The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-05 00:00:00

(FROM OUR OWN RRPOR'PIIR.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into this
bill resumed its sittings after the Whitsunt de holidays at
ten o'clock this day. Sir James Graham occupied the
chair, and the other members of the committee, namely,
Lord Henniker, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Paget, and Mr. North,
were all present.

Mr. J. Aspinall Turner, M.P,, Mr. J. C. Ewart, M.P.,
and Mr. Bramley-Moore, M P., were also in attendance.
The committee-room was crowded throughout the day by
gentlemen interested in the inquiry from Liverpool and
Manchester.

Mr. Heron, town-clerk of Manchester, was re-called,
and produced a statistical account of the expendi-
ture for rates in Manchester in the yea 1851-55.
During that period the total. expenditure had
been £261,691 7s 8d ; in addition to which
there had been au expenditure on the part of the corpora-
tion, for paving and sewerage, of £41,931 17s 7d, which
was afterwards repaired by the owners. The total expen-
diture had been £303,626 5s 3d. Mr. Heron then
produced a list of articles in respect of which dues were
authorised to be taken, under the bonding act ; and
explained that a short time after the act came into force,
a change took place in the customs' tariff. After the year
1851, the corporation of Manchester became responsible
to the treasury for the expenses incurred in maintaining
the bonded warehsuses, but they entered into an arrange-
ment with the proprietors, by which they received back
the amount so expended.
Sir James Graham said, a question arose before the
adjournment on Friday last, respecting the right of a
gentleman to be heard on behalf of the Liverpool pilots,
who applied for permission to examine witnesses. On
that occasion the committee gave permission subject to
subsequent inquiry into the matter. Since the adjourn-
ment he had instituted inquiries, and he found that the
point in question had been ruled by the decision of the
late Speaker upon the sth March, 1854. His first
impression proved to be correct—namely, that no solicitor
could be heard as an agent, unless he was a parliamentary
agent, and responsible to the house for the fees. There-
fore, what had been permitted on Friday was not to be
drawn into a precedent, but he might add, for the infor-
mation of country solicitors, that it was competent for
them, if they wished to be heard, to have their names
placed upon the roll of parliamentary agents.
Mr. Bremner 841, he should not have presumed to
appear, if he had not understood that it was in accordance
with the general practice to hear country solicitors.
Sir James Graham said, Mr. Bremner could not be
heard unless he placed himself upon the roll of parlia•
mentary agents, in which case he would become subject to
the immediate control of the house.
Mr. Thomas Bazley was the next witness. He said he
was president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,
and had been so for many years. The Chamber of Com-
merce, the Manchester Commercial Association, and the
Great-Western Railway Company, were the promoters of
the present bill. The Chamber of Commerce had for a
considerable period turned their attention to the necessity
of providing accommodation for shipping on the Cheshire
shore of the Mersey, and had also considered the conduct
of the Corporation of Liverpool, in reference to the col-
lection of the town dues. Instead of being applied to the
benefit of the shipping and of commerce generally, those
dues were applied by the Corporation to local improve-
ments in Liverpool. In 1836 the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce petitioned against the high dock rates charged.
and against a bill introduced into parliament by the Cor-
poration that year. In 18-19, another bill was proposed to
parliament, the object of which was to render the Liverpool
docks liable to the poor-rate. It was also petitioned
against by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. In
1851, the American Chamber of Commerce promoted a bill
for the purpose of diminishing the power of the Liverpool
Town Council, in reference to the appropriation of the
dues, and to give the dock-due payers a preponderating
influence in the Dock Committee. The Chamber of
Commerce, on being applied to, opposed the bill, because
they considered that the dues were national property, and
ought to be dealt with as such. In 1856 the Chamber of
Commerce petitioned in favour of the Local Dues on
Shipping Bill, and against the measures promoted by the
Corporation of Liverpool in reference to Birkenhead. Liver-
pool was the port at which cotton was imported for the supply
ofthe great manufacturing districts of Lancashire and York-
shire, and the high dues charged very injuriously affected
the trade. Cotton imported in a raw state, and subse •
quently exported as a manufactured article, paid the dues
twice. Scotch spinners frequ-ntly purchased cotton at
Manchester, and exported it to Glasgow, and in that case
the dues were also paid twice over ; and if the goods,
when manufactured, were sent to Liverpool again, the
dues were paid a third time. The objection which the
Chamber of Commerce entertained to the Town Dues was
that they were appropriated to purposes having no connec-
tion with shipping. The present bill would not abolish
Town Dues, but would ensure their application to the im-
provement of the part. Viewing the bill in that light, the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce felt it their duty to
support it. The interests of the Corporation were fre•
quently opposed to those of trade, and upon that ground
alone he thought the Corporation ought not be allowed
to levy the dues, unless the present system was
changed. He believed it probable that Southampton
Fleetwood, Milford Haven, Holyhead, and London would
become competing ports with Liverpool. At Bristol,
measures had been adopted for the reduction of the duos,
in order that the commerce of the port might be
encouraged.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hope Scott, Q.O , : Prospec-
tively I believe that Liverpool is in danger of being
deserted by commerce. Advantages have been offered at
Southampton and London which have induced the manu-
factures of Manchester to send goods to those ports which
would otherwise have been exported by way of Liverpool.
Mr. Hope Scott : Can you give me an instance of any
Manchester manufacturers having sent goods to Southamp-
ton for shipment instead of to Liverpool, and, if so, can
you state the reason ?
Mr Bazley : I have heard of such cases, but I cannot
particularise any at this moment.
Mr. Hope Scott : In the case you refer to, where were
the goods intended to be sent ?
Mr. Bazley: To the East Indies.
Mr. Hope Scott : Were the freights the same at
Southampton as at Liverpool ?
Mr. Bazley : No doubt there were advantages in export-
ing via Southampton, over the mute via Liverpool.
Mr Hope Scott : Are you prepared to show the com-
mittee that a charge which amounts to 2d. a bale at Liver-
pool on Manchester goods, was directly or indirectly the
cause of any goods being sent to Southampton ?
Mr. Bazley : lam not prepared to show that the 2cle
prevents any goods from being shipped at Liverpool, but
the aggregate amount of the charges at Liverpool has no
doubt had that effect.
Mr. Hope Scott : Had the Town Dues anything to do
with the shipment of the goods at Southampton instead of
Liverpool ?
Mr. Bazley : I have no doubt they had.
Mr. Hope Scott : Are there any town dues at South-
'
ampton ?
Mr. Bazley : I do not know, but I believe not.
Mr. Hope Scott : Do you consider that the town dues
are a charge upon shipping
Mr. Bazley : Certainly.
Mr. Hope SCO.t. In what way ?