The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-10-12 00:00:00

Mr. Councillor CunEttE.—The bill was not discussed.

Air. Alderman BooTti.—Then;in part was. I, tbeiefore,
do think it my duty to oppose his motion.- l have no objec-
tions to offer—indeed, I believe that that baste was fully
justified by circumstances; and for my own part in.theex-
pediency of what is recommended, I fully concur. I object
only to that part of the proceedings which would authorise
the dock trustees to build warehouses On the dock quays,.or
to rent land for that purpose. The.plan before us is not the
same as before, but is similar in principle, and that did re-
ceive the sanction of a small majority. We have now the
heads of the bill before us; I apprehend it will be in order
to discuss the several interests. I wish to know if it is in
order.

The M AYOll. Yes, it will be in order if you are going to
conclude with a motion. You are aware there is a mutton
and an amendment. if you mean to conclude with an
amendment, we should, first of all, get rid of one amend-
ment, before another is proposed. • .
Mr. Councillor CHAItLES LAWRENCE.—AIIow me to ask
a question in .point of order. We can make no amendment
in the duck proceedings. I apprehend they must be con-.
firmed or not. We may object to any part of them, or the
whole of them; we cannot make amendments; as e can origi--
nate nothing, but must send back to the duck committte.
The TowN-cts.rek.—l apprehend Mr. Lawrence is under
this mistake„ that we are now under the dock proceedings
under the act of parliament. This is a new subject entirely;
it is tube treated in the same way as the report of any com-
mittee in this council. Therefore it is in the power of any
member to move any amendment that he may think proper,
on the original motion, to confirm the proceedings.
Mr. Alderman Boo' it.—The time is so recent when this
matter was discussed here, when I had an opportunity of ex-
pressing my opinions, that not to occupy your time, any opi-
nions are the same now as then; and if I naught the re-
fusal of that measure would endanger in any degree the .
prosperity of Liverpool, I should be the last to oppose it.
My hopes or wishes for the prosperity of Liverpool are as
great as any man's. I will not yield even to my friend Mr.
Evans, who has eloquently prognosticated its prosperity.
He has based this prosperity on the surrounding of our
docks with warehouses. I expect this prosperity with•est
that. It is my wish that that welfare should go on unaccom-
panied with aserious injury to a large property in this town,
by the carrying into effect this proposed scheme. That this
would not be, the effect is only called in question by those
who have no property-in the town, and is almost universally
admitted by those who have. The large warehouse • pro-
perty is clearly adequate for the business of the port. This
was evidenced last summer , when with an extraordinary
glut of corn and cotton, noinconvenience was felt. The in-
cre
makeasi
thisng use
porto of steamssan
dpowerless a
portmus t(,) f i rnY opinion, tend to
If I am right deposit.
in this conjecture, the injury of this scheme on warehouses
would be great in the extreme. As to the despatCh of vessels,.
I think a great deal might be done in that behalf, by the use
of cranes and iinproseit.customs' regulations, and by various
%Iss..aas;eh
sowueseneseydstenmot go
iu Liinvteorploworlemight offer no insuperable; and, I think the present
objection to the using of warrants as they are used in Lon-
don. I must allnde to a very important point,- that is fire;
no care can guarantee us against that calamity; and if a
• fire was to occur it would not be confined to two'or three
warehouses; and the injury done to ships must be incalcu-
lable. As to what Mr. Evans has said, they could easily be
removed. I should like to ask, suppose the Prince's dock
full of vessels at low water, you could not get any of them
out ; and even if it took place at high water, if the wind were
high, you could move very few of them. As to the difficulty
of their getting fire, I cannot understand it, as they have
masts and yards of inflammable materials, and covered with
pitch; they would soon be one mass of flame. Holding
these opinions, I shall move a further amendment--" That
the building of warehouses cannot be sanctioned at present
en the Dock-quays; and that the proceedings of the 'com-
mittee be confirmed with that exception."
Mr. Ald. Hour.—l should wish to say one word on the
subject of the fires. The erection of these warehouses which
the council had agreed to, would be built, as I understand,
entirely fire-proof, that is, totally of uninflammable materials :
iron, stone, bricks, slates and so on, and no inflammable
matter whatever. Then with regard to the goods to be
brougat there, it is possible to render them as entirely proof
against accident, independent of the strict rules to be en-
forced as to porters. suppose, for instance, that a large
main was cut from the canal basin on the west side of toe
Prince's Dock, and 50 or 100 bundles in these warehouses,
and by the turning of a cock you float the who'e. It appears
to me that the entertainment of fear of five is totally un-
founded, if we avail ourselves of our natural advantages—if
a large body of water were at Everton at all times available
for putting out fires without forcing the water. It is for want
of a constant supply of water that our insurances are so
high. This may be obviated if our municipal authorities
would unite for the attainment of the object. - I hear. none
of the speakers say that these, warehouses so erected would
render other warehouses less useful r on the contrary, they
seem to oppose them, because they would have a preference.
(Hear, hear.) Is that a reason, but for their adoption ? If
the arguments against the erection of these warehouses were
based on the broad ground of -deteriorating the part, or ren-
dering it less. convenient, it would be intelligible. (Hear.)
Mr. Councillor EititLE.,—Am I in order to second Mr.
Booth's motion ?
The MAYOI:.—If you merely second it. - The council has
heard Mr. Currie's aMendment, which is, in fact, to postpone
the motion; has any gentleman any further remark to make?
Mr. Alderman Lisarrnost.—Sir, I beg to remark that I am
surprised to find that any allusion is made to postponing the
question ; we have considered that the vote of the council
on that subject was final and conclusive, and that we are not
to have that questiou considered again which cost us so much
time. The proposition of Mr. Currie is, that it be consi-
(feted ; and also, that of Mr. Booth. On the part of the
gentlemen near me (Mr. Evans, Mr. Berm, &e.) we
cannot consent to any postponement of that proposition
which has already been considered upon. We made a sepa-
rate bill of it for the purpose in the full faith and confidence
that a vote of this council once -passed is not to be again
discussed, and probably annulled by such discussion. I shall,
therefore, object to
any motion which has for its object any
postponement. But we should have no objection to con-
"'I" 'II" the bill is to go forwards as respects the
docks; although the thing has been so very Jong before the
.aassn last, that I think we ought to come to
some conclusion.
Mr. Councillor JOHN HOLME.—That is very extraordinary
language, Mr. Mayor, that they "will not consent." ( Hear,
hear.) The council can consider any question put before
theta.
The TowN-Csanx.—l apprehend that there can be no
question at all in the power of the council to re-consider a
motion.
Mr. Alderman BENN.—No doubt about it, it can be re•
considered again ; lek we are not to disturb the decision as
to the warehouses in Prince's Dock.
The TowN-CLEttis.-1-am not making any argument as
to inconsistency. It is perfectly clear that the council have
the pow 'r to re-consider any proposition, even of their own;
as the Dock Committee did re-Conider the question of an ob-
servatory. Besides bringing the question of warehouses on
Prince's Dock again before the council, they have a right to
call for not iceao be given.
_Mr. . Abletman .ilrisness--'rhensthasDock -Committee- witi-
have no objection to deferring it if notice is to be given.
Mr. Councillor HUGH 14011NBY.—Alt hough I cannot agree
that the question has not been sufficiently agitated, vet still,
when we consider the great interest of those parties eh Shold
warehouses, I think it would only be a courteous matter in us
to postpone the question. For my own part, my mind is
made up on the subject. I think the advantages to be de-
rived would far ootwetgh the disadvantages to some. (Hear,
hear.) There is no improvement can be introduced which
will not in 3M-tie measure hurt individuals. But it is our in-
terest to look at what will promote the general interest of the
town. We come here not to look after our own interests.
but the interests of the town. I was very much surprised to
hear that those who do not possess•warehousea are not proper
petsuns to consider . this subject. - I am a holder of ware-
houses, and if I had held them near the docks, I slicaild have

