The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-10 00:00:00

CHESTER AND BIRKENHEAD RAILWAY

The adjourned half-yearly meeting of the shareholders in
the Chester and Birkenhead Railway was held, at twelve
o'clock, yesterday, in the Clarendon-rooms, South John-
street, for the purpose of receiving the report of the Direc-
tors, the declaration of a dividend, and the usual purposes.
There was rather a numerous attendance. William Dixon,
Esq., Chairman of the Directors, presided.

The CHAIRMAN opened the proceedings by stating that
the report prepared by the Directors had been printed, and
he would call upon the law-clerk to read it. In laying this
document before the proprietors, he had only to regret that
the amount of the proposed dividend was so small, but this
might be easily accounted for by the general depression of
trade, from which every railway, in common with this, had
been suffering. Ile had, however, much pleasure in calling
attention to the diminished expenditure in regard to the
lOcomotive power and general disbursements, whilst in the
accomplishment of this reduction, they did not consider they
had depreciated the value of the engines, carriages, or any
part of the stock, but, on the contrary, that the whole was
as efficient, or, indeed, In a more satisfactory state than at
any previous period. At the same time, in carrying out
their views, the Directors had not lost sight of the safety of
the passengers, which, he hoped, would be apparent to the
public by the continued working of the line without acci-
dent. After the report had been read, the Directors would
be ready to answer any questions which the proprietors
might think proper to put.
Mr. MALLABY, law-clerk to the Company, then read the
Directors report, as follows :

" The directors in submitting their half-yearly report to
the proprietors, are gratified to be able to state that the
prospects of the company are much improved, and that a
progressive amendment in its financial condition may be
fairly anticipated.

" The directors have continued their efforts to effect, with
due regard to the public safety, a further reduction of the
expenditure, which, when they last made their report, ap-
peared, notwithstanding many previous retrenchments, to be
heavy for so short a line.

" That they have accomplished this desirable object, to a
considerable extent, will be manifest from the accounts now
submitted, shewing, in the expenditure between the cor-
respending half-years of 1841 and 1812, a reduction of
£1,781 Bs. 4d., made on principles, the operation of which
will produce still further and better results.

1.: S. D

The working expenses for the half-year ending
31st December, 1841,
The working expenses for the half-year ending
31st December, 1842,

7,531 6 2

Reduction in the working expensea for the half-
year ending 31st December, 1842 1,781 8 4

" To this statement may be added that the engines, Car-
riages, and stock of the company, are now in much better
working condition than they were in December, 1841, and
that the cost of locomotive power is greatly reduced.
`• The road has been materially improved, and is now in a
sounder state than it has ever been.

a. d

The total amount receibed for the carriage of
127,659 passengers, from the 30th June to the
31st December, 1842...
For parcels and merchandise, &c.
Rents 90 18 10
.
Use of engines
Claim outstanding against the Post-office .... 3,203 14 0

£16,580 18 4

Expenditure during the same pe-

riod in working the line n 7,531 6 2
Int. paid on loans.. 3,008 15 11
Less recd. fin bank. 78 7 1

