The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-10-21 00:00:00

SPICIAL MitElolo 0V44411,TA1 catlNCluxki
A special meeting of the Town Cernacil was held on Wed-
nesday, for the purpose of levying the fire police rate for the
ensuing year, the consideration of the report of the finance
committee on the erection of a new borough gaol, and the
consideration of the first report of the special committee ap-
pointed in May last, to enquire into the duties and salaries
of the paid officers of the corporation. The MAYOR presided.
There was a very full attendance of members.
FIRE POLICE RATE.
Mr. PROCTOR moved that a rate be levied of a halfpenny
in the pound, for the service of the fire police. This amount
would produce £1,275 from the parish of Liverpool, and
£325 from the out-townships. There was a balance in hand
of £842 13a. ld., which would be absorbed by the expenses
attendant upon the late fire, and the purchase of new engines.
NEW BOROUGH GAOL.
The next subject on the paper was the report of the finance
committee on the gaol. This report embodied the resolution
of the committee passed on the 14th instant, of which the
following is a copy :—" The committee having resumed the
consideration of their report on the want of accommodation
in the present borough gaol, standing for consideration of
the council, at a special meeting on Wednesday last, it was
resolved—' That the committee feelthat the council are placed
between two difficulties, being compelled to elect between
great additions to the present prison, and the erection of an
entirely new gaol. That the committee submit their opinion,
that the latter course is the most eligible and economical ;
that the committee are anxious that the council should carry
out the object with the funds of the corporation, though the
committee cannot hold out any clear prospect of the council
being able to do so ; nevertheless, the committee entertain
the hope that a strict and constant system of economy may
enable the council to save the public from the course provided
by law of raising money by a gaol rate upon the inhabitants.' "
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE, in moving that the resolution of
the Finance Committee be confirmed, commenced by re-
ferring to the inadequacy of the present gaol for the accom-
modation of the prisoners furnished by the borough. It was
built in 1783, when the town contained only 70,000 to 80,000
souls, but which population, by the accession of the out-
townships, and other causes, had swelled to 300.000. The
committee had long been aware that the system under which
the gaol had been constructed was not approved in the pre-
sent day, and that it did not meet the requirements of the
recent act of parliament ; and notwithstanding they had an
excellent and able governor it was difficult to keep up the
proper degree of discipline. The number of prisoners in
August last was 859, whilst in 1838 it was only 438. so that
it had nearly doubled in three years. They ought to have
accommodation for 1000. The council had been in the habit
of contracting with the county magistrates for the reception
of their prisoners in Kirkdale, but that was now denied to
them, and Sir James Graham had prevented them making
the alterations which they had contemplated. The question
now was, should they enlarge the existing gaol or build a new
one. There was land on each side of it that might be ap-
propriated to the erection of new wings, the expense of
which was estimated at £70,000 ; but it was hazardous to lay
out so much money on that project under present circum-
stances. Some persons objected to the locality of the gaol
so near to a large number of warehouses, where there had
recently been a calamitous fire. The question had also
been asked, could nothing be devised to lessen the
number and the expense of juvenile offenders? Mr.
Birkett had recommended a hulk, and others a re-
formatory ; but it should be remembered that the coun-
cil had not to legislate, nor must they speculate, on any
future changes of the law; they must obey the law as they
found it. They were told that there was a great expense
attendant 'upon hulks, and strong objections to them, and
that they could not have them without a gaol establishment—
such as keeper, chaplain, &c. &c. With regard to a reforma-
tory, there were very few juvenile offenders, compared with
the great bulk of the criminals ; and, looking at the state of
the surplus funds of the corporation, the committee would
not be justified in entering upon such an expenditure, though
they were much indebted to Mr. Rushton for bringing the
matter forward, and his having done so might be productive
of much good elsewhere, though it could not be received
there. By the erection of a new gaol, it was expected that
an improved discipline might be adopted, which would lead
to greater morality, and not, as Major Jebb observed, leave
Liverpool to incur the imputation of keeping a school for
crime. There might be differences of opinion as to the in-
troduction of the silent or separate system, but the construc-
tion of such a gaol as he recommended would enable the
council to adopt either the one or the other. The new gaol,
he calculated, might be built for £150,000, including the cost
of the land. The council, in aid of this, would give not only
the present gaol, but the vacant land belonging to them on
both sides of it. This, he believed, was somewhere about
forty thousand square yards. It was difficult to give an exact
estimate of its value, but Mr. Okill was of opinion that it was
worth, with the materials of the old gaol, about £BO,OOO.
