The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

WATCH RATE

The TOWN-CLERK read the calculation of the new watch
rate. The average account for seven years for Liverpool was
£8,527 12s. Id. The Liverpool assessment is £952,321.
The rate, which upon this amount yields the sum nearest to
the average is 2d. and 7-47ths in the pound, which in the
assessment give £8,526 19s. 2d. The assessment for Kirk-
dale is £18,191. which at 2d. and 7-47ths gives £162 18s. 10d.
The assessment for Everton is £58,224, which yields
£521 6s. Sd. The assessment for West Derby is £45,534,
which yields £407 14s. 2d. The assessment for Toxteth
Park is £106,890, which yields £957 Is. Bd. Total,
£10,576 Is. Id.
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE, seconded by Mr. PROCTER,
moved the above rate. Agreed to.
Mr. COOPER said, out of 7,000 rate-payers of Toxteth
Park, not more than 1100 or 1200 had paid. He would ask
the Town-clerk, if, after letting matters go in this way, it was
legal to levy for the arrears on those who were willing to pay ?
The TOWN-CLERK said they looked to the overseers of
the poor of the township, and might have levied on their
goods and chattels long since. They appeared to be suffering
through their improper misconduct in bygone years. He
could not take upon himself to direct them as to their pro-

ceedinge, respecting which they must consult tfieir own legal
adviser. - -• ___.

Mr. COOPER said it came rather hard upon the "
horse."
A MEMBER remarked that Mr. Cooper did not appear e
very " willing horse."

MARKET COMMITTEE

In the report of the market committee, a resolution ap-
peared, authorising the sale of hay and straw in the London-
road, on payment of the usual toll. It was also set forth
that it had been resolved to erect sheds for the protection of
produce in the North Haymarket.
Mr. GLADSTON E wished to know whether it was intended
to raise the rents in St. John's Market.

Mr. JOHN SMITH said, what was intended was to make a
genera! revision of the rents.
Mr. GLArosTo:vE thought they were not bound to exact to
the uttermost fa: thing for the rents in the market, and
especially at a period when business was known to be in a
very depressed state. He urged this as one reason against
any change ; but there was another and a still more import-
ant one, namely, that in proportion as the rents of the stalls
in the markets were increased, a direct premium was offered
for the removal of the business of those stalls, to shops in
the streets; and, therefore, to that extent manifestly injuring
the pioperty of the corporation. He trusted, therefore, that
no chance would be made.

repared to justify

Mr. EVANS was, if it
the raising of rents in St. John's M
The MAYOR said, this question was no before the council
Mr. EVANS said, he would content himelf with observing,
that a butcher had given to another in the same trade £lOO
for being allowed to go into one of the shops in the market.
With respect to Mr. Gladstone's observation, if the public
wanted shops in other places, they had no right to do any
thing that would prevent it.

Mr. THORNHILL expressed strong disapprobation of the
scheme for allowing hay and straw to be sold in London-road
After expending £20,000 in the formation of new hay-mar-
kets, such a measure was preposterous. They would have
to drive away a stand of coaches; and, after all, they could
not find room for many loads of hav or straw. He did not
agree either with the erection of sheds for •housing hay or
straw. Produce ought to be brought to the market to be
sold, not to be stored ; and if they offered facilities for doing
so, they would enable the farmers to raise the prices. Such
sheds'would be a losing concern ; for they would cost £6OO,
and they would not bring in £l5 a-year. As to the London-
road project, it was the most preposterous scheme that ever
was heard of.

