SECOND READING. (Hansard, 15 February 1859)

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, he would move the second reading of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill. He had several petitions numerously signed from the inhabitants of Liverpool in its favour.

MR. TOLLEMACHE
complained that the Bill would impose an additional tax of £300,000 on the trade of the port of Liverpool without any corresponding advantage. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool to consent to the postponement of the second reading for a week, in order to admit of an arrangement being carried out between the Mersey Dock and certain railway companies.

§ MR. W. BROWN
said, that there was an identity of interests which should render Liverpool and Birkenhead anxious to orward each other's interests; for the prosperity of one was the prosperity of both.

§ MR. SALISBURY
contended that the Bill was a breach of faith, there having been a distinct understanding entered into that the works on the south side of the river, namely, the Birkenhead Docks, should be completed by the Mersey Board of Commissioners before any further works on the north side were commenced. He should therefore object to the second reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. J. EWART
said, the Money required under the Bill was not for carrying on new works, but to further those in progress. It was necessary that this sum should be raised, both for the interests of Liverpool and of the port of the Mersey.

§ MR. CHEETHAM
said, he thought that the sum of £300,000 asked for might be fairly allowed. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, he must repudiate the supposition that there had been any breach on the part of the Liverpool Dock Board. It was absolutely necessary that the sum asked for should be spent at once. In five years the steam traffic of the port had doubled, and the timber trade had trebled. The question was, whether there was sufficient to justify the House in going to a second reading at once, and he hoped there was no room for hesitation.

§ MR. LOWE
said, several Committees had reported and the House had repeatedly decided, that it would not permit any fresh works to be begun on the north shore of the Mersey till the works at Birkenhead were completed. The House had well considered the question through the Committees which sat in 1855, when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) was Chairman, in 1857 when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) presided, and subsequently when the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall) was at the head of the inquiry. The matter had occupied much of the attention of the Board of Trade when Lord Stanley of Alderley and himself were in that department, and remained so up to within three days of the accession of the present Government. It had been intimated by a gentleman whom he could name, that the works at Liverpool should be pushed on, but that Birkenhead might wait—that there was no occasion to care for it. He trusted that the House would not retrace its steps, but that it would stand by the weaker party, and not allow Birkenhead to be over-ridden by Liverpool.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he considered that it was of the highest importance that good faith should be observed respecting the decision arrived at as to the accommodation for shipping on the banks of the Mersey. There was no doubt that the opinion of the Legislature had been expressed that the docks at Birkenhead should be completed; but he did not find anything to justify the assertion that a public engagement had been entered into, that nothing was to be done at Liverpool till the works at Birkenhead were completed. He had examined the Report which had been laid upon the table of the House, but he did not find anything to bear out the allegation to which he had alluded. After the Bills were in the ordinary course printed and sent up to the Houses of Parliament in the usual way, an intimation was given by the Board of Trade that they would be opposed unless some arrangement were come to. In consequence of such intimation the parties met, and an arrangement was entered into. But that arrangement went no further than this—that no more money would be sought for by the Bills of 1858 for works at Liverpool than to carry out the works specified in the Bill, or until the works at Birkenhead had been fairly commenced and carried on. He found, however, that all this had been done by agreement between the parties interested and the Government Department without any notice having been given to the people at Liverpool. He thought it his duty, when he came into office, therefore, to call the attention of the Committee to those facts by stating them in the general report upon railway Bills. He received the report of those who were most competent to decide, in which it was stated that those arrangements went not beyond that of last year, and nothing was said of any future arrangements. The Committee, on the contrary, expressly recognized the right of the new Mersey board, if they should be of opinion that the increased trade required the docks to be extended either on the north or south side, to prepare a scheme for that purpose, with an estimate of the expenditure, and submit it to Parliament. He held this language both to the promoters and opponents of the Bill. He asked them whether they were really acting in good faith in carrying out the works at Birkenhead as far as they reasonably thought they ought to be carried out? He had not heard that they were not; and he did not know whether they were acting in that way or not. The next 398 question he put to them was, whether they had obtained all the money necessary for the Birkenhead scheme? and the last was, did Liverpool actually want the increase demanded? Those were three questions which the House had to consider. He was not one of those who thought that the trade of Liverpool should be compelled to go upon one side of the river or the other. He did not think that any direct pressure should be put on either side. Considering the way in which Liverpool was improving, he could not concur in any course that would have the effect of depriving it of any further accommodation. He should not have troubled the House with any observations upon the questions, but for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who, he (Mr. Henley) thought, had rather overstated the case.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that as Chairman of the Committee which sat last year, he felt called upon to say a word or two. There was no doubt that a strong feeling existed in regard to this subject among the inhabitants of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, each of whom were anxious for the docks in their respective counties to be carried on as fast as possible, and of course not in a way which they considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the port. In the course of last year the persons connected with the docks on the Liverpool side of the Mersey desired to raise £800,000 for the purpose of expending it on works on that side of the river; but a distinct understanding was subsequently entered into that that sum should be reduced to £266,000; and even before the money guaranteed as necessary for the Liverpool Docks trusts was raised, a statement was to be drawn up as to the nature of the particular works which were to be carried out by that expenditure. The parties came before the Committee having agreed to that arrangement, and with the sanction of the Committee, it was determined that certain works should be carried out with that expenditure of money. The Committee were certainly under the conviction that that was the only sum of money that was to be expended upon the Liverpool side of the river, until the Birkenhead works had been advanced, and were in a shape verging towards completion. No sooner had the parties obtained their Bill under this agreement entered into at the Board of Trade, and confirmed by the it conduct before the Committee, than they 399 met for the purpose of framing another Bill, which they afterwards gave notice of, and under which they proposed to raise another sum of money to be laid out on the Liverpool side of the river before the Birkenhead works had been carried out towards completion. He contended, that if good faith was to be thus broken through, in the way he considered it was in this case, it was useless to enter into any arrangement with parties who came before Committees. It was now said that £300,000 was necessary for the completion of works on the Liverpool side. He asked whether such sum was necessary for the completion of old works or for the formation of new works? Although this was, he thought, a breach of faith, yet if Parliament was disposed to sanction it, the parties ought, at all events, to declare that they would not come to Parliament for more money than this, and that they would give their best energies for the prosecution of the Birkenhead works. [Mr. HORSFALL: No, no!] If the parties said "No" to such an arrangement, he thought that this legislation should not be allowed to proceed any further, for if faith were to be broken in this manner it would be useless to enter into arrangements with parties before Committees and all private Bill legislation would be useless and ridiculous. On these grounds he should oppose the second reading.

§ MR. TURNER
said, it was the misfortune of the city which he represented, and of the Manufacturers around, to be mixed up in an unpleasant contest with the Corporation of Liverpool upon this question of the management of the estuary of the Mersey. But all former greivances having been removed, it was with peculiar satisfaction he rose to co-operate with those who supported the second reading of this Bill. The only object of those with whom he acted in relation to this question was to prevent Liverpool levying an improper tax called sound dues, and to place the management of the estuary of the Mersey in the hands of an independent Board. It never was their wish that one side of the river should be fostered to the detriment of the other. They were most anxious that those works at Birkenhead should be carried out; and he believed that they would be carried out, but the trade of the Mersey was increasing so rapidly, and consequently there was so much pressure for increased accommodation, he thought it was highly necessary that a certain sum should be expended 400 upon works on the Liverpool side of the river.