Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons.

Parliamentary papers, Volume 9 online

. (page 40 of 96)
Online LibraryGreat Britain. Parliament. House of CommonsParliamentary papers, Volume 9 → online text (page 40 of 96)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

tion is not produced ? — Not in front of it, but above it and below it ; to the east
and west of our projections it would accumulate ; in the front there will be depth.
910. Which would be most injurious, an accumulation to the east, or the accu-
mulation caused by the conversion of the old harbour into a dock ? —If Mr. Bin-
ders steam-boat basin be formed, then the accumulation would be more injurious
by his plan than mine, because it would accumulate in that basinv and at a point


Digitized by


i6 June 1840.


Which is opposite to the town, without having the aid of the river Hull to. J. Walker, Etq}
scour it

91 1. You consider the accumulation of mud in the basin is more injurious than
the accumulation of mud in the river ? — ^Yes, I do.

912. Would not that accumulation of mud be in front of all the dock room that
Hull at present possesses ? — ^Yes; it would be absolutely necessary, in order to* make
the Humber Dock, or any of the docks remain useful, to keep the basin in some
part of it down to such a level as would allow vessels to approach the basin of
the Humber Dock.

.913. If this projection was made as you propose, you say the velocity of the tide
would be increased ? — ^Yes, immediately in front of it.

914. Would not that have the effect of clearing away any mud in front of the
old harbour ? — ^Yes, that which is immediately in the line of it ; but there is a very
large epaoe, two- thirds of the area of the steam-boat basin, that would be within
t^e line of the wall.

91 5. I am speaking of your plan ; I veas asking you, you said that you thought the
velocity of the tide would be increased by the projection of your ovra basin ? — ^Yesr

916. I was asking you whether the velocity of the tide would not have the
effect of removing some of the accumulations of mud you anticipate in front of the
old .harbour ? — No, it would not ; the effect of any increased velocity is lost the

. moment it passes the narrow part.

917. With reference to a ship's coming up, they come in nearly at the same
time of the tide ? — Yes.

918. What would be the effect of the nearness of these two mouths; will the
ships interfere with each other ? — ^I think Mr* Rendel's basin is so spacious that if
it is kept at a good depth, the ships will not interfere vrith each other ; the basin is
ujpwards of 1,000 feet in length.

919. You mentioned that the old harbour is now used by small craft ?^— Yes,
and masted vessels also.

• ' 920. You think it would be an injury to the town of Hull by converting the
harbour into a dock, because the small vessels could no longer employ it ?— Not so

i 921. Siq)posing a new channel cut on the eajst, could they use that cut?— Yes.
> 922. For some time after the new channel was formed, might you expect as^
good a bottom fw the small craft as the present harbour affords ? — Yes, after you
form it.

923. He accumulation of the mud brought down by the Hull would not be so
considerable at first ? — No, not if properly formed ; as I have no doubt it would
be imder Mr. Benders direction.

g24^ There is no difficulty in making the entrance to the old harbour wide
enough for the large class of steam-boats ? — No ; every thing done there is done
under great difficulty, but there is no physical difficulty in doing it ; I proposed
making a dock in the centre of Aberdeen harbour; but it is a great expense
in being obliged te dam all round it ; a general idea of what I think upon the
Subject may be formed from this ; it appears to me that the docks at present are
chiefly usfed for bringing cargoes to HuU, that the old harbour is very much used
for sending goods from Hull, loading them into small craft; I do not mean
entirely, but very much ; and that this would turn the old harbour into what I
should call a dock for importing again; that would be the object of it; with regard
to the security of the revenue, and bringing goods in there with so very many
owners immediately upon the banks, that is a matter of revenue I do not

925. I understood you to say that if the present harbour is made into a dock, it
vrill create the necessity of making a new harbour as well as a dock ? — ^Yes, I
think so.

926. If you converted the old harbour into a dock, the warehouses now situated
in the old harbour will still be of value? — ^Yes.

927. Of augmented value? — Yes.

928. If you construct a dock to the east, you diminish the value of the present
warehouses? — That is doubtful; it is not an engineering question ; but it is also
doubtful, unless warehouses are built to a considerable extent round the proposed
dock, the goods would be very conveniently unloaded into the warehouses round
the present docks ; unless warehouses be built upon the quays of the new docks, I
do not think that that would be the effect of it.

