The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-02 00:00:00

MR. BOLD AND THE STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE.

Mr. Bela rose and said : Mr. Chairman, before proceed-
ing to the business of the day, I must beg to leave to occupy
the attention of the committee for a few moments in untie-
inc..; a remark made by Mr. Mansfield, from the beach, in
his judicial capacity, when he denounced me, sir, as having
stated what was utterly false at the last meeting of this
committee. It will probably be in the remembrance of the
gentlemen who were here at our last meeting, that a letter
was read from Messrs. Johnson, complaining of two fines,
which they thought exorbitant, levied upon some palm oil
discharged from the Charles Horsfall, which remained on
the quay longer than the time stipulated by the dock laws.
Bet. sir, whether I clear myself from the imputation which
has been cast upon my character for veracity or not, I put
it to this committee, and to my fellow townsmen, whether
a gentleman filling the high and important position of
stipendiary magistrate of this great borough is warranted in
stigmatising with such a charge a gentleman in the
execte ion of a duty for which he is not, like Mr. Mansfield,
paid, but still which, although he is not paid, he may feel
within himself that he discharges in a manner creditable to
him. Bat I have no fear of being able to prove that Mr.
Mansfield has stated, to use his own language, what is
utterly false. Now, sir, Mr. Mansfield, forgetting in his
wrath to do what I conceive a gentleman ought to have
done before he made any remarks, p.articulary of such a.
stringent nature—Mr. Mansfield did not communicate with
me, and auk me whether the remarks which appeared in the
papers of the day were correct or not, but he goes red hot on
his bench on Friday m ruing—and bear in mind that my
remarks were made on 'Wednesday, and that there was no
paper published on Thursday last—he goes red hot on the
bench, and there denounces me as having stated what was
thoroughly false. I will read to you the remarks made by
the stipendiary magistrate which I complain of, and which
were reported in the NORTH ERN DAILY TIMEE, headed in
large characters, " Mr. Mansfield and the Deck Committee."
In the first instance, however, I shall read the letters which
passed e between us. I did not treat Mr. Mansfield in the
way in which be treated me. I waited until Monday
morning, giving Mr. Mansfield an opportunity, if he was
improperly reported, of correcting the report in Monday
morning's paper. Seeing nothing in correction—although
I looked through all the papers for any correction at all of
the speech reported to have fallen from Mr. Mansfield—l
thereupon, sir, addressed the following note to him:-
28,_Chapel-street, 29th Dec., 1856.

Sir,—l shall feel much obliged by your informing me
whether the enclosed is a correct report of what you said
on Friday last, in reference to my remarks made at the
meeting of the Dock Committee on Wednesday last.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,

J. S. Mansfield, Esq. THOMAS BOLD.
To that note, sir, I did not receive a reply in the course of
the day, but on the following morning I found a letter
directed to me in the rack of the Palatine Club, where it
might very possibly have remained until the present
moment, so seldom do I get notes there, but that I happened
accidently to look next morning. feeling it strange that I
had not the compliment paid me of a note in reply to mine.
I found the following note :

29th December, 1856.

,
Sir,—l cannot say whether the newspaper extract you
forwarded to me is a correct account of the statement I
made from the Bench on Friday last. What I intended
to say, and believe I did say, was that it is utterly false
to assert that I made any distinction between timber and
other goods liable to dock fines. I cannot recollect with
any certainty the words I used to convey this meaning.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Thomas Bold, Esq. J. S. MANSFIUD.

