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

then taken away from them. The next charter was the Ist of
Henry I V., dated 1400. which continued the charter of Edw. 111.,
but taking no notice of Richard H.'s charter. The next charter
was the 2,1 of Phillip and Mary, dated 1656, when a record of the
proceedings of the Corporation commenced. That charter recited
Richard 11. in full, and confirmed it, excepting the clause before
alluded to. He should have occasion to refer to various extracts
in the Corporation books, relative to the charters of Philip and
Mary, from which they (the commissioners) would see that
the Corporation had lost sight of the clause which was so taken
away, and they, notwithstanding, continued at that period to
prevent persons from trading in the town • for it appeared by
documents; that one man was charged £4O for selling a quan-
tity of iron; and even persons could not come to the town with
a herring vessel without paying the dues, nor brew his ale with-
out Paying a similar tax. These were the particulars in the
charters which Mr. Foster had stated would be more amusing
than interestiug; but he (Mr. Lowe) thought they were more
interesting than amusing, as they showed the root of the dues
of which they complained. In noue of the charters which had
been produced was it shown that there were directions for the
formation of a Common Council. Thus matters stood until
1626, between which tune and Philip and Mary's charter the
burgesses exercised, in Common Hall, the control over those
matters which the Common Council, for many years past, had
had the exclusive privilege of doing. The Common Hall ap-
pointed officers, audited accounts, made bye laws, and, in tact,
did everything relating to the affairs of the borough, which the
Common Council had of late years assumed to themselves the
exclusive privilege of doing.
The Town-cleik here rose, and begged to state that he was
instructed by the Commou Council to furnish the commis-
, siouers with every possible information respecting the existing
state of the Liverpool Corporation; but if they proceeded any
further in the day's inquiry, he wished to ask Mr. Lowe if he
was not the solicitor employed by Messrs. Bolton, Ogden, and
Co. to try their right of exemption to the town dues.
Mr. Lowe.--I am; but Ido not appear here as their attorney.
The .Town-clerk.—Is the trial determined ?
Mr. Lowe.--It is not.
The Town-clerk then addressed the commissioners, stating
that he had to inform them that be had instructions from the
Common Council to refrain from going into an exposure of
their affairs on the subject of the town dues, and he did,*on be-
half of that body, protest against any further proceedings in the
inquiry relative to the title of the Corporation to the receipt of
the town dues; and with every respect which he entertained
for the functions of the commission under which the commis-
sioners sat, he begged to inform them that he should decline
making any answer whatever to any. statements Mr. Lowe
might think proper to make on a-subject which was at that
moment under judicial investigation, nor shiretd-tie, iu the'ais-
charge of the daty imposed upon him, produce one document, of
any entry in the books of the Corporatiou, which applied to the
question of right to the town dues. He held in his hand the printed
list with which the commissioners had furnished him, wherein the
documents which they required were specified, all ot which he
had procured, and he had produced before them the charters,
the titles, and a copy of the governing charter, with the dates
of all the charters of the Corporation, together with other iu-
formation appertaining to the Corporation, which they had
required. He hoped they would receive the protest against
entering upon a subject now under judicial investigation from
him, as only discharging his duty; and he trusted they would
receive it in that way. He should take no part whatever iu the
proceedings; but if he did remain in court, it would merely be
out. of respect to them, (the comuaissioners,) or like any other
spectator.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said that, so far as Mr.. Foster
had been concerned in furnishiug information, his demeanour
towards them had been perfectly gentlemanly and respectful;
and by his objecting to produce the books and documents rela-
tive to the toe-n
-dues, they supposed he was acting under in-
structions, and in the discharge of his duty as an attorney.
The Town-clerk, as a concluding remark, begged to say that,
on the trial of the town-dues'- question between the Corpora.
tion and Bolton, Ogden, and Co., the counsel for that firm did
not call a single witness, nor produce a single document, in
reply to the case of the Corporation.
