Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-11 00:00:00

THE

-MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(PROW OUR OWN REPORTS%) '

HOUSE. OF COMMONS, WEDNIVDAY.

To-day, at noon, the committee on this bill mot again—Sia JAMES
GaatzaK in the chair.

Mr. SAKl:was, seeretaryito the Great-Weatern Railway, said, I heard
litr. Royle'a examination, and, so far as he spoke of the inducements
held out to the Great-Western Company, I agree with him.

Mr. KILZEWEVIEZ said; the following statement of the Brazilie,a
grievance had been drawn up, and he believed would-be agreed to by
the promoters of the bill.—"
Memorandum.—The trustees of the Liverpool Docks received
from the owners of the• steamer' Braz4liera, in March 1854, the sum
of 4352 2s 31, for tonnage dues. on. her measurement of 758 tons, at
Is Old per ton, according to the class of her last voyage inwards. Part
of the sum, namely, .e 0,193, consisted of the rate for light•, bnoyage,
&0., known, as harbour dues, and chargeable alike on all vessels
entering the port of Liverpool. The remaining 45 3s 3d became
doe under the Liverpool Dock Act, of the 4th Vic., sec. 101. in conse-
quence of her having loaded a portion of her cargo, consisting of 6i
packages, of silks, cottons, woollens, &c. ; 3 ditto of watches and
jewellery ; 1 bale of hops; 1 case and 68 sheets of copper; 1 box of
provisions; 1 ditto of stationery; 1 ditto instruments; and 50
firkins of butter whilst lying in the stream of the Mersey. The
said trustees also received, from the owners of the steamer Sarah
Bands, in March 18.54, the sum o; £64 Os Id, for tonnage dues
on her measurement of 931 tons, at is 4il per ton, according
to the class of her then voyage inwards. Part of that sum, namely,
.08 10s. ad., consisted of the said harbour dues, and the remaining
£55 9s. sd. became due under the taid act, in consequence of her
having discharged a portion of her cargo, consisting of 1,800 barrels
of flour, in the stream of the Mersey.
(Signed) " JOHN NORTH,
" For the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks.
10th June, 1861."

" In addition, on behalf of the Corporation, I admit that the
Brazitiera and Sarah Sands paid, on entering, anchorage and Town
Dues. (Signed) " H. ALBERT MEREWETHEA,
" For the Corporation."
Mr. Hezort—We agree, if you will tell us the weight of the goods
put on board.

Mr.llEsawrresa—WO can't an that, for the charges are mad•,
not on tha.i..tht, but on the number of packages stuppeti.
The case, as agreed to, was then handed in to the committee.
Mr. SANDERS—We consider that Mr. Renders pans should be car-
ried out In their integrity. It is of vital importance that the low
water basin should be constructed, In consequence of the non-
completion of the docks, we have suffered injury in our traffic depart-
ment. We should not have consented to the Birkenhead Doak Bill of
1855 passing, had we not had an assurance and a promise that the
docks Would be clmpleted substantially according to those plans
Mr. Drake, the solicitor to the Birkenoead Dock Trustees, assured me
that those plans would be carried out. I received an assurance from
Mr. Littledale, and I gave it to my directors, that the works would so
be carried out.

Mr. MEIUMETREB, objected to such evidence when Mr. Littledale
might be called.
The committee sustained The objection.
Mr. SANDESs resumed—The condition upon which we consented to
the bill was, that the docks should be carried out and completed fully.
On the occasion when the bill was before committee, Mr. Shuttle-
worth, Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Vold came to London to ask that our
board would assist them in carrying the bill against the opposition
from Manchester I then rweived the most positive assurance that
the docks should be proceeded with, and finished to our satisfaction.
We supported the bill, and clauses were inserted protecting our rights.
-But for the clause which compelled the Corporation to proceed with
the works in September, 1856, and finish them in 1858, we should not
have given them our support at that stage of the bill. We did give
them assistance both In the Commons and the Lords; indeed I hold
in my hand a letter from Mr. Drake, asking me to give evidence in
favour of the bill, and to induce one or two directors of our line to do
the same. Undoubtedly if the Corporation had carried out their bill
as passed, and had the Dock Trust been consolidated, there would
not have been any need for this bill—at )east so far as our company is
concerned. This bill is only to carry out that which the Liverpool
company were enjoined but have neglected to carry out.
To Mr. Merewether—Wc have had communications with the corpo-
ration. In July last Mr. Shnttleworth wrote me to ask a conference
between Mr. Brunel, our engineer, and Mr. Hartley, the engineer to
the Dock Trait. Meetings did take place, and our company was
represented by Mr. Brunel. After some meetings, a plan was laid
before our board. Subsequently, our-Board and the Birkenhead
Railway Company, the Birkenhead Commissioners, arid the Wallasey
Commissioners, met and agreed upon the memorandum of the condi.
tions which they would agree to, and which, if accepted by the corpo-
ration, would enable them to support their bill. The corpo-ation
however rejected entirely the propositions made them. Considerable
correspondence ensued, in the course of which the Great Western
Chonmd pt:nbye oaffpeprme dprtiao
tleeda,veinththeemhaanttiesr ofof e
theirlplans
engineer,and the quantity
verun o,
, i off
the corporation would delegate similar powers to Mr. Hartley—an
overture which was refused, and in November the negotiations were
tI
brought to a close.
To Mr. Webster—The Great Western Company has been most
.reluctan ly driven to give their support to this bill, because the cor-
poration would not carry out the bill of 1855.

