The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-17 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF TILE BRITISH PRESS.

ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS.

9114—Your experience of public affairs must render you aware
erf ILTeet, Mich others leas versed in them arrive at but late, and
eft pi' if at nil. The fact I allude to, is the actual simplicity of
ansbjeet of every controversy, when divested of the !link mist
1 by the seal or indiscretion of the interested advocates on
artker Mk.
Thu, it has fared with the coiestion of the proposed construction
u: new Wet Docks at St. Catherine's, and to the delusion thus
•t idea can elan be attributed the partial hostility they have
tashporoofpl tywiignhhgicchlialivilifisheP.°Nuest sepilidn:toeinmirte!.
ies them. The objection recently made, in an muck in the
#
1.1'.:1116
74: ibnetgitheitcoßPerkaPanristFridunherced'edeasgai.,pttiohtalneirs,dtgTfulndasid apply to all the beneficial (nose-
derived to the public from rival inns, rival coaches, and
pm theatres—in short to all that collision of vipital and ingenuity,
no less useful to the State than ultimately to the iodrviduils
*tandem
Thg Apprehension expressed he the same article, that increase of
twitter cannot be anucipated, is equally futile : it is matter of
notoriety, that every successive insurance Company has created its
yob cennexton, and likewise actually incremed the aggregate
*Mown of geseral business; thus incidentally benefiting the
older establishments. en it will be with the Docks : increased faci.
Milk and diminished dues, will soon additional trade to the port
el London from futrign ports, and enable the metropolis to regain
that urcud commercial pre.trumence which a sales of mi,conduct
nal etrivuely affected.
Wits a view, therefore, to remove the delusion than prevailing
on this subject, and to afford a distinct elucidation of the merits of
the ineseure, I am induced to request your imiertion of the follow-
ing state:neet of facts, from which your readers will be enubled to
forts their own conclueiune on the subjert
In the tirst place. the whsk opposition to the new docks ema-
nates tiol3l the London Docks, direclly by the petitinn to Perlin-
netteof the Director of that Company. mod ittairecile by the in.
tame of its numerous body of Proprietors.
411 the other petitions against the new Docks have no other ob-
ject than to require modifications of clauses, declaring and saving
its rights of public bodies, or to tier claims for compensation on
tae part of individuals who apprehend injury or inconvenience
!corn the passing of the Act. These public bodies and WI.
...ends, thus alive to their own interests, very properly seek to
tna`:e the best bargain in their power foe themselves lie their coned.
I rata ; their proposed clause. will no doubt be ably argued by
...Jame!, and jeeficiuusle settled by the Committee, with a view to
t ach particular den or ease, leaving the principle of the Bill on.
oitehed. •
'l'o revert, therefore, to the London Dock Company. as the only
budy that enpug .a such principle, their resistance to it is founded
sin no otter or better plea, than that they have already ample
means of accommodating the trade of London—that they have ex.
eroded a vast sum in estaidiehing theme-tun of such accommodation.
red that then-tore no (Ater pereons should be indulged in expending I
aue_money towards procuring of affording similar accommodation.
This is excellent London Dock logic, and in which, in my indi.
'ideal capacity, as one of its pnetrictors, I should he disposed to
acquiesce; but I leer it will scarcely prove equally efficacious with
the trading interests of the metropolis' who, by their petitions and
weir conduct, appear to have arrieed at a diametrically opposite
conclusion.
These petitioners, conaistin' of el"htcen hundred of the first
terns in Leet'on, besides the whole body of the wine and
teem trade, ullehe, and official documents confirm the allele:-
hen, that the river is crowded to inconvenience with vessels,
the owners i t which pubmit to such inconvenience, rather than
uto the re:antie and arbitrary regulations of the London Docks,
sri the high charges incurred there, and not without reason appre.
heeding some new version of the recent unsuccessful attempt of
tee Undoes at an improved reading on the law of lieu and
munter. The tnercautil - interest add, that they see no
swoon why, as well to reimburse the prodigal expenditure,
attending the fiNt construction of the London Docks, including a
Kra city in one sum Of MOW. to their Secretary, who already en. i
, oyed a very liberal salary, as to secure a large interest on the im.
men,c capital disbursed, the trade of London should bemulcted
or (livened into other channels. They further state, that if docks
eau be provid, il more convenient in point of situation, at less ex-
peeve and with no comptde.ry clauses to shackle the free choice
ce the merchant, he will of mune avail himself of such election,
nal the public be necessarily. a gainer in consequence,
.by the in.
tervention of such competition, and the complete bar It will pre.
soot to all attempts at monopoly.
On the other hand, the London Dot% Company, in support. of
thiir claim ti exclusive tights, state, that were actommociation
wasted, they have still a spare twenty acres in which they could
provide it : this is too true, but where can the spare million be pro.
cured to squander, as was • large proportion of the three fanner
millions in the most lavish waste and disproportionate expen.
diture?
'the alleged surplus Matra affords of itself sufficier.t evidence of
waste : why purchase 00 saes covered with houses, when 40 only
appear by their own statement to have proved 1110111 than sufficient
The mph most completely establishes the well-known fact, that
cite nit. wets are so encumbered with an enormous capital
liftes 11,* establishment, that they love no chance of yield.
adequate return, by any means short of the actual monopoly
they have hitherto enjoyed, or of that which will virtually exist sf
al cern petition be prohibited.
The promoters of the Set,atherine's Docks Bill profess to meet
this grievance of monopoly by ito only legitimate cure—opposition. I
They au Dot propound their scheme as otte of profit; so careful
ilrer they been to guard it against the imputation of speculation
ariobbipg, that they have sedulously kept down all means of sego.
...ramie 111 their shares by themselves, abstaining from all traffic in
toe:(, and putting it out of the powei of other Subscribers so to do,
by withholding any receipt or voucher in respect of the deposit paid.
They come forward, in feet, under the Immediate auspices of the
Legtrlatare, who have recently repeatedly recognised free and
liberal competition as the vital prindple of trade. They ask no
privileges, they claim no exemptions; they Oilollll. pay few
%dial they acquire, and they can impose en Wag
rain to indemnify themselves ; they trust fint Viatft ng
state of the country, to the benefit of the reduced primal labour
and materials, and above all, to a minutely economical outlay of
there capital, for that fair return upon it, what*, as men of business,
anti trustees for their co-proprietors, they will endeavour to
obtain. _ .

