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

THE LTVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1853.

LIVERPOOL MECHANICS' INSTITUTION
SCHOOLS.
I THE LOWER SCHOOL,

1 THE. HIGH SCHOOI

I THE GIRLS' SCHOOL, I THE INFANT SCHOOL, and

THE EVEING SCHOOL,
ARE NOW OPEN.

Pupils may be entered for the remainder of the half-year.
A Prospectus, containing particulars as to terms, &c., may be
had on application at the Institution.

W. NICHOL, Secretary

Mount-street, Ist February, 1853

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

We shall be happy, at all times, to receive communications
on subjects of local or general interest ; and if ourfriends

their sip;na-

will be good enough to authenticate the same
tures, for our own satisfaction, we shall feel obliged

Eiberpoot tanbarbf

THE INCOME-TAX.

WHATEVER may be the particular views of the

new CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER on the

vexed question of the Income-Tax, the subject must,

perforce, occupy his attention, from the simple fact
that the present Act will expire in April next, and
the necessities of the Treasury imperatively demand
its renewal in some shape, or a substitution for it.
Notwithstanding that this impost bas now been
borne for ten years, every succeeding year has in-
creased the objections to it, on the ground of its
inequality, its injustice, and the evils inseparable
from a system of direct taxation. The objectors,
however, have generally confined their attention to
details, and numerous have been the suggestions
for rendering its pressure more equal, as though it
must necessarily forma permanent source of national
income; but they have left out of sight the strongest
objection, which is to its continuance in any shape.
When first proposed by the late Sir ROBERT PEEL,
it was distinctly asserted to be a mere temporary
expedient, in order to provide against a temporary
deficiency of Revenue, and five years was suggested
as its probable duration. It has now been sub-
mitted to for double that period, and yet, instead of
agitating or boldly demanding its repeal, men talk
and write of its permanent infliction as an inevitable
necessity. It may be, and is urged, that the CHAN-
CELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER cannot spare so
large an item in the Treasury receipts ; but this
necessity has solely been created by constantly de-
voting any accruing surplus to the relief from indi-
rect taxes, in preference to that which all admit to
be the most grinding and oppressive of any. Even
now, when the surplus exceeds two millions, if the
Income-tax were reduced one-half, and, at the same
time, extended to a much lower limit—say £6O
a-year, as was the case with the tax which ceased
in 1816—a step would be gained towards its ulti-
mate abolition ; and what is more, it would press
with far less injustice on the tax-paying class.
During last year, a Committee of the House of
Commons investigated the subject, and examined
numerous witnesses as to the evils of the system,
but their attention appears to have been confined
to the distinction between precarious incomes and
those derived from realised property, without turn-
ing a thought towards the only efficient remedy of
abolishing the tax altogether. A measure, which
if not practicable at once for financial reasons,
might have been partially accomplished, by redu-
cing the rate from sevenpence to fourpence in the
pound, with a prospect of diminishing it still further
as the Exchequer was able to bear the loss of it.
Such a remedy would have cut the Gordian knot
of difficulties which seems to surround the question,
have alleviated the injustice which all admit to be
now inflicted, and reserved for the time of need a
source of revenue which should only be resorted to
in case of necessity.

An able political writer in Blackwood's Magazine
of this month has entered into an elaborate exami-
nation of the details of this question, which, from
the necessity of its being soon brought under dis-
cussion in Parliament, is of more than ordinary
interest. Unfortunately, however, he assumes the
continuance of the tax to be a financial destiny
which has become inevitable, and his arguments are
based upon this assumption. Keeping this in view,
he reasons most fairly that a distinction should be
preserved between those evils which are inherent in
the very nature of any Income-tax, and those inci-
dental defects arising out of the specific system of
our present statute, which are more or less capable
of being alleviated or removed. These evils he
classifies as exemptions, the facilities of evasion, and
the inequalities of the tax.

