Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-10 00:00:00

COUMIrrEE.

The' proceedings of the. Coinmittee of. 'Works corn-.
prised a. recommendation to forth a road, east of Regent-
Toad, at a, cost. -of about £2OO ;„ also to . purchase. .a
:quantity of bricks lying on the latid near Beaufort-road,
Birkenhead, aud belonging to Mr. Jackson, M.P., and
Mr. Laird, at. the rate of 7s. per 1,000. The committee
.-having met the Sub-corniaittee of ,the 'Town Couneil,.
who were invited to an interview on the subject of the.
approaches to the Landing-stage, it was resolved, after'
a full diseussion and consideration, that if. the committee
of the, Corporation would submit plans of what they
considered best for the improvement of the apprOaChes
to the, river, the 'Works Coniintttee would give such
plans their best consideration,, and the. engineers would
give any information that might be required; ',but the
-committee did not • consider. it desirable that they
.
should express any opinion upon
.any portion
of such plans , till -the same, l as a whole, had
been submitted to theM. The letter of Mr. •Gurtis
•
having being:read," seeking the exclusive use of the
dock line of railway for. his. omnib4ses for twenty-
one years, it wag resolved that he be informed that he
will bp permitted to use :the rails in common wiih and
,on the same terms as' other parties. The same, answer,
was directed to be returned to Mr. Train, in reply to his
'letter agreeing to pay the charge of ls. each journey;
and Messrs. Bushy and Messrs. Gates and Dolby.. were
ordered . to, be . informed. that the board could not alter
their original deei.ion to charge ls.for each journey. .
Mr.- BROCkLEBANK moved the c3nfirmation of the
:-preceedings..,
Mr. Tooir seconded the,motion,•whielr was agreed to
-without discussion.

WAREHOUSE COMMITTEE,

The proceedings of the Warehouse Committee were
read, comprising a recommendation for a re-arrangement
of the department of examiners .of the warehouse ac-
counts, and to make the following appointments, viz :
Messrs: G. W. Dumbell, principal examiner, salary to
be inereased. from £l3O to £l5O per annum ; Charles.
Perris, assistant examiner, from £BO to £lOO ; William
Lloyd, assistant examiner,. from £BO to £90.; R.. 0.
Spencer, as examiner,' from £BO to £9O ;
Outram, assistant examiner, froth £BO to. £9O ; James
ocircroft, examiner of landing .aceonnts, from £lOO to
£llO. These gentlemen were permanently' appointed
as a distinct an. separate body for the examination of
the books and accounts of the Dock Warehouses gene-
rally, and that they be placed under the superintendence
and control of Mr. G. W. Dumbell, at present principal
examiner at the Albert Warehouses, who is to bring
under the immediate notice of the committee all cases of
inaccuracy in charges or negligence in posting the
ledgers.
Mr. HUBBACK in moving the confirmation of the pro-
ceedings Of the committee, said he might state that at
present the examiners of accounts form part of the staff
attached to the general office, and were consequently
-subordinate to the principal of a department who was
himself 'responsible for the correct detail of the business
which'they were:called upon to' check. This was an
anomaly, and the new system was intended to remove it.
At present.there was a principal examiner, an assistant
examiner, and three occasional 'examiners. •Sometirnes,
these latter were lauding clerks, ledger clerks, or ap-
prentieei, and it so happened, that sometimea; a young-
man frbm being removed from one office to another, had
been Calla in to check his own work, and hence ir-
regularity and errors crept in. Ile did not, in
saying this, cast reffittion upon any gentleman, because
it was- the nature of the system ; but now the committee
would have a Weekly report as to the state of the 'ac-
counts, and the committee hoped to have a. thorough
check upon and promptitude in rendering, the'accounts
to the public.
Mr: Botit'r wished to know why the board was called
upon to pay for the carriage of goods by railway from
the Birkenhead warehouses.
Mr.' HuBBACK eiplained that the railway did' not
belong. to the board, but to the Birkenhead Rail'iay
Company, and that during the works at' the Great Float
the goods from the dOck warehouses bad to be brought
to the Morpeth-dock from the board's warehouSes for
shipment.
The proceedings were then confirmed.
MARINE COMMITTEE.

The proceedings of the Marine Committee comprised
a recommendation to accept a tender for water casks ; and
a recommendation to invite Mr. Lindsay, of Dundee, to
exhibit his mode of conveying electric". 'signals through
. water, without wire or cable, at an expense not exceed-
ing £2O.
On' the motion of Mr. Mondel, seconded by Mr.
DarbyOlire, the proceedings were confirmed.
PILOTAGE COMMITTEE.

The proceedings of the Pilotage Committee embraced
the further consideration of a report from the solicitor
on the legal bearings "of the proposed bye-law, viz: :
" That a bye-law be enacted, imposing a penalty of not
exceeding £6 on any vessel which shall anchor within
the limits of the river directed to be kept open for the
passage of 'the, ferry steamers between Woodside and
the Liverpool Landing-stage, from 'the Ist of October to
the Ist of March in'each year ;" and the consideration
of the terms and conditions on which certificates are to
be granted to masters and mates of ships, who shall
have been examined and found competent by the
Pilotage Committee, which was postponed at the last
meeting of the beard.
Mr. RECAND moved the confirmation of the proceedings. 1
Mr. MoNDEL thought it high time that the pilots
should progress with the improvement of the age, and
that steam should be an adjunct in their business. While
the committee were considering the building of a new
boat in lieu of No. 12 it might be advisable to consider
whether they could' apply steam to the boat.
Mr. BOTYLT thought the suggestion of Mr. Mondel was,
a gold one, if it courdbe carried out.
Mr. SHAND thought it would be better to bring the
matter forward in_ the Pilot Committee, so as to shape
the thing there. The, suggestion was not a new one, but
many objections had been taken to it; but, of course, in
this progressing age, it was still open to consider whether
steam might be applied with advantage to the -pilot-.1
boats. However, Instead of discussing the matter now;
it had better be considered by the Pilot Committee, and
then it would come in a defined shape before the Boards
Tho-Cnentmsx said probably the board would direct
the Pilot Committee to consider the desirability of sup-
plying steam power in constructing the new pilot boat.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAND then moved the confirmation of the con-
ditions On, ghieh certificates are to be granted to masters
and mates of ships.
The motion was promptly agreed to, and the proceed-
ings were•confirmed, with the exception of the solicitor's
report, which was postponeel_till a later part of the day.
poem AND' ;lITA,TB COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of the committee for the management
of the docks and quays comprised a recommendation to
allow flats bringing salt to Liverpool for shipment, to
Railway upon payment of
load -coal at the High. Level
6d, per ton. • the confirmation of the pro-
mr. LOCKETT, in moving
ceedings, said it had been ascertained that they might
load from 60,000 to 100,000 tons of coals per clay
without interfering with other trades, by putting_ the
work under the strict superintendence of the harbour-
master.
Mr. DA.RIATSHIRE seconded the confirmation, which
was agreed to.

