The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-21 00:00:00

THE INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL

A special meeting of the Town Council was held on Wed-
nesday, to consider and determine as to the proceedings to
be taken in opposition to the Inland Warehousing Bill, par-
ticularly in respect to petitions to the legislature in the name
of the council, and the expense to be incurred by the corpo-
ration, and to consider how far the resolution of the council
of the sth of May should be rescinded or varied.
The MAYOR, having taken the chair at eleven o'clock,
said the first step to be taken would be to read the requisition
which had occasioned the special meeting of the council.
Having read it accordingly, he next read the summons con-
vening the meeting, which was to the following effect :
" Town-hall, 15th May, 1841.
Sir,—You are summoned to attend a special meeting of
the council, on Wednesday next, the 19th of May inst., at
eleven o'clock in the forenoon, in the council chamber,
within the Town-hall, to consider and determine as to the
proceedings to he taken in opposition to the inland ware-
houseing bill, particularly in respect of petitions to the legis-
lature in The name of the council, and the expense to be
incurred by the corporation.
"And also to consider and determine how far the follow-
ing resolution of the council, holden on the sth of May
instant, shall be rescinded or varied.

" Resolved—That a special committee be now appointed
to oppose the inland warehousing bill by any means in their
power, and that the mayor be authorised to affix the seal to
any petition to parliament that the committee may deem ne-
cessary.'

" By order of the mayor,
RICHARD RADCLIFFE, Town-clerk."
Mr. JOHN HoLmEs moved ;hat the proceedings of the
special committee appointed upon the sth instant be read.

The Deputy TOWN-CLERK read them accordingly. The
following is a copy :
" At a meeting of the special committee appointed by the
council of the sth of May, 1841, on the subject of the inland
bonding bill, held the 10th of May, 1841—present, W.
Birkett, John Holmes, W. Purser Freme, and Christopher
Bushell.
" Resolved—That Mr. Birkett be appointed chairman.

" Resolved also—That the town-clerk be directed to pre-
pare the draft of a petition on the principle now suggested by
the committee, fcr the consideration and approval of the
committee, and this committee be adjourned to to-morrow,
at half-past eleven o'clock.
" At an adjourned meeting of the committee, held on the
11th of May, 1841—present, William Birkett, Esq., chair-
man ; W. P. Freme, Robertson Gladstone, John Holmes,
and Christopher Bushell—the town-clerk having submitted
the draft of the petition against the proposed measure,
" Resolved—That the draft, as now altered by the com-
mittee, is approved ; and that two copies thereof be en-
grossed, one for each house of parliament, and that the wor-
shipful the mayor be requested to affix the seal to the same
when so engrossed. _

" Resolved—That the chairman and Mr. Bushell be ap-
pointed a deputation to proceed to London to oppose the
bill.

" WILLIAM tIRKETT."
The DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK next read the petition to
parliament, which had been adopted by the special com-
mittee, as follows :
" To the Right Honourable the Lords spiritual and tempo-
ral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
in parliament assembled ;
" The humble Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Bur-
gesses of the Borough of Liverpool,
" Showeth,
" That your petitioners observe that a bill is introduced
into your right honourable house for the warehousing of
foreign goods at inland towns.
" That this bill will be found to he unsupported by ade-
quate public grounds, injurious as it must be to the revenue.
" That it would be oppressive as regards extensive ware-
house property at the seaports, and particularly at Liverpool,
and of little advantage to the parties in inland towns who
seek its provisions.
" That these individuals make no secret that after the
proposed measure is once introduced, it will be quickly fol-
lowed by the removal of all the conditions and exceptions
with which its proposal by the present bill is accompanied.
" That by an existing regulation it has hitherto been
deemed proper, for security and economy, that the privilege
of storing goods in bond, at Liverpool, should be restricted
to warehouses within 400 yards from the dock quays ; but
now, the present bill proposes the additional risk and expense
of removal from the seaports to distant inland towns.
" That the value of warehouse property in Liverpool,
erected on the faith of the general warehousing system, may
be reasonably computed at no less than four millions sterl-
ing—a very large proportion of which within the 400 yards
is licensed for the reception of bonded goods.
" That this warehouse accommodation is amply sufficient
for the whole district for which Liverpool is the principal
port, and has been called into existence by the present system.
" That in conclusion the proposed measure
" I.—Would be injurious to the warehouse property
at the seaports, and not only so, but
" 2.—Would be of little advantage to the individuals
seeking it in the inland towns, and
"3.—Would be attended with insecurity and conse-
quent injury to the fair trader, and with great ex-
pense to the revenue in watching the goods from
the seaports to the inland towns, and in maintain-
ing, by new customs establishments, the ware-
housing system in those towns, for the preserva-
tion of the revenue.
" Your petitioners therefore pray that the bill may not
pass into a law, and that your petitioners may be heard before
your right honourable house, or any committee thereof, by
themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses, against the
bill and the provisions thereof ; and your petitioners will ever
pray, and so forth. Given under the common seal of the
borough. (Signed) - THOS. BOLTON, Mayor."
Mr. JOIIN HOLMES said that if he were in order he would
move the confirmation of the proceedings of the special com-
mittee.

