The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-01-11 00:00:00

it registered in the great book, and at the registrar's. There
is also a clause that was not in the bill before. It is for
permission to take absolute power to remove vessels from
the graving docks. We have an instance of a vessel occu-
pying the graving dock for eight months, at great incon-
venience on the part of the shippers. This graving dock
was rendered useless; because vessels which wanted to go
in could notget there.; and there is another most important,

That is a thing
The dock estate

matter, which is the ev
worth going to parliamet
has been robbed to a large amount, and the corporation
too, of its dues, to a large amount ; and it has been proved
that the most stringent measure s that have been devised
cannot meet the case. Just to give an instance : A vessel
sailed from the port of Liverpool
municated to me that 1
dues, though she had al
and had not paid her di
the Dock Committee, am
citor. The parties upon 1
that they had entert -
fraud, but intended t(

nd some parties com-
the vessel had not paid the dock
bsolutely left the port fourteen days,
ock dues. I laid the matter before

erwards before the dock soli-
ng communicated with, sail
no intention of committing a
e paid. Ido not intend to make

any insinuation, but many persons would have thought
that, if they had passed fourteen days without mentioning
it to the Dock Committee, they might have passed fourteei
thousand. We have no means, at present, of inflicting a
penalty for this sort of conduct. We can at the best only
get the money that is due to us, and when the matter was
mentioned by me to Mr. Rushton, it was his deliberate
opinion that if the party tendered us the money, we
should be obliged to sit down with merely receiving it.
This clause goes to the effect that if the dues are not paid
ifora will say
"ion ae Dock
'ust i the hill,
I ay a few

at a certain time, a pen,— _
n few words with reference to the position of ti

lty is to be enforcea

Committee in regare to -
and the Council will bear v
words upon that matter. (Ht.
think that they act in the caps
executive of the dock trust, in the origination of any clause
putting taxes upon themselves, or on the property which
was left in their charge; and if• the clause to which allu-
sion has been made had not been departed from, they
would have been justified in resisting the clause, at al
events. But the principle having been once broken down,
the Dock Committee found themselves in this position :
they could not propose a clause to rate the property of
the trustees, unless the trustees or Parliament thought
proper to put it into the bill. (Hear.) It is well known
that many of the Dock Comm:4l-r.. are favourable to the
rating of the dock warehouses, but,,
not place themselves in an anomalous position
Mw. ROBINSON said he would have voted f
tion of the rate-payir
the Dock Committe

)ock Committee
stees, and as the

s trustees, they can

the inser-

clause bad it been proposed ix

Mr. Alderman MOORE said he was no party to the
arrangement about the rate, and therefore had not voted
for it, thoughat the same time it would not have received
sitton from him

ny opy

were Wit as trustee for pr

sneeches in public meetings
He thought the
g the

would he volunteer to mak,
in favour of rating similar propert3
parish authorities were perfectly

.houses rated if th

rig ht in
He. howev
h /11100 C

it short-sighted policy to tax the
docks, inasmuch as their establishment would cat.,
the port. When it was first talked of to make Manches-
ter a port, it was stated that such a step would ruin
Liverpool. His (Mr. Moore's) argument always was
that if the best and cheapest warehouses were in Liver-
pool, goads instead of going to Manchester to be ware
housed, would be warehn•-

thought
around the
apex

A. lone conversat

rescinding the resolutic

.d in Liverpool

to the probable result of

at the r

Mr. HOLT proposed ...
meeting of the Council be rescinded
clearing the way of the Council.
Mr. S. HoL..-
taken, it would mal

lOLME 1

the best mode of

!e were

Mr. Alderman COOPER wished to know the object of
taking the land at the north end of the town.

It was explained that the new land at Bootle was ne-
cessary for the purpose of the timber trade, and the de-
posit of the earth from the excavations going on at the
Wapping Dock.
Mr. THOMAS LLOYD

resolution, which w
the Town-Clerk.

conded the Dock Chairman's
in some technical points by

After a few words from Mr. J. B. LLOYD, Mr. HoLT
moved an amendment, to the effect that the vote of the
last Council be rescinded.

Mr. LACE and M
gentleman expressi

RATHBONE next spoke, the latter
himself in favour of the rating of

the dock warehouses
Mr. D. HODGSOZ,
rating the docks likewise
Mr. PARKER was jeal
ment—(laughter)—and

lerstood to be in favour of

.very jealous of the amend

in g of

the former resolution of t
after the question which

1 put to the Town-

that the r.atepayir2gclat
-

After some obFervations from M
pointed out the rea
an independent vot

lons which would inc

N, whit

him to give

Mr. HORNBY said the strong objection which he
entertained to the bill was, because of its being brought
forward in its present modified form. If the Dock Com-
mittee were sincere in their profession of being anxious
for the construction of warehouses around the docks, he
thought they had committed a very grievous error by not

inserting a Clause subjecting them to the payment of local
rates; because it was perfectly clear that, without such a
clause, it was a matter of certainty that the bill would not
pass the council. That the Dock Committee should be
allowed to destroy large piles of warehouses in the town,
and substitute them by others not liable to the same rates

