Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-03 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES,---LIVERPOOL, FRIDAY, JULY a, 1857.

LIVERPOOL & BIRKENHEAD
DOCKS' BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN RRPORTZR.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JULY 2.
The Committee appointed to inquire into this bill, re•
assembled at twelve o'clock this morning, Sir J. Graham
in the chair. The object of the bill is "to exempt ships
using the docks on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, and
not using the Liverpool docks. from certain rates which
they now pay to the Liverpool Dock Trustees, if any part of
the cargoes are shipped or discharged within certain limits
on the stream of the Mersey." Mr. Phillips was not pre-
sent upon the Committee, the honourable gentleman hay.
ing been discharged from further attendance, upon a
resolution moved in the House of Commons yesterday, by
Sir James Graham.

Mr. John Laird was re-called, and, in answer to Mr•
Johnson, said: I have prepared a statement of the cost
of loading in the river, as compared with the cost in the
dock. I have taken a vessel, capable of carrying a cargo
of 2000 tons. The cost of loading that cargo in the dock
would be £lOO, or ls. per ton ; but the same cargo, loaded
on board the same ship in the river, including the extra
cost of coaling, would be £412 10s.

Sir J. Graham asked if all the articles forming the cargo
were identical in the two cases assumed by the witness ?
Mr. Laird: The cargo is identical in both cases. The
sum of £412 lOs for loading the vessel in the river, is
composed of the following items:—Porterage into the
lighter at 23 per ton, £200; lighterage from the dock at
Is. per ton, Xloo ; towing lighters to the ship, £6O;
watering the ship in the river, £l5 ; and coaling, .t 37
I have framed this estimate from my personal knowledge
of the charge. I have frequently paid such charges, and
occasionally even higher rates, if the weather happened
to he bad.

By Mr. Alexander, Q C.: The is a ton which I mention
as being the cost of loading the ship in dock, is simply the
cost putting the cargo on board. I have not included any
charge for putting coals or water on board. The cost of
coaling in dock is is per ton, and in the river 24 6d. I
believe that salt is frequently' shipped in the river. No
vessel will ship in the river that can get into the dock,
because the loading is much more safely and expeditiously
effected in dock.

Mr. Alexander : Are you not aware that in many
cases ; even Manchester goods come down by the Sankey
canal, and are transhipped in the stream of the Mersey ?
Mr. Laird : Occasionally such goods may be shipped
in the river, but it is not often done.
By Mr. Johnson : I did not include in either estimate
the prime cost of the coal and water, but simply the
extra sum charged for labour in shipping coal and water
in the river.

Mr. Weir was the next witness. He said ; lam part
owner of the Khersonese. In the latter part of May, the
Khersonese, which is 1,796 tons builders' measurement,
and has a cubic capacity of 2.400 tons, was loaded in the
stream of the Mersey. The cost of loading from the quay
into the ship, and stowing cargo away in dock, is Is. per
ton, or about £lOO, and of loading in the river, '366 I3s.
4d. The latter sum is composed of the following items':
Porterage into the lighter, .£169 13s. 4d. ; lighterage,
£105; extra cost of coaling, +x'2s; expense of steam tug
for seven days, £7O. I have not included anything for
the extra cost of watering the ship in the river. I have
no doubt that the imposition of the Liverpool Dock Rates
upon vessels using the Birkenhead Docks, but loading and
discharging a portion of their cargo in the stream-, would
very injuriously affect the interests of Birkenhead.
By Mr. Alexander : In May last the Khersonese loaded
the whole of her cargo in the Mersey. It is a great loss
to load in the river, and we should have loaded in dock
if there had been water enough there to flat us out.

