The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-31 00:00:00

DOCK COMMITTEE. MEETING

The following members were present at the weekly meet-
ing of the Dock Committee yesterday :—Messrs. Leathom,
Benn, Horsfall, Mellor, Ripley, Yates, Barclay, Bulley,
Dixon, Thomas Holt, Holmes, Evans, Gedrge Holt, Martin,
and Gladstone. ' The chairman of the committee, Mr. Lea-
thorn, presided.

The SECRETARY read the proceedings of the last meeting,
and they were confirmed. A number of accounts were or-
dered to be paid.

MR. HARTLEY.
The CHAIRMAN announced that Mr. Hartley, the sur-
veyor, was suffering from a bilious attack, and that his medi-
cal adviser had prohibited him from going abroad at present,
consequently he was unable to attend the present meeting.
DOCK ALTERATIONS.
The SECRETARY submitted a • report from the surveyor,
containing au estimate of the cost of fixing graving blocks in
George's Dock Basin. The consideration of it, however,
was postponed, in consequence of Mr. Hartley's absence.
The SECRETARY next read a proposal' from the surveyor
to convert the South Brunswick dry Dock into a wet dock,
and a suggestion that the committee should fix an early day
to visit the place.
Mr. HORSFALL said the alteration, if made, would not pro-
duce any income to the dock estate, bat at the same time it
would be a great accommodation to river craft. It was a sub-
ject that required consideration.
Mr; BENN did not see why the alteration should not be
made.

Mr. H ORS F LL.—Because you cannot enforce dock charges
if gates are put down.
me suojem was then postponed.
The consideration of the surveyor's report on a proposed
new bridge across the south gate of Prince's Dock, for the
convenience of passengers to and from Seacombe, Egremout,
and New Brighton, was also postponed.

RUNCORN 'DOCK DUES

The SECRETARY reported that, from the 25th June to the
24th July, 159 vessels, of 8192 tons, had entered the port of
Runcorn, the tonnage on which was £96 13s. I Id.
THE TELEGRAPH STATIONS.

The SUB-COMMITTEE appointed to inspect the several
telegraph stations presented along and interesting report.
They stated that they commenced their labours on the 21st,
and closed them on the 26th instant, having in the meantime
visited all the stations except those at Bidston and Liverpool.
The report then went on to describe what additions, altera-
tions, and repairs would be required at each station, and
strongly to impress upbn the committee the necessity of all
the improvements being effected before the commencement
of winter. The character and efficiency of the men at the
several stations were favourably noticed.
After some discussion, a resolution was passed directing
Mr. Hartley to visit the several stations, in order to take
the necessary steps for carrying the recommendations of the
sub-committee into effect.

LIGHTING OF THE HARBOUR.
The SECRETARY read a letter from Lieut. Collins, R.N.,
requesting permission to appear before the committee, in
order to explain a new plan for lighting the harbour. It
appeared that by this method four of the present lights might
be dispensed with.—Referred to the marine surveyor.
TRAFALGAR DOCK SHEDS.
A letter from Mr. Thomas M`Tear, owner of several
steam-vessels trading between Wexford and this port, was
read, applying for a shed at the western end of Trafalgar
Dock, to be extended to the end of the quay-wall near the
entrance of Victoria Dock.—Referred to Mr. Hartley.
RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
The SECRETARY reported that Mr. Evans, Mr. Holmes,
Mr. Barclay, and others: being members of the committee
elected by the Town Council, would retire on the 3d August
next, their period of office having expired.
A resolution was passed, authorising the secretary to notify
this fact to the town-clerk.

