The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-16 00:00:00

bring unpleasant reflections with reference to him, and
which we ought to be very careful in this committee how
we do when the party is not here to defend himself. 1
believe that if Mr. Mansfield had been here to defend him-
self, the whole of this could have been explained in a very
few words, but the sort of way in which the thing has gone
owl
_can, only beget ill—feeling and mischief inconsequence.
ROunthwaite said; he should certainly claim the
right of replying to Mr. Smith's observations. He thought
that when Mr. Mansfield insulted the.;committee in the
person of its chairman, he ought to, have made an apolog.t.
He did`not think it: a mere matter of personal or private
feeling' at all.

Mr: Gladstone thonght,,the eipression Mr. Rounthwaite
had employed cught to be withdrawn. • He was-sure no one
agreeing or differing with the chairman of the committee
would venture to offer him art insult.. Mr. Mansfield
cartainly'woald not misconduct 'himself, and would not at
contrary to what was commonly called in the world the
courtesy and the demeanour of a gentleman.: He thought
Mr. Rounthwaite had now altered the complexion of the
whole case in stating distinctly that Mr. Mansfield had
insulted the chairman: This he felt satisfied Mr. Mansfield
neverintended to do, nor could_ he believe helad donelo.

Mr. Rounthw.,ice said be had not the least objection to
withdraw the expression. He only regretted that Mr.
Smith had made the remarks ho. did. It was very
desirable that there should. not b 3 any further remarks
made_ about it. For himself, he should never object, when
any gentleman pointed out that he had done wrong, to
make an ample apology. He was happy to take tha
occlsion of making an apology, and withdrawing the
expression.

The Chairman said, in justice to himself, he should say
that, as the matter had occurred nearly three years ago,
when Mr. Rounthwaite mentioned to him that he should
think it necessary, to speak of the matter in,the committee,
he urged that gentleman not to mention it, if he coal I
refrain from doing so in justice to himself. It having been
three years ago, when the very unpleasant transaction took
place, it was very much against his personal wishes that it
stiouid be brought forward now again, more especially as it
tad given rise to a very painful discussion at a meeting of
magistrates at the time.

'The subject was then allowed to drop, and the ordinary
business proceeded.
__

The contract of Messrs. E. and S. Willoughby, for
towing the mud barges, was renewed for the ensuing
year.

"The Harbour Masters Committee produced plans of sheds
to be placed upon the dock quays. The first was a plan of
a shed to cover the whole of the quay between the King's
and the Wapping docks, 475 feet by 90, at .an estimated
cost of £4,885. The second was a plan of a shed on the
west quay of the Bramley-Moore dock, 500 feet by 80, the
west side to be filled up with brickwork, with an opening
at intervals, and an uncovered cartway outside, at an esti-:
mated cost of £6,000. A. plan `of a shipping. office for
sailors, on the site of Lightbody street, to be let to the
Marine Department of the Board of Trade, at an annual
rent of £250, was also produced.

Mr. Gladstone : Will that interfere with the Sailor.'
Home at all ?

Mr. Lockett said it would rather be an advantage to it.
The sub committee also recommended that the land on
the south side of the canal locks should be let to Messrs.
Henry Jordon and Co. An estimate was produced from
Messrs. W. G. Armstrong and Co.. tom ike, deliver, and
fix, at the north docks, steam and hydraulic machinery.
Mr. Hubback expressed his suprise that the plan of the
shed on the Bramley-Moore Dock was not for a double
shed.

Mr. Holme expressed a similar opinion.
Some conversation took place on this subject, which
ended in its being resolved that both plans should be
referred back to the sub committee until next week, for
further consideration.

