The Northern Daily Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-23 00:00:00

seATHEnI WSDNESDAY, APRIL 9.5, lgsd. III:r6 ALE QUARTER SESSIONS YESTERDAY gyas'z'svutirter Sessions for the Kirkdale district, opened ithyle Court-house, Kirkdale, at twelve o'clock yesterday. Magistrates assembled in their room' were very seato epo ai ee „ us, as it was known that the question of . the Cls s „ion of a chairman was to be decided. 11Ir. William r.,'!issvas called On to take the chair, and the other magis c?:Le .present were the H. Colonel Wilbraham, Messrs. I;:arr ell, William Rathbone, Theodore Rathbone, Wm. Iscoeillardman Earle, Gilbert Henderson, Joseph Preston,' W. Harden, Dr. Green, Wrigley, Steers, Unsworth. Rosson, Theakstone, Malcolm Ross, Catterall Cr , . W. Powell, A. Hodgson, D. Hodgson, Pow ßlunh e ii lt n all, Sylvester, Major Bourne, Gerrard, 4 104, otheram, R. Benn, B. Barclay, George ria l .„,,"ph A. Thine, Bevan, Harvey Sandbach, and busi" ° ' -1 ones. The Chairman Lbriefly opened the 'less of the sessions. T he A p . PoINTMENT OF A criATRMAN. 'Which urn. bu siness to be disposed of, was a motion, of as foi l notice had be en g i ven b y M r. William Rathbone, Dros s °.78 {had it is the opinion o f thi s court, t h at a hod tlil'o'°nal. gentleman, acquainted with the principles 11 401-- p . rac tiee of law, as now administered,. should that Such an, chairman chairman of the Quarter Sessions, and . acinll 4 . -appointment is necessary to secure the uniform Nmestration of justice, the respect of the bar, and the Ntr. e is e ° I . the public. resr_. ..athbone in proposing his motion, expressed his 'l4:,, t lh at some more active member of the body had not "% a a ken the duty. He hoped that he should not be Le - niri e,l as actin prematurely, and he did not think to c o e t i o - - Lie called an g innovator in bringing forward such 4 clan , T 1 „Re had always considered it painful that such cou rt, '",! lee late venerable Archdeacon, as judge of that ask 80ould have to appeal to one lawyer or another to t epea Tiat , should decide. He had himself felt it so t t lide o e r , d 'Y in the borough, where he hoped he had always d ,mnisiii a ", ll ; t ed to do his duty. He felt the painful an t ° 43 g Position in which he was placed when he had be t . :i t ', ro ulicl and ask the clerk—when there was a num his p oo r " "Yers talking nonsense around him and puzzling e did - rains— w h a t th e l aw rea ll y was on the question. the n ot think that was the wa y t o ma i n t a i n o fE n sl'is7 of the courts of justice, the neighbouringdki.ng ,,B,ltafion'Letand, they said that they believed mala of justice and want of confidence of the . lower hd ,Atie ' ll, the impartial administration of justice a 4aloeh',Ore to create all the evils which they must so much itison4t there than any other thing. The current opinion fs'es"6,, t , h e subject must be within the knowledge of all . the act ti ;" - len in that court. It was intended to bring in m a a n n t °rls t .„ all °v , ' quarter sessions to pay a professional I n ''g the formal chairman. This showed that public `9at °piui t °. i n w a-`; going that way. For himself, he declared ' 1 , 1 44 4 ' Was no object taken up for the nonce. . t Eve d h d e b w as qualified he had felt the importance of , an '4' 4 Jeerl an advocate for the last twenty years, of le s „ w ho s," ° , i ne nun appointed chairman of quarter sessions, tr ' e mld know what he was talking about.. A country co tor% 'anaemia' gentleman could only give a judgment ac- Wo4R to his inclination, but a professioual gentleman *osi d ,be bound by law, and moreover his reputation Zae „ at stake, on the legality of his decisions,. which ,the ",, c ' t the case with the non-professional magistrates. law rofessional man gave his decision according to the "Poo e new, which the non-professional man was called Which to decide according to the law he . did not know, 1)04 Was Putting him into a false position. Mr. i a_h thiwrstated, that he had written to Mr. Brown, •P•• tg him the proper person to propose that . resolu ose,t ut Mr. Brown had written to say, that his parlia howeaSjeY duties prevented him from attending, expressing, \ "rot e r, a perfect approval of the resolution. He then e ,illoti os t ° Sir James Birch, urging him to prepare t oe co ", but the objection that gentleman mad . e was, tha 'lasi:P/ 10 1 , Very well propose a motion of which another r eicellth at ifrate had given notice. Mr. Rathbone t en ob a precedent were wanted, there was one in the w as `,11,,t selection made at Preston, where it to 'l-:flight necessary to elect a man who had tio t i qualifications of birth, or hereditary posi rotialle Right Hon. M. T. Baines was the son of the tlais s -etor of a country newspaper, but he had the high bs t ,": B of talent and integrity, and had woe claims at the ss w rd in the senate to that confidence which they had tooeb," reposed in him. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Rathbone ISh."'„, e d bY proposing the motion. Dltted . b!'ilitatia Earle said as no other gentleman antici- Ves au 'irn in rising to second the resolution, he had great ttiotio,sre doing so. He thought it was a very proper ait,"'„atcl one to which they sho u ld a ll acce d e . so/lab, kir eene thought the motion h a d b een mos t unsea- Pot t „ te. He knew that a sense of public duty was ornin toov;yith many persons, but yet there were cer t a i n gentl e macla' rul es an d certain courtesies which sometim e s th at rten hesitated to infringe. He was surprised that the ruction should have been made in that court, when eneQourt had on a former occasion given its prefer_ e !ites e al t ° the principle of appointing a non-pr r f t he gentleman. He thought . the propose . it is should have hesitated in again bringing Nerl,vard, because he did not think, as lawyers matte fl at there must be some end to litigation in the Welf r i and that when a thing had been decided it was tasi s , let it rest. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to politica ee Any strong expressions, but if thi s were said th 'natte r , which i t was not, he thought it might b ,„ t it = h ero was something factious in the proceedin_. have also hesitated upon another ground. tblio r s - ,l" a s a gentleman then present to whom he waslise b a - . to Chide - , and if that gentleman were not not resen allude to him in terms which he could not make * ell a tli t a u l . en „' Re did think that w . hen a gentleman so very me n , ll a '"ed. as his learned friend Mr. P . ollock,_w m o e s n. "Uned , mentioned on a former occasion, d to Per Loci, with strong approbation by ever one there 1°55 bs sena l and on public grounds—when . that entlemax tr'ssa.°llght forward, he did think, considering what g . then t,d friend of that gentleman should have hesitated afi re Placing Wm in what must be considered not a very o , i 4able Position : It was not well to make that . court . a except ": 4 PPeal, from another of co-equal jurisdiction, (il ea ; ~1 0 some case of most extraordinary emergency. tract!, or " e ar-) With regard to the question of a profess a non-professionsi chairman, he said the ma its country had always been interlaced, both a ,,'ear With ~ it " h '°eial condition and its constitutional character. s i ,. 4ll 4iioOOt):%'ar.) The dignity of the body was best t . o . be by self-exertion, to use a term of political 1 , - „,re r o , l and, as long as the magistrac well the country - "uloss -e Pendent and unpaid, it might be that a h i t.rs4; (l B - 0 , .or a gentleman, or a legislator, would look , s itti sif with emulation, and would . endeavour t d o m ke s gla tistsl t f or the high position of being at the ea of a the jessio n ;°"'es of his hundred, and chairman of the quarter j e s r s :, (ear hear This was a oste at and ob H ject'of em ) ulation ; and, hitherto , , the magis• th .