The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-22 00:00:00

COLLIERY EXPLOSION AT RAWNIARSIL

MORE THAN FIFTY LIVES LOST.

SATUILDAT AFTTIiNOON.
It is our mournful duty to record another colliery
explosion—one of the most awful and fatal that has ever
taken place in this neighbourhood. It has =omit at
Warren Vale pit, at ltawmarsh, two miles from Rother-
ham, the property of Eari Fitzwiiliam, and worked by
Messrs. J. and J. Charlesworth, the lessees of many col-
lieries in the Yorkshire coal district.

Abaut ten minutes before six this morning, Mr. Silvester,
the underground stewanl, went into the pit as usual to ex-
amine the state of the wurkinits. One or two men went
down with him, and he was followed shortly afterwards by
the whole body of miners employed there. In what state
he found the pit is not known, for ho has not been seen
again, and it is believed is among those who have pe-
rished. It appears, however, that he did not find the
pit in such a condition as to induce him to stop the work-
ing, for the men and boys had generally gone down, and
everything appeared to bo proceeding in the usual mode.
The precise number of men in the pit has not been ascer-
tained. It is belayed to be not less than i 3. The number

of men directly employed by Messrs. Charlesworth was 32,
but nearly all them had men and boys employed under
them.

A few minutes before seven o'clock, the whole neigh-
bourhood was astounded by an eruption like that of a vol-
cano from the mouth of the pit. Two corves which were
being drawn up out of the pit were projected upwards, and
lodged in the gearing over the shaft. A shower of coals,
stones, and other matters had been carried high into the air,
descended all around the pit.. The persons employed near the
pit mouth were compelled to take shelter under the plat-
tOrm of the tipplers for loading the carts; and it was only
by this precaution that they escaped fatal injuries. The
country all round the pit was blackened to a distance of
three-quarters of a mile by the dust and smoke.
As soon as it was possible the damaged gearing of the
shaft was repaired, so as to enable men to descend the pit,
which is 127 yards deep. By half-past nine fourteen per-
sons had been got out alive, but all more or less injured.
These had been enabled, after the explosion, to make their
way to the bottom of the shalt, and avail themselves of the
first opportunity of ascending. lip to half-past three there
had been extricated 24 persons alive, and 15 dead bodies.
Of the living 15 hail happily escaped sufficiently well to be
able to render assistance and information. Nine were so
severely injured that it is feared several of them cannot re-
cover, as they Dave not only been dreadfully burned, but
sustained fractures and other injures of a dangerous cha-
racter.
Of the killed, the following have been identified—James
Purgelove, aged 11; Henry Purselove, aged 12 ; John
Hartle John Walton, William Froggatt, John Whyke,
alias Barstow, Abraham Thompson, George Sellars, Job.
Hartley, I.ldons, William Barnes. Among the dan-
gerously hurt are—Joseph Bowncs, Bownes, Timothy
Tingley, John Harrison, Jonathan Sellars, Abraham Auty,
James Oates, all of Itawmarsh ; Eli Barker, of Rose hill;
George Linley, of Upper Haugh. The following have been
preserved, with but comparatively little injury—Charles
Burgin, John James, William Dodson Thomas liague,'l
Matthew Hague, Mark Hague, Joseph Dodson,
John Shaw,
Thomas Shaw, Charles. King, Samuel Peace, Joseph Hob-
son, Richard Walker, William Harrison, and William Bar-
raclough. The number still in the pit, there is too much
reason to believe, is from thirty to forty, and the terrible
conviction prevails that they cannot possibly have survived.
The supposed cause of the accident is the fall of a portion
of the roof of the pit, stopping the usual current of ven•
tilation, liberating • large quantity of find air, and forcing
it into the parts where the miners were working with
candles.
The colliery consists of two

