The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-04-19 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK-ESTATE RATE-PAYERS.

Yesterday at two o'clock, at the Cotton Sala loom,-.in the
Exchange Buildings, a meeting was held of the rate-payers to
the Dock Estate, convened by circulars-issued by the chairman
of the dock 'committee, .and
.by advertisements in the newspa-
pers. Short ly after the time appointed the meeting was densely
crowded by most of the respectable dock. rate-payers, ship-
owners, and merchants of the town. On the motion of Mr.
Brown. Mr. Charles Lawrence took the chair.
The et-tar tin AN nti openitig the hasiness of the meeting, said;
that in_ accordance with certain resolutions passed by the Dock
Committee; ,who felt that they were placed in such a position
that iheN could not satisfactorily
.proceed with regard to the
new dock trust,. without ascertaining that they were supported
by the merchants of the town, this meeting had .beeu convened.
The committee of management had two.propositions to pro-
pose to them. on which they were called upon to decide. The
Chairman then read the two following propositions
No. 1. "That the committee of management shall consist. of
twenty--four persons, to he elected by the, rate-payers. That
the rate-payers shall be requiredao elect twelve of the twenty-
four from the council of the borough, but shall not be' restricted
from electing a greater number from the members of the coun-
cil duly qualified according to the Dock Acts. That no trent-
ber of the committee of management shall vacate his office by
being subsequently elected into the soupcil. That on a vacancy.
occurring, the rate-payers shall be required to fill it. up from
the council of the borough,, if the committee does not contain
twelve members of such council; but if the committee does con-
tain that number, the rate-payers shall trot be restricted in their
choice."
No. 2. " That the committee of management shall consist
of twenty-four persons, twelve of whom shall tie elected by the
council 'if the borough, out if their own body, and the other
twelve shall be elected by the rate-payers. That the rate-payers
shall not be restricted from electing members of the council
into the committee ; nor shall a member of the committee,
elected by the rate-payers, be disqualified by being elected into
the council,"
These were the two propositions upon
,which the dock commit-
tee were antious to have the opinion of the rate-payers. It was
perhaps uecessary.for him to say a
.few words tu explanation
why the plans already circulated and proposed had., been with-
drawn. The first plan was, that the whole of the. committee
should be elected by.the rate-payers from the rate-payer.' body.
A number of the members of the committee were favouratde to
that plan ; bnt when it was ascertained that the council claimed
to he represented, and that they should glee .up the veto, the
dock committee thought, representing as they did the late cor-
poration, that they could nut with any decency contend for a
bill in parliathent relating to the new trust under those circum-
stances... The second plan was the one now exhibited, and it
was one which it was thought would please all parties ; but the
various bodies in the town were not satisfied with it, its it gave
too great an influence to the common council, In short he was
but stating a fact when he said that had the dock committee
gone to parliament on such terms they would not have been
very well supported. They had thought it better to .submit the
two propositions to the -rate-payers, and the- dock .corii:witittee
would feel it their duty to support in the House of Commons
the one which they might adopt.
Mr. IlttowN rose to ascertain how far the council and the
dock committee agreed. Several propositions were put forth
In the Mercury of Friday last, which he believed contained the
views of the council, and he was anxious to ascertain haw far
the dock committee had agreed to those views.
The CUAtiiuAN said. the Only point he was authorised by the
dock committee to enter upon was, which Of the two proposi-
tions he had read the rate-payers would decide upon. After a
lengtheneal.discussion Brown read the resolittions come to
by the council committee on dock affairs, which are subjoined,
and contended that this was a meeting open for general. discus-
sion on the question, whilst the Chairman said he could only
take the opinion of the meeting on those two points. Mr.
Brown then read the following as points on which the council
insisted :-
I.—The mayor, alderman and common council to continue to
be the trustees of the Liverpool docks.
• 2.—The connnittee of matiagement to consist of twenty-four,
twelve to be appointed by the trustees out of their own body,
and twelve by the rate-payers.
