ÍIOU-SE OF COMMONS.
Proceedings in Committee, in consequence of which Mr. Walker
was sent to take Soundings in Silîoth Bay,
fSÜritíL! OF RAILWAY ECONOMICS,
L'ASHINCTGN, O C, UlP:' Í '
SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAY BILLS.
GROUP III.
JJkd/icsday, 2dth March, 1854.
VISCOUNT JOCELYX IN THE CII.VIR.
CARLISLE AND SILLOTH BAY
RAILWAY AXD DOCK BILL.
Air. Serjeant AVrangliam was licard in reply.
The ('onnnittce-room was cleared after sonic time; the
Counsel and parties were again called in.
The Chairman stated that the Coininittce were not satisfied
either upon the evidence wliich had hceu given, or iqxin the maps
with regard to the discre[)aney in the soundings which were taken
in the channel in the neighbourhood of Silloth Bank, ami there¬
fore would recoininend to the promoters to come to sonic under¬
standing with the ()i>ponents of the Bill, that some marine sur-
ve3'or should be appointed to go down and take the soundings,
and when those soundings were taken, and the Rcjiort laid before
the Committee, the}' would lie jirepared to give their decision as
to tlie Bill. If the [iromotcrs could not come to any sucii under¬
standing with the ojiponents, the Committee wouhl then think it
their duty to refer to the Board of Trade to repnest that Boai'd to
send down a jicrson fitted for the purpose, to report to the Com¬
mittee u|)on the suhject.
The parties consulted together. Air. oVtkinson stated that tlie
Promoters had agreed that the better way would be to leave to
the Board of Trade at once to ajipoint a surve3'or, who should be
accompanied by a gentleman on each side to act as a check, in
order that tlic information given to the Committee might come
from an unprejudieed source.
The Chairman inquired whether the Promoters woidd be pre¬
pared to pay the expenses to be incurred by this arrangement.
Mr. Oliphant stated that they would pay their own cxjicnses,
and the expenses of the officer to be sent down.
B
2
evidence in the house of commons.
The Chairman observed that of course the opponents would
pay their own expenses.
Mr. Atkinson assented.
Tlie Chairman stated that the inquiry would be confined to
Sillotli Bank and the channel in the neighbourhood where the
great discrepancy exists.
After some discussion to the period of adjournment,
]\Ir. Serjeant Wranghain suggested that it should be to the
first day after the Easter recess, which was assented to.
Adjourned to Thursday, the '20th April, ai 12 o''clock.
Thursday, 2jth April, 1854.
viscount jocelyn in the chair.
The following Report of Mr. Walker to the Board of Trade
was read ;—
"CARLISLE AND SILLOTII BAY RAILWAY AND
DOCK BILL.
3Ir. fTalker s Report to the President of the Board of Trade.
** 23, Great George Street, 25th April, 1854.
" Sir,—The facts in respect of the proposed Silloth Dock
entrance, which I was instructed to ascertain, are stated to be—-
" 1st. The depth of water in the channel of the Solway Frith
opposite to the site of the proposed Dock for the space of half a
mile above and half a mile below the centre of it, the situation
of tlie dock to be ascertained from the deposited plans, such depth
to be adjusted to the level of low water shown on Captain Robin¬
son's Admiralty Chart, 1837.
" 2nd. The existence of the bank called Silloth Bank, and the
height to wliich it rises of above low water of ordinary spring
tides, especially in the neiglibourhood of the entrance to the pro¬
posed Dock and the Roadstead in Sillotli Bay.
" Cajitain Robinson and Mr. Coinrie attended and assisted me
in the survey of which I now proceed in compliance with the
above instructions, to state the results.
"First as to depths,—
" If 500 yards be assumed as the width for ' Channel,' the
smallest depths at low water in this width are : at half a mile
west of enti'ance fourteen feet ; at a quarter of a mile west of
entrance fifteen feet ; opposite entrance twelve feet ; at a quarter
of a mile cast of entrance fourteen feet ; at half a mile east of
entrance twelve feet. Thus the average is thirteen and two-fifths
feet, or two and a quarter fathoms.
silloth bay dock and railway bill.
3
" The depths increase gradually from the above to the middle
of the channel, where the deepest sounding on each cross sections
of the channel is as under:—
" At half a mile west of entrance twenty feet ; at a quarter of
a mile west of entrance twenty feet ; opposite entrance twenty-
four feet ; at a quarter of a mile east of entrance twenty-eight
feet ; at half a mile east of entrance twenty-eight feet.
" Thus the average of the deepest soundings is four fathoms.
The depth in Skinburness Koads is so considerably less than it
was in 1837, as to make these Koads useless as a low water
•anchorage. Skinburness Spit has also extended considerably
further to the westward, so that the depth of w.ater opposite and
near to the proposed dock entrance is much reduced.
" The shoal water now extends out to, and beyond the Sjñt,
and the deep water channel is confined to the northward, or to
outside the Spit, the distance being about half a mile from low
water, in the line of tiie dock entrance.
" Secondl}', as to Silloth Bank.
" Silloth Bank does exist. At from one-half to three-quarters
of a mile from the proposed entrance it begins to appear at low
water, and rises gradually to nine or ten feet, its highest [¡oint
above low water at apparently not less than two miles from the
entrance.—I have the honour to be. Sir, your most obedient
servant,
" Jaiies Walker."
James Walker, Esq. called, examined htj the Committee.
Q. I see by your Report that you were .assisted by Captain
Robinson and Mr. Comrie in this survey ?—A. I was.
