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

bead Dock Committ
attention,

of having been in Live
being nresent. at th

consequently n

for him to say from his own
e. On the second point, as
respected the petition 'which the chairman of the Dock
state transmitted 'by Mr. ;North to London, he might be
permitted to remark that, consequent on that course of
action, the Town-clerk advised Mr. Jeffery and himself, if
that petition was deposited in regular course, to adopt a
similar course, „and petition the House of Commons them-
selves, praying that they might be heard at the House of
Commons,—not the House' of Lords,—for the purpose of

knowledge what 'took place

communicating to the house that the statement set Korth in
that petition was not correctly founded upon fact: and pray-
*, to be heard in opposition to that petition, and in con-
firmation of their own 'views, as set forth in their own.
petition. The remarks 'made by Mr. Jeffery on that par-
ticular point were, he believed,- in every particular and in
.every sense of the word strictly correct. With regard to
:the third point, that of the support given by the chairman
of the Dock Estate to the measinte of the bill before the
house for granting a million and a half compensation to that
,
;corporation, in lieu of the town dues, as a consideration of
their being taken away, he would certainly himself say 'that
the impression was strongly on his mind that the bill,
instead of meeting with the approval of the chairman
.of the Dock Committee, received no counte-
nance - whatever, no support whatever from hiM.
Re could not call to mind any one fact; 'any single
;expression, which. fell from him calculated to accom-
plish or accelerate the' settlement of. the matters in the
Petition. And as a proof of this, he might mention that
when, the hour of trial arrived, when the critical period at
which:the bill would either be pushed forward or thrown
out, _there was no one, with the exception of the Town-
cterk, who certainly did his duty very ably at that period
hear)---there was no one to represent or to defend
the interests of that corporation but Mr. Jeffery and him-
Tic would not on the present occasion make any
remark upon those polite expressions, or statements, of
literature to which he made no pretensions--the words
‘, bosh," "braggadocia," and " fudge ;" but he believed
if Mr. Jeffery' and himself bad not been constantly in
London, the Towu-clerk would not have felt himself autho-
rised to deal with those matters, in regard to which Mr.
Jeffery and himself felt themselves called upon to interfere,
from the circumstance of nearly all the gentlemen having left
London, and the Town-clerk having no one with whom he
could:V.l'o counsel. With respect to the statements made
by Mr. Jeffery, they were in all truth, in all feeling and
spirit, formed by a correct representation of what actually
did take place.

Mr. CHAILLES TURNER said he hoped the council' would
also allow him to say a few words in explanation. Mr.
Jeffery had that morning altered his arena in this matter.
Gladstone had alluded to that morning ' • but also stated, he
believed, that the Dock Board had done their best to
prevent the corporation getting £650,000 compensation for
the town dues, and more than their best to prevent them
getting a million and a-half. He therefore did not
known whether Mr. Jeffery meant to adopt that. But
it might be necessary to give a succinct history of
the whole of what passed on that occasion, in order to
prove that Mr. Jeffery and Mr. Gladstone, to say the leaAt
of it, were quite mistaken. The as they were all
aware, was introduced by the railway companies and the
Manchester gentlemen before the House, for the purpose
of removing the election from the hands of the corporation
—leaving them without any interest whatever in the elec-
Aion of the Dock Trust, and putting their Dock Trust into
the hands of the ratepayers to elect a number of gentlemen,
.with the addition of three g-overnment nominees, and with-
,out giving one farthing compensation to the corporation for
the town dues. Had it been true that the Dock Committee
or the merchants of the town wished the corporation not to
,receiv.a compensation for thn town dues, it was quite clear
Itheir. course would have been to support that bill as far as
4hey possibly could. Mr. Gladstone had observed that he
bad not heard any observation on the part of himself (Mr.
T or).in support of the claim on the part of the corpo-
rafion.of the town. Of course, it was not for him to
.what Mr. Gladstone's recollections might be, but
Mr. Gladstone appeared to have a vivid recollection, accord-
ing to himself; of what he (Mr. Turner) said on' one side of
the question, but not the slightest recollection of what he
said on tha other side. Now, he would put it to the cowl-

cil, is every member who knew anything of the transactions,
to gentlemen in London as well as in Liverpool, whether the
Dock Committee and himself, the Dock Committee as a body,
and himself individually,. did not do all they possibly could to
support.theooFporation in their opposition to that bill ; and
they were instigated to do so, because they considered it was
a perfect tAbory of the corporation funds. When that bill
'was put into a committee of the House of Commons, Sir
James Graham was the chairman Of that committee; he
thought Sir James -Graham thought the corporation should
receive £650,000 in -compensation for the town dues. -The
corporation considered, and he considered, that t
. was a
veil inadequate
,sum, and the Dock Committee aneed with
tharimpFession that ,that was not a proper 6amount. 'A
bit was introduced; proposing that amount of eonapensa-
,tion, and he appealed to the town-clerk—in fact,
Ahem was no doubt but Ac Dock Committee, in conjunction
(With the corporation, opposed that bill. They did not op-
pose it as Mr. Jeffery put it, but because the corporation
;were unwilling to receive -that amount. So far did they
carry their opposition in this matter, that, as the town clerk
would show them, the bill was withdrawn in a very crude
state as to the mode of carrying on the dock estate. They
declined to endeavour to have the bill amended in the
Muse of Commons with respect Jo clauses of arrangement
and detail, which were considered to be very injurious to
',"e (Irk estate, because they were advised—and he again
APPea ed to the town clerk—that they should not be in so
;Pod a positi,an to oppose the bill in the House of Lords.
Re
the to all legal gentlemen whether, had they taken
e"rse to amend the bill in the Howe of Commons, it
would have . .
with
the Honse preAtznted them opposing it iso much force in
fis of Lords Accordingly, in the interest of the
town w"e eorporatiQn.agreed to oppose that l, because an
inadequate -
• elPheeeßation was provided. was put nit„, When that bill
very gr.eat e, • ,
justice house of Lords, he thought, with that
PAceedings, it was
eand propriety which characterised their
without a fair eompetlei4'!d that that bill should not proceed
as sent to the corporation for the town
dues, and the bill
sent to committee. If his,recollee-
tion served him, that
adjourned to settle the
amount of compensation between the parties. The time
afforded by that adjournin
enabled the corporation lo
agree to a sum, and it was arrange between the promoters
of the bill, and the corporate auio that a million and
a-half should be the amount recoanrrrclasiFig.'efor the town dues,
The emlimittee confirmed that
before, that pr7laceti The town
clerk was aware, as he said
as regarded the management of the dock Zaesote,iol&ta-ie
inained in the bill—many matters which the
mato, thought were extremely objectionable—ate the
considered ,it their duty—the question of compenseay..
tion being- settled quite 'to their satisfaction, and
to the satisfaction of the Town Council—to en-
deavour to get those objectionable parts of the bill
amended. Before the committee they did try to get them
0 amended, and upon a variety of P 41444 they failed tQ

get them amended; and when the bill passed the House of
Lords, very objectionable to the Donk Board. the House of

Lords had so interfered with the privileges of the House of
Commons that it was totally impossible that that bill, as it
stood, could pass into law; and the only way, the sessions
being nearly terminated, was to have a new bill introduced,
based upon the principles of the old one, and get it passed
through the House of Commons. As the chairman of the

k -Comir