The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-02-08 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL TOWN COUNCIL.

an expenditure of less than £5O or £lOO. Was it to be
said that such gentlemen were to be made mere sport or
bye play, in order to inform the Dock Committee's Sur-
veyor what the work could be done for. (Hear, hear.) There
was a trite saying that a man's word was his bond, but he
would ask could that remark be reasonably said to be
true when applied to the conduct of the Dock Committee
in this matter ? He said that the proper construction of
the advertisement was that the lowest tender would be
accepted, and Mr. Tobin himself had just admitted that a
little more care in the wording of the advertisement, on
the part of the Dock Committee, would have prevented
all this dispute. He (Mr. Gladstone) quite agreed with
Mr. Tobin in that opinion. Perhaps Mr. Molyneux
would have said " a little more common sense," because
the common sense, according to Mr. Molyneux, was all
on the side of the Dock Committee. (Hear, and a
laugh.) Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that there
was not only common sense in the Council, but he might
add that it dared also to be honest. (Hear, hear.) He
(Mr.G.) was anxious for an adjournment of the last meet-
ing, for two reasons. Helhought it would give breathing
time to the Dock Committee, and also to the Council.
He believed they had been told by the Chairman of the
Dock Committee that, when they met on Thursday last,
they did not consider themselves in a position to do any_
thing in connexion with the matter, in consequence of the
Council having adjourned to this day. Now, he quite dis-
agreed with such a conclusion. It was true that, as
regarded the Council, it might be said that it was in a
state of suspense, but there was this before the Dock
Committee, whether it was prudent to persist in a course
which was illegal, (Hear, hear.) The Dock Committee
had said, notwithstanding the veto, that Mr. Hartley-
should go on with these works. The Council had said
" No, we think you are bound to take the lowest tender,
and that was Mr. Baker's." That was before the Dock
Committee, but their dictum had gone forth, and by it they
said they would be bound. Now he should like the opi-
nion of the Town-Clerk as to whether the Dock Committee
could stultify the acts of that Council. Mr. Bigham bad
told them that Mr. North said in the Dock Committee, on
Thursday last, " You can go on with the works, notwith-
standing the veto of the Council." We had, in fact, been
told that the Dock Committee could do as they liked, and
that war the long and short of the matter. Now if that
was so. he (Mr. Gladstone) was not disposed to take upon
himself the responsibility of having anything to do with
the acts of the Dock Committee. He must confess that
although he was one of those who would be happy to see
a way of escape on this question, yet the arguments had
not convinced him that he should vote differently to what
be did on the last occasion. They had nothing for it but
to come to the same decision they had already done, and
to maintain their rights. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOEGSON having said a few words in opposition to
the veto.

MEETING YESTERDAY.

The adjourned monthly and special meeting of the
Council was held yesterday, the Mayor presiding.
Before the regular proceedings commenced, Mr.
'ouncillor BRADLEY denied that at the last meeting on
Wednesday, he applied to Mr. Alderman Parker certain
opprobrious terms, imputed to him in the Mercury of
Friday last. The words " 1 will fight you," were applied
1y Mr. Parker to him (Mr. Bradley).
The MAYOR said he did not hear the words. Had be
,card them from that end of the room, he should have
felt it his duty to require their instant withdrawal.
CHE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE DOCK
COMMITTEE ON THE WAPPING DOCK CONTRACT.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE VETO.
After some discussion, as to whether the debate upon
the Dock Committee's proceedings should commence
de noro, Mr. Bigham and other members being of
pinion that it was desirable to re-commence the debate
As a special Council, in order that the proceedings might
he legal.
The MAYOR asked if it was the pleasure of the Coun-
cil to have the whole of the Dock Committee's proceed-
ins read ?
The TOWN-CLERK advised that at least that part of the
proceedings on which the veto had been moved should be
read.

Mr. BrGHANr, in order to make themselves doubly
sure, would have the whole of the proceedings read.
The MAyott.—Perhaps, in order to save time, the
Council would consider them as read. (Cries of " 'Yes,
yes.")
The Deputy TOWN-CLERK then read that part of the
Dock Committee's proceedings on which the veto had
been moved.

