The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-20 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.

krers of enquiry are not limited to the view, that where

used ti

whilst waiting to .g.

those who pay the rates do not receive a corresponding bene-
fit ; that they apply to all dues levied on shipping, especially
for the purpose of seeing they do receive a benefit.
Mr. NORTH : I quite feel that, as I gathered the spirit of

into the Graving Dot

your enquiry.
The CHAIRMAN believed that they levied dues only for the

If they wanted a graving dock let them construct one for
themselves, and not uge the graving docks of Liverpool, to
the injury- of vessels paying such dues. They could not
claim it.

use of the docks.
Mr. NORTH said they did. They had power to receive
dues on goods when vessels discharged their cargoes in
the stream or river. This was a privilege which the legis-
lature thought proper to reserve to them.
The CHAIRMAN Practically they received no amount
under the heading.
Mr. NORTH : In Liverpool it was most trifling. It never
could'be considerable.
The CHAIRMAN : Are there any exemptions ?
Mr. NORTH : Not one, with a slight exception, which he
had endeavoured to explain. The
.privilege retained to
them to receive dues from vessels was in consequence of this
state of things. Until the year 1840 the dock trustees had ex-
clusively the control at Liverpool. Then two small docks
were made on this side of the river, called the Harrington
and Herculaneum docks, in which this principle was in
some degree curtailed to the extent of giving vessels using
those docks exclusively exemption. But the same power was
subsequently added with reference to Birkenhead when it
sprung into existence a few years ago. ,
The CHAIRMAN : Therefore a vessel going to Birkenhead
docks does not pay Liverpool dock dues ?
Mr. NORTH : They do not unless they discharge in the

;ream.
The CHAIRMAN : I mean there are no exceptions in cases

f vessels over there ?
Mr. NORTH : None whatever.
The CHAIRMAN : No differential dutie
Mr. NORTH : None.

Mr. NORTH thought one word would dispose of this com-
plaint. This was not a forced construction, but it was the
result or operation of an act of parliament ; of an act passed
immediatelybefore the establishment of the Birkenhead docks,
with a full knowledge, on. the part of the promoters of that
scheme, of the existence of this clause, and with their full
assent to it, which he stated without the fear of contradiction,
because it was open to them to have the clause repealed and
investigated at the time. " He might say also that Birken-
head had gone four or five times already to parliament for
the purpose of altering this state of things ; and it remained
in its entirety to that day.
Mr. POWLES remarked that Mr. Turner did not stick to
principle. If they kept to principle they should get on
better. What they complained of was this—Liverpool ig-
nored the existence of Birkenhead as regarded the tonnage
duties; they did not allow them to be a near coasting port.
They did not admit them in that capacity which they
claimed by their geographical position. How could that be
denied ? They denied Birkenhead to be in the first class of
coasters ; that was to say, coasters coming from the nearest
coasting port, which they denied it was. A ship coming
from Birkenhead to Liverpool had to pay as much as if she
came from India direct. If that same ship had gone to
Fleetwood, discharged there as from India, and then came
to Liverpool, she would be admitted here at lid. per ton. A
vessel which had lightened her deck load in the river, before
going into Birkenhead docks, had to pay the Liverpool dues.
Mr. TURNER : Not on her cargo.

