The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-12 00:00:00

°vEmBER 12, 1833.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION INQUIRY.

The c FIFTH •DAT.
ominnassioners took their seats at ten minutes past ten.
Foster handed in a return relative to the Court of Requests.
Passe ilkinson inquired whether, in the view of the Court of
dent lfes being
extended, it would nut be better to have a resie.
r.pe3eldFoster said it would certainly be better, but it would de-
oce_eePon the number of Courts of Passage. There was no
u tor Recordnt Judge, except on the-trial of the issues.
Thev preeeent er had never been resident.
emereDuncan said that the clause in the governing charter
reetter
,r,lng the Common Council to appoint a Recorder, di-
shan' that one honest and discreet man " witlein the town"
TT: be Recorder.
te commissioners then made some inquiries of -Mr. Foster
celarly e family
connexions of the present Recorder, and parti-
the Colne whether he was -counected with any
of the members of
nrmon Council.
...a.Grindrod corrected a statement he had made yesterday.
but titer was uat the sole contractor for St. Luke's church,
isseaevoint contractor with .Mr. Hetherington. 'chat • contract
°id, notice of which was served on the Corporation many
u,saago. The original plan of the church was designed by
Citriete Mr. Foster, fur a plain Gothic church, and that was the
teeTes he (Mr: Grindrod) contracted for. As the worke pro-
ei; O,,thelaus were altered front time to time, and instead of a
(eothic building, there rose, to the iftliniration-of the town, •
„sTendict cashed al. He wished to know whether he was to be
rq,Afor the plain church or for the cathedral which the now saw.
laui4c)onatuissioner said he could not answer that question. (A
required
Griudrod then handed in his petition to the Corporation.
yesterday, and his application to Mr. Foster, the sur-
veyor.
LAlcr;Sudlow then stated, that with respect to the coat of St.
s
church up to 1803 very little was paid except for levelling
the land• Nothing was paid front that period till 1811, whets
eunua.tiou stone was tail. Front that period till 1821 the
as she paid for building the wall that was mentioned yesterday
foundation of the church up to the levelling of the street
u^')000. 111 1822 the work was resumed, and the expense
,1 to 1832 was £52,917, of which £6415 was paid for the put--
0711.5,e of preinisee in Leece-stieet, and £8450 to the executors
countGrindrod on account of the mason's work, the stone ec-
ehht having been settled.
Grindrod.—Did that include the account for stone?
(12:r. Sudlow.—No. That had been settled. He was not
w..re of there being any arrear for stone.
air- Foster, in addition to his former- evilence, called the
teannissioners' attention to an act for making an embankment
Persons the Leasowes and Wallasey Pool. There Were seven
t'v'er_sons appointed commissioners by. the act, three of whom
Lorre t° be appointed by the Corporation ; Robert \Titter, Esq.,
_.a.a of the Manor of Bidstou, one of the 'others, and the re-
orwming three were to be chosen' -out of the: landowners upon
fry °3' the rate was laid. The object was to prevent the sea
• 11 overflowing the low lands' in. that neighbourhood and in-
tring the port. The embaukinent had been made, and the
onsuration paid half the expense. Mr. Foster next refen•ed
Into the act obtaiued last year, for the improvement and manage-
In. vitt of Birkenhead. Six of the Common Council were ap-
Pointed commissiouers in respect of the property of the Cor-
t)r4tion within the township. These were the Mayor, two
ailiffs, and three junior Aldermen for the lime being. Sixty
Zatnissiouers were also elected from among the rate-payets.
e ' Foster said, in answer to inquiry that there was no other
-et or office with which the Counnell Council were in any way
corected, so far as he knew.
r• C. Okell produced various bye-laws, -particularly one
ni.ide
by a. Common-hall in the 2•kl of Elizabeth, to the effect
fallen
the election by the commons of a Common Council haying
ttflen into desuetude such custom be hereby restored. 2d. A
"-law, dated 1627, 'containing a list of the -Common Council,
providing that none sho'uld have a double vote. A 3d,
4th, February, 1636, nominating the common Council. A
itta, dated June 21, 1642,-to the effect that six persons should
tieulaPPointed to the Common Council instead. of six persons not
.
Y qualified. A sth, dated 1695, three persons being dismis-
sed from the CounnonCouncil, and one having refused to take
the oaths,
appointing four new Councilmen in their stead. A
' dated September 31, 1731 annulling all' bye-laws, &c.,
'natio at a '
" pretended" Common-hall in 1735, before the Earl
ot'oidr Derby then Mayor, and ordering that all such be null and
an
-d that the Town-clerk be directed to expunge them.
