The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-05-01 00:00:00

Mr. BIRKETT said he would read an article from a news-
paper, (the London and Liverpool Price Current, of April 27th,
1838,) stating the reason for the decay of the port of London:—
" A second cause of this decay is, that merchants in the *-
ports have greater facilities and advantages than merchants
have in this port. There a merchant has his own special
bonded warehouse, and can warehouse his own goods, which
must be a great advantage and a saving of expenses iu rent and
charges; here we have little else hut docks; and our merchants
are subject to all the rent and charges which such establish.
ments exact. Formerly, most merchants had their special
bonding warehouses, but they have been discontinued for the
protection of these great dock companies.
" A third cause is the high navigation charges and port dues
to which merchants are liable here. Look at the charges all
the way up the river, and look at the port charges here, and if
compared with those of the outports they will be found to be
much higher. This will be found to drive trade away, for men
will go to the cheapest port; and as railways are now in pro-
gress to transmit goods all over the kingdom, obstacles which be-
fore existed to going to these ports are removed and removing?,
Mr. HA RBORD next rose and said,—now, gentlemen, you
have just heard some of the statements of the'London merchants
read; they are discontented with their arrangements; I think
when I come to show you that our charges are less than the
charges in. London. we shall be satisfied to remain as we now
are. I beg to, state that the measaretnent of the London Docks
'are 1,221,049 square yards, and Quay room of 21,796 yards. In
' Liverpool the dock space is 417,625 square yards 74,060 yards,
making in London, three times the extent of dock space, and
twice the extent of quay room, In the West India docks I
made the inquiries there of some practical men, and they said
it was by no means that they did business so quick as we-Liver-
pool folks presumed, that we were a sad grumbling set; though
they should by no means like to do business in the same petty-
fogging way as we'do here.—lt was anticipated that St. Cathe-
rine's dock would yield a very handsome per tentage, but the
original proprietors don't receive above 2 to 21 per cent. ou
their investment, though those who purchased below par re-
ceive 4 per cent. I shall show that the merchants having
these dock-warehouses, have to pay, to use the vulgar expres-
sion, "through .the nose" for their accommodation. I have the

. .
account sales of a Liverpool house, and when I give you the
figures yOu will see how the matter stands—fyr as Liverpool
folks, .We know what lures are concerning ptaunds, phillings,
and pence. In the article .of tea, I hold in tny.httod the account
sales connected with a Scottish and Liverpool house. A vessel
went 'to St. Katharine's docks, and had on board 8,51.0 chests
of tea, the charges on which amounted to the enormous,suna
of £2,095 6s. lid.

Mr. BIRKETT.—Does that include duty.
Mr. HABBORD.—No sir, it is merely tnanagement of the
docks and charges.
Mr. BOOTHBY.—Does that include all brokerage charges and
so forth?

Mr. HARBOR D.—l will read you the charg►ea.
Management rate
Extra coopering materials . 152 6 1
Warehouse rent BO4 19 9

2,095 6 0
Mr. BOOTHRY.—The warehousing appears to be £3OI. Are
the merchants obliged to have their management ?
Mr. BIRKETT.—Yes. that is what they complain of.
Mr. HARBORD now give you an account of the sales of
some teas landed in this port. There were 3,436 chests of tea,
managed in the same way as that lot I have just mentioned,
which only amounts to the small sum of (exclusive of the dock
and town dues) £3lB 7s. 6d., making a difference against Lon-
don of 200 per cent.
Mr...Dovun.—For the same time ?

