The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-01 00:00:00

JULY 1, 1847.

CLOSING OF THE BIRKENHEAD

DOCKS.

An adjourned monthly meeting of the Dock Commis-
sioners of Birkenhead was held at their rooms, Hamilton-
square, on Monday morning. There was a full
attendance of Commissioners.

The CHAIRMAN (Joseph Mallaby, Esq.) said. that at
the last meeting he took occasion to remark, from the
infmmation which he then had, that they were, as a
body of commissioners, in this deplorable condition—
that they had no funds whatever in hand to conduct
the works or to pay even the current wages, or to answer
the obligations of several contracts which were partly
agreed to, but which were not yet begun. You are
aware of the position in which we were. You are
aware that it was intended, if possible, to accomplish
something which might hare the effect of placing
funds in our hands until we could compel the payment
of moneys that were due to us, so as to enable us to
go on with our works. You came to a resolution which
directed a certain application to be made to one large
debtor of the trust, in the hope that a compliance with
it would have enabled you to have carried on the works
—probably on a more moderate scale—until a more
comprehensive relief could be obtained. I dare say-
you are aware that that application totally failed,
and that the large debtor to the trust to
whom I have adverted did not respond to the call
which was made ; from what motives, under what in-
ducements, I do not pretend to say ; but the effe.ct of
course was to place you in a position of serious embar-
rassment. I went to London with Mr. Potter. We
were, lam glad to say, met shortly after our arrival
there by Mr. Brownrigg. We concurred in making a
certain application, in the hope that, for the protection or
the redemption of their interest, they would have made
still further advances, and have enabled us to have made
still further progress with the works. Those two gen-
tlemen have resisted that application, although it was
made :in all frankness, and with a full and explicit
statement of our position, and of what must be the
result of our position, when our bills fall due on the 30th
of this month. You all know, from that position alone,
what must be the consequence of our not being enabled to
comply with the necessity of the 30th of June. How-
ever, the application failed. I saw, afterwards, one of the
Crown officers, and after that I had a very long discus-
sion with Mr. Potter and Mr. Brownrigg, and the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests, and explained
our affairs and the advantages which I considered
would result from a determination on the part
of the Crown, not merely to assist us in a
pecuniary way, but to help and inspirit us with
their countenance. Having done that, lam glad to
say that we should have had their countenance, and we
should have received the sum of 50,0001. Upon that pro-
mise I made a communication to the committee here to
enable them to obtain that which was necessary for the
purpose of going on with the works, and protect you from
the evil consequences of stopping them. In a couple of
days, unfortunately, it turned out, notwithstanding the
anticipations of the Crown officers, that the main source
from which that fund was expected promptly to be paid,
the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, had not the means
for supplying it, and therefore the Crown were in this
position, that, being willing to do all they could for us,
they could only do it by raising upon their property in
connexion with the trust, and that they were prepared
to do, by going into the market, and obtaining it upon
such arrangements as I submitted to them. You are
aware that the first Bill, that which relates to the new
dock, had a clause in it, which came through the Com-
mons, confirming the title of the Crown and the Commis-
sioners, not merely to the property that was granted to
you, but to the property which it was necessary to have
granted to you, in order to release the works which had
been made, and which are described under the second
act under the Bill. For you will see that, without
the Crown's title, the works might have been made
without the authority of the first Act of Parliament.
This Bill for the new dock would then be utterly use-
less, because it would give you a right to nothing. Not-
withstanding that, we were met in the House of Lords
by petitions from various parties for the purpose of
denying the right of either the Commissioners or the
Crown to the land, and of thus placing in
jeopardy the whole of what we had doae, and
the whole of what we proposed to do. The
petitioners were the dock company, the Corpo-
ration of Liverpool, Mr. Price, and others ;
but those were all who finally appeared. Now,
it is clear, that the Commissioners can expend ro
more money until these questions are decided, and all
I want you to deliberate upon is, what, under the
circumstances, is the best course to pursue. The Crown
Solicitor told Mr. Potter and myself, that the proper
course was at once to withdraw both the Bills, as they
could be of no practical advantage to the Commissioners,
and only prevent such arrangements being finally
made as would be entered into if those Bills were not
passed. The second Bill I place no stress upon, because I
don't believe any one thinks that Bill would be of any
value. We will pledge ourselves not to do more with the
docks until our title to the site of the whole can be con-
firmed. My reason for putting it in that way is this—and
I am obliged to state it publicly, in order to show the
nature of the advantage that will accrue from it—that
suppose somebody else than the Crown should be en-
titled to the land, we might induce them to confirm our
title to what the Crown had proposed, if we propose to
go on with the works; so that in the end, if we can
only get these things so settled, we may, whether
the Crown have the title or not, get our rights con-
firmed. If we have to pay for the sight of the works,
for the site of the area of these docks, I need not say
to you that it would be one of the most insane acts
that any of us could think of committing, to go on
with works that must necessarily resolve themselves
into not merely a profitless speculation, but a great
loss to the bondholders; for we never could receive one
fraction if we had to pay for the area of the docks as
well as the solid structure and masonry, as they have
to do in Liverpool. If anything like a rate is to be
paid by us, such as is paid by the corporatio❑ on the
other side, you can hardly measure the amount that you
will finally hare to pay. The proposal, therefore, I
would submit is, that we enter into a resolution authoris•
ing a proposal to be made to the Crown, that if they
will allow the new dock Bill to pass, that you will not
expend further sums upon the works, or use the existing
docks until your title be confirmed ; and if you enter
into a resolution to that effect, I will do all in my
power to get an assent to the Bill i❑ the proper place ;
and I think if we can accomplish that we shall have the
means in our hands of inducing other parties, besides
the Crown, to join in procuring us the title for our works.
The chairman concluded by proposing a resolution to the
above effect.
Mr. WM. LAIRD then entered into a statement to show
that there was no necessity for pledging themselves not
to use the present docks, and proposed an amendment to
the effect that that portion of the resolution be with-
drawn. The Liverpool Corporation could have little to
do with any of the works there, and he thought they
would be safe in proceeding with the works on the
security which they had at present.
Mr. BRYAN objected to any motion which would close
the docks for a considerable period.
The CHAIRMAN having entered into some explana-
tions in reply, and some further discussion having taken
place, the amendment was seconded by Mr. Pritchard,
and put to the meeting. It was lost by a large majority.
Mr. WILLIAM LAIRD then proposed, as an amend-
ment, that Baron Goldsmid, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Upton,
three of the largest bondholders, should be consulted
before such a resolution as that proposed by the chair-
man were passed, and requested application be made to
Lord Morpeth, to see if he would not pass the Bill with-
out any such pledge. There were only four hands held
up for the amendment.
The original motion of the chairman was then put
and carried by a majority of eight to three, and the pro-
ceedings terminated, with an assurance from Mr.
Mallaby that he would do all in his power to forward
the passing of the Bill.—Liverpool Times.