Q. F rom this survey do you consider that the depths which you
have taken tally with the Map and Chart of Captain Robinson ?—
A. They do not, they do not exactly tally with either Chart, cither
with Captain Robinson's or Mr. Coinrie's. I have stated in the
Report the facts exactly as they are, and if reference be Inad to
that Report, I think you will find that the depths now particu¬
larly near the entrance are considerably different from what they
were at the time Captain Robinson made his first survey, and also
that they are greater than Mr. Comrie shows in the same line
exactly opposite the entrance.
Q. Do you consider that the shifting of the sands in front of
the proposed Silloth Docks has been very great from what you see
and on looking at the different charts?—A. I have no doubt of it;
I have no doubt of the correctness of Capt. Robinson's first survey,
and, as I have stated in that Report, there is no deep water now
where Captain Robinson shows that deep water, owing to the
movement of Skinburness Spit going further to the westward.
b 2
4
EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Q. In reference to the proposed mouth of the Dock, do you
consider that that diminution in depth interferes materially with any
works to be carried on there, and the value of small Docks?—
A. I do not think it does materially, because the depth of the water
still is below the level of low water. Where we took the
soundings, the low Avater mark is further out, and the deep water
is further out, but the sill of the proposed Dock, as I understand
it, and the parties will correct me if I am wrong, is 3 feet above
the level of Ioav water of spring tides. I think that is correct.
Q. To what extent, then, do you make the difference betAveen
Captain Robinson's chart and the depth of the present time in the
neighbourhood of the mouth of the Dock ?—A. You must state
some particular point, if you please.
Captain Robinson and Mr. Comrie explained the charts to the
Committee.
Q,. As to the Baidi, do you consider that that Bank Avould act
as a protection in that 2)art of the channel against the prevailing
Avinds ?—A. It Avould ; it would shorten the fetch ; but, being near
the entrance as your Lordship sees A'ery low, I do not think it is
a material brealcAvater. The tendency is to do good.
Q. You do not think it is a material breakwater ?—A. I do
not think it is ; I think it is too Ioav to be a material bi'eakwater,
but still I think it Avill do good if the entrance he made there.
Q. Yoai cannot, I suj)pose, form any opinion as to Avhethcr this
Skinburness Spit is coming doAvn further there ?—A. As the chan¬
nel shifts so frerpiently as you see there, if your Lordship observes
the figures before you, it Avould appear, even in the short time
between iMr. Comrie's taking them and my taking them, there is
a diminution in the depth.
Q. Close in shore?—A. Yes.
Q. That docs not aftect the channel so much, does it ?—It does
not affect the Channel.—A. No ; the channel is not so different
at all from Captain Robinson's, but the channel is removed a great
Avay further out.
Q. There is the same depth of Avater, but it is in a different
position?—A. Yes; but the entrance must be approached over the
shoal Avatcr.
The witness witlulrcw.
The Committee-room AA'as cleared.
After some time the Counsel and parties were again called in.
The Chairman having read the letter from the Board of Trade
accompanying Mr. Walker's Report stated that the Committee,
had come to the oj)inion that the Preamble of the Bill was not
proved.
Adjourned till Tuesday, the \&th of May, at twelve o''clock.
sillotii bay dock and railway bill.
5
Copy of Statement sent to Members of Committee who were
present when tlie Vote of the Committee was given.
CARLISLE AND SILLOTH BAY RAILWAY AND
DOCK BILL.
The Committee on this Bill having virtually agreed to the
Bill subject to two points upon which the evidence was conflicting,
at the suggestion of the Broinoters, referred these points to some
impartial ¡lerson to be named by the Board of Trade ; and the
evidence obtained from Mr. Walker, the nominee of that Boai-d,
being in fact confirmatory of the case made by the Promoters, the
ultimate decision of the Committee rejecting the Bill appears to
the Promoters wholly inexplicable, except on the supposition, that
the Report of Mr. Walker being unaccompanied by a Plan its
bearing on the case was unintelligible, and consequently not under¬
stood by the Committee.
The evidence of Mr. Rendel, the engineer of the Opponents,
was, that a Floating Dock into which vessels could enter at high
water, with a sheltered roadstead in which they could at low water
ride safely until the Dock could be entered, would possess all the
advantages necessary for the establishment of a successful Port.
The evidence of Sir William Cubitt, Captain Robinson, and
Mr. Geddes, for the Promoters, established, that at Silloth Bay
there was a good and deep channel at low water, both opposite to,
and seaward of, the proposed Dock, and that that channel was
protected at low water by a sandbank nine feet high. In oppo¬
sition to this, Mr. Comrie, on the part of the Opponents, stated
the depth of this channel opposite the Dock to be in no place
more than nine feet, and Mr. Rendel said he did not sec the bank.
To remove the doubt raised by this evidence of Mr. Rendel as to
the bank, and of Mr. Comrie as to the depth of the channel,
Mr. Walker was sent down ; and accompanied by Mr. Comrie and
Captain Robinson, he surveyed the channel and bank, and reported
the result.
The facts as required to be ascertained and reported on by
Mr. AYalker were
" 1st. The depth of water in the channel of the Sol way Frith
oj)posite to the site of the proposed Dock for the space of half a
mile aiove and half a mile /jc/oiv the centre of it, the situation or
the Dock to be ascertained from the deposited Plans, such depth
to be adjusted to the level of low water, shown on Captain Robin¬
son's Chart, 1837.
