The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-01-11 00:00:00

The CHAIRMAN afterwards denied that the resolution
had such a meaning ; and said that it was still at the dis.
cretion of the committee to contract, or otherwise.
Mr. EVANS, in an energetic speech, maintained that
the veto by the Council was an illegal and unwarrantable
infringement upon the management of the Dock Estate by
the committee. The power of veto was given to the
Council merely to prevent an undue expenditure of the
dock funds. He further characterised the Council pro-
ceedings as a wanton insult to the honour and character
of the board. Nothing could be more explicit than the
language of that advertisement ; and who, he asked, had
a right to ignore the words " or any," which were put in
advisedly ? The spirit of all contracts was this : we go to
others to know whether they will do things at a cheaper
rate than we can ourselves ; and, after hearing what they
have to say and to offer, we fall back upon our own cal-
culations. He contended that, even if there were a
difference of £lOO,OOO between their surveyor's estimate
and the offer of a contractor, they had a right, if they
chose, to do the work themselves. He denied distinctly
that the " brains" of the contractors had been sucked;
and, in allusion to the subject of the expense incurred by
the Messrs. Baker, he observed that the nine contractors
must have known that only one would get the work, and
yet all were willing to incur the expense for the chance of
obtaining that work. The expense was quite an insignifi-
cant matter; and as to the cost of making inquiries
respecting prices of material, &c., a letter here and there
would obtain all the requisite information. It was said
that, if it had been known that Messrs. Hartley were to
execute the work, no offer would hove been made ; but
the contractors were well enough aware of the character
of the man with whom they had to compete. In his (Mr.
Evans'; opinion, the part the committee had taken in the
matter would not deter contractors from making estimates
in future. He went on to characterise as contemptible
the expressions used in the Council as to the " lamentable
want of judgment of the committee ;" described the act
of the Council itself as an attempt to compel the Dock
Committee to prostrate their character as honourable men
at the feet of contractors ; and, repeating Mr. Bigham's
words of " dishonourable conduct," he threw them back
with the contempt which, he said, they deserved. Class
feeling, he concluded, had a great deal to do with the
recent misunderstandings.

Mr. JAMES iletmE defended the course he had taken
in the matter, arguing further, that the idea could never
have entered the minds of the contractors that the com-
mittee reserved to themselves the right of executing the
works by their own surveyor; else they would not have
sent tenders.

In the course of the succeeding discussion the CHAIR-
MAN expressed his great regret at the course the Council
had taken. It was not a question whether new works
were to be entered upon, but it was a matter of detail
which belonged more properly to the committee than to
the Council.

Mr. GLADSTONE Was also of opinion that, under ti
rcumetances, the Council were hardly justified in vetoin
ie proceedings of the committee.

After several other gentlemen had spoken, the opinion
of the solicitor was asked. The SOLICITOR : Priefly, my
opinion is, that the veto of the Council is within the letter
of the law, but not within its spirit and intention.
The votes were then taken on Mr. Nicol's motion
which was carried by a majority of fifteen to eight. For
Messrs. Royden, Gregson, Robinson, Molync
Littledale, Brocklebank, Rankin, Bold,
Evans, Chaloner, Nicol, Lockett, and Shand.
Messrs. Langsdale, Gladstone, Holme, Steele,
Holden, Barber, and the chairman

Tob
Alftleolmcr

Mr. Bigharn's resolution, which was seconded by Mr,
Littledale, was then, after a long discussion as to the
wording of it, put in this form :—" That this committee,
in issuing the advertisement of the 2nd September, 1552,
were careful to insert the words or any,' believing that
by such words they not only reserved to themselves the
right to execute the works by their own engineer, but
that the public and the contractors would so understand
it. However, as it appears the advertisements have been
so misunderstood, and that Messrs. Baker consider them-
selves injured, this committee regret the misunderstand..
ing, and refer it to the Sub-Committee of Works. to
inquire what expenses Messra. Baker and Son have in-
curred in consequence thereof, and to report."
For the motion :—Messrs. Royden, Gregson, Robin-
son, Molyneux, Gladstone, Bigham, Holden, Tobin,
Littledale, Bold, Malcomson, Evans, Steele, Barber,
Shand, Chaloner, and the chairman.
Against it :—Messrs. Langsdale, Holrne, Brocklebank,
Rankin, and Lockett.
The committee then rose.

THE REVENUE

An Abstract of the Net Produce of the Revenue of Great
Britain, in the Years and Quarters ending sth of
January, 1852, and 1853, showing the Increase or
Decrease thereof.

YEARS ENDED JANUARY