The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-03-01 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

On Saturday a special meeting of the town council was called
for the purpose of receiving and determining on several of the
committee reports. The council met at the usual hour, eleven
o'clock.

THE DOCK ESTATE.
The MAYOR announced that the first report that would be
proceeded with would be the report of the Dock Committee.
Mr. Councillor AMIN, the chairman of the committee, then
rose. They were aware that in the last report the Dock Coin-
mittee had ,expressed a desire that the dock trusts should be
managed on a more liberal scale than preYiously. They had, in
consequence of the suggestion thrown out_by the Mayor, waived
all manner of technicalities, and bad invited the. Dock Coirf
mittee to meet them. The Dock Committee had appointed a
time and place of meeting the various:delegated bodies of Li-
verpool to be present. They would have preferred a conference
with the Dock Committee atone, as they might have suhtnitted
to them suggestions which they could
,not bring before those
various bodies. The Dock Committee, hoWever, expressed 'a
regret that the trustees,. who merely held:Attie ,dock trust pro
tempest, should have given notice of their intention to seek for
a bill without consulting the town council. The DOck Com-.
mittee told them that it would he necessary, in, order to, the
framing of a good bill, that the council and the trustees sheuld,
act jointly together, and fOr which it was, necessary that there
should be certain grounds laid down. The first was, that the
council alone ShOuld.remain trustees for the.docks, and that the
committee of management should consist of twenty-four, twelve.
to be chosen by the council and twelve to be chosen. •by the
rate-payers; that this twenty-four, thus appointed, should choose
their own chairman, and, in the event of an even division, that
the Idayor shOuld decide who should be chairman; and that the
chairman thus appointed should have a second or'. casting vote
in the committee. The Dock Committee expressed a desire also
that the whole of the dock acts relating to the police should be
consolidated, and that the dock police and the town police should
be combined. To tbis the dock trustees decidedly objected, and
said while they remained in power they would not allow the
giving up of the direction of their police to the town, and urged
that hitherto their police had been quite as efficient as the police
of the borough, anti thatbetween this and November next would
be time enough to show whether the new police was more effi-
cient and ought to supersede the dock police ; and, if it was
found to be so, it .might then he desirable that the two police
bodies should be united. But they had no power of obtaining
an union of the two police forces without the Dock Trustees-
consented. He dwelt more, on this point because the Watch
Committee, in their report, had urged it as a sine qua non that
they should make no arrangement without au union of the po-
lice. lie differed with the Watch Committee on this point, be-
eause•there was a doubt that the new police might not be so
efficient as the dock police, and he should be sorry to bind the
dock estate to a system of police that had not vet been tried ; ,
and on that point the Dock Committee and the dock trustees
heilletight, be unanimous. He was sorry to ,say that,
having proceeded so near to an arrangement, there was
still one point-on which they differed, and therefore an arrange-
ment had not yet been concluded. The rate-payersdetermined
that, after the council had chosen twelve of its body to be on the
dock trust, all other members of the council should -be dis-
qualified from being elected on that trust, because it might so
happen that menibers of the council o ho were duck rate-payers
might be chosen to serve on that committee on behalf of the
rate-payers, and thus give a preponderance to the council.
They had arranged all other points except this, and had inti-
mated to the dock trustees that they should state this point to
the council, as they did not thinic it right that they should take
it, upon themselves to disqualify any member of that council
without its consent. If they Should obtain that consent they
should get the matter arranged, hut if not, they remained at
variance. In concluding he could not but regret the separation
which had taken place between the two police forces. All had
formerly been under the management of the town council.
Finding that separation had taken place, they must either go on
the principle of restoring union altogether, or the rate-payers
ought to have a voice in the committee of management. All
they could urge was, that if there should be a preponderance on
either side, that preponderance should he on the part of the,
council. He begged to baud in the report of the Dock Com
mittee.

