The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-26 00:00:00

SPAIN.

MADRID, MAY 22.—Gallitzin, the Russian Amba,
sador, has arrived.

THE

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY.

The Select Committee appointed to consider the Mersey
Conservancy and Docks Bill re-assembled this morning at
twelve o'clock. Sir James Graham, as chairman of the
Committee, presided, and all the other members of the
committee were present.
Mr. Serjeant Wrenham, in resuming his opening state-
ment, reminded the committee that in his address on
Friday he had drawn their attention to the animus which
had characterised the proceedings of the Dock Committee,
and to the impossibility of a municipal body, entrusted
with a great commercial trust, sinking the interests of
their constituents in the larger and more important question
of accommodating the general shipping of the port. It
the administration of commercial affairs on the Mersey
had been in the hands of those the promoters of
the present bill sought to place it in, there could
be no doubt whatever that, inasmuch as they
would represent the interests of commerce, every
ommercial facility which could be afforded on the waters
of the Mersey, would have been encouraged and developed
to the utmost extent. Instead of seeking to throw impe-
diments in the way, the board, proposed by the bill, would
have used every means in their power to increase the
accommodation fcr the shipping likely to enter the port.
But what had been the conduct of the corporation in refer-
ence to the construction of other docks, and to additional
facilities afforded in other parts of the Mersey. The Dock
Committee had a right to levy dock dues, regulated by the
act of parliament, upon all vessels entering the Liverpool
docks. Nobody could quarrel with such a right. It was
a due authorised by the legislature, and paid for benefit
received, and he who bought it had the full value of his
money. But it appeared that that was not enough. The
Dock Trustees had also the power of levying Liverpool
dock dues upon all the vessels that entered the Mersey,
although they never entered the Liverpool docks, if they
should discharge their cargo anywhere within the limit
of the port. They were eventually beaten out of
that pretension so far as the docks were concerned, as in
the case of the Herculaneum and Harrington Docks, but
in many instances they still retained this most anomalous
power—a power for which they never would hive con-
tended if local interests had not prevailed over the interests
of commerce. At the present moment they had the
power of charging a tonnage due upon all vessels enterine
the dock of Garston, five or six miles from Liverpool,
though they never entered the Liverpool docks, provided
that such vessels either discharged any portion of their
cargo, no matter how small, or took in any portion of her
cargo when she left the dock in the stream of the river
Mersey. The learned counsel contended that that was
an anomalous privilege, and that it was one which would
never have been urged by the Dock Trust, at Liverpool, if
it had been really what it ought to have been, namely, a
national trust, for the benefit of the national commerce.
The object of the privilege, it was clear, was to discourage
vessels from entering other docks. For instance, a large
vessel called the Sarah Sands, proposing to enter
Birkenhead Docks, found it convenient in order to lighten or
lessen the draught of water, to discharge a small portion of
her cargo before crossing the sill of the dock, she and her
lighters entering the docks together. Upon that vessel,
by virtue of the power to which he had referred, in order
to discourage shipping from entering other ports, the
Liverpool Dock Committee levied a charge of £64 odd,
solely because she had discharged a portion of her cargo
in the Mersey. In another case, a vessel called the
Brazilian, after leaving the Birkenhead docks, and while
waiting for the tide in the river, took on board from a
barge alongside a few parcels, and in that case
again the Liverpool Dock Committee levied a
charge of between £4O and £5O, because she had
taken goods on board in the stream of the Mersey.
So much for the spirit in which the Corporation had dealt
with the affairs of the Mersey generally; but he must
confess that the Duck Committee had been impartial, and
had stoutly maintained their ground against all parties
who had endeavoured to infringe their rights. It was,
however, for the hon. gentlemen whom he now addressed
to say whether such rights ought to be longer tolerated.
The history of Birkenhead was, he was sorry to say, a id
but not uninstructive one. The town was situated
opposite to Liverpool, and nature had given every facility
for the construction of docks. Near the town was a large
pool, 150 acres in area, called Wallasey Pool, which was
placed in a sheltered position, and which afford, d a safe
access from the sea with far greater security than could be
obtained on the opposite or Liverpool shore.
Sir J. Graham asked whether at low water the float at
Wallasey Pool was dry or not?
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said the pool, in its natural
state, was undoubtedly and naturally dry. At this moment
the water was pent up by a dam at the entrance, and the
great float of Mr. Rendell was, for the time, in existence.
During the last quarter of a century the trade of Liver-
pool had been advancing with gigantic strides. It had
been necessary to increase largely—he might say enor-
mously, the dock accommodation at a vast expense ; but
if the board proposed by the present bill, had been in
existence, would they have hesitated in applying the talent
at their command in order to convert this pool at Wal-
lasey, dry at low water, and full at high tide, into the
means of affording, upon an immense scale, the additional
facilities which were required. But there it was that the
Liverpool interest stepped in. Liverpool tradesmen might
be losers, or be deprived of the additional gain which they
looked to from the increasing trade of the Mersey ; and
what therefore happened. In 1824 there was a project on
foot for the construction of something in the way of dock
accommodation at Birkenhead, and a large purchase of
land was made on the shores of Wallasey pool by two
gentlemen connected with the town of Liverpool, with a
view to giving en additional value to the land so pur-
chased, by the construction of docks or other
shipping facilities. The first step taken by the Liverpool
Corporation in the matter was one which bore a double
aspect. It might be imagined that their first step was to
buy the land, for the purpose of providing the additional
accommodation which the trade required. Not a bit of it.
They bought the land, and, from the year 1828, when the
project was finally burked for making decks at Birkenhead,
down to the year 1843, they remained the possessors of
the land, but received no return for the very large sum
which they paid as the price of it. In the year 1843 it
was considered outrageous that Wallasey Pool should
longer remain unemployed, and in that year a project was
set on foot, of which Mr. Bendel was the engineer, for cor-
verting the purchase into a profitable speculation. The
sum originally paid for it by the corporation was £150,000
for 192 acres of land, and the money was borrored for the
purpose at 41 per cent. The corporation, in 1843, sold
the land on leases for a long term of years, for
the purpose of constructing docks ; and yet, in 1844,
they petitioned against a bill for constructing the
very docks for which they had sold the land. Not-
withstanding the opposition of the Liverpool Cor-
poration tie bill passed, but from many causes—from
mismanagement, from jealousy and opposition, from the
want of that countenance which they were entitled to
expect from a commercial body like the Liverpool Dock
Trust, the promoters of the docks at Birkenhead had
lingered, and lingering had lived, making continued efforts
at a more complete resuscitation, and applying to Parlia-
ment for the means which Parliament was ready enough
to grant as far as it could for completing Mr. Rendel's
plans. And there the dock scheme remained at this
moment, a melancholy monument of what might happen
where parties embarked in schemes of which the manage-
ment had undoubtedly been anything but favourable in
the earlier stages of their career, and where they had been
continually exposed to the hostility of sa powerful a
body as that which exercised rights upon the opposite
Shore. The result had been that down to the year
1865 there had been a perpetual struggle. In
that year the parties interested in the struggle
came to Parliament with several measures, the
general object of which was to claim exemption from
the dues which he had spoken of, and also from the town
dues. The learned counsel then referred to the legislation
of 1855, and said that the committee to which the Birken-
head Bills had been referred, and which was presided over
by Mr. Labouchere, the present Colonial Secretary, recom-
mended that the docks at Birkenhead, and others proposed
to be constructed on the northern shore of the Mersey,
should be combined into one scheme. An understanding
was also come to for the introduction of a bill in the fol-
lowing session for the protection of the public interests in
the management of the docks. In 1856 the Liverpool
Corporation introduced a bill which very materially
altered Mr. Rendell's plans, but which took no notice of
the recommendation of the committee with regard to
the
modification of the dock trust. The act of 1855
specified that the works were to be commenced by
September, 1836 ; but instead of doing so, the
corporation applied in that year, and again in the
present year, for an alteration of Mr. Rendell's plans,
their object being not to carry out any plan at
all which had for its object the improvement of the
- shores of the Mersey. There was but one remedy for this.
The committee might reject the bill of 1857, as they had
done that of 1856 ; but next year there would be another
scheme, and thus the corporation would go on eternally
until parliament would decide upon placing the execution
of the works in the hands of those who had no other in
terest than to carry:them out for the benefit of the trade
of the country. At the present moment the dock accom-
modation in Liverpool was not sufficient to meet the wants

