Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-25 00:00:00

ROCHDALE ELECTION.

Mr. HENLEY brought up the report of the Select Com-
mittee 'appointed to inquire into the statements in
the petition of John Newall. to the effect that
Peter Johnson offered Abraham Bothwell £5O to
leave the country, in order that he should not
be examined on the Rochdale Election petition. The
Committee having set forth the facts as they have already
appeared, reported that the necessary inference would be,
that the object was, to prevent Bothwell from giving
evidence before the Rochdale Election Committee, but the
evidence of the witnesses was so inconclusive, and their
testimony was so unsatisfactory, that the committee was
unable to state that inference has been the clear result of
their investigation. They stated that nothing came before
them to connect the sitting member with the transaction,
and that they abstained from inquiring int, any matter
properly belonging to the Election Committee, least they
should prejudice parties who were not represented before
them.

The Committee also stated that Johnson did not appear
before them though every means were taken to find him in
Rochdale and in London.

The House aijourned at five minutes to six o'clock

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORT/CR.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24

The Select Committee resumed its sittings this morning
at twelve o'clock Sir James Graham in the chair. The
other members of the Committee were all present.
Mr. HOPE SCOTT resumed his address on behalf of the
Liverpool Corporation. He reminded the Committee
that, at the close of the proceedings, yesterday, he had
directed their attention to the course pursued by the
Great Western Railway Company in reference to the
south reserve, and the land generally, at Birkenhead. He
then detailed the various agreements which had been
entered into with respect to the south reserve, in order to
prove that, until a very recent period, the construction
of the great low water basin was not deemed so essential
to the Birkenhead scheme as it was now represented to
be. On the 12th August, 1852, the Shrewsbury and Ches-
ter Company took aslease of 40,000 square yards of land
on the south reserve, for a period of 999 years ; but Baron
fJoldsmidt, as one of the Dock Trustees, protested against
the lease, and served a notice upon the Shrewsbury and
Chester Company, the object of which was to prevent the
lease from being completed. In September, 1853, the
great amalgamation between the Great Western and the
Shrewsbury and Chester Companies took place. But at
that time the Shrewsbury and Chester Company were not
in possession of the south reserve ; and the Great Western
Company were perfectly aware that a notice, disputing
the lease of the land on that south reserve, had been
served ; awl, consequently, there was no ground for stat-
ing that it was upon the faith of that lease that the amal-
gamation had taken place. On the 18th May, 1855, when
the Birkenhead docks were on the brink of sale, an
agreement was entered into with the trustees, then going
out of office, to secure the Great Western Company in the
possession f 23,100 instead of 40,000 square yards on the
south reserve—the plot, though not identical, comprising a
portion of the land leased in 1852. In that agreement, all
the rights under the lease of 1852 for occupation
for seven years, subject to eighteen months' notice
of withdrawal, was saved ; and it was under that
agreement only, that any rent had ever been paid.
He now came to the treaty of 1855, under which the pur-
chase of the Birkenhead docks by Liverpool was effected.
It had been felt that the plans of Mr. Bendel were plans
for a competing port, but competition had been tried and
had failed. In 1855, therefore, Birkenhead was not looked
upon as a competing port, but as a portion of the existing
port, and it was only with that view that the works were
to be completed. In point of fact, one great point was the
