Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-01-05 00:00:00

NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.

estimate of the probable increase from that source. As
to the baths, the receipts were extraordinarily large last
year, evidently in consequence of the excessively hot
summer.

Mr. BELGE thought it unfortunate that Alderman
Stewart was not present, because there was a discrepancy
between him and the deputy-chairman of the Finance
Committee as to the income from the fines on leases.
Mr. Stewart made it £20,000, and Mr. Holme made it
£26,000. He would make one further remark with re-
gard to these estimates of receipts and expenditure. He
had looked at the last year's account, and found the
absolute result to vary nearly £15,000. The expenditure
was over-estimated, and the income £l,OOO less than it
actually came to.
Mr. PICTON believed, in reference to what had been
stated by Mr. Beloo, that the discrepancy between the
two statements - was more, apparent than real. The
£20,000 alluded to by Mr. Stewart on the last occasion
was, he believed, the amount that had been set apart
as being considered the proportion of amount received
from the fines that should go into the current income.
Whatever had been beyond that, had been treated
hitherto as capital.
Alderman Honarn had no doubt Mr. Stewart would
be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the matter ;
but on taking an average of ten, years, he had ascer-
tained the amount front fines to be about £26,000.
Mr. JEFFERY was sorry that all the answers were not
satisfactory. He confessed he did not understand the
answer in reference to interest ; and when he saw a dis-
crepancy of one-third, and the deputy-chairman of the
Finance Committee told him that it was a balance of
interest
_not in the regular account, he 'confes`sed that
was an answer which he could not be satisfied with.
This was the fast time he had heard that £26,000 was
the average derived from fines for leases; and when he
went over the accounts for eleven years he made it
£23,000 per annum, and told that it had been put too
high. -
In answer to Mr. Stitt,
Alderman Horain explained that the difference in the
item-of interest might be explained by the circumstance
that the Dock Board had in the former year paid about
£5,000 or £6,000 to the Corporation as interest for an
expenditure by them on the Birkenhead Works of about
£128,000. , • ,
Mr. JEIVERY now wished to refer to the estimated
expenditure. The first item was £1,500 for general law
and parliamentary expenses. He had hoped, after the
separation of the Mersey Board and the Corporation; that
this item would have almost Ceased to exist. The second
item was for the Town-clerk's department, £640 last year,
while this year it was set down as £2,250.. The Town-
hall department last year was £229, this year £6OO.
St. George's Church last year was £472, this year
£1,270. And here he would call the attention of the
members of the Council to the cost of the six churches,
as Set forth in the expenditure, amounting to £3,560.
Now, he did think the time had arrived' when this Council
should' appoint- a committee for the purpose of seeing
whether that item could not be dealt with in some form
that would relieve this Council of its appearance in the list
of the expenditure. Hisownfeeling was that everygentle-
man, who appreciated and valued the Established
Church of England as a religious institution of this
country, must blush' when he saW such an amount as
that charged upon the general exchequer of the inha-
bitants of this community. - But the item-to which
he wished to call particular attention was that of £1,270
for St. George's Church, as against £472 last vear.
Rates and taxes last year amounted to L 2,520; this year
it was estimated as £4,250. He did not apprehend they
were in arrears far rates and taxes, or otherwise _he
would like to know why the Corporation had not been
summoned. The next item was the Borough Gaol,
which was £lO,OOO this year, against £7,909 last y-ear.
Last year the county expenses were £6,295, and this
year they were estimated et £7,500 a-year.
The TOWN-CLERK (.3 pla' ned that as far as regarded
the general law and I E rli .mentary expenses, the item
comprised not only any ex tenses of Parliamentary busi-
ness; but any lawsuit as well. The Corporation were
"the-defendants in an action recently, in which they had
to pay £9OO for costs. The reduced item for the ex-
penditure in his own department last year arose from
the circumstance that the Government had just then paid
three Years' charges for fees on account of prosecutions.
Alderman HOLME, in reply; stated that the increased
expenditure on account of the Town-hall establishment,
