Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

RATING MEETING OF THE' CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE.

A meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was con-
vened in the cotton sales' rooms. Exchange-buildings,
at twelve o'clock, yesterday, for the purpose of consider-
ing the question of Dock rating, and instructing the
Council of the Chamber what steps, if any, ought to
be taken with regard to it. Among the gentlemen
present were : Messrs. Charles Robertson, Charles Hol-
land, B. Hall, Forwood, Danson, Johnson, C. R. Hall,
Francis Boult, Tomlinson, Edward Heath, Harding,
Beloe, Bouch, Campbell, Derbyshire, Gill, Hornby,
Brown, and Smith.
Thc

general attendance was very limited. The Chair
was taken by the President of the Chamber, Charles
Robertson, Esq.
The Chairman said : You are met together in con-
sequence of an advertisement summoning the members
of the Chamber to-day, to consider the, question of
Dock Rating, and to instruct
_the Council what steps, if
any, should be taken thereon. You are probable aware
that in consequence of the report of a committee of the
Rouse of Commons made in June, 1858, which decided
in favour of levying rates on all property, whether
national or otherwise, throughout the kingdom, bills have
been brought in by the government, making all property,
with certain exceptions which are stated in one of the
clauses of the bill, liable to .rates throughout the king-
dom, whether local or general. A bill which has been
introduced by the chairman of the Poor Law Board has
passed the second reading, and will be committed next
Friday evening. I believe a clause in that bill, although
there is some doubt about it, will exempt such property
as the Liverpool docks from the operations of such a
rate. The words of the clause are as follows : "Any
exemptions parochially or general, or confirmed by any
-actment contained in any private or local act of par-
It is supposed that under that clause the
siverpool docks will be exempted. But whether that
will be the case or not, a private bill having a special
reference to the Liverpool docks has been introduced, and
will be read a second time to-night, by which those docks
which have hitherto been exempted from all rates paro-
chial or mnnicipal, will henceforth be liable to contribute
their share to the local rates. The subject was brought
before the council, and the council was requested to con-
sider it with the view of seeing whether they could sup-
port the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in their
opposition to the bills for dock rating. The question was
one of some importance, and the council in the view that
it had created a good deal of difference of opinion
of doors, were unwilling to commit them-
to taking any action on the one side or
'r, without referring the matter to their con-
oinnents and obtaining their view of the case, and taking
the instructions which they might think proper to give.
In consequence, we have summoned this meeting, and
we are now prepared to receive any resolutions which
may be submitted by any member of the chamber upon
this occasion. Having thus stated the objects of the
-,teting, I might leave you to initiate such measures
-fight think best on this question, and, as president;
of this chamber, I might perhaps, under cover of my
official position, content myself with acting merely as the
organ for the expression of yeur opinions, without taking
she opportunity of giving expression to any of my own.
Bat it seems to me that it would neither be respectful to
you nor fair to myself to take that course. (Hear,
hear.) I shall, therefore, in as summary a manner
as I possibly can, give expression to my own views upon
the subject. I confess that I have not been able to refer
this question of dock rating to any general principle. I
I am not able to see that any law of political economy
is contravened, either by the rating of the docks, or by
exemption. If there is any principle involved, I
am sure there are gentlemen here who can elicit it, and
I shall be happy to have the benefit of their clearer per -
ntions of the case. It seems to me, after having paid'
attention to what has been said and written upon
that, there are so many debateable points
either side, and so much affirmed which looks
do_weighty and convincing upon the one side, until you
find it opposed by something which, looks equally perti-
bent and forcible upon the other, that it is very
for me, - arrive at

le othE

)61th sides

raised on

at least,. to
anything like a general principle in reference to this
question, and I am therefore compelled to take what will
seem, the lawer ground of expediency. On that ground,
then, I am. opposed to the rating of the docks. (Hear,
bear.) I may mention two or three points by way of
Zhrstration, to show that there are many of the points
which. are put forward very prominently, and insisted
upon on either side, which are not quite so free of diffi-
culty-as may be supposed. It is stated that the Liverpool
docks are a national property, as distinguished from a
private or local property. I wish to know whether by
ibis there is meant that there is no distinction between
them and such establishments as the houses of Parliament,
the courts of law, the Town-hall, and such institutions
which are available for the public use, and
which produce no direct benefit to any class
or individual ? Can the same be said of the docks of
Liverpool ? Are there no persons benefited by
is there no class which derives an income from
.eix revenue, and which has therefore a special interest
a their mainteance and their working ? Is it permitted
ter the sake of argument .to put in the same category
institutions which have and which have not a certain
revenue ; and those which are applicable, for general
mrposcs only, ,with those which are applicable for general
arposes, but also' indirectly for the benefit of a special
,? ft may be said that the docks being national
property ought not to be subjected to local rates ;. but
will it not be said with some truth that the poors' rate
may be said to be in that sense 'a general rate, that
although it is levied and administered in
certain definite localities for the sake of a more economical
expenditure, yet inasmuch as it is imposed by the legisliture
upon the whole community for the benefit of the poor of
that community, it may in that sense be considered as a
- -I rate, and if the legislature were to-morrow to
the burthen to the consolidated fund, and ten-
s administration it would be nothing more
constitutional in it than in the present plan, for
stance, of paying the Irish constabulary, the' metropo-
itan police force, and many of the borough and rural
district police out of the consolidated fund. If so; that
would very much weaken the 'argument of those who
would oppose the imposition of a local rate upon the w-
eaned national property. Again it is affirmed
that the docks produce 'pauperism, and, there-
fare, ought to be called upon to contribute their fair
Share to the support of the pauperism which they help to
create. Now, is it true that the docks produce or
augment pauperism any more than improvements in
agriculture, or discoveries in science produce or promote
it ? May it not with greater truth be said, that the docks
help to rescue many persons, by the employment they
give, from pauperism, which must inevitably follow if they
were not supported by public works (Hear, hear,) Would
it not be fairer to tax the property created by the
industry of that large mass of population which has
thus been brought together property mainly created by
their industry for the support of the poor when in sick-
ness and out of employment, than to tax the instruments
of that produce ? For, after all, what is a dock but
an instrument for facilitating the loading and unload-

them