The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-10 00:00:00

- ir RP110L)

TVESI

ESIMIIZEMMIM(ZiMM6IIIMSMNSI

THE TOWN DUES.

LOCAL CHARGES ON SHIPPING

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY.

The committee on this bill re-assembled to-day ; Mr.
Lowe, in the chair. The other members of the committee
Tresent, were Messrs. Headlam, Horsfall, Milner Gibson,
Duncan, Vance, Hardy, Fenwick, Bouverie, Cardwell,
Watson, and Lord Hotham.
The following, amongst otheegentlemen from Liverpool,
were in attendance :—The Mayor of Liverpool, the Town
Clerk, Mr. Charles Turner, Mr. Thomas Baines, Mr.
Weightman, the Liverpool town surveyor, &c. &c ; also,
Mr. Alderman Bancroft, and the Town Clerk of Man-
chester, Mr. Part (of Wigan), and several other
gentlemen interested.
On the re-assembling of the committee, Mr. Part,
solicitor, of Wigan, was re-called by the chairman.
On the motion of Mr. Horsfall, the room was cleared,
and on strangers being re-admitted, the Chairman called
upon Mr. Part to explain some matters in reference to
his evidence on Thursday last. The explanation referred
to the earliest dates, when the Town Dues appeared upon
the books of the Liverpool Corporation, according to the
report of the municipal commissioners, ;from which Mr.
Part read. He also endeavoured to show that the rates
imposed upon different articles in the form of Town
Dties, had been gradually raised since the year 1613,
when they first appeared :on the
_books 01 the corpora-
tion.

THE CASE OF LIVERPOOL.

The claim of the town of Liverpool to levy Town Dues,
was then opened.
Mr. W. Shuttleworth, town clerk of Liverpool, was
called and examined by Mr. Fiorsfall : After stating that
he had been conected with the corporation of Liverpool
since 1832, and had been town clerk since 1844, the witness
was interrogated by Mr. Horsfall as follows :
Mr. Horsfall : You have heard the witnesses who have
already been examined on this question, some of whom
have said that they did not dispute the title of the Liver-
pool corporation to Town Dues, whilst others have dis.
puted that the corporation have any title at all ?
Witness: I have. _ _ _

Mr. Horsfall ; Have you heard of, or seen any pam-
phlets which have been published since the commence-
ment of this enquiry, disputing the title of the corpora-
tion to Town Dues; and do you know whether such pam-
phlet has been circulated amongst members of parliament ?
Mr. Shuttleworth: lam aware that endeavours have
been made to influence members of parliament against the
title of the Liverpool Corporation to the Town Dues, and
I particularly allude to a pamphlet, bearing the name of
Mr. Heron, the Town-clerk of Manchester. The pamphlet
is entitled :—" Local Dues on Shipping Bill. Liverpool
Town Dues. Case of Manchester, and the surrounding
districts in favour of the Regulation, and due Appropria-
tion of the Liverpool Town Dues, and against Compen-
sation. JOSEPH HERON, Town-clerk of Manchester. R.
H. Wyatt, Parliamentary Agent, 25, Parliament-street."
The contents of this pamphlet appear to consist chiefly
of the speeches by the Town-clerk of Manchester and
other gentlemen, at a meeting held in that city. At that
meeting Mr. Heron, the town-clerk, said that the cor-
poration of Liverpool did not appear to know how their
title to the Town Dues was constituted, and this state-
ment was made in the same words in the pamphlet, the
title of which he had just read. He was well aware that
this pamphlet had been extensively circulated amongt
members of parliament.
Mr. Horsfall : I believe you are also aware that the
evidence given before this committee has, from day to
day, appeared in the local papers at Manchester, accom-
panied by statements that the corporation of Liverpool
have no answer at ail to the case which, it is said, has been
made out ?

Mr. Shuttleworth : I am.
Mr. Hors!all : Now, are you prepared to show the title
of the corporation of Live; pool to levy Town Dues ?
Mr. Shuttleworth : I am. I am prepared not only to
show the committee the title of the corporation to levy
Town Dues, but also to bring them down from the earliest
times. I will give you a general outline of their history,
in order that thecommittee may have the whole case before
them. _ _ _

Mr. Horsfall ; That is, both to show their origin, and
also the legal right under which they are now levied ?
Mr. Shuttleworth : Exactly so.—Mr. Shuttleworth then
proceeded to show from various authorities the origin and
continuance of the Town Dues from the reign of Henry
11. As our readers are familiar with the entire history of
the Town Dues, and the legal right under which it is con-
sidered they are levied, we do not think it necessary to
give Mr. Shuttleworth's evidence in detail. The learned
gentleman commenced by stating that the Town Dues
were first granted to Liverpool in the reign of Henry 11.,
and he read several extracts from " Hayes's Law Tracts"
in support of this statement. He next read the charter
granted by Henry IL, which secured certain rights in
the form of Town Dues to Liverpool, and several other
ports in different parts of England.
Mr. Horsfall : What do the dues granted by this charter
consist of ?
Mr. Shuttleworth : Anchorage dues, and dues commonly
called Town Dues, which are levied on goods exported
and imported from the Mersey.
Mr. Horsfall : How long have these dues been paid ?