The Chairman drew the attention of the committee to
the discussion which took place in the council as to the
recent death of Mr.. King, by drowning in the George's
Dock, and the suggestion there made that the chains
should'be fastened by some means, so that only the dock
gatemen and poicemen on'duty could unfasten them.
Mr. Lockett said he had spoken to Mr. Hartley upon
the subject. The difficulty was, that if they put a spring,
anybody could undo it, and if they put a lock—
Mr. Holme: the key will be always lost when it is
wanted. •

Mr. Robinson said he went down to the dock the evening
after the occurrence, and questioned the policeman who
was then on duty, but who told him it was another man
who was there the night of the accident. The policeman,
however, told him that the chains were always put up about
half past three o'clock. It being then about a quarter to
five, he (Hr. Robinson) went across with the policeman, and
found that some of the chains were down at that hour. He
ascertained, also, that three persons had fallen into the dock,
within a fortnight, all of whom, however, were rescued.
Mr. Lockett stated that drunken persons frequently got
over the chains. even when they were up, and would fall
into the dock but that they were prevented by the pplice.
The subject was referred to the consideration of the
harbour masters' committee.

The sub-committee reported that the scale beam maker,
Thomas Burrows. had _resigned his situation. The sub..
committee were authorized to select a suitable person to fill
up the vacancy:

- A letter was read from Messrs. Joynson, complaining of
extra charg,s on cotton in the dock warehouses. The letter
was as follows, and was referred to the warehouse cora.:
mitbq3

To the Chairman and General Committee of th 6 Liverpool
Docks.

Liverpool, 12th January; 1857.
Gentlemen, —We received 502 bales cotton, per Forti-
tude, from Mobile, discharged in the Stanley dceck, and
to-lay we have the note of charges, with 7s. 4d. added for
extra expenses.

Your committee will, doubtless, remember that the
ordinary Master-porterage rate on cotton was raised, at tho
instance of the Cotton Brokers' Association, id. per ton, on
the unders'aniing that no extra charges whatever were to be
made. Before that was done there were constant disputes;
whereas now a dispute is never heard, and the 91 per
ton js cheerfully paid.

We do not ask for any return of this extra charge, because,
we believe it would be giving your committee and ourselves
useless trouble. The true remedy for these evils is for all
merchants and consigness of American cotton to instruct
their correspondents to stipulate with the master of e ch
ship that the following clause shall be inserted on the bills
of lading :—" That the ship shall not be placed in the
Stanley, Albert, or Wapping Docks, or in any other dock
worked by the dock committee; or if the vessel is placed
there from any cause; all and every extra expense, beyond
the ordinary quay rate of 91 per ton, is to be &ducted off
the freight, and so paid by the master of the vessel."—We
are, gentlemen, yours, &c.
A letter from Messrs Howson, Pritchard and Co, suggest-
ing that the graving docks for'steanaers should be regulated
for as short periods as pcssible, so as to bring the day of
admittance round more frequently, was reforred to the
harbour masters' committee.

DOCK FINES.
Mr. Hubback proceeded tl bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice, for the appointment of a special
pub-committee to enquire, into the whole subject of dock
fines as imposed.by the dock acts, and report to the general
Committee. He said—ln bringing this subject before the
committee, I must beg, sir, distinctly to disclaim all wish or
intention to attack any individual, whatever be his position.
It is not of persons I wish to speak. but of the system of
fines as laid down in the dock acts, and of the way in which
that system practically works. I must, likewise, sir,
disclaim all desire to seek advantages for one branch of
trade in preference to another. My tole object in asking
for a special committee to consider the subject of dock fines
is to see if the various objections and annoyances at present
connected with them cannot be removed, or at least miti-
gated. The rapid and gigantic changes which have
occurred, and are still occurring in this wonderful port of
our, together with the alterations in the customs regula-
tions, remind us to review, from t.iuie to time, the various
laws under which this trust is conducted. The day is gone
by when any body of trustees can work themselves up in
their official dignity, and turn, as it were, a deaf 'ear to
suggestions, come they from what quarter they will, under
the idea that because the laws worked very well a few years
ago, they are incapable of improvement. Sir, in the
remarks which I shall offer, I trust I shall show, from my
own knowledge of the working of the dock acts bearing
upon the question of dock fines, backed, too, by the opinions
of various parties whose communications I hold in my
hand, that the existing system now works badly ; and I
simply ask at your hands a committee to inquire into the
subject. I have her., sir, an abstract of the various acts
and bye laws. I shall not detain the committee by reading
it at full length ; I have, however, prepared a short epitome
of it. It is as follows :—.

