The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-14 00:00:00

ST. EL DOCKS.

The Committee upOil the Bill in the (Lurie of
Lords Ilieet daily.- The Promoter's of this rn.a.;
sure of great public utility, and of such
portatice to the Trade and Navigation of the.
Port of London,. confidently rely. upon the fol-
lowing- FACTS in support of the Bill now before a
•,
Cornmittee of the [louse of I,nrds
The Subscribers arc nearly all Merchants, and others imme-
diately connert,E.d with the Trade of the Port of• London, And
no shares have been allowed to be sold or transferred.
The measure, although a private undertaking, Partakes of a
publie character. It is opposed by the LondOn Dock Company,
and some of the Starance \Vharhngers on the south, side of the
river. ft is supported by the CoMmercial, Manufacturing, And
Sfhipping interests generally;, whose aentiments:haVe
_been
strongly expressed in numerous Memorials presented to the
LOrds of the Treasury, and further testified to the House of
Com Mons in various petitions.
1. Fro}n Mirchants, Bankers' and Traders of the 3letropo-
hs, signed by-upwards of 1,700 leading mercantile establish-
ments, some of whom even, are considerable proprietors of the
London and other Decks in the Port of Loudon. -
2. From ship-owners and others connected with the naviga-
tion of the river ThaMes, signed by,. upwards of 1,600, com-
plaining also of the regtulation .adopted by „some of the Dock
Companies, under which the crews are turned out of the ves-
sels, and compelled to lodge ashore, by which- evil habits are
contracted, and also the character of the British seamen de-
moralised,

3. From the Wine and Spirit trade.
4. From the Merchants, *.e. engaged in the Seed trade.
5. From between three and four hundred of the inhabitants
of St. :Katharine's .and Sc. .BotolPh. Alt-IF:ate ; and upwards of
two-thirds of the owners and Oceupiers, (which in the whole,
consist of 1,256 persons,) are in favour of the Measure.
6. From the Merchants, Ship-owners, &C. of the following
Ports :
, .
•
Newcastle,ilitzlerland, Leith, Hull, Grimsby,. Kirkaidy,
Lyme-ltedis, Yarmouth, Ipswich, Harwich, Colchester, Sheer-
ness,.Bocliester, Dover, Ramsgate, Sandwich,. Margate,.-Rye,
Ports Mouth, Newhaven, Cowes, POole, Weymouth, Jersey.,
Dartmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Penzance,•Swansea, Pad-
stow, Biistol, Cork,. Dublin, Boston, Barnstaple.
All Parties indeed connected, with the Scotch and Coasting
trade with the Port of London feel deeply interested in ,the suc-
cess of a measure calculated to afford considerable relief from
the existingiumedimentsto the Navigation of the river Thames,
'and by establishing ~ competition, to prodUce a permanent
redUetton in the charges of the Port. .
The benefit the public will derive hy..the reciticAion of charges
thrOugh the construction of the prOposed Docks is manifest.;
sinee.the mere agitation of, the measure has,already produced
a considerable ditnimktion.in the rates upon certain gootisin:the
port of London t, thus proving, that Under the influence of mo-
nopoly they were exorbitant. . • •
A Bill for constructing Wet Docks, .&c. at St. Katharine's,
in the Port of Loudon, was submitted to Parliament last year,
and after being under the conaideration of a Committee of the
House of Comnions nearly a month, was: withdrawn in conse-
quence of the late period of the then session, and,of the.speeies
of opposition offered to additional Wet Docks by.the .London
bock Compami and 'Other interested parties ;—an opposition,
the character of, which was strongly aninivavertcd upon by .a
COmmittee of the House, in a s I rt, dated Ist of June,
pceta repo ,
1824.

