The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-09-02 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

The Dock Committee held their weekly meeting yesterday,
when the following members were present :—Messrs. Sands
(chairman), Barclay, Holt, Holmes, Middleton, Molyneux,
Bold, Sandbach, Nicol, Tobin, and Evans.

CLARENCE SOUTH GRAVING DOCK.
The SURVEYOR stated that he was not quite ready with his
plan for the Clarence South Graving Dock.
The CHAIRMAN added that the plan had, in fact, been
submitted to the master carpenters for their consideration
and approval.
Mr. Tontri inquired whether this was the plan for length-
ening the Southern Graving Dock ?
The CHAIRMAN replied in the affirmative. It was for the
dock, the lengthening of which Mr. Tobin had advocated
upon a former occasion.
Mr. TOBIN contended that the committee must consent
either to lengthen this graving dock or to make a new one.
There were frequently fifty or sixty vessels upon the books,
waiting for a berth in the graving docks ; and frequently
after having waited they did not like to gq in because they
might thereby lose a voyage.
Mr. Mem. said that these graving docks would very soon
be ready to render real assistance.
Mr. TOBIN said, that as the committee kept increasing
their docks so, graving docks would be wanted. That was
the reason why he had supported the lengthening of the one
in question.
The conversation On this subject then terminated.

CROSBY LIGHT-HOUSE.
The Sub-Committee for the department of the Marine
Surveyor, recommended that Thomas Stirzaker, one of the
keepers of the Rock Lighthouse. be appointed keeper of the
Crosby Lighthouse, at a salary of £B4 per annum.—Con-
firmed.

THE NEW SHEDS.
The Sub-Committee for the department of the Ware-
houses, submitted an outline or schedule of the duties of the
Superintendent of the Transit Sheds, which they recom-
mended for the adoption of the general committee.
The SECRETARY read these duties, which were of a specific
character, the mos importantt being that the Superintendent
should give security to the amount of £2OO, hold his office
at the pleasure of the committee, devote his whole time to
the office, and not take any fee or emolument from any party
whatsoever.
The Sub-Committee next recommended that Mr. Edward
Mumford Pilcher be appointed superintendent of the sheds,
at a salary of £lOO per annum ; and that Edward Pilcher
and George Herford be accepted as security for him to the
amount of £2OO.

These recommendations of the Sub-Committee were con-
firmed.

SHED NEAR SEACOMIIE SLIP.