o pits
deeper pit, orlt.f7 path, works the nine-foot-seam. The
other pit, 90 yards deep, works the live-foot scam. These
two pits are connected by a shaft through the five.foot
seam down to the nine-foot—an air furnace being connected
with the shaft of the five-foot pit, so as to create an up-
draught.
The explosion took place in the northern part of the
workings of the deeper seam, but communicated by the
shaft with the upper seam. Eli liArbcr, with a party of
about 16, were working in the southern portion of the
mine when the explosion took place. They were hastening
to the pit shaft, when they encountered the after-damp,
from the effects of which they were found almost insen
sible, when James Froggatt and some other colliers de-
scended and rescued them in amy exhausted state. One
of the number, named Joseph Cooper, had actually reached
the pit shaft, and had climbed by the conductors a con-
siderable distance up the shaft. Of the party thus rescued,
two were so much injured that they have since died.
enumerated above - • - injured, IV,

pear together.

Of those ....-_______ ........ as seriously . ___ fm. ........e they await the resuse e. see .....---- _ __„ ,i, ..-
Barraclough, Timothy Tinsley, and Abraham ThOmpeon the mother and remaining child, after being examined by
are since dead. Three other dead bodies have been got out Mr. Booth, surgeon, were carried to the Huddersfield In.
of the pit since our former account, vis.—John Garnick, firmary, where the aid of the house surgeon was promptly
Geo. Hague, and Geo. Knapton. administered, bat the child died soon alter being admitted.
SC:IDAY Nu:int.—The *Larch for the bodies of the suf. The fire was speedily extinguished.
feren by this dreadful calamity was continued during last VIOLATIONS OF TILE FACTORY ACT.—Mr. Graham,
night and to-day. The number of dead bodies recovered sub.inspector of factories under Mr. Leonard Horner, bar-
itone the pit now amounts to 49. Two or three others yet inr on Friday received intimation that a number of mill-
remain in, among whom is Thomas Sylvester, the fire- owners in Glossop Dale, Derbyshire, were constantly violet-
trier. The search has been carried throughout the work- ing the Factories Act, by working "females and young
ingi; and as the bodies of the missing men have not been person?' before six in the morning, and not only beyond
found, it ei concluded that they are buried beneath a mass six in the evening, but actually as late as half-past seven
of the roof which had fallen in et the northern extremity of o'clock, be proceeded to that neighbourhood in the evening
the working, and no doubt was the cause of the explosion. for the p pose of making a personal inspection of the mills.
The men who were in the pit at the time, but who escaped He delayed his arrival purposely till a late hour, fearing
without injury, speak most confidently as to the satisfactory that warning would otherwise reach the suspected parties
ventilation of the pit previous to the explosion. The follow- in time to enable them to defeat his plans. 14e reached the
ing is a correct list of the dead :—Williain Bowness, Joshua first mill at half-past seven o'clock, but found that at that
Roberts, Abraham Cooper, Thomas Burgin, Joseph hour the women and young persons had left. He then
Bugg, Benjamin Lang, Henry James, Charles Cousins, went to the mill of Mr. John Wood, where more than •
Thomas Johnson, Henry Thompson, William Ash. thousand persona are employed, and came upon them in a
ton, Henry Ward Thomas Farmer, Abraham Thompson, state of great confusion—numbers of women and
William Barraclough, Joseph Frith, James Purseglove, young persons hastily putting on their outer clothes
Henry Purseglove, John Hartley, John Walton, William and quitting the rooms at that late hour. He questioned
Froggart, John Siddons, John Unrnick, George Sellars, a boy who was evidently under proper age, and .whom he
George Kea ton, George Haigh, Thomas Taylor, George found in the middle of a work-room, but the boy was
Robinson, Benjamin Walker, Samuel Siddons, James rescued, and whilst attempting to bring this rescue home, to
Roberts, William Cooper, Henry Goddard, John Pane- a workman active in it, and to get his name, a body of the
glove, John Thompson, John Cooper, Thomas Silvester, working men came up and bore the man away from him.
