The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-01 00:00:00

CORPORATION OP LIVERPOOL.

Mr. EWART presented a petition signed by a great number
of merchants of Liverpool, upon the subject of the corporation
of that borough. It was signed at one of the most numerous
and respectable meetings of merchants, shipowners, and rate-
payers, that was ever held there, and its object was to obtain a
reform of the corporation. The revenues of the corporation,
derived from various sources, amounted to little less than
£300,000 a year, of which £lOO,OOO was received by that body
directly, and £lso,ooo as having control over the dock estates.

By borrowing money on the dock estates, they had. raised
million and a half, which they had expended in various bull
ings in the town. He asked the house, was it proper that 59
an enormous revenue should be under the almost irresponsib
control of any certain number of individuals ? (Hear, hear
The Common Council of Liverpool, who controlled that eu°
mous revenue, was a self-elected body, amounting to forty-01
individuals, who elected themselves for life. The dock estat

were managed by a committee of twenty-one, the majoritye,
whom were nominated by the Common Council. The cou'd
quence was, therefore, that the corporation had the control.,
those funds—they possessed great influence in the boroughA
they had the nomination of all the clergy in the town, and of
officers to the dock estates. They sold land as owners of lauA
in the town, td members of their own body, and purchased laui:,
according to the opinions of the majority of a committee.
patronage and influence thus vested in them they had abused"
they had even abused their ecclesiastical patronage, by refusl
to nominate persons to churches unless they were connect
with members of their own body. He appealed to the hour
whether such abuses were to be allowed, and whether sue
powers ought to be left iu the hands of a self-elected cOrpor.3'
tion ? He hoped that the attention of the committee, now 6't
ting to inquire into the existing corporations, would be pea'
liarly directed to that of Liverpool.
The petition was read, and, on the motion of the hon. 51'1
learned gentleman, was ordered to be referred to the COY
mittee on corporations.
The HON. GENTLEMAN then presented a petition, signed 11
12001 members of the Guardian Society for the Protection
Trade in Liverpool, praying for the abolition of the sru'
reoeipt stamp duties. He said those duties operated re'
partially—for instance, he had known a large library trap
terred without being subjected to any duty, while the sui
tradesman could not transact the smallest piece of busine
without coming under their operations.
The Hort. GENTLEMAN also presented a petition from gjl,
individual named James Hargrave, praying for the abolition'
of the Corn Laws.

