The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-18 00:00:00

INQUIRY BBFORE TUE COMMISSIONERS.

On Wednesday Captain C: Bethune, R.N., and
Colin Blackburn, Esq., barristerzat-law, the•commissioners
appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the shipping
charges of the various ports of the.kingdom„ opened their
commission in the crown court of .St. George's-ball. There
was a numerous attendance of gentlemen from Manches-
ter and the manufacturing districts.. Mr. Heron appeared
on behalf of the Manchester corporation, and Mr. Shuttle-
worth on behalf of the corporation of Liverpool.
Captain BETUUNE said the commission was sitting a
second time in Liverpool, in consequence- of a memorial
from Manchester, and other places ; audit would be their
duty, in the first instance, to listen to anything which
gentlemen representing those places might wish to state.
The following gentlemen then announced the interests
which they represented :—Mr. Hull, solicitor, appeared for
the line of packets sailing between Liverpool, Lisbon, the
Brazils, and various parts of the River Plate, and also for
the Canadian Steam Navigation Company; Mr. Gibson,
for the corporation of Salford ; Mr. Bramah, for the trus-
tees of the Birkenhead docks ; Mr. March, the town-clerk
of Warrington, for that borough ; Mr. Wain, for the Im-
provement Commissioners of Birkenhead;. Mr. James As-
pinall Turner, for the Commercial Assoeiation of Man-
chester ; Mr. Ashworth, for the Chamber of Commerce of
Manchester ; Mr. Buckley, for the steel manufacturers of
Ashton-under-Lyne; Mr. Thomas Livesey, for the com-
missioners of Rochdale ; Mr. William Adshead, for the
borough of Macclesfield ; Mr. George Adshead, for Staly-
bridge ; Mr. Peter Catterall, for the Birkenhead, Lanca-
shire, and Cheshire Junction Railway; Mr. Thomas John-
son, for the town and port of Runcorn; Mr. Joseph Owen,
for the corn-merchants of Manchester; Mr. Thornely, for
Hyde and Glossop ; Mr. Blackwell, on the part of the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway, and also for the
South Wales coal-masters of Birkenhead.;,Captain French,
on the part of the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Com-
pany ; Mr. Robertson, on behalf of the Shrewsbury and
Hereford Railway Company, and also on behalf of the
North Wales coal-masters; who export large quantities of
coal from Birkenhead ; Mr. Richard Massy, for the slate-
merchants of Manchester ; Mr. William. Slater, for the
trustees of the late Duke of Bridgewater; Mr. Fereday
Smith, on behalf of the Earl of Ellesmere.

Mr. HERON said what he wanted to learn from the
town-clerk of Liverpool was, on what principle the amount
of town dues levied upon various articles was regulated ;
and he stated that up to 1776 the dues were only taken
upon 103 artieles,which were enumerated on a brass plate
placed in the Custom-house. There were now above 600
articles ; and he wished to know in what way the dues on
new articles were fixed.

Commissioner Bx.ACKIIIIBIVE thought that the question
as to the right to add new articles to their tariff was set-
tled by the charge of Lord Denman, on the occasion of the
case tried before him in 1835,—Corporation of Liverpool
v. Bolton. _
_ _

Mr. HERON expressed his opinion that the question of
the right of the corporation to levy dues had not been
settled by the result of the trial of 1835.
Mr. BLACKBURNE held that it was not the province of
the commission to unsettle the judgment on that occasion,
which it was only for a superior court to do.
Mr. HERON proceeded to contend that by the various
charters and acts of parliament, under which the Liver-
pool Corporation claim dues, their right was restricted
within the limits of the port or borough.
Mr. BLACKBURNB held, however, that these points had
been urged in the action against Bolton and others; but
that they could be raised before the Court of Exchequer.
Mr. HERON went at some length into remarks upon the
hardship of Manchester and other towns having to con-
tribute towards the improvement of the borough and port
of Liverpool. He concluded his address by stating that
additional information should be received by the commis-
sioners before they made their report.
Mr. JAMES ASPINALL TURNER protested against the
levying of town dues at all.

Mr. HENRY ASIMORTII averred that the cotton manu-
factured at Blackburn paid a sum of £4,300 annually ; on
investigation, his amount was reduced to £B5O.
Mr. HULL, for the Birkenhead Dock Company, in open-
ing his case, explained that, notwithstanding the opinion
that the question of title had been settled by the result of
the action of 1835, he should have to enter into that ques-
tion, on the ground that such decision did not settle the
question as to Birkenhead, which did not exist at that
time as a port ; and also, that when the first charter was
given to Liverpool, there was in existence a previous grant
to parties in Cheshire, which, he contended, conferred
powers similar to those possessed by Liverpool. He hoped
therefore that the commissioners would call upon the
Town-clerk to state definitely upon what ground he
claimed the right of levying taxes in Birkenhead.
Mr. BBAMAII followed, on the part of the Birkenhead
Dock Commissioners, principally dwelling upon the fact of
the action by the Corporation v. Bolton having been settled
by a compromise.
Mr. MAssRY, of Manchester, appeared on behalf of the
slate trade.

Mr. SIMPSON, of Runcorn, said that the concern which
he represented paid £2OO a-year dues, for which, he con-
sidered, they derived no return.
A gentleman representing the coal and iron trade of
Staffordshire and South Wales, entered into some inter-
esting facts connected with the great increase of those
trades and districts now taking place, which would be
greatly promoted by an abolition of the town dues.
Another coal-owner, representing South Wales, ex-
plained how heavily the dues affected its mineral traffic.
The TOWN-CLERK of Warrington expressed the feeling
of the people of that town.
Mr. SLATER, on the part of the Bridgewater trustees,
took the same ground as Mr. Hull had done,—that the
charge of Lord Denman, in 1835, did not decide the case
of Runcorn.

Mr. FEREDAY &fun explained how the dues tended to
give an advantage to other ports. The import of iron into
Runcorn had been reduced, within the last few years,from
74,000 tons to 56,000 tons per annum, whilst the import
of Fleetwood had largely increased.
Mr. BUCKLEY, of Ashton, stated that the d tes paid by
Ashton, Staleybridge, Glossop, and the district, amounted
to £2,500 a-year.
Mr. LIVESET, of Rochdale, entered into some statistics
with respect to that town, which, he says, pays £1,300
a-year to Liverpool.
The inquiry was then adjourned until Thursday.