The first act, 51 Geo. 111, sec. 90, imposes a penalty of £5
for neglecting to watch combustible goods at night, and 5s
per hour so long as such goods remain on the quays beyond
forty-eight hours after passing the Custom-horse officers.
The next, 51 Geo. 111, sec. 92 imposes a penalty of 5s per
hour for the non removal of goods landed on the quays within
forty eight hours after they have , bLeu landed or laid
thereon.

The above acts appear to have applied to all goods; but it
seems that, in the sixth year of Geo. 11r, an act was obtained
by the dock trustees, authorising them to purchase land for
storing timber, wail measured and passed by the Customs.
Then it was by sec. 94 that the previous act, 51 Geo. lIT,
sec. 92, was repealed ; and by sections 95, 96, and 97, a
penalty of 5s per hour was laid for non removal of timber off
the quays and the said purchased land within forty eight hours
after being measured and passed by the Customs.
[You will bear in mind that we have nothing to guide us
here as to how long the timber might lie upon the land before
being passed by the Customs.]
An important act, as regards timber, was passed 9 and 10

Vic.' see. 59 The time then for removal was extended from
forty eight to seventy two hours, and authorises the trustees to
make bye laws limiting such seventy two hours to any sLorter
period not less than forty eight hours.

The'trustees acted upon this power, and, according to the
bye laws, the time allowed at present stand 4 thus :
At Brunswick Dock, from, lst_Jan. to 30th June, 72 hours,.
-
The rest of the year, 48 hours

