The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-10 00:00:00

DOCK COMMITTEE.-TRANSIT SHEDS,

The proceedings, resolutions, and directions of the
Dock Committee were read, comprising a resolution that
it is inexpedient to erect transit sheds on the west quay of
any other existing dock than the Prince's Dock.
Mr. SANDS moved the confirmation of the proceedings,
observing that the committee was compelled to pass that
resolution, otherwise they would be compelled under the
Act to go on building more sheds.
Mr. MOLYNEUX seconded the motion. _

Mr. BIRKETT said, as the motion confined the opera-
tion to the west quay of the dock, he would not offer any
opposition to it. He wished to guard the council against
any expression of opinion against transit sheds, as they
were calculated to be exceedingly useful. They ought
not, however, to be on the west side of the dock quays
under the present regulation.

Mr. SAIVDS said that they would not be prohibited from
building sheds, even supposing this resolution should
pass, they would be compelled to build them on one of
the other existing docks.
The MAYOR read a memorial from Mr. John Nartb,
on behalf of the Warehouse Association, against the reso.
lution. The memorial set forth that the sheds were on the
wrong side of the dock under the present regulations as to
loading and discharging. If the sheds were on the side
of the dock on which the vessels discharge they would
come into play : they would give greater facilities to bu-
siness, and increase the dock dues. The memorial asked
that further time should be panted.

Several members asked fora postponement of the ques-
tion.

The TOWN-CLERK said the council must either con-
firm or annul the resolution then, or within a week from
that time.

Mr. BURKETT said he wished the resolution to pass,
with an expression of opinion appended, that the council
express no objection to the use of sheds. He was pre-
pared to show that the transit sheds were exceedingly
useful.

Sir THOMAS BRANCKER said it was necessary that the
council_should either affirm or deny.

Mr. HODGSON proposed that the words "at present"
be added.

The TOWN-CLERIC said the act required an explicit
confirmation or otherwise, and the conditional term as to
time would be illegal, while the addition proposed by Mr.
Birkett would have no efficacy.

Mr. AIKIN blamed the warehouse party for having made
the sheds useless, by the insertion of a proviso that goods
should not be suffered to remain in them more than 24
hours without being subject to a month's rent. If goods
might be allowed to remain in them a few days they would
be useful to the merchants.

Mr. TURNER proposed that the subject be postponed
for a week.

Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE did not see the necessity of
postponement; the Dock Committee were in such a posi-
tion that they could not stand still. The simple question
was, whether they should be compelled to proceed with
the erection of new transit sheds, or whether that liability
should be taken from them, they still retaining the power
to build sheds if expedient.

The Tows-CLERK gave it as his opinion on the clauses
of the act, that, if this resolution passed, the committee
would only retain power to build sheds on the east side of
the docks.

Mr. PARKER contended in favour of the postponement
of the question. He was for no interest, or no party, only
for the good of the town and the burgesses. He blamed
the lavish expenditure of the new assize courts, and spoke
strongly of his independence.

M►•. GRIFFITH said there was no use referring back the
question even for a week. It was admitted that the west
side did not answer, and as the resolution did not touch
the east side, where was the use of postponing it?
Mr. HARBORD said, in reference to what had fallen
from Mr. Aikin, goods had been deposited in the sheds