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

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

The Dock Committee held their weekly meeting yester-
day, when the following rneno.,ers were present :—Messrs.
Sands (chairman,) Holt, Holmes, Middleton, Molyneux,
Chilton, Nicol, Mellor, Evans, Shand, Ripley, and Aikin.

CONTRACTS FOR THE NEW WORKS.
The Sub-Committee of Works presented several recom-
mendations for the acceptance of contracts for the new
works. The first was one from the Haigh Foundry Com-
pany, for three cast-iron swivel bridges for the new dock
works ; the second for five cranes for lifting three and seven
tons, to be placed on the west side of Prince's Dock, frog►
Messrs. Foster and Griffin ; and the third for general cast-
ings, from Messrs. Mather, Dixon, and Co., iu the place of
Messrs. Davenport, Grindrod, and Co., who have resigned
the contract.
The CHAIRMAN said a great deal had been said out of
doors concerning work not being done by contract. These
bridges, however, were about to be made by contract.
Mr. RIPLEY believed that the surveyor had never made
bridges?
The SURVEYOR replied that he did not. All the bridges
had been made by contract.
Mr. Horaies mentioned that the Queen's Dock bridges
had been made by contract i❑ 1811, and they had stood very
well.

The recommendations of the Sub-Committee as to the
contracts were then confirmed.
COMPENSATION FOR AN ACCIDENT.
A person named Robert Smith, in a letter to the Surveyor,
stated that during the night of Monday, the 15th August, he
had a horse worth £l4 killed by falling into the lockpit to
No. 1 Graving Dock, whilst at work for the contractors of
the new dock. The horse, with two others, was drawing a
number of waggons on the west incline, when the first horse
missed its footing, and it was precipitated to the bottom of
the excavation, dragging the other two horses with it. The
first horse was killed on the spot; and the other two were
injured, but had since returned to work. As he was a poor
man, gaining his livelihood by the horses, he could ill afford
the loss, and he requested some assistance from the com-
mittee to enable him to replace the animal which he had lost.
After some conversation as to the power of the committee to
afford compensation under the circumstances, a motion was
proposed by Mr. HOLMES, and seconded by Mr. RIPLEY,
to the effect that the sum of ten guineas be given to Smith.
An amendment to the effect that it be not given, on the
ground that no case had been made out of the liability of the
Dock Committee, was moved by Mr. EVANS, but not se-
conded. The original motion was therefore carried.
PURCHASE OF AN ENGINE.
The SURVEYOR requested permission to • order a steam
engine for the purpose of driving piles, on which to erect the
walls of the new dock, in order to expedite the works. He
had made enquiry, and had found three or four engines on
sale, which would answer the purpose.
Mr. EVANS enquired how much piling was already done?
The SURVEYOR said it had scarcely been begun.
Mr. HOLMES asked the surveyor what he could get a 20
horse power engine for?

TheSunvEl;;Jß in reply, said he had been asked £4ll for
a new engine of that size, delivered on the spot.
A resolution was then passed authorising the surveyor to
procure an engine of twenty horse-power.
CLARENCE SOUTH GRAVING DOCK.
The CHAIRMAN reported that the chairman of the Ship-
builders' Association was from home. The surveyor there-
fore had not received from him the drawings of this graving
dock ; but he expected the matter would come again before
the committee next week.
CANNING DOCK.
Messrs. D. M'Arthur and Co., in a letter addressed to
Mr. Tobin, in whose absence it was laid before the commit-
tee by Mr. Nicol, complained of a considerable portion of
Canning Dock being taken up by laid-up ships and ships for
sale. The letter expressed a hope that the committee would
give the coasting trade all the accommodation in their power,
and stated that those vessels were frequently detained in
George's Basin longer than they would be if Canning Dock
were appropriated to them.—Referred to the Harbour Mas-
ters' Sub-committee.
JOHN BROWN'S CASE OF ALLEGED IMPROPER DISMISSAL.

