The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-12 00:00:00

.olve an

irdity 01
lice of the act,

,s intended to provide.
nckr consideration is entitled "An Act fo
Government, and Police Regulations
he title compendiously express
to marine-store d(

erpool
The clauses rela

have strict reference to that object, and the particular
intended to be remedied by them was the then unlicen

of a marine-store -dealer.
It is notoricus that there is an intimate relation between per-
sons carrying on that trade and a class of criminals known by
the designation of receivers of stolen goods. It was therefore
deemed consistent with the good government and police regu-
lation of the borough of Liverpool to give to the local authoities

a control over the persons carrying on the obnoxious trade.
This was accomplished by making a licence from the council
the condition precedent to carrying on the trade ; and to the
coui,cil also was entrusted the discretionary power of granting
or refusing the license ; and so anxiously does the legislature
guard against the possibility of persons oarrying on the trade
in any other premises than those specified in the license, that
immediate notice is to be given of any change of a

!, or ey(

of any addition to the licensed premises.
This clause, in my opinion (267th) must be construed
in ptTi materid, with reference to the 261st, which gi

discretionary power to refuse the license.
On any other supposition the 261st section would be a simple
absurdity, for the mischief which the provision was designed
to remedy would remain unchecked. It could not be, there-
fore, the intention of the framers, that one section should

undo what the other did; or that a person, reing refused a
license under the one section, should get it as a matter of
course, and by a sidewind, under the other.
It has been laid down by our best writers, and by the dicta
of eminent judges, "that the truest exposition of the law is
that which best harmonises with its design, its objects, and its
general structure." In Heydon's case, the barons of tie ex-
chequer resolved—" That it was the duty of the judges at all
times to make such construction as should suppress the mis-
chief end advance the remedy, putting down all subtle evasions
and inventions for continuance of the mischief pro prirato
commodo, and adding force and life to the cure and remedy,
according to the true intent of the makers of the act pro bono
publico."
And this doctrine is acted upon in a more recent case, Lyde
v. Bernard, when Baron Parke said, " I admit that words may
be construed in a sense different from their ordinary one
when the context requires it, or when the act is intended to re-
medy some existing mischief, and such a construction is re-
quired to render the remedy effectual. For we must always
construe an act so as to suppress the mischief and advance
the remedy."

Now, the construction contended for by the tow
their report would do precisely the reverse, for it we
the mischief and defeat the remedy. Keeping, therefore, in
view the above rule of interpretation, and reading the 267th
section by the light the 261st affords, I cannot but arrive at the
conclusion-that the literal construction, which is so disastrous
to public justice, is at the same time unsound in law.
Mr. HORNBY trusted he might be permitted to make a
few observations, as his conduct on this question bad been
pretty freely commented upon both here and elsewhere.
With regard to the cow plaint made against him by Mr.
Wybergh, he entertained the same opinion at this moment
which he did at the time he spoke in the Council. Mr.
Wybergh had stated that he (Mr. Hornby) had found fault with
him because he differed with the Town-clerk upon the con-
struction of an Act of Parliament. He had clone nothing of the
sort. He had never expressed an opinion as to which of them
was right. What he had said, and he now said it again, was that it
was the duty of Mr. Wybergh to have stated to the committee
that there was such a clause in the act of parliament, bearing the
construction which he had put upon it. With regard to the
admission of reporters to the last meeting of magistrates, h
admitted that he was wrong in not voting against t
present, after hearing such a report read. B
than that, he did not think he was amenable to toe cuarges
bought against him by Mr. Aikin. It was true that several
of the magistrates stated at their last meeting, that they had
no wish to cast any reflections on the Finance Committee, but
he asked any candid person to read the magistrates' report
and say whether very strong reflections huieed were not c;
upon the committee. The report concluded by stating this
change should he made in the law, giving the Fir^^^^
tee power to zrant licenses

uncil in
advance

the stat

.
the Town Council shout
Now th

not have the power of disthissing police-officers. _ ;en
aware that this was not a local act, it applied to the n at
large, and could any one suppose that this proposal, which went
to alter the law of the land, would be submitted to unless on
very strong grounds indeed? He had no wish to cast any
reflections on the magistrates or any one else. He had no doubt
that the gentlemen who drew up the report, and the magistrates
who sent it to the council, were guided by every feeling to do
their duty ; hut he could not agree in their report, and it now
appeared to him that they should consider the recommendation
in that report, whether the Town Council should be deprived
of the power of dismissing police-officers, and of granting
licenses to marine-store dealers. He concluded by lamenting
the unfortunate differences which seemed to exist between the
bench and the council. For himself, he believed that the council
had (thigh respect for the bench, and if they would carry on their
discussions ;in a proper manner, he was sure that the bench
would have that moral influence over the council which was
so exceedingly desirable. (Hear, hear.)
The resolution having been seconded,
mously. was passed unani-

Mr. MANSFIELD next proposed the following resolution :
" That it appears to the bench that the committee app3inted to
inquire and report were justified in relying upon the evidenc
of Constable Kehoe.” In the course of his observations Ms
Mansfield defended Kehoe from the attacks which were nl
upon him by the different members of the Council on
nesday last.
Mr. BENN seconded the resolution. -
After some discusaesorninnagognlbsetttaietlerseseslclo,oolutiOn,
The MAYOR said he hoped that after what had taken
nu,lide,cloorldvaiasllry,!7:7.
the welfare of the town.
,tvhiTet
hhCetohureenslc.oii
ell
resolution
inoodfn thh promoting
'musty.

3lr. R. GLAD,,,._ _ -cartily join
but when we have a majority in the Council of 4.
the magistrates, it is not very encouraging.
➢ir. EMILE.—Aye, that is hitting the right nail (
The resolution having been carried,
Mr. EARLE put a question to Mr. Hornby as to the power of
refusing licenses, and charged his brother magistrates, with the
exception of Mr. Gladstone, of being too much e,prit de corps.
(A. laugh.)
The proceedings then terminated.

the head,

THE OSMANLI screw-steamer, which saile
port for Australia on Saturdaylast, put back y€

'day, in

consequence of a leak having been discovered in the atter-
part of the ship, occasioned by the starting of a couple of
rivetts in the counter in the gale of Saturday night. It
was deemed prudent to return for the purpose of having
the deficiency supplied, which, we underetand, will be ac-
complishedin the course of to-day or to-morrow, when
she will again proceed on her voyage. We cannot suffi-
ciently commend the conduct of the captain, while we
must sympathise with her owners in the unfortunate mis-
hap. It is, we believe, the first mishap of the kind that
ever occurred to them—not one of their screw-steamers
hitherto having had to put back when once fairly started
eh the voyage, as was the case with the Osmanli.