The TOWN-CLERK then read the repOrt of the committee
pointed by the council on the 6th of January, 1836, to inquire.
into the relative position of the dock trust, and particularly with
reference to the bill new proposed to be introduced into parlia-
ment. On the 3d of February the committee had been reap-
pointed to carry their report into effect, and with authority to
bring forward a bill, if necessary, on behalf of the council. The
report then went on to say that the committee had had two con-
ferences with the dock trustees, and had arranged that the
trusteeship of the docks should remain in the council, but witbout
the veto. That the committee of management should consist of
twenty-four, of whom twelve should be chosen by the council,
from their own body, and twelve should be chosen by the dock
rate-payers. That the chairman should be chosen by the com-
mittee froth amongst themselves, and in case of an equal division
for, chairman, the Mayor to have the casting vote. That the
chairman thus appointed should have the second or casting vote.
That power should be given the committee of management, in
their discretion, to join the Watch Committee in combining the
police, to be under the direction of the Watch Committee, the
dock estate contributing towards the expense. That the amend-
ment of the dock laws should be postponed till next sessions.
That the committee bad not been able to come to an under-
standing on the point that members of the council should not be
eligible to be elected on the managing committee by the rate-
payers. With this exception the committee recommended these
terms for the consideration of the council. The committee
thought the election of members of the council a point peculiarly
for the consideration of the council. Were this principal point
agreed on, the committee had no doubt but that minor differ-
ences might be arranged without difficulty.
Mr. Giuncillor WA LMSLEY said, however unpleasant it might
be to differ from that report, knowing that the gentlemen who
had drawn it up had taken very great pains with it, he yet felt
himself compelled to do so, especially to that part of it WhiCh
alluded to the junction of the two police forces. He considered
that that arrangement should not be left to any future arrange-
ment, tint should now be enforced if they had the power. It
appeared the council bad in part that power, or if not that they
would have in November next. It might be questionable whe-
ther the dock estate should not altogether come within the con-
trol of that council. He apprehended that was the true course
to proceed in. But he would waive that, and merely contend
that they should have the sole appointment of the dock police
force, and combine it with the town police force, in order to
greater efficiency. He thought they could not take a different
view of it without stultifying themselves in some degree. The
council had adopted the following report of the watch commit-
tee ;--4 That this committee do strongly represent to the com-
mittee on the dock bill that it is essential to the good govern-
ment of the police that the whole constabulary force of the town
should be under one committee acting under the advice and
direction of the councii of the borough." It was then a direc-
tion to the dock committee that this arrangement should not be
lost sight of.
Mr. Alderman BROWN said it appeared to him a very extra-
ordinary step to disqualify 52 gentlemen of that council, re-
turned by the confidence of the town, from being members of
the dock estate.
Mr. Councillor RATHBONE.—With respect to this disquali-,
fying clause, he should hope. there would not be two opinions
on it in the council, and it appeared to him monstrous that such
a proposition should be made. Those gentlemen who suggested
such a thing hail been spending thousands of the funds of the
borough to protect a few drunken corporate freemen in the
exercise of privileges for which they were unfit, and they now
most unblushingly came forward to disqualify men who had
'been proved to possess the confidence of their own townsmen.
He trusted that on this point they would be unanimous, and
that his friends on the other side of the question would agree
with them, so that they should not in this instance at least be a
disqualifying committee. With respect to the police, he felt
very strongly, and he did think it was wrong where people had
been giving days and nights to the consideration of the subject,
and had come to the opinion of the advantage of uniting the
police, to question their decision. It had been said by Mr.
Aikin that the new police ought to be tried before applied to
the dock estate, and it hart been said that the dock police was
superior. He hoped it was. But before their rising he should
read such a display of inefficiency of the town police as would
