The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-12 00:00:00

TIM LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

charges, since the 7th of April, 1824, when a regular table was
form-ed. •
The Treasurer resumed. There have certainly been sales of
nil to members of the council, an account of which would be
rendered. AR the sales, or nearly. so, were on lease for seventy-
five years. The exceptions were in cases of small additions to
freeholds already possessed by the purchasers. •
The Town-clerk.—There are nearly a thousand applications
for leases in the course of a year.. tie would wish that some
specific facts should be alluded to, upon which the Corporation
would be ready to give every information. The accounts rela-
tive to leases were very voluminous, but the best return that
could be made should be made.
Mr. Okell.—There have been 1200 leases granted in the last
seven years.
Mr. Duncan suggested that the inquiry as to leases and sales

should go back to twenty years.
The Treasurer rendered an account of the items of the bond-
debts.of the Corporatiuu, with the particulars of interest paid

thereon.
After which the colloquial evidence, relative to the granting
of leases, was resumed. And here the reporter must take leave
to remark, that if in the course of the published account of these
proceedings, seeming incongruities and most irregular interpo-
tations occur, they must he attributed to the confused manner.
in which ;,he evidence is even and taken, and to the frequent
inaudibility of nearly all the parties concerped.
' The Town-clerk said, that by the direction and authority of
the Common Council, he had to declare that they were ready to
meet any specific charge which could be made against them,
and to furnish evidence on any transaction which could be named.
In the face of the town he would say, that the scale of charges
for the granting of leases was known to, he believed, every
professional man in Liverpool. He would again say, that to
any-transaction that could be pointed out, the Common Council
would' afford the fullest information in their power._
Mr. Duncan had stated distinctly, he said, on several occa-
sions, that he made no charge against the Common Council:
but as the commissioners had stated, the transactions of the
Common, Council among themselves were unknown to the
public ; and therefore were fair and proper matters for inquiry.
Mr. elch begged leave to. have a letter he had addressed
to the commissioners read by the. Town-clerk. This application
was granted. The subject of the letter was that the Town-clerk
had oinittedmention of the freemen of Lancaster, among those
stated by hint in his evidence to he exempted from town dues ;
and went into a narration of the writer's claim to that exemp-
tion, as a free burgess of the borough of Lancaster, and an ex-
tensive dealer in salt and timber. .ehe letter was accompanied
by the copy of a protest against the payment of the town dues,
put in on the '.,sth June, 16431, by Mr. Welsh and Mr. Hudson,
hoth free burgesses of. Lancaster, and residing and trading in

Liverpool.
The Town-clerk said he had no doubt omitted mention of the
Lancaster burgesses; but the fact was, certain proceedings had
been taken in contesting the right of exemption, and that, front
the period of these proceedings, the freemen of Lancaster had
been `obliged by the Corporation to pay the town-dues.
Mr. Welch went into a statement showing that a Loudon
freeman, Mr. Robert. Bell; had been exempted for a period, lint
Was. subsequently charged with the dues.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson informed Mr. Welsh that if he
would give evidence of the facts stated in his protest, it would
be immediately received, as well as the evidence of Mr.. Bell.
Mr. Welch thanked the commissioner, and retired to seek
for his co.evidence.
The Town-clerk, then referring. to the statement he had made
of his own duties, said he had omitted to say that, as Town-clerk,
he acted in conjunction with the vestry-clerk, as solicitor to the
trustees of Mrs. Aim Molyneux's charity. Ile handed in the
act under which the charity was founded. The trustees for the
time being are the Mayor and rector. In the recital of the ac-
count it would be found, he said, that. a sum of money which
bad been left, had been vested in land, part of the rental of
which was distributed to insolvent debtors, and part to seamen's
widows. Some years ago the proceeds of the charity were
about £lOO a-year ;-but of late years it had produced little or
nothing. The land, which is near the town, is permitted by
the act to be let cut in building leases. As the town increases
this would no doubt be done, and returns would be received.
That charity had given rise to the item of expenditure by the
Corporation, to insolvent debtors, amounting last year to £550.
Mr. Duncan hoped the inquiry relative to leases would not be
confined to seven years, as many improvement acts had been
passed within the last twenty years.
• Mr. Okell said he would prepare tha returns so as to include
the period from 1511. •
Mr. Cenanissioner Wilkinson said lie:Would now commence
with the accounts relative to the contingent receipts.
Mr. Duncan wished to be informed of the number of Common •
Councilmen holding bonds, and the amount so held.
Mr. Commissioner • Wilkinson.—'Phis can be done without
specifying the names. It had been stated that the investment
was au advantageous one, and therefore it ought to be seen
whether any undue preference had been given to members of
the Corporation.
The reasurer, referring to the -contingent- receipts, said the
first amount received was £lO 2s. 6d., received on account of a
bond. He then read the following items :—Deposit on sale of
premises in Great George-street Elll • cash received on account
,
of improvements, by sale ofland or leases in Cook-street and
Puncelot Hey, £3,206 3s. 4d.—Sold by auction. -
The Surveyor, in answer to a question from the commission-
ers, said, the bricks for the Custom House are supplied to the
.contractor by the Corporation, from their estate in Cheshire, at
28s—per MX/.
Mr. Samuel Holme, the contractor, being called on, said. the
bricks cost the Corporation 275. per 1000; so that they are
gainers Is. per 1000.
The Surveyor.—That goes to the credit of the Cheshire
estate.
The Treasurer.—The next item is for sale of land in Water-
loo-road, 1.3,000. Sold in several lots.
The Surveyor.—This laud, like various other, was offered
first by auction.
Duncan.—Had received that answer with surprise. He
had never seen any advertisement of such sales by auction. It
was usual for members of the profession to receive printed bills.
Such was the general practice. Advertisements he had some-
times seen in the papers, and judging from these, he had sup-
posed the sales by auction to be very unfrequent.•
The Town Clerk declared that his own practice, and that of
many others, he believed, was sometimes to advertise iu the
papers, and sometimes by printed bills. -There was no general
rule observed by the profession.
'The Surveyor.—The custom bade been to advertise.in the
local papers some time previous to the day of sale. The last
auction, whish was very fully attended, was advertised in each
of the Liverpool papers.
• - .Mr. Samuel Hohne lied often seen placards on premises to
be sold by the Corporation.
The Town-clerk said it was customary to put up boards. on
laud to be sold by the corporation, giving notice of sale.
Mr. Duncan.--Which the boys generally pull down the fol-

