The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-12-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

to the matter in question. The placing of Mr. Evans on
the Finance Committee was proposed by one of the re-
presentatives of the rate-payers, and all the representa-
tives of the rate-payers present concurred. If, therefore,
they were to be guided by the opinions of the rate-parrs
they had acted correctly. He did not consider it an insult
to Mr. Evans, or to the rate pavers at all. Mr. Evans
had objected to the act recently obtained, the carrying out
of which was the work of the sub-committee, and it might
well be supposed that it would be disagreeable for him to
carry out a matter to which be was opposed. The finance
committee, too, was almost annihilated, all the members
but Mr. Molyneux having retired, and he thought it desi-
rable to place an old member of the committee upon that
sub-committee, along with the new members. The finance
committee was an important one, and as Mr. Evans had
on every occasion taken an active part in financiol mat-
ters, he thought he would be a very valuable man. He
did not consider the committee of works more executive
than any other. Finally, he considered the committee
quite justified in coming to the conclusion in which they
hail acted.

Mr. BOLD said Mr. Evans had taken so active a part in
council and in London in opposing the measure alluded
to, that he did not consider he was a proper person to
carry out the construction of the works. He referred to
the Parliamentary Sub-committee.
Mr. EVANS said he was not present when it was read,
and he never thought it worth while to notice it after-
wards.

Mr. TOBIN said he had opposed Mr. Evans because be
had used his strongest exertions to prevent the extension
of docks.

Mr. AIKIN said the same argument that applied to Mr.
Evans applied to himself; but he was satisfied that the
various committees would not have been proposed as they
had been unless previously sanctioned by a number of
those who took the leading management in the affairs of
that board. Great importance was attached to the fact
that, because Mr. Bold, as one of the candidates of the
rate-payers, was the mover, therefore it sprang from Mr.
Bold and the rate-payers, and not from those holding in-
terests there. He, (Mr. A.) however, knew too much of
the real working of party business to suppose that this
was a candid or sincere view of the matter. Mr. Mann,
for instance, who had only attended once or twice, would
never have mentioned thenames for a committee if he had
not been authorized to do so. He and Mr. Evans were
not opposed to dock extension ; what they were opposed to
was being hurried into an expenditure involving a million
and a half to two millions of money, when it appeared to
them that a dock could be obtai ed in Wallasey Pool for
£5,000 which would take off the surplus from the docks
of Liverpool, accommodate the lying-up ships, and give a
space equal to the largest dock in Liverpool, besides pro-
viding a place for the deposit of timber either on the land
or water. They believed and hoped that if they could have
had a little more time, they would have been enabled to
do that which would have prevented the opposition anti-
cipated from the docks on the other side of the water. He
would not say whether the removal of Mr. Evans from the
sub-committee of Works was intended as an insult to Mr.
Evans or not, but he thought it was something like an in-
sult to the community which so recently voted him back
there—not because of any political party feeling, but be-
cause they knew his efficiency in carrying out the works
and advocating warehouses round the docks. Knowing
his efficiency, it was wrong in the committee to lesson it.
Mr. Tostx considered that no insult had been intended
to the rate-payers. They were sent there withuut any
pledge whatever. For his own part he had voted accord-
ing to his conscience. Mr. Evans was not a proper man
to go on the committee.

Mr. MANN said he had certainly been requested to
move the committee, but that was after he came i❑to the
room.

Mr. EVANS, in reply, stated that when the Board of
Works came with a report, their influence was generally
so irresistible, that any one who heard it had seldom or
ever any chance of wee-hieing an alteration. Thus the
Committee of Woiks was in reality the organ of the ge-
neral committee. Mr. Aikin and be had suggested great
alterations and improvements in the plans adopted for the
docks. There was evidence both of their ability and their
will to do their duty. As to what he might have said
about the rate-payers eight or nine years ago, and, no
doubt, sedulously repeated by his political enemies,
who were legion, still, in d fiance of this alleged insult,
they had overlooked it all, for he supposed they bad dis.
covered some little merit in him to re-elect him. Those
who proposed him on the committee to which he was ap-
pointed, had, no doubt whatever, received their orders.
With respect to his being placed on the Finance Commit.
tee as being an old member, if that were mentioned out of
ilo,irs it would be laughed at. He knew of where an old
member ought to be, it it were not on the first committee
of the docks. He (Mr. E.) was the oldest member of the
sub-committee and the oldest member of the dock nom-
mittee, except Mr. Tobin, and,therefore, he should think,
it' he, like old wine, was of any value whatever, he ought
to have been made use of, where he could have been of
the greatest service. To put him on a committee which
had absolutely no duties; for they just opened tenders,
which were mentioned there, and then accepted or nut;
to put him on that committee was, as he said before, an
aggravation of the insult offered to the rate-payers and
the merchants of Liverpool. Atter alluding to the un-
biassed manner in which he had been elected, he said that
those who continued to insinuate that he would betray the
carrying out of what had become law, insinuated what was
false. He would tell any one gentleman of that commit-
tee who chose to take it to himself, that he (Mr. Evans)
would hold himself personally responsible for any remark
be might make. He considered it a daring outrage of
principle, and one he could not permit without giving it
the " lie" at once. (Confusion)
The CHAIRMAN called the speaker to order, noticing
the language used as exceedingly improper. The party
alluded to should he named, and no such language as that
applied to the committee generally, which was a gross in-
sult to the whole. He (Mr. E.) had insinuated that the
members of that committee had received orders to put
him off the Board of Works.

