ST. CATHARINE'S DOCKS BILL. (Hansard, 22 February 1825)

Mr. Calvert
said, he would, at a proper time, object to gentlemen who were interested in the measure giving their votes in favour of it. Never was a bill brought into the House in so barefaced a manner as that of last year. Persons holding shares to the amount of 50,000l. had voted for it. He would move, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."

§ Mr. Manning
saw no necessity for these docks. The London Dock afforded sufficient accommodation to the commercial world, and if more were required, they could furnish it.

§ Mr. Wallace
supported the bill. The parties wanted no exclusive advantages. 613 They had not brought forward the measure lightly. It had undergone the most mature consideration. It was fit, that, in a great commercial country, there should be competition in undertakings of this description. Accommodation of the best kind should be given to merchant-vessels, and that would be best obtained by open competition. Why should the London Dock Company have a monopoly? The fact was, that those who opposed the bill were afraid of losing the gains which they realized by a monopoly.

§ Sir J. Yorke
said, he would advise gentlemen to keep their money against a rainy day, instead of trying to ruin each other by embarking in all sorts of projects. He wished to give every protection to the mercantile marine of this country, but he thought there was sufficient dock-room already. When he saw the number of bills which were called for, he felt that there was a clashing of interests, which was likly to end in the ruin of different parties. There were companies of all descriptions: companies to bring salt water from Brighton, and air from Bognor— companies to "bring airs from Heaven, and blasts from Hell." When he saw this, he fell back on his own resources, on the principles of his own unconquered mind, and seriously asked himself, whether the gentlemen who thus employed their capital were in the right. In his opinion they were not; and therefore he should oppose the bill.

§ Mr. Sumner
thought that competition was a very good thing; and had no doubt that if the proposed docks were laid aside, the existing companies would raise their prices.

Mr. Grenfell
said, that the only opposition to the measure had proceeded from those who were interested in the present dock companies.

§ Mr. Monck
objected, not to the principle of the bill, but to the particular place selected for the erection of the docks. The parish contained 8 or 10,000 persons, who were chiefly employed in the lighters on the river, and they would be deeply injured if it were carried into effect. He objected also to the sacrilegious exhumation of the ashes of the dead, which must be a consequence of it.

Alderman Thompson
said, that, a large number of the inhabitants had consented to the measure, and almost the whole body of merchants and ship-owners were unanimously in favour of it.

Sir R. Fergusson
said, there was not an out-port in the country which did not, with good reason, complain of the accommodation in the London docks. He saw no possible objection to the bill.

Alderman Heygate
said, there was at present as much competition as was advantageous without any new docks.

Mr. Ellis
said, he was instructed from Dublin, the merchants of which port had not at present sufficient accommodation in the London Docks, to support the bill.