,
In this he neither acknowledges nor denies the report. I
did not make any accusation against him of drawing a
distinction between timber and other goods. Now, sir, I
shall read what I am reported to have said, and I call the
attention of the committee again to the fact that Mr.
Mansfield, when he made the speech, could only have seen
what I am now going to read to the committee. Mr.
Bold then read from the NORTHERN TIMES, Daily
Post, and Mercury, of Friday last, the published
version of his remarks at the dock committee's
previous meeting, touching the discrepancy which he
alleged to exist between the geneial fines levied on timber
and the fines on the particular cargo of palm oil. The
reports were substantially the same, except that in the
Daily Post Mr. Bold was represented as stating that the
general amount of fines in limber cases was from 2s 6d to
53, while in the NORTEIERN TIM ES and Mercury he was
more correctly represented es stating that the amount was
from 2s 6c.' to 10s. Having explained that point, the
speaker proceeded : Now, in my remarks the other day, I
commenced by stating that there are returns placed on the
table every week of these fines, at which I invariably look.
Petters very few members know that they are here,
excepting the harbour master's committee. I, therefore,
Greeted from these returns, as far as my memory could serve
me, and I added that I had not seen the return for that
week, as it was not on the table. It was not there, because
we met on Wednesday instead of Thursday. Now, sir, Mr.
Mansfield states, you will perceive, that I charge him, and
not the magistrates generally. lle says, " A statement has
been made that the fines I inflict on the timber trade are
only 5s and costs," I stated nothing of the sort. My
observations applied just as much to Mr. Gladstone or Mr.
Anderson, as they applied to Mr. Mansfield. My remark
was general; and therefore, I do say, to use Mr.
Mansfield's own eloquent language, that in this particular
he is amenable t, the charge which he has made against
me— of stating that which is utterly false. Mr. Mansfield
states that " what could have been the inducement for
gentlemen to make such statements it is not necessary for
me now to enquire." But I shall tell Mr. Mansfield what
was my inducement. My inducement was in these returns,
and [ shall show by these retain how utterly incorrect Mr.
Mansfield's statement is, and bow defective his memory

