The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-15 00:00:00

No v EmßLit 15 1833: LIVERPOOL CORPORATION INQUIRY. Thi s „, EIGHTH DAY.—Nov.,I2. ti gatien .orni n „ g (Tuesday) being the eighth day of the heves- ter ed the ``•: e c ommissioners resumed their sittings. 'they ?li the coati 1 Court -house about twenty minutes past ten. Prior to tate,_nuation of the inquiry . into the affairs of the Dock Es at! e 4 gentleman named Troutbeck begged to receive the ear : to _ourtesy of the court whilst he made a few remarks relative_ ae`..rePort of the proceedings of that court which had that day 4-rve4ara in ;a newspaper, which, if suffered to'pass without ob. - us a . st ' ( :fle might materially tend to injure his character . ... It (lly o ' Lel-1 in the report, that he Mr. Troutbeck, had -furnished hal.eut:titig to Arftw I n! bill for the article of he, to the Dock Committee, £B2 Ils. 4a., Which was stated in the report . to qu i re :,V elfarged 15 per cent, too high. He wished to in- tr ee s_ . ether the report in the newspapers was taken from what s e i 7iree i, court? if al; c i oa nnissioner Wilki nson sa id it m o s t probably was, smi th"Af• "fr ctoutbe c ou ck hlddu ad any t further communication to make on r oli,je he se et ude . ). roetbeck was sworn, and explained that at . the time lead, ant in the report he supplied the Duek Committee with h _ b een it was stated that only one bill of £B2 Ils. 4d. , had erhisttul before the audit committee, when, - in fact, every bill to h i , o ' l ad been furnished. 'the biil in question had been shown { • to 1 0k c.t l his examiuStion before the committee, which led linn . ci es ' i ii his his accounts, and he found that the i.iscrepau le a ar ese from. the miscalculations of weights by his clerks. Payers amphlet which had been published by the dock rate vie and also in the newspapers, he had received the most Ras slander i S 'ander, which had gone to his . prejudice, and he TlLise ,etermined to embrace this opportunity of explaining. ro gated we:clerk said that the audit committee had investi gated Alr, e s'routbeck's accounts and had admitted them. e " ' nal ' ' ' inquired the mount of overcharge by the , ssioner a. clerical errors, Mr T ..' 8 . • routheek replied that he thought about £2O or £3O. . tee:clGeorge Drinkwater said that, as one of the audit colninit e Wie n e was bound to say that that body were perfectly satisfied Ale m Corneliusec conduct. „,,,voerr. Bourne, Solicitor to the Dock Estate, .being the n, Said that he was appointed solicitor by a resolution of the I ;•; ' e nthai ttee. The appointment was read ; it took place on si en ,- et August, 1832, in the room of Mr. Thomas Foster, re li'd le,g. Witness was 26 Years of age when appointed. He "(I his "a admitted au attorney since Easter, 183 J. His father • ~. uncle were in the Common Council at the time of his t r e etritm ent _ ; they are both aldermen. There were a number titor °ro p eti tors for the office. Mr. Thomson, one of the conipe eeiv 8, was au old practitioner ; much older than himself. Re ek, ! i s . no fixed salary. The emoluments are derived by•charg sernm Dock Estate for professional business as any other at the e Y would his client. Does the pariiamentary business for eti estate an the generalroutine of the legal business reqr • Succeeded- ~. ap poi Mr. 1 homas - Foster. Mr. Foster received 11 done utment abont 1814. There was a great deal of business Yeste sit the dock eve_ and' the improvement act alluded to a tut aY were procured. 'Witness al, acts as clerk to them t e oek ' n es- Could manage to do the whole of the business of li o f .__. Estate without the assistance of a clerk. The amount e, witness's bill last Year was £93, including postages and the e l P e nse of • -• • ' P lianient. ,There were - 0 oth a notice ot application to ar . ti e , er. e moluments. . Has been twelve months in the eitna eete There has been no parliamentary business in the course Tr Year except the notice alluded to. Finds his own office.. th e - 1 .3 secret ary to the Dock Trust said the commissioners ot 4 , , _ secretary Trust were required to be all dock fate-payers to the ce e d )u e nl i. Of £5l). The commissioners reqUested to see the re si ee - e ° ' . the elections of trustees of the. Estate, which were pro was'u-" and ead ; they went to show the mode of electing true e whi h a was by the Common Council, a meeting of which lei call eatiy the Mayor by means of a public advertisement. I r• Radcliffe inquired whether the £.93 of last year alluded i: ) a r e the receipts of '.or. Bourne, the solicitor, included the fees s M e r cek: ,. ( l .l as clerk to the magistrates. .IMr. Rad e r i n itTe — sS7 t lVe i r Y n et two documents relating to the .PrPointutent of Mr. ' I3our e ne w to the solicitorship of the Dock e t• u u s l t which he wished to be put in. One was a protest by six was e Dock Committee Keenest his appointment, and the other a memorial to- the Common Council from the dock rater Protest praying that body not to confirm the appointment. 1 he readest dated the 21st orAugust, 1832, and signed bysix of the ° C ommittee, (the six appointett,by the rate-payers), was perfect! It set forth that the capabilities of Mr. Bourne were se e r ,:eller unknown to the Committee, and from his y,outh and talc ., se tee li nc „ t , in his profession he was not eligible to under he LS°_,ioaportant a trust, and that the protesters believed that they his election more to personal favour than to merit, and thought that a person filling such a situation should be Perfect!and free frO the influence of the Corporatiou. Ihe pro anti signed by Alessrs. Myers, Lathom, Brown, Benson, Mr. A Woodward d the A. inquired whether any of those who signed the were bondholders under the Dock Estate ? th e_ tie Secretary could not answer the question, but. he thought qr were n e e had 'hos. B. Horsfall remarked, that Mr. Bourne had now itcl twel vemonths' experience in the office, and he should like to i,:w whether the fears expressed by the gentlemen who signed -lit l e had been realized ?No answer was returned to the uiry. (3 0 1 % Ald erman Lawrence asked how many of the Common 4:l eil were resentp et the election of Mr. Bourne ? .: me To wir - cierksaidthere nine of the Common Coon e'l en the e ' • • were , s T he . ommittee, and five rate-paeer . . Iby number or d aleirwrial to the Common Council, signet a etme ek rate-payers, requesting the Common Council not to 'm t m 1 he appointment of Mr. Beet ne, was read. 6,,(r. Radcliffe stated, that the memorial was signed by re i ect a hi .\ , l e merchants of both sides in politics. by a l T• B. Horsfall said, the memorial was certainly signed ,oti sides, but there were at least nine-tenths on one side. A:hei resolution o f a Common Council, dated Sept. 1832, upon went r eceipt of th ou e rne memorial, Was read. It confirmed the appoint . i of Mr. B. ee 'h e Town-c:erk stated, that since the act of the 6th George co , there was not au instance upon record of the Common se e "cii having interfered with the appointment of officers I , ?y -th Delc Committee ; and in section 4 of 6th George IN ~, ne e t r ,e a was a clause' to" the. effect that' the Cionmon Council t hati A pe power to annul any appointment of the Dock Comm , a d e . e. e a . '!'• Radcliffe was aware of such fact, but the power ot is ,stna The ~. was retained. '' •.- ':" - 'e • - - - bee -had never f own-cierk.—No, doubt; but a disposition w . 11 shown on thepart of the Coineien Connell to interfere , ith ap . . . , .to.,, est pointinente of the Committee f • loin the highest to the thUr• Alderman Lawrence said there were five candidates for 1‘.5 tre asurershi iviz. M• G Mr Braucker, Mr. Withers, la . 1 1 1. Garner, . relatives in h• the ~, racy, and Mr. Langtou. •Alr. Langton a get .I.m te _ 'l3,llnion Council, who had used every influence to of t d i is_ Ilex,i,nted. He had no wish to say anything in the way teen, „anent of Mr. Langton,, as he was a highly respectablei . teot but he mentioned to them that patronage to . _. a certain ex f • w euld alwa save it influence. All the candidates had 'len ds ou th Committees lye , e that the result e f• 1 I ovvn-clerk informed the commissioners t _ to the memorial alluded to had formed the' round work_o ineetlin4 of what was termed the dock rate-paecis,.al whichi, t ee , Fie' a petition to the House of Commons was drawn p, Per• P •ning of the mismanagement of the Dock Estate. That a :ion was ' signed by a number of individuals, and contained Ittehries , car b ges against the Dock Committee and its manage lee." The object of his alluding to the meeting was, that in labeY should be made as to the number of actual rate-payers ii signed that petition. a e r • D uncan, ill reply, said that the petition emanaterrfeo_m elt2llernittee of twenty-one rate-payers, and it was signed by h i3 l ' .. oae of them who were then in town. not be eone n 4. B. Horsfall said that the signatures could as theirate-payers to the committee, as it was signed by the names, the • the r Petition. He wished to refer to the number ofnata to , th e ('- question was whether the signatures were confined e Nicnltnittee; if not it would be the petition of the ratel y } . a t'iion . to .". uncan said he would produce a copy of the pt. i . I ',Z l leiw. r uitte ruwn-clerk remarked that no member of the Dock Corn eh e e, Common Councilman., or freeman, were exempt from re,VYraent of the rates and duties. There were twenty-one bi er 'ers of the Dock Committee, out of whom nineteen were chant s M r. e , who paid the dues and rates. ltlitte 'andbach stated that he was selected as one of the corn a„ of the Dock Trustbefore he was a Common Councilman, t i t n e 4 .. twhere were others who were also of the committee before 4 ... ;I'o4 connected with the Corporation. a gadt c,.., l - 1 ncan disclaimed any intention of imputing any charges .. te e , re Members of the Common Council individually. 'I he p ai ,,P,,aint was that one body was responsible to the parties who lehlee9.,rates, and the other was not. Whe re 1 °,vn-clerk continued.