The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-27 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

A special meeting of the Town-council was held on Wed-
nesday last, for the purpose of taking into consideration the
proceedings which it would be proper to state, on the Judg-
ment of Ouster having been pronounced against Qeorge

Quayle, Esq.
Mr. Walker was in his place in the Council.
The MAYOR said, on Friday last, the Town-cleric had com-
municated to him that Judgment of Ouster had been entered
against Mr. George Quayle, by which he was ousted from
the Town-council. The Council were aware that Mr.
Quayle had previously resigned, and paid a fine of £5O, and
that Mr. Walker had been elected by the burgesses of Ever-
ton Ward without opposition. The Town-clerk had taken
counsel's opinion on the case. Mr. Shand had called upon
him (the Mayor) in company with Mr. Carson. They In-
formed him that Mr. Quayle having, received Judgment of
Ouster, Mr. Shand was entitled to enter the" Council. To
this, he (the Mayor) replied, that he did not think that the
judgment gave him authority to permit Mr. Shand to enter
the Council. A letter was then handed to him from Mr.
Walker, who resigned his claim. On this, Mr. Carson wished
the Mayor to take Mr. Shand's declaration, which lie (the
Mayor) declined. Mr. Carson had brought with him two
magistrates and two councillors, with whom he retired to
another part of the building ; what occurred there he could
not say.
The 'TOWN-CLERK said, at the election of November, 1839,
Mr. Quayle was rettfrned for Everton Ward by a majority of
one; he took his seat, and was received as a councillor. Pro-
ceedings were afterwards taken by Mr. Shand, who was his
opponent. Pending the proceedings, and before the Court
of Queen's Bench had arrived at judgment, namely, on the
27th July, Mr. Quayle delivered in his resignation of his
office, and paid the fine of £5O. As this was pending the
proceedings, and before judgment had been delivered, the
Mayor and returning officers could adopt no other course
than proceed to election. That election took place, and Mr.
Walker was returned without opposition. The proceedings,
however, went on, and the question still remained to be set-
tled, whether Mr. Quayle had been legally elected. The
issue stood for trial at the Liverpool Assizes. The entry
was not made, however, as Mr. Quayle had withdrawn his
plea, whereupon the court prOnounced judgment that Mr.
Quayle be ousted. It was a judgment which that Council
was bound to take notice of. When the judgment was served
on him (the Town-clerk) it appeared to him that there was a
difficulty caused by the resignation and subsequent election,
and the question arose as to how far any one would be bound,
save Mr. Quayle himself. He bad seen eminent counsel on
the subject, and the decision which he had in common with
them arrived at, was, that Mr. Walker, the Council, and
every Burgess was bound by that Judgment of Ouster, and
none could set up anything at variance with it. It had the
power of binding to the full extent. The return of Mr.
Quayle was void, his resignation was void, and the election
of Mr. Walker, which took place upon that resignation, was
also void. Mr. Walker had no right whatever in that Coun-
cil. (Laughter, in which Mr. Walker joined heartily.) Mr.
Shand was the person who was entitled to it. The question
for the Council was, what course they should pursue ; whe-
ther to put Mr. Shand to apply for a mandamus or to sum-
mon him at once to the Council. This writ, if applied for by
Mr. Shand, the court could and would issue as a matter of
course. The Town-clerk, after a few further observations,
said the proper course would be to receive Mr. Shand.
Mr. WALKER said he had attended the Council because
he was summoned by the Town-clerk. As he was aware
that he bad now no further right tlgsre, lie would at once
withdraw. Mr. Walker bowed and retired.
Mr. JOHN SMITH wished to know if Mr. Walker were
liable to any penalty.
The TOWN-CLERK.—No ; Mr. Walker has not resigned.
Mr. BUSHELL said as the Town-clerk had stated that Mr.
Quayle's resignation was void, and that Mr. Walker was not
liable to any penalty for going out, lie thought they ought to
return Mr. Quayle his £5O.
The TOWN-CLERK could not say that the Council would
be justified in doing this. If Mr. Quayle were desirous of
recovering back his £5O, he knew of no law by which he
could do so, having already paid it.
Mr. CASE formally moved that Mr. Shand be summoned
to the Council.
Mr. SHELL said the Town-clerk had declared that the
effect of the judgment was to render Mr. Quayle's resigna-
tion void : he thought, therefore, they had no right to the
penalty for such resignation. Why should they exact a
penalty from Mr. Quayle for doing nothing ?
The TOWN-CLERK said Mr. Quayle had assumed to act as
a councillor ; he had assumed to resign, and taken upon
himself to pay the penalty. Having done so, he (the Town-
clerk) did not see how he could get the money back in law.
Mr. AIKIN wished to know, supposing Mr. Quayle had
not paid, if the Town-clerk could, by legal means, have en-
forced payment.
The TOWN-CLERK said, he should not have attempted to
proceed for the recovery of such a penalty, unless com-
manded to do so by the Council.
Mr. PROCTER wished to ask if the Town-clerk had been
equally clear that Mr. Quayle had been duly elected.
The TOWN-CLERK said Mr. Quayle was duly returned by
the Aldermen and Assessors of the ward.
Mr. EVANS said, after the decision which had been made
known by the Town-clerk, he thought the Council were
holding Mr. Quayle's money against his right. It was in-
cumbent on the Council to take some means of returning
Mr. Quayle his money. He could not conceive that they
could equitably or honourably retain the money.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES thought Mr. Quayle was placed in
an awkward situation, but it was less his fault than that of
the Alderman of the ward. He thought it but just that Mr.
Quayle's £5O should be returned, and if it came to the vote
should certainly vote for it to be returned.
Mr. DAVID HODGSON agreed entirely with the interpre-
tation of the Town-clerk as regarded the legal aspect of the
case, because it was consistent with common sense, and they
always found that the law was consistent with common
sense. With regard to returning Mr. Quayle his money, it
appeared that it could not be done legally ; if it could be
done legally he would accede to it cheerfully ; but as it could
not be done legally, he would oppose it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said Mr. Quayle had given votes on va-
rious occasions in that council. According to act of parlia-
ment any one voting improperly was liable to a penalty. As
Mr. Quayle's election and resignation were void, he wished
to know whether he was not liable to penalties for having
improperly voted. He did not ask this with any notion that
auy proceedings would be taken injurious to Mr. Quayle, but
merely for information.
The TOWN-CLERK said so long as Mr. Quayle was de facto
a member of the council, he was not liable to any penalties