as those belongh

would

)rouzht fc

ward by Mr. Bramley-Moore, as to their not being liable
to rates, he (Mr. Hornby) thought them perfectly beside
the question. There had never been warehouses around
the docks until those around the Albert Dock were erected,
and it was well known that parliament had affirmed the
principle of rating those. Mr. Bramley-Moore had said
that they could not propose a rating clause in the bill,
although he admitted it was right that there should
be one, but he (Mr. Hornby) maintained that they were
bound to do what was just and right, even with their owa
• Tie would do so, and he thought it their duty
es but also towards
le of tne bill ought to be en-

property

to do fosti
others. H

ly to themselv

ed, and it should now be entitled; " A Bill to
round the

tirely chant
deprive the Port of Liverpool of Warehous
Docks." If they coup

pact entered into

when the last dock act was before parliainent, what was to
hinder them, two or three years hence, from evading the
present arrangement ? The arrangement about building
warehouses around the present docks, was not one pro-
posed by the Dock Committee, but forced upon them with
the sanction, and in the face of parliament, and the/
were bound to carry it out fairly and fully. As to the
purchase of land at the North Shore, there was an incon-
sistency about that which he (Mr. Hornby) could not
understand. in the original bill, pourer was taken to bor-
row £340,000 for the purpose of purchasing that land,
and to construct docks upon it. Now, the Chairman of
the Dock Committee told them he wished to take powers
to purchase the land, but not to borrow the money. He
thought the wisest course would be to abandon the bill
altogether. and he would vote for that.
Mr. Arms said it had been remarked that it was in-
cumbent upon them to go to parliament this session, but
he (Mr. Aikin) begged to remind them that it was only
imperative on them to go to parliament for dock ware-
houses, and if they went for any
infringing the Act of Par

to parlia-

mentfoi.any other purpose than the one he had named,
so certain 'as they went would they have a warehousing
clause forced into the bill, and, most likely, without a
rating clause. He held that it was necessary for the good
of the port to keep the dues as low as possible; but the
way to do that was not by proceeding first of all to tax
those dues. If they went to parliament at all he had no
doubt a warehouse clause would be introduced into the
bill as a matter of course, and he had great doubts whe-
ther they would have the power to carry a rating clause.
He would, therefore, take the liberty of suggesting what
he had suggested before, namely, that the Council should
either rescind the resolution come to at the last Council
meeting altogether, and begin again de novo, or that theft'
should withdraw the bill altogether. .

Mr. EVANS said he considered they ought to go for tho
rating clause, and if they did not they were playing the
game of the parties who opposed the Dock Warehouses.
He begged to remind all the gentlemen of the Council,
that last year, many months ago, he got up and expressed.
a hope that the Dock Committee might be prepared with
a bill and not do as they had now, but that there might
he time enough to go back or to go forward—in fact to
leave a wide margin so far as time was concerned, What
had they done ? Why just the reverse. There could
hardly be a gentleman on the Dock Committee but must
think the bill could not pass without the rate-paying
clause ; and why was it omitted, with the precedent of
the Albert Dock Warehouses before them ? He believe&
Mr. Hornby was in error with regard to the Dock Com-
mittee of that day, because he (Mr. Evans) was one of
them, and so far as he recollected the rating clause was
not opposed by any of them. He quite concurred in alt
which had been said as to the property of the warehouses
which had to be built being subject to rates in the same
manner as those they were intended to supplant. It was
very well known that if they could arrive at the position
of having the bill unopposed, there would be no difficulty
in getting a suspension of the standing orders, so as to
introduce a rating clause. He believed the Town Clerk had
that opinion ,therefore that obstacle ought not to weighwitk
them at all. Then if they were to take the argument about tbe
security of money, it would be much better to build ware-
houses around docks that Would make a revenue, thew
around docks that would not. Could anything be more
unfortunate than that the Liverpool public would allow
the subversion of 101 warehouses, for that was the num-
ber contained in the Wapping arrangement—were they to
allow those to be swept away without anything being
placed in their stead ? Were they to allow the Dos
Commit", the dir -,ower to do this, and refuse them

—Lee LA.,. ..et
Lite direct power to build warehL
end of two or three years it
they should build warehouses
should go to_Parlipment in the cl

at the

proposed that
hen they
r of ouerists—id

t th-at

ask to `l;e allowed to do so. ButtTeTestei rights of the
warehouse-owners were talked of. Why had not the Dock
Estate vested rights also ? They had heard of the warehouse
ling accommodation for the port. but ici-
ng providers, he contended that theywere
For seven or eight years they prevented the
ock Estate from providing dock accommodation. He
ld go so far back as 1802, and could show that ever

owners rovid
stead of beir

since that period the Dock Committee had been prevented
from providing Dock Warehouses, on account of the op-

positiOn of the warehouse-owners. He was amused Ot
the assurance manifested by those who wished to go to
Parliament for powers to pull down warehouses instantly,
without providing substituted accommodation. Oats-
sionally they would hear it mentioned that even the desk*
themselves were to be taxed.

Mr. Alderman HonGsoN.-1 hopesai '44
(Contintse4 iriPaig