The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-02-16 00:00:00

to the fact of his being obliged -to lay down mains at his own
expense and stated that he was so treated by the Bootle, and
not the Harrington Company.
The TOWN -CLERK here closed therase of the promoters, when
Mr. HAILSTONE, on the part of the Liverpool and Leeds
Canal Company, stated the grounds of his objections to the bill.
Mr. WATKINS also objected, on the part of several land-
owners, on Douglas.

Mr. HiessoN said that he had heard great complaints of inter-
ference, by the proposed plan, with private and public property
near to and in Wigan. In a number of instances the property
would be rendered totally useless without the water which the
neighbouring streams and resources supplied. His clients
found that there was, in the bill to be applied for, no positive
provision for compensation for the losses that would indivi-
dually accrue. Amongst other parties (whose names he men-
tioned) who would be sufferers was Mr. Haigh, an owner of two
estates. On one of these was a water-mill, (as shown and num-
bered on the plan,) and one of the 'streams proposed to be
diverted, if so diverted, would render the works valueless.
The premises had, in fact, been untenanted for some time, in
consequence of the pending bill, no one being inclined (as we
understood him to mean) to lay out time or capital upon them,
in the expectancy of a cutting off of the moving power.
Mr. JOHN CHIPPENDALE, solicitor, stated that he was agent
for the proprietor of a print works, and who were also lessees of
the Anderton Mills, (for logwood, &c.,) near the Squirrel Mill.
These mills were capable of great extension, as also were other
works, the owners of which he represented: the Horrock's
bleaching works, which, in place of turning out 10,000 pieces of
goods a week, could turn out 6000 pieces additional. Mr.
Chippendale, *he proprietor, was desirous of retiring, and even
at a disadvantage, finding that the present inquiry was going
on, which might result to his great disadvantage. In Mr.
Chippendale's case, there were circumstances that placed it by"
itself. The course he should tak4 would, in this respect, be to
bring in these facts into a statement to the Town-clerk, and he
entertained do doubt but that, when the whole subject wasoin-
quired into, a satisfactory adjustment would be arrived at be.
tween the parties. All that he wished to be done for his clients
was merely what, in similar circumstances, they (the promoters
of the bill) would wish to be done to themselves. He con-
cluded by stating that he did not think it requisite to call any
evidence.

Mr. B;RCITILL appeared for Messrs. Rothwell. He stated
that his clients were perfectly satisfied that water should be
supplied from their neighbourhood to this town, piovided the
supply requisite were kept up in their locality, or a proper
compensation were made in lieu of it. His clients did not wish
to incur the unpopularity of opposing a scheme that would
benefit a large and populous town ; but with respect to them-
selves, as it was admitted that the water in their locality was
superior, it was therefore the more valuable to them, (his
clients.) All he asked was either protection from loss, or ade-
quate compensation. On the understanding that the clause
which the Town-Clerk stated that he had: introduced into the
bill, to give such compensation, would be carried out, the mill-
owners and others, on the streams likely to be effected, would
offer no decided opposition.
The TOWN-CLARK then made a very brief statement of the
general principle by which the promoters would be actuated
in awarding compensation, both to existing companies and
mill-owners; after which a lengthened conversation ensued
between Mr. Stanistreet, the Town-Clerk, and the Commis-
sioners, which ended in the adjournment of the court until
Monday at one o'clock.