Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

ag (4 ' Cher d p f ei. , Ro b e rt ri oas Ig i eaS°ntill" o et ;$l, '11;5'0 1 rig t A - - 00.'9 DOCK BOARD. The weekly•meeting of the.Dock.Board took place at one o'clock, yesterday, Mr. Chas. Turner in the chair. The other -members :present were —Messrs. Hutchison, Evans, Graves, nankin Mondel, Laird, Segal. !Smith, Rubback, Farnworth, Anderson, F.orwood, Shand,'Holme, Littledale, Tobin, B ou lt, M oss, B us h e ll, L ang t on , Arnold, Brocklebank, Inman, and Lockett. WORKS COMMITTEE. -A letter was addressed to this committee by the Town Clerk, asking whether the, committee would be willing to negotiate for the transfer of the land, &c., occupied by , the eh a i n-testing machine,., to which the committee replied that they were not at present in a position for such a' neg o tiation, but as there were other questions to be arranged between the Board and. the Corporation, that Subject could be taken into consideration at - the same It was agreed that tenders be accepted from Mr. H. ICinahao, Dublin, for 5,000 shall sleepers, and from Mr. Thompson for 5,000 large sleepers ;* "from Messrs.; Curtis and Co , for strap and bellows leather; and from Messrs. Roberts and Gibson, - fir common flat iron. The com mittee had received a deputation from the Master-ship builders'. Association, consisting of Messrs. Royden, Grayso n , Wil son, G reen, an d , C S m i t h , on the subject of inadequacy of graving dock aecemmodation.on this side of the river. Mr. Broeklebank moved the confirmation of the pro ceedings, which included plans laid u p on th e ta bl e f or a half-tide basin and two canal docks at the north of the Canada Dock, and a dock at the east of the Huskisson Dock. These are the plans which had been recently discussed and adopted by the board. • Mr. Boult referred to the necessity of a second commu nication with the canal. He had since the last day, had some communication with members of the coal trade, and he foUnd that they were exceedingly anxious to have it accomplished if possible. He hoped, therefore, that the chairman of . the works' committee would give some attention to the matter, as the expense would not be very .great. Mr. Brocklebank believed that the board had no power to make such a communication, and that they were restricted to the plans now laid before them. Mr. Holm said he had called the attention of the canal proprietors to the subject, and he hoped that before long they would take it into their consideration. AT letter was read from coal proprietors., trading upon the Leeds and Liverpool canal, requesting that some further consideration be given to the subject, as the com iounication would be of the, greatest benefit. The letter was referred to the works' committee. Mr. Laird rose for the purpose of stating that he still objected to the accommodation about to be provided by the plans proposed. He thought it unnecessary. It was 'the wrong end of the town: and he quite agreed with what Mr. Tobin said some time ago, that for £30,000 they might give all the accommodation required, at least for many years. The docks proposed would be very much exp2sed. Mr. Tobin said when he made the statement referred to, the board were then considering the propriety or otherwise of going to Parliament. He showed how certain accommodation could by provided of a temporary character. He never pretended for a moment that it was to be anything like. permanent accommodation for the inland carrying trade ; he only meant to show how by a certain moderate outlay, flats could be introduced into the dock. It had since been made apparent to his mind during the debates in the committee, on considering the revenue which could be • realised by making works of a permanent instead of a temporary character, and that the money spent in temporary accommodation would be found when the permanent accommodation had been made, to be so much money thrown • away ; he had become perfectly convinced that the works ought to be made of a lasting character. Mr. Littledale did not intend to oppose the present motion, but he subscribed in a great measure to what Mr., Laird had said. He thought the action whi c h the b oar d had had to meet in the case of the Sierra Nevada ought to be a sufficient warning against =exposed docks.. They had barely opened their new basin, and he therefore thought they should give it a trial for at least twelve months. There was no hurry about feing to Parliament. It had been frequently said that oe was interested, as a proprietor on the Cheshire side. ,Re ad m it ted that he was interested in the Cheshire side, Du . ,t he had a lame interesi in property on the Liverpool ; he was probably 6 more largely interested in ware- Ar s e° on this side than a ny o th er o f th e B oar d, excep t r ' %line. towards the Cheshire side. th 4r. Br ocklebatik said the preient plans were part of 0 obligations laid upon the trust to, complete the with ' al lraug em ents with the timb er t ra d e . H e b e li eve d th at, ‘pWithout such a ccommodat i on, it would be impossible for e timber trade to ca rr y on it s b us i ness i n a satis a,ctor y manner. He b e li eve d th a t th ese p l ans, ,uell developed fully, would give stability to the rade, and would be the means of giving the fullest 'development likewise to the Canada Dock—a dock of 18 acres which could, not be done by any less comprehensive natheadatostulrvei than th a t now b efore the btard. He declared to he tchaste question.ehof the Sierra Nevada had nothing whatever Mr. B o l d disapproved of the way in which the land to t he mr east of th e H uskisson Dock was cut up. He believed ,of tt • Hartley did not approve of it as the commencement principle of cutting up the land. Mr. Boult said, the American trade would not sit quietly while the Bramley-Moorc Dock was being taken Ir _r„eni them, and given to any one else. They had ships wouldalrge draught of water, which the Brunswick Dock not suit at 111 and it was moreover out of the line of their business. t, The Ch a i rman said, Mr. Hartley did approve of the an, for the amount of money which he had to lay out. tike all engineer s h e wou ld lik e t o ma k e thi ngs rfe et• But they had certain engagements upon e other side o f t h e water , w hi c h t h board were determined to ca rry out in their integrity. It was stated Y Sir Benjamin Hall in the House of Commons the Other night, that he had been informed by a nominee member of the board, that another member had stated that t h e Birkenhead works w,.re to b_° o postponed, and th a t th a t s t a t ement was no t me t w ith reprobation. Now it was hardly necessary upon every occasion to express disagreement with every remark made °Y an o th er member, but he (the chairman) certainly a neve r underst oo d any member to carry his remarks so far Sir,Benjamin Hall had stated. B u t ou t o f th e 28 2ernbch of th e board, he should say that certainly 25 or if not the whole, were determined to fulfil the engage- V e ,! l ts in all th e i r i ntegr i ty. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, he b e lieved that the very gentleman alluded to, would not disposed to forfeit his engagement in any shape or ~,w a y; and that all they had engaged to do under the act of 54,roament, that gentleman, as well as all the rest, was irerrained faithfully and fully to carry out. He hoped Biley should hear nothing in Parliament hereafter of any ea s Pieion that they were not determined to carry out their irrtgrnae,e.ments. