The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

TOWN-COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

A meeting of the Town Council was held on Friday, at the
usual hour, to take into consideration the report of the finance
committee, as read on Wednesday. Previous to entering on
the business of the day, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Mellor com-
plained strongly of the bad ventilation of the, room in which
the council meets, and the question of providing better accom-
modation was referred generally to the town-hall committee.
Presentations of the Grand Jury were read of a warehouse
belonging to Sir John Tobin, occupied by Messrs. Haskayne,
and Co., requiring additional shores towards Angel-street; of
a wall in the soap manufactory in Sir Thomas's Buildings,
occupied by Messrs. Steel, being ruinous and dangerous ;
and also, of a wall in John-street, occupied by Messrs. J. N.
Holmes and Co.

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON WAREHOUSES

ON THE DOCK QUAYS.

Mr. CURRIE, as chairman of the committee, at which the
repott was adopted, rose to move its confirmation. No ques-
tion was ever more important, or had to encounter more dif-
ference of opinion. He thought that the reference of it to the
committee was attended with this advantage, that it would
not be decided on hastily, but would be discussed with a full
knowledge of all the facts. His own impression was, as one
born in Liverpool, bred and living in it, that the town should
receive every improvement calculated to promote its trade and
prosperity. He did not hesitate to say, that if it could be
stripped of all'extraneous circumstances, this measure was
one that should be adopted. (Hear.) But it was attended
with important circumstances, that were not so easily got rid
of. (Hear.) Before they adopted it, they ought to be fully
satisfied that every improvement which circumstances ad-
mited of, had been tried and failed. He nought the owners of
a large amount of property which, whether truly or not, they
thought would be seriously affected by it, had a right to expect
from them that they should see that all other means had
failed, before that property was in their opinion, put in jeo-
pardy. With that view, in that prudential motive, he came
to give his vote. He would not further occupy their time, as
the evidence in the report was ample, and he was ready to
explain any . grounds on which they had proceeded. He
moved the adoption of the report.
Mr. J. HOLMES (we believe) seconded the motion.
Mr. Alderman LEATHOM would not occupy their time
long. He would not object to the reception of the report,
subject three resolutions which he would move by way of
amendment. The first was to the effect, that the increased
commerce of the port, and the rivalry of others, rendered
necessary more effectual means for the prompt dispatch of
vessels, and that, to attain that object, it was necessary that
warehouses should be built on the margin of the docks. The
second was, that the recommendation of the finance com-
mittee to buildi transit sheds should be adopted, with liberty
to the dock committee to add a third story. The third was,
that the dock committee should be at liberty to proceed with
the bill, reserving all other matters for the further consider-
ation of the council.