. , .
. .
'the second rea4ingof the Bill Was Carried in the House of
Commons
,by a majority Of 118. to 30—
A motion for the re-committal of the Bill was rejected by a
majority of 91 to 20,• . • ,
The 11111 was read a third time and passed without a- dissen-
tient voice. ,
_. . •
' • PrOM °Metal returns to Parlia thent; it appears !,h4l
in the
year 1704, -when ,the construction Of wet clocks, for the accOM-
, modation of the shipping fregtienting the ,Port of I,Oncion was
first deemed necessary. the impOrts and exports of the Gaited Kingdom amounted to 44 millions.,
In. the year 1824 they aMounted'to. - _ 964
The value of the transit trade of Great Britain
in 1823, was,
.8,538 *::'.
- -
- . - , - , , , - 10,108i5j6
increase in 1824 overiB23 of , 1,600,000.
InEliB42h4ib,it?n;u:ii
' In the vear-1823 the value of the transit trade of
Lond'on was -. _
In the year, 1824 when the new Warehatising 8,191,777.
system was in operation, it amounted to
.. 9,466,486
EXliibiting an increase in 1824 in the
Port of London over the preceding
year, of - - - £1,275,309
The increase of the transit trade in . .
• the Ontports during 1824 was -
.d 24,1391
In- the year 1794 tlie:numher of -171erelikint.ships
1 the Port of Lon
- 13.019
)4the number was
In the year 181. .. _
1000 voyages niade. by
23,818
which enteral , oon
Was
. Exhibiting an increase 'of.aboui 10;000 siil of inerchant
steamboats, a
iments on the river
4ti;lePgels'boCfst alNl:isKPaVt7:7.,‘nisn°ort, existing in the Port. of London 4,7l9:attn;
eas7d,
,thus,,increasing the imped
. .
when Pe.lteat India Docks, East India
In the ye,arr, , . 1,r13,* u
I flocks, Commerclill Docks, Lo rYtion DOcks, City Canal, and

So that aboutr2l,ooo vessels last year discharged and loaded,
whilst moored in the-stream, obstructing the navigation of the
river in such a manner as at times to render it impassable, Can
any thing more clearly prove that five out of the six docks are,
from their distance, inconveniently situated for
the accommo-
dation of trade and shipping ? lf they wgrernot, would not the
'ship-ownerand the inerehant gladly avail themselves thereof,
rather than incur all the injuries, losses, plunderings. &c., in-
cidental to unloading in the river, and conveying their goods
in lighters, which was one of the principal grounds upon which
the Wet Dock system was so strongly enforced. , Coasters
would.load.and discharge in the London Docks b•4t for certain
inconvenient regulations. Many can make a voyage during the
same period of time as they would often be compelled to wait
for ingress or egress. Great quantities of foreign goods are
brought round from the out-ports by coasters, and are bonded
in the-London Docks, as most of the put-ports afraid scarcely
arty markets for transit goods.
The total tonnage. of merchant ships cleared out-
ward in Great Britain in 1823 was - -
3,182,776
2,610,787
In 1324
- - . -
- -
Exhibiting an increase in 1824 of 571,989 tons.
The total tonnage of merchant ships which en-
tered inwards in the Port of London in 1794
was. . -
In 1823
- - 1,458,315
.- - . - 2,903,267
InlB2c I Exhibiting - • - 3,170,186
an increase 1824. over the preceding year, of
266,919 tons, and over 1794, of 1,711,871 tons.
A want of additional proper convenient accommodation, for
wines and spiiits in the London Docks, is admitted by
the Company. On the sth January, 1825, the quantity
64
was - . • - _834 Casks.
Imported since, to 30th March • 11,394

Total 76,0711. Casks, and 3457 Cases.

