The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-19 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL STANDAnD.

discussions or Motions in the committee on the subject, and he
had attended nearly all the committee meetings.
The Town-clerk.—You spoke, Mr. Hurnby, of a resolution
respecting the progress of the works and about going to Parlia-
ment. Can you recollect whether a corporation man or a rate-
payer made that motion? •
Mr. Horuby.—No, I cannot say whether the suggestion origi-
nated With a rate-payer or a Councilman. The oond debt is
£l4OO, and is aware that Mr. Hall's bond debt is under .f.:50;X1.
Was not aware that there had been any meeting of the bond-
holders to authorise Mr. Hall to come forward and give an
opinion. There are thirteen members 'of the Common
Council at the Dock Committee, out of which there are
seven merchants and one broker. The distinction between
a broker and a merchant is, that the former is a person
who sells goods for other people, that are not his own. . Mr.
Myers is a merchant, but Mr. Littledale is a broker only.
The names of. Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Sandbach, Mr. Gladstone,
Mr. Lawrence and Sir. John Tobin, are amongst the most ex-
tensive merchants in the town, but witness knew of merchants
in Liverpool more -extensively engaged in mercantile transac-
tions. 'I hey possessed no privileges excepting the exemption
from the town dues. Considered that Sir John Tobin and the
other gentlemen named possessed as much interest in the proper
.distribution of thefunds of the Dock Estate as any other mer-
chents in Liverpool. The " marked unanimity "to which wit-
ness alluded, was displayed on the side of the Corporation
ineinhers. He was not aware that there had been any collision
since he became a member of the Dock Committee between
the Dock Trust and the Corporation, but he thought that if the
present constitution existed much longer it might be the case,
and his reason for thinking so was, that the town was so remeh
increasing, that in a few years more accommodation would be
wanted in the docks, and the purchase of land would be a na-
tural point to lead to such collision. The Corporation pos-
sessed lauded property to the south, east, north, and west of the
docks, and if the present gentlemen continued members of the
Common Council, it was natural they would wish to see such
works carried as would tend to improve their own property. It
was probable in such a case that ho should wish the same.
(Laughter.) It it appeared from the report in the possession
of Sir John Tobin 'that it Would be advantageous to the mer-
chants of Liverpool to build docks on the other side of the
river, he thought there would be a disinclination on the part of
the Corporation to build them there-s.they would, he thought,
prefer gonig north and south ; and his reason for thinking so
was strengthened by the Town-clerk, the day before, when he
stated that the Corporation had given very great prices for land
on the other side of the water, to prevent docks being built there,
when others thought the erections would be for the benetitssf
the public, and the Town-clerk had stated that if ducks were
built there, they would be liable to the Liverpool dues.
ToWn-clerk,-4 merely said that that was my opinion,
Witueis prat:Oe-
dl.—lle was -much surprised yeste?aay''ke.
heel:" a resolution of the Dock Committee read, at the time- Of
the purchase, concurring siith the proceedings of the Common.
Council. He was not then a member of the Dock Committee.

The Town -cleik said that the original scheme was the specu-
lation of private individuals, at the head of which,. it appeared,
was Sir John Tobin, and- the plan would, without doubt, have
been advantageous to them. But if a further extension of dock
room was wanted, he- wished to know whether it would be
required from the Corporation. -
Mr. Hornhy..-7-I am not aware of the limits of the Corporation.
The Town-clerk.--On what foundation do you build your
opinion that collision will ultimately ensue between the Dock
Estate and the Corporation ?
Mr. Hornby.—lfthe merchants were to go to Parliament for
an act to erect docks on the other side of the water, the Corpo-
ration would endeavour, through a regard to their own inte-
rests, to prevent it. He thought that the trust ought to be
taken out of the hands of the Corporation.
The Town-clerk remarked, probably Mr. Hornby wished the
trust to be placed in, the hands of those who had no property.
It was probable that under a new constitution of the -Dock
Trust, the land for future ducks might be wanted from the indi-
vidual members of the Corporation • but there would then be
the check of the merchants and publici opinion upon them;
there was none at present, not the slightest, either upon the
Common Council or the Dock Committee.

