The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-03-26 00:00:00

the plaintiff in the other case, was then beard

. ,
dence was almost similar, and the jury awarded
damages and costs.

In the case of Mr. Jones, a verdict for the plaintiff of
£4O damages and costs was returned.—The Court then
rose.

WEST DERBN

CiOrCSS=Zßml.frar
A.NNUAL VESTRY

The annual meeting of the resident ratel
township of West Derby was held at the co:

rooms, Harper-street, tow-hill, yesterday morning, for
the purpose of making out a list of persons to be sub-
mitted to the magistrates as qualified to act as overseers
of the poor for the ensuing year; also to choose an
assistant overseer, and for the consideration generally of
the business of the township. The meeting proved to be
of an unusually pyritiner ni ra "I- al. or. 'lv t.r, dNri "nine;

derably beyond the ordinary limits of the time required
for such business. On the motion of Mr. T. Smith,
T. Bold, Esq., was chosen chairman. Having assumed
the post of honour, and offered a few remarks on his
desire to preserve order during the discussion of the
business before the meeting, the Chairman called upon
Mr. Owen, the solicitor, to read the notice calling the
meeting. This notice was signed by Mr. T. Walker and
Mr. W. Walthew, the late overseers.
Mr. T. SMITH begged to be allowed to make a state-
ment, before the actual business commenced, of the very
greatest moment to that extensive and important town-
ship.—viz., the recovery, by the ratepayers, of the right
tolchoose their own parochial officers (hear)—a right of
which they had been despoiled for more than ten years.
Instead of servants, they had had masters. It was painful to
him to speak of that officer to whom he alluded. Having
himself been favourable to his appointment, he had never
uttered a word in condemnation since his fall. But,
undoubtedly, they had had a master over them, who had
collected what it suited him to collect, and no more; and
when he wanted more money, he made a new rate. The
Poor-law Guardians had no right to nominate the paid
assistant overseer. Their guardians had been no guar-
dians (he confessed he had been one), but sharks. (Hear.)
The Poor-law Commissioners invested them (the guar-
dians) with power to enlist them over to their side,
and to be instrumental in carrying out their own views.
He had not concurred with the system, though he consi-
dered that it had the sanction of legality ; until the last
few months he had never doubted that the commissioners
had this right. He thought that as they were barris-
ters, and gentlemen of (qua' position in society, it
could not be that they were acting contrary to the law ;
but he now discovered they had no law at all for their
proceedings, in fact they had been breaking the law, and
the ratepayers bad been submitting to their illegal prac-
tices; the question now was, would they (the ratepayers)
choose their own officers. The course prescribed to pursue
in order to recover this right was to appeal to the court of
Queen's Bench. Mr. Smith then made some allusion to
the mode in which the present assistant-overseer gained
his situation, from which it appears that he formerly held
a similar post in the township of N t ierton, and while in
that office took every occasion of canvassing for his pre-
sent place. Mr. Peers had said it was a sinecure, as there
was not much more than an hour's work in a week, but
he was clapped into it with £125 per annum. Mr. Smith
continued at some length, and stated that at present the
overseers themselves, Messrs. Walthew and Walker, were
discharging the duties of the office themselves, assisted
by Mr. R. Westmore, who had undertaken the duty of
the removal department without charge : all he required
was, that ultimately he should be appointed with a salary
of £25. He concluded by urging on his fellow ratepayers
to re-elect Mr. Walker, and as he was aware his own
name had been given in, he made some observations
relative to the part he would take in the event of h;s
election.

