Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-08 00:00:00

of Manchester to interfere in the Dock and
Municipal regulations of Liverpool. For
twenty-one long years have they carried on this
" game of speculation." In 1836, Mr. BA ZLEY
tells the Committee, the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce petitioned against a bill brought in
by the Liverpool Dock Trust, on the ground of
the high rate of the Dock Dues, and also the
Town Dues. In the years 1851 and 1854, we
find the Chamber of Commerce as humble
petitioners of the House of Commons upon the
same subject, and thwarting the Dock Trustees
in their endeavours to extend dock accommoda-
tion, or the Town Council to effect certain
improvements which the Corporation had
considered it wise and expedient ro carry out.
Last year, we well know how eager the Man-
chester folks were for the passing of Mr. LowE's
measure of spoliation—the Bill for the Abolition
of Passing Tolls on Shipping. Such has been
the exertions of the Cotton Lords of Manchester
to worst our position, and to deprive us of rights
which the superior Courts have pronounced to
be not only legal, but as sacred as those of
private propesty. While we admire the perse-
verance of the gentlemen in pursuing, for nearly
a quarter of a century, an object which appears
so dear to them, we must deplore their infatua-
tion, and the reckless statements they have
made, to support a scheme hatched in jealousy,
and sustained by unpardonable fallacies and
assertions, manifesting not only ignorance of the
merits of the question, and an 'entire absence of
truth, but also a desire to gain a victory at any
cost—pecuniary and moral.

Mr. BAZLEY tells the Committe of the House
of Commons that the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce objects to the exaction of Dues upon
articles of commerce, except for the promotion
of commercial purposes ; and because the Town
Dues are levied in a shipping port, this sapient
advocate of Mr. LowE's bill of last year,
proclaims that they should be expended for
shipping purposes. Why, the very title by
which these "dues" are recognised in the
Charters, and Acts of Parliament, authorising
their imposition, should have taught Mr. BAZLEY
that he was quibbling before the Committee.
Had they been termed " port," or even
shipping" dues, his argument would be
plausible. This is not so. They are called and
termed, in all legal documents treating of them,
" TOWN DuEs," a fact which justifies the
Corporation of Liverpool in claiming them as
the sole property of the town, and, therefore,
applicable only for town purposes. But
although Mr. BAZLEY and Mr. TURNER have
thus spoken of the Town Dues levied in Liver-
pool, and given their impression as to their
legitimate application, it does not seem to have
entered their mind that the very thing which
they have contended for has been done with the
Town Dues. Can they sit before a Select
Committee of the House of Commons, and so
distort facts—aye, and figures, too—as to induce
that Committee to believe that the Mayor and
Corporation of Liverpool have betrayed the
trust reposed in them, and illegally expended
funds entrusted to their care, as the Municipal
representatives of the Ratepayers of the borough ?

If such be the end and aim of these gentlemen,
we must tell them they have displayed ignorance,
and manifested a cunning which reflects little to
their credit as public men.

Any one who walks along the whole line of
docks, and takes into consideration the splendid
means of ingress and egress to all parts of the
docks,. and the vast amount of money which must
annually be spent to keep those magnificent
thoroughfares in working order, must admit that
it is not merely the accommodation of the inha •
bitants of Liverpool which is consulted, but the
best mode of increasing every possible means for
the promotion and extension of trade and
commerce. Are not the old landing-stage at
George's-pier, and the one now in course of
erection at the south end of the Prince's-pier,
satisfactory proof of the desire of the Corpora-
' tion in expending the Town Dues, that the
shipping interests of the port are cared for and
attended to ; and is not the proposed alterations
in Dale-street, Oldhall-street, Moorfields, and the
widening of Park-lane enough to satisfy any one

that the interests of trade and commerce, more
than any thing else, and in preference to every
other consideration, the causes which have
suggested these improvements. The men of
Manchester see in all these improvements—past,
present, and future—that the appearance and
beauty of Liverpool is promoted ; and although
they are the positive gainers by the alterations,
and obtain increased facilities for loading and
unloading raw and manufactured produce, such
is their jealousy that they not only make an
attack on the Town Dues, but concoct their
Mersey Conservancy Bill, and seek to take away
the magagement of the Docks from those
parties who are legally entrusted with their

direction and control.
Every disposition has been manifested by the
Corporation and Dock authorities of Liverpool
to meet the wants and wishes of the promoters of
the Bill. What says Mr. CROSSLEY, M.P., one
of the promoters of the Bill ?—" I have no
complaint to make of any want of accommoda-
tion in the port of Liverpool ;" and Mr. TURNER,
M.P. for Manchester, beam testimony to the
respectability of the Dock Trustees. He says :
—"I know most of the gentlemen on the
Liverpool Dock CoMmittee, sent down by the
Corporation, and I do not think there could be a
more respectable list of names. Many of the
gentlemen are men deeply interested in the trade