The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-15 00:00:00

TENTH DAY.

Yesterday (Thursday) the commissioners resumed the investi-
gation into the affairs of the Dock Estate. The court was
opened a few minutes after ten o'clock, when Mr. Commis-
sioner Wilkinson, addressing the Town-clerk, said that they
(the commissioners) deemeu it necessary to make inquiry
respecting a large portion of land purchased by the Corporation
from Sir John Tobin. It was not intended to go into that
inquiry then; but he could wish the Town-clerk 'to inform Sir
John Tobin of the time of the inquiry. The Town-clerk replied,
that whenever the Commissioners fixed a time, he would inform
Sir John; and he was quite sure that that gentleman would
feel exceedingly happy to furnish every information respecting
the sale alluded .to.

The Town-clerk inquired whether the Commissioners in •
tended to proceed exclusively into the investigation of the Dock
Estate, or to take a portion of the examination relative. to the
Corporation, as was the case the preceding day; to. which the
Commissioners replied, they would confine themselves to the
affairs of the Dock Estate. 'The Town-clerk then said that he
had a few remarks to make respecting the evidence of
yesterday, for which he must apologise to tne Court for taking
up so much time. In the various matters connected with
the estate upon which he had given evidence, it was im-
possible for him minutely to 'recollect the facts and dates 'of
conversations and other matters years old; and he lamented,
that, in consequence of the state of the books, those records
'had but yesterday 'set him right, as' by those means a
good deal of the- valuable time of the -court, of himself,
and the time of his friends would not yesterday have been wasted
in useless discussions, when reference to the dates would have
obviated it. He would now call the attention of the commission-
ers to the date of the transaction in which he was .concerned
respecting the purchase of land in the south and north ends of
the town,_ which the books had not furnished him with. On the
BAi of March, 1825, the instructions from the Dock Committee,
alluded to yesterday, were given to him, and the day after
the sitting of the committee, the jury sat to assess the amount.
He had not been- able to place his hands upon the brief then
given to counsel, hut on the 2,Bth of March, 1826, he, accompa-
nied by Mr. John Foster and Mr. Hollingshead, attended a
consultation with Mr. Venables, the counsel for the Corporation,
on the subject of the purchase.• On the 4th of April, he, as so-
licitor for the Dock Trust, was furnished with his instructions,
and on the minutes of the committee meeting on that clay, the
instructions would be found recorded.. Before the jury lie urged
the points he was instructed .to do ; but they were overruled by
the assessor, Mr. Charles Lawrence; and Mr.. Veuables stated
that the points tamed signified within..., for if the Corporation
could not give a legal title to the land,' the Duck Committee had
no occasion to pay for it, and in this way the matter ended. It
was nut. until the sth of April that -the Common Council admit-
ted the act of the Dock Committee. It was endeavoured to be
shown:by parties yesterday that he, (the Town-Cierk,) had not
complied with his directions.
Mr. Duncan, the solicitor. disclaimed having endeavoured to
show anything against Mr. Foster's business in the transaction
as a solicitor. It was the constitution of the estate that was
Complained of only. Mr. Foster admitted that he was bound
to act according to-his instructions, as solicitor to the Dock
Estate, but in so doing it was evident that it was a breach of
faith with the Common Council. Mr. Foster was then, or elected
afterwards to the Common Council, acting in the double capa-
city for the Corporation and as solicitor to the Dock Estate.
As to the purchase and sale of land, it did not matter to the
preseut.question whether the Common Council were .right or
the Dock Estate, but the illustration was to show that the
Corporation were sitting in judgment on their own case, being
both. Common Councilmen amid Dock Trustees.

Mr, Foster remarked, that the implication' yesterday was,
that the Common Council had interfered with the solicitor to
the Dock Estate. The committee of the Dock Estate furnished
him (Mr. Foster) Kith instructions, which he acted-upon to the
best of his ability. He was not in the Common Council at that
time, and was-then, in fact, a very unlikely man to-be made
one. •

