The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE • COUNCIL.

On Saturday, a special nv.etinrof the Council Trustees
of the Liverpool Docks, was held in the Council Chamber,
for the purpase of considering tbeinlauses inserted' by the
Committee of the House of Lords in the Liverpool Dock
Bill, now before parliament. His Worship the- Mayor
presided, and the attendance of• members was rather

numerous.
The TOWN-CLERK read the two clauses (60 and 61,) of
the bill,—the first to the effect that the trustees of-the
docks were required, within two years from the expiration
of the present session of parliament, to apply for an aet
to enable t ,em to build warehouses upon and around the
quays of all the docks, made or being made ; and that
viey should not proceed with the construction of the
Wapping Dock, or any other, to the east of King's Dock,
vntil such act have been obtained:—and the second clause
is to the effect—that no warehouses shall be pulled down
by the trustees except such as may be requited for im-
proving or widening any street or streets, authorized by
this act to be formed or widened, until the warehouses on
all the quays of the Albert Dock, as well those under con-
structioii, as those authorized and in contemplation, shall
be completed' for the use of the public.
The MAYOR having invited any member to bring
forward a motion on the subject,
Mr. BRAAILEY-MOORS said that the clauses to be con-
sidered had been put in solely by the committee of the
House of Lords, and not by the opponents of the bill.
They were, in fact, suggested by Sergeant Bellasis, one
of the counsel employed in the matter. The question for
the council to decide, therefore. simply- was, whether they
would accept the bill as it now stood. The real and only
restriction which it imposed was, that, they should not
make docks east of the quay of the Albert D like but
they could enlarge all the warehouses, and.do all that was
necessary, before any warehouses on-the eastward could
be commenced. Even if they proceeded with the works
as origioally intended, those east of. the King's Dock
would he but a part of the scheme, and they could not
accomplish those works within the time prescribed, for
that would require at least two years and a half. The
clauses did not positively imply that warehouses should
be built round all the quays, for it was absurd to. suppose
that any parliament would grant powers for such a pur-
pose on sites where they were not necessary, antl, the
clause referring thereto was consequently nugatory. They
must apply, under any circumcatic-s, for leave to build
warehouses where they were required. Besides, such a
plan would involve the expenditure of an immense sum
of money, as upwards of twelve lineal miles of ware-
houses would be requisite to surround the whole of the
docks. Ile purport of the alteration in the bill (as we
understood him), was merely that they should acply for
powers to construct warehouses, but only where they
were necessary or desirable. After some allusion to the
Manchester Basin, he suggested that the trustees should
take the subject into their serious consideration, as one
of the 'greatest importance, and be moved to the effect
that they should accept of the bill, with the clauses as in-
troduced. The Dock Committee had, he added, acted
with the best faith in endeavouring to procure a clause
for building warehouses, since the passing of the 3rd Vic-
toria or Albert Act ; and, under all the circumstances, he
recommended that the bill should be accepted as now
modified.
Mr. Alderman EVANS (whom we could but imper-
fectly hear) said he would leave it to the council to decide
whether what had been stated, with regard to the absur-
dity of supposing that any parliament would grant powers
for building warehouses all round the quays, were well
founded or otherwise. They had a right to select sites
for warehouses round the docks, and the clauses in ques-
tion did not enjoin the building of them round all the
docks if they were not wanted. The act of 1841 gave
them that right, as had been stated by Mr. Austin at the
time. That act rendered it imperative on them to go on,
and they had not broken faith with the warehouse-
owners, who bad built (as we understood him) 36 ware-.
houses this year, and from 30 to 40 annually for some
years past. The argument formerly was, that we had
warehouses enough, and that what we wanted were addi-
tional decks ; but with an increase of dock space ware-
houses would also be rtqu red, and the present bill went
to take the future docks from the restriction in favour of
the warehouse-owners, of building warehouses round
them. He referred to a document relative to (as we
understood him) the new north docks, where there were
to be seven docks, and not two only as originally thought
of. This did 'IA comprise warehouses, yet be bad heard
of no opposition by the warehouse-owners. Now they
(the trustees) had in this year, 1846, gone for a bill tor
further docks without warehouses ; but this had been de-
feated. He expressed a hope that on this occasion party
feelings would be thrown aside. The speaker alluded to
the propriety of going on with the Harrington works,
and was interrupted by the Mayor as being out of order,
the question being merely whether the two clauses intro-
duced into the bill should be sanctioned by the council.
Mr. V. HIGGINS said the subject had reference to the
whole bill ; and if they were not to hear the argument,
how were they to decide?
Mr. Evarrs said he had but the good of the public in
view, and what he had referred to was applicable to
the subject, The interruption reminded him of the anec-
dn'e of a Scotch member of a public assembly who was
offering some arguments on the question before them,
when one of the party got up and told him that he was
sent there not to speak, but merely to vote. (A laugh.)
He concluded by alluding to the great expense to be gone
to on the Manchester basin.
Mr. KILSHAw seconded the motion of Mr. Moore.
Mr. BtaKETT thought it was desirable not to interrupt
the hill as a whole, as he believed it would be beneficial
tor the public. He bad taken the pains to ascertain the
opinions of the m-rehanta-and trthcrs -wpm' it, and tt-wr
had no objections to it, nor had presented any memorial
against it. The Deck Committee had certainly resisted
these two clauses ; but they had not fought them as, in
his idea of fighting. they ought to have done. Their
noble representative (Lord Sandon) ought to have been
requested to use the weight of his influence and his best
powers to prevent their insertion into the bill. He
alluded to some unfair statements that had been made
relative to the warehouse-owners, who, it was said, had
objected to warehouses on the London system ; but any
unprejudiced man who looked at the plans would be im-
mediately convinced that they had not merited such an
imputation. What be mainly objected to in the first new
clause was subjecting them to apply for an act to build
warehouses " upon and around the quays of all the
docks."