The Town-clerk.—Virith regard to "this marked unanimity,"
Mr. Hornby, which was yesterday termed esprit du corps, did
you ever perceive this esprit du corps prevalent amongst the
rate-pavers of
,the committee?
Mr. Horuby.—l have more frequently observed it on the side
of the Common Council, who vote nearly always together, with,
the exception of one or two, who sometimes vote with the rate-
payers. One of that body generally votes with the rate-payers.
In illustration of the truth of his observation, he need only
refer to the meeting held on Saturday week, to consider whether
the servants of the Dock Estate should come forward to furnish
information to this commission, when .a division arose. The
division did not arise upon the question whether they should
come forward to give evidence, as that was resolved unani-
mously; but the discussion and division arose from "the doubt,"
that the inquiry came within the scope of the commission; viz.
whether it. was a municipal corporation or not.
The Town-clerk.—Can you., sir, state, as a member of the
Dock Committee, whether any practical inconvenience has
arisen to the Dock Trust from the appointnient of Mr. Bourne?
Mr. Hornby.—l would rather not allude.to that subject again,
as I do not wish to descend to personalities.
The Town-clerk pressed the question, and hoped that if he
was alluded to, personality ,might not be a bar to arriving at
the truth.

Mr. Hornhy.—l think that if wo had gone to Parliament, al
was intended, we should have found ourselves very much at
fault withourthe assistance of the Town-clerk. No application
to-Parliament was made; but that is the main business for our
solicitor. • . _ _
. .

Tile Town-clerk asked Mr. Hornby if he recollected the in-
tention of 'going to Parliament for an- act to make a dock in
Wallasey 15-001.
Mr. Hornby said he did not, as he was apt, in the Cpmmon
Council, nor then in the.D'ock Committee.
The Town-clerk read a resolution of the Dock Committee,
dated October 28,183, (a motion'having previously been made
and carried in the Com Mon Council for au application to Par-
liament for an act to Rak docks,e a dock or docks, in Wnll4s9.-
Pool. ),to the effect Oaf there was sufficient accommodation in
the docks, and the Dock Committee did not concur in applying
for the act. This resolution was carried by a majority of nine
to five, there being five rate-payers and four Common COuncil-
men in the majority, and the minority was composed of five
Common Councilmen.
The Town-Clerk said, that the then intended new docks Wore
to have been placed under the control of the Dock Committee.
The Town-clerk inquired if Mr. Hornby was not one of the
gentlemen at present' contesting the right of: the Common Coun-
cil to the town dues ? _ . • . • .

Mr. llornby replied that ho was. • . .
Mr. Comm►ssioner.Wilkinson asked Mr. Hornby whether the
reason of there being no division on. the.subject of. going to
Parliament for power to borrow the £200,000, previously alluded
to, was, that they were aware that if such motion were made it
would have been lost, from the majority of the Conimon Coun-
cil committeemen ?
Mr. Horttby replied that it was the reason no motion wa3
made. . • .

Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson.—Did I also understand you
to state, that if you had had occasion to go to Parliament you
would have been necessitated to have called in the aid of- Mr.
Foster _ _ _

-
Mr. Hornby.—lf an act,had been applied.for,it would have
been necessary to have called in the assistance of a more expe-
rienced man than Mr. Bonnie. On • that gentleman being
appointed, the Town-clerk sent a letter to the Dock Committee,
stating his readiness to. assist his successor; but, in the case
alluded to, I think the assistance of the Town-clerk would have
been dispensed with.
The Town-clerk.—Had you required my assistance you could
not have had it.