Mr. Lowe repeated what he had before stated, that he was the
solicitor of Mr. Bolton, but he did not appear before the com-
missioners in that capacity nor as the attorney of any person,
nor did he expect to be paid by any one ; ha came forward to
be examinee, which he thought he was right in doing, not-
withstanding the protest of the Town-clerk. - ile-thought that
the Government should know how the matters of the Corpora-
tion were managed in Liverpool; Quo if it could be shown that
the Corporation had no title to the town-dues, they were not
entitled to receive them. He could not help Mr. Foster's refu •
sal to allow extracts to be made from the books of the Corpora-
tion, and he, would endeavour b furnish, without them, as much
information as he could.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson rernarked, that as the Corpo-
ration books were withheld from them, he should be happy to
receive information from Mr. Lowe le the absence ot those i
books.

Mr. Lowe Said, the Corporation books would show that, et a
Common Hell, the burgesses had thought proper to depute a
body, sometimes consisting of twelve, and .:other times con-
sisting of sixteen' and ASventv-five, or larger numbers, to
act for the burgesses at large; aud. that, in liaison's mayor-.
alty, fifty-sit persons were deputed by the liiirgeeseS in Com-
mon Ilalt to act in various matters connected with their rights.
Th'e charter of Charles I. was the first charter of incorpo-
ration, and. gave the title of the Mayor, Bailiffs, and But-
gesses of the town of Liverpool. The Town-clerk bad read
a part -of the charter of King William, and he (Mr. Lowe) a
portion of that 'of Charles I. After -iee.orporating the town hy
the above title, it gave power to the May or and iitiroexees in
common hall, to make from time to time all reasonable laws
which should seam to the May holiest and discreet for the,
good governthent of the town, so as they were not an infringe-
ment of the rights and Laws of the kingdom. In that charter of
Charles I. no mention was made of the Common Council. In
a trial with Mr. Golightly, in 1626, on the subject of the bye
laws, • the judges seemed - inclihed to misconstrue the meaning
of the charter, and read it the Mayor, Burggases, and .Colonli2U
Council, but there were no words alluding to the Common Coun-
cil. In 1627, a year after the charter of Charles, the burgesses met
in common-hall as there was an entry to that effect in the Cor-
poration books, and they, by a bye law, appointed fifty-six per-
sons to he a . Common council, with power to superintend and
direct all the corporate affairs, which had before been vested
in the whole body. It appeared by the Common Council batiks,
that these gentlemen, so appointed, awl their successors, conti-
nued to exercise all those matters which had been expressly given
in the charter of Charles I. to all the burgesses in hall assembled.
In 1676, in the reign of. Charles IL, it appeared desirable that
the duties of the Cords-non Council should- be recognized by
charter, and-the only privileges which thehurgesses then posses-
sed, namely; those ot electiug Mayorand bail MS, should be taken
away from them, and, accordingly, Charles 11., by a charter, da-
ted 1776, appointed sixty persous to be a Common Council, with
power to thirty of that number, exclusive of the Mayor aud baildls„
to elect the Mayor awl bailiffs, and to create freemen, t bus con-
centrating the whole corporate power in the Common Council,
snaking a self-elected body, which they had continued to he up
to the present day,
only in SU3aller plumbers. The charter of
Charles IL did not apply to that of Charles 1., and in 1681.
Judge Jeffries required that that charter should tie delivered up
for the use of his Majesty', and it "s es". ho the same
geutleinios who procured the second charter applied Jaiues
IL for a charter upon the model of the second one, but extend-
ing the number of Connonn Councilmen t 0.61, exclusive of the
Mayor and bailiffs, and the only difference between the two
charters was that the King took to himself the power of remov-
ing all obnoxious officers. James ll.'s charter recited a sur-
render by the burgesses of all their privileges, and it directed
that all vacanciei by death or removal Should be filled up
by such persons as were thought fit, and in such man-
ner as had been the previous custom, which was similar
in its wording to King William's charter. King James
did exercise Um power of the removal of obnoxious ofii-
cers, and immediately on his abdicatiOn the Corporation
disavowed his charter, and obtained an exemplification of the
charter of Charles the 11. This was in Itß3, lino matters
stood in this way until 1695, when the burgesses who had been
excluded by Charles Il.'s
charter, applied to King William to
annul the charter of Charles 11., and the charter was obtained
under Which the Corporation now acted. The chat ter of William.
