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

DOCK COMMITTEE.

The weekly meeting of this committee was held at, one
o'clock yesterday, Charles Turner, Esq., in the chair.
The following: members were present :-z-Messrs. Rankin,
Palmer, Robinson, Halhead, Chaloner, Rounthwaite,
Little lale,
.Glaistone,•Lockett, Anderson,•Hubback, Bold,
Smith, Mann, Barber, James Holme, and Clint.

MR. ROnNTRWAITE AND MR. MANSFIELD.

Mr. Rounthwaite said, before the business commenced,
he wished to make a few observations in reference to a
remark made some weeks ago—on the 24th of last
December—by him at the meeting of the committee. He
merely wished to set himself right with the committee.
When Mr. Bold said. at the last meeting, that he had
received from Mr. Mansfield a very satisfactory letter,
he (Mr. Rounthwaite) then felt very desirous that Mr.
Mansfield should set him right, and, perhaps, also set
himself right with the committee. if it were the wish of
of the committee, he would read the letters which he had
written to Mr. Mansfield, and which he had received in
reply up to that moment. He wished to behave respect-
ful to Mr. Mansfield and to the office he held, and had no
other object than that, and to set himself right. On the
2nd of January he wrote the following letter to Mr.
'Mansfield :

20, Water•street, January 2. 1857.
Sir,—l will thanks:you-to inform me whether the para-
graph (which I enclose) inserted in the NORTHERN TIMES
of_ Saturday last,-and to'.which 7my, attention was only
called on Wednesday, reports correctly what you said
in reference to a raffiek I made at a meeting of the dock
committee on the 24th ult.—l am, &c.. •
J. S. Mansfield, E•ci. J. K. ROTJNTUWAITE.
" A gentleman of the dock committee insinuated that I
said, in reply to that deputation, that I would not be
interfered with. I can only say I did not state anything of
the sort, and the insinuation of that gentleman is not
correct.'"

To that letter he received no reply. Oa the 7th 01
January he again wrote:—

7th January, 1857.
Sir,—Not having received an answer to my letter of the
2nd instant, in re'erenco to an enquiry as to the correctness
of some remarks which, from a paragraph in the NORTHERN
TULLES, you are reported to have made, I can only infer
that it could not have reached your hands. I, therefore,
annex a copy, and shall be glad if yon wilt favour me with
a reply.—l remain, &e., J. S. ROUNTHWAITB.
J. S. Mansfield, Esq.
That letter he sent by a special messenger, and told him
to ask was there any reply ? Instead of that, the mes-
senger asked for a reply, and he got a verbal one. On
the Bth of JAnuary, after hearing what Mr. Bold said, that
he had received a satisfactory letter from Mr. Mansfield,
he thought it only just to that gentlemen and himself to
write to him again. Accordingly, he wrote the follow-
ing :--

Bth January, 1857.
Sir,-1 wrote to you on the 2nd and 7th instant, in
reference to a paragraph in the NORTHERN TIMES, report-
ing some observations which you are said to have made on
a remark of mine, made et a meeting of the dock commit-
tee, on the 24th ultimo. To my former letter I received no
reply, but to the latter I received a verbal message, " that
byou could not send me an an answer now."
I had intended to have made some remarks in reference
to this subject at the meeting of the dock committee this
day, but Mr. Bald having stated to the committee the
receipt of a most satisfactory letter from you, in explanation
of remarks in reference to him, I preferred writing to you
again.

—Yon are reported to have said that my remark—" that
you would not be interfered with"—was not correct, and
" that you did nit saw anjthing of the sort" to " that
deputation." y rema`rThad nu reference to the deputa-
tion alluded to, but to another interview, when the chair-
rulin and solicitor of the dock c -mmittee waited upon you,
at tb`e request of the committee, to suggest the propriety of
increasing the fines- for the improper and illegal use of
Fires,and Lights on board vessels in the docks; if possible
to put a stop to such dangerous practices. When the
chairman reported the result of his interview to the com-
mittee, he stated that you said " you would not be dictated
to," or words to that eff-2c,. I think, therefore, that lam
justified in making the remark I did. If you made use of
such an expression, I can only say I regret your having
done so; but if.you did not, then I must leave the proof
hnd my own jastifiJation with the chairman and solicitor of
the committee.