Mr. PARKER agreed with Mr. Thornhill that the notion
of permitting hay and straw to be sold in London-road was
most preposterous. They reight, with equal consistency,
allow those commodities to be sold in Lord-street. With
respect to the erection of sheds, he did not agree with Mr.
lhornhill. He thought they ought to provide means for the •
protection of agricultural produce from the weather.
Mr. EVANS said, that having had something to do with
this preposterous scheme of bringing hay to be sold in Lon-
don-road, he must claim the privilege of saying a word or
two on the subject, especially as Mr. Thornhill had opposed
it, and had, no doubt, made his usual impression on the
council. (Laughter.) Mr. Parker had likewise spoken
against it, and, no doubt, with his usual effect. With respect
to the south market it was not now in existence. This ex-
periment was recommended in default of the South Hay-
market. Mr. Evans proceeded to state the course of pro-
ceedings in council touching the formation of the two mar-
kets, with a view of showing that he had been an advocate
for only one market. The markets were at length brought
into action, and the north took all the business from the
south. It was difficult to say why this was, but if they found
that both buyers and sellers crowded to London-road this
would solve the difficulty. He had an opinion that this was
the position for a market for Liverpool, and they had evi-
dence enough that a much larger place than this would not
support more than one hay-market. He knew of Land in
the neighbourhood of London-road that was exactly suited
for the purpose, but he would not say too much on the sub-
ject at present. He hoped, however, to see the markets con-
centrated in that neighbourhood. They had purchased the
land on certain provisos, it was true, but they would have no
difficulty in arranging to compensate the persons with whom
they had entered into conditions.
Mr. BUSHELL said, Mr. Evans spoke of the failures of the
other markets, and he wished to remedy those failures by
making them still greater : he wished to draw the business
from them to London-road. Why should not the markets be
held at the north and the south on alternate days ? It would
be a system of reciprocity which would carry' with it much
more justice than any other experimerkt. By the proposition
of Mr. Evans the property of both would be endangered.
If sheds were erected at the south market, farmers would be
induced to take their produce there, and in time the market
would be established.
Mr. EARLE said it was most extraordinary that the south
market did not answer, as the great bulk of buyers were at
the south. .
Mr. THORNHILL differed with Mr. Earle. The great bulk
of buyers were at the north.
Mr. EARLE thought otherwise. He believed nearly all
the buyers were at the south. He thought favourably of
holding the market in London-road.
Mr. SANDS was like Mr. Earle, at a loss to know why the
south market did not answer. He had sent hay of his own to
be sold there, and his farmer was obliged to take it to the
north because there were no purchasers.
Mr. JORDAN said they ought to erect sheds at, the south
market and then it would answer.
Mr. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE thought that however good
in itself, before Mr. Evans's plan was agreed to, it was the
duty of the council to try every means in their power, to
make the South market, on which so much had been already
expended, answer the object originally contemplated. If a
shed would have this effect, he was decidedly of opinion that
the attempt should be made ; and it was time enough, when
such experiments had failed, to talk of abandoning it and
establishing another.

Mr. Jos SMITH said the great complaint against the
south market was that it was too cold and exposed. The
farmers did not like, for this reason, to send their cattle there.
They ought, therefore, to build a wall round it to protect it
from the wind. -

Mr. PROCTOR said he hoped the counsel would agree to
build both a wall and sheds. If they did this the market
would answer.

Mr. KILSHAW said if they
answer no purpose, as that place
wind would come over the wall,
ever.

did build a wall it would
was so much exposed. The
ind it would be as bad as

Mr. COOPER agreed entirely with Alderman Evans in, his
views respecting London-road, which was an excellent situa-
tion for a market.

Mr. H. HoLmss, seconded by Mr. THORNHILL, moved
that the proceedings be referred back to the committee, for
reconsideration.

Mr. PLATT said the farmers were not likely to attend the
south market till they had some accommodation. Let sheds
be erected, and there would be some attraction, and tbey
would go to the market. He wished to know what accom-
modation they were likely to get in London:road, A very
few carts would fill the space there, but the crowd which
would appear would not prove anything.
Mr. RIGBY had been in the habit of conversing with
farmers for some years, and he approved entirely of the Lon-
don-road scheme. As to the land of the South Haymarket,
it would be no loss to the corporation, as it was worth all
that it had cost.
Mr. BOLTON objected to the erectic
holding a market in London-road.
erection of sheds should be suspended
Mr. EVANS said the notion of the holding the market on

n of the sheds and the
He moved that the

alternate days, of shutting up one market in order to force
people to another, was one of the most utopian that be had
ever heard of. By going to London-road, they broke no es-
tablishment, and they might, if it did not answer, discon-
tinue it in a week. Their object was the public convenience,
which ought to overrule all other considerations.
Mr. BUSHELL said there must be some reason why people
did not go to the south market, and it must be on account of
the situation. If they built a wall about it and erected
sheds, they would make it applicable to what was required
in all respects.
Mr. LLOYD supported the London-road scheme.
The council divided on the amendment, when there ap-
peared—

For the amendment
Against it 3O
The amendment was consequently lost.
The following gentlemen voted on the division :
For the amendment Messrs. Thornhill, Preston, H.
Holmes, J. Holmes, Bolton, Yates, Robinson, Gladstone,
Bushell, Parker, Proctor, Brassey, Jordan, Platt, Holt,
Moon, and Turner.
• Against it—Messrs. Shaw, Shand, Houghton, Copeland,
Mellor, Sands, Rae, Bright, Priestley, Aspinall, J. Law-
rence, Cooper, Wood, Birkett, Lloyd, Rigby, Kilshaw, J.
Smith, G. 11Lawrence, Bulley, Frame, Evans, Barclay,

Earle: R. Houghton, Nicol, iiramley-Moore,
Crook, and the mayor.
The proceedings of the committee were confirmed, it being
understood that the erection of the sheds was to be post-
poned for the present.