startle every man in that council. The police of Liverpool had
been a disgrace, whether they looked at it as moral men or as
Christians. The degree of vice which had been nurtured by the
police of Liverpool was horrible to look at. But were they to
suppose that the new police, as now constituted, would require
an experimental trying? It would be a disgrace to the com-
mittee who had formed them to give them such a trial. He
believed the dock police was a very inefficient one, notwith-
standing what was said; and the more the dock police was
looked into the more inefficient it would prove. But they were
told that the dock police were willing to surrender up their
power at a future day to the town council; he never knew men
yet having power wh-o were willing to surrender it. I-le thought
it their bounden duty as guardians of the town to protest against
any arrangement which did not unite the two bodies together.
Mr. Councillor HENRY LAWRENCE fully concurred in what
bad fallen front Mr. Walmsley, as to having the two police,
forces united. But he (lid not see any reason against the post-
ponement of this measure, as the power of arranging it would
be ultimately in the hands of the council. On the other point,
he must say he did not agree with Mr. ltathbone in hoping that
they should he unanimous in rendering the non-elected coun-
cilmen eligible to be elected on behalf of the rate-payers. Mr.
Aikin had stated that after the twelve inembers.from the coun-
cil were chosen, no more here to be allowed to be elected from.
the council at large. This was not a novel assertion on the part
of the dock trustees; but it was a part of the old bill that a cer-
tain number of its committee should belong to the council, and
none other of the council. He, therefore, thought that after
twelve members of the council were elected, that they batt-ob,
tamed alt as a body which they could insist on. Brit the council
" were to be looked on collectively and individually; collectiveiv
they could have nothing. to comidain of, and individually it was
more a matter of individual feeling, and ought not to he taken
cognizance of by them as a body. He had lately read a very
ingenious article on the subject. in the AThion, but in which he
did nut concur. Ile did not think that that council was a com-
plete representation of the town; however, it might be a repre-
sentation of some parts of it. (Hear, hear.) Ile heard geu-
tlemen cry "hear," he thought he could satisfy them on that
point. There were 64 of them in that council. From the poll
book it appeared that there were 3038 liberal voters. and 2241
conservative voters—not a very small number of conservatives.
Fle had divided the number of 5279 votes, the total number of
votes which had been given on this occasion amongst the GI coun-
cillors, and according to that it left 82 votes and a fraction for
each member. 2241 conservatives at 83 votes each, would
exactly return 27 members of the council. Could there then
be any one who would say that in that council the conservatives
were faiily represented. There were in that council, as a gen-
tleman had said, 59 individuals to represent one pals., and four
individuals, and as he had been pleased to say, Henry Law-
rence on the other side. ' (Laughter.) And did they mean to
say that five individuals were a fair representation of the con-.
iervatives, whilst the 3038 liberals were represented by 59 indi-
vidualk.
Councillor RATHBONE.—Perhaps the Mayor. would tell
tahcMeihow this had to do with the dock police; he did not ex-
-1,/ePliceive its bearing.
should haAvY" did not think Mr. Lawrence out of order, or he
mr.
Lkwe stated it.
subject. ointa;ics: would say that his argument bore on the
teer occasions it was said that the council
should not be °en
his the dock trust because they did not represept
the town, and
ent went to prove that they were not
now representatives ",)T the town. And under those circum-.
stances he thought it wasamatter for consideration, as they hek come Si) near an arrangementconih with the dock trustees, that they
ought to consider the
his opinion their actingeorporari,
as
alt.l on which they stood ; and in
collective body in the dock estate
was sufficient. As tothe
wouldb e ing
stateat
,a, future rt re
confidenced a y the re-
positories of the dock trust, he
opinion of the most able barrister on the circuit, that on the
arrival of the period of the terrninatiomnihithhedock act, what-
wow ye been, so far
ever the intention of the legislature
from the corporation being trustees, they
'n not he
at all. trustees
Mr. Alderman EvsNs.—lt had baen mentioned by Air.\4ith-
bone, that he never kneis,men to depart c
from power.
not the twelve men to he elected on behalf of the council ere
or.
-.porators,.and vionld they not struggle for their power? (near.)
It they got all but the union of the police, he did think it was