Mr. Shuttleworth : From the earliest period to which
you 'can trace the history of the port. Mr. Shuttle-
worth (in continuation) proceeded to read the various
charters granted to Liverpool in different reigns,
from the time of Henry 11. to the year 1552, and
afterwards read the grants made by Charles I. and Sir
Hugh Molyneux. Subsequently 11.1 read the various
leases granted by the Molyneux family to the corporation
of Liverpool, and the purchase by the corporation in
1670, of a revisionary interest of a lease so granted for
a thousand years, and which at that time had nine hun—
dred years to run. In 1770, Lord Molyneux conveyed to
the corporation of Liverpool, through trustees, certain
rights which he was possessed of as Lord of the Manor of
Liverpool. This conveyance recited the grant made to
Lord Molyneux by Charles L It was the right, under
this grant from Charles I. to Lord Molyneux, when the
corporation purchased, and by virtue of whom, they
became entitled to levy Town Dues.
By Mr. Horsfall : From the documents which I have
perused, I am satisfied that the port of Liverpool has
embraced the lordship of Liverpool from the earliest
times. Mr. Shuttleworth, in continuation, proceeded
with the reading of a voluminous mass of evidence and
records, showing the legal claims of the corporation to
Town Dues, and was still under examination, when the
committee adjourned to Thursday.

BIRKENHEAD
IMPROVEMENT ACT.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY

The committee met at the hour appointed at their last
adjournment.
The Chairman resumed his seat, and the examination
of witnesses proceeded.
The first witness called was the Secretary of St.
Audian's College, who deposed, that with trifling excep-
tions---a sale to the trustees of St. Audian's College—no
sales of land had been made by the Commissioners. It
had always-been the wish of the Commissioners to sell
the land if they could do so, but they were not enabled to
effect this, in consequence of the schedule appended to a
former act being too high. the neighbourhood, belonging
to private individuals, was sold at a much lower rate.
Up to June, 1855, the arrears of interest amounted to
£:439,290. In December, 1855, a meeting of bondholders
was held, to consider the negotiations then pending with
the corporation of Liverpool, and that meeting decided
that the proposal of the corporation ought not to be
entertained and it was rejected. A committee of bond-
holders was afterwards appointed to make certain arrange •
meets. i The proposals made by that committee was
afterwards agreed to by the bondholders, and he
(tile witness) was present at a meeting held on
the 31st of January, at which resolutions were
passed to that effect, and recommended that application
he made to Parliament for power to carry out the same.
At the meeting 44 bondholders, representing £133,241, in
addition to Mr. Brassey and Mr. M‘Cormack, who
claimed to be interested to the amount of £43,000, held
by the dock trustees, were in favour of the plan. No
reply was received from the bondholders representing
£41667. One dissent only was received, representing
£SOOO. These figures represented £223,708, which was
the entire amount of the bonds. Since the application
was first made to Parliament, some alteration had been
been made in the bill, as originally proposed, in
consequence of certain objections, raised by Lord Redes-
dale, the chairman of committees of the House of Lords.
In cross-examination by Mr. Goldsmid, who appeared
on behalf of the Birkenhead Dock Trustees in opposition
to the bill, the witness said that the notice convening the
meeting of bondholders, in December, 1855, was sent to
Mr. Powles, chairman of the Birkenhead Dock Trustees.
who was since dead. No notice had been sent to the
solicitors for the Birkenhead Dock Trustees. Two per
cent interest was paid last year on the bonds, and interest
would also be paid this year, but he could not say to what
amount, He believed that if the arrangement sought to be
carried out was effected, the Commissioners would be in a
better position to pay the interest on the bonds, because
it would be the means of stopping the accruing arrears.
The reason why the scheme of the Commissioners was
chosen by the bondholders in preference to that of the
Corporation of Liverpool was, because the Corporation
would not give them their arrears of interest.

Mr. Wafter Scott, architect, of Birkenhead, was the
next witness examined : He said that he did not consider
that the land of the Commissioners in Birkenhead would
sell so well unless the bill of the promoters was passed.
At the price, as at present fixed in the schedule, they could
not sell it, because the land sold for so much less.
Mr. Wagstaff, solicitor, was next called, and stated that
he was solicitor for Mr. Brassey and Mr. M'Cormack, and
held a general power to act for those gentleman. He
proved that in the year 1852, Messrs. Brassey and
M'Cormack purchased from the Royal Bank of Liver-
pool, a bond given by the Commissioners to the dock
trustees for .t 350,000, and also another bond of £5,000.
He was instructed to say that they, as bondholders, were
in favour of the bill of the promoters.
Mr. Keighley, chairman of the finance committee of
the Commissioners, having also given evidence in favour
of the bill,
Mr. Goldsmid addressed the committee on behalf of the
dock trustees in opposition. At half-past four o'clock,
the Chairman announced that the preamble of the bill
was proved.