-lowing day.
The Treasurer went on with the account, the next item of
which was the sum of £291 fur rent of premises taken down in
Lord-street, allowed to the Corporation tenants; rent of sundry
premises in Pool-lane, £263, taken down also for improvement;
opening and widening of Dale-street, sale of hind in Man-
chestet-street £133 17s. 6d., and for rent £217 10s. Total,
£341 7s. 6d. Iu 1821, sale of laud in Tit hebarn-street £934 lOs. ;
this was offered by auction three or four times without success;
it was sold to one person, a Mr. B. 'Thomas. There was no
offer by auction.
The. Surveyor.—lt. was about 200 square yards, he believed;
there were no biddings; it was sold fur the reserve price.
• The Treasurer.—ieeeipte in Great Howard-street, 1;900,
The Surveyor.--This was sold, he thought, by auction, to one
person, a Mr. James Thompson.
Mr. Case continued.-1 he money had been borrowed within
the. year; Mr. Alderman Leylaud and Mr. Thompson were the
bankers. Mr. Thompson is of the firm of Heywood and Co. He
is a Councilthan, but was not in the Council when the account
was opened. Mr. Bullet' is not a member of the Council.
A Mr. Welch, a merchant of Lancaster and Liverpoels here
handed in a written paper to the commissioners,
_complaining
that the Town Clerk had not stated that the freemen of. Lan-
caster as well as those of • London were exempt from the pay-
ment of town dues. The commissioners having perused the
document, desired Mr. Welch to read it aloud, which he did,
being previously sworn. It went on to state that the com-
plainant was a burgess of Lancaster, and yet was compelled to
.pay the dock dues for merchandise, notwithstanding its having
been stated by Sir James Searlett, and being distinctly men-
tioned in the -Lancaster charter, that a burgess of Lancaster
was exempt from the dues. Lancaster was known to have the right
to thes4 privileges. It had been the county town for upwards
of' one hundred years, and could not be supposed-to base less
privileges in the port of Liverpool than towns more remotely
situated. It had been observed that the Town Clerk had men-
tioned that the burgesses of London, Bristol, and sonic boroughs
of Ireland, were free from the payment•of the dues, but he had
omitted to mention Lancaster... The complainant is a tree bur-
gess both of Lancaster and Liverpool; and the town dues had.
not been allots ed him for the thirty years he had brought
tuer-
chaudise into the port. In June, 1631, he sent a protest to the
Common Council and the Custom-house against the payment.
of the dock dues, claiming the exemption, which protests were
at the Town-hall and the Custom-house at the present :time.-
"The-dock-tolls, which lay so heavy upon him, and from which he
was convieced he was exempt, were peculiarly feit upon the ar-
ticles salt and timber.. Ile had to pay a charge of about 10 per
cent., or 2s. per one hundred bushels for salt, and 6d.-per load
for timber; therefore, aseargo of six hundred loads lay- him iq
the sum of £l2 10s. • It.had been currently reported, and wit-
uess believed it to be true, that the late Mr. Thomas Hynde,
lately residing at Wavertree, a merchant in the Jamaica trade,
had refused to pay the dues on the grouud of his being a free-.
aman of Lancaster, and that the Estate, instead of litigating the
matter, allowed the claim.. There was a solicitor nained-
Thouipson, residing in Lancaster, who had served his time to
the Town Clerk of that 'borough; who could furnish the best in-
formation of the 'Lancaster and-other charters whereby .the
.pris
vilege was granted to the freemen.
The Town Clerk remarked that a London burgess was not
exempt from the dues-if he resided in Liverpool.. • • .
Mr. Robert Bell wished to make a conununicatiOn on the
subject of the town dues. He stated; that . he keeps a' linen
warehouse in Liverpool, and that some time ago he had the.
duck dues returned to him. He is a rreeman of London, and
belongs to the Patten-makers' Company by purchase. He left
London in 1826, and came to reside in Liverpool, bringing with
hint his household furniture, which came by a - vesteL The
broker charged the town dues upon it, which he paid. Some-
time afterwards he happened to see in the Directory that the
freemen of the City of London were not liable to the town
dues, in consequence of which he called upon the broker and
produced his certificate of freedom, when the broker returned
the money having previously received them from the Custom--
house. Ile had resided about three months in Liverpool when
the money, was returned. After the return of the money, he
had goods frequently arriving from Scotland, and he made the
same Maim as before, which was allowed for some time. lie
was, at length, called before the committee to prove his claim,
winch was disallowed, being informed by that body that lie
could tint claim exemption as a free Man of London uniess he
resided there.
A Gentleman named Irving inquired whether the witness
had paid the arrears of dues he owed, when under the delusion
that lie was exempt? (A laugh.)
The witness said he had not, no person having asked for them.
The. Town-clerk handed to the commissioners seven Liver-
pool newspapers, containing advertisements of Corporation
property ou sale, previously alluded to.
The Treasurer produced the accounts of the Corporation,
chewing their entire interest on the bond debts, including the-
debt at the bank, from which it appeared that the sum of
£34,444 14s. Bd. represented the whole interest. The item of
cash paid for annuities amounted to £823 lis. 4d. There were
annuitants under the Corporation. The practice formerly had
been to raise money by granting annuity bonds, but it had
ceased for the last 2U years, with au• exception in the case of a
man named Place, a cripple, who had been sexton of the Old
Church, who was allowed us a matter of charity to sink £3(1)
in that manner. Witness's brother was an annuitant under
the Corporation, as the commissioners had 'previously heard,
He had been the lecturer in St. George's Church, and was
sited by one of those awful -and mysterious dispensations of
providence for which it was impossiliie to account, by being,
when quite a young man, deprived of his sight. The Corpora-
tion annually voted him 200 guineas.
Mr. Case then went on reading the various items in the Cor-
voration ilecounts.- The sum of £1,2D0 paid to the Mayor Ira 3