At Huskisson Dock, from let Oct. to 14th July, 72 hours
„ 15th July to 30th Sept., 48 hours
The hours are computed from sunset on the day on which
such timber is measured and passed by the Customs.
The next important acts are those which- refer to what are
styled obstructions :
First, 11th Vic ,sec,' 52.—A penalty not exceeding £5 is
imposed for suffering any goods to remain on quays, so as
to cause an obstruction to business, for a longer period.
than is necessary for Their removal.
Then, by •18 and 19 Vic., sec. 24, very important powers are
given to the trustees to secure, at owner's or consignee's
expense, any goods remaining on quays, and causing an
obstruction.
With reference to the imposition of the fines incurred, the
magistrates appear to have general jurisdiction ; and power is
given to them to mitigate the penalties to, any sum they may
deem expedient.
Previous to 4th Vic., sec 134, the dock police was a separate
body ; but, by that act, the dock and borough police were
united; the expenses of the desk police still being con-
tributed by the dock trust, while the dock fines (according
to 4th Vic., sec. 119) are paid into the borough fund,
I would here call your attention to the distinction made in
respect to certain goods.- •At certain periods of the year,
seventy-two hours are allowed for the removal of
timber. Now, sir, perhaps it will be shown before the
Special Commission, if you agree to appoint one, that
there are other branches of trade which have an equal
claim to participate in the same privilege. You cannot
but be 'mire that various descriptions of produce, par-
ticularly those on which heavy duties are imposed—such
as tea, sucar, tobacco, &c.—go direct from , the ship to
the warehouse. Such articles do not recpire any facili-
ties on the quay in order to effect a sale. On the other
hand, there are geode, the trade in which—at all events
its steady increase—depends upon the facilities given for
their sale from the ship's side, the bulk going direct into
consumption ; these goods, to be remunerative, will not
always bear the enormous exnenses of cartage, porterage,
and warehousing ; and, in addition thereto, too often the
heavy hand of the magistrate in the shape of a dock fine—l
refer, of course, to timber, corn, and flour, and besides to
tar, turpentine, all kinds of oils, dyewoods, &c. &c. On .a
f srmer cceasion I referred to the changes which had taken
place in regard to the time occupied in landing cargoes. It
will be in the recollection of gentlemen present that previous
: to the introduction of Sir Robert Peel's new tariff, almost all
articles paid some duty—the consequence was that the
landing waiter would not allow a larger quantity of cargo
to be landed in one day than could be passed through the
Custom house scales; therefore, the quays then were
seldom crowded—certainly never to the extent they are
now, Consigners had then time to sell in warehouse their
produce without subjecting themselves to the heavy-
penalties they now incur. But what is the present plan ?
The majority of cargoes consist of free goods, in goods on
which the duty is only nominal—ascertained by an average.
A vessel often discharges at two or three hatches, works
over hours, tumbles out the cargo anywhere and anyhow, so,
do what he can, a consigner cannot always remove his goods
within the forty eight hours, or before a portion of them
may have become an obstruction to another vessel which
takes the place of the one just discharged. Out of this
subject arises another, which necessarily must be considered
by the committee I ask to have appointed, viz., the want of
power which this trust has to control the landing of cargoes
and the work of placing them on the quay. Now, sir, I trust
-I shall not be misunderstood. I have no wish to throw obsta-
cles in the way of facilitating the discharge of vessels and
the despatch of business, I simply think that the trustees of
the docks ought to have a greater control over the disposal
of vessels than they have at present. You are aware, sir,
that I have previously complained of, perishable articles
being landed on dock quays, when there were no sheds, and
I have been told both by you and by the solicitor, that we
had no power to prevent it. The fact is, the greatest ob-
struction upon the dock quays is caused by the vessels
landing their' cargoes so rapidly. Those, therefore, who are
getting the benefit of the quays, ought, I think, in fairness,
to pay for that benefit. I shall not refer to the uncertainty
and inequality which characterises the amount of fines
imposed. Do not misunderstand my meaning, or tuppose
that I am grumbling at the imposition of fines in the
abstract. On the contrary, I believe the amount levied is
in some instances as much too light as in others it is too
heavy. I am only anxious that consistency should be
maintained. Why, sir, it. is only lately a warehouseman
told me that be had some time since succeeded in keeping
goods on the quay nearly 14 days without incurring the
smallest fine. The fact is, that in this case, as in many
others,- the uncertainty of punishment forma the incentive to
crime. Consignees are not quite sure that they will be
fined, consequently they are contented to run the gauntlet,
and take the chance of impunity. With reference to my
own experience in regard to the inequality of files levied,
and of the causes whereby they are frequently incurred, I
shall real to you what my head warehouseman has commu-
nicated to me on the subject :
Sir,—According to your request I now give you' a few
instances of the very different sums we have had to pay for
fines at different times :
On 500 bags of Indian corn, 36 hours ...e .. L 2 4 6
„ 500 barrels of flour 36 „ . 0 9 6
~ 200 ditto ditto 36 „
„ 100 ditto ditto 12 „
„ 600 bags of wheat 36 ~ 5 4 6
„ Same wheat, second day only .... 0 14 6
Permit me also to make a few remarks on some of the
evils in the manner in which American vessels land goods.
Ist. The 'rapid way in which they discharge their
caegoes, putting to work five or six winches, and landing
at all their hatchways, it is not possible for any party to
take goods away as fast as they land them. In this manner
vessels of 2,000 tons burthen and upwards will discharge a
cargo in five or six days which, to be done properly, would
take ten or twelve. As soon as the vessel is discharged away
she goes ; and another vessel comes into the same berth ;
then all goods remaining on the quay become an obstruc-
tion, consequently fines are incurred, and generally very
severe. I may also note that the destruction of property-
on the dock quay is shameful. I have seen good wheat
trampled in slutch several inches deep.
2nd. Sometimes vessels lying in the river for want of
water to dock, commence dischargieg into flats; one flat
load is laid down here, another there. Then comes the
vessel into dock, and discharges the bulk of her cargo in
the berth appointed for her ' • and then probably away to the
graving dock, consequently her cargo is laid down at three
or four different places. The consignees of the goods
are liable for the fines at all the different places and
expense of watching.
3rd. A vessel enters dock, gets a berth, and commences
her discharge—probably lands one half her cargo ; then
she is ordered to another berth in the same dock to discharge
the remainder. All goods then remaining on the quay are
liable to be fined for an obstruction, another vessel being
put into the berth ; of course, this rests with the dock
master, but is very inconvenient.
Having, as already stated, received from other parties,
communications on the same subject, I shall, with your
permission, read extracts selec'ed from two of them :

