to see our two great parties combine to put down a seditious faction, whose settled purpose is to break up the Empire. The Conservative surrender to Mr. Parnell has made a league of the kind impossible; and the best hope for England at this juncture is that a Liberal Government shall be brought into power strong enough to defy the arts and the threats of a conspiracy perilous in the extreme to the State. The choice of the constituencies should not be doubtful, if Englishmen refuse to hand over Ireland to deadly, cunning, and pitiless enemies, and if they care to preserve unimpaired the heritage of long ages of renown.

ART. VI.-The Manchester Ship Canal.

It is not often that promoters of a private Bill show such courage and perseverance as those who have at last succeeded in getting the sanction of Parliament to the Manchester Ship Canal project. In the end of 1882 certain gentlemen, who were interested in the various industries which are carried on in South Lancashire, deposited a Bill in Parliament for the purpose of obtaining the necessary powers to enable them to construct a ship canal from Hunts Bank, in Manchester, to Runcorn, on the river Mersey; and also to construct a deepwater channel through the Upper Mersey estuary from Runcorn down to Garston. That Bill came, in the first instance, before the Examiner, whose duty it is to ascertain whether all the standing orders of Parliament have been complied with. And the Examiner reported that the promoters had not complied with the standing orders, in that they had not deposited plans and sections showing the position and dimensions of the deep-water channel in the estuary. This was the first check the promoters had. There is, however, an appeal from the Examiner to a Committee of Parliament called the Standing Order Committee. And that Committee, after hearing arguments on both sides, determined that the promoters might go on with this Bill, provided they struck out the clause which gave them the power to construct the works in the estuary. At first sight this might have seemed fatal to their scheme, because, even if they succeeded in getting their Bill for the canal from Manchester to Runcorn, they could, under that Bill, at least, get no authority no construct any estuary works; and while they might have a means of taking vessels of deep draught from Runcorn to Manchester, they had no means of getting them from the sea to Runcorn. But the promoters

were not discouraged, and they went on with their Bill, relying as it appeared in the course of the proceedings, upon certain 'dredging' powers which had, under old Acts of Parliament, been given to the proprietors of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company; and also upon the fact that as under the Bill the Ship Canal Company would become the proprietors of the Mersey and Irwell undertaking and could exercise all their powers, they could under these Acts of Parliament construct the seaward portion of their canal from Runcorn to Garston.

This first Bill came before a Committee of the House of Commons presided over by Sir Joseph Bayley, and was very thoroughly inquired into by that Committee for some thirtyeight days. At the end of the proceedings the Committee came to the conclusion that the preamble was proved, but the Committee went a little out of their way to insert in the preamble of the bill a recital which they themselves drafted, to the effect that if a canal could be constructed without physical injury to the existing interests on the Mersey, it would be a great benefit to the trade of Manchester and South Lancashire. That recital in the preamble of the Bill of 1883 has been useful to the promoters in all their subsequent proceedings, and will without doubt help them when they come to raise the capital which is neceesary for the carrying out of this great enterprise. At the same time that the Commons Committee thought thus favourably of the scheme, they inserted a clause which made it impossible for the Ship Canal Company to proceed with any portion of their works until they had come to Parliament and got parliamentary sanction to construct a deep-water channel through the estuary of the Mersey. This turned out to be an unfortunate, although it does not seem to be an unreasonable, condition. The Committee, before whom the matter was very thoroughly gone into, could not decide whether, as a matter of law, the old Mersey and Irwell powers would enable the Ship Canal Company to construct the necessary works in the estuary. That was a purely legal question which only a court of law was competent to determine. But they could and did decide that, if any such works were to be constructed, it was only fair that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, the London and NorthWestern Railway Company as the owners of the docks at Garston, and the other persons and companies who were interested in the free and safe navigation of the estuary, should be heard by Parliament if they objected to the works in question. This was, we say, eminently reasonable. At the same time it turned out disastrous to the promoters; for

when the Bill came before Lord Camperdown's Committee in the House of Lords, it was strongly urged that it was contrary to the practice of Parliament to legislate piecemeal; that as the promoters had to come to Parliament again, it would be better that they came with their whole scheme; that if the canal from Manchester to Runcorn were authorized, it would almost compel Parliament to pass some bill which would make that headless and tail-less canal a complete and perfect work. And these views commended themselves to that Committee, and they rejected the Bill. This was the second check which the promoters received. At the same time there was a crumb of comfort for them in the words of Lord Cam'perdown's decision. It is usual for Committees of the House of Lords to declare either that the Bill may proceed' or 'may not proceed.' In this instance Lord Camperdown said that their decision was that it was inexpedient to proceed with the Bill in the present session of Parliament.'

Rightly or wrongly, the promoters understood this to be a sort of invitation to try their luck again; and although the expenses of the promotion already amounted to a large sum, they again, in the end of 1883, deposited a Bill in the Private Bill Office of Parliament.

