The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-29 00:00:00

----..11b,..--•-.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.
STAFFORD, SATURDAY, JULY 23.
NISI Prutis COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL

THE QUEEN V.ROWLEY

the R. V. Richatdsandkr. J.1,1,-.--Scnith appeared for
ill lTasecntion in this case; and Mr. Sergeant Ludlow and
:1;,,`-'raY for the defendant.
ean:',,' was an indictment founded upon a quo warranto,
wz in question the right of Dr. Rowley, a physician
residing in
for that cit Lichfield, to exercise the office of town-councillor
were t-, Y• At the last municipal election, four gentlemen
eronosed ,n
town-councillor
-• the liberal interest to fill the office of
three ordinary for. the south ward, there being at that time
sional vacancy. vacancies to he filled up, and one occa-
sional
Corporation lording to the provisions of the Mu-
wet, the parties elected to fill
ordinary vacancies the three
cillor for the full period serve the office of town-coun-
terms of the act, hut the °f time limited by the express
sional vacancy would she person elected to supply the occa-
sie onal for the unexpired portion
of the term for which
the
Liberal was elected. The
candidates proposed by
Wm
party were Mr. Frederick
Bond, Dr. Thos. Rowley, istr.
Edward Vale, Mr. Gor-
don, and a majority of the electoEntie
delivered in voting papers
containing the names of the four
om. Mr. Gordon
conservative side
ing the smallest number of votes.
th reecandidates were proposed, and after theeevoters in the con-
servative interest had delivered in voting
a fourth candidate, Mr.
their candidates,
put forward, and he obtained six votes from Garratt, was
electors whohad
not previously voted. A considerable
f umber
n
of vot
however, who had previously voted or the three cons
vati el's'
candidates, subsequently tendered voting papers containing
ve
Mr. Garratt's name, but the returning officer, containingli
that these electors were fined officio, refused to receive
v.-
some, tore up others, and threw the rest on the floor. upon
this state of facts, the substantial question which arose was,
whether it was necessary to have had two elections or one;
and it was contended by the counsel for the prosecution that
the election was altogether void, because the individuals who
were to fill the ordinary and occasional vacancies were all
elected at the same time ; while it was urged on the behalf of
the defendant that the lowest on the poll of the successful
candidates was elected to fill the occasional vacancy, and
that there was nothing in the act of parliament which required
that the election of uarties to fill ordinary and occasional
vacancies should take place at distinct periods.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal said it was evident, from the
meaning and intention of the act of parliament, that the
ati
election to till an ordinary and an occasional vacancy was of
entirely different nature, and upon the best consideration
which he give could to the case he was of opinion he ought
to dire •,a the jury to or the f find a verdict crown. The act
required that the voting.
papers should be kept for six months
after the election
to inspect them.' and.;o that the burgesses should be allowed
regulation if, upon w, there would be no advantage in this
inspection,
which of the candidates they were unable to discover
which to fill the occasional,Was elected to fill the ordinary, and
that upon this record the d vacancy. He thought, therefore,
The jury, therefore, undeerfendant must be found guilty.
turned a verdict for the crownhis Lordship's direction, re-
Mr. Serjeant Ludlow tendered a
Lordship's direction, and intimated thatbill of
exceptions to his
of his client to carry the question, fit was the intention
i
highest tribunal in the kingdom. necessary, before the

*mortal itiarliament,

HOUSE OF LORDS.-

.MONDAY

In reply to a question from the Bishop of LONDON,
arising out of the contemplated grant for education, in aid of
the classes on Mr. Hullah's principle, as well as on that of
others,

Lord WHARSCLIFFE said it was not the intention of the
Government to establish normal schools without any sort of
religious education for those who were to be themselves mas-
ters of extensive schools. With respect to the distribution
of the grant between the church of England and dissenting
societies, it was proposed to follow the plan laid down by
their predecessors.

The Earl of DEVON moved the re-commitment of the
Mines and Collieries Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said he would by no means deny the
right of the legislature to put a stop to the employment of
very young children in any sort of work calculated to injure
their constitutions and their morals, but at the same time he
thought it dangerous to interfere unless with the utmost
caution, for the same principle would apply in a vast num-
ber of cases which had not been brought before Parliament
at all, such as that of the trades of the pin and needle makers,
and which were manifestly destructive to human life, but
which, if brought forward, ‘vould occasion much difficulty in
dealing with, if a principle were laid down, for a deviation
from which no sufficient reason could be assigned.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY spoke strongly against
the bill, and complained of being thrown over by Lord
Hatherton, and would not have had a particle of support had
it not been that Lord Brougham had come to the rescue
with a most statesmanlike speech, for which he returned him
his sincere thanks. The noble marquis concluded by moving
that the bill be referred to a select committee.

The Earl of DEVON replied to the arguments of Lord
Brougham, and after some observations from the Earl of
RADNOR, their lordships divided, when the re-committal of
the bill was carried by a majority of 49 to 3.

The bill was then re-committed.
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved that women over 40 years
of age at present working in collieries should be still per-
mitted to do so if they thought proper.
. . .. . . _

A considerable discussion ensued, but on a division the
motion was defeated by a majority of 29 to 15.
The Earl of MOUNTCASUEL moved that it should not be
lawful to employ children in the mines under 12 years of
age, the bill providing that the limit should be 10 years.
After some discussion the Earl of Mountcashel's amend-
ment was negatived without a division.
After some further discussion the bill went through com-
mittee, was ordered to be reported this day, and to be read
a third time on Friday.
The house then adjourned.