Mr. BRAAilar remarked that it was as the learned gentle-
man had stated, that vessels entering the Birkenhead docks
did not pay Liverpool dock dues, but the point he wanted
distinctly to bring before them was this : If a ship left the
Birkenhead docks for the purpose of coming over to the
Liverpool docks, she paid the whole of the dues from the
foreign port she might have left before coming to Birkenhead.
That was one point he wished particularly to put before the
committee. Supposing a ship came from India, and the cargo
was consigned to Birkenhead, she went into the-Birkenhead
docks, and she paid the Birkenhead dock trustees the dues
they were authorised to levy by their Act of Parliament, and
she then had occasion, for any purpose it might be for
repairs, to enter the Liverpool docks, the Liverpool dock
trustees charged her with the entire rates from Calcutta, or
whatever other foreign port she came from, ignoring the
existence of Birkenhead as a dock or as a port. They did
not deem it to be one of the docks of Liverpool, although
all goods landed and embarked at Birkenhead were charged
or chargeable with town dues. A case had occurred within
the last few weeks, which, as example was better than
theory, he would detail. A large ship with timber entered
the river; in consequence of her great depth of water she
could not enter the Brunswick dock. The Consignees of the
vessel came to the Birkenhead trustees to see if they would
take her in. For the purpose of getting rid of some depth, she
discharged one lighter of timber in the river, then she went
into the Birkenhead docks, and the result of the operation
was that she had to pay the whole of the dock dues of
Liverpool as well as those of Birkenhead. This was the
operation of the Act of Parliament of the Liverpool dock
trustees, and he wished the principle to be brought before
the notice of the commissioners. This was no new question,
but one which had been debated for many years past.
Mr. CHARLES TURNER said the solicitor had explained
that this state of things had arisen because the original
Liverpool dock trustees had a power of collecting toll
wherever a ship was discharged, if she came into the Mersey.
The Birkenhead docks got exempted from paying dock toll for
all vessels using their docks and discharging there. This was a
part of the original grant, it was noziew thing given to them,
and when the Birkenhead dock trustees were exempted from
paying dock dues to Liverpool, they were quite satisfied
with it; but having got that, they now claimed to get some-
The commissioners must not go away with the

Captain IIooKIE, master of the Birkenhead docks, in-
;tanced the case of the Sarah Sands, arriving from Canada
few weeks ago. The tide being low she was lightened
Pefore going into Birkenhead docks, and that vessel was
3harged the full dues at Liverpool. This he urged was very
hard on Birkenhead. No portion of that vessel's cargo ever
3ntered Liverpool, nor had she in any way directly or in-
Erectly received any benefit from it, and yet she paid as
though she received the whole benefit.
The CHAIRMAN : Was a charge made on the cargo ?
Captain HOOKIE : No, not on the cargo, but on the ton-
nage. The town dues were levied on every vessel.
Mr. BLACKBURN : The town dues are a different thing.
[le then asked had not this arisen from Birkenhead being
part of the port of Liverpool although the docks were sepa-
rate. There was no doubt the application of the act of
parliament led to these anomalies.

Mr. TURNER : This state of things would arise if it were
otherwise. The Birkenhead Dock Trustees have a piece of
[and close to our docks, within 100 yards of your docks.

Mr. BRAMAH : I beg your pardon, not the dock trustees.
They had no property but what was granted to them by the
crown.

Mr. TURNER continued to remark that this state of things
would arise, if they made a dock on this piece of land which
they had the power to make.
Mr. BRAMAII : I beg your pardon ; it is not your land,
Mr. TURNER : It belongs to the Dock Company.
Mr. BRAMAH said the Dock Trustees had no more to do
with it than he had to do with the land in New Zealand.
Mr. POWLES wished the Commissioners to know who the
Birkenhead dock trustees were.

ing more

dea those rates were levied on the Birkenhead docks. It was
)art of the old privileges of the Liverpool docks, parliament
Laving taken from them the exclusive privilege which they
►reviously had over all vessels entering into port. With
.espdct to what had been said with reference to all vessels
)eing charged over again on coming into the Liverpool