Mr. SANDS observed that he should be happy to second
the motion.
The MAYOR said the motion was not exactly in order.
The proper course to pursue would be for the persons who
had signed the requisition for the meeting to state their views
and objects in the first instance, and for the discussion to
follow. ' Mr. Evans was the first of the requisitionists.
Mr. EVANS said he had a motion to make. Of course, as
his name was at the head of the requisition, he conceived he
had the right of initiating the subject ; but before he com-
menced he would be glad to know whether the petition was
gone off or not?
The MAYOR said that Mr. Birkett would perhaps answer
the question.
Mr. BIRKETT had no objection to state any and everything
in explanation which might be required, but first he wished
to ascertain the nature of Mr. Evans's motion.
The MAYOR repeated the question. It was simply whether
the petition was gone off or not?
Mr. BIRKETT replied, decidedly not.
Mr. EVANS said, before be proceeded to an analysis of the
petition he wished the Council to reflect that, whatever its
determination might be, it would not be acting inconsistently
by entertaining this question ; but by rescinding the motion
of the sth, it would only be rallying into consistency. This
Council, the Council which now sat, no election having in-
tervened, had decided, by a majority, that on the subject of
the Inland Warehousing Bill it would maintain a strict neu-
trality. Having decided that it would not interfere, that it
would be neutral, if he'(Mr. Evans) had any idea of consis-
tency, it was inconsistent for the Council to act in opposition
to what it had already gravely decided upon. It struck him
as extraordinary how this bill obtained admission into the
finance proceedings, for it was there without note or comment.
The Council had declared to the world that they would be
neutral, which had no doubt influenced the Councils at other
places. They had given a moral pledge to inland towns that
they would not interfere, and he could not figure to himself
any gentleman going to London to confront those to whom
he alluded, without a blush and a feeling of liability to the
charge of having acted with bad faith. Mr. Evans pro-
ceeded to contend that the measure would be perfectly harm-
less so far as Liverpool was concerned, and to answer the
various points set forward in the petition. With respect to
the allegation that it would be injurious to the measure, he
thought that was not a subject for discussion in that room.
The warehouses of Liverpool, he believed, would not be in-
jured at all. It was not likely that warehouses would be
made in inland towns for bonded goods when there were
warehouses on the spot. Mt. Evans directed his observations
chiefly to that part of the petition which alleged the value of
the warehouse property in this town to be four millions
sterling. After the exposure of the fallacy of this assertion
on a former occasion he must suppose it to have been now
inserted either in perfect ignorance of such exposure, or with
the greatest hardihood. He would not reply upon this were
it not that it was committing the Council to a gross misstate-
ment. Mr. Evans proceeded to prove the fallacy of the
statement, which he said he did from approved authorities,
first, by taking the whole superficial extent of the warehouse
property at 1,220,000 yards, and calculating it at £2 per
square yard ; and, secondly, by taking the ground area at
187,000 square yards, and calculating it at £l2 per square
yard, by each of which systems he had the same results, or
£2,244,000. Taking the annual increase of the warehouses,
and calculating it at seven per cent., which was acknowledged
to be the rate of interest accruing from warehouse property,
it appeared to be worth £1,926,542. Taking into considera-
tion the number of warehouses which were used for other
purposes than storing goods they might deduct one-fourth,
and he believed that the true value was nearer to a million
and a half than four millions. After animadverting on the
other clauses of the petition, Mr. Evans moved that the pe-
titton in question be withdrawn, and that parliamentary op-
position to the Inland Warehousing Bill be not persevered in.
Mr. JORDAN seconded the motion.
Mr. BENN supported the motion.
Mr. JouN HOLMES moved as an amendment, "That the
Council confirm the resolution of the Council come to on the
sth instant, appointing a committee, with full powers, to
oppose the Inland Bonding Bill, and that the proceedings of
the said committee be now confirmed."
Mr. SANDS seconded the amendment, and said he under-
stood it had never been intended that the value of warehouse
property should be inserted in the petition. Its insertion
had been owing to some mistake. He had listened with
much surprise to the speech delivered by Mr. Evans, and to
that part also of Mr. Benn's in which the latter gentleman as-
serted that the people of Liverpool had no right to feel them-
selves aggrieved. He (Mr. Sands) maintained that they had
every right to complain, the more particularly as it appear-
ed, from Mr. Evans's speech, if he understood it rightly,
that a sort of private compact existed between the Manches-
ter gentlemen and the Dock Committee who were up in Lon-
don, to theeffect that if the Manchester gentlemen supported
the Liverpool in obtaining the dock bill, the Liverpool gen-
tlemen would support the Manchester in obtaining the in-
land warehousing bill. (No, no.) It appeared, then, that
there existed a private compact.
Mr. EVANS denied that any such compact existed, and
was proceeding to explain, when he was interrupted by cries
of " Chair," and " Order."
The MAYOR thought that Mr. Sands should be allowed to
prcceed.
Mr. EVANS said he merely wished to say a few words in
explanation, in order to set Mr. Sands right on the sub-
ject. (Hear.)
The MAYOR informed Mr. Evans that he would be afford-
ed an opportunity afterwards of explaining, but that at pre-
sent Mr. Sands was in possession.
Mr. SANDS proceeded to observe that he had certainly in-
ferred from the tenor of Mr. Evans's observations, that
there existed a private compact between the two parties. If
however, his inference was an erroneous one, it would be for
Mr. Evans to explain, but he had understood him to say
that the council had pledged itself to the principle of non-
interference. Mr. Benn had further informed the council
that the deputation told the Manchester gentlemen that the
council would not oppose the passing of the inland warehous-
ing bill. According to Mr. Evans, the bill, if carried, would
merely cause the erection of a few bonded vaults in the inland
towns, but if this were so, why should such enormous ex-
penses be incurred as by the act was proposed for keeping up
customhouse-officers for that which was not beneficial. If it
were, however, beneficial to Manchester, it would, in the
same ratio, be injurious to Liverpool.
Mr. EVANS explained. No contract had been made with
the Manchester gentlemen. An implied one existed,inas-
much as the council had already decided on maintaining
neutral ground.
Mr. SANDS was glad to find it admitted that an implied
contract of the kind had absolutely had existence.
Mr. G. Hour thought, that Mr. Evans's explanation was
not quite as full as he expected it would have been. The
fact was, that the Liverpool deputation had merely conveyed
to the Manchester gentlemen what had taken place in the
council. There existed no private agreement between the
parties, but merely a conveyance, as he had said, was made
to the Mancbester deputation of what the council had been
pleased to determine. The slightest pledge of any kind had

