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

TILE


MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN RIPORR'IR.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY.
The Committee resumed this morning—Sir James
Graham in the chair.

The examination of Mr. Penny which was not con-
cluded when the committee rose yesterday, was re-
sumed. He said great complaints were made in 1855
of the want of some general control over the estuary of
the Mersey. The Select Committee appointed that year
inquired into the matter and also into the complaints
which were made with regard to the north docks. Pre_
vious to 1844 the north shore on the Liverpool side had
been open, but the Act of 1844 authorised its enclosure.
Mr. Rendel gave evidence on the subject, and I concur in
the opinions expressed by that gentleman. The Cheshire
shore is an open beach, and the erection of the north wall
has necessarily caused a stronger stream to flow upon it
—A plan of the frontages on the Cheshire shore, showing
the manner in which they were affected, was produced
before the committee by Mr. Walker. The only remedy
for the damage done to the Cheshire shore is the con-
struction of a wall from Seacombe to New Brighton.
The attention of the Dock Committee have been re-
cently called to the subject by Captain Evans. The
distance which would have to be covered by a wall
is about 4,800 yards. The damage Idone'!to the
Cheshire shore had been frequently complained of,
and, in 1843, was reported upon by Captain Fitzroy. In
1855, Captain Evans referred to the same subject in his
evidence before the House of Commons, and he also
recommended the erection of a wall. The soil is a soft
marl, and the washing away of such a material would be
prejudicial to the navigation of the river. When the wall
was in the course of construction, the Dock Trustees
threatened to prosecute the workmen employed for
throwing earth into the river on the ground, that it
inflicted great injury upon the navigation. I think the
Dock Committee have not exercised due foresight in the
choice of land for dock purposes. I cannot say that they
could get land much cheaper in Cheshire than in Liver.
pool, but the cost of making docks at Birkenhead would
be less than in Liverpool. There are many thousands of
acres of agricultural land beyond the Great Float, but it
never fetehed a good price. Some years ago, land on the
margin of the float brought a vey high price, but that
price has not been maintained. On the 24th of February
last,,Mr. Tollemache, M.P. for South Cheshire, addressed
the Lords Conservators of the Mersey, complaining of the
conduct of the Liverpool Dock Trustees in constructing
works on the north shore of the Mersey, on the Lancashire
side of the river, which had caused the land on the south
or Cheshire side to waste; and pointing out that the only
remedy for the encroachment was the erection of a sea
wall on the south side. The acting conservator replied on
behalf of the commissioners stating that those gentlemen
had directed a copy of Mr. Walker's report to be sent to
the Liverpool Coporation and the members of the Liver-
pool Dock Committee, together with a suggestion that
some arrangement should be made with regard to the
frontages, for the protection of the property by a wall or
otherwise. I think the Dock Committee as at present
constituted, is powerless for good ; they seem to have
been attending to Liverpool interests, and to have neg_
leeted the question of a wall on the Cheshire shore.
By Mr. Paget (Counsel for the Dock Committee): I
am a stock and share broker. My name appears on the
plans as a landowner near Seacombe. I did not intend to
say that the Liverpool Dock Trustees were powerless for
good in this matter. I meant the Conservators of the
Mersey. We have not taken this question into a court of
law, for there are no compensation clauses in the Liver—
pool Dock Bills. We have never arrived at such a stage
as to allow of us getting a compensation clause inserted in
any of the Liverpool Dock Bills. I don't profess to have
a knowledge of the bill now before the committee. I
believe that under that bill the authorities named in it
would have power to construct such works as may be
ecacesees- to maintain the harbour in a fit state. I don't
profess to say how I should get my remedy under the
bill, but I have no doubt I should get relief. I believe the
Dock Committee say that they have no funds at their
oispeeat which would legally enable them to construot a
sea wall at the Cheshire side of the Mersey. The Dock
Committee had, in fact, written to that effect. The Mayor