—There is a Dock Police Office, c., the i magistrates sit b the 'h it of the acts Geo. Ili., a l ) . ell es y au.. or y . app e i t , The clauses of the act of Parliament relative to the I he hruent of officers and establishing the court were read. Itnttektrisdiction of the magistrates was over offences com lo th in th e port or iii the docks. Mr. Bourne acts as clerk a re s ', ! niilgistrates i n this office. The fees received by the clerk w as o u c n t ilar in every respect to fees in other courts. The place by th e an appointment . o f th e C ommo n Council, but chosen elated magistrates. Witness, when solicitor to the docks, offi act., sucha clerk to the magistrates. For committals tinder this p ens : as for misdemeanours, &c., the clerk has no recom 4fter holding is usually charged to townships in other places. nut a bill office a few years, he (the Town-clerk) made f or the iell against the Dock Committee, considering them liable arr a xpeuses under the act. In lieu of paying this bill, an aaiie'llguleut was made by the commissioners with him, by Lill. 41,?.rieceivet1 the sum of £l5O per annum in lieu of the o f the t ) 1 1 1 1 stipend he had - received, but nothing as on . ac • ee presented. ' eer. 0 . B stipend. . Th e T o Bourne. —I now receive the same authori ‘ vn- clerk.—This is paid out of the Dock Fund, as Mr. sed by the act. D ock ?. B ourne.—The fees payable to the solicitor to the it ret... state amount to about 1.750 per annum. Will furnish eie „ I ' . of the number of persons charged ; cannot give those craee:ivictions. The number of charges passing through the l ev i ed under the dock act, is about 2001) a-year. The fines k Charit 1)e , °lac-third to the informer and two thirds to the Doc Th e '!„le Fund. ti e , of the read the regulation governing the distrib i ti- . Bur et l i t te Dock. Charitable Fund. Believed that the fines in tle th e w e e Court went, before his time, one half to the informer, k: stat ' e u . r half to a fund of a similar nature to that of the Dock Resolut. or ki „ ion of the trustees read, relative to the apportioning T l : e ‘''., , e asy ar to the Dock Solicitor, in lieu of fees. Pesti F.own-clerk.—There is a Lock-up-house, which has no ~.4 , .e. l i t a na,lne. It has been recently enlarged. 9s. 8:.1 T h ' e Wm. 1 e. It alterations cost the sum of £5507 . • ti on i-: Town-clerk.—Pri ' if under examine souers may remain, exe . ur a day or two in this Lock-up-house. If committed in cuti o the e n of seut ence, it is either to the Borough Goal, or to eeerminty House of Correction. The magistrates attend hoti,s.dn,Y, at twel ve o ' c l ock, and are occupied from one to t wo. the be"(l's. a I he m ag i strates attend in rotation. The property of ar e s Committee consist of such docks, basins, mid wharfs, as b et , e l , ) ,79tied in the acts, and s v n es s ted in them. The trustees have no i t herfieal interest in the proert nor has any other person. It to the ~1 1 trust. In the first case } -from the reign of Queen Anne site G r a tin' of Ge orge 111. The C ommon C ounc il gave t h e , auth eciS e t "e docks. B Y t h e 39t h of G eo. 111 ., t h e D oc k E state was bock s --1 ' C orpor 1 tO „ ' l t'aV to tf ie C orpora ti on suc h sums o f money as th e 'm l i l previously paid for the site then wan for the rise tbee he built under that act. The subsequent act!auth oter tsion oeTment for the land wanted for the farther ex triode ot. ac e. docks by the Dock Estate. With respect to the shoehl h quirin g it, in er instance the ac direct that ju act. e s umino n ito tl 1 , • and although the e -e , with e.assess le va ee,.... . . 0 , pur e a, so . regard to the prOperty of individuais authorise , t _ t ases fr ee , t abj c made by private treaty, yet, iu regard tophr v e clastei'sse'll"t of juriesroration, they are required to be_ dons_ , s o- And the 51st of George 111. lie a rin. s t. referred to yest d I • tho 'e he c omaiiss . er ay, t e tlt 1 section), which au Point a rim e separate solicitor for auditing the dock accounts to ap ea to assess icitor or agent to act before the juries slim e"'' Period to th the value of the Corporation land. And from s t , %Yu th e invarieae).assing of the act of the 6th of George IV. ~„heesn.licitor to tle practice to appoint a solicitor who was not s i h hrst a ) • the Dock Committee to act in those matter • LI act i pointment under the act, that of Mr. Joshua Lace, . runs rent under' 'n• the purpose named, and his second ap-' the said • act, were then read, The T o wn-clerk. —Mr. Lace has constantly acted in that capacity. Up to the act of 1825 , when the constitution of the Dock Estate was. altered, Mr.- Lace acted on every required occas i on . In s ubsequent cases the witness had actedon behalf • of the Dock Trustees, as their solicitor in the' conduct of that business; the Town-Clerk of -that• time having acted fur the Corporation. (This -was previous •to the appoiutment of the witness as Town-clerk.) Mr. Radcliffe. —It was khoWn that Mr. Lace had been invari ably solicitor up to the act of 1825. He asked if it was not the fact that Mr. Lace had opposed that bill, on behalf of the merchants of Liverpool. . The Town-clerk. —Every clause in - the bill was approved by Mr. Lace, as solicitor to the jearties opposing the bill, and„by the delegates of the opposition. The present practice was under the provisions-of that l i ac hniik l -IheTown-cterk — mentioned the existence of records, 'sliesing that all the clauses in the bill had been agreed to; but he challenged him -to produce any record sanctioning the particularehnise- referred to. Fle • should be able to show that the merchants of the port had been dragooned into accept ing the bill, rather than be withoul the requii ed accommoda tion of ducks. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said- that be should he happy to receive any e vidence which Mr. Radcliffe might be prepared to offer, wi:h reference to thepassing of the bill. The Town-clerk ha'd, he said, already read a report of the Mayor, specifying the alterations, made in the bill. He no w 'read again. He was not. the Town-clerk at that time; but, as .solicitor to.the Dock Estates, he had made the opposing parties. from time to time acquaint.ed with the clauses of the bill. In London, whilst the bill.is in progress throug,h Parliament, he bad constant con . .i.erices with the delegates lentil the merchants of Liverpool, who were always apprised of the alterations making. Air. —lt was evident tint Mr. Lace had been pre vims y i i ),i,:ifor of 'the Dock Estate.. Mr. Lace had ap cii'2le le s 1 172 peered on behalf of the merchants of Liverpool; and he, Mr. It., would be able to show that the merchants of Liverpool had been forced into an acceptance iif the bill, under a threat that the bill should be withdrawn. The merchants had only a choice of evils. - He would repeat, thathe was certain there would. not be• found any :record, to which the merchants were . parties, which admitted, for them, the alteration of the clause in ques tion. Their general consent to the bill had been forced from the merchants' - as he should be able to prove. The fact was, that they had been coerced. into it. The term used by the Town-clerk should have been, that the merchants submitted to the bill, and not that they consented. The ToWn-clerk repeated his assertion, that all parties in terested in - the bill, either fur or against it, were-apprised, most fully, of all the Clauses, - and the occasional alterations. Mr. Radcliffe would admit that, and yet prove his case. - Mr.-Alderman Lawrence, as one of the.merchants alluded to, would say that Mr. Radcliffe was so far right. He would ad mit that the 'merchants had- done all they could to make the • best bargain in their, power„ and so also had the Dock Trustees. - The Town-cler' read the, resolution of the opposing . parties, agreeing to let W.,,billii. - 2.4iaaseil_with certain conditiedS, which were agreed to. Mr. Radeliffe—There would be found no record of agreeing to take awayfthe power of the . commissioners who had done so much good in 182.3, The Town-clerk reiterated his assertion relative to the con currence of all parties. - Duncan- put in a list of the Committee of the dock rate payers who had prepared the petition relative to the consti tution of the Dock Estate. There were twecity-one Committee. men appointed at the meeting, with power to add to their num ber, and they 'had been increased by the original committee to 31. Mr. T. B..Horsfall said he should not have alluded to any distinction of signed by all parties in politics; new he wished Mr. R. to . point but how many of the names attached to the petition were not of-Mr. R.'s particular party. The- petition was then read by the Town-clerk at length, to gether with the list of names. The Commissioners requested to be furnished with a copy of the petition, awl to• have the amount of sales of laud from the Corporation to-the Dock Estate. . Mr. WM. Foster read over the particulars of the property Sold by the Corporation to the Dock 'Estate, amounting, from 1816 to 1827 inclusive, to £317,638 19s. Also the report of the sub-committee appointed by the -Dock Committee to purchase , lands, &c. under the act of the 6th of George IV, which report is dated the 31 Spril, - 1825, containing particulars of expend ing £126,821 2S. 7d: under schedule A; 1:87,563 - 4s. 3d. under schedule B; and £51,131 Is. Id. under schedule C, chiefly of the Corporation. Mr. Stewart, surveyor, was then Sworn, and stated that when the land in question was purchased by . the Dock Trustees from the Corporation, the latter were reversioners of the fee of certain lands in lease to Jackson's representatives, which lease was to expire in. about 26 years from that time. The jury of assessment awarded £6,058 3s. for the reversion of the fee simple to the Corporation at the end of 26 years. In June, 1827, the Dock Trustees went to a - . jury with Jackson's representatives ; the latter chimed the right to a lease for three lives and 21 years after the end of the 26 years, and the jury were willing to find a special verdict, reserving that point. and they nad actually awarded more than twice the sum tar the' reversion of the lease than the Corporation had given for the fee simple and inherit ance. (Laughter.) In - ansifer to several questions. from Sir George Drinkwater and the ToWn-clerk, Mr. Stewart said, that he had been' employed as' a surveyor both by the Corporation and the inhabitants for many years, and that he had recently been engaged in making a survey of the parish, and, from his exp-rience of the value of hind, he thought the purchases of laud under the improvement act, since the passing of