Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-01 00:00:00

CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY.

4141 a general meeting yesterday, an amendment was
carried for the appointment of seven shareholders to
confer with the directors on the accounts of the com-
anY, recap m for the adjournment of the: meeting to
anoth
•

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

By British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TIIESDAY.

The House met et five o'clock.

Lord BROUGHAM askeo for information np-,,n 8 subject
which was creating some alarm amongst tile enemies of
slavery. It was understood that a ;reputation of West
India planters waited on Lord Pal7.derston to propose the
importation of free Negroes into.: the British colonies, and
that the Emperor of the Frr,nch had given permission to a
company at Marseilles tq Import free Negroes from Africa
into the French cr.iionies. He wished to know what
foundation there was for these statements, which, if true,
appeared to him as instituting a species of slavery.
The Earl of CLARENDON had read the statement in the
papers relative to the deputation to Lord Palmerston, but
was not aware of the answer given by his noble friend,—
though, from the antecedents of the premier, he was con-
vinced that he would not in any way, directly or indirectly,
countenance the slave trade. With regard to the statement
respecting the French trade, the government were in
possession of no official information. He concurred in the
condemnation of the slave trade, and was glad to learn
that the Portugese government had set its face against it.
The Waterford and Tramore Railway Bill, the Dublin
and Wicklow Railway Bill, and the Australian Agricultural
Companies Bill were read a third time and passsed.
The Oxford University Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY, the Turnpike
Trusts Arrangements Bill, the Insurance of Lives,
and Abatement of Income Tax Continuance Bill, were
read a second time. _ _

The County Cess (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The other business was disposed of, and the house
adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TuEsDny.

The SPEAK= took the chair at twelve o'clock.

The following bills were read a third time and passed—
Dorset Central Railway Bill, Fife and Kinross Railway
Bill, Haslingrlen and Todmoreen Road Bill, Kinrosshire
Railway Bill, Midland, Great Western Railway of Ireland,
Streamstown and Clara Sanction Bills, Selby and Market
Weighton Road Bill, Stratford upon Avon -Gas Bill,
Watchet Harbour Bill, and West Somerset Mineral Rail-
way Bill.
The motion for considering the report of the South
Eastern Railway, Greenwich Junction to Dartford, &c.,
Bill, was opposed by Sir B. Hill and Mr. B. Osborne,
but was csrried without a division.
In the case of the Finsbury Park Bill, the Board of
Works accepted the late decision of the House as a refusal
to allow a Government grant for the purpose, and the bill
was read a second time.

The Committee on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ire-
land) Bill was resumed. Clause 161 was struck out ;
clauses 1f.2, to 314 were agreed to ; clause 315 was
expunged. The remaining clauses were agreed to, and
the bill with amandpients was ordeFed to be reported.
Mr. Elliott toci- th© oaths and his seat for Roxburgh-
shire. _ _

The tutting was then suspended.
At the evening sitting, Mr. ROEBUCK presented a peti-
tion from West Norfdk, complaining of the interference of
Lord Leicester, Lord Sondes, Lord Walsingham, and Lord
Hastings, at the lato election for the county. he hon.
and learned member stated, that he considered the allega-
tions so general, that no steps should be taken in the
matter.