THE PROPOSED NEW DOCK BILI

The SUB-COMMITTEE appointed to obtain a bill from par•
liament empowering the trustees to construct new docks, to
build warehouses upon the quays, and to make various regu-
lations relating thereto, presented a report of their proceed-
ings. They stated they had been incessantly employed since
their appointment in using every means in their power to
effect the passage of that most valuable bill ; but, notwith-
standing, the opponents of it had succeeded in throwing such
obstacles in its way as to prevent its passing in the present
session. The Sub-Committee, however, had the satisfaction
of believing that the delay with regard to the most essential
part of the bill would be more apparent than real, and that
at a future period, parliament, having regard to the time al-
ready lost, and the accommodation urgently called for, would
abridge the time when the warehouse clause should come
into operation. The total amount of the costs was not yet
ascertained ; it would doubtless be considerable, but if the
opposition to the bill had been the means of swelling the ex-
pense, it was to be considered it had cleared the way for a
dock and warehouse bill which would be of great service to
the port. The great object of the late proposed bill—the
building of warehouses on the dock quays, and placing them
under the same management as the docks, had obtained the
recorded approval of a committee of the House of Commons.
The Sub-Committee acknowledged the disappointment they
felt that the concessions which they had made had failed in
procuring the advantages in return for which they were
offered. Such concessions, they trusted, would not again be
required or consented to. Under the direction of the solicitor
opposition had been made, before the committee of the House
of Lords, to the bills seeking exemption from dock dues, on
behalf of the Harrington Dock Company and the proprietors
of the Herculaneum estate. But should those bills become:law,
they would contain clauses in favour of the public and the
bondholders, providing for the covuenience of the one and
the security of the other. In conclusion, the Sub-Committee
thought that but little injury would result from the conces-
sions they had made if the proposed warehouses upon the
quays were erected.
The CHAIRMAN then read two letters from the Solicitor
to the Dock Committee, containing a summary of the princi-
pal evidence given before the committee of the House of
Lords on behalf of the Harrington and Herculaneum bills.
Mr. GLADSTONE believed that the report of the sub-
committee, just read, stated that the committee of the House
of Commons had expressed an opinion in favour of ware-
houses being built upon the dock quays, and that they
should be under the same management as the docks them-
selves. If that were 'the case he should wish to know why
the report of the committee of the House of Commons had
not been presented to the house ?
The CHAIRMAN supposed that the committee did not
think proper to present their report to the house as the bill
was to be withdrawn for the session and no further proceed-
ings taken upon it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that in the original bill laid before
this committee and the town council, and sanctioned by both,
there was a clause declaring that ships should have the oppor-
tunity of going into dock and discharging their cargoes,
without being compelled to put their cargoes into the new
warehouses. Had not that clause been reversed ?
The CHAIRMAN.—No, no.
Mr. GLADSTONE.—Is the bill really withdrawn or not ?

The CHAIRMAN.—The last day for the committee of the
House of Commons to bring up their report has lapsed.
Mr. GLADSTONE added that the opponents of the bill
could not ascertain whether the bill was at an end or not.
Mr. EVANS said that information was given in this com-
mittee at the meeting last week. He knew not, however,
what claims for information the opponents of the bill had
upon this committee. It was only out of courtesy that this
committee communicated with them upon the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that the opponents of the mea-
sure viewed it as one of an oppressive character towards
them ; of course the view of the promoters was quite difierent.
Mr. EVANS remarked that every application from the op-
ponents of the bill in London, during its progress, had been
referred to the counsel for it, and the reply had been dictated
by the strictest courtesy.

Mr. YATLs said, if there had been a want of courtesy on
one side, there had also been a want of courtesy on the other.
He must say, however, that he had not seen any particular
desire on the part of the promoters of the bill to adjust their
differences with those who opposed it. He himself had
taken the trouble to make a proposition through the chair-
man (Mr. Leathom) for a compromise—for instance, to refer
the whole question to arbitration, Mr. Wilbraham on one
side and Lord Sandon on the other, with power to appoint a
third. That, he thought, might have been done. The sug-
gestion was not attended to, and that circumstance, he con-
sidered, did not shew much alacrity in settling differences.
However, it was best to have no recrimination, but to allow
every difference to be brought to an end as speedily as pos-
sible.

Mr. EvANs considered that if the sub-committee were
blamable for anything, it was for the unexpected, large, and
full concessions which they had recommended the trustees to
make.

The CHAIRMAN felt bound to say that he had no recollec-
tion of the proposition mentioned by Mr. Yates being made
to him.
Geo.
MrWilbraham and Lord. YATES.—I did makeSandon. it to you, and afterwards to Mr.
The CHAIRMAN.—I have no recollection of it.
Mr. EvANs.—lf any thing of that sort had been offered, I
should at once have rejected it as highly improper; but I
never heard of it till this moment.
Mr. YATES said, other gentlemen might have different
plans for setting matters right : that was his, and he had
suggested it. The question now was the best way to get out
of the concessions the sub-committee had made. They
knew that their opposition in the House of Commons to the
two dock bills just named had been altogether fruitless, but
they persevered, !although they had had no instructions
to do so from this committee. All the instructions they had
received was to put in a petition against them.
The CHAIRMAN was satisfied the sub-committee were
in-
structed to oppose those bills either verbally or in writing.
The SECRETARY remarked that the sub-committee had
been authorised to petition against them.
Mr. YATES asked whether any man of common sense
would for a moment say that the presentation of apetition
was the same thing as opposing a biil in both houses by evi-
dence and other means ?
Mr. GEORGE HOLT enquired
whether Mr. Yates meant
to contend that it was the duty of the trustees ? and the bond-
holders not to oppose those bills without instructions
Mr. YATES meant to say that if the opposing parties called
pay the expenses of their opposition
upon the dock estate to
they should have asked permissionle '
to commence their pp o-
sition.

