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
seatoepo
aiee„ us, as it was known that the question of
.the
Clss„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,
Powßlunheiiltnall, Sylvester, Major Bourne, Gerrard,
4104, otheram, R. Benn, B. Barclay, George
rial.„,,"ph A. Thine, Bevan, Harvey Sandbach, and
busi"°'-1 ones. The Chairman Lbriefly opened the
'less of the sessions.
The
Ap.PoINTMENT OF A criATRMAN.
'Whichurn. business to be disposed of, was a motion, of
as foil
notice had been given by Mr. William Rathbone,
Dross °.78 {had
it is the opinion of this court, that a
hod tlil'o'°nal. gentleman, acquainted with the principles
11401--p.ractiee of law, as now administered,. should
that
Such an, chairman chairman of the Quarter Sessions, and.
acinll4. -appointment is necessary to secure the uniform
Nmestration of justice, the respect of the bar, and the
Ntr.eise °I. the public.
resr_.
..athbone in proposing his motion, expressed his
'l4:,,tlhat some more active member of the body had not
"%a aken the duty. He hoped that he should not be
Le -nirie,l as actin prematurely, and he did not think
tocoetio-- Lie called ang innovator in bringing forward such
4 clan ,T 1 „Re had always considered it painful that such
court, '",! lee late venerable Archdeacon, as judge of that
ask 80ould have to appeal to one lawyer or another to
tepeaTiat
, should decide. He had himself felt it so
ttlideoer,d'Y in the borough, where he hoped he had alwaysd
,mnisiiia",ll;ted to do his duty. He felt the painful an
t° 43g Position in which he was placed when he had
bet. :it', roulicl and ask the clerk—when there was a num-
his poor
""Yers talking nonsense around him and puzzling e did -rains—what the law really was on the question.
the not think that was the way to maintain
ofEnsl'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. lowerhd
,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,he subject must be within the knowledge of all. the
act ti;"-len in that court. It was intended to bring inmaann
t°rlst.„all°v,' quarter sessions to pay a professional
In''g the formal chairman. This showed that public
`9at°piuit°.inwa-`; going that way. For himself, he declared
'1,1444' Was no object taken up for the nonce.
.tEved
h debwas qualified he had felt the importance of , an
'4'4Jeerl an advocate for the last twenty years, of
les „
who s,"°,ine nun appointed chairman of quarter sessions,
tr 'emld 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
*osid ,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 enew, 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.
ia_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,
\"rote r, a perfect approval of the resolution. He then
e
,illotiost° Sir James Birch, urging him to prepare t
oe co", but the objection that gentleman mad.e was, tha
'lasi:P/101, Very well propose a motion of which anotherr
eicellthat ifrate had given notice. Mr. Rathbone t en ob
a precedent were wanted, there was one in the
was `,11,,t selection made at Preston, where it
to 'l-:flight necessary to elect a man who had
tioti qualifications of birth, or hereditary posi-
rotialle Right Hon. M. T. Baines was the son of the
tlaiss-etor of a country newspaper, but he had the high
bst,":B of talent and integrity, and had woe claims at the
ss wrd in the senate to that confidence which they had
tooeb," reposed in him. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Rathbone
ISh."'„,ed bY proposing the motion.
Dltted.b!'ilitatia Earle said as no other gentleman antici-
Vesau'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 should all accede.
so/lab, kireene thought the motion had been most unsea-
Pott„te. He knew that a sense of public duty was ornin-
toov;yith many persons, but yet there were certain
gentle macla' rules and certain courtesies which sometimes
that 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
!iteseal t° the principle of appointing a non-prr f
the gentleman. He thought
.the propose .
it is should have hesitated in again bringing
Nerl,vard, because he did not think, as
lawyers
matte flat there must be some end to litigation in the
Welfri and that when a thing had been decided it was
tasis, let it rest. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to
politica ee Any strong expressions, but if this were
said th 'natter, which it was not, he thought it might b
,„tit =hero was something factious in the proceedin_.
have also hesitated upon another ground.
tbliors-,l"as 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
*ellatlitaul.en„' Re did think that w. hen a gentleman so very
men,lla '"ed. as his learned friend Mr. P.ollock,_wmoesn.