In reply to Mr. GREER,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was his intention to lay
on the table in the present session a bill for the registra-
tion of titles to property in land. He did not expect to
pass the bill in the present session, but was anxious that
it should be in the hands of members for their considera-
tion during the recess.
Mr. H. BERLELEY then rose, and moved for leave to
bring in a bill to allow voters to record their votes at elec-
tions by the ballot system. He said that the noble lord at
the head of the government had recommended them to
wait for his Reform Bill, which, like Aaron's rod, was to
devour all smaller measures. But they were in darkness
as to what the noble lord proposed to do. If it were con-
templated to make the ballot one of the features of the
Roform Bill, he had nothing more to say ; and he was sure
that the announcement of the fact by the govern-
ment would give rise to cheers in that house
which would be re-es hoed throughoat the country.
From the silence of the government he did not anticipate a
favourable answer upon that paint, and he therefore pro-
ceeded. He ergaed that the only security for indepen-
dence of voting was to be found in the ballot, which had
proved eminently successful in Sweden and in America.
It was the great safeguard for purity of election, and Mr.
Cobden and Mr. Blight had stated their opinion, that had
it been introduced at the time, the corn laws would have
been abolised thirty years ago. Consciences of tenants
were never -consulted at elections, and it was
considered a great want of etiquette in counties
for one gentleman to canvass the tenants of
another. In proof of this he cited a particular case, and
. afterwards alluded to the proceedings at the late elections,
pointing out the bribery, corruption, intimidation, and
nriestly influences which had been employed. With this
as a specimen of the results of the open voting system, he
proceeded to compare the results of the secret system, as
illustrated by the elections in the colony of Victoria. From
this comparison, he contended that a case was made out
for the adoption of the ballot system, and assured the
Government that no measure of reform could be final
without acknowledging that principle.
Sir JOHN SHFLLEY seconded the motion. He believed
that bribery would continue se long as men could be found
bad enough to offer bribes ; but he advocated the ballot as
a means of putting an end to the exercise of undue in
fluence and intimidation.
The Cinusceeeoit of the EXCHEQUER referring to the
arguments that the ballott had been successful in America,
stated that the system employed was not as the ballot was
understood in this country a secret system. The votes were
taken in public by means of tickets with the candidates
names upon them, and any one standing by
could see for whom the elector gave his vote.
Mr. Walker, of Massachusetts, had proposed to the senate
a means of secret voting, by enclosing the vote in a sealed
envelope, bet it had been rejected on two occasions.
In the majority of the States the vote by ballot un-
doubtedly existed, but there was nothing to show that
anywhere in America a system of compulsory secrecy was
in force. Did the hon. member for Bristol rec ,mmend the
optional secrecy system, or the sealed envelope system ?
All the arguments in favour of the bill referred to com
pulsory secrecy, but the experience in America was in favor
of optional secrecy, and against compulsory secrecy.
No one was more opposed to intimidation thee himself,
but he could not consent to force upon the people of this
country institutions altogether repugnant to their habits
and feelings. But he did not thick that the ballot would
provide the secrecy for which it was proposed; and he felt
confident that the circumstances attending the late elections
would have been identical, even if the ballot-booths had
been used.
Mr. GREER observed that the same necessity that was
felt in England for secret voting did not exist in America,
and he urged the Government to concede to the people
here Ilse optional secrecy ; a secret vote allowed to citizens of
the United States.
Lord lonx RUSSELL looked upon the electors as holding
a trust of equal importance with that of a member of par-
liament or a secretary of state, and he thought it but
reasonable- therefore, that they should esk to know how
their votes were given. The ballot was said to be
un-English,li.d what was meant by that was, that the
decqmon to Ivilich it would probably give rise, and the
promise breaking, were un-English. (Hear, hear.) He
believed that the ieelings of the people of this country was
adverse to the int! eduction of a system of secret voting.
which would take away something from the open
character of England. ?here was more freedom in
England than in Amer2na, where the sacra system had
been Adopted, and in regal el to Victoria, he thought we, as
the el, er, should wait and ts,Ne the working of the system
there before it was adopted linere. The hon. member f,r
Bristol deserved success for his ability and perseverance,
but so long as he had a vote iu the house he should give it
in favour of open voting. ( Loud cheers.)
Mr. H. BERKEL; Y. replied. He expreseed surprise that
the noble lore, the member for Loudon, afte'r his speeches
and the speech of his relative, Lord Charles assell, at the
late elections, was found amongst the opponents of his
motion, but hoped and expected that a change of opinion
would take place in that house by the exercise of popular
influence.

After a few words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in explanation,
The House divided. The numbers were—
For the bill
Against

Majority against

Mr. Avr.vous moved for a copy of the case submitted
to the law officers of the Crown respecting the registration
of newspapers and other printed papers, and their opinion
thereon.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not consent
to the production of that which was a confidential opinion
given for the guidance of the Executive.
The motion was then negatived with •ut a division.
Lord NOB moved for 1011Y0 to bring in a bill to repeal

the twenty-seventh seed()n of the iperannuation Act of
present the superannuation fund
1834. He stated that, at
amounted to £90C.,000, of which £BO,OOO only was paid in
allowances,—leaving 4820,000 unappropriated; and the
objee,l, of his bill w merely to repeat the power of making
d'aduotioi cot superannuation allowances.
Mr. F. lIANKEY seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted that the
present system was full of anomalies and inconsistencies,
but disagreed with the remedy proposed.
After a few words from Sir F. BARING, leave was given
to bring in the bilL
Leave was given to Mr. WILSON to bring in a bill to
amend the laws relating to the conveyance of mails by
railway.
The other business was disposed of, and the house
adjourned shortly after one o'clock.

MERSEY CONSERVANCY
AND DOCKS BILL.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY, jrliz 30.

