The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-05 00:00:00

which to.a certain extent, he himself approved), he could not,
as a member of the council, consistently consent to any alter-
ation without the approval and sanction of his constituents.
Mr. BLACKBURN said that be did not expect to hear the
doctrine of delegation advocated by a gentleman like Mr.
Gladstone. To do 'as Mr. G. suggested, they would on all
occasions have to appeal to their constituents, without trust-
ing to their own judgment. This was a great question, and
one on which they were bound to give a decision. If they
could decide nothing without going back to their constituents,

they were perfect automatons—tools in the hands of others.
Mr. B. Went on to contend that the proposed concessions
were not only necessary for the obtaining of a great benefit,
but that they were in fact merely nominal, and would do
Liverpool no injury whatever. They had nothing to fear from
the competition of any parties. The Liverpool docks only
paid rates for their own support, but the others would have
to pay a profit to the proprietors in addition. He however,
felt a strong objection to letting in so many of the rate-payers
into the Dock Committee. if it could be avoided. He thought
thought that the entire management of the docks ought to be
in the council. If it had not been for the self-elected coun-
cil, the rate-payers would never have got in a single member
of their body. Indeed, the demand would never have arisen,
because the necessity would never have been supposed to
exist. He should decidedly vote against the amendment of
Mr. Earle. _ _

..._.. _._
As Mr. Evans declined to reply, the council proceeded to
vote on the amendment. For the amendment there were 4,

namely, Messrs. R. Gladstone, D. Mather, W. Earle, and
W. P. Freme. Against it there were 52, composing the
remainder of the councillors present, the list of whom will
be found in the next division.
Mr. HODGSON then proposed the amendment previously
noticed by him—" That in consequence of the sacrifice of
local interests now stated to be necessary to secure the pass-
ing of the dock warehouse bill in parliament, that bill be
now withdrawn."

Mr. H. LAWRENCE seconded the amendment. He did
not see the necessity of the warehouses at all, and he fully
coincided with the observations of the worthy alderman of
the ward which he represented (Earle), who had expressed
his admiration of the sound principle of letting well alone,
and not abandoning it for the sake of a theoretical good. He
was opposed to the concession to the Harrington and Her-
culaneum docks.

_________
Mr. BOLTON opposed the amendment. He said that many
gentlemen had sacrificed a great deal of time and comfort in
carrying on the bill; the parties now opposing the bill were
always likely to be opposing it, and was it probable that, if
they withdrew it now, it would be more easy to get a bill at
a future time? The members of the parliamentary com-
mittee had now been embued with the measure, and if it
were withdrawn an enormous sacrifice of time and money
must necessarily take place in again getting to the stage
which they had now reached, and without any better chance
of success, if even the demands did not increase upon them.
He should sincerely regret if the concessions were not made.
He did not like them all; but, like a man selling an article,
he was willing to get the best price he could.
Mr. Alderman EARLE made a few observations. He
eulogised thexonsistent conduct of Mr. Gladstone, who had
seen the subject in its true light, hut not so many other mem-
bers, whose names he was surprised to find recorded against
his amendment.
Mr. BusnELL.—l think you cannot accuse me of party
feeling, when I voted with Mr. Rathbone and his friends.
Mr. EARLic.—Oh ! that won't do ! Mr. Bushell is fond
of wrapping what he says in delicate language, but this is too
soft for any of us, however soft we may be.,
The vote was then taken. For the amendment of Mr.
Hodgson there were 22; against it, 34.
For the amendment :—Messrs. D. Hodgson, J. Holmes, I.
Holmes, R. Houghton, W. Preston, H. R. Sandbach, G.
Wright, T. Sands, H. Holmes' J. Cooper, J. Lawrence, T.
Robinson, H. Lawrence, J. N. Wood, R. Gladstone, C.
Bushell, R. Jones, jun., J. S. Leigh, J. Smith ; Aldermen
Jones, Earle, and Freme.
Against the amendment :—Messrs. G. Quayle W. Thorn-
hill, T. Case, B. Frankland, J. Mellor, E. Pllcher,l T. Bol-
ton, J. Priestley, J. Woollright, R. Bright, W. Rathbone,
H. Hornby, R. V. Yates, W. Lassen, T. Blackburn, T.
Morecroft, E. Segar, T. Coglan, W. M`Kee F.. Jordan, W.
M. Duncan, W. W. Currie, D. Macher ; Aldermen Sheil,
Hornby, Leathom, G. Holt, Moon, Evans, Barclay, Bulley,
T. Holt, Harvey ; the Mayor.
Absent :—Messrs. J. Barton, J. Carson, R. Rigby, G.
H. Lawrence, and J. Platt ; Aldermen Booth, Roskell, and
Benn.
The original motion was then put and carried by a ma-
jority of 34 to 17. Five gentlemen who voted for the amend-
ment had left the room.
The leases were then read and confirmed. The business
relating to the by-laws, which had been left over from the
last two councils, on account of insufficient attendance, was
also despatched in an interval between the dock business. It
was merely of a formal nature.
The council adjourned at three o'clock, leaving all the other
matters specified in the notice untouched.