Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-11 00:00:00

use of Comm,
.nd the follow

of the orders of the IL
the passing of a secon

with all possible despatch. We then
infoimed him that we still wanted amendments made in the bill,
to improvethe constitution of the new trust, &o. ; and' he, there-
upon, expressed a fear that it might cause the loss of the bill, but
requested him to scud us the alterations, with which --
We told him that, after all that had passed; yo~
wish tube the cause of the rejection of the bill, but that yo

content

,
not satisfied witllit as it now stood, especially as man
tions were' rejected, at his instance, upon question
so as to throw obstacles in the way of its passing •
consequence of the multitude of the amcndmec

rentured to

I did ric

cur altera

ie Comnaiin in
• We have,

ise a certain amount of d
,nd have written to tell hil
ments, the trustees-will i
future rapid progress of the new

he will make the enclosed ame,
any impediment in the way of the,
bill. You will observe that we have not
tion of the assistant barrister or the quorum clauses, as ..
was expedient not to endeavour to exact too much. We have no
doubt that we shall be pressed on all sides to give up some, if not
all, of our requirements, with the threat of withdrawing the bill
unless we assent; and, however unwilling we may feel to trouble
you or your chairman to come to town again, we do feel that it is
very necessary that some one, having authority to instruct us ho,
to act in the matter, should be here, towhom we may
doubt or difficulty.
We bow

altera-
e felt it

to send you a draft petition, which, when sealed, should
be sent to us on Monday; and if we could, by any means, receiv
it before six o'clock on that day, we should be glad, as we she
then be in a position, should circumstances require it, to hr
lodged on that evening; and we trust that some gentleman
with full authority, will be here, at the latest, on Tue,so
ink. 'To what local member may we TPfer to suppor'
Trustees' views, in case it should -7 to oppor

which the promOters may ma]

Resoked—Thtit the.pr

be opposed by this

greed to by the prof

be necessa
in the 1-1(

ed "MerAey Com

1. That the \voids "if they think flt" be restored to 51 and 52
elatises.

2. Clauses allowing "voting by proxy" to be s'
4, 5 'of sect. 18, and part 3 of sect. 22.)
. .

6dditional

3.: River clause to be,struelc out to -rt 4 of sect.
altetationS proposed by Mr. Ellicombe's letter of 15th August.
4: Elective and nominal members to be qualified by payment of
rates, and residence within ten miles of Town-hall or two miles of
port. Number of members to be 27, in lieu of 21. . • .
5.' Electors to be qualified by residence within ten miles of
Town-hall and payment of £lO in rates..
6. The word " charges " to be restored in sect. 50.
He well recollected the part he took upon that occasion in
the Dock Committee. As regards the first requirement,
whether the words should' be inserted, " If we think fit,"
he was quite sure, if the committee insisted upon that
requirement, it would be fatal to the bill. It was quite
clear, if any'petition was insisted upon, it would be fatal to
the bill. (Hear, hear.) The subject of Reuidall's plans
had been repeatedly discussed ; and to insist upon that, he
thouzht would be also fatal to the bill. It was urop.il.

he ottic

nd, that the promoters of the bill would allow
1; .but so strong did he feel
resolution of the
nendall's plans,

irried by ten to fiy(

he had wish(

)ill
_thrown out, whetli

have voted in favour of that resolution. (Hea
would put it to any gentleman in all fairness'.

otner -resolutions passeu on matters of less importance at that
meeting,—the proxy clause and the nver'elause, considering,
in all probability, these would be conceived lar. the pro-
thoteri' which he had N7oted for. The petition ha:d been
previously sent to London ; but it was found necessary not
to present it that evening, and it was
.not presented. ft wn.

kept back to the later.

they were rejuested to do, by Mr. Dorrington, and they had
some discussion, and Mr. G'_adstoue and Mr. Jeffery were
there, as had been stated. But he would say again, if Mr.
Gladstone or Mr. Jeffery thought that then' pileserice had
the slightest weight or bearing upon their delibArntinn.

with reference to the opposition, all that he could say was,
that they were entirely mistaken. ,
. .
Mr. GIADSTONI, : It was all bosh.
Mr. TURNER : Well, " bosh."
•
Mr.-GLausTorzu : It is very worthy of you.
Mr. SIIIEL rose to order, and said that gentlemen ought
really to abstain from such remarks.
Mr. TuRNm-_ said he would not again have, made use of
the word had it not been repeated in his hearing in the cor-
ner. He was provoked to it. Ile believed it was the voice
of Mr. Jeffery.
Mr. JEFFERY : No, sir.

' Mr. TURNER : Well then, the word was repeated in the
corner; and having been repeated, he repeated it, and he said
it was because he was provoked to it. He said again, that
if Mr. Jeffery or Mr. Gladstone supposed for a moment that
their presence had the slightest bearing on their proceedings
they were totally mistaken. Mr. Jeffery talking about ap-
pearing before the House of Lords.
Mr. JtFFEILY.: The ilouse of Commons.

TURNER' said it did not signify any appearance of
Mr. Jeffery or anybody else before the bar of the House of
Commons or the House of Lords upon a private bill, which
he said was a matter contrary to parliamentary
practice, and could not possibly be conceded-to. The effect
of any petition of Mr. Jeffery or Mr. Gladstone for that
purpose would have been-equally fatal to the bill as that of
the Dock. Committee would have been, because it would have

led to the bill lying referred to a committee to enquire into
the allegations, and if it had gone into 'coirimittee it could
not have passed that session.
Mr. JEFFERY : That was the advice of the Town-clerk.
Mr. TURNER would ask the Town-clerk if ho eves heard,
in parliamentary practice,-of a petition being heard against
a private bill by the House of Lords. They knew that
petitions were sent against such bills, but the House
did not undertake to sift the allegations 'contained in
these petitions, to see what truth there was in them.
Therefore, being advised that no one could be heard
in this way, it was, in point of fact, an absurd proposition
to make ; and, as he had said before, they were not in the
slightest degree, influenced in their .negociations by Mr.
Jeffery or Mr. Gladstone. To the Town-clerk, and other
gentlemen connected with the promotion of that bill,
it became perfectly obvious, also to the committee then
in Landon, .that the expectations which had. been given to
the board in Liverpool would not be fulfilled ; and, in point
of fact, some gentlemen thought the bill should have been
thrown out to get these amendments passed, for the effect
of getting these amendments would have been to throw out
the bill, as it then could not possibly have passed' that ses-
sion. He' had considerable discussion on this; and it was
thought by some, that, after such lengthened negotiations,
it was better to let the bill pass and have the matter settled,
although there were matters iu the bill which the Dock Com-
mittee thought were bad, and would not be of much im-
portance to the corporation. Those gentlemen, the rate-
payers of the town, who had to look to the matter and see
that they got a bill which, woulditork for the benefit of,the
trade of the port, finding that the petiiion of the Dock Com-
mittee would be fatal to the bill, came to the determination
of sending one of the holy (Mr. Smith) to Li-
endeavourto get the board not to present the petitie.,
Smith, trzordingly, came down to Liverpool, and there r,
a meeting held on' the- 19th August; and,- a letter being
read from the dock solicitor and the Town-clerk,,the sub
ject was considered very fully, both with reference tealie
fatereste. of the dock estate and to the corporation, And- a -
resolution was pass ed reseindin a former resolution, and
resolving that the petition against the Mersey Dock Con- I
cervancy Bill be not presented, Iluitresolution WilB sent to

verpoo.

or the corporation
should not again,

Parliament on t
ration in town
who happened

stied by the Dock saOrainitti
Yours very trt

a, member