Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-12-08 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL.

A monthly and special meeting of the Liverpool Town I
Council was held in the Council-chamber, at the Town-
hall, yesterday; T. D. Anderson, Esq., Mayor, presiding.
The minutes of the preceding meeting were read and
confirmed.
The proceedings, resolutions, and reports of the
Finance Committee were read, comprising a recom-
mendation to accept the tender of Mr. John H. Mullen,
being the lowest, for the erection of an engine-house and
store-room at the 'Borough Gaol ; also, a recommendation
that the fines on the renewal of lease of property in
Wood street and Fleet-street, amounting to £lO6B 19s. ld.
be commuted, on the principle adopted by the Council,
by -the payment of £6B 19s. Id. in present money,
and an annual rent of £4B 155., payable half-
yeaily during the currency of the lease ; another
recommendation to direct the Surveyor to take measures
for 'illuminating the north dial of the Town-hall clock;
and a further recommendation to allow the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board to take charge of and work the
chain-testing machine for six months from the Ist of
January next, the board guaranteeing the Corporation
from loss, and keeping the machine, buildings, and
premises in repair.
Alderman JOIIN STEWART moved, and Alderman
PninsToN seconded, the confirmation of the first recom-
mendation, which was agreed to. -
Alderman STEWART, m moving the eonfimation of the
second recoraniendation, said this was not a case in which
the granting of a new lease was involved. The more
valuable part of the property, a corner lot, had sixty-six
years to- run of a seventy-five years' lease, and therefore
the Corporation would receive nothing during that time,
but by the consolidation of the two pieces of property,
and the renewing a lease over the whole of the property
for seventy-five years, the fines would amount to £1,068
193. ld., 'which, when commuted to a yearly payment,
would give them £4B 15s. annually over the whole
seventy-five sears, £6B 19s. ld. of the fines being paid
in cash.
Alderman PRESTON seconded the motion.

Mr. J. R. YEPPEnY did not rise for the purpose of
negativing the. proposition which had been submitted by
the chairman of the Finance Committee on this question,
because the Council had previously decided on the adop-
tion of the principle. But, seeing that there were still
two opinions Upon the desirability of this principle being
acceded to, he would suggest the propriety that the
Council should riot be called upon to sanction such a
proposition as this, upon the mere motion of the Finance
Committee, at the first meeting of the Council after the
proposal was made by the committee. The Council held
it necessary, when an advance of salary teak place
among any of its officers, that the consideration of the
question should stand postponed for a month, so as to give
members of the Council an opportunity of coming to a cor-
rect conclusion as to the propriety of such increase. If that
was necessary where a small increase of salary was involved,
how much more necessary was it when the Council was
called on to decide on the propriety of commuting the
purchase money of property on lease. He would
suggest that the matter should stand over for a month,
and moved an amendment to that effect, at the same
time expressing his determination to place a notice on
the books, making it a standing order that such questions
as this should be disclssed only after a month's notice.

Alderman WOODRUFF seconded the amendment.
Mr. BELOE asked to what account the sum of
£6B 19s. id. would be carried, whether to capital or to
income ?

Mr. STEWART said it had always been usual for the
Council to set apart £20,000 a-year as representing the
ainount of fines paid for the renewal of leases ; and the
slim of -X6B 19s. ld. would go to the account of income
for the year.
Mir. 'STITT asked whether, if Mr. Jeffery's proposal
were agreed to, any difficulty or injury would result to
the corporate estate ?
Alderman STEWART could not anticipate what might
arise upon a'question of this sort, but certainly it might
be that some difficulties would arise, and he confessed
that upon a mibject of this sort, which was one rather of
principle than of particular detail, he could not see what
advantage would arise by a month's delay. He for one
felt that a great and important interest of the Corpora-
tion was involved in toe principle, and he trusted the
amendment would be negatived. He would, however,
be delighted if a small committee sat and sifted the
principle, because it would then be found that it was a
good one.
The amewhrert- was put, and lost-by a majority of
n.ricrin nun +1 nil moo
agreed ty( without a division.
The following was the voting on the amendment :
Foc': Councillors, Messrs. Richard Sheil, Clarke
Aspiuull, John Shimmin; Edward Estill, Thomas Avison,
HenHeni Christie Beloe, Charles Mozley, James Johnson,
James R. Jeffery, Joseph Kitchen. Alderman; Mr. John
Woodre.;-11.

