The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-06 00:00:00

WATCH COM MITTEI

The proceedings of the Watch Committee having been
read,
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE moved their confirmation.
Mr. Alderman EARLE wished to know why a man of the
name of Simmonds had been appointed to the police force?
Ilis attention had been directed to a paragraph in one of the
papers, in which certain statements had been made that led
him to think the appointment of Simmonds a bad one.
Mr. JOHN SMITH.—Read the paragraph.
Mr. Alderman EARLE.—Sir, I'll do as I like.
Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE asked whether he should answer
the question?

The MAYOR tho
notice of paragraphs in the papers
Mr. J. LAWRENCE said there
matter, and that he was quite rea
the question if the council desired,
Mr. Alderman EARLE said it appear€
had taken an important part in the Manchester case of
Hearne v. Stowell, which was about some poor, crazy crea.

ght the council were not bound to take

as nothing secret in the

Ldv and preimred to answer

I that Simmonds

tore who had been found crawling in the streets. Aker the
trial, Manchester became too warm for him, and he came
over to Liverpool, where he made application to the police
committee, but was unable to obtain an appointment in the
force. He hail been originally in the Liverpool police force,
but being remoustiated with by the chairman, or committee,
for impropriety of conduct, he became extremely saucy.
It was thereupon recommended that he should resign, in
order that he might not be kicked out of the force, and he
accordingly took the advice and resigned. He had been
recently asked, in presence of the committee, how he had
left his wife and family in Manchester, and what he allowed
them to live upon, upon which he, who had been backed by
a whole host of the clergy of the established church, said
that he allowed them 2s. 6d. a-week. He was then cautioned
as to his answer, because it appeared that the allowance was
only 2s. a-week ; but he still persisted, and said at last that
2s. a-week was all that the magistrates had ordered him to
pay. Here, then, was a man, with lSs.•a-week, who only al-
lowed his family 2s. a-week ! And was this the man to be
appointed an officer in the police force of Liverpool? If
these statements were not correct, some gentlemen, he dared
say, would tell him so.

Mr. PARKER.—They are not correct
Mr.:EARLE.—I am glad to hear it,
for information.

because I only asked

LAWRENCE.—Does the name of this individual
occur in the proceedings which have been just read?
Mr. J. LAWRENCE.—Yes; as making the application to
be appointed.
Mr. Alderman EARLE.—I think there ought not to be
any screening of such conduct as this, because he was subse-
quently appointed to the force. There is an excellent reso-
lution of the Watch Committee, which says, that no man
shall be appointed under them unless he has a recommenda-
tion from his last employer, or from some one who has a
knowledge of his character; but, in the present case, this
was dispensed with.
Mr. J. LAWRENCE.—NO, no.

Mr..EAßLt.—That's the only flat contradiction I have
received. (Laughter.)
Mr. PROCTER.—AS the man's name is not mentioned in
the proceedings I beg to call Mr. Earle to order.

Mr. EARLE (who read from a newspaper he held in his
hand).—He comes recommended by the Rev, Hugh Stowell,
the hey. Hugh M`Neile, the Rev. Fielding Ould, the Rev.
William Falloon, the Rev. Dr. Tattershall, the Rev. Thomas
Nolan, and a whole host of others. (Great laughter from the
Radicals.)

The MAyort.—As his name is not in the proceedings, we
are only consuming time, because the subject is not before
the council.

Mr. EARLE.—I think I- have said enough to induce the
council to inquire how this individual, who allows his family
2s. a-week and receive 18s., came into the police force ?
Mr. J. LAWRENCE.--Arn I at liberty to reply ?
The iVlA.vou.—l think you have no need to vindicate the
conduct of the committee.

