The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

PROPOSED LIVERPOOL DOCKS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE.
WEDNESDAY.
The committee on this bill resumed its sittings this day,
',at twelve o'clock.
crMessrs. Austin, Talbot, and the Recorder of Liverpool
. • Henderson,) appeared in support of it ; and Messrs.
yard and Webster against it.
Mr. John Hartley and his fa, her (Mr. Jesse Hartley)
Were
the first witnesses called, arid they were examined at
50me length in support of the original plan as lodged,
!hating that, although other plans had been made by them
taccordance with suggestions by the committee, yet
they were still of opinion their original plans were the
most advisable to carry out. Mr. John Hartley stated
the t,,,
''"' estimated cost of the works at the north end to
be
of 0(4,465, and at the south end £269.976, and he was
• ti:aPtinina the works could be completed within those es-
• to rates. A breakwater affi protection to the gates at the
‘rth end was on the plan, but it was not finally decided
:b ether it should be erected or not. There was good
nehorage all along the Cheshire shore, much better than
on the Liverpool side, and this anchorage was of great im-
' portance to the port of Liverpool. Mr. John Hartley did
not
• know whether the conservators of the river had given
Permission for the erection of the breakwater, or that they
vfould do so ; but it was a fact that the navigation of the
river never was better than at present. Mr. Hartley con-
firmed the testimony of his son in every particular. He
gave evidence also of the want of dock, accommodation,
and particularly of a large steam dock at the north end of
the town; that it as well as the timber trade, should be
kept_, separate ; and that the junction between the canal and
the docks was required for the convenience and advantage
of the port. In 'answer to questions by Mr. Hildyard, he
said he had been asked his opinion reTecting the expe-
diency of a dock. in Wallasey Pool, and he had said a dock.
Wight be conveniently constructed there for vessels lying

Mr. D. M`lver was next called, and his evidence went
to show the necessity of a large dock for steamers, and
of the advantage to be derived by having all the steam
trade together, at the north end of the town. He does
not approve, of docks on the Cheshire coast, and knows
nothing about Wallas,- Pool
Mr
natio Martin gave similar testimony. In cross-exami-
. ouldsaid he had known the port for twenty years,
and should
say a considerable portion, probably seven-
theten hs• of the whole commerce of Liverpool pissed into
interior, chiefly to the manufacturing districts, and a
great Portion of the exports are brought from the manu-
facturing districts also. On re-examination, he said
most of the manufacturing towns were on the Lancashire
aide Of the Mersey, and a large portion of the exports
Were brought by railway to Liverpool.
• Mr. George Kendall, one of the Dock Committee, and
chairman of the Shipowners' Association, gave evidence
of the great want of further dock accommodation being
required. He believed that at his recent election he suc-
ceeded in consequence of being of opinion. that docks were
required both north and south, in opposition to his oppo-
nent, who was against the smith docks. In cross-exami-
nation, he admitted Wallasey Pool"would be a convenient
site for a dock ; but if it were merely a half-tide basin, he
Would not take hia vessels there.

Mr. M`Bride, master of the Clarence Dock, was next
-called, and his evidence went to prove that further dock
accommodation was required. His cross-examination
was deferred until to-morrow.

At the rising of the committee, Mr. Hildyard asked
the chairman to report to the house that Messrs. Aikin
and Evans had declined to give evidence before the com-
mittee, in order that a summons might be issued. This
was agreed to, and the committee adjourned.

THURSDAY.
The committee met at the usual hour this morning,
*when Mr. Mr` Bride was called, and, in answer to a ques-
tion from Mr. Hildyard, said he was in the employ of the
Dock Committee.
Mr. Austin.—You are not afraid to give your inde-
pendent opinion, notwithstanding that, are you?
Witness.—NO.
Mr. Hildyard.—l should like to see an independent
witness called—we have not yet had one who is not under
the control of the Dock Committee?
M Easton, master of the Brunswick Dock, was then
examined He gave similar evidence to that already de-
, posed to as to the necessity of further dock accommodation,
as did Mr. Easton, master of the Queen's.
• he Mr. Stewart, of Liverpool, was the next witness, and
no rt proved the value of the land required ; that for the
h docks, belonging to the corporation, he estimated at
26,000 and that belonging to the Earl of Derby and
."11%.1 J. S. Leigh, at £193,000.
vale• Weightman, architect, of Liverpool, deposed to the
uof 127,563 square lands of land belonginz to the
Harrinzto
-n Dock Estate, proposed to be taken for docks
at thesouth end, to be £208,205.
-wive Withers, the treasueer to the Dock Estate, stated
that the income of the docks for the last five years was
X 997,101, and the expenditure £848,243, including the
interest on dock bonds. The income of the estate had
. doubled itself during the last sixteen years. The surplus
income last year was £76,039, so that there would be no
ditculty in borrowing funds for the proposed docks.
"'"e Austin said he had now to enter upon another class
"` evidence, and should ask, the committee to adjourn
until
to-Morrow but before doing so he begged the corn-
tnittee to rescind the resolution come to yesterday, 1--
13Pecting-- the application for the Speaker to issue his
-warrant for thattendance of Messrs. Evans and Allan.
He nesignated their refusal to attend as a mere pretext,
Laid as they were members of the Dock Committee,
lifter the bod enerally had agreed to ask for the present
hill, they were legally bound to further that bill, instead
mothrowing obstacles in the way of procuring it. It
uld. therefore, he very improper on the part of the
coll,mittle_to
corn
Pel their attendance.
Mr. 1111dyard asked Mr. Austin to inform the committee
what was the nature of the evidence he proposed to give,
as on that would depend the question whether he should
press for the attendance of Messrs. Aikin and Evans.
Zl,rai.ustin declined to state what his evidence was.
ferred suggested that the matter should be de-
il
comp! -`" the evidence given in support of the bill was
complete When the question might be revived.
rm.)] I,oq 11i1dyard acquiesced in this suggestion, and the
of the committee was rescinded.
r, '3l sip ildyard then applied to the committee to examine
gelflti emaEnvßns, the conservator of the Mersey, as that
Wished to return to Liverpool to-night.
fl• Austin declined, on the ground that he did not
_nw whether it would be necessary until the arrange-
:rents were complete with the Admiralty. He expect-d
h`uadY would have been complete last night, but a difficulty
arisen which, probably, would be settled so as to
enable him to go on to-morrow.
gethAn honourable member complained of being called to-
er merely for an hour and a half and then adjourning.
/le• Austen assured the committee that he had not an-
_eiPated being unable to go on. He had anticipated that
re matter would have been settled last night. At present
he could not say whether he should call Captain Evans
urpt—he did not say whether he would or would not.
The committee adjourned at two o'clock.

