The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-03-19 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 19, 1844.

The Anti-monopoly Association have done our-
selves and a contemporary the exceeding honour of
addressing to us another "Circular," in reply to our
remarks upon their last; and a more Jesuitical
and tricky production we certainly never met with.
Our rejoinder will be very brief. And, first, with
respect to the statements put forth by the association
as to the average rate of freight upon foreign wheat.
In our publication of the 27th of February we had
commented upon the dishonest character of a calcu-
lation of the rates of freight which appeared in the
Liverpool Mercury, evidently furnished by some
great authorities upon the subject,—indeed these
authorities were:known to us. In that calculation,
by what we justly called "a juggle of figures," the
average was made to appear as ranging from 4s. 10d.
to ss. 11d. per quarter. This very calculation was
reiterated in the circular, and conclusions drawn
from it in favour of the arguments of the Anti-mo-
nopoly Association, that the cost of importation of
foreign wheat was a large protection to the British
farmer. The same circular contained an estimate,
forwarded to government by the Consuls of the
various European corn-markets, of the probable
quantities of wheat which could be forwarded to
Great Britain in the event of a free trade.
Of this latter document we availed ourselves, in
an endeavour to arrive at a just average of freight,
which we had maintained could only he done by
taking into consideration the quantities forwarded
at the various rates. Thus, if half-a-million quarters
were shipped from one port at 2s. per quarter, and
a hundred thousand from another at 10s., it would
be grossly erroneous and dishonest to give the aver-
age o' the whole six hundred thousand ;carters as
6s. per quarter; and yet the calculation given by the
Mercury and the Anti-monopoly Association was
made upon this erroneous and dishonest principle.
The true mode, we stated, was "to carry out the
calculations at the various foreign ports, and, for the
average, to divide the gross amount by the total
number of quarters ;" and by the application of this
principle to the case put above, our readers will see
the vast difference made—the average being by the
mode of calculation adopted by the association Gs.
per quarter, and by the correct mode 3s. 4d. only.
The reply of the association to this portion of our
remarks is this :
" We agree with the STANDARD that this is the correct
mode of obtaining the average, and rnorrover assert that
it is the way in which it is obtained. Our charge against
him is that professing to adopt the table as the means of
ascertaining " an average something like a true one," he
substitutes his own figures to work out his desired re-
sult. We repeat that the average freight of 4s. 91d.,
stated in the Parliamentary Table, is calculated according
to the principle laid down in the STANDARD, and in cor-
recting it to 3s. 11d. he has made an error, as any honest
" boy in the Blue Coat School or Mechanics' Institu-
tion," will prove to him. In the mean time he will do
well to apologise for pestering his readers with ques-
tions of arithmetic,' until he is better versed in its rules."

One word of explanation will suffice to show the
cool independence and dishonesty of this paragraph.
We attacked—and the association knew the fact—
their calculation which made the average rates of
freight from 4s. 10d. to ss. 11d. Our remarks
could apply to no other calculation. We had, the
week before noticing their circular No. 2, quoted
the very statement of whose correctness we com-
plained, and which we found repeated in that circu-
lar ; and we only took the quantities given by the
consular returns to show the incorrectness of that
calculation by contrasting it with the result of a
proper merchant-like calculation, made upon com-
plete data, and with as high and even higher rates,
which gave 3s. ltd. as the average, instead of 4s.
10. to ss. ltd. The fact, therefore, that the average
freight given by the circular returns is properly
calculated, does not affect our position. We never
noticed the average there given of 4s. 9d. at all.
We gave only the quantities in that document, with
the association's own rates, not " our own"—except
in two instances, when we took higher rates. This
portion, therefore, of the association's reply to us
we cannot characterise as any other than a mean

