The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-05 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY.

for every other purpose were deposited, yet with
regard to the items forming the amounts now referred to,
there were no vouchers at all, as he had been informed,
except a cheque signed by the Town Clerk, or by Mr.
Venn. Now, he should decidedly take objection to Mr.
Venn signing any receipt for a large sum on behalf of the
Town Clerk. (Hear, hear) He did not mean to say—
very far from it—that Mr. Venn would make any impro-
per use of money placed in his hands, but he did say,
that when thousands of pounds were received,
onsibl the receipt
should be signed by the party actually respe.
(Hear, hear.) Of about £13,000 disbursed for these
purposes last year, about £8,900 were received by Mr.
Venn, and about £4,000 by the Town Clerk. He contended
that there ought to be vouchers for every amount, and
that the documents to which the amounts charged in the
account had reference, should be deposited, as all other
vouchers were, in the treasurer's office. Where their legal
expenses were so frightful, he thought it was the duty of
the council to be well informed as to the disposition of the
money expended in that way. He hoped that for the
future the committee would take care that the vouchers
explanatory of the various amounts were placed in the trea-
surer's hands. It would appear that the auditors were
now desirous of having a more extensive examination
of the accounts, and they desired particularly that all
the vouchers to which he had referred should be furnished,
in order that they should thoroughly exemine the sums
charged under the head of general law and parliamentary
expenses. Why the documents had not been furnished
to the treasurer, of course he was in perfect ignorance.
Mr. Gladstone, in conclusion, objected also to the finance
committee increasing licenses to marine store dealers in
such places as Paddington. He could understand the ne-
cessity of having such licenses granted to persons along
the line of the docks, but to increase them' in such places
as Paddington could be nothing more or less than
encouraging thieves in their profession. What possible
business, he asked, could a marine store dealer have in
the very outskirts of the town ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman Dover thought the auditors mistook their
province if they supposed that they were the parties to say
what should be paid, and what should not be paid. He
was quite aware that the auditors appointed by the
poor law commissioners had that power, and that
that power was sometimes used, as his friend Mr. Wood-
ruff would confess, inconveniently for the parochial
body. But the auditors of the corporation had no such power.
If the Finance Committee, or the sub-committee of the Finance
Committee, approved of certain payments, the auditors, he
contended, had nothing further to do but to pass it at once.
He could not charge his memory exactly with the contents of
the letter addressed by the auditors to the treasurer—which
letter, ho thought, would hive been far more respectful
if it had been addressed to the Finance Committee ; but he
believed one point of explanation required was in reference to
accounts which they had audited and passed for some years gone
by. Now, he contended that these gentlemen were completely
out of court upon that point. There might be some plausible
reason why they should ask for further information in regard
to accounts about to be passed ; but with regard to the accounts
actually audited and passed by them, they were out of court in
asking for an explanation now. The explanations should have
been sought before they signed the accounts. There was no oc-
casion for delicacy, he believed, forit was pretty well known
among them that at the present period there might
be—he did not say there was—a desire on the
part of some parties—he did not mean to say
that they were parties in that town, but parties in other
towns, who wished to get information which might be used—
although he did not say it could be used —to the detriment of
the corporation. He therefore contended that the council
might be perfectly satisfied with any document at the present
period, which had the authority of the Finance Committee. If
the council had more confidence in their auditors than they
had in their Finance Committee, they ought at once to move
that the committee be reformed ; but he contended that they
had no right to be giving information to the anditors,
especially at the present time, beyond what they were required
by law. Ho did not think that there could, for a moment,
be any doubt upon the mind of any member of the council as
to the fact, that the money charged was really spent as
described. He did not suppose that any such suspicion was
entertained in the mind of any member ; but if the remarks.