- 2,930 8710

10,461 15 0

Deduct amount of balance, 30th June, 1842

6,119 3 4
821 4 10

£5,297 18 6

a deficiency 0f.41380. He should be glad to know how the
- deficiency arose?
The CHAIRMAN replied that there were a number of
shares reserved in the first instance with the object of grant-
ing them to the landowners ; those shares, however, were
still in the hands of the company, and they would account for
the difference.
Mr. GERARD said he was satisfied with the explanation.
The CHAIRMAN, in continuation, said, a portion of the
shares so reserved had been sold and a premium received
upon them. There were 65 whole shares, and 45 half shares,
unsold, which he thought would make up the amount.
Mr. GERARD repeated that he was satisfied with the ex-
planation.
Mr. MOZLEY asked whether the proprietors were to un-
derstand that the whole balance now due upon the capital
account was £772. 9s.—that all contracts were closed with
regard to the road, and that the precise expense of it was
known?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes.
Mr. MOZLEY.—Leaving applicable to the tunnel Monk's
I Ferry and the land?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes.
Mr. MOZLEY asked the Chairman whether he had any
idea to give the proprietors, what the probable value was of
the property so applicable?
The CHAIRMAN replied it would be difficult to form an
opinion. There was considerable property, but whether the
directors would be able to sell it at the valuation they put
upon it was very uncertain.
Mr. MOZLEY asked, in the event of making the tunnel,
whether the directors had formed any teasonable estimate
how far their property would go towards the expense of the
tunnel ? He asked this question merely to know in what
situation the proprietors were with regard to any new works
which they might undertake—whether they might undertake
them with the property in hand, or whether they must rely
for any future outlay upon themselves.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the only new work which had
been undertaken, was the making of the tunnel, to accom-
plish which, it was resolved at the previous meeting, that-the
directors should apply to parliament for power to raise the
sum of £30,000. In recommending to the proprietors the sale
of Monk's Ferry, the directors conceived that they should be
able to make the tunnel from the proceeds of that sale with-
out going to parliament for the loan of £30,000.
Mr. MOZLEY.—There would still be a considerable amount
of landed property unsold?
The CHAIRMAN.—ExactIy: a very considerable amount.
Mr. CLEMINSON asked whether the proprietors had come
to a decision upon it?
The CHAIRMAN replied that the matter stood thus—if
they effected the sale of the ferry they would be able to make
the tunnel, a course which seemed to them to be more desi-
rable than applying to parliament.
111 r. CLEMINSON.—AII you want then is the money to
make the tunnel?
The CHAlRMAN.—Precisely.
Mr. SEALER then moved, and Mr. GERARD seconded, a
resolution to the effect that the report be confirmed, and that
the recommendation to sell Monks' Ferry upon the basis
mentioned in the report be adopted.
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE said he was one of those who dif-
fered from his co-directors on the propriety of the company
parting with their ferry right. They had for a long time con-
tended for the right of carrying passengers themselves, and
now that they possessed it, he contended it would be dan-
gerous to their property to entrust it into the hands of other
individuals. He hoped this proposition would never be car-
ried, for he looked upon it as ruinous to their interests.
Mr. LEwIN observed, that at the la t half-yearly meeting
it had been stated there was land enough to defray the ex-
pence of the tunnel: yet now, in order to make it, the di-
rectors asked the company to part with their right as ferry
proprietors.
The CHAIRMAN considered that if the directors were en-
abled to sell the available property, they might obtain the re-
quired amount ; but a previous meeting power was granted
to them to go to parliament for power to borrow £30,000
to enable them to make the tunnel; and thus to avoid
pressing the sale of the landed property. The direct
tors were therefore of opinion that instead of going to
Parliament, in which there would be great risk, (he knew,
however, that some differed with him,) it was desirable to
sell the Monk's Ferry to enable them to make the tunnel.
He (the Chairman) considered the Company would not be
giving up any real advantage they had from that property by
accomplishing the object in view. Indeed, they would gain
all they required ; and in effecting the directors would take
care that a stringent contract was made with the Commis-
sioners of Birkenhead to carry out the views of the proprie-
tors.

Mr. LEWIN said it would never do.
The CHAIRMAN said the Directors left it in the hands of
the proprietors ; but if this proposal was not carried it might
be a length of time before the tunnel was proceeded with.
Mr. LEWIN.—That should have been stated at the last

meeting.
The CHAIRMAN.-Why did you give us powers to go to
Parliament for the money ?
Mr. SOWERBY would tell the proprietors why. Mr.
Jackson told the meeting that the Directors had an offer for
the purchase of the land by Tranmere Pool, but they wished
to have power to borrow the £30,000, because if the par ties
thought they wanted money they would not give so much for
the land as it was wally worth ; therefore, as a matter of pre-
caution they wished to have power to borrow this £30,000.
Mr. JACKSON said Mr. Sowerby was quite right; the Di-
rectors did take power to go to Parliament in order that they
might not be coerced into a sale of the land. At the last
meeting there seemed to be but one opinion that the tunnel
should go on. Notices had been given to enable the Direc-
tors to apply to Parliament to create new shares to raise a
sufficient sum ; but it was the opinion of many that, if they
made the application, Parliament would refuse its sanction to
the measure, upon the plea that, if all the property of the
company were sold, they would have sufficient means, and
they must not be allowed to turn speculators. The Directors
at the period of the last meeting were in treaty with the Cor-
poration of Liverpool for the sale of the land, who, indeed,
were the only parties likely to buy it, but they had since been
informed (not officially, but privately, by members of the Fi-
nance Committee) that the borough fund was in a state not
to justify them in purchasing property which would not yield
an immediate return. The Directors found, therefore, it
was useless to attempt to sell the land in one lot, and it
would take a long time to sell it in small portions. Finding
this to be the case, they turned their attention to other plans ;
and he suggested to them—of which suggestion he was willing
to take the blame—that by the sale of the Monks' Ferry
under certain conditions to the commissioners of Birkenhead,
they would obtain all they sought for in the purchase of the
two ferries, and receive a sufficient sum of money to enable
them to make the tunnel, with a sale of a very small portion
of land, without applying to parliament. The conditions
were of a very stringent nature, and he very much questioned
whether the commissioners of Birkenhead would consent to
the purchase under such terms; but if they did make the
purchase, the company would have the power to make the
tunnel without applying for more capital, and of paying the
interest upon the property mortgaged ; in fact, they would
get every advantage as if they worked the ferry themselves,
and it was the opinion of many directors, that it would be
worksd more satisfactorily by the commissioners, whilst the
company would have all the advantage of the right, in the
event of the commissioners not working the ferry efficiently,
of the property reverting to them.
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE repeated his objections to the sale
of the ferry, which, he contended, if worked by any body,
should be by the company. If there was any transfer to
third parties, it would act injuriously to the proprietors of
the railway.
Mr. JACKSON wished it to be understood that the Com-
missioners of Birkenhead had not been consulted upon this
matter : the proposal had not been laid officially before them ;
and they were not acquainted with the terms upon which the
directors would sell the ferry. The directors had conceived
it prudent to lay the matter before the proprietors previous
to agitating the township. He knew there would be a
difficulty in the township upon it.
Mr. SOWERBY said there would be very great difficulty.
Since he became a proprietor he had been exceedingly anxious
to have the tunnel, for he did not think the railway worth a
rush without it. In 1840 he stood alone, single-handed, in
that room to advocate the tunnel, and he got loudly laughed
at for it, as it appeared by the report in the Liverpool Stan-
dard. He repeated that the railway would not be worth a
rush without the tunnel.

