The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-07 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE, Tins DAY

Inconsiderable as the arrivals of Grain were up to Tues-
day's market, they have continued extremely small, and we
have no Flour whatever to report from any quarter since that
date : of all articles from granary, however, the-supply far
exceeds the present demand ; which, influenced by the pre-
valence of uniformly fine weather, the near approach to har-
vest, and the improving state of the averages on Wheat, has
been exceedingly limited for all sorts of free produce between
Tuesday and to-day ; and of Wheat and Flour in bond du-
ring that period, a few sales only have been effected.
By the corn returns received here this morning, the duty
on Wheat is reduced to 13s Bd, on Pease to 2s per quarter,
and on Flour to 8s 2/d per barrel ; remaining in all other re-
spects unaltered:
Upon a very slender attendance of local buyers, scarcely
any from the country, and extreme dulness pervading every
branch of the trade, it was difficult to discover the precise
value of any article this morning ; for although a few sales of
free Wheat were made, they were merely of a trifling retail
character, at a decline of about 2d to 3d per 701bs from our
previous quotations, and had more extensive operations been
practicable, a still greater abatement must have been con-
ceded.

Bonded Wheat and Flour also, hardly sustained our late

currency.
Free Flour was ls. per barrel cheaper.
Barley, Malt, Beans, and Pease, appearing to excite little
or no attention, were nominal in value.
Oats, being almost wholly neglected, were ld per 451bs
cheaper ; and Oatmeal, in the absence of demand, was of-
fered Gd to is per sack lower.

ARRIVALS OF CORN,
From the 4th to the 6th August, 1840, ineluspie

LAND. I WISE. ISTATES. REIGN. ( TOTAL

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

The Town-council held their usual monthly meeting on
Wednesday. The Mayor presided.

THE BOTANIC GARDEN

In the proceedings of the Finance Committee, there was
a resolution unanimously adopted, recommending that an
annual grant of £lOO should be made to the Botanic Garden,
so long as the garden shall continue- to be opened to the pub-
lic, as at present, on Mondays and Fridays, from one o'clock
in the afternoon until sunset.

The. confirmation of the proceedinf
BOLTON, arid seconded by Mr. H. LAWRENCI
Mr. Alderman EVANS maintained that the opening of the
garden on week days could not afford adequate accommoda-
tion to the working classes. In proof of his position, he re-
ferred to the London parks, where, as he himself had recently
observed, there were few persons to be seen on week-days,
with the exception of servant-maids with children, and a few
worn-out gentlemen of pleasure, whilst on Sunday they were
crowded. He also. objected to the terms of the resolution,
from which it appeared that the grant was for an indefinite

was moved by Mr

period.
Several gentlemen of the Finance Committee stated that
the intention was, that the grant should be renewable every
year.

The TOWN-CLERK then added to the resolution the words
—subject, nevertheless, to the annual vote of the council for
its continuance." .

Mr. Alderman EVANS was still dissatisfied with the reso-
lution, and moved that it should not be confirmed.
Mr: D. MATIIER seconded the amendment.
The amendment was negatived by a majority of 40 to 5.
The voting was as follows :
For the amendment—Councillors INVICee and Mather;
Aldermen Evans and Frame; and the Mayor.
Against it—Councillors J. Holmes, Quayle, Thornhill, I.
Holmes, Houghton, Preston, Case, Sandbach, Frankland,
Mellor, Pitcher, Bolton, Priestley, Woollright, Bright, H.
Hornby, Rathbone, Yates, Robinson, Lassell, H. Lawrence,
Wood, Carson, Gladstone, Bushell, Mork:roft, Rigby, COg-
lan, Segar, G. H. Lawrence, Smith, Platt, and Duncan ;
Aldermen Leathom, G. Holt, Benn, Moon, Barclay, and T.
Holt.

Absent—Councillors Hodgson; Wright, Barton., Sands,
H. Holmes, Cooper, J. Lawrettee;' Blackburn, R. Jones,
jun., Leigh, Jordan, and
• urrie.; Aldermen, Shell, Booth,
J. Hornby, Roskell, C. H. Jones, Earle,.and Harvey.
Mr. EVANS, conceiving that the alteration in the resolu-
tion had not been made, in. a regular Manner, moved, as an
amendment, " That the giant ,W for one year only."
Mr. DoNemc-seconded the motion, which was agreed to
without going to the vote.

The proceedings of the Finance Committee were then
confirmed.

The leases; and the proceedings of the Improvement.
Watch, Markets, Education, and Church EducatiOn Com•
mittees were then read over, and severally approved of.