This would leave £70,000, which, he calculated, would be
much about the cost of the proposed additions to the old
gaol. It would be some time before the £BO,OOO would be
available, as the materials could not be sold until the new
gaol should have been built. From the interest of the
£70,000 to be provided he would be entitled to deduct the
extra expense of maintaining prisoners in the county gaol;
and he thought he should also be entitled to take into calcu-
lation—though he would not lay much stress on this—the
salaries of the superintendents of the enlarged portions of the
gaol. Mr. Lawrence then entered into a calculation to show
that all that would have to be provided annually would be
from £2,100 to £2,800. There were two modes of raising
this sum—one by a gaol rate, and the other by a grant from
the surplus fund of the corporation. He was disinclined to
lay a rate in the present position of the poor people of the
town. On the other hand, if the money were to be paid by
the corporation, the strictest economy in the council would
be required,' as without this, it would be impossible to im-
prove the streets and public buildings, or to assist the
charities with further benefactions. He called on the council
to 'acquiesce in the resolution of the Finance Committee,
which he had proposed, though he had no doubt they would
rather spend their money in the establishment of the town,
or in the promotion of religious education.
Sir THOMAS BRANCKER seconded the motion.
Mr. EVANS would not oppose the building of the gaol, but
thought, after the exposition they had had of their finances,
they ought not to resort to the corporate funds, but the money
should be raised by this great and opulent town. This was
one of the opportunities on which that might be legitimately
done. Were they to run the corporate ship aground and get
into a state of bankruptcy, or ought the gaol to be built by
the owners of cottages and others who had a fixed property
in the town ? Were they to hamper the corporation, so that,
however urgent the case may be, they should be prevented
laying out one or two thousand pounds when it might be
wanted. The town could bear the tax very well, and it should
be remembered that the whole sum would not have to be laid
in one year.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE.—No ; twenty-eight years.
The MAYOR.—Thirty years.
Mr. EVANS.—Why not then levy the principal at once
over a considerable portion of the time. In every other re-
spect he approved of the resolution.
Mr. BIRKETT was not surprised at Mr. Evans's remarks
relative to the owners of cottage property, but he was with
regard to those about opulent men, who were the very peo-
ple that would pay nothing under such a rate. What would
Mr. Evans pay ? He was an opulent man, but he would ab-
solutely pay nothing. The merchants and other opulent
men, for the most part, lived out of the town and would es-
cape the rate altogether. Let him contrast the liberality of
this Council with that of the old unreformed Council. The
latter erected the gaol in 1785 at its own expense. Did Mr.
Evans oppose the payment of £150,000 for the Assize Courts,
the costs of which ought more properly to have been defrayed
by the county ; or was anything said the other day against
the grant of £lO,OOO for more beautiful stone? It was not
fair to levy a rate o❑ the tradespeople and poorer inhabitants
merely because they had an opportunity of doing it legally.
They should, on the contrary, take money from the corpora-
tion only for purposes which they had a legitimate right to
apply it to.
The MAYOR. It's too late to go back.
Mr. Braturr.—No ; for so long as I have a seat here I
shall advocate the one and oppose the other. The opulent
were the very parties who would escape. Had he had no-
tice he would have taken out the whole assessment of mer-
chants and tradesmen, and compared them. Sir James
Graham, he contended, was wrong in forcing the erection
of a new gaol upon the town. It had not vet been decided
that the separate system of confinement was a good one.
The King of Prussia had lately sent to America for evidence
on that subject, and the report made to him was against it.
He (Mr. Birkett) was against the system being forced
upon them, but as it was so, he was for a new gaol in
preference to the enlargement of the old one, but be would
pay for it by the corporation.
