The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-19 00:00:00

11 ‘ ' -VEMB ER 19, 1833. ;Virtue of the act of Parliament the Dock Committee s e e ' n d , if they chose, having paid. the Corporation the rever ,f the y interest, widen the docks as -they were the property tosee t ? Dock Estate ; or they might lay the Salthouse Dock a " DrY Dock together. Happens to know that the mas t. oevessels who had been prosecuted for frauds before alluded l'cittWere tried and convicted fur the same; but the Dock Com hoe": he elieved, were obliged to pay one of them, named ee €4- ts, for the lime-stene, in. consequence of the verdict in V.49tion brought bv• that person being against them. Is Of elon that if the delay had taken pla.ce in the purchase of ha ti't 'e 17ieettn'as wished by hieusell and others it must ultimately Purchaseda - t a far higher price. 'Does not think that co'-'l4,re suitable seleclion..of gentlemen to purchase the land el have been made than those.appointed. Does not think i t It t any infer y had been sustained- by the Dock Estate since re s t present coustitution, but it would - have been better for . the le? ,Selers if they possessed more power in the Committee.— o ' 4 always wish to see the trust Ville Duck Estate in the hands hollihe.Corporation so long . as the debt remained. Being in the a ch ( the Corporation gave a satisfaction to the bond t holder °lilt the money was safe. Cannot say that any de titliceut es er. arose to the Dock Estate from the exercise of •Ve l t e vet ° B by the *Common Council, but he -thought that the ot ; a.gains the admission .of a. reporter into the Dock nottee was unwise, although he could not say that a ny delis 'e - nent followed. He thought repp rtin the proceed o e g u l t i e w "ohl prove beeeficial, but . it was . only . a matter o e f 4 . Does not know any public body. in the town, with th ,J • ee Ption of the watch and sca.vengiug.committee, that allowed re l'oter to be present. He understood that it was an old re solute on of that body. gentleman present here said that the regulation was a very guest °he, and adopted in consequence of the chairman, Mr. ales A n • sing a riewepaper proprietor. • other gentlernan.corroborated.theltet speaker as far as re - adenine the reulation.being recent, but stated that the board i 144. to the resolution of admitting the reporters in conse ,_es of the proceedings being mis-reported by some member e'ir own body. ' 4 answer to kqUestion from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Myers re- Peated tha he did. not _wish to see the trust of the Doer: lestate • taken final • e the Common Council, as it ought to be in the hands th at respectable body- the character of the Corporation was such h if went wrong they were able to remedy it, and e s aw no r g ee r. g aatreas . on for a change. be es ro utican.--Y ou mean to say,. Mr. Myers, that you saw Aciulection to the Corporation being trustees without power. b ' e r e ' Myers.—No, I don't. I can see no objection to the trust 411ei i -5 'h v t-ed in so permanent a bod as rate-piate Common Council, I should wish to see the ys hare the first tarevfeerence in the committee. He wished the committee to tathe Power of .electing their own chairman and h deputy w ee r an, and to. be placed upon the same footing as t e high- T e e't e °,°ltnittee, which was- composed of nine of the - Commen and fifteen of Chao-ate-payers.. • " - e t : t r• Donean.--In consequence of the greater proportion of l members o f t h e Dock Committee being Common Couuci - 14t11, it is seldom . necessary that the Common Council have to eise their veto. ce°2l.• Myers.—The have seldom to exercise the veto in the mor on w e Council, . • tbeeiLthe 'P own-c l ierk.—There have been several things done in .ek Committee ..Z e t wished diff erent, b ut nothing detrimentally injurious to the ce si , e e as regard e d th e C orp oration, had occurred. There had nattY wrong bee has lossaken. pla of tim e. e by discussions, but nothing crimi me ed tc o e- i u omanission er Wilki nson i nqu i re d whether the witness ce l un ei cil d ? to the power of exercising the veto by the Common b n t r : Myers repli e d that he did, as the committee was then i iti g ited, but if th ere was a ma j or i ty o f rate-payers in th e th e - e n ‘-'olelnaittee he saw no obj ec ti on t o th e ve t o rem ai n i n g with see mullion Con ne d , an d h e repeate d t h at h e h a d no wis h to eri iste trust taken from the Corporation as. by being reposed er h oudh e i e it at w large.as satisfactory to the body of rate-payers and s Nor' C ommissioner Wilkinson.—Do you think that if the w oo ltt • rceeised iu a more popu l ar b o d y, equa ll y trus t wor th y, eed be satisfactory to the rate-payers ?• • T he Myers.—C ertainly I do. • itseett co lmaissioner said they would •now proceed into the 11,7 1 Y ,relative to the large purchase of land at Wallescy ~ Waen 'Mr J h . t e_ h eitehef ° or n e Tobin rose, and, addressing the commissioners, said he was examined, hevshould wish the commissioners elle.eeive. all the information they could from the Corporation altoto the sale and purchase of land, after which he was teej t 4: answer any questions which might be put to him, and, '4 /t er he was a ma g i s t ra t e sworn upon t h at b enc h , h e de he also a ,they would s wear hi m prev i ous t o i n t erroga ti on , and stsh* w'shed that, all persona who. had evidence to give on the leect shoukl also be sworn. teethe! co mmissioner asked Sir John if he would wish those reeT e 7 r nett. who had already been sworn • on the Corporation e .hote to be resworn ? ~1,14.01 m Tobin replied that on this particular subject he did. trer et e e e 1 4 oclerk now proceeded to inform the court of the re e s nee under which the property was purchased by the pear ration•in 1828. He•said the circumstances were that,several_ titdiuPreTions to the purchase, the Corporation had been eon kereeF with the owners of property on the shores of the River pla ces 9.ti the subject of the encroachments made in different . 440 1 t P the sea, and which were considered by some of the t o i n . nsruent engineers of the kingdom would-have a tendency teiee Jure. —. men of the port ;• which circumstance had- occupied the at-, mgthe Corporation for many years. The opinions of the rs to whom he alluded were those of the late Mr. Rennie, • sad Art Whitby, Alr. Telford, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Giles, al e alker, and, subsequently, the opinions . of the -late Joes e — '", e _ e nie's two •sotie -were• taken; • namely, the present Sir Iseet4 4 ”trillie and Mr. George Rennie: ' • The opinions of-those Pur see leil; were recorded on the books of the Corporation, in C,; of or which various preciedings were instituted by the eeeee„etion, who claimed to be the conservators of the River took i an d tilt , pert. Extensive litigations of various . kinds ace about that i)eriod,in which the Corporation expended th e e `'s a sum than i.e14,000: The last trial took place about seta 18 26 or 1827, upon the subject, at Lancaster Assizss e tha t t rio eeeault -of the litigation was;- ft appeate.tto establish Ives I;a.censervaecy of the riVer, under the ,provisions of . the rhainent relating to the.lrwell and. Mersey nayigation, rs.r ee , i ested in that body, and not in the Corporation; To lii 4tlts Y. the evil which was approaching from these encroach- Al ee ijtereasing in number, severalsexpedientrwere suggested. ei to t , es attetu was made on the part of the Commori Coun t; rtep ect ° ,. l ‘. ll, the ofners of property on both sides the river, e i r irieu en ," seleh encroachments, under the control - of some p 1 4e, eke:4,ltority, to be fixed by act of Parliament, which altege let i e ." ci• by the opposititrn sO extensive a body, having differ bee .eerests on both - sides of the river; and nothlng further had kta, ° ,. °48 up to the present day Amongst the suggestions the fo r was for the Corporation • to become the purchasers of w ish - t - h ta ge land to the river, and•he believed it was the general ( 111e st i at the Corporation should purchase the property in teeth, `' a u • . Subsequently' various purchases of land had been t° the t 4:frte he thOUght, although he spoke subject Preeettteorrection of ..members of the Common Council then t a toek ene !"-heut 1826 an opinion prevailed that a kind of joint r rlio 3e "YanY or some company was about to be formed foethe see ach e stablishing a port to communicate . v. ith the river s to ettele °Mee-here near Hoilake, and the plan proposed wa Nom tot through .the. low!ands by means of cutting a 't ee Wallasey Pool and-so to the river •Mersey, where . ftilevi.nits.soubelivio_usehat- very great . facilities appeared likely to pow scheme, as the great depth of water flowing into Vett of o and the flux and reflux of the tides offered the pros 'a th e ,gre"at pecuniary advaatages to any person who embarked ilir e nie• The first purchase that he found in -the record the t ae . ueust, 1824, which was of a large tract of land opposite 1%4'11 . !)ear to this Wallasey Pool. The next purchase are , t 'le th e "e made on the 3d of Au ust, 1827 which was about t , e ' 4 e i t t h ,, a l.. t the trial alluded to ° took place. He . bad stated ley ren for a company- to establish this scheme Was e( t° h • ofthat , deer: ein execution in 828 and the Mayor of 41dertnan C alderman and chairman e the Cie the senior C e ., the 4 i f. eenneuttee, who had been intimately connected_ etttu r 'urn of the Corporation and the docks for nearly half % zee, echeY,,, _undertook upon their own resnsibility, seein that arch me might militate against the interests of the town, laseehatl ° l l the property they could- possibly- acquire in t e i for the purpose of counteracting that scheme, ;eel). eir opinion, would have been injurious to wha_t . ' e a: eel deemed. the To interests of the port of Liverpool. With tPee'atioe7 tthlaeteAllate r own Clerk, and other officers of the Cor er .bheit terms lyor and Mr. Case effected the purchases . .on °f tr rtut , et ry could. 'They subseqnently made a ley . ee°go tea reeeee-to them the Court of Common Council, which h CurP t and he believed that to be the only record et• es whi p ion books of the transaction, excepting the pur r eo e ere made afterwards in pursuance of the same To _ nit"do\-lerk here rea d a record of the report made by the e 1.4 lied male ease to the Common Council of the purchases , whe n a resolution of that body furnished them tote l'`'wer t o teeoeissee of Proceed further. And at another meeting of the r e wh,„tho saute body, held on the 15th of September 1828, .'llotetie!..c°4lPlement of twenty-five members being present, ' ll ' l uu e,' w ere read, approving of the proceedings of the Mayor - pil ti r vee r e . n ' d a s e e. and which stated that the Common Council had ci sme erried a vote of thanks to those gentlemen for the Ck 44, th which they had made and the mode in which they had it ‘ r r l tl o e 4 etoetno tnoi:sioin e r hare said that Mr.. Okill would be a likely ro . hem respecting the purchase and the prices. thoelrs...