reconsideration of Mr. Renders plans on the new basis and
the adapting of Birkenhed to supply what might be
deficient in Liverpool, and not to supply a fully complete
port of itself. The agreement of 1855 contained a clause
which directed that, unless parliament should otherwise
determine, the corporation should, 'and were thereby re-
quired, immediately after the Ist September, 1856, to
proceed with the construction of the several docks and
works, which the trustees and company were respectively
empowered to construct upon such of the provisions of
the act of parliament as were then in force. It also enacted,
that after the date referred to the corporation should be-
come responsible for all the liabilities of the trustees in
regard to the construction of works. A year was given
to the corporation, iu which they were to see how they
could best adapt the Birkenhead docks to the existing
Liverpool system. /le denied that there was any founda-
tion for the assertioff' of Mr. Saunders, that the Great
Western Company had been induced to support the bill
authorising the sale of the Birkenhead docks to the Liver-
pool Corporation solely on the ground that Mr. Reudel's
plans would be carried out ; and he also denied that the
corporation had assented to the constitution of a new
dock trust, in which the dock ratepayers should be repre-
sented, and had failed to carry out such an arrangement.
He contended, that upon these points the bill now under
consideration contained statements which were untrue,
and that all the corporation had agreed to was, to adopt
Mr. Renders plans as far as possible to the existing sys-
tem. He then quoted the evidence of Mr. Laird, and
other witnesses, to establish that Mr. Hartley's plans did
not ignore the plans of Mr. Bendel, but were a mere
modification of them. With regard to the statement of
the Great Western Company, that if Mr. Hartley's plans
were carried out the company would be prevented from
availing themselves of the South Reserve, he did not con-
ceive that the company could have any reasonable ground
of complaint, because if Mr. Renders plans were adopted
the South Reserve would be cut away from the company
in a manner precisely similar. The learned counsel then
adverted to the negotiat ions, after the failure of the bill
of 1856, between the Great Western Company and the
Birkenhead Dock Committee of the Liverpool Town
Council, with respect to the plans which were to be ulti-
mately carried out. Mr. Saunders suggested that Mr.
Hartley, as engineer to the corporation, should be
appointed to meet Mr. Brune!, the engineer of- the
railway company, and arrange the question between
themselves, but the corporation respectfully de-
clined. Mr. Hartley was simply the engineer to the
Liverpool Corporation, but Mr. Brunel was something
more, He and Mr. Saunders were substantially the Great
Western Company, and the proposal of Mr. Saunders was
substantially that a gentleman whose duties were confined
to a particular class of functions, should be fully em-
powered to negotiate with, and be bound by an agreement
framed by, one of the most experienced diplomatists in
the railway world. In point of fact, it was a proposal for
a meeting between a wolf and a lamb. (Laughter.) The
Corporation replied that they woul,', give no extended
powers to Mr. Hartley, and they t.'dien received a letter
from Mr. Saunders, in which IY, stated that he was in-
structed by the Great Westera Board to say, that if the
Committee of the Corpore:ion confided to their engineer
the power of acting, tart subject to the right of the
Council to confirm or reject the agreement which he
might draw up, the Great Western Company would en-
trust similar powers to Mr. Brunel, who would meet Mr.
Hartley in Lond'jn. But the last paragraph of the letter,
like a lady's 'postscript, contained the real pith of 0- „
letter. In 't Mr. Saunders stated that, having pro oe -
..t
that Mr. llartley shoUld meet Mr. Brunel, subjee'
right of the Council to confirm or reject
Grea!,, Western aqsed expected, as a orotter s acts
of s e toe,
cour