„ the country had held a very high position, rates "fiticall and socially. The body of magis ,-,:storeaf that count had made themselves t, -- I ;„ °ll ' s ti l , - a7 known, in some instances protecting the occasions, asserting the liberty of th a t obj ee ` t t . of l i ie othe . r he dth th should still be kept in k a-ter t'esi tion of wished that they should still be kept in of dignity, he believed would be Of 8 ,, ; 1 Lin "niured, if there were to be a regular system It warendiarisrn throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) it `' lard ve ry worthy thing for any gentleman to look d wa: - to, to be the head of a body of magistrates, an *ortisa-nworth his while to make himself fit for the per- DosT " of the importancen he saw that he might obtain batorallml of and of consequence : . whie . li n he belonged to the society and the position whichl&3 no s „ w ,as placed. But when he found that there the -sm,en temptation, that a professional gentleman ;len h c : ?Lace, the natural indolence of man supervened, ~- ` o P ss - ,, ce ased to exercise such careful regard to his own to me 1 4 f t - f e ttle office, and what did he become ? He be ta More than an official to sign summonses, or '2esloo ~.hwarrants. magistracy) That was not the posid ups.""ie,h the • of the country shou h l ; L es,,,,m the present day. (Hear, hear.) T e a ' l li e ti h s un - c i red n o o w f brought forward did not refer merely to West Derby—it was a general resolution, Cod ri Z e med to be the introduction of a theory which was s as s thr ough the whole breadth and length of the the ti , a - - ; Y that resolution the court would be calling upon pantel) to the of the country to take the first downward .e extinction of their own body. With regard e rl dit rin ß the respect of the bar and the public, he ant of 0 know ss hen any disrespect from the bar, or oscliear hear.-,,enee of the public, had been manifested ? ut ) There might have been particular instances, tth c ,' Was talking of the general body, of the magistracy ;• "1-li ltrY. If a general act was passed for appoint to ,sBoPendiary magistrates, then when they had a fund the public Y the stipendiary magistrate they might come before and ask fo r one —not till then. 4trr. Rathb one: Excuse me--I do not ask for a litadiary magistrate. s o , • Greene said, surely the honourable gentleman did ta u sish to get the a ss i stance of a professional man per pfntly, w ithout rem unerat i on. That would be a species farec)nOmy which he thought would be going rather too b ar ; Now, he was about to prop ose an amendment. They lii‘, 4ll in p their memories the gentlem an who lately re Ai- 0 0? chairman of that quarter sessions. They hadall. tioo "iy, seen him upon the bench. Pass such a resol e _ 4 45 that proposed, and they would almost d e f ame the i‘ired memory of the dead. Rathbone: God forbid. 14„.f. Greene said if they passed such a resolution, they hsis" ( - 1 the disrespect of the bar and of the public, by de gar heir own self-accusers and self-condemnatory, and 11:tfilrihat they ect did not merit confid . ence or resp sa . th at ?, Passed such a resolution, well might every one they toofireY did not deserve the respect of the bar, or ess t .'7 l ce of the public ; nor, in point of fact, could they %se„ hold themselves in self-respect h erea f ter. M r . cou,-11e concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the tf immediately proceed to the election of a chairman ict?ar ter sessions. th e I°lll l Rosson seconded the amendment, and pointed 1- - late Lord Wharncliffe, the late Lord Althorpe, the and ''„,°,_rd Skehnersdale, the present Sir John Pakington, thai r "„,'"ers, as instances of non-professional and able i r . " r h or quarter sessions. Rav e '„ u • W. Harden, judge of the Cheshire county court, \ voisie ° tioe, that if the amendment were carried, he N,4 Pro pose an am en d ment on i t. 41,% Theodore Rathbone objected to the resolution, in so sl:!_it w ould bind the court, in every instance, to elect tC3 f:ssional man, no matter what his relative qualifica mr. to those of a non - professional candidate. Sour. Joseph. Pollock, Judge of the Liverpool County • .said : It is with great reluctance, and after . touch da„sation, that I have determined to take part in this 114 proceedings ; and I beg to sa3 , at the outset, that to eiltlernan pre , ent, except to my learned friend Mr. too rde , il ,and to him but a few hours since, when he com expre`,,,ed to me a similar intention on his part—have I he re, ”ect an intention of being present to-day. I came therefore, to consider the subject without having Iconcerted with any man, without having consulted with any man. I came here to exercise my right as an inde pendent magistrate of this county. to support a principle which I believe to be consistent with the soundest foun dations of social order—which, however erroneously, I am convinced is all but essential to our national welfare. Nor shall I be deterred by any fear of that which I know 1 am exposed to, misconstruction and misrepresentation, from saying publicly, as I think I am bound to say it, what I feel upon this subject. I trust to no man, shall I give any the slightest offence. I do not intend to utter one observation—l shall be touch surprised if I do—which can hurt the feelings of any gentleman present, or alarm the most sensitive of my brother magistrates. But, sir, reluctant as I am to appear here—and it is quite clear that I must be naturally so reluctant, and my learned friend, Mr. Green, has himself manifestly felt that my position is an unpleasant one—l say I have felt it my duty to come here, and manfully to express the opinions, which I honestly hold. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, this is the first opportunity since that chair became vacant, on which I could with any propriety appear before my brother magistrates. It is now known, that I have utterly withdrawn from any possibility of being nomin ated for that chair. My presence here to-day is a sufficient indication that that withdrawal is final. For merly I could not attend—it would have been improper, and indelicate to do so. I take the first opportunity of meeting my brother magis trates of the country, and I think under circumstance so peculiar there is no gentleman present who will not accord to me the liberty which I will not say I demand, but which I ask, of briefly explaining in the first instance my position in the matter, and my con duct from the commencement. (Hear, hear) It is an unpleasant subject, and shall be dealt with as briefly as possible. When that chair became vacant, sir, I was asked whether I thought the appointment should be a stipendiary one. I am in the habit of saying what I think, and I answered I thought it ought. But I take leave in the most explicit, distinct, and emphatic terms to assert that it never entered into my mind at any moment to conceive that I should annex to the perfor mance of any services I might be able to render to the magistracy, or to the country, any conditions or stipula tions of any kind whatsoever. (Hear, hear.) Had I been appointed to that vacant chair, I knew it could not be a salaried appointment. There is no possibility, under the laws which exist, of having:any such salary annexed to it. Had I been appointed to that chair, I think the feeling of every gentleman present will anticipate what I say when I assert that if a salary had been afterwards annexed to it, my first duty to myself, my first duty to others would hale been to resign into the hands of the magistracy of the county the appointment which, when unsalaried, had been conferred upon me in order that they might make a new appointment under the new cir cumstances. (Hear, hear.) More lately I was asked . by gentlemen who differ from me in opinion if I could join with them in the course which they intended to adopt. I shall not allude to this further than to say, in general terms, that if the magistrates of the county had seen their way to anything like a general, or anything like an unani mous selection of a candidate for the office—or if the word candidate be offensive—au unanimous nomination to the office, for one should have felt it my duty to assist in preventing any disturbance of the general tranquillity and unanimity, and I should have offered it to the gentleman or nobleman, whoever he might have been, as I still hope to offer, whatever might the selection of the court today, such service as I could render, consistently with my principles in this matter. (Hear, hear.) I found, how ever, sir —for it was my duty to enquire—that some magistrates felt themselves bound to bring forward the question which has been mooted :by Mr. Rathbone in his motion to-day, and it would have been worse than improper of me if I had come here to oppose principles which I believed to be founded on good sense. So much, sir, for a personal explanation. I come now to the more important question. I utterly disclaim in my mind any imputation upon the magistracy generally. The question is not whether the magistrates shall continue to act as magistrates of the county, or whether they have deserved the respect and confidence of the public in that capacity, but whether in a particular and given situation, with particular duties and particular difficulties attached to it, they are or are not to have that assistance which a professional education alone can impart. (Hear, hear.) I cannot, therefore, allow it to go forth that there is the slightest censure passed upon any man, or any body of men, in this matter. Much less can I permit it to be