111 r. Commissioner Wilkinson.—You have spoken your opi-
nion,-Mr. Horuby, relative to the reason why a specific motion
was not made in the committee on one case; will the same
reason apply to any other motions ?
Mr. Hornhy.—Aly, impression is, that other motions would
have been made but for the reason stated ; and I have heard
that a motion would have been made regarding the conduct of
the harbour-master, but it was understood that he had a majority
in his favour. Sir George Drinkwater was known to be a
staunch friend of his.
Sir George Drinkwater here remarked, that he believed Mr.
Askew was one of the best servants in the trust.
Mr. Hornby here said;that even in minor matters it was seen
what preference was given to the Corporation. If a vacancy
occurred for a servant to the estate, the candidates thrust cards
into the hands of the voters, with " Free Burgess" printed on
them.
The Town-clerk.—Pray, sir, can you say, during the time
you have been a member of the Dock Committee, that the
question was ever asked of a candidate whether he was a bur-
gess or not?
Mr. Hornhy replied, that it was always known before hand,
consequently, there was no occasion to ask the question. •
The Town-clerk remarked, not even if it were so; he thoueht
that a townsman should always have the preference. In liis
votes he had invariably given them the preference, and always.
should. (Applause.) -
Mr. Hornby remarked that he had lived and carried on busi-
ness in Liverpool for twenty years, and might be considered a
foreigner,
The Town-clerk feared that was Mr. Hopby's present
grievanee. (Hear;)
Mr. Alderman John- Bourne said, that he called to his
recollection.the time when it was proposed to go to Parliament
relative to the 000,000, and that there was no discussion on
the subject in the committee_
Sir .George Drinkwater corroborated Mr. Bourne in his
statement. _ _

Mr. Myers said, that he had never heard the reason Why the
proposed-bill to Parliament was not proceeded. with. 110
thought it was the duty of the solicitor to the estate to, ask the
pleasure of the committee respecting the bill.
The-Solicitor said he had never received instructions to pre,
pare a bill.
Sir George Drinkwater was of opinion that at the time
the bill was projected, Mr. Myers-voteu in the committee that
the surplus on hand was enough without getting more money,
and that he (Sir George) seconded the motion. (Laughter.)

Mr. *Radcliffe informed the commission that Mr. William
Foster and himself had arranged that several points should he
admitted in order to facilitate the business of the court, and
abridge the inquiry, therefore, they did not intend to offer any
more evidence to-day on the Dock Trust, but the inquiry into
the estate would be resumed at twelve o'clock on Monday, and
then concluded. Mr. Radcliffe. wished the Town-clerk to ex-
plain the duties of the Finance Committee.
The Town-clerk was not aware that the Finance Committee
had any definite. duties; they were under the control of the
Common Council, and performed those duties which that body
directed them to do. Every gentleman, after becoming mayor,
beCame a member of the Finance Committee and remained a •
member. It was at present composed of eighteen or nineteen.
Eight of the thirteen of the Dock Committee were members.
Mr. Lawrence is not a member; he resigned on being elected
chairman of the Dock Committee.
Mr. Case, the treasurer, at. the request of Sir John Tobin,
and at the pleasure of the commissioners, here read a report of
Messrs. Telford, Nimmo, and Stephenson, the engineers, of
their survey of the land intended to have formed the new ports
previously alluded to; the reading of the report occupied half
au hour, and consequently, its lengthened details preclude the
p_ossibility of our giving it insertion, or even an abstract of it.
The cost of forming the docks and pool at Wallasey, from this
report, was estimated at £1,400,948.
The commissioners expressed a wish to be furnished with the
maps and charts alluded to in the report, which Sir John To-
bin. promised to furnish. The commissioners inquired what
business Mr. Laird, the gentleman alluded to yesterday, was ?
Sir John replied that at the time of the purchase in question
he was a steam-boiler maker, and also a large landed proprietor.
Does not know whether he made the purchase in Cheshire on
speculation or not, but no doubt it was to amend his fortune.
The Town-clerk, in allusion to the subject of the dock soli-
citor, begged to inform the commissioners that the Dock Com-
mittee had, from time to time, appidated their own solicitors.
The acts of IM and 1813 were in Itched by a gentleman who
was not solicitor to the Dock Estate, viz., Mr. Hutchinson, of
London, who was recommended to the Dock Committee by Mr.
John Gladstone.
Mr. Duncan said that those acts Were passed before the power
wal given to the audit commissioners to appoint a solicitor, prior
to the act of 1825.
The Town-clerk observed that the power of the commission-

