Hide Articles List

26 articles on this Page












.---...,...---WINDSOR DOCK…









CARDIFF CORPOIIATION AND THE BUTE BILL. QUESTION OF PIER TOLLS. On Saturday morning the Pafiiaacentary committoa of the Oar cm County Council m*,L I for the purpose of considering the Bute Do* I Bill, fcspawaliy in respect ot the proposed now f pier ana tiie levying of tolls on •pa«»(iU8*rs.— i'iie Town-clerk read a letter from Air. J. S- j Corbett, in winch that gentleman stated, that, <.iAS j the Bill was ill the interest 01 tiie town, he noped to have tiie support ot the corporation. With the view of siuoouiiiig over the diiticuitieo that might have arisen, lie suggested tnat Sir William Thomas Lewis and lainself should wait upon tlie committee. As the erection of a low water pier was urged upon the Bute Docks C-uinpany by the chanil>ei* ot commerce, lie thought Mr. John Gunn might also attend. Tlie Towil-clerk stated tnat under Clause 46 01 the Bill the company sought power to compound J. sum not exceeding la. on every passenger landing at or embarking from tiie pier. Under Clause 44 the company sought cowers to com- pound with the owners for the payment 01 a quarterly or yearly sum in respect ot passengers j and luggage. Mr. Jt 0. Beavan moved that the first clause be eliminated, and that the second be streng- thened so that the Bute Docks Company should have power to compel the shipowners to com- pound and charge the toli indirectly in tiie lares. Alderman Trounce said they must not forget that the circumstances were different now from what they were in 1894, when, a toll was proposed. At that time there was no pro- posal to make a new pier, but now the com- pany intended to construct A low-water pier at A cost of £66,000, which would probably be £100,000 before jt was completed. Thev couid net expert the company to lay cut that large sum cf money unices they were allowed TO make some charge to pay interest ou the capital, and also to work and maintain the pier, which would mean a large annual outlay. The registered tonnage of passenger steamers had been so g-reatly reduced in recent years that the dues received from them would go a, very small way towards recouping the owners of the pier for the money they proposed to spend. Ho pointed out that toils were levied on all the piers in the Bristol and English Channels. Mr. Andrews said he did not see the objec- tion to paying a toll on A new pier. Alderman David Jones asked if there was any place in the kingdom at which the pier T°ll was included in tlie steamer's fare. The only difference that he could see between what was proposed at Cardiff and whait waa done elsewhere was that at Cardiff the toll would be about as low as any in the kingdom. Mr. Corbett and Mr. John Gunn were then invited into the room, Sir W. T. Lewis bemg urable to attend. Air. Corbett stated that there was hardly a pier in the kingdom on which the proprietors were not entitled to charge Id. or more per head. He gave a list of twenty places where the tolls varied from Id. to 6d.. and even Is. was charged in one place. In the majority of cases, however, the toll was 2d. At Prince's Landing-stage, Liverpool, and at Hull, there was apparently no toll charged. He did not know of any place where j660,000 to ;f-no.ooo was spent 011 a pier which was afterwards -thrown open free to the public. Mr. F. J. Beavan said he did not see any objection to the charge being made indirectly in the passenger's fare, but to the turmoil and worry which were caused by a. separate charge being made for the use of the pier. He referred to the disturbances which had taken place at Bristol when a pier-toll was enforced, and to winch had taken place at Cardiii 11l 1894. Air Corbett, replying to Air. White, said he was satisfied that it was useless to attempt to compel the shipowner to pay the toll by inserting a. clause in the Aot, but evemnally an arrangement might be made to include the toll in the fare. Mr. Gunn said the scheme originated in consequence of the miserable accommodation at the Pier-head. He thought passengers would rather pay Id. per Lead than stand on "The Dump" at the DOCKS where there was no shelter of any kind. 'The condition of ill LUGS there was a disgrace to the town. He had no con- ception then that the Bute Docks Compauv contemplated the construction of a low-water pier. Thev must admit, as REASONABLE men, that the proposed outlay must Le <net some- how. The Mayor MLid tlie committee were fully alive to that fact. What they wanted to do was to devise gome means by which the toll could be charged indirectly. Alderman David Jones: You have not tried to find any other mode of collecting the toll exoept direct from the passengers? Air. Corbett: We have thought* of ;t,but we <don t see our way to advise any other means. If the shipowners would willingly come under an obligation to pay Id., and collect IT from the passengers, it would be all right, but to put a clause in the Bill compelling them to do that would make the passage of the Biu hopeless. Don't you think so, Air. Gunn? Mr. Gunn: Certainly. In reply to Alderman Trounce, !\k Corbett S&id tlie toll would only apply to tae new pier. Some discussion then ensued AS *0 the means of approaching the new pier, and the plan was examined by the committee. Alderman Jacobs asked whether vessels could come alongside the pier at all states of the tad 3. Mr. Corbett said they could. Mr. Gunn said there would be twelve feet of wat-II- at the lowest state of any tide. Alderman Trounce said the pier could be used for imports from English and Irish ports, from the north of France, and tven from America, and Cardiff was 24 hours nearer the Alidlainds than Liverpool. He 'relieved the pier would greatly stimulate the import trade. Air. Gunn remarked that there would not be the sligMest obance of carrying a clause putting the toll upon the ships, it was not done anywhere, and the shipowners as a body would take care tha.t it should not be done at Cardiff. Mr. Corbett said that if the corporation op- posed the toll tho Bute Docks Company would probablv withdraw that portion of the Bill. He did not think they would fight the corpo- ration on the matter. Alderman Trounce moved that the Bill be supported, and Mr. Tucker seconded. Mr. Tucker pointed out that if they opposed it the pier would not be made. Alderman Jacobs said that the railway com- panies arrange to charge in their fare the ferry todi ac Birkenhead, and he could not see why a similar arrangement could not be made m this case. A BREEZE. Mr. Beavan moved the following amend- ment":—"That this committee is prepared to recommend the council strongly to support the Bill, provided that the toll contemplated therein for the low-water pier be collected in the steamers' fares, and that suitable aecegg be made from the present tramway terminus nt Buto-rnad. as well as from other parts of the town." Notvithstandjng the drastic remarks of Mr. Tucker, who knew so much about this matter, he desired to speak to the amendment. Air. Tucker: Perhaps I know quite as inucn as you do, Mr. Frank. Beavan. Don't you be offensive. Mr. Beavan: I am not going to be prohibited from saying what I dike by Air. Tucker or anybody else. Air. Tucker: You are a wonderful mail, no doubt, but I WOT* t take your offensive remarks. Mr. Beavan: I don't know, nor do I care, what you do. Mr. Beavan then referred again to the opposition of the townspeople to the proposed toll in 1884, and expressed an opinion that their attitude had not changed. After eome further discussion, attention was called to the fact THAT several member,* had been obliged to leave, and it wad agreed that the further consideration of the question be deferred to a meeting to be called by the mayor a.t aB early a da.te AT possible.





-----.----------NORTH WALES…