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the subject itttulately before them, he believed Mr. Hartley oved of the mode in which the £300,000 was to be la N l ° ut• He could not suggest any better plan for tzlr,' out that amount. It would be recollected by Mr. Mit t , ~t ha t the question was referred to the works' com rniiiiZ; not to suggest how they could spend one or . two th at but how they could spend' 300,000 ; and within 4.B,truction they were obliged to confine themselves. had r ' Bold said he meant to convey that, if Mr. Hartley men d the amount of money, he would not recom -I,ls them to commence in that way. Vie Chairman : Oh, most decidedly. niof• Brocklebank said the plans would afford accom co.J,,tion for 200,000 tons of the steam trade, and they ~,La not give anything like that accommodation in any ' ue Part. RattleNir Smith said, if he understood the opinion of Mr. th e l Y rightly, that gentleman would prefer dealing with to the east of the Huskisson Dock and the land Whichvfl the board had still further to the eastward, as a I , l °T. The board having decided upon certain plans 'moderate Would take £214,000, and would only leave the question sum of £86,000 to be disposed of, the only r , ion with Mr. Healey then was, how to lay it out in such a . shape as to make the plans fitting to go before a committee of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Smith) o , s; f ar agre e d w i th Mr. Bold, and he had tated that don to the Works Committee, that he would a great bi i lrather have seen it left alo ne f or th e present, i n lz that i . t might b e dealt with as a w h o l e. Th ey were fer . y going to make a dock, and there was no provision th e w arehouses at the sides of the dock, without which steam trade could not go on there. Itlr. L a i rd asked whether the chairman alluded to him W hee he spoke of a nominee member. he The Chairman : Si r B en jamin Hall stated in m y t ol a d ri n t g, in the House of Commons, that he had been 4 :"` °Y a nominee member of the board—he did me ntion any nam e , an d I mention no name. I merely tell it as I b eard it— that he ha d b een t o ld b y a llorninee member of the board, that another member had expressed it as his opinion, that it did not signify if the i ll i _trkenh ea d works were allowed to remain over, and that 'ley must go on w i t h the Liverpool works. M Bold: It was Mr. Lowe who stated that. The Chairman : Yes, you are right—it was Mr. Mr. Bold : He said he read the debates, and took great int erest in th em, and that they did great credit to the _3:?ar o d. (Laughter.) I n rea di ng them over h e sa id h e vered a speech. (Laughter.) The chairman : No—he said he was informed by a nominee member. Mr. Laird said, Mr. Lowe a s k e d hi m if he k n e w a gentleman named Boult. He replied that Mr. Botch was one off embers of the b oar d. " Th en, " sa i d Mr. Lowe, say about M r . B ou l t i s that he t , h al e l if cr.:, - t is a most straightforiva;: ( . l honest man, Land ' that al he states his views very distinv." (Laughter.) He wound up by saying that Mr. Bat& was a regular brick (laughter), and he quoted to the house a part of Mr. Boult's speech. _ . Mr. BOult said, however plainly he might have stated his views, Mr. Lowe had contrived in some way to mis understand them. (Laughter) He evidently had not succeeded in making himself ,intelligible to the meanest capacity, or to a capacity which was not the meanest. What he did say was that there was no pressure upon the part of the trade for the completion of the Birkenhead docks, and that, so far as they were urged by parties interested in business, it was a matter of perfect indiffer ence how long they were engaged in their completion, for nobody wanted them. (Laughter.) The accommodation was wanted on this side. He stated, further, that he considered it a matter of doubt whether they should be able to raise the money to finish the Birkenhead Docks within the time limited by the Act, and that it might probably be necessary to go to Parliament for an extension of the .time. But he stated that these docks must in any case be finished, for they were bound to finish them ? and for his own part, he was so heartily sick of the concern, and he looked upon it with unmitigated disgust, that he wanted it to be finished as soon as possible and off their hands. (Hear, fiear, and laughter.) He believed they were throwing three or four millions of money into the sea there. The Chairman : Well, we cannot go into that question. After a few remarks from Mr. Bushell, the proceedings were then confirmed. WAREHOUSE COMMITTEE, The proceedings of this committee contained a corres pondence between the committee and Mr. Mansfield, in reference to a, decision came to by him in the case of a man named II oggart, who had been employed by the committee, and was brought up at the Police court, charged with stealin. , 1 lb. 8 ounces of p e pp er , an d a quantity of gutta percha. Mr. Hubback, in moving a confirmation of the pro ceedings, alluded to this correspondence,, and stated the facts of the case as they had been brought before the committee by Mr, Cowan, the superintendant of the Albert warehouses, It appeared that .Hoggart had been in the employment of the warehouse committee for four years, at a salary of 21s per week, and on the 12th of February, instead of leaving the docks as usual, he stopped,. and pilfered the articles found in his possession. A quantity of pepper which was in the warehouse was vniglicd, it was found to be short.tlbs. This man was considered trustworthy, and was so treated, but it was feared that this was not his first offence. The prisoner Hoggart w as _ di sc h arge d after about six hours imprisonment. When these facts came before the Warehouse Committee, it appeared to them that. the punishment was not equal to the nature of the offence, and it was the opiniok of the committee that all the facts had not been placed before Mr. Mansfield, and that their superintendent and their gatekeeper had been negligent in not setting th ese facts before the magist ra t e . It was thought desirable that a letter should be written by the secretary to Mr. Mansfield, of which the following is a copy : Secretary's Office, Liverpool, 16th February, 1859. Sir,—The warehouse committee of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board having had submitted .to thetn, at their meeting of the 14th instant, a report of the detection of John Hoggart, labourer at Albert Dock Warehouses, when about to leave the premises on the 12th instant, with a quantity of pepper and gutta percha secreted upon him, have instructed me to bring the matter under your notice, and would be glad if you would do them the favour to inform them whether all the facts as above stated were before you when Hoggart was released from custody, by, as the committee are informed, your authority. —I am, sir, your obedient servant, To J. 5. Mansfield, Esq. (Signed), DANIEL MASON. And the following reply had been received : - itesaolis House, Liverpool, 16th Feb. 1859. Sir,—We are instructed by the police magistrate to acknow ledge the receipt of your letter of this date, and to observe in reply that he feels sure the warehouse committee will, on re flection, perceive that the enquiry is not such as ought to be addressed to a magistrate.