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

THE LIVERPOO4 STANDARD,

The annual accounts are furnished to the rate-payers free of
any charge. Put in a printed copy of the general account.
The Town-clerk said he thought this would be a convenient
time to produce some papers relative to the clauses of the bill
alluded to yesterday. 'These the Town-Clerk produced and put
in. They went .•encrallv to show that the alterations made in the
bid subsequentlyb to its having been printed had been laid before
all the parties interested, and agreed to by them. Also a printed
copy of the bill, with the alterations reTerred to, in the hand-
writing of the law-stationer, which copy had been examined, at
the seine time, by Mi. Lace. Among the amended clauses was
the one referred to relative to the commissioners. The section
in the act is the sixteenth, and defines that the commissioners
appointed to inspect and audit the accounts, should exercise uti
authority whatever beyond the examination of the books and
accounts of the receiver to the Dock Estate.
After some remarks by the Town-clerk; showing that he
could not have been actuated by, any improper motive in the
part. he tuok fin the occasion of the passing of the act,
Mr.-Radcliffe said he would leave it to the sense of the court
to determine whether any reasons had been assigned by Mr.
Foster for the taking away of the. powers previously possessed
by the commissioners of going into a full inquiry or the mode
in which the Dock Estate funds were applied, as well as the
mere examination of account; nor was there any thing to show
why the power of the commissioners to appoint a solicitor or
agent to attend all assessments of property between the Corpo-
ration and the Dock Estate should have been abrogated. Arid
he contended, that not only were the passers produced by-the
Town-clerk of no value, as far as regarded evidence upon these
points, but that the clause in the act of 1825, by which those
powers were rescinded,-ought to have contained a recital of the
powers .previously exercised by the commissioners, and reasons
for their abrogation.
Mr. Comaissioner Wilkinson asked if there was any record
of the discussion in the joint committee relative to the 56th
clause of the act ? _
. .

The Town-clerk said that his recollection d1:1 not aid him suf-
&iently to answer the question put by the commissioners.; and
this could not be wondered at when it was remembered that the
bill contained 149 clauses. All that he had attempted to do in
the matter, and so far as it went he thiught he had succeeded
with the court, was to show, by reference to the meetings of
both parties at the time, that no clause had been introduced to
trammel the commissioners without their knowledge. And it
should be remembered that at the time in question he had no-
thing to do with the- Corporation. As to the clause itself no
thing could be stronger or less ambiguous, fur it declared that
the commissioners should have no other powers than those de-
fined.

.Mr. Hall begged permission to ascertain from the gentle-
men present who had been appointed a committee to procure
the passing of an act of Parliament fur remodelling the consti.
tution of the Dock Estate Trusts, and particularly of their
chairman, T. B. Barclay, Esq., whether the resolutions en-
tered into by that coomiiitee on the 24th of January last, by
which' it was deterthined that there should be no such' reduc-
tion of the dock dues as would affect the security of the bond,.
holders; were still maintained by that committee? lie wished,
to be informed on this subject thus publicly that himself •and
other bond holders might be assured there was no fear of -a 4e-
precjation of their property.
Mr.-Radcliffe, on the part of the chairman and committee,
stated that a meeting of the committee had been held 'that
morning, at which the resolutions of the 21th of January last,
referred to by Mr. Hall, had been fully confirmed. The com-
mittee would feel happy in attending to any suggestions which
the bond holders might be disposed to make.
Mr. 'l'. B. Barclay, as chairman of the committee, confirmed
the statement made by Mr. Radcliffe, as their solicit Or.

