The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-08 00:00:00

clauses of it respecting public
from the Metropolitan act ?
Mr. BOLTON said it was ex

hick had been
.adopted

.petted to be read a third time

to-morrow (yesterday.)
Mr. BruGm' asked whether there had been any opposi-
tion to it?

Mr. BOLTON replied in the affirmative, and said it was to
have been read last Monday, but that it had been postponed.
The MAYOR said it had been approved by the committee
and recommitted.

The Town-CLEux said the committee of the Commons
had approved of the clauses respecting the publicans, and
that they had not made any material alteration in the bill
itself. It then came before the Lords, and was referred to a
select committee of five, when evidence was heard in support
of the clauses in question.. The unanimous determination of
that committee had been in favour of the passing of the
clauses. Upon the following day the Lill had to be reported
to the Lords, whetian opposition was taken to the clauses by
Lord Shaftesbury, upon which the Marquis of Salisbury
moved that the bill be committed, and evidence heard, in
order that the publicans should have an opportuni y afforded
them of cross-examining the witnesses. Accordingly it came
on again before the committee, but the publicans having
failed to attend, the clauses in question were again confirmed
by the committee. The bill was now again before the Lords,
and was fixed to come on to-morrow (Thursday) for third
readine, the Duke of Richmond objecting, as he intimated
he should, and the Lords being specially summoned for the
occasion.

Mr. BIRKETT remarked on the large amount required to
carry out the improvements of the Borough Gaol. He was
aware that the alteration was necessary, but he wished to
know if it had been ascertained that they would not be
forced, ere long, to build a new gaol; if so, this money
would be entirely thrown away. Within the last four years
upwards of £lO,OOO had been expended in alterations of the

gaol.
The TOWN-CLERK said there was every probability of the
present gaol being sufficient. It was proper to remark that,
even if the erection of a new gaol became necessary, they
must, nevertheless, make these alterations, as accommoda-
tions could not be found for the prisoners while such new
gaols were building.

IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE.
It appeared that Mr. Elmes, the architect who furnished
the plans and superintends the erection of the new Assize
Courts, had been requested to furnish elevations of buildings
to be erected on the land in Lime-street, adjacent to the
courts. It was objected by Mr. Bolton and others that this
implied some slight to the corporation surveyor, and that it
ought to be made to appear that Mr. Elmes was employed
as the architect of the Assize Courts for the sake of unifor-
mity.

Mr. EARLE said Mr. David Hodgson, who made the pro-
posal, did so on this very ground. •
Mr. BIRKETT thought, before any resolution was passed
on the subject, they ought to be informed what was to be
done with the land. He moved that the matter be post-
poned till they knew what was to be erected on the space
referred to.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES seconded the amendment.
The amendment was consequently lost, and the proceed-
ings were confirmed. The following members voted in the
division :

For it—Messrs. Isaac Holmes, Thornhill, Bright, Birkett,
Parker, Mather. Aldermen—Messrs. Holt and Houghton.
Against it—Messrs. Preston, Sandbach, Edwards, Henry
Holmes, J. Holmes, Bolton, Aikin, Rae, Priestley, Yates,
Lawrence, Wood, Procter, Lloyd, Rigby, Kilshaw, Brassey,
Trotman, Jordan, Platt, Alex. Smith, jun., Harbord. Al-
dermen—Messrs. Freme, Earle, Nicol, Turner, Bramley-
moore, Molyneux, Crook, and the Mayor.