-oa.k,iil replied that he could not, without referring-to the ;ela te ec • te tee .. trtuseetion was_ done with such privacy that he 'teithi n : l n e , a oet it at the time, although he had heard that t c a a , ei. pate on. c"N tl the r e eaid that there would be no difficultl in ob. 4rri,d _ qut!ite information. The reason why the- usiness b een th e eo n with such secrecy was, that if it had been known it t i awe horn was in the market, they would not have "hi e r ie t ur c hase it. .wee handy produced a plan of the property in question, t ee A - T own ,4 to.the commissioners. t o ffessee _clerk here read a resolution of the Dock Commit e.,,raet, It meetin g held in September, wen seven Commit ere to tet.`eeencilmon and six rate-payers were presentp, which e`eeee r ete eeect that they approved of the steps taken by the liettltelee to air. Alderman Casr . and that the committee were qterretetinteyF:et_rwith the Corporation in their proceeding 1 1 4 4 vey en 7 l ".u nc il u ,l r i e Rennie and. Mr. Brown to be employed . et)l6lll t qieareci ti inho the subject.. John iSsioners. that the Masshe of the property handed to the ei Jo we 83 e quantity of land purchased from SI pi t4 r omit • . acres 1 reed and 2() perches. - • e , th e tee _ omit inquired who was the person that negotiate w i t 7r. se4iri)pworatioa for the rwischase of the_ property Si 361 c 1 the r e plied that Mr. William Laird was the person . . r J o h n ,r9perty to the Corporation. h e ° ,! ell eeefe.,°tOsrose and said that he was quite ready . to.ititco .etie ee handl ns relative to the property, in the sale of i t "Meet he whatever. It would - perhaps save a great deal h e ° e h Ner?eur ree : 'r e ere to relate a shoft history of the transaction as i , en ' t !,haed been stated -- that only two purchases had he'e-ntaitee.pe tn i e last purchase of the large tract of land in of lau bee 'Lnan c ,, negotiated for. In :1827 he was a-mem !ge elittious eez oniittee, and finding that the Committee le, te. khey, had recluse,,,l the land in Nt• ellasey Pool, he told C eeltQ l t of perei:aaet and buy it direct frem Mr. price, Nee ,e te " Wore U R it piecemeal. He also said, that if the '`slingstn to the, una cquainted with Mr. Price he would accom ee with lel' . gentleman, as he had some time before had. the e• - hureh . tile purchase of some property near Wal esteProperte fee' uheequeutly Mr. Laird and himself purchased Wal t h 'eward, u e ,,tu Mr, Price for the intended scheme. Shortly sosee c'°rornittee sent for witness, and said they wished Itg e e • . onversation with him relative to . the land which t ; , th e jointly t o Sal4 e. r. Laird and himself, wishing to negotiate ce. a n d ~ , v ilness addressed himself to the chairman, Mr. That thatil le oh n , s r e t harac h t e was sure that he knew sufficient of his fe.e, 'could not WT.' he ha been an old servant ot his, e , situated as h hira to doh dishonourable action ; there 'Ale " the ache e was and so deeply engaged with others as t t _of th e l ee , me, he could not think of negotiating for the it et tOcci t e 44.417, Moreover he had called upon Lord Clive, who !tit t l°R th e par c t Li c o .u n i the measure. Witness wrote to Mr. Laird, l eg i t :g that to t rs 0f what had occurred, at the same time "ite is land t o ee' circumstances he could not thiuk of sell eite"ss Iliad M r, 7 s a t i"P"atiol3. The land belonged jointly to Nti op t „ l , a, mute + end it was not to be sold by either pith g°°""t• - Mr Laird, however,took ~ es teae mei pi to the Coe/tomtit; n ' the la• i‘ntrervto his (wit 'es, sis he faucied it might be ." • thrown themselves•into the arms of the Corporation. Witnesg found aftetwards that several other individuals had sold the moieties of their lands in the same situation ' and therefore it would not do for him to stand out against the Corpoiation. Mr. Laird now lives in Liverpool or the neighbourhood. Witness here handed in the report of Messrs. Telford, Stephenson, and Nimmo, and the estimate. Mr. Laird -was interested in a moiety of this land, having also purchased. from Mr. Price. Witness and Mr. Laird exchanged moieties' of the property, on the agreement that neither shOeld dispose Of 'the land without the consent of the other. This Agreement was made .about two mouths before the sale to the Corporation. The purchase by witness was made about four mouths, and that by Mr. Laird, about two years -before -the -Corporation became- purchasers. There were no conveyances, but - inerety . a' vttitten memoran dum. 'Witness agreed in the scheme of Making docks in Wal lasey Pool, because he, in common .with.other. ship-owners, felt that there was a want of dock accommodation. . The Town-clerk said that it was very -common -in this town when parties purchased and sold again, to . take the title and con veyance as from the original seller to the laat:purchaser. Mr., Foster then read a minute of the Finanee Committee, dated October 19, : 1828; .By this • it. app.eared that the whole purchaies amounted to £77,294 2s. 4d. in,honds -bearing 44 per cent. interest, and-not redeemable for. seven years, and EEO, in bomb at per cent., and not redeemable for ten years. The whole amount of purchases frorn 'Sitlolita Tobin was £Bl al). Mr. Price got for%ack land is. 71d..per.square yard. Mr. John Taylor, the gentleman who for some days previous had appeared pregnant with Speech and information relative to this land purchase, here rose to.unhurthen himself, .but, at first, seemed at a loss what to say ; he at , - said that what he had to say was, in a great measure, anticipated and explained away by -Sir John Tobin and the' Town-clerk. He had no fault to find with, nor had he any intention -to impugn, the con duct of Sir John Tobin; men had a right to - pursue their pri vate interests; but:the cause ofhis was to_ show,. not only that there were two great intereSts.inthe town, the Corporation and the merchants, but that there -was also a third interest, separate from these, which he was sorry there was no one here but himself to represent. The King nt this..conntry. originally endowed - the Corporation with great power,..antt gave it great . lands. 'rown-clerk.—Not an inch. Mr. Taylor.---Great wealth. • • •• . Town-clerk.—Not a halfpenny. , •- •- • • Mr. Tavlor.—He gave it, at all events; a charter; and itnow holds the property it has acquired under the prOtection of the laws of the land. The Town-clerk.L-I hope so. (Laughter.) . • Mr..Taylor.--Their own books prove that their object was to prevent a rival port from-being made, which would afford ac commodation to the trade of the . country, .atul - hold theni and the Dock Trustees in check. That: was the view of the matter. to which to wished toT4irect the attention of t4,coramissioners. If there had been a rival port on the .other.side.of the water, the dock and-town dues would not have been so exorbitant as they are. It was to prevent that that they determined on getting Wallasey Pool into their own . - hands." 'That - Was the point to which . he,wished to direct the attention 'of 'the COlfitnissioners, and, having named it, he would leave the matter in their hands, as they were much better qualified than him to obtain an eluci dation of it. The Town-clerk said, that with regard to the three fallacies stated by that " gentleman," the - Ctirporation did not hold an inch of ground obtained by gift either from the or any other individual. As to the second fallacy, all they had they oh. tained by purchase, in the same way as a man who purchases a house. As to the third fallacy, had the rival . port been per mitted to proceed, the persons using it would neither have been exempted from dock nor from town dues. Mr. Taylor.—The King, by granting the charter to the Cor poration, and the country by protecting them in the exercise of their privileges, had, in fact, conferred upon them all which they possessed. Without the charter they could not have even had an existence as a corporate body; and with regard to the new port, the vessels resorting to it would have been exempt front both the Liverpool dock and town dues, by their entrance from the outer sea. _ _ Mr: Wilkinson then inquired of Sir John Tobin what was the purchase-money per yard given to Mr. Price. Sir John Tobin said he could not say with accuracy, but he would furnish it to-morrow. The Town-clerk said that ever since the Corpoiation held land, it was only within the last twelve. months that they had sold, any part of it, and they had sold it on long leases of 999 years, in order that by clauses in those leases they might protect the port from encroaclaments. The price they sold it for was 10s. per yard. Mr. Samuel Holmes asked Sir John Tobin the difference of the price given byhim to Mr. Price, and received by him from the Corporation. Sir John said he must decline answering the question directly. You might (said Sir John) receive £lOO,OOO for my undertak ing. I have only received a third of the money. If the Cor poration would go for en act of Parliatnent, and make an assistant harbour for the port of Liverpool, I say to them give me my laud again, and I will give you your money back. — (Applause.) Mr. Holmes said he put the question because he had bought laud from Mr. Price, at more than the' Corporation gave, and he thon a _e . ht he had got it cheap. Mr. W. W. Currie rose to perform an act of justice to Sir John Tobin. At the time the negotiation was ~e-oiug on, a great deal of obloquy was thrown on Sir John most unjustly. He had it distinctly in recollection that Sir John more than once gave the Common Council an opportunity of taking the land off his hands at the price: he gave for it 'to Mr. Price, and they declined it. Gentlemen might possibly - go away with the idea that Sir John had overreached the Corporation, but he had not done so. Ile offered the land twice and it was _declined. This was before the purchase from Mr. Price,was completed. Sir John Tobin, in -answer to a question from the commis sioners, said, that by Monday he should be enabled to give the dates of the purchases. This concluded the day's proceedings, and the commissioners adjourned until ten o'clock the following morning. TWELFTH DAY. Shortly after ten_ o'clock the eoranaiooionesuvrted - their investigation. . • • • • - • . • Mr. Radcliffe opened the proceedings by requesting that Hornhy, one of the Dock Committee, should be examined. Lieutenant Morrition, R.N., rose and said, that previous to the business-proceeding, he had a few remarks to make relative to a statement made by. Lieutenant Watson on the subject of the telegraph. The secretary to the Doek Trust informed the commissioners that after Mr. Watson's examination that gentleman had in quired whether any further questions were to be put to him, as he was obliged to leave town for the stations, when they, the commissioners, stated that they had nothing further to ask from him; if, therefore,.Mr. Morrison had anything to say on the subject of the telegraph he had better deter it until Mr. Wat son's return. The commissioners were of a similar opinion. Lieutenant Morrison said he should, on the return of Mr. Watson, take an opportunity of alluding to the subject. Mr. Morrison then stated that there was another subject to which he wished to call the attention of the commissioners. It was one that,•as an old sailor, he took some little interest in. He-had understood that therewere funds in the Corporation and' dock lionds for the erection of a Seaman's Hospital, amounting. to £36,950, and vet there was no Seaman's Hospi tal: - He did not wish it to be imagined that there had. been a misappropriation of those funds, but if there were funds it would be better for them to be applied to the purposes intended. • - • The commissipners thought the subject was• worthy of in quiry, and should be investigated in the regular course of pro ceeding. Mr, J. Hornhy being sworn, was examined.—ln the first place he wished to say that he was not, as had been stated, in fluenced by personal motives in pursuing the line of conduct he ' had, and he begged to disclaim all such imputations. ~When he looked to the list of the Common Council he found there was one half of that body with whom he was in friendly intercourse, with the rest he hid some acquaintance; but was on good terms with them all, and he had not the slightest personal feeling against any one of them, as he entertained a belief that they were all very worthy gentlemen in a private point of view, whatever he might thwk of them in their corporate . capacity. Mr. Radcliffe had wished him (Mr. H.) to come forward and give evidence, in consequence of which he begged here to offer his sentiments and opinions in that way on the present consti tution of the Dock Committee. V He had been a merchant in, Liverpool for twenty years, and was elected to the Dock Com mittee in August, 1831. When proposed he was absent from Liverpool, and was ignorant that it was intendedio propose him as a member. Since his election he had regularly attended two committees, the business of which was generally a matter of-routine, with the exception of discussions which occasionally arose. When differences did arise in the committee, he had observed a marked unanimity amongst all. the Corporation members, and he was decidedly of opinion that an entire sepa ration of 'the Thick Estate and the Corporation Trust would be• for the benefit of the public at large. As regarded the bond holders he bad no doubt that they would be Wally protected by a new Dock Corporation as by the present Common Coun cil ; and-Mr. Hall,. who represented the bondholders the tattier day, gave that as his decided opinion also. Mr. A. Woodward denied that Mr. Hall represented the, bondholders. - Mr. Hornby.—lle nainitted some of .them, however, with certain provisions' that had previously been conceded. The prObability was; that a new Dock Committee, elected by rate payers out of their own body, would be - at least as•opulent, as respectable, and as well-judging as the existing Common Coun cil, or any that might succeed them.. They would have a more direct interest in a good and economical management. A pro vision might be made that a given surplus income over the expenditure for the maintenance of the present works and the payment of,interest should, always. exist. - The present surplus was about 00,000 per annum after paying all interest and-the . maintenance of the works. He considered that to be too large a surplus, and a portion of it at least ought to be taken off in the reduction of the Dock rates. The Dock rates of Liverpool far exceeded those of London. lie believed them to be more than double upon large, vessels. By expending the whole surplus income in new works, the present generation of merchants were paying for the fee-simple of property, instead of paying the in terest upon what it cost. There were large works now in pro gress, and the Dock.Survevor, Mr. Hartley, had repeatedly stated in the committee, that it would be more economical to push forward vigorously those works, than, according-to the present system, of dOing them piecemeal. He believed the Dock Committee were pretty intatiratous that this was desirable, and about a year ago, notices were issued of an intention to go to Parliament for the purpose of. raising an additional sum of 1:200,000. He was very strongly—an advocate for this being done, as Mr. Lindley said that during the-late summer the works could then The proceeded with in- a very advantageous manner. The idea of going to Parliament Was abandoned, he thought, 1 from the fear that-seas _entertained; on the part of the Corpora tion members of the Dock Committee, that the nierchants of the town would-endeavour to engraft on- the bill some clause •to alter the constitution of the Dock-Trusts.- He thought that the trusts should be entirely separate ; bat if not, if a certain number of the COmmon Council were to form a psahr,ti:ifa be the Dock Com mittee, it was highly desirable that they selected oc of the Common Council, not by .themselves, but by the rate payers. His reason for thinking so was, that supposing eight were sent by the Common Council themselves, they would choose men entertaining exactly the same opinions on that important subject, and they all knew with what effect a small united body could act, even against superior number, if those numbers were not united. Cross-examined by.the Town-clerk.—gas been a member of this committee since ISM, • Notwithstanding the dock dues being trouble those of London,- some of the pnncipal merchants of London were sending their ships to Liverpoot Has been, present at manyuf the discussions in the committee, and recol lected an occasion when .the discussions arose 'that a strong feeling was raised in the town., ..He alluded to the appointment of Mr. Bourne as solicitor -to the trust. There were often discussions relative to 'going to Parliament for. a bill, and wit ness was told by several gentlemen that they would see that notwithstanding. the notices, they would never go to Parlia ment, as the trustees would be afraid of the introduction of a clause to alter the constitution of the estate . they were not discussions in committee but amongst committee men. There were no motions made relative to the subject after the notice was given, to witness's knowledge. TheVosiii-elerk : staid that on reit:fence-to the books there did not appear to be any notices on record. liiiiirecollection of either LIVERPOOL STANDAnD. discussions or Motions in the committee on the subject, and he had attended nearly all the committee meetings. The Town-clerk.—You spoke, Mr. Hurnby, of a resolution respecting the progress of the works and about going to Parlia ment. Can you recollect whether a corporation man or a rate payer made that motion? • Mr. Horuby.—No, I cannot say whether the suggestion origi nated With a rate-payer or a Councilman. The oond debt is £l4OO, and is aware that Mr. Hall's bond debt is under .f.:50;X1. Was not aware that there had been any meeting of the bond holders to authorise Mr. Hall to come forward and give an opinion. There are thirteen members 'of the Common Council at the Dock Committee, out of which there are seven merchants and one broker. The distinction between a broker and a merchant is, that the former is a person who sells goods for other people, that are not his own. . Mr. Myers is a merchant, but Mr. Littledale is a broker only. The names of. Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Sandbach, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Lawrence and Sir. John Tobin, are amongst the most ex tensive merchants in the town, but witness knew of merchants in Liverpool more - extensively engaged in mercantile transac tions. 'I hey possessed no privileges excepting the exemption from the town dues. Considered that Sir John Tobin and the other gentlemen named possessed as much interest in the proper .distribution of thefunds of the Dock Estate as any other mer chents in Liverpool. The " marked unanimity "to which wit ness alluded, was displayed on the side of the Corporation ineinhers. He was not aware that there had been any collision since he became a member of the Dock Committee between the Dock Trust and the Corporation, but he thought that if the present constitution existed much longer it might be the case, and his reason for thinking so was, that the town was so remeh increasing, that in a few years more accommodation would be wanted in the docks, and the purchase of land would be a na tural point to lead to such collision. The Corporation pos sessed lauded property to the south, east, north, and west of the docks, and if the present gentlemen continued members of the Common Council, it was natural they would wish to see such works carried as would tend to improve their own property. It was probable in such a case that ho should wish the same. (Laughter.) It it appeared from the report in the possession of Sir John Tobin 'that it Would be advantageous to the mer chants of Liverpool to build docks on the other sid e of t h e river, he thought there would be a disinclination on the part of the Corporation to build them there- s .they would, he thou g ht, prefer gonig north and south ; and his reason for thinking so was strengthened by the Town-clerk, the day before, when he stated that the Corporation had given very great prices for land on the other side of the water, to prevent docks being built there, when others thought the erections would be for the benetitssf the public, and the Town-clerk had stated that if ducks were built there, they would be liable to the Liverpool dues. ToWn-clerk,-4 merely said that that was my opinion, Witueis prat:Oe dl.