The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-24 00:00:00

COUNTY EXPENDITURE.

A meeting of the delegates from the various Boards of
Guardians was held, yesterday, at the Legh Arms, New-
ton, at which there were present guardians from the fol-
lowing unions :—Salford, Rochdale, Bury, Haslingden,
Preston, Burnley, Oldham, Chorley, Liverpool, Ashtoti-
under-Lyne, West Derby, Chorlton-upon-Medlock.
Poulton-le-Fylde, and from the Leek and Cheadle Unions
in Staffordshire.
Robert Towley Parker, Esq., of Cuerden, was unani-
mously called to the chair. In opening the proceedings,
he called upon Mr. Roberts, clerk of the Rochdale
Board of Guardians, and secretary to the committee, to
read the following circular, which had been addressed to
the different Boards of Guardians, convening the meeting,
and explanatory of its object :

COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE BILL.

This bill, though not thrown out by the vote in the House of
Commons, yet being shelved so that it cannot further proceed
this session, the committee appointed at the Newton meeting,
held en the 15th of January last, have instructed me to call
another meeting of deputies from the various unions in this
county, to he held at the Legh Arms, Newton, on Monday, the
23rd day of July next, at the hour of twelve at noon, in order
that they may report their proceedings since their appoint-
ment, and that such meeting may consider and decide as to the
future proceedings to be taken in order to obtain the control
over the county expenditure suggested is the following resolu
tions, passed at the last meeting :
"That the irresponsible power of the magistrates to contract
debts to any amount, and charge them upon the ratepayers, is
a principle so nnj ust as to require forthwith the interference of
the legislature. in order that the ratepayers may obtain some
control over the funds that are expended.
"That, in the opinion of this meeting, this control would be
obtained by the constitution of a county financial and admi-
nistrative board, to be composed of magistrates and of elected
members from each board of guardians."
The committee, of course, confidently rely on deputations
attending from all the unions which sent deputations to the
former meeting.
The committee have directed me to invite the members for
the county, and also for the boroughs in the county, to be pre-
sent at the meeting.
The committee, therefore, hope that your board of guardians
will send a deputation; and I was instructed also to state that,
as the meeting will be a public meeting, the committee will be
glad to see at the meeting any ratepayers, from any of the
townships in your union, who ma) feel an interest in this im
portant question.
The SECRETARY also read letters from the following
members of Parliament in the county, all of whom ex-
pressed their regret at not being able to be present, and
many of them stated their opinion to be in accordance
with the object the meeting had in view :—Sir T. B. Birch,
Messrs. Wm. Brown, Thos. Greene, Jas. Pilkington, W.
J. Fox, A. Henry, J. Wilson Patten, J. Bright, W. S.
Crawford, and James Heywood.
The CHAIRMAN then said that the meeting, having
heard read to them the circular of Mr. Roberts, addressed
by direction of the committee with whom he acted, it be-
came his (the Chairman's) duty to make some remarks
before he left the general question of the day in abler
hands. They stood, however, in a somewhat better posi-
tion than they did at the time when that letter was ad-
dressed, for, as they were aware, the amendment which
Mr. Milner Gibson proposed on Sir John Pakington's mo-
tion, namely, that the House of Commons should appoint
a committee to inquire into the expenditure of counties,
with a view of ascertaining whether any more satisfactory
mode of controlling such expenditure could be adopted.
They were aware that, although that amendment was
defeated in the first instance by the determination of
those members of the House of Commons who acted
with Sir John Packington, yet it had since been carried
and therefore in the next session of Parliament, when
committees were appointed, the special object of that
committee would be as to the best mode of giving effec-
tive control over county expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
The concession of Sir J. Packington, and those acting
with him, was important, for it appeared that the pre-
judices of the members of the House of Commons had
so far given way. It was in vain to suppose that a bill of
that sort could be proposed without meeting with the most
strenuous opposition from those members who were in the
commission of the Peace, but the principal upon
which it was founded appeared so just that he could hardly
think that it could long be defeated. The chairman then