To the Chairman—We claim about eight acres out of the fifty, con-
stituting the south reserve. We do not consider that it would be a
breach of onr agreement for the corporation, if it carried out Mr.
Rendell's plans, to give access to the south reserve to the London and
North-Western Railway Company, or any other company. Nothing
will ever induce us to give up the great low water basin. It is of
vital importance to us, and must be carried out.
Mr. WzasTEa—lt was my intention to have called before the com-
mittee, the Ilan, members for Bradford, Birmingham, Drogheda, and
Newry, to give evict-nee similar to what the committee has already
heard from other hon. members of the House, but after what has
passed, we shall not call them. This, then, is the case of the promoters
of the bill.

At a quarter to three Mr. ALEX ANDas, on behalf of the Liverpool Dock
Committee, proceeded to address the committee. He said he would
not quarrel with the promoters of the bill for having brought such a

mass of evidence before the committee, for when they considered the
nature of the bill was very subversive of what bad been hitherto sanc-
tioned by parliament, it was necessary that their case should be well

propped up. It was not necessary that he should go into a discussion
of the numerous Acts of Parliament which Sergeant Wrangham
thought It necessary to lay before the committee, but he should
remind the committee of what the history and constitution of the
Liverpool Docks were. Having done this by reading various clauses
in the different Acts of Parliament relating to the docks, counsel wen-
on to observe that, in 1851, the representatives from the Town Conn
cil were reduced from 13 to 12, and to those chosen by the Dock Rate-
payers were increas,d in number from 8 to 12, thus plainly showing
that the cry raised by gentleman from Manchester, that the Dock Corn
mittee w,s not a representative body, and that it was one sided in its
constituency was unfounded. He also observed that Parliament itself
retained to the corporation the right ofveto ; it had added to the mem-
bers chosen out of doors : it gave the election of chairman to the whole
committee, but so great was the confidence in the committee, thst no-
thing was sa id in the Act of 1851 about the re-election of the Audit Com-
missioners. Now, the expenditure in docks at Liverpool had been about
9,000,000, and income £430,000, but this year he believed it would
reach 4'500,000, and it had gone on increasing, and the result was,without
going through these valuable statistics, that the dock revenue doubled
itself in about 15 }ears. The imports and exports of Liverpool last
year were marvellous—they struck one with wonder —they amounted
to one hundred millions sterling. Of manufactured goods alone the
exports last year were £47,000,000 ; for 1855 the export of manu-
factured goods was twice a; great as those of London, five times as
great as those of Hull—a large exporting pent ; eight times as great a 3
from the whole of the Clyde ports, and what was more surprising than
all, was that from Liverpool departed one-half the exports of the whole
kingdom. The exports of manufactured goods from the whole kmg-
dom in 1858 were 494,000,000, of which 447,000,000
,went from
Liverpool. 1 his was tho business with which the Dock Comnyttee
had to do—the bus Mess that they had to accommodate, end it was,
therefore, important to see who were the members. The learned
counsel re id the names and professions of the menaLers of the Dock
Committee, and then observed that they were most admirable repr
sentatives of the commerce of the port. 'I he veto had been very
sparingly exercised—in eed, since 1851, it had not been exercised at
all. He could see many cases in which a salutary influence on the
committee was exercised by the veto; giving as an instance the con-
cluding of improper contr..cts by the Dock Committee.
The learned counsel had not concluded when the committee rose at
four o'clock.

BILIKENHEAD, LANCASHILIE
AND CHESHIRE
JUNCTION i\A HAVAY BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY.
The Select Committee on this bill met at eleven o'cicc':. to-day—Mr.
BAILLIE in the chair.
Mr. J. B. LLOYD, solicitor to the cnmpany, was recalled, and said
that the reason why the c .any dil not construct the bridge in
Canning-street was, that the pi l ir supports would have seriously in-
terlered with the proper development of the land for the purposes of
railway traffic. It was highly desirable, in order to carry out the
design of the tailw y d dock:, tha the bridge should not be con-
structed, The coal traffic over that line was now enormous, and
would, doubtless, be much augmented who r the rocks were finished.
Mr. WEBSTER—Now, are you prepared to advise the corryany to
'mut a compensation lance in the art ?
Mr. LLOYD —l' tl'e dock system is to be carried out by means of a
railway, it is impossible to have a bridge carried across that road on
75 piers. I would advise the promoters of the bill, if the committee
think it right, to a- cept the compensation clause which appears In the
Land Clauses Consolide.ticn Aot.
The CIIMILDIAN—What do the landowner, say
to that
Mr. MONK—We can't accept it. The learned gent'eman thcn
addressed the committee on behalf of Mr. Ring and Mr. William
Laird, canto ding that their property would be much depreciated by
this bill if it passed, and that they ought therefore to receive compen-
sation. He urged that the bridge over Canning-street ought to be
completed, for Mr. Bendel knew perfectly well th it there would be
an immense traffic to and from the docks, arid therefore designed a
tuitable bridge. •
At the close of the learned counsel's address, the cern*tee de-
dared the preariable preyed.