Mr. EARLE.—My end is answered. I have brought the
matter before the public.
The MAYOR.—Yes, you have rim the gauntlet; but I
should not have allowed you to do so if I had known your
object.
Mr. J. LNWRENCE.—The man is now discharging his duty
very much to the satisfaction of the head constable, and his
appointment has been a very credible one. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. COPELAND.—The head constable fold me he was
going on in a very satisfactory manner. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HODGSON.—The appointment was made after due
consideration.
Mr. EARLI
laughter.)
Mr. MELLOR.—As a member of the Watch Committee, I
felt it my duty to oppose the appointment of this man. He
was taken-

—Oh, I am more than pleased. (Ironical

Mr. A. SMITH, jun. contended, that as Mr. Alderman
Earle had been stopped by the Mayor, Mr. Mellor should be
stopped also. _ •_ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. PARKER said that if Mr. Mellor was heard he should
claim the same right.
The MAYOR said he was ignorant of the circumstances or
he should not have allowed Mr. Earle to have gone on ; and
having discovered what they were he should stop Mr. Mel-
lor. The time, however, would come when they could make
such remarks as they might think fit.
Mr. AlKlN.—When the proceedings of a committee are
read, is it not competent for any member of the council to
ask questions upon them? . .

The MAvutt.—Yes, certainly.
Mr. AtxrN.—Then Mr. Earle is asking a question upon
them.

Mr. PROCTER.-But the man's name, Simmonds, does not
appear upon the committee's proceedings.
Mr. Alderman EARLE.—WeII, I will bring the matter be-
fore the council in a regular way if it is necessary.
The MAYOR.—Your proper course will be to bring the ap-
pointment before the committee, and if I had known the cir-
cumstances before I should have stopped you.

Mr. Alderman EARLF..—I am glad yot
enough to discover them before, Mr. Mayor

a were not sharp

Mr. ATKIN.—If an appointment is ma3e by the Watch
Committee, is it not competent to bring it before the
council ?

Mr. BUSHELL

—By special motion

Mr. J. LAWILENCE:—It seems to be forgotten that the ap-
pointments made by the committee are final, and that the
council have nothing to do with them.
Mr. G. H. LAWUENCE.—I understand the committee
have the power to appoint without any reference to the
council.

The Toi,vN-cf,ErtE.—The lA-ateli Committee is placed by
the municipal corporations' act on a different footing from
any other committee. The corporation act enacts that there
shall be a Watch Committee, and for the council to fill up
the members of that committee, and then it provides for the
duties of the committee in the appointment of constables and
other officers. it is different from the appointment of any
other committee; for instance, it is different from the ap-
pointment of the Finance Committee, which is understood
to be the highest committee we have. The Finance Com-
mittee is appointed under the 70th section, but the appoint-
ment of the Watch Committee is obligatory on the council.
Their duties are provided for by the act, the consequence of
which is. that the Watch Committee have the appointment
of all officers under their charge, and the only control the
council have over the Watch Committee is to refuse the sup-
plies if they think they are improperly required.
Mr. A. SNI ITH .—I beg to move that we proceed to the
consideration of the next subject on the paper.
Mr. PA RK ER.—Mr. Earle has made a charge against the
committee, and I rise to vindicate my own character as one
of the members of that committee.
The MAYOR.—You had better not mind him.
Mr. M ELLOR.—I rise to say a few words.
Mr. PA RKER.—I shall not sit down if Mr. Mellor is al-
lowed to proceed.
Mr. 1111:LLon.—I think the mayor will admit that I have
a right to make some remarks upon the proceedings of the
watch committee.

Mr. PARKER.—And he will admit also that I have a right
to make some remarks, as I am a member of it.
The MAYon.—Oh! certainly.
Mr. PARKER.-1 merely rise—
Mr. PROCTER.—Has the gentleman any amendment to
propose?
Mr. PARKER.—No ; I merely wish to vindicate myself as
having had to do with the appointment of Simmonds.
Mr. J. Saint.—Let the mayor decide at once whether
Mr. Parker is in order.

The MAYOR.—He may proceed.
Mr. PARKER.-1 think that if Mr. Earle had come to the
watch committee, which consists of five-and-twenty members,
they would have given him every satisfaction, and that such
a course would have been much more in order than to come
here and put questions which it would take three hours to
discuss properly. I maintain that the appointment of Sini-
monds was a good one ; that the recommendation he brought
with him was high in the extreme ; and that he had a cha-
racter sufficiently high for any situation in the gift of the
committee. I think the slur Mr, Earle has thrown on the
ministers of the gospel was not at all in character with him
as a member of the Church of England. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. EARLE.—He allows his wife 2s. a week.
Mr. PARKER.—And I understand it is more than she
deserves. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MELLOR contended that the appointment was irregu-
lar. It was contrary to the standing orders passed in January
last, and he requested that the Deputy Town-clerk might
read the report of the sub-committee as to the mode of
taking on men, which was passed on the lath of January.
Mr. PARKER said, this would re-open the whole question.
The MAYOR asked whether Mr. Mellor had reason to
think that the standing orders had been departed from ?