Dear Sir,— I was glad to observe, in the proceedings of
the Dock Committee, last week, that you had given notice
to move, to-morrow, for a special committee to take into
consideration the subject of dock fines ; and I hope there
will be no objection made to the nomination of such com-
mittee. I would, however, suggest that the enquiry should
not be confined to the subject of dock fines alone, but should
extend to the general discharge of vessels, and the working
of the docks in connection therewith, embracing a recon-
sideration of the master porter system ; which latter, has
not, I maintain (as regards the cargoes at least), fulfilled
the objects intended by its promoters, viz.,—the eco9omis
ing of expenses and the protection of property. The present
system of levying fines, might, I think, be much improved ;
so as to work better for the object intended and, at the
same time to give, in many instances, increased accommoda-
tion to the merchant; but what I deem to be the most
pressing requirement, is--some authoritative supervision of
the manner in which ships are discharged in the docks—as
respects undue expedition or delay, tho placing of goods
liable to damage upon unprotected, dirty, or otherwise
improper quays; and the careful breaking out and landing
of the goods—for it is well known that, as things are now
conducted, great waste of property and robbery takes place.
What the precise remedy should be, it is not for me to
say; but I may mention that it has often struck me that
this port should have some officer with a staff under him
to inspect, daily, the discharge of vessels, to whom com-
plaints could be made, and who should exercise a
control over the captain and stevedores of ships—the for-
mer of whom, in many cases, carry things with a very high
hand : and, I am informed, frequently will not allow
consignees of cargo to go on board their ships to look after
their own property—and seeing what is done in the way
of inspecting cargoes by the three underwriters' surveyors,
who, dividing the docks into three distrietF, to round the
wbo!e once, if not twice a day—l think th, matter of
expense will not be such as to create ohjmion to some
such rem dy as I suggest.

Hoping that you will have no ditßoulty in getting a
committee appointee], and trusting thrtt, at all event,;, the
refusal of it will not have the appearance of a desire or
determination tin any section of the ll.'ck Conarn4t(e to
maintain, unduly, the interest of the ship as against to
cargo' —I remain, yours truly.
To Joseph Hubback,
DEAR Sin,—We are glad to notice that you inten

