The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

At the usual monthly meeting on Wednesday, the
Mayor announced the death of Mr. Thornhill, to whose
zealous discharge of his public duties, he bore strong evi-
dence. The Finance Committee's proceedings comprised
a recommendation to increase the salaries of Mr. Topping,
Mr. Driffield, Mr. Tyson, and Mr. Arron, and the ap-
pointment of two clerks to the Clerk of the Peace at sala-
ries of £BO each. Mr. G. H. Lawrence, in moving the
confirmation of the proceedings, observed that Mr. Top-
ping had been in their service since 1843 ;- Mr. Driffield
had been with them three years ; and Mr. Tyson had
been with them almost beyond the memory of man—cer-
tainly beyond the recollection either of himself or Sir
Thomas Brancker. He further observed that Mr. Wright,
the Clerk of the Peace, had been appointed at a nett an-
nual salary of £5OO per annum, but large amounts for
printing and engrossing indictments had to be deducted
from that sum, and these deductions were, for the most
part, occasioned by the great increase of the criminal
business in the borough. For instance, in the first year

of his appointment there was a deduction of £l4(
his salary; in the second year, a deduction of £193; in
the third year, £184; and in the present year, £270. There
were six sessions held in the year, at which 833 cases on
the average were tried ; and when such large deductions,
occasioned by so large an amount of business, had to be
made, it was only fair that the Clerk of the Peace should
have the two additional clerks now proposed, at salaries
of £l6O per-annum. Mr. Lawrence concluded by stating
Earl of Harrewbv had sent the Cetperntititt_hist
father's valuable parliamentary library, which library
would be sent to St. George's-hall, and would, with-the
law library already belonging to the Corporation, form a
large and excellent collection of works. The warm thanks
of the Council were ordered to be sent to his Lordship,
and the Council adjourned.
The Dock Committee proceedings were then read, and
the MAYOR explained the position of the Council with
reference to the Dock Bill, and after several memorials
against the bill had been read,
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE said he approached the subject
of the Dock Bill with very great reluctance, but he felt
satisfied that the more it was discussed the more would
the necessity become apparent for going to parliament in
the present session. The grand objection was the rating
clause—(hear, hear.)—but that clause could be introduced,
if the Council wished to introduce it, and it might be en-
tertained by parliament. He then stated the desirable-
ness of going to parliament this session • and in doing so
he said that the interests of the merchants and trades-
people of Liverpool were identical. The amount of freight
unpaid in the Albert Dock warehouses, in consequence of
the defective nature of the Albert Dock Act, amounted to
£107,000, and unless the Dock Committee now went to
parliament to amend the act that money would continue
to remain unpaid. Was not the locking up of this vast
sum of money an injury to the tradesmen of the town ?
He was happy to say that, including the expenses of the
Albert Dock quays and warehouses, the returns for the
last three months showed that those warehouses were
y
perpayingn a
they
them-
might
to an
interestHocae tree
eoewf
timber
reviewed
somethingthe
er
circumstancestratrade
ebaettwt
heeenn sevennorth
tn hd e
rendorw hoi
which
eighth
tthe
desired
town, and said it was absolutely impossible to accommo-
date that trade at the south end. He hoped the question
would be amicably settled, and that no feelings of jealousy
would be entertained, for the interests of the Corporation
and Dock Trust were identical,—they were sisters, and if
one was injured so must the other be injured also—(hear.)
It was now the intention of the Council to seek powers
Wapping
tts
hoe
selves
buildvneks
proper,
t 0 dockthe but
e ruetc
atiterection warehouses
roefsewn
tawrthehehenoy
intendedsane
sd whereroun
d to
the h

foprartlhiaemCeonut
Dock.
And with the view of helping them to a correct answer to
this question, he called upon the Town-Clerk to read a
haetilallto?
legal opinion which had been obtained upon the subject.
The TOWN-CLERK accordingly said that he had laid a
decide Th The MAYOR
was, whethersaid tthhee they first
shouldciu e question
otho
case before Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Crompton, and the
Recorder, and that he had now obtained the opinion of
these eminent legal gentleman. He then read the case
and opinion. The opinion of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr.
Crompton, was as follows : " We are of opinion that the
resolution to proceed with the bill in parliament is within
the powers of the Dock Committee, under the first section
of their Act, and that it is the duty of Council to confirm
that resolution and bona fide to carry it into effect. Under
the 69th section of the Municipal &form Act, a bare ma-
jority of the Council might annul it, but such a proceeding
would be a breach of duty and a violation of the act of
parliament." The Recorder added—" I agree with this
typin. ion, but +.l-ank thutrtwu-thirds will bo ruciuLait,e-tusin-
nul the resolution of the Dock Committee." Mr. Worth-
ington, the Dock Solicitor, had also submitted a case for
the opinion of counsel upon the same point. His case
was submitted for the opinion of Mr. Wilde, the parlia-
mentary draftsman, and Mr. Quayle and they said that the
provisions of the dock act were imperative—that the trus-
tees must make the application to parliament or subject
themselves to an indictment—that it was the duty of the
Dock Committee to pass the necessary resolution to make
the application to parliament, and record the same in their
book—that then the resolution should be submitted to the
Council, and then the resolution should be submitted to
the Council, and that that resolution would be final and
conclusive, unless annulled by two-thirds of the Council.
He (the Town-clerk) felt it his duty to state that Su.
Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Crompton, after a careful perusal
of the Dock Acts, were of opinion that every act of the
Dock Committee was overned b a bare majority of the
Council, and they were further of opinion, that. anything_
annul all
and that a bare majority of the Council could
s his duty to
the doings of the Dock Committee. It
Docka Committee
state this distinctly, in order. that the_
to the contrary had been repealed by the 111 unicipal Act,
He concluded by stating
the law if they thought proper.
would according to
that the rating clause, if now inserted,London, pass the standing
an opinion he had obtained in
that the following
orders of parliament, and bysuggesting
might understand their position, and seek fora change in
that the bill
it is desirable be pro-
opinion of the trustees,
t session, but that the ware-
housesceeded with in the present
the powers of the proposed
to be erected under
by
ought, on their occupation the trustees, to
Dock Bill
resolution be now paslseadnbdyotthheerlCoocaulnrcailt,es"aTnhdattaxiens,thaes
be subject to parochial
sanctioned by parliament in relation to the Albert ware-
houses,d that if a clause be not introduced, rendering
the ware
houses liable to such rates, that the bill be with-
an

drawn."
The readingwen
mofe. Hughthisre Hsoluntrinbony
moved thewasreceivedadwniptthinlonundf
applause, b
the resolution read by the Town-clerk, which was seconded
by Mr. Tinne, and was eventually carried.
The rest of the business brought before the Council was
unimportant, with the exception of a resolution to erect
six additional public baths and washhouses, and that as
the local rates of the Health Committee are very much in
arrears, that peremptory orders be sent round that they
must be paid within fourteen days, or summonses wi'Ai be
issued.