of the shipping frequenting the port, and it appeared from
the reports in the newspapers that on the 7th May, at a
meeting of the Dock Committee, one of the committee,
Mr. Alderman Parker, had characterised as a scurrilous
attack upon the committee, a statement that some parties,
for want of dock accommodation, were about to transfer
their shipping to London. Mr. Turner, however, who
said he had seen the attack, tee., was unable to say how
far it was true, acknowledged that there was
a great want of accommodation, though he
added that the want of accommodation was not owing to
the conduct of the commiitee, but rather to opposition from
Birkenhead, and to want of interest on the part of Liver-
pool merchants. The learned Sergeant then proceeded to
argue that the Liverpool Corporation had always looked
upon the question of dock accommodation as solely a
Liverpool question, and had, in point of fact, entirely
ignored the existence of Birkenhead, in defiance of the
recommendations of the Board of Trade and of the com-
mittee of 1855. The promoters of the bill now under
consideration wished to have the managing body elected by
the contributors to the fund, and they contended that the
funds when levied should be devoted to the purpose for
which they were contributed, namely, to the accommoda-
tion of the shipping visiting the port. He now came to
the question of town dues. The promoters of the
bill were represented as endeavouring to extinguish
dues which had existed for a long series of years,
and which, since the passing of the municipal reform
act, had been applied to municipal purposes: The
parties whom he appeared there to represent were as deeply
interested as any body of men in the trade of the Mersey,
and whose object must uaturally be as far as possible to
reduce the imposts on that trade in order to encourage the
commerce in which they were engaged. Yet he was ready
to avow; not only on the part of the railway companies
which he represented, but also on the part of the com-
mercial bodies of Manchester, that their object was not so
much the extinction of this or that due upon their trade
exported or imported, as that whatever might be paid
should, at all events, be applied to the benefit of the port
and trade, and not be, in point of fact, con-erted into a
borough rate for the borough of Liverpool. He would not
assail the legality of the charge of what were called
town dues upon vessels or goods, because he thought he
should be unnecessarily occupying the time of the
committee with what was a most tangled and compli-
cated history. He was not raising the question
of right at all, but he merely asked at the
hands of parliament, the application of a particular fund,
in the hands of a Corporate body, froin the purpose to
which, up to this moment, it bad been devoted, to a
different purpose. He contended that the dues had been
granted, in the first instance, with the obligation of
maintaining the port, and keeping access to it open ; and
that it was only at a recent period that the Liverpool
Corporation had mis-applied the dues to purely'municipal
purposes, to the exclusion of all obligations on their part
to apply any portion of them to commercial purposes
within the port.
Sir J. Graham asked if the learned counsel was about
to open, in full detail, the question of the town dues ? If
so, it was desirable that each member of the committee
should have a copy of the report of the committee which
sat last year upon the Local dues on Shipping Bill.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that was not exactly his
purpose.
Sir J. Grahara : Your object, then, is to show that the
dues levied ought to be kept down to the sum required for
making proper provision for the shipping. You contend
that any residue, after the shipping purposes are satisfied,
should be remitted.