" 2nd. The existence of the Bank, called Silloth Bank, and
the height to which it rises above low water of ordinary spring
tides, especially in the neighbourhood of the entrar e to the pro¬
posed Dock and the roadstead in Silloth Bay."
On the first head Mr. Walker reported as follows :—
6
EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMIIONS.
" If 500 yards be assumed as the width for ' channel,' the
smallest dejiths at low water in this width are,—
At half a mile west of entrance - - 14 feet
At a quarter of a mile loest of entrance - \5 „
Opposite -entrance - - - 12 „
At a quarter of a mile east of entrance - 14 ,,
At half a mile cMt of entrance - - 12 ,,
Average 2j fathoms or - - 131 „
" The depths increase gradually from the above depths to the
middle of the channel where the deepest soundings on each cross
section of the channel are as under,—
At half a mile luest of entrance - - 20 feet
At a quarter of a mile west of entrance - 20 ,,
Opposite entrance _ 24 „
At a quarter of a mile east of entrance 28 ,,
At half a mile east of entrance - - 28 ,,
Average of deepest soundings 4 fathoms or - 24 ,,
On the second head Mr. Walker says :—
" Silloth Bank does exist. At from half to three quarters of
a mile from the proposed entrance, it begins to appear at low
water, and rises gradually to nine or ten feet (its highest point
above low water), at apparently not less than two miles from the
entrance."
The channel and bank as reported on by Mr. Walker are
shown on the annexed Plan.
Two charts were laid by the Promoters before the Committee,
namely, the chart of Captain Eobinson as corrected by him to
1844, and the chart of Mr. Geddes, showing the state of the
channel in March last ; and Captain Kobinson explained to the
Committee, in his evidence for the Promoters by reference to the
chart of i\Ir. Geddes, in what respect the channel at that time
differed from the channel as shown on his chart of 1844. Mr.
AValker ¡daces the deep water channel somewhat further from the
shore than is sliown on Captain Robinson's chart, 1844, but
coinciding exactly with Mr. Geddes's chart as laid before the
Committee, and all agree in this (in opposition to Mr. Comrie, icho
pave only nine feet), that there is at low water a deep water channel
op¡)osite the Docks. According to Mr. Walker, at half a mile
above, twcntij-cipht feet deep, and at half a mile below, twenty feet
deep, thus forming a roadstead one mile long in front of and adjoining
the Dock, which roadstead in fact extends to the sea. Mr. Walker
confirms the statement of the Promoters, that Silloth Bank rises
to the height of nine feet and upwards at low water, thus forming
an effectual shelter at low water, and a very effectual breakwater
at higher states of the tide until the Dock can be entered.
d'he Promoters on hearing Mr. Walker's report read by the
Chairman of the Committee, establishing the above facts, enter-
SILLOTn BAT DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL.
7
tained no doubt that the decision of the Committee would he in
their favour, and therefore forehore to offer any observations on
the Report.
Mr. AValker in his Report speaks of the extension westward of
Skinhurness Spit, and of tlie consequent shallowing of the water
near it ; hut these facts had been previously brought before the
Committee by tlic Promoters, and explained by Captain Robinson.
]\Ir. AA'alker, in answer to a question from the Committee, explains
the effect of this extension to he merely the removal of tlie deep
water channel further from the shore. This lie states truly to he
not material, because tlie sill of the Dock is three feet above low-
water mark; which in effect means, that if there he a deep channel
at low water, it is immaterial with a Dock wliolly above low-water
mark, whether tlierc is shallow water or no water at low tide
between that deep channel and the Dock entrance, because in
either case the tide must rise to the requisite liciglit above the
Dock sill before a vessel can enter the Dock ; so that in fact, if
Skinhurness Spit were to extend down to the entrance of the
Dock, or even below it, and to change wliat is now five feet water
below low water mark into a sand hank three feet above low water
mark, it would not interfere with the entrance to the Dock
because tlie same tide that would take a vessel over tlie sill of
the Dock would carry it over the sand hank. Such an extension
of the hank, however, would he contrary to all former experience ;
for as the deep channel inclines towards Silloth Dank, Skinhurness
Spit extends westward, and as the deep channel inclines to the
Cumberland side, tlie spit is removed ; hut between Silloth Bank
and the Cumberland shore a deepi channel always has existed.
This cliannel being sheltered and well lighted and buoyed will he
always available as a roadstead in had weather, and as an approach
to any dock on tlie Cumberland shore.
The Promoters arc confirmed in tlicir opinion of Mr. AValker's
Report liaving been misunderstood, by the fact of Air. AA'alkcr
himself having stated, previous to the decision of tlie Committee,
that his report was in their favour, and having, since the decision
of the Committee, expressed his extreme surprise at the result.
The Promoters arc confident of tlieir ability, if an o])portunity he
afforded them, of sliowing that the Report of Mr. AValker fully
hears out and supports the case laid by them before the Committee
as to the depth and nature of the channel ojipositc to the ¡u'oposed
works.
Tlie Promoters beg most respectfully to remind the Committee
that this is not to be considered as a new undertaking, hut it is
the inhabitants of Carlisle wlio, ivitldn the limits of their own Port,
are seeking further and better Dock accommodation.
If the Promoters were not satisfied of the eligibility of the
proposed site, and that it will always possess a good roadstead and
8
evidence in the house oe coiimons.
approach, they would not risk their capital in the undertaking ;
hut they are perfectly satisfied on these heads, the risk if any being
theirs, and the advantage all on the side of the public.
