The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-22 00:00:00

THE BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILL.

On Friday John Abernethy, Esq., the Commissioner
appointed by her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and
Forests, to make preliminary inquiry respecting bills re-
lating to docks, and now before Parliament, attended at
the Town Hall, Birkenhead, for the purpose of taking
evidence relative to a Bill entitled " An act for levying
additional rates, and Liverpool dock rates, and also for
amending the Birkenhead dock acts."
Mr. Maynard, solicitor, appeared for the promoters of
the bill, who are the bondholders of the Birkenhead
docks.
Mr. Worthington appeared as solicitor for the Liver-
pool Dock Trustees--to oppose clause Bof the bill, which
proposed an alteration of the Liverpool Dock rates.
That he considered an abstract question, independent of
the present inquiry, and as the parties he represented as
well as the Liverpool deck bondholders had petitioned
Parliament on the subject, he proposed that the'opposi-
Hon to that clause should be postponed until the bill was
in emarnit.ee.

The Commissioner thought some evidence might be
given (under his instructions) with respect to the com-
parative advantages of Birkenhead and Liverpool, and,
the mode in which the rates bore upon shipping.
Mr. Worthington said he was not yet prepared to give
any evidence on the subject. and after requesting that it
might appear upon the rotes that the bill would be op-
posed by the Liverpool, Dock Trustees, and also by toe
bondholders, withdrew.—Mr. Forshaw, solicitor, appeared
on behalf of owners of vessels engaged in the coasting
trade,—Mr. J. B. Lloyd, of- the Birkenhead Lancashire,
and Cheshire Junction Railway Company,—Mr. Nelson,
on behalf of the landowners resident at Seacombe,—Mr.
Hull, as an owner of property at Birkenhead, and also ea
behalf of several other owners of property.—Mr. May-
nard, at some length, stated the nature of the bill.
Mr. J. M. Rendell, C.E., being called said he had beet
employed on the Birkenhead docks since their commence..
ment in 1844. The Morpeth and Egerton Docks had
precisely the same accommodation for shipping as the
Liverpool docks.' On these docks upwards of ..Z70,0011
Mid, been expended. He handed in a plan sheaving the
progress of the .present works, and those intended ' • also
the site of a grid-irogrid-iron,proposed to be made at the S.W.
corner of the Woodside Basin, near the entrance to the
Morpeth Dock.' •

Mr. Maynard said he thought coasters should have free
use of the grid-iron, but, with respect to the scale of
charges they intended to take a lesson from their pardnt—
Liverpool.
Mr. Rendell;in continuation, said the sills of the pre-
sent dock; and of. those intended, were 5 or 6 feet lower
than the Old Dock-sill of Liverpool, so that vessels could
dock at any time, when there was water across the bar, st
the mouth of the Mersey.
The solicitors severally addressed the commissioner,
and none of them ohiected to the bill but Mr. Forshaw,
who merely objected' to the site of the grid-iron.
Mr. Hull strongly urged the completion of the greet
float for the timber trade, and was glad the promoters
ii-
tended it. 'l'ne inquiry then closed for the day.

On Saturday; 'Mr. Afreinethy resumed the enquiry, the
object this day being to examine into another bill, pro-
moted by the Birkerdieed Dock Commissioners, and hav-
ing for its object a change in the constitution of the Dock
Trust.
Mr. Maynard stated the heads of the bill, which refers
to the.arrangements on foot to obtain pecuniaryythe anidewfrGbiniti
government, the whole of the particulars of which have
already appeared in all the newspapers. By
the Crown had power to appoint the chairman of the
Board, and they had already appointed Mr, Webstez
barrister-at law, who was also standing counsel for the
Birkenhead Commissioners in all their contests in the
House of Commons.
• The presiding CoMmissioner thought the bondholders
should be more fully represented than by four commis.,
sioners out of twelve. •
The legal gentlemen who were again in attendance ad-
dressed the court for their respective clients, but none et
them, seemed to he exactly in opposition to the bill, though
several of tliard sought an extended representation.
Mr. Maynard replied; merely expressing his surprise
that there should be any opposition whatever to the bill.
The Commission then broke up.,

. ,
A very large_ roect4vwas.held in Bristol last weekwiles
it.was agreed to transfer the doeki, tic. to the Corpora-
tion. The third resiiihtion was to the effect,--That' the
consumer pay a the dodk dues eventually, and that the
representatives of the ratepayers should have the same
power of controlling the imposts on trade as they already
possess, with respect to poor, borough, and other rater.