The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-12 00:00:00

° vEmBER 12, 1833. LIVERPOOL CORPORATION INQUIRY. Th e c FIFTH •DAT. om innassioners took their seats at ten minutes past ten. Foster hand e d i n a return relative to the Court of Requests. Passe ilkinson inquired whether, in the view of the Court of dent lfes being extended, it would nut be better to have a resie . r.pe3eldFoster said it would certainly be better, but it would de oce_eePon the number of Courts of Passage. There was no u tor Recordnt Judge, except on the - trial of the issues. Thev preeeent er had never been resident. emereDuncan said that the clause in the governing charter r ee t te r ,r,lng the Common Council to appoint a Recorder, di shan' that one honest and discreet man " witlein the town" T T: be Recorder. te co mmissioners then made some inquiries of - Mr. Foster celarly e family connexions of the present Recorder, and parti the Colne whether he wa s - counecte d with any of the members of nrmon Council. ...a.Grindrod corrected a statement he had made yesterday. but titer was uat the sole contractor for St. Luke's church, isseaevoint contractor with . Mr. Hetherington. 'chat • contract °id, notice of which was served on the Corporation many u,saago. The original plan of the church was designed by Citriete Mr. Foster, fur a plain Gothic church, and that was the tee Tes he (Mr: Grindrod) contracted for. As the worke pro ei; O,,thelaus were altered front time to time, and instead of a (eothic building, there rose, to the iftliniration - of the town, • „ s Tendict cashed al. He wished to know whether he was to be rq,Afor the plain church or for the cathedral which the now saw. laui4c)onatuissioner said he could not answer that question. (A required Gri u d ro d then handed in his petition to the Corporation. yesterday, and his application to Mr. Foster, the sur veyor. L Al c r ; Sudl ow t h en stated, that with respect to the coat of St. s chur c h up to 1803 very little was paid except for levelling th e l and• Nothing was paid front that period till 1811, whets eunua.tiou stone was tail. Front that period till 1821 the a s she paid for building the wall that was mentioned yesterday foundation of the church up to the levelling of the street u ^')000. 111 1822 the work was resumed, and the expense ,1 to 1832 was £52,917, of which £6415 was paid for the put-- 0 7 1 1. 5,e of preinisee in Leece-stieet, and £8450 to the executors countGrindrod on account of the mason's work, the stone ec ehht having been settled. Grindrod.—Did that include the account for stone? (1 2:r. Sudlow.—N o . That had been settled. He was not w .. re of there being any arrear for stone. a ir- Foster, in addition to his former- evilence, called the teannissioners' attention to an act for making an embankment Persons the Leasowes and Wallasey Pool. There Were seven t'v'er_sons appointed commissioners by . the act, three of whom Lo r r e t° be appointed by the Corporation ; Robert \Titter, Esq., _ .a .a of the Manor of Bidstou, one of the 'others, and the re orwming three were to be chosen' - out of the: landowners upon fry °3 ' the rate was laid. The object was to prevent the sea • 1 1 overflowi ng the low lands' in. that neighbourhood and in tring th e port. The embaukinent had been made, an d t h e onsuration paid half the expense. Mr. Foster next refen•ed Into the act obtaiued last year, for the improvement and manage- In. vit t of Birkenh ea d. Six of the Common Council were ap- Pointed commissiouers in respect of the property of the Cor t)r4tion within the township. These were the Mayor, two ail iffs, and three junior Aldermen for the lime being. Sixty Zatnissiouers were also elected from among the rate-payets. e ' Foster said, in answer to inquiry that there was no other -e t or office with which the Counnell Council were in any way co rected, so far as he knew. r • C. Okell pr o d uce d var ious bye-laws, - particularly one ni.id e by a. Common-hall in the 2•kl of Elizabeth, to the effect fal len the e l ection by the commons of a Common Council haying ttflen int o d esuetude such custom be here b y restored. 2d. A " - law, dat e d 1627, 'containing a list of the - Common Council, providi ng that none sho'uld have a double vote. A 3d, 4th, February, 1636, nominating the common Council. A itta, dated June 21, 1642, - to the effect that six persons should tieulaPPointed to the Common Council instead. of six persons not . Y qualified. A sth, dated 1695, three persons being dismis sed from the CounnonCouncil, and one having refused to take the oaths, appointing four new Councilmen in their stead. A ' dated September 31, 1731 annulling all' bye-laws, &c., 'natio at a ' " pret en d e d" C ommon -h a ll i n 1735, before the Earl ot'oidr Derby then M a y or , an d or d er i ng th a t a ll such be null and an -d that the Town-clerk be directed to expunge them. 6 that a suit having heen commenced by the said Mayor against Richard' Ide ' receiver of town's-dues, ail proceed lags be staid. - 1e rsiey, v . 4 1 - Fost er sa id t h at he had omitted to state that,under ano tier Act of Parliameut, date d _ Bth April, 1830, fur the paving a nd sewer age of the town, aßoard of Commissioners was ap roimed, a n d t h e inhabitants beingassessed to the poor rate were nominate nine members of the Common Council,_ and fifteen oth . er persons being owners or occupiers of property to be Com nessiouers. Up to that period the Corporation had paved the agreed streets of the, town, and by the Act the Corporation ereed to pay £s,7so.annually towards the - paving and sewer a: of the town, be - sides paying the Usual rates upon their own property.l % lr- J. D. Case the Treasurer, produced and read the balance ' , fleet of the Corporation• • • t during the Mayoralty of Mr. accounts ? e l : n au aeir. bein g th e y ear en di ng O c tober, 18.32. It appeared them that the total amount of the bond debt is £792,009 14 s- 11d. In October, 1827 it was £417,921 17s. 1 1 d. In the acc ounts for l as t year there was au entry of £llO2 17s. 4d., as ,Paid to Mr. Foster, the Town Clerk. debl4,...r.,,Wilkinson inquired what was meant by the term "bond The T reasurer stated that they were bon d s passe d un d er th e . f roth seal o f th e Corporation, to secure money borrowed &r ola indi v id ua l s b y the Corporation. The interest was gene 'allY 4 per cent. Some was at 4-1 per cent. Some of the money b • °r towed from charity trusts was at 5 per cent., and in one in sta :lee, on a s ma ll amount o f £5O , th e In t ere st was 6 per cent. _ d e '"'" - Case, in reply to a remark on the increase of the bond 'ht, explained that a large purchase had been made by the Corp oratiuu of laud at Birkenhead and Wallasey . Pool. '.l' hat Purch ase alone was to the amount 0f1130,000, with a view to Its a ppropriatio n to commercial purposes; and in addition to t hat, the itnineuse sum which the Corporation had paid.for the opening awl widening of streets, and for the general improve-. znent of the toivin would account fir the increase. Front Oc there 1825 , to October, 183), being a period of seven years, the orporatiou had expended in the improvement of the town no less than £412,750 9s. (churches. not -included.) This was an averag e of £63,253 Is. 3d. a year for seven } , ears. This was the gross amount.' The Corporation had found the money, though they had received pert of it back, from - the sales of land and , ahe sa l e of old materials, &c, The expenditure of the Cor- Poratio n , f or opening and widening streets, from 1786, when tee first Improvement Act was obtained, to 1832; amounted to £315 891 ls. lld. This had all been expended under the authority or Acts of Parliament. He would mention that 'l4 Lord -street, which cost £159,915, the Corporation had no r°Perty whatever. It was all a free gift by the - Corporation to cfi`-Public- The sam e wa s th e case w ith jaines's-street, which ---j4 £ 3 3,339. Mr. Case read over the particulars of the abov e 6461. Shea - mg . how much was expended for each street. d Mr. Case then . gaVe a number of particulars as to the bond ebit'- The security given was common money bonds, and there i'as great wish to invest money uon skin security. The bond- Solders were erson s lying all overt odom and when mo ,rtleeye was to be borrowed, notice was given in the newspapers ge.neral rate of interest was 41 per cent. Mr. Duncan wished to know the particular amounts lent at LP per cent. 41 per ce nt., an d 5 per cen t.—Mr. Case undertook. prodece thishy to-morrow. ir- Duncan wished - to know the names of the lenders, par ticularly if these lenders were members of the Common Council. Mr. Case said he declined to furnish the names without the authority of the Council. _ Mr. D uncan then wished to know the total amount l ent b y members of the Common Council, without specifying of the i n di v i dual lenders. the names Mr. C ase also objected to give this statement ;• but be . : said that the me m b ers o f the Council by no means held the major it y of the amount. Mr. Duncan said that this was not to be expected, as there We l r e only 41 of theta, p u reply to inquiries respecting the Corporation Leases, Mr. ' eter stated that about 1670, the Corporation became possessed threthe town of Liverpool by a purchase from the ancestors of b present Earl of Sefton. They began to set out the land for uilding, and at first granted leases fur lives. Previous to that period there had been frequent disputes between the Corporation . Otl the Molyneux family about the proprietorship of the town, whicheasefutvrere all terminated at thateriod, by the granting of a 1000 years by Lord Molvneux. From that period may t> traced the increase of buildings and of the town itself, to the present day nand about the begUiling of the last century are 10tisteld. in the Corporation books the fir s t e ntries of the granting Li a i se ases, Souse difficulty existed as t o the mode of granting S fo r lives, for about the y ear 1712 an or d e r was made for aidinglive, the term of twenty-one years to the term of three .._ . in every l ease; every person who might take t h e same to a reasonable tine, and that public notice be givers a o It the tenants. From that time downwards till 1823 'Zr 1821, the practice of granting leases for lives and years C_ou a fin e was continued, and in 182-3 or 1821, the Common enincil changed their plan, and granted leases for 75 years, tea is the present practice. printed terms upon which these ses are grant e d are stated in a printed paper duced,) which wasomblished an d so ld i n th e t own - a t the, time of the ephane3e. 