annually voted for public entertainments. The salaries of the
various police and other officers under the Corporation were
read—(They have previonAv appeared in the evidence of the
town-clerk). The item. of 12636 soine"shillings was the expense
of clothing the police' establishment, and that of £liis was for
the travelling expenSes of Mr. Parlour, the superintendent of
police. The commissioners asked for an expianathm of the
item under the head of general law and Parliamentary ex-

peuses.
• The Town-clerk replied that the Corporation undertook the
duty of prosecuting offenders committed to the assizes, and
thereby the township and individuals were relieved from the
loss and inconvenience arising therefrom. The county allow-
ance had never been considered a remuneration for the trouble,
and scarcely amounting to the outlay of the money advanced,
in consequence of which the bill for extra charges had been
all paid ni equal moities by the
.parish and the Corporation.
The general busineSs of the assizes was the business of the
Corporation. If any commitment to Lancaster for murder or
manslaughter took place, the offence being committed on board
ship, the parties were prosecuted by the Town-clerk as the general
•prosecutor. In 1839, when a contest took place between Mr.
Denison and Mr. Ewart, a petition was presented to the House
of Commons against the return, and in consequence of the re-
port from that inquiry, a bill was brought into the House of
Continons to disfranchise the freemen of the borough, taking
away their right of voting for members of Parliament ; and the
cxpences were relative to the opposition to that measure. The
money was voted by the Common Council on the part of the
burgesses. Anbthe-r item was the ex pent e of a deputation to
London ou the aftiirs of the town. On the first deputation two
or three gentlemen composed it. Another item was the ex-
peaces respecting the railway bill, to watch the interests of the
town during its progress. Another item was for expences in-
curred in the Birkenhead improvement bill, alluded to yesterday.'
There were other bills upon which expences were incurred.—
Formerly the traverse jury had a dinner given them, and in lieu
of that a sum of money was voted for refreshments during the
sessions. The sum was limited to £l2 per session. The tra-
verse jury pane! was generally thirty-six, and the grand jury
twenty-four. The practice of voting money instead of pro-
viding a dinner had been followed since 1815. The above,
Mr. I. oster stated, was the explanation of the item under the
head of law and Parliamentary expenses. With respect to
the assessed taxes and parish rates paid upon Corporation
property, he found that for the last seven Years the sum paid
was £17,910, and of that amount 1:31,33/ had been paid
upon poor rates assessed upon the amount of town dues. The
rest was upon premises and for the government taxes. The
total amount of the assessed taxes Said- was £323, and the total
of the parish taxes was £372 8s id. With regard to a new
street called the New Boundary-street, the Corporation had
agreed to make it, and defray the whole of the expenses attend-
ing its formation.. The stained glass windows, including the
picture in St. George's church, cost about £2OOO. The exe-
' cution of the window took a considerable time, and the artist

was paid some time ago. With respect to St. Michael's, there
was a clause in the act of Parliament authorising the parish to
take the church back from the Corporation, if they chose to
refund the money advanced by the Corporation for ita comple-
tion. The warehouses on St. George's Dock Quay, called the
Goree, which were built with arcades, had; in consequence of
some defect iu the original construction, been taken down and
rebuilt by the Corporation. The warehouses were held by
individuals on lease. .
Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, inquired whether the site of the
warehouses alluded to did not originally form a part of St.
George's Dock Quay.
'Mr. Bolton said ,that it was understood that St. George's
Dock was widened on the one side and narrowed on the other,
and that the site of the warehouses was originally a part of the

quay.
Mr. Foster said it might have been a question of law whe-
ther it did or did not; however the Corporation had undertaken

to build upon it.
Mr. Foster then adverted to the markets,, and said that from
the whole three markets the expences of salaries, &c., for the
year was £1,900. The -dues of the markets were paid to the
superintendent every day, and he accounted to the treasurer for
the monies received. With regard to the Corporation charities,
he found that for the last seven years the charitable donations
and subscriptions to the various institutions amounted to the
sum of £12,752 9s. 9d., being an average of £1,821 per annum.
Those persons who had allowances for superannuation were dis-
abled police and other officers, and their widows. An annuity
was also received from the Corporation by Mr. George Holden,
who calculated the tide table for the year, which is annually
published., With iegard to the free schools supported by the
Corporation,. it. appeared that in the reign of Elizabeth
the sun.-Of £5 6s. Bd. was -allows:I out of the reveaue of the
duchy for a schoolmaster, and it was received so Jung as that
school continued; the last master was-Mr. Baines, who died in
1802. The school was a very small one, and in the year 1821
or 1825 the present public flee schools were built; the total cost
of them was £19,933, and the present establishment cost. the
Corporation about £6OO per annum; the whole expense of the
building was defrayed by the poration. In the north school
there were 365 boys and :320 girls, and iu the south school there
were 37-1 boys and 290 girls. The schools were managed by a
committee of the Common Council, aided by the resident clergy.
Mr. W. W. Currie said that children of all denominations

were admitted, but there was a preference given to the children
of freemen. At each monthly meeting applications fur admis-
sion were recorded in the book, and as the vacancies occurred
they were filled up, giving only the preference alluded to. The
children brought a penny per week to the master and mistress
of the ,chool, which made about 30s. per week; that sum went
to a sinking fund; the fund was paid over to the treasurer of
the Corporation, and out 'of it school books, pencils, and prizes
were awarded to the scholars. Small sums of £2U each were also
voted out of the fund to provide clothes for the children to work
and sew, which clothes were sold to the parents of the children
at half price.
11r. Bolton wished to know the rules of the school.

