The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-31 00:00:00

SPECIAL- MEETING: OF TUE TQWN COUNCIL

A special meetipg of „tile epti,ncil held in the Town-

all on Wednesd:iy-, for'the con. of several subjects
iluirierated in the notice. JOSHUA AVALAISLEV, Esq.,
he Mayor, presided.
ENDMENT 01, TILE LOCAL POLICE ACTS:.
The MA-Y-ou said the first busines s for the consideration

:he Conned, was the question of proceeding to parliament
r power to amend the police acts, by introducing several
auses from the Metroplitan police act. It would he recol-
ected that the Town-clerk had been requested to report as
;1 the advantage of certain clauses in the metropolitan act
,cing"iipplied to "this borough. The Conn"eil referred his re-
t to the Watch Committee, and the Watch Committee
now prepared with their report.
he Tows:-CLERK then read the following repbrt
Thatpursuant to the ilirectiens of the conned, the corn •
mittec considered the subject,of the addition to our local
code of clauses from theJnetropolitan police act.
" That the following..r,anses.frani, that act have bad their
MORT. partieuhir'attention.:,:-
" And he it enacted,' that no licensed victualler or other
person shall open his hOnse-within the. metropolitan police
district, for the sale of wine, spirits, beer, or other fermented
or distilled liquors on Sundays, Christmas day, zniti Good
Friday, before the bony of one in the afternoon, except re-
freshment for traveller.%

" And hi it enacted, that every person licensed to deal
in exeiseable liquors within the said district, who shall know•-
ingly supply any sort of distilled exciseable liquor to any boy
or girl apparently under the age of sixteen
.years, to be drunk
upon the premises, shall be liable to a. penalty not more than
twenty shillings; and upon conviction of a second offence,
shall be liable 'to a penalty not more than forty shillings ;
and upon conviction of a third offence, shall he liable to a
penalty not more than five pounds.'

" Also the ,14th clause, regulating other houses of public
resort, so far as regards tie concluding provision, against a
licensed victualler, greater penalties than any other offender
is made liable to.

"'That, after considering the memorials for and against
the adoption of these clauses, and hearing a deputation from
the licensed victuallers; the committee
.have come to the
following opinion, viz.:—
" That while the committee. are impressed with the advan-
tage which Would result to this town, from the adoption of
the 42d and 43d clauses in the metropolitan police. act., re,
lating to the better regulation of piddle houses, they are not
prepared to recommend the council to apply to parliament
in the present session to obtain a bill to carry such adoption
into effect, feeling that. such legislation should be of a general
rather than a local character.

"The committee, however, recommend to the council the
propriety of ►uemorialising the. government and petitioning
parliament on this subject, in order that these provisions may,
by public general hill, be enacted throughout the country.
" That, with regard to other clauses in the metropolitan
police act, including the 44th, except as already noticed, the
committee have resolved, that it appears to the committee
that there are many of the clauses of the metropolitan police
act which might- with great advantage, he added to our local
code, and that therefore the coliopittee strongly recommend
that the notice now given for a bill to amend our local ;leis,

and to add clauses from the metropolitan act, be followed up
by a petition, which will not cost more than from £lO to
£l5, and will allow ample time for.•the committee to report '
fully to . the council, on the proposed amendments, before
any further expense is incurred. The time limited by the
standing order of the House of Commons, for bringing in
private bills, being limited to the 9th of March."
Mr. Alderman TEIORNHILL begged to move the confirma-
tion of this report. The subject had received every attention
from the Watch Committee, and the report had been carried
by a large majority.
Mr. Jot-ix SMITIL seconded the motion.
Mr. BOLTON said it appeared: to him that this was a very
important subject, and one that required consideration. The
council had no knowledge that it would come before them,
and had had no time for consideration ; it was, therefore,
rather too much to ask for their concurrence to this report
until they. had.had better means afforded of considering the
matter. He did not mean to say it would be improper for
the 'recommendations of the Watch Committee to be adopted;
but as he had no knowledge upon the subject, nor time to
weigh tie bearings of the two clauses, it would be. well to
poistponeffhe consideration•of the subject.
Mr. ItAilinvE enquired whether it would be in time if
the consideration were postponed till the monthly meeting
next Wednesday ?
_