'ovenants for the prevention of nuisances, for the res rvation of c e r t a i n regu larity in the plans, against crowd ing_ courts of small houses, a nd li m itin g the heights of buildings, ye i nserted in th ese leases, varying, of course, according to the situati on o f the property, and the plans of the town. Ile Corporation refuse to rant leases in cases where the property 'euvt.auted f or th e pu bl ic i mprovem e nts ment i one d i n t h e differ t, acts of Parliament. I3ut otherwise they are renewed; er partie s w i s h it. The' Finance Committee. have the char e eT r t us 4 utY• The Corporation acted upon tables calculated by d i ° "gan, the actuary of th e Equit a bl e office, when they etgrant leases for lives or years. Parties may . insist on hav ,rog their leases renewed on this plan, but it is very seldom eh e ru :, -- IMr. Foster then read the term of elieleases granted by e, k; orporation, which contain a clause prohibiting the letting it'yscellar or vault for the purpose of.being used as a dvielling uu or permitting the same to be inhabited.] the jr) bo Alt f en, a lee burgess here asked Mr. Foster whether b urgesses consisted of a ' limited or unlimited number of person s ? tir• Foster replied, that thenumber was unlimited. l a n reply to a question by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Foster said that are almost universally . offered .by . public auction, and if . a "°t then f sold, th e y are di sposed of by private bargain. H ouses - that t v e queutly sold b y auct i on; b ut it is very seldom indeed Public a r u e ct a i r o e n any offers for unoccupied lands, when put up to in re sta , o n P 1 Y t o a question by the commissioners, Mr. Foster ee e s that the Town Dues last year (1832) amounted in the to £37,837 18s. sth. The parties generally made a deposit tteitlver the amount, and the difference was returned. The nett and 11 1 , 1 1 t was £25,175 15s. 6d. It was a rate paid upon goods noleirchandise imported and exported. It is collected by _ e u •r . i e , the receiver according to a table of rates, of which c.„PY was produced. de a re t b r i v e,olumis . sioner Wilkinson.—Do these rates vary consi . r:p o ster.—l ant not prepared to say, get commissioner Wilkinson.—Thie - information we shall mr.oll,the merchants. 0• ses't,sttheer resumed.—There was a trial at law in Feb run a e ry ti l a Corporation of Liverpool v. Bolton - and others, n opor . Auenc e of their refusal to pay the town dues on .goods ' l 'ilute' e r_ d b a ,", cl exported by them. The trial took place in West jur o n r merchants he ore Lord Chief Justice Denman and a special , rat neieerhants, and a verdict was found for the Corpo • eepn a eis no printed report of the trial. A bill of ex ' ), se. n ie %t ? _be .l l'eved, was tendred immediately after the trial don e i t i o de for Mr. Bolton, but nothing farther has been !ere the present time. There . had been litigation before. tt il e e :,`, l e se be present one LVAS an a• 'o tried to ascertain ebout.igron claimed by the citizens of action generally - exeinen .. It was tried at bar. The result was to limit the d o - • A on to such citizens of London as were resident in Lon ceuldThere were former_ cases,. the particulars of which he . not metal ' ",. a nl ' i n ort ofllLfill'oni memory. Runcorn was proved to be Liverpool on this tr • -r F r) ° ,l is whereve • I ard dues are claimed .t.;tveriu. ended, if landed within the limits - Of the port blr. L a 1 "" ) ,,'• e, Solicitor to the Rate-pae,•"eri, said the action bad been brought,' first to try the right to levy the town dues, and secondly the exemption. The Corporation got beaten. Mr. Foster.—The Corporation also claim the right to receive the town dues and anchorage at Runcorn, as being within the port of Liverpool. In reply to further questions, Mr. Foster stated, that in one case, that of the late Duke of Bridgewater, the Dock called the Duke's Dock was granted on a lease renewable perpetually, on payment of . a guinea, when a life drops; and there are soma schools and c haritable institutions, to whom leases are granted, renewable on a nominal fine, so long as they are used for their original purposes. The Athenieum is also let on the same terms. A ground rent of one shilling a yard was reserved. Mr. Foster was then examined at considerable length on the acts of Parliament relative to the establishment and maintenance of the various markets within the borough, which were under the Corporation, copies of which were produced. The markets were built under the authority of these acts, which regulate their go vernment and the tolls to be levied. There are two mar 1a days i n ever y week, namely, Wednesdays and Saturdays. The one by prscription, and the other by patent in the Bth Anne. Mr. otter then read the preamble to the act (59 Geo. 111, cap. 9) recognising the tight of the Mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses to tolls on all articles brought for sale to the markets then exist ing, and stating that, in consideration of the Mayor, bailiffs, - Sze., relinquishing these tolls, others were established in their stead. The act contained a provisu, that the abolition of these tolls did not extend to " any dues or rights claimed or belong ing to the Corporation, except those termed ingates and out gates."' The total income of the markets, calculated .on an average of the last seven years, was £6,127 18s. Id. per annum, and the total average cost of the establishments also for seven years, was. £3,346 Is. fitl. The cost of erecting the three mar kets of St. John's, St. James's; and St. Martin's, without the land, was 1:83,1 1 lls. 11d. A Freeman asked whether the burgesses had not a right of exemption from the market tolls. Mr. Foster did not know of any such right, but they were only charged half the tolls. Th e wei g hin g machines were erected at the expense of the Corporation for the benefit of the public. It was highly desirable that they should be placed under proper regulations. For the protection of the public the Corporation endeavoured to prevent the erection of weighing machines by private individuals on the lands of the Corpora tion. The oil hous e w a s erected about ten years ago forthe use of vessels in the whale trade, but that trade seemed to hare left the port. The corporate officers were then examined relative to the Grusin ° , docks, shipbuilding yar ds, and other p ro p ert y held under the Corporation ; but a great portion of the examination was totally inaudible to us, and to almost every body else, ex cept the commissioners, in consequence of the very IoW tone of voice in. which the witnesses spoke, and of turning their backs upon the public while addressing the commissioners. The cost of building the tobacco warehouse which was erected in 1811 by the Corporation, for the accommodation of merchants and (Acts, was /.:17;269 4s. Ild. A conversation ensued on the subject of the Baths, in the course •of - whith - 4 Mr. Duncan inquired whether all the accounts for building the Baths had been settled ? Mr. Case - replied that he was not prepared to say; the sur veyor no. doubt could give the required information. He merely paid the orders made upon him. Mr.".ltathbone said that the object of the question was to ascertain whether the -cost of this building had been fairly stated, as he laboured under an impression that it had not. Mr. Duncan then, in behalf of himself and the gentlemen round him, requested the witnesses to turn round toward the public, and speak in a louder tone. Mr. Foster said that before the Baths were erected, there were'other Baths there, and when they were removed the pre seat largeisand more extensive ones were erected. The cost of the Baths was £32,859 ss. 7d. up to the year 1832. There had beets further payments in the present year. The former Baths had been for the accommodation of the public, and it was in tended that by the p re sent ones the public should have the same accommodation. When the present Baths were erected , the Common Council had the satisfaction of being blamed by both parties, and the probability therefore, was, that they were in the right ! (A laugh.) A man in the crowd collected in the audience part of the co ta said that Mr. Coglan of the Floating Bath could proba bly say soMething on the subject of baths. (A laugh.) The cumniissioners made some inquiries about the _George Inn, King's ,Arms, eini the old Pork Market. but the questions and answers were made in such a . conversational manner that we could not collect their import. . A question having been asked respecting the Chain Cable Trial Machine, Mr. Alderman Horsfall stated that it was erected at the re quest of -the merchants and shipowners in 1830, and that its cost was £2OOB, and produced a rental of (we understood) £l3O a-year. It is worked by machinery which tries the strength of a portion of the cable at. a time. . I .llr. Case described the Patent Slip for raising vessels re quiring repairs, and said that it was now let at a rental of £209 a year. Mr. Foster stated that several yards and premises were now in the occupation of slate-merchants and others, as tenants at will under the Corporation, so that they might be resumed by the Corporation whenever they were required to effect improve ments. In letting premises, no question is ever asked as to whether the offer is made by a freeman or non-freeman, and neither freeman nor Common Councilman has the slightest ad vantage in any respect over other persons. The examination respecting the management of other pro perty was continued for some time, none of which attracted any notice, and, indeed, was only understood by the examiners and the exatninees. Mr. Foster informed the commissioners that, the Corporation levied a toll of one shilling on each British vessel trading coast wise ; one shilling and threepene on all British vessels from foreign or colonial ports, and one shilling and sixpence on all foreign vessels. There is no exemption in favour of freemen in respect of anchOrage, which has been paid time out of mind, which was proved at -the trial, as well as by documentary evi dence. The Corporation claim these tolls by purchase from the ancestors of the Earl of Sefton, front whom they purchased the site of the town. -He could say nothing as to the