Mr. BOLTON said the cost of each separate cell would be
£125, or £7 per head per annum. There could be no doubt
that the separate system would effect an improvement in the
morals of the criminals. The erection of a new gaol was
indispensable, but there were no surplus funds at the com-
mand of the corporation—(hear, hear)—and nothing was left
them but to levy a gaol-rate. It might be said they should
do as they did in 1785, but that was a time when all was
prosperous and land cheap.
Mr. ATKIN, after stating that there were more re-commit-
tals from Liverpool than from any other place, in proportion
to its size and population, complained that the juvenile pri-
soners in the borough gaol, instead of being kept on bread
and water, were daintily fed on excellent lobscouse, with
onions and pepper in it to create an appetite. The smell
alone had that effect with the Gaol Committee. He tasted
it once with the Mayor—
The MAYOR.—And very good it was.
Mr. AIKIN went there also once with his children, and
his little boy, having tasted it, said, " Papa, this is much
better than anything we get at home." These were induce-
ments to crime, and they should seek power to adopt a dif-
ferent treatment, and to make the gaol really a place of pu-
ni-shment- With regard to a hulk, he observed that masters
ships, but
might not like to take gaol-birds on board their
oo but young vagrants might be educated there, which
wage imdiirvent their falling into crime; criminals of tender
lake, agndtthb::athught a trade at a land establishment at Hoy_
some few ey would be gladly received in the colonies.
a wing that debtors in the present gaol, he remarked, occu-
piedcriminals. B would. accommodate an immense number of
classify the fensrelieving the prison of these, they might
for the Home lin
the manner required by the Secretary
build so large a ppriartment, and it would not be requisite to
by adding another Thy boys, too, might be accommo-
datedCoer story to the plan of the proposed
new bridewell.
all
one—they that the parish, town, and
corporation. were
what came from the pockets of
had a common interest—and
of the one came also from the
other. He recommended that th
sub-
mitted tothefurtherconaid_ ..0: subject should be
devise a plan for the economy
of the Finance Commit-
and credit of the town. might
Mr. Be SHELL agreed with some
of
Mr
• Aikin's sugges-
tions,be and would like to see them carried into effect, but if
adva
they had been likely to ntageo
us they would, before
this, have been adopted by dimevernment. They were
opulation to build, compelled by the increase of andto
and were not there to legislate, but
carry out the la
Major G. Ebb did not think that with all the w.
improvements
they could make, the present gaol would hesufficient, and
recommended the building of a new one. There was a good
deal of the ad captandum in the report. The statement that
the additicaaal cost would be only £14,000 looked well on
paper, but he doubted whether it would be so in effect. Mr.
Bolton had told them that there was not one shilling of Sur-
plus revenue in the corporate estate. Mr. Birkett. was
op-
posed to the rate because it would fall on the inhabitants
having property, but that was perfectly absurd, because they
must have been aware when they acquired that property of
its liabilities—
Mr. BIRKETT.—Ships are not touched.
Mr. BusitELL observed that they should imitate Sir Robt.
Peel with his Income Tax.
Mr. BIRKETT.—Sir Robert exempted the poor, and
treated all others alike.
Mr. BUSHELL concluded by stating his agreement with
the view of Mr. Alderman Evans.
In reply to a question from Mr. Alderman non, Mr. G.
H. LAWRENCE observed that Mersrs. Alderman Evans and
Bushell meant that the rate should form an accumulative
fund.
Mr. HODGSON supported the view that the gaols of the
country ought to be made more uncomfortable in regard to
food and discipline, and said that there existed much false
spmpathyabroad on th e subject He suggested that the council
should pay a part of thexpens.e and the town the other.
Mr. linsuELL and
Mr.
this was intended, if the G. H. LAWRENCE remarked that
council did not pay the whole.
Mr. HODGSON supposed
there was no power to levy ex-
cept upon fixed property, or he should recommend it on im-
portations.
Ohs
interaironranfeLrEartslusetapootedrt.l4atteth. e rate would be levied in

•
\\\ .....„,
'‘.
L NVN
Mr. PAngsn Approved IhettiltiiNf til4.. Finked etitn.
fnittee, They had acted as if they were unwilling to haraen
the poor, on whom the rate would unquestionably fall if
it were to be levied on the town. It would not be very popu-
lar to be brought forward by the conservatives just on the
eve of the Ist of November. See how it would fall in Mr.