Against : ' Councillors. Messrs. Daniel Crosthwaite,
John Johnson Stitt, James Crellin, C. J. Corbally,
William Barton, Oliver Holden, James Steams, W. P.
Jeffreys, John Hays Wilson, James Aspinall Tobin,
Robert Hutchison, William Earle, James A. Picton,
George Nickson, Joseph Steel, John Farnworth, James
Robertson, Thomas Vernon, J. W. Cropper, J. Gibbons
Livingston, Aldermen, Messrs. William Preston,
Thomas Dover, James Parker, Thomas Robinson, J.
Hayward Turner, Richard C. Gardner, John Stewart,
the Mayor ;-28.
Mr. STEWART then moved the third recommendation.
He stated that the expense of illuminating an additional
dial of the Town-hall clock would be about £EO or £7O,
and the annual expenditure would be about £l7 for
that partioular dial.
Mr. BARTON seconded the motion.
After HOME further discussion on the subject, the re-
commendatiox was confirmed.

Mr." STEWART, in moving the fourth recommendation,
said it appeared that in the year 1830, when the Cor-
poration were in receipt of the town dues, they were in-
duced to put up a machine at the docks for the purpose
of testing chain cables. That was one of those proceed-
ings taken by the Corporation, not as a matter of profit,
but as a part of theii duty, being then in the receipt of
a large income from the town dues; and in a return
made to the House of Commons, as to the appropriation
of the town dues, they took creditto themselves forhaving
erected an establishment for the testing of chain cables.
The Town-dues having been taken from them by Par-
liament, and vested in the Mersey Dock Board, the
Finance . Committee thought it proper in July last
to give notice to . their servants engaged at the
chain-testing machine that their services would not
be required after a certain date; and they also
gave notice to the public associations, including
the Dock Board, that the Corporation would not
feel bound to maintain the establishment in future.
There was, no doubt that the Dock Board were the
parties to_ maintain the establishment ; and with the
view of leading to that result, the Finance Committee
had agreed to the recommendation which he now sub-
mitted for confirmation.
Alderman TURNER seconded the resolution.
Mr. C. TURNER said that in consequence of a letter
from the Finance Committee, the whole subject was
referred to the Works Committee of the Dock Board,
and they instructed their surveyor to consider what
was the best place for the erection the testing machine,
with improved machinery. They were fully aware
how desirable it was to the trade of the 'port that a test-
ing machine should be kept up, and the application they
had now made JD the corporation was as a temporary
measure only. - They had applied to the Finance
ely them
poss possibly
Com-
mittee for twelve monthi. They had grautte
months ; and they should endeavour, if they
could, to have the machine erected in a more suitable
locality and, 'with improved machinery in the course of
that time.
Mr. JErrnny'did not see why the Dock Board should
not take the machine at once at a valuation, if it was no
longer of use to the corporation, but necessary for the
purposes of the dock estate. He moved, as an amend-
ment, that that portion of the finance proceedings be
referred back _with a view to the establishment being
transferred to the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, at
a valuation.
Alderman DovEn seconded the amendment. The
subject had been before the Finance Committee
for the last two years ; and he, along with Mr.
Sheil, had not ceased, in calling upon the Finance
Committee, to request the Dock Committee to take this
losing concern off their hands. He contended that the
object of the Dock Board was delay; and. he denied that
the Dock Board, in fact, did guarantee the Corporation
from loss. The land on which the machine stood was
worth £5,000 ; the buildings and machinery would be
worth £2,000 more ; and as no rent was paid, the Cor-
poration mould be losing £4OO a-year.
Mr. Vta-Nox considered that the chain-cable testing
machine involved matters of the highest moment, when
they looked at its bearings upon the shipping interest,
and, upon the saving of human life.
Alderman PARREI. said he would support the amend-
ment ; but the establishment, he admitted, was of the

greatest importance to the port, for it was found that
7o per cent. of cables tested were ascertained to be
defective.