said without the flattest contradiction, so far as I am con cerned, that I could join in any disrespect towards him who is gone, and with whom I had the honour and the pleasure of being associated at the bar and on the bench. (Hear, hear.) But would my learned friend, Mr. Greene, propose to carry out his own principle ? Will he name a clergyman as chairman here to-day ? He says the late Archdeacon was respected in that capacity. He was respected—not because he was non-professional, but in spite of his being non-professional. (Hear, hear.) Are we prepared to say that a clergyman would now be a pro per appointment ? No, sir, the time has gone by for such an appointment. (Hear, hear.) With great respect, be it spoken, the world has learned that a clergyman has his functions to deal with, acrd that he is not best employed as a chairman of Quarter Sessions. (Hear, hear.) It might just as well be said that, because we unanimously elect a layman to-day, we are impugning the character of the late Archdeacon, as to say that we are impugning his character, because we attempt, to eeleui as pruaisstoual gentleman. My two learned friends who addressed you on this subject ought to know something—both do know something, and more than something—of the difficulties under which a chairman of Quarter Sessions is sometimes placed. In the first place he has got a bar to deal with. (Hear, hear.) With the greatest possible respect f'r my learned friends around the table, the bar is, after all, but human. It has its imperfections, both of temper and demeanour. It is one of the penalties you pay for, that liberty which is priceless, the liberty of the advocate, that it should degenerate occasionally into license. The members of the bar who practise before a court of inferior jurisdiction, have not over them the strict restraint which the presence of a judge of a superior court involves. They become frequently identified with the position of the case and the client, and when the contest is public, and fame depends upon it and after existence, who shall say that human nature will not yield to temptation ? Has any man been present at a court of quarter sessions, and not observed this ? I speak as one who has practised here. I speak as one who, by a compact with his brother magis trates, abstained purposely, owing to the age and the venerable position of the chairman, from interfering frequently in cases where, before any other man than himself, I should have thought it my duty to do so. I assert publicly, and it is known to all men who have prac tised at the sessions, that his peculiar character, his clerical position, his age, and the paternal love with which that gentleman was regarded, prevented him from being engaged in many and many a difficulty which would have beset any other man but him. (Hear, hear.) Are the bar to be restrained by putting a gentleman in the high position of chairman to determine on what they know much better than he does ? Did you ever know a set of scholars who would behave well to a master of whom they believed that he did not know as much about the subject he was teaching as they did ? Some one may say this can be effected by an assessor—perhaps, the clerk of the peace. I would not degrade the magistrates of this county by imagining that their subordinates are to be their superiors. I will not imagine that they are going to stultify themselves by appealing to their clerks to teach the administration of that law which they have sworn to maintain. (Hear, hear.) It may be said also that the presence of legal gentlemen on the bench will, of itself, prevent the chairman from making any mistake which might impair his utility. I ask would interruption be seemly from a subordinate justice ? If you want to have a chairman in a position becoming to his own dignity you should not necessitate an unseemly appeal to a subor dinate justice, or put the latter in theamfortunatelposition of differing with his leader, and differing with effect. Is that all ? Is there not the difficulty involved in the laws of evidence? Is it true, gentlemen, that there is anything which deserves or has obtained the investigation of the greatest intellects in the law of evidence ? Have Ben tham, Gilbert, Phillips, and a host of others who have written upon the subject been dealing with a myth or a reality? Is there anything in the law of evidence which has exercised the subtlest minds, the greatest reasoners, and perplexed many of them ? I ask whether you are prepared to tell me that the law of evidence is like a tune which you can whistle from the notes which are laid before you, at first sight, or whether it is a genuine reality, something which has exercised and ought to exer cise the minds of reasoning men? I ask whether it is a matter whsch requires a careful, patient, and long inves tigation ? I ask whether the mastery of it is intuitively attached to noble birth, to cultivated intellect, or to here ditary talent? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Pollock then illus trated the difficulties of this question by describing some cases which arose recently before the Quarter Sessions involving some most complicated questions with regard to the jurisdiction of the court; the unsupported evidence of an accomplice ; the value of an extorted confession ; the question of rating public charities, electric telegraph and railway companies, and other equally difficult points. On these questions he contended no non-professional men was qualified to decide. Finally, he concluded by declaring that he left on the magistrates the responsibility, if they thought fit, of appointing a non-professional judge, and thus giving their sanction to the principle, and that he was contented by having done his duty to himself, to his tion le Of profession and to the public. (Applause.) tthe Davidcriminal Hodgson ju s ti ce contended,throug throughout tt theth e country,ad mini th.raad abteteanintehde,andamdlbraeetinon. of the world, and that the perfection , tern up to this timenfoll great measure owing to the sys tem by quarter sessions courts.. The unprofession a l cent, and would not magistracyatencw were rendered gentle maninsignia- presided. During the admirable professional. the late Mr. Rushton, the magisatra%sadr el i t nistration of themselves so insig,nificent, that they ceased attending altogether. Mr. W. Rathbone: I beg your pardon—quite the Con trary is the fact. Mr. Hodgson asked what magistrates attended at the sessions presided over by the Recorder of Liverpool, or at the assize courts. He contended that this motion contemplated a total transfer of the duties, from the magistrates to professional judges. (Hear, hear.) The very extreme tenacity of lawyers on questions of law, although so valuable in itself, was sometimes the source of an abuse, which would not be the ca se i n t h e h an d s o f an unprofessional magistrate. 'What was the extraordinary light come over them now to urge this change 7 Had any such alteration p o w r eint h hd a e d tnht m o ina'gss iasitntirtsaefaltlecestcoterofyaulrlideesnunshortcircumstances of s i ec o rh s a u hd d ma d di e n n ih l s y itt , ehr t e h rt a th t : i b n l detewn attained ? He urged that the magistracy had, in general, been administering the laws in the most satisfactory manner, and that the change called for, was at least, wholly unnecessary. At Hull, and other places, where a stipendiary magistrate had been introduced, it was fouud that the other magistrates ceased to attend. He gave the amendment his full and cordial support. The Rev. Benjamin Powell, of Wigan:: All I have to say is, that good sense, is not bad law. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Rathbone briefly replied. He disclaimed any per sonal motive whatever, and denied that he had any indivi dual in view. He had had no communication with Mr. Pollock, farther than that which he had frequently had with him, and hoped to have again when he endeavoured to learn a little law from him in that court, where he so ably presided. He did not consult with Mr. Pollock as to the course he was pursuing, and had he followed Mr. Pollock's advice, he should probably not have acted as ho was now doing. This was no imputation on the memory of the late Archdeacon. If it were so, the magistrates must have thrown equal imputa tion upon his memory when they appointed the Right Hon. M. T. Baines the chairman at Preston. It was not because the public intellect had fallen back, but because it had advanced, that the public would no longer tolerate non-professional judges. A stipendiary magis trate presided in the police court, and in other courts where the magistrates did not consider themselves devoid of intellect, but were generally aware of their want of actual professional knowledge. This want had frequently compelled him (the speaker) to adjourn cases in which he had not sufficient professional knowledge to decide. Finally Mr. Rathbone called on the magistrates to support the resolution. The mendment was then put, and there appeared — For the amendment : Colonel Wilbraham, Messrs. Camp bell, Thomas Rat hbone, Dr. Green, Wrigley, Steers, Pres ton, Uns worth, Rosson, Thackstone, Malcolm, Ross, Hen derson, Cotterall, Rev. Mr. Powell, Green, D. Hodgson, Cropper, Pownall, Sylvester, Bourne, Gerrard, W. Blundell, W. Hall-23. Against : Messrs. W. Rathbone, Rotherson, R. Benn, Barclay, G. Holt. Tinne, Harden, Bevan, Pollock, W. Earle, Harvey, Sandbach, Heywood, Jones, H. Earle-14. Mr. Harden then proposed a second amendment, the original amendment having now become the original motion. Mr. Harden pointed out that all the Quarter Sessions in Ireland and Scotland, and many in this country were presided over by professional chairmen, and alluded as instances to the Quarter Sessions Salford, Shropshire, Preston, and other place ,, , and the county of Middlesex, where a professiona assessor assisted the chairman. He asked why the criminal law of counties should be administered in a different form from boroughs—why an offender in the borough of Liverpool should have the advantage of being tried before the learned recorder, and an offender perhaps not an hundred yards off, must be tried by a lay judge ? If what was called good sense without a knowledge of law were sufficient, he did not see why such immense expense should be given to in the appointment and support of the judges of the county. Finally, Mr. Harden proposed an amendment to the effect that the chairman of the quarter sessions have the services of a profefsional assessor to assist him in criminal cases and in appeals, the assessor to be styled assistant chairman. Mr. Har3man Earle seconded the amendment. Mr. Gilbert Henderson, recorder of Liverpool, remarked that the arrangement referred to at Middlesex was under a special act of parliament, and called on the magistrates to consider very fully before they made so very important change in the administration of the quarter sessions. Mr. Hardman Earle observed that he thought the general admiration for English administration of law, referred only to the superior courts, and not the courts of quarter sessions. (Hear, hear.) With great respect for his brother magis trates, the days of Justice Shallow were now quite gone by. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In his recollection, prisoners were usually not defended by counsel before quarter sessions. There were now usually clever barristers, well qualified in law, upon either side, and ho thought it quite an anomaly to have the court presided over by a judge less qualified. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Tinne, said it was the fact of a stipend being paid in Middlesex, which rendered it necessary to have a special act of Parliament there. Here it was not proposed to have any stipend paid. The amendment was then put, and lost by a majority of nineteen against seventeen. Mr. William Rathbone said he could not take part in the election which was about to follow. His objection was not personal, but on principle. Mr. William Earle : Oh, face it out. laughter.) (Hear, hear, and Mr. Rathbone : No, on principle, I can take no part in it. Mr. Rathbone ace3rdingly left the room. Mr. David Hodgson thin - proceeded to move the appoint ment of a chairman. In a lengthened address he proposed the name of Lord Stanley, whose high talents, indefatigable industry, and personal character, he eulogized, as forming a combination, rarely to be found, of qualifications which should be sought for in making such an appointment Mr. John Rosson seconded the motion. The Hon. Colonel Wilbraham read the following letter from Lord Stanley— " Gentlemen,—l understand that my name is about to be put forward as a candidate for the office of chairman of goozio.o, now vaozant, stnd having oonaented to its being put forward, I wish that there should be no misap prehension as to the circumstances under which I have given my consent. I have had very little practice as a magistrate, and never professionally studied law. It seems to me that the office in question would be more suitable to some person who possessed one at least, if not both, of these qualifications. That, however, is a matter to be decided by the magistrates at large, and not by me. I have no personal desire, however I may be flattered by it, of the honour of being elected to the Chairmanship. If I be elected, I shall endeavour to fulfil the duties to the best of my power, but during the sittings of parliament my attend anco must, of necessity, be very uncertain. It is only, therefore, from a sense of the duty which every citizen owes to the community of which he is a member, that I have acceeded to the request made to me, that I would allow myself to be put in nomination. I shall not decline the office, if no better selection should be made ; but I would put it to the magistracy, if a longer experience, and more distinctly professional education, are not desirable in one who is elected to fill a responsible, judicial situation.— I remain, &c., STANLEY." Mr. William Earle said that nothing could be more cre ditable to Lord Stanley than that letter, and he was sure if several of the gentlemen had heard it before they voted, it would have changed their opinions. (Hear, hear.) He was not going to say a word against Lord Stanley, for he admired him very much ; but he was rather astonished at the gentleman who proposed Lord Stanley, and who said so much of his qualifications. He (Mr. Earle) fully admitted those qualifications, and he would even go further, for he admired him excessively for some points for which the gen tleman who proposed him probably would not admire him, being a gentleman of very strong feelings on certain religious points, and who was to be seen figuring at all sorts of places, which were a great annoyance to the community in sowing religious dissentions (Cries of order.) He declared that he was in perfect order. He was going to speak of the high qualifications of Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley did not consi der it a sin to look at a picture on a Sunday. (Cries of " Order, order," and laughter.) The Chairman : I really must call you to order. Mr. Earle : Am I not in order ? Am I not speaking of the qualifications of Lord Stanley—at least of those quali fications which recommend him to me ? They recommend him in a high degree to me. But the extraordinary fact is. that they should recommend him also to Mr. Hodgson, (Hear hear, and laughter.) Lord Stanley votes for the Maynooth grant; which is a perfect horror in the eyes of Mr. Hodgson. (Laughter, and cries of order.) lam sure Mr. Rossen must glory in that. The Chairman : This religious feeling ought not to be introduced. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Earle : This is not religious feeling. I have no religious feeling on the matter. I look to acting honestly, and not abusing our neighbours. (Laughter. Oh, Mr. Hodgson, I am perfectly astonished at your inconsistency. (Laughter.) Yet Ido not see why I should be astonished, for I have seen it before. (Laughter.) I leave you, sir, to the public press to deal with, and I hope it will trounce you fairly. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Pollock said he had run the risk of one misconstruc tion before, and now he was going to run the risk of another —that of servility. He was not afraid, however, to be sub jected to that charge. Having given his opinion in favour of a professional chairman, he thought it right to say that having been associated with Lord Stanley on the bench, and being the only magistrate present who was associated with him at the only quarter sessions that nobleman had attended, he could bear witness —not indeed that Lord Stanley pos sessed the qualifications he (Mr. Pollock) deemed indispen sable, but that he possessed what he himself had seen, and had the assistance, untiring energy, great patience, immense industry, and sound judgment. (Hear, bear.) The motion was then put and carried almost unanimously, one magistrate (Mr. Barclay, we were informed), voting against it. The great majority of the magistrates then withdrew, and the routine business of the day was disposed of by those who remained. CORONER'S INQUESTS. —The coroner held the following inquests :—On the body of N. Harrison, aged 28 years. Deceased was a labourer, and was much addicted to drink. On Sunday evening he went into the back yard of Mr. Warren's public-house in Great George's-place, and in about an hour after, he was found dead there. The jury found a verdict of " died by the visitation of God."