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

ABOLITION OF PASSING TOLLS

Mr. LowE, in answer to Mr. Ingham, said he regretted
that the state of public business would prevent him from
introducing, in the present session, his bill for the abolition
of passing tolls.

SYNOD OF THe ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN CANADA.

Replying to Mr. Commis,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Royal assent had been given
to the bill passed by the Canadian Legislature, to enable
the members of the United Church of England and
Ireland to meet in synod in order that the members
thereof might be permitted to exercise the same
rights of self-government that are enjoyed by other
religious communities. He had recommended the Crown
to assent to the measure, in the belief that it placed the
appointment of bishops in that church in the synod, and
he believed that such was the intention of the assembly
of Canada.

ADMISSION OF JEWS INTO PARLIAMENT.

On the motion for the third reading of the Oaths'
Bill,

power is unnecessary, the Dock Trustees, take such
matters into their own hands entirely, and do
not allow the DocklCommittee to exercise any influence at
all. Now, on one (cession the Dock Committee had ad-
mitted that the veto had been properly exercised, and they
came to parliament to correct their error. It was really
not worth while adverting to the veto on the admission of
reporters, and one or two other very insignificant matters.
The veto had been fully explained by the Town'Clerk, and
it was in evidence that the latter part of the clause
above quoted was untrue, for the Dock Committee, by their
HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JUNE 25.
own solicitor, and other officers, carrird the bills through
parliament—the bills having first been sanctioned by the
When we closed our parcel yesterday, Mr. Hope Scott Dock Trustees. Then, he came to the imputation
was still addressing the committee on behalf of the Liver- I that the Corporation of Liverpool had fostered trade to
;It.teit corporation0 raiverpoo
ofl and
ral v
esrnpbosoelq uweenr
et 1 yg
rf I
ee
ae
tc el da
ni
dt
ob yw
nt ae
ri tea t iaonnd
at six o'clock, and we now report his remarks to a con- a
pool Corporation. The learned counsel's address closed
who, therefore, if they were not, was to foster trade?
elusion. After describing the nature of the property, and Why, then, should they tax it? They might as well speak
the peculiarity of its tenure—that it was held in trust for of injustice and the want of feeling of a mother who had
the burgesses—he pointed out that our government were devoted to the first six er eight years of the life of her
child considerable attention, and then when it came to
about to pay a considerable sum to the Danish govern-
boyhood ceased to take the same amount of care of her pro-
ment for the abolition of the Sound Dues—dues of geny that she did when in its infancy. The Board of Trade in
an analagous character to those of Liverpool, 1857, said—" It appears that the Corporation never obtained
which were now proposed to be abrogated
from Parliament power to sell and appropriate for dock pur-
without an compersation whatever being awarded poses more land than was actually wanted immediately for
y the purposes of the docks for the time bieng, in course of
to the possessors of them by law. Mr. Hope I construction; but always reserved to themselves the adjacent
Scott then quoted from the Board of Trade report of last strand " A more unjust statement he never heard of. It
year, to show that it was admitted the Liverpool Corpora- was known
wfaacet
wthaanttePearblniatmtehnet
Cnoerpveorrwatoioulnd
wgiivthe
more a
lwanelid than
tion in earlier years had managed the docks well ; and not
considerable foresight, did that which was tantamount to
only so, but had, from time to time, given land it ; they bought the land in anticipation, and sold it to the
and money towards the improvement of the port. Now they Dock Trust at cost price, plus the interest on their outlay.
r ao f e
tteheee la n.
with
son e
excavations t o ha v e
.Aegeani nn
2, i t
made by
said de ,
were able to carry that down to the latest period ; and D"
oMekucTh
the committee had had handed in to them a return showing D
from the docks, and a great part of the land has
the expenditure in money, and the gifts of land for pur-
been subsequently wanted for dock purposes, and
poses beneficial to the trade of the port, and to the river has been sold by the Corporation to themselves,
Dock Trustees." That question had been completely
but and to shipping frequenting not only the port,
as
and for ever sat at rest by the very candid evidence of Mr.y
but going higher up the river. He was bound to believe
Wrightman, confirmed by the report of the Municipal
that the committee having viewed Liverpool from a Board Corporation Commissioners in 1835, wherein it was stated,
of Trade aspect, would not refuse to look upon it from a that as regards Liverpool, there were no flagrant abuses
view which he should offer to their notice. Viewing then Proved—on the contrary, that as a Corporation, they
appeared to have been economical and judicious in the
the Liverpool Corporation, living as a wealthy proprietor