Mr. TOBIN said he must do Mr. Dover the justice to
say that he had been persevering in his efforts to carry
out the transference of the testing machine to the Mersey
Board ; and he (Mr. Tobin) had always thought, now
that the town dues were transferred to the Dock Board,
that it was the duty of the Dock Board to take this
machine under their charge. No one doubted the
importance of the establishment, and the immense
saving of life and property which accrued by means of
it could not be estimated by human calculation. He
denied that there had been any delay in the matter on
the part of the Dock Beard, except such as was neces-
sary to give the surveyor time to mature the plans.
With respect to Mr. Jeffery's remark,—that he saw
no reason why the land and machinery should
not be transferred to the Mersey .Board, he (Mr.
Tobin, should be an advocate for such a course being
pursued if he thought the locality and the machinery
were capable of efficiently performing their work. But
some time ago there was a report from the corporation
Surveyor, which showed there was not space enough in
the present locality, and that it would be necessary to
go to considerable expense in order to make the estab-
lishment complete or efficient. If it was inefficient at
the time, it must be more inefficient now, because the
commerce of the port had considerably increased since
then. Neither the locality nor the machinery were
suitable; and, therefore, it was quite clear that the Dock
Board would not be justified in taking them, even at a
valuation. But the earnest desire of the Bock Board
was as early as possible to mature their plans, and he
was sure that if any of the present machinery was
available, they should be very happy to take it at a
valuation.

Mr. SIIEIL thought that the Dock Board were guilty
of delay in the matter. He stated that the balance of
loss on this concern during the last six years was £341 ;
and the £4OO a-year for land and buildings during that
period made a total loss of £2,700. He could not see
any objection to the machine being handed over to the
Dock Estate now, and he was sure the Council did not
wish to make 'a hard bargain with the Dock Board.
Mr. EARLE questioned the wisdom of the Council
forcing upon the Dock Board inefficient machinery; but
that the Dock Board should pay some rentfor the use of
the establishment.

Mr. TURNER was surprised at Mr. Sheil's re-
marks. He could assure them, when the subject
was brought before the Dock Board, it was immediately
taken into consideration. Their surveyor was oppressed
with business of all kinds ; but he had applied himself
to the matter, and had most anxiously considered what
was the best locality for a testing machine, and what
would be the best machinery applicable for the purpose.
The machinery at the Corporation testing machine was
not such as they ought to have in this port for the pur-
pose, and he believed there was also a doubt whether
the locality was suitable. The Corporation said that
they ought to hand over the establishment to the Dock
Board on the Ist of January; but they did not mean to
say it was their duty either to stop this machine or to
force the Dock Board into the purchase of machinery
part of which was known not to be - adapted to
the purpose. He could not conceive that was the
duty of the council. It was their duty to take care that
the Corporation was not damaged by the delay—that
they were in as good a position at the end of the six
months as on the Ist January. The Dock Board, there-
fore, had offered to guarantee the Corporation against
any loss. They could not realise any rent for the land
during the next six months, if they stopped the machine
to-morrow. He hoped the Council; therefore, would
not act in a sort 'of dog in the manger spirit, and do
that which would lot benefit themselves, but damage
the trade of the town, and be an injury to the Dock
Estate.