had great diffidence in voting, from re fear of giving a bi-
assed opinion. But though I hold considerable, warehouse
property; I am.stiil so convinced that it will be for the, benefit
of the 'Dock Estate, as well as of the town of Liverpool,
that my mind is made up; at the same, it would be as well
to defer the consideration of this measure. With regard to
the subject of -fire, I think the very simple fact mentioned
by Mr. Evans, that the insurance against fire in the docks
of London, where this system is followed, is only is. 6d.
Mr. Councillor Cunt:lE.—Three shillings.
Mr. Alderman EVANS—It's only is. 6d.

Mr. Councillor H. HORNBY.—lidoes not signify. Where,
as we all know, here it is from 10s. to 12s. That is a conclu-
sive proof that the danger is very much less. It has been
stated by Mr. Brown, that a fire did arise in the St. Kathe-
rine's Docks. But what was the consequence? The arrange-
ments there under a public body, were such as vet y soon put
it out. It is very true, as Mr. Booth states, that no care can
prevent fire; but there are circumstances which much lessen
the danger, lam quite satisfied that water could be made
available, and that the danger of fire, from which we have
all suffered so immensely, would be greatly decreased. I
therefore, advocate Mr. Currie's amendment.
Mr. Councillor EARLE. —I think it is courteous, certainly,

to the warehouse proprietors to discuss these points; but I
wonder why they were not discussed at the onset of the busi-
ness. All these questions ought to have been discussed at
the very first, without consulting the warehouse proprietors
at all. The dock committee must know, that thus having
warehouses would, or they would fancy it would, do them
injury. It would be much better to have had a conference.
Instead of that, there is a great interest raised, and we shall
go to work as we did in the dock committee and corporation,
and we shall spend a great deal of money, and the corpora-
tion will have the satisfaction-of paying all the costs.' Many
out of Liverpool will seek to introduce clauses into this bill,
and they will come forward with these clauses. They will
say " Liverpool is by the ears," and they will not unite with
us without introducing clauses injurious to the port of Liver-
pool. Therefore, as to the bill lam perfectly indifferent. I
will pay my quota, and I don't care a straw about it. (A
laugh.) •
Mr. Councillor DAVID HODGSON.—\Ve are all agreed as
to promoting the interests of the town, but the question is
as to the mode, and it appears to me, that we are departing
froin the principle to be settled, before we occupy ourselves
with the details, in connection with the project to be carried
on by the dock estate, or any other public body. It appears
to me, that we are departing from the principle which we
have acted on in private, as merchants. It has been upheld
that it was much more likely-to promote the interests of any
concern to lease it to be managed by individuals, when the •
capital and power of the individual was sufficient for the
object sodght to be obtained. Now, it appears to rue, that
on the present occasion, we all have taken it for granted,
that warehouses were wanted; I don't say they are not
wanted. We all seem to have got the impression, that
warehouses around the docks are best, I don't say they
are net the best. But it is very easy for a man to call
out fur what costs him nothing, " give me this, and the other."
And I say unless we know perfectly the ground on which we
are proceeding. we are in the danger of injuring the property
of warehouse proprietors to an extent of which we are not at
all aware. and none of, us can contemplate. lam not
prepared to show that' warehouses around the docks would
not be the best ; but there are objections to them, and I think
the subject is not sufficiently before. the town. The town is
rather taken by surprise with regard to selling them or re-
building them in a particular way ; but the great principle
is, what is the necessity for the dock committee building these
warehouses at all? The best test of these warehouses being
really wanted is to offer them to private capital ; if they are
wanted, let the value of the land be given; not at £2 lOs a
yard, but the real value of the land. and that will be given
if it be open to competition; and that price,being given for
the land will impose on those who build them a rent that will
keep them in their juxta-position. If the dock trustees can
sell land that will be very advantageous, I canna see why
the (lock trustees should lay down rules which shall govern
the warehouses of private individuals. They may say, "We
will sell land in large plots to companies, to be subscribed
for in the same way as railroads ; and then—what is ex-
ceedingly important—unite the care of private interests in
the management, and all those advantages that have been
stated are likely to occur, with regard to the extra care with
regard to fire. Look at the.railway here: who can get in
but those authorised by the company? They wiil admit
nobody there but those appointed to go there; and the order