Mr. MELbOR replied in the affirmative.
Mr. RADCLIFFE then read one of the standing orders,
which was to the effect that no testimonial be admitted except
from the last employer or some respectable individual having
a personal knowledge of the applicant.
Mr. J. LAWRENCE said that other testimonials respecting
the man's character had been before the committee, inde-
pendently of the one signed by the clergy.
Mr. MELLon. said, he had been one of the committee who
had recommended the adoption of the rule just read. The
reason of its adoption was to prevent testimonials from being
signed by constituencies, which was a very improper thing.
one would deny that the rule was sound in principle.
Within a few months after the adoption of the rule, a memo-
rial, signed by not less than thirty individuals, was brought
to the Watch Committee, and by that committee referred to
the daily board. He contended that no such memorial
should have been received, and that it ought to have been
declared irregular. He felt it necessary to state, however,
that there were three or four separate testimonials from the
parties who had signed the general one. It would have been
perfectly regular to send the separate testimonials to the
sub-committee; but it was equally irregular to send them the
general memorial which had been signed by the ministers of
the Church of England, because, a memorial so signed was
calculated to influence men judgments, and to induce them
to make an appointment which they would not have done in
the absence Of such general testimony. Upon those grounds
lie had moved in committee that the appointment be not con-
firmed ; and as Mr. Earle had now brought the matter before
the council, he had no hesitation in repeating his statement
before the Watch Committee, that the appointment of the
man was irregular.
Mr. J. LAWRENCE wished, after the speech which had
just been made, to leave the matter in the hands of the coun-
cil, Mr. Mellor having admitted that there were three
memorials from single individuals. One of those, memorials
was from the man's last employer. (Hear.) The principal
parties who signed the general memorial had, moreover, an
individual knowledge of him. One of them had wwrittena
note to him (Mr. L.) saying that lie had known him tor a
number of years, and that he bore a most excellent character.
Mr. EARLE.—Two shillings a-week. (A laug"
Mr. J. LAWRENCE.—If you had been in the same situa-
tionl
perhaps you would have thought 2s. a-week a great deal
too much. (Hear.) Mr. Lawrence then proceeded to con-
tend that the appointment was one which the committee had
been quite justified in making.
Mr. THORNHILL contended that the Watch Committee
ought not to have made the appointment.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that it appeared to him the whole
charge brought against this individual was that he had taken
a conspicuous part in the trial of " Hearne v. Stowell, but
surely as long as a man did his duty and had no stain on his
character, neither the Watch Committee nor the Council
were justified in making such an enquiry as that now before

them. But if they were to go into what might be termed
political services, he thought the Council should give to some
of them advice as to how they were to act, for if they only
took a retrospective view of past proceedings, he should be
glad to learn where that individual was who had not, in the
first instance, discharged the full measure of his political ser-
vice before he gained an appointment ? He (Mr. Gladstone)
did not complain of that—he did not think it was unfair ;if
the man was competent it was quite correct; but if they (the
conservatives) were to be found fault with for such things,
let the Council go boldly into the subject and examine into
past appointments.
Mr. PROCTOR said he would state one circumstance con-
nected with the appointment of Simmonds, which he thought
would have some weight with the council. It was the fact
that he had been employed at one of the public institutions
of the town, namely, the Northern Hospital, since the trial of
" Hearne v. Stowell," where no political feeling was allowed,
and he bore a highly respectable character there.
Mr. Alderman EARLE.—The public will judge.
The proceedings were then confirmed.
THE MARKETS' COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of the Markets' Committee were next
read and confirmed.

TOWN-HALL ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE.
The proceedings of the Town-ball Establishment Coin-
mittee, comprising the appointment of Edward Smith, as
porter at the Sessions'-house, in lieu of J. Napier, dismissed,
were also read and confirmed.