Mr. Sergant Wrangham said the principle for which he
contended was, that it was expedient that the management
of the docks, together with the rates and dues levied.,
other than those payable to her Majesty, should be applied
to the benefit of the shipping frequenting the port. There
was a most important distinction to be drawn between
public and private property. The former had frequently
been dealt with by parliament and applied to other objects
than those to which it was applied when parliament took
up the matter, and it could not, therefore, be beyond the
competency of parliament to provide that the dues raised
in this instance should be expended in the improvement
of the docks and shipping accommodation in the Mersey.
The revenue of the. Tyne had been dealt with in an im-
portant manner by the House of Commons and more recently
the Smithfield Market Bill was passed as a measure of
public policy, notwithstanding the cry of robbery and
spoliation raised by the curooration of London. Indeed,
the compensation clauses inserted in the bill by a committee
of the House of Lords, were subsequently struck out by
the House of Commons. In the case of Liverpool, it would
no doubt be necessary, hereafter, to modify the Town
Dues materially, but all he now requited was, that their
management, as well as that of all other dues on shipping,
should be vested in an independent body, who would take
proper care that they were applied to the benefit of the
trade and commerce of the Mersey. The learned sergeant
then urged, that the fact that he was promoting the bill
on the behalf of the commercial bodies of Manchester was
a sufficient proof that the present management of the
Mersey was held to be injurious to the trade of the country.
The great railways were actuated by similar feelings,
and among the public bodies who had petitioned in
favour of the bill, were— the corporations of Wakefield,
Sulle:ealand, Salford, IVackburn, Rochdale, Halifax, Stock-
port, Clitheroe, Bradford, 'Fynemouth, Oldham, and
Manchester ; the Commissioners of Burnley, the Leeds
Chamber of Commerce, and the Staffordshire Potteries.
Indeed there was a wide-spread feeling in favour of the
parliamentary interference in the matter, and it was even
for the advantage of Liverpool itself that the question
should be finally netted. The present rate pressed
most heavily upon low-priced goods, and was consequently
most prejudical to the trade of the Mersey, and the con-
sequence had been that, in some instances, the trade had
left the port for other quarters, The learned sergeant
then proceeded to call witnesses.
Mr. Heron, town clerk of Manchester, was then
examined by Mr. Webster. He s.id there were two
bodies in Manchester, the Chamber of Commerce and the
Commercial Association, which were joint promoters with
the Railway Companies—the Great Western Company, and
the Birkenhead Railway Company—of the present bill.
The railways to which he referred had always looked to
the extension of docks at Birkenhead for the development
of traffic on their line. The conservancy question, in
addition to the question of dock accommodation, had
attracted considerable attention in Manchester. Mr. Heron
then described the provisions 'of the conservancy act, and
referred to the report of Mr. Walker, dated iu December,
1855, to show that the Cheshire side of the Mersey had
been damaged by the erection of the Liverpool dock wall.
He was about being questioned as to the pilot committee,
when the committee adjourned till Wednesday.

