The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-08 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

The monthly meetinr, of the Council was held on Wednes-
day, in the Town-hall, the Mayor in the chair.
The TOWN-CLERK having read the proceedings of the
Finance Committee, at their various meetings, intimated that
their confirmation would have to be moved, subject to the
reservation of two points, the first of which was the appoint-
ment of an inspector of the magazines, and the other had
reference to the negotiation for a grant to the Botanic Gar-
dens. With those two exceptions, the proceedings were
confirmed.
Mr. RATIIBON E then moved, that the Finance Committee

should be at liberty to recommend, at the next monthly
meeting, a person for the office of inspector of the magazines.
The salary, it was stated in the proceedings, would be equal
to that of an inspector of police, namely, thirty shillings a-
week.

Mr. JOHN SMITH seconded the motion, and it was carried.
PROPOSED GRANT TO THE BOTANIC GARDENS.
The TOWN-CLERK stated that the Committee had reported
for instructions upon this subject.
Mr. CURRIE said that it would be in the recollection of
the council that the memorial of the committee of the Bota-
nic Gardens had been referred to the Finance Committee, in
order that they might ascertain whether any arrangement
could be come to as to the opening of the gardens. In con-

sequence of the discussion- which had taken place in the
council chamber, when that memorial was presented, the
Finance Committee, in the exercise of a proper discretion,
and to save time, thought that. it would be better, before
making any report, to ascertain what were the feelings of the
Botanic Garden Committee with reference to the admission

of the public on some portion of the Sunday, and on another
day in the week, because it seemed probable, from the tone
of the council, that no grant was likely to be acceded to, ex-
cept on those conditions. Accordingly, an interview be-
tween the two committees took place; but there was a divi-
sion of opinion amongst the members of the Botanic Garden
Committee, and they thought that they were not competent
to authorise the thing, but that the sense of the proprietors
ought to be taken. A meeting was held for the purpose, and
the resolution they came to was, that it would be unwise to
open the gardens un Sundays. On receiving that resolution,
the Finance Committee thought it better to ascertain the
sense of the council on the subject, and they had now come
back accordingly.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked whether the Botanic Garden Com-
mittee were willing to open them on any other day in the
week ?•
Mr. CURRIE said it was not stated in the resolution, but
the committee had said they should be willing to do so.
Mr. BOOTH said it would be no boon to the public unless
the gardens were opened on Sundays.
Mr. SIIEIL.—I presume, if nothing be done here, the
matter is dropped ?
Mr. SANDBACII hoped it would not be dropped. The
memorial asked for. a grant on condition► that the gardens
should•be opened to the public one day in the week ; and he
had no doubt that the committee would Consent to extend

the condition, and open the gardens two days in the week.
He should move therefore that a grant of I:200 a year be

made, on the condition that the gardens be opened two days

in the week.