MASTER PORTERS COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of this committee were confirmed
without comment, on 'the motion of Mr. Arnold.
Co DEFEN OF THE .
The Special mmitteCES the PORTe
on Defences of the Port'
submitted the following. letter from the War-ofEce
Office, 4th February, 1860.
,-- Sta,.l am directed by Mr. Secretary Herbert to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your letter the 23rd of December last,

stating that the Mersey rook Board are now prepared agree-
ably to their restitution. edted 15. h. February, 1855, to surveil-
der the site required for a defensive work at the present ,
northern extremity of the docks, near the Bootle marks; and '
to complete the sea-wall so far as the 'requirements of the
dock estate demand.
Mr. Herbert iunderstands this to intend the completion of
the sea-wail in a solid and substantial manner, similar ,c," :hat
-portion of the dock works already executed; and requests to
be inf4rmed when the: final Completion 'of the .same. may be -
expected, in corder that the, necessary measures mity;be taken
for gounneacing the nerzde`ences at that point, aid, on receipt
of your: reply, the solicitor to the war department ivi 1. be
directed to place-himselt in communication with your board;
in order • that the agreement• for the surrender of the several-
sites may be prepare
The sites beloiging to the Dock Board now required are as
follow :---
1. No:th salient of docks, near the Bootle Marks.
.2. Salisbury Dock, south pier.
$. Prince's Basin. do.
4. Queen's Dock
5. Harrington Dock do. • •
Birkenhead Dock, adjacent to Seacombe Ferry.:
• The details of the sites at Bootle, 8 nlisbury pack, Prince's
Basin, and the Queen's Dock, hive already been agreed npon,
and signed on behalf of the Dock Committee, at the 'time of
the original resolution of 15th February, 18.55. .• •
The works will be undertaken, in duo course, after the
transfer of-. the. sites; . those nearer the • entrance being con-
sidered of primary importance.
With reference to your request for. further information rela-
tive to the'.extract of the report of the Joint.Navai Mili:
tary Committee uctin the sites to be occupied,,l ant to observe
that:the committee in question was not confined in its recom-
mendation's by any- previous 'arrangements, and hence' the
minor discrepancies, •;n that report, with the previous agree-,
meat of 15th Febtuary. 1855. . •
I,am to add that Mr. Herbert has ,not yet received the ccin-
currence of the Dock Board to the transier of the sites at Bir-
kenhead and Seacombe Ferry.-1 'am, Sir, your -obedient
servant. (Signed) , DE GREY AND RIPON.
The Secretary, Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, ,
Liverpool.
.• •
The CitArinrAN said the Waroffice; in sending down
this letter, appeared to have overlooked the letter written
in' :1856;by Which it was conceded that. all these sites
were 'waived with . the exception. of one—tliat at the
extreme 'end of the North ,DockB. Since then it was
never in the contemplation of the board to grant more
than that one site. The War-office. appeared to tale it for
.granted that the arrangement of 1855 was still in exist-
ence, overlooking that 'of 1856, which he was rather
surprised they had not alluded tonew. He understood
the opinion of the board at present was' to grant only
the site for the fort at the entrance at the north end of
the docks. (Hear, hear.) The ,other questions were
still open.
Mr. HunnAcs asked might. not the committee con-
sider how `far they could grant the site at Seacombe, on
• A
the North Reserve.
The CHAIRMAN—They might, for that is new matter.
That.question haS not been considered by Mr.:'Hartley,
who has only just returned home. .
Mr. Hummea.--,Then they might consider it.
The CHAIRMAN—Yes; but I wish it to be nrideritood
..that the board has decit-iedand determined,. with refe-
rence to these sites, with the exception of one'or two
which are new sites, that they would only grant that
for a fort at the extreme north, end of the docks. •
Mr. SMITH could not avoid expressing 'sof 'n his reg,ret
that the Defence' ComMittee had put them, Ives in com-
munication with the War Office without submitting such
proposed communication to this board. He tdought
some time ago, and he thought now—and further refldc7
tion more and. more confirmed his opinion—that since
1855 there was a Very great chalige,.indeed, in the mode
of :warfare. What might hare been 'desirable at that
time was not at all•desirable now. •There 'was now an
Armstrong gull—a new invention—the wonderful per-
formances of which were, a source of. amazement to
everybody. Now, that being an established f; et, he
would say now, as he had 'before said that with the new
appliances of war, the pOint on the shore about Crosby,
and another on the Cheshire shore' about Leasowe, would
haVe been the proper places to erect ferts for the defence
of the ,town and port. Now the board were committed
to the defences of this description 01 along their docks;
Mr. IIUBBACK:-.-We are not committed.
. ,
Mr. SMITH—We are running very nicely into it. Let
those forts be erected, and he would ask would any one-
tell him that where they Could make a gun carry from
these, that the object auned.at: might not
,be prepared
with something that would reach equally far ? And the ,
fact was, those forts would become an attraction, and
might lead ultimately-to the destruction, instead of to
the safety, of‘property, -Where they wanted a site for
defences was 'one where they could prevent any one
,getting within gun reach .of the docks ; and the board
should deal with the War
,Office by pointing out to them
what was more efficient for the defence of the port than
was at present•propOSed.' He believed-that the. Dock
Board-were as competent to deal with the matter, as the
War Office, and that this was not a purely engineering
question. If, they were going to build the:fort, that
would be another thing ; but, as regards the
site, they might form as good an opinion as any
engineer in the world. ' The way in which this
question 'should be dealt With was, for -the board 'to
suggest to the War Office whether something could not.
be done for the defence of the port at a less cost to the
country, than was proposed, and, which would be more
'efficient; but if they were to go back to 1855, when the
:proposal was to place batteries on the Prince's Pierhead;
the George's Pierhead, and other places similarly situated,
appeared to him the most unwise thing that could be
thought of: • •
Mr. TOBIN would not like to .enter upon a discussion
with the Government upon the engineering
,question in
matters affecting., the defences of the 'port In such
matters 'the engineer officers ought to be more compe-
tent to deal with them than the 'Dock Board; 'He
remembered the.old adage—" He sulor ultra erepidant,"
Mad he•• thought that it was not the province of, that
board to interfere in the engineering portion, of thatquestion, butthey might' 'state what Objections they had
to any site as interfering with the Working' of their
dopks; That was rather their province 'than entering-
into a discussion with the Government, as to the power
of theseforts to defend the por!-, Let the board keep,
within its own province. .
Mr. BROOKLEBA.NK said the Board had already de-
cided that the only site- they.cOhld give was that at the
north end of the docks. -.•. • •
The. CHAIRMAN—That is so. . •
..
Mr. BROCKLEBANK proceeded to say that the Board
'entirely ignored the idea ef Government placing batteries
'on the pier-heads, where' of,
would be a great mon-
venienee to 'commerce, and utterly useless as a mode of
defenee. He hoped • the Board :would let the Govern
ment know that that was their determination, and that
no further site would be given. .
The CHAIRMAN—Not on this.side of the
.water.
Mr. BRocimEnaNK7--Not.on this side of the water 'at
any rate.
Mr. LAIRD---When did the Board arrive at that
decision ?
The CHAIRMAN-In 1856.
Mr. I.aitttp—That was before the, construction of this
Board, then? Since I became a member of this Board
there has been no discussion, on the question. .
The CiLsAIiNIAN read two lettersone from the secre-'
tail, dated the 28th 'June, 1856; and the other frOin-
the solicitor, dated 'to the 26th July, 1856 bsth
'addressed: to the War. 011ce,. and which; have been
frequently made public. Having, read the letters,: the
Chairman said—After the last letter, wbiah remained
utterly without answer so far as he was aware,"the late
Dock Committee and the present Board considered that
there' was no fort. to be erected except that at' the
extreme north end (hear, hear) ; and, be 'thought they
were justified in so considering it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BoutT—Hear, hear.
Mr. LAIRD—In 1855 it was agreed to give sites.
The CHAIRMAN—No doubt.
Mr. LAIRD—And -in 1856 they wished to make some
modification, but there was no distinct withdrawal.'
• The CHAIRMAN—We got ao powers, you know, to
give the sites. ,
Mr. LAIRD concurred with Mr. Smith in believing
that some communication should be made to the War-
office by the Dock Board, showing which were the beat
sites; and he believed, frail communications that-he had
had with the 'War-office, such representations would he
attended to, and that there would be secured a more
efficient, but less costly, means of defence than that pro-
posed. He thought it would be judicious to refer the
matter to the committee, who would discuss the question
whether they would grant. any other site than that at the
North-end, and whether they would grant the site on
the North Reserve at Birkenhead..: The opinion of the
committee was, that before they reported on that question
they should consult Mr. Hartley-, - -
Mr. BROCKLEBANK suggested the desirability of ask-
ing the Government to place block ships outside the
river so as to prevent ships coming up the river. Block
ships would be an effective means of defence, and might
'be used for training seamen for the navy.
• The CHAIRMAN said 'the committee would consider
the letter and. report, but it was understood that they
would not communicate with the War-office until they
had first received the sanction of the board.
MR. W. S. LINDSAY, THE "TIMES," AND THE MERSEY •