Mr. HORSFALL WOUld put Air. Yates right as to the peti-
tion. That petition prayed that the petitioners might be heard
by counsel against the bills. They had been heard by coun-
sel and nothing more had been done. The sub-committee
therefore had acted in strict conformity with the directions
they had received.
The CirniumAN.-174p cross-examined all their witnesses
at length. That was being heard by counsel.
Mr. YATES.—You had no right to oppose them.
The CHAIRMAN contended that the sub-committee had
that right. It was however quite possible that the bills might
notpass the house.

Mr. YATES.—Yea, they will:
Mr. BARCLAY.—If Mr. Yates has anything to say in op-
position to the sub-committee or their proceedings, be had
better make a motion.
Mr. YATES would leave to Mr. Barclay the work of making
motions. He suggested that the opposition to these two bills
be dropped.
The Cifmrt]srAN thought that as the sub-committee had
gone to so much trouble in this business, they ought to per-
severe.

Mr. ITORSPALL begged to say, that Mr. Benn had not
said last week that the bill was withdrawn—only that it was
suspended.

The
HAIRUAN explained that the time for bringing up
the report of the committee of the House of Commons was
enlarged from the 27th to the 28th instant. The report not
ht(viog been brought up on the aith, thv dill w dtfiuict.

Mr. HORSPALL was surprised that Mr. Yates should have
taken up the argument of recrimination.
Mr. YATES had not the slightest wish to indulge in recri-
mination : he wished always to avoid it. But he must say
he was sorry to see so meagre a report issue from the sub-
committee as that just read. There had been a vast deal of
mystification in the whole progress of the bill ; but this re-
port mystified the question still more. Some points were
entirely slipped over ; for example, not a word was said
about the concessions made as to the constitution of the
Dock Committee. Now, he wanted to see brought before
the committee the exact state of things as they now stood—
what the sub-committee had conceded, what their opponents
had conceded, and *hat the sub-committee now proposed to
aim at.

Mr. EVANS would observe, respecting the concessions,
that communications had been made already ; therefore it
was not necessary to state them now. The sanction of the
committee and of the council had been given to them ; and
therefore it would be an useless repetition to go through
particulars of which the committee were already in posses-
sion.

Mr. YATES said sanction bad been given to four proposi-
tions, which were afterwards departed from in very material
points.

Some few further remarks were made ; after which, the
report of the sub-committee was adopted and confirmed, on
the motion of Mr. MELLOR, seconded by Mr. RIPLEY.

The committee then separated

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

TO THE CONSERVATIVE MERCHANTS AND TRADESMEN

OF LIVERPOOL

It is a remarkable fact, that, whilst the " Protector Asso-
ciation" boast of their having placed on the register, by pay-
ment of their taxes, upwards of 1200 persons, whose names
had no right to be there, never having from their own means
paid any taxes, you " Conservatives' appear to be asleep at
your posts. Allow me to ask you, by whom are these faggot
voters employed? To whom are they indebted for the bread
they eat? Is it not to yourselves, " Conservatives."
Shame !!! Shame !! ! Is it not now, and has it not always
been, the invariable practice of the Catholics and Radicals
not to employ a single Conservative. Why then do you not
repay them with their own coin ? Why not instantly discharge
from your employ every person whose taxes have been paid by
the unconstitutional means of the " Protector Association ?"
and at the same time declare your intention never to employ
any such in future. Be assured, unless you do so, your own
legitimate votes will be swamped, and the ancient and loyal
borough of Liverpool be disgraced by " representatives in
parliament" nominated by the Catholic priesthood. Awdke,
then, conservatives! Be up and stirring. Do your duty,
and you will soon hear no more boasts from the " Protector
Association." ANTI-RADICAL.
Liverpool, July 29th. ]B4O.