The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-12-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

to the matter in question. The placing of Mr. Evans on
the Finance Committee was proposed by one of the re-
presentatives of the rate-payers, and all the representa-
tives of the rate-payers present concurred. If. therefore,
they were to be -guided by the opinions of the rate-payers
they bad acted correctly. He did not consider it an insult
to Mr. Evans, or to the rate pavers at all. Mr. Evans
had objected to the act recently obtained, the carrying out
of which was the work of the sub-committee, and it might
well he supposed that it would be disagreeable for him to
carry out a matter to which he was opposed. The fiance
committee, too, was almost annihilated, all the members
but Mr. Molyneux having retired, and he thought it desi-
rable to place an old member of the committee upon that
sub-committee, along with the new members. The finance
committee was an important one, and as Mr. Evans had
on every occasion taken an active part in financial mat-
ters, he thought he would be a very valuable man. He
did not consider the committee of works more executive
than any other. Finally, he considered the committee
quite justified in coming to the conclusion in which they
had acted.
Mr. BOLD said Mr. Evans had taken so active a part in
council and in London in opposing the measure alluded
to, that he did not consider he was a proper person to
carry out the construction of the works. He referred to
the Parliamentary Sub-committee.
Mr. EVANS said he was nor present when it was read,
and he never thought it worth while to notice it after-
wards.

Mr. TOBIN said he had opposed Mr. Evans because he
had used his strongest exertions to prevent the extension
of docks.
Mr. AIKIN said the same argument that applied to Mr.
Evans applied to himself; but he was satisfied that the
various committees would not have been proposed as they
had been unless previously sanctioned by a number of
those who took the leading management in the affairs of
that board. Great importance was attached to thia fact
,hat, because Mr. Bold, as one of the candidates of the
rate-payers, was the mover, therefore it sprang from Mr.
Bold and the rate-payers, and not from those holding in-
terests there. He, (Mr. A.) however, knew too much of
the real working of party business to suppose that this
was a candid or sincere view of the matter. Mr. Mann,
forinstance, who had only attended once or twice, would
never have mentioned the names fur a committee if he had
not been authorized to do so. He and Mr. Evans were
not opposed to dock extension ; what they were opposed to
was being hurried into an expenditure in a million
and a half to two millions , f money, wh peered to
them that a dock could be ohtai ed in N, y Pool for
.C 5,000 which would take off the surplus from the docks
of Liverpool. accommodate the lying-up ships, and give a
space equal to the largest dock in Liverpool. besides pro-
viding a place for thee deposit of timber eir her on the land •
or water. They believed and hoped that if they could have
had a little more time, they would have been enabled to
do that which would have prevented the opposition anti-
cipated from the docks on the other side of the water. He
would not say whether the removal of Mr. Evans front the
sub-committee of Werks was intended as an insult to Mr.
Evans or not, but he thought it was something like an in.
stilt to the community which so recently voted him back
there—not because of any political party feel,ng. but be-
cause they knew his efficiency in carrying out the works
and advocating warehouses round the docks. Knowing
his efficiency, it was wrong in the committee to lesson i 4-..
Mr. TOBIN considered that no insult had been intended
to the rate-payers. They were sent there without any
pledge whatever. For his own part he had voted accord•
ing to his conscience. Mr. Evans was not a proper man
to go on the committee.

Mr. MANN said he had certainly been requested to
move the committee, but that was after he came into the

room.

Mr. EVANS, in reply, stated that when the Board of
Works came with a report, their influence was generally
so irresistible, that any one who heard it had seldom or
ever any chance of 1),o-hieing an alteration. Thus the
Committee ot Works was in reality the organ of the ge-
neral committee. Mr. Aikin and he had suggested great
alterations and improvements in the plans adopted for the
docks. There was evidence both of their ability and their
will to do their duty. As to what he intgnt have said
about the rate-payers eight or nine years ago, and, no
doubt, sedulously repeated by his political enernitts,
who were legion, still, in d fiance of this alleged
they had overlooked it all, for he suppoied they had di,
covered sonic little merit in him to re-elect him. Those
who proposed him on the committee to which he was ap.
pointed, had. no doubt whatever, received their orders.
With respect to his being placed on the Finance Commit-
tee as being an old member, if that were mentioned out of
s!o ors it aonld be laughed at. He knew tot where an old
member ought to he, it it were not on the first committee
of the docks. He (Mr. E.) was the oldest member of the
sub-committee and the oldest member of the dock nom-
mittee, except Mr. Tobin, and,therefore, he should think,
it he, like old wine, was of any value whatever, he ought
to have bet.n made use.of, where he could have been of
the greatest service. To put him on a committee which
had absolutely no duties; for they just opened tenders,
which were mentioned there, and then accepted or not;
to put him on that committee was, as he said before, an
aggravation of the insult offered to the rate-payers and
the merchants of Liverpool. After alluding to the un-
biassed manner in which he had been elected, he said that
those who continued to insinuate that he would betray the
carrying out of what had become law. insinuated what was
false. He would tell any one gentleman of that commit-
tee who chose to take it to himself, that he (Mr. Evans)
would hold himself personally responsible for any rawer k
b,..,,cnight make. He considered it a daring outrage of
prides and one be could not permit without giving it
the " lie" at once. (Confusion.)
The CHAIRMAN called the speaker to order, noticing
the language used as exceedingly improper. The party
alluded to should he named, and no such language as that
applied to the committee generally, which was a gr-as in-
sult to the whole. He (Mr. E.) had insinuated that the
members of that committee had received orders to put
him off the Board of Works.