attempt to quibble their way out of a conviction of

trickery and imposition.
With respect to the quantity of home grown
Wheat moved coastwise to the various markets
for consumption, which we had stated was very
large, the Anti-Monopoly gentlemen, in their cir-
cular, assert that they "have it from the best au
thority that only about five per cent. of the home
growth of wheat, or about one million quarters,
is moved coastwise." Now we do not know
exactly what the " young men, as the Mercury
calls them, who penned this very hardy asser-
tion, call "the best authority;" but we should ima-
gine that the world at large would admit the experi-
ence of past years to be a very good authority. From
the weekly returns of the past year we find that
306,798 quarters of home grown wheat, exclusive of
Irish Wheat, were imported into London alone; in
addition to 325,801 sacks of flour which may be put
down (taking a sack to be equal to 3-sths of a quar-
ter of wheat) at 195,480 quarters. In all therefore
we had somewhat more than half a million guar-
-ters of wheat (exclusive of Irish) imported last
year into the port of London alone, besides 234,498
qrs. of Barley, 267,993 qrs of Oats, 47,301 qrs of
Beans, and 61,695 qrs. of Pease, or above a million
quarters of grain altogether.
We should like to know from the young gentlemen
in question, who appear disposed to constitute them-
selves a Liverpool League Board of Trade, to what
amount this will be swelled when we have taken
in the imports from Ireland (say of two or three
million quarters of grain, meal, and flour, together
with the coastwise imports of the ports of Hull,
Goole, Newcastle, Leith, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bris-
tol, Gloster, Plymouth, &c. Surely for the whole
of these ports, even the assurance of "the council
of the Liverpool Anti-Monopoly Association" will
scarcely be sufficient to enable them to reiterate
their stupendous outrage upon the credulity of the
public !
We shall perhaps have a few more remarks to
make upon one or two portions of this circular in
our next publication, after we have made some ne-
cessary enquiries. In the meantime we leave the
public to examine the " sample," as the corn mer-
chants say, with which we have already furnished
them, of the truthfulness and accurate knowledge
of these "young men."

We understand that the Birkenhead Dock Bill
has been postponed for further consideration. If
such be the case, the delay will give time for cool
deliberation, which we fear it has not yet received ;
and the many serious questions connected with it
will now receive at the hands of the Parliamentary
Committee that grave consideration which it really
demands.

Every thinking mind, acquainted with the locali-
ties of the River Mersey, must be aware that such
vast schemes as those contemplated at Birkenhead
are dependent for their success on a great variety of
circumstances ; and it cannot be concealed that the
design of enclosing Wallasey Pool, and of forming
docks at Birkenhead, has originated, not with the
merchants of Liverpool, but with a few gentlemen
who, as is notorious, are the owners of property to
a large amount in the neighbourhood.
Two questions naturally present themselves in
connection with the subject :
1. The relative merits of Liverpool and Bir-
kenhead as places suitable for commerce; and
2. The comparative price of land on each
side of the river, involving those pecuniary
considerations arising out of actual value.