After a conversation, from which it appeared that the
MAYOR had not the power to prevent those gentlemen
from now speaking on the question, who had addressed
the Council on Wednesday last, his worship put it to the
members who had already spoken upon the question not
to go over the same ground again. The debate was then
resumed by

•
Mr. J. B. LLOYD, who vindicated the vote lie had
already given in favour of the veto. The more he thought
upon the matter the more he was convinced that the
Council came to a right decision upon the question. No
one looking at the advertisement for the contracts, and
taking it in connexion with the explanations since offered
by the Dock Committee, could come to any other con-
clusion than that it was intended to deceive the Messrs.
Baker and the public, and that, notwithstanding the
advertisement, the Committee from the first in-
tended to execute the works by their own engineer ;
and if that had been understood it was not likely
that they would have had a single tender pre-
sented to them. (Hear, hear.) But leaving this part
of the question, he considered that Messrs. Baker's
tender was, after all, the lowest, as it included all the
casualties. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Lloyd, in continuation,
contended that the very resolution come to by the Dock
Committee (since the Council exercised the veto), offering
to compensate the Messrs. Baker for the expense to
which they had been put in making out the tender,
showed that the Council was right in the course it had
taken, and that the Dock Committee was wrong. He had
heard nothing to convince him that the Council was
wrong in exercising the veto, and he should therefore
vote for the confirmation of the veto upon the proceed-
ings of the Dock Committee with regard to this matter.
Mr. AVISON, for the very reasons alleged by Mr. Lloyd,
was of opinion that the Council ought not now to exercise
its power of veto. The resolution passed by the Dock
Committee, referred to by Mr. Lloyd, supposed on the
part of the committee that they had done the Messrs.
Baker an injustice by not, informing them in the adver-
tisement of their intentions with regard to their own sur-
veyor. It was on the ground of such an omission by the
Dock Committee, that he (Mr. Avison) had supported the
veto. But now the Dock Committee came before the
Council in an entirely different form. ' They had passed
this resolution, seeing that they had done wrong, and
called upon Messrs. Baker to inform them what expenses
they had been put to in preparing their estimates. But
what do Messrs. Baker do ? They said.—no doubt influ-
enced by certain parties in this town—" We will not agree
to your proposition at all, but we will refer the matter to
Mr. Stephenson or some other engineer." Their object,
no doubt, was, in referring it to Mr. Stephenson, to get
the contract. Now, as Dock Trustees the Council had no
right to thrust any such terms upon the Dock Committee.
The Dock Committee themselves were supposed to know
what was the best course to pursue in the execution of
their works, and he (Mr. A.) thought the Council ought
to be very cautious before leaving such a question as this
to the arbitration of an engineer. (Hear, hear.) On
these grounds he had come to the decision to give a diffe-
rent vote to the one he gave on the last occasion.
Mr. BRANcrcEa followed on the same side, being of
opinion that as the Dock Committee had offered reparation
to Messrs. Baker for the error they had committed, the
works should now be allowed to proceed. He strongly
urged this course to be pursued by the Council, on the
ground that the trade of this port would sustain a serious
loss if the works were not allowed to proceed. He shrunk
from dwelling upon the dangerous and difficult position in
which the port would be placed, if the Council now threw
itself in the face of the Dock Committee.

Mr. TURNER, M.P.. as chairman of the Dock Com-
mittee, replied. He said that, after the protracted debate
that had taken place, it was not his intention to speak at
any length, but it was right that he should correct one or
two erroneous statements which had been made on the
present occasion. He was a good deal surprised to hear
from Mr. Lloyd such words as " deception" applied to
the Dock Committee, looking at the gentlemen who
formed that committee. Mr. Turner reiterated his assu-
rance that the advertisement was issued with the intention
of accepting any tender that might bare been much below
Mr. Hartley's estimates. Mr. Gladstone had used the
words bona fide. He (Mr. Turner) repealed that the
advertisement was bona fide. It was issued with
the intention of giving the contract to some of the
parties tendering, and there was no ground whatever
for what had bean openly stated by some, and in-
sinuated by others, that there was no intention of giving
it to the contractors. If there had been a lower tender
than Mr. Hartley's it would have been given to the party
so tendering. He must say that with reference to this
transaction the acts of the Dock Committee had not been
discussed with that fairness which he often hadhad the plea-
sure to witness on former occasions. Everything that had
been done by the Dock Committee had been held up in a
captious or an invidious sense. There seemed to be an
impression that nothing that the Dock Committee could
do or had dons on this question could be the right course.
(Hear, hear.) With reference to the second resolu-
tion that was passed by the Dock Committee he
did hope, when Mr. Bigham proposed that resolution,
that there would be an end of the questio❑ altoge-
ther, and Mr. Bigham certainly led the committee to
expect it. He said that lie thought it desirable to get rid
of the matter. (Hear, hear.) Had they then not a right
to expect that Mr. Bigham would, on this occasion, have
been in favour of the views of the Dock Committee ?
(Hear and laughter from Mr. Bigham.) He (Mr. Turner)
was at a loss to know what had changed Mr. Bigham. It
had been stated that, since that resolution was passed,
directions had been issued to go on with the works. Now,
the fact was, there was no such resolution on the books,
and it was not so. He bad also examined the engineer,
who said it was not so,
Mr. BIGHAM—The words that fell from the Chairman
of the Committee were, " You had better not go on with
the works, Mr. Hartley." . _ _

