Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-10 00:00:00

BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE

AND CHESHIRE
JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY.
Tke Select Committee appointed to inquire into the bill resumed
its sittings this morning, Mr. H. Batßie in the chair. The other
members of the committee present were Mr. Locke King, Lord
Pevensey, Mr. P. Wykeham Martin, and Mr. F. Robertson,
Mr. linsTrest was recalled in order to correct a statement which he
had made on the previous day. He had stated that he had been
interested in the sale of 850 yards of land, but what he had meant was
that the land sold fetched £B5O.

In cross-examination by Mr. Webster, the witness stated that he
possessed considerable knowledge of Birkenhead and its inhabitants.
A number of the owners of property had prepared a petition against
the bill, but they had not been able to present it in time to be laid
before the committee.

Mr. WEBSTER—Perhaps you will tell the committee who the gen-
tlemen are who have signed the petition ?
WITNESS—It is signed by Mr. George Wainright, a sugar refiner in
Liverpool; Mr. H. K. Aspinall, brewer, of Birkenhead; who resides
in Livingstone-street; Miss Williams, a lady residing at Oxton, two
miles to the west of Woodside Ferry ; Mr. Fox and Mr. Herdman,
hotelkeeoers, who hold leases of hotels in Lord-street; and Mr.
Fiore, solicitor, who lives in the Oxton. road.

Mr, WEBSTIR : Who drew up the pottion ?
Wirwsss—lt was drawn up by Mr. Lowndes, an attorney of
Liverpool, who, I believe, is Mr. Potter's solicitor.

By. Mr. Vaughan—All the persons who signed the petition, are
persons of 'great respectability, who would not have signed it unless
they believed that the statements contained in it were well founded,
and that they were entirely true,
Mr. J. NEW LANDS, C.E., said he was engineer for the town of Liver-
pool, and had been sent out to the Crimea by the Government to
Superintend the sanatary arrrangements at Balaklava; was well
acquainted with Birkenhead, and the manner in which the roads there
were crossed by the railway.
Mr. WEBSTEE asked how the quest'on his learned friend was about
to enter into, could apply to the subject before the committee. Th a

.
was a railway system entirely of docks in conection with railways,
and hence it was that the Corporation of Liverpool were so interested
in obstructing the develop,nent of Birkenhead ; because it was believed
that the advantages which could be secured for shipping there,
would be superior than those afforded in Liverpool.
Mr. VAUGHAN Said he was astonished at his learned friend's
interruption. Mr. Newlands was not a willing witness, but had only
been brought up upon a speaker's warrant.
Mr. WEBSTER—But he is the engineer to the Liverpool Corpora-
tion.

Examination continued—l am aware that in six different places the
railway crosses the road in Birkenhead upon a level. At each of these
places there is considerable traffic in connection with the docks, and
there is also a large general traffic.
Mr. WT K FRAM MARTIN—Is there any place where engines run.
Mr. NEWLANDS —Not now ; the locomotive power is supplied by
horses.

r. VAUG tux —From your knowledge of Birkenhead and Liverpool,
do!yon consider that when docks at Birkenhead are constructed, a very
large developement of the trade of Birkenhead will be the conse-
quence?
Mr. NEWLANDS—I consider that the works now being carried on at
Wallasey Pool, and the works which may be carried on at the entrance
of the docks, will make the circumstances of the two towns as regards
dock accommodation, exactly parallel. The proposed diversion of the
traffic from Canning-street, up Taylor-steet, down Bridge-street and
Marcus-street, into Canning-street adjoining, would in my opini n be
injurious.
By the Committee—An embankment at the bottom of Taylor-street
would not necessarily shut up that street.
By Mr. Vaughan—Great expenditure has been incurrred in Liver-
pool in keeping continuous lines of communication, ha widening and
improving streets where in former years there have been diversions.
Dir. VAUGHAN—Looking at all the circumstances connected with
Birt-enhead—the d irks, rh? probable trade of the town, and the great
line of communication this thoroughfare runs along,-,what would be
the pro..er course the ra lway company should adopt if they wished
to obtain for themselves the exclusive power of crossing the road
upon the level? Should the crossing be effected by stopping the
road or constructing abridge ?
_ _

Mr. NxviLarsns—All bridges are, more or less, injurious, but to
stop up the line of traffic by locomotives would be simply imprac-
ticable except under very great restrictions. The only way of deal-
ing with the difficulty would, I apprehend, be the construction of a
proper bridge at Canning-street.
Mr. ROBERTSON—Yon are already of opinion that the road to
remain as it is at present would be impossible ?
Mr. NEWLANDS —Yes, unless yon impost) such restrictions that it
would be impossible to work the line.
Cross-examined by Mr. WEBS res—What would the docks be worth
in competition with the Liverpool dock system without a direct com-
munication with the railway ?