83. F 3 929. There

Digitized by



J^ Whf% Eiq. 929. There is no doubt warehouses will be built at the new docks ? — I do not
6Jiiue 8^ know ; that is no part of the estimate.

*^^* 930. There is no reason why the small vessels should not go into the new
channel that now go into the harbour ? — Yes ; but the vessels go into the old har-
bour, and take in goods- at the warehouses.

, 93i. If the old harbour was converted into a dock, would the contiguity of the
old harbour to the docks be an advantage to the town ; you propose to construct
a new dock at a distance from the other docks ; the other dock proposed would
be much nearer to the town; do you conceive the proximity of the new dock to the
old dock would bean advantage to the town of Hull? — Yes, taken as an abstract
question; the communication for ships would be as near by the plan of the dock
on the east side of the citadel as it is by converting the harbour iuto a dock.
. 932. If you convert the old harbour into a dock, have you a dock nearer the
<;entre of the trade ? — ^Yes.

933. Is that an advantage ? — Yes.

934. Is that counterbalanced by the value of the property already built upon ?
—I am answering the questions only in the abstract.

935. Are there not local circimistances that would make it extremely difficult
to get the requisite accommodation ? — Yes ; and I do not think it would be a con-
venient dock after all, from the narrowness of the space behind it.

936* The part of the dock to the south would be wider than the present docks ?.
—Yes. ^

937. You do not consider there are many facilities round the proposed harbour
dock to construct timber ponds ? — No ; the way the timber must go, supposing it
inconvenient to lie in the dock, must be to go out into the new nver or into the
Humber, and so round into the ponds, which must be constructed on what is called
^ site for ship-yards.**

938. You think that it would be necessary to construct timber ponds on that
site ; yes, it is desirable and necessary; the proposed dock takes away a consider-
able portion of the present timber pond ; but there is groimd to form others as a
substitute for it, upon the banks of the proposed new river.

939. Where it is marked " site for ship-yards ? ** — Yes.

940. But it is desirable to build sheds and warehouses for the small craft ; do
jrou think there is room to construct timber ponds, ship-yards and warehouses ? —
Tes ; but it must be by carrying a new communication from the river Hull, and
forming a communication belidnd the warehouses.

941. Mr. Serjeant Meretoether.'] Such a communication as you have got
between your dock and the projected timber pond? — Yes.

942. Committee.'] As long as that, or longer c — I should think that that would
be long enough.

943. Have you any doubt that the construction of a dock to the west would bo
attended with more expense than one to the east ? — I have no doubt of it ) but
without going into the details of the estimate, I cannot say ; but what I stated
before I state again, that this appears to me not to be what Hull requires ; it is
not so much accommodation for shipping, but the substitution of the river fix>m
one class of shipping for another class of shipping.

944. If the small craft were removed from the old harbour, would there be
sufficient accommodation in the new channel ? — I have stated the extent that it
might be, and I have stated also that the citadel on the one side, and the build-
ings on the other, would confine the extent of the additional accommodation.

945. Into what dock do you suppose that ships importing timber would go»
supposing timber ponds constructed at the spot you have pointed out? — I should
think all the docks would be equally convenient.

946. Do you think that they would undergo considerable inconvenience in
being stationed in a dock so far distant from the timber pond ? — Yes ; it would
not be so convenient as the other proposed timber pond, which is upon the same
level, without a lock intervening.

947. Mr., Serjeant Merewether.'] In your opinion, would it not be better if a
tidal river did not separate the docks from each other ; if the river is converted
into a dock, and a new cut is made at a distance, would it not be better if the
docks were altogether, and the tidal river to the eastward ?— All the docks com-
Tnunicating ?

948, Yes,


Digitized by



948. Yes ?— Yes. /, WaHer, &q .

949. And decidedly better ?— Yes, ,g ju„^ ,8^0^

950. And the new cut on the outside ? — Yes ; but I have seen no plan for
dmng that yet.

951. I want to get an answer upon the notes; and that is your answer ? — ^I
faaye giyen an answer distinctly, that I think it would be an improvement ; but I
have also added that none of the plans I have seen contemplate such a measure.

