Sitting of 27 February 1821

METROPOLIS TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. D. Gilbertrose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Turnpike Trusts in the vicinity of the metropolis. It was well known that the roads about London were the worst regulated in the kingdom; and though the dues levied on the in amounted to nearly 200,000 l. a year, yet still they were a disgrace to the metropolis and to the country. He was happy to say, however, that none of the committees who had investigated the subject had found reason to believe that any of the trustees had abused their trusts. He had in a former session brought in a bill to consolidate all these trusts; but it had been thought that such a plan would not have answered. What he now proposed was, to divide the roads around London into three districts, one of them comprising the roads to the south of the Thames, another those to the north-east, and the third those to the north-west. In each of these districts he would have a limited number of trustees always ready to attend the necessary meetings; while there should be occasionally general meetings of the trustees of all the three districts. The number of the trustees, he thought, should be considerably restricted; for it appeared that the roads were in the worst condition where there was the greatest number; and he proposed that they should be selected by those who at present held the trusts from among the mem-

947
bers of their own body. A report had unaccountably gone abroad, that it was in contemplation to place all the turnpikes under the immediate control of the government. He denied that any such intention had ever existed; and had no hesitation in saying, that there could be no surer mode adopted of opening the door to jobs of all descriptions.
Mr. Curwenexpressed his jealousy of any measure which should take the management of the roads out of the hands of those who had local knowledge. The roads about London were not uniformly bad, the Uxbridge road for instance, was a very good one.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY.
Mr Marryatrose to present a Petition from the merchants of London against the renewal of the charter of the West India Dock Company. The hon. gentleman addressed the House upon the impolicy as well as injustice of continuing, in an enlightened age like this, such monopolies, which were at once injurious to commerce and to the revenue of the country. He entered into a detail of the many inconveniences and evil consequences to trade generally, and to the trade of London in particular, resulting from the very high rates charged by this company.
Sir Isaac Coffinobserved, that there never appeared to be much friendship in trade. Each merchant sought his own interest, monopoly was the order of the day amongst them, and beggar my neighbour the object.
Mr. F. Lewisanimadverted on the abuses which crept into establishments of this nature, through the inattention of the legislature to the precise enactments which they sanctioned. By a clause introduced into the act for the renewal of the East India Company's charter, private traders were admitted into the East India Docks.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, it was undoubtedly the duty of the House to watch with peculiar vigilance the tendency of any measure which involved private interests as well as the great commercial interests of the country. There were other docks which had charters, having a longer period to run than the West India; it would be inexpedient, therefore, to make any declaration of the views of government as to the renewal of the charter of this company, until the whole question, as it respected those several charters, had been taken into consideration.
Mr. Baringsaid, the question was one which was intimately connected with the economy of trade. It was a fact, that the establishment of these dock companies, though it was at first a sort of experiment, had proved of the greatest public utility. When they were first established, it was impossible to know how far the rates would or would not afford a sufficient compensation for the capital employed; but now that it had been ascertained that they had greatly exceeded such a compensation, it was an important question for parliament to determine, whether the charters should be renewed. The charter was granted to the West India company, with a restriction that they were never to divide more than 10 per cent. The obvious inference was, that if the rates exceeded such a sum as would afford a dividend of 10 per cent, they were bound to reduce them. They had, however, done no such thing. Instead of reducing the rates, they had, accumulated a sum of no less than 500,000 l. Prudent men would not incur the, responsibility of dividing so large a sum among the stock-holders, for such a division without the sanction of an act of parliament would be illegal.
Mr. Gordonsaid, he had heard that 500,000 l. had been offered to be placed at the disposal of the government, as a bribe for the renewal of the charter.
Mr. Robinsonassured the hon. member, that no sum had been offered to be placed at the disposal of government.
Odered to lie on the table.