that if the meeting took place, the committee on the
Birkenhead Docks would not only have instructed, hut
empowered, Mr. Hartley to act for them in a bona fide
manner. The Corporation replied that it was their
ye.
-sable practice to delegate to their officers only such
- • i;et they could exercise, and they were of opinion
PoNVerB
could r!Qt ^0 farther, either with iee to the-
. ee
that theY c •• , to their officer. The negotiations consequently
ra'lnveestt'o-",,0 resu:!: but while they were going on there
lercurrent at work. Parlismentary notices
was au unta e published three Consecutive weeks in
required to be
November. The ,
elorporation (nand that, whilst the Great
Western Railway ,Company were goine on negotiating
with them for the VW struction or these pare Littler works,
and for the occueratfell „
of a definite site in the south
reserve, not claimed in
under the agreement of
;fired, with the know-
-112e2 ne
oofttihceesGw-reearte
win..gfte•e,cnt being
cornzlnv,
and with
their consent—Mr. Heron telling the committee that he
undertook the duties ot their" request, for the purnoie
introlucing the bill whieh was' now on the table. Notices
were issued in the first plaae by an occasional agent for
Mr. Heron, giving no idea whatever who were the real
parties, and kept afloat for Parliamentary purposes in the
newsnapere, until it could be ,ascertained whether or not
the Great Western Company could obtain exclusive pos-
session of the land on the smith reserve. The Corporation
were therefore practically dealing- with gentlemen who
were preparing what they deemed would probably be a
very effective compulsiter upon the Corporation of Liver-
pool, in case of not being able to- force them to an arrange-
ment for an exclusive occupation of the south reserve at
Birkenhead; and this was going on while professions of
amity and hopes of settlement were .being held out to
the Corporation. It was perfectly plain from the cor-
respondence, that it was upon the question of the exclu-
sive possession of a situation in perpetuity claimed, not
under the agreement of 1'852, but under a new plan, that
the negotiations went off; and therefore, because the
Liverpool Corporation would not give up a great public
commercial property on the most valuable part of the
whole estate for commercial purposes—because the Cor-
poration would not make that sacrifices to the Great
Western Railway Company. and to the Birkenhead, Lan-
cashire, and Cheshire Jtinctiore Rairway Company, to the
exclusion of all other railway companies and et the public,
this bill was introduced, and they were cited there as
,criminals for, in fact, having refused to corarnit a breach
of trust. The committee would remember that in 1855
the Great Western Company raised no question of a new
and enlarged Conservancy Board ; it was not pretended
for a moment that they then objected to the Teem Dues;
on the contrary, in 1'855 it was proved. that they assisted
Liverpool in resisting the Manchester' interest on the
Town Dues question—because Liverpool exercrsee her
sense of duty on behalf of a great commercial community,
and would not sacrifice for ever and a day one of the
most particular and valuable portions of the Birkenhead
Dock estate, they found a bill was introduced to rob
Liverpool of her town Dues.—to constitute anew Con-
servancy Board, pledged to a particular course of action—
and so the Great Western Company wee becoming the
unworthy agent of the Board of Trade—having no public
object in view—having only a desire to gratify their own
selfishness and cupidity, and by assisting in such a
measure as this, aiding iu swamping Liverpool' as a port,
and robbing her citizens of their corporate property
because the Corporation had foiled them in a monopoly,
and thrown them back on their own resources. The
Great Western Company, he would say again, had sought
to coerce Liverpool violently to do them a benefit at the
expense of the commercial interests of Liverpool by
threatened attacks on points upon which they were
confessedly tender. Now, he had said that Liverpool
had been, as it were, hunted down. His impression was
that if the Corporation had thrown the Great Western
Company a bone even now, they would leave the chase.
(Laughter.) His impression further was, that if the
Corporation gave the Great Western Company that for
which they were trustees, they would hear very
little more of the question. He should like to
know where the shipping interest would be ?
where would be the Board of Trade 7—where the
boasted rights of man ?—where Mr.. Heron and his two
pot associations of Manchester ? Where would all these be
if the Liverpool Corporation dishonoured themselves by
ghring the Great Western Railway Co. that which had
been denied them, and denied them because it belonged to
the public. The learned Counsel then went on to point
out to the committee that it would be most unjust todeclare
proved, in the preamble of the bill, that portion reciting
the right of the Great Western Co., to a site on the south
reserve at Birkenhead. The Great Western Co. did not
dispute their right and title to question the lease, and
this they were now doing in the Court of Chancery. It was
manifestly unjust, therefore, that the Committee should
be called on to enact that there was a valid title to the
land in question, when one of the high courts of the land
was now dealing with the question. He contented that,
whether the lease under which the Great Western Co.
claimed the land, was good or bad, th re was nothing
to connect it with the amalgamation between the Great
Western Co. and the Shrewsbury and Chester:Co., the
original lessees, and, therefore, it was impossible that the
Committee could declare the preamble of the bill proved.
Sir J. GRAMIII asked if the Committee were to under-
stand that the reference in the agreement of 1855 with
respect to the lease of 1852 was unopere tive ?
Mr. HOPE SCOTT said, that for all practical purposes,
it was.