arrangement of their affairs, and as a governing power had
on the banks of the Mersey, what had that proprietor exercised their functions judiciously. But what was most
done ? They found that proprietor giving a sum of money remarkable in all these transactions was, the opponents of
towards the construction of the old dock—a sum very large Liverpool could not lay their finger on a single one and
say that it was tainted with fraud or bore the semblanee of
at the time, considering the income of the Corporation— say
job. Indeed, many of these large transactions were in
larger than the total income from the Town Dues at that the recollection of living men, and yet, not one man could
period, which was £360, and the gift was £5OO. They be induced to say that they were tainted. Mr. Aspinall
Turner, a witness to be trusted in every respect, and who,
also found that Corporation contributing to the improve-
from his' being resident there, had a thorough knowledge
ment of the river Weaver, to open up an inland communi-
of Liverpool, said he could not blame the Corporation for
cation with Cheshire ; they contributed towards charts of having taken a fair price for their land ; but that their
the Mersey, towards improving the highways to Preston and position as buyers and sellers, necessarily laid them open to
Warrington, (ungrateful Manchester); towards improving I
sthusetciotran.neaoThtiaotnpeo i
tnot waas
jenarsyily rWhether
btyharetfewrriounlgd all
the navigation of the Mersey ; towards making the Sankey
desirable he was not prepared to say. Next,
Brook navigable; they built forts, gave sites to government as to the warehouse question in 1840. It had been
for forts for the protection of the port; they improved the insinuated both in statement and in argument that the
T
approaches to the docks, and, in fact, made every variety Town Council interest was adverse to the interests of the
port, in respect to dock warehouse accommodation. This was
of expenditure for the benefit of trade and commerce, in- really too bad—inexcusable. The fact was, a bill was pro-
eluding an outlay of £llO,OOO towards a custom house, Rioted by the Dock Commitee, in the name of the Dock
dock, and post-office; they established an observatory, Trustees, and might have beenDvetokedTby the Corporation of
which was of incalculable value to mariners ; they prepared
tLhiever,!iodolniont their capacity
tti
onagyaasinuotcruhesyteegsa.veAnos
eitppwoaest,
and passed a bill for the conservancy of the river ; they tiony to the measure—but it was opposed by the Warehouse
raised a regiment of so'diers for the protection of their Association, some members of whom were in the Town
native land ; they, in fact, incurred expenditure upon Council,where their votes on the question did not affect the
almost every object for the local accommodation and pro-
And now f alBsst7o Beiarikde uh e:
—,a,
Id
t. i Thee n
oeße
necessary
oftt
oT Trade, a
, in
t
tection of shipping since the first Dock Act, to the extent of bill
llr reportil
length the history of the Birkenhead docks. y When they
£1,702,992. The total revenue, as far as they knew it, were first projected in 1824, the Liverpool Corporation
(the very earliest returns were not complete) from the bought large tracts of land and shares of Wallasey Pool, in
Town Dues and anchorage, commencing in 1727, was order,la e a,sr present Town s s
tatee
d byl the
rka
ITownstye
rto
Clerk in
preventlB3
4 theandestab-
lishment asfaii-
n£3,29s,B76 ;so that upon public objects connected with liys th j tnhment of a rival port"—a very good reason, indeed, for
the trade of the port, and, without reference to what had the purchase. "In 1843 44, the scheme for docks having
been lent on low rates of interest and repaid, and again been set on foot, the Corporation sold long
without reference to the expenditure on property, from leases of this land at high prices, They then
vigorously opposed the Birkenhead Dock's Bill. The
which they now derived rent, out of 13,205,876 •
subsequent history of Birkenhead, is the history of a
received by the Corporation, they had an actual ex- struggle with Liverpool, and with Liverpool taxation. An
penditure, not compulsory, but voluntary, upon old and absurd cry revived, The Corporation issued
those general objects for the benefit of commerce of notices for a bill in 1828, and made very great concessions
£1,702,992. But if the committee would look further, to individuals, to make docks on the land which the Cor-
poration leased to them, subject however, to a very strong
they would find that the Corporation had lent the Dock
general warning, that the plans on which y proceeded
Trust sums of money, not large in amount as compared must not be injurious to the estate, andthe then with fall
with our day, but which, in earlier periods, were very and perfect notice beforehand, that if their plans were of
considerable. In all they had lent the Dock Trust such a character, they should be strongly opposed. The
£ll,OOO, and besides this, they had expended on lessees did introduce obnoxious plans, and the Corpora-
tobacco warehouses, at the request of the Commissioners of ltiont
er did offer
it t o
was the nithethluirck ratepayers
sospwpohso refuseditionA to