made by Mr. Gladstone had gone forward to the public,
without something like an answer, there might be a suspicion
raised in the mind of some one, that the money had not been
properly spent. He contended that, as the accounts were
audited by the parliamentary sub-committee, and had come
before the general committee, and then had been approved by
the council, every member ought to be satisfied. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. R. Jeffery said there was no doubt that, in dealing
with questions of finance, which had been submitted to a
committee, it was a very delicate question indeed for gentle-
men in the council to deal with. Nevertheless, delicate as it
might be, it was now the duty of the council to deal with it,
and each gentleman must deal with it according to his own
judgment, upon the question before the council at the moment,
Mr. Dover had contended that the auditors mistook their
province when they asked for vouchers for accounts thify were
passing. He agreed with 31r. Dover that they had mistaken
their province, but upon very different grounds, and for a
very different reason. They had mistaken their province when
they passed accounts without asking for vouchers, (Hear,
hear.) In 1852-3 they passed an amount of £3,347, for
which they had no vouchers whatever. In 1853-4 they
passed £1,183, for which they had no vouchers whatever. In
1854.5, they passed a sum of £14,262 3s 11d, for
which they had no vouchers whatever. In 1855 6,
they passed £15,514 4s 6d, preyjsely upon the same
principle, tiithout any vouchers whatever. Now, whether any
of the recent circumstances which had occurred to show the
careless mode in which large companies' accounts had been
audited had caused those gentlemen to reflect upon their past
negligence, it was not for him to say, but they now came for-
ward to intimate that they had been extremely negligent for
the pas', asked permission to be more careful for the future,
and, that they might better understand their position, they asked
to be furnished with documents which they did not possess
hitherto, In the letter addressed to Mr. Tweedie, the auditors
asked to be put in a different position henceforward, from that
which they had been placed in during the past. Ho understood
that the auditors had never seen any account or ledger at all ;
that they have not set their eyes upon the ledger ; and that the
accounts passed here had been accounts passed, not upon
vouchers, but upon mere memorandums. He also drew the
inference from the deputy chairman's statement, that the
Finance Committee were without detailed items of the expendi-
ture of the large sums referred to, because, if he understood
that gentleman correctly, ho understood that hencefor-
ward they were going to have an account, and to have
that account sent in fortnightly. During the time past they
bad not had any such accounts fortnightly, monthly, or at
any other period. Now this was surely a state of things
which ought not to have continued so long, and which
certainly ought to have been prevented from going on any
further. It was contended by Mr. Dover that the auditors
were out of court when they asked for such information as
they were now seeking. What was he to understand by their
being out of court ? If the auditors were to discover in their
audit of this year, an error which they had overlooked inadver-
tently in previous audits, was he to understand that they would
be out of court in calling the attention of their employers to
that error? They surely would be perfectly in court, because
they would be giving their employers just that information for
which they were appointed, and which was expected at their
hands. It had also been said by Mr. Dover that the poor law
auditors made it sometimes very inconvenient to the members
of the boards of guardians, The word "inconvenient" was a
word, which used in such a manner might be held, unless Mr.
Dover could explain it, to have a very significant meaning.
Was he to understand that gentlemen belonging to boards of
guardians, sometimes wished to appropriate money which the
poor law auditors would not sanction ? He hoped Mr. Dover
would explain his meaning. On the-general question he con-
tended that to allow an officer to expend large sums of money
without having any day of reckoning, when every detail and
item would be gone into, was to act as no man would act in
the case of his own partner in business, not to speak of one in
his employment, and that it was quite time such a system
should cease. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Dover explained that he had not used the word " in-
convenient" in the sense conjectured by Mr. Jeffery. He
would give one instance to show his meaning. Tho guardians
of the poor had a number of people upon their hands, whom
they could by laying out a few pounds, send to Australia.
Were they to do so, the auditor would then, as he Was bound
in duty, declare it contrary to the law, and strike the items
out of the account.
Mr, Alderman Cooper said, as the letter had been referred
to the parliamentary sub-committee to report upon, he thought
it rather too premature to discuss the question until that report
was before them.
Mr. Sheil thought it very extraordinary that a document
which involved a great principle, and very large amounts of
money, should have been presented by the Finance Committee,
and dealt with by them without any notice being taken of it in
the proceedings. It appeared to him to be, if ho might use
such an expression, a system of irregularity from beginning to
end. He fully agreed that they should place every confidence
in the committee, and he had every respect for the great dignity
lgoafritely upon thememberscbau council's ieitlght they sometimes drew rather
credulity. (Laughter.)
Mr. Preston said, as one of the auditors, he was called upon
by Mr. Macquire with the document in question, in which he
cordially concurred. He should have signed the document
himself had he not been
pear
fmec member of of
Itthewflaanamnecreelya
a audit
committee.