and Thomas Whitehead. There are ten other bodies so As he left the mill the workpeople met him at the gates and
dreadfully mutilated as to render identification impossible. mobbed him, hooting and throwing stones, so that he had
Mr. Morton, the government inspector, is expected to visit difficulty in reaching an inn at Glossop, where the police
the place to-morrow. came to his protection. It is said that he was apprised of
A correspondent, writing last (Sunday) evening, after constant breaches of the Factory Act in this district by a
detailing the above facts, says . committee of working men and master manufacturers from
is eta cted and who have
another district, where the law
that
e ,
want
that The cause of the accident remains matter of conjecture,
consequentl y..an interest in seeing other parties wont
from the fact that not one survives of the fifty who were in
that part of the pit were the explosion took place to tell the according to law.
tale. The conjecture of Mr. Goodwinson, after. an inspec- CORPORATION OF THE SONS OF TILE CLERGY.—
tion of the mine, is the moat plausible of any given. It is The Christmas meeting of this ancient society, chartered by
as follows : —The men, on leaving work on the previous Charles the Second, under the
and Children
"l.fhecieCharity Itar.
night, bad left open the trap doors, whereby the circulation the Relief of Poor Widows and . rgya
of air in the board holes had been prevented, and a coati- was held on the 20th instant ; Sir Robert Harry Ing
quent accumulation of sulphurous Fes bad taken place, in Bart., M.P., in the chair. Amongst the governors p
proof of which be says the explosion has extended almost were Alderman Copeland,p M.P., and James William! Fereabe
throughout the mine, which could not have been the case field, Esq., M. .; the two. treasurers, the 1, en table
unifies it had been deeply impregnated with gam. He adds, Archdeacon
.Hale,
Ste
.Re. v__. D. I,3l'ivis.:,bith..e..E.e.
xv...C.._....assoft
as additional proof, that when inspected on -Friday by. the Jennings, th Rev. mp.sliiwi
Cli 1 ajElliott,Ev4. Orli.
underground steward the mine appeared perfectly saf . Channell, John Pepp,
Henry., ar es ot ~ enry
Dar C. J. Baker, Esq)
"The explosion took place about ZOO yards from the shaft Ponngi, Fenle end John R Cancellof, EM. he reel-
on the south-west side, and extended throughout the mine,
with the exception of a small portion on the deep aide,
which it did not reach, in coneequence of the trardoo. nto the great regret his grace felt that, in coulee
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, President of the Society,
express
giving way in the dixection of the shaft, and so &Holum
tlx damp to pas est. Notwithstanding the acknowledged so interesting an occasion as the present, whoa the
he queue of ordinations in Ins diocese, he was unable toatemell
governors were assembled to distribute the Christmas hew
safety of the :is daily inspection was made prior factions to his brethren in the ministry, the meellag
poor
to the men
day by Mr. oftliersre7anelluleneowsU siaswtretibymidr.aluasrinpeetor "..
Goadwineon. ass lime sea attach itself to any Dieu in all parts of England and Wales, whose c
proceeded to grant donations of 51. to 30/. to poor=
parties etmeerind kde and neseasities were satisfactorig attested. Out of the
were assisted. At the
t. To the workmenb.
oboe, if I=IMM be eit= fearful catasteop .
same time donations for apprenticing ten children of poor
Ms are le die opinion that the explosion took
e.
whole number of 106 applying,
ierwymen, and for supplying outfits to ten others eidenng
gime lei oldie breaking down of some of the
ellimilaillial which are closed up u soon al all
aged single daughters of clergymen, all in distressed circum-
ehe upon situations in life, were granted, and 23 widows and
Img lo ebholasd. this were so, the gas, which acesima-
Mgt In Ogee Wee, would at
comingtie rustaintowir
the
eornklins "al"' received a small gift.
Hated DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.—Above 4,000 men have
=lli whichthe men worked, en explosion inevitably been discharged from the army during the present year as
Melia mow. The system of working with naked candles unfit for further service.

Katz iintelitynce.