BOARD.

. .
The CHAIRMAN said he wished to call the attention
of the beard to an important notice in the money article
in the Times of Tuesday, on a work entitled " 0 it

Merchant Shipping," by Mr. W. S. Lindsay.. The
notice stated that the work set forth the real grievance'
of the shipowners, and which were alleged to consist in
•
the laws relating to light-house charges, passing tolls,
and municipal imposts, the Stade diities, and the duis
levied by the Russia Coinpany,&c. ;* and, after -raferring
to that subject, the notice goes on to state the question
`of the charzes on the ships levied by municipal, carpora-
dons applicable, to municipal trod town purposes. Then
the notice alludes to Hull and Newcastle; and it goes
on'to say : • i•
Liverpool is the Chief town interested. 'ln 1852‘0,1evied
dues upon-ships to the amount of £105,250, and thdteceipts
have since increased in proper ion with her commeres. They
are applied entirely to Local or town purposes, the inhabi ants
this making the shipowner pay for the regular organisation
• and comfort of their homes, which in other places is provided
for by•general assessment. The plea is that the right:was pur-
chased by the Corporation about two hundred years
,ago for
the sum of £7OO, the taxes so bought being then- Only about
Eli a-year,' and it was 'the absence of a provision fm"compen-
sation for this and similar el dins that constituted one of the
successful points for the overthrow of the measure of Mr.
Lowe, by which they were intended to be abolished. Mr. Lowe
took the ground adopted previously in the report of a ,Royal
COMmission, that the corporations, as public bodies, eSuld have
no preseriiptive rights in.the matterinconsistent withihe gene-
ral welfare of the community, The public, however, are-pro-
perly jealous of the House of Commons' dicta in cases of legal
and even technical title, and would prefer that. instead of
' being settled by a popular vote—always swayed more or less
by political and party sentiment, everything connected
with such questions should be referred to the established
courts of tne. country. Reforms would thus often
be facilitated if • Parliament were to' confine itself to
putting an end to abuses, and "to. refer all .private
claims arising out of the change to be dealt with-on the
universal principles that 'govern the ordinary transacti .ns.
bet Ween man and man throughout the, land. Mr. Lindsay,
although keenly sensi'ive of the "rapacious " tendencies of
the Liverpool authorities, appears to have sonteleeling in this
direction, since, although he thinks _the ease of Liverpool'
airiest too bad for .consideration, he suggests that there are
e:rcumstances where it would be desirable to refer to an
" independent tribunal, which should be invested with the
fullest powers to hear aincl determine without appeal all mat-
ters in controversy." ,

