The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

In reply to the letter of our correspondent, upon the subject of
St. L,s • s which we cannot today find space for. we
;‘, ia:•orm him that the Chnrch Excenditure C immittee
have' had the sn'ij,:t of riming' that fine peel of bells before
thcin, and are inclined to prefer such a proper lliC of them as
inimmon sense would dictate to the silence imposed by a strict
ireadn;r, of an act Parliament.

ititerpoal ,•;talibarb,

TUESDAY MORNING, SEPT. 3, 1814.

Another bombshell has fallen, and exploded too,
over our town, and a second time we are bound to
consider ourselves as a done-for community. With
such feelings, at any rate, the Mercury would have
Its treat the announcement just made from the other
side of the Mersey of a new railway from Birkenhead
to Manchester, by which the cotton of Liverpool is
to be " trucked" off, in the most jaunty style
imaginable, from the vesselA' side in the docks of
Wallasey to the spinners' door in Manchester, and,
consequently, freed from all those charges of cart-
age, porterale, &c. which " bales are heir to.''
Wonderful discovery ! Surprising people, indeed,
these Commissioners of Birkenhead! But let us be
serious, it we can, for a few minutes, and examine
solmlY this last and most astounding product of the
brooding enterprise of our Cheshire neighbo ,rs.
.A new railway from Birkenhead to Manchester
would not he so very had a thing in itself. It would
lie a little roundabout, to be sure, for us on this side
of the water; but then its formation might, with
this disadvantage even, convince a certain Liverpool
Company of the propriety of affording their greater
facilities at a little less than what we pay for them,
and thereby confer a boon upon the public. How
much less the new concern could carry us for we
cannot guess; but from their known liberality we
may presume that their rates would not be much •
more than sufficient to cover the cost of working
and the price of land : the expenses of construction
of all works on the Cheshire side of the water being
go insignificant, and the merchandize traffic being
likely to be of such vast extent as to render any great
revenue from passengers unnecessary.
One circumstance, however, connected with this
new scheme we cannot but remark upon, viz. the
alleged advantage gained by the power of conveying
cotton, &c. from the ships, per railway, to the manu-
facturing districts. If we forget not it was dwelt
upon as one of the greatest advantages of the Wal-
lasey Docks that vessels could discharge their
cargoes there into flats for Runcorn and Man•
chester with greater convenience and at less
cost than in the docks of Liverpool. Runcorn, we
know, was in extasies at the prospect, and Man-
chester merchants were getting ready engraved bill
heads with " Port of Manchester" on their foreheads.
Whence is this change from water to the rail,—from
the flat to the locomotive ? If the cotton of Man-
chester is now to go only under the locks of Run-
corn instead of through them, Out is to become of
the Duke's and what of the Old Quay ?
Of course we cannot, at present, pretend to ex-
press any opinion as to the prospects of the share-
holders in this undertaking. We are told that its
stock is already " all taken up," or applied for, which
is the same thing in Cheshire; and we are therefore
bound to conclude that it is a good thing. it is not
very handsome in its concoctors, however, to keep
it all to themselves. They might have left the Dicky
Sams a small slice.

The detailed description given on Wednesday last,
by the Chairman of the Dock Committee, of the
alteratiors which had been decided upon in the
formation of the new docks on the North Shore, has
elicited, as we anticipated it would, a lively feeling
ef gratification in the mind of every supporter of the
interests and prosperity of the good old town. An
addition of twenty-nine acres of dock area has been
gained, without a sensible increase, or an increase
at all, in the amount of the estimate of the proposed
works. Besides this, the present plan affords much
greater facilities of working, more manageable docks,
and more quay room. With the original plan of one
dock on this site, running north and south, it is pro-
bable that five years at least would have elapsed be-
fore a single ship could have entered its gates, and
the present pressure upon the resources of our Dock
Estate could have been relieved. By the present
division and alteration of the plan to one embracing
four docks, running east and west, the Committee
will be able to have a dock to the north and one to
the south, communicating with the Leeds canal,
ready for working within two years, without in the
slightest degree retarding the construction of the
remainder of the works. The grand total of the
dock accommodation of Liverpool, when the whole,
bob north and south, are completed, will he 195
acres 3731 yards, and the extent of actual workirg
quay space will exceed thirteen miles in length; "an
amount of accommodation," as remarked by Mr.
Bramley-Moore, " not to be found in any other town
in the world, and exceeding that of the metropolis
itself."