3.—The rate-payers to choose their twelve from ra'e-payers of
£5O per annum, and being a member of the council to be no
disqualification,
41.—The committee to appoint their own chairman; but, in
case of an equality of votes, the trustees to decide..
s.—The chairman to have a second or casting vote, as under
the municipal reforin- act.
6.—The power hitherto possessed by the trustees to revise and
annul the proceedings of the committee to he repealed; but the
power to apply to parliament tot any purposes of the docks to
be solely with the trustees.
7.—Thp dock and town police to he united.
Mr. Ai KtN trusted the object of the meeting was to save the
public money. Ile trusted the sense of the meeting would be
taken relative to the dock trust. It might save them much future
expense end annoyance.
Mr. J. B. VarEs thought it impossible to arrive at any fa-
vourable conclusion if their consideration was limited to the two
points under dispute. Its effect would be to adjourn the meet-
ing ta some finfire day. lie thought, if the objects of the town
council were obtained, they would militate most. strongly against
the interests and trade of this borough. lie would prepose an
amendment, and, if the meeting thought proper. he Would ex-
plain his reasons Cm proposing that the whole of the dock coat-
shoula in fittura lie elected by the rate-payers.
The Cos I 1:141AN said he had not the power to receive the pro-
position.
After considerable discussion of a similar nature, Mr. YATES
contending that the representative system should he carried out
in the committee on the Dock estate, and the Chairman re-
iterating that such discussion being foreign to the object for
which the
.meeting was called, and that he could net enter-
tain it,
Mr. Loins BRANCK ER contended that every householder was
as 'much interested in the welfare of this port as any of the
great merchants in it. (Cries of " No, no.") This was not
fair meeting, it was called for a certain purpose. If the town-
council had been properly chosen in pastimes. there never
would have been the division which now occurred • the corpo-
ration would have still been the holders of the dockltrnst. He
concluded with reading the propositions, which are inserted
above, from the Mercury of last week.
The CHAIRMAN again objected to this mode of procedure, he
only sat there with a certain authority,
Mr. Suing, wished to know if Mr. Lawrence sat there as
chairman of the meeting or only as a delegate front from
another body If he were a delegate he could not preside
there.
The CIiAIRPJAN admitted the truth of Mr. Shiel's remark.
He came there delegated from the dock committee to submit
tertain resolutions to the rate-payers. ir_should be ready it,
resign the chair if called upon. Aft, eh further similar
discossion.
Mr. T. B. HonsFALL said that there had';eart4a very long
discussion, without any proposition being'' submitted to the
meeting. lie would, with permission of the chairman, beg
leave to propose a resolution which' though alot what he could
wish, he was still willing to propo'se, as the chairman had de-
cided, that it was only upon the 'loo questions transmitted by hitn
to the rate-payers that they could, come to any decision. Ile
was aware that attempts had been made to induce the rate-
payers to believe that there was it desire somewhere—an indefi-
nite somewhere—to restrict them in the choice of their repre-
sentatives; but he trusted they had come to that meeting pre-
pared, in the spirit of an article which appeared in the Albion of
Monday last, and which was said to emanate from a men-her of
the town council, determined " to retain the exercise of their
otra judgment, and to admit of no limitation to their elective
cheite." (Cheers.) He would ask who it was that wished to
restrict the rate-payers? Certainly not the Dock Committee,
for they had in the first instance proposed to throw open the
election of the whole twenty-four or twenty-one members.
Certainly not the associated bodies, for they, or the majority of •
them, had determined ut once to support the proposition of the
Dock Committee. From whom then did the restriction ema-
nate ? From none other than the town council, and the council
alone. (Cheers.) He (Mr. H.) was in favour, of the open
election of the whole commlttee • but the chairman having de-
cided that the meeting; must confine itself to a decision
.on the
two propositions he rimeeting;ad submitted to them, he must confine
himself to taking what he considered the least of two evils. lie
objected to the propositions of the town council on the principle
which. Mr. Aikin and other gentlemen had approved of at the
meeting of rate-payers held in that room two years ago. He
held in his hand a copy of the report adopted at that meeting,
and in it he found.a principle which contended strongly against .