and regularity they obta.;n is impos-ed by the necessity on
them of accommodat►ng the public. And therefore, if it be
expedient for the docks to sell the ground for such pur-
pose, so the warehouses should be managed. I have not at
all doubted that the gentlemen of the Dock Committee could
manage affairs as well as any men, but they want the prin-
ciple of management; they have no personal interest. And
if warehouses are built around the docks as proposed,. the
sound principle would be to call on the dock, trust to lay
down a plan on which the warehouses shall be conducted;
to lay out 'portions of land, and to let that land he sold in
lots, the whole being under regulations strictly laid down,
but to be under the management of persons appointed by
thoSe who had the interest ; and I can see no more difficulty
in that than in managing any other large concern; and
there is an exuberance of capital in Liverpool—capital seek-
ing employment. And if these warehouses will pay so well,
it cannot for a moment be doubted that any number of Ware-
houses that can be wanted for the town will be provided by
private capital as soon as ever the arrangements are made
that are said to be so advantageous. I therefore cannot see
any propriety in becoming the Managers of warehouse
property at all; I believe private individuals will ►na-
nage as well as public bodies can manage ; but we
all agree that they can never manage successfully in
competition with private individuals. . I think, there-
fore, we ought not by any means to sanction the inea.
sure; and when Mr. Currie began his observations T was
in great hopes I should have bee❑ able to have concluded
wit►► him. I think the dock committee should not attempt to
carry this measure. till thei subject has been more dis-
cussed. 1 cannot but think it is asiugular position in which
Mr. Currie would call on the council to sanction measures
with.the declaration that they will not carry out those mea-
sures, or are nut pledged to thorn. if it were a case of life
and death, why, necessity has ❑o law, and there would be
no getting over it. .It does not appear to me why we should
not put it off to
.another session, and have time to discuss it :
because it cannot be concealed, if you get a majority—if it
be,a majority.sttcli: as on a former occasion, is it not clear
that it will be carried to parliament with a very great. oppo-
sition? 1 say it is clear to me that they will be beaten. But
whether or not, is it well with so small a majority to insist
on getting before parliament with whatever chances they
may have of success? I say we have no chance at all but

the certainty of embroiling us with a great many persons
who have large properties, and who consider they will be
injured by the measure. I believe we have a law that when
the dock committee or any body here is acting under an act
of parliament, that it is considered so much the sanction of
the law of the land, that you cannot-get over the authority
of that, without two-thirds of the council. Now it appears to
toe that that would be one of those cases which ought to be
made to apply; becatise, where we are going to disturb pro- -
petty which has been held under the assurance of an act of
parliament, I think it would be but fair to the public inte-
restel, if the gentlemen felt that with that small majority •
they ought by no means to act; 'they ought really to feel
that two thirds ought to be with them. I merely suggest
thi,, but I think nothing will be lost by waiting for another
session ; and, in the meantime, I think other measures
of great importance to ,the port might be brought for-
ward. 'There is the case of the landing waiters, and
dock occupation. There never has appeared to me, with
regarl to. dock occupation, any *sufficient reason why
Clock-room should not be charged according to the ac-
commodation. Great complaint has been made that vessels
taking in cargoes very needlessly occupy space. So let it
be, but let that occupation be paid for accordingly. You
cannot go to a hotel and take as much loom as you please
and only pay for a month as much as you pay for a clay; nor
can any one go to a hotel and expect to be accommodated
on the same principle as he would at a common public-house.
Now it appears to me that vessels drawing a small draft of
water and a large draft are just paying the same. It appears
to me that if the dock quay was on principle established that
every quay berth have its price—I don't mean the same
price; I would have the docks have different prices according
to the,accommodation they afford—and that they were paid,
not by the vessel for being there but at a daily price, that
you would find in 'a very short time that you would gain such
accommodation as von never had; and in furtherance of this,
that it might be tried to rent the docks.
Mr.AldermarcßoairssoN.—l .beg leave to rise to order;
it is a very long story:
Mr. Councillor DAVID HODGSON.—I will bow to the
chair; on the question of dock accommodation I do not
think I am out of order;' am I right.
The M on.—l don't wish to interfere. We are going a
little out of the record; but anything on dock accommodation
is hearing on the question undoubtedly. - • .
Mr. Councillor DAVID Honcsota continued.—l don't see
why the landing-waiters should be limited as to time ;. 1 don't
see why they should not work from sunrise to sunset; and I
don't see why the whole trade should become decrepid for
fear they should run away. And the landing-waiters would
certainly he ready to work so if paid according to what they
pet form ;, and I think these two things would very greatly
facilitate the•wholeproceeding.—(hear, from Mr. Evans)—
without.the building of warehouses. And the want of ware-
houSes will,he tested if any .offer is made of the sites and no-
body will tiny them, and if they are purchased then nobody
is injured. On these grounds I must vote against the amend-
ment as proposed.
Mr. Councillor BLACKBURN —I should be glad if I could
succeedin,recalling the attention of the council to the ques-
tion- really before them. (Hear, hear.) He thought no map
could have watched the course of the proceedings without
Yielding: to the, suggestion of the chairman of the Finance
Uommittee. He thought that the very circumstance of the
great differencenf opinion which prevailed evinced a want of
information, and showed that a further inquiry should be in-
stituted before they came to a decision. Besides, there were
several clauses in the abstract of the bill which he had—he
did not know how they might be affected by other provisions
in the bill itself=which were extremely vague. He:would
• -
point to one. 'The first clause confers upon the dock trust to
let or demise the lands :o private individuals for the purpose
of building upon, while the second conferred upon them the
• power to'boilcf themselves, and there was no one, as far as he
• could find, to decide which of the courses was to be taken.
He was for.havirig the whole matter referred to a special
cominittei reihirt thereon ; they would then have some-
thing spetific and precise on which to decide ; and they
would then be in a cendition to go to parliarieent just for as
much as they desired, and no more. (Hear.) He should
give his vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Councillor BIBBY (who spoke in so low a tone of
voice that we could only hear a part of what he said).—l take
leave to Make a few observations. I should not have occasion
to make any remarks on it but there are some observations
connected with the warehousing system, not alluded to. I
believe that it is agreed on all hands that the Dock Estate
is the source of our wealth. As to the next question, as to
warehouses are they wanted or not, it is quite clear to me
that the warehouses are wanted, and the nearer the docks
the better; that is the general principle. As to the insuf-
ficiency of the warehouses for the present, or not, it is not
for me to say, • As to the last year, there was a superabun-
d ince of warehouse room ; but I believe it arose from the
existing state of excitement, owing to which. many dared
not risk their property to this coentry. Thinking as I do,
that warehouses would • be a benefit to the town, and no in-
jury to the warehouse proprietors themselves, provided there
was no adVantage given to these intended warehouses that
was not given to any private warehouse in the town. As
such, if they were to get the present dock built, as now
framed, with exclusive privileges and laws, I as a ship owner
would give any money, or any price to have my ships dis-
charged quickly ; for why? because I should not have to
send my clerk' running for a week or a fortnight. And as
such, 1 should certainly advocate the principle if it is ex-
tended to all private warehouses, and ail warehouses that are
built. As to the land, I think it ought to be sold to the
warehouse 'proprietors, that they might have an opportunity
of investing their money. It is very well for the dock trus-
tees to have the management. As to lire, I have no appre-
hension about it. There has been fire used at the Duke's
dock ever since it was a dock, and at other docks, and I have
never seen any accident, nor do-riffifiehend any. If these
warehouses were classified, putting into some, things that
were not combustible, and into others, things that were, there
would he no difficulties. I would have no exclusive privileges
extended to them. •
Mr. Councillor WA LMESLEY.—It must he very pleasing to
the council to have practical opinions so clearly delivered as
those of Mr.-Bibby. He is a gentleman so long acquainted
with the practical part of ships and warehouses of his own
that his opinion must have great weight with each of us.
Since this question was last before the council, as a member
of the.dock committee, I bare given to its consideration all
in my power,' and as a member of the sub-committee to
certain the best means of giving increased facility in dis-
charging vessels, I have had opportunity of viewing the
question in all its bearings; and I unhesitatingly declare
that the-more I have dwelt upollit, the more am I couvineed