the act, were exceedingly . low, with the excep tion Lathe purchase from Jackson, and since the improvements the value of the land had so far enhanced, that such prices as were now -asked were ne;er . heard of in Liverpool before. Mr. Duncan was - of 'opinion that Jackson principally owed his good fortune in getting his -price - to the present Lord Chancellor, who, when Mr. - Brougham, was brought down to Liverpool to espouse his cause, and he certainly made a most powerful speech in his favour. Sir Gee. Drhikwater 'said he bad some recollection of the abuse the Lord Chancellor then bespattered upon the Corpora tion, and he should not -forget the compliment he then paid to him. (A laugh.) Mr.SteWarr now event through With the items ct SUMS paid for various purposes` rider the improvement act of no general intelest, after whicit' , theL commissioners Wljourne.d the court until Wednesday. • NINTH DAY. The examination of - the officers, and others connected with the Dock Estate, was resumed at the Sessions-house this morn ing,'(Wednesday,) at half-past ten. There was a strong muster of the gentlemen opposed to the management of the estate by the present trustees in court, most prollably in anticipation that the evidence they wished to furnish would be taken ; however it did not appear that the examination of the officers . of the estate would conclude to-day. Ors.the commissioners taking their seats, the Town-clerk wished to explain a part of the evidence given yesterday rela tive to him on the subject of the compensation juries. He said that the commissioners would recollect it was named yesterday that there was a sub-committee appointed under the act of Par liament for. managing the sales, &c., of the Corporation. On two occasions he (the Town-clerk) acted professionally subse quent to the paSsing of the act of 1825. He then retained two engineers of first-rate eminence, Mr. James Walker and Mr. Francis Giles, of LOndon, together with several other surveyors and builders of Liverpool, competent to inform the juries of the value of property. Upon the occasion of the first jury pur chase, the sub-committee met the parties alluded to with Mr. Venables, the counsel employed by the Dock Estate, and, upon full and mature consideration of all the parties, the purchase was concluded. As regarded himself and the then Town-clerk who acted on the part - of the .Corporation, there was not the slightest communication between them, and he (witness) acted exactly the same way as any . professional man would, or as lie would - act in a case at the assizes or any where else. Mr. Withers, - the treasurer, and Mr. Foster, the secretary, now proceeded with the current accounts of the Dock Estate, from which it appeared that in June, 1832, the balance in the hands of the treasurer was £1,578 Is. 6d., and in the hands of Mr. Heywood, the banker, there was the sum of 16,441 18s. Id., besides the sum of £54,587 3s. 3d. for Jackson's Dam account. The balance at the end of the year in the hands of the treasurer was £613 2s. 100. The property 'purchased under the au thority of the act of Parliament 6th Geo. I.V. amounted to £60,137 Bs. 10d., which included the purchase of Jackson's Mills. The bonds issued by the estate varied in their amounts of interest, but the ^last issued (of £15,000) was at 3y 2 per cent. On June 24th, 1t(33, the amount in baud by cash received on bond was £57,975 .18 5. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson inquired if the witnesses had the names of the parties by whom the bonds are held? The Secretary replied that he had, but he should not like to give them up without the authority of the Trustees. The Commissioners said he would consider whether the names were necessary.. Examination continued.—The assignment of bond debts were. required - by act of Parliament to be sold by auction to the highest oidder. • The money in bond was raised by public ad vertisement, stating that such sums of money were wanted, and tenders were sent in to the committee, stating the interest re quired. The amount of duties on tonnage for the year was £79,558 33. 113. The amount of duties on goods, foreign in wards, coasswise int Wards, and foreign outwards, from June, 18.32, to June,-1833:- was £103,422 12s. 5d.; the Lighthouse duties were £8,903 6s. 2d.; the Floating-tight duties were £3,989 14s; tn-e -, Graving Dock' duties were £2,574 155.; and the Graving-block duties were £1,216 10s. With regard to the duties on vessels, if they lay in the dock inure than six months, they were charged 2.1. per ton per month. The cranes and -I , st.Agliings machines were rented • by persona_ at various , rents, and the rents were paid • over to the treasurer; there ere three weighing machines erected at the expense of the Corporation. With respect-to money in bonds previously alludetlto,. it had been omitted to state that a con sulexable sum ot'anoney had been paid Mini consequence of the inrties not subjeetin g the m selVes to a reduction of the rate of terest. Since the above statement there had been £3,800 paid off. The Treasurersand the Secretary went through the whole of the. items of -the voluminous accounts, which, 'however, were . u Youd of. i n t eres t, excepting one which excited some e merriment: tie riY it was Due by the Corporation of Liverpool for repairs, ss. 9d." -• Lieutenant Watson, the superintendent of the telegraph, stated that' he had some further information to give respecting that machine. He said that there are eleven stations between Liverpool and Holyhead, and if any vessel made a communi cation, it was. despatched from the stations to Liverpool. Each merchant provided his own signal; but there was no charge for communications made by telegraph. There are souae.thon sands of vessels reported, and about 1300 carried the Holyhead and Liverpool signals. There is a vocabulary pUblished to 'enable masters of vessels to commuuicate intelligen;:e. Regular reports were•sent from the stations of the change of wind, which was a matter of very great importance. The signal flans were made and sold at t h e t e legraph office. The three cost £2 55., and the vocabulary 12s. lid. Those parties who did not choose to 'purchase their signals at the office, were required to bring them for inspection to avoid mistakes. At one o'clock every day there was a signal to regulate the Clocks at the different stations. Receives an answer from the distance of one hundred and foity-four mites in twetzt-three sec on d s . O n some occas i ons witness hadconmiuriicated between Liverpool and Dublin for the government,.. and communicated the fate of the Reform Bid, which came; to Liverpool by express. He received no emoluments besides travelling expenses and salary. The travelling expenses could best be" told by the treasurer. Mr. Watson here intimated that business called him away, but if any gentleman present was anxious to question him, he was ready to answer them. No person answering, Mr. Watson left the court. i Mr. Withers continued.—The mode of auditing. , the accounts was by a committee,. appointed, according to the a ct of Portia : merit. The corninittee was f orme d of twelve co mmissioners, four of whom were of the Common Council and eight were rate-payers, the lattet appointed by the rate-payers at large. The accounts were signed by the audit committee. There have been two meetings of auditors since the 24th of June last. The commissioners - meet by ajoitin n i e nt. All the vouchers are laid before the audit ors . The accounts are closed up to and as soon after the 24th of June, in each year, as may be. They cannot be immediately . elosed, es time must be given for the re ceipt of retur4s from various connected with tare estate. iiiiiiiiiillll.i.......___iiiii..__. THE LIVERPOO4 STANDARD, The annual accounts are furnished to the rate-payers free of any charge. Put in a printed copy of the general account. The Town-clerk said he thought this would be a convenient time to produce some papers relative to the clauses of the bill alluded to yesterday. 'These the Town-Clerk produced and put in. They went .•encrallv to show that the alterations made in the bid subsequently b to its having been printed had been laid before all the parties interested, and agreed to by them. Also a printed copy of the bill, with the alterations reTerred to, in the hand writing of the law-stationer, which copy had been examined, at the seine time, by Mi. Lace. Among the amended clauses was the one referred to relative to the commissioners. The section in the act is the sixteenth, and defines that the commissioners appointed to inspect and audit the accounts, should exercise uti authority whatever beyond the examination of the books and accounts of the receiver to the Dock Estate. After some remarks by the Town-clerk; showing that he could not have been actuated by, any improper motive in the part. he tuok fin the occasion of the passing of the act, Mr.-Radcliffe said he would leave it to the sense of the court to determine whether any reasons had been assigned by M r . Foster for the taking away of the. powers previously possessed by the commissioners of going into a full inquiry or the mode in which the Dock Estate funds were applied, as well as the mere examination of account; nor was there any thing to show why the power of the commissioners to appoint a solicitor or agent to attend all assessments of property between the Corpo ration and the Dock Estate should have been abrogated. Arid he contended, that not only were the passers produced by - th e Town-clerk of no value, as far as regarded evidence upon these points, but that the clause in the act of 1825, by which those powers were rescinded, - ought to have contained a recital of the powers . previously exercised by the commissioners, and reasons for their abrogation. Mr. Comaissioner Wilkinson asked if there was any record of the discussion in the joint committee relative to the 56th clause of the act ? _ . . The Town-clerk said that his recollection d1:1 not aid him suf &iently to answer the question put by the commissioners.; and this could not be wondered at when it was remembered that the bill contained 149 clauses. All that he had attempted to do in the matter, and so far as it went he thiught he had succeeded with the court, was to show, by reference to the meetings of both parties at the time, that no clause had been introduced to trammel the commissioners without their knowledge. And it should be remembered that at the time in question he had no thing to do with the - Corporation. As to the clause itself no thing could be stronger or less ambiguous, fur it declared that the commissioners should have no other powers than those de fined. .Mr. Hall begged permission to ascertain from the gentle men present who had been appointed a committee to procure the passing of an act of Parliament fur remodelling the consti. tution of the Dock Estate Trusts, and particularly of their chairman, T. B. Barclay, Esq., whether the resolutions en tered into by that coomiiitee on the 24th of January last, by which' it was deterthined that there should be no such' reduc tion of the dock dues as would affect the security of the bond,. holders; were still maintained by that committee? lie wished , to be informed on this subject thus publicly that himself •and other bond holders might be assured there was no fear of -a 4e precjation of their property. Mr. - Radcliffe, on the part of the chairman and committee, stated that a meeting of the committee had been held 'that morning, at which the resolutions of the 21th of January last, referred to by Mr. Hall, had been fully confirmed. The com mittee would feel happy in attending to any suggestions which the bond holders might be disposed to make. Mr. 