The Promoters, therefore, very humbly but earnestly beg the
members of the Committee to consent to the recommittal of the
Bill, and to afford an opportunity of having this misunderstanding
explained and the miscarriage which has taken place corrected.
Copy of Statement delivered to Members of the House on Moving
for l\e-Committal.
CARLISLE AND SILLOTH BAY RAILWAY AND
DOCK BILL.
state3iext of the promotees in support of the motion
to recommit the bill.
The Chairman and the two Members of the Committee, who
heard the vdiole of the Case, and wlio alone decided on the
Preamble, have consented to the recommittal.
The Promoters are in fact the Trading Interests of the City
of Carlisle who seek, within the limits of the existing Port of Carlisle,
to make for themselves in Sillotli Bay, in the Sol way Frith, a
better Port than they at present possess in Port Carlisle ; all the
Ports on the coast of Cumberland are Tidal Harbours, but the
Promoters propose a Floating Dock.
Tlie Opponents of the measure are the owners of the Com¬
peting Harbour and Railway at iMaryport, which is fourteen miles
lower down the Frith, and who are afraid that the Trade will leave
their Harbour and go to the new and better Port.
The Committee were in favour of the Bill ; but on two points,
namely, the depth of the low water channel in Silloth Bay, and
the existence of a protecting bank, called Silloth Bank, there was
a conflict of evidence. To clear up this Mr. lYalker, the engineer,
was sent down to take soundings, and to report. His Report
clearly established the case made by the Promoters, but it is sup¬
posed that some observations of his relative to an altei'ation in the
low water channel, and to the extension of another sand bank,
near the proposed Dock, led the Committee to think that the bank
might some day interfere with the approach to the Dock, and
either render it useless, or necessitate the cutting of a channel
through the sands, and on these grounds, it is supposed, that they
rejected the Bill. If this were so, engineering evidence, to any
extent, can be produced to prove that there is nothing in these
objections, and it is only necessary to give the Committee an
opportunity to re-examine Mr. IValker, and the gentlemen who
accompanied him on his survey, and the Promoters feel assured
that the doubts of the Committee will be removed, and the case
for the Bill be clearly established. On these grounds the Pro-
silloth bay dock and railway bill.
9
meters respectfully request Honourable Members to support the
Committee by voting for the recommittal of the Bill.
Copy.
Proceedings in the House on Moving the Re-Committal.
Monday, 2dtli May, 1854.
Mr. Gore Lanyton.—Sir, I have to move for the recommittal
of this Bill at the instance of the Committee, in the absence of an
Honourable Member of the Committee, who is prevented from
attending to-day.
Sir, the Promoters in this case are the trading interests of
Carlisle, who by the Bill which was before the Committee sought
to make, within the limits of that existing Port, at a place called
Silloth Bay, a better Port than at present exists at Port Carlisle.
The present Ports on that coast are all tidal harbours, but in this
instance the Promoters have proposed to establish a floating
Dock.
The only opponents of the measure before the Committee were
certain parties owners of the adjoining and competing Harbour
and Railway at Maryport, and their object, no doubt, in opposing
the Bill was tlie fear that their trade would be taken away from
them by the Harbour proposed to be constructed under the
present Bill. When the Bill was before the Committee there was
a great conflict of evidence, and the report given by Mr. Walker,
the engineer, was laid before the Committee, that gentleman
having been sent down to examine and report upon the soundings
in the neighbourhood of the proposed works. Mr. Walker's report
was most decidedly favourable to the case of the Promoters of the
Bill, but it had been imagined that certain observations which had
fallen from him relative to proposed alterations in the low-water
channel, and the extension of a certain sand-bank, led the Com¬
mittee to think that the ap[)roaches to the Dock might at some
future period be interfered with, and they therefore rejected the
Bill. As the Promoters are perfectly satisfied tliat engineering
evidence to almost any extent can be produced before the Com¬
mittee to show that these objections are groundless, it is considered
only an act of justice to the parties concerned to ask the House to
agree to the recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. Dent.—Sir, I beg to second this motion. The reasons for
asking for the recommittal of the Bill are generally those which
have been stated by the honourable gentleman who has made this
motion,—it being supposed that the observations of Mr. AYalker
the engineer caused the Committee to reject the Bill, the Promo¬
ters of the Bill being satisfied that if the House agreed to its
recommittal, evidence could be adduced to show that the objections
contained in the report of Mr. Walker were entirely without
foundation.
10
evidence before the house of commons.
Mr. Green.—Sir, if this motion had been made by a foreign
party, or had emanated from a foreign source, I sliould certainly
have opposed it, but as the recommittal of the Bill is evidently
the wish of the original Committee to whom it was referred, I
am perfectly sure that the House will have no difficulty whatever
in agreeing to the motion.
An Honourable Member.—Mr. Speaker, it is the wish of the
Committee to whom the Bill was referred tliat the Bill should be
recommitted, and I think that as they are disinterested parties
who make the motion tliat the House ouffiit to a^ree to the
O o
expressed wish of the Committee.
Mr. G. H. Liddell.—Sir, without entering into the merits of
the case, I must say that I entirely concur in the observations
which have fallen from the Honourable Member for Lancaster
(Mr. Green).
Mr. Blackctt.—IMr. Speaker, althongh I do not speak as being
connected with the locality to which the Bill which has been
brought before the House refers, but simply on bebalf of the
coal interest, yet I cannot help thinking it of the greatest
importance that a satisfactory decision upon this matter should
be arrived at. As there seems to have been some misconception
of the report of the gentleman who was sent down to examine the
locality in question, I think it is very desirable that that should
be set right. I am, therefore, disposed to support the motion of
the Honourable Gentleman who moved for the recommittal of the
Bill. I think it especially of importance, not only to the parties
concerned in the carriage of coal from the district of Newcastle,
but also from other northern ports, to Ireland and elsewhere.
