The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

CO R R ESPONDENCE.

MR. COLVILLE AND THE OWNERS OF COT-
TAGE PROPERTY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

--- •
Sir,—Conceiving that a few remarks by way of animad-
version upon the principle and results of the measure
proposed fly the member for South Derbyshire would not
be opposed to the design of your este -med publication,
and also that it might Hot be unattended with benefit to
some. I venture to request as a favour space for the fol-
aeed, measure is the
for
fol-
lowing few lines in your next.
amra runttig "thesagacity e requiredraofc ertaitroi
discoverT rn
that indeed,
tenements" would be unjust and unconstitutional. A
measure that would inclose the owners of every descrip-
tion of house property would be uncoostitutional, inasmuch
as the poor rate is not a tax upon property but a rate upon
the person according to his ability to pay ; but a propo-al
to rate only one class of owners, to the exemption of all
others, is not, only unconstitutional but unjust, because
partial. Such a measure would establish an invidious
distinction between classes, and thereby furnish legitimate
grounds of complaint to many. Singular and far-fetched,
indeed, must be the argument by which a measure of this
character could be sustained : it is a crotchet which ho-
nest, plain-dealing men cannot comprehend. They natu-
rally inquire why it is that the established laws of assess-
ments should be in part subverted, or, if an alteration be
necessary, why it is tbat so large a portion of houseowners
should be exempted from the impost. It has, however,
been alleged that cottage landlords obtain a greater rate
of interest upon their capital than do the owners of larger
property; but whi acquainted with cottage property can
give credence to that assertion ? Does the capitalist be-
lieve it? If cottage property be so pre-eminently lucrative
why is it, 1 would ask, that he cannot be induced to em-
bark in the profitable trade? If the assertion be true,
upon what-principle can the sanity of the monied man be
maintained in this money-making age—an age in which
everything that is respectable and virtuous is associated
with cash?—but, granting the truth of the allegation, is
there between it and the rating of the cottage-owner only
the least sequence? Suppose it were not only alleged but
proved that the business of a pawnliroker was more pro-
fitable than many others I could name, would any one out
of bedlam suppose for a moment that the pawnbroker
should, therefore, bear a greater burden of taxation—or,
in other words, that he should be imposed upon merely
because he can afford ? Would such an apology have jus-
tified Mr. Richard Turpin—" True it is" (he might have
said) " I have plundered many, but only those who could
afford it." It is also stated that the rating of the owners,
instead of the occupiers, would reduce the rates generally;
but the reasonable deduction from this assertion, even
assuming that it is true, is, rate all owners indiscriminately!
But, peradventure it will be said that the rates are col-
lected from the occupiers of large pruperty, while they
cannot b e extracted from the tenants of cottages : this
reminds me of Paul and Onesimus, if the allusion be not '
considered profane. So, then, the owner of cottage pro-
perty is to be rated because the tenant cannot pay. The
landlord is to be converted into an honorary tax collectors
and to be responsible, not for the payment by the -tenant,
but for their due payment by himself. Now, if Mr. Col-
ville be a considerate man, I shall certainly expect to hear
of him through the papers ere long, astonishing the Com-
mons' House with a legislative motion to the following
effect :—M r, Speaker, Sir ! It is notorious that the income
tax is at and after the rate of sevenpence in the pound;
it is also known to this honourable house that this tax
does not affect incomes that are under £150; the conse-
quence to the public is, that the rate is sevenpence. Sir,
I have discovered that if all incomes, from the highest
down to that of the metropolitan postboy, were levied
upon, the tax would thereby be materially reduced. It
may, however, be objected that a tax upon the small in-
comes would be difficult to collect; but, Sir, that objec-
tion could easily be obviated. I would propose that the
employers be rated instead of the owners." This would
certainly be consistent, however ridiculous it might ap-
pear: it would be the legitimate application of the prin-
ciple involved in the " certain clauses," for the introduc-
tion of which into the government poor law bill Mr.
Colville, has already given notice. Political depravity,
like the first departure from moral rectitude, is a sloping
declivity along which men glide with ease, but stop or
return with difficulty. The first deviation from principle
is frequently the prelude to a long and uninterrupted ca-
reer of delinquencies : it is upon these grounds chiefly that
Mr. Colville's measure should be opposed by all. Legis-
lators would thereby learns salutary lesson upon political
consistency, alas I much disregarded these times.
Having, I trust laid bare the principle of Mr. Colville's
proposed measure, I shall In my next proceed to an en-
quiry into its effects upon cottage owners and cottage
builders, and upon building societies.
ILLANDATUS.
Liverpool, 27th April, 1844.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAN-
DARD, AND THE ORANGEMEN
OF LIVERPOOL.