of Liverpool, addressing Mr. Tollemache, said that after
consulting eminent nautical men the Corporation were of
opinion that a sea wall from Seacombe to New Brighton.
would make the navigation dangerous by increasing the
swell. I cannot suggest any- fund at the disposal of the
Dock Committee that could be legally applied by them to
reclaiming land for the frontages at Seacombe. I believe
that the Dock Committee have done an illegal act in
running out their works at the North Shore, and that
damage to my property has resulted.
Mr. Paget : Then why did you not bring an action ?
Mr. Penny : Because counsel advised that I had no
cause of action.
By Mr. Burke (counsel for the corporation of Liver_
pool) : Captain Cook, superintendent of pilots at Liver-
pool, attributed the heavy sea on the Cheshire side of the
river during westerly winds to the construction of the
North Dock works, and in 1855, he stated to Mr. Walker
that he never knew the entrance to Liverpool so bad as
at that time. Captain Evans, the acting conservator,
reported that there was an obstruction to the navigation ;
but he also stated that there were no funds to carry out
the improvements which he represented to be necessary.
From the report of Captain Evans in 1853 I find that the
depth of water on the Victoria bar had increased from 11
to 14 feet at low water spring tides. Captain Evans, in
the report to which I allude, says that notwithstanding
the enormous increaso in the number of vessels entering
the port, the arrangements were so perfect that only three
had been lost in the course of twelve months. At that
time the number of vessels entering the Mersey averaged
128 daily. I believe that the Liverpool Corporation, as
owners of the docks, are subject to the obligation of
keeping up the Cheshire skore. Ido not see anything in
the report which implies an obligation on the part of the
Corporation to build a wall. Captain Walker• says that
within a few years the Liverpool Trust have acquired an
area of 500 acres of land on the river, and if, by their
embankments and inclosures they have inflicted injury
upon the property on the other side, he adds that they
ought in fairness to take an equitable view of the matter,
and come to some arrangement which would be a better
and cheaper course than a contest in parliament.
Mr. Burke : You have been a trustee of the Birkenhead
docks?
Mr. Penny : I have.
Mr. Burke : Did the trustees hold themselves under any
obligation to make walls for their neighbours ?
Mr. Penny : We were never applied to.
Mr Burke: Is there anything in the act which calls
upon them to make walls elsewhere than in their own
jurisdiction ?
Mr. Penny : I think it contains clauses which would
render them liable to compensation for any injury which
their works inflicted upon the property of the landowners
in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Burke: What necessity is there for any special
legislation upon the question ?
Mr Penny: We have no remedy against the Liverpool
Dock Trustees.
Mr. Burke : But you have your remedy against the
Corporation as the owners of the docks.
Mr. Penny: To a certain extent we should have been
perfectly satisfied if the Corporation had exhibited the
slightest desire to meet ua upon the matter, but for years
they have studiously declined to enter into any arrange-
ment. We therefore think it would be much better to
have the whole management in the hands of a popular
constit uancy subject to public opinion.
Mr. Burke : Do you think that if the question was
brought before a parliamentary committee justice would
he done between the parties ?
Mr. Penny : 1 think so, if the Corporation left the
matter fairly to the committee. In 1855 we had every
reason to believe that the committee were satisfied with
regard to the cause of the damage, but an objection was
raised by a learned gentleman on the part of the Corpora-
tion, upon a purely technical matter, and the result was
that the committee could do nothing in the matter,
because there were no works in the course of construction
at that moment. I think that the Liverpool Dock Trust,
as it is at present constituted, is not likely to develops
the town of Birkenhead as
quickly as a more popular
body would do, I believe that the members for the
county have had some communication with the Admiralty
upon the subject.
Mr. Burke : You proposed that the Corporation should
undertake two.thirds of the expense of the wall, the
owners of the property contributing the remaining third,
and having possession of the land. Do you think that
that was a fair proportion?
Mr. Peen,' : I think it was; VOth fair and reasonable.