The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

DOCK COMMITTEE.

The proceedings of the Dock Committee having been
read,
Mr. ASPINALL asked whether Mr. Parker could inform
the council why the Birkenhead Commissioners were op-
posing the Liverpool Dock Bill ?
Mr. PARKER replied that the information he had ob-
tained on the other side of the water amounted to just
nothing at all. (A laugh.) The mode of doing business
was just this : the great man, Mr. Jackson. gave his nod;
whatever he said was law; if he said certain things must
be done, or must be altered, it was done immediately;
and therefore there was no knowing what was done or
what might be done.

Mr. BIRKETT said a petition had been presented against
the Liverpool Dock Bill, signed by certain merchants and
other inhabitants of the port, in which pretty hard names
were used against some of the members of the council,
who, it was said, were promoting their own interests by
the sale of the Harrington estate. Now it was well known
that none of the members of the council who had an in-
terest in that estate were allowed to speak or vote upon
the question when it was before the council. It had been
reported that one or more members of the Dock Com-
mittee, who were also members of the council, had taken
an active part in procuring signatures to the petition in
question ; and he wished to ask the chairman of the Dock
Committee if that report were correct ? _ _ _

Mr. MOORE said there was no doubt that petitions had
been presented from Liverpool, also from other places,
against the Liverpool Dock Bill, which imputed motives
to the members of the Dock Committee and council as
being interested in the Harrington estate. The question
was put to him in the committee of the House of Com-
mons as to whether there were not members of the Dock
Committee interested in that estate, to which be replied
in the negative. But several of the petitions broadly
alleged that they were proprietors of the Harrington Com-
pany. 'With regard to the question put by Mr. Birkett,
he believed that it was a notorious fact that members of
the Dock Committee had taken active measures to promote
those petitions—so much so, that he heard notices had
been sent to different parties in the town to ask them to
sign. He did not feel authorised to mention names, but
believed such was the fact.

Mr. NORTH read and pointed out certain allegations in
the petitions which, he said, were wholly unfounded.
Mr. BIRKETT said, that when they considered the cir-
cumstances under which the council went to parliament
for the bill, the way in which it was carried, and the way
in which the rate-payers of the town bad expressed their
opinion recently in favour of the dock extension, the
course for any member of the council to pursue was,
either to giva up his own opinion to that of the majority,
or to take the other course left open to him—to resign his
seat. This was his opinion, and the opinion of many out
of doors. (Hear.)
Mr. AIKIN said be yielded his opinion to that of the
majority, and that he had never signed or taken any part
in the petitions to which allusion had been made. The
remarks which had just dropped must have applied to one
individual, [Mr. Evans, who had shortly before left the
council,) and to one or two members of the Dock Com-
mittee; but he was of opinion that members ought not to
be subject to censure, or to be called upon to resign their
seats, simply because they had done that out of doors
which they considered best for the interests of the town.
Mr. fIODGSON coincided in this opinion.
Mr. BIRKETT thought it unfair to impute motives, and
to circulate untenable allegations.
Mr. Nicol, said he had proof in his possession that one
member had taken an active part in the opposition. The
reason he declined to mention his name was, because he
was not then present.
After a few words from Mr. Amu/ in explanation, the
proceedings were confirmed.