The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

As a Corresponcicnt has made the eminiry, we have ascertained
that Ule c err pmau azaitist whom the verdict was returned
in a civil action at our Assiz,s oa Wednesday, is not the Rev.
Samuel Fenton, of Wavertree.

Ebr tibrrpool -,ttanTiarb.

TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 7,

1846.

In calling attention to the misapprehension of the
respective duties of two such important bodies as
the Council and the Dock Committee, who have
undt:r their immediate management two vast estates
with distinct and separate interests, we would not
be understood to take upon ourselves to decide
which, in a legal sense, is in the right or which is in
the wrong ; but we venture to give a passing opi-
nion on what appears before us, arising out of the
recent debate in the Town Council.

Whatever may be the real amount of power trans-
ferred to the Duck Committee by the alteration of
the dock constitution made by the act 6 Geo. IV., it
is7agreed by the leg-al authorities of both bodies that
the Docic Committee is not a committee of the

council, inasmuch as eight of its members are
elected by the dock rate-payers, over whom the
Council cannot exercise the smallest control, either
by rejection or any other means.
7; It is also admitted by both these respected au-
thorities that nothing whatever can be originated in
the Town Council relating to the management of the
docks under the existing acts ; and that the only
controlling power of the council consists in the exer-
. cise of a veto, to annul or confirm the Dock pro-
ceedings; that a bare majority is not sufficient for
one or the other ; and that two-thirds alone of the
trustees present can give effect to this power.
Thus far both parties appear to be perfectly in
accord. The difference of opinion arises as to who
has the power to originate new matter beyond the
existing act of parliament ? Who is then to take the
initiative ? The Dock Committee claim this power,
subject, as in all their proceedings, to the approba-
tion of the trustees in council assembled. This
claim, as far as we know, has always been conceded
to the Dock Committee, whether as a matter of
convenience or not is not for us to say. We con-
tent ourselves with recording the fact and expressing
our opinion of the reasonableness of such a course;
for who so likely to know, and judge so correctly of,
the requirements, wants, wishes and demands of
the port, as those who have the absolute control and
management of the estate, with the reservation of
the veto ? Who can be so well qualified ?
On the part of the trustees it is contended that
the sole power belongs to them of originating new
matter beyond the existing acts of parliament; that
they alone can take the initiative to obtain a new
act of parliament for dock extension, or any other
purpose ; and that a bare majcrity is sufficient for
the exercise of this power. This may be so, but it
certainly appears to us to be an anomaly that two-
thirds should be necessary in the cne case, and a
bare majority sufficient in the other. It appears,
moreover, to be a contention on the part of the
trustees, for a shadow,—for we have yet to learn of
their ever having originated any alteration in the
dock acts—any new schemes of dock extension—or
proposed any new plans,—all, that we are aware of,
since the alteration of the dock constitution in the
year 1825, having had their origin with, and ema-
nated from, the Dock Committee.
To illustrate the point at issue, by a case anala-
gous to that of the trustees of the Liverpool docks,
we may cite the case of the trustees of the Duke of
Bridgewater. The trustees do not originate new
docks or basins, cana's or railways : these originate
with those in charge of the Bridgewater estate;
and the trustees approve or disapprove of any pro-
posed changes ; and so it is, we believe, in all public
companies where there are trustees, instances of
which surround us in this town.

We do not, however, take upon ourselves to de-.

Bide which party is in the right in a strictly legal
sense; and, we think, the proposition of the chair-
man of the Dock Committee was a fair and reason-
able one, and might have been acceded to, without
in any way derogating from the dignity of the
Council and its supremacy, as trustees with an ab-
solute veto on all the Dock Committee's proceedings,
which has never been disputed or broUght in
question.
The Chairman's proposition was, that the Town
Clerk and Dock Solicitor should agree upon a case
to be submitted to eminent counsel, well acquainted
with the Dock Acts, such as Messrs. Austin, Talbot,
and Wilde, and to let such opinions he binding on
both parties. Such a course we do think both fair
and just, and ought to have been acquiesced in with
a view to bring the matter to an amicable conclusion.

