The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-11-11 00:00:00

sition fairly tested by the vote, because the result would
show what would become of Mr. Earle's groundless al-
legations against the wine, beer, and spirit trade.
Mr. EARLE rote to order : he had made no allegations.
Mr. PROCTOR contended that Mr. Earle did advance
some indefinite allegations when he wished gentlemen in
a particular trade to be kept off a certain committee.
He (Mr. Proctor) had not been on the Watch Committee
for two years ; but when he was a member of it he had never
exercised any undue influence. He bad no objection to
serve upon it again, but he should feel it a slur upon his
character if he were rejected on account of his trade.
He defied Mr. Earle to prove that he (Mr. Proctor) had
exercised undue influence during the three years he had
been upon that c.,mmit'ee.
Mr. HORSF ALL said there certainly was a good deal in
what Mr. Earle had said, but the proposition was novel,
and might be carried a little too far. He (Mr. Horsfall)
had been upon the Watch Committee last year, along
with some members of the wlne and spirit trade. One of
them was Mr. Preston, than whom there was not a more
valuable and independent member, and he (Mr. Horsfall)
should be exceedingly eorry, if, by the proposed standing
order, Mr. Preston were excluded. If this principle were
carried, what position would they be in with regard to the
Dock Committee ? Were not shipowners likely to be in-
fluenced? Every gentleman must have credit given to
him for sincerity of motive; and he (Mr. Horsfall) did
not see any reason why, if gentlemen were excluded from
the Watch Committee because they were in a particular
trade, they should not be excluded from the D ,ck Com-
mittee because they were shipowners.
Mr. Nicol. asked Mr. Earle whether he ought not to
carry his principle a little further? On the list of the
Watch Committee there was their worthy friend, the
chairman of the Finance Committee, (Mr. G. 11. Law-
rence,) who was a West India proprietor and merchant,
and who, no doubt, was also au io3porter of rum. He (Mr.
Nicol) was in the East India trade, and also imported rum :
he was not, however upon the Watch Committee, but he
should think if Mr. Earle meant his doctrine to apply to
all persons engaged in the sale of wines and spirits, it
must apply not only to West India proprietors who im-
ported rum, but to brokers too who sold it. (Hear,
hear.) Their friend Mr. Bushby would then be exclud-
ed. (Laughter.)
Mr. Earle had never heard such a question in his life ;
never l He was sure he did not think there were many
gentlemen who would have thought of putting such a
question. Did Mr. Bushby sell pints of rum to publi-

cans ?
Mr. NlcoL.—You did not limit it to pints. (Loud
laughter.)
Mr. EARLE.—Mr. Bushby sold to Mr. Preston and
other gentlemen ; but he (Mr. Earle) spoke of the impro-
priety of gentlemen in these particular trades, who owned
public houses and of publicans having the appointment of
the police force. Mr. Elorsfall's argument as to the docks
was not a parallel case, and, moreover, he (Mr. Earle)
had not touched upon it.
Mr. PROCTER.—AIIow me to say I own no public-

houses.
Mr. EARLE.—I did not say you did, sir. I dare say
you wish you did. (Laughter.)
Mr. GRIFFITHS : Perhaps Mr. Earle does himself, and
if so, he is not very eligible.
Mr. RATHBONE contended that the object of Mr.
Earle's motion was not merely to keep gentlemen from
doing wrong, but to keep the police force free even from
the suspicion of being influenced by those who were put
over them.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK said that his appointment upon the
Watch Committee was the act of the council. If the coun-
cil now took a different view, and said that no members of
these particular trades should be upon this committee, he
should concur ; but with regard to himself, and to the
other gentlemen in the same trades upon the committee,
he might use the strongest language of assurance that
none of them had at any time been influenced by those
motives and considerations which had been thought pos-
sible to affect them by Mr. Earle, and those who supported

his views.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE stated that the system of the
Watch Committee had, in late years, been materially al-
tered. When Mr. Rathbone and Mr. Earle were mem-
bers of it, the publicans were brought before the com-
mittee, by whom the cases were heard ; indeed the com-
mittee virtually decided the question. At that period,
therefore, it might: have been a question whether brew-
ers and spirit dealers were fit and proper persons to be
upon the committee. But the committee were then
wrong ; the law was against them ; and the system was
consequently discontinued. (Hear.) He did not see
now, how Mr. Earle could step in and set aside an act of
' parliament • besides, it would be wrong to condemn, en
masse, a large body of peop.e without cause. If there
were any persons who had used influence (which he be-
lieved they did not possess) let those persons be voted
against individually.
Mr. LACE had an impression favourable to Mr. Earle's
motion, because he conceived the practice was unaltered.
Mr. G. El. Lawrence, however, had stated the practice
was abandoned, and, under these circumstances, it would
be going rather too far to suppose that gentlemen in the
wine and spirit trade would, if appointed, influence the
constables in the force.
Mr. H. HORNET supported the motion on the ground
that it was the duty of the council to be exceedingly care-
ful that no suspicion of influence of any kind rested upon
the police.
Mr. TINNE said he had seen no instance of corruption
on the. Watch Board, as seemed to be imputed. If he
had he should have supported the motion, but as there
were no grounds for it, he should give it his opposition.
Mr. THORNHILL supported the motion as a matter of
principle, and because no harm would follow its adoption.
Mr. GRIFFITHS opposed the motion.
Mr. BIRKETT asked where this principle of Mr. Earle's,
if onca adopted, was to stop ? It would apply, with equal
force, to the Finance Committee. He supposed there was
no member of that committee but who was an owner of
, 1 real property ; they had to sit upon the property of the
; corporation, but once adopt this principle and they would
• be excluded, Some men might go even further than Mr.
Earle, and say that no man who ever got drunk should
be eligible for any committee. (Laughter.) He should
divide the council, upon this question, even if he stood

