Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-16 00:00:00

MERSEY DOCKS AND
HARBOUR WORKS BILL.

THE PROPOSED BORROWING POWERS FOR
EXTENSIONS AT LIVERPOOL.
[FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY.
The committee on this •bill assembled to-day at twelve
o'clock ; the right hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis in the
chair. The other'members of the committee 'are--Viscount
Emlyn, Sir W. Minto Farquhar, Mr. Smollet, and the hon.
H. Brand.
The bill was promoted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board. Mr. Hope Scott, Q.C., and Mr. Merewether,
appeared in support of the bill.
Petitions against the bill were presented from the Birken-
head Improvement Commissioners, the Great-Western
Railway Company, the Birkenhead Railway Company, and
the Corporation of Manchester.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, Mr. Sergeant Bellasis; and
Mr. Webster, appeared on behalf of the opponents of the
bill.
Mr. Hope Scott stated the case on behalfof the promoters
of the bill. He said this was a bill brought by the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board, for powers to borrow a further
sum of money
.for works at Liverpool. The bill, after recit-
ing the provisions of previous acts of parliament, sets forth
that the nicrea'sing trade of Liverpool required further dock
accommodation on that side of the Mersey, and that in con-
sequence the dock board should be empowered to take up at
interest any sum not exceeding £300,000, which under the
Mersey Dock Act of 1858, they might apply for. When he
told the committee that the entire cost of the docks on the
Liverpool side of the Mersey, up to the present time, had
been £10,000,000, they would, he thought, be of opinion
that the sum now applied for was a very small sum indeed.
After describing the amazing increase of the trade of the
port of Liverpool, lie gave a lengthened history of the
manner in which the docks had been managed, from the
time when they were under the joint supervision of the
Liverpool Town Council up to the acts of 1857 and 1858,
which respectively consolidated both the Liverpool and
Birkenhead docks, and finally vested them in the present
board, under the name of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board. The learned counsel next referred to the Act of
Parliament passed in 1855, for the construction, on a large
scale, of docks at the north end of the town. ' At the south
end, the rising position of the land rendered it difficult to
construct docks in that locality, and as there were canals,
and other facilities for carrying on the commerce of the
port at the north end, the increasing trade of the port
induced the then deck trustees to obtain powers for the
construction of docks at the north end. When this bill
was first brought before Parliament, there was considerable
opposition offered to it on the part of the Birkenhead
authorities, and the railway interest connected with
Birkenhead. It was stated that the condition of
Birkenhead was owing to the continued opposition
of Liverpool, and this being. brought before Parlia-
ment, the parliamentary committee of that day decided
that it was desirable that there should be an end put to this
rivalry between the two places, and hence the consolidation
of the docks on the two sides of the Mersey. The learned:
counsel then at very considerable length went into the
westion of dock accommodation at Liverpool, and the
various acts of parliament ; and adverting to the present
opposition, he said that they now found Liverpool develop-
ing itself to an enormous extent on all sides, with increased,
dock accommodation undoubtedly required, and yet they
found the Birkenhead people still in opposition to the rais-
ing of money for such extensions, and the Birkenhead rail-
way interests taking part in such opposition. Notwith-
standing that every effort was being made to finish the
Birkenhead docks within the period fixed by parliament,
and not withstanding that enormous sums of money 'were being
expended on the Birkenhead works with that Object,
they still found the Birkenhead people accusing the board
of checking Birkenhead for the purpose of extending works
at Liverpool ; and while endeavouring still further to force
on the works at Birkenhead, upon which such large
amounts were being expended, they grudged the small
expenditure at Liverpool asked for by the present bill. The
opponents of the present bill urged, indeed, that, by all
artificial stimulants, the Birkenhead works were to be pushed
forward - that they should be completed At once, to the ex-
clusion of any extensions at Liverpool, and that Birkenhead
should, without any delay, have the means of permanentiv
impeding. the trade on the Liverpool side of the Mersey. It
was in this spirit that an opposition had been raised against
the present application to raise even so small a sum. as
£300,000, for the extension of the works at the Liverpool
side. He hardly knew how to characterise such
an opposition as this. Whether there. was
an entire distrust of the Liverpool people, or whether there
was a fear that the Birkenhead works would not be com-
pleted within two years, he knew not, but he was astonished
to find that since the year 1855 Birkenhead had all the
legislation that could be given to it, and had obtained
powers for the, expenditure of large sums of money in dock
works, there should now be such an opposition to the
expenditure of so small a sum of money hn the Liverpool
side. The learned counsel denied, as alleged by the
opponents of the ,bill, that there had been a breach of faith
on the part of the promoters of the bill, and that they were
precluded from spending even a shilling on the Liverpool
side until the Birkenhead works should be completed.
Referring again to the opposition, more especially of the Bir-
kenhead Improvement Commissioner of which Mr. Laird was
the head, he remarried that Mr. Laird's establishments were
at Birkenhead. Mr. Laird was a very influential man on
the Birkenhead side. He was the chairman of the Birken-
head Commissioners, and something more than their
chairman—he was the life and soul of body. In con-
tinuation, the learned counsel drew attention to the report
Of the Board of Trade on this bill, which recommended that
before granting. any extensive powers for new works at
Liverpool, the Mersey Board should come before Parliament
with other plans. He urged that the Board of Trade had
been influenced by the Birkenhead Improvement Com-
missioners, and that the effect of their recommendation was
to cripple the operations, and restrain the freedom of action
of the Mersey Board. After shewing that the money now
asked for was necessary for the purpose of carrying out the
powers which the Mersey Board absolutely now possessed,
under an existing act for the extensions at the north end of
Liverpool, the learned counsel drew attention to the petition
of the Great Western Company against the bill, the allega-
tions in which, that the proposed bill was in contravention
of an existing act of parliamement, was entirely unfounded.
The petition of the Birkenhead Railway Company was
substantially the same. The petition of the Birkenhead
Improvement Commissioners, of which Mr. Laird was
chairman, that the board were apathetic in going forward
with the works at Birkenhead, he should be able most com-
pletely to disprove, and he might name, in proof of the
desire of the board to complete the Birkenhead docks in the
most effectual nianner, that they might have constructed
them according to the late Mr. Rendell's plans, involving
an expenditure of £500,000, whilst, by the plans under
which they were 'actually being constructed, the expen-
ditnre would not be less than £1,700,000. The
learned counsel concluded an address of nearly two
hours' duration, by designating the opposition as an unjust
one, and that the charge of breach of faith he should be able
entirely to disprove.

