The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-07-11 00:00:00

ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING.

A special meeting of the Town Connell, by adjourn-
ment from Saturday last, was held yesterday morning, at
ten o'clock, for the purpose of taking into consideration
the remaining portion of the Fire Prevention Bill. At the
commencement of the sitting, there were twenty-two
members present. That number was in the course of an
hour considerably increased; but as the afternoon ad-
vanced, it dwindled dow❑ to 23.
Receding a little, the council commenced with clauses
7,8, 9 (the numbers throughout are those of the Abstract,
and not of the Bill), and after a long discussion it was de-
cided—first, that in case of the owner of a warehouse being
out of the country, and the surveyor's notice of alteration
being served on the premises, or the occupier of the pre-
mises, the occupier must adduce proof that he has trans-
mitted the notice to the owner, or to the accredited agent
of the owner receiving the rent, before he can have his
remedy for having himself made the alterations ; se-
condly, that a register of notices, accessible to all parties,
shall be kept at the Town-hall ; thirdly, that in every place
throughout the bill, where the words " to the satisfaction
of the surveyor," occurred, there should be inserted in
their place, "to the satisfaction of the committee;
fourthly, that where the owner and the tenant of a ware-
house agreed, at the expiration of a lease or term, not to
use the warehouse for the deposit of merchandise, there
should be no penalty for not making in that warehouse
the alterations required by the act ; and, fifthly, that the
penalty on an owner, not an occupier, for non-compliance
with the act, is to cease when the penalty on the occupier
for receiving goods attaches, so that there may not be two
sets of penalties going on concurrently.
Shortly after the commencement of the discussion, the
result of which was the adoption of the above-mentioned
decisions,

Mr. THOMPSON asked whether any one could give him
any idea of the amount of expense to which the town
would be put by the proposed alterations. He had heard
an enormous amount mentioned, and he must say, that if
it was anything like that, the bill ought at once to be
quashed.
Mr. H. HOLMES stated that Mr. Wm. Brown had told
him that the alteration of his warehouse in Chapel-street
was estimated at £BOO.

Mr. Alderman FREME said he knew of two warehouses,
the cost for the alteration of which would be £750.
Mr. H. HOLMES added that any moderate sized ware-
house would cost from £2OO to £4OO.

The TOWN-CLERK did not know what reply could be
given to the question of Mr. Thompson. There were
some warehouses which would require little or no altera-
tion, whilst some would require a great deal.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMEs said that Mr. Houghton had stated
that his property, which now produced £5OOO a-year,
would not, after the alterations, produce more than £2OOO.
Mr. EARLE, having been appealed to, observed that he
did not know what the cost would be, inasmuch as he had
suspended his alterations, until he knew what the regu-
lations of the act would be. He must confess that he had
never contemplated such a sum as £BOO for a warehouse,
and if that were a correct estimate, he believed there would
be such opposition to the bill that it would never pass.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said that the time for discussing
this question was before the schedule relating to old ware-
houses had passed. It was rather unfair, after having
passed that schedule, to turn round and say, " Oh, we
will not let it pass. because the expense is a little greater
than we expected."

Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE remarked that it was im-
possible to know what the expense would be until they
had ascertained what the alterations were to be. He pro-
ceeded to point out that he was not aware, until that
morning, that his property in Frederick-street would re-
quire any alteration : but be now found that it would re-
quire alterations that would cost, perhaps, £BOO.
Mr. ISAAC HODMES said there was no doubt that the
expense would be very great, and that it would almost
ruin some families.
Mr. BIRKETT endeavoured to show that Mr. James
Lawrence was under a misapprehension in supposing that
his warehouse would be affected by the bill, and concluded
by calling on the Town-clerk to explain.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE.—There is no need of expla-
nation. The motion is, whether, at this stage, we shall
throw out the bill altogether.
Mr. PARKER conceived there was no doubt that the
sense of the council was against the bill. That had been
shown by the result of the discussion when the bill was
previously before them. It was only the excitement ari-
sing from the fires which had caused the rescinding of the
resolution then adopted.
Mr. EARLE said there was no doubt that they were
legislating under some degree of alarm. He had no idea
that the alteration of each warehouse would cost £BOO ;
he had thought that £2OO would have been about the
sum ; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if each
warehouse was to cost him £BOO, he would oppose the
bill entirely. He would willingly make the necessary
alteration, if it could be done at a moderate expense: but
to make people put iron doors and windows on ware-
houses and sheds, which, like his in Great Howard-street,
faced a field, was ridiculous.

Mr. TFIOMPSON proposed that clause 8, imposing a
penalty for not making the alterations in existing ware-
houses, should be struck out.
Mr. JOHN HOLMES proposed that the bill should be
confined to the regulations affecting new warehouses and
porters. . . . .