The CILAIRMiLN added—Air. Lindsay appeat; to. me
to have been misinformed with reference to the existing
state of things in respect to this question, inasmuch as
in the year 1857 the town dues, which I presuthe are
the duties to which he alludes, Were transferred, as you
are all aware, from the Corporation to this board,, and
since 1857 they have. been exclusivelY devoted to com-
mercial purposes, and now are, and will be, so diVided,
(Hear, hear.) I think this ought to. be well under-Stood,
not only by the inhabitants of Liverpool, but by members
of Parliament, and every-one connected with thetrade
and commerce of the country, , that the whole of this
notice arises from misconoeption as to the existing state
of things; anti I am rather. surprised that
.Mr. Lindsay
had not informed himself better upon the matter.

Mr. LITTLEDALE—I think Mr.ltorsfall contratlicted
him.

The CuAinm.iw---Yes, it was understood that Mr.
Horsfall contradicted him, but the error has been
adopted by the Times.
Mr. BOULT begged to add to. the correction the
chairman had made to Mr. Lindsay's pamphlet, that
there was another important part in leinch it, was
entirely wrong.' It spoke of the town dues as being a
burden upon ships. They all knew that they were no
burden upon ships-7-they were.a burden upon goods.
The CHAllotusrl--Whatever toll you levy, is to, the
extent to which you levy* it a burden; all ships and•
goods must -pay to the commerce of the port, but the
revenue, whatever it may be, is exclusively devoted to
commercial purposes, and to giving facilities to the
shipping of the port.
Mr. Morlnni,--I am surprised Mr. Lindsay shOuld
have made -so grave a mistake, when I reflect that he
was resident in Liverpool three or fourdays as a com-
missioner upon the inquiry on the harbours of refuge.
Mr. TOBII4—I, do think that it Cannot be too strongly
reprobated that a gentleman who sets himself up as a
reformer of abuSes should take so little pains to ,9,scer-
tain what are really the facts of the case. .I slibuld
have thought it scarcely. p,ossible'for 'any man faking
such an interest in shipping as Mr. Lindsay aypeats.to
take, to be gUilty of such grosi mis-statements,,not
merely
in amere Matter of detail, but having alarge.
portion of his pamphlet devoted to this particular
jeCt. He must have been like Rip Van Winkle—
sleeping. for years. He' is talking of what has passed
away. And it is extraordinary that the 'Times, WhiCh
is presumed to be up to
,the Very day in information,'
should have allowed. such a thing- to have entered into
its money article, Without, a note that • this state of
things has passed away within the last two or three
years. I cannot understand Mr: LindsaY having such a
thing in his pamphlet, and I cannot understand that
the. Times, after the 'correction ,made about it 'by Mr.
Horsfall in the House of COmmons; should have allowed
such a statement to have appeared in its columns.
The matter then dropped.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD.

A letter from Messrs. Wilson, Son, and Walter was
referred to the Docks and Quays Committee.
An application having been received from Mr. Kit-
chen, requesting a renewal -of the donation of £3O to
the: St. Anne's Dispensary, it was agreed that the grant
be again given to that charity.
A letter from Mr. George Kendall, suggesting that
the board should place inside the Prince's Dock, at the
south end, a ,swing bridge for foot passengers, was
referred to the Docks and Quays Committee and :the
Works Committee.

KEEPING A CLEAR TRACK FOR THE WOODSIDE FERRY

BOATS.

Before the debate on this subject was resumed, the
following letters and.memorials were read:—
Liverpool, Steam-shipowners'.Association,
Bth February, 1860. •
Sea,—This Association has had under consideration the'pro-
posed regulation for preventing ships from anchoring in the
track of the Woodside Ferry steamers, ,and 1 am directed to
informyou, that after carefully weighing the arguments on
both sides of the question, the Association have come to the
conclusion that any sq.& rule would be in the highest degree
nexpedient.
Those most competent to form an opinion think it extremfly
doubtful, whether the proposed regulation would not increase
rather than diminish whatever danger may now be supposed
to attend the crossing of the river during-fog; but, howcier
that may be, the. Association consider that no such rule amid
be earned out, without causing very great inconvenience to
shipping.
• The Association is informed that the space which would be
withdrawn from use, is probably the best holding ground in
the river, a most important consideration in an exposed har-
bour where the tides are strong.