In his objection to the first stated evil we readily
concur, as no tangible reason has yet been shown
why the limit of taxation should be pined at £l5O,
except that dangerous principle,—which, no doubt,
actuated the author of the measure—of lessening
the number of objectors. It was the fear of the
lower, and, therefore, the more numerous, class of
the £lO householders in the towns which induced
the shifting of the burden from their shoulders to
the class above them. PITT, with more justice,
and infinitely more moral courage, placed the limit
as low as £6O a-year on uncertain incomes, and
subsequently as low as £5O, while there was no
exception on income from realised property. Had
the same plan been pursued, not less than a million
persons would have been subject to it ; but the
PEEL policy was to buy off the opposition, and,
therefore, only 340,000 persons now pay the tax,
leaving 660,000 persons exempt, who would have
been chargeable under Mr. PITT's Act. This is a
crying injustice, which no argument can palliate,
and is a proof of the mischief of that pressure from
without which was perpetuated by the Reform Act.
As the writer in Blackwood has well observed, it is
the first and most essential general rule of every
equitable system of direct or compulsory taxation,
that its operation should be universal ; but the pre-
sent system is a direct robbery of those possessing
incomes above £l5O, in order to save those whose
incomes are below that amount from any payment
whatever, although each derives the same relative
share of the advantages of civil government. It is
admitted, however, that so long as such a tax is
necessary there should be some limit of exemption,
and, as the amount assumed by Mr. PITT was
above the limit of 20s. a-week, which was supposed
to be required for actual necessaries, there is nothing
in present circumstances which renders such a
standard otherwise than a fair and a liberal one.
Nor is such a system without example elsewhere,
for in the United States exemption is unknown, and

in Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Austria, the limit
of exemption is very low.

The second evil of the facilities of evasion is shown
in the immense proportion of surcharges for deficient
and absent returns, when compared with any other
source of taxation. In allusion to this subject the
writer we have referred to says :

" Among the witnesses who appeared before the com-
mittee in the spring of last year, was a certain Mr.
JEFFERY, draper of Liverpool, who had been delegated by
the Financial Reform Association of that city to expound
their views as to finance in general, and the Income-Tax
in particular. In the course of his examination, he states
it as his opinion, that if the tax were fairly adjusted, a
false return would be a very rare thing indeed. On being
asked what induces him to think so ? he replies, with a
naive simplicity, which must have been quite refreshing to
the committee in the midst of their disagreeable labours,
" Because, when a man feels that he is fairly taxed, I
believe it has been found he does not object to it." So
charming a piece of innocence occurring in the midst of
the most startling revelations of sy3tematic fraud on the
revenue, looks as oddly out of place as a verse of Watts'
Hymns in the Newgate Calendar. If there be any truth
whatever in the worthy draper's charitable aphorism, the
Income-tax must be the unfairest under the sun ; for
never, surely, has such a mass of evasion and deceit been
exposed to the public as in the volumes before us."
He subsequently points to various modes of eva-
sion and direct frauds which have been practised,
arid suggests several remedies for obviating this
manifest evil. These are, that the Commissioners
should have authority to order the production of
books, in order to verify the statements of profits
in trade ; that they should require an oath to all
claims of exemption; that the returns under sche-
dule D should exhibit the gross amount of profits,
and the deductions be claimed ; that the profits of
every business should be returned in the division
where it is carried on ; and that employers should
make a return of all salaries paid by them. Such a
mode of remedying the evil complained of would
but increase the oppressive and inquisitorial nature
of the burden ; but if it should have the effect of
augmenting the opposition to the tax itself, it might
so far prove beneficial, and, as in the case of Mr.
DISRAELI'S proposal to double and extend the
House-tax, open the eyes of the Free-traders to the
evils of direct taxation, which they so loudly ap-

plauded until an attempt was made to apply it to
themselves.

In commenting on the third objection, as to the
inequalities of the tax, the writer enters at some
length into the theories which were advanced by
certain actuaries who were consulted by the Com-
mittee, and who recommended a system of capi-
talising incomes of various kinds upon a" presumed
estimate of their relative value. He shows the
utter inutility of such a system to abate the alleged
grievance, and concludes an essay which is entitled
to careful perusal by a recommendation of the plan
proposed by Mr. DISRAELI, to preserve the present
distinctions and the separate schedules, and, while
the tax on realised property is retained at the pre-
sent rate, to reduce that on other incomes one
fourth, but at the same time to extend the area by
lowering the limit of exemption.

LIVERPOOL TOWN COUNCIL.

MEETING YESTERDAY.

