The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-01-19 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

The adjourned meeting of the Council was held on
Wednesday, to consider the recommendation of the ma-
gistrates for an increase of salary to Mr. Rushton. The
Mayor took the chair ; and after the presentation of a
memorial, respectably signed by upward of 1300 persons,
Mr. SANDS moved the amendment of the bye-law re-
lating to Mr. Rushton's salary, which he wished to be
raised from £l3OO to £lBOO per annum. He regretted
the allusions which had been made at former meetings to
the old magistracy, and he would not have moved the
resolution had he not been convinced that Mr. Rushton
was inadequately remunerated. He had never spoken to
Mr. Rushton on the subject, and the movement originated
entirely with the magistrates, who held Mr. Rushton in,
great esteem. Mr. Sands then referred to the great in-
crease in the number of cases coming before Mr. Rushton,
and said that there was no occasion for a second court.
Though Mr. Rushton's salary was equal to that of any
London magistrate, It should be remembered that Mr.
Rushton did as much work as was done in any of the
three courts in London, where the magistrates were , paid
£3200 annually.
Mr. R. HOUGHTON, jun., brTefly seconded the motion.
Sir T. BRANCRER, with great reluctance, opposed the
motion, because he entertained a high opinion of Mr.
Rushton. But the Council must pay the same salary to
Mr. Rushton s successor. In Manchester the borough
magistrates took a great share of the police business, and
the justices of Liverpool should be as efficient. The
Council should remember that the salary was not a charge
on the surplus income, but the burgesses were charged
with it.
Mr. PARKER very ably addressed the Council against
the proposed increase.
Mr. LACE spoke in favour of the increase, because he
was strongly of opinion that Mr. Rushton was underpaid,
and because he was greatly in favour of uniformity of de-
cision, which could not be gained by the creation of a se-
cond court.

After Mr. Nicol, had urged on the borough magis-
tracy a greater attention to their duties, and Mr. JOHN
HOLMES and Mr. RATHBONE had spoken in favour of the
increase of salary,
Mr. SAMUEL HOLME approached the subject with some
reluctance, because it appeared somewhat ungracious to
resist any recommendation coming from the magistrates.
In a placard published on the walls of the town aboutten
years ago, Mr. Rathbone and Mr. Hugh Hornby declared
that they would set their faces against jobbery, and that they
would promote economy. He agreed with the admirable
principles set forth in this placard, and he considered the
salary paid to Mr. Rushton was amply sufficient, and
that it would be well for th. unpaid to relieve him from
some of his extraneous duties. He stated that on three
several Occasions, within the last few years, he had been
kept waiting for an hour each day in the police-court.: If
four hours a-day were sufficient to discharge •the duties of
of the police-court, could Mr. Rushton be said to be over
burthened ? Look at the judges of the land ! They,sat
day after day for nine and ten hours. There were many
questions coming before Mr. Rushton, which any man of
common sense could decide ; and sorely the informations
for nuisance did not require the talent of a great lawyer.
He then referred, at some length, to the debates for and
against the £l3OO a-year to Mr. Hall, at the time it was
originally proposed, acid showed that Mr. Vincent Higgins
and others were then firmly opposed to so large a salary.
He said that, almost without exception, it was the general
opinion of Liverpool, that there should be two courts, and
that Mr. Rushton should attend to the criminal business
solely. The town demanded and would have two courts,
and though the time might be staved off, there must be
two courts, and in years to come there must be three
courts. It was a question of time, and not one of money ;
and he would oppose the motion, if for no other purpose
than to establish a second court.
Mr. EARLE said the opposition to Mr. Rushton was
based to some extent upon the fact that some gentlemen
were not elevated to the bench. With respect to an ob-
jection about the rapidity of decisions in the police-court,
he asked what necessity therewas fora long speech in ordering
a fellow to pay ss. and costs for being found staggering
drunk in Lord-street ? (Loud laughter.)
Mr. HORSFALL said that Mr. Lace's opinion that only
One stipendiary magistrate ought to be appointed, in order
to obtain uniformity of decision, was entitled to little
weight, for if uniformity of decision was so desirable, why
not only appoint one judge? (Hear, hear.) He should
oppose the motion on two grounds • Ist, that he could not
see why Liverpool should pay £6OO a-year more than Mr.
I Hall received at Bow-street ; and 2ndly, that if the motion
were adopted, the wants and wishes of the people of the
town would not be met.
Mr. HUGH HORNET concurred in the motion. He felt,
however, severe regret that it should have been introduced
at the present time, for the way it had been introduced in
and out of the Council could not have failed to hurt Mr.
Rushton's feelings. The magistrates were unanimously
in favour of the increase, and they were a very numerous
body, composed of both political parties. The increase
was brought forward originally and now by Conserva-
tives. The magistrates had recommended it upon two
grounds ; Ist, that the duties had greatly increased ; and
2ndly, that they were efficiently discharged.
Mr. J. B. LLOYD alluded in eulogistic terms to the assist-
ance the stipendiary received from Mr. Ellis, one of the
magistrates clerks._ _