Mr. BLACKBURN had intended to give notice of a motion
that a grant of one hundred pounds should be made, on
condition that the gardens be opened on two days in the week,
from four o'clock in the afternoon till dusk. An earlier hour
might be appointed for opening them in winter. He was
quite aware of the difference of opinion which existed in the
council on the propriety of opening the Botanic Gardens,
and similar places on the Sunday. The measure was advo-
cated on the ground that the humbler classes had no leisure
on any other day. His opinion, which he had never hesitated
to express, was well known. He considered that the Sabbath
day was not intended for recreation or amusement, and
therefore though no advocate for compelling people, by
coercive measures, to attend a place of worship on the Sunday,
he objected to give a direct sanction to the breaking of the
Sabbath day. The view he took of the observance of the
Sabbath day was that adopted in the formularies of the
established churches of England and Scotland, and in the
creeds of all the reformed churches, and he thought that the
council would not act wisely in going in direct opposition to
a general opinion thus expressed. This opinion was founded
on a mature consideration of scripture ; and there was no
necessity for acting in contradiction to it for the purpose, as
had been said, of promoting the health of the public. The
general health and condition of those poor persons who,
after labouring six days in the week observed the Sabbath
in the strictest manner, was not inferior to that of the per-
sons who spent their Sundays in recreation and amusement.
It was said that it would be no boon to the working classes
to open the gardens on week-days • and he granted that they
would not be able to avail themselves of the privilege to the
same extent as if the place was open on Sundays ; but still
there were many who could contrive to spare a portion of
one week-day, and why, if circumstances debarred them
from obtaining the greatest good, should a lesser one be
rejected ? He should second the motion of Mr. Sandbach.
Mr. SHELL would move an amendment, " That unless the
Botanic Gardens were thrown open on Sunday, there would
not be afforded that general advantage to the public at large
which would alone justify a grant from the Corporation." He
opposed the view which Mr. Blackburn had taken, and con-
tended that there was nothing in the spirit of Christianity
which made it improper for persons to seek healthful recrea-
tion on the Sunday, after having spent a part of the day in
performing their religious duties : and he denied the position
that Sabbath exercise was not necessary to the health of the
working classes. The view of Mr. Blackburn was not sup-
ported by the Old and New Testaments. Referring to the
35th chapter of Exodus, he found it positively said, that you
shall not light a fire in your houses on the Sabbath day.
Was that observed ? If it was, then it might be proper to
prevent people from walking on the Sabbath day. There
was the same necessity for exercise, after a week's sedentary
occupation, as there was for lighting a fire in our houses on
Sunday. A great portion of the people resided in close
courts, and, when they had leisure time, spent it in a way
injurious to themselves. Would it not be advisable to enable
them to spend it in a way neither injurious to their own
constitutions, nor to the welfare of their families ? Having
referred to the practice of rich men driving to church on
Sunday, which was a violation of the commandment in Deu-
teronomy, he said that the Zoological Gardens in London
were opened every week-day to the public, on the payment of
a shilling, whilst they were closed on the Sunday to every one
but subscribers, and it was undeniable that those gardens
were one of the most fashionable resorts, not excluding the
parks, where all classes, from the highest dignitary of the
church to the lowest man, might be found on the Sabbath day.
Mr. FREME seconded the amendment, on the ground that
one of the objects in the appointment of the Sabbath was to
enable the poor to contemplate the beautiful works of creation.
Mr. RATHBONE would discuss this question upon religious
grounds, and upon them he thought these gardens ought to
be opened to the poor upon Sundays. He was sorry to differ
from some of his friends on this occasion, but he wished to
give them, and did give them every credit for honesty in their
views. He looked not to the letter but to the spirit of Chris-
tianity, and he maintained that that did not forbid them to
take recreation on the Sunday. On that day our Saviour
went through the corn fields, gatherel the corn, and ate it.
Surely, if that were the case, a poor man might be permitted
to walk in the fields or in a garden. He would ask how the
poor wretch, who lived in a dirty cellar, where there was not
light to read by, and who perhaps could not read, was to be-
come religious, or to be cultivated in mind, by going to a
place of worship,
and then immuring himself in his damp
and narrow cell ?
Mr. EARLE perfectly coincided with those who would open
the gardens on Sundays ; but, unfortunately, the council had
nothing to do with the matter. It had been decided by the
proprietors that they would not open the place on a Sunday.
lie hoped that gentlemen would not urge the council to make
a grant on the condition mentioned in the motion ; but that
they would do all they could to get the gardens opened on the
Sunday. It would be doing some good. He thought Mr.