proceeded to quote some evidence given before a com-
mittee of enquiry as to the burdens of the ratepayers,
which showed that they were rapidly increasing, and
against the principle of taking the expenditure from the
control of local authority. Ile then proceeded to contend
that the guardians of the poor were the proper parties to
have the control of the expenditurein their various districts,
inasmuch as they wre elected by the ratepayers, from whom
the money was raised, and were in a position to afford the
magistrates very efficient, very valuable assistance,
in the administration of their finances. He was strongly
of opinion, from the attention he had paid to the subject,
that it was absolutely necessary that a a check should be
put upon the expenditure of the county—that it was not
fitting that there should he no limits to the expenditure
save the patience of those who would have to bear the
burden. (Hear, hear.) Since they last met the magis-
trates appeared to feel the importance of the subject, for
at the last general sessions of the peace a resolution, pro-
posed byMr. Edmund Ashworth had been adopted ,requeit-
ing " the justices of each petty sessional division to appoint
one of their body to form a committee to act with the
general finance committee, to inquire into the expenditure
of the county, with a view of ascertaining what curtail-
ment of expense may be judiciously carried out." Then
came a few words which gave a very large margin to the
operation of the committee, It stated—" Due regard
being had to the efficiency of each department." (Hear,
hear.) From those few words he feared the inquiry was
likely to have very little effect,. for the excuse that due
regard was paid to efficiency to leave matters just as they
were. Nothing, then, remained for them but to go on
just as they were, for, unless the support of the rate-
payers, whose interest was deeply involved in the question,
was obtained, not only in this county, but in all the
counties of England, he feared there was little hope in
carrying out to a successful issue that which they thought
to be just—that which they knew to be necessary—and
which they were in hopes of compelling the government
to accede to. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROBERTS then entered into a very lengthy state-
ment showing the state of the finances of the county, justi-
fying the present movement, and proving that the present
expenditure was considerably larger than was necessary.
He quoted the opinions of those competent to judge, to
prove that crime was on the decrease ; and therefore
there was no necessity for an enlargement of prisons, that
the county asylums had confined in them one half of the
patients who ought not to have been there, as they were
not dangerons lunatics, and therefore there was no ne-
cessity for any increase in that department ; that the
county constabulary was much too large, and carried
on at too high a rate of expense —in fact, that, in-
stead of being an efficient body, they were often med-
dling with questions they had no right to interfere
with which necessarily increased the county expenditure.
Mr. Roberts then defended in an able manner an elabo-
rate statement of the county expenditure put forth by the
committee, and which had been attacked by Mr. E. Ash-
worth, in severe terms, at the county sessions, and smartly
retorted on that gentleman's inconsistency, he having for-
merly been a strenuous public advocate for economy, but
since lie had taken his affirmation, as a magistrate, ap-
peared to have changed his views on the subject. The
speaker, after eloquently urging upon the meeting the
necessity of perseverence, sat down amid loud cheers.
The Rev. J. B. JONES, one of the Guardians of Cheadle
Union, in Staffordshire, rose to propose the first resolu-
tion. He had the greatest satisfaction in proposing the
resolution. and in assuring the meeting that the county.
of Stafford were with them in the struggle, and ready to
assist with both person and pocket. (Cheers.) Since
1833 they had been engaged in the struggle for a reduc-
tion of county expenditure. And although they had not
been able to effect much, they had never lost sight of the•
greatprinciple the meeting hadin view, for it was the principle
of the British Constitution—that those who paid should
be represented, whether they paid singly a only to a small
extent. With regard to the highway rates, the poor rates,
and the church rates, all the payers were entitled to re-
presentation irk the expenditure. Why then should such
large funds be placed in the hands of an irresponsible ma-
gistracy, so far as the ratepayers were concerned. He
urged the meeting to agitate un,il they obtained justice
in this respect, and concluded by moving the following
resolution : . _ .

