The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-01-30 00:00:00

would make some £87,000. The result of the whole
would be, instead of having a surplus, there would be a
deficiency of more than £50,000 a year. Now, what would
be the consequence of that? The real interests of the
dock estate, and the community here, were so far from
agreeing with the Chairman of the Dock Committee that
rival docks ought not to be prevented, that they thought
we ought to have the risk of providing dock accommoda-
tion for those who require it. He was of opinion that if
they went on as they were now going on the, would be
enabled either to pay off their debt or to reduce their
rates ; but if they got into a deficiency, in place of a sur-
plus, they would be in a groove, and must raise their
rates, because they could not, like an individual, put up
with the loss. This would be most mischievous to the
dock estate at a period when they ought to be in a position
to lower their rates, in order to compete with those on the
other side of the water, who were offering 100 per cent. re-
duction of dockage. In place of reduction they would posi-
tively have to raise their rates. There was no escaping that.
They had heard of the increase of trade, and some wonder-
ful good wishes had been uttered towards those over the
water; but where was the increase to go? It all entered
the estuary of the Mersey, and would not those on the
other side not only get it, but nibble away part of that
which they never had on this side the water. The chair-
man of the Dock Committee could not have had so much
experience as he (Mr. Evans) had had, from the number
of years he had been engaged in the trade of the port,
and also in the United States, or he would not have said
that vessels would go over to the other side of the river
to discharge, and then come to this side to take in their
cargoes. If they could discharge on the other side of the
river why not load there, and that they would do, as for
one vessel which went out with a general cargo, there
were one-hundred which went out in ballast, or with
coals, salt, crates, iron. and such things as these—articles
which could be deposited anywhere. It was always a
good thing to give a homely illustration to an argument,
and that might be done very easily. It was said one side
of Bold-street was preferred to the other, and it was true
that one side'was not so much frequented as the other ;
but, he would ask, were there not shops on the other
side? So with the other side of the water—if you give
them docks, and quays, and warehouses, they would have
trade just in the same manner as there were shops on
both sides of Bold-street. (Laughter.) But it was said
there were no railways on the other side of the water. He
however contended that the other side in this respect
possessed equal advantages to this side, and there were
greater and cheaper facilities for passing goods up the
country. It was therefore evident that vessels would go
to the other side, discharge, and get away with greater
facilities than on this side. There had been calculations
about getting stone and other matters at the north, but it
was said they would have to go beyond the proposed
docks. He admitted that there would be advantages in
that respect, but there was no question that there
would be no necessity for going beyond the foundation
of the dock for all the stone which would be required.
(Hear, hear.) Among other arguments for the in-
crease of the timber trade, alteration of the tariff had been
mentioned, but that did not afford to Liverpool advantages
which were not possessed by other ports; and when gen-
tlemen told them that unless they could have a reduction
of two thirds in the expense of dock accommodation, they
. . .

would remain on this side, he looked at it something in
the same way as the celebrated Canute did at the sea ;
for a person who would pursue such a system and not
yield to the natural course of things must be destroyed.
Mr. Charles Challoner had observed that we should not
lose our trade, but that they would have a trade of their
own over the water, and after that he observed we should
lose nothing of importance. He might consider by the
word importance that they would take the increase of the
trade, but when they came to look at the advantages to
be derived from cheapness, if it amounted to only one
farthing per foot, no one would be able to contend against
it. As to the evidence of Mr. E. Challoner, that was most
decided. He said if another dock were made, and the
present system pursued, so soon as there were facilities
offered he would remove his establishment to the other
side of the water. But there was no necessity for that.
They could discharge their vessels on that side, and there
would be yard keepers and others, so that the timber could
at once be taken into the country by railways and other
means. He was not one to deny the value of the timber
trade or any other branch of trade in the town. On the con-
trary, he was of opinion that all hung together, and were
dependent on each other just like warp and weft; but
when gentlemen spoke of an increase in the trade of the
town, they spoke of the increase over the last year instead
of looking what it was over former years. They all ad-
mitted, however, that the Brunswick Dock would be quite
sufficient if left to itself for the whole of the timber trade,
therefore they ought to pause before they attempted to
provide anything more for that particular trade, where-
as they were going to make a dock at the south
end, with the western quay useless, in order to make
the eastern quay valuable for the timber trade, and
it was proposed to remove the timber trade out
of the Brunswick Dock. If they did that, it was
not accommodating the timber trade at all, but the
general trade of the port, and then came the question of
north and south again. But whatever the council might
think of the new dock, the gentlemen in the timber
trade thought differently. They wanted a waste dock.
Did the council think they would leave the fair field they
now occupied "to batten on the moor ?" The Bruns-
wick Dock was now opposite their yards in a most con-
venient position, and they would not leave it. As to the
expense of it, that was estimated at £250,000, but he had
no doubt it would be much nearer the mark at £400,000,
and they could not have a dock exclusively for the timber
the income of which would pay the expenses of construct-
ing and keeping it in repair. If they went to parliament
for the proposed measure with a threat hanging over their
heads of being made to pay £40,000 a-year for clearing
the mud out of the docks, together with the enormous
expense he had mentioned, they had certainly more nerve
than he had. They had heard from the chairman that
Plunkington Bank was a protection ; but according to the
evidence of the Harbour-master, (which he said he was
prepared to prove,) it was an impediment to the docking
of ships so great as to make a difference of an hour and
a half. When that bank became a protection it must be
dry, and of course of no use for navigable purposes.
Those, therefore, who said it was a protection had not,
certainly, got into deep water, but were aground. (Laugh-
ter.) He could not conclude without observing, that if
the proposed measures were consummated, it would in-
volve the Dock Estate to such an extent, that it would be-
come the prey of the other side of the water. If it was
carried out they would be depriving themselves of the ad-
vantages of dock warehouses, which he had no doubt
would one day or other be the only remediable means of
saving the port from ruin. (Laughter,) They would
not be able to place them on the dock quays with ad-
vantage, because these quays would be already mort-
gaged, and they would add to the security of the
mortgagee, without being able to raise more on them. As
to those who cried out, that by building warehouses they
were raising a great monopoly, it might be sufficient to
observe, that it a public body did that which was for the
advantage of the public generally, and not for a few indi-
viduals, it would be no monopoly ; but if they handed
,ertie3catt wwaoruellldoubseescortelattliinegdoackmoqnuoapyosltyo.
a over
few the
individuals, dAfter a few observations respecting the mode of managing
poweri
u atio s
the docks in London, Mr. Evans resumed Lis seat.

Mr. ASPINALL moved that the debate be adjourned till
eleven o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE seconded the motion.
The MAYOR put the question, and it was carried.
Mr. BLACKBURN prayed for a longer adjournment.
The evidence laid before the council occupied 468 pagas,
and it was impossible it could be read and considered in
so short a time.

Mr. AIKIN said he would second Mr. Blackburn's
amendment for further time.
The MAYOR.--The motion was put and adopted before
Mr. Blackburn made his.
Mr. BIRKETT said, if Mr. Blackburn really wished for
further time, why had he not made his motion at the com-
mencement of the debate.
Mr. D. HODGSON also thought the motion ought to
have been made at the commencement of the debate, as
it would be exceedingly inconvenient to postpone the de-
bate now, after it had been half got through.
The MAYOR decided that the original motion was
adopted before Mr..Elackburn spoke at all, and the coun-
cil adjourned at ten minutes past three.