—On the body of John Julian, aged 35 years, who was a boat man. On Monday evening the deceased and another boat - man were returning from a ship to the landing -stage. The deceased, who was standing in the boat rowing, suddenly exclaimed "oh, oh l" and then dropped dead in the boat. He was a sober man. The jury found a verdict of " died by the visitation of God."—On the body of William L ea , 47 years o f age, who resided in E . verton Valley. Th ree wee k s ago the deceased was work ing in a quarry at Bootle village, when a stone fell on him, and he died from the effects of the injuries received. The jury found a verdict of, " accidental death."—On the body of Bridget O'Rourke, aged 68, who resided in Cazeneau street, and who, it appeared, had died in consequence of her clothes catching fire. The deceased had been in a state of imbecility fur some time past. The jury found a verdict of "accidental death."_ BANKRUPTCY COURT -YESTERDAY IMPORTANT TO THE MERCANTILE WORLD. (BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER PERRY.) IN RE DEANE, YOULE AND CO This day the learned commissioner had appointed to give his Judgment in this most important case. The following legal gentlemen, all of whom represented persons more or less interested in the affairs of the estate, were present :—Messrs. Hull, Simpson, Anderson, Rymer, Squary, Haigh, Bateson, Hackleton, and Bardswell. We believe that this case was considered of so much import_ ante, that no less than thirteen gentlemen of the legal profession were engaged in it. The learned commissioner gave the following judgment in the case . Win this case, several questions have arisen upon proofs, exceeding, 2,600 in amount, tendered by the holders of bills accepted by Deane, Youle, and Co., of Liverpool, and drawn upon that firm (the partners of which in Liverpool were George Deane and Frederick Youle), by the firm of Deane, Youle, and Co., at Pernambuco, the partners in which were the members of the Liverpool firm with the addition of Alfred Youle; or by the firm of Youle, Deane, and Co., at Bahia, the partners in which were the members of the Liverpool firm, together with Hugh Robert Baines and John Smith Gilmore. An attempt having been unsuccessfully made by Mr. Lowndes, the solicitor for the assignees of the Liverpool firm, to obtain some admissions with respect to the effect of certain pro ceedings which had taken place in Pernambuco, by which, as he contended, the property of the Pernambuco firm having been withdrawn from bankruptcy there, and having been vested in trustees for the benefit of the creditors of that firm, the members of the firm had been released from their liabilities by those creditors, it was arranged that certain proofs should be tendered, and the opinion of this court taken upon them, in preference to the only other course of proceeding open, which was that of a lengthened adjournment to admit of more certain information, as well as to the effect of those proceedings, as, also, to the amount of dividend already paid in Per nambuco and Bahia upon bills tendered in proof to this court, a dividend amounting to 20 per cent. being admitted to have been received in Pernambuco upon some of the bills tendered. As to the Bahia house, a proof was ten dered by Mr. Hull upon a bill for £l5O drawn by Youle, Deane, and Co., of Bahia, upon and accepted by Deane, Youle ' and Co., of Liverpool, Mr. Hull admitting that his client knew that Messrs. Deane and Youle, of Liverpool, were partners in the Bahia firm as to the Pernambuco house; Mr. Hull, also, on behalf of a client named Bon chardy, tendered a proof sworn abroad, but not signed by the creditor, for £l5O. He also tendered, on behalf of John Rapp, of 01 , 1 Broad-street, London, a proof for £2500, upon which he admittedthe receipt of a dividend in Pernambuco, amounting to £5OO. Messrs. Duncan & Squary tendered on behalf of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, and Co., a proof for an amount reduced by a dividend of £2O per cent, admitted to have been received in Pernambuco, also a proof on the part of C. Toussaint for £250 13s ; Mr. Rymer tendered a proof from Calsfreres and Co. for ~eBO2 17s, as to which no statement was made by him of any dividend already received; Mr. Simpson, who had, at a former meeting. presented a proof on a bill for eel,ooo, from the Bahia house (on which £146 14s 8d was admitted to have been received), presented a proof from Messrs. Le Comte for £l,OOB 12s 2d ; Mr. Ander son presented, on behalf of Messrs. Truchon, two bills for e'3oo each; Messrs. Freshfield presented proofs on behalf of Messrs. King and Goldsmid for £15,000 on bills which they had received through the Brazilian government ; Messrs. Tatham and Upton presented proofs on four different bills on behalf of Porbelin and Co., and four other houses ; Mr. Birkett, for certain executors, a proof for an amount of £632 17s, reduced by a ~e2O per cent dividend received in Pernambuco, and Mr. Bardswell, on behalf of J. Lackmann, a proof of a date prior to the payment of the dividend in Pernambuco for .W 515 18s 6d. Mr. Lowndes, also, presented certain proofs which had been sent to him as solicitors for the assignees. Mr. Upton, who urged the admission of the proofs of Oberlin and others, did not admit knowledge of his clients of the manner in which the firms of Deane and Youle, of Pernambuco, and Deane and Youle, of Liver pool, were constituted, but it is observable, as to the proofs tendered by Mr. Upton, as well as with respect to all the others, there is no allegation by any of the creditors that they were ignorant of the fact that the Liverpool bankrupts, whose surnames appear in the titles of the Per nambuco and Bahia houses, were members of those foreign firms. In the course of argument, as well of Mr. Hull as Mr. Upton, many of the cases on the question of double proof, beginning with Lafoust's case, and ended with the case7of Wickham v. Wickham, in which that question was adverted to in the judgment of the Vice-chancellor Page Wood, and some observations in Lord Henley's Bank ruptcy Law, page 184, 3 section, were brought under the notice of the court. To avoid repetition, and for the purpose of showing what the nature of these decisions has been in as clear a manner as I am enabled to do, I proceed to arrange them under two heads. Ist. The cases in which double proofs have been allowed. The Lafoust's case, 6th of April, 1797, before Lord Loughborough. Then Corson and Gorden were partners as turpentine manufacturers. Corson and Gorden were also partners with Whincuss and Griffin, as soap manufacturers, under tee Mu of pursuus who nact enscounted bills drawn by Corson & Gorden, on Whincuss and Griffin, and alleging their ignorance of the connection in partnership of Corson and Gorden with Whincuss and Griffin, were an appeal to the Lord Chancellor, and proof of such want_.of' knowledge admitted to prove against both estates; In ex parte Benson, a year afterwards, the holder of a bill drawn by one Marsh, a partner in a cotton manufactory with William and John Houghton (then carrying on a separate trade as grocers) in favour of the Houghtons, upon one Addis, which bill was paid for groceries to the holders of it, was allowed to prove against the joint estate of the Houghtons and the separate estate of Marsh. There, also, the holder had no knowledge of the connection of the par ties in partnership. There is also the case of ex parte Bonbonces, 8 Vessey, MO, in which the right to take dividends from both estates, in certain cases, is recognised by the Lord Chancellor. in cx parte Adam, 2 Rose, 86, and 1 Vesev & Beames, 493, five persons, trading under the firm of Codie & Co., drew a bill on two of their firm, carryine on a distinct trade, under the firm of Harrison & Goss. There the bill-holder, in the report in Rose (which is confirmed by that in the London edition of 1 Vessy and Beames,) was admitted to double proof; the Lord Chancellor expressing his opinion that the petitioner, " as ignorant of the connection of the parties," was entitled to prove against both estates, in ex parte Wallen arid ex parte Wensley, 1 Rose 441, and 2 Vessey and Beames. Ford, a ropemaker, Price and Cross, ship brokers, and Joseph Gildert, were jointly interested in the cargo of a ship ; Ford drew a bill for goods supplied for outfit of the vessel, in favour of Wensley and Co. on Price and Cross, Wensley and Co. knowing that the tour were jointly interested. In this respect, the case differed from those before mentioned, The holders proved the bill against both estates. It was sought to expunge the proof, which seems to have