—we are, sir, your obedient servants, WYBERGII and GARNETT, Clerks to the Magistrates. _ _ _ To D. Mason, Esq., Dock Secretary. The committee very unwillingly brought this matter before the board, but on considering the matter, they thought it would be better if the board would say what steps should be taken. Mr. Arnold seconded the confirmation of the proceed ings. He felt that the proceedings of the magistrates on, the bench should not be nude the subject of comment by that board, and brought before the public unless the occasion seemed to deserve it. But he thought they were entitled, if the servants of that board, or the ser vants of the warehouse committee, were to be held responsible for the goods under their charge, he thought they should have the support of the local magistrates, and not the discouragement. His attention had been called to a case in the daily papers of yesterday, which was somewhat analogous to the case before them. It was the case,of a person named Evan Jones, who was charged with stealing six ounces of tea. In this case the prosecution was not pressed. . The Chairman suggested that this was not in order. He thought no good could arise from the discussion of this subject by the board. It was a matter occurring in a court of justice. Mr. Evans said, the matter had gone too far now to blink it. Mr. Arnold went on to say, that the man whom he referred to was only receiving a small amount of wages to support his family, and yet he was committed a month to jail, with hard labour, while Hoggart, who was receiving 21s per, week, and was detected in taking away these goods to sell them in some of those receptacles in town, was taken before the magistrates, and was ordered to be discharged insix hours. Now he wanted to know what the reason was for the difference in treatment in these two cases. It was not a small duty the warehouse com mittee had to perform in investigating complaints which were constantly brought before them in reference to the weight of goods. He thought their hands ought to be strengthened and not slackened by the action of the magistrates. He was aware that the magistrates had a right to deal with these cases as they thought proper ; but he supported the warehouse committee in bringing this matter under the attention of the board. Mr. Bushell said he had just heard of this matter for the first time, and he thought it was not for them to pass over it lightly. They were the trustees, not only for the docks, but also for the property which came into them, and they were obliged to give over that property as it came to them. They all knew the amount of vigilance which was to be exercised, and the great amount of labour caused to keep these goods in that way. And to those who were in employ ment and in a position of trust, if matters of this kind were passed lightly over, what effect would it have ? He asked if three or four hours' imprisonment were the punishment for such an offence, what would be the practice of those professional thieves who in fested their docks ? He hoped it was the case that Mr. Mansfield had not had placed before him all the facts brought before the warehouse committee. It might be that the evidence before him was not such as to enable him to commit; but it was perfectly clear that the warehouse committee had acted courteously in the matter, and Mr. Mansfield might have given them the same courteous reply. The committee asked if such and such were the facts, and he might have stated that the facts were so and so on which he acquitted the prisoner. This would have been the most dignified course. Of course they had no power over Mr. Mansfield in his position as a stipendiary magistrate, appointed by government, but he would beg to move that the correspondence and the statement of the facts of the case be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for con sideration. Mr. Harold Littledale seconded the motion. The Chairman said he might agree with several things that were said, but, as referred to the decision of the magistrate, it could only be an error of judgment. No corrupt motive could be attributed, and he thought they really had not sufficient grounds to make a represen tation to the Home Department. He thought this would be placing themselves in a false position, to make a serious representation on so slight a matter, because it was not a slight matter to arraign the decison of a magistrate before the Home De. partment. He hoped Mr. Bushell would withdraw his motion; it was a mere difference of opinion, and he considered that they would not add anything to their own good opinion with the government by such a procedure. In fact they would rather lose than gain by it. Mr. Evans said he thought it would not be necessary to h .. 0 any further. He believed Mr. Mansfield, whose jnorgments he bad always admired, and his observations not less so, was in this instance, in all likelihood, led astray by the counsel, or bythe criminal, who made out a likely case of distress. He believed that Mr. Mansfield merely considered that this was little more than a pinch or two of snuff, and that he was rather hasty. However, he certainly looked upon the sentence a o m u g o h u t n to t o f b e w h p a u t n wishasedstaoslena, passed as very erroneous. It was a crime, and b c u r i t m a e s , n a o t t h u e f p t o . upon t H h eu thought the matter might be very well left where it was. Mr. Anderson said, he that Mr. conjectured Mansfield had misunderstood the letter, and thought it was calling upon him to give his reasons for he did. Mr. Smith said, a motion having been proposed and seoonded, it appeared to him that this matter could not rest exactly where it was, and he rose for the purpose of proposing a middle courso. He was a menther of the warehouse committee, and was a party . to THE NORTHERN TIMES, VRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1859 the diseitssiott • that took place with reference to this matter at the committee, and it did appear to him, and to the committee at the time, that the facts- could not hate 'come before Mr. Mansfield or • he could scarcely, under the circumstances, have dismissed the man in the way he did. They thought their officials were not taking the necessary steps to protect them as trustees' of the property, and they were desirous to know whether they had brought the case before Mr. _Mansfield as reported' to them,- for if they had, it appeared to the committee that the decision was entirely inconsistent. The committee came to the conclusion to write a letter to Mr. Mansfield, and they: took care that that letter should be written in the most :courteous terms—and the only object wasto know whether the facts had really came before Mr. Mansfield as they had came before the committee. Under these circumstances they thought they really shouldhavoreceived a courteous reply. Mr. Mansfield -might have good reasons for replying as' he did if he had an impression which might be a false one, but he thought they might meet this by a middle course. Mr. Mansfield would now see that that board thought this a matter of great importance. • Ire suggested that a letter should be written from that board to Mr. Mansfield, and the letter to be as courteous as . language could make it, and expressing the opinion that, according to the facts that came before the board; they were entitled to know whether the. same facts came before him. If the facts did not come before him, he might . be perfectly correot ' • and, if the facts were brought before him ' as they were before the committee, and as their officials told them they were, then they were entitled to a courteous reply. There the matter might end, and he thought good would come out of it. Mr. Brocklebank said he was not at the committee when these circumstances came . before them,' but it ap peared to him that there must be some neglect on the part of the officials—either on the part of. Mr. Cowan ' or some of the superior officers, • who ought .to hkve been present when this man was brought before Mr. Mansfield. It appeared to him that they were censurable for not being there. So far as he could judge, the matter had been left to the police and another witness. Mr. Bushell said, with Mr. Littledale's consent, he withdrew his motion, and he would move that the matter be referred back_ to the warehouse comtnittea,, and that they communicate with Mr. Mansfield, placing before him the whole of the facts of the case. ;He expressed his im pression that Mr. Mansfield had not before him the hole of the facts ; but if they had not a stipendiary magistrate with whom they. could communicate andact harmoniously in the punishment of crime, -he feared they would be involved in the greatest difficulties. Mr. Tobin really thought this matter had been allowed to go far enough There had been sufficient said, and the public attention had been drawn to it. It was not for him to say anything upon the judgment, as the facts were not AP before him, nor before that board, but in reference to Mr. Bushell's motion, for bringing this ' matter before the Home Department, it was a