The CHAIRMAN said the next business upon the paper

was the case of John Brown, which was mentioned fast •
week. He doubted himself whether the committee ought to
go into it; but if they thought otherwise, the papers were
before them, and they might go into the investigation.
Mr. RIPLEY said his name had been mentioned in the
meeting of the committee last week, as Brown having called
upon him, but he was too busy, and he could not see him.
That was true, but he had other motives for it, one of which
was that he did not like to hear the complaints of any officer
of the dock trust unless it came officially before him. He
had known Brown for a long time, and be had always
looked upon him as a clever man, so far as he was
capable of judging : he was sorry, too, that any 'thing should
have occurred that should have induced Mr. Hartley to part
with him ; but he was convinced that if the committee
went into this investigation, it would involve a very impor-
tant principle. A great deal had been said on 'Change upon
this matter, and he (Mr. Ripley) had reason to believe that
it emanated from the same quarter from which emanated the
charges which led to the last investigation. A most search-
ing enquiry was then made into the conduct of the Surveyor
in consequence of charges brought against him by a then
member of the committee. Mr. Hartley came out of that
investigation very much to his own credit ; and he (Mr.
Ripley) thought that even on that occasion justice was not
done to him, because the report of Mr. Stewart, which
spoke highly of Mr. Hartley's character, had not gone forth
to the public. Mr. Hartley had the appointment of his
servants; and if the committee listened to the complaints
of Mr. Brown, upon what ground could they refuse to
listen to the complaints of any of the two or three
thousand men whom they employed ? They might, if
the precedent were admitted, sit every day in the week for
the purpose of hearing complaints against Mr. Hartley. The
fact was, however, that if it had not been for the very great
exertions of some one individual, neither the committee nor
the public would have heard so much of this matter. Ile
alluded to Mr. Chapman, whose name he was justified in
mentioning, seeing that he (Mr. Chapman) had mentioned
the subject to him (Mr. Ripley). Without Mr. Chapman's
interference, nothing would have been heard of it. A very
important question was involved in it; and he did hope that
the committee would look at it in a general point of view„
rather than at this particular instance. If the committee lost
Mr. Hartley, he was convinced they would lase( a servant
whom they never would be able to replace. He, therefore,
moved that the papers produced by the Chairman be not'
read, and that the investigation be not gone into.
Mr. EVANS.—The Chairman will now get another " ad-
mirable" letter from Mr. Chapman.
The CHAIRMAN said he agreed with Mr. Ripley, because,
as he had stated last week, if the committee at all interfered
with Mr. Hartley's servants, they at once destroyed his
efficiency.
Mr. EVANS asked where the committee were to stop if
• they entered upon an investigation of this kind ?
Mr. Arxisz drew a wide distinction between the committee
taking cognizance of any complaints and listening to all com-
plaints. If a strong case were made out, it would merit in-
quiry, but not unless a strong case were made out.
The CHAIRMAN asked the committee whether they would
go into the papers or not?
Mr. EVANS did not agree with Mr. Ripley that because
one man complained all the three thousand might complain.
If they were to make an unfounded charge, in all likelihood
they would be punished for it.
Mr. Nicol. agreed with Mr. Evans as far as the general
principle was concerned ; but in cases where the dock trust
had been put to expense, through the blundering of their
servants or otherwise, it might be a question how far it was
their duty to institute investigation. But he contended that
this was a question between Mr. Hartley and one of his own
servants. The man was employed by Mr. Hartley; he was
paid either weekly or daily ; and he received his wages. The
Sub-committee of Works had investigated the matter so as to
serve all the ends of justice ; but cases might certainly occur
where they were called upon to sit as guardians of the estate ;
and if it were shown to the committee that a sum of money
were wasted or lost through the blundering of Mr. Hartley,
or any other servant, it would be a question how far they
would enquire into it, and not out of any feeling for the man
who had committed the gross blunder. The question, there-
fore, was, had the dock estate suffered any loss or not.
The CHAIRMAN said if any particular case of that kind oc-
curred, he was sure the Dock Committee would inquire
into it.
Mr. MELLOR.—These papers, were they referred to the
Sub-committee ?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes; they have been before the Sub-
committee.
Mr. SHAND.—Do they come in the shape of a report ?
The CHAIRMAN.—No.
Mr. AIKIN.—I presume the Sub-committee of Works do
not recommend any further investigation ?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes.
Mr. MELLOR.—What is the report of the Sub-commit-
tee?
The CHAIRMAN.—They may make no report, but their
opinion is we ought not to go further into it.
Mr. AIKIN.—Then if the Sub-committee of Works do
not recommend anything, I presume there is an end of it ?
Mr. EVANS.—I think enough was said about it last
week.
Mr. SllAND.—Enough was said last week to raise ex-
pectations of more this week.
The CHAIRMAN.—Here are the papers, if you wish to
hear them read, and the matter gone into. It is for the
committee to go further into it.
Mr. RIPLEY.—I move that we do not proceed further
into it.
Mr. HOLT seconded the motion.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether any gentleman had any
other motion to propose, and received no answer. The re-
solution proposed by Mr. Ripley was declared to be carried.
NEW IRON LIGHT-SHIP.
The Sub-committee for the Department of the Marine
Surveyor reported that the new iron light-ship was now
trimmed and bolted up to the upper deck, whereby the con-
tractor had become entitled to the payment of the second
instalment of £1266 13s. 4d. The payment of this sum was
ordered.

