The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-12-03 00:00:00

I)EcEmnEB 3, 1833 TWENTY-THI RD D AY . a'ell'otsincleiry was resumed this morning, (Friday,) at ten 'Aid to b 0n the opening of the court, Mr. Mawdsley, who wae that h e formerly overseer of the parish of Seacombe, stated considered there had been some trafficking or sinugglipg sine,t_hoe.es4e and exchange of some land, belonging to charity f r u ! ',Stet Wallasey, which was included in the purchases made ti o e n `? Si J. Tobin and Mr. Askew; but it appeared after the ques h,e. eof Mr. M aw d sley, by the Town-cle:k, that the matter 4,7 dices to do with t h e Corporation, and that the bishop of Zies.locess and the rector had authorised the exchanges or Th e T t o e . ovvn-clerk here rose and addressed himself to the corn 48u, stoners, and referred again to the question of the town-dues. port of his proposition previously advanced, that the 4 10 re- clues question involved a question of right, and nothing at the he referred to the summing up of the Chief Justice, who, right e, joutset, used these words: —" '1 he only question is on the wis It had been said that no person who paid town-dues ti l d e made free, but, with the same breath a complaint was , e that thiee gentlemen, members of the Common Council, wee would have paid a large amount of town-dues, had been sootietnr ;John robin. attiolaesifre.e.. He referred to - Messrs. Horsfall . and Sandbach, But it was also a notorious fact, that a n opposite, Mr. Wm. Brown, a merchant of high emi- Z e ttee and character who was not a member of the Common u eil, had had his freedom given him. There did not ap peare,;uPall the Corporation books any gift by the Common pers"ell of the freedom to private individuals, in respect of any Ig2sonal claim they might have. On the contrary, some pob ervice had always been alleged as the ground of the gift. ' had been stated that a gr at number of persons had been lu ade free at a former p 'od. c It is true there were on the Cor le:ration books various er i l nstances of the freedom of the town ein e . for e rt e gi a ve n n to p ersons who appear to have been gentlemen of e li d" d Property, residing in the neighbourhood of the town, twenty ewes scarcely a county family of any notoriety, within th mi les of Liverpool, whose pedigree could be iraced to v _ese days, wh o had not been complimented with the freedom of le tow n. It could not be inferred from this that they bad been 'e made free for electioneering purposes. Ou the contrary, the ;oafs of the history of the town, as disclosed, not only on the orporation books, but otherwise, showed that those nomina 'as were to be attributed to one ofthree causes. If they went Lteua, ek to the charter of King William, it is obvious that a strug utook place in Liverpool, which was common throughout the ch e a t i rY, and the party who supported the charter of King tie r, es the Second struggled to maintain that charter, and re sister, any attempts to obtain the charter of King William. It Vi a itt fact that individuals, at their own expence, solicited that p , s att er, obtained it, and were afterwards reimbursed their ex e' „ -- ,e B . It was probable that one of the two contending parties ?"" t hat occasion may have had influence enough to have made amber of freemen. That might be taken as the fair and un ' rai ned account of the freemen made in that day. Coming ` e l ann later, there was a contest in Liverpool as elsewhere, be s" the Corporation claimed a right to prevent persons who li - ,ere not burgesses from setting up any trade in the town. There • al ua entry in the. Corporation book; to show the increase of fre e f t e a 'night have taken lace in consequence - of that struggle.— mightet be accounted for in another way. The house off) _, by c i 0_ pitie y of at that time very great influence in 'the borough. The Bart was mayor of the town and took an active part in its cleat r es, and it might possibly be to maintain the ascendancy of teu'autily that freemen were created. But from whatever erkse it arose, he again repeated, that it did not appear from the s of the Corporation, that any freemen were ever made for Beetfe_tio.neerin,,e purposes, o r a t a ti me w h en suc h an i n f erence was rent ; and been the fashion in that resect te Corporation of Liverpool, !yrrept as it had hion h so longstood I t aa s Ye free than any other town in England from such an impu to4th"carn•tow(nCsh, eers..) . It was not necessary for him to refer to But ea e w er t c i i:s f e dN but it was a matter of notoriety that the celebrated ottingham, along with other towns in England, had , at different periods, the right of . making freemen.— ailethe Was no record of any transaction by the Common c il of Liverpool, from the earliest period, to show that they 16ever made freemen for electioneering purposes. With 1.- 711ridthtoetohnelyMayor's freedom, it had already been explained it benefit or return given to a gentleman for filling Lasarduous office of chief magistrate, that he was privileged to sn 't!aw one nomination to that office. Itirhilst he was on the op en of the town dues, the only point which he had to remark ,t'en was the complete contradiction given to many unfounded mould all of saving s by -members of the Common Council. He Ze„,uuld call to the recollection of the commissioners the state nts with regard to the Messrs. Bourne, and the contradiction of when It had been said that they had saved in all £40,000. Now thaten the matter came to be inquired into, Mr. Bourne stated t his share of the savings of his house averaged only £5 or v,.ayear; which showed what exaggeration had taken place. to ; it.h regard to improvements, no street had been widened or itt&oe e 'ment gone into without an act of Parliament, (cheers,) point°ug he contended that the Corporation had a right, in we of law, to expend their money as they thought proper, To ltilout the interference of Parliament. With regard to courts el:D'eniuserieost, it ev . as . n . ot necessary to say one word. The whole ti ou .„. maintaining the different courts for.theadministra con_ue justice was paid out of the Corporation funds. The ,_rt in which they were now met was erected by the Corpora ; c7. 1 . 1 ' who had also provided an ample library and every othe w`i_urvenience for the use of the court. The expenses of juries a y e likewise defrayed by them; and of the juries he might st t ! (and every gentleman at the bar would bear him out in the of .eatent,) that a more intelligent, correct, and upright body (eg i e r rnen never were brought into any court of justice. y S o mething bad been said about the mode of select einefethesPett years fury' but though Mr. Ellis had for nineteen . 4 e tc(' out oa book the names of those jurors whose turn it 171 ePPea.red to be, neitlier he (the Town-clerk) nor his predecessor eyer interfered with the selection in the slightest degree. on h ad been said that the Town-clerk might influence the jury tios,question affecting his own interests, or on a political ques f„...." No such trial had ever taken place; but were such an - -ger en n ot .. ey to arise, it might safely be left to his common sense . to interfere • but if that should deceive him, still he was so dar e to the public, by means of the public press, that he thenot pack a jury for his own purposes. (Loud cheers.) But ti jury' might be increased to thirty-six or forty-eight. Par , e s , 00 bot'n ' sides had right to challenge ,• and could it be Par , that, out' of forty-eight a jurymen, there should not be (a lt o e twelve honest men to decide without prejudice one way i , er the ot h er? These were all the observations be had to offer c , ll l the affair s of the Corporation. He would reserve his reply touch, Dock question until the points on which ho had now is,d were finally disposed of. t o a lr• Bolton. here rose and said, that he had a few observations i,. Ital ie upon th e a bl e and eloquent speech of the Town-clerk. iloiwtoas not his intention to recant any evidence that he (Mr. f acts u) had Previously given, for that evidence was founded on int im a ud figures that no eloquence, however brilliant, could . 1.1 1 - re He could repeat the complaint he had made against ta4Ttlterialrpiation, that the Common Council were self-elected connected ; both these facts were . proved and ad without hey were profuse iu their expenditure,_and a i n t ds wa o s t I.le.keu,_seaoptrol.: thus they had given £177,000 R-TI nee -_ " a, which returned the annual rental of £1658, or not y e Per cent.; and on churches and other establishments, in ten o:r&their revenue was not one per cent. on their elenditure. t een, George's Church alone they had spent £29,9 Bin thir atilioAn roars; and if the congreoation made any further aPPlica- Corporation, they should be considered as beggars, pe; treated accordingly. It was said that the Wallasey pro le he. which had cost £177,000, was worth as much still; but with were offered it for £lOO,OOO he would decline the purchase. mark, regardr to the church expenditure, he had further to re (lot tb et '_ utat no money should be paid for such a purpose, bi t i . (tonde.er congregation should support its own establishmen , 4 t t i r t cheers;) and he believed Christianity would never . have , loess_ as in this country till such was the case. But if any id' 'FY vas to be given, it should be ectuallv divided, and 9ot forte.o to one sect. The Corporation had a:peculiar affection of hei r own relatives, and a like aversion for others. To the y et, ___. States the town was much indebted for its prosperity; of it within the thirty-five year. he had been in trade, he knew th e ewArnerican merchant being in the Common Council; and At r. blsdora of that body would not have been diminished if re peal bone or Mr. 'T hornet had been admitted. Since the had I t s of the test and corporation acts, in 1828, no Dissenter thou bee n admitted to the Common Council, or before then, form thou they might have been elected, and sat, either by con the p i p; or under the annual indemnity. He complained that Pett y aces of honour and emoluments had been given to one ro r ssy,wihile the other had nothing, excepting paying town dues, had la eh they got no consideration. That the Corporation W hilsi tcl o a Y al PathY with the public, was shown by the fact that, r. werly one-third of the voters in Liverpool supported e ou f , art at the last election, only one in fourteen of the Sir ilon Council voted for him. He had only five votes, while Reid thulerti Douglas had twenty-nine. The Town-clerk had Raid Doat, in the present man were no Whigs and Tories; uglashought that the who would support Sir Howard T Was not a Whig, but a Tory. (Laughter.) b00..711-elerk.----The very person who induced Sir Howard ses to conic forward as a candidate was one of the warmest , elers of 7.- . , ~i r Ewart at his first electien. (Loud laughter.) al5 ra."3°4oll.