proceeding • which could only be taken in the most urgent case. Mr. Shand approved of the remarks of Mr. Tobin,' and said such a course would be showing a temper which, they should not exhibit onsuch an occasion.' Mr. Hubback said, on the part of the warehouse com mittee, they did not wish to show any temper in the matter at all. (Hear, hear.) But in reference to Mr. Mansfield not having the evidence before him,.he would simply state that they went over the case, and found that the facts as reported by Mr. Cowan were clearly laid before hiin, and was simply with a view to confirm this that the letter was written. The subject then dropped. MARINE COMMITTEE. The committee had had under its consideration further evidence in regard to the anchoring of vessels in the track of the ferry steamers, and a report from the marine surveyor, defining the track, was read. The considera tion of the question was again postponed to Tuesday next, when the hearing of evidence will be resumed. Mr. Mondel Moved the confuniation of the proceedings, which was agreed to. PILOTAGE COMMITTEE. This committee had had before it an opinion from the dock solicitor, to the effect that the license of,.a master or mate of a coasting steamer' implied no exemption from pilotage. . _ Mr:Shand moved that the proceedings be confirmed, which was agreed xo., DOCKS AND QUAYS VOMMITTEE. The proceedings of this committee contained the bye-laws for the regulation of harbour masters, &e., which, after some discussion, were confirmed upon the motion of Mr. Lockett. MASTER rORTERS' COMMITTEE. The Committee intimated that they were about to re vise the bye-laws and rates, and that they invited suggestions whieh might aid theta in that object. The proceedings were confirmed. A letter was read from Messrs. Laird, Fletcher, and Co., requesting as agents for the African ma il steamers, a proferance of entrance into the graving docks for these vessels, over any other ships not under contract to Government, for the conveyance of the mails. The letter was referred to the Docks and Quays Committee. , A letter was read from Mr. Jaws Samuelson, request: ing the sanction of the patronage of the Board to a new institution, about to be formed among the employees of the Dick estate, for their mutual instruction and im provement. . _ . uni :er which dock exte ns i on and i mprovemetifr on the Liverpool side e ! the Mersey may proceed contemporaneously with the Birkenhe: 4l Works. • Oa that 0 Icasion the following. remarks were made at , the Dock Board The Dock Chairm. l l l said, he thought their solicitor would tell them it was impossible for them in the present bill to do anything in reference to the prayer of the memorialists. • Mr. Laird said, the board had adopted a certain course, and that no steps could be taken until next session of parlianient, with regard to any improvement. 4 on this side of the water ether than those contemplated by the bill now before Parlia ment. In order to make this the more clear, if possible, the board on the 25th Of March, adopted the following , resolution, on the motion of Mr. .Rankin, and that, too, not by any hasty determination, but after the subject had undergone two adjournments : That as soon as conveniently may be, after the decision of parliament on the bill now before it, the board resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of considering dock improve ment and extension upon the entire property of the trust on the Lancashire side 61 the Mersey, and the time and order in which it is desirable that those improvements should commence. Mr. Rankin said, in moving the resolution, the board, in the present bill, only taking' borrowing powers for: £266,000, it becomes imperatively . necessary that this board should adopt the course suggested in my motion, and prepare for our succes sors' plans and recommendations, and give the necessary ' notices of a bill for the next session of parliament wide enough to meet the growing wants of the port. How, then, was it possible to say that the act was obtained on the faith of their not going to Parliament again, while such facti were staring them in the face? It was utterly impossible for any of their opponents to maintain that they had entered into any agreement fet tering their successors or binding themselves in any shape J or way not to go to Parliament that session for a works'. bill. On the 15th of April appeared the report of the. Board of Trade, which contained the following That the Birkenhead plans should first be finally settled, and fairly put in hand; and that, in next or future years, it would be competent for the new Mersey Board, which would then have received its final constitution, if they should be of opinion that the trade of the port required dock extension at Liverpool either on the north or south of their estate of the Mersey, to prepare a well considered scheme, in which the works to be done, and the maney to be spent on them, should be fully brought to the notice of Parliament_ In a subsequent clause it was stated that f‘ a memorial numerously signed by persons in Liverpool, has also been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, setting forth the urgent necessity for increased dock accommoda tion on the Liverpool side of the Mersey." That was before the second reading of the bill. It was not until Months after that the railway companies ever set up the plea of . breach of faith. It was not until last November that a letter was received, charging the board with breach of faith, and when the chairman replied, denying that there was any such understanding whatever as that referred to, they heard nothing more of any oppo sition all—not one word, not one breath of contemplated opposition until two days before the second reading of the present bill. He asked, therefore, if they were not - - justified in stating, that the, object of .their opponents was to keep their opposition as secret and quiet as possible, in order that the board might be taken by surprise, and so be defeated. More than that, Mr. Henley, president of the Board of Trade, said in the second reading of the bill, on Tuesday night, that he did not find anything in the report to justify the assertion that nothing was to be done in Liverpool until th e works at Birkenhead were completed, and that it . appeared to him the case of the' opponents' had been overstated. (Hear, hear.) It was of the utmost importance that that board should, on all occasions," keep the most perfeet faith with parliament, and that they should prove to the public at large that they had done so. Mr. Tobin concluded by moving the following resolution : " That the board has heard, with surprise and regret, that it has been' recently alleged, with reference- to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Works' Bill, now pe i nd iug in parliament, that the p r o secu ti ng o f such a bill is in contravention of a n agr e emen t enteredinto be tween the Mersey Dock Board (provisional), certain railway companies, and the Board of Trade, in February, 1858, and desires to record its emphatic denial of any agreement having been entered into, whereby it was precluded from going to parliament this session, if it thought fit, for new works on the Liverpool side of the Mersey." Mr.. Bold: Is not that a breach of privilege ? Mr. Tobin did not think it was ; he certainly did not intend it so. The Chairman : I don't think you will be brought to the bar of the House on that ground. (Hear, hear, and laughter. Mr. Shand seconded the motion . . Mr. Bushell said, in his opinion Mr. Tobin had clearly made out his case. With all the public documents and debates, and the statements made, it waS•shown that, as to a charge of a breach of faith on the part of that board, Was totally without foundation. It might be so con sidered on the part of individuals, but there was certainly no breach of faith on the part of the board. In reply to the Chairman, Mr. 