Mr. BOLTON rose with pleasure to second the amendment.
It was gratifying to find a subject of so great importance
divested of party politics—he wished he could add of private
interests. It was their duty as councillors to leave behind
them all prejudices and partialities, and to take the best
course for the prosperity of the town and port. From recent
discussions on the corn laws they must have learned that we
were in danger of losing {altogether some foreign markets
which we had exclusively supplied up to a very recent period.
It appeared also by evidence before this council, that Lon-
don possessed in its docks superior advantages for trade to
ours, and that even Hull surpassed us.—(Hear.) Was the
second port in the kingdom, he might say in the world,
always to labour under undue disadvantages ? He trusted
not. The dock committee had taken the matter up, and if
this port had advantages over London, would avail them-
selves of them ; if disadvantages, would overcome them.
He would now look at the details of the evidence before
them. First then, was the evidence of the various mercan-
tile associations. [From the report pot being put in our
possession until a late hour, and the want both of a table of
contents and an index, we have great difficulty in following
the speaker in his references.] From various of these, they
had assurances in favour of the measure. The Mexican and
South American Associations, the Brazilian, the American
Chamber of Commerce had joined in resolutions that they
were not aware of any disadvantages attending the measure
beyond such individual loss as might result. That it would
be a great public improvement. That the advantages would
be great in facility of discharge, saving .of cartage, and of
enormous loss by pilferage.
" The expense of cartage would, be entirely saved, and,
what is of still greater importance, the enormous loss by pil-
ferage, of which the merchants have so long complained, and
which chiefly occurs on the way from the ship to the ware-
house, would in a great measure be avoided, These, together
with the better security of property, the increased means of
claisification of goods, and the consequently greater facility
in the transaction of business, are some of the direct benefits
which would result from the proposed warehouses. These,
again, would lead to the increased importation of goods to be
warehoused for re-exportation, and other indirect advantages.
" In conclusion, the deputations express their conviction
that the adoption of the proposed measures would communi-
cate an impulse to commerce, and to the general interests of
the port, which cannot easily be over-estimated ; and they
trust that no private interests may be permitted to stand in
the way of so great a public benefit."
He would not diminish the effect of this by any observa-
vations. He came next to the evidence of Mr. Tyrer and Mr.
Aiken. From that it appeared that Liverpool was formerly
preferred to London for distant voyages, and £2OO more was
given to a vessel for taking a cargo from the latter. Now
there was greater despatch in London than in Liverpool.—
The following strong case appeared in Mr. Tyrer's evidence :
" The Anne Baldwin went to London, and arrived the same
day that the Teste arrived at Liverpool. One of them was
consigned to us. Both arrived on the Ist November, 1833,
from the Mauritius. The Anne Baldwin was of 280 tons bur-
then, the Teste of 199 tons, and both loaded at the Mauritius
at the same time. The Anne Baldwin took in another full
cargo in London, and arrived here before the Teste was dis-
charged. It was one of Mr. Brocklebank's vessel., and
generally he has a good deal of cargo of his own ; but we
arrived here with a full cargo before Mr. Brocklebank's was
discharged." •
Mr. Wilke's- evidence was also to the effect, that the des-
patch was much greater in other ports than Liverpool, and the
expense less. It takes three days to do in Liverpool, what is
done in two in Hull and in corn the despatch is three times
as great as in Liverpool. Other witnesses showed that Lon-
don rated first, Hull second, and Liverpool last, in despatch
and economy. Mr. B. then referred to the report of Messrs.
Falcon and Clint, which he described as fair, clear, and lucid,
and read an extract to show the advantages of closed docks,
and the construction of warehouses within their walls. He
cited the evidence of Mr. Clint, p. 160 :
" The system in London is beautiful, and it secures three
very desirable objects—great facility in discharging ships,
great security to the revenue, and also great security froM
plunder to the merchant i and the working of the docks in
London is certainly very superior to any thing we have here."
Also, the same gentleman's evidence, page 166 and 173.
With reference to the recommendation to build transit sheds
of one or two stories, they would be costly, and he could not
learn that the trade would be willing to pay anything addi-
tional for so little advantage. Mr. Currie had spoken of
prudential considerations. But, was there to be no prudence
on the side of the public ? Would they be justified in laying
foundations on which they never meant to place a superstruc-
ture ? _Unless the corporation would give money to lay the
foundations, and take the Chance of return on the superstruc-
ture, he did.not know where it was to come from. He would
now revert to the evidence against the measure. The North
American Association said that warehouses were not desira-
ble, but gave no reason—that transit sheds would be useful,
but did not say how they were to be paid for. The shipown-
ers said that warehouses would be unjust and useless, and
that the warehouse property was worth four millions—which
he doubted—and suggested other regulations and improve-
ments, all good in their kind, and which, no doubt, would
be attended to. The West India Association had recom-
