Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, JUNE 12.

The case for the promoters having closed yesterday, the committee
reassembled this morning, for the purpose of hearing tee case on
behalf of the opponents. Lord Naas oocupied the hcair, and the other
members of the committee present were—the Marquis of Blandford,
Mr. Booker Blakemore, Mr. Wickham, and Mr. Handley.
Mr. Catveite, Q C., applied at the commencement of the proceed-
ings for permission to examine Mr. Firth, who was absent yesterday
when the case for the promoters closed.
Mr. WELSBY, on behalf of the opponents, raised no objection, and
Mr. FIRTH was accordingly examined ; and, in reply to Mr. Haley,
said he was a banker in Northwich, and was also engaged in the
manufacture of salt. In his own workings he had manufactured silt
to a loss. and if he continued to work at a lose, he scarcely thought it
likely that he shoed continue the manufacture permanently. The
manufacturers had had numerous meetings at Northwich on the sub-
ject of these &lea, and the tee'ing at all of them was pretty much the
same. Before the present bill was introduced, the Board of Trade
were memorialized upon the subject, and it was afterwards resolved
that the question should be brought before Mr. Lowe's committee on
local dues upon shipping last year. The memorial was signed by the
principal persons engaged in the trade, who entered into a subscrip-
tion, s that the question of the dues charged upon the Weaver should
be brought before Mr. Lowe's committee. The large manufacturers
subscribed about .e 5 each, and s-me lesser sums were contributed by
the smaller manufacture's. Evidence upon the questionwas gir.;n
before Mr. Lowe's committee, but the Board of Trade intimated that
the proper remedy would be to introeuce a private bill. A deputation
was then appointed to wait upon the trustees of the Weaver, and a
meeting took place on the sth January. Witness formed one of the
deputation, which asked in the fiat place for a reduction of the dues
upon coal. The trustees promised to consider the subject. Other meets
ings of the manufacturers took place, on the 16th and 23rd January,
aad at one of those meetings a deputation of gentlemen
was appointed to wait upon the trustees. Mr. Blackwell
acted as spokesman for the deputation. At an interview with the
trustees, early in February, the manufacturers were staked if they
were promoting the present bill, and if they had any power to with-
draw it. They replied in the negative, and Mr. G. Jackson, who was
examined yesterday. said that if the trustees did not grant a reduc-
tion, the trade would waist the Liverpool merchants in promoting
the bill in every way they could. The manufacturer; generally did
not concur in that expression, and the trustees slid they regarded it
as a kind of threat. At a meeting on the 16. h March, the manufac-
turers entered into a subscription for the purpose of prot, cting their
interests under the bills b -fore Parliament, unless the trustees con-
sented to make the redactions which were asked fur. Unfortunately,
they found, on consulting Mr. Elia, solicitor, of Liverpool, that they
were too late to petition to be heerd b counsel. On the 14th April,
the trustees reduced the due upon coal from Is to 6d per 30 cwt. The
due of is realised for the trustees a sum of between £ll,OOO and
£12.000. The canal and railway borne coal, notwithstsnd.ing the
reduction, had still a great advantage over the water bones coal.
The price of the salt at the works was from 53 to 6s, but when it got
to Liverpool the freight and dues were added. The reduction of the
dues would great's' increase the trade. Had not contributed to the
expenses of the till, hnt intended to do so.
Mr. HOPE SCOTT—Even if this bill is thrown oat?

WITNESS —That would require cons'deration,

(A langh.)9

Cross-examined by Mr. Hope Scott—The railway conapiiiiy have
not lowered their Wes on coal since the trustees have reduced the
dues. The wish of the manufacturers was, that the dues on coa's
should be taken off altogether, ani those upon salt remain
untouched. _ _ .

By th- Committee—The Droitwichsalt comes into competition with
Our salt in the Irish, London and horny markets generally. I
canrot speak of the American trade, Our trade with Ireland has
increased, while teat of Droitwich with Ireland has increased ten
fold. If the dues were taken off altogether I do net think that the
manufacturers upon the river would be in a•• favourable a position as
the manufacturers whose works are near the railway and canal.

By Mr. 131akemore—The largest field of consumption is America.
Mr. BLAKEMORE—Geologists tell us that the coal beds will not b 3
exhausted for 3,000 years; can you say when the silt is likely to be
exhausted?
WITNESS—I cannot.
Lord NAAS—We have lead it stated in evidence already that the
supply is inexhaustible.

