The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-17 00:00:00

'of the present bill is to vest the management of the
Birkenhead docks in the Liverpool Dock Trustees ; to
extend the powers of the Liverpool Dock Trustees for the
management of the LiverPticil Docks to the Management
by thetri of the Birkenhead Docks; and to provide for
levying the same rates in respect of the Birkenhead
Docks as are or may be leiied in respect Of, the
Liverpool Docks; to repeal the liirkenliead Doeli
Acts (except the Act of 1856) The Bill requires the
Corporation to complete all such parts of the Birkeri-;
bead Docks as are not completed, and as shall not be
affected by any altered or new works under any act of
the present session, and extends the time for the comple-
tion of such works to the Ist September, 1860. So that,
if the bill for alteration of Works (b4ore reported on)
should be withdrawn or thrown oat, awl this bill pass in
its present form, the corporatioo.. Wduld be required to
finish the works upon the old plans. See sections 11
and 12. In section 17, it may be desirable to provide for
the continuance of present and right of w 'king new
sewers communicating with the Great Culvert. Clauses
19 and 20 limit the height at which water may be
Maintained in the float (19 fee') until the Completion of
the embankment, and the lowest level to which it may be
redueed atter CoMpletion of the embankment., Sections
47 to 53 inclusive, and sections /0 and 81 relate to the
management of' the Birkenhead Docks by the Liverpool
Dock Committee, the 1:-.rying of the same rates, and
application of rates. The clauses give rise to much the-
same questions as to the exemption of the docks froth
cotnmissioneis rates and poors rates as Arose Upon the
Birkenhead Docks Bill of last •ies3ioti; This bill rung
be coriAidered in oonrieetiOn with the bill for alteration
of works. and will require careful watching at every step.
Birkenhead Docks, Alteration of Works, 4c.
. _ _ _

" A bill for carrying into effect certain provisions of the
Birkenhead Docks Act, 1855, in relation „to the
construe Lion and completion of the Birkenhead docks ;
for authorising alterations therein, and new works ;
and for other purposes

The. object of ,this bill is to authorise the, Works,
the plans df Which have been already stihniitted
to the commissioners. The execution of these
works involves the enclosure of a considerable portion of
the Woodside basin, the giving up the public parade on
the south reserve, the construction of a sea wall in front
of the commissioners' property, and landing places at
Woodside Ferry, and the enclosure of the shore
road from Hamilton street to Taylor-street, and to
make a new parallel road. It is for the commissidners'_
consideration ivhether the plans are so generall,
advantageous as to offer an adequate equivalent, and
to see that the *bill is not prejudicially altered in its
progress through parliament. The establishment of' the
landing stage at Woodside may require some provision
to be made in the act for the protection of the commis-
sioners' ferry rights. This will very much depend upon
the use to be made of the part of the stage not
appropriated to the almmissioners. The committee will
consider whether, as the bill new stands, sufteient
portion or the sage is offered for the use or the ferry.
The several periods for completion of the works appear
very long. See section 8. .

The Chairman said the petitions had been prepared in
accordance with the reports just read ; therefore, it would
be unnecessary to read the petitions themselves. He then
said there was an opinion that there should be a rating
clause introduced, but on that point he would offer a few
remarks. He had received an invitation to attend the
Corporation of Liverpool. Yesterday he, with Mr. Rae
and Mr. Wain, attended the Birkenhead committee of the
council ; and he thought from what had taken place at that
interview, that they, the commissioners, had a right to be
satisfied with the arrangements that were likely to be made.
They bad discovere 1 the introduction of a rating clause,
but the corporation objected, to it because they thought
it was unnecessary. They had admitted their liability to
pay the rates on the docks, and had promised to do so as
long as they were in their possession. (Hear, hear.) He
thought that that was quite sufficient for the present, and
said that the proper time for insisting upon such a clause
would be at some future time, when the corporation trans.
ferred the docks into other hands.• He was satisfied
that the arrangements were so good that he did not think
they should jeopardise the arrangements by the introduction
of suoh a clause. His opinion was that after they had had
another interview, that such arrangements would be made
that the petition could be withdrawn, although they were
then signing it, and that the board wou.d be able to support
tho bills.

Mr. Rae fully concurred in what the chairman had stated,
and confirmed all that he had said.

Mr. Cooke thought it would not be Satisfactory unless a
rating clause wan inserted in the bill.
The Ch lirman expressed it as his opinion that it would
be exceedingly desirable that a rating clause should be
inserted in the bill, bat would not. act on the committee it
the insertion of such a clause was to be considered as a sine
viz non with settling with the corporation.
After much conversation on the point, the Chairman
reiterated his determination, in which the other members
of the committee agreed, and the petition was agreed to
unanimously.

