The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-21 00:00:00

FIRE AT THE LATCHMORE DISTILLERY,

Yesterday (Wednesday) morning, about five e'clOck, a fire broke
out in the extensive range of premises belonging to Mr. Thomas R.
Denny, and known as the patehmeee Distillery, situate at Battersea,
in Surrey. Before sufficient time bad elapsed for any one connected
with the place to make the necessary examination, the flames broke
through the windows', and rose So fierce), as to convince every one
present that it would be a work of no little difficulty to get the same
extinguished. The moment information of the disaster was received,
Mr. Henderson, the chief officer of the D section of brgade, with a
powerfgl body of firemen and three engines, started for the scene,
foil wed by Mr. Connor on with the West of England engine and
firemen another from Watling-street also attended, the whole of
them having been preceded by that of the parish and one from Price's
Patent Candle Works. A good supply of the Southwark and
Vauxhall Company's water having been obtained, the engines were
called into active work, but the Mimeo had previously lapped round
the still-rooms and contents. By great exertion the firemen were
eventually enabled to confine the flames to the above portions of the
distillery. These, however, were nearly destroyed, making the loss
rather serious, Mr. Connorton returning it at Je3,000 at the least.
Fortnnately, Mr. Denny WAS taturod in the Monarch Fire Office,

THE LIVERPOOL AND
BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILLS.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY.

The Select Committee appointed to enquire into
the tills now before Parliament for the construc-
tion of docks in Birkenhea:l and Liverpool, and for
the Conservancy of the Mersey, met, for the fi-st
time.in Committee Room No Latoneo'elock t
The committee consists of Sir James Graham,
chairman, Mr. Phillips, Mr. F. North, Mr. Knrch-
hull, and Mr. C. Paget. The whole of the mam-
bers of the committee were, present.
Mr Horsfnll was also in attendalce.

The bills which it will be the duty of the com-
mittee to enquire into are—the Birkenhead Docks
(construction), the Birkenhead Docks (manage-
ment), the Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks, the
Liverpool Town and Dock Dues (St Helen's Canal
and Railway Company), and the Mersey Conser-
vancy and Docks Bills.

The following counsel appeared for the promoters
—For the Birkenhead Docks (construction), and
Birkenhead Docks (management) Bills : Counsel—
Messrs Hope Scott, Q C., Merewether, Q.C.,
Burke, and Locke. Agents : Messrs Pratt and
Co. Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks' Bill ; no
counsel named. Agents : Messrs Gregory arid Co.
The Liverpool Town and Dock Dues (Sr, Helen's
Canal and Railway) Bill. Counsel: Mr. Sedeant
Wrangham and Mr. Wells. The Mersey Conser-
vancy and Docks Bill: Mr. Seijeant Wrangham,
Messrs Calvert, Q.C., Webster, and Thring
Petitions were presented against the Birkenhead
Docks (Construction) Bill, from Eliza P. Price and
others, the Birkenhead, Lanca.shire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway-Company, John Smith, and W.
T. Keightley, Mallaby and Firth's Trustees, J. and
G. Pollard, Sir S. Morton Pew, J. Laird, the
Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners, coal
merchants and owners of coasting vessels,
London and North Western Railway Company,
the Great Western Railway Company, the owners
of land fronting the Mersey, the Wallasley Local
Board of Health, the Shropshire Union Railway
and Canal Company, St. Helens Canal and Rail•
way Company, and the Hou. A. Egerton, (Bridge-
water) Trustees.

Petitions were also presented against the Birken-
head Doaks Management Bill from Eliza Price and
others, the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Railway Company ; John Smith and \V T.
Keightley, J. and G. Pollard, Sir S. M Peto, J.
Laird, the Birkenhead Improvement Commis-
sionem, the Wallasley Local Board of Health,
owners of land in Poulton, the Great Western
Railway Company, and the St. Helens Canal and
Railway Company. -

The Liverpool-Dock Trustees, who were repre-
sented by Mr. Alexander, Q.C., Mr. Paget, and
Mr. Rodwell as counsel, and Messrs• Dorrington
and Co. as Parliamentary agents, petitioned against
the Mersey Conservancy Bill, the Liverpool and
Birkenhead Docks Bill, and the Liverpool Town
and Dock Dues Bill.

