The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-15 00:00:00

reconsidered by the Finance Committee, they might. change
their opinions as to the value of the land, and instead of
£2 13s 6d, come up to £5 per square yard, which he
believed there were those out of doors, who were pre-
pared to pay this sum for the land as its real value.
It was quite inconclusive to talk about 4 per cent., and com-
pare the past revenue, as a guide to what was the value of a
portion of this purchase. But if the Council considered
£2 13s 6d a full price for this land, would they object, if more
was to be paid for the property in Corn-hill, which he be-
lieved, under the Dock Bill, would have to be purchased?
A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.—There are the buildings ?
Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE.—OnIy to be valued as
brick and mortar in the purchase. But, he continued, it
was never too late to do well ; and, though he was not ac-
tuated by any hostile feeling in this matter, seeing that the
Warehouse Bill had fairly passed the council, and a deputa-
tion, in consequence, had since proceeded to LondOn, for the
purpose of getting the bill carried through parliament, (to
whom it might be unfair to call in question past proceedings,)
yet he differed with those who thonght that it was not the
duty of the council to have a statement laid before them,
showing the grounds on which the calculations as to the value
of this land were made. He should therefore vote for Mr.
Earle's motion.

Mr. COOPER would support the motion, on the ground
that the standing had not been complied with. The most
fair way would have been to have had the land assessed by a
jury, as at first suggested.
Mr. RATHBONE. would ask the town-clerk whether the
standing orders had not been complied with ?
The TOWN-CLERK gave it as his opinion that they had
not; but the objection ought, he said, to have been taken at
the time.

Mr. BOLTON wished to mention one point which he had
forgotten. Mr. Earle had asked what was the value of the
duke's land? His answer was, that there was an obligation
on the part of the council or dock estate, if the duke's out-
ward wall were extended to a certain height, not only to
build a wall, but to give the duke the benefit of the laud so
enclosed, without charge.
Mr. BLACKBURN said that the time had gone by when the
motion could properly be made.
. _ _

Mr. BusuiLiobieryed that the discussion had had one
good effect, in changing Mr. Earle's notions about the ad-
mission of reporters into the Dock Committee. He should
vote for the alderman's motion, as he thought that the coun-
cil were bound to pass a vote of censure on themselves for
the slovenly manner in which the matter had been managed.
Mr. EARLE then replied. He denied that he had any in-
tention, in introducing the motion, of doing anything to
cause the withdrawal of the bill. Mr. Currie had made a
broad assertion, which ought not, and should not, go out
to the public, that he was the opponent of the warehouses
for private views. He made no hesitation to say that he
was ; but he was never opposed to warehouse-building on
certain principles : he was opposed to its being done by the
public purse against private 'individuals. He had never
associated. with the strange bed-fellows he had been said to
associate with ; he never attended but one meeting, and that
was to raise funds. His sole motive in bringing forward the
motion was, that he did not think £2 13s. 6d. the real value
of the land. Mr. Bolton had talked about the bamboozling
parliament ; but he (Mr. Earle) thought Mr. Bolton had
done so with his own figures. The value of the land was not
what it had been lately producing ; for every one knew that
it had been lying by with the expectation that it would do
better at a future period. Mr. Rathbone had said that he
(the speaker) was seeking for popularity. Why, no man had
been more abused. He had been called a good fat or a lean
alderman ; and it mattered not what he did ; he was not like
many of them, coming before the public every third year.
(Laughter.) Mr. Gladstone had hit the right nail on
head ; but Cornhill ought not to have been mentioned ; for
his kind friend William (Mr. Rathbone, perhaps) had a little
bit of land in that corner. He was happy in having brought
the subject before the public, who, in general, judged ex-
tremely well of these matters ; and whether he was in a ma-
jority or a minority he did not care one straw.
The council then went to the vote. The motion was lost.
For the motion.—W. Preston, H. R. Sandbach, T. Sands,
J. Cooper, J. Lawrence, H. Lawrence, R. Gladstone, C.
Bushell, J. Smith, D. Mather, R. Sheil, W. Earle, W. P.
Freme.

Against the motion.—J. Holmes, G. Quayle, W. Thornhill,
R. Houghton, E. Pilcher, T. Bolton, J. Priestley. J. Wooll-
- R. Bright, W. Rathbone, R. V. Yates, W. Lassell,
T. Blackburn, T. Morecroft, E. Segar, T. Coglan, W.
M'Kee, W. M. Duncan, W. W. Currie, T. Booth, J.
Hornby, J. Moon, T. B. Barclay, T. Bailey, T. Holt, E.
Harvey, and the Mayor.
As two-thirds of the council were not present, the other
business was postponed.
The council broke np about a quarter-past one.