This closed the case.
Mr. HOPE SCOTT said he appeared on behalf of the justices of the
peace of the county of Chester. who opposed the present bill, and were
supported by a petition from the ratepayers. He thought it would
not be surpr sing that the Inhabitants of Chestire should t ,ke so great
an interest in the question, when it was known that the measure, if
sanctioned by Par is rent, w led affect the property of the county to
the extent 0f.W16,000, the sum received from the Weaver in the year
1854-55, having been £15,500. The history of the Weaver was very
peculiar, inasmuch as it differed from the history of other rivers in
the same 1 cality, wherethe navigation of the river had been improved
by private individuals or public companies. Previous to the passing
of the act of 1720, which authorised the construction of works upon
the Weaver, the river was navigable at certain seasons from Frodsham-
bridge, to a place called eickerine's boat. The act therefere provided
that such part of the river as was navigable previous to the pasting
of the act. should be ex meted from the payment of tolls, unless in
cases where it was impossible to conduct the navigation without the
aid of locks or other artificial means. In the sameyear another act
was passed for the improvement of the navigation of the Irwell and
Mersey between Manchester and Liverpool, known as the Mersey and
Irweli Navigation Act, and in that act does were authorised te be
taken for the benefit of the persons who undertook to improve the
navigation. and who were technically termed "the undertakers."
The c,se of the Weaver was, however, very different, because instead
of the works being contemplated for the benefit of the persons who
applied for the bill, it was applied for in ore er to open the navigation for
other persons, but care was taken in the bill that, as the county were the
undertakers, all the profit derived from the undertaking should be
applied to the benefit of the ratepayers. In point of fact, all that
could be gathered from the Act of 1720 was that, at that time, 'a cer-
tain number of the gentlemen connected with the county were will-
ing to contribute money for the improvement of the navigation of the
Weaver, and that they proposed to effect the improvements on the
same principle as the undertakers of the Mersey and Irwill naviga-
tion, but, instead of seeking any benefit for themselves and families,
they entered upon the n dertaking with the express object of giving
any benefit accruing from the improvement of the navigation to the
ratepayers of the county. Mr, Calvert, in opening the case for the
promoters, had argued that the main object of the undertakers, under
the Act of 1721, was to improve the navigation of the Weaver, in order
to develope the trade of the district, and that the advantage which
had accrued to the county was an incidental and collateral matter,
which had never been contemplated by the undertakers. He (Mr.
Hope Scott), denied that his learned friend had put a proper con-
structionupou the peovisions of the actv, bemuse, if the legislature had
intended to restrict the undertakers from applying the proceeds of the
dues, to other purposes than the improvement of the navleation, they
would never have inserted three clauses in the act to provide that all
surplus accruing should be employed in repairing the county bridges
and highways. Having commented, at some lengtheemon the provi-
sions of the Act of 1720, and the subsequent acts appointing trustees
and defining their powers, Mr. Hope Scott proceeded to contend that
it would be most unfair to look upon the trust in any other light than
as a proprietary concern, and as a private company, so far as property
was concerned. The recipients were no doubt numerous, but
they were not upon that account to be treated otherwise than
as individuals having special rights of property. He thought
he had proved to the committee, that the navigation was un•
der taken, by private individuals, for the benefit of the county,
and he would confine any further remarks he might have to make
to the objects sought to be attained by the promoters of the present
bill. The promoters were not the sa t manufacture a, who might b.,
supposed to have an interest in the improvement of the, navigation,
but a handful of merchants in Liverpool enraged in the salt trade.
He thought a more miserable case had never been submitted to the
consideration of Parliament. The bill proposed to take away rights,
not for the benefit of either the producer or c nsnmer, but in order to
promote the speculation of a number of Liverpool merchants and to
benefit middlemen who sought to at ain for themselves a personal
and private advantage. And this was asked at the expense of sub-
verting every principle of property in the county, and of creating
equality where there must always be inequality. The Board of rade
appeared to be affected with a monomania for the abolishing of Town
Dues; and such was the insanity they displayed upon the subject, that
they introduced it into every report. On this occasion they had
attempted to ride their hobby against the Weaver ; but t'e whole of
their report, which had been quoted at considerable length by his
learned friend, was based upon error, or ignorance, or misconception
of the various acts under which the trust was constitn ed. If the
Bridgewater family had chosen to make a present to the county' of
Lancaster of the annual dividend derived from the Bridgewater Canal,
it could null be contended for a moment th it Parliament would have
had a right to interfere, and yet that would have been a case precisely
similar to the present. The bill was promoted by strangers for the
purpose of altering the constitution of a county, establiehee by Act of
Parliament; and there had r ever been but one case in which s•ich a
bill had been promoted withsuccevs, but that was a case which was
never quoted except for the purpose of being rejected as an authority.
He based his arguments upon the fact, that the trust was a private
trust, and that, as such, a parliamentary committee ought not to
sanction any interference with it.
The CnAsstatAN asked if the learned counsel proposed to call any
evidence on behalf of the county magistrates ?
Mr. HOPE SCOTT said he did not.
_ _

The Committee then adjourned the proceedings until Monday, when
Mr. Serjeant Wrangham will be heard on behalf of the trustees.