The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-16 00:00:00

VESTIrY MEETING

The annual meeting of the parishioners of Liverpool hi
vestry assembled was held in St. Nicholas's Church on
Tuesday, and was very numerously attended. The Rev.
JONATHAN BROOKS took the chair.

Mr. LOWNDES read the summons convening the vestry
which appeared in the public papers.
Mr. ECKERSLEY the vestry-clerk, then read the report of
the select vestry, and
Mr. H ART, the treasurer, a summary of their accounts, as
they appear in our advertising columns, when
. . .

JAMES ASPIN ALL rose and moved that the latter be

passed.
Mr. ROBERT BRYDEN, before the question was put, beg-
ged to ask for an explanation of the item of £35 which ap-
peared in the account as expended in opposing the new poor-
law bill.

Mr. BIRKITT, one of the churchwardens, said he was
happy in being able to afford the required explanation. After
the meeting which took place at that church a few weeks bit-
fore, it had been the unanimous opinion of the overseers
that, in accordance with the directions of the vestry, the ex-
penses incurred in opposing the new poor-law bill should he
paid. lie came to the vestry on that occasion, not expecting
that he should have been appointed one of the deputation to
proceed to Loudon for the purpose, but prepared to subscribe
towards the expenses of any other gentleman who should
happen to be appointed. However, after the expression of
feeling manifested on the part of that vestry, the overseers
thought the expense of the deputation should be paid out of
'the general fund. The sum charged for those expenses had
not amounted to half of the actual expenditure incurred by
the deputation, because, after it was charged, he (Mr. Bir-
kett) and Mr. Tirane had to go up to London again, and the
expenses of that second trip to the metropolis were not en-
tered in the account.

Mr. BRYDEN asked whether the fiat for introducing the
new poor-law into the parish had not been in Liverpool be-
fore the expenditure was incurred ?
Mr. BIRKETT replied that it unquestionably was.
Mr. BRYDtiN characterised the outlay under such circum-
stances as a waste of money. (Laughter and uproar.)
Mr. BIRKETT said he had just spoken to Mr. Thine, and
that they had come to the determination, rather than there
should be any objection to the passing of the account upon
the ground stated, of paying their expenses out of their own
pockets; but they would take the opinion of the vestry upon
the subject. first. (Hear.)
Some discussion then took place respecting two of the
collectors having been reprimanded, and concerning Mr.
Cowgill, one of. the auditors, having refused to sign the
accounts.

Mr. BRYDEN believed the churchwardens had the power
of signing checks, though it was usual for the committee
only to sign them, and asked whether the check for the £35,
experiiied in opposing the new poor law bill, had not been
signed by Mr. Birkett himself, and drawn on Mr. Hart. the
treasurer ?

Mr. BIRKETT said he never signed anything except what
had been ordered by one of the quorum, and countersigned by
the secretary. He knew not whether he had signed the check
in question, but if he had,authority had been given him so to
do in the way mentioned.

A RATEPAYER suggested the propriety of making Mr.
Bryden a churchwarden. (Laughter.)
Mr. EARLS saidhe had asked at the last vestry, and beg-
lged now to ask again, whether such a charge as the £35 was
egal or not ?

The CHAIRMAN replied. He supposed it was rather a
difficult point to solve. It might, moreover, be a disputed
point ; all he knew was, that for several years past such ac-
counts had received the sanction of the vestries.
Mr. ASPINALL had got a statement in his hand which
would show that the parishioners were justified in going to
parliament for the purpose of procuring the passing of one
bill, and opposing two others. It appeared that there were
1200 warehouses in Liverpool, 'and that the assessment on
those warehouses amounted to £194,200. The expenses in-
curred by going to London to have the one bill carried, and
to opposethe two others, only amounted to £l6OO, and he
would justify the necessity of making that outlay by a refer-
ence to the warehouse bill alone, the result of the opposition
to which was this :—that in two years they had exonerated
the parish from being assessed at £25,000 by the corporation
of Liverpool. (Hear, hear.) The parish ought to be thank-
ful, therefore, that the expenditure of the several deputations
to London had been incurred, seeing that such benefits had
resulted to the poor therefrom. (Cheers.)
Mr. KNAPPER thought the parishioners had every reason
to be satisfied with Mr. Aspinall's clear and sufficient expla-
nation, and that the item of £35 ought to be unanimously
passed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JOHN CLARKE did not consider that the churchwar-
dens had any discretionary power to lay out sums of money
for the town at large, seeing that they were merely the guar-
dians of a fund raised for the purpose of supporting the poor.
He would next touch upon another point, and in doing so
he did not mean anything personal, but the sum of £lOO had
been given for the purpose of insuring the life of a man who
received a handsome salary for the duties he performed.
Upon what principle this money was given he (Mr. Clarke)
knew not, but he did not see how the parish funds could
legally be expended fcr such a purpose. It was a bad prece-
dent to expend them in such a way ; it was, moreover, con-
trary to reason and contrary to law. He believed that at
the very last vestry £lOO had been voted away for the ex-
press purpose of insuring the life of the man alluded to.
That was an illegal assessment. (Cries of " Question.")
It was to be an annual payment also.
A RATEPAYER.—No, no.
Mr. CLARKE said his recollection was perfect in this re-