Bushell's ward.
Mr. BUSHELL.—That is rather hard just before the elec-
ion

Mr. PARICER.-Mr. Bushell had represented, on the faith
of Mr. Bolton's assertion, that there was no surplus fund.
He differed with that statement. The Birkenhead commis-
sioners could get money only at five per cent. whilst the cor-
poration could get it at four per cent., showing clearly that
they were far from a state of bankrupicy.
Mr. BUSHELL would boldly stake his knowledge against
Mr. Parker's modesty for the truth of his statement. With-
out being on the Finance Committee he had chosen to make
an assertion which was completely unsupported and opposed
to that given on the authority of an old and one of the most
useful members of that committee.

Mr. EARLE said that as Mr. Parker had introduced the
business transacted on the other side of the water, he would
mention that there the worthy councillor had tried to stop
the steam-boats running on Sundays, whilst here he advo-
cated the keeping open the public-houses on Sundays.
(Confusion.) It was enough to make a dog sick.
Mr. BRAMLEY-:MORE agreed in the propriety of taking
the wing at present occupied by the debtors if it could be
done, and recommended that time should be taken for con-
sideration. Liverpool had the unenviable notoriety of being
higher than any other town as regarded the proportion of
juvenile criminals to the number of inhabitants. In Liver-
pool they were 66 per cent., whilst in Manchester they were
only 43. It was easy for Major Jebb to say the pr4son ought
to be built whatever might be the inconvenience, but it was
not so easy for the Council to find the means. This was
their first considerations ; the next should be as to the pre-
vention and increase of crime. With good food and good
treatment, were they to build a gaol ten times as large as the
present one it would soon be filled. One cause of the pri-
son being required was, the mistaken leniency exercised to-
wards juvenile criminals. He questioned whether the phi-
lanthropists, who were in the habit of going through the
country visiting gaols, had not done more harm than good.
A London magistrate had expressed a wish that the legisla-
ture would empower the maaistrates to order juvenile felons
a sound flogging. Were that done we should not have boys
committed here seven, eight, nine, and even twenty times,
which had been the case. Supposing we could start fair with
the new gaol, the best plan he could devise would be to give
them a sound religious education, but if they went there he
was for the severe method. Why was crime less in Scotland
than in England ? Because education was different. If he
had his will he would get our clergy to take up this question.
Let them spend the thousands of pounds. which they now
squandered upon foreign missionaries, in filling the bellies of
the poor and then giving them instruction. He would not
subscribe one shilling to a missionary society whilst there
was a poor and ignorant man in his own country. He pro-
posed an amendment to the effect, that a special committee
should be appointed to consider the propriety of establishing
a reformatory, and calling upon the legislature to empower
magistrates to order whipping for juvenile criminals.
Mr. JORDAN seconded the motion.
Mr. ASPINALL, as a member of the Finance Committee,
should give his r.earty support to the motion made by the
chairman. He was decidedly of opinion that a borough rate
ought not to be thought of so long as there was so much
available property in the hands of the corporation. From
what they had received from the dock estate the government
compelled them to pay off £146,000 of the bonded debt ;
but there was £73,000 yet to be received, which
might, by permission of the government, be applied to
the building of a new gaol. (Hear.) So long as that
money was available he did not see any reasonable ground
for taxing the poor inhabitants of the town ; and, indeed,
he should always set his face against a borough rate,
whilst the corporation might make so much of their pro-
perty available for the purpose. Besides this, the corporation
had property, the leases of which had lapsed and were
kept for improvement, the rental of which was £5986 per
annum ; and, independently of that, the dockyards and the
Cheshire estate, they had land worth upwards of £150,000,
which paid a rental of only £2BOO, or not 2 per cent.
Whilst the times were so hard people could not afford to pay
a rate. (Hear.) If they were to have a new gaol, let there
be better times, when all this property might come into the
market. It was not fair, under these circumstances, to im-
pose a borough rate; and he should must strenuously lift
his voice against it. (Hear.)
Mr. BOLTON said that the money to be paid from the dock
estate had brought an interest of £5OOO a-year, which had
ceased, and must be replaced.
Mr. SHAND, Mr. HARBORD, and Mr. PLATT were for
further consideration.