On the first head, we may observe that Liverpool
possesses within herself the means of unlimited in-
crease. The docks of Liverpool are connected with
the offices of our merchants, the aggregate of these
offices forming one of the best markets in the world.
Above a thousand warehouses are erected along the
line of the docks, and all the apparatus of commerce
is in full operation. The Leeds and Liverpool Ca-
nal forms a great outlet to the internal trade with
the north of Lancashire and with Yorkshire. The
railroad brings the factories of Manchester within
an hour-and-a-half's distance from the quays of the
docks; and the vast carrying establishments of the
Bridgewater Trust—located, as that wonderful con-
cern is, not only in the very centre of the dock
estate to secure the transit of general goods, but
also at the south end to secure the carriage of the
important and bulky article of timber—are all so
many corollaries and feeders, not only to Liverpool,
but to themselves ; and to oppose them is sheer
folly, so long as they are able on reasonable terms
to transact the business of the port. Looking for-
ward to an increase of our trade, even beyond the
rapid strides of late years, there are available sites
on the Liverpool side of the river to accommodate
the contemplated increase for years to come. The
immense extent of the land possessed by the Cor-
poration at the North Shore, including the recent
purchase of so many acres from the Earl of Derby
at a merely nominal price; the prodigious quantity
of land at the south end, not only including the
Harrington and Herculaneum estates, but also the
whole shore to the further extremity of the Dingle ;
all these make up an aggregate of more than four
hundred acres, every yard of which is available for
dock extension. The Dingle estate in the posses-
sion of Mr. Yates, and opposite which is the deepest
water on the river, is almost formed by nature into
a dock ; and the advantages of that sheltered and
extensive property seem to have been lost sight of
by all but a few thinking and practical men, who
have often pointed out its advantages. And although
it seems strange that such a lovely spot should be
filled with towering masts, yet the day is not distant
when the worthy proprietor may find it his interest
to sell to a company, or to the public trusts, such
an advantageous site for dock purposes. Until the
land on the eastern bank of the river is fully occu-
pied, docks on the Cheshire shore must at least be
speculative. It is a difficult matter to remove a
rookery without destroying it : and while vessels
discharging cargoes at Birkenhead must be com-
pelled to come across to Liverpool to reload, in nine
cases out of ten, and so be liable to double dock-
dues,—and as it would cause a merchant to have
two establishments, viz. one on each side of the
river,—we cannot help coming to the conclusion
that, unless for a place to lay up ships for sale, or
timber-ships for the winter months, so as to leave
their room in the Liverpool docks available for
commercial purposes, docks at Birkenhead must
prove a failure; and the comparative merits of each
side of the river is so much in favour of Liverpool,
that it seems almost absurd to reason on the sub-
ject.
In the next place, the comparative price of the
land in Liverpool and Wallasey Pool is absolutely
in favour of the former. 'rake, for instance, the
timber trade. Some timber-merchants, it is said,
have been to examine the opposite shore, and they
have been assured that they may be accommodated
with land at 30s. per square yard ! The price to be
paid for the Harrington estate, about which such
an outcry has been made, was only 31s. 6d., inclu-
ding two docks already built, the land almost all
formed, and the river-wall built under Mr. Hartley's
superintendence. Nov 30s. per yard is Is. 6d. per
yard per annum at Birkenhead, while it is notorious
that is. per square yard is an extreme rent for land
for timber at the South Shore, that much is let at

9d. per yard, and some as low Sys 7d. And when
we find tenders made to the Corporation of 16s.
per yard up Wallasey Pool, we naturally ask what
is the value of land at each extremity of Liverpool ;
and we are assured by competent judges that, on
an average, land both at the north and south ends
of this town can he purchased at far less prices than
has been given for mere swamp at Wallasey. It is
true that the Birkenhead Commissioners are desi-
rous of taking in the expanse of Wallasey Pool;
but here arises a serious question to the public.
Will the Commissioners of Woods and Forests be
justified in permitting the property of the Crown
to be taken possession of, to benefit the owners of
land along its margin, when no public necessity can
be shown for such a sacrifice ? This estuary has
been valued by Mr. Hartley, no incompetent judge,
at £400,000; and it is perfectly clear, that if the
trustees of our docks are obliged to pay to the

Corporation for every inch of land on this side
which they require for dock purposes, and that too
the full value ,of the land, it is only just that the
Commissioners of Birkenhead should pay to the
Crown the full value of Wallasey Pool, because
both the Crown and the Corporation stand in the
position of trustees for the public welfare, and nei-
ther of them can make gifts unless justified by ne,-
cessities, which, in this case, have neither founda-
tion nor existence. There is one point here which
must not be overlooked. It may be said that if the
estuary of the Pool is conceded by the Crown, an
outer basin may be formed, and no rate be charged
for vessels entering it. But this is fallacious. It
is the water space alone that can render the land
available ; and the landowners will lay the value of
the water space on the land itself, inasmuch as it
will be rendered the more valuable by the accom-
modation ; and as the public will have to pay the
•increased value, it is clear that the public cannot
and will not be benefitted by the concession. If
this be not the case, would any sane man give iGs.
and in some cases 255. to 355. per yard for land
which does not produce one farthing of revenue?
If, then, the Woods and Forests give up the estuary
of Wallasey Pool without receiving from those who
want it its full value, they will be guilty of a neglect
of their public duty, and will be acting most un-
justly, not only to the public but to the bondholders
of both the Corporation and the Dock Estate, who
have lent two millions and a half of money on the
credit of these two great trusts. Let it be remem-
bered, too, that a gift from the Crown in such a
case is a dangerous precedent; and if the Woods
and Forests are so elated at the prosperous state of
the public exchequer that they can afford to give
away £400,000 at one fell swoop, their liberality
will soon be tested from other quarters which they
do not now anticipate.

