The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

23! Whig

Whigs, which gave the government a gross majority of
On Friday 23 English county members voted
the second reading, and 103 against it. There
1 reading 199 English borough
Amongst those

who voted
Q...A.,- II

lay night were Lord

3. R. Glynne, H

G. Tollemache, and T. Thorne-

Amongst those who vot

,t the govern-
, J. C. Colqu-

Sir H. Douglas, NV. I

B. D'lsraeli,

H. Ingl

iladstone, George Hud-
Inners, Hon. G. D.
d Lord

Lord J
)rp, J. Tollemacbc

Ryder, Colonel Sibtl
Worsley. Lord F.

d J. Jery

THE ANNUAL SELECT VESTRY MEETING

A few d

LIVERPOOL DOCK BILL.

We have now the satisfaction of congratulating our fellow

this most important measure. The bill passed through the
committee on Friday, and will in a few days, we presume, be

success," for it is scarcely credible that opposition against the
bill or any of its details will be continued in the House of

A short review of the struggle which the promoters have suc-
cessfully made against their various opponents, will not he un-
acceptable or profitless.
The observations we have already made in our previous no-
tices must have satisfied the public, that the proposed new works
will confer advantages so invaluable to our shipowners and
merchants, that no body of men or individuals can be factious
or foolish enough to oppose the scheme itself; but yet the mea-

sure was (inadvertently and unintentionally no doubt) placed
in considerable danger by the ardent admirers of dock ware-
houses. Unfrotunately the warehouse owners did not pro-
claim their withdrawal of the restrictions imposed by the Al-
bert Dock Act (4 Victoria), until long after the Parliamentary
notices had been given, and not until after the Dock bill had
been printed and presented to the House of Commons. The
anxiety of all parties to render the proposal of the warehouse
owners available, prompted the introduction of a manuscript
clause in the committee authorising the erection of warehouses
on all the dock quays constructed subsequently to the act of
the 4th Victoria. The parish and the paving and sewerage com-
missioners (always at their post in London when Parliamentary
business is going on) commenced operations as soon as this'
proceeding was announced. They, of course, desired that the
proposed warehouses should be burthened with parochial and
local rates. But the practicability of this measure under the
present bill, or whether the object could not be more perma-
nently attained after the power to build the warehouses had
been conferred on the dock trustees, were considerations which
do not appear to have been suggested to the eager minds
of these respected authorities. We will not now stop to
inquire into the expediency of their apparent haste, al-
though it is considered by some parties that it would have
been more judicious to have allowed the power to be taken
by the dock trustees unfettered in the first instance by re-
strictions or impositions. Suffice it for our present purpose
to observe, that the insertion of the rating clause would have
thrown out the bill, and then the power to carry out the pre-
sent magnificent plan of rendering our docks the admiration
of the world by their extent and their convenient connection,
would have been protracted. The chairman of the committee
having announced that the speaker said the insertion of the
rating clause would be fatal to the further progress of the bill,
the argument was urged on the committee by the counsel for
the vestry and the commissioners that the warehouse clause
should be rejected, if unaccompanied by the rating clause. It
may be questioned whether it would not have been better for
the said authorities to have remained quiet until the applica-
tion for a future dock bill, for such application, it is evident,
must be made long before the warehouses could possibly have
peen erected. In such case, the vestry and the commissioners
nay, before the publication of the parliamentary notices, de-
( Tare their determination to require the rating of the ware-
houses, and then, if the dock committee chose to issue the no-
tices without expressing the intention of imposing rates, the
oh' bill - •old

,toquy of losing the . . wow., rest with theni alone; and the
vestry and commissioners would bejustified in throwing out the
bill, wl.ich, under existing circumstances. they. doubtless. did