title, as it was the subject of litigation. Lieutenant Morrison asked whether the fee was exacted although the, vessel did not anchor, and merely ran ashore by accident Or otherwise. Mr: Fosterreplied that the fee was collected at the Custom.. house, - and, was taken front vessels entering inwards. • Mr. Corrie said he had known vessels arrive, enter their .cargoes at the Custom-house, pay the toll, and saiPwithout land ing their cargoes,.and without asking or receiving back the tolls The court then rose for the purpose of adjourning, when Me. Alilerthan Lawrence rose and said, that as chairman of the Dock Committee, he wished to know what information the commissioners required from them. The committee were to have a meeting to-morrow, and he handed to the. commissioners a copy of the accounts, in order that, by looking over them, they inight give hon au idea of the points upon which they would require information. The committees were to meet at eleven to-morrow. The commissioners said they would look over the accounts and inform Mr. Lawrence when they met to-morrow morning, (Saturday) at ten o'clock,.what information they would want. The court then adjourned until ten o'clock on Saturday. SIXTII DAY. This morning (Saturday November the 9th) the commis sioners entered at the usual hour, there being but a very thin attendance of audience. The Town-clerk, with reference to the Dock Estates, wished to be informed if it was the intention of the commissuiners to extend the inquiry beyond the existing state .of that property. If it were to be confined to the existing state, all the necessary information would be promptly supplied by the committee now managing the affairs of the estate, under the act of 1825. 'llr. Duncan thought that it would be more convenient to be- - gin in chronological' order from the earliest period. Sir. Commissioner Wilkinson.—lt appears that Mr. Glad stone, who has occasion to leave Liverpool for a short period oil business, will be able to attend on Monday morning, and as, a niatter'orpersonal convenience to him, his evidence.would first taken. Alter this the commissioners would take evidence .• of the existing state of the clock property. Mr. Radcliffe observed that the inquiry oueht not to be con fined to the present condition of t he Dock Estate, but shoulele - be carried back to earlier periods. After some further conversation on this point, between the Town. clerk and the gentlemen who objected to any limitation of the inquiry, e Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said that it would be as well to go first into what was done in the course of last year, and then to go into any question which might be elicited by the exami nation, or suggested by any gentleman who might be present. The Town-clerk then stated to the commissioners that the first evidence .required, in consequence of what had been elicited on the previous day, was that of the surveyor, ou the subject of Mr. Silvester's unpaid account at the Baths. This would have been offered at the moment it was required, had not the sur veyor accidentally missed receiving the note which was sent to him in time. Mr. Foster, the surveyor, examined.—Up to thaperiod of the account, the sum stated, 1:32 , 59 ss. 9d., was all the money due or paid on account of the baths. Mr. Silvester is almost the servant of the Corporation, inasmuch as the complicated ma chinery.at the baths requires nis constant attention. The ap paratus includes the filtering of the water, warming the baths, & e , ,slung, therefore, as the baths are in operation, there must be an 'account open with Mr. Silvester from one quarter to another. In short he is the engineer to the baths. At this time there may be about £9O due to him were his account now closed. Ile has never complained of nompayment. Whenever he has asked for money on account he has always had it.. 4•1. r. Daucaasaid his inquiry was not as to the annual ex penditure of the baths, but whether there were any outstanding liabilities , on account of erecting the baths. The Surveyor said to the best of his knowledge there were none. Whatever might be unpaid would come into this year's aceount. The foundation of the baths was. exceedingly sandy, and wits formed on piles. Mr. Radcliffe begged that the evidence might be given audi bly, so that every one present might hear. A bur g ess here interpolated some observations relative to erecting buildings and building ships, which - we could not understand. The Commissioners promised hint a hearing on a future day. Mr. Okell gave evidence of the dates of erecting the graving docks as follows :—No. lin 1756, and Nos. 2 and 3 in 1765. Mr. Edward Crooke called for some explanation relative to the state of the foundations of the graving docks. The Towu Clerk stated that into the dry dock, as it was cal led, the water originally flowed every title, and that under the 6th of Geo. IV, the dock was converted into a wet dock, by the erection of sates; and occasionally the water oozing from the wet dock injured the foundations of the graving clocks. Any injury done to vessels from this circumstance was made good by the Corporation. Mr. Crooke said it was generally the case in Liverpool that buildings had to be erected twice over; and he wished to know if any person was employed by the Corporation to superintend their works, so as to be held accountable fur any deficiency or error in judgment. To a question from the commissioner, the Town-clerk said, that the surveyor gave no bond for the proper performance of his duties. The Treasurer begged permission to correct pact of his state ment of the previous day relative to th e w id en i ng o f L or d- s t ree t, in which he had said the Corporation had no property at the time of alteration. The Corporation-held at that time the re versionary interest of premises having, on one side of the street, a frontage of twenty-three yards, and on the other a frontage of twenty-five yards, near the bottom of the street. He then produced a list of the Corporation tenants; and added, that he had previously said that, with the exception of Mr. Foster, there were no members of the Common Council tenants to the Cor poration, but he had since found that Mr. Ewart, in conjunction with his partners, were also tenants of the Corporation. Both p ar ti e s were tenants long before they became members of the Common Council. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson asked to be furnished With an account of any lands bought by members of theCoinfiton Coun cil from the Corporation, or of long leases granted to them.. The Commissioners would require these particulers not only as regarded the present tittle, but for earlier periods. The Town-clerk said .there was no distinction made in leasing to Common Councilmen. The conditions and fees were eegu ! latf'd alike in all cases. Mr. Ok.e4 ccufirined the statement as to conditions and TIM LIVERPOOL STANDARD. charges, since the 7th of April, 1824, when a regular table was form - ed. • The Treasurer resumed. There have certainly been sales of nil to members of the council, an account of which would be rendered. AR the sales, or nearly . so, were on lease for seventy five years. The exceptions were in cases of small additions to freeholds already possessed by the purchasers. • The Town-clerk.—There are nearly a thousand applications for leases in the course of a year.. tie would wish that some specific facts should be alluded to, upon which the Corporation would be ready to give every information. The accounts rela tive to leases were very voluminous, but the best return that could be made should be made. Mr. Okell.—There have been 1200 leases granted in the last seven years. Mr. Duncan suggested that the inquiry as to leases and sales should go back to twenty years. The Treasurer rendered an account of the items of the bond debts.of the Corporatiuu, with the particulars of interest paid thereon. After which the colloquial evidence, relative to the granting of leases, was resumed. And here the r e p orter must take leave to remark, that if in the course of the published account of these proceedings, seeming incongruities and most irregular interpo tations occur, they must he attributed to the confused manner . in which ;,he evidence is even and taken, and to the frequent inaudibility of nearly all the parties concerped. ' The Town-clerk said, that by the direction and authority of the Common Council, he had to declare that they were ready to meet any specific charge which could be made against them, and to furnish evidence on any transaction which could be named. In the face of the town he would say, that the scale of charges for the granting of leases was known to , he b elieved , every professional man in Liverpool. He would again say, that to any-transaction that could be pointed out, the Common Council would' afford the fullest information in their power._ Mr. Duncan had stated distinctly, he said, on several occa sions, that he made no charge against the Common Council: but as the commissioners had stated, the transactions of the Common, Council among themselves were unknown to the public ; and therefore were fair and pr o p er matters for i nquiry. Mr. elch begged leave to. have a letter he had addressed to the commissioners read by the. Town-clerk. This application was granted. The subject of the letter was that the Town-clerk had oinittedmention of the freemen of Lancaster, among th ose stated by hint in his evidence to h e e xem p ted f rom town dues ; and went into a narration of the writer's claim to that exemp tion, as a free burgess of the borough of Lancaster, and an ex tensive dealer in salt and timber. .ehe letter was accompanied by the copy of a protest against the payment of the town dues, put in on the '.,sth June, 16431, by Mr. Welsh and Mr. Hudson, hoth free burgesses of. Lancaster, and residing and trading in Liverpool. The Town-clerk said he had no doubt omitted mention of the Lancaster burgesses; but the fact was, certain proceedings had been taken in contesting the right of exemption, and that, front the period of these proceedings, the freemen of Lancaster had been `obliged by the Corporation to pay the town-dues. Mr. Welch went into a statement showing that a Loudon freeman, Mr. Robert. Bell; had been exempted for a period, lint Was . subsequently charged with the dues. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson informed Mr. Welsh that if he would give evidence of the facts stated in his protest, it would be immediately received, as well as the evidence of Mr.. Bell. Mr. Welch thanked the commissioner, and retired to seek for his co.evidence. The Town-clerk, then referring . to the statement he had made of his own duties, said he had omitted to say that, as Town-clerk, he acted in conjunction with the vestry-clerk, as solicitor to the trustees of Mrs. Aim Molyneux's charity. Ile handed in the act under which the charity was founded. The trustees for the time being are the Mayor and rector. In the recital of the ac count it would be found, he said, that. a sum of money which bad been left, had been vested in land, part of the rental of which was distributed to insolvent debtors, and part to seamen's widows. Some years ago the proceeds of the charity were about £lOO a-year ;-but of late years it had produced little or nothing. The land, which is near the town, is permitted by the act to be let cut in building leases. As the town increases this would no doubt be done, and returns would be received. That charity had given rise to the item of expenditure by the Corporation, to insolvent debtors, amounting last year to £550. Mr. Duncan hoped the inquiry relative to leases would not be confined to seven years, as many improvement acts had been passed within the last twenty years. • Mr. Okell said he would prepare tha returns so as to include the period from 1511. • Mr. Cenanissioner Wilkinson said lie:Would now commence with the accounts relative to the contingent receipts. Mr. Duncan wished to be informed of the number of Common • Councilmen holding bonds, and the amount so held. Mr. Commissioner • Wilkinson.—'Phis can be done without specifying the names. It had been stated that the investment was au advantageous one, and therefore it ought to be seen whether any undue preference had been given to members of the Corporation. The reasurer, referring to the - contingent - receipts, said the first amount received was £lO 2s. 6d., received on account of a bond. He then read the following items :—Deposit on sale of premises in Great George-street Elll • cash received on account , of improvements, by sale ofland or leases in Cook-street and Puncelot Hey, £3,206 3s. 4d.—Sold by auction. - The Surveyor, in answer to a question from the commission ers, said, the bricks for the Custom House are supplied to the .contractor by the Corporation, from their estate in Cheshire, at 28s—per MX/. Mr. Samuel Holme, the contractor, being called on, said. the bricks cost the Corporation 275. per 1000; so that they are gainers Is. per 1000. The Surveyor.—That goes to the credit of the Cheshire estate. The Treasurer.—The next item is for sale of land in Water loo-road, 1.3,000. Sold in several lots. The Surveyor.—This laud, like various other, was offered first by auction. Duncan.—Had received that answer with surprise. He had never seen any advertisement of such sales by auction. It was usual for members of the profession to receive printed bills. Such was the general practice. Advertisements he had some times seen in the papers, and judging from these, he had sup posed the sales by auction to be very unfrequent.• The Town Clerk declared that his own practice, and that of many others, he believed, was sometimes to advertise iu the papers, and sometimes by printed bills. - There was no general rule observed by the profession. 'The Surveyor.—The custom bade been to advertise.in the local papers some time previous to the day of sale. The last auction, whish was very fully attended, was advertised in each of the Liverpool papers. • - .Mr. Samuel Hohne lied often seen placards on premises to be sold by the Corporation. The Town-clerk said it was customary to put up boards. on laud to be sold by the corporation, giving notice of sale. Mr. Duncan.--Which the boys generally pull down the fol- - lowing day. The Treasurer went on with the account, the next item of which was the sum of £291 fur rent of premises taken down in Lord-street, allowed to the Corporation tenants; rent of sundry premises in Pool-lane, £263, taken down also for improvement; opening and widening of Dale-street, sale of hind in Man chestet-street £133 17s. 6d., and for rent £217 10s. Total, £341 7s. 6d. Iu 1821, sale of laud in Tit hebarn-street £934 lOs. ; this was offered by auction three or four times without success; it was sold to one person, a Mr. B. 'Thomas. There w a s no offer by auction. The. Surveyor.—lt. was about 200 square yards, he believed; there were no biddings; it was sold fur the reserve price. • The Treasurer.—ieeeipte in Great Howard-street, 1;900, The Surveyor.--This was sold, he thought, by auction, to one person, a Mr. James Thompson. Mr. Case continued.-1 he money had been borrowed within the. year; Mr. Alderman Leylaud and Mr. Thompson were the bankers. Mr. Thompson is of the firm of Heywood and Co. He is a Councilthan, but was not in the Council when the account was opened. Mr. Bullet' is not a member of the Council. A Mr. Welch, a merchant of Lancaster and Liverpoel s here handed in a written paper to the commissioners, _complaining that the Town Clerk had not stated that the freemen of. Lan caster as well as those of • London were exempt from the pay ment of town dues. The commissioners having perused the document, desired Mr. Welch to read it aloud, which he did, being previously sworn. It went on to state that the com plainant was a burgess of Lancaster, and yet was compelled to .pay the dock dues for merchandise, notwithstanding its having been stated by Sir James Searlett, and being distinctly men tioned in the - Lancaster charter, that a burgess of Lancaster was exempt from the dues. Lancaster was known to have the right to thes4 privileges. It had been the county town for upwards of' one hundred years, and could not be supposed-to base less privileges in the port of Liverpool than towns more remotely situated. It had been observed that the Town Clerk had men tioned that the burgesses of London, Bristol, and sonic boroughs of Ireland, were free from the payment•of the dues, but he had omitted to mention Lancaster... The complainant is a tree bur gess both of Lancaster and Liverpool; and the town dues h a d. not been allots ed him for the thirty years he had brought tuer chaudise into the port. In June, 1631, he sent a protest to the Common Council and the Custom-house against the payment. of the dock dues, claiming the exemption, which protests were at the Town-hall and the Custom-house at the present :time. - "The - dock - tolls, which lay so heavy upon him, and from which he was convieced he was exempt, were peculiarly feit upon the ar ticles salt and timber.. Ile had to pay a charge of about 10 per cent., or 2s. per one hundred bushels for salt, and 6d.-per load for timber; therefore, aseargo of six hundred loads lay- him iq the sum of £l2 10s. • It.had been currently reported, and wit uess believed it to be true, that the late Mr. Thomas Hynde, lately residing at Wavertree, a merchant in the Jamaica trade, had refused to pay the dues on the grouud of his being a free- . aman of Lancaster, and that the Estate, instead of litigating the matter, allowed the claim.. There was a solicitor nained- Thouipson, residing in Lancaster, who had served his time to the Town Clerk of that 'borough; who could furnish the best in formation of the 'Lancaster and-other charters whereby .the . pri s vilege was granted to the freemen. The Town Clerk remarked that a London burgess was not exempt from the dues-if he resided in Liverpool.. • • . Mr. Robert Bell wished to make a conununicatiOn on the subject of the town dues. He stated; that . he keeps a' linen warehouse in Liverpool, and that some time ago he had the. duck dues returned to him. He is a rreeman of London, and belongs to the Patten-makers' Company by purchase. He left London in 1826, and came to reside in Liverpool, bringing with hint his household furniture, which came by a - vesteL The broker charged the town dues upon it, which he paid. Some time afterwards he happened to see in the Directory that the freemen of the City of London were not liable to the town dues, in consequence of which he called upon the broker and produced his certificate of freedom, when the broker returned the money having previously received them from the Custom-- house. Ile had resided about three months in Liverpool when the money, was returned. After the return of the money, h e had goods frequently arriving from Scotland, and he made the same Maim as before, which was allowed for some time. lie was, at length, called before the committee to prove his claim, winch was disallowed, being informed by that body that lie could tint claim exemption as a free Man of London uniess he resided there. A Gentleman named Irving inquired whether the witness had paid the arrears of dues he owed, when under the delusion that lie was exempt? (A laugh.) The witness said he had not, no person having asked for them. The . Town-clerk handed to the commissioners seven Liver pool newspapers, containing advertisements of Corporation property ou sale, previously alluded to. The Treasurer produced the accounts of the Corporation, chewing their entire interest on the bond debts, including the debt at the bank, from which it appeared that the sum of £34,444 14s. Bd. represented the whole interest. The item of cash paid for annuities amounted to £823 lis. 4d. There were annuitants under the Corporation. The practice formerly had been to raise money by granting annuity bonds, but it had ceased for the last 2U years, with au• exception in the case of a man named Place, a cripple, who had been sexton of the Old Church, who was allowed us a matter of charity to sink £3(1) in that manner. Witness's brother was an annuitant under the Corporation, as the commissioners had 'previously heard, He had been the lecturer in St. George's Church, and was sited by one of those awful -and mysterious dispensations of providence for which it was impossiliie to account, by being, when quite a young man, deprived of his sight. The Corpora tion annually voted him 200 guineas. Mr. Case then went on reading the various items in the Cor voration ilecounts.