The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-12 00:00:00

parish;. and he thought that it bad been clearly made out
by Mr. 'Wotherspoon, that their parochial affairs were and
had been conducted in a manner which had been satisfactory
to the parishioners at large. The rate was a very moderate
one ; and the manner in which the money collected had been
distributed to the poor, appeared in every way satisfactory.
There was not the slightest complaint from any party, of
non-attention to the poor. This being the case, why were
they to be meddled with at all ? Mr. Earle had stated the
reasons why the commissioners were about to introduce the
new poor-law. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Alexander Smith)
was not aware before that any such reasons existed, nor did
he know what had been going on : but it appeared that the
new law was about to be introduced, from the circumstance
of an opposition having been raised by the parish to the dock
bill introduced by the trustees of the Liverpool docks into
the House of Commons-
__

Mr. EARLE (very warmly)—Allow me to make one obser-
vation. (Much uproar). It was only an explanation he
wished to offer. (Continued uproar).
The CHAIRMAN told Mr. Earle that his interruptions
were irregular, and that he had better hear Mr. Smith out.
Mr. SMITH continued : Mr. Earle certainly had stated
this to be the reason for the introduction of the New Poor
Law. Now the result of the opposition made by the church-
wardens last year, to the bill introduced by the Dock
Trustees, would be found to have been most beneficial to
the parish. The Trustees of the Liverpool Docks endea-
voured to obtain warehouses, round the docks exempt from
the payment of parochial rates. Owing to the opposition of
the parish this clause had been withdrawn, and the parish,
consequently, benetitted to that extent. It must, therefore,
be evident to every individual that so •far from that being
a good reason for the poor law commissioners introducing
the poor law into Liverpool, that it was no reason at
all. The churchwardens were perfectly warranted in the
course they bad taken, and the outlay of money thereby
caused had 'been very beneficial to the interests of the pa-
rishioners at large ; that point was therefore settled. Mr.
Earle had also stated that it would be advantageous to this
parish that there should be a controlling power in London
totally unconnected with the parishioners of Liverpool. That
appeared to him (Mr. Smith) a very strange doctrine for
Mr. Earle to advocate, more especially as only a few days
ago he was a party in the Town Council who raised his voice
against the Marquess of Normanby's Drainage Bill, and
asserted that it was not fair or right that the provisions of
that act should be applicable to the parish of Liverpool.

Mr. EARLE : I deny it.
Mr. SMITH : Mr. Evans brought forward a motion to that
effect.