from Which, however, the delivery since January is to be de.
ducted. Whereas the extent of proper accommodation for such
articles in those Docks is admitted to be only 45,000 pipes, or
froth 55 to 60.000 casks. On the 30th Mareh, there were 9667
casks, .and 27f11 cases of wines and spirits, for which no suit-
able accommodation could be found, of which 5206 casks were
strewed upon the quays, exposed to all the injUries of the wea-
ther and it is obvious that the ruction of duties willincrease
the importation - of every species of merchandize, and the
owners require.additional. convenient bonding still taking cre-
dit for the duties.
Whenthe East India Dock inoriopoly expires, which it will
do in 1827, all the, private trade lntliamen will require Wet
Dock. accommodation near to the Custom House, so as to avoid
the enormous expence of the land carriage of their cargoes from.
Inackwall to the seat of busine,s.
The London Dock is the only place a here all kinds of mer-
chandize can be bonded within 31 miles of London-bridge, and
trout its proximity of situation, upon the expiration of its ex-
clusive privileges in Jan. next (unless new Docks are construct-,
(d near to the seat of business) enjoy a virtual monopoly. 'This'
is proved .by the fact, that the rates in the London Docks are,
up.in most goods., from 70 toithl, and in one instance; 350 per
ceit. higher than in the West India Docks.„and still the mer-
chants, from the inconvenient-distance of the tatter, arc obliged
to lodge their goods, in the London Docks notwithstanding such
a.) exorbitant ditrerence in rates. Shortly after the measure of
a Iditional Wet Dock accommodation at St. Katharine's was
a ..t,itated,.the London Dock Company, from the fear of such a
c competition, and as a temporary expedient to defeat the mea-
sure, lowered the rates. upon certain articles, from 30 to 40 per
cent., without, however, affecting the dividends to the proprie-
tors, and it is believed, that improved nianagement would afford
the means of further reduction to the public, without diminish-
ing the advantages to the proprietors.
The only prospect the public has fora permanent enjoyment
of such benefits, is through means of competition, which can
alone be.estnhlished by additional Wet Docks near the seat of
bwiness ; none can ever exist between the London Docks and
West India or other Docks, situated at so great a distance from
the Custom-house;—unless, therefore, the St. Katharine Dock
Bill shall pass, the London Dock- Company will have'no in-
ducement to continue the present reduction, but, on the con-
trary, possessing the means., may raise them to the former ex-
orbitant standard ; in which case the merehent would be com-
pelled to pay whatever is demanded, as no choice of places for
bonding would exist. ,

The.Oppositition offered by some of the Suffrage Wbar-
fingers, on the south Aide of the River Thames, is singular.
None is made to the measure by those whose wharfs are si-
tuated on the same side of the River with the proposed St. Ka-
tha ine Docks, it being a prevalent opinion founded upon ex-
perience, that in proportion as the charges of the port are
lowered and additional facilities to trade afforded. London
will, in course of time, be the Emporitim of the world, and
thus yield to those establishments a reasonable share of the
advantages such an important measure is calculated to pro-
duce. The wharfs in Southwark all ebb dry, neither do they
possess_the means of accommodation for bonding required by
law.. They are most InConveniently situated for' the general
trade of the city of London, and from certain insufficiencies,
are not permitted to bond wines, tobacco, coffee, rice, pepper,
colonial goods, East India goods, prohibited goods, &c. But
what isnot less singular is, that a Bill for constructing a Wet
Dock, similar to the proposed St. Katharine's Docks, on the
south side of the River, close to the wharfs of the opponents of
the Bill, has passed through its several. stages in the House of
Commons without a single division, and was read a first time
in the House of Lords on ThUrsday last. The merchants and
tra lets of the Borough of Southwark agree, although the whar-
fine•ers in question do not, that additional Wet Docks are
waeted ; hut why should such improvement be locally con-
fined to the south side of the river ; and the good citizens of
London compelled to seek it across the Thames, and out of
the city ; surely they ought to be permitted to obtain it equally
at their own doors. .
By Parliament giving its sanction to the Rill for constructing
the St. Katherine's Docks, the edvantage of free and open com-
petition, and-a permanent reduction of rates and charges upon
commerce and navigation in the Port of London, will be secur-
ed to the public.
The Bill.pravidem, that the St. Katherine Doak Company
shall not take.or- receive any rates or sum exceeding such rea-
sonable rates or sum then usually paid in the Port of London.
The public will thus be doilbly protected, first, as against any
unreasonable rates;. next, from the exaction of any rates above
those usually existing; and further, the advantage will be se-
cured, to them .of reduction through the
,means of competition,
as the Sr. Katharine Docks can only expect to obtain a prefer-
ence of business from the. tnoderation of its charges.
Publicum honum privato preferendum est.

