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

port to keep the dues as IoN

way to_do that was not by prc

If they went 10-par
thouse clause woul

doubt a wa:
bill as a ma
ther they w(

ould have the power to carry a rating clause.
He would, therefore, take the liberty of suggesting what
he had suggested before, namely, that the Council should
either rescind the resolution come to at the last Council
meeting altogether, and begin again de novo, or that they
should withdraw the bill altogether.
Mr. EVANS said he considered they ought to go for the

rating clause, and if they did not they were playing the
game of the parties who opposed the Dock Warehouses.
He begged to remind all the gentlemen of the Council,
that last year, many ?nonths ago, he got up and expressed
a hope that ie Dock Committee might be prepared with
a bill and not do as they had now, but that there might
be time enotagl fo go back or to_ go .foryvard—in fact te.
leave a wide margin so far as time was concerned, What
had they done ? Why just the reverse. There could
hardly be a gentleman on the Dock Committee but must
think the bill could not pass without the rate-paying
clause ; and why was it omitted, with the precedent of
the Albert Dock Warehouses before them ? He believed
Mr. Hornby was in error with regard to the Dock Com-
mittee of that day, because he (Mr. Evans) was one of
them, and so far as- he recollected the rating clause was
not opposed by any of them. He quite concurred in all
which bad been said as to the property of the warehouses
which had to be built being subject to rates in the same
manner as those they were intended to supplant. It was
very well known that if they could arrive at the position

of having the bill unopposed, there would be no difficulty
in getting a suspension of the standing orders, so as to
introduce a rating clause. He believed the Town Clerk he'll
that opinion , therefore that obstacle ought not to weigh witk
them at all. Then if they were to take the argument about the
secu

money, it would be much better to build ware-
round docks that would make a revenue, than

that would not. Could anything be more
than that the Liverpool public would allow
the subversion of 101 warehouses, for that was the num-
ber contained in the Wapping arrangement—were they te
allow those to be sweet away without anything being

unfortunat

placed in their stead ? Were they to allow
re these
tDockhem
Committee the direct power to do this,and refuse
the direct power to build warehouses ? Besides at the
end of
_two. orAree. years it was not proposed that

character of querists—to
But the vested rights of the
4:1 of. Why had not the Dock
Iso ? They had heard of the warehouse
:commodation for the port. but id-
viders, he contended that they were
even or eight years they prevented the
m providing dock accommodation. He

,o far back as 1802, and could show that ever
period the Dock Committee had been prevented
Dock Warehouses, on account of the op-
irehouse-owners. He was amused at
fested by those who wished to go to
.s to pull down warehouses instantly,
lubstituted accommodation. Ocoa-
thatAxem_ the docks

A hear it mention&

)e taxed

iiDDGSON

I he pe they 4vAti.

(Continued in pope a