COMMITTEE ON THE NAVIGA

TION-LAWS.

The Select Committee appointed by the House of Corn
mona to inquire into the operation of the navigation-laws
met on Tuesday. The following members were pre-
sent :—Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Liddell, Sir George Clerk, Sir
11. Douglas, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Lysll. Mr. Milner
Gibson was in the chair.
Mr. Lockett was examined
By Sir H. Douglas—l am a shipowner, a merchant,
and an underwriter at the port of Liverpool, and I
am chairman of the Shipowners' Association at that
port. lam in the habit of supplying wines, spirits,
and provisions for ships' stores. lam generally ac-
quainted with the provisions of the navigation-laws,
and have never experienced any practical incon-
venience in my trade from their operation. I have read
the evidence of the witnesses before this Committee in
reference to the importation of copper ore and guano
from Chili and Peru; but I do not concur in their opi-
nions as to the inconvenience which the navigation laws
are said to cause to those trades. Ido not think that
the quantity of British exports is at all diminished by
the operation of the navigation-laws. I consider that
the injury said to be inflicted upon the East India trade
by the non-admission of Lascars as British seamen
is caused by a particular Act, and not by the
navigation laws. I think that the shipowners gene-
rally would not object to the repeal of that particular
Act. The price of Peruvian guano varies at present
from 81. 15s. to 91. per ton, and the price of Chl Layne.
guano varies between 51. and 51. 10s. per
for many years been in the habit of coming
onin cent ontact
with the masters and mates of the ships of almos
every
country in the world, and I consider that those who are
engaged in the British mercantile marine are equal, in
point of honesty, intelligence, integrity, and temperance,
to the masters and mates in. any other service; and that
they are as good navigators. If the navigation-laws were
repealed I would not, as a British shipowner, increase
the amount of my tonnage. I believe that if those laws
were abolished the shipwrights and other artisans en-
' gaged in the trades connected with British shipping
would be completely ruined, because ship-building in
Great Britain must, in such an event, inevitably fall off.
! lam acquainted with the United States trade, and I
know that the British ships engaged in that trade have
' not for some years past afforded the owners a fair remu-
nerating profit. The Americans have an advantage over
British ships in the carrying trade, At present they