The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-12-31 00:00:00

THE TOWN-CLERK AND MR. JAMES LOWE.

We have been requested to republish the following
letter, with additional quotations:—

TO MU. JAMES LOWE.

Toivn-clerk's Office, 271 h Dec., 1833.

SIR,—I have received your letter of the 2.ith instant, in which
you furnish me with the following 'particulars of the alleged
"various statements" and "false facts," as those which you
state that you "most pointedly alluded to," in your letter in
the Mercury, of the kilt instant. I have numbered them as
follows, and referred to the numbers in my answers:—
Nu. I.—That you " made assertions which, if uncontradicted,
would leave an impression ou the minds of the commissioners
and the public."
2.—That you " misstated the objects of the merchants in re-
sisting the payment of town dues."
3.—' That you "wantonly aspersed the character and memory
of the late Mr. Statham."

4.—That you "resorted to proceedingi oppressive, unneces-
sary, and unprofessional, and that the costs which Messrs. Bol-
ton had incurred in such proceedings would have to be paid by
the Corporation."
s.—That "the great expense to which the Corporation had
been put has arisen from your proceedings."
6.—" That the fifty or sixty actions which were brought were
indebted for their oriin to those proceedings."
7.—That you "had gone to London iu -consequence of the
costs of the Corporation. being in the course of taxation."
B.—" That the delay in settling the question is with you."
9.—That you " had not done What." you " promised to do."
10.—That, "in fact, all the-evils resulting from the non-settle-
ment of the town dues question are attributable to" your "pro-
ceedings."
In answer, I beg to make the following statements :
As to Nos. 1 and 2.—1 refer you to-the report of what I stated
before the Municipal Commissioners, as detailed in Mr. Eger-
ton Smith's publication, in pages 62 and 63; and I now dis-
tinctly avow the assertions therein reported to have been made
by me, so far as relates to the "statements and inferences" on
these two of your charges against me. 'The length of these
statements alone prevents me from here setting them forth.
As to No. 3.—1 deny having given any character to your ex-
pressions regarding the late - Mr. Statham ; which were, (see
page 29 of Mr. Smith's publicatiou,) "that these town dues
'were indebted for their origin to corporate usurpation, and that
the title which was set up in London, the other day, by the
Corporation, was a mere invention of the late Town-clerk, Mr.
Statham, and his counsel, in the year 1831." That you would
"have occasion to produca the oath of the late Town-clerk, and
an assertion, under the Corporation seal, that, until the year
1831, they never knew what their title was." On this matter I
will only refer to the observations of your own client, Mr. Bol-
ton, (which, though not inserted in Mr. Smith's hook, Mr.
Bolton will perfectly remember,) viz. on the 29th November,
in reply to my. remarks on this part of your statement, Mr.
Bolton said, " i believe Mr. Lowe made use of an expression,
perhaps inadvertently, and I think I may sail unfortunately, which
was, that the legal claim set up to these town dues was an 'in-
vention.' "

As to No. 4.—1 deny that I asserted the chancery proceedings
to be "unprofessional." I repeat that I consider them oppres-
sive and unnecessary, inasmuch as the Corporation must have
shown and estaf.lished their title to the town dues, in order to
have obtained a verdict to recover them in a court of law. And,
with regard to the costs and expenses alluded to in this, and in
No. 5, I repeat, that the -expenses attending the chancery pro-
ceedings have greatly tended to augment the amount of costs
incurred by the Corporation, and further, that Messrs. Bolton
and Co. have had costs awarded by the Court of Chancery, to
be paid by the Corporation to them, in many of these proceed-
ings.
As to No. 6.-I refer to my explanations given before the
Municipal Commissioners, as reported by Mr. Egerton Smith,
in page 64, for the reasons why the fifty or sixty additional ac-
tions were commenced. These reasons I stated as follows
" It had been imputed to the Common Council, as a matter of
blame, that so many actions had been commenced, and it was,
therefore, due to the Common Council that I should state how
-the matter really stood. After the bill of discovery was filed by
Messrs. Bolton and Co. for the purpose of compelling the Com-
mon Council to set out every particular respecting their claim
and title to these dues, it would be recollected that the Com-
mon Council, acting under the advice of counsel, and conceiv-
ing that the demand was oppressive, and contrary to the law of
the land, resisted that unlimited bill of` iscoveiy ; and when they
did so. about fifty. or sixty other merchants, instead of waiting
till the matter in issue was settled by the decision of the cause
then pending, immediately refused payment of the dues on the
ground that the Common Council were not fairly resisting the
application made by this bill of discovery. What other course
was then left for the Common Council to pursue, but that which
they adopted? Finding that these" parties were not disposed to
wait the issue of the cause already pending, but refused to pay
town-dues on their own goods, the Common Council commenced
actions against each of them, and in doing that they did no,
more than became necessary to obtain payment of such town-.
dues as were then due, or might afterwards become due."
As to No. 7.—1 did not state that you went to London solely
on account of the taxation of the costs ; but that I might assume
you knew that such taxation was to take place, in the very
week in which you went to London.
As to Nos. 8,9, and 10.—I repeat that the delay in settling
this question, one way or other, by argument of the bill of ex-
ceptions, (as I can prove by your men letters,) has, rested for some
months with, and is now imputable to you, or to your counsel.—
That you have not fulfilled
.your written engagements to me to
have this bill of exceptions in a course to be argued last No-
vember; on the contrary, although you were informed, in reply
to your request to me, on the 26th October last, that upon ap-
plication by your agent to mine in Loudon, you should have
the book from which you might obtain the copies and particu-
lars of the documents, which you THEN said were wanted for
the purpose of completing this bill of exceptions; you never ap-
plied for the information until Tuesday' last, the2lth December
instant,—on this account I do not consider that I should have
been wrong, even had I, as you erroneously state, attributed all
the evils resulting from the non-settlement of the town dues
question to your proceedings, or rather to your delay in not
forwardinc, the preparations of the bill of exceptions.
Having thus discharged my duty to those whom I represent
in giving a public answer to the " statements and inferences"
you have thought proper to particularise, I shall abstain h6C-
after from any further comment in the newspapers; upon mat-
ters connected with this important quesAorochich still remains
undecided beforethe legal tribunals- the country.—l am, Sir,
yours, &c., '-' THOMAS FOSTER.