10 REPORT — 1856. 



Report dated 26th June, 1826 (No. 2). — Messrs. Whidbey, G. Rennie and 

 Giles make strong observations on the jetties, piers and chevrons from Fid- 

 ler's Ferry to Halton Point, which they think should be removed. They 

 also notice the land embanked by Sir R. Brooke, and the encroachments 

 made by the Mersey and Irwell Company, also at Ince Quay, Tranmere Bay, 

 Wallasey Pool, and Seacombe. 



They recommend that a quay or other boundary-line along the whole of 

 the shores of the river Mersey and its inlets within the influence of the tide, 

 should be accurately defined upon plans confirmed by Parliament. In order 

 also that this important object may be effected in the most conciliatory and 

 equitable manner, it should as far as possible be concerted witii the land- 

 owners upon the principle of compensation lor such lands as may be required 

 for that purpose. 



Report dated ith October. 1826 (No. 2). — Mr. Giles is of opinion, that by 

 the means of a shore and river- wall such a uniformity of flood and ebb cur- 

 rent will be established up and down the river as to produce tlie best scouring 

 effect of the tide and land waters, and particularly upon the ebb tide, which 

 will be directed more forcibly upon the south-east end of the Liverpool 

 shore than at present, so as not only to prevent a further accumulation of 

 bank, but most probably to lessen the present extent and height of it. That 

 the further result of forming such uniform lines of shore and river-wall will 

 equalize and distribute the currents more over the river above Liverpool in 

 particular, so as to prevent in a great degree the accumulation of mud and 

 other sediment under the river-walls, and at the entrance to the docks gene- 

 rally, and at the same time render the navigation of vessels more direct and 

 easy than can be the case through the various partial forces of currents and 

 eddies of the present tideway. 



Report dated December 1826 (No. 2). — Messrs. Rennie and Giles have 

 given particular consideration to the sea channels, and to the river from Black 

 Rock to Runcorn, and from thence to Woolston Weir, where the tide ceases. 

 They say it is admitted by all intelligent and impartial men, that the pre- 

 servation and improvement of the navigable channels of a river depend en- 

 tirely upon the flux and reflux of the tidal waters, and the discharge of 

 fresh waters, and that these have the most powerful effect during high spring 

 tides and rainy seasons in scouring and deepening the channels through 

 which such waters must flow. It is scarcely possible that a case can exist 

 where a port or river can have too much backwater. There is a material 

 tendency of the flood tide to drive in from the sea portions of sand, and a 

 similar tendency of the inland waters to bring down sand and alluvial matter, 

 and these find upon some parts of the shore of a river places and eddies 

 where certain depositions of them will take place, and thus diminish the 

 capacity of the river to that degree as will nearly balance or bring into 

 equilibrium the content of water in the river with the power or force of 

 currents which that content will produce both in its flowing into and ebbing 

 out of the river. Taking it therefore as an axiom that no such thing can 

 occur as a harbour having too much backwater, except what may be pro- 

 duced occasionally by mountain torrents, but not by the reflow of tidal waters, 

 the general principle that the tide of a river, particularly in the upper parts 

 of it, should be carefully protected by all possible means, is applicable in its 

 fullest extent in the case of the Mersey, the fact of there being no excess 

 of backwater in the Mersey having been fully ascertained. 



It is too obvious to need argument, that water ebbing from the higher 

 parts of the Mersey is infinitely more valuable than from the lower parts foB 