spect.
Mr. ASPINALL said that Mr. Clarke had not answered
the statements he ,had previously advanced. His (Mr. As-
pinall's) allegation had been that the parish were fully justi-
fied in expending £l6OO to send deputations to London,
when such an expenditure had the effect of saving the pa-
rishioners from being assessed at £25,000 by the Liverpool
corporation. (Hear, hear.) Suppose it were his (Mr.
Clarke's) own private property that he had been dealing
with, would he not, as an honest man, act in a manner simi-
lar to that in which the vestry had acted in this particular
instance? (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. KNAPPER averred distinctly that the parish had a
perfect right to recognise all incidental expenses. The ves-
try knew what the law was, and it was unnecessary for Mr.
Clarke to come there for the purpose of instructing them
on that head. (Hear, hear.) If incidental expenses were
not to he admitted, there would be an end altogether to the
conducting of the parish affairs.
Mr. CLARKE was proceeding to address the vestry a se-
cond time, but was compelled to desist amidst loud cries of
" Spoke, spoke."
Mr. HARBOR) begged to put a case. In the event of a
parishioner owing a certain sum of money for parish taxes,
and that he locked up his house. and thereby prevented the
seizing of his furniture for those taxes, it was to be presumed
that the proper officers would apply to the authorities,
_with
the view of getting into the house, to come at the effects.
This was a parallel case to that in which the corporation had
determined to have warehouses built, and to get an act passed
whereby they should be exempted from the payment of taxes;
and he (Mr. H.) would say that the churchwardens bad acted
-perfectly right in going to parliament, for the purpose of ob-
taining power to make the warehouses subject to taxation.
(Hear and cheers.)
Mr. CLARKE said Mr. Knapper seemed to think that the
parish had a right to act on the vote of a vestry contrary to
law, forgetting that the vote of a vestry contrary to law was
no vote at all.
Mr. WILLIAM RUSHTON, overseer, asked whether Mr.
Clarke was present at the last annual vestry ?
Mr. CLARKE replied in the affirmative,
Mr. RUSHTON asked why the gentleman had not made the
same objections to the money items then which he had made
upon the present occasion?
Mr. CLARKE replied that he had done so?
Mr. RusHrori did not recollect that be had. (Hear.)
Mr. BIRKETT begged to state that he, as one of the church-
wardens, had not acted in the manner alleged by Mr. Clarke;
and, in proof of his statement, said he would have to refer to
dates somewhat far back. Mr. Birkett then went into a long
explanation.
The motions were then put, and carried unanimously.
Mr. ASPIN ALL then said, that after the exertions made use
of by the churchwardens during the year which was past, the
greatest compliment that could be paid to them would be to
re-elect them for the year ensuing. (Hear, hear.) He there-
fore begged to propose that Mr. William Birkett and Mr.
Isaac Hutchinson be continued in the office for the next year.
The motion having been duly seconded, was put and car-
ried unanimously.
Upon the motion of Mr. ASPINALL, Mr. Raymond Hough-
ton and Mr. John Wilkinson were appointed sidesmen for
the ensuing year, and Messrs. Hutchinson, Gibbons, Rush-
ton, Muncaster, and Paton, overseers for the same period.
Churchwardens were next appointed for Saint John's and
Saint Paul's, so also were collectors and assistant-overseers,
subject to the future orders of the poor-law commissioners.
Mr. HABBORD asked whether it was the intention of the
select vestry to nominate any one to the chaplaincy of the
Workhouse ? _ _

