The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-10 00:00:00

MEETING OF SATURDAY.

The committee again met on Saturday. There were 18
members present, including the gentlemen above named,
and Mr. Barclay. Mr. SANDS again occupied the chair.
Mr. TortiN opened the discussion, and opposed at con-
siderable length the observations made on the former day
by Mr. Evans and Mr. Aikin. He strongly supported
the motion, contending that the sooner the purch:.se of
the Harrington estate was effected, the better it would be
for the interests of the port ; that they would eventually
require the land for the construction of additional docks ;
and that if delay were to take place, a much higher price
would have to be paid. He considered that the Albert
Dock would not do so much as was anticipated by some.
A vessel might there be discharged of tea, for example,
in three days. But that Ras not the only point: they
had also to wait to be loaded, and great inconvenience
would arise from their general removal for this purpose
to other docks. At Harrington, too, a great portion of
the expense of excavation would be made up by the good
stone that would be taken out in the operation. It had
been said that docks at Harrington would be too far from
the salt water; but this was scarcely an objection, as there
was as much water in the river there as at many parts of
the north end, and, except for the sandbanks, the port of
Liverpool might be said to extend all the way to Runcorn.
At the Harrington end, too, there was already a good sea-
wall constructed to a considerable extent, and on the best
principle; and a great deal had been done in furtherance
of the works. The sooner it was purchased, the cheaper
it would be; for the land was increasing in value. which
was not the case with that at the north. If they did not
now buy it, they would have to do so at a future time,
and at a higher price. A good deal had been said about
the height, or rise, of the land at the south ; but it was
no greater than in Stanhope-street, and was available for
all practical purposes. He, for these and other reasons,
strongly urged an immediate negociation for the pur-
chase.

Mr. Hartley, being called, said, in reply to questions
put by Mr. Tobin, that the stone varied much in quality
at the south end. Some of it was good, but he could not
say to what extent, as that would depend en the form,
site, and extent of the docks to be excavated. The stone
at the north was generally better, though it here and there
had fissures where the new graving docks had been made.
No piling would be required at the north, and but a small
quantity at the south.
Mr. ToutN said that, weighing all the advantages and
disadvantages of the respective sites, he thought it was
better in the first instance to go to the south than the
north.

Mr. AIKIN repeated his opinion of the dispatch in dis-
charging which the Albert Dock would secure. As to
sending vessels afterwards to other docks to be loaded,
that was not necessary in many cases. Many of them
could haul into the middle, and receive salt, grain, &c.,
from lighters, a practice now frequent in many of the
other docks. The cause of so many large ships remain-
ing for months in dock had been the depression of com-
merce, and this, he trusted, would not last ; and even
now they had more loom than they had had for the last
three or four years. He was friendly to a portion of the
Harrington estate being added to their docks, to the ex-
tent contemplated at a former meeting, but not more for
the present; as he thought the docks cnuld he extended
northward at much less cost, and that the accommodation
would be ample for many years. He deprecated haste;
and said the wisest course the committee could pursue
would be to call on their surveyor to furnish them with
plans and estimates for additional dock space, whether at
the north or south of the town, and to deliberate after-
wards upon such of those plans as appeared to afford the
greatest amount of public convenience and the greatest
benefit to the town. He did not agree that the price of
the land at the south would rise as had been stated.
Some portions of it had indeed increased, but other parts
had decreased in value. He thought the price exceedingly
high. If the north docks were proceeded with the land
at the south would fall. He strongly advised that they
should not again hurry into parliament, on such loose
data as those yet afforded. but should have their sur-
veyor's estimates and plans carefully made, and showing
how they could best and most cheaply extend the docks
for all the present requirements of the port. _

Mr. BOLD quoted the opinion of Mr. Locke, the en-
gineer, as to the desirability of the south end of the town
for dock accommodation in preference to the north.
There was more water there than below. The stone ex-
cavated, too, would do fur the Inside of the dock walls,
and the interior of the river wall. He (Mr. Bold) was
favourable to the purchase in the south as well as to that
at the north end of the town.

A discussion ensued as to the present rental of the land
on the south.

Mr. BRAMLEY MOORE thought the question resolved
into this: whether the price was a proper price, or whe-
ther they were not going to pay too dear for the land at
Harrington ; and he also thought, that with the view of
fairly deciding upon such a question, they ought to have
some value put upon the land by their surveyor.
Mr. HARTLEY, the surveyor, declined to give any
opinion as to the price of the land, it being, as he said,
altogether out of his province to do so.
The CHAIRMAN said,/he Committee of the Harrington
estate bad told him, that they had offered it at the very
lowest price; that Mr. Stewart considered it very cheap
for 31s. 6d. per square yard ; and that Mr. Samuel Holme,
(whose estimate he had not with him,) as well as he could
recollect, bad valued it at a little higher than 31s. 6d.
Mr. BRAMLEY MOORE said, there was certainly a ne-
cessity for more land for dock space, and repeated he
should be in favour of the purchase if it were shown to
him by competent parties that the price was not too much.
The demand of 31s. 6d. appeared to be high, when it was
known that only 225. a yard had been asked for the land
of the adjoining dock.
It was explained that the increase was accounted for by
the new sea-wall being already erected to a considerable
extent.

Mr. EVANS said, the price was not exactly the principal
question in the case. It might be very cheap for some
and very dear for other purposes. He then proceeded to
put a variety of questions to Mr. Hartley, with a view of
eliciting the many advantages possessed by the north over
the south end for all purposes of dock accommodation.
Mr. Hartley stated, that, in his opinion, the Harrington
property was not adapted for a timber dock, but that it
might answer for deals, and that they might make as many
graving docks as they pleased at the north end of the
town. Mr. Evans then contended, that to make the pro-
posed purchase would be an act of reckless wildness. He
proposed the following amendment That the surveyor
be desired to prepare plans and estimates for the best ap-
propriation of the land on the North Shore, the property
of the Corporation, and of the land offered by the Har-
rington Company at the south, for dock, graving dock,
and warehouse purposes."
Mr. BRAMLEY MOORE proposed, as an amendment,
an adjournment until they could ascertain the surveyor's
opinion of the price.
Mr. AIRIN though this would place their surveyor in
a delicate position, and the motion was withdrawn. Mr.
A. then proposed another amendment, to the effcct that
Mr. Hartley be instructed to prepare plant!, showing how
additional dock space might be obtained with the greatest
advantage to the trust or convenience and accommodation
to the trade of the port.
Upon a division this amendment was lost by a majority
of four; the numbers being, for it seven ; against it eleven.
The original motion, with a slight verbal amendment
(that the new dock might be adapted either for timber or
other purposes), was then pressed to a division, after a
brief reply from Mr. Nicol., and was carried by a major-
ity of four.
The following members voted for it :—Messri. Middle-
ton, Chilton, Bold, Tobin, Sandbach, Smith, Royden,
Bramley-Moore, Nicol, Molyneux, and the Chaiman.
Against it :—Messrs. Moon, Holt, Aiken. Barclay, Evans,
Holmes, and Bulley.