must be. On Saturday, I called into this office on my way I
down, having seen this paragraph in the paper, which
indeed I had heard on Friday night was to be there from a
private friend. I called on Mr. Mason, and I asked him
to be good enough to make me a summary of the whole for
the last six months, being the busy part of the timber
season. I hold in my hand thit summary. It is unneces-
sary to trouble the committee by reading every fine there
recorded. The summary was made up in this office,
and Mr. Mason, I believe, can Tench for the
correctness of it. It is headed, " Return of
fines for leaving timber, deals, &c., beyond
the time allowed by the d)ck committee on the.Bruns wick
dock (nay, from the let July to the 30th December, 1856,"
being 27 weeks. During that time there were 452 infor-
mations and fines. There are nine rates of fines levied,
being ls, 23 6d, 3s, ss, ;04, 20s, 103, 604, and up to 100 e.
Now, sir, under the head of is fines there are 14 ; under
2s Gd there are 293, considerable/ more than one half.
Under 3s there are only 2 ; and, r 5s there are 103 ; under
10s, 25. At that I stopped, saying that the fines were
usually up to that amount. Above that amount the next is.
203, for which there are 7 fines ; at 403 there are 5 ; at 60s,
2 ; at 100 s, only 1. Now, sir, of these 452, 307 are at
and under 2s 61, 412 are at and under ss, 437 are at and
under 10s, whilst oily 15 are above the amount I named at
this board. The average of the whole is 4s 7d ; and the
average of the whole dock fines of Liverpool, by the return
of Major Greig, for the same time, is 9s 01-1, very nearly
double the BUM. I also called for the return of the fines at
the north end, and the same summary was made of timber
at the north end. It appears that there, where the timber
trade is not nearly so extensive, the nes are se, 9s 6d,
14s 6d, and 24s 61. Under the head of 5s there
are 13 fines ; under 9s 61, 17 ; under 14e Gd, 6 ;
and under 24s 6d, 1, making a total of only 37 at the
Haskisson dock, north end, giving an average of 9s lfd.
Now, sir, I cannot help thinking that I have proved, not
in any loose manner, but upon an authentic document, that
what Mr. Mansfield said of me, he was, to speak in a very
mild manner, not warranted in stating. If these returns
are wrong, I have nothing whatever to do with that. They
are signed by the parties laying the informations, by the
superintendents at the north and south ends, and counter-
signed by Mr. Hodgson, our harbourmaster, who certifies
to their correctness. Therefore I do think that I may
accuse Mr. Mansfield either of having wilfally stated that
which he ought to have known was not correct, or else
having a memory wonderfully defective as to the amount of
fines he levi: s. lam perfectly willing, sir, to concede that
it arose from the latter cause. But in doing so, sir, I
question whether Mr. Mansfield is a man capable of filling
the important duties which he is called to discharge, or
whether he is " the right man in the right place." Having
now, I hope and trust, by these documents proved to the
committee that I was warranted in making these few
simple remarks, I do think I am almost justified in asking
the committee to come to some expression of opinion that I
was warranted in the remarks I made last week, and that I
em not to be branded with uttering in this room that which
was utterly false.
Mr. Hubback mid the discussion which took place last
week seemed to be rather an unfortunate one. He had also
a small matter to bring before the notice of the committee
in respect to these dock fines. The letter of the Messrs.
Johuson, out of which these discussions arose, had been
referred to the harbour master's committee, and he had
intended to wait until ha found whether any report would
be made in the matter ; but since Mr. Bold had introduced
the subject, he would now simply state that while alluding
to the letter last week, and the irregularity with which the
fines were levied, referring more particularly to the Ameri-
can ships, which discharged their oargoes so rapidly that it was
totally impossible for the consignees to remove them within
the prescribed time, he perhaps inadvertently stated that
there was a mode of getting off the fines by making a gift
to the policemen. It appeared that this remark of his had
disturbed the equanimity of the watch committee, and he
had received a letter from that body asking for an ex-
planation. Now, in alluding to that matter, he had no
intention of bringing forward any specific case to
prove that a certain policeman had taken a bribe.
Were he to do so, the object he had in view would not be
produced. He alluded to the system, and he believed that
there was not a gentleman round the table who would not
bear him out, that the system as pursued at present of levy-
ing the dock fines, led to the bribing of policemen. He
was decidedly of opinion that the whole matter relating to
dock fines required re-adjustment, and he would be very
glad if the harbour masters' committee would take the
matter up. If the chairman of the harbour masters' com-
mittee would state to him that the subject should have the
consideration of the committee, he would leave the whole
affair in their hands, but if they were not prepared to go
into it, then he should give notice that next week he should
move the appointment of a special committee to consider
the whole subject. Before that committee he shou!d be
prepared to prove what he stated last week, and he thought
it would be a better place for him to set himself right with
the committee than to appear before the watch committee
and attempt to prove by any isolated or single case that such
Was the state of things. There were various circumstances
which required the consideration of the gentlemen who took
up the matter of dock fines. He might refer in particular to
the changes which had taken place with reference to mast of
the cargoes which now came in. When the law was passed
many years ago requiring the goods to be removed within
forty eight hours, the bulk of the cargoes were liable to duty,
and the landing waiters took pretty good care that no larger
amount should land than passed each day ; but now the
largo-proportion were free of duty, and some portion only
bore a nominal duty. The lauding waiters had not any
necessity to keep the cargoes back, but they were landed
upon the quays pell mell, making it totally impossible for
the consignees to remove the goods within the prescribed
time. With reference to the evidence given by policemen
before the magistrates, he thought it very questionable
whether the policeman was upon all occasions the proper
party to say whether a parcel of goods formed an obstruc-
tion. (Hear, hear.) He thought the magistrates should
require some corroborrtive evidence in addition to that of
the policeman. Then with reference to the mode in which
the fines were levied. A man one day might be fined ss,
and the next day he might be fined for the same article £2.
There appeared to be no rule—no system—it seemed to
depend in a great measure upon the ex parte statement of
the policeman, and it might be the caprice of the magistrate
of the day. Now, he thought, considering all these
points, it was a subject which required the
investigation of the harbour master's committee, and if they
would kindly undertake the duty, he should be prepared
before them to verify his statement regarding the policeman
—if not next week he should move fur a special committee.

Mr. Lockett said it would be better to move for a special
committee. In order to gain the object desired, the Act of
Parliament must be altered.

Mr. Bold understood Mr. Hubback's object to be, to have
the subject well considered between this and next August,
when they would be going to Parliament, in order that, if
necessary, some alteration should be sought for.
Mr. Gladstone : In reference to the leading point of this
discussion, you will bear in mind that Mr. Mansfield is not
present on this occasion to defend himself.
Mr. Bold : And for that reason I gave you notice this
morning in the council room that I intended to make this
charge, and I believe you saw Mr. Mansfield—
Mr. Gladstone : Mr. Bold is perfectly correct in saying
that he gave me the information, but I am not Mr.
Mansfield's defender. When he gave me the information
I went to the Sessions House to acquaint Mr. Mansfield
with the facts that the subject would be brought before the
committee this day. But I did not undarstand that Mr.
Bold came to me as the defender of Mr. Mansfield's
conduct.