The committee resumed its sittings this day at twelve I
o'clock, Sir J. GRAHAM in the chair, and at once pro-
ceeded with the consideration of the clauses postponed
yesterday.
Clause 29, which relates to the Town Dues, was then
considered. The clause provides that "subject to the
rights of the creditor, as hereinbefore reserved, the charges
on the Town Dues shall, to the amount of .E600,01.;0,
together with interest thereon, be payable by the Board
out of the moneys to be received by them, in pursuance of
the act, and shalt, as to the residue thereof, be payable by
the Corporation "
The clause was agreed to, upon a division, by a majority
of 4to 1. M. Phillips wag the dissentient.
The following proviso to clause ten was next considered,
and ultimately ad' pted :—" No purchase of land shall be
made by the Board, unless at the least one months' pre-
vious notice, specifying the situation and quantity of land
proposed to be purchased, and naming a day on which .a •
meeting of the Board is to be held for considering such
purchase, has been sent by circular to each member of the
Board ; nor unless at the meeting held the whole or a
majority of the members present (such whole or majority
to consist of not less than seven persons) vote in favour of
the purchase."
4. clause was then inserted, empowering the Board to
purchase out of the moneys received by them the Liverpool
Observatory, together with all its instruments and appur-
tenances. Ihe price to he settled, in case of dispute, by
arbitration, in the manner provided by the Companies
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1855.
A clause was !hen prepesed, requiring any dispute in
reference to securities to be seeded by arbitration.
Mr. PHiLLiPS asked whether, if this clause was
inserted in the bill, and the parties disagreed, they would
be prevented from going into a court of equity.
Mr. CALVERT said the clause directed that disputes
should be settled by arbitration, under the Companies
Clauses Consolidation Ace but it would be very difficult
to exclude the authority of the regular courts. The clause,
however, wen- as far as it could be carded by legislation
Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that if any specialty could be
shown to the court of equity why a jurisdiction should be
exercises: beyond arbitration, the court would have power
to consider and decide upon that special point.
The clause was then added to the bill,
The following clause was then proposed by the pro-
moters :---" And whereas it is expedient for the objects
and purposes of this act, that all that space of
land situated on the north side of the entrance
to the Birkenhead Dock Float, commonly called
the North Reserve, should, from and after the let
day of January, 1858, and subject to any (harms affecting
the same, be vested in she Board— be it therefore enacted,
that from and after the Ist January, 1858, the said space
of laud, called the North Reserve, shall, subject to any
charge affecting the same, be vested in the Board."
tdr J. GRAHAM asked if there was any clause in reference
to the purchase money ?
Mr. WYA IT, parliamentary agent, said there was, and
then read the following clause : " The Board shall pay to
the Co poratiou of Liverpool, out of the moneys to be re-
ceived by them in pursuance of this act, the sate of one
hundred and twenty seven thousand pounds, as compenste
tion for the said North Reserve ; such compensation money
shall be applied, in the first place, in satisfying any charge
&fleeting the said North Reserve, and subject thereto—the
same shall be paid to the Corporation of Liverpool."
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the effect of this clause would be
to give the Corporation of Liverpool a profit of £27,000
upon the purchase.
The two clauses were then agreed to, as also were
clauses providing that the penalties imposed by the act
should be recovered in the manner directed by the Rail-
ways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and saving the
rights of the Menk.ey and Irwell Navigation Company, and
Trustees of the Bridgewater Canal.
Mr. CALVERT then proposed to insert a clause •saving the
rights of the Railway Companies at Birkenhead, the Great
Western Company, and the Birkenhead and Chester
Company.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, he could not conceive why a clause
should be intrcduced to reserve the rights of persons who
. were in point of fact the promoters of the bill.
Mr. Caevsar : If they had no rights the clause will
net help them the least in the world, but if they have
rights they will be batter enabled to protect them.
Sir J. GRAHAM : What possible advantage could such a
clan, e confer upon the Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. CALVERT : The advantage it would give us is this.
When the Board are carrying out their works, they would
be warned that they are to have_due regard to the rights of
the Great Western Company.
Sir J. GRAHAM : At the present moment the Great
Western Company are in possession of a strip of land on
the north side of the Morpeth Dock, and if the Construc-
tion Bill should vary their position on that land, would
not they ple'td this very clause as a bar to the exercise
of a discretionary power to alter the position of the existing
works.

