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

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION INQUIRY.

EI AVENTH Dar.- to
This morning (Pride% ) the commiseiouers resumed wad
inquiry, being the clove/till day of their sittings. They elcga'
the court a tew minutes before ten o'clock, when tus -0 to
clerk handed some papers promised the day before, reel/
the Duck Trust. Betere the proceedings commenced, state
Mr. Brown, the gentleman exemiimed yesterday, rose to act'
that in reference to what ha was reporte-el to have said roP the
ing the bribery of dock-:casters, he begged to state theme,
vessels alluded to, whose captains had been said to buys firm,
engaged in bribing the dock-masters, did not belong to h" es)
The ships were foreign, and consigned to his (Mr. Browtheir
firm, and they orths furnished money to aftaptains for bed
disbursements, or to pay the bills sent in, r which the,'
no control over the appropriation of the money. th.
Mr. Augustus Woodward requested that Mr. Purnell'
dock-master, might be sent for. telid
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson, addressing Mr. Brown. he,
that the court yesterday did not understand there was "4.-
putation conveyed against him, ( Mr. Browne)
Mr. Purnell, the dock-master, having arrived, ea'
Mr. Wilkinson inquired whether there were any of the 10
denten upon the present Dock Committee who had givewoer
money fur what he termed extra services. He might tiO
the question generally, without mentioning names. tpil
Mr. Purnell said that he had received money in di°
from present members of the committee. spa!
Mr. A. Woodward wished to know whether thrw'
ef„em
who offered the bribes were rate-payers or Common t;es'''-'
inen M eds'
Mr. Brown interrupted M r. Woodward by saying, fora s
sultation he had had with that gentleman on 'Change Yestlool
it appeared evident that the allusion was made to him- . au to
that circumstance, fearing lest any money had Wet re, be
the dockmasters by his firm without witness's knowledVottey
had inquired from 'his partner, Air. Shipley, whether emY 1%04
had been paid for that purpose. Mr. S. mad had the alimost
is
management of the business since 1825, and he informed 00
that the firm had not paid any money. Ile though! it Peer the
that as he (Mr. B.) was placed upon the Doek Coreintttee foot cf
express purpose of correcting such abuses, the PaYbl
money for purposes alluded to might hate been conceal° the
him, he had made the most strict inquiry and ascertain see
fact. Ile trusted that every gentleman who heard hint ea
the declaration would give him credit for possessng e,ll,e,""etn
common sense not to have brought forward Mr. Purnell
demo himself, if he (Mr. Brown) had been really guiltY
practices. eels'
Mr. A. Woodward said that his question must not b- ;1,00
sity refer to Mr. Brown, as he was not the only rate-payer
theM Dock Committee.
r. Radcliffe, the solicitor, rose and said that he felt ke,
Mr. Woodward had put the questions he had, as it had rot(
Mr. Brown an opportunity of completely exonerating httWose
from the insinuations thrown out against him. lie ale,9with
greatly obliged to Mr. Woodward for assisting him to es`..!e re
the fact that even gentlemen on the Dock Committeess,
obliged to pay money for the accommodation of their caplttool,
Mr. William Myers, one of the rate-payers of tbe voe
Committee, sworn and examined by Mr. Itadcliffe.—Wsd ip $
of the audit commissioners for the Dock Estate who joineali
report into which a committee of Dock Trustees afterwnee
quired. In 1822 there was a bill about being brought
tend the docks. The merchants expressed
fled with the heavy expenditure of the Dock
themse_l.2tcetsariteisTes
resolved to oppose that bill unless they were admitted
n iii
greater share in the management. The 'bill was withdratfho
consequence of that threat. Ii was notorious that the ieua to
had been grossly mismanaged, and the merchants resoir jeio
revive the office of audit commissioners, which had Wig „ere
dormant. The deputation of merchants wished for mores,
—more control over the expenditure. The audit cow-I°l%o
ers being appointed, looked over the accounts, and requen tbel
Dock Trustees to allow their officers to be examined— sow
declined at first, but finally consented. The examination op
tinued for many months, and reports were then made shseess
neously to the rate-payers and the Dock Trustees. Witneo,7,o6,
stated the various frauds as to the supply of stone and limestwooe,
which have been previously meutioned. In the artic%.e Intr eolw,
there were " errors" on the payment of dock dues by Weenie
tractors. The pamphlet report, signed by the eight rategalfor •
commissioners, contains the result of their inquiries- iheoted
Common Council commissioners attended the meeting'', la
upon the questions, but were not asked to sign the reporneeeit
1824 the object of the bill of 1822 was revived by the 1.10
Trustees. The merchants, at the same time revived theirxel
to obtain some power over the dock expenditure. TheYe 64.
appointed deputies to watch the bill. The solicitor of the. oi
Estate submitted the heads of the proposed bill to them• halt
inquiry of the audit commissioners took two years ands spa-.
