The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

further instructiOttg, If that was the case, or anything
like it, he could hilt see why the chairman should withhold
the communiatiod;

Mr. EVA IsTs.—Allcrvi tne to ask you when you received
that document ?

The CHAIRMAN.—On Monday.
Mr. EVANS.—Have you not had time to communicate
with the sub-committee since then ?
The CHAIRMAN.—No. There wat another document
for which 1 had to send to London, and that only arrived
this morning.

Mr. BARaAY did not conceive that sub-committees
were appointed to keep things secret from the general
committee. They were only appointed because a few
individuals could transact the business better than a large
number.

Mr. MOLYNEUX thought the chairman had taken the
proper course.

. -
The CHAIRMAN said he had not the least objection to
the general committee seeing the document, but it did
appear to him to be the proper course. So far he could
trlt them that it did not approve of the plan on the other
side of the water.

Mr. EVANS said the course they took was to throw
over that board alt tgt-ther, and let events go on until its
interference was use:es3.
The CHAlRMAN.—Considering it to be my duty, I shall
adopt the course until the committee overrule me.
Mr. RIPLEY felt as Mr. Evans did. He thought they
ought to see the document. He understood the chairman
to say that the Wallasey Docks were not approved, but he
(Mr. Ripley) understood that the second document did
approve of the plan.
Mr. RIPLEY, seconded by Mr. EVANS, then moved for
the production of the document.
The CHAIRMAN said he was going to ask the Parlia-
mentary Committee to meet that day, after the keneral
meeting. In many instances they would be exposing their
own secrets if documents relating to parliamentary pro-
ceedings were not kept secret.
Mr. EVANS.—But the document is actually out of doors.
I never saw things carried with such a high hand as they
have been within the la-t twelve months.

The CHAIRMAN,—I should be sorry to merit that, be-
cause I wish to do otherwise.

The votes were then tiken, when there appeared for
the production of the document 5, against it 10, namely :
For—Messrs. Ripley, Holt, Aikin, Barclay, and Evans.
Against—Messrs. Middleton, Kendall, Chilton, Bold,
Smith, Boyden, Molyneux, Shand, Holmes, and the
Chairman.

Pool might be constructed without continuing the river
wall across the whole orifice of the pool—leaving a portion
open, as at present, for coasters ; but were his plan to be
adopted, the benefit to be derived from a continuous river
wall would be lost, and silting would take place at both
sides of the projection. The writer concludes as follows :
" Mr. Walker states, and every engineer agrees on this
subject, that there is no place in Liverpool where docks
could be made without abstracting water; and Mr. Page's
late experiments on the set of the tides, which I myself
witnessed, prove that it is the water on the Liverpool side
that passes through the Victoria Channel, all his floats
from Wallasey Pool having passed out of the Rock Channel
or over the banks. These facts are very material, as it
appears that Independent of the beneficial effects, as al-
ready described, attending a continuous river wall along
the front of Wallasey Pool, it will prevent any further
displacement of water ever taking place, should the neces-
sity of commerce reqnire dock extension at Birkenhead,
as all docks hereafter made at that place will add to the
water space, for they must be made within the line of the
river wall, where there is ample room and the ground pe-
culiarly adapted for such purposes. In conclusion, I beg
to inform your lordships that I see nothing in the evi-
dence to induce me to alter the opinion I gave on a former
occasion to your lordships, respecting both the Liverpool
and Birkenhead Dock Blis, as I feel convinced, if they be
constructed according to the plans originally approved of
by your lordships, the works will improve the navigation
of the river, particularly as I understand the promoters of
the Birkenhead Docks have not only inserted a clause in
their bill, preventing any person throwing into the river
Mersey any of the silt dredged out of their docks and
basins, but have also expressed their willingness to accept
of the silt the Liverpool Dock Trustees may send them,
and dispose of it in the rear of their river wall, thus set-
tling the difficult question respecting the dock mud."
A conversation here ensued, in which, in reply to Mr.
Ripley and Mr. Evans, who thought the report not un-
favourable to docks on the other side,
The CHAIRMAN said that the original plan had been
altered entirely ; that the line of wall had been thrown
back (in the plan now before the Lords) 450 feet, and
that Capt. Evans disapproved of that plan, and recom-
mended their lordships to fall back upon the original
plan.
Mr. EvANs said this was only a preference, not an
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN said the report was merely Captain
Evans's opinion, which they had nothing to do with.
They had the evidence of eight or nine of the first engi-
neers, not one of whom Captain Evans had ventured to
quote.
Mr. Num, said the opinions of the Lords Conserva-
tors were still as open as ever upon the subject. They
had called on Captain Evans to report upon the evidence
in reply to Mr. Moore's letter; but his communication
was no answer to Mr. Moore, nor was it intended to be
an'answer. The Lords Conservators were most anxious
to hear further evidence, as they were not yet convinced.
The conflicting evidence alluded to by Capt. Evans was
of little moment. As to Mr. Rendall's plan of scouring,
it was by no means novel, and had failed at Cardiff and
elsewhere.

