The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-02-04 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

THE NEW DOCK BILL.
A spec al meeting of the Town Council was held on Satur-
day, to take into consideration a Bill for Parliament prepared
by the COmmittee for the affairs of the estate of the Trustees
of the Liverpool Docks, pursuant to the resolutions of that
Committee,'-adopted by the Council at their meeting on the
2d of October last.
. The MAYOR, having briefly stated to the Council the ob-
jects for which ,they were specially assembled, re%uested
that, as the subject Was one of vital importance, they should
address theinselves to it in a calm and deliberate spirit,
avOiding, .as.'snuch as, possible, any personal or acrimonious
Observat ions.
The Town-Clerk read the following resolutions from the
Dock Committee, passed at a meeting of that body, held on'
the 23d,ofsJanuary, 1840:
" The proposed new Dock Bill having been submitted by
the Solicitor,L-Resolved, that the Solicitor be instructed. to
forward to the Town-Clerk a fair copy of the bill, as soon as
it can he 'prepared; for the purpose of being laid before the
Trustees. Resolved, also, that this-Committee do respect-
fully request- the aid and co-operatiOn of the Town Council
in.their endeavours to obtain the bill now directed to be sub-
mitted to them ; that the very important improvements,
contemplated by the provisions of the said bill may be car-
ried into effect as early as practicable,"
Mr. BARTON presented the following petition, signed by
5925 carters, porters, coopers. &e., of this town, against
the proposed measure of building Warehouses on the Dock
Quays:--
To the Worshipful the Mayor and Town Council of the
Borough of Liverpool.
The Memorial of the Coopers, Carters, Porters, and
Warehouse-keepers- mid others, resident in the Borough of
Liverpool.
" Sheweth,—That your memorialists find that it is the
intention of the council to allow the dock trustees to erect
warehouses on the dock quays, and to retain thein in their
own possession, and to do the work now performed by the
tradesmen of this town on the merchandise that may be
stored therein.
" Your memorialists respectfully state that they regard
the proposed application of public funds for the purpose as
most unjust in its principle, and at the same time unfair and
oppressive towards the :great body of master tradesmen and
others now engaged in conducting the business. • •
" Your- memorialists are of opinion that the delay and
obstructions in the discharging and loading of vessels, which
is frequently complained of, is not attributable to tine want
of warehouses on the dock quays, but to the defective ma-
nagement of the docks, and your memorialists feel satisfied
that the erection of close sheds, as lately recommended by
nearly three hundred merchants, would afford all the facili-
ties expected to result from the erection of dock warehouses,
without inflicting injury upon any interest.
" Your memorialists consider the large accession of influ-
ence which this measure would insure to the corporate body,
as inimical to the free and unbiassed expression of public
opinion, without reference to the political sentiments that
are or may be predominant in the town council.
" On these grounds, youi memorialists earnestly request
that the town council will rescind the resolution adopted on
the 2nd October last, relative to the erection of warehouses
on the dock quays.
" November Ist, 1839."
The Town-Clerk read the-resolutions adopted at the Coun-
cil held on the 2d October, 1839. The first of those resolu-
tions set forth, that the Committee, since their late unsuc-
cessful endeavours to seek a bill in Parliament that would
enable them to effect substantial improvement in working the
docks, had accomplished a full investigation into the practi-
cal working- of the docks, which investigation confirmed
their former opinion, that no plan of dock improvement
which did not include Warehouses to be erected, to a certain
extent, on the Dock Quays, would meet the wants of the
trade, &c. It was, therefore, expedient to make a new dock
to the westward of the Salthouse Dock, such dock to be sur-
rounded by warehouses ; and, further, to build warehouses,
two stories in height, on the west side of the Prince's Dock.
The remaining resolutions were for power to make Graving
Docks, &c. These were adopted at a Council held on the 2d
October last.
The MAYOR said, the Town-clerk had drawn up a short
report on the subject, which he wished to read to the Council.
The Town-clerk read the Report, which was to the effect,
that the Town-clerk had laid before the Council printed copies
of the heads of the Dock Bill, with the clauses numbered,
and the pages for facility of reference to any clause that might