Mr. EARLS : I an► not bound by what Mr. Evans

Mr. SMITH But you agreed to it. (Cheers). He
could not comprehend why the same argument should be
applicable in the one case and not in the other; why Mr. Earle
should say that Lord Normanby's act was not to be applicable to
Liverpool, because the commissioners carrying it into effect
resided in London; and on the other hand, how he could
argue that commissioners residing in London were the best
persons to manage the parochial affairs of Liverpool. It struck
him (Mr. Smith) that notwithstanding what Mr. Earle had
said, that they, the parishioners, were best able to manage
their own affairs themselves ; and that not every trifling thing
they wished for, or every trifling appointment they might
desire to mike, should first be transmitted through an as-
sistant commissioner to the board in London, and month
after month probably elapse before an answer could be ob-
tained. In illustration of this he would mention a fact.
About siz or seven months ago, an application was made
through the board of guardians for the West Derby union,
for additional assistance, and making complaint at the same
time of the manner in which the assessments and books were
kept. Would it believed that they had not yet received any
answer from the board although six or seven months
had expired ? They were now obliged to go on, in conse-
quence, in the best way they could, and to put up with the
grievance ; for nothing had been done, and as far as he could
see, nothing was likely to be done. (Hear, hear.) He would
also state another fact, which had come to his knowledge
yesterday. They had beard that attempts had been made to
circumscribe the rights of the parishioners in various ways.
He had been informed by a gentleman that it was intended
to withdraw the subscriptions at present granted by the pa-
rish to the dispensaries ; and he understood that the com-
missioners, or their assistant commissioner, had so far
matured his plans, that he had one which he conceived
would obviate the necessity for those subscriptions. The
plan was this, that the parish of Liverpool should be di-
vided into six districts, and to farm out tt? any persons who
would undertake it, the dispensing of medicines and medical
attendance to those unfortunate wretches who claimed our
sympathy and support, at the rate of £5O per annum each.
(Hear, hear.) Fifty pounds a year for medicine and medical
attendance, to each of the six districts in the parish of Li-
verpool ! He should be glad to know what sort of medicine
and medical attendance the town were to have?
A Vozcz.—ls it true?
Mr. SMITH.-11 was so stated. (Loud cries of " Yes, yes,
it is true.") It had been stated to him that the number of
poor people sent by the parish to the dispensaries, amounted
to upwards of 42,000 a year. Having stated these facts, he
had great pleasure in moving the second resolution.
Mr. TINNE seconded the resolution. Whatever the result
of the meeting might be in its general effect upon the poor-
law commissioners, he was extremely happy in being able to
give his opinion upon the application of this act to Liver-
pool. Having been one of the churchwardens three years
ago, he had had an opportunity of witnessing the operation
of the present system ; and he would recommend an exami-
nation into it by the parishioners at large, to satisfy them,
as it had him, of its effectiveness. He was most happy in
seconding the resolution. (Cheers.)
The VESTRY CLERK (Mr. Lowndes) wished to call the
attention of the vestry to an observation, to the effect that
£5O per annum was the amount to be paid for medical relief in
each district. It was mentioned to the Assistant Poor Law
Commissioner, at one of the meetings with him, that £9OO
were paid in annual subscriptions to the Infirmary, the
Northern Hospital, and the Dispensaries, and he was asked
in what manner he would efficiently supersede such an
arrangement ? lie replied that there might be an equally, if not
a more efficient system substituted at a less cost. Manches-
ter he said was divided into so many districts : to each dis-
trict were attached three individuals, a visitor, a relieving
officer, and a surgeon, that the surgeon received £5O a year,
which the assistant commissioner considered a small sum,
but that the amount would rest with the Board of Guardians.
This was the substance of the asssistant commissioner's ob-
servation ; and he added that it would be illegal to grant the
money of the parish either to the Dispensaries, the Infirmary,
or the Hospitals, but that this would be a legal mode of
substitution.
A VOICE.—In his opinion it would.
Mr. EARLE wished to make a remark or two in conse-
quence of what Mr. Smith had said. A great many things
frequently passed in council, to which he was not always
alive. He had had a great deal of conversation with Mr.
Okill on the subject of the Marquis of Normanby's drainage
bill, and lie appealed to that gentleman to say iflie had not
always been in favour of the bill. If anything therefore had
occurred in the council like that which Mr. Smith had men-
tioned, be (Mr. Earle) could not have been paying attention
to it. Certainly he had not opposed the bill in any way. As
to what he had said about the poor-law commissioners com-
ing down here, it was merely surmise ; he had merely ex-
pressed his own belief that the money of the parishioners had
been illegally spent, and that they had interfered in conse-
quence. Ile did not doubt the good working of the present
system, but he thought it might be improved under the su-
perintendence of the poor-law commissioners. Very few in
that meeting had a perfect knowledge of the working of the
new poor law.
A PARISHIONER, (throwing a newspaper upon the table)
