The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-01-11 00:00:00

ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL.

THE DOCK BILL

Yesterday, an adjourned general meeting of the Town-
Council was held for a variety of purposes, amongst which

were the following

To rescind or vary the following resolution of the Council
adopted at the special meeting, on the 15th December last
"That, considering the present state of the money market

and the large works now in course of construction by the
trustees, it is not expedient to apply for the powers sought in
the present bill, and that the bid, therefore, be limited by the
Dock Act of the 9th and 10th Victoria, section 60, and to such
further powers as are necessary for explaining or amending the
provisions of the Dock Acts relating to the management of the
existing warehouses, and the goods housed therein, and the
recovery of freights and charges." And to move that in the
Deck Bill now before k'arliamen►t powers be sought not only for
the purposes specified in the above resolution, but also for the
purchase of land north of the present dock works, for the pur
poses of the dock trustees.
- -

Trios. BERRY HORSFALL, Esq., the Mayor, took the
chair at eleven o'clock.

Mr. J. B. 141ooRE said there were a number of memo-
rials applying to the dock bill which they would find
referred to in the Council paper. The first matter which
would be referred to was the Dock Committee proceedings;
then there was the other business on the paper referring
to the dock bill ; and then there was a resolution to
rescind the resolution of the last Council referring to that
bill. Now, some difficulties would arise unless they took
all these matters together. If they confirmed the pro-
ceedings of the Dock Committee, they would annul the
resolution of the last meeting of the Council. If they
took the resolution itself, they would got into the same
difficulty. The best course would be, that the proceed-
ings of the Dock Committee should be read after the me-
morials, and then the other three matters which had been
reterred to could be discussed. _ _

The TowN CLERK said that the proper course would be
to move the confirmation of the proceedings under the ex-
isting acts, and the next would be to take the bill and the
resolution thereon.

The MAYOR said the first memorial was from the
Guardian Society, to which 260 signatures were appended.

The Town Clerk then read the memorial

The MAyo a said that the next was a memorial from the
Select Vestry, in special meeting. This memorial was
likewise read.

The next memorial was from certain rate-payers of -
ward against a bill before parliament, to enable the trustees

of the-Liverpool docks to build warehouses around the
docks.
Mr. Alderman IsTicoL.—What ward is that ?.

TOWN CLERK.—Blank ward ; but I see most of the
parties signing it are from Castle-street.
The memorial expressed regret that the bill did not
subject the dock warehouses to rates, inasmuch as a large
quantity of property, which did pay rates, would have to
be pulled down to make way for the new warehouses.
The proceedings of the Dock Committee for the last
month were then read, and, upon the motion of Alderman
J. Bramley-Moore, were confirmed.
Mr. EYRE EVANS asked whether the Town-clerk
thought that a majority of two-thirds, or only a bare ma-
jority, was necessary to set aside the proceedings of the
Dock Committee.

The TOWN-CLERK said he had referred to the clause in
the act of parliament, and he was of opinion that a bare
majority of the Council was sufficient, notwithstanding the
clause to which Mr. Evans had referred, on any matter
affecting the new bill. The clause of the 6th George IV.,
relating to the Dock Trust, said that the Dock Committee
should have, use, and exercise all the forms and authori-
ties relating to the docks, and of carrying into effect that
and the existing acts. The next section provided that
all proceedings, &c., of the Dock Committee shall be
final and conclusive, unless they shall be annulled at the
next Council, or at a special meeting to be held within one
week, and unless two-thirds of the trustees or members of
the Common Council shall direct the same to be annulled
and made void. Now all these acts were to be incor-
porated and construed as one act ; and the 9th and 10th
Victoria said that the trustees shall apply within two years
for an act to build warehouses round the quays and docks,
under the controul of the said_trustees ; and the said trus-
tees shall proceed to the construction of the Wapping
Dock, and the works eastward of the King's dock, until
such act of parliament should be obtained. Now his con-
struction, upon consideration, of the act was, that it refer-
red to the management of the estate when it was com-
pleted. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Samuel Holtne.)
Mr. EVANS.—Then you consider the bill binding -on
the Dock Committee, except that one clause--that no
clause in the bill is binding on the Council, except that
one clause.

TOWN-CLERK.—Yes. Except in as far as relates to
existing works. _ _ _

The-MAvou.—The motion was for the confirmation of
the proceedings under the existing acts, without reference
to the new act, and the other matter will come to discus-
sion in proper order under Mr. Moore's motion.
Mr. A. LACE said there appeared to be some mistake.
The whole Council together could not annul, nor could
two-thirds of the Council annul it. They could not re-
voke an act of parliament, even if they were unanimous.
It was imperative on time Dock Committee to go to par-
liament within two years ; and, if the Council were to de-
cide that they should go to parliament, for leave to post-
pone some of their works for five years, that would be
another matter, and it would be for parliament to say
whether the Dock Trustees should be allowed to alter
that. That was no part of the proceedings of the Dock
Committee which could be annulled by two-thirds of the
Council.
MR. EVANS.—

If you have a majority of two-thirds of
the Council, you may throw out the bill in limine.

of the act which requires the trustees to go to Parliament
in two years is part of the existing act, and requires two-
thirds of the council to annul it.
MR. EVAN s.—Yes.