It is obvious that the effect of this proposed regulation
would be greatly to increase the number of ships anchoring on
both sides of the prohibited ground, particularly to the north-
ward of, it, thus increasing to a serious extent the chances of
fouling whilst swinging, and the risk of collision with inward
and outward bound steamers and other vessels, especially
whilst entering and leaving the docks.
Independently of these objections, the Association appre-
hends that shipowners might be exposed to very serious
liability under Lord Campbell's Act, and to the risk of their
insurances being vitiated in the event of accidents happening
whilst their vessels were anchored, within the forbidden space,
which would occasionally happen through inadvertence
otherwise. ij
The Association trust, therefore, that the Dock Board mill
discountenance any ,attempt which may be made to procure
the passing of any provision interfering in any way with the
right of vessels to come to an anchor in any part of the river.
—I have the hosour to be, sir, your very obedient servant,
J. J. BIBBY, Chairman.
To the Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbear'BOlinfr
Shipowners' Association,
• Liverpool, - 9th February, 1860.
GENTLEMEN,—At a meeting of this association, held ,This
day, I was instructed to send you the annexed copy of the
opinion of counsel oa the liabilities of shipowners, which will
result from the passing of the proposed bye-law for leaving a
blear track. for the Woodside Ferry boats. .
And I was instructed. to express the strong disappioial. of
this association of the proposed bye-law ; and respectfully to
ask that such bye-law may not be passed without this asso-
ciation having
.the opportunity of being heard before your
committee on so important a subject.—l remain, gentlenitin,
your very obedient servant, ARTHUR ELL/8, Secretary;
To the Chairman and members of the Mersey Docks iand
Harbour Board. . .
COPY OF OPINION.]
"We are of opinion on the' first point that it depends
whether the owners shall be, in the opin on of a jury, guilty of
negligence; and whether that negligence was the sole Cause
of the accident ; if so, the vessel so anchored will be respon-
sible. The being so anchored will be, in our opinion, prima
ael
efevidencthee
tshoe
the
oonrwe
persong. l
rg eonf c oi
such
hrt
chvdoe,ss
hei
moc
shr
srvuge:eh oc fop
ntehtr
des
obvnue, st
cos
°edit
od
fad
the
not recover.
'• The insurance will not be vitiated. The insurers wilt be
responsible for this, as for any other negligence, of the
captain and crew."
Liverpool, Bth February, 188 e. •
De sit Srn,—ln handing you the letter enclosed, I would beg
to call your attention to the fact, that many of the partief3
whose signatures are attached to it, are and have been residents
of the Cheshire side of the water for years—men who ate
actually employed in business in Liverpool, and cross the water
daily (Sundays excepted) throughout the. year, or nearly so.-
1 am, dear sir, yours truly, . EDWARD BATES,
Charles Turner, Esq.
_ .

Liverpool, February 6th, 1860.
•
Sta,—Understanding that subjects, respecting the naviga-
tion of the River Mersey, are under your consideration, we
request respectfully to represent to your Board that any Legis-
lative enactment or Bye-law, restricting master pilots or mas-
ters from anchoring ships, so as to keep a clear way for
steamers crossing the river, would be exceedingly prejudicial
to the trade of Liverpool,
At various times of the year, and during westerly gales, the
anchorage ground, both south and north, is so crowded, that
any ppsitive restriction as to the place where vessels should not
anchor would increase the great danger that arises from vessels
being crowded together. The passenger traffic being now
almost exclusively carried on by steamers, they em easily
avoid coming in contact with ships at anchor, if care i taken to
have them of sufficient power and to prevent them fr. in. being
over-crowded.