said—There is a case of destitution and starvation to death
under the new poor law mentioned in that paper, if you will
read it. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. EARLE, with regard to the management of their own
affairs, would contend that they would be the managers of
them under the new poor law. There was a certa n act of
parliament stating what should be done and what should not
be done for the poor. The parishioners were obliged to
abide by that act of parliament. One clause in that act he
supposed was—that they should not give money away to the
dispensaries. Now the board in London—as he had said be-
fore—were the judges, like the judges at assize, upon this
act of parliament in the event of any dispute : the parishion-
ers had the management of their own officers, and they pre-
scribed to those others what they should do and what they
should not do. (Cries of " No, no.")
A PARISHIONER said the Board of Guardians had no
controul over their officers. Whenever their officers
were once appointed, they lost all power over them ; it rested
with the commissioners in London
Another PARISHIONER inquired whether the vestry were
willing to hear the case of destitution read, which was men-
tioned in the newspaper upon the table? (Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. BIRKETT said it was not his intention, or the inten
tion of his colleagues, to have interfered with the proceedings
of the meeting ; and he should not have risen, had it not
been in order to make some remarks in answer to Mr.
Earle's statement, that there had been jobbing by certain
parties to spend the parish money for their own private pur-
poses, and not for the public advantage. The parishioners
of Liverpool during last year had been called together on
three several occasions, and they had never acted in one
single instance upon the offensive. They had always acted
upon the defensive, whether the council had failed in their
duties to the parishioners, or whether the council had al-
lowed other parties to attack them. In no other instances
had the parishioners interfered. And in no instance had the
select vestry acted without calling the parishioners together,
and acting according to their directions. The largest mi-
nority which had occurred in the select vestry upon any mat-
ter for calling the parishioners together was the number seven
in the opposition to the Dock Bill. On the matter of the
Inland Bonding Bill, which did not affect the owners of pro-
perty more than any other men in trade, the minority was
only four. (Hear, hear.) And with regard to the Gaol Bill,
in consequence of Mr. Clarke having stated, on the authority
of the present mayor, Mr. Bolton, that the council were
going to relieve the town of a rate which cost them £14,000,
the select vestry only took a conditional direction from the
ratepayers. If Mr. Clarke had not made that statement, and
which, indeed, Mr. Holmes contradicted, the direction of
the ratepayers would have been positive, whereas it was only
conditional. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying,
that the select vestry had been the best friends to every man
in the parish, whether he were an owner or as merely con-
nected with the trade of the town. As to Mr. Earle saying
that the select vestry had acted illegally, he would ask, where
was the use of having a public body at all if they were not to
do the work of the great mass of the people? Why should
they have the expensive machinery of a Town-council, or
of a parish board, if they were not to stand up for the town
when the interests of the town were attacked ? He (Mr.
Birkett) would always stand up for the town, but he would
do it in a proper way. He had never done, and would never
do, anything illegally. As one of the parties baying power
to act under the advice of the vestry clerk, he would further
mention, that not one farthing of the expenses of himself had
been paid out of the parish funds, but that he was nearly
£lOO out of pocket in endeavouring to protect the interests
of the town. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KNAPPER thought that since the parish had interfered
on this matter of the new poor law, they ought to interfere
with the Marquis of Normanby's drainage bill. (Cries of
" No, no," and " Question.")
The CHAIRMAN said that was not the question, and that
if it was thought desirable to discuss that bill, it must be
done so at a special vestry.
Mr. WOTHERSPOON said, in consequence of what Mr
Earle had said—
Mr. EARLE
to reply.
The CHAIRMAN.—That will depend upon what comes
from him. (Laughter.)
Mr. WOTHERSPOON.—Mr. Earle had kindly informed the
meeting of the reasons which had induced the poor law com-
missioners to come down to Liverpool--
Mr. EARLE.—I said, in my opinion.
Mr. WOTHERSPOON repeated that Mr. Earle had 'kindly
said that application had been made by certain parties to the
commissioners, to bring forward the new poor law as a pu-
nishment for the contumacy of the vestry in having op-
posed a certain ain.—
The CHAIRMAN thought that Mr. Wotherspoon had mis-
apprehended Mr. Earle.
Mr. EARLE.—Bear the chairman, who denies that I said
so. I deny that I said so.
The CHAIRMAN repeated that Mr. Earle did not go so far
as that.
Mr. WOTHERSPOON did not mean to quote the exact
words, but to give rather the spirit of what Mr. Earle had
said, but if he had misunderstood Mr. Earle he was very
sorry.
Mr. EARLE.—Sir, I am much obliged to you for your
apology.
Mr. WOTHERSPOON continued. Mr. Earle had given
reasons for his opinions on the introduction of the new poor-
law, and he was obliged to him for them inasmuch as they

—Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall have a right