- The sum of £1,2D0 paid to the Mayor Ira 3 annually voted for public entertainments. The salaries of the various police and other officers under the Corporation were read—(They have previonAv appeared in the evidence of the town-clerk). The item. of 12636 soine"shillings was the expense of clothing the police' establishment, and that of £liis was for the travelling expenSes of Mr. Parlour, the superintendent of police. The commissioners asked for an expianathm of the item under the head of general law and Parliamentary ex- peuses. • The Town-clerk replied that the Corporation undertook the duty of prosecuting offenders committed to the assizes, and thereby the township and individuals were relieved from the loss and inconvenience arising therefrom. The county allow ance had never been considered a remuneration for the trouble, and scarcely amounting to the outlay of the money advanced, in consequence of which the bill for extra charges had been all paid ni equal moities by the . parish and the Corporation. The general busineSs of the assizes was the business of the Corporation. If any commitment to Lancaster for murder or manslaughter took place, the offence being committed on board ship, the parties were prosecuted by the Town-clerk as the general •prosecutor. In 1839, when a contest took place between Mr. Denison and Mr. Ewart, a petition was presented to the House of Commons against the return, and in consequence of the re port from that inquiry, a bill was brought into the House of Continons to disfranchise the freemen of the borough, taking away their right of voting for members of Parliament ; and the cxpences were relative to the opposition to that measure. The money was voted by the Common Council on the part of the burgesses. Anbthe - r item was the ex pent e of a deputation to London ou the aftiirs of the town. On the first deputation two or three gentlemen composed it. Another item was the ex peaces respecting the railway bill, to watch the interests of the town during its progress. Another item was for expences in curred in the Birkenhead improvement bill, alluded to yesterday.' There were other bills upon which expences were incurred.— Formerly the traverse jury had a dinner given them, and in lieu of that a sum of money was voted for refreshments during the sessions. The sum was limited to £l2 per session. The tra verse jury pane! was generally thirty-six, and the grand jury twenty-four. The practice of voting money instead of pro viding a dinner had been followed since 1815. The above, Mr. I. oster stated, was the explanation of the item under the head of law and Parliamentary expenses. With respect to the assessed taxes and parish rates paid upon Corporation property, he found that for the last seven Years the sum paid was £17,910, and of that amount 1:31,33/ had been paid upon poor rates assessed upon the amount of town dues. The rest was upon premises and for the government taxes. The total amount of the assessed taxes Said - was £323, and the total of the parish taxes was £372 8s id. With regard to a new street called the New Boundary-street, the Corporation had agreed to make it, and defray the whole of the expenses attend ing its formation.. The stained glass windows, includin g the picture in St. George's church, cost about £2OOO. The exe ' cution of the window took a considerable time, and the artist was paid some time ago. With respect to St. Michael's, there was a clause in the act of Parliament authorising the parish to take the church back from the Corporation, if they chose to refund the money advanced by the Corporation for ita comple tion. The warehouses on St. George's Dock Quay, called the Goree, which were built with arcades, had; in consequence of some defect iu the original construction, been taken down and rebuilt by the Corporation. The warehouses were held by individuals on lease. . Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, inquired whether the site of the warehouses alluded to did not originally form a part of St. George's Dock Quay. 'Mr. Bolton said ,that it was understood that St. George's Dock was widened on the one side and narrowed on the other, and that the site of the warehouses was originally a part of the quay. Mr. Foster said it might have been a question of law whe ther it did or did not; however the Corporation had undertaken to build upon it. Mr. Foster then adverted to the markets,, and said that from the whole three markets the expences of salaries, &c., for the year was £1,900. The -dues of the markets were paid to the superintendent every day, and he accounted to the treasurer for the monies received. With regard to the Corporation charities, he found that for the last seven years the charitable donations and subscriptions to the various institutions amounted to the sum of £12,752 9s. 9d., being an average of £1,821 per annum. Those persons who had allowances for superannuation were dis abled police and other officers, and their widows. An annuity was also received from the Corporation by Mr. George Holden, who calculated the tide table for the year, which is annually published., With iegard to the free schools supported by the Corporation,. it. appeared that in the reign of Elizabeth the sun. - Of £5 6s. Bd. was -allows:I out of the reveaue of the duchy for a schoolmaster, and it was received so Jung as that school continued; the last master was-Mr. Baines, who died in 1802. The school was a very small one, and in the year 1821 or 1825 the present public flee schools were built; the total cost of them was £19,933, and the present establishment cost. the Corporation about £6OO per annum; the whole expense of the building was defrayed by the poration. In the north school there were 365 boys and :320 girls, and iu the south school there were 37-1 boys and 290 girls. The schools were managed by a committee of the Common Council, aided by the resident clergy. Mr. W. W. Currie said that children of all denominations were admitted, but there was a preference given to the children of freemen. At each monthly meeting applications fur admis sion were recorded in the book, and as the vacancies occurred they were filled up, giving only the preference alluded to. The children brought a penny per week to the master and mistress of the ,chool, which made about 30s. per week; that sum went to a sinking fund; the fund was paid over to the treasurer of the Corporation, and out 'of it school books, pencils, and prizes were awarded to the scholars. Small sums of £2U each were also voted out of the fund to provide clothes for the children to work and sew, which clothes were sold to the parents of the children at half price. 11r. Bolton wished to know the rules of the school. Mr. Currie replied that the rules were printed. Mr. Bolton said the object of his question was to know whe ther the Church Catechism was not exclusively taught in the schools. Mr. Currie believed it was. The children, however, were not compelled to go to church if they were Dissenters or Homan Catholics, of which there were both in the schools • Mr. Bolton had heard that there had been pews purchased in St. Thomas's Church for the exclusive accommodation of the children of churchmen. And he wished to know whether any pews had been purchased in the Catholic or Dissenting chapels for children who, from conscientious motives, did not go to church. - - • The Town-clerk replied there had not. Mr. Currie remarked that a School for Infants was in the course of erection at the expellee of the Corporation. The rules of the school were read, from which it appeared that the committee consisted of seven of the Common Council and the two rectors. There was also a committee of ladies for the management of the girls' schooL The education was conducted on Bell's systein. The items of the accounts were then proceeded with. The item for expellees of barracks was for providing accommodation for troops some time ago, about the period of the Bristol riots. The expenses the public walks and gardens, for seven years, were £4,4b9 lie. IJ., averaging £667 per annum. The expense of the Liverpool agent in London was about £lOO per annum to the Corporation, but the commerciala.ssociations of the town contributed a sum of money. The item for quarantine service was incurred during the time of the cholera raging, the Government having refused to defray the expenses. The total cost of the Black Rock Lighthouse was £30,212. The building was com menced in 1826. The expense of lighting the house was de frayed by the Dock Estate, but the machinery of it belcnged to the Corporation. The lauding place, which extended from the pier, for persons to get out of the vessels at low water,_ cost £2,500. The item of expense of the Chester Basin was for enlarging it. The surveyor of the Corporation acted as pay master of the Customhouse for government. Within the last seven years, the Corporation had expended, for sewerage and pav ing the streets, the sum of £52;556, being an average of £7,508 per year. The total expense, for seven years, of Corporate officers, &c. was £40,981, being a yearly, average of .£5,856. The total amount paid to .the clergy officiating at churches, f r om which the Corporation derived no advantage, in seven years, was £14,816, being a yearly average of £2119 93.8 d.— The total paid to the clergy • who officiated at churches from which-the Corporation had au income, was £4,395_ The allow ance of the Mayor, and the money allowed for the support of the Town-hall, in seven years, amounted to £27,688, beit a yearly average of £3,955, of which sum £l,OOO was paid ' in wages to messengers and -others, and for cleansing the Town hall. The cost of the Fort, on the North Shore, for the de fence of the town, was as follows :---From the year 1777 to Nat the sum of £4,08 was paid; and front the year 1797 to 1818, the sum of £3,997 Ils. 1 1 -d. had been paid. From the year 1775 to 1797, there was a Board of Trade in Liverpool, which had expended the suns of £11,169 17s, lid. From 1777 to 1797, the sum of £2,978 17s. 6,1. had been paid as bounty to seamen., There had been expended in 1778, the sum of £2,951 188. 