Mr. Currie replied that the rules were printed.
Mr. Bolton said the object of his question was to know whe-
ther the Church Catechism was not exclusively taught in the
schools.
Mr. Currie believed it was. The children, however, were not
compelled to go to church if they were Dissenters or Homan
Catholics, of which there were both in the schools •
Mr. Bolton had heard that there had been pews purchased in
St. Thomas's Church for the exclusive accommodation of the
children of churchmen. And he wished to know whether any
pews had been purchased in the Catholic or Dissenting chapels
for children who, from conscientious motives, did not go to
church. - - •
The Town-clerk replied there had not.
Mr. Currie remarked that a School for Infants was in the

course of erection at the expellee of the Corporation.
The rules of the school were read, from which it appeared
that the committee consisted of seven of the Common Council

and the two rectors. There was also a committee of ladies
for the management of the girls' schooL The education was

conducted on Bell's systein.

The items of the accounts were then proceeded with. The
item for expellees of barracks was for providing accommodation
for troops some time ago, about the period of the Bristol riots.
The expenses the public walks and gardens, for seven years,
were £4,4b9 lie. IJ., averaging £667 per annum. The expense
of the Liverpool agent in London was about £lOO per annum
to the Corporation, but the commerciala.ssociations of the town
contributed a sum of money. The item for quarantine service was
incurred during the time of the cholera raging, the Government
having refused to defray the expenses. The total cost of the
Black Rock Lighthouse was £30,212. The building was com-
menced in 1826. The expense of lighting the house was de-
frayed by the Dock Estate, but the machinery of it belcnged
to the Corporation. The lauding place, which extended from
the pier, for persons to get out of the vessels at low water,_ cost
£2,500. The item of expense of the Chester Basin was for
enlarging it. The surveyor of the Corporation acted as pay-
master of the Customhouse for government. Within the last seven
years, the Corporation had expended, for sewerage and pav-
ing the streets, the sum of £52;556, being an average of £7,508
per year. The total expense, for seven years, of Corporate
officers, &c. was £40,981, being a yearly, average of .£5,856.
The total amount paid to .the clergy officiating at churches,
from which the Corporation derived no advantage, in seven
years, was £14,816, being a yearly average of £2119 93.8 d.—
The total paid to the clergy • who officiated at churches from
which-the Corporation had au income, was £4,395_ The allow-
ance of the Mayor, and the money allowed for the support of
the Town-hall, in seven years, amounted to £27,688, beit a
yearly average of £3,955, of which sum £l,OOO was paid' in
wages to messengers and -others, and for cleansing the Town-
hall. The cost of the Fort, on the North Shore, for the de-
fence of the town, was as follows :---From the year 1777 to
Nat the sum of £4,08 was paid; and front the year 1797 to
1818, the sum of £3,997 Ils. 11-d. had been paid. From the
year 1775 to 1797, there was a Board of Trade in Liverpool,
which had expended the suns of £11,169 17s, lid. From 1777
to 1797, the sum of £2,978 17s. 6,1. had been paid as bounty to
seamen., There had been expended in 1778, the sum of
£2,951 188. 4d. in raisin' a regiment of volunteers, and 'fel-
keeping back the encroachments of the river Mersey, the sum
of £13.321 4s. sd. had been paid; and for surveys of the Mer-
sey, the sum of £8,789.
Mr. J. D. Case, the treasurer, here rose and said, that as
the account of the receipts and expenditure of the Corporation
bad been gone through, he should now take the opportunity of
snaking a few observations, which were rendered the more neces-.
sary in consequence of Many of the accounts that had been
produced embracing a period far beyond the experience that.
he had had in . the office which he had the honour to
hold. It happened that soon after his appointment
the mode of keeping the accounts of the Corporation
formed matter of discussion in the Common Council, and
he in consequence had been instructed to call in the as-
sistance of an experienced accountant., who should inspect the
books. The gentleman he selected was Mr. Bartholomew
Prescot, well known in this town for his -great experience,
.skill, and high character • and be Was happy to say that his re-
port was of the most satisfactory' nature. It was to he found on
the hooks of record Of the Corporation, and if the commissioners
saw fit could easily be referred to.. Front Mr. Prescot's inves-
tigation resulted the formation of a book, which in the trea-
surer's office was called a "Balance Ledger," exhibiting, at
one view, the cost of any work which may have-been executed
by the Corporation. his book was intended; in the first in,
stance, to have gone back only ten years ; but by the deep re-
search and unwearied diligence of Mr. John. Sudlow, who sat
at his side, a complete balance sheet of the books of the Corpo-
ration for fifty years was 'produced. This ledger had been
regularly kept up, thus enabling him to speak to the correct-
ness of the Corporation accounts for sixty years from
the present moment. He ( M.r. Case) did, therefore, say
that the Corporation of Liverpool met the present in-
quiry openly and fearlessly. (Loud cheers.) And he was
convinced 'that the deeper the inquiry, and the more minute
.the search, the more creditable to the Corporation would be the
result. (Great cheering.) With the few observations he bad
made, and giving hiS testimony to the authenticity of the docu-
ment just handed in, -he confidently left the Corporation to
abide the scrutiny, having the fullest assurance that it would
terminate honourably to that body.
The Commissioner inquired whether the accounts were pub-
lished.
Mr. Case stated that they were, and any respectable person,
whether freeman or not, could have one by asking at the Trea-;
surer's office.
Mr. Foster stated that the accounts were regularly examined
by an Audit Committee, and then printed by an order of the
council. The accounts had been made public from the time of
Elizabeth, and were first.printed in 1815, in Alderman Ley;
land's mayoralty, with the accounts front 1797. Mr. Foster
remarked, that no freeman or member of the Common Council
possessed any advantages or privileges over another inhabitant,
excepting his exemption from town dues, and half the market
tolls.
The Commissioner inquired if any freeman wished to have
an explanation of the large items in the accounts, whether he
would receive it from the treasurer ?
Mr. Case replied that he should not feel himself authorised
to give the particulars but by permission of the Common
Council. •
Mr. Foster here handed in a paper, containing a statement
of the state and prospects of the town, from which it. appeared
that
Iu 1773. the receipt of Customs was £92,466. In 1832, it was
£3,935.062.
In 18'20, the number of parish assessments was 21,033; in
1832, 3:1.631. In 1813 the parish assessments a:lv:muted to
X 57,87 1, anti. iu lap tq.47.9.9,p5in,

• In 1760, the population was 5714; in 1801, it was 7700; in
1831, the census gave 1.65,22,1..-
In 1752 the dock- rates amounted to £1776, and in 1823 to
£82,980 - •
There were abeive 27,000 inhabited houses in 1832.
There were 1161 public-houses and 477 beer-shops in 1832.
It being now nearly four o'clock, the court adjourned until
Monday.

