The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-25 00:00:00

SOUND DUES.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY.
The select committee of the House of Commons ap-
pointed to enquire into the operation of the Sound Dues
met to-day. Mr. Villiers in the chair. The ,other mem-
bers of the committee present were, Mr. Bramley Moore,
Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Deasy, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Hutt, and Mr. Liddell.
The first witness examined was Mr. Thomas Arnott,
of the firm of Leach, Harrison, Forwood, and Co., of
Liverpool.
By the Chairman : I am a member of the Chamber of
of Commerce, of Liverpool, and a ship owner. Memorials
against the Sound Dues have been forwarded from the
chamber to the government. The first was forwarded in
1853, but that memorial did not pray for the entire aboli-
tion, but for an alteration in the mode of levying the dues.
The memorial was renewed last year, when one was for-
warded from the chamber to the Earl of Clarendon,
praying for the entire abolition of the dues. The opinion
of the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool now is, that
they should be abolished altogether.
By Mr. Hutt : We think that if any change at all is
made, it should be on cargo, and not on ships. It
appears that the only dues paid are for lighting and
buoying.
The Chairman : Has this question of the Sound Dues
been discussed much in the Chamber of Commerce at
Liverpool ? Witness : It has ; very much, and in many
instances.
The Chairman ; Are there any particular interests in
Liverpool affected by the operation of the Sound Dues?
Witness: Yes; the salt trade in particular, in which
there is a large business carried on from Cheshire.
The Chairman : Have you considered in what particular
way, besides their actual payment, the operation of these
dues are prejudicial to shipping? Witness : Yes ; there
is the delay and danger, vessels often getting ashore in
consequence, and there is therefore inconvenience and
additional expense incurred in regard to insurance.
The Chairman: What do the Chamber of Commerce
make out that this country annually nays in Sound Dues ?
Witness : From £lOO,OOO to 4120,000. That covers all
that is paid to Denmark.
The Chairman : Now would the Chamber of Commerce
think it right to do away with the Light Dues 9 Witness :
I think so.
The Chairman : Do you think it would be safe to allow
the government of Denmark to provide the lights in
consideration of a fixed sum being paid. A proposi-
tion has been made to pay a fixed sum down in lieu of
these dues ; do you think that would be advisable ?
Witness : I think it would.
The Chairman: Are you of opinion that the shipping at
Liverpool with the Baltic is declining? Witness : Very
much.
The Chairman : Have you any particular reason to
account for that decline ? Witness : No.
The Chairman : Have you any particular reason to
suppose that the Liverpool trade with the Baltic will be
less, supposing the Sound Dues to remain in force ?
Witness : I have not.
By Mr. Bramley-Moore: 1 am aware that America has
given notice that she will no longer pay the Sound Dues.
I am also aware that no American ship could go to
Russia without the Sound Dues having first been paid,
Mr. Brantley-Moore ; You say that in 1853 it was
thought desirable to send the memorial from the Chamber
of Commerce at Liverpool„in consequence of the extend-
ing commerce between the port of Liverpool and the
Baltic. Now, was there not a very large decline in the
Baltic trade from Liverpool in that year ? Witness The
tonnage was certainly not so ranch as it was in 1845.
Mr. Bramley-Moore : Are you not aware that in 1849
the trade was almost double that of 1853 ? Witness : I
think you should go as far back as 1845.
Mr. Bramley-Moore : But was not 1849 the maximum
of our trade ? The witness, on referring to the tonnage
returns, admitted that 1849 was the maximum, and that
the trade had been falling off ever since that year.
Mr. Bramley-Moore : Can you tell the committee the
number of Liverpool ships now trading to the Baltic ?
Witness : I cannot state the number of vessels because
I have not provided myself with the data.
By Mr. Mitchell: He believed no vessel would be
allowed to enter a Russian port without having first paid
the Sound Dues. He declined to offer any opinion on the
question of compensation to Denmark in the event of the
Sound Dues being abolished.
Mr. Thomas Higgin, salt manufacturer, of Chester, was
next examined, and he stated, in answer to the chairman,
that the duties levied on salt at the Sound was a very
serious item. A cargo of salt of 500 tons was worth *250.
The duty imposed at the Sound was from ls. 2d to 18. 3d.
per ton, which would amount to about 430, and this was
equal to 12 per cent on the value• This exaction
undoubtedly enhanced the price of salt, and operated
adversely on the trade, for the lower the price of salt was
the greater would be the consumption. Not only was the
British merchant obliged to bear the burden, but he was
also compelled to compete with salt taken to Russia from
the Mediterranean. Junaberg, and Portugal. Besides
that, British salt had to compete with salt manufactured