EQUITY COURTS.-SATURDAT.
ISITTIMOI DI LINOOLI &SEN.—BNP23IIIt TIM Lobo CIANCALLOII ♦PD

LOMA Jul., IC,

IN R 1 STANTON'S BANKRUPTCY.-THE BANKRUPT LAW

CONSOLIDATION ACT.—JDOUNENT CENTIIICATS.
'ibis appeal was before the Lords Justices last week, but
as their lurdshipe entertained a difference of opinion on the
question. which is a new one, and of considerable import-
ance in bankruptcy practice, an order was made that it
should be argued in a full court of appeal. The Lords
Justices accordingly took their *eat in court on Saturday
morning with the Lord Chancellor to hear the ease.
It was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Commissioner
Evaes, pronounced on the 'nth of November last, refusing
to set aside a judgment certificate, made under the 24th
section of the statute 12 and 13 Viet., c. 106 (the Bankrupt
Law Consolidation Act), and to discharge the bankrupt, the
appellant, out of the custody of the gaoler of Aylesbury.
The question at issue was whether the learned commis-
seiner who had refused the bankrupt protection for not
producing a stock account and cash account with
his balance-sheet was right in granting the certi-
ficate on which the &mix Bent was accented by his
creditors, and it raised in clahorate argument on
the construction of various clauses of the act.
The 231 th section of the act provides that assignees and
creditors who have proved are to be deemed judgment cre-
ditors, and the court is to grant certificate thereof, the sec-
tion proceeding in these words: "That the iisiintnees for
the time being of the estate and effect* of any bankrupt,
when the accounts relating to his estate shall have become
records of the court, shall be deemed judgment creditors
of such bankrupt for the total amount of the debts which
shall by such accounts appear to be due from lain to his
creditors ; and every creditor of any bankrupt, immediately
after the proof of Ins debt shall have been admitted, shall
be deemed a judgment creditor of such bankrup to Cie ex-
tent of such proof; and the court, when it shall have re-
fused to grant the bankrupt any further protection, or
shall have refused or suspended his certificate, shall on the
application of such assignees or of any ouch creditor grant a
certificate under the seal of the court, in the farm con-
tained in schedule }3.a., to this act annexed, and every
such certificate shall have the effect of a judgment entered
up in one of her Majesty's superior courts of common law
at Westminster, until the allowance of the certificate of
conformity or such bankrupt; and the assignees or the cre-
ditor to whom, according to such certificate, the
bankrupt shall be indebted as therein mentioned
shall be thereupon entitled to issue and enforce a
writ of execution against the body of such bankrupt," &c.
The 2513th section provides that if at the sitting for the
last examination it should appear that the bankrupt had
been guilty of certain offences, further protection shall be
refused. The section then goes on to specify the offences,
which ore tine in number; namely, 1, destruction of books
or writings relating to the trade, dealings, or estate of the
bankrupt; 2, falsification of books, &c.; 3, contracting
debts by fraud; 4, giving undue preference to creditors;
.70, concealing debts or inakiug away with property ; 6, ficti-
tious statement of losses or expenses; 7, vexatious and fri.
volous defences ; 8, wilfully withholding books, ; and
oth, if the bankrupt shall, during his trading, wilfully and
with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs, have
omitted to keep proper books of account, or shall wilfully
and with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs, have
kept his books imperfectly, carelessly, and negligently. The
Poets of the case as stated in the bankruptcy proceedings,
under the hand of Mr. Commissioner Evans, were these :
The bankrupt, Stanton, who appeared to have carried
on business in a small way as a jeweller, at Not-
ting-hill, surrendered, awl was examined on the
14th of January last. On the 20th of February a further
examination of the bankrupt took place, and the learned
commissioner stated that the banotrupt not having filed any
stock account nor any cash account, particularly fur a SUM
of 3111. 7s. GI, referred to in the balance-sheet, an ad-
journment was made sine die with protection till the 27th
of March. The accounts required not having been filed,
the commissioner granted a summons to the debtor to ap-
pear and show cause. The bankrupt accordingly came up
on the 13th of October, and having refused to produce the
accounts, the commissioner refused further protection, and
thereupon granted a certificate in the form prescribed by
the act, to the effect that the assignees were creditors for
the sum of 1,2071. 12s. fid., in trust for the creditors of the
said Stanton, and that the said bankrupt " was not pro-
tected by this court from process against his person." floe
bankrupt was, thereupon, arrested, and on the 21th of
November Mr. Kennedy, his solicitor, having applied fur
his discharge, on the ground that the commissioner had no
power to grant the certificate, Mr. Commissioner Evans re-
fused the application; hence the present appeal.
•