DOCK COMMITTEI

-REPORT Oil THE SUR-COMMITTEE ON

THE. NEW BIM

The Depiity Town-Clerk having read the proceedings of
the Dock Committee, which included the report of the sub-
committee, announcing the, loss Of the proposed new dock
bill, the MAYOR . stated that only the general proceedings
would require confirmation, for reasons which would be
stated by the Town-Clerk. _

Mr. LEATHOM, seconded by Mr. BENN then moved that
the proceedings of the Dock Committee be confirmed, with
the exception of the report of the sub-committee relative to
the proposed new dock bill.
The TOWN-CLERK said the, distinction to be observed was
between the proceedings under existing acts and the proceed-
ings under the proposed new bill. To the first the veto ap-
plied; on the second the council had always acted by a ma-
jority The report might be put now, and determined upon
by a majority, were it not that there was at all upon
the summons giving notice of it.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE asked what there was in the report
that it should require confirmation ? Did it only call upon
the council to hear again of the defeat of the dock bill?
Why, then, were they called upon to approve it ? _ _

The TOWN-CLERK said the usual course would be to con
firm the report, but there was nothing in the summons giv
ing notice of it, as was requisite.

Mr. CASE apprehended that the council would not in an:
way be committing themselves by confirming the report. I
was a report of gentlemen appointed to go to London an,
solicit the bill, of what they had done, and it had been con
firmed by the Dock Committee. 'He did not see, therefore
how this council could be committed 4 receiving it.

Mr. JoliN SMITH remarked that the report contained a
assertion of principles to which lie for one was not prepare,
to assent. It was in that way the council would be corn
mitted•if they confirmed it.

HUGH HORNBY understood that the objection of the
Town-Clerk arose from the omission of this report in the no-
tice convening the meeting, agreeably with the understanding
that any important proceeding connected with the new dock
bill should be introduced upon the notice paper.' But it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Hornby) that the Dock Committee, in
not entering this report upon the notice paper, had exercised
a sound discretion. There was not the least necessity for it.
It was a report of proceedings notorious throughout the
town, and which had often come before the council in a dif-
ferent shape. Every member knew the facts, and they all
expected the report to come before them.

Mr. JOHN HOLMES observed that if the report were ap-
proved it would not bind the council of next year.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE contended that it might, and that the
course suggested by the Town-Clerk was the proper oue.
The Dock Committee themselves had confirmed the report,
and if the council adopted it without notice, they might be
considered as pledging.themselves to support its views. For
these reasons he held that the Town-Clerk had adopted the
proper course. There were many things in that report
which might become matters for grave consideration here-
after; and if the council approved it without notice now,
they might be involving themselves where they ought to have
every opportunity of seeing their way.
Mr. BUSHELL knew nothing about the legality or ille-
gality of the case, but he was in favour of the course sug-
gested by the Town-Clerk, because it was his intention to
place a notice of motion upon the books calling for a return
of the whole expense incurred in promoting the bill, in order
that the costs might be placed in juxtaposition with the re-
port, and that they both might be taken into consideration
.at the same time. He had intended, if the report were con-
sidered to-day, to have offered some observations upon it,
but he should now postpone them.
Mr. EVANS, with regard to the expenditure in promoting
.the bill, would observe, that it had not yet been ascertained ;
it had, therefore, been waved in The report. Nobody, con-
sequently, was committed' upon that subject. With regaid
to the motion of Mr. Bushell, he (Mr. Evans) believed it was
a great novelty for the council to call for any accounts of this
kind except through the medium of the Dock Committee.
That information would come in the ordinary course of the
routine of the Dock Committees' proceedings. The motion
of Mr. Bushell, therefore, was not only unusual, but it was,
unnecessary.
The MAYOR explained...that Mr. Bushell had not yet made
a motion upon the subject.
Mr. BUSHELL added that he had only stated his intention
of putting a notice of motion upon the books of the council.
Mr. EvANs.—Well ; whatever be the decision of the Town-
clerk, I suppose we must defer to it.
Mr. BOLTON said the report had been drawn up in London
by gentlemen sent by the council for that purpose. It was
drawn up with great delicacy towards the opponents of the
bill ; and, as it was merely a candid explanation of what they
had done whilst in London, he saw rio objection to its being
received and approved of. It bound the council to nothing :
the next council would determine what they should do with
regard to the bill without reference to the opinions of the
Present. Whatever they might do, he was satisfied that the
. report ought to be received.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES enquired whether it was at the ex-
pense of the dock estate or of the corporation that the bill
'had been prosecuted? When it was first mentioned he un-
derstood the Town-clerk to state that, if the bill were car-
ried, it would be carried at the expense of the dock estate,
but, if not, the cost .was to fall on the corporation.
Mr. CASE said, it appeared to him that great difficulty
would arise in not receiving the report now, inasmuch as it
would he necessary to call a special meeting for that purpose.
The TOWN-CLERK.—No, no.
Mr. CASE observed that the proceedings of the Dock Com-
mittee, if there was not a council held within seven days af-
terwards, were confirmed as a matter of course.
Mr. RATHBONE should like the Town-clerk to tell the
council what there was so important in the report as to re-

