The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-11-12 00:00:00

MEMORIAL

A memorial froin the owners ... occupiers of houses in
Bridgewater-street, was read, and referred to the Finunce
Committee.

CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
The proceedings of the last special council, and of the se-
veral committees since that meeting were then read and con-
firmed.

APPOINTMENT OF MR. HARVEY AS ALDERMAN.
It being understood that the Town-clerk bad taken the
opinion of counsel on this question, he was called upon by
several members to state the result. He stated, in effect,
that after the election of Mr. Harvey, by a majority of
thirty-three to thirty, and the Council had broken up,
Mr. G. H. Lawrence, accompanied by several other mem-
bers, came in and protested against the election, on the
ground that his name was not in the burgess list at the time
being. The objection was that his (Mr. H.'s) name was
not in the list for 1839, and as the list for 1840 was not re-
vised throughout, and the old list of 1839 fallen back upon,
that list therefore remained in force till Ist November, 1841,
and Mr. Harvey was elected on the 30th Oct., while the list
for 1841, in which his name appeared could not come into
legal operation till the November following. It was there-
fore contended that Mr. Harvey was not duly qualified to
sit as alderman. He (the Town-clerk) thought at the
time the objection was fatal, and had he heen then asked his
opinion, he should so have stated it. There were two lists
required—one by the overseers, to be completed in August,
called the burgess list—and another, revised by the mayor
and assessors, coming into force on the first November,
called the burgess roll. The opinion, however, which
he had first entertained against Mr. Harvey's eligibi-
lity, was considerably shaken by his attention being
called, by a barrister, to the words " entitled to be (at the
time of election) on the Burgess List", the other being
called the Burgess Roll. He had finally been led
to the conclusion, from several clauses of the act, the words
referred to the overseers' list, and he therefore had formed
an opinion favourable to the election in question. He then
stated that he had drawn out the case of Mr. Harvey as
clearly as possible, and submitted it to eminent counsel, Sir
Frederick Pollock, Attorney-General, Mr. Starkie, Mr.
Cowling, and Mr. Crompton. Their reply was, "We are
of opinion that Mr. Harvey was entitled to be on the burgess
list at the time he was elected alderman."
A long and rather stormy discussion then took place as to
whether the Council should proceed to have the question
decided in the Court of Queen's Bench, or should leave the

matter to rest on the opinions obtained.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE moved, in effect, " That the ques-
tion be referred to the Town-clerk, to take further legal
opinions upon it, and that he report upon the same to the
Council at a future day. He wished it to be understood,
however, that in any ulterior proceedings that might be
taken, the expenses should not be thrown upon Mr. Harvey,
but be taken out of the corporate funds.
Mr. Aikin, Mr. Evans, Mr. Earle, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Bol-
ton, and others spoke in favour of leaving Mr. Harvey in
possession of his seat, without any legal proceedings being