The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-05 00:00:00

Lurch

uilding'of, the

- . .
lould be attached

, a it was contemplated, it was concealed from those
:erested themselves in the undertaking, else they
Every one knew how unpleasant

subscribed

---.... in populous districts situated in the vicinity
of burial grounds, and as 'Windsor would be shortly as densely
populated as Liverpool, he ;thought it ought to be the duty
of the corporation to interest themselves in what was likely
to conduce to the welfare of its inhabitants. _ _

Mr. C
did. not co

, in reply to the question, said that the com-
ve that their powers extended to the
consequently no interrogatories were
put upon the subject. There was no clause in the Marquis
of Normanby's bill which at all adverted to burial-grounds,
and therefore no question was asked of his lordship respecting
them. He (Mr. Case) thought be might be able to give a
better explanation after the report on the health of the town
had been read, by which the council would be put in posses-
I surveyor touching

.quis of No-rmanby's bill

sion of a report from the commit
the effect that the clauses in thd M
would produce.
Mr. EARLE said, his question had no reference to tl
clauses of the bill alluded to by Mr. Case. His questior
simply was, whether any measures had been taken on the
subject of the increase of burial;grounds in such a populous
town as Liverpool, and, if not, he would move that the Fi-
nance Committee take it into consideration.
The MAYOR. said that no measures had been taken on'the

subject.
Mr. EARLE repeated that it was important something
should be done to prevent the establishment of such places
in populous neighbourhoods, and was strongly inclined to
move that the attention of .the Finance Committee be called
to it.
Mr. H. HORN BY thought it would be more desirable to
move any such instruction to the Health Committee, after
the proceedings of that committee had been read.
Mr. SHEIL thought Mr. Earle's .the preferable plan, be-
cause the Finance Committee had seet a deputation to Lon-
don. It an instruction of the kind to the Health Committee,
who had, not sent forward any deputation, were moved, the
Council might only be involving, themselves in the expenses
of another deputation.
Mr. H. HouNn7i said his reason for wishing to see the in-
struction moved to the Health Committee, was solely because
the subject of the health of the town came more particularly
under their cognizance.
Mr. EARLE inquired the title of Lord Normanby's bill.
Mr. HORNBY replied, that it was generally called the
drainage bill.
Mr. GEORGE HOLT suggested, as the matter was of con-
siderable hnportance; and entitled to full consideration, that
the proceedings be confirmed, andthat the subject introduced
by Mr. Earle be brought ferward at the next meeting of
Council. In the meantime, members would have ample time
afforded them for arriving et a full knowledge of the sub-
ject.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE did not consider that the decision
of the question lay between the Council and the House` of
Commons, because no clause contained. Lord Normanby's
bill would prevent parties from. attaching burial-grounds to
churches, if they thought proper so to do. In his opinion,
they ought to lay the matter before the bishop, or, in the
meantime, refer it to the Health Committee.
Mr. Ey/iris took that opportunity of expressing his dis-
sent, at once, from Mr. Lawrence's proposition of referring
the Council here and there on the subject of local affairs.
They ought to go to the bishop, forsooth ! when the fact was
that the present was an affair that concerned the locality,
and the bishop ought not to be thought of on any occasion
of the kind. He hoped the deputation would protest against
what is generally called legislation, because he had no idea
that a great town like Liverpool should be put into the same
category with Ormskirk and Prescot. The object of the
municipal reform bill was to create local government, and if
that bill were adhered to, everything would be left to local
government.
Mr. JOHN HOLMES said; that as the commissioners sitting
in London were likely to be appointed under Lord Norman-
by's bill, for the management of local affairs in the provincial
towns, steps had been taken by the Finance Committee to
prevent such commissioners from being appointed ; and he
believed he might say that they had succeded in preventing
any commissioners sitting in London from interfering.
Mr. CASE had every reason to believe that the system of
centralisation, or the management of the affairs of Liverpool
by commissioners sitting in London, would be abandoned.
(Hear.)
Sir J. WALMSLEY understood it to be the intention of the
lords to denude the bill in some respects, by taking the sca-
venging department out of the hands that held it at present,
and giving it to. the highwaymen.,
Mr. YATES, having discovered, by the reading of the
finance proceedings, that a salary was to be paid to a Mr.
Jones, an additional clerk to the magistrates' clerks, inquired
why such salary should be paid by the council ?
The TOWN-CLERK replied. Vrider the municipal corpora-
tions act'the magistrates' clerks were entitled to certain fee,,,
but afterwards-they bad to be paid by fixed salarie,
fixed salaries left a surplus that came into the
out of which a charitable fund of 4,150 per annum Was fort.
ed, disposable by the magistrates of the borough. It followet
therefore that the council had not only to pay the clerks, bo
also such expenses as were incidental to their office- "-
the consideration of the question as to whet
claimed by them was necessary, and the arnonnt to be paid
for such assistance proper; came before the council, inasmuch
as the council was interested in the net surplus of the office ;
but the appointment of such clerks did - not , rest with the

council

3rough fund,

ther the assistan

vv
The MAYOR here informed the council that owing to the
absence from duty of the deputy town-clerk, he had appointed
Mr. Falcon to perform the neceusary duty at the sessions
now being holden, and that an arrangement was made with
that person on..terms which the town-clerk considered rea-
sonable.

HORNBY moved that t

from £l2O to -.-C

salary of Mr. Joshua

under the treasurer, be inerea.

Ir. BARCLAY seconded the motion.—Carried unani-

Mr. H. HORNBY moved that Mr. James Abbot, clerk to
the clerk of committees, have his salary raised from £l5O to
£250 per annum.
Mr. ROBINSON moved that Mr. Abbot's salarybe increased
only by £5O per annum..

Mr. EVANS seconded the motion.
Sir J. Walmsley, Mr. Hamby, Mr. John Smith, Mr. W.
Earle, and Mr. Platt supported the original motion, and with
the town-clerk, spoke in high terms of Mr. Abbot's services,
adducing Mr. Okill's testimony in his favour, that genile-
man having declared that be could not possibly do without
Mr. Abbot's assistance.
Mr. Sheil, Mr. M`Kee, Mr. Proctor, and Mr. Blackburn
supported the amendment.
The result of the division was—
For the amendment
Against it

--11

-Majority
The original motion was carried

THE TOWN DUES.
Upon the motion of Mr. H. Hornby, the question of ap-
pointing a clerk to detect the many frauds that are being com-
mitted in the payment of the town dues, was referred to the
Finance Committee.