—Then I can't account for his conversion. (Cheers ti on, anghter.) Mr. Bolton now adverted to the town dues ques ia th e " Said that he much regretted the absence of his solicitor go t,s stnoatter in litigation, who it appeared had been obliged to charge s r b g u e e It was the duty of a merchant to s l t a e cr t e h rl i t te h ti d e th a l e l s in :f BS tOwn dues as much as he could, and to etat e d t , gut something for every thing he paid. He '.had uf t„,, vn ",,at they had no consideration in return for the payment Port of does, and would illustrate the fact by following an nn- PiUefit of Vud!. On coining into the channel, a ship got the be lot du es " light for the light dues, the skill of the pilot for the vaiet, dock and quay room for the dock dues, a due equi kett ' t .u,r, Cartage m and even for the pay end thae ICAng'sduties, in the maintenance of the government di le _ e peace of the country. But for the town dues he could littioTtono c onsideration. The Rock Lighthouse was a specu bet4_ f the Corporation. There had been many bargains M el 'U the Corporation and the Dock Estate, but he would L. onish the latter body, that i n . the event of their buying the C4I which I ghtho u they should take care that, in addition to the strand te ttte _ . it stood, they should not submit to a charge for the for town r with which it is surrounded (A lauoh The charges au dues were borne principa * lly by merethe ' hants of North kPeem: n et t .h America, the East Indies, the ports of Europe, the i.ties h_Tasgovs, Leeds, and Manchester. But none of those hi'own_ 1 " any consideration in exchange for these dues. The lt th e e vv r k,ha . d said that the streets were . widened, , inferring .. thoeo advantage to the health of the people in Liverpool, but in k eQula ese he had traced of the landing and stowage of goods erke,discern no advantae. It had. been remarked that eeth L.-street, Manchester had been i proved at the expense Was e tuwn generally, by ' laid al- inhabitants. forf gaite i., a rate upon the That - th oee _ pg.t. Improvements should be made at the expense o oe wno had property in the town, and he (Mr. Bolton), I ts ail o ' e wollld cheerfully pay his share whether as an owner or Inatt e eutner. This was the honest and proper view of the h a d b r, ebb i pre een th ouga it was one for advocating which much obloquy ,te,. rown g o onu him Th I ttlea l w a? robbed tpay a system by which th• ---, ttlat h • Pa . ul. A e lr o . t j h o e h r n wa G g ladstone had stated, e tr a d e .„ e did not consider the town dues any burden upon oce , _ s freedom eeolt sught his the port. Mr. John Gladstone, about 1793, had the fishmongers, or tailors, or some a lti:. bod y in London in ordr that he might escape hisa_ l did not ' Ih. , :s T he John pretend o g reconcile the consistency of the h a d could hardl Gladstone of 1793 and the John Gladstone of ~ cogi d prow) ybe the same person. Of his own knowledge f pied pied" 1". anteße than" stoin-h them to be the same person. (A laugh.) Passed en described the mode in which entries were mime, and by which additional items were s on ted pree i d to the list of articles liable to the dues, and lector refe se e d ents for the future. Up to May, 1830, the col ;10eusly P a id , t t it () . _ Pass entries unless the town clues were pre t, its entries l eedD i aYrnent of us giving the sanction of the King's officers . to e town dues. This he (Mr. Bolton) resisted, Put town dues' ild. since been passed without the payment . of o th e ss • it all had paid alike he never would have &s -ed paid t ' a Yraent of these leh„, ,_ as h e paid the ese dues. If the Horsfa.ll3 and others h ilt i ue entered. int% th'e,,,util,g' in exchanoe fur would have made no objection; but 4ti,ta:sle_re unreasonabi'r estion, and reflected that he had got these dues, he was now convinced that B a te of aid Mr Bolton tiro :""Fl to b e seen. etl unjust—whether they were illegal equal rights and With reference. to the town duos ques n conclusion), I stand here as the , actv9- ' l l ea h l_et 2tinns. y ea r s)eqties to every British suuject in , Loud ch 4 1)C wn-cif.r c • , . Li, that ..,, e , in allusion to the remarks of Mr. Bolton, U the peopie of Ameriea sent gouda to this - 3 - - _~_ ._- port they did not do so'from pure affection or favour to the peo ple of Liverpool. Mr. Robert Gladstone remarked that he had been a mer chant in Liverpool thirty-eight years, and he or his house had never given a sixpence as a bribe to a dockinaster. He made this statement in reply to the assertion that the practice was universal. Mr. Brown replied that when he used the word " universal," lie only meant to imply that the practice was very-general, and he was still of the same opinion. _ — ii;TCyiUSlVlorrall observed that many young men served seven years instead of five, in order to be exempt from the town dues. He considered the two extra years' service to be equiva lent to purchasing the privilege at an expense of £5OO or 1:600. The Town-clerk here rose and commenced his statements in reply to the allegations made against the Dock Trust. He was sure that in the evidence of the acts themselves it would be ad mitted that the Corporation had no personal advantage in being trustees of the Dock Estate, and that their anxiety, (no doubt resulting from a wish to perform their public duty well as from a view to their private interests) had always been for the pros perity of the town of Liverpool and the increase of its trade. In the year 1582 there had been a great deal of litigation with the opulent family of Molyneux, and the commissioners had it upon their notes as a matter of fact, that these litigations were terminated by the purchase of the lands, privileges, and immunities, which the Corporation now enjoyed from that fa mily, on lease for a term of one thousand years. After this purchase had been made the inhabitants of the town set to work in right earnest, in making improvements for the general benefit. They would see by the maps produced, with reference to the town at that time, that there was a river flowing into the Mersey called the Pool, which came in a north-easterly direction, and they would see the situation of the Pool which flowed along what is now Paradise-street, and other streets in that neighbourhood. The data of the rise of Liverpool might be taken from that time; and also the rise of many of the fami lies of its inhabitants. The present principal inhabitants of Liverpool might, in fact, trace their successful ancestors from that time, from which it would appear that many of them, from small means and indefatigable industry, had been enabled to procure that property which their successors now enjoyed.— fhere were numerous instances of men whose fathers entered Liverpool without a guinea in their pockets, who are now worth thousands, and the same might be said of the town itself, which had risen in wealth and importance in a similar manner. He had before stated that the rise of the town commenced with the projected improvements on the pool, at which time the ves sels coining into the port were much inconvenienced by the smallness of the accommodations for them. At that period the Corporation adopted means of so altering the poolothat vessels might float at low water, and the first proceeding 'was to form a canal, and the canals about London, especially those of the Isle of Dogs, appeared to be . a model, and to possess the same localities as the canal of Liverpool. When this plan was'first originated the Corporation procured the superintendence of a celebrated engineer, who was consulted on its formation. That engineer settled in Liverpool, and from him had descended a family now well-known-in the 'town, the steers. The result of the engagement of this engineer was, that a plan was adopted and acted upon, differing from the first, as it was found that the evils complained of were not so much the want of floating docks as the prevention of the encroachments of the tide. It was at this time that the old dock was first made by an act of Par liament procured' for that purpose. Here he would remark, that in the whole course of this inquiry all the acts of Parliament which had been procured for the management of the docks had been treated by the gentlemen of the opposition as if they were of no authority or had never been enacted. But, on referring to those acts, it would be seen that the powers given to the Common Council were distinctly recog nised—such as, power to borrow money, and make such altera tions as were necessary • and although private acts of Parlia ment might be considered as acts for. the conveyance of property, they had always been considered as the strongest recognition of public or private rights, especially with reference to recent transaction s. N ow , if the se ac t s o f Parliament were not to be considered as binding upon the community, he did not know what could be binding. It was not his intention to discuss what was meant in the acts of Queen Anne or King Charles, but the commissioners were at liberty to inspect those acts. He recollected when an act was sought for by the Cor poration, the clause enabling them to erect public baths, was objected to by the counsel before the Committee of the House of Lords, to whom it was submitted, as was the practice before the House (be meant Sir Edward Stacey), who stated that he was sorry he could not admit that clause, although both the merchants and the Corporation had agreed upon it—at which time Sir Edward said, " I will tell you what Mr. Fos ter, I know you are very great men in Liverpool, and that the Corporation may have agreed on one side and the Dock Committee on the other, you must remem ber that You have the House of Lords to consult as to whether these clauses shall become law or not," which evidently showed his id eas of the weight and au th or it y attached to an act of Parliament. The Town-clerk here stated that he was at a loss to know the course of inquiry which the commis sioners intended to pursue, and he begged to ask whether they intended to proceed a ccor di n g to their p r i n t e d li s t , w hi c h ap peared to bun (Mr. Foster) to have reference only to the pre sent existing Dock Estate, its revenues, and management, or whether they intended to extend their inquiries into the state of their constitution, under the acts of Parliament of 1811, or those of King Charles and Queen Anne. He confessed that he could not understand what was the question, on which they in tended to inquire. If it related to the present constitution un der the last act of Parliament relative to the Dock Estate, he need only take up that act of Parliament and confine his re marks to the present Dock Committee, all particulars of which, together with the management of the estate, he would.furnish them with. If that be the object of inquiry, with reference to the Corporation, he could state that that body had been great benefactors to that estate, and no witness had been brought for ward to disprove that fact. All that he could collect from the evidence of the merchants and rate-payers during the course of the inquiry, was thatth e C or p ora tion had