Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-12 00:00:00

BOROUGH SESSIONS-YESTERDAY,

from the court severe punishment on the head of the
prisoner? The proper object of the prosecution had been
served. The house was given up; the landlord had posses-
sion of it, and he (Mr. Brett) bad his receipt in court to
that effect. So far, then, all that could be done
for the good of the town was effected. It was found, that
in consequence of the Articles in the newspapers, which
threatened infamy to any person who should give his name
as bail for this woman, that no person dared to venture to
do so ; but Mr. Mansfield, the stipendiary magistrate, did
not think it night (and ne.one could doubt that he did an
act of justice) that this woman should be treated different
from other persons, because the newspapers choose to
write against her, and he, therefore, consented to allow
money to be deposited without any names being given.
A sum of £2OO was accordingly deposited on behalf
of this woman, and she was then let out of custody.
The Recorder: I certainly do think it was a great hardship
if it was so, that anything should be done to deter sitny one
from getting bail. Mr. Simon : But that was not ley the
prosecution. Mr Brett : I don't say it was. Mr. Simon :
Allow me to observe that all these matters have been
brought before the judge in London, to whom an affidavit
was mate for the purpose of having the case removed
elsewhere upon the very grounds now mentioned, and the
application was refused. The Recorder : But that, how.
evar, should not prevent me from expressing an opinion
that I think it exceedingly wrong to do anything to deter
a❑y person from getting bail. We know that when parties
are accused of misdemeanour they have a nigh. to be
bailed. It is a hardship to imprison. The object is to
detain them for trial, and when bail can be procured for
the purpose, no obstacle should be set in the way of bail
being given. Mr. Simon said the prosecution was not
answerable for what the press had done. The very fact of
the press having taken that course di 1, however, go
to some extent to show what a grievous public nui-
sance the place had become. The Recorder: But
the woman is entitled to all just protection and ought not
to have been deterred from an opportunity of giving bail.
Mr. Brett said, anything more unjust and more unfair
never was done in the world, and the consequence, beyond
all doubt, of the system of persecution pursued by the press,
was that the woman was kept in gaol for fourteen days.
He had now to state that he was willing that £5O of the
£2OO deposited should be paid to the Magdalen Institution
of the town, and that the. woman should be allowed to enter
into her own rec Tnisances to be called up at any time for
judgment upon her mere appearance in Liverpool after
twelve hours from that time. The Recorder observed that
he was bound not only to protect that town but the public
in general from such parties. Mr. Brett did not see how
any course which could be pursued in the present case
could effect that object. Mr. Simon again observed that
he could call witnesses to prove the statements he had
made. He then put in the affi lavas already alluded to.
Mr. Brett, handing up a paper to the Recor:or, said it
was a document signed by a gentleman who was
willing to come fo:ward and to be questione 1 by the
Recorder upon it. It relatei to a transaction whisk the
gentleman was prepared to go before the Recorder to
prove, but which he did not wish to have made public.
The Recorder: I can take no evidence in private. Mr.
Simon at first objected to the document being handed in,
but afterwards said he should not press his objection. In
fact, from what he had heard, he thought it but right
towa•ds the prisoner that it should be received. The
Recorder then took the document, and shortly after
observed that he wished the court had an undertaking from
the landlord that the house should not be let for any such
purpose again. He was aware, of course, that any land-.
lord might possibly have been deceived as to the character
of a tenant. Finely, the Recorder said he could not
pronounce his decision that dgy, as he should have to read
over the documents. The prisoner was, therefore,
remanded. The sentence of the Recorder will be given
probably on Monday morning.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-YESTERDAY.

BEFORE GILBERT HENDERSON, ESQ., RECORDER.

THE N ORTIIERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOL, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1857

MANCHESTER BANKRUPTCY COURT.

TRADING EXTRAORDINARY.

LIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT-YESTERDAY.

THE REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK IN REPLY TO
THE REV. J. MACNAUGHT.

