The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-11-26 00:00:00

NINETEENTH DAY.

The inquiry into the affairs of the Corporation was resumed
yesterday at half•past ten o'clock.
-

The Town-clerk rose to explain in reference to evidence pre-
viously given by himself on the subject of the land near Wal-
lasey Oramraar School,.that the Rev. Augustus Campbell was
not at the time (previously alluded to) the rector of the parish.
He was in that mistaken, as by reference he found the then
rector was the Rev. Mr. Law, son of the then Bishop of Ches-
ter, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells. He believed that
Mr. Campbell's name was down as a commissioner, the act re-
quiring that two beneficed clergymen should be in the com-
mission. The name of Mr. Campbell had been inserted at the
request of Mr. Newton, the master of the grammar school, at
the suggestion of the Bishop of Chester. Mr. Campbell had
officiated in that parish for several years before, first as curcte,
and secondly as rector.

A man named Huntingdon here wished to be examined, to
state, as he said, a few words on behalf of the Liverpool bur-
gesses. He was a burgess by birth and servitude, and it was
his opinion that in the multiplicity of business about the Cor-
poration and the docks, that the -claims of the burgesses had
been altogether overlooked. He was of opinion that amongst
all the property of the Corporation, that body might find
an asylum for freemen in their old age instead of sending them
to the Workhouse to mix with others. (A raugh.) He thought
it was the freemen who bad to complain most, and not the mer-
chants about town dues, for the more dues they paid the greater

