The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

MEMORIAL. FROM FLOUR DEALERS.

....
The MAyou. next presented a memorial from certain flour
dealers against what was formerly a by-law, but now a ge-
neral law, enacting that if any person cause to be drawn out
by a horse or horses any rope or chain for hoisting goods into
warehouses, or lowering them into cellars, he shall forfeit a
sum not exceeding 20s. This law (the Mayor observed) had
been found injurious to the flour dealers, who bad formerly,
and now again, memorialised against it.
Mr. Cunme observed that the provision was contained in
a parliamentary act, and could not be altered by the council.
Mr. JORDAN had repeatedly seen the practice of hoisting
by means of a chain and horse, and had once suffered front
it. He had seen, not only sacks, but American flour barrels,
being hoisted up in the same way. This was a most dan-
gerous thing. (Hear, hear.)
MEMORIAL FROM THE• INHABITANTS OF BIRKENHEAD.
The MAYOR presented a memorial from the inhabitants
of Birkenhead and the neighbourhood, which, after alluding
to the closing of the Monks' Ferry (which, when open, had
" proved a great convenience to the memorialists and the
inhabitants of. the surrounding districts"), expressed an
opinion that the ferries of Birkenhead and Woodside were
totally inadequate for the greatly increased population of
Birkenhead and the surrounding townships, and prayed that
the council would afford them such relief and protection 89
might be deemed proper under the circumstances of the case.
Mr. PLATT supported the prayer of the memorial, anti
mentioned, as a proof of the convenience afforded to the
public by the Monks' Ferry, that ten or twelve thousand
persons had repeatedly crossed over to it in one day. What
the memorialists wished was, either that the Monks' Ferry
should be re-opened, or a new one made. He moved that
the memorial be referred to the town-clerk.
Mr. CURRIE said it could hardly be expected that the
council should open another ferry, seeing that the Monks
had been put down by legal proceedings. The memorialists
should have remembered, too, that the suppression of the
Monks' Ferry would be of advantage to the corporation's
ferry of Birkenhead. He had no objection, however, that
the opinion of the town-clerk should be taken, and he would
second the motion. . - -
Mr. BOLTON moved that the petition should lie on the
table.
Mr. BLACKBURN seconded this amendment,. because they
had already had the opinion of the town-clerk, that it would
be unadvisable to interfere. -
Mr. Alderman Sum. remarked that a proposal had been
made to the Finance Committee to sell the. Monks' Ferry to
the corporation, and he looked upon this Memorial as an ad-
vertisement, quite as dexterous as if it had emanated from Mt.
George Robins. Mr. Platt, to show the immense advantages
that would result to the corporation from the purchase, had,
told of—how many hundred thousand was it ?—who bad
crossed over in one day.
Mr. PLATT observed that Mr. Price had only established a
right of carrying passengers from the Cheshire side to Liver-
pool, and not from Liverpool to Cheshire—that remained
open.
The memorial was allowed to lie-on the table.
CASHING SEAMEN'S NOTES.

A memorial from " a committee appointed by the associa-
tion of drapers, clothiers, outfitters, boarding-house keen
ers, and others receiving or cashing seamen's notes in
Liverpool," was referred to the Court of Requests' Com-
mittee.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE OF -COMMONS.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice, that, at the next council meet-
ing he should move that the council memorialize the House
of Commons upon the present question of the privileges Of
the house, which were involved in the. imprisonment of the
Sheriffs. He looked upon this as a question of great im-
portance. He considered the privileges of the House of Com-
mons as essentially necessary to the liberty of that house as
the air we breathed was to us. He was aware Lord John
Russell had given notice that he should, to-morrow, (Thurs-
day) introduce a bill to obtain power for the house to publish
its reports, but he looked upon this as involving a dangerous
.
principle, for it was to lay at the foot of the House of Lord'
the privileges of an independent branch of the legislature. It
was, in fact, going to the House of Lords and beseeching their
permission to enjoy the privileges which they had already'
long enjoyed. He was sorry, therefore, to see that Lord 4.
Russell had descended from the high ground he had taken in
the first instance, for it was an acknowledgment that the
House of Commons had no longer a right to their privileges.
If the House of Lords refused their consent to the proposed
bill, away went the privileges of the House of Commons.
Mr. BLACKBURN did not wish to open a debate, but he
must state that the bill of Lord John Russell was a declara-
tory bill, recognizing the existence of certain rights of the
House of Commons.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. RATH-BONE gave notice, that, at the next meeting of
the council he should move—"'That a petition be presentect
to parliament, praying for the abolition of the punishment ot
death, as in opposition to the spirit of Christianity, ss
perative to prevent the commission of crime, as deterring
parties from prosecuting and witnesses from coining forward'
and as interfering with the purity and truthfulness cf the ad-
ministration ofjustice, by inducing verdicts in direct cOntra-
diction to evidence."

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of the Dock Committee were next read,
and on the motion of Mr. BENS, seconded by Mr. B.
CLAY, they were confirmed.
The council then adjourned.