascertained before your
lordships' final sanction and approval is given." The me-
morial, in conclusion, stated that other objections existed
as to the impracticability and injurious tendency of the
proposed works.

Mr. EVANS wished to know who the eminent engineers
alluded to were? _

The CHAIRMAN said there was a long list of them—
nine of the most eminent men. In reply to other ques-
tions, he admitted there was certainly a difference of opi-
nion amongst them on some points. Mr. Walker had
been examined. He had not yet been able to procure a
printed copy of the evidence, but expected it shortly.
The SECRETARY then read the reply to the Chairman's
communication, which was signed by Capt. Evans, dated
London 24th May, and addressed to the Lords Conser-
vators. The writer stated that he had examined evidence
given before a committee of the House of Commons,
order to ascertain if the objections to the proposed
stated in a letter of Mr. Bramley-Moore to their lord-
ships,d by eminent civil engineers, and that
works,
stated
were sustained
after a careful perusal of the evidence pro and con, he
found
lordships'such a
views conflictingi
e sby
a simple
nature
that
statementhe should
of the
facts best
their
re
case, leaving their lordships to draw their own
meet
otifht
the of
conclusions. The objections of the Trustees of the Li-
verpool docks appeared to him to be as follow, viz., that
if the proposed works at Wallasey Pool be carried into
effect, the abstraction of the water contained in the pool
will, to a serious degree, endanger the navigation of the
river Mersey, but most particularly the sea channels of
the port. He thought Mr. Moore's objection easily dis-
posed of on the known principles of tidal action in estua-
ries. The river wall to he constructed across Wallasey
Pool would not contract or narrow the volume of water
entering the estuary, as Seacombe point extended further
into the river than the proposed wall. The tidal wave
entering the narrows at Seacombe would, if confined by
this wall, increase in velocity, and tend to keep the chan-
nels above and below Liverpool clearer of deposit than
they were at present. He did not think that in approving
of the plan their lordships looked for compensation for the
water extracted from the pool, to any quantity that might
be sluiced out, as that would be barely sufficient to carry
away the silt with which it would be charged; but that
their lordships were guided by the motives that influenced
them in favour of the Liverpool Dock Bill—that the river
wall would in both cases compensate for the displacement
of the tidal water, by giving a more direct course or greater
velocity to the tide, and thus improving the navigation of
the river. It was well known that a tidal wave, if confi-
ned in its progress through an estuary, would increase in
velocity, and rise in proportion as the space it previously
occupied was to the space into which it which it might be
foreed. Of this the Severn and the Bay of Fundy afforded
practical proofs. (He here gives statistics in demonstra-
tion.) He was quite certain that the increased velocity
obtained by walling in Wallasey Pool would compensate
for the loss of water which the erection of docks on both
sides the river would occasion. The channels into Liver-
pool were now better than in ancient times, notwithstand-
ing that in the construction of the Liverpool docks ten
millions of cubic yards of tidal water were displaced, the
entrance to the river considerably contracted, and a pool
similar to that at Wallasey dammed up. The engineers
Lif i
vtehrepyo
oml awdoeusludc
bhee
Inucirnoeadcl.lmFe
on
rt
oo nf tthhoes er
i daysv
e r the ipdo rtthoa ft
andtg ur
enaa
tet
eex
rl
experience
rthi een Cc
velocityeo rl-:)0ao
sr
ta
hst
eihootnwi
dtook
that
ts dti i
off
eeprrreoinvvt
ee vrd i
we
twha
nf
bat
yhv
ie. case,
ggailiinong
of the Mersey. He considered the objection in evidence
to the refuge basin for coasters to be well founded and
attributed this to the alteration from the original plan he
had submitted. (He here points out the evils of the de-
viation, and states that the proposed basin is too small for
the numerous coasters that now take refuge on the banks
at the entrance of the pool.) He proposed that a similar
basin should be constructed on the south side of the
Woodside Ferry pier. An objection made to the 'altera.
tion in the line of river-wall between Seacombe and
Woodside was also, in his opinion, well founded. In the
original plan the wall ran in a straight line from Seacombe
to Woodside, across the orifice of the pool. He objected
to a projection in the centre at the north end of the tidal
basin, which would check the tide, diminish its velocity,
and tend to silt up the basin. He would recommend their
lordships not to allow any alteration from the original
straight line of wall. A great portion of the evidence re-
lated to the novel plan of Mr. Rendel, the engineer of the
works for scouring the tidal basin, by keeping up such a
state of agitation as would not allow the sediment to sub-
side. The plan had not been tried, and might fail, when
dredging must be resorted to, the matter not to be cast in_
to the river. The effect of the water to be sluiced into
the river by this novel plan would be of very little use as
a scour, as it would be so charged with silt as to neutralize
the effect, as occurred in scouring out the tidal basins in
Liverpool. It was stated by some of the engineers that
projections on the Cheshire side would cause a deposit in
front of the Liverpool Docks, but from the straight course
of the river in that part of it, the projections would cause
a deposit on the side on which they were. The engineers
themselves proved this, for they stated that the Plucking_
ton Bank, on the Liverpool side, is occasioned by the pro-
jection of the Knott's Hole Rocks on the same side ; and
Captain Fitzroy expressed the same opirion. Mr. Walker,
engineer, stated that the proposed tidal basin at 'Wallasey