Mr. CALVERT : I apprehend that under any circum-
stances, no committee would abrogate the rights of the
Great Western Company.
The CHAIRMAN : They would not abrogate any rights but
would only vary them. Do you mean to argue that
Parliament has no power to do that ?
Mr. CALVERT : We dont% object to the power of Parlia-
ment, but to the power of the Board.
Sir J. Guattem : The Board would not have power to
d) anything without the sanction of Parliament.
Mr. CALVERT : You have empowered the Board to com-
mence works substantially in accordance with certain
plans. The word " substantially" is so ambiguous, and
might be made to include so much that my clients simply
ask the committee to protect their rights.
Sir J. GRAHAM : I admit that the word " substantially"
is open to objection, but the committee look upon the
clause now submitted with great jealousy. You are the
promoters of the bill, and the committee are about to
create a new trust at your sugostion, and yet you do not
seem to have confidence in your own trust.
Mr. CALVERT : We have every confidence in it, but we
desire to have our rights reserved.
Sir J. OR kliAlsl : Have you any misgiving as to the
amount of justice you would obtain at the hands of the
Board ?

Mr. CALVERT : I do not see any inconsistency in our
saying, "We want you to be our trustees, but you ought
to take care that you do nothing to prejudice our rights."
Sir J. GRAHAM : Are you willing to omit the word
" existing," so as to make the clause to read, " having
regard to the rights" of the railway companies, instead of
to the " existing rights "
k[r. CAL WERT suggested that the words should be " rights
and interests."
- - - - -

Sir J. GRAHAM said that would go much further than the
clause went at present. Probably the best course would
be to save the rights of the companies, such as they could
establish in law in equity.
After considerable discussion,

Sir. CALVERT submitted the ialowieg clause, which he
thought would meet the views of the committee :—" The
Board, in carrying into effect any works authorised to be
made by them, shall not prejudice any rights of the G.eat
Western Company or of the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire Junction Railway Company."
Sir J. GRAHAM said his objections to the clause were now
much mitigated, and if pressed he should vole for it.
Mr. PAGET said he could not vote for the clause, because,
as far as he was enabled to judv, it would give the railway
company a monopoly of access to a plot of land which
might hereafter be required in any dock scheme which
parliament might san ci ion.
The clause was then negatived by 3to 2. Sir J. Graham
and Mr. Phillips supported it, and Mr. North, Mr. Paget,
and Lord Henniker opposed it.
A. similar clause, proposed by Mr. WEBSTER, to reserve
the rights of the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway Company, was also rejected.

Mr. CALVERT then submitted the following clause—
" Nothing in this act shall exsmpt the Board from the pro-
visions of the Merchant Shipping Law Amendment Act,
the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, or any general act re-
lating to docks, harbours, dues on shipping, or any other
charges on shipping now in force, or which shall be passed
during the present, or any future session of parliament."
Sir J. Cilltawi asked the learned counsel for the pro-

motets, if there was any clause in the general Merchant
Shipping Act relating to docks and harbours, which pro-
vided that there should be any periodical statement of the
dues levied. In the bill tow under discussion there was
no limitation to the power of taxation, nor any clause
providing for the publication of an annual statement of
the (Ines levied, and he wished to know whether any
clause to that effect was contained in the Merchant Ship-
ping Act.
Mr. CALVERT said he was not in a position to answer the
question.
Mr. MIRING: The general Act provides that the dues
may be diminished, but that they shall not be increased
beyond the existing rate. lam not aware that it contains
any other provision.
Sir J. GR&ITAbi : The Scotch Harbour Act contains
special provisions which require a periodical re-
turn to be made to the Board of Trade of any
variation from the schedule appended to the
bill. I do not think that parliament ght to give
unlimited powers of taxation, unless they pass a clause
rendering it imperative that thi promoters should come
to parliament next session for a new consolidation aet,
which would be the proper time for parliament to meet
any limitation or regulation. With that view only, the
committee omitted to insert in the bill some clauses of
limitation, similar to those which are contained in the
Scotch Harbour Act,