done a great deal f or the Dock Estate, but that, in their opinion, they had not done enough. He wished to ask the commissioners if it was the existing constitution of the Dock Trust that was intended to be the subject of inquiry ? If so, he should proceed to put them in possession of the circumstances that led to the formation of the present committee, which had been.altered from the act of 1811 to its present state. It would be seen by the evidence of Mr. Myers, Mr. Gladstone, and others, relative to the present con stitution, that it was their, opinion that the constitution of the Dock Committee would' be much better if it comprehended a greater' number of merchants; but this was only a matter of opinion, upon which many persons were at variance; and if they were to take the vote of every inhabitant of Liverpool, it would be found that there would be a much wider difference of ()Onion. Before he went any further, he would wish the com missioners to inform him what mode he should pursue. The Commissioners stated that he (Mr. Foster) bad heard the whole of the evidence, and must therefore be governed by his own discretion. Mr. Foster replied 'that he was quite ready to go through the whole of the acts of Parliament from the commencement, if it would afford them any 'amusement, but he thought that it would be a waste both of his time and the commissioners', for when he had done so it would only amount to this, that, on the subject of the constitution of the Dock Committee, Mr. Radcliffe would be of one opinion and he (Mr. Foster) of another. At this period, the Rev. Augustus Campbell entered the court, when Mr. Foster stated that as the name of Mr. Camp bell had been previously alluded to, he had taken the liberty of sending for him, to answer any questions that the commission ers might think proper to put to him. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson then asked Mr. Campbell the particulars relative to the exchange of some land between the Grammar and Blue Coat Schools, which had been stated by a gentleman to be worth £18,733, about which several questions had been asked by parishioners from the committee of the Blue Coat School, of whom Mr. Campbell was one, without getting a satisfactory answer more than, as it had been reported, that Mr. Campbell had said "that possession was nine-tenths of the law." Mr. Campbell denied that he had ever made such an observa tion, and said that he had nothing to do with the exchange of the land any more than having been a commissioner, under the commission requiring that two clergymen and a barrister should be members of it. He understood however thatbv means of the ex change both the schools had been much benefited. From the ques tions put to him it appeared, the impression on the public mind was, that some corrupt bargain had taken place, which insinua tion he indignantly denied. There were two purchases made of land from Mr. Askew and Sir John Tobin, but he was riot on the commission at the time. Sir John was a friend of his, al though there was a time when he m i g ht have promoted his (Mr. Campbell's) views by his vote, which he then gave to another person. Mr. Radcliffe, in reference to what had previously fallen from the Town-clerk, said that it was not a part of his case to dispute the validity of the acts of Parliament relative to the Dock Estate, but it appeared to be the opinion of the Town-clerk that these laws, like those of the Modes and Persians, wore unalter able. They wished to show that these laws required alteration. He admitted that they were now perfectly binding, and instanced alterations that had been made by the 51st of George 111. • He argued the necessity of a distinct separation of the Corporation and Dock Estates. The Town-clerk was aware that parties could go to Parlia ment for au alteration in the Dock Estate acts, but he wished to ask his Majesty's commissioners whether he was there to de fend the acts of Parliament sanctioned by the legislature ? Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said that the Town-clerk might F o into the questiOn of the working of those acts. The I'own-clerk then said that he had hoped that his time, the time of the commissioners, and that of the public would not have been wasted by going into an unnecessary detail of the provisions of previous acts of Parliament; but, as it was their wish to do so, he would proceed, and he begged to state that the Corporation were aneious to go into the fullest investiga tion that the commissioners might deem necessary. By going into these acts of Parliament., the commissioners would see that there had never been any corruption in the management of the Dock Estate, but that it ha s a l ways b een the desire of its ma nagers to benefit the town and commerce of Liverpool and the inhabitants at large. (Cheers.) Mr. Radcliffe here stated that if the Town-clerk thought that they imputed any corruption to the Dock Committee he was mistaken, for no charges of that kind had been, or would. be made, as he was perfectly aware that there was no foundation for them. The Town-clerk here said that he thought Mr. Radcliffe and himself would arrive at the same points, although by diffetent roads. It appeared, by the documents, that it was about the beginning of the last century when the Corporation began to assume a settled appear ance; and a table of the town dues in the year 1700 shows th em to have been about £2OO to £3OO per annum,.but it appeared that they now amounted to about £50,000 per annum. At this period (the beginning of the last century) the Corporation were not only anxious to furnish ex tra accommodation to the docks, and to . promote the general trade of the town, but they were also anxious td encourage the trade in salt, which, from the earliest time, was considerable. And, by the Corporati on recor d s, i t appeared that the Common Council were so satisfied of the advantages of this trade that they actually applied and paid for the first act of Parliament for navigating the river Weaver; and the result was, that to the rates and duties imposed by this act, the county of Chester owed that diminution in the county rates which they at present enjoyed. That county also owed a great deal to the Corpora tion of Liverpool for the erection of their bridges, gaols, &c., and it was a singular fact, that the first bridg e over the river Weaver was paid for by the ancient Corporation of Liverpool. It was by the act of Queen Anne (Bth Anne, cap. 12,) that pro vision was made for the erection of " a convenient dock or besot' at Leverpoole, for the security of all ships trading to and from the said port of Leverpoole ;" and the Common Council gave the site of the land for the works with a view to promote the interests of the town. Many allusions had been made to the separation of the t-vo estates; but he should be glad to know at what period the line of demarcation for the separation of the two trusts should have taken place, neither had it been stated. The only powe:s that could be exercised by the trust were expressed in the acts of Parliament themselves, and he defied any one to show an intention at any time on the part of the trustees to exercise powers which they were not authorised to do by those acts. If the commissioners would refer to the act of Queen Anne, they- would find that especial care was taken that the money derived from the dock dues should be strictly appyo priated to the most legitimat e purposes; fer by the ninth section of that, act that subject was specifically referred to :—" And be it fu they enacted, that all and every such sum and sums of money, that shall be raised and received by the duties aforesaid, THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. and recovered fur any of the forfeitures in this act appointed, other than so mitch thereof as shall be laid out . and allowed to the collector or other necessary officer for the collecting and managing the said duty, for charges of recovering the same, shall be by the said Mayor, Aldermen, Bailiffs, and Common Council for the time being, applied and disposed of - to the building and repairing the. said new dock or bason, and other works, and for the securing, preserving, amending, and main taining the said dock or bason, and harbour of Liverpool, and to no other use and purpose whatever." The fifteenth section provided for the appointment of commissioners for the inspec tion of the accounts connected with the dock. They would thus find that Parliament gave no trustees the power of levying taxes on the subject without tying them down specifically as to the man ner iu which the money should be expended; and it would be seen that whatever applications have been made to Parliament the trustees were not invested with power to spend their money on any prospective -views. The have gone to Parliament for powers as they wanted them, iu the same way that other .cor porate bodies, connected with railways, canals, and other large works have done. - The first act authorised the building of the old dock; and they would see that it was especially laid down in the act that they should expend their money in the improvement of the docks and nothing else ; as lie had shown by the ninth section, (above given in part) where it was dis tinctly laid down how the rates were to be applied and. the accounts kept. Mr. Radcliffe would not be able to' `satisfy them, that they (the Corporation) had powers to purchase any other lands than those authorised by the act of Parlia ment; and he called their attention to the pith section of the act now before them, which confirmed to the Corporation and freemen all their rights and privileges in the following terinterms:-- " Saving always, and reserved to the said Corporation of Liver pool, and the inhabitants of the said borough, as well free men as inhabitants of the same, and to all bodies politic and corporate, and persons whatsoever, all franchises, rights, bene fits, advantages, privileges, exemptions, and immunities, as to all matters and things whatsoever, not herein by this act ex pressly provided for, as they might lawfully have had and enjoyed, if this had never been made." This section clearly showed that there was a reservation of the privileges of the freemen apart from the other inhabitants ; and the act also showed that the town dues ware blended with the dock dues. With reference to the Common Council having given the site for this dock, which had not been disputed, he said that it might have been politic for them to do so, as he would not deny that the improvement, as regarded the dock, was also au improvement to the town. But when they bad given that land, they had reserved to themselves the sides and brinks of the docks ; but they gave the space with only that reservation to themselves. By the 3d Geo. 1., those reservations were continued, and the preamble to that_act recited why the enclosures of the river were necessary; and he would call their attention to that recital, which tended to show the benefits derived by the Dock Estate