'l'. B. Barclay, as chairman of the committee, confirmed the statement made by Mr. Radcliffe, as their solicit Or. Mr. Hall then expressed his satisfaction at the assurances given, and withdrew. Mr. Win. Earle, jun., read an extract of the observations made by Mr. Lawrence; respecting the appointment of the Treasurer to the Dock Estate, and of the solicitor. lie dis avowed being actuated by any such motives in his vote for Mr. Langton, as treasurer, as the observations of Mr. Law rence would seem to impute. If Mr. Langton had not, in early life, been so fortunate as some if his friends, no than could say a word against his integrity. He voted for Mr. Langton, not because he was connected with him, but because he believed him to be by far ilia most qualified among the candidates. With respect to Mr. Bourne, the dock solicitor, he, Mr. Earle, had certainly considered that the teacher and the pupil being candidates for the office, it was most consistant to vote for the former. (Applause.) • Mr. Joseph Hornby said he was not aware of the observa tions made by Mr. Lawrence until informed of them by Mr. Earle, jun. lie (Mr. H.) was the only relative Mr. Langton had on the Dock Committee, and his only motive in voting for him was because he thought Mr. Langton to be the most quali fied of all the candidates. He was sorry a gentleman in Mr. Lawrence's situation had gone out of his way to asperse the motives of those who had voted for Mr. Langton. Mr. Alderman Lawrence said he wished to make an obser vation relative to the appointment of a treasurer to the Dock Estate. The candidates were Mr. Withers, Mr. T. B. Brancker, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Langton. He should be sorry . to say one word which could by any possibility be considered disrespectful to Mr. Langton, who was a most respectable gentleman. On the occasion to which he alluded Mr. Langton had four votes, namely, Mr. Earle, Mr. Leathom,•Mr. Hornby, and Mr. Ben son. l'ow it appeared that Mr. Langton happened to be the uncle of Mr. hornby—Uncle by marriage of Earle—and Mr. Leathom was the partner of Mr. Earle. He therefore thought it was rather inconsistent that Mr. Leathom, Mr. Hornby, and Mr. Benson should vote for Mr. Langton, when three of the committee elected by the rate-payers had previously signed a protest against the appointment of Mr: Cornelius Bourne, on ac • count of his being related to a member of the Common Council. Mr. Joseph li - ornby protested that there was no similarity it: the cases of Mr. Langton and Mr. Bourne. Mr. John Taylor.—lt is the opirion of the rate-payers of the town of- Liverpool that the salaries of the officers on the Dock Estate should_ be apportioned to the work, an% not be made worthy the ambition cqf gentlemen of the town, and couAant themes of contention. Mr. Bourne, sen., addressed the court at some length on the appointment of his son, whose education he described to be of such a nature as must, with his subsequent instructions in the law, have qualit!ed him for any such official situation. Ile considered the objections to Cris son to have been made out of personal hostility to himself, in consequence of the duties he bad had to perform as chairman of the town dues committee. Mr. Hornb/ disavowed, tiny knowledge of Mr. 800 rue havi ng been chairman of thaj committee. Wm. Rathbonb said he believed the transactions of the town dues committee were very little known in the town. Mr. Case also disclaimed having been actuated by any im proper motives in the vote he had given at the election of the treasurer to the Dock Estate. . . . Mr: Robert Gladstone was then sworn.—Previous to giving his evidence he begged to assure the ccurt that •he was not ac tuated by any feeling of hostility against the Common Council. He differed in opinion with them relative to the constitution of the "sa,ela,Cotonsitta - oshlsh h e always thought should have a majority or rate-payers among its inerray,e-s. - it.: '..-a., of the Dock Committee for a period of five years. A discussion here arose as to the putting in of a paper con taining a list. of queries to Mr. Huskisson, in the hand-writing of Mr. Gladstone, into whose hands it had been put by the Town Clerk previous to the examination. The Town Clerk said he would not object to its being used in evidence. but he objected to is be:ng. put in as part of his case. He had casually fOued it among other papers, and, as a mark .of personal courtesy, seeing it was in the hand-writing of Mr. Gladstone, had handed it over to hon. The examination of Mr. Gladstone was then resumed. Ile had been severally chairman to the Ship-owners' Association, to the East India Association, and to the Underwriters' Asso ciation. He had served as one of the commissioners in 1823, and as one of the committee of rate-payeis in 1825, under the 6 Geo. IV. He served three years on that occasion, and retired in consequence of the ill state of his health, which was increased by the-excitation arising from the duties he• had to perform. linew of the report made by the audit commissioners ur 182.5. Was from home when those commissioners were appointed. H e was at that time chairman of the Ship-owners Association. Thinks the audit commissioners ought to have retained the ample owers they possessed previous to the passing of t h e act in 18%.5. There were differences ot,' opinion as to the extent of these pow ers. Remembers the application to Parliament in 1825. A t that time the merchants 'made an eflOrt to obtain a more effi_ cient control over the Dock Estate, pursuant to a resolution passed in 1824. They desired a specific authority, but could not obtain it, and were obliged to submit to the wishes of the Corporation, because the accommodation afforded since then by the docks was so much wanted, .and because the funds of the merchants - subscribed to prosecute their views were nearly ex _ pended, Examined by Mr. Duncan.—Mr. Iluskisson was frequently consulted. He answered certain queries. He recommended, verbally, that the rate-payers should concede the point in dis pute, as they would have a sufficient number of their body i n the committee to ensure the publicity of the accounts, and that if the system were not found to work well, they ought apply for an extension. Does not distinct:y recollect any com promise between the Common Council and the dock rate paycis • •- •, but there' had been several differences between the t wo parties. There was a difference about appointing a chairman and deputy-chairman of the Dock Committee. It was wished by the rate-payers that. the committee should- appoint both, but ft was ultimately agreed that the Common Council should electa chairman of the committee, and .the committee were to elect their deputy-chairman. It was the decided wish of the commit- . tee to elect their own chairman; and it was the opinion of Mr. Huskisson that they should do so. Is not aware that the Coen.. cil had any desire to appoint both. The Council insisted upon appointing the chairman, and the merchants, as a condition, conceded - to them. The deputy-chairman was . not taken from the -eight rate-payers at . the committee : he was a Councilman:., Ou the appointment of a deputy-chairman there was xiiiri ion on the question in the committee. Mr. Thus. Fletcher, one of the rate-payers, was proposed along with Mr. Lawrence; but the latter received the appointment. The two candidates were supported, by their respective parties. There were frequent collisions between the rate-payers elected to the committee and those from the Council.. In consequence of those repeated collisions and discussions, coupled with witness's bad state of health, he withdrew from the committee. Ou several occasions the members-of the Common Council voted with the eight rate= payers; but their majority had defeated, and were capable of defeating, the views of the merchants and rate-payers. In the discussions which arose in the committees, it ought be seen what the result of a division would most likely be. Witness on one occasion had to propose a measure to the committee; bat, perceiving the feeling of the Common Council members against it, he had relinquished his intended motion. The com mitteemen appointed by the rate-pavers generally acted in concert, and those from the Common Council pursued a similar cruise. The motion alluded to was On the subject of petition ing the Common Council to pay a portion of the expense of the improvements in \v est Strand, but the eight of the rate-paying committee perceiving there was no chance, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, referred to the 13th section of the act of 29, Geo. 111., authorising the improvements in Salthouse Dock, Bridge-street, and other places on the Dock Estate, and. nominating the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Common Council to ►nake purchases ofproperty from the owners for such purposes, which, after reading, he stated that it appeared quite clear that the, Dock Estate had to pay the expenses of the ►mprovements, but at the same time the members of the Dock Committee consider ed, that as. the town was improved by the alterations, the Cor poration should pay some portion of the expense; and it was , ►ntended to memor►alize the Common Council from the Dock Committee to that effect; but the eight rate payers of that Com mittee seeing the rest of the Committee against the intended ►►►emorial, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Gladstone continued.