of the utter worthlessness of every other project compared
with that of building warehouses oa the verge of the dock
quays. Whether such warehouses shall be built by the dock
trustees or by individuals is a very different question. As
one opposed to every thing like monopoly 1 should be dis-
posed to think it should be given to the public; but this is a
subject worthy of the deep consideration of the council. But
that warehouses should be built appears to me to be beyond
dispute. That land, that now is almost lying waste, and
which, if properly employed, would nearly double the present
dock accommodation, should be permitted to lie in its
present state merely because certain influential indi-
_vidnals hold property in less eligible situations, or be-
cause certain less influential individuals have got a
man in the corporation, is a proposition to me so mon-
strous that I cannot think how any man could be brought
to accede to it. With reference to the: general interests
of the country or of this locality, it is equally certain that
the greatest facility should be given to commerce, that the
rates and charges should be- at the lowest scale; that there
should be the greatest interchange between the grower and
consumer. Something has been said about political econ-
omy. The political economists will take this view of the
question; they wilt not ask of these proprietors to be con-
sulted, but what will most conduce to public good. In a local
point of view, the longer the question is delayed the more
difficult it will become. New interests are continually

springing up amongst us. Within the last three years the
rates upon the assessment of warehouSes has been increased
at the rate of £12,000 per annum, giving 60 new warehouses
per annum, at the rate of £2OO per annum each. What I
would ask, are the warehouses that are now named, or are
now about to be proposed for dock accommodation, compared
with this fact ? The particulars I have just now taken out
of the rate. In 1835, the increase was £12,231 ; in 1836,
£11,636; in 1837, £12,397, leaving an increase of £36,300
upon new warehouses, or about £12,000 per annum. Now,
Mr. Mayor, I think the opponents of the measure would do
very welt to consider whether the interest of their own pro-
perty—the benefit of these pet warehouses, would not be best
promoted by giving increased facility to the commerce of the
port ; and it would be also for them to bear in mind that new
docks are already springing up at our feet; that is, that we
have already a dock at the south end of the town. They
should bear also, in mind, that new interests may spring up
on both sides of the Mersey, for we cannot prevent this;
and the only means to prevent this competition is to give the
greatest facility to docks that we at present possess. Mr.
Mayor, so much has been said, and so many arguments have
been adduced in favour of this measure, that my mind is com-
pletely made up on this question. I think there is not the
slightest necessity for further delay ; but should that be the
wish of the council, that there should be further delay, for
one 1 will withdraw the motion Mr. Evans has made, and
which I have seconded. I trust that the council will consider
this in its proper light: it is private interest against pub-
lic good; neither more nor • less (hear) ; and I trust
the opponents of a liberal town council will never have it in
their power to say, that either from fear of outward clamour,
or for private interest, they were induced for one moment to
swerve front that which I conceive in this question they ow!'
to the welfare of the country. (Hear.) Much has been
.said on the question of fire. Now, as chairman of the watch
committee, I would just think it due to this council and to
the fire police to state, that had there been water in Roberts-
street, where this great fire took place, the damage from the
fire would not have exceeded a thousand pounds. We took
three loads of water to that place—another would have put
out the fire. How would this be with warehouses on the
verge of the docks, where we have plenty of water? And I
must also extenuate the fire police as to any blame for the
want of water; because public notice and private notice. had
been given to the insurance offices that we would not be
answerable for any fire unless they laid mains to thatquarter.
I think this is due to the public, from whom we levy £12,000
a-year in support. lam satisfied that it is for the interest of
the public that warehouses should be built on the verge of
the dock-quays, and would say I would bring it to the issue
this day, and let gentlemen vote according to their con-
sciences: (Hear.)
Mr. Councillor BIRCH.-1 have listened with the greatest
attention—with the utmost desire for information, to all the
arguments advanced, both in and out of the council, on this
important question ; and I declare, I am quite unable to dis-
cover anything which calls for or can justify this adoption of
a question involving consequences so extremely momentous,
and perhaps ultimately involving the injury of thousands.
Mr. Mayor, I think, judging from what I have heard, that it
has been satisfactorily proved, that there is really no neces-
sity for these warehouses; that no advantage whatever can
result from them commensurate with their attendant incon-
veniences, and certainly nothing that can compensate for the
immense destruction of property already invested in ware-
houses—that property which is called private, because it be-
longs to individuals, but which from its great extent ought
rather, I think, to be regarded as one of the most leading
public interests in thetown. (Hear.) That property, allow
tire to say, in its aggregate amount, far exceeding the value
of the shipping, equal, if not exceeding the value of the rail-
ways connected with the town, and I will even go so far asto
say, surpassing the property of the whole of the banking
companies. Mr. Mayor, I am quite ready to admit, and it
cannot be denied, that London possesses an advantage over
Liverpool in respect to quickness; but those who think that
these advantages can be overcome by the erection of large
warehouses—of public waaehouses, are proceeding on a very
erroneous conception. I have heard every thing that has
been said on the subject of the fire, and giving my friend Mr.
Evans gieat credit for the talent e always displays, I am
quite unable to concur with him. I think it will he found
in nine cases out of ten, that the risk of fire will
be found in exact -ratio to the extent of the build-
ings where it is. We will take the fire of last week.
The goods on the south side of Roberts-street were
in six warehouses; three were destroyed, and then the police.
succeeded in putting down the fire; but if that was in one
large and extensive building, 1 ant sure no power on earth
would have stopped it. And with regard to building these
warehouses on the west Side of the dock, it does appear to
me that warehouses in that situation must incur an increased
risk. A variety of opinions have been given on this subject;
I can onlv.say I have taken the trouble to consult a gentle-
man who has the control of one of the oldest and wealthiest
fire offices in London, and he says, so far from any diminu-