—lle was -much surprised yeste?aay''ke. heel:" a resolution of the Dock Committee read, at the time - Of the purchase, concurring siith the proceedings of the Common. Council. He was not then a member of the Dock Committee. The Town -cleik said that the original scheme was the specu lation of private individuals, at the head of which,. it appeared, was Sir John Tobin, and - the plan would, without doubt, have been advantageous to them. But if a further extension of dock room was wanted, he - wished to know whether it would be required from the Corporation. - Mr. Hornhy..- 7 -I am not aware of the limits of the Corporation. The Town-clerk.--On what foundation do you build your opinion that collision will ultimately ensue between the Dock Estate and the Corporation ? Mr. Hornby.—lfthe merchants were to go to Parliament for an act to erect docks on the other side of the water, the Corpo ration would endeavour, through a regard to their own inte rests, to prevent it. He thought that the trust ought to be taken out of the hands of the Corporation. The Town-clerk remarked, probably Mr. Hornby wished the trust to be placed in, the hands of those who had no property. It was probable that under a new constitution of the - Dock Trust, the land for future ducks might be wanted from the indi vidual members of the Corporation • but there would then be the check of the merchants and publici opinion upon them; there was none at present, not the slightest, either upon the Common Council or the Dock Committee. The Town-clerk.—Virith regard to "this marked unanimity," Mr. Hornby, which was yesterday termed esprit du corps, did you ever perceive this esprit du corps prevalent amongst the rate-pavers of ,the committee? Mr. Horuby.—l have more f requen tly o b serve d it on the side of the Common Council, who vote nearly always together, with, the exception of one or two, who sometimes vote with the rate payers. One of that body generally votes with the rate-payers. In illustration of the truth of his observation, he need only refer to the meeting held on Saturday week, to consider whether the servants of the Dock Estate should come forward to furnish information to this commission, when . a division arose. The division did not arise upon the question whether they should come forward to give evidence, as that was resolved unani mously; but the discussion and division arose from "the doubt," that the inquiry came within the scope of the commission; viz. whether it. was a municipal corporation or not. The Town-clerk.—Can you . , sir, state, as a member of the Dock Committee, whether any practical inconvenience has arisen to the Dock Trust from the appointnient of Mr. Bourne? Mr. Hornby.—l would rather not allude.to that subject again, as I do not wish to descend to personalities. The Town-clerk pressed the question, and hoped that if he was alluded to, personality ,might not be a bar to arriving at the truth. Mr. Hornhy.—l think that if wo had gone to Parliament, al was intended, we should have found ourselves very much at fault withourthe assistance of the Town-clerk. No application to - Parliament was made; but that is the main business for our solicitor. • . _ _ . . Tile Town-clerk asked Mr. Hornby if he recollected the in tention of 'going to Parliament for an- act to make a dock in Wallasey 1 5- 001. Mr. Hornby said he did not, as he was apt, in the Cpmmon Council, nor then in the.D'ock Committee. The Town-clerk read a resolution of the Dock Committee, dated October 28,183, (a motion'having previously been made and carried in the Com Mon Council for au application to Par liament for an act to Rak docks,e a dock or docks, in Wnll4s9.- Pool. ),to the effect Oaf there was sufficient accommodation in the docks, and the Dock Committee did not concur in applying for the act. This resolution was carried by a majority of nine to five, there being five rate-payers and four Common COuncil men in the majority, and the minority was composed of five Common Councilmen. The Town-Clerk said, that the then intended new docks Wore to have been placed under the control of the Dock Committee. The Town-clerk inquired if Mr. Hornby was not one of the gentlemen at present' contesting the right of: the Common Coun cil to the town dues ? _ . • . • . Mr. llornby replied that ho was. • . . Mr. Comm►ssioner.Wilkinson asked Mr. Hornby whether the reason of there being no division on. the.subject of . going to Parliament for power to borrow the £200,000, previously alluded to, was, that they were aware that if such motion were made it would have been lost, from the majority of the Conimon Coun cil committeemen ? Mr. Horttby replied that it was the reason no motion wa3 made. . • . Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson.—Did I also understand you to state, that if you had had occasion to go to Parliament you would have been necessitated to have called in the aid of- Mr. Foster _ _ _ - Mr. Hornby.—lf an act,had been applied.for,it would have been necessary to have called in the assistance of a more expe rienced man than Mr. Bonnie. On • that gentleman being appointed, the Town-clerk sent a letter to the Dock Committee, stating his readiness to. assist his successor; but, in the case alluded to, I think the assistance of the Town-clerk would have been dispensed with. The Town-clerk.—Had you required my assistance you could not have had it. 111 r. Commissioner Wilkinson.—You have spoken your opi nion,-Mr. Horuby, relative to the reason why a specific motion was not made in the committee on one case; will the same reason apply to any other motions ? Mr. Hornhy.—Aly, impression is, that other motions would have been made but for the reason stated ; and I have heard that a motion would have been made regarding the conduct of the harbour-master, but it was understood that he had a majority in his favour. Sir George Drinkwater was known to be a staunch friend of his. Sir George Drinkwater here remarked, that he believed Mr. Askew was one of the best servants in the trust. Mr. Hornby here said;that even in minor matters it was seen what preference was given to the Corporation. If a vacancy occurred for a servant to the estate, the candidates thrust cards into the hands of the voters, with " Free Burgess" printed on them. The Town-clerk.—Pray, sir, can you say, during the time you have been a member of the Dock Committee, that the question was ever asked of a candidate whether he was a bur gess or not? Mr. Hornhy replied, that it was always known before hand, consequently, there was no occasion to ask the question. • The Town-clerk remarked, not even if it were so; he thoueht that a townsman should always have the preference. In liis votes he had invariably given them the preference, and always. should. (Applause.) - Mr. Hornby remarked that he had lived and carried on busi ness in Liverpool for twenty years, and might be considered a foreigner, The Town-clerk feared that was Mr. Hopby's present grievanee. (Hear;) Mr. Alderman John - Bourne said, that he called to his recollection.the time when it was proposed to go to Parliament relative to the 000,000, and that there was no discussion on the subject in the committee_ Sir .George Drinkwater corroborated Mr. Bourne in his statement. _ _ Mr. Myers said, that he had never heard the reason Why the proposed-bill to Parliament was not proceeded. with. 110 thought it was the duty of the solicitor to the estate to, ask the pleasure of the committee respecting the bill. The-Solicitor said he had never received instructions to pre, pare a bill. Sir George Drinkwater was of opinion that at the time the bill was projected, Mr. Myers - voteu in the committee that the surplus on hand was enough without getting more money, and that he (Sir George) seconded the motion. (Laughter.) Mr. *Radcliffe informed the commission that Mr. William Foster and himself had arranged that several points should he admitted in order to facilitate the business of the court, and abridge the inquiry, therefore, they did not intend to offer any more evidence to-day on the Dock Trust, but the inquiry into the estate would be resumed at twelve o'clock on Monday, and then concluded. Mr. Radcliffe. wished the Town-clerk to ex plain the duties of the Finance Committee. The Town-clerk was not aware that the Finance Committee had any definite. duties; they were under the control of the Common Council, and performed those duties which that body directed them to do. Every gentleman, after becoming mayor, beCame a member of the Finance Committee and remained a • member. It was at present composed of eighteen or nineteen. Eight of the thirteen of the Dock Committee were members. Mr. Lawrence is not a member; he resigned on being elected chairman of the Dock Committee. Mr. Case, the treasurer, at. the request of Sir John Tobin, and at the pleasure of the commissioners, here read a report of Messrs. Telford, Nimmo, and Stephenson, the engineers, of their survey of the land intended to have formed the new ports previously alluded to; the reading of the report occupied half au hour, and consequently, its lengthened details preclude the p_ossibility of our giving it insertion, or even an a b stract o f i t . The cost of forming the docks and pool at Wallasey, from this report, was estimated at £1,400,948. The commissioners expressed a wish to be furnished with the maps and charts alluded to in the report, which Sir John To bin. promised to furnish. The commissioners inquired what business Mr. Laird, the gentleman alluded to yesterday, was ? Sir John replied that at the time of the purchase in question he was a steam-boiler maker, and also a large landed proprietor. Does not know whether he made the purchase in Cheshire on speculation or not, but no doubt it was to amend his fortune. The Town-clerk, in allusion to the subject of the dock soli citor, begged to inform the commissioners that the Dock Com mittee had, from time to time, appidated their own solicitors. The acts of IM and 1813 were in Itched by a gentleman who was not solicitor to the Dock Estate, viz., Mr. Hutchinson, of London, who was recommended to the Dock Committee by Mr. John Gladstone. Mr. Duncan said that those acts Were passed before the power wal given to the audit commissioners to appoint a solicitor, prior to the act of 1825. The Town-clerk observed that the power of the commission era to appoint a solicitor . was for jury trials and no other pur pose. Mr. Duncan stated that the evidence on the question of the Dock rrust bad bean all gone through except the examination of Mr. Leathoin ; which would take place on Monday: Mr. Alderman Lawrence regretted that Mr. Duncan had not called Mr. Jesse Hartley, the surveyor, as that gentleman had been in attendance for some days for that purpose. It was highly complimentary to Mr. Hartley, that although ±:1,1)0,00J or £1,500,000 had passed through his hands, the committee had had no occasion to question or find fault with him. Mr. Duncan replied that he did not know a inure deserving man in the trust than Mr. Bartley, who was respected by both the Council and the rate-payers for the uprightness of his con duct. He .would put one or two questions to Mr. Hartley. Was there nut a discussion as to the most advisable means of building the docks, whetherthey should have been carried along shore or further inland? Mr. Hartley never heard it wished that the docks should have been carried any where but where they . were. Does not think that any ►nure dock space will be wanting in his life-time. The introduction of steam navigation had increased the dock space. If further dock room was wanted, it was his (witness's) opinion that they should be built as near the Exchange as possible, and on the same level as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. Had never heard of such a plan being discussed in the committee. The level of the river and the canal was thirty feet. Mr. Duncan asked the witness if by such a plan the expense of a sea wall would be saved ?