The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-12 00:00:00

of deli:multi, and of the names there ware 7500 who were of;-
'acted to, being more than half the entire number. Of course,
rusn'y of those objeotiona were or a most frivolous description ;

lived be

them were made
ories of" Hear, he

°old be borne out in si
without the slightest fr
3ar.") For instance, objections were made
Sir Joshua Walmsley, the late mayor, and the presiding
officer, to Mr. Harvey, one of the assessors, and to several
other equally respectable gentlemen, of conservative as well
as liberal politics, which were afterwards withdrawn, as hav-
ing avowedly no colour or shadow of pretence. They were
made for factious purposes, and to annoy political opponents,
and he believed the fault was as much on one side as it was
upon another. (Hear, hear.) At the conclusion of the fif-
teen days it appeiired that one-third of those objections had
not been disposed of, 5,000 being untouched, and it then be-
came necessary, in accordance with the opibion of some emi-
nent counsel, to fall back on the burgess roll for '1839, the
consequence of which has been that a considerable number of
the inhabitants have been deprived of the franchise to which
they were justly entitled, while others who had no claim,
perhaps, if investigated, were on the burgess roll, and voted
at the last election. This was a state of things which called
loudly for amendrcent. If it were temporary, it would be of
an aggravated character; but it was not temporary, for, un-
less sonic effectual remedy should be applied, similar circum-
stances might and would return at the next Court of Revi-
sion, whereby the burgess roll of '39 would remain in force
for years. There were several other evils incidental to the
registration as it affected Liverpool which required alteration,
but he did not think it necessary to take up the time of the
council with entering on them. It had been suggested to
him that by leaving +out three words in his motion, namely,
" the revision of," it would enable the committee to take
into consideration those evils which existed previous as well
as subsequent to the registration, and, though he was in-
clined to assent to the suggestion, it would be his duty in the
first place to make his motion in the terms of the notice he
had given. His object in bringing it forward had been to
relieve the burgesses of the town from those vexatious ob-
jections to their votes which were periodically made, and prin-
cipally to secure to his fellow-citizens the civil rights to which
they were justly entitled. He therefore begged to propose
the motion in accordance with the terms of the notice he had
read.

dation

Mr. SANDBACH seconded the motion.
Mr. A. SMITH, jun., did not rise for the purpose of op-
posing it, but rather for the purpose of carrying out the prin-
ciples Mr. Hornby had so well expressed, and to remove
some of the great difficulties which attended the last registra-
tion. Believing that some of those difficulties were created
in consequence of the system pursued in paying rates for
others, he proposed to add the following words to Mr.
Llornby's resolution :—" And further, that the said commit-
tee be instructed to embody in the petitions a representation
of the practices which were resorted to last year in this town,
of paying the rates of a class of persons who were unable to
do so for themselves, thereby interfering with the just rights
of those who were constituted electors by the municipal act,
and praying parliament to take measures for preventing a

recurrence of such practices for the future." (clear, hear.)
Mr. Smith concluded by hoping that there would be no ob-
jection on the part of the council to adopt the present sug-
gestion. . .

Mr. COOPER felt very happy in seconding the addition to
the motion which had been just proposed by Mr. Smith. It
was absolutely requisite that some amendment should be
made in the revision of the municipal lists, as he himself had
been objected to every year, and as he had bad quite enough
of it by this time. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. H. HORNBY objected to Mr. Smith's amendment, on
the ground that his object in appearing there was not to make
any alteration in the principle of the reform bill, whereas the
amendment aimed at an alteration in the principle of that

