The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-18 00:00:00

CASE OF THE LONDON DOCK COMPA2VE

A pamphlet has been published by Mr. S. Cock, the
Secretary of the Lontlen Dock Company, under the above
title, from which, as relating to a topic interesting to the
merchants and shipowners of the Port of London, we make
the fell )es ing extracts, which seem to us, cn a hasty perusal,
to contain the substance of the objections to the projected
Docks at St. Katharine's. We lay them before the public
without any continent, as what the pamphlet- itself fairly
professes be, the case of one of the part'N interested.
The pamphlet gives in the first place, the petition for
the St. Katharine's Dock Bill, the preamble to that Bill,
the petition of the London Dock Company against it, and
that of the proprietors of the Wet Docks generally, to the
same purport. It then proceeds to state the cause that
prevented the Dock Company from being heard against the
Bill.

" These petitions having been :presented to the Honourable
House on the old February, and a motion made that the Bill
should be read a aecood time, an amendment was proposed, that
it should be read a second time nn that day mix months, which
was negatived, and the Bill was read a second time the same day.
" A ' Standing Order' of the House of Commons, of the 24th
June. 1824. directs, that no petition against a private Bill he re-
ferred to the Committee on such Bill, which shall not distinctly
specify the ground on which the petitioners object to the Bill, or to
any of the provision* thereof; :old that the petitioners be only
heard on such grounds so stated.' ale. !fee.
" With the view of conforming, with the utmost strictnees, to
this order. the Directors gave instructions to their Solicitor to pre.
pare, under the advice of Counsel, n further petition to the Honour-
able flouse,• praying to ba beard by Counsel, against the St.
liathar!ne's Dore
" On t;eca;oliettor impaling at the Frivate Bill Office, on. Friday,
the 4th March' about three o'clock in the afternoon, and finding
tbat no ranee of the meeting of the Committee had been given, he
wrote to tha Solicitor of the Bill, requesting to be informed of the
'time of meeting as roe" as the same should be fixed; and, on
'.Saturday the loth, at or after nine o'clock at night, received an an.
swer, stating that it was propoacd to go into the Committee on the
Wednesday following. •
" This information was, on the next day, confirmed by a letter
from Mr. D,rington, the Farlieincraary Agent of the Company.
"On fll 'today, the 7th, the Solicitor attetiled at the Dock House,
where A petition which had been paepsred, was exunined by the
Chairman and Secretary, with the view of ascertaining, with.
certainty, that every part of the statements contained in it was
capable of proof; and so minute and earefel was this examina-
tion, that the petition was not finally settled until ten o'clock at
night.

•
„
" The following morning, (the Bth,) it was engrossed, and pat
under the common seal of the Company, and the Solicitor attmded
in the lobby of the House of Commons, at four o'clock, ft. the
purpose of meeting an Honourable Member, by whom it was to
hare been presented ; but, in consequence of the lamented event
befttre.mentioned, (the death of the Speaker's brother) the Members
who had assembled,—from motives of delicacy and feeling,--dis-
persed without forming a House; whereby the Company were de-
prived of the opportunity of having the petition presented and re-
ferred to the Committee on that day.
" On the meeting of the Committee the following day, the Coun.
eel, agents, and witnesses of the Company presented themselves,
but the Committee refused to recognise them as parties having any
right to interfere in the proceedings. although it was fully explained
that the presenting of the petitiou had alone been prevented by the
cause herein set forth.

" L'nder theseeirrutnstances„ and other connected with other
petitions against the S. Katharine's Dock Bill (which, for the
same reason, were prevented from being referred in time), no peti-
tion whatever against the Bill was before the Committee at their
meeting, and therefore no order for the heating of Counsel had
been made; yet, three learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the
Bill, one of whom opened the cue of the promoters thereof, In a
speech, in which assertions to the prejudice of the Company were
made, without their being allowed to be heard. The intended Se.
cretary, aml the intended Dock Muter of the St. Katharine's
Dock, were afterwards examined as witnesses, who stated in sup-
port of the preamble of the Bill, facts which the Company were
prepared, by witnesses then present, to refute or explain in the
most clear and eont ircing manner.
" On the assembling of the Honourable House the same
day, the petition was presented, and ordered to be referred to the
Committee.