Mr. TURNER, in continuation, explained that the only
works gone on with was the removal of the gridiron, which
had already been sanctioned by the Council. The Dock
Committee throughout had shown a desire to act in obe-
dience to that Council. At the last general meeting of the
committee an unanimous opinion was expressed to the
effect, that as the Council had vetoed the proceedings, the
works ought not to be proceeded with, and as they saw injury
was being done by the delay,he was asked to get the opinion
of the Town-clerk as to the propriety of calling a special
meeting of the Council for the purpose of altering their
decision, and the Town-clerk gave his written opinion that
a special Council could not be held. He repeated that
they had shown a desire to show deference to the Council,
but every step they had taken seemed to have been corn-
plainei of. He had felr a desire to promote harmony,
and, therefore, lie had felt very much hurt at the way
in which his efforts had been met. He found that
every act and every word were so turned and so twisted,
as almost to make one doubt one's own actions. Mr.
Fernihough had commented in strong terms on the lan-
guage said to have been made use of in the Dock Commit-
tee, towards some members of the Council. He (Mr.
Turner) was sorry that such language had been used,
but Mr. Fernihough ought to recollect that words
fell from him at the last Council which were almost sure
to provoke remarks in reply. In conclusion, Mr. Turner
entreated the Council not to persevere in the veto—not
to persist in a course which would inflict very great pecu-
niary loss on the Dock Estate of the town, and which
would retard to an indefinite period that dock accommo-
dation which was so much wanted.