Blackburn was the only gentleman that acted properly in this
business, for he went the whole hog, and he (Mr. Earle)
would do the same. He did not think there could be many
of Mr. Blackburn's opinion. But to hear a clergyman argue
that the parades are open to time poor on Sundays ! Why,
God bless him, if you allowed them to walk there why not
allow them to walk in these gardens? However, there was
an array of clergymen against opening the gardens, and so
long as the people would be led by the nose by them we should
never have any good. He hoped that before long they would
have their own noses pulled.
Mr. SMITH said his firm opinion was, that, after the peo-
ple had resorted to the gardens on Sunday they would be
inclined to resort to the public-house. On this ground he
should oppose the amendment.
Mr. SANDS was happy in having an opportunity of saying
that he coincided with Mr. Blackburn. He should support
the motion.
Mr. WOOLLWRIGHT believed that the gardens were now
open on Sundays to subscribers—(" Yes, they are")—and
he conceived that no grant ought to be made unless the same
privilege were conceded to the people at large.
Mr. LASSELL should vote for the original motion ; but he
thought that the gardens ought to be opened from mid-day.
It would be of no service to throw them open at four o'clock.
Seeing the feeling in the council, he hoped that before long
a piece of land would be purchased, and appropriated to the
amusement of the working classes. (Hear, hear.) He saw
that a sum, amounting to upwards of £200,000, was to be
received by the corporation for the land sold to the dock
trust, and he hoped that a small portion of it would be de-
voted to carrying his suggestion into etfeet.
Mr. BUSHELL said it was really extraordinary to him, as
it was to many others, to see the effect which prejudice had
upon the minds of some men. He was sorry to say that one
gentleman in that council never suffered an opportunity to
escape—and whether there was an opportunity or not he
made one—to attack the clergy of the established church.
He (Mr. Bushell) should wish to know upon what principle
Mr. Earle could laud Mr. Blackburn, whilst he condemned
the clergy of the established church, and said they ought to
have their noses pulled. If he was wrong in the expression
Mr. Earle would correct him.
The MAYon. said he had not heard such words.
Mr. EARLE.—Proceed, sir; I will answer you.
Mr. ROBINSON had certainly heard words to that effect.
The MAYOR repeated that he had not.
Mr. BUSHELL.—If Mr. Earle withdrew the words, he
(Mr. Bushell had,polhing further .to say- He.could. not,
however, understand on what principle it was that Mr. Earle
could laud Mr. Blackburn for the honesty of his opinions
whilst he condemned the clergy of the Established Church
for their views. He should support the resolution.
Mr. EARLE supposed he should be allowed a word in ex-
planation, after the violent attack made upon him.
Mr. BusuELL.—Not a violent attack.
Mr. EARLE.—WeII, the sweet-tempered, courtly attack.
He had been accused of having gone out of his way to attack
the clergy. He had done no such thing. He said, that, as a
body, they always seemed to unite in preventing everything
that was in favour of the lower orders of the community.
They opposed them (the Council) in the education scheme,
and now they opposed them about the gardens—in short,
they took up a particular line of conduct, and thought the
Council was bound to follow them, because they sanctioned
such and such things, or said they ought to be so. He did
not object to other people following them, but he must be
allowed to judge for himself. He had only spoken of them
as a body acting in this way, and he always would. Look at
the manner in which they attacked them (the Council) from
the pulpit on all occasions.—(Mr. Jon/4 SMITH—" Ques-
tion.")—lt was the question. He was in his pulpit there—
it was not a very spacious one certainly, and he had only a
small audience, but he had a right to preach from it, and he
would. With regard to the pulling of noses, it was an allu-
sion to those who said their [the Council's, we suppose]
noses might once be pulled ; and he meant to say that the
time might come when their noses (the clergy's) should be
pulled in the same way. He did not mean to say that he
wished it at all.
Mr. B slum. said, that if he were convinced that no harm
would result from the opening of the gardens on the Sabbath
day, he should be anxious to see it done; but he doubted
whether it would not have an injurious tendency.
Mr. COGLAN spoke at considerable length in favour of the
gardens being thrown open on Sundays.
Mr. BOLTON would oppose the motion on the ground that
they would be acting in opposition to the municipal act if
they made a grant from the surplus fund that would not se-
cure a benefit to the whole of the inhabitants of the town,
and to open the gardens from four o'clock until dusk, on two
week-days, would not secure that general benefit.
Mr. HUGH HORNBY intimated that lie should oppose both
the motion and the amendment. He regretted the discus-
sion which had taken place. That was not the proper arena
for the discussion of such a subject.
Mr. CURRIE objected to the sum of £2OO, as too large. It
was more than the committee of the Botanic Gardens hoped
for or expected.
Mr. Ald. HORNBY would vote for the amendment, as one
means of ridding themselves from giving anything.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE felt disinclined to Note either way.

