I REPORT — 1856. 



Mersey having of late years been the subject of much complaint, attracted 

 the attention of the Corporation of Liverpool, who have, from the year 1818 

 to the present time, in their anxiety to improve the navigation of the river, 

 expended large sums of money in consulting the most eminent engineers, 

 and in obtaining their reports, opinions and surveys on the state of the river; 

 viz. in the year ISIS, the late Mr. Whidbey, the contractor of the Break- 

 water at Plymouth ; in 1832, a second report from him, in conjunction with 

 Messrs. Chapman and John Rennie; in 1823, by Mr. Chapman ; in 1826, by 

 Mr. Whidbey, and Messrs. George Rennie and Giles; in 1826, a second 

 report from Mr. Giles; in 1827, by Mr. Robert Stevenson, also by Messrs. 

 "Walker and Mylne; in 1826, by Captain Denham, R.N., and in'l837, by 

 Messrs. Mylne and G. Rennie. The late Mr. Telford, Messrs. Nimmo and 

 Fowls have also been consulted by the Corporation and reported thereon 

 (No. 2). 



It appears from the evidence (No. 3) taken before a committee of the 

 House of Commons in the session of 1838, on a bill of the Grand Junction 

 Railway Company, in which they proposed to erect a bridge over the 

 Mersey at Runcorn, and to take a branch of the railway over it (which was 

 rejected), tiiat the area of the Mersey from Black Rock at the Mouth to 

 Woolston Weir above Warrington Bridge (where the tide ceases), is 2f?,062 

 acres, over which, at a 22-feet tide, 736,945,215 tons of water flow, and 

 that no less than 13,440 acres of marshes have been abstracted from the 

 tideway, equal to about 25 millions of tons of water, calculated at the same 

 tide. 



For the purpose of more clearly showing the want of a proper authority to 

 control and improve the navigation of the Mersey, we have thought it de- 

 sirable to make extracts from the Reports of the engineers ; all of whom 

 are of opinion that the principal causes for obstructing the navigation of the 

 river are the embankments made for enclosing large tracts of marsh lands 

 over which the tide formerly flowed ; the numerous piers, jetties and che- 

 vrons which impede the flux and reflux of the tide, and decrease the water 

 space. They observe, that all the channels through which water flows must 

 be of a magnitude proportional to the quantity passing through them ; that 

 if a certain portion of either side of a river or harbour be embanked, and the 

 tide be prevented from flowing over it in its usual way, a diminished quan- 

 tity of water will flow in from the sea equal to the cubic contents of what 

 has been embanked, consequently there will be a less quantity to ebb out, 

 thereby decreasing the scouring effect, and preventing the suliage and allu- 

 vial matter being washed down with sufficient force to prevent the old chan- 

 nels becoming choked up. 



They further state, that the preservation and improvement of navigable 

 channels depend entirely upon the flux and reflux of the tide and the dis- 

 charge of fresh waters, which cause an eff'ectual scour. That in no case can 

 there be too much backwater, it being well known that a number of rivers 

 and harbours have been ruined from the want of preserving the backwater. 

 Two harbours are noticed by Mr. Whidbey, viz. Portsmouth, as having 

 been seriously injured, and Rye, as having been entirely ruined by encroach- 

 ments on the mud land. 



jReport dated llthJuhj, 1818 (No. 2). — Mr. Whidbey says, the Mersey is 

 an inlet of the sea, rather than a river, being kept open entirely by the 

 quantity of water that flows into it, and not by the trifling streams which it 

 receives at Warrington and Frodsham Bridges ; that tidal harbours are deep 

 or otherwise in proportion to the quantity of water that flows into them from 



