The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

DOCK COMMITTEE.-THURSDAY.

Present :—Messrs. Moore, Barclay, Holt, Holmes,
Smith, Molyneux, Trotman, Boyden, Tobin, Ripley,
Kendal, Bold, and Aikin.

THE IVALLASEY DOCK BILL.

Mr. RIPLEY referred to the resolution of the committee
of the Ist February, for the presentation of a petition to
be heard against the Wallasey Dock Bill, and said when
that resolution was passed he understood it was only in
order that they might have a standing in the house, and
that it was not the intention of the committee to oppose
the principle of building docks on the other side of the
water, but merely to protect the rights and privileges of
that estate. He (Mr. Ripley) had been in London, and
he was told that the chairman and deputy-chairman of the
committee were opposing the Wallasey Dock Bill at every
step. _ _

The CHAIRMAN said be was ready then, as be
hoped he would be on all occasions, to vindicate every
step they had taken. It was his intention to have called
the attention of the committee to the subjec , it having
been stated in the committee of the House of Commons,
on the authority of Mr. Ripley, that they were not au-
thorised by the Dock Committee to do as they had done.
The petition to be heard was sanctioned by the board, and
the next was the appointment of a parliamentary commit-
tee to watch the proceedings upon the bill, and protect
the interests of the estate. Without the petition they
would have had no locus standi in the House of Com-
mons, and, as to watching the bill, without protecting the
rights, it would have been of no use. A great deal of pains
had been taken by the deputation to arrive at the best
conclusion for the interests of the estate, and they were
strongly impressed with the notion, on the authority of
most eminent engineers, that very great injury would
bt lieedone to the navigation and the river Mersey, from the
construction of the sea-wall on the opposite side. Not
only would it cause a silting up, but in all probability it
would raise a bank opposite the Prince's Dock. That, he
thought, was a sufficient justification for proceeding in
the manner they had done. As to opposing the bill on the
principle of docks on the other side, he distinctly stated
that that never entered into their contemplation. It
formed a distinct part of the counsel's brief, and his own
instructions to them, that they were not to oppose it on
that principle at all, and he had told them, that provided
they would make docks on the side of the Pool, and not
deprive them of the scouring power of such an immense
area of water, no opposition would be given. The Chair-
man then referred to the filling up of the Dee, in conse-
quence of the scour of the river being obstructed, and gave
the names of the following gentlemen as the authority
upon which the Parliamentary Committee had acted :—.
Messrs. Parris, Giles, Vignoles, Deane, Rennie, and
Mylne. He then referred to the evidence of Mr. Page
and said that the engineers who bad as yet been examined
on their side, had given strong evidence against the bill.
Mr. RIPLEY expressed himself satisfied, seeing that it
was altogether an engineering question.
After some conversation,
The CHAIRMAN said the question was never any thing
else but an engineering one with them. He wished the
public would inform themselves better upon the scheme of
es
scarcely they
did there
y who Would
not rise up to oppose it.
Mr. RIPLEY said he considered making docks on the
would
euWld anlloatsbeye
aDdoisciknst
eralelsdtedhewassllr
individual a
other side was only improving the port.
The CHAIRMAN considered so too, and in proof of that
he stated to them that if they made their docks on the
side of the Pool they would not be opposed by any par-
ties.
Mr. Anus; considered that the sub-committee had acted
out of the usual course, in not coming to the committee to
receive instructions whether they were to oppose the bill
either upon engineering or other grounds.
Mr. TOBIN thought the sub-committee had only done
what was correct. _ _

Mr. BARCLAY said they did not intend to say that what