He had no personal objection to the gardens being opened on
Sundays, but he thought that the grant was too large. He
was doubtful whether there was any great surplus, and until
satisfied of that, he should not vote any money to the Bo-

tanic Gardens.

Mr. SANDBACH briefly replied, and to show that the work-
ing-classes might avail themselves of the privilege which
would be opened up to them by the fulfilment of the condi-
tion-specified in his motion, alluding to the fact of about 7000
persons having visited the Royal Institution on each Mon-
day that it was thrown open to the public.
In order that no standing rule of the council might be com-
plied with, that no vote of money out of the surplus fund
should be made without a reference to the Finance Commit-
tee, the motion of Mr. Sandbach was, with his permission,
worded thus by the Town-clerk :—" That in the opinion of
the council it is desirable to make a grant for the support of

of the Botanic Garden, on condition that it be open,On two
days of every week, for the admission of the public, under
such regulations as may be suggested by the committee of
the garden, and approved by the council, and that, with this
instruction, the subject be referred back to the Finance Com-
mittee to consider, and to report to the council."
The vote on the amendment of Mr. Alderman Shell was
taken. It was carried, the numbers being 22 for, and 20

against.
For the amendment—G. Quayle, W. Thornhill, R. Hough-
ton B. Frankland, E. Pitcher, T. Bolton, J. Woollright,Vir.
Rathbone, E. Segal-, T. Coglan, W. M'Kee, F. Jordan, D.
Mather, R. Sheil, T. Booth, J. Hornby, R. Benn, T. B.
Barclay, T. Holt, W. P. Freme, E. Harvey, and the Mayor.
Against the amendment—W. Preston, H. R. Sandbach,
T. Sands, H. Hornby, R. V. Yates, T. Robinson, W. Las-
sell, H. Lawrence, R. Gladstone, C. Bushell. T. Blackburn,
I'. Morecroft, R. Rigby, J. S. Leigh, J. Smith, W. M. Dun-
can, W. W. Currie, W. Earle, J. Moon, and T. Bullet'.
Absent—D. Hodgson, J. Holmes, Isaac Holmes, T. Case,
G. Wright, J. Barton, H. Holmes, J. Mellor, J. Priestley,
It. Bright, J. Cooper, J. Lawrence, J. N. Wood, J. Carson,
It. Jones, jun., G. H. Lawrence, J. Platt, R. Roskell, T.
Lcathotn, G. Holt, C. H. Jones, and E. Evans.
Mr. R. V. YATES, with a view of giving the garden com-
mittee an opportunity of retracting their steps, said, he
moved that a grant should be made " on condition that the
gardens be opened to the public on Sundays as well as on
one day in the week, under such regulations as shall be made
by the garden committee and approved by the council."
For the motion, there appeared 20 ; against it 21. The
mayor, however, decided it to be a tie. When the name of
Mr. Alderman Moon was called out, some gentleman an-
swered, " Gone," which the mayor mistook for " For,"
and accordingly put down the alderman's name amongst
those who voted for the motion, thus erroneously making
the numbers equal. The mistake was explained to his wor-
ship, and he intimated his intention of again taking the
votes. As, however, several gentlemen had left the room in
the interim, this course wasobjected to by Mr. Bushell, Mr.
Smith, and others.
. Mr. &LEM, who had. voted' against the motion of Mr.
Yates, here said—l am afraid I have made a mistake about
the meaning of Mr. Yates's motion.
Mr. EARLE.—I think you have, and a very egregious one.
The motion was again read. .
Mr. SHEIL.—I certainly should have voted for it.
_ _

The MAYOR.—Then I will take the votes again.
When the name of Mr. Bushell was called, he said—l must
certainly object to vote again. The party with whom I voted
had a majority of one.
The MAYoa.—Then you must leave the room.
Mr. Bushell was about to do so, when
Mr. RATHBONE objected, maintaining that it was out of
order for a member to leave the room after voting had com-