By Mr. Johnson : It is a great drawback upon a ship
owner to load perishable goods in the river.
Mr. Johnson said he had other witnesses, but as their
evidence would be precisely similar to that already given,
he did not propose to call them.
Mr. Alexander, Q.C., then addressed the committee on
behalf of the Dock Trustees. lle saw that the uliete Ft v-
ceedings in this ease were most anomalous. Mr. Laird was
the owner of docks at Birkenhead, and he now sought to
promote a bill at the expense of the Dock Trustees, unsup-
ported by any favourable testimony, for the solo purpose
of conferring an individual benefit upon himself. He
(Mr. Alexander) had understood from the opening address
of his learned friend, that the imposition of these rates
was destructive to the trade of Birkenhead; and he had
certainly expected that-a-cloud of witnesses—merchants
interested in the development of Birkenhead—would have
been called to prove his learned friend's assertion. But
what had boon the course which the promoters had taken ?
Instead of establishing any injury to the trade of Birken-
head, Mr. Laird and Mr. Weir, two gentlemen pecuniarly
interested in the question, were the only witnesses called,
and all they had proved was, that their pockets would be
benefitted if these rates were not levied. The learned
counsel then referred to the authority under which dock
dues were levied by the Dock Trustees, stating that from
time immemorial the Trustees had exercised the power
of imposing such dues upon all vessels loading or unload-
ing their cargoes within the port of Liverpool. They
had, however, placed a most liberal interpretation upon
the powers which the legislature had vested in them,
inasmuch as they never attempted to levy dock rates on
vessels which shipped or discharged their cargoes in the
Birkenhead docks. At the same time, they considered
it necessary, as a police regulation, that a charge_
should be imposed upon vessels loading or discharging in
the stream of the river. The Mersey was limited in
regard to space, and the enormous traffle: which
took place upon it rendered it absolutely imperative
that it should be kept as free as possible from anyi hing in
the nature of an obstruction. If vessels were allowed to
load and unload at will in the Mersey, the river would
become so crowded that it would be impossible to transact
the ordinary business of commerce upon it, with safety
and expedition. Ile contended, also, that the bill was
introduced by Mr. Laird at a very inopportune moment,
inasmuch as the Birkenhead Dock Trust was now
amalgamated with the Liverpool Dock Trust. He pro-
posed to call evidence before the committee to prove that
there was no more hardship in subjecting vessels diseharg.
ing or loading their cargoes in the river to the payment
of these dues, than in requiring the ships which passel
a lighthouse in the day time to pay light dues. It
was necessary, in order to prevent the trade from being
impeded, to levy these charges.

At the conclusion of the address of the learned counsel'
the committee room was cleared, and, on the re-adrniasion
of the publip,
Sir J. Graham said : The unanimoug opiTion of the
committee is so strong anti decided in this case upon !he
the evidence, as it now stands, of the two witnesses who
have bee❑ examined iu ftvour of the bill, that we are not
disposed to trouble Mr. Alexander to call witnesses; bnt
from the circumstances of the ease, if the counsel for the
promoters wishes to be heard in reply, the committee
will listen a' tentively to any statement that may be mode
for the purpose of shaking our opinion as it now stands.
Mr. Johnson : I am obliged tl the committee for the
opportunity they have offered to me, but I am not vain
enough to suppose that I conld alter an opinion which
has been so decidedly expressed on the part of the
committee.

Sir J. Graham : The committee are quite unanimous in
the opinion that, considering the rights of the creditors
the rapidly increasing trade of the Mersey, the tide way,
and the narrow channel, they would injuriously affect the
rights of the creditors, and infliet a ge.!at injury upon
commerce, if they were "to entertain this measure. The
committee are quite unanimous la the opinion that they
cannot pass the preamble of this
The bill was consequently rejected.

ST. HELENS CANAL AND
RAILWAY BILL.
This bill, which is the last upon the list, was nroceeded
with immediately after the Liverpool and Birkenhead'
Docks Bill was disposed of.
The
p ea lke St. Helens Canal and
Railway
of the Garston docks, the
preamble
are
own thaetz;
Company mble recites
Widnes docks, and lite Sankey Canal, all of which cow

municate with the river Mersey, and are within the port
of Liverpool; and that the vessels resorting to the said
docks and canal are, in certain circumstances, subjected

to the payment of rates and dues (besides harbour, buoy,

and light dues) to the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks
and to the Corporation of Liverpool ; and that the goods
shipped or unshipped in the said docks and canal of the
company are also subject to the payment of like rates
and dues, and to the payment of rates or dues for the
town of Liverpool; and that it is expedient to relieve the

said vessels and goods from the payment of such rates
and dues (other than harbour, buoy, and light dues)
where no service is performr.d by the said trustees or
corporation, and where the docks and works of the said
trustees and corporation are not used for the purposes of
the said vessels or goods ; and to grant a partial relief
when such docks and works are only partially used."
Mr. Sergeant Wells (in the absence of Mr. S rgeant
Wrangham) and Mr. Johnson appeared for the pro-
moters. The bill was opposed by the Liverpool Corpo-
ration, represented by Mr. Merewether, Q.C., and by the
Liverpool Dock Trustees, represented by Mr. Alexander.

Q C., and Mr. Paget.
Mr. Alexander said the bill was similar in character to
that which the committee had just rejected, and he there-

fore submitted to his learned friend whether it was de-
sirable to proceed with it.