952. Have the goodness to tell me whether the plan before you does not afford
a better opportunity for doing that than the one you have suggested?— No, 1
cannot see that it is any part of the plan to do it.

953- Your plan leaves the river between your dock and the other docks ? — My
plan leaves the river, to be sure ; but your proposed dock leaves the dock with
the river between the proposed docks and it.

954. Would not that be obviated if the dock was carried up to the extent of
the old dock ? — By some other plan ?

955. Yes ? — Show me that plan.

956. Could not it be obviated by that being done ? — Yes ; a dock might be
made through the centre of the town of Hull, which would connect the old dock
with the proposed dock and the old harbour.

957. Do you think that is the only mode by which it can be done? — I do
not see any other.

958. You said that Mr. Rennie or Mr. Smeaton never suggested a communi-
cation between the harbour and the docks ? — I said I never knew that Mr. Rennie
or Mr. Smeaton contemplated the conversion of the river into a dock.

959. Just look at that plan, and tell me whether that plan does not contem-
plate a junction of the kind I have stated ; [a plan was handed to the Witness] ;
just tell me whether the date is not 1795 ? — Yes.

960. Just look at that plan; could not a communication be made from the
river to the old dock without going through the town of Hull ? — This plan sup-
poses a narrow communication betwieen the present harbour and the old dock
with a pair of gates.

961. Does it go through the middle of the town? — It must take a good deal
of property ; but this is a commimication only ; I was referring to connecting the
docks together.

962. If the river was turned into a dock, would not that connect the river with
the dock? — Before you effect this plan, you must put a joint in the middle of
eveiy vessel that goes into it; because honourable Members will see, at this
letter G., it is quite impossible for any vessel to enter into that lock; and
to use the name of Smeaton or Rennie, and put this plan before me^ is not a
compliment to either of them.

963. Tell me whether, in point of fact, that does not make a communication
between them? — Yes, which no ship could enter.

964. If there was that communication, all the docks would be connected ? —

965. If that is done imperfectly, could Mr. Walker make the communication
perfect? — Yes, by taking down property, and so could Mr. Rendel; whether you
have proved it is possible to make a communication by producing that plan, I
leave the Committee to judge for themselves.

g66. You could make a communication ? — Yes, no doubt of it.

967. And better than that? — ^No doubt of that either.

9()8. When you calculated the width of the dock, and said you gave the average
width of the narrowest part of the dock, you had excluded all the southern part of
the dock ? — I so stated.

969. You stated, I think, that this basin for steamers would be much more
convenient for the railroad ; that is in a great degree owing to its contiguity ? —

970. That is a recommendation of itself? — Yes.

971 . You mentioned something with respect to a church ; you said it is objec-
tionable that the new cut should go near the church ; just turn to the ot\xet
side of the plan, and see if your new Junction Dock is not near the church ? —
Y es, itis near the church ; but I do not take any of the churchyard.

83. F4 972. Did

Digitized by


4& MINUTES OP EVmENCE ialcen bejfbre /Ae COMMITTEE

X ivalker^ Esq; 972. Did you propose to do it? — I think it was proposed at one time to l&e
. the church down altogether, and I think it would hate been a good plan. »

16 June 1^40. * 973. But, in point of feet, it was contemplated ; that is where there is consider-
able traflSc ? — Yes, as fer as my recollection goes ; I may be wrong, but I do 7^
think there is any burying-place round the church ; T propose to touch only the
vaults inside, ,

974. Committee.'] Looking at that dock, you have had some experience of get-f
ting near churches by the dock? — Yes, I wanted to have squared it; and I think
Mr. Rendel's plan maybe carried into effect without taking so muph of the
churchyard as he does ; but at present the line goes close up to the church, and^^
as far as my recollection goes, destroys a number of burying-places that are there.

975. That you think should be avoided? — Yes,

976. Just look at your own plan, and see if your plan does not take a part of the
churchyard ? — It takes a very very minute comer of it. !

977. Do you take about the same comer that Mr. Bendel does?— I take about
one-eighth of what Mr. Rendel does.

978. Committee.'] Cannot you do without it ? — Yes, we could, but not so well ;
both in regard to the Ordnance and with regard to this comer of the churchyard,
we could do better with them than without them ; but I have made the communil
cation in such a way that, we can do without either touching the moat or the
churchyard ; that you will see by looking at the plan.

