Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-04 00:00:00

Mr. MOZLEY moved as an amendtnentihat the salary be
£4OO.

The-motion was seconded by Mr. Bennett.
Mr. -TICTON thought they ought tote very careful in
beginning with high salaries, for their tendency v ►as always
to rise,- never to fall. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STEAnis said the duties were net-so onero us as some
members of the council seemed to think. The as sistanee of
clerks-was given in the performance of the duties I,
Mr. CRAB. TURNER hoped Mr. Maxley would withdraw
the amendment, and leave the matter-in the ha .rids of the
committee. This £3OO a-year was not the on ly expense
entailed with reference to the audit.

Mr. SIIIEL and Mr. TOBIN expressed their o pinion that
£3OO was not sufficient, and would likely debar competent
persons from applying for the situation.
'.After some remarks from Mr. Stewart,
Mr. MOZLEY withdrew his amendment, and the resolu-
tion was carried.

Mr. STEWART moved that the third recomn lendation be
confirmed, which was confirmed. He then moved the
adoption of the fourth recommendation, and stated that
they had purchased, some eight or nine years ugo, a piece
Nof :land Smithdown-lane, containing about 3,000 yards,
atlss. a yard. There was a slip ofland between that land
and the street, and the owner had offered to sell it at the
same price as they had paid for the -other. By purchasing
this strip, it would very, much enhance the value of that
already in the possession of the corporation. This recom-
mendation, as well as the one following, was confirmed.
Mr. STEWART, in moving the confirmation of the general
proceedings, said he had one or two matters to mention,
and with reference to the new table of fees that had been
submitted to the Home Secretary for approval. These
tables had been confirmed for ,three months only, as
there was a committee sitting that would investigate
the whole matter. The Town Clerk had intimated
to the Clerk of the Sessions -that these tables had
been received, and would therefore be in use. In
reference to a request from Mr. Banner, that they would
close up an intended street at the Orphan Asylum, as it
would separate the new asylum for•infants from the others
already built, the committee did not object to doing the
matter if they could, but there was a legal objection which
they could not get over. The corporation had been asked
through the committee-to contribute to making an improve-
ment in the Landing-stage, so as to enable carts and car-
riages to go across without unloading, .or the horses being
taken out. He believed the estimated cost was £70,000.
The committee had thought fit to object-to the application.
The landing-stages were the property of the Mersey Docks
and:Harbour Board ; and though he thought it a practicable
scheme, he expressed not only what he 'believed to be the
opinion of the committee, but his own :personal opinion,
that those should pay for the improvement that would make
use,of it.

Mr,,Alderman HOLME seconded the motion for the con-
firmation of the proceedings.
CUARLES TURNER said he was very sorry that the
committee had formed any such resolution. It was quite
true that the new Landing-stage was transferred to
the Dock Board, but the bridges and other matters
had to be put into an efficient state. The bridges
at the New Landing-stage were too short, and he
had no doubt that would be remedied. The question of
conveyance of loaded carts and carriages from one side of
the river to the other was brought before the- Mersey
Board by. the Birkenhead Commissioners. The board
thought it was a very proper subject for their considera-
tion; and if any improvement were made in the bridges
they as well make the desired improvement, but the
Finance Committee did not consider it a question affecting
the public generally. He, however, held that what might
be considered a highway across the river was of equal con-
venience to either side. What the Birkenhead Commis-
sioners had in view was to allow the people to take goods
across without unloading their carts ; in fact, to make it as
convenient. to drive from Liverpool to Cheshire as to any
other place. When the matter was mentioned at the Dock
Board it was thought that it would be a matter of great,
convenience, -and.a great source of profit to tradesmen of
Liverpool as well as to the people of Cheshire, as they
would not 'be inconvenienced in transferring their goods
from one side of the river to another. As to whether it
would be of any benefit to the Dock Board, it would be
seen that large quantities of, goods could be sent in barges
to ships on the other side. The people generally would be
benefitted by such an arrangement. It seemed strange to
him that the Dock Board should be bound to provide
means for carrying the produce of Cheshire to the Liver-
pool markets.

Mr. PARKER thought it unfair to ask tho corporation to
subscribe. The Birkenhead Comraisbiolltil b found is would
suit them very well, and they, left it with the Mersey
oard tn ntwm Ilc had never heard
a more one-sided argument than that of the chairman of
the Mersey Board.. He told them that the Mersey Board
took the bridges, and that the bridges were too short, but
they were not to be driven to anything by intimidation.
He hoped the couneil.would, agree with the Finance. Co-
mmittee.

