The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-15 00:00:00

CORRESPONDENCE.

DOCK WAREHOUSES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sir,—The recent agitation of the dock and warehouse
question has induced me to take a retrospective glance of
what has transpired, in direct relation to the subject
within the last few years. •
• What followed the first agitation of this question ? the
loss of the conservancy of the river, and two rival ports
in the Mersey. What did we gain.to compensate for this?
even allowing that the warehouses yield a profit, do the
rate-payers benefit by it, or are they not considerable
losers ? Has not their land, which was exceedingly valu-
able, been conveyed to the dock trust for a mere trifle ?
what would the profit on the warehouses have been, had
they paid a fair price for the land, a price that would have
been readily paid by private companies ? I remember
speaking to a very ißtelligent man, when the dock and
warehouse scheme was first concocted, he remarked that
although only one description of property was attacked,
it would not end there. Little did I then imagine how
soon his prophecy would be verified. The public should
always receive with extreme caution any project which
has no other recommendation than what is called in the
present day a liberal and enlarged view ; it is so easy
to be generous when not at your own expense. I once
heard a shipowner and merchant argue very strongly in
favour of the dock trustees being warehouse keepers, but
the same man had a decided objection to government
speculating, when corn and flour were cheap, although the
supply was intended for the relief of the starving Irish,
because he said it would interfere with trade. _ _

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the docks made and
the warehouses built, and neither of them contribute to
the local rates : suppose also that a profit shall accrue
from warehousing goods, to whom does that go ? Not to
the ratepayers generally; for it is intended that any profits
arising from the warehouses shall be applied to the re-
ducing the dock rates, and the reduction of those rates
benefits only one section of the community. But the
advocates of the scheme say, what a glorious thing to
make Liverpool a free port !—see how it would increase
trade ! So it might, but with what advantage to the
town, except an increase of pauperism ? Vessels would
come in and discharge their cargoes, which would be
forwarded to Manchester and elsewhere, and pay nothing
for their accommodation. Nature has blessed Liverpool
with many advantages : the money of the ratepayers has
been expended for the purpose of improving them : are
we to make a present of all this to persons, speaking of
whom comparatively we know nothing, whilst we our-
selves are suffering under heavy local taxation ?
It cannot be denied that the prosperity of Liverpool
depends in a great measure upon the shipping frequent-
ing the port. Still this is no argument for their not bear-
ing a fair proportion of our rates. Manchester owes its
prosperity to its manufactories; those factories, however,
are not exempt from taxation.
What between Irish pauperism, the sanitary improve-
ments, and other local burdens, the inhabitants of Liver-
pool will find their rates quite high enough without the
additional amount that must necessarily fall upon them if
they destroy nearly £2,000,000 of property that now con-
tributes to them. We are told that they will have their
goods cheaper; but this is too absurd, because Liverpool
does not consume one-tenth part of, the produce landed in
the port ; and even if they did, is it not ridiculous to pay
money only to receive it back in another way ?
Let me, in conclusion, recommend the influential rate-
payers and owners of property to have a meeting, for the
purpose of fully investigating this matter. Why should
they not go to parliament for powers to compel the docks
to contribute to the rates ? Yours, &c.,
ALIQUIS.