Customs, a
Castoms, a very considerable sum, besides giving the have periodecks at Birkenhead. The Corporation had brought
and, worth £72,000. They had also paid icr cranes for in a bill for the purpose, and took the sense of the rate-
the use of the craft trading is the Mersey ; had erected oil payers upon it, the result being that the members sent
"houses to encourage the Greenland Fishery ; erected four down by the committee to the Dock Committee, were in a
gunpowder magazines, and other objects of public utility, thatminority,
itw
aae inexpedient
the ratepayers
to afford
s nominees t
ea passedee
accommodation
resolutionod a
ti o n
at an expense of £276,212, which were at present giving a in the shape of eddocks by going to Birkenhead. Had the
return of ..4.'3 15s 2d per cent., being building property, Corporation been allowed to proceed, no doubt an immense
which, in an ordinary speculation, would be expected to sum of money would have been saved to the commerce
aoewihtel,y.e
oCriogrEariaityioenteestdoodtihniaivpeorspitioooin
realise at least 7 per cent. Again, supposing there had owf. thh eM erse y
been in 1793, a Dock Trust only, could that Trust have with
They were Birkenhead,the. own ers of a very fine and valuable estate,
sustained the honour and credit of the town without the which must be benefitted by the completion of the docks,
aid of the Corporation ? The Corporation even could and therefore with truth the Admiralty had said—" Their
not have done it without the Town Dues— lordships consider it would be highly desirable that works
with them they were not obliged to do it, on which so much time and money have been spent should
But that was only one of the many bright examples of nfowLb.veecarple,dwohuot andeu chotttetbede, andthe tbliesettth.e
dCoerepoorfattire
their generous conduct towards the trade and commerce requirements,orpo
and who have the greatest injutefest in the
of the port, and was only one of many instances showing outlay, should be permitted to complete works which have
the immense advantages derived by the port of Liverpool remained so long in abeyance." The fight of the Corpora-
from the generosity of the Corporation—a wealthy and tion with the Great Western Company was
lthis, that
tthe
liberal corporation, whose interest it was, he (Mr. Hope loer pi :)i rrtei on nh
ewadoue
etanteot
egnwtehuepsethuethmßoesteervvaeuawblheiepharwaoef
Scott) admitted, to be generous, but whose liberality held in trust for commercial purrses—for railway pur-
descended in a thousand blessings upon future generations, poses exclusively. If the Corporation had sought their
not only of the people of Liverpool, but of the whole i own interest in the matter, they would have sought to have
country. Now, putting the other case, supposing the the trade taken higher up the Float, near their own pro-
Molyneux family had held this property (as they did perty, or upon the North Reserve ; but they felt that they
before the corporation purchased it from them), the royal held those docks on the faith of constructing them according
commissioners would have told parliament, tt It is private to the best plans possible, and therefore refused to allow one
property ; you cannot touch it." And, let him ask, would railway company to monopolise a large and most valuable
the Molyneux family, who had made these dues the subject portion of the estate. He must say, that on a calm review
of marriage settlements on the daughters of their dependents, of the whole case, he was surprised that, after a lapse
would they have made this expenditure ? And yet, of 150 years, so few accusations could be brought
forsooth, because these dues of a private family had been against the Corporation. Reformed or unreformed,
bought and paid for by an aggregation or corporation of the Liverpool Corporation had shown the same spirit,
individuals, they were to be confiscated on the ground that had acted on the same wise and liberal principles,
they were not analagous to private property. But he would and on have developed a commercial scene, which was
put yet another case. Supposing the Corporation were the unequalled for its grandeur and stupendous extent by any
lessees, under a thousand years' lease, and the Molyneux commercial city in Europe or America. The present
family were the reversioners, what would the committee Dock Committee was unchallenged by their opponents, in
have said to them? Would the committee have passed
the bill without giving compensation? They could not— respect of their conduct. Their present constitution was
modified in 1851, and gradually would be capable of
they dared not. There never bad bean a man bold enough further modification perhaps by an addition to the repre-
yet to attempt the confiscation of property so held. The sentation. The past history of the Dock Committee
people of Liverpool had purchased their property, and it showed a gradual extension of the ratepaying franchise,
was not safe in their own hands, though it would be in the and the privilege of representation ; and the evidence of
hands of the Molyneux family, where it would receive a the general satisfaction which the Dock Committee gave
very different application to that which it had met with was decisive. There had been celled Mr. Saunders, a