'robin said he had no particular desire to press his motion. Mr. Laird said he thought it only right to state that, in his opinion, there had been for some years past a breach of faith with regard to the completion of tae Birkenhead works. Mr. Graves rose to order, and said this was a totally different matter. ' The Chairman said, Mr. Laird must confine himself to the present bill in parliament. Mr. Laird said he would abide by the decision of the board, but he thought they should deal with the question on the whole. The chairman said the question was this, Mr. Tobin had called attention to statements made in London in regard to an alleged breach of faith, with reference to the bill now before parliament, and he (Mr. Laird) must confine himself to that, and not go into a prior breach of faith. Mr. Laird said he would agree with the wishes of the board, but he protested, at the same time, against one portion of the matter being taken, and that in re ference to Birkenhead being left out. Mr. Tobin had read some of his remarks and omitted others ; but he thought the whole should' have been quoted that bore on the subject. Mr. Laird then read the following portion of his speech, which he considered Mr. 'robin should have read : Mr. Laird, as connected with Birkenhead, said be considered that this board had full power at any time before the next session of parliament to take any steps they liked for increasing and extending the accommodation of the port anywheke they thought best. hey must consider this as a trust for both sides of the river, and not one for this side of the river, as the old trust was too much looked upon with regard to the Birkenhead works. Mr. Tobin quoted the first part of my remarks, which suited him. He omitted the other - part ; the whole should have been quoted. This is from the report of the meeting on the 12th of February. The remarks Mr. Tobin has alluded to in the commencement. These were the conclusions of the remarks I made on that occasion: So far as concerned the Liverpool docks, he would like to see every facility afforded for working them; but, looking to the enormous extent of accommodation afforded by Birkenhead by deep water entrances, with proper warehouses, railway, and other facilities on the margin of that float, the immense quantity of land there was in addition to that belonging to the trust (for the corporation had a large quantity there as well as other land owners), he thought it would be injudicious at present to propose any very extended outlay until they saw the result of these works. He had no doubt that nine or ten miles of quay space on that side of the water, with large deep watersills, where vessels instead of lying in the river could get out and in every day of the year, would have a very large trade. Therefore, it would be injudicious to make the alterations that had been suggested, and increase expenditure. First they ought to look that what Parliament had enacted were works they ought to carry out, and then they ought to look for the best site for further extensions. There was another gentleman spoke on that occasion who, he regretted to say, was not at that board now, that was Mr. Robertson Gladstone, who said he believed that, although there was not a distinctive agreement, there was an honourable understanding with the govern ment, and ho remembered what took place, and his mind was strongly impressed with the idea, and he did con sider that, after adjudicating upon certain matters, they should not go on with any works on the Liverpool side until the works on the Birkenhead side approached com pletion. He (Mr. Laird) thought it his duty, when he saw Mr. Tobin's notice of motion, to write to Sir Benjamin Hall in reference to this matter, and the fol lowing was the reply he received : London, February 22, 1859. Sir, —I have just received your letter of yesterday's date, and, in reply to the question contained in it, I beg to say that my impression, certainly, was that, in the first instance, a large sum was desired for expenditure on the Liverpool side of the river ; that this sum was reduced to £266,000 ; that the works upon which this sum was to be expended were clearly specified, and that no further amount was to be raised for additional new works until those on the Birkenhead side of the river were in active course of completion. This was, in short, a species of guarantee that the Birkenhead works should be pushed on with the greatest possible energy ; and that no further expenditure of money on new works should take. place on the Liverpool side till those on the Cheshire side were very far advanced towards completion. Such was my understanding of what I conceived to be an honourable engagement ; and, if I could have supposed that there was any doubt upon the matter, I would have suggested to the committee the propriety of inserting special provisions for effecting the object. You arc at perfect liberty to make any . use you please of this letter. I am, your obedient, signed B. HALL. John Laird, Esq., Birkenhead. It was, he said, a clear understanding, that no more money should be applied for on the Liverpool side until the Birkenhead works were advanced towards comple tion. In the Board of Trade report there was n a t n hc.3lst agree ment that these works were ta . be f e ro o n m i p tlte position these M a rch, 1860. He was c h er e taa w n 'mild not be completed in works were now . that t that time. lie. there ore m y b sintained , that, if they were. a posl . .t o keep the argaini they had made, they not in h. The plans were. fixed by parliament, were b,reAkb l g fai t t s of the - bill were• satisfied with these and, the. '3,Pto:n y were agre.od, to. on: the condition tb4tt as they to be comOvted. at a. certain date,. and he t eY. It er theat they w.e_te bound'. to) complete. tlieskiv94§ ciia. 11°1 at the time specified, and they Were now gOitl, for: money for works on the Liverpool Sick, before ttief pleted their engagements at Birkenhead. He wthr Boit against extension of docks on this side of th'e' water,' he should'support all further extension necessary, if th'o'se' works on the other side were advanced towards conple-; flan. There was one point which should not be over looked in this question. It was stated by Mr. , Bonit that these Birkenhead docks were a load put upon them. , Bat if there was an obligation put upon them to complete those works, was there not at the same time something given to them in return. The town dues Were transferred to that board, on the con sideration that these works should be completed, and these town dues were a very valuable-property. Mr. Tobin stated some time ago that they, were £4,900,000, which would do , a great deal mare than complete the works on the other side, so that they had not got such a bad bargain. If they went on and completed the works they would get a fair return for the property once they should open it. The Chairman in the• first place did not perceive that Mr. Laird contravertal any point whatever of Mr. Tobin . . He (Mr. Laird) did not say that be did not make the statements quoted by Mr: Tobin, and there could be no question as to the allegation. of a breach of faith ; if he admitted the statement made by Mr. Tobin. Mr.. Glad stone's remarks did not sanction any breach or, faith. Sir Benjamin Hall had strong views au the subject, but he- (the Chairman) would say - that there w as no t a wor d passed which could be tortured into the' expression of Sir Benjamin Hall. (Hear, hear) Mr. Laird had stated that the works on' the Birkenhead side- would not be completed at the time specified. Mr. Lakd could form a judgment on this as-Well as other'membcrs, and as well as their engineer; but he challenged him to say that, if they were not completed; it would be the. fault of that board. That board had giveninstructions tePtheir officers• to' complete theni as fast as possible. There might be• something over which the board had no control. No' accusation could be brought against them if, from causes which were not