4d. in raisin' a regiment of volunteers, and 'fel keeping back the encroachments of the river Mersey, the sum of £13.321 4s. sd. had been paid; and for surveys of the Mer sey, the sum of £8,789. Mr. J. D. Case, the treasurer, here rose and said, that as the account of the receipts and expenditure of the Corporation bad been gone through, he should now take the opportunity of snaking a few observations, which were rendered the more neces-. sary in consequence of Many of the accounts that had been produced embracing a period far beyond the experience that. he had had in . the office which he had the honour to hold. It happened that soon after his appointment the mode of keeping the accounts of the Corporation formed matter of discussion in the Common Council, and he in consequence had been instructed to call in the as sistance of an experienced accountant., who should inspect the books. The gentleman he selected was Mr. Bartholomew Prescot, well known in this town for his - great experience, .skill, and high character • and be Was happy to say that his re port was of the most satisfactory ' nature. It was to he found on the hooks of record Of the Corporation, and if the commissioners saw fit could easily be referred to.. Front Mr. Prescot's inves tigation resulted the formation of a book, which in the trea surer's office was called a "Balance Ledger," exhibiting, at one view, the cost of any work which may have-been executed by the Corporation. his book was intended; in the first in , stance, to have gone back only ten years ; but by the deep re search and unwearied diligence of Mr. John. Sudlow, who sat at his side, a complete balance sheet of the books of the Corpo ration for fifty years was 'produced. This ledger had been regularly kept up, thus enabling him to speak to the correct ness of the Corporation accounts for sixty years from the present moment. He ( M.r. Case) did, therefore, say that the Corporation of Liverpool met the present in quiry openly and fearlessly. (Loud cheers.) And he was convinced 'that the deeper the inquiry, and the more minute .the search, the more creditable to the Corporation would be the result. (Great cheering.) With the few observations he bad made, and giving hiS testimony to the authenticity of the docu ment just handed in, -he confidently left the Corporation to abide the scrutiny, having the fullest assurance that it would terminate honourably to that body. The Commissioner inquired whether the accounts were pub lished. Mr. Case stated that they were, and any respectable person, whether freeman or not, could have one by asking at the Trea-; surer's office. Mr. Foster stated that the accounts were regularly examined by an Audit Committee, and then printed by an order of the council. The accounts had been made public from the time of Elizabeth, and were first.printed in 1815, in Alderman Ley; land's mayoralty, with the accounts front 1797. Mr. Foster remarked, that no freeman or member of the Common Council possessed any advantages or p r ivileges over another inhabitant, excepting his exemption from town dues, and half the market tolls. The Commissioner inquired if any freeman wished to have an explanation of the large items in the accounts, whether he would receive it from the treasurer ? Mr. Case replied that he should not feel himself authorised to give the particulars but by permission of the Common Council. • Mr. Foster here handed in a paper, containing a statement of the state and prospects of the town, from which it. appeared that Iu 1773. the receipt of Customs was £92,466. In 1832, it was £3,935.062. In 18'20, the number of parish assessments was 21,033; in 1832, 3:1.631. In 1813 the parish assessments a:lv:muted to X 57,87 1, anti. iu lap tq.47.9.9,p5in, • In 1760, the population was 5714; in 1801, it was 7700; in 1831, the census gave 1.65,22,1.. - In 1752 the dock - rates amounted to £1776, and in 1823 to £82,980 - • There were abeive 27,000 inhabited houses in 1832. There were 1161 public-houses and 477 beer-shops in 1832. It being now nearly four o'clock, the court adjourned until Monday. SEVENTH DAY. Agreeable to the determination of the commissioners the in quiry into the affairs of the Dock Estate commenced this morning (Monday.) • The commissioners entered the court about ten o'clock, and having taken their seats upon the bench, the Town-clerk rose and stated that he had a letter from the special committee of the Dock Estate, addressed to the com missioners, in answer to one sent by them to the committee, requiring the attendance of the officers and trustees of t he Dock Estate to furnish them with the necessary information respecting the affairs of that trust. The. letter was signed Chas. Lawrence, chairman. It stated that the committee had taken into consideration the application and request of the commis sioners appointed to inquire into the state oiY municipal corpo rations, and that they were distinctly of opinion that the Dock Estate nut being a corporate body, but separate from the Cor poration by act of Parliament, the inquiry into the state of its affairs did not come within the meaning of the commission for inquiry into municipal corporations, notwithstanding which, the committee and trustees were anxious to furnish his Ma jesty's commissioners with any information in their power, and consequently they had ordered the officers and others connected with the estate to attend at the court for the purpose of giving evidence and producing the books of the estate. Mr. Foster, the Town-clerk, resumed.—The Dock Com mittee h ave p o wer to collect all dock duties from vessels corning into the port, by virtue of au act of Parliament. A part of the estate is without the borough, but within the jurisdiction of the Corporation. A plan of the -Dock. Estate was handed to the commissioners, and explained to them by the Town-clerk and Mr. William Foster, the secretary to the Dock Committee estate. The 51 Geo. 11. gave dower to elect a committee out of the Common Council. The officers consist of chairman and de putv-chairman ; the election of chairman is speci fied in th e act bth - of Geo. IV. From sec. Ito 15, all related to the election of committees, and named the powers of the trustees, the committees and their functions being defined in the act. The committees meet together from time to time to perform the duties as mentioned in the act of Parliament. The deputy chairman is Mr. Littledald, who was elected bythe committee. Mr. William Foster is their secretary. All the members of the committee reside in or about Liverpool; they are all Aldermen, and by the act every member of the committee must be a rate payer to the amount of £5O. There Was also a. _treasurer and a surveyor to the estate. The several officers connected with the Dock -Estate were now sworn, and Sir George Drinkwater inquired whether the oath he had previously taken in the inquiry into the municipal corporations could apply to the inquiry into the Dock.Estate._ Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson. said certainly, because they considered. the_ Dock Estate to be aportinu.ofla inquiry into the municipal Corporation. - - A printed account of the salaries of the officers connected with the estate was put in by the Secretary. The secretary. read the minutes of a resolution of the_Dock Committee, dated the 17th of February, 1832, appointing Charles Lawrence, Esq. the Chairman of the Dock Committee, in the place of Mr. Hollingshead. The Secretary continued.—The proceedings of the Dock Committee are laid before the-Common Council every month, if there is a meeting of that body, and au entry is then made of the resolutions and directions of the committee, on the Corpora tion record, they having been previously appr ov ed of and rati fied by the trustees. On the 2d of February 1832, J. Little. dale, Esq. was elected deputy-chairman in the place of Chas. Lawrence, Esq., a , ppointed chairman. The entry of appoint ment was read. W itness was appointed secretary in 1824. He had been assistant secretary from 1812 until that period. The appointment was confirmed by a resolution of the Dock Com mittee, dated the 7th of April, 1821. The salary attached to the office is £5OO per annum. Witness was formerly assistant secretary at a salary of £250 per annum. Mr. John FoSter, the former secretary, had a salary of £BOO per annum. He filled •the office of surveyor and .secretary, but the offices were now separate. Mr. Daniel Mason, the secretary's clerk, w as ap pointed on the 6th of December, 1825. at a salary of £lOO per annum. His appointment was then out!, for one year, in con sequence of the great pressure of business at that period by the purchase by the committee of lands' and buildings at -that pezied. The resolution confirming the appointment - was read. Oa the 16th of January, 1827, it was resolved, that the Clerk saeuid be • continued in his office at the sane salary, and in 1828 there was a resolution increasing his salary to £l5O per 'year. There were eight vetos of the Common Council against the proceedings of the Committee since the Act of 6th Geo. IV. If the proceedings of the Dock Committee were not annulled at the meeting of the next Common Council following the re solutions so made at the Dock . Coninittee, the latter were con clusive according to act of Parlianient. The several vetes against the protedings of the Dock Committee by the COMMOU Council were then read; they merely applied' to the tes olutions of the Dock Committee which had been annulled by the Trus tees, the latter considering the subjects had not received due consideration. Mr. Jesse Hartley examined.