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

BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILL.

On Tuesday, Mr. AUSTIN, counsel for the Corporation
and the Dock Trustees of Liverpool, opened the case
against the bill in a speech of great length. He contended
that the proposed plans could not, from engineering diffi-
culties, be carried into effect ; that if it were possible to
do so, such works would injure, if not destroy, the navi-
gation of the port of Liverpool. He repelled the charge
of unfair dealing that had been brought against the Cor-
poration for opposing the bill, after they bad sold land en-
hanced in value by the knowledge that docks were about
to be made; said that the warehousing company that lay
perdu, awaiting the decision of the committee, were notcompelled to build the warehouses, which was left to their
option ; that without them the docks would be useless ;
and, finally, that he would prove by the testimony of emi-
nent engineers that the plans proposed were impracticable.
Mr. Thomas Page was then called and examined at
great length. He condemned all the plans and suggestions
of Mr. Rendall as worse than useless, and was examined
ingreat detailwith a view to proveit. An answerof Mr. Ren-
dall, on a point which he considered important, and in which
he was confirmed by Mr. Cubitt, this witness disposed of
by saying that the position assumed as an advantage had
as much to do with the subject " as the sneezing of a man
in Pall-Mall had to do with the atmosphere of Japan."
Upon cross-examination he admitted that he had turned
his attention to civil engineering about eight years ago ;
that he had only been a week in Liverpool some three
months since ; and that certain tables, the only documents
be produced of any importance, had not been made out by
him, but by Mr. Hartley, of Liverpool, who was not in
town. The counsel for the bill declined to trouble him
further.

On Wednesday, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham stated that
the landowners, and others resident in Wallasey, whom
he represented, finding their apprehensions removed by
the explanations that had been given, had determined to
withdraw from the contest.

Mr. Talbot then called Mr. Drain, an assistant of Mr.
James Walker. Mr. Drain stated that he had been in
Liverpool for a fortnight, for Mr. Walker, taking levels
and surveys. His evidence was very decided against the
proposed plan ; to almost every point of which he objected.
His evidence was given with much candour, and some
skill.

The committee again met on Thursday. Mr. Giles was
cross-examined, but nothing material was elicited.
Mr. Colthurst was examined respecting some surveys
which he had formerly made of Wallasey Pool, and also
relative to proceedings which had been taken against cer-
tain trespassers on the land. The statements of the wit-
ness were intended to counteract the effects of Mr. Ren-
dell's evidence, but did not appear to be very effective.
Mr. Fletcher, of Liverpool, was next examined as to
certain experiments upon the velocity of the tides, which
appeared, though ingenious, to be of little import to the
subject matter in dispute ; and he was followed by Mr.
Lewis, the professor of mathematics and civil engineering
at the Royal College of Engineers at Putney. His evi-
dence was decidedly favourable, in a scientific point of
view. He completely disposed of much of the theoretical
calculations that bad wearied the committee.

Mr. John Sothern, a merchant of Liverpool, gave his
opinion as to the danger that would arise to shipping en-
tering into the projected docks, and he gave a decided
preference to the protection his vessels received by being
beached at Wallasey Bank, as it at present existed, pre-
vious to going into the Liverpool docks.
Mr. Geo. Rennie, who had been so long connected with
the Mersey, was the last engineering witness examined--
to the effect that abstraction of back-water and displace-
ment might be injurious ; but the portion at Wallasey
Pool, as compared with the total cubic contents of the
Mersey, was so small, that it would be nearly inappre-
ciable.

Mr. Hugh M'Bride, master of the Clarence and Vic-
toria docks, who stated that there would be much difficulty
in docking vessels at Birkenhead dock with a westerly
wind and a strong current. He gave a decided preference
to the Liverpool docks on this account, and also because
the dischareing of vessels in tidal docks was a tedious
operation. V His examination was not finished when the
committee adjourned to Friday, after an attempt of Lord
committeeSann to s
eevxetteenld times the
enquired adjournmentfor
yit o Monday.,
Mr.
Walker,evidence was considered essential, but he was not fn da
y tls
forth-
coming.
h hise
o -
coming.
Liverpool Pilots, (Mr. M'Bride being engaged before
a nna
tFi
or
ni d a
of
f,
Nt
ihre. p
jroosceepehd i ncgoso
Cook,
ms
ompeenr
ne
tde
owdiet
oh t theo f et
hx e-
the other committee,) who was followed by Mr. Hudson,
master of the Pilot-boat No. 2, - Garnett, master of a
vessel in the coasting trade, and Mr. Askew, the Harbour-
master. The evidence of these gentlemen went to show
the difficulty of docking vessels on the Cheshire shore, and
the great danger that would result from the construction
of the works to the navigation of the river. They also
dwelt upon the injury that they would inflict on the
coasters which beached upon and anchored off the mouth
of Wallasey. Upon these points they all agreed, and
most strongly condemned the proposed measure.
The committee adjourned till. Monday (yesterday).