The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-17 00:00:00

venienee to Our piti•

Mr. -CURRIE arose and was about to address the counci

when
Mr. SHELL said if he had anticipated any opposition to his
motion, he should have endeavoured to enforce it by argu-
ment. He must, therefore, throw himself on the good feel-
ing of the council, to hear what he might .hate to say on any
part of the subject that might arise.
Mr. CURRIE said he merely wishes to remark that the
motion was so reasonable and proper, that no member of the
Finance Committee could possibiy have any objection to it.
He adMitted at once the justice of the principle and would
second Mr. Shell's resolution. So -farfront any member of
the Finance Committee desiring to keep back information of
the nature mentioned, he, himself, at the last Council, had
intended to give all the information now sought for, and he
should unquestionably have done so if it had not been that
he was a' little irregular, which prevented him. He had,
however, told one of his friends, on the other 'side of the
table, that if he thought proper to ask for the information,
he had it with him and would put the Council in possession
of it. It was not asked for. He had the same document
containing the information now, but if they thought it more
proper that the information should come before them in a
formal manner, of course there was no member of the com-
mittee could have any objection. • •
Mr. SHELL protested against the production of the infor-
mation in any form but that called for in his motion. • .`
The MAYOR was about to put the motion, when
Mr. SHELL said he did not know what object Mr. Currie
had in saying that he was ready to produce the document at
the last Council. He (Mr. Sheil) recollected that IVIr. Currie
Made two distinct speeches on the question,—one on the
motion and one reply; besides a distinct reply to him (Mr.
Sheil). Mr. Currie said he had the document and was ready
to produce it now. He (Mr. .Sheil) considered it very, sin-
gular that Mr. Currie had not prodOed it when the subject
was first brought forward. Mr.: Currie did state all that Mr,.
Okill had done for the corporation, since 1815. He detailed
all Mr. Okill's circumstances very minutely, but be did'nof
state the other side. Why did he not produce the other sid6,
of the account ? This, -he believed, was the way lawyers
proceeded when bridging actions ; they stated all on one
side, laid down all their allegations, and. left the parties to
produce the other. side of what they had to set off against
their statements. Surely the gentletean wh6 came into" that
Council as a representative of a portion of the public of
Liverpool was not to conic forward as an advocate of expen-
ditUre, without putting the people in possession of all the
facts. Both sides of the statement ought to have been given,
as well what Mr. Okill had received as what he had done.
Mr. CURRIE avowed himself somewhat astonished at what"
had fallen from Mr. Sheil and particularly at his appearing
not to know why he (Mr. Currie) had broughtforward the .
subject. It could not have been forgotten that he brought
it'forward a's"chairman of the Finance Committee, ip cense-
quence of a memerial-froni Mr. Okill.. He (Mr.:Curtie) it
would also be remembered, was the first person who-men-
tioned the necessity of postponing the subject for a month,
in, order to give, time to every PerF°ll for consideration and.
inquiry. That necessity was doubted, but it ultimately turned
out that he was right. Mr. Shell asked him why the state-
ments on the, other sitle had, not been :read.. The' report in
the reference of the subject to the committee had been read,
and this 'set- forth Mr, °kill's-services ;. lidield Alderman
Evans that: ballad the.staternint 'olthe money paid to Mr.
Okill, and would produce it it he (Mr.. Evans) would ask for
it. . The first part of the proceeding's' turned' out to he irre-
gular, andihe statement was notisked for; - ' ' . •
Mr. SIIEII4 said:gr.. Currie. tinl Aloe answered the charge
that he bad brougliefOrivard,litit'ltelfed given a one-sided
statement. - 'He dinged Mr. litlutrreAdith,haiiing acted im-
properly, in havingbrought ftvgg i a,--ei4e,sicled statement,
, ... The•Mkv.on arose; and p ' lli riCtollitiOn,'`iWhidi-W-di.
Carried. without a'clivisionwiTl9iim'inn-b- W,u-mat sill Id
_.:.__ •
__
L E,y„);•,/ rep , A . WATCH RATk.;—TIIE r...ewes et.K.Auiesais m.
, , dOnisoie:..' . -.-, •-' :--,.,. ' ' -
The M.tyon stated thattlie next InratifelVdP tti6- o'nsi-
..
aeration of the cotineirwai ii. ebninitiniclition'titni-the select
vestry relative th the previouslirciceedinguol•the council on
the subject of the watch rate.— • --.144,;.....
The-Tow b.",!6txttx:reati,the following crimywication :-.7..,,
Atal:noting:of the Seleet Vestry, held,h4.he.Raard-.rooin,
in FenWiek-street, on Tuesday, the 7th: day Of
.dauti-
• ' . AKY, 189,
dii.,'-'7,,-- 4rlince. Rector titOo-Kg,ill‘,Wellgifi4. , ..
tkic Y.i.4o.74terk leiN ing laid 10 ' e.o3,,lSestry the tom -
lii
- tilill; of the town-clerk, cot Viitig'6, 6Opv of the-par-
i TkittiFif licitjce as to watch rate ',7 11 "the resdution Of*
c u9affat IlAte Ming op, the lst'January instant, ..
r
~,...„,,,,,,, lAcit auliears to this board that the bill 'Tro--
3, valoo. ,cWed by the corporation for continuing' in the
n miCti'teie • iadi'etlonary power -Of laying 'a rite to the ad-
ditionatextent provided by the act of last session, will not
xiieefllid'ineWs and objectS of the parishioners as -: embodied
in thrift iieS6liitiiiir,'et their last' general, vestry : and theythereßreiitie -the council will be pleased 'to re-consider the:
subject;'inittO instruct the town-clerk to solicit an act hav-
ing for its object the direct exoneration of the parishioners
from any 'rate beyond the amount authorised to be' levied by
thomuracipal corporations amendment act. .
Resolved.--,-That, if the' council be plcaied to carry out the.
views of the parishioners aSateheCipressed, the select ves-
try are prepared, and now:offer, to contribute one-half of the