mended a concentration of docks, and increased dock ac-
commodation on the west side of Prince's Dock.—To, this,
Mr. B. stated several objections.—He now came to the great
gun of the proprietors of warehouses. He thought it was
strong in assertion, inconclusive in what it was means to es-
tablish, and anything but'convincing. It talked of "jeopard-
ising property." Property was jeopardised by railroads. The
power-loom jeopardised the hand-loom ;—the thrashing-
machine the flail. It was the argument of monopolists of all
kinds—the whole argument against improvement, that of old
and bad machines against new and good ones. They claimed
on their side " sense and public opinion. " Where they
found it he did not know, as the majority of the associations
were against them. He understood that some warehouses
paid from 6 to 8 per eent. ( " Yes, yes ; " " No, no ; " " I
deny it.") He had the authority of Mr. George Holt for
saying that a warehouse which cost less than £6OOO let for
£5OO a-year. (Great confusion, which the Mayor, with diffi-
culty, composed.) Statements had been made about charges.
Perhaps it was true that in London, without cartage, they
were higher there than in Liverpool, subject'to that. That
was no reason why they should not be made cheaper, if they
could. Liverpool had great natural advantages. It had rail-
roads, canals, and proximity to the manufacturing districts.
It had salt and coals close at hand. These were great ad-
vantages ; but, with all these, they ought not to play the fool
with their position, but ought to take every advantage of
which it was capable. It had been argued that the measure
would be injurious to warehouses. lie denied it. It was
stated in evidence that the proposed addition was equal to 60
warehouses—say to 120, or 10 per cent. on the whole. If 10
per cent. of them in inconvenient situations were turned to
other purpeses, by better accommodation, it ought to be
done. The owners of those had no right to subject goods to
a tax, in order to force them to he sent to inconvenient situ-
, ations. The great outlets of the town by water might be
donsidered to lie between the railroad in Wapping and the
canal bridge. This was the natural situation for warehouses,
to a depth not exceeding 5 to 600 yards from the line of
docks. Inside of that line, none could be injured, and to
the east, beyond John-street, they would not be worse than
to the north, beyond Robert-street. He should regret if
speculations in warehouses beyond that limit should be un-
fortunate ; but the progress of the town ought not to be in-
terrupted, because individuals had made unfortunate selec-
tions. With respect to pilferage, it was notorious that there
was scarcely any in London, but very large in Liverpool, and
which, by an uniform system, might be put an end to, as it
had been in London. Towards the close of the report of the
warehouse owners, there were many valuable suggestions for
affording increased facilities for shipping. He hoped the
dock committee would get the powers for which they sought,
and give those increased advantages.—Mr. B. then referred
to the report of the surveyors, to be found in the report p.
188, but we find it quite impossible to do justice to details
entirely topographical.—Referring to the finance committee,
he thought it right to state that the decision against the mea-
sure was come to only by the casting voice of the chairman
at a full attendance, seven out of the fifteen members voting
on one side, and seven on the other. He was fully convinced
that the prosperity of the town depended on the course
which the council now adopted. The contest did not lie with
the owners of warehouses in good situations, but of ware-
houses in bad ones. For himself, the decision was of not
the smallest consequence to him, but he had felt the greatest
inconvenience from the imperfect arrangements of the port
through all his mercantile life, and he wished to see them re-
medied. He would say that members were not sent there to
promote their private interests, but to promote the public
good, and divest themselves of all private considerations.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman BENN regretted the finance committee had
not taken a more enlarged view, and were about to prejudice
the trade of the port by delay. He denied there would not
be any injury to existing warehouses by the project of the
dock committee, as it would take live years to complete it,
and trade would doubtless grow up in the time to a greater
extent. There were many descriptions of goods which could
not be warehoused and sampled here for exportation, and
were consequently sent to London. On Cuba, St. Domingo,
and Brazilian sugars, the charge here was 13s. a case, in Lon-
don 7s. The accommodation for indigo was very inadequate.
The large room that was promised for it he found filled with
cotton, and the indigo thrown into a dark room where it was
impossible to judge of its quality. Purchasers would not come
unless they could see the articles, and they were better classi-
fied, and the sampling on a better system, as in London. The
question was, would they not want those warehouses in five
years, and was it not better to have them on the margin of
the docks, than at a distance. By the London system, the
same extent of water accommodation was made three times
as productive as in Liverpool. It only needed a vote of the
council to give us these advantages, and the present was a
most favourable opportunity. He had never conversed with
a single merchant, or intelligent impartial man, who was
not convinced it should have been done long ago.
Mr. JOHN CROPPER, as so' much had been said about
Hull, referred to the evidence of Mr. Wilkes, p. 134. He
stated that Hull had no advantage except cranes to take
goods direct from the quay ; that cartage was almost un-
known, but lighterage nearly as expensive. He also referred