be desired to be read at length. The Town-clerk submitted,
that, supposing a motion made and carried for confirmation
of the proceedings of the Committee, still such confirmation
should be subject to references of the several clauses to the
committees interested in them.
The report was approved.
Mr. MATHER inquired whether the clauses of the bill
were to be put separately ?
The MAYOR believed, that, under the standing orders, a
member of the committee must move each clause separately.
Mr. EVANS said, in moving the confirmation of the
Dock Committee proceedings, relative to the bill in question,
he was moving formally for what he considered as already
granted. The Council had, on the last occasion when the
question was under discuSsion, decided in the affirmative of
a principle as to the value and necessity of Warehouses on
the Dock Quays. The Council, in negativing the motion
made by Mr. Sands, to constrain the sale of dock land, in
order that private indiiiduals might build warehouses there,
had declared in the affirmative on the proposals of the Dock
Committee. Those proposals were, to have Warehouses
built on the Dock Estate, and to let the administration of the
affairs of such warehouses be in the Dock Committee, or, by
their instrumentality, through incorporated companies. As
the Committee had prepared a bill in exact accordance with
what had been already sanctioned, he could not expect any
serious obstruction to the future course of that bill. Under
such circumstances, he deemed it unnecessary to repeat
the arguments with which gentlemen were so familiar, and
'which would only go to prove what they had not denied,
that the union of warehouses with docks and ships must be
extremely beneficial, and that warehouses in that position
held the same' relative value to warehouses elsewhere that
railroads held to common roads. When he said he would
not go into detail, he meant that lie would not, unless
compelled by the course of the debate, go into recomMen-
datory. 'detail. 1r there arose arty discussion, he reserved
to himself the right of meeting it, as he trusted he could,
in the most effective manner, in support of the measures
of the Dock Committee. • &fore he sat down, helhought it
well to cast a light over a most important mistake committed
by those who represented the warehouse interest. In this
country there was no ordinary degree of syMpatlsy with wealth
and large possessions„ particularly amongst the rich. It was
an act of justice and of kindness to meet this great interest
with the syinpathy that may have been excited by the repre:-
sentation that the warehouse interest 'amounted in value to
four millions of money ! He had not considered hitherto,
that the amount of value had much to do with the case ; but,
as it had pleased the warehoUse interest to represent it so, he
had looked into the question, and would let them know the
result, not advancing anything on his own authority, but go-
verning himself altogether by theirs. They stated the value
of the property to be four millions, and the number of ware-
houSes to be 1100, averaging 170 square yards each, making
an aggregate of 187,000 square yards, which, multiplied by
six for the number of storeys, would yield 1,122,000 square
yards. Atthe value which, according to the opinions of the
surveyors of the docks, and for the Corporation, was a high
one, at the utmost and full average value of £2 per yard for
the floorings—or for ground area, or that upon which the
building stands, of £l2 ; upon that calculation it came out
to be, that the value of the warehouse property was not four
millions, but £2,244,000. Deducting counting-houses, and
sail-lofts, and beer-shops, and lumber-rooms, and many
other places which were not applied to the storage of mer-
chandise, it was most probable that the nett or real value
would not be quite two millions. Here was a great mistake
:committed by the parties who made the statement. The value
he (Mr. EVans) had putupon the property would be gene-
- rally allowed to be correct. This was not their only error of
calculation. ,;,They had also overstated the number of ware-
houses which the Dock Committee *ere preparing to build
bY'about 60,000 yards. The nett amount of warehouses built
would be about 180,000 square yards. He believed the ex-
isting wareliouse property to be not above one-half what had
been stated ; hut the warehouse interest could not pretend
to say that it-would all be destroyed. If this were so, the
amount might be about two millions ; but they could not
pretend to an injury of more than a small per centage. It
must be exceedingly consolatory to them to learn that they
were not in a position to be injured to the extent they imagin-
ed : they must' be gratified to find that they were not so la-