The CHAIRMAN replied—The select vestry, at the time of I,
the resignation, requested that he (the chairman) would look
out for a gentleman to till the vacancy, but no one had been
as yet appointed.
Mr. HurcuiNsoNt moved that the church-rate for the year
be three-halfpence in the pound, which he said would cover
the expense of the alterations at present being made at the
cemetery, besides meeting all the other expenses.
The motion having been seconded, was unanimously carried.
Mr. HUTCHINSON moved that the usual gratuity to each
of the parish clerks, in lieu of their bills of mortality, be £5O.
—Carried unanimously.
Mr. HUTCHINSON moved a vote of thanks to the honorary
physicians and surgeons of the workhouse, fever-ward, and
dispensary, for their services to the parish during the past
year.—Carried unanimously.
Mr. JOHN JONES moved that the sum of £5O per annum
be appropriated in the aid of the Welsh service at Saint
Paul's church, to be divided among the minister, the clerk,
and the sexton.
Mr. DOVER seconded the motion, and in doing so eulo-
gised the conduct of the Welsh clergyman of the church, as
well as the Welsh residents in the town. The question was
put and carried unanimously ; and it was arranged that £35
of the sum voted should be given to the clergyman, £lO to
the clerk, and £5 to the sexton.
Mr. BIRKETT moved that the sum of £3O be voted to-
wards the expenses of the Church of St. Matthias.—Put and

carried.
Mr. KNAPPER moved that Mr. Wainwright of the Liver-
pool office have the same sum voted to him as he had last
year—namely, £lOO. He considered it was necessary that a
parish like Liverpool should have a person with whom they
could communicate; and Mr. Wainwright had been inde-
fatigable in everything he had to do connected with the fur-
thering of the interests of the parishioners. It was impossi-
ble that his services could be dispensed with.
Mr. CLARKE was of opinion that the money could not be
legally voted.
Mr. BLRKETT had no objection to the money being voted,
and wished to bear his testimony to the benefits the town
had derived from Mr. Wainwrights services. Mr. Birkett
here detailed the services of the gentleman in question, and
concluded by stating that they were indispensable.
Mr. CLARKE asked whether the sum could be legally
voted ?
Mr. LowNnEs thought it could not ; but a recommenda-
tion to the effect could go from the vestry to the guardians,
and from the guardians to the poor law commissioners.
Hereafter the accounts of the parish would have to be
audited very minutely. All the auditors had to do at pre-
sent was to compare the accounts with the vouchers, and if
both were correct to pass them ; but in future it would be
their duty to look into the vouchers much more closely, and
to expunge those which would be illegal. Therefore the
money to Mr. Wainewright could not be voted, and the only
way by which it might be paid him was to send a recom-
mendation to the effect to the poor-law guardians. (Hear.)
Mr. KNAPPER altered his motion in the manner suggested
by Mr. Lowndes, and it was put and carried unanimously.
The business for which the vestry had been convened
having here terminated,
Mr. PROCTOR rose and said, that he considered it a great
privilege to have the honour of proposing a vote of thanks to
their highly-respected and worthy chairman, the more es-
pecially as that might be the last time they would have an
opportunity of so doing. lie believed the meeting would all
agree with him (Mr. Proctor) in thinking that their chair-
man had always discharged his duty with that kind spirit
and impartiality which had characterised all his actions.
(Cheers.)
The motion having been seconded, and carried by accla-

oration,
The CHAIRMAN rose and said he felt obliged for the kind
manner in which they had received the motion. He should
not be doing justice to his own feelings on the present oc-
casion if he did not take that opportunity, as it might be the
last, for expressing the gratification he had always felt as to

the manner in which he had been treated in the vestry, and
the way the affairs had been conducted. Little altercations
they certainly had had, but they did not extend beyond that;
and if the managers of the different parishes in the kingdom
followed the example of Liverpool in this respect, there
would be a great deal less of that bitter acrimony of which
they often heard. (Hear, hear.) lie regretted very much,
holding the situation he did, that he was henceforward to be
separated from those who had the management of parochial
affairs ; but with regard to the select vestry, he ought to say
that he did not believe there existed any public body, who
had so entirely thrown out of the vestry all other considera-
tions but those connected with the good of the parish, as had
the vestry to which he alluded. (Cheers.) He was so cir-
cumstanced, living without the boundaries of the parish, that
he could not in law be a poor law guardian, and, therefore,
so far as the poor were concerned, he must separate from
those to whom the management of their affairs bad been en-
trusted. He regretted it because it had always been a plea-
sant duty to him to join with those who were providing for
the wants of the poor; but in any way in which his services
could be available, the public might on all occasions com-
mand him. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. BRYDEN begged, at that stage of the proceedings, to
observe that he had come to the vestry with no acrimonious
feelings to any man, but that, having understood there were
some matters which required explanation, he had sought for,
and obtained it; and if, in doing so, he had wounded any
ma is feelings, he begged his pardon. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. ASPL; ALL moved a vote of thanks to the church-
wardens, sidesmen, overseers, select vestry, and vestry-clerk,
fur their exertions during the past year.
The motion having been seconded, was unanimously car-
ried, and the vestry adjourned at halt-past one o'clock.