tuenced.
Mr. BUSHELL staid, and voted; but in the confusion o
the moment, called out " for " instead of " against," and the
vote was so recorded before the mistake was detected.
When the name of Mr. John Smith was called, he
said that he could not conscientiously vote, and immediately
left the room.
The result was, twenty-three foi• the motion, and thirteen
against it.
For the motion—W. Thornhill, B. Frankland, E. Pitcher,
T. Bolton, J. Woollright, W. Rathbone, R. V. Yates, C.
Bushell, T. Morecroft, R. Rigby, E. Segar, T. Coglan,
F. Jordan, D. Mather, R. Sheil, T. Booth, R. Beun,
W. Earle, T. B. Barclay, T. Holt, W. P. Freme, E. Ilarvey,
and the Mayor.
Against the motion.—G. Quayle, R. Houghton, W.
Preston, H: Hornby, T. Robinson, W. Lassell, R. Glad-
stone, J. S. Leigh, W. M`Kee, W. M. Duncan, W. W.
Currie, J. Hoiliby, and T. Bulley.
The leases, the proceedings of the improvement, watch
markets, and education committees, were then read and con.
firmed, without observation.
THE MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS.
The MAYon presented a letter from the Mechanics' In.
stitution, stating their intention of opening an exhibition
and praying for the use of the paintings in the Town-hall
the models of the Custom-house and Town-hall, the archi-
tectural drawings of the intended Assize Courts, &c.
Mr. RATHBONE said they had already done a good deal for
the institution, and some time ago an application was made
to the directors to allow the teachrs and apprentices belong-
ing to the school free admission to the institution, but no
answer had been returned, although it could not be regarded
as a boon, but merely as a compliment. He would move,
however, that the request be complied with, if it could con-
sistently with the safety of the rules, and that an answer be
requested to the application referred to.
Mr. SHELL seconded the motion.
Mr. LASSELL.—Are not the pictures already open to the
public ?
The MAYOR.—Many persons might go there that would
not come here, and the pictures would be a source of attrac-
tion.
Mr. SMITH objected to the request being complied with,
as the walls of the Town-hall would be left bare for six weeks.
VACCINE INSTITUTION.
A letter from Mr. King Ellison, and Mr. James Long,
surgeons, was next presented. The writers stated that they
had been entrusted by Mr. James Dawson with the gratui-
tous practice of vaccination at the Liverpool Vaccine Institu-
tion, and that though the institution conferred great benefit
upon the public, they had hitherto to pay a part of the ex-
pence incurred in the rent of a house &c, besides giving their
services. They prayed that a house in a suitable locality
might be granted to them by the corporation, or some means
devised for the purpose of rendering the institution permanent,
and its sphere of utility more extensive. Upwards of 27,000
of the children of the poor had been gratuitously vaccinated
since the establishment of the institution.
Mr. BLACKBURN said that the institution was a valuable
one, and attended with slight expence. He moved that the
petition be referred to the Finance Committee.
Seconded by Mr. JORDAN, and carried.
DESIGNS FOR THE ASSIZE COURTS.

