The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

April 2:3, 1844.

THE PROPOSED LIVERPOOL DOCKS

OUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE.

WEDNESDAY.
The tOmmittee on this bill resumed its sittings this day,
at twelve o'clock.
Messrs. Austin, Talbot, and the Recorder of Liverpool
Mr. Henderson.) appeared in support of it ; and Messrs.
d Yard and Webster against it.
, Mr. John Hartley and his father (Mr. Jesse Hartley)
_Were the first witnesses called, arid they were examined at
some length in support of the original plan as lodged,
!wing that, although other plans had been made by them
accordance with suggestions by the committee, yet
• they were still .of opinion their original plans were the
A:cost advisable to carry out. Mr. John Hartley stated
the total estimated cost of the works at the north end to
be £507,465, and at the south end £269,976, and he was
-?loPitlion the works could be completed within those es-
timates.. A breakwater as a protection to the gates at the
14?rtch end was on the plan, but it was not finally decided
wanociloher it should be erected or not. There was good
an
11Poortrce
ther4ge all along the Cheshire shore, much better than
Liveipool side, and this anchorage was of great itri-
to the port of Liverpool. Mr. John Hartley did
Per •
know whether the conservators of the river had given
mission for the erecion of the breakwater, or that they
wild do so ; but it was a fact that the navigation of the
liver never Was better than at present. Mr. Hartley con-
ned the testimony of his son in every particular. He
gave evidence also of the want of dock accommodation,
Particularly of a large steam dock at the north end of
'tee town ; that it, as well as the timber trade, should be
ePt separate; and that the junction between the canal and
ul docks was required for the convenience and advantage
or the port. In answer to questions by Mr. Hildyard, he
said he had been asked his opinion respecting the expe-
diency of a dock in Wallasey Pool, and he had said a dock
aight be conveniently constructed there for vessels lying
p.

In Show the necessity of a large dock for steamers, and
Of the advantage to be derived by having all the steam
trade together,
at the north end of the town. He does
ao`approve of docks on the Cheshire coast. and knows
hing about Wallasey Pool.
Mr. Martin gave similar testimony. In cross-exami-
nation be said he had known the port for twenty years,
and should say a considerable portion, probably seven-
tenths, of the whole commerce of Liverpool pissed into
raltha.reoeetsauittnrotpineforgrtihtoiedro,niscthietly to the manufacturing districts, and a
nrietthe exports are brought from the mann-
-8 also. On re-examination, he said
manufacturing towns were on the Lancashire
side of the Alersev, and a largerpo portion of the exports
were brought by
railway to Liveol.
Mr. George Kendall, one of the Dock Committee, and
chairman of the Shipowners' Association, gave evidence
of the great want of further dock accommodation being
reqUired. He believed that at his recent election be suc-
ceeded in consequence of being of opinion that docks were
required both north and south, in opposition to his oppo-
nent, who was against the south docks. In cross.exa.mi
nation, he admitted Wallasey Pool would be a convenient
site for a dock ; but if it were merely a half-tide basin, he
would not take his vessels there.

Mr. M`Bride, master of the Clarence Dock, was next
called, and his evidence went to prove that further dock
accommodation was required. His cross-examination
Was deferred until to-morrow. _ _

At the rising of the committee, Mr. Hildyard asked
the chairman to report to the house that Messrs. Aikin
and Evans had declined to give evidence before the cora-
inittee, in order that a summons might be issued. This
Was agreed to, and the committee adjourned.

THURSDAY.
The committee met at the usual hour this morning,
ques-
tion from
en Mr. M`Bride was called, and, in answer to a
Mr. Hildyard, said he was in the employ of the
Dock Committee.
Mr. Austin.—You are not afraid to give your inde-
pendent opinion, notwithstanding that, are you?
Witness.—No.
Mr. Hildyard.—l should like to see an independent
thwitness called—we have not yet had one who is not under
e control of the Dock Committee?
Mr. Easton, master of the Brunswick Dock, was then
examined. He gave similar evidence to that already de-
Posed to as to the necessity of further dock accommodation,
48 did Mr. Easton, master of the Queen's.
, Mr. Stewart, of Liverpool, was the next witness, and
ne Proved the value of the land required ; that for the
north docks belonging to the cot poration, he estimated at
AOOO, and that belonging to the Earl of Derby and
J• S. Leigh, at £193,000.
Mr. Weightman, architect, of Liverpool, deposed to the
value pf 127,563 square lands of land belonging to the Harrington Dock Estate, proposed to be taken for docks
at the south end, to be £208,205.
Mr. Withers, the trasurer to the Dock Este, stated
that the income of thee docks for the last five years was
k 997,101, and the expenditure £848,243, including the
nterest on dock bonds. The income of the estate had oubled itself during the last sixteen years. The surplus
idcirne last year was £76,039, so that there would be no
cultY in borrowing funds for the proposed docks.
Mr. Austin said he had now to enter upon another class
itofatirdence, and should ask the committee to adjourn
'Until to
Mitt -morrow. but before doing so he begged the com-
a ee to rescind the resolution come to yesterday, re-
Pecting the application for the Speaker to issue his
waiinaedrrdsaeansitli,,f,nor the attendance of Messrs. Evans and Aikin.
after the'-aiFotdtehydeythweir refusal to attend as a mere pretext,
were members of the Dock Committee,
ihtrhoesvyivvere
legally generally had agreed to ask for the present
boifii bound to further that bill, instead
throwing obstacles in the way of, procuring it. It
Would, therefore, be very improper on the part of the
committee to compel their attendance.
. Mr. a d asked Mr. Austin to inform the committee
What as the 'nature of the evidence he proposed to give,
" on that would depend the question whether he should
press for the attendance of Messrs. Aikin and Evans.
Mr. Austin declined to stale what his evidence was.
Lnrd Sandon suggested that the matter should he de-
ferred until the evidence given in support of the bill was
complete, when the question might be revived.
Mr. Hildyard acquiesced in this suggestion, and the
resolution of the committee was rescinded.
Mr. Hildyard then applied to the committee to examine
Captain Evans, the conservator of the Mersey, as that
gentleman wished to return to Liverpool to-night.
Mr. Austin declined, on the ground that he did not
know whether it Would be necessary until the arrange-
ments were complete with the Admiralty. He expected
"they would have been complete last night, but a difficulty
bad arisen which, probably, viould be settled so as to
enable him to go on to-morrow.
An honourable member complained of being called to-
tether merely for an hour and a half and then adjourning.
Mr. Austen assured the committee that he had not an-
ticipated being unable to go on. He had anticipated that
the matter would have been settled last night. At present
he could not say whether be should call Captain Evans
'or not—he did not say whether he would or would not.
The committee adjourned at two o'clock.

