The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-15 00:00:00

IST. Tilt NORTM OR BOGTLE LAND-MABIS SITE.

The deputation having explained that it is not intended or
necessary for the ultimate completion of the dock works that
the north or sea front wall should be completed in the same
substantial manner as the rest of the dock walls, the Secretary
of State for War will be prepared to accept the surrender of
the site upon the conditions implied in the resolution of your
board, dated 20th February, 1860, namely, that the completion
of the river or west wall will be undertaken by the Dock Board,
and that the necessary right of way over existing or future
roads will be secured to the War-Department. It is very
desirable that the completion of the river wall should be at
once undertaken.
2ND. SALISBURY DOCK SITE.

This position being one of considerable importance it is
necessary that a permanent battery, to meet any sudden emer-
gency, should be constructed at this point ; but to obviate any
inconvenience to the docking of VeSflels, or catigutry business,

the work shall be constructed as originally proposed in 1855,
so as to allow free access over the battery to those engaged in
the particular duties required.
3RD. SEACOMBB FERRY SITE, BIRKENHEAD DOCK.

It is very desirable that this point should be occupied as a
portion of the upper defences of the Mersey, and with this
object the Secretary of State requests to be informed whether
your board will complete a small pOrtion of the dock wall,
about 200 feet in extent, at the north end of the Birkenhead
Dock, for the reception of guns.
4. With regard to the minor sites at the Prince's, Queen's,
and Harrington Docks, the Secretary of State for War, with a
view to the convenience of your board, is willing to waive his
proposal for the erection of permanent batteries at these points,
but would desire that sufficient space for the guns may be
appropriated and marked out, and that a sits adjacent to each
position may be surrendered to the War Department, who

would then undertake the erection of storehouses to contain
the necessary armament and material, and lay down platforms
and tramways on the existing level of the dock wall, so that
the guns might be ready, as far as possible, for immediate
service, and expeditiously run on to their platforms from the
stores.

The details of the above questions will be better decided upon
receiving the concurrence of your board to the arrangements
proposed, which, if carried out, would supersede those orignially
agreed to by the Dock Committee in February, 1855. •
It is;desirable that this department should be supplied with
plans of the docks, at the sites in question, showing any
adjacent buildings.

In reference to a proposition advanced by"a member of the
deputation from your board upon the employment of long-range
rifled ordnance placed upon the Formby er Crosby shores, I
am to remark that the question generally will receive the con-
sideration whieh its importance demands, but that outer
defences would not act as a substitute, or remove the necessity
for those already proposed.
In conclusion, I am to observe that, while fully prepared to
give every consideration to the question, and desirous, so far as
possible, to avoid or obviate any undue interference with the
business of the docks, Mr. Secretary Herbert cannot consent,
where the general interests of so great a port as Liverpool are
concerned, to entertain any arrangements that will not effi-
ciently carry oat the recommendations which have been made,
after careful consideration, with the intention of affording that
protection which is deemed essential for the security of the
Mersey.---I am, sir, your obedient servant,

DE GREY AND RIPON.
The Secretary Mersey Docks Estate, Liverpool.
The CHAIRMAN said they were hardly able at present
to discuss the proposals contained in the communication,
and he would therefore suggest that they should have
a report on the subject from the Docks and Quays Com-
mittee, the Defence Committee, and the Engineer.
The suggestion was agreed to.
THE LANDING STAGES.—THE PROPOSED TOLLS.

A letter was read from the secretary to the Liverpool

Guardian Society for the protection of Trade, stating,
that in common with certain, other inhabitants, they
had considered it their duty to petition the House of
Lords against the proposed imposition of tolls on the
Landing Stages.

The letter was referred to the Committee on Parlia-
mentary Bills.

THE LANDING-STAGE AT BIRKENHEAD.

A letter was next submitted from Messrs. Vernon and
Son, stating that they were happy to accept the agree-
ment with the trust to construct the landing-stage at
Birkenhead, for a sum of £75,624 19s. 9d.

The solicitor to the board was directed to draw out

he contract.

A letter was read from Messrs. James Bland and Son,
requesting permission to plant a steam engine on the
pier of the Canada Dock, for the purpose of elevating
timber from the ships in the dock.
Referred to the Docks and Quays Committee.