Mr. H ARBORD.—Yes, fora similar time; for rent and for
doing the same things; they are exactly upon a par for the
management and for the rent. In addition to that, putting
ou one side these sales accounts, I have the printed documents
here of St. Katherine's Docks, showing what it is percent., and,
with the printed rates of the Katherine's Docks, taking it per
chest, it is just 200 eer cent. more than Liverpool.
Mr. BOOTHB v.—Allow me to state that the dock charges in-
clude the expenses of re-shipment, and therefore the charge
made to the seller may also include charges which might attach
to the buyer.
Mr. II A Horin.—l am fully aware of it, sir. The charges
mentioned here do not form any part of those charges. The
Liverpool management is three-eighths of a penny per
pound,'
and we deliver to the purchaser the same as they do in London.
It is on the same principle as in London, and my charges are
less than London,by 200 per cent. The St. Katharine's Dock
Company's charge for management; landing, warehouse rent,
setting out for sale, &c., is no smaller a sum than Gs. Bd., for a
bohea chest of tea, and Is. additional if shipped. Now these
documents are available to any gentleman who may wish to see
them, at my office; they are parallel cases with London. I
give vou the charges on West India sugar—the sales' account of
100 hogsheads of sugar in London. '['he charges amounted
to £5O Bs. Bd. 'l'he parties were desirous of ascertaining what
the charges were in Liverpool, and the following is the re- ,
suit :—ln Liverpool, the charges on 100 hogsheads of sugar, re-
maining in the house three months, amounted to £34 IBs. 6d.,
,Making a difference in favour of Liverpool of 15 per cent.
Mr. THOMAS FREME.—Does that include cartage?
Mr. HArraoen.--Yes sir; it is the whole expense themer-
chant would have to incur in Liverpool, and the whole he would
have to incur in London.. This is another glaring tact, because
this information: was obtained in consequence of the dissatisfac-
tion as to the chirges of Liverpool, and the party obtaining the
particulars contended that the charges in Ldndon were mode-
rate, and that they were enormous in Liverpool, and would not
submit to them until after an investig,...etion. He took a cargo
of Mauritius sugar, and compared the London rates on it with
these of Liverpool, and said, after trying the experiment,
We hive Mauritius sugar 15 to 20 per cent. less in Liverpool
than in London, and Molasses, 25. per cent." This I have
from a very respectable broker in this town, who is ready to
prove the fact if needful. I wrote to Bristol for the charges
there, and obtained rather a laconic reply. The rent upon
sugar in Bristol, is, in some cases, from 50 to 70 per cent. more
than they are at this port. Say, 4s. 6d. per hhd.; 3s. 3d. per
ice. ; Is. Id. per brl., for three mouths, and we think ourselves
very well off if we get Is. 9d.-per hhd. (Hear.) I think this
information will be satisfactory to those gentlemen who are in-
terested in warehouse property, because it will show that there
is no just cause fur complaint. I have also investigated into
the Hull Dock charges. Here I have a list of their rates and
1 find in no instanced° they manage their business at a cheaper
rate than we do. Now there is a mixture of interests. 'l'he
Dock Committee take part of. the management, kit if the mer-
chant wishes, he can have the management of his own business.
It is not a port we can quote; but looking at the rates, the
charges there are not less than those of Liverpool; although,
he it remembered, thrust is assessed very heavily for the re-
lief of the poor. In addition to which,
_I also made an inquiry
as to the length of time it took to discharge a vessel of 100 to
150 tons and was informed, it would take from four to six
days to discharge a vessel of that tonnage in Hull. 1 have
also been requested by the committee to state the despatch
given to some vessels in this port, and, in addition, to show the
cause or causes for some of the detentions which have occurred.
The I'hmnix cargo was landed here not long since in five days,
belonging, to Messrs. Shawls. It was a general cargo from
Calcutta; •the same was landed and weighed in that period,r(not
as they do in London,) between 8 and 9,000 packages, besides
putting 30,000 bricks on board towards her outward cargo.
The Brilliant discharged, as we are aware, through the meth-
ern of the press, not many days since, about 550 packages of
West India sugar, coffee, and dim, in the short space of twenty
hours, which is as much as they can do at London docks, all of
which was weighed, and sampled, and ready for sale, Now,
have particulars of three other vessels disChatging in Liverpool.
We have often heard of detention; and it is a great pity when
we have beard so many accusations of those in, the town coun-
cil, who must hate been ignorant of the trade of the port, if
a worse motive has not-been the instigation, or they would no;
have made so many unjust accusations. A friend of mine, whet
is owner of a vessel which arrived here not long since, with a
cargo of fruit, and who bail an export cargo ready for this yes-
• sel as soon as the import Cargo was delivered, this cargo was
kept one month on board, while the merchant or dealer was
hawking the samples about to sell the cargo, and thereby making
' a warehouse of another person's vessel. Now, the watehouse-
keeper cannot be blamed for that. The cargo has never gone
into a warehouse, but the vessel has occupied dock spare, and
created. detention to other vessels. I have another friend who
is part owner. He came here with a cargo of wheat, add though
entitled to demurrage he:never got any i he was kept here a
month, when his vessel might have been discharged in four days
after hel• arrival here, therefore no fault could attach to the
warehouse keepers in this instance. We should have been glad
to receive the cargo into the warehouses, for we should have had
the best part of a month's rent, which we have, course, of
Inst. (Hear.) Another friend of mine, who was also inter-
ested in a vessel called the Manly, from.Monteerrat, discharged
from her 308 hogsheads of sugar in the West India docks
in the usual way so termed, and she was from the 13th to the,
16th of March discharging her cargo. I think we can manage`
as much, if not more, in Liverpool. I have another Vessel dis-
charging in St. Catherine's Dock. Mr. Harboid then read a
letter froin a friend stating that in answer to his inquiry, from
4to 500 packages had been discharged in two days. The dela+s
were considerable, and it was three weeks before they could ob-
tain an account of the cargo, which prevented them making
sales and settling freight. In Liverpool von are aware that 9
davit are sufficient. Twete is only one subject that we have to
grapple with here, and that is we are told that welifletain vessels
in Liverpool an enormous time, and invariably keep them the
best part of a month. I heard a gentleman complaining of a
vessel, and I took the trouble of searching the whole of the do-
cuments about it, and I found, although it was stated that she
was detained in Liverpool 29 daysin discharging her cargo, the
fact.was, it was only 16 days, acid if they had had covered vans,
the custom-house officers would not have preyented them taking
part of the cargo to the bonded warehouses, where the goods could
have been weighed-and sampled, and she then might have been
discharged in 4 or 2-thirds the time. I found she was boarded on
the 21st of Nov. and reported on the 23d. , Now this unfortunate
vessel we' are accused of se detaining had trot at this time got
round the rock. They had dated the detention froth the time,