BEFORE MR COMMISSIONER STEVENSON.
In re JOSEPH YEOMAN.—The bankrupt was a ship
broker, late of Liverpool. This being the day appointed
for the choice of assignees and proof of debts, a proof for
£l,lOO was preferred by a Mr. Carter, solicitor, frem
Torquay,,on behalf of a Mr. Parrett, upon a judgment by
default obtained against the bankrupt shortly before his
bankruptcy upon a bill of exchange. An objection was
made to the proof on the ground that no consideration was
given for the bill, and that it had been improperly disposed
of. The bankrupt was examined at some length on the
subject, and after some discussion the Commissioners
adjourned the consideration of the proof, and intimated
that he would require the creditor to be present, to be
examined in support of his claim. Captain Williams was
appointed assignee, the Commissioner declining to accede
to the application of Mr. Parrett to adjourn the choice, it
appearing that there were matters in relation to the bank-
rupt's estate which required to be immediately attended to.
The last examination sitting was fixed for the let of
January.
In re HENRY EETAS Moss.—The bankrupt lately
carried on business in this town as a merchant. This was
also the day appointed for proof of debts and choice of
assignees. Messrs. Walker and Druid, of York, were
appointed assignees, and the last examination was fixed
for the 7th January.
In re NAPIF.R AND HEUETS3N.—The bankrupts, ship-
chandlers and sailmakers, of Liverpool, came up on their
last examination. They were supported by Mr. Marin.
There being no opposition they passed, and the 14th
January was fixed for the certificate meeting.
In re JOSEPH GARDNER --The bankrupt, who was well
known as a member of the Select Vestry for the parish of
Liverpool, carried on the business of an ironneanger and
plumber and painter in Scotland-road, Th's was a
sitting for the examination of a witness named
Layfield, who was assoc'ated with the bankrupt in
several of his transactions. In reply to questions from
Mr. Rowe, who appe red for the assignees, he
said he was a joiner and builder, and had money business
transactions with the bankrupt, commencing in April, 1855
He purchased land from the bankrupt under contract, and
the bankrupt made advances some times to enable him to
build The advances were money and bills, and materials,
chiefly the two latter. The bills were discounted and paid
away by the bankrupt. The bill-drawing continued from
1855 to September 1856, so long as any one would take the
bills. When they could not renew the bills, actions were
brought against them, and witness had generally the bai-
liffs about twice a week. There were a great many execu-
tions out against the bankrupt during the summer of 1856,
and he and witness kept out of the way as long as they
could. Mrs. Maddocks lived in Scotland-road, and at one
time had a butcher's shop in L'evirgton-hill Witness and
bankrupt went occasionally to Mrs. Maddecks's house,
some times to see if she had any money, and others to get
out of the way of the bailiffs. Several conversations
took place about the bankrupt's diffimhies. and Mrs
Me,ddocks frequently locked him and the witness
in a room together to hide theta from the bailiffs.
witness never slept there, bat he occasionally found the
bankrupt in be lin the parlour in the morning. Fora fort night
before the bankrupt's marriage, he and witness could only
go out at night, and he could not go to London until the
Sunday for fear of arrest. They gave promissory notes to
Mrs. Maddocks for £BOO. They were given for money
which the bankrupt said he was going to get, but witness
never saw any of the money. He never saw Mrs. Mad
docks give the bankrupt any money beyond £lO. He
never received any money in consideration of signing the
notes. Sometimes the bankrupt said that she (Mrs.
Maddocks) was in a bad temper, and that he was taking
the notes to please her. He was always wanting the
securiies from her whenever he had a chance of gutting
them. He told the witness about a month before
the marriage that he was going to be married to Mrs.
_Haddocks, and that he made a settlement of her
own property en her, that his own property
would go to his family, and that if anything occurred
between him and his creditors, his'. Miseua could box them
out," and they go away corn'ortably. Witness sinned a
note for £BOO to Mrs. Maddecks' on the day before they
went away to be married. It took place in Mrs. Mad.
dock's house in presence of Mr. Lawrence, witness and
the bankrupt. Mrs. Maddocks was in and out of the
room, Witness demurred at first to sign the note, but the
bankrupt said it was merely a nominal thing, to secure the
money which he (the bankrupt) owed to .Mrs. Maddoeks.
Lawrence produced a deed which they signed. That was
one of the days on which they were concealed at Mrs.
Haddocks. The bankrupt put the deed in his .pocket.
Witness signed a good many of the bills in blank, as the
bankrupt told '‘him that "he would fetch him through."
He found afterwards that the bankrupt was not sole to do
so, and he left him, He saw the bankrupt after
his marriage in December 1856, and he (the bank-
rupt) was then concealing himself When he last
sawahe bankrupt in Christmas week, 1850, in Manchester,
the bankrupt said that after a short time the creditors
would ba satisfied to take a shilling in the pound, and he
asked witness to allow himself to be served with a writ
that all his property might be made over to Mrs. Mad-
docks'. Witness refused, and they parted on bad terms.
Mr. Rowe intimated that he would lay all the evidence
taken in the case before counsel, and see whether the
settlement made by the bankrupt on his wife could not be
set aside.