The audit was a very
of the debit and credit side of the cash hook. If the Town
Clerk winted, say £l,OOO, he gave simply a receipt for it.
The fact was, that there was no vouchers whatever for a large
expimditure of the money. It was a question with himself,
whether if things went on as they had been going, he ceela
accept the office any longer. (Hear, hear.) The town was
very properly rouse'd to the matter, and he feared a certain
odium attached to himself and his colleagues for want of having
proper information given to them.
Mr. Beckwith said, after what Mr. Preston had stated, it

would appear that the audit was all a snare and a fraud —in
fact, that there was no audit at all. The gentlemen who audited
the accounts, to do so properly, should see every item, to prove
that it was all correct and proper, and should see all the

vouchers. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Holme, iu replying, said that he was very far from
deprecating any discussion upon such a question; he would
rather thank gentlemen for bringing it forward, and he could
assure the council that although somewhat suddenly, by the
absence of Mr. Hereby, placed in that responsible position, he
should always endeavour to give all the information he could
consistently with his duty to the interests of the council.
(Hoar, hear) There might, perhaps, be some little misappre-
hension in consequence of Mr. Dover's speech. He took the
duty of the auditors to be this— two auditors were appointed by
the municipal voters at large to represent the interests of the
public, and to see that the whole of the accounts were honest
and true. Another auditor was nominated by the Mayor,
under the act of parliament, and these three formed the
court of audit for going into the accounts. It
was not the duty of the auditors to usurp the functions of
the council. It was not the duty of the council to say this
or that account was wrong. When a payment had been
ordered by the council, the work had been done, the account
sanctioned, and the payment made by the order of the
council. If the auditors gave any opinion that this payment
was right, or that payment wrong, they were simply stepping
out of their legitimate province, and usurping the functions of
the body whose duty it was to order the payments. (Hear,
hear.) It was the duty of the auditors, unquestionably, to see
the vouchers for the whole of the amounts stated. (Hear,
hear.) No doubt of it, and he should be sorry to stand up
there to say anything to the contrary. In all cases where
vouchers could be produced they ought to be seen; but
gentlemen who were aware of the nature of a parliamentary
contest, knew the hurry and confusion which attended it, and
the incidental expenses for which vouchers could not be
procured. They could not get vouchers, for instance, for
railway fares and telegraphic messages. Last year the cost of
telegraphic messages alone amounted to £247. There was a
considerable amount usually to be expended in cab hire about
London, and there were expenses connected with the House of
C mamons itself, for which no vouchers could be had. Counsels'
fees amounted to £2,265 last year, and he very much
questioned whether counsel would give receipts. The Town
Clerk, in all cases, sent down for money as he wanted it. His
applic Alen came before the Finance Committee, and every
amount received the sanction of the council, before one
shilling was paid to his account in London. It was not true
that the subordinate did not give a receipt for every amount.
A book was kept, and a receipt was always given for every
payment made, and the Town Clerk was held responsible for
every penny. At the end of every year the Town Clerk
brought a statement of the whole accounts, sometimes a little
earlier and sometimes a little later, just as the bills could be
got in. The accounts were first investigated thoroughly by
the chairman of the finance committee, for the time being,
and were also subjected to the audit and examination of Mr.
