The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-12 00:00:00

bliink of Prince's Dock. He could wish that these ware-
houses were built upon the security of the warehouses them-
selves, which, if the land were not taken into account, and
paid for by the dock trustees simply as quays, he thought
might be done. But no difficulty of the kind should be
thrown in the way, merely for the sake of preventing ware-
houses being built. At all events, some arrangements might
tie made. Then, he should wish some assurance or guarantee
might be introduced into the bill, which should render it
beyond a doubt that there would be no loss upon those
parties who considered that they were not interested in the
warehouses. He should also like to aim at a clause which
would compel the dock committee to charge the higbestrates
consistently with keeping the warehouses ; and, on the other
hand, care should be taken that importers into these warehouses
did not gain an advantage overthe public ; for he contended
that they should be made to pay, and be the means of actu-
ally reducing the dock rates generally. With some proviso
of this sort, the rate-payers would feel less aggrieved if the
warehouses were built than if the docks were built solely.
He would then do this—he would acknowledge the principle
that the existing warehouses were sufficient for the existing
docks--that the rates should be made as high as was con-
sistent with keeping them in repair—that those parties who
disputed them should not be injured by the failure of' the
scheme—and he would leave the management of them in the
hands of the Dock Committee. He aimed also at making
the Dock Committee more popular with the rate-payers.' He
aimed at making them a more responsible body than they
were, and more amenable to the rate-payers. Though he did
not ex'pect that the council would adopt any plan of this sort,
he thought it was not its interest absolutely to refuse it.
These were the opinions he had formed on this subject. He
had taker! some pains to form them ; and he was sure it would
not hastily be said that he had spoken rashly or at random.
Considering his bumble means, he had more at stake in this
question than most of those whom he was then addressing;
but it should never be said that, for the sake of personal or
pecuniary interest, he had thwarted any measure for the ge-
neral benefit and interest of the town.

Mr. GEORGE HOLT wished that the subject had been nar-
rowed within the limits of the appointment of the committee,
and not opened again upon the general principle, because
that had been so often discussed, both in and out of
doors, and in the papers, that every one had expressed
his opinion upon it. The consideration of the question
seemed to be confined to the private interests of the
warehouse-owners. Of course, they would naturally take a
view of their own interest ; still, he could not but admire
the fairness and candour of the last speaker. He thought,
too, that the mover of the resolution had shown as much
fairness and candour as under the circumstances could be ex-
pected from him. But still there seemed to be no sympathy
with the public estate. Here was an estate of about
£1,000,000 in value, and on this question there was no sym-
pathy with it. it was scarcely to be expected that a bill of
the magnitude of this dock bill could be successful in the
first session ; it was a great deal to have paved the way for a
successful result this year. Concerning the expense, how
did it arise ? Although it made every provision for parochial
rates, we found the parish authorities oppcsing it with the
public funds. A more unwarrantable interference was never
witnessed ; and this was a great source of additional expense.
While they were opposing the building of warehouses in
Liverpool, which should be subject to parochial taxation,
just 'out of the boundaries of the borough, what was the
fact? The Herculaneum and Harrington bills were encou-
raged, and Liverpool was to be the only port in the
world having docks without warehouses:. After expres-
sing an opinion that Mr. Lawrence need be under no ap-
prehensions about the warehouses being always full,
he said, that bonded sheds would entail au enormous
expense, whilst they would bring in no revenue ; and
as to raising money to build the warehouses, he thought that
would be easily done in the way suggested. It was diffi-
cult to say that there would not be a benefit to the estate.
If the warehouses paid 20 per cent, and there was only 5
per cent to be paid for the interest, a surplus went to the
estate. Thus, dock warehouses were as necessary to docks
as the masts of a vessel were necessary to a complete ship.
With regard to the appointment of a committee, for any
purpose, except to embarrass the bill, it was totally absurd.
It was quite unnecessary, as the subject was perfectly under-
stood. _ _ _ _

likely to bring about a carnprcin3ise, and to settle the ques.'
tion ; therefore he should vote for it.
Mr. EvAics rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke',"
and claimed to be heard on the amendment. (Cries of
" No, no.")
Mr. BARCLAY asked the Mayor whether Mr. Evans could

not be heard.
The MAYOR replied in the negative.
Mr. EVANS.—IS there not an amendment before the
council?
The MAYOR.—There is.
Mr. EvANs.2—Then I claim my right to be heard.
The MAYOR intimated that such a course was irregular.
Mr. EvANs said he should speak to the amendment, and
nothing else. (Loud cries of_" Vote.").