Mr. EVANS said "certain members of the committee."
The CHAIRMAN asked from whom?
Mr. HOLD said he had receiv-d no such orders.,
Mr. HENDERSON considered the whole committee in-
sulted
The CHAIRMAN remarked on the extreme imnropriety
of such insinuations cast upon the committee. For him-
self. he did not know the constitution of a single com-
mittee.

—.Mr. ToBIN said he should have been insulted if he had
been ordvred to vote for any committee.
Mr. Evans.—W,th respect to orders, so far as gentle-
men have declared that there was nothing of the sort, I am
bound to believe them.

Mr. MA ,N disclaimed obeying any orders.
Mr. EVANS said he had no objection to withdraw it.
The C HAIRMAN hoped he would withdraw the others too.
Mr. EVANS said he was bound to believe gentlemen
when they made an assertion, bu he saw no reason for
their complaining of receiving orders, because it was the
order of their party—another word for saying they yielded
to the influence and dictation of one another. As to the
opinion he had expressed with regard to any one who
would assert that he would knowingly act contrary to nis
duty, Ii could not treat it otherwise than he had done.
The CHAIRMAN said no such imputation had been cast
upon Mr. Evans, and his remarks were therefore un-
called for.
Some explanation followed, to the effect that no such
imputation was made, and Mr. EVANS then said he was
bound in honour to withdraw the expressions.
Mr. BOLD said Mr. Evans would not he deprived of the
power of making itnprovernents, because decisions were
come to in the whole committee, and not on the Board of
Werks.
Toe CHAIRMAN remarked that the improvements in
the plans were not entirely confined to Mr. Aikin and
Mr. Evans. Other alterations were made before they
sew them.
Mr. EVANS said be was not aware of it.
The CHAIRMAN.—However the thing is settled, and
the nublic will have the benefit of it.

Mr. EVANS.—There were suggestions for great altera-
tion.

Mr. ATKIN did not attach the slightest importance to
any sueges-ion he made; it only went to show that they
were by no means inim Pal to the interests i f the docks,
sod that that wsis a good rrason why Mr. Evans should
be on the Sub-Committee of Works.

The committee adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

COURT OF REQUESTS.-PARKER v. BROWN.

BILL.

The Commissioner of the Court of Requests having
adjourned the case from Friday until Tuesday, that he
niight (most:ter how he should decide uuon it, it was ac-
cordingly resuo,ed on Tuesday morui.•g. Both the
parties, a',d several of their friends, were present, but
the att ndance of others was very meagre.
The COMMISSIONER said, that before he gave judgment
he wished to put a question ur two.
The defendant. being sworn, said, in reply to questions
put, that the application for payment of the primissory
note was first made to his brother-in-law, James Brown-
bill, by Mr. Parker's clerk, ou the 2d Novemner. De-
fendant was not himself present, and his brother-in-law
was not now here. He was his brother-in-law, though of
the same name, as they were cousins, and had married
two sisters. He supposed Mr. Parker's collector had
called on his In other-io• law in mistake.
Mr. Wigge, the collector, being called, said, he had
called on the brother•in-law of defendant on Friday fort-
night. the 9th instant. He had mistaken the man, as
both were watchmakers, and both of the same name. He
did no, see the defendant about it until Saturday fortnight.
Mr. Parker, being sworn, sad he had mentioned the
amount to be due to his collector amongst other small
deb's, but he could not recollect the precise day. His
suspicion had been raised (as he before stated) by the
defendant drawing his attention to the post-mark of the
letter. But he would not have proceeded so hastily
against Film, hed he not been informed that a member of
the Reform Assoc:ation had declared that they would
spend £l,OOO sooner than not turn him out of the ward.
He certainly felt hurt at this, and therefore brought the
matter forward.

The COMMISSIONER then proceeded to give his deci-
sion with great slowness of utterance and at great length,
but we can but give the heads of his principal remarks.
He said that the court had undivided jurisdiction in chims
of £2, bat be: ween £2 and £5 it had a concurrent juris-
diction with the Borough Court, in which last the que-
tion could be investigated by a jury, and an appeal could
be had to the courts at Westminster. He remarked
on the evidenee of the two parties, and quoted several law
authorities as to what constituted bribery and cart uption
There were two modes in which the court might cone to
a conclusion. One was to nonsuit the plaintiff, w h ch
would not prevent him from proceeding in another court
if he thought that Bdv,sable; and another was to give judg-
ment to the defendant, in which case there would be no
appeal, and penalties might he proceeded for in the higher
courts. He had come to the conclusion that the case was

one of such suspicion that the plaintiff could not recover
the amount idthis court. He had, not, however, come to
the conclusion to g,ve judgment for the defendant, for
that would imply that there had in reality been a cor-
rupt transaction add a bribe, and a path could pro-
ceed for the penalties upon that jodgment as con-
clusive evidence. If he saw this to' be a clear
case of bribery, he should have no difficulty in
pronouncing his decision in that form, which would be
final; hut, under the circumstances, he would not pre-
judice the plaintiff by the selection of courts made by his
collector, a person whose coLduct in this court he bad
observed to be universally re-pectable. He should not
therefore give a conclusive judgment, because lie con-
sidered it no more than a ease of suspicion. The plaintiff
woWd, by the decision. he sli,ntld come to, have an oppor-
tunity 01 procec,ing against the defendant in another
court, from which an appeal might be had to the superior
courts if any penalty were invol, ed. He then decided
that the plaintiff should par the costs and be nonsuited.