Mr. IsAiae HOLMES was glad to find that Mr. Bolton, just
as he was going out of the council, was of his opinion, that
the corporation had no surplus fund. He had contended that
for three or four years. A gaol-rate would be unjust and
unequal, and would be paid by only about one-third of the
inhabitants—chiefly shopkeepers and cottage owners. The
cost of maintaining prisoners in the gaol was about one-sixth
per cent. more than in the workhouse, which ought not to
be the case. As to the statement that in Liverpool the pro-
portion of juvenile offenders was 60 per cent., and in Man-
chester 48, it should be remembered that in Manchester,
when they came out of gaol, there was work for them, which
was not the case here. In some governments juvenile regi-
ments were formed, into which boys of 15 years old were en-
listed. It was to be regretted there was not something of
the kind in England.
Mr. AIKIN, after some more observations, proposed that
the consideration of the subject should be again referred to
the committee, in order to ascertain if they could not adopt
measures to render a gaol unnecessary.
Mr. PLATT seconded the resolution.
Mr. FREME said all the suggestions made during that dis-
cussion had been already submitted to Major Jebb, and de-
bated. The building of the new gaol had been forced upon
the council.
Mr. LLOYD.—What is the penalty for non-compliance?
Mr. FREME.—They may take our quarter sessions from us.
Mr. LLOYD said that was the best thing that could be
done ; for during the last five years the prosecutions had cost
the town £20,000. It was the strangers who came into the
town that added to the crime.
The MAYOR.—WOOICI not the expense be greater if the
prisoners were tried by the county ?
Mr. LLOYD.—Yes ; but we should be the better able to pay.
Mr. COOPER said the surplus fund of the corporation
would be quite sufficient to enable them to build the gaol, it
rigid economy were practised. The whole town, after the re-
cent increase of the poors-rates, would rise against a borough
rate. If they got rid of their quarter sessions, they would
have to pay for the trial of their prisoners by a county rate.
Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE briefly replied, and the votes were
taken on Mr. Aikin's amendment. There were 10 for and
42 against it, as follows :
For the amendment—Messrs. Hodgson, Preston, H.
Holmes, Bright, Toulrnin, Gladstone, Jordan, Platt, Har-
board, and Bramley Moore.
Against it—Messrs. Shand, I. Holmes, Thornhill, Sand-
bach, Copeland, Edwards, Mellor, Sands, Bolton, Aikin,
Priestley., Aspinall, Yates, J. Lawrence, Robinson, Cooper,
Wood, Birkett, Bushell, Lloyd, Kilshaw, Parker, Jones,
jun., Brassey, J. Smith, G.. H. Lawrence, Trotman, A.
Smith, jun., Holt, Bully, Freme, Evans, Barclay, Earle,
Moon, R. oughton, Nicol, Turner, Molyneux, Crook, Sir
T. Brancker, and the Mayor.
Mr. HODGSON. Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. SANDS recom-
mended a postponement, on the ground that much new matter
had been brought forward. and that new members would
shortly be coming into the council, who might wish to have
something to say on the matter.
Mr. YATES and Mr. PARKER deprecated delay.
Mr. BOLTON said the government had made up their minds
to have a new gaol, and all the plans spoken of that day were
useless.
Mr. EARLE observed that something had arisen about en-
larging the bridewell.
Mr. TtIORNHILL.—That is not decided upon yet.
Mr. EARLE.-1 know that as well as you; and I know
that you would prevent it if you could.
Mr. THORNHILL—You are arguing as if it were.
Mr. EARLE.—lndeed, I don't argue at all. I don't know
if they will put the Watch Committee in it. It is rumoured
that some of them have been there before now.
Mr. FREME observed that all that Mr. Aikin contemplated
would be effected in the new gaol.
Mr. Nicol. said the postponement was useless. As to the
suggestion about a reformatory, it had been tried in England
and in Scotland. He had seen one in Glasgow, and it might
be done by private and charitable subscription, but the
legislature would never grant an act for the purpose. With
regard to the proposed application of the bridewell to the
reception of juvenile delinquents, the Town-clerk would bear
him out in the assertion that that could only be done by
having a gaol establishment there. Whipping had so re-
cently been abolished by the government, that he thought it
was not likely it would be introduced.