The case of Mr. Woods, editor and proprietor of
the Wolverhampton Chronicle, brought during the
past week before the notice of the House of Com-
mons, is one which really ought to attract legisla-
tive attention to the present anomalous, and, to our
own order, highly dangerous state of the law of libel.
The circumstances are briefly these. Sometime
ago complaints were said to exist against the con-
duct of the master of a local free grammar school,
by which conduct its public utility was diminished ;
and a government commissioner, Dr. Allen, was
sent down to institute an enquiry. The result was
a report by this gentleman, reflecting strongly upon
the master, and imputing the decline of the school
to the violent chastisement which he was in the
habit of inflicting upon his pupils. Against this
report the master objected, as injurious to him, and
proceeded against the commissioner, who was de-
fended by the government, his employers, and
although subjected to nominal damages, by them
borne harmless. The same report, however —a
public document,—had been copied into a local
paper, the Wolverhampton Chronicle, with some
editorial remarks appended ; and against the pro-
prietor of that paper the master recovered a ver-
dict of £5O damages and costs.
With the precise character of the remarks in
question we have nothing to do, for it is admitted
that they had no effect in determining the
verdict. It is for having published a govern-
ment report, which the Committee of the Privy
Council thought so important (hot they di-
rected it to be printed in a cheap form and circu-
lated extensively, that the Chronicle has been mulcted
in £5O and the 1: envy costs of defending an action.
There can be no charge of injurious intention
against our contemporary—no private malice
alleged. He was acting solely in the discharge of
a public duty; and, morally, 1:e was in no greater
degree offending than if he had voted from any of
the blue books, issued by parliament, or from the
proceedings of parliament themselves. He com-
mented upon the report, or he affixed a heading to
it; and so far in one sense, he placed himself in the
position of the government commissioner. The lat-
ter, however, had the protection of the public purse
held out to him ; his employers have the protection
of their privilege. The unfortunate journalist,
however, has no such protection ; and must either
lay down his usefulness and become a dumb record,
or exercise his vocation at the continual risk of
being dragged into court by any litigious party
who can raise money to fee a lawyer.
Really this state of things cannot be mucll longer
tolerated ; and would not if the public were at all
aware of the extent to which t'al honest and faithful
journalist is exposed to the mercy of evil-doers.
The evidence of the Attorney General, given in the
course of this debate, is strongly in favour of an
alteration in the existing law. "He knew one case,
in which a perfectly accurate report of an occurrence
bad been published ; no exception could he taken to
it, but the heading was in these words—' Shameful
conduct of an attorney'; and in consequence a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff." Is there, we ask,
a journal in the kingdom, or one publication of it,
in which some lynx-eyed legal practitioner might
not find similar materials for an action under this
libel law ? There scarcely is.
We claim no immunity for the press. We ask
not for it the privilege of prying into private charac-
ter and exposing the frailties of others. But we do
contend that the press should not be utterly an un-
protected and almost a persecuted thing in the eye
of the law. Submit us to some common sense and
intelligible restriction of our privileges ; but do not
leave us surrounded with traps into which the most
wary cannot avoid falling.

We have heard a good many devices mooted for
rectifying the present state of the Railway Share
Market, and dealing with the mass of railway
scheures now before the legislature. Some of these
devices are purely selfish. Some are flagrantly un-
just. The majority are preposterously absurd, as
well as unjust. Sweep away all the new schemes,
and sanction only "necessary extensions and amal-
gamations," exclaim the holders of new lines bought
-up at more than their worth, during the mania by

the large companies. Postpone the calls for three
or five years upon all the new companies,—say some
of the la.ter. Both these modes involve selfish-
ness and injustice. The latest, however, to
which the honourable' member for Sunderland
is said to have given his sanction, is characterized
by absurdity and injustice beautifully combined,
and, we observe, meets with considerable support.
Mr. Hudson's proposal is a clause in each act of
Parliament, to enable a given mjority of the share-
holders of any line to wind up the concern, and to
divide the funds in hand rateably amongst the
holders of the scrip. " A very proper arrange-
ment !"—we hear some hundreds of provisional
committee-men, so!icitoi s, promoters, &c., with not
a few of the unsophisticated public, exclaiming
" Wind up these concerns, and rid us of all further
responsibility !" Let Mr. Hudson's clause be re-
trospective as well as prospective. Undoubtedly
wise in their generation are the advocates of this
mode of righting the railway vessel. But, gentle-
, Men, some of the unfortunate scripholders may
say, with respect to this summary mode of dealing
with what is now their property, why not have done
this before you pocketed our premiums of £3 or
£4 per share ? Your kind consideration for us and
the public is very creditable ; but it conies too late.
It may be very much to your interests, now, as pro-
prietors of the "great circumbendibus" to get rid
of the "direct junction" line; but we, who are now
the owners of the scrip of the latter would prefer
holding on for a while, if you will permit us. We
paid you extravagantly for the risk you ran ; do
give us a chance, at least, of getting a portion of
our money back ! If you have deserted the ship,
you are scarcely the proper persons to sell the
cargo.
And reasonable, too, will be such a rejoinder to
such a proposal. It may be all very true that many
of the shareholders in once promising concerns,
out of which they flattered themselves they had got
with a profit, find now that they are not out at
all; and, like Sterne's starling, " can't get out."
But Parliament will scarcely, we should think,
make a " royal road" for them, by any such prepos-
terous enactment. Could matters be placed in statu
quo, which they cannot be, and premiums refunded,
which they will not be, the bulk of the corn panie
might easily enough be wound up in the fashion
proposed, or some other, equally feasible in appear-
ance. But the web is now too hopelessly entangled
for such a ready straightening of its meshes. Mr.
Hudson's proposal, as it stands, to apply the clause
prospectively, may pass current ; but along with it,
we must have other clauses 20 protect the simple
public from the dangerous power which Mr. Hud-
son would place in the hands of projectors, or
we shall have their branch of business made
more one of trick and chicanery than it has already
been.

As faithful chroniclers, we feel bound to com-
municate to our readers the following important
announcement, the pomposity of which, we trust,
will not startle the faith of the public in its correct-
ness. When we mention that its author is the
Mercury, it will, doubtless, be received with all the
authority of an official despatch, or a Ministerial
declaration. The announcement 1.4 appropriately
headed by an extract from that profound writer
" Punch," and thus proceeds our local "Judy"—