The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-04-03 00:00:00

in the street,, from an.elevatien nearly lose' with the canal to a_
stilil:snperiik height by suction, force and the pressure or
inesphere, and so extend the utilttyoftleo plan beiond'whafwas
pre;iotily suge,ted without the impetus; for it may be Clirly
calculated that the engine would draw fresh water with equal
•
fueilifv with salt firn'the Docks. .

Se.v-entbly,—" Except when near .the reservoirs the water,
through the Bootle fire-plug ilOet not rim sufficiently strong to
keep the smallest fire-engine in full play." • '
The 13ootle water-plugs, not being calculated for the extinc-
tion of tires alone. which with the( company is a very secondary
object, are of small diamettft, and consequently ',incapable of
supplying a number of engines ; blit were the plugsl(or hydrants
fixed on the Curbstones such as are used in Philadelphia) adapted
to this purpose exclusively, the issue of water Would be much
more extensive, and this is an additional argument why the plau
should be adopted, especially as I understand-there is ne clause
in their att to compel them to supply water at fires, what they
"do, being merely from courtesy.
I moreover contend that the Fireman cannot, at all times of
tide, render the Salt water available;`( withouttheettplicatioa of
more engines than one, for the transit of Isis water,) and raise'
it 31) feet
. above the dock curbstone, because the top coping of
the Prince's Docleis, above' the sill, ' SI feet
:That sill is below the datum of The Old Dock Gates..--. 6

28
A ten feet tide, by the tab1e—
..........10

Leaves below the coping to the top water
Height of the engine from the street... . 2

Leaving from the•engine to the surface of the water....2o
The level of the highest high water mark of neap tides,
above the datum, is 13 to 14 feet, to which height the docks are
usually lowered by cleansing the basins, &c., and' at. 'this depth
the larger vessels are aground, and consequently more exposed
to destruction, if a fire were to occur at swift periods of the tide,
when they'cannot be moved.
The raising of the dock water cannot be effected without a
,consiberable force, which must be deducted from the power of
the men and engines, which ought to he employed at the fire ;
whilst by my plan, to the satue,altitude, the water would either
fall into the engines from plugs or hydrants fixed on the curb-
stone, or might be discharged on goods, &c. on fire, a trifle
below the level without any intervention of mechanical means.
Eighthly,—" You propose to run pipes along the sheds of the
dock, for a hose to be affixed 'to them so 'that Water might be.
ejected onthe shipping:"
The Fireman Ism error when he asserts that the suggestion of.
conveying water up.the irOn pipes under the sheds at docks"
originated either with the editor of the STANDARD. or myself.
It was noticed by an eminent practical engineer, who no doubt
had well considered the subject before he mentioned it; and it
must be self-evident that water down a hose will run with ;Coo.,
siderable force from an elevation to the end of the tube. It Was
never stated that it could be thrown with great lateral etNeti
although there is no doubt this would be worthy of attention;
and certainly, the weight of water, falling from the pipe would
be in proportion to the height it was raised above the object on
fire. - . .

Ninthly.--" Suppose the main to run from the Canal Basin
to the top of St. James's-street, that is a mile and a half," &c.
When an officet forms a plan for a campaign, he ought to
take care that the base line of his oyeratious is correctly laid,
down and well supported. In this inhance, a' main From 'the'
Canal Basin to the top of St. James's-street (au elevation of 37:
feet above the canal) is completely visionary without a forcing,
engine ; and therefore thishypothesis"renders further comment.
unnecessary. With regard to the expense, if the main were,
carried on a high level, the water, on the plugs being opened,
would flow down the open kennels without the cost of laying
lateral pipes; if it should be thought more economical and ex;
pedient.
By an unfortunate mistake of the press in the list of levels
(appendix No. 2), the words above and -below were transposed:
the second column should have been headed below, instead of
above. From hence arises a considerable error also in the
Fireman's deductions. But had he' examined the firA''column
with tbe same attention he did the third, the diserepagee would
have been observed, and his inferences probably different. At
all events, out of 49 fires, 27 are below the levet-3 equal and
19 above; but the damage bears no proportion above and below;
the latter amountincr, as is shown in paragraph No. 4, to'
£322,784 out of the willole amount.
Tenthly.—" The loss at the fires where the water was avail-
able was under £9,000."
The loss at the '27 fires, as shown above, was far more than
the Fireman states; for there is no reason why the Lancelot's
Hey and New Quay fires should be excluded, both tieing below
the level, and have occurred since my letter In Dec., 1831. No!
doubt the loss would have been diminished had the plan been in
operation.
Eteventtily.—" Wherever the water comes from, there must
be watermen, and unless these are prompt in attendance, there
will be a deficiency."
We have sufficient proofs of former mismanagement and
want of water. What is to guarantee the public ftoin future
negligence ? Are the present men more perfect than their pre-
decessors, who generally suffered the tire to destroy the premises
where it broke out from the want of an immediate supply of water?
If I recollect right this was the case on the 10th Oct. 1834,
in Lancelot's Hey, and subsequentle at the Castle Mills, Co-
ventarden, 'Lawton-street, and Beckwith-street, so late as the
31st January this year, when the present police force was in
operation.--4 remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
' .Reßcuecnon-street, Everton, • 'THOMAS MOO RE.
28114 Mcireh, 1835.
•

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.