Mr. Hall then expressed his satisfaction at the assurances
given, and withdrew.
Mr. Win. Earle, jun., read an extract of the observations
made by Mr. Lawrence; respecting the appointment of the
Treasurer to the Dock Estate, and of the solicitor. lie dis-
avowed being actuated by any such motives in his vote for Mr.
Langton, as treasurer, as the observations of Mr. Law-
rence would seem to impute. If Mr. Langton had not,
in early life, been so fortunate as some if his friends,
no than could say a word against his integrity. He voted
for Mr. Langton, not because he was connected with him,
but because he believed him to be by far ilia most qualified
among the candidates. With respect to Mr. Bourne, the dock
solicitor, he, Mr. Earle, had certainly considered that the
teacher and the pupil being candidates for the office, it was
most consistant to vote for the former. (Applause.) •
Mr. Joseph Hornby said he was not aware of the observa-
tions made by Mr. Lawrence until informed of them by Mr.
Earle, jun. lie (Mr. H.) was the only relative Mr. Langton
had on the Dock Committee, and his only motive in voting for
him was because he thought Mr. Langton to be the most quali-
fied of all the candidates. He was sorry a gentleman in Mr.
Lawrence's situation had gone out of his way to asperse the
motives of those who had voted for Mr. Langton.
Mr. Alderman Lawrence said he wished to make an obser-
vation relative to the appointment of a treasurer to the Dock
Estate. The candidates were Mr. Withers, Mr. T. B. Brancker,
Mr. Turner, and Mr. Langton. He should be sorry. to say one
word which could by any possibility be considered disrespectful
to Mr. Langton, who was a most respectable gentleman. On
the occasion to which he alluded Mr. Langton had four votes,
namely, Mr. Earle, Mr. Leathom,•Mr. Hornby, and Mr. Ben-
son. l'ow it appeared that Mr. Langton happened to be the
uncle of Mr. hornby—Uncle by marriage of Earle—and Mr.
Leathom was the partner of Mr. Earle. He therefore thought
it was rather inconsistent that Mr. Leathom, Mr. Hornby, and
Mr. Benson should vote for Mr. Langton, when three of the
committee elected by the rate-payers had previously signed a
protest against the appointment of Mr: Cornelius Bourne, on ac •
count of his being related to a member of the Common Council.
Mr. Joseph li-ornby protested that there was no similarity
it: the cases of Mr. Langton and Mr. Bourne.
Mr. John Taylor.—lt is the opirion of the rate-payers of the
town of- Liverpool that the salaries of the officers on the Dock
Estate should_ be apportioned to the work, an% not be made
worthy the ambition cqf gentlemen of the town, and couAant
themes of contention.
Mr. Bourne, sen., addressed the court at some length on the
appointment of his son, whose education he described to be of
such a nature as must, with his subsequent instructions in the
law, have qualit!ed him for any such official situation. Ile
considered the objections to Cris son to have been made out of
personal hostility to himself, in consequence of the duties he
bad had to perform as chairman of the town dues committee.
Mr. Hornb/ disavowed, tiny knowledge of Mr. 800 rue havingbeen chairman of thaj committee.
Wm. Rathbonb said he believed the transactions of the
town dues committee were very little known in the town.
Mr. Case also disclaimed having been actuated by any im-
proper motives in the vote he had given at the election of the
treasurer to the Dock Estate. . . .

Mr: Robert Gladstone was then sworn.—Previous to giving
his evidence he begged to assure the ccurt that •he was not ac-
tuated by any feeling of hostility against the Common Council.
He differed in opinion with them relative to the constitution of-
the "sa,ela,Cotonsitta-oshlsh he always thought should have a
majority or rate-payers among its inerray,e-s. - it.: '..-a., of
the Dock Committee for a period of five years.
A discussion here arose as to the putting in of a paper con-
taining a list. of queries to Mr. Huskisson, in the hand-writing
of Mr. Gladstone, into whose hands it had been put by the
Town Clerk previous to the examination.
The Town Clerk said he would not object to its being used
in evidence. but he objected to is be:ng. put in as part of his
case. He had casually fOued it among other papers, and, as a
mark .of personal courtesy, seeing it was in the hand-writing of
Mr. Gladstone, had handed it over to hon.
The examination of Mr. Gladstone was then resumed. Ile
had been severally chairman to the Ship-owners' Association,
to the East India Association, and to the Underwriters' Asso-
ciation. He had served as one of the commissioners in 1823,
and as one of the committee of rate-payeis in 1825, under the 6
Geo. IV. He served three years on that occasion, and retired
in consequence of the ill state of his health, which was increased
by the-excitation arising from the duties he• had to perform.
linew of the report made by the audit commissioners ur 182.5.
Was from home when those commissioners were appointed. He
was at that time chairman of the Ship-owners Association.
Thinks the audit commissioners ought to have retained the ample
owers they possessed previous to the passing of the act in 18%.5.
There were differences ot,' opinion as to the extent of these pow-
ers. Remembers the application to Parliament in 1825. At
that time the merchants 'made an eflOrt to obtain a more effi_
cient control over the Dock Estate, pursuant to a resolution
passed in 1824. They desired a specific authority, but could
not obtain it, and were obliged to submit to the wishes of the
Corporation, because the accommodation afforded since then by
the docks was so much wanted, .and because the funds of the
merchants -subscribed to prosecute their views were nearly ex_
pended,
Examined by Mr. Duncan.—Mr. Iluskisson was frequently
consulted. He answered certain queries. He recommended,
verbally, that the rate-payers should concede the point in dis-
pute, as they would have a sufficient number of their body in
the committee to ensure the publicity of the accounts, and that
if the system were not found to work well, they ought apply
for an extension. Does not distinct:y recollect any com-
promise between the Common Council and the dock rate-
paycis • •- •, but there' had been several differences between the two
parties. There was a difference about appointing a chairman
and deputy-chairman of the Dock Committee. It was wished by
the rate-payers that. the committee should- appoint both, but ft
was ultimately agreed that the Common Council should electa
chairman of the committee, and .the committee were to elect
their deputy-chairman. It was the decided wish of the commit-.
tee to elect their own chairman; and it was the opinion of Mr.
Huskisson that they should do so. Is not aware that the Coen..
cil had any desire to appoint both. The Council insisted upon
appointing the chairman, and the merchants, as a condition,
conceded -to them. The deputy-chairman was. not taken from
the -eight rate-payers at. the committee : he was a Councilman:.,
Ou the appointment of a deputy-chairman there was xiiiri ion on
the question in the committee. Mr. Thus. Fletcher, one of the
rate-payers, was proposed along with Mr. Lawrence; but the
latter received the appointment. The two candidates were
supported, by their respective parties. There were frequent
collisions between the rate-payers elected to the committee
and those from the Council.. In consequence of those repeated
collisions and discussions, coupled with witness's bad state of
health, he withdrew from the committee. Ou several occasions
the members-of the Common Council voted with the eight rate=
payers; but their majority had defeated, and were capable of
defeating, the views of the merchants and rate-payers. In the
discussions which arose in the committees, it ought be seen
what the result of a division would most likely be. Witness
on one occasion had to propose a measure to the committee;
bat, perceiving the feeling of the Common Council members
against it, he had relinquished his intended motion. The com-
mitteemen appointed by the rate-pavers
generally acted in
concert, and those from the Common Council
pursued a similar
cruise. The motion alluded to was On the subject of petition-
ing the Common Council to pay a portion of the expense of the
improvements in \v est Strand, but the eight of the rate-paying
committee perceiving there was no chance, the motion was
withdrawn.

Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, referred to the 13th section of the
act of 29, Geo. 111., authorising the improvements in Salthouse
Dock, Bridge-street, and other places on the Dock Estate, and.
nominating the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Common Council to ►nake
purchases ofproperty from the owners for such purposes, which,
after reading, he stated that it appeared quite clear that the,
Dock Estate had to pay the expenses of the ►mprovements, but
at the same time the members of the Dock Committee consider-
ed, that as. the town was improved by the alterations, the Cor-
poration should pay some portion of the expense; and it was,
►ntended to memor►alize the Common Council from the Dock
Committee to that effect; but the eight rate payers of that Com-
mittee seeing the rest of the Committee against the intended
►►►emorial, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Gladstone continued.—lt was not pretended that there
was alegal claim upon the Corporation to contribute to the ex-
pence of the imp►ovement, although the first act of Parliament,
through a mistake, led several persons to consider so, who were
afterwards satisfied that a mistake had been made; but the pe-
tition was to he founded on the grounds of the town being ins.:
proved by the alterations.
The Town•cierk explained to the commissioners that there
was originally a dispute as to whether the Corporation were
liable to a portion of the expense of the alterations in con-
sequence of the vague wording of the act of Parliament.

Mr. R. Gladstone had made a motion for the
_admission of a
reporter, but it was lost, there h:?in!r an even number for and
against ; by the custom of the office the motion was considered
as lost.; Mr. Case afterwards made a similar motion, which k‘is
carried, but afterwards annulled .by the Common Council at

their next meeting: The questim was again brought before
the Deck Committee, and a motion made, tact the Wancil be
'requested to re-consider their decision, but it was lost.
Sir George Drinkwater.—" It showed on the part of the Duck
Committee a return to good sense."
Mr. R. Gladstone.—To the beSt of kis recollection, those who
had voted for the admission of a reporter were all large contri-
butors to the Dock Estate, whilst of those who opposed it, five
paid no dock dues.
Some altercation here took place as to.whether Sir George
Drinkwater, (who is out of business) could be cousidereda rate-

payer.
Mr. B. Gladstone resumed.—The present memhers.of the
Dock Committee were all extensively engaged in business and
!oust contribute largely to the dock funds, with the exception of
Sir Gorge Drinkwater, Mr. J. Bourne, Mr. Ripley, aud Mr.
'right. No member of the Common Council was exempted.
from payment of dues. There were few discussions on the pur-
chase of laud, it being left to a jury, subject to a sub-committee.
He could not recollect the subjects that produced discussion—
he was anxious to postpone the purchase of land to the west-
ward of Strand-street, • but he must confess that, had they been
postponed, there would have been a loss in the purchase. - A
discussion, also, took place relative to land at Queen's-dock.
A proposal had been made by the deputies of the Common
Council to do away with the Audit Committee altogether.
Several munbersof the Common Council were members of the
Sub-committee for the purchase of lands.
The court adjourned at half-past four, until ten in the
morning.