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

CANNING DOCK

Messrs. D. M'Arthur and Co., in a letter addressed W
Mr. 'robin, 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 last
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 forlt, one of which
was that lie 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 he had always
looked upon him as a clever man, so far us 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 charge's 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 tbre.e,
thousand men whom they employed ? They might, It
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 n...,11.
the public would have heard so much of this matter. He
alluded to Mr. Chapman, whose name he was justified 'il,
mentioning, seeing that he (Mr. Chapman) had mentioneo
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 lose 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 interfere."
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. AIKIN drew a wide distinction between the committee
t iking cognizance of any complaints and listening to all coin-
plaints. If a strong case were made out, it would merit in'
quiry, but not unless a strong case were made out. Id
The CHAIRMAN asked the committee whether they won-
go into the papers or not?
Mr. EvaNs did not agree with Mr. Ripley that becaus°
one man complained all the three thousand might complain'
If they were to make an unfounded charge, in all likeliboe
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 VI'S,
had been put to expense, through the blundering of the_
servants or otherwise, it might be a question how far it ws;
their duty to institute investigation. But he contended thsi;
this was a question between Mr. Hartley and one of his ow„,
servants. The man was employed by Mr. Hartley ; he „,11,e
paid either weekly or daily ; and he received his wages. -,
)1
Sub-committee of Works had investigated the matter so as i.
serve all the ends of justice ; but cases might certainly °ere.
where they were called upon to sit as guardians of the estate'
o
and if it were shown to the committee that a sum of mon
were wasted or lost through the blundering of Mr. Hartley'
or any other servant, it would be a question how far the
would enquire into it, and not out of any feeling for the rase
who had committed the gross blunder. The question, there"
fore, was, had the dock estste suffered any loss or not.
The CHAIRMAN said if any particular case of that kind o°'
curred, he was sure the Dock Committee would inqw—
„
into it.
the
Mr. MELLOR.—These papers, were they referred to
Sub-committee?
The CHAIRMAN. —Yes ; they have been before the Sub'
committee.
Mr. Sit AND.—Do they come in the shape of a report
The CHAIRMAN.—No.
Mr. AIKIN.—I presume the Sub-committee of Works (1°
not recommend any further investigation ?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes.
Mr. MELLOR.—What is the report of the Sub-eotninit'

tee ?
The CHAIRMAN.—They may make no report, but their
opinion ug t
is we oht no to go further into it.
Mr. AIKIN.—Then if the Sub-committee of Works,
not recommend anything, I presume there is an end of
Mr. EVANS.—I think enough was said about it '-
week. s.

Mr. SHAND.—Enough was said last week to raise
pectations of more this week. to
The CHAIRMAN.—Here are the papers, if you' svia",he
hear them read, and the matter gone into. It is for
committee to go further into it. ber
Mr. RIPLEY.—I move that we do not proceed fat
into it.

Mr. HOLT seconded the motion. of
The CHAIRMAN asked whether any gentleman haiA
other motion to propose, and received no answer. The
solution proposed by Mr. Ripley was declared to be carrie

NEW IRN GHT-SHIP.
The Sub-committee forO the Department of the 111sr
Surveyor reported that the new iron light-ship was 11(10,
trimmed and bolted up to the upper deck, whereby the c°ol
tractor had become entitled to the payment of the sec°o
instalment of X 1266 13s. 4d. The payment of this sums°
ordered.

ROCK LIGHT-ROUSE.
William Henry Lawrence, a seaman belonging to the.ct,
ter, was appointed one of the keepers of the Rock LIP
house, at a salary of £BO per annum.

TO CROSBY . ...Or
The MarineDAMAGE SurveyorTllE reported that,LIGHT on- theSHIP sth insi;pcl
the Rosina, galliot, ran foul of the Crosby Light-ship,
did considerable damage.—Referred.

VICTORIA CHANNEL. a
„
The MARINE SURVEYOR reported that he hct exa—
nod

niak
and sounded Victoria Channel:at low water, on the eV% to
of the 6th, and the morning of the 7th instant, being tv/.000
the lowest monthly tides in the year; and he was glad the
able to state, that after the lapse of three years frog;101'
opening of the channel, there was not the slightest (1,61140'
tion in the depth of water. The Medina, and Isabella soe
pier, steamers, had passed through at low water at the s
time.

MISCELLANEOUS. ttb
The Harbour Masters' Sub-Committee reported, tba
allowance to Thomas Tansey, superanuated dock getefrioe,
of 15s. per week, for three months, had ceased, the P,'„dea
having expired, and they recommended that it be cord.'"
to him for three months longer.—Ordered.
Messrs. Orford and Cain, in a letter to the comnil,ere
requested to be informed into which dock potatoe vessq,s;belf
to go, and also asked permission to be allowed to sell *pa.
potatoes at the north end of the Canning Dock.—ReferrlA
An application from the consignees of the Amer.",
packets—Messrs. Baring Brothers, Messrs. Thomas spa
Joseph Sands, Messrs. Chapman, Bowman, and Co., oet,,
Messrs. Wm. and James Brown—was read, stating. te
in consequence of the intended alterations in the ivorio°4P,
the Prince's Dock caused by the erection of the transit S'e of
however convenient those sheds might be in the discha;toe'
vessels of moderate burthen, yet in discharging misee'vti:
ous cargo, such as was brought by the American Psepete
the object would not be obtained. They therefore sugg,
tbB,
live
the expediency of removing the whole of the five regais.;
of packets to the south side of Waterloo Dock, anbeir
three quay and one stage berths be appropriated t°
exclusive use in loadin to the
g and discharging.—Referred
Harbour Master's Sub-committee.
The committee then separated.

Sir William Massey Stanley, Bart., arrived at his ;riftsl
Hootou Hall. from the north. The worthy baronets
was greeted by a merry peal of the Eastham church g 0",
Sir William, with Lord Maidstone, the Hon. Jamegnrar"
otill
donald, and the Hon. Mr. Lumley', killed at their boho'b
quarters in Invernesshire, in 14 days, one stag, 1,2 gsvie°
of grouse, 56 brace of ptarmigan, 18 brace of black
and 42 blue hares.—Chester Courant.