THE BIRKENHEAD GAS AND
WATER BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Romer.

The select committee appointed to consider among other
bills the Birkenhead Gas and Water Bills, assembled this
morning in committee room No. 3. The committee con-
sists of Mr. Packe, (chairman,) Mr. W. J. Garnett, Mr.
Dillwyn, Mr. Sclater, and Mr. Montgomery.
After the case of the Cork gas bill had been disposed of,
that of Birkenhead was proceeded with.
Mr. Hope Scott, Q.C., Mr. Monk, and Mr. Webster, ap-
peared as counsel for the bill, which was opposed by the
Birkenhead and Claughton Improvement Commissioners,
and by the inhabitants of Birkenhead, who were represented
by Mr. Calvert, Q.C., and Mr. Welsby.
Several other petitions against the bill were also pre-
sented, among them being one from the Corporation of
Liverpool, and others from the Birkenhead, Lancashire,
and Cheshire Junction Railway Company, from the owners
of houses in Birkenhead, and from the ratepayers of Oxton.
In the latter cases there had been no appearance entered.
The only counsel in attendance when the case was
called on, was Mr. Welsby, and after a considerable
delay,
Mr. Newall, parliamentary agent, stated that Mr. Hope
Scott had prepared himself to open their case, but that the
learned gentleman was at present engaged upon an impor-
tant argument in another committee.
The C iairman intimated that the committee were willing
to wait any reasonable time until counsel could attend.
After further delay, upwards of two hours having been
wasted, during which the agents of the promoters of the
bill exhibited considerable anxiety,
Mr. Welsby said he did not think there was the least
chance of Mr. Scott appearing before the committee that
day. Under these 'circumstances he requested the com-
mittee to adjourn.
The Chairman said the committee were anxious to give
the promoters any chance of opening their case to-day, but
still he thought that they ought not to be unnecessarily
delayed.
Shortly before three o'clock Mr. Hope Scott appeared,
and at once proceeded to open the case for the promoters.
He stated that the object of the bill was to amend the
act 4 and 5 Victoria, by which the Birkenhead and
Claughton Gas and Water Company were incorporated to
change the name of the company to the Birkenhead
District Gas and Water Company, and tot extend their
works. The original capital of the old company bad been
£lOO,OOO, raised in 2,000 shares of £5O each, and the act
L empowered them to borrow a sum of X 33,000. The
£lOO,OOO capital was entitled under the act to a dividend
of 10 per cent., but the promoters of the present bill, in
order that there might be uniformity in the rate, had
introduced into it provisions by which they were