Mr. Bold : Ye Q, that was my object.
Mr. Gladstone : Bat how did you come to connect me
with Mr. Mansaeld?

Mr. Bold : I knew. from the very great intimacy which
existed between you, that you were the man of all others
in this committee most likely to defend Mr. Mansfield if he
had any defence to make, with these returns before the
committee.

Mr. Gladstone : I think Mr. Bold was perfectly correct
in making the communication to me. I should certainly,
as a brother magistrate, consider it my duty to listen to
what may be said of any gentleman entitled to sit on the
bench, and where he was right to defend him : where he
was wrong, to agree to any vote of censure which might be
passed upon him. I have no doubt that Mr. Bold's inten-
tion was perfectly correct and honourable, but it is certainly
not my business or purpose to defend Mr. Mansfield,
because that gentleman is richly endowed with the gift of
defending himself. 1 mentioned the subject to Mr. Mans-
field, and I must confess I stated to that gentleman, that I
for one, regretted that he had made use of the expres4ion
to which I called his attention. When Mr. Bold
brought forward the subject, I understood his remarks
to apply spite as much to myself as to any other
gentleman who may happen to be a magistrate.
I did not understand them to be in particular addressed to
Mr. ManSfield. In this town we are a little sensitive to
such charges, but 1 think not unnaturally or improperly so,
We do not relish a charge of uttering whit is false being
applied to any individual, let him be who he may. The
c numittee must recollect that in making his decision, Mr,
Mansfield is guided, as has been stated, by the information
given by the policeman upon his oath. That may be or
may be not a pure source of information, but he is influenced
and influenced alone by the evidence produced before him,
and whenever it is proved that in the case before him the
article in question has caused an obstruction, he increases
the amount of the fine. I saw this very day a flee inflicted
upon some article ; I think it was corn, to the amount of
£6. But when it is shown on evidence, such evidence as is
produced—and I am partially inclined to agree with Mr.
Hubback that the policeman's evidence ought not to be this
guide in every instance —that the article in question, timber,
or anything else, dces not form an obstruction, he mitigates

the amount to some trifling sum, such as 2s 63, or even as
low as Is on some occasions, according to the account
he receives. With regard to 'the complaint,
of the Messrs. Johnson in that instance, if I am correctly
informed, the quantity of palm oil was very considerable,
and the case a very aggravated one. I am quite satisfied
that whatever persons may think of Mr. M uosfield, whether
he is, as Mr. Bold has said, " the right man in the right
place" or not, he is perfectly free from any improper bias or
partiality as regards the Messrs. Harsfall or any one else.
He will do in all eases, I am satisfied, what he believes to
be right and correct, and whatever is strictly applicable
under the circumstances, and nothing else. At the same
time, I feel that there must have been some misapprehension
npon Mr. Mansfield's part with regard to the remarks made
by Mr. 8011. Ido not think Mr. Bold meant any offence
to Mr. Mansfield or any one else. In his' place ho com-
mented very properly on what he believed he had good reason
to think required remedy, and he stated his views upon the
particular point. I am sure of this also, that Mr.
Mansfield did not intend to apply the charge of uttering a
falsehood to Mr. Bold personally, but that the statement
which Mr. Bold made, or anybody else might have
made, was not true. At the same time, I quite
admit that this is a distinction very undesirable
even to attempt to support; and it would be
I conceive, much more conducive to the harmony which
ought to exist between public men filling public situations,
whether in this committee or on the bench, that they should
be very cautious in the terms they make use of, and
especially when, as in this case, we sit at this table, and in
the various committees connected with this trust, giving np
time and attention without any fee or payment of any kind.
On the other points I am really not. qualified to speak, for
beyond about five minutes, during which he was in the Sessions
House, I had not an opportunity of mentioning the matter
to Mr. Mansfield. Mr. Bold has studied the returns of the
fines much more closely than I have done. My impression
was, that taking an average of six or twelve months, the
amount would have been larger, but as you have calcu—
lated it

Mr. Bold : No, sir, it was Mr. Mason who calculated it—
not I.

