The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-04-10 00:00:00

THE LittRPOOL STANDARD.

TOWN COilNttL,

houses were Siaftki td be a most lucrative investment.
Had they been su And would it be wise to go on ex-
The usual monthly meeting of the Town Connell was pending any portion of the' £500,000 for which they had
held on Wednesday; the Mayor in Cie chair. ; power, if the Albert warehouses did not yield a clear five
The proceedings of the Finance Committee having been per cent, upon their annual cost ? The cost was attempt-
read, Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE moved their confirmation. ed to be reduced by deductions of the sheds, paving, and
Mr. THOMSON asked whether he could oppose the boundary walls. But the committee were deducting what
adoption of that portion of the proceedings which referred was never expended. And' in addition, they were only
to the building of new steamers for the Birkenhead ferry ? debiting the warehouses with £32,931 for land, while in
Mr. LAWRENCE said that some time ago a resolution i 1847 they stated the cost to have been £112,813. The
was passed by the Council authorising the committee to reply was, that the portion of quay space for landing had
make contracts for new steamers, and it was resolved that no right to be charged ; and it was a mistake in 1847 in
they should advertise for contracts. so debiting the warehouses. But if this land had been
Mr. Driffield, the Deputy Town-clerk, read the pro- leased to private companies, and they had given them
ceedings of the Watch Committee, which recommended a power to build over the quay space, would they not I
reduction of nearly 60 constables in the force. It also

charged them with it ? Mo-st certainly. And instead of
~..scipline 535. 6d., they would have got £8 a yard for it. When
of the force. Mr. John Stewart was asked what was the value of the
Mr. Alderman TURNER moved the adoption of the revenion of the Birkenhead Dock Companies' land to
minutes, which recommended the laying of the usual the Corporation of Liverpool. His reply was, that sup-
lighting' and fire-police rates, and also the appointment of , posing the docks completed, end_ business to be brought
Mr. John Whitley and Mr. James Denton as assessors.

there,- he should consider the land on the margin-of

The motion having been seconded, such a dock for building warehouses worth £5 per yard,
Mr. H. G. HARBORD complained, that notwithstanding and he (Mr. Holme) felt quite sure that the land or
the reductions in the police force, whilst in January, 1848, the Albert Dock quay was worth -c'
the number was 801 ;in January, 1849, the number was yard. By the act 4 Victoria, chap. 3k,,
977. True it was, that since January last some reductions surface of the quay was to be reserved as ;
•11 - account

r £7 per
Ise 56, the

_ ueen made, bin stn, one force was more numerous and clause 126 enacted that separate
than in other towns. Taking the population of Liverpool kept for building and maintaining tl
at 390,000, there was one policeman to every 400 persons. Victoria, chap. 11, clause 7, gave
This was a much greater propertion than in Manchester Committee to store goods on the
and other places which he named. He hoped that the Albe-t Warehouses, which ground-flc.
Watch Committee would not allow themselves to be mis- this enabled them to convert tl;at quay space into a ware.
led by statistical details, which he (Mr. Harbord) had no house, and to receive rent for it. After some other ob-
hesitation in saying were false, and also that they would servations, Mr. Holme said that he wished for a clear
not take policemen from watching so important a part of statement of the cost of the warehouses, as well as the
the town as the warehouses. He objected to the number cost of working them, and he concluded by saying that a
of officers who had been placed over the police, for a fourth great mistake was committed when the Dock Committee
turned warehouse-owners and warehouse-keepers. Had
the docks been erected east and west, and the warehouses
kept back 40 yards from the edge of the quay, the docks
might have been used both as import and export docks.
The commit ee would then have obtained £250,000 for
their land let on a seventy-years' lease to Warehouse
Companies. The Dock Committee would have been kept
in their legitimate position—much bad feeling would have