Mr. RIPLEY attached much importance to Captain
Evans's opinion, and should like to see the evidence of
the Marine Surveyor and Mr. Hartley. He believed the
Marine Surveyor was of opinion that the Wallasey Docks
would not injure the navigation.
Mr. EVANS said that unless he saw the evidence of
Mr. Walker and the other engineers, he would not take
it for granted that they were altogether opposed to the
project. It was admitted that they had not given unqua-
lified evidence against it.
Mr. MOLYNEUX said they differed on the main points.
Mr. Nicol, said they all agreed that the damming up
of Wallasey Pool would produce an important effect on
the sea transit of the river. Mr. Rendall and Mr. Cubitt,
as he had said before, were in favour of the project; but
all the others, without exception, spoke of the effect, and
he believed they were all adverse to it. Mr. Walker, in
particular, said the subject was one which required very
great consideration.

Mr. EVANS said that his namesake, in giving his opi-
nion. had had all the advantage to be derived from the
various engineers ; and he had never read a report which
was more clear and conclusive.

Mr. AIKIN said the principal question was whether a
continuous river-wall, from Seacombe Point to Woodside
Ferry, would be injurious or not. Now if he (Mr.Aikin)
understood Captain Evans aright, he was of opinion that
the building a wall across Wallasey Pool and along the
Cheshire side of the river would be as beneficial to the
navigation as the building the wall along the Lancashire
side had been. He was not quite sure, but he thought,
that long before either he or the chairman had anything
to do with the borough, plans had been deposited at the
Board of Admiralty, and a scheme propounded to carry a
sea-wall all along both sides of the river ; and that these
plans had been approved of by Mr. Walker many years
ago. If that were so, and it should turn out as he anti-
cipated, that the Admiralty had approved of them also,
he (Mr.Aikin) was of opinion they would be as fruitlessly
expending the money of the Dock Estate in opposing the
bill in the House of Lords as they had in the Commons.
Captain Evans's report contained the very pith and mar-
row of the evidence ; and his opinion was more likely to
weigh with the Lords Conservators than the opinion of
any of the members of the general board.
Mr. EVANS said it was the opinion of engineers twenty
years ago, that the doing away with indentures on both
shores would be highly desirable.
Mr. AIKIN, seeing the evidence of such a conflicting
nature, moved—" That the evidence, as given before the
parliamentary committee, be submitted to the general
board, and that further opposition to the Wallasey Dock
Bill be not proceeded with until the sub-committee again
receive the sanction of the general board."
Mr. EvANs seconded the motion.

Mr. Nicol, thought it their bounden duty to bring be-
fore parliament, in every possible shape, their objections
to,the proposed works; and if, after the evidence was
exhausted, the Lords Conservators sanctioned them, on
their own heads be it.

Mr. AIKIN said he should persevere with his motion,
believing it was high time for them to consider how they
could check the useless expenditure of thousands of
pounds.
Mr. MOLYNEUX moved, as an amendment to Mr.
Aikin's motion,—" That this board, having full confi-
dence in the judgment and discretion of the Parliamentary
Sub-committee, request them to continue to watch the
proceedings in parliament relative to the Birkenhead
Dock Bill, and to take such measures as may be consi-
dered necessary to prevent any injury being done thereby
to the navigation of the river.',
Mr. Tontr4 seconded the amendment.

The Chairman then took the votes, when there ap-
peared—
For the amendment—Messrs.Nicol, Middleton, Smith,
Chilton, Molyneux, Trotman, Holmes, Tobin, Sandbacb,
Bold, Shand, and the Chairman.
Against it—Messrs. Barclay, Holt, Aikin, Evans, Rip-
ley, and Bulley.
The amendment was therefore declared to be carried,
and the committee adjourned.