was their. prosperity. Most of rho'w who complained of the
town dues were not Liverpool people, and if they made a for-
tune they were off to where they came from to spend it ; but. if
they chanced to fail they became chaegeabie to the parish. (A
laugh.) Not one of them who had come into the court to
complain came for anything else but their own benefit. (A
-laugh.) Such people' had' no right with the affairs of the
town; if he (the witness) went to live in Ireland, he should not
want to. vote for Mayors and Bailiffs there, but would be con-
tent to get an houest living and hold his tongue. (A laugh.)
The fact was, Mr. Rethbone and others wanted to annihilate
the freemen; but he wished to know what right they had to in-
terfere.with the charter of Liverpool. The charter had already
been violated by the Reform Bill; for the charter said that the
Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of the • town should send mem-
bers to Parliament; and the rest of the householders had
nothing to do with the matter. He was•not surprised that Mr
Rathbone wanted to annihilate the C mee'uon Council, as he
had heard that he wanted to serve the Hrease of Lord's the same
way. -(A laugh.) Probably some black sheep might have
crept into the Common Council; and if they had, why not root
them out, but not destroy the Corporation. w He would suppose
a case. (A laugh.) Supposing that a burgess had committed
a' murder, 'were •all the Common Councit to be hung for it?
(Loud laughter.) 'rho witness, in a very original and eccentric
manner, here detailed the manner in which the burgesses of his
class were accustomed to enjoy themselves at elections. He
said that the freemen clubbed their sixpences and shillings
together for a bit of merriment; and if they did happen to get
drunk, what was that to any body? (Laughter.) He did not
see, either, if Mr. Rathbone (who had acknowledged, yester-
day, to have been handy with bribes) and others-were to sub-
scribe their money for an election, that the-burgesses should be
blamed for it. The witness concluded by stating that the bur-
gesses had been much maligned by the public press, which had
made allegations against them of a most wanton and outrageous
character, such as they would find it difficult to prove; that he
held his privileges dear to him, and any innovation of which
he would resist es though a man put his hand into his pocket for
the purpose of robbing him. •
Mr. Matthew Dobson Lowndes, the Vestry-clerk, having.
been sworn, stated that he did not wish.to take up the time of
the commissioners unnecessarily, but as his name had been
mixed up with the parish accounts, he had come forward to
give a succinct account of-the emoluments he derived from the
parish, and a straightforward denial of the statements made by
Dr. Collins on Saturday. One:of the allegations made by Dr.
Collins was that the affairs of the parish, were ender the control
of the corporate body. Another was. that he (Mr. Lowndes)
received about £2,0J0 per annum, whilst his salary was nomi-
nally only £3OO per annum. The third absurd allegation was,
that-there was a confederacy between. himself, the magistrates,
and the magistrates' clerk, to issue summonses and warrants for
rates in arrear, to increase the, fees for his .(witness's) benefit.
All of which allegations he begged leave, unequivocally, to
deny. With respect to the allegation of the vestry being under
the control of the Corporation, he woad state That no member
of-the Common Council had been in the -veStre within his re-
collection, and he had comtneuced
.practice in Liverpool in
1816. The members of the:Coalmen Council had studiously ab-
stained even from attending the. annual . vestry meetings, at
which-nearly all, the inhabitants were assembled. There was
only one or two exceptions where the members of the Common
Council attended the vestry meetings, but there there occasional
meetings..of the vestry, at which the chief magistrate had been,
good enough to attend. The occasion was in- February, 1832,
when there was an apprehension of the cholera visiting Liver-.
pool. A vestry meeting was called for the purpose of voting an
adequate sum of money to check the progress of the disease, or
to prevent its coming to Liverpool, The application of the
poor's-rates for this purpose were, however, frustrated by the
inhabitants refusing to allow any money to be voted for such a
purpose. About a fortnight subsequent to this meeting it
was discovered, that the disease was progressing in various
parts of the country, and another meeting was summoned, at
which the Mayor, and Mr. Moss, the banker, attended, for the
purpose of recommending the voting of a sum of money to be
,applied to the purposes required by the cholera. At this meet-
ing an opposition was got up chiefly by the instrumentality of
Dr. Collins, to prevent this reasonable advance of the.money,
and it was not until many days' polling that the
.question was
carried in the affirmative. From peculiar local circumstances,
arising from opposition, the local affairs of the parish for the
last two or three years had been the subject of polling in the
Sessions-house, and on such occasions the members of the
Common Council certainly attended to vote in common with
their fellow parishioners; but, in so attending., there was
nothing of a political party feeling, althougtea local party feel-
ing pervaded in a degree similar to other -large towns. What
he had thus stated would show that the parish-of Liverpool was
not in any way under the control of time Corporation. With
respect to his (Mr. Lowndes's) emoluments derived from his
situation, he would state that, on the 6th of May, 1830, the in-
habitants assembled to elect a vestry clerk in the room of Mr.
Blackstock, when a resolution wasadoptedthat the clerk should
be paid a salary of £3OO per aunum, ler the routine of the busi-
ness of his office, which routine was to prepare all bonds of in-
demnity, parish indentures, anti to furnish legal advice to the
