The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-05 00:00:00

BRISTOL.

Mr. Burgess, examined by Sir CHARLES WETHERELL.—I am
not the town clerk of the city of Bristol, but I am employed as the
solicitor to the Corporation, and am clerk to Mr. Serjeant Ludlow,
who is the town clerk. I have lived all my life in Bristol, and am
well acquainted with the Corporation, which consists of a Mayor,
Recorder, and Aldermen (including the Recorder, who is also an
Alderman) with thirty Common Counciln en, making together a
body of forty-three. The number of burgesses is between 6,000
and 7,000. There is a jurisdiction in the Corporation of a gaol
delivery of Oyer and Terminer. This jurisdiction is exercised by
a Court consisting of the Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen.
The Mayor and Recorder must both be present to make
a Court. I cannot give a list of the Recorders of Bristol, but I
recollect Sir Robert Atkins was one ; also Lord Ashley, Sir Vi-
cary Gibbs, Lord Gifford, Lord Lyndhurst.
Sir C. WETHERELL—There you may stop.
Witness—l may perhaps be permitted by the House to
say, that the Recorders of Bristol have ever been men
of the highest eminence in the legal profession. The
administration of justice under this jurisdiction is in his judg-
ment fairly and correctly administered ; the late Recorder was Lord
Lyndhurst. His predecessor, Lord Gifford, offered to sit twice in
the year ; has no doubt that the same offer was made by Lord
Lyndhurst. The sittings were formerly held once in the year, and
that was in April, to give the counsel going the Western
Circuit an opportunity of attending ; from the extent of the city and
increase of the population, it was desirable to hold them more frequently
and there was a conference upon the subject between the Mayor
and Aldermen and the Recorder, Lord Gifford, when the Recor-
der promised to attend a second gaol delivery, if he were called
upon to do so, accordingly a second sitting was held, when it was
considered necessary to do so ; this improvement was made volun-
tarily and spontaneously by the Corporation, upon the representa-
tion of some of the respectable inhabitants of Bristol. The
Corporation acquiesced in the prayer immediately. The com-
puted amount of the population of Bristol, within the an-
cient boundaries of the City jurisdiction, Ns as about sixty
thousand. Could only form this opinion from documents
respecting the population. Gave this number, not from an abstract
of the Population Report, but from the general impression on his
mind. Did not know the amount of the population within the City
ofLondon, properly so called, heard it was about 58,000. Supposing
the new Parliamentary boundaries to be added to the ancient munici-
pal jurisdiction, he computed that the amount of the population
woald be from 105,000 to 110,000. In his judgment, the increase
of the population would require the keeping up of the administra-
tion of the ancient jurisdiction of gaol delivery and oyer and ter-
miner. The increase of the population would require a proportionate
increase of the administration. In his judgment, therefore,
the taking away of ' the ancient jurisdiction would 'be
injurious, instead of being beneficial. If the jurisdiction
was taken away from Britol, it would by the terms of this Bill be
transferred to Gloucester in all capital cases, which was a distance
of 36 miles ; the prosecutions would therefore cost a very large
sum ; the injury would consist in the expense of carrying wit-
nesses to such a distance ; the last case that had been
tried at Bristol was a charge of murder ; it occupied two or
three days, and a vast.: number of witnesses were examined.
Such a case would be attended with great expense. Did not how-
ever think this would alter prosecutions. The Magistrates would
insist upon the prosecutions, as he believed they could. In his
judgment, the suppression of the old jurisdiction would be a great
injury to the inhabitants at large, and would be followedby a great
prevention of justice. According to the existing• charter the
duty of Magistrates within the city was perfotmed by the
Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, who were all justices Of the peace.
There were by-laws existing, by which the May& of Bristol must
be resident in the city, except he hid an annual vote 'of the corpo-
ration, by which liberty was given him to be absent•hvo weeks.
That power had not been exercised in his recollection. He had
never heard of a dereliction of duty, or any complaints
made against the Corporation, except in the case of the late
riots ; with that exception, he had never heard of any proceeding
against them in any of the King's Courts. Witness had been the
legal adviser of the Corporation for the last 33 years, and had,
together with Mr. Serjeant Ludlow, given them the best advice.
The magistrates either lived in the city, or in the suburbs. The
mayor, or some other magistrates, were also at the Council House
to perform their magisterial duties. There were generally four