There were great negotiations between the Dock TrusteertivA
the deputies as regarded the purchase of Strand-street—the 'voile,
Trustees would not consent. The merchants thought that co, lA.
improvements should have been made by the Common Count'oa.
the aeth Geo. 111. By these improvements the Dock Eetate wsveese
have been benefited, as regarded the accommodation oftberoo
chants, but not of the ships. These improvements would *lse here,
benefited the town. Ihe Council gave up their reversioo;so,
interest in the laud in Strand-street, bat would not 1113treet
any thing as to the land in Bromfield-street and Bridgerne- cite
As regards an alteration in the constitution of the Dock here'
some negotiations took place. The merchants wished toned;
twelve of their body on the committee to eight of the conop,
the merchants then gave way to an equality, ten to ten i4Wiffeve
Mr. Leyland moved in council, that the rate-payers shun' the
eight. On this the council took their stand; and, whe,wd tfie
bill, 6th George IV., was in committee, the council' to' idle
merchants, that if they did not consent to it, it should be t
drawn. At this time all the money authorised by
c l the 51.0ge • ,
George was expended, and no part of the works tbs.
pleted. In point of fact, the dock accommodation, excel); to
elongation of the Queen's Dock and the building
Prince's Dock, was in the same situation in 1524 as it 71-eferl.,
1812. It was the want of dock accommodation which in
the )merchants to submit to the terms of the Dock Tett.!`;',
Witness became one of the new committee, on the Ittioltheie
the .6th Geo. IV. Witness here detailed the failure °seer:
attempt to admit reporters to the meetings of the Dock ehtistf,
tuittee, as stated in 111 r. R. Gladstone's evidence. As reere'to-tel
the appointment,of the deputy chairman—on the first roes nee(i
of the committee, Sir John Tobin moved that Mr. La as.
should be the, deputy-chairman. Witness nominated'.7,,,e,
Fletcher, a rate-payer. The Mayor, Mr. J. Holinsheed,
and warmly stated that the Common Council owed the rt;tes„.
payers no courtesy. Mr. Fletcher then begged that his Hates'.ce
should be withdrawn, and there was no division. The inirvh,ses
meats in Strand-street formed an early matter of discussilto„
fore the new committee. It was etaterlearly in 'November' f tie"
that the purchase' should be made at once, in pureuance
act. When the purchases were made, iteppeared that the ehole
Trust had no power to lease, and the pmintees were accorihpi,
pulled down. Thinks that the Dock Committee, as now c 0 ire
toted, act thus—when we have to deal with third partq the,
have no reason to complain, but when we have to deal "r1..„1 seer
Common Council, (in any matter relating to property, ?emit
privileges, or old associations,) it is a far dfilifent case. 030.
solicitor was appointed one of the Common Council ip.toes"
The committee bad a discussion on this appoiutmeot,--IV,iten
suggested a motion that it was improper that the Dock gt,-,
e,
se'
with whom the committee might have to confer on anatee
specting the Corporation, should be a member of that ho
the
with whom the committee might be in colbeion.
motion, in March, 1830, seconded by Mr. Shand, to the - tor
that Mr. Foster, now being a trustee of the docks, was leers
proper person to he solicitor to the Dock Committee. me the
were 14 of the committee present—nine against, and five, i'eher)
motion. In the majority there was one rate-payer, (Mr. stet job°
—in the minority there wee only one of the Council, SirAsd
Tobin. The resignation of Mr:Foster took place when haof
elected Town-clerk, in August, 1832. In the general divisor
the committee, the Common Council commonly voted °tie.,
side, and the rate-payers on the other. There tnlght sor°e so* • •
be a sprinkling ou either side, but they generally lied tse° etii4
The witness wee here questioned relative to a epochs' l'ae the
of the Dock Committee held on Saturday last, referring teires
pending inquiry, from which it appeared' that there
vious motion to the effect, that as time Common Council""ti is
rein on the proceedings of the Dock Committee, and sewesestr
majority of their own body, the estate, came within the
in" of the commission of in, airy.
bt
Examination resumed. ''n 182.5, when the bill we' belgese--
into Parliament, if it had not been for the want of dock adocoi,eitt
dation, the nierchants would have opposed time bill, and it se it'
have been in consequence thrown out by the merchentla heel"
had been postponed until the last moment. The delay ha • •
partly caused by the discussions on the bill.