Mr. Gladstone : The average is certainly less than I
should have imagined it. Ido not know that I can say
anything farther upon the point, but I think the committee
would scarcely come to any decision upon the subject—
Nobody around this table supposes that Mr. Bold would
intentionally, and, I therefore should be the last to imagine
that any man filling the situation of stipendiary magistrate
could take so erroneous a view of his conduct. We had
better hear what Mr. Mansfield has to say in reference to
these remarks, and adjourn the subject until next week.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Bold said he had no actual objection to adjourn the
subject. Ile did not go upon the mere subject of the fines.
He did not object to heavy penalties being levied, and he
had, on more than one occasion, gone himself to Mr.
Mansfield, and asked him to increase the fines. He thought
the fines were frequently not high enough to meet the
Purpose for which they were intended. Bit whether the
fines were right or wrong had nothing to do with this
question. He was charged by the stipendiary magistrate
with stating what was utterly false. Mr. Gladstone said
the remark of Mr. Mansfield was only that the statement
was false, but admitted that it was not right to draw so
very fine a distinction. Persons had spoken to him (Mr.
Bold) and said—" What have you been doing now ? Get-
ting into another scrape ? (Laughter). Here, you
have been denounced, by Mr. Mansfield, from the
bench, as stating what was utterly false." That was
not a very pleasant position for a man to be placed
in. Mr. Mansfield should have consulted the
returns of the fines, and then come forward handsomely
and said he was mistaken, and ho (Hr. Beld) would have
been perfectly satisfied. He gave Mr. Mansfield the oppor-
tunity of doing so, and did he avail himself of it? He did not.
Was that the act of a gentleman ? If he (Hr. Bold) were
to sit at that table he must have, whether that week or the
next, an expression of the feeling of the board. He did not
see that a delay to next week could change the matter at all,
for here were the returns from which he quoted. What
defence Mr. Mansfield could have, except to state that the
returns were false, he did not know, and that would not
alter his (Mr. Bold's) position at all. If it were a question
about the right to inflict the fines, he cool I then under-
stand the necessity of waiting to hear what Mr. Mansfield
had to say. But he was not present in Mr, Mansfield's
court to defend himself. Mr. Mansfield made a statement
in his absence, charging him with uttering what was false.
He did not send him•any notice, or give any friend notice,
that he was going to make that public charge against him
—did not ask him whether he was correctly reported, but
went pell-mell on the bench, and from his
judgment seat denounced him (Mr. Bel 6) as
having uttered a statement which was utterly
false. Now, he did think he should leave that committee
with very singular feelings if he did not get some expres-
sion of opinion that he had not stated what was utterly
false.

Mr. Rounthwalte : I intended to make some observa-
tions. There was a remark which fell from me at the last
meeting to which Mr. Mansfield also alluded; but as the
chairman is not here to-day, I shall defer my observations
until his return. I think the explanation I shall be able
to give will show that I was quite justified in making the
remark I did.