lock, the commissioners ought to be aware there was no
lifferential rate charged inwards and outwards ; dues were
mly levied in Liverpool docks once. If a vessel came in,
md discharged her cargo, she paid no outward dues, and,
therefore, arose the distress of coming from Birkenhead, and
paying the whole of the dock dues, because they did not pay
inwards and outwards ; they only paid once.
The CHAIRMAN : The Liverpool dock dues, are they calcu-
[ated on distance or not.
Mr. TURNER : They were to some extent. There were rates
For nearer and longer voyages.
Mr. BRAMAH remarked that the Birkenhead docks were
brought into existence for public purposes. They were a
public trust. Nothing was paid but the interest on the
money lald uut, um].
same as the Liverpool docks had. What he complained of
was that the shipping using Birkenhead dock, although it
was pretended to be a part of the port of Liverpool, when
they went into the river were treated as if they wore perfect
strangers entering the river for the first time, and it mat-
tered not at all whether the dues were payable in going in
or coming out. If the same course was pursued with ships
going from one dock to another on the Liverpool side, it
would be consistent ; but the anomaly was one which he
thought peculiarly a subject for inquiry.
Mr. TURNER said the Liverpool docks existed for the
benefit of the public, and the moment they got anything
beyond the interest accruing on their debt, the dock rates
on shipping were reduced immediately, and therefore they
had no personal interest to serve in the matter. All they
were interested in doing, was that the greatest
.possible ac-
commodation should be afforded to shipping and to
commerce, and that those demands which they had incurred
(they had an uncovered debt of £5,000,000 of money)
should be discharged. The commissioners should understand
this, if a vessel going into the Birkenhead dock, and dis-
charged her inward cargo, if she were to be charged no
rates, then she would come over and use their graving docks,
made at great expense, and might lay in their docks loading,
(though she was discharged in two days,) for two months.
Was it reasonable they should claim or ask to use the
Liverpool docks, made at this enormous expense, for several
weeks, and pay nothing ? That was the object of it, for
they had no outward rate.
Mr. BRAMAH was not aware of a single ease like that
mentioned by Mr. Turner, but he would tell them what
occurred to the Birkenhead Trustees every day. Unfortu-
nately they had no graving docks at Birkenhead; the works
being at present incomplete, and the great necessity was,
after long voyages, now so frequent, and especially iron
vessels after their return from long voyages—it was a matter
of necessity that they should go into a graving dock to have
their bottoms properly examined. A vessel going from
Birkenhead docks to Liverpool, paid for the use of the grav-
ing dock ; but she had also to pay over again, although she
came out of the Liverpool docks as empty as she went in.
It was exactly the case that gentleman mentioned. It was
note a ship going into dock and taking cargo, it was the
peculiar case of going over the water to use the Liverpool
graving docks for that purpose alone, and going straight
back again, the whole of the dock dues from a distant
port were applied for at Liverpool as a matter of necessity.
There was a steam company started in Liverpool, the South
American Company ; their ships were partly built on the
Clyde and partly at Birkenhead, in Laird's yard, and before
that company could make their arrangements for the dis-
charge of their cargoes in the Birkenhead docks, they came
to them to know the amount of drawback the trustees would
make them on the rates, as it might affect their ships return
here, discharging in Birkenhead and coming to Liverpool to
use the graving docks. In consequence of having an extra
rate to pay, it fell upon them to make a reduction of their
rates to meet that charge.

Mr. TURNER explained as to the Dock Company that they
were different body from the Dock trustees, the one being
a Warehouse Company, the other having the management
of the water space. The Dock Commissioners had a piece
of land near to the docks on the Liverpool side of the water,
which under the act of Parliament was also exempted from
Dock Dues. Now, if those state of things were permitted,
a vessel using to dock might come into the Docks of Liver-
pool without paying, and making such use of it as they
pleased, and they might be deprived of their due altogether
so far as they went. This had been argued in' Parliament
for years. In the first instance, Birkenhead took this ex-
emption, and having got this great exemption from the large
rights which were originally given to all docks in former
times, in a few years they came and tried to drive the wedge
a little further home. Parliamentary Committees had
hitherto thought that the dues enjoyed by the Liverpool
docks were no more than they were entitled to . for the
benefit of the port.
The CHAIRMAN : There is one point which has been mixed
up a little ; the difference which exists between a vessel
coming into the Liverpool docks from Fleetwood, and a
vessel coming to Liverpool from Birkenhead—have you any
explanation to give on that point.
Mr. TURNER thought he explained that matter. It arose
in this way. There would be no difference if the act of
parliament Were not evaded. Vessels coming from Fleet-
wood in ballast, or from Warrington or any other place,
would have to pay the same as from Birkenhead. The act
of parliament was so worded, it was impossible to say now
for what reason, that if a vessel took a coasting clearance,
if she cleared as a coaster, instead of coming in ballast, she
was then exempted from dock dues. That was to say, if she
took a few casks of provisions nominally over, and took out
a coasting clearance, then the Liverpool dock dues were
evaded. Birkenhead wanted to evade them in the same

Mr. BLACKBURN : Wny not come
clearance. I suppose because it is within the port ?