mentably wealthy, with two millions, as they conceived. It
ought to alleviate their afflictions to know that the value of
the warehouses was not more than half what it was reported to
be. As it was impossible to know what direction some gen-
tlemen's minds might take on this or any other question, he
would leave some of the points to be replied to by other gen-
tlemen who were acquainted with all the necessary details.
Mr. Evans moved that the bill now submitted by the Com-
mittee for the affairs of the estate of the Trustees of the Li-
verpool Ducks be adopted by the Council, subject to the re-
port of the Town-clerk.
Some conversation arose on the right of Mr. Evans to in-
troduce new matter into his reply.
Mr. EVANS said, he should only reply upon such point's as
arose in the course of the debate.
Mr. BOLTON seconded the motion. It was admitted that
an increase of dock accommodation was wanted,. in order
that the business of the port might be properly carried on.
The improvements suggested were important, in order that
they might successfully compete with other ports which had
these advantages. A petition from the carters, porters, and
others bad been read, and these classes stated that the mea-
sure would injure them. The reply to this was, that every
improvement that had been made had resulted in giving
greater employment to human beings. It was admitted that
the propriety of -having warehouses near the docks had been
conceded. (No, no !) There had been two prominent
schemes propounded : one of these.was to let the Dock Com-
mittee have the management of the proposed warehouses ;
the other scheme was to let the land to a joint stock company
and give them the management: The effect of the last pro-_
position would be, that the profits, which it was desirable
should go in mitigation of the dock charges, would go into
the pockets of private individuals. The great object with
the Dock Committee was to reduce their charges.
The heads of the bill, which consists of 100 clauses, in
addition to a long preamble, were then read by the Town-clerk.
The latter stated, that it was necessary to read the heads of
the bill, and the members of the council must be unanimous
in declaring that the reading of the whole bill was not
required. Any member who wished any clause to be read at
full length must call for such clause, and it would be read.
It was ultimately understood, that the members of the
council were to call for the reading at length of what clauses
they pleased, and that their arguments were to be grounded
on what was contained in such clauses.
Mr. BOOTH believed Mr. Evans had said, that he did not
expect any opposition to the warehouse clause. He (Mr.
Booth).wished that to be cleared up. If a former council
could reverse a resolution, that council might do the same.
He, for his own part, was willing to adopt the views of Mr.
Evans that there should be no debate. If this were to be
acted upon, he would at once propose a resolution condem-
natory of the warehouse clause.
The MAYOR said, it had been understood that they were
to read those clauses which members might call for.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE thought the most regular plan was to
first put the question upon the bill itself; they might then go
into the particular clauses.
Mr. MATnEE. called for clause 40 to be read at length.
It was to the effect, that the warehouses on the quays of the
proposed .new dock shall be of such dimensions and height,
&c. as the trustees shall think proper. Mr. Mather said, he
should object to this, and propose, that the warehouses be
only of.the height of two storeys.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE said, it was most inconsistent to be
debating about clausesbefore they had decided whetherthe bill
V.ras,o be brought in at all or not.
The 50th clause provides that the occupancy of the ware-
houses by the trustees shall be subject to the payment of pa-
rochial rates.
Mr. EARLE remarked, that this was a most strange pro-
vision., after it had been so broadly stated, that it was incon-
sisteotto think of paying those rates.
Mr. ROBINSON called for clauses 59 and 60' to be read, but
llid not Make any reaaark thereupon.
Mr. ISAAC HotstEs called for the preamble, as he thought
,they ought to get into-the subject ; and, if the preamble em-
bodied the objects of the bill, he should, probably, found an
amendment on it. - • •
Mr. MATHER called for section 53, empowering the trus-
tees to let the warehouses on" the west side of the Prince's
Docksunder rules and regulations, to any incorporated joint
stock company.
The blanks, in clause 52, which had been previously open,
were filled up by Mr. LEATHOM, there having been'some
dissatisfaction expressed, by the opponents of the proposed