era to appoint a solicitor. was for jury trials and no other pur-
pose.
Mr. Duncan stated that the evidence on the question of the
Dock rrust bad bean all gone through except the examination of
Mr. Leathoin; which would take place on Monday:
Mr. Alderman Lawrence regretted that Mr. Duncan had not
called Mr. Jesse Hartley, the surveyor, as that gentleman had
been in attendance for some days for that purpose. It was
highly complimentary to Mr. Hartley, that although ±:1,1)0,00J
or £1,500,000 had passed through his hands, the committee had
had no occasion to question or find fault with him.
Mr. Duncan replied that he did not know a inure deserving
man in the trust than Mr. Bartley, who was respected by both
the Council and the rate-payers for the uprightness of his con-
duct. He .would put one or two questions to Mr. Hartley.
Was there nut a discussion as to the most advisable means of
building the docks, whetherthey should have been carried along
shore or further inland?

Mr. Hartley never heard it wished that the docks should have
been carried any where but where they. were. Does not think
that any ►nure dock space will be wanting in his life-time. The
introduction of steam navigation had increased the dock space.
If further dock room was wanted, it was his (witness's) opinion
that they should be built as near the Exchange as possible, and
on the same level as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. Had
never heard of such a plan being discussed in the committee.
The level of the river and the canal was thirty feet.
Mr. Duncan asked the witness if by such a plan the expense
of a sea wall would be saved ?—The witness said it would.
Mr. Holmes, the builder, asked the witness if it was not
better, considering the rising of the sea, to take the docks
north and south than inland ?

