The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-12 00:00:00

brink of Prince's Dock. He could wish that these ware-
houses were built upon the security of the warehouses them-
selves, which, if the land were not taken into account, and
paid for by the dock trustees simply as quays, he thought
might be done. But no difficulty of the kind should be
thrown in the way, merely for the sake of preventing ware-
houses being built. At all events, some arrangements might

Ise made. Then, he should wish some assurance or guaranlee
might be introduced into the bill, which should render it
beyond a doubt that there would be no loss upon those
parties who considered that they were not interested in the
warehouses. He should also like to aim at a clause which
would compel the dock committee to charge the highest rates
consistently with keeping the warehouses full; and, on the other
hand, care should be taken that importers into these warehouses
did not gain an advantage over the public; for he contended
that they should be made to pay, and be the means of actu-
ally reducing the dock rates generally. With some proviso
of this sort, the rate-payers would feel less aggrieved if the
warehouses were built than if the docks were built solely.
He would then do this—he would acknowledge the principle
that the existing warehouses were sufficient for the existing
docks—that the rates should be made as high as was con-
sistent with keeping them in repair—that those parties who
disputed them should not be injured by the failure of the
scheme—and he would leave the management of them in the
bands of the Dock Committee. He aimed also at making
the Dock
.Committee more popular with the rate-payers. He
_aimed at making them a more responsible body than they
were, and more amenable to the rate-payers. Though he (lid
not expect that the council would adopt any plan of this sort,
he thought it was not its interest absolutely to refuse it.
These were the opinions he had formed on this subject. He
had taken some pains to form them ; and he was sure it would
not hastily be said that he had spoken rashly or at random.
Considering his humble means, he had more at stake in this
question than most of those whom he was then addressing;
but it should never be said that, for the sake of personal or
pecuniary interest, he had thwarted any measure for the ge-
neral benefit and interest of the town.

Mr. GEORGE HOLT wished that the subject had been nar-
rowed within the limits of the appointment of the committee,
and not opened again upon the general principle, because
that had been so often discussed, both in and out of
doors, and in the papers, that every one had expressed
his opinion upon it. The consideration of the question
seemed to be confined to the private interests of the
warehouse-owneis. Of course, they would naturally take a
view of their own interest ; still, he could not but admire
the fairness and candour of the last speaker. He thought,
too, that the mover of the resolution had shown as much
fairness and candour as under the circumstances could be ex-
pected from him. But still there seemed to be no sympathy
with the public estate. Here was an estate of about
£1,000,000 in value, and on this question there was no sym-
pathy with it. It was scarcely to be expected that a bill of
the magnitude of this dock bill could be successful in the
first session ; it was a great deal to have paved the way for a
successful result this year. Concerning the expense, how
did it arise ? Although it made every provision for parochial
rates, we found the parish authorities oppcsing it with the
public funds. A more unwarrantable interference was never
witnessed ; and this was a great source of additional expense.
While they were opposing the building of warehouses in
Liverpool, which should be subject to parochial taxation,
just out of the boundaries of the borough, what was the
fact? The Herculaneum and Harrington bills were encou-
raged, and Liverpool was to be the only port in the
world having docks without warehouses. After expres-
sing an opinion that Mr. Lawrence need be under no ap-
prehensions about the warehouses being always full,
he said, that bonded sheds would entail an enormous
expense, whilst they would bring in no reVenue ; and
as to raising money to build the warehouses, he thought that
would be easily done in the way suggested. It was diffi-
cult to say that there would not be a benefit to the estate.
If the warehouses_ paid 20 per cent, and there was only 5

per cent to be paid for the interest, a surplus went to the
estate. I hus, dock warehouses were as necessary to docks
as the masts of a vessel were necessary to a complete ship.
With regard to the appointment of a committee, for any
purpose, except to embarrass the bill, it was totally absurd.
It was quite unnecessary, as the subject was perfectly under-