of Spain., sent his
.. .
,-,
When Piilmp ILL., Nino.
Anthnssador to treat with the Sfatessof llolland about their in-
dependence, he was. shown into an ante-chamber; where
he waited ~ to .see, the Members of the States pass by.--:
He, stood for some titor2, and, seeing none but a parcel of
plain-dressed men, . with bundles . in their hands (which, as
many of . them- came ,from distant provinces, contained
their linen and provisions), lie turned to his interpreter,
and asked him, "when the States. would come ?^ The man re-
plied, that those were;the members whom he saw go by.," up.
ou whiCh he Wrote !0 the:Commander-in-Chief of the Spanish
a parcel of plain-
ariny; to advise the King his:master to make peace as soon as
ell4,7l'vwhoonctliyme into council with
In his letter was
.this, remarkable .passage:_ possible. , .
~,I expectpdhave. seen inStates a splendid ap-
in hands. Their'.parsimony will ruin the Hint,
provisions theit
withi nst esaedn
Kin fb:
itel;i,atf4,
c:
if' itis.eontinu . I •
Pt
1 easT:ende .(;-'n ebnu, t
my nuister,:in ,the f.au rse of the war-,. - et, , for there is
no contending with people whose Nobles can live upon a
shilling:a dav,-and, will do every thing for the service of their
couatry." The - King, struck; with the account, agreed to
treat with them as an independent.state, and put an end to the
war,