Trusting .I may be favoured with a reply before the next
meeting of the dock committee,—l' remain, Sir, yours
respectfully, JOHN K. ROUNTHWAITE.
J. S. Mansfield, Esq.
Ho had received no reply to that letter. He only did
what he thought right in writing to Mr. Mansfield, and he
had no desire at all to " set down aught in malice." His
desire especially was, to set himself right, as he should be
extremely sorry to have been supposed to state anything
which was untrue. He also thought it right to give Mr.
Mansfield an opportunity of acting like an honourable
man, for he conceived—without making any further
remarks upon it—that no man, le:. his position be what it
might, let his station in_life be what. it would, was dis-
graced by acting like a gentlemen. He would therefore
leave the proof of his statement to the chairman, however
disagreeable the task might he, and then allow the Matter
to rest entirely in the hands of the committee.
The Chairman : As Mr. Rounthwaite has called upon
me, I have only to say that it will probably be in the
recollection of many of the members, that the solicitor
and myself, by their instructions, waited on Mr. Mans-
fiele, I believe it was in March, 1854, to represent to, him
that, in the opinion of the committee, the fines which were
then levied for the improper and illegal use of fires and
lights in the docks were not sufficient to prevent the
commission of the offence—an offence fraught with so
much danger to the property of the port. Upon that
occasion Mr. Mansfield certainly did use the words stated
by Mr. Rounthwaite—he stated to myself and the solicitor
that he would not be dictated to. I think these were the
exact words. We certainly felt rather hurt at being
received in that way, going, as we did with the most
courteous intentions by the direction of the committee,
but as the matter has passed over so very long it certainly
would be very disagreeable to myself, and I think also to
the solicitor, to have subject of the sort, re-opened. At
the same time in justice to Mr. Rounthwaite, I felt bound
to state the exact circumstances which occurred.
Mr.. Gladstone : There appears a diff:rence in the
expressions.

•
Mr. Rounthwaite: There is-r-perhaps one is a little
stronger than the other.
Mr. Gladitotie : I think a man-might be justified in
saying that he would not be dictated to, when perhaps he
would not be justified in saying he would not be interfered
with.

Mr. Raunthwaite :I am sure there was—no intention o 1
the• kind—either to dictate or to interfere.
Mr. Gladstone : It would just depend upon the spirit in
which he received the communication.

The Chairman : It is certainly not agreeable to me to
refer to matters which occurred so long ago. He received
us in anything but a kind or courteous spirit. We certainly
felt oursolvts very much hurt, both as gentlemen and as
representing this committee.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I may sly that 'should not have said
a word about it only for the explanation he gave to Mr.
Bold, and I felt desirous of giving him an opportunity of
making a similar explanation.
The Chairman : Nothing, certainly, rankles in the mind
either of myself or of the solicitor upon the subject. I have
met Mr. Mansfield since. So far as lam personally con-
cerned, I should like the whole matter to be dropped.
Mr. Gladstone : There must have been some misunder-
standing,

The Chairman : There could have been no misunder-
standing as to his words.

Mr. Gladstone : He could not have viewed the matter in
the light in which it was intended. however, lam not
authorised to say anything upon the subject.
Mr Smith : It is ve y unfortunate that this suhjebt,
should h ive come before the committee at all. With
reference to the paragraph out of which it arose, I believe,
and I say it on. Mr. Mansfield's authority, that the reporters
in the court on that particular.4y did not take a -single
note—that the matter occupied, a much greater length, and
it was therefore just a report drawn up from memory. Ide
not think it was a report of what Mr Mansfield said. The
whole thing appears to me to have been a most unfortuntite
thing to have come before the committee in' the way-it' his'
done. It looks very much--like -as if the committee were
lending themselves to taking a sort of position to interfere
with the magistrate which they have no right to do, and to