from the Corporation. Apart from this, however, he merchant ; Mr. Grinnell, an extensive and well-known
would ask, where was the town in this kingdom that American merchant, who quoted the late Captain
could show such a catalogue cf expenditure to purposes Eldridg's opinion, that Liverpool was a hundred years
for which the funds of the Corporation were not neces- a-head of London; there had been ten years favourable
eerily liable or applicable ? Certainly that was not the reports from Captain Evans, the acting conservator of the
practice of Manchester. The way in which they managed Mersey. In fact, the committee had had everything before
their gas affair would not come within that category. The them to establish good conduct and successful results
way in which they sought to get an act of Parliament for Under the present system, and yet that was the system
bonding warehouses, and to apply the surplus to the which, upon a few charges made, and refuted as soon as
borough fund was not at all in the direction followed by made, to assuage the jealousy of a neighbouring city,
the Town Council of Liverpool, who had laid out money and gratify the cupidity of a commercial company,
for tobacco stores, oil warehouses, and other places for all this good management was to be abolished.
the accommodation of trade, eith,r at a low rate Then they were told by the Board of Tra..le, that taxation
of interest, or as an absolute gift altogether. The and representation should go together ; but did any one
Committee, therefore, would easily understand why the ever hear of those two things making a port ? Nobody,
Board of Trade, in their report, wished to throw a mist over in fact—it was necessary that some body of weight should
their eyes as to the legality of the dues. Now, he (Mr. develop the trade of a port, and in this case Liverpool had
Hope Scott) ftlt tolerably safe and clear upon this head; done so —the reward for her pains was that she must be
but they had been charged with misconduct in reference cast into oblivion to carry out the quack nostrums of
to the Dock Trust and Birkenhead, and upon this subject Manchester. But they would first find who paid the tax
the Board of Trade was full and copious. They say " the before they could give representation. Mr. Lowe at first
audit commissioners appear, at first, to have had extensive said the shipping interest paid it; lately he had informed
powers of extending the expenditure, and they instructed the House of Commons that " the gown of every woman,
the counsel who appeared before the jury to assess the from the Queen on the throne, to the maid of all work,
value of land, bought by the Dock Trust from the Corpo- who scrubbed the steps," paid these dues. Well, certainly
ration. In 1824, these commissioners endured great ample provision had been made under the Mersey Conser-
abuses. In 1825, the Corporation procured an act by vancy Bill for the representation of the Queen, but who
which the power of the audit commissioners was confined was to represent the maid of all work. (Laughter.) But,
to seeing that vouchers was produced." Now, what was supposing the principle could not be carried out, the
the fact? Against whom were the abuses alleged, and question became merely one of convenience and policy.
brought home to ? Not to the commissioners, but to certain Who then would be represented ? The man who lived at
servants of the trust, who had corrupt dealings with con- Manchester, and who had an interest only in keeping down
tractors ; and for their discovery, the audit commissioners the rates, without regard to the efficiency of the Port, or the
were voted,. publicly, the thanks of the Corporation. This man whose whole interests were bound up in the welfare
aide-wind imputation, therefore, upon the council was of Liverpool ? The truth was that the Board Trade and the
exposed, and the Committee, he hoped, would deal with it, Manchester interests were so bent on the immediate object
and any of a similar class, in the manner it and they of humbling Liverpool, and confiscating her Town Dues,
merited. Upon the subject of the veto, the Board of that they would not pause to consider consequences.
Trade left the matter tolerably open. In their Better far, that the whole government of the port should
report they said, " The power of veto has been go to the central government auth rity at once, than that
repeatedly exercised ; properly, as the Corporation con- it should be handed over to such a Board as that pro-
tend—improperly, as their opponents contend ; but, how, posed, and it might possibly be that the way to produce an
I
ever this may be, against the wishes of the Dock Ohm_ absolute despotism, was to give an absolute democracy,
mittee, and against the interests of the dock ratepayers. The present constitution of the Dock Trust worked well;
The veto requires a majority of two-thirds el the Town , nobody found fault with it on the ground of laving com-
Connell ; but in the most important mat of all, viz , those 1 mitted any offence, and therefore it was absurd to seek to
which relate to new bills, the Coll2:Yration find that this change it, By complying with the request 0 Mnchaster,