Mr. Myers cross-examined by the 'sown-clerk.-11,,1 the
gates were bound to acquiesce in the conditions propole":iieste
bill would have been withdrawn. 'rime delay did not Orli, for
with the delegates, for they were anxious to go as early aedhetOh •
sible into committee. Mr:Fletcher, to whom allusionit, soee
made, was one of the committee for auditing
was also a rate-payer of the Dock Committee Does IT eritles'.:
member whether Air. Fletcher ever /Laid that he shout
'until a collision arose hafcre resigned. No collieicaetie.s
arise from. the appointment of Mr. Fletcher to his Tilignlettr
as by resigning prevention was better than cure. The ledge's',
hers of the Dock Committee had not, to witness's know. vonle,
ever occasion to call Mr. Bourne, the solicitor to tbe;etbs •:
Trust., before them since his appointment. Was not aut.°, fief/. '
his services had been required, with the exception of his a'seerce
drawn up an opinion for counsel. Witness never had etliteles
munication with Mr. Bourne, Is not aware thee any e"
resulted from the solicitor to the Dock Trust having
the accounswntA,
the Common Council. Is not aware that during the nein, tire;
liollinshead being chairmen of the Dock Estate, up to tooeveee
of the act of Parliament passing, any practice.' inceeneiti
mice arose to the Dock Meate from his being connected, re
the Common Council, nor was he aware thee inconle!`„oh
arose from Mr. Lawrence's appointment to the situstrooef
deputy-chairman after the passing of the act. The q ;Moe
was merely a matter of principle as regarded the constitu
ofte
the Committee. Mr. fluskisson was one of the menthe" 0,01
borough, and he was not. the opinion of witness, like's,'
one thing and write another. en
The Town-clerk intimated that he had a tinily of sner'etots'
Itisson's opinion relative le the constitution of the ID'oc.e,
mince, which would tie broil forward at the proper td gV,D
Examination reeuinede—Considetable diseuesion he , Leo,.
place in the Dock Committee reepectiug the purchase 014 soir
and the planning of the decks. Wlien the bill was tied rev;
cited, Lord Sefton wished some clauses to be introduc,. the
ties to building the smith docks; and the coitimittee,;, tbj
introduction of those clauses, were obliged to conioheneete,
buildings in the south. There were several persons iuroeeel,
in the buildings adjacent to the docks. and there was ab
test whether the docks should be built at the south or thfeet
end. The Dock Trustees were of opinion that they reil"deev;
built cheaper at the south than the north. There was roil dot;
in the Dock Committee to commence building the noirta ;brio
first • hut Lord Sefton's compulsory clause comPebeerti -
to build at the south. Mr. Hollinshea.d bad pro' leigi
the north ; and the discussions in the Dock Corareitteeeoth,
rise from time confliction of private interests and not a bct
to the interests of the Common Council. There b. 'ld eat)
repeated dietemesions in the Dock Committee ; but o°'-feeeett,
state whether there was one relative to how little soll,
the
they were compelled to lay out in the building of - that
docks, nor that counsel's Opinion had been taken on h, cO7O
ject. Cannot say that Mr. Hollinshead had said to t tiaa
inittee "that it would be better if they paid more site ht bebtr '
their Surveyor and less to their Solicitor." There-m'gd deo
been counsel's opinion taken on the subject of the 13,13130( I
of the Estate, but cannot say there had. The ec'eiol lb(
prayed for power to furnish additional dock space,;oo4
greater power should be given to the merchants in the, arot
meat of the Dock Estate. Cannot say that the want,o,
ere
Docks was the principal complaint made in the petiticiseeto
The Tows-clerk read some clauses in the act of pasha 1
and the minutes of a meeting of the Common Cowie' to°
referring to the introduction of clauses into the act. feet ofiltS
Witness recollected a discussion upon the sub):- tetS
Graving Docks in the Dock Committee at that pelletinttoo
plan produced witness did not recollect, but remembers 01
.A:l7 e ~
bill was dropped. paper was handed to the wittlestsh, by,
at the above period, which ho stated was a clause in (het Tit
writing of Mr. Fletcher. There was a deputation at Aped" •
from the rate-payers to the Dock Committee on the
There
that bill, but dries not recollect the particulars of it. ;m
a desire expressed by the merchants at the passing c'',ito"Leo;
Act, but there was no record of such a desire that Le eV
aware of, The widening of the Salthouse and 0";e0
was a general imprAyeaseut to the town, Is ow TA

11‘' -VEMB ER 19, 1833.

;Virtue of the act of Parliament the Dock Committee
see'nd, if they chose, having paid. the Corporation the rever-
,f they interest, widen the docks as -they were the property
tosee t? Dock Estate ; or they might lay the Salthouse Dock
a" DrY Dock together. Happens to know that the mas-
t. oevessels who had been prosecuted for frauds before alluded
l'cittWere tried and convicted fur the same; but the Dock Com-
hoe": he elieved, were obliged to pay one of them, named
ee €4-ts, for the lime-stene, in. consequence of the verdict in
V.49tion brought bv• that person being against them. Is Of
elon that if the delay had taken pla.ce in the purchase of
hati't'e 17ieettn'as wished by hieusell and others it must ultimately
Purchaseda-t a far higher price. 'Does not think that
co'-'l4,re suitable seleclion..of gentlemen to purchase the land
el have been made than those.appointed. Does not think
it Itt any infer y had been sustained- by the Dock Estate since
rest present coustitution, but it would-have been better for . the
le? ,Selers if they possessed more power in the Committee.—
o' 4 always wish to see the trust Ville Duck Estate in the hands
hollihe.Corporation so long. as the debt remained. Being in the
ach ( the Corporation gave a satisfaction to the bond-
t holder °lilt the money was safe. Cannot say that any de-
titliceut es
er. arose to the Dock Estate from the exercise of
•Veltevet°B by the *Common Council, but he -thought that the
ot; a.gains the admission .of a. reporter into the Dock
nottee was unwise, although he could not say that
any delis
'e-nent followed. He thought repp
rtin the proceed-
o egultiew"ohl prove beeeficial, but. it was. only. a matter oef
4. Does not know any public body. in the town, with th
,J• eePtion of the watch and sca.vengiug.committee, that allowed
rel'oter to be present. He understood that it was an old re-
solute
on of that body.