from the Corporation ; who had spent the sum of eleven thousand pounds, being five thousand pounds more than they were authorised to raise by the act of Parliament; and they, as trustees, had become responsi ble in their individual capacity, for the excess of expenditure ,. over the sum of six thousand pounds so authorised to be raised: This recital showed that the trustees were not the kind of men whom Mr. Radcliffe and the gentlemen on the opposite side would have them believe; for where, even in these liberal times, would they find trustees of public works disposed to become an swerable for large sums of money, as the Common Council, in the character of. trustees, had done on this occasion. The next act of Parliament was the 11th George 11., chapter 32, the pre amble to which well defined the causes which led to the necessity for preventing the encroachments on the shore; as considerable difficulty was experienced by vessels leaving or entering the dock, and much damage was sustained; the vessels not 'infre quently being driven on shore and lost. To prevent the conti nuance of these evils, the enlargement of the dock and the erecs tion of a pier was deemed necessary; and to accomplish this object the Corporation gave a piece of ground of about seven acres, which constituted the property now known as the Canning Dock, originally called the Dry Dock. This act went on to continue the powers of the Corporation as existing under the former acts, and directed the application of the monies received under its provisions, the appointment of audit commissioners, and that the treasurer should annually print an account of the receipts and disbursements. The Corporation, prior to thisprs riod,laad possession of this land; and the act gave them the power to purchase the respective interests in their own leases, so as to enable them to give the fee-simple of the ground to the Dock Estate. The Corporation further agreed to advance one thousand pounds towards the completion of the new dock, in ad dition to the sum of £5OO which they had previously given in aid of the Old Dock. These acts of Parliament carried plainly up in their face a confirmation of what he had stated of the manliest interest which the Corporation took in the Dock Trust. In con firmation of what he had already said, Mr. Okill could state that from the records of the Common Council, at that period, the captains of vessels were obliged to run out three anchors to protect themselves from the banks, as serious misfortunes to the shipping and trade of the port had previously been the con sequence. He would again ask at what period was the separa tion of the trusts to have taken place? Was it at the time when the Common Council gave the thonsand pounds ? Would the Parliament have deprived the Corporation of the power, when they were putting their hands in their pockets to give a large sum of money out of their funds for the welfare of com merce ? If not then, at what time should this separation have been made? for all the acts of Parliament, granting authority to this trust, alluded to the progressive improvement of the town and port. The next act of Parliament to which he would direct the attention of the commissioners was the 2nd Geu. 111. c. 86, which continued the powers and privileges theretofore ex isting; - and the preamble reciting that it-appeared further dock room was necessary, not only from the increase in the numbers, but also in the dimensions of the shipping, which consequently required a greater draught of water, the Mayor, Aldermen, Bailiffs, and Common Council having taken the matter into con sideration, gave the laud at the bottom of James's-street and Chapel-street, and other land in the neighbourhood, which was necessary for the purpose. The act further. went on to lay down rules for the regulationsof the docks them s el ves; s t ud w a s the first act of Parliament which gave power for the erection of light-houses, and the means of their maintenance by duties and otherwise. He might here state that this act of Parliament was of all acts, except that of 1811," With out a precedent as to the severity with which it , -was contested in Parliament, the witnesses being six weeks in London on the business. With reference to what Mr. Rad cliffe had stated about erections of cranes on the brinks and sides of the docks,. it appeared from this act, which gave the power to the Corporation to enclose the land to the westward of the docks, that no building should be erected on the west or north side thereof, which clause (section 16) was evidently in troduced from the consideration that the erection of buildings in that situation would impede the free current of air into the town, and prejudice the health of the inhabitants; and, conse quently, the 16th section limits the erections to be made to " Cranes, or other such necessary machines or engines, for the loading and unloading of ships and other vessels." The 91 9 described in the act is that now 'occupied by George's Dock, extending from James's-street to Chapel-street. With regard to the right of enclosing the laud to the westward of the docks, when they look to their site, section 17, which gave that power, followed as a natural inference. With respect to the excavations that had been made in the docks, it bad been stated that the Corporation made a good bargain with respect to those excavations; but the commissioners had it in evidence that persons were paying to Lord Sefton a sum of money for the privilege of depositing the excavations of a railway tunnel, which was now constructing under the town, which proved that the excavations put upon the Corporation land was an accom modation to the Dock Estate. The only inference that he could draw from the arguments of Mr. Radcliffe, with all that gentleman's ingenuity on the subject of the sides and brinks of the docks, was that, when the Corporation gave that land for the docks, they ought to have given all the rest. [Mr. Radcliffe here admitted that the Railway Company did pay Lord Sefton a sum of money for the right to deposit the excavations of the tunnel; whereupon Mr. Foster replied that, if it was an advantage to that company, it must be equally ad vantageous to the Duck Estate, as applicable both to the north and south docks.] Up to the last act, the 6th Geo. IV., c. 187, a line of sea wall had trot been one of the paramount objects of the Dock Estate, or considered to be greatly essential; and in all the descriptions that had taken place at different periods, previous to that time, it had not been deemed a leading feature. But, subsequently, with the perfect concurrence of the Dock Estate, some of the first engineers were brought to Liverpool for the purpose of ascertaining the most favourable situation for the construction of a sea wall, with reference to the advan tage of' the port. And in 1825 it was resolved, that a line of sea wall should be laid down in the most advantageous situation for the protection of the docks. It was the opinion of Mr. Rennie that the line of the river wall should be one uniform current in front of the entrance of the docks, by which the scud banks might be done away with; and that was the reason why the walls were so constructed. With reference to the subjects touched upon respecting the site of George's Dock and the sea wall, the Town-clerk, from time to time, drew the attention of the commissioners to a series of snaps drawn upon a large scale, and so coloured as to facilitate his explanations to the commissioners, as to the enclosures which had been authorised by the various acts of Parliament, and the sites of land belong ing to the Corporation and Dock Estates. After pointing out the manner in which the two estates were dovetailed together, the Town-clerk contended that it was an advantage to the Dock Committee to have the privilege of putting their ex cavations on the Corporation property, and that .the fault, if fault it was, as attributed to the Corporation, was that they had not given the whole of the land, previously alluded to, in stead of the dock space; and also explained a portion of the act of Parliament relative to the repairs of the ducks; and further, that the Corporation had given a sum of money for the completion of the King's and Queen's docks, as well as the site of land which they covered. Mr. Foster then adverted to the act of 39th Geo. 111., c. 59, for the purpose of showing the commissioners that it was altered from its proposed form in consequence of the opposition from private individuals, who were more devoted to their own interests than the public good; and also from the powerful support given to the opposition by a nobleman, aided by landowners at the north-end of- the town, who caused two docks to be erected at the north instead of the south-end of the town. This evidently showed that the charge of interested views might, with great justice, be inure attri buted to private individuals than corporate bodies. Ho said it was the intention of the Corporation not only to have built docks at the north-end of the town, where they were most fa vourable, but also to have erected docks at the west-end of the Salthouse Dock, which was considered the most favourable position, had it not been for the strong opposition offered by two individuals at that period (1799.) He then referred to the fourth section of the act, which required the Corporation to make the streets from east to west, in number and dimensions as pointed out in the act, and directing that the western ends of such streets should " be left open, so that all persons, carts, and carriages may thereby have free access to the docks and quays, and a free circulation of air may be preserved and cell tinned' from the said river Mersey, all along such said streets, from the westernmost to the easternmost ends thereof."