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

were against them. They hoped the bill would be over-
thrown by the council; if it were not they would hear
the like language to that which they had heard before
in that council and out of doors—" I will let nobody cut my
throat, and I will subscribe my mite to overthrow this bill.'
The other day a gentleman, one of the most active, noisy,
and influential upon the subject, mentioned to him openly
and candidly—" the fact is, I cannot afford to let the public
have dock warehouses, so there is the principle we are con-
tending for—it is that of self interest." Now, with regard
to the claim that self-interest had to put out the commercial
prospects of Liverpool, he (Mr. Evans) had never heard a
ease made out. It would never answer with any one. It
would not with Sir Robert Peel. He was told that the hope
of the warehouse owners was now upon Lord Lyndhurst, who
had honoured one or two of them before, now with a
breakfast, and that therefore they hoped to try ano-
ther experiment with his lordship. He (Mr. Evans) had
not the slightest apprehension about Lord Lyndhurst upon
a point of this sort. But if the warehouse owners had
any case let it be made out, and he had not the slightest
objection to go into it. He should be glad to know what
they wanted. Himself and other gentlemen in the Dock
Committee, in their individual capacity, had made many at-
tempts to suggest what they should propose—and what they
wanted as the price for which they would withdraw their oppo-
stion. He had never met anything from them but evasion ;
not one of them had answered him in any other way than
exactly as he had described, continually reverting to their
own interest as the only reason for their opposition. Now,
what was the proposed committee to do that the Dock Com-
mittee could not do ? Had the present suggestion been made
there? Had any overtures been made to the Dock Com-
mittee either in their general or sub-committee charities?
Nothing of the sort. Was not the Dock Committee likely to
be more impartial and fair upon this subject than the coun-
cillors ? Were they not appointed for the purpose ? They
talked as if there was an issue between the Dock Committee
and the warehouse owners—as if the Dock Committee were
interested in it—as it was a dispute between one set of railway
proprietors and another. The Dock Committee were open to
suggestions and overtures ; and he thought they were a great
deal better qualified to entertain them under all the circum-
stances, having more knowledge of the subject than could be
expected elsewhere, than any committee that could be formed
out of the council. He conceived that the question would
not have been entertained for one moment, if it were not for
the sympathy which wealthy men had for each other. When
he heard them saying that there were warehouses sufficient
in Liverpool without erecting more, he replied that there were
roads enough to London before the Grand Junction Railway
was made. If warehouses upon the dock quays happened to
pinch upon the interests of warehouse owners, as the railway
had upon the existing turnpike trusts, that was no reason for
throwing away improvements. Warehouse owners were liable,
like other people, to the vicissitudes of human life, of wordly
affairs, and to changes or value of all kinds of property
arising from improvements. Mr. Evans then referred to the
timber trade as having been loud in opposition to the mea-
sure, contending that there was no ground for their proceed-
ings, inasmuch as they had greater accommodation than any
other trade, and more than was given them in most parts in
the empire. They were enabled to discharge their vessels
quicker here than anywhere upon the face of the globe ; and
he believed, if the subject were investigated, it would be
found that they were lower rated, in proportion to the quay
and water space they occupied, than any other trade. What
they had been holding out, and which, as usual, had been
grabbled at by the interested party, was that it would not be
fair to involve the timber trade, who did not want warehouses,
in the risk of building them, as they might end in raising the
dock rates upon them. Now what had been their conduct ?
They willingly gave their consent to make an open dock,
which would require double dock rates to make it answer
if it were made without warehouses. See the inconsistency
of that. Mr. Evans then went on to contend that the ware-
houses would pay, that so far from adding insecurity to the
docks, they would afford security, and that they would be
the means of bringing an increased income, which would
enable the dock committee at a future period to reduce the
rates. He then urged that as the bill was now in course, any
alterations could best be made before the parliamentary com-
mittee, and that indeed would be the easiest plan of effecting
them, as it would prevent the necessity of a discussion, which
could only tend to embarrass the council. He next entered
upon the question whether the proposed warehouses would
not be converted into a monopoly, and be the instrument
of great political influence, both of which positions he denied ;
and the idea of building the warehouses, and letting them off,