Mr. TURNER Just so. It would be an evasion of our
ratoe. They want to take adrantago of the slip in the act
of parliament.
Capt. BETHUNE : Have you any power to impose an out-
ward rate ?

Mr. TURNER : The solicitor will answer that question.
Mr. Rom LAMONT as representing the owners of the
Sarah, Sands, complained that they had to pay the Liverpool
dock dues, in consequence of the vessel being lighter ed in
the river. Ile handed in the following correspondence, which
had taken place between her owners and the dock com-

mittee :

" Liverpool, 20th September, 1853

" Dock Committee,

" Gentlemen,—We beg to state that the steamer Sarah Sands
arrived at this port from Quebec on the 11th inst., consigned
to us with a general cargo, destined to be discharged in the
Birkenhead Dock, but could not effect this purpose for want of
water, and was obliged to go up the river, where, with the
consent of the Collector of Customs, she lighted two flat-loads,
and afterwards docked at Birkenhead, taking with her the flats
into which the portion of her cargo so discharged, was put.
In reporting the Sirah Sands,our custom-house clerk stated
to the treasurer that the steamer was in the Birkenhead Dock,
and therefore was not subject to the dockage dues at Liverpool,
but the point was urged without effect.
t, we bring this matter before you, believing that you will
cause the amo
aurnet of dockage, ,
Gentlemen,
enotcl
e ma 7114, £64,
Eu
Ar to b
No ,bete
diie,
inAlt "t. refundederryv,a
naatonce.
servants,
Co
" Dock ecretary's Office, Liverpool, 23d Sept.

Gentlernen,—The Dock Committee having had under
their consideration your application of the 20th inst., to have
the Dock dues paid on the Sarah Sands, (s.s.), under the
circumstances stated therein, refunded; and having received a
report from their officers on the case, I am instructed to inform
you that the Committee decline to comply with your ap-
plication.
,g I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
"DANIEL MASON.

The CHAIRMAN did not understand the complaint was as
regarded the payment of dock dues when the dock was used;
but the complaint was, that vessels really only coming from
Birkenhead, had to pay the dues as if she had come from the

Brazils.
Mr. BRAMAH said, if Birkenhead were the nearest port to
Liverpool, consequently the rate should be under the lowest 1
coasting rate.
Mr. BLACIBURNE : If a ship were discharged in Birken-
head, and came over to Liverpool to go into a graving dock,
she had to pay more than if she had come from some port
out of the Mersey, say Fleetwood ?
Mr. BRAMAH : Certainly.
Mr. BLACKBURNE : That is the effect you complain of.
Mr. BRAMAH : She pays the rate on the most distant
foreign voyage. If she came from Australia, she would pay
the whole rate over again from Australia to Liverpool.
Mr. TURNER said this arose from an anomalous state of
things which the commissioners did not quite understand.
They did not'pay more than a vessel coming in ballast into
Liverpool from any other port would pay. By the old acts
of parliament this anomalous state of things arose : a vessel
coming in with a coasting clearance, but only, bringing a
con 10
them on t' ic. nuneheons of rum or casks of provisions, and
land
quay, got rid of port and dock dues. It
~.
was absurd that a vessel iu 1,4- state paid less than a vessel
coming without anything on board. 11.1.-. ,irose from a state
of things which ought to be removed in some tut,— get.
With reference to the graving docks of Liverpool ; they
were built for the purpose of accommodating vessels using
the Liverpool docks, and Mae charges were put with reference
to those vessels paying dock dues. Such was the demand
for graving docks now, that they had vessels in dock for a
fortnight which could not get the use of a graving dock—
vessels which had paid the Liverpool dock dues, and were
ring out. Now, this gentleman claimed that vessels com-
ing from Birkenhead should have the use of those graving
docks to keep other vessels, paying Liverpool dock dues, still
longer than they were kept. The commissioners would see
at once, that in graving docks made for the use of vessels using
the Liverpool docks, vessels coming from another place and
paying no dock dues, should not keep out those vessels which
paid. The latter should have the preference, and at the
present moment there were vessels waiting above a fortnight
and could not get on.
The CHAIRMAN : Would it not be a good reason for in-
creasing the rates ?
Mr, TURNER reminded the commissioners that those vessels