Mr. WALKER explained that, in accordance with a
resolution adopted at the last vestry, to take some course
in order to reverse the order of the commissioners, they
(the overseers) had taken legal opinion, and had consulted,
amongst other authorities, a gentleman who was con-
sidered to be one of the first counsel in matters of the
character of the question before them. The result was,
that they were assured that the 59th of George 111. was
not repealed by any subsequent act.—Tn answer to a ques-
tion from Mr. Hardy, Mr. Walker gave:Mr. Pashley as
the counsel referred to. In conclusion, he thought it
necessary to repeat, before proceeding to the election of
overseers, that the power they (the ratepayers) bad of
selecting their own officers had never been repealed, _

The CHAIRMAN read over a list of name's handed to
him of persons eligible for the office of overseers; they
wore Messrs. T. Walker, T. Smith, J. H. Plant, R. Short-
house, and N. Taylor. The list was handed in by Mr.
Walthew. _ _ _
__ _ _ _

Mr. HARDY handed in the following list :—Messrs.
J. Peers, Thomas Orrett, G. Ash'uurner, A. Ashley,
Shaw, and Gibson. The proposer of these gentlemen
addressed the meeting at great length in opposition to the
first speaker, whom he designated as Mr. Absolute
Wisdom. He brought two grave charges against the
overseers : the first, a general charge of neglect of duty ;
and the second, one of misappropriation of funds. He
endeavoured to show that the overseers were actuated by
unworthy motives in their opposition to Mr. Whitehead,
inasmuch as, had Mr. Rowlands (Mr. Whitehead's oppo-
nent) been chosen to that office, those gentlemen were
prepared to allow him the same salary as that enjoyed by
Mr. Whitehead. Glancing at the intention of the over-
seers to appeal by certiorari to the Queen's Bench, he
described such intention as preposterous and impracticable.
Before the case could be investigated, the law required
the parties appealing to deposit £5O in the hands of the
officer of the court ; and in case of a decision being given
against them, they would be required to pay three times
the amount of the costs; and he warned them of the con-
-00,p10r% oo of opplying o cingln chilling Of tho publio fundo
in such a direction. He commented on the improbability
of a master joiner (Mr. Westmore) discharging the duties
of the situation of assistant overseer for a consideration of
10s. per week. With regard to the charge of neglect of
duty, the mismanagement of the overseers had been such,
that they (the ratepayers) had now to support one thou-
sand paupers. Mr. Whitehead was not allowed to re-
move paupers, or such would not be the case. He could
prove that about 70 or 80 paupers, who had no settlement
in the township, had continued to be supported by them
because there was no one to see to their removal. Only
one or two had been removed from March to September
last ):ear. He charged Mr. Walker with obtaining pos-
session of a removal list, procured by him, (Mr. llardy,)
and not returning it. He asked how many additional
paupers there were since the 17th November last ? At
that date there were 82 ; now there were 144 more ; and
he also asked whether, with 224 paupers, the duties of
removal were really so light as they had been stated to be?
(Hear, hear.) He then adduced figures illustrative of the
number of removal orders made out from time to time
during the past year, and the comparative few removals
made ; all which he attributed to the spleen of the over-
seers, in refusing to allow Mr. Whitehead to discharge
the functions of his office. He then went to the misappro-
priation of funds. There was one item of £lO. A cheque
had been given for this amount. Of this Mr. Walthew had
expended one pound in a journey to Runcorn, to inquire
about a pauper ; the balance of £9 had been debited,
credited, and re-debited in the books in such a
way as to deceive any person wishing to arrive
at a knowledge of its destination. lie particularly
appealed to the inhabitants of the rural part of
the township on the subject of the county rate ;
these accounts they (his hearers), had no control over.
He contended that when the overseers laid the 6d rate last
year a 3d. rate would have sufficed. He then brought
another charge forward ;, the overseers had not paid the
county rate, and had consequently been fined £22 ;
besides this, there was Mr. Cleaver's expenses to Preston
on the subject. He next apprised his hearers that it was
the intention of the overseers to lay a poor-rate of is. 9d.,
which he considered much too high ; he accused them
also of want of discretion, in allowing the cottage tenants
of Liverpool to enter the township in swarms, to the
burthei of the poor-rates.
Much more was said on the same subject, and a good
deal of confusion ensued in consequence of other persons
dtbirin& to. asidresa the meeting, end the, attempts of the