Mr. BOOKER said that one universal opinion prevailed
in the town, that Mr. Rushton held the scales of justice
with an even hand. Personally he knew nothing of the
man, except that he had smarted under the severity' of
his fines. He had sent a person to watch his decisions,
and found they were given irrespective of men and of
party.

Mr. HIGGINS, seeing such an opposition to the grant.
thought that an amendment ought to be moved, that the
salary be raised to £l5OO, instead of £lBOO, as an ac-
knowledgment of Mr. Rushton's services.
The amendment not having been seconded fell to the
ground. _ _ _

- Mr. HODGSON should oppose the motion, inasmuch as
the salary was not only adequate to the duties required of
the stipendiary magistrate, but greater than was given to
any other stipendiary in the country. The unpaid came
forward now to load the shoulders of the man who had
been doing their work for them, forgetting that it was
" the last straw that broke the camel's back." Could
Mr. Rushton be so overloaded as to be made to do what
three magistrates in London were paid for doing ? He
was for having a Mayor's Court established, believing that
the Mayor had no very onerous duties to discharge ; and
in saying this he spoke from the experience of the past
year. He contended that the Liverpool magistrates were,
cyphers, and that they ought to be elevated to the dis-
charge of such duties as rightly and properly fell to their
lot, apart altogether from local knowledge or preconceived
notions. He said that eighteen magistrates did the whole
duty of the town of Birmingham, where there was a r-
pulationyf 200,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Monnis said the time of the public should be con-
sidered, and that the establishment of a second court, to
be called the Mayor's Court, would relieve Mr. Rushton
of much of his arduous labours.

Mr. AIKIN said he had reserved himself until that pe-
riod of the debate, for the purpose of replying to any re-
flection which might be made upon Mr. Rushton ; but no
reflection had been made, and it was universally admitted
that he discharged his duties in the most admirable
manner. •
• The MAYOR promised not to shrink from presiding in a
second court, should that be the wish of the Council. He
was long in favour of the establishment of a second court,
but doubted the propriety of calling it a " Mayor's
Court." He would rather that all the magistrates would
join together in sharing the burthen, and he said he should
bring the subject before the magistrates at an early period.
He promised to vote in favour of the increase, out of re-
spect to the recommendation made by the magistrates,
'and the conviction he entertained of the able manner in.
which Mr. Rushton discharged his duty.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE believed that the second court
in Manchester had been found to work remarkably well-
He cordially agreed in all the eulogies passed upon Mr.
Rushton : but if he discharged his duties well, he was
only doing what was expected from him.
Mr. SANDS briefly replied.
The Council then divided, when there appeared--
For the increase '
Against it

Majority against it..
The motion was consequently lost.
The following gentlemen voted in the division :
For the increase, Councillors—Messrs. R. Houghton,
W. Rathbone John Holmes, H. Hornby, J. Aikin, C.
Robertson, V. Earle, J. Booker, A. Lace, W. Watson,
R. I3enn, R. Houghton. Aldermen—J. H. Turner ,
Thoros Sands, R. S. Crook, and the Mayor.
Against the increase, Councillors—Messrs. Thomas
Shaw, W. Atherton, James Holme, James Stitt, C. S.
A. Tinne, T.
R oM i
bd
idnl es
ot onn;
TT.. LTiottuliemdainle: jGu.n
G.
J .
llToyrnrebry,
J.
T. Royden` J.
Cooper, J. N. Wood, S. Holme, J. Procter, C.W.
Henry Danson, J. Parker, W. Bennett, R. L. Jones W.
Mann, J. G. Morris, Aldermen—D. Hodgson, T. B.
Horsfall, R. Griffiths, Sir T. Brancker, W. Nicol, J.
Bramley-Moore, W. P. Bushby, and T. Chilton.