foreseen and over which ,they had no control, these works were not completed within the period parliament proscribed. He had stated over and over again, in Parliament, when h e was asked would the works on the LiverpOol side interfere with the works on the Birkenhead' ale, that instead of impairing they would very materially assist these works. And he did think it was a most short - sighted Policy, on the part of gentlemen who advocated the carrying on of business on the other Side, to• stop on this side, pending the progress of these works. Mr. Graves said, he was quite surprised: .that they should be called upon again to discuss this matter in re iereneeto the Birkenhead works after what had already been said on the subject. He was anxious, when he rose before, that these two matters should not be mixed up, and that they should clear themselves distinctly from these accusations of the breach of the faith. The defence Mr. Laird had put forward,. however inge niousit might be, had not in the slight es t d egree a lt ere d the statements of Mn'Tobin, and whatever the opinion of Sir Benjamin Hall might be, he took as the strongest proof what Laird himself stated on the subject, which admitted of no possible doubt. He did not think Mr. Laird could clear himself. After those remarks were made at the House of Commons, putting the whole board at stake, he was anxious that the matter should be cleared up to their satisfaction, and to show, in an unquestion able manner, that there was no undertstanding existing, either implied or expressed, with which- they should be debarred from going to parliament with the present bill. Mr. 'robin replied to the remarks made by Mr. Laird, in reference to his not quotin i T the whole of his speech. He said he s h ou ld be ashamed of himself if he gave a garbled statement, but he gave the whole of the report as far as it appeared to him hearing on the matter, and what M r . L a i r d h a d stated did not affect it in the least. The motion was then put and carried, Mr. Laird only voting against it. MR. LAIRD AND THE PARLIAMENTARY COICILITTEE. Mr. Boult begged to ask Mr. Laird a question with regard to his public conduct. It had been publicly stated in print that Mr. Laird went to the Board. of Trade, in company with Mr. Tollemache, on the subject of the W 'orks' Bill of that board. The Birkenhead Commis sioners, of whom Mr. Laird was chairman, had agreed to petition against the Works' Bill of that board, and had also presented a petition in favour of the Corporation Dock Rating Bill. Mr. Laird was not present when that petition was agreed to; but, as it was commonly sup posed in Birkenhead that he, like Cato, "gave his little senate laws," and ruled them stricly, too, it Tnight be reasonably inferred that if he had any very decided ob jection'to it it would not have been agreed upon. The Chairman said, if any member objected to Mr. Boult's going on withoat giVing notice, it must be decided that he was out o order. If there were no objection of course he could go on. Mr. BouIt . : I thought it would save time, if the question were put and answered now. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Laird : Ido not object at all. I think the sooner the question is settled the better. Mr. Boult said Mr. Laird was a member of the par liamentary committee of that board, and upon a recent occasion stated that if he found any of his opinions in consistent with his duty as a member of that committee, he would at once resign his seat upon it. Now, the question he (Mr. Boitlt) wished to ask was, whether Mr. Laird had not used his influencelo promote the works' bill of that board, and whether, if he had not done so, he had resigned his place as a member of the, parliamentary committee. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Laird said he was rather glad Mr. Boult had brought this subject forward. It would give him an opportunity of stating what he stated in committee, when reporters were not present, that he would take no proceedings whatever on the parliamentary committee in reference to the bill for £300,000. Oa Saturday week lie came to the works committee, and finding they were reading some communications from London, he retired until that part of the business was over. f the Board wished, he would retire from the parliamentary commit tee with great pleasure, but before doing so, he should like to ask one or two questions. He understood, not having been present, that the committee had sent forward a petition against the Chester and Birkenhead Railway Bill, a bill which had the most important object of short ening the distance between Birkenhead and Manchester ten or fifteen miles. He believed there had been no authority given by the Board to present that petition. It had been done without the sanction of the Board by the parliamentary committee. He thought it prejudi cial to the interests of the Board that they should go and oppose a bill which would benefit their property upon the other side of the water. He was charged with inconsistency. While absent last week he found from Mr. Bushell's speech, that certain gentlemen of the board, including the Chairman himself, who were members of the Council,.were present in the Council at the time when the question of rating the docks was raised, and supported that measure. He knew it would be said they did not vote, but he thought it was the duty of any member who dissented front the views of the Council to have moved an amendment, even though he stood alone as he (Mr. Laird) did then, and as he should always be ready to do when he believed himself to be right. Again, if it were inconsistency in members of that board to act with other public bodies, he conceived that members of the finance committee of that board, who were also members of the ,Council, ought to retire from the finance committee, seeing that very weighty ques tions frequently arose between those bodies, and large amounts had to be settled in the purchase of property and other ways. Other parties too might be interested in railways which were antagonistic to the Chester and Birkenhead Railway. He would retire from the committee with the greatest pleasure, at the saute time stating that, as a matter of consistency, other gentlemen ought to come forward and resign also. The Chairman said, Mr. Laird had attempted to establish a similarity between two things essentially different. No one complained of Mr. Laird being on the board and opposing the views of the majority if he thought fit. But what they did complain of was, that any ucted to longer Mr. Laird, being a member of the parliamentary com mittee, 'specially instructed to promote a c ertain bill, went up to London and canvassed against t hat bill (Hear, hear.) A course o f p roceedin g of that kind was in his (the chairm an ' s ) . o p inion, totall y subversive of the interest s of the board, and was a very different thing front his merely sitting there as a member o f the board, and then going to London to oppose the b ill, not bein g in the co mmittee which was instructed to promot e it, and , therefore, not it out the r having heard what passed in that commi ttee upon the subject. (Hear, hear.) He thou g ht, if Mr. Laird fou n d c o h a b e r j r e y c c o s u o l w d t h i n c e l theot not aid certainly connit t ought e notconscientiouslyewa s inin carrying instructed specially propriety to remain a member of the committee. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the opposition to and the Chester Birken head Railway, he could not conceive e what that had to do with the subject. The parliamentary petitioned against that bill f or the c omm i ttee had purpose of obtai n i ng a locus standi, and had not y e t determined what course they should pursue. He could not comparison could be drawn betweeneonceive either how any Mr. Laird on theparliamentary the position of that of members. of the committee, and finance committee, who were also. members of the Town Council. A man could 'Sot be a member of the parliamenta r y comm itt ee an d hear what pa sse d upon onethereforepairttws of the ut business, ati o d r s_hot his ears t o th e rest, Laird to say th at he took no part in notan anything for f to ir. that bill. They all recollected the notorious fase in Lon dcm..where,thft secretary of a minister who had to read the despatches in Downing-street, was then supposed to be able to go into Threadneedle-street stock-jobbing, and r , Tet all he had read. (Hear, hear ) Mondel did not think after the honest admission made, he could any longer remain a mem ^ntary committee. Tld resign if there wen an ex ')oard to that effect, but he was asked to do so Ver . of thle Mr. saidt 1,0 wo, preSsiort of the' opinion , of thro Would' not resign merely he'aiSie• b)r the . chairman, .Mr. Boult, Mr. Mon, . Mr. Brocklebank said, if a motion were ~. Mr. Laird be called upon to rektftt, should - certainly vote for it. Mr. Laird's cenneetiotr with the' works committee gave hint an opportnnity of frequently knowing what was passing with respect to works,. which were part of their - bills, anti gave him ass unfair advantage, which he ought not to possess. (hear, hear.) Mr. Evans: An enemy in the' very camp. Mr. Boult gave notice that he would move next day that Mr. • Lai;d's name be struck off the parliamentary and works committees. ie that he Mr. Laird said, after the opinion which had beer ex pressed by Mr. Ifrocklebank and Mr. Evans, he beggad: to tender his resination of his seat as a member of the parliamentary conunittce; but he gave pair warning that unless moved- by the board off the works committee ha' would not go. He defied Mr. Brocklebank or any other gentleman to,say that he ever since he came'to that board took undue advantage' of his position in any way. He' found that out of ten members of the work.4'cpmmittee, only three or four hacil ever expressed an opinion itt• favour of Birkenhead, and he would not leave that committee unless compelll3d, Mr. Laird's resignation of the parliamentary corn-' • mittee was accepted. Mr. Brocklebank and Mr: Smith urged on Mi. Boult to withdraw his motion, reminding the board that Mr. Laird was a very useful member of the works com mittee. Mr. Boult withdrew his motion accordingly. Mr. Tobin said, with regard! to the question of dock rating-, he freely owned that it was his duty to , have moved an amendment, or, at least, recorded a protest in the council upon that subject, although it could have been attended by no practical resaik The Chairman said, he opposed it upon the first occasion, but he saw no use in, dividing the courted uselessly by opposition on the second occasion. Mr. Farnworth, as a member of the council, declared himself highly opposed to the ratinorof the docks. The general business soon after terminated. RApia PASSAGES.—The ship Humphrey Nelson, Capt. Chilien, has arrived at this port; frolValparai so , i n Btl days, being m the quickest passage this season.• The clip per ship Friar Tuck, Captain Richardson, belonging to James Beazley, of Liverpool, arrived in the Downs on Tuesday, after a very rapid passage from the East Indies, having left Whampoa on the 13th November, and passed the Straits of Anjer on the 30th of November, making the passage from Anjer to England in S 4 days, being one of the fastest runs on record. The ship Veloz has arrived at Belfast, from Hong Kong, in 96 days; also a remark ably fast passage. MAIL STEAMERS —The fine screw steamer Armenian sailed yesterday afternoon, for the West Coast of Africa, with the regular monthly mails, and about twenty first-class passengers. The Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia Company's screw steamer Kangaroo, Captain J. M. Jeffery, carrying the American mails, is now due. Her advices will be three days later than that previously to hand, and will extend from New York. to the 12th inst. The Cunard Royal Mail steamer Asia, Captain Lott, with advices from New York to the 16th inst., may be expected here by Sunday- The next mail steamer for America will be the Arabia, which sails from the Mersey, to-morrow (Saturday), for Halifax and Boston. The post-otlice box will be open until twelve o'clock, with late fees until one, and on the landing-stage until two o'clock in the. afternoon. On Wednesday next, the screw -steamer City of Washington will be despatched to New York. The next direct mail from the Canadian Provinces will be brought' by the -,teamer Indian, Captain Borland, expected to arrive from Portland on the 9th proximo. On the Ist of April, the Montreal Ocean Stearn Navigation Company. start (under their new contract with the Colonial Govern ment) to run vessels weekly between Quebec and Liverpool, their new vessels, the Bohemian and Trun— earian, being . almost ready. The mails from the Aus tralian colonies will be oae week later this month than previously, the screw steam-ship Orvida not leaving Melbourne until the 21st of January. She cannot„ therefore, be looked for before a fortnight. She is likely to bring news of large shipments of gold In April the contract with die Peninsular and Oriental Company comes into operation, under very stringent regulations, and which is likely to ensure more regular advices from the Australian colonies. screw-; WORKILOUSE COMIRITTEE.—The usual weekly meeting of this committee was held yesterday. Mr. Church warden Cropper in the chair. The other members present were--Messrs. Smith, Steele, Critchley, 'Owen, Peck, Denton, Byford, Syred, and Gair. The medical officer reported that the number of deaths during the week ending 22nd inst. was 28, of wh om 8 were men. 10 women, 4 child ren (above two years old), and 6 infants. The number of patients under treatment last week was 661 ; new cases admitted since, 184 ; cured and discharged, 133 ; now remaining under treatment, 684; of whom 47 were fever, 15 itch, and 5 small-pox cases_ The master of the vagrant sheds reported that there were relieved in this department, during the week ending the 19th inst., 137 male persons, 49 females, and 10 children ; total, 196, showing a decrease from last week of 4 males, and 27 females; increase in children, 1; nett decrease, 30; also a decrease of 124 when com pared with the corresponding week of last year. The governor's return showed that the number of paupers in the establishment last week was 2,329; number this week, 2,330; number in the corresponding week of last year, 2,696; showing- a decrease on the year of 367. Iroinceopeaky Again.—Mr. Denton said he would perhaps be allowed to make a remark in reference to what took place at the last meeting, in his absence. It appeared that the chairman had produced a letter in reference to the medical officer, Mr. Smith, in the Sheffield union, a homoeopathist. That letter, he said, only confirmed what he had before stated, that they had the power of making the appointment of a h omceopat hi c practitioner, provided they were agreed upon it. While he was speaking, he was asked to be a ll owe d to say that he hoped the gentlemen would refrain from making remarks in reference to the system—remarks which were not at all fit to be' used by gentlemen of that committee, or any other body of gentlemen. " Quacks" and " humbugs" were not fit terms to be used in such places- Mr. Critchley : I say humbug again. Mr. Denton : It is very improper. The Chairman said Mr. Denton had mentioned this matter particularly to the board, and seeing this letter, he thought it qu ite right that the public should hear the other side of the question.i c i o e ss subject, cj for 'tv and Sal it t h ha is quite :t Mr. r. en sufficient,ton has em o p i t i i t e i d th l e ii r t o ns i e s lf n o o n ne t going ropopd a . ny Afuftrotrliderispwoistiloigthoef some s f o rmal business, theubject. The matter th en committee adjourned. LIVERPOOL . ' BOROUGH SESSlONS.—Yeiteraav, the fol lowin7 charges of felony were disposed of :—Mary Kelly, for stealing a leg of pork from Timothy Crowley, six W hs_ months. 