Mr. Radcliffe observed that
.in the case alluded to there had
appeared a disposition on the part of the Common Council to
interfere with the jury, which to say the least of it was a very
bad precedent.
Mr. Foster denied that there was any wish on the part of the
,auncil to interfere with the jury. The assessor had over-ruled
the paints in his instructions, and it was not till the whole of the
business had concluded that the Common Council annulled the
• act of the .Dock Committee, and the documents with their
dates would speak for themselves.
The resolution of the CoMmon Council annulling the act of
the Dock- 'Committee previously alluded' to was read, together
with several of her resolutions of the Common Council apper-
taining to the same•trausaction.
Mr. Radcliffe made several observations to the commissioners,
alluding to the power which the Dock Trustees had over the
Dock Committee relative to the annulling of the acts of that
body, ansi stated that he did not care wl6:a were right or wrong
ih the queStion of the improvements, but he had shown the ab-
surdity of the constitution as it at pre-:ent existed. He then
askedfor the production of resolutions of the Duck Committee
since the act of sixth Gco. IV., on the conduct of the servants
of the Estate, for the purpose of ascertaining the control the
Committee had over them, and the complaints made against
them.
A gentleman, named Robinson, here handed a paper to the
commissioner, and the latter having perused it, said that he in-
tended to appoint a separate day for investigating the com-
plaints and charges against the Corporation and the Duck Estate
which had been made by letter. lie had received a great num-
ber of letters, and although he had not alluded to them before,
he Wu-I=s.* been inattentive to their contents. Ile should take
an opportuurt) fakiag this statement before the court
closed.

--The Secretary to the Dock r.61-ate,here referred to the reso-
lutions of the committee, relative to co.-1:i dots made against
servants, and found that, in July, 1832, Mr. er had made a
complaint against Mr. White, the master of Salthousbilock, for
for incivility and irregularity, and the reso!ution thereon to
the effect that the committee disapproved of Mr. 'White's conduct;
and cautioned him as to his future behaviour. Another com-
plaint was on the Uth of January, miadQ by Captain Townley,
of the conduct of Mr. Will ide, a dock-master, flop), which it ap-
-peered that if the conduct complained of was repeated, the coin-
wittee would feel it their duty to dismiss Mr. Mliride. There
were also complaints recorded against Mr. Askew, the Harbour-
master, and Mr. Purnell, a dockjmaster ; but before they entered
into the nature of the allegations, it was suggested that Mr.
Askew and INIr Purnell should be sent for, which was accord-
done. _ . _

'-51r. William Brown, one of the Dock Committee, examined.
He was, one of the delegates to parliament to procure the act
relative to the improvements in the Docks. They had various
meetings and discussions with the Corporation respecting the
conditions required, and a sub-committee was formed to com-
municate with the Corporation, and they had several consulta-
tions, at one of which the Corporation observed, that they had a
bargain to make before the act passed. There was great want of
an extension of Duck room, and that could not be procured un-
less the merchants submitted to the conditions of the Corpora-
tion, and that body threatened, that unless the rate-payers
submitted to their views, they would withdraw the hill then
pending before the House of Commons. The conditions were
considered to be exceedingly hard; but as there was so much
want of Dock room, they had no alternative, and Mr.lluekisson
recommended them to submit to the Corporation, and if the
plan did not answer the perpose of the merchants, that gentleman
advised them to apply to Parliament again. It was necessary that
man of the proceedings of the merchants should be sanctioned by
the Corporation Seal. The election of a chairman was conceded
to the Common Council, but the committee were to retain the
power of electing a deputy-chairman. On the election of deptity
chairman after the act was obtained, it was thought proper by
the committee to instal Mr. Alderman Lawrence. Mr. Alder-
man Lawrence was elected to the committee by the Common
Council, but as a matter of courtesy to-the Common Council,
and Mr. Lawrence being a gentleman much respected, he was
elected when e vacancy again occuried ; the candidates were
Mr. Myers and Mr. Littledale, and the former was elected.
From the time the constitution of the Dock Es ate was altered
there have been various conflicting discussion sin the committee
between the gentlemen elected by the Common Council, and
those elected by the rate-payers. The latter were invariably
opposed by the meml..ers. from the Council, so much so that it
was determined to keen-a book to record the various'resolutions
resulting from those discussions. It is impoesible for him to re-
collect every matter of discussion within the last seven tears,
but if there was any gentleman who thought proper to ask any
questions he would endeavour to answer them.
Mr. Radcliffe inquired if Mr. Fletcher was not proposed as
deputy-chairmarr when Mr. Lawrence was elected
Mr. Brown believed that Mr. Fletcher was proposed in op-
position to Mr. Lawrence, but there was no division.
Mr. Ratcliffe.—Was there not a great want ofaccommodation
in the docks before the act passed, and did nut that want of con-
venience operate as a cause for the act passing by consent of the
merchants
Mr. Brown replied that there was great irreonvenience fell
by the merchants, in consequence of want of room in the docks,
and that he would have agreed to any conditions rather
than have subjected himself anylougel' to such inconvenience.
Mr. Brawa, in reply to a question of Mr. Radcliffe, stated
that he could not say whether all the motions and resolutions of
the committee were recorded.
The Secretary said, that at that time only motions that were
lost were entered, but now all were recorded.
Mr. Radcliffe asked Mr. Brown whether he was acquainted
with instances of merchants having contemplated making mo-
tions, but who had withdrawn them from the, certainty of not
succeeding.
Mr. Brown replied that he was.
• Mr. Radcliffe said they would. again advert to the subject of
• the resolutions relative to the servants of the committee. He
taendtsthey had
. that
did not do so with a view to attack the character orally servant,
butnot
to
the
powersho t h aott.properly
the committee
theirco n sstei tr
uv
governing was so
• The Secretary again referred to the books of record of the
Dock Committee, from which it appeared that the harbour
master, Mr. Askew, was tied by a penalty of £590 not to enter
into business unconnected with' the estate without the permis-
sion of the committee, and that on the 10th of July, 1832, Mr.
Ambrose Blown complained that Mr. Askew carried on bu-
siness with steam vessels, which caused a resolution to
pass, that Mr. Askew was to get rid of his steam-vessels
as soon as possible ; subsequently, on the 11th or Septem-
ber, 1632, Mr. Askew sent in a letter to the committee request-
ing permission to hire his steam-boat, files Hero, to the ftolye
well Navigation Company. to go to Mostyn, which request was
complied with, coupled with a resolution that Mr. Askew
was to dispose of all his vessels within twelve months.
At the expiration of that time, the Secretary wrote to Mr.
Askew to learn whether the command had been complied
With; and Mr. Askew sent an answer, that he had done so,
_which was laid before the Committee. In consequence of a coin-
Vaint against the conduct of the Harbour-master, a sub-com-
-mittee was formed to investigate the circumstances. and they came
to the resolntion to repoi t his conduct in writing to the Committee,
which was dune, and in the mean Iliac the Committee received