not desire. We mention these circumstances because on this
point very strong feeling has been directed against the promoters
of the bill, which feeling has, we think, hitherto flowed in a wrong
direction. We hope these remarks may direct the stream
into its proper channel. We now turn to the opposition offered
by the Birken Commissioners, and ask what did they seek
to effect by theirllposition ? To prevent the construction of the
new landing stage ! This would have been too bold a proposition
to assume on their own behalf only, and, therefore, they stood
forward as the voluntary champions of all the other ferries on
the river, which, by the bye, were so careless of their rights,
relying on the fair dealing of the Dock Committee, as not to
have presented any petition or complaint on the subject.
The Birkenhead gentlemen, in the first place, denied that the
stage was required at all. Fairly caught in their own meshes,
they abhor the extensive conveniences of this noble structure:
to use the words of their counsel, " We shall be satisfied with
the more humble stage we formerly proposed"—a stage shown
to be wholly insufficient and inadequate for more convenient
accommodation than any of the prewit floating barges. And
this declaration was made in the name of all the ferries on the
river as well as on their own behalf. They said the proposed
structure was too large and too expensive. They were sud-
denly so considerate as not to wish the dock trust to incur so

Thissyretenere having been abandoned, the exclusive

river steamers of the same stage, which i; short time previouslY
had been declared to be too large and too commodious, was
then claimed, and all the artillery of declamation and evidence
yvas brought to bear against the approach of the Irish, or the

Scotch, or the Welsh, or the Isle of Sian steamers ; and it was
contended that thirteen or fourteen ferry boats could not be ac-
commodated at this magnificent landing-stage at the same time,
unless large steamers were prohibited from using the stage.
Forgetful or ignorant (as Lieutenant Hookey confessed) that all
the floating barges, slips, and stairs, at present in use, (except
the narrow flight of steps at George's Pier,) would be continued
in operation, the alarm was expressed that large steamers
crossing, (as they now do,) the course of the river steamers

would 'encianger 'the safety of the latter; and that by lying
alongside the stage at the same time, the large steamers would
prevent the access of the river boats. To prove this assertion,
a wooden model was introduced (risum teneatis of a large and a
small steamer abreast of each other along the side of a
stage of 500 feet in length, where no necessity existed for such
unhappy conjunction. But the principal witness of the op-
ponents, Lieutenant Hookey, was unwillingly obliged himself
to demolish this clumsy wooden argument, and to confess
that arrangements might be made to obviate the proposed
jumble of large and small vessels. The promoters of the Bill
declined to examine the numerous witnesses, which they in-
formed the committee were in attendance to refute this attempt
to prevent the intended accommodation to the public. But
foiled in this attempt, another manoeuvre was at the last
moment resorted to, even more insiduous in its consequences
to the Dock Trust. A clause was proposed that the Mayor of
Chester, and the Mayor of Liverpool, and the Chairman of the
Quarter Sessions of Lancashire, or of Cheshire, should, form a
Board, to regulate the management of this same landing-stage!
We heard the counsel for the promoters of the Bill refer to
existing powers in the Dock Acts, for the regulation of the
steam-boats, and refer to the power of the Ferry Committee
of the Council of the Borough to regulate the steam-boats. But

all the powers in the Dock Acts were boldly contradicted at
the moment the room was being cleared for the voting of the
committee ; so much for the honesty of purpose of these op-
ponents. _ _

One word on the opposition by the tenants and occupiers of
the property to be purchased for the new works. Our readers
will probably recollect that a hand-bill was some time ago cir-
culated, which was intended to excite a movement against the
mersure, on the ground that sufficient compensation to owners
and tenants was not contemplated. The hand-bill set forth,
, --a- +I, ;,,ornvement of
BoroUgh, and proposed the same clause sfioulat De inserteu
in the Dock Bill.

The petitioners, however, abandoned this clause in commit-
tee, and claimed the insertion of the Lands Clauses Act, instead
of the clauses in the Dock Bill. The promoters of the bill con-
tended, as we understood, that the machinery of the Lands
Clauses Act would impede the working of the act, but they did
not argue against the principle of compensation ; although they

have had the curiosity to4compare the difference in the two
acts, which is as follows :—ln the Lands Clauses Act compen-
sation is given for any permanent damage or injury that may
be sustained, and for the value of the lands or any interest
therein, or compensation to be made in respect thereof. In the
Dock Act the cornpen.sition is thus expressed ; For any interest
in lands required for or injuriously affected ; or as to the v
of sm.

h lands or of any interest therein; or Compensation to be
in respect thereof; or the amount of the damages occa-

ry or permanent; or for re-
rofits ; and the adjudicators

age, or for any moil

are to give such an amount of compensation and to make such
determination as they shall think fit. We think. therefore. the

occupieis have

lined a loss; but, however this