houses. Bth
power to the Dock
ground-floor of the

quay, and

hem were ei

er serjeants or superior officers,

and the men, instead of attending to their duty, were in
reality walking the streets looking for their officers.
Mr. PARKER said he felt extremely sorry that Mr.
Harbord should have made so wild a statement. If a
doctor undertook to do every thing. he would turn out to
be wrong somewhere. Mr. Harbord had alleged that Mr.
Dowling's report was incorrect ; but he (Mr. Parker)
maintained that it was not incorrect. If there were docks
at Manchester, it was quite clear that they wculd want an
extra police force in that town. Mr. Harbord also forgot
to tell them that in Manchester almost every mill, manu-
factory, and warehouse had its own private watchman.
As to the construction of the force and the numbers of its
officers, that was placed by the Act of Parliament in the
hands of the 'Watch Committee, and the Council had no-
thing to do with it. When Mr. Harbord was on the
Watch Committee in 1847, he made no complaint then.
Mr. TuomsoN said that it cost the borough £2OOO
a-year to watch the warehouses. By act of parliament,
the Council might charge that sum to the warehouse-
owners, but he could not recommend them to do that,
because the warehouses paid a large amount of rates.
Mr. HARBORD.—There will be 74 more men on town
duty than there were in 1848.

been av

enterprise—and he as firmly believed they would have
saved the dock estate from half a million of debt, and
from being burthened with property which will disappoint
them in its returns.
Mr. Alderman Nrcot, after objecting to the slur which
had, apparently, been cast by Mr. Holme on the way in
which the Committee's accounts bad been kept, said that
the Finance Committee of the Corporation were as much
to blame if they received £3OOO without being entitled to it.
It was well known that he (Mr. Nicol) opposed the Al-
bert Dock as strongly as Mr. -Holme himself, though on
different grounds; and he quite agreed with that
gentleman that the Albert Dock was an unfortunate

speculation, for it was quite impossi
lected a more expensive spot upon which
The whole of the items which were chat

Me to have
to tr.'

Mr. TURNER called attention to the fact that they were
gradually reducing the force, and it must be borne in
mind that as the warehouse interest paid one-fourth of
the rates they were entitled to proper protection.
The proceedings were then confirmed.
DOCK COMMITTEE.

correct were easy of explanation, and M. Holme could
soon have explained them if it suited his purpose.
Mr. HARBORD, Mr. FISHER, and Mr. POOLE sup-
ported the amendment.
Mr. HUGH HORBNY thought that the Dock Committee
were scarcely treating the. Dock Trustees with proper con-
sideration, in not furnishing them beforehand with
particulars upon which they had founded th-'
tions. Under all the circumstances, he -*
Mr. Holme's amendment.
Mr. AIKIN said he would also vote for the amendment.,
and allow Mr. Hartley to go through the inquiry again,
for he felt quite convinced that ultimately it would be
found that the cost of the Albert warehouses would prove
to be even less than the sum at which they were now
stated. After having alluded to the difficulty in piling
the ground for dock warehouses, Mr. Aikin expressed his
conviction that no person could exercise any influence on
Mr. Hartley's mind in investigating the accounts.
Mr. JAMES HOLME, though a member of the Dock
Committee, expressed his dissatisfaction with the state-
ment, and should vote for the amendment.
Mr. GEORGE HOLT said, that if the warehouse
Albert Dock had not been erected in their present form,
quay sheds would have been required, and of course there
would have been an additional expense on that aceoc-
and one question was, whether trey ought to
that portion of land to the cost of the warehouses or no.
He thought that the calculation had been made upon
pretty nearly the correct basis. If they had not the
sheds they must have warehouses, and, therefore, his
opinion was, that they ought not to charge the land used
as quays to the warehouse account.
Mr. PARKER—Then according to Mr. Holt's principle,
if this question be adjourned till 1850, the cost of the
warehouses will turn out to be £lOO,OOO less than it ap-

Mr. Driffield read the proceedings of this committee,
which included a report from Mr. Hartley, surveyor to
the dock estate, respecting the cost of the Albert Dock
warehouses.

ould support

The cost of the buildings w

Deduct—Sheds
Paving quays .
Boundary wall.

