The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-01-14 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE

The Dock Committee held their weekly meeting yesterday.
The following members were present,—Messrs. Sands,
Holmes, Middleton, Molyneux, Sandbach, Nicol, Aikin,
Mellor, Bulley, Evans, Chapman, Ripley, Tobin, Holt,
Smith, Shand, Barclay, Chilton, Martin, and Moon. Mr.
Sands, the chairman of the committee, presided.
SHIPBUILDERS' ACCOMMODATION.
In reference to Mr. Chapman's motion last week, [That the
land at the north-west corner of the South Boundary Dock,
adjacent to Messrs. Grantham and Page's ironfoundry, be
appropriated for the purpose of shipbuilding, and that the
same be let on the usual terms to the shipwrights who have
been obliged to quit their premises in Trentham-street, on
account of the land hitherto occupied by them being required
for the new dock] which was referred to the sub-committee
of works, to report whether any land could be granted for
that purpose, on the site therein named, the sub-committee
reported that no part of the ground could, at present, be
spared without injury to the works of the intended new
docks.

Mr. TOBIN said that at the last meeting he and Mr. Hors-
fall particularly asked what was the measurement of the
whole ground. He would wish to know whether that in-
formation had been furnished.

The SECRETARY replied that it was 7500 square yards.
Mr. TOBIN inquired by whose measurement?
The SECRETARY, in reply, said by the Surveyor's.
Mr. MIDDLETON observed that the space wanted for Mr.
Clarke's purposes would take up one-fourth of the whole.
Mr. TOBIN said that however anxious he might be that
Mr. Clarke should be accommodated, there was no doubt,
after the report of the sub-committee of works, that he could
not have the accommodation he desired. It was, therefore,
unnecessary to say more upon it. It would never do to stop
the works of the new dock in order to accommodate one
master carpenter, however anxious the committee might be
to do so, or however hard it might be upon him from not
being able to get any other place belonging to the dock
estate. _ _

Mr. CHAPMAN was anxious to offer a few observations
upon this case. It struck him that the sub-committee of
works had made this an open question. They had given in
as their report what the surveyor had said before, that he
required the whole of this land to put his timber and stone
upon ; but still in his opinion it was a question, the decision
of which lay, more immediately, in the general committee.
He had long observed the steady encroachments of the dock-
yard upon the public property, and he confessed he viewed
it with a great deal of jealousy, because, if the committee
affirmed that principle to-day, by adopting the report of the
sub-committee, it would be tantamount to a declaration, that
the public service and the public wants were to be subser-
vient to the increasing wants of the dock establishment.
He would go back to a period of seventeen years ago, when
the present surveyor came into office; lie then succeeded to
a dock-yard establishment on a much smaller scale than the
one at present, but it had gone on increasing to a great
extent from time to time. It had now been removed for the
purpose of convenience with respect to the new works; the
comuittee had given him a much larger one than he had
before—one capable of doing all the work of the port ; but
if the committee allowed the valuable land, that they had
reclaimed as it were, to be lying idle in order to put old
timber and stones upon it, at a time when they could spare
the dock surveyor quay-room for that purpose, (because the
whole of the west side of Brunswick Dock could be spared
for six, eight, or ten months, without detriment to the
timber trade,) they would be acting very wrong. If they
would apply the west side of Brunswick Dock, as they easily
might to the surveyor's wants, then they might spare Mr.
Clarke the small spot of land that he wanted. He was sure
that that might be done, and that there would be no stoppage
of the new works in consequence. If the committee went
on, and the dockyard establishment and the dock surveyor
were allowed to come into collision with the public wants,
they might depend upon it that the public would not suffer
it—that the town-council would not permit these encroach-
ments, and they would find that, before the intended new
works were finished, a great part of the dockyard would be
quashed, and the surveyor ejected. The dockyard at present
was an encroachment upon the public service ; and he was
satisfied that the committee would commit a great error if
they did not appropriate this land to the purposes for which
his motion had been made. He Was of opinion that more
might be made of it, and the revenue obtained from it would
enable the committee to hire the land elsewhere which the
surveyor required. As already observed, he might put all
his timber upon the west side of Brunswick Dock. He (Mr.
Chapman) was not for stopping the works, but at the same
time he did not see why they could not go on as he suggested,
for he need not say that the shipwrights were identified with
the shipowner, and the shipowner with the merchant, so that
the blow which was given to one affected all. He, therefore,
hoped that the committee would take these circumstances
into consideration, and give way for the public accom-
modation.
The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Chapman whether he meant
that the matter should be referred back to the sub-committee?
Mr. CHAPMAN said he did not, but that he was desirous
of having it decided at once.
Mr. AIKIN inquired, what did Mr. Chapman then move i
Mr. CHAPMAN said he would move that Mr. Clarke be
granted sixty feet of land, which was all that he required.
Mr. TOBIN said, that the last general meeting agreed to
refer this question to the Sub-Committee of Works, to re-
port thereon. They had reported that the land could not he
granted, and he did not feel comfortable in opposing what
they had proposed. He could not think of going against
their opinion, and thereby stop the whole works.
Mr. AIwIN suggested that a motion and amendment should
be proposed, in order that the question might be regularly
discussed.

Mr. Ilovr proposed, and Mr. RIPLEY seconded a resolu-
tion, that the report of the Sub-committee of Works be
adopted,
Air. CIIAPMAN moved, as an amendment, that Mr.
Clarke's application for 60 feet of land be granted.
Mr. SHAND seconded the amendment.
Mr. EVANS declared he could not comprehend how any
person could iniagine the public to be concentrated in Mr.