Mr. GREAVES said he would ask the liberty of judging
for himself in the matter. He had hoped that the chairman
of the committee would have told them how much they
were asked to contribute ; but, as it stood, he did not know
whether it was £lOO or £70,000 that was asked.
Mr• TURNER : There is no amount stated.
Mr. GREAVES went on to say, that he was sorry to find
that it was thought the Mersey Board and the Corporation
y=op
facilities should
et§h-dhioduld not be
knowtaiwl
had two interests, as he thought the interest of the one was
that of the other, and of the public at large. That matter,
however, could not be said to be of any interest to the Dock
aq they were interested in traffic by water. The
chairman or t,
that nwnalc, hadv tmogeadaza good
the
to be a fax
er°thlerYtthere'-Z

;ed or a toll levied. He thought it would be well ,to
r the matter to stand over for another council, so that
the members of the council might have time to think of

facilities

the matter.
Mr. Alderman iloustu said it was their duty to support
the docks, because in doing so they were stamping every bit
of property in Liverpool with additional value. The cor-
porationtdun hs
Landing-stage
eout of h
been at theteh funds expenseboroug of
; b
constructingutthey h
the north
norbeenth
deprived of from £60,000 to £70,000 a-year by the Dock
Board getting possession of their property. The corpora-
tion could not make a subscription to the docks without
levying a rate on the, whole of the ratepayers of Liver-
pool. If the chairman of the pock Board had, gone
to the council with some proposal, such as the fillip
up
cta soostdhowe
shouldd ioud.ld anything,u oetpzt ah 7
yi6i nn,
okvooynttpohhear,fodtatph(nlimeii wasdttrraido,tthatnaeor
orrlf.
up of the George's Dock Basin, they might have acceded
to the
eewt
wouldoeo:fs
ouutsephespdet
0,
corporation
the
suppose
that
ara sa
corporationtt iih
would
ITehefoLuanaddtinogb-est4veerywashtehae
tagns
0, Ono O it
Liverpool.
the Dock Board, as the corporation had been obliged to
give it up by act of Parliament. The ferries wereiprivate
property, and as well might the corporation be asked to
contribute to the improvement of the one as the other.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the duty of the corpora-
tion terminated at the, edge of the quay, and he considered
it unjust that the property of the corporation should be
given to the Dock Boaril : he would not, therefore, be a
party to afford facilities for these who ought to be taxed for
the use of them. They had no right to levy a tax on
the shopkeepers of Liverpool. If the thing was to be
carried out, let there be such a toll levied as would remu-
nerate the board and the commissioners on the other side of
the river, but the corporation, had nothing to do with it.,
Mr. ToBIN said, had the resolution been come to on the
ground that the corporation had no funds, and that they
would support it only they did not think it justifiable to
levy a rate for the purpose, he could have understood the
matter. But there appeared, to him that 'there was a prin-
ciple involved, and a fallacious one. They bad heard that
the facilities would not be for the public advantage from
both Mr. Parker and Mr. Holme. Mr. Holme appeared to
think that the landowners of Cheshire would be the only
persons benefitted. As a member of the Council and of the
Dock Board, he would not ea), a •word in favour of the pro-
ject unless he thought it would be of the greatest advantage
to the constituency which they represented. It was not a
qaestion as to the amount of benefit, but whether they would
be benefitted at all, and they had refused to contribute one
farthing,. On the east, on the south, and.on the north sides
of the town everything had been done that could be done to
giie the people good roads to and from the town, and he could
not for the life of him see why that which had been found to be
advantageous on those sides of the town, should be said to
be injurious op the west side. He could see no difference
between the value of the money of Prescot and that of Bir-
kenhead. Were it a question of dock traffic he would not
for a moment say that the corporation ought to contribute.
It" 'ought to be remembered that, though the corporation
should have gotten a larger sum ,of money for the dock
dues, the corporation took great pains to have their objec-
tion carried out. As regarded the argument that the
question before them was in favour of the landowners, if it
,
waS.foand to be advantageous to have a good thoroughfare
all round the town, it did ,not
appear to him to make any
difference whether it were the land of Lord .Sefton.or that-
of the Marquissf •Salisbtxry, , Because. one gentleman owned,
laud on the one side of the water, and another on the other
side, that was no reason that they should close the thorough.,
fare. Mr. Holme had said it would still further Nook up the