—The witness said it would. Mr. Holmes, the builder, asked the witness if it was not better, considering the rising of the sea, to take the docks north and south than inland ? Mr. Hartley replied that he had no fault to find with their present structure. Mr. Holmes remarked that the building . of docks at the north and south ends of the town had greatly increased the value of property in those situations. Mr. Thomas Bolton, of the firm of Bolton, Ogden, and Co., here rose, and addressing the commissioners, stated, in the ab sence of a gentleman, (Mr. Lowe) who, in consequence of hav ing to - leave town,. could not come forward to give evidence until Monday, that he begged leave to offer a few remarks in evi dence, of importance to the inquiry. The point upon which Mr. Lowe had more particularly to speak, was respecting a petition which had been sent to the House of Commons from the bankers, merchants, and householders of Liverpool, against the corporate system f the borough, which Mr. Lowe would take an opportunity of doing. With regard to himself, (Mr. Bolton) the commissioners would oblige him by recording that he was a British-born subject, and had carried on business as a merchant in Liverpool for a period of thirty years, during which time he had contributed largely to the corporate revenue. He had sons and grandsons born within_ the borough, laotwitlistandlng which' the 'three generations of them were designated foreigners. He complained with others, that he was capriciously and unrea sonably taxed in town dues, for which he received no considera tion. loreigpers, as they were called, occupied much of the' property in the borough, and contributed at least three fourths of the public taxes. He further complained that the affairs of the Corporation were Managed by a self-elected and family-connected Continua Council, whose expenditure was profuse and without control, not in accordance with the reasonable and just claims of the community, but for, the advantage of one party in politics and one sect in religion; in fact, for the - benefit of the few, to the injury of the many. In corroboration of these views' he had extracted from the accounts of the Corporation some few particulars. Mr. Bolton here handed a statement of the Corporation expenditure, which he read. The various statements it cou tained respecting the income and expenditure of the Corpora tion have previously appeared in the evidence of the treasurer. The witness here stated, with reference to a petition he held in his hand, that, since the repeal of the test and corporation acts, and the passingof the Catholic relief bill, not one Dissenter or Catholic had been appointed to the Common Council. The Catholics, forming a fourth of the whole population of Liver pool—the- other dissenters being five-sixteenths—so that nine out of every sixteen persons in the town were Catholics or Dis senters. 'the MayOr and council were self-elected, bribery and corruption having frequently taken place. The commissioners. said they thould be glad to receive every information regarding the elections for Mayor. Some person, whose name was said to be'Kcat, here - called out from the gallery that he had seen a placard in the - King'i Arms, offering £lO for a vote for the Mayor. Mr. Bolton said, in the contest of 1827, for Mayor, he saw a placard at Prescot, offering £lOO for a tally of ten votes for the Mayor. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson.—Were they printed placards to which you allude ? Mr. Boltou.—No; written ones. Examination resumed.—ls sure that there is much bribery at the contests for Mayor. The next complaint was, that the Common Council had the power of making burgesses without control. Thinks the practice of making them for election pun poses had lung since ceased : it was on record that such had been the case. The next complaint was of the lavish expenditure on public works, without control. That to several wealthyotlices under the Corporation they appointed members of their own body. That the practice of selling - the freedom was abolished. That the exemption from town dues, enjoyed by freemen, fell heavily upon non-burgesses, many of whom were merchants, paying heavy dues; that the toils were uncertain and variable, partial in - operation and oppressive in amount. [He stated various instances in support of this allegation.] One was a box of gold, value £lO,OOO, paid one penny town dues; a box of bran, or any thing equally worthless, paid at the same rate. Some forty years ago, some person -imported a lot of cows from Ireland, and as " cows" were not in the brass schedule of dues then hanging up in the Custom-house, he refused to pay the town. dues upon them ;. but the collector said that although " cows" were not mentioned, " cow hides" were, and that as cows could not be imported without their hides, the dues must .be paid on them. Ile seized the cattle and the dues were paid.. 'that previous to 1708, when the first 'dock act .was passed, the' Corporation found all accommodation for ships, alleging that the dues had been granted for that ptirpose. Since then, heavy dues had been imposed, and the docks built and re _paired h Dia_Doeli-Trust, and not by the Corporatiou.—That the Corporation still exact the dues, and appropriate the income to foreign purposes. That Bolton, Ogden, and Co: pllll up wards of i:600. a-year for town dues, without receiving any con sideration therefibm. That several other merchants pay each from £5OO to £l,OOO for town dues; while others, being free men and exempt from the dues, save everal hundreds a-year by such exemption. Sir John Tobin, Mr. Thos. Tobin, Horsfall, and. the family of the Bonrnes, were "among these. In the. Year. 1775, the late Mr. Cornelius Bourne pur chased his freeilion. For many years after, he and his sons ,were considerable importers from the Baltic; and it is reported that the sum of .1..:-10,000 had been saved by such -exemptions. Does not think such a sum has been saved, but, without doubt, to the amount of Many thousands. That the dues should 'be' paid by all classes, without exemption. That there should be' equal rates paid by equal persons. The petition concluded with a prayer for telief—that householders be enfranchised— that the Mayor and Common Council should be popularly elected by all who may vote for members of Parliament. and for a limited period. ln the prayer of this petition witness .cor dially concurred. Mr..Hornby said, that with a view of showing the unequal pressure of the dues on various - articles, he would mention a few facts. For the last ten years his house had paid - town dues (principally on tallow and salt,) to a large extent. Its 1823-4 they paid £1,413 7s. Bd, about £l,OOO of which was on tallow, -there being 35.-91. paid for that; while for an equal quantity of sugar the sum of 3d. was paid. Addressed a menu:alai to the council, who reduced the duty two-thirds. The whole town does paid by witness within the last ten years was £7,219, of which £5,367 I is. SI was paid for goods on their own account, -and not on commission. Signed the petition referred to by last wittiess, and believed every word of it to be true. Mr. Bourne stated that he had been concerned in the salt trade for 24 years, and the annual average saving in conse quence of his exemption was only In Ifs. fsxd. In regard to shipments of salt for the Prussian goyernmeat, his house in variably paid the town dues. Mr. Bolton said the belief was that Mr. Bourne' had saved 'many thousands, and that also by shipping salt to foreign ports he' had further evaded the duty. Mr. Bourne said that he had never done anything of the sort. The Town-clerk asked the commissioners which was the most convenient course to them for the Corporation to answer the allegations of Mr. Bolton ? The Commissioners thought that a day had better be fixed for that purpose, after all the witnesses on Mr. Bolton's view of the question had been examined. The Town-clerk replied that he should consequently defer cross-exantining Mr: Bolton until that time. The Court now adjourned until Monday. . TILIRTIIENTH DAY. It was understood that this day (Monday) the inquiry into the town dues question would take place, and the court ap peared rather more crowded than on the previous days. The commissioners entered the court about halt-past ten. Mr. James - Lowe solicitor to Bolton, Ogden, and Co., being sw o re; stated that he had been a solicitor in Liverpool for about seventeen years. He begged to. state that he.was one of the per sons who signed the petition against.the pre,sent constitution of the Corporation, alluded to by Mr. Bolton on Saturday, all the allegations in which he believed to be strictly and correctly true, and he cordially concurred in its prayer. He wished to draw the attentian of the.commissiouers to two of the allega tions in that petition, which he, thought bad, been lost sight of by the Town-clerk. One of the allegations to which he alluded, was that which .stated that the Common Council had fur many. years assumed to. themselves all the .power in the borough, that they had taken to themselves the power of making appointments and bye laws, which he, as well as other bur gasses, believed legally to rest with the burgesses at large in common hall assembled, and Yet the Corporation had ceased to hold a common hall since th . e year '1791. The other allega tion was the disputed right of the Corporation to town dues. The petition on the subject was signed by freemen as well as non-freemen, and "its- wording was originally in much stronger language than the petition adopted. It had stated that the claim of the Corporation to town dues was an usurpation on the part of the Corporation; but as the freemen did not like to sign that, those words were struck out, although it Was his (Mr. Lowe's) opinion that the claim was an usurpation. lie referred to the charter granted by King John, which the Town-clerk had put iu as the, first charter granted to the town of Liverpool. The Town-clerk said that he did not produce it as the first charter granted. Mr. Lowe continued.