The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-29 00:00:00

,rext year, 1841, the share capital was £53,093 13s 4d,
exectly the sem,. amount as before. The company
borrowed £33,400, and expended £2,333. What became
of the other £30,000 ? (Hear, hear.) Surely it
ought to be shouted through Birkenhead from one
end to the other—" Who took the £30,000 ?"
(Cheers.) If the company had dispensed it honestly, the
public were bound honestly to pay to the last farthing-.--
but if they had dishonestly—by which he meant not in
teed erdance with the act binding them as a company, for
he charged a compeny and not individuals —then be con-
tended that they were no longer worthy of the consider-
ation of the public. (Hear, heer) In 1853 he again
found £33,000 borrowed, and £6,237 expended. He bad
only to reiterate the enquiry—what became of the re-
manlier of the money ? HI contended that the company
were net warranted in coming forward to demand an
extension of the privileges which they .had thus
nnwarrantatly exercised. (treat) By the 114th section
they were compelled tO file, every year, an annual account
or abstract showing the total receipts and expenditure of
all the fends raised under the act for the year ending the
Ist of Marela,Or s arie other convenient day. He held in
his hand the returns given by the deputy justice of the
peace for the county of Chester, and by it they would see
that the actual accounts, so far as he c understand it,
required by the 114th sea had never been filed, except
in two years, in 1846 and 1850. A statement of the
working proc4s account was filed in several years from
1812 to 1856, but in 1847 and in 1833 no accounts of any
description were filed. He asked them whether, in the
flee of the failure in that single undertaking, there was
not to their minds a clear and decided conviction that
these people had not fulfilled the duty imposed upon them.
If the account showed that they ware not receiving more
then ten per cent, the magistrates were bound forthtvih,
if they were of op nion that the company was not capable
of doing it, to order a reduction in the price of water. The
clause stated that when the profits exceeded ten per cent per
idionld make such rateable reduction
in the rents and prices of gee and water furnishes' by them
for the said current year as the company might deem
prudent. (Laughter.) Whom then were they to blame
for this neglect? The justices who failed to see the clause
'carried out, or the company who neglected to do it ?
For two years, with the interest of 30,000 persons at stake,
with so enormous a per cenesgs involved as the difference
between what they were entitled to receive and what they
ought not to receive, the justices had so far overlooked
their, duty, and the company had so far foiled in their
contract as to have no accounts files at all, and for a
series of years portions of the accounts required by the act
were not filed. Therefore, upon the last charge he
contended he' had shown that, unless it could be fully
explained, there had:not been Ruth faith kept with the
public as to entitle thoste parties to come forward and ask
for a renewal and an increase of their powers. (Hear,
hear.) They were not the parties who could make the
public believe that what had not hitherto been fairly and
correctly done, rshould, for the future, be fairly and
correctly done. :They wore not the men who could indica
the public to do such a foolish thing. He contended
that the company had been a gtteat monopoly, a sealed
book, and that if the interests of the public were to be
considered, if the community was to progress with the
progress of the time., the time had now arrived when the
profit above the limited amount upon the money which
the public paid f_,r gas and water should go back into the
pockets of the people, and not to enrich a few individuals,
( gear, hear.) The public of 73irkenhead would that night
be following out an hothest course by showing that they
could meet in assembly, and debate calmly questions
brought before them, not seeking to take. advantage of
their neighbours, but only advocating fairness to all, and
they should be leaving behind a great lesson which would
gyve those who cane after them no need to be ashamed of
the things they had done, or to regret that they followed
in their footsteps. (Cheers.) Mr. Bretherton then pro-
posted the resolutiou.
Mr. Nattall seconded the resolution, which was carried
by acclamation.
A person in the body of the meeting said he should like
to si,k, if what Mr. Bretherton stated was true —(laughter)
—whether it would not be very easy to repeal the act
now. (Renewed laughter.) He thought the letter of Mr
Jacksonbery unbecoming, but he should like to knew
whether it was true that the company were prevented from
affording a further supply of water by the conduct of the
commissioners?
The Chairmen said that it had been stated that the
cause of their not having more water was owing to the
refusal of the Commission rs to sell to the company a
piece of land at Flaybriele hill. He denied that that was
the case. (Hear, hear.) The company asked the commis-
sioners to sell them a piece of land at Flaybriek hill, stating
that it had b-en rec emended by their engineer, Mr.