churchwardens and the magistrates on parish affairs. 'lnc
duties of the office were to Be performed personally by the clerk,
and not lay deputy. There were three other candidates for the
situation ; a poll was demanded, and the result of the election
was in his (witness's) favour, and he was elected on the Bth
of May, 1830. The commissioners would be aware that the
parochial Year terminates on the 25th of'March, and his (wit-
ness's) bill, up to the 25th of March, from time date of his ap-
pointment, including the costs of an act of Parliament, directed
to he solicited for by the 'parishioners at the vestry before his
(witness's) appointment, was £759 135.; the act was opposed,
and he had, out of the sum named, to pay £331 15s. 6d. for the
expenses of witnesses, counsel fees, and a deputation to London.
He had also to pay to the London agent, including the House
of Commons fees, the -sum of £223 3s. 1(1; these deductions
brought down his emoluments to the suneof £157 14s. 9d., he
had also a bill for professional services rendered, which were
not included in the duties of his situation, amounting to
£l3l 7s. Bd. It had previously been explained to the commis-
sioners by the Town-clerk, that he (the witness) was entitled,
as. Vestry-clerk, to one-half the fees on all documents relative
to parish - affairs submitted to the magistrates, such as sum-
monses and warrants for poor rates, &c., &c. llis proportion
of the fees from May -to March the following year amounted to
the sum of £330 95., and the 'proportion of his salary for the
same period'anioanted to £262; making-the totare-moluntents
of his situation during the interval he, had spoken of, the sum of
£822. Is. Id. In the year from the 25th of March, 1831, to
March, 1832. his bills were, for appeals 'I; uos 2s. 5d., for prose-•
cutions £43 12s. Bd.' and for general business £2Ol I Is. 3d.,
from which was to be deducted £94 18s. Bd. for disbursements,
leaving the sum of £258 7s. Bd. as the hill of the year, to which
was to be added £21.1 6s. 6d. as a portion 'of the magistrates'
fees, amid hie salary of £3OO, making au aggregate of £799 45.2 d.
The following_ Year his bill for appeals was £llt pis. Ild.; for
prosecutions £ll2 Gs. 100. The general business bill, in Whisk
was included all the extra business required to he done by the
passing of time reform act, amounted to £:',so lOse from winch
Was to be deducted £lO7 4s. 20. for disbursements. Ilis pro-
portion of the inegistrates' clerk's fees. fur that year amounted
to £3OB Os. till., to which was to he added his salary of 3,...300,
makitig an • aggregate of £930 ss. 10., being the largest
. .
sum he ever received from the parish in. one year. Vt ith
regard to the:allegation respecting the confederacy to issue
suirimoneeS and warren s it was alinoA too absurd to need
a formal contradiction. He would, however,' call .the atten-
tion of the commissioners to the Mode of procedure in such
cases. When rates were in arrear, the churchwardens
and overseers inspected the rate books for the purpose
of ascertaining the defaulters, which, having done, a letter
was sent to announce to the individuals, that if they -did not pay
their rates within a given time, which was genceelly about a
week, a summons -would be taken out against there. Sometime
afterwards, if the amount was not forthcoming, summonses were
taken out before. a magistrate, and they were issued ; the party
then attended the court to state any grounds for not paying.
If the summoned party had no gt:ounds for not paying, a time
was fixed by the magistrates, varying front a week to a month,
for payment. The cost of a summons was
.2s. Information
and warrant cost -Is. The extreme number or warrants talsen
out in a year was 140, and the cumber ot'eseeesineuts in the
parish was 32,000. Mr. Lowndes concluded his statement by
saying that lie thought he had sufficientiy answered the allega-
tions of Dr. Collins. Had the vestry-clerk a desire to make
money by his sit nation, the way to do so would be by litigating
appeaes; but it would be seen by the accounts that the sum
charged for litigating appeals only averaged £lO5 per year. ,
By the Commissioners.—Paid for his own offices and clerks.
1)r. Collins denied having stated that there was a confederacy
between the magistrates and the vestry-clerk, in order to in-
crease the latter's bill. He had said that the temptation was
great to swell his bill of legal charges, which he had to bring
against the parish. Mr. Lowndes had done now what he had re-
peatedly refused to do in public vestry, viz. to-show a statement
of the items in his account, although it had been voted that he
should. He (Dr. C.) also denied having stated that the parish of
Liverpool was under the coutroul of the Corporation, although if
he had doneso, he thought he should not have,been very wrong,
as the Corporation bad decidedly an indirect influence over the
affairs of the parish—for instance, Mr. Foster one of the family
of the Foster's, was churchwarden' and Mr. Houghton, a Select
Vestryman, had a relative in the Common Council. Dr. Col-
lins then adverted to his opposition to the measure for voting a
.sum of money for the purposes of the eholera, and said that his•
opposition was riot factious nor inhumane; Ise- had opposed it on
:the grounds of the parish having no legal power to exact such a
,rate, which was subsequently shown by Lord Lansdowne-passing
an act.empowering parishes to levy a rate for that purpose. He
had volunteered his professional services when the cholera was
raging, and had entered the dwellingsof infected persons, which
.showed that it was riot a feeling of inhumanity, with which he
had been charged, that caused- his oppositioudo the local mea-
sure. He thought that whilst persons were allowed to vote on
parish affairs on the six-vote system, parochial matters were all
bubble and nonsense. Dr. Collins concluded by stating that.
Mr. Robert Turner had some further and -more valuable infor-
mation to communicate. _