Mr. HARBORD remarked, that if the Council wanted
to arrive at any correct data as to the cost of alteration,
they might send over the way to the Liverpool Fire
Office, where there were some estimates for Mr. Bushby's
warehouses. The statement of Mr. H. Holmes he con-
sider, d too vague to be relied upon.
The TOWN CLERK was of opinion that no one estimate
could give any idea of the general expense.
Mr. IsAke tior,mEs contended that as the bill was for
the benefit of all the warehouse property, an equal rate
should be levied on all warehouses for the purpose of ma-
king alterations. Surely they ought not to let such a man
as Mr. Harbord escape, merely because he was so fortu-
nate as to have warehouses on the New Quay. He had
heard a good deal of the London offices : but surely, i
they refuse to insure, there was sufficient spirit and capi-
tal in Liverpool to insure Liverpool property. (No, no.)
Well he would ask the Town Clerk whether a clause of
the kind alluded to by him could not he put into the bill
The TOWN-CLERK.—A clause which would charge al.
warehouses whether they required altering or not, with
the expense of altering and improving all those who do
require it?
Mr. I. HOLMES.—Yes.

The TOWN-CLERK.—I certainly think that I could
frame such a clause in a very few minutes ; but I have no
hope that it would pass the Legislature.
Mr. 1. HOLMES.—Then it is a partial bill, and you can-
not prevent its being so.
Mr. FIARBORD, in consequence of the remark made by
the previous speaker, said that he had spent some few
hundred pounds, and was prepared to spend more, in al-
tering his warehouses. I❑ fact, he had done more than
the bill required.
Mr. LACE thought that it was absolutely necessary that
schedule B (relating to old warehouses) should form part
of the bill, and let them try, therefore, if they could so
modify it as to make it acceptable. It must certainly be
admitted that this was a most arbitrary bill ; but, if it was
necessary to the town, what were they to do? He really
thought they had no alternative.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE could not see how they were to
modify schedule B, when they had passed it on Saturday.
Mr. BIRKETT said that the general opinion in London,
and other places, was, that there was not a place in
Liverpool safe enough to put a chest of tea in, and if this
state of things was to continue, what would be the result?
He thought it was the duty of the owners to make some
sacrifice, and he must say that all to whom he had spoken
were ready to make some sacrifice.
Mr. PARKER observed that the advocates of dock ware-
houses asserted that those warehouses could be insured
for 2s. Gd., whilst others said to him, " Oh, Parker, don't
believe it." Now, if he knew on what terms they could
be insured, then he would give his decision with respect to
them. If goods could be insured for 2s. Gd. in ware-
houses on the margin of the docks, then he would advo-
cate dock warehouses. The cream of the bill, however,
was the porterage. If that was properly regulated, goods
would be safe in wooden sheds. . .

Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said that the time had come
when they must determine whether the old warehouses
were to be altered or not. He did not care a farthing for
legislation as to future warehouses ; for he had great
doubts whether there would be any such warehouses, par-
ticularly as they were every day more and more threatened
with the possibility of having warehouses erected even
around the existing docks.
Mr. HORNIAY was of opinion that it was quite possible
to prepare a bill which would meet the necessities of the
case, without introducing into it the obnoxious clauses of
the present bill. He had not the least doubt that if, in-
stead of the proposed regulations with regard to existing
warehouses, there had been clauses enabling parties to
make the necessary alterations and improvements, and a
registry established of all such warehouses as had been
altered, all the desired effect would have been produced,
by the insurance offices refusing to insure those which
were not altered.

Mr. JOHN HoLmEs moved that all the clauses relating
to existing warehouses should be struck out of the bill,
except such as gave power to trustees of warehouse pro-
perty to alter such property, if they thought fit.
Mr. THOMPSON withdrew the motion he had previously
made, and seconded that of Mr. Holmes.
Mr. NORTH considered this discussion very ill-timed.
To listen to Mr. Hornby and others, the principle of the
bill might never before have been heard of. The whole
of this discussion was owing to an incidental remark made
by Mr. Thompson as to the expense. Now, admitting
that the cost of altering a warehouse would be £7OO or
£BOO, the question was not whether an owner of a ware-
house should sacrifice a year's rent, but whether he should
use the warehouse at all—whether the trade of the port
was to be saved. Cases of great hardship must un-
doubtedly arise ; but there was no help for it. Schedule
D. or the alteration of the existing warehouses, was of the
essence of the bill.
The motion, on being put to the, vote, Was negatived
br 19 to 16.

For the motion—Councillors, Isaac Holmes, W. Thorn-
hill, J. C. Thompson, Henry Holmes, H. Hornhy, J.
Holmes, J. Lawrence. J. N. Wood, J. Proctor, J. Kit-
shaw, J. Parker, J. Plumpton, J. Platt ; Aldermen, R.
R. Houghton, R. Griffith, and T. Holt.
Against the motion—Councillors, F. Shand, T. Black-
burn, J. North, J. Aikin, J. Slewart, E. Rae, T. Roy
den, W. Birkett, J. B. Lloyd, G. H. Lawrence, A. Lace
S. L. Trotman, A. Smith, jun.; Aldermen, T. Bulley
W. Earle, Sir T. Brancker, J. H. Turner; W. P. Frerne
and the Mayor.