" The following day, the Counsel, Agents, and witnesses of the
Company again attended, and the petition hating been read, their
Counsel claimed to enter into the investigation of the preamble of
the Bill ; but the Committee peremptorily refused to allow them
further to interfere, than by objecting to such of the clauses as had
not been gone through on the proceding day.
" The C mart of Directors, therefore, presented a further petition
to the Honourable House, urging that the Company bad been at
great expense in collecting evidence to be submitted on the inves-
tigation of the preamble of the Bill, and were fully prepared to
sustain the allegations in their petition, by disinterested and com-
petent witnesses ; and to lay before the Committee facts important
to the public, as well as to the Company. That they had great in-
terests at stake ; and that, desiring nothing more than an im-
partial 011111/iIIIIISSII iato the merits of the question at issue between
them and the promoters of the St. Katharine's Dock Bill, the
Directors trusted they should not be debarred front a hearing upon
the subject, by the casualty which (under the determination of the
Honourable Committee), had so unexpectedly intervened to pre-
vent them from being heard on the first day of the meeting.
" The Direc:ors finally prayed the Honourable House, that the
St. Katharinc's Dork Bill might be recommitted ; and that they
might be licard against the allegations contained in the preamble,
as well as against those clauses by which their interests were affected.
" This petition being heard on the 24th of 111 arch, was rejected
by a majority of 91 to 2U.
" In order, as much as possible, to avoid expense, as well as to
save time and trouble to the Honourable Committee, the Court of
Directors were at much pains to provide evidence of those facts
which appeared to be most important, in the shape of " Accounts"
and " Estimates."
" The first allegation in the petition of tl'e Promoters of the St.
Hatbsrine's Dock is, that the commerce of the port of London
cannot receive its full share of the advantages,' of the Warehousing
Act (4. Deo. IV. cap. 24.) " unless the heavy rates and charges
upon the landing, housing, bonding, and shipping of goods, with
which it is burthened, shall undergo material and permanent in-
duction.

" For the purpose of showing how far this allegation is founded
in fact, the Directors had prepared the following estimate; showing
that the whole of the charges for " landing, housing, and wharf.
age," amount to only Bs. 3d. per cent. on the value (exclusive of
duty) of wine, spirits, and tobacco, which are the three principal
articles that, under the compulsory operation of the Glib see. of the
39th and Qui Geo. 111., are required to be landed at the London
Dock ; and that upon the twelve principal articles received into the
Dock, they amount, upon the average, to only fh. 2d. per cent.
" Whatever may be the difference between those charges as
they are, and what they are to be when that s open competi-
tion' shall have taken place which is to arise from the construc-
tion of the St. Katharine's Dock, is the excess of rates, with
which the articles to which they attach are now burthened ;
by which excesses, as is alleged, a great portion of the trade in
them is driven from the port of London ; and whatever may be the
amounts to which the promoters of the St. Katharine's Dock Bill
are prepared to assert that they ought to be reduced, are, of course,
the rates which they ere content to have inserted in their Act, as
the maximum which their Company is to be authorised to receive.
" The proprietors of the six existing docks, nine legal quays, and
sixty suferauce wharfs (few or none of which are fully employed),
who are engaged in a constant struggle to divert business from each
other, are perfectly at a loss to understand what is meant by a want
of competition: or how, under such circumstances, such a vast
addition to,the legal quays is to promote the prosperity of the trade
oft he poet.
The following are the rates of dividend, which the several
docks in the port of London pay to the propretors
West India Dock - 10 per Cent. pa Ann.
East India - 8
London . 14
Commercial - 34
Grand Surrey Canal - 2
East Country Dock - none."

The pamphlet is then occupied with a series of tables
compiled from official documents, showing that the pur-
pose of the recent Acts of the Legislature are not likely to
increase the trade of the port of London, and that there
already exists much more wet dock and legal quay accom-
modation than is required. The whole is wound up with
the following conclusion :

" Such is .the substance of the evidence and observations which
the Directors of the London Dock Company were desirous of sub.
milting to the Ilogourable Committee, to whom the Bill for making
Wet Docks at St. Katharine's was referred ; and which, it is con.
mired, establish the following points:—
" I. That the Acts of the Legislature relative to Foreign Corn.
metre, passed during the reign of his pre.ent Majesty, however
well calculated to promote the general prosperity. of the Empire,
are not likely to occasion any material increase in the, particular
trade of the Port of London.

.• 2. That there is no want of competition among the legal
quays, or deficiency of accommodation in the Pon of London, at
moderate rates and charges, for vessels that will use the existing
docks.

•• 3. That whatever obitruction may.. at time, have occurred to
the River, has been weavioned by the great accumulation of Col-
lifta and other Cowen, which discharge their cargoes whilst lying
at anchor in the trream.

" 4. That unfT,is those vessel/ *ell be compelled, when the
River is crowded, to discharge their cargoes in docks, or at other
wharfs, they will continue to occupy stations in the stream • and
that, if so compelled. the existing docks, and Mher wharf; and
quays, a:e amply sufficient for their accommodation.

" And, therefore, that the construction of additional docks, with
legal quay privileges, would grievously injure the present Dock
companies. and occasion a great and permanent addition to the
expenses of Government, withcut producing any public benefit
w timerer."

Several clumsy piekpockt to make Chatcory-laae the
nightly scene of their depredations.

ES:n:Mifi