b'lr. Robert Turner being sworn, stilted that he had formerly
exercised the profession of a builder in Liverpool, but he was at
present a common brewer in Chester. He had formerly resided
six or seven years in Liverpool, and his family now resided in
West Derby.

"The ommissioners inquired whether the evidence he was
about to give applied to the Corporation ?
Mr. Turner replied, that he would endeavour to keep to that
point. He was last year one of the honorary overseers of the
parish (who ar,e appointed annually by the rate--payers), and
during the time he was in office, he was requested by the bur-
gesses in the Liverpool workhouse to use what influence he
possessed to obtain for those burgesses who were in the work-
house an asyleuum, to he provided out of the Corporation funds,
in order that they might no longer be burdensome to the rate-
payers. He mentioned to them that he had no influence with
the Corporation of Liverpool, but promised to mention the sub-
ject to several of the Select Vestry, which lie did, one of whom
was Mr. John Foster, the present churchwarden. The com-
plaint of the burgesses was, that their food was so scanty as not
to be sutEcient to support themselves, and they prayed to be
removed to some place where they might sustain themselves in
their declining days. He held in his hand an account of the
week's consumption of food given to the burgesses in the work-
house, to show that they had not been treated as they ought to
have been.

Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, here rose and said, that he came
to the court to endeavour to facilitate the inquiry into the Cor-
poration, and, from the part he had taken, it could not be said
that he was an abettor of abuses; but he did think that the
manner in which they were proceeding was irrelevant to the
inquiry, which appeared to be merging into an inquiry into
parish abuses. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson was of opinion that the witness
was not confining himself to the Corporation.
Mr. Foster, the churchwarden, said that last year his Majesty's
commissioners were in Liverpool inquiring into parish abuses,
and their report had been made. (Hear.)
Mr. Duncan remarked that the only possible way the parish
were connected with the Corporation was there being pauper
burgesses in the Workhouse; but he did not see that the matter
could at all connect itself with the Corporation inquiry. (Hear.)

Mr. Turner said that he was not a lawyer nor a counsellor,
and perhaps could not arrive at the point so soon as those gen-
tlemen; but he thought if he was suffered to go on in his own
roundabout way, that he should be enabled to connect his evi-
dence with the Corporation.
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson replied that the court could not
hear him on parish affairs.

. .
Mr. 'lsomer again attempted to be heard amiatt tokens of
great nisapprohation,-but he at letig.it netlite:l, iqUichtditits.by
Saying the subject Was a sore one wijt Mr. roster, for he wag
prepared to show what eitorinod,- tritelile. were pritetivea in the
tv orkhouse. -

Dr. Collins said that the commissions appointNi to inquire
into parish atistirs took the evidence 'aiitiot.t eNtniArely- from
the cniii...hwardens;

Mr. Foster, the churchwarden, denied that sorb was the fact.
Mr. bowndes, the vestry-elm k. in rep!), to a statement made
by Dr. Collins, said, twit ne nev:•r refused to give the items of
his accounts to the parishioners. lie had rmuseu ejs ti.niw them
to be printed, whicn ha, been su_gested to toe vestry by 1)1..
Cabins. Ile had rer aiedly offered to submit his bil.s to any
person competent to give an opinion of their fairness. (Ii
Mr. Parnell, the Duck-master, here asked tile Town-clerk
if the inilividna;s whom he had wisned to he sent tor, and who
he had named in a letter, were present?
'Lie Town•clerlyepiied that they had not been cent for.
Mr. Purnell then stated that he wished to ask Mr. brown.
whether the report in the newspapers, pm piirting to be the ex-
amination of Mr. Wiiiiain Brown, was moreet t (The Wit"SS •
here read the report as.be:ore given, relative to the statement -
of Mr. Brown, that the witness hail been su.peaded for receiv-
ing bribes, but owing to his .ar,ge fainiiy he lout been reinstated
in his situation.)

Mr. Brown, 'having heard the report read, thought it was
sithstan tially. correct.
\lr. Purnell here said, tint charac*er was at stake fr.lin
what had appeared in the new,p.ipe.r,, he begged leave to
state, unequivocaliy, how he had mon,y irom Williatn
and James Brown.