done—though I say only perhaps—as the inconvenience and
even expense would not be encountered readily by the ship.
owner. But the chances are, the vessel would not be in the
same doek, as it will be recollected that there are ten differeol
docks, havino. no communication, one with another.
But we are, happily, in this case, not left to reason froth
theory.
It is well known to all, the tobacco warehouse is on the quay
I side of the King's Dock, and, frequently, that article is ex-
ported or sent coastwise; -and I have taken the trouble to as-
certain whether, in this case, the vessels do take in this article
front the King's Dock Quay ;pad I find, that they do not;
that tobacco is almost invariably carted from the tobacco ware-
house to vessels. The exceptions would not amount to I per
cent, in 20 years.—l state this on the authority of an officer
of the tobacco warehouse.
Complaints are made against the systematic pilfering going
on, as they say, in the warehouses,—which is not the case in Lon-
don. Now, for these ke of argument, admit that there is more pil-
fering here than in London; is it not notorious that the London
charges are higher than ours? and 1 think that it is more than
probable that the difference will inure thau cover what may lie
lost by the merchant in that way. But as a rule, Ido not admit
that the pilferage here is greater than in London.
Another charge brought against us by the Dock Trustees is,
that we, as warehouse-keepers, do not take any care of the
goods put under our charge; and one,—an alderman,—went so
far as to say, we were regardless of every thing except our own
interest. In one sense he is correct, fur if we keep in view our
own real interest, we will look well after the property intrusted
to us, and if he meant the assertion in that sense I plead yr4ilty
—but if his meaning was, that we look after our own interest
only, to the neglect of that of the merchant—in my case, fur I
can only answer for myself—l must be allowed to say, unelui-
vocally, that it is not true. If I did not take care of people's
property 'under my 'charge, I should render myself liable for
any loss, either from pilferage or otherwise.
One alderman tells .us that he has suffered loss from .the in-
solvency of the.warehouse-keeper, that his goods weredistrained
upon for the rent of the whole warehouse.. But whois to blame
for this, surely himself, he. should be more particular as to the
person to whom he intrusts the charge of his property. The
same thing might happen to him in the case of his broker, or
any other person whom he might employ.
But if it is the general feeling that warehouses should be pu
under the management of companies for the better security o
goods, there can be no objection to it on the part of the ware
house-owners.