In this case they had taken the necessary precaution to deposit plans and sections, so that there was no hitch before the Examiner, and the Bill came very early in the session of 1884 before a Committee of the House of Lords, ably and patiently presided over by the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. All the matters connected with this very interesting scheme were very thoroughly discussed before this Committee; and in the end their Lordships, it is understood by a majority of three to two, passed the Bill. The main contention against the Bill was that the construction of the deep-water channel through the sandy expanse of the upper estuary would put a stop to the wearing away and erosion of the sand-banks; and that if these frets' were put an end to, and the channel fixed by the promoters' works, there would be accretion in the estuary, and that consequently the ports upon the Mersey, including Liverpool, Garston, Ellesmere, Runcorn, and others, would be silted up and destroyed. Very experienced engineers were called upon both sides, and it is not a matter for surprise that there was some difference of opinion among the members of the Committee. Of course various other points were raised for discussion during the inquiry, which extended over fortytwo days, but we think that they were all comparatively unimportant when compared with what was called the estuary

question,' which was rightly described as a matter, not of local, but of national importance.

The

In the same session of 1884 the Bill was referred, somewhat late in July, to a Committee of the House of Commons, of which Mr. Sclater Booth was chairman. The promoters were afraid that the Session might come to an end before the inquiry into their Bill was concluded, and they elected to shorten the evidence upon the commercial aspects of their scheme. The estuary question was, however, carefully considered. inquiry lasted a month, and the result was that the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the preamble was not proved. This was the third and most serious check which the promoters had. It is never very easy to say why a Committee of Parliament rejects a Bill, for-wisely, we think they very rarely give reasons for their decisions, and when they do they satisfy nobody. But in this case a very cursory examination of the proceedings will convince any reader that the Bill failed because the Committee entertained serious doubts lest the estuary works of the promoters should do serious injury to the Mersey as a river; and also because they were assured by the opponents, that if Manchester was really anxious to have a means of getting sea-going ships into its heart, it might continue the canal from Runcorn down one of the shores of the estuary in a way which could not possibly injure the estuary; and further, that if the promoters would come for such a Bill the Corporation of Liverpool and the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board would not oppose them. An examinee who was re-writing from memory the parable of the man who fell among thieves spoke of the Good Samaritan taking him to an inn and giving twopence to the innkeeper, and saying, "Whatever more you expend, when I come again I will repay you." This he said knowing that he would see his face no more.' We cannot but be reminded of this supposed arrière pensée of the Good Samaritan, when we look at this assurance of these opponents of the Ship Canal Bill of 1884. They assured the Committee that if the promoters would come again with a scheme for a canal down the Cheshire shore of the estuary, they would not oppose them. This they said hoping that they would see these promoters' faces no more.' But in this they were disappointed, for with indefatigable pluck and perseverance the promoters were in Parliament in the session of 1885. But if the opponents were disappointed in the way we have suggested, the promoters were at least equally disappointed if they reckoned upon the carrying out of the promise which had been given in so many words by the

Corporation of Liverpool and the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board; for although they came for a scheme as like to that which had been suggested as an alternative scheme as one pea is like another, although the scheme of Mr. Leader Williams, the promoters' engineer, was to all intents and purposes almost the same as the scheme of Mr. Lyster, the engineer to the Dock and Harbour Board, the opposition was not one bit less strenuous than it had been in the sessions of 1883 and 1884.

In 1885, however, the Bill succeeded in getting through both Houses of Parliament, but then not without a very careful and lengthened consideration in the Lords before Lord Cowper's Committee, and in the Commons before a Committee of which Mr. Forster was the chairman. Now this persistence upon the part of the people of South Lancashire is not without its significance. The fact that the Ship Canal scheme has met with the enthusiastic, nay almost passionate support of the industrial populations of the industrial centre of England, deserves recognition, and ought to lead to more than casual consideration. We cannot but think that these circumstances are indicative of conditions of trade and manufacture which merit careful inquiry, and an industrial depression which calls for a remedy. The Manchester Ship Canal Bill is only an indication of the serious depression of trade under which almost every trade has been suffering, and is, to our thinking, an honest and well-directed effort to find a remedy for that undoubted evil.

It is no longer necessary to consider whether trade has been depressed at all. That is now admitted on all hands. The present Government has appointed a Commission to inquire into the matter. Mr. Goschen has addressed the Manchester Chamber of Commerce upon the subject, and Mr. Chamberlain, at Hull, stated that Something must be done. We have been suffering from a depression of trade unexampled in its intensity and duration.' Now we do not desire here to inquire into the efficacy of Mr. Chamberlain's suggestions of remedy, but rather into some of the expedients to which the traders of this country have been manfully trying for themselves; and amongst these none, in our opinion, deserves more attention than this new means of cheapening transit by means of a ship canal. Economy is one of those things which are made necessary by competition. The manufacturers who have no rivals in their trades can afford to disregard the smaller economies which when active competition arises must be carefully considered. Certain socialistic persons who have got the ear of