•
quire special introduction in the notice. If there was nothing
In the report, he considered that this discussion was taking

up a great deal of time to very little purpose. It committed
the council to nothing. He thought, also, that it had been
drawn up with great forbearance, considering the disreputa-
ble way in which the bill had been opposed. He hoped.
therefore, the council would take these points into considera-
tion, and receive the report.
Mr. BUSHELL—If there has been anything disreputable
in the opposition to the bill, there has been as much equally
disreputable in the promotion of it.
Mr. RATIMONE.—I think that observation is not in order,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. H. LAWRENCE.—Nor was the observation that called

Mr. J. SMITH asked whether it was not the fact that cer-
tain opinions were expressed in the report which might be
thrown in the teeth of those members of the council who
opposed the bill ? (Yes, yes.) He could not, therefore,
assent to the proposition for approving of the report.
The TOWN-CLERK would explain with regard to the point
raised' by Mr. Case, that the rule he had laid down was
correct as to all proceedings under the existing dock acts ;
btit.when the proceedings went beyond the existing dock acts,
and the council took into consideration a report with regard
to a bill not obtained, then the Dock Committee, which pre-
sented that report, stood like any other committee of the
council, and their proceedings were to be regulated by a bare
majority. In the case of proceedings under the existing dock
acts, the veto applied; but when they came to .proceedings
beyond them, the Dock Committee stood as any other com-
mittee, and their proceedings were to be governed by a ma-
jority. • Such was the opinion of the Attorney-General, of
Mr. Cresswell, and of Mr. Wightman. If the Dock Com-
mittee in this case became like any other committee, it must
be governed by the standing orders of the council, which
required notice. The Town-clerk read the standing order.
Now there was nothing whatever in the summons relating to
this report. On former occasions, whenever anything was
brought forward with regard to bills in parliament, it was
specially mentioned in the notice. For these reasons he was
decidedly of opinion that they might receive the report, but
that it must stand over for consideration.
.Mr. LEATHOM, as chairman, of the Dock .Committee,
could state, that the books of the dock proceedings were
signed by him and sent to the Town-clerk's-otfice three days
before the present meeting. That was the notice to the
Town-clerk to insert what might be necessary in the council
notice. Even upon his own showing the bare majority might
be ascertained now as well as at another council.
The TOWN-CLERK said the only words on the notice were
" the orders, proceedings, and resolutions of the Dock Com-
mittee"—those which, it was understood, related to the ex-
isting dock acts. But'when anything was to be done relative
to the new bill, it was only Upon being distinctly stated on
the notice.
Mr. LEATHOM.—The fault, then, rests elsewhere than in
the Dock Committee. We always send the books to the
Town-clerk's office in the usual way, and if there is any de-
fect it has not been our fault.
The TOWN-CLERK.—We had no means of knowing what
would be submitted to this meeting of the Dock Committee
till after the notices had been issued.
Mr. LEATHOM.—The books were signed in time, and sent
up to the Town-hall. •
Mr. BouroN said, it certainly was the business of the
chairman of each committee at the last meeting previous to
the meeting of the council, to select the most prominent
articles for insertion in the notice. It would appear, how-
ever, that no such practice existed in the Dock Committee :
but it would be well for them regularly to perform this duty.
Mr. H. HORNBY agreed with Mr. Bolton. It appeared
to him, that with regard to the proceedings of the Dock
Committee the Town-clerk had given the council a different
law from what he held to be the case in the proceedings of
the other committee. In all the committees he (Mr. H.)
had attended, it was understood that the committee were the
judges of what subjects should be introduced into the notice,
and they were responsible to the council for them. But,
with regard to the Dock Committee, it appeared the Town-
clerk was the proper person to perforin this duty. (No, no.)
The Town-clerk had declared, that in his opinion this report
ought to have been inserted in the notice. Now he (Mr.
Hornby) apprehended that it was .for the chairman to decide
what was proper to be inserted in the notice, and if the
council thought the committee had omitted it, it was for the
council to visit that committee with its reprobation. But he
.did not know how the Town-clerk came to state to the coun-
cil that in his opinion this subject should have been intro-
duced. It was for the council to state that.

