The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-09-10 00:00:00

Dili. QUAYLi'S PENALTY

The last motion on the paper, of which notice had been
given by Mr. Aikin, was to the following eiTect :—" That the
sum of 50, paid by Mr. Quayle, on his resignation, be re-
turned to him."

Mr. SHELL, in order to save time, begged of the town-
clerk to state what was his view of the law of the case about
which they were then going to consider.
The TOWN-CLERK said that his opinion, after mature con-
sideration, and after having mentioned the subject to several
barristers, was, as he had stated at the last council, that by
the act of resignation Mr. Quayle had become liable to pay
the 1:50, which £5O he had paid to effect his object by the
resignation. The consequence of the resignation was, that
he was relieved from his duties as councillor, whether the
proceedings then pending ended in a judgment of ouster or
not. That relief he purchased by paying the penalty.
And though the party might not be entitled to the office
he held, yet if he were to do a act as if he were
so entitled, as in this case, the money cannot be returned.
The Consequence was another election. That be became
liable to pay the money was perfectly clear, and it
was impossible to say it was money paid in error; but
even if it were paid in error, he could not by law recover it
back again. With regard to the power of the council to take
into consideration the hardship of the case, they had no such
power. The moment the money had been paid, it was sub-
ject to obligatory engagement, for the benefit of the inhabi-
tants and the improvement of the borough. Therefore he was
decidedly of opinion that the money was properly paid, not
in any error; that it was properly received by the council,
and that it cannot be properly returned. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL said, that after the town-clerk's statement, and
seeing that the law was against it, he felt that he could not
divide the council on the subject, whatever his own private
views might be.

•
Mr. J.-flonNur here entered into a short explanation in
reference to a letter from Mr. Carson, which appeared in the
STANDARD, and some observations which fell from him at
the last council. After he had left the council on the last
day, he met Mr. Carson, and informed him of the substance
of what he had stated relative to Mr. Quayle in the council.
Mr. Carson accordingly went and published a letter, in which
he asserted that he (Mr. Hornby) had admitted, in the coun-
cil, that Mr. Quayle had submitted to the action. The words
were put in italics. It was not likely he had used them.
They did not appear in any of the published reports, and, in
a matter of the kind, he should rather rely upon the correct-
ness of the gentlemen of the press than his own memory.
Mr. llornby proceeded to read an extract from a letter he
had received from Mr. Quayle, and sat down assuring the
council that he had grounds for stating what he bad done.
Mr. COOPER thought Mr. Shand had done his duty to the
public in bringing the action to an issue, and that the public
ought to feel indebted to him for the manly part he had acted.
Mr. EARLE was sorry that Mr. Birkett and Mr. Hodgson,
who had issued a state paper in the STANDARD, were absent.
He had heard of there being equity as well as law, and he
thought Mr. Quayle had been robbed of his £fo.
The TowN-CLERK.—Law is equity
The council then separated.