The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-08-07 00:00:00

WATCH, LIGHTING, AND FIRE POLICE COMMITTEE.

The proceedings of this committee having been read,
Mr. GREGSON moved their confirmation, with the exception
of the acceptance of a tender for the new lamp posts, upon
which some further information was required.
Mr. HODSON asked for information with reference to the
case of a police-officer named Pearson, who had been charged
before them with recklessly and indiscriminately causing
parties to be fined, and also with receiving bribes in money
and drink. He understood that, there were thirty witnesses
in attendance for examination, and that several of them stated,
in the most emphatic terms, that they bad given the officer
money. If that were so, he certainly deserved instant dis-
missal, and he felt sure that no committee who had the
interests of the town at heart would keep such a man in their
employment one moment after such a charge had been
substantiated.

Mr. JOHNSON said he was present when the case of
Police-constable Pearson, who was charged with receiving
bribes and drink, was under investigation. A great number
of witnesses were brought forward, none of whom could prove
that he had ever received money. He admitted, however,
that he had occasionally received drink ; but there was no
proof that he had suppressed any information in consideration
of any drink that he had received. The committee, however,
thought he had departed from his duty in accepting drink at
all, though they did not consider that his offence was of so
heinous a nature as to make it necessary that he should be
dismissed from the force; but they had decided to remove him
from the position which he had recently filled, and had
appointed him to another duty elsewhere.—(Hear, hear !)
Mr. GODFREY said he had been a member of the subcom-
mittee by whom this case had been investigated : and he
must say that he had never heard better evidence than that
of the witnesses who had been examined. There were nearly
thirty witnesses in attendance, but only ten were examined,
for the committee thought, after hearing those ten, that it
was unnecessary to carry on the investigation, and resolved to
examine no more. Every one of those witnesses said he had
given Pearson money or drink, and one or two of them stated
that the officer asked for it. A return had been made to the
committee, which showed that the officer had laid 006 inform-
ations in six months, or at the rate of 25 a-week ; and one of
the complaints was that those charges were laid partially, and
that when seven or eight carts were crowding a street, at one
and the same time, one had been singled out, and the owner
summoned and fined, while the others had been permitted to
go free. He certainly thought that such a person was not fit
to be in the force.

Mr. ROBERTSON said Mr. Godfrey was somewhat in error
with respect to the number of informations. It appeared that
the total number of informations which this officer had laid,
in the time specified, had been 658 ; and of these 606 had
resulted in convictions, which was a proof that the officer, who
had been especially appointed to watch over and protect the
public interests, by seeing that the streets were kept clear, had
not only not failed in his duty, but while discharging that
duty had not laid informations against individuals upon light
or insufficient grounds.

Mr. MANN, without having heard anything of this case lie-
fore be came into the room, was able to bear testimony, from
his personal knowledge, to the fact that there was no case
which came before the committee which was not thoroughly
sifted and investigated; and he believed that if the Council
interfered with the decisions of the committee, except upon
very strong grounds, they would take a course which would
be very detrimental to the efficiency of the police-force and
the interests of the town.

Mr. PARKER, Mr. HALHEAD, and Mr. BRANCKER sup-
ported the decision of the committee, and the latter gentleman
stated that the memorialists themselves were perfectly satis-
fied with that decision. Their object had been gained by the
removal of the officer to another sphere of duty.
Mr. Moss and Mr. HODSON each made motions in con-
nexion with this subject, which were found to be incompetent.
Mr. GODFREY, in reply, defended the committee, and the
mode in which investigations were conducted before it. At
the conclusion of Mr. Godfrey's reply, the proceedings of the
committee were confirmed.