tion of danger, it will be increased, it will be amazingly in-
creased between the shipping and the warehouses ; the risk
to warehouses from ships, and the risk to the ships. fiom the
contiguity of warehouses, and to suppose under such circum-
stances that there can be the slightest reduction of insurance
is quite out of the question. I have been told by an intelli-
gent member of the Dock Committee that it is intended to
exclude cotton and a variety of other articles of a combus-
tible tendency. Now it is said that the private warehouses
already afford sufficient accommodation for cotton, and the
imports of cotton require nothing further: I quite agree to
that, sir. The private warehouses always have and always
will afford proper accommodation, but is this a proper argu-
ment to be used? If the erection of these warehouses is in-
tended to enable the merchant to land at these warehouses
and dispose of his goods at a considerable reduction of expen-
diture as to charges, what are we to think of an arrangement
which will exclude from the benefit of that reduction the
most bulky, the most valuable, and beyond all question, the
most important article of commerce which finds its way
here. (Hear.) Mr. Mayor, when this subject was discussed
some months ago, there were several gentlemen who sup-
ported it simply on the ground of its being so inconsiderable
an addition to the general Warehouses. It was said that we who
opposed it were very unreasonable, as these warehouses were
only intended as an experiment, that they might give increased
facilities, and could not possibly injure the value of warehouse
property in any degree. It will be remembered that Land others
who held this opinion, said the mere fact of warehouses being
built there would incur the necessity of building others.
What is the fact? That a bill is in progress for building
warehouses on the land on the west side of the Prince's Dock
affording space for sixty waretreuses, and so with Salthouse
Dock and other docks; altogether we shall have warehouses
which will afford, I imagine, a very large experiment. It is
really high time for the council to say that that they will not
suffer such interference with the value of private property.
But if the council should be insensible to the demands of
those whose property is injured—if it should be left to the
julk claims, surely we ought nut to lose sight of What is due
trilhat noble estate which the municipal constituency has
prit into our charge. That estate is given us for the benefit
of the whole town, and ought not to be disposed of for the
benefit of one class. Let me ask what has occurred with re-
spect to property since this subject was first agitated. We
know very well that capitalists have become distrust-
ful and called in their mortgages; that the value of land
and all other property around the docks has been very
considerably diminished ; and as regards the corporate
estate itself, we must observe that there have been no fines
for the renewal of leases for warehouses, and with very in-
considerable exceptions, no sale of land -for warehouses,
though see know full welt that there is a large amount eligible.
Now I will not betray any confidence, and I do say that
these are considerations which we ought not to lose sight of
in such an important question. It has been stated by the last
speaker, and has been pretty boldly insinuated by others,
that the opposition to this measure proceeds from persons
whose interests alone prompts them to oppose it, Now I
must say with respect to myself, this is nut the fact. It is
very true that I have within the last few years invested a
large property—l may call it a fortune, in the warehouses
of Liverpool; but surely that fact is not to expose me to the
charge of being instigated by selfishness if I stand here in
defence of the property which I have earned by the sweat of
my brow, and the greater part of which 1 hold under lease
from the corm ation, 'which implies a guarantee that I shall
be protected in the possession of it. I bought laud in
the best situations in Liverpool, and I have paid correspond-
ing prices for that land; and if after giving my money, the
fair advantage is to be withheld from me, let tire ask, is that
fair dealing? Mr. Mayor, I object to this measure as un-
necessary and unjust. 1 think it unjust to the public; I
think it is peculiarly unjust to the lessees of the corporation,
but it is still more unjust to those individuals who are still
under an obligation to erect warehouses, and who, fearing
this obligation, have sought to be relieved, but unsuccessfully,
from that obligation. I object to it as a speculative good, and
certain of inflicting incalculable evil; and I trust that the
Dock Committee will pause before they commit themselves
on a question wherein half of Liverpool will appear arrayed
in hostility to the other half; and in which, those who really
possess the most permanent stake of property in the town,
may be driven to form an unnatural alliance against those
who ought to be their protectors. (Hear, hear.)
M. Alderman BA RCLA Y.-1 wish to make some remarks
with regard to what the gentleman has said who has last ad-
dressed you. He seems to apprehend that the measure will
be destructive to the present warehouse property. Now, if
we look to the operation contemplated by these bills on the
table, we eannot go to Parliament till next Spring; we can-
not get our right till next year, and we cannot go into opera-
tion for a year and a half, and then by the provisions of that
act, We cannot brim: more than one-' hird of these warehouses
into operation for three years at least; so that it will he five
years before they are. opened fur use. During that Onto no
other warehouses will be built in Liverpool; nobody will
think of such a thing ; therefere the present warehouse hol-
ders will have the present warehouses for five years. At the
end of that time. five new warehouses will be let into them.
It apears from Mr. Wahusley, that in the course of the last
year 60 warehouses have been built annually.
Mr. WarauseaY.—l beg pardon.
Mr. Alderman BA RDI, AY continued.—l don't care if it is
thirty warehouses. At all events, it appears to one that the
carrying of these bills through will be the greatest protection
that can arise, if their argument is worth a farthing. If this
bill passes, no new warehouses can be started. They will
have the monopoly of the warehouses for five years, and then
it will be by degrees that the .warehouses are let in. The
dock has to he built first; and we know what time it takes
to build a dock. And, therefore, to speak of these things as
an injury to the present warehouses—l wish to use no impro-
per expression—appears to me to be an absurdity.
Mr. Councillor EARLE.-Mr. Barclay, in his enthusiasm,
has forgot something, namely, three years in which the whole
of the work is to be completed.
Mr. Councillor SANDS had given his vote on a previous
occasion, under the conviction that the proposed or similar
warehouses were wanted, and that warehouses about the docks
would be of great advantage to the commerce of the town.
He was nearly of the same opinion now; but still lie thought
that they ought not to be built, by the Dock Committee, but
by private individuals. He must vote against the amend-
ment.