not been given. ( Hear.)
Mr. EVANS said that so far from any such pledge having
been given, the Liverpool council continued to oppose them.
Mr. BENN corroborated the explanation given by Mr.
George Holt.
Mr. G. HOLT thought that if the council were about to
present a foolish petition to parliament against the contem-
plated bill, they ought to speak the truth, and not represent
the value of warehouse property to be four millions, when a
million and a half, or two millions would be nearer the mark.
Mr. BIRKETT considered it desirable that the council
should understand the position in which it was at present
placed. When he had brought forward a motion on the in-
land warehousing bill, it would be in the recollection of the
members that there was no bill then before the house, and
that Mr. Case objected to his motion at the time, because
there was nothing before parliament. Having been in Lon-
don, and hearing that such a measure was about to be intro-
duced, he (Mr. B.) thought it his duty to bring the matter
at that early period before the council. Many gentlemen took
part against his motion, and it had been eventually stated
that when the proper time arrived, the Finance Committee,
being authorised to watch the bringing in of bills into the
house, would take the matter up. When the proper time
did arrive—that was, when the bill had been introduced into
the House of Commons, the Finance Committee, following
up the line of conduct pointed out, made a representation to
the council that such a bill had been brought forward, and
then the mayor had given it as his opinion that the period
had arrived for the council to take up the matter. The sub-
ject was then brought forward ; forty-six members were pre-
sent, and by a majority, exclusively composed of the repre-
sentatives of the burgesses, a committee to oppose the bill
was appointed. Perhaps the council would allow him to
say how the representatives of the burgesses in the council
stood in this matter. (Hear, hear.) There was, then, a
very large majority of the representatives of the burgesses in
favour of opposition being rendered to the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. EVANS.—Is this orderly?
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES.—Undoubtedly it is.
Mr. BIRKETT maintained that he was perfectly in order.
He had taken down the words used by Mr. Evans with re-
spect to the representation of the town, and he thought he
had a perfect right to show that the majority of the represen-
tatives of the burgesses were in favour of the motion which
had therefore been submitted to the council. (Hear, bear.)
In the first place, he would take the liberty of informing the
council that out of the seven who had signed the requisition
upon which the present special meeting of the council had
been convened, four were aldermen. (Hear.) One of those
aldermen sat in the council with the same right as he (Mr.
B.) did himself, because he had been elected by the council,
and not rejected by the burgesses; whereas, the other three
consisted of men who had been rejected by the burgesses,
and absolutely sat in the council with the opinions of the
burgesses against them. (Hear, hear.) It was right, there-
fore, that the question of the representation of the town
should be fairly understood. His own impression was, that
aldermen who had been elected by the council, after having
been rejected by the burgesses, could have no grounds for
sitting there except those of legal sufferance. (Hear, hear,
and uproar.)
The MAYOR interrupted. Aldermen had as much right to
sit in the council as either Mr. 13irkett or himself had. All
the members sat there on legal sufferance.
Mr. BIRKETT said he should not have alluded to the sub-
ject, had not Mr. Evans talked of the representation of the
town in the council. He would ask, who were the parties
authorised to give the pledge of which mention had been
made, or why it was that they were to be considered as dis-
graced for having opposed such a bill as the present? Surely
they were not disgracing themselves for standing up for the
town , its trade, and its property ? With regard to the value of the
warehouses being set down at four millions, his own impres-
sion was that that had been objected to, and that it had been
overstated. He differed in opinion with Mr. Evans when he
said that any opposition rendered to the bill would turn out
to be inoperative. Mr. Evans had given no reasons for
thinking that it would be inoperative, but had merely dealt in
assertions. He (Mr. B.) thought it the duty of the council
to stand up for the town, and he also thought that any ex-
penses incurred in rendering opposition to such a bill as the
preaent would be perfectly justifiable under the circum-
stances. For what purpose, he would ask, had the members
been sent to the council ? Councils had been appointed for
the express purpose of doing that generally which indiviauals
were unable to do as individuals. They all knew that when
the representatives of large bodies moved, they moved in a
much better and more effective manner than when individu-
als, single-handed, proceeded to work, inasmuch as they had
all their machinery complete. He thought he could claim
for the committee the confidence of the council for the manner
in which they had hitherto conducted the opposition to the
bill. The petition had not been as vet sent off to London,
neither had any expenses been incurred. He had written to
both the members for the borough to ascertain the period
when the bill would be brought before the house ; but there
was no intention, as had been asserted by Mr. Evans, of em-
ploying barristers to conduct the opposition. He thought the
council would not place itself in any invidious light by ad-
hering to the resolution which it had so recently adopted.
Himself and his colleague had been asked in their capacity of
churchwardens, to convene a meeting of the parishioners to
take the subject into consideration, but he had told the re-
quisitionists to wait until it was first seen what resolution
the council would adopt. He had been asked since the Mon-
day preceding, and he certainly found it difficult to furnish a
suitable reply to the question, whether the parties who had
been getting up the present meeting and opposing the in-
terests of the town were mad. (Hear, hear.) He unques-
tionably did not consider them to be very wise, and he men-
tioned the fact to show the feeling which pervaded the minds
of the public out of doors. Mr. Birkett concluded by
stating, that with respect to the mistake about the four mil-
lions in the petition, he thought he might say on the part of
the committee that it would be amended.
Mr. FREME said he had objected in committee to the in-
sertion of the four millions in the petition, that Mr. Glad-
stone had also objected to it, and that he understood it to he
the unanimous decision of the committee that it should not
be inserted. He was much surprised, therefore, at seeing it
retained, and thought the town-clerk might be able to explain
how it had occurred. He had objected to it on two grounds
—first, because he thought they ought to have had some data
for it, and next, because he thought it made against their ar-
gument. He believed that Mr. Evans had understated the
value of warehouse property in the town, and that its actual
value lay between Mr. Evans's statement and that contained
in the petition.
The TOWN-CLERK explained. In the instructions he had
received the value of the warehouse property was computed
at not less than four millions, and upon those instructions he
had prepared the petition. He was not of opinion that he
had received any instructions to qualify that statement, but
some misapprehension might possibly have existed upon his
part.

Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE asked whether there would be
any objection to read the former resolutions which had been
come to on this subject? Mr. Evans having said that the
council were pledged to neutrality, he (Mr. Lawrence) wished
to know if that were the fact?
The TOWN-CLERK did not find that there was any resolu-
tion on the books, but his own impression, or rather his
conviction, was, that a motion had been made, by way of
recommendation to the finance committee, watch the pro-
gress of bills in parliament ; and that recommendation having
been made, it did not appear on the face of the council pro-
ceedings.
Mr. JAS. LAWRENCE then asked whether, if it was not on
the proceedings, the council could be considered as pledged ?
Mr. BtiaxErr briefly explained the way in which the mat-
ter stood, and at the close of the explanation,
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE said he coud not discover that the
council was pledged in any way. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHIEL explained that a motion was brought forward
as an amendment on the proceedings of the Finance Com-
mittee, that they oppose the Inland Bonding Bill, which
motion was lost, the Council deciding that no steps should
be taken in the matter.
Mr. G. H. LAV:'RENCE agreed with Mr. Shiel, that the
subject had received a full and fair discussion at the time to
which he alluded, but they had then been told that they were
precipitate. The fact of its having come before the Finance
Committee afterwards showed that at least that committee
considered it entitled to a full and fair consideration. Why
had the council agreed to discuss it at all? They ought to
have been told that they were pledged, and that they were
bound in honour not to go further, and that would have
been the time for Mr. Evans to have told the council what
had passed in London. (Hear, hear.) He confessed that
if those several things had been done, they might have made
some impression on his mind. As to the question itself, he
was not at all afraid of it. He did not think that warehouses
in the inland towns would damage Liverpool. He had said
heretofore that they were unnecessary, and that they were
designed for the purposes of patronage and jobbing, and he
thought so still. He believed that the interests of Man-
chester and Liverpool were very much united. He was
against the rescinding of the original resolution of the coun-
cil, because it would open a door to faction. When parties
were so evenly balanced in the council, how often would it
happen that half a dozen gentlemen would get up a requisi-
tion to the mayor to convene a special meeting in order to
rescind or vary former acts, when they conceived that one
man was out of town and another man indisposed ! (Hear,
hear.) It was upon this ground more than upon any other
that he called upon the council to vote in favour of the origi-
nal resolution.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Aikin rose together, but the latter