SEVENTH DAY.
Agreeable to the determination of the commissioners the in-
quiry into the affairs of the Dock Estate commenced this
morning (Monday.) • The commissioners entered the court
about ten o'clock, and having taken their seats upon the bench,
the Town-clerk rose and stated that he had a letter from the
special committee of the Dock Estate, addressed to the com-
missioners, in answer to one sent by them to the committee,
requiring the attendance of the officers and trustees of the
Dock Estate to furnish them with the necessary information
respecting the affairs of that trust. The. letter was signed Chas.
Lawrence, chairman. It stated that the committee had taken
into consideration the application and request of the commis-
sioners appointed to inquire into the state oiY municipal corpo-
rations, and that they were distinctly of opinion that the Dock
Estate nut being a corporate body, but separate from the Cor-
poration by act of Parliament, the inquiry into the state of its
affairs did not come within the meaning of the commission for
inquiry into municipal corporations, notwithstanding which,
the committee and trustees were anxious to furnish his Ma-
jesty's commissioners with any information in their power, and
consequently they had ordered the officers and others connected
with the estate to attend at the court for the purpose of giving
evidence and producing the books of the estate.
Mr. Foster, the Town-clerk, resumed.—The Dock Com-
mittee have power to collect all dock duties from vessels corning
into the port, by virtue of au act of Parliament. A part of the
estate is without the borough, but within the jurisdiction of the
Corporation. A plan of the -Dock. Estate was handed to the
commissioners, and explained to them by the Town-clerk and
Mr. William Foster, the secretary to the Dock Committee
estate. The 51 Geo. 11. gave dower to elect a committee out of the
Common Council. The officers consist of chairman and de-
putv-chairman ; the election of chairman is specified in the act
bth-of Geo. IV. From sec. Ito 15, all related to the election
of committees, and named the powers of the trustees, the
committees and their functions being defined in the act. The
committees meet together from time to time to perform the
duties as mentioned in the act of Parliament. The deputy-
chairman is Mr. Littledald, who was elected bythe committee.
Mr. William Foster is their secretary. All the members of the
committee reside in or about Liverpool; they are all Aldermen,
and by the act every member of the committee must be a rate
payer to the amount of £5O. There Was also a. _treasurer and

a surveyor to the estate.
The several officers connected with the Dock -Estate were

now sworn, and Sir George Drinkwater inquired whether the
oath he had previously taken in the inquiry into the municipal
corporations could apply to the inquiry into the Dock.Estate._
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson. said certainly, because they
considered. the_ Dock Estate to be aportinu.ofla inquiry into
the municipal Corporation. - -
A printed account of the salaries of the officers connected
with the estate was put in by the Secretary.
The secretary. read the minutes of a resolution of the_Dock

