The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-08 00:00:00

RATING THE DOCK ESTATE FOR THE PARISH.

The report of the committee contained a resolution to op-
pose the petition presented on behalf of the parish to the
House of Commons, praying for Permission to introduce a
bill for the purpose of rating the Dock Estate. On this
subject

Mr.. COOPER asked if the confirmation of the report would
confirm that resolution ; for if it would, he could not vote
for the confirmation of the Dock Committee's report. He
thought all property ought to be rated for the poor.
The MAYOR read a letter from the chairman of the Dock
Committee, requesting his Worship to bring the case before
the Council, with the view of obtaining the co-operation of
the Council in opposing the bill intended to be brought by
the parish.
Mr. EVANS hoped not a moment would be lost in rescuing
Liverpool from the disgrace of having originated such a
petition as this.' It had been got up in the most complete
ignorance of the basis of taxation. He would state, on the
part of the Dock Committee, that it was their intention to
admit that the warehouses on the dock quays were liable to
the parochial rate in. the same manner as other warehouses.
The docks of Liverpool were not private property ; they
yielded no beneficial interest, and were not liable. They
might as well tax the high-ways, the paving-offices, and the
town-hall. The commerce which the docks, as well as the
Mersey, facilitated, produced-wealth ; and the property which
they produced became liable to the rate. But the docks,
along their whole length, were no more than a part of the
river, and if they were left idle they would be nothing but an
addendum of the Mersey. They had no right whatever to lay
hold of the docks. _ _

The TOWN-CLERIC said, it was now fifteen years since the
question was first raised, whether the Dock Estate was liable
to parochial assessment. It was then decided that, as it was
a public trust, it was not liable. The Hull docks were the
property of shareholders, into whose pockets went whatever
profits accrued. Therefore, the docks at Hull were liable.
The docks at this port were not liable, because no person re-
ceived one sixpence of individual benefit. They were liable
before the passing of the Municipal Act, because the Corpo-
ration could do what they liked with their own ; but now, as
the Council were aware, they were not liable auy more than
the Corporate Estate.
Mr. CASE said the report of the Dock Committee con-
tained something respecting opposing an opposition of a
joint-stock company. He wished to know on what principle
the Dock Committee opposed the building of warehouses by
a joint-stock company. With respect to the other question,
he thought the petition should be opposed by the Dock Com-
mittee and the Council also. _

Mr. COOPER said, if the docks were not liable to be rated,
the shipping were, and he thought both the dock and corpo-
rate estates ought to be made liable. He moved that the
portion of the report which related to the opposition to the
bill in question should be postponed till'after Friday.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES seconded the motion.
After some discussion, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Holmes with-
drew the motion.

Mr. LEATHOM, in reply to the question put by Mr. Case.
explained, that the committee had no wish or intention to op-
pose the application in question. They merely wished to be
prepared, and to be in a position to oppose the application,
if any thing should arise to render it necessary.
Mr. CASE said he was perfectly satisfied.

ADMISSION OF. REPORTERS TO THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

Mr. T. HARVEY thought it very desirable to call the at-
tention of the Council to one point, and not to allow the
Council to separate without coming to some decisionun the
subject of the admission of reporters to the Dock Committee.
It would be out of the question at this time of day, to con-
tend for the exclusion of daylight, upon the proceedings of
an enlightened
,public assembly. He thought the only ob-
jection must be grounded on the consideration, that the Dock
Committee was a committee of the Council, and that its pro-
ceedings passed in review before the Council. He did not
consider the Dock Committee to be like the others, for it was
compounded of the members of the Council and rate-payers.
Mr. Harvey advanced a few more arguments in support of
his views, and concluded by moving, that it was the opinion
of the Council, that it was desirable that reporters for the
public press should be admitted to the meetings of the Dock

Committee, with a view to the publication of their proceed-
ings.

When Mr. Harvey had reduced his resolution in writing,
the Town-clerk reminded him, that the sole power of the
Council, was that of confirming or annulling. Mr. Harvey
therefore added the following words to his resolution, " and
that, therefore, the proceedings of the Dock Committee, so
far as they relate to this subject, be annulled."
Mr. SMITH seconded the motion.

The MAYOR said he would read the proceedings which had
taken place in consequence of the petition which had been
received.