The Marquis of BLANDFORD moved that it be read a
third time on that day six months. He maintained the
importance of reminding members of the Christian
character of this country and the legislature, on coming to
the table to be informed of his parliamentory functions,
and objected to the bill on the ground that all mention of
religion was by it removed from the oaths. The measure
had been amended, and rendered inconsistent, by declar-
ing that Jews should not be allowed to execute the laws
which they were invited to help to frame. In addition to
this, he objected that Boman Catholics took an oath not
to act against the church, which was not provided for

Mr. DRUNDIOND looked upon the bill as for the purpose
of admitting Baron Rothschild to Parliament, though that
object was not apparent in any part of it. The bill could
never have passed in a House not already unchristianised.
He would treat the Jews as the Jews would treat him,
and he wished that all who professed Christianity would
•act up to their religion as the Jews did. He seconded
the amendment.

The O'DoNouottuz objected to the third readirg,
because he considered that the Roman Catholics were
treated by it with injustice. The object was to admit
some half a dozen Hebrews to privileges which the Roman
Catholics did not possess, and he, therefore, opposed the
bill.

Mr. E. BULL considering that the country owed a great
deal to the Jews, and that their admission to Parliament
would not unchristianise the Legislature, gave his support
to the third reading of the measure.
Mr. DILLWYN regretted the introduction of the clauses
excluding Jews from certain offices.

Mr. COLLINS protested against the principle of the bill,
and supported the amendment.
Mr. BOWYER had always supported the bills introduced
for the removal of Jewish disabilities, but could not Banc-
ion this measure of injustice to the Roman Catholics.
Mr. DEasy opposed the bill for similar reasons.
The House then divided. The numbers were—.
For the third reading 291
Against

Majority ...... ....123
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheering.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
some discussion arose as to the arrangements far the
ceremony of the distribution of the Order of Valour in the
Hyde-park tomorrow ; and subsequently, upon a motion
made by Lord Palmerston, to inquire into the condition
and administration of metropolitan workhouses, which was
ultimately rejected in a thin house by a majority of
twenty-cue.

The House then went into committee, and the consi-
deration of the Estimates for the Civil Service was pro-
ceeded with. A. number of votes were agreed to sub

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

Upon the Education vote of £361,000,

Mr. CoopEß entered into a lengthened explanation of
the increase, urging the advantages of the system, and
stating his belief, that for the benefits of Education, the
people were prepared to pay the price.
Sir JOIIN PAKINGTON, Mr. ALCOCK, Mr. W. EWART, and
several other members, having stated their views on the
subject, Mr. HENLEY and Mr. HARDY condemned the
proposal for an Education rate.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

There was a general approval given of the system now
pursued by her Majesty's Government.
Lord llRLauen deprecated the annual increase of
the education vote, and moved a redaction by £90,000,
the increase over last year's estimates.
The amendment was negatived on a division by 7 to
163, and the original vote was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
The other business was dispoied of, and the House
adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

At a Public Meeting of Ratepayers, held yesterday in the
Town-hall, the following gentlemen were elected Commis-
sioners for Auditing the Dock Estate, viz :—Messrs. John
Gordon, Henry Dawson, David Rae, James Brebner, Jas.
Williams, C. T. Bowring, George Kendall, J. A. Black.
The Commissioners subsequently unanimously re-elected
r. H. B. Hornby as their special accountant, -

THE NORTHERN TIMES.--LIVERPOOL, FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1857.