The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

select not only constables and watchmen, lamp-
lighters and scavengers, for their own dirty locali-
ties, but also to decide upon the servants to whom
her Majesty should submit the keeping of her
crown, and the policy upon which she must govern
her mighty empire! Men do this whose judg-
ment no schoolboy of twelve years of age would
take upon the question whether the earth was
round or square, the moon made of green cheese or
sugar; and yet the " declaration" of such men,
upon subjects of national and social polity, the
world is told to receive as something supernatural in
its wisdom, and beyond all cavil as to its authorita-
tive character.

Thanks, however, to the solid understanding of
John Bull, the bubbles thrown up by these corpo-
rations of Ireland are only regarded as bubbles. A
spade is a spade, in his honest and English estima-
tion ; and although it have the beggarly chains and
trappings of corporate authority twined round its
handle, that handle is still a handle and nothing
more, whether it be held in the hands of Daniel
O'Connell or the roughest shoveller of mud who
ever worked in a mud heap. The poor dupes who
pay their pence to that impostor may worship them
in their several localities ; buy their soap and far-
thing dips, their calico and treacle from them ; but
sensible people can only wonder and laugh at their
absurd impertinence and superhuman folly.

Our last remarks upon the Wallasey Dock Bill
have called forth two of our contemporaries in de-
fence of the scheme ; and we must say, a greater
perversion of facts and want of fair arguments or
even understanding of the questions at issue, we
never met with from any opponent. We shall
briefly rebut the statements of one of these—the
Liverpool limes—as they embrace those of his
fellow advocate.
The Times observes that Mr. Randall's plans are
" approved of by the Admiralty, the Conservators and
the Woods and Forests." To this statement we are
compelled to give a flat denial. The Admiralty, so
far as we are aware, have never put a decisive opi-
nion on record; but the Acting Conservator and the
Woods and Forests have both recorded their opi-
nions, which may be appealed to and ascertained
beyond all doubt.
The Wonds and Forests refused their assent to
the original plans, and have appropriated to them-
selves nearly all the land to be reclaimed on each
side of the tidal basin, except a narrow slip to be
used as quay space, and they expressly stipulate that
"no warehouses or other buildings, other than sheds
and huts, shall be erected upon any of the said
quays," thus overturning one of the most valued of
the projects of the promoters of the scheme.
Captain Evans, the Acting Conservator, has re-
corded his opinions, and says (paragraph 12 of his
repo::) he "considers the objections to the refuge
basin for c;,,,i...•,fcrs to be well founded ; that it is too
small for the numerous coasters which take refuge
on the banks at the entrance of Wallasey Pool."
He says again (paragraph 14) " I find the objection
to the alteration made in the line of the river to be
well founded." This will suffice to show the
nature of the statements put forth to the public
about the approval of the plans. by the government j
authorities.
It is affirmed in the Times that the Counsel' far
the Dock Trustees durst not put a single question to
Mr. Walker as to the effects the proposed works
would have on the sea channels of the port; and
to give weight to the assertion it is conveyed in
italics. Now, if the writer had read the evidence,
he would have found at page 278 that Mr. Walker,
in answer to this very question, says, "It is not a
question of how much the risk is, but a question of
certainty, in my opinion ; and so far as the tidal
water is reduced in quantity, the sea channels are in-
juriously interfered with."
In the year 1826 also, when giving evidence on a
trial at Lancaster, Mr. Walker gave precisely similar
testimony, when it was proposed to abstract only 2
acres, 3 roods, and 14 perches from Tranmere Pool,
Mr. Whidbey, an engineer of great eminence, gave
very strong evidence to the same effect; and the
result was an injunction from the Lard Chancellor
to restrain the parties making the enclosure. The
injurious effects, therefore, to be apprehended to the
navigation of the river by the abstraction of the tidal
waters is no new feature, and has never before been
doubted or controverted. Mr. Whidbey said,
"The existence of the harbour of Liverpool, and the
preservation of it, depend entirely on the back-
water."—Report of trial, page 16.
The Times states that Mr. Giles, the great gun of
the Dock Trustees, gave very different evidence 18
or 20 years ago, on the Tran mere embankment case,
to that which he has given now on the Wallasey
Dock Bill. We wish this writer had followed our
example of giving the whereabouts, that we might
test his assertions. We will do this for him, how-
ever,—and in justice to Mr. Giles, we will quote
what he did say on that occasion.

At page 9, the Counsel (Mr. Scarlett) put this
question—" So that all Wallasey Pool may be walled
out by means of a contraction of that soil without
injury to the harbour ?"
Answer.—" No; I do not state that."
Question.—" A great part might ?"
Answer.—" I think the water in Wallasey Pool
ought to be preserved."
So much for the veracity of the Times, and the
fact of Mr. Giles being "a two-edged sword."

We have before said the Wallasey scheme is a de.
lusion, impracticable, and fraught with danger to
the best interests of Liverpool by endangering the
navigation of the river. The real dock accomnaoda-

tion offered to the public amounts to three acres,
with gates thirty feet wide, through which a mode-
rate-sized cotton ship could not pass ; and it is pro-
posed to keep this and the tidal basin free from mud
by daily scouring (Mr. Russell's evidence, p. 45-46)
when the tidal waters cannot enter the upper pool
ninety-nine days throughout the year !

It has been asserted that Wallasey Pool is rapidly
silting up, on the evidencc of Mr. Tomkinson. Upon
this (p. 234-235) Mr. Giles says, " Mr. Tomkinson,
I suppose, takes it by the eye, and we take it by
measure; it is a remarkable coincidence, and aston-
ishes me, that the sections lately taken of the Pool
by Mr. Page and Mr. Draine, should agree with
mine, taken from 1819 to 1823, without any refer-
ence to me, or any concert with me. These are ex-
traordinary coincidences."
We again warn the inhabitants of the danger of
permitting the tidal waters of our river to be ab-
stracted, and remind them that larger rivers than
the Mersey have been closed, so far as the naviga-
tion is concerned. Sandwich, Rye, and Newhaven
were all once flourishing ports, and are now monu-
ments of the folly of allowing such experiments to
be tried as are proposed by the enclosure of Walla-
sey Pool. Sandwich was formerly of such conse-
quence as to be an outport to London. Montrose
is another instance which may be adduced; in the
year 1745 it was the harbour chosen by the French
fleet for conveying supplies for the Pretender, and
now, with the exception of the channel of the river,
it is dry at low water !

Before we conclude let us for a moment call the
attention of our readers to the present position of
our river,—crowded with shipping of every descrip-
tion, every dock full; and we ask, if Wallasey Pool