Barry, the paid auditor of the council. When the accounts
were certified as being correct, then the whole body of accounts
was brought before the Finance Committee, the result brought
up and the proceedings of the committee read out in the council,
and the council confirmed them—always had confirmed the w—
and never made any objection. As Mr. Gladstone had
remarked that there was no record of the transaction, he
would just ask Mr. Gladstone one question. Suppose it had
occurred, say in the case of the Health Committee, that gentle-
men, instead of addressing a communication upon an important
public subject to the chairman of the committee, had written to
one of the servants of the committee, would not Mr. Gladstone
say, and say very properly, that that was not the right way of
doing business, and that if the letter was to be recorded, it
should have been addressed either to the committee or its
chairman. But, although that mistake was made, the com-
mittee did not take any notice of it, because they were deter-
mined to go into an investigation of all the accounts. The
result was that the letter had been referred to the parliamentary
sub-committee, to go into the whole question, investigate it,
and report to the committee, who would again report to the
council. He could not help saying that the sarcasms which
Mr. Shell constantly made use of in that council were devoid
of all argument. He (Mr. Holme) had been in hopes that from
Mr. Sheil's long experience and well known character that
they should have had in him an able adviser, and that he
would have brought into the council a large amount of legis-
lative ability. He confessed he was disappointed in his friend
Mr. Shell when lie got up and always made use of sarcastic
attacks, which had not the merit sarcastic attacks should have ;
for the sarcastic attack he made that day, and the attacks be
was so constantly in the habit of making, should, at least, have
the merit of possessing the fine edge of the razor, and not the
roughness of the axe. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Shell talked
sarcastically about the dignity of the finance committee, and
the finance committee drawing largely upon the credulity of
the council. The finance committee—he spoke at least for
himself—were exceedingly thankful for any hint Mr: Shell,
or any other gentleman, might give which would enable them
to fulfil better the duties of their position. (Hear, hear).
Such sarcastic attacks were very easily borne, and rather
recoiled upon the gentleman who made them. If Mr. Shell,
with his acknowledged ability, would really, for the future,
assist the council in legislating, and avoid saying things which
were much better left unsaid, he would become a much more
valuable member to the council. Mr. Holm° concluded by
moving the confirmation of the general proceedings.
Mr. Gladstone said, since ho had been referred to, that if
he bad been on the committee he certainly should have moved
that such a communication be recorded upon its proceedings.
(Hear, hear):
The general proceedings of the committee were then con-
firmed.

four o'clock in the afternoon. At nine o'clock the men
would, in the course of things, appear at muster, so
that the exertions of Major Greig to collect fifty of them in
the interim would appear to he useless labour. He (Mr.
Jeffery) thought this a most important matter, and that it
should not be passed over with the silence with which the
committee treated it.
Mr. W. Earle maintained that there was not a suflacient
police force in Liverpool, and that the magistrates had
acted properly in refining the opplication.
Mr. Picton thought it a most alarming statement that
fifty constables could not be collected in an emergency,
until several hours had elapsed, and until all the threatened
damage from rioters had been effected. He considered
that the committee should take the statement of the Head
Constable into their earliest and most serious consideration.
Mr. Alderman Bennett contended that the police force of
Liverpool was barely adequate to protect the property of
the borough, and that the magistrates exercised a wise
discretion in refusing the application.
Mr. 'robin observed that the power of sending the police
force on duty outside the borough, rested solely with the
magistrates, and in this instauce he thought the magistrates
had acted properly in refusing the assistance asked
for. Fifty .men in the case of such a riot would
be powerless—to be of any service 150, at the arm:,
least, should be sent. When, however, they before
vent police to Birkenhead, they had great difficulty in
obtaining payment from the Cheshire peopi e who, he
agreed with Mr. Jeffery, sho Ild maintain a sufficient police
force to protect their property.
Mr. J. B. Brancker replied, and in the course of his
obvrvatiens pointed out that the watet c ‘mmittee had not
the power of sending a single police officer outside the
borough. The magistrates alone had that power, and if
there was any blame in refusing the application, it rested
with the magistrates and not wish the committee. As to
Mr. Picton's observations, the committee would take the
matter into consideration, but it should be understood that,
in the event of any disturbance within the borough, it was
possible in a very short time to bring a considerable force
of police to bear upon it.
The proceedings were then confirmed.
The proceedings of the Dock, Courts of Law, Market (com-
prising a recommendation to appoint James Holgraves con
stable at St. John's Market at the wages of 22s per week),Gaol
and House of Correction, Town hall (comprising recom-
mendation to appoint George Evans messenger in the
town clerk's office at 21s per week), Health and Gardens
(comprising recommendation to appoint George Whit-
taker, foreman, under the superintendence of Mr.
Shepherd. at the wages of one guinea per week, with the
house in Mount gardens, rent and tax free ; recommen-
dation to appoint Donald Taylor, at 14s per week, and
John Dutton, at 18s per week, as permanent labourers at
the Public walks and Botanic gardens) Committees were
confirmed. They contained nothing of iti,terest.
