The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-11-29 00:00:00

BIRKENHEAD IMPROVEMENT BILL-MEETING
OF COTTAGE OWNERS.

Last evening a public meeting of a number of the owners
of cottage property in the township of Birkenhead, was held
at the house of Mr. Moseley, the Albion Hotel, Woodside,
for the purpose of establishing an association for the protec-
tion of their interests. It appears that the notice which the
police commissioners have issued, of their intention to apply
to parliament for a bill or bills embodying an immense num••
ber of objects, has excited the apprehensions of the cottage
owners. The clause in the parliamentary notice which sug-
gested the idea of this defensive combination, is as follows :
Also to render the owners of all houses and buildings under
the annual value of fifteen rounds within the said townships,.
(Birkenhead and parts of Claughton and Oxton,) or so much
thereof as shall he within the limits of the said intended uct
or acts, liable to the payment of all rates and assessments
chargeable on the occupiers of such houses and buildings."
The meeting was numerously attended.
Mr. HUGHES said he had taken the liberty of calling the
meeting: together in consequence of an intended application
to parliament, by the commissioners, in which they sought
to enforce the payment of all rates on property under £l5
a-year from the owners. An enactment of this kind would
be attended with great hardship, and positive injustice;
and therefore he hoped the intended association would op-
pose it. He proposed that Mr. Appleton, the greatest cot-
tage owner in the township, should take the chair. The mo-
tion was carried.

Mr. APPLETON in taking the chair said. that the object of
the meeting having been explained by Mr. Hughes, he should
be elad to hear the sentiments of any gentleman upon it.

_
Mr. WALKER said he thought it most injudicious on the
part of the commissioners to attempt to place a tax on the
owners of cottage property, from which the owners of pro-
perty of a higher description were exempt. If they did not
withdraw that obnoxious proposition, he, for one, would
never cease to oppose the bill, on the ground of its partiality
and injustice. In the meantime he should be glad if Mr.
Knapper would state his sentiments to the meeting.
Mr. KNAPPER said that nothing could have brought him
to the Cheshire side of the water that night, but his deter-
mination to state to his fellow-owners of cottage property
the disadvantage of taxing the owners, instead of the tenants,
of small property. In 1831 there was a local act passed for
Liverpool, by which the owners of cottage property were
assessed to the poor's rate only—not to all the rates, as was
here proposed. That law continued in operation from 1831
to 1834, when it was found expedient to introduce an altera-
tion, for, instead of being an advantage, it created a debt of
£lOOO, and increased the rates from Is. 6d. (1831), to 2s. 9d.
(1834) in the pound. What was the reason of this aug-
mentation in the rates ? It was the fact that the owners of
cottage property, finding that they were compelled to pay
the rates instead of the occupiers, were obliged to have no
mercy on their tenants. The consequence was that the poor
people got into the workhouse, where their feelings of inde-
pendence left them, and they became a burden upon the
p irisb. In 1834, the house-owners and cottage-owners hav-
ing formed themselves into an association for the protection
of their interests, procured the repeal of that abominable,
unconstitutional, oppressive, and pestiferous measure ; and
they had subsequently defeated the attempts of Mr. Slaney,
the Earl of Darlington, Sir Charles Lemon, Sir Henry
Verney, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Brotherton,
to introduce the same unjust and unconstitutional principle.
The principle for which he contended was, that rates and taxes
upon all property should he paid by the occupant of the pre-
mises. If the occupant could not pay, then it was impossible
justly to make the owner pay what he did not receive. It
was supposed that the owners of cottage property were re-
ceiving a great rate of interest upon their outlay, but it was
altogether a false idea. What with wear and tear, non-occu-
pation, and loss of rent, the property which the first year
paid perhaps ten per cent., would, on a run of from seven to
fourteen years, pay no more than five per cent. He had
himself lost from these causes, in one year—from the Ist of
January, 1838, to the Ist of January, 1839, in cottage pro-
perty under £lO rental, without taking dilapidations into
account—no less than £365, or £1 per day. On all these
grounds, he contended that it was most unjust to call upon
the owners td-pay the local rates. In conclusion, he pro-
posed that the cottage owners of Birkenhead form them-
selves into an association for the protection of their interests.
Mr. HUGHES seconded the motion. He said it was well
known that land had been sold by the active promoters of
the bill at 10s. a yard, on which to build cottage property ;
and as soon as they had accomplished their ends in that
respect, they came forward and attempted to throw upon
the owners of those cottages the payment of all the taxes.
If they succeeded in their object, the rental of cottage pro-
perty would be reduced six or seven per cent., and perhaps
more. It was grossly unfair to make this payment impera-
tive upon them, whilst the owners of property of a higher
value were free from it. He called upon every cottage owner
to watch the progress of the bill, and to oppose this provision
with all their power. It was indeed only defended upon one
ground, namely, that cottage property was paying better
than any other. _