We believe we are correct in stating that to the
activity and talent of that gentleman himself, aided
by the ability of the Dock Surveyor, the public are
mainly indebted for this judicious alteration ; and
we are confident that his fellow townsmen will pay
off that debt with a lasting gratitude. To Mr. James
Akin, also, much credit is due for important sug-
gestions offered; and we gladly seize this opportu-
nity of awarding our humble meed of approbation to
a gentleman politically opposed to us, but whose
talent and honesty of purpose are undeniable. It is
pleasing to see, in a body to whom is confided such
hnportant trusts,—by whom such great powers are
wielded—political rancour ceasing, and political dif-
ferences and even prejudices laid aside, for the prac-
tical advancement of the public interests. With all
its members working together in this spirit, we have
little fear indeed of the Dock Committee of Liver-
pool being able, with the vast resources at their com-
mand, to neutralize all the efforts of competing
bodies and competing localities, and to maintain the
noble estate committed to their keeping in its pros-
perity and unparallelled usefulness.
There is one point of Mr. Bramley-Moore's speech
upon which we must offer a few remarks, inasmuch
as it appears to have given rise to an idea that the
worthy alderman is veering round in his opinions
upon what has been known as the warehouse ques-
tion, to the opinions of the minority in the Dock
Committee; that, in fact, he is getting Evansized—
tbe word has been coined for our use. There seems,
however, to be a trifling mistake here as to the
chairman's meaning. When we had this question
of dock warehouses originally broached, we were
told that its great value was the centralization of its
management in the hands of the Dock Committee.
That body were to become the warehouse keepers,
carters and porters of the whole town, and were to
conduct everything as nobody else could conduct it.
They were to fight private individuals with the pub- ,
lie's money; and to such a course the public natu-
rally, and very justly, demurred. Mr. Bramley-
Moore, however, hints at no such project. He is
convinced that warehouses round our central docks j
would much promote the convenience of business
and increase the facilities afforded by our port ; but
he sets up no central and no monopolizing body to
work them, to the ruin of private property. He says
the sites for such warehouses may be leased to pri-
vate individuals or to companies, to be worked, of
course, as other property is worked, for profit, and,
therefore, so as not absolutely to ruin such other
property, and to absorb into one hand the business
of whole classes of our fellow townsmen, as would
have been the effect of the gigantic scheme of mo-
nopoly at one Lime contended for by the Dock Com-
mittee and happily resisted successfully by the peo-
ple of Liverpool. A re-perusal of this portion of the
Chairman's speech, and a little reflection, will, we
are confident, abate any apprehension which it may,
at first, have created.

COMPLAINT AGAINST A TEACHER IN TIIE CORPORA-
TION SCHOOLS.—At the Police-court yesterday a com-
plaint was heard, brought by a boy named Joseph M'Cabe,
against John Barris, a teacher in the North Corporation
Schools, to the effect that the complainant had been
Eavazely beaten by his teacher and several bruises in-
flicted with a cane upon his body. Upon the boy being
sworn, he stated his age to be eleven years, but, when
questioned, he seemed so ignorant of the consequence of
false swearing that Mr. Rushton at once refused to receive
his testimony. His mother, however, narrated the cir-
cumstances of the case and called a witness who saw him
stripped on coming home from School and noticed
Ole marks upon his body. A monitor of the school,
however, a very intelligent boy, who was present on the
day in question, deposed that he saw the boy punished by
mere beating onthe hand, and that he had no other
punishment whatever on
that day. It appeared on re-
examination of the mother that the boy was subject to
epileptic fits of a serious nature, and was occasionally
beat by his father; and Mr. Rushton was not satisfied
that the bruises shewn on his body had not been
wasbeen theat once
before con-
sequnces of such a beating. The teacher
discharged. We cannot but remark,e leaving this

