Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-08 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT AND THE RAILWAYS

The railway interest, or at least a large proper
tion of it, has recently become greatly dissatisfied
with its position, and has embodied its views in
the form of a deputation to government, which
waited on the President of the Board of Trade on
Friday. It is unfortunate for the shareholders of
this part of the national wealth, which now amounts
to the enormous sum of £300,000,000, that many of
the evils under which it is suffering arises from a
system of legislation which cannot be obviated ;
such as the enormous sums added to their original
cost by legal, parliamentary, and other expenses,
which absorbed a very large amount of the ordin-
ary, and original share capital, and forced the
company to obtain additional amounts by giving a
preferential interest or dividend ; these are errors
which in their present state scarcely admit of
any parliamentary interference. But it does not
follow that the railway interest has no grievances
that may be remedied; such as the rating, taxing,
and general management of the property. The
deputation urge with great force, the necessity of
an inquiry into these things, to see what can be
done for its relief. Oae of the complaints raised
is that of competition ; but this must, as far as
legislation is concerned, be prospective ; though
we admit that the most reckless course has been
pursued in the construction of numerous com-
peting lines, and by which several important
districts have been left entirely without railway
communication. The complaint that the dividend
on ordinary share capital is only 3/. 12s per cent., ad-
mits of several explanations ; for on some lines.
there are no dividends at all. It appears to us that
this portion of railway property is very materially
injured by the rate of interest paid for loins, and
preferential capital, in the present state of the
money market, which is now affecting every branch
of trade and industry, and must, therefore, seriously
injure railway property. As regards the tax upon
passengers, we think it most impolitic ; and to
inflict it upen one part of the kingdom, and not
on the other, is a great injustice. But while the
railway interest has some cause of complaint
to make, there are certain evils which can
only be corrected by the shareholders them-
selves. It is well known that railway property,
as an investment, has become: an object of exclu-
sion amongst a certain class of capitalists, from its
uncertain value, and the contingencies which sur-
round it : and until some kind of consolidation and
security against these can be obtained, there can be
but little hope of its rising in value : as we have
repeatedly stated, railway property is a sealed book
to the public generally; let it then be reduced to
simplicity, instead of covering it as at present, with
a veil of mystery,—Bankers' Circular.

MANAGE.`,IENT OF OUR DOCKS.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—lf the Town Dues are stolen from Liv

pool, and if Manchester men are to sit on our
Dock Committee, it will be brought about by
blunders of our o►vn people, and we shall have
ourselves to thank for it. Witness the following
in the Dock Committee proceedings on Thursday
last—

SURPLUS CARGOES.—A letter, was read from Messrs,
Seutor and Macmillage, stating that they were the con-
signees and agents of the ship York, which lately dis-
charged her cargo of cotton at the Albert dock ; that there
were in excess five bales of cotton, for which there
were no bills of lading, and therefore no con-
signees; that the master of the vessel having
the best right to hold the overplus, applied to
the Albert dock committee for their delivery to him,
but that the committee refused ; that the Albert Dock
committee thought they would be liable if an owner should
turn up, and although the owners of the vessel offered to
give the committee a guarantee that they should be held
harmless if any claim should be afterwards made, they
still objected to deliver up the surplus cargo. A letter on
a similar subject was also •read from Messrs. Miller,
Houghton, and Co. A long and irregular conversation

took place in reference to the practice of the Albert Dock
committee ; and a case which had been submitted to
counsel in London, and the opinion thereon, advising the
trustees to adhere to their present practice of retaining the
surplus cargo, but advising them to get a clause inserted
in their next act of parliament to that effect, were read to
the general committee. The subject was ultimately
deferred until the solicitor should be able to be present
and give his advice on the legal points involved in the
matter.

In plain English, a cargo if five bales short, the
ship is compelled to make up the loss ; but if five
bales over, the dock takes it. Why ? There is no bill of
lading which the captain can show, therefore they
don't belong to him; and there is no bill of lading
i❑ existence, therefore they don't belong to anybody
—for if any one goes to claim, the Docks say,
"Show your bill of lading." " Oh, but there is no
bill of lading," says the owner. " Then go about
your business," say the Docks, and there it ends ;
there can be no claimant according to dock laws, and
therefore ships must pay losses and the Docks
take the profits. Don't you pity poor shipowners?
—Yours truly,

WAPPING, ALBERT, AND STANLEY.