gentleman present here said that the regulation was a very
guest °he, and adopted in consequence of the chairman, Mr.
ales
An • sing a riewepaper proprietor. •
other gentlernan.corroborated.theltet speaker as far as re-
- adenine
the reulation.being recent, but stated that the board
i 144. to the resolution of admitting the reporters in conse-
,_es of the proceedings being mis-reported by some member
e'ir own body.
'4 answer to kqUestion from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Myers re-
Peated tha he did. not _wish to see the trust of the Doer: lestate
• taken final• e the Common Council, as it ought to be in the hands
that respectable body- the character of the Corporation was such
h if went wrong they were able to remedy it, and
e saw no r g
eer. g aatreas.on for a change.
be es routican.--You mean to say,. Mr. Myers, that you saw
Aciulection to the Corporation being trustees without power.
b 'ere' Myers.—No, I don't. I can see no objection to the trust
411eii-5 'hvt-ed in so permanent a bod as
rate-piate Common Council,
I should wish to see the ys hare the first
tarevfeerence in the committee. He wished the committee to
tathe Power of
.electing their own chairman andh deputy
weer an, and to. be placed upon the same footing as t e high-
Tee't e°,°ltnittee, which was- composed of nine of the-Commen
and fifteen of Chao-ate-payers.. • " -
et:tr• Donean.--In consequence of the greater proportion ofl
members of the Dock Committee being Common Couuci -
14t11, it is seldom. necessary that the Common Council have to
eise their veto.
ce°2l.• Myers.—The have seldom to exercise the veto in the
moronwe Council, . •
tbeeiLthe 'Pown-clierk.—There have been several things done in
.ek
Committee
..Zet wished different, but nothing detrimentally injurious to the
cesi,ee as regarded the Corporation, had occurred. There had
nattY wrong bee
has
lossaken. pla of time.e by discussions, but nothing crimi-
me ed tc
oe-i uomanissioner Wilkinson inquired whether the witness
celuneicild?to the power of exercising the veto by the Common
bntr: Myers replied that he did, as the committee was then
iitigited, but if there was a majority of rate-payers in the
the-en ‘-'olelnaittee he saw no objection to the veto remaining with
see mullion Conned, and he repeated that he had no wish to
eriiste trust taken from the Corporation as. by being reposed
er
h oudheie it
at w
large.as satisfactory to the body of rate-payers and
s
Nor' Commissioner Wilkinson.—Do you think that if the
wooltt • rceeised iu a more popular body, equally trustworthy,
eed be satisfactory to the rate-payers ?• •
The Myers.—Certainly I do. •
itseett colmaissioner said they would •now proceed into the
11,71 Y
,relative to the large purchase of land at Wallescy
~ Waen
'Mr J h .
te_heitehef°orne Tobin rose, and, addressing the commissioners, said
he was examined, hevshould wish the commissioners
elle.eeive. all the information they could from the Corporation
altoto the sale and purchase of land, after which he was
teej t 4: answer any questions which might be put to him, and,
'4/ter he was a magistrate sworn upon that bench, he de-
he also a,they would swear him previous to interrogation, and
stsh* w'shed that, all persona who. had evidence to give on the
leect shoukl also be sworn.
teethe! commissioner asked Sir John if he would wish those
reeTe7rnett. who had already been sworn • on the Corporation
e.hote to be resworn ?
~1,14.01 m Tobin replied that on this particular subject he did.
trereteee 14oclerk now proceeded to inform the court of the
rees nee under which the property was purchased by the
pear ration•in 1828. He•said the circumstances were that,several_
titdiuPreTions to the purchase, the Corporation had been eon-
kereeF with the owners of property on the shores of the River
places 9.ti the subject of the encroachments made in different.
4401 t P the sea, and which were considered by some of the
to in. nsruent engineers of the kingdom would-have a tendency
teiee Jure.
—.men
of the port ;• which circumstance had- occupied the at-,
mgthe Corporation for many years. The opinions of the
rs to whom he alluded were those of the late Mr. Rennie, •
sad Art Whitby, Alr. Telford, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Giles,
ale alker, and, subsequently, the opinions .of the -late
Joese—'",e_enie's two •sotie -were• taken; • namely, the present Sir
Iseet44”trillie and Mr. George Rennie: ' • The opinions of-those
Purseeleil; were recorded on the books of the Corporation, in
C,; of or which various preciedings were instituted by the
eeeee„etion, who claimed to be the conservators of the River
took i and tilt, pert. Extensive litigations of various. kinds
ace about that i)eriod,in which the Corporation expended
the
e`'s a sum than i.e14,000: The last trial took place about
seta 1826 or 1827, upon the subject, at Lancaster Assizsse
that trio eeeault -of the litigation was;- ft appeate.tto establish
Ives I;a.censervaecy of the riVer, under the ,provisions of.the
rhainent relating to the.lrwell and. Mersey nayigation,
rs.ree,iested in that body, and not in the Corporation; To
lii4tltsY. the evil which was approaching from these encroach-
Al ee ijtereasing in number, severalsexpedientrwere suggested.