to the evidence of Mr. Clint, p. 160 and 165, relative to
London—" Competition is the cause of the perfection of the
London system.' " A great deal could be done (in Liver-
pool,) but it would be beginning at the wrong end to build
warehouses on the present docks." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman EARLE said the excellence of the London
system was entirely owing to the competition of companies.
As for the trumpery case of indigo, if it came, there would
be warehouse room for it. He had as good a warehouse for
the purpose, in Lancelot's-hey, with side lights, as any in
London.

Mr. MASON eulogised the committee for the pains they
had taken in collecting evidence. He always considered that
the project :had all the ingredients of a doubtful and dan-
gerous experiment that it was a speculation of doubtful
benefit to any, and of certain injury to many. He disputed
the assertion of the dock committee, p. 8, that all the ad-
vantages are on its side, and that there are no disadvantages
It would jeopardise property, discourage the investment of
capital, and injure parties entrapped into very stringent
covenants. Mr. M. then supported his position by referring
to the evidence at considerable length, and commented with
much severity on that of Mr. Walmsley, who, he said,
" appeared more as an advocate, than as a cool, candid, im-
partial witness. His examination is not by question and
answer, but by speeches. He commences with one long
speech, and finishes with another, with a great many inter-
mediate ones."—(Laughter.)
Mr. T. HARVEY explained that gentlemen were invited
not to wait for questions, but to express their sentiments
their own way.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman G. HOLT said, the argument had gone
wholly with reference to local interests, and the property
grown up round the docks, loiing sight of the principle that
the docks were national property, and that not merely Liver-
pool, but Manchester and other places, had an equal interest
in them with us. He heard no one deny the advantages of
the measure. but it was proposed on the pretext of injury to
existing interests. The common fate of property is change
and mutation, and the common cry of vested interests has
been a thousand times refuted in the case of, railroads and
canals. The Shipowners' Association" did not represent
ships, but warehouses under another name—(laughter)—it
was another shape the same parties had assumed with their
usual adroitness. He wished not merely to do here what
had been done in London and Hull, but to exceed them if
could. He referred to a letter to show that a ship which
took nineteen days to discharge in Liverpool, had been dis-
charged in London with the same cargo in four days. Mr.
H. entered into statements relative to some warehouses in
Barton-street, to show that the return was 6 to 8 per cent.
With respect to insurance, the finance committee had not
put any queries to the local insurance company lately esta-
blished, and he had their authority to state, that if ware-
house were built on the plan proposed, the premium would
be considerably reduced—(hear, hear : " for cotton ?")—yes,
if cotton was not one of the articles intended to be stored.
The measure might be put off, but it was ultimately inevi-
table.