➢lr. NEwLaNnB7I have not formed any opinion upon the subject

Mr. WE ESTER.—Do you know enough of Birkenhead to say whether
the Morpeth Dock is the place where coals are brought down for the
purpose of loading the steamer; ?

Dir. NEWLANDS—I believe it is; the coal comes from South Waies
by the Birkenhead line to the docks at the present momant.

Mr. WEB.TER—Do you know that the system proposed for Birken-
head was, docks in connection with railways, entirely in opposition to
the Liverpool sistem, which originally was docks without a railway
communication /

Mr. NEWLANDS—I believe that It was.
Mr. WEBSTER—And is not the running of locomotives down to the
docks essential to the working of that system?
Mr. NEWLANDS—I believe co. I cannot say what the value of the
land would be if there was no railway in existence The land with-
out tt edoicTkE,
sawoonwindebr be
o worth otrhteh
property pitetrty in
leasthecandocpingw-sittrheoeutt, the land.
mr Po
called. He stated that he had expended a sum of Je'4,00.) In lowering
and improving the land, and the propos ,d diversion of the road would
be most injurious to his property.
By Mr. Webster —The effect of the lowering of the land has been to
bring it down to a level with the dock quays, so that the traffic might
pass on a level to the quays. I believe that this is the most valuable
plot of land in the whole of Birkenhead, for water-side and dock
purposes. The Corporation, in a bill now before Parliament, hav4.
scheduled a portion of it, for the purpose of widening the quays. If
they leave me the same access to the quay that I have now, I should
be quite content, but I must have a guarantee against any obstruc-
tion.

Mr. WEBSTER—Was not the Birkenhead Dock system in 1843 a
system of railways in connection with docks ?
Mr. Porraa—There was no railway at that time, but it was in.
tended that railway accommodat.on should be extended to the
docks.

Mr. WEB3TEB—Do you not know that the trustees urged the rail-
way company to expend as much as £350,000 in extending the line
to the docks?

Mr. POTTER—I am not aware of the fact, but I believe that the
company have expended a large s.m of money in getting through
Birkenhead to the docks. They d d it, however, for their own inte-
rests. My land was waste land, and waa purchased frcin the Corpo-
ration, In 1843, for 18s. a squat e yard. I don't think the Corporation
sold any portion of the land in the immediate vicinity for less than
18s. a yard, though some up the pool was sold at various prices. I
cannot say that any was sold so low as 7s. a square rood.
By Mr. Vaughan—ln 1843, when the land was sold, some of the
works since constructed were in progress
. . _ _ _