Mr. GARDNER was of opinion that the Council would
stultify itself if it did not adhere to the veto. Rather
than that he would say, let the Dock Committee take all
the power into its own hands. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Moss, on the same side, said he hoped the
Council would not be induced, by any temporising policy,
to come to a different decision to that at which it had
-already arrived. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENDERSON also supported the veto.
Mr. HALREAD could not see his way clear to vote
against the veto. He confessed he should have been
extremely relieved if he could have voted the other way,
but there was a principle in it, and the question ought to
argued on that ground. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERNIBOUGH. in a warm and energetic speech,
also supported the veto, and after going into a number of
statistics relative to the different tenders, in order to show
that that of Messrs. Baker was the most advantaeeoue,
and•ought to have been accepted, he defended the Council
from the aspersions which had been cast upon several of
its members, in the Dock Committee. Over and over
again the Council had been told by certain members of the
Dock Committee, and parties in the town having particular
interests to serve, " If you veto the Dock Committee's
proceedings, we will go to parliament, and take your
powers from you." That threat was nothing new, as every
member of the council must know. He concluded by
observing, that the consistency and dignity of the Council
demanded of them that they should confirm the veto
which they had already exercised. (Hear, hear.)
Mr.. Alderman NIOLYNEUX was opposed to the veto in
the present case. With respect to the veto, he agreed
that it was very desirable the Council should possess the
power to exercise it, but then it should be applied in a
proper meaner, and acccording to the common sense and
justice of the case. In the present case he felt that the
veto would not be exercised in accordance with discretion
and common sense, and he feared that many parties
had been carried away by a feeling—he would not call it
enmity—but by a feeling. of jealousy, against the Dock
Committee. (Hear, hear.) Ile hoped gentlemen would
see the propriety of not vetoing the proceedings of the
Dock Committee, seeing the resolution which had been
Tassed with reference to the Messrs. Baker.
Mr. LITTLEDALE expressed his intention of opposing,
and Mr. John Gladstone of supporting the veto.
Mr. TOBIN, in an argumentative spccell, warned the
Council against the consequences of now exercising the
veto, and defended the Dock Committee from the
charges which had been brought against them as to
allowing Mr. Hartley to see the estimates, and then send
in a second estimate, He showed that both Mr. Hartley's
estimates were sent in at the Caere time, and opened at
the same time as that of Messrs. Baker and the other
gentlemen. He taxed 11Ir. Bighain with inconsistency in
'bringing forward a resolution in the Dock Committee,
with the view of bringing about a settlement of the dis-
pute with Messrs. Baker, and then coming forward in
the Council to veto the committee's proceedings.
Mr. Ald. BaaartEr-Mootta, whilst agreeing in the
propriety of the Council possessing the power of vetoing
the Dock Committee's proceedings, did not think that this
was the time to exercise that power. He did not think
the Council should hold out its authority by interfering
with a body which was purely of an executive character,
such as the Dock Committee was. (Hear, hear.) They
(the Council) were not there to control the acts of the
Dock Committee. The DociCommittee was the executive.
The Council had already sanctioned the plans for the con-
struction of the new dock, and now he thought it was
thedutyof the Council toallowtheDock Committee tocarry
out the plans in the best manner. He (Mr. Moore) would
dismiss Messrs. Baker entirely from this qnestion. The
Dock Committee was the party to carry the contract out,
whether it was with Messrs. Baker or any one else. This
was not a question between Messrs. Baker and Mr. Hart-
ley, but the question was whether the Dock Committee
was entitled to leave the execution of these works in the
hands of their own well-tried servant. He therefore ap-
prehended that. if the Council considered their duty as
trustees, they would confine their arguments to this part
of the question. It was a well-ascertained fact that the
Council could not initiate—that it could not recommend
anything in dock matters—that it could only say yesorno— 1
that its simple duty was to prevent a wasteful expenditure.
In doing that the Council was doing its duty to the
town, and to the bondholders of the estate, and there the
powers of the Council ended. (Hear, hear.) The speaker
then at some length proceeded to combat the argumentg I
made use of by Mr. Fernihough and other speakers in
favour of the veto, and after defending the Dock Committee
generally, including the course taken with reference to
anniversary
the Dock contracts, he concluded by asking the Council
to reflect upon the injury they were inflicting upon the
next.
inhabitants and the port by interfering with the progress
of these works. The accommodation that was required
Amp SOCIETY.—The far the trade of the port in that neighbourhood was con- CHURCH PASTORAL
siderabie, for notwithstanding the Dock extension which of this society will be held
to be Stronglytire felt in Liver-
that all the Docks were now full, and here was one of the pool, if we may u
jgyear consist
most important Docks in the town, which would open a The deputation this _
communication from the south to the north, and which he London—the Rev. E. Auriol, Recto
Rev IL Hutton, t Rector of St. Dunstan's,
believed would bring a very large amount of revenue to and the
rd tins entrusted the • 0 whose care the Duke of
the Dock Committee, threatened in the stoppage of its 1 Bedfont.garden.
Cambridge important parish of St. Paul's,
construction by a dispute such as the one now before the 1
i("ev.i-iev. j. 11. Titco b supplies a third clergyman—
Council. He left it to the Council to say whether they
of f St. Andrew- , Incumbent of the populous parish
would, in these days of unrestricted competition—(a laugh)
out successfull the-Less, and one of the first who carried
take upon themselves the responsibility of leaving those Tire
Bish ythe plan of preaching in the open air.
works in their present state.—(Hear, hear.) lop of Chester presides at the meeting on. Monday
. , evening, and on Tuesday a:searndlenNsionda
there will be a public breakfast
Mr. BIGIIAM next addressed the Council in favour or
at the A ' 1 1►•
against him Le p ii, at which the deputation will attend.
the veto, and, in reply to the charge brought I
by Mr. Tobin, said he bad determined to support the veto THE GREAT CORN SWINDLER.—At the Central Cri-
on this occasion in consequence
o its ha
cf ving s
bte . urinal Court, on Friday, R. F. Pries, 31, described as a
in the Dock Committee, since the veto was la exercised , merchant, of Crosby Hall Chambers, was arraigned on the
by the Council, that the works would be proceeded with i charges of forgery which have recently created so melt
in spite of it. interest in the city. There were three indictments—the
Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE in supporting the veto ; first charging the prisoner with feloniously uttering a re-
strongly condemned the wording of the advertisement for 1 ceipt for 7,323 quarters of wheat, whereby he obtained
the tenders. The public were justified in regarding that £lB,OOO from Messrs. James Holford and Co. The second
advertisement as bona fide, and as intended to be acted indictment was upon a like charge for money obtained
upon. If it was not so, would any member of that Council from another firm ; and the third was for obtaining £9,000
tell him by what right in law, or in equity, the Dock Corn- with intent to cheat Messrs. Ignace, Schulhoff, and Co.,
mittee could presume to sport with the interests • • bankers, &c Gracechurcla-street The •
of mdt- " . . jury, after a mo-
viduals S It was to be presumed that Messrs, Baker ment's deliberation, returned a verdict of " Guilty." Mr.
could not have placed themselves in the position they had Baron Alderson then sentenced the prisoner to be tran-
done, and make a correct tender, without incurring a sported for life. It was stated that the whole of the enor.
considerable amount of outlay. They were strangers in I mous sums the prisoner had obtained had been absorbed
this town, and he amid lay they could not hare incurred .
. in hie extraordinary speculations in the corn market,