—lt was not pretended that there was alegal claim upon the Corporation to contribute to the ex pence of the imp►ovement, although the first act of Parliament, through a mistake, led several persons to consider so, who were afterwards satisfied that a mistake had been made; but the pe tition was to he founded on the grounds of the town being ins.: proved by the alterations. The Town•cierk explained to the commissioners that there was originally a dispute as to whether the Corporation were liable to a portion of the expense of the alterations in con sequence of the vague wording of the act of Parliament. Mr. R. Gladstone had made a motion for the _admission of a reporter, but it was lost, there h:?in!r an even number for and against ; by the custom of the office the motion was considered as lost.; Mr. Case afterwards made a similar motion, which k‘is carried, but afterwards annulled .by the Common Council at their next meeting: The questim was again brought before the Deck Committee, and a motion made, tact the Wancil be 'requested to re-consider their decision, but it was lost. Sir George Drinkwater.—" It showed on the part of the Duck Committee a return to good sense." Mr. R. Gladstone.—To the beSt of kis recollection, those who had voted for the admission of a reporter were all large contri butors to the Dock Estate, whilst of those who opposed it, five paid no dock dues. Some altercation here took place as to.whether Sir George Drinkwater, (who is out of business) could be cousidereda rate- payer. Mr. B. Gladstone resumed.—The present memhers.of the Dock Committee were all extensively engaged in business and !oust contribute largely to the dock funds, with the exception of Sir Gorge Drinkwater, Mr. J. Bourne, Mr. Ripley, aud Mr. 'right. No member of the Common Council was exempted. from payment of dues. There were few discussions on the pur chase of laud, it being left to a jury, subject to a sub-committee. He could not recollect the subjects that produced discussion— he was anxious to postpone the purchase of land to the west ward of Strand-street, • but he must confess that, had they been postponed, there would have been a loss in the purchase. - A discussion, also, took place relative to land at Queen's-dock. A proposal had been made by the deputies of the Common Council to do away with the Audit Committee altogether. Several munbersof the Common Council were members of the Sub-committee for the purchase of lands. The court adjourned at half-past four, until ten in the morning. TENTH DAY. Yesterday (Thursday) the commissioners resumed the investi gation into the affairs of the Dock Estate. The court was opened a few minutes after ten o'clock, when Mr. Commis sioner Wilkinson, addressing the Town-clerk, said that they (the commissioners) deemeu it necessary to make inquiry respecting a large portion of land purchased by the Corporation from Sir John Tobin. It was not intended to go into that inquiry then; but he could wish the Town-clerk 'to inform Sir John Tobin of the time of the inquiry. The Town-clerk replied, that whenever the Commissioners fixed a time, he would inform Sir John; and he was quite sure that that gentleman would feel exceedingly happy to furnish every information respecting the sale alluded .to. The Town-clerk inquired whether the Commissioners in • tended to proceed exclusively into the investigation of the Dock Estate, or to take a portion of the examination relative. to the Corporation, as was the case the preceding day; to. which the Commissioners replied, they would confine themselves to the affairs of the Dock Estate. 'The Town-clerk then said that he had a few remarks to make respecting the evidence of yesterday, for which he must apologise to tne Court for taking up so much time. In the various matters connected with the estate upon which he had given evidence, it was im possible for him minutely to 'recollect the facts and dates 'of conversations and other matters years old; and he lamented, that, in consequence of the state of the books, those records 'had but yesterday 'set him right, as' by those means a good deal of the - valuable time of the -court, of himself, and the time of his friends would not yesterday have been wasted in useless discussions, when reference to the dates would have obviated it. He would now call the attention of the commission ers to the date of the transaction in which he was .concerned respecting the purchase of land in the south and north ends of the town,_ which the books had not furnished him with. On the BAi of March, 1825, the instructions from the Dock Committee, alluded to yesterday, were given to him, and the day after the sitting of the committee, the jury sat to assess the amount. He had not been - able to place his hands upon the brief then given to counsel, hut on the 2,Bth of March, 1826, he, accompa nied by Mr. John Foster and Mr. Hollingshead, attended a consultation with Mr. Venables, the counsel for the Corporation, on the subject of the purchase.• On the 4th of April, he, as so licitor for the Dock Trust, was furnished with his instructions, and on the minutes of the committee meeting on that clay, the instructions would be found recorded.. Before the jury lie urged the points he was instructed .to do ; but they were overruled by the assessor, Mr. Charles Lawrence; and Mr.. Veuables stated that the points tamed signified within . .., for if the Corporation could not give a legal title to the land, ' the Duck Committee had no occasion to pay for it, and in this way the matter ended. It was nut. until the sth of April that - the Common Council admit ted the act of the Dock Committee. It was endeavoured to be shown:by parties yesterday that he, (the Town-Cierk,) had not complied with his directions. Mr. Duncan, the solicitor. disclaimed having endeavoured to show anything against Mr. Foster's business in the transaction as a solicitor. It was the constitution of the estate that was Complained of only. Mr. Foster admitted that he was bound to act according to - his instructions, as solicitor to the Dock Estate, but in so doing it was evident that it was a breach of faith with the Common Council. Mr. Foster was then, or elected afterwards to the Common Council, acting in the double capa city for the Corporation and as solicitor to the Dock Estate. As to the purchase and sale of land, it did not matter to the preseut.question whether the Common Council were .right or the Dock Estate, but the illustration was to show that the Corporation were sitting in judgment on their own case, being both. Common Councilmen amid Dock Trustees. Mr, Foster remarked, that the implication' yesterday was, that the Common Council had interfered with the solicitor to the Dock Estate. The committee of the Dock Estate furnished him (Mr. Foster) Kith instructions, which he acted-upon to the best of his ability. He was not in the Common Council at that time, and was - then, in fact, a very unlikely man to-be made one. • Mr. Radcliffe observed that .in the case alluded to there had appeared a disposition on the part of the Common Council to interfere with the jury, which to say the least of it was a very bad precedent. Mr. Foster denied that there was any wish on the part of the ,auncil to interfere with the jury. The assessor had over-ruled the paints in his instructions, and it was not till the whole of the business had concluded that the Common Council annulled the • act of the .Dock Committee, and the documents with their dates would speak for themselves. The resolution of the CoMmon Council annulling the act of the Dock- 'Committee previously alluded' to was read, together with several of her resolutions of the Common Council apper taining to the same•trausaction. Mr. Radcliffe made several observations to the commissioners, alluding to the power which the Dock Trustees had over the Dock Committee relative to the annulling of the acts of that body, ansi stated that he did not care wl6:a were right or wrong ih the queStion of the improvements, but he had shown the ab surdity of the constitution as it at pre-:ent existed. He then askedfor the production of resolutions of the Duck Committee since the act of sixth Gco. IV., on the conduct of the servants of the Estate, for the purpose of ascertaining the control the Committee had over them, and the complaints made against them. A gentleman, named Robinson, here handed a paper to the commissioner, and the latter having perused it, said that he in tended to appoint a separate day for investigating the com plaints and charges against the Corporation and the Duck Estate which had been made by letter. lie had received a great num ber of letters, and although he had not alluded to them before, he Wu- I =s.* been inattentive to their contents. Ile should take an opportuurt) fakiag this statement before the court closed. -- The Secretary to the Dock r.61-ate,here referred to the reso lutions of the committee, relative to co.- 1 :i dots made against servants, and found that, in July, 1832, Mr. er had made a complaint against Mr. White, the master of Salthousbil oc k , f or for incivility and irregularity, and the reso!ution thereon to the effect that the committee disapproved of Mr. 