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

Personally, if the wall were constructed in a direct line,
lishould not obtain a yard of land.
Mr. Burke : Have you, petitioned against the Birken-
head Docks Bill. ,which it promoted by the Corporation ?
Penny : Yes.
Mr. Burke : What is the ground of opposition ?
Mr. Penny: We consider that the works which the
Corporation propose to construct at Woodside Ferry
would inflict still further injury upon the property on the
Cheshire shore.

Re-examined by Mr. Webster : Mr. Tamer; the Chair-
man of the Dock Committee, has made a statement to the

effect that power should be given to the trustees to expend
Money for the benefit of the port without there being any
necessity for a special application to Parliament in each
ease. That expression of opinion has caused a good deal
of comment.
Sir J. Graham: Did you or Mr. Smith purchase land on
the Birkenhead shore as a speculation ?
Mr. Penny : No ; Mr. Smith purchased his land for
.€7,000, and I have since expended £2,000 upon it.
Sir J. Graham: Would it realise that sum now ?d
_ .

Mr, Penny: No ; I do not think it would fetch half the
original cos t.
Sir J. Graham : You say that the landowners proposed
to pay one-third of the cost of erecting a wall if the Cor-
poration would contribute the remaining twot-hinds. Do
I understand that you would have contributed your share
with no hope of acquiring fresh land, your only object
being to preserve your property?
Mr. Penny That was the case with me personally.. I
was willing to contribute my share of the expense, on the
condition that the corporation would also contribute their
share, and that a public road should also be laid down in
front of the shore.
Sir J. Graham : Are your circumstances peculiar with
respect to the acquisition of land ?
Mr. Penny: Yes, they are somewhat peculiar. I have
a great interest in the Seacombe Ferry, and the estate in
which lam interested is a large one. I considered when
the proposal was made to the corporation that the large
interest which I had in the localityjustified me in accept-
ing terms less favourable than those agreed to by other
landowners.
Sir J. Graham: Are there others besides yourself who
do not look for any increase of land, but only hope to
preserve their property ?
Mr. Penny : Certainly.
Sir J. Graham : Then, speaking generally, the hope is
to preserve and not to acquire ?
Mr. Penn, : That was my view personally, and I should
say that it was the view of the owners of land generally.
Mr. Frank Crossley, M.P. for Halifax, was next
.ex-
amined by Mr. Calvert. He said : The corporation of
Halifax have petitioned in favour of the bill. Liverpool
is the principal port through which Halifax imports
breadstuffs, groceries, and dyestuffs, and exports manu-
factured goods. I belong to a firm who are engaged in
the manufacture of carpets, who employ 3000 hands, and
who export carpets to America. The competition is very
great. Before the alteration of the tariff, America levied
an import duty of 30 per cent., but to this sum was added
all the cost of freight and importation, so that, in reality,
the duty was 44 per cent. upon the value. The amount
levied in the shape of town dues in Liverpool is added to
the cost of manufacture in America, so that, in point of
fact, the town dues become the parent of our charge. I
gave evidence last year in favour of the Local Dues on
Shipping Bill, and I am prepared to confirm the evidence
which I gave upon that occasion. Dues are levied in
Liverpool not only upon the manufactured article but
upon the raw material as well. The people of Halifax are
very greatly dissatisfied with the dues levied at Liver.
pool. They draw a distinction between the dues levied
for shipping purposes and the town thus. They do not
object to pay the former, but they think it unjust that
they should contribute towards rates which are devoted
by the Corporation of Liverpool to the improvement of
the town, instead of being employed for the benefit of
the trade and commerce of the port. I approve of the
objects of the present bill, and I think that the conser-
vancy of the river Mersey should be in the hands of a
responsible public body, elected by those who pay the
dues.
By Mr. Burke: I have no complaint to make of any
want of accommodation in the pert of Liverpool. We
consume Australian wool in Halifax, but a large proper_
time of it reaches Halifax by way of London. The peti-
tion emanates from the Corporation of Halifax, and not
from Manchester. The Town Dues upon wool, the price
of which varies from £8 to £24, amounts to 4d per bale.
The carpets which are exported pay 2d per bale. The
people of Halifax complain solely of the imposition of
Town Dues.
Mr. James Bancroft was the next witness. He said
—I am a director of the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire Junction Railway, and have been so for nine
years. The company is greatly interested in the estab':sh-
ment of docks at Birkenhead, and in the development of
the town generally. Birkenhead is the port of shipment
of the company, who have petitioned in favor of the bill. I
am aware that the bill is promoted by the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce, and the Manchester Commercial
Association who, I believe, are the proper parties to pro-
Mote it. Manchester is greatly interested in the improve-
ment of the port of Liverpool, and in securing additional
shipping accommodation in the Mersey. I have been
acquainted with the docks at Birkenhaad since the year
1848, and I produce an old plan of the shore showing the
purchases made by Sir J. Tobin and Mr. Laird at Walla-
. j -pwol, The oonotruotion of a nanli from tha pool to the
mouth of the river Dee was suggested by Mr. Telford,
the engineer. By that means the two estuaries of the
Mersey and the Dee would have besn connected. At
that time there was a notion that in the course of time
the Victoria channel in the Mersey would become silted
up. In 1844 the Liverpool Corporation purchased land of
Mr. Laird, and Sir J. Tobin for zieostoo. They borrowed
the money at 4it per cent. The Corporation subsequently
endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to sell the land to private
individuals, without the power of constructing docks.
They then changed the conditions, and. ultimately,
effected sales, with the right of constructing docks, but
the moment the sales were completed they petitioned
against the construction of Docks at Birkenhead.
Mr. Paget here objected, on the part of the Dock Com-
mittee, to evidence being given by Mr. Bancroft, with
regard to questions of which he had no personal know-
ledge.
As it appeared that Mr. Bancroft's knowledge of the
proceedings had been acquired from the parliamentary
blue books, the evidence objected to_,was_ordered to be
struck out.
.Mr. Bancroft then read numerous passages from the
evidence of Mr. Rendel in 1855, in reference to a scheme
for the construction of docks in 1844.
The examination of the witness was not concluded when
the Committee rose, shortly before 4 o'clock, and ad-
ourned till Monday next at 12 o'clock.

BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND CHESHIRE

JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.

This bill, which is included in group 6, appeared upon
the notice parer for investion by the Parliamentary Com-
mittee who have charge of the group yesterday (Friday);
but an arrangement was entered into in the course of the
day, by which it has been postponed until Monday. It is
understood that the bill will meet with considerable oppo-
sition from the owners of land in Birkenhead and the
neighbourhood.

MERSEY CONSERVANCY AND DOCKS, &c., BILL,

The following is a copy of the petition sent by the
Town Council of Glasgow in reference to this important
measure, in terms of the resolution of last week :

" To the Honourable the Commons of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in
Parliament assembled,—
" The humble Petition of the Lord Provost, Magis-
trates, and Town Council of Glasg )vv,—
" Sheweth,—That a bill has been introduced into Par-
liament for consolidating the Docks at Liverpool and
Birkenhead into one estate, and for vesting the control
and management ot them in one public trust, and for other
purposes. And your petitioners avail themselves of the
opportunity to submit to the consideration of your honour-
able house the great injustice experienced by shipowners
and merchants in Glasgow; as well as other places, from
the exaction of dues at the port of Liverpool, in respect
of goods not shipped or landed at that port, and the ap-
plication of these dues' not excusively for promoting the
interests of navigation and commerce, but in a material
degree for various purposes of a municipal description,
incuding the improvement and embellishment of the
town.
" That the injustice of the exaction is peculiarly grievous
in the case of cargoes from abroad, part of which only are
landed at Liverpool—the remainder, and often the greater
I part, being destined to Glasgow, and the whole being
subject to the exaction both of dock and town dues.'
That the impost is still more grievous from the immu-
nities conceded to, and enjoyed by certain individuals,
denominated Freemen,' not only in Liverpool, but in a
number of other towns in England.
" That your petitioners submit, that dues levied on
shipping should be applied exclusively to shipping and
harbour purposes—being an equivalent for the accommo-
dation provided; and more especially, that the exaction
of town dues, not for maintaining docks or harbours, or
for any maritime purpose, but for the benefit ot the
borough, is at once unjust and oppressive, inimcal to the
freedom of commerce, and injurious to its interests.
" That the powers exercised by the Corporation of
Livepool, from which these grievances have resulted,
should be abolished or greatly modified, and a system of
management and taxation established, by which the local
dues on ships and cargoes shall be in proportion to the
nature and extent of the accommodation supplied, and
the amount of cargoes shipped, transhipped, or landed,
1 and the dues applied only for the benefit of the port and
of the shipping that resort to it.
" That your petitioners rely on the wisdom of Parlia-
ment to make provision for these purposes.
" Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the bill
referred tct May be allowed to pass into a law, with such
alterations and modifications to the above effect As to
rAcraanurynotuirniptestiwtilostideorms mw
ial y seem l
elrer? meet.
&c
,