port. That was the answer to the whole complaint and di-
fficulty. If Birkenhead could succeed in obtaining a separa-
tion from Liverpool, then they would be in the same relative
position as Fleetwood or any other foreign port.
Mr. BLACKBURN asked what would be the practical differ-
ence in pounds, shillings, and pence, if Birkenhead were
made 'a separate port ?
Mr. TANTON, treasurer, was not prepared to answer the
question. Some discussion here ensued as to the optional
power of the Liverpool dock trustees to charge vessels in-
Wards or outwards.
Mr. NORTH gave it as his decided opinion that the trus-
tees had not power to charge outwards.
Capt. HOOKIE did not quite agree in that view. A vessel
coming from China to Fleetwood, and then from Fleetwood
to Liverpool, was charged only on the outward voyage, al-
though it might be a short one, whilst the same vessel from
Birkenhead was charged on the long voyage from the place
where she had previously been.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that the gain or loss depended
on whether the voyage was a long or short one.
Cap. HoomE : If the ship had a short voyage they might
charge on the long voyage she was going to take.
The CHAIRMAN : They can charge on either.
Capt. HOOKIE : Yes, but whether legally or not I cannot
say. 1

Mr. TURNEs said it ought not to be assumed that China
vessels did go to Fleetwood.
Mr. BLACKBURN : The difference practically is this ; A
vessel coming in of a high class, Birkenhead suffers. If the
other way, it does not.
Mr. TURNER : The fact was this, if a vessel came from
Birkenhead, she was charged inwards, and if she came from
a place outside the Mersey, the outward rate.
Mr. NORTH wished the commissioners to understand that
if a vessel was charged with the inward rate, that fixed the
quantity of payment to whatever the extent of her tonnage.
If she came from China to Birkenhead, and crossed to Liver-
pool, she must pay the dues for China. There was fid'incon-
venience in this. Birkenhead was on the same footing with
themselves.
Nr. BLACKBURN : You have no option but to charge in-

ward.
Mr. NORTH Clearly, when the inward rate is charged,
that rules the rates entirely.
The CHAInMAN : That is a distinct statement, that it is
not optional to charge inwards or outwards on the part of
the Liverpool dock trustees.
Captain HooKIE asked if a vessel arrived from the Medi-
terranean at Birkenhead, and afterwards e''iased and loaded
in Liverpool for China, had not the Liverpool trustees the
option of charging the highest rate to China ?

Mr. NORTIC: Clearly not. We could not do so —the act
is imperative. In practice this construction of the act was
adhered to.
Mr. SLoomAN said if goods were sent by sea from London
to Liverpool they were not charged dues, but if sent from
Birkenhead to Liverpool, they paid the same dues as if they
came from China.
Mr. BLACKBURN; You mean in case of a cargo of foreign
goods being carried across the river ?
Mr. SLOOMAN : Although the goods may have been twelve
months warehoused, they were carged as if they were new
arrivals in the country.
Mr. NORTH: Any other state of things would be a direct
evasion of the dock laws.
The CHAIRMAN observed there was a positive statement
to the effect that it was not optional to charge inwards or
outwards on the part of the of the dock committee of Liver-
pool, and if parties were in position to prove practically it
was otherwise, they would hear the evidence or it might be
communicated by letter. It was clear from what the com-
missioners had heard, that if any such thing had occurred,
it was contrary to what the Liverpool trustees believed to be
the law, and therefore, the commissioners could not doubt a
representation to the trustees would receive immediate atten-
tion.