'White's conduct; and cautioned him as to his future behaviour. Another com plaint was on the Uth of January, miadQ by Captain Townley, of the conduct of Mr. Will ide, a dock -master, flop), which it ap -peered that if the conduct complained of was repeated, the coin wittee would feel it their duty to dismiss Mr. Mliride. There were also complaints recorded against Mr. Askew, the Harbour master, and Mr. Purnell, a dockjmaster ; but before they entered into the nature of the allegations, it was suggested that Mr. Askew and INIr Purnell should be sent for, which was accord done. _ . _ ' - 51r. William Brown, one of the Dock Committee, examined. He was, one of the delegates to parliament to procure the act relative to the improvements in the Docks. They had various meetings and discussions with the Corporation respecting the conditions required, and a sub-committee was formed to com municate with the Corporation, and they had several consulta tions, at one of which the Corporation observed, that they had a bargain to make before the act passed. There was great want of an extension of Duck room, and that could not be procured un less the merchants submitted to the conditions of the Corpora tion, and that body threatened, that unless the rate-payers submitted to their views, they would withdraw the hill then pending before the House of Commons. The conditions were considered to be exceedingly hard; but as there was so much want of Dock room, they had no alternative, and Mr.lluekisson recommended them to submit to the Corporation, and if the plan did not answer the perpose of the merchants, that gentleman advised them to apply to Parliament again. It was necessary that man of the proceedings of the merchants should be sanctioned by the Corporation Seal. The election of a chairman was conceded to the Common Council, but the committee were to retain the power of electing a deputy-chairman. On the election of deptity chairman after the act was obtained, it was thought proper by the committee to instal Mr. Alderman Lawrence. Mr. Alder man Lawrence was elected to the committee by the Common Council, but as a matter of courtesy to-the Common Council, and Mr. Lawrence being a gentleman much respected, he was elected when e vacancy again occuried ; the candidates were Mr. Myers and Mr. Littledale, and the former was elected. From the time the constitution of the Dock Es ate was altered there have been various conflicting discussion sin the committee between the gentlemen elected by the Common Council, and those elected by the rate-payers. The latter were invariably opposed by the meml..ers . from the Council, so much so that it was determined to keen - a book to record the various'resolutions resulting from those discussions. It is impoesible for him to re collect every matter of discussion within the last seven tears, but if there was any gentleman who thought proper to ask any questions he would endeavour to answer them. Mr. Radcliffe inquired if Mr. Fletcher was not proposed as deputy-chairmarr when Mr. Lawrence was elected Mr. Brown believed that Mr. Fletcher was proposed in op position to Mr. Lawrence, but there was no division. Mr. Ratcliffe.—Was there not a great want ofaccommodation in the docks before the act passed, and did nut that want of con venience operate as a cause for the act passing by consent of the merchants Mr. Brown replied that there was great irreonvenience fell by the merchants, in consequence of want of room in the docks, and that he would have agreed to any conditions rather than have subjected himself anylougel' to such inconvenience. Mr. Brawa, in reply to a question of Mr. Radcliffe, stated that he could not say whether all the motions and resolutions of the committee were recorded. The Secretary said, that at that time only motions that were lost were entered, but now all were recorded. Mr. Radcliffe asked Mr. Brown whether he was acquainted with instances of merchants having contemplated making mo tions, but who had withdrawn them from the , certainty of not succeeding. Mr. Brown replied that he was. • Mr. Radcliffe said they would . again advert to the subject of • the resolutions relative to the servants of the committee. He t a e n d ts they had . that did not do so with a view to attack the character orally servant, but not to the powersho t h aott.properly the committee their co n s s t e i t r u v governing was so • The Secretary again referred to the books of record of the Dock Committee, from which it appeared that t h e harbour master, Mr. Askew, was tied by a penalty of £590 not to enter into business unconnected with' the estate without the permis sion of the committee, and that on the 10th of July, 1832, Mr. Ambrose Blown complained that Mr. Askew carried on bu siness with steam vessels, which caused a resolution to pass, that Mr. Askew was to get rid of his steam-vessels as soon as possible ; subsequently, on the 11th or Septem ber, 1632, Mr. Askew sent in a letter to the committee request ing permission to hire his steam-boat, files Hero, to th e ft o l ye well Navigation Company. to go to Mostyn, which reque s t was complied with, coupled with a resolution that Mr. Askew was to dispose of all his vessels within twelve months. At the expiration of that time, the Secretary wrote to Mr. Askew to learn whether the command had been complied With; and Mr. Askew sent an answer, that he had done so, _which was laid before the Committee. In consequence of a coin- Vaint against the conduct of the Harbour-master, a sub-com -mittee was formed to investigate the circumstances. and they came to the resolntion to repoi t his conduct in writing to the Committee, which was dune, and in the mean Iliac the Committee received a letter of explanation from Mr. Askew. On the 4th of Sept. 1832, the C omm itt ee h av i ng p eruse d th e l e tt er . of the Harbour master, came to a resolution that they did not think the ex planations of the Harbour-master a satisfactory justification of his conduct. Mr. Radcliffe said the complaint arose out of the Harbour master's misconduct, relative to the American vessel, the Grecian, and he wished the Secretary to refer to the letter of Captain Eldridge making the complaint. The Secretary again . referred to the books, and found that on the Bth - of January, 183.3, a letter was received from Captain Eldridge, of the Grecian, dated the 30th of September, 1832, addressed to the Dock Com mittee. The Commissioners ordered the letter to be read. It set forth, that on the Bth of October, 18.32, the Grecian set sail for Boston, but having encountired a severe gale at that period, she was stranded on a bank, and went down in Bootle fathoms. The Captain, applied to Mr. Askew for the loan of one of his steam vessels to tow the wreck into port, and it was agreed that he should have. it for eight or ten days, at the rate of £lO for 21 hours, but in the agreement she was to be -allowed, if not wanted by Captain Eldridge, to tow any vessels into port. On one occasion the steamer was wanted within the eight or ten days, hilt the captain refused to allow her to go to the service of Captain Eldi idge, stating that he had Mr. Askew's orders to tow some other vessels up the river. The petition stated that in consequence of the refusal of Mr. Askew to abide by his agreemen t , i t had been a loss to him of about £3JO, from a part of the wreck which had been got up to tow away sinking. The complainant went on further to say that Mr. Askew charged £3O for the use of his vessel, which being too much he refused to pay, and Mr. Askew arrested him. Also, that on the 2 Ith, the complainant had succeeded in getting the Grecian on to the grid iron in dock, but Mr. Askew had ordered Mr. Prichard, the dock-master, to order it out, which he did, and the vessel was thrown off in that state to encounter the neap tides. The above was the substance of the charges made bv Capt. Eldridge against Mr. Askew and on the 15th of Decemiier, 18.32, the committee of the Dock Estate having considered the charges brought against Mr. Askew, came to a resolution to the effect that the harbour -master had been culpably negligent in not devoting his personal attention to a vessel so situated. Afr. Askew, who had come into court during the reading of the letter of Captain Eldridge, rose and said that he was perfectly aware of this Undeserved censure that had been passed ulion him by the Dock G omm i ttee. I n th e case related by Capt. Eldridge, the fact was, that Prichard, the dock-master, came to him and said that if the Grecian was not removed from the gridiron, she would most probably be 'leaped there, in consequence of which he (Mr. A s k ew) sa id that the business of the docks must not be stopped by her, therefore she must be ordered off. Mr. Brown, in answer to a question from Mr. Radcliffe, said that the reason the committee did not work well in the govern ment of its servants was iu consequence of the oppoition that a portion of the committee met with from those members from the Common Council. Mr. A, Woodward asked the reason why Mr. Purnell, the dock-master, was brought before the Doe cilinusitdee? He understood that, up to the period of 11ft'. furne 1 being brought before the committee, there was out a dock-Master but who would take a bribe. Mr. Brown sail it was but justice to Mr. Askew to state that he was not included in that charge. Mr. Askew said that he defied the whole of the' Corporation or shipowners of Liverpool to say that he ever took' one single shilling or £.1.00 as A bribe.. Mr. Woodward.—llad you ever a bribe offered you? Mr. Askew—Yes, I was once offered i:100. Mr. Woodward inquired ft mu whore►? Mr. Askew was not at liberty to expose the name of the person. Mr. Wootlivard submitted to the court, that, as the odium had been attempted to be east upon the Corporation by the Dock Estate, it would but be fair to show who it was that offered the bribes? • The Secretary read a reso7ution. of the Dock Committee, dated 2d of January, 1827, moved and seconded by two mem bers of the committee belonging to the Common Council, to the effect that a ll d oc k- mas t e r s a gainst whom it could be 'moved that they. had taken a bribe should bed:scharged, but an amend mem was moved and seconded by two of the committee uf mer chants, to the effect that the dock-masters should be brought before the committee, q.nd told that if they ever took another bribe they would then be discharged, which was eventually carried. Sir George Drinkwater said it had been rumoured that the gentlemen rate-payers in the Committee, when these - men were disgraced, did not, as is leg.illy termed, conic into court with clean hands, and some said that they were actually the parties who bribed them. (A laugh.) Mr. Charles Purnell, Dock-master, sworn. Mr. Woodward inquired whether the witness, when Dock master of Prince's Duck, had received presents from-any one fur extra services? The witness said that he had. Commissioner.-1V hat were they? Mr. Charles Purnell.