acting in the wantonness of arrogance and power not to make
the slightest concession. It was morally certain that, if they
got the new constitution, the corporation would ultimately get
a predominance to the utmost exttnt they would wish:
Mr. Connelller llomisi said it appeared to him that the po-
lice,tettld not act ellicicutly it it were not under one,head. They
could not ascertain where the duties of the doek -police ended
and where they 'begun ; and he would 'on no account concede
that point. With regard to the other point, that twelve should
be taken from the council, andthat the other should not be eli.
gible to be elected, he really didnot think it of that importance
which others did. Thei, would have twelve to Support the colin-
.
cil, and it was beyond a doubt but that some of the other twelve
would entertain opinions siMilar to these entertained by a ma•
jority of the council; and he, therefore, did nut think it a !nat-
ter worth while contending for,lf all other matters could be
arranged. (Heat.)
The MAYOR had just had a motion handed; to him by Mr.
,Walmsley, and seconded by Akr. Rathbone—" That it lie an
,:instruction to the committee, in consistency with a former testi-
to.insist on the consolidation of the town-police and dock;
police under one controlling power."
Mr. Alderman STUART would ask if all negotiation was at
an end?
Mr. CoUncillor AIKIN.—By no means. They had fallen
back on the council, and the dock trustees on the rate-payers:
Mr. Alderman STUART thought the matter in dispute might
be arranged by the committee again consulting the duck
trustees.
The MAYOR said the committee bad gone as far as they
thought themselves authorized to go, and before they proceeded
further wished to ask the opinion of the council.
Mr. Alderman STUART thought it desirable that the two po-
lice forces should be united, and perhaps the dock trustees would
'not insist on that point if they could arrange the other.,
Mr Councillor Holism'. said the dock trustees went out of
power in November next, when the police bodies might be
amalgamated. He wished to state, as far as concerned the
dock trustees, that they were acting a middle part with the rate-
payers on one side, and the council on the other. It. was of no
importance to the dock trustees how the thing was arranged.
He would caution the council against getting into any ,lispote
on the dock Ail'', It was a tedious and expensive affair. Ile
was one of theiparty fur the separation of the dock estate front
the council in. 1825. They had a great deal of trouble on that
occasion, and the expense exceeded £1,500. Ile would propose ,
" that the subject of the formation of the new dock trust Corn-
mittee should be referred again to the sub-cominittee, with full
powers to settle all points with the present dock trustees, and
report to the council theleon."
Mr. Alderman STUART would second that proposition. He
understood that it was quite the feeling of the committee that
.the police forces should be united if possible.
Mr. Councillor lionspa Li. did this that the door of neeocia.;
Linn might not be shut. If they shut the door of negociation,
the rate-payers would not yield.
Mr. Councillor H. LAWRENCE (in explanation.)—If the
dock estate were to pay a certain sum, they should pay accord-
ing to the number of policemen employed in that district.
Mr.Ceuncillor RATH coNE (in explanation) had no intention
to interfere with the negociatims of the committee, but to give
them additional power.
Mr. Councillor AIK IN said that, with respect to referring
back to the committee with regard to those two points, they had
negociated=on both of thew. With regard to the disqualifying
clause, he must say that he felt disposed at one time to give way;
but the more they had thought on it in committee since, the
more they had been led to believe that they ought not to disqua-
lify any gentle Man of that council. lig hoped a distinct in-
struction would be given to the committee whether they should
give way or not. With regard to the police,
,they were not
going to apply for a bill to regulate the dock police force, but
to regulate the dock estate for the future. Ile would leave that
point to the future committees of management, one-half of the
power of which they should have in their own hands to regulate
that point. With regard to the police, which Mr. Rathbone
had stated to be in a very inefficient state, he must take leave
to say that on every occasion he hail observed the dock police
to be exceedingly efficient. lie recollected that in a wreck case
some time ago the constables of Lancashire and Cheshire failed
in detecting the wreckers on all sides, but the dock-police rendered
west efficient service. It might also be of advantage to have a little
rivalry going on betwixt the two police. He was as much dis-
posed us any man could be to have an union of the two police;
but the fact was, they had not the power to unite them till Nov.
.next. The question was, would they instruct their committee
to meet the dock trustees in parliament on this point? He was
very much inclined to fear that, if it were suggested in the
house, the members would say, "These gentlemen are asking
for a power of which they will be in possession; they are asking
fur a clause to make it imperative that the police should be
united, when, in fact, on the Ist of November next, they will
have the power to do this if it is found desirable."
Mr. LAWRENCE HEYWORTH thought it very desirable that
the two police forces should be united, but there was a provision
already made for its accomplishment; and why should they wish
to anticipate it. He concurred in the motion made by Mr.