eito t,es attetu was made on the part of the Commori Count;
rtepect°,.l‘.ll, the ofners of property on both sides the river,eir
irieuen," seleh encroachments, under the control- of some p
14e, eke:4,ltority, to be fixed by act of Parliament, which altege-
let ie." ci• by the opposititrn sO extensive a body, having differ-
bee
.eerests on both -sides of the river; and nothlng further had
kta, °,.°48 up to the present day Amongst the suggestions
the for was for the Corporation •to become the purchasers of
wish -t-htage land to the river, and•he believed it was the general
(111esti at the Corporation should purchase the property in
teeth, `'au• . Subsequently' various purchases of land had been
t° the t 4:frte he thOUght, although he spoke subject
Preeettteorrection of ..members of the Common Council then
tatoek ene!"-heut 1826 an opinion prevailed that a kind of joint
rrlio3e"YanY or some company was about to be formed foethe
see
ach establishing a port to communicate. v. ith the rivers
to ettele °Mee-here near Hoilake, and the plan proposed wa
Nom tot through .the. low!ands by means of cutting a
't ee Wallasey Pool and-so to the river •Mersey, where.
ftilevi.nits.soubelivio_usehat- very great. facilities appeared likely to
pow scheme, as the great depth of water flowing into
Vett of o and the flux and reflux of the tides offered the pros-
'a the ,gre"at pecuniary advaatages to any person who embarked
ilirenie• The first purchase that he found in -the record
the tae. ueust, 1824, which was of a large tract of land opposite
1%4'11. !)ear to this Wallasey Pool. The next purchase are
,t'le the "e made on the 3d of Au ust, 1827 which was about
t,e'4eit th,,al..t the trial alluded to °took place. He
.bad stated
ley ren for a company- to establish this scheme Was
e(
t°
h • ofthat ,
deer: ein execution in 828 and the Mayor
of
41dertnan
C alderman and chairman
etheCie
the senior
Ce., the 4if. eenneuttee, who had been intimately connected_
etttur 'urn of the Corporation and the docks for nearly half
%zee, echeY,,,
_undertook upon their own resnsibility, seein that
arch me might militate against the interests of the town,
laseehatl °ll the property they could- possibly- acquire in
te i for the purpose of counteracting that scheme,
;eel). eir opinion, would have been injurious to wha_t.
'ea: eel deemed. the To
interests of the port of Liverpool. With
tPee'atioe7 tthlaeteAllate r own Clerk, and other officers of the Cor-
er .bheit terms lyor and Mr. Case effected the purchases. .on
°f
trrtut,etry could. 'They subseqnently made a ley .
ee°go tea reeeee-to
them
the Court of Common Council, which h
CurP tand he believed that to be the only record
et• es whi p ion books of the transaction, excepting the pur-
r eo e ere made afterwards in pursuance of the same
To_
nit"do\-lerk here read a record of the report made by the
e 1.4 lied male ease to the Common Council of the purchases
, when a resolution of that body furnished them
tote l'`'wer to
teeoeissee
of Proceed further. And at another meeting of the
r e wh,„tho saute body, held on the 15th of September 1828,
.'llotetie!..c°4lPlement of twenty-five members being present,
'll'l uue,' were read, approving of the proceedings of the Mayor -
piltirveere. n'dasee. and which stated that the Common Council had
cisme erried a vote of thanks to those gentlemen for the
Ck 44, th which they had made and the mode in which they had
it‘rrltloe4 etoetno tnoi:sioin e r hare said that Mr.. Okill would be a likely
ro. hem respecting the purchase and the prices.
thoelrs...-oa.k,iil replied that he could not, without referring-to the
;elate ec•tetee..trtuseetion was_ done with such privacy that he
'teithin:lne, a oet it at the time, although he had heard that
tca a,
ei. pate on.
c"Ntl the re eaid that there would be no difficultl in ob.
4rri,d _ qut!ite information. The reason why the- usiness
been the eon with such secrecy was, that if it had been known
itti awe horn
was in the market, they would not have
"hierie tur chase it.
.wee handy produced a plan of the property in question,
tee A- Town,4 to.the commissioners.
toffessee _clerk here read a resolution of the Dock Commit-
e.,,raet, It meeting held in September, wen seven Commit-
ere to tet.`eeencilmon and six rate-payers were presentp, which
e`eeeer eteeeect that they approved of the steps taken by the
liettltelee to air. Alderman Casr. and that the committee were
qterretetinteyF:et_rwith the Corporation in their proceeding
1144vey en7l".uncilu,lrie Rennie and. Mr. Brown to be employed
.
et)l6llltqieareci
tiinho the subject..