TO THE EDITOR or THE NORTHERN TlAnv,
Sir,—l confess I was amused on see!„ng how easily, by
altering the punctuation,
Mr. M.'s Words might be turned
against himself. He does not at all aprrove of the eau'
mon artifice of his own -Bocinian School being turned
against himself, eve:, in sport. He wishes me to remember
that gravity is highly becoming on this occasion. dud'
indeed, t'nero is mush, not only to make grave, but melan-
choly, in the evident hopelessness of convincing those Who
are the victims of perversion. Argument, fact, wipers!,
all of no avail ; the delusion still remains—not removed,
but strengthened. I congratulate myself, however, 012
having been furnished by Mr. M. with an expression truly
descriptive of his condition, and one from which he cannot,
with all 'his evasive skill, easily escape. The mere I NAG
of his sentiments. the more fully am I persuaded that he is,
"not in opinion a clergyman of the established Church of
England." The comprehensive description happily
es-
tends to all those occult principles which he dare not avow'
but which he is generally believed to entertain. Heresy
makes its pretence sensibly perceived, like the miasma 01
a marsh, and though it cannot be handled or seen it is
known to be there by its offensiveness. I was endeavour'
ing, in my letter of the 2nd, to prove, by an induction of
particulars, that Mr. M. is a Socinian, and for this purpose
I instanced two confessedly Socinian principles of his. I
adduced also his very equivocal avowal of belief in the
Divinity of Christ. And if I had succeeded in establishing
his error on this latter point, I should have fully proved
the charges. Now, insesad of taking the candid and
honest course of openly declaring his orthodoxy on the
cardinal point of Christ's supreme divinity, he plays the
special pleader. Ho says he cannot be proved to be s
Socinian by the fact that he holds sonic Socinian principle'
I never said that similarity of sentiment on some points
necessarily proves it to exist in all, and it is an utter
perversion of my argument to represent it as being thug
illogical. The question as to Mr. M.'s belief in the
supreme divinity of Christ, if honestly answered, would
have set this doubt of Mr. M.'s orthodoxy at rest. lie
has, however, evaded giving an answer, and this evasion
must necessarily stranghten our suspicions of him. In the
article " De Socinianismo" Stapfeni —the words of Solna
himself are thus given. " Socinus sententiam suam it&
exprimit" Christus non est idene cum Patre Daus, sed
alias, non nature Deus, sed gratia fectus, Deus mats'
phorice, ob sinoltudinem aliqu eta cum. Dee, et video'
excellentionem reliquis creatures—ltem Christus
igitur est Deus, quia est Dominus, Princeps Benefactor
foster." Chap 12, mc. 40, p. 370—i.e. Soeinus thug
expresses his opinion, " Christ is hot the seine Gad will
the Father, but another God, not by nature Go l but made
so by favour, God figuratively, on account of some
sinaili-
tutie to God, and indeed more excellent than the rest of the
creatures,"—and again, " Christ therefore is Gel, bacatiSe
he is lord, a chief, or prince, and our benefactor." It
will be seen then, with how much reason
I was dissatisfied with Mr. M.'s declaration
that he had never questioned the Divine nature
of our Saviour." Until Mr. M. declares plainly
and without any equivocation or mental reservation, the;
he believes that Christ is tho Supreme Jehovah, he lies
under grave suspicion of Arianism, or Socinianisna But
Mr. M. will say, "I have declared that I hold the
Homo-ousion or oneness of substance betwixt the Father
and the Son." If Church History had never recorded
that the Arians, in the time of St. Athanasiva substituted
the term Honaoiousion fur the former word, this attempt
of Mr. M. to conceal his sentiments might have succeeded.
The difference between the two Greek words, it will be
observed, consists only in the letter i; and yet this
addition of one letter creates a great distinction in the
meaning of the two terms. The former signifies
"sameness," the latter only "similarity." Now, Mr.
has not actually repeated this artifice of the Arians by
using 'heir skilfully selected technical Greek word, but he
has imitated and improved upon it by giving an eqitieocal
meaning to the right technical Greek term—Homo-ousion.
He translates this term " oneness." Having adopted the
right Greek term, he thinks his success in deception 18
complete. Now that Mr. M. has used the term " oneness"
in an equivocal sense, we may very well suppose,—for he
is evidently charmed with the idea—that it may be
understood in more senses than one. He says "1 suspect,