he ridiculed as preposterous.- He concluded by referring to
a speech of Mr. G. H. Lawrence, at the West Derby ward
dinner, and on that speech appealing to Mr. Lawrence to
support his views.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said he was not aware that the
opinions he then expressed would enable him.
Mr. EVANS replied, there was " a chiel amang them
taking notes, and 'faith he'd prent 'em." Before he sat
down he wished to make another remark. The public had
long been amused with talk about the reduction of the dock
rates. When we listened to that kind of talk we were apt
to forget that improvements such, as the building of sheds
and the deepening of docks were better than reduced rates,
inasmuch as they facilitated the entrance, the discharge, and
the departure of ships. There was in the expenditure of the
income upon improvements a virtual reduction of rates.
The MAYOR here announced that the Town Clerk was
now prepared to state the legal bearing of the motion.
Several members said it was not necessary; and therefore
the Town Clerk resumed his seat.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said that Mr. Evans had com-
menced by deprecating any further discussion of the subject,
yet he had himself gone step by step till there was scarcely
any portion of the question upon which he had not touched.
Mr. EVANS observed that he had done so because he could
not see what case had been made out for the motion.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE was glad that she worthy alder-
man had adopted the course which he had. The council
most probably recollected the way in which the Dock Com-
mittee had forced this subject before them in October last,
fearful, no doubt, of the election which was about to ensue.
There was then an express understanding that the council
should have the power of discussing it again about this
period. He should enter upon the subject generally, as it
was one in which he was much interested, as well as a mem.
ber of the council, as a merchant, and as one of those who
possessed the unhappy property now to be attached by the
Dock Committee. He looked forward to the appointment of
this committee, in the hope that its efforts might have a
good effect, in making such suggestions as would render the
bill not perhaps palatable to all parties, but such
generally might approve. He had never risen in his pis,
that room without expressing his anxious wish that this
question shou:d be fairly and amicably settled in Liverpool ;
and he hoped that upon a careful and dispassionate
view of the whole case, that might be done through
the means of this committee. When it was first brought
before the Council, he was one of those who acqui-
esced with, and voted for, the recommendation of the
Finance Committee, that bonded sheds should be erected, in
place of the warehouses required by the Dock Committee.
At that time he thought the Dock Committee would have
acted wisely if they had acceded to the proposal then made,
because, in the end, they might have gained every thing they
required, the Finance Committee having recommended that
the foundations of the sheds should be of that strength and
solidity that, if required, warehouses might hereafter be rear-
ed upon them. The Dock Committee refused to accept this
recommendation, and the bill was abandoned. Next year
the same bill was presented to the Council, and then the
party to which he belonged changed their policy, and instead
of adhering tO the former proposal of bonded sheds' they
supported the scheme of leasing the land to joint stock c mo-
panies. He was a supporter of that but he now thought it
would be wr..ng to separate the warehouses from the dock
management, and that either would be equally prejudicial to
private interests. He supported that icherne, he said, and
he regretted it, for it was to that that all the present difficul-
ties were attributable. They were beaten on this point, and
the bill went before parliament. struggle

the town

Then cam

in parliament, where so much money had been spent. From
the committee of the house neither party returned victorious.
A great mass of evidence was taken, and he believed the opi-
nion of the committee was in favour of building warehouses
upon certain conditions, and opposed to separate manage-
ment ; but the bill did not pass in consequence of the late-
ness of the session, though he believed, if there had been
time, it would not lave 'passed without some assurance or

guarantee that parties, who were only indirectly interested
in the success of the scheme, should not be damaged by its
failure. He alluded to the timber trade. Then came on the
election of members of the Duck Committee by the rate-
payers. On that occasion the merchants, the parties most
competent to form an opinion on the subject, declared their
willingness to accede to the Corporation scheme. They were
in favour of building warehouses, preferring them to bonded
sheds; they were opposed to leasing the laud to joint stock
companies, and were willing to run the risk of building the
warehouses upon the security of their own dock rates. That
he considered was the decision of the rate-payers, by the
election of Mr. Borstal' and the defeat of Mr. Potter. It
was a result which he did not expect; but he felt it his duty,
as a councillor, to use the very best means in his power for
carrying the resolutions of the Council into effect. at the
least possible expense and detriment to the warehouse inte-
rest. To this end he had laboured, and though he had been
one whose. fairness and disinterestedness could
supported by
not be called in question, he was bound to say that, like
many other mediators, he had met with few friends, and
many opponents. He was not, however, discouraged on that
account, nor should he be deterred from expressing what h'
felt upon this occasion. P.,e declared
at hat
that he adhered •
-'
to what he conceived to

Of those with

'hen he said that the public
ids to be brought into corn-

whom he acted on this occasion,
funds ought not upon slight grou
petition with private interests. but t
lie thought he had a right to draw

le this distinction

n the past

a td the future, and say that it woo.-
client to raise warehouses within the margin
Dock, in direct competition with the immense ma
property erected in the vicinity, which wp..
amply sufficient for the accorn,--

f Princ.e's

ion or

He contended that tl

if they choose, to deter
might haye occasion to

.e dock they
enabled to

secure to themselves

such. improvemen,
where. In these times, when rival docks we,. -,-
it behoved them to offer every inducement to the gro
trade of the port. The Harrington and Herculaneum com-
rnies were to have warehouses upon their dock quays, or at
east they sought for them ; and it was hard that this dock
estate, on the ground that nobody had any interest in it,
and belonging rather to the empire than to individuals, should
bxidst.barred from any advantages if they could be si
Lt thet. (liear') His proposal to the council, then, was thi:
j should build warehouses upon the quay of Salt
house 'Jock alone—that they should build as many
quay would
Use of the dock. • I.
hold, and as many as would be sufticient tor the
sheds, which man
He did not oppose the building of transit
Y people thought a good thing, upon the

as they mig

Mr. HARBORD 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 £4,000,000 ? 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 on 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 be 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
'ley should hear from him in a short time, when the com-
7ould give them an opportunity of expressing their
Its, and of making some arrangement. Strange to
although they had particularly 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 brciught 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 Duck 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 WALMSLBY, 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. Busuia 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.
. .

rle 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 he 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 he (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 be 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 he
differences of opinion up,n a question of this magnitude
amongst a reflecting body ; but if Mr. Evans thought there
was a split amongst the conservatives upon it, he would find
himself mistaken.
Mr. Ev ANS (rather warmly) rose, and said that he had said
nothinc, about the conservative cause
ore than I Mr.'BUSHELL.—But Ido

-1 must protest

,gainst this interpolation put

VI SO. lA.,
Mr. BUSHELL 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. AIEIN, 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. 1-I.
Lawrence, that the appointment of a committee was most