Mr..JonN Sm ITH said, that close and impartial considera-
tion of this great and important question had more than
ever convinced him that, iu order. to, facilitate the business
of the port, there existed no real necessity for the erection
of these warehouses. That difficulties did frequently pre-
sent themselves, to prevent the speedy discharge of the
cargoes of vessels, he did not pretend to deny; but hr
would ask if there were no other remedy for the evil than this
favourite scheme—this darling bantling, if he might term it—
of the Dock Committee? Was that intended to be thf-
Ifiorism's laughter)—the grand specific which was
effectually to eradicate all the diseases and complaints apper-
taining to the trade and commerce of the port ? Could no
other panacea he discovered for the removal of the obstruc-
tions and'itivediments to despatch, commencing with tht) r 414-

ny vexatious and annoying regulations of the Custont-house
and ending with the very imperfect and inconvenient manner
in which the porterage -department of business was usually
conducted in the town ? He imagined that a much more sim-
ple and less costly remedy might be applied. In the-firAi'place,
let those merchants who were in the habit of receiving annu-
ally large consignments of goods and' produce, agree to
about one uniform system of porterage, consenting, .fOr the
sake of general convenience and despatch, to forego the pro-
fits at present accruing to them from the difference wising
between the day or weekly wages which they paid and the
rates per package which they were legally entitled to charge.
In the next place, if the exclusive privilege sought to be ob-
tained by the dock trustees, under the 11th head of the pro-
posed warehouse bill, empowering them, after a reasonable
time, to store unentered goods, were at once granted to the
shipping interest of the port generally, there would'nePexist
even the shadow of an excuse for entering into'nll,oject
which, if carried into effect, would entail certaiti ruin and
misery upon hundreds of individuals. He would remark,
with respect to Mr. Alderman Evans's strictures on.bis fiiend
Mr. Holme's letter in last Monday's Albion, that lie.:much
regretted that his friend (not being a member of council)
could not be there present to defend himself in.pericri.., He
would, however, no doubt, do so through the mediurn,of the
public press.
Mr. Alderman EVANS.—I believe I have a prescriptive
right to reply to the various observations that have. been
made; cud if I occupy your time, I know not how it can be
better employed than on an occasion that is admitted on all
hands to be of the highest and most pre-eminent importance.
And I observe, sir, in a number of speakers there is a. recur-
rence to fires. As no allusion has been made to what I said