admitting too great a preponderance of the corporation into the
management of the dock estate. The report said.—
" Itj the early history of the docks, whew their extent and in-
come were comparatively small, the common council, then
donors of land for making the docks, might be supposed to act
as trustees for both bodies, nithout injury to either party; but,
the moment they assumed, es common council of the corpora-
tion, the character of sellers to the deck hist, and the interests
of the two estates (then innuensely increased in value) began
to conflict, upon every principle of common sense other trustees
ought to have 'been appointed fur the docks; and then the ab-
surdity of the same individuals acting in the double capacity of
sellers and purchase's would never have existed." (Cheers.)
He would not content himself with quoting from the report, but
would refer at once to the petition on this subject, Which was
presented to the House of Commons on the 17th of February,
1533, by. Mr. Ewart, and to which petition was attached the
names of Mr. Aikin and others, which he 'would read fo the
Meeting, after reading a part ,of, the petition. The petition
Went on to say
"That the interests of these two great estates, (the dock and
the corporation.) placed under the direction 'of the same trus-
tees, are often directly opposed to each other, and in particular
the common council, being proprietors of strand and•soilwant-
ed for the docks, have frequently to act in the double capacity
'of seller and-buyer."
Again,- after complaining of a want of foresight. on the part of
the corporation, the petition proceeds:— • -
"'Your petitioners subtnit that if the dock estate had beett re-
presented by trustees • distinct from the corporation it may
reasonably be supposed that they would have had the common
forecast to secure the strand that might he required for dock
puree_ ses below its value was thus so greatly increaser{ at the
expense of their trust. In Purchases from the Earl of Sefton
and other landowners the council took care to include the
strand."
And again, after complaining of a mal-arrangement respecting
the graving docks, the petition proceeds:—
" Here, again, your petitioners submit that if the dock •
estate had been protected by a separate representation, the very
reason which influenced the council in retaining these graving
docks, as the property of the corporation, would have induced
other trustees to enforce their purchase for the benefit of the
docks."

It is inconsistent with good government that the interests
of two great estates, after conflicting with each other, should be
under the protection of the same individuals." To this petition
were attached the names which he would now read :—'Thomas
Sands, David Hodgson. James Mellor, Hugh Hornbv, Wm.
Blain, Win. Maxwell, Edward Cropper, Gladstone,John
Twinaine, Edward Cearns, jun. Alexander Maxwell, Christo-
pher Rawdon, Win. Rathbone, Win. Nicol, S. T. Hobson, John
Bibby, John D. Thornely, W. F. Porter, Godfrey Barnsley,
Andrew Low, Jos. Shipby, George Holt, T B. Barclay, Thos.
Booth, Edward Moon, G. F. Dickson, C. Taylor, J. Aikin.—
(The reading of these names was received with continued
cheering.)
The speaker continued. He said he had only brought forward
the petition which was adopted at the last meeting of the rate-
payers, and which embodied sufficient to condemn the principle
of giving a preponderating influence to the town-council. He
would not offer another observation of his own, but leave the
sentiments of these gentlemen to speak for themselves. (Cheers.)
He would, although it did not exactly coincide with his views,
beg to propose as the least of two evils, the first proposition
which had been read to them by the Chairman.
Mr. AMIN begged to be allowed to make a few obaervations in re-
ply, as it did not seem likely that they would coase.to any decision.
Some remarks had been 'nee which would lead to a conclusion that
he and others had been guifly of gross inconsistency. • Now the gross
inconsistency lie had been guilty of from first to last was havlngdone
all in his power to open the corporation. He quite agreed with a re-
Mark made that if the council had been constituted as it now was, the
dock estate would have now been under their management. With
regard to the charge of inconsistency: be believed the gentleman Who
brought that charge was at the time in direct opposition to the reso-
lutions and petitions which had been read by loin. and he had con-
tended olOt former occasion that the dock rate-payers of Liverpool.
had no right nor title to the management of the docks. °Ma former-