in the interior of Russia. About 100,000 tons was expori

from the Mersey annually.
By Mr. Braley-Moore : The dues varied according to,
the price of salt. In 1840 the value of salt was alcaos'
103 or 12s a ton. salt
By Mr. Disraeli : A duty of is a ton was paid on
in the river Weaver. He was not sure that salt was roate,
on the shores of the Baltic from sea water, but it could D
done,
Mr. Allhuson, merchant, and chairman af the evveas.
tie Chamber of Commerce, was the next witnessN called'
He said, that for a long time the attention of the Chan":
ber of Commerce of Newcastle had been directed to the
question of tha Sound Dues. He read a memorial frl
the chamber to the committee against the dues,
afterwards stated, that British shipping alone paid a..
much in dues to Denmark as all other nations put togetheiy
and, therefore, it was necessary that Denmark sh°tl,..
make some equitable arrangement, so that British Me
b. U
,
chants might be relieved of the burdens which pressed

heavily them. that'
By Mr. Liddel: The dues operate adversely oil
Baltic countries, for in the article of tallow, America
~ainty
Australia can supply it without being under the neee"
of pang Sound D.
By yi
Mr. Mitchell:ues During the last few years,
had supplied 20 per cent of the tallow imported
England. of DT's°.
Mr. John Ormston, merchant and shipowner, ,r
castle, was next examined. The witness spoke more
e,
particularly as to the inconveniences and dangers a 1
from the detention of vessels at Elsinore. An exceptioo_..so
favour was extended to steamers of that class which ape's
allowed to pass Elsinore without detention. Their paSoeart,
were taken to the government office by a shore L'
which lay off in the Channel, for the purpose of reeeivielie
after "
them from the captains, and
were sent on
steamers to St. Petersburg.
Friday nett
At four o'clock, the committee adjourned to
at one o'clock. Austral!:lo