The motion icas agreed to.
Copy of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee
on Bc-Committal.
Friday 16/Ä June, 1854,
lord jocelyn in the chair.
CARLISLE AND SILLOTH BAY RAILWAY
(re-committed,)
AND DOCK BILL.
The Counsel and parties icere called "in.
The Committee Room was cleared ; after some time the
Counsel and parties were again called in.
Mr. Webster.—I regret to say, my Lord, that owing to the
indisposition of my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, he
is unable to attend, and therefore, with your Lordship's permis¬
sion, I will proceed with the case.
SILLOTH BAY DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL. 11
Chairman.—It having been communicated to mc that Mr.
AValker, who was sent down on the part of the Promoters of tliis
Bill, as well as on the part of the Opponents of the Bill, to decide
as to the position of the channel, and as to the depths of the
channel, and who, upon his return from that enquiry, gave evi¬
dence before us, considers that the Committee has come to a con¬
clusion from certain statements which he had made, which was
unexpected on his part, I am directed to state, that the Committee
are desirous to know whether Mr. Walker has any explanations to
offer in regard to the evidence he so gave; if so the Committee
are ready to hear him.
James Walker, Esq. examined by the Committee.
Chairman.—Perhaps I may just state to you in the first place,
that it having come to my knowledge from communications I had
received, that you were desirous to give some further explanations
in regard to the evidence which you gave to us on a former day,
I thought myself justified in placing myself in communication
with the other members of the Committee. I stated to those
gentlemen, that if the majority of the Committee thought it
desirable that an opportunity should be given for any further ex¬
planation by you, that I would be prepared to sit again as Chair¬
man of the Committee ; and I am desired now, on the part of the
Committee, to state that if you are desirous to give us evidence,
in regard to any thing you have said on your former examination,
we are prepared to hear it.—A. Then, my Lord, will you allow
me to say, that if the oliscrvations which I may have made after
the Committee had come to their decision have had any weight
upon your Lordship's mind at all after what your Lordship has
said, I must plead guilty to an irregularity in the first place.
After the Committee had resolved that the preamble ivas not
proved, and therefore I considered that the Bill was at an end, I
probably did, and in fact I do not say probably, but actually I
did talk with one and another more freely than I should have done
had the Bill been before the Committee, or had the whole thing
not been considered to have been decided. The whole of what I
remember to have said amounted to this :—that I had not been
present when the Bill was under the consideration of the Com¬
mittee,—that I had been appointed by the Committee to go
down and to ascertain certain facts, and that I had done that,
that when I came with my Ileport and delivered it to the Com¬
mittee, some questions were asked me, not as a surveyor but as an
engineer ; and that I was sorry I had answered those questions,
because I did not consider myself cnqiloyed as an engineer in the
case, but merely to make certain soundings and certain observa¬
tions, and to communicate the results to the Committee,— that I
12
EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
was not aware, not did I think that either the remarks I had
made, or the answers I had given to the few questions that were
put to me, were such as, per se, to have induced the Committee
to have come to the resolution they did come to. Now so much
I did say, hut I am not aware that I said anything more.
Q. Then is the Committee to understand that you wish to
correct any part of your evidence, or to explain any part of the
evidence which you gave on a former day?—A. No, my Lord, I
am not aware that the evidence wants any explanation.
Q. Then are the Committee to understand that you have not
expressed to any member of the Committee, or or to any person
connected with the Promoters or Objectors to the Bill, your wish
to reappear before the Committee and give any additional evi¬
dence?—A. I am not aware of having done so. In fact I could
not have the most distant idea that these questions would be put
to me. I take it that your Lordship and the Committee are well
aware of what my Keport is.
Q. Yes.—O. It merely stated bare facts ; perhaps your Lord¬
ship and the Committee would allow the evidence which I gave,
that is the answer to the few questions which were put to me to
be read, if they then appear to me to want any explanation, I
shall be hapjiy to give it.
Q. I wish to know whether you have expressed, out of doors,
or to any Member of this Committee, verbally or in writing, a wish
to be re-called before this Committee, in order to put your evi¬
dence straight?—A. To the best of my recollection and belief, cer¬
tainly not ; but if any gentleman, whether an honourable Member
of the Committee, or any gentleman below the bar, will say that
I have done so, he may arrest my memory ; and if I have ever
hinted anything of the kind, I should be very glad to re-say it.
As your Lordship knows, I have no interest in the matter
excepting as the agent of the Committee. I have not lent myself
to either the Promoters or the Objectors.
Q. You see it is a very serious thing, the allowing the recom¬
mittal of a Bill ; and it was only on the ground I have stated,
namely, that I was given to understand, and I believe other
members of the (Yminittee also were given to understand the
same thing, that you had expressed a wish to explain some of the
former evidence you had given, that I agreed to the recommital
of this Bill. Unless you do express that wish, I do not think, as
one of the members of the Committee, and I believe I may say
the same for the other members of the Committee, we do not
think that we are justihcd in setting aside the opinion we before
expressed, nor any ground, in fact, for rc-opening the question.—
A. Will your Lordship allow the evidence to be read : the point in
question, I believe, is as regards the Skinburness Shore, as I
think it is called, acting as a breakwater. Your Lordship knows,
SILLOTII BAY DOCK AKD RAILWAY BILL.