Mr. Alderman Noon gave notice that on Friday he oil
present a petition from the persons engaged in the soap tra
in the metropolis; relative to the duties on that article.
Mr. OTONNOR presented a petition from members of the
King's Court Political Union against the Grand Jury syst%
in Ireland, and praying for an amendment in the system.
considered the jury laws now in contemplation were a Me'
mockery. Last year they might have been of use, but DO;
when three or five young ensigns were to have all the powei
thrown into their hands, of what avail would any amendmpelle
be in the jury laws ? The thing was a mockery on the country
altogether. If such an atrocious and abominable measil
were carried through that House, of what use was it to amen
these laws?
Mr. TYNTE presented two petitions from places in Somerset'
shire, praying for the abolition of slavery.
Mr. JOHNSON presented a petition from Richmond, in Surrey'
praying for the better observance of the sabbath.
Mr. CORBETT thought the law as it now stood on this subje
quite sufficient for all useful purposes. He was quite satistivt
no law could be passed to interfere between master and serval/
which would not lead to confusion which never would be at an
end. If a law were to be made whereby servants should not bre
employed on Sundays, would a cook not immediately say to bei,
mistress that she would not cook the dinner for Sunday?
was said that the measure was to prevent masters worloy
men-servants on Sunday, such a system would be perfeca
nugatory, unless it went into private families. (Hear, hear')
Were gentlemen backward in employing their coachmen;
their grooms, and their footmen on Sundays ? Why, WI;
were a set of workmen who laboured very hard, in Hyde Fara
for instance. (Hear.) They were well dressed up, and lookea
very fine, but he would be bound t 3 say that if they i"
their choice they would much rather be at home with the maid.'
(11fich laughter.) If the house were to legislate betwel
ladies and their maids, there would soon be such a system
r°4
legis:ation introduced in this country as had never been heard
of in any country.
Mr. HODSON -thought the Hon. Member for Oldham °Lit
entering too soon upon the nature of the proposed meaoi-oi
If a measure was to be introduced for the better observance ,
the Sabbath it ought to have bcreneral support. (Hear, ileao'f'
hear.) Before the house condemned a proposed measure
this sort, they ought, in the first place, to know its exact clayi
ger. When it should be introduced it should have his be 6
attention; an.l he thought it might be so framed as not un3f6
cessarily to interfere between master and servant, so as
prevent the proper recreation of the latter.
Captain ELLIOTT presented a petition from the United
sociate Congregations of Moorbattle, praying for the total al)(Y.
lition of tithes. , . -
Captain WYNIES presented a petition from Auchtermuchti
in the county of Fife, praying for the abolition of negro slav'er);
Alio a petition from Strathmeghlin, in the same county, to tt
same effect. Also a petition from Leslie, praying for the total
aboldion of the Church establishment in Ireland, and that w't
revenues might be applied towards the removal of the presell
burden of taxation.
Mr. COBBETT was much pleased to hear this petition, and be
would have been much more pleased still, to have found that 'y
included the lay-impropriations. It was the lay-impropriatie'
that wanted abolishing.
Mr. GILLON presented five petitions, praying for the abolitielle
of Church property in Ireland, and for its application to soni
purposes calculated to relieve the burdens of that country fr3vi
the Political Union of Leslie, and from the Protestant Ijisse 1.
ters of Kelso. The hon. member was convinced that tran(l36s
lity would never exist in either Ireland or England as longed
those who professed a religion contrary to the Establish
Church of Ireland were compelled to contribute so largelY e.
the maintenance of doctrines with which they could not lie.",
He trusted that the time was not far distant. when the
Church would be done away with, and that unhappy courltr'
placed in a state of tranquillity. 0,
An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not ascerta•
begged to enter his protest againit the doctrine of spoliatlej
used by the petition. He considered the church of Irel,
had as much right to its property as any gentleman in F,n-ig
land had to his. (Hear, hear.) There was no individa3o,
who paid tithes that were entitled to them, so that if they Weil,
taken away to-morrow they would go to the State. He trusters
however, that both the churches of En land
o",oand and Ireland wn;
plaCed on too firm a basis to be shaken by every breath
blew. The generality of Dissenters agree, with the doctriero
of the Church of England; they only differed from it in tbf
and ceremony. sat
Mr. O'DWYER said the hon. gentleman who had just ot
down had stated no reason why he, as a Catholic, who did 'the
believe in the Protestant Church, should contribute to
support of that Church. Tithes had by act of parliament, bee
s,
transferred from the Catholic Church to the Protestant Churiter
and he saw no reason why an act o; parliament could not
that transfer. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. P.. BARRON said that he would plead guilty to the cb:eb
that his ancestors had enjoyed too peat a portion of Cl'
property, but they supported the poor.
An HON. MEMBER, in reference to the assertion that thei
tithes in Ireland had been transferred by act of parliaTdefie
from the Catholics to the Protestants, sail he believed tl
was no such act in existence; if there were, he should hefitrY
to know where to tiod it,. Certain he was that in this (Vile' igo
there was no such an act. There were acts passed the riaac
of Henry VIII., not for the transfer of tithes, but for to
levy, for it appeared that at that time there was as great tbis
culty in collecting
.tithes in this country as there was '4
moment in collecting them in Ireland.
Mr. HILL believed there was no such act; indeed none ,ea
necessary, for the Catholic clergy of that day became con'iftlithe
of their Catholic errors, the very moment that the head 0
church—the king—became convinced. The Catholic c',-
er%)
then suddenly became Protestants; and those who had evloY`'
the tithes as Catholics then received them as Protestants,/
With respect to the abolition of tithes, many persons, hi°",eh'e•
among the rest, believed that they came mainly from '4
pockets of the landlord, and that a total abolition of them wme
not be in favour of the poorer classes; but would go to tPti
landlord who would then have ten tenths the value of the lad
instead of six or seven tenths, as at present.—(Hear, hear.) ,_rt
e;
Mr. ConnETT—Some hon. gentlemen to the right and ,i_
of me have been making some assertions which must 1
leave to examine the foundations of. It has been statedx
two-thirds of the property of the whole kingdom resis upoo il '5.
same foundation as tithes and other church property. It ulatiJ
however, be granted that the possession of much of the or
in the kingdom arises from grants from the Crown,
rat
from forfeitures. Now, the rights of the parties holding C11'1_,..0
property are very different. The property was conferred P,rio
them by an Act of Hen VIII., but it was confered upon ti
subject to certain conditions, viz., that the new propori,el?„l;
should for ever discharge the duties consequent upon h teui.lo7;
, that property, and satisfy the demands to which it hadme
been subject. Now, I say, that no part of the tithes we
granted away without being subject to these commissimns,e,.cue
f
also all conventual and monastic property. The case therefore
is not quite so clear as the hon. member near me supt),:',4
The fact is, the tithes, are for time most part in the hap,;ls;
laymen. There does not appear to be more than S(X) Fro
t er
tant Clergynien receiving tithes in Ireland, whilst the
num
of Catholic priests performing the duty is no less than 20°'"
(Cr.es of No, no.)
Lordasser
tio
nS AwNhni
cOhN
ma
0 as
Ile O.
hosnetotuhreabhiOellsmeeniTigbhetswistchemreesdpeg