THE TOWN DUES•

LOCAL CHARGES ON SHIPPING

COMMITTEE

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 11°14°131%r,
The select committee assembled this day at noon)
Lowe in the chair. The other members of tha committed
present, were—Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Beamish Ler
Hotham, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Headlam, Sir John Duckwnrt'h'
Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. Hardy.
The Towr-Clerk of Liverpool was again examined.
the
The Chairmen asked the witness if he could aupPlY
0
committee with a copy of the short-hand writer's notes
the trial, before Lord Denman, on the occasion of the T°ll°
Dues being disputed? The witness said he would do se",,,
The Chairman remarked, that it was very desirable tm
committee should have it.
By the Chairman : The Mersey was surrounded 139
number of manors, including Birkenhead. North Me..„.3lg'
which bordered on the Mersey, was also a manor.
ag
Blackburne was the lord of the manor of Hale. lie
big
not aware that he claimed anchorage dues witbirj,
manor. Did not know that he claimed the 60' ;
appoint a coroner. A lease of the manor of Birkenhea
was granted to Mr. Prior, in the 36th year of the reit:
of Henry VIII. He considered that the right (4 t,t,
Corporation to levy Town Dues was given at the time
the
port was created. The right originally granted by
Pet
crown to levy those dues involved what were called Pe
customs on all articles imported and exported.
es the
The Chairman thought tbat would hardly auPPe'",.,,
claim now made by the Liverpool Corporation, wuli)lys
included all new articles in addition to those specifies id
named in the original grant. The witness, in reply, e-by
the Corporation claimed under the original grants, and
usage, to tax all new articles, and to tax them differell°
according to their nature and value. That right W 117'
ported and confirmed on the occasion of the trial befo'
Lord Denman.
any llyi
:
The Chairman asked the witness if there was
authority showing that the crown had power to Os
articles as they arrive, commencing continuously do Ile° to
The witness said he thought there was no question 0.14
the right of the crown to grant petty customs, and 1131:we
obtained the right by grants to levy petty customs on eel.olo
specifically named articles, he thought the Corp
legally claimed to impose taxes on all fresh articles. co
The Chairman next interrogated the witness in referer:oo
to the trial before Lord Denman, and expressed an °Pell:: of
that the committee of merchants who disputed the rig be
the Corporation to the Town Due. did not fairly represent dea
public, but that it was a mere personal matter as rear
themselves ; they only wishing the Town Does to be redue-
and nt abolished.
By o
the Chairman : Before the trial took place, the°ll
which the Corporation set up to levy these Dues '„lieu
prescription. He did not consider that the Corpore the
gave way at all, or entered into any compromise with all
committee of merchants, when the trial was settled. ate
they conceded was not asking the committee of mercila
for costs. He did not think that the merchants ga —„twit
the action as an understanding from the Corporationi; /ea,
there would be a reduction made in the dues. Ile bgee'n.Bba'
that a reduction would have taken place if the ae"'"„," bet)
never been heard of, because he knew that several Ine—tion
of the town council of that day contemplated a redl the
independent of the action. He was of opinion that 1 „aid
bill of exceptions had been argued, the Corporation would
have been successful. He had heard merchants, wh„e;eo it
an active part in the action, state that they did not but in
up in the expectation of the dues being reduced, u'oesg•
consequence of feeling that they had no chance of snowy
He had heard Mr. Joseph Hornby state that, :bey
gave up the action because they felt sure thaibti not
should be beaten if they went on. He ceur eon'
admit, with all his knowledge of the circumstances, 'l3 doe.
nection with the action, that it was the question of a reto to
tion by the Corporation which induced the raerchai)
give way.
The Chairman Do you not think that the gentele,amie;
from Manchester, or some other districts not conneebe-otioa
Liverpool, would more fairly have raised the qurowll
as to the right of the Corporation to the, „bon!
Dues than the Liverpool merchants, some ol„a or
at the trial, expressed themselves against the abel'"eoter
he
the dues ? Witness : No ; I do not see that the Mano'w bole
T
gentlemen could have put the case better.
question was brought before the court on the trial.
Chair the
The examination of the Town-Clerk, by the Chaofthe
was continued, more especially with respect to the title ow
Corporation, and the grants and leases between the CorPer
tion and the Molyneux family. In 1554 a right thYbora
scription was set up by the Corporation agai-11,,e„; t, en
Molyneux. A trial was instituted in the Duch! u",.- Art,
conm ction with it ; but he (the Town-Clerk) wee 13°' Itofig°
to undertake the defence of the corporation of 1554,',,, aru:
Molyneux was established in his title, and after With
the corporation entered into a " treaty of friendship Thu
the family, and became the lessees of the Town Dnee'atieell
member for Liverpool at the time tried to induce the f
to give up the Dues to Liverpool, instead of
the Molyneux family, but in that he netedn,atfr.)
like a member of parliament than a burgess. (L4,3,7,r 02e;
The examination as to title was pursued by the tei-teteg,"
for some time longer, but it was entirely devoid of °wal'
as it was mainly a repetition of what has already ofaPP
le
The witness was next examined as to the grants for th"
which the Corporation had from time to time made'
acres'
purpose of making docks. In 1710 they granted fol;‘` "oresA'
in 1748, seven acres ; in 1762, fourteen and a-hal`;nn
in 1785, twelve acres; and in 1811, four Orp'"orpos"
590 yards, the last grant being for the Or •eere",„
of enlarging the Queen's-dock, but,c sf3,c-
tion of that, they got in exchange the land vf",„", dote;
formerly the old dock. The total grants of land s.
purposes given by the corporation was thirty-ninee Ili:el:0°-
1811 the first jury was summoned to determine We -,-,raste:,
which the land should be conveed to the dock u"b to
commissioner. Counsel appe a r e d
The beforedoek the
committeejury
always employed
choyn,dtil
titrt;
business independent of the council, Any bill beio ehot br
the docks was not promoted by him as town clerlt,,",orpe:
the dock solicitor. He did not think the veto of the 'I, DO
ration on the dock committee's proceedings bad the dock
of the tliu
any more serious effects on the management that f
than appeared on the face of them. He believed nor 1)
dock committee acted as independently as if 110
In 1849 ve
veto on the part of the o)rporation existed.
portion of the inhabitants of Liverpool wished to ha Efeet
dock estato rated, on the ground that it brought o,ja
number of paupers into the town. The Corporation 'it thick
make the attempt to rate the dock estate. rra did rihoe
that it was desirable to take all power away fronl td"e-d Oh'
authorities as the joint governing bodies as rig'
docks, merely because the inhabitants had expresseLiit t".:
to rate the dock estate. He was not prepared to all'ec 10 -
the inhabitants wished to throw the burden a theft ettOr
and place them on shipping. They stated that whha the''''
wanted was tc make the dock. estate bear its own -tir ere
He expressed no opinion as to whether the inhabitants
to
right or
The witness was next examined as to the cireuraf-IstesTl‘°4
under which the present landing stage was erected' emeittel
still under examination when, at four o'clock, the c°'"
adjourned to Thursday next.

73nesquest was held Fisig•t°'
THE ALLEGED
....URDER OF AN UNFORTTINATE - i.obet
An in yesterday on tbe body of. .Ibrotill
been maatd.e,
Jtreatm,ewho it was supposed had died from soolecvever,
Aitpo
was
or e
found/r4 extahmatinsahteiondidavinfrgotob,osturot
and the jury returned a verdict according'''.

causes