Mr. Alderman BENN thought it wrong that fifty-two members
of that council should be disqualified.
Mr. Councillor BLACKBURN thought it necessary that some
resolution recording the opinion of the council should be passed.
To decline coming to any resolution would be an instruction to
the committee to give way on both points.
The MAYOR was just gying to observe that as Mr. Horsfall's
proposition could not be considered as an amendment to Mr.
Walmsley's, it would be well to decide first of all, whether the
council would defer the whole subject back again to the com-
mittee with full powers.
Mr. Councillor Durccer,l would move as an amendment to
Mr. Ilorsfall's motion, "that this council do instruct their com-
mittee appointed to manage the dock affairs on the_ two points
now at issue."

Mr. Councillor MAX WELL seconded the motion.
The Mayon put the question, and Mr. Duncan's amendment
was carried by a large majority. Mr. Walmeley's motion was
now before them.

Mr. Councillor COGLAN, as one of the watch committee,
felt convinced it would be very advan►ageous if both the police
could be placed under one head. Believing the importance of
an arrangement, however, he thought it desirable that they
should pause before they entered into a parliamentary contest.
He did not think they should "stultify" themselves, to use &lr.
Walmsley's expression, if they did not carry the report of the
watch committee fully out. He should say that they ought not
to spend their funds in litigation Wan arrangement could be ef-
fected without. On the other point he concurred with Mr
Bolton.

Mr. Councillor BIRCH would move an amendment on the
motion of Mr. Walmsley, "that the committee be requested to
resume their negociations with full powers to arrange matters at
issue, but on no account to consent to the disqualification of
members of the council."

The MAYOR.—There were two points; Mr. Walmsley's reso-
lution was respecting one, and from the resolution they had just
passed they must instruct the 'committee; Mr. Birch's motion
would do very well for the second point.
Mr. Councillor Ai lc IN said the present dock trustees said dis-
tinctly that while they had the power an union of the police
should not take place. If they were instructed to insist on that
point on a certain rate being paid by the rate-payers, and if the
point were argued in Parliament, how was it to be arranged then
as to the proportion of the rate to be paid. He was afraid that
by insisting on this point they would make it impossible for
the committee to arrange the matter. If they waited till No-
vember next they would be far more likely to accomplish the
desired end.

Mr. Councillor BIRCH thought it would be more convenient
if Mr. Walmsley would allow the disqualification clause to be
put first, and he would move "that it be au instruction to the
committee not to consent to the disqualification of the council
from being elected on the committee."

,Mr. Alderman BARCLA Y;RCO;:IeCi the motion.
Mr. Councillor BOLTON thought it a misconception; it was
snot a disqualification. A provision was made that twelve
persons should be sent out of that council to represent the whole
body.
Mr. Councillor EDWARDCKOPPER.—It was a disqualification
as to the individual members of that council.
Mr. Councillor BOLTON.--If twelve members were,to repre-
sent sixty-four, could they say that any of the sixty-four were
disßuali hed ?

Mr. Councillor JIATHBONE said he was a rate-payer. The
rate-payers might perhaps in their folly think_him a proper per-
son to represent them, and by this act of the council he should
be disqualified.,
The MAYOR was of opinion that in taking the votes on this
question they should not be satisfied with merely rising and
sitting down again, but that the votes should be taken seriatim.
(Hear.) He had not been altogether satisfied with the manner
in which divisions bad recently been taken, though they were
clearly decided ; he thought the public at large ought to know
something .of the manner in which they voted, where principle
was concerned.