Committee, dated the 17th of February, 1832, appointing
Charles Lawrence, Esq. the Chairman of the Dock Committee,
in the place of Mr. Hollingshead.
The Secretary continued.—The proceedings of the Dock
Committee are laid before the-Common Council every month,
if there is a meeting of that body, and au entry is then made of
the resolutions and directions of the committee, on the Corpora-
tion record, they having been previously approved of and rati-
fied by the trustees. On the 2d of February 1832, J. Little.
dale, Esq. was elected deputy-chairman in the place of Chas.
Lawrence, Esq., a,ppointed chairman. The entry of appoint-
ment was read. W itness was appointed secretary in 1824. He
had been assistant secretary from 1812 until that period. The
appointment was confirmed by a resolution of the Dock Com-
mittee, dated the 7th of April, 1821. The salary attached to
the office is £5OO per annum. Witness was formerly assistant
secretary at a salary of £250 per annum. Mr. John FoSter, the
former secretary, had a salary of £BOO per annum. He filled
•the office of surveyor and .secretary, but the offices were now
separate. Mr. Daniel Mason, the secretary's clerk, was ap-
pointed on the 6th of December, 1825. at a salary of £lOO per
annum. His appointment was then out!, for one year, in con-
sequence of the great pressure of business at that period by the
purchase by the committee of lands' and buildings at -that
pezied. The resolution confirming the appointment- was read.
Oa the 16th of January, 1827, it was resolved, that the Clerk
saeuid be • continued in his office at the sane salary, and
in
1828 there was a resolution increasing his salary to £l5O per
'year. There were eight vetos of the Common Council against
the proceedings of the Committee since the Act of 6th Geo. IV.
If the proceedings of the Dock Committee were not annulled
at the meeting of the next Common Council following the re-
solutions so made at the Dock.Coninittee, the latter were con-
clusive according to act of Parlianient. The several vetes
against the protedings of the Dock Committee by the COMMOU
Council were then read; they merely applied' to the tesolutions
of the Dock Committee which had been annulled by the Trus
tees, the latter considering the subjects had not received due
consideration.
Mr. Jesse Hartley examined.—He is the surveyor, and was
appointed in March Is2l. He had not previously-been in the
enTloyment of the Dock. Estate. The appointment was put in
and read. He was first appointed•engineer under the surveyor,
but the surveyor resigned the April following his appointment.
His salary was £lOOO per annum, but a resolution of the coin--
mittee, dated the 6th of April, 1825, increased the salary to,
£ISIX) per year, which is his present salary, and the salary was
confirmed the 6th of February, 1828, by the Common Council.
His salary, when assistant surveyor, was £6OO per annum.
Mr. Gilbert Cummins, the chief clerk, has a salary of £2OO per
annum. In 1821 the salary of the second clerk was £l2O per
annum. This was his first fixed salary. Mr. Wm. Anderson,
the draughtsman, was appointed on the Bth Man 1827, at £l5O
per annum, and increased on the 24th December, 1828, to £2OO.
The storekeeper, Mr. Thos. Parkinson, on the 19th October,
1824, was appointed at a salary of £80; the treasurer was ap-
pointed by the dock committee on the 23d April, in the
present year. Mr. Geo. Withers is the treasurer, under
surety, at a salary of £6OO per annum. Mr. Geo. Brown is the
only surety, in the sum of £BOOO.
Mr. Withers stated that he, was secretary to the underwriters'
association for seventeen years. Ile has given up that and all
other emplayaaaat.; .
-AU__.Coort .sinceediA him in the under-
writer's secretaryship. Mr. Pick:ling Was his predecessor.
On-the 15th of July, 1811, Mr. John Backhohse was elected
deputy-coilector by the trustees, at a salary of £4OO a year;
lie gives security to the treasurer His son is the surety.
His assistant, Mr. Wm. Sudlow, was appointed in August,
1820, at a salary of £121) per annum; was increased to £l5O ou
the 3d June
1.22 • in June 1828, to £200; and in June, 1831,
to £2,50. His brother, Mr. John Sudlow, is his security. Mr.
G. B. Taunton is a clerk in the treasurer's office, appointed
the Ist November, 1825, at a salary of 80 guineasa year, to be ad-
vanced after two
.years to £lOO. IQ September, 1529, it was
increased to £l2O. Mr. Taunton's Security is his father, in
£SOU. 111 September last his salary was increased to £l4O per
annum. All the clerks give security in £5OO. The checque
clerk,. Mr. Marron, was appointed on the 26th April, 1825, at
£lOO per annum. On the 7th September, 1829, it was raised
to £l2O. On the 21ih June, 1831, it was raised to £l5O, at
which to remain. On the 28th Nov., 1826, Mr. Marron having
resigned, Mr. John Evans was appointed
,at eighty guineas a
year, to be advanced for the next two yeari to £4OO. On the
24th Sept., 1830, this was increased to £120; and on the 24th
Sept. last to £l4O. Sureties •have been taken in all cases.
Mr. T. 11. Nevett was appointed in Nov:, Ib3l, to the receiver-
ship of dues at Runcorn. Mr. David Hampson Davies was ap-
pointed on the Bth Sept., 1829, in lieu of Mr. Jones, deceased,
at £l2O per annum. On the 24th Sept. last it was, increased
to £l4O. Mr. Richard Jones, who collects the dock duties at
Runcorn, was appointed on the 4th October, 1831, in lieu of
Al" Nevett, at £l5O per annum... The harbour-master,
Mr. John Askew, was appointed on the 3d January, 1821, at
a meeting of the Common Council, iu lieu of Mr. Cumming,
deceased ; he took the then salary of £220. On the 2tl of
January, 1827, it was raised to £3:XI; there being also £2OO
a year allowed by the Corporation, making his salary £5OO a
year. The dock-master of the Prince's Dock receives a per
tentage ou the tounage dues of vessels entering the dock. He
was appointed in February, 1827. On, the 6th of March, 1827.
the amount of his percentage was determined at 4th of a penny
on the receipts, and f'4o pound per annum for house-money,—
Mr. Charles Purnell, George's Dock, is paid iths of a penny
per ton. Mr. John Garnet, QUeen's.Doce, is paid-150 guineas
per annum. Mr. Win. Hammond has a stir-sitar salary tor the
liing's Dock. Mr. Joues has a salary of _EI9O per annum,
and an allowance for the Canning Dock. The master of the
Half-tide Dock has 100 guineas per annum. Mr. M`Bride has
£l9O per annum for the 'Clarence Dock. The master of • the
Brunswick Dock has £2OO .salary, and £4O per annum for
house-remit. The inciter of the- Clarence Basin has £BO a
year. The.
present master of the diedgiug machine is paid
weekly wages by the surveyor. The special auditors are ap-
pointed under the 6th of George JV.„•one of them by the com-
missioners, the other by the Dock Committee, at salaries of
£l5O per animal each. Previous to 1827 they had 100 guineas.
Mr. Radcliffe wished to know the powers vested in the'com-
missioners to audit the accounts.
The Town Clerk.—The first act of Parliament provided for
these commissioners. It was that of the Bth of Ann, see. 15,
and enacted that there should be nine such commissioners.
The 11th of- George IL, increased the number of commissioners
to twelve, and varied the mode of election. By the 51st of
George 111. another alteration iu the mode -of election took

place.
Mr. Radcliffe referred to the 56th _sec. 4..tbelast-named act,
as to the appointment of parties to determine all. purchases of
property between the Corpoiation_and the Dock Trustees.
. • The flown-clerk.—The 6th- Geo. IV. sec. .16, explains and
defines the duties_ of the commissioners; first, respecticg all
provisions relating to commissioners in the:. Preceding acts,
and then gave to five the power: enjoyed' by seven of these
commissioners. - With reference to the powers of the commis-
sioners, the Dock Cominittee had acted under the opinion of
the late Justice Llolroyd; and-other counsel, in-the year 1823.
Which was, that the meaning of the -words inspect, audit, and
adjust, did not extend • beyond - - the examination in. the mode
pointed out in the clause oi the present-41.A of l'arlisment, and
did not give the commissioners, elected under that• clause, au-
thority to question either the expenditure or application of any
part of the Dock Funds; and, upon that construction of the act,
he believed, at different times, the officers employed under the
Dock Committee have acted, and although, before a period
within his recollection, he was unaware of any entries in the
records to explain that fact farther, he believed the fact to be
so, and to be capable of living proof. The commissioners ap-
pointed about the year 1823, claimed the right to go into an in-
vestigation of the management of the Dock Estate by the-com.
inittee, and the expenditere of the funds, and they did so, with
the consent of the committee at that time, and examined the
officers of the Dock Estate, as to the time and manner in which
the work had been executed, and their own duties performed.
They made reports of the investigation to the Dock Trustees,
in which they stated abuses and frauds to have been committed
in the manner enumerated in that report. This_ was thoroughly
considered by the trustees, alter they had made inquiries into
the transactions alluded to, and he believed that it was in con-
sequence of those inquiries that, in 1825, rho act -of the 6th
Geo. IV. was applied for, to alter the constitution of the
Dock Commissioners. A Clause was inserted, upon the pass-
ing of that act, limiting the jurisdiction of the commissioners.
The particulais of these transactions were recorded in the
books of the Corporation, containing the report, and all the
transactions from lust to last.-
Mr. Commissioner \Vilkinson.--4 should like to have them
read.