The CHAIRMAN.—That is quite a wrong idea.
Mr. DONALDSON said it might be true with respect to two
or three owners whose workmen occupied the cottages, but,
generally speaking, it was not the case.
The CHAIRMAN observed that one question bad occurred
to him, which had not been mooted in that meeting or
among the commissioners, which seemed to him of some
importance. It belonged rather to the other side of the
question, and he mentioned it only because he wished to
hear the whole thing fairly discussed. If a poor person took
a house, and paid one year's taxes, from that time he became
entitled to relief from the poor-rates. Whether it was ad-
visable for the meeting to consider only the other part of the
question it was for them to determine. He asked them
whether they would think favourably of a clause that two-
fifths of the taxes should be remitted to the landlord, if pay-
ment was made within a given number of days after the rate
paper had been delivered ?
Mr. Gilbertson, Mr. Knapper, Mr. Hughes, and Mr.
Walker, and several others, expressed their decided objection
to any provision of the sort. It had been tried in Liverpool
and failed.

The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution, and it was carried
unanimously.
On the motion of Mr. GILBERTSON seconded by Mr.
KNAPPER, Mr. Hughes was appointed treasurer, and Mr.
Willoughby secretary to the association.
In reply to some remarks from several parties,
The CHAIRMAN stated that some time before Christmas
the whole bill, clause by clause, would be submitted by the
commissioners to a public meeting of the ratepayers, who
would then have an opportunity of expressing their opinion
upon its provisions. In the meantime, the association just
formed would be properly occupied in watching over any
clause which affected their interest.
A committee was then formed to carry the objects of the
association into execution ; the rates of subscription fixed
and other business transacted of a routine character.
Mr. APPLETON was then thanked for his conduct in the
chair, and the proceedings terminated.—The first meeting of
the committee was appointed for Monday week.

WIGAN.-MONDAY,

IMPORTANT CASE RESPECTING MARKETS.