—They had it not, however, iu evidence that there was a previous charter. The commissioners had not been furnished. with copies of-the charters, otherwise they might have disco vere d t h at Li ver p oo l was n o t a C orpora ti on by pre scription, which, until the late trial in London respecting the town dues, it had always been asserted by the. Common Council to be. The charter having been produced before then', he would take the liberty of stating what the charter was. It was dated the . 28th of August, 1207, being the 9th of King John. It re .eoitated no previous charter having been granted to Liverpool. In the charter of John, Liverpool was named as Liverpool; but it was nowhere to he found in Doomsday -book, which was a cu rions fact, although Everton, Walton, and the surrounding parishes were particularly named in this book. In answer to a bill filed by Messrs. Bolton, Ogden, and Company, it was, however, stated to be on l au d - between- the Ribble and the Mersey. King John's appeared. to be the first charter; the next was granted by Henry 111, in the 13th year of his reign, and dated the 2-lilt of March, 1229, and this Charter in express terms created Liverpool a free borough, and there were no words in that charter that showed the town pos sessed any anterior privileges except those derived from Kin g John. There were no extraordinary powers given in this char ter, although he conscientiously believed it was the origin of the town dues. In this charter power was given to have a. auild Merchant, and there was a clause that no one who did not belong . to that Guild should make merchandise in the . borough without permission of the merchants. In the same year it appeared that the Liverpool burgesses took a lease - from the Crown for four years of the town and lordship of Liverpool, which previously formed a portion of the possessions of the Duchy of Lancaster. The next charter was granted by Edward VI., and dated 1331, and was a confirmative of the charters of Henry and John, and nothing more.: The next charter was the sth of Richard 11., which they (the commissioners) ought to have a copy of. That charter was a confirmation of the charters of John, Edward, and Henry, with the exception of excluding that clause which gave power to the merchants of preventing those from carrying on btAino.ss who did not belong tot a ' then taken away from them. The next charter was the Ist of Henry I V., dated 1400. which continued the charter of Edw. 111., but taking no notice of Richard H.'s charter. The next charter was the 2,1 of Phillip and Mary, dated 1656, when a record of the proceedings of the Corporation commenced. That charter recited Richard 11. in full, and confirmed it, excepting the clause before alluded to. He should have occasion to refer to various extracts in the Corporation books, relative to the charters of Philip and Mary, from which they (the commissioners) would see that the Corporation had lost sight of the clause which was so taken away, and they, notwithstanding, continued at that period to prevent persons from trading in the town • for it appeared by docume n t s ; th a t one ma n was charged £4O for selling a quan tity of iron; and even persons could not come to the town with a herri ng vessel without paying the dues, nor brew his ale with out Paying a similar tax. These were the particulars in the charters which Mr. Foster had stated would be more amusing than interestiug; but he (Mr. Lowe) thought they were more interesting than amusing, as they showed the root of the dues of which they complained. In noue of the charters which had been produced was it shown that there were directions for the formation of a Common Council. Thus matters stood until 1626, between which tune and Philip and Mary's charter the burgesses exercised, in Common Hall, the control over those matters which the Common Council, for many years past, had had the exclusive privilege of doing. The Common Hall ap pointed officers, audited accounts, made bye laws, and, in tact, did everything relating to the affairs of the borough, which the Common Council had of late years assumed to themselves the exclusive privilege of doing. The Town-cleik here rose, and begged to state that he was instructed by the Commou Council to furnish the commis , siouers with every possible information respecting the existing state of the Liverpool Corporation; but if they proceeded any further in the day's inquiry, he wished to ask Mr. Lowe if he was not the solicitor employed by Messrs. Bolton, Ogden, and Co. to try their right of exemption to the town dues. Mr. Lowe.--I am; but Ido not appear here as their attorney. The .Town-clerk.—Is the trial determined ? Mr. Lowe. --It is not. The Town-clerk then addressed the commissioners, stating that he had to inform them that be had instructions from the Common Council to refrain from going into an exposure of their affairs on the subject of the town dues, and he did,*on be half of that body, protest against any further proceedings in the inquiry relative to the title of the Corporation to the receipt of the town dues; and with every respect which he entertained for the functions of the commission under which the commis sioners sat, he begged to inform them that he should decline making any answer whatever to any . statements Mr. Lowe might think proper to make on a - subject which was at that moment under judicial investigation, nor shiretd - tie, iu the'ais charge of the daty imposed upon him, produce one document, of any entry in the books of the Corporatiou, which applied to the question of right to the town dues. He h e ld i n hi s h an d t h e p r i n t e d list with which the commissioners had furnished him, wherein the documents which they required were specified, all ot which he had procured, and he had produced before them the charters, the titles, and a copy of the governing charter, with the dates of all the charters of the Corporation, together with other iu formation appertaining to the Corporation, which they had required. He hoped they would receive the protest against entering upon a subject now under judicial investigation from him, as only di sc h arg i ng his duty; and he t rus t e d they would receive it in that way. He should take no part whatever iu the proceedings; but if he did remain in court, it would merely be out. of respect to them, (the comuaissioners,) or like any other spectator. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said that, so far as Mr.. Foster had been concerned in furnishiug information, his demeanour towards them had been perfectly gentlemanly and respectful; and by his objecting to produce the books and documents rela tive to the toe - n -dues, they supposed he was acting under in structions, and in the discharge of his duty as an attorney. The Town-clerk, as a concluding remark, begged to say that, on the trial of the town-dues'- question between the Corpora. tion and Bolton, Ogden, and Co., the counsel for that firm did not call a single witness, nor produce a single document, in reply to the case of the Corporation. Mr. Lowe repeated what he had before stated, that he was the solicitor of Mr. Bolton, but he did not appear before the com missioners in that capacity nor as the attorney of any person, nor did he e xp ec t to be paid by any one ; ha came forward to be examinee, which he thought he was right in doing, not withstanding the protest of the Town-clerk. - ile-thought that the Government should know how the matters of the Corpora tion were managed in Liverpool; Quo if it could be shown that the Corporation had no title to the town-dues, they were not entitled to receive them. He could not help Mr. Foster's refu • sal to allow extracts to be made from the books of the Corpora tion, and he, would endeavour b furnish, without them, as much information as he could. Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson rernarked, that as the Corpo ration books were withheld from them, he should be happy to receive information from Mr. Lowe le the absence ot those i books. Mr. Lowe Said, the Corporation books would show that, et a Common Hell, the burgesses had thought proper to depute a body, sometimes consisting of twelve, and .:other times con sisting of s i x t een ' and ASventv-five, or larger numbers, to act for the burgesses at large; aud. that, in liaison's mayor- . alty, fifty-sit persons were deputed by the liiirgeeseS in Com mon Ilalt to act in various matters connected with their rights. Th'e charter of Charles I. was the first charter of incorpo ration, and. gave the title of the Mayor, Bailiffs, and But gesses of the town of Liverpool. The Town - clerk bad read a part -of th e c h arter of King William, and he (Mr. Lowe) a portion of that 'of Charles I. After -iee.orporating the town hy the above title, it gave pow e r to the May or and iitiroexees in common hall, to make fro m ti m e to time all reasonable laws whi ch should seam to the May holiest and discreet for the, good governthent of the town, so as they were not an infringe ment of the rights and Laws of the kingdom. In that charter of Charles I. no mention was made of the Common Council. In a trial with Mr. Golightly, in 1626, on the subject of the bye laws, • the judges seemed - inclihed to misconstrue the meaning of the charter, and read it the Mayor, Burggases, and .Colonli2U Council, but there were no words alluding to the Common Coun cil. In 1627, a year after the charter of Charles, the burgesses met in common-hall as ther e was an en t ry t o th a t e ff ec t in the Cor poration books, and they, by a bye law, appointed fifty-six per sons to he a . Common council, with power to superintend and direct all the corporate affairs, which had before been vested in the whole body. It appeared by the Common Council batiks, that these gentlemen, so appointed, awl their successors , conti nued to ex erc i se all those matters which had been expressly given in the charte r of Charles I. to all the burgesses in hall assembled. In 1676, in the reign of. Charles IL, it appeared desirable that the duties of the Cords - non Council should - be r ecognized by