If any man of common sense will go and examine
the Tranmere Pool, he will find at a glance that it
is a much more suitable place for a Cheshire dock
(if one be needed) than Wallasey Pool is. At 'Fran-
mere there needs no river wall of a mile long. There
a dock is half formed by nature : it would be well
sheltered, possess a good entrance, and the whole
of the ground is solid. Wallasey Pool, on the con-
trary, is open and unsheltered. And if a dock was
constructed at Tranmere, to remove to which the
unemployed ships of Liverpool,. where they might
lie in security, it is all that is needed r and the
valuable anchorage ground for small craft between
Seacombe and Woodside would remain undisturbed.
Much as we admire a bold and spirited undertaking,
we like to see united with it judgment and discrimi-
nation } and when it is recollected that the trustees-
of the Liverpool docks are about to• increase their
dock space by an outlay of £1,100;000, and that all•
the carrying trade is immediately and' convenientl
connected with them, and that all these establish-
ments are in full operation; and when, in addition,
the price of land at Birkenhead is absolutely greater
than it is on the Liverpool side, we fear that our
neighbours, with all their dexterity,. are blowing
bubbles which must burst with the first whiff of
wind that assails them. They are opposing the bill
of the dock trustees, it seems ! Surely Parliament
will laugh at such opposition. When they can show
that there is an absolute necessity for Cheshire docks
—that they have the money paid up to construct
them—that they are able and willing to pay to the
Crown the value of Wallasey Pool—and that they
can dock ships at a less cost than in Liverpool—
then let them oppose the Dock Bill with some hope
of success.

We admit that the Birkenhead Commissioners
have displayed much dexterity throughout, and they
have a right to get the best price they can for their
land ; and• if they can only succeed in persuading
the Woods and Forests to act with becoming gene-
rosity, and plethoric capitalists who do not like the
trouble of deep thinking to lend some hundreds of
thousands on the security of Birkenhead Commis-
sioners' bonds, why—the docks may be made; but
whether they will he filled or not,.is another ques-
tion. The Woods and Forests have shrewd and
clever men to, deal with, and a short time will show
us whether they are alive to the real and valuable
interest which the Crown possesses at Birkenhead.

We referred briefly in our last to the case of Mr..
Nightingall, the house-surgeon to the workhouse ;:
and we-now propose, according to our promise, to•
enter more fully into the details and the evidence•
offered at the enquiry before- the Assistant Poor-
law Commissioner, along with a review of some cir-
cumstances which have since come to our own
knowledge. In performing this duty—and the fur-
therance of truth and justice is a sacred duty—we
shall endeavour to be strictly impartial, and to re-
strain. as much as we can the utterance of the feel-
ings of reprobation with which we cannot avoid re-
garding the conduct of some of the parties con-
cerned in this affair.

The charges brought against Mr. Nightingall,
into which the Assistant Commissioner summoned
the vestry to enquire, were instituted by the Gover-
nor, Mr. Evans, and were the following.. The first
referred to three children whom the Governor had
sent down from Low-hill Workhouse, as affected
with itch, to be treated by Mr. Nightingall in the
itch ward at Brawnlow-hill. The latter gentleman,
on learning this fact, immediately remonstrated with
the Governor for what he deemed an uncalled-for
interference with his duties. Mr, Evans, upon this,
submitted the children to the inspection of Dr.
Macrorie and Mr. Ratcliffe, the former of whom
gave a certificate that he considered them " bad cases
of itch, and that they ought immediately to he se-
parated from the healthy inmates, and put under
treatment for the contagious affection."
Such is the case as stated by the Governor at the
investigation. It is carried, however, a little fur-
ther by the evidence. We find it admitted that the
children in question were seen by Mr. Nightingall,
on the morning of the day on which the Governor
sent them from Low-hill to the itch ward. Mr.
Nightingali had not thought them decided cases of
itch ; and we learn, although that fact is not in evi-
dence, that his attention was particularly called to
their case. The Governor, however, it appears,
imagined that he knew what was and what was not
itch, better than a surgeon who has had above
twenty years' Gf extensive itch practice ; and, in the
first instance, without consulting the proper medical