The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-25 00:00:00

CONSERVANCY BILL

Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE pointed out the difficulty of legis-
lating on this subject, which had so much roused the jea-
lousy of those by whom they were surrounded, Mr. Law-
rence alluded to the importance of the conservancy of the
river, spoke highly of the present bill, and said it had the
entire approval of Lord Sandon, who had sanguine hopes of
its success.

The first clause enacts that no person to construct any pier,
quay, wharf, jetty, breast, or embankment, in or adjoining
to the river from Warrington. and Frodsham bridges to the
sea, whereby the tidal or other waters may be excluded, im-
peded, or interrupted, without four months' previous notice,,
in writing, on the Seasions-house, and to the clerk of the
peace of the county within which the work isintended to be
made. The. second enacts that the notice shall state the
name; address, and occupation of the person proposing to
make thework, and the place where it is to be made, and
the line, situation, nature, extent, and object thereof, and the
materials with which it is to be constructed, and the time at
which it is to be commenced, and shall show as far as reason-
ably may be, the extent, if ant, to which the work may Mc-,
dude, impede, or interrupt the waters. Clause three enacts
that the clerk of the peace is to receive notice and give a
certificate thereof; and by clause five, a copy of such notice
is to be sent to the Admiralty within ten days. By clause
ten, any pier, quay, wharf, jetty, breast, or embankment,
constructed without such four months' previous notice, or
without plan and sections being furnished within one month
after being required by the Admiralty, shall be deemed and
taken to be a nuisance, and shall be liable to be abated and
removed in the same manner as any nuisance may be law-
fully_aillated or removed.

..E Alss complained of the procrastination which took
• ,
place in. all 'Parliamentary business. These were ahnost the
bills of last year, yet they were only in the hands of the
council just before they had to be considered. Mr. Evans
proceeded to find some faults with the new Conservancy Bill,
which, he said, did not provide any conservators. It placed
Liverpool, the interest of which was as ninety-nine in the
hundred, as compared with that of other places, on the same
footing as them, while Liverpool was to pay all the expenses.
The TOWN-cLuttic characterised the measure as the most
valuable that had ever been proposed in behalf of the coun-
cil. It went on the ground of obtaining the public rights,
and appealing to the public tribunals of the country. If any
party commenced any work on the river, they were to give
notice, and furnish plans. If the plans were deemed detri-
mental, they could appeal to the public tribunals in that
stage,•and if the parties did not give notice they might treat
them as a nuisance and go and destroy them.

In the course of the lengthened discussion which ensued,
it was stated that thousands of acres of land had been torn
from the river Mersey in times past.
Mr. PLATT remark:d that this would probably account for
the jealousy of the Cheshire squires on the subject of these
bills.

Mr. AIKIN contended that Liverpool was by this bill
placed in a position which from her great importance was

unjust to her. Liverpool was of more commercial importance
than both the counties put together. Her commerce and
her prosperity belonged to the kingdom, while the prosperity
of the few owners of acres on the banks of the river, though
undoubtedly important, was not of such vast consequence to
so many individuals. Yet Liverpool was to receive no notice
whatever, but was herself to give notice if she contemplated
any alteration. He would move that the clause be so altered
that the Town-clerk of Liverpool should receive notice.
This was seconded by Mr. TunNEr4.
The TOWN-CLERK treated the point as of no practical im-
portance, while to insist upon it would arouse- that jealousy
which they were so anxious to avoid.
The Council divided on Mr. Aikin's motion, when there
appeared—
For the motion—Messrs. Shand, Thornhill, Mellor, Aikin,
Bright, Jordan, Platt, Evans, and Turner. •
Against the motion—Messrs. Shaw, Hodgson, Copeland,
Blundell, J. Holmes, Bolton, Rae, Robinson, Cooper, Kil-
shaw, Wood, G. H. Lawrence, A. Smith, Freme, Houghton,
(alderman,) Nicol, Molyneux, Crook, and the Mayor.
For the motion, 9; against it, 19 ; majority, 10.
MARINE STORE DEALERS.

The TOWN-CLERK said clauses had, since the preceding

day, been framed and inserted in the improvement and police
regulatioo bill, providing that inspectors of police should
have the privilege of inspecting the premises of marine store
dealers, and also for licensing marine store dealers.