• atreets by the carts of hay ail& the other produce of the
country, but the same argument would apply to the north
or any of the other sides.-.orthe town. He believed it
-would be a very great advantage to Liverpool to have the
chief produce of Cheshire in: the markets. After some fur-
•ther remarks Mr. Tobin resumed his seat.
Mr. Alderman COOPER differed in his opinion from Mr.
Tobin, and hoped the council would have the good sense
not to accede to a request.. that would have the effect of
charging the people of Liverpool with a high rate for the
benefit of the people of Cheshire. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JEFFERY said he was sorry he had not come pre-
pared to speak on the subject. The question had been dis-
cussed by Mr. Tobin ; and the question was, would the
corporation subscribe to - a scheme that was to benefit the
inhabitants of Liverpool? The Finance Committee had
given the negative to the -request. He did not doubt that
there would be a mutuaLbenefit to Liverpool and Cheshire.
He then went on to say.that he could not understand why
there should be a meansof conveyance adopted for the free
carriage of goods across the river, seeing. that passengers
were charged for crossing. He was set right, however, by
Mr. Turner remarking that it was not a question of free
traffic, but merely as a•eonvenient mode of carrying goods
across the river. Mr. Jeffery then wished to know who were:to
be the recipients of the toll, in case of its being charged. Jf
the council were to be the recipients, the question then would
be, how far it would be wise to enter into the investment ;
but, on the other hand, if the Mersey Board and the Bir-
kenhead Commissioners were to receive the profits, it *as for
them to do the work. He thought the Finance Committee
had come to a right conclusion. He went on to spent- of
Sir James Graham's bill, relating to dock revenue. He
asked the chairman of the Mersey Board whether or not he
had said that he would give the ratepayers of Liverpool as
little as possible of that revenue.
Mr. TURNER : I never said anything of the kind ; Mr.
Jeffery is altogether wrong in his statement.
Mr. JEFFERY went in to accuse Mr. Turner of ineonsis-
tency in opposing the bill, :2nd asked why the council op-
posed the re-election of Mr. Turner; when the Mayor inter-
posed, by telling Mr. Jeffery that he was going too far.
Mr. JEFFERY, however, continued, amid cries of " Order,"_
" Chair." &c. After touching a great many matters he'
-asked Mr. Turner whether or not he-was a member of, the
Birkenhead Dock Committee, and attended in his' place,
and afterwards, on leaving the committee, he had not gone
to the Dock Board and filed an opposition to the bill then
before the House of Commons ? He (Mr. Jeffery) happened,
to be in London at that time, and Mr. Gladstone was there
also. They accidentally heard of the opposition, and
went to the house and entered their protest
against the opposition, on the ground that it did
not represent the views of the merchants of Liver-
pool. • Ile met, the deputation, and told them that if
they did not withdraw their opposition, he would protest
against it at the bar of the House of Lords. In conse-
quence of that the opposition was withdrawn.
Mr. TURNER, in reply to Mr. Jeffery, said that he had
mixed some truth with a great deal of error; but with
reference to his statement about his appearing at the bar of
the House of Lords, it was all fudge, for he would not be
heard at ,the bar, of the House. It was the most absurd
thing for him to suppose that any threat of his was the
consequence of the opposition being withdrawn. The oppo-
sition had-been offered in consequence of several matters in
the bill which did not at all affect the corporation, but in
reality to some clauses that the board objected to, and when
they considered if it would be worth while to throw the bill
over to the next session, in consequence of these clauses,
the opposition was withdrawn. He certainly never contem-
plated the spoliation of the corporation property. He thought
the attack upon him by Mr, Jeffery was the most unprovoked
that had ever been heard of. With reference to the opposi-
tion of his being re-elected chairman of the board, he- said
it was in consequence of some persons who had not known
his conduct at the board.