—l have occasionally received presents for extt a exertions, having done more than my situation re quired me to do. I came to the Prince's Dock a very poor man, and had not been very long there. when a gentleman came up to me and sa id ; that they had bean in the habit of making pre sents to the Dock -master for extra exertions, and as my salary was small they should do the same for ine. The gentleman made me a present at Christmas of £lO. The way that i:5O was given to me was, the gentleman said it was not requisite to give me money for every vessel, but I was to let it remain until the amount was worth having, but in the wean time if I wanted money I could have it by asking him for it. This was a firm in the town from whom I borihweil 1: 1 " Mr. A. Woodward desired the witness to name the firm. Witness. —(looking hesitatingly towards the bench where Mr. - Brow') and Sir George Drinkwater sat) I am not at liberty to mention the name. Mr. Woodward asked the commissioners if it would not be proper to have the name of the firm mentioned. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson replied that they were not there to try individuals fir offences, but to inquire into the affairs of the Co. Corporation, which had nothing to •do with what the members of the Corporation or the Dock Estate chose to do in their private capacity. Mr. A. Woodward. —(to the witness)—Was it for American vessels that y ou rece i ve d t hi s money? Vv itness.—lt was. Mr. Woodward.—From a large American house ? (Great laughter.) The witness did not answer the latter question; but said that he considered the £lOO as a loan, and had paid back £5O; the other £3O was made a present to him ; but, said the witness, seriously, "I had not received any money from that concern for some time before." (Great laughter.). • Mr. Brown, examined by the 'Town-clerk.—Mr. Flet cher, when he w as e l ec t e d t o the Dock Committee, had some doubts of his being a rate-payer, having ,relinquished trade for the business of a banker. Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Sandbach, and Mr. Irlarn were elected to the committeabefore they were Collation Councilmen. Cannot say that those gentlemen have acted differently in the committ ee s ince they acted in the two charac ters of Common Councilmen and members of the Dock Com mittee, but would not say they had not. 'rhe three ,gentlemen were extensive ra t e - pavers . The difference in the committee respecting Mr. Askew was regarding Mr. Askew aone, and not the management of the estate, excepting so far that, if the rate payers had brought in a motion for Mr. Askew's dismissal, they would have been defeated by the members from the Common Council. There had not been many differences between the Com mon Council and the Dock Committee since the last purchases „were made, but recollects a difference repecting the rep airs of the e‘arving Docks, a proposition having come from the Common Councn ti x a the Dock Estate should repair them, but that the Corporatio n wt . o to retain the profits of the Docks, which was not acceded to by tilt - Dock Estate. Mr. John Taylor rose, aeil begged to call the attention of the court to a subj ect w hi c h h e con Ad ere d to b e o f gr eat importance to the inquiry, which would she, whether the Corporation of Liverpool had acted for the benefit of the .public at large,_ and the shippi ng i nterest. He alluded to a - ptirehase made by the Corporation of land near Wallasey Pool, which several ex perienced gentlemen were of opinion would nicks -a most excel lent dock, or even a port. • The c ommissioners here interrupted Mr.. Taylor, and said that he had better pestpone his observations untii the subject relative to Wallasey -pool was regularly brought before them, which it was intended. to be, and Sir John 'robin would be present„ Mr- Taylor consented to postpone his observations to a future Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Duncan proceeded to comment upon the proposition alluded to of the Corporation making the Dock Estate pay for the repairs of the graving docks, and the Corporati on to receive the profits, which, they said, was one case in p o i nt of the conflicting interests of the two bodies. - The Town -clerk read a resolution of the Common Council, to the effect that the graving docks were in such a state that the Corporation did not think tit to allow vessels to go in at their risk, and, unless the Dock Estate chose to put them in repair, the docks would be closed. This led to a lengthened conversation between Mr. Radcliffe and the Town-clerk, relating to the docks, of no public interest. - Mr. Radcliffe remarked, that for want of a plan of the boun daries o f th e D oc k Estate, the two estates being so dovetailed in, it was scarcely known where the estate commenced, or where it ended. Mr. 'Hartley said there was a plan from actual survey and measurement about to be made, but the parliamentary plan faithfully described the two estates. lii answer to a question from Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Hartley ad nutted that the plan alluded to had been in contemplation eighteen months, but the delay was in. consequence of the absence of another surveyor engaged upon it. 1' he Town-clerk asked Mr. Hartley whether, for practical purposes connected with the Dock Estate, he bin - Lever required any but the parliamentary plan. dr. Hartley replied that he had not. Mr. Brown said there were sonic parts of.the estate neglected to be paved, because it could notbe ascertained to whotn it belonged. The Town-clerk said the way to find that out would be to in dict a party for not paving it. - Mr. Brown, in answer to some questions from the town-clerk, admitted that the excavations in the Strand, which had been made at the expense of the Dock Estate upon the laud of the Corporation, had ,benefited the Dock Estate. - Mr. Alderman Lawrence observed that the railway directors had paid Lord Sefton at the rate of about £3do a year for the itse of a field to deposit the excavations from the railway tunnel. Mr. Radcliffe inquired from itlr. Brown the result of the deterination of the Dock Committee relative to the exclu sion-Of newspaper reporters. Mr. Brown said that it was resolved that the secretary should communicate to the reporters the result of the deliberations of the committee subject to a restriction. Mr. Mason, the clerk to the secretary, said that he frequently communicated to the reporters intelligence verbally, out no persons were at liberty to inspect the books of the committee but rate-payers, and to them they were open. Mr. Duncan expressed his opinion that the public could never be made aware of the proceedings of the committee by the in spection of the books, as they did not hear the discussions upon motions. Some further conversation respecting reporting the proceedings of the Dock Committee took place, after which the commissioners adjourned the." Court until ten o'ciock this day. The Countess of Rossi (Aidlle. Sontag) is at Paris, and win, we are informed, remain some time before she returns to I-lol laud. She is accompanied by her husband, who is Charge d'Affaires from the King of Sardinia to the litigun,..and with whom she has been taking an excursion in Italy. Viscount Milton, eldest son of Earl Fitzwilliam, who was lately united to Lady Selina Jenkiuson, daughter of the Earl of L►verpool, is sa►d to have Bettie(' upon him the whole of the English estates of his noble father, the revenues of which -ex ceed £70,000 per annum. The large domains of the earl in Ireland, of the . annual rental of i.:3J,00a, to which Mr. Chaloner, formerly M.P. for York, is agent, are said w be settled on his lordship's second son, the Him. Wm. Wentworth Fitcwiliiam, now in his 18th year. We understand that at the meeting of the Geographical So ciety, in their apartments in llegent-street, on Tuesday evening. the intlepia Captain 'toss attended for the purpose of receiving the royal medal of 51) guineas, which had been voted to him for his scientific and geographical discoveries iu the Arctic regions. The ineetint; was numerously attended.. -- THE DRAMA. All theatrical performances on benefit nights a preicriptive right to be exempted' from the visitations of the critic's lash; and as we reverence all customs conse crated by time, although some of them may be " more honoured in the breach than the observance," it is not our intention to make any lengthened remarks- on those of Wednesday night, for the benefit of that. veteran of the histrion;c art, Mrs. Taylor. The pieces produced were, " A .Cure for the Heart Ache," and "Charles the Twelfth," in which Mr. Van denhoff appeared in the parts of _Young Rapid and the lion-hearted King df Sweden ; assisted by the gratuitous services of Mr. Hammond, as Frank (*Wand and Adam Brock ; b:ith of whom sustained their parts with all the ability that might be expected from their well known talents. We .should be doing injustice to .the whole corps iC we did not say, that they were all imbued with a sense of what was clue to their old comrade and the patrons of the drama on this occasion. At the drawing-up of the curtain there was nothing but standing room in the pit, and shortly af;er the dress-circle of boxes presented as goodly a show of .spectators , assem bled to pay a last tribute of respect to a lady incapable of thanking them in person for the high honoar conferred upon her. As we ventured to allude to the situation and circum stances of Mrs. Taylor in the last number of THE STAND ARD, We cannot now refrain from expressing our must unfeigned gratification at the noble response that has been made by the gentry of Liverpool to her call upon their liberality. Mrs. Taylor retires. into p r i va t e lif e at a late period of her existence, and when she has passed what has been emphatically called " the age of man ;" during the remainder of her earthly pilgrimage may the hand of time fall lightly upon her ! THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL. Towards the close of the- last session of Parliament Lord Brougham brought. forward, in - the House of Lords, " as a healing measure," a bill creating corporations in Some thirty of the newly-enfranchised boroughs, who were to be provided with mayors, recorders, and other munici pal functionaries. As this measure emanated from an economical government and the patron of "cheap justice," economy coupled with utility—that is, " cheap and good" —were supposed to be, its leading features;. and we dare say his Majesty's