13
I dare say, tliat I did not expect to be examined liere as an
engineer at all, and bad not prepared myself in any shape or way
to be examined as an engineer ; and those answers I gave to the
engineering questions therefore were given oft-hand.
Q. I do not think there was any question as regards
engineering put to you. — A. Excuse me ; there were some
engineering questions put to me.
Mr. Webster.—Will your Lordship allow the evidence to be
read ?
Chairman.—Clear the room, if you please.
Mr. Walker.—I hope the Committee will allow me to go away
with a perfectly clear character.
Mr. JVebster.—AYe are bound, my Lord, as the Promoters of
the Bill, to give some explanation of our indueement to endeavour
to ffet the Bill recommitted, as we were most anxious to do.
O •'
AYliat we really feel is this:—AA^hen Mr. AA^alkeCs Beport is
understood, we think under the circumstances of the ease it will
be seen that there was great misapprehension of the B,eport, and
tliis quite independentl}' of his evidence ; and we are most anxious
for the sake of the Committee themselves, and of the public, that
we should be heard upon that point. There really may be no
misapprehension.
Chairman.—Clear the room, if you please.
The Committee-room was cleared. After some time, the Counsel and
Parties ivere again called in.
Mr. Walker.—I have taken the liberty of asking your Lordship
and the Committee to allow me to say one word only in exjftana-
tion, which is this :—There is an opinion that as I had reported
that Skinburness roads are filled up, and the channel removed,
that I had stated that the channel which would lead to those
proposed Docks is filled up. Xow, I think the Committee under¬
stand the difference between the channel and that which is above
the dock altogether the Skinburness roads, and that what I named
with regard to that filling up, does not refer to the channel. I
make that observation, not to correct anything I have said, but to
explain it. I cannot help thinking, my Lord, as your Lordship
asked inc those engineering questions, and as I answered them
quite off-hand, it would be better if you would allow me to have
the evidence read again.
Chairman.—The Committee have decided that you will take
into your own hand the notes of the evidence which you before
gave, that you will read the evidence, and that you will state to
the Committee whether there is any explanation that you wish to
make upon that evidence. Having yourself looked over it, and
read it, you will then state to the Committee whether there is
any explan.ation you wish to offer upon it.
14
EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMJIONS.
The evidence ichich had been given by the Witness on his previous
examination ivas handed to him.
Mr Walker.—Am I to read it aloud?
Chairman.—-íío, you will read it to yourself.
The Witness read the note of his former evidence.
Mr. Walker.—Reading what I say here, I observe that the
following question was put tome:—"Do you consider that the
shifting of the sands in front of the jn'oposed Silloth Docks has
been very great, from what you see, and on looking at the dif¬
ferent charts?" my reply is,—" I have no doubt of it ; I have no
doubt of the correctness of Captain Robinson's first survey ; and
as I have stated in that Report, there is no deep water now where
Captain Robinson shows that deepi water, owing to the movement
of Skinburness Spit going further to the westward." Now, I
wish to ex^ilain upon that, that the deep channel still exists, but
is moved outwards, that thougli there is the deep channel in the
front of the Docks, it is further out than where Captain Robinson
made his general survey ; further out, and that the water is shoaled
close to low water, and not in the channel.
Chairman.—You have stated that before. You have ah-eady
stated that in the answer to the question jiut to you before.
Air. Walker.—What strikes me upon this, my Lord, is that
the parties have an idea that the Committee have mistaken my
meaning there. Then, my Lord, with regard to the bank, when
I was asked whether it would act as a protection in that part of
the channel against the ¡prevailing winds, I said "It would; that
it would shorten the fetch, but, being near the entrance, as your
Lordship's sees, very low, I do not think it is a material break¬
water ; the tendency is to do good." Of which my explanation now
is, that I consider that at low water that hank forms, I might
say, an effectual breakwater to vessels lying within it. But that at
high water its protection as a breakwater is very much dimi¬
nished ; if it is low water, it is an effectual breakwater. I do not
see, my Lord, anything more really in the shape of explanation
that I have to give. I must however say, in regard to my own
character, and my character is in some degree in the hands of the
Committee, whose agent I am, that I should very much like to
know from what source it is stated that I ever said I wished to
correct my evidence before the Committee.
Chairman.—I think it is right to ex¡)lain in this room, in
public, that I was waited upon some weeks ago by the Promoters
of this Bill. I was then given distinctly to understand by the
Promoters of this Bill that Mr. Walker in his examination before
the Committee had given evidence which he believed had left a
wrong impression upon the mind of the Committee ; and that
owing to that wrong impression, their decision had been arrived
SILLOTH BiY DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL.
15
at. When I was informed that Mr. Walker had made that state¬
ment, and believing as I did, and as I know that the Committee
believed, that this was a very important Bill, I thought it my
duty to communicate ivitli the members of the Committee, and to
state that the members of the Committee, though I believed it a
most irregular proceeding, yet, that owing to the importance of
the Bill, I was prepared to sit again as Chairman if it was the
opinion of the majority that our decision had been arrived at
mainly upon Mr. Walker's evidence. I found the majority
of the Committee were desirous that we should sit again, that
they were perfectly ready to give their full time and attention
to what they considered to be a very great public matter. I
therefore made no objection to the re-committal of the Bill when
it was proposed in tiie House of Commons. I think it right
to state that I made no objection to the recommittal of the
Bill, because I distinctly understood that it was the wish of
Mr. AValker to come before this Committee to explain away the
evidence he had given or to offer some ex])lanations of it. When
Mr. Walker appears in this room, I find Mr. Walker distinctly
declares that he expressed no wish to explain aw^ay that evidence.