taking up the subject of dock fines, as it is a matter stili_acli
stands in need of adjustment. We may state that tbo'
are no doubt occasions when we are fairly liable to fine"
but it is equally certain we are sometimes innocent sufferent
either in having a fine inflicted at at all, or in having it elo
at an unreasonable amount. Policy prevents our maki.4
too much noise on such occasions.. '
- What weemost complain of ie being summoned and 0.4,,
as master porters.- -This leads to endless disputes *l's'
consignees, and often we cannot recover the amount. Tbe".
does not appear•to be any rule in this case, as we find
are often summoned for our stuff by ships where we are 11:
master porters, and. presume. the master porters of 00;
'ships are' exempted. 'We also complain of the way sb
are' discharged. A large ship almost altrays works tin!
hatches, and it is impossible to get the goods removed
,re
time 1 in fact, in some of the docks, such as between tus,
Waterloo aid Victoria, the goods cannot even be re"
at times,.owing to the blockage of carts, & Mo
ils(
this To oils(
this : on one occasion we ourselves discharged from one°
our shine 7,500 barrels of fieur in nine hours. ft 01;
physically impossible to get it away from the dock
several days.
Again, a ship discharges her cargn, " helter skelter,' g
immediately hauls away to another berth, or to the raj 04
of the dock, perhaps in the afternoon, after having weds
aIL day: Another ship hauls into the berth during 111,
night, and next morning everybody is summoned for a;
obstruction. The ships are now so large: that they ese
only dock in high tides; this makes an accumulation
ships in the river at low tides, and all dock at the same tie!'
The consignees, to make up for lost time is the river, 25
to save being neaped in, work hot haste and sufferance,
tho cargo is tumbled out in any fashion. Th s•einedlil
that only a reasonable•amsuet of cargo should be diseharg;
or if the ship is in a hurry she should pay the extra expel
Liverpool, 15th January.,
Dear Sir,—We are exceedingly glad to see that you
bringing the question of Dick fines before the committ
Our experience is that they have been levied most irregol
and unequally. Only within the last two weeks, for sect,',
and third informations, we have been fined Sc and cot
and for the first information, on only 500 bags of whey'
we were fined £lO and costs. Hoping sincerely that I°,
will succeed in getting an entire change in the system,
are, dear sir, yours truly.
To Joseph Hubback, Esq.
Before the special committee I shall be prepared to gii;
. many other instances of complaints similar to those Os
read, These, I trust, will suffice for the present. Iha I
now stated my case, I fear feebly, not, I trust, unfairly,
think I have shown that there are grounds i'or entering",
the whole question of dock fines, and, coupled with it, $5O
necessary consequence, the want of a proper conizol ono,
part Of this trust over the direction of cargoes. If, tie"ce,,s
this committee state there is " no case," I shall, of coee
bow, but with some disappointment to their decision.
the same time, I shall have the satisfaction of feeling tuts
to the best of my ability, I have, by bringing the malt
before you, performed a duty.
Mr. Halhead said he was very glad to second the motisl
Ifit would not be assuming something of a personal e,':l
racter, he might be allowed to say that he held in his 12*11,
a list of fines inflicted upon his house from the 3rd of r4°j;
last. amounting to £43 3s. The number of flies was
and the average was lls 4d each fine. Included
these fines, were the fines-for one ship alone making .C. 3",.
6d. N,w, he could state most positively to the commil
that he believed those fines could not have been avoids%
the infliction had been five times as much. As $s
Hubback had very properly observed, the American °l')
especially, discharged their cargoes in so very rants
s
manner, that it was quite impossible for consignees to her,
pace with them. It was 'perfectly welt known to erei,
mercantile gentleman, that when' once they got beliiap
hand with the work, they could not possibly recover
during the whole of the discharging. (Hear,
In- the case of the fine of £2l 5s 6d, it was
vessel called the William Lindsay, and he had Ifs
authority of his partner, who attended to these matters,
saying that the exertions to remove that cargo were rtecs s„
relaxed, except one day for the purpose of avoiding PP
upon another vessel by finishing the removal of her ealori
He could scarcely think the dock committee would willow,
tax the commerce of the port unnecessatily, but he thouSs'i
the system altogether wanted altering, or else parties 0.5,
scarcely carry on their business with -the advantage vibil
as reasonable man, they ought to expect. He was told
his foreman that they worked up to 9, 10, and 11 o°4,
at night. They worked very often in the dark, and vo
it got so dark that. they could not see any longer, Is
worked, inside the open sheds by naphtha lights and Ws/
light—to his great 'horror, when he first heard of it, feartsi
lest some accident might occur. 'The men were alush,
unable to do their duty, from work of that kind. J.,4
horses were also exhausted, and two • of the labour,'"
men had met with severe accidents. One man fell on,
plank in broad daylight during the frost and broke his 11
Another man, working at night to avoid the fines, fell ens
plank, -and- was very seriously hurt. He could scare's
',I ',
thank that the dock-committee would exact larger fines ti'd
was fair and right towards the commerce of the port, ay
on that account he willingly seconded Mr. Ilublec",4
motion. As he understood that Me. Aikin had inflie,rss
mast of the fines, he took the liberty of calling on hine ,sj
Aikin received him in a very kind and corteons manner. Pei
offered to give the case a re-hearing, although he said en
ts
a course was, very nnusual, yet he offered. under the eirold
stances, to relax the stringency of the ordinary rule, 90
give them a re-hearing. He (Mr. Halhead) did Totbd
much wish to have any particular fine re-beard, Lut tales
to what he might call his spirit of concession, to see whet's
after the matter had been fully explained, he eould not e!ei
scientiously make any remission of them. Mr. Aikin tre:3lo
the thing in a very fair and proper way, as every geneel's
knewing him would expect. He behaved most handson'es
towards him— (Mr. Halhead)—beard what he had to s9i,
and made inquiry into one or two particular fines, on vvt'iscs
having examined the officers, he decided again that Po
.were proper fines. Last Saturday, at the watch eimmitto
he (Mr. Halhead) asked the chairman what prosort,'ls
of the tines went to the police. In the first place wd
chairman answered " nothing." He had, however, a strop,
suspicion, not that the chairman had stated wronglY,b4l
that perhaps he was stating what he was not quite conse!"o
of. Accordingly he applied to the town clerk, who sal" di
, believed there was some litt'e portion of the fines went's'
the superannuation fund of the dock` police. Now. s
thought this was a great evil. (Hear, hear.) If any port' •
of the 'money went even indirectly to_ the support of
stiiiit
police superannuation fund, he thought the system was '
and required alteration. (Hear, hear.) at
Mr. Bold thought--there-ought to be no question uhschs
granting the committee at once. He had himself a num",,,,
of cases which he would bring before the special commit'
if appointed.
Mr. Robinson thought Mr. Halhead had made his °Il
out very fully and fairly. Ho would advise that on the ''hoeri
first opportunity the bye law 'should be changed, and t;',‘
they should substitute a penalty rent for goods remain-,
on the quay after a certain tithe. This would be takirrs
very odious duty from the stipendiary and the o',,
magistrates.
The Chairman had no doubt that the committee sy°
be unanimously appointed, but he did not think what
bi
Robinson suggested would meet the evil. They founders
experience that the fines, even as at present levied, s''si
not sufficientin some cases, and they were obliged to go,,‘
Parliament for power to remove the goods, and in 13°'
Cases they were obliged to resort to that extreme mewl,
There was no penalty in some cues which would mat
parties remove, the goods from the quay. Unfortunare,'li
the trade of the port had overcome their means of dealic°
with it, and they really had not deck space enough to Orris
on the trade of the port without having resort to extol°,
measures of the kind. There was great difficulty attendil
the whole subject, but it was a ye. ry proper one to engulf
into.
Mr; Gladstone thought some of the discrepancies in fb:
fines mentioned might be attributed to the evidence gi!ss
by the policeman, stating that on one particular elay:s;
cargo was an obstrucdoti, while on some other day it wig"
perhaps not be so.
The Chairman': No doubt it is so.
Mr. Barber denied that there was a wilt of dock Wee'
if the docks were properly economised and regulated.
The rootlets was then carried. -
The following gentlemen were appointed the committee:
—Messrs. Gladstone, Anderson, Turner, Halhead, ttathbon°
Bold, and Huhback.
Tla is closed the'general business. •
n/ 10

