The building of the dam, and the laying out of the banks of the lake, called for many charming visits to the Vyrnwy; and although I was not in favour of the adoption of this scheme I now believe on the whole the Council did the wisest thing, as there can be no question of the abundance of the supplies secured by the city.
Parliamentary Committee.
For twelve years I was chairman of this committee, and had much interesting work to carry through Parliament. The widening of St. Nicholas' Place and the throwing of part of St. Nicholas' churchyard into the street was a great improvement, relieving the congestion of traffic at this point.
We also endeavoured, during my term of office, to extend the boundaries of the city. We had a fierce fight in the House of Commons. The local boards of the districts we intended to absorb assailed us with a perfect torrent of abuse, and criticised severely our system of local government. We failed to carry our bill, the chairman of the committee remarking that Parliament would not grant any extension of city boundaries when it was objected to by the districts to be absorbed; but he added, "We are quite satisfied from the evidence you have given that Liverpool is excellently governed in every department." We made a mistake in pushing forward this bill on "merits" only, we should have done some missionary work beforehand, and arranged terms and conditions with our neighbours. My successor in the chair of this committee, Sir Thomas Hughes, profited by our experience, and succeeded where we failed.
We were greatly assisted in our Parliamentary work by Mr. Harcourt E. Clare, who was most able and diplomatic, and an excellent negotiator. His appointment as Clerk of the County Council, though a gain to the county, was a serious loss to Liverpool.
Manchester Ship Canal.
With the attitude of Liverpool in regard to the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal I was very prominently identified. I had to conduct the opposition to the Canal Bill through three sessions of Parliament, six enquiries in all. The Dock Board took the labouring oar, but it fell to me to work up the commercial case, to prove from a commercial point of view that the canal was not wanted, and would never pay. I prepared a great mass of figures, and was under examination during the six enquiries altogether about thirty hours. Mr. Pember, Q.C., who led the case for the promoters, paid me the compliment of saying I was the only witness he had ever had who had compelled him to get up early in the morning to prepare his cross-examination.
We defeated the bill in the first two enquiries. At the close of the second enquiry Mr. Lyster, the engineer to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, completely gave the Dock Board case away. Mr. Pember remarked: "Mr. Lyster, you have told us that if we make our canal through the centre of the estuary of the Mersey we shall cause the estuary to silt up and destroy the bar. What would you do if you had to make a canal to Manchester?" Mr. Lyster jumped at the bait, and replied, "I should enter at Eastham and carry the canal along the shore until I reached Runcorn, and then I would strike inland." Next year the Manchester Corporation brought in a new bill carrying out Mr. Lyster's suggestion, and as Liverpool had no answer they succeeded in getting their bill.
There can be no doubt that the railways had for long years greatly overcharged their Liverpool traffic. The rate of 12s 6d per ton for Manchester goods for the thirty-two miles' carriage from Manchester to Liverpool was a gross overcharge. I had headed deputation after deputation to the London and North-Western Railway to represent this; Mr. Moon (afterwards Sir Richard Moon) always received us with much civility, but nothing was done. The Dock Board had the remedy in their own hands; they could have bought the Bridgewater Canal, and made a competitive route; but the prosperity of Liverpool was great, and they altogether failed to see that Manchester, with its Ship Canal, might one day be a serious competitor to Liverpool.