The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-28 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

1 MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

A special meeting of the Dock Committee took place
at two o'clock yesterday, for the purpose of considering
the plans for the proposed new north and south docks, as
prepared by Mr. Hartley. There was a full attendance,
the following members being present :—Messrs. J. Bram-
ley-Moore, (chairman,) C. Horsfall, (vice-chairman,) J.
Aikin, T. B. Barclay, T. Bold, T. Bulley, T. Chilton,
E. Evans, H. Holmes, T. Holt, W. S. Middleton, E.
Molyneux, W. Nicol, T. Ripley, T. Royden, F. Shand,
W. Smith, T. Tobin, S. L, Trotman, and H. R. Sand-
bach.

APPLICATION BY THE CUSTOMS TO RENT TRANSIT

SHEDS

The CHAIRMAN, after stating the object of the meet-
ing, said, that he had received an urgent application from
the customs, and wished to know whether, before the
proceedings for which they had especially met, the com-
mittee would hear it read.—This being, after a short con-
versation, assented to, the secretary read the communi-
cation, which was signed by the collector, controller, and
inspector-general of customs. It was to the effect, that
in consequence of recent large importations of tobacco
into the port, and the quantity shortly expected, (3400
hhds.) they were desirous of renting for its reception three
of the transit sheds, in addition to those they already had,
and at the same rate.

Mr. EVANS said that the sheds could be readily cleared,
and, as the case was urgent, he thought the committee
ought to accede. There never had been so many as five
of the sheds occupied, and that only in a partial way. The
work done in the sheds might easily be more concentrated,
so that those wanted might be spared.
Mr. RIPLEY said he was decidedly opposed to those
sheds being let to the customs. tie did not see what was
to prevent the parties from availing themselves of bonded
warehouses for tobacco, as well as others did for tea and
other articles which also paid a high duty. The fact of
the sheds being in requisition, and preferred, furnished a
proof of the necessity of building warehouses, &c. on the
quays. If they refused to let the sheds on this requi-
sition, there would probably be a complaint from the go-
vernment, and then there would be no difficulty (as we un-
derstood him) in obtaining their sanction for other build-
ings on the quays. He gave an instance of the great
facilities for loading and unloading afforded by these
sheds—stating that one of his own ships had, through
such accommodation been despatched for sea much
sooner than she otherwise would have been. He was op-
posed to the application, as he thought the shipowners
should have the benefit of these sheds.

Mr. AIKIN said they had already done wrong in letting
these sheds. They bad been built as an experiment, with
a view fully to try their utility ; and it had been said, with
truth, in the Council, that they had not given them a fair
trial. If they devoted them to the permanent storage of
tobacco, ships might be detained for want of them, and
the experiment could not be fairly tri d if they were let
off. He believed, too. that no act of the Committee
could be of effect in the matter until it was approved and
passed by the Council.
It was here announced that the collector, Mr. Arnaud,
was in attendance, and some conversation took place as
to whether he should then be admitted,—which he was a
short time afterwards.

Mr. RIPLEY suggested that he should be informed that
the committee declined to grant the request, and proposed
a motion to the effect that they could not let any more
transit sheds to the Customs. This was seconded by Mr.
BOLD.

Mr. EVANS said, that as the application was in writing,
and the collector having come himself, perhaps that gen-
tleman had something additional to communicate.
Mr. BARCLAY said the letting of these sheds was alto-
gether bad, and he believed illegal. Nothing the collector
could state could remove the objections.

On the motion of Mr. EVAN,;., seconded by Mr. MID-
DLETON, and agreed to, the collector was then called in.

Mr. ARNAUD' (the collector) stated that he was sorry to
be so importunate, but the case was one of urgency, as a
great quantity of tobacco was coming in, and more was ex-
pected. He had procured a statement relative to the
sheds, (which he produced,) from which it appeared that
five of them were now empty, and that several others of
them would be so in about a week.
Mr. no:ol wished to know from the collector whether
there existed any regulation to prevent tobacco from:going
into double security ~.\•.;,-oouses, or whether the applica-
tion was merely with a view to facilitate the trade.
Mr. ARNAUD said that he was not aware of any actual
regulation to the effect stated ' • but warehouses were not
suitable for the reception of tobacco, as it could not be
piled up in tiers, but had to be spread out on the floor.
Nothing but sheds were fit for it, and the trade would
object to its being placed in warehouses. He would be
willing to make an arrangement to relinquish the sheds
let off as soon as the pressure had subsided ; and that
would not be far distant, as they were now clearing off 250
hhds. a week. He then retired, and the original motion
was put to the vote, when there appeated 15 for it, and 5
against it—so that the request was met by the negative.