-ANCOCK'S INKSTAND.—"Ti aving two of the inkstands
use at our publishing- office, we can bear testimony to the„,
utility and anperiority over all others."—Derbyshire AdCP°
tiser.—Price is 8d 2s 6d, 33, and 3s 61 each.—Adet.
HANcooK's INKSTAND.—We have had in use in °,,"0
counting house for several months, an inkstand bearing the
ably° title, which has answered the purposes of preventiei
oxidation and evaporation, and is simple in its constructia'a
—Sussex Agricultural Express.—price Is Bd, 26 6c1,35) an
3s 61 each.—Adat.
THE SOUND DUES.--A eanference relative to the Sou-,
Dues was held in Copenhagen on the Bh. It aprerf
certain that the dues will he suppressed on the re-opetiirg, o
navigation—that is, in April next. It remains to be decide
whether the sums to be paid by the various powergio
Denmark shall b, given in one payment or in several. t
"'tic C,ST OP NOT KEEPING A PROMISE.-0a Friday, edo
Di mingharn, a jury wa3 impatmeiled, under the
Causes Ginsolidation Act, to assess the damages due to the
give, nuts of the Elward's Grammar School in that tO'
by the Town Council owing to the ven:fermation
street which the mncil bad cov,nan'ed to make. 1,,";
amount c'aimed was £17,00d. Tt,e matter was settled u)
c,impromise. A verdict was taten for £7,500 and eostsl
£1,500 to be paid now, for dastage done to this time, oet
the remaining £5,000 in fie years, if the street should 00
d hen be made.