Mr. Parton Cooper and Mr. George Simpson in support
of the appealcontended that the bankrupt bad not committed
any one of the nine offinices specified in the 256th section,
where on refusal of protection, a certificate would follow in
the nature of a judgment, on which the creditors could im-
prison the bankrupt. The only default committed by him
was his neglect to furnish stock and rash accounts, not an
improbable occarreuce with a small trailer. No such
offence however was specified in the act. "Protection"
was here used in two senses. In the 112th section, giving
the bankrupt freedom from arrest in coming to surrender,
&c., it was the kind of protection allowed by the old law
when be could not be taken in execution by creditors who
hail proved, and if arrested byothers he could be discharged
under the insolvent law ; but under the new provisiodr of
the act, a certificate was given on refusal of protection in
the cases specified, which amounted to a common law judg-
ment. There was a peculiarity in this act that it consisted
of groups of clauses which might be accounted for that the
articles of the French code were taken as the model. The
2.56 th section was part of one of these groups, which included
sections 2.56, 254, and 259. The 257th provided that
the court was to issue certificate on refusing to grant fur-
ther protection; the preceding section enacting that this
refusal was to follow m proof of an offence specified therein.
The 259th section provided that a bankrupt taken in execu-
tion should not be discharged, except by order of the court,
until imprisoned for 12 months, provided always " that
this enactment shall not take effect until after the expira-
tion of six mouths from the commencement of this act, and

then only against such persons as shall have been adjUdged
bankrupt under this act, and for silences committed atter
the commencement of this act." Could there be any doubt
that this referred to the offences specified immediately be-
fore? (Lord Justice Bruce—There can be no doubt that
the latter part of the clause is not English.) Why specify
the offences in the act, if the commissioner was to have a
general discretion ? This court surely would not unction
au infringement on the liberty of the subject, on a refined
and conjectural construction of ambiguous phrases in an act
of parliament.
- -

