The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-29 00:00:00

not be complied

with, if there were not increased dock extensi,
Mr. SHAD.—That demand is already made.
Mr. Smini—Well
I have stated, that 1
heads—

i; doubt of the fact

twelve mont

pass over our

Mr. RANKIN.—One company alone will want it.
Mr. Sum' observed that he wanted the fact to go before
the public as distin

le, ti
for desirin

formec

Tong reason with hi

dock eaten

sion. But lie also had another reason ; fora most influ-
ential deputation, representatives of the corn trade, had
had an interview with a special sub-committee on the
subject. They pointed out that that trade was the most
important of any connected with the port of Liverpool,
for the import of grain amounted to 650,000 tons, which
Made the other trades contrast most unfavourably. They
pointed out that, under the present system, great damage
and loss were occasioned in consequence of want of accom-
modation. They represented their losses on that account
as perfectly inconceivable. But, in addition to the rea-
sons already urged in favour of dock extension, there must
also be added the fact of the changes that had been and
were gradually wrought in shipbuilding. Some years
ago, a ship of 1,200 tons was considered a monster, but
now there were 2,000 or 3,000 ton ships • and none of the
docks, with the exception of the Huskisson Dock, had
entrances of more than forty or forty-five feet in width.
And a class of ships were coming that could not enter any
of the docks, except the Huskisson Dock. Thus, beyond
all doubt, there existed an absolute necessity to provide
for the future wants of the port. He (Mr. Smith) had
avoided saying anything on that much-vexed question, the
timber trade, as Mr. Holme . had said so much on that
point. But, when he came to speak of the second point
in his argument he would have, of necessity, to speak of
the timber trade, as it was connected with considerations
of the purchase of land from Lord Derby. There had
been a meeting some time ago of parties interested in the
timber trade, and that meeting resulted in the formation
of a committee to consider that much-vexed question, the
transference of the trade to the northern end. Mr. Greg-
son was on that committee, and, indeed, was one of the
most active and prominent members of it. He never
missed visiting a sub-committee. And what were his
arguments ? He showed that there would not be depth
of land enough at the north end to give sufficient accom-
modation to the timber trade, and argued so strongly on
that point that he was mainly instrumental in inducing
that committee to come to the opinion that the trade
ought not to be carried there. Mr. Smith then proceeded
to define the scheme as being a most desirable and proper
one. He afterwards adverted to the projected purchase
of land from Mr. Leigh, which he considered advisable, as
it was contiguous to the present docks. He considered
that it was a positive necessity to purchase that land, in
order to provide accommodation for that large class of
ships whose arrival he had anticipated. He then entered
into other financial calculations in order to support his
arguments, and finally concluded by expressing a hope
that the committee would unanimously decide on the im-
portant project then before it. If it should decide
adversely, he (Mr. Smith) would have the consolation of
thinking that he had relieved his own conscience of all
responsibility.

Sir. EVANS, after a pointed allusion to the observations
made by Mr. Bigham at the last meeting when the subject
was discussed, proceeded to criticise and condemn the plan
adopted by the committee, in reference to the Harrington
Dock Scheme. He next insisted that the Dock Committee
are in possession of land which would enable it to extend
the dock accommodation very materially. He proposed
that the extension should be gone on with cautiously, and
only in accordance with the real requirements of the port.
Mr. ROTDEN remarked that although considerable
promise had been held out relative to accommodating the
shipbuilding and boiler• makers' interests, no portion of
land had been marked out as for their use on the plans.
He expressed himself as in favour generally of the scheme,
but objected to many of its details.
After a discussion of some length, in which several
members of the committee took part, the chairman took
the votes, first upon an amendment, moved by Mr. Evans
and seconded by Mr. Barber, referring the consideration
of the plans back to the committee, with instructions to
take the old plans of 1849 as a basis, rejecting the proposed
canal and dock, and limiting the immediate works at the
north to about twenty-eight acres, to the graving docks,
and the docks on the land east of Huskisson Dock.
For the amendment—Messrs. Healing, Evans, and
Barber.
Against—The Chairman, and Messrs. Shand, Lockett,
Chaloner, Rankin, Brocklebank, Bigham, Smith, Rounth-
waite, Tobin, Holme, Palmer, Laugsdale, Robinson, Little-
dale, Gregson, and Royden.
Amendment negatived by 17 to 3.
Mr. ROBINSON then proposed, as an amendment,roved that
the purchase from Lord Derby and Mr. Leigh be app,
and that the powers be limited thereto, and to the pur-
chase of the land from Mr, Molyneux.
Mr. Gregson seconded this amendment.
For—Messrs. Robinson, Gregson, Healing, and Barber.
Against—The Chairman, Messrs. Shand, Locket, Chalo-
ner, Evans, Rankin, Brocklebank, Smith, Rounthwaite,
Tobin, Bigham, Holme, Palmer, Laugsdale, Littledale, and
Royden. Amendment negatived by 16 to 4.
The original motion for the adoption of the report of
the special sub-committee was then put.
For the resolution—The Chairman, Messrs. Shand,
Lockett, Chaloner, Rankin, Brocklebank, Smith, Rounth-
waite, Tobin, Bighorn, Holme, Palmer, Laugsdale, Robin-
son, Littledale, and Royden. Against the resolution—
Messrs. Gregson, Evans, Healing; and Barber. Majority 12.
After ordering the plans to be lithographed, and a copy
to be sent to each member of the Town Council, the cm.
wit* passed a few accounts, and then keparated,