In regard to the Health Committee's proceedings,
Mr. Alderman Dover observed, that the parish autho-
rities had it in contemplation to make their rates due on
the 31st December, instead of the 31st March, in each
year, and that if they carried out that intention, the.
Health Committee in that particular would follow their
example.
Mr. Beckwith, as chairman of the Smoke Committee,
said, that various attempts were made to bribe the
committee's inspector in the discharge of his duties, and
that if the attempt were again made he would publish
the names of the parties.

CHURCH EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of this committee were read. They
comprised a recommendation to appoint Mr. Tommaso
Radcliffe organist and choir master at St. George's
church, at a salary of £4O per annum. Recommendation
to appoint Mr. Charles W. Smith organist of St. Luke's
church. at a salary of £3O a year, on the understanding
that the churchwardens of St. Luke's indemnify the
corporation against the payment of the salary.
Mr. Banner, in moving the confirmation of the first
recommendation, reminded the council that it had been
referred back to the committee to again consider the
claims of Mr. Holden to the office. They again gave the
subject the fullest consideration, and again unanimously
decided that Mr. Radcliffe would be the best appointment.
He therefore begged to move the confirmation of the
recommendation.
Mr. Wagstaff seconded the motion.
Mr. Woodruff observed that they had advertised for
the le=st man for the office, and as Mr. Best, the organist
of St. George's Hall, was the best man, and was
willing to discharge the duties for £4O a year, he (Mr.
Woodruff thought that they should elect him to the office.
If they had refused to recommend Mr. Best, because of
his being the organist of St. George's Hall, they should
have given that as their reason, and as they had not done
so, he would move as an amendment, that Mr. Best be
elected to the post.
Mr. J. A. Tinne seconded the amendment.
Mr. A. C. Stewart replied, that the committee hsd
refused to recommend Mr. Best, not because he was not
the best organist in the town, but because they thought
that one appointment was quite sufficient for him to hold
under the corporation. They also considered that there
were many other aspiring musicians in the town, ald
that it was but fair to give them an opportunity of
distinguishing themselves.
Mr. R. Gladstone thought the committee had done
light in declining to entertain, the name of Mr. Best as a
candidate fur the situation. He was already in posses-
sion of an office which was neither more nor less than a
sinecure, and for which he received ,X:300 a year. They
could understand why Mr. Best's claim were rejected,
but they were yet to be informed w=iy Mr. Holden was
rejected. He had no doubt that Mr. Radcliffe was fit for
the office, though he understood that lie was not a good
cho;rmaster, but he wished to know what valid objection
they had to Mr. Holden, who was at this moment
officiating at St. George's church, and was, he was
informed, as efficient as his father. It was announced
that his conduct was not in all respects to be depended
on, but he (Mr. Gladstone) had it both from himself and
others, that there was no foundation whatever for the
charge. The testimonials which he produced, among
them being one from Dr. Taylor, of St. John's church,
were in the highest degree complimentary.
Mr. Banner replied that they rejected Mr. Holden
because they considered his testimonials notso satisfactory
as those of Mr. Radcliffe.
The Mayor said he had that morning received a letter
from Mr. Holden, enclosing one from Dr. Taylor, which
he thought had better be read.
The letter was then read. In it Dr. Taylor gave the
most unqualified denial to the statement that, while
connected with St, John's Church, Mr. Holden's conduct
was " disgraceful and irregular." There was not, he
I said, the least foundation for the rumour.
Mr R. Gladstone observed that it was a most thorough
vindication of Mr. Holden's character. He could not,
however, now vote for Mr. Holden's election to the office,
as he understood that he was already in the employment
of the corporation, being a clerk to the water coin.
mittee.
Mr. Alderman S. Holme also vindicated Mr.
Holden from the rumours affecting his character,
and remarked that it was his intention if
elected to the office to share the salary with Mrs.
Holden. Mr. Holme read a letter from Mrs. Holden to
that effect, and also in denial against the rumours
affecting her step son's character.
Mr. Banner observed that the committee could not by
intuition have known Mr. Holden's intentions. They
understood that he was a-married man, and that his own
family required all his support.