The MAYOR stated that Mr. Sandbach had placed in his
hand the following memorial from Messrs. Cunningham and
Holme, architects :
That your memorialists submitted to your inspection de-
signs for the proposed courts of law, in the entire conviction
that an unbiassed and intelligent judgment would be exer-
cised in your decision.
That, after a mature consideration of the requirements
stated in your printed instructions of the modes of arrange-
ment, of the site allotted to the building, and after a personal
examination of many of the law courts in England and Scot-
land, your memorialists felt the necessity of departing from
one or two conditions spcified by you, namely, either to con-
tract the size of the two principal courts, or to enlarge the
space assigned for the whole building.
That your memorialists adopted the latter alternative,
seeing that the corporation had plenty of land unoccupied,
and that, notwithstanding the enlargement, they were still
enabled to keep within the amount of the estimate. In the
exposition of their designs, this deviation from the printed
instructions was stated and justified.
That your memorialists have been informed, on unques-
tionable authority, that their designs were set aside at a late
period, in consequence solely of the plan covering a larger
space than is marked as the site on the printed instructions,
and that they were therefore excluded from further chance of
success, notwithstanding the superiority of their designs in
internal arrangement, which induced some member or mem-
bers of the committee to propose that this fact should be
stated in their report to the council.
That it is therefore with much concern and surprise your
memorialists have ascertained, by actual measurement of the
designs to which the first and second prizes have been
awarded, that their authors also have found it necessary or
expedient to depart from your printed instructions, the
former by contracting the size of the principal courts, and
by omitting altogether certain necessary apartments, the
latter by exceeding the site laid down, thus—
By printed instructions.--Crown courts to be not less than
290 square yards ; civil court, not less than 320 square yards ;
extreme length of building, 213 feet ; extreme breadth of
building, 100 feet.
First prize—Crown court, 249 yards ; Civil court, 297
yards 4 teet 6 inches ; extreme length of building, 220 feet ;
extreme breadth of building, 107 feet 6 inches.
Second prize.—Crown court, correct ; Civil court, cor-
rect ; extreme length of building, 251 feet ; eltreine breadth
of building, 117 feet.
Departure from printed instructions.—First prize—Crown
court, less by 41 yards superficial; Civil court, less by 22
yards 4 feet 5 inches superficial. Second prize—Excess in
extreme length, 38 feet, exclusive of steps at porticos ; ex-
cess in extreme breadth, 17 feet, exclusive of steps at front
portico.
That, while your memorialists can have no possible ob-
jection to submit their designs, in competition with those
selected, to the decision of competent judges on the simple
merits of their respective works, they do feel themselves
aggrieved by a judgment wherein a rule brought to act to the
exclusion of their designs has not been made general.
Your memorialists therefore pray that the statements
herein set forth may be taken into your consideration before
any further measures be adopted for the erection of the new
courts of assize.
Mr. SANDBACH said that he was quite aware of the im-
propriety of attempting to impugn the award already made;
but at the same time, when a memorial, making such state-
ments as that was placed in his hands, he could not object
to bring it before the council; and he thought that, had the
committee been aware of those circumstances, they would
not have come to the decision which they arrived at. He
had no hesitation in saying that the plan of Messrs. Cunning-
ham and Holme, which had been put aside on a technical
objection, was superior to those to which the prizes were
awarded. The technical objection was, that the plan ex-
ceeded the proposed limits. Now, he recollected having
repeatedly asked the surveyor whether all the selected plans
complied with the restrictions as to extent, and the answer
was made that they did ; and it was therefore due to the sur-
veyor to give him an opportunity of explaining how he had
been so grossly mistaken. There was in the report of the sub-
committee an expression to this effect, that they had not
found among the plans selected any one that combined beauty
of exterior with convenient interior araangement. Now, at
the same time that the report was drawn up, the plan of
Messrs. Cunningham and Holme, had been excluded, or that
assertion could not have been made, because this did combine
the two requisites. It appeared to him very doubtful whether
the rules as to the extent should be strictly followed or not.
The question as to the arrangement and extent of space were
precisely those which ought to be left to the suggestion of the
architect. He begged to move that the memorial be referred
to the joint sub-committee.
Mr. SANDS seconded the motion.
Mr. CURRIE said that if Mr. Sandbach had been a mem-
ber of the council when the conditions and restrictions were
drawn up, he would not have said that they were a matter of
indifference. It was absolutely necessary to impose restric-
tions as to space, from the fact of another large public
building having to be erected in the vicinity, and it behoved
them to be very careful that one did not overlap or interfere
with the other, The space given was two hundred and
twenty feet by 110, and it was a singular thing that the plan
of Messrs. Cunningham and Holme was the only one out of
twenty-six that exceeded the required limitations.
Mr. SANDBACH.—I beg your pardon.
Mr. CURRIE.—He made his statement on the authority of
the surveyor. It would be a manifest injustice to the other
architects to allow one to depart from the restrictions that
the others had submitted to. One of the plans sent in by
Messrs. Cunningham and Holme, instead of being 220 feet
in length, was 288, exclusive of 4 feet more for the portico,
and the larger one exceeded the limits by 115 feet. A verbal
opinion was expressed, that the plans were certainly very
beautiful ; but the committee felt bound to conform to the
regulations laid down. He had no objection to the memorial
being referred, unless it were intended to disturb the decision
of the committee.
Mr. Alderman EARLE said that Mr. Currie had forgot to
mention one thing, that Messrs. Cunningham and Holme
swivelled St. George's Hall round, to make their own
building fit in. The memorial ought not to have been sent
in under the architects' names, but with the motto.
Mr. SANDBACH said that if Mr. Currie was correct in
stating that no other plan exceeded.the restricted limits, then