alone.
Mr. EARLE.—I will divide the council myself. You
need be under no apprehension about that. (A laugh.)
Mr. PARKER did not rise to oppose the motion of his
worthy colleague. (Loud laughter.) He wished it to be
carried out to the fullest extent; and be would mention
that great dissatisfaction prevailed in the town, from the
circumstance of Magistrates being upon the Watch Com-
mittee. He contended, however, that the motion was an
attack upon people in trade; it was made against them,
not because they were brewers or spirit dealers, but be-
cause it was thought the dignity of the council could not be
supported by tradesmen. And the object was to exclude
tradesmen from the council 'altogether; but the middle
classes; would ;speedily make the gentlemen, who talked
and acted in this spirit, know where the power rested.
Mr. Alderman TURNER bore testimony to the inde-
pendence which the gentlemen in the trades affected by
the motion had shown whilst serving upon the Watch
Committee. Ile had never seen gentlemen more anxious
to do their duty impartially.
Mr. MANN viewed the motion as an attack against in-
dividuals, and on that account he should oppose it.
Mr. RonaNsoN confirmed Mr. Parker's statement as
to the presence of magistrates upon the Watch Commit-
tee being considered a great grievance. Brewers and spi-
rit dealers were as eligible for the committee as any other
class ; and during the time he had been a member of it, he
had never seen anything improper on their part.
Sir T. BRANCKER remarked that if brewers or spirit
dealers were elected into the council they were eligible to
serve upon all committees.
Mr. EARLE replied, and the council divided, when there

appeared—
For the motion .
Against it

Majority against the motion .. 30
The following is a list of the members who voted :
For : Councillors Thornhill, Rathbone, Chalmer, Preston,
Evans, H. Hornby, Aikin, Higgins, Earle, J. Hornby,
Parker, Glazebrook, and T. Lloyd; and Alderman Law-
rence : 14.—Against : Councillors, Shand, Atherton, T.
Shaw, Hill, Littledale, jun., Middleton, Stewart, Tinne,
Henderson, Robinson, Toulmin, Aspinall, Royden, So-
thern, G. G. llornby, Wood, Birkett, Pemberton, Reade,
Kaye, Procter, Kilshaw, J. B. Lloyd, Plumpton, G. H.
Lawrence, Booker, Lace. Jones, Harbord, and Mann;
and Aldermen Houghton, Horafall, Sir T. Brancker,
Turner, Sands, Sxainson, Crook, Nicol, Bramley-Moore,
Molyneux, Leigh, Bushby, Chilton, and Lawrence : 44.
Mr. PARKER then moved that all magistrates be ex-
cluded from the Watch Committe ; but, after a brief dis-
cussion, the motion was withdrawn.
The next business on the paper was the appointment
ofr Committees.
On the motion of Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE the follow-
ing gentlemen were appointed the—
I' iNsa4cE COMMITTEE.—Sir Thomas Brancker, James
Aspinall. Wm. Birkett, H. B. B. Blundell, John Holmes,
G. G. Hornby, H. Hornby, :R. Houghton, jun.—J. S.
Leigh, Thomas Sands, Thomas Shaw, Heywood Turner,
John Stewart, (Vice C. Bushell,) James Lawrence, (Vice
D. Hodgson.) G. H. Lawrence.
Mr. HA.RBORD moved the following gentlemen consti-
tute the.—
WATCH CoMMITTEE.—Messrs. Jas. Lawrence, Glaze-
brook, Harbord, Henderson, Hill, G. G. Hornby, Booker,
Alderman Houghton, J. Pemberton, H. Hornby, Kilshaw,
G. H. Lawrence, Atherton, Parker, Littledale, William
Preston, Proctor, Southern, R. L. Jones, Thornhill, Tinne,
Turner, Evans, Earle, James Brancker.
Mr. HIGGINs objected to Mr. Harbord being a mem-
ber of this committee, on the ground that that gentle-
man was not only a member of an Orange Lodge but the
President of an Orange Society. He characterised the
Orange Society as an illegal body.
Mr. PARKER said they had certainly arrived at novel
days, and this proposition was quite new. (Hear.) The
gentleman had mistaken the law of the land. It had been
clearly shewn that Orange Lodges were benefit societies,
and that they were as_legal as any other lodges, therefore

the Illegality charged had no weight, because it was con-
trary to the fact. It had been clearly established that
Orange Lodges, as he had just said, were as legal as any
other lodges : and be appealed with confidence to the
Town Clerk, whether they were not as legal as the Odd
Fellows and other lodges.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK presumed Mr. Higgins bad read the
rules of the Orange lodges, before he ventured to charac-
terise them as illegal. (Hear.) If he hal he must have
sen there was nothin: illegal in them. (Cheers ) He
(Mr. GlazArook) was not himself a member of the
association ; he had, however, been asked t.,.) join it, but
be declined, not because he objected to the rules or regu-
lations of the body, but because be had sufficient engage-
ments to attend to. There was, certainly nothing illegal
in the society.
Mr. PARKER called for the Tovrn-clerk's opinion upon
the question of legality •
Mr. HARnORD, in this matter, would throw himself