The TOWS-CLERK having read an opinion he had re-
ceived from Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Cowling, and Mr.
Miliward, to the effect that the proceedings of the Dock
Committee were not complete until the Council had
confirmed them,
A division on the amendment for vetoing the Dock
Committee's proceedings took place. The votes were—
For the amendment
Against

Majority ..., , , ..... 10

The MAYOR said that, as the majority ou t."..Z amend-
ment did not amount to two-thirds of those present, the
number required to veto the Dock Committee's proceed-
ings, the amendment was lost.
The following is an analysis of the division :

For : Messrs. Mellor, Woodruff, Big ham, W. Nicholson,
Bradley, Moss, Godfrey, Banner. Fernihough, J. Glad-
stone, jun., Toulmin, Clayton, M'Nicoll, Fleming, Gard-
ner, It. Gladstone, Lloyd, Johnson, Pictoa. Nicholson,
Hodson, Beckwith, Henderson, Horsfall, Ilaihead, Alder-
men Langsdale, Bennett, Preston, Parker, Bent, and the
Mayor-31.

Against : Messrs. Aked, Anderson, Thomson, Holden;
Turner, Littledale, Tyrer, Holt, Avison, Tobin, Braucker,
J. M. Wood, Stewart, Gregson, Boyden, Aldermen
Holmcs, Robinson, J. N. Wood, Bramley-Moore, Moly-
neux, and Chilton-21.

The proceedings of the Courts of Law and St. George's
Hall Committee, Markets Committee, Education Com-
mittee, Gaol and House of Correction Committee, Town-
hall Establishment Committee, Health Committee, Gar-
dens Committee, and Church Expenditure Committee,.
were severally read and confirmed.

fig The proceedings of the Water Committee having been:
read, a motion was proposed by Mr. Banner to supply
several of the public charities with water at a reduce&
charge, and after some discussion was rejected.
A motion by Mr. BIGHAM that the committee prepare
for the next meeting the present state of the Rivington
works, was passed, and the proceedings were then con-
firmed.

Whilst the deputy Town-clerk was reading the report
of the Library and Museum Committee, Mr. THOMPSON
drew the attention of the Mayor to the fact of there not
being a Council present; and, in consequence, the pro-
ceedings were somewhat abruptly brought to a close
about half past three o'clock, there still remaining the
reports of several committees to dispose of, besides me-
morials and other business which will hate to stand over
until the next monthly Council, unless a special Council is
convened.

[We are requested by Mr. A. Henderson to state, that as
soon as the Dock Committee's proceedings were over, ho
went to Kent-street, to hear appeals against Corporation
rates, and was engaged there up to half-past three
o'clock. This will account for his absence when the
Council was counted out.]

THE ANTELOPE.—The Postoffice authorities have ad-
vertised that shipletter.bags will be made up for Australia
by the steamer Antelope, which will leave Liverpool about
the latter end of this month.

THE EMIGRATION FEVER.—At the present moment
there are advertised for sailing, from the port of London
alone, to New South \Vales, South Australia, New Zea-
land, and Van Diemen's Land no less than 98 ships, em-
bracing an amount exceeding 40,000 tons.