The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-10-31 00:00:00

FINANCE COMMITTEE

The proceedings comprised—(l,) recommendation to ac-
cept the tender of Messrs. Cochrane and Co., to construct.
the Landing-stage for channel steamers, amounting to
£103,429 Bs. 3d. ; (2,) recommendation to accept the
tender of Mr. George 'Thompson, to construct the River
Wall at Birkenhead, amounting to £6,850 ; (3,) recom-
mendation to purchase from Mr. R. E. Harvey his Lease-
hold interest in premises in Charles-street and Hood-
street, for £1,400.
Mr. Houx BY moved the acceptance of the tender of Messrs.
Cochrane and Co., for constructing the Landing-stage for
channel steamers. In doing so, he might state that it
was not the lowest tender; but it was one which, under all
the circumstances, was deemed the most eligible by the
committee; and he might also add, it had the sanction of
Sir William Cubitt, the engineer for the work. Such
being the case, the committee had deemed it right to re-
commend the adoption of that tender, subject of course
to being satisfied with the sureties for a due fulfilment of
the contract.

Mr. TOBIN wished to know what was the proposed
length of time for executing the work in terms of the
contract.

The MAYOR said eighteen months was the time
specified.
Mr. J. ThomsoN expressed a wish to know how many
tenders had been given in, and what were their respective
amounts.

Mr. EARLE said the Corporation had on so many
occasions suffered so extensively by adopting loit ten-
ders, that he was glad to learn the plan of accepting
these was not to be persevered in. He considered Sir
William Cubitt had acted like a wise and judicious man
hi giving his sanction to the preference for the tender of
respectable parties, who would be able •to execute the
work in a satisfactory manner. '

Mr. R. GLA.DsTaiiz considered it was in some'degree
unfortunate that we should always have to go to London
when we want•brains for work to be executed. With the
single exception of the late Mr. Elmes, he had not been
able to discover that much benefit had resulted front such
a course ; or that the Londoners had been in any degree
able to realise -the expectations held out for them in re-
ference to first-rate work.. _ _

Mr. Alderman •BrITNETT was of opinion that work of
the kind alluded to could be done as well, if not better, in
Liverpool than in any other town. To go away from the .
locality for the execution of such work, appeared to him •
something like casting an imputation on the engineer-
ing capabilities of the town. This appeared 'still more
forcibly to be the case in his mind; when it was borne in
recollection that works of the kind, now under considera-
tion, were best Constructed on the spot where they were
to •be used. If Mr: Gladstone would move that the
.the matter be reconsidered, he would support the motion..
Mr. Picyrox said, as it was customary to give publicity
to the names of parties tendering for public works, and
also the amounts of the tenders in London • and other
places, he could not see any benefit which could arise from
withholding that information here; nor could he understand
what injury would arise to any parties from the informa-
tion being communicated.
Mr. ST.rnwA la said, two firms of very high respectability
in Liverpodl or its near neighbourhood had sent in tenders
for the work, and of their entire suitableness in all res-
pects, for the due execution of the work, Sir William
Cubitt was thoroughly satisfied ; • but, on opening their
tenders, one was found to'be 26 and the other _2B Per cent.
higher than the. one adopted for recommendation. •
Mr. J. B. Mooun, M. P.osaid, considering the facilities

for the construction of such work, to be met with at Bir-

kenhead, and the easy means for conveying by water
most of tie -materials necessary for executing works of
the kind under contemplation ; together 'with the me-
chanical skill of the workmen in this locality,: it was
scarcely more singular than it was unsatisfactory to find
that the tenders sent 'in this quarter should so far exceed'
those from more distant, and,-consequently, in all respects,
more disadvantageously situated localities. It is duo to
Sir William Cubitt, a gentleman who has constructed
the most-extensive, and the most important landing•stage
in the world, to say that one firm in this neighbourhood
he`would have selected before all-others- for the. execution
of this work .1 it was 'not necessary to name the firm, but
it was only due to'all'parties to state this mach, that when
the tender from that firm came to be opened, it was found
to'he so much higher than that of Messrs. Cochrane that
it could not be entertained. One tender which had been'
received' amounted, he belieVed, to £140,000.
Mr. BIGtUA.M said he understood one tender had been so
IoW as £92,000, and, as this had been talked about out of
doors, he did not see why it ought not to be authorita—
tively stated there.
Mr. H011203T, in reply, said he had always advocated the
course recommended by Mr. Picton,. to which he as an
individual could see no reasonable .objection. .He found,
however, that the opposite course of not revealing the
names had been uniformly acted on, as it was considered
that communicating the names of parties tendering- for
work, and the amount for which they offered to execute
it, would be injurious to them. It was true that one

tender for some 00,000 odd had been given 'in,
but it was under such circumstances that Sir William.
Cubitt did not recommend its adoption. He concluded by
again moving that the tender be adopted, subject to the
conditions referred to.
Mr. C. TURNER seconded the motion, which was carried.
Mr. HORNBY neat moved that the tender of Mr. Thomp-

son, for constructing a river-wall in connection with the
Birkenhead Docks be accepted. In answer to a question
Mr. Hornby said only parties had been requested to send
in tenders, and that no advertisement calling for tenders
had been issued.

Mr. _Alderman BENNETT expressed his surprise and re-
gret that such a course had been adopted. He considered
it was not doing justice to the tradesmen in the town.
He concluded by moving that the matter be remitted back
to the committee, with instructions toadvertise for tenders.
Mr. J. TnomsoN seconded the motion.

A considerable and somewhat personal discussion ensued,
in which Mr. Thomson, Mr. Earle, Mr. Stewart, Mr.
Banner, and Mr. Johnson took part. •
Mr. HOIMBY explained, after which the motion for
remitting the subject back to the committee was put to
the vote, and rejected by a majority of 21 to 20.
Against—Messrs. Aked, Anderson, Mellor, Charles
Turner, Hornby, George Holt, Fernihough, Shand,
Brancker,'Earle, Piston, Henderson, Robertson, Gregson ;
Aldermen Parker, J. H. Turner, Gardner, J. B. Moore,
F. Shand, Sir J. Bent, and the Mayor.
For;---Messrs. Thomson, Bigham,• Woodruff, Moss,
Nicholson, 3.l`Guffie, Banner, Jeffreys,- 'Fleming, Tobin,
R. Gladstone, Johnson, Houghton, Hodson, Beckwith,
W. J. Horsfall, Halhead ; Aldermen Bennett, Bold, and
Robinson. •

'The proceedings of the finance committee were then con-
firmed, after an attempt, on the part.of Mr. Bigham, to
originate a discussion on the subject of the Towu dues; but
the attempt was put aside on the ground of its being in-
formal, the present being: a special meeting, and that
subject not being included in tit(
THE WATCH COMMITTEI

notices.
—THE LATE FIR}

The proceedings of this committee having been read,
'The MAYOR said he could not, although the matter
might be a little out of order, allow the present oppor-
tunity to pass without bearing his personal testimony-to
the admirable conduct of the members of the police force
generally on the occasion of the late great and alarming
fire. (Cheers.) Of the conduct of Major_ Greig, Mir,
Hewitt, the superintendents, and indeed every member of
the fire police, and the other police officials, from morning
till night, and all night, he felt it his duty personally, as
well as officially, to speak in terms of the highest appror