Mr. EVANS said "certain members of the committee."
The CHAIRMAN asked from whom?
Mr. BOLD said he htid received no such orders.
Mr. lixtinaasoN considered the whole committee in-
sulted,
The CHAIRMAN remarked on the extreme impropriety
of such insinuations cast upon the committee. For him-
self, be did not know the constitution of a single com-
mittee.
Mr. ToniN said he should have been insulted if he had
been ordered to vote for any committee.
Mr. EvAxs.—With respect to orders, so far as gentle-
men have declared that there was nothing of the sort, I am
bound to believe them.
Mr. MAI.N disclaimed obeying any orders.
Mr. EVANS said he had no objection to withdraw it.

TheCHAIRMAN hoped hewould withdraw the others too.
Mr. EVANS said he was bound to believe gentlemen
when they made an assertion, bu: he saw no reason for
their complaining of receiving orders, because it was the
order of their party—another word for saying they yielded
to the influence and dictation of one another. As to the
opinion he had expressed with regard to any one who
would assert that be would knowingly act contrary to nis
duty, h could not treat it otherwise than be had done.
The CHAIRMAN said so such imputation had been cast
upon Mr. Evans, and his remarks were therefore un.
called for.

Some explanation followed, to the effect that no such
imputation was made, and Mr. EVANS then said he was
bound in honour to withdraw the expressions.
Mr. BOLD said Mr. Evans would not be deprived of the
power of making improvements, because decisions were
come to in the whole committee, and not on the Board of
Vt'orks.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the improvements in
the plans were not ent;rely confined to Mr. Aikin and
Mr. Evans. Other alterations were made before they
saw them.
Mr. EVANS said he was not aware of it.
The CHAIRMAN.—However the thing is settled, and
the public will have the benefit of it.

Mr. EVANS.—There were suggestions for great altera-
tions.

Mr. AIKIN did not attach the slightest importance to
any suggestion he made; it only went to show that they
were by no means inimlcal to the interests of the docks,
and that that was a good reason why Mr. Evans should
be on the Sub-Committee of Works.

The committee adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

COURT OF REQUESTS.-PARKER v. BROWN-

BILL.

The Commissioner of the Court of Requests having
adjourned the case from Friday until Tuesday, that he
might consider how he should decide ution it, it was ac-
cordingly resolved on Tuesday morni,ig. Both the
parries, and several of their friends, were present, but
the att-ndance of others was very meagre.
_

The Commrss lON ER said, that before be gave judgment
he wished to put a question or two.
Th, defendant. being sworn, said, in reply to questions
put, that the application for payment of the promissory
note was first made to his brotlier.in-law, James Brown-
bill, by Mr. Parker's clerk, ou the 2d November. De-
fendant was not himself present, and his brother-in-law
was not now here. He was his brother-in-law, though of
the same name, as they were c iusins, and had married
two sisters. He supposed Mr. Parker's collector had
called on his brother-io• law in mistake.

Mr. Wigge, the collector, being called. Raid, he had
called on the brother-in-law of defendant on Friday fort-
night, the 9th instant. He had mistaken the man, as
both were watchmakers, and both of the same name. He
did not see the defendant about it until Saturday fortnight.
Mr. Parker. being sworn, said he had mentioned the
amount to be due to his collector amongst other small
debts, but he could not recollect the precise day. His
suspicion had been raised (as he before stated) by the
defendant drawing his attention to the post-mark of the
letter. But he would not have proceeded so hastily
against him, had he not been informed that a member of
the Reform Association had declared that they would
spend £l,OOO sooner than not turn him out of the ward.
He certainly felt hurt at this, and therefore brought the
matter forward.

The COMMISSIONER then proceeded to give his deci-
sion with great slowness of utterance and at great length,
but we can but give the beads of his principal remarks.
He said that the court had undivided jurisdiction in claims
of £2, but between £2 and £5 it had a concurrent juris-
dic' ion with the Borough Court, in which last the ques-
tion could be investigated by a jury, and an appeal could
be bad to the courts at Westminster. He remarked
on the evidence of the two parties, and quoted several law
authorities as to what constiuuted bribery and corruption.
There were two modes in which the court might come to
a conclusion. One was to nonsuit the plaintiff, %h.ch
would not prevent him from proceeding in another court
if he thought that advisable ; and another was to give judg-
ment to the defendant, in which case there would be no
appeal, and penalties might he proceeded for in the higher
courts. He had come to the conclusion that the case was