Clarke, and make the dock-yard into a private person opposing
the public interest. He would ask the committee what the
dock-yard was? Was it not the great means of constructing
all the docks ? The fact was, if anything was for the benefit
of the public it was the dock-yard, and what was there now
't against it? An individual person, who wanted to have .a
yard for his own private purposes and this one individual
was to be exalted into the public, and actually to displace the
real public voice of the town ! Anything more strange than
this he had never heard of. They had been told of collision;
that the public would not bear to be opposed ; but it all re-
solved into one carpenter's yard, into one individual who
wanted to get a space of ground over wig& the committee
had complete control, and for which the surveyor had the
most important use. He could not cohceive that the com-
mittee would hf-,itate to confirm the report of the Sub-com-
mittee of Wcilte.

Mr. El oLm s enquired whether the sub-committee wee
unanimous in agreeing to the repo, t ?
Mr. LEANS was understood to say they were.

Mr. CHAPMAN, after enquiring who were present at the
meeting of the sub-committee at which this report was
agreed to. said it appeared to have been agreed to, not by the
whole body, but by four members only.
Mr. MIDDLETON said the sub-committee were not unani-
mous.

Mr. EVANS said it was not only old timber, but all sorts of
materials that would be deposited on this land. There would
be stone and many other articles that could not be removed
without considerable expense and inconvenience, and a great
deal of injury to the streets. He contended that the Dock
Committee should not consent to endure all this for the sake
of one shipwright's yard.
Mr. SMITH could not see how sixty feet only being appro-
priated to a ship-yard should prevent the works going on.
The CHAIRMAN enquired whether any other place could
be found for the materials ?

Mr. CHAPMAN said he had suggested the west side of
Brunswick Dock.

ALKIN said that a wall was about being constructed
to the westward of the new dock, and there might be a place
there to put these materials when that was finished, but in
the mean time there was none: Any individual looking at
the map might see that there was no space upon the side of
the river affording the accommodation which Was necessary.
Twenty yards, or sixty feet, were wanted ; but the question
was, could a private individual be benefitted by granting that
land without any injury to their public trust ? After repeated
enquiries, it had been found it would be injurious to the
trust, and of no benefit whatever except to the individual.
He granted that it was desirable to have ship-yards as near
as possible to the docks ; but unfortunately the docks were
so placed that,,,L..4-'vrere obliged to go up and down the
river, and this gentleman would be obliged to do so likewise.
The simple question after all was, could the dock trust, with
reference to the works going on, let off any of this land ?
After repeated enquiries, the Sub-committee of Works found
that they could not.

Mr. CEIAPMAN said that Mr. Evans had asserted that the
dock yard represented the public. The Surveyor then re-
presented the dock-yard, and therefore, according to Mr.
Evans' showing this committee was nothing, but everything
was to be subservient to the dock-yard and the Surveyor.
He repeated that the report of the sub-committee was not
agreed to unanimously.

-Mr. RIPLEY thought the committee were placing too
little confidence in the Surveyor. The Surveyor told them
he wanted room, and Mr. Middleton had said there was no
want of room. He should like to know upon what data Mr.
Middleton formed his opinion?
Mr. MIDDLETON said from the large space of ground.

Mr. RIPLEY remarked that it must be recollected that the
new works were the largest the committee had ever bad be-
fore ; and be did not see that Mr. Clarke had more right to
favour than any body else.
Mr. MIDDLETON said he did notagree that the land should
be let to Mr. Clarke, so much as with the general principle.

. .
Mr. RIPLEY had every confidence in the Surveyor; he
was the only man capable of judging what would be wanted,
and he (Mr. Ripley) should be sorry to give an opinion
against his. If Mr. Clarke had this accommodation granted
to him, other shipbuilders would make similar claims, and
the committee would be bound to give them the same consi-
deration as they had to Mr. Clarke.

Mr. BULLY should have felt glad if there had been room
for Mr. Clarke or any one else, but he could not vote to let
him have the land against the opinions of a majority of the
sub-committee of works and of the Surveyor.
Mr. HOLMES said it was his intention to vote for Mr.
Clarke's application being granted, and he had come to that
intention after seeing the land • but after what had been said
lie was obliged to alter his mind and vote for the confirma-
tion of the report.
Mr. CHAPMAN said Mr. Clarke's case was a peculiar one,
inasmuch as he had been dispossessed.
Mr. ToruN thought the committee were bound to confirm
the report, but at the same time it should be recollected that
Mr. Clarke had been dispossessed. He had been there for
45 years, and had now nowhere to go.
Mr. HOLT said the dock committee had not dispossessed
him : he was not a tenant of the dock committee, but of the
corporation.
Mr. EVANS said that during the whole of that 45 years,
Mr. Clarke had held the land he had, at a very low rate,
because he might be put out of it any year.
Mr. TOBIN explained that Mr. Clarke had not himself
held the land for 45 years; he had had it only for ten years,
but he had been brought up upon it.
Mr. SuAND said he had seconded Mr. Chapman's amend-
ment, merely with the view of ascertaining the opinion of
the committee. He had now ascertained that opinion, and
he should decline seconding the amendment.
Mr. CIIAPMAN would leave the matter in the hands of
the committee. If he stood alone, he desired that it might
be so recorded.
Mr. CHILTON said he would second the amendment.
A division was then taken. The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it ..

Majority against it
The original motion was therefore carried. Messrs. Chap-
man, Chilton, and Middleton were the only members who
voted for the amendment. _ _

Mr. SANDBACH observed that the time would come when
the ground would not be wanted, and then Mr. Clarke might
be accommodated.
Several Mits.'Bzus.—Certainly. .

Mr. SANDBACHWas happy 'to find that such was the
general feeling of the committee.
Mr. EVANS said the committee did not umlervalue any
more than Mr. Chapman did the importance of having car-
penters' yards near the docks, but they valued the working of
the docks immeasurably snore than one additional yard in
the neighbourhood of the new works.