Mr. D. Meagher. 5 March 1838. 23 8 m i n u t e s o f e v i d e n c e t a k e n b e f o r e t I Ie 4887. Did none of his family go on with that business subsequent to that timej — No ; none of his family went on with it. 4888 Mr Serjeant Jackson.] Was not the business carried on for the purpose of winding up the concern ?— Not as a cooper. He was a contractor with the Government. They may have wound up his contract with the Government. 4S8q Had not he, at the time of his death, business on hand in the line of his trade as a cooper ?— I cannot recollect that; his brother is a physician, and I believe his brother wound up his affairs by selling off the stock. 4800 Have you any doubt that there was business going on at the time of his death, not only in his capacity as cooper, but also in his capacity as a merchant ? — The concern was obliged to be wound up. 4891. Must not there be a good deal to do in winding up such a concern ^ Whatever provisions he had would have to be disposed of, and whatever he had contracted to supply would have to be made up to complete his agreement ? — I suppose so. 4893. Do you know how long his contract with the Government lasted ?— No ; but I speak of the illegal admitting of men that have not served seven years. 4894. What is the next case ?— The next is Thomas Govis, a cooper; that, man, in like manner, was admitted a freeman when he could not have served seven years. 4895. Had Thomas Govis served a greater or a less portion of time before the death of Mr. Howe, than the last named person ?— He was apprenticed 011 the ist of September 1829 ; he was even later apprenticed than the former man; he was a month later. 4896. How much did he want to complete the whole seven years at the time of the death of Mr. Howe ?— Five months. 4897. Can you have a doubt upon your mind that it would require at least five months to work up the stock on hand, and to fulfil whatever contracts there might be, and to wind up the affairs ?— I think that whatever coopering business was done must have been done by another master- cooper. 4898. Whatever provision contract was to be completed, was to be completed by his representatives?— Exactly. 4899. Have you the least doubt that it would occupy, at least, five months to do all that ?— I think it would take all that; but I say that the apprentices ought to have been transferred to a new master- cooper. 4900. What is the next case ?— The next is Amos Cook, a victualler; he was bound to William Cook the 20th of October 1830; he was admitted a freeman 011 the 20th of May 1837, and sworn the 23d of June 1837; consequently he could not have been seven years an apprentice when he was admitted. 4901. ( To Mr. Besnard) Have you any explanation to give of this case?—• There is a mistake here, which I discovered since Mr. Meagher spoke to me; the entry here speaks of the apprenticeship bearing date the 20th of October 1830; that was before I was town- clerk; but it is clear that his indenture bore date the 20th of October 1829 ; because it was enrolled on the 6th of April 1830, and therefore it must have been dated the 20th of October previous to that. 4902- ( To Mr. Meagher.) What is the next ?— I complain of Anthony Perrier, junior, the son of Sir Anthony Perrier, bound the ist of March 1829, and ad- mitted an apprentice the 13th of April 1836, and sworn the 16th of June 1836. Now, 1 allege that Sir Anthony Perrier, his father, had ceased to be a merchant for years before, and that it was a colourable name to serve his family ; that he was no merchant, and that was known to the council, of which Sir Anthony is one himself. 4903- ( To Mr. Besnard.) What observations have you to make upon this?— I he date of the indenture and the date of the admission is all right, as far as my knowledge goes; Sir Anthony Perrier, who had been a very extensive merchant formerly, has ceased to conduct that business, at all events to the extent; indeed, 1 believe has not been an importing merchant or an exporting merchant during the time his son was apprenticed to him ; but he is the agent of the Atlas Assur- ance Company and I believe, occasionally he did business in the way of trade, hough it must have been upon a small scale. But the subject was brought under e consideration of the council; some parties said that Sir Anthony Perrier might , et 0nSl err 0 be a merchant' but they said would be hard to set limits to the tnne at which a man should be obliged to resume a trade which he had been