" That the proceedings of the committee appointed at a
meeting of Guardians, held at Newton, on the 15th January
last, meet with the cordial approval of this meeting, and that
they be adopted and confirmed."
Mr. JENKINSON, of Salford, briefly seconded the
motion.

Mr. SYDNEY, of West Derby, supported the motion at
considerable length. He, however, objected- to attacks
being made on the magistrates on account of the expendi-
ture of the county, but would rather the meeting con-
tended for the principle on which their opposition
to the expenditure was founded, namely, that there
should be representation along with taxation. He
was exceedingly sorry they had not met with the support
in London they had a right to expect, and which had
been promised. He understood the government had
promised their support to the county expenditure bill
which had been promoted by the committee, and wished
to know from the chairman whether such promise had
been made ?
The CHAIRMAN replied that it had. _ _ _

Mr. SYDNEY strongly condemned the conduct of the
the government for first promising support, and then with-
holding it in the hour of need, and in conclusion strongly
advocated the principle they had in view, and sat down
amid loud cheers.

The resolution was then put and carried unanimously.
Mr. J. LIVESEY, of Preston, proposed the next reso-
lution, which he introduced in a speech of considerable
length, in the course of which he defended the statements
put forth by the committee from the attacks made upon
them by the Rev. Mr. Birley, at the Bolton Board of
Guardians, and asserted that those statements had been
admitted to be substantially correct by a subsequent
account published by the magistrates themselves. He
concluded by proposing the following resolution :
" That the continued pressure of local taxation, and parti-
cularly of county expenditure, which now forms one of the
most important items of local finance, and in the manage-
ment of which the ratepayers have not any voice, renders it
a duty on the part of the ratepayers, not only in this
county, but throughout England and Wales, to take some
decid, d steps, in order to obtain from the legislature the early
establishment of county financial and administrative boards,
and this meeting urges the co-operation of boards of guardians,
and other parties throughout the kingdom, in support of the
present motion."
Mr. SCOLEFIELD, of Rochdale, seconded the motion.
It was, he observed, a matter of congratulation that they
lived in a free country—it was matter of congratulation
that they lived in a country where taxation and repre-
sentation went together. This was the great principle
recognised by the constitution, contended for by the
committee, and he was happy to add that none of the
members of the legislature could be found opposed to it.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. SMITH, as a ratepayer from Chorlton-upon-
Medlock, spoke in support of the motion, which was
unanimously adopted.
Mr. Alderman LIVINGSTON, of Manchester, briefly
proposed the third resolution, which was as follows:

"That in the opinion of this meeting such county financial
and agricultural boards should consist of two members, to he
elected by each board of guardians in the county, one member
(not being a justice of the peace) to be chosen by the represen-
tative guardians, and one to be chosen by and from the ex
officio guardians (being magistrates) in each poor-law union."
Mr. Churchwarden DOVER, of Liverpool, seconded
the motion. It was quite true that the borough of Li-
verpool was not much interested in the question of county
expenditure, but yet they were interested inasmuch as
they could keep their pauper lunatics at less expense than
they were paying in the county asylum. His object in being
present was for the proposing of cultivating a feeling of
atimity between the Select Vestry of Liverpool and
the various Boards of Guardians throughout the county,
who were pursuing the same object the meeting had in view,
the speaker then went on to ask the co-operation of the
meeting with the Select Vestry, in their endeavours to
regulate the number of passengers brought by the Irish
steamers to Liverpool, when
The CHAIRMAN intimated that the question could not
be entertained at that meeting, and Mr. Dover resumed
his seat.

The resolution was then passed unanimously.
Mr. Tilos. LIVESEY. one of the Rochdale Board of
Guardians, briefly proposed the following resolution:—

"'That the best'thanks of this meeting are due, and are
hereby given, to those magistrates who have supported the
present movement; to those members of the House of Com-
mons who have aided the committee in their efforts during the
Session of Parliament now closing, and to that portion of the
press who have so efficiently seconded and supported the
efforts of the committee."

He disproved some of the statements made by Mr. Ash-
worth at the meeting of magistrates at Preston, and in
doing so said Mr. A. had asserted that a ratepayer at Roch-
dale only paid the same rates now that they did in 1824 ;
but suppose a person then paid ss. rates, he (Mr. Livesey)
should like Mr. Ashworth to state how many yards of
cloth a person would have to weave now and in 1824 for
ss. The speaker concluded by urging earnestness in the
cause in order ensure success.
Mr. BENTLEY briefly seconded the motion.

The resolution, after a few words from Mr. Jenkinson,
expressive of a hope that the object they had in view
would meet with the support of the magistrates, passed
unanimously.

Mr. J. Mitchell proposed a resolution to the effect that
a committee be formed, consisting of the Chairman. Mr.
Itobert Tweedale, of Rochdale, Mr. James Scholefield, of
Rochdale, Mr. Newall, of Littleborough, Mr. J. Livesey,
of Preston, and the chairman and deputy-chairman of
each board of guardians favourable to the object they had
in view, to carry out the object of the meeting, with full
power and authority to adopt all such proceedings as they
may think proper, and with power to add to their num-
bers ; every three to form a quorum.
Mr. ROBERTS, of Burnley, seconded the motion, which,
after some discussion, was adopted.
Mr. Alderman LIVINGSTON having taken the chair, a
vote of thanks was unanimously carried to R. T. Parker.
Esq., for his able conduct in presiding over the meeting,
and the valuable assistance he bad afforded the committee
in London when on the deputation.
Mr. TWEEDALE seconded the motion, which was carried
by acclamation, and, after an acknowledgement from Mr.
Parker, the proceedings terminated, having lasted within
a few minutes of four hours.