It was not indeed until I almost forced it from Mr. M^alker, that
he said he should like to have his evidence read over again to see
if there was anything he should like to explain away. Now we all
felt that Mr. Walker must have had that evidence before him, and
that he must have well known if there was anything he wished to
explain; and that if so, he would have explained it immediately upon
his appearance before the Committee. When Mr. IValker comes
before us we find, and Mr. Walker himself admits, that he never
wished it at all ; that, on the contrary, all he asks is to know who
has said he had wished to be examined. I say then that neither I
nor the Committee have been fairly dealt with by the Promoters of
this Bill in having been led into this irregularity—an irregularity
most injurious to the character of the House of Commons, and
most injurious to the Committees of that House—I must say, for
myself, that I have been led into that irregularity, and that I am
much to blame for having agreed to the recommittal of this Bill ;
but I do think that those gentlemen are far more to blame who
came to me and endeavoured to mislead mc, by informing me and
other members of the Committee, that Mr. Walker had given
evidence which he believed had been misunderstood and which he
wished to correct. I can only say that I tiiink the public must
acknowledge that the Committee have acted fairly and honestly
to all parties, and have even gone beyond the limits to which they
were justified in going from an anxiety to do what they believed
to be a public good. I again repeat then that wc have a great
right to complain of the mode in which the Promoters of the Bill
have acted.
16
EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. Webster.—My Lord, before these proceedings quite ter¬
minate, after the strong expession of opinion your Lordship has
given upon the conduct of the Promoters of this Bill, I am sure
your Lordship will allow me to say one word on their behalf.
Chairman.—-Clear the room, if you please.
Mr. Webster.—My Lord, after the announcement just made as
to the decision the Committee have come to, I am sure your
Lordship will see that it is but just, after the strong observations
which have been made by your Lordship respecting those parties
who waited upon your Lordship, that I should be allowed to recall
one or two circumstances to the recollection of the Members of
the Committee, who, as well as your Lordship, I believe, were
seen iqion this subject. Allow me to remind your Lordship that
this was a decision come to by three of the Honourable Members
before whom I have the honour to appear.
Chairman.—You must clear the room, if you please.
Mr. Webster.—Allow me one word or two, my Lord, as regards
the representations made by tlie parties who waited upon your
Lordship. There was a statement, a printed statement, which
was circulated, and which was placed in the hands, I have no
doubt, of every Member of the Committee. My Lord, the state¬
ment I wish to call your Lordship's attention, and the attention
of the Committee generally to is this. I am sure your Lordship
will allow me to read it. In common justice, after the strong
observations your Lordship has thought it ju)ur duty to make on
the conduct of the Promoters, you will not deny me that. After
stating general matters, which I will not go into, on page 3, there
is this statement : " The Promoters are confirmed in their
opinion."
Mr. Denison.—This is another statement. I have not seen
this statement.
Mr. Lavgton.—What is that statement you allude to ?
Mr. Webster.—It is headed " Statement of reasons for recom¬
mitting the Bill."
Mr. Walker.—I have never seen it.
Mr. Webster.—It is impossible, my Lord, after the observations
that your Lordship has thought it your duty to make, that those
observations should go forth without some explanation. The
paper I am reading from is the " Statement of Beasons for recom¬
mitting the Bill;" and I am sure your Lordship will, having felt
it your duty to make such very strong observations upon what is
not so very unusual a course, tlie recommittal of a Bill, allow me
to read one sentence from that " Statement."
Chairman.—On the part of the Committee the proceedings are
closed.
Mr. Webster.—My Lord, if your Lordship retires declining to
hear what I have to say, the decision having been come to, and
SILLOTir BAY DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL.
17
one Honourable Member being present who was not here on the
former occasion, and who, therefore, was not competent to vote
upon this question, I must, on behalf of my clients, most decidedly
but respectfully protest against such an order of proceeding.
Your Lordship has made some excessively strong and excessively
severe, and I will say some excessively unfounded observations,
which must have been, of course, in consequence of a misappre¬
hension of the nature of the document that had been circulated
by the Promoters of this Bill, and upon which statement the
House had agreed to the recommittal of this Bill. Because it is not
a question for your Lordship and the Committee only, but it is a
question for the House ; and if the Promoters have been amenable
and irregular in their proceedings, they are responsible to the
House, and to the House only, through the Committee, and to the
public through the House, and not simply to this Committee.
The statement which the Promoters have put forward, and to
which I wish to call your attention, is this: " The Promoters are
confirmed in their opinion of IMr. Walker's Report having been
misunderstood, by the fact of Mr. "Walker himself having stated
previous to the decision of the Committee, that his Report was in
their favour, and having since the decision of the Committee
expressed his extreme surprise at the result." The Promoters
" are confident of their ability, if an opportunity be afforded them,
of showing that the Report of Mr. Walker fully bears out and
supports the case laid by them before the Committee as to the
depth and nature of the channel opposite to the proposed works."
Now, my Lord, that was the statement upon which we prayed for
leave again to come before the Committee ; and the question
which your Lordship has put to Mr. Walker is as to whether he
himselt expressed his desire to come and explain his evidence.
What I ask then is, as a simple act of justice, if your Lordship
thinks you have been misled by any statement of this kind, that
it may be open to the parties to explain it ? This is the statement
which the parties have put forward.