TOWN-CLERIC.—My opinion is that it is not. There
is a directi9n that the Council shall, at a certain time, go
to parliament for new powers. If it had been anything
with respect to management, that question would have to
have gone to the dock committee, and they would have
put the question upon their proceedings or not, and then
it would have required two-thirds of the Council to annul
their proceedings.
Mr. D. flonGsoN said, that if it required two-thirds
of the Council to annul the proceedings of the dock com-
mittee, that body might take the trustees to parliament
every year. If a bare majority of the Council could not
stop them he should be very sorry, for he thought that
the come ion sense construction of the act was, that which
had just been put upon it by the Town-clerk.
The MAYOR said that he thought they ought now to go
on with business, on the assumption that the Town-clerk's
opinion was correct.

Mr. EVANS said he should perform his duty, and pro-
test against the law as just laid down.
Mr. Alderman J. B. MOORE said, that with reference to
the confirmation of the proceedings of the dock com-
mittee, nothing could arise out of that, and he wished to
ask which branch of the question he should take first.
Must he state the whole case ? otherwise perhaps the
Council could not rescind the resolution of the last meet-
ing. He thought he had better move that first.
The MAYOR.—You had better state the whole of your
case, and then the other resolutions can be brought on
afterwards.

Mr. Alderman BRAMLEY MOORE said, he would move
that the resolution which had been alluded to be rescind-
ed, acid the other confirmed ; and he would endeavour to
state every thing with the same candour there which had
been his endeavour upon all occasions, upon anything
connected with the Dock Estate. It had never been the
desire of the Dock Committee to do anything in an un-
derhand, but in the most honest way. With respect to
the veto which they had claimed, they must of course at
present bow to the Town-Clerk, but still he thought
that common sense required that the veto should be from
two-thirds of the Town Council. He was not, however,
at present going to raise any question upon that matter,
but he should regret if any of their proceedings were car-
ried by a bare majority. If they had not more than a
mere bare majority, it would not be his wish, nor would
it be the wish of the Dock Committee, to proceed in any
matter whatever. (Hear.) He would call their attention
to the Dock Bill as it had been altered, and they would
find that it was in compliance with the resolution passed
at the last Council (hear)—with one exception—retaining
an enabling power to go for the north shore. It would have
been a great act of folly on the part of the Dock Commit-
tee to have attempted to have passed the bill, unless it
was in accordance with the wishes of the Town Council.
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. S. Holme.) Therefore, the re-
sponsibility of doing away with the " construction of ware-
houses," as had been proposed by tho Dock Committee,
must rest entirely on the shoulders of the Council, and
not on the Dock Committee. And now though the Dock
Committee had come to the Council again—it was not
that the Dock Committee had changed their views, though
they could not get the trustees to introduce it in that
shape. But the Dock Committee did now put the bill
before them in an altered shape. lie thought it right to
state this on behalf of the Dock Committee, for their sen-
timents were just the same as ever. He would now state
the alterations in the new bill. The powers which had
been inserted in the first bill to enable the trustees to
build warehouses wherever they thought fit at their dis-
cretion had been expunged, and others introduced in their
place asking parliament to allow them to postpone that
for two years. Therefore, it amounted to this, that the
Dock Committee asked for power to postpone that step
for two years longer for reasons which had been stated by
the Dock Committee and the Council, and which it would
not be necessary for him to allude to there. Another
ground of opposition was the purchase of certain ground
belonging to the Corporation. There was another matter
which had reference to the \Yapping Docks, and he
wished to be allowed to remove an impression that was
going abroad with respect to the proposed north works on
the North Shore—which was, that the Dock Corn•
mittee intended to construct additional North Docks

ientp!aketl, (hear) except Tor the sake of actor

the timber trade ; and with regard to that only an en:
abliug power to empower the Committee to become
proprietors of the land. He repudiated the idea that
they were about or were willing to make new do
Lord Derby's land. Haying alluded to th(

would result to the timber trade, from the transfer of the
storage of timber from the south to the north end of the
docks, Mr. Moore next alluded to the imnroved position
on which he wished to place the dock bonds of the trus-
tees. He said that if a person held a bond for £200(
upon the dock estate, he wished (if the party thought
proper) to give the bond-holder certificates of not le
than £3OO each, which he might at any moment real'
which he might exchange or give to Mr. L 1(
ter, Mr. J. P
worthy aIA

)), or which the party might exchange f

a correspondin

;um of money

IR. A. I

But the party

Id the .boni

too.
Mr. Al(

to take the
coupon ; and before he negotiates it, he is obliged to have