case, that it would hive been much better if our stipendiary
magistrate, before granting a warrant, upon the evidence
of a boy, so iviorant as this boy, from the effect no doubt
of his dispo,ition to epilepsy appears, had had his attention
drawn to the following Rule of the Corporation schools
and allowed the complaint to go through the course there
prescribed. The rule in question is No. 10, and is
exhibited in the Schools.—
"As the Committee will take care that no injurious treatment or
improper correction will be allowed, the parents or friends must
freely submit their Children to the discipline of the school, and for,
bear from disturbing the master or mistress with complaints; for-
by such conduct, the Chrildren will he countenanced in their faults,
and the master and mistress discouraged in performance of their
duties If, however, a parent or friend really believe that there is
good ground for complaint, the Committee will at all times willingly
hear the case "
By a proper attention to this rule much public scandal
might have been averted, and the time of the Bench
saved.
NAVAL PREPARATIONS.—By a letter just received
from a friend in Devonport, dated August 3011, we learn
that, in addi!ion to those previously announced, two ships
of the line, the Superb and Vanguard are to be commis-
sioned next week, arid active measures are being taken to
obtain able-bodied men for the service.. Placards are ex-
tensively posted throughout the harbour, inviting able-
bodied seamen to enter the service, and offering, as an
ducetnent, to allow them to be borne on the books of the
flag-ship until drafted off. Between five and six hundred
supernumeraries are at present on board the St. Vincent,
waiting for other ships to be ready to go to sea. Great
activity is also apparent in all the dock yards. Several
men of war building are being pushed forward with all
despatch, and will shortly be ready for launching.
A Welsh Main at Bawls will be played, at the Far-
mers' Arms, Park Road Green, on Thursday next, Sep.
sth, between sixteen tirst• rate players.

SECOND EDITION.

Standard-office, Six o'clock.

[BY EXPRESS.]

TUE STATE TRIALS.

DECISION OF THE JUDGES.

It will be seen that the Judges are unanimous in their de-
cision that the judgment CANNOT DE REVERSED by a
writ of error, though their lordships take a somewhat
different view of parts of the question.

The House of Lords met yesterday at ten o'clock, when
immediately the house was crammed.
After a short interval, the case of O'Connell v. the
Qum was called on, when the greatest anxiety was ma-
❑ifested.

Lord Chief Justice Tindal said—ln this case the first
question propounded to her Majesty's judges was if any
of the counts in the indictment were bad in law, and if
so, which of them ? The answer to this question (upon
which all the judges were unanimous) must depend upon
the framing of the different counts. If the counts had
been drawn in loose and v -gue terms, the defendants were
entitled to the benefit of them on demurrer, and they
were entitled to the same benefit in writ of error. To
constitute the offence of conspiracy, it must be clearly
proved that two or more persons combined together for
known illegal purposes. The gist of the offence was, did
the parties meet together for the purpose of knowingly
breaking the laws? Now the wording of the first five
counts in the indictment were not disputed; those counts
related to the character of the offence; the 6th and 7th
counts charging the defendants with creating dissatisfac-
tion in the minds of her Majesty's subjects, &c. The
judges all agreed that these counts did not state the offence
charged in the indictment with sufficient legal accuracy
and certainty. Although the object of the defendants
might be to break the law, they considered that it wasnot
stated with sufficient certainty. The counts ought to have
stated what person or persons it was intended to intimi-
date and raise discontent in, but the counts only alleged
that such intention was certain by a display of numbers.
They did not think those counts had been drawn up with
sufficient certainty. The Bth, 9th, and 10th counts in the
indictment set forth tin purpose and objects of
the defendants, which, it was alleged, were an intent to
violate the laws of the land, diminish confidence in
the existing government, and bring into disrepute
the administration of justice. Now if either of those
offences was proved, it was a most grievous and se-
rious offence. The answer of the judges therefore
to the first question propounded to them was, that they
were of opinion the Gth and 7th counts were not valid in
law, and if they had stood alone, no judgment could have
been had on them. The next question then arose with
respect to the finding of the jury—whether there were any
errors in the finding. They all agreed that the finding of
the jury on the Ist, 2d, 3d, and 4th counts were not sound
in law, as set forth hi the indictment, & had not been sus-
tained by legal evidence. Each count charged all the
defendants with one conspiracy, and therefore there
ought to have been only one finding. It was not compe-
tent to find some of the defendants guilty of some
parts of the charge, and others riot guilty. It was not
a valid finding to say that the defendants were guilty of
several conspiracies, when the counts only charged them
with one. The judges, therefore, considered the findings
in the first four counts were not correct in law, and there-
fore improperly entered on the record.