been sustained. because, as Sir Samuel Romelly and Mr. Hill contended, it was a draft of one of several partners upon two other partners, a distinct house, and carrying on, it might be added, a dis tinct trade. The Lord Chancellor (in the report in 2 Vessy and Beames), after admitting the authority of the cases of Saforest and Bonbonces, and stating that the debt was a partnership one, gives this reason for the decision in ex parte Wensley—the mode of payment is a bill payable to the vendors, not on the partners, whose name is not upon the bill, but on persons forming another house. In the case now before the court, as to all the Pernambuco bills, the names of Deane and Youle are upon those bills. The case of Wickham and Wickham, before the Vice chancellor Page 'Wood, in December last, has been referred to. Wickham v. Wickham, did not involve a case of actual bankruptcy. There appears to have been a deed of inspection, from some of the provisions of which the Vice-chancellor collected that the two estates referred to in that case, of Finch and Sons, and Finch and Willey, debtors to the Low Moor Company, were to be wound up as in bankruptcy ; and thus the question of double proof was raised upon the argument in the case, of which I have not been able to obtain a report. In the shorthand writer's notes of the judgment of the Vice- Chancellor, it appears that Finch and Sons, a firm of which Edward Finch was a partner, drew bills for £6,370 15s upon Finch and Willey, which were accepted by that firm, and then the bills were endorsed by Finch and Sons to the Low Moor Company. Edward Finch, the partner of Finch and Sons, was the surviving partner of Finch and Willey. The Vice-Chan cellor appears to have held that, after proof against Finch and Sons, it was competent to the holders to prove the bills for £6,370 15s against Finch and Willey. This decision would appear to be at variance with the case of ex parte Hinton, in the matter of Acraman, which I will hereafter advert to. Second. I come now to the cases in which double proof has been refused, or expunged after such proof had been made. In ex parte Rowlaudson, 3, Pere Williams, 405, John Crosfield and James Berbet, partners in trade, had given their joint and several bonds to the petitioner. Row landson, proved his debt under a joint commission issued against them, and received a dividend. Two separate commissions having afterwards issued against the partners, the creditor sought to receive his dividend under the separate commissions, and being refused by the commissioners, their decision was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, who required the creditor to elect, but as the dividend under the joint estate was received, while the matter was in suspense, liberty was given to him to repay the amount of the dividend. This case is referred to in ex parte Bevan 10 Vessey, 10S, which I only mention here for the note by the reporter at the foot of that page, which is in these words :—" Where the contract is for double security against distinct firms, though consisting of the same individuals, the creditor, if ignorant of their connection, may prove against both.'— In ex parte Liddell in the matter of De Prado, 2 Rose 34, De Prado, with Grooves and another, were partners in the firm of Peter Grooves and Co., who had given a bill drawn by that firm upon and accepted by De Prado, to one Keys, who accepted it in ignorance that De Prado was a member of the firm. The firm became bankrupt, but, Groove being an infant, separate commissions were issued against De Prado and Hitchcock, the other part- ners. In Hitchcock's bankruptcy an order was made for keeping distinct accounts of the joint and separate estate. Keys proved under Hitchcock's bankruptcy as a joint creditor, and received a dividend out of the joint effects, in like manner he afterwards received a dividend as a joint creditor under De Prado's bankruptcy, but having sought to prove against De Prado's separate estate, and having been admitted to prove, his proof was ordered to be expunged by the Lord Chancellor, (In the ground of a conclusive election, his lordship using these words : " Adopting the aggregate liability of all his debtors, he is excluded now from resorting to them individually" . In ex parte Bigg, in the matter of Harrison 2 Rose 37, Samuel Cooke, wno was not a distinct trader, but was one Of five partners in a firm of Harrison and Co. ; drew a bill on Harrison and Co., and discounted it with his bankers, who kneit of his connection with Harrison and Co. The bankers having pro-tad the bill under the , which issued against the firm, sought re against Cooke's separate estate, but this laim was disallowed by the Lord Chancellor ; -/rte, the Bank of England, in the matter of Graves commission also to pr sO, in d Rose. where Graves, Sharp, and Fisher, in partner i a bill to their partner, Fisher, who was a nted the bill in the Bank of ship, inda ld he disc England, a , in accordance with their practice, the 1 the separate endorsement of Fisher, .• • - 1!31 bank bad c their customer, thereby apparently raising a valid cot for double security, it was held that" the bank must elect pdrte Husband; in the matter Madciock's Reports, 419 and 2 a joint commission had Glynn issued of Blackburn, 5, ad, Jameson, and Peter Blackburn, The petitioners were creditors upon bills of exchange, drawn by Isaac Blackburn upon Feter Blackburn. Isaac and Peter Blackburn traded as shipbuilders at Plymouth, but in the name of Isaac Blackburn only. Peter Blackburn carried on a separate business as a merchant in London. At the time the bills (which were negooiated for the use of the partnership trade) were taken, the petitioners were ignorant of the existence of the partnership, though they were aware of it at the time of the bankruptcy when they proved for a joint debt, and one of the petititioners was chosen assignee. They afterwards applied to the com missioners for liberty to transfer their proof to the sepa tate, which being refused, they applied to the Vice ,ncellor that they might be declared entitled to prove gainst the separate estates, as well as against the joint estate, or that they might be at liberty to transfer their proof from the joint estate to the separate estate. The Vice-Chancellor having held that thEy were too late to transfer their proof after dividend had been declared of the joint estate, and after they had acted as joint credi tors, the case came b fore the Lord Chancellor on appeal, allowing the petitioners to prove against the separate directed the proof against the to be He said : "In this cr rate es estates rlt estate the bills expunged accepted by the dormant partner of the partner ship of Isaac and Peter Blackburn, and are drawn by Isaac Blackburn in his individual name, indeed ; but as I must take it on the evidence in his name as representing the firm of the two bankrupts, it does not appear to me that this case ranges itself within that class of cases in which, contrary to the ordinary rule u bank ruptcy, the holder has been allowed to ptirsiif; the con tract appearing on the face of the bills, and t, have double proof." In ex parte moult., 1 Deacon and Chitt; 44, and 2 Deacon and Chitty 413. Messrs. Williams, Deacon, and Co. had proved against the joint estate of Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, and also against the separate estate of Geddes, upon a bill of exchange. Geddes was a partner with Thomas Barrow, under the firm of Thomas Barrow and Co., commission agents. He was also a separate trader as a cotton manufacturer under the firm of Geddes and Co. He was also a member of the firm of Thomas Johnston and Co., warehousemen, and of the firm of Samuel Radcliffe, cotton spinner. The subjects of proof were two bills drawn by Thomas Barrow ar.d Co. upon Thomas Johnston and Co., and endorsed Thomas Barrow and Co., Geddes and Co., and Samuel Radcliffe. A joint stock commission issued against Barrow and Geddes, and a separate commission against Thomas John ston, the creditor. Robert Williams, who alleged that neither he nor his co-partners, before the issuing of the commission against Barrow and Geddes, knew, believed, or suspected that George Geddes was a partner in the firm of 'l'. Barrow and Co., or that he was a partner in the firm of T. Johnston and Co., but that they believed that the firm of Thomas Barrow and Co., and the firm of Thomas Johnston and Co., and the firm of Geddes and Co., were composed of different and dis tinct persons. Proof was made for the amount of the two bills of Exchange against Thomas Johnston, and before 25th March, 1830, two dividends, amounting to 2s. 84. in the pound, were declared under his Bankruptcy, which might have been received by the