Mr. BOLD said, that if it had not been for the course some
gentlemen of that council pursued, it was his firm belief,
as well as the belief of those gentlemen in London, who
were very good judges in matters of this sort, that the cor-
poration would have received a much larger sum than they
did receive. For gentlemen to talk about going before the
bar of the House of Lords to be heard upon an authority of
that sort, they all knew what sort of a thing it was ; but for
to charge the chairman of the Dock Board, or the Dock
Committee, as Mr. Jeffery had done, he thought was per-
fectly derogatory to the dignity of the council.
Mr. JEFFERY said he took it from the statement of Mr.
Turner, that there was not a shadow of truth in what he
had stated ; as it was a question of veracity, he would ask
the council to appoint a committee, before whom he was
prepared to verify his statement.
Mr. TURNER said he stated that there was not shadow
of o, oie accusation which Mr. Jeffery maae.
The Dock Committee and himself individually, supported
the corporation by every means in their power to obtain the
fairest compensation possible, and the opposition was with-
drawn from a desire to do that which was most for the
benefit of the town.
_ _

Mr.
PjRKER rose to put some questions to Mr. Jeffery,
as to who were the parties who objected to the bill, but was
called to order by the Mayor.
Mr. AfOZLEY called the. attention of the. • council to the
subject before.them. It was .a matter of deep regret to him,
as he was sure it had been to many gentlemen in that room,
to watch the course that had been adopted on this qUestion,
and the dis Order that had followed. The question before
them was whether. they should confirm the recommendation
of the Finance Committee. He never should have calculated
that out of the argument of Mr. Tobin charges should have
been raised on one side or the other, and, that recrimination
of the description they had heard should have taken place,
anu
Weetoiwit the su inns.
He hoped, abfteevrbcaodolsaicenddeitabtiaotut,
the
Mr. SzEw.A.nis said he was sorry to find that such a hot
discussion had ensued on the subject before them. He
should not attempt to go through the whole of the matters.
He thought the best way always was to deal with a subject
as they found it. He found the docks and quays in the
hands of the Dock Board. He exceedingly regretted that
Mr. Grcaves, who usually spoke so candidly, should at all
think that the Finance Committee had been actuated by any
feeling of jealousy or op
_position' or anything but the highest
feelings to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. He could
speoun
ak6focril generally, that t
yand,iahet
theytho wouldught b
he could
very dull
uldna answer for
the not
to see that the prosperity of the town depended
übpodesoint.he
(Hear, br.)
good, faeiar,andßuuntibfoe was uniform action
uo
ionlosfs
to the
understandtwogreat
why they were open to a charge of opposition because they
did not concur with any proposition the Dock Board might.
make. If the matter was of no consequence to the Dock
Board, as had been stated, why come to them at all ? If the
corporation was to be benefitted 9 per cent. by the improve-
ment, then, for goodness sake,.let the council judge for the
public. _
_ _

Mr. JEFFERY asked a question as to what position the
council stood in relation to St. James's Cemetery.
Mr. STEWART said that £26,304 was obtained for the es-
tablishment of. St. James's Cemetery, out of which amount
ail parties were entitled to derive in revenue a sum not
exceeding 6 per cent., and the corporation stcod in the
same' position as he and other parties stood who had lent
money to the -concern.

Mr. SHELL said that the corporation had lent a sum of
47,100. In 1841, it was arranged that the debt should be
changed into shares, so that they should be changed into the
same position as other shareholders. It was afterwards
ascertained that the concern was not paying, and therefore
taking shares was little better than giving up their claim.
The subject then dropped.
Mr. SAMUEL HOLME drew the attention of the council to
a memorial from the Liverpool Law Society, asking the
council to consider the propriety of appointing a second
stipendiary magistrate. He said it imposed upon the coun-
cil a subject of very great importance ; and although that
council would refuse no sacrifice for the purpose of having
the law duly administered, the proposition which came be-
fore them was one .that eould not be sustained, and one
which he took the liberty of moving that the council do
not agree to. It involved a pecuniary consideration, but
that was the last ground upon which he would argue it.
He contended that the council were vigilant and zealous
on the point of administration of justice, and he believed the
work of the Law Society' was somewhat the work of
supererogation. And although they would gladly attend
to any suggestion coming from a body of gentlemen of such
great intelligence, he certainly thought the council might
have been safely left to deal with the question. He took it
that the society-was established for other objects than inter-
fering with the duty of the' council ; and he hoped these
gentlemen would not take any umbrage if he said the coun-
cil was fit to manage their own business. Perhaps the
council would appoint a committee for the purpose of
hearing what the members of the Law Society had
to . say on the subjeet, some _of..whom he had been in
contersation with, and who did not seem to know anything
about it.. , They all knew how easy it was to get a
number of gentlemen together, and come to such a reso-
lution as that before them. He would give a return of the
business done in their courts. He found that, taking the
arnurmr
mbea*of aseicldai:aajuddiocfa6te,odo;ilp.eoln during
andiug the year 58
misdemeatloB=4:
and 16,004 drunken cases, making a total of 22,000 in
round numbers.
magistrates,numbers.l i
He then took owkerteh:
in business
messabeeforethe
honorary period,

