Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-09 00:00:00

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTZR.)

ROUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY.

The Committee on the Mersey Conservancy and Docks
Bill resumed its sittings to-day, at noon, Sir James
Graham in the chair. The other members present were—
Lord Henniker, Mr. Paget, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. North.
The Chairman said, perhaps Mr. Turner, of Manchester,
would be so obliging as to furnish them with the docu-
ments he promised, with reference to the items of the
charges brought against the Brazilleira.
Mr. TURNER regretted that he could not procure the
original document, but he had full particulars from the
Secretary of the Company. Mr. Turner then read a report
from that gentleman, detailing the circumstances under
which the Brazilleira was charged with Dock Dues, for
having taken some packages on board in the Mersey. He
stated that thirty packages were so put on board, and that
the ship paid is per tan dues on 738 tons of goods, taken
on board in the Birkenhead docks, and Is 4-12-d per ton on
758 tons, to the Liverpool Dock Committee, although the
vessel had never used the Liverpool docks.
Mr. MERREWETHER objected to the r,ceipt of this docu-
ment as evidence, on the ground that written evidence
ought not to be put in when the party could be called
before the committee. He was directly at issue with the
other side on the question of thirty parcels only having
been shipped as stated. _

The CH—AIRMAN said he thought the objection must be
sustained if persevered in.
Mr. MERREWETHER would not persevere if his account
of the number of packages was allowed to be put in too.
Mr. CALVERT would not demur to this course.

Mr. PAGET, counsel for the Dock Trust, then put in the docu-
ment, which shewed that, instead of thirty packages having
been put into the ship in the stream, the following goods
were put on board : 61 packages, silks, cottons, &c.;
three cases watches, one bale hops, one case copper, sixty-
eight sheets copper, loose ; one box provisions, one box sta-
tionery, one case instruments, and fifty firkins butter. He
also handed in a document from the receiver of tonnage
dues showing that this return was correct.
After some conversation, the CHAIRMAN asked Mr.
Turner to furnish him with evidence whether any of the
sum paid to the Dock Trust on these goods was for
town dues; and counsel agreed to endeavour to come to
a stated case upon the Brazilleira grievance.
Mr. BANCROFT was then examined on the evidenee,given
by Mr Rendel in 1833, when
Mr. 31F RREWETHER objected to second hand evidence
being received.
The CHAIRMAN said, reall7 the course pursued was a bad one.
Here, nothing was proved in the first instance, and nothing
resulted upon second evidence. The inquiry would be
interminable, and the present session wauld barely see
he committee's report issue.
Mr. MERREWETHER observed that, although the com-
mittee had at first sanctioned this course of procedure, he
had then warned them of the result.

The CuAnamArr certainly saw the evil, but then if the
committee deviated from the course laid down in the
beginning, it would be tantamount to a censure upon their
earlier proceedings.
Mr. BAticaofr then proceeded, but left unfinished the
reading of the evidence of Mr. Randal. He went on to
read the evidence of the town clerk on the question of the
land sales at Wallessey by the Corporation ; also that of
Mr. Bramley-Moore, on the 12th March, 1851, with refe-
rence to the sales of land by the Corporation to the Dock
Committee, stating that up to 1841 the Corporation had
received from that body £909,000 for land, and that the
land so sold had been improved by the Dock Committee
in the first instance, and so had yielded a profit to the
Liverpool Corporation of several hundreds of thousands
of pounds.
The Witness was then examined with a view to show
that there had been repeated struggles between Liverpool
and Birkenhead. He considered that in consequence of
the non-completion of the Birkenhead Docks, the Birken-
head Laancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway
Company, had suffered severely. The Company were
pressed by the Dock Trustees to make a line of three
quarters of-a-mile in length, from Grange•lane to the docks
at an expense of £350,000. The nett outlay for the
accommodation of commerce on the Brkenhead side of the
river, had been upwards of £1,000,000 sterling, say
£1,100,000, and that had not been so productive as it
would have been, had the docks there been completed.
Mr. CALVERT : Now, do you consider that the price for land
paid by the Dock Trust to the Corporation is too great ?
Mr. BANCROFT : Evidently the sums paid are very large.
The CHAIRMAN: Really we have had all this before. It
has come from many witnesses already.
Mr. CALVERT : Now, what are the benefits that you think
Birkenhead would derive from this bill?
Mr. BANCROFT : That her commercial affairs will be
conducted by men entirely free from local influence.
Mr. CAnvEar : Do you think this bill will provide an
efficient Dock Board ?