At the suggestion of Mr. JORDAN, Mr. Aikin withdrew
that part of his amendment referring to whipping, and it
stood merely as for postponement.
The votes were then taken as follow :
For the amendment—Messrs. D. Hodgson, W. Preston,
Henry Holmes, T. Sands, J. Aikin, R. Bright, T. Toulmin,
R. Gladstone, F. Jordan, J. Platt, E. Evans, T. B. Barclay,
W. Earle, J. H. Turner, and J. Bramley-Moore.
Against it—F. Shand, Isaac Holmes, W. Thornhill H. R.
Sandbach, H. Copeland, J. Edwards, I'. Bolton, J. Priestley,
J. Aspinall, R. V. Yates, J. Lawrence, T. Robinson, J.
Cooper, J. N. Wood, W. Birkett, J. Proctor, J. B. Lloyd,
J. Kilshaw, J. Parker, R. Jones, jun., T. Brassey, J. Smith,
G. H. Lawrence, S. L. Trotman, A. Smith, jun., T. Holt.
T. Bulley, W. P. Freme, Sir T. Brancker, J. Moon, W.
Nicol, E. Molyneux, R. S. Crook, and the Mayor.
The original motion was then put and carried.
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PAID
OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.
The next subject on the paper was the consideration of the
first report of the Special Committee on the Paid Officers of
the Corporation.
Mr. LLOYD, chairman of the special committee, said it
would be more convenient if the council proceeded in the first
instance to the fourth subject on the summons, which
was the reading of the report on the department of the
treasurer.
The DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK then read the report, which
commenced with a statement of the duties of the treasurer,
and his assistants, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Smith. It appeared
that the present treasurer was appointed on the removal of
Mr. John Deane Case, in 1836, (to whom an annuity of £5OO
was secured for life,) at a salary of £5OO per annum, he giv-
ing security in the sum of £BOOO. Mr. Neilson, as book-
keeper, has a salary of £2OO, besides £5O a year as keeper of
the wine cellar, and £lO as secretary and assistant. treasurer
to the Wallasey Commissioners; and in addition to this, he
has, for the last t elve months, in conjunction with Mr
Smith, been engaged in auditing the accounts of the Court
of Requests, which extend over a period of five years. Mr.
Smith is the assistant-book-keeper and collector; he has a
salary of £l5O, and gives security in £3OO. The report
stated that no check had been kept by the treasurer on the
fees received in the town-clerk's office, and that accounts
were examined merely as to the correctness of the additions,
without its being ascertained whether the goods supplied had
been furnished at the lowest cash price, or discount allowed.
Several recommendations were then made, the most important
of which were, that the treasurer should check all fees re-
ceived, that he should make the calculations of fines upon
the renewal of leases; that all orders should pass from his
office ; and that his published accounts should be arranged
in a more perfect form.
Mr. LLOYD said that the council having heard the report
o(
j,.teiliarer:KhL
treasurer'selars.
)
ferred back to the committee, and brought up again for con-
sideration when the committee made their second report.
pair seconded the motion.
Mr. EARLE said he would suggest the alteration of one
word in the report, to which the committee would perhaps
assent. The report stated that the present treasurer was
appointed upon the " removal" of Mr Case, which would
imply that Mr. Case had actually been. removed from the
situation which be held. The fact, however, was, he accepted
£5OO a-year as a compromise, d
thrown out. The present numberan
of ,
clerkstherefore,
were
he
proposedwas n
to
him, and he said he could not conduct the business with
them ; the consequence of which was, that an arrangement.
in
have justice
ho
rt!ngeme.nt
was made whereby he retired. He mentionedM ee ,
to r. Case. The proper expression would
" upon the resignation of Mr. Case."
Mr. LLOYD would ask Mr. Earle, in the first instance,
whether there had been any deduction in the expence of the
office? There had been a change, he admitted, but he did
not think it had been attended with any diminution of ex-
pence. There was then Mr. Case, Mr. John Sudlow, Mr.
William Sudlow, and Mr. Pearson; there was now Mr.
Wyberg, Mr. Neilson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Pearson. Now
where one gentleman had been in the receipt of £l,OOO