Mr. Sergeant Wells, in opening the case of the pro-
moters, denied that the bill was analogous to that which
the committee had rejected. The only analogy between it
and any of the bills hitherto disposed of was con-
tained in a clause which contained similar provisions
to the 37th clause of the Mersey Conservancy Bill,
namely, that no sums should be payable, in respect of
docks, by any vessel that did not use them. It was only
as a matter of safety, in case the more important bill
should miscarry that this bill was introduced on behalf
of the St. Helen's Canal and Railway Company. There
were four points upon which he was anxious to address
the committee. In the first place, he would call attention
to the fact that the bill contained- clauses which were

identical with those- contained in the Mersey Conservancy
Bill; secondly, that it sought to exempt ships which used
the works of the company,-and did not use the Liverpool
or Birkenhead Docks, from Liverpool Town Dues;. and

to exempt vessels which used both the works of the
company, and the Liverpool or Birkenhead Docks, from
one-half of the Liverpool Town Dues; thirdly, that the
Liverpool Town Dues conferred no benefit upon the
Garston Docks. In the fourth place, the promoters
claimed exemption from certain penalties and conditions
contained in the Liverpool Dock Act, for enforcing pay-
ment of the dues, in respect of which exemption was
claimed. The learned counsel stated that Garston docks
were four miles above Liverpool; and that the promoters
of the present bill supplied the buoys and lights between
the docks and Liverpool. Nevertheless, all vessels resort-
ing to the Garston docks• were compelled to pay Liver—
pool Town ales, from which they did not receive the
slightest benefit.
Mr. Alexander remarked, that at the present moment
dues were not levied upon vessels using the Garston docks,
unless they shipped or unloaded their cargoes in the
stream of the Mersey.

Mr. Sergeant Wells continued : His clients did [not
object to contribute to the harbour, buoy, and light charge;
but the grievance they complained of was, that they
were taxed for an object fro n which they did not derive
the slightest benefit. The learned counsel then referred
to the report of the Board of Trade, in February last, in
which the Lords Commissioners stated that Garston,
Whines, and other ports in the estuary of the Mersey
outside the borough or Liverpool had a peculiar claim to
be heard on the question of Town Dues, because it
appeared doubtfnl how far the legal right of the Corpora.
tion of Liverpool to claim dues beyond the old borough of
Liverpool was justified by the title they had shown, and
because the places in question derived no benefit whatever
from the expenditure of the dues. The learned serjeant
submitted that there was a clear case for parliament-
ary legislation, inasmuch as a tax was imposed upon a
portion of the shipping frequenting the Mersey, which
was most unjust and unfair.

At the close of the learned serjeant's address the com-
mittee room was cleared, and when the parties were

ro-atlnkitted,

Slr J. Graham said: Bafore you proceed to call wit -
nesses, I am desired to state that the committee have
carefully considered your opening speech, and have looked
at the bill, and the report of the Board of Trade upon it.
They perceive how intimately it is connected with the
Mersey Conservancy Bill, which they reported to the
House yesterday, with a special report upon the measure
And here we must incline to the opinion, that what we
have found to be just and reasonable will be confirmed by
the House, and that the other House of Parliament will
not differ from our decision. At the same time, we are
aware that that result is doubtful. Our desire, oar
earnest desire, would be, if the Conservancy Bill should
become law, that the status quo in the Mersey should not in
the present session be disturbed. In the new trust, as we pro.
pose to constitute it, local interests will be much stronger
and more represented than in the present governing body.
There is a clime in the bill which we have reported to
the House, which provides that an application shall be
made by the new board in the ensuing session of Perna_
ment, for the consolidation of all the Dock Acts, among
which acts are the two to which you have made special
reference, as constituting a portion of your grievance, and
not:giving you the full exemption to which you think
yourself in equity entitled. There are strong arguments
.in favour of leaving matters as they are until the corn-
,rnencement of the next session. At the same time the
other alternative cannot be overlooked that possibly,
and probably you may feel inclined to say, the
bill reported the Mersey Consorveney Bill will
not become law ; and in that case, as you have opened
your address to us there would be a prolongation of injustice.
Thu leaning of this committee is strongly in favour of leav-

lug untouched all the minor questions in their bearing on
the greater questions of the conservancy as a governing
body. If you persevere in this bill, we cannot refuse to hear
your evidence, and the answer to it. At the same time
we give you notice, that our leaning is strong against pro!.
ceeding ; and, having given you that warning, it will be
for you to consider what course you will take. Under a
similar warning, the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks,
and the Corporation of Liverpool, have withdrawn from
prosecuting two measures. To-morrow morning we shall
meet at twelve o'clock and hear your decision. We have
no desire to cut the matter short ; but even if we pass the
preamble, it will be necessary to accompany it with a
special report to the House, stating the further considera-
tions that might weigh with us. Upon the whole, it
will be for you and your elicits to consider what course
you will adopt.
The Committee then adjourned.

