The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-11 00:00:00

A li UN DE L.

Mr. Holmes.--1 belong to the corporation of Arundel; it
consists of 12 burgesses and a mayor. I have been mat or se-
veral times. lam well acquainted with the documents Geionw
ing to the corporation. I recollect Mr. Maule, the commis-
sioner, coming down to Arundel. The corporation drew up a
protest, which was presented to him, alleging that the commis-
sion was illegal, but nevertheless expressing their willingness
to produce their documents out of respect to his majesty. The
conlinissioners communicated to the corporation oiny two
grounds of complaint, stated to be brought by the inhabitants
against them, but they never gave the colporation au opportu-
tiny of rebutting these charges. One of these charges was, that
u man had never been summoned to serve un-the jury. Now
this man was a gaiter-maker, in very humbie circumstances,
who had no man ut:der hint, and by an award of the judges in
former times, by a by-law (Attie corporation, and by an ;maid
under an act of Elizabeth, which limited the jury to principiCs
only, he was not eligible. This I told to the commissioner, and
requested him to go with me and see the man, but he declined,
saying his chaise was at the door, and he had no time. The
second ground of complaint was, that there was a statement
'that the corporation lands stele let at an undue value. 'their
valuejt was said, was £4 an acre. I told him we had four
valuations, and that the highest was 5l s. an actes bat was a
valuation made by the commissioners of tuxes. The lands
were not let at that sum. Since then two leases have expired.
We advertised to let the lands by auction, and they were so let.
The commissioner was fuinishca with explanations. but lie did
ncit notice. them in the report. I think Myself unfair v treated
in the report. In tae report it was• said that a dissenter had
been invited to clinic into the corporation two days betnie; but
he declined. 1 toid the commissioner that the cheuinstance
had happened, nut two days before, but two years before.' 'lbis'
is. a mistatement. There P piece of land belonging to the
corporation of which the corporation has the niabagenient
,This land iscalled the "Burgesses' Brooks." The tepieseir-'.
Winn in the•reptirt is unfair. '!'here is nu deficiency iu .the
performance of their duty on the part of the magistrates. 'I he
county magistrates have always a coacurteut jurisdiction.
.There is no borough-tare in Al nude!.
By. Lord 11 MD on.—The commissioner promised me to corn-
, inunicate to theiphahisains of 'the' to. n' all that we had com-
municated to him. Theie wasp dispnte -about the right we,
chili-fled. •e*Ling • burgesses., was -a .tm.4ltll,eia b itb
etas u judgment of 'a court of law op that very question...lbis'
1 produced to the .commissiOner, and asked him not to cominu;
nicale it to the inhabitants until they hail made-the:4i charge.
He said he should let. them know it in Order to save titre yutl
'never)! unnecessary allegations...On the subject of the-bur-
gesses' brooks, I consider myself ill4feated in the report.
Lord BaouGii A si.—Why, the conclusion of the committee is
in favour of the corporation on this very subject.
Witncss.—l think we ware lU-treated, because the commis-