for his votes.
Mr. J. HORNBY said, as allusion had been to him as alder-
man of the ward, he had to say in reply that the return was
made in conformity with the majority of one which appeared
on the poll. They had no choice, and they acted throughout
on the advice of the town-clerk. With regard to the remarks
of Mr. Gladstone, he could hardly think that he had spoken
with a view to fine Mr. Quayle, but it had come to his know-
ledge that the proceedings against Mr. Quayle had been
carried on after Mr. Quayle's resignation, with the sole view
of increasing the expenses.
Mr. JoHN HOLNIES explained that all he intended to con-
vey was, that Mr. Quayle was not to blame, but those who
made the return, and therefore he ought in justice to have
his £5O returned.
Mr. PaocToa was glad that he had at length got a reply
to his question, and that it was the Town-clerk who did it.
The TOWN-CLERK was ready to avow that it was all done
by his advice. They sat and investigated the votes until the
time allowed by law was pearly up, and finding that the num-
bers were even, the casting vote Was given in favour of Mr.
Quayle, and the return was made as the only course that they
thatmo n
he
ed
shouldto the next
move
at
could pursue.
Mr. CASE'S motion was put, and carried unanimously,
and
iviMr. Mr.
chi Shand d
gavewil l
s
council that Mr. Quayle's £5O be returned to him.
nboet iCuen'council.te next
THE INJURIES TO ST. MICHAEL'S AND ST. MARTIN'S
CHURCHES.

Mr. CASE laid before the council ihe report of the surveyor
on the injuries done to the steeples of the above churches.
" August 24, 1841.
"The Surveyor reports, that the electric fluid this morn-
ing struck the spire of St. Michael's Church, which caused
such a serious fracture, that a great portion of the spire will
have to be taken down. He took the earliest opportunity of
examining the interior, and finds, that where the great frac-
ture has taken place, the stones, for at least one-third of the
circumference, are forced from their beds, which causes the
part above it to be in such imminent danger, that he thought,
it his duty to direct the entrance to the street, in front or
the church, to be continued closed for the public safety.
" The spire of St. Martin's Church has been injured in a
similar manner, which he considers, from the inspection he
has made, will also require to be taken down to the first driP,
band, and other injured parts restored : but the extent of
injury he has not been able to ascertain to these churches!
He recommends the services in both churches should 10
suspended, and immediate measures taken for their safety
for which he wishes the instructions of the committee.
has ordered the clock of St. Michael's Church to be taken
down."
Mr. CASE said, the Church Committee had already such
state, that if a gale of wind should come, they would probe
bly be blown down.
The council broke up shortly before twelve o'clock.