The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-05-11 00:00:00

The proceedings of this committee having been read,
Mr. BANNER rose, and said be had been looking round
the room for the chairman to move the adoption of the re-
port; but as he was not present, he (Mr. B.) would propose
its adoption. He then proposed a motion recommending
the whole of the pews in the gallery of St. George's
Church to be appropriated as free sittings for the poor of
the district. He went on to state the circumstances of
St. George's Church. It was a source of considerable
expense to the council, the pew rents scarcely paying the
expenses of the choir. They had a right to expect some-
thing in return for the outlay, and he called on the coun-
cil to regard their profit as obtained by throwing open the
galleries to the poor of the district. It was proposed to
accommodate 340 persons at an outlay of £5O. He then
showed that there were no free sittings in the district. It
was true there were churches in the neighbourhood
which, it might be said, were not well attended, but
that was not a reason for sending people from another
district ; besides, St. Thomas's was a proprietary church.
There was one family, if he might so term them, that
would be much benefited by the measure—the inmates
of the Sailors' Home.
Mr. JEFFRIES seconded the motion.
Mr. T. LLOYD said, the Sailors' Home was situated in
St. Thomas's district, in which church there was ample
room for all the sailors.

Mr. J. TURNER opposed the motion, on the ground
that the galleries were well filled at present by respectable
persons, such as shopmen and clerks, who, in his opinion,
were quite as much entitled to church accommodation
gratuitously as the very poor : lie understood, too, that
the Rev. Mr. Monk, the incumbent, was opposed to the
proposition. Two-thirds of the poor in the district, in
fact, would be found to be Roman Catholics. Mr. Monk
was then engaged in making a visitation of the district ;
he should, therefore, propose that the motion be post-
poned for one month.
_ _

Mr. A. HENDERSON said he came there for the pur-
pose of voting for the motion, but, from what he had
heard, he should second the amendment. After some
other members had made remarks, pro and con,
Mr. BANNER replied. He admitted that the Roman
Catholics were numerous in the district, but that was not
a reason for denying accommodation to the Protestant
minority. He contended that St. Thomas's was not in
the district in which the Sailors' Home was situated, and
that the free seats, moreover, were few. He also ad-
mitted that Mr. Monk had not promoted the change, but
surely they were not to desist on account of the coolness
of Mr. Monk !

Mr. J. TURNER thought Mr. Banner had made use of
an improper expression in referring to Mr. Monk, who
was a much respected clergyman.
Mr. BANNER also testified to the excellenee of Mr.
Monk, with whom he was likewise acquainted, but thought
he was right in attributing coolness to him in the matter.
Mr. Turner's amendment was finally carried by 20 to
16.

WATER COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of this committee were read, in the
course of which it appeared that the quantity of water
pumped for the use of the town in the week ending April
3, was 31.835,432 gallons.
Mr. PARKER rose to congratulate the water committee.
He was sorry the chairman was not present, but (turning
to Mr. Cooper) he doubted not the worthy deputy would
appreciate his remarks. (Laughter.) The supply of
water was then greater than it had ever been before—
(hear)—the pipes were full to high pressure, and there
was enough to supply their neighbours. He did not mean
to say what this proved, yet he asked what it did prove.
(Hear.) But after praising he should slightly blame the
committee. Mr. Parker then stated that he was riding
out in the neighbourhood of Kensington the other day,
and was attracted to the operations in progress for
laying down the pipes. He found that in a length of two
miles thirteen pipes were damaged merely in the operation
of fixing, and required to be cut and re-fixed by means of
a collar.

Mr. BENNETT asked Mr. Quick to read a letter which
had been received by Mr. Hawksley, in reference to the
subject of these injured pipes. The letter was dated
16th April, 1852. The writer says, that in laying down
such pipes, many might be expected to be found damaged,
but he thought the number stated as so damaged was
greater than it should be, and the contractor would he
required to make a deduction. Mr. Bennett proceeded to
comment in strong terms on the flippant style of the letter
on so serious a subject. If the breakage was so serious in
the mere process of laying the pipes in the earth, what
would it be when they were subjected to the pressure of
the water. He was positively unable to give expression
to his feelings on the subject. It was one of the greatest
errors that ever Liverpool fell into. And then they were
told they could recover from contractors, some of whom
were insolvent.

Mr. PicTos said, at the risk of being charged with
relating a twice-told tale, he would make a few remarks
with reference to the yield of the wells. According to the
theory of philosophers, they had been told over and over
again that a drought of a few weeks, not to say months,
would leave them without water ; but what had been the
case ? Tney had had a continuance of dry weather never
before experienced—(cries of " Oh, yes") ;—he repeated
that no one ever remembered so long a continuance of
dry weather, yet the yield of water had increased. What-
ever demand had been madeon the wells, the yield had been
commensurate, and they had actually been supplying
their neighbours as well as themselves from these wells.
In allusion to the Rivington scheme, he said he feared it
would be found that they had been forsaking the foun-
tains beneath their feet, to rely on broken cisterns. They
had Lad the first sample of the consequences of their folly
in the broken pipes spoken of, and he trembled to think
of the probable consequences of that scheme.
Mr. llonNwe confessed he could not see the use of
discussing this question. It were easy to reply to the
remarks which had been made, but what could the dis-
cussion end in. There was no motion on the subject
before the Council. He contended that the Rivington
scheme was rendered imperative by the increase in the
population, and denied that the late drought had proved
that the works were more productive than Mr. Hawkesley
had allowed.—Mr. Langsdale stated that the water stood
at an elevation of 6 feet 3 inches in the pipes at Green-
lane at that moment, and that twelve months ago it was
23 feet deep.
Mr. I.le.cicwrrii asked if all the force that could be