contain a stock and cash account. The 162nd section gives
power to adjourn the examination sine die, Mid- in some
eases, in the discretion of the commissioner, to frce the
bankrupt from arrest by an endorsement on the summons;
and when the adjourned examination was not tattsfitetory,
to grant further protection for a limited or evs n for a dis-
tant period, as the commissioner should me fit. In this
case the endorsement granting protection was for a period
of several months, though the examination was adjourned
I sine die. The 199th sectiou, with respect to the grant of
certificate of conformity, provides, " that the certificate of
conformity under this act shall be in writing under the
seal of the court and the hand of the consaliss,ismer, and
shall certify that the bankrupt has made a full dis-
covery of his estate and effects, and in all thifi,:e con-
formed, and that so far as the court can judge there
does not appear any reason to question the truth
or fulness of such discovery." Now, it would be observed
that all these sections tended to show that a large discretion
was imposed on the counniwioner with regard to giving
protection; that he was nut confined as regarded refusal to
any particular class of ease ; soil that when he thought it
necessary he might say that the bankrupt a as to lie amena-
ble to the common law remedies which creditors would
hare had if not expressly restrained by act of parliament.
But there was a class of cas,:a where tile cumutissioner had
no discretion in which it was directed that he should alto-
gether refuse protection, the 2.idth section Mem.; that
power, awl then describing.the Ofielletel for which protec-
tion should be refused. Then came • clause which,
it sappeared to him, was intended to embrace all cases,
including those in a hiah the commissioner had a
discretion, where the whole conduct might tend to
show a very dishonest bankrupt, though not guilty
of the precise character of offence pointed out in the
act; and it appeared to him that the eusictsuant came in a
very proper place. It enacted that when the accounts re-
lating to the estate shall have become re earls of the court
the creditors proving shall be deemed judgment creditors,
and the section then provides that " the court, when it shall
have refused to grant the bankrupt any further protection,
or shall have refused or suspended his ear ilicate, in that
case that the commissioner shall grant a certificate
which should have the effect before stated. Was is an tin-
, reasonable thing if the bankrupt slid not make a disclosure
of his atfairs which wits not satisfactory to the commissioner,
and if he judicially thought it right to refwe protection,
that some remedy should be afforded to the creditors s What
other remedy could Le given than the one provided for in
the act ? It was necessary fur the protection set tine cre-
ditors that some strong compulsory power should be given
in such cases, and that was made by the act dependent on
the discretion of the commissioner. It appeared to him
that the clause itself furnished no ambiguity. Ile did not
now consider it necessary to refer to the former state of the
law, nor did he consider himself at liberty to form any con-
jectural opinion as to the intention, of the legislature. Tho
act of parliament was before him, awl it was Identity to con-
sider it according to that reasonable sense which the words
seemed to require. lie slid not Teel himself preeeed there-
by to say that several cases being mentioned where
protection must be refused, followed by certain conse-
quences, that these consequences were nut to follow the re-
fusal of protection in other instances refereed to in the act,
nor could he say that these special offences were selected as
the only grounds fur granting certificate, or toot they were
more important in their character than other acts for which
the commissioner might refuse to grant protection to a
bankrupt. lie could readily conceive a bankrupt steering
Clear of every specific offence mentioned itt the 2.ifith sec-
tion, but whose general conduct might be eu fraudulent as
to dieentitle burn to protection. lu the language of the
clause itself he found no ambiguity. But tla: court had
been asked to travel into other clauses. Ile had followed
the argument, but heard nothing to furni-h any ground for
coming to the conclusion that motection had any
impro
perly refused in this ease. Amongst other things attention
had been particularly directed to tee language of the *loath
section, which it must be admitted contained some ambi-
guity; but he must own that he had, nevertheless, arrived
at a satisfactory conclusion as to ids meaning ; that it
had no tendency to confine the applicateuu of the
conunissiotter's power of refusal to any special cases.
The conclusion at which he had arrived was this—that in
every case in which the cominiesiener was authorised to re-
fuse protection, lie is authorised also to grist a certificate
of the amount of the debt ; and that the cases specified in
section 2.56 were nut intended to comprise all the offences
for which certificate might be granted. lie thought, there-
fore, that the commissioner had acted rightly iu refuaing
protection, being of opinion that the bankrupt had perti-
naciously refused to make discovery of his ...coons which
in law he was bound to do ; that the certificate of debt was
rightly made, and that the bankrupt was properly in cus-
tody, and ought not to be discharged.
Lord Cranworth entirely concurnd in the view of the
case taken by the Lord Chancellor. The whole question
amounted to this—was the commissioner justified in issuing
this certificate, which, in contradiction to the certificate of
conformity, might he called the judgment certificate?"
If he was justified iu granting it, he was, of course, bound
to grant it when asked to do so. WUs he bound in this
case ? That depended on the construction of section 257,
and he entertained no doubt, looking at the mere language
of the act, that the commissioner was bound, the words
being " the court, when it shall have refused to grant the
bankrupt any further protection, or shall have re-
