The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-22 00:00:00

11

THE liiRKENHEAD DOCKS, AND EXEMP-
TION FROM LIVERPOOL DOCK

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—ln pont-paper .of • this morning I see a paragraph
alluding to a letter I addressed to Mr. North, solicitor of
the dock committee, on Wednesday last, and in order that
the nature of my application to the dock committee may be
fully understood, I enclose a copy of the correspondence that
has passed on:the subject.—Y,,urs, Src., JOHN LAIRD.
Birkenhead Iron Works, Birkenhead, Nov. 21, 1856.

Birkenhead, 2nd October, 1856.
To Daniel Mason, Esq., Secretary to the D..ck Committee.
Dear Sir,—As lam about making arrangements to bring
vessels from various foreign and coasting ports, to be
repaired in my docks here, I will feel obliged by your
informing me if such vessels will be charged by you, Liver-
pool dock rates, in the event of their discharging or loading
any part of their cargo, ballast, or coal in the river, and
supposing them not to enter or use the Liverpool docks. As
I am now paying to the corporation of Liverpool (who are
the trustees of the Liverpool, and owners of the Birkenhead
docks) a heavy rent for my graving docks and land, I con-
sider it will be an act of injustice to the to pay two rents,
one at my own docks, and a second to the same parti: s, for
docks which Ido not use or get any benefit from. I
am willing to pay for vessels using my docks the
usual charges for lights, buoys, or anchorage ; in feet,
any demand from which the shins get a benefit,
I shall be glad of an early reply to my enquiry, as it will be
requisite, in the event of your informing me that the charges
I allude to will be made, that individually, or in conjunction
with others, I give notice and bring in a bill next session of
parliaMent, to exempt the Birkenhead Graving Docks from
Liverpool Dock Dues, in case of vessels not using the docks
or basins of the Liverpool Dock Trustees; or to get a clause
inserted to this effect in the proposed bill of the Liverpool
Corporation for completing the Birkenhead Docks ; and I
hope I may have your support, and that of the Corporation,
to carry such a measure through Parliament, or to get such
a clause inserted. The Glasgow and New York Steam-ship
Company's vessel, the Edinburgh, came to my docks last
Thursday for repairs—was docked and repaired, and left
here to-day for Glasgow again—and I understand that you
have made no charge to her be7ond lights, buoys, &c., &c.;
but I think it quite requisite to ascertain, for the informa-
tion of parties about to send vessels here, and for my own,
whether this practice is to be continued, or whether it is an
exceptional case.--Yours, &c., JOIIN LAIRD.

Dock Solicitors' Office, Liverpool, 2nd October, 1856.
Dear sir,—Your letter of this date to the secretary of this
trust was read at the meeting of the dock committee this
morning, and referred to me with instructions to reply
thereto. In the present` state of the law the dock trustees
have no power whatever to relax the provision by which
a vessel discharging its cargo or any part thereof in the
stream of the river, and not using the Liverpool docks, is
made liable to Liverpool dock dues, but I may mention that
such a liability is not, as you seem to suppose, incurred by a
discharge of ballast only ; and the dock trustees would, I
think, be very unwilling to entertain any proposal for abro-
gating that provision, because such change would not only
deprive them (and, as I venture to think, unjustly) of con-
siderable present revenue, but, necessarily, tend to a greatly
increased defalcation, and, probably, to much evasion also.
I may remind you, too, that this provision has hitherto been
complained of at Birkenhead, only on the ground
of its alleged disadvantage to vessels frequenting the
Birkenhead docks, but which objection, of course, failed
on the purchase of those docks by the Liverpool cor-
poration. Again, the dock committee do not see any just
reason why vessels rep iired in graving docks at Birkenhead
should obtain an exemption from dues—which must be paid,
on all vessels so repaired on the Liverpool side; especially
now, when, as you know, the equalisation of the rates on both
sides, has already become the strongly declared intention of
the Legislature. The whole question suggested by you is,
however, a very large one, and cannot be adequately con-
sidered at once; but it seems to tee nec-:ssary that I should
thus convey to you, without delay, what appeared to be the
feeling of the eommittee today, in order to prevent any
misunderstanding or inconvenience on your part. I am
also forwarding a copy of your letter, and of this reply, to
the finance committee of the council —Yours, &c.
To John Laird, Esq , Birkenhead. JOIIN NORTH.