—He is the surveyor, and was appointed in March Is2l. He had not previously - been i n the enTloym en t o f the Dock. Estate. The appointment was put in and read. He was first a ppointed•engineer under the surveyor, but the surveyor resigned the April following his appo intment. His salary was £lOOO per annum, but a resolution of the coin- - mittee, dated the 6th of April, 1825, increased the salary to, £ISIX) per year, which is his present salary, and the salary was confirmed the 6th of February, 1828, by the Common Council. His salary, when assistant surveyor, was £6OO per annum. Mr. Gilbert Cummins, the chief clerk , has a sa lar y of £2OO p er annum. In 1821 th e salary of the second clerk was £l2O per annum. This was his first fixed salary. Mr. Wm. Anderson, the draughtsman, was appointed on the Bth Man 1827, at £l5O per annum, and increased on the 24th December, 1828, to £2OO. The storekeeper, Mr. Thos. Parkinson, on the 19th October, 1824, was appointed at a salary of £80; the treasurer was ap pointed by the dock committee on the 23d April, in the present year. Mr. Geo. Withers is the treasurer, under surety, at a salary of £6OO per annum. Mr. Geo. Brown is the only surety, in the sum of £BOOO. Mr. Withers stated that he, was secretary to the underwriters' association for seventeen years. Ile has given up that and all other emplayaaaat.; . -AU__.Coort .sinceediA him in the under writer's secretaryship. Mr. Pick:ling Was his predecessor. On-the 15th of July, 1811, Mr. John Backhohse was elected deputy-coilector by the trustees, at a salary of £4OO a year; lie gives security to the treasurer His son is the surety. His assistant, Mr. Wm. Sudlow, was appointed in August, 1820, at a salary of £121) per annum; was increased to £l5O ou the 3d June 1.22 • in June 1828, to £200; and in June, 1831, to £ 2,50 . His brother, Mr. John Sudlow, is his security. Mr. G. B. Taunton is a clerk in the treasurer's office, appointed the Ist November, 1825, at a salary of 80 guineasa yea r, to be ad vanced after two .years to £lOO. IQ September, 1529, it was increased to £l2O. Mr. Taunton's Security is his father, in £SO U. 111 September last his salary was increased to £l4O per annum. All the clerks give security in £5OO. The checque clerk,. M r . M arron, was appointed on the 26 t h April, 1825, at £lOO per annum. On the 7th September, 1829, it was raised to £l2O. On the 21ih June, 1831, it was raised to £l5O, at which to remain. On the 28th Nov., 1826, Mr. Marron having resigned, Mr. John Evans was appointed ,at eighty guineas a year, to be advanced for the next two yeari to £4OO. On the 24th Sept., 1830, this was increased to £ 120 ; an d on the 24th Sept. l as t to £l4O. Sureties •have been taken in all cases. Mr. T. 11. Nevett was appointed in Nov:, Ib3l, to the receiver ship of dues at Runcorn. Mr. David Hampson Davies was ap pointed on the Bth Sept., 1829, in lieu of Mr. Jones, deceased, at £l2O per annum. On the 24th Sept. last it was, increased to £l4O. Mr. Richard Jones, who collects the dock duties at Runcorn, was appointed on the 4th October, 1831, in lieu of Al " Nevett, at £l5O per annum... The harbour-master, Mr. John Askew, was appointed on the 3d January, 1821, at a meeting of the Common Council, iu lieu of Mr. Cumming, deceased ; he took the then salary of £220. On the 2tl of January, 1827, it was raised to £3:XI; there being also £2OO a year allowed by the Corporation, making his salary £5OO a year. The dock-master of the Prince's Dock receives a per tentage ou the tounage dues of vessels entering the dock. He was appointed in February, 1827. On, the 6th of March, 1827. the amount of his p e rcentage was determined at 4th of a penny on the receipts, and f'4o pound per annum for house-money , — Mr. Charles Purnell, George's Dock, is paid iths of a penny per ton. M r. John Garnet , QUeen's.Doce, is paid - 150 guineas per annum. Mr. Win. Hammond has a stir - sitar salary tor the liing's Dock. Mr. Joues has a salary of _EI9O per annum, and an allowance for the Canning Dock. The master of the Half-tide Dock has 100 guineas per annum. Mr. M`Bride has £l9O per annum for the 'Clarence Dock. The master of • the Brunswick Dock has £2OO .salary, and £4O per annum for house -remit. The inciter of the- Clarence Basin has £BO a year. The. present master of the diedgiug machine is paid weekly wage s by the surveyor. The special auditors are ap pointed under the 6th of George JV.„•one of them by the com missioners, the other by the Dock Committee, at salaries of £l5O per animal each. Previous to 1827 they had 100 guineas. Mr. Radcliffe wished to know the powers vested in the'com missioners to audit the accounts. The Town Clerk.—The first act of Parliament provided for these commissioners. It was that of the Bth of Ann, see. 15, and enacted that there should be nine such commissioners. The 11th of- George IL, increased the number of commissioners to twelve, and varied the mode of election. By the 51st of George 111. another alteration iu the mode -of election took place. Mr. Radcliffe referred to the 56th _sec. 4..tbelast-named act, as to the appointment of parties to determine all. purchases of property between the Corpoiation_and the Dock Trustees. . • The flown-clerk.—The 6th- Geo. IV. sec. .16, explains and defines the duties_ of the commissioners; first, respecticg all provisions relating to commissioners in the:. Preceding acts, and then gave to five the power: enjoyed' by seven of these commissioners. - With reference to the powers of the commis sioners, the Dock Cominittee had acted under the opinion of the late Justice Llolroyd; and - other counsel, in-the year 1823. Which was, that the meaning of the - words inspect, audit, and adjust, did not extend • beyond - - the examination in. the mode pointed out in the clause oi the present - 41.A of l'arlisment, and did not give the commissioners, elected under that• clause, au thority to question either the expenditure or application of any part of the Dock Funds; and, u p o n that construction of the a ct, he believed, at diffe ren t times, the officers employed under the Dock Committee have acted, and although, before a period within his recollection, he was unaware of any entries in the records to explain that fact farther, he believed the fact to be so, and to be capable of living proof. The commissioners ap pointed a b ou t th e y e ar 1823, claimed the right to go into an in vestigation of the management of the Dock Estate by the - com. inittee, an d th e ex p en ditere of the funds, and they did so, with the consent of the committee at that time, and examined the officers of the Dock Estate, as to the time and manner in which the w or k had been executed, and their own duties performed. They made reports of the investigation to the Dock Trustees, in whi c h they stated abuses and frauds to have been committed in the manner enumerated in that report. This_ was thoroughly considered by the trustees, alter they had made inquiri es into the transactions alluded to, and he believed that it was in con sequence o f those inquiries that, in 1825, rho act -of the 6th Geo. IV. was applied for, to alter the constitution of the Dock Commissioners. A Clause was inserted, upon the pass ing of that act, limiting the jurisdiction of the commissioners. The particulais of these transactions were recorded in the books of the Corporation, containing the report, and all the transactions from lust to last. - Mr. Commissioner \Vilkinson.--4 should like to have them read. The Town-clerk, referring.to the different minute books, said the first appointment of the .commissioueis was in the year Mt?, the sth day of June. At the meeting.of the Dock Com mittee on the Irth of March, 1833, there was an entry of a letter from the commissioners requesting information, to which a reply was given referring to the surveyor, who was instructed to pive all the information iu his power. On the 41n of, Jan., 1823, at a special meeting of the Common Council, a report of the commissioners was read. It went on to say that the com missioners could not report favourably of the charges for mate rials, and lamented that there were uo public contracts for the supplies. It stated that the law expenses were exe essiye,,.amount . ing in ten years to upwards of 126900, and that the solicitor had charged three guineas a day, besides other expenses whilst. in ILoudon on the affairs of tha .estate i althoul;h he was at that time in receipt of a salary and other emoluments as town-elerk. That lead; Which might nave been obtained at from 225. to 245. per 1201b5., was charged to the estate at front 245. to 255. 6d. per 1121bs. That on the iron-work supplied by Messrs. Dore and Co., Messrs. Strong and Co., and Mr. F. C. Mullineaux, amounting in six years to about 1:40,000, prices had been charged varying from 30 to 80 per- cent. beyond what the arti cles might iiave been obtained for. That tho ineaiuren.ent of the stone received for building wa s in a ccurate, the total cost of which since 1815 had been 1;:a.),(100. That the mode of ascet- Mining the quantity of lime -atone - Baas - most erroneous, and greatly to the loss of the Dock Estate in two sva)s; first by the quantity, as taken by 10 vessels, amounting to mote than -twice their register tonnage ; and secoml, by these vessels paying less dock dues than they were credited for in tonnage of stone. The report concluded by recommending the adoption of con tracts for the future, and was signed by the eight commissioners. The Town Clerk then read time minutes of various meetings of the Trustees, Council,' &c. upon the Ent kj e t, and votes of thanks front them to the 'commissioners; and a committee ap. pointed by the Common Council specially to examine into the matters referred to by the commissioners, who thought differ ently with the commissioners re s p ec ti ng die supplies of lead, iron, and stone for building, hut who coincided in their opinion that gross fraud had been practised „ pe ,, the Trustees of the the Dock Estate in the supply of li me - ston y , and determined to take proceeidngs against the parties for overcharge of quantity, and for non-payment of the full amount of dock does. Tio committee having referred the Solicitor's bill, to have the costs taxed ; to William Cron, ESq., Prothonotary to the county of Lancaster, that gentleman, and Mr. Robert Bennett, of Lon. don, having examined the same, ins' ead ofteducimngtheamount, made an addition to the account of 1:1S 10s. and received, each of them, twelve guineas for taxing the bill of cost:. (Laughter.) After some discussion, relative to the construction of the Act of the 6th of Geo. IV., by which no new point was elicited, Mr. Radcliffe asked the Town Clerk for the names of the gen tlemen composing the three firms alluded to as supplying the iron-work. _ _ -- The Town Clerk.—l can give you those of Dove and Co. They were Mr. Thomas Dove, Mr. James Foster, end Mr. David Gladstone. Mr. T. C. Molyneux, was nephew to the Mayor of that period. Mr. Tioughton, who supplied some ma. terials, was his (the Town Clerk's) cousin ; but at that tune there was not the slightest idea of any of the family becomiaK members of the Common Council, excepting his father. llis father had been for fifty years the servant of the Corporation, and without making it a matter of feeling, he (the Town Clerk) would defy . the whole world to show that his father had ever done anything derogatory to his character during his life-time. (Several cries of hear, he . ar, and applause.) Mr. Radcliffe disavowed any intention of imputing impro priety of conduct to the Town-clerk, or to any of his family. Least of all to one who was gone to his account. The Town-clerk.