Mr. ROBINSON said that be considered the bill somuch
altered that they could not consistently entertain it. It
was now the offspring of the Council. He found by one
of the clauses that they could not move a brick or put a
spade into the earth to the east of the King's Dock, until
certain other works were completed and another act ob-
tained. This, he conceived, would be a great obstruction.
The act requited them first to put warehouses round the
quays of ail the docks. Now, he was an advocate for
warehouses round the new docks, but nut round, to wit,
the Prince's Dock, where tbeir erection wonld he an in-
convenience. Warehouses round the Wapping Dock Ex-
tension was by tar the most important part of the subject,
and he should therefore advise that they should defer fur-
ther proceedings with the bill until the next session of
parliament.
Mr. MANN said, in reference to the remarks of the last
speaker. that the bill could not be considered as so much i
altered that it could not be recognised. The bill, in fact,
was entirely the same, and was undisturbed, excepting as
to these two clauses. The intended communication be.
tween the docks was a main point, and that was still left.
The bill only called upon them to apply to parliament to
build warehouses upon the quays of the docks when and
where they were required, and upon the good manage-
ment employed in doing so depended the result. Since,
too, there was to be a sort of rivalry from another quar-
ter, he thought it desirable that both parties should j in
together in effecting the greatest possible amount of pub-
lic accommodation.
A MEMBER, whose name we did not ascertain, said
that if they were to be compelled to apply to Parliament
to build warehouses round all the docks, and that within
two years from the termination of the present session, it
would be advisable that the bill should be withdrawn.
The !Vlirott said that if no amendment were proposed,
he should proceed to take the opinion of the Council. on
the motion proposed by Mr. MOORE, and seconded by
Mr. KILSHAW.
A COUNCILLOR said the clauses in question required
warehouses to be built round all the docks. Now, neither
the timber trade nor the coasting trade wanted ware-
houses, which, as regarded them, would be an obstruction.
He therefore.considered it better to let the bill fill through.
Mr. RATHRONE said the import of the attraction in the
bill was merely that they should ask wit
for leave to build warehouses round the docks, but only
self cro. ixja 10l via in
ofavouryosfati hd et
hc
el a
where they were required. He therefore expressed him-
v
Oetes.nf the Council would
oowebres c which be whether they would accept of the bill as it was now re-
turned to them', or reject it. The two clauses had been
introduced by the House of Lords. If they obtained the
upon they
7 requiredwere
euild
warehousest o apply
wfhoerr,
where they
wereuld
not
not requisite—as, for instance, round the timber docks, or
docks for coasters. He had never been an advocate for
the clause, but, having gone so far, he was of opinion that
they should accept the bill. -
Mr. Alderman EARLE enquired of Mr. Moore what
amount of expense had already been incurred in forward-
ing the hill ?
Mr. B. MOORE said not so very much, and that the
whole had arisen from the opposition to it. (Hear.)
Mr. EARLE—WiII the warehouses clear five per cent. ?
Mr. EVANS—Aye and more. I should be glad to lease
them for 124 per cent. (A laugh.)
Mr. BRAM LEY MOORE said the bill was a most impor-
tant one as regarded the effect it would have in affording
means of export and import at a cheaper rate. It would
enable them, inched, to underwork every other port in the
kingdom. Here they would have a dock at the east end
of the King's Dock, in immediate contiguity with the
railway tunnel, which would be accessible without car-
tage. [Mr. Evans
remarked that that was the case now
as regarded the King's Dock.] Another great advantage
would be that cattle, sheep. &c., could be conveyed to the
bottom of the tunnel, by the intended railway along the
inner quays, from the North Docks ; and this, he con-
ceived, would have the effect of bringing back what they
had lost of that trade, in favour of Fleetwood, and
would also increase it—the inconvenience of driv.
ing the animals through the town to the Edge Hill
station being done away with. With respect to
!be warehouse-owners, when it was understood tha,
warehouses were to be built all round the docks, he bad
seen Mr. Birkett and several of the owners who would
have had a right to oppose it, and the subject of the half-
deck floors of the Albert Warehouses, to which t ey were
opposed. was spoken of in consultation with them. He
had been somewhat misrepresented on this point, it being
imputed to him that he had not attended to their remon-
strances. But the fact was, that be had asked them to
write a letter, or, in other words, to hand him in writing
a statement of their objections—for he could nut, in his

3in a certain time

official capacity, depend upon a mere verbal communica-
ti .n—bot they had 'not done so. He had adopted the

same e.onrie with regard to the timber-trader he bad re-
quired a written statement, and so far as regard .d what

i►ad been said•of his conduct with regard to the halt-deck
floors, he- was willing that it should pass for just what it
was worth. He declared that in all he.had done as chair.
man of the Dock Committee, he had been actuated by no
party motives whatever, but solely by,a desire to benefit
the public at large. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. RA7,IIBONE said that it bad been generally under-
stool that the warehouse-owners hadleft the whole mat-
ter in his (Mr. Moore's) hands. (Hear: and a laugh.)
Mr. Moons said that some had chosen to say so, but
the worehouoe-owners had too much discretion to commit
their opinions to writing. He concluded by repeating his
suggestion that the bill with the two• clauses should be
taken.

The MAYOR then put the motion- that the acceptance
f the bill should releive the confirmation of the Council
which was agreed to, the only open dissentient being Mr
Birkett, who exclaimed " No !"