of course the memorial fell to the ground.
Mr. BOLTON denied that the interior arrangements in the

lan of Messrs. Cunningham and Holum were superior to
hose on some other plans.
Mr. WOOLLRIGHT wished to ask Mr. Currie whether, in
he plans of the successful architects, the courts had not
)een very much lessened. He had been told that the courts

would be much smaller than would be required.
Mr. CURRIE could merely refer to the report, which
stated that no plan combined the best interior or exterior
arrangements ; but interior improvements would be made,
as far as they had it in their power.
The motion of Mr. SANDBACH was agreed to.
CHARLES DOLPHUS.
The MAYOR stated that a short time ago, a memorial.
signed by upwards of twenty thousand persons, in favour of
Charles Dolphus, the returned convict, was handed to him,
with a request that he would forward it to Lord Normanby.
He had done so, and had now received an answer from Mr.
Philips, his lordship's secretary, which stated that her
Majesty had been pleased, under all the circumstances, to
authorise that Charles Dolphus should be sent to the General

Penitentiary.
ADMISSION OF REPORTERS TO THE MEETINGS OF TILE

DOCK TRUST.
The proceedings of the Dock Committee, which contained
a resolution rescinding a former one, granting reporters ad-
mission to the meetings of the Dock Committee, having been

read, and a motion fo; their confirmation made,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that it was not his intention to offer
any opposition to the confimation of the Dock Committee
proceedings, as far as related to the admission of reporters,
because that might appear factious ; but he could not help
expressing his regret that so very important a subject had not
met with a more calm and deliberate reception than it had
done. He should merely say that, and state his intention
of again bringing the subject before the Dock Committee.
Mr. HUGH HORNDY said that this was not only a subject
of very great importance, but one that it was the duty of the
council to take into their consideration. He should, there-

fore, not follow the course Mr. Gladstone had pursued—but
move, as an amendment, " That the proceedings of the Dock
Committee be confirmed, with the exception of the resolu-
tion rescinding the former resolution for the admission of
reporters, and that such rescinding resolution be annulled."
-He did not know what the fate of his motion would be ' • but
he should have the satisfaction of knowing that he had done
all in his power to carry out the sentiments which he had
always expressed. He did not understand how the council
could with any consistency approve of the resolution of the
Dock Committee, rescinding their own resolution for the
admission of reporters, when that rescinded resolution had
been confirmed in the council without opposition. Mr.
Hornby went on at some length to argue in favour of the ad-
mission of reporters to the meeting of the Dock Trust—a
practice which, in his opinion, would prove beneficial instead
of injurious. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SANDS seconded the amendment.
Mr. BOLTON asked whether the Council could annul a part
of the proceedings of the Dock Committee without annulling
the whole? and having been answered in the affirmative by
the Town-clerk, who expressed some surprise at the ques-
tion, said he should prefer the question for the admission of
reporters to be taken when no other business was tacked to
it. He thought that by so doing more justice would be done
to it. He then asked the Town-clerk whether it would re-
quire a majority of two-thirds to annul the resolution ? Hav-
ing again been answered in the affirmative, he went on to
argue that the admission of reporters would be detrimental
to the good management of the Dock Trust.
Mr. Alderman BENN opposed the amendment, advancing
the same argument that he had before used.
Mr. Alderman BOOTH said, that since the last agitation of
this question he had constantly in his mind, during the sit-
tings of the committee, how much the presence of reporters
would have been advantageous or not, and he could assure
the Council that there had scarcely been a single sitting
when, in order to a proper discussion, they should not have
had to order the reporters to retire more than once.
Mr. Alderman lIORNaY could say, as a member of the
committee, that in his opinion the contrary would have been
the case.
Mr. COGLAN thought that the only way to ascertain the
feeling of the Council generally was to postpone the consi-
deration of the resolution till the next Council meeting.
(" We can't do that.") Well, for a week. There were but
few members present, and he thought that justice could not
he done to the subject. He wanted the public to see the
feeling of the whole Council.
The MAYOR.—The Town-clerk states that you may ad-
journ the consideration for a period not exceeding a week.
(" Oh, no," and " No adjournment.")
Mr. CURRIE, though he had a pretty strong opinion on
the propriety of admitting reporters, did not like the idea of
the council exercising their veto except on extraordinary oc-