The TOWN-CLERK said it should be observed that the
Watch Committee decidedly recommended the council to go
to Parliament for certain clauses in the metropolitan act;
but the petition would be general—just as general as the no-
tice; and after the presentation of that petition, it would be

cite in' time for the council to come to a determination as

to the adoption of Certain clauses and the rejection of others.
There would-.therefore he.--time if the consideration were

postponed till the 'Monthly: meeting on the-stnFebruary next.
Mr. RATHITONE wisheiiilthen, for the subject to be post-
poned, in order to afford time-lor consideration.-_ What ob-
jection there was to proventing.the•openingoipnblie.houses
until the hour of one on Sundays he w-ak-:not aware, for he
was sure it would be a publierbeillef;t.
The Mx-ron said memorials on both s:des the question
had been-presented to, the_ council, and the matter was re-

ferred to the i.Vatch.Conimittee. This was their report; so
that this was not the first time the subject had been before
the council.
Mr. SMITH observed, that the. Watch Committee recom-
mended a general measure—not a particular measure.
Mr. BRIGHT, in answer to a remark from Mr. Alderman
Thornhill, would state., that the committee were not unani-
mous in agreeing to the report. It was adopted by a ma-

jority of 13 against 4.
The Tow:4-cLEitx suggested that the motion should be
altered :IS follows t•—" That the recommendation in the report
of the Watch CoinrnitteE., so tar as relates to, the presentation
of a petition, be adopted ; but that the other parts of the
report stand over till the next monthlY council.'•
Mr. H._ L.V.VRENCE said, it struck him that the measures
proposed to he asked ought to be of a general nature; and not
peculiarly applicable' to Liverpool. If they were general
they could not but be attended' by beneficial consequences ;
and he thringhti the course adopted by the Watch Committee
the most,prudent
Mr. Tnortstu Li, and Mr. Sr.trra altered their motion
into the forni suggested by the Town-clerk.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE repeated that he Should prefer the
adoption of the motion altogether ; but he did rot think it
necessary to divide the Council upon it.
.
The motion was then put, and carried.. -
AMENDMENT OF THE COURT OF jtEQUESTS!.4CT.

The MAYo.u. said, the next question was, to consider. the
propriety of applying to. parliament for a bill to amend the
Court of Requests' act. . .. •
• The TOw:•:••cLIAti: read • the following, report from . the
committee upon this subject :--
That in order to avail themselves ,of auy opportunity
which might in the present session he afforded for obtaining a
bill to amend the constitution of the Court of Requests by
the addition of commissioners from the. public at.large, the
committee directed the necessary notice to. he given, and they
would now propose to the council that they shotdd be em-
powered to present a petition for leave to ,bring in a hill, a
measure which will be attended with an expense of from £lO
to £l5, and will not require anyfurther steps to he taken.he-
fore the ninth of March, and would so far secure the present
session for any private bill that might he deemed advisable.
" But from the experience of the _last session as to the
course taken with private bills for COurts of Requests, the
committee would recommend that the application made to
the legislature in the last session for clauses in the county
courts bill, a public hill then proposed in the House Of Com-
mons, should be re revved either upon the occasion of a county
courts bill being again propOsed (as is expected), or inde-
pendently of any such measure—such application in the first
instance bein,,. addressed to the government. That the.ap-
plication to the legislature in the last session was as follows :"
—The petition-wag then read.
.0n 'the motion of :NJ r. MORECROPT, seconded by Mr.
BRIGHT it was Unanimously. resolved thiit the.- recoinmen-
dations• of the Court of Requests committee be adopted.
THE HARRINGTON DOCKS COMPANY. -