The Town-clerk, referring.to the different minute books, said
the first appointment of the .commissioueis was in the year
Mt?, the sth day of June. At the meeting.of the Dock Com-
mittee on the Irth of March, 1833, there was an entry of a
letter from the commissioners requesting information, to which
a reply was given referring to the surveyor, who was instructed
to pive all the information iu his power. On the 41n of, Jan.,
1823, at a special meeting of the Common Council, a report of
the commissioners was read. It went on to say that the com-
missioners could not report favourably of the charges for mate-
rials, and lamented that there were uo public contracts for the
supplies. It stated that the law expenses were exe essiye,,.amount-
. ing in ten years to upwards of 126900, and that the solicitor had
charged three guineas a day, besides other expenses whilst. in
ILoudon on the affairs of tha
.estatei althoul;h he was at that

time in receipt of a salary and other emoluments as town-elerk.
That lead; Which might nave been obtained at from 225. to 245.
per 1201b5., was charged to the estate at front 245. to 255. 6d.
per 1121bs. That on the iron-work supplied by Messrs. Dore
and Co., Messrs. Strong and Co., and Mr. F. C. Mullineaux,
amounting in six years to about 1:40,000, prices had been
charged varying from 30 to 80 per- cent. beyond what the arti-
cles might iiave been obtained for. That tho ineaiuren.ent of
the stone received for building was inaccurate, the total cost of
which since 1815 had been 1;:a.),(100. That the mode of ascet-

Mining the quantity of lime-atone-Baas-most erroneous, and
greatly to the loss of the Dock Estate in two sva)s; first by the
quantity, as taken by 10 vessels, amounting to mote than -twice
their register tonnage ; and secoml, by these vessels paying
less dock dues than they were credited for in tonnage of stone.
The report concluded by recommending the adoption of con-
tracts for the future, and was signed by the eight commissioners.
The Town Clerk then read time minutes of various meetings
of the Trustees, Council,' &c. upon the Ent kj e t, and votes of
thanks front them to the 'commissioners; and a committee ap.
pointed by the Common Council specially to examine into the
matters referred to by the commissioners, who thought differ-
ently with the commissioners respecting die supplies of lead,
iron, and stone for building, hut who coincided in their opinion
that gross fraud had been practised „pe,, the
Trustees of the
the Dock Estate in the supply of lime-stony, and determined to
take proceeidngs against the parties for overcharge of quantity,
and for non-payment of the full amount of dock does. Tio
committee having referred the Solicitor's bill, to have the costs
taxed; to William Cron, ESq., Prothonotary to the county of
Lancaster, that gentleman, and Mr. Robert Bennett, of Lon.
don, having examined the same, ins' ead ofteducimngtheamount,
made an addition to the account of 1:1S 10s. and received,
each of them, twelve guineas for taxing the bill of cost:.
(Laughter.)
After some discussion, relative to the construction of the Act
of the 6th of Geo. IV., by which no new point was elicited,
Mr. Radcliffe asked the Town Clerk for the names of the gen-
tlemen composing the three firms alluded to as supplying the
iron-work. _ _

--The Town Clerk.—l can give you those of Dove and Co.
They were Mr. Thomas Dove, Mr. James Foster, end Mr.
David Gladstone. Mr. T. C. Molyneux, was nephew to the
Mayor of that period. Mr. Tioughton, who supplied some ma.
terials, was his (the Town Clerk's) cousin ; but at that tune
there was not the slightest idea of any of the family becomiaK
members of the Common Council, excepting his father. llis
father had been for fifty years the servant of the Corporation,
and without making it a matter of feeling, he (the Town Clerk)
would defy. the whole world to show that his father had ever
done anything derogatory to his character during his life-time.
(Several cries of hear, he.ar, and applause.)
Mr. Radcliffe disavowed any intention of imputing impro-
priety of conduct to the Town-clerk, or to any of his family.
Least of all to one who was gone to his account.
The Town-clerk.—l have not the slightest desire to conceal
anything within my knowledge. lam hero to answer for my.
sea', and ant ready to du so for any branch of my family.
(Applause.).
Other minutes were then referred_ to, the gist of whieli ire
[-could not apprehend, and as nothing, was elicited by them we,
omit their particular mention.
The secretary proceeded to state the force of the Dock Fe-
lice. It was superintended by Mr. Mather Maurice George
Dowling, late of the metropolitan new police, who was recon,
mended to the situation by Col. Rowan, one of the London
police commissioners. He was engaged at a salary of £3,io
per annum, but it had recently been increased to £5OO pert
-annum. He was not entitled to any emolument arising front
fines or other perquisites. Mr. Dowling gave a bond in tho
sum of £5OO for the faithful discharge of the duties of his situa-
tion. There were four inspectors of the dock police, who re-
ceived salaries of £lOO each. They were uniform, but paid
for it themselves. Twelve sergeants of the police, chiefly selected
front London, were paid £l2l-5 per year each, and 135 privatee-
receiVed a weekly salary -each of 18s., with clothing fouu.f
them. The keeper of Dock Biidewell receives a salary o
£l2O per annum. The new system of police was adopted by
the sanction of the magistrates, in consequence of the old being
defective. The whole of the Dock Police wet e appointed by the-
Dock Committee, and paid out of the Dock Trust.
The minutes of the proceedings of the Dock Committee rela,
Live to the engagement of Mr. Dowling and his officers were
read, together with a list of the salaries paid to the keepers E!
the different lighthouses belonging to the port of Liverpool.
The act of parliament empowering the Dock Committee to erect
a telegraph to communicate between Liverpool and Holyhead
was produces, amid the beveial tesolutio, of the Dock Con.-
mittee on the subject of its eiteion :t. meetiegs Weee,
read ; also a stuteroent of tile caper:, its ereetion and an-
nual oust to the trust was put its, Ito .. it appeared that
the expense of building the telegiaph tli.t6 £1,70, awl the ar.—
uual expenses including the payment of salaries to the -
teudeut, two clerks, and other officers, was £l,OOO a-a ear. J
are five stations. of the telegraph. Lieutenant Watson, the au-
perintendent of the machiue, stated, that during the progress of
erectiou, and until its completion, he received a salary "of £3OO.
pas subsequently engaged for one year only, at the salary
of £4OO per year. In 1830 be • received a regular eneag,einent
at a salai y of £250 per annum, which was continued up to the
present tune.
A Freeman.—That was in consequence of a paper war be•,
tweeu yourself and Lieutenant Morrison.
Lieutenant Richard James Morrison of the royal nary stated
that there was a far more considerable tax upon the tom-meted
of Liverpool from the telegraph than what had appearei before
the court, awl he wished the commissioners to inquire .what
other emoluments Mr. Watson received as superintendent of
- the telegraph. . -