casions.
Mr. Ald. SHELL spoke strongly in favour of the amend-
ment. He thought that the conduct of the Dock Committee
on this matter was a plain proof that they were not, as was
often said, under the control of the council. At the last
monthly council, a resolution was brought up there for the
admission of reporters, and the chairman of the committee
was about to move that it should be annulled, when one
member got up (Mr, Bolton) and said—" Oh, no, don't do
that ; you will lose it ; it will require two-thirds of the coun-
cil to annul it, and the majority are against you. Introduce
a motion before the Dock Committee, to rescind the motion ;
you can do that by a single majority, and then it will require
two-thirds of the council to rescind it." In his (Mr. Sheil's)"
opinion, the council could not confirm the resolution then on
the books of the Dock Committee, without stigmatising
themselves as persons who acted in a matter extraordinarily
inconsistent with all their professions, and the professions of
the whole reform party. Why did not the committee allow
their former resolution to stand, until they had tried the
thing, and could show from experience that it had been at-
tended with inconvenience? (Hear.)
Mr. RATHBONE entirely agreed with what had been said
by Mr. Hornby. He was not one of those who thought that
the dock estate had been as well managed as it might have
been, and a little pressure from without would do good.
Mr. BLACKBURN opposed the admission of reporters. He
could not see any analogy between the council and the Dock
Committee. The former could originate matters within it-
self; the latter was a mere executive body, and, if it intro-
duced any new matter, had to come to the council for con-
firmation thereof. That, in his opinion, was a sufficient
check upon their proceedings.
After some further discussion, the council went to the vote
on the amendment of Mr. H. Hornby, which was carried,
twenty-six being in favour and eleven against it.
For the amendment—R. Houghton, W. Preston, H. R-
Sandbach, T. sands, E. Pilcher, J. Woollright, W. Rath-•
bone, H. Hornby, T. Robinson, R. Gladstone, C. Bushell,
T. Morecroft, R. Rigby, T. Coglan, J. Smith, W. M'Kee,
F, Jordan, W. M. Duncan, W. W. Currie, D. Mather, R.
Sheil, J. Hornby, J. Moon, W. P. Freme, and the Mayor.
Against it—T. Bolton, R. V. Yates, W. Lassell, T. Black-
burn, T. Booth, R. Benn, W. Earle, T. B. Barclay, T. Bul-
ley, T. Holt, and E. Harvey.
Absent—D. Hodgson, J. Holmes, G. Quayle, W. Thorn-
hill, Isaac Holmes, T. Case, G. Wright, J. Barton, H.
Holmes, 3. Mellor, J. Priestley, R. Bright, J. Cooper, J.
Lawrence, J. N. Wood, J. Carson, E. Segar, R. Jones, jun.,
G. H. Lawrence, J. S. Leigh, J. Platt, R. Roskell, T. Lea-
thom, G. Holt, C. H. Jones, and E. Evans.
APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE ERECTION OF
THE ASSIZE COURTS.
_ _

Each of the members present having handed in, according
to agreement, a list of the nine persons whom he considered
most competent to form this committee, the mayor selected
the nine who had the greatest number of votes in their fa-
vour. His worship announced these to be—Messrs. Currie,
Earle, H. Hornby, Sandbach, H. Lawrence, Rathbone,
Sheil, Barclay, and Walmsley.
It was decided that the committee should have the same
powers as the late Custom-house Committee, and that they
were from time to time to report to the council.
As it was now twenty minutes to four, the council decided
upon an adjournment, the business was not finished.
The MAYOR said that as there were some bye-laws to be
amended, to do which required the presence of two-thirds of
the council, it was desirable that at the next meeting there
should be a full attendance. They could not be brought on
to-day, from the want of a sufficient number of members.
The council then adjourned to Wednesday next.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-WEDNESDAY.