After some further discussion, clauses 7,8, and 9 were
adopted, with the alterations previously noticed.
Clause 10, which contains a proviso exempting the
ground landlord from paying any part of the expense of
alteration was opposed by Mr. Hornby, Mr. Lloyd, Mr.
Isaac Holmes, and Mr. North, on the ground that it was
a benefit, amongst others, to the Corporation, who were
the parties seeking the bill, and that it would be unjust
to the parties who had only two or three of their leases
unexpired. The result was that the proviso was struck
out.

In clause 12, which allows an appeal to the Court of
Common Pleas, it was proposed that the Borough Court
should be substituted, and this was agreed to, on the con-
dition that Lord Shaftesbury would permit the alteration.
The meaning of clause 19, preventing the deposit of cer-
tain dangerous goods in any but fire-proof or detached
warehouses, gave rise to some discussion.
Mr. BLACKBURN pointed out that the clause allowed
drngerous goods to be stowed in cellars whose ceilings
were covered with sheet iron, and suggested that this
covering would form a very trifling barrier to the pro-
gress of fire from above.
Mr. THOMPSON moved that the cellars in which dan-
gerous goods were stored should be arched with brick.
Mr. PLUMPTON seconded the motion.
On a division there were 14 for and 15 against this mo-
tion.

The clause was afterwards modified, so as to admit of
dangerous goods, already deposited in other than the spe-
cified piaces for hereafter receiving such goods, remaining
there for six months after the commencement of the act.
Mr. Aikin proposed that palm oil and cocoa nut oil, which
were by the bill excluded from the list of dangerous arti-
cles, should be included, as well as-tallow and lard. Mr.
Cooper seconded the motion. A division took place, and
the motion was carried by 23 to 10.. Another amendment,
that butter should be excluded, wascarried by a majority
of 21 to 7.

A new clause was submitted by the Town-clerk, provi-
ding that persons might carry on dangerous trades in the
warehouses at present occupied by them, if the warhouses
be so altered as to confirm to the restrictions and regula-
tions in schedule Aor B. Power to the tenant to make
alterations, if the owner refnses, as in the general cases.
This clause was adopted.
Mr. BIRKETT moved that clauses 22 and 23 should be
struck out.

Mr. JOHN HOLMEs proposed that clause 21 should also
be struck out.
On a division 26 voted in favour of the return of the
clause, and 4 against it.
Mr. HORNBY afterwards moved that clauses 22 to 25
inclusive should be postponed.
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE moved that they should stand
part of the bill.
Mr. NORTH seconded the amendment.

Mr. HORNBY then abandoned his first motion, and pro-
posed as an amendment, that the six persons- calling on a
manufacturer to raise his chimney should not be required
to deposit the estimated amount of the alteration.
Mr. COOPER seconded the amendment.
The Couneil dividad, and negatived the amendment by
a considerable majority.
Some remarks having been made with respect to a re-
solution of the associated bodies on one of the clauses,
the Mayor said that he had that morning had an interview
with Mr. Brown, who stated to him that £5OO had been
subscribed by one chamber of commerce for the pur-
pose of opposing the bill, in the event of their sugges-
tions not being attended to, and that the other associa-
tions were also subscribing.
Clause 45 was struck out.

Clause 48, and subsequent clauses, empowering the
Watch Committee to appoint an extra police force for the
special purpose of watching warehouses, and the council
to levy a rate on warehouses to defray the cost of this extra
force, were opposed by Mr. G. H. Lawrence, who said
that he was opposed to class legi,lation, and expressed
doubts whether such a force was wanted.
The MAYOR said that this part of the bill had been
originated by himself, and he considered it very essential.
If warehouse property required an extra degree of protec-
tion, that property ought to pay the expense.
After some conversation, the clauses were agreed to.
The remainder of the clauses were adopted, with some
slight alterations.

The MAYOR then laid before the council a commune.
cation received that day from Mr. Brown, the chairman
of the delegates of the commercial associations, requesting
that, as the council were still in debate on the Fire Bill,
they would be pleased to apply for a postponement of the
bill going into committee, so as to afford the deputations
an opportunity of considering the bill as revised by the
council, and thus, if possible, prevent the necessity of
opposition on their part.
The Mayor said that the Council would no doubt be
happy to prevent the necessity of opposition, but it was
impossible to postpone the time for going into committee.
The Town-clerk was directed to return a respectful
answer, decling to comply with the request.
A clause had been sent in by Mr. Clay, and which had
been modified by the Town-clerk, so as to be applicable
to all the carrying companies, was submitted. The clause
wholly exempted the carrying companies from the opera-
tion of the bill, except in those cases where their ware-
houses, buildings, or some vault, cellar, or room of which
1.43,a 4, h ts, ;« —annric +llan
those which they themselves carried. The ciciuoe
agreed to.
A deputation was appointed to go to London. Sir Tho-
mas Brancker, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Turner were named,
but Sir Thomas said he could not leave town, and pressed
the Mayor to form one of the deputation, offering, in case
of compliance, to perform his worship's civic duties in his
absence. The Mayor seemed unwilling to comply, and
the Council separated at half-past flue o'clock, leaving the
members of the Fire Committee to settle the matter.