The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

obtained the right to vete any resolution passed by the
Dock Committee, and thus, for all practical purposes, kept
the whole of the power in their own hands.
Sir James Graham enquired if Liverpool was not repre-
sented at the time referred to by the learned Serjeant,
namely, 1825, by Mr. Huskissen?
Serjeant Wrangham said it was, and added that it was
owing to the intervention of Mr Huekisson that the
merchants agreed to accept a measure which only gave
them eight trustees out of the twenty-one who were to corn-
poseth e Dock Committee But in point f fact, it was "Hob-
son's choice," the merchants knowing very well that it was
impossible to obtain increased dock accommodation, for
which there was an urgent necessity, wi hout they con-
sented to the restrictions which the corporation imposed
The player exercised by the corporation in construction
and extension of docks, had for many years operated very-
injuriously upon the shipping and trading interests. Toe
construction of the present Canning dock was prop, sed for
years before it was assented to, the most strenuous oppo-
sition having been offered to the project by the warehouse
interest, which had peat influence in the corporation. Of
late years, other alterations had taken place in the con-
stitution of the Dock Committee. The numbers had been
raised from twenty-one to twenty-four; but the corpora
tion, by refusing to give up their right to veto the resolu-
tions of the committee, still retained the reel and
substantial power, and effectually prevented the
Dock Committee from proposing any bill. He
trusted that he would be believed when he assured
the committee that he was not there for the purpose of
making charges against individuals, but he did con end
that the system was altogether bad, and that it was most
improper to place in authority over the trade and commeree
of the port of Liverpool a body of men who owed their very
existence to the support of the municipality. It must
necessarily be a bad system, because whenever the interests
of the corporation and of the municipality clashed—and
there had been many instances in which such cases had
occurred—it was only in human nature to exp ct hat the
corporation should prefer the local interests of their con-
stituents in preference to the larger ‘nterests of the general
public. Sneh positions were altogether incompatible, and
the promoters of the present btll now asked the
committee to make the endre change of the system. He
did not intend to vilify individuals, but he imptved all the
evils to the vice of the system itself, as exemplified iu the
operation of the Dock Trust, and he asked for a change
bi.cause there was an incompatibility between the commer-
cial and the municipal trusts. Independently of all a
priori reasoning, and looking to the simple facts alone,
he thought there wes quite enouge to satisfy the commit-
tee that the time had arrived when the systsm to which
his remarks applied should no longer be permitted to exist.
The interest 01 the corporation was pus ely local, and it was
not possible that local interest con d be exercised without
prejudice to the larger and more important, national jute
rest. It was only necessary to refer the committee to
the mode in which the corporation had dealt with
the question of the construction of docks,- to prove the
truth of this assertion. In tne first instance, they gave
the land for dock purposes, and it was only in 1784, after
the port was firmly established, that they were fount for
the first time stipulating that they should receive a price
for it. But when they did sell the land they s Id it as
a corporation to themselves, as dock t ustees, and conse-
quently left the Ito-ties who paid the dues entirely at their
mercy. As another instance of the vice of the system he
would briefly refer the committee to the conduct of the cor-
poration in reference to the audit commissioners. In
1811 an audit commissioner wa appoint d o control the
accounts of the Dock Committee, but when the commis-
sioners attempted to perform their duty honestly the cor-
poration obtained an act in which they got rid of he board
altogether. In the evidence of Mr. Braneey Moore,
the honourable gentleman candidly admitted that the
persons who had derived the greatest benefit from
the dock estate were the corporation of Liverpool them-
selves, The merchants were much dissatisfied, because
they thought the corporation ought not to be the buyers as
well as the sellers of the same property, and the passing
of the Municipal Reform Bill had made matters worse,
because, now, toe interests of the ratepayers only were
represented by the corporation, whereas the interests of
the corporation were foimerly in union with those of the
merchants. He contended, that fir years the dock trading
and commercial in ererts had been sacrificed to the Liver-
pool ratepayers, and then proceeded to argue that there
were other places in which docks could be constructed in
the immediate vicinity of Liverpool. There was the
Cheshire side of the river, wilier, the late Mr. Telford
always said was the proper side to have built Liverpool
upon, and where, if docks had been constructed, they
would have been protected from the prevailing winds.
The learned sergeant ev.is proceeding to enter into the
Birkenhead question, when he was interrupted by
Sir J. Graham, who observed. that as it was not possible
for the learned gentleman to conclude his case during that
sitting, the committee had better adjourn at once, before
the Birkenhead case was opened.
Mr. Sergeant Wranghatn, said the Birkenhead question
was a very important part of his case, anti it was impossible
that he could conclude it to-day
The committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock on
Monday. Piir James G -ahem stated that they would not
meet on Tuesday, the Queen's birthday, but they would
site,rbwyi-tdha.thye permission of the house, on Wednesday, the
Derby-day.