Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-28 00:00:00

which only appeared because of a mistake in the last

year's accounts

The salaries now really were less

than in. 1857, but the accounts were charged' with
£l2l increase, that charge not having been made
in ,1857,_ to represent a sum which ought to have

been included,

There was an increase of £535 for

wages to porters and guards. Now they had
handled 27 per cent. more goods at Birkenhead during
the past six months than in the corresponding period of
the previous year; and, although the amount of 'wages
paid was £535 in excess, the charge for handling the
goods was really 15;per cent. less. The chairman explained
several other items in the accounts, and remarked that it
was a very difficult thing to keep down the working
expenses of a short line. All the directors could do was
to devote their attention to that object, and if they could

to reduce the expenses without in any way impairing the
efficiency of the line itself, and of the staffs. lie then
proceeded to explain the course taken by the Board of
Directors in opposing the second reading of the Mersey
Board Works' Bill. The ground they took in opposing
it was, first of all, that it was a breach of faith on the
part of the Mersey Docks' Board in promoting the
bill at all ; and, in the next place, that they

ought not -to promote the bill, even supposing
it were not a breach of faith, until the Bir-
head docks had been proceeded with towards completion.
The Mersey Dock Board answered that they were guilty

of no breach of faith, and that they were pioceeding with
the Birkenhead Works as rapidly- as they could possibly
do. They did not say that they hoped to open the Bir-
kenhead docks within the time specified in their act,.but
they told Mr. Henley, the President of the Board of
Trade, that they were spending at the present time some
£5,000 a week upon those works, and were proceeding
as rapidly as they could possibly do. The directors of
that board felt bound, however ungracious it might seem,
to take steps to oppose the second reading of the Mersey
Board Works' Bill because they believed it would be for
the interests of the shareholders of that railway that the
bill should be opposed at that stage, to save, if possible,
the great expenses of an opposition when the hill'was in
commitee. Money was no object to the dock
board, because they paid it out of the public purse,
but the expenditure of money on the part of the
directors was a great object, because they had to
take it out of their dividends or out of their capital. In
1857 the Mersey Docks Board promoted a bill, in which
they asked parliament to give them £766,000 to construct
any works which they might think proper on the Liver-
pool side of the Mersey. That bill was lodged, and the
Board of Trade objected to the expenditure, on the
ground that parliament had declared again and again
that the works upon the Birkenhead side should be com-
pleted. The Mersey Dock Board invited the railway
companies to meet them in conference. The London
and North Western, the Great Western and the Birken- ,
head Company were invited. The Great Western and
the Birkenhead Company met to consider what course
they ought to adopt, because they did not then ac-
knowledge that the London and North Western had any
locus stancli upon the Birkenhead side. They met at the
Adelphi-hotel, and the deputations then present were, ho •
believed, unanimous, with the exception of himself, ,
that no money whatever should be granted to the
Liverpool people for dock works on the Liverpool side of
the Mersey. That was in January, 1858. After that,
they went to confer with the Dock Board. Mr. Shand ,
was in the chair, and a statement was made on the part
of the Dock Board, that they had got a specification
prepared, showing that £266,000 would complete the
works absolutely necessary on the Liverpool side of the
river, and they asked the railway companies to agree to
it. He (the chairman) proposed that they should draw
£366,000 ; but their answer was, that the sum they had
mentioned would be ample for all the purposes they then
contemplated. The directors present insisted that the
works should be specified in the bill which„they were
promoting. They did specify the works, and he thought
the directors of both companies' would concur in
the statement he was then making, that, they never
were told that the Dock Board meant to
apply to parliament for another shilling beyond,
that amount. He was quite sure that if the Dock Board,
had said at the time they would take the amount for
that year, and the next year they would,go to parliampit
for a further sum, the erectors would have taken, the
steps which they were now taking, opposed the bill. in.
the second reading, and having the licoard of Trade.with
them, they should have thrown it ou. (Hear, hear) Mr
Lanwe would not allow the bill to pass without taking an
engagement for specific works, a he said in the House
of Commons that it was his clear and distinct impression
that the dock board were not to come to parliament for
any more money until they had opened the docks at Bir-
kenhead. (Hear, hear.) When the change of ministry
took place the Liverpool people believed they could do,
much better with Mr. Henley than with Lord Stanley
and Mr. Lowe. It was well known to. every gentlemean
who attended the lobby of the House of Commons, that
they
that the change of ministry wastoa
with
mx..
for Liverpool that they would not have do
and that
opposed to Liverpool interest, an
they made no bones at all about it,
Lowe, who was buoTedateeithatirned
to oak for. Although be
Titherinnion, 1334 tgkte,a in
t the time to to 001111 Mr,
§ - -
they would be able to get'ethveervtl,Xngiatnh)eysttrohonucrgiyhtotaprcoore,a.