'as stated to be.. £335,914 0 0
X 12,400 0 0
6,750 0 0
4,919 0 0

24,069 0 0

Add—Land £26,075 7 2
Interest 6,856 7 8
Interest on buildings 30,932 19 11

63,864 15 4

Making a total cost of £375,709 15 4
Mr. Alderman HEIsIDERSON referred to the statement
that had been read with reference to the cost of the Albert
Dock warehouses. He did not concur in that statement,
especially in that portion of it wherein was stated the
amount expended in the erection of the warehouses and
the formation of the dock. It would be found, on com-
paring the present statement with former years, that the
amount of cost appeared to have been materially lessened.
In the year 1847, the works being then almost completed,
the Dock Committee made out a statement of their ac-
counts for the first time, and the utmost care was then
taken that they should be made out justly and correctly,
according to the intention of the act of parliament. They
were so made out, and received the sanction of the Coun-
cil. According to that statement, the cost of the land and
buildings of the warehouses was about £460,000 ; and now,
according to the statement which the Council were called
upon to confirm, the cost would. appear to be only
£375,709. The reasons which had been assigned for
throwing discredit upon the original statement of the
accounts appeared to him (Mr. Henderson) to be exceed-
ingly futile.

'e charged

pears now.
Mr. HoLT—Undoubtedly, it ought to be less.
After a few words from Mr. Parker, Mr. J. B. Lloyd
said he should vote for the amendment, as the members of
the Dock Committee had not made up their minds as to
the principle on which the accounts should be made out.
Mr. T. B. HORSFALL quite agreed with Mr. Lloyd.
After a few observations from different councillors, a
division was taken, when the following was the result :
For the amendment :—Messrs. Langsdale, Walthew,
James Holme, J. Woodruff, Thomson, Morris, Preston,
Stitt, Tyrer, Aikin. Hornby, Tinne, Bell, Ferguson, Har-
bord, Rogers, Wagstaff, S. Holme, J. B. Lloyd, Johnson,
Parker, Poole, Beckwith, Hindley, Fisher; Aldermen
T. B. Horsfall, John Holmes, Henderson, Procter, and
Bent. Total, 33.
Against it : Messrs. G. Holt, J. A. Tobin, G. H. Law-
rence, Benn, Mann ; Aldermen Nicol, J. N. Wood, Tur-
ner, Chilton, and the Mayor. Total, 10.
The amendment was consequently carried.
Upon the minutes of the St. George's Hall Committee
being read, it was resolved that strangers should not be
allowed to go into the hall at present, except by an order
from a member of the Council.
The Council then adjourned till Monday.