FRI DA Y.
,_The Committee resumed sitting to-day at twelve o'clock,
Major Beresford in the chair.
,1/2 The proceeding- were opened by a resolution of the
Ottimittee requiring- the report of the Liverpool Censer-
ilancY to be laid on the table of the Committee as evi-
ell.ee i Austent inquiry.
Arr. then read a letter from the Lords of the
t-a-trinniraoltt,Y. wherein their lordships expressed their appro-
sendin the roposed works, and also their intention of
g two navalP commanders to be examined by the
pronanters on the expediency of improving the harbour by
the
erection of more extensive docks.
Illr.eaPtain Emerou was then called, ad examined b
Austen.-- mThes effect of the witness'sn evidence was y a
concurrence in the necessity of carrying out the proposed•
Forks,
which he thought calculated to be of great service
the interests of Liverpool generally.
Mr. Page, the eminent civil engineer, was next examined
Tht° suffici-ncy of the plans proposed to be carried out.
glee witness stated that he had but just returned from Li-
o rPeol, where he had inspected the site of the proposed
_cks, and
gave it as his opinion that under the able
`
_l4_vaeniagernent of Mr. Hartley, the company's engineer,
..ry promised advantage could not fail being carried out.
ft.vilt.
uckse xar Hudson, for thirty years a pilot in Liverpool, was
would greatlyis benefit the hipping
ited for
itat they were according to the plans in every way eaten-
, safety and convenience to vessels of every class.
Mr. Vignoles, late government engineer in Ireland, wag
examined.—The witness expressed himself highly confi-
dent of the general utility and efficiency of the works, as
well as his high opinion of Mr. Hartley's engineering ex-
perience, which he had no doubt would bring the works
to a successful issue.
Mr. Duncan Gibb, an eminent merchant of Liverpool,
was next examined as to the general efficiency of the mea-
sure, as well as to the value of the land to be occupied in
the cars ying out of the works.
• This was the case'for the preamble.
Mr. Talbot then summed up the evidence, and con-
cluded by calling upon the committee to declare the pre-
amble proven.
Mr. Hildyard addressed the committee for-the op-
ti7eots, contendink that the promoters had not made out
tr
tp the case by the evidence adduced. The learned counsel,
course of his argument, laid great stress upon the
N,410f Mr. Austen refusing, or objecting, to produce the
tee :sees who voted in the minority of the docks commit-
ltaatePc° the discussion of the present application to par-
Initiee Ai% Hildyard would not insist upon the com-
hrnueltexicecising
their power to have such witnesses
fuspurse wo°Lward for two reasons : first, because that
e I oecu much of the time of the hon. mem-
fus• °Ocl, Occupy
log to eoondly, because the learned counsel's re-
evidence Produce them had admitted the fact that their
v'hich he w°old bear hard against the present scheme,
tern., th__(.llr, Hildyard) could not designate by a milder
could hang that it had been unnecessarily concocted, and
Llooa of Ze no further effect than to take an enormous
;n.iixedeeo4l3..,ovrantieoynoOuft of the pockets of the public to enrich
Liverpool. The learned counsel con-
e,.."toaajtverY able and energetic address by requesting the
vrearawe to dismiss the present measure by declaring the
„The :011,3%Proven.
s after ittee then ordered the room
.to be cleared,
Pealte "%lt
wer r hay' a quarter of an hour's consideration, Mr.
the e called i'tf)g been announced at prayers, the parties
c°tatei.. and informed by the gallant chairman that
peast not having yet come to a decision, the fur-
i°ooratn of the preamble of the bill would be
,
Jiord
...rbajost "ph
the d has lodged a protest of nineteen articles
Cont ages by c''sion of the House of Lords in the case of
racti Pr b •
tigia ng pR es yterian clergymen, where one of the
and rtles is a member of the United Church of
Ireland.