Mr. Hartley replied that he had no fault to find with their
present structure.
Mr. Holmes remarked that the building. of docks at the north
and south ends of the town had greatly increased the value of
property in those situations.
Mr. Thomas Bolton, of the firm of Bolton, Ogden, and Co.,
here rose, and addressing the commissioners, stated, in the ab-
sence of a gentleman, (Mr. Lowe) who, in consequence of hav-
ing to -leave town,. could not come forward to give evidence
until Monday, that he begged leave to offer a few remarks in evi-
dence, of importance to the inquiry. The point upon which
Mr. Lowe had more particularly to speak, was respecting a
petition which had been sent to the House of Commons from
the bankers, merchants, and householders of Liverpool, against
the corporate system f the borough, which Mr. Lowe would
take an opportunity of doing. With regard to himself, (Mr.
Bolton) the commissioners would oblige him by recording that
he was a British-born subject, and had carried on business as a
merchant in Liverpool for a period of thirty years, during which
time he had contributed largely to the corporate revenue. He had
sons and grandsons born within_ the borough, laotwitlistandlng
which' the 'three generations of them were designated foreigners.
He complained with others, that he was capriciously and unrea-
sonably taxed in town dues, for which he received no considera-
tion. loreigpers, as they were called, occupied much of
the' property in the borough, and contributed at least three-
fourths of the public taxes. He further complained that the
affairs of the Corporation were Managed by a self-elected and
family-connected Continua Council, whose expenditure was
profuse and without control, not in accordance with the
reasonable and just claims of the community, but for,
the advantage of one party in politics and one sect in
religion; in fact, for the -benefit of the few, to the injury of
the many. In corroboration of these views' he had extracted
from the accounts of the Corporation some few particulars.
Mr. Bolton here handed a statement of the Corporation
expenditure, which he read. The various statements it cou-
tained respecting the income and expenditure of the Corpora-
tion have previously appeared in the evidence of the treasurer.
The witness here stated, with reference to a petition he held in
his hand, that, since the repeal of the test and corporation acts,
and the passingof the Catholic relief bill, not one Dissenter or
Catholic had been appointed to the Common Council. The
Catholics, forming a fourth of the whole population of Liver-
pool—the- other dissenters being five-sixteenths—so that nine
out of every sixteen persons in the town were Catholics or Dis-
senters. 'the MayOr and council were self-elected, bribery
and corruption having frequently taken place.
The commissioners. said they thould be glad to receive every
information regarding the elections for Mayor.
Some person, whose name was said to be'Kcat, here-called
out from the gallery that he had seen a placard in the - King'i
Arms, offering £lO for a vote for the Mayor.
Mr. Bolton said, in the contest of 1827, for Mayor, he saw a
placard at Prescot, offering £lOO for a tally of ten votes for the
Mayor.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson.—Were they printed placards
to which you allude ?
Mr. Boltou.—No; written ones.
Examination resumed.—ls sure that there is much bribery
at the contests for Mayor. The next complaint was, that the
Common Council had the power of making burgesses without
control. Thinks the practice of making them for election pun-
poses had lung since ceased : it was on record that such had been
the case. The next complaint was of the lavish expenditure on
public works, without control. That to several wealthyotlices
under the Corporation they appointed members of their own
body. That the practice of selling-the freedom was abolished.
That the exemption from town dues, enjoyed by freemen, fell
heavily upon non-burgesses, many of whom were merchants,
paying heavy dues; that the toils were uncertain and variable,
partial in -operation and oppressive in amount. [He stated
various instances in support of this allegation.] One was a box
of gold, value £lO,OOO, paid one penny town dues; a box of
bran, or any thing equally worthless, paid at the same rate.
Some forty years ago, some person -imported a lot of cows from
Ireland, and as " cows" were not in the brass schedule of dues
then hanging up in the Custom-house, he refused to pay the
town. dues upon them ;. but the collector said that although
" cows" were not mentioned, " cow hides" were, and that as
cows could not be imported without their hides, the dues must
.be paid on them. Ile seized the cattle and the dues were paid..
'that previous to 1708, when the first 'dock act .was passed, the'
Corporation found all accommodation for ships, alleging that
the dues had been granted for that ptirpose. Since then, heavy
dues had been imposed, and the docks built and re-
_paired h Dia_Doeli-Trust, and not by the Corporatiou.—That
the Corporation still exact the dues, and appropriate the income
to foreign purposes. That Bolton, Ogden, and Co: pllll up-
wards of i:600. a-year for town dues, without receiving any con-
sideration therefibm. That several other merchants pay each
from £5OO to £l,OOO for town dues; while others, being free-
men and exempt from the dues, save everal hundreds
a-year by such exemption. Sir John Tobin, Mr. Thos. Tobin,
Horsfall, and. the family of the Bonrnes, were "among
these. In the. Year. 1775, the late Mr. Cornelius Bourne pur-
chased his freeilion. For many years after, he and his sons
,were considerable importers from the Baltic; and it is reported
that the sum of .1..:-10,000 had been saved by such -exemptions.
Does not think such a sum has been saved, but, without doubt,
to the amount of Many thousands. That the dues should 'be'
paid by all classes, without exemption. That there should be'
equal rates paid by equal persons. The petition concluded
with a prayer for telief—that householders be enfranchised—
that the Mayor and Common Council should be popularly
elected by all who may vote for members of Parliament. and
for a limited period. ln the prayer of this petition witness
.cor-
dially concurred.
Mr..Hornby said, that with a view of showing the unequal
pressure of the dues on various -articles, he would mention a
few facts. For the last ten years his house had paid-town dues
(principally on tallow and salt,) to a large extent. Its 1823-4
they paid £1,413 7s. Bd, about £l,OOO of which was on tallow,
-there being 35.-91. paid for that; while for an equal quantity of
sugar the sum of 3d. was paid. Addressed a menu:alai to the
council, who reduced the duty two-thirds. The whole town
does paid by witness within the last ten years was £7,219, of
which £5,367 I is. SI was paid for goods on their own account,
-and not on commission. Signed the petition referred to by last
wittiess, and believed every word of it to be true.
Mr. Bourne stated that he had been concerned in the salt
trade for 24 years, and the annual average saving in conse-
quence of his exemption was only In Ifs. fsxd. In regard to
shipments of salt for the Prussian goyernmeat, his house in-
variably paid the town dues.
Mr. Bolton said the belief was that Mr. Bourne' had saved
'many thousands, and that also by shipping salt to foreign ports
he' had further evaded the duty.
Mr. Bourne said that he had never done anything of the sort.
The Town-clerk asked the commissioners which was the most
convenient course to them for the Corporation to answer the
allegations of Mr. Bolton ?
The Commissioners thought that a day had better be fixed
for that purpose, after all the witnesses on Mr. Bolton's view
of the question had been examined.
The Town-clerk replied that he should consequently defer
cross-exantining Mr: Bolton until that time.
The Court now adjourned until Monday.
. TILIRTIIENTH DAY.