measure.
Sir J. WALMSLE v thought it proper to observe, that at the
conclusion of the registration he had called the attention of
her majesty's government to the subject, and that he wrote
to the principal leading members of the cabinet, explaining
the evils to the best of his ability. He had received some of
their replies, by which he had the gratification of finding
that the subject was now fully before them, and that it was
likely to meet their attention ; for according to a letter writ-
ten by Lord J. Russell, he promised to attend to the subject,
and several other members of the administration had written
to a similar effect. At the same time be (Sir Joshua) thought
Mr. Hornby's motion well worthy the attention of the coun-
cil, for it was absolutely necessary that some amendment
should be made in the present state of affairs. He had no
doubt but the government would bring in a bill for the pur-
pose.
Mr. EVANS rose in order to oppose Mr. Smith's amend-
ment. It was well known that the conservatives always beat
the reformers in the matter of giving money ("No, no," and
uproar.), and it was utterly at variance with the principles of
the act to ask a party how he got his money to pay his rates.
All that was necessary was to see whether the man had, per
se, a right to vote, and if he had that right, he (Mr. E.) con-
ceived they had no power whatever to institute an inquiry as
to how he had obtained •the money wherewith to pay his
rates.
Mr. EARLE was also opposed to the amendment, and
thought they ought to go a step further, and petition govern-
ment to remove certain barristers—uncommon wise barns-
ters—(a laugh)—who came to Liverpool to disfranchise half
the population of the town, upon points which were in direct
opposition to the opinions of Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wightman, Sir
F. Pollock, and others.
Mr. HARBORD thought it was not the law they had to
complain of, but the breakers of the law ; and in deciding
who the breakers of the law were, he would have them judge
from circumstances. The conservatives were not the trans-
gressors, although they followed in the steps of the reform-
ers, unfortunately, for their own preservation. He alluded
to the fact that a vast number of frivolous objections were
made by the reform party, and that the conservatives were
obliged to adopt a similar plan, but, as soon as the revision
court was opened, the barrister engaged for the conservatives
proposed to withdraw every frivolous objection, and if that
proposition had been agreed to by the reform pary, the court
might have been closed in less than a day, but the reform
party opposed it, and therefore he (Mr. H.) said the viola-
tion of the law commenced with the reform party, and that
the conservatives were obliged to follow their practice to a
slight extent. (Cries of " Oh. oh.") Had the conserva-
tives not done so, the law would have been perverted to their
extinction. But now he hoped that no subterfuges would
be made use of for the purpose of evading the law. if the
law required alteration, let no restrictions be introduced for
the purpose of frustrating that good intent. In the present
instance the rates of the poor had been paid with the money
of the rich, whereby the rich had broken the law ; but, if
Mr. Smith's amendment were adopted, the former would be
saved from the injury that must otherwise await him eventu-
ally, and the latter would be spared from making a sacrifice
in cases where such sacrifices tended to no good.
Sir J. WALMSLEY did not remember that the conserva-
tive barrister offered to withdraw the frivolous objections.
4n offer had certainly been made to withdraw all objections,
but that offer was not accepted. He believed however, that
the two parties had met, and that 500.0 r 600 objections had
been withdrawn ; and so far as he was able to judge, one
party was equally blameable as the other about the payment
of the rates. One party had the tax collectors in their inte-
rest, and those tax collectors met at particular places. There
was a tax collector in one room—he (Sir Joshua) knew not
whether it was his own room or not—the clerk of 'a certain
gentleman who might or might not be in the council then,
was in another room, and the voter came out of the one room
and went into the other, where he paid his rates to the col-
lector. So far as he (Sir Joshua) was able to judge ot' the
Protector Society, he believed it to be legal, and that no such
thing was proved with regard to the Protector Society as had
been proved in regard to the Peel and Conservative Societies,
only the manner in which they managed their business, by
means of the tax collectors, seemed to be much the cleverest.
(Hear, and a laugh.) •
Mr. CASE thought both parties had committed themselves.
Mr. BIRKETT complained of the manner in which the
sabbath had been desecrated by the payment of rates for
whole bodies of paupers in the lump previous to the Revision
Court being held, and said he was not over sanguine as to the
beneficial consequences likely to result from; the present mo-
tion.
Mr. YATES thought it never could have been the intention
of the legislature that persons' rates should he paid for them,
inasmuch as that would be baking it a contest of purses and
of wealth against the constitutional rights of the people.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AIKIN thought both parties were to blame in what
had already pasged ; but as they were all desirous of mending
matters for the future, he hoped Mr. Smith would be in-
duced to withdraw his amendment, provided the words " the
revision of" were left out in Mr. Hornby's motion.
Mr. J. HOLMES was anxious fur a complete alteration in
the bill, and said that the present system of paying rates for
those who were unable to pay them out of their own pockets
was nothing more nor less than subornation of bribery. He
had no doubt that £15,000 had been expended in paying
taxes for paupers, two-thirds of which came out of the
pockets of the reform party.
After a few observations from Mr. Sheil, Mr. Hodgson,
and Mr. Coglan, the council divided. w'ien there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
• The following gentlemen voted in the division :
For the amendment—Messrs. J. Holmes, Hodgson,
Isaac Holmes, Houghton, Sandbach, Copeland, Wright,
Barton, Blundell, Sands, Toulrnin, J. Lawrence, Robinson,
Cropper, Wood, Birkett, Gladstone, Procter, Rigby, Kil-
shaw, R. Jones, jun., Leigh, J. Smith, G. H. Lawrence,
Harbord, and A. Smith, jun.
Against it—Messrs. Thornhill, Case, H. Holmes, Mellor,
Walmsley, Aikin, Woollright, Priestley:°.H. Hornby, Yates,
Morecroft, Coglan, Slater, M`Kee, Jordan, Platt, Mather,
Sheil, Booth, J. Hornby, Roskell, G. Holt, C. H. Jones,
Benn, Earle, Moon, Evans, Barclay, T. Holt, Freme,
Harvey, and the Mayor.
The original resolution was carried, with the omission of
the words " the revision of," and the substitution of the
word " correspond" for " petition."
Mr. HORNBY moved that the following gentlemen com-
pose the committee :—Sir J. Walmsley, Mr. Case, Mr.
Evans, Mr. G. H. Lawrence, Mr. Aikin, Mr. Birkett, and
the mover (Mr. Hornby.)
Mr. AIKIN wished to withdraw his name.
Mr- G. H. LAWRENCE thought the committee could
never be considered a fair one.
Mr. J. HORNBY presumed that the reason of its being
considered unfair was, because the conservative party denied
Mr. Case.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said he believed Mr. Case to be a
good conservative, but coull not shut out from himself the
fact, that in almost every division he had voted against the
conservative party.
Mr. CASE said as he was expected not to exercise his own
judgment, he begged his name might be withdrawn. (" No,
no. ')
Mr. LAWRENCE believed Mr. Case gave his votes con-
scientiously, but he could not be looked upon as a man on
whom the conservatives could always rely.
Mr. HODGSON moved that the name of Mr. A. Smith,
jun. be substituted for that of Sir J. Walmsley.
Mr. TOULMIN seconded the motion.
The question was put. and Sir Joshua was elected by a
majority of 17, the numbers being—
For Sir J. Walmsley .
For Mr. Smith

Majority
Mr. Case refused to vote in the division, but on being told
he could not remain in the room without voting, he took up
his hat and left the room.
All the other names of the committee were then passed,
that of Mr. Sheil being substituted for Mr. Aikin,
It was now, however, past three o'clock, and the council
was adjourned until eleven o'clock on Monday.