Mr. BENTHAM said it would be well for gentlemen to con-
sider what the right of ferry was which the company pos-
sessed. It was merely the right of carrying their own pas-
sengers; and the next question was, whether they availed
themselves of that right? They did not, and besides there
was another party ready to do that for them cheaper- than
they could themselves. Having had some experience in the
working of ferries, he should dread this company working
Monks' Ferry for their own purposes ; it never would pay,
but would a great source of continually recurring loss. In
the proposition of the directors every contingency appeared
to be guarded against. If sold, the ferry would be sold under
an agreement that the commissioners should convey the pas-
sengers at the lowest rate at which passengers were carried,
and if they did not do this to the satisfaction of the directors,
there was a power of appeal to certain disinterested parties
who could judge of the circumstances; and, if the commis-
sioners neglected to make the ferry efficient, there was power
for the directors to take possession of it again. At present
the ferry was a burden to the extent of £l,OOO per annum,

in as much as they were paying interest upon money borrowed
to pay for it, and receiving but little rent. Mr. Lawrence
argued upon the supposition that something or other might
occur, but what was ? Let them be told what they had to
dread. What could occur that could not be guarded against
by wise and prudent men in a negociation of this kind ? They
were railway proprietors, and he did not wish them to be
ferry proprietors, because, if they worked the ferry, it would
be at a much greater expense than_ it now cost to convey the
passengers.
Mr. CLEmirrsorr said that high fares would close the ferry
altogether.
Mr. Jacxsorr agreed with that. The maximum fare in
the proposed agreement was twopence per passenger, and
the minimum one halfpenny.
Mr. MOZLEY, said, that as Mr. Lawrence was opposed
to the sale, he would perhaps, oblige the proprietors by stating

his objections.
Mr. LAWRENCE in reply, said, that his opinion was, that
the company in transferring the ferry should not part with
the power of regulating it for their own profit. He objected
to giving up the regulation of the ferry ; and he considered
that the directors should be the judges of whether the traffic
was conducted efficiently. He could see no objection to the
proposed purchase, provided the directors obtained from the
purchasers the right of conveying the traffic and passengers

hemselves.

Mr. MOZLEY said, it appeared, then, that the difference

between Mr. Lawrence and the other directors was only one
of detail. He himself was favourable to the sale, and he
suggested that a clause should be inserted in the agreement
to the effect that a certain sum should be charged for each
passenger, but that the amount should not exceed so much
per annum.

- A long discussion followed upon the terms of the proposed
agreement, in which there was very little of public interest.
The CHAIR:I4 AN put the motion,and it was carried unani-
mously.

A motion was next proposed that the dividend recom-
mended by the Directors be paid.—Carried unanimously.
Mr. LEwIN complained of the inconvenience caused by
the proprietors having to go over the water to receive their
dividends ; and suggested that some better plan should be
adopted.

Mr. MOZLEY recommended that warrants be issued the
same as on many of the principal lines of railway.
The CHAIRMAN'said the suggestion should be attended to.
The meeting then separated.—The dividend will be payable
on the 27th instant.

UNION OF THE SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAFH.—On
Tuesday morning a very numerous meeting of the clergy of
the Archdeaconry of Essex took place at Brentwood, pur-
suant to a requisition presented to the Venerable Hugh C.
Jones, the archdeacon, for the purpose of considering the
propriety of petitioning both Houses of Parliament to repeal
so much of an act passed in the 6th and 7th years of the reign
of his late Majesty, proposing to unite in one bishopric the
sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. The meeting was unanimous
in believing that this measure, if carried into effect, would be
fraught with consequences in the highest degree prejudicial
to the interests of the establiehed religion of the State, and
destructive of the long-cherished associations of a people
conspicuously and justly proud of the ancient and valuable
institutions of their country, and sincerely devoted to a re-
ligion which, cherished by their forefathers, had, from the
first dawn of Christianity amongst them, set at defiance the
machinations of its enemies, and to the present hour shone
over them in all the purity of its apost, lic origin. The sub-
ject of church extension, and other matters of interest to the
clergy, were then taken into consideration.