Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-11-04 00:00:00

-Gentlemen, I think you will se,

_ .
word about differences betwec
pool. (Hear, hear.)

Birkenhead and Live-r-

gr. ',BUSHEL

-ot another word t.

will I say on
that subject; sir. As to the question of cost, I deeply
regret the decision to which the Corporation has come
to in this matter—not so much in relation to the loss of
pecuniary contribution, which, for an object so
generallyadvantageous to this community, might reason-.
ably have been expected from that body, as in, relation
to the spirit of unwillingness, which that refusal had
manifested, to co-operate with the Mersey Dock and
Harbour Board in their first attempt, since the severance
of -the' trusts," to acconiplish a great commercial and
social improvement—a ; spirit of this kind is
unhappily reactionary and productive of antago-
nism. If the commerce of Liverpool is to
maintain that progress which has hitherto marked its
course ; if its tonnage is to continue, its process of
doubling itself in every twenty years as in each of those
past periods of this century ; if the four millions and a
half of tonnage of 1859 are to be nine millions of tons
in 1879 ; if the population is to be alike wonderfully
and relatively progressive ; if these things are to be,
there will be need, much need 'of large, not to say of
bold and comprehensive views; on the part of those who
are called to the administration of our great local trusts,
and of a willing and generous, and therefore noble co-
operation in all that concerns the general good. Let us hope
that our municipal affairs will be entrusted only to such
minds. And further, let us hope, that this board, called
as it is to the administration, not only of a local, but
great national trust, will endeavour to submit itself to
the altered circumstances in which it is placed, and put-
ting aside former prejudices, and forgetting former
strifes, disregarding, so far as human nature will per-
mit, like personal, and class, and 'party interests, will
apply itself' individually and collectively, to the great
work of developing the mightypower, which I conscien-
tiously believe, still remains hidden in our now gigantic
dock 'estate.

Mr. ARNOLD said—Any attempt on my part to reply
to Mr. Bushell on this or any other, question would fairly
lay me open to the charge of presumption; but, fortu-
nately, a better answer is ready to the advocates of this
measure than any that could proceed from me, and that
answer is to, be found in the able report of the solicitor,
presented to the board at our last meeting. Allowing
for the reservations which always accompany the opinion
of professional men, it points, as 'it were, to the word
" dangerous" at every step, and surely no prudent body
of men would attempt to proceed with-this undertaking
after hearing that report. It needed not the eloquence
of Mr. Bushell to convince me how desirable it is to
supply accommodation for the heavy traffic, and all
descriptions of traffic, between the twir sides of the
river—between the two parts of the estate ; but that
broad question is not the question before us. The ques-
tion before us is the adoption of a report committing us
to a particular inadequate plan. I desire to see
docks- flourishing on both sides of the river, with
a full, and, complete, and perfect communication
between them but this scheme does not meet'
the requirements of the case. It appears to me to be
a crude and imperfect plan, though, with his instruc-
tions and the means at his disposal, I believe the engi-
neer could not have given us a better. But is this
scheme worthy the adoption of the board ? Is this all
that can be done to provide a 'highway, as it were, be-
tween
.the two great divisions of the finest system of
commercial docks in the world ? I venture to think not.
And such as it is, how do you propose to accomplish it ?
Why,' by taking from a large and important section of
the trade of the pert a part of that accommodation that
was
.expresslT provided for it, and which properly and
undoubtedly oelongs to it. I am sorry to differ upon this
question with gentlemen with whom I am generally
found .to agree, 'particularly upon subjects relating to
Birkenhead, but in the course take at this board I en-
deavour to uphold, and I hope in a becoming manner,
what I conceive to be for the interest of the estate. Mr.
Bushell, and those who agree with him on this question,
are advocating, unconsciously and unintentionally, I am
sure, the interests of a few residents on the other side of
the river ; for this scheme, if carried out, is suited only
to their convenience, it is `not calculated for the safe con-
veyance of merchandise, or any heavy and bulky material,
and as a source of profit to the estate, is- not worth con-
sideration. No proposition so frill of objections has ever
been brought before the board. The land approaches to
the piers and landing stages are bad—inadequate to a
large increasing traffic; the space at the south

:c 14 4. lo f Prince's Dock is too confined, and the doing
vim_ with one of the bridges is a clumsy ex,
silent, and highly objectionable ; and I think when
mmodation is provided it should be at 'two
points opposite each other, and not in a slanting and
oblique direction, and across the river traffic. If you
want to cross to Birkenhead, your point of departure
'from the Liverpool side, should be as nearly as possible
opposite to Birkenhead, and not opposite Seaeombe—
your point of departure should be from George's Dock
Basin, or the west side of George's Dock, or better still,
from the property of Nova Scotia. But it will be said
this involves delay and a great outlay : granted, but
you cannot safely proceed with even this insignificant

lan wit