The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

a man, anxious only after the truth, had a right to
d:ag- into an account of the resources of the Dock
Estate the whole of the first three items, amounting
to £144,719, when no less than £88,899 of that sum
is interest upon the supposed cost of new works, for
which he does not give the estate credit for a shilling
of revenue. Deduct the whole of these items, however,
from his amount of £288,093; and we have the cost of
working the docks put down at £143,374 per annum.
Now what was the cost of working our existing
docks last year ? It was £81,520; and the assump-
tion, therefore, is, that to work the proposed nthv
docks will cost an additional sum of no less than
£61,854 !

Of itself this is astounding enough; but let us
look at the details. In the first place we have put
down under the head of " Lighthouse, telegraph,
lifeboats, &c., the sum of £15,000." The sum which
covered these items last year was £14,700, of which
£5,500 was paid for the new iron light-ship. The
present average expense under this head may, there-
fore, fairly be calculated at £lO,OOO. Again we have
" Management, police, &c." for existing docks, and
Albert Dock, put down at £31,685. Last year it
was £29,057. The Albert Dock, therefore, is to
cost us £2,600 additional under this head; and yet
such additional cost of the Alderman's pet scheme
is held out as an argument against the construction
of the proposed new docks. Further, we have the
" Annual repairs and casualties," on existing docks
and Albert Dock, put down at £44,796. Last year
it was only L 25,828 ; and we are to conclude, there-
fore, that the Albert Dock is to involve us in an in-
creased expenditure of £19,000 for repairs !
But the estimate for repairs this year is, the
Alderman tells us now, " a manifest error." It may
be. We should imagine, however, that it is not very
likely to be so, notwithstanding the discovered
£14,006 by himself and the gentleman "particularly
skilled in dock accounts." Parties—and especially
engineers and surveyors—engaged in the construction
of new works are not ordinarily in the habit of in-
creasing their apparent cost, at the risk of running
beyond their estimates, by debiting them with the
repairs of old works. An error on the other side
would be a credible occurrence.

But the most outrageous supposition in this state-
ment is that the repairs, &c., of the new docks pro-
posed will amount to an annual sum of £39,000.
Yes, £39,000 for the repairs of new docks, contain-
ing a water space of less than 50 acres, if the whole
of the plans were carried out; whilst the old docks,
with a water space of more than 90 acres, are re-
paired for £26,000. Really, Mr. Evans, you will
find few sane people who will gulp down so mani-
fest an absurdity !
But now, let us ask Mr. Evans how it is that, in
this statement, he has no difficulty in giving us the
amount of increased expenses incurred by the for-
mation of the Albert Dock and warehouses, and yet
only credits that portion of the estate with a return
of 12,000. For his contemplation and that of the
public, we will present him with his own account of
this, his pet speculation..
We have, then, first—

Interest on present new applied to

11,p.rt Dock and works, £421,940, per

annum
Interest on money to be borrowed, per

annum 18,904
Additional police, &c., for Albert Dock,

per annum
Increase in annual repairs, taking as our
basis the Alderman's own calculation of
£35,000 as the amount now expended

9,796

£49,295

This large sum, then, of £49,295 is to be the
annual cost of the Albert Dock and works, toward
which we are only to look for a revenue from them
of £12,000! Yes : this very fair and very honest
statement, which the Alderman boasts that he can
substantiate, represents the dock estate as a loser,
by his own favourite scheme, to the extent of MORE
THAN THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS PER
ANNUM ! Surely, the most bitter opponent of this
scheme could never have put forth a statement so
damning.
We ourselves have certainly no fear that a result
so disastrous will attend the working of this dock
and its warehouses. We have some little confidence
in the Alderman's sagacity; and, when we remem-
ber that the estimated revenue to be derived from
this dock was laid before the committee on the bill
at £12,000 or £14,000 a year, and the revenue of
the warehouses at more than £40,000 per annum,
we cannot imagine it possible that such splendid
prospects can have altogether evaporated, without
Mr. Evans taking some steps to arrest the progress
of works so ruinous.

Mr. Evans says now that, " for the Albert or
other new docks, no claim for additional revenue
can be allowed, unless the trade of the port in-
creases to the extent of the work they do." Why,
of course. Any blue-coat boy could have told us
that. But the trade of the port will increase; has
gone on increasing for years past, and is increasing
still. It increased, for tonnage, goods, and lights,
by an amount of 4. 21,751 Bs. 7d., or £ll 17s. 61
per cent. in one year. And yet it is doubtful—
is it ?—whether the Albert Dock, with its addition,
two years hence, of ten per cent. to our dock space,
can find any business except what it draws from
that of our existing docks. Another increase of
ten per cent. in our trade will absorb the additional
space afforded us by the Albert Dock, and leave our
other docks in their present crowded state; and that
increase, we venture to say, will occur long before
the completion of the Albert Dock !
But turn we now to the question, as it affects the
dock bond-holders, amongst whom Mr. Alderman
Evans is endeavouring to get up a panic. Let us
see what is the state of their property.

The earnings of the working docks
last year, as given by the Alder-
man himself, was
The expenditure of the working docks
(exclusive of new works and in-
terest on new debt) was, last year, 138,725 18 3

The excess, therefore, of revenue

over expenditure was
This is, therefore, the surplus which Mr. Evans says
we shall not only get rid of by the formation of our
proposed new docks, but create in its place a defi-
ciency of £70,000 per annum. Now, bearing in
mind the fact that the Canal Company have
agreed to execute a portion of the new works;
that the proposed mole at the entrance of the
north docks will not be wanted ; that the graving.
docks on the parliamentary plan will only be
wanted in part ; we are certainly warranted in
taking the whole expense of the new works at
£1,120,000, not £1,300,000 as estimated by Alder-
man Evans.

The interest, therefore, which will fall upon
the dock estate we put down at £44,800
To this add the interest upon half the new
debt, say £480,000, at four per cent. . . . 19,200

And we Lave as the new fixed charge upon
the estate
to be deducted from the present surplus revenue of
£77,000. But £5,000 will Le derived from the rents

of land on the Harrington estate, which, added to
the daeren ye between £77,000 and.f.:64,000, will give
us a clear surplus still of £i 8,000 ; a sum more
than adequate to meet the increased expense of
management, which Mr. Evans so exaggerates,
whilst the dock trustees will have at the north,
when the works there are finished, from 300,000 to
400,000 square yards of valuable land to dispose of.
Grant, then, that for the six, or more, years which must
elapse before our new docks are finished, the trade
of Liverpool should stand still—a most improbable
supposition—and we have still a sufficient income
to meet all the demands upon us, without the bugbear
of increased dock rates, with which Alderman Evans
would fright the bond-holders of our dock estate,
and arrest the progress of improvement.