Mr. Brown stated, in explanation, that a gentleman upon the
Dock Committee, had asked him why tie utd not vote ou the oc-
casion in the Dock Committee, when the -subject of the dis-
missal of the Dock-masters was brought before die Committee;
and he hAd stated, that it was in consequence of the fees havlng,
previous to this time, been given, as a matter of course, by'the •
merchants generally. He had n.i knowledge for what the suns
of £5O was given, and his junior p trtner would attend the cour,
and state that no money had beet given since tin period a.-
luded to by Mr. Purnell, for any such purposes as bribes. He
was altogether against die money being given, as it was given
by his junior partner, Mr. FrOdsham.
Mr. Purnell said that he had been questioned about receiving
£5O from Messrs. Brown, and he now stated nistinctly that he
did receive £5O from that firm; a check Was given hiin for the
amount, and it was cashed at Arthur Ileywu:nl and Co.'s.
Mr. Brown explained that the money was given in 1825, be-
fore he was member of the Dock Committee, but he was
norant of the tact until informed of it by his partner. lie was
not aware fur what purpose the £5O was paid.
Mr. Purnell remarked that, limn the conversations he had
had with Mr. Brown, he was convinced that that gentleman
was as welt acquainted with the circumstance as any. one in the'
firm; even the clerks in the otlice of Mr. Brown.knew for what.
the money had been paid.. • . .
Mr. Commissioner Wilkinson said the subject appeared to
him a personal matter, with which the court had nothing to do.
Mr. Purnell said his character had been impugned, and he
thought he had a right to an explanation, and if he could not
clear himself from the charges which removed him from the
Prince's Dock, he would not-wish the Dock Committee to retaia
him another hour in their service. Merchants and brokers.
when he was at the. Prince's Dock, were couttimallv urging
him to procure their ships berths, which he found great Ifficuity
in doing, as there was no George's Dock nor iiing's Dock open
-at the time. Messrs. William and James Brown always said
he must get their vessels in, and Mr. Frodsbam, from Messrs.
Brown's, used frequently to urge bier to get their vessels into
port, and he was anxious tti attend to the interests of the Dock
Estate first.

Mr. Purnell was here going into a long statement of the trans•
actions between him and Messrs. Brown, but was stopped by
the commissioner, who .declined going into the investigatioi.,
and Mr. Purnell subsepently left the court, evidently disap-
pointed at not having an opportunity ofvlearing his character.
Lieutenant Watson, the superintendent of the- telegraph. iu
contradiction to a statement made by Lieutenant -Morrison on
the subject of emolument derived from the telegraph, denies
that he received a sixpence from the West India Association;
but admitted that he had a sum of money. voted to him annually
by the American Chamber of Commerce for information sup-
plied, which stun had, previously to the erection of the tele-
graph, been voted to toe harbour master of Holyhead, who
used to supply the information by letter. The sum was gra-
tuitous, and could be taken away any time The fact of the
Chamber of Commerce giving hint the money. was an assurance
that the management of the telegraph was satisfactory to them.
The statement of his clerk of the number of flags sold was about
correct, but he'thought it was not a matte& for the court to in-
quire into. •
Dr. M`lutyre- expressed a wish to ask a few questions re-
specting the Coroner's court, and in doing so he disclaimed any
intention of eas.ing 'the slightest reflection on -the Coroner or
the court. He Wen asked the Town-clerk if it was the practice
for medical men who gave evidence before the Coroner to receive
a fee, and was answered that it was. In cases of dissection of
the body, the surgeon was paid £2 25., and when that operation
was not required, El h. He then asked whether, in cases of
sudden death, where the medical man gave in a certificate that
an inquest was unnecessary, the fee was paid. •
The Town-clerk replied it was sometimes, but not frequently.
The-Coroner had a right to choose his own surgeon to inspect
the bodies, and the present-Coroner employed Mr. Lockwood.
Wheii he (the Town-clerk) was bailiff, he employed a Mt.
Davis, having
.previously been satisfied of his ability. In n
cases out of ten the same person was employed to examine the
bodies. It was the practice at Manchester and other places
to employ one individual.
Dr. M:lntyre said that he was unacquainted with the gen-
tleman employed by the Coroner, and he had not the slightest
feeling whatever against that gentleman; but he thinks that:
where a medical man had paid great attention to a case, and
had become much interested in it, he was the most tit person
to give evidence.
Mr. •Jaines Aspinall stated that when he was Coroner, he
invariabi'y inquired if a surgeon had attended the case, and -
•he had'he never removed him.