THE MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
The Town Clerk next read the following petition in
refereuce to this bill, which was agreed to :

P ETITI ON.

That it is proposed by tho bill now before your honourable
house to constieute a board, to be called the Mersey Docks
and harbour hoard, such board to be a body corporate, and to
consist of twenty one members, of whom eighteen, called the
elective members, are.to be appointed by ratepayers, qualified
as therein mentioned, and three, to be called nominee mem-
bers, by the Mersey Conservancy Commissioners. That it is
also proposed by the said bill to transfer the Birkenhead Docks
Estate, the Liverpool Dock Estate, the Liverpool Town Dues,
the powers of the Liverpool Dock Trustees, the Liverpool
Pilot Commissioners, and all powers of the Liverpool Corpo.
ration, in respect of the docks and other matters con-
nected with navig ton, to the said board. That it
is also proposed by the said bill to require the said board to
rroceed to the construction of the outer works of the Birkenhead
docks, referred to in the Birkenhead Docks Act, 1853, and to
complete the same according to the plans already sanctioned.
That it is also proposed by the said bill to authorise the said
board with the consent of the Mersey Conservancy Com-
missioners to apply any portion of their general receipts (after
providing for the expenses incidental to the Mersey Dock
Estate) in improving the port of Liverpool or the ravigation of
the river Mersey, in any manner whatev r, otherwise than by
the construction of docks : and also to increase, or diminish and
again increase, any rates or duos leviable by them. That it is
also proposed by the said bill to give the board unlimited
powers of borrowing any sum for the purposes of the
pr rposed act. That your petitioners and their constituents, the
ratepayers of Birkenhead, are greatly interested in the
a ivancernent of the trade and commerce of the Mersey, and
in the good management of the Liverpool and Birkenhead
Docks. That, in the opinion of your petitioners, the constitu•
tion of the proposed hoard is not well adapted for advancing
such trade, or for securing the good management of the said
docks, particularly as such board may consist entirely of
members uninterested in trade, residing at a remote distance
from Liverpool and Birkenhead, and in many other ways
unfitted for the office ; that the meetings of the board
may be held in places quite unconnected with the trade
of the Mersey, and that the constituency of the elective
members of sack board is, as appears to your petitioners, very
vague and undefined. Your petitioners, therefore, object to
the transfer to such a body of the several powers proposed by
the said bill. That it is essential to the interests of your
petitioners, and of the trade of the Mersey, that the Birken-
head Docks should be executed on the best practicable plan for
the reception of shipping and the accommodation of trade;
and in the opinion of your petitioners, the plans referred to, and
required to he completed by, the proposed bill, are wholly un-
adapted to the increasing requirements of Birkenhead, and
would, if carried out, prove very deficient in practical utility.
That the application of the rates proposed by the said bill, to be
payable to. and receivable by, the said board, is not sufficiently
defined, nor is there any limit to the amount of rates which
may be It vied, or to the sums which the beard are, by the
proposed ac , authorised to bcrrow. And your petitioners
obje et to the granting of any snob powers to the said board.
That the said bill contains other clauses and provisions adverse
to the rights and in crests of your petitioners and the public,
and no sufficient provision for the protection of such rights and
interests. That if the said bill he allowed to pass into law,
clauses and provisions, protective of such ►i2hts and interests,
ought to be inserted. That the pr, amble of the bill is untrue
and incapable of proof. Your petitioners therefore humbly
pray your honourable house that the said bill may not
pass into law as it now stands, and that they may be heard
by themselves, their counsel, agents, and witnesses, before
the committee to whom the said bill may be referred,
against the preamble and clauses thereof, and in support of
such clauses and amendments (in case the preamble of the
said bill should be passed), as they may deem necessary for
the protection of their property, rights, and interests, or the
property, rights, and interests of the inhabitants of the said
districts, and against any amendments in the bill, as introduced
into parliament, which they lily consider detrimental to such
property, rights, and interests, or any of them. And your
petitioners will ever pray, &c.
TIIE BEACHING GROUNDS.

In answer to a question put by Mr. Bailiff, the Chairman
replied, that full compensation would be given for the loss
of the beaching groundi, a 3 the proposed plans contained
a canal and slips which would answer all purposes, and
give satisfaction, if not to all persons, at least to many.

MR. LAIRD'S BILL.

The Chairman then begged to say a few words in refer-
ence to the bill he had introduced into Parliament. The
fact was that all ships going into the graving docks at
Birkenhead, had to pay besides his rates, rates to Liverpool.
That he- conceived to be unjust. (Hear, hear.) For instance,
if a vessel put into his graving dock, and the repairs cost