The adjourned monthly and special meeting of the
Council was held yesterday, the Mayor presiding.
Before the regular proceedings commenced, Mr.
Councillor BRADLEY denied that at the last meeting on
Wednesday, he applied to Mr. Alderman Parker certain
opprobrious terms, imputed to him in the Mercury of
Friday last. The words " 1 will fight you," were applied
by Mr. Parker to him (Mr. Bradley).
The MAYOR said he did not hear the words. Had he
heard them from that end of the room, he should have
felt it his duty to require their instant withdrawal.

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE DOCK
COMMITTEE ON THE WAPPING DOCK CONTRACT.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE

After some discussion, as to whether the debate upon
the Dock Committee's proceedings should commence
de novo, Mr. Bigharn and other members being of
opinion that it was desirable to re-commence the debate
as a special Council, in order that the proceedings might
be legal.
The MAYOR asked if it was the pleasure of the Coun-
cil to have the whole of the Dock Committee's proceed-
ings read ?

The TOWN-CLERK advised that at least that part of the
proceedings on which the veto had been moved should be
read.

Mr. BIGHAM, in order to make themselves doubly
sure, would have the whole of the proceedings read.
The Mayoß.—Perhaps, in order to save time, the
Council would consider them as read. (Cries of " Yes,
yes.")

_ .
The Deputy TOWN-CLERK then read that part of the
Dock Committee's proceedings on which the veto had
been moved.

After a conversation, from which it appeared that the
MAYOR had not the power to prevent those gentlemen
from now speaking on the question, who had addressed
the Council on Wednesday last, his worship put it to the
members who had already spoken upon the question not
to go over the same ground again. The debate was then
resumed by
Mr. J. B. LLOYD, who vindicated the vote he had
already given in favour of the veto. The more he thought
upon the matter the more he was convinced that the
Council came to a right decision upon the question. No
one looking at the advertisement for the contracts, and
taking it in connexion with the explanations since offered
by the Dock Committee, could come to any other con-
clusion than that it was intended to deceive the Messrs.
Baker and the public, and that, notwithstanding the
advertisement, the Committee from the first in-
tended to execute the works by their own engineer ;
and if that had been understood it was ncrt likely
that they would have had a single tender pre-
sented to them. (Hear, hear.) But leaving this part
of the question, he considered that Messrs. Baker's
tender was, after all, the lowest, as it included all the
casualties. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Lloyd, in continuation,
contended that the very resolution come to by the Dock
Committee (since the Council exercised the veto), offeting
to compensate the Messrs. Baker for the expense to
which they had been put in making out the tender,
showed that the Council was right in the course it had
taken, and that the Dock Committee was wrong. He had
heard nothing to convince him that the Council was
wrong in exercising the veto, and he should therefore
vote for the confirmation of the veto upon the proceed-
ings of the Dock Committee with regard to this matter.
Mr. AVISON, for the very reasons alleged by Mr. Lloyd,
was of opinion that the Council ought not now to exercise
its power of veto. The resolution passed by the Dock
Committee, referred to by. Mr. Lloyd, supposed on the
part of the committee that they had done the Messrs.
Baker an injustice by not informing them in the adver-
tisement of their intentions with regard to their own sur.'
veyor. It was on the ground of such an omission by the
Dock Committee, that he (Mr. Avison) had supported the
veto. But now the Dock Committee came before the
Council in an entirely different. form. They had passed
this resolution, seeing that they had done wrong, and
called upon Messrs. Baker to inform them what expenses
they had been put to in preparing their estimates. But
what do Messrs. Baker do ? They said,—no doubt influ-
enced by certain parties in this town—" We will not agree
to your proposition at all, but we will refer the matter to
Mr. Stephenson or some other engineer." Their object,
no doubt, was, in referring it to Mr. Stephenson, to get
the contract. Now, as Dock Trustees the Council had no
right to thrust any such terms upon the Dock Committee.
The Dock Committee themselves were supposed to know
what was the best course to pursue in the execution of
their works, and he (Mr. A.) thought the Council ought
to be very cautious before leaving such a question as this
to the arbitration of an engineer. (Hear, hear.) On
these grounds he had come to the decision to give a diffe-
rent vote to the one he gave on the last occasion.
Mr. BRANCKER followed on the same side, being of
opinion that as the Dock Committee had offered reparation
to Messrs. Baker for the error they had committed, the
works should now be allowed to proceed. He strongly
urged this course to be pursued by the Council, on the
ground that the trade of this port would sustain a serious
loss if the works were not allowed to proceed. He shrunk
from dwelling upon the dangerous and difficult position in
which the port would be placed, if the Council now threw
itself in the face of the Dock Committee.

