The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-10-13 00:00:00

EARLY CLOSING OF THE MARKETS

On Saturday, the validity of the Corporation by-law,
ordering the closing of the public markets at ten e'elock
on Saturday nights, and at seven on other nights, was
questioned and argued before Mr. Rushton. The oppo-
nents of the by-law, including many of the occupiers of
stalls and standings outside the doors, sent a man named
Jehu into St. John's Market, on the Ist instant, about
the hour of closing, with directions not to leave until
eight o'clock—the former hour of closing. The consta-
bles ordered him away, but he persisted in remaining, and
was taken into custody. He was brought before Mr.
Rushton next day, and defended. After several hearings,
the case was postponed until Saturday, when it was re-
sumed. The court was densely crowded. Mr. Blair,
barrister, appeared for the Corporation, and Mr. Monk,
of Manchester, for the opponents of the new law. The
information against Jehu was read. Mr. Blair read parts
of the several acts of parliament, authorising the Corpo-
ration to make such by-laws, and recited the time when
the several by-laws affecting the closing of the markets were
passed, the alterations made in them from time to time, and
finally came to the passing of the present by-law on the
26th of April, .18,16, after due notice of twenty-one days,
tahs
e required
newspapers.
Io Pa
nf
September,rliame Parliament, had been
(the
26t
h, t publishedhe a
markets
eitns
were closed at the hour set forth, in accordance with that
by-law, to continue until March 26th of the following
year. Jehu had therefore subjected himself to the fine
for the first offence of 2s. 6d., by remaining after seven
o'clock, and refusing to leave until eight. Evidence
was adduced to show that the by-law had been legally
framed and put in force. Mr. (.;aliam, superintendent
of St. John's Market, admitted that he had heard some
of the tenants complain of the earlier closing, but not a
single complaint on the part of purchasers. That Jam
had remained in the market as stated was proved.
Mr. RUSHTON observed that the arrest was illegal, and
that he had said so at the time Jehu was first brought be.
fore him.

This was the case for the Corporation
Mr. MONK then addressed the court.
did not appear for himself alone, but for other parties in
the market, who did not wish it to appear that they were
actuated by factious or improper motives to the authori-
ties. The new law, however well intended, pressed se-
verely upon the lower classes ; it prevented the butchers
from disposing of their perishable commodities, and drove
the people into the shops outside, where little or no super-
vision was exercised over the weights or the at ticles offered
for sale. There were two objections to the information,
which, in his judgment, were insuperable. The first was,
that for the infraction of the by-law which, it was alleged,
the defeildaut had broken, there was no penalty annexed;
and the second was, that the fact proved did not amount
to an infraction of that by-law. He remarked, with re-
ference to the former of these objections, that the Council,
in repealing the old by-law, omitted to re-enact the penal-
ties for breaches of it with which it was accompanied,
when they passed their new one. Then he observed that
the new by-law had not been published, as required by
the act. Then he contended that the Council had no au-
thority to delegate the power of making such a by-law
to a committee, and that, even if they bad the power,
they had not delegated it. The learned counsel, in argu-
ing these points, referred to a variety of acts of parliament,
local as well as general, bearing upon the rights of corpo-
rations ; and he asserted, as a fact about which there could
be no dispute, that the legislature had always taken espe-
cial care that corporations should not pass any laws the
tendency of which would be to impose restraints upon
lawful and industrious occupations. And very properly
so; for, if the Council of Liverpool had the power to cur-
tail the time of :ransacting business in the markets by one
hour, why not by two ? Why not say that they ought to
he closed at four o'clock, and opened at eleven ? In fact,
why not say that they ought to be open only for an hour
in the day ? Where was the line to be drawn, if the prin-
ciple of making the law were once admitted ? The courts,
he said, exercised a very proper judgment with reference
to the passing of such by-laws as the present; for when
the Hebble Navigation Company, with the view of pre-
venting trade upon the Sabbath, caused a chain to be
placed across their canal, an action was brought against
them, and the court declared that they could not impede
the navigation with a chain. Upon these several grounds
he maintained that the by-law was invalid.

Jehu, of course.

Mr. BLAIR. replied to the arguments of his learned
friend at some length.
Mr. ItuSHTON postponed his judgment until next week.
He said that in so important a case he should not decide
until he had reviewed the whole of the question at his lei-
sure. If both the learned counsel would send him word

when they could conveniently attend, and give him a
day's notice, he should be prepared to give his decision in
such a way as would enable the question to be raised be-
fore the Recorder, who was not now, he said an officer of