Mr. MANN, in seconding the resolution, said he bad
taken great pains to ascertain the truth of the facts set
forth in the statement. Although the chairman of the
Dock Committee (Mr. Henderson) had sat three years on
the Albert Dock Committee, and had taken great interest
in the Albert Dock, he (Mr. Mann) would ask him if he
had either seen or heard of a whole detailed statement of
the accounts ? He would ask whether he had seen a full
detailed statement until lie had seen the one which had
just been read ? The chairman of the Dock Committee
(Mr. Henderson) bad stated that there had been two other
statements of the accounts. He (Mr. Mann) admitted
the fact that there had been two other accounts printed by
the Dock Committee; but in consequence of the rumours
that had been circulated, and the insinuations with refer-
ence to these accounts, it had been determined to make
another endeavour to ascertain the real cost of these
works, and everything connected therewith, and the con-
sequence was that the printed statement had been made
out. These accounts contained the statement of the ex-
tra cost of the construction of the works, and the accounts
which had been published contained the precise items of
everything connected with the whole affair ; and so mi-
nutely had other matters been gone into that he believed
that the Dock Committee had been enabled to obtain the
return of £3OOO of interest which had long ago been
overpaid by the Dock Estate to the Corporation. He un-
derstood that the portion of the account which Mr. Hen-
derson found fault with was that portion on which a certain
sum was apportioned as the cost of the land appropriated
to the warehouses, and another as to the quantity of land
appropriated to the docks. The Dock Committee were
very indifferent as to the manner in which the land was
said to be appropriated, but the sub-committee apportioned
the cost in the manner which they thought best. They
thought that a dock without quays was quite useless—that
without quays the water-space could not possibly be made
use of, and therefore they apportioned to the dock a certain
quantity of land, and to the warehouses a certain other
quantity. Certainly the land which had been appropriated
to the building of the warehouses was not as much as
would have been required if the warehouses had been built
up from the foundation to the roof, and the land which
was unbuilt upon was used as a quay. As he had said be-
fore a dock without a quay was useless, and the tonnage
which entered the Albert Dock last year amounted to
£420,000, which would be 61 per cent. on the cost of the
dock, charging it with so much water space and so much
quay space as it was thought right. He (Mr. Mann) had
been no party to making up the accounts in any way what-
ever; but the act of parliament directed that a separate
account should be kept; and he presumed that the way to
ascertain this, was to see that in the account of the money
expended on the Albert warehouses everything connected
with their cost and management should be kept distinct.
Mr. SAMUEL HOLME rose for the purpose of proposing
a veto upon one portion of the Dock Committee's pro-
ceedings, and that was the statement of the cost connected
with the Albert Dock and warehouses. If the Council
confirmed the proceedings of the Dock Committee as they
stood, the sum which appeared as the cost of the Albert
Dock warehouses would stand on the books for ever with
a statement that these works had cost that amount, and
would be debited with interest upon the calculation that
they bad cost £375,000. As they would be debited with
interest upon that amount, that fact would be used in
considering whether the Dock Committee should go fur-
ther with this description of works. He held in his hand
a statement headed, " Cost of the Albert Dock," and
signed by IVIr. Withers; and he (Mr. Holme) would say
that it was a most unfortunate omission for the committee
of the corporation to say that they gone over the accounts
with " great accuracy," and then to admit that they had
overpaid interest to the amount of £3,000. As he had
said before, there had been three accounts published,
and according to account No. 1, dated June 24th, 1847,
the cost of the land for warehouses was stated to be
33,093 yards
at 535. 6d

THE LIVERPOOL MURDERS,

FINAL COMMITTAL OF THE PRISONER FOR TRIAL

On Tuesday the police-office was much crowded by par-
ties anxious to have a sight of the prisoner before his final
committal for trial. He was placed at the bar about half-
past two o'clock and the evidence of John Marks, Mary
Knott, and Mr. Slater, was read over. On being asked
whether he had any questious to put to the witnesses, he
faintly answered " No," in each case. Mr. Rushton hav-
ing given the usual caution to the prisoner, he was asked
if lie had anything to say, when be replied, " I have no-
thing further to say till I have got my witnesses before
the trial." He was then fully committed for trial at the
next assizes, and the witnesses bound over to appear and
give evidence.

Interest thereon

£88,523 15 6
24,089 17 5

Cost of land
Cost of warehouses.. 314,349 3 1
Interest thereon .. .. 36,203 1 11

£112,613 12 11

350,552

Cost of land and buildings £463,165 17 11
In the following year the Council received a similar paper,
which contained account No. 2, dated June 24, 1848,
wherein it is stated that the amount expended to June 24,
1847, is
From that period to June, 1848 17,679 9 1
Cost of house for superintendent

Total cost
Now there came account No 3, from which it appeared
that the cost of the warehouses was .. £335,914 0 0
Deduct sheds
Paving quays 6,750
Boundary wall ..

24,069 0 0

£311,845 0 0

Add land....
Interest
Interest on buildings 30,932 19 11 63,864 15 4

Making a total of .
It had been stated that the entire cost of what were called
the central works was £1,022,000. Take the warehouses
at £375,709, and the Canning Graving Docks and Half-
tide Basin at £200,000, there would be £575.709 ; and
this would make the Albert Dock, of less than 7 acres,
cost £446,291. If, therefore, they reduced the cost of
the warehouses, they added to the cost of the dock,
thereby making it cost £63,700 an acre. Perhaps they
might say that they had to purchase some property, and
pay compensation to tenants for removal ; but the public
streets which were absorbed, and for which the Dock
Committee made no compensation to the parishioners,
were of more *'alue thane the buildings which they pur-
chased. Now, these accounts had the appearance of
having been tinkered. tb, suit a purpose. Dock ware-