11lary Ann Carney, for ste a li ng . t wo purses, containing between £4 and £5 of money, f rom th e person of Letitia Costello, fi ve years penal servitude. Willi am eref y atilck of steel and Boardman, files, Ibbott, for stealing a gold watch from Louis, M ora th and Co., eight months. Josiah Hannah, for stealing thirty yards of flannel from William Phillip, three mont John Francis, for having broken into the h ouse of .B. Bragg, sevena ndg,y stealingears pne t a h l ro servitude.a quantity for the same offence, eight years.. M stealing several articles of Wea • Mar Irving., for John M'Elroy, five years. Ann Jones, apparel from offence, six months. Elizabeth "es' for the' same quilt, the property of Anthony Little, for stealing Welsh, for stealing eiol i t Smith, five months. of Richard Darlinoto yards of print from the shop stealine, two-and-a-h 0 , 11 2 five years. Margaret Britt, for au o•lasses and a basket from the trustee ,of the 1 t Mary '• d ' I ' a e Fiel , six mont is at hard labour. William Bnrke and Mary Robert s , f or stea li ng Some bed Cl o th eqh. seco id es from M argare t Board man , f our weeks ' Court: Henry Cropper, for s t ea li ng a box of wear' . ing apparel from Mary Aspinal, nine months. Catherine Deeg an, for stealing the sum of .£'2, 103 from the person of Alexander Love, four vears' penal servitude. William Morris, and Peter Kelly, f'or stealing a quantity of carpenters' tools, from William M'Culloch, the former was sent for four years' to penal servitude, and the latter to six weeks' imprisonment. Anne I.luf;hes, and Mary Love, for stealing a pair of shoes from Thomas Sharp; Hughes was committed for twelve months, and Love was discharged. Bridget Quinn, for stealing several articles of wearing apparel from Anne Callanan, Michael M'Wade, and Elizabeth Finn, three months. Edward Johnston, for stealing from the pocket of Mrs. John Aldred, the sum of 3s. 81d., six years. Michael Digney, for stealing a jacket from Michael Joseph Courtney, three months. Jane Fitzgerald. alias Richard son, ana Mary Mack, for stealing a shawl from Daniel Davies, and a petticoat from Joseph James Cummings-- the former was sentenced to five years' penal servitude and the latter to four. Johanna Hogan, for stealing &- from the person of Owen Murray, discharged. Peter Wilson, James Connelly, and Isaac Brady, for st-aling a mantle, the property of Dougald Stuart---. Nilson was sent to prison for twelve months, and to be three times w hi ppe d ; Connelly was sentenced to six years' penal servitude, and Brady to ten. The court then adjourned till adjourned. till a quarter-past nine o'elook this morning, Mr. Evans : Oh, stuff and nonsense !. (laughter.) , The letter was referred to the Warehouse Committee. The Chairman drew attention to the annual report of Admiral Evans, the Conservator of the Mersey, from which he quoted somepassages in reference' to the new works on the Birkenhead side, their strength and their durability. CHARGES AGAINST THE BOARD OF BREACH OF FAITH. Mr. Tobin rose according to notice, to call the atten tion of the board to a stanement recently made in Lon don, as to a breach of faith alleged to have taken place on the part of the board, in relation to the introduction of the present Works' Bill into Parliament. He said it would not have been necessary for him to say one word upon the subject, if the opponents of the bill had con fined themselves to arguing the case upon its merits, but when they ventured to accuse the board of breach of faith in proseenting the' bill in Parliament, then it became the bounden duty 'of the board at the very first opportunity, to show that they were not liable to such an imputation, that they. were not obnoxious to so grave a charge, but that their proceedings throughout had been characterised by the most perfect good faith. What were the facts ? In December, 1857, a conference was held between the sub-committee, to which the Dock Committee had referred the subject, and the London and North Western, Great Western, and Cheshire Junction Railway Companies ; at which conference he might mention the fact that Mr. J. C. Ewart and Mr. Hardman Earle- attended. The subject was the consideration of the bills then pending in Parliament. •It was agreed that £266,000 should be borrowed under the authority of those acts. There was not one stipulation of any kind with reference to the board being fettered in going to Parliament, in the next or any future session of Parlia ment, provided they thought fit, for works on the Liver pool side of the Mersey ; and he would state with confidence that if such a proposition had been made it would instantly have been rejected by that board. (Hear, hear.) .It would, Indeed, have been most unworthy of them, and a gross breach of trust to have accepted any proposal which would have fettered in any shape or way the hands of their successors. (Hear, hear:) The result of that conference was em bodied in a document signed by Mr. Farrer, of the Board of Trade, and Mr. North, on the 10th of February, 1858. In that document there was not one word which could bear the interpretation which had been sought to be placed upon it. On the 12th of February, Mr. Graves moved in that room the following resolution : . That, in assenting to the bill, the board distinctly reserves to itself the liberty of proposing next session new works on the Liverpool side of the river, with a sole regard to the wants of the trade of the port. Upon that resolution, the following remarks were made : The Chairman, Mr. Turner, said : The board had the power, whether this motion was carried or not —he did not see the use of the resolution —the board had the power, and they did reserve it to themselves, unless they deprived themselves of it. There was no arrangement, direct , or indirect, which would preclude the present or any future board which might be in existenc e f rom applying for any acts for any purpose on this or on the other side of the water. . _ . Mr. Laird said He considered the board had full power at any time before the next session of Parliament to take any steps they liked for increasing and extending the accommodation of the port anywhere they thought best. Mr. Graves, in reply, said : In moving the resolution, his only object was to have a record of the opinion of the board in regard to the future (that it should not be said that there was an under standing, tacit or otherwise), that they did contemplate future extension on the Liverpool side. After the statement from the chairman, Mr. Laird, and others, he should be sorry to press his motion. On the sth March, a letter was read from the Shipowner's Association, complaining of the smallness of the amount of !piney proposed to be expended under the bill. The letter contained the following resolutions adopted at the meeting of the Shipowners' Association . - - - That the requirements on the Liverpool side of the Mersey are, to a great extent, unconnected with the accommodation to be provided at Birkenhead, and ought to be viewed in connection with the vast trade between Liverpool and the interior of the United Kingdom, through the railways and canals having their termini in Liverpool, and which trade requires a great increase of accommodation. _ _ . That this meeting is earnestly desirous that every engagement on the part of the dock trade for the construction of works at Birkenhead should be fulfilled; but protests against a policy having for its object to d lay all dock extension and accommoda tion in Liverpool for a series of years, as unjust to this town, and most prejudicial to its trade, and also to the manufacturing interests connected therewith. That it be an instrucdon s to the committee of this association to take such steps as they shall consider desirable, and, so far as hossible, in co-operation with the Docks and Harbour B oar d, t o ave inserted tu the Dock Ilia further powers of borrowing, UPP " CO r . If l lie ' A en de- e ,ptoo cog. . r dsf+ J I'~r