magistrates in attendance every day to perform their public duties,
which he believed had always been exercised fairl v and conscientiously.
The number of police-officers in Bristol is about 307. Of these
136 ward constables—tradesmen from the different wards. In my
opinion the police force of Bristol ought to be encreased, as it is
at present altogether inefficient. In all cases of disturbance it
would be altogether inadequate for the preservation of the peace,
and this must be evident from the vast extent of the population.
The Corporation have been always desirous, so far as my know-
ledge goes, to encrease the police force, and put it on an
efficient and respectable footing. In the year 1830, the
subject of encreasing the police force was under their
consideration. It was at a time when the country was under con-
siderable alarm from the spread of incendiarism, and a gentleman,
a Colonel Maher, I think, from the Home Office, was deputed to
communicate with the Corporation of Bristol on the subject. The
Corporation made a proposition to the city relative to increasing
the police force, but it was not acted upon. In the month of Oc-
tober, 1831, the proposal was renewed, and it was proposed to have
the Bristol police established upon the same model as that of Lon-
don. The Corporation offered to pass an Act of Parliament.---
(A laugh.)
Sir C. WETHERELL—Go on.
Witness—For the establishment of a police force, and to contri-
bute annually a sum of 1,5001. towards its support. That plan was
abandoned. It would be necessary to impose a rate for the purpose
of carrying the project into effect. The amount would depend on
the extent. of the police force. In my opinion the plan was not
adopted because the citizens were not inclined to con-
tribute their quota towards the support of the police.—
There was a dispute as to how the money was to be raised and how
it was to be applied. I have read over the Bill, and have seen the
clause relative to the power of rating the inhabitants conferred on
the new Town Council. A rate would have been necessary to
supply funds to pay the police-force as contemplated. The inha-
bitants of Bristol objected to having the rate imposed in the nature
of a county rate. Bristol is a county as well as a city ; but we
have never had such a thing as a county rate there. The Corpo-
ration never attempted to impose a county rate—it would not lie
with them to impose it, but with the Justices at Sessions. 1
never heard of a borough rate in Bristol—the name is unknown.
If the police of Bristol were yet wanted to be put on the same
principle as the police of London, he had not the slightest doubt
but that the Corporation would yet readily give the 1,500/. a-year,
as he knew they were most anxious to do all in their power for the
benefit of the city of Bristol. The Corporation maintained the
Gaol and Bridewell, at an expense of 3,000/. a-year. The Bride-
well had been burned down at the riots, and was built by the Cor-
poration, at an expense of 11,0001. These things were, in Coun-
ties, always paid by a County Rate. The paving and lighting of
Bristol are provided for by a partial Local Act, and the money is
raised and placed in the hands of Commissioners appointed under
the Act. A cattle market was lately built in Bristol, to the
erection of which the Corporation lent 10,0001, which
was not expected to be repaid, and might be considered as a gift.
A bridge had also been built or repaired at an expense of 2,0001.,
but that was the private property of the Corporation. In the time
of Edward 1., Bristol -obtained a charter granting them town dues
subject to a rent. In the time of Charles 11., the Corporation, with
their own money purchased the fee simple, and of course now en-
joyed them without incumbrance. They had established their claim
before Lord Tenterden about six years ago. He did not know how
the accounts were audited. All he had to do with that was, to
summon the whole of the Corporation for the particular purpose.
The charity's estates are audited in the same way. All the mem-
bers are summoned to attend. I have almost invariably attended
the distribution of the funds. It is the duty of the solicitor to do
so. As far as I ever knew, these charities • are properly and
religiously applied, according to the intent of the donors,
and the objects to receive it. I attended the examina-
tion of the Charity Commissioners for months, and they were
unable to discover any defalcation ; in fact they complimented the
Corporation over and over again on the manner in which these
trusts were managed. They are now under the control and re-
gulation of the Chamberlain and other corporate officers, and the
expense and management is probably about 300/. a year, but
if the plan proposed by this Bill is adopted, it will cost, calculating at
the rate of 10 per cent. upon the whole property, 1,2001., so that
there will be an increase of expense equal to the difference, say 9001.
(We shall give the cenclusion in our Second Edition. )

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.