A general iiistruction to the pilots to avoid, as much as pos-

sible, anchoring. between the landing places, espeeiallyin foggy
weather, would: be a*mucla as could be reasonably expected.
It is a serious consideration that any accident arising from an
infraction of a pesi ice law might involve, the ship-owner and
merchant in litigation and responsibility for
-life and property,
which would be very unjnst.
We, therefore, earnestly request you will not par's any bye-
law, or support any legislation which will interfere with the
ancient rights of the shipping to take safe anchorage in the
river.—We are, Sir, your obedient servants, •
Thos. and John Brocklebank. Fielded Brothers Sr CO:
Baring Brothers & Co. , John Worral & Co.
Brown, Shipley, & co. BleSsig,'Brann,•& Co.
'Hugh and Johnliornhy & Co- Thomas Harrison & Co.
W. .1. Myers, Son, & Co. Gladstone and Serjeantson.
Thomas Morris Co. R. Rayner. '
Gibbs, Bright & Co. • Fernie Brothers & Co.
Kendall Brothers. Robinson and Girvin.
Bushby Ed Nerds. Guion and Co.
M. •Jacob. ' l Shallnoss and,Higham.
Sutton Brothers & Kirkby. Boult, English, & Brandon.
Thos. and James Harrison. Nicholson and W. Gill-
Thine and Tomlinson., Dale and ityrie.
Palley, Campbell,' & C,. Willink & Bus:day.
J. Prowse & Co. Robert Higgin.
W. P. Powell. Wm. 11. Anthony.
Edward Laurence & Co. Stitt, Coubrough, & Co.
Tyson, Richmond, & Jones. Thomstin, Finlay, & Co- •
Hatton and Cookson. - Bernard Hall & Co.
Coltart, Son, & Co. James Livzsey. • '
Phelps, James, BcCo. Currie. Newton, & Co. •
C. W. and F. Shand. John W. Macrae.
John Bibby, Sons, & Co. Edward Euler.
Edward Bates. Robertson and Ewing.
R. T. Steele. Cunard, Wilson, & Co.
R. L. Bolton. A. Taylor & Co.
'Jones, Palmer, .& Co. Alexander Durante & Co.
Rawson, Aikin, & Co. Houghton; Smith, & Co.
Charles Langton. Henry Moore & Co.
Charles /Jordan & Sons. Holderness and Chilton, &c.
A memorial was also read from the Wallasey Board
of Health against the proposed bye-law.
Mr_ NORTH, the solicitor, then read the case, which
he had prepared in obedience to the last resolutien of the
board, and the following opinion on the legal bearings
of the question : -
I am of opinion that the board has power to pass the pro-
posed bye-law without incurring thereby any legal responsi-
bility.
I should advise, however, that it should not be made abso-
lute in its terms, but that a qualification should be introduCed
iota it, similar to that in the 298th section of the Merchant-1
Shipping Act, so that persons should not incur the penalty in
case the anchoring within the track was accidental, or ren-
dered necessary or unavoidable by the' circu stances of the
case.
In case the board should pass the bye-law so qualified, I
think it, will not make any • serious practical alterations in the
rights or liabilities of persons concerned in a collision happen-
ing within the track.
Suppesing a ship to have anchored within the track, without
any excuse or justification, and to have thus clearly incurred
the penalty, the only, difference which that circumstance would
make in the c.,se of a collision would b; that. ro anchoring in
such a manner would probably be considered an act of negli-
gence to be taken into consideration with the other facts of the
case in considering the question, by whose fault the collision •
took place. But it is clear that merely anchoring within,
the track, even without excuse, would not of itself render
the shipowner liable for the consequences of the collision ' • it
would still be competent for him to show that, though he had
improperly anchored 'within the- track, yet thdt the collision
was caused by the negleetor default of the master of the ferry
lowa. And it is equally clear that the passing of the bye-law
wid not alter or affect in the slightest degree the obligations
now imposed on masters of ferry boats : .they must continue to
use the same care and caution, in crossing the river, as if such
a bye-law had never been passed.
Under these circumstances, if the board consider it expedient
to pass the proposed bye-law, I think that the effect of it, on
the right and liabilities of parties to a collision, happening
within the track, between one of the ferry boats and a ship
anchored in contravention of the bye-law, is so slight, as not
to be entitled to any weight in discuising the propriety of
passing such a bye-law. (Signed) J. lt. QUAIN.
Temple, Feb. 7, 186
•Mr. ARNOLD said ...he was in hopes that Lord Camp-
bell's Act would have helped them out of their difficulty;
but as that was not • to be, he trusted they would now
come to a final decision. He never had but one opinion
on this subject. The first duty of the Dock Board was
to provide accommodation for the trade of the port, and
not merely accommodation for the people who chose
to take up their residence en the other side of the
water.. Let them see what it was that was asked
of them. • They were asked to take front the shipping
of the port two-thirds of a mile of the very bestanchorage
ground iu the river,, and to appropriate it to the con-
venience of the ferry passengers. The effect would be
to drive the vessels further north ; and he held that the
ground opposite Seadombe and Egremont was the worst
in the river. He was afraid that if the track were kept.
clear for Woodside, 'the other ferries would come down.
by the shore and use the track in crossing, and thus
greatly increase the danger of collision. He would not
take the responsibility, as a member of this board, of
forcing vessels from a good anchorage into a bad one.
The board were told that if they would not lend a
favourable ear to this question, the parties who were
pressing it upon them would take it to the Legislature.
Had it ever occurred to those gentlemen that
another view might be taken of it ; that if
the danger was' see great the -Legislature might
pass a law to, prevent the ferry boats crossing at
all during fog ? • Now;he believed Mr. Shand, brought
this question forward contrary to his own convictions.
(Hear, hear.) He was in hopes that, with the opening
of the Birkenhead docks, the number of vessels anchoring
in the river would be materially diminished; and he
thought it was a 'matter to be considered whether a
system of permanent moorings could be adopted to re-
lieve the river. Until this relief was afforded, he thought
the residents on the other side must continue to rely upon
the good management of the ferries.
Mr. DARRYSIIIRE supported the motion. He said he
felt it was no use speaking, as it was a gone question,
and the board would decide against it. But for himself
he 'would say, perish every ship he had rather than -One
human being should be lost by any ship of his anchoring
in that track.
Mr: Smmr, as chairman of the Shipowners' Asso-
ciation, opposed the motion: 'lie stated that , the
opinion -which 'the association had got, was by Mr.
Wylde, Q.C. and Mr. Brown. -He contended that a-
jury would hold the shipowner responsible in case of
accident, if he anchored in the forbidden track. - If the
board should 'decide in favour& the bye-law, they would
incur 'a serious responsibility, and one which at some
future day they would have occasion to regret.
Mr. Lira]) said' that two points had been. raised.
One was Lord Campbell's Act, arid the other *as the
anchorage in the river. At the last debate, after the
.
subject had been discussed, some one raised the question
about Lord Campbell's Act, arid it was amusing to see
with what eagerness
lyntlemen caught at that. Now,
.
the opinion of Mr. name was that the board might
safely 'pass 'this bye-law ; and he (Mr. Laird) there-
fore hoped that the mover of the bye-law would
still persevere in' motion. Mr. Arnold thought that
for the sake 'of the trade of the port, they ought not to
keep the track clear. He (Mr. Laird) disagreed with
him entirely, because, seeing they had a large property
on the other side, he thought it was their duty to pro-
vide a free access between this side of the river and the
other. With regard to the anchorage space of the
river, he had taken the opinion of nautical men, and
they agreed with him that a system of buoys might
with advantage be adopted in the river. Mr. Tobin
had pointed out tO•him an opinion come to by the pilots'
on the subject, about. eight years ago. ' At that meeting
the following resolution was come to, and ordered to be
'transmitted to.the 'Pilot Committee:—
"It was the unanimous opinion of all present that, in conse-
'quence of the great increase in the number of ships now going
from this port with emigrants to various part of the world,.
especially to New South Wales and America, which are obliged
to remain Several days in the river, and of the great increase
in the sin of such.vessels, also in the traffic on the river gene-
rally, it would-be
_a very. sreat advantage if suitable moorings,
'were laid in some convenient part Of the river, that such yes,
eels niight.haVe the use of them when required, whereby at
least double the number of ships might be accommodated with
greater safety, within the same space, than if anchored in the
present way; and we recommend the accompanying plan as
very suitable for the purpose."
Mr. Cox, the water:l)ailiff, certainly reported against
the recommendation contained in the resolution ; bfit
'still it 'was the unanimous opinion of the pilots
that they could double the anchorage space_ by
adopting the system. He held that the plea that
the clear track would take away from the anchorage
space of the river was of no value whatever. lie'
-had already proposed that at the' south and north
extremity of the proposed line buoys should be plaCed,
so that PART or six ships might be moored there, and
thus neutralising the diminution of the anchorage space.
He had no doubt,, whatever,. as to what the result of the
discussion_ would be ; but, he thought it right w state
for the information of the board, that when
the parties who tvere endeavouring to ' accom-
plish this object some two years ago went to the
Board of Trade, the 'answer was that the Mersey Board
t
sweetrreigthhetnbytakthing
agt
üblatcikmaagtealiyn.pasTs haisb t accident,
The board might, urged on by some great
agree to
the bye-law now, he held that they
-
'phoewaredrs,,
the
ed
pthaarttieifs tmheigmhattterh was not
might, as a board, •
d mentioned his
name in connection with . the question of
Mr. Tonle said that Mr. Laird. had
laying down
ldife andte death.
down.
but he wished to say that
bye-law cifasteheyof.
mooring buoys in the river,
belheld responsible, for whatever might occur.
he had not expressed any opinion upon that subject.
Mr. LAIRD said he did not wish to lead anyone to an
opposite inference.
Mr. Tomes went on to say, that having met with a
report of the Pilot Committee, passed some seven years