Hawke.ley, as the most suitable in this district for getting
an additional supply of water. The Commissioners replied
that they had no objection to sell the land, provided the com-
pany would guarantee the supply within a definite time and
supply gas and water to the ratepayersoof the township on
reasonable terms. (Hear, hear,) They did not refuse to
sell, but they had a right, as a body of commissioners, to
'protect the ratepayers. (Hear, hear.) What was the
ant-wer of the company ? They differed with the commis-
sioners; they did not think the ratepayers had a right to
protect private gas and water consumers. The commie-
stoners, on the other hand, maintained that they had such
a right, and that if they sold the land without some such
condition they would be sacrificing the interests of the
township. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Cunningham proposed the second resolution. He
said—MreChairman, the resolution that has been put info
my hands, and which I have to submit, to the meeting,
contains some grave charges against the Gas and Water
Company's bill now before parliament. With your per-
mission I will read it—" That this meeting is of opinion
that the bill now before p arliament fir the extension of the
powers of she present Gas and Water Company at Birken-
head is dishonest in its principle, unjust in its mode of
dealing with the public rights, and as a measure in detail
injudicious, and not entitled to public support it is
theretore, resolved that a petition be presented at the next
session of parliament against such bill, and that the steps
be taken to oppose the passing thereof in its present form."
(Hear, hear.) Unaccustomed as lam to pub is speaking
--(laughter)—it is no joke, it is the fact—(laughter)—and
not being possessed of the legal powers and eloquence
which the, gentleman whom I follow is in possession of
(fir. Bretherton) I cannot attempt to go through the
merits and demerits of the bill in the same consecutive and
conclusive manner which, no doubt, he would be able to do.
I shall, however, do the best I can to show this meetin.e he
truth of the first charge that, is made against the bill.
namely, " that it is dishonest in its principle." You have
heard my friend Mr. Bretherton in his exposition of the
mode of raising the capital. of appropriating the capital,
and not perfirmiug the obligations of the bill which the
company is under. But, gentlemen, he did not tell yti
that in the captalisation of £133,000, the £33,000 which
never ought to have been'capitalised, is entered in the bill
as part of the capital ref the cortipany—that they propose
not only to keep this fictitious capital hanging over the
head of this' township, but that they propose to double
and to make it £266,000. (" Oh, oh.") That is dishonest
—grossly dishonest—in its character, and- injudicious, I
conceive, in every possible shape or way that we can look
atit. Gentlemen,not only is this proposed,but they also claim
in their bill £53,200 of deferred dividends. What do You
suppose they are going to do with that? They propose
to divide this £53,200 into £2O shares, and to present
gratuitously to each shareholder, for 'every share he
possesses in the stock of the company a £2O share. That
is another piece of dishonesty. Now, I must go back a
little. lam orepsred to staee on good authority,that the
plants of the gas and water together at the very best period
of 'their *oaring coadition, never cost more than £55,000
—(hear, hear)--not only so, but I am creditably
informel, and upon good authority, too, that for £lOO,OOO
an ample supply of gas and water can be
afforded to double the number of inhabitants now
in Birkenhead, Ciaughton, Tratimere, and Oxton.
(Hear, bear.) Whit then is all this mosey to be raised
for ? £260,000, £53,000 of deferred dividends, together
with £lBO,BOO of new shares, m .tang in all £5OOOOO,
when we want only £lOO.OOO, to afford an ample and suffi-
cient supply of gas and water to the inhabitants of this
township. What, then, is this enormous amount of
money sought for? (Hear, hear.) I put it to you, is
there not in this something which we do not under-
stand—a joggle, a system of " hocus-pocus," which they
are attempting to play upon us. It is abominable. (Hear,
bear.) Such a statement deserves the execration of every
honest minded man, and certain I ant that the expression
of this public meeting aga'nit it will insure its rejection at
()nee by the House of. Commons with contempt and indig-
nation. (Hear, heat%) Ido not know that I need Say
inuch more about the dishonesty of the bill. There is
another charge in my resolution—" that as a meatier° in
detail it is injudicious, and not entitled to the public. sup-
port." I can on'y speak of the engineering portions of the
scheme. I have seen the plans of Mr. Hawkslev, and
I can safely say that a more inkidieions scheme could not
possibly he devised, in so tar as regards the positions
which he has chosen in that schenee for the supply of
water. He is, no doubt, an able hydraulic engineer,
well qualified and capable of carrying into efficient
operation, any systems of piping, and the construction of
catchment dams or reservoirs, but, as regards the vital
points upon which he is to depend for a supply of water
in the water bearing strata, be is manifestly deficient in
that knowledge. The positions of his proposed sinkings
are injudicious and highly absurd. His two wells and
two engines would work against each other, and without
obtaining any greater supply from the two than he could
get from the one. Therefore, I say, that on that ground
alone, whatever there may be in the bill beyond that