— These words manifested an anxious desire, on the part of tire Dock Trustees, to provide for the preservation of the health of the inhabitants, as well as to facilitate the business of the port. Ile adverted to these facts to show that the Corporation were, in those days, extremely anxious to promote the interests of, and to benefit, the Dock Estate. He then said that deeds and writings did not always prove the best title to property—that usages and customs were also to be considered, and he mention ed it to show that, whatever the Corporation fancied they pos sessed in those days, there were existing powerful men, opposed to the Common Council, who claimed property which the Cor poration thought belonged to them. At this time the Common Council treated with the Earl of Derby and the Duke of An caster for portions of the land now occupied by the Prince's Dock, as they knew that if they had gone to Parliament their right to that property would have been denied. They (the conunissioners) would, however, see that, in the purchase of that property from Lord Derby and the Duke of Ancaster, the rights of the leaseholders under those nobl eme n were taken in to consideration. There was an express reservation to John Leigh, John Myers, and others, that, if they could establish claims, as lessees, or otherwise, included in the said pui chase, they were to be remunerated by the Corporation. The Corpo ration had always shown their prudence in going to Partia meut for any powers which they might require; but these pur chases would show, whatever might be the result of the present inquiry, that private individuals were not the best persons to treat with. In 1801 there was a powerful effort made by the Corporation to procure more extended dock accommodation; but that was defeated by a most strenuous oppositions and such was the interest excited at the time that the celebrated Charles J. Fox actually went down to the committee on the bill to Note against the Common Council, which, on that occasion, defeated their intentions. In 1811, the important act, 51 Geo. c. 14.3, was passed, which made a material difference in the constitution of the Dock Estate. The constitution of the trustees was changed, a separate committee formed, and the trust erected into a corporation by name. The material change in the Dock Estate was, that it was con sidered that a separate seal was necessary, from the circum stance-of its issuing bonds of a peculiar character. The Com mon Council agreed to lengthen the Queen's dock, and to fill up the Old dock, on the site of which they contemplated erecting a market, reserving a portion for the Custom-house and Excise office; but, by subsequent arrangements, the market was abandoned, and the whole site devoted to a series of public buildings. A mistake in the clause made it appear that the Corporation agreed to give, in addition to the part of the Old dock, all the land to the south, for making the south docks. It was this mistake which gave rise to the collision between the two trusts; but it was afterwards rectified by the consent of both parties. He believed the mistake in the wording of the act of Parliament was not a wilful one on the partef the gen tleman who drew it up, as stated by Mr. Radcliffe, but arose from his want of local knowledge. The act of 51 George 111. was the first which authorised the Corporation to make sales to the Dock Estate; and the prices that the Corporation had previciusly given for land, at the south end of the town, - were much higher than the prices fixed upon that sold by the Corpo tiou to the Dock Estate, and the act. A long statement was here made by the Town-clerk, with reference to the opposition offered to these acts, and the appointment of Mr. Lace, as soli citor, on one side, for which we have not space; but the Towu clerk declared that he had conducted the business on his side with assnuch zeal as he would have employed if he had been conduct.• ing a case at- the assizes. Mr. 1 , osier then proceeded to state that in the years 1817 and 1819 there were no complaints of the constitution of the Dock Committee, although there was a deputation to London to alter some clauses; and he produced a copy of the bill which ,he intended to have brought in. If the commissioners would look at it, they would find that there was no intention ou the part of the merchants to ask for further powers and he distinctly averred that there was no intention of altering the Dock Trust. In 1822 it was admitted on all hands that there were some frauds on the part of the dock servants, and in the expenditure, which did give a right to -the 'merchants to intethre, and originated the act of 1825, (6 George IV. c: 187.) giving rise to the alterations in the Committee as now existing. The act of 1825 was agreed to by all parties. He thought he need not go into any further details of the Graving Docks No. 2 and 3, for if the Common Council thought at one time they would seilthena and at another time they would not, was it, at the expiration of eight or nine years, to be imputed to them that there was anythingcorrupt in that course. Ihe alterations that were made were for the bene fit of the river craft; and, being for that benefit, it was for the advantage of the town itself: The clauses as regarded the Gray .ing Docks were well known when-the .Bill was. procured; and it was too late for the merchants now to turn round, .and state that they did not like this and like that, when they were per fectly aware of the clauses at the time ; or to charge that the act of Parliament was not fairly obtained. With regard to the constitution of the Dock Committee, some were of opinion that it. should contain a majority of merchants, but that was mere matter of opinion; and no witness, had or could be brought for ward to show that the constitution was bad, or the estates had ever suffered any injury from it, or from the vetos of the Com mon Council. On this question of the veto no complaint bad ever been made, except with reference to the Graving Docks, and the appointment of Mr. Bourne. On this latter subject lie would take leave to remark, that he entertained a high opinion of Mr. Bourne from his own personal' experience; and he thought, as Mr. Bourne was a young man 'just entering upon the business of life, when anything prejudicial to his profes sional character must be keenly felt, that many personal re marks which had been indulged in by gentlemen might have been well spared, especially when it had been stated that the members of the Dock Committee had not had an opportunity of judging of his abilities. If - they had any fault to find with Mr. Bourne, they had the power of discharging him. It had been said that -the Common Council had never done anything- right; but he could state that, on one occasion, they had called him before them, and had told him that if lie did not act in what they considered a proper manner, they would dispense with his services, and employ some person who would do so; and probably if it had occurred at this period, from the experience they had had of the talents and ingenuity of Mr. Radcliffe during the progress of the inquiry, they might have employed him. (A laugh.) He lamented that so much had been said on the subject of Mr. Bourne. It had been stated that that gentleman during the year and a half that he had been in the service of the Dock Committee, had only been called before them twice. But that was nothing new; for during the last two or three years that he filled tic office of Solicitor to the Dock Estate, he had only been about twice be fore the committee. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the acts of the Dock Committee, there had been nothing to show that any practical inconvenience had arisen from them; and he did not see what there was so peculiar in the constitution of a Common Councilman that he should not be an efficient member of the Dock Committee. Had he to undergo some purifying ordeal? He had heard that a Common Councilman, before he was qua lified as a member, must stand the test of a brickbat- being thrown upon his -head from the Town-hall. (Laughter.) It had been said that the interests of the Common Councilman were incompatible with his duties, and his duties with his inte rest. That was not his opinion, although he believed it to be the duty of every man to attend to his own interest. In the whole of Mr. Radcliffe's arguments lie had given no suhstantial reason for a change in the constitution of the Dock Committee. Neither had he heard any reason, with the exception of a very extraordinary one of Mr. Horirby's, which was that, if the rate payers had been of the majority on the committee, they would have pur c h ase d th e l an d i n Wall as ey P oo l, t o h ave made a port of it and yet the Corporation were said to have been extrava gant in buying that land. (A laugh.) They would also have built docks there. - _ _ Mr. litiuCalidenied that such was the meaning of Mr. Herlihy. The Town-clerk replied that, at any rate, the rate-payers bad been unable to show that any practical inconvenience had arisen. After some further colloquia t obsbrvations between the Town-clerk and Mr. Duncan, on the subject of Mr. ilornby's statements, the former said that he had nearly finished all the observations that occurred to him on the subject of the Dock Estate ; but as regarded the constitution of the Dock Committee, he contended that it was, after all, a matter of opinion, and no evidence what ever had been brought forward to show that it had worked excepting in those allegations which had been advanced with respect to Mr. Bourne and the dock masters. The Town clerk then, in support of his view of the constitution of the Dock Committee, quoted a series of questions which had been , put to Mgr. Huskisson on that subj ec t. Th e fi rs t ques ti on applied to We numbers of the committee; the second to the number of trustees; and the third to the number of rate-payers. He read the questions, as put to Mr. Huskisson, and the answers given by that gentleman, together with the reasons for those answers, from which we collected that Mr. Huskisson, in answer to the first, could see no reason for chauging the number of twenty one; and, taking the second and third questions together, fie thought there should be twelve trustees and nine rate-payers. He thought, also, that one-third should go out annually-; not to be re-eligible until after a lapse of two years. This was only a matter of opinion on the p trt of Mr. Iluskissou ' • and, after all, it xv,as a matter of opinion, and nothing more. Mr. Myer s an d others entertained one opinion on that; and others, with equal reason, entertained differe it views. Mr. Foster then handed to the comissioners a plan of the town in 1725, exhibiting the early possessions of the . Dock Estate, together with plans of the docks, and a plan of the Corporation property, with the improve ments that had been efle.:ted. He concluded by expressing his thanks to the commissioners for the kindness they had evinced in so patiently listening to him; and he hoped they might consider that he had discharged the duties required of him by the Corporation to their satisfaction. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Radcliffe rose to state that the Town-clerk had only read three out of six questions pot to Mr , aluskisson ; and, havinc , read the other three, with Mr. liuskisson's answers, said he should reply on the following morning. The court adjourned at half-past three to ten o'clock on Saturday morning. TWENTY-FOURTH AND LAST DAY. This morning (Saturday) the court resumed its sittings at ten o'clock. The attendance of persons were much greater than has been the case for some days past, occasioned, it was presumed, by the anticipation that it would he the last day of the prolonged inquiry. On the opening of the court, Dr. Col lins, addressing the commissioners, stated that he had seen Mr. Poster's contradiction to the statement that the Foster family rec e ived £9OOU a year. Mr. Foster had said that the salaries were only £l5OO a year. Now, Mr. Foster had admitted that the late Town-clerk's income had been about £5OOO or £6OOO a year, and that the emoluments were now less Mr. Topham's income, about £9OO. The income of Mr. William Foster was £lOOO, and the salary of his brother £500; this made about £7500 a year. Besides this, there wero other emoluments arising from business thrown in their way by their corporate connexion. Mr. James Foster, as churchwarden, has £64,000 a year passing through his hands. There was a report drawn up i es pecting Workhouse abuses, which was not published, and which the select vestry would not allow Mr. Turner to publish at hiS own expense. [Dr. Collins' handed in a pamphlet pub lished by Mr. R. Turner, disclosing the various and glaring abuses at the Workhouse.] Dr. Collins disclaimed any per sonal feeling in any observations he had made. He attributed the abuses of the Corporation to the system, and not to the in dividuals. •The. Town-clerk wished to add to his evidence of yesterday that, by-the 51st Geo. 111., an alteration in the tariff or the dock rates had been mae, the shipowners having suggested that alteration. He would add also that, by this bill, conces sions had been made to conciliate the Lords Derby and Sefton. There Was a provision that the Prince's dock should be an open dock, and this was considered an advantage to the port. The present act sets apart for the erection of a dock in the south of the town, one-third .of the revenue. The clauses referred to had come into the'act to conciliate owners at both ends of th e town. Respecting the juries summoned under the present act, no wrong had been done: on the contrary, the Dock Estate, under their award, had paid more to individuals than to the Corporation. Mr. Foster added that he had no objectin keeping back the remainder of Mr. Huskisson's answers, as read by Mr. Radcliffe yesterday. It was clear that he meant the bill of 1825 to be final. Mr. Myers.—Certainly not. The Town-clerk.—l say that Mr. Huskisson wrote that it should be final; and I do not think he would say one thing and write another. Mr. Myers explained, and said that in the negotiations for the bill, Mr. Iluskissou had been consulted, and he clearly ex pressed his opinion that the measure was not final. Mr. Foster here handed in a paper relating to the despatch of vessels by one firm in Liverpool. It appeared that one vessel, the Barton, had only been in port 72 days in eight years. Mr. Thornely said that this was no fair criterion: these vessels had all been consigned to one firm, and frequently went out with ballast alone.—ln reply to a question by Mr. Irving, he said that the American packet ships paid enormously for extra despatch. The Town-clerk contended that the London docks held out every inducement to ships, and that in spite of this the London trade came here. _ Mr. Thornely.—That arises from the competition. The Town-clerk said that the bond debt on this estate was nearly one million and a half, and he trusted the court would think that the bond creditors should have their opinions con sulted, and no change should be made without consulting them. He thought their opinion Was in favour of having the trust vested in a fixed and responsible body. The Town-clerk here alluded to the trial of 1791, when Lord Erskine was counsel for the Corporation, and concluded by reading the following eloquent extract from the speech of the learned and noble lord, made on the occasion. His lordship said, in reply to Mr. Serjeant Adair, the counsel for the burgesses : " I don't know when my friend saw Liverpool, nor do I know (for I cannot go into the mind of another person) how he is affected with what lie sees, but if I could deseribemy own feel ings when I saw it many years ago, if I were capable of painting to you in words the impression it made on my imagi nation, it would make a beautiful picture indeed. I had before and often been at the sea-ports in this island which we inhabit, and believing that having seen Bristol, and those other towns which justly pass for great. ones, I had seen every thing in this nation of navigators on which a subject should pride himself, I was astonished and astounded when, after passing a distant ferry and ascending a hill which overlooks the city, 1 was told by my guide 'all that you see spread out beneath you, that innumerable city which stands like another Venice upon the waters, which is intersected by those numerous docks, which slitters with those cheerful habitations of well-protected men, which is the busy seat of trade, and the gay scene of elegant amusements growing out of prosperity, where there is the most cheerful face of industry, where there are riches overflowing, and every thing which can delight a man who wishes to see the prosperity of a great com munity and a great empire; all this has been created by the industry and well-disciplined management of a handful of men, in a corner of the island, since you were a boy.' I must have been a stone not to have been affected by such a picture, it was such a one, that if I had indeed the eloquence my friend was pleased to compliment me with, I could bring tears into your eyes only by making it pass before you; but, however feeble the copy, you all know the existence of the original." (Loud Cheers.) The Rev. Augustus Campbell here rose and said, that feeling the reputation of a clergyman like that of Caesar's wife, ought not only to be free from reproach, but beyond suspicion, he had taken the liberty of coming forward to defend his hitherto irre proachable character from a stigma that had been attempted to be cast upon it yesterday. Ile had been charged with corrupt connivance at a corrupt bargain between the trustees of Walla• sey school and Sir John Tobin, and that the parishioners were dissatisfied with the bargain. To the first charge he, yesterday, had given a positive denial, which he now repeated. Ile had not known - that any inhabitant had been dissatisfied with the bargain, nor had he spoke to any individual on the subject.— The witness handed in a vo`e from the parishioners of Wallasey, giving him a piece of plate; this he had received, value £57 .10s. Among the subscribers was John Mawdsley, who had come to cast an insinuation on his (Mr. Campbell's) hitherto unblemish ed name. When witness was appointed to this parish, of four relatives in the Council, only one voted for him, (Sir Thomas Brancker) ; " Among the faithless, faithful only he !" Relative to the rectory of Childwall, he said that he paid his curate more than the rectory brought him in. The parish contained a po. pulation of 5,000 souls, but it was divided into five ecclesiastical districts, and that portion of the parish only Produced him £95 per annum, whilst he paid a curate £l2O, and finding him also a house, rent free. _ _ _ _ Mr. Bathbone here rose and said, that although he was a Dis senter, he felt bound to bear his testimony to the high character borne by Mr. Campbell, who was held in esteem by all classes society, (be their religion or their politics what they might,) for his tru!y pious and benevolent Christian character. (Cheers.) Mr. Campbell here spoke in high terms of the schools under the establishment, especially the north and south schools re ferred to previously by Mr. Shorthouse, and stated that he had authority for sayiug,:from the masters of the schools, that Mr. Shorthouse had not visited the schools. He was perfectly satisfied with the method of teaching, and Mr. Barrett, the schoolmaster, was anxious for the Corporation and the. public to attend an examination of the pupils, iu order that they might judge of their proficiency. The number of scholars upon the' hooks of the two schools amounted 'to 1300. : M r . Radcliffe now rose and said, that he was relieved from. entering upon the subject respecting the Duck Estate, which might have given him much trouble by the explanation of Mr. Myers. lie agreed with that gentleman, that . - Mr. Huskisson was - not a person to say one thing and mean another.. He had said that if eight rate-payers were not a sufficient infusion, more should go in. As to the origin of the great propertY, he would say that, iu a township like Liverpool, there would be waste lands which would become the property of the Corpora tion, manageable for itslienefit, and, in fact, the greater part of the town. All the.Corporotion possesses must be admitted to be public property, for the benefit of the community, which the Corporation were appointed to protect. If not, every bur gess was entitled to demand his share. ,Corporations were in tended to promote great objects fur the public gold—to protect trade, when there was . greater 'tyrant: v from the barons than from the monarch. The Corporation became possessed of this property, how we learn not, and the Town-clerk has done right, while the town dues were in dispute, in not entering into the question. He (Mr. R.) would only refer to those dues as far as they were mixed up with the dock question. The £lOOO which the Corporation had first given was an expenditure of public money• for public purposes. The £5900 they had ad vanced beyond the act of Anne, was a wise and politic mea sure; and between the act of 1710 and the present time, the town dues increased from £2OO to £51,000. Ile had already shown how in makings these docks the Corporation had the fore cast to preserve to themselves the brinks and margins of the docks, and to secure to themselves the land between the dock walls and the river wall. Had there been a distinct repre,sen tation on the part of the Deck Estate, they would have endea voured to preserve the land to the west, which the Corpora tion had taken care to secure. By the erection of the sea walls, land was created, and merle of most important value between 1710 and 1831. Would there not have been some at tempt to secure the land fir the benefit of the Trust, and not to part with it until it became of value ? It was material for the improvement of the Corporation property, that the docks should be increased from time to time. The Town-clerk says that the legislature defines the limits of the powers it grants trustees. This was undisputed; but itavas competent for this town to find distinct trustees for the representation of the Dock Estate who would receive all necessary powers from Parliament. This should have been when the Council, as Council, became sellers of land to themselves as Dock Trustees. - He admitted that iu the infancy of the docks, the powers of the Corporation were beneticiat to them, and in their purchase of land for the docks, and selling it at prime cost, the docks also had' been benefited. Mr. Foster had told us of the difficulties respecting the interests of Lord Derby and Lord Sefton. Would not a body of mer chants deputing a body to wait upon these noblemen have been as likely to have had weight with them as the Corporation, who were always in opposition to them. To one of these noblemen, he (Mr. II.) would say that there was no difficulty of access, — no want of attention to the interests of the town, and the mer chants would have been quite as successful with them as the Corporation could be. He now had to refer to a clause, (the Bth of Anne,) in which he