The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-09-16 00:00:00

the sum of £22
lessrs. Scott at

Nowell, at

tki. tor contract No. 5, be aceepted,
,d the necessary contracts prepared and sealed. The act
Applied for by the Council, after the reception of M
Robert Stephenson's report, makes it lower
Council•to'purchase all the land required

ve upon a

of time will expire on the 29th July next ; and it is there-
fore important that no tiro should be lost in carrying into
effect that injunction.
Mr. HoLT moved the adoption of the minutes, including
the report on the contracts. It was a matter of con-
siderable satisfaction that the contracts did not exceed in
amount the estimate of the engineer. The contracts were

numbered 3,4, and 5, because'the previous numbers were
the pipe contracts. The contracts, both separately and
in the aggregate, had been well considered in every point
of view. The tenders were somewhat beyond the engi-
neer's original intention, but Mr. Hawksley had thought
it better to raise the embankments a little higher;
namely, two feet throughout the whole of the filtering
beds. These filtering beds originally were intended to be
commensurate with the actual population of the town.
Mr. Holt then gave a summary of the financial position
of the Rivington works. In round numbers, he said, the
ascertained expenses were—Parliamentary, £27,000; iron
pipes delivered, and yet to be delivered to complete the
whole contract for iron pipage, £176,000. The contracts
for the formation of the reservoirs, the earth-work, and
so on, which had that day been laid before the Council,
amounted to £lOO,OOO. To come to the probable
amounts. There was a reservoir to be formed at Ken-
sington, or perhaps at Knowsley, which would be the
more convenient site. This would cost at the outside
£25,000. The laying of the pipes would cost from £40,000
to £42,000, though, as they had been deposited on differ-
ent sites, this amount would be considerably increased
by the cost of removing them, their weight being very
great. Let it be stated, therefore, at £50,000. Next, in
regard to the land. This formed no part of the engineer's
estimate. The land had bee❑ valued by three indeper -
dent valuators, and the amount named was about £50,000,
making the two items of pipes and land £lOO,OOO. These,
he believed, would include all the expenses, excepting
those of an incidental and casual character, such as engi-
neer's wages, and matters of that kind, amounting in the
total to £428,000; leaving a balance of £52,000 available
for tenders. In-fourteen days the Council must give an
answer to the contracts ; therefore it was desirable, under
the circumstances, to adopt the course recommended by
the committee, and the resolution which he had to move
was :—That the proceedings and report of the Water
Committee now read he approved and confirmed, and that
it be referred to the Water Committee to take all the ne-
cessary steps for the acquisition of land, and otherwise,
for the due prosecution of the undertaking; and that the
Mayor be authorised to fix the common seal to all notices
of agreement, and other necessary documents."
Alderman LANOSDALE seconded the motion.

Alderman BENNETT objected to Mr. Holt's motion,
which, if carried, would take the matter out of the hands
of the Council, and constitute the committee paramount
in carrying out the works in any manner they pleased.
After entering into a consideration of the items adduced
by Mr. Holt, he concluded by moving as an amendment,
" that the resolution of the Council be adhered to ; that
no contracts he given out for any portion of the work till
the whole of the tender's be received and confirmed by the
Council."
Mr. FERNTHOUGH seconded the amendment.

Mr. PICTON detailed the reasons which he felt justified
him in supporting the original motion. It was with very
great reluctance that he came to the conclusion that there
was no alternative but to go on with the plans and specifi-
cations which they had, for be was afraid. if they weri, to

delay any longer obtaining possession of the land, the in-
terests of the public of Liverpool would suffer materially
Mr. THOMSON hoped that the Council wo
public the opportunity of saying, by war -
whether, taking all the circumstances into consideration,
they were willing to go on with the scheme or not, and he
should vote for Mr. Bennett accordingly.
Mr. BIGEIA m founded his objections to the propo4al of
the committee upon a previous resolution of the 1`,,,n0‘41

to the effect that the works be not proceeded with until
the whole of the contracts were prepared. He denounced
what he termed the secret policy of the committee, and
blamed the chairman for not bringing forward data for the
opinions which he had advanced as to the probable cost of
the whole undertaking

He himself was.willing for the

works to proceed if they could be executed within the esti-
mates. If not, then let them be stopped at once, not-
withstanding the money which had up to this time been paid.
Mr. WOODRUFF thought that he should best consult
the interests of this important town by voting for at
once prosecuting the works.

Alderman eARKER begged to inform
it was not in the power of the Council to stop an act of
parliament when once obtained. Further delay, further
expense. To what Mr.
_Bennett had said about all ten.

r. Bighorn that

dens coming before the Council before any were acre
he knew that the contrary rule prevailed in the H

Committee

Alderman BENNErr.—But it was promised in this
instance.

Alderman PARKER.—Very well, my dear fellow, I
wont go into that. (Laughter.) Mr. Parker then re-
plied to• some of the statements of Mr. Bigham and
others, and said the simple goestior,
accept the tenders, or were they not ?
Mr. JAMNS Ilot.mE replied to the taunts of Mr
Bigham, as to the secrecy encourai
no member of which, Mr. Holme

was, were they to

keep bad,

a single iota of inforr

,o conserve

then went on to give a somewhat similar statement to
that of Mr. Holt, as to the position of the scheme. The
actual expenditure on the Rivington works, including the
cost of the act, and the expenses connected with the
£189,430 4 11

water investigation, was
From which should be deducted extra-

17,557 7 5

171,872 17

5,000 0 0
99,419 12 11