Mr. BAILLIE said the committee had nothing to do with the value of
the land, They were not trying a question of compensation.
Mr. IVEBSTEIS remarked tbat the object of his cross-examination
was s mply to show that, instead of Wing injured, the property had
been greatly benefited by the rails., .y works. Indeed land, which
was purchasod a few years ago for 7s a square yard, now sold at the
rate of £7 a-yard.
Mr. JAMEs Piceosi, architect and surveyor of Liverpool, said he was
president of the architectural society, and a town-councillor of Liver-
pool. Was well acquainted with Birkenhead and Canning-street. The
diversion of ithe traffic of Canning-street, round by Bridge-street,
would be very injurious to Mr Potter's property as an investment.
Mr. JOHN CUNNINGHAM, architect and surveyor of Liverpool, :said
he had been engaged in the erection of many works in Liverpool. The
Philharmonic Hall, the Apothecaries' Hall, the Union Bank, and
other public buildings, were designed by him. Was acquainted with
Canning-street and Mr. Potter's land, and believed that the proposed
diversion of the traffic, by way of Bridge-street, would most injuriously
affect the value of Mr. Potter's property.
By Mr. WensTea—lf a bridge were made over Canning-street, I
can see nothing to prevent omnibuses and general traffic from passing
over the line. It is certainly the most direct route.
Mr. L. HORNELOwER, architect and surveyor of Birkenhead, gave
evidence to a similar effect. He was apehitect and surveyor to the
Birkenhead commissioners in 1843, and said that Mr Potter's interests
would he greatly Injured if the proposed diversion were carried out.
Mr. HENRY COLE, architect and surveyor of Birkenhead, said the
construction of a bridge over Canning-street, under which the railway
could pass, while the general traffic passed over it, would be far better
than stopping the road and diverting the sniffle.
This closed Mr. Potter's case, and Mr. Monk then proceeded to call
evidence on the part of Mr. Lard and Mr King.
Mr. JOHNSON, solicitor, detailed to the committee the negociotions
Rwahidcwhayh ad
comtapkaenny, pilnacreebsptweteetno M.
araKaiimng and Mr.forompe Lnsaatiirodn,
made
et
by
the former, for injury sustaiced in consequence of an embankment
erected by the company.
In cross-examination, the a itness said he was not aware that Mr.
Laird had made a profit of £37,000 out of the property for which
compensation was claimed. The embankment had since been
removed, and he believed that the company had given Mr. Laird and
Mr. Kine every facili yie respect to the land. They now complained
of the manner in which the company proposed to stop up the road.
Mr. Lamm was the next witness—He said he was engaged in the
coal trade! in Liverpool and Birkenhead, and owned eroperty in the
neighbourhood of Canning-street. Before the act for the making of
the Birkenhead Docks was obtamed, the Canning-road was one of the
most frequented roads in Bireieuhead ; but when the docks were in
progress the trustees became insolvent, and the road was left in such
a state that all traffic over it ceased. A temporary tramway had since
been made, with the consent of the commis Toners, but subject to
notice of removal. It was laid alongside the pathway, and was used
for the purpose of bringing stone from a quarry about two miles off for
the it ock works. The persons interested thought the commissioners
acted very jud•ciously, but they never anticipated when the works were
completed that anything would he dc ne to prevent the traffic from tak-
ing its natural course. Judging from the experience he 'Ad had of the
streets in Liverpool and London, he believed that this thoroughfare was
the most important thoroughfare in Birkenhead for commercial traffic.
It formed the best mode of access on the level to a nu mb3r of wharves
belonging to the Commissioners of Birkenhead, which were reserved
for public a cornmodation, and in the immediate neighbourhood there
was the Woodside Ferry, wh'cli was at the present moment much
used by persons crossing the Mersey. With the exception of Canning-
street, every strt et crossed by the railway in its progress to the docks
was crossed by a bridge, but the company had declined to put up abridge
at Canning-street on account of the expense which it would entail. He
believed that his property w aild be seriously deteriorated in value, if
the plans now betore Parham ,eat were sanctioned. If proper regale-
_

-
tions were enforced, the road might be kept open without danger;
hut, as the traffic increased, the company must erect a bridge. He
thought that one of the objects of the present bill was to get the com-
pany out of the control of the Board of Frade, and, by stopping up
Canning-street. to prevent the Board from calling upon them to put
up a bridge in order to protect the lives of the passengers.
Cross-examined by Mr. Webster—ln 1843 1 pucch,,sed a plot of land
of the Corporation at 711 a yard, but it must be remembered that at
that tame the land consisted of green fields which had no value. except
for the villas :+n et residential proper ty for the in h abi tants o f Liverpool.
The total cf antity of land purchased was 16,78 u yards, and the pri-e
paid for it was £5,873 which was settled by araitration. A short
time after the purchase was completed, 1 sold 10,590 yards of the
same laud, lying between Taylor a-td Market-streets, to the Chester
and Birkenhead Railway Company for £30,45 was not a director
of the line at the time. but I we, a director of the Cheshire Junction
line. It had no connection, however, with the Birkenhead and
Ch ster line.

By Mr. Monk—Before I sold the land to the railway coMpany 1
expended '2,000 upon it, and had contracted for an additional
expen lture of £B,OGO or £9,000 .n the erection of houses.
The CHAIRMAN ask,el if the parties would not t,htiiin compensation
_
unnt r the bill? ' _

Mr. Muzin—By the way in which the company have framed their
bill, we should be, entitled to no compensation whatever.
Mr. WYKEHLM MARTIN—Then, ajury could not give you a nom.
pensation ?
• Mr. Motix—We have no means of getting before a jury. It is cer-
tainly the most extraordinary btli that was ever brought before a
committee,
Mr. PictOn, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ilornblower, and Mr. Cole were
recalled, and spoke of -the injury .which the proposed works of the
company would inflict upon the.property of Mr. Laird and Mr. King.
I reply to a question of the committee,
Mr. Au utt said he proposed to ask the committee to reject that pert
of the bill which related to the property of those gentlemen, and if his
application was not successful, he should, at the proper time, bring
op a clause for compensation.
The , ommittee then adjourned till this day (Wednesials