measure, that the information should be witheld. The effect
of the clause was then as follows :

" That the warehouses to be erected, under the powers of
the act, may be used as public warehouses at the following
periods after the passing of the act, and not sooner :—one-
half of the warehouses on the west quay of the Prince's Dock,
at the expiration of two years, and the remainder at the expi-
ration of two and a half years ; one-third part of the ware-
houses, to be erected on the quays of the intended new dock,
at the expiration of three years, another third part at the ex-
piration of four years, and the remaining third part at the ex-
piration of five years.
Mr. BOOTH proposed
.the following amendment on Mr.
Evans's motion :—" That this COuncil, having in view to
carry into effect the recommendation of the Finance Com-
mittee, confirmed by the Council of the Bth March last, re-
commending the erection of large clOied sheds in the Dock
Quays in preference to warehouses, cannot sanction those
clauses of the proposed bill which authorize the erection of
such Warehouses on the Dock Quays by the Dock Trustees."
Mi. EARLE ; seconded the arnendment. There had, he
said, been as much exaggeration in some of Mr. Evans's
statements as there had been in the other party stating the
warehouse property to be worth four millions. Certainly
Mr. Evans was correct in his calculations on that point, and
it was impossible to contradict them. He (Mr. Earle) con-
ceived, that a property worth even two millions four hundred
and forty thousand pounds was worthy of some consideration,
and, he had 'no doubt, it would receive attention in Parlia-
ment. He fully agreed, that the lic good should be pre-
ferred before private interests, ughtto be well proved
that the good would be comme e with the injury that
would be done, for it was an insult to their understanding to
endeavour to persuade the owners of warehouse property that
the measure would not injure them. He, however, • did not
think the government would sanction the measure, and this
brought him to another ground of objection. They were run-
ning their heads into a contest which would cost a great deal
of money. The warehouse owners and those interested in
warehouse property were prepared to go on with a strenuous
opposition at their own expense, and the Trustees of the
Docks would go on with the public money. People had got
into their heads, that warehouses 'were wanted at the docks,
and all other improvements were, consequently, stopped.
He would, by and by, move a resolution, that the Dock Com-
mittee should be compelled to go on with the other improve-
ments proposed, and which were necessary, and not continue
to deprive them of what was really required, because they
had got it into their heads, that, because warehouses were
wanted, they should have nothing else till they got them.
The MAYOR said, the Town-clerk declared Mr. Booth's
amendment irregular, as it went to the effect of substituting
sheds for warehouses, the latter having been decided upon at
the last council on this subject. It would be found, there-
fore, that such a motion could not be entertained without
notice.

The TOWN-CLERK explained, at some length, that, as the
notice of the present council.was to take into consideration a
bill prepared pursuant to the resolutions of the Dock Com-
mittee, adopted by the Council on the 2d of October. 1839,
and, as the amendment went to the rescinding of a portion of
those resolutions, it could not now be entertained. Any
proceedings of that nature ought to be upon a distinct notice
of motion of intention to rescind a resolution formerly passed.
They could not now step in to overturn a resolution. Any
member, who thought &expedient .to rescind the resolution,
could give suitable notice, and move an adjournment.
Several members expressed their astonishment at this view
of the Town-clerk, and asked, for what purpose they had
met, if they must not object to the clauses of the bill.
The TOWN-CLERK said, there was plenty of matter in the
bill to which attention might legally be directed, and in which
alterations might be made; but those portions of it which
had been determined upon, by the adoption of the resolutions
of the Committee, could not be interfered with without due
notice.

Mr. SMITH, Mr. JOHN HOLMES, and one or two other
members said, 'they distinctly recollected, that, when these
resolutions passed, the Council were told, that the whole
question would be still open for debate when the bill was
brought forward.

Mr. ISAAC HOLMES said, he had not received his sum-
mons till Wednesday evening, which left no time to give
notice.