a letter of explanation from Mr. Askew. On the 4th of Sept.
1832, the Committee having perused the letter .of the Harbour-
master, came to a resolution that they did not think the ex-
planations of the Harbour-master a satisfactory justification
of his conduct.
Mr. Radcliffe said the complaint arose out of the Harbour-
master's misconduct, relative to the American vessel, the
Grecian, and he wished the Secretary to refer to the letter of
Captain Eldridge making the complaint. The Secretary again.
referred to the books, and found that on the Bth-of January,
183.3, a letter was received from Captain Eldridge, of the Grecian,
dated the 30th of September, 1832, addressed to the Dock Com-
mittee. The Commissioners ordered the letter to be read. It
set forth, that on the Bth of October, 18.32, the Grecian set sail
for Boston, but having encountired a severe gale at that period,
she was stranded on a bank, and went down in Bootle
fathoms. The Captain, applied to Mr. Askew for the loan
of one of his steam vessels to tow the wreck into port, and
it was agreed that he should have. it for eight or ten days,
at the rate of £lO for 21 hours, but in the agreement she was to
be -allowed, if not wanted by Captain Eldridge, to tow any vessels
into port. On one occasion the steamer was wanted within the
eight or ten days, hilt the captain refused to allow her to go to
the service of Captain Eldi idge, stating that he had Mr. Askew's
orders to tow some other vessels up the river. The petition
stated that in consequence of the refusal of Mr. Askew to abide
by his agreement, it had been a loss to him of about £3JO, from
a part of the wreck which had been got up to tow away sinking.
The complainant went on further to say that Mr. Askew charged
£3O for the use of his vessel, which being too much he refused to
pay, and Mr. Askew arrested him. Also, that on the 2 Ith, the
complainant had succeeded in getting the Grecian on to the grid-
iron in dock, but Mr. Askew had ordered Mr. Prichard, the
dock-master, to order it out, which he did, and the vessel was
thrown off in that state to encounter the neap tides. The above
was the substance of the charges made bv Capt. Eldridge against
Mr. Askew and on the 15th of Decemiier, 18.32, the committee
of the Dock Estate having considered the charges brought
against Mr. Askew, came to a resolution to the effect that the
harbour-master had been culpably negligent in not devoting
his personal attention to a vessel so situated.
Afr. Askew, who had come into court during the reading of
the letter of Captain Eldridge, rose and said that he was perfectly
aware of this Undeserved censure that had been passed ulion him
by the Dock Gommittee. In the case related by Capt. Eldridge,
the fact was, that Prichard, the dock-master, came to him and
said that if the Grecian was not removed from the gridiron, she
would most probably be 'leaped there, in consequence of which
he (Mr. Askew) said that the business of the docks must not be
stopped by her, therefore she must be ordered off.
Mr. Brown, in answer to a question from Mr. Radcliffe, said
that the reason the committee did not work well in the govern-
ment of its servants was iu consequence of the oppoition that a
portion of the committee met with from those members from
the Common Council.
Mr. A, Woodward asked the reason why Mr. Purnell, the
dock-master, was brought before the Doe cilinusitdee? He
understood that, up to the period of 11ft'. furne 1 being brought
before the committee, there was out a dock-Master but who
would take a bribe.