—Leo, tt, .sprov,
Mr. Charles Turner, chairman of the Mersey Docks
Board, examined by Mr. Merewether : I have been chair-
man of the Dock Trust nearly eight years, having been
elected in 1851. I was chairman under the old constitution.
Since that time I have paid great attention to the affairs of
the Dock Trust. The dock rates have nearly doubled them-
selves in a period of fifteen or sixteen years. I have no
doubt the increase will go on in the same ratio, with the
revival of trade. The total revenue last year was £511,864
13s. 4d., leaving a surplus, after paying expenses, of £52,077.
The financial crisis had an effect on the receipts in 1858.
At the end of 1857 the surplus was £102,200. The total
revenue froiu dock and light dues •in 1858 was
£374,558, and in 1857 £374,978. It is part
of our business to receive representations from
parties using the docks as to works and extensions. For
this purpose the board is divided into sub-committees. On
the 14th February we received a memorial from the Ship-
owners' Association that there was a pressing necessity for
extended accommodation, and that we ought to apply to
parliament. As regards the steam trade and the timber
trade, there requires immediate increased accommodation.
If the accommodation is not provided, there is danger of the
removal of a portion of the steam trade to Southampton.
The steam carrying trade has trebled itself within the last
nine years, and doubled itself within three years. We have
had frequent applications for special berths, which we have
been obliged to refuse. The steam carrying trade cannot
wait, like other vessels, for berths. They must have them
at once, or else they lose their trade. We have great diffi-
culty in supplying them. We are doing all we can to
complete the works at Birkenhead according to act of par-
liament. Our engineer is instructed to do everything that
can be done to complete them, and keep faith with parlia-
ment. My belief is that the L 300,000 we now propose to raise
will increase rather than diminish our credit. Keeping the
docks on the Liverpool side in an efficient state, will, I am sure,
be the most effectual node of increasing our credit, and
enabling us the more readily to borrow money for the com-
pletion of the Birkenhead works. There are those who have
not much confidence in the Birkenhead works, but I think
that when they are completed there will be great advantages
from them, and that they will produce a considerable re-
venue to the estate.
.The trade on the Liverpool side most
certainly requires increased works.
Cross-examined by Mr. Webster : The total expenditure
on laud and works on the Liverpool side of the Mersey
since 1855, was £1,078,746. That expenditure was not
beeTitheext2Z.,!T.o Authorisedbauyththoeri
askse ~.authorised
obiyiate a,ecatrolfl 1855.4n0t

g