The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-10 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

At the outset of his statement, Mr. Rushton com-
plains that the justices " had no part in the prepa-
ration of the case ;" the opinion " had not been
taken for both bodies," nor " been taken with their
consent, approbation, or advice." He admits that
" the facts are fairly stated," although in his opi-
nion " rather nakedly stated." He admits the fact,
stated in the opinion itself, of one counsel having
been selected to argue the points in dispute, on be-
half of the Justices, and another on behalf of the
Watch Committee; but lie repudiates the circum-
stance of either of such counsel being the Justices'
" representative," inasmuch as they had not drawn
up their own case—had not laid before him, in ad-
dition to "a fair," although. a " rather naked state-
ment," one coloured to their own taste. We might,
however, remind Mr. Rtishton that he and his bro-
ther magistrates had ample opportunity to take an
opinion of their own. It was sufficiently notorious
at the time that the Watch Committee were doing
so ; and it is rather too late, therefore, to quarrel
now with the result of the proceedings taken on
such a ground, especially when he puts his opposi-
tion to the correctness of the opinion upon strictly
legal, not circumstantial, grounds. Besides, the
Town-clerk states, in his letter to the Watch Com-
mittee, that the " statements in the case, for fairness
and impartiality, cannot be impugned." If the
Town-clerk has given unintentionally any colouring
to the case, it is much more likely to be favourable
to Mr. Rushton's views than to those of the Watch
Committee, as the former gentleman, at the time
of drawing up the case, was avowedly of the same
opinion as Mr. Rushton.

The premises are virtually admitted upon which
"dr. Edward Rushton is at issue, as to the law, with
Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Edward
Cardwell—the two first names those of the most
eminent lawyers of the day, with perhaps one ex-
ception, and the latter almost equally eminent.
Messrs. Kelly, Cowling, and Cardwell were una-
nimously of opinion that
" The justices could not regularly or lawfully have pro-
ceeded to dismiss from the police force the constables in
question, if they had refused to resign their membership
of the Orange Society, however objectionable it might be,
that persons charged with the preservation of the peace
should continue members."

Mr. Edward Rushton maintains that their law
is bad.

Messrs. Kelly, Cowling, and Cardwell express
their opinion upon the remaining points thus :

" 2. We think that, by passing Mr. Bolton's resolu-
tion, and communicating it through the head-constable to
the parties, the justices have acted in an irregular manner,
and live claimed to exercise a power not vested in them
by law. We think the statute 5 and 6 William IV., c. 76.
has placed the Watch Committee in the situation of
Courts Leet at Common Law in regard to the appoint-
ment and dismissal of constables, 2 Str. 798. and T.
Jones 212, and, that these powers, except so far as may
be otherwise expressly provided by the act, are vested ex-
clusively in them. We think that, under S. S. 77 and
80, the justices have a power of adjudication upon the
conduct of constables in the discharge of their duty, one
part of which duty is a compliance with the regulations
directed in S. 77, to be framed by the Watch Committee,
and that, after such adjudication only (Str. 1,050) have
the justices the power of dismissal mentioned in these sec-
tions. We think that, as no prohibition against belonging
to an Orange Society is included in those regulations, and
as the tendency to occasional breaches of the peace is too
remote to be the subject of legal complaint, the being a
member of such a society constitutes no default in the
duty of a constable, cognizable by the justices under the
act, but is a a consideration properly falling within the
province of the Watch Committee, to whom the general
regulation and management of the force belongs."
Upon these points, too, Mr. Edward Rushton in-
timates his total dissent from their decision. Upon
all the points of the case our stipendiary is at issue
with these leading members of the legal profession !
The weight of his opinion is in the one scale; the
great experience, the profound learning, and ad-
mitted talent of the most eminent men of the British
bar is in the other; and yet the Justices of Liver-
pool have deliberately determined to commit them-
selves to the guidance of the former of these autho-
rites, and at his advice to plunge themselves into
an actual collision with the Watch Committee, who
rely upon what they believe to be the better gui-
dance of better lawyers.