fused or suspended his certificate, shall on the ap-
plication of the creditor., grant the certificate, which
was to have the effect of a common law judgment.
Here the commissioner refused any further protection, and
the creditors applied for the certificate, so that it was a ease
obviously contemplated by the statute ; and there could be
no doubt therefore that he was bound to issue the cartift-
cate of debt. But then it was said that although that was
the literal construction of the clause, looking at the sections
around it, that this was not to be taken as the intention of
the legislature. lie could not arrive at that conclusion.
By section 256 the commissioner was bound to refuse fur-
ther protection or to suspend or stay certificate of confor-
mity in the events specified as the nine causes of suspension
of protection provided in the latter part of that section.
Clause 217, which immediately followed, provided for the
issuing of certificate in the came of such refusal, end it was
therefore argued that it was only meant that this should
apply to the cases excepted by the preceding chute. 'r he
plausibility of this view rested uu the argument that the
statute was divided into " groups of clauses," as they had
been called at the bar, and that this provision was in the
group which related solely to offences committed against
the bankrupt laws. Ile must confess that the argument
had not much weight with him. The legislature
declared that under certain circumstances specified
the commissioner shall refuse protection; then it
declared that in all coxes where protection was re-
fused, judgment certificate might follow ; he saw no-
thing in the special statement to affect the generality of
this latter provision. By section 201 it was enacted that
no bankrupt should be entitled to a certificate of conformity
if he has lost by gaming 20/. in one day or 2001. within
twelve months, or 2001. by stock-jobbing, die., all serious
offences, but none o f them were mentioned in section 2.16.
Moreover, perjury was not an offence enumerated in that
section. It seemed to him monstrous to say that these were
offences for which the commissioner had not power to sus-
pend protection, and as a consequence where certificate of
judgment should follow, simply because they were not men-
tioned in :the clause specially enunieruting offences. It
seemed to hint that the present case was exactly one in
which it was right and proper that the discretionary power
vested; in the commissioner should be exercised. But
then it was argued the 257th section says that the certifi-
cate is to issue in those cases where the court refuses to
" grant the bankrupt any further protection," and by the
preceding section the court is required to do so when any of the
offencesehereinspecifiedhave been committed) Tbut is,sa was
contended, certificate was only to issue when the words
" refusing further protection" occurred. If the phrase never
occurred except there, there might be foundation fur an
argument, but it did not, to his mind, countervail against
the other argument; ter, though the expression clues nut in
terms occur elsewhere, yet the very thing is referred to.
The commissioner being authorised to make an adjourn-
' =ant of examination sine die, and to free the bankrupt
be arrest by an indorsement on the summons, in such
gems, as provided by section 162, " the bankrupt shall be
tree from arrest or imprisonment for such time (if any) as
smile court shall from time to time by indorsement on the
enininsons of the bankrupt think fit to appoint." For if
the ageaminsioner refuse to make that indorsement it would
clearly amount to a refusal of protection. The 199th sec-
tion expressly enacted that the court, having regard to the
conformity of the bankrupt to the law of bidiktuptcy and
to his conduct as a trader before as well as after his bank-
ruptee, shall judge of any objection against allowing the
certificate of conformity, and " either find the bankrupt
entitled thereto, and allow the same, or refuse or suspend
the allowance thereof, or fume: such conditions thereto as
the justice of the case may require." There was nothing
therefore in the language of the act to connect the 2.sfith
and 257th sections together, apart from other portions of
the statute. Fur these reasons he entirely concurred in
the judgment given by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said were he to dissent from
the other members of the court—if his opinion were to be
considered entitled to that name—it need not be matter Mr
wonder, considering the great obscurity, uncertainty, and
inconsistency which unfortunately pervaded this act of par-
liament. tole should very briefly state the reason of' his
doubt on the point which had been so elaborately argued.
His lordship, who was moat imperfectly heard owing to
the noise made by a number of idlers in the court, was un-
derstood to say that the main ground of his doubt
was the circumstance that sections *256, 257, 258, and 259
Mood together insulated as it were from other provisions of
the act. His doubt arose principally ou the fourth section
referred to, whether this should not be taken as a provision
le which every part was dependent on amid ought to be
combined with the other clauses mentioned. The act de-
sliced that in certain cases the commissioner had no option
bat should refuse to grant protection, and it then- euume-
rated these cases. The next clause (2.57) provided that
when the court shall have refused—shall was the word used
not may—certificate for judgment should follow. A doubt
therefore occurred to him whether these compulsory clauses
should not be taken together as solely referring to the grant
of certificate. It was not necessary that he should enter
into further explanation on the subject. lie had merely
made these remarks by way of apology fur entertaining a
doubt which induced him to differ from the other members
of the court—a doubt which ho still entertained, and would
tien:ibahbelmy cos
jonritint:eotof
thhoelidr
judgment of Hr. was r. Commisaioner vans,E it accordingly
affirmed. with
insprebet tiongsoimnefaPw.voutsr of this
tthishe