had been mistaken by Mr. Foster, that cranes might be built at the side of the dock. He - had no ticed it to show how, at the onset, the Corporation endeavoured to secure the margins of the docks. The clause was drawn up so as to deceive any but a professional man—first-securing the land to waste, their liberty to enclose it, and then liberty to build on it. He now would pass over the early acts of the docks, and would only refer to the power of the audit commissioners to appoint a sbficitor to act between the jury and the Dock Es tate. It was clear, now, from the letter. ut Mr. Lace, that the power was taken away without discussion, by the act of 1825. There let the case remain until it is brought bcfere Parliament. - We admit that the Corporation hive certain powers—we com plain of them. (A laugh.) In 1822 a bill was proposed; and a note by Mr. Fletcher, on the bill, showed the anxiety among the merchants for increasing dock accommodation. As to the act of 1825, the Town-clerk says it was not forced on the merchants of Liverpool. Much to the discontent of the mer chants, the bill of 1.822 was abandoned. This roused a spirit, which caused the nomination of gentlemen of great energy as audit commissioners. On their labours he would not dwell. Their labours produced most important results, and the Colin ci/ thanked them for their services. In 1825 7 things stood thus :—The Trustees of the Docks hail a footing in Parlia ment; they can go for acts to increase their power, to build docks, and to borrow money; but no private individual can go unless on public ground. So; unless the merchants, as now, can make a public measure of their case, they cannot in troduce a bill into the house. They can only wait till the trus tees ask for a bill, and then make the best terms they can. In 1825 there was a great want of dock accommodation, and the trustees went for an act : in May, 1825, they told the mer chants to take the bill as it was, or it would be withdrawn. (Cheers.) If, in 1811, a distinct representation had been pre served, what would have been the situation of the merchants? They might have had a bill of their own, and then there would not have been the bargain relative to the alteration in Strand street, or the alteration in Bloomfield-street, where, equitably and fairly, the Corporation should have borne the expense. The merchants wished to possess the Graving Docks; the act of 1811 empowered them to be sold; in 1825 they were obliged to submit to the limitation of leaving two iu the hands of the Corporation. The two first they bought were purchased on the verdict of a jury, at au inadequate price, and this was done in 1825, when the power to purchase the other two was taken away. The Common Council came to a resolution that the Dock Estate should pay all expenses of repairing the docks, and take care of the ships' accommodation there, while the Corporation must enjoy the rents and property of them. Mr. Irian' said to Mr. Leathom " they ought to cons:der it a public trust, and not think of pounds, shillings, and 1 Care." At that time there was some question as to the employment of these graving docks for river craft, and the Corporation thought they could make more money by them that way. A dock to the westward of Salthouse dock was the place best suited for the river craft. As Mr. Leathom stated, it was desirable these docks should belong to the Dock Estate. The Corpora tion wished to make a higher rental of them, and Mr. Irlam then said that they should receive themes a public trust. [Mr. Radcliffe read memoranda of the veto exercised by the council.] When-the Dock Committee allowed the admission of reporters, the Common Council instantly annulled it. As to the absur dity of the constitution, it is a tact that the Town-clerk acts in three capacities: before the jury, on . the purchase of land, as solicitor for the Corporation ; in the court of veto, as assessor; and, thirdly, as one of the Council, as Dock Trustees. If ever there was occasion for delicacy, it was when they were acting on the question on their own sale ef property. But they. cen sure and condemn the instructions given to the jury, to prevent the Dock Committee in like cases offending again: When the - Dock Committee gave instructions that a case should be sub mitted to Council on the sale of property by the Corporation, the Council complained that they were not allowed to see it. The law laid down that a trustee should not deal with himself, nor purchase from himself, or for his maper; it waexecogitised that a trustee, as judge, se- gOyernor, shobld have his thole eau duct free from reproach. Without imputing aught to the cor poration, it is impossible that they can do justice in a double capacity. Go into a court of justice—hear council on .both sides —you seldom can fail in anticipating what the verdict will be : it Is the same when two parties represent separate interests, they will, in the end, agree on what is just. It• seems that the solicitor to the Docks may be a member of the Coun cil: the member of the Council takes a strong and bind ing oath to do all for the benefit of the Corporation. Great and immense sales had taken place between the parties, under assessments ofjuries, no doubt; but it has been seen bow instructions to juries were dealt with. True, this had occurred only once, but the once would embarras all future proceedings. Had the solicitor's instructions been interfered with, he should have resigned his office. (Applause.) The Town-clerk had said that a jury had given a person, named Jackson, £12,000 for the reversion of a lease, and another jury had only given the Cor poration £6,000 for the same : in the first instance, Lord Brougham had been counsel for the successful party. Since 1816, inclusive, the Corporation had sold property , to them selves, as dock trustees, amounting to £317,000. Something had been said of the interest of the bondholders,—they would see that the trust had not been well managed. The merchants determined to attend to the interest of the bondholders. Mr. Hall, and those connected with him, were bondholders to the extent of £20,000, and in this court he had expressed himself satisfied with this determination. In bringing forward the cas e for the merchants, witness had been obli g ed to refer to the ap pointment of the present solicitor of the docks. Great delicacy had been used, although great provocation had been given for a different line of conduct. Questions were put by the Town clerk and others, and drew out answers which witness never intended to be part of his case. Mr. Horsfall said it might be expedient to enclose the dock with walls and surround them with warehouses, as at London, If so, the question would arise as to the land near the docks; and if there had been a separate representation, there might have been the forethought of securing the land to the westward of the docks. Witness questioned whether it would be desirable to erect these warehouses. Again, if it was necessary to extend the docles westward, then there would be a conflict with the Corporation. Any description of enlargement or improvement of the do c k s could hardly be imagined, but there might arise a collision with the Corporation. As to the present management of the Dock Estate, could it be possible that the committee could work well—the veto on their proceedings—two parties in the committee—and the successful attempts to cramp the wishes of the ratepayers, were to dishearten them from exertion. Then, the notorious character of the dock officers—the admitted re ceipt of bribes—the difficult management of Mr. Askew. With regard to the fees of the dock-master, he would admit that houses connected with the Corporation, with the harbour-master at their service, might be able to secure dock accommodation, which other houses had to pay for. At the same time he threw no reflection on Mr. Askew 's character. He would now re mark on the constitution of the Dock Trust, if the court pleas-ed. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson.—We have full notes of your very able arguments on the subject on Thursday week. Mr. Radcliffe.—Then I shall here close the dock case.— (Applause.) Mr. Duncan, referring to Mr. Huskisson's rcpli s, said he had pointed out the anomaly of the Council voting in a te.-o. fold capacity. Mr. Mvers.—Mr. Huskisson said that he did not nnderstand the measure; could he think it final under such circu nstances? The Town-clerk said he never observed that Mr. tiuskissou had declared the measure to be final Mr. T. B. ilorsfall said there was one. circumstance had not been noticed by Mr. Radcliffe, whieh be thought tended to show the feeling of toe merchants generally, as to the present constitution of the Dock Estate. The commissioners had not been informed that, after the meeting .of the rate-pl”'••re. had been already allude I to, Mr. llornby, as chairs.: mu of Imat meeting, had been requested to make application to th dmb r• - ent associated bodes for their co-operation in cifering a change in the constitution of the Dock Trust. An appiica!ion was, in consequence, made to the East India Association, the West India Association, the Ship-owners' Associ.iti , n, the Mediterranean Association, and the American Chamber Commerce. Now he thought it would be generally sitini;!e,t that these associations represented very fairly the merelinit- of the town, yet he believed it was di! tact Oat Mr. could correct him if he was wrong,) that every one of these a - sociations, with the ext'n.p::on of the American Cimit , ei• of Commerce, had refused their al:!. Mr. Duncan sail that Mr. lio..sfall was wrong—t:rit ttl, ii not three, had Contributed, and .ethers would have dome en hilt they possessed sufficient lands. (Cheers.) Mr. T. 13. Horsfall said, that p'rhaps two of thes. ;:ysocia- Cons might have contributed, but the majority had not, anft ho knew, from having been personally pres;mt at two of the ations named, that it was not made a question of finance ad, but was refused as a question of prin,:iple. (Cheers.) Mr. Duncan said that they had refused, thinking it ail proper appropriation of their funds. Mr. 'l'. 13. Horsfall said that could not be the case; beean ,, e, in the year 18-5, when the former change took 'dace, ail those associations contributed. The Town-clerk made a brief reply to the observations of Mr, Radcliffe. He said that the only new matter was that the Co:t• mon Council had endeavoured to introduce the war. , housing system into Liverpool, on the westward of the docks, this f , rine.l part of the intention of 1811. and the private interests of indivi duals would have prevented its accomplishment. If the i)ock Trust would have to deal for the land for that purpose, it was clear, from the experience of the past, that the jury would show less favour to, the Corporatioil than to individuals. (Applau,e.) Mr. Radcliffe said it should be understood that the only se curity of the bond-holders was the Dock Estate, and they had every confidence in it, arising from the increasinr, commerce of the port, and the fact that there is a surplus of LBJ,OOi) a-year. Ile would not admit, on the part of Liverpool juries, taut it does.not follow, that on a new system, juries who might have been unfavourable to the Corporation before, would coniinne The Town-clerk.