Mr. Brown sail it was but justice to Mr. Askew to state that
he was not included in that charge.
Mr. Askew said that he defied the whole of the' Corporation
or shipowners of Liverpool to say that he ever took' one single
shilling or £.1.00 as A bribe..

Mr. Woodward.—llad you ever a bribe offered you?
Mr. Askew—Yes, I was once offered i:100.
Mr. Woodward inquired ft mu whore►?
Mr. Askew was not at liberty to expose the name of the
person.

Mr. Wootlivard submitted to the court, that, as the odium
had been attempted to be east upon the Corporation by the
Dock Estate, it would but be fair to show who it was that
offered the bribes? •
The Secretary read a reso7ution. of the Dock Committee,
dated 2d of January, 1827, moved and seconded by two mem-
bers of the committee belonging to the Common Council, to
the effect that all dock-masters against whom it could be 'moved
that they. had taken a bribe should bed:scharged, but an amend-
mem was moved and seconded by two of the committee uf mer-
chants, to the effect that the dock-masters should be brought
before the committee, q.nd told that if they ever took another
bribe they would then be discharged, which was eventually
carried.

Sir George Drinkwater said it had been rumoured that the
gentlemen rate-payers in the Committee, when these-men were
disgraced, did not, as is leg.illy termed, conic into court with
clean hands, and some said that they were actually the parties
who bribed them. (A laugh.)
Mr. Charles Purnell, Dock-master, sworn.
Mr. Woodward inquired whether the witness, when Dock-
master of Prince's Duck, had received presents from-any one fur
extra services?
The witness said that he had.
Commissioner.-1V hat were they?
Mr. Charles Purnell.—l have occasionally received presents
for extt a exertions, having done more than my situation re-
quired me to do. I came to the Prince's Dock a very poor man,
and had not been very long there. when a gentleman came up
to me and said; that they had bean in the habit of making pre-
sents to the Dock-master for extra exertions, and as my salary
was small they should do the same for ine. The gentleman made
me a present at Christmas of £lO. The way that i:5O was
given to me was, the gentleman said it was not requisite to
give me money for every vessel, but I was to let it remain until
the amount was worth having, but in the wean time if I wanted
money I could have it by asking him for it. This was a firm
in the town from whom I borihweil 1:1"
Mr. A. Woodward desired the witness to name the firm.
Witness.—(looking hesitatingly towards the bench where
Mr. -Brow') and Sir George Drinkwater sat) I am not at liberty
to mention the name.
Mr. Woodward asked the commissioners if it would not be
proper to have the name of the firm mentioned.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson replied that they were not
there to try individuals fir offences, but to inquire into the affairs
of the Co. Corporation, which had nothing to •do with what the
members of the Corporation or the Dock Estate chose to do in
their private capacity.
Mr. A. Woodward.—(to the witness)—Was it for American
vessels that you received this money?
Vv itness.—lt was.
Mr. Woodward.—From a large American house ? (Great
laughter.)
The witness did not answer the latter question; but said that
he considered the £lOO as a loan, and had paid back £5O; the
other £3O was made a present to him ; but, said the witness,
seriously, "I had not received any money from that concern
for some time before." (Great laughter.). •
Mr. Brown, examined by the 'Town-clerk.—Mr. Fletcher,
when he was elected to the Dock Committee, had some doubts
of his being a rate-payer, having ,relinquished trade for the
business of a banker. Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Sandbach, and Mr.
Irlarn were elected to the committeabefore they were Collation
Councilmen. Cannot say that those gentlemen have acted
differently in the committee since they acted in the two charac-
ters of Common Councilmen and members of the Dock Com-
mittee, but would not say they had not. 'rhe three ,gentlemen
were extensive rate-pavers. The difference in the committee
respecting Mr. Askew was regarding Mr. Askew aone, and not
the management of the estate, excepting so far that, if the rate-
payers had brought in a motion for Mr. Askew's dismissal, they
would have been defeated by the members from the Common
Council. There had not been many differences between the Com-
mon Council and the Dock Committee since the last purchases
„were made, but recollects a difference repecting the repairs of the
e‘arving Docks, a proposition having come from the Common
Councn tixa
the Dock Estate should repair them, but that the
Corporation wt.o
to retain the profits of the Docks, which was
not acceded to by tilt -Dock Estate.
Mr. John Taylor rose, aeil begged to call the attention of the
court to a subject which he conAdered to be of great importance
to the inquiry, which would she, whether the Corporation of
Liverpool had acted for the benefit of the .public at large,_ and
the shipping interest. He alluded to a -ptirehase made by the
Corporation of land near Wallasey Pool, which several ex-
perienced gentlemen were of opinion would nicks -a most excel-
lent dock, or even a port.
• The commissioners here interrupted Mr.. Taylor, and said
that he had better pestpone his observations untii the subject
relative to Wallasey-pool was regularly brought before them,
which it was intended. to be, and Sir John 'robin would be
present„

