The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-05 00:00:00

HEALTH OF THE TOWN

The report of the committee on the health of the town
Ins then read; - It appeared that the-attention af- the com-
mittee had been principally directed to an examination of the
small tenements bill, proposed to be introduced into the
House of Commons in the present session, by Mr. Slaney.
The Surveyor, and Clerk of Committees, and the Town-
clerk had been requested to report upon the bill by the com-
mittee, and their report were now read. That of the Sur-
veyor and Clerk of Committees stated, that they approved
of the preamble, but they could not recommend many of its
proposed enactments, (which the report specified), because
they considered them impracticable, and calculated to de-
prive the poor classes of any house except the workhouse.
In this report there were interspersed a great variety of
valuable suggestions which we have not space to insert, for
promoting the health of the town, by improved ventilation,
&c. The Town-clerk in his report stated that he approved
of the report of the Surveyor and Clerk of Committees, and
he recommended that their suggestions should be introduced
into a government bill, of which notice has been given by
the Marquis of Normanby, but that if government refused,
they should be embodied in an amended local bill, to be
introduced in the following session. Mr. Case moved the
adoption of the report which Mr. Kilshaw seconded.
Some conversation followed, in which a variety of expla-
nations were made, between Mr. EVANS, Mr. CASE, the
TOWN-CLERK, Mr. BIRKETT, and the MAYOR. Ultimately
the report was received, and ordered to be printed for the
use of the council.

THE M AYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS

The MAYOR stated that he had received a memorial nu-
merously signed from the inhabitants of Boundary-street,
complaining of the stench arising from the sewer between
Vauxhall-road and Kirkdale-road. The memorialists stated
their belief that the nuisance arose from the refuse of the
chemical or gas works in the neighbourhood being emptied
into the sewer, and that it had been so offensive that, unless
it were removed, they should be compelled to leave the neigh-
bourhood.—The Mayor, in continuation suggested that, as
inquiries were being made into the subject, the memorial
should be referred to the Finance Committee.—Mr. COOPER
intimated that the nuisance would be abated speedily.—The
memorial was then referred.
The MAYOR stated that he had received a letter from Mr.
Jones, complaining of not having been treated to his satisfac-
tion by the Improvement Committee, on the subject of an
award made by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Bennison of the value
of his property in Lime-street, required by the corporation
for public improvements. It appeared that, on the award,
the Improvement Committee had directed the sum of £l,OOO
to be paid to Mr. Jones for his property.` He now stated,
that nine months previously Mr. Stewart had valued it at
£1,200; but now he said it was worth only £lOOO, although
it had undergone no deterioration. Mr. Jones, in conclusion,
requested a reconsideration of the case, or that 1,200 should
be paid to him, which was less than he could have sold it for
some time previously.
Mr. BARCLAY said this was a matter purely between Mr.
Jones and Mr. Stewart, in which the council could mot in-
terfere; nor could the Improvement Committee depart from
the award.

Mr. MORECROFT explained the circumstances under which
Mr. Stewart had valued the property in the first instance,
and also those connected with the award ; and said there
must be some strange mistake on the part of Mr. Stewart, or
that his conduct required explanation.
Mr. EARLE, Mr. COOPER, and Sir J. WALMSLEY thought
the council could not interfere.

Mr. EVANS observed, that if there had been any mistake
by Mr. Stewart, it was probably in the first and not in the
last valuation.

Mr. HODGSON thought the council ought pot to have any
imagination upon the subject. He moved that the subject
be referred back to the committee.
Mr. MORECROFT seconded the motion.
The TOWN-CLERK stated, that with regard to, the law,
there could be no doubt that the award was final, unless mis-
conduct could be proved on the part of the arbitrators. He
must say that there might have been some unaccountable mis-
take. If the report were referred to him and to the Improve-
ment Committee under his direction, no doubt the mistake
would he explained, or the report justified. He would, there-
fore, recommend, that the party should have the satisfaction
of a reference.—The subject was then referred back to the
committee.