Sir James Graham said the committee of selae-
tion which generally fixed the order in whin ti the
bills should be taken in committee, had in this case
left the committee to fix the order themselves. It
would, therefore, be convenient to have the room
cleared at once, so that the order might be fixed.
M Hope Scott, as representing the promoters
of the first bill on the list, which, under ordinary
circumstances, would have priority, trusted that
the committee would allow him to state some rea-
sons why the Birkenhead Docks (Construction) Bill
should be first taken.

Sir James Graham : If you will allow the com-
mittee room to be cleared, the committee will
themselves consider the order in which the bills
shall be taken. It will be for us to decide whether
we will hear any statement from counsel in regard
to the order in which they shall be proceeded with.
A suggestion was made, that as there was a
private room adjoining the committee room, the
committee themselves should retire.

The suggestion was adopted, and the committee
retired. After a short deliberation they returned,
and

Sir J. Graham said the counsel and agents would
understand that it was in the power of the com-
mittee peremptorily to decide the order in which
the bills should be taken. As at present advised,
they were disposed to commence with the bill fifth
on the list—the Mersey Conservancy Bill, yhich
was the major proposition, and of which the other
bills formed a part. But though they had power
to decide the question peremptorily before coming
to a final decision, they thought it expedient tat
hear what counsel had to say on each side.
Mr. Hope Scott thought that though he op-
posed the Conservancy Bill, it might be more
convenient to hear him before receiving
a statement from Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, who
appeared for the promoters. The Mersey Conser-
vancy Bill included the propositions of all' the
other bills but, nevertheless, it ought not to have
priority over the Construction. Bill. The question
to determine was, whether Mr. Rendell's plans
should be adhered to, or the plans of the corpora-
tion be substituted. The discussion of the Mersey
Bill first would retard a decision upon that point.
It was also desirable that the Construction Bill
should be taken first, so that it might ht., disposed
of as early as possible, the House oi Lords having
decided upon not reading a private bill a second
time after the 22nd July.
Mr Sergeant Wrangham, on behalf of the pro-
moters of the Mer.;ey Conservancy Bill, was not
disposed to differ from the view taken by his learned
friend. He thought it would be beat to proceed with
the bills in the order in which they stood upon the
paper. He, however, had no wish that the com-
mittee should decide any of the bills until they
had heard the whole of the evidence which was
applicable to the subject entrusted to them. At
the same time he thought it of very considerable
importan'te that the committee should be as early
as possible put in possession of the case attempted
to be made out on the other side, for again assailing
the plans of Mr. Rendell, which had been se
frequently under the consideration of Parliament,
and which had been over and over again affirmed
by committees of the House of Commons. •He
believed that in hearing the first bills such an
account would transpire of the proceedings of the
corporation, and the Liverpool iat,„,rest, with res.
pect to the docks at Birkenhead, which, in hie
opinion, would tend very considerably to assist
the deliberations of the committee. If the com-
mittee decided upou taking the Mersey Con-
servancy Bill first, he trusted that they would not
require the case to be opened to-day, as he was.
not prepared to go into it upon so short a notice.
Sir J. Graham asked if the committee were to
understand that both parties were agreed as to the
propriety of taking the Construction Bill first, and
in not deciding upon the preamble of any bill before
the whole case was properly before the conraittee.
Mr. Hope Scott said he did not agreb with bis
learned friend upon the latter point. He thought
the preamble should be decided in every case
as
the evidence was concluded.
The committee then retired, and in a few mo-
ments returned, when
Sir J. Graham said : The committee are most
anxious that the great question of the Mersey
Conservancy shall be brought forward as early as
possible without the prejudice which would be
created by any previous inquiry. As counsel are,
not agreed whether a vote shall be come to upon
the preamble of each bill, as the inquiry is ex-
hausted, and as it is clear that in the cross exam.
ination of witnesses questions bearing upon the
conservancy will arise, the committee are of opinion,
upon the whole, that justice will he hest done by
adhering to the decision which I intimated
a , short time ago, and taking the Mersey
Consesvancy Bill first. After weighing the
reasons which have been ' stated against
going into the bill prematurely, the committee aro
disposedr.serateoancotnwsurlatngthhearneo,
in
nverenpiely to a question
Convenience of counsel,
and to adjourn till twelve o'clock on Friday.
M ,
-
• thepfrroempared to op
Committee,
enthesaciadsec,
thatn behalf of the pro
he should be quite
meters of the Conservancy Bill, at the hour named.
The committee adjourned shortly before 2 o'clock,