The commissioners said that that inquiry would come under
another head, when they got inn her into the investigation.
Lieutenant Morrison liaviug wished to be sworn, deposed
that in July, 1830, he had memorialized the Dock Committee
on the subject of the telegraph which had been erected upon
plans that he had suggested to Lieutenant Watson, without his
(witness's) consent. fhe commissioners desired him to' read
the memorial, tv hich he did. It set forth that the petitioner
had spent the greater part of his life in forming plans for the
construction of an efficient telegraph, and that -prior to the for-
mation of the telegraph by the Dock Committee, unler the super-
intendence of Lieut. 'Watson, he had made known those plans to
that person, on the express condition that he (Lieut. Watson)
should uot make known nor act upon the invention, but for the
joint benefihrf both. lie, the petitiouerafterwards discovered that
the telegraph of communication between Liverpool and Holy.
head had been constructed upon every principle that had been
laid down
.by. himself to Lieutenant Watson, without the peti-
tioner receiving any consideration, or being at all cousultcd: The
principle bad previously been laid before the Society of Arts.
and approved of by them in 1821, and that he had the letteis of
Mr. Watson himself, and another from the society of• Arts,
which could prove the truth of his assertions. The memorial
went on to say that the petitioner was confident the Dock Com-
mittee were not aware of the encroachment upon his propeitv,
and he prayed for an investigation into the circumstances-...
his petition he only received a verbal answer, to the effect that
the difference appeared to arise from a private quarrel betweeu
himself and Mr. Watson,N with which the Dot k Committee had
nothing to do. He made another application in Septembei,
1830, but with the same success. He canvassed the menfuers
of the Dock Committee individually, and he found many who
were of opinien that he had a just right to an investigation. It
was a very hard case upon witness, as the Dock Committee
considered the invention to be their property, and he was con-
sequently deprived of offering the sao.e. to any part of the world.
The witness then read a letter lions Mr. Thomas Earle, one of
the Dock Committee, wherein it was stated that he thought the
witness entitled to an investigation, and that he (Mr. Earle)
had done all in his power to being it about, but had failed.
Lieutenant Morrison then put several questions to Sir George
Driukwater as Co his knowleoli4e of repeated applications .being
made to the Dock Committee for au investigation; to shica

Sir George replied, that he could not charge his memory with
the circumstances of the application, but thought he tecol,ected
something of the kind; however, a reference to the books would
give the required information. The Secretary referred to the
committee books, and found the minutes of an application to
the Dock Committee by Lieutenant Morrison, dated 2d of Sep-
tember, 1830, together with a resolution thereon to the effect,
that the committee had nothing whatever to do with any dispute
between Lieutenant Mot rison and Lieutenant Watson. 'Photo.
was also the minute of an amerrdment moved at the time by
Mr. Earle for an inquiry, which was lest by a mojority of Liao
to three.
Mr. Morrison said, that since that time, although the com-
mittee were using his plans, they had never given themselves
the trouble to inquire relative to his claims.
Lieutenant Watson denied that the plans of the telegraph
with which he was connected were ever the property of Lieut.
Morrison, and if the commissioners those to go fully into the
subject he should be enabled satisfactorily to chew that they
were not so. The tact was, that the telegraph did not contain
one single plan of Mr. Morrison's. The plans front which the
telegraph was constructed were drawn out before he knew that
such a person as Lieutenant Morrison was iu existence. The
plan was principally an improvement upon one of Colonel
WDouald's telegraphs, and he (Mr. Watson) had received the
thanks of Colonel. M`Donald for the ovement before he ever
saw Lieutenant Morrison. In the morning, if the commission-
ers would allow it, he should be able to show that the siatementa
of Mr. Morrison were erroneous. Ile was anxious for an in.
vestigation when Lieutenant Morrison proposed it to the Dock
Committee.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson, ,addressing Mr. Morrison,
stated that he thought they could not go further in the investi-
gation relative to hint, as the charge appeared to be against
Lieut. Watson, and not against the (~orporatiou.
Lieutenant Morrison replied that of course he should be
guided by the opinions of the-commissioners, but at the same
time he thought that the Corporation, by using his plans, made
themselveS puitieeps erzminis wiiit Mr. 'Watson.• acre the tele-
graphic affair ended, and the commissioners adjourned the court
until this day at ten