ABSTRACT
The fifth protest, by Admiral Tinling, was made on the ground that it would be a great misfortune for the docks to come into the hands of a private company whose main interest would be, not low dock rates, but the maximum return on capital; that the Corporation was giving up the only improvable land in their possession, that the Council had enough resources to do the work themselves, and finally that the steps had been hastily taken, and the scheme hurried on by interested persons. The committee appointed at the next Council meeting to scrutinize the clauses of the Bill did not include any protesting member.1 When their report came before the Council, the dissentients proposed that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken on a case to be drawn up by a committee of Council as to the course to be adopted. This was negatived, and three of the dissentients, Hill, Rubie, and Whitchurch, again signed a protest against the negativing of this resolution.2 In May3 it was proposed that “the Corporation seal be affixed to the Bill now before Parliament.” Despite a hostile amendment, this was carried and the seal affixed, whereupon a protest was again entered in the minute book, and personally signed by eight members: J. Lankester, D. Brookes, C. Tinling, J. Joliff, J. Whitchurch, J. Hill, R. Young, and J. Rubie. They protested:
In June1 the dock company applied for actual purchase of the Mudlands, and the proposal to confirm the sale was met by a series of hostile amendments, for example, that the Corporation was not prepared to accept money or shares until the whole proceedings of the Council with the dock company were laid before the Lords of the Treasury, and their sanction as to the quantity and price was made known. These were negatived, however, and the original proposition carried by seventeen votes to ten. This was followed by another signed protest, which recorded the “ determined opposition of the signatories to the proposed gift or sale of the most improvable lands of the burgesses.” The sale was declared to be a hasty and improvident bargain, which alienated lands held in trust for the present and future inhabitants, without the consent of the majority of the burgesses. Consent of the burgesses should be obtained at public meetings after free, fair, and open discussion. Objection was also made that “ nothing was known” of the chief promoters of the scheme; that the company had insufficient capital to develop the land transferred, and finally, “ that because a majority in the Council, including many members who were directors, shareholders, or otherwise interested in the company have voted away property of the town without calling in the aid of any engineer or surveyor to assist their judgment or bear out their proceedings.” Eight members signed this vigorous protest : Whitchurch, Hill, Joliff, Lankester, Young, Rubie, Brady, and Tinling. In the next Council meeting a more direct attack was made by the dissentients, who moved “ that in the late meetings of Council, many members who were shareholders and directors of or otherwise interested in making a most advantageous bargain for themselves and the company with whom they were connected, have been the
means of causing majorities to vote away inconsiderately and inadvisedly the property, rights, and privileges of the burgesses . . . the Council, not wishing to establish a precedent so dangerous, hereby record their opinion that no member of the Council should vote in any decision at any meeting of Council or committee of Council, should be an applicant of any grant or privilege for himself, or when the decision may interest him as lessee or yearly tenant, or if he should in any other way be directly interested in a pecuniary manner in any application so made.” This was naturally negatived.1
