The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-13 00:00:00

bitrator, anxious to do justice to the ratepayers on the
one hand, and to the burgesses on the other. He believed
that, so far as the present bargain went, the advantages
were rather on the side of the corporation. The first offer
made by the Dock Committee was £226,000; and this.
which was taken as a main between the estimates of two
of the first valuators in the town, showed that the com-
mittee were not disposed to deal in a niggardly manner.
It subsequently turned out that one of the valuators (Mr.
Stewart) had acquired some additional knowledge as to
the extent and value of the strand on the North Shore ;
and he having presented a report accordingly, the Dock
Trustees tendered the amount to the Finance Committee
which Mr. Stewart had submitted. Here again there
was no higgling ; neither was there any attempt to get
the property at less than its value. Another proof of the
liberality of the dock committee was furnished by the
fact, that the purchase of the land at the North Shore was
with the view of constructing a dock there for steam pur-
poses; and it was well known that a steam dock was not
the most lucrative to the estate, for the entire income de-
rived from the steam trade of the port amounted only to
£ll,OOO. The probability was that the proposed dock,
with the expense of management, would leave a clear nett
loss of £5500 per annum ; and these facts showed that
the committee had not proceeded upon any narrow-minded
principle, but that they had looked at it as a great ques-
tion, involving the interests of the town at large, and the
benefit of the burgesses. He then went on to contend
that 31 per cent. was a fair rate of interest, as many
public bodies were at present taking money on such terms.
and that the extension of time for payment of the pur-
chase-money took nothing out of the pockets of the cor.
poration, and enabled the dock trustees to enter the
money market on better terms than they otherwise could.
He then showed that the council were deeply interested in
the question of increased steam-dock accornodation, be
cause passengers might otherwise cross to Birkenhead,
travel by the Chester and Crewe railway, and thus deprive
burgesses of Liverpool of many thousands of pounds of
outlay. He observed that it would take a great deal of
time before the works could come into operation ; and
this was an additional reason why the time for the pay-
ment of the purchase-money ought to be extended. They
bad indeed already commenced with the erection ; they
were not going to make any show in laying first stones;
(a laugh) but they were going on silently and quietly;
an engine of 60-horse power had been ordered ; and the
moment they got possession, rapid progress would be
made. It would, however, take four, five, or perhaps six
years before advantage could be derived from them to the
full extent.

Mr. HENRY HoLMEs seconded the amendment.

Mr. BIRKETT admitted the good feeling that prevailed
on both sides with regard to the treaty, but thought the
dock trustees had obtained a capital bargain. He objected
most to the amount of interest, but contended that, at
the expiration of five years, the question of the future
amount of interest should be considered ; and he intimated
his intention of moving an amendment to this effect.
Mr. Isaac HOLMES cordially supported the amend.
ment, and thought that matters of pounds, shillings, and
pence, should not be considered where the great interests
of the port of Liverpool were concerned, and the immense
mass of business which steamers brought to the town.
Mr. Nicol, said the Finance Committee wanted, in the
first instance, cash in six months, and interest at the rate
of 4 per cent. He contended that, if this rate of inter-
est had been acceded to, the Corporation and Dock Com-
mittee might justly be twitted, as they often were, with
having joined together, the more particularly as they were
each borrowing money from the public at the rate of 31
per cent. He thought it the duty of the Corporation not
to place the Dock Committee in any wore condition than
that committee was placed out of doors, and that if any
advantage was to be given at all, it ought to be given to
the trust over which they (the Council) were themselves
the trustees.

Mr. H. HORNBY expressed his decided dissent to the
amendment. Nothing had been stated to alter his opin-
ion that the proposed arrangement would be most im-
provident on the part of the Corporation in the present
state of their finances. Their bonded debt was now
£1,100,000, about one-fourth of which was borrowed at
34 per cent. and the whole of the remainder at 4 per
cent. and upwards. If, then, they obtained the £250,000
for the sale of their estate on the North Shore, they could
apply the money in the reduction of their bonded debt,
and thereby relieve themselves to a considerable extent.
He thought the price reasonable and moderate, and that
an abatement of one farthing would not be doing justice
to the burgesses. It was said to be the duty of the
Council to aid and assist the Dock Committee in the con-
test likely to arise between them and the promoters of
docks on the other side of the river.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE.—I never said that : I look
upon the competition as mere moonshine. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORNDY.—I am very glad to hear it . I look upon
it in the very same light myself. (Hear.) Be thought
the simple question was, whether they were lending the
£250,000 at a lower rate of interest than it was worth?
because, if they were lending it at 3} when they could get
4 per cent, they were losing £1250 a-year to the burgesses,
and this too, at a time when they knew not how soon they
might be obliged to lay on a borough rate. He believed
it would be admitted that the Dock Committee had ef-
fected the purchase with Lord Derby at a price £lO,OOO
or £15,000 lower than its value.

Mr. AIKIN.—No.
Mr. HORNBY concluded his reply by expressing his
opinion again, that the interest was at too low a rate.
The Council then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 35
Against it

Majority

e
Mr. MOORE'S amendment was accordingly carried.
Mr. BiRKETT then moved another amendment, to the
effect that upon taking into consideration that the corpo-
ration had no bonds at 31 per cent. beyond five years, the
period of the sale to the dock trustees be limited to the
same period, and any further period upon the considera-
tion of circumstances at the expiration of the five years.
Mr. John HOLMES seconded the amendment.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE hoped the amendment would
be rejected without going to the vote.
Mr. AIKIN defended the proposed rate of interest, and
said the corporation were about to make a good bargain
by getting 31 per cent. and £250,000 for a piece of waste
land, which brought them in comparatively nothing.
They never could have obtained so large an amount of
money from any other source. He enlogised the old cor-
poration for the spirit of liberality they had displayed
when they made a free gift of land for the purpose of
making a dock ; and said that if the rates were kept low
on this side the water the rush would be to the centre of
trade, no matter how many docks were made elsewhere.
He concluded by observing that Mr. Evans and himself
would have the glorious satisfaction of thinking hereafter
that they were the first to say—" don't part with the land
over the water, but make a lumber dock there ; and if
they had spent £50,000 in making such a dock there, they
might have kept a million and a half of money in their
pockets now.
n entlemen
Mr. BUSHELL as.kdeed
dock on the other side,
He believed that the
there to to make it for them?
wwhheynthtehyeyshhoaudldfomuakde
ga lumber
pool corpora-
houses,
and render their estate.
houses, &c. would yet revert to
onetheofLthiveermp
head people s their
defended the Bp en , al
Mr. AIKIN
properties they
d and expressed his belief that the
security was gOO
ever possessed.
pur-
chase money would be paid.
Mr. MooRE said he had cast no reflection on their
security, but maintained, then as now, that the security
of the Liverpool docks was much greater and better.
' The council divided, when there appeared, for the
amendment, 11: against it, 35.
The appointment of Samuel Lloyd, as deputy water-
dbiasitlri
ct; tslutervienycorre,a sfer
oomf txhBeos atloa rxy
loof4 T; haonmd atsh
eB• Lewis,
appoint-
ment of Edward Holt and Jacob Cririe, as assistant dis-
trict surveyors, at the salary of £lO4 each, were then con-
firmed.