Mr. J. Russell and Mr Sturgeon, contra, supported the
judgment of the commissioner. It was admitted that,
although the conduct of the bankrupt had been most unsa-
tisfactory, none of the offences specified in section 256 had
been committed. The clauses were not to be interpreted
per se, or as standing apart, but were parts of a general
enactment, and dependent on each other, the grant of certi-
ficate of judgment being a consequence of the commissioner's
general discretionary power to refuse protection on an un-
satisfactory examination of the bankrupt. The bankrupt
in this case was contumacious, refused to give any satisfac-
tory account when required to do so, and treated the court
with contempt.
The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, said he thought
no doubt could be entertained that this was a matter well
deserving the consideration of this court, as the question
raised was one likely to be of frequent occurrence in the
Courts of Bankruptcy, and it was very possible that one
commissioner might take a view front which another would
differ. In a question, therefore, of so general • nature it
was right that tho court should give the most attentive
essaideration to the point. This was the case of a bank-
rapt who had received protection down to a certain time.
• day was fixed for his last examination—a deficiency ap-
peared in his balance-sheet, and being asked to produce a
cash account, and also a stock account, he said that he
could not furnish them. The commissioner having come to
the conclusion that the bankrupt could give a better ac-
count of his affairs, adjourned the examination sine die,
but granted protection to a day in March, to allow the
bankrupt an opportunity of producing these accounts. No
further memorandum appeared on tho proceedings until
the commissioner, having thought it right to grant a sum-
mons to the bankrupt to come up to give the information
required, came to the conclusion to adjourn the examina-
tion sine die, the memorandum stating that the account
was not satisfactory. This was, therefore, the case of •
bankrupt who, on his last examination, did not snake a
full disclosure of his affairs, and a case in which
the commissioner refused any longer to grant protection.
Consequent therein the creditors applied for and obtained
a certificate, which amounted to a judgment. On this state
of the case the bankrupt objected that the certificate was
improperly granted, because, as contended, • certificate
could only be given where protection was refused for causes
specified in the 256th section of the act. These questions
therefore arose—first, whether the commissioner was au•
thorised in refusing protection to the bankrupt (whatever
might be his conduct otherwise) if not guilty of a specific
act mentioned in that section; and next, supposing that he
might refuse protection, would the circumstance, that it was
not included in the offences specified, preclude him from
granting a certificate ? Looking at this case with all the at-
tention in his power, stimulated thereto by the fact that it
was • matter affecting the liberty of the subject, he arrived
at the conclusion that the judgment of the commissioner
was right ; that he was authorised to refuse protection on
other grounds than those enumerated in the section
cited, and that the refusal of protection was a lawful
foundation for the certificate on which the bankrupt
was taken into custody. To explain the reason for arriving
at that conclusion it was necessary to refer to some portions
elitism statute in detail. By the 12th section a very large
lagisdietionits given to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy,
be* the extraordinary discretion imposed in them is placed
=Flee control by being the subject of appeal to another tri-
banal, with an interval sufficiently long to allow every at-
tention to be given to it. By section 112 the commissioner
is authorised to make an endorsement on the summons
which shall protect the bankrupt from arrest, and has also
power to grant his discharge. But the commissioner was
not bound to give protection in every
.case. A discretion
was to be exercised according to the circumstances of the
particular case. For instance, should it be anticipated that
the bankrupt would make use of his liberty to abscond, or
make away with books or other documents, • very sound
discretion would be exercised in refusing protection. His
lordship then passed to the 165th section, re-
ferring to the account which the bankrupt is re-
quired to make out, which is to be made according
to the direction of the court—ot course, meaning always
according to the power and capacity of the bankrupt. He
referred to that section because in this case the isimmia-
sioner had exercised the power, and had assigned as a rea-
son for refusing protection that the balance-sheet did not

Rams TER NARITA OF MIAOW.
CONSTABLE V. FAILLAII.
Mr. Haddon moved that the derendowt in this case, who
was brought up by habeas corpus, be doicharged from cus-
tody. The defendant attended the court yesterday on a