Sir J. GRAHAM : In what terms is the referenna in the
agreement of 1855 to the lease of 1852.
Mr. Hope SCOTT said, Ilfr Saunders in his. evidence
treated it as a reservation in favour of the Great Western
Co. The learned counsel then resumed his address. He
submitted that if the bill was to pass, the Committee
would create a new conservancy and would saddte unon
the conservancy the plans which all parties practically
agreed in saying must be altered. That which the Board
of Trade in 1855 thought was a fit subject for alteration,
and which was alluded to in the act of 1856, as a
prowl- subject of change, the Committee were now
asked to affirm. and to create a new public body with its
hands held and its eyes blinded in reference to the
many very important works which must be done in regard
to the Mersey. The Great Western Co. would, dread
a new conservancy as much as they dreaded 'the Corpora-
tion, unless they obtained one with its hands tied, in which
case alone they would obtain a victory, and might: snap
their hands at the new constitution. It was certat sly in
the power and discretion of the corporation to. re enact
Mr. Readers plans, but, by so doing, they would riag make
the law a bit stronger than it was at present, bat' would
simply give a direction to the new conservancy, th at they
were to be created in order to redeem Teiverpool .01-n the
state of ruin to which the existing dock trust has) brought
it; and, in effecting this, they were to make a lee ,se valid,
which, at this moment, was disputed in a coo' ft of law.
With the greatest possible submission, he cents tided that
that portion of the bill which related to the Gnat ,t Western
Railway Company could not be declared by the Committee
to be proved ; and if such a decision was. t emoe to, he
should like to ask how much• further the b' di would be
carried ? It might be that the spirit owe dered in the
contest might survive, and the company migl it continue to
go for a conservancy, which would be ter naain to take
views perhaps more difficult to deal with tt
,an those of tee
Liverpool Town Council, respecting them elusive occupa-
tion for railway purposes of land required for commercial
purposes ; but their interest of the eontee t would be gone,
and, what would remain, would be a flit contradiction of
all their previous proceedings on the se
.bject, and espeal.
ally a contradiction to the aid which O. ley gave in 1855 in
resisting that very Manchester party."
iith whom they had
now allied themselves. Mr. Saunders told the Committee
distinctly that they bad entered rein'
itantly unn the un-
dertaking, and' if they were to go ;n with it, they must
league themselves entirely and heat thy with their Man-
chester friends ; but, however t hey might succeed in
injuring Liverpool, they might! rest assured that they
would receive from the corport
Aim no concession un-
worthy of the trust reposed in tb em by Parliament. The
learned counsel next read the ye
,rious recitals in the bill,
with a view, as he stated, to 1 ;how the ignorance of the
parties who had drawn up the bill, of the Acts of Parlia-
ment relating to Liverpool i
]. Ind her docks ; and also of
ordinary facts connected wit
1 the trade and commerce of
that town. From the preamb' le it would be found that there
was really no serious chargt against the Dock Committee
or the Corporation of 11 ,verpool. The whole matter
seemed therein to be one n
power would be handed expediency, in which immense
over to a new board, and the
revenues of the corporat .ion materially diminished. The
indictment for misconde
.ct came rather from an irrespon-
sible body, whose asser' Lions need not, for general purposes
such as these, be as as curate as the preamble must be. He
was sorry to have to' refer again to that department of the
Government, but he could not allow the statements there
made to go forth ant lontradietecl. The Board of Trade, in
their report of 1857 , stated " The Town Council of Liverpool
seem, originally, ' to have claimed to be conservators of the
Mersey. This title to the conservancy was, however,
successfully dil:puted at law." The question never had
been tried, atilt, therefore, the statement was untrue. The
Board of Tr..ade next said They (the conservancy
board) have no revenues ; this was untrue, for it would he
found there were sums paid to the conservators for
removing wrecks, &c." Speaking of the Town Dues, the
Board ed Trade said—" The whole are paid into the
berme,' fund; and, wikh the exception of a very t rising
proportion, are applied to purposes from which trade
derivets no benefit, and for which, in other towns, a
borough rate would be leVied. In Liverpool, there is no
borough rate"—strictly true, but covering a very large
amount of untruth. In Liverpool, there was no borough
rate; but 41435,000 a-year were paid by the people of Liver-
pool for the improvement of the town, and the better tnaP
agement of the business of the corporation,
other points in the report of the Boarel eat Ti'
rth were
were utterly unworthy of a govern meaf e which
and they were so absurd that he could
department,
to waste the time of the. Committe' .tot induce himself
My Lords of the Board of Trao in combatting them.
how far the facts prodoced 1. .e stated. in their report,
of their claim to the po"'
would be given to o of the corporation, in support
Liverpool, and what weight
are competent ,age, was not a matter which lay lords
confession eo determine. He would take their own
mitte, ae ignorance of the law, and show the Corn-
tl., trom the report of the Royal Commissioners,
declaration that the Town Dues were legal ; and,
moreover, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, in
the House of Commons, declared that the Town Dues
were legal, but he thought them obnoxious, and therefore ,
asked Parliament to decree them unlawful.
The learned counsel had not concluded when our parcel
WAS despatched at a quarter past four o'clock.