creditors upon I application before that day. A proof was made under the commission against Thomas Barrow and Co., against the separate estate of Geddes, for the balance of the two bills of exchange, after deducting the amount of the dividend declared in Johnston's bankruptcy, and on the same day proof was made against the joint estate of Thomas Barrow and Co, for the whole amount of the two bills of exchange. A petition was presented to the Court of Review, praying that the creditors might be ordered to elect whether they would remain creditors under the proof against the joint estate of Thos. Barrow and Co., or render their proof against the separate estate of George Geddes, and i n c ase th e y s h ou ld elect to remain creditors upon the joint estate of Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, then that the amount of their proof upon that estate might be reduced by the amount of the two dividends declared on Thomas Johnston's estate, and in case of their refusal to elect, then that both proofs might be expunged. The Judges of the Court of Review being divided in opinion on the main question, made an order to this extent only, that the proof against the joint estate of Barrow and Geddes should be reduced by the amount of dividends received upon Johnston's estate: Sir G. Case, who, with the Chief Judge, was of opinion that their creditors must be put to their election, adverting to the argument which had been used in favour of the double proof, that as to Geddes, there was a separate express contract by indorse ment, said :—" It is needless to go through the cases, for not one has been cited that effects the rule, that you cannot prove against both the joint and se p arate es t a t e o f the sameindividual. Or I would put it thus Wherever your common law execution would give you both estates, then under the equitable execution, in which ou all come in solvency together under you must each take your own estates, in the first instance ; not exclusively, but, in the first instance, subject only to a right of election, which we all know is in the petitioning creditor, as perhaps the first execution creditor, and to a right of election, as in this case, when there is express consent." The Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) before whom the question of double proof was brought on a special case (2 D and C, 449), decided against the double proof upon the authority of the case of ex parte Husbands, before mentioned, and ordered that the creditors should elect against which estate they would prove. Since the decision in this case a double proof has been expunged in a case of ex parte Soper, in the matter of Salter and Pearson. The reference given by Mr. Lowndes, in his argument, was to the 4th volume of Deacon and Chitty's Reports, but the facts of the case are stated in the second volume of Mor taque and Ayrton's Reports, page 55. Salter and Pear son were in partnership as merchants; Pearson was also in partnership with different persons as warehouskeeper, and durning the five years preceding the fiat was in partner ship with Price. Salter and Co. drew bills on Pearson, which he accepted, and a commission having issued against Salter and Pearson, one of the bills was proved in 1824 against the joint estate, and another in 1825. In 1826 the party representing the holders as a surviving partner, sought to prove against the separate estate of Pearson the balance then due upon the bills, after deducting the dividends paid upon the joint estate, and his proof had been allowed by the commissioner. The proof was expunged in 1834, upon the authority of cx parte Moult. The court, how ever, did not order the dividends to be refunded, on account of the length of time which had elapsed since the receipt of them. That case of ex parts Moult was also the ground of expunging a proof in ex parte Law, 3 Deacon, 541. I come now to ex parte Hinton, in the matter of Acraman, De Gex, 550. In that case there were two firms, Acramans, Morgan, and Co., consisting of three Acramans and Thomas Holroyd, William Morgan, and James Novroway Franklyn, ship builders, boiler makers, and engineers, and the firm of D., E., and A. Acraman (consisting of the three Acra mans only, trading as merchants. A promisary note payable to one of the Acramens, or order, signed on behalf of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., the firm of six partners, was indorsed by the payee, and by the firm of D. E. and A. Acraman, as well as by one William Williams- The petitioner who had discounted the note knew or believed that the three Acramans were partners in the firm of six ; he had proved his debt under the fiat issued against the firm of Acramans, Morgan and Co. ' a nd received a dividend. Before the r e ce ipt o f th e di v id en d. but after proof made, he tendered a proof against D., E. and A. Acramans, against whom a fiat had also issued, but the commissioner rejected the proof, on the ground that, know ing the three Acramans to be partners in Acramans, Morgan and Co., he had made his election. The chief judge of the Court of Review, the present Lord Justice Knight Bruce, after expressing a doubt whether the knowledge that the three Acramans were members of the firm of six was material to the decision in the case, said, "I do not see any distinction between the case of ex parte Moult and the present, unless it is a distinction that Geddes and Co. had not a partner, whereas here the minor firm comprises several persons. I think that it is not. My opinion (subject to the question of knowledge or igno rance) is that by law there ought not to have been double proof in the case before me." And he dismissed the peti tion, giving the assignees their costs out of the estate. This case was decided in 1847, and my attention has been directed by Mr. Shackleton to some observations upon it, in a judg ment of Mr. Sergeant Stephen, delivered in the year 1850, in a case arising out of the bankruptcy of Acramans, Mor gan and Co. The learned commissioner says :—" I am 'aware that, in sx parte Hinton, the chief judge is reported to have expressed himself as if he thought the double proof must have been disallowed in that case, even though the taker of the note had no knowledge of any connection between the firms, and as if he admitted no distinction between the case of double proof as against connected firms, and of double proof as against the joint estate of a single firm, and the separate estate of one of the partners ; in which latter case the double proof must be disallowed, according to ex parte Moult, whether the taker knew him to be a partner or not. But I am not satisfied of the accuracy of the report in this respect; for such a view was not necessary to the chief judge's decision, nor is it the view taken in ex parte Hoult, on which heis said, neverthe less, to have exclusively relied : for, in ex parte Moult, the distinction just referred to is admitted. I conceive, therefore, that ex rirte Hinton is not to be understood as applying to the right of double proof against connected firms, except in the precise case which then occurred,—in the case where the taker of the bill was aware that all the partners in one firm were partners, also, in the other firm." , Beyond these doubts thrown out as to the report of i the case in ex parte Hinton, the case just referred to does not assist the advocates of the right of double proof, INIIIMIMINMMINNWOMOMM smuswimil or for the proof offered in the case befall; Mr. Serpa Stephen. was a proof against Acramans, Morgan, and Co. • on some bills drawn by Alexander Young, jun. upon end accepted by D.E. and A. Aeraman, and endorsed by the other firm of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., after the proof made and dividends recdred, under a fiat issued against D. E. and A. Acraman. The learned co mmissioner rejected the " - ---g in the cm, that the "or knew rms, gh ho beli( member of the firm o ,mane were Inc Acraman was no longer a mans, Morgan, and Co. Haring . " ",,,66ti012 thorities upo 'notice now gone through the variou s raised before me, it appears to me that _ bud connee,• tion of the firm of Deane and Youle, of Liverpool, with the firms of Deane and Youle, of Pernambuco, and of loale, Deane and Co., of Bahia, be necessary in cider to exclude he right of double proof, sufficient notice was given to the ' , lers of the bills, by the identity of the names, to put ,ry, and they have, in no instance, ventured gnorance of the connection of the Liverpool ,rms with the foreign firms, while in one ease, that of Nr. Hull's client, the knowledge of such connection with thd _ is admitted. I am of opinion that the pre. se must be governed by that of cx parts Hinton *natter of