Mr. BANCROFT : I think so; but it will be sufficiently
Liverpool after all. It is not precisely the Trust that I
should have suggested, but it is a great improvement on
the old state of things. The bill seeks to destroy the cor-
porate element, and that is what should be done. The
witness was then examined on the evidence given by Mr.
James Aikin in 1851, on the question of the constitution of
the Liverpool Dock Committee; when
Mr. MERREWETHER then again objected to second hand
evidence being received.
The CHAIRMAN hoped that such evidence would not be
persisted in.
bMr. CALVERT : What is your objection to the Town Dues ?
Mr. BANcaorr : That they are, not appropriated to the
purposes of shipping.
Mr. MERREWETHER : What business are you, sir ?
Mr. BANCROFT : I am not actively engaged in business,
but 1 was a dealer in p'ait for straw bonnets.
Mr. MERREIVITHER : Now, sir, attend to me. Be good
enough to state what would be the Town Dues upon a
straw bonnet, taking bonnets at their present size ? I
presume, sir, you know the size of a lady's bonnet.
(Laughter)
Mr. BANCROFT : We did not import the bonnets. It is
the material that is imported.

Mr. MERREWETHER : Now, who is to pay the expense of
this bill ?
_. _

Mr. BANCROFr : The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire Junction Railway Company are not the pro-
moters of the bill, nut we are very active supporters.
The company has passed a general resolution to take the
necessary steps in supporting this bill. No money has
actually been voted by the oompany, but there is an under-
standing that each company shall pay their own counsel
and witnesses. The witness was next examined as to the
attempts maze at various times to secure an amalgamation
with the London and North Western Railway Company
Parliament had rejected a bill, having for its view such an
amalgamation. When the Shrewsbury and Chester lines
sought powers to run over our line to Birkenhead, we
opposed their bill. The Shrewsbury and Chester Com-
pany, in their preamble, slate that they have land on the
south reserve, but I don't know whether their lease is
good or bad. I have heard it said that the leave was not
worth the paper on which it was written. I disputed
their lease, when they came here for running purposes.
I have heard that the Liverpool Corporation have taken
proceedings in Equity against the Shrewsbury and
Chester Company in regard to that lease. I believe
that in 1851 the Birkenhead people themselves threw over
the plans of Mr. Rendel, and adopted those of Mr.
Abernethy. I can't say that the Liverpool Corporation,
had anything to do in that change. I believe the gentle-
men who did their best to have the docks finished were
Mr. John Laird. Sir Joseph Bailey, Baron Goldschmidt,
Mr. Barber, of Manchester, and a few other gentlemen.
Mr. MERREWETIIER : Can you tell me your opioion of
the management of the docks by those gentlemen ?
Mr. BANCROFT : Oh, we had nothing to complain of in
that respect ; but then there was so little to manage.
Mr. MERREWETHER : Well, then, what do you say to their
enterprise ?
Mr. BANCROFT : Well, there we have everything to com-
plain of. There is no doubt that up to 1855, the fault of
the non-completion of the Birkenhead docks was due only
to the Birkenhead Docks Trustees, and not at all to the
Corporation of Liverpool.
Mr MERREWETHER : I should think you were rather
pleased when Mr. Labouchere's committee said that the
Liverpool Corporation must take the docks ?
Mr. BANCROFT : I certainly consented, as far as my con-
sent was asked in the question, being then Chairman of the
Birkenhead Railway Company. I c ,nsented to the
transfer to the Corporation, and the consolidation of the
interests on both sides of the Mersey; but it was upon
this clear and distinct understanding, that the dock estates
on both sides of the Mersey, when completed, should be
placed under one separate trust, and if I could have
supposed that the obligation imposed on the Liverpool
people would not be carried out, I should rather have
waited to have seen the Birkenhead docks completed.
Mr. MURREIVETNER : Then you would have preferred the
insolvency of the dock trustees, and having no decks ?
Mr. BANCROFT : Yes, sooner than that the corporation
should have the control of those docks.