charter, and - the only privileges which thehurgesses then posses sed, namely; those ot electiug Mayorand bail MS, should be taken away f rom them, and, accordingly, Charles 11., by a charter, da ted 1776, appointed sixty persous to be a Common Council, with power to th ir t y o f that number, exclusive of the Mayor aud baildls„ to elect the Mayor awl bailiffs, and to create freemen, t bus con centrating the whole corporate power in the Common Council, snaking a self-elected body, which they had continued to he up to the p resent day, only in SU3aller plumbers. The charter of Charles IL did not apply to that of Charles 1., and in 1681 . Judge Jeffries required that that charter should tie delivered up for the use o f his Majesty', and it "s e s " . ho the same geutleinios wh o procured the second charter applied Jaiues IL for a charter upon the model of the second one, but extend ing the number of Connonn Councilmen t 0.61, exclusive of the Mayor and bailiffs, and the only difference between the two charters w as t h at the King took to himself the power of remov ing all ob nox i ous officers. James ll.'s charter recited a sur render by the b urgesses of al l t h e i r p r i v il eg es, a n d it directed that all vacanci ei by death or removal Should be filled up by such persons as were thought fit, and in such man ner as had been the previous custom, which was similar in its wording to King William's charter. King James did exercise Um power of the removal of obnoxious ofii cers, and immediately on his abdicatiOn the Corporation disavowed his charter, and obtained an exemplification of the charter of Charles the 11. This was in Itß3, lino matters stood in this way until 1695, when the burgesses who had been excluded by Ch arles Il.'s charter, applied to King William to annul the cha r t er of Charles 11., and the charter was obtained under Which the Corporation now acted. The chat ter of William. after reeiting the charter of Charles 1. stated that it appeared by a combination or burgesses they had procured a Clew charter of Charles li., which h a d cause d man y doubts on the question of the town government, and this charter went. on to say, that there should lie a Common Council of 41 members; but the charter of Willi am geve no p o wer to the Common Council to snake bye law s, although. it gave them the power of electing Bailiffs and other minor officers. It did not contain a clause that the Mayor, B a iliff s, and burgesses or any 25 of them, should in Comnien Commit trausact all those matters of the Corpo ration in a similar manner to the 41 alluded to. - There was a further clause that, if it s h ou ld h ap p e n that the Recorder or Mayor should die, or either refuse to stand,. other fit persons should , be elected in like manner as before the charter of Charles 11, It then became a matter of inquiry as to what were the usages:prior to the charter of Charles 11. This charter was obtained after the then members of the Con - noon Council had resisted its being obtained, and the cost of the resistance was to be at the town's charge. From 1695 to the present period, with only two exceptions, there been no common hall. One occasion was in the mayoralty of the Earl of Derby, in 1735, at mud prior to which period there had been diseuesions as to the tights of the Curporafion, and various bye laws were made at that period. His lordship died the following year, and _at his death his lordship's conduct a nd t h at o f t he Burgesses was stigmatized as illegal, and contrary to the charter and immemorial usage. Some doubts, howeviSr, were entertained of what wae a the immemorial usage, and, on referriug to the charter of King John,' it did not appear that the Corporation possessed the privileges it was thought they did. The next common hall was in the mayoralty of Mr. Sperling, which ap peared to have been called at the request of 1000 freemen, being two-thirds of the freemen, as appeared by the Corporation books. Mr. Sparliug, in calling the hall on this occasion, had taken ' the opinion of counsel on the: subject, and found that at the call of so many freemen he was bound to convene a Common Bail. At that hall' they abrogated all bye laws and appointments ma de by the Common Council. Mr. Golightly, the then trea surer of the Corporation, had au action commenced against him for the penalty of 40 - s. for not making up his accounts in the time directed be this Common Ball, which was tried by Mr. Baron Thompson, and a verdict was given fo r the bur gesses; the trial was subsequently r emoved to London, and twice sent dow n again to Lancaster, and ultimately dropped through want of money by the plaintiffs. From li9l to. the present period there had been no Mayor or bai liff who had called a Common Hall, although repeated ap plications had been made at different times .to cull one. Mr. Lowe then cited several other cases-• to show that the power of governing the borough was vested in the Mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses at large, and then referred to the subject of the right of exacting the town-dues, and said; that the free dom of the borough, tito 1720, was to be p rocure d b y pur chase, at price s var ying born 40s. to £5O, hut that now tio; free.: dom was only obtained by mechanics and othera, by servitude, &c., who h a d no interest in mercantile affairs. Ile also alluded to the great sums of money paid in the shape of town-dues by Messrs. Bolton and Co., and other extensive merchants, and said, that those imposts would never be taken off whilst the merchants were able to pay them, and by paving them they were unable to compete with merchants who eisjoyed the free dom of the borough, in consequence of the capricious amounts of the dues, and being taxed upon m a ny o f th eir i m p or ted arti cles to the amount often per cent., andthat the freedom of the borough was not only a valuable boon, but a fortune to a mer chant, by exempting him from the dues. He hoped to be able to show, that the dues were nothing but a Corporate usurpa tion, and that the title set up in London at the trial was the mere invention of the late Town-clerk and his counsel, in 1831. • He then referred to the opinion of Mr. Henry Brown, the late law-clerk of the Corporation, in support of his opinion, and proceeded to go th roug h the w h o l e o f the do c u men t s in_ support of his view of the case, as produced at the trial in London,. which were very voluminous and uninteresting. He also stated, that by purchase of freedom in London, and residing there, a merchant was free from dues, but at the same time he was liable to serve the office of sheriff, and one Liverpool gentleman, who had a residence in both places, had served the office of sheriff ; and another had paid the penalty of £5OO for not serving. It being now three o'clock, and the large piles of papers heaped before Mr. Lowe not being half gone through, the commissioner intimated a desire to adjourn until the morning, when Mrs Lowe could proceed with hie evidence. ' t led to prosecute .an inquiry. into t! e Atrairi. of be ‘Featoco's Hospital ;if so, he iihutiAu glad kvw .the time they posed doing so, in order to give notie... to the Tnsstecs? Arr. Wilkinson asked whether the subject was connected with the Corporation The Town-clerk replied that the only way the Corpiration were connected with it was,- that they held fluids of the hospital, upon which an interest of five per -cent was allowed. Mr. Wilkinson said that he did not think that the hospi;al came within scope of the conitois4. , ion and adjoaraed the- court until ten o'clock this . THE BRITISH MAGAZINE, Mt RI 1.1. AND CU., LON With the hope that there is still amoug us a large por tion of Eng a h readers who possoss genuine English. fcelincrs, we recommend The 13 ritidt Magazine for No vember as a periodical containing an exceitent variety of matter respecting. the . Church of England, and religious subjects general)v to Which, indeed, its pages are exclu sively devoted. - • The leading article in this number is entitled " Old times compared with the :.resent," Which thus dispose-s of .modern discoreries : in twirals and rcligi!,n : The most eyes, however, the strongest hings. and the most voices, are very false measures of the truth : and there are some strange sceptics on these subjects, who. in the midst of the ge neral strife of tongues ; are tempted to ionise, whether reelis, ou the whole, we are going back wards or fOrwards. T o those never look back, every - thing that :::eitts is a novelty; every objection brought forwarct appears a dEseoverv, every improve meat suggested, livery reform agitated, has the charm of being new. But to those who do so, who are in the habit of observing what has been in human, action, these same things ate, for tho most part, exceedingly old. lam one of those pi:table p ersons who spend most of my time in thus looking baek, for one plaits reason—because I have no means of looking forward without it; I have no means of judging what-will be, but by analogy front what has been ; and sure I am, that there is to be collected from the scenes of olden time a more faithful picture of our age, and its tendencies, than the keenest modern prophets'ean dis cern by pure anticipation. Reserving then to the times in which we live a character which none will deny them—that. of being distinguished beyond all others by the multittide and va riety of mechanical and scientific inventions and improVernents, —I shall contend that in other matters of m ore abiling interest and importance to mankind, which concern us as reasonable and immortal beings, we are neither much wiser nor much bet • ter than our fathers; that there is little, for instance, in divinity which has not been better said centuries ago; and little in mo ral philosophy which is not aittiq - nity diluted ;—that the disco veries which are being made in religion and morality—the mon strous disunion of the two—the variety Which an author on church reforielas found in the one, and the convenient loop holes which are daily opened in the other, are, after all, very old, and are only so many absurdities into which the human. mind is sure to fall-wheneverit sets out on such excursions. • - On the boasted march of intellect anti universal dausion of knowledge, we find the following observations : The universal spread' of intelligence amongst all ranks is a favourite cant phrase of the day ; and rightly enough, by the way, is it, called a spread, confined us it is to a surface. There is a certain smattering of tiimsy observations prevalent over the whole surface of society, a .number.of crude notions floating over the surface of men's