Mr- Taylor consented to postpone his observations to a future

Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Duncan proceeded to comment upon
the proposition alluded to of the Corporation making the Dock
Estate pay for the repairs of the graving docks, and the
Corporation to receive the profits, which, they said, was one
case in point of the conflicting interests of the two bodies.
- The Town-clerk read a resolution of the Common Council,
to the effect that the graving docks were in such a state that
the Corporation did not think tit to allow vessels to go in at
their risk, and, unless the Dock Estate chose to put them in
repair, the docks would be closed. This led to a lengthened
conversation between Mr. Radcliffe and the Town-clerk, relating
to the docks, of no public interest. -
Mr. Radcliffe remarked, that for want of a plan of the boun-
daries of the Dock Estate, the two estates being so dovetailed
in, it was scarcely known where the estate commenced, or
where it ended.

Mr. 'Hartley said there was a plan from actual survey and
measurement about to be made, but the parliamentary plan
faithfully described the two estates.
lii answer to a question from Mr. Radcliffe, Mr. Hartley ad-
nutted that the plan alluded to had been in contemplation
eighteen months, but the delay was in. consequence of the
absence of another surveyor engaged upon it.
1' he Town-clerk asked Mr. Hartley whether, for practical
purposes connected with the Dock Estate, he bin-Lever required
any but the parliamentary plan.
dr. Hartley replied that he had not.
Mr. Brown said there were sonic parts of.the estate neglected
to be paved, because it could notbe ascertained to whotn it
belonged.
The Town-clerk said the way to find that out would be to in-
dict a party for not paving it.
-Mr. Brown, in answer to some questions from the town-clerk,
admitted that the excavations in the Strand, which had been
made at the expense of the Dock Estate upon the laud of the
Corporation, had
,benefited the Dock Estate.-
Mr. Alderman Lawrence observed that the railway directors
had paid Lord Sefton at the rate of about £3do a year for the
itse of a field to deposit the excavations from the railway tunnel.
Mr. Radcliffe inquired from itlr. Brown the result of the
deterination of the Dock Committee relative to the exclu-
sion-Of newspaper reporters.
Mr. Brown said that it was resolved that the secretary should
communicate to the reporters the result of the deliberations of
the committee subject to a restriction.
Mr. Mason, the clerk to the secretary, said that he frequently
communicated to the reporters intelligence verbally, out no
persons were at liberty to inspect the books of the committee
but rate-payers, and to them they were open.
Mr. Duncan expressed his opinion that the public could never
be made aware of the proceedings of the committee by the in-
spection of the books, as they did not hear the discussions upon
motions. Some further conversation respecting reporting the
proceedings of the Dock Committee took place, after which
the commissioners adjourned the." Court until ten o'ciock this
day.

The Countess of Rossi (Aidlle. Sontag) is at Paris, and win,
we are informed, remain some time before she returns to I-lol-
laud. She is accompanied by her husband, who is Charge
d'Affaires from the King of Sardinia to the litigun,..and with
whom she has been taking an excursion in Italy.

Viscount Milton, eldest son of Earl Fitzwilliam, who was
lately united to Lady Selina Jenkiuson, daughter of the Earl
of L►verpool, is sa►d to have Bettie(' upon him the whole of the
English estates of his noble father, the revenues of which -ex-
ceed £70,000 per annum. The large domains of the earl in
Ireland, of the. annual rental of i.:3J,00a, to which Mr. Chaloner,
formerly M.P. for York, is agent, are said w be settled on his
lordship's second son, the Him. Wm. Wentworth Fitcwiliiam,
now in his 18th year.

We understand that at the meeting of the Geographical So-
ciety, in their apartments in llegent-street, on Tuesday evening.
the intlepia Captain 'toss attended for the purpose of receiving
the royal medal of 51) guineas, which had been voted to him for
his scientific and geographical discoveries iu the Arctic regions.
The ineetint; was numerously attended.. --