Mr. PICTON considered the amendment merely an
expres!ion of opixion on the part of the Council, that it
was desirable to get rid of the whole affair at the earliest
possible period. (Hear, hear.) He blamed the Dock
Board for delay ; and saw no reason why they should
not take the machine at a valuation. The machinery,
however imperfect, was worth something ; and if it
were worth nothing, and the matter were left to valu-
ation, the Dock Board would have nothing to pay for it.
Mr. GRAVES did not think they were arguing the pro-
priety of the continuation of the machine by the Cor-
poration ; if Mr. Jeffery pushed the matter to a vote,
he should feel bound to vote for his amendment, but he
looked at it as a matter of expediency—whether that
Council should keep on the chain-cable testing machine
fn.• aiv rytnnfila (Andy, ) Te woe ilfforly impoo
sible that a decision could be come to in time to prevent
the closing of the machine, and he thought it would be
a great misfortune if between both parties so valuable
an institution should be allowed to be closed. If it
went into the hands of the Dock Board for six
months, that board would have the opportunity of
ascertaining whether it was suitable to the public wants
in machinery, location, and extent of buildings; and if
it did not go into the hands of the Deck Board, the
Council would have it on its hands for six months,
because it did not follow that if it was closed by the
Corporation it would be continued by. the Dock Board.
In order to avoid the closing of the machine, he would
suggest that Mr. Jeffery should allow to be inserted in
his amendment, that, if the Finance Committee were
unable to make terms with the Dock Board an the Ist
of January, the machine should be continued for six
months.
Mr. MOZLEY thought that Mr. Graves had narrowed
the matter into its proper limits; It was quite clear that,
so far as the interest of the Corporation in the machine
was concerned, it should be given up ; but he appealed
to the Corporation whether it would be desirable to do
so, looking at the vast interests which were at stake,
and bearing in mind that the prosperity of the port de-
pended in some measure upon the value of the material
which this machine was designed to test. As the Cor-
poration estate would be preserved from loss by allow-
ing the Dock Board to work the machine for six months,
it would be rather an advantage to permit the motion of
the Dock Estate to pass. (Hear.) If they attempted by any
means to force the Dock Estate to buy the property, he
thought it was placing the matter in a position in which
that Council was not called upon to place it. He
thought it would be more desirable if Mr. Jeffery would
withdraw his motion.
Mr. Alderman WOODRUFF hoped Mr. Jeffery would
not withdraw his motion. The Dock Board ought to
have taken this property into its care long before this
time. They did not object to take anything which
would bring grist to the mill. They took the town
dues at once, probably because they thought they had,
a nice piece of picking, which they were glad to get
hold off, but anything which they thought involved
expense they declined ; and, therefore, they did not want
the chain-cable testing machine. They wanted the
Council to keep this machine until they could get
something better, and then they would throw it upon
their hands to be sold for old iron.
Mr. STITT regretted that any remarks should be made
which would create ill-feeling between the Corporation
and Dock Board. (Hear, hear.) If it was their duty
to terminate that interest—the interest of the Corpora-
tion in the machine—they had no right to take so
precipitate a step as to land the community in such
disastrous results. If Mr. Jeffery's motion was pressed,
and they could not get the Dock Board to take the
machine, they would be compelled to discontinue a most
useful institution ; whereas if they gave the Dock
Board six months' trial of it, they could then apply Mr.
Sheil's principle and sell it, for what it was worth.
Mr. Alderman STEWART, in reply, said the Finance
Committee would be placed in an exceedingly awkward
position if this matter was referred back, unless certain
powers were given to them, as they had given notice to the
parties employed at the machine, and as they could not
again come to the Council before that notice was expired
the service would be renewed. If they allowed the
Dock Board to have the machine, they would have a
chance of selling it to them at he end of that term,
and that chance, he considered, was worth £1,500, as
theirthey presentwould ptlinerpnosseel,lanthd not
emascehpianrentaelnyd. buildings for
in explanation, said he did not want
theMnDecjkEßFroEaßrcP
to buy the land, but that they should
take the machine, and if it Was
antiquated,
it would
realise an antiquated price.
The amendment was then put, and lost by a majority'
of one, the voting being as follows :
For : CoUncillors—Messrs. James Crellin' Richard
Shell, C. J. Corbally, Roger Haydock, John Shimmin,
Oliver Holden, Edward Estill, Henry Christie Beloe
Samuel'R. Graves, Thomas Ridley, John Rogers, John
Hays Wilson, James Johnson, James A. Piston,Ja4onees
R. Jeffery, Joseph Kitchen, T. Llewelyn Hodson,
Nickson, and J. W. Cropper. Aldermen—Thomas
Dover, James Parker, and John Woodruff.-22.
Against: Councillors—Messrs. John Johnson Stitt,
Clarice Aspinall, 'William Barton, Charles Turner,
Thomas Avison, James Steains, W. P., Jeffreys, Chas.
Mozley, James Aspinall Tobin, Robert Hutchison'
William Earle, Francis. A. Clint, Joseph Steel, John
Farnworth, James. Aobertson, Thomas Nrernoupand J.