was the result of a :vote of the Council in referende to
the illumination of the clock, and the sum voted for re-
painting and decorating the whole building.- The extra
expenditure on St.' George's Church was to be- incurred
in rebuilding a part of the spire 'which bad given way
in consequence of :the defective foundation and the
shortness of the electric wire. Upon the qUestion .of
churches he would not say one word, but they were
bound by act of Parliament to make certain payments.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had considerably in-
creased the taxes on property held by the Corporation ;
and as to the borough gaol, certain repairs were im-
peratively demanded. The increase in the county
expenses was -in consequence of a vote of the. county
magistrates, ordering considerable alterations and addi-
tions at the asylum.
Alderman BENNETT suggested that Mr. Jeffery should
move a vote of thanks to Alderman Holme for his lucid
statement.. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. JEFFERY said, as to a portion of the expenditure
on the churches, it was not obligatory upon them. The
balance of interest account was byeno_means satisfactory,
and_perhaps the Finance' Committee would,
,he good
enough to make such `explanations as they might' think'
necessary, and send it with the notice-paper calling the
nexteCoundil together. .
Alderman HOLME said that Mr. Jeffery might satisfy
himself in five minntes if he went into the treasurer's
office.; and he would not undertake to do what that
gentleman proposed.
• The neit subject was the voting of various sums to
the charities.
. At the suggestion of the-Mayor, letters were here read
-from the chairman and deputy-chairman-of theHomeeo-
pathic Dispensary, and from the treasurers of the
Strangers' Friend SoCiety, requesting that those institu-,
tions may participate in the funds usually distributed
among the other charities of the borough.
Alderman HOLNIE moved that £157 10s. be paid to
the 'dispensaries.
Alderman WOODRUFF seconded the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the, time had arrived for the
Council to come to some right =understanding regarding
-the distribution of this money. He was impresses with
the opinion that there should be a re distribution and a
new division of- these sums ; and he recommended that
the sum of £BOO a-year be set apart for local charities,
and that the Finance Committee be requested to furnish
a list of those charities which they considered entitled
to participate in the grant. He Strongly advocated the
claims of the Homoeopathic -Institution.
Mr. STITT seconded the amenclinent.
. Mr. JEFFERY spoke in favour of a grant to the
"Homoeopathic Dispensary.
- Some discussion followed, in • the course of which
several gentlemen advocated the claims of the Homoeo-
pathic Dispensary, and the amendment havillg 'been put
it was negatived by 19 to 29. The following was the
voting for and against the amendment :—.
For : Councillors, Messrs. John Johnson Stitt,
Richard Sheil, Clarke Aspinall, C. J. Corbally, -Roger
Haydock, Thomas Littledale, Edward Estill, Thomas
Avison, Charles T. Bowring, 'Henry Christie Beloe,
John Hays Wilson Charles Mozley, Thomas Bailey
Job, Robertson Gladstone, Jamei R. Jeffery, R. M.
Beckwith ; Aldermen, Messrs. Joseph Cooper, J. Hay-
ward Turner, John Woodruff.
Against : Councillors, , Messrs. Daniel Crosthwaite,
William Barton, Oliver Holden, James Tyrer, James
Steains, Thomas Ridley, W. T. Jeffreys, Thomas Wag-
staff, John Rogers, James -Aspinall Tobin; • Robert
Hutchison, William Earle, James Johnson, Joseph
Kitchen,- George Nickson, Joseph Steel, John Farnworth,
Thomas Vernon, J. Gibbons Livingston ; Aldermen,
Messrs. John Buck Lloyd,- William Preston, George H.
Horsfall, Thomas Dover, Thomas Robinson, Richard C.
Gardner, J. Bramley-Moore, -Raymond W. Houghton,
Samuel Holme, and the Mayor.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman Holine, the grants
to the various charities given above were passed.
Alderman COOPER* then moved that £5O be granted
to the Herneeopathic Dispensary.
Alderman WOODRUFF 'seconded the motion, which
was carried by 40 to 9. -
Mr. BELOE moved that £25 be given to the-Strangers'
Friend Society, which was seconded by Alderman
Parker, and carried by a large majority.
On the motion of Alderman Holme, the 6th and 6th

recommendations were passed unanimously.
Alderman HoLME then moved the confirmation of the
general proceedings.
Mr. EARLE seconded the motion.

Mr. STITT wished to know whether the „Finance Com-
mittee had made any stipulations in reference to the
class of buildings to be erected 'on the Taft of the
Newsham Honse estate which they had decided to sell.
Alderman HOLXE said the mere question before