A case of much importance came before the Wigan bench
of magistrates, at the Town-hall, this day, in the form of an
information against a butcher named John Robinson, who
was charged in it with having, contrary to the 72d section of
the Highway Act, fixed a certain stall in the Scholes last
Monday, to the injury, interruption, and personal danger of
the public. The information was laid by Mr. Georgeson, for
whom Mr. Ackerley appeared in support of the complaint.
Mr. Ackerley opened the case at some length, and contended
that there was scarcely room for one cart to pass the de-
fendant's stall, much more for two to pass each other. The
road itself was only seven yards wide—one foot more than
described by the act of parliament; and the defendant's stall
was two yards one foot wide, and a stall which was on the
opposite side of the street was of the same width, making it
quite clear that such was an obstruction, as the whole of
the room in the centre of the street would be taken up with
one cart passing.
Mr. Ackerley then called Mr. Georgeson, the informant,
to prove the facts which he referred to ; when
Mr. Scott, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, ob-
jected to his giving evidence, on the ground that he was the
informant in the case, and as such was a party interested,
being entitled to half the penalty.
Mr. Part, the magistrate's clerk, observed, that in common
law such was not a disqualification, but merely went to his
credibility as a witness.
Mr. Ackerley contended that the objection was not at all
one which could be sustained, as every person who came to
give evidence was an informant ; and he had then a brief in
his hand of a case brought before the Court of Quarter Ses-
sions, where the informant himself gave evidence and was en-
titled to the penalty.
Mr. Scott had no objection to the complainant personally,
but his duty as an advocate was to see that the bench adhered
to those rules which were right. He alluded to several au-
thorities, and read an extract from " Chitty's Burn's Jus-
tice," in substantiation of his argument.
Before any witnesses were called to prove the stall to have
been complained of, Mr. Scott proceeded to make his objec-
tions to the information, assuming such to have been the
fact. His first objection was, that the rector, as lord of the
manor, was entitled to hold certain fairs and markets in any
part of the borough, and that Monday was his market day.
Secondly, that the magistrates bad no jurisdiction where the
defendant claims a right; and he claiming a right from having
paid the usual toll, the magistrates had no power to decide
in the case. Mr. S. then read from Lord Raymond's reports,
in the case of the King v. Speed, (page 583,) as relating to
the question of jurisdiction. He also contended that the
Scholes was a market by prescriptive right, and he could
prove that parties had paid toll for above forty years. He
then referred to several authorities in support of his argu-
ments, and cited a portion of the ease of the King v. Smith,
where parties were proceeded against for a nuisance in ex-
posing goods for sale in a street where it was the custom to
expose goods for sale for twenty years past,—in which Lord
Ellenborough observed, that he could not hold a man cul-
pable for so acting, with the belief that the place was a
market.
Mr. Ackerley observed that the question of jurisdiction
did not arise in the highway act, on which the proceedings
were founded. The magistrates had jurisdiction given them
in particular cases. One was in an obstruction of the highway ;
and in the 94th section they are empowered to compel parties
to make proper sewers. It was quite clear and easy for them
to define what was an obstruction ; and if a mere claim of a
party that he had a right to do wrong was to be taken, every
defendant would set up the claim when brought before them.
A discussion on the different points then took place with
the bench, and the evidence was gone into.
Edward Pickles was :called by Mr. Ackerley. He proved
the facts as stated by Mr. Ackerley, and that there was so
little room that, when standing opposite, and opposite to
Robinson's stall, a cart, which passed, turned him round, by
the wheel catching him as it passed. Had lived in the neigh-
bourhood of Scholes 25 years, and never saw signs of a mar-
ket until lately.
Mr. Scott called a woman, named Alice Anderson, aged
67, who stated that she had lived almost her lifetime in
Scholes, and had paid toll on Wednesdays and Fridays up-
wards of 40 years. Was proceeded against 16 years ago for
selling, and got off, when the rector's books were searched
about the markets. The magistrates then decided she had
a right to stand there. _ _ _

Mr. Ackerley cross-examined the witness, when she in ad-
dition stated that, other persons 40 years ago held stalls, and
paid tolls in the same part of the town. Persons could never
go through the Scholes without knowing there was a market.
Mr. Ackerley said they could not possibly believe the
last witness, when she stated that there were markets held
every Monday from the Bridge to the top of the Scholes.
The magistrates then consulted together as to the course
they should take, and after some consideration dismissed the
case, the Mayor observing that the bench regretted that they
were unable to prevent the nuisance.

LENDING UMBRELLAS.—Hopkins once lent Simpson, his
next-door neighbour, an umbrella. You will judge of the
intellect of Hopkins, not so much from the act of lending an
umbrella, but from his insane endeavour to get it back again.
It poured in torrents. Hopkins had an urgent call. Hop-
kins knocked at Simpson's door. " I want my umbrella."
Now Simpson also had a call in a directly opposite way to
Hopkins, and, with the borrowed umbrella in his hand, was
advancing to the threshold. " I tell you," roared Hopkins,
" I want my umbrella." " Can't have it," said Simpson,
at the same time extending the machine dedicated to Jupiter
pluvius. "Why , I want to go to the east end ;it rains in
torrents ; what," screamed Hopkins, " what am I to do for
an umbrella ?" "Do l" answered Simpson, darting from
the door, "doas I did; Sonnow. ONE !"—Puneh.