expense of such application to parjiament. •
Resolved-,-That a copy of thet'e'solution of the general ves-
try be transmitted, along with the foregoing resolutions, for
the purpose of representing tdAlit council the repugnance of
the. parishioners .o.,the act of last session. • • : '
Resolved—That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be
transmitted by the Churchwardens to his worship the mayor,
with a request that he *ottlillity the Same-before the council
at their next meeting. • ..- i:, sitten.:, i. ie- .. `
• • Extracted from the minutes, .
' M. D. LOWNDES, Vestry-clerk.
The TOWN-CLERK then proceeded to say that he thought
it necessary to remind the council, as figures were not always
recollected, of the exact position in which the corporation
stood in reference to the parish, in consequence of the mu-
nicipal act 0f.1835. Before the passing.of that act, a watch-
rate was levied in the parish ; but the effect of the municipal
act had been to throw on the corporation the burden of pay-
ing for the parish of Liverpool £11,500 of county rate, which,
to the fullest extent, was paid by the corporation, indeed, to
a greater extent. This payment was now made altogether
direct to the country, consisting of the expenses
,of gaols,
payments for prOsecutions, the payment of the coroner, and
the payment of a balance claimed by the county to the amount
of about £2OOO. He was therefore quite borne out in say-
ing that the corporation fund, either directly or indirectly,
had to pay upward's: of £11,500. . There was then to be con-
sidered the effect of the late decision, which had relieved the
corporate estate frinn the payment of parochial taxes to the
amount of £3500, so that the short effect of the municipal
bill, with reference to the county-rate and the watch-rate,
was to throw upon the corporation the payment of £B,OOO,
which the corporation had not previously borne, so that the
parish was a gainer by that-amount, and also a gainer in the
better lighting of the town, involving a charge of £7OO, and
a gainer with respect to the advantage of a day and night po-
lice. The town-clerk then alluded to his report on the sub-
ject, in which be had suggested that a clause should be. ob-
tained, giving to the council the power of appropriating their
surplus revenue to the payment of such portion of the watch-
rate as was beyond the maximum rate collected and payable
in the parish under the old watch-rate, and at the same time
giving the council a discretionary power to levy that overplus
(not, however, to exceed 6d. in the pound;). and he con-
ceived that he was going to the fuil extent of his duty to pro-
pose that the council should .take that discretionary power..
Until-that re,solinion of the seleet vestry had been handed to
the mayor, he had not been aware that there existed any dif-
ference of opipion on the subject of the corporation taking
that diseretiohary poWee, , • His own notice, which had ap-
peared in the newspaperij distinctly stated that the object of
the bill was to apply for' discretionary power to, apply any
surplus of the' corporate fend in.or towards the payment of
the watch-rate ; and, moreover, the notice given by the ves-
try-clerk was couched in terns not very , different from'his
(the town-clerk's.) The' town-clerk" read the resolution of
the select vestry, which, he contended, asked-simply that
there should be a discretionary power on the part of the
council; not that they ahould be altogether relieved from
the obligation of levying. It was out of his power to
advise that the council should part with that discretionary
power. A time might possibly come; as had happened under
the old corporation, when it would be necessary to make
use of every branch. of the revenue—he alluded to the period
when a part of the revenue was susPended. He thou..ht that
the council should remain in possession of a discretionary
power to levy according to circumstances ; for it was too
much for the parish to anticipate that circumstances might
not happen in the course of years which would fairly justify
the'council in levying the additional amount, which, by law,
they were empowered to levy. It would be for the council
to consider every year whether they would confine themselves
to the old maximum rate,- leaving the parish a gainer by
£BOOO, or whether circumstances did not make it imperative
on them, in discharge Of their public duty, to levy the addi-
tional amount. He hoped that the revenue of the corpora-
tion would continue, and that the council would be enabled
to relieve. the parishioners from any levy beyond - the old
maximum rate ; but he thought it his duty to give his most
distinct opinion, that the council should not part with a dis-
cretionary power. For that opinion he was responaible to
the council and to the town.
Mr. Is A.AC .Homess entirely differed from the town-clerk.
He concluded that it was proper to concur with the parish in
entirely getting rid of the bill. The individual who brought
forward that bill in parliament, neter contemplated its apPli-
cation to such boroughs as Liverpool, when they possessed
a great revenue. It wasmerely intended by Mr. 'Raines,
who introduced the measure into parliament, that it was to
apply to such boroughs as Leeds, Manchester; Bolton,. Bir-,
mingharn, &c., where there were no borough funds to which
they could resort. The parish authorities and the town-clerk
Were at variance in Opinion, relative to` `the saving which the
parish obtained by the Muhicipal bill. ' It was stated bfthe
parish that the county-rate amounted to £lO,OOO, and that
the corporation was exempted from the payment of taxes to:
about £3000; making a difference of Only • £6OOO, which was
the" additional burden cast upon the corporation. Now,'
when the present Council- enjoyed an income of £23,000 -per
annum more than the old corporation, surely so trilling. an
additiop might be easily borne. With respect to the appli-
cation to parliament, to give' the 'council a discretionary
power to lay a bettoqh wak444e,.:they- possessed that