—They are county juries, summoned by the sheriff. Burgesses might have sat, but the last act shut theta out. Mr. Radcliffe wished to make a few observations on tle7.go neral case. The Town-clerk seemed to think that we qeesti 'ned whether the self-election of the Council wag usurpation or not. If it be, it is legal 'usurpation. Nor, on the part of the . general community, is there a demand f or the p ro p er ty of the Corpora tion. All that is asked is amendment in the coucitution. The Corporation are trustees for the. üblic, who have a right to have that property administered fer*he benefit of the pub ic. All the magistrates are chosen from the Council : the " fam ly ti - ea of the Corporation" has been put in. The result is, thet of the 41 members of the Council, 27 are connected with others of the present or late members of the Council, or their officers, in the following relationehips:—six fathers, nine sons, six brothers, two uncles, six nephews one father-in-law, and fifteen brotheri in-law—or 4 relationships. (Applause.) The Town-clerk remarked, That one gentleman had Le en di egged into a relationship with the Common Council because his grandfather had been Mayor of Liverpool. (Laughter.) Mr. Radcliffe continued.—'l'o show other results of this self election, he could mention the sales of lands from one to the other to the amount of 1:80,0(X) iu one instance. The Council should be liable to re-election. The town should have the benefit of the great patronage of the Council, by haeing the Council amenable to re-election. It is impossifele that the body, as now constituted, could give satisfaction for rase pest, or security for the future. Within the last ten years we bare the proceedings of the Council reported, by one of its members. And although there is no security that this can continue, although it has acted as a wholesome check, reporters slemirt be allowed to report the general transactions of the Councie Ilad this been the case in the Wallasey Pool affair, the public worthd either have been satisfied, or the bargain would not have been proceeded with. There should be periodical elections, end thus the Corporation would be amenable to what Mr. Canning cal I'd "the great regulator of society—puplic opinion." Mr. Foster had asked why a servant of the Corporation should 11 , 4 lie a member of the Corporation. Mr. Duncan would read a (kel ment to answer that question. Mr. Duncan here lead a report from a Liverpool paper of `ay 13, 1829, of the proceedings of the Common Council on the election of Mr. \Tv iiliam Foster, proposed by Mr. Case, and se conded by Mr. Bourne. The motion was met by an amend ment, (by Mr. Leyland, seconded by Mr. Earle,) that the va cancy in the Council should not then be filled up, as it wee it bad principle for a member of the Council to be in trade, c.o. nected with the officers of the Corporation, or enjoying a la. lee share of their orders, as then, from a knowledge of the views and plans, he would have an opportunity of executin„,e g or con tractin afterwards, for such public works as they might and -r -take. - The amendment was lost—Mr. W. Foster's clecCen having been carried by 17 to IL At the same time, Me. Ley land gave notice of a motion, that neither tether, nor son,.uer two brothers, should be members of the Council at the saute time, nor the surveyor, or those who stood in that relation to , him. lie would also exclude the dock servants. Sir tkorge Drinkwater also spoke in favour of the principle of the motion, which, on the next council day, Mr. 'l. Case seconded; hut, after various opposition, no division took place thereon. Mr. Foster, the secretary to the Dock Estate, here rem erlesd` that it was in consequence of the discussion alluded to try Mr. Duncan he resigned his si nation as Common Counciamau. Mr. Radcliffe said that, in justice to the gentlemen who bad brought part of the case before Parliament, their object had been to establish their case without callin.,o in any gentleman whose feelings might be hurt. Such had been their desire—. such would guide their future proceedings. This closes my case. Mr. Radcliffe's address was received throughout with consi derable attention, and frequently applauded. Mr. James Foster then addressed the commissioners ; aid said, that they would no doubt recollect, that on Toes lay lel they gave him permission to prodtwe some documents, whirls he would have done, for the purpose of refuting the charts brought by certain indivi.tuala respecting the treatment or inmates of the Liverpool Workhouse, but that, on reflecti. he thought it would have b: , en unnecessary for him to have u'- copied the time of the court any further on a matter which had been frequently before the public. As, however, lie found th:q these charges were almost daily repated, and that even on tl.at very morning they had been reiterated ny Dr. Collins, he thought it incumbent upon him, in justice to himself and other gentlemen implicated in tho-e charges, to avail !tiles& of tha permission so kindly given by the commissioners, to state, that, on the day succeeding that ou which the charges wer first made, the Workhouse was, at the request of the Churchwto dens, visited by the Mayor and other magistrates, who gave a east satisfactory certificate as to the state of the house at that time, and as to its condition previous to that visitation, he begged to read an extract from the report of a• special committee of the Select Vestry, appointed to inquire into the alleged abuses, which he thought completely refuted the calumnies so often to peated on the subject. "In the course of the examination, your cofnmittea pre ceeded to an examination of the food, and it appeared so a tisfactory to them, both in regard to quality and qu,in that they cannot recommend any altera,ion. It affords yore committee the greatest satisfaction to be enab:ed to state, th;:, after a most rigid inquiry into the abuses alleged to have ex isted in this establishment, nothing has occurred to tletra, t from the high char..cter of the governor for humanity and at tention to his arduous duties. IlavMg thus communicatedalm resul of their inquiries, your commi tee, without intend:lig to impugn the motives of any party with whom the necestuty of thisinvestigation Originated, cannot refrain from txpre slit their regret, that charges of a serious na:ure, essentn:ly a.- fecting the well-deserved reputation of this estaldishm , well as deeply involving the character of a very oid and u.o.t faithful servant of the public, wh o se h eal th ties b. sacritha in their service, should have been brou;ht forward upon s.eud:,r and questionable testimony." Notwithstanding the puhlica'ion of this report, it being stil asserted that the diet of the inmates of this a.,-v,oin was any thing but proper, he (Mr. Foster) had requested the hou.).-a medical officers to examine minutely the quantity and q- a:lty of the food; and, with permission of the court, he won cl re..a the report he received from those gentlemen in the no: to or May last. [Mr. F. here read the report, of which we can give only the following extract : " Of the quality of the food we have already spot er,sr't having, for many years, in the discharge of our duties as nem:- rary medical officers to the Dispensaries, had constant c nication with the poor, and ample opportunities affoided us of becoming intimately acquainted with their condition aua cir cumstances, we have no hesitation in allirmieg, that the diet of the Workhouse is vastly superior, both in quality and qua ilit-, to the food subsisted on by the great bulk of the industrious anti labouring classes of this community. • --<Sigued) "DAVID MACGOtt LE, M.D. • THOS. GOUTHWAITE, M.D. SAML. lI'CULLOCII, Honorary Snrger)n. B. NIGHTINGALE, House Surgeon." After the refutation of the chart; s brougl.t against the Worl , - house management, contained in these two reports, he (Mr. F.) would. only trespass on the patience of the Court further, at:- swer to what had been said in reference to the attempt to i:itro duce Sir J. C- Hothouse's Vestry act into this parish, by requesting their attention to the conclusion of the report of tl.l Select Vestry of last Easter, a printed copy cf which ha.l a; - ready been laid before them. Mr. Commissioner 'Wilkinson said, that at the c7ose of the:a labours, he had to thank the Town clerk and other corprate officers for the great courtesy and. unreserved alacrity, on the part of one and .all, with which they had met every queoiou, except that in course of litigation, for which, under tile- cirrunt stances, no blame could he attached to them. Ile congra tulated the people of Liverpool ou the unexcep•iona!de good temper, moderation, and good feeling dispaytAi daring this iun and arduous investigation.—(Great applause.) The Town-clerk begged to express his personal sense or the uniform kindness he had received from the crurt. He had fu'- filled his pledge of conanitin :11g all within hi.: p,,we Ap plause.) 'I lee CommOn Council had notling n aril-at.hitt the last hundred years, which they could WI: h to conceal; ant:, after an investigation unexampled in importance and dur.wini, they came out of the trial without a state. —(Cheers.) Mr. Radcliffe now said, we have nothing more to do th in to thank the Commissioners for the patience, impartiality, and courtesy with which they have cond'acteti this inquiry. Mr. liathhone and Mr. Thornely expressed their set,e of the impartial and courteous manner in watch the inquir bait been cond4cted. Mr. Radcliffe tendered his warmest acknowledgments to the commissioners for their uniform kindness to himself. Mr. Button said,—Future commiseimiers wia do well to make yolur condut t their example. (Applause.) Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson returned thanks. - The court was then about to break up when Mr. Aekers ad dressed the commissioners, and said he was authorised by the Recorder of the ancient borough of Sefton to inqui Q when it would be their pleasure to commence an investigation iutt) their Corporate .affairs. (Prodigious laughter.) The court then separated at half-past one o'clock. A little boy, about four years of age, lay very still one rnorr ing, after a night's sleep, as if in deep thougnf. Ills parrn:s watched him for some (line. At length his mother said to Lim— George, my dear, what are you thinl:ing about ? Why mother, says George, -how many kinds of fire are there ? How many kinds of .fire ! why only one, my son. 'Why yes there is, con tinned the boy, there are four kinds. Four kinds! how witl you make that out ? Well, then, said he, first there is a weed fire, there is a coal fire, then there is cam-ph re, and then there is— there - is—Well, what is your fourth, my son 7—There is —fire away like fury!