. •
having given way,
Mr. PARKER proceeded to say that Mr. Birkett seemed at
a loss to account for the conduct of Mr. Evans. He (Mr. P.)
was not at all at a loss to account for it. As the leader of the
radical party, Mr. Evans must feel nettled at seeing any of
his pet measures successfully opposed ; but the party should
make up their minds to be placed in the position of the mi-
nority of the council on many occasions for the future.
(Hear, hear.) The question with him (Mr. Parker) was,
whether the bill affected the constituency he had the honour
to represent ; and, in his opinion, it affected them so far as
it encouraged inland bonding in other towns, and decreased
bonding in the same ratio in seaports. He was satisfied that
if the council rescinded the resolution which had been so
unanimously, fairly, and honourably passed in council that
day fortnight, there was not a ward in the town that would
not protest against it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. AIKIN said, the present question had been four times
before the council, on two of which occasions it had been
fully discussed. On the last occasion it was brought forward
rather by a sidewind than otherwise, many of the members
of council having left, under an impression that there was
nothing in the proceedings of the finance committee which
called for discussion ; and if, upon that occasion, they had
gone to the vote two or three minutes sooner or later than
the had, the thing would have been lost. He, therefore,
thanked Mr. Evans for having afforded the council an op-
portunity for considering the matter again. On reading the
petition, which he would not praise for its literary merits, or
the principles it involved, he would proceed to reply to its
first and second clauses, in which it set forth that the bill
would be injurious to warehouse property, and that it would
be of little advantage to the individuals seeking to obtain it.
Both those propositions could not be correct; one or the
other of them should be untrue. If it were injurious to Li-
verpool, it must be beneficial to the inland towns, and if be-
neficial to the inland towns, why did Liverpool oppose it?
Did not the council, on the very face of the petition, declare
themselves to be selfish, and that they were pursuing a course
of conduct in itself unjust? He trusted the petition would
not be adopted, and that the seal would be torn from the