however, that it would imperil the scholarship and the
orthodoxy of many a one, if he were called upon W
explain what he meant by oneness of substance, with a
being who is (Art i ) without body parts or passions.''
It is evident from these latter words that Mr. Nr•
thinks it irrational " beyond measure, an utter
absurdity, a contradiction in terms to say with Athens
ashes or with Trinitarians that Christ is of the same
essence as the Father—the question then (which does
indeed imperil Mr. 137 's scholarship and orthodoxy), the
question I repeat is, what does Aft. If. mean by " oneness."
If by this term he means only "similarity," he has im-
perilled his scholarship by so translating the technics'
term Homo-oesion, and he has sacrificed his orthodoxy
He is not a Trinitarian, but an Arian or a Socinian—this
is the only conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive
under all the circumstances of the case, and especial!,
after his blasph mous and Infidel sneer at the Incompre-
hensibility of the Divine R3SBnCO. As we cannot however,
after the experience we have had, expect candour, open-
ness, and honesty from Mr. M,, let us try whether we
cannot discover the Socinian interpretation of the torsi
" oneness." Our Lord, when on earth, declared his
oneness with the Father—he said (John x. 30) " I and
the Father arc one." Is it not a well known Socinian
interpretation of this passage that it only means similarity/
of disposition and character and not sameness or identity
of essence? Is it not then both possible and probable
that Mr. M. by the term " oneness " means only similaritg
and not at all that Christ is cf the " sane, essence" as the
Father ? May we not then with great probability
say that Mr. M. is " not" in opinion a clergyman of
the Church of England. And it is deserving of
much notice that he has never denied this charge
he only says :—" of course, sir, I have made no such
confession." It seems his conscience does restrain him 0°
far, though it appears to allow him to make an indirect
disavowal. In making this indirect disavowal however,
he wishes not, even in :ireetly, to condemn the Socinians
he says, he knows " them to be a vary excellent much
maligned body ;" and, though they do deny Christ, yet he
volunteers to call thorn " Christians ;" and yet our Lor'e'
in giving his commission to the Apostles, says, (1114rk
16) "He that believeth not, shall be damned ;" the void
damned being put in contrast and opposition to beingT
" saved," ie. not saved—at the very least. I hold it it °ll
true charity to conceal what we conceive to be the 0°
from cur brathern in the flesh, and therefore, I, for one'
shall never hesitate to declare what I believe to
be a doctrine of Scripture, les, I may give offenet
It is a total mistake to suppose that we may reject any_
plainly revealed doctrine of Scripture —The incomprebfo.
sibilisy of the divine essence will not jtu tilt, us in denying
the supreme divinity of Christ, on the contrary, it isio
sufficient reason to justify our reception a those text°
wh;ch the fret of Christ's equality with the Father is
implied or plainly declared. What we know no'snow we
shall know hereafter, and in the meantime our reasonably
duty is to believe the word of God, and to adore. It is
equally unphilosophical and impious to contradict or
" reject" the Holy Scriptures on questions which slwrie
beyond our experience and our conceptions. Let not any
then utter blasphemous scoffs and sneers at the intster,lest
of the Eternal Godhead—the Trinity in Unity. Let
God be true, and every man a liar.—Yours, &c..
J. K GLAZEBIWOR.

On • Wednesday, before Mr. Commissioner Jemmett,
Mr. F. Robinson applied for a certificate on behalf of
John Holden, cotton spinner, of Belnemit, near Bolton, a
bankrupt. The application was opposed by Mr. Cooper,
who charged the bankrupt with fraud, and stated that he
commenced business with only £3OO capital, that he at
once incurred a debt of .E1:200 for naachinery, and that
soon afterwards he borrowed £3,000 from Mr. Dixon, the
trade assignee who opposed, upon the representation that
he was the owner of the machinery in his mill, whereas he
only held it on a lease.—Mr. Robinson, on the part of the
bankrupt, contended that the terms on which the bank-
rupt held the machinery were that he should pay for it in
seven years ; that Mr. Dixon was well aware of this
arrangement whoa he lent the money ; and that had the
bankrupt been allowed to go on with his business, Mr.
Dixon's debt, and the debts of the other creditors would
have been paid.--His Ifonour said he would read over the
examinations, and give judgment on Monday.

Lower Darwen, Dec. 9, 1857,