Mr. Councillor RATHBONR concurred with the Mayor.
Mr. Councillor BIRCH'S motion Was then put and carried.
The following is a list of the division. Mr. Horsfall declined
voting on it, and left the room whilst the division was taking.
For the motion—Messrs. J. Holmes, Hope, Logan, Thorn•
hill, Harvey,E.Smith,Thornely, Itawdon,WGregor,ll.llohnes,
Walmsley, Birch, Woollrighti Rushton, H. Ilornby,
Rathbone, Preston, Maxwell, Aikin, Lassell, T. Holt, Carson,
Morecroft, Blackburn, Roskell, Coglan, E. Cropper, Alison,
U. Holt, J. Crupper, Jordan, Duncan, Tayleur, Evans, Blain,
Moon, Bulley, Freme, Barclay, Booth, Brown, Jones, Benn,
and the Mayor.
Against the motion—Messrs. Bolton, J. Lawrence, IL Law-
re n ce, Leigh, Sanrlars, and Stuart.
Mr. Councillor HOPE would now move an amendment to Mr.
Walutslev's motion, " that the council do leave the question in
the hand; of the committee."

Alt, Councillor COIi,LAN would move also an amendment,
" that the committee be itistrti'cled to 'use their. endetivotifi to
consolidate the police, but, in the event of the dock trustees re-
fusing to comply, not to have a parliamentary contest but leave
the management to the present directors."
Mr. Councillor 1-IoPE seconded the amendment and withdrew
his own.

Mr. ilmincillor EDWARD CROPPER would strongly urge the
consolidation of the police, if their opinion were strongly ex-
pressed on this point they would have no ,difliculty in carrying it:
After some further conversation the motion and the amend-
ment were again read.
Mr. Councillor DUNCAN would ask what "the management
of the presentdirectors" meant in the amendment?
Mr. Councillor EARLE.--A great many gentlemen did not
understand the amendment, and wished the gentlemen who
moved it to make it clear.

My. Councillor Runt 13;qs said if he might be allowed to give
an explanation of the amendment it was " as you were gentle-
men." (A laugh.)
Mr. Councillor HENRY LAWRENCE.—Mr. Coglan merely
meant that the police question should not be made a sine qua
non in the requisition of the 'committee.
Mr. Councillor COGLAN would withdraw his amendment.
Yes or no on the motion would perhaps answer every purpose.
Mr. Councillor Hopi,: would propose that this council is of
opinion that the consolidation of the police is desirable, but do
not insist on it as a sine qua non."
Mr. Alderman BARCLAY.---They were all agreed on that.
After much conversation on the wording of the motion, it was
finally agreed on as follows " that it be an instruction to the
committee, in conformity with the report already made by, the
watch committee, that it is essential that the consolidation of the
town and dock :police should be directed under one controlling
and directing power, as soon as a legislative enactment can be
obtained."

The motion was then put and carried by a majority of thirty-
one to twenty-three. _ _

The following is a list of the division :—For the motion,
Messr. J. Holmes, Logan, Thornhill, Harvey, Smith, Rawdon,
M'Gregor, H. Holmes' L. Heyworth, Mellor, Walmsley, Bol-
ton, Woollright, Rushton, Rethbone, Preston, J. Lawrence,
Maxwell, Lassell, T. Holt, Morecroft, Roskell, E. Cropper,
Alison, G. Holt, J. Cropper, Blain, Moon, Bulley, Freme, and
Bootle. Against the motion,—Messrs. Hope, Horsfall, Thorne-
ly, Birch, H. Hornby, Aikin, H. Lawrence, Earle, Carson,
Blackburne, Coglan, Leigh, Sandars, Jordan, Duncan, Tay-
lent, Evans, Barclay, Stuart, Brown, T. Smith, Jones,,Benn,
and the Mayor.
Mr Councillor AlKlN.—There being a majority in favour of
the last motion, he, should like to know, in the event of the dock
committee refusing to comply with it, if they were to oppose
them in parliament for the purpose of having a clause intro-
duced.