The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-01 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS,

r subscribers in tt

and the paper
sli7htly altered

7 are now extremely nume
in the post at midnight, w
gement of the matter iu th

STANDARD Of this day ; and as the change will not inconve-
nience our readers, we shall probably frequently adopt it.
We are not aware that any candidate except Mr. Dod, who is
represented as a true Protestant, has come forward to suc-
ceed Lord Clive in the representation of North Shropshire.

The name of Lord John 'Manners has been mentioned in
connection with the county, but we have not heard of any
step having been taken to bring the noble lord forward._

he second reading in the Hou'ge of Commons of the Jews'
Disabilities Bill is fixed for the 7th instant, and we think will
most probably he carried by a large majority, as the mem-
bers of that house are not likely to be made acquainted with

❑g in the country a,

inst such t
yes betimef.

less those who oppose it stir themse
of the .1(

leading leg,isl
Lord John R
tinck and M
counters^.

powerfully supported by the majority of our
3rs—Lord Melbourne and Lord Lyndhurst—
sell and Sir Robert Peel—Lord George Ben.
"Tiers—Lord Bexley and the Archbishop of
some adequate mee

ures ara adopted to
used to speed the pro-
rtainly—may we not say
!ss. NI 11,1,, in 1833, a

petitiontras

't,
_and this fact is prominently

,vocatei of the J

ish claims, as an argument that the country generally is either
indifferent about those claims, or desirous of seeing them
conceded. The clergy—with a few honourable exceptions—

Not customary

Ebt Eibtrpool 'tanliart.

TUESDAY MORNING

FEB. 1, 1848

THE Liverpool Dock Bill—which, by the bye,
appears to possess a very extraordinary 'amount
of vitality—is again to be brought before the judg-
ment of the Council, in an altered shape. To-
morrow that body are to be invited to sanction
an application to Parliament for an Act, authoris-
ing the Dock Committee to grant powers for the
erection of Warehouses upon all, or any, of the
Dock Quays, the further powers, sought in the
Bills previously presented, for confirming the North
Shore purchase, &c., being waived for the pre-
sent Session. We shall not anticipate the decision
of the Council upon this new application. Con-
taining, like its predecessors, no rating clause, and
believing firmly that, having already passed the
Standing Orders Committee without such a clause,
this Bill will be viewed by the Council with even
greater dislike than the former, we scarcely think
it worth while to speculate upon its fate. To enable
our local legislature to arrive at a correct conclu-
sion upon the subject, thus again to be brought.

)eforethem, and 'beior

sanctioning .any further
extension of the principle of dock warehouses,
there is one question which demands a more satis-
factory and clear solution than it has as yet re-
ceived, viz., the all-important question raised by
Mr. Henderson and Mr. David Hodgson at the
last Council meeting—do the present Dock Ware-
houses pay a fair interest upon their cost.

We are aware that there are conflicting opinions
upon this point. Mr. Mann stated at the meeting
in question that the Albert Warehouses are, or will
be, a paying property. In reply to this statement,
however, Mr. Henderson—who is one of the ware-
house sub-committee—furnished the Council with
the following facts and figures. The latest account
handed to the Committee was for the half-year
commencing 25th June, and ending 24th December.

From this account, the total Rea received, and
outstanding, amounted to £13,664. Against this
there was a balance of loss on the working or
wages department of the warehouses,—i.e., the
charges for discharging, deliveries, lumping, por-
terage, coopering, materials, &c.,—were less than the
salaries and wages paid and the materials found,
1. This if correct would leave
year, or £24,550 for the year,
earnings of the Warehouses, to be set
against the interest of the amount expended in
their construction. But Mr. Henderson had dis-
covered an important error in the mode in which
the account was made up. The gross sum of
£13,644, set down as received and outstanding,
included an outstanding balance of £6618, which.
of course had either been received during the sub-
emained as a portion of the
The true and just
statement of the half-year's earnings from 25th
June to 24th December, would be as follows :

by the sum of £l3l
£12,275 for the hal

is the

,equent half

outstandir

Received and outstanding .. £13,644

Loss on working account £1,369
Outstanding from previous half

6,61 ti

Balance being nett earnings from
25th June to 24th Dec.....

£13,644 £13,644
This sum therefore of £5657 is what has really to
be placed against the interest of money expended
in the formation of the warehouses, which is in
round numbers £460,000. Taking this interest at
the lowest average at which it has been borrowed,
viz., 4 per cent., the charge for the year will he
£18,400, and for the half-year
From this deduct the amount earned

and we have a loss on the half-year of .... £3,543
But Mr. Henderson informs us that in the ac-
count furnished, no payment towards the local
rates was included. As the Warehouses, we believe,
are rated at £20,000 rental, and the rates amount
to 25 per cent., the amount for the year will be
£5OOO or £2500 for the half-year. Add this liability
therefore, as properly belonging to the past half-
year; and we have a total loss upon the half-year
of £6043, or £12,086 per annum.
It will be urged, no doubt, that, during a portion
of the half-year in question, the whole of the ware-
houses were not yet opened. We believe, in fact,
that the last two of the warehouses were not opened
until September or October. We can well affird
the committee a thousand pounds or two on this
score. Indeed, we observe that, by a resolution of
the Dock Committee, on Thursday last, a return has
been ordered, which is to embrace the period be-
tween the 25th September and the 24th December;
and again, from the 24th December to the 24th
January. It will, doubtless, be attempted to be
shewn that the return for this period, during which
all the warehouses were in working, affords the only
fair criterion of the revenue, which they are likely
in future to produce. We must, however, remind
our readers that we have already included in Mr,
Henderson's statement, the months between Sep.
tember and the end of December; and we may re-
call to their recollection a few of the circumstances

attending that period

From —September to December the commercial
world was in a state of utter confusion; and the
consignees of a great number of ♦essels, having
valuable produce on board, were induced by a mis-
apprehension of the law, and without the sanction
of the owners of such cargoes, to discharge them

into the Albert Warehouses, in order to secure their
freight ; and, at the same time, to expedite their
clearance. Hence a large amount of business was
brought to the Albert Dock which, under other
would never have come there at all.
the prospects of their early removal,
room for other

circumstances

What may 1

nerehandize, we are not in:
lly thought the bulk of it

formed
is likeli

zenen

to come.
It may

What of that
rl thpv earn Rt.

If the ova

houses rem

so ; but, in the meantime, what will

the expensive staff of clerks, porters, lumpers, &c.,
be earning—the salaries and wages of whom are re-
ported at £lO,OOO per annum ? If there was a loss
in this department of £1369 in the half-year ended
24th December, when the whol.

of the functionaries
stion were fully employed, and produce enter-
' mt daily, the loss is likely to be
e business of the Dock does
-- - -

ng and passu

corisidera-b1

a-e upon o

and especially upon those
ciples of dock warehouses.

admiring the prin:

cess as investments

furnished ; and to

xposition of the ri