Mr. Lanyton.—Though I was the member moving the recom¬
mittal of the Bill, this is the first time I have ever seen the state¬
ment which you are now reading. It is now for the first time
placed in my hand.
Mr. Irving.—I ask, as an act of common justice to myself and
those who waited upon your Lordship and the other honourable
members of the Committee, and who laid before you the state¬
ment upon which they prayed the recommittal of the Bill, that I
may he examined and jjrove the statement before you. It is due
to my character, having appeared here before you many days as
one of the jwomoters of the Bill, and I ask it as a matter of
common justice at your hands.
C
18
EVIDENCE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Chairman.—I have stated distinctly before to the public the
grounds on which I felt justified in not opposing the recommittal
of this Bill. In agreeing to what was an irregularity, I stated
distinctly the grounds on which I agreed to sit again as the
Chairman. We have bad Mr. Walker before us ; we have heard
what Mr. Walker has said, and the Committee have decided that
there is no ground for changing their opinion. And on the part
of the Committee it is my duty to say that they have seen no
ground for changing that opinion which they originally came to,
namely, that the preamble of this Bill is not proved.
Mr. Irving.—Am I to understand that your Lordship refuses
to hear my statement ?
Chairman.—I cannot hear you now.
After the Commiitee had broken up the folloicing conversation across
the ta,ble took place :—
Mr. Irving.—Your Lordship does great injury to my character.
I have borne a good character in Carlisle for 20 years, and your
Lordship's observations have wounded my feelings. I was just
now calling to Mr. lYalker's recollection what took place the day
the Bill was thrown out. I recollect, in conjunction with our
Solicitor, expressing extreme surprise after the two facts were left
to him to report upon, that he should have given evidence leading
the Committee to a different conclusion to that which he expected
they would have come to himself, and he said " if any remarks of
mine in ray report or in my evidence have misled the Committee
in any way, I shall be very glad to correct it." And upon that I
made the application.
Mr. Walker.—It all hangs by the " If."
Mr. Irving.—That was his statement.
Mr. Walker.—I am perfectly ready to do it now.
Chairma.n.—I do not think it can injure you as you were
fighting for your clients, and of course you did your best.
Mr. Irving.—When your Lordship comes to reflect upon the
observations that yon have made after you have heard what Mr.
lYalker has now stated, you will see that you have done me great
injury.
Mr. Durnford.—As I was one of the parties who waited upon
yon, I feel that I am personally concerned in this matter. I would
not, for all the Bills I have charge of, be a i)arty to any misrepre¬
sentation to the House. When I spoke, I spoke upon the autho¬
rity of Mr. Irving, who has now informed your Lordship of what
Mr. AValker said, that if the Committee had misunderstood his
evidence he was ready and willing to explain it.
Chairman.—Privately, I am very sorry for this misunderstand¬
ing—for it evidently was a misunderstanding among all parties—
but I O'vn I blame myself for the recommittal of the Bill.
SILLOTH BAY DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL.
19
Mr. Durnford.—We could not dictate to the Committee, of
course.
Chairman—I gave way tö what I thought to be a public
matter.
Mr. Durnford.—Perhaps your Lordship will allow me to say
further, that if the Counsel for the Bill had been allowed to draw
out of Mr. Walker what he might have stated upon fuller expla¬
nation, your Lordship might have taken a different view of the
matter. But we have had no communication with Mr. Walker
whatever, as we looked upon him as a public officer having
duties to perform, to do even-handed justice between both
parties.
Chairman.—You recollect the understanding on which Mr.
Walker was sent down, and as to your character, I do not believe
your character Avill be in the least hurt ; you Avere doing the best
you could for your clients, and plainly it Avas a misunderstanding.
3Ir. Durnford.—Will your Lordship do us this justice, and
say that no representation has been made to you at variance Avith
that statement which the Counsel for the Bill has read to your
Lordship ?
Chairman.—I cannot say that, because I was distinctly led
to understand that Mr. Walker himself desired to explain his
evidence.
Mr. Dent.—^Decidedly.
Mr. Irving.—IMr. "Walker stated that if his evidence Avas calcu¬
lated to mislead he Avas sorry for it, and Avould be happy to
correct it.
Mr. Walker.—I say so noAV.
Mr. Neivall.—Perhaps I may interpose as our Counsel are not
here ; they immediately left on hearing the decision of the Com¬
mittee.
Chairman.—This is only a private conversation. I do not
believe there is the least fear of your character being hurt ; you
acted for your clients and there has been a misunderstanding
between you. But I Avas Avrong in agreeing to the recommittal
of the Bill ; but I did so as it Avas communicated to me that Mr.
Walker had said that he had something to say in explanation.
3Ir. Irving.-—Do you noAV think Ave ought to be permitted to
ask him ?
Chairman.—He was sent doAvn by all parties, and 1 fairly put
it to him Avhen I Avas in the chair, " Is there anything you Avish
to correct?" and the only thing Avas Avhat he had stated before in
his evidence.
Mr. Irving.~Do you not think that our Counsel ought to be
alloAved to ask him some questions ?
Chairman.—Not any, because he Avas sent down by both
CARLISLE AND SILLOTII BAY
RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
COPIES of Official and other Documents relative
to the a]iiioiiitmciit of Nu. .Jaiiks Walkkr, C.E.,
to take the SoundiiiEjs in Silluth Pay, and to the
Kc-coiiimittal of the Bill ; and the Short-hand
Writer's Report of the Proceedings in the House
of Coiuinons, and of the Select Committee on the
Bill, relative thereto.