It was understood that this day (Monday) the inquiry into
the town dues question would take place, and the court ap-
peared rather more crowded than on the previous days. The
commissioners entered the court about halt-past ten.
Mr. James- Lowe solicitor to Bolton, Ogden, and Co., being
swore; stated that he had been a solicitor in Liverpool for about
seventeen years. He begged to. state that he.was one of the per-
sons who signed the petition against.the pre,sent constitution
of the Corporation, alluded to by Mr. Bolton on Saturday, all
the allegations in which he believed to be strictly and correctly
true, and he cordially concurred in its prayer. He wished to
draw the attentian of the.commissiouers to two of the allega-
tions in that petition, which he, thought bad, been lost sight
of by the Town-clerk. One of the allegations to which he
alluded, was that which .stated that the Common Council had
fur many. years assumed to. themselves all the .power in the
borough, that they had taken to themselves the power of making
appointments and bye laws, which he, as well as other bur-
gasses, believed legally to rest with the burgesses at large in
common hall assembled, and Yet the Corporation had ceased
to hold a common hall since th.e year '1791. The other allega-
tion was the disputed right of the Corporation to town dues.
The petition on the subject was signed by freemen as well as
non-freemen, and "its- wording was originally in much stronger
language than the petition adopted. It had stated that the
claim of the Corporation to town dues was an usurpation
on the part of the Corporation; but as the freemen did
not like to sign that, those words were struck out, although it
Was his (Mr. Lowe's) opinion that the claim was an usurpation.
lie referred to the charter granted by King John, which the
Town-clerk had put iu as the, first charter granted to the town
of Liverpool.
The Town-clerk said that he did not produce it as the first
charter granted.
Mr. Lowe continued.—They had it not, however, iu evidence
that there was a previous charter. The commissioners had not
been furnished. with copies of-the charters, otherwise they might
have discovered that Liverpool was not a Corporation by pre-
scription,
which, until the late trial in London respecting the
town dues, it had always been asserted by the. Common Council
to be. The charter having been produced before then', he would
take the liberty of stating what the charter was. It was dated
the. 28th of August, 1207, being the 9th of King John. It re-
.eoitated no previous charter having been granted to Liverpool.
In the charter of John, Liverpool was named as Liverpool; but
it was nowhere to he found in Doomsday-book, which was a cu-
rions fact, although Everton, Walton, and the surrounding
parishes were particularly named in this book. In answer
to a bill filed by Messrs. Bolton, Ogden, and Company,
it was, however, stated to be on laud- between- the Ribble
and the Mersey. King John's appeared. to be the first
charter; the next was granted by Henry 111, in the 13th
year of his reign, and dated the 2-lilt of March, 1229, and this
Charter in express terms created Liverpool a free borough, and
there were no words in that charter that showed the town pos-
sessed any anterior privileges except those derived from King
John. There were no extraordinary powers given in this char-
ter, although he conscientiously believed it was the origin of
the town dues. In this charter power was given to have a.
auild Merchant, and there was a clause that no one who did
not belong
.to that Guild should make merchandise in the
. borough without permission of the merchants. In the
same year it appeared that the Liverpool burgesses took
a lease - from the Crown for four years of the town and
lordship of Liverpool, which previously formed a portion
of the possessions of the Duchy of Lancaster. The next
charter was granted by Edward VI., and dated 1331,
and was a confirmative of the charters of Henry and John, and
nothing more.: The next charter was the sth of Richard 11.,
which they (the commissioners) ought to have a copy of. That
charter was a confirmation of the charters of John, Edward,
and Henry, with the exception of excluding that clause which
gave power to the merchants of preventing those from carrying
on btAino.ss who did not belong tot a '