Mr. EARLE rose, but not being heard, Mr. EVANS again
rose, and asked the Town-clerk to decide the point.
The TOWN-CLERK stated that Mr. Evans was irregular.
The MAYOR then addressed the council briefly in favour
of the amendment.
Mr. EARLE having replied, a division took place, when the
numbers were declared to be,
For the amendment 27
Against it

Majority
No division was taken on the original question. The fol-
lowing are the names of the voters :

For the amendment.—Messrs Quayle, Thornhill, Case,
Mellor, Walmsley, Aikin, Woollright, Bright, Priestley,
Hornby, Yates, Robinson, Morecroft, Cog-lan, M`Kee,
Platt,'Mather, Shiel, J. Hornby, Roskell, G. Holt, Venn,
Evans, Barclay, T. Holt, Harvey, and the Mayor—Total27.
Against.—Messrs. J. Holilies, Hodgson, Isaac Holmes,
Houghton, Sandbach, Copeland, Wright, Barton, Blundell,
H. Holmes, Toulmin, Cooper, H. Lawrence, Wood, Birkett,
Gladstone, Bushell, Proctor, Rigby, Kilshaw, R. Jones,
Leigh, G. Smith, G. H. Lawrence, Harbord, A. Smith,
Booth, Earle, and Freme—Total 29.
Absent.—Messrs. Sands, J. Lawrence, Slater, Jordan,
Leathom, C. H. Jones, Moon, and Bulley.
Mr. EARLE then proposed the committee as_ follow

Messrs. Walmsley, Evans, Freme, Gladstone, Harbord, J.
Holmes, George Holt, H . Hornby, Moon, Proctor, and
Alexander Smith.
Mr. EVANS objected to such a committee. It was not
nominated in a fair spirit. Mr. Harbord had already told
them that, let the committee propose what they pleased, he
should oppose them to the last.
Mr. H ARBORD had said no such thing. His assertions
had already been perverted in a most unjustifiable manner by
Mr. Aikin, but he had not thought it worth while to take up
the time of the council by noticing them. Mr. Evans's state-
ment was one of the like kind.

Mr. GEO. novr said there were six individuals pro-
posed who were opposed to warehouses, and five in favour of
them. Such a committee could not be a fair committee.
Mr. J. HORNOY believed that the numbers would be found
seven to four.

Mr. EvANs.---I. never saw such a committee. It proves
11 that has been said about the animus.

Mr. EARLS.—You see,- Mr. Mayor, that Mr. Evans is
determined to have all his own way.

Mr. MELLOR considered the committee unfair, because
there were only four in favour of warehouses, whilst there
were seven against.
Mr. EARLE defended the constitution of the committee.
None other would suit the other side bnt those who were in
favour of the warehouse scheme.
Mr. H. HORNBY was sorry that Mr. Earle was not named
upon it. He should also have liked to have seen the name
of Mr. G. H. Lawrence upon it.
Mr. EARLE stated that Mr. Lawrence could not attend,
as 'he was going out of town' for a fortnight; and as to him-
self, he was quite unable through the illness of his partner.
The following members were .then appointed unanimously
as members of the committee!—Messrs. Walmsley, Evans,
Freme, Aikin, Gladstone, J. Holmes, Geo. Holt, H. Hornby,
Proctor, and Smith.
On the motion that Mr. Harbord be appointed,
Mr. EVANS again objected to the constitution of the com-
mittee.

Mr. BIRKErr said it was quite unfair to take Mr. Evans
and Mr. Aikiu, who had taken such a prominent part in
promoting the dock bill, without they elected Mr. Harbord
and himself.
Mr. EVANS then moved that Mr
to make the number twelve

Mellor be added, so a:

Mr. HODGSON said, that if that motion was persisted in,
he should move that the name of Mr. Birkett be added.
Mr. J. SMITH moved that the number of the committee
should consist of eleven, and Mr. J. Hornby seconded the
motion.

Mr. BRIGHT said, that if the question was faily considered,
it would be found that the numbers ought to be equal.
Mr. CASE thought that the committee was sufficiently
extensive, especially as its decision was not final, and why
dispute about straws.
Mr. EVANS.—It is no straw, they want a report against
the previous decision of the council, and against the bill.
It is absurd for the committee to enter upon the question,
for you have their report already. As for myself I shall fling
up the committee. I shall just leave them, and protest
against them.
Mr, EARLE
Mr. EVANS
petted

-That is just it.
-Aye, you find them going on as you ex-