979. Mr. Serjeant Merewetker.] You stated that you thought this plan would
be more expensive than yours ? — Yes, I did say so ; but I added, I had not made
any detailed estimate.

980. You do not mean to found that upon any accurate calculations?— No.
98 1 • It is only a general impression } — That is all.

982. Can you tell me which could be done the quickest in point of time ? — I
think my plw.

Re-examined by Mr. Hildyard. ^

983. With respect to your estimates, did you make the estimates for thfe
Junction Dock? — Yes.

984. Do you remember how nearly the actual expense tallied with the estimates
you made ?— No, I do not.

985. Are you able to say whether they did or did not correspond ? — I believe
the correspondence was very accurate indeed ; when I say I do not know, that must
depend upon the Company's books ; there is a gentleman upon your left hand who
can tell you. ^

986. He says that they did ; have these estimates been made with the same
care, as far as you know, as those estimates? — Yes.

987. Have you every reason to believe they are correct ? — Yes. \

988. You were asked, with respect to keeping the accretion of mud out of
the basin ; have you made an estimate of the annual expense of the maintenanoe
of this dock, all other annual expenses connected with it, the whole expenses
entailed upon the Company, by keeping this dock in repair? — Yes ; at the request
of the chairman I considered the subject, and gave him an answer; in the report I
stated that 3,000/. would be under the mark ; in that I thought 3,500/. would be a
low estimate, and 4,000/. not a high one.

' 989. That is the annual expense entailed upon the Company in keeping up this
dock? — Yes ; and I have no hesitation in saying, that I think they are all under
estimated. '

990. You think that it would exceed 4,000/. ? — Yes ; I would not do it for that
if I was the contractor.

991 . Assuming that it is desirable for the general trade of Hull that the
existing ^dock should be materially relieved from the lumber trade, do you think
that the dock proposed on the other side would afford, if carried into effect^ those
fecilities to the lumber trade that tiiey would withdraw from the existing docks ? —
I do not think that they would.

992. Is that founded upon the circumstances that there would not be sufficients
room for timber-yards and timber ponds contiguous to the dock r — Yes, it is.

g[)j. You

Digitized by



993- You say you take a small portion of the churchyard ; you do not toudi /. WaOtr, ttq.
the church r — No. 1

994. Do you take ground immediately contiguous to the churchyard, which *^ '«»• 1840.
will not be wanted for the purposes of this undertaking, and which you can give to

the churchyard in lieu of the ground you take ?— Yes.

995. Is that ground situated as near to and as conveniently for the purposes of
burial as the ground you take ? — Yes, very nearly so ; it would alter a little the
ahape of the churchyard.

996. Committee.'] You can do without the consecrated ground r — Yes, we couM.

997. Mr. Hitdyard.] Have you made provision for giving to the churchvard
ground in lieu of that you take ? — ^There is power of m^ing provision; I tefieve
that there is not one grave, at least so I believe, at this spot.

998. You were asked whether your own communication, which you proposed
between the new dock and the old dock, would not cross the tidal harbour, and
you were asked if it was not a great objection interrupting the communication at
nigh tide ; does not the very project, with respect to which you have been examinecf^
show a much larger space of tidal river intervening between the dock constructed
out of the old harbour and the old dock ? —

Mr, Serjeant Merewether admitted that the fact was so.

999. Whether it might be possible or not to carry through that angte of the
town of Hull, across Salt House-lane, a communication that would not touch the
tidal harbour, this project does not profess to do it ? — No.

1000. Committee.'] I think you stated that the proposed harbour and dock on
^Mr. Renders plan would be an area of 17 acres ? — Yes.

1001. And your dock 14? — Yes; the dock alone, and the basin four.

1002. You stated that in this proposed new channel of the river Hull, if it weie
necessary, that warehouses might be built upon wjiat is marked as a site for ship-
yards ? — Yes, physically speaking ; I speak as an engineer only.

1003. You stated, you were not aware that upon any part of the ground
surrounding your dock it is the intention to build any warehouses ? — I am not.

1 004. Then if no warehouses were built, the small vessels going into it could
not have the accommodation of warehouses which they could have if Mr. Renders
plan was carried into effect, and warehouses built there ? — No.