ages,. he had drawn Mr. Lairds- attention to it as hearing
on the subject, and yin the same way .he had told that
gentleman that Mr. Cox, who was at the time the water
bailiff, had reported. against the mooring buoys- being
laid down, on the ground that such buoys, for many
reasons, would, in his opinion, beexCeedingly dangerous
to the working of the anchorage of the nver. That
was a,subject which was certainly worthy of very serious
consideration ; but he (Mr. Tobin) would not at that
time express any opinion upon the point. Aseto the-
question more immediately under discussion, ha could
not give a silent vote. On the previous: occasiOn•he-
thOught that if this bye-law were passed, it would prevent
a collusion on the part of the •pilot and the captain of a.
ship to evade the fulfilment of those instructions which'
had been given by the Pilot Committee, not to• anchor
ships in the track if it. could possibly be avoided. The.
penalty was fixed by act orParliament at £u, and he
was prepared on the last occasion- to subject the owner
of the ship to the inconvinienee of having to pay that
'penalty if his ship wilfully,anchored,in the, ferry track-;
but he was not at that time
.prepared, neither was he
now, to do anything which might Subject hiin possibly
to a penalty of £20,000. When Mr. Bold, at the pre-
vious meeting' of the board, made use of the argument,
that it would entail on the ,shipowner the consequences
of Lord Campbell's Act, he (Mr. Tobin) immediately
Said, "That is the only sound argument, at all events it
is the only strong argument, that r have heard adduced
against the bye-law," and he went to the solicitor to ask
him whether that was so in his opinion ornot and it was
from Mr: North having some misgivings on that account I
that he (Mr. Tobin) advocated. delay, so that counsel's
opinion might be taken upon a point so important. (Hear.)
.Now Mr. Quain's opinion was inconsistent with his
,argument throughout. If lie understood it aright, it
was that if; through' any circiimstanee whatever, a
vessel moored in; the track it would be a prime( facie-
case• of negligence, and the anus pro4andi would rest
upon the shipowner to prove that the anchorinwt" there
was under the force of circumstances over which he had
n.o•control; aid, as he understood it, the ferry steamers.
were now responsible, whatever the responsibility might
consist of; Mr. Arnold had used the argument that
danger would ensue if the track ,were kept clear,
because other ferry, boats would, run in that track
'during foggy weather. (Mr. obin) did not believe
that would be so; but he thought it quite possible that
if the Birkenhead Commissioners were freed from the
pecuniary responsibility. under •Lord Campbell's. Act,
that then there might be a natural bias not to have-
those strict regulations and• these strict prohibitiOns
which were now enforced, and- so there might be
a source of danger created. 'At present, if a'
vessel was at' anchor, and a steamer run into
her, prima facid blame- rested with the steamer, -and
he did not wish to relieve the Birkenhead Com-
missioners from using every possible precaution, and if
there was any soundness in the argument that the lia-
bility was at present on the commissioners it would pro
tanto plaCe it upon the shipowners if the commissioners
were relieved of it by the passing, of the proposed bye-
law. Until this question was thoroughly settled he
should hold himself at liberty to vote against the bye-
law proposed by Mr.. Shand.
_ _ _

er. LANOTON said the circumstances of the case had
been changed by the legal opinions that had been read;
and, therefore, he should now vote against the adoption
of the bye-law. •
Mr. BOULT said the only evidence produced to the
board in support of the charge or collusion to evade the
instructions of the Pilot Committee, was that of an
attempt which bad egregiously failed.
Mr. To BIN gave one case on that occasion as an illus-
tration of a practice mentioned by Mr. Shand.

Mr. llaocKtEnANK'said a fine of £5 would not prevent
vessels anchoring in the track, awl he thought,ofter the
admission of Mr. Darbyshire that the shipowners of the
port, and those interested in shipping, should give
,such
instructions to their captains as the Pilot Committee had
given to the pilots, such a course would have a far
greateernoral effect than the passing of a bye=law im-
posing a penalty, and which would be utterly ineffectual
for the, purpose intended. On these grounds he should
vote against the motion.
Mr. RANKIN said, ofter.the opinions of counsel which
had been read, he could not,vote for the bye-law. Re
was of opinion that a channel might be kept open by
putting doWn mooring ' buoys, and the enactment of a
bye-law that only small vessels should make fast to•them.
In that way a very much•smaller space wonld•require to
be kept clear as-a• ferry track. He was also of opinion
that there might be some arrangement amongst the
pilots themselves, by which a flue should be inflicted upon
any of their body needlessly anchoring in the track, the
fine to be devoted to a Charitable fund for their own benefit.
Su& a mode of dealing with the question as that would
have a greater moral effect than a fitie-of- £5. ' Further,
lie thought something might be done- to prevent out-
ward bound vessels from anchoring in the track. He
was favourable to leaving a line open, ink he thought
the -questiori ought to have more consideration bestowed
upon it than had hitherto been the case.