bond.
Mr. HENRY LAWRENCE rose for the purpose of setting
Mr. Aikin right, that gentleman having said that the present
question had been smuggled before the council on the last
occasion. The fact was otherwise, for, according to the no-
tice which had been issued, it stated that " the proceedings
of the finance committee, comprising the inland warehousing
bill," would come under consideration.
Mr. HARBORD said the four millions which was stated to
be the value of the warehouse property, was made up by the
addition of the value of the land which was fit for warehouse
purposes.
Mr. BLACKBURN supported Mr. Evans's motion. He en-
treated of the council to act with consistency, and said that
the act of depriving inland towns of the benefit arising from
bonded warehouses was one of despicable selfishness upon
the part of Liverpool. Liverpool wanted no little paltry
thing of the kind to maintain herfprosperity ; all she looked
for was—a clear stage and no favour.
Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE thought the gentlemen
with whom he usually acted had, on the present occasion,
good grounds for complaint. (Hear, hear.) The considera-
tion of this subject had been fairly and honestly brought
before the council by Mr. Birkett ; it was discussed when
forty-six members were present, the majority decided that
the corporation should oppose the bill, a committee was ap-
pointed and approved of by the council, the committee met
they drew up a petition to parliament, and that peti-
tion had received the common seal of the corporation.
(Hear, hear, hear,) Certainly one portion, he must
admit, of that petition had been very properly brought before

