Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-26 00:00:00

promoters said, was, that there were two bodies in that
town perfectly distinct, and that the town itself presented
two aspects. A port of transit and a town of inhabitancy,
and they said when they came to look at the past history
of the place, those two interests were distinctly in many
respects opposed to each other,. and that the legislation
which might apply to the port of transit might be by no
means convenient to the inhabitancy of the town, and the
converse was equally the case. With reference to the
Dock Committee, that body, in 1857, was composed of
twenty-four gentlemen, twelve being elects I by the
ratepayers and a like number by the Corporation in
their character of Dock Trustees. There could be no
doubt that upon the face of the bill it appeared the large
body of tradesmen in Liverpool who had nothing to do
with the docks, had been exercising an undue influence
over the port of transit, which influence was by no means
wholesome. Now what did the promoters want that day ?
They simply said the alteration should be carried farther,
and that the fact of persons living in Liverpool was no
reason why they should take a part in the government of
the docks. On the other hand they said—" Those
whose interests were bound up in the successful ma'iage-
ment of the port of Liverpool ought not to be excluded from
from the government of it, because they did not happen to live
at Liverpool. He would put to the Committee a parallel case—
the London Docks. These docks were owned by persons
residing in all parts of Europe, who knew nothing
more of the government of the body than as if they were
not shareholders. They appointed a governing body,
received their dividends, and that was all they knew about
the matter. Now, a manufacturer in Leeds held an
exactly parallel position to that snareholder, and it was,
therefore, very hard that he should be shut out from
representation at the board which was to regulate the
affairs of the port. In fact, the promoters of the bill
contended that the governors of the port and docks should
be only those really and truly who were interested in the
management of the docks. Then, as to the Town Dues, he
was not there to make any innovations, but so secure that
the Town Dues should be properly applied—applied to the
objects for which they ware first given, and he would con-
vict the Corporation on their own evidence of having mis-
applied those does.
Sir J. GRAHAM here called the attention of the learned
counsel to several verbal imperfections in the preamble of
the bill, and asked if he proposed to introduce any
amendments before the Committee came to a:decision upon
the preamble.
Mr. CALVERT said, it was impossible that. in so extended
a preamble some slight errors should not have crept in.
He would, however, take care that they were corrected
before the Committee gave their deCsion.
Mr. BURKE objected. He thought the Committee ought
to decide upon the preamble as it stood.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, it was most desirable that the
Committee should have the preamble before them in a per-
fect shape.
Mr. BURKE submitted that, if the preamble was im-
perfect, the Committee ought to reject the bill. Mr. Hope
Scott had urged that it was imperfect, and all that remained
for the learned counsel for the promoters, was to prove
that it was perfect. It was contrary to all practice to
introduce amendments in the manner suggested.
SIR J. GRUIAM: It will be for us to decide whether
the preamble is bad or good, subject to correction.
Mr. CALVERT remarked that a preamble of fifteen
pages was certain to contain a few imperfections. He then
resumed his statement, urging that the conduct of the
Great Western Company, in regard to the amalgamation
with the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Company, and
in respect to the lease of land on the south reserve to the
latter company, in 1852, was not open to censure. The
agreement for the lease was executed in August, 1852,
before the amalgamation with the Shrewsbury and Chester
Company was effected, and the Great Western Company
had every reason to believe that it was valid. Indeed, it
was valid, for all intents and purposes, until set aside by
a proper tribunal. He had alrealy drawn the attention of
the committee to the fact, that a port of transit, and a
town of inhabitancy, might frequently come in contact
with each othiSr, and he now proposed to show how
grievously, in this case, the port had suffered in its
dealings with ilia town. In the first instance. he would
take the case of the sale of land, and upon that point he
asked why Mr. Bramley-Moore, whose evidence would
have been of such great value, had not been examined
before the committee? He believed the reason was, that
Mr. Bramley-Moore knew too much, and would have told
all that he knew. The learned counsel then referred to the
evidence, in order to show that, for many years, the land of
the Corporation had been improved at the expense of the port.
Why, he asked, had not Mr. Hartley, the Dock Engineer,
been submitted for examination on this point ? Simply
because the promoters of the bill would have extracted
from him a minute account of the iniquitous jobs between
the Corporation as a Corporation, and the Corporation as
Dock Trustees. They would have seen how the money of
the public, transferred from one pocket was put into the
pocket of the Corporation. Talk not to him of the
generosity of the Liverpool Corporation. Ask him not
again, " Where is the Corporation that has been so generous
towards commerce as Liverpool?" The fact was the
Corporation had got 57 acres of land improved at the
expense of the Dock Trust; they had pocketed £685,000
from the sales, and if they had had no docks, there would
have been no town dues. He contended, therefore, that if
the Corporation had given all the land for docks, without
receiving a farthing in exchange, the town dues would have
been equivalent to 15 per cent. on their generosity.
The learned counsel then went on to criticise the evidence
given with reference to the warehouse question by the wit-
nesses in opposition to the bill, and placed in contrast to
the evidence of Mr. Chapman in 1851, who said gentlemen
who were warehouse owners went into the Town Council
to prevent dcck warehouses being carried out. That wit-
n-ES stated also that the preponderating local political party
excluded from the Council Mr. Eyre Evans, the man who
would have carried dock warehouses, and the consequence
was that the port was starved for dock accommodation.
The Learned Council had not concluded his address
when the committee adjourned at four o'clock.