Mr, Anderson said, owing to particular reasons, he had
not taken any part in the debate at the last meeting. He
was sorry, as well as Mr. Gladstone, that Mr. Mansfield
should have used the strong' expression he had done, as he
had thereby done a great injustice to Mr. Bold. He quite
agreed with Mr. Gladstone that Mr. Bold's remarks only
referred to the magistrates generally, and he felt that he
was being alluded to quite as much as Mr. Mansfield
But still he was boundl to say, although he was sure
the speakers at the last meeting did not mean to
insinuate in any way that the magistrates gave a
preference to the trade of the south over the north
end, yet from the tone of the remarks made an
inference might have been drawn that a preference
was given to the timber trade over the trade at the north
end. He attributed Mr. Mansfield having fallen into the
error he did, to the fact that it was he who generally took
these cases, and, therefore, without thinking over it,
supposed that he was alluded to in the remarks which
were made. Now, as far as his experience went, he found
that a question was always, put by the magistrate to the
police officer, whether the article produced any obstruc-
tion, and if the merchant or merchant's clerk was there to
confirm the fact? He happened to see Mr. Mansfield the
day before yesterday, when he was taking these cases, and
in;an instance of an obstruction, for four days, by timber.
a fine of £6 was imposed. The only way which would
account for the fines being smaller at the south end than
at the north end, must be that the timber did not remain
so long upon the quay. When he himself took that part of
the magisterial duty, he found very often that a fine of £5
was quite imperative in getting some cargoes off the quay.
(Hear, hear.) There was a great deal of produce, on
which the merchant or broker, rather then warehouse it,
and be at the expense of carterage and porterage, could
afford to pay a fine of x'so. He wished to correct a wrong
impression which appeared to exist—that the magistrates
went entirely upon the policeman's evidence. If the
policeman's evidence did not agree in fact with what the
merchant or his clerk stated, Mr. Mansfield and the other
magistrates always adjourned the case. The magistrates
took the opinion of the policeman to a certain extent, as
to whether the produce was an obstruction, but they did
not rely upon the policeman's statement uniformly, even
in that respect, because they asked the policeman if any-
body had complained of its being an obstruction, and
required to know whether it was from a shipowner, or
from whom, the complaint came. Mr. Mansfield told him
tha other day that he was of opinion it might be better to
have some independent persons kept to bring up such
cases. But on thinking over it, it struck him (Mr. Ander-
son) that this would be a very expensive thing, and that
they would require to have an immense number of men
watching the quays. He did not mean to defend Mr.
Mansfield for the expression he had used, aryl which he
thought Mr. Mansfield would himself regret. He was
astonished that Mr. Mansfield had not retracted it before,
but he certainly could not conceive how Mr. Mansfield
took up the impression he did of the debate. It struck
him at the time that, from the tone of the remarks made,
an impression would be conveyed that the magistrates
gave a preference to the trade at the south end over that
of the north end.

Mr. Bold : But Mr. Mansfield was not here to get such
an impression. He could only judge from the reports.
Mr. Rathbone did not understand any impression to be
conveyed, but that the evidence was sometimes defective.
He suggested that a copy of the return should be for-
warded with the report to Mr. Mansfield by the secretary,
with the remark that Mr. Bold only spoke from statistics,
and that the statistics bore him out.

The Chairman strongly deprecated any further discus-
sion. He had no doubt that Mr. Mansfield would be pre-
pared to do anything which might be thought necessary
hereafter.

Mr. Smith complained that Mr. Bold 'did not give
notice of his intention to bring the subject forward when
Mr. Horsfall waited on the harbour-masters' committee
the previous day, and the subject of the fino was dis-
cussed. He thought that day's proceeding explained some
very extraordinary expressions Mr. Bold made use of the
previous day.
Mr. Bold : The charge I :made against Mr. Mansfield
has nothing whatever to do with the subj*.ct of the fines
But I have no objection to state what I did say is the
sub-committee. I said—l think somethin, or this kind—
when it was observed that nothing could be done in the
case of the palm oil, I said I thought some remonstrance
ought to be made, and that the subject ought to h! further
investigated. It was asked " what can we do ? " I be-
lieve I made use of these words, simply conversational,
" Yes, I think we may, because it is my opinion that Mr.
Mansfield is not fit for the situation, and you. may make his
berth too hot for him." I shall not blink the matter,
although I confess men sometimes say things in a sub-
committee which they would not wish to go before the

public. But as Mr. Smith has called it up, I hare no
wish to disguise what I said.
The Chairman again urged that the:matter should be
allowed to drop.
Mr. Holme : Then is no notice:whatever to be taken of
the remarks of Mr. Mansfield?

The Chairman: I think Mr. Bold has[stated the case
as fully as it requires, or more.
~"Mr. Holme suggested, that the subject be deferred until
next week, in the hope that the amende honorable would
be made.