John iSsioners. that the Masshe
of the property handed to the
ei Jo we 83 e quantity of land purchased from SI
pit4r omit • . acres 1 reed and 2() perches. - • e
, the tee_ omit inquired who was the person that negotiate wit7r. se4iri)pworatioa for the rwischase of the_ property
Si 361c1 the replied that Mr. William Laird was the person.
.r John ,r9perty to the Corporation.
he°,! ell eeefe.,°tOsrose and said that he was quite ready. to.ititco-
.etie ee handl ns relative to the property, in the sale of it "Meet he whatever. It would- perhaps save a great deal
he°eh
Ner?eurree: 'reere to relate a shoft history of the transaction as
i, en't!,haed been stated--that only two purchases had
he'e-ntaitee.pe tnie last purchase of the large tract of land in
of lau bee
'Lnanc,, negotiated for. In :1827 he was a-mem-
!ge elittious eezoniittee, and finding that the Committee
le,te.khey, had recluse,,,l the land in Nt• ellasey Pool, he told
CeeltQltof perei:aaet and buy it direct frem Mr. price,
Nee ,ete" Wore UR it piecemeal. He also said, that if the
'`slingstn to the,unacquainted with Mr. Price he would accom-
ee with lel'. gentleman, as he had some time before had.
the e•-hureh. tile purchase of some property near Wal-
esteProperte fee' uheequeutly Mr. Laird and himself purchased
Wal-
t h'eward, ue,,tu Mr, Price for the intended scheme. Shortly
sosee
c'°rornittee sent for witness, and said they wished
Itgee • . onversation with him relative to
.the land which
t;, the jointly to
Sal4e. r. Laird and himself, wishing to negotiate
ce. and ~ , v ilness addressed himself to the chairman, Mr.
That thatilleohn,sretharacht e was sure that he knew sufficient of his
fe.e, 'could not WT.' he ha been an old servant ot his,
e, situated as h hira to doh dishonourable action ; there-
'Ale " the ache e was and so deeply engaged with others as
tt_of the lee, me, he could not think of negotiating for the
itettOcci te 44.417, Moreover he had called upon Lord Clive, who
!tittl°R the parctLico.uni the measure. Witness wrote to Mr. Laird,
leg it:g that to
trs 0f what had occurred, at the same time
"ite is land to ee' circumstances he could not thiuk of sell-
eite"ss Iliad Mr, 7 sati"P"atiol3. The land belonged jointly to
Ntiopt„l, a, mute + end it was not to be sold by either pith-
g°°""t• -Mr Laird, however,took
~esteaemeipi to the Coe/tomtit; n 'the la• i‘ntrervto his (wit
'es, sis he faucied it might be ."
•

thrown themselves•into the arms of the Corporation. Witnesg
found aftetwards that several other individuals had sold the
moieties of their lands in the same situation' and therefore it
would not do for him to stand out against the Corpoiation. Mr.
Laird now lives in Liverpool or the neighbourhood. Witness
here handed in the report of Messrs. Telford, Stephenson, and
Nimmo, and the estimate. Mr. Laird -was interested in a
moiety of this land, having also purchased. from Mr. Price.
Witness and Mr. Laird exchanged moieties' of the property, on
the agreement that neither shOeld dispose Of 'the land without
the consent of the other. This Agreement was made
.about two
mouths before the sale to the Corporation. The purchase by
witness was made about four mouths, and that by Mr. Laird,
about two years -before -the -Corporation became- purchasers.
There were no conveyances, but-inerety.a' vttitten memoran-
dum. 'Witness agreed in the scheme of Making docks in Wal-
lasey Pool, because he, in common .with.other. ship-owners, felt
that there was a want of dock accommodation. .
The Town-clerk said that it was very -common -in this town
when parties purchased and sold again, to.take the title and con-
veyance as from the original seller to the laat:purchaser.
Mr., Foster then read a minute of the Finanee Committee,
dated October 19, : 1828; .By this • it. app.eared that the whole
purchaies amounted to £77,294 2s. 4d. in,honds -bearing 44 per
cent. interest, and-not redeemable for. seven years, and EEO,
in bomb at per cent., and not redeemable for ten years. The
whole amount of purchases frorn 'Sitlolita Tobin was £Bl al).
Mr. Price got for%ack land is. 71d..per.square yard.
Mr. John Taylor, the gentleman who for some days previous
had appeared pregnant with Speech and information relative to
this land purchase, here rose to.unhurthen himself,
.but, at first,
seemed at a loss what to say ; he at , -said that what he
had to say was, in a great measure, anticipated and explained
away by -Sir John Tobin and the' Town-clerk. He had no
fault to find with, nor had he any intention -to impugn, the con-
duct of Sir John Tobin; men had a right to- pursue their pri-
vate interests; but:the cause ofhis was to_ show,. not only
that there were two great intereSts.inthe town, the Corporation
and the merchants, but that there -was also a third interest,
separate from these, which he was sorry there was no one here
but himself to represent. The King nt this..conntry. originally
endowed-the Corporation with great power,..antt gave it great
.
lands.