I 13,192 doik and town informations, '3,146 common assaults,
and 187 cases such as weights acd measures, and miscella-
neous informations ; 197 cases -ef seamen's wages, and cases
arising out of the marine act; 120 cases of burial and
friendly soeisdes ; informations under the building act, &c.;
213 cases--of bastardy, making a total of 17,055 cases dis-
posed of by-the honorary magistrates. They would thus see
that a very large amount of business was disposed of by the
lay magistrates ; and it was for the council and the town -to say
whether that business was done in a way satisfactory to the
Inhabitants. He did not think the time had arrived when
a second stipendiary magistrate was required. It might be
necessary-when the town would be required to be divided
into two districts. The -cases upon which the lay
magistrates had to adjudicate, required a very small
amount of legal knowledge; good, , plain, common
sense, with a knowledge of the world, was all that was
required to enable a lay magistrate to form a correct
judgment. The cases where a knowledge of the law was abso-
lutely required were very few ; he thought he was not wrong
in stating that not more than 20 or 30 of such cases came
before them in a week ; and, if there was any doubt in the
minds of the magistrates, they had their clerks, who were
well paid to give their legal opinion, which was competent
for their purpose, and as the last resource they could go to
Mr. Mansfield, who was always willing to assist them. In
most of these cases the lay magistrates were just as compe-
tent te deal with as the highest functionary who graced the
bench, and there was a practical knowledge brought to
bear on mercantile cases which would be wanting in the
young or the old barrister from the dry studrof the law.
if they would appoint a second stipendiary magistrate they
would ignore the lay magistrates altogether. He quoted a
letter from Mr. Stuart Wortley, bearing high testimony to
the lay magistrates in and about London, whom it was
stated would bear advantageous comparison with any other
magistrates jai the city; and Mr. Holme contended that the
magistrates in Liverpool were not inferior to those in London.
It was stated that the lay magistrates differed in their deci-
sions. To that he would answer, there was nearly always a
difference in the form and circumstances of cases. Lawyers
differed, judges differed, and juries differed ; the members of
that council differed—(laughter)—and it was impossible to get
a uniformity of opinion until they had a uniformity of cases
coming before them. There were few appeals from the deci-
sionsof the lay magistrates; and when any were brought, they
were,generally unsuccessful. He concluded by saying that
he was not prepared to add another thousand a-year
to the burden of the community, believing that the time
had not arrived to render the appointment necessary ; and
he therefore moved that, in the opinion of that council, the
appointment of a second stipendiary magistrate was not at
all necessary.
Mr. RyLET seconded the motion.
Mr. Avisox said he was sorry to hear Mr. Holme's re-
marks in reference to the Liverpool Law Society. He would
say on behalf of that society that they wished to approach
the council with every respect. That society was formed
not only to make suggestions to that council, but also to the
authorities in London, and even to the Lord Chancellor him
self, and he could say that on many occasions they suggested
measures which had been productive of great,good. It was
not from a personal interest that they presented this memorial,
but from a feeling that it would be for the benefit of the
public. He moved that a special committee be appointed
to consider the subject.
Mr. RIDLEY seconded the amendment.
Mr. .PARKER said he had no faith in a lawyer's advice
when it was given gratis. There was no memorial from the
town or from the magistrates on this subject; and, he
thought, they might just thank those gentlemen for their
trouble in the matter, and let the subject drop.
Mr. AvisoN said he would withdraw his amendment
when the question was about to be put to the vote. .
Mr. Horain insisted on the question being. put to the
vote, which was accordingly done, and the original motion
was carried without a dissentient,--Mr. Avison and Mr.
Ridley having voted against the amendment.
The Council. then adjourned-till that day week, -at eleven
o'clock.