Mr. Rathbone, thought when the amtnde was made by
Mr. Mansfield, one should be also made by Mr. Bold, for
much that he had lately said was very unjustifiable.
Mr. Smith expressed a similar opinion.
The suggestion of Mr. Holme was unanimously adopted,
and the subject deferred to next Thursday.
A report was brought up from the harbour masters'
committee upon the subject of the Messrs. Johnson's
complaintjrom which the discussion had arisen. The
report stated that the committee saw no reason for
altering the system of working the docks, as regarded
the time allowed for cargoes to remain on the quays.
Mr. Bold proceeded to zi,ldress the committtee in
reference to the fine on the palm oil cargo in question,
with the intention, apparently, of founding a motion upon
his remarks. He was going on to explain the circum-
stances of the alleged obstruction, and the evidence given,
when the chairman ruled.that the coma ittee had nothing
to do with the decision of a magistrate. Mr. Bold
accordingly desisted, and resumed his seat.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BIRKENHEAD AND
HOLYHEAD.
The following letter was read :___
3, Tower-chambers, Liverpool, Dec. 26, 1856. 1

To the Chairman of the Liverpool Dock Committee.
Sir,—l had the honour, in the month of May last, td
submit for your consideration a plan for the establishment
of a line of electric telegraph between Birkenhead and
Holyhead, in lieu of the present mode of commenleation
by semaphore. In reply thereto your committee inforMed
me, under date 13th of the same month, that the subject
was then under their consideration. From the minutes
of tho last half-yearly meeting of the Chamber of Com-,
rnerce I read that, at that time, some legal diff►culty
interposed against. the accomplishment of such an under-
taking. Presuming that all impediments are now removedi
I beg most respectfully to make the following tender:—
First, for and in consideration of the sum of 4'5,900, to be
paid as hereinafter stated, I will engage to construct a
single line, on the most approved principle (namely, that of
Professor Morse), from Birkenhead to Holyhead, touching
at the present various semaphore stations. Second, I
will engage to instruct at my own expense a number of
clerks, selected by your committee, to work the line.
Third, at each station I will furnish a complete set of
instruments and batteries. Fourth, the line shall be
delivered over to your committee in perfect working order
and officered by efficient clerks,within four months of the
date of the acceptance of this tender. Fifth, I shall be
fully prepared to give ample security for the due fulfilment
of the contract.

MODE OF PAYMENT.—On completion of line from Birken•
head to Point of Ayre, inclusive of submarine cable across
the river Dee, £,lOOO. On completion from Point of
Ayre to Abergelly, £750. On completion from Abergelly
to Great Ormes' Head, £750. On completion from Great
Orme's Head to Menai Straits, ,e 750. On completion
from Menai Straits to Puffin Island, .e 750. On completion
from Puffin Island to Point Lynas, £l,OOO. On completion
from Point Lynas to Holyhead, £OO. Total, £5,900.
All of which:is respectfully submitted.—l have the honour
to be_Sir, your most obedient servant,

JOHN S. GisnottivE.
The Chairman said it was a very important letter.
The letter was referred to the marine sub-committee. 1
After the disposal of some routine business, the com-
mittee adjourned.
We have been requested to publish the following letter,
which has been laid before the dock committee :

[coPy.J •
DOCK AUDIT OFFICE.

Liverpool, 31st December, 1856.
Sir,—The Audit Commissioners having received and con-
sidered an application from Mr. flornby. their special account-
ant, for increase of salary on the ground of increased duty and
responsibility, I am requested by the commissioners to convey
their unanimous recommendation to the committee in favour
of the application. Since the appointment of Mr. Hornby,
nearly four years ago, the branches of revenue and expenditure
conte ictetthl
ewßitilriktehe nhSeatadny warehouses
wlearehousesan and the 'Wapping
BirktenhWeadapepsing ware-
houses,
tate,each
separately, have been added to the previously heavy and still
augmenting work of the auditor, and in that most important
department, the bond debt account, the responsibility under the
altered system has devolved upon him of thoroughly examining
each bond with its coupons, and certifying by hia signature the
correctness thereof before receiving the official signatures and
seal of the estate.

The Commissioners have great pleasure in bearing unqualified
testimony to the satisfactory manner in which Mr. liornby
discharges his varied and impo7tant duties; several valuable
suggestions which he has in the course of his practice made
have, at the recommendation of the Commissioners, been
adopted by the committee, all tending to the most perfect audit
possible of this great estate.—l am, &c., &c.,
JOHN GORDON,
Chairman of Liverpool Dock Audit Commissioners,
To Charles Turner, Esq., Chairman, Dock Committee.

TVALLASEY COAIHISSIONERS.-LAST NIGHT.