Mr. Join,/ SMITH put it to the good sense of the Dock
Committee, if it would not be better to accede to a proposal
agreeable to all parties, than to go to parliament in the face
of the united opposition of the warehouse owners, the Earl
of Derby, and other powerful persons, which could result in
nothing but the expenditure of the public money.
Mr. J. S. LEIGH we understood to say, that the Earl of
Derby had, objected to the bill, but Mr. Smith was not war-
ranted in saying that he would resist it. (Hear.)
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES observed, that it had been stated by
Mr. Bolton that the question was entirely divested of poli-
tics. There are, however, other things that people are
anxious for, viz. " power and patronage.' That was the ob-
ject of the Dock Committee. His opinion was that it would
be one of the dearest and most unsatisfactory plans that had
ever been devised or adopted. They said the warehouses
might be rendered fire-proof for £145,000. He was con-
vinced they would not be completed for £200,000. The
alleged safety from pilferage had not yet been proved, but
was entirely a matter of opinion. Why could not the private
owners of warehouse property take the same care of it as the
Dock Committee ? They must delegate the power to some
one, and if they did, what was the increased security against
fire. Would they put the fire-engines in the docks ? ( Yes.)
They could not. Mr. Tyrer had said they might scuttle the
vessels. Would they put the fire-engines in these ? Alder-
man Sheil had gone even further than this. He said, " The
same wind that took the fire from the warehouse would take
the ships to the opposite side of the dock by merely loosing
their fastenings ?" It would be totally impossible in case of
tire in one of the warehouses to move the engines so as to
prevent the ships taking fire. He remembered the fire at
the Goree, which, if it had happened at any other time,
would have burnt all the shipping in George's Dock. Though
the street was a wide one, the front of the warehouses took
fire from the heat of those at the back. As to the insurance,
he had authority from Mr. Bunnell to say, " When fire takes
place in Liverpool where cotton is deposited, you know not
where it will end ; the fire is blown up in the air, and falls you
know not where ; therefore, you never need ask us to insure
under six shillings ;" and the same sum was required for
ships. The shipowners were perfectly disinterested wit-
nesses, and their evidence was of greater importance than that
of any one else. Mr. Aikin says, " with respect to steam ves-
sels there is not so much despatch in any port." The Medora,
consigned to Barton, I rlam, and Higginson, was only docked on
Friday, from Charleston, was discharged on Saturday at noon,
and on the following Thursday was on her voyage to Barbadoes,
with a full cargo. Why had not the Dock Committee taken
the means within their power to accelerate the despatch of ves-
sels ? Why was not one set of porters attached to a vessel, in-
stead of ten or twelve sets ? Why were not the land-waiters,
who went down to the Custom-house at eight o'clock in the
morning, assembled at the depots at once ? Again, rail or
tram-roads might be made round the docks, in the same
way as at the Goree. Mr. Clint says, " twice as much work
might be done in the docks, under proper management ;"
and Alderman Sheil says, " the Dock Committee are not
free from blame at present." In this he agreed, and he only
wished that the Finance Committee had asked the same
question of Mr. Walmsley, that luminary who enlightened
the people of Manchester, who enlightened the people of
London, who enlightened the Corn Exchange, and who, en-
lightened the town-council. He (Mr. H.) had been led to
believe that he was there as a juryman, and he thought it
would have been wrong in him to have gone into the witness-box
to have given evidence on a case in which he was to act as a
judge. Mr. Filcher had also had a knock-down blow from Mr.
Bibby. They were told that Hull could discharge three
times as much corn in one day as Liverpool. Now, he had
heard the men of Hull were made horses or asses, but he ne-
ver before heard they were used as jigger-ropes ; but such
was the fact ; they carried their corn upstairs on men's backs.
There was one part of the Finance Comrnitte's report with
which he disagreed very materiaily, viz., that the private
warehouse owners should not be entitled to compensation.
This he thought they had a right to claim if the proposed
new system was carried into effect. The depreciation of ware-
house property had been very great already since the agitation
of this subject. He knew of two warhouses in the Goree that
formerly let for £7OO which had fallen to £l5O, and they were
now given up. A gentleman who had a warehouse on the New
Quay, in a valuable situation, had not been asked the amount
of the rent for the four months which had elapsed since it was
built. At the present time not one half the warehouses were
full. Mr. Holmes made some other observations, which were
inaudible from the calls to "divide."

Mr. G. WRIGHT said, that he had gone to some expense in
building and fitting up a small warehouse, for which, though
it had been for some time in the hands of Birkett and Dover,
and a board outside announcing that it was to be let, he had
never had more 'than one applicant—Mr. Frodsham—and it
turned out afterwards that he was only joking with him. All
that he had heard from merchants and brokers, in doors and
out, had not changed his opinion, that there was no want of
warehouses. The proposal was nothing but a hit at the poor
carters and their half-a-crown a-day. He saw there some
gentlemen who had not the length of themselves in landed
property, and who would screw them down to nothing. The
cries of divide were again loud.
Mr. WALMSLEY next spoke in support of the amendment,
and in the course of his address complained that Mr. Mason
had stated that he was not a cool, candid and impartial witness
Mr. MASON denied that he had used the words in the sense
alleged.
The MAYOR said he certainly thought Mr. Mason's remarks
would not bear that construction.

Mr. MASON said if his words were construed as personally
offensive, he did not mean that they should be so applied.
Mr. J. SMITH also disclaimed all intention to wound Mr.
Walmsley's feelings.
Mr. WALMSLEY was neither wishful for an enviable nor
an unenviable notoriety, and threw back the insults in the
face of those by whom they were given. He said, that had
the party who made such charges been on committee, they
would have learned that the liberal members of them had' no
patronage whatever. No politics were introduced either into
the Dock Committee or the Finance Committee ; but many
gentlemen who had entered them with that prejudice, had
found that no politics entered into any of the committees.
He took Mr. Mason's words down, and they were, that in
giving his evidence he was not a cool, candid, and impartial
witness.