the notice of the council by Mr. Alderman Evans, but Mr.
Alderman Freme had accounted for the introduction of tha
particular part which touched upon the value of warehouse
property, and he (Mr. Gladstone) could confirm what Mr.
Alderman Freme had stated. (Hear, hear.) But he would
ask, what could be the object of re-opening a question on
which the council had already decided, a proceeding which,
under all the circumstances, was without a precedent since
he had held a seat in that council. Was it to affirm the
principle that all majorities were minorities? If that was
the case, what a debt was owing to those gentlemen who sat
at his cud of the council-room since the passing of the mu-
nicipal reform bill ! (Hear, hear.) Was this the object of
those gentlemen who were in favour of the inland bonding
bill ? Though they refrained from taking an open part in
forwarding it, was it possible for them not to admit the prin-
ciple that some injury might be sustained by Liverpool? Else
why (lid not the council take it up as a national subject—as
a national benefit—as they have done other measures, but
that they had a secret feeling, which told them it must to a
certain extent injure that property which they were bound
to protect. These were his sentiments,- other gentlemen
might argue the subject as they chose. (Hear, hear.) Now,
why did those gentlemen absent themselves, when this sub-
ject was lately discussed who were broughtthereto-day? What
was lie to infer from their conduct but this—that they thought
the opposition proposed to be offered to the inland bonding
bill was right and just in itself? (Hear.) If that were not the
case, he defied any gentleman to infer less unfavourably of
their conduct than that they had exhibited a sort of cold
neutrality in the matter. (Hear.) Upon a former occasion
this measure was termed a sort of harmless phantom, that no
one could approach, as injurious—a sort of child of the inland
towns. He feared that a very troublesome child it would
prove, and what was more, that it would ripen into manhood,
and that it would show Liverpool what it could effect by her
empty warehouses. (Great applause.) If, upon the other
hand, the measure was an innocuous one, if, as was said, it
was not calculated to do harm to the interests of Liverpool,
how did gentlemen account for the greediness and avidity
with which the inland towns were using all their means to
obtain this measure ? (Hear, hear.) We heard of individual
opinions, to the contrary, but were those opinions to be set
up in opposition to those of the inland towns, which claimed
to have bonding warehouses, and who had, no doubt, weighed
the advantages to be derived from them ? It was very seldom
that he (Mr. Gladstone) ventured to refer to the opinions
and actions of other members of the council, because he
thought each member had quite enough to do to keep in
proper train their own sentiments, and to act for themselves
without reference to what others in the council might say or
do. But he confessed that when he heard a lecture upon the
subject of consistency, falling from the individual who pre-
ceded him, he was somewhat startled. If he might be per-
mitted to advert to it, as consistency was one of the grounds
upon which the propriety of the council reconsidering this
measure, was advocated, he would recall to the recollection
of the council, some discussions which had taken place in
that room, which some gentlemen who were new members
might not be aware of, and which showed with what jealousy
the council viewed the subject of their own consistency. He
was not departing from the course of argument he was bound
to adere to when he said he must allude to what had fallen
from one member upon the subject of the Botanic Garden ,
being opened upon Sunday, and on the question of this coun-
cil subscribing to the funds for carrying on those gardens, ,
" upon the condition of their being opened upon the Sab-
bath day." The gentleman who bad preceded him, and who
was remarkably fond of taunting the tories, and of directing
his spleen towards them, who seemed to like a tory as he
would something which should be nameless, and whose own
character and consistency was so spotless upon this particu-
lar subject, on the 6th May, 1840, stated in that room that it
was unlawful—sinful—to open the gardens up.on Sunday,
and that the Sabbath was not intended for the purposes of
recreation. Yet upon the Bth of July, in the same year, he
turned round, eat his own words, and voted right in the face
of the sentiments he had uttered on the 6th May. Gentlemen
who came lately into that Council should have some idea of this
consistency ; because the consistency of the Council was not
the touchlcss phantom he had alluded to, but something to
lay hold upon, and he hoped they would attentively take it
into their consideration. He might also express a hope that
those gentlemen who sat on his side of the room would on
all occasions continue to conduct themselves like gentlemen ;
that when they made remarks upon others they might be
made in a better spirit, and in language more appropriate
than that just directed against his (Mr. Gladstone's) friends.
(" Hear,' and applause.) Did the Council wish him to refer
to any other instances, to remind them of their inconsis-
tency ? Should he bring forward the question of the admis-
sion of reporters to the Dock Committee? Should he remind
the Council how often that object was discussed and defeated,
brought forward by a " Tory," and that they adhered with
the utmost tenacity to their opinion, and refused to admit
the press. (Hear, hear.) But what did they do afterwards ?
Why, they too absolutely turned round and voted the other
way r (Hear.) Reporters were then admitted. (Hear,
hear.) That was a sample of their consistency. Now this
subject of consistency led lihn to another equally dear to the
Council, namely, the question of interference and non-inter-
ference. If there was a bill brought forward by the legisla-
ture in which the Council had no direct interest—for altering
the municipal representation of Ireland—a bill for reducing
the rates of postage—or for removing the disabilities of the
Jews—or any other measure which, locally speaking, they
had no connexion with—then the order of the day was "in-
teirferenee ;" but how was it when the property of the
Corporation was attacked ? Have they attended to the oath
or affirmation taken by every gentleman before entering that
Council? Did they not bind themselves, if not by that oath
or affirmation, at least by promises to their constituents be-
fore they were elected, to protect the property with the charge
of which they were invested for the welfare of the town?
(Hear.) Yet, it would almost seem they, with their eyes
open, positively permitted others, in violation of the pledge
which they were bound to adhere to, and upon the ground of
"liberality," to come into the town-hall to pick our pockets,
and say " Gentlemen, pray go on, we will not look at you !"
(Great applause.) These were the views he had formed as
regarded his own line of conduct, and for himself had laid
down this ground, that unless he did to the best of his ability
defend those interests which were committed to his charge,
however deficient in ability, he was guilty of a serious and