—l have not the slightest desire to conceal anything within my knowledge. lam hero to answer for my. sea', and ant ready to du so for any branch of my family. (Applause.). Other minutes were then referred_ to, the gist of whieli ire [-could not apprehend, and as nothing, was elicited by them we, omit their particular mention. The secretary proceeded to state the force of the Dock Fe lice. It was superintended by Mr. Mather Maurice George Dowling, late of the metropolitan new police, who was recon, mended to the situation by Col. Rowan, one of the London police commissioners. He was engaged at a salary of £3 , io per annum, but it had recently been increased to £5OO pert -annum. He was not entitled to any emolument arising front fines or other perquisites. Mr. Dowling gave a bond in tho sum of £5OO for the faithful discharge of the duties of his situa tion. There were four inspectors of the dock police, who re ceived salaries of £lOO each. They were uniform, but paid for it themselves. Twelve sergeants of the police, chiefly selected front London, were paid £l2l - 5 per year each, and 135 privatee receiVed a weekly salary - each of 18s., with clothing fouu.f them. The keeper of Dock Biidewell receives a salary o £l2O per annum. The new system of police was adopted by the sanction of the magistrates, in consequence of the old being defective. The whole of the Dock Police wet e appointed by the- Dock Committee, and paid out of the Dock Trust. The minutes of the proceedings of the Dock Committee rela, Live to the engagement of Mr. Dowling and his officers were read, together with a list of the salaries paid to the keepers E! the different lighthouses belonging to the port of Liverpool. The act of parliament empowering the Dock Committee to erect a telegraph to communicate between Liverpool and Holyhead was produces, amid the beveial tesolutio, of the Dock Con.- mittee on the subject of its eiteion :t. meetiegs Weee , read ; also a stuteroent of tile caper:, its ereetion and an nual oust to the trust was put its, Ito .. it appeared th a t the expense of building the telegiaph tli.t6 £1,70, awl the ar.— uual expenses including the payment of salaries to the - teudeut, two clerks, and other officers, was £l,OOO a-a ear. J are five stations. of the telegraph. Lieutenant Watson, the au perintendent of the machiue, stated, that during the progress of erectiou, and until its completion, he received a salary "of £3OO. pas subsequently engaged for on e yea r on ly, at th e sa l ar y of £4OO per year. In 1830 be • received a regular eneag,einent at a salai y of £250 per annum, which was continued up to the present tune. A Freeman.—That was in consequence of a paper war be•, tweeu yourself and Lieutenant Morrison. Lieutenant Richard James Morrison of the royal nary stated that there was a far more considerable tax upon the tom - meted of Liverpool from the telegraph than what had appearei before the court, awl he wished the commissioners to inquire .what other emoluments Mr. Watson received as superintendent of - the telegraph. . - The commissioners said that that inquiry would come under another head, when they got inn her into the investigation. Lieutenant Morrison liaviug wished to be sworn, deposed that in July, 1830, he had memorialized the Dock Committee on the subject of the telegraph whi c h h a d b een erecte d u pon plans that he had suggested to Lieut e n an t Watson, without his (witness's) consent. fhe commissioners desired him to' read the memorial, tv hich he did. It set forth that the petitioner had spent the greater part of his life in forming plans for the construction of an efficient telegraph, and that - prior to the for mation of the telegraph by the Dock Committee, unler the super intendence of Lieut. 'Watson, he had made known those plans to that person, on the express condition that he (Lieut. Watson) should uot make known nor act upon the invention, but for the joint benefihrf both. lie, the petitiouerafterwards discovered that the telegraph of communication between Liverpool and Holy. head had been constructed upon every principle that had been laid down . by . himself to Lieutenant Watson, without the peti tioner receiving any consideration, or being at all cousultcd: The principle bad previously been laid before the Society of Arts. and approved of by them in 1821, and that he had the letteis of Mr. Watson himself, and another from the society of• Arts, which could prove the truth of his assertions. The memorial went on to say that the petitioner was confident the Dock Com mittee were not aware of the encroachment upon his propeitv, and he prayed for an investigation into the circumstances- . .. his petition he only received a verbal answer, to the effect that the difference appeared to arise from a private quarrel betweeu himself and Mr. Watson,N with which the Dot k Committee had nothing to do. He made another application in Septembei, 1830, but with the same success. He canvassed the menfuers of the Dock Committee individually, and he found many who were of opinien that he had a just right to an investigation. It was a very hard case upon witness, as the Dock Committee considered the invention to be their property, and he was con sequently deprived of offering the sao.e. to any part of the world. The witness then read a letter lions Mr. Thomas Earle, one of the Dock Committee, wherein it was stated that he thought the witness entitled to an investigation, and that he (Mr. Earle) had done all in his power to being it about, but had failed. Lieutenant Morrison then put several questions to Sir Ge orge Driukwater as Co his knowleoli 4 e of repeated applications .being made to the Dock Committee for au investigation; to shica Sir George replied, that he could not charge his memory with the circumstances of the application, but thought he tecol,ected something of the kind; however, a reference to the books would give the required information. The Secretary referred to the committee books, and found the minutes of an application to the Dock Committee by Lieutenant Morrison, dated 2d of Sep tember, 1830, together with a resolution thereon to the effect, that the committee had nothing whatever to do with any dispute between Lieutenant Mot rison and Lieutenant Watson. 'Photo . was also the minute of an amerrdment moved at the time by Mr. Earle for an inquiry, which was lest by a mojority of Liao to three. Mr. Morrison said, that since that time, although the com mittee were using his plans, they had never given themselves the trouble to inquire relative to his claims. Lieutenant Watson denied that the plans of the telegraph with which he was connected were ever the property of Lieut. Morrison, and if the commissioners those to go fully into the subject he should be enabled satisfactorily to chew that they were not so. The tact was, that the telegraph did not contain one single plan of Mr. Morrison's. The plans front which the telegraph was constructed were drawn out before he knew that such a person as Lieutenant Morrison was iu existence. The plan was principally an improvement upon one of Colonel WDouald's telegraphs, and he (Mr. Watson) had received the thanks of Colonel. M`Donald for the ovement before he ever saw Lieutenant Morrison. In the morning, if the commission ers would allow it, he should be able to show that the siatementa of Mr. Morrison were erroneous. Ile was anxious for an in. vestigation when Lieutenant Morrison proposed it to the Dock Committee. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson, , addressing Mr. Morrison, stated that he thought they could not go further in the investi gation relative to hint, as the charge appeared to be against Lieut. Watson, and not against the (~ o rporatiou. Lieutenant Morrison replied that of course he should be guided by the opinions of the-commissioners, but at the same time he thought that the Corporation, by using his plans, made themselveS puitieeps erzminis wiiit Mr. 'Watson.• acre the tele graphic affair ended, and the commissioners adjourned the court until this day at ten - - - MEETING OF TILE - DOCK COMMITTEE. A special meeting of this committee was held on Saturel3T, to take into consideration the propriety of complying with tb:o request of the commissioners, now sitting on the Liverpool Cor poration, that the officers of the Deck Estates may be permit ted to give evidence respecting the` management and finances of the docks. After a long discusSiou on the - subject, Mr: Alderman Ilorsfall moved two resolutions to the follow ing effect :—First, That itthe ofthis ...s op_thou the commission now read does not authorise the commissioners to inquire into the affairs of the:Duck. Estate, the trustees not being a municipal. corporation, but a torsi, under ir special act of Parliament. Second, That notwithstanding the foregoing resolution, this. committee will give directions to their of to afford to the commissioners the fattest information they may desire as to the affairs of this trust. _ Mr. Hornby moved as an amendment to the first re.so!ution, "That this committee is doubtful us o the powers of the Com missioners to inquire into theatfoirs of this trust," which was subsequently withdrawn, when the original motion was carried by a majority of one. The meinbe - es who voted for the resole. tint' were,' Messrs. Ilorsfoll, J3ouine, Robertson Girsdstone, Littledale, Bold, Lawrence, Sir John Tobin, and Mr. Smith. Against it—Messrs. Faro, Ripley, Myei.s, Benson, Brown, Iloinby, and Dixon. Sir George rinkwater declined voting, under an impression that the withdrawal of the amend. ment carried the original motion without a division; Lut had he voted, he would have voted wi,li the majority,- - - The gentlemen composing the majority are more deeply interested iu the Dock Estate, although members of the Corpora tion, than those who voted in the minority; and, therefore, if they can be supposed capable of being biassed by private interezt in their proceedings, they would, on all questions Letwee4 (i.O two estates, vote in favour of the Deck Lust, SHIP LAE-lam—This day will be launched, frozn the build . .. ing-yard of John pawson and Co., Brunswick Doak, a Loauti ful barque, intended for Co South A. l LeriLan t r ade. Cabin passengers in the-packiq.ithip Pacific, Captain Waite, sailed on Saturday for New 'foil: G. L. itobert.s, and ladv of New Yoik ; Mrs. P.utledge ar.d thice dangluers, Dubin; Miss C. Waite and Mr, jenkinS, of 1-, ew ark ; Mr. Chevalier, of France ; Messrs. Deane and. Glen, of England Mr. S. Wrri . .ht. of Savannah - Mr. Gcuriar;of Euglar.d ; Gouda!;, of Ne..v York.; and I .‘h, Grci:, .I.;)i.uu. ~. , i il' ' i ..-.; 4 : :„,