6 that a suit having heen commenced by the said Mayor
against Richard' Ide ' receiver of town's-dues, ail proceed-
lags be
staid. -1e rsiey,
v. 41- Foster said that he had omitted to state that,under ano-
tier Act of Parliameut, dated_ Bth April, 1830, fur the paving
and sewerage of the town, aßoard of Commissioners was ap-
roimed, and the inhabitants beingassessed to the poor rate were
nominate nine members of the Common Council,_ and fifteen
oth. er persons being owners or occupiers of property to be Com-
nessiouers. Up to that period the Corporation had paved the
agreed
streets of the, town, and by the Act the Corporation
ereed to pay £s,7so.annually towards the- paving and sewer-
a: of the town, be-sides paying the Usual rates upon their own
property.l%lr- J. D. Case the Treasurer, produced and read the balance
',fleet of the Corporation• • • t during the Mayoralty of Mr.
accounts
?el:nauaeir. being the year ending October, 18.32. It appeared
them that the total amount of the bond debt is £792,009
14s- 11d. In October, 1827 it was £417,921 17s. 11d. In the
accounts for last year there was au entry of £llO2 17s. 4d., as
,Paid to Mr. Foster, the Town Clerk.
debl4,...r.,,Wilkinson inquired what was meant by the term "bond
The Treasurer stated that they were bonds passed under the.
froth
seal of the Corporation, to secure money borrowed
&rola individuals by the Corporation. The interest was gene-
'allY 4 per cent. Some was at 4-1 per cent. Some of the money
b •
°rtowed from charity trusts was at 5 per cent., and in one in-
sta
:lee, on a small amount of £5O, the Interest was 6 per cent. _
de'"'"- Case, in reply to a remark on the increase of the bond
'ht, explained that a large purchase had been made by the
Corporatiuu of laud at Birkenhead and Wallasey. Pool. '.l' hat
Purchase alone was to the amount 0f1130,000, with a view to
Its appropriation to commercial purposes; and in addition to
that, the itnineuse sum which the Corporation had paid.for the
opening awl widening of streets, and for the general improve-.
znent of the toivin would account fir the increase. Front Oc-
there 1825, to October, 183), being a period of seven years, the
orporatiou had expended in the improvement of the town no
less than £412,750 9s. (churches. not -included.) This was an
average of £63,253 Is. 3d. a year for seven },ears. This was the
gross amount.' The Corporation had found the money, though
they had received pert of it back, from -the sales of land and
,ahe sale of old materials, &c, The expenditure of the Cor-
Poration, for opening and widening streets, from 1786, when
tee first Improvement Act was obtained, to 1832; amounted
to £315891 ls. lld. This had all been expended under the
authority or Acts of Parliament. He would mention that
'l4 Lord-street, which cost £159,915, the Corporation had no
r°Perty whatever. It was all a free gift by the- Corporation to
cfi`-Public- The same was the case with jaines's-street, which
---j4 £33,339. Mr. Case read over the particulars of the abov e
6461. Shea-mg. how much was expended for each street.
d Mr. Case then.gaVe a number of particulars as to the bond
ebit'- The security given was common money bonds, and there
i'as great wish to invest money uon skin security. The bond-
Solders were erson s lying all overt
odom and when mo-
,rtleeye was to be borrowed, notice was given in the newspapers
ge.neral rate of interest was 41 per cent.
Mr. Duncan wished to know the particular amounts lent at
LP
per cent. 41 per cent., and 5 per cent.—Mr. Case undertook.
prodece thishy to-morrow.
ir- Duncan wished-to know the names of the lenders, par-
ticularly
if these lenders were members of the Common Council.
Mr. Case said he declined to furnish the names without the
authority of the Council.
_ Mr. Duncan then wished to know the total amount lent by
members of the Common Council, without specifying
of the individual lenders. the names
Mr. Case also objected to give this statement ;• but be.
:said
that the members of the Council by no means held the majority
of the amount.
Mr. Duncan said that this was not to be expected, as there
Welre only 41 of theta,
pu reply to inquiries respecting the Corporation Leases, Mr. '
eter stated that about 1670, the Corporation became possessed
threthe town of Liverpool by a purchase from the ancestors of
b present Earl of Sefton. They began to set out the land for
uilding, and at first granted leases fur lives. Previous to that
period there had been frequent disputes between the Corporation.