Acraman. Here, however, there are but ' which the actual receipt of dividends at ' though in most of the cases has actually ice, so that no.vn of the receipt actually elected. upon enqu fhPir i 0 ulleg inst ambuco is before r t twenty per cet sects in Pernatr be held the right Of double suea of the cre- e house of Deane and 'd to prove Trpool; foreign dmitted of dividends Wet_ I must, therefore, declare generally t proof hoes not exist in thfs_ca red dividends upon ditors as have rece which proof has been Deane and Youle, of Pernambuco, or of Yon Co, of Bahia. ha upon fl red, either from t d, and ar whether foreign f THE CAMBRIAN LITERARY SOCIETY, Last night, the members of the Ity met together at the house of Mr. D. R. Jo the Car: .rron Castle, Tarleton-street, for the parpos of preso r late ,„: , pretary, Mr. Joseph E. Jones, with some souvenir of their esteem, prior to his departure for the °Anodes. Mr. Rad cliff occu p i e d the chair, and Mr. Jones (of Manchester) the present, we noticed Mr. T. vice chair. Among Roberts, Mr. Lloyd, gr. Roberts, Mr. J. R. Hughes, non Mr. targess to usual loyal toasts, the chairman callea flds, Mr. Sturg eas t Mr. P. T r _ Lewis, &e. & After the make the presentation to their guest of the OYelung• Mr. Sturgess, in the course of a very able and feeling speech, bore testimony to the high chai,cter and talents of his friend Mr. Jones. He hoped that this little gift they were about to offer would be appreciated, not for its intrinsic vane, but for the value of the sentiments which dictated the gift. May he (Mr. Jones) ever look upon it as the embodiment of a living friendship, and, as such, he trusted, as he believed it would be valued by their friend Mr. Jones. He would top„ in con clusion, to praffer him, in the name of the Caml Society, a gold pencil cqse, which he mi observe, was extremely unique in its strut every credit on Mr. Mayer, of Lord street manufactured. It bore upon it its simple y - whom it was story:— ADMIRIN Mr. J. E. Jones rose, and in reply to the warm and feeling manner in which the presentation was made, and the flittering manner in which he had been received that evening, said that he could scarcely convey to them hit sense of the pleasure he experienced in having so touching a tribute of their esteem and kindness ; he would always, [indeed, prize the offering that had been made him that evening, and whether upon " the wide waste of water," or on a foreign shore, he would ever remember the scene of that evening, and would be lieve that friends and friendship did still walk the earth, and often times he hoped he should look back with fond ness to his friends in old England with a happy remem berance as °fit " green spot in memory's waste.' (Loud cheers.) . . , L• Mr. Lewis here sung an appropriate song, which was very much applauded. Mr, P. Roberts' health being proposed, that gentleman replied in a very effective and humorous speech. Several other toasts were proposed, and among the speakers were Mr. Rowlandr, Mr. J. R. Hughes, and Mr. J. Roberts, &c. The Chairman's health being proposed by Mr. J. E. Jones, that gentleman returned thanks, and spoke of the pleasure he had in being associated with them in so pleasing a task as the one of the evening. Mr. Lloyd having sung a song in a moat effective manner —bearing upon the occasion—brought tit meeting to s close in a very happy manner. THE GRIND TRUNK RAILWAY From the Canadian ( Hamilton) Spectat, Our readers are already in possession of the fact that another, but not altogether unexpected, call has been made upon the provincial government by the so-called eminent contractors and wealthy firm, Messrs. Peto, Brassey, and Co., in aid of that gigantic undertaking, if not public swindle, the Grand Trunk Railway, which bids fair to sink this province in irretrievable ruin. It is scarcely twelve months since a heavy draft, to the tune of 990,000 s was made upon the Canadian Exchequer in favour of this great scheme, and now Mr. Brassey, one of the "eminent firm," calls for an additional demand of five per cent upon the share capital, in order to enable the wealthy con tractors to proceed with the work. if this is not done, then—why then the bubble must burst, for Mr. Brassey very modestly informs the president of the company that the work cannot be carried on unless his demand is complied with, and that immediately ; in fact he avers that, "our only hope is in the Canadian government." So it has come to this at last. The predictions of the opponents of the grant of last session have been only too amply realised, and the truth is beginning to dawn upon the minds of the people that they have been duped, miserably duped, by Mr. Hincks' proteges, and we opine the present government will find it no easy matter to get rid of the difficulty this last legacy of their predecessors is likely to cause them. Strongly as we have denounced this Grand Trunk project, we were never among those who opposed it on other grounds than those of extravagance, for it is not to be denied that we have already, as, a people, been compelled "to pay dearly for our whistle." The folly and extrava gance of the wild scheme, however, has constantly received our most determined opposition, and the correctness of the course we have pursued is only too fully confirmed by the demand now made by the " eminent firm," who, according to common report, were reputed to be wealthy enough, and willing enough to build the whole line with out demanding a shilling from the Province until their work was completed. Of course no one believed a word of it, although Mr. Hineks would fain persuade the country that this Grand Trunk scheme !was one of the most magnificent conception that ever entered the brain of man. Well, the Province was committed to it through the specious and plausible representations of the " chief of the chissellers," as he has sometimes been designated ; the contractors dictated their own terms, and received their own price, nothing less than £lO,OOO per mile, at least one-third more than it would have been built for by any other company than the " eminent firm." They commenced their work in seeming good earnest ; but instead of commencing at one end of the route, they actually built the most unprofitable portions, leaving the centre untouched. It is true, they have completed a large portion of the line ; but where is the otnnection, or prospect of its making any return for the capital expended ? From Quebec to Richmond they succeeded in placing the road in running order, but alas ! it has been blocked up with snow for months, and rendered u nserv i cea bl e. Another section was finished, that from Montreal to Brockville, but it was left without an outlet as soon as n T s o v r i o g n a t t o i o t n o B ceased. rockvi T il h e e , hmost scarcelyproiltab profitable en section, touc that hed frhllome from Toronto to Guelph, th e company managed to, w run a train of care about a coupl e o f months ago, by way of showing that the road w as o p en , b ut it has remained idle ever since. Such is the position of the Grand Trunk Railway, with the contractors wholly unable to complete another mile. What is to be done? Mr. Brassey calls upon the Canadian government to help him and his company out of difficulty, after having exhausted the grant of last session. Said we not truly that the £900,000 of last year was but an instal ment, and that the government would. at no distant date, be called upon for another grant ? It is even so. Mr. Brassey tells us he must have his five per cent on the share capital, and three millions sterling besides, or the work will stop. He does not say so in as many words, but his meaning is not to be misunderstood. The demand has been made, and sib urgent the necessities of the contractors, that two of the Llema are p ro b abl y by this time on their , enforce the demand. Will it be Th•at's the question." We warn the way to Canada tegislature to paus e ere li stening to the com plied with ? go vernment and the , insolent demand ma de upon them. Th ey must give Messrs. Pete, Brassey and Co. to understand plainly, that Canadians will not sn bmit to any such dictation or threat ening, as is conveyed i, R the letter of Mr. Brassey. It may be all well enough for Mr. Stephenson to endorse the opinions of Mr. Brassey ' ; but the Canadian people will prefer to judge for thernstives, as to whether the demand "is quite reasonable" or not. The question must be approached with due eau tion, and we trust it will be weighed in all its bearings lat fore any decided steps are taken to comply with the do. mend now made upon the provincial exchequer. Ample .time must be allowed for discussion, and any haste evinGt xl in the matter cannot be too strongly deprecated. •