The usual monthly meeting of the commissioners of
health for the township of Wallasey was held last night.
in the public offices, Egremont. The chair was occupied
by Mr. Pooley, and among the other members present
were—Messrs. Carne, Wilson, Fishwick, Chambers, and
Rev. Mr. Roberts.

The minutes of the ,last meeting were read and con-
firmed.

In the proceedings of the works committee, which were
read, it was recommended that the gas pipe be extended
from the ferry to the police station and public offices, in
order that the lamps there may be lit. The estimated
cost. is £25.

After some conversation the recommendation was
confirmed.

The proceedings of the finance committee contained
nothing of interest.

A complaint, by the Rev. Mr. Roberts, in reference to
a nuisance at Seaconfoe, was referred to the works com-
mittee.

This concluded the business.

EXTENSIVR, ROBBERY AT THE BANK AT GODALMING.—'
Information has been received by the Metropolitan police
of a daring and extensive robbery committed at the banking
house of Messrs. Mellersh and Keen, in the town of Godal-
rning. The burglars are supposed to have come from
London by the South Western Railway by the early morning
train. From tho fact of the robbery having been effected
between midnight and daybreak, there is little doubt that
the burglars had for some time past been watching the pre-
mises and made themselves acquainted with all the details of
its internal arrangements I as, strange to say, the watch doge
gave no alarm, and those placed to take care of the bank were
not disturbed, though considerable force must have been
used to break open the iron safe, containing the cash and
securities. The burglars possessed themselves of £290 Ss in
silver, a small sum in Bank of England notes, and some
valuable securities. Fortunately the iron safe containing gold
and Bank of England notes to upwards of £15,000 resisted
their efforts ; and it is supposed that, from being disturbed,
they desisted from carrying off the remaining portion of
silver money and the notes. A large reward is offered for
the apprehension of the burglars.
Tux GOVERNMENT AND CRIME.— The following letter,
from S:r Walter Trevelyan, Bart., president of the United
Kingdom Alliance, has been published :—" Sir —A bar-
barous murder has, within the last few days, 'been cant
witted on a respectable young man, the son of a labourer.
on my property in Somersetehire, and as recorded in your
paper of the 26th, this murder was, as usual, connected
(directly or indirectly) with a house licensed for the sale of
intoxicating drinks. I wish, therefore, to ask whether no
moral responsibility rests with a government, or perhaps
rather with the individual members of a government, who,
(knowing, as all now do, that almost all crime against both
person and property, from murder to the most petty theft, is to
be traced directly or indirectly to the licensed trade in intoxi-
cants) de not attempt to remedy the evil, but rest satisfied
with only applying palliatives to some of the evils resulting
from the trade, while they leave the monster nuisance from
which they arise, untouched ?--about as wise and as rational
a proceeding, as it would be for a medical man to prescribe
for cases of typhus fever, while he sees and permits the foul
drain from which they have emanated, to remain uncleansed
and uncovered,”—WaLreta C. TREVELYAN,
December 29.
THE OMNIBUS "CONTRACT-TICKET" SYBTEM.—The new
system of granting tickets to omnibus travellers, which the
Loudon Omnibus Company are about to introduce, will be
one of the novelties of the new year. The working of the
sYi'qm will be as follows : —Tickets will be issued at the
chief office of the company, West Strand, in packet; or
books of 100, 50, or 25 each, for fares of 61, 4d, 33, or 21 ;
e ch ticket being of convenient size, so as to go into the
waistcoat pocket or pocket book. These tickets will be
given to the conductor in lieu of money, and will there-
fore save the necessity of the latter providing change, and be
in free a seecies of paper money. Ten per cent discount
oa the regular fare will be allowed to the purchasers of
sculitir taiectk e s tickets,
m,il be available. n d o
ITo
mi t is fixel
merchantsttheoand
period
houseswh ofen
business fie plan will be found convenient, in obviatine the
necessity of petty disbursements for omnibus hire, which,
after all, is pretty frequently pocketed, even when given
expressly to ensure despatch of business. 'When the advan-
tages of the " c mtract ticket" system become generally
known, it is imagined that omnibus fares will be almost
universally paid in this way ; while to the company, the
reduction in price, it is believed, will be more than compen-
sated by the saving of time and greater certainty of getting
their money.—London Paper.—[The plan has been in
practice for years in Liverpool.]