The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-02-08 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL TOWN COUNCIL.

The second quarterly Council, which was also monthly
and special, was held on Wednesday, the Mayor, Samuel
Holme, Esq., in the chair.

FINANCE COMMITTEE.

The proceedings of this committee comprised a report
of the Law Society on the proposed bill for assimilating
the practice of the Borough Court to that of the Superior
Court ; a recommendation that the cost of paving a pro-
posed opening of the lower end of Clarence-street, Ever-
ton, not exceeding the sum of £l6B 83. 7d., be defrayed
out of the surplus income of the Corporation, on condition
that the improvement, as shown on the plan, be completed
by the owners of the property ; a recommendation, that
propertybe purchased for the improvement of the corner of
Parliament-street and .Smithdown-lane, at the sum of
£68.65. Bd. The Finance Committee had resolved that
the Town-clerk proceed with the biil for the mprovement
of the practice of the Borough Court, subject to certain
alterations suggested. _ _

Mr. HonNiCi moved the adoption of the proceedings,
which was agreed to.
LEVY OF A MUSEUM RATE UPQN THE PARISH.
Mr. DOVER wished to have some understanding as to
the claim upon the parish for the museum rate for the last
year. After reviewing the previous doings of the parochial
and municipc.l bodies in regard to rating, be contended
that the whole course of things tended to show that the
museum rate had been given up by the Council. If the
present resolution of the Finance Committee were adhered
to, the parish would go to Parliament for a bill—and they
would get their bill—and. instead of the Corporation pay-
ing something like £9,000 or £lO,OOO a-year, they would
have to pay £13,000. He moved that the proceedings be
confirmed, with the exception of those Telating to the
parochial authorities.—Mr. HORNBY replied, explaining
that the Finance Committee had only acted in accordance
with precedent, and the injunctions of the Council.—Mr.
DOVER withdrew his amendment, and the proceedings
were confirmed.

WATCH COMMITTEE-THE NEW BRIDEWELLS-ASPER

SIONS UPON POLICE MANAGEMENT.
The proceedings, resolutions, and reports of the Watch,
Lighting, Fire-police, and Fire-prevention Committees,
comprised a recommendation to increase the salary of Mr.
James Cooper, surgeon to the police-force, from £llO to
£l3O per annum. The minutes also embraced a report
from the committee, to the effect that the charges made
by Mr. Bighorn, impugning the management, &c., of the
force, were without foundation. With regard to the sub-
ject of bridewells, the report of the committee was sub-
stantially confirmatory of their previous resolutions. If
the Council objected, on account of the expense, to the
construction of all four bridewells, they considered that the
one proposed at Low-hill could be best dispensed with.
Mr. PARKER moved, and Mr. Hoarrair seconded, the
confirmation of the proceedings, with the exception of
the resolution as to bridewells.—Mr. FERNIROUGH
maintained that the police force was not in the efficient
state which the chairman of the committee would have the
Council believe.—Mr. Tom.; replied, and the amendment
was lot by a majority of 26 to 20. The other proceedings

were confirmed : the recommendation with regard to Mr.
Cooper to lie over according to standing orders.
DOCK COMMITTEE : THE CONTRACT DISPUTES.
These proceedings were read. Before Mr. Turner
moved their adoption, a warm discussion took place
whether a letter from Messrs. Baker and Son, encl
correspondence N‘ith the secretary of the Dock Com-
mittee, should be read, or whether it should be included
amongst the Mayor's communications.—Mr. BENNETT
moved that the letters be read.—Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORS
opposed the reading, which he deemed informal and irre-
gular.—After some conversation, the Town-clerk read
the correspondence. It included the letters which had
passed between the Messrs. Baker and the committee
since the veto of the 15th, and closed with a letter of the
secretary, declining to accept Messrs. Baker's offer of
arbitration, and stating the committee could not go fur-
ther into the matter. In their letter to the Council,
which accompanied the correspondence, Messrs. Baker
submitted that they believed arbitration to be the only
course which would bring the matter to a satisfactory
conclusion.
Mr. TURNER, M.P., in moving the adoption of the
proceedings, gave a history of the matters which had led
to the dispute with the Messrs. Baker. The Council
should consider the very serious damage which every day's
delay was inflicting upon the town and trade of the port ;
a loss of £1,500, the proportion of £lB,OOO interest upon
the sum of £450,000, had been already incurred by this
unfortunate difference ; while every month's delay was
only entailing a further loss, which, in the first instance,
certainly would fall upon the Dock Committee, but which
would, ultimately, have to be borne by the trade of the
town ; for it must come in the shape of an addition to the
cost of the docks, and to the charges for using them.—
Mr. MOLYNEUX seconded the adoption of the proceedings.
Mr. ROBINSON deprecated a veto, since ten out of the
twelve members of the committee elected by the rate-
payers, and seven of those sent by the Council, had voted
in favour of the proceedings which had been read.
Mr. W. J. HORSFALL moved; as an amendment, that
the resolution of the committee, with regard to the Wap-
ping Docks, be vetoed.—Mr. JAMES HOLNIE seconded the
amendment

In reply to Mr. Bieham, the TOWN-CLERK gave his
opinion that the Council could veto a part, without being
compelled to veto the'whole, of the proceedings.
The resolution and the amendment were then both read
by the Town-clerk : the former being to the effect that
the committee 'did not see any reason for altering, and
thereby reaffirmed their resolution of the 10th December
last.

Mr. BENNETT, in favour of the amendment, urged
that the tender of Messrs. Baker was lower than even the
revised tender of Mr. Hartley.
Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. TURNER, M.P., insisted that
no blame rested on the officials in the matter.
Mr. M`Nrcor, defended the right of the Council to
veto any proceedings of the Dock Committee.
Mr. floalloy thought that the Council would see that
they were fully justified in the course which they then
adopted. He contended that Meisis. Baker had a right
to complain of their treatment. The work would, if it
had been entrusted to Messrs. Baker, have been quite as
well performed as by the Dock Surveyor. He hoped that
the Dock Committee would not persist in acting contrary
to the plain meaning and intent of the act of parliament,
and at the same time in a manner most prejudicial to the
public service.
Mr. BIGHAM urged the Council to veto.
Mr. JAMES HOLME gave his voice for the veto. He
did not wish to disparage Mr. Hartley, but the fact was
that Mr. Hartley had an uncontrolled fund at his
command, and he would be a very bad learner if he did
not execute the works in the best possible manner. He
could do £20,000 of extra work, and the committee never
be the wiser.
Mr. HOLT could see no direct good by carrying out the
veto. It would only render the struggle still more
deplorable.
Mr. GLADSTONE strongly supported the veto.
On the motion of Mr. J. B. LLOYD, an adjournment
was made to Monday.