A request from Mr. Edward Chaloner, for permission

to store cotton in two sheds he has rented from the
board, was remitted to the Docks and Quays Committee.

OMNIBUSES AND STREET REPAIRS.

A letter was •read from Messrs. Gates and Dolby,
stating that in consequence of the repairs now being
made opposite the Custom-house they were obliged, in
running their omnibuses, to take a circuitous route,
thereby causing themselves and the public considerable
inconvenience. They therefore requested permission to
run a short distance along the rails on the line of docks.
The ENGINEER remarked that if this request was
granted parties in charge of all kinds of vehicles would
avail, themselves of the line of rails, and considerable
inconvenience might thereby arise. •
Remitted to the Docks and Quays Committee.
ACCOUMODATION FOR STORING TOBACCO.

The following comnfunication was considered as read
Liverpool, 13th June, 1860.

Sill,—The letter read by you at the meeting of the board on
Thursday last, from the lessee of the Tobacco Warehouse,
appears to demand a reply from me ; and although I do not
intend to be led into any public correspondence or controversy
with Mr. Atwool, I deem it right to trouble you with this
further communication.

I care not to inquire whether, in saying that "the allega-
tions made •are not founded on fact," Mr. Atwool refers to
anything 11-nay individually_have stated, or to what has been
said by 'others : but I would remark that my former letter to
the board made no mention of him whatever, • the complaint
therein being against the "unjust and exceptional monopoly"
which heat present enjoys; in connection with which. neither
I, `Mir those with whom I act, have any desire to misstate
anything, and we distinctly disclaim being actuated by any
personal feelings in the matter.

Mr. Atwool is wrong in presuming that the "porterage
charges" only are "those to which allusion is made," as it is
rent, cooperage, and porterage combined, that are complained
of, and stated to be excessive as compared with the Victoria
Dock charges in London (with which our comparisons are
instituted), the rate upon a hogshead of American tobacco
at the Victoria Dock Warehouse for twelve months being
only 4s, while here it would be 13s, 20 that, though the
cooperage and porterage charges there are above those
here, the aggregate in London is much below Liverpool ;
the charges for the rent on a hogshead of Ameriean tobacco
at the Victoria Dock Warehouse is 4s for the first year,
or any part of the first year, and in Liverpool the charge
is 3d per week; and the cooperage and porterage charge
to the importer there is 6cl per 100 lbs. nett, while, here
it is 5s 9d per hogshead.; and in- stating that- the-list of
porterage charges under which he professes to be 'working
was received from me, he should have added that the same
was given to him with a view to his making deductions there-
from, and that it was notified to him that the importers did
not thereby acquiesce in a continuance of the rates in question.
He should likewise have stated that after keeping the trade
waiting several months for a reply as to "a remodelling of the
existing rates, upon the principle of amalgamating the same,
with a.fixed charge for rent similar to that in force at Victoria
Docks, in London," the offer which he made on the 11th
June, 1859, was confined to American tobacco only, and his
proposed rate, it was calculated, would yield him upwards
of £l,OOO per annum on that description of tobacco alone more
than the rates then charged.
In order to show that I do not stand alone, and that the
position of matters connected with the Tobacco Warehouse
may be more clearly understood, I herewith hand copy of a
memorial from the American Chamber of Commerce to the
Lords of the Treasury ; and of a letter from Mr. Oxley, en
behalf of the importers, which accompanied it, enclosing copy
of a former memorial addressed to the Commissioners of Cus-
toms by the importers, to which I beg to refer.
The reply from the Commissioners of Customs was altogether
unsatisfactory; and Mr. Atwool having rejected the proposal
made to him, in accordance with their suggestions, which it
was estimated Would yield a gross annual, rent Of upwards of
£6,000, besides a nett profit of £3,000 on the working charges,
the subsequent application to the Treasury was the conse-
quence; but to 'this latter, which was only lately presented,
no anaNYer has yet laen given.
It is not denied that, on taking possession of the warehouse,
Mr. Atwool reduced the rent from the rates Charged .by the
Crown immediately previously ; but inasmuch as, in reply to
an application before made, the Government had stated that
the warehouse was about to be sub-let, when the rates would
be adjusted, we had a right to infer that there washesodmi e
understanding that he was to make such a reduction
as
d.
I confirm what was stated as to the estimated production
the warehouse at the present rates from rent alone, beingf ofr
the three years of 1856, 1857, and 1858,
upwards of £9,000
per annum, and for the year 1859 by itself, about £ll,OOO, and
that the nett profits. of, the working charges were £3,000 per
annum. The calculations upon which the three years' esti-
mate was made Mr. Atwool has been challenged to confute;
and as, at the rates charged by the Crown previous to his
occupancy, the amount of rent would have been much beyond
the sums above-named, it'oannot fail to -be ainatter of surprise
that, under the plea of econOmy, Cotaqsaioners of
Customs should have sub-let the warehouse for ahont £.4,p00,
or about £2,500 less than they are paying, the rent received
by the Corporation of Liverpool for it being £6,500.
I adduce the following instances of high charges for rent,
the particulars of which I have received from brokers here :
On 786 bales of the value of £1,991 6s. 3d., the rent was
£302 10s. 5d., and on 1,994 bales, of the gross value of
£5,969 Is. ld., therent charged to the importer was £727 Bs. 6d.,
for something less than eleven months ; -besides- in the latter
case, an additional large amount had to be paid by the buyer.
Under all these circumstances, while conceding to Mr.
. —„ Dow,— regale,
hire, 1111:''Whave just cause to complain that the
placed the tobacco. trade here so completely
and as competitive
g6'o'-v-ern---raenlt think
in the power of any private individual;
warehouses have been allowed both in London and Dublin, the
right of baying such in Liverpool cannot surely be longer
fused. I remain, sir, your most obedient servant,
re
Charles Turner, Esq.,
MAXWELL HYSLOP.
Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
The' letter was remitted to the Works Committee, and
the putlie'business then terminated. -
~ •