FRIDAY.
The e
,-,°elrneresford in ittee resumed
chair sitting to-day at twelve o'clock,
The n
valley proeeeding.; were opened by a resolution of the
Committ
valltwee
ring the report of the Liverpool Conser-
dence ' be laid on the table of the Committee as evi-
in the rtei:eentrien uiry.
A Mr. Austenread a letter from the Lords of the
4;d:n'iraltY, wherein their lordships expressed their appro-
"ion of the proposed works, and also their intention of
rsending two naval commanders to be examined by the
ornoters on thmore
extensiveexpedienc docks im.
roving the harbour by
the erection of
ker aptain Emmerson was then called, and examined by
• Austen.—The effect of the witness's evidence was a
teeneurrence in the necessity of carrying out the proposed
°tits, which he thought calculated to be of great service
the interests of Liverpool generally.
_ Mr• Page, the eminent civil engineer, was next examined
.!Il.ls to sufficiency of the plans proposed to be carried out.
e witness stated that he had but just returned from Li-
erpool, where he had inspected the site of the proposed
ducks, and gave it as his opinion that under the able
reanagement of Mr. Hartley, the company's engineer,
every promised advantage could not fail being carried out.
Mr. Hudson, for thirty years a pilot in Liverpool, was
then examined.—The witness stated that the proposed
docks would greatly benefit the shipping interests, and
that they were according to the plans in every way calcu-
lated for safety and convenience to vessels of every class.
Mr. vignoles, late government engineer in Ireland, was
examined.—The witness expressed himself highly confi-
dent of the general utility and efficiency of the works, as
well as his high opinion of Mr. Hartley's engineering ex-
perience, which he had no doubt u ould bring the works
to a successful issue.
Mr. Duncan Gibb, an eminent merchant of Liverpool,
was next examined as to the general efficiency of the mea-
sure, as well as to the value of the land to be occupied in
the carrying out of the works.
This was the case for the preamble.
Mr. Talbot then summed up the evidence, and con-
eludmbled
provenpre-
Mr-.
Hildyard addressed the committee for the op-
relents, contending that the promoters bad not made out
inthcase by the evidence adduced. The learned counsel,
fact of Zirrse of his argument, laid great stress upon the
witnesses Austen refusing, or objecting, to produce ;he
tee upon .7_°o voted in the minority of the docks commit-
liament. chseussion of the present application to par-
inittee 'Y'r• Hildyard would not insist upon the coin-
exercising their power to have such witnesses
lours ht forward for two reasons : first, because that
her would occupy much of the time of the hon. mem-
fridl./; e
and, secondl • because the learned counsel's re-
t° evideile produce them had admitted • the fact that their
(,Held bear bard against the present scheme,
t - rie ty.
•.
Arm than . nildyard) could not designate by a milder
1?e-itjd , that it had been unnecessarily concocted, and
the
of.u.yoe no further effect than to take an enormous
To c0r,40 b”. out of the pockets of the public to enrich
"-Wed :;,vratinn of Liverpool. The learned, counsel con-
°rekiiite crY able and energetic address by requesting the
44e44.1b1 ete dismiss the present measure by declaring the
rlet Proven
after b
A ...ettinlit
tee then ordered the room
.to be. cleared,
*Peer? e 141,111 t a quarter of an hour's consideration, Mr.
the ,Nled . been announced at prayers, the parties
thes-,°°lmitt'„°, and informed by the gallant chairman that
adjo„`°rlside'e not having yet come to a decision, the fur-
of the preamble of the bill would be
trod
Lord
~,.....ay.
Ltgaio ‘-int,
tun 't the aoll has lodged a protest of nineteen articles
ectirrtriages-b.yeepision of the- House of Lords in the case of
EC actin resbyterian clergymen, where one of the
gland agnaPairelanids.a member of the United Church of