ROCK LIGHT-HOUSE.
William Henry Lawrence, a seaman belonging to the cut-
ter, was appointed one of the keepers of the Rock Light-
house, at a salary of £BO per annum.
DAMAGE TO THE CROSBY LIGHT-SHIP.
The Marine Surveyor reported that, on the sth instant,
the Rosina, galliot, ran foul of the Crosby Light-ship, and
did considerable damage.—Referred.
VICTORIA CHANNEL.
The MARINE SURVEYOR reported that he had examined
and sounded Victoria Channel at low water, on the evening
of the 6th, and the morning of the 7th instant, being two of
the lowest monthly tides in the year ; and lie was glad to be
able to state, that after the lapse of three years from the
opening of the channel, there was not the slightest diminu-
tion in the depth of water. The Medina, and Isabella Na-
pier, steamers, had passed through at low water at the same
time.

MISCELLANEOUS.
The Harbour Masters' Sub-Committee reported, that the
allowance to Thomas Tausey, superanuated dock gateman,
of 15s. per week, for three months, had ceased, the period
having expired, and they recommended that it be continued
to him for three months longer.—Ordered.
Messrs. Orford and Cain, in a letter to the committee,
requested to be informed into which dock potatoe vessels were
to go, and also asked permission to be allowed to sell their
potatoes at the north end of the Canning Dock.—Referred.
An application from the consignees of the American
packets—Messrs. Baring Brothers. Messrs. Thomas and
Joseph Sands, Messrs. Chapman, Bowman, and Co., and
Messrs. Wm. and James Brown—was read, stating that,
in consequence of the intended alterations in the working of
the Prince's Dock caused by the erection of the transit sheds.
however convenient those sheds might he in the discharge of
vessels of moderate burthen, discharging miscellane-
ouset in
tained. thell"lie y therefore suggested
tiu caobjectrgo,
wouldsuch notss was brought b
be obtained. American packets,
the expediency of removing the whole. of the five regular line
of packets to the south side of 'Waterloo Dock, and that
three quay and one stage berths be appropriated to their
exclusive use in loading and discharging.—Referred to the
Harbour Master's Sub-committee.
The committee then separated.

Sir William Massey Stanley, Bart., arrived at his seat,
Hooton Hall, from the north. The worthy baronet's arrival
was greeted by a merry peal of the Eastham church bells.
Sir William, with Lord Maidstone, the Hon. James Mac-
donald, and the Hon. Mr. Lumley, killed at their shooting
quarters in Invernesshire, in 14 days, one stag, 1,200 brace
of grouse, 56 brace of ptarmigan, 18 brace of black game'
and 42 blue hares.—Chester Courant.