Mr. GARDNER was of opinion that the Council would
stultify itself if it did not adhere to the veto. Rather
than that he would say, let the Dock Committee take all
the power into its own hands. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Moss, on the same side, said he hoped the
Council would not be induced, by any temporising policy,
to come to a different decision to that at which it had
already arrived. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENDERSON also supported the veto.
Mr. lIALHEAD could not see his way clear to vote
against the veto. He confessed he should have been
extremely relieved if he could have voted the other way,
but there was a principle in it, and the question ought to
argued on that ground. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERNIHOUGH. in a warm and energetic speech,
also supported the veto, and after going into a number of
statistics relative to the different tenders, in order to show
that that of Messrs. Baker was the most advantageous,
and ought to have been accepted, he defended the Council
from the aspersions which had been cast upon several of
its members, in the Dock Committee. Over and over
again the Council had been told by certain members of the
Dock Committee, and parties in the town having particular
interests to serve, " If you veto the Dock Committee's
proceedings, we will go to parliament, and take your
powers from you!' That threat was nothing new, as every
member of the council must know. He concluded by
observing, that the consistency and dignity of the Council
demanded of them that they should confirm the veto
which they had already exercised. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman MOLYNEUX was opposed to the veto in
the present case. With respect to the veto, he agreed
that it was very desirable the Council should possess the
power to exercise it, but then it should be applied in a
proper manner, and acccording to the common sense and
justice of the case. In the present case he felt that the '
veto would not be exercised in accordance with discretion
and common sense, and he feared that many parties
had been carried away by a feeling7-he would not call it
enmity—but by a feeling of jealousy, against the Dock
Committee. (Hear, hear.) He hoped gentlemen would
see the propriety of not vetoing the proceedings of the
Dock Committee, seeing the resolution which had been
passed with reference to the Messrs. Baker.
Mr. LITTLEDALE expressed his intention of opposing,
and Mr. John Gladstone of supporting the veto.
Mr. TOBIN, in an argumentative speech, warned the
Council against the consequences of now exercising the
veto, and defended the Dock Committee from the
charges which had been brought against them as to
allowing Mr. Hartley to see the estimates, and then send
in a second estimate. He showed that both Mr. Hartley's
estimates were sent in at the same time, and opened at
the same time as that of Messrs. Baker and the other
gentlemen. He taxed Mr. Bigham with inconsistency in
bringing forward a resolution in the Dock Committee,
with the view of bringing about a settlement of the dis-
pute with Messrs. :Baker, and then coming forward in
the Council to veto the committee's proceedings.
Mr. Ald. BRAMLEY-AIOORE, whilst agreeing in the
propriety of the Council possessing the power of vetoing
the Dock Committee's proceedings, did not think that this
was the time to exercise that power. He did not think
the Council should hold out its authority by interfering
with a body which was purely of an executive character,
such as the Dock Committee was. (Hear, hear.) They
(the Council) were not there to control the acts of the
Dock Committee. The Dock Committee was the executive.
The Council had already sanctioned the plans for the con-
struction of the new dock, and now lie thought it was
theduty of the Council toallow the Dock Committee to carry
out the plans in the beat manner. He (Mr. Moore) would
dismiss Messrs. Baker entirely from this qnestion. The
Dock Committee was the party to carry the contract out,
whether it was with Messrs. Baker or any one else. This
was not a question between Messrs. Baker and Mr. Hart-
ley, but the question was whether the Dock Committee
was entitled to leave the execution of these works in the
hands of their own well-tried servant. He therefore ap-
prehended that. if the Council considered their duty as
trustees, they would confine their arguments to this part
of the question. It was a well-ascertained fact that the
Council could not initiate—that it could not recommend
anything in dock matters—that it could only say yes orno—
that its simple duty was to prevent awasteful expenditure.
In doing that the Council was doing its duty to the
town, and to the bondholders of the estate, and there the
powers of the Council ended. (Hear, hear.) The speaker
then at some length proceeded to combat the arguments
made use of by Mr. Fernihough and other speakers in
favourof the veto, and after defending the Dock Committee
generally, including the course taken with reference to
the Dock contracts, he concluded by asking the Council
to reflect upon the injury they were inflicting upon the,
inhabitants and the port by interfering with the progress'
of these works. The accommodation that was required
for the trade of the port in that neighbourhood was con-
siderable, for notwithstanding the Dock extension which
had during the last few years taken place, it was notorious
that all the Docks were now full, and here was one of the
most important Docks in the town, which would open a
communication from the south to the north, and which he
believed would bring a very large amount of revenue to
the Dock Committee, threatened in the stoppage of its
construction by a dispute such as the one now before the
Council. He left it to the Council to say whether they
would, in these days of unrestricted competition—fa laugh)
take upon themselves the responsibility of leaving those
works in their present state.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BIGHAM next addressed the Council in favour of
the veto, and, in reply to the charge brought against him
by Mr. Tobin, said he had determined to support
stated
the veto
on this occasion in consequence of its having been
in the Dock Committee, since the veto was last exercised
by the Council, that the works would be proceeded with
in spite of it. •

Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE in supporting the veto
strongly condemned the wordinguostfthed
in regarding that
advertisement for
e
the tenders. The public were justified
ifi
advertisement as bona fide, and as intended to be acted
upon. If it was not so, would any member of that Council
tell him by what right in law, or in equity, the Dock Com-
mittee could presume to sport with the interests of indi-
viduals ? It was to be presumed that Messrs, Baker
could not have placed themselves in the position they had
done, and make a correct tender, without incurring a
considerable amount of outlay. They were strangers in
this town, and he should lay they could not have lacuna

an expenditure of less than £5O or £lOO. Was it to be
said that such gentlemen were to be made mere sport or
bye play, in order to inform the Dock Committee's Sur-
veyor what thework could be done for. (Hear, hear.) There
was a trite saying that a man's word was his bond, but he
would ask could that remark be reasonably said to be
true when applied to the conduct of the Dock Committee
in this matter ? He said that the proper construction of
the advertisement was that the lowest tender would be
accepted, and Mr. Tobin himself had just admitted that a
little more care in the wording of the advertisement, on
the part of the Dock Committee, would have prevented
all this dispute. He (Mr. Gladstone) quite agreed with
Mr. Tobin in that opinion. Perhaps Mr. Molyneuz
would have said "a little more common sense," because
the common sense, according to Mr. Molyneux, was all
on the side of the Dock Committee. (Hear, and a
laugh.) Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that there
was not only common sense in the Council, but he might
add that it dared also to be honest. (Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. G.) was anxious for an adjournment of the last meet-
ing, for two reasons. He thought it would give breathing
time to the Dock Committee, and also to the Council.
He believed they had been told by the Chairman of the
Dock Committee that, when they met on Thursday last,
they did. not consider themselves in a position to do any-
thing in connexion with the matter, in consequence of the
Council having adjourned to this day. Now, he quite dis-
agreed with such a conclusion. It was true that, as
regarded the Council, it might be said that it was in a
state of suspense, but there was this before the Dock
Committee, whether it was prudent to persist in a course
which was illegal, (Hear, hear.) The Dock Committee
had said, notwithstanding the veto, that Mr. Hartley
should go on with these works. The Council had said
" No, we think you are bound to take the lowest tender,
and that was Mr. Baker's." That was before the Dock
Committee-, but their dictum had gone forth, and by it they
said they would be bound. Now he should like the opi-
nion of the Town-Clerk as to whether the Dock Committee
could stultify the acts of that Council. Mr. Bighatn had
told them that Mr. North said in the Dock Committee, on
Thursday last, " You can go on with the works, notwith-
standing the veto of the Council." We had, in fact, been
told that the Dock Committee could do as they liked, and
that was the long and short of the matter. Now if that
was so, he (Mr. Gladstone) was not disposed to take upon
himself the responsibility of having anything to do with
the acts of the Dock Committee. He must confess that
although he was one of those who would be happy to see
a way of escape on this question, yet the arguments had
not convinced him that he should vote differently to what
he did on the last occasion. They had nothing for it but
to come to the same decision they had already done, and
to maintain their rights. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. GUEGSON having said a few words in opposition to
the veto,