ofMr.-1-oime, give me leave to say that I left a most Mate-
rial item out, which concerns the weight which sonfeWntle-
man's testimony ought to have on the question'. - I are ex-
ceedingly indebted to Mr. Smith. I maintain,Anis' Mr.
Holme for many years was one of the most Strentidt!tildvo-
cates of the docks; there is a plan of his extant new ;
" the story is written in most choice Italian"—and making
a stack of warehouses to work by machinery • running be-
tween them. Now, sir, there were warehouses, whie,h-.from
their height and depth would have exceeded all-tiso 'Ware-
houses we are proposing now. Upon the further arguing
that point, you well know the degree of consideration
Mr. Holmes had for the warehouse - holders,,s .veliose
case he advocated at the expense of the Dock .-Cerrnmittee.
He charges us with offering measures of gross -injustice. I
asked him—for this latter conversation was with .ine—if
he would give the warehouse owner's notice ? 'What wasahat
notice? It was seven years. Now, sir, I have stated. the
matter merely because Mr. Holmes was a man of-great,,influ-
ence; and as be came into the press with his -name, bsi has
given me a right to let down that influence upon.the question,
which I now endeavour to do. Now, sir, with regard. to five;
it has been mentioned here by several gentlemen .',lf the
danger is in view, I refer to London and the `four .greatest
greatest
establishments they have there for 30 years. We have beard
that there was a fire in St. Katherine's Dock. Ye's. it is ad- •
mitted that, you can prevent fire, but we can have a facility
of putting it out. When the new Dock Committee came
into office, we found extremely stringent laws ab'o'ut, steam
boats. Upon reflection, we have greatly mitigated them and
removed them; because it happened that fire, was their ele-
ment we were always on the look out to repress it ;. and-it is
very characteristic of a public body acting on a, printiple
of officers going in and out, so that the men could not-have
a pipe or anything of that sort, it is a natural cons.elusion
that they could not have a fire. But I refer to these ,London
establishments for so long a time without any fires, and then
I refer again to the rates of insurance, after which I would
have expected that not one word more would have been said.
However, my friend over the way—(Mr. Birch).—J could
not expect the compliment of a written speech, or that he
would have run the hazard of interrupting the thread of it out
of deference to what I might have said. t reinitids.me of a
quotation used by Mr. Canning, who . explained - that
it was not meant in any way to give offence, and I repeat in
exactly the same spirit. I believe it is from Ilorace.;. my
friend will correct me there (great laughter.) -I am going
to give you the translation, for my memory would- failsme in
the original,
" Destroy the web, the prophecy's, in vain,:.
_ The creature's at his dirty wprk again.", .
Therefore, whatever proof—if an angel from, heaveneame
down—we have this eternal fire up. (Hear and laughter.)
Now, sir, with regard to the expressions. We. will: arrive at
you presently (looking at Mr. Earle, amidst mttclinat,er.)
I assure you I have no ill feeling against any of yet4...!.With
regard to the expressions that have been cast:otic.l4,mv
friend Mr. Currie, I apprehend that even if we did *. Carry
the whole of the bill, if we carried an insignificaliilnt ' en t,
},cm
that we carry the expenses; 'and I should thiliier-t ftf4the
Dock Committee, in a good spitit, would acq.tiltqC.e' lfifghat
arrangement, Well, I shall not for a motnenatifeliiitiNr.
Brown's motion of monopoly. The monoPolyls'eannotfind
in the thing; because, after all, what we Waßtlo.lgiVe.'l3 an
insignificant fraction. I don't suppose that the. 1,(i1'6 of
the warehouse 4 per cents. are much more: :And you 4)b-
serve, what we want is, to have it in the handS of the,..D'ock
Committee; for it is merely in order to _make: a' cautious
experiment in bands where any error may . be,repritable ;
not to commit the quays and land of the doels:all,4olinre :
that Liverpool being in the peculiar situation, of havinsiTsthe
docks public and the warehouses private, weleiseht-emerke a
very formidable—a very great mistake in lettingstbem at
once. We have no kind of affection for warchon,es for-Ware-
house sake, We have asked discretion that we way-let them
out, and that the council might rely-upon it.; Ity.t.theyslieed
not rely upon it, for the proceedings, wheneyer.yes,nrade
that option,. as it was resolved,, would come liefereJ-hosesrun-
cil, butt should say that discretion would st. be,receivewith
-
that understanding also. Now, sir, the monopoly.,sstlich.
exists now, is the only monopoly that-I can
,Sec, and in _order
to just let sou know of its existence, you have harla gradual
advance from 12s 6d to £lO or £l2 for land exactly lit .eland
used for agricultural uses, and vou will find a constant}'. in-
creasing rent fur land near the -docks; and then that refit, will
cause the occupation of warehouses higher up and.in Worse
places. Therefore we are arrived at
.that • point.i.ihat
it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the mei:candle
public for us to bring this land into play: that would regulate
the higher warehouse rent, which would act on Comrherce.
How long are we to trail up the hill, and look at thbse. happy
levels that have been made at such great expense..„And
now, my friend here (Mr. Birch) is an 'excellent spolts-
man, and a very great portion of his life latterly kesibeen
spent on the moors, and he has got a vitiated taste, and he
would like to carry those delightful wastes all round" 'the
docks; but that is not all, he wishes to perpetuate it. It is
a kind of Moloch under his feet, now and hereafter. 'ill* it
does happen that Liverpool will give rise to more dock, still
there will be these obstacles offered, you may make the necks,
but no warehouses. You have heard what Mr. WaltnaleV'oas
calculated as an average increase of warehouses,- no less than
sixty a year. Now that should give confidence—should let the
warehouse owners know that there is a margin in Li;ierpool,
and her prosperity is unbounded, and that numbers of new
private warehouses will be required, and absorbed in theisom-
merce of Liverpool ; that is sure if you have got faith in it.
Now, Sir, leasing the lands; we have not the least objection
to lease out lands, but we wish to knew our way; we would
not let here a warehouse and there a warehouse to i.prlivjdu-
als, but we would let them to companies. - I want 'ty-sxste-
matic arrangement of the company; with'allroylleArtj..wisuld
lease lands outwhen ever we got beyond the first eXp'eriin-e-rit ;
and I would give in the Srst experiment also. .NOW, with re-
gard to the corporate estate, I really had no idea; that ileadww,
would be alluded to: as if that corporate estate'inltS'iiiagni-
tude and in its division is not identified with the whole tawu
and with the community, and will rise or' fall with ihe:pyos-
perity of the town of Liverpool. I have no need, Sir, AO enter
much more upon that; but there were some. otTsre-
marks made by Mr. Birch. He we haVe "irrjtiry and
ruin involved for themselves ;" that is going on'the supi Osi.
lion that the whole of the twelve hundred warehouses
must be left idle. That I leave to itselr. Bet I would be
glad to know whether we are to allow a repressive glooni.to
be cast over the future state of Liverpool—if we we're to- make
so complete a sacrifice of the present and also of posterity.to
what I pronounce the baseless and perfectly idle appiVlien-
sirms of the warehouse owners. Let them prove their loSses;
let that lie open, net the working of it; but nut to interfere to
prevent Liverpool getting bold of a machine which will exalt
her at once and with speed over all her rivals. - Noii: theye-
marks of Mr. Birch, which 1 have heard with ttO liftle-pain
.
and grief, because I should he certainly sorry that tipOn re-
flection he would let that escape him—that he would confirm
it ; and that is' that his local patriotism should sit So. light
upon him, as the mere apprehension of -a small reduction or
if any almost from his income, should lead him. into.:an
alliance with the enemies of the mercantile town' 4r- Liver-
pool. These were matters which Mr. Birch- li-as urged
which were all urged at the last meeting its every 'respect.
And 1 have only one more remark with regard to Mis,Hodg-
son. Although he was eloquent, and made a great fnany
remarks, 1 rejoiced that it all coded that he was an advocate
for the warehouses—that he admitted that undoubtedly 'the

