The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-07-04 00:00:00

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE DOCK TRUSTEES AND THE WARE-
HOUSE OWNERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
An article, signed "T. T.," appeared in last Monday's
Albion, recommending meetings to be called for the pur-
pose of pressing certain amendments in the Fire Preven-
tion Bill, upon the attention of the council. What those
amendments are, ought certainly to have been specified.;
but it is pretty well known that the object is to annul the
late Dock Warehouse Act, and to erect warehouses on the
verge of Albert Dock, and also on the west side of the
Prince's Dock, at the expense of the Dock Trustees. It
is not our wish to become the advocates of all the acts of
the Dock Trustees, but as " T. T." calls their compro-
mise with the Warehouse Owners, " the most impolitic,
reckless, and imprudent compromise ever entered into by
a public body with a section of the community," it is only
right that the conduct of the Dock Trustees should be
rescued from that imputation. The Warehouse Owners
were prepared to push their opposition to the last extre-
mity, and would have persevered in opposing the then pro-
posed dock bill, had not one of the members for the bo-
rough interfered, and by way of conciliating the two parties,
proposed a compromise, which terminated in the adoption
of the present dock bill. Had the Dock Trustees refused
that suggested conciliatory measure, the Warehouse
Owners would have carried on their opposition, and, very
probably, defeated the bill. Of course it is adebateable
point whether they would or would not have succeeded,
but the Warehouse Committee of that day felt a strong
confidence in their chance of success, and they had too
deep an interest in the question to abandon it without a
determined struggle. The Dock Trustees, therefore,
acted prudently in agreeing to the compromise suggested
by our member; and the advocates of Dock Warehouses
may thank the lock Trustees for their conduct on this
occasion, as they probably would have lost the bill, had
they attempted to carry the whole question, and at the
present moment there might have been no traces of founda-
tions for dock warehouses at the Albert Dock. Several
of the leading Warehouse Owners were decidedly adverse
to any compromise with the Dock Trustees. The advo-
cates of dock warehouses should, therefore, be obliged to
the Dock Trustees for the point which they have gained
of being permitted to erect dock warehouses at all at the
Albert Dock, instead of calumniating them for not obtain-
.

„
ing greater powers in their dock act. ”T. T." may be
assured that it was from no kindness towards the Ware-
house Owners, that the trustees compromised the dis-
pute : they yielded to necessity--or, at all events, to what
they deemed good policy. Whatever other charges may
be brought against the Dock Trustees, their conduct is
this transaction was politic ; they did what they conceived
was for the public good, and thought it wise to take a part
when they could not obtain the whole.

Having- endeavoured to do justice to the conduct of the
Dock Trustees in this affair of compromise, albeit they
have never shewn much favour or affection to the ware-
house interest, let us examine that other position of
" T. T," which asserts that the public had nothing to do
with this compromise—that their " rights and property
were bartered away ii respective of their opinions. The
Dock Trustees' proceedings are subject to the revision
and control of the Towel-council—the council is the domi-
nant authority—the council, therefore, is responsible for
the acts of the Dock Trustees. The council thought fit to
obtain an act of parliament, called the " Liverpool Dock
Act." Is not the town bound by that act? Who are the
public? Can they act in their individual capacity? Are
they not bound by the acts of their representatives in the

council, and shall any one say that he is not bound be-
cause he did not give his individual consent? Apply this
reasoning to the acts of parliament on national subjects,
and let us hear what " T. T." would say to any man who
refused to obey the act because he had no vote, and might,
therefore, argue that he was one of the unrepresented, and
that thus his rights were taken from him " irrespective of
his opinions." Would this logic be tolerated by any res.
sonable man ? And yet this is the logic now advanced,
because a non-elector might as well refuse to obey an act

.
of parliament, as a non:elector of Liverpool refuse t
obey an act obtained by the council—the plea in both case
being the same, that the dissentients were not nortie. t

Lay.. pai Lica MD
the act. This is a dangerous doctrine subversive of the
authority of local government, and unconstitutional as
applied to national legislation.

W. D

-..._._
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ALBION

SlR,—There is a letter in your paper of this morning
one part of which contains an accusation of inconsistence
against me, and the rest of which is a mixture of awkward
compliment and vulgar abuse.

I cannot wait until Monday next before contradicting
the assertion! of your correspondent—not on account of
any claim which such a letter has upon me—but because
of the unfavourable impressions which it seems designed
to leave upon the minds of friends to whom I have not
immediate access, and who may not know my real senti-
ments on the subject.
My sentiments have all along been these
is to be eschewed that a minister be intrud

I hold " il

gregation contrary to the will of the people." I hold too,
that, in the exercise of purely ecclesiastical functions the
Church ought not to be interfered with or controuled by
the state. But I also hold that the veto law was uncon-
sttutional, both in a civil and ecclesiastical sense; that

the evils which we all deplore, in the Church of Scotian(
were the direct consequences of an obstinate and ut

.-t the two princi.
pies alluded to, are sufficiently secured by the preseal
existing constitution of the established church of Scot-
land. In point of fact, that church is now the same
which she was when most of those who have abjured
nnm rr.” ninn mitt. L

w; and

,00iwuoion wm, our, cnterea within tier pale.
Now, in these views I may be right or wrong, but they
at least relieve me from the imaginary horns of your cor-
respondent's dilemma. It is his, not mine. I hold the
principles of non-intrusion and spiritual independence,
(though I am by no means obliged to pin my faith to your
correspondent's definition of them ;) but I most decidedly
disapprove of the methods by which these principles were
,fessedly defended on the part of the seceders. Upon.

groimds I voted in t

nod. I stated tt

arks with whic

most assuredly

and specially to m