Mr. H. LAWRENCE (who had spoken several times) was
about to address the Council, when
Mr. SHIM, Arose, and begged to remind gentlemen of the
standing orders. Mr. Lawrence had addressed the Council
three or four times, a course which was not sanctioned by
their rules. He should make it a point, in future, to inter-
fere every time he saw those rules violated. The observa-
tions made by the Town-clerk were just, and he hoped they
would be productive of some change in the mode of summon-
ing. The question before them was one of great importance,
and they had been called at the very latest moment permitted.
For his own part, he never received his notice in proper time.
He ought to have it three clear days before the meeting of
the Council ; yet, he never received a summons for Wednes-
day till Monday morning. If individuals were obliged to
give notices of amendments similar to the present, they ought
to have their summonses delivered in time to enable them to
do so. Mr. Sheil explained, that, as his counting-house
closed early, the notice might, probably, be put into the let-
ter-box on Saturday night, and he not get it till Monday
morning. He could not agree to any doctrine that in-
fringed upon the freedom of debate, and, with regard to this
bill, he thought sufficient time had not been given for parties
to maturely consider all its clauses.
Mr. HENRY LAAVRENCE said, his intention was merely to
move an adjournment, and to give the following notice. Mr.
Lawrence read his notice as follows :—" I hereby give notice,
that it is my intention to move, that the resolution of the
Council, of the 2d October 'last, so far as relates to the erec-
tion, by the Dock Trustees, of Warehouses on the Dock
Quays, be rescinded, and that the clauses for empowering
the Dock Trustees to build such warehouses, and all refer-
ences thereto, in the preamble of the intended bill, be
omitted."

.Mr. G. HOLT thought it incorrect to adjourn. The Dock
Committee had drawn up a bill in compliance with resolu-
tions formerly adopted ; and this was an attempt to get rid of
a previous decision by a side-wind. He met the proposal to
adjourn by a direct negative.
Mr. BOLTON and Mr. RATHBONE expressed their accord-
ance with the views of Mr. Holt.

Mr. HUGH Houmav said, it could not be the wish of the
Dock Committee to pass the bill without giving those who
were opposed to it an opportunity of pushing their objections.
If there were no other way of getting over the difficulty, he
should vote for the adjournment.
Mr. EVANS said, it had been observed, that gentlemen
who were. not in the Council when the resolutions were
passed were not bound to them ; but, surely, there was some
obligation on, those who were in the Council at that time.
The Council divided ou the question, when there appeared
for the adjournment, .Messrs. Hodgson, John Holmes Isaac
'Holmes, Ifonghtoni.Preston, Sandbach, Frankland, Wright,
Barton, • Sands, H. Holmes, H. Hornby, Cooper, J. Law-
rence, Robinson, IL Lawrence, Wood, Gladstone, Bushell,
R. Jones, G. H. Lawrence, Leigh, Smith, Duncan, Mather,
Booth, C. H. Jones, Earle, Moon, Freme, and Dr. Carson.
Against the adjournment, Messrs.• Thornhill, Mellor, Fil-
cher, Bolton, Priestley, Woollright, Bright, Rathbone, Yates,
Blackburn, Morecroft, Segar, Coglau, Platt, M`Kee, Currie,
Sheil, J. Hornby, Roskell, Leathom, G. Holt, Benn, Evans,
Barclay, Bul!ey, T. Holt, E. Harvey, and the Mayor.
For the adjournment, 31- against it, 28; majority, 3.
Absent, Messrs. Quayle, Lassen, (on the continent,)
Rigby, and Jordan.
The TOWN-CLERK, in reference to what had fallen from
Mr. Sheil, gave it as his opinion, that the service of the
summons on the Saturday night for the ensuing Wednesday
was good, but he could not, by any means, approve of the
summonses being left in a letter-box.
It was decided, that the adjournment of the Council
should be till Wednesday next, when the subject of the Dock
Bill is to take precedence of all other business.
Mr. BOOTH gave the following notice of motion :—" I give
notice, that I shall move, at the next meeting of the Council,
that those recommendations of the Finance Committee, on
the subject of the intended Warehouses on the Quays of the
Docks, which were adopted by the Council, on the Bth March
last, be made part of the provisions of the new Dock Act."
The Council adjourned, at half-past one o'clock, to eleven
o'clock on Wednesday next.