'rown-clerk.—Not an inch.
Mr. Taylor.---Great wealth. • • •• .

Town-clerk.—Not a halfpenny., •- •- • •
Mr. Tavlor.—He gave it, at all events; a charter; and itnow
holds the property it has acquired under the prOtection of the
laws of the land.
The Town-clerk.L-I hope so. (Laughter.) . •
Mr..Taylor.--Their own books prove that their object was
to prevent a rival port from-being made, which would afford ac-
commodation to the trade of the. country, .atul -hold theni and
the Dock Trustees in check. That: was the view of the matter.
to which to wished toT4irect the attention of t4,coramissioners.
If there had been a rival port on the .other.side.of the water, the
dock and-town dues would not have been so exorbitant as they
are. It was to prevent that that they determined on getting
Wallasey Pool into their own. -hands." 'That- Was the point to
which. he,wished to direct the attention 'of 'the COlfitnissioners,
and, having named it, he would leave the matter in their hands,
as they were much better qualified than him to obtain an eluci-
dation of it.

The Town-clerk said, that with regard to the three fallacies
stated by that " gentleman," the -Ctirporation did not hold an
inch of ground obtained by gift either from the or any other
individual. As to the second fallacy, all they had they oh.
tained by purchase, in the same way as a man who purchases
a house. As to the third fallacy, had the rival
.port been per-
mitted to proceed, the persons using it would neither have been
exempted from dock nor from town dues.
Mr. Taylor.—The King, by granting the charter to the Cor-
poration, and the country by protecting them in the exercise of
their privileges, had, in fact, conferred upon them all which
they possessed. Without the charter they could not have even
had an existence as a corporate body; and with regard to the
new port, the vessels resorting to it would have been exempt
front both the Liverpool dock and town dues, by their entrance
from the outer sea. _ _

Mr: Wilkinson then inquired of Sir John Tobin what was
the purchase-money per yard given to Mr. Price.
Sir John Tobin said he could not say with accuracy, but he
would furnish it to-morrow.
The Town-clerk said that ever since the Corpoiation held
land, it was only within the last twelve. months that they had
sold, any part of it, and they had sold it on long leases of 999
years, in order that by clauses in those leases they might protect
the port from encroaclaments. The price they sold it for was
10s. per yard.
Mr. Samuel Holmes asked Sir John Tobin the difference of
the price given byhim to Mr. Price, and received by him from
the Corporation.
Sir John said he must decline answering the question directly.
You might (said Sir John) receive £lOO,OOO for my undertak-
ing. I have only received a third of the money. If the Cor-
poration would go for en act of Parliatnent, and make an
assistant harbour for the port of Liverpool, I say to them give
me my laud again, and I will give you your money back.—
(Applause.)
Mr. Holmes said he put the question because he had bought
laud from Mr. Price, at more than the' Corporation gave, and
he thona_e.ht he had got it cheap.
Mr. W. W. Currie rose to perform an act of justice to Sir
John Tobin. At the time the negotiation was ~e-oiug on, a great
deal of obloquy was thrown on Sir John most unjustly. He
had it distinctly in recollection that Sir John more than once
gave the Common Council an opportunity of taking the land
off his hands at the price: he gave for it 'to Mr. Price, and they
declined it. Gentlemen might possibly -go away with the idea
that Sir John had overreached the Corporation, but he had not
done so. Ile offered the land twice and it was
_declined. This
was before the purchase from Mr. Price,was completed.
Sir John Tobin, in -answer to a question from the commis-
sioners, said, that by Monday he should be enabled to give the
dates of the purchases.
This concluded the day's proceedings, and the commissioners
adjourned until ten o'clock the following morning.

TWELFTH DAY.

Shortly after ten_ o'clock the eoranaiooionesuvrted-their
investigation. . • • • • - • . •
Mr. Radcliffe opened the proceedings by requesting that
Hornhy, one of the Dock Committee, should be examined.
Lieutenant Morrition, R.N., rose and said, that previous to
the business-proceeding, he had a few remarks to make relative
to a statement made by. Lieutenant Watson on the subject of
the telegraph.
The secretary to the Doek Trust informed the commissioners
that after Mr. Watson's examination that gentleman had in-
quired whether any further questions were to be put to him, as
he was obliged to leave town for the stations, when they, the
commissioners, stated that they had nothing further to ask from
him; if, therefore,.Mr. Morrison had anything to say on the
subject of the telegraph he had better deter it until Mr. Wat-
son's return.
The commissioners were of a similar opinion.
Lieutenant Morrison said he should, on the return of Mr.
Watson, take an opportunity of alluding to the subject.
Mr. Morrison then stated that there was another subject to
which he wished to call the attention of the commissioners. It
was one that,•as an old sailor, he took some little interest in.
He-had understood that therewere funds in the Corporation
and' dock lionds for the erection of a Seaman's Hospital,
amounting. to £36,950, and vet there was no Seaman's Hospi-
tal: - He did not wish it to be imagined that there had. been a
misappropriation of those funds, but if there were funds it
would be better for them to be applied to the purposes intended.
