Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

Mr. Evans : Oh, stuff and nonsense !. (laughter.)

,
The letter was referred to the Warehouse Committee.
The Chairman drew attention to the annual report of
Admiral Evans, the Conservator of the Mersey, from which
he quoted somepassages in reference' to the new works on
the Birkenhead side, their strength and their durability.

CHARGES AGAINST THE BOARD OF BREACH OF FAITH.
Mr. Tobin rose according to notice, to call the atten-
tion of the board to a stanement recently made in Lon-
don, as to a breach of faith alleged to have taken place
on the part of the board, in relation to the introduction
of the present Works' Bill into Parliament. He said it
would not have been necessary for him to say one word
upon the subject, if the opponents of the bill had con-
fined themselves to arguing the case upon its merits, but
when they ventured to accuse the board of breach of
faith in proseenting the' bill in Parliament, then it
became the bounden duty 'of the board at the very first
opportunity, to show that they were not liable to such
an imputation, that they. were not obnoxious to so
grave a charge, but that their proceedings throughout
had been characterised by the most perfect good faith.
What were the facts ? In December, 1857, a conference
was held between the sub-committee, to which the Dock
Committee had referred the subject, and the London and
North Western, Great Western, and Cheshire Junction
Railway Companies ; at which conference he might
mention the fact that Mr. J. C. Ewart and Mr. Hardman
Earle- attended. The subject was the consideration of
the bills then pending in Parliament. •It was agreed that
£266,000 should be borrowed under the authority of
those acts. There was not one stipulation of any kind
with reference to the board being fettered in going to
Parliament, in the next or any future session of Parlia-
ment, provided they thought fit, for works on the Liver-
pool side of the Mersey ; and he would state with
confidence that if such a proposition had been made
it would instantly have been rejected by that board.
(Hear, hear.) .It would, Indeed, have been
most unworthy of them, and a gross breach
of trust to have accepted any proposal which would have
fettered in any shape or way the hands of their successors.
(Hear, hear:) The result of that conference was em-
bodied in a document signed by Mr. Farrer, of the Board
of Trade, and Mr. North, on the 10th of February, 1858.
In that document there was not one word which could
bear the interpretation which had been sought to be
placed upon it. On the 12th of February, Mr. Graves
moved in that room the following resolution : .

That, in assenting to the bill, the board distinctly reserves to
itself the liberty of proposing next session new works on the
Liverpool side of the river, with a sole regard to the wants of the
trade of the port.
Upon that resolution, the following remarks were made :

The Chairman, Mr. Turner, said : The board had the power,
whether this motion was carried or not —he did not see the use of
the resolution —the board had the power, and they did reserve it
to themselves, unless they deprived themselves of it. There was
no arrangement, direct, or indirect, which would preclude the
present or any future board which might be in existence from
applying for any acts for any purpose on this or on the other side
of the water. . _ .

Mr. Laird said He considered the board had full power at any
time before the next session of Parliament to take any steps they
liked for increasing and extending the accommodation of the
port anywhere they thought best.
Mr. Graves, in reply, said : In moving the resolution, his only
object was to have a record of the opinion of the board in regard
to the future (that it should not be said that there was an under-
standing, tacit or otherwise), that they did contemplate future
extension on the Liverpool side. After the statement from the
chairman, Mr. Laird, and others, he should be sorry to press his
motion.
On the sth March, a letter was read from the Shipowner's
Association, complaining of the smallness of the amount
of !piney proposed to be expended under the bill. The
letter contained the following resolutions adopted at the
meeting of the Shipowners' Association
. - - -

That the requirements on the Liverpool side of the Mersey are,
to a great extent, unconnected with the accommodation to be
provided at Birkenhead, and ought to be viewed in connection
with the vast trade between Liverpool and the interior of the
United Kingdom, through the railways and canals having their
termini in Liverpool, and which trade requires a great increase
of accommodation. _ _ .

That this meeting is earnestly desirous that every engagement
on the part of the dock trade for the construction of works at
Birkenhead should be fulfilled; but protests against a policy
having for its object to d lay all dock extension and accommoda-
tion in Liverpool for a series of years, as unjust to this town,
and most prejudicial to its trade, and also to the manufacturing
interests connected therewith.

That it be an instrucdonsto the committee of this association
to take such steps as they shall consider desirable, and, so far as
hossible, in co-operation with the Docks and Harbour Board, to
ave inserted tu the Dock Ilia further powers of borrowing,