Mr. SLOOMAN contended that the act of parliament
left it optional with the trustees which way they charged.
Mr. BRA.MAR said there were one or two things not as
they ought to be. First, he was desirous that the Com-
missioners should have a distinct notion who were the dock
trustees of Birkenhead, and who were the Dock Company.
After,explaining how those two distinct bodies were con-
constituted, he proceeded to say the real question in this
case, "reciprocity" had been avoided. This subject had
been talked of, and argued since April, 1847. They simply
asked that the Birkenhead Docks should be put on the same
footing as any other part of England, with reference to
Liverpool or any other port in Great Britain, as London,
Pleetwood, or Newcastle ; they only asked, as it had been
so complacently asserted, it was a part of the port of Liver-
peol, that it should be treated as such. Let them take the
Geographical rank to which they are entitled. The question
of reciprocity was never before the Committee of the House
of Commons. There had been reciprocity clauses introduced
in the bills, but he deeply regretted that his predecessors
had withdrawn those clauses from the bills for fear of arous-
ing the opposition of a body so powerful as the Liverpool
Dock Committee. He trusted he had made those points
clear, and he again repeated he made no complaint; but it
was unjust, and they thought if the facts were laid before
the parties who had hereafter to deliberate on them, they
"..1.81.t fp+ +llO ralinf thoy wantpd.
Mr. TURNER said with regard to reciprocity, it
had been several time in their bills, and it hid
been inciaentia.ny auuaea to by their counsel, in
his opening speech, but the question hadbeen con-
sidered by the members of the committee. They had
a bill in parliament the year before last in which there was
a reciprocity clause, but it was ultimately withdrawn. It
formed the subject of conversation between members of the
committee. But when they looked to the justice of this
case, there was very little fairness in the arguments used.
There was a compauy at Birkenhead with one very small
dock, and they claimed to make any use they pleased of
docks which • cost £10,000,000, and they called that reci-
procity. Was there anything like reciprocity in that, when
they knew their ships would not use their docks. It was
true they had the option of going to Birkenhead, but they
did not want to go. there. They had no graving dock, or no
advantage to give in return, and yet they wanted to come and
use their docks, and dignified this with the name of reciprocity.
Nothing could be more unfair than an argument of that
kind.