advisers will, when the proper time ar rives, prove to an admiring wr,rld that it is so; but that is their business, not ours. In consequence of the circulation of a draft of th e hill, the inhabitants of Merthyr civil, one of the new bo roughs whom the Chancellor "delighteth to honour," as sembled last week, when (what extraordinary times we - live in !) two resolutions were passed : the first declaring that the people. of Merthyr do not want a corporation ; and the second directing petitions to be presented to the two Houses of Parliament "against the proposed incor poration of Merthyr Tydvil." We regret that our limits confine unto the following extracts from the-speeches of Anthony Hill, and William Mevrick, Esgt s., is bleb WC VC evict! front The Merthyr Guardian: — Mr. bill requires the magistrates to sit two days in the week, with the recorder to assist them with his ad- Oir arrangements for this purpose are already sufficient, and I see no cause at present to change them. As to the ex pense, however, of this bill, it provides that his Majesty shall appoint us recorder a barrister of five years standing; but this involves a fallacy, inasmuch as a bat Utter of five years stand ing is not consequently a barrister of five years knowledge ihe law. It may be that under this bill a man in no respect com petent to the duty, a mere briefless barrister, may be sent - down to us; .and what, as respects the administration of justice, will be our situation then ? And I hardly anticipate that a man of talent ii iii be allotted to us; to such a man the record ,, rship of Merthyr is no object of ambition; such a gentleman would not look to Nlerthyr as the avenue to the Lord Chief usticeship of England. * I will now proceed to consider the cases to be adjudged by the magistrates whom the bill is to create.. These we hind to cuusist chiefly of black eyes and bloody noses, (laughter,) men fined for drunkenness or unruly misdeineamirs, (laughter, ) cer tain occasional disagreements between ladies whose passions are rather irritable—(laughter) —beer-h ouse convictions ' re movals of paupers, and occasionally ca ses o f truc k . I ask, sir, whether the bid or the magistracy that it proposes to raise up, have any tendency either to dimini s h th e cases .of this descrip tion, or to decide them either with more fairness or with cleat er discernment that they are decided already ? I t once now, sir, to a point which I feel to be one of souse delicacy ; but I hjld, in great matters and weighty interests, that.that fastidiousness which shrinks front the avowal of truth is highly censurable, and ought never to prevail. I come to the qm.siion, whether 11Ierthyr Tydvit be yet in that situation in which such a bill may be beneficially introduced ? In . great commtmities_,.l ad mit, the elements of those gradations 111 society, which this bill supposes, ate found to exist; but where are they to be found in the newly-mule borough of Merthyr? I mean - to wound - no males jet littos, 1 incite to uutt LIU uito scuba. (11 preper sett respect, but must say, that I hope that no glittering visions of fancied glories, no fond anticipations .of-civic honours, have made any of our neighbours imagine that they are elevated in the path of honour, by rising .in civic power. I draw a wide distinction, sir, between the station which is merely elevated in public view, and the station which is truly honourable. We are born in different stations, have different duties to perform, and the only honour in my sense is to perform them well. lu my humble judgment— llGnour and shame from no condition rims. Act well yot.r part—there all . the'honour lics—!Cheersi I conceive, sir, that we arc quite destitute of the eleMents re quired for the working of this bill. Of the great lauded pro prietors few, if any, are ttsident. Of the gentlemen of inde pendent fortune, in the county, can we expect that any will de vote their time to the provisions of this bill? Of the gentlemen resident in Merthyr, all, we well know, are engaged in busi ness, and not only it may be possible, but will be probable, that often the offender and the magistrate, the party and the judge, may be so connected, as comp.etely to destroy all the. prospects of 1111 partial With regard to the principle of the bill, I hold it in the last abhorrence. It makes this tribunal, this Corporation magi stracy, one of Quarter Sessions, and robs U 3 Of that resort, which is the glory of the country, and the hest security of our rights and justice. Will any man see his property, perhaps his per sonal liberty, submitted to this tribunal, in preference to the magistrates of Quarter Sessions? This bid makes the judgment of oiiences entirely a hole and corner business. Th, crime, the judge, the jury, all originate in the place, where all local prejudices or local partialities can operate with unrestrained sway. In the Quarter Sessions, we have the_ judgment of a bench of magistrates known for unsullied integrity and legal experience, selecled, as well as the jury, not from one small locality, but front the whole county : gentlemen elevated by their station, and removed by their locality, from all connec tion with the parties in dispute ; and this is the tribunal which we are called upon by the bill to resign. Mr. Meyriek.—lf we expected that the recorder wits not to be a - person incompetent, from want of practice, for his olree, we were to consider that a _gentleman of abbity in his profession, and relinquishing all other pra c tice, fur the bid constrains him to attend twice a-we e k in Merthyr, must be paid an adequate salary. He (Mr. M,) was enabled to say that a barrister, qua lifted to discharge the duty of recorder, would not make this sa crifice for a smaller salary than a thousand poundS a-vear. A town-clerk, to assist with legal advice the Mayor and ti'leermen must also be a gentleman learned in the law, who must ail, .i.te a clerk of the peace at the quarter sessions created by this Lill and could not be expected to give his services for less than £3OO a-year. A deputy town-clerk must also be pros iced, who must elan officiate as clerk of the justices as well, and must sit daily and give up hi s w h o l e a tt en ti on to the business. The ser vices of such a gentleman, who must also possess legal know ledge, could not be obtained for less than I.;atO a s y ear. A treasurer also must be appointed, (and all tho appointments, ex cept the recorder, are in the gift of theAlayor aud corpora:iota) and, as a great portion of this gentleman's time would be en gaged, his salary could not he less than XIGO. We have thus an additional expense of £1.600 a-year, jo which must be added the salaries of a clerk, a collector, and several other officers, be sides priutiug, and occasional rewards to special constables, making an agregate of at least £2,2 , A0, £2,30t.) a year. To meet this demand, by the provisions of the bill, a borough fund was constituted, which was to consist of lines and lees.. Ile had taken an average from the actual amount, during the last three years, of what these fines and fees would produce, and he found it not to exceed 1:21:0 a-year ;so that - a Sum of £2,000a-vear would remain to be raised on fhe poor rates oOlei thyr, Aberdai c, and Vainor. Then, as to the framing of the-bill, an eminent yer, one who had shod lustre on the highest dignities of the law, he meant the Earl of Eldon, on an oceasicn ca which an act of Parliament was spoken of', had said that it was so louselY worded that a coa c h ana l f our m i g h t d r i ve through i t: A coadi and four! why a coac h and six might drive through the provi sions of this bill. It says that if the fines and tees are nasul ficient, the Common Council ate required to estimate as cor rectly as may be what amount in addition to such fund will be sufßeient, which' they (the Common Council) may raise Ly warrant to the ov erse e rs o f eretv par i;i i w i t hi n su c h hot-math, to command t h em to pa v the minima mentioned in the warrant out of a n y money in their hands c ollected fur the relief of the Poor. •If th e overseers h ave no t sti ttkient money in their hands the amount reouired as part a they a re t o l evy the pour rate, hat it is asprovided that no sucti addidishalaaae shaii he levied except on houses and other builstiossP, cuttilages, gurdebs, and orchards." Now by the law of the laud if any person fintls himself aggrieved liv the puor's-rates, he has no appeal in the first instance to the Vestry. and even utter that, to the Quarter Sessions. But here there is ito appeal. The Common Coattail are to estimate the sum, to issue their warrant, and to levy whatever they may estimate, not upon all species of property liable to the poor's-rates, tut exclnsb ely upon " heuses and other buildings, eurtilages, gardens, and orchards," and this must be paid without appeal. Was ever an act more erbitrary in its provisions proposed or even imagined? 'We have heard of the expeuces of civic festivals, we have heard that in London even the stint of 1:8,000 does not defray the annual costs of Mayors' dinners, &c. ; here in the borough of Met tily . r, we are to have a bill empowering a Corporation to go to coy e7pences, to form any estimates. to levy any sums the) may choose to estimate, on the parishes of Merthyr, Aberdare, and V ainor, without auy appeal. Ile held in his hand an estimataof our present expellees in attaining that unspeakable advantage, the bpi relit and intelligent administration of Impartial justice. We Paid for this now £llOO a-year; of that sum £3OO, (instead of .£'2.3tX.!,) was paid from the funds of the parish of Merthyr. The renutiutng i4OO was made up front the n'onmasters, win were better .satistied to contribute that quota than have the burdens of activ e megistraey. The fees received by the Justices' Clerk 'ser a , in the year ending June, 18.31, £l6l 15, Bd.; June, 1F32, £llO Os. Cd.; Ji.ne, 1833, £122 ss. This was the sum paid for the - adminisA.atien of justice, exclusive of the ex,;enees sav e d to the parish for fees on orders of removal which in each year exceeded £111), ao that in fact the parish 'l id less than iAO a-year for that justics which this bill, with all its affected perfections, would never prialuce, even ftr the .£2300. The meeting is described as one of the most nutneroys and re pectahle that was - ever assembled in district. 4)0' 1 Ai! - ,