Mr. WYATT said he had taken the clause now before the
committee, from two acts passed last session.
Sr J. GRAHAM said it would be for the committee to
consider whether they would make any special report to
the house upon this question. At present he only wished
the promoters of the bill to understand that the point had
not been overlooked.
Mr. CALVERT drew attention to the 39th clause, which
required the receipts of the Board to be annually
published•
Sir J. Gaartam said that clause had no reference to the
amount of dues levied.
The clause was thee agreed to.
Mr. atevEar next submitted two clauses in reference to
the injury which the works, carried on in connection with
the Mersey, had inflicted upon the property on the Che-
shite shore. The first was as follows : —4' Whereas it is
allegod that certain works, constructed by the Liverpool
Dock Trustees, in 'minnow° of the Act passed in the
Session holden in the 7th and Bth year of the reign of her
present Majesty, chapter 80, and in the 11th year of the
reign of her present Mapsty, chapter 10, have caused the
stream of the Mersey to infringe on the opposite shore,
and to waste land abutting on such river, situate in the
toensUp of Poulton-cum-Seacombe and Lisc-ird, in the
parish of Wallasey, in the county of Chester, thereby
occasioning serious loss to the owners of such land, be it
enacted, that the Board shall, if satisfied that such allegation
is true, do such one of the following things as they think
mostexpedient, that is to say, shall either give compensa-
tion to tt e owners of such land, in respect of the loss they
have sustained, or may sustain, or shall construct a wall
or ether prcteetion, for the purpose of preventing any
waste so foiled to be caused." The second clause was as

follows :—" Any expenses incurred by the board in making
compensation to the owners of the above-mentioned land,
or in constructing any works for their protection, shall be
defrayed by the board, out of any money for the time being
in their hands, standing to the account of their general
receipts."
Sir J. GRAHAM said the injury inflicted upon the
Cheshire frontages had been fully established by evidence,
but, though it might be very salutary to insert in the bill
a provision to protect the property in future, he did not
think the Committee ought to give compensation for the
past.
After a short discussion, the clauses were agreed to,with
the exception of those portions which had reference to
compensation.
'Air. JOHNSON, on behalf of the London and North
Western Company, then applied to insert a clause prohibit-
ing the Board from conferring any undue preferentisl
advantage upon the Great Western, or any other rail-
way, at Birkenhead.
Mr. CALVERT objected to the loccs s(4,lcii of the London
and North Western Company.
Mr. JOHNSON addressed the committee at some

length in support of the locus standi of his clients,
and read the clause which he wished the committee
to insert in the bill. It was as follows :—" Whereas, the
London and North Western, and Great Western Rail-
way Companys, respactively, possess railways from the
south to Chester, and the London and North Western

•
Railway Company also possess railways from the east to
Chester, and are largely interested in the Chester and
Holtyhead Railway, from the west to Chester; and at
Chester the Great Western, and London and North
Western Railways, respectively communicate with the
Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railways.
and by means thereof have, respectively, access to Birken-
head ; and, whereas it is expedient that equal facilities
should be given to the Great Western, and the London
and North Western Railway Companies, respectively, and
to any other railway company whose railway communicates
with the line of the Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire
Junction Railway—for the collection and delivery and
transmission of traffic to and from the docks at Birkenhead,
and in all other respeets,—therefore, it is hereby declared,
that no preferential or exclusive rights, powers, or privileges
shall be granted to any particular railway compasy for.
any exclusive uses of the docks, basin works and conve-
nience, or in any other respect; but that the Birkenhead,
Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway Company, and
every other company whose railway communicates with
the line of the last-mentioned Company, shall have equal

rights, powers, privileges and facilities for the colleetlon
and delivery and transmission of traffic, to and from the
said docks at Birkenhead ; and conveniences and equal
rights of use of the same docks, works and convenience, and
in all other respects."
No new clauses being proposed, the Chairman directed
the room to be cleared. _ _