"Uned, mentioned on a former occasion, d
to Per Loci, with strong approbation by ever one there
1°55 bssenal and on public grounds—when
.that entlemax
tr'ssa.°llght forward, he did think, considering whatg. thent,d
friend of that gentleman should have hesitated
afire Placing Wm in what must be considered not a very
o,i4able
Position: It was not well to make that. court. a
except ": 4PPeal, from another of co-equal jurisdiction,
(ilea; ~10 some case of most extraordinary emergency.
tract!, or "ear-) 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.
si,.4ll4iioOOt):%'ar.) The dignity of the body was best t.o. be
by self-exertion, to use a term of political
1,-„,re ro,l and, as long as the magistrac well the country
-"uloss-ePendent and unpaid, it might be that a
hit.rs4;(lB-0,
.or a gentleman, or a legislator, would look
,sittisif with emulation, and would. endeavour tdo m ke
sglatistslt for the high position of being at the ea ofathe
jession;°"'es of his hundred, and chairman of the quarter
jesrs:, (ear hear This was a oste at and
obHject'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'stil,-a7 known, in some instances protecting the
occasions, asserting the liberty of
that objee`tt. ofliieothe.rhe
dth th should still be kept in
ka-tert'esition 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 very 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.lin
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 hc: ?Lace, the natural indolence of man supervened,
~-`oPss -,,ceased to exercise such careful regard to his own
tome
14ft-fettle 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 shouhl
;Les,,,,m the present day. (Hear, hear.) T e
a'llietihsun-cirednoowf brought forward did not refer merely to
West Derby—it was a general resolution,
Cod riZemed to be the introduction of a theory which was
sass through 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
erlditrinß 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,
tthc,' Was talking of the general body, of the magistracy
;•"1-liltrY. 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 for one—not till then.
4trr. Rathbone: Excuse me--I do not ask for a
litadiary magistrate.
so, • Greene said, surely the honourable gentleman did
tausish to get the assistance of a professional man per-
pfntly, without remuneration. That would be a species
farec)nOmy which he thought would be going rather too
bar; Now, he was about to propose an amendment. They
lii‘,4ll in p
their memories the gentleman who lately
re
Ai-00? chairman of that quarter sessions. They hadall.
tioo "iy, seen him upon the bench. Pass such a resole_
4 45 that proposed, and they would almost defame 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 respsa .
that?, Passed such a resolution, well might every one
they
toofireY did not deserve the respect of the bar, or
esst.'7lce of the public ; nor, in point of fact, could they
%se„ hold themselves in self-respect hereafter. Mr.
cou,-11e concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the
tf immediately proceed to the election of a chairman
ict?ar ter sessions.
the I°llll Rosson seconded the amendment, and pointed
1-- late Lord Wharncliffe, the late Lord Althorpe, the
and ''„,°,_rd Skehnersdale, the present Sir John Pakington,
thair"„,'"ers, as instances of non-professional and able
ir."rh or quarter sessions.
Rave '„u• W. Harden, judge of the Cheshire county court,
\voisie°tioe, that if the amendment were carried, he
N,4 Propose an amendment on it.
41,% Theodore Rathbone objected to the resolution, in so
sl:!_it would 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.
toorde,il,and to him but a few hours since, when he com-
expre`,,,ed to me a similar intention on his part—have I
here, ”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
tionleOf
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 unprofessional
cent, and would not magistracyatencw were rendered
gentle-
maninsignia-
presided. During the admirable professional.
the late Mr. Rushton, the magisatra%sadrelitnistration 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 case in the hands of an unprofessional
magistrate. 'What was the extraordinary light come over
them now to urge this change 7 Had any such alteration
powreinthhdaedtnhtmo ina'gss
iasitntirtsaefaltlecestcoterofyaulrlideesnunshortcircumstances of
si
ecorh sauhddmaddienn
ihl
syitt,ehrtehrtatht: i
bnl 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 Lea, 47 years of age, who resided in
E. verton Valley. Three weeks 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