Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-09-19 00:00:00

TO THR EDITOR OF THE NORTEDIRE TIMES.

Sir,—There is an extraordinary person, a writer of a
letter in the Albion, of Monday last, who ventures to
attack Mr. J. R. Jeffery, in reference to his late decision
as a magistrate, in the case of the Publicans', who
were summoned to appear before the Court, there and
then to be tried oa the evidence of " decoy-duck" police-
men, dressed out in plain or coloured clothes.
This writer attaches to his letter the signature of

" A Magistrate ;" if it be genuine, and that he is one of
our local Borough Beech (of which I am not certain), then
I take him to be a rnsidering,-antiquated Tory, (living—
but dead) or else, what is nearly as bad and akin, a
puling, sickly Whig, rich perhaps in years, but without
further store, for whom there has long been waiting a
seat on the shelf of" done-up, and not wanted ;'' distressing,
alike, to time and human patience.
As I understand Mr. Jeffery's decision, he has laid
down for his own guidance, this very judicious rule of
conduct, namely, that he considers it to be inconsistent
with sound principle, in a Court of Justice, to convict a
person on no other evidence than that obtained by means
of concealment or deception ; the latter, being more
especially a crime, which the law prefs.sses to discounten-
ance and punish, not to uphold; for, either the object in
sending policemen in plain clothes, is to make them pass
off for what, in truth, they are not, or else to disguise,
and thus conceal, what they really are. Now, the
IVlegistrates have no sectional jurisdiction ; every house-
holder has a right to know who it is that officially
obtrudes himself into his premises.
This writer gives us his ideas of " Justices Law," and
is of opinion that any deviation from the path laid down
by the "Reverend and grey headed," is subversive of a
steady uniform dispensation of justice.
In the first place, what tight or business the "Reverend"
have on the Bench at all, is a perfect mystery to me
if we are to be inculm4-ed with spiritual teachers, let us
have free trade, and no rnonoply in favour of the clergy
of one sect, to the exelasion of the clergy of Dissenters.
But the argument attempted to be urged in favour of th e
wisdom of the "old birds" is one reason of all others
why I prefer modern legislation, and consequently
consider the course adopted by Mr. Jeffery to be perfectly
correct and jaetifiable.
It is to no purpose—it is beside the question—to talk
about the dress worn by the police previous to the passing
of Sir R. Peel's Act, being a plain or ordinary one ; or, to

inform us, that the law doss not define what sort of dress
should be wcrn,though it is admitted by this " Magistrate ''
that the un:form is intended for general use, and, in pin'
of fact, is a portion of the 'policemaus' pay ; in all ordinary
cases, therefore, short of robbery or murder, the uniform
ought to be the dress of the piliceman. But all this has
nothing to do with the principle at issue. The Magistrate
on the Bench sits on his exalted throne, with the key of
his own wine cellar in his pocket ; and when at home, he
can, if he thinks fir, refresh himself, Sundays included,
ad libitum. We must nDt, therefore, slur over the question
in dispute, which I take simply to be, whether the
Borough Magistrates, will or will nor, lend their sanction to
a systematic practice, based on hypocrisy.
Jeslousy seems to be at the root of this "Magistrate's "
feelings towards Mr. Jeffery; he tries to laugh at what he
is pleased to term " a fine burst of lofty sentiment "
on the part of Mr. Jeffery; I only wish the "Reverend
and gray headed" would favour the public with something
equally deserving the same truly dignified title.
There is no parallel in the case of the policeman in plain
clothes, watching the thief in his desigis on Compton House,
and the publican selling beer or spirits at prohibited hours.
The thief seeks to possess himself of what does not belong
to him. The publican seeks t , sell what does belong to
him, and is his own property ; the first is a crime ; the
second is not.

As to the publicans entrapping. for their own sordid
gain, the labouring classes into the desecration of the
Sunday, if they really are guilty of such an act, their
conduct is most reprehensible ; but I deny that the
magistrates are bound to fiad nurses to walk about the
streets on a Sunday, to take care of the labouring classes,
and keep them out of public houses: poverty does not, of
necessity, inculcate a want of common sense, or denote the
absence of the necessity for self-protection. In short, a
more complete twaddle than the 01 Magistrate's" attempt at
reasoning, it has not been my good fortune to meet with for
some time past.
Mr. Jeffery must know that he will not be allowel to
stand alone in this matter. There are at least three, if
not four, magistrates who think as he does, and who will
not fail, on all occasions, to act up to their opinions.—l
am, sir, your obedient servant,
A FOE TO WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CICTIII/10.
Liverpool, 17th Sept., 1857.