Mr. PowLEs said they wanted to be treated as other
,eople were.
The CHAIRMAN should be loath to stop the discussion ;
but ho thought the whole of the facts were before the com-
missioners. He believed very few vessels were discharged
in the Mersey.
Mr. TURNER said large vessels were lightened in the
river, but he did not think in any case a vessel was wholly
discharged in the river.
Mr. BLACKBURN : Is there a dock higher up the river ?
Mr. TURNER said there was a dock at Garston.
In reply to a question from the chairman.
Mr. NORTH said vessels discharging any part of their
cargo in the stream, were liable fur the whole of dock dues
on the tonnage, but not on the cargo. It was also explained
that the Birkenhead dock trustees had no personal interest
whilst the dock company was a company with a private
interest, incorporated by act of parliament.
Mr. LAMONT complained that goods coming from London
to Birkenhead, were charged with the Liverpool town
~ Messrs. M'Kean, M'Larty, & Co." dues. After some conversation of a desultory nature had
Mr. PowLEs again complained that Liverpool, an univer- taken place, and some documents had been handed in,
11 port, should admit a vessel from Fleetwood at 11 the enquiry, so far as related to the dock estate, closed.
per ton, and charge a much higher rate on a vessel from THE TOWN DUES.
Birkenhead. The Birkenhead docks come into existence The CHAIRMAN ; We received last night a schedule of
because it was believed that in national point of view they dues which are levied by the corporation. The limits withir
would be conducive to the extension of trade. He knew which they were stated to be levied, is from the red 'stow
there was an old act of parliament which rendered the on the Cheshire coast at Hoylake all over the waters of the
Mersey subject to Liverpool, so that she could levy her Mersey, and northward to the junction of the river Douglas
dues, but that had been invaded to a moderate extent, and with Ribble. Those are the limits, are they not ?
statutes must give way as well as every thing else, Par- The TOWN CLERK : Yes. [A map was then handed in
liament admitted that by its proceedings, and they claimed which was proved to be correct at the trial relative to till
as high a ground in a public point of view as the Liverpool right of the corporation to levy town dues, which showe
docks. The Liverpool docks sprung out of the circumstances that the jurisdiction included the whole of the Mersey, an(
and exigencies of the times, and the Birkenhead docks in went up to Warrington.]
their generation claimed that principle to themselves, as The CHAIRMAN asked if on the trial to which the tows
much as Liverpool. There was no private interest in clerk reared, the title of the corporation to the town due
Birkenhead docks, unless the rtceipt of 6 per cent. on the was not 'distinctly proved to the satisfaction to the courl
outlay was called, a private interest in the sense intended. and they kot a verdict.
Unfortunately no dividend had been as yet received. The TOWN CLERK : Yes.
Mr. TURNER was sorry that Mr. Powles advocated as a The CHAIRMAN : The amounts received by the corporatio
principle that the Birkenhead dock trustees should take and the mode in which they were expended, appears in th
advantage of a plain defect which existed in an old act of borough fund account ?
parliament. There had been so few vessels coming from TowN CLERK : Yes.
Fleetwood and other places, it was not thought necessary to The CHAIRMAN, who was under the impression that th
go for the alteration of the act ; but if it were brought to town dues were reducing, was set right by the town clerl
bear on a place like Birkenhead, they should go to parlia- who said the accounts for the present year (which the chair
ment to have the anomaly corrected in the act of parliament man believed he had, and that they showed in decrease
which the Birkenhead dock trustees wished to take advan- were hot yet printed; but would be ready in a few day
tage of. . They showed an increase in the:previous year.
The CHAIRMAN did not quite understand it so. He The CHAIRMAN asked were there any exceptions to the!
understood the complaint was entirely to the operation of town dues ?
the existing Act of Parliament The TowN CLERK said the exceptions were the freeme
Mr. BR/N.514M considered in one point of view they were of Liverpool, Bristol, London, Wexford, and Waterford, re
more hardly treated by Liverpool than they were able to sident in town, but they were aware they were dying out.
bpar. It was principally that affected them. The CHAIRMAN asked could the Town Clerk give them any
Mr. TURNER : Not if they came in ballast in the same information as to what was the value of those exemptions to
way ; but they were more hardly troatod being within the the freemen of Liverpool.
port of Liverpool, they were not able to evade the Act of The TowN CLERK could not say. It would depend or
Parliament as others were. It was just whether they the amount of business which the houses were doing.
should have the power of evading it as others had. The CHAIRMAN : They were not charged and remitted.
Captain BETHUNE :If a vessel came in ballast from The TowN CLERK : They were not charged at all when
Fleetwood would you charge as much as if she came from the parties were known to be freemen. Sometimes it oc-
the furthest end of the world—that is if she came from curred that one of the partners of the house was a freeman
India,oo to Ale
oTFleetwood,
ocend then came in ballast from Fleet- and the goods were paid for in the name of the whole firm,
‘d t
Mt BOLD : If she came from Fleetwood she would be pauardtnthere,sreitnutniere
charged .I.!‘a Mr. PowLEs
Der ton. wassaidst. madehow aaccordings
awareo
of
t on
nt the proportion
t,lnee whle
roof
o then(
Captain Bri..--,NE : If she went to Birkenhead, unloaded partner's share of this exemption was worth £l5O per
there, and came from Birkenhead here, what would she be annum. •
charged ?
Mr. BLACKBURN asked if the mode of collection wouh
Mr. BOLD : 18d. a ton. Thu. was the bearing of it. enable them to tell the amount that would be levied.
Let them take London, from which vesso-
more frequently The TowN CLERK thought not, but he would endeavour.
came to Liverpool. There Was no evasion v: +he Act of if possible to find it out.
Parliament at all, as the custom was to get into the L,..t,• „0, , '
'qr. IURNER remarked that very few of the freemen were
trade by bringing a clearance from London, which dray
-*nzao•ed in mercantile business ; they were principally
could not get at Birkenhead. If the London vessel loaded trauZ- ~.,. .
Mr. -r.---3 1E of the firm of Holme, Slater, and Crook,
in their docks they charged her again, which they would
11-gtili •-.
'3-7 had to pay town dues on all the wood
not be able to do to the Birkenhead people, according to complained than
d although the vessel came direct
the Act of Parliament at present.
The CHAIRMAN: They have the power of charging on:oassine the entries at the
loadinutwards. Custom House they had to pay tne
they received a
abroad.t B. i k e
--rn dues of Liverpool.
Mr. NORTH remarked that Mr. Blackburn had hit the • The CHAIRMAN observed it was stated he return there
right point, It arose from Dirkenhead being within the was no xesponsitility imposed (Who Corporath,..,,B the re.