Mr. MEIII2EWILTHER Now, what line is specially
interested in this question ? Is not this a matter of
general interest to all the railway companies?
Mr. BANCROFf : It is of general interest to the whole of
the narrow-gauge lines in
.the country, but of special
interest to the Birkenhead hue and all the lines on that
side of the country.
Mr. MERERWETIIHR Then in any arrangements that may

be made it should be the imperative duty ofthose carrying
out these plans to lbok at the whole of therailway interest,
without viewing any individual interest ?
Mr. BAXOROPT : Yes ; but there are rail:ways specially
interested, and more particularly the Birkenhead; Lanca-
shire, and Cheshire Junction Railway Company, whose
claim, I think, should be first considered, having- spent so
much money in endeavouring to accommodate commerce
at Birkenhead, when the docks should 'be completed. I
believe that, during the last winter, meetings of deputations
from the various railway compardes took place with the
corporation, when the plans were discussed, and I believe
that we came to the resolution that sufficient accommoda-
tion was not given to the Birkenhead companies. There
was nothing of this sort said—" Now, give us our aecom
modation, and take the town dues off bonnets." (Laughter.)
We objected to the principle of the plans of the docks
Mr Mintazwaerea—Now, sir, if you hod got what you
wanted, should you have supported this Mersey Conser-
vancy Bill ?
Mr. Beiscaorr : Oh, yes ; decidedly we should have
supported the general principles of this bill. We should
have supported the application for the change of trust.
Had I done otherwise it would have been inconsistent with I
everything that I have ever said on this question. We
have not approached the Corporation laely, although we
said, at our last interview with them, that we must receive
reports from eminent engineers before we could say that
we would not oppose them. We did not meet them again
because either Mr. John Stewart or Mr. Samuel Holme
said that the Birkenhead Railway Company should not be
allowed to dictate the policy of the plans, and that, sooner
than let us do that, the Corporation would carry out, at
once, Mr. Rendel's plans. We have received reports from
eminent engineers—Mr. Brunell and Mr. Ilawkshaw.
The report of the latter is at variance with that of the
former gentleman. We did not in any way communicate
with the Corporation thae we should not meet them again.
Mr. MERREWETHER : Now, as to the land sales by the
Corporation at Birkenhead, with the privilege to make
docks, and then the Corporation petitioning the next day
against that power--let me ask you, did you read that
petition so as to know under what circumstances it was
presented ?
Mr. BANCRoFT : I did not. I have only read the
evidence on the question, and have told you what I read.
To Mr. PAGET (counsel for the Dock Committee) : I am
aware that up to 1851 the representation at the Dock
Comittee was limited, and that the committee agreed
that the power of veto on the Dock Committee's
proceedings should continue. I am not aware
how often the veto has Leon exercised since 1851.
I still adhere to the statement that the Dock
Trust has made land for the corporation and then bought
that land from the corporation for dock purposes. lam
aware that in making railways and docks, " spoil" is
created, and it is frequently to the advantage of the
parties to have permission to put their "spoil" on waste
land, and it is equally an advantage to the owner of the
land to receive the "spoil." I think if an independent
board had wished, they could have gone to parliament for
statutory power to purchase the strand at, say a nominal
value, and make the land for themselves. I think su han
arrangement ought to have been made with. Lord Derby,
instead of making land for the corporation and then buying
it from them at a high price I should not be surprised to
learn that the dock committee have paid Lord Derby
£90,000 for strand of this sort.
To Mr. CALVERT : No doubt the strand ought to have
been purchased in anticipation. As it is, for every million
of money laid out in dock works, the corporation get
£15,000 a-year, as town dues, arising from the increase of
commerce. I maystate a fact now, that, although the docks
are not finished, the traffic of our company is becoming
very large. Even with the very limited share of dock ac-
commodation, the traffic of last year from Bi kenhead
amounted to no less than 500,000 tons, and 144,000 tons
of that amount were carried across the Mersey. This
only shows what. Birkenhead would have been, and
what our line would have been, had the docks
been completed. In 18i3, Messrs. Brassy and
M'Cormick threw up their contract to finish the
Birkenhead docks. That was at the time when the
£4,000,000 on the North Dock scheme at Liverpool was
determined on, and had the measure been carried out, no
doubt Birkenhead would have been swamped.
To the CHAIRMAN: We are the only connecting link
for the whole railway system of the Empire with the south
side of the Mersey. We are, therefose, as deeply
interested in this question as it is possible for any one body
to be—iu fact, our solvency or otherwise depends upon full