Mr.,Rosson, the barrister, here handed an estimate of ale.
whole Catholic, population within the Parliamentary borough
.of Liverpool. He then entered into a long statement of the .
means by which he obtained the information, having been.de.-,.
Muted by the Catholic Association, Friar to the 'passing 'of the.
ie:ief bill, to procure such information. It appeared that the
present Catholic_ population was about 62. AX). We have not
room tor the learned gentleman's speech and lengthy statement,
Mr. .1. Mallabv, solicitor to F. R. Price, Esq., stated, ins
reference to th'e evidence given the other day by Wardieworth..
a boatman, who had said that there was au ancient right of.
ferry to Woodside, that such was not the case. The ferry had,
'been built by Mr. Price, at a cost of £12,000, and was his ea-'
elusive property. Mali the ferry and- the Linding were they
privilege of Mr. Price, which had never been disputed in a
court of law by the.public.
Mr. llolton,thouglit that the Corporation had purchased thy..
right of ferry from the Sefton fatuity ; anu his impression was..
that the public had a right of feriy and a right of latiaing on
Mr. Price's estate. •
• Mr. Mallahv said that he was mistaken. •

• said, that he was sorry he bad been
the cause of giving pain to the Recorder. The 'Recorder had
disclaimed owing his election to any family influence whatever,
as his most intimate friends in the council were opposed to his
appointment. He (Mr. Bolton) had no intention of attacking
inuividuals, but the system. He believed the worthy Recorder
had discharged his duties in the most impartial manner since
his appointment to the office, and had never given a vote either
for a Mayor or a member of Parliament. He would also taks
the opportunity of stating that, at the test general election; the
late Atayor, llorsfah, had not given his vote, neither, LA
the senior Coalmen Councilman,- nor the receivers of tots u .dues
and stamps. He also wished to,bear his testimony to the accu-
rate and clear manner in which the accounts of the Corporation •
are kept. (Applause.)
Mr. Henry Duncan, M.D., examined.—The great number
of the poor inhabitants of Liverpool reside in cellars, whi, h
were generallyalamp and extremely. ill ventilated, the tops of
the cellar doors being mostly on a level with the' street, so as
not to allow the admission of air. A large proportion of the
inhabitants lived in courts, which aie narrow, ttic admission
iuio which wa's by a low and narrow archway; they were built
up at the end, so as not to allow a free passage of air. 'lts
courts,upon an average, Contained six houses, thickly populated,
and there was out more than a square y and of open space for
each inhabitant. Dirt and filth of every kind was eongre--
gated in these courts, and in cases of contagious disease it- ra-
pullv spreads through the court. In the act applied for- in
183 i powers were applied to to be vested in the hands of the
Corporation to prevent any cellar being inhabited that was not
raised above the curb-stone, and to compel the. landlordt
whitewash the cellars at certain petiod:. There were about
20,000 of the inhabitants who resided in these cellars. If these
powers were invested in the hands of the Corporation, or op- 7
plied for the health and comfort of the inhabitants, he thought
they would be materially improved, and he thought that the .
health of the inhabitants might be traced to the nature of their
habitations. He derived his means of knowledge from the si-:
tuation he held for four years as an assistant in the Noithetit
Dispensary. Upon the whole he thought, notwithstanding the
inconveniences, that the health of the population was as good at
in most towns of a similar size.

A gentleman inquired from Mr. Dnncan, tthetlwr the in •
crease of ill health ainongsi. the lower orders did not arise from
• spirit drinking.
Nlr. Duncan replied, that in a great measure another class of
disease was generate.: by ardent ;Tit especially ainorisst the.
females.

Mr. Foster, the surveyor, said the clauses in the-building aet
alluded to by Al r. Duncan had met with so mual opposition
from the owners of properly, that they were obliged to
w•itlr-
draw them rather than have nu bill. lie thought the bill was
certainly inefficient. lie thought that Mr. Duncan had over-:
slated the number of persons who lived in cellars and courts.
Dr. Duncan replied, that he included Toxteth-park.
Several persons here handed iu letters of complamt to the
commissioners, but it being now three o'clock they deterred
reading them until this da),aud the court was adjourned.