SlR,—Will you have the goodness to insert, in your
widely-circulated journal of Tuesday next, a copy of the
original address trom the. Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Common Council of the city of London, to the Prince of
Orange, in November, 1688, which was presented by a
deputation of four aldermen and eight commoners, after
a meeting of the Lords spiritual rind temporal at Guild-
hall, who signed a declaration to assist his Highness to
obtain a free parliament to disarm papists, to secure all
jesuits and Romish priests, and to be ready to do all that
should be required of them on that occasion? Here is
the beginning of Orangeism, and an example for our
Protestant Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council. of
Liverpool ; and may the same sacred fire be kindled in
all their Protestant hearts, to maintain with unflinching
integrity the religion, laws, and liberties of Protestant
Britain!

KIRKDALE SESSIONS.

THE ST. HELENS COLLIERY RIOTS : EXTRAORDINARY

SCENE

On Saturday afternoon John Knowles, John Penketh,
John M'Donotigh, and Thomas Burroughs were arraign-
ed before the Rev. Reet ;r Brooks, at Kirkdale Sessions,
on a clian.e .having been concerned in the lat.- serious
c •lliery rioss at St. Helens. Tue prisoners pleaded " not
guilty." Mr. Hutton and Mr. James appeared on the
part of the prosecution, and Mr. Monek and Mr. Pollock
for the defence.
The case, which has appeared in detached portions
from time to time, may be briefly summed up as f 11 ,we;
—ln the neighbourhood of St. Helens there are several
collieries, the men employed at which, with the exception
of a few, turned out on a strike in January last, for an in-
crease of wages. The collieries were consequently almost
stopped, and had been so about a month when the coal-
roasters finding that the workmen were more obstinate
than was, at first expected, determined to procure work men
from other places, and accordingly, deputed four of their
body, who proceeded to Shropshire and succeeded in engag-
ing about seventy men, who were to be sent to St. Helens,
and, on their arrival there, deposited among the collieries in
its vicinity. The Shropshire colliers arrived at St. Helens
late on the evening of Monday, the 26th of February, and
were accommodated with a house in the New Market-
place, belonging to Mr. David Brownlow, one of the col-
liery proprietors, until they could be distributed and sent
to their work on the following morning. The turn-out
colliers had evinced their disapprobation of the proceed-
ings of their late masters in attempting to engage strangers
and fellow-workmen who hid not turned out ; and, on
Tuesday morning, the 27th of February, they assembled
at an early hour, in great numbers, in front of the house
where the Shropshire men were lodged. About 10 o'clock,
a party consisting of about 20 of the nes7 men. escorted by
Mr. Storey, the Superintendent of Police, and six con-
stables, and also by several of the coat proprieters,
started to go to the collieries belonging to Messrs. Bourne
and Robinson and Messrs. Johnson and Worthington, in
Parr; and, in passing through the street or place called
Smithy-brow, half of which is in Windle and the other
half in Parr, both in the parish of Preecot, they were as=
sailed by a mob, consisting principally of the turn-cuts,
who had followed them, and who succeeded in violendy
dragging away the strangers from the protection of the
police and colliery proprietors. At the same ti i.e the
police were driven back, and several of them received
injuries from the stones and other missiles hurled at them
by the mob. During the remainder of the day great ex-
citement prevailed throughout the town. The prisoners
Knowles, Penketh, and M'Donough were apprehended
immediately after the riot and committed .to take their
trial ; and warrants were obtained against several others
of the rioters. At a subsequent period of the day, while
Mr. Superintendent Storey was endeavouring to appre-
hend a turbulent fellow named Tuomas Leyland, in the
New Market-place. he was again assailed by a mob who
had gathered round the Town-hall, where the magistrates
were then sitting, and received a dangerous wound on the
head ; and eventually both the officers and himself were
obliged to release the prisoner and seek safety in flight.
The magistrates then determined to send for a detachment
of the military force stationed at Manchester, and de-
sna'ched an order to that purpose ; and about eight o'clock
the same evening a company of the infantry entered the
town, where they remained until within the last few
weeks. Several of the rioters had since been apprehended
and summarily committed under the combination act.
Mr. MONCK moved on an affidavit, made by Mr. Ro-
berts, the attorney in the case, resident at Newcastle-on-
Tyne, that it might be postponed until Tuesday morning.
In the affidavit, which ran considerably into detail, Mr.
Roberts swore that he was the attorney for ten prisoners
against whom a habeas corpus had been issued, and that
it was necessary for the ends of justice that he should be
in London, to give evidence in the Court of Queen's
Bench, on Monday. The learned counsel apprehended
that a more satisfactory affidavit could not have been sub-
mitted, because it must be clear that the trial in the pre-
sent instance could not be conducted with satisfaction to
the parties concerned if the gentleman immediately inte-
rested in preparing the defence was absent from the
court, as he must necessarily be on Monday. He assured
the bench that there was no wish on the part of the tra-
versers to seek unnecessary delay, inasmuch as they were
ready at that moment to go to trial.
The CHAIRMAN said it was impossible to proceed at
that late hour, (half-past three o'clock,) as the jury would
have to go to their homes for the night.
Mr. HULTON also admitted the impossibility of pro-
ceeding with a case, in which there were a large number
of witnesses, at that advanced period of the afternoon, but
contended, that it would he inconvenient to postpone it
until Tuesday. He stated, that, in the case of habeas
corpus, affidavits, and not evidence, were received by the
Court of Queen's Bench.