The nonsense about population and houses. and abort notice, is
oce deserving of further answer than that the inhabitants would
to at man prefer having the period of quiuing limitel rather than
caned, as no benefit an accrue from carrying on a languishing
bielness with a certainty of removal; and they are all desirous of
needing themselves of the entsailiate exigency, by receiving the
lioeral csmpensation they all cape*, and of establishing themselves
rlsewfit re with the fruit of it. In respect to the number of houses
a:4l their inmates, the London Docks disturbed more than double
it, martber and amount, with no recorded case of consequent hard.
.nip or diwress.
Tit, Church and Church-yard constitute other subjects of Limn-
tatitei equally groundless and absurd ; the former can be of no use,
wizen every inhabitant will be removed, and the latter will be pro-
vitltrl far, as has ahead/ been repeatedly the case with reference
as of the Bank, the new Post-office, the Commercial Road.
e,e. lke.t while at all events the care of the Free Collegiate Chapel
sal'?Ot.: Catherine, and its master and brethren, may be safely con-
Lied to their legitimate protector and visitor, the Lord nigh
4encellar.
The teamed Theban. I should say Alderman, who being deeply
iiteolved in two Dock Communes himself, is reported to have given
nu fiieinterved and impartial an account in the House of Com-
mons of his bird's-eye view of the precinct of St. Catherine from
the tower of its ehurctr, and who was so well pleased with his own
speett as to favour the Cocunum Council with a seem'd edition of
it, must have resorted to church *,ter dinner, lc it would other-
wise be dilicul to account fur his converting the 20 Wit* required'
sat the intended Docks into 40 acres, 800 houses into 2,000, sad
their 8,000 inhabitants into 10,000.
To conclude, the simple issue is between the London and the
St. Catherine Uockt, between monopoly and competition, between
creporate pin and national advantage.
:such being the Issue, and the country, by its Legislature, thel
~edge, who can doubt the ultimate result ?
I am, Sir, your humble Servant,
M. N.M.
London, April 15.1/124.