Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1892-04-02 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE COAL SHIPMENT AT TH HULL DOCKS. The North-Eastem Hallway hull was to-deg again before a Committee of the House of Lords', over which Lord Kensington presides—Mr J. Mitchell, civil engineer, and managing j . director of the Mitchell Main Colliery, said be sent 17,000 tons of coal to Hull last year, o' which 7,000 tons wee& to the Hull Dock, and 10,000 to the Alexandra Dock. They would shortly commence sinking operations in a new coalfield of three thousand acres, and a large proporton of the output would Le sent to Hull. He thought if they were given_ jeoper faciiities 'they would export about 100,000 tons a year at Huai. He thought a new dock should be provided, and did not think it worth while • spending a large sum on the old dock. —Mr David Levey, chairman of the Manvers Main Colliery, said the export coal trade in hull was largely increasing, and the dock accommodation at the present time was not nearly equal to the requirenients of the port. There wee also an absolute necessity for additional coal shipping appliances at the dock. As greater faddities were given the export coal trade would develop more rapidly.—Mr F. Dunston, colliery agent, said I he had shipped large quantities of coal at Hull. The I facilities at the dock were not ad ..quate to deal I with the amount of traffic, and he approved of the construction of the new dock.—Mr I' Blades, captain of the steamship Monarchist, said he had been engaged in the coal trade several twin', and had visited the Hull Dock very often. j The appliances at the docks were insufficient, and ! the delay that occurred was detrimental to the coal trade.—Mr Bredney, agent to the Manvera Mail l Colliery, of Hall, said the facilities for shipment ' of coal at the Hull Dock were qu.te inadequate. I The new dock was absolutely necessary for the development of the coal trade of —Mr Arthur Wilson, shipowner, of Hull, said it was absolutely necessary to provide additional dock actommociation, especially , for deep draft vessels. He did not think the ' deepening of the entrance of the old dock would inset the case. In cross ezamination be said if the elect of the scheme should be to restore the monopoly of the North-Eastern Company in Hall, and they were to use their power to put up their rates it would be a great misfortune to Hull, but he did not believe that that would be the ease. . Mr Alderman Woodhouse, ex-Mayor of Hall, said the Corporation of Huh had invested £lOO,OOO in the Hull and Barnsley Company's Dock, and had sold them land at the nominal aum of .C4OO per acre. They assisted the Hull and 13arnaley because they wanted to ! intro-Woe a competitive undertaking, and to develop the trade of the port. The trade of Hall had increased by about one million tous daring the past six years, and he believed it would develop in , an increasing ratio in the future if proper facilitice were provided from time to time. For that reason the Corporation were in favour of the Bill. They did not believe the passing of the Bill would promiice I the interests of the Hull and Barnsley Company. ,In the opinion of the Corporation and the ! Chamber of Commerce of Hull the scheme would greatly benefit the people of Hull. In crossexamination he paid the opposition of the Hull and Barnsley Company was insincere. The Corporahon clauses would protect the Hull and Barnsley Company, by tak ng away the . power of the North-nestern Railway Codipaity to bay them. By this means they would removo the e that the Norih-Fastern would otherwise have to restore their monopoly by the acquisition of the Hull and Barnsley Company. He, how-ever, asserted that it was the whole objei t of the Hull and Barnsley Company to sell to the North. Eastern Company, and he thought that Hull should be protecled against that restoration of the monopoly. He thought it absurd to suppose that if the North-Eastern had the power they would lower the do-. 4 rates to a mere nothing in order to ruin Use Hull. and Barnsley Company.—Mr Kirkus, manager of Meters Bailey and 'esthete, shipowners, of 110;1, said if steps were not taken to incowie the dock accivmmodation at Roll the Lade of the port would oveinin the socommodetion.—Mr Isofthouse, a member of the firm of Messrs Loftiness° and- Co., said it the large vessels wery removed from the aid deck to a new one it would be a great advantage to those whose trade was connected with the old deck.. In answer to the charge he said he had no appreliens'on that ii the North-Eastern had the • new dock they would neglect the old one.—llir Cockerline, commission agent, of Hull, said his district was counseled principally j with the old dock. He was of the opinion that a new dock for deep draft vessels, fitted with modern appliances, was very much required. He did not Weak any improvement to the oid dock would 'be sufficient to meet the requirements al the pots. —Mr Gibbs, general manager of the NorthEastern Railway, said tie did not think the d--ick accommodation of Hall. in proportion to its trade, was as great as that of the ; other principal ports of the kingdom. !The development of the Hull invie had ! suffered from the limited dock accommodation I and appliances. It would not be to the interest of the North-Eastern Company to put all their money in the new dock and starve the old one. They were anxious to assist the development of the trade of Hull, and to seeure the benefit of it.  I  At Glaggew to-day the , SUM dicription -el sem in magnum en imilmars Of lie 11001141W1110 Motion with the Postal " Relai-tiaiint.“— e eheimene, w„w segikiime the attention Mr annunizz HEATON second the motion.—Sir Seek& Imam mai woe sieslaeoll le par toe, and In New York The Aunty,/ is JAMES P 114119141111 (the Portniastradleneral) said SUICIDE, MANIA AMONGST SCHOOL etherighlie. am elleoged icieyesTathy. Tb•Athip,__, the Govemmeat ware abut to introduce a Bill .