We have not troubled ourselves here with doing
more than laying before our readers the bare facts
of this difference of doctors—this conflict of legal
authorities. We shall not presume to oppose our
opinion to that of " counsel learned in the law" on
either side. Mr. Rushton may be right in his view
of the case ; but it is more likely that he is wrong :
and weighing the opinions on both sides, and the
standing of the respective parties, we certainly.have
very little fear of the result of an appeal to the deci-
sion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon the points
at issue. We cannot, however, but deprecate the
necessity of the heartburnings and enmities which
are likely to be thereby created between, the mem-
bers of two bodies, whom it is so desirable, for the
sake of peace and good order, to see working in
amity together.
We may, however, offer a useful hint or two to
the Justices, by calling their attention to the light in
which they are placing themselves in the eyes of
their fellow-townsmen, by their conduct throughout
this affair, as compared with that of the Watch
Committee. They were the aggressors in the first
instance. They inflicted what is considered a slight
and a wrong upon the latter body by their hasty
proceedings. But was any temper or unworthy
feeling displayed in return ? No—the Watch Com-
mittee, with a becoming dignity, proceeded to
ascertain, from the most eminent authorities, an
opinion as to their position and the extent of their
privileges. That opinion was favourable to their
own views of those privileges ; and now mark again
the difference in the conduct of the two bodies.
The Committee, without any unworthy flourish of
triumph, calmly, through their chairman, laid before
the magistrates a copy of the case submitted, and
the opinion thereon in their favour. Not a com-
ment was made which could provoke an angry feel-
ing. But what was the demeanour evinced in re-
turn by Mr. Rushton and his colleagues ? A spe-
cial meeting of the bench was summoned forthwith,
the reporter for a favourite Radical journal sent for,
and Mr. Rushton's thunder launched forthwith at
the heads of the Watch Committee. Surely the
difference in bahaviour and discretion here exhibited
is not one calculated to advance the bench in public
confidence and respect, whilst it is infinitely credit-
able to the gentlemen composing the Watch Com-
mittee.

Having said this much, we leave the case for the
consideration of our readers and the public, once
more reminding them that the authorities on either
side are—
Mr. Edward Rushton,

FITZROY KELLY, Esq.
Queen's Counsel,
Mr. COWLING, and
Mr. CARDWELL.

Stipendiary Magis-
trate, &c.

THE FUNDS, SATURDAY NIGHT.—The funds have
been firm, without a great amount of business. Saturday
in general is a quiet day at the Stock-Exchange, conse-
quent upon the early closing of the markets. Consols for
money left off this afternoon 991 to *; and for the ac-
count 991 ; Exchequer-bills. 755. to 975. premium ; and
India Stock, 282 to 284. The foreign securities showed
no new feature, speculative business being exceedingly
limited. Spanish Five per Cents. closed 224 to 23; the
Three per Cents, 334 to 34 ; Portuguese, 444 to 454 ;
Peruvian, 23 to 25 • Mexican, 3511 to 96 : the Deferred,
154 to ; Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents., 624 to fin ;
the Five per tents., 1004 to 4; Danish, 884 to 894 ; Co-
lumbian, 134 to 14 ; Chilian, 102 to 104 ; Buenos Ayres,
34 to 36; Brazilian, 844 to
,854; and Belgian, 1024 to
THE INDIAN MAIL.—The Sud of Marseilles says—
" The Indian mail has not arrived at its usual time. We
think we can explain the delay as follows :—The de-
spatches are usually conveyed from Alexandria and Malta
by one of the Oriental Comoany's steam-boats. On the
arrival of this vessel at Malta the mails are transhipped
to another steamer, which brings them on to Marseilles.
The Alecto was appointed for this service on the present
occasion, but, according to our letters, this English packet
should be
now at Mogador. It is no doubt owing to this
circumstance that the delay arises. The mails have pro-
bably been put on board some sailing packet, which will
be longer in performing the passage from Malta to Mar-
seilles." The Morning Herald of yesterday says—" It
should be borne in mind that the monsoons are on at
about this season of the year. The steamer, Memnon,
was lost in the month of September last year. The pro-
bability is that the mails have been delayed in conse-
quence of the violence of the monsoon. The year before
last the letters were received by the 3d of September, if
memory serves us right ; but at that period the weather
was more than usually moderate, and the steamers worked
regularly and without interruption. By Wednesday or
Thursday next, no doubt, the arrival will be announced."

SMUGGLING WHISKEY.—At the Police-court, yester-
day, a female named Ann Doyle was charged before Mr.
Rushton with having received two gallons of whiskey,
which had been illegally imported in the steamer Finn
M'Coul, from the north of Ireland. Mr. Woodruff, im-
port surveyor, stated that he preferred the information
under the revenue act of Geo. IV., c. 8, s. 118, which
required the infliction of a penalty in each case of £lOO,
but left it to the discretion of the magistrate to mitigate
the same to one-fourth cf that amount. Mr. Rushton
accordingly, under the circumstances of the case, fined
the prisoner £25, and in default she was ordered to be
committed to gaol for three months.