winds, and wen skim over the surface of much miscellaneous" information; but real mutual collision of minds, and real individual depth of thought, and real sound knowledge of .any subject, are confined to comparatively very few, and to the intercourse of those who are comparatively little heard or thought of. All, it. is true, can talk on almost any given subject, but very few can do so to any purpose. Men have fin time and no power to know every thing, and seek for information from abridgments and sketches; and with these they are plentifully supplied. They are fed to the full with pamphlets and penny compendiums of knowledge which spare them the trouble of thinking for themselves, and from which they neither wish nor are able to draw any other inference Viten that which has been already drawn for them • - hence, though entirely at the mercy of the shallowest,- the- wickedest, and the most designing, they imagine themselves to be tit judges of all things. Dr. Johnson says, in his Idler, "that it is commonly observed of ill-governed states, that they have many laws," and parallels the remark with another; " that he knows not whether it be, not equally true of an ignorant age, that it has many books." ft is a remark less palatable, perhaps, than .trne,'tif the age of which we - are speaking and our own. , Men then, as now, appeared, it would seem, to know- very much, but really knew very little; it was the commencement of a pamphleteer ing age, particularly on matters of icligion and church govern meut, and the common people, who are, of - course. always the executive in public movetneuts, began to• conceive them;elvee, on the authority of the " Martin Mar-Prelates" of the day, to have the full powers of deliberation also.. And is it not even. so now, in the present wild state of private judgment, just as when e men swelled and intoxicated themselves in its first free exercise? Wilt .not an unseriptural and fanatical tract or pamphlet turn more heads giddy and brain sick, than the whale clear current of precedent and the collected wisdom of all ages can cure? We wise ones then have yet to learn that this petite for any thin:;; and every thing, is, after all, either a child ish or a pampered appetite ; that we ought no snore to be fed upon cheap compendiums of religion and learning of all soils, than a child, because it fancies it Can eat it, should be fed upon confectionery.; and that, as life, at, longest, is so much t saor.er than any one department of knowledge, the powers of men-tad digestion battler better he concentrated upon the plain identity of a wholesome folio, than- dissipated and weakened upon nil sorts of heterogeneous trash and made dishes. And now let me introduce 'mak Walton's- "ingenious Italian," who sneered at England as-it Was, and would have eneered ten times more.at it as it is. The letter Which he "writ scoffingly to his friend" abroad, might be v. ritten as - stArertgly now With justices, and realty could have but little added to it " That the conaodpeeple of Englund were wiser than th e wisest of--his nation'; for that here the very women and shop.- - keepers avert able to judge of predestination, and to deteratiue . what laws Were fit to be wade for church government, and these what were fit to be obeyed or abolished. f hat they were more able, or at least thougfit so, to raise and determine. perplexed cases of conscience, than the most learned colleges in Italv. That men of the slightest learning, and the most ignorant of the common people, were mad for a new, a super, or re-reformation of religion ; and that, in this, they appeared like that man who would never cease to Whet and whet-his knife till there was no steel left to make it useful; and that those very men that were most busy in oppositions, - and disputatious, and coutrovereies, and finding out the faults of their governors, had, usually, the least of humility and mortification, or of the power of godli ness." There was, moreover, an admirable use 'tnade:of this spread of information, as an instrument of unlimited private judgraeut t . It was used to thwart the good effect which men should . 'derive from the pinching of the gospel. Bishop Sauderson, in one of his sermons, alludes to this, in terms not unlike those already quoted—" that learning, in his days, abounded even unto wan tonness; that most of the people, very women and all, could look through the ignorance of a clergyman; and ace if he were not pOintivise mall that he said." It was an admonition made fur the best of purposes—to warn the younger clergy against coutenting themeelves with :thy mediocrity of spiritual gifts; bat we may fairly infer from this; that men went to",church, much as they are apt to go now, not as hearers, but as judges; and that not only they could, hut that they would, whether they truly could or out, act as'such ; that it was a rhurch-going age, and that the reason why so few fruits of this said chili-eh-going were discoverable in the temper of the- times, was, that men went not as to the house of prayer, but to the house otpreacb ine;• and this with a viniv rather of criticising the preacher, than of bearing him in Christ's stead; and thus were, es Her- , bert quaintly illustrated such a case to his good neighbour, "sermon-hearers, like those fishes which - live in saltwater and vet are always fresh." All this, again, it is clear, is unquet iionahly true of that church-going age in which we live. The ' government, the liturgy, and the revenues of the church, were assailed on all hands, and the church continually wouuded, as now, through the sides of the clergy. Every fault, in every in dividual, was sedulously singled out, end wade to serve the per pose of a rhetorical inauction against the whole establishment.' There were those then, as there are now, (no matter to which of the classes of revolutionists above-mentioned they belonged, or 'in which, more than . the oth e rs, th e y a re to . be found - now,) enough that there were, and ate, those "who exclaimed ageinst abuses in the church, in ord er t o carr y their corrupt dealirt e es tit the civil state More covertly, taking advantage of this charac teristic of the multitude; that', if their liking cr dislike can be directed towards any one object, many others may, in the n.ean time, escaped unperceived." flow touch more then, when that one object selected is that which is usually best and dearest of all ! For my part, whenever I can divest myself of fear that we are,_ as a nation, beceming -rapidly apostate, ceunot help cherishing the notion, that the very hatred manifested against the church is the very best proof or her real importance to our - happiuess, and that Ate country, in its state of fever and deli rium, thrusts her from it because, in its health, it must ever love her most. At all events, the words quoted on this head arc a tolerable correct description of that policy which has produced. this irritation, and diverted-it upon the church. But further, - there were those who,•in language- current again note through every.part of society, (even amongst mien who are very farfroai - being, perceptibly to themselves, enemies- to the church uir its , ministers,) sought e seys the shrewd George Crummier, 4 .t.tte dis grace the clergy by entertaining a conceit in men's minds, tied confirming it continually by practitC - . — That men of learning, and especially of theetlergy, which tare employed in the chiefeat kind of learning, are not. to Ise a d m it te d to M a il ers of state;-- contrary," he continues, " to the_prectice of it'd well-governed.'• commou wealths, and. of o ur . own till these late Years." These were the Seed. of that police wh ic h no t veil; mane years -after ejected the bishops (tom th . eit seats in the House r;f Lords, and are now again sown, and again rip en i ng towards . the sante happy consuennatit iti . Tlee prieciphe too, is carried to a strange length amidst the 'he's exeited ranks of society i • it is made to tie the tougua e o f th e c l erev, as igueramuses - andbieces, on sub.- jects which most vitally concern ielieion, and or which the mob are, in the mean time, allowed to be more competent,.becauee ' they are inclined to show themselyee moreefilcieet judges ; so , that religi on i s t o be imidiouslY cemplimennel eat of the world, and Christian considerations looked upon as "exceedingly well in. their way," an long as they . caube kept within certain - limits, and eau h e m ade to quarter in and out without running • awkwardly against tl,e hidden and crooked policies states men, or prograting the sovereignty of the. pcop;e! It is to be regretted that our periodical literature cannot boast of a greater number of works of this description, sent forth at a pt ice sutficientlylow to circulate with those of a contrary tendency, with which the country has been inundated. Were this-the case, the pre.S would cure the ills the press creates—the bane and die antidot.c woulil go forth together. CAPTURE OP BURGLARS.—The town and - neighbouthood of Ashburton hate long been infested e ith a set of tiring and all attempts to discover them had hitherto Lein uneeeiiing; but having lately admitted a greenhorn into their gang, he was • too fond of displaying his ih-gotten wealth, which led to a sus biton and his apprehension; he In:t1 not been lon g i n cus t o d y efore he confessed - a few of the robberies coin - milted by die gang within the last month ; among other items, ten bags of ' wheat from one farmer, five Train another, essd flour, cheese, and bacon, from several shops in Ashburton, ''hey had the impudence when they effected the robbery of the ten hap of wheat, to take a valuable horse out of a field, and ore him to convey their booty to a barn they rented,' and after finishing their work led back the horse to the litA, then put the sacks they had shook the wheat from into two of them, and set them against the farmer's door, where they were found the nest morning. The hoard in the barn, rented by-the burglars, pre sented a most extraordinary scene, being a'mixture of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, thitty . -five couple or live fowls three fat pigs, bacon, flour, apples, in fact, a little of every' Ching they • could lay their hands on. The leader of the gang, called.liel e , whose friends are very respectable, after he was taken into cus tody, knocked down the constable, and made" across the coun try, but, after travelling above twenty miles, was apprehended at a farm house, quite exhausted, where he went. to beg a draught of cider. A.O examination of the prisoners took place 114 A IP/ till! nesw. IP • cast!. n rtsi "•••• _ k PP • I ~ti 'i, 1 / 1