• - •

The commissipners thought the subject was• worthy of in-
quiry, and should be investigated in the regular course of pro-
ceeding.
Mr, J. Hornhy being sworn, was examined.—ln the first
place he wished to say that he was not, as had been stated, in-
fluenced by personal motives in pursuing the line of conduct he '
had, and he begged to disclaim all such imputations. ~When
he looked to the list of the Common Council he found there was
one half of that body with whom he was in friendly intercourse,
with the rest he hid some acquaintance; but was on good terms
with them all, and he had not the slightest personal feeling
against any one of them, as he entertained a belief that they
were all very worthy gentlemen in a private point of view,
whatever he might thwk of them in their corporate
.capacity.
Mr. Radcliffe had wished him (Mr. H.) to come forward and
give evidence, in consequence of which he begged here to offer
his sentiments and opinions in that way on the present consti-
tution of the Dock Committee. V He had been a merchant in,
Liverpool for twenty years, and was elected to the Dock Com-
mittee in August, 1831. When proposed he was absent from
Liverpool, and was ignorant that it was intendedio propose
him as a member. Since his election he had regularly attended
two committees, the business of which was generally a matter
of-routine, with the exception of discussions which occasionally
arose. When differences did arise in the committee, he had
observed a marked unanimity amongst all. the Corporation
members, and he was decidedly of opinion that an entire sepa-
ration of 'the Thick Estate and the Corporation Trust would be•
for the benefit of the public at large. As regarded the bond-
holders he bad no doubt that they would be Wally protected
by a new Dock Corporation as by the present Common Coun-
cil ; and-Mr. Hall,. who represented the bondholders the tattier
day, gave that as his decided opinion also.
Mr. A. Woodward denied that Mr. Hall represented the,
bondholders. -
Mr. Hornby.—lle nainitted some of .them, however, with
certain provisions' that had previously been conceded. The
prObability was; that a new Dock Committee, elected by rate-
payers out of their own body, would be-at least as•opulent, as
respectable, and as well-judging as the existing Common Coun-
cil, or any that might succeed them.. They would have a more
direct interest in a good and economical management. A pro-
vision might be made that a given surplus income over the
expenditure for the maintenance of the present works and the
payment of,interest should, always. exist.- The present surplus
was about 00,000 per annum after paying all interest and-the .
maintenance of the works. He considered that to be too large
a surplus, and a portion of it at least ought to be taken off in the
reduction of the Dock rates. The Dock rates of Liverpool far
exceeded those of London. lie believed them to be more than
double upon large, vessels. By expending the whole surplus
income in new works, the present generation of merchants were
paying for the fee-simple of property, instead of paying the in-
terest upon what it cost. There were large works now in pro-
gress, and the Dock.Survevor, Mr. Hartley, had repeatedly
stated in the committee, that it would be more economical to
push forward vigorously those works, than, according-to the
present system, of dOing them piecemeal. He believed the
Dock Committee were pretty intatiratous that this was desirable,
and about a year ago, notices were issued of an intention to go
to Parliament for the purpose of. raising an additional sum of
1:200,000. He was very strongly—an advocate for this being
done, as Mr. Lindley said that during the-late summer the works
could then The proceeded with in- a very advantageous manner.
The idea of going to Parliament Was abandoned, he thought, 1
from the fear that-seas _entertained; on the part of the Corpora-
tion members of the Dock Committee, that the nierchants of the
town would-endeavour to engraft on- the bill some clause •to
alter the constitution of the Dock-Trusts.- He thought that the
trusts should be entirely separate ; bat if not, if a certain number
of the COmmon Council were to form a psahr,ti:ifa be
the Dock Com-
mittee, it was highly desirable that they selectedoc
of the Common Council, not by .themselves, but by the rate-
payers. His reason for thinking so was, that supposing eight
were sent by the Common Council themselves, they would choose
men entertaining exactly the same opinions on that important
subject, and they all knew with what effect a small united body
could act, even against superior number, if those numbers were
not united.
Cross-examined by.the Town-clerk.—gas been a member of
this committee since ISM, • Notwithstanding the dock dues
being trouble those of London,- some of the pnncipal merchants
of London were sending their ships to Liverpoot Has been,
present at manyuf the discussions in the committee, and recol-
lected an occasion when .the discussions arose 'that a strong
feeling was raised in the town., ..He alluded to the appointment
of Mr. Bourne as solicitor -to the trust. There were often
discussions relative to 'going to Parliament for. a bill, and wit-
ness was told by several gentlemen that they would see that
notwithstanding. the notices, they would never go to Parlia-
ment, as the trustees would be afraid of the introduction of a
clause to alter the constitution of the estate . they were not
discussions in committee but amongst committee men. There
were no motions made relative to the subject after the notice
was given, to witness's knowledge.
TheVosiii-elerk:staid that on reit:fence-to the books there did
not appear to be any notices on record.

liiiiirecollection of either