BELFAST INDEMNITY BILL.

the opinion that, in the present state of the case, they could not
allow these entries to be read. They did not know that the person
referred to under the name used in these entries was the prix ner—no
proof to that effect had been led; and, therefore, they apprehended
that that, at any rate, was not in the least degree a fitting time for
reading the entries. They gave, however,•no opinion as to whether
it might be competent or not to proceed with the reading when a
foundation had been made. No doubt it had beer) proved that L'A.n4e-
lier went to Edinburgh on 10th March, and that that date tallied with
the one under which the entry " went to Edinburg k" was foond ; but
that was not sufficient. It would be a very difficult .question to be dis-

cussed. William Stevenson recalled—on Mondy, did Yon ale two

dlasks brought in ?' I did not see them on Monday. did not examine
the repasitori. sin Mrs. Jenkins'S en the Monday at all. I saw no let-

ter& except the one found in the rest pocket. On thtllday I examined
. .

his desk in my otice. I found a great many letters t here. ome of
them I examined that day. I observed they were principally in the
sime hand. flocked tha desk. I went to the Bridge of Allan on
Friday. I went to Mrs. Baynes's IcdFings there She showed me
things that had belonged to L'Angeller. A leather portmanteau, a
hat, a cigarette-case, a little travelling bag, a dressing-c ise,and a rag.
The portmanteau and travailing bag were both lac ked. (These
articles being shown witness, he identified them.) I thi ek the dress.

ing case was open. I don't remember exactly. I desired Mrs. Baynes
to send them to Huggins's office. I found a key to open the port-
manteau at ifeengelter's lodgings.. On opening the bag, 1' found it to
contain a little- leather case for holding letters. There were Several
letters in it. lathe portmanteau r found clothes and a p rayer-book,
but no letters.. r sent the bag first to Mrs. Jenkins's, aloi ig with the
portmanteau. I gave the letters and payers in the desk to Murray,
the police officer. It was a paper ben into which they were put. I
assisted, or at least saw that they were put in. I sealed the- box as
soon as they were put in. I did not initial the letters when they were
opened in the fiscal's office. I did Initisl several of them some d;ys
afterwards. I went with the oilier and Mrs. Jenkins. The little
leather bag was not opened in his presence. Murray took peesassioa
of it,.and carried it away. Ido not think I gave him the key. then.
I afterwards saw it opened in the fiscal's olee. I took the key there
• for that purpose. On that Monday I saw Murray open L'A riga/lees
desks in Mrs. Jenkins's, and noticed that the letters found In them
were similar in leandwrlting to those in the desk in the warehouse: I
saw Murray take away all th 3 letters that were in different articles
at Mrs. Jenkins's. I sew thorn at the fiscal's office. I del not accom-
pany Murray there. I saw Murray tare possession both of those in
the office and times in Mrs. Jenkins'a ; but could not say afterwards
which bed been found in one place and which in the other. (W tnes
having been shown a number of letters, declared them to be all in
L'Angelier's handwritinee I was at the funeral of L'Angelier. It took
place in theetTying gro tine Of St. Mary's Ceurch. I was also present
when the body was exhum el. The funeral wcs on the Thursday. I saw
the body witea exhumed its the hands :if Dr. Steven and Dr Corn-sack.
That was, I think, on Tnesde.y the 31st. 1 examined the lettere that
were in the small bag. I read some of them, and marked " b ig" on
several. I kept the levers in their original envelopes. That applies
to all the letters I examined. I did not shift the envelopes in any
way. At the conclusion of this witness's examination, tile Lord
Justice. Clerk intimated that, as it W 49 six o'clock, the court would
now be adjourned. He advisee the jary to abstain from communi-
cating with any human being upon the subject of tee trial, and to
kee,o their minds clear of everything but the evidence. The court
then adjourned. Daring t'e whole day, the doors of the court-room
were besieged by crowds of people, thouge there was not the slightest
hope of obtaining admission, and large numbers remained congre-
gated in Parliamente:quare, and eaeerly discussed every stray rumour
and item of intelligence tint faund its way out of court.