1005. On looking at Mr. Rendel's plan, and the site for ship-yards, do you think
there is not room for warehouses as well as ship-yards; do you not think it
unnecessarily large for warehouses ? — No, I do not think it is large enough; I am
rather violating the plan, by supposing that warehouses will be built upon it.

1006. But you have sufficient room in your plan to build warehouses if they
are required ? — Yes, plenty for all purposes.

1007. Is not what is desired to separate the lumber trade and the other trade, if
possible, in Hull? — Yes; Imay be allowed to say, in explanation of the answer I gave
to a Member of the Committee, in stating 17 acres on the one side and 18 on the
/other, if the object is to show the additional accommodation given to Hull, the
area of the present harbour ought to be deducted ; the area of the harbour now
occupied as harbour would afterwards become a dock, that is abstracted from the
harbour and made into a dock« ^

1008. I see here, upon Mr. Renders plan, a part marked off, " additional dock
when required;** could not that be converted into timber ponds? — If the ships be
unloaded in any of the docks, the ships must go into the llumber ill order to enter
the pond, which the noble Lord suggests. •

[The Witness withdrew.

[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock.

Digitized by VnOOQlC


Mercurn, 17"* die Junii, 1840.

RICHARD BETHELL, Esq., in the Chair.

WilUam Cubitty Esq., was called in ; and Examined by Mr. Hildyard, as follows ;

WilUamCubUtyE^q. 1009. YOU are a civil engineer, I believe, and a fellow of the Royal Society ?
"""■"■^ — Yes, I am.

17 June 1840. 1010. How long have you been engaged as a civil engineer ? — Practically and

professionally, about 35 years.

1011. During that practice, have you had considerable, experience in the con-
struction of harbours and docks ? — I have had some experience in both harbours
and docks during a great portion of that time.

1012. I believe you have been more than once employed by the Government
with reference to harbours and docks? — I have been frequently employed by the
Treasury, the Admiralty and other Government boards upon subjects of that

1013. Did you complete a set of dooks at Cardiff? — Yes, recently.

1014. Are you now engaged in the construction and improvement of the docks
at Southampton ? — No, I am consulting engineer for those docks.

1015. Are you acquainted with the town of Hull? — ^Yes, I am.

1016. Did you go down at the desire of the Dock Company to form an opinion
and advise them as to the best site for constructing a dock ? — I did.

1017. When was it? — I think about three years ago; I am not precise as to
the date ; I have no memorandum of it with me.

101 8. Did you at that time carefully consider all the capabilities of that portion
of the town where that dock would have to be constructed, and come to a deci-
sion upon the subject?— I did.

1019. Did it ever occur to your mind that the old harbour was capable of
being converted into a dock, and answering the purposes required by the trade of
Hull under its present circumstances? — 1 never had any thought of converting
the old harbour into a dock.

1 020. Did the site of thfe present docks attract your attention at that time ? —
Yes, it did ; and 1 made plans for a dock on the site of the present proposed
dock for the Company.

1021. Was that selection founded upon your own judgment, or in consequence
of any communication with Mr. Walker, or in consequence of any representation
from him or any other person ? — No ; I was told by the Company to plan docks
to the east of the citadel in the best manner my judgment would allow me.

1022. Had you previously to that direction from the Dock Company made any
report to the Dock Company, or any suggestion ? — I had.

1023. Did you suggest that the east side of the citadel was in your judgment
best calculated for the construction of a new dock ? — I did.

1024. Were you directed then to consider the construction of a dock on that
site without having left to you any judgment about any other site ? — As regards
the plan for the east dock, 1 made those plans and estimates, and submitted them
to the Company in consequence of the instructions to do it ; the very site of the
present proposed docks in part 5 the docks I proposed were rather larger than
these by some five or siit acres.

1025. Do I understand you to state, that the docks you proposed were larger
than those that form the present project? — Yes, the main dock contained 20

1026. Committee.] On the same site? — Yes, precisely the same site.

1027. ^Ir. Hildyard.'] Are you of your own knowledge acquainted with the

Online LibraryGreat Britain. Parliament. House of CommonsParliamentary papers, Volume 9 → online text (page 40 of 96)