Birkenhead, 19th Nov., 1856.
To John North, Esq., Solicitor to the _Dock Committee,

Liverpool,
I),.ar Sir,—l duly received your letter of the 2nd
October, in reply to mine of the same date, on the subject
of the charges made by the Liverpool dock committee, on
vessels discharging or loading in the river, and not using
the docks or basins of the Liverpool dock trustees. Re
gretting to see, by the tenor of your letter, that the Liver-
pool dock trustees would be unwilling to entertain any
proposal for remedying what I consider, with many others,
so unjust a charge, I instructed Messrs. Fletcher and Hull
to give the requisite notices to Parliament, to carry out the
objects stated in my letter of 2ud October, and now beg to
enclose you a copy. Ido not see any force in your remark,
" that you see no just reason why vessels repaired in graving
docks, at Birkenhead, should obtain an exemption from
dues, which must be paid on all vessels so repaired on the
Liverpool side ; '' because the vessels you refer to do use the
basins and docks of the Liverpool dock trustees, while I
only claim exemption for vessels not using them at all.
I hope, however, the dock trustees, on reconsidering this
question, will see the propriety of supporting, instead of
opp-qing, the bill I intend bringing in, as charging ships
which do not use the docks, the same rates as those that do,
is manifestly so great an injustice that it emnot remain
long unredrfssed by Parliament. You will oblige me by
laying this letter before the dock committee at their meeting
to-morrow.—l am, dear sir, yours truly,

JOHN LAIRD,

MURDER OF MR. LITTLE.

The portion of the canal which it bad been proposed to
drain was nearly emptied yesterday, and several men were
engaged in sifting the mud in the hope of discovering the
instruments which were used in the commission of the
murder. Throughout the day a large concourse of persons
visited the locality and the greatest excitement seemed to
prevail, which was augmented considerably a little after two
o'clock p.m., by the discoveiy of a hammer that had
evidently been thrown in an oblique direction into the
harbour of the canal, nearly opposite to the deceased's office,
as if by a person coming from the scene of the murder. A
piece pf stick, which was at first suppossd to be the handle
of a rake, was observed by Mr. Crofton and Mr. Kinnear,
who directed attention to it. When taken up it turned
out to belong to a hammer, similar in . every respect
to those used by the fitters in the works of the company
for rivetting purposes. The head of the hammer was quite
new, but the handle, which had evidently been used betore,
was thrust into the iron in a manner that betokened the
fact of its not having been headed by. a tradesman, but in a
rough way that had caused the wood to split, and in the
crevice was discovered one hair, said to be similar in colour
to that of Mr. Little. The iron bead also bore stains which
were by some alleged to be those of blood, byt great doubt
exists on this point ; and the instrument was seized and
carried away with such rapidity by Hodgins, the superin-
tendent of the railway police, that only those to whom it
was entrusted had the slightest opportunity of examining
it. From the variety of contradictory and groundless
rumours afloat, it is a task of no ordinary difficulty to avoid
giving circumstances other than those upon which strict
reliance can be placed, more especially as it is almost
impossible to obtain information in reference to details from
certain of the railway officials, and the detectives are
naturally and properly disposed to secrecy. It is stated,
however, on good authority, that in consequence of the
declaration recently made as to an occurrence at stoney-
batter, some parties have been arrested between Kells and
Navan, and ago now in charge of the constabulary ; little
importanee, however, is attached to the circumstance, as
but one sovereign and about Ss in eilver were found in their
possession. It is further stated that the pocket-book and
purse of the deceased are missing, and if they have been
taken by the party or parties concerned in the murder this
may be the means of leading to their arrest. Several
labouring men have been employed to turn up the remain.
der of the bed of the canal this morning. A lantern bear-
ing the mark of the company, and greatly battered, was
yesterday picked out of the r,aud, but it is not believed to
have any connection with the recent sad event.—Saunders's
News-Letter.

THE TALBOT CASE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD

Sir,—ln common with many hundreds of your readers,
I feel grateful to you for keeping public attention alive
to the atrocities of this extraordinary case.
The Liverpool AlbioN of the 17th inst. contains the fol-
lowing paragraph ;

" The case of Talbot v. Talbot' will not have been
forgotten by our readers. We have now to add that
Finnerty, the steward of the husband, and one of his
Obedient creatoreqp ;.S dead—and died declaring the
innocence of his mistress,—Gateshead Obsercer.!'
Dpy not this, under Providence, afford a clue to unravel
the darki windinga of this mystery of iniquity
I rejoice to observe that not only your able. cotempo.
rary the Horning Herald, but many provincial papers,
amongst others the Waterford Mail, the Dliblin Advocate,
and the NORTHERN TIMES have joined in the holy work,
and republished the able articles which have appeared
in the Standard, and the powerful and convincing letter
of your correspondent " Cujus."—l am, sir, your
obedient servant; MERCATOR.
Nov 19, 1856 .

. -----
[We have heard that another of 11.1 r. Talbot's principal
witnesses has, in contemplation of death, made a similar
recantation to that ascribed to Finnerty, but as the party
has recovered, we shall not at present give the name. We
anticipate many similar; but time will tell all.
c. Quodcunque sub in terres est in aprictnn profenet
fetas."—Standardl