Mr. TURNER, M.P.. as chairman of the Dock Com-
mittee. replied. He said that, after the protracted debate
that had taken place, it was not his intention to speak at
any length, but it was right that he should correct one or
two erroneous statements which had been made on the
present occasion. He was a good deal surprised to hear
from Mr. Lloyd such words as " deception" applied to
the Dock Committee, looking at tha gentlemen who
formed that committee. Mr. Turner reiterated his assu-
rance that the advertisement was issued with the intention
of accepting any tender that might have been much below
Mr. Hartley's estimates. Mr. Gladstone had used the
words bona fide. He (Mr. Turner) repeated that the
advertisement was bona fide. It was issued with
the intention of giving the contract to some of the
parties tendering, and there was no ground whatever
for what had been openly stated by some, and in-
sinuated by others, that there was no intention of giving
it to the contractors. If there had been a lower tender
than Mr. Hartley's it would have been given to the party
so tendering. He must say that with reference to this
transaction the acts of the Dock Committee had not been
discussed with that fairnesswhich he often had had the plea-
sure to witness on former occasions. Everything that had
been done by the Dock Committee had been held up in a
captious or an invidious sense. There seemed to be an
impression that nothing that the Dock Committee could
do or had done on this question could be the right course.
(Hear, hear.) With reference to the second resolu-
tion that was passed by the Dock Committee he
did hope, when Mr. Bigham proposed that resolution,
that there would be an end of the question altoge-
ther, and Mr. Bigham certainly led the committee to
expect it. He said that lie thought it desirable to get rid
of the matter. (Hear, hear.) Had they then not a right
to expect that Mr. Bigham would, on this occasion, have
been in favour of the views of the Dock Committee ?
(Hear and laughter from Mr. Bighorn.) He (Mr. Turner)
was at a loss to know what had changed Mr. Bigham. It
had been stated that, since that resolution was passed,
directions had been issued to go on with the works. Now,
the fact was, there was no such resolution on the books,
and it was not so. He had also examined the engineer,
who said it was not so,
Mr. BIGHAM—The words that fell from the Chairman
of the Committee were, " You had better not go on with
the works, Mr. Hartley."
Mr. TURNER, in continuation, explained that the only
works gone on with was the removal of the gridiron, which
had already been sanctioned by the Council. The Dock
Committee throughout had shown a desire to act in obe-
dience to that Council. At the last general meeting of the
committee an unanimous opinion was expressed to the
effect, that as the Council had vetoed the proceedings, the
works ought not to be proceeded with, and as they saw injury
was being done by the delay,he was asked to get the opinion
of the Town-clerk as to the propriety of calling a special
meeting of the Council for the purpose of altering their
decision, and the Town-clerk gave his written opinion that
a special Council could not be held. He repeated that
they had shown a desire to show deference to the Council,
but every step they had taken seemed to have been cora-
plaine.l of. He had felt a desire to promote harmony,
and, therefore, he had felt very much hurt at the way
in which his efforts had been met. He found that
every act and every word were so turned and so twisted,
as almost to make one doubt one's own actions. Mr.
Fernihough had commented in strong terms on the lan-
guage said to have been made use of in the Dock Commit-
tee, towards some members of the Council. He (Mr.
Turner) was sorry that such language had been used,
but Mr. Fernihough ought to recollect that words
fell from him at the last Council which were almost sure
to provoke remarks in reply. In conclusion, Mr. Turner
entreated the Council not to persevere in the veto—not
to persist in a course which would inflict very great pecu-
niary loss on the Dock Estate of the town, and which
would retard to an indefinite period that dock accommo-
dation which was so much wanted.

The TOWN-CLERK having read an opinion he had re-
ceived from Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Cowling, and Mr.
Alillward, to the effect that the proceedings of the Dock
Committee were not complete until the Council had
confirmed them,
A division on the amendment for vetoing the Dock
Committee's proceedings took place. The votes were—
For the amendment 31

Against

Majority

The MAYott said that, as the majority on the amend-
ment did not amount to two-thirds of those present, the
number required to veto the Dock Committee's proceed-
ings, the amendment was lost.
The following is an analysis of the division :

For : Messrs. Mellor, Woodruff, Bigham ,W. Nicholson,
Bradley, Moss, Godfrey, Banner. Fernihough, J. Glad-
stone, jun.' Toulmin, Clayton, M'Nicoll, Fleming, Gard-
ner, It. Gladstone, Lloyd, Johnson, Picton. Nicholson,
Hodson, Beckwith, Henderson, Horsfall, Halhead, Alder-
men Langsdale, Bennett, Preston, Parker, Bent, and the
Mayor-31.