The To ‘V. N -CLERK read the following resolution, agreed to
by the Dock Committee at. their meeting on the 20th inst.:—
"Resolved,—That the chairman do- request the concur-
rence and 'co-oPeration of the Town-council in opposing the
attempts now being made by parties styling themselves the
Harrington Dock Company, and the proprietors of the Her-
culaneum' Dock Estate, to obtain legislative exemption for
docks which they propose to build from the dock-rates esta-
hlishei by acts of parliament, and payable by all vessels which
enter the port of Liverpool."
Mr, Alderman Luarnom,chairman ofthe Dock Committee,
said the Dock Committee had been induced to send that reso-
lution to the council in consequence of notices having been
given by the Harrington Pock Company, and other parties,
of their intention to apply for a bill to establish separate and
distinct docks, and thereby to claim exemption from the cor-
poration dock rates. If these parties carried their bill, it
would be found to prejudice, tery materially, the property of
the council, and to interfere with the buildings, docks, and
other public establishments of the corporation. The Dock
Committee, therefore, had thought it right- to bring the sub-
ject before the cannel!, in order that they might support them
in petitioning against, and otherwise opposing, the proposed
bill. He begged leave to move, that the Finance Committee
be authorized and instructed to use all the means in their
power to oppose the unjust and unfounded pretensions of the
parties acting under the name of the Harrington Dock Com-
pany, and the proprietors of the Herculaneum Dock Estate.
Mr. W. \V. CU RRI E had great. satisfaction in seconding
the motion.
Mr. YATES said, it was with great diffidence that -he rose
on this occasion, as he knew so little about docks ; but what
he was going to say, had rather a tendency to promote the
principle of free • trade which, as most of them would agree,
was very advantageous. The amendment he intended
•to submit was, " That the docks belonging to • the dock
estate shall always have a preference, but whenever
there shall not be room for a vessel to enter such
docks on her arrival, or whenever a vessel cannot find -ready
accomodation for. discharging or loading within forty-eight
hours from the time of arrival, such vessel shall be at liberty
to seek accommodation- without paying any dues to the dock
estate." .He was aware, and in this he agreed with the Dock
Committee that there ought be great protection afforded to
the dock estate seeing that it was a public benefit, that so
large an amount of money had been expended on it, and that
it was necessary to raise funds for making further dock accom-
modation. He thought also that some consideration was due
to the holders of bonds,'whose debt, he believed, amounted
to not less than a million and a half; but it-must further be •
borne in mind that a great deal of consideration was due to•
the public. He would ask gentlemen more conversant with -
the subject than himself, whether it did not often happen
that vessels had to wait for a long time before they could get
'a quay birth or accommodation for discharging? Now, if a
resolution of the-kind he had read were to be acted:upon it.
might produce beneficial effects by removing the system of
delay, which often happened to vessels discharging andload- •
ing. He was aware that such vessels were in the habit Of
discharging a single package or two per day in order to avoid
breaking the regulations; but, he thought, this regulation,
under the reso ution he proposed, might be made more strin-
gent. As an advocate for free trade he would contend that
all vessels coming to this port were entitled to all the accom-
modation necessarylor carrying on their business with the
greatest convenience and despatch. -He did not think the
council-would injure the dock estate to any material extent,
by adopting such a resolution as this ; and he thought it due to
that freedom of commerce of which he was an advocate, to'
move it. -
No one rising to second -the proposition, it fell to the
ground.
Mr. Alderman SfIEJ L asked whether there were any ob-
jections to strike the words " unjust and unfounded" out of
the resolution ? It was • not necessary to insert such strong
terms ; and if the mover and seconder did not think it ad-
visable to withdraw them, he would move an amendment to
that effect. '
Mr. Alderman EARL E concurred with Mr. Sheil.
Mr..LEA.THOM and Mr. Cußair immediately consented to
withdraw the words, and they were struck out.
Mr. Alderman EVANS thought it not proper to allow this
subject to pass without adverting to the real and permanent
objections in this case. It was impossible that any parties
could compete with - the dock -estate of Liverpool ih open
decks. Three-fourths of them had been built out of the
public funds, and paid no interest whatever. They-were si-
tuate in the very heart of the town, and they were in the best
position possible, inasmuch as they were near all the great
means of'communication with the interior. They were con-
tiguous to the railway, to the canals, and to the.very best
outlets. In open docks, therefore, no body of men with
common sense would ever dream of competing with the an-.
cient docks of Liverpool, which were worked out purely
for the'public advantage; But the great evil would be, that
if the parties in question got exempted from dock rates, they
would at once come in upon every other right that could be-