Mr. JAMES followed on the same side, and said that,
if Mr. Roberts had any material facts to communicate to
the Court of Queen's Bench, he could as well do so by
affidavit sent from Liverpool as by affidavit sworn in
London.

Mr. ROBERTS here rose, and, looking towards Mr.
Hulton, said : The man who states anything against my
veracity tells an untruth. He that questions the truth of
my affidavit imputes a falsehood to me.

Mr. ULTON.—I call on the court to protect me.
Mr. MONCIC was about to interfere, when

Mr. ROBERTS said, I have sworn that I am to give
evidence before the Court of Queen's Bench, and you
deny it. You have uttered, sir, what is false.

The CHAIRMAN (who h'ad been, up to this time, in
consultation with his brother magistrates,) here observed
that he had not heard what was said.

Mr. HULTON.-1 call upon the court to protect me
from the observations made by my friend's client. He
has charged me with uttering a falsehood.
Mr. ROBERTS.—I said that, in stating what you have,
you have uttered a falsehood.
The CHAIRMAN.—You must know enough of courts of
justice to be aware that, in opening your mouth here, you
have no right to do so at all. Certainly, disrespectful
language of any kind is not to be tolerated. If you are a
professional man, I hope you will see that you have done
wrong and that you ought to regret it. That's what you
ought to do.
Mr. HULTON : I stated that the affidavit was an extra-
ordinary one, and I referred to the practice of the Court
of Queen's Bench; and it was upon that that this gentle-
man chose to make use of language which I call upon the
court to protect me from.
Mr. ROBERTS : Will the court allow me to state how I
am circumstanced? You, Mr. H ult on should have called
upon me to explain before you imputed a falsehood to
me.

The CHAIRMAN : I think those remarks exceedingly
improper, and that you ought to make an apology to Mr.
Hutton for the language you have used.
The conversation here dropped. Mr. Roberts retained
his seat, and did not apologize.
The case was then fixed to come on at the sitting of the
court yestet day (Monday) morning, a report of which will
be found in our eighth page.