Mr. Woodruff's amendment was then put, and lost by
18 to 15. The voting was as follows :
For the amendment : Alderman Houghton ; Councillors
Anderson, Stewart,Woodruff, Livingston, Steains, Tobin,
Tinne, Earle, Johnston, Picton, Jeffery, Mellor, Fern-
worth, and Anthony.
Against the amendment : The Mayor ; Aldermen
Bennett, Preston, Dover, S. Holme; Councillors Crosth-
waite, Sheil, Haydock, Godfrey, Banner, Wagstaff,
Brancier, Gladstone, Kitchen, Beckwith, Aikin, Robert-
son, and Halhead.
Mr. Alderman Dover moved that Mr. Holden be elected
Mr. Crosthwaite seconded it.
This amendment was also lost, by 19 to 12: The voting
was as follows :
For the amendment : Aldermen Preston, Dover,
Houghton, S. Holme ; Councillors Crosthwaite, Sheil,
Haydock, Godfrey, Livingston, Earle, Johnston, and
Kitchen.

Against the amendment : The Mayor ; Alderman
Bennet ; Councillors Anderson, Stewart, Woodruff,
Banner, Wagstaff, Brancher, Tobin, Gladstone, Picton
Jeffery, Mellor, Beckwith, Aikin, Farnworth, Robertson,
Halhead, and Anthony.
Mr. Radcliffe was then elected to the office.
Mr. Banner moved the second recommendation, that,
Mr. C. W. Smith be appointed organist of St. Luke's, on
the conditions above set forth. The churchwardens and
all connected with the church were so anxious for Mr.
Smith's services, that they were willing themselves to
pay for them, and under those circumstances the
committee thought it best to recommend his appointment,
the churchwardens indemnifying the corporation against
the p4ment of the salary.
Mr. Steains said, that when the question was last
before the council, he voted with the minority, upon the
well understood around that every congregation con-
nected wi►h the church of England, was quite willing
and able to pay for their ow❑ music. To that opinion
he still adhered, but what be could not obtain in open
debate, he would never seek to obtain by a side wind or
shabby subterfuge. ;Hear, hear.) He had not beard
any reason why St. Luke' should be singled out for this
experiment; and as churchwardens could not bind their

successors, he would move, as an amendment, that the
salary b= paid by the corporation.
Mr. Beckwith : I cannot conceive why we should
object to the proposal.
Mr. Steains : You cannot bind the succeeding church-
wardens, and you must eventually pay the "glary.
Mr. Beckwith : Well, we will meet the difficulty when
it arises. The congregation are anxious for Mr. Smith's
services, and they propose to pay for them a very proper
arrangement,
Mr. W. Earle thought it a very shabby act, on the part
of the corporation, to extort the money from the congre-
gation through the threat of appointing an organist
whom they did not like.
Mr. R. Gladstone thought they should be careful how
they quenched this bright first flame of independence
which was growing upon the church. (Laughter.)
They might rest assured that the day would soon arrive
when they would be relieved from paying the clergy out
of the corporate purse ; for the same feeling which
prompted a congregation to pay their organist would also
prompt them to pay the salaries of their clergy. Then they
would see how different the corporation accounts would
look—a thought which should prevent them from opposing
the wishes of the congregation of St. Luke's, and more.
over negotiating a principle that was highly beneficial.
Mr. Alderman S. Holme agreed with Mr. Earle that It
would 1)..i derogatory in the council to thus extort the
money from the congregation, and concluded by second-
ing:o;e amendment.
Mr. J. R. Jeffery opposed the amendment, and twitted
Mr. Steains with his tergiversation on this question.
The amendment was then put and lost by 18 to 14.
The voting was as follows :
For the amen iment : The Mayor; Aldermen Bennett,
Preston, Houghton, S. Holme ; Council'ors Anderson,
Livingston, Ste ains, Brancker, Tinne, Earle, Roberston,
Halhetti, and Anthony.
Against the amendment : Alderman Dover ; Council-
lors Crosth waite, A. C. Stewart, Shell, Woodruff, Haydock,
Godfrey, Banner, Wagstaff, Gladstone, Johnson, Picton,
J. R. -Jeffery, Kitchen, Mellor, Beckwith, Aikin, and
Farnworth.
The council then adjourned till eleven o'clock on Wed-
nesday.
During the whole day there were scarcely more than
30 members present.