The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

head, instead of at Liverpool, would improve that very
security, and that it is for the interest of the annuitant
and of the bondholder of the Liverpool Dock Estate that
the commerce of the Mersey should he provided with the
required acc)mmode.tion, by profitable expenditure at
Birkenhead, rather than, by unprofitable expenditure at
Liverpool."

We give this extract to show that we are not
misrepresenting Mr. Webster in his vain endeavours
to persuade the public to lend their money to a
scheme which has wholly failed, and which now, to
borrow an expression, " lies dead and putrid."
Mr. Webster admits the blunder in his former
letter, of having debited the Dock Estate with
nearly a million of money for the cost of the Albert
Dock and Warehouses, and omitting to give any
credit for the income arising from this immense
structure. He excuses himself on the ground that
he took the dues on goods,;itonnage, and lights, as
audited in the published annual accounts ; but
this is no excuse for Mr. Webster, a barrister who
professes to be so intimately acquainted with the
Liverpool Dock Acts; for he must, or ought to,
know that the Albert accounts are obliged, by Act
of Parliament, to be kept separate, and that the
incomings from the establishment do not appear at
all in the accounts to which he alludes. Every
body knows this except Mr. Webster, who ought
to be the first to know the fact, according to his
pretended knowledge of Liverpool affairs.
One more proof of Mr. Webster's want of know-
ledge of the affairs of the Liverpool Dock Estate.;
and, by-the-bye, how should he he otherwise than
ill-informed ? Are we to go to London for correct
information about our own local affairs, and is that
information to find its way to London through
Birkenhead Dock Commissioners and Birkenhead
jobbers ? 'We must certainly look to some other
source for correct information.
At page 3, Mr. Webster says—

" That the accounts of the Corporation of Liverpool,
just published, show £250,879 to be due from the Dock
Trustees, for land at the North Shore, by which latter
amount the existing bond debt should be increased."

Here, again, Mr. Webster is entirely wrong ; and
he must excuse us if we tender to him some whole-
some advice, to confine himself to matters for
which he may have some aptitude, for he certainly
possesses none for unravelling accounts, whatever
may be his talent for mystifying, and rendering
obscure, that which most people considered pretty
clear and easy to be understood. If Mr. Webster
had examined into the Dock accounts he would
have discovered that this sum formed part of the
bond debt three or four years ago ; and, on the
other hand, if he had searched in the proper quarter
he would have found the Corporation gave credit
for this amount in Dock bonds, redeemable some
six or seven years hence. According to Mr. Web-
ster's sheaving, this sum of £250,879 is owing, in
open account, to the Corporation, and has still to
be added to the bond debt of the Dock Estate. It
is not so. The bonds were given at the time of the
purchase, and from that moment formed part of
the bond debt.