The third question was, whether there was any reason
to reverse the judgment, in consequence of the defect in
the finding of the jury in some of the counts in the indict-
ment ? On this point there was a difference of opinion
amongst the judges, and therefore he now only deliverod
his own humble judgment. He was of opinion, that if
one or more counts on which a defendant was convicted
were good, and some of the other counts were defective,
it was not a sufficient reason to reverse the judgment on
writ of error. Their lordships' question must, therefore,
be answered in the negative.
The fourth question was, whether the plea of abatement
was a sufficient reason to reverse the judgment? The
judges are all of opinion that it was not; and their lord-
ships' question must be answered in the negative.
The fifth question was, whether the trial being conti-
nued during the vacation, was a sufficient reason to re-
verse the judgment ? The judges all agreed that the trial
had been properly continued, and therefore they ans-
werep the question in the negative.
The sixth question was, whether there was sufficient to
reverse the judgment, in consequence of the objections
taken by the defendants to the jury panel. The judges
were of opinion that the sheriff was bound to select the
jury from the jury book. He could not be held respon-
sible if a mistake occurred ; for instance, an overseer in
the country might neglect, or there might be a mistake in
the sending in the jury list of a particular parish in the
county. If that was held to be a valid objection, the
greatest difficulties would arise in England. Business at
county assizes might be suspended, as all trials could be
stopped by one party or another. The judges were all
agreed that the objections taken to the jury list were not
sufficient, and this question must be answered in the
negative.
The seventh question, whether the objections taken to
the continuance of the trial were sufficient to reverse the
judgment, the judges were of opinion they were not;
that the trial had been properly continued, and they
therefore answered the question in the negative.
The next and eighth question was, whether there was
sufficient to reverse or vary the judgment, in cons, quence
of negligence or irregularity in entering the recognizauces.
This question the judges answered in the negative;
they did not consider sufficient had been stated to reverse
the judgment.
The ninth question, whether sufficient bad been stated
on the assignment of error to reverse the judgment, the
judges answered in the negative.
The tenth question, whether sufficient grounds for re-
versing the judgment, in consequence of irregularity in
the record and the time of entering the judgment of
guilty against the prisoners, the judges were of opinion
the answer must be in the negative. They were of opinion
there was no sufficient reason to reverse the judgment.
The eleventh and last question he (Lord Chief Justice
Tindal) considered must be answered altogether in the
negative. He gave this as his own opinion only, as he
understosd some of his learned brothers took a somewhat
different view of parts of the question.
Mr. Justice Patteson said he agreed with the answers
given to their lordships' questions, except as to those
which related to the first, second, third, and fourth counts;
he thought on those counts the judgment of the court be-
low could not be sustained. He was of opinion, how-
ever, that the other counts were good.
Mr. Justice Maule shortly stated, that be agreed in the
answers given to their lordships' questions. He was of
opinion that the judgment could not be reversed on the
writ of error.
Mr. Justice Coltman said, he was of opinion that there
was sufficient substantially to support the judgment; al-
though there were some technical imperfections in the
proceedings.
Mr. Justice Williams considered there was enough sta-
ted in the record to sustain the judgment. He,therefore,
answered all their lordships' questions in the negative.
Mr. Baron Gurney, who spoke in a low tone of voice,
was understood to say that he agreed in the propriety of
the judgment, and therefore his answers to the questions
were in the negative.
Mr. Baron Alderson at some length stated his opinion
on the questions propounded to the judges. It was the
rule of courts to give judgment on the good counts of au
indictment, and not on the bad counts, and, therefore, in
considering a writ of error, it was necessary to ascertain
whether there was sufficient in any of the counts to sup-
port the judgment appealed against. The learned baron,
in conclusion, said his answer to all their lordships ques-
tions must be in the negative, and in confirmation of the
judgment pronounced by the court below.
Mr. Baron Parke said it must be recollected, when
considering the questions submitted to the judges, that
convictions in criminal cases were very different to ver-
dicts in civil actions. If on writs of error verdicts in
civil cases were set aside, a new trial might be had ; but
in criminal cases the effect was different, as the prisoner
was at once set at liberty. The learned baron, after citing
a number of legal authorities, said he could not altogether
agree with the majority of his learned brethren. He felt
i
bound to answer the third and the eleventh questions n
the affirmative. He answered the other questions in the
negative.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal said, one of his learned bro-
thers (we could not hear which) was too unwell to attend;
but he had authorised him to say that his answer to the
questions was in the negative.
The Lord Chancellor, after the judges had read their
opinions, rose and said, the case before them was one of
the greatest importance ; he therefore moved that its fur-
ther consideration be adjourned until Wednesday next.
Lord Brougham.—And that the opinions of the judges
be printed in the meantime.
esi
The Lord Chancellor.—Yes,
dlpinions certainly.
was then
The consideration of the
postponed until Wednesday nexus!"