The first document read was a letter to Mr. Thomas Spen-
cer, in reply to the petition. This communication contained
an extract from the proceedings of the Council, and ex-
plained to the petitioners that the powers of the Council
simply extended to annulling, within a limited period, any
part of the proceedings of the Dock Committee, two-thirds
of the Council present concurring.
The second document read was a letter from Mr. Spencer,
acknowledging the receipt of the Town-clerk's communica-
tion, and thanking the Mayor for his polite attention. In
the name of the memorialists the writer acknowledged the
direct power of the Council over the Dock Committee to be
very restricted, legally, but they were of opinion that the
Council possessed, as the constituents of a majority of that
body, very extensive indirect powers, which they (the memo-
rialists) thought it was their duty to exert for the protection
of the public interests.
A memorial, signed by nearly the same parties as the peti-
tion (seventeen individuals) was next read, expressing dis-
satisfaction that the petition should have been referred un-
read to the Dock Committee, and commenting pretty
sharply and freely on the observations which had been made
in reference to it. The prayer of the memorial was, that the
Council would read and consider the petition.
The petition presented on the 13th of February was then
read.

In reply to a question, the TOWN-CLERK said that, like all
other matters relating to the proceedings of the Dock Com-
mittee, the power would be, as he had before stated, to
annul, and that could only be done by a majority of two-
thirds of the members present.
Mr. EARLE said this great grievance had been ushered in
with monstrous pompossity, and a more trivial matter never
came before the Council. He should have given a silent
vote but that his name had been made to figure in a news-
paper in connexion with the question. On the former occa-
sion when this matter was brought forward, Mr. Case assist-
ed him, but then when the reports were brought before the
Council the public were kept in darkness. Mr. Earle pro-
ceeded to make some remarks on the part which he and Mr.
Case had formerly taken when the subject was brought for-
ward. He said the tone of discussion in the Dock Com-
mittee was conversational, and the admission of reporters
would check that freedom which was so desirable, and in fact
be positively injurious to the public interests. A threat was
held out in the memorial.' He was not one of those who
could come under it : he wished he were, because he would
soon tell them that he did not care one straw, and would
always vote as he pleased.
Mr. LEATHOM expressed his intention of voting against
the motion, and spoke of the great inconvenience to which
such a measure would subject the committee. Mr. Harvey,
he said, was the confidential legal adviser of an officer of
their trust. All their discussions respecting their officers
would go forth, and however desirable it might be to Mr.
Harvey to learn what was going on, that alone would be suf-
ficient to decide him (Mr. Leathom) against the measure.
Mr. CASE said he intended to have given a silent vote, but
for the manner in which his name had been brought before
the Council. He had not altered his resolution or opinion
in the slightest degree. He thought still, as he thought on
the former occasion, that reporters ought to be admitted to
the proceedings of the committee. (Hear, hear.) He thought
so years ago, and he thought so now. It was different from
all other committees, for in it they originated measures which
the others could not do. He thought the utmost publicity
ought to be given to the proceedings of all public bodies.
Mr. BOOTH said he had always opposed the admission of
reporters, not from any dislike to publicity, but because they
would be a great clog on their proceedings.
Mr. CURRIE said the motion was too unqualified, as there
was no provision made that reporters should withdraw if it
were desirable, which was a stipulation when the rule was
passed for that Council. He would not vote for this motion
unless it were so qualified.

Mr. HARVEY said his intention was that the terms on
which reporters should be admitted, should be exactly the
same as they were in that Council.

Mr. CHARLES LAWRENCE thought they were wasting
much time., Having no power but to confirm or annul, he
thought they should not interfere with the Dock Committee,
except in a very strong case.

Mr. ISAAC HOLMES pointed out to the Council how scanty
was the information which he had when he brought forward
the subject of the Magazine life-boat. On all proceedings
relating to the Dock Committee they were almost entirely in
the dark. He hoped the prayer of the memorial would not
be refused, he hoped they all would unite to grant it : for his
part, he would himself, for once, turn liberal for the purpose.
(" Hear," and laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said, as a friend to publicity, he would
vote for the admission of reporters to the Dock Committee.
(Hear, hear.) If it had no other good effect, it would quash
much of that extraneous discourse which prevailed.
Mr. HARVEY briefly replied, and the Council went to the
vote. There appeared
For the motion, Messrs. J. Holmes, Houghton, Thornhill,
I. Holmes, Preston, Case, H. Holmes, Rathbone, Cooper,
Barton, Wood, Lassen, T. Harvey, Gladstone, Higgins,
Morecroft, Smith, Leigh, Platt, Ramsden, Duncan, Currie,
Sheil, J. Hornby, Roskell, Moon, Freme, and the Mayor.—
Against the motion, Messrs. Shand, Bolton, Pilcher, Bright,
Priestley, Woollright, C. Lawrence, Mason, Segar, G. H.
Lawrence, Jordan, Booth, Leathoin, Jones, Beni', Earle,
Evans, Bulley, and T. Holt.
For the motion 28, against it 19. The number of members
present was 47. The majority, therefore, did not reach two-
thirds of the Council.