Against: Messrs. Aked, Anderson, Thomson, Holden,
Turner, Littledale, Tyrer, Holt, Avison, Tobin, Brancker,
J. M. Wood, Stewart, Gregson, Boyden, Aldermen
Holmes, Robinson, J. N. Wood, Bramley-Moore, Moly-
neux, and Chilton-21.
The proceedings of the Courts of Law and St. George's
Hall Committee, Markets Committee, Education Com-
mittee, Gaol and House of Correction Committee, Town-
hall Establishment Committee, Health Committee, Gar-
dens Committee, and Church Expenditure Committee,
were severally read and confirmed.

The procedings of the Water Committee having been
read, a motion was proposed by Mr. Banner to supply
several of the public charities with water at a reduced
charge, and after some discussion was rejected.
A motion by Mr. BXGHAM, that the committee prepare
for the next meeting the present state of the Rivington
works, was passed, and the prcceedings were then con-
firmed.

Whilst the deputy Town-clerk was reading the report
of the Library and Museum Committee, Mr. TEIOMPSON
drew the attention of the Mayor to the fact of there not
being a Council present; and, in consequence, the pro-
ceedings were somewhat abruptly brought to a close
about half past three o'clock, there still remaining the
reports of several committees to dispose of, besides me-
morials and other business which will have to stand over
until the next monthly Council, unless a special Council is
convened.

[We are requested by Mr. A. Henderson to state, that as
soon as the Dock Committee's proceedings were over, he
went to Kent-street, to hear appeals against Corporation
rates, and was engaged there up to half-past three
o'clock. This will account for his absence when the
Council was counted out.]

THE ANTELOPE.—The Postoffice authorities have ad-
vertised that shipletter-bags will be made up for Australia
by the steamer Antelope, which will leave Liverpool about
the latter end of this month.

THE EMIGRATION FEVER.—At the present moment
there are advertised for sailing, from the port of London
alone, to New South Wales, South Australia, New Zea-
land, and Van Diemen's Land no less than 98 ships, em-
bracing an amount exceeding 40,000 tons.

fMeltonidnayne.
CHURCH PASTORAL AID SOCIETY.—The anniversary
wiliol;te sheeelmd o
ton
be
.Sunday
of this society
judge from the sixty sermons announced.
deputation this year consists of two clergymen from
Liver-
pool,ltsclaiifmwse tow asyu pp
The
London—the Rev. E. Auriol, Rector of St. Dunstan's,
and the Rev. H. Hutton, to whose care the Duke of
Bedford has entrusted the important parish of St. Paul's,
Covent-garden. Cambridge supplies a third clergyman—
the Rev. J. H. Titcomb, Incumbent of the populous parish
of St. Andrew-the-Less, and one of the first who carried
out successfully the plan of preaching in the open air.
The Bishop of Chester presides at the meeting on Monday
evening, and on Tuesday there will be a public breakfast
at the Adelphi, at which the deputation will attend.

THE GREAT CORN SWINDLER.—At the Central Cri-
minal Court, on Friday, R. F. Pries, 31, described as a
merchant, of Crosby Hall Chambers, was arraigned on the
charges of forgery which have recently created so much
interest in the city. There were three indictments—the
first charging the prisoner with feloniously uttering a re-
ceipt for 7,323 quarters of wheat, whereby he obtained
£lB,OOO from Messrs. James Holford and Co. The second
indictment was upon a like charge for money obtained
from another firm ; and the third was for obtaining £9,000
with intent to cheat Messrs. Tgnace, Schulhoff, and Co.,
bankers, &c., Gracechurch-street. The jury, after a mo-
ment's deliberation, returned a verdict of "Guilty." Mr-
Baron Alderson then sentenced the prisoner to be tran-
sported for life. It was stated that the whole of the enor-
mous sums the prisoner had obtained had been absorbed
in his extraordinary speculations in the corn. market,