Mr. BUSHELL did not see anything in the opinion Mr.
North had given which should in the slightest degree
induce the board to refrain from passing the proposed
bye-law. They had tried one experiment. The Pilot
Committee had issued their instructions, and those in-
structions failed in their object. The Pilot Committee,
in 'giving those instructions, and the board in confirming
them, committed the board to an opinion that such a
track, if it could be kept, was necessary to the
protection of life, That fact was not changed, , but
the instructions of, the . Pilot Committee were found
not to be practically carried out, and -then no lesi "an
authority than the chairman of the Pilot Committee
himself came to the beard and asked the board to `pass
a hye-law to do that which the Pilot Committee had
proposed, and the hoard had upheld and approved, for
keeping this necessary passage. Now what was there
in the opinion which the board had received that day
through their solicitor which should affect the board
passing this bye-law ? They had-now to deal with the
question as it had been put in great detail by their
solicitor, and with the opinion which that question had
elicited. Within the last few days there had been a.
large array of, the shipowning interest against the pro-
po-sal, arid it was plain now that the board could not
carry the bye-law, and as that was so, then he turned to
• the consideration -Of 'the 'reaponsibility which would rest
upon the board by its rejection. -He did in that matter
just what he would do,, in dealing with a matter in
which his own private interests were vitally concerned;
and he "would say, that, seeing the board could not
carryy that bye-law, although it ought to be carried, he
would not have them put into the position of having to
divide upon it. lie would wish. to see the motion
withdrawn, for he felt that the rejection of the bye-
law by the b?ard would involve it, if not in a great
legal responsibility, at least in one of "a serious moral
Character. lie most earnestly hoped that the board
would consent to the withdrawal of the motion. (Cries
of "no, no.") Well, then, if' the notion were rejected
on a division, and it should be found that in consequence,
of the refgsal of the. board, to enact a bye-law, there
should be an undue license taken hy shipowners,. pilots,
or captains to reject altogether public opinion in rela-
tion to keeping clear, the ferry track, then he would
recommend most strongly those out of doors whO were
deeply interested-in the question, to go at once to head-
quarters, and 'see whether, the Board of Trade would.
not take upon themselves the responsibility, of inter-.
fering in the matter. He . thought it would 'be for the
best interests of the Dock Board, seeing the grave re-
sponsibility they would incur by absolutely refusing to
'pass a bye-law, that they should allow the motion .to be
- withdrawn. As to the future, he sincerely trusted, after
what had taken place there that day, that the ship-
ovners would be induced to order .their captains
did
keep clear of the ferry, track, and failing teheatv.h
hope that the people out of doors woueldcessf
in taking such a course as miht be necessary
protection of themselves and theirhe
cased' arlyiusfotrifithede
put by the soli-
Mr. MONDEL objected that t
citer was not in accordance with the terms of his amend-
ment,contravenpinog-itthe
which were design./..tobkenobyw
the British shipowner w ld
passed, in case of accident or loss of life.
Of the two • opinions that had been read,-.he thought'
that read by Mr. Smith was more to .be relied upon-by
the British shipowner than the opinion given by Mr.
auftie.e. , - •
The CIiAIRMAN said that at the last meeting of 'the
board he intended to have voted for the bye law, because
he thought the track should be kept clear, except in
cases of necessity. He thought the passing of the
bye-law would contribute
_to that end • .as Mr.
Tobin had expressed himself, ho wasp but,
preparedl.
to vote for the consequences which it appeared
would arise if that bye-law were passed In the
case of a 'vessel anchoring in the
that she would be
fined £5, and that no further liability would be incurred.
He certainly, was not _ prepared to. agree that a careless
captain, or any person of that kind should maim the
owner liable for the extreme consequences which *it
appeared they would be liable to under Lord Camp-

bell's Act. He did not agree with Mr. Bushell that the
instruction of the Pilot Committee to the pilots bad
been useless. It certainly had not been perfectly effectual. ;.• ,
Mr. BUSHELL—That is all I meant.
The CHAIMAN continued—The instructions .of the
Pilot Committee, had, contributed very materially
towards effecting the object they had in view in' passing
those instructions. One great reason .be had had for.
wishing to see the bye-law raised was; that there was a
certain degree of evidence that vessels, outward 'bound,
.had, on some 'occasions; gone out of the dock and
anchored directly in' the track, without any necessity '
for doing so ;' that they. had 'gone there because it was
close to the lauding stages, because it was convenient to
the owners of the ships to have them there, or as a see of
advertisement. He thought that was an exceedingly inde-
fensible practice, and he hoped the shipowners of the port
would give such instructions to the captains as should pre-
vent such occurrences in future. (Hear.) As regOrged the
mooring buoys being laid down in theriver, he would
not on that-Occasion give any positive opinion ; but to
his mind there appeared at that inornen; very grave
objections to the laying down of, mooring buoys in,such
a tideway as that of 'the Mersey. The Thames had
been referred to, but there was no analogy between the
two rivers.. The passage down ,the River Mersey was
already,narrow enough,. and if mooring buoys were laid
down they would' interfere with the navigatidn. As to
the liability of the 'board in the matteri,considering.that
they, had had. to pay damages on account of moorings
breaking in some of thedocks, it was something frightful
to 'contemplate when they talked of putting down-buoys
in,such a river as.the Mersey. On the grounds that, he
'had stated, he should vote against the proposed bye-law.
Mr. SHAND replied ; and in doing so said he did not
tiring the 'motion forward as-cliairnian of the Pilot Com-
mittee, but simply as a member of .the bard desirous of
settling a question which embarea very much angry
feeling. In reference to the instructions given by the
Pilot Committee, they :had been very effectually car.- r.
ried out, as Mr. Darbyshire had admitted; and, after
what had taken place, he would wish to withdraw his
motion.

Mr. BUSHELL—AIIow me to ask the chairman of the
Pilot Committee just one question : Suppose that the
board desired the withdrawal-of the motiort, would • the
Pilot Committee enforeq, so far as it is possible for them
to do so, the regulations which they have laid down an
this question?
Mr. TOHIN.—Hear, hear.
111 r. MoNDEL.-:--It is ;very irregular : take the votes.
Mr. Laird and Mr. Smith having demanded a division,
the board divided accordingly, when there appeared for '
the motion 4 ; against it 15.
The votes were recorded as follows : —For : Messrs.
Bushell, Darbyshire, Laird, and Littledale. Against :
Messrs. Forwood, Boult, Brocklebank, Rankin, Smith,.
Farnwojth, Inman, Langton, Rounthwaite, Tobin,
Hutchison, Lockett, Mondel, Shand, and the Chairman.
. This was the whole of the public business, which had
lasted three hours.