Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-03 00:00:00

The
passed exonerating Birkenhead from such a payment. A
out-ports would then have got the same freedom ; aes:
they would find after a while that they could not condar.
to levy them in the borough, and they would thus bavo
died a natural death. lorad
Mr. J. R JEFFERY thought it deeply to be dap
that any Liverpool gentleman should be found to not
nect himself with those who were opposed to the intereal
of Liverpool, at a public meeting elsewhere, sle",
decry the conduct of the Birkenhead Docks' Commit 8a
and he did hope that Mr. Littledale, upon reflection, WOll,
regret that he took the step he did, and delivered L.u.:
speech ha delivered, at Manchester. (Hear, hear.) re
Littledale stated, that for want of depth of water on
sills at the Liverpool side, no less than nine verie:
were detained in the river, and therefore could not fi
docked in time for the sales. Had his wools been lanarai
by the Brh he could and would have put them 00 the
market. Now some of these vessels were docked 11124
berthed on the Ist, others on the 2nd, and they were •tii
berthed by the 6th. Any delay of unloading rested !le
the Captain, and not with the Dock Estate, so that na.Zeig
the Birkenhead Dsck Committee nor the Liverpool • g
Committee were to blame for the ships not elosel,
discharged by the Bths which Mr. Littledale
mits would have been in time for the sales. 1401
(Mr. Jeffery) would suppose, for the sake of argllo4o
that the Birkenhead Docks had been completed, arlu• to
depth of water there sufficient for the vessels to got,.
dock immediately on their arriving in the Mersey, all any
contended that Mr. Littledale would not have Ilut any
additional fecility for bringing the wool into the mantle its
the Bth. Ile was credibly informed by those engag7.ars
the trade, that the buyers of wool would not buy 710 •
sample alone, but must always see the bulk. They / sad
not go to the other side of the water to see the btliks_„ig
until they were prepared to hold their sales theretis',
loaded with wool would not go into the Birkenhead a 074
They must therefore lie in the Mersey until they els
get into dock on the Liverpool side. At the time„A,„
question, there was no high wind to render their 1101"1.-tis
ing in -the river impracticable. This would tend 11,36.
some extra cost doubtless, but it was not impracticani
But if the ships did go into the Birkellbts
docks, fiats must equally be employed to bring of
wools to this side of the water. Therefore, the charge/
delay made against the Liverpool docks, even if the d ;
had existence, could not have affected the sales of /to
He had, however, reason to believe, moreover, that
market on the occasion in question was b-rne deign
East India wool, such as that referred to. And that 1;
owners, by agreement, refused to put any more upon the
market, and that if any more had been brought to nlar,,s
the price of wool would have been brought down at .19•--
one penny per pound. (Hear.)
Mr. Amer remarked that to discharge wool vessels
the river and send the cargo ashore by fiats would 1,13.,
very objectionable mode of proceeding. No such ell
however, was necessary in the instance referred to. 5,!4
out of the nine ships were berthed on the Ist aud2u.dose
October. With very little exertion, therefore, the wool MI,,
have boon` included in the October sales. The other two in
ssels were docked upon the Ist and 2nd of October' e.
berthed on the sth and 6th , and with some exertion, „.
believed; the wool on board those ships could also Or"
been included in the October sales. (Hear.) tO
Mr. Beau said he did not intend to say term word
the policy or impolicy of Mr. Littledale's having agent; •
the meeting in Manchester. That was a matter for 1:0
Littledale's own consideration. But the iorresponde?,
now read might convey a wrong impression of the vow:
He agreed with Mr. Aikin as to the impracticability of iro
East Indian wool ship discharging her cargo by list' as
the river. Mr. Littledale stated that if the wool had be
landed on the 81h he could have got it into sale. 1414 i;
he held in his hand a statement from the docks, in svt,,,
it appeared Messrs. Littledale had wool on board six sati:„
out of the nine, and he would give the Council the dal
upon which the landing of the last of the wool too"
The Prince Arthur was completed on the 14th of OctnT°.
Baron Renfrew en the 13th of October, Tiptree, the ly:17
Natalia, 15th, Philanthropist, 16th, and Helios, the 111_;„,'"'"
This would show that if Mr. Littledale had made any. ,041
take, it must have been from wrong reports made to
and not from any wrong inten'ion on his part.
Mr. CIIARLE I-TURNER said he was quite sure that Pt'
Littledale would state nothing which he did q,
believe to be a fact ; and he had no doubt that tai,
statement was perfectly correct as to the dates Z
the landing. But it must be borne ill
that the statement made by Mr. Littledale
Manchester was to show the disadvantage of the LivorPua.
docks, that vessels could not get into them for scarto
water. The complete answer to that statement solo, t."_..•
six of the vessels were berthed on. the 2nd of
and the remaining two on the sth and 6th. The del f
landing the wood might equally apply to Birkenhead,
anywhere else. What occasioned such a very Ott of
nary delay, without knowing all the. ciocumsseneisg, .r„-Ahe
course, could not say, but when the vessels were be
dock, the dock authorities had done all they Cot'
expected to do. (Hear, hear.) _ _ Octopi;

The proceedings were then confirmed. 'deft
The orocaedings of the Speeial Improvement Corn
Tn,;oo
:,0 and of the committee on the memorial to Ur. I
Brown, M.P., contained nothing of importance, and
"-
confirmed without discussion.