The TOWN-CLERK had stated his opinion because it ha
been mentioned that the council would be governed by it.
With regard to its resting with him as to what was to appear
in the notice, he must say that he had not claimed that pri-
vilege to himself, but it proceeded from the chairman of the
Dock Committee, stating that he (the town-clerk) had the
means of knowing what were the proper notice to be given.
The Dock Committee proceedings were in this building (the
Town.hall), so early as Friday last, but this was much earlier
than usual. _ _

Mr. H. LAWRENCE believed Mr. Hornby had stated the
case correctly. A kind of charge of neglect had been insi-
nuated against the town-clerk, for not having brought this
subject forward in the notice. He (Mr. Lawrence) thought
there was no foundation for the charge. The town-clerk's
business was merely to give notice of the time of holding the
council meeting, and if there was any particular business to
be brought forward, the chairman of the Dock Committee
ought not to be above doing that which the chairman of
every other committee did. .

Mr., LEATHOM. —I must repel, with indignation, the
charge brought against me. What Mr. Lawrence has said
about me is most impertinent. (Order, order.)
Mr. H. LAWRENCE.-A more impertinent observation I
never heard in my life, than that of the chairman of the.
Dock Committee. What I said was, that be should 'not
object to do that which the chairman of all the other com-
mittees did. If any person can see any impertinence in that,
or pretend to see any impertinence in it, he must have the
brains of the person who made the observation.
Mr. RATHBONE spoke to order. The council-room was
being turned into a bear-garden.
Mr.. LEATROM said he had been first insulted.
Mr. ISAAC HoLmus said Mr. Lawrence had been first
insulted.

The MAyea interfered. There might have been a little
want of courtesy on the part of Mr. Leathern, but he con-
considered that Mr. Lawrence was in fault previously.
(No, no.) _ _

Mr. H. LAWRENCE had not been in fault. He had stated
what occurred to him, and Mr. Leathom immediately said he
repelled-with indignation the impertinence. Now the obser-
vations he had made were neither impertinent nor out of
place. He had used no discourteous terms, but seeing that
Mr. Leathom had made use of improper expressions, nothing
in the world should induce him (Mr. Lawrence) to retract
what he had said. . . . .

Mr. LE ATLI om declared that the cause of offence had arisen
with Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. H. LAWRENCE said it had not. and he would appeal

o the council to confirm him. He was sorry that anything
mpleasant should have occurred ; but when he said that a
harge had been unjustly, as he thought, made against the
in.having neglect of duty imputed to him, he had

.
not been gniltY'of intemperate expressions or rudeness to any
body. Every gentleman who heard hint would at once say
so; but if the majority of the council thought there was. any
impertinence in that, he would make the most ample apology.
The MAYOR ,really thought that each of the gentlemen
should feel anxious to make the arnende honorable to the
other. If Mr. Lawrence would only consider for a moment,
he would confess that he had treated Mr. Leathom with some

degree of disrespect. To speak of a person's intellect or
character in the way he had was very offensive ; but he was
sure that as it was a mere matter of courtesy, Mr. Leathom
would meet Mr.'Lawrence by an expression of regreL
Mr. LIATHOM begged to say that the offence began by
Mr. Lawrence saying that he (Mr. Leathom) was above do-
ing what the chairmen of other committees did. He was not,
nor had he ever been, above doing anything for the dock
committee. He, therefore, did feel that Mr. Lawrence had
thrown an imputation upon him which he did not deserve.
He would admit that, in the irritation of the moment, arising
from what he considered to be an unfounded charge of ne-
glect of duty, he had said too much.
The MAYOR (to MT. Lawrence, who had not been attend-
ing), You -hear, Mr. Lawrence, what Mr. Leathom says.
He says, that in the heat of the moment, hearing you speak
in a manner which he did not think he merited, he spoke in
terms which he perhaps should not have done. Are you sa-

tisfied ?
Mr. H. LAWRENCE.—I am ; and I also say the same.
After a few further remarks from several members, the re-
ports were confirmed.

THE MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS

A memorial from the cart owners, praying for a revisal of
the book of rates, was referred to the finance committee.

A letter from Lieutenant Henry, requesting a continuance
of the grant of £5O per annum, formerly paid to Lieutenant
Low, was referred to the finance committee.