ROCHDALE ELECTION COMMITTEE.

By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.

HOUSE OF COMMONS THURSDAY, JUNE 25.
The committee met this day to ',consider the petition
against the return of Sir A. Ramsay.
Mr. Monek opened the case on the part of the petition-
ers, who charged the agents of the sitting member with
having obtained his seat by bribery•
A number of witnesses having been examined, the
committee adjourned.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION COMMITTEE.

By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JUNE 25
The committee appointed to try the allegation in the
petition against the return of Mr. Stuart for this borough,
assembled in room No. 17, Mr. Deasy in, the chair.
Mr. Power opened the case relative to the engagement of
paid canvassers, and proceeded to contend that by law he
was entitled to do so.
Mr. Slade, Q.C., opposed the petition on the part of Mr.
Shafto
The Chairman decided that the evidence should be gone
into.
Witnesses were then called as to engagement and pay-
ment of canvassers.
The committee theu adjourned.

MAYO ELECTION COMMITTEE.

By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JUNZ 25.
This committee, consisting of Mr. W. Schofield, Chair-
man, Sir J. Hammer, Colonel North, Mr. J. Buller, and
Mr. George Tomline, met at twelve o'clock this day, for
the purpose of proceeling with the petition. Counsel for
petitioners—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C.; Mr. O'Mlley, Q.C.
and Mr. W. P. Hale. For the sitting member—Mr.
Moore, Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and two other learned
gentlemen.
Mr. James, Q.C,, opened the case for the petitioner.
He said he never knew a more important petition,
involving, as it did, the freedom of election, in more than
one Irish constituency. They were preferring a series of
high crimes and misdemeanours againt prelates and
priests in Ireland, and therefore he should open the case
as calmly as if he were opening a criminal execution. The
charges were, that there was an organised conspiracy
on the part of certain priests of the county Mayo, of which
Dr. Hale, Archbishop of Tuam, was at the head, to pre-
vent electors from voting for Col. Higgins, and compelling
them to vote for Mr. Moore. The learned counsel
then recapitulated some of the leading facts of the
case, introducing several times the name of the Archbishop
of Tuam. The Chairman, interrupted—He thought the
committee could not recognise Dr. M`Hale as Archbishop
of Tuam. Mr. E. James : Certainly not. The learned
gentleman proceeded and stated particularly on the
outrageous conduct or Mr. Conway, a catholic priest, who
had denounced Colonel Higgins from the altar, and put
himself at the head of a furiously excited mob which
attacked the voters for Colonel Higgins. Other priests in
different portions of the country also denounced the
colonel from the alter. Conway had locked up voters in
his house who were supporters of Colonel Higgins, and
they were taken to the poi and compelled to vote for
Moore, others he had sworn on the Breviary not to vote
for Higgins. Ia the village of Clone-Morris the
people, while at mass, rushed out with Mr. Reynolds,
the priest, at their head, and oru.elly used the voters,
[AI one stage of the proceedings the learned counsel sud-
denly stopped, and sddressityg Mr. G. H. Moore. who