access to the docks being given to our line, and even
under the most disadvantageous circumstances we have
gained considerable trsffic, and ultimately we hope to
realise our full expectations.
Mr. ROBERT ROYLE : I reside at Brymbc -hall, near
Wrexham, and am a coal-owner. I am tenant with a com-
pany in the coal works on the Marquis of Westminster's
estate. We send a considerable quantity of coal to Bir-
kenhead. I was also an iron master, and shipped iron
from Birkenhead. I also received iron 070 from Cumber-
land via Birkenhead. Undoubtedly it is of the greatest
importance to the people of North Wales that the Birken-
head Dock should be finished speedily ; that the conservancy
of the Mersey should be properly attended to, and that
the management of the docks should be consolidated
and placed under an independent board. I don't look for
these advantages from the Corporation of Liverpool, for,
from all I can learn, they are rather too subservient to
Liverpool interests. My own trade has suffered became
we have no such a demand from Birkenhead as our col-
lieries can supply. We pay 2d a ton Town Dues at Liver-
pool, which is 33 per cent upon the royalty. I object to
paying taxes that should be paid by Liverpool people
themselves. I think that every tax on shipping should
be expended on shipping, and therefore I approve of this
bill. I was a director o the Shrewsbury and Chester
line from 1849 to 1854. and I have ceased fir twelve
months to be a director of the Great Western line. lam
not now connected with that line. I was, but am not now,
a director of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line. Those
lines were amalgamated, and the Great Western took on
very great liabilities in the shape of preference dividends
to gain a connection with the shores of the Mersey.
Having been a director in those companies, I am prepared
to say that the Great Western would never have taken
upon itself those liabilities without the assurance that they
would have had access to the docks. The company relied
upon the best plans—Mr. Rendell's—being carried out
at Birkenhead. A deputation of the directors—of which
I was one, went down to inspect the site of the docks on
the south reserve, to be assured that the best docks for the
purposes of commerce would be constructed. Our com-
pany obtained a lease of 40,000 yards, on the South
reserve, whereon to construct a station, for the term of
099 years, and we built a station there, which now belongs
to the Great Western Company, in virtue of the amalga-
mation of the Shrewsbury and Chester lice: We had a
lease because we were to have a station there to bring
np the passengers by foreign steamers directly they landed.
In the plans now proposed by the Corporation they sweep
away our station on the South Reserve, which cost us
£20,000. The non-completion of these decks has certainly
been a most serious loss to the Great Western line. The
Corporation have now a bill before the Court of Chancery
praying that the agreement or lease may be declared frau
dulent and void, and that the same may be delivered up
to the court. I consider the interests of the railway com-
pany and that of the public identical, so that the itsiu y
by the non-completion of the docks has been a public
injury.
The CIIAIRMkN : That is very important - repeat it.
Mr. CALVERT : Let us ask you the question. The non-
completion of the Birkenhead docks is not only an injury
to the Great West Western Company but to the public at
laree?
ROYLR : Yes. It constitutes, with my knowledge,
taking the interests of the colliers alone employed at such
collieries as I am acquainted with, and the works about
them. a very serious grievance, for there are from £200,000
to £300,000 a year paid to the colliers in the shape of
wages, and yet, owing to the non-completion of the decks,
they are obliged to work only half or three quarters time.
They do not work 50 per cent of what they could do if the
docks afforded proper accommodation to enable us to fulfil
our orders. We have, in fact, to ship coal down the Dee,
round to the Mersey, and se put the cargo on b seed ships
there. We have to go round sixty miles of navigation,
dangerous in the extreme, whilst by rail the distance is
only sixteen miles. My remarks equally apply to lead and
iron sent up from Wales.
The witness was under examination at four o'clock,
when the committee rose.

BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE
AND CHESHIRE
JUNCTION fIAILWAY BILL.

FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMNTONi, MONDAY.
The select Committee appointed to inquire into this
bill, assembled at twelve o'clock this morning, Mr. Bairn®.
in the chair.
The counsel
.for the promoters of the bill are Mr.
Sergeant Wrangham, and Mr. Webster.
Tne bill is opposed by Mr. Milward, on behalf of tie
Liverpool Corporation, Mr. Monk and Mr. Vaugb4n, on
the part of Messrs. Laird, King, and Potter.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM hoped the adjournment
at the laet meeting, would have saved some trouble
to the committee. The interval had, not been idly
I wasted. but emplo3ed iu arranging
differences with
many—he was sorry he epuld no.. say all, but with