after reeiting the charter of Charles 1. stated that it appeared
by a combination or burgesses they had procured a Clew charter
of Charles li., which had caused many doubts on the question
of the town government, and this charter went. on to say, that
there should lie a Common Council of 41 members; but the
charter of William geve
no power to the Common Council to
snake bye laws, although. it gave them the power of electing
Bailiffs and other minor officers. It did not contain a clause
that the Mayor, Bailiffs, and burgesses or any 25 of them, should
in Comnien Commit trausact all those matters of the Corpo-
ration in a similar manner to the 41 alluded to. - There was a
further clause that, if it should happen that the Recorder or
Mayor should die, or either refuse to stand,. other fit persons
should, be elected in like manner as before the charter of
Charles 11, It then became a matter of inquiry as to what were
the usages:prior to the charter of Charles 11. This charter
was obtained after the then members of the Con-noon Council
had resisted its being obtained, and the cost of the resistance
was to be at the town's charge. From 1695 to the present
period, with only two exceptions, there been no common
hall. One occasion was in the mayoralty of the Earl of Derby,
in 1735, at mud prior to which period there had been diseuesions
as to the tights of the Curporafion, and various bye laws were
made at that period. His lordship died the following year, and
_at his death his lordship's conduct and that of the Burgesses
was stigmatized as illegal, and contrary to the charter and
immemorial usage. Some doubts, howeviSr, were entertained
of what waeathe immemorial usage, and, on referriug to the
charter of King John,' it did not appear that the Corporation
possessed the privileges it was thought they did. The next
common hall was in the mayoralty of Mr. Sperling, which ap-
peared to have been called at the request of 1000 freemen, being
two-thirds of the freemen, as appeared by the Corporation books.
Mr. Sparliug, in calling the hall on this occasion, had taken
' the opinion of counsel on the: subject, and found that at the call
of so many freemen he was bound to convene a Common Bail.
At that hall' they abrogated all bye laws and appointments
made by the Common Council. Mr. Golightly, the then trea-
surer of the Corporation, had au action commenced against
him for the penalty of 40-s. for not making up his accounts in
the time directed be this Common Ball, which was tried by
Mr. Baron Thompson, and a verdict was given for the bur-
gesses; the trial was subsequently removed to London, and
twice sent down again to Lancaster, and ultimately dropped
through want of money by the plaintiffs. From li9l
to. the present period there had been no Mayor or bai-
liff who had called a Common Hall, although repeated ap-
plications had been made at different times .to cull one.
Mr. Lowe then cited several other cases-• to show that
the power of governing the borough was vested in the Mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses at large, and then referred to the subject
of the right of exacting the town-dues, and said; that the free-
dom of the borough, tito 1720, was to be procured by pur-
chase, at prices varying born 40s. to £5O, hut that now tio; free.:
dom was only obtained by mechanics and othera, by servitude,
&c., who had no interest in mercantile affairs. Ile also alluded
to the great sums of money paid in the shape of town-dues by
Messrs. Bolton and Co., and other extensive merchants, and
said, that those imposts would never be taken off whilst the
merchants were able to pay them, and by paving them they
were unable to compete with merchants who eisjoyed the free-
dom of the borough, in consequence of the capricious amounts
of the dues, and being taxed upon many of their imported arti-
cles to the amount often per cent., andthat the freedom of the
borough was not only a valuable boon, but a fortune to a mer-
chant, by exempting him from the dues. He hoped to be
able to show, that the dues were nothing but a Corporate usurpa-
tion, and that the title set up in London at the trial was the
mere invention of the late Town-clerk and his counsel, in 1831.
• He then referred to the opinion of Mr. Henry Brown, the
late law-clerk of the Corporation, in support of his opinion,
and proceeded to go through the whole of the documents
in_ support of his view of the case, as produced at the trial
in London,. which were very voluminous and uninteresting.
He also stated, that by purchase of freedom in London, and
residing there, a merchant was free from dues, but at the
same time he was liable to serve the office of sheriff, and one
Liverpool gentleman, who had a residence in both places, had
served the office of sheriff ; and another had paid the penalty
of £5OO for not serving. It being now three o'clock, and the
large piles of papers heaped before Mr. Lowe not being half
gone through, the commissioner intimated a desire to adjourn
until the morning, when Mrs Lowe could proceed with hie
evidence.