responsible neglect of duty. (Loud cheers.) Another point,
tauntingly as it was put, and to which he (Mr. Gladstone)
should not have alluded, had it not been mentioned by the
preceding speaker—was this. We were told that the oppo-
nents of the inland warehousing bill, in defending their own
and the property of the corporation, had some!hing to gain,
that the) were actuated by a selfish motive in their opposi-
tion. They could, however, throw the taunt back to the
other side, they had nothing to lose." (Hear, hear.) How
stood the account then ? (Hear.) If the council should
decide, by its votes, that the opposition to the inland ware-
housing bill should not be proceeded with, it appeared to
him that there would be one of two courses left—for the gen-
tlemen with whom he meant to vote—to adopt. If excite-
ment and agitation were to be the means used by some mem-
bers of the council there, it would be for the opponents of the
bill to agitate also, and to move fora i econsideration of the sub-
ject. That was one course. The second was, for the true and
"unforced" majority, to send a deputation from their own body
—to proceed to London to carry on the object of that petition
before parliament, and there to oppose the bill. They were
the true and natural majority, free from all compulsion, who
decided in that room that the bill should be opposed by this
council, and that that opposition should be grounded upon
the fact that the passing of the bill must be injurious to the
interests of Liverpool, which they were sworn to protect.
(Hear, hear.) It was unnecessary for him to follow the ar-
guments used by Mr. Alderman Evans. He (Mr. Gladstone)
was one of those who thought that good might ensue from
the passing of the dock warehouse bill ; but be thought there
were few who were not prepared to admit that that bill, even
supposing it to confer some benefits, would prove to have
been purchased at an exorbitant price, were there no other
concession than that given to Cheshire. Mr. Alderman
Blackburne had argued, as others had done, that no injury
could result to Liverpool from the passing of this measure.
This ground he considered, as he had already said, to be un-
tenable; for the measure must of necessity, as it conferred
benefit on the inland towns, inflict injury on the seaport
towns. A course of neutrality, on the part of the council,
was much to be deprecated ; and let them argue as they
chose, it was impossible to conceal the fact, that if this
bill were passed into a law, which he hoped it would
not be, there could be no other result than that it should
affect this town and the property in it, as he had stated, and
damage those interests which they were there to protect.
Mr. Alderman BLACRBURNE said he had no recollection
of the circumstance to which Mr. Gladstone had alluded.
Mr. Gladstone said he would read, from two numbers of the
Liverpool Standard, what had passed on the occasions he
alluded to, which having done with the permission of the
council, Mr. Alderman Blackburne stated Mr. Gladstone
had not made out his charge, and accused him of malice pre-
pense in bringing it forward.
Mr. PLATT supported the motion. His own experience
proved, he said, that however Manchester might be benefitted,
Liverpool would riot be injured by the proposed bill.
The MAYOR said Mr. John Holmes had altered the terms
of his amendment. It would now stand as follows : " That
this council do now confirm the resolution of the council
come to on the sth instant, appointing a committee, with fullpowers, to oppose the inland bonding bill, with the correction
of the amount of warehouse property in the petition."
Mr. CASE said he had hitherto given a silent vote on the
subject. He bad voted on the last occasion for non-inter-
ference, and he still continued of the same opinion, for he
thought the measure would not in the slightest degree injure
Liverpool.
Mr: EVANS replied, and the council divided, when the
amendment was carried by a majority of 2ti to 25. The fol-
, is a ltst of the division
For the amendment.—Messrs. J. Holmes, Hodgson, Isaac
Holmes, Houghton, Copeland, Wright, Barton, Blundell,
Henry Holmes, Sands, J. Lawrence, Robinson, Cooper, H.
Lawrence, Wood, Birkett, Gladstone, Proctor, Kilshaw,
Parker, R. Jones, Leigh, John Smith, G. H. Lawrence, A.
Smith, and Harbord.
Against the amendment.—Messrs. Quayle, Thornhill,
Case, Mellor, Walmsley, Aikin, Woollright, Priestley, More
croft, Slater, M`Kee, Jordan, Platt, Mather, J. Hornby, T.
Holt, Bulley, Blackburn, Booth, Sheil, Evans, Barclay,
Benn, G. Holt, and the Mayor.
The council broke up at a quarter before two o'clock.