Mr. MASON denied that he had said so.
The MAYOR said that he had admitted that he had not in
tended any thing offensive.
Mr. MASON explained that he had said that Mr. Walms
ley appeared before the committee in the character of an ad
vocate, rather than a cool, temperate, and impartial wit

After some altercation,
Mr. WALMSLEY expressed himself to be satisfied, and
proceeded. He intimated his surprise and regret that the
Finance Committee had pursued the course they had chosen.
They had conceded the principle, but swerved from the strict
line of duty. They would have the foundations strong
enough till they had become the arbiters between the mer-
chants and the warehouse-owners ; but that would never
happen. They had conceded a principle, and dared not carry
it out. He cautioned the members in their future proceed-
ings not to make shipwreck of principle. They would de-
stroy the port for a fancied interest, and he entreated the
council never again to fall away from principle, for this was
interest and not principle.
Mr RAM SD E N 'was surprised that a gentleman who was him-
self so sensitive, should work himself up into such a rage
that he could get up and attack a public body. He admit-
ted, in his very strange speech, that the Finance Committee
had done their duty, and then accused them of a truckling
policy, and of having swerved from duty. If his words meant
what language was usually supposed to mean, he repelled,
with the same indignation that had been exhibited towards
Mr. Mason, the disgraceful insinuation. He stated that he
considered the question to be decidedly one of vested inte-
rests ; that compensation ought to be granted for the injury
done to private property; and that the Dock Committee'
had not made out their case. He regretted that the question
had not been dispassionately considered by all parties. The
assertion of the Dock Committee, that the Finance Com-
mittee were not capable of taking an enlarged view of the
subject, was most extraordinary. He denied that they had
carried out all the means in their power to effect a quick
despatch, and contended that they ought to have done this
before they applied for the powers sought. They should
appoint a larger staff of paid officers, and it would be worthy
their consideration whether, when they went to parliament,
for it was conceded they must go, they would not propose
to let each dock to a separate company for twenty-one years.
Mr. SHAND, Mr. D. HODGSON, Alderman EVANS, Mr.
FRE ME, &c., afterwards spoke on the question, and the
amendment was then put, and lost by a majority of 33 to 27,
viz.:—

For the amendment—Councillors W. Thornhill, J. Mellor,
T. Bolton, E. Filcher, J. Walmsley, J. Woolright, J. Bibby,
W. Rathbone, W. Lassell, T. Brocklebank, J. Carson, V.
Higgins, T. Blackburn, T. Morecrott, E. Segar, J. Platt,
G. Ramsden.

Aldermen—R. Sheil, J. Hornby, R. Roskell, T. Leathom,
G. Holt, R. Benn, E. Evans, T. Bulley, T. Holt, E. Harvey.
Against the amendment—Councillors D. Hodgson, J.
Holmes, R. Houghton, Isaac Holmes, W. Shand, W. Pres-
ton, T. Case, J. Barton, B. Frankland, G. Wright, Thos.
Sands, H. Holmes, J. Priestley, C. Lawrence, J. Cooper, J.
Lawrence, J. N. Wood, T. Harvey, R. Gladstone, J. Mason,
J. Smith, G. H. Lawrence, J. S. Leigh, F. Jordan, J. Crop-
per, jun. W. M. Duncan, W. W. Currie.
Aldermen—T. Booth, C. H. Jones, W. Earle, jun. J.
Moon, W. W. Currie.

The original motion was then put and carried by a majority
of 36 to 23, viz

For the motion—Councillors D. Hodgson, J. Holmes, R.
Houghton, Isaac Holmes, W. Shand, W. Preston, T. Case,
J. Barton, B. Frankland, G. Wright, Thomas Sands, H.
Holmes, J. Priestley, J. Bibby, C. Lawrence, J. Cooper, J.
Lawrence, J. N. Wood, T. Harvey, R. Gladstone, J. Mason,
J, Smith, G. H. Lawrence, J. S. Leigh. F. Jordan, J. Crop-
per, jun. W. M. Duncan, W. W. Currie. _

Aldermen R. Sheil, T. Booth, J. Hornby, C. H. Jones, W.
Earle, jun. J. Moon, W. P. Freme, the Mayor.
Against the motion—Councillors W. Thornhill, J. Mellor,
T. Bolton, E. Filcher, J. Walmsley, J. Woollright, W.
Rathbone, W. Lassen, T. Brocklebank, J. Carson, V. Hig-

gins, T. Blackburn, T. Morecroft, E. Segar, J. Platt, G•
Ram sden
Aldermen R. Roskell, T. Leathom, G. Holt, R. Bennt E'
Evans, T. Holt, E. Harvey.
The business referred to by the Mayor at the commence
ment was then disposed of, and the council adjourned, having
sat five hours.