conflicts ; and, indeed, it was now concerned in a fierce
contest, raging in another room, with respect to the estab-
lishment of docks. The learned counsel then narrated the
proceedings of the old company, and stated that, by a con-
tract, dated 25th Sept., 1840, the commissioners had
leased to Mr. Jackson, M.P., for a term of
76 years, the lighting of the town of Birkenhead.
In 1842, Mr. Jackson handed over his contract to the old
comp. ny, at an estimated sum, including an equivalent for
the privileges he had received. This transaction would be
fully exalained in the evidence. Up to the present time
the company had called up their capital of £lOO,OOO, an
had borrowed £33,000, the whole of which they had ex-
pend•d i❑ works. In 1847 a bill was introduced,by which
an attempt was made to put an end to the contract of
1840. After some further observations from the learned
counsel, the committee adjourned till Tuesday, at twelve
o'clock, when evidence will be heard on the part of the
promoters.
empowered to turn the existing capital of £lOO,OOO into a
nominal capital of £200,000 to bear a dividend of 5 per
cent. The difference between the old capital and the
debentures issued, being thus doubled, gave a total of about
£266,000, and the difference between that amount and
£500,000 would be the amount of new capital
sought by the bill. The clauses in the bill
had been amended by Lord Redesdale, who had
charge of such matters in the House of Lords, and it was,
therefore, not expected that there would be any objection
raised to any of these clauses. The learned counsel then
entered into a brief history of the company. The bill
empowered the company to supply gas and water to Bir-
kenhead, Claughton, Lower and Higher Bebbington,
Oxton, Woodside, Seacombe, Wallasey, and the neighbour-
ing districts. The name of Birkenhead would be familiar
to the committee as associated with former parliamentary

IMPE kIAL PARLIAMENT.

[By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.
The house met at five o'clock.
DIVORCE BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on the Divorce
and Al atiimonial Causes Bill,

The Duke of Norfolk moved that it should be referred
to a select committee. lie did not wish to introduce
theological discussions into their lordships' house ; but
if they would consent to refer the question to a select com-
mittee, he would undertake that there was no warrant in
in Scripture for marriage after divorce.
The Earl of liarrowby considered that the effect of the
appointment of a select committee would be to throw out
the bill.

A discussion then arose upon the general principles of
the bill in which the Bishop of St. David's, Lord Redes-
dale, and other peers, took part.
Upon a division there appeared—
For going into committee .. 123
Against it .. 26

Majority • • 97
Their lordships accordingly went into committee.
An amendment proposed by Lord St, Leonards, to
secure to a wife her earnings and property, after desertion
by her husband for one year, gave rise to lengthened
discussion, which ended in a division, the numbers being
—for the amendment, 52; against, 44; majority, 8.
The new clause was accordingly added to the bill.
The clauses, up to 18 inclusive, were agreed to. On
clause 19,

The Earl of Donoughmore proposed an amendment,
to place the wife on equal terms with the husband with
regard to divorce.
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell opposed, and
Lord Lyndhurst supported the amendment, which was
negatived on a division, by 71 votes to 20; majority, 51.
Lord Lyndhurst proposed an amendment, giving to the
court power to dissolve a marriage where a husband had
deserted his wife for five years.
The Lord Chancellor, the Bishop of St. David's, and the
Duke of Argyle opposed the motion, which was rejected
upon a division by a majority of 97 to 8.

On clause 44,
Lord Lyndhurst proposed an amendment, the object of
which was to put an end to actions for trim con.
The Lord Chancellor opposed the amendment.
Lord Wensleydale moved that the house do resume.
After some further discussion the house resumed, and
adjourned at Svc minutes past one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MoNDAY.
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.

THE CHESTER WATER BILL.
The Chester Water Bill was read a third time and
passed.

THE ()UDE QUESTION.

Sir F. Kelly presented a petition from the Royal
Family of Oude, praying for the re-establishment of their
rights, and gave notic9, that on an early day after Whitsun-
tide recess he should call attention to the subject.
The Princes of Oude, attired in scarlet robes richly
embroidered with gold lace, attended by their suite, were
present in the gallery set apart for distinguished strangers.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Sir George Grey, it was ordered that
the house at its rising sho-Ald be adjourned till Thursday
next.

LEGAL EDUCATION.

In answrr to Mr Warren,

The Attorney-General said that the subject of legal
education was one of some difficulty, owing to differences
of opinion at the different inns of court, but he proposed to
introduce a bill, founded up)n the report of the commis-
sioners, in the next session of parliament.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES.

Mr. W. E wart asked whether it was the intention of
the government to consider the expediency of abolishing
the numerous customs' duties producing from £5 to £2OO
per annum.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there would be
no objection to the duties referred to.