An applicatiO;&rnMes;rs.Eaton and Co., of Mostyn,
near Holywell, praying to be allowed to erect a small but
near Seacombe Slip, for the purpose of protecting paper
parcels from the rain when sent down to their steamers, was
',reread to the Sub-Committee for the department of the
Harbour-masters.
ALLEGED IMPROPER DISCHARGE OV A MAN BY THE
YOR.
Mr. Boer) said, that SURV a
statement appeared in the news-
papers about a fortnight ago, that Mr. Hartley had dis-
charged one of his foremen for having made a mistake with
respect to the width of the railway. when, in fact, the mis-
take was his own ; and, as yet, no explanation of the matter
had gone forth to the public. His (Mr. Bold's) attention
had only been called to the subject this morning, and when
he heard it he thought it was due to the public, no less than
to the surveyor, that some reply should be made to the state-
ment. The statement was, that a great mistake had been
made in the width of the rails, that the pavement had to be
taken up, and that the foreman who had the management of
it was discharged, although he was not to blame. Mr.
Hartley had informed him that he had given an explanation
to the Board of Works, and he (Mr. Bold) wished to hear it.
Mr. EVANS said the fact was there had been a double
mistake, one in Mr. Hartley's office, and the other with the
man in question, who had not taken the guage of the railway
right.
Mr. Nicol. begged to mention, as a somewhat singalar
circumstance, that the man, although he had made his corn_
plaint to the papers, had not thought of making it to the
Dock Committee or to the sub-committee. It was not,
therefore, to be expected that the Dock Committee would
enquire into anonymous complaints when the man himself
had not thought proper to make it.Lt
theyh woimauplpdlyto the
sub-committee, in the first instance, and
investi-
gate the matter.
The CHAIRMAN said lie had made the same remark to a
gentleman who had named the subject to him, and subse-
quently to that the man himself had called upon him at the
office. This was on Saturday last. lie had shewn him (the
chairman) where the mistake had occurred, and explained it
in his own way. At all events Mr. Hartley ought to have
an opportunity of giving his own explanation to the public.
Mr. Nicol. added that the !natter had come under the
notice of the sub-committee, but they considered it unne-
cessary to make any explanation when the man himself did
not come forward.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the man had called upon Mr.
Ripley, who was so engaged that he had not time to attend
to him.
Mr. EVANS asked why he had not addressed a letter to
the committee ?
The CHAIRMAN.—That is what he ought to have done.
Mr. Nicol. said if the Dock Committee took notice of
every newspaper paragraph, or reports that came before them
in an indirect shape, there would be no end of it. The sim-
plest answer was, that the man himself had made no complaint.
The CHAIRMAN added that the man had made no com-
plaint whatever until Saturday ; but, yesterday he sent in a
written complaint, which would be investigated.
Mr. TOBIN thought that equal justice should be done. If,
as Mr. Evans said, there had been a double mistake, one in
the Surveyor's Office, and the other by the man himself, if
one was to be disbanded for it, the other should be disbanded
likewise.
Mr. BOLD said it was hard upon the poor man to be sum-
marily dismissed.
Mr. Nicol., on the part of the Committee of Works, beg_
ged to say, that they had not the slightest intention to make
any concealment at all. Mr. Bold himself would never think
of attending to anonymous complaints, when the party him_
self did not complain.
Mr. TOBIN asked whether it was right for Mr. Hartley to
dismiss the man without bringing it before the Committee of
Works ? After the poor fellow had been sent about his busi_
pess it was too late for him to make a complaint; he ought
In the first instance to have been called upon for leis reasons
why he did not do so and so, and if he could not
give a satis-
factory explanation, then let him be dismissed.
Mr. Nicol supposed he was a servant to Mr. Hartley,
who had a right, therefore, to dismiss him.
Mr. EVANS said that Mr. Hartley must have control over
his subordinates. If the committee made all his subordi-
nates of equal and concurrent authority with himself, there
was an end of all discipline.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that if the committee in-
terfered with Mr. Hartley's subordinates, they would destroy
his efficiency.
Mr. BOLD said, if the man was in fault he ought to be dis-
missed; if he was not, it was a hard case, and that was the
view which the public took.
Mr. TOBIN dared say, that all the public wanted was an
explanation.
Mr. BOLD added, that some explanation ought to be given
for Mr. Hartley'sown
sake;
because,
stated, it was
a jont mistake. as Mr. Evans had
Mr. HOLT would ask the committee whether Mr. Hartley
was not to have the power of dismissing his servants?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes he must have that Pow"'
Mr. BOLD.—But the committee are bound to protect their
servants if they are discharged improperly.
Mr. BARCLAY said, that because a paragraph appeared
in this newspaper or that—he did not care which—the com-
mittee were not to suppose that Mr. Hartley was in the
wrong.
Mr. EVANS urged that Mr. Hartley was in the character
of the captain of a ship ; and he would ask his friend Mr.
'robin if he being a captain, would not expect to have the
control of the mates and the men.
Mr. TOBIN said no doubt of it, but if he were
Ntil,al captain
drunk .
and his friend Mr. Evans the mate, and took it upon him
to discharge the second mate, he should say he
(Laughter.)
Mr. BOLD would certainly enquire into the matter if he
found anything
wrong, and therefore he considered Mr.
Hartley in the character of commander of a slu •
r, under the
care of the owners.
The CHAIRMAN said he had taken that view of the matter
himself, and therefore he had desired the secretary to write
(the chaiirrna. aHna)rthlaedy
a note to Mr. Hartley for an explanation. ---
had written a letter in reply, which he
laid before the Board of Works.
Mr. TOBlN.—However, there will be an explanation given
next week ?
Mr. NrcoL replied in the affirmative.
Mr. EVANS believed that this was not the first instance of
the man having been dismissed.
Mr. BOLD.—NN hen the Sub-Committee of Works have
made inquiry into it we shall hear the result?
The CHAIRMAN.--
1
The conversation on this subject then dropped ; and the
Committee proceeded to read an opinion of counsel upon
some questions affecting the liability of the estate to pay the
income tax, after which they separated.