Otl the Molyneux family about the proprietorship of the town,
whicheasefutvrere all terminated at thateriod, by the granting of a
1000 years by Lord Molvneux. From that period may
t> traced the increase of buildings and of the town itself, to the
present day nand about the begUiling of the last century are
10tisteld. in the Corporation books the first entries of the granting
Li aiseases, Souse difficulty existed as to the mode of granting
S for lives, for about the year 1712 an order was made for
aidinglive, the term of twenty-one years to the term of three
.._ . in every lease; every person who might take the same
to a reasonable tine, and that public notice be giversa
o It the tenants. From that time downwards till 1823
'Zr 1821, the practice of granting leases for lives and years
C_ou a fine was continued, and in 182-3 or 1821, the Common
enincil changed their plan, and granted leases for 75 years,
tea is the present practice. printed
terms upon which these
ses are granted are stated in a printed paper duced,)
which wasomblished and sold in the town -at the, time of the
ephane3e. 'ovenants for the prevention of nuisances, for the
res
rvation of certain regularity in the plans, against crowd-
ing_ courts of small houses, and limiting the heights of buildings,
ye inserted in these leases, varying, of course, according to
the situation of the property, and the plans of the town. Ile
Corporation refuse to
rant leases in cases where the property
'euvt.auted for the public improvements mentioned in the differ-
t, acts of Parliament. I3ut otherwise they are renewed;
er parties wish it. The' Finance Committee. have the chareeT
rt
us 4utY• The Corporation acted upon tables calculated by
di °"gan, the actuary of the Equitable office, when they
etgrant leases for lives or years. Parties may. insist on hav-
,rog their leases renewed on this plan, but it is very seldom
eheru:,--IMr. Foster then read the term of elieleases granted by
e, k;orporation, which contain a clause prohibiting the letting
it'yscellar or vault for the purpose of.being used as a dvielling-
uu or permitting the same to be inhabited.]
the jr)bo Alt f en, a lee burgess here asked Mr. Foster whether
burgesses consisted of a 'limited or unlimited number of
persons ?
tir• Foster replied, that thenumber was unlimited.
lan reply to a question by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Foster said that
are almost universally . offered .by.public auction, and if
. a"°t thenf sold, they are disposed of by private bargain. Houses
- that
tvequeutly sold by auction; but it is very seldom indeed
Public aruectairoen any offers for unoccupied lands, when put up to
in re
sta,on P 1 Y to a question by the commissioners, Mr. Foster
eees that the Town Dues last year (1832) amounted in the
to £37,837 18s. sth. The parties generally made a deposit
tteitlver the amount, and the difference was returned. The nett
and 111,11 t was £25,175 15s. 6d. It was a rate paid upon goods
noleirchandise imported and exported. It is collected by
_eu •r.ie, the receiver according to a table of rates, of which
c.„PY was produced.
dearetbrive,olumis. sioner Wilkinson.—Do these rates vary consi-
.
r:po
ster.—l ant not prepared to say,
get commissioner Wilkinson.—Thie- information we shall
mr.oll,the merchants.
0•
ses't,sttheer resumed.—There was a trial at law in Feb-
run aerytila
Corporation of Liverpool v. Bolton -and others,
nopor. Auence of their refusal to pay the town dues on .goods
'l'ilute'er_dba,",cl exported by them. The trial took place in West-
jur onr
merchants
he ore Lord Chief Justice Denman and a special
, rat neieerhants, and a verdict was found for the Corpo-
• eepna eis no printed report of the trial. A bill of ex-
' ), se.nie%t?
_be.ll'eved, was tendred immediately after the trial
done itiode for Mr. Bolton, but nothing farther has been
!ere
the present
time. There.had been litigation before.
ttilee:,`,lese be present one LVAS an a• 'o tried to ascertain
ebout.igron claimed by the citizens of action
generally
- exeinen .. It was tried at bar. The result was to limit the
do-• A on to such citizens of London as were resident in Lon-
ceuldThere were former_ cases,. the particulars of which he
. not metal
'",.anl'in ort ofllLfill'oni memory. Runcorn was proved to be
Liverpool on this tr
• -r Fr)°,lis whereve • I ard dues are claimed
.t.;tveriu. ended, if landed within the limits-Of the port
blr. La 1""),,'•
e, Solicitor to the Rate-pae,•"eri, said the action bad