On the re-admisßis n of the parties, at the expiration of
half an hour,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, the committee has now con
eluded its labours in respect to the Mersey Conservancy
Bills It has adjusted and passed the preamble; it has
settled the Claus :s, and it has determined to report that bill
to the house, accompanied by certain special observations.
That bill would be so reported to the House of Commons
to-morrow. Council on both sides will remember the obser-
vation which I made on behalf of the committee at the
commencement of our labours. When we determined to
take the Mersey Conservansy Bill first, I said that bill
contained principles which were of paramount importance,
and that it was the major proposition really covering the
other bills, which were secendary and minor. We have
come to the decision, as far as our decision can go, that
the governing body of the Mersey requires forthwith to be
changed; and that thole shall be a transfer of power from
the Corporation, and the Dock Committee associated with
the Corporation, to a new body, to bs chosen by a new
constituency, and to persons so to be chosen to be subject
to a new qualification. The preamble and the
fourth clause of the next bill are entirely incon-
sistent with that decision. The committee, from
self-respect, cannot for one moment proceed
to consider that second bill except under notice to the
parties promoting it: that the preamble is inconsistent
with our past decision, and cannot be assented to ; and
that the 14th clause also must be altered, and so framed
that the operation of the bill shall be contingent upon the
appointment of the new governing body, in conformity
with the bill we are about to report to the House. Thetis
our fixed decision, and it is right that the parties promot-
ing the bill should take their course under that notice and
warning. Petbaps they would wish to have till to-morrow
to consider the effect of the notice I have given them, and
will either proceed with the bill under that notice, or
otherwise shape their course as they may deem ex-
pedient.
Mr. Malawian= : Sir, we are much obliged by your
proposal of delay, but we have had an opportunity of
reflecting upon what might probably be your decision and
your view, and, therefore, I am in a position to make
answer without further delay. Of course, sir, we were
perfectly prepared for the view that the committee has
taken, and that being come to a decision to change the
governing body, they would hardly stultify that decision
by passing the bill for the construction of the docks in the
original state of things, and, therefore, your announce-
ment takes us in no manner by surprise. And now, sir,
with all respect to the committee, and bowing to their
decision, as it is our duty to do—to their decision on the
last bill, that it is as far as it will enables us to do by
not making it necessary that we should proceed to take
a part in passing any of the clauses, I shall state to the
committee the course we intend to pursue. We shall
proceed upon the Construction Bill as ashen we first
entered this room, and before the committee announced
that the Conservancy Bill would be fir. .t taken ; and we
shall, therefore, sir, if you will p rmit us, proceed with
our Construction Bill, confident, of course, that in its
progress, as regards the governing body, you will make
such alterations as shall make it consistent with the first
bill that you have agreed to report to the House. We, sir,
with very great respect to the committee cannot run the risk
of laying on your table a bill in an handwriting which
recognises the new conservancy. We shall, therefore,
respectfully produce our bill, expecting and believing that
you will alter it. We shall lay before you the nature of Mr.
Hartley's scheme, and the reason why the Corporation
thought that whether they, or any body were fixed upon to
carry out the works at Birkenhead, these were the best
plans.
Sir J. GRAHAM : The majority of the committee may
entertain an undue prejudice in favour of an arrangement
which they have already decided to be right and just,
wide; the eirounotaneec Diet would be a gerseral arrange-

ment, consequent on the present decision, and we should
gladly undertake the task of considering the question of
construction, with the view of bringing the Birkenhead
works in connection with the Liverpool dock scheme, so
that in the hands of the new trust the general interests of
both sides of the Mersey should be recognised. I do not
exactly understand the force of what you have just stated,
that you will go with this construction bill on the under-
standing that the preamble is to be adjusted in conformity
with he decision ju t come to.
Mr. MICRRAVETHER: I may state at or ee that we shall go
to the House of lords, prepared to offer the bill, if it
should get there, the most strenuous opposition. We
cannot make any recognition, therefore, of the propriety
of your decision on the Conservancy Bill. We still thick,
or we should not have brought the bill here, that it
contains the best plans for works at Birkenhead. We are
prepared, and are desirous, to go on with the bill, but we
cannot with our own hands place in the preamble of the
bill a statement which would in the slightest degree admit
the propriety of your decision, or it would inevitably be
cast in our teeth in the House of Lords that the new con-
servancy had our sanction. We propose now to proceed
with the Conservancy Bill as a mere raw case of construc-
tion ; and if you should find that Mr. Hartley's plans have
a preference to Mr. Renders, you would pass them, making
such alterations as you might think fit to carry out the
decision you have come to on the Conservancy Bill.
The CHAIRMAN : The effect will bo that we must negative
your preamble.
Mr. MEREWSTIIER: Pardon me, sir. That is not neces-
sarily the case. You may pass the bill in its integrity,
and say that the. bill should be transferred to such and
such a body to carry out.
The CHAIRMAN : Unless you consent to our altering the
preamble we must negative it.
Mr. MaRRENVETHER (after c )nsulting with some members
of the Liverpool Town Council) : Will you forgive me, sir ?
We thought we knew exactly what was the course we
should adopt, but—
The CliarnlAN : You had better ta':e until the morning
to consider of the matter.
Mr. 31ER,RWSTIIIM : Ps.rdon me, sir. but—
The CHAIRMAN : You had batter take time to consider.

Mr. MEREWETIIER : If the right hon. chairman will allow
me one word. The committee might think it inconsistent,
after what I have said, If—
The CIIAIRNAN : Believe me we had better adjourn, an:l
you can consider the matter during this evening. The
committee is adjourned until noon to-morrow.