working of the docks in connection with the Warehouses,
would be the beau ideal of every thing. Now, sir, we have
only been taunted with our small majority on tie last occa-
sion. I have studiously avoided that on the formernec'asiett,
and would now—alluding to gentlemen's interests. Sir, it
was mentioned to me. by one of the most respectable and
most intellig,ent men out of doors, that he positively consi-
dered that thoss who were interested in .warehouses ought
not to vote at all. And if we hear of our small majcirity, and
if you will analyze the minority upon that principle, I ant
sure that the majority, however small; will be greatly en-
larged.
Mr. Cu Ties amendment was then put to the vote... Iho
following was the division :—For the amendMe'nt,23,namely---
Counciilors—W. Preston, J. Mellor, J. Wonllright, J.
Priestley, H. Horobv, W. Lassell, J. Carson, T. Moiecroft,
V. Higgins, T. Blackburn, E. Seger, and W. W. Ctirrie'.
Aldermen—J. Hamby, W. Brown, 'l'. Leithoni, .G. 'Holt,
R. Benn, E. Evans, J. Moon,'!'. Bullev, T. B. Barclay, G•
Robinson, and the mayor.
Against it, 31, namely—
Cuuncellors—J. Holmes, J. Heyworth, D. Hatreson.-C•
Logan, R. Houghton, E. Harvey, W. Shand, C. Rawdop,
J. Barton, B. Frankland, H. Holmes, T. Sands} J. 'Watt-ris-
ky, C. Birch, J. Bibby, C. Lawrence, J. Cooper, J.N.Wood,
W. Earle, Jun., J. Mason, J. S. Leigh, J,
Lawrence, J Cropper, jun., F. Jordan, and G. RamSderi..,..
Aldermen—T. Booth, C. H. Jones, 'l'. Holt; W. P. Ft eo'e,
and 0. Heyworth.
Absent—Messrs. W. Thornhill, 'l'. Bolton, It: Bright,. J.-
Lawrence, H. Lawrence, T. Brocklebauk, T.•Coglan, J••
Platt, and W. M. Duncan.
Mr. W. EARLE then' seconded the amendment Which had
been proposed by Mr. Booth.
A"et some slight discussion, that amendment was ptit to
the vote, and was carried by a majority of two, the nuMbers.
being 28 for, and 26 against it. The voting seas •
'as follows
—For the amendment-
- Councillors—J. Holmes, J. Heyworth, -D. Hodgson, C•
Logan, R. Houghton, W. Shand, W. Preston; J. Barton,
B. Frankland. H. Holmes, T. Sands: C. Birch; C: Law-
rence, J. Cooper, J. N. Wood, W. Earle jun., J. Mlison,
J. S. Leigh, J. Smith, C. H. Lawrence/J. Cropper,juno
F. Jordan, and G. Ramsdell.
Aldermen—T. Booth, C. 11. Jones, J. Motin, W. P. Freme,
and 0. Heyworth.
Against it—
Councillorir—E. Harvey, C. Rawdon, J. Mellor. J. Walirs
ley, J. \Voolright, J. Priestley. H. Hornbyl• J. Bibby, •
LasselL J. Carson, T. Morecroft, V. Higgins, r. Blackburn,
E. Segar, anil \V. W. Currie.
'Aldermen—J. 1-lornby, W. Brown, 'l'. Leathoto, G.
R. Benn, E. Evans, 'l'. Holt, T. Bullev,
T. B. Barclay', G.Robinson, and the Mayor.
Absent, as before. Ajd.
After the result'of the voting bad been announced,
;
Evans remarked that there.was nothing disconraging.•`'
as there were seven absent members in favour of the mea-
sure. Another gentleman observed, that among the abseil-
tees were two opponents to it.
There was considerable confusion in the council-roto)1.1):
the members congregating in knots,. and vehemently
versing; and the Mayor was unable CO bring them to °
to pass the Finance Committee proceeding.:
to
Mr. Alderman EvANs.—lt will be zor :1-,"
ne
make docks, for I am sure the docks Will not.
lead a horse to water, but he Weill drink. .
Mr. Councillor HENRY HoLmEs No. no'
Committee must make ducks.
It was intimated that there was a doubt whether the.
Committee Committee would proceed with the bill at all, pow ilia!
t
principal portion of it was rejected. The prriceerliogs
•I'L
Finance Committee were not decided upon, and :the S)
cil adjourned till Tuesday, the 30th October, as a-Q6art
erly
Council. The adjournment took place at four o'clock.

As the members of the Council were retiriuA7,, Mr.
man Evans was heard addressing some member with g!'e'"'„
vehemence,—" You are the greatest traitor I ever he
iet
This sally was fo:lowed by considerable laughterfei3O:thC""
d the members. fitio.itpxv
* The quotation is from
1,910100*a

Thatmen
tieo
nLe id/ ear
sa rl k
eGI
y z etot e
aepthat
ti
eh saved pEr de d (c)411
tf 13. 0 "f
.1.41 `116:413° ot
Society, in the room gt the Duke of Sussex.