Lord KING admitted that the petition was respectably aighefl
end had been adopted at a public meeting where the subject had
been fairly discussed,. and the opposition, though not very nu-
merous, had been distinguished by the good sense of their
speeches. It was a remarkable thing that in such large Dio-
ceses as York, Canterbury, Winchester and Durham, there
were but few petitions against the Catholics,, they . only
abounded in the small Dioceses such as Leicester, Devon,
Cornwall and Sussex, which were possessed by Bishops; in
trausitp. Ile preferred those venerable fixtures of the House,
to those pieces of furniture which were constantly changing their
places.
Lord KENYON could not hesitate one moment to say, that
what had fallen from the Noble Lord respecting certain Right
Rev. Prelates, was nothing less than downright calumny-
Lord KING replied, that if. the Noble. Lord .meant to say
that what he had advanced respecting the number of petitions
coming from small Dioceses was not the fact, he. positively
gave him the denial. As to the inference to be drawn from
that fact, the Noble Lord might say that it was or was not
a calUmny, he (Lord King) perfectly. despised it. Let the
question be tried by the.number of petitions presented to their
Lordships.
Lord KENYON did not deny the fact mentioned by the
Noble Lord, but -.repeated that the motives which he attributed
to the Bishops were a downright calumny.
• The Bishop of EXETER said, that his Diticese was one of
the largest, and at the same time one of those which had
sent most petitions against the Catholic Claims. He declared,
however, that he had never used any influence to procure pe-
titions. They. had come voluntarily from the Clergy and the
people, in consequence chiefly of what the Noble Lord had
said in the. House, and lest they_ should be thought favourable
to the measure in progress. He denied for himself .and his
brethern, the charge .of the Noble Lord, and he believed that
tagreaai
ttnioiale
claim
ityors.the country was hostile to the concession of
he c
Lord KING meant to apply his observation to the• Revenues
and not to the extent of. dioceses. It was from those with
small revenues that most petitions were sent. This almost re,
conciled him to one of the practices of the Roman Church
which allowed of no translation. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR could take upon himself to
say that their Lordships owed the: great number of Petitions
before them to the speeches of the Noble Lord in the House ;
for the People and the Clergy did not like to be held out as in-
different to the Protestant Religion. His advice was to let the
. Noble Lord goon ; for if he spoke from day to day there would
be twice as many petitions upon the table before next Tuesday
than there would otherwise have been.
After a few observations from the Bishop of HERTFORD
.and Lord Rotti, which were inaudible below the Bar,
Lord HOLLAND could not refrain from observing on the
assertion of a Right Rev. Prelate, that a great majority of the
country was host& to a measure which the Commons of Eng-
land twice brotight.to their Lordships' Bar, to, ask their concur-
rence in its enactment. Thii gave hini a new insight into the
Constitution. When Reformers preached their coctiines, he
had been told, and !Jihad acquiesced in the opinion," there is
a national Representation, the House of Conmions speaks the
sense of the country, and public meetings display the popular.
meeting. But it seems that he had laboured under an error.—
The Commons, it now appeared, were not the strict and only
organ of the Country : they were the mere olietichy which
they had been represented to be ,by Reformers. However one
mean of making public opinion known still remained, he was
glad to find: It lay in. Archdeaconries, in the Right Reverend
Bench opposite, and the Noble and Learned Lord an theWool-
sack. The Noble and Learned Lord had now become the tri-
bune of the people.. It might 'have been expected, that he
would have.looked to the right or to the left sides of the House, .
'or behind him, but who would have thoUght of his looking to
the Bar and Palace-yard, and to the people as those whom he
wished to provoke to the discussion of this great measure ? Ile
(Lord fl.) was still enough of a Reformer, though deeMed
lukewarm one, to believe that the vote of the House of COrn-
mom' was the vote of the, people; and after a Bill had been
twice passed by that House, how was it possible for any.indi-
stmcßvtihaoieloetteleolilyrrui,seeNe.fiaclepeltl:iiioceosaolnstand up in his place And to say that the majority of
the country was hostile to a measure in which one-third of the
l
Prelate,
raetn,scßrowiovel
nbrainterested,ihytireceachsrteliinnweo correspondence
tigtataesnttti(dy
lohloneiit which?e:
irprlesa6s, had.deltaeiiinst
offenceeutit b
e s e
nreceiveds.ifsstpeoe renhowituttaiietntetsdil crodlienbp,
uyaiutiotdhobi tiiistice uoterrotyl
was
olkgh
bac:o:
looked
settf
t
speak of the United Kingdom, let thtieovtnineatrwigrantipttlaretilention be.paid to the
iwhieslnesosetfvtilhlanterpltbrlte,wialinedh T.a•ne
ievdent o
tOou ourselves; ves; feelingsitw
ofas
the people would be most ihingerous to the Conititution of the
Country and the prosperity of the Empire.
The Petition was then laid upon the table, as well, as one to
the same effect also presented by the ArchbishOp of Vonx,
from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry
.of Cleveland, in the
county of York.
Similar Petitions were then preaented
By the Bishop of EXETER, from a Parish in Devonshire.
By the Duke of RUTLAND, from Lutterworth.
By the Earl of CARMARTHEN, froni Northampton.
By die Earl of LIVERFOoL, from the Justices acting in the
eastern part of the county of Kent, from the town of Chadian',
and-from a Parish in Kent.
By the Bishop of LONDON, from Clifton. on Dunsrnore
from the Minister and Congregation of the Episcopal Chapel
in Long-acre ; and from the Clergy; President, and Fellows of
Sion College.
By the Bishop Of ST. DAVID'S, from the town of Newport.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Parish of St. James,
Garlick Hill.•
By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Elders of the
Presbytery of Stirling. •
By the Earl of CALEDON, froth the Members of the Pro-
testant Episcopalian Church of the CoUnty.of TYrOne.
And by the Bishop of GLOUOESTER-, fronethe Deanry of ,
Stow, in the county of Gloucester.—Laid on the table. . I