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY.
___.-

(Before Messrs. IlouoßToN and PRESTON.)
STABBING BY FEMALES.
Charlotte Brown and Mary Parr, were charged for having
stabbed a female named Anne Mack. The parties are unfor-
tunates, and live in Robertson-street, Park, and it appeared
they had a falling out and a row, in which, the, prisoners used
knives and stabbed the complainant. The prisoners were
remanded.
ASSAULTS ON THE POLICE.
John Marriott, a mechanic, was ch
risonerarged with having assaulted
police-officers 374 and 470. The p was on De
wood, rby-ralled a
oad,
Bootle, the previous night, with a piece of c
"battle-door," like what children use playing shuttlecock,
but a gooll deal larger. He was drunk, and coming up to the
police, he must have imagined them to be shuttlecocks, for he
at once commenced knocking them about with his implement,
and they had a good deal of trouble before they could get kiln
to the lock-up. The prisoner pleaded drunkenness. He was
tined £1 and costs, or one month's imprisonment.
James Barker, a sailor, was charged by officer 153 with having
assaulted hits. , The prisoner came out of a public-house in
Great Howard-street the previous night. He was drunk at the
time, and making a noise. The officer told him to be quiet,
when lie stabbed him over the eye with a knife. The wound,
fortunately, was not dauger.ous. The prisoner was tined £5,
or three months' imprisonment.
CHEAP JAUNTING !
Clara Lawton, a person very elegantly attired, who said her
husband keeps a public house in 'Scotland-road, was charged
by a car driver, named William Needman, for refusing to pay
his fare, and she was also charged with being drunk. The
complainant said, before eleven o'clock the previous night,
the prisoner engaged himat WOOd-street,Buld-street, to diive
her to Scotland-road, where, she stated, her husband kept a
public house. Some persons told him that she did not live
with her husband, and that there would be no use driving
her there. He spoke to her on the subject, and thein n she told
him to drive to the Gardens, where she had a friend. On
going there she could not find any friend, and then he drove
her back to Scotland-road; but she was refused admittance,
and not having any money to pay his fare, he drove her to the
North Docks station, and charged her, and she was also
charged with being drunk. The prisoner said her husband
should pay the money. It was stated that she was separated
from her husband. The magistrates fined leer ss. for being
dsmaii, 2s, 64, for the cab fare, and 0111141k§atica to tbv

driver. She declared she would not pay, for the best reason,
she had no money, and that her husband ought to pay the

amount.