Mr. H ARBORD said, that being a party interested in this
question, it became him to express his sentiments upon it,
unless he wished to be accused of a want of candour. The
reason he objected to the proposition of the dock trust was,
because there was no just principle for the formation of such
a property. For the last 15 or 20 years, and especially
within the last 6 or 7 years there had been constant complaints
from the merchants, and more especially from those of recent
settlement in the port,.that the dock rates were enormously
high—higher than in any other port in the kingdom. After
strenuous exertions they had been reduced no less than 33 per
cent. If,warehouses were to be built by the Dock Trustees,
and merchants were put to the same trouble and expense
with the warehouse rents, as they had been for years past
with the dock rates, they would have just reason to complain.
But why should this property be created at all, risking, as
it did, the property of private individuals to the amount
of £1,000,000 ? It was just to satisfy a few schemers,
and not to promote the public good. That, at least,
was his opinion. But he might say also, that merchants had
good reason to complain of the management no less than the
charges of the dock trustees. The docks had been impro-
perly managed; there was not the accommodation that was
to be found in other ports, whilst the charges, till within the
last six years, had been higher than in other,ports. Taking

these matters into consideration, he was fully convinced that
if there was not a better disposition or► the part on the dock
trustees than there had been hitherto evinced, the merchants
would not meet that accammodation at that moderate expense
that they anticipated. Mr. Evans had stated that the ware-
house-owners had never come forward with any proposition,
that they had never met the dock committee fairly, and that
they would never come to any conclusive arrangement. He
must protest against that statement, as showing a want of
gentlemanly conduct. An overture was made to the dock
committee at the commencement of this scheme. He had
copies of the letters in his office, as he was then, for a short
period, the secretary to the warehouse-owners. One was
sent to Mr. Daniel Mason, the secretary to the dock trust,
signed by the president at a public meeting. Mr. Mason
acknowledged the receipt of that letter, and stated that the
dock committee could not then appoint a day for an inter-
view, as their plans were not maturely laid down; but that
they should hear from him in a short time, when the com-
mittee would give them an opportunity of expressing their
sentinients, and of making some arrangement. Strange to
say, although- they had partkttlaxly requested an interview,
in order to make some arrangement, they never received
any further communication from Mr. Mason, except
verbally, when the whole proceedings were brought before
the council, and they were told indirectly that some mem-
bers of the Dock Trust did not want to be troubled any fur-
ther with them. He said, therefore, that there was a want
of candour, of common honesty, and of gentlemanly conduct
on the part of the Dock Committee in thus throwing the
warehouse owners overboard altogether. Mr. Harbord then
went on to contend, from the examples of London, Bristol,
and Hull, that none of the statements put forward by the
advocates of warehouses on the Dock quays could- be relied
upon, and that the principle of competition would be the
best for all parties. He then referred to the vast amount of
capital invested in warehouses, sketching the rise and pro-
gress of them, and stated that he had encouraged capitalists
to embark in thiskind of property, money to the amount of
£200,000 ; and after this attempt of the Dock Committee,
he supposed they would thank him for it. He thought that
the whole subject ought to be reconsidered, and that such
arrangements should be made, that the property which had
already been built for the accommodation of the trade of the
port should be protected, and not be made subservient to
those who wished to try the scheme of Dock warehouses. If
he had his will every dock should be leased off, and a trea-
surer appointed by the Dock Trustees, who should pay over
the amount agreed upon to be paid by each company. They
would then ensure to themselves the revenue, a wholesome
competition would be established, dock against dock, and the
trade of the port would have the advantage. (Hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON, after alluding to the delay that ships ex-
perienced in discharging, for want of accommodation, and to
the necessity of having the warehouse question settled,
moved the following amendment, which is a very good epi-
tome of his speech. "That the Dock Surveyor be directed
to furnish plans, for the approval of the Dock Trustees, for
the construction of capacious transit sheds upon the west
side of Prince's Dock, subject to rates for the use thereof,
and to be erected forthwith after the passing of the bill; and
that the Dock Solicitor be authorised to proceed with the bill
for the above purpose, and for making the new dock on the
west side of the Salthouse Dock, with power to the Dock
Trustees to erect warehouses on the quays, and for the other
provisions of the Dock Bill."

Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY, after some remarks on the gene-
ral question, seconded the amendment.

Mr. HODGSON supported the original motion

Mr. BARCLAY supported the amendment, contend-
ing, that no benefit could arise from the appointment of
the committee.

Mr. H. SANDBACH supported the original motion, in the
hope that it would lead to the settlement of the question,
and also on the ground that it would save the enormous ex-
pense of a contest if all parties united, and that it would
also strengthen the hands of the Dock Committee very much
before the House of Commons. The reverse was likely to
interfere very materially with the success of the bill, and also
with the surplus funds, which might be made available for other
objects. There was in the statement of Mr. G. H. Law-
rence an index of the sort of compromise that would most
likely be the result of the appointment of a committee. For
his own part, he willingly concurred, as the best that was
practicable, in Mr. Lawrence's proposal, that all the new
docks, hereafter to be made, should have warehouses around
them, be managed by the Dock Committee, and that transit
sheds should be put around as many docks as they pleased.
He should support the resolution.
Mr. Bust-JELL said, that as they had now been talking for
two hours, he wished to be informed whether it was the in-
tention of the promoters of the bill to offer any opposition to
the formation of a committee.

Mr. EVANS replied that he should oppose it.
Mr. BUSHELL said that answer was necessary for the po-
sition which he should take up. What were the promoters
of the bill about to do? Did they suppose that, when Mr.
Earle put his motion on the books, that he intended to do
anything so dishonourable as to propose the formation of a
committee which should be all on one side? Did they sup-
pose that if lie intended to do anything which such a com-
mittee could do, that he would not have put some motion on
the book at once, which would have done away with the bill
altogether? If any such intention existed, as to propose the
formation of a committee which should not be perfectly fair
in every respect he (Mr. B.) would not have been one of the
supporters of it. He did not know upon what authority Mr.
Evans might calculate, but be (Mr. B.) could tell him that
he, for one, was disposed to do everything in his power to
meet the question fairly and honestly. What was the object
of the committee ? It was, that the council should, by such
a medium, be enabled to know that which it did not at pre-
sent—what the warehouse owners desired. The Dock Com-
mittee had brought charges against the warehouse owners
that they had not told them what they wished for; the ware-
house owners, on the contrary, brought charges that they
had never been consulted. The object of this committee
would be to put themselves in communication with both,
so that they might know what both desired. Now, was that
fair, or was it not ? It struck him that Mr.. Evans had got a
glimpse of something which he viewed through a glass darkly.
Hence that which he had said with regard to the split of the
conservative party on this question. If Mr. Evans rested
upon that, he rested upon a broken reed. There might be
differences of opinion upon a question of this magnitude
amongst a reflecting body ; but it Mr. Evans thought there
was a split amongst the conservatives upon it, he would find
himself mistaken. _ _ _

Mr. EVANS (rather warmly) rose, and said that he had said
nothing about the conservative cause.
Mr. BUSIIELL.—.But I do.
Mr, EVANS.—I must protest against this interpolation put
into my words.

Mr.-BUSIIELL repeated that if Mr. Evans took up the
view of the conservatives being split upon this question, to
the breaking up of the party, he would find himself deceived.
They were sent to that council as guardians of the interests of
the town ; but they were also sent there as conservatives ;
and there was not a conservative in the town of Liverpool,
who, however much he might desire the erection of ware-
houses on the dock quays, would allow his anxiety for the
general good government of the country to be interfered with
by any such consideration. He called on Mr. Evans to re-
consider the question, and to consent to the committee, in
order to promote conciliation.

Mr. Aims, in a speech of considerable length, supported
the amendment.

„__
Mr. JOHN HOLMES expressed a strong wish that the ques-
tion should be arranged.
Mr. BOOTH concurred in the view taken by Mr. G. H.
Lawrence, that the appointment of a committee was most